JaylieWoW
11-14-2007, 02:14 PM
All I can say is WOW!
Before I get the ignore, why bother lecture let me say that I bothered because I was bored. Plus, I wanted to see for myself just how low the Republican party has sunk.
I've been watching GOPUSA for a little while now. I have not contributed anything because after seeing the way they treat anyone who openly admits they support Ron Paul, I decided it wasn't worth the effort. But, being that I'm totally bored at work right now, I took the time to respond on the forum to the following article. I've posted the entire article for reference sake, but have bolded one important item to take note of, specifically I am pointing out to the author (and the forum readers) that the very first assertion made in this article was false. It was a complete and total lie apparent to anyone who bothered to look at anything on that page other than the word Google at the top of the list and the amount.
I decided to start my debate with the very beginning of the article because that's really where most of us begin reading any article, duh, at the beginning! I hadn't even gotten to the paltry amount that was listed as being some concrete rock solid proof. And they accuse us of hairbrained, tin-foild-hat wearing, conspiracy nuts.
Maybe its just me, but if you write and article and your very first "fact" you present is false that tends to not only portray you as dishonest, but also insulting to the intelligence of those reading your "commentary".
Why The Ron Paul Campaign Is Dangerous
By J. B. Williams
November 12, 2007
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008), Ron Paul's top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul.
.... and at the end of the article
That's it! These are the facts. You don't have to like them, you just need to know them.
Here is my response, for which I can only assume I was banned. I must have hit a nerve of truth, or rather the worst case of denial I have EVER seen in my life!!
Though I know my representation here will fall on deaf ears, I found some rather major problems with the guilt by association assertions made by Williams' articles. Frankly I don't see how anyone who bothered to study one of the few factual outside sources that Williams provided as verifiable could make the same logical conclusion as Williams.
I am speaking specifically of this passage within the article:
Quote:
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at Open Secrets, Ron Paul's top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul.
Everyone keeps yelling at the people who come here to refute the claims of this article to dish up some verifiable proof that Williams' claims are false. Well why don't we disseminate this particular misleading assertion.
I think it would have been at least somewhat honest for you to have provided the link for where the OpenSecrets.org website obtained their totals. Since you didn't, allow me to provide it for you, Google Contributions Broken Down by Contributor (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=N00005906&name=&employ=Google&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A).
Since I don't see anything but individual donations and zero donations from any Google PAC, would you like to explain to me how this makes Google the company a top contributor to Ron Paul's campaign? Also, could you please remind me of that phrase about the ... "truth is seldom popular among those at odds with that truth" and how it applies to your story?
Also, even if you didn't feel it was worth the effort to break down the contributions, still, OpenSecrets put very obvious emphasis on the following note appearing right next to the list Mr. Williams decided proved his point about where support was coming from. It simply stated the following:
Quote:
The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Did anyone here who commended Mr. Williams for such a well thought out article do any thinking or looking on their own, or are you just so dead set against a particular candidate that you just are unwilling to actually see what is right before your eyes?
I do not intend to insult anyone, lest of all Mr. Williams, but I am really bothered by the supposed "truth" being misrepresented in such an obvious manner. Further, it greatly bothers me (yes, I know, you don't care what bothers me) that many others didn't note these specific facts before fawning praise.
Funny how at both the beginning and end of this article the writer insists upon qualities of the truth and the facts. But, when I prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the very first factual claim he presents is a complete falsehood I am banned for my efforts.
The same user name and password (that I ALWAYS allow firefox to save for me on sites like this one, that is message boards) is magically no longer working. So, not only did the forum mod, Terri (what a hateful, non-substance spewing individual) completely ignore the fact I just presented, but also claimed that somehow showing that the authors very first premise stated in his article somehow proves the whole point of the article.
The attitude that prevails at that forum is this: If you don't agree with everything we say, even the stuff we lie about (like in this article), you're not a Republican and we are going to blame you rather than our own shortsightedness (refusing to acknowledge the facts just presented to us no matter how true it is) for the failure of the Republican party. Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but isn't this the attitude of everyone who wants a free ride. Blame everyone but yourself for the problem, yeah, great way to work at fixing it. Who would you like your welfare check made out to?
