So What BS Is Going To "Suppress" Ron Paul in NH today?

DriftingByTheStorm

Seriously.
Really only been following the election this cycle cuz my girl is in to it (and Ron Paul, fwiw) but I pay attention to clips on Ron Paul in the media and debates, just to see how they are bashing, trashing him, and manipulating his perception to the public. It's pretty atrocious.

Stepping aside from the question of establishment ire for the man, I am encouraged that the Ron Paul campaign seems to have hit their stride as a political organization (they are well formed, with purpose, and most importantly, with teeth right now), and that Ron Paul as a candidate has clearly received the "coaching" he so badly needed last time around to take on the establishment media effectively. To wit, he no longer allows himself to be walked on by the media or in debates, has largely rephrased his foreign policy stance to avoid sounding outright anti-American (eg. "I think most Americans recognize that we do a really bad job of trying to do really good things"), and he speaks (more often than before) with a sort of passion and interest that he formerly lacked.

That being said,
I am just waiting to see what trick they have up their sleeve for NH.
Iowa saw the "Santorum Surge" ... the largely manufactured (part just dumb happenstance) media push (and arguable "poll" number manipulation, 1-2 days before) that resulted in the apparent "out of nowhere" comeback of the Daily Show's favorite Republican looney-tune. There were grumblings on the unofficial "official" Ron Paul message board ("Liberty Forest") from at least one on the ground supporter in Iowa that there were major back room deals between several large voter block representatives being "lobbied" to go from Gingrich and Bachman to Santorum, which sound like a plausible (if not credible) sort of scenario.

All i know is the establishment seems like it will (and DID in the 2008 election ... they formed a Super-Delegate group with a name like "Republicans for Conservative Government" in Louisiana that was formed of delegates for several other "top tier" candidates. Ron Paul lost to "Republicans for Conservative Government" ... effectively losing an "offical" "election" to "Not Ron Paul" ???) do anything to keep Ron Paul from being THE opposition to the "chosen" candidate (or in a good year -- for the establishment -- several "chosen" or "worthy" candidates) ... because if it is just Romney and Ron Paul, then Romney has to SERIOUSLY debate Ron Paul ... which then becomes The Establishment (by Proxy) vs. Ron Paul ... which can not be allowed to be televised ... because the tension would be SEETHING.

It already is in some of these debates.

Watch Newt from Iowa Debate respond to question about Ron Paul's comments regarding him. He virtually foams at the mouth in vengeful retaliation against the "vile" Paul.

So what crazy shit will send Huntsman to #2 in NH to knock Ron Paul down to a "no so noticeable" third place?

Or are they just going to ride the Santorum BS some more?
Prolly.
?

inlet13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Seriously.
Really only been following the election this cycle cuz my girl is in to it (and Ron Paul, fwiw) but I pay attention to clips on Ron Paul in the media and debates, just to see how they are bashing, trashing him, and manipulating his perception to the public. It's pretty atrocious.

Stepping aside from the question of establishment ire for the man, I am encouraged that the Ron Paul campaign seems to have hit their stride as a political organization (they are well formed, with purpose, and most importantly, with teeth right now), and that Ron Paul as a candidate has clearly received the "coaching" he so badly needed last time around to take on the establishment media effectively. To wit, he no longer allows himself to be walked on by the media or in debates, has largely rephrased his foreign policy stance to avoid sounding outright anti-American (eg. "I think most Americans recognize that we do a really bad job of trying to do really good things"), and he speaks (more often than before) with a sort of passion and interest that he formerly lacked.

That being said,
I am just waiting to see what trick they have up their sleeve for NH.
Iowa saw the "Santorum Surge" ... the largely manufactured (part just dumb happenstance) media push (and arguable "poll" number manipulation, 1-2 days before) that resulted in the apparent "out of nowhere" comeback of the Daily Show's favorite Republican looney-tune. There were grumblings on the unofficial "official" Ron Paul message board ("Liberty Forest") from at least one on the ground supporter in Iowa that there were major back room deals between several large voter block representatives being "lobbied" to go from Gingrich and Bachman to Santorum, which sound like a plausible (if not credible) sort of scenario.

