On the eve of two critical debates and the vital New Hampshire Primary, Ron Paul takes time to chat with Newsmax. “If we have learned anything in this cycle it is that the whole race can change quickly,” says the upbeat candidate, who refuses to back off his signature credo that it’s time to “stop policing the world and start defending this country.”
How do you feel going into the New Hampshire Primary?
I feel good. I feel optimistic about America and especially hopeful about the next generation. As you know we have a lot of young people in our campaign and they are well informed and aware of the financial danger in this country. That bodes well for all of us. If we know the problem and do the right thing, we can eventually get out of this. So I am very encouraged by that.
Yes, but are you going to win the nomination? What do you say to those who believe you can’t win?
We can still win. It hasn’t been decided. And if we have learned anything in this cycle it is that the whole race can change quickly. I think we are going to do very well. We had a three way tie for delegates in Iowa. The important thing is that I have challenged the status quo, the corruption in Washington, and as a doctor I know that the patient, in this case the country, is responding and now has a good chance of recovery. This is very, very pleasing to me.
The attacks on you have been pretty bitter. Does that rankle?
Well, sure I am human. But if I am attacked for something I believe it doesn’t bother me. That’s why I make sure my own advertising is based on truth, comparison advertising, pointing out the differences on positions and issues. We are very careful not to say something about someone else that isn’t true.
There is one very serious charge going unanswered. Bachman said it daily and now Gingrich is saying it every day at every stop. He says, “Ron Paul would wait until an American city is destroyed by a nuclear weapon before he would respond.”
Oh, that is totally false. And further it is an insult to people’s intelligence. Of course, we would defend ourselves. We would never let it get to that point.
The fact is that to remain strong we must stop policing the world and start defending this country. The Soviet Union collapsed not because someone pointed a nuclear missile at them but because they over extended themselves.
Thomas Jefferson said that the more you use power the less you have.
I often say that we must stop policing the boarder of Afghanistan and Pakistan and start taking care of our own border with Mexico.
And yet your opponents, both on the campaign and in the media, portray this as an extreme view. They are especially concerned that you are not tough enough on Iran.
Well, I make it clear that I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Frankly, I don’t want North Korea to have them either. But neither do I want a needless war. We cannot afford to go to war without a clear reason and a clear threat or else these endless wars become, themselves, the source of our own defeat. I notice that the Israeli Chief of Mossad, Tamir Pardo, addressed a meeting of Israeli ambassadors in Jerusalem just a few days ago saying that Israel’s existence is not inevitably endangered by Iran acquiring an atomic weapon. Surely, we should consider what the Israelis themselves say.
How do you feel about being such a target? You are called a pacifist or an isolationist.
Just keep in mind, when we take the stage at the next debate I will have more donors among the active military service than all of the other candidates combined. Among my supporters is Michael Scheuer, the man who headed up the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit.
People who understand the cost of war, are much more careful about rushing into it. And while all of the candidates talk big about wanting to have another war, only two of us, Rick Perry and myself, have been in uniform. The others are quick to send young people to die but they all carefully avoided military service themselves.
And yet they say you are “dangerous.”
There is nothing dangerous about the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing dangerous about taking the issue of war or peace to the Congress and letting them debate it. If Congress has lost that power to decide war, then what are they for? What is more important than that? It means we will have replaced Congress with televisions pundits.
We should not so casually abandon the U.S. Constitution. It is a great document that has guided our country for two hundred years.
66 thoughts on “Exclusive Interview With Ron Paul: We can win.”
“I often say that we must stop policing the boarder of Afghanistan and Pakistan and start taking care of our own border with Mexico.”
You have a typo, Mr. Wead: boarder –> border
As Governor Perry might say… “Oops.” And thanks.
I’m an old TBI graduate when your Dad was president. I still listen to the talk you gave about “let not him who puts on the armor boast as he who takes it off”. Great stuff.
Anyway, I was just wondering (knowing you folks know more about this than I) why the campaign doesn’t run adds that succinctly explain some of Dr. Paul’s more “controversial” views (not my word, I am a recent convert and agree with him the more I hear him). Like how he is only following the founding father’s non-interventionist ideas and why it makes sense.
I think this would do much more good than the “attack” ads which are actually rather annoying to me.
I just think, like me, the more people hear and understand his views the more they will come to realize the reasonableness of them. So if the campaign took the time to create a well worded spot that people could understand they would know his actual views instead of what the media (in hysterics) says they are.
Anyway there is my $.02.
Go Ron Paul!
I agree with Bruce, Neville, and Bid, and would like to add a couple other “negative” topics I feel must be addressed.
The first is the claims that Dr. Paul is an anti-Semite sympathizer. He should definitively distance himself from these views and supporters at every opportunity (perhaps even in some ad). Those supporters detract from his message by allowing opponents to generate noise and hysteria to distract and confuse undecided voters. I wish this were not the case, as he cannot keep the Zionist conspiracy theory nut-jobs from saying what they’re going to say, but he needs to battle this image that Mark Levin and other “haters” are more than happy to perpetrate.
The second is the issue of a third party run for the White House. It may seem counter-intuitive, but I have spoken with more than one person who are hesitant to support Dr. Paul because they believe it will embolden a third party run if he doesn’t secure the Republican nomination. They rightly believe that our nation cannot survive another four years with Obama in the Oval Office, no matter how bad the Republican alternative option may be. Their fear is also conventional wisdom…that Ron Paul splits the conservative vote and allows Obama to win by default. Even the most ardent Ron Paul supporter would have to acknowledge that the risk in such a scenario is almost too high to stomach. If Dr. Paul would definitively say that he “will not run” as a third party candidate vs. “don’t plan to run”, I believe that more would confidently support him.
Anyway, just another .02 cents for you to consider.
Doug I am glad you are on his campaign. America has no Choice
except getting Ron Paul in office. I do not know how yall fight
the cabal everyday. Yall are in my prayers and I have faith the
Good Guys will Win.
I think the RonPaul Campaign is the best ran and I know we will win.
I am speaking to everyone and he definitely has my support.
great post, Doug! Ron Paul 2012!
i am a long-time supporter (well, it seems like a long time – since 2007) of Dr. Paul. I have to agree with Bruce Humphries. I have been distressed to see the bulk of Dr. Paul’s TV/web ads turn out to be negative attacks on the other candidates.
While I believe that this largely a case of Paul stating the unfortunately negative truth, it really doesn’t deal with the lack of understanding of Dr. Paul’s own positions and policies.
I have a lot of friends who are willing to support Dr. Paul, but for this supposed “isolationist foreign policy”. The message that needs to get out is put very succinctly in your own interview above: “…an insult to people’s intelligence. Of course, we would defend ourselves. We would never let it get to that point. The fact is that to remain strong we must stop policing the world and start defending this country. The Soviet Union collapsed not because someone pointed a nuclear missile at them but because they over extended themselves.” (i.e. overextended themselves financially on military matters).
