Detroit Freepress goes after RP again.

[Trassin]

Link (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070930/COL32/709300546/1070/OPINION02)


Ron Paul admits he doesn't know where his campaign for president is going.

Not the White House, that's for sure, but Paul has been surprised by the size of the crowds he's drawing and the money he's raising, so he figures to stick with it a while longer, including through the Jan. 15 Michigan primary.


Please write a POLITE, fact based, letter to the editor. I recommend looking at the first comment on the article as a guide.

[Electrostatic]

Please write a POLITE, fact based, letter to the editor. I recommend looking at the first comment on the article as a guide.

Awwwwwwwe, Gorsh... I have a fan.. :o

[Trassin]

Awwwwwwwe, Gorsh... I have a fan.. :o

Take it the first comment was you?

[Electrostatic]

Take it the first comment was you?

Lol, yes, I believe I am the only RP supporter nicknamed electrostatic who is up this time of night.. :p

[LizF]

No chance to win
Ron Paul has an audience and funding -- and some issues the contenders won't touch

September 30, 2007

BY RON DZWONKOWSKI

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST



"Ron Paul admits he doesn't know where his campaign for president is going.

Not the White House, that's for sure, but Paul has been surprised by the size of the crowds he's drawing and the money he's raising, so he figures to stick with it a while longer, including through the Jan. 15 Michigan primary.

"The money's coming in," Paul said during a meeting earlier this month with the Free Press editorial board. "And when you get 1,200 people at a rally, college students, the antiwar people, the people against big government ... something is going on in this country."

Maybe so, but Republican Paul will hedge his bet by also filing for re-election to his U.S. House seat from the 14th District of Texas, which runs along the southern Gulf Coast of the Lone Star State. What the heck, the way the primaries are all bunched up early next year, he only needs to hang in on his presidential bid until Feb. 5, when the nominees will likely be decided. Meantime, Paul is a legitimate enough candidate to be invited to all the debates, meet with editorial boards, and generally get his message out in ways that would not be available to a mere congressman.

He is actually getting more attention now than in 1988, when he was the Libertarian Party candidate for president and finished third behind George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis, but with less than one-half of 1% of the national vote.

Paul wouldn't agree, but he is among what critics consider "vanity candidates" or limited-issue folks who clog up the early going in every presidential race. With just a few months left before the primaries, the Republicans at the moment have only four candidates with a chance of winning the nomination, and the Democrats have three. Yet when the candidates assemble, you have a mob -- 10 on the Republican side and eight Democrats, all sharing space and time, most of them dreaming that lightning will strike -- everybody else -- or trying to be credible enough to be considered for vice president.

This year's crowd actually prompted one political scientist, Dr. Michael Coulter of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, a small Christian school 60 miles from Pittsburgh, to suggest in a recent essay that U.S. House members should be banned from running for president.

"Americans do not see House members as presidential material," Coulter wrote, noting that only one, James Garfield in 1880, has ever won the White House.

But if the likes of Ron Paul, Ohio's Dennis Kucinich and Colorado's Tom Tancredo want to invest their time in quixotic quests, and people are willing to give them money to do it, don't they have a right?

"Responsible individuals do not waste the time and money of volunteers," says Coulter. "One does not take soldiers into a battle that one cannot win. ... More significantly, vanity campaigns waste the American public's time, because the candidates are given an opportunity to participate in television debates and other events. Vanity campaigns also further trivialize the presidential race.

"If these candidates are running to change public opinion, they should drop out and write a book."

Coulter puts Paul in the "less than no chance" category for winning the White House, which is accurate. The major Republican candidates are especially loath to share stages with him, because only Paul can say he voted against both the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, which will resonate with the party's core conservatives. Paul also voted against awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights icon Rosa Parks, not because he didn't admire her, but because he doesn't think that's what Congress should be spending the public's money to do.

Paul said he actually once walked the aisles of the House asking members to donate from their own pockets for medals, convinced that any such awards are beyond the constitutional authorization of Congress to make with public funds.

A physician, Paul says the key to solving the nation's health care problem lies in cutting taxes by reducing foreign entanglements and giving people more of their own money to get the best insurance they can afford. He'd also cut prison costs by legalizing personal drug use, would consider setting up zones with no taxes of any kind as a way to lure people back into cities, and get the United States immediately out of Iraq.

"We just rushed in," Paul said. "We just rush out."

Those aren't the kind of things you hear from the candidates with a chance of winning. But as long as the campaign is giving him an audience, Ron Paul will be saying them to as many people as he can reach and letting the crowds decide where he's going next year."


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070930/COL32/709300546/1070/OPINION02

[Trassin]

Already started a thread in the "Bad media" section.

mods please combine the threads.

[micahnelson]

There are longer shots than Ron Paul, yet this article isn't about Brownback or Mike Gravel.

