Ron Paul Would Have Crushed Obama in the Presidential Debate

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15854/ron-paul-would-have-crushed-obama-in-the-presidential-debate

After watching the first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney (I live blogged the entire debate for PolicyMic), I couldn't help but think how different the debate would have been if Texas Congressman Ron Paul had been the Republican nominee and had the chance to debate President Obama instead.

While Romney appeared more aggressive and assertive than the president — who looked tired, shaky, and noticeably rusty after nearly four years of no primary debating — there was much more rhetoric and half-truths to Romney's attacks than substance.

So while we will sadly never know how a debate between Paul and Obama would look like, here is how Paul would have likely responded to the debate questions and actually provided Americans a real alternative.

What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs?

Obama responded with an argument that he uses frequently. The president likes to remind us that he inherited a terrible mess (which is entirely true), and that his policies helped prevent a disaster, created millions of jobs, saved the auto industry, and that the housing industry is getting back on its feet.

Obama then criticized Romney for supposedly wanting to undue his progressive policies and legislation by cutting taxes, deregulating, and blowing holes in the budget, and Romney predictably ran away from this (false) caricature.

Paul would undoubtedly take his time to criticize the president's policies but most importantly explain that without a proper diagnosis of the disease, a cure is impossible. The cause of the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" are precisely the policies that the president and virtually every administration before him have pursued.

Specifically, it was the Federal Reserve's artificially lower interest rates combined with congressional mandates to flood this cheap money into the housing industry that created a predictable bubble that finally burst. Generally, it has been the policy of the U.S. government, in combination with the Federal Reserve, to finance debt and deficits by the creation of money, pyramiding debt, and dumping the cost on the taxpayer.

What will you do about the federal deficit/debt?

Obama bragged about his supposed "deficit reduction" plan that would cut $4 trillion and his trimming of waste from the military budget. Even if one were to believe that the president honestly plans to cut a penny anywhere, Paul would fire back with a bit of truth to counter the president's propaganda. Paul has been in Congress for decades, and he sees firsthand the accounting tricks and numbers that are used by both sides to fit their agendas.

Paul always points out how supposed "cuts" are really just cuts on the rate of increases in the federal budget. If a healthy person is supposed to consume 2,000 calories a day, and one promises to eat 9,995 calories a day after years of 10,000 per day, can that really be considered a diet? Same goes for the budget and any promises of fiscal responsibility.

For example, Republicans attack the president for "gutting the military" while Democrats attack Republicans for their supposed cuts to social welfare programs. Both sides are wrong because a real cut would mean spending less money than the previous year. Paul would also likely point out that Obama's military budgets have increased every single year of his administration.

Paul often says that he thinks politicians in Washington in denial about the fiscal and economic mess the U.S. is in. With $16 trillion in on-the-books debt, $221 trillion in future unfunded liabilities, and a dollar that plunges in value because the Fed keeps printing up the money to finance this nonsense, Paul may have a point.

What are your differences on Social Security and Medicare?

Obama defended the "values" behind Social Security and Medicare while Romney claimed that he fundamentally believes in preserving Social Security and Medicare. While Paul would give the moral, philosophical, and practical case against coercive transfers of wealth, the idea that one is "entitled" to the private property of someone else, and the unsustainability of these programs, Paul would remind the audience that he is really the only one that would preserve these programs — at least in the short term by dismantling the empire and actually slashing non-defense related military spending.

The Fed's money printing and monetization of the debt, Paul would continue, is doing tremendous harm to people who want to save for the future and those on fixed income. What good is a Social Security check when the money continues to buy less and less every year?

What are you differences in health care?

One can only imagine the president having to face Paul on this one. While Romney offered his version of government-managed health care ("repeal and replace" should be his new campaign slogan!), Paul would note that Republicans are wrong to argue that the American health care system "was the finest in the world" until that rascally socialist took it over in 2009. Health care has been an 80% government run service since the mid 1960s, and for a hundred years the federal government has intervened in the health care market. This has led to predictable consequences: distortions in prices, rise in costs, decreased access, corporatism, and insurance companies seeking influence in Washington rather than competing in the marketplace.

What is the role of government?

Answering this question has been Ron Paul's siren song. To anyone who will listen, Paul constantly stresses that the role of government in a free society is to protect the liberty of every individual. It is not to police the world or "to keep Americans safe" as President Obama said. It is not to run a welfare state, impose mandates, transfer wealth, or subsidize certain industries over others.

Sadly, Americans won't get to see this debate. And after watching Romney defend Romneycare, closing loopholes (essentially raising taxes), attack the President for (non-existent) cuts, and sound like a slightly more right-wing version of Obama's Keynesian economics and overseas aggression, conservatives and Republicans have only themselves to blame for nominating such a robot.

[sailingaway]

I wanted to see that debate.

[DeMintConservative]

You guys need to get rid of the mindset that if Ron Paul isn't president or his ideas super-popular it's because people don't have a chance to listen and be exposed to them.

It's not. Rather because most people don't find them convincing or flat out disagree with them. Otherwise Paul wouldn't have ended up with 10% of the popular vote after a primary in which he participated in some 15 debates.

[sailingaway]

You guys need to get rid of the mindset that if Ron Paul isn't president or his ideas super-popular it's because people don't have a chance to listen and be exposed to them.

It's not. Rather because most people don't find them convincing or flat out disagree with them. Otherwise Paul wouldn't have ended up with 10% of the popular vote after a primary in which he participated in some 15 debates.

He was polling over 20% in second place, nationally, in a Reuters poll in Feb, but then there were no more polls until after a slew of media attacks. There is more that goes into votes than popularity.

However what YOU don't seem to get is it is more than about votes, it is about exposure of these ideas and contrasting them to the mental mush being served up elsewhere that we want. We wanted Ron speaking at RNC for that reason, even if he had no chance at all of walking away with the nomination. No one wakes up and interests those totally disgusted with politics the way Ron Paul does.

I should know, I was one of those people.

[acptulsa]

You guys need to get rid of the mindset that if Ron Paul isn't president or his ideas super-popular it's because people don't have a chance to listen and be exposed to them.

It's not. Rather because most people don't find them convincing or flat out disagree with them. Otherwise Paul wouldn't have ended up with 10% of the popular vote after a primary in which he participated in some 15 debates.

First, it takes more than exposure, it takes explanation and, yes, some getting used to. This tends to happen after decades of propaganda to the contrary. Second, he didn't end up with ten percent of the popular vote. He ended up with ten percent of the dittohead vote. There is a difference--a big one.

