I know the post-debate MSNBC poll is a non-scientific poll, but it's good to see that Ron Paul left such a favorable impression with presidential debate devotees last night. I'd suspect he's got the establishment a little nervous.
Ron Paul did very well in the debate last night.
I was listening to the Jerry Hughes show for a bit this afternoon on Accent Radio Network, and he suspected that if Mr. Paul starts doing well in the polls, things will get a bit dicey with him as juxtaposed with the establishmentarians. I agree with Mr. Hughes that Candidate Paul is the least palatable candidate for them. (Interestingly, (of this writing) he is one of the few who does not have a "candidate page" on MSNBC).
Awesome! All the better for him to win!
I've always had a great deal of respect for him, even though we see slightly differently on issues of morality as they relate to politics. But he's my choice at this point. Sorry Mitt.
I don't know how an unscientific poll will relate to statistical polls, but it would do my heart good to see Ron Paul move up in the standings as it were. I am so tired of establishment panderers. Mitt is one. Hillary is one. Rudy is one. Barrack is one. McCain is one.
Very few aren't. Ron Paul is not. More than anything in the world right now, this is the kind of person we need for President of the United States.
Here are some of the unscientific poll numbers that have me excited.
First: More than anyone else, Ron Paul stood out from the pack. He is the most unique, and therefore I think uniquely qualfied candidate.
Secondly, more people thought he had the most leadership qualities than did people of any other candidate.
Thirdly, he was far and away the most convincing candidate. This is the man we need. There's too much filthy falsehood masquerading as truth in Hollyw--I mean Washington D.C., and we need a man who can tell it to us straight. No one has done that since Ronald Reagan left the White House.
A man who knows what he stands for doesn't have to rehearse his answers. Ron Paul rated very well in this category. Notice the three who rated very high--the ones who pander most to the American puppeteers.
Ron Paul was seldom seen to have avoided a question. The big three rated pretty poorly in that regard as well.
Ron Paul has always had a way with words. So I am not surprised that he won in the "best one-liner" category. Sounds a bit "Reaganesque" to me-- doesn't it you? Following the Presidential era of a man who continually steps on his dangling modifier and has a penchant for rehearsed answers, Ron Paul would be a breath of fresh air.
I hope soon to hear the words, "Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States--Mr. Ron Paul!"
Ron Paul did very well in the debate last night.
I was listening to the Jerry Hughes show for a bit this afternoon on Accent Radio Network, and he suspected that if Mr. Paul starts doing well in the polls, things will get a bit dicey with him as juxtaposed with the establishmentarians. I agree with Mr. Hughes that Candidate Paul is the least palatable candidate for them. (Interestingly, (of this writing) he is one of the few who does not have a "candidate page" on MSNBC).
Awesome! All the better for him to win!
I've always had a great deal of respect for him, even though we see slightly differently on issues of morality as they relate to politics. But he's my choice at this point. Sorry Mitt.
I don't know how an unscientific poll will relate to statistical polls, but it would do my heart good to see Ron Paul move up in the standings as it were. I am so tired of establishment panderers. Mitt is one. Hillary is one. Rudy is one. Barrack is one. McCain is one.
Very few aren't. Ron Paul is not. More than anything in the world right now, this is the kind of person we need for President of the United States.
Here are some of the unscientific poll numbers that have me excited.
First: More than anyone else, Ron Paul stood out from the pack. He is the most unique, and therefore I think uniquely qualfied candidate.
Secondly, more people thought he had the most leadership qualities than did people of any other candidate.
Thirdly, he was far and away the most convincing candidate. This is the man we need. There's too much filthy falsehood masquerading as truth in Hollyw--I mean Washington D.C., and we need a man who can tell it to us straight. No one has done that since Ronald Reagan left the White House.
A man who knows what he stands for doesn't have to rehearse his answers. Ron Paul rated very well in this category. Notice the three who rated very high--the ones who pander most to the American puppeteers.
Ron Paul was seldom seen to have avoided a question. The big three rated pretty poorly in that regard as well.
Ron Paul has always had a way with words. So I am not surprised that he won in the "best one-liner" category. Sounds a bit "Reaganesque" to me-- doesn't it you? Following the Presidential era of a man who continually steps on his dangling modifier and has a penchant for rehearsed answers, Ron Paul would be a breath of fresh air.
I hope soon to hear the words, "Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States--Mr. Ron Paul!"
He was a hoot. I could listen to him (although not necessarily agree with him) all night. An honest guy.
ReplyDeleteFrank,
ReplyDeleteYou and I both dream of a Ron Paul presidency. I'll even register as a Republican so I can vote for him in the primaries...but unfortunately he doesn't have a chance.
It is too bad too...America needs a (small "l")libertarian president.
The Republican Liberty Caucus -- which is supportive of Ron Paul's presidential bid ... and despised by red-state fascists -- has a Utah affiliate.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo, people whose highest office has been Congressional Representative do not win their party's nomination. Americans mainly nominate people that have served as a governor, U.S. Senator, or VP. And most VPs have previously served as a governor or U.S. Senator.
ReplyDeleteI believe the reason for this is that reps can win their districts by appealing to a relatively narrow range of voters, while governors and senators must have much broader voter appeal. Americans lean toward governors more than senators because governors have executive experience.
Representatives Paul, Hunter, and Tancredo don't stand a ghost of a chance of winning the GOP nomination. I'd go so far as to say that you won't even see them in the VP slot. They should try again in a few years after they prove that they can make in the big leagues.
I just donated to the Ron Paul presidential campaign, not because I think he can win, but because this election gives him an outlet to explain to the American people the ideas of freedom and liberty. Of course I want him to win, but donating to keep him in the debates, keep him in the media, and keep his message in the public eye is worth every penny.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is the only one that is willing to carry the torch of liberty into the future. Ron Paul is pro constitution all the way! Let the word go out and spread like a wildfire. "From the east to the west blow the trumpet to arms! Through the land let the sound of it flee; Let the far and the near all unite, with a cheer, In defense of our Liberty Tree."
ReplyDelete~ Thomas Paine