PDA

View Full Version : Why Ron Paul's followers will cost him the election.


banyon
12-14-2007, 03:44 PM
Why Ron Paul's Followers Will Cost Him the Election

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/14/033154.php

Written by Dave Nalle
Published December 14, 2007


I've written previously about some of the problems the Ron Paul campaign faces, but apparently my explanations were too subtle or people just chose not to pay attention. There is a large element of self-righteous fanaticism among Paul followers which seems to make them completely incapable of seeing that the powerful gale of enthusiasm which is driving the campaign may crash it hard on the rocks of reality if they don't do something.

If they want to save the campaign, they need to get over their egotistical attachment to the idea that Paul's unimpeachable principles and honesty trump all other considerations, and face up to the fact that to win a party nomination you have to make some effort to play the game the way the party leaders–from the lowliest precinct workers to the national leadership–expect it to be played.

In party politics it doesn't matter how right you are, it only matters how many people are convinced that you have a winning strategy. Paul's supporters don't understand this or don't want to understand it. They're thinking in terms of running an outsider, grassroots campaign. But Paul deliberately didn't run as an independent. He showed the good sense to run as a Republican, knowing all of the advantages of access and opportunity he would have in the primaries and the base of support he'd be able to count on in the general election if he won the nomination.

Paul's supporters don't seem to respect his decision to run as a Republican, and in this area he had the right idea and they are dead wrong. Regardless of the fact that he's drawn supporters from every quarter of the lunatic fringe and even from the far left, he's not going to make it to the election if he doesn't win the Republican primary, and he's not going to win the primary if his followers alienate too many people within the GOP. Even if his followers don't like it, Paul is running as a Republican and he has to play the party game.

Some facts to consider:

• Paul has stated clearly that he will not run in another party or as an independent even if he loses the nomination.

• That being the case, to make it to the final election he has to win the Republican party nomination.

• Crossover votes are not enough to win the nomination. He needs support from mainstream Republicans, not just their votes but also their help in getting fairly represented in caucuses and straw polls down to the precinct level, an area where no amount of outside support will help him.

• Lots of mainstream Republicans have basically libertarian values and will support a libertarian-leaning candidate, but they won't support someone they perceive as hostile to the Republican party and its interests.

• The support which Paul is getting not just from leftists, but from racists, “truthers” and other scary extremists is unquestionably alienating the GOP base. These fringe supporters would be a great asset in a general election, but they are a deadly liability in a primary run by conservative political hacks, where candidates are expected to play ball to a certain extent, and where supporters are expected to follow certain rules and protocols. Paul's followers don't have respect for the party or its traditions, and that's going to alienate a lot of people they really need to have on their side.

• Without winning over the party base Paul will not win the nomination. Without the nomination he will not win the presidency.

We have already seen straw polls and party meetings shut down in a number of states when Paul supporters and outside agitators for Paul attempted to disrupt them. As the election nears, this reaction is going to become more and more common if Paul's supporters continue to be perceived as outsiders with very non-Republican beliefs who are essentially attempting to stage a coup within the party.

If you are not concerned about the direction his largely uncontrolled campaign is taking and the people who are infiltrating it and shaping it, and in the process alienating the GOP “blue hairs”, you are being unrealistic and care more about abstract principle than getting a man of principle elected.

If you care about Ron Paul and the ideas which he stands for, then you ought to be as concerned as I am that the behavior of his followers and the extremist beliefs they are spewing all over the internet, are going to damn him to failure.

It's great to welcome everyone into the Ron Paul “big tent” but you can't ignore the reality that as those new supporters come in one side of the tent the people he actually needs to win the nomination are leaving out the other side.

This is the exact same mistake the Libertarian Party has made for 35 years and the reason why some libertarians like Ron Paul and myself have been willing to make some compromises and work within the GOP instead, because it's all meaningless if you can't get elected and can't get legislation passed.

Someone needs to get the Paul campaign under control. It worries me that so many conservative libertarians and libertarian Republicans are letting their enthusiasm for the success Paul has had so far override their common sense so that they are ignoring this issue which absolutely will bring the campaign they've been pinning their hopes on to a crashing halt before the first flowers of Spring have bloomed.

You can't show up in a hotel ballroom full of people who look like they graduated high school with Ronald Reagan carrying signs and shouting slogans and not expect them to go all Berkeley-in-69 on your ass and shut you down. They've got their uppers out and they're sucking on rubber chicken and as far as they can tell you're the next generation of the hippy apocalypse come back for vengeance. And admit it, they're right. You got your rage against 'the man' from your parents who were smoking a fatty and wearing sandals up in the Haight until you came along to teach them a new definition of 'generation gap'. I know that being part of 'the revolution' feels like victory, but it makes you arrogant and primes you to go too far and ends in disappointment and defeat.

You're not going to get the Republican nomination while blatantly giving the GOP the finger at the same time. I think Ron Paul probably understands this, but he has almost no control over his followers. They are intoxicated by hope and the dream of a grassroots revolution and show no understanding of the practicalities of winning a party nomination.

When the Paul campaign fails, as it inevitably will on the course it is currently following, the blame will rest squarely on the shoulders of supporters who wanted all the benefits of running within a major political party but were unwilling to make any compromises or even pay basic respect to its traditions and institutions. Self-righteous ideologues make terrible politicians, they don't win elections and they're dragging Ron Paul down with them.


Two Ron Paul acoyltes likely to kill you in your sleep:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EHI2R82RNCc&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EHI2R82RNCc&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eS12mDByj1o&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eS12mDByj1o&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Taco John
12-14-2007, 03:51 PM
We have already seen straw polls and party meetings shut down in a number of states when Paul supporters and outside agitators for Paul attempted to disrupt them.



ROFL

Who knew that participating in the democratic process was the same as disrupting it.

I love these kinds of articles from people who would never support Ron Paul in the first place. It just tells me we're irritating the right kind of people.

banyon
12-14-2007, 03:54 PM
ROFL

Who knew that participating in the democratic process was the same as disrupting it.

I love these kinds of articles from people who would never support Ron Paul in the first place. It just tells me we're irritating the right kind of people.

Thank you for underscoring the author's main point in his analysis.I think it couldn't be more apt.

BIG_DADDY
12-14-2007, 04:01 PM
Thank you for underscoring the author's main point in his analysis.I think it couldn't be more apt.

Oh come on dude, the Dems have Denise. They don't get any further out than that.

banyon
12-14-2007, 04:01 PM
This was a good comment on the article too:
Thank you. I feel the same way. I am very worried about alienating long-time GOP voters when it is still possible to sway them to Paul. Why do you think Huckabee is surging in the polls? Despite what some people want to think, polls actually do matter. They do tap into a massive and loyal electorate. We need this group of voters to win.

You have to win over hearts and minds, true!! But, you also have to be level-headed and realize that people don't like being told that what they think they think is wrong. Understand that they bought into the rhetoric, just like many of us (myself included), and now they have to find a way out. It is essential that it be a smooth transition. The best way is to let them educate themselves at their own pace. That is probably how YOU know so much at Dr Paul. You probably wouldn't appreciate someone aggressively pushing him in your face... so why would you think they'd appreciate it either?

