Has anyone seen the main stream media cover Ron Paul's apparent debate success? There is a public poll on MSNBC and Ron Paul is shown handling winning the debate, but if you read media stories they hardly mention him. Is the media intentionally not writing about Ron Paul hoping he will just go away? The story in the Tucson paper the morning after the debate only mentioned he was there.
I think the media, the public, men, women, children, good people and bad people are just ignoring Ron Paul, period. Why shouldn't they? Because his beliefs are so out of the mainstream, he has zero chance of being elected Presidet. This guy must have easily set the record for being on the losing side of 434-1, 433-2, etc. votes in Congress. Ron Paul should run for president of Mars where he would at least have a chance of winning.
so you wouldn't consider voting for him? personally i like his positions the best from either party. conservative fiscally, and a libertarian socially. keep the government out of people's lives.
I definitely won't consider voting for him. I disagree with a lot of his positions in addition to the fact he's unelectable. A good number of Republicans even think his ideas are kooky. The concepts you mention make a good campaign theme and sound very mainstream, but when you take them to the extreme of people like Ron Paul, those themes come out more as economic Darwinism, amoralism and anarchy. I exaggerate for effect but you understand my point.
his campaign theme is the same as it was 20 years ago. he is probably the only candidate in either party that hasn't flip flopped. economic Darwinism, amoralism and anarchy are certainly stretches. by that line of thinking i'd ask why you want the government, specifically the federal level, to control and micro manage our lives? http://www.RonPaul2008.com http://www.MySpace.com/RonPaul2008 <a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2027669251">Ron Paul in Debate at Reagan Library (May '07)</a><br><embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=2027669251&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed><br><a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.addToProfileConfirm&videoid=2027669251&title=Ron Paul in Debate at Reagan Library (May '07)">Add to My Profile</a> | <a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.home"> More Videos</a> man, that video is awesome.
No, he's not kooky at all: NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. The world has changed a lot in 20 years. If someone's views haven't, that's a bit of a concern, I would think.
I think Ron Paul is basically the GOP version of Dennis Kucinich. Beliefs based on a lot of fundamentally sound principles, but a disaster in practice. And completely and totally unelectable.
He hasn't flip fllopped much, except between being a Republican, quitting and running as the Libertarian nominee for president (and criticizing the GOP quite harshly) and then switching back to the GOP and snagging an easy congressional seat when Greg Laughlin impaled himself. Bingo!
Anyone who really understands what the Federal Reserve Banks actually operate and who controls them would never waste another vote on a Republican or Democrat not named Ron Paul. Ron Paul may not be electable but voting for anyone else in this election is a wasted vote. I wouldn't listen to anyone who doesn't understand the origin, role and power of the Central Bank. Here is the best resource I have read on our Central Bank- link
You think the possibility of a North American Union is a kooky idea? When our cross-pond neighbors have done it, and are gaining strength. (Actually, I expect a WTO money system before a North American one, but that's just me.) In 20 years, the Republican Party has went from a reasonably conservative, but certainly principled party to a power-hungry, unreasonable, socialist-leaning party. If Paul can roll back the clock 20 years, that's a good thing.
Definitely not! I never said that. In past threads, I've made it clear both the GOP and the Dem parties are bought and paid for and I can't support either. I'm as independent as you can get. Just because I don't support Ron Paul doesn't mean I support the status quo. Same thing was true when Ross Perot ran for president. Just because a candidate waves their hands and says "I'm different" doesn't mean they get my support.
It is all about the money. If RP raises a ton of dinero, the press will fall all over themselves getting a mic in his face.
Totally, don't look at the rhetoric just trace the monies spent. For social programs- Lyndon Johnson increased social program spending by 33% during his presidency. Even in adjusted for inflation dollars Bush has already increased spending on social programs to date by 35%. He doubled spending on education in four years. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. The American Conservative Union said: “Excluding military and homeland security, American taxpayers have witnessed the largest spending increase under any preceding president and Congress since the Great Depression.” As far as more centralized socialist controls over individuals- Patriot Act, Homeland Security, North American Union. He spends like a socialist, he rules like a socialist, he federalizes like a socialist. Social spending increased 24% in his first four years. He is a Conservative in sheeps clothing. I don't know about the rest of the Republican party but I would definately say Bush is a global socialist.
Its not surprising that Ron Paul had a strong showing in the debate given that he staked positions where he was alone on them. The other Republican candidates are following the strategy of putting together votes on a range of issues regarding fiscal conservatism, war on terrorism (neo-con) and social conservatism there are some inherent contradiction in many of those positions. Ron Paul is virtually alone as a social libertarian and isolationist so he was in a position where he didn't have to nuance his arguments or consider challenges on those positions from other candidates who might hold similar positions.
I would not doubt it the media is a very powerful institution If they don't want you to win . . .you won't win The proliferation of the 'fanchise' newspapers you only have to convince certain groups to get major impact Rocket River
The media is an easy target but not as powerful as people make it out to be. If Ron Paul is truly viable he would be making in roads in campaign donations raised online. Remember that barely anyone had heard of Howard Dean up until 2003 but he staked out a position that was popular and wasn't being taken up by major Democrats at the time and parlayed that into strong fundraising without relying on the major media. If Ron Paul has as much support as being prsenteted here he should be able to do the same thing.
Last night Ron Paul supporters flanked out across the web, voting in polls (including MSNBC's) and swamping comments sections in huge numbers. We've reached a point where this sort of thing is immediately recognizable as the disproportionate impact of the over-committed. It's like netroot spam and seminar callers on C-SPAN. I liked Ron Paul last night. I'm glad he's in the race. But I'm already exhausted by what I know will be a long summer of e-pestering from Paulites about the "mass movement" sweeping the nation that won't earn more than a handful real votes, anywhere. -- Jonah Goldberg, NRO
