Tag Archive for john-edwards at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'john-edwards'

Internet Buzz is Irrelevant

Published by Kenneth Martens September 27, 2007 in General and Politics. 96 Comments

According to a Fox News online poll [It was actually a cellphone poll. - Ed.] earlier this month, Representative Ron Paul won the New Hampshire Republican debate by a significant margin (Ron Paul wins by a landslide). Unfortunately for Ron Paul enthusiasts, that support has not translated into big numbers on the offline polls. A September 7-8 Gallup poll put Ron Paul at the bottom of the field with 1% support. Subsequent polls show a similar level of insignificance.

Why does Ron Paul poll so well online but not elsewhere? Rush Limbaugh says it’s because of small number of his supporters are spamming the online polls (May 16 transcript) and that Paul’s buzz isn’t real.

But it’s not just Ron Paul. Other candidates are seeing the same pattern: huge online support, but dismal showings in scientific polls. In a New York Times op-ed piece (The Center Holds) David Brooks reports:

In the various polls on the Daily Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote.

But in the scientific polls, Hillary Clinton is polling nearly double the numbers of her nearest competitor. Gallup has her support at 47% compared to Obama’s 25% (Sept. 14-16 poll). Unless every candidate except for Clinton has supporters spamming the online polls, we can’t chalk this phenomenon up to online chicanery. Something else is happening.

David Brooks offers one explanation in his New York Times piece:

As the journalist Ron Brownstein and others have noted, Democratic primary contests follow a general pattern. There are a few candidates who represent the affluent, educated intelligentsia (Eugene McCarthy, Bill Bradley) and they usually end up getting beaten by the candidate of the less educated, lower middle class.

That’s what’s happening again. Obama and Edwards get most of their support from the educated, affluent liberals. According to Gallup polls, Obama garners 33 percent support from Democratic college graduates, 28 percent from those with some college and only 19 percent with a high school degree or less. Hillary Clinton’s core support, on the other hand, comes from those with less education and less income — more Harry Truman than Howard Dean.

Brooks’s unsaid assumption is that the internet activists are better educated and wealthier than the general public. If we assume this is true, then the skewed online polls are just another manifestation of an ongoing class divide in America. The real divide is between the wealthy and the lower middle class. Ron Paul’s online dominance is not due to libertarian crackpots stuffing the internet ballots. It is an effect of the fact that internet users are not a representative cross-section of America. It’s only the wealthier folks who support Ron Paul.

Or so Brooks’s article leads you to believe. But does his unsaid assumption fit the facts? Do internet users in America represent the “affluent, educated intelligentsia?” A 2006 Pew report shows that 73% of American adults are online. (Internet Penetration and Impact) The report shows that income and education did play a factor–53% of adults making less than $30,000 were online compared to 86% of adults making $50,000 to $75,000. But the report also shows that age is an even greater indicator: 88% of 18-29 year-olds are online compared to 32% for those 65 and older. It’s possible that the overrepresentation of Ron Paul supporters on the internet is a result of a new generation with new values. If that is the case–and I caution that it is by no means proved–then we can expect political shifts in the next few decades as this young generation matures.

But for now, the internet is irrelevant.

What Kind of Christian is Ron Paul?

Published by Colin September 5, 2007 in Religion and Current Events. 189 Comments

Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has made it very clear that, while he is a born-again Christian, he does not like to discuss his religious views publicly:

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do.

On Homosexuality
The other day, Dr. Paul took a bold risk and appeared for a long interview by the fundamentalist, constitution-party-flag-waving The American View to discuss his personal faith and how it would translate into his actions as president. Paul was not granted any clemency and was even grilled a bit by the interviewer on subjects such as abortion, homosexuality, the infallibility of scripture and the role of government in morality. To wit:

Q: Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?

Dr. Paul: I’m not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”

Q: Do you believe God says homosexuality is a sin?

Dr. Paul: Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.

Dr. Paul would not come out and say that homosexuality was a sin or whether he though God considers it sin. His answer basically boils down to one thought: it’s complicated. For many who take the view that the Bible is the Word of God (Dr. Paul made this claim on the show), it is not very complicated - homosexual behavior is a sin, and like any sin, God does not approve. At the same time, the interviewer spent considerable time on homosexuality, seeming to speak of it as though it was a more “sinful” sin and was the root of many of the problems in the country. Perhaps Paul was shrewdly considering that by affirming a positive answer on the matter, the interviewer would attempt to solicit Paul’s sanction on some of his own ideas.

You can see this is a sticking point with the host as over half his write-up discusses this matter, concluding with:

I tell him I believe God will not bless any military that’s full of unrepentant homosexuals, adulterers and fornicators. He does not reply to this observation.

On Avoiding Hypocrisy
Clearly Dr. Paul is unashamed to proclaim that he’s a Christian, however most American politicians make this claim (see John Edwards take a good twenty seconds before he figures this out). Dr. Paul makes a strong statement about this matter, one that qualifies his statements as avoiding hypocrisy rather than timidity in faith:

I’d rather my views and my convictions and my faith be shown by my actions rather than [by] what I say… also, the part in the bible about not showing off… we’re instructed to pray quietly …[and] not to play big fanfare. I’m trying to strike something in between there; where I’m not bashful and ashamed of it, at the same time I don’t want to look like others who …look to get votes because they were willing to say and do something in public.

On the Role of Religion in Government and Society
As opposed to his host on The American View, Dr. Paul sees the role of religion in government just as he sees the role of anything in government - best applied by individuals. While a Christian cannot legislate Christianity into the law, the Christian will be personally governed by God’s law and thus his administration in civil society must be consistent. This is spelled out by Dr. Paul in clear terms:

Ultimately what has to change is the morality of the society that we have, then the law will change. So I don’t think we can solve the problem by the law.

Somehow, Dr. Paul made it out of this interview on decent terms with the host, yet he did not make himself sound like a Constitution Party acolyte. Clearly Paul is a gifted politician in that respect. At the same time, it demonstrates his ability to communicate his views clearly, with an open-mind, and preserve peace in any interchange: even one with such volatile fundamental issues.

Zeal For Truth