|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 19, 2007 16:51:55 GMT -5
Elsewhere, I was challenged to prove that various nutroot campaings had colluded to artificually elevate Ron Paul's popularity to the point where the ignorant among the electorate might actually think Paul is a viable Republican candidate when, in point of fact, Paul is neither a Republican nor a viable candidate (although he might have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...). Here, in their own words, is proof: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/180507hannity.htmToday we are targeting the Sean Hannity radio show for a phone jam to educate Shaun on the fact that his smearing of Ron Paul and soft-peddling of the amnesty bill will not go without opposition.Also, Little Green Footballs reports spamming of their own poll: littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25504_Ron_Paul_Supporters_Spamming_Our_Poll_Again&onlyI warned them. I’m going to be removing Ron Paul’s name from any further LGF straw polls, because his supporters are deliberately spamming our polls to make it appear as if Paul has more support than he does. Be aware that his results in the poll immediately preceding are not legitimate.
They aren’t “cheating,” as in voting multiple times, but they have sent out emails and posted the link to our poll at several spots on the web, urging people to go vote for Paul. The end result is the same—the poll results are skewed, and it’s not an accurate measure.(h/t to Michelle Malkin)
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 19, 2007 16:54:18 GMT -5
More light being shined on the Paul nutroots and their tactics, this from US News and World Report (h/t to Hot Air): hotair.com/archives/2007/05/10/ron-paul-mania-sweeping-the-net/Nutroots Truthers to the left of us, Bircheresque cranks to the right. Update: U.S. News & World Report has noticed too. [H]is supporters have flocked to the Internet with such enthusiasm that Paul is now showing up among the much richer candidates in various measures of Internet traffic. Using sites like Digg.com, which allow users to vote on their favorite items to vault them to more prominence on the site, they keep a steady diet of Ron Paul material coming through the pipelines.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 19, 2007 16:59:03 GMT -5
Elsewhere, I was challenged to prove that various nutroot campaings had colluded to artificually elevate Ron Paul's popularity to the point where the ignorant among the electorate might actually think Paul is a viable Republican candidate when, in point of fact, Paul is neither a Republican nor a viable candidate (although he might have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...). Here, in their own words, is proof: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/180507hannity.htmToday we are targeting the Sean Hannity radio show for a phone jam to educate Shaun on the fact that his smearing of Ron Paul and soft-peddling of the amnesty bill will not go without opposition.Also, Little Green Footballs reports spamming of their own poll: littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25504_Ron_Paul_Supporters_Spamming_Our_Poll_Again&onlyI warned them. I’m going to be removing Ron Paul’s name from any further LGF straw polls, because his supporters are deliberately spamming our polls to make it appear as if Paul has more support than he does. Be aware that his results in the poll immediately preceding are not legitimate.
They aren’t “cheating,” as in voting multiple times, but they have sent out emails and posted the link to our poll at several spots on the web, urging people to go vote for Paul. The end result is the same—the poll results are skewed, and it’s not an accurate measure.(h/t to Michelle Malkin) If he's (Ron Paul) Sooooooo Damn insignificant, W.O.M.I., Why can't you and Sean and Mic-'hell'-e and the 'gang' of Repubs. just SIMPLY ignore him? hmmm............
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 19, 2007 17:19:28 GMT -5
Paul's belief that our foreign policy caused the 9/11 attacks is not Mr. Paul's first foray into crackpot conspiracy theory and his eagerness to associate with other like-(simple)minded individuals such as Alex Jones. Mr Jones believes that Cho Seung-Hui might have been a government assassin brainwashed by the CIA to perpetrate the VTech massacre as a pretext for rolling back Second Amendment rights. (link: www.jonesreport.com/articles/190407_cho_mind_control.html ). Setting aside one crackpot (Jones) for another (Paul): Here are a few other theories Mr. Paul advocates: (h/t to Ace of Spades: ace.mu.nu/archives/225943.php ) 1. He supports Dennis Kucinich's desire for a fresh, Truther-friendly investigation into the "cover up" of 9/11.