To many faithful GOPers, this is about loyalty; they want to be loyal to the party yet they do want to do the right thing. It's your job as an RP supporter to convince them that he does represent the core values of the party; that he is a Republican to stand up and be proud of. But it also means that you must always be respectful. And more importantly, it takes compromise to get things done-- and that means playing their game.

banyon
12-14-2007, 04:02 PM
Oh come on dude, the Dems have Denise. They don't get any further out than that.

LOL, we don't have her front and center though.

Taco John
12-14-2007, 04:04 PM
Republicans shut down their meetings not becuase Ron Paul supporters are unruly. They shut them down because they *are* Ron Paul supporters, and they are being outnumbered for the candidates that they prefer.

However great this guy's analysis is (it's hardly worthwhile), the only thing that counts is who participates, and in what numbers.

With this Republican party, I'll happily take my chances and refuse to temper my enthusiasm for my candidate. I don't get a chance very often to get excited about a political candidate, so I'm going to ride this opportunity for everything it's worth.

stevieray
12-14-2007, 04:09 PM
ROFL

Who knew that participating in the democratic process was the same as disrupting it.

I love these kinds of articles from people who would never support Ron Paul in the first place. It just tells me we're irritating the right kind of people.



"There is a large element of self-rightousness fanaticism among Paul followers..."

:hmmm:

Adept Havelock
12-14-2007, 04:10 PM
I'm going to ride this opportunity for everything it's worth.

Have fun, and watch that landing. It's a doozy.
.

Taco John
12-14-2007, 04:12 PM
"There is a large element of self-rightousness fanaticism among Paul followers..."

:hmmm:


Said the self righteous fanatic who dresses in a clown suit on Sundays.

Cochise
12-14-2007, 04:15 PM
...if Paul's supporters continue to be perceived as outsiders with very non-Republican beliefs who are essentially attempting to stage a coup within the party.


Well, that's essentially what they are.

recxjake
12-14-2007, 04:16 PM
I've been saying this for months... they have pissed off a lot of people for their lack of maturity.

Taco John
12-14-2007, 04:17 PM
Well, that's essentially what they are.



Almost... We're definitely trying to coup the party, but we're trying to do it with actual Republican beliefs, not what has passed recently as Republican.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 04:20 PM
Well, that's essentially what they are.
Well then they're more Republican than you if that's what you think.
Guess you don't support the Constitution. I always thought a Republican did.
I always thought that the mere mention of the Founding Fathers warmed the hearts of any conservative Republican especially.

banyon
12-14-2007, 04:21 PM
Almost... We're definitely trying to coup the party, but we're trying to do it with actual Republican beliefs, not what has passed recently as Republican.

You can't even get through one post without the self-righteousness and telling people they are wrong, huh? ROFL

banyon
12-14-2007, 04:22 PM
Well then they're more Republican than you if that's what you think.
Guess you don't support the Constitution. I always thought a Republican did.
I always thought that the mere mention of the Founding Fathers warmed the hearts of any conservative Republican especially.

you either. ROFL C'mon, fess up. Is that you in the first video?

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 04:24 PM
I've been saying this for months... they have pissed off a lot of people for their lack of maturity.
Is it all of them? Probably not.
Or is it just the enthusiasm that bothers the old establishment.
I think it's unlikely to be this much more.

One need only look at the maturity of someone like Sean Shammity, Bill O'Reilly or even John Bolton's recent tirade and calls for a witch-hunt for those intel experts who dared disagree with him on Iran. Not to mention Rude-y's outburst in one of the first debates.

Cochise
12-14-2007, 04:25 PM
You can't even get through one post without the self-righteousness and telling people they are wrong, huh? ROFL

The description was apt, I think, it's something of an attempted coup by Libertarians to take over the Republican party. Other kooks and extremists are coming along but in essence you have a Libertarian candidate being propped up by Libertarians who, lacking any sort of an effective political party of their own, are attempting commandeer one.

Problem is, the party base consists of Republicans and not Libertarians which limits his appeal.

Ah and I see BEP came in right on cue again to tell me I'm not black enough. Too bad.

If anything, about a year ago I would have probably identified myself as having some Libertarian leanings, but after hearing more about what this interpretation of it would mean in the white house, I've realized I don't really want any part of it.

go bowe
12-14-2007, 04:32 PM
Said the self righteous fanatic who dresses in a clown suit on Sundays.
hey, what have you got against clowns, anyway?

stevieray
12-14-2007, 04:39 PM
Said the self righteous fanatic who dresses in a clown suit on Sundays.

No, said the author of this article...

Your reply tells me I'm referencing it to the the right person.

Sundays? No, on Tuesday I was at St.Lukes Cancer Ward.

Next week I'm going to Childrens Mercy with three giant bags of stuffed toys...after that we have a Christmas event with BB/BS...you see Isaac, people like you help drive me to take something so simple and make a difference in peoples lives, even if just means a smile... I know it might amaze you, but there are a ton of people out there who dig Elvis....people take pictures for friends or family members...they go out of their way to do something thoughtful for others. I wear the costume more for charity than I do for games....So, in essence, the fact that you always resort to weak ass Elvis smack just motivates me and exposes you for the whiny azz baby you are.

And its showing stronger than ever, you're going to spend the next year laughing and castigating anyone who says anything negative about ron Paul, oblivious of how your mantra is mushrooming into a cartoon, with you being the star...and after he loses, you''ll have your built-in excuse to complain for the next 4/8 years...

I think if you're not careful, you're going to alienate Ron Paul and yourself, with the 24/7 barrage of propaganda...

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 04:41 PM
Almost... We're definitely trying to coup the party, but we're trying to do it with actual Republican beliefs, not what has passed recently as Republican.
Bingo!

It's just like when the conservative movement took over the Rockefeller wing of the party that resulted in the nomination of RR. This is a better way to do it, than a Third Party.

Adept Havelock
12-14-2007, 04:50 PM
Next week I'm going to Childrens Mercy with three giant bags of stuffed toys...after that we have a Christmas event with BB/BS...you see Isaac, people like you help drive me to take something so simple and make a difference in peoples lives, even if just means a smile... I know it might amaze you, but there are a ton of people out there who dig Elvis....people take pictures for friends or family members...they go out of their way to do something thoughtful for others. I wear the costume more for charity than I do for games....So, in essence, the fact that you always resort to weak ass Elvis smack just motivates me and exposes you for the whiny azz baby you are.


Very cool, Stevieray. Playing "Santa" is always a joy, especially in a place like Children's Mercy.

Playing "Santa Elvis" sounds incredibly fun. Make 'em smile, buddy.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 07:09 PM
You can't even get through one post without the self-righteousness and telling people they are wrong, huh? ROFL

Well the truth hurts, especially in your case.

banyon
12-14-2007, 07:12 PM
Well the truth hurts, especially in your case.

I see you have nothing substantive to add either. Thanks for proving my point though.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 07:13 PM
I see you have nothing substantive to add either. Thanks for proving my point though.

You should be happy with the current BIG GOVERNMENT regime, are you?

banyon
12-14-2007, 07:19 PM
You should be happy with the current BIG GOVERNMENT regime, are you?

I'm not big government, although my disdain for total anarchy causes BEP and Taco to say that.

Progressives don't trust government (how I describe myself), but that doesn't really fit neatly into the pre-defined categories that the aggressive Paul people want to box people into.

Again, if you're slightly right of them = "neocon"

If you're left = "socialist".

