It's Time for Them to Go [he says Ron Paul]

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/its_time_for_them_to_go.html

August 10, 2007
It's Time for Them to Go
By Stuart Rothenberg
Each party has now had at least a handful of debates consisting all of the "credible" candidates, which means that the sponsors have been "fair" and given exposure to everyone. Now it's time to be fair to voters, which means shrinking the number of participants in the next flurry of "debates."

In other words, it's time for them - Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinch and Mike Gravel - to go. Go to Iowa. Go to New Hampshire. Go somewhere. But get them off the stage with the credible candidates. . .

You could give Ron Paul and Mike Gravel an hour of free TV time from now until Christmas and they still wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated by their respective parties.

Right now, Hunter, Tancredo and Paul together take up more than 35 percent of the time in a GOP debate (assuming participants get roughly equal amounts of time to answer questions). That's valuable time that the credible candidates don't get. . .

So let's stop the charade. The broadcast and cable TV networks have given their platforms to Gravel and Paul and Hunter. Now it's time to limit participation in major events to candidates who have at least some chance of being nominated for President.

The Iowa caucuses are coming up quickly. It's time to give more time, and more scrutiny, to the credible candidates, and the best way to do that is to exclude the "no chance" hopefuls from future debates.

[constituent]

jealous much?

does anyone pay attention to this guy... besides... i don't know, his mom? maybe a couple of his cronies?

must be a hillary shill...

man... i guess i'd be just as miserable and trite if i looked like that guy does...

i'd attack him w/ some substance if it seemed like he mattered..

is al franken joking his way into a senate seat? he asks...

[Mani]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/its_time_for_them_to_go.html

August 10, 2007
It's Time for Them to Go
By Stuart Rothenberg
Each party has now had at least a handful of debates consisting all of the "credible" candidates, which means that the sponsors have been "fair" and given exposure to everyone. Now it's time to be fair to voters, which means shrinking the number of participants in the next flurry of "debates."

In other words, it's time for them - Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinch and Mike Gravel - to go. Go to Iowa. Go to New Hampshire. Go somewhere. But get them off the stage with the credible candidates. . .

You could give Ron Paul and Mike Gravel an hour of free TV time from now until Christmas and they still wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated by their respective parties.

Right now, Hunter, Tancredo and Paul together take up more than 35 percent of the time in a GOP debate (assuming participants get roughly equal amounts of time to answer questions). That's valuable time that the credible candidates don't get. . .

So let's stop the charade. The broadcast and cable TV networks have given their platforms to Gravel and Paul and Hunter. Now it's time to limit participation in major events to candidates who have at least some chance of being nominated for President.

The Iowa caucuses are coming up quickly. It's time to give more time, and more scrutiny, to the credible candidates, and the best way to do that is to exclude the "no chance" hopefuls from future debates.


When you assume you make.....;)

[Swmorgan77]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/its_time_for_them_to_go.html

August 10, 2007
It's Time for Them to Go
By Stuart Rothenberg
Each party has now had at least a handful of debates consisting all of the "credible" candidates, which means that the sponsors have been "fair" and given exposure to everyone. Now it's time to be fair to voters, which means shrinking the number of participants in the next flurry of "debates."

In other words, it's time for them - Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinch and Mike Gravel - to go. Go to Iowa. Go to New Hampshire. Go somewhere. But get them off the stage with the credible candidates. . .

You could give Ron Paul and Mike Gravel an hour of free TV time from now until Christmas and they still wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated by their respective parties.

Right now, Hunter, Tancredo and Paul together take up more than 35 percent of the time in a GOP debate (assuming participants get roughly equal amounts of time to answer questions). That's valuable time that the credible candidates don't get. . .

So let's stop the charade. The broadcast and cable TV networks have given their platforms to Gravel and Paul and Hunter. Now it's time to limit participation in major events to candidates who have at least some chance of being nominated for President.

The Iowa caucuses are coming up quickly. It's time to give more time, and more scrutiny, to the credible candidates, and the best way to do that is to exclude the "no chance" hopefuls from future debates.

