They probably don't even know what he's talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjnT1EyUfkQ "Monetary policy? Constitution?" "Hey Mitt, what's he talking about?" "I don't know Rudy..."
Great clips... I wish these debates would be less question and answer, and "lightning round", and more actual debating... I'd love to see how others would respond to paul's comments...
I don't think these debates are designed to inform. Any information Ron Paul gets out during the course of these debates is very concerning to the establishment. That's why they tried to keep him out of this debate (and got owned for their trouble). http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31546
The Ron Paul gets owned thread by GTech was started on false information that I have refuted. It's turned into a Constitutional discussion, but the reality is that a lot of the pundits saw Paul as fairly strong, factually correct, and of course the people spoke both in the online polls, the crowd and the 2,000+ man rally afterwards at the University of Michigan.
I watched that rally on Justin.tv, it's amazing they pulled in that many people, apparently the event took place with four days notice, and it was 9 at night and 58 degrees outside! My favorite part of the debate was the lightning round: -Brownback couldn't name an economic adviser he'd select, aside from "the former chairman of the Federal Reserve", who he couldn't even name. -Thompson could barely explain the dangers of a weak dollar besides "uhhh...it's bad...and makes things more expensive" -McCain fumbled his question too, I can't recall what it was, but his answer was very poor. Then they asked Paul, rather than an economic question, "Would you support the Republican nominee no matter who was selected?" Please try and rationalize that this order of events is not biased. I'd love to hear it.
Great clip. You can just sense the anger in Giuliani and the other Hawks when Paul goes on about bringing the troops home. They don't seem to like him at all do they?
Great video. I'm a huge fan of Mike Gravel but I'm really really enjoying Ron Paul and I'm excited that people seem to be responding to him. Anything to actually get people thinking.
So would I, actual debate would be great. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Many people are ready for a real change. http://www.ronpaul2008.com
They did this to imply that he has no chance. Basically the real question is this, "Ron Paul when you fail to get the nomination who will you support?" It should be getting very clear to people, even the ones who get their news from TV, that the vast majority of this campaign is theater.
Who will Ron Paul support when he doesn't get the nomination? I could only imagine him supporting the Libertarian Party candidate, which very well could be himself. His views are miles away from those of the leading GOP and Democratic candidates. I think the Libertarian Party has overthrown the Green Party as the top third party spoiler. Not that it will change much in the general election; I think most Ron Paul supporters are former anti-establishment liberals who are tasting Libertarianism for the first time. The mainstream demographics should stay pretty much the same.
That's pretty much exactly how he answered the question, dave (Don't know if you saw the debate). He basically said "why would I support the nominee without knowing who it is, and if I don't agree with his ideals?" which Tancredo proceeded to echo basically. This idea of blind loyalty to the party is foolish: if the nominee sucks, you don't vote for him. The fact that you and him both have the same letter after your name doesn't mean you'll think he's the best person to put in office.
One thing Ron Paul has going for him is that people with many different points of view support the idea that their local affairs should no be run from Washington, D.C. You may not agree with him about a lot of things, but it doesn't matter because a president like him would let the "laboratories of democracy" become a reality for the first time in a long time.
That's why they are scared of Ron Paul, and they had to drag Fred Thompson into the mix. They don't realize that more and more people are on to their theater. Here's another video (it overlaps a lot with the first one): http://youtube.com/watch?v=qH5ghpDJvGM
Sad, but true...however... This year Ron Paul is getting the most positive press coverage of any Libertarian in history. 2,000+ man rally I'm going to have to watch that video, sounds like fun.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What does it take for a candidate to get the nomination? Do people have to vote for him? How does this selection process work?
Several primary elections take place where delegates vote for their party candidates. Sometimes it is hard to tell who will be on top. In 2004, almost all the pre-election polls and the media had Howard Dean selected for the top Democrat pick. That's primarily because he was the media's darling and they wanted to see hm selected. When the delgates voted, he bombed. They made the right decision by washing him out due to his exteme wacko political views. "Electability" is an important factor in the primaries. Ron Paul does make some very good points, but his tendancy to rant about things will probably wash him out in the primaries.