Its almost as if they chose the "unknown" that everyone knows, the "unfunded" that everyone donates to, and the "unsupported" with the most support.

Translation: "Who told Ron Paul he could run for president"

We did, Ron... We did.

[LizF]

Already started a thread in the "Bad media" section.

mods please combine the threads.


You could also have provided a link to your thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=21125

[BizmanUSA]

What a PUTZ!

BizmanUSA

[BizmanUSA]

What a PUTZ!

Ya, take look at the Donation Thermometer - There is more than a million reasons why we do what we do!

BizmanUSA

[LibertyEagle]

This year's crowd actually prompted one political scientist, Dr. Michael Coulter of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, a small Christian school 60 miles from Pittsburgh, to suggest in a recent essay that U.S. House members should be banned from running for president.
:mad: :mad:

[Harry96]

If Ron Paul really had no chance to win, we wouldn't be seeing stories like this.

[Corydoras]

Michael Coulter is incredibly small fry in the poli sci world. The Freep guy really had to scrape the bottom of the pot to find someone who agreed with him.

[Cowlesy]

He just wants attention and hits.

Ignore this retard.

[pcosmar]

As it is a local fish wrapper, I did leave my comment.
These pieces are going to be more frequent.

[Trassin]

I hope that everyone that left a comment here and on the actual Freep site also wrote a Letter to the Editor.

[brumans]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070930/COL32/709300546/1068/OPINION

RON DZWONKOWSKI
No chance to win
Ron Paul has an audience and funding -- and some issues the contenders won't touch

September 30, 2007

BY RON DZWONKOWSKI

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Ron Paul admits he doesn't know where his campaign for president is going.

Not the White House, that's for sure, but Paul has been surprised by the size of the crowds he's drawing and the money he's raising, so he figures to stick with it a while longer, including through the Jan. 15 Michigan primary.

Advertisement
"The money's coming in," Paul said during a meeting earlier this month with the Free Press editorial board. "And when you get 1,200 people at a rally, college students, the antiwar people, the people against big government ... something is going on in this country."

Maybe so, but Republican Paul will hedge his bet by also filing for re-election to his U.S. House seat from the 14th District of Texas, which runs along the southern Gulf Coast of the Lone Star State. What the heck, the way the primaries are all bunched up early next year, he only needs to hang in on his presidential bid until Feb. 5, when the nominees will likely be decided. Meantime, Paul is a legitimate enough candidate to be invited to all the debates, meet with editorial boards, and generally get his message out in ways that would not be available to a mere congressman.

He is actually getting more attention now than in 1988, when he was the Libertarian Party candidate for president and finished third behind George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis, but with less than one-half of 1% of the national vote.

Paul wouldn't agree, but he is among what critics consider "vanity candidates" or limited-issue folks who clog up the early going in every presidential race. With just a few months left before the primaries, the Republicans at the moment have only four candidates with a chance of winning the nomination, and the Democrats have three. Yet when the candidates assemble, you have a mob -- 10 on the Republican side and eight Democrats, all sharing space and time, most of them dreaming that lightning will strike -- everybody else -- or trying to be credible enough to be considered for vice president.

This year's crowd actually prompted one political scientist, Dr. Michael Coulter of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, a small Christian school 60 miles from Pittsburgh, to suggest in a recent essay that U.S. House members should be banned from running for president.

"Americans do not see House members as presidential material," Coulter wrote, noting that only one, James Garfield in 1880, has ever won the White House.

But if the likes of Ron Paul, Ohio's Dennis Kucinich and Colorado's Tom Tancredo want to invest their time in quixotic quests, and people are willing to give them money to do it, don't they have a right?

"Responsible individuals do not waste the time and money of volunteers," says Coulter. "One does not take soldiers into a battle that one cannot win. ... More significantly, vanity campaigns waste the American public's time, because the candidates are given an opportunity to participate in television debates and other events. Vanity campaigns also further trivialize the presidential race.

"If these candidates are running to change public opinion, they should drop out and write a book."

Coulter puts Paul in the "less than no chance" category for winning the White House, which is accurate. The major Republican candidates are especially loath to share stages with him, because only Paul can say he voted against both the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, which will resonate with the party's core conservatives. Paul also voted against awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights icon Rosa Parks, not because he didn't admire her, but because he doesn't think that's what Congress should be spending the public's money to do.

Paul said he actually once walked the aisles of the House asking members to donate from their own pockets for medals, convinced that any such awards are beyond the constitutional authorization of Congress to make with public funds.

A physician, Paul says the key to solving the nation's health care problem lies in cutting taxes by reducing foreign entanglements and giving people more of their own money to get the best insurance they can afford. He'd also cut prison costs by legalizing personal drug use, would consider setting up zones with no taxes of any kind as a way to lure people back into cities, and get the United States immediately out of Iraq.

"We just rushed in," Paul said. "We just rush out."