Why? So Mitt Romney can have more time to say absolutely nothing but look and sound good doing it? So Giulani can squeeze in five more "9/11""s to his speeches?

These candidates keep the debates honest.

[lynnf]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/its_time_for_them_to_go.html

August 10, 2007
It's Time for Them to Go
By Stuart Rothenberg

....

The Iowa caucuses are coming up quickly. It's time to give more time, and more scrutiny, to the credible candidates, and the best way to do that is to exclude the "no chance" hopefuls from future debates.


Let's see... if one of Mr. Rothenberg's "credible candidates" scores lower than
RP, will he be willing to boot them from the contest? I doubt it.

lynn

[Cowlesy]

Global War on Terrorism.

Terrorism. They Hate Us for our Freedom.

Terrorism!!!!

[Shellshock1918]

This guy needs to go to hell.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Let's see... if one of Mr. Rothenberg's "credible candidates" scores lower than
RP, will he be willing to boot them from the contest? I doubt it.

lynn

Maybe he's in cahoots with the Rothchild NWO?

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[bulloncoins]

(assuming participants get roughly equal amounts of time to answer questions).

What debate was this A$$ clown watching?:rolleyes:

[Adam Smith]

I agree with Shellshock.

[LibertyBelle]

This guy needs to go to hell.

Errrr......have news for you, he sit's on the throne there. :D

[Sean]

He is not much of a political observer. He wants the media to select the winner. It makes it easier for elitists like him if people can only select from vanilla, vanilla, vanilla and vanilla.

[ThePieSwindler]

From the article, when talking about the mid tier candidates (huckabee, brownback, etc)

The long shots have raised money, put together experienced campaign teams and have at least some chance of being nominated.

He says huckabee, brownback, etc are long shots but that Ron Paul et all are no shots. He says they have at least raised money, put together experienced campaign, and have some chance of being nominated. RAISED MONEY? RON PAUL HAS RAISED 3 MILLION (2.4 cash on hand, 600k spent), MORE THAN HUCKABEE BROWNBACK TANCREDO GRAVEL KUCINICH COMBINED! What a hack writer. Even if Ron beats his beloved "frontrunners" in the iowa straw poll, he'll invalidate it somehow. People like this are made of fail and aids.

[Bradley in DC]

does anyone pay attention to this guy... besides... i don't know, his mom? maybe a couple of his cronies?

must be a hillary shill...

He's been around a long time. Conservative shill, not a Hillary one.

[ThePieSwindler]

He's been around a long time. Conservative shill, not a Hillary one.

Agreed, it certainly came off that way. He seemed like the typical neo-con "Ron paul is a nutjob wacko" type.

[freelance]

Shellshock said it all.

[mport1]

Wow, look at some of the lies/assumptions he's thrown in here.

"Each party has now had at least a handful of debates consisting all of the "credible" candidates, which means that the sponsors have been "fair" and given exposure to everyone. Now it's time to be fair to voters, which means shrinking the number of participants in the next flurry of "debates."

Haha, the sponsors have been fair. There has been no equal time, numerous questions who's attempts have been to make RP look like an idiot, hosts and post-debate analysts making fun of him, and a lack of pertinent questions that the top tier guys are given (the only doctor running still not asked about healthcare).

"Right now, Hunter, Tancredo and Paul together take up more than 35 percent of the time in a GOP debate (assuming participants get roughly equal amounts of time to answer questions)."

Um, they haven't received anywhere near equal time. Any idiot knows this. Why not take a look at the talk clocks put out for the debates.

"True, they are long-shots in the Presidential race, but there is a huge difference between them and the group above that I mentioned - the no shots."

How are Brownback, Dodd, and Huckabee considered in any better position than Ron Paul? RP has tremendous support on the internet and tens of thousands of loyal supporters.

"The long shots have raised money, put together experienced campaign teams and have at least some chance of being nominated."

Ron has raised $3 million and has a lot of good people working with him on the campaign.

