A new poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP) released today shows Ron Paul has surged to the lead in Iowa with 23% of the vote, followed by Romney with 20%, and Newt Gingrich’s imploding campaign has sunk to 14%.

In addition to having more support right now Paul also has firmer support (73% solidly committed) than Romney (68% solidly committed).

Read more at the source below:

Source: Public Policy Polling

Ron Paul set to win Iowa Primary

A new poll from Public Policy Polling shows Newt Gingrich dropping in Iowa to 22%, with Ron Paul surging to 21%, a statistical tie given the 2-3% margin of error. Virtually every candidate has at some point during this year’s campaign seen their numbers soar, only to come crashing down shortly after. Ron Paul is the sole candidate who’s numbers have consistently risen month after month, building a solid base of support that doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. The poll also shows that almost half of Gingrich supporters are uncertain on whether they will eventually vote for him, while 77% of Ron Paul supporters are certain they will vote for him. Mitt Romney is steady at a distant third place with 16%.

Based on the trends, come January, Ron Paul could end up with a landslide victory.

Source: businessinsider.com

ABC hosted the most recent debate between six of the GOP Presidential hopefuls. As was to be expected, the debate moderators Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos tried to position the debate as “between front runners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.” Conspicuously missing from the media’s biased attention, of course, was none other than Ron Paul – the candidate with the most thriving campaign in Iowa, whose poll numbers place him just behind Gingrich in a tie with Romney, and perpetually increasing numbers. When polling included independents and disenchanted Democrats who are switching to the Republican party – Ron Paul became the clear leader in Iowa. And yet the media continues so obviously to avoid even mentioning his name if at all possible.

As the debate unfolded, Michelle Bachmann forcefully piped up, admitting she wanted to follow Cain’s strategy of repeating one single talking point – she repeated through out the debate that she is the true conservative. Online polls throughout the debate showed viewers were still largely unclear about Romney and Gingrich’s positions on health care mandates, and the majority of Yahoo! pollsters were requesting to give Ron Paul more talking time. In the end, Romney and Gingrich were sloppy and often ambiguous, Bachmann’s case for her conservatism boded well against all candidates except Ron Paul – who has so undeniably been the most consistent true conservative for over 30 years, he was the one person Bachmann couldn’t afford to compare herself to, and Perry piped up briefly to coax Romney to offer him a $10,000 bet – an action the media hooked onto as a death blow to the Romney Campaign. Many are saying it was one of Ron Paul’s strongest performances – with strong, clear, and concise arguments. In closing, Rick Perry said he has most learned from Ron Paul’s effort to end the Federal Reserve, and why it matters. Romney said he was most impressed by Ron Paul’s leadership – claiming he is always amazed how the only signs he sees at debates are for Ron Paul.

The typical agenda and bias of ABC News (and the rest of the mainstream media) was perhaps most clear in the post-debate commentary, where the talking heads tried to focus the discussion about Romney vs. Gingrich, identifying the silly bet between Romney and Perry as a critical moment, and then they all unanimously agreed Gingrich is the clear winner. Ron Paul’s name was not mentioned ONCE in the post-debate commentary – yes, the man leading all online post-debate polls, and mentioned by 40% of the other candidates as the most influential opponent in their closing statements.

Ron Paul’s existence was finally mentioned the following morning on ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour:


Here are some polls currently running:

Most important:
Yahoo! News: http://news.yahoo.com/elections/debate/vote/ [polling now closed]
Sodahead/ABC News: http://www.sodahead.com/fun/who-do-you-think-is-performing-the-best-at-tonights-gop-presidential-candidate-debate/question-2331881/

“Vote for Newt” Page: https://www.facebook.com/votefornewt [DELETED: due to overwhelming support for Ron Paul]
“The Tea Party” Page: http://www.facebook.com/questions/257506934304799/

Less important:
WePolls: http://www.wepolls.com/p/6251407/Who-won-the-12/10/2011-ABC-News-GOP-debate-in-Iowa
WorldMag: http://online.worldmag.com/2011/12/10/online-poll-who-won-saturdays-gop-debate-in-des-moines/

A new advertisement put out by Ron Paul’s campaign addresses the rampant hypocrisy characterizing Newt Gingrich’s political career. Highlights include Newt Gingrich’s collaboration with Nancy Pelosi on global warming, as well as Newt’s secretly pocketing millions of dollars directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while publicly condemning them.

This is really no surprise however, the ad essentially just uses Newt’s own words. The continuing theme in the GOP race seems to be an endless supply of new faces rapidly soaring to the tops of the polls, only to come crashing down after they are exposed for the scumbags they are. So far Romney has led, Michelle Bachmann has led, Rick Perry has led, Herman Cain has led, and now Newt Gingrich seems to be leading. As with all the others, his shallow supporters will flee just as they have fled the other poll leaders.

Ron Paul is the lone wolf who’s support base is famous for unwavering loyalty – and his numbers continue to rise slowly and steadily. Will America wear out all the wolves in sheeps clothing in time to nominate the freedom and peace candidate, Ron Paul? Does America even deserve such a morally sound man as president?

CBS News covers this new release: here

Newt Gingrich is a self-proclaimed war “hawk” with very little moral objections to the idea of war.

That alone should cause any thoughtful, moral person some pause.

But these remarks made in 2008 shed a completely new light on Newt’s position on war and the justification for government’s intrusion into your personal privacy and civil liberties.

Newt says,

“it’s almost like they (the Bush administration) should, every once in a while, have allowed an attack to get through to remind us…”

Granted, he said this partially in jest, he was completely serious in saying “one of the great tragedies” of the Bush administration was how well they’ve protected us, giving people the illusion that we’re safe. Clearly, Newt does not want us to feel safe.

Gingrich goes on to say,

“I’m going to be a little controversial…I would have an anti-domestic crime FBI agency which was very respectful of civil liberties – and I would have a small, but very aggressive anti-terrorism agency, and I would frankly give them extraordinary ability to eavesdrop, and my advice to (proponents of civil liberties) would be, don’t plot with terrorists.”

I am reminded of the wise quote from Thomas Paine:

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.”

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!