PDA

View Full Version : Paul Poses Serious Threat To Hillary --USA Daily




wgadget
09-12-2007, 08:58 PM
Their last line says that RP needs to convince the voters of this fact. I remember at the Spartanburg rally he said (while chuckling) that beating Hillary was not even a concern of his. I hope he starts pushing this idea more.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=86752

American
09-12-2007, 09:07 PM
I completely agree, I have been working on the left and name recognition for RP. I think its a natural, RP is the only one that represents change once they go head to head it will be obvious how same ol same ol Hillary is.

my 2 cents

Chibioz
09-12-2007, 09:09 PM
Among anti-war candidates, Ron Paul has more credibility than most if not all of them due to the fact that he voted against the war in the first place. I hope we see more articles comparing him to Hillary and Obama. Even though they are not a current threat, they both have name recognition and are recognized as the current leading candidates. I believe this kind of media coverage will propel Ron's name even within the GOP.

American
09-12-2007, 09:11 PM
Among anti-war candidates, Ron Paul has more credibility than most if not all of them due to the fact that he voted against the war in the first place. I hope we see more articles comparing him to Hillary and Obama. Even though they are not a current threat, they both have name recognition and are recognized as the current leading candidates. I believe this kind of media coverage will propel his name even within the GOP.

This is also a good sell for the GOP as well, "Who do you think could win against Hillary or Obama" most know this is going to be a slam dunk for the Democrats because of this war. RP is the only chance of the GOP winning, thats if its a fare election.....=\

justaguy
09-12-2007, 09:18 PM
He would also own them on the healthcare issue...All he has to say is "Would you rather believe a politician, or a real doctor?", debate over.

Good find,
-Chris

RP4ME
09-12-2007, 09:23 PM
he needs to go on the view, rachel ray go make crafts with martha- to get his name out there to teh sheeple! JHU is nice and we know its a thinking mans oppty to learn about candidiates but even alot of well too do businessmen/women dont have the time or inclination to be anything but force fedHow can thsi happen? Ther emust be a producer out there with a softspot for freedom!

quickmike
09-12-2007, 09:25 PM
Do you guys realize that for 20 years straight we have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the whitehouse? I know most people know this, but few people really stop to think about it. If hillary wins, make it 28 years most likely.

RP4ME
09-12-2007, 09:26 PM
Do you guys realize that for 20 years straight we have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the whitehouse? I know most people know this, but few people really stop to think about it. If hillary wins, make it 28 years most likely.

Yes its insanity - it must stop!

Abobo
09-12-2007, 09:29 PM
Do you guys realize that for 20 years straight we have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the whitehouse? I know most people know this, but few people really stop to think about it. If hillary wins, make it 28 years most likely.

I'm only 21, I've basically lived my entire life under their dynasty. :mad:

jj111
09-12-2007, 09:32 PM
Do you guys realize that for 20 years straight we have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the whitehouse? I know most people know this, but few people really stop to think about it. If hillary wins, make it 28 years most likely.

You need to add the years Bush I was Vice President to Reagan. Who do you think was really more powerful in that administration after Reagan was shot?

If you include the VP years, there has been a Bush or Clinton either VP or Pres since 1981. That is almost 27 years. Add the end of Bush's term, and throw in Hillary for 8 and it will be 9 terms x 4 years for a total of 36 year rule by those 2 corrupt families who are best pals.

michaelwise
09-12-2007, 09:34 PM
I would like to here Ron Paul start emphasizing that he is the only republican candidate that can beat Hillery Clinton, because he is against the Iraq war, and he is against illegal immigration and amnesty, which is what 70% of the people want. Perhaps he could say this in his introduction at the next debate.

wgadget
09-12-2007, 09:39 PM
GREAT IDEA, Mike!

Since he is never asked about much other than the war, this is really necessary.

Ninja Homer
09-12-2007, 09:39 PM
You need to add the years Bush I was Vice President to Reagan. Who do you think was really more powerful in that administration after Reagan was shot?

If you include the VP years, there has been a Bush or Clinton either VP or Pres since 1981. That is almost 27 years. Add the end of Bush's term, and throw in Hillary for 8 and it will be 9 terms x 4 years for a total of 36 year rule by those 2 corrupt families who are best pals.

You beat me to it.

Bush was definitely in control after Reagan was shot.

2 families tag teaming for 26 years to screw up this great nation. One building up the military and nation-building, the other turning it into socialism, and neither one of them reversed any of the damages that the other family did.

jj111
09-12-2007, 09:39 PM
I would like to here Ron Paul start emphasizing that he is the only republican candidate that can beat Hillery Clinton, because he is against the Iraq war, and he is against illegal immigration and amnesty, which is what 70% of the people want. Perhaps he could say this in his introduction at the next debate.

Can't the other Republicans tap dance their way into fooling the people that they don't support "amnesty?" Even McCain said recently he changed his mind on that issue. They can flip flop and most people don't know.

wgadget
09-12-2007, 09:40 PM
But read this:

http://vdare.com/misc/070912_paul.htm

peterchristopher
09-12-2007, 11:26 PM
This issue is addressed obliquely in a recent article I wrote for The Ron Paul Beacon:
http://www.ronpaulnewengland.com/index.php/why-ron-paul-cant-win-wont-last

I don't mention Hillary specifically (saving that for a future article), but I discuss how Iraq and foreign policy are going to be the defining issues of 2008, yet only 1 Republican and 2 Democrats (none of them the so-called "top-tier") are saying we should get out. Even if others change their mind (COUGH! Mitt Romney COUGH!) later they are already on record saying otherwise.

Peter