Wow, wow, WOW!!
I am now completely convinced this is the end of the Republican party. I think I'm going to start a letter writing campaign to all Republicans currently in public office who still believe in the true conservative and constitutional direction of government. I'm going to urge them to do something NOW to start a new party!! Well, I wouldn't really want a new party, how about no parties!!! :D
After this election, I am no longer a Republican. Period end of story. I don't care what happens to the Republican party, it's got coming every bit of what it deserves. Frankly, if more people don't wake up, I'm quite prepared to face a Hillary presidency.
I wisely saved a screenshot of my post, I suspect it will be banned too, though since no one on that forum seems capable of thinking for themselves it is highly likely Terri will leave it be since he/she seems so convinced that it proves the point of the article, it is quite likely the rest of the automatons on that site do as well. Probably simply because Terri says it does.
Below is entire article for reference
Why The Ron Paul Campaign Is Dangerous
By J. B. Williams
November 12, 2007
I am fast becoming the most unpopular man in America, among Ron Paul supporters that is. Truth is seldom popular among those at odds with that truth.
Paul supporters have worked diligently to convince voters that their candidate is the "real deal" constitutionalist conservative in the '08 presidential race and that he has a real chance of winning. But the facts simply don't support either of these claims and pointing this reality out seems to drive Paul supporters into a fit of unbridled rage.
The fact is, though Ron Paul himself is no threat to anyone or anything, his campaign is on a track that is very dangerous for America and the conservative movement in particular. Although he is highly unlikely to win anything, his campaign is increasingly likely to cause real trouble for the legitimate Republican nomination process.
Ron Paul's fund raising
Recent headlines have been focused on the record fund raising day in the Paul campaign. It was a very effective campaign stunt. Although he still trails most other candidates in overall fund raising by a pretty wide margin, his campaign grabbed headlines by setting up an internet campaign stunt designed to raise as much as possible in a single day.
It worked - they got the desired headlines - but what does it really mean? In the end, it won't change the outcome of the election process.
But the recent surge in campaign contributions did raise a more important question.
Where's all that money coming from?
At first, I assumed, and had even written, that Ron Paul's financial support was coming from the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Then I was corrected by former Ron Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus, Eric Dondero, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live.
In an interview with Dondero, he emphatically complained; "Please refrain in the future from using the label "Libertarian Republican" in describing Ron Paul. Call him what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger."
Dondero continued, "Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball."
These were strong words from a former aide to Mr. Paul (from 1997 -- 2003) and words worthy of investigation in my mind. So I decided to investigate, which in politics always means, follow the money.
Where is all that money coming from?
Upon investigation, it appears that Mr. Dondero is exactly right. Much of Ron Paul's money is not coming from mainstream Libertarians or Republicans.
Although he is running as a Republican, he actually has very little support from rank and file Republicans, as every national Republican poll confirms. But it turns out that he has very little support from mainstream Libertarians either. As Dondero pointed out, "Ron Paul is only attracting support from the leftwing side of the libertarian spectrum, virtually none of whom are Republicans."
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at Open Secrets, Ron Paul's top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul.
Like Howard Dean before him, Ron Paul first grabbed headlines with his very hi-tech internet campaign, which is now easily explained by the fact that his largest constituency is in the computer tech community. It also explains how Paul supporters have perfected the art of "spamming" or "jamming" online polls, creating a false impression of bigger support while invalidating poll after poll. Other tech giants like Microsoft and Verizon top his donors list as well.
Among Ron Paul's top donor zip codes are of course parts of Texas, but also heavily liberal districts in Chicago (60614), San Francisco (94117), more than 80% of which supports Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, and Los Angeles -- Long Beach, which is his second largest donor area after Dallas.
What we have here is a candidate trying to win the Republican nomination by raising money from liberals across the political aisle.
This is why his fund-raising is not translating to improved poll positions
His donors are not Republicans. So no matter how much money he raises, it is not translating into Republican support in the polls. He remains at or below 5% support in every national Republican poll, no matter how much money he raises.