Check various polls which measured Paul vs. Obama over the course of 2011 and the beginning of this year, my friend, and you'd discover that not only are independent voters capable of comprehending Paul's positions and ideas, but they like them. Indeed, if Paul were the nominee, the GOP would have the lead in the polls. But since most Republicans would rather lap up Fox than either think, or win the election, it looks like Obama gets a second term.

Too bad these independents couldn't be talked into joining the GOP long enough to help get him nominated. But it seems that the Fox lapdogs have given the party such a bad name that many people can't even stand to be associated with it for a few months during the primary season.

[Smart3]

Ron Paul, who? - 80% of the 67 million people who watched the debate.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul, who? - 80% of the 67 million people who watched the debate.

I'm not sure what you are saying but he had a 90% name id in national polls, generally.

But if he were in the debate, they would know who he was.

[DeMintConservative]

He was polling over 20% in second place, nationally, in a Reuters poll in Feb, but then there were no more polls until after a slew of media attacks. There is more that goes into votes than popularity.

That poll was an outlier but, more importantly, candidates are going to be scrutinized and attacked - and the better they're doing in polls, the more that is going to happen.

If anything, Paul was the least attacked candidate in the primary, mostly because he wasn't a serious contender for nomination. I mean, was there a single anti-Paul tv ad? There were tons of negative ads attacking Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, but was Paul ever attacked by anyone?

Sure, if there was no negative scrutiny of Paul he'd get a better result. That's trivial. It's a nonsensical, unrealistic, scenery though.


However what YOU don't seem to get is it is more than about votes, it is about exposure of these ideas and contrasting them to the mental mush being served up elsewhere that we want. We wanted Ron speaking at RNC for that reason, even if he had no chance at all of walking away with the nomination. No one wakes up and interests those totally disgusted with politics the way Ron Paul does.

I should know, I was one of those people.

I totally get that. I agree that it's good to expose the ideas. I think that's the only reason Ron Paul ran in the first place. Mind you, I'm not talking about the long-term viability of his ideas or passing judgement on them.
I'm stating that if it was Paul debating Obama, the moment he'd explain that his plan for Medicare, SS and Medicaid is a phasing-out, he'd lose the debate. Not an intellectual level - I agree with Paul on these issues - but in regards to popular support.

[sailingaway]

That poll was an outlier but, more importantly, candidates are going to be scrutinized and attacked - and the better they're doing in polls, the more that is going to happen.

If anything, Paul was the least attacked candidate in the primary, mostly because he wasn't a serious contender for nomination. I mean, was there a single anti-Paul tv ad? There were tons of negative ads attacking Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, but was Paul ever attacked by anyone?

Sure, if there was no negative scrutiny of Paul he'd get a better result. That's trivial. It's a nonsensical, unrealistic, scenery though.



I totally get that. I agree that it's good to expose the ideas. I think that's the only reason Ron Paul ran in the first place. Mind you, I'm not talking about the long-term viability of his ideas or passing judgement on them.
I'm stating that if it was Paul debating Obama, the moment he'd explain that his plan for Medicare, SS and Medicaid is a phasing-out, he'd lose the debate. Not an intellectual level - I agree with Paul on these issues - but in regards to popular support.

I completely disagree about his Plan, I think the reason the media ignored it is they know how popular it would be. He'd pay every penny to those who paid in, by making it top priority, and would stop making future people pay in if they don't want to. If a state wants to set something up, as his district has, that would be different.

But our point in wanting him in the debates isn't so he would win, though we would love that, it is so he could point out what pablum and idiocy was being dished out, because he doesn't play along with that.

[DeMintConservative]

First, it takes more than exposure, it takes explanation and, yes, some getting used to. This tends to happen after decades of propaganda to the contrary. Second, he didn't end up with ten percent of the popular vote. He ended up with ten percent of the dittohead vote. There is a difference--a big one.

Check various polls which measured Paul vs. Obama over the course of 2011 and the beginning of this year, my friend, and you'd discover that not only are independent voters capable of comprehending Paul's positions and ideas, but they like them. Indeed, if Paul were the nominee, the GOP would have the lead in the polls. But since most Republicans would rather lap up Fox than either think, or win the election, it looks like Obama gets a second term.

Too bad these independents couldn't be talked into joining the GOP long enough to help get him nominated. But it seems that the Fox lapdogs have given the party such a bad name that many people can't even stand to be associated with it for a few months during the primary season.

He lead Obama in exactly two polls - and notice my point about scrutiny and negative attacks in the previous post.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html#polls

Also, as I explained, I wasn't passing a judgement on the long-term viability of Paul's ideas. If Paul was the nominee this year, he'd be down by a very large margin. Some of his core ideas are simply too unpopular as of now (not to mention the newsletters, associates and non-policy issues of that ilk).

[sailingaway]

He lead Obama in exactly two polls - and notice my point about scrutiny and negative attacks in the previous post.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html#polls

Also, as I explained, I wasn't passing a judgement on the long-term viability of Paul's ideas. If Paul was the nominee this year, he'd be down by a very large margin. Some of his core ideas are simply too unpopular as of now (not to mention the newsletters, associates and non-policy issues of that ilk).

He polled well against Obama and would pull from Obama's activist ranks, leaving him with none, virtually imho. We disagree because you don't like his ideas as much and cant imagine those who simply don't focus on primaries liking them better. We think they would. Without having it occur neither of us is going to convince the other on that point. I promise you Ron Paul would have a ton more excitement about him than Romney does.

[acptulsa]

If anything, Paul was the least attacked candidate in the primary, mostly because he wasn't a serious contender for nomination. I mean, was there a single anti-Paul tv ad? There were tons of negative ads attacking Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, but was Paul ever attacked by anyone?

You know, I really hate to give up on debate and resort to name calling. I just really hate it. But in this case, I'm in a quandry. After six years of reading about our quixotic crazy uncle unconventional radical cause on those rare occasions when the press talked about us at all, there's only one answer for this.

You're crazy. You're nucking futs. You have both slept through the whole primary and completely lost your mind, and not necessarily in that order. You are not sane. You're loony tunes. I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry for you. You'd look better on Thorazine.

Just damn.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I doubt Ron would have crushed Obama. He's not a very good debater, whereas Romney is.

[acptulsa]

I doubt Ron would have crushed Obama. He's not a very good debater, whereas Romney is.