2. He goes on Truther radio shows.
3. He suggests, Trutherifically, that the US will phony up a fake attack by Iran on our troops (probably killing Americans, as we may have done on 9/11) in order to have a pretext to bomb the mullahs. So, you know, if Iran actually does fire on American warships, his supporters will know it's actually all a contrivance by the US government. (As was Iran's taking of British hostages, presumably. As was the Khobar Towers bombing, presumably.)
But he's not a Truther, oh no, and he's definitely not a conspiracy nutter or John Bircher crank. Nor is he some kind of Dogmatically Dopey Barroom Ideologue.
No, he's a Serious American Candidate with all sorts of Important Principles about Limited Constitutional Government and the Gold Standard and Suchlike Things.
Whatever. If I wanted a fruitcake candidate, I'd've supported Alan Freakin' Keyes in 2000 (or 1996, or 2002, or 2004, or any of the six thousand other times he's run haplessly for public office).
More! "Powerful banking interests" behind the creation of the American central banking system (which has no place Under Our Constitution (TM), by the way). But here's my favorite line from Ace: It's like Archie Bunker lost weight, dropped 20 IQ points, and got himself elected Congressman.(NOTE: on both of the above blogs, there are links to YouTube videos of Mr. Paul's various proclamations if you care to see them. I think it important that, when (metaphorically-speaking) hanging a man, you use his own words as the rope) But does Mr. Paul entertain other possible conspiracies? Well, according to Michelle Malkin, yes he does! In meetings with an organization called "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth", note the following exchanges (links to YouTube video on Malkin's website): Student: ...we've heard that you have questioned the government's official account.
Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there's an area that the government covered up, whether it's the Kennedy assassination or whatever. Anyone else find it interesting that he cites the 9/11 Commission Report as his source for believing that our foreign policy caused 9/11 but that he also says that "too often" such investigations are "government cover[ed] up "? Seems a bit contradictory to me, Mr. Paul.
Paul goes on to tell the student Truthers that he'd be willing to work with Dennis Kucinich to open yet another investigation into 9/11. Kucinich, it should be noted, is probably the most liberal major party candidate running for his party's Presidential nomination. If Paul thinks that Kucinich is some sort of ideological kindred soul, that should speak volumes as to the lack of judgement on the part of Mr. Paul.
Student: So I just wanted to say, you know, we've talked to Dennis Kucinich and he says that he's willing to, you know, investigate it. He would advocate for a new investigation.
Paul: Into 9/11?
Student: Yeah, into 9/11. I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there'd be congressional support. You know what I mean? So you wouldn't be the only one.
Paul: It'd be bipartisan, too. And I've worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues.
Student: So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11?
Paul: Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it.
It's interesting to note another 'personality' that advocates many of the same theories that Mr. Paul does:
Rosie O'Donnell!
Does the fact that Paul somehow managed to get himself elected to Congress somehow give his crackpot theories more weight than those of a lunatic fringe nut hosting a daytime television henfest? Nonsense is- or should be- nonsense.
Mr. Paul- a hearfelt suggestion: if you want to be taken seriously by anyone outside of a milita compound in northern Idaho, stop associating with people like Alex Jones and stop mouthing crackpot conspiracy theories like Rosie O'Donnell.
