Typical Chuck Todd/Mark Murray, "...some of the best players (Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson) aren't competing."

Best players? If you insist on a comparison to football, you would better describe them as the most hyped, overpaid, overrated, etc.

Todd/Murray are so establishment, it is ridiculous. Enough coverage is given to Rudy McRomneyson such that the public may be fully informed on what the "top tier" had for breakfast; a disgraceful, public disservice.

Ron Paul is the only candidate fit to run the country for WE THE PEOPLE!  

If you want a candidate who will only serve government, then vote for any of the others.  

Put your country, your freedom, your constitution above all else, above your political party.

It's time to put an end to unconstitutional executive orders and everything else going on.

Restore our Republic!  Vote RON PAUL!

"Romney Leadership Team Member Overseeing Straw Poll
I could certainly write volumes about this, but I think the facts paint the picture themselves.

The Iowa GOP is facing possible suit over their use of the same Diebold machines that were just de-certified. Story here.

They are claiming of course, that there is nothing to worry about since the voting procedure will be conducted with the assistance and oversight of the Story County Auditor's Office. Story here.

If we look here we see the Story County Auditor is Mary Mosiman.

Mary Mosiman also happens to be on Mitt Romney's "Romney for President Leadership Team".

So there you have it, the Story County Auditor who will take part in overseeing the voting on the questionable machines is part of a team dedicated to "help Governor Romney share his vision for America".

That's a blatant conflict of interest and this is something we cannot ignore.

PS. It's also worth noting that according to this article, Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave State Auditor David A. Vaudt $1,000 in 2004."

To all Republicans for Fred Thompson a vote for him is a vote for smoking so as a smoker I thank you in advance for voting for him.

Romney and Rudy are draft dodgers check it out here;

http://mrsircy.blogspot.com/

How did you like Romney's nonsense about his sons working for his campaign?  That somehow, a presidential campaign is a lot like getting shot at or blown up in a war.  That has to be one of the dumbest comments he's ever made.

Of course, it still doesn't compare to good ol' McCain's constant kissing up to Bush's failed war.  Or Rudy's flogging of "international Muslim terrorists" when he knows strikingly little of any policy beyond New York City.  Or Fred's constant hide-and-seek with his campaign.  And by the way, most Republican war-hawks are draft-dodgers.  Pat Buchanan, for instance, and--dare I say it--George Bush.

There needs to be a refresher course in cause and effect, especially in the arena of politics.

I was shocked and dismayed by how early the mechanisms of the 2008 presidential campaign kicked in. Our main campaigners were already set by Christmas 2006. We're into debates now, not next year when electoral concerns and current events could actually sync up in some synergistic fashion - long story short, they'd be more relevant next year than at this particular moment.

How so? Well, unlikely as it may seem, the demeanor of the public could change. What happens if, God forbid, more terrorist attacks and near attacks happen in the U.K.? The current administration becomes more insular and, oddly enough, the public agrees. The Republicans who have been punching the fear 'hot-button' pretty hard would seem to reap the benefit, but also-ran John McCain suddenly sees his alignment with George Bush as asset, not detriment. Meanwhile, all the candidates who distanced themselves from Bush look soft on terrorism, weak, not patriotic. And the Democrats? They're crushed beneath the weight of this year's scorn, branded 'flip-floppers' and are generally regarded untrustworthy. Look, I said this was the unlikliest of scenarios.

But if there is a drastic reversal of fortunes, this extra year of gum-flapping could only be more harmful than helpful. But what is worse is the quality of our current debates. Rather than being moderated by impartial, credible parties, we are seeing these candidates boxed into corners by special interests. Am I saying that Melissa Ethridge shouldn't be concerned whether or not our next president will carefully consider the rights of gays and lesbians, or whether they should or shouldn't be legally allowed to marry? No, Of course she should. Should scientists have the right to ask candidates if they will stand up for stem-cell research? Should women's activists be allowed to ask if abortion rights will be upheld? Should right-to-lifers have a chance to ask if the candidates should consider opposing it?

In all these cases, Americans deserve to be heard, but through an unbiased and credible moderator; certainly not through some of those ridiculous YouTube questions presented by citizens more interested in their fifteen seconds of fame than in their country's future. When someone actually stepped up with a clear purpose, (I'm thinking of the woman with the wig, asking about healthcare and cancer research), they stood toe-to-toe with show-offs, sarcastics and snowmen. I'm not opining for some lost sense of political dignity here. I just expect all viewpoints to be channelled through a single entity, this way all ideas can be addressed fairly and not with all the mugging, antics and "communication bling".

