The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

[e1evene1even]

Picking Apart the Poll (Paul) Numbers

James Ostrowski
Lew Rockwell.com
Thursday July 26, 2007

The Ron Paul earthquake has turned into a snowball rolling downhill, gathering mass and speed daily. Press attention is up, money is flowing in and smears are missing their mark. His Republican opponents juggle miscellaneous political problems while Fred Thompson auditions for Hamlet:

And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.

Only one obstacle remains before Ron Paul is deemed a real contender and we can get onto the issues: the opinion polls.

We are right to be skeptical of polls, particularly early polls about small turnout primaries and caucuses. However, experience shows they do very roughly portray public opinion at any given time. Ron needs to slowly creep up to and pass at least one "leading contender."

How is Ron doing in the polls? I hate to say this as it will reinforce my "pie in the sky" image on these things, but he is doing fine. What’s more, he will pass that contender soon.

He is starting to get a steady 2–3% in national and large state polls. He’s at six percent in Texas which is his home state but so what? It’s the second largest state and its electoral votes still count even if you’re from there.

A careful reading of the polls suggests that Ron’s numbers will gradually rise over time. First, there is widespread dissatisfaction with the best-known Republican contenders. 57 percent of Republicans are not satisfied with the field at this point. Next, consider name recognition. Perhaps half of the population has now heard of him but most have little basis yet to make an informed judgment. It has been observed that Ron Paul does well among those who know him well. That fact argues for optimism as the public learns more and more about him. In contrast, the leading Republican candidates are close to 90 percent in name recognition but have generated no great enthusiasm among the public. The least known of the three – Romney – is so charismatically-challenged that he needs to spend four million dollars for each national poll point.

Now consider the match up numbers. Here’s how the candidates match up against the Democratic nominee in waiting:

Giuliani 43; Clinton 44
Romney 42; Clinton 46
McCain 38; Clinton 47
Paul 34; Clinton 49

Given the vastly greater name recognition, spending and media coverage of the "big three," Paul’s performance is fabulous. It also bears out my point that anyone who runs against Hillary starts out with nearly half of the country wishing them well. Any political pro would look at those numbers and pronounce the Paul-Clinton race "winnable" in about two seconds.

Finally, public opinion on the leading issues in the campaign leans toward Ron Paul. The number-one issue will be the war. 69 percent disapprove of the way George Bush is handling Iraq and only 57 percent of Republicans support him. Factor in those states that allow independents to vote and this issue becomes a strong asset to Paul, the only anti-war Republican. He will never be one-on-one with a pro-war Republican.

Polling on immigration can be fuzzy but certainly most Republicans favor a strong enforcement approach as does Ron Paul. McCain and Giuliani are open-borders types. The third leading issue will be health care. Here, many polls seem to favor the Democrats’ ill-defined plans for "universal care." The problem with the polls, however, is that Ron Paul’s position, the free market, is never one of the choices. With his personal background in health care and complete command of the economic principles involved, he will be able to effectively check that Democratic edge in the debates.

So, all indications are that Ron’s numbers will continue to slowly rise in the coming weeks. How will we know when he has reached the promised land of "contenders"? That’s easy. When he passes Romney’s national poll number of about ten percent. Since all agree that Romney is a "contender," when he is eclipsed by Ron Paul, the media will be hard-pressed to deny him the same consideration.

Prediction: Mitt Romney will soon be hearing the footsteps of a former track star.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski84.html

 

[5-HT2]

It's the 1930's all over again

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Jittery stock markets, an economy drunk on credit, and politicians calling for varieties of dictatorship: what a sense of déjà vu! Let us recall that the world went bonkers for about ten years way back when. The stock market crashed in 1929, thanks to the Federal Reserve, and with it fell the last remnants of the old liberal ideology that government should leave society and economy alone to flourish. After the federal Great Depression hit, there was a general air in the United States and Europe that freedom hadn't worked. What we needed were strong leaders to manage and plan economies and societies.

And how they were worshipped. On the other side of the world, there were Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini, but in the United States we weren't in very good shape either. Here we had FDR, who imagined himself capable of astonishing feats of price setting and economy boosting. Of course he used old-fashioned tricks: printing money and threatening people with guns. It was nothing but the ancient despotism brought back in pseudo-scientific garb.

