Anyone care to set this guy straight?

[Mastiff]

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=622

The comment was that RP is not a republican, and that "angry anti-war liberals" won't grow the base. All the RP meetings I go to are comprised almost fully of republicans who want the party to return to its roots. In my view, RP is the only one who can grow the republican party. Rudy or Huck will kill the republicans.

[Andrew76]

Done and done.


"As for Rep. Ron Paul, he will not win the nomination either, and it remains to be seen what happens when he doesn't. Paul may serve as a Republican in Congress and boast that he has won election after election as a Republican. It's true. But it is true, because he knows he would not win running as a Libertarian. Paul is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian running as a Republican, and the coalition he has assembled will do nothing to help grow the Republican Party. Angry anti-war liberals do not help grow a conservative base."

I think you'd have to admit at this point, the republican race is still largely anyone's game. Therefore, it's more correct to say, Ron Paul is not likely to win the nomination. Nothing is impossible. For instance, John Kerry at this point during the election cycle was around what, 4 or 5%? Those numbers mean nothing at all. Polls tell us nothing, even the pollsters who run them have said so on national television: they are paid to come up with the numbers their "employers" would like to see. That is a fact. As I said, it's still anyone's game.
Furthermore, no and I mean NO ONE has the boots-on-the-ground support that Ron Paul has. No one. He's currently on track to outraise all other republican candidates in the fourth quarter,... unless of course Romney donates himself yet another load of loot. Ron Paul also has more first place wins at GOP straw polls than any other Repub. candidate. To overlook this level of support is folly.
This isn't about winning a football game. Who cares if numbers of the GOP don't grow? What does it matter if the GOP quadruples in size, but loses the election? I don't want to be on the winning team just to win, I want the candidate who I value the most to win. There's no republican candidate with a record to match Ron Paul's. He's turning minds on to issues that other repub's have been trying to do for years! This cannot be ignored. He's doing so by being the only one willing to confront issues head on with straight talk, and no business as usual, political speech nonsense.
Look up Ronald Reagan's, Barry Goldwater's and Thomas Jefferson's original platforms - Ron Paul is running on their collective platform, if you want to call it libertarian simply because you can, fine but in reality, in doing so you'll be the one contributing to the GOP's ever-shrinking base, not Ron Paul. And, I'm telling you, the vast majority of the angry anti-war liberal crowd is not supporting Ron Paul. Ron Paul got on my radar through his war stance, but it was the bigger issue of non-intervention that I agree with, being a political independent. What solidified my support for Ron Paul is his stance on the economy, immigration, taxes, individual responsibility and overall vision of what government ought to be doing.
One last note: whether someone is for the Iraq war or not is in the long run of no consequence, becuase we simply can't afford to wage this war any longer. The money isn't there, and I'm not so sure China is interested in funding it indefinitely.

[JaylieWoW]

Don't waste much time over there at GoPUSA. I pointed out that an article written by someone over there contained at best a misunderstanding of the data or at worst a complete lie about what the data represented. For the effort, I was banned so cannot post over there anymore.

Those people have their blinders on tight. If I were performing triage on them I would quickly move on to the next. I believe they are hopeless.