200 reasons Ron Paul won't win the Republican nomination.

Getting tired and need to sleep, but my last post before I let the thread die-

Pleasure and BD. I think many fiscal conservative Republicans are deeply pissed about what the Rep. prez and Rep. congresses did with their shot to run the country. I am counting on them coming out in the PRIMARIES. I think there are many Rep not married to the war and would like to see the troops come home SOONER rather than later. I think there are many many republicans that want to see the tax code done away with. RP's only group I see trouble with are the abortion wing Christians. He probably want pass their muster. Can he win without their support?

So if it's set in stone that every low-polling candidate has no chance whatsoever at becoming President then why don't they all just drop out right now? If my Oakland Raiders have absolutely no chance at making the Super Bowl this year then why do they even show up to play every week? (obviously I know they get paid to be there, but you get my point)

A lot of you guys can be described in one word: Apathetic. Apathy is killing this country... way too many people constantly saying "So what?"

I guess I should just be apathetic too and say "oh well." Fuck it right? The media tells me that Clinton or Guiliani are "the ones," therefore I should just forget about everyone else right...? I'm not sure what I should wear to school tomorrow, I think I'll call up Fox News and have them tell me what to wear...

For starters you have to understand that most people in this country don't vote. Only about 40% or there abouts of those eligible to vote actually do and most of them don't have any idea who is running until just before the final election. Those that decide the primaries and actually vote in them are even fewer than the actual general election. So it is not just webmasters, but the general population that is apathetic. When it comes time to vote people vote for many stupid reasons. they vote for someone because a friend or relative or spouse told them to. They vote for or against someone based on how they look and a million other reasons that make no sense. I bet if you walked down the street and asked 100 adults if they knew who ron paul was about 90+ of them would have no idea. People don't pay attention and worse yet, they don't care. When the election comes around they look at their lives and they decide if they are happy with how things are going. The state of their job, home, cars, ect has more to do with who they vote for than anything else. Most people don't care about starting a revolution or making a major change. It might be sad, but it's true. For most people staying in the current and being safe is more important than the risk of change. It is simply how many human beings are. You can look at any industry as a microcosm of that. How many people do you know that are very good at their job and could probably start a business doing that job on their own and make a good living? In my life I have worked with some very intelligent people that really know what they are doing and are in the tops of their fields, yet they still work for a company. Why? Security. They know come monday they will have a job and on Friday they will get a check and that weekend they can relax and unwind and that is what matters to them. The security of the here and now carries far more weight then the unknown of change.

So if you are truly unhappy how things are and you think Ron Paul is the guy to change that then tomorrow get up and do something about it. I don't mean going on a webmaster board and trying to convince people on the internet he is good. Don't make a YouTube video or a website about him. Instead contact his campaign headquarters and see where the nearest office by you is, go down there and volunteer to work on his campaign. You go there and you make calls and walk the streets and hand out fliers and talk to people. The Iowa caucus shows that grass roots campaigning does work. Huckabee has gone from nearly last place to being in front in Iowa and he has spent next to no money. Recruit your friends. Get anyone you can find involved and start it yourself.

If there is no headquarters near you ask them what you can do to help, I'm sure they will say give money. Tell them you want to do more than that. Ask them if they can send you some literature to hand out or information to give to people. If they are really serious about getting him elected they will hook you up.

You are the one that talks about starting revolutions, well, go out and start one. When you run into someone that disagrees with you then move on. find those that won't argue with you for an hour about every little thing and find the ones that are open and agree with some of what he is doing. Revolutions are not started with a bang, they are started with a serious of whispers. Be the first whisper.

Kane just saved me the trouble of a response. He was just more eloquent.

I'm curious which of these candidates running in the primaries are true fiscal conservatives?

Thanks, I just reread my post and think my painkillers just kicked in... I'm heading to bed :)

Paul is kicking ass.

I think he gets a full hour on Meet the Press this Sunday with Tim Russert who will give him a real going over but I expect Paul to pass with flying colors because he is so intelligent

Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani. They are the only guys that have a record of fiscal responsibility.

Great post Kane!!!

check this out Kane from LewRockwell.com

---
Ron Paul: Mr. Republican

A relentless theme in the commentary on Ron Paul is that he is not really a Republican, mainly because he dissents from the party on foreign policy. People now associate the Republican Party with crazed war-mongering, massive military spending, and relentless conflict-seeking, to the point even of a messianic global crusade on behalf of American imperial control.

This is madness, and Ron Paul does dissent. But is he really departing from Republican tradition? In the 1990s, the GOP opposed Clinton's wars in Somalia and Serbia. It denounced nation building as an extension of the domestic planning state. But those were short-lived moments. The party reverted to its war-mongering self after Bush came to power.

So for a genuinely non-interventionist policy within the Republican Party we need to go back further to the last of the great statesmen of mid-20th century America: Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, also known as Mr. Republican. His 1951 book A Foreign Policy for Americans was a huge seller and exercised vast influence.