You don't have to be good when you're obviously right. People tuned into that debate looking for some difference between them. They were searching for a reason to believe that someone intends to do something--anything at all--except get us in deeper and make this mess worse. They didn't find it.

Republican partisans might find conformity more important than anything else. But when you're in a massive hole, most people want some sign that we're going to stop digging now. And most people were disappointed. And who wouldn't be disappointed with, hey, we'll cut trillions, but we don't know from what 'cause we don't do math. So, if you don't do math, why should I trust your number? It obviously means nothing to you.

Ron Paul would have crushed Obama. He would have squished him like a bug. Obama is saying nothing. The Republicans would have this thing in the bag, if only they had nominated someone capable of saying something--anything at all.

[AuH20]

I doubt Ron would have crushed Obama. He's not a very good debater, whereas Romney is.

Ron is adept at making philosophical points, but he really lacks statistical details, which Romney was rattling off. I tend to agree with you.

[sailingaway]

You know, I really hate to give up on debate and resort to name calling. I just really hate it. But in this case, I'm in a quandry. After six years of reading about our quixotic crazy uncle unconventional radical cause on those rare occasions when the press talked about us at all, there's only one answer for this.

You're crazy. You're nucking futs. You have both slept through the whole primary and completely lost your mind, and not necessarily in that order. You are not sane. You're loony tunes. I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry for you. You'd look better on Thorazine.

Just damn.

DON'T name call, it isn't persuasive and lowers our elite tone.

He only dipped into it, and then to reconfirm what he already thought. He didn't follow Ron as we did. For example he says Ron only had 10% despite the 20% national GOP ONLY poll in Feb and when I raise it he calls that an anomaly, but Ron was 20% in IA and NH as well, before other states were paying attention, and but for Santorum's CNN fake poll manufactured surge would LIKELY have taken Iowa and gotten the attention to make his case, imho. Also, when people raise Ron's beating Obama he says that was only two polls, which may be true, I don't remember how many were 'wins' rather than 'statistical ties within the MOE' which was definitely more than two, but ignores that Ron AVERAGED doing better against Obama than anyone but Romney, throughout the entire race.

[sailingaway]

Ron is adept at making philosophical points, but he really lacks statistical details, which Romney was rattling off. I tend to agree with you.

Ron rattles off statistical details regularly.

[sailingaway]

I doubt Ron would have crushed Obama. He's not a very good debater, whereas Romney is.

Ron can be a good debater, it comes in spurts when he is mad or really persuaded, but the reason he would have crushed Obama is that when he speaks common sense, even when he stutters or rambles a bit, the other person looks like an idiot. He is very very good at showing up how the emperor has no clothes. It showed on ALL those he debated in the primaries. You had to willfully shut your eyes to ignore it. And independents aren't willfully shutting their eyes in favor of the party line the way the red and blue teams do.

And Romney may be a decent debater in the classical sense, but Obama certainly is not, he can't think on his feet.

[acptulsa]

DON'T name call, it isn't persuasive and lowers our elite tone.

Well, I've got to smack some sense into him somehow. Or, at the very least, I've got to expose his 'misconceptions' for the baldfaced lies they are.


See? I told you that you can't fix stupid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-would-best-obama-in-iowa-general-election-matchup/2012/02/18/gIQABoeUMR_blog.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-leads-obama-in-new-poll/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318764

http://politicalnews.me/?id=12069

http://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-2012-rasmussen-poll-says-he-would-beat-obama-418358

http://politicalnews.me/?id=11876

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

What part of the independents outnumber you and us combined do you not understand? Would it help you do the math if you took your cotton pickin' shoes off?

Just damn! Somebody give me a 2x4. I gotta learn a mule somethin'.

The level of denial this character has achieved doesn't change a thing. If Ron Paul was the nominee, the Republican Party would be on the way to the White House. Simple. And anyone who has talked seriously with a real liberal, or a real independent, knows it.

Rupert Murdoch may want to keep Republicans ignorant about how his advice caused them to shoot themselves in the foot. But I don't. Even if I have to call a liar a liar in order to educate them.

[amonasro]

If anything, Paul was the least attacked candidate in the primary, mostly because he wasn't a serious contender for nomination. I mean, was there a single anti-Paul tv ad? There were tons of negative ads attacking Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, but was Paul ever attacked by anyone?

What? How can you seriously believe this.

[sailingaway]

Well, I've got to smack some sense into him somehow. Or, at the very least, I've got to expose his 'misconceptions' for the baldfaced lies they are.



The level of denial this character has achieved doesn't change a thing. If Ron Paul were the nominee, the Republican Party would be on the way to the White House. Simple. And anyone who has talked seriously with a real liberal, or a real independent, knows it.

You can make your point without name calling. It is just lazy and you know it.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Ron is adept at making philosophical points, but he really lacks statistical details, which Romney was rattling off. I tend to agree with you.
This. Obama would've been able to demagogue Ron and his views quite easily, both in the debates and especially in a blizzard of television ads.

Imagine this with a billion dollar budget behind it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9u7emnhXYg

[acptulsa]

On the federal level with all of us fact checking them? You're kidding, right? There would have been a whole lot less of that and a whole lot more of this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA

So, how did it work out for Carlson? A billion dollar budget just would have insured it bit Obama in the ass even harder. So Carlson demagogued. And lost. Obviously, demagoguery doesn't always win in the end.

[sailingaway]

This. Obama would've been able to demagogue Ron and his views quite easily, both in the debates and especially in a blizzard of television ads.

Imagine this with a billion dollar budget behind it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9u7emnhXYg

Obama's trillion for ads of course would have dominated, but in the debate Ron would have just called out demagoguing as it occured, just as he did with Chris Matthews:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHgq0qGbe8

Ron has the inherent advantage of speaking from principle so he doesnt' get that 'frozen in the headlights' moment the candidates waiting for feedback from their focus groups get.

[COpatriot]

Someone said there weren't any anti-Paul ads which is ridiculous. Who else remembers that slanderous attack ad from Israel-firster Gary Bauer?

[sailingaway]

Someone said there weren't any anti-Paul ads which is ridiculous. Who else remembers that slanderous attack ad from Israel-firster Gary Bauer?

It doesn't matter because the corporate special interest group known as mains stream media gave untold advertising dollars smearing him. It didn't take ads. And the other candidates were given media time for free in which they used time to smear Ron.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Obama's trillion for ads of course would have dominated, but in the debate Ron would have just called out demagoguing as it occured, just as he did with Chris Matthews:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHgq0qGbe8

Ron has the inherent advantage of speaking from principle so he doesnt' get that 'frozen in the headlights' moment the candidates waiting for feedback from their focus groups get.
You have a higher opinion of the intelligence of the average voter than I.