I assume you're just going to play the 'battle of the labels" game as well and you don't really have any interest in substantive discussion though. (thanks Amniorix for an accurate way to describe this lunacy).

Chocolate Hog
12-14-2007, 07:45 PM
This section is better than posting smear blogs really.

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 08:38 PM
Excellent article, banyon. :thumb:

This Nalle fellow absolute is dead-on 100% accurate in this assesment.

If I were working full-time in the poli sci field, I would have penned a nearly identical article 3-4 weeks ago.

"There is a large element of self-rightousness fanaticism among Paul followers..."

:hmmm:

"Whoomp, there it is...." PBJ

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 08:45 PM
Bingo!

It's just like when the conservative movement took over the Rockefeller wing of the party that resulted in the nomination of RR. This is a better way to do it, than a Third Party.

You are conflating Rockefeller Republicanism with 20th Century Republican pragmatism (ranging from Eisenhower and Nixon, to Reagan, to Bush I...and especially Bush II--even if it is excessive, yes) that has, begrudgingly, accepted the American people's insistence on a limited though dangerously increasing welfare/nanny state and a mixed economy....you remember that word, "pragmatism" from an earlier discussion this week, yes?

FTR, I don't like it either; but it is, what it is. 18th Century Conservatism is dead and buried. If it is to be reborn at all, which I doubt....it would only be incrementally, within the system. Paul's supporters, including you, Tacopenchief, and the others here....do not seem to have a grasp of that fact.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 09:05 PM
Said the self righteous fanatic who dresses in a clown suit on Sundays.

I'll take First Down Elvis as the face of our fanbase any day over a fat, naked guy in a barrel (RIP).

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 09:19 PM
I'll take First Down Elvis as the face of our fanbase any day over a fat, naked guy in a barrel (RIP).

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Dallas Chief
12-14-2007, 09:28 PM
No, said the author of this article...

Your reply tells me I'm referencing it to the the right person.

Sundays? No, on Tuesday I was at St.Lukes Cancer Ward.

Next week I'm going to Childrens Mercy with three giant bags of stuffed toys...after that we have a Christmas event with BB/BS...you see Isaac, people like you help drive me to take something so simple and make a difference in peoples lives, even if just means a smile... I know it might amaze you, but there are a ton of people out there who dig Elvis....people take pictures for friends or family members...they go out of their way to do something thoughtful for others. I wear the costume more for charity than I do for games....So, in essence, the fact that you always resort to weak ass Elvis smack just motivates me and exposes you for the whiny azz baby you are.

And its showing stronger than ever, you're going to spend the next year laughing and castigating anyone who says anything negative about ron Paul, oblivious of how your mantra is mushrooming into a cartoon, with you being the star...and after he loses, you''ll have your built-in excuse to complain for the next 4/8 years...

I think if you're not careful, you're going to alienate Ron Paul and yourself, with the 24/7 barrage of propaganda...

KAPOW!!!! Take that pinche cavrone!!!

Keep up the good work Stevie... :thumb:

Dallas Chief
12-14-2007, 09:30 PM
Said the self righteous fanatic who dresses in a clown suit on Sundays.
Dude. Shame on you. :shake: nlm

Otter
12-14-2007, 09:46 PM
I'm sure if one were to dig a little there are supporters of any candidate that fall into the "thanks but no thanks" category. Ron Paul is probably more vulnerable to this than others because of the "revolution" in his campaign slogan.

In our defense, I've met many from the northeast and not one of them falls into that category so I'm willing to bet they are the exception more than the norm.

There's really not much more dirt to dig up with this guy than garbage like this though. Ron Paul has been more honest, steadfast and headstrong than any presidential candidate in my lifetime.

Go ahead, try to find some dirt on him, I dare you.

Dallas Chief
12-14-2007, 09:55 PM
I'm sure if one were to dig a little there are supporters of any candidate that fall into the "thanks but no thanks" category. Ron Paul is probably more vulnerable to this than others because of the "revolution" in his campaign slogan.

In our defense, I've met many from the northeast and not one of them falls into that category so I'm willing to bet they are the exception more than the norm.

There's really not much more dirt to dig up with this guy than garbage like this though. Ron Paul has been more honest, steadfast and headstrong than any presidential candidate in my lifetime.

Go ahead, try to find some dirt on him, I dare you.
Seriously Otter, that is the most level headed thing I've heard any supporters of Ron Paul say on this board. At least you have a reason to support him- reminding you of your grandfather and all. Helluva a role model I'd venture to guess. It's something I can relate to- even if I do disagree with you when it comes to who is the best candidate.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 10:20 PM
You are conflating Rockefeller Republicanism with 20th Century Republican pragmatism (ranging from Eisenhower and Nixon, to Reagan, to Bush I...and especially Bush II--even if it is excessive, yes) that has, begrudgingly, accepted the American people's insistence on a limited though dangerously increasing welfare/nanny state and a mixed economy....you remember that word, "pragmatism" from an earlier discussion this week, yes?

FTR, I don't like it either; but it is, what it is. 18th Century Conservatism is dead and buried. If it is to be reborn at all, which I doubt....it would only be incrementally, within the system. Paul's supporters, including you, Tacopenchief, and the others here....do not seem to have a grasp of that fact.
We know it's dead...that's why conservatives like me are for Paul. Reagan was considered an extremist by many too. I coulda sworn you agreed in another thread that this message sells.

As for it incrementally changing, that's what even Paul admits to...but just to get that incremental change means you can't put in someone who is too close to the current system because big govt just keeps growing. They have to be somewhat radical first, or at least have integrity on the message....then it plays out incrementally as the opposition tries to stop it. Kinda like a reverse dialetical materialism.

As for 18th century conservatism, it wasn't conservativism back then...it was classical liberalism. And even that allows some things to change, but in a way that the original center should hold. Original center being a balance of group versus individual rights and a check on to much govt power because human nature doesn't change.

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 10:24 PM
We know it's dead...that's why conservatives like me are for Paul. Reagan was considered an extremist by many too. I coulda sworn you agreed in another thread that this message sells.

As for it incrementally changing, that's what even Paul admits to...but just to get that incremental change means you can't put in someone who is too close to the current system because big govt just keeps growing. They have to be somewhat radical first, or at least have integrity on the message....then it plays out incrementally as the opposition tries to stop it.

The message sells, but you have to soften the rhetoric.

The problem with Paul (and especially his supporters) is he makes Fred look like RR....which is saying a lot. :)

chagrin
12-14-2007, 10:31 PM
Oh my god, that is creepy; and if any of you goofs defended these people in the you tube clips by saying something like "oh, they're just 2 freaks out of 100,000 good Ron Paul Supporters" (and I know I am not far off on that 100,000 number) then remember that everytime a right winger says "you judge all right wingers too harshly" and you say "wrong, you're all feeding the beast, you neo-con pragmatist" (all the while being a pragmatist yourself, by the way) that you're just, well, wrong - probably about everything; but it's okay, Republicans will always be here waiting for you to wake up; and by the time you're 50 (that means you buceyed pea) you will see the light and realize Ron Paul is nothing more than a snake oil salesman, taking advantage of your fringe mentality.
In the old days, we'd call you "cult material" but "Ron Paul Supporter" sounds much more appealing.
Happy Holidays all!

