On a serious note.
It’s 2010. It seems like there HAS to be some GOP candidate beginning to build that State to State base. Romney and Huckabee most likely have solid ones “ready-to-go”…
But I’m speaking more of that “Dark Horse” that many feel will have to come out of the GOP.
Is there any word of a GOP candidate we may not of heard much about starting to build their base for 2012?
What about Palin?
Mufasa
I simply think that “waiting” for The President to “implode”, with the GOP calvary ready to swoop in and save the day is a non-strategy.
Mufasa
[quote]John S. wrote:
I pointed out Ron Paul raised 13 million in one day[/quote]
Well, here’s the problem with that idiot boy. How much did he raise in total? Do you even know? It was about 32+ million. Yes, he had a huge fund raising day, all the little idiots poured out their wallets and gave him one big wonderful day. One day. Then what happened? (cue cricket sounds). Then they were virtually tapped. It takes a broad base of support to actually keep up with the big dogs, which Paul could not do. And will never be able to do. EVER!
The only thing that needs to be pulled out of an ass is your head.
Anyone that knows anything about politics (not you) knows that the majority of people only start paying attention to the Presidential election after Labor Day. Do you even know the breakdown of how much money is spent before and then after Labor Day? OF course you don’t. You know very little about how American politics works, you think Ron Paul is going to be the next President, you are a little idiot.
Whenever I see stupidity of this magnitude I just can’t walk away. There is no politically intelligent person (not you) who is going to pick the republican candidate this far out. They may say “I’d like to see this guy, or that guy” But they will not actually make an outlandish claim such as you have done. Is it experience? Is it intelligence? Is it understanding the American political system? Is it a combination of all three things?
The argument is whether your boy (translation: old man) Paul has a snowballs chance in hell of becoming President. Other than your usualy nonsense you have not been able to push forth a compelling argument. But, don’t blame yourself, as there is none to be found.
All you have to do point out all of the outstanding reasons why Paul will win. You can’t do that because there are none. I understand your frustration. Try to understand one thing, when you bring your wild fantasies to light people will laugh at them. If you were to walk around thinking that you were going to date Beyonce for example, no one would know or care. You’d have your little fantasy and be happy. But as soon as you make a public claim that you are going to date Beyonce you become a laughing stock, just as you have because of your many Ron Paul proclamations. Try to understand the difference between a fantasy and reality. I know you want Paul to become President, just keep that fantasy to yourself and no one would bother you.
More idiot commentary. Age is an issue for multiple reasons:
Does a 76, or 77 year old man have the energy to conduct a nationwide campaign, and to keep up with someone who is 50 to 55? No. Do you full understand the miles that a typical Presidential candidate can put on in the course of a campaign? Even a young man would be challenged by this. But you just don’t get it. In your world it’s all about magic isn’t it?
Will the American people be willing to accept a candidate who looks like he could be the Presidents grandfather? No. Looks matter a great deal in Presidential elections. In fact, the first televised Presidential debate was Nixon vs Kennedy. The people who heard this debate on the radio thought Nixon won. Those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won. Since that point in time looks, and age meant a great deal. Kennedy won that election. Now take a good long look at every winner since 1960 and you will get a really good idea of how important looks are. You understand none of this? I’m impressed!
One can only imagine the verbal gaffes that someone Pauls age would bring forth. I remember well Ronald Reagan being caught flat footed because of age and he was a full 10 years younger than Ron Paul.
Now ask yourself this one question junior: Would we have done this if you didn’t come off as a koolaide drinking Paulie? You were the first to bring up the topic of Ron Paul. You never miss an opportunity to babble on about your elderly hero. You charge forward every time not knowing a thing about American politics, how it runs or who really has an opportunity to capture the White House. I know I’m coming off as caustic, but I think many around here have coddled your nonsense far to long. That only encouraged you to post your Paul drivel which only brings down the level of discussion on this particular forum. If this were my kid making an ass of himself repeatedly I’d thank someone for doing what I’ve done for you.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think you’re holding back, Zeb…
Tell us what you REALLY think about Ron Paul!