USA Today reports, "The Iowa Republican Party put out an advisory Tuesday setting standards for participation in a Dec. 4 debate. Sponsors said participants need to average 5% support among Republicans in recent national or Iowa polls -- and so far, Texas Rep. Ron Paul is one of the candidates not making the cut."
In Pollster.com's latest averaging of national poll results of Republicans, Paul's support comes in at 2.7%. The website calculates Paul's support among Republicans in Iowa, based on polls there, to be 3.8%.
Yet his supporters still claim he is much more popular than the national polls indicate and that he will be the come from behind shocker at the Republican convention. How?
Here's where the Ron Paul campaign becomes dangerous
Because Paul supporters know that support coming from non-Republicans is not reflected in the Republican polls, they have started a campaign to promote party-jumping so that their anti-war supporter's from the left can vote in the Republican primary.
Twenty four states have "open" primaries, which means, one need not be Republican to vote in those Republican primaries. Ron Paul supporters are promoting both strategies -- one in which Democrats, Independents, and members of other third parties can vote for him in "open" primaries where possible, and switch parties to vote for him where the primaries are "closed."
The mere notion that a Republican presidential candidate should be nominated by this strategy is insane and very dangerous to the entire election process. At a minimum, it is a demonstration of just what kind of people are behind the Ron Paul campaign, obviously, not constitutionally conscious people. I do not know if the Paul campaign itself is behind this effort. But I am sure that the campaign is aware of this effort, as well as the fact that much of their funding is coming from people other than Republicans.
The Daily Paul is openly promoting Change Party Affiliation to Republican to Participate in Primaries. "As you may realize, there are many people from across the spectrum planning to support Ron Paul: Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Green Party members, disenfranchised Democrats, and of course the disenfranchised Republicans. Many of these people may not realize that they NEED to change party affiliations to Republican to vote in the GOP Primary in many States." (A direct quote from the site)
So, how Republican is Republican candidate Ron Paul?
If he's funded largely by anti-war leftists, from Democrat stronghold districts and counting on Democrats, Libertarians and members of the Green Party to win the Republican nomination, not very...
The only Republicans we find in his campaign are those myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for his Democrat-like spending habits. Those so angry with Bush, that they are willing to overlook all of this just to vote for a candidate who promises less spending. Of course, we can't entirely overlook the handful of moderate Republicans who oppose the war in Iraq either, few as they are.
Why is the Ron Paul campaign dangerous?
Despite his very real popularity across the political aisle, he is not likely to get enough people to switch parties in order to win the RNC nomination. But he is doing a great job of validating the perspective of all the negative propaganda uttered by leftists against Bush, Republicans, the War on Terror and national security. That's not good.
He is also doing a great job of helping the left undermine the war on terror and that's why he's so popular among anti-war leftists, including in the press. This is bad.
But even worse, he threatens the integrity of the Republican nomination process itself by relying upon non-Republicans to win the Republican nomination.
Last, at a time in American history when the Republican Party must be more united and engaged than ever before, when every available conservative vote is needed in next years general election, Paul and his supporters are busy carving up the party for their own anti-Republican agenda.
I hate wasting this much press time on Ron Paul. But the Paul campaign is becoming a real threat to the Republican primary process and if allowed to continue, he will take votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates in the party, not the most liberal. This is bad for the party and the country.
That's why his campaign has become dangerous.
I actually agree with many of Ron Paul's positions, outside of his suicidal national security perspective of course. But I can not agree with the campaign tactics of using leftist money and votes to hijack the Republican nomination and I'm shocked that any Republican would.
There's really no need to write another word about Ron Paul. If you can know all of these facts, follow the money and the links provided for their campaign tactics and still support him, you're no Republican, much less a conservative or constitutionalist.
Real Republicans need to be aware and unite to block this effort to hijack the party nomination.
National elections are decided by a couple points one way or another today. Republicans can't afford to let any candidate play games with their nomination process. Republicans need a candidate that will unite and motivate conservative voters, not one that divides and undermines that process.
