Ron Paul's donation base has EXPLODED!!

[desertpoke]

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43192

GOP Ron Paul - Five Million Dollar Man?
Thursday, June 07, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com


Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands - but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign say.

The move is especially impressive since as of March 31, 2007, he had perhaps $500,000 on hand (see candidate estimates below).

FMNN had previously reported – after the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina - that candidate Ron Paul’s (R-Tex) donations, large and small, had nearly doubled.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42336

Now observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million.

“That’s a huge number at this stage,” says one observer. “That starts to put him in a position where he can compete – state by state, anyway – with the major candidates.”

And this source added, “Of course, it’s hard to tell because the numbers keep changing – and thus nobody at the campaign has a firm count, at least not hour to hour. But the numbers are big. It’s definitely over three, probably over four, and if it hasn’t hit five yet, it will soon.”

At this rate, say observers, Ron Paul could have something like $10 million in his coffers inside of several months, and the total could keep growing – so long as he continues to hit on themes that Americans support – how to return the country to a true, small government, constitutional republic and how to end the war in Iraq.

To be sure such amounts are somewhat speculative. But to put the amount of money Ron Paul is said to have raised recently in perspective, here are the figures of cash on hand for GOP candidates as of March 31, 2007:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/gop.html

Sam Brownback
cash-on-hand: $806,626

Jim Gilmore
cash-on-hand: $90,107

Rudy Giuliani
cash-on-hand: $11,949,735

Mike Huckabee
cash-on-hand: $373,918

Duncan Hunter
cash-on-hand: $272,552

John McCain
cash-on-hand: $5,180,799

Ron Paul
cash-on-hand: $524,919

Mitt Romney
cash-on-hand: $11,863,653

Tom Tancredo
cash-on-hand: $575,078

Tommy Thompson
cash-on-hand: $139,723

Source: CNN


Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network

[Centig]

I have been way out of the loop in politics lately due to a very large and looming exam at the end of this month. Where can I find info on each of the prospective presidential candidates? Who are the favorites right now and are there sites that compare each one side-by-side?

[Slugger926]

I have been way out of the loop in politics lately due to a very large and looming exam at the end of this month. Where can I find info on each of the prospective presidential candidates? Who are the favorites right now and are there sites that compare each one side-by-side?

Ron Paul is the big Republican favorite without the $$$, so the press are trying to suppress him as being a valid canidate right now. See some of the videos posted on here, he does seem to shake up the attitudes. The question I have, will he do the same if he is elected? Or is he just trying to seperate himself from the crowd?

[kaje]

Ron Paul is the big Republican favorite without the $$$, so the press are trying to suppress him as being a valid canidate right now. See some of the videos posted on here, he does seem to shake up the attitudes. The question I have, will he do the same if he is elected? Or is he just trying to seperate himself from the crowd?

He isn't just saying it. His voting history shows he means it.

[CJ4oSu]

Ron Paul has my vote, based on what I have seen from him in debates and things on Youtube.

[OStateMan]

I was skeptical about any politician running in this years race until I hear Ron Paul speak.

I like what I hear.

I've even begun asking everyone on my email contact list to consider Ron Paul before they decide on either Republican or Democrat.

The more I talk to people about their political views, the more I'm convinced that everyone is tired of Politics As Usual.
No one trusts either Republican nor Democratic leading candidates and few see a real difference.

The economy is not strong simply because of the Dow Jones. Everyone I talk to is deeply concerned about the growing divide between rich and poor, as most middle class Americans slip more toward the poorer side than the rich side.

The informal survey also reveals Americans impatient with the flood of illegal aliens and legislative leaders incapable or unwilling to deal with it without fear of losing votes to those very illegals should they be given amnesty.

Most Americans don't feel represented by their elected officials. Most feel special interests, big business and personal wealth and power are their only reason for running.

This is why I'm urging more and more to at least consider listening to Ron Paul before they decide come election day.

[desertpoke]

Centig & others-

Here is a brand new and very inspiring 8 minute video on Ron Paul. This gives a great synopsis about this fine man and his principals. I firmly believe that anyone that takes a short amount of time to research Dr. Paul will passionately support him.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8

As for his flip flop potential? Not happening. He's the most consistent voter in Congress. Every politician in the race would KILL to be able to make that claim. Every republican candidate is now saying that the war with Iraq was a mistake. 70% of Americans agree with that. Dr. Paul was one of only 8 people to vote against it BEFORE we declared war.

With Dr. Paul you get exactly what he tells you, and this is fully substantiated by his voting record - not a bunch of lame and vague political rhetoric.


If you want to get familiar with him, go to his official site http://www.ronpaul2008.com (kaje has also linked it in his sig, I need to do the same).

[kaje]

Aravoth has several good Ron Paul videos that he's made.

