What do you know? A true, insightful, balanced review of the Ron Paul candidacy.
yesterday on Drudge was a story that Newt won the Iowa debate, followed by Romney then Cain with 16%, RP wasn't even mentioned
that story is gone
flat out, if you're going to so obviously attempt to manipulate WHAT I CAN EVEN FXXXXXING SEE about a candidate then that right there tells me that the man being covered up, covered over, is probably someone I want to investigate more closely because I don't trust any mainstream high $$$$$$$ news outlet anywhere to act in my best interests
now I know RP wins all the online polls then gets 5-10% of the actual vote when it matters; but don't attempt to blind me to my choices you fxxxxxxing cxxxxxxxxxxxers
I never took Ron Paul seriously until this election season. I still don't think he's as articulate as I'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that world events are proving him to be absolutely right. As they continue to unfold, I think more and more "mainstream" Rs will start to look seriously at him as well. Someone with unconventional views tends to be laughed at until their truth is undeniable.
The European debt crisis hasn't really hammered our markets yet, but when it does, people (ordinary people) will start asking questions. If the media does an even remotely accurate job covering what happened (so far, decent), people will be a lot more open to the concept that central banks and big governments are the problem. Paul is the only candidate that recognizes what ails us - if people wake up to this by election day, he can actually win.
What I don't think Paul does an exceptional job of explaining is that he's not selling a utopia - he's just selling a world where we don't throw money at problems that we don't/can't solve. Central banks are the most harmful and expensive policy mistake we've ever made, with Social Security a close second. Our regulatory agencies, in theory, have important jobs, but in reality they are so ineffective that they are just a waste of money. What is the point of the FDA if Vioxx and other drugs still lead to enormous lawsuits? Why not save the money and skip right to the courthouse? It's not that the market solves every problem, it's that regulation doesn't either... and it's expensive. I think that's Paul's core message, and yet I don't think it gets through as cleanly as it could.
Once people see what's really coming, Paul will suddenly be interesting to them. Will that happen in time for him to get the nomination? Probably not, but maybe. Considering the rest of the field, and the speed of events in Europe, I don't totally discount the possibility. I've seen some of my colleagues, even a R&F Republican state politician, start to get it. The change in his positions in the past year is really remarkable.
So there is hope.
you've put some thought into all that and I believe you're correct on all points
Just watched this video made by a Ron Paul fan; it really lays out the hypocrisy of Newt and Mitt ... well worth your viewing...
The Muppet background music is a mistake, I think, but I applaud the research and effort that produced the video.
This one is so sharp it gives me goosebumps... Ron Paul's campaign is like a breath of fresh air!
One Picture is worth a thousand words (or 100,000,000 votes?):
Hard to believe people forget so quickly. Will they also forget the sweet smell of liberty?
While opponents of Ron Paul say they have this or that reason to oppose him, IMHO it all boils down to one reason.
All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.--John Adams
As someone who agrees with Ron Paul and will support him right up until a vote for him helps re-elect Obama, I am disappointed at his poor defense of his foreign policy positions. The arguments are there, he just doesn't seem to get them across.
Iran is his Achilles heel. At the debate in Myrtle Beach, his defense of non-intervention devolved into this "why do we have to keep bombing everyone?" speech that made him sound like a half-fried incoherent hippie. It also leaves the door wide open for tough talk from the other candidates, including Newt's classic "you kill them" line. What Paul needs to do is turn the question around: What is Iran going to do with a nuclear weapon? Use it? How? Defy any of the other candidates to explain how 1) Iran uses a nuclear weapon against Israel, incinerating not just Israelis, but half the Palestinian population, given that it would guarantee that all of Persia is radioactive for a thousand lifetimes; and 2) Why we should intervene militarily to prevent Iran from going nuclear, but we tolerated North Korea developing nuclear weapons?
Not only would Paul look infinitely better, he'd make a little bit of news.