Unless you enjoy being a political freak show exhibit, that is.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 21, 2007 9:13:05 GMT -5
Paul's belief that our foreign policy caused the 9/11 attacks is not Mr. Paul's first foray into crackpot conspiracy theory and his eagerness to associate with other like-(simple)minded individuals such as Alex Jones. "Mr. Paul's belief that our foreign policy caused the 9/11 attack is..." supported by the 9/11 Commission Report you NEOCON! The 9/11 Commission Report Confirms that our presence in the Middle East, Bombing Iraq for 10 years and sanctions killing thousands pissed off the terrorists and is listed as a motivation for the attacks and hatred of us. Quote is from the bottom of page 48 to the top paragraph on page 49. The section is 2.2 Bin Laden's appeal in the Islamic World. "He (Bin Laden) inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel." Bin Laden is quoted in the last paragraph on page 51 in the 9/11 Commission Report as saying the U.S. should "abandon the Middle East." WOMI IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE A BLAZING HYPOCRITE!!!! You call Paul and Alex Jones all kind of names for believing that people are lying and deceiving the public BUT YOU SUGGEST THE SAME DARN THING WHEN IT IS CONVENIENT FOR YOU!!! "Re: Ron Paul's controversy is officially over « Reply #8 on May 18, 2007, 9:08pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 9/11 Commission was a FRAUD.Republicans and Democrats on the panel had completely different goals when it came to the ultimate purpose of the Commission." I have NEVER heard you criticize the 9/11 Commission Report until it has been used to spank a Neocon like Guiliani. You said that it is a fraud!!! That sounds like another word for conspiracy there WOMI. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Are you suggesting that the 9/11 Commission Report was an...inside job? Are you wearing YOUR TINFOIL HAT TOO TIGHT? Who told you that it was a fraud? Was it a reptilian that dropped from a black helicopter? Why are you turning into a two tongued hypocrite?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 21, 2007 9:22:02 GMT -5
womi is engaging in the politics of personal destruction, most people they disagree with get characterized as "conspiracy theorists" thereby making them irrelevant.
of course womi also engages in conspiracy theories, like their post about only militia groups in idaho paying attention, he thinks there is a conspiracy among people that support the constitution...I have NO contact with any militia group yet LOVE this nation and its constitution.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 21, 2007 9:42:22 GMT -5
He comes across to me as a fascist NEOCON. Hey billt, did you watch the fox debate? Did you notice that Guiliani was asked about his Pro Baby Killing position by Sean Hannity? Sean Hannity sat calmly and quitely and let him justify for a couple of minutes about how he believes a woman has the right to kill a baby and Hannity did not shout him down or challenge his errors. But when it came time for Ron Paul to be interviewed he interupted him and drowned him out when he saw that Ron Paul was about to whip his weak arguement for interventionism. Watch Hannity interupt Ron Paul (he let Guiliani justify baby killing without a word) www.youtube.com/watchv=yZ4IW0Y_7WY&mode=related&search=
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on May 21, 2007 14:53:00 GMT -5
Does Michelle "I'm not Asian" Malkin still write her own material, or is it all just hat-tipping? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 21, 2007 15:25:55 GMT -5
Does Michelle "I'm not Asian" Malkin still write her own material, or is it all just hat-tipping? Just curious. frag- Since yours is the only mature question asked here, I'll respond to it first. Yeah, she does write her own material on a regular basis but she also provides links to those who comment on issues she finds relevant and important that the MSM just doesn't want to deal with for some strage reason (>cough< partisan politics >cough<).
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 21, 2007 15:29:41 GMT -5
solomon-
Since your familiarity with this Forum doesn't go back all that far, I'll forgive your ignorance and merely correct the record.
I spoke out against the Iraqi Surrender Group report and the findings of the 9/11 Clinton Administration Whitewash Report shortly after they were released to the public.
Nothing hypocritical about maintaining the same position on a given issue...unless you're now adding "hypocrite" to the list of words you don't comprehend.
And that beings me to:
Still no clue as to what a "neocon" is I see. Pity you continually use words you have no idea as to their meaning.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 21, 2007 15:32:15 GMT -5
womi is engaging in the politics of personal destruction, most people they disagree with get characterized as "conspiracy theorists" thereby making them irrelevant. of course womi also engages in conspiracy theories, like their post about only militia groups in idaho paying attention, he thinks there is a conspiracy among people that support the constitution...I have NO contact with any militia group yet LOVE this nation and its constitution. Pot. meet Mr. Kettle. You'll get along real well. I point out the fact that Paul attracts a certain....mentality among his supporters. I can't help it if among them are white separtists who live in fortified compounds in Idaho. If Mr. Paul is embarassed by his affiliation with such people, perhaps he ought to re-examine what it is about him that makes him so appealing to the extremists among us.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 21, 2007 15:33:46 GMT -5
Perhaps it might be because Guiliani's pro-choice position is Old News whereas Ron Paul's blaming his own country for 9/11 is New News?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 21, 2007 15:36:34 GMT -5
Not a bad question, law.
