LOL!! All the Establishment People are Campaigning Against Paul

[Accountable]

ALL of the media outlets are scared shitless that Dr Paul might win. I watch mainly CNBC and Fox. Any time they mention his name they make an extra effort to make damn sure they point out that he doesn't have a chance to win the nomination. If he really didn't have a chance, why don't they just ignore him like last year? Why continuously cry out that he can't win unless they're really afraid that he can? :24:

Here's a question my beloved raised: If the Repub party is sooooo against Paul, like the media want us to think, then why don't they just pull their support from him? They've done it with other candidates.

 

[Alien Allen]

There is a decent campaign by the republicans to make it that Gingrich is unelectable too.

I guess it goes with being adopted by the establishment. On a local level you won't go far unless you are blessed by the establishment.

The party machines set it up early on it appears. Interesting that the media pundits follow suit. I guess they get their talking points from the parties eh

YUK !!!!!!

 

[Accountable]

But the Repub Party is shelling out quite a lot of money to support a pariah, dontcha think? It's not like they're a fair and balanced, we'll-give-anybody-a-chance kind of organization.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Wonder what would happen if all of the "I'd-vote-for-Ron-Paul-but-he-can't-win" crowd actually voted for RP?

 

[Accountable]

Wonder what would happen if all of the "I'd-vote-for-Ron-Paul-but-he-can't-win" crowd actually voted for RP?

There ya go! :tooth:thumbup

I swear the panel on Fox Sunday were apoplectic at the idea of him winning in Iowa. Fuckin' EVERYBODY is setting up all kinds of excuses ahead of time to explain that if he wins that it doesn't really mean anything. If the weather's bad (which it historically always is) then Paul will win because only insane people would venture out in bad weather. A guy on CNBC today said (in between caveats that Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance of winning the nomination) that if he wins that it's really a win for Romney, not Paul, because Gingrich will be knocked out. HUH?? :willy_nilly:

In the scheme of things, Iowa just ain't that important. Huckaby won last time & look what it got him. ................... :humm: .........................

OMG That's it!! Fox must have a standing contract to hire whoever wins the Iowa Caucus!

 

[Alien Allen]

But the Repub Party is shelling out quite a lot of money to support a pariah, dontcha think? It's not like they're a fair and balanced, we'll-give-anybody-a-chance kind of organization.

I kind of thought that I indicated I agreed with that. Like I said if the party does not support you then you are starting out in quicksand.

You think Paul could beat Obama?

I don't but I would still vote for him the same as I continue to vote for a lot of obscure libertarians. I am hoping one day enough will do the same. Paul IMO has the right message but is the wrong messenger. Sadly today it is more important to visually impress. If there was no TV and only radio I think he would win the republican side handily. He just does not have that "IT" type of today political personality. IMO

 

[retro]

The GOP mantra right now seems to be, "Iowa is important, unless of course Ron Paul wins, then it doesn't matter who wins it as long as 2nd place finishes strong".

 

[Accountable]

I kind of thought that I indicated I agreed with that. Like I said if the party does not support you then you are starting out in quicksand.

You think Paul could beat Obama?

I don't but I would still vote for him the same as I continue to vote for a lot of obscure libertarians. I am hoping one day enough will do the same. Paul IMO has the right message but is the wrong messenger. Sadly today it is more important to visually impress. If there was no TV and only radio I think he would win the republican side handily. He just does not have that "IT" type of today political personality. IMO

Yes, we agree. I'm just baffled why the party keeps throwing good money after what so many seem to think is bad.

Do I think Paul could beat Obama? If it were only Paul against Obama, absolutely. With the full force of the entire Republocrat propaganda machine working to demonize and ridicule him, he'd likely lose against Pol Pot.

 

[retro]

Yes, we agree. I'm just baffled why the party keeps throwing good money after what so many seem to think is bad.

Do I think Paul could beat Obama? If it were only Paul against Obama, absolutely. With the full force of the entire Republocrat propaganda machine working to demonize and ridicule him, he'd likely lose against Pol Pot.

If Paul won the nomination, don't you think that the GOP establishment would get behind him? Or do you think they'd endorse one of their golden boys running 3rd party?

