If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
Saw this on another board and I'm going to try to out it for what it really is - hack commentary at its worst. I'll put my response in another reply as I don't want to make my first post too long.
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.
Ron Paul’s fund raising
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.
Where’s all that money coming from?
At first, I assumed, and had even written, that Ron Paul’s financial support was coming from the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Then I was corrected by former Ron Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus, Eric Dondero, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live.
In an interview with Dondero, he emphatically complained; “Please refrain in the future from using the label "Libertarian Republican" in describing Ron Paul. Call him what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger.”
Dondero continued, “Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball.”
These were strong words from a former aide to Mr. Paul (from 1997 – 2003) and words worthy of investigation in my mind. So I decided to investigate, which in politics always means, follow the money.
Where is all that money coming from?
Upon investigation, it appears that Mr. Dondero is exactly right. Much of Ron Paul’s money is not coming from mainstream Libertarians or Republicans.
Although he is running as a Republican, he actually has very little support from rank and file Republicans, as every national Republican poll confirms. But it turns out that he has very little support from mainstream Libertarians either. As Dondero pointed out, “Ron Paul is only attracting support from the leftwing side of the libertarian spectrum, virtually none of whom are Republicans.”
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at Opensecrets.org--Money in politics data, 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.
Like Howard Dean before him, Ron Paul first grabbed headlines with his very hi-tech internet campaign, which is now easily explained by the fact that his largest constituency is in the computer tech community. It also explains how Paul supporters have perfected the art of “spamming” or “jamming” online polls, creating a false impression of bigger support while invalidating poll after poll. Other tech giants like Microsoft and Verizon top his donors list as well.
Among Ron Paul’s top donor zip codes are of course parts of Texas, but also heavily liberal districts in Chicago (60614), San Francisco (94117), more than 80% of which supports Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, and Los Angeles – Long Beach, which is his second largest donor area after Dallas.
What we have here is a candidate trying to win the Republican nomination by raising money from liberals across the political aisle.
This is why his fund-raising is not translating to improved poll positions
His donors are not Republicans. So no matter how much money he raises, it is not translating into Republican support in the polls. He remains at or below 5% support in every national Republican poll, no matter how much money he raises.
USA Today reports, “The Iowa Republican Party put out an advisory Tuesday setting standards for participation in a Dec. 4 debate. Sponsors said participants need to average 5% support among Republicans in recent national or Iowa polls -- and so far, Texas Rep. Ron Paul is one of the candidates not making the cut.”
In Pollster.com's latest averaging of national poll results of Republicans, Paul's support comes in at 2.7%. The website calculates Paul's support among Republicans in Iowa, based on polls there, to be 3.8%.
Yet his supporters still claim he is much more popular than the national polls indicate and that he will be the come from behind shocker at the Republican convention. How?
Here’s where the Ron Paul campaign becomes dangerous
Because Paul supporters know that support coming from non-Republicans is not reflected in the Republican polls, they have started a campaign to promote party-jumping so that their anti-war supporter’s from the left can vote in the Republican primary.
Twenty four states have “open” primaries, which means, one need not be Republican to vote in those Republican primaries. Ron Paul supporters are promoting both strategies – one in which Democrats, Independents, and members of other third parties can vote for him in “open” primaries where possible, and switch parties to vote for him where the primaries are “closed.”
The mere notion that a Republican presidential candidate should be nominated by this strategy is insane and very dangerous to the entire election process. At a minimum, it is a demonstration of just what kind of people are behind the Ron Paul campaign, obviously, not constitutionally conscious people. I do not know if the Paul campaign itself is behind this effort. But I am sure that the campaign is aware of this effort, as well as the fact that much of their funding is coming from people other than Republicans.
The Daily Paul is openly promoting Change Party Affiliation to Republican to Participate in Primaries. “As you may realize, there are many people from across the spectrum planning to support Ron Paul: Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Green Party members, disenfranchised Democrats, and of course the disenfranchised Republicans. Many of these people may not realize that they NEED to change party affiliations to Republican to vote in the GOP Primary in many States.” (A direct quote from the site)
So, how Republican is Republican candidate Ron Paul?
If he’s funded largely by anti-war leftists, from Democrat stronghold districts and counting on Democrats, Libertarians and members of the Green Party to win the Republican nomination, not very…
The only Republicans we find in his campaign are those myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for his Democrat-like spending habits. Those so angry with Bush, that they are willing to overlook all of this just to vote for a candidate who promises less spending. Of course, we can’t entirely overlook the handful of moderate Republicans who oppose the war in Iraq either, few as they are.
Why is the Ron Paul campaign dangerous?
Despite his very real popularity across the political aisle, he is not likely to get enough people to switch parties in order to win the RNC nomination. But he is doing a great job of validating the perspective of all the negative propaganda uttered by leftists against Bush, Republicans, the War on Terror and national security. That’s not good.
He is also doing a great job of helping the left undermine the war on terror and that’s why he’s so popular among anti-war leftists, including in the press. This is bad.
But even worse, he threatens the integrity of the Republican nomination process itself by relying upon non-Republicans to win the Republican nomination.
Last, at a time in American history when the Republican Party must be more united and engaged than ever before, when every available conservative vote is needed in next years general election, Paul and his supporters are busy carving up the party for their own anti-Republican agenda.
I hate wasting this much press time on Ron Paul. But the Paul campaign is becoming a real threat to the Republican primary process and if allowed to continue, he will take votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates in the party, not the most liberal. This is bad for the party and the country.
That’s why his campaign has become dangerous.
I actually agree with many of Ron Paul’s positions, outside of his suicidal national security perspective of course. But I can not agree with the campaign tactics of using leftist money and votes to hijack the Republican nomination and I’m shocked that any Republican would.