Easy answer: true Republicans and Conservatives tend to quite quickly disassociate themselves with those who espouse crackpot conspiracy theories and spew anti-American garbage- unlike Democrats who embrace such people.
Problem is, the MSM won't get the message and they'll continue to try to paint someone like Ron Paul as being a "mainstream Republican" when he is really NEITHER ONE.
Eventually, Paul will be ignored: by the voters on Primary Day.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 21, 2007 16:36:09 GMT -5
If they "hate us because of our freedoms" Guiliani would quickly remove their motivation for hate after he defended the property snatchers.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 21, 2007 18:51:08 GMT -5
Does Guiliani support Kelo?
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on May 21, 2007 21:29:18 GMT -5
W.O.M.I. I will agree with you on one point. Ron Paul is neither!
That is why I support him. We have seen that the Republicans and Democrats are a snake with one body.
I also support Tom Tancredo. Paul and Tancredo are the only ones that give a damn about this Country.
Look into their records and tell me about any flip flopping and maybe I will change my mind. Show me the facts.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 21, 2007 22:52:51 GMT -5
Does Guiliani support Kelo? OK, just out of curiosity, I did a "Ron Paul" and "kelo" search on Google. I know you said Guiliani, but this is thread about RP and I thought it was you saying RP does support and Guiliani does not. All I found was that Paul was against this ruling. He even wrote a piece about it. You have to admit, this guy seems to eat, drink, and sleep the Constitution. What were you getting at? I have to admit, and not even hesitantly, that I agree with most of what you post WOMI. If that makes me a neocon ( ;D) than so be it. But the more I dig into Ron Paul's voting record, the less I can find fault in him. There were many bills -- and I'm still researching them -- that he voted against that I had a problem with but when you get into the language of the bills, you can pick out parts that would fit his rejections. He is a firm stickler in the Constitution and I believe he supports individual liberties and rights over the government's. Sure his 9/11 statement was over the top, but can you say he was necessary wrong? Unless someone from Osama Bin Laden's camp comes forward and gives us the real story, we may never know the real reason. So his statement -- which can really be nothing more than a strong speculation -- is every bit as valid as any other that is based on intelligence and fact finding. Its just not what Republicans want to hear and that is where he crossed the imaginary line. And the above stuff? How does this prove anything about Ron Paul himself? It seems he DOES have this cultish following on the Internet. This is a phenomena that people will try to explain in the months to come. But if he can gather the Internet masses, think of the millions of $$ that he WON'T need to have to raise to be a viable candidate. Its quite obvious in todays big elections that the bigger purses net the bigger offices. I'm still on the fence with my choice of candidate. Sadly, at least 2 of the top 3 Republicans are not going to get this country anywhere in the next 4 years. Its the sad truth. Guiliani would carry the election against Hillary but is he the right man for President? What DOES he have to offer? Tom McCain just doesn't do it for me. I don't think he stands a chance in the "purple" states. So who does that leave? But can Ron Paul get the general populace to back him? Sure, he's proven he can get a bunch of snotty-nosed web geeks to clog the online polls, but can he turn that into a force to be reckoned with? Most don't realize that the majority of Americans have no clue who Ron Paul is right now and won't know until American Idol, The World Series, and the Super Bowl is over. McCain, Guiliani, and even Romney now have household name recognition, and whether some people like it or not, that's what will drive the polls. Heck, the two that are sitting it out -- Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson -- have bigger name recognition. Like I said before, he's got ALOT of work to do, if he even gets that far. EDIT: I think this makes a difference. Guiliani: Mayor of NYC for 2 terms. Was seen as the "hero" (justified?) of 9/11 recovery efforts. So he has shown he has leadership potential by being mayor of one of the US' largest and greatest cities and that he can make decisions under great stress. McCain: Has been a Senator since 1986. Ran against GWB in 2000 for Republican primary. Served in Vietnam. He has the years of political experience, he has been in the presidential race before to an extent, and has war experience (Vietnam). Romney: Governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2006, was CEO of a very successful investment firm, and was credited for turning the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics around from scandal and huge debts to a good profit. So he has immense leadership experience and has shown he can manage very successfully. Paul: 10 term congressman and gynecologist. Yep, that's about it. Not knocking him, but none of this experience gives one an idea that he has leadership qualities on the same par as those above. Nor does he have much military experience (he was a flight surgeon and served in the Air National guard), so is he the right man for "Commander in Chief"? His ability to vote along constitutional lines makes him eminently qualified to be a, well, congressman. What leadership qualities does he have? That is Ron Paul's biggest shortcoming IMO.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 22, 2007 1:32:55 GMT -5