Things didn't really return to normal until after the war. These "great men" of history keeled over eventually, but look what they left: welfare states, inflationary banking systems, high taxes, massive debt, mandates on business, and regimes with a penchant for meddling at the slightest sign of trouble. They had their way even if their absurd posturing became unfashionable later.

It's strange to go back and read opinion pieces from those times. It's as if everyone just assumed that we had to have either fascism or socialism, and that the one option to be ruled out was laissez-faire. People like Mises and Hayek had to fight tooth and nail to get a hearing. The Americans had some journalists who seemed to understand, but they were few and far between.

So what was the excuse for such a shabby period in ideological history? Why did the world go crazy? It was the Great Depression, or so says the usual explanation. People were suffering and looking for answers. They turned to a Strongman to bail them out. There was a fashion for scientific planning, and the suffering economy (caused by the government, of course) seemed to bolster the rationale.

All of which brings me to a strange observation: when it comes to politics, we aren't that much better off today. It's true that we don't have people running for office in ridiculous military suits. They don't scream at us or give sappy fireside chats or purport to be the embodiment of the social mind. The tune is slightly changed, but the notes and rhythms are the same.

Have you listened carefully to what the Democrats are proposing in the lead-up to the presidential election? It's just about as disgusting as anything heard in the 1930s: endless government programs to solve all human ills. It's as if they can't think in any other way, as if their whole worldview would collapse if they took notice of the fact that government can't do anything right.

But it also seems like they are living on another planet. The stock market has a long way to fall before it reaches anything we could call low. Mortgage interest rates are creeping along at the lowest possible rates. Unemployment is close to 4%, which is lower than even Keynesians of old could imagine in their wildest dreams.

The private sector is creating a miracle a day, even as the stuff that government attempts is failing left and right. The bureaucracies are as wasteful and useless as they've ever been, spending is already insanely high, debt is skyrocketing, and there's no way that any American believes himself to be under-taxed.

The Democrats, meanwhile, go about their merry business as if the public schools were a model for all of society. Oh, and let us not forget their brilliant idea of shutting down the industrial economy and human prosperity so the government can plan the weather 100 years from now. We can only hope that there are enough serious people left to put a stop to this harebrained idea.

But before we get carried away about the Democrats, let's say a few words about the bloodthirsty Republicans, who think of war not as something to regret, but rather the very moral life of the nation. For them, justice equals Guantánamo Bay, and public policy means a new war every month, and vast subsidies to the military-industrial complex and such other Republican-friendly firms as the big pharmaceutical companies. Sure, they pay lip service to free enterprise, but it's just a slogan to them, unleashed whenever they fear that they are losing support among the bourgeois merchant class.

So there we have it. Our times are good, and yet we face a choice between two forms of central planning. They are varieties of socialism and fascism, but not overtly: they disguise their ideological convictions so that we won't recognize that they and their ilk have certain predecessors in the history of political economy.

Into this mix steps Ron Paul, with a message that has stunned millions. He says again and again that government is not the way out. And even though his political life is nothing short of heroic, he doesn't believe that his candidacy is about him and his personal ambitions. He talks of Bastiat, Hazlitt, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard – in public campaign speeches. And let no one believe that this is just rhetoric. Take a look at his voting record if you doubt it. Even the New York Times is amazed to discover that there is a principled man in politics.

It is impressive how crowds are hard pressed to disagree with him. How much good is he doing? It is impossible to exaggerate it. He provides hope when we need it most. You see, the American economy may look good on the surface but underneath, the foundation is cracking. The debt is unsustainable. Savings are nearly nonexistent. Money supply creation is getting scary. The paper-money economy can't last and won’t last. One senses that the slightest change could cause unforeseen wreckage.

What would happen should the bottom fall out? Scary thought. We need ever more public spokesmen for our cause. In many ways, the Mises Institute bears a heavy burden as the world's leading institutional voice for peace and economic liberty. So does LewRockwell.com. And we are working in every way possible to make sure that the flame of freedom is not extinguished, even in the face of legions of charlatans and power-mongers. Even though the politics of our times is as dark as ever, there are bright lights on the horizon.

