Posted on 11/12/2007 4:15:17 AM PST by NewMediaJournal
I am fast becoming the most unpopular man in America, among Ron Paul supporters that is. Truth is seldom popular among those at odds with that truth.
Paul supporters have worked diligently to convince voters that their candidate is the “real deal” constitutionalist conservative in the ’08 presidential race and that he has a real chance of winning. But the facts simply don’t support either of these claims and pointing this reality out seems to drive Paul supporters into a fit of unbridled rage.
The fact is, though Ron Paul himself is no threat to anyone or anything, his campaign is on a track that is very dangerous for America and the conservative movement in particular. Although he is highly unlikely to win anything, his campaign is increasingly likely to cause real trouble for the legitimate Republican nomination process.
Recent headlines have been focused on the record fund raising day in the Paul campaign. It was a very effective campaign stunt. Although he still trails most other candidates in overall fund raising by a pretty wide margin, his campaign grabbed headlines by setting up an internet campaign stunt designed to raise as much as possible in a single day.
It worked - they got the desired headlines - but what does it really mean? In the end, it won’t change the outcome of the election process.
But the recent surge in campaign contributions did raise a more important question.
(Excerpt) Read more at newmediajournal.us ...
This was posted already. *yawn*
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at www.opensecrets.org, Ron Paul’s top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul.
Interesting because it contains the link to discover who is funding the Evil Democrats: http://www.opensecrets.org/
This is easy.
To win, Hillary’s gonna need a ‘Ross Perot’ to split the vote of the Right.
Well folks:
HERE HE IS!
“But even worse, he threatens the integrity of the Republican nomination process itself by relying upon non-Republicans to win the Republican nomination.”
Integrity of the Republican nomination process? You mean he’s throwing a wrench into the works? What a shame that the establishment is having to do some work instead of sitting on their fat asses and selling their socialist tripe to the masses. What a shame!!!!!!
Who is the yahoo that wrote this? “JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. A hard hitting columnist, attacking the socialist cancer plaguing America today. He has a pragmatic “common Joe” approach to even the toughest issues facing our nation.”
If he’s “attacking the socialist cancer”, how can he possibly support the socialist GOP? This is a misnomer, or this guy is a moron who can’t add 2+2.
If you go to this official website, you will see a section at the bottom left that instructs the Loonie Lefties on how to change their party affiliation. They aren’t switching to become Republicans. They are switching to destroy the party from within.
I think the real concern is Ron Paul running as a spoiler after the republican convention.
If someday a strong domestic libertarian with an understanding of America's role in world affairs is on the ballot, I'd vote for that candidate. Unfortunately, Ron Paul is not that person and his campaign helps Hillary more than it does America.
That's funny, though it's not a lot of money. About as relevant as his "military" contributions the Paul folk are always howling about.
I think the premise of the article is that Ron Paul’s only real support is from the left, so if he were to go back on his word and run as an independent, he would take votes from Hillary, not the Republican nominee.
The only reason why Ron Paul’s candidacy is “destroying the Republican Party from within” is because he’s exposing the 21st century GOP as a socialist party.
He's the Dennis Kucinich of the right - with roughly the same level of patriotism, honor, and valor of his leftist counterpart.
It is patently absurd to use an employer like Google as a basis to sully a person’s political affiliation.
Google employees are some of the best minds of the world, their politics lay throughout the entire political spectrum.
It take s a very small man to attack the political inclinations of random Google employees based solely on their employment status.
To avoid a repeat of last nights flame war on this same post, this thread could be marked a dupe.
If Ron Paul loses the nomination will you support the GOP nominee or will support a third party run?
“If Ron Paul loses the nomination will you support the GOP nominee or will support a third party run?”
I will not vote for the socialist Romney, Guiliani, McCain, Huckabee, or the lazy ass Thompson. Tancredo doesn’t have a chance (unfortunately) and Hunter dropped out. So third party would be the choice.
I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters are, in fact, leftists who are so bitterly opposed to the War on Terror that they are willing to overlook, for a time, Ron Paul’s hard-core anti-statist positions.
The GOP doesn’t need Ron Paul to destroy it’s credibility.
It has done that just fine all by itself. It has become Hillary’s biggest enabler if for no other reason then the poor slate of candidates it has selected to foist upon us.
As far as this Dondero chracter goes, well he is a fired former employee with a perchant for dishonesty and a desire to “pay back” his former employer by slander. Not unexpected but he is not believable either.
The fact that Paul is getting such a negative reaction from the powers that be in the Republican Party might make one suspect that they too fear that polls showing little support for him are questionable.
I am going to vote for Ron Paul ...if for no other reason than to shake the status quo that threatens to transform this Republic even further into the globalist socialiat democracy that it is becoming.
One last “Rage Against The Machine” might be fruitless...but what the hell?
I have given the maximum to Ron Paul at every opportunity; I will vote for him in the primary if given the opportunity to do so.