 

[CityGirl]

Are they really campaigning against Ron Paul? Could this be more of a "Don't throw me in that there Briar Patch" scheme?

 

[Tim]

I guess the big question of the day is... Are the republicans even running a viable candidate this election or are they waiting until 2016 to run them?

I heard Rush talking about Ron's rise in the ranks/polls. He explained it as the ability of democrats and independents to vote and change the poll results... He said that if Ron got the nomination, the conservatives would never get behind him (because he isn't conservative) and Obama would win.
He then goes onto say that Romney was the most conservative of the bunch if it wasn't for that RomneyCare... which confused me, because that was done on a state level and isn't that embraced by the conservatives? States rights???

 

[CityGirl]

Huh? Ron Paul isn't conservative and Romney is ???

 

[CityGirl]

Paleocon vs Neocon

 

[retro]

As far as Romneycare and conservatism... people view his support of that as him supporting a nationalized health care system. Whether that's right or wrong, that's what the conservative sheep seem to believe. Additionally, it's the Libertarians that's more concerned with State's rights, given that a huge proportion of conservatives would support Constitutional Amendments banning gay marriage and abortion. Romney is really at worst a right leaning Obama, or at best a Bill Clinton I'll go whichever way popular opinion is going clone.

I actually brought up 2016 in a conversation I was having over Christmas... if Obama wins in 2012, then we're going to see all of the GOP "all-star" candidates come out and run... meaning Palin, Rubio, Christie, Pawlenty, Jindal, and Ryan among others. Those are the ones that I think are hedging their bets right now, deciding to bide their time until 2016, assuming that Obama is going to win. That way they can stay out of the mess this time around and be somewhat fresh for the next election.

 

[retro]

Huh? Ron Paul isn't conservative and Romney is ???

Yeah, I can't figure it out either. But Paul isn't socially conservative at all... at least not as far as the neocons are concerned. They view conservatism as defending the country against terrorists by fighting wars in the Middle East, wanting to ban abortion, not letting homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, etc., etc., etc. The concept of true conservatism was lost a long time ago.

 

[Alien Allen]

Huh? Ron Paul isn't conservative and Romney is ???

Paul is not a conservative in the eyes of the religious right

And the religious right control the republicans

 

[Accountable]

Libs call him right-wing because of his domestic positions. Righties call him left because of his international positions.
Too bad they can't look at the respective other sides and embrace him.

 

[Tim]

Libs call him right-wing because of his domestic positions. Righties call him left because of his international positions.
Too bad they can't look at the respective other sides and embrace him.

I don't dislike him from his left, right or centrist positions. I dislike him because I think he is a loon.

He embraces an economic system that has never been tried in the real world and he doesn't have a clue when it comes to foreign policy. He envisions a minimalist government view that would never work in the real world...

He just scares the shit out of me on his crazy rantings.

 

[All Else Failed]

Ron Paul doesn't have any "crazy" ideas at all, and most people who call him that are just jumping on the bandwagon. I don't even support Paul and I see this happening.

Everyone is just so addicted to government and the two party system that anything that does not fall directly under a (D) or an (R) qualifies them as some sort of "weirdo".


This is why there will never be any sort of meaningful change in the election of our leaders. People cry about change but they are willing to always hold up our failed, faulty system.

 

[Tim]

Ron Paul doesn't have any "crazy" ideas at all, and most people who call him that are just jumping on the bandwagon. I don't even support Paul and I see this happening.

Everyone is just so addicted to government and the two party system that anything that does not fall directly under a (D) or an (R) qualifies them as some sort of "weirdo".


This is why there will never be any sort of meaningful change in the election of our leaders. People cry about change but they are willing to always hold up our failed, faulty system.

What bandwagon?

My opinions are based on my observations NOT on what others "feel" or "believe" I have done enough of my own research to understand the man and his vision of what the US should look like. It's not a vision that I would want for me or my children.

And I for one would love to see a good candidate rise to power outside of the establishment. They don't need a R, D or I behind their name for me to support them. I will support ANY candidate that shares my views and is willing to do what needs to be done without being bought and paid for by someone else... I won't hold my breath