Mufasa[/quote]
No really Mufasa, I’m usually as even tempered as the next guy, but enough is enough don’t you think? This is shear lunacy.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What about Palin?
Mufasa[/quote]
Wow, the press gang raped her last time and left her for dead. I admire her resilience, but I think the press would be all over her again (Dan Quayle like) Because of this she’d pretty much get destroyed in a general election vs Obama. You have to remember that if the press actually favors one candidate over another as they did, Obama (and will again) that’s a huge advantage. The republicans need a candidate who can overcome this by appealing directly to the people like Ronald Reagan did.
I’ll stick to my original prediction: the person who can beat Obama has not received a lot of national attention yet.
What do you think?
I agree, Zeb.
But my question is: with only 2 years from the election, that person should be at least “visible” at this point…putting out “feelers”…getting together preliminary focus and search groups…putting a State-by-State structure in place, etc.
I’ve heard nothing.
On Palin. I think that she has “grown” since the election…but even without the “bias” of the media…I don’t see her surviving a Primary Run…much less a general election.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I agree, Zeb.
But my question is: with only 2 years from the election, that person should be at least “visible” at this point…putting out “feelers”…getting together preliminary focus and search groups…putting a State-by-State structure in place, etc.
I’ve heard nothing.
On Palin. I think that she has “grown” since the election…but even without the “bias” of the media…I don’t see her surviving a Primary Run…much less a general election.
Mufasa[/quote]
What if Palin were to get a better offer , she may quit being Prez:)
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I get the appeal that he (Paul) has with all of the 20 something simpletons, don’t get me wrong. [/quote]
But see, you and your Republican buddies offer nothing. I’m not even a Paul supporter, but you are being condescending for no reason. Where is this great candidate that you support?
Maybe Paul has no chance, but that just means he’s at the exact same point as your non-existent candidate.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I agree, Zeb.
But my question is: with only 2 years from the election, that person should be at least “visible” at this point…putting out “feelers”…getting together preliminary focus and search groups…putting a State-by-State structure in place, etc.
I’ve heard nothing.[/quote]
You might not have heard anything for two different reasons: The first is that nothing is happening. In short, there is no one yet interested. The second reason is that the liberal lap dog media may not be so fast to promote and up and coming republican candidate. I have no idea which it is. Perhaps there’s a third reason.
[quote]On Palin. I think that she has “grown” since the election…but even without the “bias” of the media…I don’t see her surviving a Primary Run…much less a general election.
Mufasa[/quote]
I don’t think that you survive the bias of the media all that well. They pretty much destroyed her. Was she ever Presidential timber to begin with? Probably not. I was never a Palin fan, but what they did to her was horrible. This should be a lesson for every other republican who thinks he, or she is ready for the media. If you are not just about perfect, and have wide ranging appeal to the people forget about running as a republican for President, you will lose.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I get the appeal that he (Paul) has with all of the 20 something simpletons, don’t get me wrong. [/quote]
But see, you and your Republican buddies offer nothing. I’m not even a Paul supporter, but you are being condescending for no reason. Where is this great candidate that you support?
Maybe Paul has no chance, but that just means he’s at the exact same point as your non-existent candidate.
[/quote]
Hey Dustin how have you been?
Go back and read every post between John and myself (if you have nothing else whatsoever to do) and you will soon see that it is not a question of one candidate being better than another. Rather, it’s a debate about whether Ron Paul is a viable candidate, which he is most certainly not.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I agree, Zeb.
But my question is: with only 2 years from the election, that person should be at least “visible” at this point…putting out “feelers”…getting together preliminary focus and search groups…putting a State-by-State structure in place, etc.
I’ve heard nothing.
On Palin. I think that she has “grown” since the election…but even without the “bias” of the media…I don’t see her surviving a Primary Run…much less a general election.
Mufasa[/quote]
What if Palin were to get a better offer , she may quit being Prez:)
[/quote]
When she resigned her position as Governor of Alaska I stated right here on T Nation that she was not resigning to run for President, but to cash in on her name. She has done that frequently. She also continues to be a lightening rod for the right. She will be able to fire up the base moving forward. Other than gaining multimillionaire status, she may at some point be given a high level cabinet post if the right republican is fortunate enough to overcome the odds and win the White House.