You have said that Dr. Paul seems to need to think about ideas for a while, and sometimes takes up a suggestion of yours only after you have put it out in the open press and he’s had time to digest it.
As an “official campaign surrogate”, surely you can make this point with him. He should defend his positions against the ludicrous accusations being leveled at him, just as he wonderfully defended himself with the video ad “Life”.
I would like to just add one point, on this topic.
I think that the Paul campaign strategy is to selectively attack and pick off opponents.
They have certainly seen of Perry, with his Ooops moment. Where Ron Paul corrected him on cuts.
Bachman was seen off with her challenging Ron on Iran.
And now Gingrich has killed himself, with his Chickenhawking, and Ron Paul eloquently fired back that “I served, and I had a wife and two children”.
With Slick Rick, and also I am sure later, Romney. Paul’s team will make the electorate aware of their Achilles heel.
However, the posters points are valid. As the opposition runs their campaign by distorting the truth to create very real FEAR in the electorate. They make them afraid that Paul is soft on foreign policy. This I think is the big one, that you Doug need to address. After all, we all agree that we pay too much tax. Even Hannity in an interview with Paul (outstanding on Pauls behalf) had to admit that he does not like the IRS.
But I do hope that again, the positive ads or campaign will address Ron Paul’s true values on Foreign Policy. The CIA, Mossad and the rest of the world are right about ‘blowback’, and the USA seems to be ignorant of the motives and reasons that put the US in danger.
Ron Paul. Like Reagan, and other politicians that advocate strong intervention, but avoid ground war where possible, have a track record of getting results. Ron Paul is strong as he understands geo-politics and like you, understand history.
if need be, I have no doubt that Ron Paul would go to war. As long as it is done constitutionally, and this safeguards the USA from costly mistakes.
I would like to see an explanation of this that illustrates these points to the electorate in a powerful and succinct way.
For liberty and freedom
Really good points, thanks.
Doug, I’m a concerned patriot that plans to vote for Ron Paul. My main concern is that the voting process is rigged. Does the Paul campaign have a plan to monitor and expose the possibility of voting fraud?
The problem is that the national media is arrayed against him. Their TV coverage is the equivalent of a $5 million infomercial to discredit him. Journalism, as we once knew it in America is dead. Or rather, I should say that it is owned by some who have a conflict of interest in this election. Ron Paul is pulling back the curtain on a system that has grown corrupt and they cannot let him do that.
I saw a representative from the club for growth organization on Cavuto today- such a good video.
It was said that Ron Paul has a “spectacular” plan for the economy.
the only other candidate with good marks was Rick Perry.
Romney had terrible marks.
the video will be floating around soon I am sure. It’s posted at club for growth too.
all the best to you, loving the ron paul campaign.
So excited for Dr. Paul to come this way out west. 🙂
If you folks can stomach another really long post, here is one for you (if you prefer to go read it at the source, here is the link: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/10/opinion/rosen-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 )
[Editor’s note: Barry Rosen was the last U.S. press attaché to Iran. He was one of the 52 Americans held hostage by Iran for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981. He is currently the spokesman for the Borough of Manhattan Community College/CUNY.]
(CNN) — By Barry Rosen — For most of my life, I’ve had a relationship with Iran, mostly good, but which included a long period in which Iran hurt me and other foreign service officers greatly.
I was the press attaché at the United States Embassy in Teheran in 1979, and one of 52 Americans held hostage for 444 days during the Iranian Revolution. I cannot forgive the youthful Iranians who imprisoned us and the regime that legitimized their cruelty, but I try to be as objective as possible as an observer of Iran’s situation today.
Let’s be frank. Iran’s intransigence with its nuclear intentions and the West’s efforts, led by the United States, to undermine Iran’s economy and, perhaps, its legitimacy, are moving both sides further from a war of words and closer to a hot war.
This war would easily draw in Israel, and perhaps even some of the Arab nations that are showing their Islamist side since the “Arab Spring.” It could well close the Strait of Hormuz and the drive the price of oil to impossible highs, prolonging a worldwide economic funk. And it would once again put the United States front and center in a third protracted war since 2001.
But, let’s not jump to conclusions that war is inevitable or react reflexively to Iran’s saber-rattling, the way some of the Republican presidential candidates have been doing to score points on the campaign trail. They seem to think that this war would be surgical and quick. That’s the same bad thinking that got us into Iraq.
I’d rather step back a moment and focus on Iran’s strained domestic political situation as the real reason for its confrontation with the U.S. and the West. While I don’t want to sound like an apologist for the authoritarian Islamic Republic, I also don’t want us to be naïve about what’s driving Iranian intentions.
First, Iran’s “civilian” nuclear program reaches back to the pre-revolutionary days of the Shah of Iran, and there is no proof, whether from the International Atomic Energy Agency or the U.S., that Iran is actually building a bomb.
Second, it’s widely reported that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are in open conflict today, not only politically but also theologically.
While this rift is esoteric to Westerners, Tehran takes it very seriously. It comes down to Ahmadinejad trying to change the entire foundation of Iran’s theological-political infrastructure by asserting that he, not Khamenei, has a direct relationship with the Shi’ite Mahdi, or messiah. Khamenei has responded by condemning Ahmadinejad and his followers as the “deviant stream.”
Since May 2011, this domestic conflict has shaken the regime’s stability. It may have much to do with Tehran’s flailing foreign policy as the sanctions do.
The regime also has its hands full with upcoming parliamentary elections in March. It likes to say that the elections are both a model and inspiration for the new surge of democracy in the Arab world. It also sees these elections as a test of legitimacy.
Remember, only two years ago, Iran was convulsed with a popular uprising that opposed the outcome of presidential elections. The reform movement was brutally crushed by the regime thugs. Major reformist leaders are still under house arrest.
Whether the regime is able to market itself to its neighbors as a legitimate source of a Middle East revival is rather doubtful. More importantly, reformists have loudly and clearly stated that they are not going to participate in a rigged election. This will be the first time since the beginning of the Islamic Republic that any part of the electorate has bolted from the system.
Khamenei must see this reformist move as a profound crack in his authority and to the regime’s legitimacy.
Finally, there are more domestic disasters. While Iranians of all political stripes see a nuclear program as a national status symbol, they are paying a dear price for it. The sanctions are truly hurting the average Iranian.
The hardships include high unemployment, inflation and commodity shortages. Last week, Iran’s currency fell to a new low against the dollar. This situation is not going to endear the regime to the electorate.
Can we move away from the precipice of war? I think so.
Congress members should get out of the public relations business and stop making pronouncements about Iran that are simplistic and belligerent. It makes any chance of a negotiated settlement even more difficult.
The U.S. Navy’s rescue of 13 Iranian fishermen from pirates in the North Arabian Sea was a surprising and awkward moment, and a chance for both sides to step back and breathe a little.
