What's Wrong With Ron Paul?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"If Ron Paul had received 1/16 the press that Hillary has, he'd be the front runner squirrelly or not."

BBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Stop it, you're killing me!


I'm sorry, but that's the most incredibly fanciful bit of thinking I've ever heard.
 
For some reason, Americans will tell you about something in ideal terms, but actually live the opposite.

In other words, we all marvel at The Lone Ranger and his code of conduct. In point of fact, we actually want Richard Marcinko and Sonny Barger to do our fighting. And of course we would pizz on them too the moment peace is achieved.

RP is the strict constructionist version of Jimmy Carter. Probably as smart, undoubtedly as moral, loyal to his principles and about as exciting as tepid bath water.

As much as we demand "honesty in government," lots of us were really cheering for Slick Willie to bang another intern.

We harp about global warming, and then buy a Hummer.

Can you imagine the legacy of RP in government? Nothing to really fight over, it's all right there is the Bill of Rights. No co-eds, interns or other girls-gone-wild. A press conference with RP would be a dead cold report that today was simply a carbon copy of yesterday. And BTW, our soldiers are getting bored and we just refurbished 200 old bridges.

About this time about six dozen Washington D.C. madames would be going bankrupt. It just wouldn't seem right to chase women anymore.

No, for the good of this country we need a sleazy pointless war in a part of the world no one ever heard about, Hillary making one stupid mistake after another, and an entire TV season of Barbara Streissand ranting to Oprah.

We need conflict, marketing, corrupt interns of all shapes and sizes, and a few good scandals during sweeps-week.

Instead you guys want RP. *crickets*
 
This has gone so many different directions I can't possible expect to have something that fits in nicely.

Ron Paul is on point for guns. That's what we're here (TFL) for, good on him. He's got a lot of other redeeming points as well, mostly on the economic front. But you asked "what's wrong?"

While there are perfectly cool gun owners of all stripes here, the general current, if I may dare aggregate, is one of general conservativism. In that respect, Ron is missing some marks. Like foreign policy. Drug policy. Death penalty. "Moral" legislation. Some of the wacky conspiracy theories that his camp tends to posit (9/11 etc). I am not implying these issues should matter to anyone on here. We are here for our love of the Second Amendment. However, these issues are standard bread and butter for mainstream conservatives.

Why do we care? Because he has put off the mainstream conservatives. We are, for better or worse, a democracy. I often think worse and would opt for a pure republic if it was an option. But, this is what we have, and you need to carry that middle ground to win in a democracy. Paul never stood a chance, because he never wanted that middle ground. His appeal isn't broad enough to unite the disenfranchised of both parties, but he chose not to "pick a side" in honest to carry a majority in either. There's no "media blackout," any more than there is for Alan Keyes - good guys, but why cover someone who's not a legitimate contender?

So what's Ron left with? Precisely what TheBluesMan said: "over-zealous, attack-supporters." Whereas some of the other candidates who spent very little money were able to capitalize on their grassroots popularity (see 2 joeybolz posts ago), Paul is one of those whose own grassroots brigade has estranged him further from the general public.

No mystery, no conspiracy, he is just not able to play the democracy game. He's the right's Nader, and though I'll get scourged for this, I hope some of Paul's supporters can decock their principles momentarily next fall to have some hope. Not a great deal of hope, just some semblance, rather than abandoning it altogether with a vote on principle that completely disregards what democracy amounts to. Lord knows I am not going to be happy to vote for McCain, but acknowledging the democratic design we operate under, compromise is often the best we can wish for.

And I've now taken that ten steps farther than the original question asked. Sorry :P
 
I am beginning to think his campaign staff are inept or keeping a very tight lid on the campaign war chest for some obscure reason.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is to hang in there and have a bunch of money on hand when a brokered convention rolls around.

joeybolz said:
From some of the previous posts, how would one explain McCain's resurgence with no money. Flat broke in September and a nearly a laughing stock. Huckabee, less than a million bucks in September but then a big resurgence. Must of been Jesus huh?
Click to expand...

