PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul in for the Long Haul...


Taco John
08-22-2007, 01:30 AM
Ron Paul: In for the Long Haul

by Scott Sutton

<p> <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>About Ron
Paul's Fundraising</b> </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> On July 15th,
the Federal Election Commission announced the 2nd-quarter fundraising
totals for each presidential candidate. In the Republican field,
Ron Paul's $2.4 million placed him: </font>
<p>
<ul>
<li><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><a href="http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-second-quarter-fundraising.html">3rd</a>
in total receipts for the quarter</font></li>
<li><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/16/mccain-warchest-larger-than-expected/">4th</a>
in total receipts to date</font></li>
<li><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/16/mccain-warchest-larger-than-expected/">3rd</a>
in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain,
and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney)</font></li>
</ul>
<font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thus far, <a href="http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-small-donors-love-him.html">47%
of the contributions</a> made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations
of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest
percentage). This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact
that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate
interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking
sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman
Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for <i>anyone</i>,
special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's
campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on
a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests
buy him lunch." </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Among <i>all</i>
candidates, Dr. Paul is now <a href="http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-is-most-financially-military.html">first</a>
in total donations from military personnel and veterans. While this
may come as a surprise to some, Tom Engelhardt identified the primary
reason when he asked rhetorically, "why should (military personnel)
want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land?" (see
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/engelhardt"><i>Why
the US Military Loves Ron Paul</i></a>). </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Why, indeed
– President Paul would bring them home now. </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b> The Ron
Paul Buzz</b> </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> As anyone
familiar with the Ron Paul campaign knows, official fundraising
figures tell only a small part of the story. This campaign is a
genuine grassroots movement, driven primarily by the independent
efforts of Dr. Paul's enthusiastic supporters – a wide-ranging
constituency that includes disenfranchised anti-war Democrats, traditional
conservatives, Constitutionalists, anti-corporatists, free traders,
libertarians, Christians, Hindus, atheists, druids, hobbits, wizards,
and a host of others. Although a seemingly disparate group, these
people share a genuine concern about America's ongoing slide toward
authoritarianism, empire, and bankruptcy. </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> This building
wave of support takes many forms – from the proliferation of
Ron Paul <a href="http://www.dailypaul.com/node/748">Web sites</a>,
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ron+Paul+blogs&amp;btnG=Search">blogs</a>,
and <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/buy/Ron+Paul/?CMP=KAC-G-PO-E08Tg-Ron_Paul-/merchandise-/">merchandise</a>,
to public &quot;banner brigades&quot; and pamphleteering, to private
conversations and e-mail threads – and some estimates assess
the economic value of these independent activities at more than
<a href="http://www.ronpaulgrassroots.com/2007/07/how-much-are-ron-pauls-supporters-worth.html">$10
million</a> per quarter. </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> No candidacy
has generated more buzz than Ron Paul's, and the following statistics
prove the point:</font>
<p>
<ul>
<li><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">"Ron Paul"
recently topped <a href="http://ancapistan.typepad.com/unfairwitness/2007/07/ron-paul-sets-a.html">Technorati's</a>
search-term rankings for an unprecedented stretch – current
rank <a href="http://technorati.com/pop/">#2</a> (Technorati is
the leading authority on Internet media usage).</font></li>
<li><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><a href="http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3626275">RonPaul2008.com</a>
draws more traffic than any other candidate's Web site.</font></li>
<li><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> On YouTube.com,
the Internet's most popular video site, the Ron Paul channel has
over <a href="http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom">22,000</a>
subscribers, which is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BarackObamadotcom">13,000</a>
more than the second most popular candidate (Obama).</font></li>
<li><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">And on Meetup.com,
more than 25,000 people comprise 560 Ron Paul Meetup groups, which
makes the Good Doctor the most <a href="http://www.meetup.com/topics/polact/">popular
Meetup</a> source in the political category. The next candidate,
Obama, is a distant second with 5300 members in 68 groups. </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Notes:
All statistics reflect current numbers as of July 23, 2007.
Also, for those who don't know, Meetup.com is the most popular
Internet site for people with common interests who want to organize
events and activities with one another – consequently,
it's the most commonly used online resource for coordinating
political activities.</font></p>
</li>
</ul>
<font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Some commentators
say this interest and support is illusory, perhaps even the product
of a centralized Internet effort led by the Ron Paul campaign. Yet,
the Paul campaign has only spent $600,000 to date, while other candidates
have already burned through <a href="http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/08-candidates-spend-spend-spend/20070716094709990002?ecid=RSS0001">tens
of millions</a>. Although Paul's campaign staff is growing, it doesn't
even have the resources to provide timely responses to the flood of
incoming e-mails (I speak from personal experience here), much less
oversee such a sustained, widespread, technologically-sophisticated
endeavor. </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> The skeptics
also ignore an obvious question – if it's so easy to jerry-rig
Internet statistics, why haven't other, better-financed campaigns
done the same? (<a href="http://www.techpresident.com/node/361">Answer</a>:
It's <i>not</i> easy and, in many cases, it's simply impossible.)
While I personally don't know of anyone who spends their time spamming
online polls or repeatedly Googling their favorite candidate's name,
I have no doubt such people exist in the ranks of most political
movements. And given the evident enthusiasm of Ron Paul supporters,
it's quite likely that a greater percentage of his backers might
attempt to do such things. </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> That said,
I believe there are more plausible reasons for Ron Paul's "online
success" – most importantly, the Internet is the primary source
of information about Dr. Paul. As early as last fall – <i>two
full years</i> before the election – the conventional media
and major-party establishments had already anointed the top six
Republican and Democratic candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney,
Clinton, Obama, & Edwards). Since then, countless opinion makers
have informed Americans that these six politicians complete the
list of &quot;viable&quot; Presidential options. In other words,
no need to look further – we've done your thinking for you.
</font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> How and why
this happened exactly is a topic for another day. (Hint – <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/21/2674/">Follow</a>
<a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/08-hopefuls-would-grow-the-military-2007-05-02.html">the</a>
<a href="http://www.mises.org/story/2450">money</a>.) The important
point here is that each of the Anointed Candidates has received
regular, daily coverage since that time (and, in some cases, for
several years now). Although Dr. Paul has benefited from a smattering
of media attention since his &quot;blowback&quot; exchange with
Giuliani in May, people who are curious about Paul's track record
and platform <i>must</i> turn to the Internet. The conventional
media is most unlikely to begin covering Dr. Paul on a regular basis,
no matter how much traction he gains. </font>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Consequently,
Ron Paul's supporters must assume the task of spreading the word.
Fortunately, many of us are happy to do so, and when people first
learn of Dr. Paul's track record, they typically want to know more.
As regular readers of <a href="http://valuefreedom.blogspot.com">my
blog</a> know, Ron Paul challenges US foreign policy on a refreshingly
honest and fundamental level – a level of inquiry wholly absent
from most political forums. And Dr. Paul's forthrightness doesn't
stop with foreign policy, as he applies the same intellectual rigor
to issues involving <a href="http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=571">civil
liberties</a>, <a href="http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=474">health
care</a>, <a href="http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=478">immigration</a>,
<a href="http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=781">education</a>,
our <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul380.html">fiat-money
system</a>, and so on.</font>
<p>
<p><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Reading
Tea Leaves</font></b>
<p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Now, I'm not
a political analyst, and things could certainly change in a hurry
– but given the current landscape, some future developments
seem rather predictable:</font>
<p>
<blockquote><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>First</b>,
Ron Paul's Jeffersonian liberalism will give him a significant advantage
over his pro-war, neoconservative competitors. While the other candidates
vie for the support of the modern Republican base, Ron Paul provides
the only real alternative for any traditional conservatives who
remain in the party. Without Ron Paul, each GOP debate would be
a brain-dead echo chamber. </font>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Perhaps
more importantly, Dr. Paul will appeal to those Americans who
long ago abandoned politics because the big-government statism
of the two major parties was hostile to their values. With recent
voter turnout in presidential elections hovering around 50%, this
may be a surprisingly large block of potential voters. For Ron
Paul supporters, the key will be finding these people and telling
them about Dr. Paul – a simple, mass-marketing numbers game.
</font>
<p> <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>Second</b>,
due to this ideological edge and campaign realities, we'll witness
a steady whittling of the Republican field in coming months –
a thinning that recently began with Jim Gilmore's exit from the
race. With the exception of Ron Paul, the other candidates have
spent their funds like <a href="http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/08-candidates-spend-spend-spend/20070716094709990002?ecid=RSS0001">drunken
Congressmen</a>, and the &quot;second tier&quot; has little to
show for their binge. Most of these campaigns suffer from anemic
fundraising, a moribund Internet presence, and lackluster crowds
(certainly nothing approaching the numerous crowds gathering on
Ron Paul's behalf, as documented <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=wFwP0Q8WQFU">here</a>,
<a href="http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/013890.html">here</a>,
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=9HQP9JCzs5M">here</a>, <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=cedwDCdvp0w&mode=related&amp;search=">here</a>,
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg">here</a>, and
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=QuWE2BJW9UE">here</a>). By
next spring, the existing field of contenders will be reduced
to a Final Four – Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and
Ron Paul. </font>
<p> <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>Third</b>,
Ron Paul is in this race for the long haul – at least until
next September's Republican convention. Thus far, the Paul campaign
has run a frugal operation, relying primarily on the efforts of
grassroots activists. These efforts are steadily snowballing support,
as evidenced by Dr. Paul's three-month ascent from anonymity to
<a href="http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28144">3% in national
polls</a>, and that figure will continue to rise at the rate people
learn about our candidate. As <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/haman1.html">Jennifer
Haman</a> pointed out, Ron Paul leads in the polls of those who
have heard him speak. In the meantime, the campaign is shrewdly
storing its dry powder – mounting millions to be meted out
at judicious points throughout the campaign. </font>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Only time will
tell what the future holds for Ron Paul's presidential bid –
but for now, there's great cause for optimism.</font></p>
<p align="right"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3"><i>July
27, 2007</i></font></p>
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/sutton1.html