But the startling news that Iran’s Revolutionary Court had sentenced an American, Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, to death, charging him with spying for the Central Intelligence Agency, says that Iran, once again, is up to the task of seeking revenge against the U.S.
We need to find a real structure for diplomacy to calm these new levels of tension. Just as Qatar is hosting a political office for the Taliban in an attempt to open direct talks to an end the Afghan war, a regional approach to Iran may help. Qatar has become the dynamic center within the Arab League and has been a respected go-between. Yes, it has close relations with the United States and hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, but its prime minister, Al-Thani, was not timid when he said in 2006, “Qatar talks to Iran as an equal, and this is important.”
The Gulf Cooperation Council could play a greater role in softening Iran’s relationship with the Sunni Arab world by drawing it closer to its regional neighbors, as well as serving as a liaison between Iran and the West.
Just wanted to say “Thanks!” I’ve watched you on a number of shows now talking about Dr. Paul and I gotta say it’s awesome to watch you own these media pundits. You’re a great spokesman for RP and his message and we appreciate you putting his message out so eloquently!
John, thank you so much.
In your interviews it can be clearly seen that you truly believe in the movement and that this isn’t just another campaign for you. It seems much more personal. I have watched some interviews from your earlier days working as a campaign advisor for Bush and there isn’t the same kind of fire in your words. Thanks for the great work in promoting the message. Win or lose, myself and many others will never forget your contributions.
thanks so much conalmc. I am a true believer. But a bit ashamed to find myself so late in learning.
Doug, a while back (during Iowa caucus campaign), I saw you listed on an RP press release as one of the campaign’s official surrogate speakers, and saw you do a TV interview for RP shortly after that.
Do you manage your own RP-spokesman speaking schedule? I have been listening to the American Family Radio for a long time (mostly I shake my head at some of their “conservative” positions), and although he is definitely not an RP-leaning guy, I believe that Crane Durham would book you on his “Nothing But Truth” show (airs 4-6pm weekdays in the Dallas area). He says he wants to hear opposing points of view, but his call-in segments are so short that I can never get connected. Would you consider contacting him and asking to be a guest on the show?
Doug, nice to run across your blog. Been wondering how I might get someone’s ear up there. I am a Newfoundlander living in the US on an island on the east coast. 99% of the politicians I know of I dislike VEHEMENTLY because they are incapable of telling the truth. When we actually got a Premier in our province that did tell the truth and tried to do something about the poor state we were in, he ended up resigning because of not being able to work within the “establishment.” I hate anyone who lies to me and I know most politicians are. They know that we know, and that makes it much more infuriating to listen to them. I believe Ron Paul to be one of only a few who is a truly honorable man. I believe the positions espoused by the other GOP candidates are the ones that are out in left field and are “dangerous”.
What I’m saying might seem like a moot point to you, but I think that in order to win people over to his cause, you are going to have to show them the difference between if Paul gets in and if Romney (or any others) gets in. And there is a fairly easy way to do this, I think.
I recall a month ago trying to show a friend some pictures from Chernobyl Children’s Project International – pictures of the kids who were born deformed from the radiation. Since 1986 there have been hundred’s of thousands of them born with devastating disabilities. My friend said “Don’t show me THAT! I can’t look at that! Its too horrible!” He vehemently refused to look at the pictures. A few nights later, we were arguing about what a win for Ron Paul would mean for this nation. He considers anyone who would withdraw the troops a “pussy” who should never be president. He was all for continuing these wars and for going into Iran. He would not listen to the fact that they’re not even proven to have a weapon, and even if they did, Israel could blow them off the map 300 times over. We almost came to blows over it, in fact. Now he’s someone who loves his niece’s and nephews. But because of the brainwashing in this country, in my opinion, he cannot think beyond dropping bombs in that country, and realizing what would happen to the children over there. He cannot see what that would actually mean. I believe most Americans can’t. The people in the Middle East have become de-humanized by the Mass Media. You talk about discrimination. We’re full of it!
Ironic that my friend (who I think very highly of, by the way) who couldn’t take the pictures of the horrible mutations after Chernobyl was all for going to war with Iran and leaving in our wake another legacy of Chernobyl-syndrome that has been affecting the kids in Belarus and is now afflicting the kids being born in Iraq from “depleted” uranium (“depleted” to make it seem as if it is “weakened” which is entirely false, since it doesn’t lose its lethality for thousands of years) and other chemicals. I don’t know much about politics. I’ve learned the most about it now in the last few months since April when I typed into Google: “Is there ANYBODY running for president who has one shred of integrity?” and Ron Paul’s name popped up. I’ve been devouring stuff about him ever since and about his views. I watched all the debates and I physically wanted to shake those news reporters who marginalized and disrespected him. And I finally understand why the view that the government has to take care of us from cradle to grave is entirely antithesis to it staying small and out of our lives. It has to be a juggernaut if it is to be in all of our lives and prevent every evil from befalling us.
I believe that if you want to defeat these people running against Ron Paul, you have to have at least one ad that shows our LEGACY in the wars over there. And you should use the pictures of the results of our bombing these areas (Chernobyl-syndrome kids in Iraq, for instance – easy to find pics and articles online) in CONTRAST to the smiling faces of the candidates who would easily run to war and inflict these kinds of horrors on our fellow human beings. And you could end with something like: “Should this be OUR LEGACY in Iran, as well?” The proper thing to do is to HELP these people, and win their hearts by kindness, not by trying to, once again, overthrow their governments, and take what is not ours. Its time for a new era of responsibility and sensibility in our government. That should sway some people away from the Mitt Romneys.
I make very little but I take very little in handouts from the government, as well. I try to give a small bit to RP’s campaign once in awhile because I believe he can win and that it does matter. I didn’t know my ideas were shared by many across this country until I came across Ron Paul and Libertarianism. I agree with just about everything he says, and I suspect that even the health care would be much better if it were under him. Notwithstanding that the “free market” system didn’t seem to work in California, I believe RP is right that there is not a TRUE free-market system in this country, and I would like to see one tried. Please consider what I’ve said here. All the best, and my thoughts and prayers are with you and Dr. Paul. Take care! I’ll be watching the South Carolina debates, that’s for sure.
I think it’s great your involved with this campaign Doug.
I haven’t been able to follow along as much due to some medical issues, but I’ll begin trying to get the word out in my networks as much as possible.
He will WIN Nomination. Opposition is at our doorsteps we have to stand up to it and keep moving. America did not become great
for sitting down.
Ron Paul wouldn’t have been a founding father if he lived back then. He is too wimpy.
Doug, can you shed some light on the 564 delegates for which you say Gingrich and Santorum are not competing?
Virginia, I understand. Ohio is reopened now, so nothing is known there yet. Missouri is “missed” but like Iowa the public vote is not the real issue there. I’d really like to know where else they have missed this badly.
MEMO TO DOUG WEAD, I HOPE YOU READ THIS:
It’s frustrating to see the Ron Paul campaign’s FAILURE at Politics 101. I’m supporting Ron Paul with my donations and I’m not seeing the results necessary to win.