Romney has spent 86 million, has 2 million on hand, and owes 35 million.

McCain has spent 38 million, has 3 million on hand, and owes 4.5 million.

Paul has spent 20 million, has 8 million on hand, and owes 0.

Huck has spent 7 million, has 2 million on hand, and owes 97,000.

I think how they run their campaigns shows how they would run the country.
 
Stage2: At one time Rudy was the frontrunner. At his lowest time in the polls, Rudy was still far ahead of Paul. As a result, he is more viable and thus deserves more attention.
Click to expand...

Ok so how DID Rudy become the frontrunner? Media coverage? Polls? More Media coverage, more polls? Then Rudy completey flames out even though his face was ALWAYS pictured in the Voter Guides.

Address this Question: CNN goes 24/7, Ron Paul is a candidate that was just in their debate (in which they lied to him). WHY for the love of god wouldn't they cover him just to have material to fill the day? They covered Hillary's coughing fit in depth for crying out loud.

Brokered convention probably. But why would they have to give RP a speaking role? Couldn't they just continue to shut him down?
 
Thumper: Americans generally don't like defeatists.
Click to expand...

Many on this forum already wrote off RP after 5 primaries. Then proceeded to tell us to vote for McCain (who has been selling out conservatives for 8 years). I ask you exactly who the REAL defeatists are?
 
What is wrong with Paul is simply this, most Republicans are as selfish and tied to entitlements as the Democrats. Neither party wants the gravy train to end, the only difference is which pig is feeding at the trough. As a result the Reps are just as happy to attack him as the Dems. There is no problem from either side with smearing him with every incorrect label out there. The Kool Aid drinkers of both parties (usually spotted by the use of the slogans "They hate our freedom" or "Bush lied for Oil") pile on with whatever garbage has been thrown to them as the official line.
 
Why will none of the Ron Paul supporters answer the question?

"Why did Ron Paul refuse to be interviewed by a fellow Libertarian Neal Boortz?"
If you support him and complain about lack of coverage, then answer why he would not be on any media outlet he could?

I think the biggest issue was that he was only talking to his supporters and then wanting them to go out and spread the message. Most of the RP supporters I know have been crazy about him to the extent they could not carry a rational conversation about the issues. Just my opinion.
 
I'm not high enough up the food chain to answer the Neal Boortz interiew question.
What's your take on it?
 
Why will none of the Ron Paul supporters answer the question?

"Why did Ron Paul refuse to be interviewed by a fellow Libertarian Neal Boortz?"
If you support him and complain about lack of coverage, then answer why he would not be on any media outlet he could?
Click to expand...

How can anyone other than Ron Paul answer that question?
 
Then proceeded to tell us to vote for McCain (who has been selling out conservatives for 8 years). I ask you exactly who the REAL defeatists are?
Click to expand...

It's not defeatist, it's rational. Yes, McCain could roll with either party in much of the country. But Ron Paul will not win a game of hopscotch. If you say that McCain and Obama are indistinguishable on 2A issues, you're blind. "Not perfect," or even "not desirable," is not the same as "incorrigible." I loved Thompson and Huckabee, but they're out. Stated explicitly or not, I have no misgivings about that. Time to move on and do the best damage control we can.
 
Why will none of the Ron Paul supporters answer the question?

"Why did Ron Paul refuse to be interviewed by a fellow Libertarian Neal Boortz?"
Click to expand...
I have no idea.

Paul was interviewed by several other talk show hosts that have national programs, why do you think Neil Boortz would be different?

Notice that when I mention the media blackout, that's been since January 1st. Paul had a number of interviews on non-news shows, including Jay Leno. That's hardly the same as being reported along with other candidates.

Paul's shabby treatment on the debates both by FoxNews and CNN has been occurring for months on end.