[constituent]

maybe he knows that these types of articles only help the cause and he's working it from the inside out?

or is it just that as Bradley said... "he's been around a long time." ????

and p.s.

the media wonders why people tend toward "conspiracy" theory (everything's a conspiracy I believe.. particularly Congress!)... Weren't Hillary and someone else just the subject of blab blab blab a week or so ago over this exact type of thing? isn't this more of the one hand washing the other?

[ThePieSwindler]

Great points brough up, mport. For all the talk about Ron Paul's polling numbers, Dodd and brownback barely register - at least ROn is around 2-3%. How are they considered to have better odds than Ron? Easy answer - they don't, this guy is just a neocon shill who likes to play up the myth that Ron Paul supporters are a few nerds in a basement spamming internet polls.

[Bradley in DC]

Why? So Mitt Romney can have more time to say absolutely nothing but look and sound good doing it? So Giulani can squeeze in five more "9/11""s to his speeches?

These candidates keep the debates honest.

I LOVED Dr. Paul's "talk to the hand" gesture in the debate when Romney tried to but in!

[mavtek]

stu@rothenbergpoliticalreport.com

Is it time we make Dr. Paul a credible candidate?

[Bradley in DC]

stu@rothenbergpoliticalreport.com

Is it time we make Dr. Paul a credible candidate?

Nicely, if anything. I suspect it was more of a space filler column before the Ames straw poll. When Tommy, et al., drop out afterwards he can go back and point to his column and say how smart he was. :rolleyes:

[retrorepublican]

god, that article makes me so angry. i can't believe he thinks ron paul is wasting valuable time that can go to the mcromneys of the world. ron paul has even raised more money than most of the longshots (as opposed to no shots) he talks about but clearly he ignores this

[mavtek]

Ron Paul is a credible candidate and I think you're going to find that out pretty darn quickly!
In your piece I read here http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...hem_to_go.html

It would seem you'd like the media to decide who the "credible" candidates are? Is that correct? Also fair warning, you may have opened a pandora's box of questions like this, my advice keep your thoughts to yourself or off the internet, you maybe in for a difficult time on this one!


Just sent that to Stu

[4Horsemen]

He sounds anti-semitic to me. :)

[freelance]

(everything's a conspiracy I believe.. particularly Congress!)

In general, if their lips are moving, they're lying. Why pick and choose. Most of it's lies.

[mavtek]

bump lets go people get the emails out!@

[Bradley in DC]

Also fair warning, you may have opened a pandora's box of questions like this, my advice keep your thoughts to yourself or off the internet, you maybe in for a difficult time on this one!

Mavtek, I really appreciate your enthusiasm for Dr. Paul, but anything that can be claimed to be "threatening" is hurting the campaign.

[mavtek]

Bradley I understand your concern I really do, but I think I worded it in a way to actually help the man.

What he could do in his next column is just answer the question.

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley I understand your concern I really do, but I think I worded it in a way to actually help the man.

I respectfully disagree. You already know what this guy is like, correct? How difficult will it be for him to ignore the good points you make and now claim that he got "threatening" emails from Ron Paul supporters in response to his article. That is already the MSM mantra against us (and because there are some newbies contributing to that against all of the campaign's and Dr. Paul's explicit wishes).

[Cowlesy]

Honey, no vinegar.

And if not honey, just ignore them---I'm starting to think you'll see a lot of anti-Paul stuff just because they know it'll attract attention---and media loves attention.

[mport1]

I respectfully disagree. You already know what this guy is like, correct? How difficult will it be for him to ignore the good points you make and now claim that he got "threatening" emails from Ron Paul supporters in response to his article. That is already the MSM mantra against us (and because there are some newbies contributing to that against all of the campaign's and Dr. Paul's explicit wishes).

I agree 100%

[mavtek]

Well, any exposure is often better than no exposure. If you think we attract negative exposure by speaking out against these type of anti-citizen big government people then I ask should we just be silenced?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it fall? Let's amplify the sound of the tree.

[briatx]

This is really a stunning admission:


So let's stop the charade. The broadcast and cable TV networks have given their platforms to Gravel and Paul and Hunter. Now it's time to limit participation in major events to candidates who have at least some chance of being nominated for President.

Is he really admitting that democracy in the US is a charade?