The campaign has failed to re-frame the “third party” question, the electability question, the foreign policy question. I have serious doubts about the ability of his campaign to get a clue and deal with this. I realize Ron Paul is a thoughtful guy and not a politician, but if they could make a candidate out of dyslexic George W. Bush, they can do more to polish Ron Paul — period.
Here are some talking points they are NOT using, that MUST be used if you want victory — and they MUST be REPEATED, over and over:
“I’ll defend the Bill of Rights, they won’t.” (Rarely, if ever, utter “civil liberties”, as it is associated with leftists).
“I’ll put troops on our borders, they’ll put them on Pakistan’s border.”
“I’ll use diplomacy to keep gas prices low, they’ll use war, and gas prices will go through the roof.”
“Going to war with Iran preemptively will cause a worldwide economic meltdown and send gas prices through the roof! We must avoid war at all costs. These guys are itching for it.”
“Bring the troops home and defend the homeland!”
“If Iran attacks us UNPROVOKED (key term), I’ll use the full might of our military WITHOUT HESITATION to stop them.” (Don’t even bring up authorization from Congress. Just say it forcefully, one line, that’s it. Over and over. “I WILL STOP IRAN.”)
“I’ll cut actual spending, they’ll cut the automatic spending increases… a little bit.”
“I’ve been consistent for 30 years; the only thing consistent about these guys is they change their underwear everyday. I hope.”
“Maybe Newt or Mitt should run third party, since they don’t have any crossover support. I get tremendous support from Democrats and indepedents, they don’t. I’ll beat Obama, the polls show it — they can’t.” (Should be the response to every “third party” question).
“I’ll protect your right to privacy, they can’t wait to invade it.”
“I’ll repeal the NDAA and I’ll protect the internet and keep it free, they won’t do any of that.”
SIMPLIFY the message. Ron Paul’s nuanced debate answers need to be book-ended with sound bites. Did you see how much people LOVED that idiot Herman Cain? His entire campaign was based on three NUMBERS, “9 9 9”. That’s it! Put it in forth-grader language, and the public will connect with it. SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY and DEAL with the issues the campaign has FAILED to re-frame.
ARRGHGHGH! It’s SO frustrating. I don’t mean to be insulting, but this is NOW or NEVER. This is a lot of people’s donations NOT being used to maximum benefit. It’s a campaign, we’re here to WIN. We don’t have to compromise to win, but we still have to be smart and realize the voting public IS NOT highly educated, and we have to coddle them a bit. We also have to be MORE aggressive and contrast with Mitt and Newt more. Ron Paul has to say repeatedly, “These guys aren’t conservatives, I am.” Over and over! Do you want to win or not?
You are sooooo right.
Few criticisms for Dr. Paul and notes for the upcoming debates.
What Paul needs to do is get a bloody better debate coach. I know Dr. Paul speaks from his heart, but does he want to win or what? He needs to do EXACTLY what Gingrich has done. Attack the media, continually press that he is the most electable (with Paul its actually true), continually talk about his foreign policy as being the most pro American and safest and continually talk about him being the incorruptable TRUE outsider (which is actually true compared with the lies of the Grinch)…. If he can actually do this and stop shooting himself in the foot by giving the enemy “bait” to scream and boo about, then Paul can win or at least be a huge force and force the nominee (if not Paul) to choose Rand as the running mate….
Can someone let Wead know that Ron needs to BELT IT OUT OF THE PARK TOMORROW!!!!
He needs to do something. A great debate performance is worth millions in advertising.
He needs a way to turn the marginalization around on them. Attacking the hosts worked for Newt. Or call them out on their biasness “Why do you not allow the American voters to decide which candidate can best turn this country around when you ask canned questions to two of the most status quo/establishment candidates up here. It seems unfair that you are trying to create the narrative for the voter. You should ask & treat all candidates equally. Equal time. Let them all answer the same questions.” or something.
I don’t know… perception is everything and Faux and radio bobble-heads are creating the narrative of “last place” because of S.C. “He is dangerous” etc…
I wish someone would get word to RP’s team for the debate tomorrow night and all future debates.
Do not bother trying to hurry in all the issues and points. Merely slow down and speak as a president would speak–unhurried, statesmanlike, and totally assured in every remark. Just as he does on the house floor and other places.
In other words-be himself in his natural mode.
The forces in play against us are too powerful, meaning the media. It’s obvious they will not cut us a break, they will not mention us, they will marginalize us, and they will do everything to hide us under a rug.
Fortunately, national debates are FREE national publicity, where we don’t have to spend millions and millions to get ads on air, and we have the pulpit in those debates! It’s a very powerful pulpit because people can hear from you in person, and that’s what counts the most.
I understand that being forceful in debates goes against your gentlemanly demeanor and is probably outside of your comfort zone, but NOW is the time to get mad — to get mad for all of us and all of our work. NOW is the time to go for the throats. NOW is the time to show the American people, who want to see a forceful leader, that we’re not made of mud.
You ARE a true leader, Dr. Paul, and great inspiration to us all, but the majority of the people are still blind, and NOW is the time to make them see.
Your last debate performance was solid, and I gave you an A because you finally called out the mainstream GOP on their isolationist foreign policy and explained your electability by saying you’re tied with Obama in the recent polls. But we need to build on this and show some teeth in the upcoming debates.
Great one liner for Ron, “we need a strong military, but we don’t need to police the whole world.”
Yes! And waiting for the moderator to get to you after a round has passed also isn’t such a great idea – makes us look weak. I think that one of the reasons that Santorum, being the joke that he is, has managed to stay in the double digits is because of his constant assertiveness in the debates. Now, the way HE does it is annoying. But we’re not doing ENOUGH of it.
Last debate was a MAJOR improvement in calling our a moderator and asking for time to respond, but we need to exponentially increase that tactic now – this is the last debate for a long time, isn’t it? Until March?
Ron is plenty annoying, in his own ways. If the last debate was a “MAJOR” improvement, Ron should be in good form by about 2112! LOL
Next debate is February 22: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/
The person who makes Ron Paul look weak is Ron Paul. His snivelly, whiney demeanor isn’t going to change. Save your money and give it to the Republican winner.
Maybe you can help influence Dr. Paul to “grab the mic” and make this speech:
Thomas Woods “Ron Paul Would Ignite the Debate If He Said This”:
It’s now or never. Reignite the excitement of the Revolution by stealing the show.
(1) “The Tea Party’s key issues have been bailouts, debt, and spending. Mitt and Newt both supported the TARP bailouts. The whole people were against those bailouts, and the elites were for them. When the chips were down, Mitt and Newt sided with the New York Times and the cable news networks against you. Do you expect them to behave differently next time?
“I have opposed every bailout, every time. Does anyone here doubt my resolve? Given my consistent record over three decades, does anyone doubt those bailouts will stop cold under a President Paul?