Paul: 10 term congressman and gynecologist. Yep, that's about it. Not knocking him, but none of this experience gives one an idea that he has leadership qualities on the same par as those above. Nor does he have much military experience (he was a flight surgeon and served in the Air National guard), so is he the right man for "Commander in Chief"? His ability to vote along constitutional lines makes him eminently qualified to be a, well, congressman. What leadership qualities does he have? That is Ron Paul's biggest shortcoming IMO. So we need a general in command or what? Paul didn't serve his country ENOUGH? The shmo we have in office now was an Air Guard man. What did Carter or Reagan or Clinton do for the military before taking office that made them better leaders? We have lawyers in charge of the Dept. of Justice and the Dept. of Homeland Security that don't know jack about law enforcement. Dr. Paul is an honest man that would put capable people into leadership positions with experience and knowhow. Perhaps we need someone in office that's HONEST. I don't care if the president is an athiest war protestor that's from AssMaster, Minnesota if he tells the American people the TRUTH and does what he SAYS he will do. I just get tired of people and their unwavering party positions no matter how illogical or immoral or antifreedom those positions may be.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 22, 2007 6:25:57 GMT -5
Paul: 10 term congressman and gynecologist. Yep, that's about it. Not knocking him, but none of this experience gives one an idea that he has leadership qualities on the same par as those above. Nor does he have much military experience (he was a flight surgeon and served in the Air National guard), so is he the right man for "Commander in Chief"? His ability to vote along constitutional lines makes him eminently qualified to be a, well, congressman. What leadership qualities does he have? That is Ron Paul's biggest shortcoming IMO. So we need a general in command or what? Paul didn't serve his country ENOUGH? The shmo we have in office now was an Air Guard man. What did Carter or Reagan or Clinton do for the military before taking office that made them better leaders? We have lawyers in charge of the Dept. of Justice and the Dept. of Homeland Security that don't know jack about law enforcement. Dr. Paul is an honest man that would put capable people into leadership positions with experience and knowhow. Perhaps we need someone in office that's HONEST. I don't care if the president is an athiest war protestor that's from AssMaster, Minnesota if he tells the American people the TRUTH and does what he SAYS he will do. I just get tired of people and their unwavering party positions no matter how illogical or immoral or antifreedom those positions may be. This response doesn't tell me anything. Your "so what" attitude kind of leans towards "I think this guy will be the best because I think so". I'm not necessarily knocking Ron Paul and you can see that in the rest of my post. As I said, looking at his voting record, he's made some good decisions based on his adherence to the Constitution. Probably better than almost anyone I've looked into. He makes much sense in many things. All I showed you is why I think he will have a hard time making a serious run. He has NO discernable LEADERSHIP qualities. Like I pointed out, he has shown he has the ability to vote his conscience. Being President takes more than the ability to "tell the truth" and vote with a conscience. People are looking for a leader and there really isn't much in his resume too say he is one. People WILL notice that. Don't just spout "I just want someone who will tell the truth". If you were looking for a manager for a company to make it successful in a time when it was headed for bankuptcy and shutting down, and you had 2 candidates, would you choose the one with proven and successful leadership qualities or the other who "told the truth" and little to none? Before they were president: Carter - senator and governor, Clinton - almost 12 years as a governor, Reagen - governor for 2 terms. Like I said, I am pointing out the biggest hurdle Paul will have with the rest of the nation - he has nothing in his resume that shows he has led anyone. The ability to vote does not count. He is very qualified to fill the role of what the president is on paper, but the office has transcended the written description. Paul could bring it back to what it was supposed to be, but will the majority of Americans support that?
