[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
Depends on whom one asks. Nevertheless his placement at Ames was indeed over-estimated by many.
Wishful thinking…
[/quote]
Many individuals insisted Ron Paul would obtain second or perhaps even first place. Obviously this scenario never materialized, thus my previous statement.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Many individuals insisted Ron Paul would obtain second or perhaps even first place. Obviously this scenario never materialized, thus my previous statement.
[/quote]
I meant wishful thinking on the part of the over-estimators.
He did not bomb the poll. He did well enough to silence the critics who claimed that he was a no-name, bottom-of-the-barrel candidate who would be forgotten within a few months.
Since I knew those people were wrong from the outset, I did not devote much effort to trumpeting Paul’s relative “win” in that context.
The biggest surprises were Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo. Not many people saw that coming. These results will give those three a push, but it’s questionable as to how far they will be able to ride the wave out of Iowa. I do not expect all of them to make it to the primaries, even in light of this performance. Paul, on the other hand, I do.
Ron Paul is still leading a significant and ever-growing movement in this country. That didn’t change because of the poll and it won’t. It’s just that now, we can say that he probably won’t be the next President, whereas previously, that question was still up in the air. I think that Ron Paul is now the official Goldwater of the GOP (except that he won’t be nominated).
He will lay the ideological foundation among this generation. But I think it will take an economic collapse to get a libertarian into office (assuming we’ll still have a choice at that point, which is far from certain).
In other news, Duncan Hunter got crushed. He was the golden boy of the neocon base. The Freepers will weep.
Apparently, Fox News skipped over Paul in their reporting of the poll results, as did the Washington Post.
http://dailypaul.com/node/1327
I can’t imagine any legitimate excuse for this whatsoever.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
Many individuals insisted Ron Paul would obtain second or perhaps even first place. Obviously this scenario never materialized, thus my previous statement.
I meant wishful thinking on the part of the over-estimators.[/quote]
I stand corrected.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Apparently, Fox News skipped over Paul in their reporting of the poll results, as did the Washington Post.
http://dailypaul.com/node/1327
I can’t imagine any legitimate excuse for this whatsoever.[/quote]
Fox Bastiches
Look up the upper left corner: “You decide”
Oh, the irony
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Apparently, Fox News skipped over Paul in their reporting of the poll results, as did the Washington Post.
http://dailypaul.com/node/1327
I can’t imagine any legitimate excuse for this whatsoever.[/quote]
Wait…
I thought they´d report and we´d decide?
Fox didn’t want to exclude Giuliani from the list…
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Apparently, Fox News skipped over Paul in their reporting of the poll results, as did the Washington Post.
http://dailypaul.com/node/1327
I can’t imagine any legitimate excuse for this whatsoever.
[/quote]
MSNBC committed the same “FAUX pas”.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Apparently, Fox News skipped over Paul in their reporting of the poll results, as did the Washington Post.
http://dailypaul.com/node/1327
I can’t imagine any legitimate excuse for this whatsoever.[/quote]
It is ridiculous the way the man is being ignored by the MSM.
After careful consideration, I’ve decided that Fox deserves credit for making some very unsavory characters uncomfortable.
Look at the names of the tools on this board who spend their time ripping Fox.
It has occurred to me that if said fungus is threatened by Fox, then it must be the greatest communication channel in the history of the medium.
Here is a message for lixy/bradley/the malignant Canadians/bota/muffinman/and the german schutzstaffel (schwarzfaher):
fox
Fox
FOx
FOX!!!
FOX!!! FOX!!! FOX!!!
FOX IS COMING FOR YOU!!!
JeffR
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Apparently, Fox News skipped over Paul in their reporting of the poll results, as did the Washington Post.
http://dailypaul.com/node/1327
I can’t imagine any legitimate excuse for this whatsoever.
I can only think of one. And that is everyone knows Ron Paul can’t win and the others listed actually have a shot at it.
You know that whole reality thingy…[/quote]
Ah, you’re just ridiculous.
You said he’d be gone in a month or so. You said nobody would remember his name. You made constant reference to “scientific polls” in which he took 3% of the vote or less, inferring that these were accurate representations of his popularity. You said he’d be a memory by the time the primaries came by. You have already been wrong on multiple counts, with more to follow.