“Newt boasts of his great accomplishments. But the Brookings Institution had it right when they said his Contract with America in 1994 was a lot of piddling around the edges, and represented no real threat to the status quo.
“You want a real threat to the status quo? You’re looking at him.
“On spending, everyone pretends to want to cut spending. How many times are we going to let them get away with fooling Republican voters? Who else on this stage has laid out a specific, line-by-line budget showing $1 trillion in savings in the first year? If you want to be lied to about spending cuts that never come — as has happened repeatedly under Republican rule, I am sorry to have to point out — and if you don’t care that your country is going bankrupt, don’t vote for me. Vote for one of them. But if you want someone who isn’t some slick talker, and who won’t ever back down, our campaign welcomes you with open arms.”
(2) “We can’t afford the knee-jerk intervention overseas anymore. And I am unconvinced that this policy is motivated by protecting us from radical Islam. Nobody seemed to mind that our party’s last nominee favored interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Russia on behalf of Islamic forces. How about staying out of these conflicts, given that our government’s crazy foreign policy has succeeded only in cultivating radical Islam everywhere it has touched?
“Our campaign has received twice as much money in donations from active-duty military than all other Republican candidates combined, and I’ve been endorsed by the former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, who says the other candidates are feeding you propaganda instead of the truth.
“Mitt Romney’s top donors are Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley. Mine are the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.
“I don’t know what part of ‘we are broke’ my opponents do not understand, but their grandiose plans to remake the world, which are the very opposite of what a conservative would propose, are even crazier when we’re on the verge of bankruptcy. Newt thinks bankruptcy is a actually good time to outfit a mission to Mars. Now I admit that might be worth the investment, but only if he wants to take Congress and the president with him.”
(3) “Tonight the media would like to entertain you with another episode of the Mitt and Newt Hour. Each will accuse the other of deviating from conservative principles, and each will be right. The fact is, these two are so close in philosophy you can hardly slide a credit card between them.
“It will be obvious during this debate, given how much time to speak these two men will receive, that the media has already decided what your choices for president should be. Since when do you trust the media with deciding who should be president? The very fact that they obviously favor the two gentlemen to my left is reason enough to hold them in suspicion.
“I am the one they fear. I am the one who will shut down the federal gravy train once and for all. They know I mean business, and that I’m not just giving pretty speeches. That’s why they ridicule and ignore me.
“And that’s exactly why I urge you to support me.”
Ron isn’t even campaigning in Florida.
Well, he isn’t campaigning very much in Florida, I’ll give you that. But how is it relevant to this topic? I am suggesting that he give the speech that Tom Woods penned, and soon. Since the next debate isn’t for almost a month, I think he should edit the speech accordingly and give it from the stump in Maine when national news cameras are rolling.
I support Dr Paul on whatever he decides. However, I feel that alot of people do not understand issues dealiing with israel or foreign policy. If he had a primetime interview explaining to people this
he can really change some of the people. Also, He needs to state
he is a christain some people I speak with do not know this and I have to set them straight.
Look at the title of this thread, and you should be able to answer that question.
Title is “We can win.” I don’t understand your point.
How does Ron expect to win when he doesn’t even campaign in large states such as Florida?
By acting strategically, rather than carelessly, with his time. By acting responsibly, rather than foolishly, with our finances.
It boils down to dollars. If Ron had them, he would spend them, AND spend time in all of the states, not most of his time in states having caucuses and not primaries. Ron would have dollars if some of his ideas, particularly his foreign policy, weren’t so nutty.
I’ve been nice here, I think, by not calling anyone “nutty”. Paul is the only one who has shown that he can raise money at the drop of a hat, unless you count Gingrich and his Las Vegas sugar daddy.
Your argument seems to be that if a candidate has money, and is a serious candidate, that he/she will both spend that money and spend time, everywhere. Romney didn’t do that. Would you say that he is not serious about his candidacy?
Other campaigns borrow scads of money and finish in debt that sometimes takes years to pay off (e.g. Hillary Clinton 2008), or they can lie and flagrantly thumb their nose at the law and abuse the system and yet are allowed to get away with it (e.g. John McCain 2008).
Your proposed campaign-spending policy presumes at least 2 things that are, in the practical sense, false:
1) More money spent means you win, and
2) It is possible to outspend Mitt Romney
Paul has raised more money in this campaign than any candidate except Romney. Any businessman understands ROI, and if you have some choices that give high ROI and others that give low ROI, you go for the former first.
Santorum has made essentially the same decision as Paul, but with a big difference – he’s begging for money so he can keep going.
Using the term nutty isn’t about being nice, it’s about being accurate. Ron Paul’s foreign policy is nutty because most people recognize it is dangerous to our survival. Only the people who are nutty like Ron don’t see this, which is about 6% of those in Florida according to the latest poll.
Ron hasn’t raised NEARLY as much as Romney or Gingrich. Remember, it usually takes a combination of money, a strong confident presentation, electable positions, and a favorable resume of experience to become elected. Ron is 0 for 4 in these areas.
Romney is spending more money everywhere than anybody else, how do you come to the conclusion he isn’t everywhere? Stop making false statements and thinking I won’t catch you making them.
What does Clinton’s and McCain’s campaign debt have to do with Ron Paul winning the election?
I never said the 2 things about campaign spending; you are lying again. My point is it takes money to win, but spending money doesn’t guarantee winning. Ron Paul is a good example of that. As far as other spending more than Romney, it hasn’t happened yet, but it still could happen. But it will probably be Gingrich and not Ron or Santorum.
The problem is your ROI strategy is it will not lead to Ron winning, and Ron winning is the title of this thread.
All politicians “beg” for money, some are so nutty all they have to do is find other nuts and ask for the money, others have to convince people they are worthy of being given money.
Tex2, with all due respect, I think maybe you need to read my comments more closely, and research your own points.
You said “Paul hasn’t raised NEARLY as much as Romney or Gingrich.” You are simply wrong. As of the latest campaign finance reports, Paul had raised far more than Gingrich. Gingrich also has been spending more than he has, running up debts. (Paul and Romney are the only ones with no debt). Since then, Gingrich has had some big Vegas money come in, a huge chunk of which went to license the SuperPAC film that he then later took down asking for changes. Paul has also raised a lot of money in that time, including one $5M “money bomb”, so I would be very surprised if Gingrich has outdistanced him yet, but we can’t know that for sure until the quarterly reports are made in 2 months.
0 for 4??? That would surprise the people nationwide who have him neck-and-neck with Romney, or even beating Romney on occasion, when it comes to head-to-head matchups against Obama. It is the Republican non-Revolutionary Old Guard that he’s really fighting against, and he’s making significant ground with them. I know you will point out that the absolute numbers are still lower than Romney (and, sometimes, lower than Gingrich), but compared to 2008, he has gotten 2x the Iowa vote, 3x the NH vote, and 4x the SC vote. In Iowa, Romney didn’t even match his 2008 total.