Stop Dreaming: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
Join the Revolution: http://youtube.com/watch?v=PvrrPCkHKLw&mode=related&search=
The Founding Fathers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9GkpwFY5Mw

Family Guy Parody of Rudy's answer to everything http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSk4SUpWVuY

[desertpoke]

Sorry, just had one other comment relating to the initial post. I've donated $150 to the campaign so far (never in my life did I think I would donate one penny to a candidate), and I swear I will donate the full $2,300. I've taken $50 out of each paycheck over the last 6 weeks. It's a lot of money for me, but I look at it as an investment. When Paul is elected and begins the footwork to eliminate the federal reserve, I should make that money back very quickly:D

This groundswell of support to his campaign has been incredibly inspiring to me. If you support Dr. Paul as a candidate just $5 makes a huge difference (the more the merrier of course). While his growth has been exponential, there is still a lot more room to improve - the top Dems in the race have amassed some $50 million already.

If you'd like to donate, just go to his official website.

[kaje]

I plan on donating but it will be after I've started my new job.

Also, I'm going to be looking into the cost of getting some yard signs made in Stillwater in the coming weeks. I'll let everyone know who's interested once I find something out.

[OUguru]

Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!

He is exactly what the Republican party needs.

[Chianti]

Ron Paul is 10X the man that Guliani is.

[Poke4Christ]

I think Kaje and desertpoke have single handedly (using that term for two people might negate it's meaning :D) turned OrangePower into a Ron Paul hotbed. I'm gonna vote for him, and I hope that word spreads. If I'm on campus next semester, I might try to join his campaign and work the student body a little bit. I believe if word got out more about him that he'd be the front runner. Thing is, he may be the only Republican that can actually with the final election.

[Poke4Christ]

One more thing, what's pretty awesome is that I'm seeing several people on here that I would have thought to be liberal being big Ron Paul supporters. Just more proof that Paul can win the big election if he gets the nomination.

[kaje]

One more thing, what's pretty awesome is that I'm seeing several people on here that I would have thought to be liberal being big Ron Paul supporters. Just more proof that Paul can win the big election if he gets the nomination.

There are some democrats that support him.

http://www.demsforronpaul.org/

[UrbanCowboy1]

Which is really strange since he would probably do away with medicare and social services.

[Poke4Christ]

Dude, it seems that the more I learn about the man the more I like him, but can someone explain the idea behind doing away with the federal reserve? I really don't know enough to know if it's a good or bad idea, but it makes me nervous.

P.S. I wonder how many posts I start with the word dude :D

[kaje]

Which is really strange since he would probably do away with medicare and social services.

One reason a two party system is dumb. Not everyone agrees with everything a party represents.

[kaje]

Dude, it seems that the more I learn about the man the more I like him, but can someone explain the idea behind doing away with the federal reserve? I really don't know enough to know if it's a good or bad idea, but it makes me nervous.

P.S. I wonder how many posts I start with the word dude :D

Here you go. Economics isn't my greatest subject but this is from his words.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html

[Slugger926]

Dude, it seems that the more I learn about the man the more I like him, but can someone explain the idea behind doing away with the federal reserve? I really don't know enough to know if it's a good or bad idea, but it makes me nervous.

P.S. I wonder how many posts I start with the word dude :D

You should read the book or watch the video of "Rich Dad Poor Dad".

It covers how the elite has changed the markets in the past 100 years by changing the laws. What they mean about doing away with the federal reserve is going back to the gold standard for the dollar. By not having the dollar tied to the gold standard, we can purchase goods from foriegn countries and then create an artificial inflation on the dollar when the foriegn country has enough of your dollars. We did this to the Japanese in the late 80's and 90's which really held their economy back. To some degree, it may affect your money too if you aren't getting raises and/or have your money in investments to keep up with an artificial inflation.

[osupistolwhip]

One more thing, what's pretty awesome is that I'm seeing several people on here that I would have thought to be liberal being big Ron Paul supporters. Just more proof that Paul can win the big election if he gets the nomination.

Gee that couldn't have been about me could it? ;)

I'm actually a registered libertarian, partly because I'm so liberal on social issues. (e.g. basic civil rights, drug laws, abortion) and so conservative on economic issues like welfare, public services, spending, etc. While Paul and I might disagree on a few of the particulars (for instance I believe he is anti-gay marriage), he is still much closer to the majority of my values than any mainline candidate from either party

Paul didn't have much work to do convincing me on the message. What i've been impressed with is how much character and charm he has. He seems like a genuinely good guy, which I can't say for most of the candidates in ANY party.

[Poke4Christ]

Gee that couldn't have been about me could it? ;)

I'm actually a registered libertarian, partly because I'm so liberal on social issues. (e.g. basic civil rights, drug laws, abortion) and so conservative on economic issues like welfare, public services, spending, etc. While Paul and I might disagree on a few of the particulars (for instance I believe he is anti-gay marriage), he is still much closer to the majority of my values than any mainline candidate from either party

Paul didn't have much work to do convincing me on the message. What i've been impressed with is how much character and charm he has. He seems like a genuinely good guy, which I can't say for most of the candidates in ANY party.