That's it! These are the facts. You don't have to like them, you just need to know them.
Before I get the ignore, why bother lecture let me say that I bothered because I was bored. Plus, I wanted to see for myself just how low the Republican party has sunk.
I've been watching GOPUSA for a little while now. I have not contributed anything because after seeing the way they treat anyone who openly admits they support Ron Paul, I decided it wasn't worth the effort. But, being that I'm totally bored at work right now, I took the time to respond on the forum to the following article. I've posted the entire article for reference sake, but have bolded one important item to take note of, specifically I am pointing out to the author (and the forum readers) that the very first assertion made in this article was false. It was a complete and total lie apparent to anyone who bothered to look at anything on that page other than the word Google at the top of the list and the amount.
I decided to start my debate with the very beginning of the article because that's really where most of us begin reading any article, duh, at the beginning! I hadn't even gotten to the paltry amount that was listed as being some concrete rock solid proof. And they accuse us of hairbrained, tin-foild-hat wearing, conspiracy nuts.
Maybe its just me, but if you write and article and your very first "fact" you present is false that tends to not only portray you as dishonest, but also insulting to the intelligence of those reading your "commentary".
Why The Ron Paul Campaign Is Dangerous
By J. B. Williams
November 12, 2007
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008), Ron Paul's top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul.
.... and at the end of the article
That's it! These are the facts. You don't have to like them, you just need to know them.
Here is my response, for which I can only assume I was banned. I must have hit a nerve of truth, or rather the worst case of denial I have EVER seen in my life!!
Though I know my representation here will fall on deaf ears, I found some rather major problems with the guilt by association assertions made by Williams' articles. Frankly I don't see how anyone who bothered to study one of the few factual outside sources that Williams provided as verifiable could make the same logical conclusion as Williams.
I am speaking specifically of this passage within the article:
Quote:
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at Open Secrets, Ron Paul's top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul.
Everyone keeps yelling at the people who come here to refute the claims of this article to dish up some verifiable proof that Williams' claims are false. Well why don't we disseminate this particular misleading assertion.
I think it would have been at least somewhat honest for you to have provided the link for where the OpenSecrets.org website obtained their totals. Since you didn't, allow me to provide it for you, Google Contributions Broken Down by Contributor (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=N00005906&name=&employ=Google&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A).
Since I don't see anything but individual donations and zero donations from any Google PAC, would you like to explain to me how this makes Google the company a top contributor to Ron Paul's campaign? Also, could you please remind me of that phrase about the ... "truth is seldom popular among those at odds with that truth" and how it applies to your story?
Also, even if you didn't feel it was worth the effort to break down the contributions, still, OpenSecrets put very obvious emphasis on the following note appearing right next to the list Mr. Williams decided proved his point about where support was coming from. It simply stated the following:
Quote:
The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Did anyone here who commended Mr. Williams for such a well thought out article do any thinking or looking on their own, or are you just so dead set against a particular candidate that you just are unwilling to actually see what is right before your eyes?
I do not intend to insult anyone, lest of all Mr. Williams, but I am really bothered by the supposed "truth" being misrepresented in such an obvious manner. Further, it greatly bothers me (yes, I know, you don't care what bothers me) that many others didn't note these specific facts before fawning praise.
Funny how at both the beginning and end of this article the writer insists upon qualities of the truth and the facts. But, when I prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the very first factual claim he presents is a complete falsehood I am banned for my efforts.
The same user name and password (that I ALWAYS allow firefox to save for me on sites like this one, that is message boards) is magically no longer working. So, not only did the forum mod, Terri (what a hateful, non-substance spewing individual) completely ignore the fact I just presented, but also claimed that somehow showing that the authors very first premise stated in his article somehow proves the whole point of the article.
The attitude that prevails at that forum is this: If you don't agree with everything we say, even the stuff we lie about (like in this article), you're not a Republican and we are going to blame you rather than our own shortsightedness (refusing to acknowledge the facts just presented to us no matter how true it is) for the failure of the Republican party. Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but isn't this the attitude of everyone who wants a free ride. Blame everyone but yourself for the problem, yeah, great way to work at fixing it. Who would you like your welfare check made out to?
