Ron Paul Kills Candidacy - We Caused 9-11 - Redux

ODF: Try the decaf.

My post had nothing to do with you. It had to do with the comment 'who we are' v. 'what we do.'

The thesis seemed to be that they have nothing against 'us' per se, but are angry because of our presence in their lands, etc.

Followed by a list of our supposed vices offensive to Islam. Which in my view, completely invalidated the denial of 'who we are' as a cause for jihad.

But on the bright side, I believe you win the bizarre and unwarranted overreaction award for the day. And reconfirmed your extreme left credentials.

Despite the positive impact Ron Paul has on the political discussion, I don't agree that he's electable. His approval rating in the 2008 primary season was at around 10 percent. I don't expect it will reach much beyond that for this cycle regardless of how fired up his supporters are. The question for Paul supporters is who are you going to support when he doesn't win, or drops out of the primary race?

Jim

That's a tough question to answer at this point, 1st would be gary Johnson, but he won't be selected.

No newt, no cain, no santorum, they won't be selected either, so those are moot. So that leaves two slick willies and two fair looking women. Considering that the presidential run is a beauty contest selected by the elite for our consumption and I'd have to look at them continually, I might vote for a better looking puppet than the one we have now.

The convention is a long ways off however, and it's premature to pigeon-hole it now. There is much to be done before election day. We have just started the process.

As a last resort, If a constitutionalist runs third party, they will get my X.

Jim Corr asked, "The question for Paul supporters is who are you going to support when he doesn't win, or drops out of the primary race?"

Painful question, that. I can say for certain that Im not going to be voting for anyone who does not understand and intend to defend the constitution.

That leaves out anyone who was in favor of the "Patriot Act" or TARP or Son of TARP or any federal action that involved taking money from taxpayers to enrich failing companies or politically connected companies. It leaves out anyone who favors open borders or fiat money. It leaves out anyone who thinks that the government should be allowed to mandate medical insurance or vaccinations.

Given the fact that the Republican party is apt to nominate a statist, Im afraid Im going to be voting third party if there is a candidate there who fits my bill.

Otherwise a write-in.

In a limited and qualified way, Paul is right about this. What will kill him is that he had the bad judgement to say it in a nationally televised debate where there was no room for nuance, subtlety, or introduction of controversial grey issues. After having met Gary Johnson, I can't see him making a similar mistake. In fact, it's the whole "over the top" phenomenon that keeps me away from Paul and in favor of Johnson.

Guizot said, "What will kill him is that he had the bad judgement to say it in a nationally televised debate ..."

The alternative wouldve been to lie in a nationally televised debate. I count it to his credit that he chose the former.

Would that all candidates would choose truth over sound bites and untruths in nationally televised debates and statements.

With apologies to Barry Goldwater, "Honesty in public debate is no vice."

Guizot

Well said about honesty and politics, never should the twain meet. A vast majority of the electorate enjoy being lied to, they "can't handle the truth", how could they sleep at night if they knew the truth. They elect politicians to wade through the truth, but that of course is becoming increasingly known as a failed contract.

Neither Paul nor Santorum/Gingrich are completely right or wrong. Answering rousing patriotic horse hockey with reason doesn't work in this format. Hindsight is 20/20, but Paul might have prepared to answer that by pointing out that it was American Exceptionalism that made us respected throughout the world and American Interventionism that lost it. And he could have started off by telling Santorum that was a complete distortion of his position. Paul's greatest advantage with the general electorate is that he sounds and sort of looks like Fred Rogers, so he could have done some damage by taking the patriotic ground away from Santorum.

We actually need real debates and news media that will sit still for them (I think the public might).

I know this isn't a popular way of saying it but I believe that 9/11 was the chickens come to roost for our Country. For too long we have had our fingers in the Middle East pie and whether you believe it or not Ron Paul was in the right for what he said the other night. People can boo him all they want but truth is truth. {Let the name calling begin}

"Vikingstar-

I agree that we have to protect ourselves from Iran, but what evidence is there that military bases are a requirement to do so? As someone else suggested, why not use the Navy?"

I think that I would rather leave the decision of whether or not military bases are necessary or desirable to the military professionals. It would also depend on what the mission would be, and what level of firepower we would employ.

"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"

I do love watching the expressions on the faces of some of the other candidates when Paul is talking. The revulsion from the macho queen and country crowd is hard for them to hide. I wouldn't want to be the first one to find these characters in bed with a dead women or live boy, at least without a gun in my hand.

Grammy award-winning musician Barry Manilow told The Daily Caller that he agrees with “just about everything” 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul says, calling him a “solid” contender for the highest office in the land.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/15/barry-manilow-on-ron-paul-%E2%80%98i-a...

There's an endorsement that will carry weight!

The Offical Ron Paul Theme Song!

Going for the Sentimental +45 vote! Continuous ads to run on Oxygen and Hallmark!

Much funnier had you posted this on other thread at 4:53pm.

WV

Quite funny,

ohh Mandy-Pamby, you kissed me and stopped me from shaking, I went out shopping to keep me from quaking, what a wonderful life I've had lately, ohh Manly.

Watch out what you volunteer the Navy for. Our fleet size is approaching one-third the size it was just about 20 years ago.

And their duty cycle is probably something like 30-40%.