Logical
12-14-2007, 10:37 PM
Said the self righteous fanatic who dresses in a clown suit on Sundays.


I understand your point TJ but stevieray is an original with original concepts much like the characteristics that make Ron Paul so appealing.

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 11:28 PM
I understand your point TJ but stevieray is an original with original concepts much like the characteristics that make Ron Paul so appealing.

Is this a "kinder and gentler" Logical??? :spock:


WTH are you up to? :hmmm:

Otter
12-15-2007, 12:32 AM
Seriously Otter, that is the most level headed thing I've heard any supporters of Ron Paul say on this board. At least you have a reason to support him- reminding you of your grandfather and all. Helluva a role model I'd venture to guess. It's something I can relate to- even if I do disagree with you when it comes to who is the best candidate.

I took out the "he reminds of my grandfather" quote because I suspected it would be used against me as an illogical bias.

Thanks for reading it and not using it against me, it's appreciated.

For the record, I don't agree 100% on all of Ron Pauls views, especially his economic ones but that's why congress has a role in this government.

If I outlive my parents I'm seriously looking into Canada, New Zealand and Brazil as my new home when the time comes. Things are not good and we need a shake up.

patteeu
12-15-2007, 08:25 AM
You are conflating Rockefeller Republicanism with 20th Century Republican pragmatism (ranging from Eisenhower and Nixon, to Reagan, to Bush I...and especially Bush II--even if it is excessive, yes) that has, begrudgingly, accepted the American people's insistence on a limited though dangerously increasing welfare/nanny state and a mixed economy....you remember that word, "pragmatism" from an earlier discussion this week, yes?

This is an outstanding point that gets to the heart of one of BucEyedPea's persistent points of confusion. I've tried to tell her this before, but to her anyone who isn't ideologically pure enough is a Rockefeller Republican (which she further conflates, erroneously, with Neoconservative).

KILLER_CLOWN
12-15-2007, 08:40 AM
I personally see the attackers of Ron Paul as morons not willing to accept the truth. Peeps like Patteeu who think more secrecy in government is the answer, socialism is good. Well if you feel that way you should head to Venezuela.

Cochise
12-15-2007, 08:46 AM
I personally see the attackers of Ron Paul as morons not willing to accept the truth.

Exhibit A

Iowanian
12-15-2007, 09:23 AM
He's right.

the Paultards act like 12 year old girls at a Hannah Montana concert.

EEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

"If you don't like Hannah and think she's the Uber-Singer, you're a Nazi!!!!"

Vocal Ron Paul supporters are MUCH more difficult for me to agree with than the guys message itself.

I've said before, I like a lot of his ideas, but its very difficult for me to see how I can possibly consider myself in agreement with nutjob, 9-11 truthers and the other fan-bois.


The loudest, and most obnoxious person is noticed, but it doesn't make them Right. That, is where so many of the RuPaul fanbois are confused.

BucEyedPea
12-15-2007, 10:20 AM
This is an outstanding point that gets to the heart of one of BucEyedPea's persistent points of confusion. I've tried to tell her this before, but to her anyone who isn't ideologically pure enough is a Rockefeller Republican (which she further conflates, erroneously, with Neoconservative).
Well, now you're changing the clarification on this I gave earlier which you accepted. This is your standard operating basis of changing my words around to create your own presentation of my pov which is not my exact pov. You can't duplicate. You are now arguing for the sake of argument. I do NOT conflate all Rockefeller Republicans as NeoCons. This is a misrepresentation. RRs are just big govt conservatives, or RINOs, as are the NCs, is all. Or must I spend time looking for this earlier clarification, which you accepted.

Adept Havelock
12-15-2007, 10:48 AM
I personally see the attackers of Ron Paul as morons not willing to accept the truth. Peeps like Patteeu who think more secrecy in government is the answer, socialism is good. Well if you feel that way you should head to Venezuela.


Yeah. Calling people morons. Insulting their intelligence. Presuming they aren't bright enough to decide which candidate they want to support.

That's a great way to convince people to support your candidate. Look at all the times it's worked before. That's why you see every campaign adopting that tactic.

I dare say you are doing Mr. Paul as much good as recxjake is for Mr. Rudillary. Keep it up. :thumb: LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
12-15-2007, 10:56 AM
Yeah. Calling people morons. Insulting their intelligence. Presuming they aren't bright enough to decide which candidate they want to support.

That's a great way to convince people to support your candidate. Look at all the times it's worked before.

I dare say you are doing Mr. Paul as much good as recxjake is for Mr. Rudillary. LMAO

Your completely lost.

Adept Havelock
12-15-2007, 10:58 AM
Your completely lost.

What part of my point about insulting people being a poor way to convince them to support your candidate is erroneous? LMAO

Oh, and BTW-



It's "You're", you f*cking moron.

;)

KILLER_CLOWN
12-15-2007, 11:03 AM
To paraphrase Donger:

It's "You're", you f*cking moron. ;)

What part of my point about insulting people not being a good way to convince them to support your candidate is erroneous? LMAO


Sorry you were lumped in with the Ron Paul Hatred. So you love Ron Paul?

Adept Havelock
12-15-2007, 11:08 AM
Sorry you were lumped in with the Ron Paul Hatred. So you love Ron Paul?

I like parts of his platform, to be certain. Other parts of his platform, not so much to not at all.

My vote for President and the congresscritters will likely come down to what it usually does, which candidates will most likely lead to a government divided between the two parties. As I know my ideal will never come to pass in this country (essentially, a rational anarchy), I'll continue to vote for gridlock as it tends to keep the govt. from screwing with the average citizen too much. In the primaries, I've got the advantage of open primaries, so I can cast a vote against the candidates that concern me the most (right now, Hillary or Rudillary, though <s>Nehemiah Scudder</s> Huckabee is becoming a cause for concern).

And frankly, I could give a flying f**k if you lump me in with "Ron Paul Hatred" or not. Whatever label you choose to slap on me isn't in the least relevant to my life or happiness. Thanks anyway.

Cochise
12-15-2007, 11:11 AM
Man, I hated Ron Paul before, but since I've been inundated with Clown's cold hard logic and persuasive argument these past few weeks, I don't know how I can vote for anyone else. I mean, who could disagree with all the well-reasoned arguments he's been gracing us with? Truly one of the great thinkers of our time.

patteeu
12-15-2007, 11:13 AM
Well, now you're changing the clarification on this I gave earlier which you accepted. This is your standard operating basis of changing my words around to create your own presentation of my pov which is not my exact pov. You can't duplicate. You are now arguing for the sake of argument. I do NOT conflate all Rockefeller Republicans as NeoCons. This is a misrepresentation. RRs are just big govt conservatives, or RINOs, as are the NCs, is all. Or must I spend time looking for this earlier clarification, which you accepted.

Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. You're all over the place when it comes to this labeling thing you do, which is really more like name calling than accurate labeling, IMO.

If you're willing to consistently stick with the position that Rockefeller Republicans are not the same as Neoconservatives and that there is no more relationship between the two than there is between Rockefeller Republicans and Social Conservatives then I'll stand corrected.

Baby Lee
12-15-2007, 11:14 AM
Sorry you were lumped in with the Ron Paul Hatred. So you love Ron Paul?
See, according to KC, you have to either hate RP or love RP. You either 'get it' or are an utter moron.