Those aren't the kind of things you hear from the candidates with a chance of winning. But as long as the campaign is giving him an audience, Ron Paul will be saying them to as many people as he can reach and letting the crowds decide where he's going next year.

RON DZWONKOWSKI is editor of the Free Press editorial page. Contact him at dzwonk@freepress.com or 313-222-6635.

[itsnobody]

I wonder what they will say when the 3rd quarter numbers come out...

[mwkaufman]

Contact him at dzwonk@freepress.com or 313-222-6635.

[Cindy]

And there is no chance I am going to bother reading that.:cool:

[RJB]

Why don't they have articles on the real people who have no chance. Hmm? Could it be none of them threaten the status quo.

This is a sign of fear from the MSM.

[thomaspaine23]

"This year's crowd actually prompted one political scientist, Dr. Michael Coulter of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, a small Christian school 60 miles from Pittsburgh, to suggest in a recent essay that U.S. House members should be banned from running for president."


But we're FREE, right? right? Idiot's who wish to export freedom abroad and stifle it at home have no understanding of the word.

[awigo50]

"Responsible individuals do not waste the time and money of volunteers," says Coulter. "One does not take soldiers into a battle that one cannot win. ...


I guess this is amusing in the light that we're fighting for a goverment that doesn't waste our time & money, and doesn't send our troops to a battle that they cannot win..... :rolleyes:

[aksmith]

I wonder what they will say when the 3rd quarter numbers come out...

Exactly the same thing. Apparently, we weren't aware that Ron Paul is stealing precious air time from such renowned giants of the Republican Party as Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain and Mitt Romney, who I don't even recognize as Republicans since they're just pro-war democrats. And then there's the famous actor, Fred Southern Guy who has bit parts in a dozen movies and television shows and spends the rest of his time lobbying for abortion groups and tin horn dictators.

Yeah, we really only need to hear from those four because they cover the entire political spectrum from A to A-. What a tool.

[risiusj]

Why don't they have articles on the real people who have no chance. Hmm? Could it be none of them threaten the status quo.

This is a sign of fear from the MSM.

Excellent point.

[bdmarti]

In other, equally accurate, news...

DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN!

[BizmanUSA]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a PUTZ!

Ya, take look at the Donation Thermometer - There is more than a million reasons why we do what we do! :D

BizmanUSA

[anewvoice]

This is the second or third hit piece from the Detroit "Free" Press. Maybe I'm tired, but I'm sick of this crap. Anyone from Michigan care to do a Ron Paul march on the Detroit Free Press, or perhaps down at Campus Martias?

[Johnnybags]

Houses go for 25k and the crime rate is ridiculous. Of course they want to keep the Bush policies in place? Why change a good thing.

[bbachtung]

I wish Michael Coulter would just go spread democracy in the Middle East. In April 2006, his "Center for Vision and Values" held a conference entitled "Mr. Jefferson Goes to the Middle East: Democracy's Prospects in the Arab World."

It included the following oh-so-naive blurb:



The conference will focus on arguably the most important international issue today: the effort to spread democracy into the Arab-Muslim Middle East, and its long-term prospects. The Bush administration believes that success in this effort will be fundamental to a peaceful world and to ultimate victory in the War on Terror.

http://www.visandvals.org/CVV_Conference__Mr__Jefferson_Goes_to_the_Middle_E ast.php

This guy takes his marching orders from al Qaeda and the neo-cons.

He thinks that Kucinich, Hunter, and Thompson have "no chance," but that Ron Paul has "less than no chance":



Kucinich, Hunter and Tancredo have no chance whatsoever of winning, but if there is a category of less than no chance, Ron Paul would be in that category.

On the personal level, Paul appears to be a decent human being. He is a doctor with a fine reputation. While serving in Congress, he continued delivering babies. He has served in the military and has been married to the same woman for 50 years. Paul supporters cite his backing on Internet sites and the fact that he has raised more than $3 million, with most of that in the bank.

***

Most significantly, Paul’s political views are popular with only a narrow sliver of Americans, and they are far outside of the mainstream of the Republican Party. Paul is the only Republican Party candidate to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, and he sponsored a resolution to repeal the original resolution.

http://www.visandvals.org/Get_Back_to_the_House.php

[Electrostatic]

I left a 24 hour followup comment:

"A little over 24 hours ago I placed the first comment on this article. In the past day over a hundred more opinions were added to mine, several by long term commenters on your site.

Over 1,000 people have read your article, sir, and the results are stupifying. Not one single person has agreed with you. Not one.


Abraham Lincoln was right to run.
Barry Goldwater was right to run.
Heck, even Ross Perot was right to run.
And so, sir, is Ron Paul.

It's about the message. It's about the future of mankind. It's about hope that freedmon will not die.

Please, sir, take a few minutes and try to figure out where you went wrong. For your own sake, if nothing else."