There’s really no need to write another word about Ron Paul. If you can know all of these facts, follow the money and the links provided for their campaign tactics and still support him, you’re no Republican, much less a conservative or constitutionalist.
Real Republicans need to be aware and unite to block this effort to hijack the party nomination.
National elections are decided by a couple points one way or another today. Republicans can’t afford to let any candidate play games with their nomination process. Republicans need a candidate that will unite and motivate conservative voters, not one that divides and undermines that process.
That’s it! These are the facts. You don’t have to like them, you just need to know them.
Despite his very real popularity across the political aisle, he is not likely to get enough people to switch parties in order to win the RNC nomination. But he is doing a great job of validating the perspective of all the negative propaganda uttered by leftists against Bush, Republicans, the War on Terror and national security. That’s not good.
Hmmm....maybe his ideas are validating this perspective BECAUSE ITS RIGHT.
What an asshat.
I'm not really even an RP supporter, and this was at BEST, a poorly conceived smear piece.
Hell....if RP is pissing off regular Reps....that makes me like him even more.
Well, Rush was nailing Hillary for her campaign's obviously illegal campaign contributions from the Chicoms, so I guess someone had to TRY and smeer a Republican.
Although, Ron Paul is a libertarian leaning Republican, that's well known. Alot of Republicans have libertarian leanings.
And the article is right, he isn't going to win the nomination no matter how much money he raises. He might as well stop now. The debates wouldn't last so long and take of valuable prime time tv slots. Same thing for Edwards stupid ass and Kuncinich (sp).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorn
I don't welcome another party - government especially - determining that I don't need the money I have earned, because someone else "needs" it more. The fact that you dont have something doesn't give you the right to demand it from me.
Take my money by force on the street, and it's called Theft. Make a law that takes it by force, and it's called Benevolence.
We need these people to run, even if it sacrifices air time, resources, etc...
The two party system is fucked up and its responsible for a LOT of what is wrong with this country.
These other candidates help remind people that they do not have to be polarized into black and white.
There are a lot of people who are centrist....these people have no party right now. We have become way too polarized.
Quote:
From Barak Obama's candidacy speech: The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
The only way that Paul can be remotely linked to the left is because of his staunch opposition to the Iraq War.
I don't know what's behind that. It's probably because there was no declaration of war by Congress. I could be wrong since I have a limited understanding of how Paul thinks.
Here's the real irony in JB Williams' story though...
Quote:
At a minimum, it is a demonstration of just what kind of people are behind the Ron Paul campaign, obviously, not constitutionally conscious people.
Which is rather ironic, considering he bills himself as the congressman who only votes/supports bills that align correctly with the Constitution.
Quote:
In Pollster.com's latest averaging of national poll results of Republicans, Paul's support comes in at 2.7%. The website calculates Paul's support among Republicans in Iowa, based on polls there, to be 3.8%.
So, Williams is an obvious opponent of Paul's. Williams is clearly more pro-Bush, more pro-big government, more big spending. I could be wrong about the latter, considering he specifically calls Bush out on his "Democrat-like" spending. But what is he so afraid of, considering the cited poll numbers?
Posts: 2,235
Casino Cash: $17815
Sportbike: black 06 636, black 07 zx14
The two party system is actually almost a requirement of government like ours. I don't like it and am fully aware of its flaws, but historically there is no exception-once a country significantly supports 3 or more distinct seperate parties near equality almost nothing gets accomplished by the government. If you think it's bad with demos and repubs, imagine having to get another group to go along for the ride. I realize that you'd just need two sides to join up on a given issue against the 3rd, but historically those two entities cannot remain independent if a pattern develops which is almost unavoidable.
Even if I accept everything in that article, it doesn't really make any difference IMO. So he's supposed to not accept democratic $? Give me a break.
__________________
"Blind is the world
Few are those who clearly see"
....to deny the existance of the Ron Paul phenomenon.
Are you serious? If anything, Ron Paul will be the Howard Dean of Republicans.
Mike Huckabee is the best candidate all around, but him, along with Ron Paul and some others, definately aren't going to get the nomination.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorn
I don't welcome another party - government especially - determining that I don't need the money I have earned, because someone else "needs" it more. The fact that you dont have something doesn't give you the right to demand it from me.
Take my money by force on the street, and it's called Theft. Make a law that takes it by force, and it's called Benevolence.
Are you serious? If anything, Ron Paul will be the Howard Dean of Republicans.
Mike Huckabee is the best candidate all around, but him, along with Ron Paul and some others, definately aren't going to get the nomination.
They might all have a better chance and a more even field if people like you would step out of the sheep pen and give real support to the candidates you actually like best instead of giving up and backing whoever the media tells you is going to be the winner.
Trying to discourage those people who *do* have the guts and the intellectual honesty to think for themselves and vote for who they really think is best is playing right into the hands of those who want to maintain the status quo, for their own benefit.
My favorite bits of the Williams article are "those myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for his Democrat-like spending habits" and "the handful of moderate Republicans who oppose the war in Iraq either, few as they are". *Obviously*, anyone who thinks the war is a rathole and/or thinks Bush is spending too much *must* be deluded. So it's a hit piece by someone's hand puppet. Big deal.
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
The only way that Paul can be remotely linked to the left is because of his staunch opposition to the Iraq War.
I don't know what's behind that. It's probably because there was no declaration of war by Congress. I could be wrong since I have a limited understanding of how Paul thinks.
That is exactly one of his main objections to Ron Paul.
If you go to youtube and search for Ron Paul you will come up with some good videos from interviews and debates that will shed light on his position.
The Dangers of the Ron Paul Campaign
So it's a hit piece by someone's hand puppet. Big deal.
Linear Mode