It's delving precipitously close to the 'you're either a Dem or you hate women and poor people' crap of the past that turned me off national dem candidates.

Iowanian
12-15-2007, 11:16 AM
Well Cochise....he DOES have a blimp rented with his name on it.

How can you argue with THAT?

Adept Havelock
12-15-2007, 11:17 AM
See, according to KC, you have to either hate RP or love RP. You either 'get it' or are an utter moron.

It's delving precipitously close to the 'you're either a Dem or you hate women and poor people' crap of the past that turned me off national dem candidates.


Precisely. "Am I wit KC or agin' him". :rolleyes:

He probably wants us to eat dogfood too. Good point.

Iowanian
12-15-2007, 11:19 AM
RonPaul fanbois act ALOT like Bronco fans.

They just make it THAT much easier to really dislike the donkeys.

Cochise
12-15-2007, 11:19 AM
Well Cochise....he DOES have a blimp rented with his name on it.

How can you argue with THAT?

Well, so did Paul von Hindenburg

Adept Havelock
12-15-2007, 11:22 AM
Well, so did Paul von Hindenburg

Oh, the humanity!

BucEyedPea
12-15-2007, 11:28 AM
Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. You're all over the place when it comes to this labeling thing you do, which is really more like name calling than accurate labeling, IMO.
Says the labeler who uses racism, anti-semitism, surrenderists etc.

If you're willing to consistently stick with the position that Rockefeller Republicans are not the same as Neoconservatives and that there is no more relationship between the two than there is between Rockefeller Republicans and Social Conservatives then I'll stand corrected.
Why should I have to reiterate a point over and over if it was handled once before. You create extra work for me.

You're just creating Straw Men all over the place...or dubbing in your own interpretation in order color my pov to suit your own antagonism. You're
incapable of duplicating and/or accurately paraphrasing or you just don't want to because you just twisted my position again.

Cochise
12-15-2007, 11:32 AM
See, according to KC, you have to either hate RP or love RP. You either 'get it' or are an utter moron.

It's delving precipitously close to the 'you're either a Dem or you hate women and poor people' crap of the past that turned me off national dem candidates.

Basically we have devolved to "Why do you hate America?" again.

patteeu
12-15-2007, 11:45 AM
Says the labeler who uses racism, anti-semitism, surrenderists etc.

LMAO

Why should I have to reiterate a point over and over if it was handled once before. You create extra work for me.

You're just creating Straw Men all over the place...or dubbing in your own interpretation in order color my pov to suit your own antagonism. You're
incapable of duplicating and/or accurately paraphrasing or you just don't want to because you just twisted my position again.

I'm not asking you to reiterate anything. I'm asking you to remain consistent (and not consistently wrong either). Your description of how Rockefeller Republicanism and Neoconservatism may or may not be related has been all over the map. If the instance in which you admitted they weren't the same is your "final answer" then I have no more problem with you on this point. But can you at least agree, once and for all, that the following quote is accurate:

... Rockefeller Republicans are not the same as Neoconservatives and ... there is no more relationship between the two than there is between Rockefeller Republicans and Social Conservatives....

banyon
12-15-2007, 11:52 AM
patteeu, you are losing the battle of the labels, but stay strong!

alanm
12-15-2007, 12:50 PM
I've just a hypothetical question: Doesn't a candidate have to be actually considered to have a shot in a election before his whacked out followers could conceivably cost him said election? :shrug:

BucEyedPea
12-15-2007, 01:24 PM
Well Ronald Reagan's nomination was considered an upset...or not supposed to happen.

I mean really are we supposed to ALWAYS settle for what punditry and the vested interests choose for us as electible? They said Hillary and Rudy were but that may not even pan out. So a grassroots bottoms up movement should never be allowed in the freest country in the world?

patteeu
12-15-2007, 02:10 PM
Well Ronald Reagan's nomination was considered an upset...or not supposed to happen.

I mean really are we supposed to ALWAYS settle for what punditry and the vested interests choose for us as electible? They said Hillary and Rudy were but that may not even pan out. So a grassroots bottoms up movement should never be allowed in the freest country in the world?

I've corrected you on this point before too. :shake:

You sure keep me busy with your persistent embrace of that alternative reality you live in. Ronald Reagan was the favorite to win the nomination going into the 1980 campaign.

Here is what Michael Barone (http://www.reagansrevolution.com/contents/words/) says about it:

"Ronald Reagan's 1976 campaign for president was written off by the political press as a losing effort by a political has-been. Craig Shirley, political consultant extraordinaire, shows just how wrong this was. Reagan's almost-successful insurgent campaign made him the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 1980, and was essential to his achievements as president -- restoration of confidence in America and its economy and victory in the Cold War. Craig Shirley's account is a ripping good story."
Michael Barone, Senior Writer, U.S. News & World Report
Co-author, The Almanac of American Politics, Author, Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan

From the Encyclopedia Americana (http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00):

With the defeat of President Ford by Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan began his campaign for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination. He established a political action committee that collected and contributed more than $600,000 to Republican candidates at all levels during the 1978 off-year elections. Reagan's efforts served to create a national network of loyal partisans, a group he used as a base for his 1980 campaign. His campaign director, John Sears, acted under the assumption that Reagan was the obvious front-runner. He therefore devised a strategy to keep his candidate above the fray and to move him closer to the center of the ideological spectrum. In line with this strategy, Reagan declined to participate in the debates among the major Republican candidates just prior to the Iowa caucuses. This resulted in his being declared the loser by the national press. He lost the Iowa caucus vote to former Ambassador George Bush, thus setting in motion a series of upheavals in his campaign organization. Reagan then embarked on a campaign tour of New England, appeared in two debates, and won the New Hampshire primary.

On the day of his New Hampshire victory, Reagan fired Sears and other top campaign aides. With the departure of Sears, Reagan brought in an old friend, William J. Casey, a New York lawyer and former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, to take over the campaign. Casey and Edwin Meese III, another old friend, rebuilt the campaign organization, redesigned the fund-raising apparatus, and encouraged the candidate to pursue a more vigorous campaign. During the ensuing weeks Reagan won all of the primaries but four. In the states that used the caucus system to choose delegates, he was even more impressive, winning 400 of the 478 delegates. Reagan ultimately reduced the field of candidates to one other—George Bush—having defeated and forced all others out of the competition. Although Bush won the Pennsylvania primary in April and the Michigan primary in May, Reagan had locked up the delegates needed for nomination. Reagan was nominated at the Republican National Convention in Detroit by a vote of 1,939 to 55.

BucEyedPea
12-15-2007, 02:39 PM
Well you're wrong. He was considered too extreme by the GOP establishment who favored Bush. I know someone active in the GOP from that time who said it wasn't supposed to happen.

This provides some insight on it.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TTX27pmZGLk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TTX27pmZGLk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
12-15-2007, 02:43 PM
And wasn't it Gephardt who was favored over Kerry, by his party, who was at what 4% in December before the primary of 2004? IIRC, that was the case.

Taco John
12-15-2007, 02:58 PM
Well you're wrong. He was considered too extreme by the GOP establishment who favored Bush. I know someone active in the GOP from that time who said it wasn't supposed to happen.

This provides some insight on it.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TTX27pmZGLk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TTX27pmZGLk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



Look at all thos rabble rousers! They should have cancelled that event in the name of security.

patteeu
12-15-2007, 03:07 PM
Well you're wrong. He was considered too extreme by the GOP establishment who favored Bush. I know someone active in the GOP from that time who said it wasn't supposed to happen.