There is a large grey area between winning the nomination and running a zero-impact candidacy. The chances that Ron Paul will fall into this area are 99% at this point. He may not win, but he certainly won’t go quietly. Things have already been put into play and his campaign is significant enough that it won’t simply die down and slip away into the night, much as you’d love to see that happen.
I never put any stock into your “predictions”, so I didn’t take the opportunity to excoriate you when they were proven wrong. Look people, this guy just wants attention. There are others here who don’t support Paul/and or believe he can’t win who are far more worthy of your attention.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Apparently, Fox News skipped over Paul in their reporting of the poll results, as did the Washington Post.
http://dailypaul.com/node/1327
I can’t imagine any legitimate excuse for this whatsoever.
MSNBC committed the same “FAUX pas”.
[/quote]
I’m a bit surprised. I thought they were the “good guys” of cable news (relatively speaking). I’m sure Tucker and/or Buchanan will mention Paul this week.
Apparently, Buchanan was in for Tucker today. Shame, I didn’t get to see the program.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Had the big boys been there, the turnout would have been MUCH larger.
Rudy has begun to work Iowa. For strategic reasons he skipped this earlier contest.[/quote]
“Strategic reasons” = he knew he would lose to Romney so he played it safe to delay the inevitable.
I’ll let Pat Buchanan do the talking on this one:
[quote]Of all the preseason games in the run-up to the GOP nomination, none is more crucial than the Iowa Straw Poll.
As usual, it will be held in Ames, Saturday, Aug. 11.
Analysts have downgraded its importance since McCain and Rudy dropped out. They are mistaken. The McCain-Giuliani forfeiture of the straw poll already testifies to its importance - and to their weaknesses.
Rudy dropped out first. Why? His front-runner image would have been shattered had he been routed at Ames. Rather than risk a beating, Rudy quit. By dropping out, he concedes that today he lacks the troops or organization to contest the caucuses in January. And if he doesn’t have them now, when and where does he find them?
Within hours of Rudy’s forfeit, McCain threw in his hand.
With Rudy gone, McCain was not going to be able to beat the mayor, and he faced defeat by Gov. Romney, the Iowa front-runner, and even possible defeat by a second-tier candidate. Since McCain dropped out, the weakness of his candidacy has been exposed, and Giuliani, still the front-runner, has been slowly sinking in national polls.[/quote]
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56819
Pat was right. You are wrong. Rudy is strong in name recognition but weak with the conservative base. He will go down. I have not encountered a single Rudy or McCain supporter on FreeRepublic or anywhere else for that matter. I have seen people for Mitt, Fred, Paul,Duncan, and some of the other 2nd tiers. No Rudy’s except for you. Lonely Jeff.
P.S. Rudy won’t be president but don’t lose hope. He’ll be appointed as Homeland Security advisor to the Thompson administration. The role suits him much better. Every police agency needs a balding conservative man with a history of crossdressing in charge of it.
Ron Paul was on Kudlow & Company (8/10/07):
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
The following is the last paragraph of a Wall Street Journal piece. I post it because the Jouranl notes that Pauls supporters are indeed fanatical:
[/quote]
I’ll be the first to admit I drank freedom-flavored Kool-aid.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
The following is the last paragraph of a Wall Street Journal piece. I post it because the Jouranl notes that Pauls supporters are indeed fanatical:
“Mr. Paul, meanwhile, has built a fanatical following that has embraced his libertarian message and antiwar anti-interventionist views; supporters cane at their own expense from as far as Washington state to help out, though only Iowans could vote.”
It’s also interesting to note how far away some of these loony tunes traveled to assist their fearless leader.
I wonder how far Nommy and Lev drove to worship their supreme commander?
LOL[/quote]
So if I put all your posts together there is a small but growing fanatical libertarian movement that is willing to spend time and money to get the message out and is not afraid to get its hands dirty if politics gets messy.
Great!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
The following is the last paragraph of a Wall Street Journal piece. I post it because the Jouranl notes that Pauls supporters are indeed fanatical:
I’ll be the first to admit I drank freedom-flavored Kool-aid.
[/quote]
I am a fanatic when it comes to liberty.
Mick28 can wear his shackles with pride.