MORE:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/...epublican.html

No, it's not set in stone. He does have a chance. It's just a low probability. Paul isn't the candidate on the rise. Huckabee is. Paul has actually gone backwards in the Reuters and Gallup polls this month. Huckabee on the other hand has risen very fast. It is Huckabee supporters right now who should be really excited and talking about what an amazing job they are doing on the campaign trail.

its fixed.

ADL,
Huckabee has risen mainly due to his appeal to right-wing Christians in the party. That was a whole block of voters waiting for a candidate. It's really not the same. Paul's polling numbers have been rising steadily since day one. Not because of his stance on abortion, but on numerous important issues no one else is addressing. While I do not think he will win, I expect him to run in the top 3 or 4.

If you were extremely generous you might say he has gone from 1% to 5% or so. really not all that relevant compared to the candidates up around 30%.

The Gallup poll in July had Paul at 3%. The Gallup poll this week had Paul still at 3%

Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson. All these candidates are more known and better liked.

In favor of whom?

Better known I will concede. Hopefully as he continues to raise money he will get better known. Ron Paul polling data

Paul is close to 7% in NH and SC and 6% in IA. It is not inconceivable that he can pick up a few more percentage points and finish 3rd in some of these primaries.

GFY messed up on me last night, and I did not feel like typing out my response to an earlier comment by Stickey, but in summary:

Go read about the 1968 campaign, in particular, Gene McCarthy. Look how well he did in the primaries, and what it came down to in the end.

As far as apathy is concerned, don't make me laugh. Youth these days are so apathetic it isn't even funny. You guys can't even pull off a decent sized demonstration on a weekend.

Not exactly a revolution.

What will that accomplish? You do realize how this works, right?

What will be accomplished. A finish of third in Iowa will get extra exposure that he is not getting now. It will give RP a larger voice in NH and SC.

You do realize his message is getting no press. Fox news has an article about how close the rep race is and he is not even mentioned. If he finishes third he will get more press and a larger audience.

You do realize that he is just a percentage point or two from being in 3rd place already?

And :)...

each one of these guys have had their time in the sun, so to speak. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson and even Huckabee have been given their 5 minutes of get to know me America time. A strong finish in IA will get Paul some time too.

Which polls?

should tell you something.

Yes, it tells me that Fox News is not so fair and unbalanced (my opinion).

Abc/ Washington Post Poll released yesterday ABC/WP Poll

Here is another article Colin.

AP story just released

That is the hope of every candidate that is way behind in the polls. They know they aren't getting the exposure and press that the top guys are so they are looking to the early primaries for a home run. If he does step up and manages to finish in the top 3 it will help him and it will get his name out there more. Kerry did just that in 2004. He went from last place to winning Iowa with hard work and a grass roots campaigning. He basically bet the farm on Iowa and won it. That win fueled his campaign, gave him more money, press and helped him win the nomination. All of the lower polling candidates are now looking for that spark. If they don't get it most of them will be gone soon after.

But here is something I wonder about Paul. I don't think he really is serious about trying to win. I say this because he refuses to take corporate money. While that may be noble, it's not very wise. If by some miracle he was able to win the nomination he would probably only raise 10-25% of the what the democrat raised and spent on the general election and he would get crushed. I would think accepting corporate money as a means to getting your word out is better than not taking it and never giving yourself a real chance to win.

It is an interesting read but I always say that politcal parties and their members morph their values to suit their current needs. If we had gone into Iraq, got rid of Saddam and gotten out in under a year and everything went according to plan do you think the democrats would be carrying such an anti-war position? Right now the anti-war stance suits them so they wear it. Did the republicans oppose Clinton in Somalia and Serbia because they were opposed to what it stood for, or were they just anti-Clinton. They hated Clinton and pretty much took any position opposite of him. These are the same people that a few years later were talking about how it is our duty to free people stuck under the thumb of evil dictators. How can it be that this is true now, but not then?

The republicans of old stood for less government, fiscal responsibility, more personal freedom and more rights for state and local governments. But that floor stopped winning them elections so the morphed in the conservative party, seduced the religious right and changed into the tough talking john wayne bible thumping party. It worked, they got power and now they are what they used to hate - that is they bloat the government, overspend and are shitting on states rights. Along the way the democrats went from being fighters and people that stood up for their rights and demanded to be heard to being spineless pussies. They are now changing because they see the way to winning elections is to be strong and talk tough. Promise security, not change that is what people want so that is what the democrats are trying to sell - they have changed who they are (or at least who they want us to believe they are) in order to win elections again.

In the end I think most parties end up pretty much being what the other one isn't until they get into power and they they show their true colors. Any party left in power too long gets bloated, goes against its own values and ideals and a ultimately feeds on itself. I don't think that will change any time soon. If the dems win the white house next year they will control everything for probably 4-6 more years. I bet in that time we see them show their true colors and the repubs morph into a different form in order to beat them.

The other day a friend and I were talking about this and I said, "You know the party in power is that girl you have been dating for a while. You are used to her, it is easy and you understand each other, but it is getting old and there are thinks that annoy you. The party out of power is that new girl you work with and think is hot. They want to be the grass that is greener on the other side of the fence so you jump over and give them a try."

This Ron Paul thing is still going - and it is spreading over Europe which has the same dissease as the US has.