Lots of people elect on social issues, but the truth is that most of the time the politicians ain't doing a dang thing about them. I mean, how much change to abortion are we going to get? Getting rid of partial-birth-abortion is obvious and will be gone soon if not already (I'm not sure what's happening with that bill). However, is Roe v Wade really ever going to be overturned? I'm pretty strict anti-abortion (not for religious reasons, just common sense to me), but I'm realistic to. I don't think anything is going to happen with it.

Also, Sorry PistolWhip, but I hadn't really noticed that you were specifically liberal (don't have the best memory). Plus, you not having an avatar makes it a little more difficult to remember you. I was thinking more Kaje, OUguru, and desertpoke. However, I could just be confusing posters. Hope I didn't screw that up.

[SiggyPoke]

Ron Paul is growing on me.

[OP 9000]

Question for Ron Paul supporters:

Let's say, by some miracle.. Ron Paul is elected president.

How does he get anything done? Most of his policies and plans are going to require the consent and passing votes from Congress. The president can propose bills.. but it takes Congress to turn them into law.

Despite running as a Republican, most Republicans will be set against his drastic policy changes. Between that and the Democrats... Ron Paul would never get ANYTHING passed.

So just as a topic of debate... how effective would Ron Paul be as president, when a lot of the changes he wants to make.. wouldn't be in his power to do so...

[jaxdahl]

So just as a topic of debate... how effective would Ron Paul be as president, when a lot of the changes he wants to make.. wouldn't be in his power to do so...

Too bad we won't be changing to a parliamentary government anytime soon. It'd take a major governmental crisis in order to overturn the status quo and bring in a new system where things will get done.

[kaje]

Question for Ron Paul supporters:

Let's say, by some miracle.. Ron Paul is elected president.

How does he get anything done? Most of his policies and plans are going to require the consent and passing votes from Congress. The president can propose bills.. but it takes Congress to turn them into law.

Despite running as a Republican, most Republicans will be set against his drastic policy changes. Between that and the Democrats... Ron Paul would never get ANYTHING passed.

So just as a topic of debate... how effective would Ron Paul be as president, when a lot of the changes he wants to make.. wouldn't be in his power to do so...

I'd rather good stuff not get passed than bad stuff do get passed. Plus, there's always 2010, when the US could elect people into Congress that do want to do something.

[Donnyboy]

I'd rather good stuff not get passed than bad stuff do get passed. Plus, there's always 2010, when the US could elect people into Congress that do want to do something.

You mean Republicans that almost always vote down party lines like Ron Paul?????

[stoutman3]

You mean Republicans that almost always vote down party lines like Ron Paul?????

Care to back that up?

There's only 1 representative in congress that votes against his party more than Ron Paul. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/party-voters/

[Donnyboy]

Care to back that up?

There's only 1 representative in congress that votes against his party more than Ron Paul. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/party-voters/

And it is still 4 out of every 5 times (77.7%)........That's almost always.

Now do your homework on his past voting record not just this session. Throw the 5% of bills that get trounced regardless of put them in there and see what it looks like. A great deal of what is wrong with our system is blind party line voting......a lot Pauls followers are for a 3rd party......yet he is little better than staunch republicans (if at all when the entire body is considered) and votes down the lines almost always.....

Bartlett is correct he would accomplish nothing in office.......Kaje is correct that you should always vote what you believe and there is a hope for change.....

[stoutman3]

And it is still 4 out of every 5 times (77.7%)........That's almost always.

Now do your homework on his past voting record not just this session. Throw the 5% of bills that get trounced regardless of put them in there and see what it looks like. A great deal of what is wrong with our system is blind party line voting......a lot Pauls followers are for a 3rd party......yet he is little better than staunch republicans (if at all when the entire body is considered) and votes down the lines almost always.....

Bartlett is correct he would accomplish nothing in office.......Kaje is correct that you should always vote what you believe and there is a hope for change.....

WOW! Maybe YOU should be in politics. Taking a fact that is right in front of your face and obvious and misconstruing it every possible way to try and make it support your ridiculous original statement, you'd be perfect.

Let me show you again, your comment You mean Republicans that almost always vote down party lines like Ron Paul?????Out of 435 representatives (who vote with their party on average 91.3% of the time), Ron Paul ranks 434th in voting along party lines, PURE AND SIMPLE.

But go ahead and make up your own silly statistics and ask everybody else to do your homework... it's a lot easier than saying your original statement was incorrect and made in haste.

[OP 9000]

And to clarify, I have nothing against Ron Paul. I'm a moderate independent.. I haven't even decided who I'm going to vote for yet. I like Ron Paul's ideas.