CHIEF4EVER
08-22-2007, 01:36 AM
But, but, but.....everyone says he don't stand a chance. Oh, what the hell. I'll just keep supporting someone who don't stand a chance then.........

ClevelandBronco
08-22-2007, 01:39 AM
...Ron Paul's supporters must assume the task of spreading the word. Fortunately, many of us are happy to do so...

Can we please just get an official Ron Paul thread? You guys spread the word like Ron Mexico spreads herpes.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 01:41 AM
I posted this for those of us who keep hearing that echo chamber. Keep sending him donations, and be assured that he'll manage to keep his campaign on track all the way through. (https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/)

I'm committing myself to $20 per month until the end. I've never done that with a politician before. In fact, I've never once sent a donation to a politician before Dr. Paul came around.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 01:43 AM
Can we please just get an official Ron Paul thread? You guys spread the word like Ron Mexico spreads herpes.



No chance in hell... :)


Besides, this thread is important for Republicans and Democrats, so they understand why Ron Paul is still around when September 08 rolls in.

ClevelandBronco
08-22-2007, 01:58 AM
No chance in hell... :)

Hey, I'm begging. Good grief, you guys are tenacious.

CHIEF4EVER
08-22-2007, 02:04 AM
Hey, I'm begging. Good grief, you guys are tenacious.

You could always support someone who gives a rats ass about the country and its Constitution.........:p

ClevelandBronco
08-22-2007, 02:13 AM
You could always support someone who gives a rats ass about the country and its Constitution.........:p

Such as Ron Paul, presumably. Thanks. No.

His voice is important within the party, but he's a losing candidate, and there's little more to be said about the man.

CHIEF4EVER
08-22-2007, 02:16 AM
Such as Ron Paul, presumably. Thanks. No.

His voice is important within the party, but he's a losing candidate, and there's little more to be said about the man.

So partisanship trumps principle now? Maybe for those who say Baaaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaa!

ClevelandBronco
08-22-2007, 02:31 AM
So partisanship trumps principle now? Maybe for those who say Baaaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaa!

Principle takes a back seat in politics. I'll always settle for the balance of what I want before I'll choose to lose everything I want.

CHIEF4EVER
08-22-2007, 02:43 AM
Principle takes a back seat in politics. I'll always settle for the balance of what I want before I'll choose to lose everything I want.

WTF? Principle is what shapes ones political opinons in the first place. Anyone who is willing to blindly follow the rhetoric of a party for the gain of a party is nothing more than a sheep.