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 22, 2007 10:55:26 GMT -5
kevin wrore, "Being President takes more than the ability to "tell the truth" and vote with a conscience. People are looking for a leader and there really isn't much in his resume too say he is one. People WILL notice that. Don't just spout "I just want someone who will tell the truth". If you were looking for a manager for a company to make it successful in a time when it was headed for bankuptcy and shutting down, and you had 2 candidates, would you choose the one with proven and successful leadership qualities or the other who "told the truth" and little to none? Before they were president: Carter - senator and governor, Clinton - almost 12 years as a governor, Reagen - governor for 2 terms." We need to lose the mentality that we must vote for someone who has been a politician a long time! These types are generally the problem because they are entrenched!
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 22, 2007 12:56:49 GMT -5
Being President takes more than the ability to "tell the truth" and vote with a conscience. People are looking for a leader and there really isn't much in his resume too say he is one. People WILL notice that. Don't just spout "I just want someone who will tell the truth". I indeed will "spout" that I want someone to tell the truth. Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones were great leaders that convinced masses of people to conduct evil. I don't want someone that lies to me on TV to garner votes then does something completely different when in office. I would much rather have a doctor that's honest than a charlatan "leader." You are correct. Perhaps Ron Paul has never been governor. Perhaps he's not a natural-born politician. I think that's a good thing. I believe him to be of a much higher caliber than politicians. Ron Paul is a statesman.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 22, 2007 14:35:42 GMT -5
kevin-
I was responding to solomon's post directly above mine.
I'd expect Paul to be against that SCOTUS decision. But then I'd expect every sentient being slightly to the Right of Hillary Clinton to be against that decision- and that's most of mankind.
Welcome to the Dark Side. Us "neocons" need to stick together- we have a One World Government to form (with the help of Karl Rove and the Bohemian Grove of course!).
Paul is a principaled man, no doubt about it.
But so was any number of dangerous and irrational leaders or would-be leaders. Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Bill Clinton were all principaled in their own ways.
I don't think blaming your own country for the deaths of 3000 innocent civilians is "an imaginary line"- it's anti-American propaganda that we expect from the likes of Michael Moore. "Blame America First"-ers have NO place in the Republican Party- let them go join the Democrat party where they'll be much more at home.
I think that those who support Ron Paul should know just how loony this guy really is. If he hangs around with a guy that believes the VA killer was a government assassin tasked to kill a bunch of students so as to make gun control laws easier to enact, shouldn't people know that if they are to make an informed decision as to whether or not to support him? If he agrees with Dennis Kucinich on anything- including the color of the sky- shouldn't potential voters be aware of that (Kucinich is THE most liberal candidate running for President- and among these far left Democrat contenders, that's quite an achievement).
Paul should disavow all such conspiratorial nonsense and avoid associating with crackpots. That he does not should be quite illuminating.
Given the current crop of Democrat candidates, I think I'd vote for Alex Jones before I'd stay at home or pull a level for any of them. These Democrats are DANGEROUS, all the more so because the Congress, which is almost certainly going to remain in Democrat hands, is led by the most far-Left extremists in American history- yeah, further Left than those who brought us the "New Deal" and the "Great Society".
It is critical- CRITICAL- for the US that a Republican, even a moderate one, be elected so as to offer some check to the Leftist juggernaut that the Democrat-led Congress promises to be. If Democrats control all three branches of government, the damage could take generations- if at all- to repair.
