Middle East terror safety poll: confront countries/stay out?

[dircha]

I was reading through the recent Iowa and New Hampshire CBS telephone poll of likely primary voters and found the responses to question 78 to be somewhat distressing.

Which comes closer to your view? 1. In the long run, the U.S. will be safer from
terrorism if it confronts the countries and groups that promote terrorism in the Middle
East. OR 2.In the long run, the US will be safer from terrorism if it stays out of other
countries' affairs in the Middle East?

And here is my attempt at formatting the results; I think these tags will force monospace font:

Confronts countries     (IA D:19%, R:79%)  (NH D:25%, R:61%) 
Stays out of affairs    (IA D:69%, R:16%)  (NH D:66%, R:34%)
Don't know/No answer    (IA D:11%, R:6%)   (NH D:9%,  R:5%)

What that says is 79% of likely Iowa Republican Caucus voters and 61% of likely New Hampshire Republican Primary voters believe that the United States will be safer from terrorism if it confronts countries "that promote terrorism in the Middle East" than if we "stay out of other countries' affairs in the Middle East".

This tells me that the majority voters either are not hearing Congressman Paul's message on non-intervention, or they are rejecting it. Congressman Paul's basic contention is that we will be safer if we stay out of the affairs of countries like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

But the good news is that 16% in Iowa and 34% in New Hampshire agree with Dr. Paul and believe that we will be safer if we stay out of these countries' affairs.

If we can figure out how to get our message to that 16% and 34% respectively, with a 5-way race we can pull this off, this could be a big win for us. Because as we know, Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who will keep us out of Iran and who has expressed this policy of staying out of the affairs of these nations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_111307.pdf

 

[garrettwombat]

why didnt paul just run democrat?

everyone knows libertarians dont get voted in thats why he wont run as one... but i know he is a conservative republican at heart and a libertarian...

he could have as easily ran as a conservative democrat... and everyone would still think he was out of line with his party, but at least then more people would have voted for him because a lot of people will just flat out not vote republican because of bush... they say

"the republicans had there chance and they f*cked up, im not looking into any of the republicans"

 

[garrettwombat]

ehhh, thats prob a bad idea... nvm

 

[aroberso]

People's opinions of, and fear of, the remote threat of terrorism on our homeland as the realities of our economic crisis take hold. That may well happen soon if the dollar keeps dropping.

The economy, our national debt, and the weak dollar is going to be front and center very soon. It is already headed that way, and Dr. Paul's message will get some serious attention from folks as they see their Quicken Net Worth chart keep heading south.

My two cents...

 

[American]

people dont get how the two [party system works. You get hot button issues on both sides then you pit them against each other, divide and conquer.

 

[aroberso]

I think a lot of our collective energy should be spent shifting people's focus to the economic crisis, educating people on what it means when the dollar keeps dropping, how that will ultimately affect them.

I'm having to work hard not to curse here, but people should be f'ing freaking out about the dollar!!!!