All i know is the establishment seems like it will (and DID in the 2008 election ... they formed a Super-Delegate group with a name like "Republicans for Conservative Government" in Louisiana that was formed of delegates for several other "top tier" candidates. Ron Paul lost to "Republicans for Conservative Government" ... effectively losing an "offical" "election" to "Not Ron Paul" ???) do anything to keep Ron Paul from being THE opposition to the "chosen" candidate (or in a good year -- for the establishment -- several "chosen" or "worthy" candidates) ... because if it is just Romney and Ron Paul, then Romney has to SERIOUSLY debate Ron Paul ... which then becomes The Establishment (by Proxy) vs. Ron Paul ... which can not be allowed to be televised ... because the tension would be SEETHING.

It already is in some of these debates.

Watch Newt from Iowa Debate respond to question about Ron Paul's comments regarding him. He virtually foams at the mouth in vengeful retaliation against the "vile" Paul.

So what crazy shit will send Huntsman to #2 in NH to knock Ron Paul down to a "no so noticeable" third place?

Or are they just going to ride the Santorum BS some more?
Prolly.
?

I actually think Huntsman is decent. But, obviously prefer Paul. Anyway, I think it depends on the network. Fox will just pay attention to everyone but Paul. MSNBC will recognize Paul and move on. CNN will just talk Romney vs/ Obama.

mikepegg44

I think at some point a definition of conservative needs to come out. As i see it, Ron Paul is the only one, but as others see it, the conservative challenger to Romney is Perry, Santorum, or Newt....I don't understand.

I do get sick and tired of people treating the person polling second as if he isn't in the race. The media coverage of the election is abysmal. I have listened to CNN on my sirius radio a lot lately and they couldn't be more obvious with their race to discredit Paul. it is strange. the entire network it seems wants to take him out of the race singlehandly...I don't understand.

I understand not liking him, if you think the best defense is a good offense as NEO-Cons do, he isn't the candidate for you.
To answer your question directly, I have thoroughly enjoyed the recent smear attempt of Paul actually being an operative for Geroge Soros...

cincybearcat

Well, if Jon Hunstman finishes second to Mitt it's not because of any anit-Paul campaign, it's because some republicans have recently removed their heads from their asses.

unsung

When both parties fight you that means you are doing something right. They fear that.

cincybearcat

unsung wrote:

When both parties fight you that means you are doing something right. They fear that.

So Mitt must be doing something right too huh?

I'm kinda tired of all the Ron Paul complainers. Part of his problem is himself. He is terrible at communicating his points far too often. And then, sometimes, you know, people just happen to disagree with his points. You guys make it seem like he's up on the cross.

If he had enough of his own votes he wouldn't have to worry about others getting together to support 1 candidate. What do you think happened in Iowa? Mitt still won.

It would be a much more interesting race if only Mitt, Jon Huntsman, and Ron Paul were involved.

pandora

I was just saying this am

where's Ron?

don't hear much about him in the media, its always the other guys

now Huntsman

VINNY GOOMBA

pandora wrote:

I was just saying this am

where's Ron?

don't hear much about him in the media, its always the other guys

now Huntsman

Haven't you heard? He just doesn't exist anymore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiAaUAyM ... r_embedded

cincybearcat

pandora wrote:

I was just saying this am

where's Ron?

don't hear much about him in the media, its always the other guys

now Huntsman

Huntsman has been 100% focused on NH, it's not a surprise. This race really comes down to 4 people, Mitt, Huntsman, Ron Paul, and whoever the social conservative candidate of the day is.

mikepegg44

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

pandora wrote:

I was just saying this am

where's Ron?

don't hear much about him in the media, its always the other guys

now Huntsman

Haven't you heard? He just doesn't exist anymore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiAaUAyM ... r_embedded

yep, nothing concerted about this effort. HOW, if not on purpose does that happen?

Cincy,

I understand your frustration, but how do things like the 30 second video CBS posted happen? I am not one to lend to conspiracies, but when I listen to a CNN interview with the Paul campaign (Rand Paul) consist of only discussing the 1964 civil rights act rather than the issues of the election not 20 minutes after they threw soft ball "how are you different?" types of questions to the other candidates, it is just frustrating to watch.
I do wish he had a more Bill Clinton like persona in public. If he was a smooth operator with his same principles and message he would be far more "electable"...unfortunately we keep going with "electable" people in this country and it keeps getting us into the same trouble...I just wish the media would actually celebrate a candidate who is offering something different, rather than simply ignoring him.

