[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The author conveniently ignores the fact that Dr. Paul is underrepresented in many of the MSM polls. In fact, many of these polls exclude Paul's name with "Other." (There's a hilarious YouTube clip of someone pushing "Other" only to be zotted out of the database).

These polls are polling the same registered Republicans who voted for incumbent Bush in 2004, so of course Paul is going to be "low" in these polls. And ever since then, this base of registered Republicans have been dwindling.

As usual, we have the obligatory Howard Dean comparison. There's no comparison to Dean here. Dean still ran a top-down campaign, many of his "volunteers" were paid staffers, and Dean didn't have a message that transcended the hardcore leftists who supported him. Plus he was toast anyway, because next-door neighbor NH voters knew his socialist record and he didn't have a prayer of winning there. With Paul, all he did was throw the message out there, and people came to him. In IA, you can register Republican right up to the day of the caucauses, and Paul's supporters are more enthusiastic than the other candidates. It's going to be January and it'll be cold. Will Romney, Huckabee and Fred's aging supporters show up in sub-zero weather?

Very non-factual and poorly written article here.

[captain anode]

A case study in negativism is a good self description of the article. It does not describe RP.

Ron Paul’s record is far more Republican than all current presidential candidates and most opposition is not on an intellectual level but simply name calling, he is not Dean or Perot. He’ll get a lot more votes.

Previous history,
2x Reagan smaller government
2x Bush liberal lost to the Clintons
1x Dole liberal lost to the Clintons
2x Bush liberal lost us along the way
2008 Ron Paul

Ron Paul is by far nearer an ideal candidate than the last Republican 5 choices.

[navyguy]

Ron Pauls worst enemy is his own followers.