The third line issue? I am willing to consider Fred Thompson; maybe Huckabee.
But I don't see much of anything in the Republican candidates or policies or current government that I am for. If a Republican candidate shows up advocating historical Republican principals and Constitutional government, I would vote for them. Absent that, I will vote on the third line if Ron Paul or some other candidate who supports similiar policies appears there; absent the opportunity to do that, I have great difficulty seeing why Mr. Clinton's wife is any worse than Gulliani or any other Anti-Gun Anti-Constitution Pro-Abortion Liberal.
Here we go again. Paul does unite different kinds of people, but it is just plain false that they're lefties. Not at all. I've been to some of his supporters sites, and they are definitely not leftists - there are conservatives, independents, some libertarians, and a lot of young people who have never been into politics before... But one thing they do have in common is they are strongly for restoring the constitution, limited government, pro-liberty and individual rights, protecting our sovereignty and against globalism/socialism.
What Paul stands for is diametrically opposed to what lefties/socialists believe in. They may agree on the issue of the war in Iraq, but I highly doubt that many lefties will throw out everything they believe in to vote on one issue. That would be like you voting for Hillary, because you agreed with her on one issue.
Ron Paul is bringing new life into a party that has been shriveling up and losing its way. A party that has been called the 'stupid party' by its own members, who are increasingly becoming disillusioned with the GOP moving closer and closer to the Dems. Look at the "front-runner" right now - a pro-choice, gun grabbing, open borders, pro-gay agenda candidate with all sorts of personal baggage...how is he a conservative? And yet Republicans will probably (as usual) hold their nose and vote for him. And btw, if Giuliani gets the nomination, I think we'll be seeing our worst nightmare...president Hildebeast. He has too many skeletons in his closet, he is too much of a liberal, he's not going to win. I have no doubt though, that Ron Paul CAN and WILL beat Hillary, if he were to get the nomination. But amazingly and sadly, it seems many on this site would rather see Hillary become president before supporting RP.
So I think it is VERY sad and foolish for what's left of the GOP to EXCLUDE new life to the party, young people, people who want to get back to the constitution and small government and a more traditional foreign policy. It's like shooting yourself in the foot, for you guys to have this hateful, exclusive attitude towards anyone new coming in to the GOP, who doesn't march in lockstep with your Bushonian mindset. You're only hurting yourselves, and moving the party closer to socialism.
Ron Paul has stated that traditionally, the conservative Republican view on foreign policy has not been this hyper-interventionist, nation-building, world's policeman policy that we've moved towards (thanks to the Bushes). You guys have become so conditioned to think that is "conservative" - that now, if anyone disagrees, they're not a "conservative." That is silly and false. There are plenty of conservatives who don't want to spend trillions of dollars on perpetual wars, nation building and becoming more hated around the world. And btw, that has happened. I've lived overseas... growing up, because of my dad's job, we lived overseas a few times, and I've traveled all over the world. I remember back then, Americans were liked. Now, I get a very different feeling, when I've traveled in more recent years. We aren't liked anymore, by many, mainly because of this aggressive neoconservative foreign policy.
The hell he did....
To hell with that kook and his whiney isolationism.
See tagline.
I sit corrected. I left two words out. It should have said, “Hunter should have dropped out.”
Rudy, is that you?
And since you don’t want that (of course), we can only assume that you’ll work hard for Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination so that he can beat Hillary head to head.
Yeah, sure. Hillary would beat RuPaul like a rented mule. But only the Paulites are dense enough to not realize that.
Paul's support is geographically based not only in liberal enclaves, in which there are no doubt also wealthy, conservative libertarians. His support is the West. He's weakest in New England, the South, and the Midwest. The Northeast establishment can't abide him.
Paul's also doing the GOP a favor by attacking its ill-considered military adventures.
Just for comparison of actual accomplishments in congress:
Statistics: Duncan Hunter has sponsored 105 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 72 haven’t made it out of committee (Average)
and 10 were successfully enacted (Good, relative to peers).
Hunter has co-sponsored 894 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400191
Now take a look at Ron Paul, who claims many ‘accomplishments’
Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341 haven’t made it out of committee (Extremely Poor)
and 0 were successfully enacted .
Paul has co-sponsored 1876 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311
This RP supported served as an advisor to the Iraqi Army. Many of my fellow Marines are also supporting Dr. No precisely because he recognizes that the Iraqis are a cowardly and corrupt race of people and the sooner we leave the better.
That is about the same batting average he would have as president.
Absolutely. And he has NO congressman who has ever worked with him willing to endorse him. ZERO.
"HI! I'm Ron Paul...Elect me so I can do more of what I did in congress....NOTHING."
Yes, there are RINOS in the GOP, but to make such a blanket statement is without a doubt callow and impuissant.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. The GOP has never taken the LIBERTARIAN Ideology and embraced such an anarchist type of political belief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.