Resurrecting an old concept here. http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/12/perry-leads-in-new-poll-unhurt-by-social-security-comments/ In a completely rigged system designed to marginalize candidates that don't toe the line completely, Ron Paul is polling 13% nationally and pretty much killing in every debate among people WHO ACTUALLY WATCH THE THINGS. It's a slow climb but Paul is going to become a major pain in the ass in the coming year.
His support is deep not wide. Wider than it was previously mind you. But nothing close to wide enough to get elected. That said, I think the MSM should be taken to task for playing kingmaker the way they do now.
I think his personal history is a bit of an albatross for him. I could certainly see another, younger, more charismatic leader with a similar political philosophy do well in the future, particularly once the current religious cum sociopathic version of the Republican party falls to the wayside. (A return to?) a genuinely small government GOP would certainly seem a more sustainable option.
As if he's the only candidate that's not ivory snow pure. Well the machine destroyed Gary Johnson before he had a chance to get off the ground...
Let's revisit this after his 3rd place showing in Iowa and his 2nd place showing in New Hampshire. This is what Clinton did in 1992 and it gave him instant legitimacy. If that same respect is not afforded to Paul then we know that he his being handled atypically.
Agreed. I don't care much for Paul, and I'm very happy he would never be President. But it's shameful the way the media take it upon themselves to narrow the field before a lot of voters are even paying attention.
I won't argue either point, Matt. If guys like Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman aren't the future of the GOP, then the GOP looks pretty hosed.
Tricky Dick Nixon's sweaty upper lip cost him the election, how well do you think Ron Paul's mug will do?
Correction: Ron Paul destroyed Gary Johnson before he had a chance to get off the ground. Quite an egotistical move by Paul to put himself before the movement.
I am not a fan of the laughing at Ron Paul we see on here. I am also not a particularly big fan of Ron Paul himself, but don't detest the guy by any means either. At least he however, is sincere, has policies that while flawed and even naive at times have htought through and in many instances could be tweaked to work better* and seems to have at least somewhat of a grasp of what he is talking about. He strikes me as principled but also willing to compromise if he can gain something in return (I believe they used to call that 'politicking'), which would be a refreshing change if so. I could be way off base on these assumptions, but if true he is obviously lightyears better than anything the GOP has offered for, erm, upwards of 20-25 years now? Tom has a good point, given his age and that he doesn't have a "charismatic look" (sad that that matters, but true also) coupled with the GOP resembling Tony Montana in his final days, Ron Paul might not be able to do much himself at this point in terms of elections, but could be seen to have had a massive impact on the face of American politics 10-20 years down the line. *Don't ask for examples . I am not thoroughly up to date on Ron Paul as most over here have never even heard the name, this is just going on memory of bits and bobs I have read on here and other sites.
Either that polling company hired a shitload of callers to make that many calls. Or it's an internet poll and pretty near worthless. I continue to be amazed at libertarians' inability to understand how marginal their views are. PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!!! Great, you guys glom onto the internet like you used to glom onto Star Trek. Super. You're still a fringe group with weird beliefs about how the world works. Stuffing internet polls doesn't change that.
Dave, you have to admit that offering an alternative, no matter how disagreeable or unviable it might seem to some, is better than noNoNONONONO!!
He's likable and smart. He just lives in an alternate reality. Plus, there is no existence proof that libertarian policies, in general, work. He'd make a fine author, but a lousy leader for the USA.
You know who else offered an alternative that was disagreeable and unviable to some, and wasn't noNoNONONONO!!? Hitler.
Ron Paul not being 'president of the tea party caucus' is one the primary reasons why I can tell they are full of shit. He should be the undisputed leader of the teabaggers with his experience, voting integrity, and wisdom. Instead they have Michelle Bachmann. And Ron Paul is merely their mascot.
What kind of a President do you think Ron Paul would be if he cannot maintain an open and friendly relationship with the media while as a candidate? Let's not focus on the normative ideas (what should be opposed to what is). Obviously the problem is a two-way street; Paul does not strike me as the candidate who goes into an interview without any set rules beforehand about the nature and topic of the conversation. Given that the media these days will try to fill time ANYWHERE, there's a good chance that some (not all) of the hostility for Paul is with his inflexibility. Is this the kind of person you want to be President? One that will not be flexible for any constituency? One that will maintain his ideological rigidity no matter what? One that will not adapt to the evolving complexities of the modern world? The answer - if you are a reasonable person - is no. If this is how he treats the media, how will he treat a Democratic Congress? Or minority groups? Will he treat them with contempt, or merely ignore them?
I don't think the "media" is doing anything to Ron Paul that the public isn't happy to watch and/or already think about him and his POV's anyway.
Are you ignoring the strange bedfellows that Ron Paul has had while in congress on purpose? Why just recently, Dr Paul worked very closely with Barney Frank on legislation supporting online gambling rights. And who the ******** is the media? What makes them so special?
I've seen someone throw out the idea that Ron is basically playing lead blocker for a Rand Paul campaign somewhere down the road. I don't know enough about either Paul to know if this has any merit, though. To continue with the sports analogies, I see the media interpreting Paul's performance the way pro scouts judge a solid senior prospect vs an unpolished freshman phenom. I think the feeling is that while Paul has a strong, passionate base of support, it's maxed itself out - his sticking power works to his detriment here. Whereas they see Perry as ascendant and can see his support expanding nationally. Not to say I agree with this view, but I see where they're coming from, and I don't think they're wrong on Paul.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI"]Picard's Epic Double Facepalm - YouTube[/ame] Okay. So. I've admitted already that the media probably plays a large role in Paul's sidelining, but could it be that Ron himself is not completely the victim in this situation? Is there even a chance that you could be bothered to read what I'm saying? As a congressman, Paul can pick and choose with whom to interact. As President, you do not get that luxury. The President is the face of the entire nation, and cannot just ignore entire sections of the public as willingly as Dr. Paul's past comments may suggest he will as President.