Yeah, I know about "your sources". :rolleyes:

I challenge you to find something on the internet that says that George Bush (or anyone else) was the front-runner in 1980 at any time other than the short period between Bush's victory in Iowa and Reagan's victory in NH (although I doubt you could find anything during that time period either).

Sounds to me like you've been hanging out with some Rockefeller Republicans. I have no doubt that there was a faction within the Republican party who thought Reagan was unelectable and would have preferred a more establishment-friendly candidate to win the nomination, but it's a fact that Reagan was the odds-on favorite to win it. He certainly wasn't anything like the kind of distant underdog that your current candidate is.

StillHonest
12-15-2007, 03:29 PM
His followers wont cost him the election. The lck of followers cost people elections.

These simple concepts will be more clear post election to the kooks and loonies who follow guys like paul.

Iowanian
12-15-2007, 03:44 PM
Interesting.

bukakeyeddenise always "knows someone" close to EVERY situation.


Crikey, She's connected.

BucEyedPea
12-15-2007, 03:58 PM
Look at all thos rabble rousers! They should have cancelled that event in the name of security.
No doubt...under the banner of the War on Terror! ROFL

BucEyedPea
12-15-2007, 04:04 PM
His followers wont cost him the election. The lck of followers cost people elections.

These simple concepts will be more clear post election to the kooks and loonies who follow guys like paul.
You seem like a biposter who's afraid to insult under their real name. :hmmm:

Taco John
12-15-2007, 04:34 PM
I challenge you to find something on the internet that says that George Bush (or anyone else) was the front-runner in 1980 at any time other than the short period between Bush's victory in Iowa and Reagan's victory in NH (although I doubt you could find anything during that time period either).



Bush Is Buoyed by Iowa Straw Poll; Pleased by Results of Poll
By DOUGLAS E. KNEELAND Special to The New York Times

May 24, 1979, Thursday

CHICAGO, May 23--George Bush, an announced candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, arrived here today for a speaking engagement considerably buoyed by a straw poll taken at an Iowa statewide Republican dinner that showed him with a substantial lead over a field of hopefuls that included Ronald Reagan, the former California Governor.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1071FF63F5D12728DDDAD0A94DD405B898BF1D3

StcChief
12-15-2007, 04:35 PM
Nice special on PBS last nite on Ron Paul and his grass roots bunch.... I don't see him swaying the Rep party as someone to win POTUS position.

better for all if he Doesn't run as an independent....then

patteeu
12-15-2007, 04:46 PM
Bush Is Buoyed by Iowa Straw Poll; Pleased by Results of Poll
By DOUGLAS E. KNEELAND Special to The New York Times

May 24, 1979, Thursday

CHICAGO, May 23--George Bush, an announced candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, arrived here today for a speaking engagement considerably buoyed by a straw poll taken at an Iowa statewide Republican dinner that showed him with a substantial lead over a field of hopefuls that included Ronald Reagan, the former California Governor.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1071FF63F5D12728DDDAD0A94DD405B898BF1D3

Now how about you address the issue being discussed and answer the actual challenge I made to BEP? This isn't about whether George Bush ever had any good news during the campaign. It isn't about whether George Bush won any votes or straw polls along the way. It's not about whether he was "bouyed". It's about who was the favorite to win the nomination.

"Considerably bouyed" about a straw poll in one state nearly eight months before the first vote is cast in the race isn't even close to "frontrunner to win the nomination". It's cute how you Ronaholics stick together even on nonsensical propositions like this though.

go bowe
12-15-2007, 05:42 PM
No, said the author of this article...

Your reply tells me I'm referencing it to the the right person.

Sundays? No, on Tuesday I was at St.Lukes Cancer Ward.

Next week I'm going to Childrens Mercy with three giant bags of stuffed toys...after that we have a Christmas event with BB/BS...you see Isaac, people like you help drive me to take something so simple and make a difference in peoples lives, even if just means a smile... I know it might amaze you, but there are a ton of people out there who dig Elvis....people take pictures for friends or family members...they go out of their way to do something thoughtful for others. I wear the costume more for charity than I do for games....So, in essence, the fact that you always resort to weak ass Elvis smack just motivates me and exposes you for the whiny azz baby you are.

And its showing stronger than ever, you're going to spend the next year laughing and castigating anyone who says anything negative about ron Paul, oblivious of how your mantra is mushrooming into a cartoon, with you being the star...and after he loses, you''ll have your built-in excuse to complain for the next 4/8 years...

I think if you're not careful, you're going to alienate Ron Paul and yourself, with the 24/7 barrage of propaganda...great post...

even though i like ron paul, a lot, he has no serious chance of getting the repub nomination...

wrt the elvis thing, i like it a lot...

and so do the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who elvis has reached as a goodwill ambassador from the fans...

i say keep up the good work and piss on people who try to turn it into some negative thing...

btw, if taco is too tall for you to piss on, i bet i could get about a dozen volunteers to hold him on the floor while you piss on him...

if that doesn't work, i'll find an empty swimming pool and then we can stand on the side of the pool to piss on him...

jeeze, that felt really good to say piss so many times in one post, especially when referring to taco... :fire:

btw, this is nearly the longest post i have ever seen from you... :Poke:

go bowe
12-15-2007, 05:50 PM
* * *
...the others here....do not seem to have a grasp of that fact.ok people, let's not get too carried away grasping at facts...

OR

grasping at straws again?

OR

just grasp...

hmmmm. sounds kinky... :D :D :D

go bowe
12-15-2007, 06:04 PM
I personally see the attackers of Ron Paul as morons not willing to accept the truth. Peeps like Patteeu who think more secrecy in government is the answer, socialism is good. Well if you feel that way you should head to Venezuela.patteeu = socialist ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

LMAO LMAO LMAO

what does that make me?

lenin? stalin? fdr?

actually, i'd prefer being someone who is still alive...

BucEyedPea
12-15-2007, 06:17 PM
Bush Is Buoyed by Iowa Straw Poll; Pleased by Results of Poll
By DOUGLAS E. KNEELAND Special to The New York Times

May 24, 1979, Thursday

CHICAGO, May 23--George Bush, an announced candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, arrived here today for a speaking engagement considerably buoyed by a straw poll taken at an Iowa statewide Republican dinner that showed him with a substantial lead over a field of hopefuls that included Ronald Reagan, the former California Governor.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1071FF63F5D12728DDDAD0A94DD405B898BF1D3
Nice find.

Who does this remind you of?

"Programs like education and others should be turned back to the states and local communities with the tax sources to fund them. I believe in states’ rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can at the community level and the private level" (emphasis added). Reagan also stated, "I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment." He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them."--RR

And who does this remind you of?

"Critics suggest that this speech about states rights at the location of the Mississippi civil rights worker murders was a deliberate signal to show "support for white racists"[7][8] who opposed the federal Civil Rights Act. ROFL


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980

Adept Havelock
12-15-2007, 06:18 PM
what does that make me?

lenin? stalin? fdr?


LMAO

Trotsky, I think. Beware of strangers bearing Ice-Axes.

