Poll: Iran fallout on Election

[BeFranklin]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_071205.htm

Bush On The Defensive Over New Iran Intel

One day after the release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concludes Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons program, President Bush held a press conference in which he urged key allies to maintain the current pressure on the Islamic Republic. In fact, the AP reports, Bush said the new intel "contradicting earlier US assessments...would not prompt him to take off the table the possibility of pre-emptive military action against Iran.".....

Ron Paul is the only one in the Republican party that has been saying this all along, and it directly ties into also exaggerating the details of the background for the Iraqi war, and the loss of our rights as Americans.

Given this new news, how do you think this will effect the election?

FYI: Poll is set to allow multiple answers

[noxagol]

If Ron Paul makes this a big deal, stating how he has been right all along about about Iran not being a threat, it gives him big credibility, hurts the credibility of the other Republicans, and makes people start to think what else he has been and is right about.

[The Plan]

That's a poorly worded poll. Allot of the answers mean the same thing.

[spivey378]

the media will minimize rp's prediction

[Tsoman]

I voted that "it will have no effect" which I think is sadly true :(

But if Ron Paul concentrated on this issue and really brought it into the discussion, I think it could be big

[JMO]

I think no effect is a no brainer. Most people are voting against Ron Paul for other issues than Iran. Plus I think pro war people are not going to be swayed by this report and will continue to buy into George Bush pro war stance..

[BeFranklin]

That's a poorly worded poll. Allot of the answers mean the same thing.

By getting to vote multiple times, you get to decide whether they mean the same thing or not. Notice, some of the similar ones don't have the same number of votes.

They don't really mean the same thing. If a candidate loses supporters, it doesn't mean Ron Paul or anyone picks them up. If it becomes a major issue, it may be talked about a lot, but still, it may not affect support. etc.

It would be interesting to see if this has no effect, as it means that war, policing the world, lose of rights, incredible debt, lack of protection here, is all based on a lying, and it doesn't matter to voters.

Personally, truth matters a great deal to me. If I can't trust a candidate or party to be telling me the truth, there is no reason to vote for them.

[xerxesdarius]

This will become an issue ONLY if the Democrats have the balls to make it one. Sadly, not many of them have the record to be able to take the high ground. :(

[JaylieWoW]

I voted that "it will have no effect" which I think is sadly true :(

But if Ron Paul concentrated on this issue and really brought it into the discussion, I think it could be big

Me too... people seem to be far more interested in Hollywood debauchery than they do real world relevant events that could have significantly harmful repercussions.

[BlutStein]

I wouldn't be surprised if a few candidates start sounding like Ron Paul when it comes to war and everyone in the media will act like they've had the same message the whole time.

Well, at least that is what will piss me off the most and the MSM seems to be getting that memo lately. We'll have to wait and see I guess.