July 28, 2007

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/1930s-again.html

 

[kong]

Ron Pauls statism makes sense in many cases. States pay the feds in taxes-->feds give the money back in exchange for control. Education funds, highway funds, ect...would be more efficiently distributed if they never left the states themselves. In addition, the amount of control exercised by the feds who are more susceptible to being "bought out" makes it difficult for sane policy to occur on a state by state basis. Where it not for the amount of money the feds dangle out for the states, we would be seeing a different country. A country with legal drugs in *some* states.

 

[mulberryman]

the thing i like is that ron paul addresses the issue of inflation and the federal reserve, while no one else actually does. We are printing money and causing mass inflation. Our country is going backrupt but he is the only one pointing that out.

Actually, less than 5% of all money today is created by the government. Inflation does exist, however, it is caused mainly by the corporatly owned (and government sanctioned) banking industry. Over 95% of all money today is created as debt through loans issued by banks not required to back with real capital.

 

[Curious Quetzal]

Ron Paul seems to be rather sentient...
I really like the fact that many people who support him are looking beyond any stigmas that his political party carries.
This is the first time I've been excited by a presidential election in a long time!

Tucker Carson, Wolf Blitzer... Man you must have some really idiotically named people on TV over there.

Leave our poor corporate-owned media giant alone. Poor ol' CNN ain't got a friend in the world

 

[mulberryman]

Hey Update guys:
It now appears that Rudy Gulliani and Mitt Romney won't be taking part in the upcoming CNN-YouTube republican debate. This should be very interesting...

 

[e1evene1even]

Nice, hopefully this means more talking time for the other candidates. It also means Giuliani won't have to answer any potentially tough questions likely to be flooding in...

A Republican presidential debate scheduled for live national television coverage will be missing two of the GOP's leading contenders for the nomination.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney both say they have more important campaign commitments scheduled.

"We have six events on that date that are already scheduled," Giuliani told a Miami radio talk show host on Friday, adding that CNN arbitrarily picked the Sept. 17 date without checking with the candidates.

As part of an arrangement with the video-sharing Web site YouTube, questions for the debate would come from the online video community, an element Romney seems uneasy about.

"I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," Romney said earlier this week, referencing a Democratic event held in South Carolina on Monday that included a question about global warming from a snowman.

Romney, however, blamed a scheduling conflict for skipping the Florida event slated for the newly renovated Mahaffey Theater along the city's downtown waterfront.

Gov. Charlie Crist said he hopes to persuade Romney and Giuliani to change their minds so they can attend the debate in the state holding the fourth largest number of electoral votes.

Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson and Texas Rep. Ron Paul have agreed to participate in the St. Petersburg event.

The state GOP also is planning a primary debate in Orlando in October, to be broadcast on Fox.

Florida's presidential preference primary election is scheduled for Jan. 29.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291267,00.html

 

[kong]

I was looking forward to seeing Paul in the same room as Giuliani. McCain will work though.

 

[e1evene1even]

Ron Paul and the Empire

Steven LaTulippe
Lew Rockwell.com
Tuesday July 31, 2007

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future."

~ Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

Can Ron Paul really win? Does he have a snowball’s chance of becoming the next president, or are we all kidding ourselves?

At the moment, Rep. Paul’s quixotic campaign seems to be picking up steam. His recent fundraising statistics reveal a blossoming, internet-based movement that is uniting libertarians and other concerned citizens from across the political spectrum. His performance in the media has been sharp, and his organization seems to be honing its message.

While there are plenty of reasons for optimism, I think we need to be clear-eyed about the road ahead. If Rep. Paul somehow manages to remain a viable candidate and to seriously challenge his mainstream opponents, things will get extremely interesting. He faces a set of obstacles unlike any other candidate in my lifetime.

When evaluating his chances, it’s important to accept one fact about contemporary America: This is not a democracy, and certainly not a constitutional republic. America is actually a carefully concealed oligarchy. A few thousand people, mostly in government, finance, and the military-industrial complex, run this country for their own purposes. By manipulating the two-party system, influencing the mainstream media, and controlling the flow of campaign finance money, this oligarchy works to secure the nomination of its preferred candidates (Democratic and Republican alike), thus giving voters a "choice" between Puppet A and Marionette B.