But reforms like he's talking about don't start at the top and work down... they start at the bottom and work up. Paul as president would turn America into a Parkinson's patient. The head knows what it wants to do ... but the body just won't cooperate.

I like having him as a presidential candidate though. It gives him a great platform for getting his ideas out there. And as evidenced by this forum, it's working.

But again, if we REALLY want things to change, we need to start at the bottom.

[bleedorange]

He's similar to how I felt about Perot. You know Perot would want to walk up to some of those federal buildings and just send everybody home and board it up (rightfully so in a LOT of cases), but the reality of him actually getting that done was close to 0%.

NONE of those politicians on the hill want anyone to upset their apple cart$, on that they will universally agree & fight for.

[stoutman3]

I think Greg's question as to whether he would be effective as a President is a legit question. I'm smart enough to know that I definately don't have that answer. But IF he were President, then I think there would have to first be a major shake up in the political parties, obviously beginning with Republicans. So IF we're assuming Dr. Paul is President, then we're also assuming that the political scene is completely different than what we see today, making it almost impossible to predict, IHMO.

[Donnyboy]

WOW! Maybe YOU should be in politics. Taking a fact that is right in front of your face and obvious and misconstruing it every possible way to try and make it support your ridiculous original statement, you'd be perfect.

Let me show you again, your comment Out of 435 representatives (who vote with their party on average 91.3% of the time), Ron Paul ranks 434th in voting along party lines, PURE AND SIMPLE.

But go ahead and make up your own silly statistics and ask everybody else to do your homework... it's a lot easier than saying your original statement was incorrect and made in haste.


DUDE!!! I didn't make up my own stats I quoted yours.....I clearly labled 77.7 percent. Which is essentially 4 out of 5 times. So I guess all those evil Republicans vote party lines 9 of 10 times and the revolutionary does 8 out of 10????? Did you look at his entire record? It doesn't matter if he 435 out of 435 if the difference is 1.3 votes out of 10.......10%of the time he is different from the average Republican yet he is labled as revolutionary.

I don't have a big problem with Paul and even if I did I view him as harmless in this election, be that right or wrong. But to all those that think the face of American politics could change.....maybe the face he has shown over his terms isn't really that different as for years now has been part of forming said face essentially down party lines.

[Pokes28]

For those wondering how a politician that doesn't have the same views as most of congress can get anything done.

First remember that if Paul were to win (still highly unlikely, but you just never know), that he's still a Republican and in general, the party will follow those in power. You very well could have some GOP folks switch to the opposition, but generally, whoever is President is the face of the party.

As far as making wide sweeping changes that go against the grain of congress, just look back to Reagan. He was very much the minority when he won the Presidency. He won by a landslide due to facing the most ineffectual President of the 20th century, but congress was still very much controlled by the Democrats. But when RR wanted something that he didn't think congress would give him, he used the bully pulpit. He would get in front of the cameras and in calm clear logic tell the American people why he was right and why he was doing something. He forced congress to his will by bringing the masses to his side in the argument.

There hasn't been a President since that had the charisma and conviction combination to make things happen.

Do I think that Ron Paul is the man that can do that? I haven't a clue. The good news is that we will have at least 6 more months for everybody to learn who he is. This is a marathon and not a sprint. It doesn't do a candidate a lot of good to take the lead so far before the first primary. All that does is make a bigger target.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh

[Slugger926]

Before believing any statistics posted by any media, everyone should read How to Lie with Statistics. (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-9951585-3611113?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=how+to+lie+with+statistics)

It will open your eyes up to how we are manipulated almost everywhere.:D

[osupistolwhip]

But reforms like he's talking about don't start at the top and work down... they start at the bottom and work up.

But again, if we REALLY want things to change, we need to start at the bottom.

Which would work just fine if we had an open ballot or a multi-party system like in Europe.

But as the 2 parties have complete control of our political system there isn't much way to get those changes by starting at the bottom. You need a strong charismatic figure like Paul to get power and help create a situation conducive to those changes. Yes, it requires congress as well, but I don't see how we can start from congress and work up. 1 or 2 libertarian minded congressmen are going to do little to no good. A libertarian minded president has veto power and the public platform to enact a real revolution in American politics.

[OKCPoke]

Paul reminds me of Jesse Ventura a little. He has some great ideas and he may get some of them done initially but just like Ventura was finally shown the door, he'll get frustrated by the "status quo" in Washington and become a figure head. I really get bummed when someone finally gets in that really wants to make some great changes only to get drug into the crap of reality in our federal government...too many with literally jobs for life kicking every stumbling block they can in the way.

[stoutman3]

DUDE!!! I didn't make up my own stats I quoted yours.....

This is the statistic which was made up Throw the 5% of bills that get trounced regardless of put them in there and see what it looks like.I never mentioned him as revolutionary, I never called Republicans evil. You assume too much. His debates, views, principals, background and voting record has really peaked my interest. So I'm taking an active roll in researching him (which I'm impressed with so far but have not formed my final opinion on him).