At least that’s my read. What do you think?
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Maybe Paul has no chance, but that just means he’s at the exact same point as your non-existent candidate.[/quote]
Incorrect. Paul isn’t at “point zero”, he is trailing behind. More interjection of Paul is subtraction by addition at this point.
To my point earlier, here is a piece highlighting Paul’s earlier associations with some very disgusting ideologies, and, as a footnote, I am always surprised that I seem to know more about Ron Paul’s track record than do his sycophants:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Maybe Paul has no chance, but that just means he’s at the exact same point as your non-existent candidate.[/quote]
Incorrect. Paul isn’t at “point zero”, he is trailing behind. More interjection of Paul is subtraction by addition at this point.
To my point earlier, here is a piece highlighting Paul’s earlier associations with some very disgusting ideologies, and, as a footnote, I am always surprised that I seem to know more about Ron Paul’s track record than do his sycophants:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter[/quote]
Edit-test
I’ll try this again
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Incorrect. Paul isn’t at “point zero”, he is trailing behind. More interjection of Paul is subtraction by addition at this point. [/quote]
Okay, cool. I don’t particularly care if he is at point zero or over 9000. Point is, you and Zeb don’t have a candidate that you support or can even look to, at this point and time, as being a viable option for the Republican nomination.
Bash Paul to your heart’s content, but if you want to be fair, you need to point to candidate that you think is a better option. And inb4, “anyone is better than Paul”, well sorry, that doesn’t fly.
[quote]
To my point earlier, here is a piece highlighting Paul’s earlier associations with some very disgusting ideologies, and, as a footnote, I am always surprised that I seem to know more about Ron Paul’s track record than do his sycophants:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter[/quote]
I’m not a Paul supporter (if you were referring to me).
As for Rockwell and Rothbard, I have never read a sentence attributed to Rockwell and I have read some of Rothbard’s work (books) and agreed with his main points.
I was a libertarian before I ever heard of either men.
[quote] Zeb wrote:
Why don’t you show me some facts how
-A 77 year old man is going to beat Obama
-An underfunded candidate is going to take the nomination
-A Congressman is going to become President
-How someone who wants to govern as if this is 1800 is going to win
-How someone without a strong organzation in all 50 states is going to win [/quote]
The shockingly simple answer to your shockingly simple question is that he recieve a majority of votes in the electoral college. The RNC ran Bob Dole in 1996, who held the age of 73, expecting him to win. I can’t believe there’s a terribly large difference between his age then, and Ron Paul’s in 2012. The funding can be taken care of, if he makes it past the primary season, that’s where McCain got his big boost and more importantly, thats WHY.
Near as I can tell, the last person that went from Congressman to President was James Garfield, back in 1881. Thus showing that it has happened, and hasn’t happened in a long while. Not sure if I agree with you that this is cause for dismissal. I mean, since when has the Governor of Alaska been taken seriously? And McCain made her his Vice. Though this point is reasonable criticism.
I think Paul’s policies are actually his strong suit. He can legitimately say he voted against the war in Iraq, against the Patriot Act, against the Stimulus package… he can be packaged to be a new idealistic leader, a kind of reverse-Wilson, which can be popular. I don’t think his policies are reason to dismiss him.
Organizational roots can be purchased and developed. Nobody outside of Illinois had heard of Obama before he spoke at the 2004 DNC. Now he’s president. A large part of that is that Community organization is the only serious thing he had done up to that point. Another part is Axelrod. With support, Paul could probably pull it off.
Not saying he’ll get that support. But much of your breakdown sees Ron Paul’s campaign not being successful, and working back from there. That’s not the right way to go about the game.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I agree, Zeb.
But my question is: with only 2 years from the election, that person should be at least “visible” at this point…putting out “feelers”…getting together preliminary focus and search groups…putting a State-by-State structure in place, etc.
I’ve heard nothing.