Unlike the establishment’s candidates, Ron Paul is a freelancer running on three specific ideas:

1. The federal government must function within the strict guidelines of the Constitution.

2. America should deconstruct its empire, withdraw our troops from around the world and reestablish a foreign policy based on noninterventionism.

3. America should abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, eliminate fiat currency and return to hard money.

This is not a political agenda. This is not a party platform. It is a revolution. The entire ruling oligarchy would be swept away if these ideas were ever implemented. Every sentence, every word, every jot and tittle of this agenda is unacceptable, repellent and hateful to America’s ruling elite.

The reasons for this are fairly obvious.

Through its control of the Federal Reserve, the banking elites make billions of dollars in unearned profits and exert enormous influence over the American economy. Countless industries and special interest groups (both foreign and domestic) have sprung up around our defense and national security budgets. The bureaucratic elites who dominate the federal government despise the Constitution’s limitations on their power and view the document as just an archaic "piece of paper."

Anyone who believes these folks will simply "walk away" if Ron Paul is elected president obviously doesn’t understand with whom they are dealing.

When its authority over the Southern states was challenged in the 19th Century, the oligarchy suspended the Constitution and launched a bloody war that killed three quarters of a million people. They arrested newspaper editors, deported antiwar congressmen, and burned down several American cities.

A century later, the oligarchy nuked two Japanese cities, killing thousands of civilians in the twinkle of an eye.

When its marginal interests were threatened in Southeast Asia, the oligarchy launched a devastating war that killed over a million people and left the region marinating in toxic defoliating chemicals.

To further its interests in the Middle East, the oligarchy slapped horrific sanctions on Iraq that killed 250,000 children (and then trotted out Madeleine Albright – one of Clinton’s blood-stained trolls – to smugly declare that the deaths were "worth it").

Keeping these facts in mind, we must ask ourselves a simple question: If the oligarchy was willing to behave this way to protect its often marginal interests, what would it do to stop a devastating assault on its very existence?

The attack on Ron Paul’s candidacy will begin in earnest when it appears he has an even remote possibility of winning. It will follow a fairly predictable path:

The first step is already in play. The establishment will start by simply ignoring him, by using its power in the mainstream media and their influence over campaign donors. If possible, they will find ways of excluding him from the debates.

This strategy is already failing. The internet and talk radio are outside the elite’s direct control and are being used effectively by Rep. Paul to "get the message out." (And mark my words, sooner or later the oligarchy will come for the internet. This medium has been a royal pain in their derriere from day one).

If this strategy fizzles, the establishment will move on to ridicule and fear mongering. Ron’s ideas will be grotesquely distorted in establishment media "hit pieces." They’ll say he wants to permit heroine use in public schools, or that he wants old people to die in the streets without their social security checks, or that he wants to allow greedy industrialists to dump toxic waste into our drinking water.

The next arrow in the oligarchy’s quiver will be scandal – real or fabricated. Usually, this takes the form of pictures, billing records, etc. involving financial or sexual hi-jinks. For folks with the right motivation and abilities, it would be child’s play to implicate him in some sort of phony ethical, moral, or financial skullduggery (e.g., doctored pictures, sordid media accounts from "eye witnesses," etc.).

If Ron somehow survives this assault, the oligarchy will move on to the criminal justice system. On some fine day, a stretch limo will pull up to the Capitol Building and one of the establishment’s consiglieres (Jim Baker...or maybe Vernon Jordan) will ooze into Ron’s office for a "chat."

Maybe Rep. Paul forgot to fill out Form X109/23W on his 1997 income tax return?

Or maybe he drained a mud puddle when he built his new house...and maybe that puddle could theoretically be classified as a "wetland?"

Or, even better, maybe a close relative is in hot water with OSHA/FDA/IRS/you-name-it (federal prosecutors love to go after relatives in order to gain "leverage").

Rep. Paul’s sentence could be lessened, of course...provided he agreed to drop his candidacy as part of a "plea bargain."