[Bastiat's The Law]

On the federal level with all of us fact checking them? You're kidding, right? There would have been a whole lot less of that and a whole lot more of this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA

So, how did it work out for Carlson? A billion dollar budget just would have insured it bit Obama in the ass even harder. So Carlson demagogued. And lost. Obviously, demagoguery doesn't always win in the end.
All our fact checking can't compete with the media machine pummeling their propaganda into the minds of voters day after day after day. 90% of what I did was correct misconceptions the general public had of Ron, even on primary night. It's doubly effective with older voters who ONLY get their information from old tv and newspaper media.

[LibertyEagle]

That poll was an outlier but, more importantly, candidates are going to be scrutinized and attacked - and the better they're doing in polls, the more that is going to happen.

If anything, Paul was the least attacked candidate in the primary, mostly because he wasn't a serious contender for nomination. I mean, was there a single anti-Paul tv ad? There were tons of negative ads attacking Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, but was Paul ever attacked by anyone?

Are you serious?!! The media was running a non-stop negative ad, misconstruing everything that Ron Paul has said and believes in!


Sure, if there was no negative scrutiny of Paul he'd get a better result. That's trivial. It's a nonsensical, unrealistic, scenery though.

I totally get that. I agree that it's good to expose the ideas. I think that's the only reason Ron Paul ran in the first place. [B]Mind you, I'm not talking about the long-term viability of his ideas or passing judgement on them.
Viability? If they were good enough for our Founding Fathers, they're probably pretty damn viable. Ya think?


I'm stating that if it was Paul debating Obama, the moment he'd explain that his plan for Medicare, SS and Medicaid is a phasing-out, he'd lose the debate. Not an intellectual level - I agree with Paul on these issues - but in regards to popular support.
I do agree with you about this, unless the good doctor got one hell of a lot better in explaining how it would benefit them, personally. I would never count the good doctor out though. He touched people in ways others cannot. And when he was really "on", no one could beat him.

[acptulsa]

All our fact checking can't compete with the media machine pummeling their propaganda into the minds of voters day after day after day. 90% of what I did was correct misconceptions the general public had of Ron, even on primary night. It's doubly effective with older voters who ONLY get their information from old tv and newspaper media.

Yeah, I remember. That's why I keep telling Republicans we'd be in the lead right now. We took care of all of that crap. We spent six years taking care of all of that crap. He was the best-vetted candidate in the history of the American Presidency.

We'd be winning with that guy. Kickin' Obammey Ass.


Are you serious?!!

Left me at a loss for words. Well, not really, but SA didn't like the ones I came up with.

[Expatriate]

If anything, Paul was the least attacked candidate in the primary, mostly because he wasn't a serious contender for nomination. I mean, was there a single anti-Paul tv ad? There were tons of negative ads attacking Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, but was Paul ever attacked by anyone?

Are you freaking kidding me?

How many other candidates were smeared mercilessly and lied about by the media networks themselves? That is far, FAR more damaging than any attack ads.

What about Jon Huntsman's poorly-disguised, immoral hit job on Paul that the media gleefully played along with? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuVhadbMvQo&feature=related

And you say there were no paid attack ads? I distinctly remember a number of them, and I found this one in about a second by searching "Anti Ron Paul Commercial": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8mZL571J8

[acptulsa]

Are you freaking kidding me?

They say the winners write the history books.

I guess he thinks DeMint won the nomination...

[sailingaway]

You have a higher opinion of the intelligence of the average voter than I.

You personally don't like Ron's approach as much and like seeing approaches you like better, imho.

[Jamesiv1]

And when he was really "on", no one could beat him.

^^This

I've only been on board since last December, but I've watched a *bunch* of videos, and sadly I only remember 3 maybe 4 times where Ron was really "on". But man, oh man it lights a fire in my belly. It always seems to happen when he gets pissed off. His brow furrows, eyes turn steely... He becomes laser-focused dropping atom bombs of truth without any of the hem-haw, talk-too-long, hesitation-type stuff.

No one can touch him when he's like that.

[acptulsa]

No one can touch him when he's like that.

If Ron Paul was the nominee, we would so be thumping Obama right now.

Independents would be lining up down the block for yard signs.

[PierzStyx]

It would definitely have been a DIFFERENT debate with each candidate espousing different agendas, goals, and solutions. It would have been a REAL debate.

[Bastiat's The Law]

You personally don't like Ron's approach as much and like seeing approaches you like better, imho.
I love Ron's approach to bring our people in from political Siberia and work within the GOP. Seen more progress in the last four years than I have in my lifetime. Ron was a wake up call that things could be different. He was the spark that lit the fuse. Now its time to run candidates savvy enough to turn the game of politics against our enemies. They will lay the groundwork so the next Ron Paul type figure isn't hidden away for 30 years, but rather heralded to the forefront.

[KingNothing]

I doubt Paul would have beaten Obama as bad as Romney did. Mitt had no problem lying, and he had no problem tossing aside all small-government principles to cut off Obama's appeals to emotion and attempts at class warfare. Ron would have focused on the philosophy of libertarianism, and Obama probably would have been able to make him seem more callous and uncaring than he actually is, which would have created an entirely different tone and narrative throughout the debate.

[KingNothing]

If Ron Paul was the nominee, we would so be thumping Obama right now.

Independents would be lining up down the block for yard signs.

I think this is true, and all of the campaign rhetoric would be different. Anti-war and anti-intervention narratives would be the theme from the Right, Obama would be on the defensive, and the America-first, populist sentiment would be behind Ron.

The debate would have been entirely different than it was. To their credit, Obama and Romney went into further detail than most debaters -including Ron- go into. If our guy were there, this probably wouldn't have happened. He'd have related this issues near and dear to his heart to the economy and jobs. Everything would have been linked to that. It would have been an interesting debate.

[KingNothing]

Obama's trillion for ads of course would have dominated, but in the debate Ron would have just called out demagoguing as it occured, just as he did with Chris Matthews

People who care about these issues wouldn't see it as demagoguing. Pointing out reality to them wouldn't necessarily be effective. What Ron does have is a sincere empathy for human beings, though. That empathy would allow him to connect our nation's current failed policies to the struggles that people are enduring. Really, I think Paul would have to counter the Left's demagoguing with his own compassion/passion (which could seem like demagoguing) to win voters.