Wow, wow, WOW!!
I am now completely convinced this is the end of the Republican party. I think I'm going to start a letter writing campaign to all Republicans currently in public office who still believe in the true conservative and constitutional direction of government. I'm going to urge them to do something NOW to start a new party!! Well, I wouldn't really want a new party, how about no parties!!! :D
After this election, I am no longer a Republican. Period end of story. I don't care what happens to the Republican party, it's got coming every bit of what it deserves. Frankly, if more people don't wake up, I'm quite prepared to face a Hillary presidency.
I wisely saved a screenshot of my post, I suspect it will be banned too, though since no one on that forum seems capable of thinking for themselves it is highly likely Terri will leave it be since he/she seems so convinced that it proves the point of the article, it is quite likely the rest of the automatons on that site do as well. Probably simply because Terri says it does.
Below is entire article for reference
Why The Ron Paul Campaign Is Dangerous
By J. B. Williams
November 12, 2007
I am fast becoming the most unpopular man in America, among Ron Paul supporters that is. Truth is seldom popular among those at odds with that truth.
Paul supporters have worked diligently to convince voters that their candidate is the "real deal" constitutionalist conservative in the '08 presidential race and that he has a real chance of winning. But the facts simply don't support either of these claims and pointing this reality out seems to drive Paul supporters into a fit of unbridled rage.
The fact is, though Ron Paul himself is no threat to anyone or anything, his campaign is on a track that is very dangerous for America and the conservative movement in particular. Although he is highly unlikely to win anything, his campaign is increasingly likely to cause real trouble for the legitimate Republican nomination process.
Ron Paul's fund raising
Recent headlines have been focused on the record fund raising day in the Paul campaign. It was a very effective campaign stunt. Although he still trails most other candidates in overall fund raising by a pretty wide margin, his campaign grabbed headlines by setting up an internet campaign stunt designed to raise as much as possible in a single day.
It worked - they got the desired headlines - but what does it really mean? In the end, it won't change the outcome of the election process.
But the recent surge in campaign contributions did raise a more important question.
Where's all that money coming from?
At first, I assumed, and had even written, that Ron Paul's financial support was coming from the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Then I was corrected by former Ron Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus, Eric Dondero, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live.
In an interview with Dondero, he emphatically complained; "Please refrain in the future from using the label "Libertarian Republican" in describing Ron Paul. Call him what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger."
Dondero continued, "Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball."
These were strong words from a former aide to Mr. Paul (from 1997 -- 2003) and words worthy of investigation in my mind. So I decided to investigate, which in politics always means, follow the money.
Where is all that money coming from?
Upon investigation, it appears that Mr. Dondero is exactly right. Much of Ron Paul's money is not coming from mainstream Libertarians or Republicans.
Although he is running as a Republican, he actually has very little support from rank and file Republicans, as every national Republican poll confirms. But it turns out that he has very little support from mainstream Libertarians either. As Dondero pointed out, "Ron Paul is only attracting support from the leftwing side of the libertarian spectrum, virtually none of whom are Republicans."
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at Open Secrets, Ron Paul's top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul.
Like Howard Dean before him, Ron Paul first grabbed headlines with his very hi-tech internet campaign, which is now easily explained by the fact that his largest constituency is in the computer tech community. It also explains how Paul supporters have perfected the art of "spamming" or "jamming" online polls, creating a false impression of bigger support while invalidating poll after poll. Other tech giants like Microsoft and Verizon top his donors list as well.
Among Ron Paul's top donor zip codes are of course parts of Texas, but also heavily liberal districts in Chicago (60614), San Francisco (94117), more than 80% of which supports Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, and Los Angeles -- Long Beach, which is his second largest donor area after Dallas.
What we have here is a candidate trying to win the Republican nomination by raising money from liberals across the political aisle.
This is why his fund-raising is not translating to improved poll positions
His donors are not Republicans. So no matter how much money he raises, it is not translating into Republican support in the polls. He remains at or below 5% support in every national Republican poll, no matter how much money he raises.