Another downside of having these debates so early, and having the campaigns start so early, is yet more showing off, this time with each state rescheduling their primaries to sync up with a single "Super Tuesday Super-Primary". Whereas before when elections were confined to a proper year, now there's so much time to expand, like an oilslick on a lake, that every state wants to move up just because they can. There is no real incentive to do this beyond showing off to the original heavy political arenas like Iowa and New Hampshire. NH begged off of the controversy yesterday by insisting they'd keep their ballot where it has been. Iowa, on the other hand, inferred their primary would be moved to December... That's December of this year.

I, as much as anyone, desire change in the way our country is being steered, but this trend in state and social self-aggrandizement not only sullies the process but has a real chance of backfiring on those most committed to that change. I'd hate to think that our country could slide even farther away from reform simply because we couldn't show the tiniest bit of self-control.

Come on...Romney can't answer a single question with a yes or no!!!Romney should be on a USED Car lot selling Crown Victoria's to old women by telling them they don't look a day over 30, not running for president. He's a flip flopping shyster..count on it.
If he was elected, I would move to England...or maybe France...I have time to think about it I suppose...Maybe I'll call Ron Paul for advice..he would surely give me a STRAIGHT answer

I love the guy that said "You know what all of those Ron Paul polls have in common? They're all internet polls." - Wade McEntarfer
It's pretty bad when you can be proven wrong by just scrolling up. Ichiro Aoki mentions seven polls in his post. Three of them were Internet polls, three of them were straw polls like the one in Ames, Iowa this weekend, and one of them was a phone poll. Well I suppose he was half right...almost. The sad thing is that Wade McEntarfer isn't an isolated case. More often than not, people like him are the rule, rather than the exception. Which is fine, don't get me wrong, I support his right to be stubborn and ignorant. Those words aren't meant to sound so insulting. Ignorance is just a lack of understanding and knowledge; Stubbornness just a tendency to maintain a viewpoint despite evidence contrary to it. Unfortunately, however, the "get out the vote" crowd, the "it's your civic duty to vote" crowd, the "vote or die" crowd, and the "if you don't vote, you hate America, Jesus, and babies" crowd have succeeded over the years in convincing people who don't know much about the candidates or the government, to get up and vote in elections. The fact is, if you don't know about the candidates/issues/government/etc., then there's really no reason for you to vote, unless you just want to do so for whatever reason. The people who espouse the belief that you have some sort of obligation to vote are either misguided or have ulterior motives (i.e. the candidate they support has high name recognition, making it likely that an uninformed voter will vote for them because they are more familiar with the name). In 2004, I had not intended to vote because I knew next to nothing about the people running. Some guy in a grocery store made me change my mind. He said that he was going to vote for Candidate A, and that I should go out there and vote as well, not according to his opinions, but rather according to my own. Knowing nothing about the people running, I voted for Candidate B, because between him and Candidate A, I could stand to listen to B talk for longer than I could with A (honest reason). After I voted, I walked outside and thought to myself, "what was the point of that?". All I did was cancel out the vote of that guy in the grocery store who actually had reasons for wanting candidate A to be president. I could have just as easily picked candidate A for an equally irrelevant reason and effectively doubled his vote. The votes of uninformed voters say next-to-nothing about what they want in a president; they merely water down the results or skew them inaccurately. The TV show, "South Park" nailed this issue on the head in a satirical episode in which students held an election to pick their new mascot. They had to choose between, literally, a "giant douche" or a "turd sandwich". The plot centered around one student who had no opinion in the matter. The other students persistently insisted that he had an obligation to vote. Finally, the student realized that they didn't want him to vote and vote freely; rather, they wanted him to vote, with the caveat that he should vote for their candidate. Next time you hear someone say that everyone should vote, ask them what constructive purpose is served by me picking which lever looks shinier?

I am going to be laughing my a$$ off tomorrow when Dr. Ron Paul places second in the Iowa Straw Poll.  Of course Romney will win since he is paying peoples way to vote ($35 per person/vote) and even paying to bus people to the Straw Poll.  BUT WATCH AND SEE DR. RON PAUL come in second, if not first!!!  Then let the media put a spin on that!  Oh yeah, its spammers who keep voting over and over again!  Ron Paul DOES HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN because he will be going head to head in a debate with the Democratic Nominee and his stance on pulling out of Iraq, No more federal taxes, Abolish all the departments that are sucking up our monies like Department of Homeland Security (ha what a joke) Fema (what a mis-handled department), Department of Education (like states cant do it themselves), Department after Department would be abolished saving tax-payers BILLIONS IF NOT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR.
Yeah, its radical, yeah its different, but YEAH IT WILL WORK... bring our people home!  Just get out of Iraq.  Do only what the Consitution of the United States says you can do - (remember that little document We The People.... not we the Politicians...)
Bring Back America to the people!!!!  Love Dr. Ron Paul and his revolution, because thats what the revolutions say - I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE SAME OLE SAME OLE RIGHTS DESTROYING GOVERNMENT AND I WONT STAND FOR IT ANYMORE...