[KingNothing]

You know, I really hate to give up on debate and resort to name calling. I just really hate it. But in this case, I'm in a quandry. After six years of reading about our quixotic crazy uncle unconventional radical cause on those rare occasions when the press talked about us at all, there's only one answer for this.

You're crazy. You're nucking futs. You have both slept through the whole primary and completely lost your mind, and not necessarily in that order. You are not sane. You're loony tunes. I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry for you. You'd look better on Thorazine.

Just damn.

Paul probably was the least attacked candidate by his challengers. But that's only because the media and Party made sure to diminish and delegitimize him every time they mentioned him since 2007.

[KingNothing]

If Paul was the nominee this year, he'd be down by a very large margin. Some of his core ideas are simply too unpopular as of now.

Paul would be in the awkward position of espousing libertarian ideals, while defending social security, medicare, and welfarism. It would be odd to see him straddle the line. But he would do so. He'd constantly remind people that the course we're on now is not a good one, that our spending is not sustainable, and that we should cut back on military spending to help ensure that the social safety nets so many rely on now remain in tact. He'd basically become, I think, the most unexpected defender of (temporary) populist welfare in American history.

[Veteran Citizen]

A ham sandwich would have crushed Obama in this debate. I'm sad Ron didn't make it, and that GJ won't either, but Obama needs to go back to chicago, hawaii or wherever.

[DeMintConservative]

Paul probably was the least attacked candidate by his challengers. But that's only because the media and Party made sure to diminish and delegitimize him every time they mentioned him since 2007.

Well, causality dilemmas apart, he was the least attacked candidate. And he still didn't get past 10% of the popular vote. He had plenty of opportunities to expose his ideas, including participating in all those debates, countless interviews, a solid warchest and the best grassroots operation (I suspect he beat all the other candidates combined in direct voters contacts).

The ideas aren't simply that popular. When you poll them apart from Ron Paul they're unpopular. Most people don't want to legalize drugs. Most people want to save the welfare state. Most people want a government regulating this, subsidizing that, a standing army, etc. Heck, even the TSA inspections are popular.

This is why I find the thesis that Ron Paul would have won this debate - especially versus a demagogue of Obama's calibre - very nonsensical. Sure, he'd win the debate in intellectual terms. People who write here would believe he completely destroyed Obama. But that's because they have very different perceptions relatively to the American median/average voter.


Paul would be in the awkward position of espousing libertarian ideals, while defending social security, medicare, and welfarism. It would be odd to see him straddle the line. But he would do so. He'd constantly remind people that the course we're on now is not a good one, that our spending is not sustainable, and that we should cut back on military spending to help ensure that the social safety nets so many rely on now remain in tact. He'd basically become, I think, the most unexpected defender of (temporary) populist welfare in American history.

I'm assuming Ron Paul would run as a libertarian/minarchist conservative/rothbardian whatever you want to call it.

Not as a defender of the welfare state.

That defeats the entire premise of the OP article: that Ron Paul would have crushed Obama by affirming his differences.

If he started running as a pacifist liberal, then I guess he'd still lose, but that's beyond the point.


Are you freaking kidding me?

How many other candidates were smeared mercilessly and lied about by the media networks themselves? That is far, FAR more damaging than any attack ads.

What about Jon Huntsman's poorly-disguised, immoral hit job on Paul that the media gleefully played along with? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuVhadbMvQo&feature=related

And you say there were no paid attack ads? I distinctly remember a number of them, and I found this one in about a second by searching "Anti Ron Paul Commercial": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8mZL571J8

I'm not sure what smears are you talking about. I don't think he has much to complain about that vis a vis the other candidates - mostly because he was never a serious contender. Look, if the newsletter scandal, regardless of what you think of its merits, had happened with Romney, his political career would be instantly over.

Why do you think you had all those non-Romneys going up just to flop a weeks later? Because nobody would care about their downsides when they weren't serious contenders; once they'd rise to the status of serious challengers the scrutiny would go up, the public would become more aware of their problems, little details about their past would emerge, negative opinions would be given a larger megaphone... and soon they'd be bust. Check Cain's sexual scandals, people remembering again how much of a buffoon Gingrich is, Santorum's "satan is upon us" remarks surfacing, etc.

I'm an elections junkie, I spend plenty of time reading to and talking about politics, and I barely remember that Huntsman is Manchurian youtube video. 95% of the voters never heard about it. That stuff is mostly immaterial.

As for the Gary Bauer attack ad, what was the size of the buy? Did they really get it on tv or they just announced it? If it was, it was a single ineffectual add, featuring a hasbeen babbling nonsense in a SINGLE state - and one in which Paul didn't really compete seriously.

Do you really think that's comparable to what Santorum, Gingrich and Romney went through?


Are you serious?!! The media was running a non-stop negative ad, misconstruing everything that Ron Paul has said and believes in!


Viability? If they were good enough for our Founding Fathers, they're probably pretty damn viable. Ya think?


I do agree with you about this, unless the good doctor got one hell of a lot better in explaining how it would benefit them, personally. I would never count the good doctor out though. He touched people in ways others cannot. And when he was really "on", no one could beat him.

1 - I don't think they were being more negative about Paul than about any other.

2 - I was thinking about short-term electoral viability. Do you really believe every good idea from the FF is electorally viable today?

3 - Well, that was my entire point. I don't think style would matter a bit though. Many people know and understand the ideas: they just don't like them.


They say the winners write the history books.

I guess he thinks DeMint won the nomination...

I know who won the nomination. What I said about Ron Paul is actually valid for DeMint too, in a lower scale. If it was DeMint in the debate, he'd have done much worse than Romney - on substance alone, I'm totalling ignoring style here (assuming he wouldn't tweak what he believes in to fit the beliefs of the majority of the public). Not because his ideas are worse, rather because they're less popular.

[sailingaway]

Paul would be in the awkward position of espousing libertarian ideals, while defending social security, medicare, and welfarism. It would be odd to see him straddle the line. But he would do so. He'd constantly remind people that the course we're on now is not a good one, that our spending is not sustainable, and that we should cut back on military spending to help ensure that the social safety nets so many rely on now remain in tact. He'd basically become, I think, the most unexpected defender of (temporary) populist welfare in American history.

Ron Paul had his Plan to Restore America and wasn't the least bit awkward about it. Were you not watching his campaign at all?