BucEyedPea
12-15-2007, 06:24 PM
:hmmm:


In 1979, Huckabee says, Ronald Reagan was in fourth place in polls. "He was flat broke. They were living three to a hotel room, eating peanut butter, and nobody thought he had a chance. He had upset the Republican establishment. He certainly wasn't their candidate, and it looked like that he wasn't going anywhere. Now people talk about, 'Oh, the inevitable Ronald Reagan' — but that's not what was going on back at this particular point in time."


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3894906

BucEyedPea
12-15-2007, 06:51 PM
March 1980 -- "...Gerald Ford had described Ronald Reagan as 'unelectable'".

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924192-1,00.html

banyon
12-15-2007, 06:56 PM
Obama and Edwards have described Hillary as unelectable. That doesn't make them frontrunners either.

There's plenty of these to grab for everybody though:

http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50313919/Artistical_Straw.jpg

Mr. Kotter
12-15-2007, 08:10 PM
:hmmm:


In 1979, Huckabee says, Ronald Reagan was in fourth place in polls. "He was flat broke. They were living three to a hotel room, eating peanut butter, and nobody thought he had a chance. He had upset the Republican establishment. He certainly wasn't their candidate, and it looked like that he wasn't going anywhere. Now people talk about, 'Oh, the inevitable Ronald Reagan' — but that's not what was going on back at this particular point in time."


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3894906

Huckabee is a modern day version of the Dem's....Gary Hart, IMHO.

I've been wrong about things like this before; just not too often. :hmmm:

Cochise
12-15-2007, 08:42 PM
Huckabee is a modern day version of the Dem's....Gary Hart, IMHO.


Minus the yacht and the coed, I hope.

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 07:23 AM
Huckabee is a modern day version of the Dem's....Gary Hart, IMHO.

I've been wrong about things like this before; just not too often. :hmmm:
I didn't put that up to back up Huckabee, by any means. I put it up for reference to the point pat was arguing with me about: that RR's nomination was not supposed to happen per many at that time.

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 07:24 AM
Minus the yacht and the coed, I hope.
He has an ark with animal coeds. :p

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 07:33 AM
Pat, this is about whether RR had any good news during the campaign, per your original challenge to me. You're moving the goal posts. My original claim was that RR's nomination was not supposed to happen, that he was a longshot at one point. Bush was favored by the GOP establishment. Per the video, with Gergen, that was the case but a coalition continued to build. Taco's article shows that Bush did take an early lead.

Time to say " Uncle."

patteeu
12-16-2007, 07:50 AM
:hmmm:


In 1979, Huckabee says, Ronald Reagan was in fourth place in polls. "He was flat broke. They were living three to a hotel room, eating peanut butter, and nobody thought he had a chance. He had upset the Republican establishment. He certainly wasn't their candidate, and it looked like that he wasn't going anywhere. Now people talk about, 'Oh, the inevitable Ronald Reagan' — but that's not what was going on back at this particular point in time."


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3894906


Let's assume that Huckabee is right about what he's saying here. This statement was made sometime before November 21 (the date of the ABC article). Ronald Reagan didn't enter the 1980 race until November 13, 1979. That means Huckabee is talking about a point in the race no more than 1 week after Reagan had entered the race. Whatever poll he's talking about was likely taken before Reagan entered the race.

And that's leaving aside the fact that this characterization is coming from a less than unbiased source who has had a questionable relationship with the truth recently (e.g. his accounts of his role in Dumond parole). If I have to put my money on one or the other, I think Michael Barone's account is the safer bet. But I give you credit for finding a fig leaf for your revisionist history.

patteeu
12-16-2007, 07:53 AM
Pat, this is about whether RR had any good news during the campaign, per your original challenge to me. You're moving the goal posts. My original claim was that RR's nomination was not supposed to happen, that he was a longshot at one point. Bush was favored by the GOP establishment. Per the video, with Gergen, that was the case but a coalition continued to build. Taco's article shows that Bush did take an early lead.

Time to say " Uncle."

Ronald Reagan was never a longshot in that campaign. That he wasn't the favorite of the establishment is irrelevant and, as I've already pointed out, so is Taco's post/article.

Baby Lee
12-16-2007, 07:54 AM
He has an ark with animal coeds. :p
Yeah, and given his views on evolution, I doubt if he'd name the ark 'Monkey Business.'

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 02:20 PM
Ronald Reagan was never a longshot in that campaign. That he wasn't the favorite of the establishment is irrelevant and, as I've already pointed out, so is Taco's post/article.
My original post said “It [Reagan]was not suppose to happen.”
Now.... What does that mean?
First and foremost it is the party insiders who offer us our choices by putting them on parade for us to decide amongst the chosen or annointed. So this is not irrelevant. In fact it is VERY relevant.

If you’re looking for a grassroots “Joe Nobody “ to be quoted from a major news article for proof, I doubt that could be found. Would have to rely on a poll for that. But party endorsements, including major media, influence how the people vote. This is what is meant by “it was not supposed to happen.”

Here’s an article on on the process and how they interplay:

We regard this as a major finding. We saw earlier that pre-Iowa polls and endorsements overwhelmingly determined the outcome of the primaries, with each having roughly equal impact. Now we see that these polls and endorsements are formed in a process in which opinion polls respond to party insiders much more than party insiders respond to polls. Together, these findings imply that party insiders mainly drive the dynamics of presidential nominations.
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/summer_politics_cohen.aspx

FTR, I got this from someone in their 60’s who originally told me that this was “not suppose to happen.” He was very active in conservative politics, a Reagan supporter who was there at the time.

As for Huckabee being a biased source, that was on some wrongdoing he was
involved in. That’s not equivalent to what we’re discussing. Huck’s covering his own butt. Sorry there doesn’t seem to be as much motive to lie about the latter.

It’s time for you to say:

patteeu
12-19-2007, 03:21 PM
My original post said “It [Reagan]was not suppose to happen.”
Now.... What does that mean?
First and foremost it is the party insiders who offer us our choices by putting them on parade for us to decide amongst the chosen or annointed. So this is not irrelevant. In fact it is VERY relevant.

If you're telling me that you misunderstood alanm in post #64 and that all you've been saying all along is that some big wigs in the Republican establishment didn't want Reagan and were "upset" when he won the nomination, I don't really believe you, but I don't disagree with that position. Reagan was not an establishment candidate.

OTOH, if, as I believe, you originally were trying to claim that Ronald Reagan was some kind of dark horse candidate and that his nomination was an "upset" in the sense that political observers of the day would not have thought it likely, I'm telling you that your full of :BS:

You want to pretend that Ron Paul is in a position similar to that of Reagan in terms of the chances of winning the nomination but that just is not the case. Reagan had nearly knocked off the incumbent, Gerald Ford, in the 1976 primary and he was a front runner from the beginning of his campaign in 1980. Who knows what Mike Huckabee is talking about in that quote? Maybe he was talking about poll numbers from Iowa after 9 other candidates had been shaking hands across the state and Reagan was just announcing his candidacy, but I doubt that Reagan was polling fourth nationally even one week after his announcement.

Your personal contacts mean nothing to me nor does the fig leaf quote you found from Huckabee since we don't even know what he's talking about. What I was looking for was some polling results that show that Reagan was really a longshot or a quote from a respected political observer like Jack Germond or David Broder or Evans & Novak, or Michael Barone who could back up your claim that Reagan's nomination was a longshot. You won't find these things because Reagan was at least as much of a front runner in the 1980 race as Rudy Giuliani has been in this one.

