The IMM Smearing Of Ron Paul Begins

Do you really believe that I, your brother in Christ, am a materialist?

 

Do you really believe there to be such a thing as a rational stereotype?

 

Both!?! Yeah, and we're also Jew loving Nazis. And evidently omniscient.

 

From Reason

Moving on...

The President disagrees with you. He considers it his budget. And he's darn proud.

Either he was lying here when he pretended to have control over the budget or he's as wasteful as Greenspan alleges and ultimately takes the fall for deficit spending.

 

Just caught the tail end of the latest Republican debates on Fox.
Ron Paul takes it with 34% Ha, ha, ha, ha! I can see Sean Hannity sharpening his claws right now. But I'm not kidding myself yet, this running of the Republican candidates have still got a long ways to go and yet those who are afraid of Ron Paul and don't want him to win have most likely not pulled out their best bags of dirty tricks and propaganda.
Oh yeah. Rudy came in third just barely.
Eat dirt Rudy!

 

What Democrats don't understand is that the GOP does not work the same way as the Democrats do.

The GOP does not like long expensive primaries. Therefore, we tend to nominate the front-runner. It is unlikely that Ron Paul can win a single delegate in the elections. This race is now between Rudy and Fred, either one of whom can beat Hillary, who seems to have a lock on the Democrat nomination due to lack of competition.

 

I'm not for Huckabee but if he can get his fund raising in gear, he will become a contender. It may just be me but it seems that slowly these other candidates are morphing into a Ron Paul likeness with the exception of Rudy.

 

I didn't watch the debate but I did watch Ron Paul being interviewed by Sean Hannity. Hannity was actually civil towards him this time. I want to commend Sean for his demeanor.

 

Actually, according to the most recent polls I've seen it's between Rudy and Flip.

 

Overall I think Ron Paul was treated much better this time around. It doesn't bode well for those who think they can bully him around and to try to ridicule him, it just makes them look ridiculous. I think Sean Hannity as well as the other Republican candidates have pretty much learned their lesson.

 

Ron Paul was good for almost 500,000 votes in 1988. He probably still has that many votes in 2008.

The Democrats would like to see a weak sister like Ron Paul heading the GOP ticket. They would have more fun with him than they had with Barry Goldwater in 1964.

I don't think that Ron Paul can throw Phyllis Schafly out of the GOP convention in St. Paul. In fact, I think the farther north Ron Paul goes, the weaker he gets. In fact, I am wondering if Ron Paul can even get himself on the Indiana ballot?

 

1) Ron Paul will not win the GOP presidential nomination.

2) Ron Paul won't try. I'll be surprised if he even attends the GOP convention that will be held from September 1-4, 2008.

 

Cato Scholar Comments on GOP Debate

Monday 22 October 2007


Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies:

The top-tier of Republican candidates spent much of last night’s debate criticizing their opponents for being insufficiently conservative. The fact is, with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul who trails badly in the polls, none of the GOP candidates has a consistent record of standing for small-government. Sooner or later someone needs to point out that being a conservative means more than being anti-abortion or tough on terrorists.

- www.cato.org:80/homepage_item.php?id=702

​

 

In the beginning Ron Paul was never given much of a chance, what I see now is candidates little by little positioning themselves in line with Ron Paul.I don't know what really lies ahead for Ron Paul but two things are for certain-- his influence at keying in on the real important issues that concern Americans and his ability to suprise . I look forward to many more suprises by Ron Paul.
Since CMG seems to have crystal clear view of the future I wonder why he would want to concern himself at all to debate anyone he considers so insignificant as Ron Paul.
My condolences to you CMG on the poor showing of your favorite candidate, girlie-boy wonder, Rudy Giuliani in the Florida debate.

 

Oh, you are far behind the times. I was leaning towards Rudy, who favors small government as you know, until Fred Thompson got into the race. Since then I have been leaning towards Fred and my signature links to a blog by a Thompson campaign worker.

Even Ken admits that the Democrats are wrong in hoping that Ron Paul will be nominated--because he won't. Ken says that he himself doubts that Ron Paul even goes to St. Paul--we agree on that.

In case you missed out, Rocko, Ron Paul is merely a Libertarian who happens to caucus with the GOP. His following is limited to his congressional district, the Libertarian Party which still esteems him, some disgruntled Republicans who never liked either Bush, and a lot of Democrats that know that Ron Paul is the only person that Hillary could defeat in November.

What kills Ron Paul, Rocko, is that he is 100% opposed to a constitutional amendment to protect human life. That constitutional amendment was Reagan's idea and Phyllis Schafly, who is very powerful inside the GOP, has an organization called the Republican National Coalition For Life to see that the Reagan plank remains in the GOP platform in contrast to the Dems platform, which always says that a woman has a right to murder her baby.

http://www.rnclife.org/

 

Once again, you are trying to put all of Dr. Paul's supporters into a small box.

And, once again, you are completely wrong. In fact, I would say most of us on this board who now favor Ron Paul voted for the current President Bush at least once. I voted for him twice.

So, why do you keep making generalizations that you are continually told are not true?

Btw, why do you think Dr. Paul is the only Repub that Hillary could beat? I think you are really in for a rude awakening when you wake up the morning after election day to the words on the news, President-elect Clinton. You really must be stuck on the GOP to believe that. That's the attitude that has led us to where we are with our party; in a hole, and only digging ourselves deeper. It's a shame.

 

Well, Ron Paul ran in 1988 as anti-Bush and it is clear that he does not support the son either.

I don't think that it is a small box as you claim to say that Ron Paul's power lies with the Libertarian Party, his Congressional district, disgruntled Republicans who dislike the Bush family, and Democrats who are pretending to be Republicans in order to vote in the GOP primary. I don't see that people in Indiana even know who Ron Paul is.

If you are saying that Hillary could also beat Mitt Romney, then I have to agree with you.

It is still very early and it is the Democrats who are unhappy with their only candidate, Hillary. The Democrats are trying to transfer their problems over into the GOP and make a primary fight out of the GOP race.

However, the GOP is not buying into the idea but slowly going about chosing a front-runner. Right now, I think the GOP race is between Fred Thompson and Rudy G. Unlike the Democrats, the GOP always chooses the front-runner as the GOP believes that long expensive primaries are not in the best interest of the GOP. Stop and think about it, why should the GOP waste a lot of money on the primary?

The GOP always says that the Democrats are going to win. The idea is to keep the Democrats overconfident and encourage the rabble to stay at home on election day. It sometimes works.

 

Well CMG , it looks like you are dependant on most of us to have a short memory. It wasn't that many months ago that you were fawning over Rudy and not too recently calling him a hero of 9-11.
You don't have to support Ron Paul but neither do you need to distort his record either . All the comments you have repeatedly made on Ron Paul over and over again have been refuted but you keep sounding off like a broken record. Don't you think it is time to move on from these distortions?

 

Same here. I voted Bush twice. Back in the day, I even had a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on my car. The "libertarian bias" against Bush is virutally nonexistant. In 2000, 72% of libertarians voted for Bush and in 2004, 59% voted Bush. Source