[DeMintConservative]

He polled well against Obama and would pull from Obama's activist ranks, leaving him with none, virtually imho. We disagree because you don't like his ideas as much and cant imagine those who simply don't focus on primaries liking them better. We think they would. Without having it occur neither of us is going to convince the other on that point. I promise you Ron Paul would have a ton more excitement about him than Romney does.

Being ahead in only 2 polls isn't polling well. And again, that was before being attacked.

Those who didn't focus in the primaries are centrist/moderates. I think some people were convinced Paul was actually the most moderate republican because his most publicized stances are on issues like foreign policy. But the polling shows that's just a myth.




He only dipped into it, and then to reconfirm what he already thought. He didn't follow Ron as we did. For example he says Ron only had 10% despite the 20% national GOP ONLY poll in Feb and when I raise it he calls that an anomaly, but Ron was 20% in IA and NH as well, before other states were paying attention, and but for Santorum's CNN fake poll manufactured surge would LIKELY have taken Iowa and gotten the attention to make his case, imho. Also, when people raise Ron's beating Obama he says that was only two polls, which may be true, I don't remember how many were 'wins' rather than 'statistical ties within the MOE' which was definitely more than two, but ignores that Ron AVERAGED doing better against Obama than anyone but Romney, throughout the entire race.

1 - I said Ron Paul only got 10% of teh popular vote in the primary. 2 million votes, 10.95%. You can argue he'd have done better if he hadn't suspended the campaign, but if nobody had suspended the campaign, he'd end with a similar result.

2 - I'm not sure what polls you're talking about, but you can't just state polls you don't like are fake.

3 - Ron Paul had plenty of attention to make his case.

4 - you can check the RCP link, it has all the head-to-head Paul vs Obama polls.


You know, I really hate to give up on debate and resort to name calling. I just really hate it. But in this case, I'm in a quandry. After six years of reading about our quixotic crazy uncle unconventional radical cause on those rare occasions when the press talked about us at all, there's only one answer for this.

You're crazy. You're nucking futs. You have both slept through the whole primary and completely lost your mind, and not necessarily in that order. You are not sane. You're loony tunes. I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry for you. You'd look better on Thorazine.

Just damn.

The main reason the press talked about Ron Paul as a quixotic candidate was because that's what he mostly was.

The worst thing it can happen in politics is to start living inside an eco chamber. Do you really believe Paul lost because of the press and Gary Bauer youtube ad and the couple of attacks Newt, Santorum and Huntsman laid on him during the debates?

It wasn't - and if it was, what would that say about a candidate who can't overcome such fragile stuff? Heck, Romney was accused of murdering some woman because the company he created, after he left, laid her off years before she got a cancer.

I don't take any especial pleasure in saying this, believe me: most of the ideas that make Paul unelectable - as an advocate of those ideas - are exactly the ones I agree with him in mostly.

Romney won the debate because he in command of the issues, he was lively, assertive, funny even. But he also won because he defended the kind of stuff most Americans - especially those swing voters who decide elections - agree with: bipartisanship. Bank regulations. Welfare programs. Etc. A true small government conservative, arguing for the elimination of entitlement programs, across the board spending cuts, less taxes to everybody, less money spent in the war on drugs, the prisons lobby, the public schools lobby, etc, would lose it.

[DeMintConservative]

See? I told you that you can't fix stupid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-would-best-obama-in-iowa-general-election-matchup/2012/02/18/gIQABoeUMR_blog.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-leads-obama-in-new-poll/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318764

http://politicalnews.me/?id=12069

http://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-2012-rasmussen-poll-says-he-would-beat-obama-418358

http://politicalnews.me/?id=11876

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

What part of the independents outnumber you and us combined do you not understand? Would it help you do the math if you took your cotton pickin' shoes off?

Just damn! Somebody give me a 2x4. I gotta learn a mule somethin'.

Well, as I said, there were only two polls (both from Rasmussen) in which Paul lead Obama: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

All those links you provided are either state polls (and sure, Paul would beat Obama in some states, even I would) or polls in which he's close but behind.

[sailingaway]

Being ahead in only 2 polls isn't polling well.

that ignores the times within the margin of error and the fact that of all the candidates ONLY Romney polled better against Obama ON AVERAGE, despite media ignoring, demonizing or dismissing Ron. THAT is polling well.


Those who didn't focus in the primaries are centrist/moderates.
.

that is your theory, mine is that they are people who are disgusted by both parties.

[KingNothing]

Ron Paul had his Plan to Restore America and wasn't the least bit awkward about it. Were you not watching his campaign at all?

I never said he was awkward. I said the position is awkward. Were you not reading my post at all?

Paul would have been framed as a "wants to cut all social safety nets and squash the poor" candidate. He would have been on the defensive against those claims. We would have had the most libertarian presidential candidate in recent history (maybe ever) actually telling people that he's the only candidate with a plan to maintain the social safety nets. Don't you see how that would be awkward? Obama's head would explode. Democrats wouldn't know how to handle it. The media would be at a loss. It would be.... awkward.

[sailingaway]

His position wasn't awkward at all. And sure, media could and did lie about him but they could do that with anyone decent. They are never going to like anyone we like.

As to Obama's head exploding at the awkwardness of Ron Paul providing better for those dependent, while cutting corporatist policies Obama wants to save instead, I could live with that.

[jkob]

I'm not sure Ron would have crushed Obama in a debate. I mean he'd obviously have Obama beat on substance and sincerity but it seems like debates are judged much more superficially(like posture, tone of voice, what they do while the other candidate talking, etc) and whatever narrative the media decides to run with after the fact. We saw what the media did once Ron was threatening to win in Iowa.

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure Ron would have crushed Obama in a debate. I mean he'd obviously have Obama beat on substance and sincerity but it seems like debates are judged much more superficially(like posture, tone of voice, what they do while the other candidate talking, etc) and whatever narrative the media decides to run with after the fact. We saw what the media did once Ron was threatening to win in Iowa.

I don't know that the media would have SAID he crushed Obama, but the people who watch the general election debates often are the kind fed up with politics so they don't pay attention in the primaries, and Ron Paul speaks to those fed up with politics as usual, imho.

[FrancisMarion]

Primary debates: Congressman Paul 30 seconds.
Presidential debates: Congressman Paul 2 minutes.

When he struggled, it always seemed to me because he was trying to clarify ideas and principles in 30 seconds. The train of thought cannot be illustrated in such amount of time.