So yeah I'll vote for Rudy or McCain or Romney- hell I'll even vote for Paul over any of the Democrats because I consider it to be more important to deny Democrats the Presidency than I do to support the perfect Conservative candidate. I'll support a candidate with whom I agree 80% of the time over sitting out the election and giving it to the Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 22, 2007 14:50:35 GMT -5
NYC by itself has a bigger economy than something like 20 STATES, so being the mayor of NY isn't "just" being a mayor.
It can be strongly argued that Guiliani "saved" New York. Before he was elected- a moderate Republican in a very Blue State- there were something like 3000 murders in NY; his policies reduced that by over 2/3. NYC became the safest big city- far safer than Birmingham- in the US under his watch.
McCain-Feingold makes it very VERY difficult for me to support him.
His vital role in this Shamnesty Bill travesty makes it harder still.
Romney, like Guiliani, showed a capability to win as a moderate Republican in a very Blue State. That can't be discounted- the ability to bring Blue and Purple states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, etc.- back from the Democrat column into the "In Play" column.
I'm not sure that military service is as important as it once was.
Besides, if you're secure enough in your own abilities and limitations, you can surround yourself with people whose experiences cover your weaker areas. The US government is really far too big for any one person to manage individually, whatever his experience. I won't write Paul off on that count.
And there's something to be said for being somewhat of an "outsider"- though i question whether a ten term Congressman can truly be considered an "outsider". Paul's views certainly portray him as an "outsider" so maybe, for some, that is the same thing.
I tend to think I'd want to look at the support he's enjoyed in his home district, at least in terms of his margin of victory in his races. If he's constantly at 55%-60%-65% majorities, despite the change in demographics in Texas over the past 25 years, he's doing something right.
But you point out his greatest drawback- nobody knows who he is or what he stands for. His opponents will be able to define him rather than he defining himself. And let's face it- he's a parodists' dream with views like his. People hear "libertarian" and they think- 'ah, the dope-smoker's party'. Sorry, but that's the public perception of libertarians, for good or bad and you guys KNOW it.
That's alot to overcome for even the best speaker and conveyor of ideas and principals- but here again Paul falls short. He's not >quite< as inarticulate as President Bush is- but really is that saying much? And, in the age of sound bite politics, that's yet another nail in the coffin of Dr. Paul.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 22, 2007 17:29:09 GMT -5
Guiliani is pro fag, anti-gun,pro baby murder and will give legal assistance to foreigners that steal Americans homes, ranches and jobs and ways of life.
Vote for Ron Paul 2008
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 22, 2007 20:31:08 GMT -5
"A Vote For Ron Paul Is A Vote For Hillary Clinton"
Just so you know what your "principaled stand" will get you.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 22, 2007 21:07:05 GMT -5
We need to lose the mentality that we must vote for someone who has been a politician a long time! These types are generally the problem because they are entrenched! Uh, Ron Paul is a 10 - that's ten -- TEN -- term congressman. So you just said RP was the wrong one for you.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 22, 2007 21:20:22 GMT -5
"A Vote For Ron Paul Is A Vote For Hillary Clinton" Just so you know what your "principaled stand" will get you. That reminds me WOMI, this was a great quote (some person onGoogle Groups said it, so who knows where it may have originated). Of course, Paul would have to go Libertarian again but still, could be same effect either way: Voting for a candidate who can't win isn't "throwing yer vote away" as both major parties would have you believe. The more votes a small party like the Libertarians get, the more the major parties will adopt some of their platform to try and draw in those voters.
I'll have to admit, there is SOME validity to this statement.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 20:47:21 GMT -5
kevin-
I'd agree with you.
Trouble is, as I've said elsewhere, Libertarians expect to build the Party from the top down rather than from the bottom up.
When I asked, "Name the last Third Party candidate elected President.", our resident Libertarians ignored the question.
There is, of course, an answer: Abraham Lincoln.
In 1860, Republicans were the new kids on the block and they managed to elect their nominee.
Since then, the record of Third Parties has been that of spoilers- and that's being rather charitible.
If the only modern example of a Third Party electorial victory is Jesse Ventura, is that much to hang one's hat on?
|
|