The 6% FL number (one poll, other polls have him at up to 14% in Florida) is low, to be sure, but you are arguing a partially circular situation of polls reflecting campaigning.
You said “Stop making false statements and thinking I won’t catch you making them.” Well, I didn’t make any such statement, or didn’t intend to. I guess, boiled down to syntactical semantics, my statement could be read as saying Romney didn’t spend time in Iowa. But I think everyone knows that, compared to the other candidates, Romney spent almost no time in Iowa. He spent money, but not too much. Making a big push in Iowa didn’t fit into his strategy so he didn’t do it. Pundits beat him up about it, but he did pretty well, so I’d say he was vindicated. Paul has his own strategy, too, and hindsight will tell whether it was a good one.
I didn’t lie about anything, and certainly didn’t say you said the two points about spending. I didn’t quote you (as I have in this reply, when I wrote “You said…”). I said that the campaign-spending policy you espouse presumes (and hinges on) those two things. It is obvious, and i stand by it.
Unless Romney drops out early, there is no way Gingrich or Paul or Santorum is going to outspend him. Romney is a very accomplished investor, knows when to cut his losses, and 2008 showed that he was willing to do so when others were urging him to keep going/spending. If he quite early, it will because he has decided he can’t spend his way to the top. If he stays in, it will mean that he is convinced it will pay off, and he will bury the others with dollars spent.
I think it would be interesting to, and I propose that we do, leave this thread now that the only additional things that can be said are speculation on both sides, and come back here in September to compare what we projected to how it actually worked out.
According to this story: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/unlimited-cash-flooding-2012-presidential-election-1320251.html Gingrich has raised $10 million from a single donor. How does Ron’s total contributions compare?
Here’s another source, where pro-Gingrich sources clearly have given more to Newt than Ron: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indexp.php Why do you continue to make claims you cannot back up? Sounds like Ron claiming if we let the terrorists rebuild their training camps without being harassed they would leave us alone. Where is your basis for this, given they believe we are infidels who should be killed by them under orders from “Allah?”
It is common for campaigns to have debts, particularly for candidates who are catching fire with the electorate, as Newt has been doing, which is FAR different than Ron’s trajectory. Even YOU now admit we don’t know which has raised more, does that mean you take back your previous claim that Ron has raised more?
Yes. 0 for 4. Struck out plus one for total embarrassment. Please explain which of the 4 Ron has demonstrated instead of merely denying it.
It doesn’t do much good (and is VERY premature) to compare a head to head matchup with Barry before Ron gets the Republican nomination, and he hasn’t done very much in the primaries and caucuses to date.
Two and three times almost zero is not statistically significant. Why do you talk numbers and not percentages? Romney didn’t take Iowa seriously until very late in the process. Why do you bring up statistics without describing the background information that makes the statistics insignificant?
Campaigning (or not campaigning) is how somebody wins (or loses) elections. If that sounds “partially circular” (whatever that means!) to you, then my half circle is fully logical.
Romney didn’t think he would need to campaign much in Iowa to succeed, until the polls showed him very far behind, but he worked hard towards the end. He hasn’t missed a state since, and learned his lesson further in South Carolina. As far as your false statements, name a state where another single candidate has spent more than Romney, instead of throwing out statements you can’t back up. Santorum spent more time in Iowa because he didn’t have very much money. He won’t be able to do that with the remaining states, it is physically impossible.
Here’s your lies:
“Your proposed campaign-spending policy presumes at least 2 things that are, in the practical sense, false:
1) More money spent means you win, and
2) It is possible to outspend Mitt Romney”
These points are false, as I stated previously, “My point is it takes money to win, but spending money doesn’t guarantee winning. Ron Paul is a good example of that. As far as other spending more than Romney, it hasn’t happened yet, but it still could happen. But it will probably be Gingrich and not Ron or Santorum.” I reject both of your points, and NEVER proposed a campaign-spending policy. Stop lying by trying to put words in my keyboard that I never typed.
It is obvious you haven’t followed the campaign very closely, at least outside the myopic Ron Paul position. Campaigns run on momentum, and if Romney stumbles and/or another candidate makes their positions more attractive, the money WILL flow from Romney to the other candidate(s). That’s how campaigns work, and why Ron’s is doomed to failure.
You can do whatever you want with this thread, I’ll decide what to do based on what I want to do.
Hmm. Slick, giving the same information packaged from two different sources and claiming the second is “another” resource. That might have slipped by most folks.
Regarding: “As far as your false statements, name a state where another single candidate has spent more than Romney, instead of throwing out statements you can’t back up. ” Well, that’s impossible, since I never stated that about Romney. Romney spent about 10% more in SC than Gingrich, who was the 2nd biggest spender (this is including the S-PACs, which you did) Of course, if we were talking about dollars per vote cast for him, then Romney was blown into the weeds by Gingrich.
Look, Tex, I have not been lying or putting words into your keyboard. I just reduce what you say to its essence and look at the purely logical and unavoidable conclusions, and you can loop back in time all you want to try to change the record if it makes you happy. The problem is that it doesn’t seem to be making you happy. I’m not the one getting all worked up here.
Have fun with the thread.
Doug, I’m sorry this one blew up to be so wordy. I had forgotten about Tex’s history.
Back to the trenches. I’m interested in the Georgia courts and ballots right now.
Two different sources confirms the information. I was also making a different point in one of the posts. Someone who can read for comprehension would realize that. The point remains Gingrich has raised more money than Ron. Just admit you were wrong, it will save the last tiny piece of credibility you have left! However, not answer questions would merely raise your credibility close to zero.
Elections aren’t decided by dollars per vote, they are measured by votes.
You’re right, you said about Romney in Iowa: “He spent money, but not too much.” But it was still more than everybody except Rick Perry: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9926906-romney-super-pac-outpaces-romney-campaign-in-iowa-ad-spending If you had found that information you could have proven me wrong, but now I can post the information as a correction.
I’m not getting worked up, either. It’s fun finding all of your inaccurate, lying, incorrect comments. I have fun with every thread I post on, especially this one.
I guess this means you’ll finally be the “history” on this thread. Have fun with the Georgia courts and ballots, I’m sure you’ll be very “entertaining” on that subject as well.
Way to go Ron, you came in 4th place in the Florida primary, ahead of all of the other candidates…OOPS! There’s only 4 left, which makes you dead last. LOL
Thanks Mr. Wead, I think you’ll do a great job as the white house chief of staff RP2012!!!!
Wouldn’t it be better to wait until Ron isn’t in last place in the delegate count before you say that? LOL
Where have all the Paulites gone,
Long time passing…. LOL
A new CNN/ORN poll was just released, taken February 10-13, and thus after all the primaries/caucuses held so far (except for about 10% of Maine, which counts for delegates but won’t be reported by their state GOP – weird). Here is a link to the PDF report on the poll: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/02/14/rel2c.pdf
Spend a few long minutes poring over this poll. I did, and I was absolutely shocked.