None the less, my point was to show you that he does not vote strictly along party lines like you said. If you could not see that then you're just ignoring facts.

You ask if I've looked at his entire record, and yes I have (which is not that exciting btw). What I've seen is not that he votes with the Republicans, not that he votes with the Democrats, not that he votes with this President's agenda or against that ones. What I've seen is exactly what everybody else is seeing, he's voting the same principles time after time no matter which party favors it. That's his intrigueing aspect.

Isn't that what we should want as a representative? Somebody who clearly states their principals, their goals, their agendas so we can decide if that is the person who should be representing us, and then goes out and actually backs it up. Wouldn't that be the ultimate dream as a voter, whether it be him or some other candidate, to have a candidate with transparent agendas and be able to match those up with your own preferences?

I don't agree with everything he says by any means. But if I agreed with 77% of what I know he truly believes (which according to Donnyboy is "almost always" agreeing with him), is that better than agreeing with 80% of some other candidate's B.S. views that could switch at any moment depending on who writes the bigger check? That's what I'm going to figure out.

DB, why do you or anybody else for that matter just percieve him as harmless? Is it just b/c the media says so? Or does it have to do with his sometimes contradicting stance with his own party or some other element? Honest question.

[Donnyboy]

This is the statistic which was made up I never mentioned him as revolutionary, I never called Republicans evil. You assume too much. His debates, views, principals, background and voting record has really peaked my interest. So I'm taking an active roll in researching him (which I'm impressed with so far but have not formed my final opinion on him).

None the less, my point was to show you that he does not vote strictly along party lines like you said. If you could not see that then you're just ignoring facts.

You ask if I've looked at his entire record, and yes I have (which is not that exciting btw). What I've seen is not that he votes with the Republicans, not that he votes with the Democrats, not that he votes with this President's agenda or against that ones. What I've seen is exactly what everybody else is seeing, he's voting the same principles time after time no matter which party favors it. That's his intrigueing aspect.

Isn't that what we should want as a representative? Somebody who clearly states their principals, their goals, their agendas so we can decide if that is the person who should be representing us, and then goes out and actually backs it up. Wouldn't that be the ultimate dream as a voter, whether it be him or some other candidate, to have a candidate with transparent agendas and be able to match those up with your own preferences?

I don't agree with everything he says by any means. But if I agreed with 77% of what I know he truly believes (which according to Donnyboy is "almost always" agreeing with him), is that better than agreeing with 80% of some other candidate's B.S. views that could switch at any moment depending on who writes the bigger check? That's what I'm going to figure out.

DB, why do you or anybody else for that matter just percieve him as harmless. Is it just b/c the media says so? Or does it have to do with his sometimes contradicting stance with his own party or some other element? Honest question.


First off I never said he voted strictly down anything.....your words not mine. To the 5% that is a very conservative estimate of bills that get introduced and then morph or get ridered until they are killed by all sides regardless of the sponsor......the 5% would apply to "most" all.

I guess I find it dubious that your research has found he votes his convictions......yet he is not mainstream when he votes down party lines ALMOST all the time. If we won 8....7.8 for fairness..... out of every ten games you would say we win almost everytime......you would expect a win. I mean after all the average is 9....so why is 8 so different.

I guess I just don't see the same when I look at his voting record. He does branch out from time to time.....2.2 out of ten to be exact.

You see I don't have a big issue with Paul if you like him great......cast your vote that way. But he isn't the revolutionary he is speaking as today.......at least not on his voting record.

Why don't I take him seriously.......first off I am not saying this is right or the way it needs to be, and second it has nothing to do with what the media "tells" me to think. I don't take Paul seriously for several reasons:
1. He is playing the contrarian more than he is playing the part of someone who wants to make things better....my source isn't Fox it's his interviews on Real Time, Daily Show etc. He has ideas and at times voices them but he is coming off like the guy who wants to tell you whats wrong but not how to fix it......people don't like that guy.
2. He is up against a war hero and a 9/11 hero and maybe a TV star.....the squirrelly looking doctor from Texas (a state with a negative image now) doesn't beat those folks in America.....is it right NO WAY but it is true.
3. He is isolating his party. There are many Republican voters who aren't voting for anyone but a Republican and they aren't going to vote for the guy who is running down the rest of his Grand Ol' friends before it is mud throwing time.
4. He is isolating his party Part Deux - He will be endorsed by few if any Rep elected officials if he is a leader going into the big primaries.
5. Media coverage of the wrong kind - I don't buy the "Vote Rudy" conspiracy theories but Paul is going on all the shows that his party constituents hate....Daily Show, Real Time, YouTube clip-esque productions etc. It may win points with Kaje but it costs points with "Republican dad and mom ages 40+" and there is a lot more of those than there are Kaje's.