Every single online poll that I have voted in-and there have been MANY-has only allowed me to vote once. The sites register the IP address of the user/computer, so unless people are going en mass to the library and utilizing all of their pc's to vote in these things, there's NO WAY to cheat and inflate the numbers. Believe me, I've tried.

Thompson is an AIPAC puppet.  He travelled to Israel to garner support before deciding he would run.  He would let the special interest groups like the weapons contractors, pro-illegal-immigration advocates, and big oil continue their fleecing of America.

Dr. Ron Paul has been working tirelessly for 30 years to reduce the size of government, increase personal liberty and prosperity, stop the federal reserve inflation setup, and return to sound monetary policy (one based on gold-backed currency, not debt-currency).

The lobbyists don't even stop by Dr. Paul's office anymore, because they know he doesn't buy what they're selling.  He only cares about America, and returning prosperity to it.

Will some one please ask thease , want to be's. What is the political solutiuon for Iraq ?

Fred Thompson is leading for one simple reason:
He is a grade B actor on a TV show.  

And republicans don't want to vote for him, they
want to vote for Arthur Branch.

Mitt Romney will win the Straw Poll by a landslide. Why?  Because he's the only one organized out there.  He's the only one who has arranged for buses to pick people up that can't make it to the polls, he's the only one that has made any kind of connection with the people in Iowa.  Why is this? Because he's down to earth.  He's the only one experienced enough and capable of going to Washington and fixing the problems this country faces.  He's the only candidate with a proven track record of being able to work with both Democrats and Republicans and still get the job done.  That's what we need in Washington! Not some crazy Billary or dirty Rudy.

Does anyone sincerely want a president who believes that the angel Maroni told some moron that that there were gold tablets upon which were written the basis for a "religion"?  A religion that places Jesus and the tribes of Israel in this country?  This is what Romney, as a Mormon, believes.  Oh, please.  The republicans are truly desperate.

I don’t trust the Democrats nor the Republicans.  Neither party champions for the middle class.  Neither has our interest at heart.  

Vote Ron Paul.   Vote Libertarian.  Vote FairTax.

If Ron Paul gets 20+% of the vote or comes in second, this will put fear into the republican party.  Why?  Because Ron Paul anti war message is catching on within the party.  Huckabee, T. Thompson, Tancredo and Brownback would probably have to consider dropping out.  

Foregoing the much ballyhooed parchment idolatry of those who cling tenaciously to the Constitution, given the sad state of affairs and anemic condition of the Republic, it was best put by Lysander Spooner, to wit:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

We need a president who will abide the strict construction of the Constitution, or better yet, adhere to the precepts laid forth in the Declaration of Independence, and respect the rights of the individual and cease with this nonsense of legislating for the "public good". (Mere FDR socialistic banter)

The closest we will get to a strict constructionist is Ron Paul. I will not, however, be voting. Since this government thrives on the uninformed consent of the "governed", I refuse to lend my consent, energy, money, or averment to presumed authority. Hopefully we will have a quiet revolution and again regain the move towards a respect for individual rights. We need a new Constitution as the one we have now has failed to protect us.

The republicans have engaged in chicanery and deceit for years, much acclaim owed to Abraham "save the union by destroying the Constitution" Lincoln. Now, Chancellor Bush is edging ever so closer to martial law. Men of courage and principal went for their guns when circumstances demanded decisive action. Now, disarmed, emaciated, ignorant and fearful, the American citizen is but a federal subject, ala, U.S. citizenship, and waiting ever so trepidatiously for waning federal handouts to maintain their voluntary servitude.

Our best hope is Ron Paul. In the mean-time, it is non-consent, non-participation, and self-defense.

For a real wakeup call regarding our so called “Constitution of limited and enumerated powers”, you should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liberty-Constitutions-Shocking-Government/dp/1888766034
nse.

I'm all for civil disobedience in the face of encroaching tyranny. Where I depart from Thoreau, King  Jr., and Ghandi is that they practiced "non-violent civil disobedience". I too believe more people need to peaceably refuse to "consent", but when faced with coercive reprisals, self-defense is NOT violent, it is necessary. When govt. thuggery is met with defense of self and their numbers begin to dwindle and public outrage takes hold, the tide will turn, hopefully for the better.