Over the last 3 years, we have constantly heard political news reports of Obama’s (and Congress’s) “Net Favorability”, or the “Favorability Gap”, which is the difference between the percentage of people who view the target positively versus negatively. A net 0 (zero) rating means that the view of those surveyed is exactly balanced – half likes and half dislikes. If more people view you favorably than those who view you unfavorably, that is considered good, naturally, at least in politics.
This telephone poll surveyed 1026 people, 91% of whom are registered voters and 47% of whom were Republicans. 75% of those surveyed were reached via landlines (vs. cell phones).
Based on these results, it is clear that the GOP respondents really view the GOP candidates very differently than the rest of the public views them. The biggest concern? The fact that Santorum (-6), Romney(-20), and Gingrich(-38) all have net UN-favorability gaps among the general population, and Gingrich and Romney are HUGELY net-negative among the general population. Among the general population, only Paul and Obama are net-favorable. Paul’s rating is net +6, and Obama is net +8 .
But among just the GOP “half” of the respondents (478 GOP out of 1026 total), Santorum is +33 net-favorable. Then comes Paul at +17, then Romney at +14. Amazingly, even among just the GOP respondents, Gingrich is still NET-NEGATIVE at (-1). Not surprisingly, the pollsters didn’t highlight Obama’s rating among the GOP-only respondents, but it is still in there, buried in the demographic breakout: 7-to-1 against, or (-75) points net-negative.
Now, I don’t hold with the idea of “pragmatic voting” , but the fact is that the pragmatists rule the GOP party organizations, and are a large fraction of the GOP membership. How can they (the pragmatists) ignore the fact that even though Obama is vulnerable among the general population (at 53% favorable, he’s close to the only-half-liked point, within the poll’s 3% margin of error, 53%-3%=50%), the only GOP candidate that is even close to Obama in favorability ratings is Ron Paul (at 45%+3% = 48%). Romney and Santorum are back down another 5% and 7%, respectively, and the general populace appears to pretty much hate Gingrich, as only 1 in 4 (25%) view him favorably. In fact, over the last 17+ years, Gingrich has managed a nationwide net-positive favorability rating only in Nov. 1994 and May 2009.
The “issues” questions show even more clearly how out of step the old-guard GOP is with the rest of the country, as they (GOP) rate Gingrich either 1st or 2nd (out of the 4 GOP candidates) on 5 of the 7 listed issues: Foreign Policy, The Economy, Federal Budget Deficit, Illegal Immigration, and Taxes (he is 3rd only on Abortion and Healthcare, and 4th not at all). By contrast, Ron Paul is rated by the GOP as 4th out of 4 in all but one issue category – Federal Budget Deficit has him 3rd behind Romney and Gingrich, who haven’t proposed any real net cuts, only slower growth.
What all these numbers say to me is that on the GOP side, this had better fast become a two-person, Santorum-vs-Paul, race, or else the GOP is going to end up losing big in November. Romney and Gingrich have falling GOP favorability, and plummeting general favorability. Only Santorum and Paul are on the rise. And between those two, although Santorum comes out with a stellar net-positive favorability rating among the GOP (with Paul running second), his net is running 12 points behind Paul and 14 points behind Obama among a general cross-section of registered GOP/DEM/IND voters (the 3 of these guys leave Romney and Gingrich in the dust).
You’ll note that I referred to the GOP “old-guard” being out of step. The reason I phrased it that way is that the demographic breakdown shows that the 478 GOP respondents are ALL white, ALL college-educated, ALL 50+ years old, ALL suburbanites, and ALL tea-party-neutral or supporters. This description perfectly describes the prototypical GOP “party men” and “party women”. These are the same people who will preach all day long that “we must choose the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama in November”, yet the numbers show that they are severely out of step with the general voting population. These people need to get their brains in gear and start thinking, or they are going to “McCain”: the GOP right into the loser’s column just as they did in 2008.
That’s enough hot air to float a balloon. You took a snapshot set of statistics and “forgot” the main reason Ron will NEVER become president is his foreign policy. Game over, time to start thinking Ron Paul 2016, 2020, 2024….LOL
Thank you – it was my pleasure!
You’re welcome. Anytime I can expose Ron Paul for the fool he is I consider a public service.
Hi Doug, I’m a firsttimer… nubie and a Canadian. I am also a supporter of Ron Paul and have bought several tee-shirts as I cannot donate directly, being Canadian.
I am concerned with the state of affairs in the USA, because of the “trickle down effect” of US politics on Canada but, also because I love the USA and wish we had the US Constitution, here… I have my copy of the US Constitution and Human Rights and read it or study it often… enough about me…
I am worried that this 2012 election may be the USA’s final opportunity to reverse the direction to a World Government, Obama is pursuing… He seems to be intent on bring the USA to it’s knees. You cannot allow this to happen or I’m afraid the “Revolution” may become just that… There is just too much at stake.
With that in mind, I simply cannot understand why the Ron Paul campaign would let the cat out of the bag, concerning “Delegate Selection”, when there is no legal obligation to do so. I think the Republican Party will now attempt to move to change the rules in order to prevent Ron Paul from being elected… I hope not…
In the mean time, there are several lot of Primary States, which Ron Paul may not campaign in, due to cost or for whatever reason, that Delegates can be selected in favor of Ron Paul… They may appear to be Santorum delegates at the outset, then back Ron Paul at the Convention… I hope you have considered this idea…
That is all I have to say… God Bless Ron Paul, from Canada, the USA’s greatest Allie 🙂 Good Luck and good hunting 🙂
The Republican Party doesn’t need to do anything to keep Ron Paul from being nominated, just let him talk, as far and wide as possible. LOL
Vote YES :
BAN *tex2* from this site IMMEDIATELY — Never allow IT to post here again! ALSO, DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF ITS TROLLING !
Dear, Doug — this is your HOME page, and all of us posting here are your guests. Don’t know about your tolerance level, but mine ends when an unwelcome guest tries to set my home on fire, in order to chase out all the welcomed people I’ve invited!
No normal exchange can be held here — since the #2 quickly fills in all REPLY slots….so no-one else can respond sequentially to what was stated before. This is its main goal (secondary is its spittings of hatred to all that’s good)!
Crucify him…..crucify him….. LOL
The Passion of the Christ is a good movie, but I don’t know if I want to watch it THAT many times in a row, so let’s take a break from this repetitious “program” and allow other readers to comment on the below serious and real issues that result in baggage for Ron Paul. Tell me what you think, let’s have open and honest discourse, and since I’m a First Amendment kind of guy, even the “list” above is welcome to chime in:
Why Ron Paul would NOT be a good president:
1. He is old, mousey, whiny, grumpy, skinny, etc. Do not underestimate the importance of these factors, as a very large number of voters are not familiar with the issues, and vote for vanity. Sad but true. It does no good to have good ideas when you don’t have the presidential image, and Ron has neither.