I think he would have done fine. I care not to speculate whether he would have "won". If anything i think the audience would have.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Paul would be in the awkward position of espousing libertarian ideals, while defending social security, medicare, and welfarism. It would be odd to see him straddle the line. But he would do so. He'd constantly remind people that the course we're on now is not a good one, that our spending is not sustainable, and that we should cut back on military spending to help ensure that the social safety nets so many rely on now remain in tact. He'd basically become, I think, the most unexpected defender of (temporary) populist welfare in American history.
He could do well with that strategy. He'd have to make concessions for the welfare state and risk people on the forums calling him impure. :rolleyes:

[Feeding the Abscess]

He could do well with that strategy. He'd have to make concessions for the welfare state and risk people on the forums calling him impure. :rolleyes:

If he called for keeping them in perpetuity, yes, but he generally brings up that he wants to eventually end them in a gradual fashion.

[DeMintConservative]

that ignores the times within the margin of error and the fact that of all the candidates ONLY Romney polled better against Obama ON AVERAGE, despite media ignoring, demonizing or dismissing Ron. THAT is polling well.

Yeps. But Romney did that while being attacked from all sides: from the democrats to the rest of the Republican nomination challengers (at least the non-Romney du jour).

Do you really think those numbers would hold after he was actually attacked by the MSM/DNC machine on, say, his answer to that Wolf Blitzer question on the uninsured?


tthat is your theory, mine is that they are people who are disgusted by both parties.

They can be both.

Why do you think that every presidential nominee - in fact, pretty much every nominee in every slightly competitive race - turns to the center after the primary? Has everybody been wrong all these decades?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yeps. But Romney did that while being attacked from all sides: from the democrats to the rest of the Republican nomination challengers (at least the non-Romney du jour).





They can be both.

Why do you think that every presidential nominee - in fact, pretty much every nominee in every slightly competitive race - turns to the center after the primary? Has everybody been wrong all these decades?

Hannity was bashing Ron on a nightly basis over the newsletters in December, and did so over summer, too. Same with Levin.

[DeMintConservative]

Hannity was bashing Ron on a nightly basis over the newsletters in December, and did so over summer, too. Same with Levin.

Levin spent a lot more time bashing Romney and it wasn't even close. I don't lose much time watching Hannity, but from what I remember, he wasn't exactly obsessing with Ron Paul. And again, if the newsletter episode had happened to Romney, his political career would be instantly over. Plus, if a couple of talk-show hosts hurt Paul so much, how would he resist the Democrat MSM machine in the general?

In any case, one can simply look at how the issues themselves poll detached from Ron Paul. Forget Ron Paul: a guy with great charisma, splendid communication skills, a pristine past, limitless campaign funding while espousing Ron Paul ideas would still have no chance this year.

In my opinion, changing the predominant policy ideas in a society takes a lot more time than you seem to assume.

[Peace&Freedom]

They can be both.

Why do you think that every presidential nominee - in fact, pretty much every nominee in every slightly competitive race - turns to the center after the primary? Has everybody been wrong all these decades?

Yup. Every major party nominee going through the elite controlled duopoly system for 'all these decades' has followed the same 'middle ground' script their masters have given them (with the partial exception of Reagan). THAT'S WHY PAUL WOULD HAVE BEEN, AND HAS BEEN SUCH A CONTRAST. Neither party wanted to talk about the Fed, the costs and failure of the wars, the police state, or other obliterations of the Constitution. As soon as they stopped covering Paul in the spring, the candidates and the media dropped discussion of his issues entirely and went back to contraception, gay marriage, and other majors in the minors.

That's the whole point of the 'middle ground'---to distract the public back into a secondary or tertiary-level discussion of minor wedge issues. The establishment wants no light to shine on endless monetary inflation, endless debt, war and empire, omni-Big Brother, or the conversion of the free republic into a prison state. So we get 'middle ground' debates over the rate of increases in spending. Pathetic.

[DeMintConservative]

Yup. Every major party nominee going through the elite controlled duopoly system for 'all these decades' has followed the same 'middle ground' script their masters have given them (with the partial exception of Reagan)..

Reagan did this as much as anyone.

In fact, one of the reasons won big was because the first debate, the one with John Anderson that Carter refused to attend.

Teh Dems had been painting Reagan as that extreme, radical, heartless conservative. Reagan came across as an affable, pragmatic, moderate republican in that debate. That pretty much turned around the race.

I agree Ron Paul would have make a large contrast. I never denied that, quite the opposite.

[BlackTerrel]

I would have paid to see that! And contrary to some here I think he would have faired quite well.

[BlackTerrel]

It doesn't matter because the corporate special interest group known as mains stream media gave untold advertising dollars smearing him. It didn't take ads. And the other candidates were given media time for free in which they used time to smear Ron.

To be fair I think "the media" is a bit of a cop out. It's a lot like "the refs" and everyone thinks they are always against them.

Do you remember Herman Cain leading the polls by a comfortable margin (with much higher numbers than Paul ever had) before the media started attacking and exposing him?

[The Free Hornet]

To be fair I think "the media" is a bit of a cop out. It's a lot like "the refs" and everyone thinks they are always against them.

Do you remember Herman Cain leading the polls by a comfortable margin (with much higher numbers than Paul ever had) before the media started attacking and exposing him?

Cain was an implosion waiting to happen. He represented the hunger that should have been fed by Ron Paul. Too many media types could only serve up anybody-but-Romney-who-isn't-Paul. Anybody impressed with "9 9 9" should have creamed their jeans at the thought of eliminating the IRS (a distinct possibility as tariffs, energy taxes, excise taxes can fund a healthy national defense). This option was not spread through the MSM so people that don't go beyond news-clip soundbites had little-to-no exposure to Ron Paul.

I won't lie to you and say "everyone I talked to supported Ron Paul". Sadly some in my own family did not. They were then, and are now, simply anti-Obama (as they were anti-Clinton). I can say positively that I know of nobody that ever gave a thoughtful opinion about any non-Paul presidential contender besides Gary Johnson. It just did not happen. I could repost graphs showing the large discrepancy between media coverage of Paul and google searches. The MSM bragged about booting candidates out of the election and that is exactly what they did.

Grassroots power wasn't strong enough. Soon, it will be.

[sailingaway]

To be fair I think "the media" is a bit of a cop out. It's a lot like "the refs" and everyone thinks they are always against them.