I think the entire tone of his coverage will change if he makes a 3rd party run. He will all of a sudden be a huge story with constant coverage.


that being said...the country could do a LOT worse than John Hunstman...A lot worse...(looking at you Rick Gingrich and Newt Santorum)

polaris_x

romney is clearly the establishment candidate ... and as thus - he shall win the nomination ...

proof of this is the amount of gaffes he's made without any consequence ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

romney is clearly the establishment candidate ... and as thus - he shall win the nomination ...

proof of this is the amount of gaffes he's made without any consequence ...

That's funny, which "establishment"...because it is exactly the fact that he isn't the "establishment's choice" that he hasn't run away with this yet in my opinion.

He's far more establishment than Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul, though if that is what you are getting at.

VINNY GOOMBA

cincybearcat wrote:

unsung wrote:

When both parties fight you that means you are doing something right. They fear that.

So Mitt must be doing something right too huh?

I'm kinda tired of all the Ron Paul complainers. Part of his problem is himself. He is terrible at communicating his points far too often. And then, sometimes, you know, people just happen to disagree with his points. You guys make it seem like he's up on the cross.

If he had enough of his own votes he wouldn't have to worry about others getting together to support 1 candidate. What do you think happened in Iowa? Mitt still won.

It would be a much more interesting race if only Mitt, Jon Huntsman, and Ron Paul were involved.

Mitt IS doing something right. Mitt has been so pleasant, smiling, and even approving of his rivals when it is most due that he's gotten a rabid Paul supporter like me to actually like him. That said, he'll never get my vote, I don't agree with his policies at all, and remember how much of a smug prick he was back in '08 when the national dialog was a lot different. I do not trust him.

Paul's supporters can be his biggest strength and weakness at the same time. We're passionate people who have grown impatient with the system and the very real bias against him. Yes, he does suffer from a cult of personality to a large degree-- and he'll be the first one to say it's not ME, it's the ideas. It really is the ideas, but he is a very likable spokesperson for those ideas. He really has accomplished a lot and can speak as an expert in many areas from real life experience: a veteran, OBGYN, 12-terms in Congress with the most consistent voting record, and a student of the Austrian School of Economics for over 30 years.

His speaking is not the best. He has a tendency to not simplify what he speaks about and assumes that other people understand things from his background and education, particularly the economy. He also has a tendency to rush when he speaks, after years of being forced to rush, and often times can formulate entire sentences of complete stutter. However, his writings are spot on, and when he's given a comfortable environment to sit down and explain his ideas, he does very well. The last few debates he has done a great job on his feet.

He should finish a strong second in New Hampshire, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Huntsman in 3rd. He seems like a pretty reasonable guy, he just didn't catch on... However, once the latest Santorum craze subsides, maybe it'll be Huntsman's turn?

pandora

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Mitt IS doing something right. Mitt has been so pleasant, smiling, and even approving of his rivals when it is most due that he's gotten a rabid Paul supporter like me to actually like him. That said, he'll never get my vote, I don't agree with his policies at all, and remember how much of a smug prick he was back in '08 when the national dialog was a lot different. I do not trust him.

Paul's supporters can be his biggest strength and weakness at the same time. We're passionate people who have grown impatient with the system and the very real bias against him. Yes, he does suffer from a cult of personality to a large degree-- and he'll be the first one to say it's not ME, it's the ideas. It really is the ideas, but he is a very likable spokesperson for those ideas. He really has accomplished a lot and can speak as an expert in many areas from real life experience: a veteran, OBGYN, 12-terms in Congress with the most consistent voting record, and a student of the Austrian School of Economics for over 30 years.

His speaking is not the best. He has a tendency to not simplify what he speaks about and assumes that other people understand things from his background and education, particularly the economy. He also has a tendency to rush when he speaks, after years of being forced to rush, and often times can formulate entire sentences of complete stutter. However, his writings are spot on, and when he's given a comfortable environment to sit down and explain his ideas, he does very well. The last few debates he has done a great job on his feet.

He should finish a strong second in New Hampshire, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Huntsman in 3rd. He seems like a pretty reasonable guy, he just didn't catch on... However, once the latest Santorum craze subsides, maybe it'll be Huntsman's turn?

thanks for this VINNY GOMMBA

I was wondering if the Republicans do indeed take the White House
is there any chance Ron Paul could get a Cabinet position?
With his record, trustability, likability with the American public
and his abilities and experience what post would do us well?