USA Today reports, "The Iowa Republican Party put out an advisory Tuesday setting standards for participation in a Dec. 4 debate. Sponsors said participants need to average 5% support among Republicans in recent national or Iowa polls -- and so far, Texas Rep. Ron Paul is one of the candidates not making the cut."
In Pollster.com's latest averaging of national poll results of Republicans, Paul's support comes in at 2.7%. The website calculates Paul's support among Republicans in Iowa, based on polls there, to be 3.8%.
Yet his supporters still claim he is much more popular than the national polls indicate and that he will be the come from behind shocker at the Republican convention. How?
Here's where the Ron Paul campaign becomes dangerous
Because Paul supporters know that support coming from non-Republicans is not reflected in the Republican polls, they have started a campaign to promote party-jumping so that their anti-war supporter's from the left can vote in the Republican primary.
Twenty four states have "open" primaries, which means, one need not be Republican to vote in those Republican primaries. Ron Paul supporters are promoting both strategies -- one in which Democrats, Independents, and members of other third parties can vote for him in "open" primaries where possible, and switch parties to vote for him where the primaries are "closed."
The mere notion that a Republican presidential candidate should be nominated by this strategy is insane and very dangerous to the entire election process. At a minimum, it is a demonstration of just what kind of people are behind the Ron Paul campaign, obviously, not constitutionally conscious people. I do not know if the Paul campaign itself is behind this effort. But I am sure that the campaign is aware of this effort, as well as the fact that much of their funding is coming from people other than Republicans.
The Daily Paul is openly promoting Change Party Affiliation to Republican to Participate in Primaries. "As you may realize, there are many people from across the spectrum planning to support Ron Paul: Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Green Party members, disenfranchised Democrats, and of course the disenfranchised Republicans. Many of these people may not realize that they NEED to change party affiliations to Republican to vote in the GOP Primary in many States." (A direct quote from the site)
So, how Republican is Republican candidate Ron Paul?
If he's funded largely by anti-war leftists, from Democrat stronghold districts and counting on Democrats, Libertarians and members of the Green Party to win the Republican nomination, not very...
The only Republicans we find in his campaign are those myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for his Democrat-like spending habits. Those so angry with Bush, that they are willing to overlook all of this just to vote for a candidate who promises less spending. Of course, we can't entirely overlook the handful of moderate Republicans who oppose the war in Iraq either, few as they are.
Why is the Ron Paul campaign dangerous?
Despite his very real popularity across the political aisle, he is not likely to get enough people to switch parties in order to win the RNC nomination. But he is doing a great job of validating the perspective of all the negative propaganda uttered by leftists against Bush, Republicans, the War on Terror and national security. That's not good.
He is also doing a great job of helping the left undermine the war on terror and that's why he's so popular among anti-war leftists, including in the press. This is bad.
But even worse, he threatens the integrity of the Republican nomination process itself by relying upon non-Republicans to win the Republican nomination.
Last, at a time in American history when the Republican Party must be more united and engaged than ever before, when every available conservative vote is needed in next years general election, Paul and his supporters are busy carving up the party for their own anti-Republican agenda.
I hate wasting this much press time on Ron Paul. But the Paul campaign is becoming a real threat to the Republican primary process and if allowed to continue, he will take votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates in the party, not the most liberal. This is bad for the party and the country.
That's why his campaign has become dangerous.
I actually agree with many of Ron Paul's positions, outside of his suicidal national security perspective of course. But I can not agree with the campaign tactics of using leftist money and votes to hijack the Republican nomination and I'm shocked that any Republican would.
There's really no need to write another word about Ron Paul. If you can know all of these facts, follow the money and the links provided for their campaign tactics and still support him, you're no Republican, much less a conservative or constitutionalist.
Real Republicans need to be aware and unite to block this effort to hijack the party nomination.
National elections are decided by a couple points one way or another today. Republicans can't afford to let any candidate play games with their nomination process. Republicans need a candidate that will unite and motivate conservative voters, not one that divides and undermines that process.
That's it! These are the facts. You don't have to like them, you just need to know them.