Do you remember Herman Cain leading the polls by a comfortable margin (with much higher numbers than Paul ever had) before the media started attacking and exposing him?

But for each of the others, when they surged they gave them a honeymoon of a few days and rounds of shows before tearing them apart. It was a pattern. When Ron STARTED to surge before Iowa they attacked to prevent it. And the same in February when he was starting to surge, it was a very different pattern, imho.

[LibertyEagle]

If we want to win the presidency, I really feel like we simply have to find a way to get a friendly television station. The media has way too much power in our country and they will do us in every time, unless we have a chance to offer an alternative.

[sailingaway]

If we want to win the presidency, I really feel like we simply have to find a way to get a friendly television station. The media has way too much power in our country and they will do us in every time, unless we have a chance to offer an alternative.

We can build up Swann and his station, and find others. For a start, but yeah, I'd like a friendlier network.

[LibertyEagle]

We need much more than Swann, unless he can get on a nationally-carried TV show.

[sailingaway]

We need much more than Swann, unless he can get on a nationally-carried TV show.

If he did, I think he'd be controlled as the Judge was, in the end. I'm thinking Rayathon (Ratheon? what is the carrier of his station?) should maybe be built up. They are like a mini network already and independent.

[Bastiat's The Law]

But for each of the others, when they surged they gave them a honeymoon of a few days and rounds of shows before tearing them apart. It was a pattern. When Ron STARTED to surge before Iowa they attacked to prevent it. And the same in February when he was starting to surge, it was a very different pattern, imho.
But this was predictable and expected. Campaign should've had a better response, they had a whole year to plan for it. That is valid criticism.

[Bastiat's The Law]

If we want to win the presidency, I really feel like we simply have to find a way to get a friendly television station. The media has way too much power in our country and they will do us in every time, unless we have a chance to offer an alternative.
I've been thinking about this. There's no network that even closely resembles my views. I just watch C-SPAN mostly. I think a liberty orientated channel would appeal to huge segments of society, independents especially.

[acptulsa]

But this was predictable and expected. Campaign should've had a better response, they had a whole year to plan for it. That is valid criticism.

We had all that time, too, and did try to plan for it. On the one hand, yeah, the campaign didn't even repeat what worked and worked well, like the Iowa Big Dog ad. The campaign is ripe for criticism. On the other hand, how does one effectively fight the Monolithic Shitshovelling Megaphone? Yeah, as Will Rogers said, truth stays put longer than rumor. But a month before the election, which is as soon as most people start paying any attention to it at all, it doesn't matter that truth stays put longer, but only that rumor travels faster.

Yeah, someday there won't be a demographic that is mostly made up of people who vote religiously but avoid the internet. And when that day comes, the MSM won't have the power it has now. The question is, can we last until that comes to pass?

[BlackTerrel]

But for each of the others, when they surged they gave them a honeymoon of a few days and rounds of shows before tearing them apart. It was a pattern. When Ron STARTED to surge before Iowa they attacked to prevent it. And the same in February when he was starting to surge, it was a very different pattern, imho.

Cain was attacked and marginalized as much as Ron Paul. Cain even led in the polls despite all that.

Everytime the Falcons lose my buddies and the message boards light up that the refs were against the Falcons.

Blaming "the media" is a cop out. Appeal to the masses and convey your message and you have a shot - I'll be Rand makes a good show of it in 2016 with the same old media.

[sailingaway]

Cain was attacked and marginalized as much as Ron Paul. Cain even led in the polls despite all that.

Everytime the Falcons lose my buddies and the message boards light up that the refs were against the Falcons.

Blaming "the media" is a cop out. Appeal to the masses and convey your message and you have a shot - I'll be Rand makes a good show of it in 2016 with the same old media.

To recognize the role of the media is not saying nothing but the media is an issue. They are biased, and it isn't a 'cop out' to recognize that.

I think we need to TEACH people or call their attention to things they aren't noticing, not appeal to their current level of understanding. If you pretend you are no different, you won't have support for what needs to be done, because it won't be what you were elected to do. Besides, I think honesty rings true and pandering doesn't, because it isn't.

[RonPaulMall]

Cain was attacked and marginalized as much as Ron Paul. Cain even led in the polls despite all that.

Everytime the Falcons lose my buddies and the message boards light up that the refs were against the Falcons.

Blaming "the media" is a cop out. Appeal to the masses and convey your message and you have a shot - I'll be Rand makes a good show of it in 2016 with the same old media.

Agree. Ron Paul is a fantastic Congressman, but he is not a particularly adept politician. To say he would "crush" Obama in the debates is to ignore reality. Ron isn't a very good debater. He's prone to either rambling on or stuffing so much stuff in to one answer nobody even remembers what his point was. And that's assuming the general public even cares about points in the first place. Mostly they judge debates on who the better speaker is. And there is no way Ron Paul is going to win that type of contest. Judge Napolitano- he'd destroy Obama. Tom Woods- same story. But speaking and debating just aren't Ron Paul's strong suit. We don't mind because we love and respect him, because we know about the decades of heroic votes he's cast in the US Congress, and we understand what he's talking about even when he doesn't make the point as strongly (or even coherently) as he should. But he gets no such pass from the masses.

[BlackTerrel]

To recognize the role of the media is not saying nothing but the media is an issue. They are biased, and it isn't a 'cop out' to recognize that.

Sure but people act like the entire media dedicates 99% of its resources to tearing down Ron Paul and every act they do is done with the sole purpose of keeping Ron out of office. The world doesn't work that way and the media isn't that monolithic.

Are you denying the media went after Herman Cain? Cause I think they tore him to shreds.

[BlackTerrel]

Agree. Ron Paul is a fantastic Congressman, but he is not a particularly adept politician. To say he would "crush" Obama in the debates is to ignore reality. Ron isn't a very good debater. He's prone to either rambling on or stuffing so much stuff in to one answer nobody even remembers what his point was. And that's assuming the general public even cares about points in the first place. Mostly they judge debates on who the better speaker is. And there is no way Ron Paul is going to win that type of contest. Judge Napolitano- he'd destroy Obama. Tom Woods- same story. But speaking and debating just aren't Ron Paul's strong suit. We don't mind because we love and respect him, because we know about the decades of heroic votes he's cast in the US Congress, and we understand what he's talking about even when he doesn't make the point as strongly (or even coherently) as he should. But he gets no such pass from the masses.

I'm not actually saying that either. I think Ron Paul COULD have faired quite well in a debate against Obama and I wish I would live to see it.