[Kuldebar]

I respectfully disagree. You already know what this guy is like, correct? How difficult will it be for him to ignore the good points you make and now claim that he got "threatening" emails from Ron Paul supporters in response to his article. That is already the MSM mantra against us (and because there are some newbies contributing to that against all of the campaign's and Dr. Paul's explicit wishes).

I see your point. But, it would still be a lie to call that threatening or at the very least misrepresentative to portray mavtek's e-mail in that light. The point is, there are many in the media that lie and misrepresent whether you make it easy for them or not.

I don't think it's going to make a difference because they have their agenda and they can just as easily construct things out of whole cloth or stretch real material to meet their needs.

mavtek actually is being very honest to the author of that crap piece. The author will receive many emails and complaints from people who take issue with the author's pronouncements. Telling truth to liars isn't such a sin.

Hell, no matter what you say to people like that won't matter; it will still be used against you. Just the fact you are e-mailing him about the story will be "proof" that Ron Paul supporters are trying to crash their servers.

[FreedomLover]

You'd think for a guy that's been around 'for a long time' he'd be a little smarter.

This article is an example of the stupidity and ignorance we're fighting against, not just this election, but to secure a better democracy for the american people. And they're a lot of people like this guy who would rather choose between 2 or 3 people who the media have chosen for them, than actual bother looking at the people who are really worthy.

[Kuldebar]

You'd think for a guy that's been around 'for a long time' he'd be a little smarter.

This article is an example of the stupidity and ignorance we're fighting against, not just this election, but to secure a better democracy for the american people. And they're a lot of people like this guy who would rather choose between 2 or 3 people who the media have chosen for them, than actual bother looking at the people who are really worthy.

Some, if not many, of the old media are elitists and don't want anyone to barge in on their little arrangement with the status quo. The media industry are lobbyists like any other major industry in our nation today.

[AZ Libertarian]

This guy needs to go to hell.

With a kick in the nuts...

[mavtek]

With a kick in the nuts...

That made me laugh out loud, thanks!

[FSP-Rebel]

Global War on Terrorism.

Terrorism. They Hate Us for our Freedom.

Terrorism!!!!
Don't forget, It's terrism

[Ninja Homer]

There are so many things wrong with that article I don't know where to start complaining about it, so I won't even give it that small dignity. If you were to write the exact opposite of that article, word by word, it would be much closer to the truth.

[Bradley in DC]

I'm not defending the guy or the article, obviously, but since we know how he feels about Dr. Paul and us and how he is, we shouldn't do anything to make his job easier marginalizing us. Thoughtful, reasoned, factual responses have had some good effect on a lot of people who disagree with us. I've been at least as active as anyone else promoting Dr. Paul including emailing journalists, but I'm very careful that nothing I write could be contorted into anything negative towards the good doctor.

[Syren123]

Maybe he's in cahoots with the Rothchild NWO?

He's a WANNABE. This retarded piece is probably part of his CFR application.

[Syren123]

Honey, no vinegar.

And if not honey, just ignore them---I'm starting to think you'll see a lot of anti-Paul stuff just because they know it'll attract attention---and media loves attention.

I agree with this. I mainly ignore it now.

[Kuldebar]

I'm not defending the guy or the article, obviously, but since we know how he feels about Dr. Paul and us and how he is, we shouldn't do anything to make his job easier marginalizing us. Thoughtful, reasoned, factual responses have had some good effect on a lot of people who disagree with us. I've been at least as active as anyone else promoting Dr. Paul including emailing journalists, but I'm very careful that nothing I write could be contorted into anything negative towards the good doctor.

OMG Bradley, you are blaming the supporters for this treatment. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some ridiculous things. I would ask you to retract that statement.



:eek:

[Mr. White]

Style points kuldebar, definitely style points. I'd like to be able to measure the sarcasm in this forum. A generation raised on comedic pop culture.

[Bradley in DC]

Style points kuldebar, definitely style points. I'd like to be able to measure the sarcasm in this forum. A generation raised on comedic pop culture.

Hi Mr. White and welcome to the forum. I am constantly amazed and impressed with the quality of people here.