Hoping the apple fell far from the tree

[tbubster]

It's because every time someone expresses serious doubts about Ron Paul, they express it in a manner that suggests they are scared of him.

If there is, in fact, nothing in the past, nor are there any present indicators that would signal Paul has even a remote chance of winning any primary beyond the Iowa caucus, then Ron Paul is, in effect, irrelevant. If someone is irrelevant, then there is no need to espouse, with great fanfare and effort, heaps and loads of negatively associative terms which tell people why they would not want to and should be associated with the man. They don't merely say that Ron Paul should be dismissed because he has no chance of winning, they use pejorative narrative to discredit him, which is a clear indication of how desperately they feel the need to ensure others dismiss him, as well. Sometimes they go as far as to purely fabricate a premise (e.g., 'Ron Paul is an isolationist,' when he clearly is not) in order to dissuade people from investigating any deeper than the superficial premise.

This is not the tactic of someone who is confident and unafraid. Just the opposite.

If you say so!! That must also mean that many are scared of Newt then.I mean it was on here that I was told that Newts own party fired him as speaker of the house which we all know is not what happend.He called there bluff and told them to do it and he remained speaker untill he decided he would step down at which time he also left congress.

Call it what you want but we all know that paul has no chance of winning.

 

[Turtle]

If you say so!!

What I'm saying is, human nature being predictable and constant, when people reply in a manner which indicates a certain position, even if it's in direct opposition to what they are saying, the way they respond is often the more accurate indicator of their true position. And it's not because I say so. I think you're confusing me with Leo.

 

[Jefferson3000]

Here's how to know who is actually an "electable" candidate. First, you win one of the primaries or caucuses. Then you win another. Then you win another. The primary season operates differently than a general election for a reason. A candidate doesn't need to have great support everywhere at once. A candidate must however, have a couple strongholds early, or the money dries up.

I seriously don't believe that this is going to be your typical election year. There are too many who are disenchanted with the system right now. So far, the fickleness in the polls seems to support that.

 

[aristotle]

I don't see how Mitt Romney or Ron Paul wins a single state primary south of the Ohio River.

 

[RLENT]

I don't see how Mitt Romney or Ron Paul wins a single state primary south of the Ohio River.

Awww, I dunno Ari ..... the guys that are running his campaign are the same ones that got his son Rand elected in your state

BTW - wanna a lay a little side bet on whether "Dr. Nooooooo !" takes Kentucky or not ? (gotta be the real deal tho' - no cup of Pilot coffee or any of that crap .... some real meat - say, a burger ? )

 

[greg334]

I'm just wondering if anyone has looked at the "issues" these three have posted on their campaign sites and actually compared them?

I did and found the problem with Gingrich and Romney is they don't seem to be all that believable in what they stand for.

One example is Gingrich, his position with foreign policy is to go after Radical Islamist which are not the only enemy we have. I found his preemptive strike policy a bit much when we as of today left a country without handing them a bill for our work.

Paul's solution is to withdraw our troops in order to build our own nation back and use the money that we spend with the deployments here or not at all. On his site, his first point is Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

Romney's plan seems to be part of some Clancy novel, he is going to conquer our enemies in the first 100 days.

There's a lot more but it gets confusing when you try to compare the same ideas that failed with ones that haven't been tried.

 

[aristotle]

Rand Paul is on probation in Kentucky. It appears we got snookered. Had we known Rand was susceptible to lapping up his father's political ideas, he would still be an obscure physician in Bowling Green. Be sure of this, every day Rand spends campaigning for his father, Kentuckians will grow more sour on Rand himself. By aligning himself this way, Rand has put his political career on the line. Doesn't Rand understand his father is equivalent to a political toxin? It's a dumb move that will take both Pauls off the political landscape.

 

[RLENT]

Rand Paul is on probation in Kentucky.

But Dean Wormer, I certainly hope it's not "Double-Secret Probation®" ?

Double-Secret Probation

 

[muttly]

Rand Paul is on probation in Kentucky. It appears we got snookered. Had we known Rand was susceptible to lapping up his father's political ideas, he would still be an obscure physician in Bowling Green. Be sure of this, every day Rand spends campaigning for his father, Kentuckians will grow more sour on Rand himself. By aligning himself this way, Rand has put his political career on the line. Doesn't Rand understand his father is equivalent to a political toxin? It's a dumb move that will take both Pauls off the political landscape.

I wouldn't be too harsh on Rand Paul.It is his father afterall. Now if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination and decides to go third party than I'll be right there with you in souring on Rand.

 

[RLENT]

I wouldn't be too harsh on Rand Paul. It is his father afterall. Now if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination and decides to go third party than I'll be right there with you in souring on Rand.

Rather odd .... you'll excuse him for his loyalty to his father, provide his father runs for "the party" ... but if his father decides to pursue a different political path then that accrues to the detriment of the son ?