Someone mentioned that Ron Paul isn't exciting. In comparison to who? McCain or Romney? I find Ron Paul very exciting, not because of his persona or personal affect; it's his ideas that are exciting. That's what we should base our votes on.
 
"How can anyone other than Ron Paul answer that question?"

Funny, that response.

There have been a LOT of questions that have been asked about Ron Paul's campaign, his strategy, etc.

Almost all of those questions have brought numerous responses from his supporters that have tried to explain why Dr. Paul has done this, why he hasn't done that...

Why is the crystal ball so completely dead on this one particular subject?

Sounds like a cop out, to me.
 
What's wrong with Ron Paul?

He isn't winning. He was never winning...oh except in fundraising which his supporters thought meant that he would win the nomination, but yet he kept failing to carry states.
 
What is wrong with Paul is simply this, most Republicans are as selfish and tied to entitlements as the Democrats. Neither party wants the gravy train to end, the only difference is which pig is feeding at the trough. As a result the Reps are just as happy to attack him as the Dems. There is no problem from either side with smearing him with every incorrect label out there. The Kool Aid drinkers of both parties (usually spotted by the use of the slogans "They hate our freedom" or "Bush lied for Oil") pile on with whatever garbage has been thrown to them as the official line.
Click to expand...

And the unthinking sheeple are content in their current state of enslavement and prefer to have their decisions spoonfed to them by the MSM.
 
For those that question Boortz's differences with Ron Paul ... you may find this short read interesting.
----------------------
Neal Boortz: Wrong on Ron Paul?
Can Ron Paul Protect America from Islamic Terrorism and Still Be Constitutional?

by EJ Moosa
(Libertarian)

For months on end, I have listened to Neal Boortz claim that Ron Paul will not defend America, and that we must fight the terrorists over there rather than here.

Yet, I have not heard anything of substance from Boortz on why he believes this to be true. Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that he would just "follow the Constitution".

Is fighting terrorism unconstitutional in Boortz's eyes? It must be. Either that or Boortz ultimately believes that it is the role of the United States to police the world and remove perceived threats.

If a war on terrorism is Constitutional, I cannot grasp why Boortz continues to hammer Paul on this subject.

Do you believe we can fight a war against terrorism that is Constitutional, or is Boortz right? Do you know of anything within the Constitution that prohibits taking action?

I know this has been a major reason some individuals have not supported Ron Paul so far. There is a belief that we would not defend ourselves against real threats.

I believe following the Constitution would likely give a President greater ability to protect our nation by eliminating activities which increase our risk while providing us no tangible benefits. I also believe the American People would be firmly behind a President that used his powers wisely rather than with reckless abandon.

" The only proper way to go to war, the only legal way to go to war, the only constitutional way to go to war is to declare the war, by the congress, not by the president. The people should be behind it. "----Ron Paul

----------------

I for one will support Ron Paul to the end. IMO , not only is RP right on the majority of most important issues that face this country , but he's honest to the core and undoubtedly has the peoples best interest and freedoms at heart.
 
Wow, I'm an unthinking sheeple because I won't waste a vote on someone that doesn't have a chance in hell of being nominated.

I'd like a lot of things in this country to be better, but I also know that standing with the fringe and being obnoxious will accomplish absolutely nothing. As far as politics goes, we have been in the damage control mode for a long time now and I see no end in sight.

The thing I fear the most is a liberal federal bench and surpreme court - as you cannot vote them out of office. Go ahead and continue to insult those of us that try to work the system the best we can and continue to tilt at your windmills. Yup, I'm a bit tired of the insulting tone of the RP crowd...
 
NGIB ... don't know if you're referring to me , but I was not insulting anyone.

From my point of view, I simply don't trust any of the others. I see a bunch of politicians and one honest man ready to do what it takes to save the rights of the people of America and do what's best for the country.

BTW ... for those that don't realize it ... IF McCain gets the nomination ... we basically have an all Democrat race on our hands.

Let's be honest here ... McCain is not a real conservative Republican. The only one that can truly claim that is RP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top