2. He has been in Congress for 2 decades and doesn’t have a single bill to his name. We elected someone president with zero accomplishments in 2008, why would we want to do that again? How can you expect him to be able to lead the country when he can’t lead a single bill to fruition after 20 years?
3. He even voted against his own bill to audit the Federal Reserve, because he didn’t get every single detail he wanted. He is so stubbornly rigid he simply takes his toys and goes home if he doesn’t get every little detail he wants.
4. Many of his domestic policies are admirable, but how does he expect to implement them when he will have to work with Congress to get many of them turned into a reality? Will he simply hold his breath until Congress lets him get his way, because he has zero track record of using any other tactic to be successful?
5. Most of his foreign policies are dangerous. If we pull out of foreign countries, the vacuum WILL be filled by Russia, China, etc. Once you lose your toehold, it is VERY difficult to expand military operations if the need arises. Think about how hard it would have been for the U.S. to fight Hitler if England had fallen. For example, if China decides they don’t want to allow free flow of oil, we would have no recourse, as it takes years, if not decades, to develop independent energy sources. He is simply naive to the point of being a traitor to his own country. Also, we need forward positioned military presence to fight the global war on terror. It isn’t being fought only in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are operations literally around the world preventing future 9/11 type attacks that simply cannot be fought by guarding our own borders, 9/11 should have taught us that. We must therefore disrupt the terrorist cells wherever they are, so they cannot organize, plan, recruit, train, equip, and attack again. To not do this would be suicidal.
For the above and other reasons, Ron gets the pot smoking and “freedom at any cost” crowd, and that’s all he will ever get…LOL
Here is another good one!
The #2 is a paid shill to troll and disrupt this forum with its spewing of hatred. So real Americans can’t converse here without IT hijacking all threads. That’s why this subhuman needs to be banned. One NEVER responds to IT — its existence is to be ignored.
Send this video!
The #2 is a paid shill to troll and disrupt this forum with its spewing of hatred. So real Americans can’t converse here without IT hijacking all threads. That’s why this subhuman needs to be banned. One NEVER responds to IT — its existence is to be ignored.
Vote to ban the #2 that pollutes this forum with its trolling.
So far the vote to BAN it — ‘tex2′ — is:
2) Sharon Kuhn
4) christopher Deligate of Missouri
10) Wendy Jones
11) Evan Godolphin
12) Remmic Lewis
13) Shane Mayfield
14) jeffrey bohl
“Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson could pull as much as 6% of the vote in a hypothetical three-way match-up with Mitt Romney and President Obama. Johnson began the 2012 race running for the Republican nomination but has wound up carrying the libertarian banner and could gain ballot access in several states.”
If the above transpires, it is a certainty that Mitt will not defeat BO (with his flip-flopping, he couldn’t defeat him anyway, now this would assure it).
So he needs to withdraw now in favor of Ron Paul!
Ron Paul WILL become President in 2012 — IF, Romney becomes a Patriot, and forgoes his ego, for the Good of the People!
Mitt Romney could become one of the greatest Statesmen in US History! He’d be the Savior of our Nation — the one that generations to come would tell their children: “Look at this statue, this is Mitt Romney, he saved America”!
Or, he can reduce himself to just a tiny footnote…what is amazing is that his fate rests in his own hands (a very rare occurrence throughout the history of the world)!
All Romney has to do, is to take advantage of this rarest of historical moments, and make a SINGLE DECISION!!!
Withdraw his candidacy IN FAVOR of Ron Paul, with the following grandiose and heart-wrenching patriotic speech (to save his political skin):
“I, Mitt Romney, will sacrifice my political goals for the Good of the People. Now I understand that only Ron Paul that can save our Nation. I agree with all he stands for, therefore, I have deemed that our Nation’s salvation can only be accomplished when Ron Paul is elected as President of the United States of America. Without regret, but with joy, I do the most honorable and patriotic deed I can — I withdraw myself from this election, and give my full support to Ron Paul!”
One honest person is needed to bring these logical conclusions to Romney’s PERSONAL ATTENTION (not the myopic sycophants surrounding him and stroking his ego by chanting wishful thinking as ‘fact’: “You gonna win Boss, you gonna win Boss….).
Regardless how egotistical, arrogant and narcissistic Romney may be, some semblance of reasoning of what’s best for him, should still remain in his skull. The instinct for self preservation dictates that even the smallest of minds will chose the path that leads to safety, not the one leading to disaster.
An honest realist needs to talk to Romney one-on-one — and explain the following to him, so Mitt can comprehend it:
1) If you don’t win the nomination, than your political career is over (you’ll become just a tiny footnote in US History as a failure).
2) If you win the nomination, and don’t defeat Obama — which is the most probable outcome (you’ll become just a tiny footnote in US History as an even LARGER failure).
Therefore, Dear Mitt, whichever gamble you take from the above, may lead to total disaster for your political career (and probably will)!
However, here is an action you can take, Dear Mitt, that guarantees you’ll become immortalized in the annals of US History — becoming the 21st Century Savior of America (surely this carrot of success will entice Romney’s egotism to go for it — over the probable political beatings he’d receive otherwise)!
All one needs to do, to assure Mitt’s Historical Greatness of Sacrifice for the Good of the Nation, is to present the above to Romney’s eyes alone! I urge all able to do so, to place this document in front of him!
Send this to Mitt Romney — as an Open Letter, e-mails, etc. — the more you send, the greater the chance he’ll get to read it!
*Mitt Romney, American Parasite*
(Mitt Grosny — Romney The Terrible (my prefered title))
It explains how Bain Capital worked. They would buy SUCCESSFUL companies, with little down, borrowed huge amounts, saddling them with crushing debt, refused to continue equipment purchases or maintenance. Then they would pay themselves huge “management” fees.
Some notable excerpts:
“Romney is not a vulture capitalist, as Rick Perry says, since vultures eat dead carcasses,” notes Josh Kosman, who has written about the private equity business for 15 years. He’s “more of a parasitic capitalist, since he destroys profitable businesses.” (The host must be healthy enough to be force-fed all that debt, then slowly bled to death…until the parasites drain all the wealth for themselves).
“When Bain was about to buy a company, its partners would hold a meeting. “He said that about half the time [they] would talk about cutting workers,” Kosman says. “They would never talk about adding workers. He said that job growth was never part of the plan.” That claim was buttressed by the Associated Press, which studied 45 companies bought by Bain during Romney’s first decade. It found that 4,000 workers lost their jobs. The real figure is likely thousands higher, since the analysis didn’t account for bankruptcies and factory and store closings.
“The Armco plant closing involved more than the torching of 750 jobs, Morrow says. Contractors and suppliers collapsed. Workers’ children and widows lost health care and pension benefits. And while Bain received millions in tax breaks—paid for by the very people left holding the bag—Romney walked away millions richer.”
A must read (long) article recommended to all!