Help me here ?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Congressman Ron Paul, who claims to be a Republican, flatly refuses to rule out the possibility of a third party run against the GOP if he fails to secure the nomination. Sore loser syndrome. The man is not to be trusted. Toying with the prospect of running as an independent shows Paul has no allegiance to the GOP or the conservative movement. But then, he's a Libertarian and ran as the Libertarian nominee in the recent past.

If Ron Paul runs as a third party nominee, he could siphon off at least 5% of the votes in a general election. Paul understands such a move guarantees a second term for Barack Obama. Ron Paul would rather throw the election to Barack Obama than see another person win. Anyone in favor of a second term for Obama?

Again, conservatives will cast a distrusting eye upon Rand Paul should he follow his father's model of deceit. If this father and son duo aren't prepared to support the GOP nominee, they should leave the party as a matter of principle.

First off, who said I plan on voting for Newt or Mitt if Ron doesn't get the nod? You assume too much on the part of the true conservative. I AM NOT voting status quo anymore. Truly, I would rather die a thousand deaths by alien face suckers.

Secondly, the Republican party IS the conservative party. Unfortunately, it was taken over by neo-cons and liberals. It is THEY who should GET THE HELL OUT of MY party!

 

[greg334]

T-hawk,
I see true conservative and status quo in the same paragraph and only think that a true conservative will only vote the party line to keep the status quo because that is what a true conservative seems to always do.

ALSO just wondering what is a true conservative?

A Reagan conservative by chance, because isn't that a liberal conservative?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I'm not arguing with you AGAIN about Reagan.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say a true conservative also goes by the names of classic liberal and libertarian.

 

[greg334]

I'm not arguing with you AGAIN about Reagan.

I understand, but it was rhetorical in nature.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say a true conservative also goes by the names of classic liberal and libertarian.

Whew, so those who claim to be true conservatives are not like those on the radio playing true conservatives.

 

[muttly]

Rather odd .... you'll excuse him for his loyalty to his father, provide his father runs for "the party" ... but if his father decides to pursue a different political path then that accrues to the detriment of the son ?

Help me here ?

That different political path as a third party candidate would be detrimental to this country because it would ensure four more years of Obama. Rand Paul got elected with the help of the tea party because he opposed Obama's policies. If he allows his dad to try a third party bid it would make anything he says about cutting goverment spending and limited government,etc, a moot point because he will have a president who will veto anything that he would want to accomplish. I believe though that Rand knows his father won't run third party. I think it's perfectly ok for him to help him win the REPUBLICAN nomination, but that's it. If he loses they both should support the republican nominee.

 

[Turtle]

If Ron Paul loses and runs third-party, then the Republicans will lose to Obama. If Paul loses and doesn't run, the Republicans still have a very good shot at loosing to Obama, because Newt, Romney (especially now with the missing hard drives fiasco) nor Perry can defeat Obama. It would seem that it's the Republicans who should be supporting Paul, not the other way around.

 

[AMonger]

I don't see how Mitt Romney or Ron Paul wins a single state primary south of the Ohio River.

You mean nobody down there wants to be free? No other candidate can pick freedom out of a police lineup.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[cheri1122]

If Ron Paul loses and runs third-party, then the Republicans will lose to Obama.

That's the conventional wisdom, but I'm not so sure. Like Jefferson pointed out, this is a different ballgame [the R candidates other than Paul are the slimiest group ever assembled for our consideration] and Paul has a lot more support than the MSM is acknowledging. I think he could beat Obama.

If Paul loses and doesn't run, the Republicans still have a very good shot at loosing to Obama, because Newt, Romney (especially now with the missing hard drives fiasco) nor Perry can defeat Obama. It would seem that it's the Republicans who should be supporting Paul, not the other way around.

That last line? Too too funny.

 

[AMonger]

If Ron Paul loses and runs third-party, then the Republicans will lose to Obama.

That's the conventional wisdom, but I'm not so sure. Like Jefferson pointed out, this is a different ballgame [the R candidates other than Paul are the slimiest group ever assembled for our consideration] and Paul has a lot more support than the MSM is acknowledging. I think he could beat Obama.

If Paul loses and doesn't run, the Republicans still have a very good shot at loosing to Obama, because Newt, Romney (especially now with the missing hard drives fiasco) nor Perry can defeat Obama. It would seem that it's the Republicans who should be supporting Paul, not the other way around.

That last line? Too too funny.

And, as Turtle himself pointed out, anti-establishment fervor is now stronger than ever, and nobody is more so than Dr. Paul.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[muttly]

And, as Turtle himself pointed out, anti-establishment fervor is now stronger than ever, and nobody is more so than Dr. Paul.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

The establishment doesn't want Newt probably just as much as Paul.