Beck and Dobbs Stealing Paul's Message

[Minuteman2008]

It is crazy how many pundits are now plagiarizing Paul. Just today, Lou Dobbs was talking about how it is finally time to bring all the troops home from Europe, almost 60,000, since NATO refuses to support the mission in Afghanistan. Gee, I wonder where he got that insight from.

Then Glen Beck was on Anderson Cooper later talking about how we're spending ourselves to death and we can longer afford the war in Iraq. He talked about how he would vote for Hillary rather than McCain so the Repubs could rebuild and support conservative principles.

This whole time these guys have ignored the perfect conservative candidate who realizes that we're spending ouselves to oblivion and would bring the troops home. And I don't believe for a minute that Dobbs is going to run as an independent. What the hell was wrong with these guys? Now we will have three tax and spend liberals to choose from for president and these guys did nothing to further the causes they supposedly believe in (especially Beck who goes on and on about being a conservative). And these two are always talking about illegal immigration and the North American Union, and they basically ignored Paul who was the one conservative who would honestly believes in national sovereignty rather than regional government. Now we have three candidates to choose from who are horrible on that topic.

If these guys believed what they were talking about they should have endorsed Ron Paul.

I know this is nothing new, but it feels good to vent sometimes.

[amy31416]

It's healthy to vent, but take solace in the fact that he's having an effect on these blockheads.

[Lord Xar]

dobbs is a dope. He has been doing this for months. Very weird.

Beck has said he likes Ron and agrees with his stances. I bet RON COULD GET ON GLEN BECK anytime by calling him up.

Why he doesn't, is beyond me.

[Enzo]

GOOD! The More people stealing, borrowing, using, supporting Paul's ideas.. positions.. the better...

Isn't that the point?

[Dequeant]

We all love Dr Paul, but he doesn't have a monopoly on political views. As someone else said, take solace in the fact that he's rubbing off on them.

[BW4Paul]

GOOD! The More people stealing, borrowing, using, supporting Paul's ideas.. positions.. the better...

Isn't that the point?

^^^ QFT. It's be nice if they'd give Paul the credit he deserves, but his message is still getting out there. In the long-term, *that* is what matters. I'd love for Paul to win in 2008... but I'll sure be mighty pleased if a candidate comes along in 2012 or 2016 with a suspiciously familiar platform... ;)

[firebirdnation]

Its amazing what RP is accomplishing!!! Just wait until they get that freedom and liberty message!!

[Rede]

GOOD! The More people stealing, borrowing, using, supporting Paul's ideas.. positions.. the better...

Isn't that the point?

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[Russellk30]

I am grateful for the Ron Paul campaign because I no longer pay for cable. Once one realizes that 90% of all information on TV is pretty much false, it seems a little over priced. Hell, with as many commercials one has to watch, it seems like some sort of monetary compensation would be required to maintain clients.

Good riddance Beck and Dobbs. If you ever say anything entertaining enough to watch, maybe I'll catch it on youtube.

[theczar1776]

awesome that those neo con sleaze-bags are giving the people some truth maybe they will want more

[Minuteman2008]

Very good point guys. I feel better thinking about it like that, even if Ron Paul can't win the nomination, if his ideas get out there then it can start to have the same effect.

Though it would be nice if the man himself would get some credit when it's due.

It's still frustrating to know things could have gone so differently...

[Signzit]

Very good point guys. I feel better thinking about it like that, even if Ron Paul can't win the nomination, if his ideas get out there then it can start to have the same effect.

Though it would be nice if the man himself would get some credit when it's due.

It's still frustrating to know things could have gone so differently...

I will quit spamming this when you people stops saying he can't win! She called it way back in Dec. READ THIS:

by Phyllis Schlafly
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/dec07/07-12-26.html

Although the next presidential election won't take place until November 2008, and the nominating conventions won't convene until next August and September, the media have been covering the candidates all through 2007 as though they were running a horse race. What is it about presidential politics that evokes horse-race metaphors?
The media have designated and re-designated the Republican "front-runner": McCain, then Romney, then Giuliani, then Huckabee. The media are also speculating whether Hillary will lose her front-runner status to Obama.

Next summer, the presidential nominee of each party will take the "reins" of his party, and hopefully then of government. He (or she) will choose a "running mate" as Veep, and the losers will become footnotes in history books as "also-rans."

The most fascinating horse-race metaphor that may emerge in this campaign is the "dark horse," a well-recognized label for a long-shot candidate who was not in what is now called the top tier. A dark horse's chance of winning the nomination depends on a deadlock among the leading candidates who are unable to race across the finish line with a majority of delegates.