I think the point to take out of Paul's statement was that there is no way that the US can operated a military base in another country without a certain degree of animosity being created. Should we use feelings or perceptions to dictate all military actions, no, but nor should we pretend that a military presence in a foreign country is without consequence.

Vikingstar-

Our military certainly has better intel than you or I, but it must be kept in check by open criticism. We have many military operations going on in numerous countries and I would say that there is evidence that not all of them are necessary.

Yeah, Okinawans love Uncle Sam.

Appears candidacy not quite dead: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/

So he got about 400 votes out of a total of 833.

Forgive me if I fail to read this as a groundswell of support. I'll give Ron Paul credit for one thing (several things, actually, but most of them are beside the point): he inspires fierce loyalty. One might say even BLIND loyalty. Such loyalty is why he often wins in non-controlled, statistically invalid "contests" such as straw polls and online polls along the lines of "who won the debate?"

Paul's base is loyal and active, but it's small.

Paul's base is loyal and active, but it's small.

If I read just that sentence, one could apply it to LePage. His base was loyal, small and active. People also said he was unelectable as governor. He won though, go figure. There are a lot of disenfrachised R's and D's who would vote for RP. Unfortunately, the R's are not going to give us the chance to find out. I wish RP would figure it out and run as an independent.

Exactly deflates myth of unelectability, IMO. The unelectable are those pretty much considered undesirable by party elite. As for the rest of us, we want someone clearly different, i.e.: not homogenized. Continue to present us with homogenized Ken Dolls and we might as well write-in Mickey Mouse.

LePage offered the chance to finally vote for someone different, and as different as could be from the other choices. Ditto Paul. Latter has made great strides in changing national conversation in the way both TABORs changed conversation in Maine. Had hoped he would have run independent after losing GOP nomination in '08.

Baby steps.

The Paul LePage analogy doesn't work here, Bob S and Alter Ego, for simple reasons of scale. Let's not forget that Gov. LePage - and I am both critic and fan - won with about 39% of the vote - a victory made possible only because of a very strong "independent" candidate pulling major votes from the Democrat Heir Apparent (or was it the other way around?). It is not unusual for Maine to elect a governor with a plurality, rather than a majority, due to the number of third-party candidates who typically participate here. It is rare in presidential politics for a candidate to win with a plurality, rather than a majority. Typically, third party or independents pull less than 2% of the popular vote in presidential races.

Even more importantly, you're both also overlooking the fact that governors are elected by direct popular vote and presidents are elected in the Electoral College. A Ron Paul independent run would probably look something like the US Presidential elections in 1992. Ross Perot actually got just shy of 19% of the popular vote but didn't win a single electoral vote. In the meantime, he siphoned a considerable number of votes away from George H.W. Bush (according to exit polls, only 20% of Perot's supporters described themselves as liberal), who got 37.5% of the popular vote and carried 18 states for a total of 168 electoral votes. That left us with Bill Clinton, who got just 43% of the popular vote but took 32 states and a total of 370 electoral votes.

If we look to that year as the best modern analog, an independent Paul run could pretty much guarantee four more years of Obama. For my money, Paul is doing the country a much better service remaining an R candidate and holding the more mainstream candidates' feet to the fire.

The Paul LePage analogy doesn't work here, Bob S and Alter Ego,

We will never know if RP is electable or not, will we?

We will never know if RP is electable or not, will we?

Yes, I think we WILL know that.

I really don't buy the idea that "the fix is in." Not with the primary system, anyway. There is certainly plenty of political skullduggery out there, and no small amount of corruption. With that said, if anyone had figured out a way to lock in a nomination by means of chicanery, elections would cost one hell of a lot less than they do and pols wouldn't spend half their time with their hands out in order to support their re-election bids. There is ample evidence that they do just that.

An interesting (if vicious) circle, dontcha think?

FYI: The California straw poll is being discussed in http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/california-gop-straw-poll-and-winner.

Paul's supporters have tended to be organized around straw polls...a pool of fewer than 900 votes that was predominantly party activists:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63758.html

300+ Paulights flooding the straw poll doesn't count as a "win" in my book. It's the only chance they have of getting any attention before the Primaries begin and he fades back to obscurity. He's also the ONLY candidate (aside from mentions of The One) who has been booed at the debates. Let the light continue to reflect off those hats!

The ones doing the booing are statists like you WV, who deny the reality of our huge and unsustainable debt, who believe that the FED can just print money and the jobs will flow. Who believe that Americans can be the policeman of the world and afford to take on all the ills of the world and nation build. That America must lose its liberty for the sake of our own protection from the forces of evil. Just another statist

The ones doing the booing are statists like you WV, who deny the reality of our huge and unsustainable debt, who believe that the FED can just print money and the jobs will flow. Who believe that Americans can be the policeman of the world and afford to take on all the ills of the world and nation build. That America must lose its liberty for the sake of our own protection from the forces of evil. Just another statist

Wowee.

One does not need to be a statist, nor in favor of our huge debt load or inflationary Fed moves, to believe that Ron Paul isn't a good choice for the Presidency. Or to believe that he's not electable in the first place.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid!

From reading what WV has written over the years, I am unaware that he actually believes in any of those things that Mike G claims he believes in. Apparently, not being a Paul supporter automatically means you support 'stateism'.