As for Huckabee being a biased source, that was on some wrongdoing he was
involved in. That’s not equivalent to what we’re discussing. Huck’s covering his own butt. Sorry there doesn’t seem to be as much motive to lie about the latter.

I don't necessarily think that Huckabee was making the story up, I just think he was shading the truth to his best advantage. Every candidate has a motive to do this. Huckabee didn't tell us what kind of poll Reagan was running 4th in. He also didn't bother to mention whether Reagan had even declared his candidacy at the time of the poll in question. And his statement that nobody thought Reagan had a chance is a throwaway statement that can't possibly be true but is too inconsequential to be considered an outrageous lie.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 03:26 PM
If you're telling me that you misunderstood alanm in post #64 and that all you've been saying all along is that some big wigs in the Republican establishment didn't want Reagan and were "upset" when he won the nomination, I don't really believe you, but I don't disagree with that position. Reagan was not an establishment candidate.

OTOH, if, as I believe, you originally were trying to claim that Ronald Reagan was some kind of dark horse candidate and that his nomination was an "upset" in the sense that political observers of the day would not have thought it likely, I'm telling you that your full of :BS:

You want to pretend that Ron Paul is in a position similar to that of Reagan in terms of the chances of winning the nomination but that just is not the case. Reagan had nearly knocked off the incumbent, Gerald Ford, in the 1976 primary and he was a front runner from the beginning of his campaign in 1980. Who knows what Mike Huckabee is talking about in that quote? Maybe he was talking about poll numbers from Iowa after 9 other candidates had been shaking hands across the state and Reagan was just announcing his candidacy, but I doubt that Reagan was polling fourth nationally even one week after his announcement.

Your personal contacts mean nothing to me nor does the fig leaf quote you found from Huckabee since we don't even know what he's talking about. What I was looking for was some polling results that show that Reagan was really a longshot or a quote from a respected political observer like Jack Germond or David Broder or Evans & Novak, or Michael Barone who could back up your claim that Reagan's nomination was a longshot. You won't find these things because Reagan was at least as much of a front runner in the 1980 race as Rudy Giuliani has been in this one.



I don't necessarily think that Huckabee was making the story up, I just think he was shading the truth to his best advantage. Every candidate has a motive to do this. Huckabee didn't tell us what kind of poll Reagan was running 4th in. He also didn't bother to mention whether Reagan had even declared his candidacy at the time of the poll in question. And his statement that nobody thought Reagan had a chance is a throwaway statement that can't possibly be true but is too inconsequential to be considered an outrageous lie.

I never used the word darkhorse, to imply Reagan was that far off. I just said it was "not supposed to happen" and just now told you where I originally heard it. Seems to be backed up by enough past press, the Gergen mc'd video and Huckabee to see it that way. "Nobody" in Huckabee's statement meant who I meant...not literaly nobody at all. I know for a fact that others did. RR repeatedly riduculed Carter which connected with the voters and Bush just didn't connect with the voters ultimately.

Were you there then?

The answer is "no"...so you're full :BS:
I'll take the word of a trusted older Republican who was there.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 03:46 PM
I never used the word darkhorse, to imply Reagan was that far off. I just said it was "not supposed to happen" and just now told you where I originally heard it. Seems to be backed up by enough past press, the Gergen mc'd video and Huckabee to see it that way. "Nobody" in Huckabee's statement meant who I meant...not literaly nobody at all. I know for a fact that others did. RR repeatedly riduculed Carter which connected with the voters and Bush just didn't connect with the voters ultimately.

I take this as an admission that Ron Paul's current situation is not much like the position Ronald Reagan found himself in going into the first primaries in terms of their respective chances at the nomination.

Were you there then?

The answer is "no"...so you're full :BS:
I'll take the word of a trusted older Republican who was there.

As a matter of fact, I was. Your "sources" either aren't worth having or you aren't able to interpret what they're saying accurately. Remember the time when your sources told you that John Bolton wouldn't let George W. Bush pursue tax reform?

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 04:47 PM
I take this as an admission that Ron Paul's current situation is not much like the position Ronald Reagan found himself in going into the first primaries in terms of their respective chances at the nomination.
No. Why? Because you extrapolate an interpretation beyond what I wrote I should now admit to it?

I only said: "Well, Ronald Reagan's nomination was considered an upset...or not supposed to happen."

As a matter of fact, I was. Your "sources" either aren't worth having or you aren't able to interpret what they're saying accurately. Remember the time when your sources told you that John Bolton wouldn't let George W. Bush pursue tax reform?
I did not use the plural "sources" here. That's also not the same source. And the source on the Fair Tax Bolton statement was simply a result of not putting in first names. I was the one who didn't know there was another Bolton. I was kinda puzzled at the mention of Bolton at the time because I thought it was the man at the UN.

You didn't know NATO was under the UN either. Does that mean you're wrong on all else?

As to your being at the GOP nomination, I doubt it and I doubt you were of an age to know. I'll trust my source, a history teacher who was old enough at the time and involved actively in the conservative movement.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 04:57 PM
No. Why? Because you extrapolate an interpretation beyond what I wrote I should now admit to it?

I only said: "Well, Ronald Reagan's nomination was considered an upset...or not supposed to happen."

It wasn't an upset in the typical sense of the word (when used in this context). It may have been upsetting to someone you know or to people who were afraid of Reagan, but it wasn't an electoral upset as you'd like to lead people to believe. If Ron Paul wins a primary it will be an upset. If he wins the nomination, it will be the biggest Presidential election upset of my lifetime. OTOH, Ronald Reagan was a frontrunner.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 05:06 PM
It wasn't an upset in the typical sense of the word (when used in this context). It may have been upsetting to someone you know or to people who were afraid of Reagan, but it wasn't an electoral upset as you'd like to lead people to believe. If Ron Paul wins a primary it will be an upset. If he wins the nomination, it will be the biggest Presidential election upset of my lifetime. OTOH, Ronald Reagan was a frontrunner.
He eventually became a frontrunner but he was not a front runner earlier. IIRC he lost 5 more primaries to Bush, and even placed 3rd in one state behind Anderson...it was the south and later states that cinched for him.

Upsetting to someone I know or who were afraid of Reagan? This guy was a huge Reaganite...it was a dream come true for him, and not supposed to happen in the eyes of more than just him who also supported RR.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 06:09 PM
He eventually became a frontrunner but he was not a front runner earlier. IIRC he lost 5 more primaries to Bush, and even placed 3rd in one state behind Anderson...it was the south and later states that cinched for him.

Upsetting to someone I know or who were afraid of Reagan? This guy was a huge Reaganite...it was a dream come true for him, and not supposed to happen in the eyes of more than just him who also supported RR.

If by "eventually" you mean "virtually as soon as he declared his campaign" or "pretty much right after Ford lost to Carter" then I agree. Reagan was *the* frontrunner in the race. Period. He was pretty much the opposite of what Ron Paul is in this race.

And losing 5 or 6 primaries in relatively inconsequential states (besides Iowa) wasn't really much of a speed bump on the way to the nomination. Reagan won the nomination at the convention by a margin of something on the order of 2000 to 15. It's hard to imagine a more decisive victory in a campaign that included 10 candidates.