IM NOT SURPRISE ROMNEY WON-STRAW POLLS; IST THIS IS HIS YEAR(2007-BOAR YEAR BORN 1947)SECOND HE SPENT LOTS OF MONEY/FOOD/BARBECUE AND FREE ENTRANCE- BUSH STYLE. DUH.HIS KIDS SPEND TIME IN IOWA A LOT INCLUDING HIS WIFE.HIS KIDS CAMPGINING FOR HIS DAD ROMNEY.WELL TIRD TIME REPUBLICAN?GOD HELP US- UNDER THE REPUBLCAN PARTY THIS COUNTRY IS BANKRUPT AND WORSE. NO JOB CREATION/NO GOOD EHALTH CARE LIED BUSH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IRAQ WA. SOLDIERS JUST KILLED ALMOST 4,000 DIED-GOSH WHAT WRONG IN THIS COUNTRY.
REPUBLICAN IS OUT THIS COMING ELECTION IN NOVE. GOD HELP US NO MORE REPUBLCIAN PLEASE AND NO MORMONS PRES. PLEASE.

Calling Fred Thompson a "mediocre actor" certainly has nothing to do with his ability or lack thereof to fulfill the duties of President.  You want to discuss "mediocre"?  Ronald Reagan, one of the worst actors in the history of the world was elected twice and proved to be be considerably less than mediocre as President!

I hope and pray the Replican party puts a lot more thought into their choice for president than they have in the last two elections. Raise your hand if you approve of Dubya and his performance. Pay attention. Think. Put America first. Why worry about smoke-screen issues such as abortion or gay marriage when we are engaged in a senseless war that has nothing to do with WMD or terrorism? Our sons (and daughters) are being blown into a fine mist on a daily basis,and billions of dollars are being squandered while Republicans worry about Clinton's sex life.We are being lied to by a corrupt administration,constantly. Why is this behavior condoned? Do Republicans approve of incompetence and corruption?

It's interesting to see the shoe on the other foot for a change. Republicans are generally unhappy with their choices for candidates, and Democrats have a strong front runner (whom I do not believe is the best candidate for the Dems). I think President Bush has done some significant damage to the GOP (not to mention the rest of the country).

Republicans are getting what they deserve though - when you support such lightweight candidates b/c they lie and tell you what you want to hear, you have to deal with the repercussions. Remember Bush's promises of fiscal conservatism and reluctance towards "nation building"? Whatever happened to the real conservatives out there? At least you could have a rational debate over policy instead of this nonsense that passes for their agenda

Look at Ron Paul for instance - while I'm a life long Democrat and disagree with most of what he advocates, I truly respect Paul's adherence to strict conservative principles. Yet, most of the GOP openly laughs at his candidacy. He's the only "conservative" in the entire party.

If the Republicans don't wake up and get back to real conservative principles in the next few years, they are going to find themselves collectively marginalized as a party....which is fine by me!

The only way that Mitt Romney can win the White House is if he buys a majority of the votes like he did yesterday in Ames, Iowa.  Please nominate Mr. Flip Flopper so we can be sure that the next President will be a Democrat.  Ron Paul continues to be the only Republican candidate people can truly believe.  He does not have the money...so he does not have a chance!

Robert C. from Oregon, PJ and Ichiro all seemed to be either the most informed and/or the most interesting opinions based on what I saw.  It IS interesting that Ron Paul's name wasn't on the ballot (according to the article) even though he has participated in numerous debates and other polls.  AND he is on the ballot unlike Thompson.  Interesting indeed.  I wonder how he would have done had they put HIS name on the ballot.  PJ and Robert...GREAT insight.  

You democrats forget that half the people in this country are republicans.  And thank god for that.

Romney has the leadership experience, not just the political experience.  His business background, along with completely fixing the Olympics in SLC, and being governor of a liberal state, qualifies him for the work.

With the poles and how THE PEOPLE have a lower opinion ranking of the Democrats then GW, how can you say all those things about GW. Plus if the Democratic President you voted for had taken Osama when offered, this would be a whole different situation.

To Shawn;

You're wrong about half the people in the U.S. being Republicans. It splits 48% to 40% in the Dems favor -look at the polls

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=15370

To TJ;

The polls do NOT say that "The People" have a lower opinion ranking of Democrats - they say people are unhappy with Congress. Now, if 66% of people want to get out of Iraq, and the Congress can not act on this, then who specifically do you think the people are unhappy with? The answer is Congressional Republicans who are blocking efforts to pass legislation to end the war. I guarantee you that if Congress was able to start drawing down troops, their opinion numbers would start going up. If you don't believe me, then wait til '08 and see what happens to Republicans who are up for reelection

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):