ClevelandBronco
08-22-2007, 02:51 AM
...Principle is what shapes ones political opinons in the first place...

Agreed, but you're coming at it from a different angle than I am. I don't care about the party itself, but I'll get more of what I want with the Republicans. I'm not a good Republican, but I'll align with them.

Chances are you're not a good (insert party label here) either.

The people who oppose you aren't sheep. They just oppose you.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 05:51 AM
But, but, but.....everyone says he don't stand a chance.

Because he doesn't.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 05:57 AM
WTF? Principle is what shapes ones political opinons in the first place. Anyone who is willing to blindly follow the rhetoric of a party for the gain of a party is nothing more than a sheep.

Is principle what led you to flipflop overnight from supporting the ideals behind the current war in Iraq (even if you'd grown frustrated with the pace of victory) to supporting a guy whose ideals are diametrically opposed to them?

You flip flop too much to be a sheep:

http://www.aperfectworld.org/clipart/Metaphors/fishoutofwater.gif

:p

CHIEF4EVER
08-22-2007, 07:36 AM
Is principle what led you to flipflop overnight from supporting the ideals behind the current war in Iraq (even if you'd grown frustrated with the pace of victory) to supporting a guy whose ideals are diametrically opposed to them?

You flip flop too much to be a sheep:

http://www.aperfectworld.org/clipart/Metaphors/fishoutofwater.gif

:p

Very funny. If you ever get tired of your day job, you could go into comedy........or maybe not. :rolleyes: :p

I have always been conservative and constructionist. Since the Iraqi 'government' (and I use that term very loosely) and our current regime have ****ed the dog for the past 5 years I have discontinued support for this idiotic venture. Hardly a flip flop. Ron Paul represents all of my interests more closely than any other candidate.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 07:45 AM
Very funny. If you ever get tired of your day job, you could go into comedy........or maybe not. :rolleyes: :p

I have always been conservative and constructionist. Since the Iraqi 'government' (and I use that term very loosely) and our current regime have ****ed the dog for the past 5 years I have discontinued support for this idiotic venture. Hardly a flip flop. Ron Paul represents all of my interests more closely than any other candidate.

You are Logical all over again.

I haven't changed! /Logical

I'd say you are the Ultra Peanut of the Iraq war except that UP has known she was a girl inside for a long time.

BTW, Conservative and constructionist has nothing to do with it.

CHIEF4EVER
08-22-2007, 07:54 AM
You are Logical all over again.
I haven't changed! /Logical

:rolleyes:

I'd say you are the Ultra Peanut of the Iraq war except that UP has known she was a girl inside for a long time.

So if someone changes their mind about something they prevuiusly supported 100%, they are a girly man flip flopper? Good to know you aren't a sychophant for the administration....wait, I meant ARE. Not to mention a Republican lambs

Just say BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

BTW, Conservative and constructionist has nothing to do with it.

You questioned my support of Ron Paul.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 08:02 AM
Now back to the fundraising of Paul:

Paul has MeetUp volunteers around the country voluntering their own time while the top candidates have to pay their staffs. These same volunteers are also printing up their own brochures and signs as well as placing their own advertising...big time. So he has not had to even use most of his funds. I just love it!

I'm sure the big guys will want to limit such freedom of action as a sort of campaign fairness doctrine.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 08:08 AM
[/i]

:rolleyes:

[/indent]

So if someone changes their mind about something they prevuiusly supported 100%, they are a girly man flip flopper? Good to know you aren't a sychophant for the administration....wait, I meant ARE. Not to mention a Republican lambs

Just say BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!



You questioned my support of Ron Paul.

No, I questioned your adherence to principle. I still do.

CHIEF4EVER
08-22-2007, 08:14 AM
No, I questioned your adherence to principle. I still do.

It isn't adherence to any sort of principle that we are discussing Patteau. It is a refusal to support a failed and flawed venture perpetuated by lazy, incompetent boobs. It is being weary of the lies and deceit. It hasn't got a damn thing to do with 'adherence to principle'. Where the hell did you get that from?