Just some of the reasons.....and you know what not one of them is why he wouldn't make a good President, they are the reasons he will never get the chance. Again it ain't right.....but it is the way it is.

[stoutman3]

I think your 5 reasons are pretty fair, I'd like to comment on them though.1. He is playing the contrarian more than he is playing the part of someone who wants to make things better....my source isn't Fox it's his interviews on Real Time, Daily Show etc. He has ideas and at times voices them but he is coming off like the guy who wants to tell you whats wrong but not how to fix it......people don't like that guy.I've noticed him being a "contrarian" too. But since when is this new to politics. Look at the last congressional election, look at the changes that were made, look at the distance every Republican is trying to create between themselves and Bush, hell not one of them would tie themselves with him in the last debates, that's saying something. What's his approval ratings now? I don't follow that too close, but isn't it in the 30s right now? People are looking for changes, they want something else and/or something new. That very well could mean they want a Democrat, just like the last election indicated. And faced with having a Democrat or having a candidate from the Republican Liberty Caucus, registered Republicans might think that going with the latter might be the only way to keep the other party out of office.
2. He is up against a war hero and a 9/11 hero and maybe a TV star.....the squirrelly looking doctor from Texas (a state with a negative image now) doesn't beat those folks in America.....is it right NO WAY but it is true.I think these perceptions are a tough battle for him. But if it's no way right, why don't we do something. Should we continue to let the coaxable public eat the bullshit that its fed? Even if you like sombody else, wouldn't you want the general public voting on something other than who wears the best tie, or who says the best lie on camera? Is it possible? I don't know, but I don't like it.
3. He is isolating his party. There are many Republican voters who aren't voting for anyone but a Republican and they aren't going to vote for the guy who is running down the rest of his Grand Ol' friends before it is mud throwing time.What if there's a shift in registered Republicans. This could already be starting to happen, just by looking at the original article of this thread. Like I said in #1, if registered Republicans read the writing on the wall, and their options are Barrack, Clinton or Paul what would they choose. That could very well happen if the Dems build on the momentum they've created.
4. He is isolating his party Part Deux - He will be endorsed by few if any Rep elected officials if he is a leader going into the big primaries.
Same as above. But even if the "bigwigs" don't endorse him, are the checkbooks of the few worth more than the votes of many? We all would like to believe they are not, but history tells us otherwise. If it's not how it should be, why do we accept it?5. Media coverage of the wrong kind - I don't buy the "Vote Rudy" conspiracy theories but Paul is going on all the shows that his party constituents hate....Daily Show, Real Time, YouTube clip-esque productions etc. It may win points with Kaje but it costs points with "Republican dad and mom ages 40+" and there is a lot more of those than there are Kaje's. History shows that's dead on. But the internet has formed into a new media. Nobody has seemed to ever have this kind of support from the new hi-techies. And the hi-tech demographic isn't teens and young 20s anymore. It's stretching into the mid to late 30s group. Of course that's not nearly enough votes by itself but we'll see what it leads to.[/QUOTE]Just some of the reasons.....and you know what not one of them is why he wouldn't make a good President, they are the reasons he will never get the chance. Again it ain't right.....but it is the way it is.If we all know it's not right then why do we accept it? Are we that insignifigant?

[osucowboysr1]

I think right now it's to early to say on anyone I think Ron Paul is ok but not the top guy. :)

[steross]

My answer to Greg's question would be that initially many of the things he represents would not get passed. But, like a slow turning ship, having a president with these ideas would change the midline of politics toward the point where they do not seem radical. If you look at our political history, it has happened before. These things take time. The end of slavery was not quick. The creation of the welfare state was not quick. Its dismantling (if it is to occur) will not be quick either. The abortion debate is shifting and I suspect that Roe will be overturned eventually if that shift continues. The flux and compromise that is politics will be altered toward libertarianism with Paul as president, even if his complete plan is not implemented.

Frankly, I am glad it is this way. Just think if each presidential election a country as vast as America had to shift to drastic immediate policy changes such as would have occurred from Carter to Reagan had the president had dictatorial powers. We could not survive that way. But, that does not mean that the change will not occur in due time.

[Pokes28]

Paul reminds me of Jesse Ventura a little. He has some great ideas and he may get some of them done initially but just like Ventura was finally shown the door, he'll get frustrated by the "status quo" in Washington and become a figure head. I really get bummed when someone finally gets in that really wants to make some great changes only to get drug into the crap of reality in our federal government...too many with literally jobs for life kicking every stumbling block they can in the way.

There is a difference though. That is that Ron Paul actually has experience in government. Ventura had none from what I recall. He knows and understands politics. If he somehow wins this this thing, he will have shown himself very capable of getting through a lot of the hurdles.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh

[JoeHero]

Question for Ron Paul supporters:

Let's say, by some miracle.. Ron Paul is elected president.