Early in 2007, the media were confidently announcing that the presidential nominations of both parties would be locked up in the early primaries. It now appears just as likely that the early primaries will confirm the fact that Republicans are divided.

Each of the five top-tier Republican candidates has received endorsements from important Republicans, some of whom have state Republican organizations to deliver delegates, and some with large grassroots constituencies. No poll shows any of these candidates with anywhere near a majority of Republican support.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll reported that not one of the Republican candidates is viewed favorably by even half the Republican electorate. There is no clear leader: Giuliani was the choice of 22 percent of respondents, Huckabee of 21 percent, Romney of 16 percent, and McCain and Thompson each had 7 percent.

Among Republican respondents, 76 percent say they could still change their minds about whom to support. Maybe that's because all five leading candidates are globalists and none of them has a solution for the problem of millions of Americans who have lost jobs or had their wages depressed because of unfair trade agreements, outsourcing of jobs overseas, and insourcing foreign workers.

A relatively new book (2003) of political history called "Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield" may provide the model. Kenneth D. Ackerman tells the fascinating story of how the 1880 Republican National Convention in Chicago deadlocked, with three sets of delegates unwilling to abandon their first choice, and a totally unexpected non-candidate dark horse named James A. Garfield was nominated on the 36th ballot and then elected President.

Senator James G. Blaine of Maine was the first major name placed in nomination, soon followed by New York powerhouse Senator Roscoe Conkling's nomination of war hero General U.S. Grant for a third term. The third major contender was Treasury Secretary John Sherman, nominated by his friend and campaign manager Senator-elect James A. Garfield.

The first ballot on Monday, June 7 produced Grant, 304; Blaine, 284; Sherman, 93; and a handful of votes for minor candidates. All were well short of the 379 votes needed to win.

Over the next four hours, delegates cast 18 ballots, every one with a full roll call of states. They broke for dinner and then came back to cast 10 more ballots, despite the heat, the tedium and the hard benches on which they sat.

All three blocs seemed equally determined to stand by their man. After those 28 ballots, Grant's total of 304 votes had grown to 307, Blaine's 284 had shrunk to 279, and Sherman's 93 to 91.

When the convention resumed on Tuesday morning to cast the 29th ballot, Sherman's total jumped to 116, but that boomlet faded on the next ballot.

The break came on the 34th ballot, late in the alphabetic roll call of states, when Wisconsin suddenly announced "Sixteen votes for James A. Garfield." Sitting in the Ohio delegation, Garfield jumped to his feet and tried to make a point of order that he had not consented to have his name placed in nomination, but the convention chairman gaveled him down and refused to let him speak.

The 34th ballot totaled 312 for Grant, 275 for Blaine, 107 for Sherman, and 17 for Garfield. On the 35th ballot, Indiana and Maryland switched to Garfield, giving him a new total of 50 votes.

The roll call for the 36th ballot became high drama. State after state switched to Garfield. Then Maine announced that all its votes had moved from Blaine to Garfield.

When the balloting reached Ohio, Sherman ceded his support to Garfield, who then won the Republican nomination with 395 votes.

Could Republicans be so divided going into the 2008 Convention that a dark horse could win the nomination?

[Jodi]

So then Dr. Paul doesn't have to get a majority of delegates in five states after all???

[affa]

Now, the last thing I wish to be accused of doing is defending talking heads. That said... assuming the media blackout is coming from 'the top', is it not possible that supporters of RP who can not audibly mention their support of the man instead keep pushing forward his policies? They are effectively making his policies less fringe so that the next time their listeners are exposed to RP they might actually 'get it'.

Or not. I don't know. But it's a thought.

[Jodi]

Then Glen Beck was on Anderson Cooper later talking about how we're spending ourselves to death and we can longer afford the war in Iraq. He talked about how he would vote for Hillary rather than McCain so the Repubs could rebuild and support conservative principles.


I listen to talk radio all afternoon. While I am listening to the talk whether it be beck or limbaugh, I am saying Ron Paul after every remark it seems. I have been so confused while listening because what they talk about is Dr. Paul's platform with everything except the war. I wish I would have seen this with beck as he has stated he agrees with Dr. Paul on most of his platform but he "vehemently" disagrees with the good Dr. on the war as he stated either this week or last. It is really interesting beck is about to come full circle on this and agree with all of Dr. Paul's platform?

[RageAgainstDC]

why get upset when the message you are trying to spread gets picked up by people in a position to influence others? isn't this exactly what the revolution is all about, spreading the message?