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 08:18 AM
Where the hell did you get that from?
I think he was projecting.

banyon
08-22-2007, 08:24 AM
Wow, all that great news and he's still polling at 3%.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 08:29 AM
It isn't adherence to any sort of principle that we are discussing Patteau. It is a refusal to support a failed and flawed venture perpetuated by lazy, incompetent boobs. It is being weary of the lies and deceit. It hasn't got a damn thing to do with 'adherence to principle'. Where the hell did you get that from?


In post 11, you implied that you are driven by principle. I don't see it. Hate to say it, but I see a guy who was tired of being pummeled by message board adversaries and decided to switch sides to get some love and who used Ron Paul's admirable embrace of the constitution as an excuse to do it.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 08:30 AM
In post 11, you implied that you are driven by principle. I don't see it. Hate to say it, but I see a guy who was tired of being pummeled by message board adversaries and decided to switch sides to get some love and who used Ron Paul's admirable embrace of the constitution as an excuse to do it.

BTW, does anyone want to buy a book I'm writing about how to win friends and influence people? LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 08:34 AM
So because a Republican has a realization he's selling out?
Therefore his character gets impugned?
There's lots more coming Pat, hate to tell ya!
It's slow but it's happening.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 08:43 AM
So because a Republican has a realization he's selling out?
Therefore his character gets impugned?
There's lots more coming Pat, hate to tell ya!
It's slow but it's happening.

I'm calling it like I see it, just like I presume you do when you impugn the characters of so many who support the war.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 08:44 AM
I'm calling it like I see it, just like I presume you do when you impugn the characters of so many who support the war.
Like who?
Please choose those where it wasn't in retaliation or payback, nor groups, or public figures.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 08:49 AM
Like who?
Please choose those where it wasn't in retaliation or payback, nor groups, or public figures.

I'm talking about so many public figures who you've accused of being socialists/trotskytes/fascists simply because they support a more muscular foreign policy than you desire.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 08:59 AM
I'm talking about so many public figures who you've accused of being socialists/trotskytes/fascists simply because they support a more muscular foreign policy than you desire.
Accused! LoL! That's my honest opinion of their views and what category they fall in. Nor is that personal character either. That's fair game. They're fair game.

How is that different than calling Islamacists Islamofascists? I'm sure you believe that too.

BTW you can call me a paleo-conservative Misean I won't feel impugned.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 09:04 AM
In post 11, you implied that you are driven by principle. I don't see it. Hate to say it, but I see a guy who was tired of being pummeled by message board adversaries and decided to switch sides to get some love...

When I read this, I wasn't scrolled up enough to see who was being quoted, and I was thinking of 3 or 4 different people who you might be describing here.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 09:07 AM
Wow, all that great news and he's still polling at 3%.



If you went by Polls, Al Gore and John Kerry were our last two presidents. Well, except for the only poll that really matters.

banyon
08-22-2007, 09:11 AM
If you went by Polls, Al Gore and John Kerry were our last two presidents. Well, except for the only poll that really matters.

Is Ron Paul polling above 5% in any state?

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 09:12 AM
If you went by Polls, Al Gore and John Kerry were our last two presidents. Well, except for the only poll that really matters.
He supported Nader too.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 09:13 AM
Is Ron Paul polling above 5% in any state?
6% in Texas, his home state.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 09:15 AM
Is Ron Paul polling above 5% in any state?



Bill Clinton was polling at 1% nationally in August of 1991. It took a Gennifer Flowers accusation and a 60 minutes spot for him to catch national fire.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 09:20 AM
Bill Clinton was polling at 1% nationally in August of 1991. It took a Gennifer Flowers accusation and a 60 minutes spot for him to catch national fire.

Someone get Heidi Fleiss on the phone!

banyon
08-22-2007, 09:27 AM
Bill Clinton was polling at 1% nationally in August of 1991. It took a Gennifer Flowers accusation and a 60 minutes spot for him to catch national fire.

People aren't even sure when the NH primary will be, but it will be no later than January 12, 2008, more than a month earlier than Clinton's primary.


Ron Paul's got a lot of screwin to do to catch up to Clinton.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 09:38 AM
Bill Clinton was polling at 1% nationally in August of 1991. It took a Gennifer Flowers accusation and a 60 minutes spot for him to catch national fire.

Clinton didn't announce his candidacy until October of 1991. That's not really a good comparison.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 09:39 AM
Clinton didn't announce his candidacy until October of 1991. That's not really a good comparison.