On Palin. I think that she has “grown” since the election…but even without the “bias” of the media…I don’t see her surviving a Primary Run…much less a general election.
Mufasa[/quote]
What if Palin were to get a better offer , she may quit being Prez:)
[/quote]
When she resigned her position as Governor of Alaska I stated right here on T Nation that she was not resigning to run for President, but to cash in on her name. She has done that frequently. She also continues to be a lightening rod for the right. She will be able to fire up the base moving forward. Other than gaining multimillionaire status, she may at some point be given a high level cabinet post if the right republican is fortunate enough to overcome the odds and win the White House.
At least that’s my read. What do you think?[/quote]
I think quitting to cash in on anything is a Character issue , I am not a fan of Sarah , but I agree she does have a fan base
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Okay, cool. I don’t particularly care if he is at point zero or over 9000. Point is, you and Zeb don’t have a candidate that you support or can even look to, at this point and time, as being a viable option for the Republican nomination.
Bash Paul to your heart’s content, but if you want to be fair, you need to point to candidate that you think is a better option. And inb4, “anyone is better than Paul”, well sorry, that doesn’t fly.[/quote]
I think you’re mostly right, but that doesn’t mean that Paul is some de facto fallback just because we don’t get excited about the other possible contenders. I don’t owe Paul any position.
And yes, “we” (the proverbial “we”) need to point to a good candidate, but you make a mistake - you think we need to provide a “better” option than Paul…no, we don’t; Paul isn’t an option at all, he is not some fallback position unless we can come up with someone else. We need a good candidate and Paul’s “status” is completely irrelevant in trying to figure out who that person is. We owe Paul nothing.
I was not, it was mostly directed to those that are in love with him, but you may find the article interesting.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
I’ll try this again
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Incorrect. Paul isn’t at “point zero”, he is trailing behind. More interjection of Paul is subtraction by addition at this point. [/quote]
Okay, cool. I don’t particularly care if he is at point zero or over 9000. Point is, you and Zeb don’t have a candidate that you support or can even look to, at this point and time, as being a viable option for the Republican nomination.
Bash Paul to your heart’s content, but if you want to be fair, you need to point to candidate that you think is a better option. And inb4, “anyone is better than Paul”, well sorry, that doesn’t fly.
[quote]
To my point earlier, here is a piece highlighting Paul’s earlier associations with some very disgusting ideologies, and, as a footnote, I am always surprised that I seem to know more about Ron Paul’s track record than do his sycophants:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter[/quote]
I’m not a Paul supporter (if you were referring to me).
As for Rockwell and Rothbard, I have never read a sentence attributed to Rockwell and I have read some of Rothbard’s work (books) and agreed with his main points.
I was a libertarian before I ever heard of either men.[/quote]
If we are deciding on a candidate why can’t there be a process of elimination? John brought up Ron Paul, as he always does, and I have given various reasons why I feel that he would fail. I am making a claim that he will not succeed, part of that claim does not have to include someone who I think will succeed. I think that is fair as it is an argument all unto itself. If someone claims for example that Mike Huckabee will win, and is as emphatic and over the top as John, I may point out the many reasons why I think that he too would fail. That isn’t to say that I’d bother analyzing everyones favorite candidate one by one. As I’ve said before the Paul supporters are extremely obnoxious, as a group, and for no good reason.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Zeb wrote:
The shockingly simple answer to your shockingly simple question is that he recieve a majority of votes in the electoral college. The RNC ran Bob Dole in 1996, who held the age of 73, expecting him to win.[/quote]
And you also saw them put up one more grandfatherly looking candidate in John McCain. We all realize how those two elections turned out. Do you think they want to go for one more ass kicking? Um, no.
There would be a 4 year difference between Dole in 96 who was indeed 73 years of age, and Ron Paul in 2012 who would be 77. Are those 4 years important? Yes. As his opponent could point out that Ron Paul would turn 80 before his first term in office expired. But, this is all really unnecessary discussion as Ron Paul, unlike Bob Dole is not a part of the republican establishment. Which is only one of the more minor reasons why he’ll never have a chance. But it does add to the long list. Being eccentric doesn’t help either by the way.