Ayn Rand once stated that the hallmark of authoritarian systems is the creation of innumerable, indecipherable laws. Such systems make everyone an un-indicted felon and allow for the exercise of arbitrary government power via selective prosecution.

If this tactic somehow failed and it appeared that Rep. Paul was still a credible threat to win the presidency, then things could get dicey.

The establishment may decide to let him take office and then use their considerable influence to ensure his presidency ended in failure – mostly through their control of congress, the federal bureaucracy, and the mainstream media.

The problem with this strategy (from the oligarchy’s perspective) is that it entails considerable risk. As president, Rep. Paul could use the substantial powers of the office to inflict untold damage to the imperial structure (especially if he chose to withdraw American troops stationed overseas). Worse, he could appoint anti-government “ideologues” to a variety of positions in the federal government.

The damage could take decades to undo.

If these options fail, the oligarchy could resort to various “extra-legal” strategies – anything from vote-rigging to trumped-up impeachment charges.

Either way, one thing is certain: The American establishment controls a world-wide empire, has the power to print the world’s reserve currency at will, and can enact virtually any law without constitutional constraint. Such power is rarely surrendered without a long, bitter struggle.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe80.html

 

[mulberryman]

Or, even better, maybe a close relative is in hot water with OSHA/FDA/IRS/you-name-it (federal prosecutors love to go after relatives in order to gain "leverage").

Like maybe his brother will get caught peeing behind a building?

 

[Blacksoulman]

Ron Paul Second in South Carolina Straw Poll

PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC--Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson convincingly won the Georgetown County Republican Party presidential primary straw poll today with 46% of the votes, while second and third place finishers Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Mitt Romney had 18% and 17% respectively.

Georgetown County Republican Party Chairman Tom Swatzel said, "Senator Fred Thompson and his committee are to be congratulated for their efforts today. It's clear his supporters are well organized and motivated."

Congressman Gresham Barrett represented Thompson at the event.

Swatzel said that there were 223 total votes cast and that overall the event was attended by about 250 people. "For our first ever straw poll, I am pleased with the turn out. It was an enthusiastic crowd that was the essence of grassroots politics at its best," he said.

All eleven of the active presidential campaigns recognized on the state Republican Party web site- plus Thompson, who is expected to formally announce his candidacy soon- were invited to participate the event, which was held in the Waccamaw High School auditorium in Pawleys Island.

The overall results are as follows:

Fred Thompson 102
Ron Paul 40
Mitt Romney 37
Duncan Hunter 15
Rudy Giuliani 13
John McCain 7
Sam Brownback 6
Newt Gingrich 2
Daniel Gilbert 1

Source: Georgetown County Republican Party, Tom Swatzel
http://blog.georgetowngop.org/





http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/200...aul-leaders-of-south-carolina-straw-poll.html

 

[johnmortons]

lol at fred thompson; more incompetence and fake father figure nonsense for the republican chickenhawks. seems like they got hooked on it during the last years.

 

[kong]

^Dangerous man. Even without committing to the race he has a lot of support.

 

[5-HT2]

The Fear Factor

by Ron Paul

July 30, 2007

While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.

Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.

As Washington moves towards it summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.

It is hard to overstate the damage this approach does psychologically, especially to younger people. Of course, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, let alone any capacity to put them to successful use.

To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.

Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.

Americans must reflect on their irrational fears if we are to turn the tide against the steady erosion of our freedoms. Fear is the enemy. The logically confusing admonition to “fear only fear” does not help, instead we must battle against irrational fear and the fear-mongers who promote it.

It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst073007.htm

 

[mulberryman]

^^ This is so true, and its so refreshing to hear such truths from a politician. I feel though that too many Americans still support such draconian measures as the patriot act. Too many Americans do not see the effects of the erosion of our freedoms as affecting them, and too many still think that its a good idea to strip search anyone in a turbin who tries to board an airplane. Too many Americans distrust foreigners, we see this with the lack of acceptance of positive immigration reform. Immigration reform is one of the very few areas that our current president has the right idea on and it is consistantly opposed by both dems and gop'ers alike. I would imagine that a large number of people do not even know that so many of the basic rights guaranteed in the Constitution have been compromised. Most Americans probably don't even know what habeus corpus means. The sentiment that "terrorists" should have a right to fair trial is most often met with replies like, "what about their victims, they didn't have the right to live, why should these terrorists." Finally, as I have pointed out before, it takes an extremely substantial majority to actually enact any popular change. George Bush is no doubt the most disliked president, at least in recent times, yet he was reelected. Roughly 60% of Americans voted in 2004, and Bush won 51% of the popular vote, thus only about a third of America decided that he should remain in office. 60% is considered a high voter turn out, but as in 2000, a popular majority isn't even required to win the presidency, and the current system lends itself to manipulation through strategic campaining in key states.