How does he get anything done? Most of his policies and plans are going to require the consent and passing votes from Congress. The president can propose bills.. but it takes Congress to turn them into law.

Despite running as a Republican, most Republicans will be set against his drastic policy changes. Between that and the Democrats... Ron Paul would never get ANYTHING passed.

So just as a topic of debate... how effective would Ron Paul be as president, when a lot of the changes he wants to make.. wouldn't be in his power to do so...


The greatest power he has is his veto pen. And looking at his voting record, there is not doubt he will use it anytime a bill comes across his desk that does not have the authorization of the constitution. No more riders, no more pork. It's gone. All of it.

Obviously he won't get everything he wants accomplished, but it will definitely be a start in the right direction. Would you rather a RINO in office so he can slowly give in to that Washington pressure to slowly erode our civil liberties and economic freedoms?

[Donnyboy]

I think your 5 reasons are pretty fair, I'd like to comment on them though.I've noticed him being a "contrarian" too. But since when is this new to politics. Look at the last congressional election, look at the changes that were made, look at the distance every Republican is trying to create between themselves and Bush, hell not one of them would tie themselves with him in the last debates, that's saying something. What's his approval ratings now? I don't follow that too close, but isn't it in the 30s right now? People are looking for changes, they want something else and/or something new. That very well could mean they want a Democrat, just like the last election indicated. And faced with having a Democrat or having a candidate from the Republican Liberty Caucus, registered Republicans might think that going with the latter might be the only way to keep the other party out of office.
I think these perceptions are a tough battle for him. But if it's no way right, why don't we do something. Should we continue to let the coaxable public eat the bullshit that its fed? Even if you like sombody else, wouldn't you want the general public voting on something other than who wears the best tie, or who says the best lie on camera? Is it possible? I don't know, but I don't like it.
What if there's a shift in registered Republicans. This could already be starting to happen, just by looking at the original article of this thread. Like I said in #1, if registered Republicans read the writing on the wall, and their options are Barrack, Clinton or Paul what would they choose. That could very well happen if the Dems build on the momentum they've created.
Same as above. But even if the "bigwigs" don't endorse him, are the checkbooks of the few worth more than the votes of many? We all would like to believe they are not, but history tells us otherwise. If it's not how it should be, why do we accept it?History shows that's dead on. But the internet has formed into a new media. Nobody has seemed to ever have this kind of support from the new hi-techies. And the hi-tech demographic isn't teens and young 20s anymore. It's stretching into the mid to late 30s group. Of course that's not nearly enough votes by itself but we'll see what it leads to.If we all know it's not right then why do we accept it? Are we that insignifigant?[/QUOTE]

To your points.

1. Being a contararian is obviously part of politics but you have to come off as more than that alone otherwise it doesn't work in prez races and won't this time.....especially when one is of the same party. A presidential canidate has to preach change whether they can do it or not. Look at GW's wins.....Gore was going to be Clinton light.....no identity he lost (no election crap you see the point) Kerry-Never said I will do this just Bush has done that.....people didn't like it then and don't know. Paul has seperated from the party at times and has some progressive ideas.....but he isn't in the news for those. He is in the news assigning Rudy reading, more people know him for that than his thoughts at the debate......it isn't a conspiracy it's a better soundbite and that isn't going to win the election regardless of who would make a better prez.

2. He isn't battling a "good tie" ala Clinton who always came off smooth.....he is up against two guys the people in his party consider heroes.....he won't win that battle twice. He has to make it out of the primary. He would have a better chance against any of the Dems as he does War/9-11/Law and Order.

3-4. This won't happen in time for Paul. Paul will not carry enough Dems for one reason- HE IS A REPUBLICAN. The vast majority of the Rep. party is over 40 and that won't change before the primaries. Most of the young vote new registers Dem. because Paris and P.Diddy are Dems. There are obviously exceptions but in a general election the rule will apply.

5. Going back to 3-4.....the internet generation doesn't vote. The get on dispondantblog.com and rant but forget to vote because Whopper's are on sale for $0.99 and they are going to this killer party.....I am on the edge if not part of that generation myself (under 30) and it is upsetting. They have never voted in large enough numbers to move an election despite saying they were going to since the 60's. Besides Paul has to escape the primaries and get his party's nom.......and that ain't happening with the internet vote.

To your last statement..... who is "we"? We on this board.....We of a generation.....We the people.....? My folks and their folks may think that all this internet information is phony and dangerous......They may love status quo......so who is "we". You and I may see it as wrong others don't......it will be the voters who decide who was "right". "We" are no less significant than "they" are.

[desertpoke]

@ Donnyboy

You say Ron is in the news for assigning reading, I say Ron is in the news as the only candidate who is talking about the constitution. I say Ron is in the news for winning every debate, and nearly every poll supports that. I say Ron is in the news for his campaign dollars increasing 10x in not even 3 months. Wherever you're getting your news from is marginalizing the effect Ron Paul is having. If Rudy could make these claims, these facts would be shoved down your throat 25 hours a day.