Yea, that’s true but you write it so matter of factly you downplay the importance of actually winning those key primaries which takes, among other things which Paul does not have, (drum roll) lots and lots of money!
McCain was going for the hail mary pass as any good politico would agree. And you saw what happened right? As for ruling Paul out because he is a Congressman, that’s just one more reason why he has not chance. It did happen 129 years ago and that should tell us something, and does. A Congressman usually does not have the large base of support, nor the political clout. In all fairness however, it’s not thereason why Paul has zero chance, just one more in a long list. As a matter of fact there is actually no good reason why anyone would think that Paul had a ghost of a chance of becoming President. Think about it.
You are now in deep water because you are making assumptions that only a campaign can determine. And we all know what campaigns are made up of. As for his antiquated views, I think the Obama team would have a field day slapping him around.
Where is the money coming from for Paul to win those key primary states in order for him to develop the organization? When in fact you actually need an organization to win the many key primary states. Tough road huh?
That is a poor comparison on its face.
Obama is an ultra liberal and the press loved him, and favored him over his closest rival Hillary Clinton. In fact, they favored him to the point where it was so obvious that SNL had several hilarious skits pointing it out-Paul will receive nothing but pain and anguish from the press, it they thought he was something more than a doddering old man on his last legs.
Obama was young and vital- I don’t have to go any further with this one do I?
Obama, regardless of what his critics claim is a very good communicator. He’s no Reagan or even a Bill Clinton, but he’s well ahead of the amateurish Ron Paul. They are not even in the same league. You might be too young to recall the old gentleman that Ross Perot put up as his running mate back in 92. He was a retired Admiral, however when he was put up against Dan Quayale, not known as a great speaker, and Al Gore, known to put people to sleep, the Admiral looked like a lunatic. Perot was roundly criticized for his pick as the Admiral was not a professional speaker and you will not win the White House in 2012 without being an exceptional communicator.
There are many other differences which make this comparison quite poor, I’m sure you can conjure them up at this point.
I’m saying he most certainly WILL NOT get that support.
It is the only way to go about this game. If someone has no chance the deck must be cleared for those who do. And having Ron Paul nut jobs running around claiming that he has a good chance to become President is not only tantamount to crazy talk, but it takes up bandwidth which can be better used to discuss real politics, which can be fun. It also encourages the many closet Obama supporters as they know, like every other thinking adult who has a modicum of political savvy, Paul is NOT going to get elected President, or even come close for that matter.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I agree, Zeb.
But my question is: with only 2 years from the election, that person should be at least “visible” at this point…putting out “feelers”…getting together preliminary focus and search groups…putting a State-by-State structure in place, etc.
I’ve heard nothing.
On Palin. I think that she has “grown” since the election…but even without the “bias” of the media…I don’t see her surviving a Primary Run…much less a general election.
Mufasa[/quote]
What if Palin were to get a better offer , she may quit being Prez:)
[/quote]
When she resigned her position as Governor of Alaska I stated right here on T Nation that she was not resigning to run for President, but to cash in on her name. She has done that frequently. She also continues to be a lightening rod for the right. She will be able to fire up the base moving forward. Other than gaining multimillionaire status, she may at some point be given a high level cabinet post if the right republican is fortunate enough to overcome the odds and win the White House.
At least that’s my read. What do you think?[/quote]
I think quitting to cash in on anything is a Character issue , I am not a fan of Sarah , but I agree she does have a fan base
[/quote]
Character issue huh? I don’t know what she was paid as Alaska Governor, but I can tell you that whatever it was is considerably less than what she’s making currently. If you think that serving out her remaining 18 months, or whatever it was, and then cashing in somehow would have made her a better person, I’d have to disagree. And I am no fan of Palin (for President at least) either.
Life offers so few opportunities to cash in such a lucrative manner. When one comes along, which is above board and can set you up for life financially you are a fool if you don’t take it. Besides, I think she owed the press this one. They have to look at her everyday whether they like it or not.