 

[e1evene1even]

well said Ron. Reminds me a bit of "The Power of Nightmares"

 

[supertrav77]

I like Ron Paul but he hasn't got a prayer of winning. Underdogs and dark horses NEVER win the GOP nomination. They'll occasionally the democratic primaries (Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter).
But the GOP? Never. Closest that happened was in 1976 when Ronald Reagan almost beat Ford in the primaries. But that was in the shadow of Watergate, Ford was kind of a tool, and Reagan had a rare charisma.

Ron Paul is the new Pat Buchanan. Buchanan had an intense a small but intense following in 1996. He was an excellent campaigner, a fascinating speaker, and a good debater.
Pat got tons of publicity, strong showings in the early primaries and even eeked out a win in New Hampshire. But as more and more people dropped out, all their support went to Dole. Simply put: you can not win the GOP nomination without the party machinery behind you.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a President Paul. But it ain't gonna happen. And it's not helping him that he hangs out with the 9-11 conspiracy kooks.
Newt Gingrich 2008.

 

[e1evene1even]

LiveLeak Exclusive : Interview with Ron Paul.

Shawn Wasson speaks to Texas congressman and republican presidential candidate Ron Paul exclusively for LiveLeak.com.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de1_1185477767

I don't agree with the interview tactics and journalistic bias, but its interesting nonetheless.

 

[Kalash]

I like Ron Paul but he hasn't got a prayer of winning. Underdogs and dark horses NEVER win the GOP nomination. They'll occasionally the democratic primaries (Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter).
But the GOP? Never. Closest that happened was in 1976 when Ronald Reagan almost beat Ford in the primaries. But that was in the shadow of Watergate, Ford was kind of a tool, and Reagan had a rare charisma.

Ron Paul is the new Pat Buchanan. Buchanan had an intense a small but intense following in 1996. He was an excellent campaigner, a fascinating speaker, and a good debater.
Pat got tons of publicity, strong showings in the early primaries and even eeked out a win in New Hampshire. But as more and more people dropped out, all their support went to Dole. Simply put: you can not win the GOP nomination without the party machinery behind you.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a President Paul. But it ain't gonna happen. And it's not helping him that he hangs out with the 9-11 conspiracy kooks.
Newt Gingrich 2008.

So... you like him, but won't vote for him because you don't believe anyone else will vote for him?

Congratulations - you're one of the people with the mindset Ron Paul's followers are focused on changing.

Do you have someone else to vote for?
If not, go register as a Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.

I agree - at the presidential time, if he's running 3rd party, a vote for him will most likely be a wasted vote (though, the state the nation's currently in, it's very viable that a 3rd party candidate WOULD have a chance right now...) - however there's no reason for you to NOT vote for him in the primaries.

Give him a shot at the nomination.
Stop saying he doesn't have a chance and vote.

 

[supertrav77]

So... you like him, but won't vote for him because you don't believe anyone else will vote for him?

Congratulations - you're one of the people with the mindset Ron Paul's followers are focused on changing.

Do you have someone else to vote for?
If not, go register as a Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.

I agree - at the presidential time, if he's running 3rd party, a vote for him will most likely be a wasted vote (though, the state the nation's currently in, it's very viable that a 3rd party candidate WOULD have a chance right now...) - however there's no reason for you to NOT vote for him in the primaries.

Give him a shot at the nomination.
Stop saying he doesn't have a chance and vote.

Unless Gingrich jumps in the race, I'll probably vote for Paul assuming he's still in the race by the time the primaries get to my state.
However, he will lose my vote if he keeps associating 9-11 conspiracy kooks.