And you're also overlooking the many disenfranchised Republicans, Dems, and Indies. Now I'm not saying that there's millions in the wings right now, but people are jumping aboard fast and furious. There's no denying that. Ron Paul appeals to all points in the spectrum. He appeals to anybody that believes in Liberty and the Constitution which I believe crosses party lines. And I know 80 year old Reaganites that support Ron Paul and knew about him before I did.

But I am curious, who are you voting for?

[Donnyboy]

@ Donnyboy

You say Ron is in the news for assigning reading, I say Ron is in the news as the only candidate who is talking about the constitution. I say Ron is in the news for winning every debate, and nearly every poll supports that. I say Ron is in the news for his campaign dollars increasing 10x in not even 3 months. Wherever you're getting your news from is marginalizing the effect Ron Paul is having. If Rudy could make these claims, these facts would be shoved down your throat 25 hours a day.

And you're also overlooking the many disenfranchised Republicans, Dems, and Indies. Now I'm not saying that there's millions in the wings right now, but people are jumping aboard fast and furious. There's no denying that. Ron Paul appeals to all points in the spectrum. He appeals to anybody that believes in Liberty and the Constitution which I believe crosses party lines. And I know 80 year old Reaganites that support Ron Paul and knew about him before I did.

But I am curious, who are you voting for?

I haven't decided yet......you haven't either as the candidates themselves haven't been set. You may know who you are for in the primary but that is where it ends. Besides a voting booth is a private place......I might want to vote for Hillary and that would ruin my image.:rolleyes:

As to the polls saying he won the debates.....we discussed that online polls are useless regardless who they say won. And his most noteable news story is his reading assignment. He did a good job in the debates I will not argue that but if you asked Joe America who Paul is more would say the guy that told Rudy to read than the guy who raised good points in the debate.......and again it is soundbite not conspiracy. Have you seen the ratings for the debates......people aren't watching. Desert your tone is defensive of Paul and I am not attacking Paul I was saying why I think he is "harmless" in the race. You desert are abnormal in your passion.....the typical voter isn't going to give $2300 and they aren't researching Paul's thoughts on each and every issue. Thus my thoughts on his chances.

[McalPoke]

Now I'm not saying that there's millions in the wings right now, but people are jumping aboard fast and furious. There's no denying that.

Just some polls I've been able to find:

LA Times, June 7-10 0% after 3 debates
Fox, June 5-6 2% after 3 debates
AP, June 4-6 0% after 3 debates
USA Today, June 1-3 1% after 2 debates
ABC News, May 29-June 1 1% after 2 debates
McLaughlin, May 28-June 1 0% after 2 debates
Diageo, May 16-20 1% after 2 debates

But I don't put much stock in polls.

[kaje]

Just some polls I've been able to find:

LA Times, June 7-10 0% after 3 debates
Fox, June 5-6 2% after 3 debates
AP, June 4-6 0% after 3 debates
USA Today, June 1-3 1% after 2 debates
ABC News, May 29-June 1 1% after 2 debates
McLaughlin, May 28-June 1 0% after 2 debates
Diageo, May 16-20 1% after 2 debates

But I don't put much stock in polls.

Mind linking to those? Doesn't make sense to have 2% on a Fox online poll after ending the 2nd debate with 27%.

[bleedorange]

Just some polls I've been able to find:

0% after 3 debates
2% after 3 debates
0% after 3 debates
1% after 2 debates
1% after 2 debates
0% after 2 debates
1% after 2 debates



Well helloooooo Mr President!

[McalPoke]

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

[Slugger926]

http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/

They seem skewed. The data may be lagging which will affect future polls. You know that saying that by testing you affect the test. Also, some may not pubicly state their true opinions in polls.

[CowboyOrangeFan]

Mind linking to those? Doesn't make sense to have 2% on a Fox online poll after ending the 2nd debate with 27%.

That 2% isn't from an online poll. Have a link to the 27% you mentioned? Was that an online poll?

[kaje]

That 2% isn't from an online poll. Have a link to the 27% you mentioned? Was that an online poll?

Whoops looks like it was 25%

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html

This is for who won the 2nd Debate.

[SLVRBK]

Whoops looks like it was 25%

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html

This is for who won the 2nd Debate.

Yeah, those text message voters!

The poll conducted by Opinion Dynamics is also good for Paul...he is now polling at 2%, up from 1% in the last poll.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/060707_release_web.pdf

[CowboyOrangeFan]

That is why it didn't make any sense to you. The 2% value is from a scientific poll, the 25% is from a non-scientific poll on who won the debate. The non-scientific poll not really meaning anything, just who can send the most text messages.

[Slugger926]

If you read "How to Lie With Statistics", you won't believe any of the polls. :D