:doh!:

Taco John
08-22-2007, 09:40 AM
Clinton didn't announce his candidacy until October of 1991. That's not really a good comparison.



Even better.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 09:44 AM
Even better.

*headscratch*

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 09:47 AM
Clinton was virtually unkown, as was Carter and then both shot out of nowhere.
Both were polling around 1% early in those cycles. No one ever heard of them.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 09:49 AM
Clinton was virtually unkown, as was Carter and then both shot out of nowhere.
Both were polling around 1% early in those cycles. No one ever heard of them.

So... if people haven't heard about Ron Paul yet, when is that going to start?

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 09:52 AM
I don't make predictions on such things. I never do. I have hope. If he can reach enough people w/o the MSM, that once his message is heard, it could change.

Got that now?

Seems to me you're the one who feels he's God and can predict.
Tell me, who will win the next election?

Cochise
08-22-2007, 10:07 AM
I don't make predictions on such things. I never do. I have hope. If he can reach enough people w/o the MSM, that once his message is heard, it could change.

Got that now?

Seems to me you're the one who feels he's God and can predict.
Tell me, who will win the next election?

You were the one who posted to posit that Paul was like Clinton in that way. But Paul is already in the race, he's appeared in debates (he made what most Republicans would call a high profile gaffe in one of them so I don't buy that republicans don't who he is). He's had the opportunity to win straw polls - even securing 200 of 250 votes in some of the minor ones. There's a concerted internet campaign for him, I see bumper stickers around town, etc.

But the argument seems to be, people don't know about him, when they learn they will like him. So when are they going to learn..? How is the word going to be spread in ways that it isn't already?

Again, I'll reassert my opinion that the anti-war position is the reason why anyone knows who he is, and he's probably got a ceiling of 5-10% of Republicans naturally due to it.

On the other point, I'd probably say Hillary, if I had to place a bet right now.

CHIEF4EVER
08-22-2007, 10:11 AM
In post 11, you implied that you are driven by principle. I don't see it. Hate to say it, but I see a guy who was tired of being pummeled by message board adversaries and decided to switch sides to get some love and who used Ron Paul's admirable embrace of the constitution as an excuse to do it.

Yeah, expecting competence and sound decision making by my elected leaders and our so called allies, and demanding honesty and transparency is standing on principle. But according to you if I change my mind about supporting a policy decision because those principles have been violated, then I *snort* switch sides to 'avoid being pummeled' by some clown on a message board. LMAO

Yeah, I do all my voting and support candidates based on what other people on a message board think. :rolleyes: LMAO

And this is coming from a guy who is essentially the Joseph Goebbels of the Bush Administration on this message board. LMAO

Maybe I was wrong Pat, maybe you SHOULD go into comedy......:p

oldandslow
08-22-2007, 10:30 AM
Tell me, who will win the next election?

Friggin' Hillary Clinton.

BEP - Although I disagree with your candidate on domestic issues, I would jump for joy if he got the repub nod. Then, just maybe, we would not get neo-Bush or Bush-lite as the next foreign policy architect.

Bush is going to pull Vietnam in as a reference in a speech today. He doesn't know how right he is - just in a different way than he intended.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 11:34 AM
Friggin' Hillary Clinton.

BEP - Although I disagree with your candidate on domestic issues, I would jump for joy if he got the repub nod. Then, just maybe, we would not get neo-Bush or Bush-lite as the next foreign policy architect.

Bush is going to pull Vietnam in as a reference in a speech today. He doesn't know how right he is - just in a different way than he intended.



He's not going to get the Republican nod, but he will manage his campaign all the way to the RNC where they'll pick either Rudy or Romney.

From there, Ron Paul's supporters will demand that he continue campaigning all the way to the ballot, and because there will be no other candidate available who represents this large base of voters, he will acquiesce. From there, he'll present a challenge to both parties. Anti war right and left will be drawn to his campaign. He won't likely win, but his campaign will affect the election.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 11:37 AM
But the argument seems to be, people don't know about him, when they learn they will like him. So when are they going to learn..? How is the word going to be spread in ways that it isn't already?



I think that you're forgetting that the only people paying attention to presidential politics right now are political geeks like us.

Jenson71
08-22-2007, 12:02 PM
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”