I'm not throwing in his towel
just wondering about his possibilites to serve in a higher post.

You know much about him I have read and enjoyed.

mikepegg44

pandora wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Mitt IS doing something right. Mitt has been so pleasant, smiling, and even approving of his rivals when it is most due that he's gotten a rabid Paul supporter like me to actually like him. That said, he'll never get my vote, I don't agree with his policies at all, and remember how much of a smug prick he was back in '08 when the national dialog was a lot different. I do not trust him.

Paul's supporters can be his biggest strength and weakness at the same time. We're passionate people who have grown impatient with the system and the very real bias against him. Yes, he does suffer from a cult of personality to a large degree-- and he'll be the first one to say it's not ME, it's the ideas. It really is the ideas, but he is a very likable spokesperson for those ideas. He really has accomplished a lot and can speak as an expert in many areas from real life experience: a veteran, OBGYN, 12-terms in Congress with the most consistent voting record, and a student of the Austrian School of Economics for over 30 years.

His speaking is not the best. He has a tendency to not simplify what he speaks about and assumes that other people understand things from his background and education, particularly the economy. He also has a tendency to rush when he speaks, after years of being forced to rush, and often times can formulate entire sentences of complete stutter. However, his writings are spot on, and when he's given a comfortable environment to sit down and explain his ideas, he does very well. The last few debates he has done a great job on his feet.

He should finish a strong second in New Hampshire, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Huntsman in 3rd. He seems like a pretty reasonable guy, he just didn't catch on... However, once the latest Santorum craze subsides, maybe it'll be Huntsman's turn?

thanks for this VINNY GOMMBA

I was wondering if the Republicans do indeed take the White House
is there any chance Ron Paul could get a Cabinet position?
With his record, trustability, likability with the American public
and his abilities and experience what post would do us well?

I'm not throwing in his towel
just wondering about his possibilites to serve in a higher post.

You know much about him I have read and enjoyed.

I honestly think he has a better chance of getting an offer from the Obama administration

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

That's funny, which "establishment"...because it is exactly the fact that he isn't the "establishment's choice" that he hasn't run away with this yet in my opinion.

He's far more establishment than Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul, though if that is what you are getting at.

the dude has crony written all over him and he's got the most money ... thus my belief he is the establishment's candidate ...

pandora

mikepegg44 wrote:

pandora wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Mitt IS doing something right. Mitt has been so pleasant, smiling, and even approving of his rivals when it is most due that he's gotten a rabid Paul supporter like me to actually like him. That said, he'll never get my vote, I don't agree with his policies at all, and remember how much of a smug prick he was back in '08 when the national dialog was a lot different. I do not trust him.

Paul's supporters can be his biggest strength and weakness at the same time. We're passionate people who have grown impatient with the system and the very real bias against him. Yes, he does suffer from a cult of personality to a large degree-- and he'll be the first one to say it's not ME, it's the ideas. It really is the ideas, but he is a very likable spokesperson for those ideas. He really has accomplished a lot and can speak as an expert in many areas from real life experience: a veteran, OBGYN, 12-terms in Congress with the most consistent voting record, and a student of the Austrian School of Economics for over 30 years.

His speaking is not the best. He has a tendency to not simplify what he speaks about and assumes that other people understand things from his background and education, particularly the economy. He also has a tendency to rush when he speaks, after years of being forced to rush, and often times can formulate entire sentences of complete stutter. However, his writings are spot on, and when he's given a comfortable environment to sit down and explain his ideas, he does very well. The last few debates he has done a great job on his feet.

He should finish a strong second in New Hampshire, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Huntsman in 3rd. He seems like a pretty reasonable guy, he just didn't catch on... However, once the latest Santorum craze subsides, maybe it'll be Huntsman's turn?

thanks for this VINNY GOMMBA

I was wondering if the Republicans do indeed take the White House
is there any chance Ron Paul could get a Cabinet position?
With his record, trustability, likability with the American public
and his abilities and experience what post would do us well?

I'm not throwing in his towel
just wondering about his possibilites to serve in a higher post.

You know much about him I have read and enjoyed.

I honestly think he has a better chance of getting an offer from the Obama administration

oh my ...

DriftingByTheStorm

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

pandora wrote:

I was just saying this am

where's Ron?

don't hear much about him in the media, its always the other guys

now Huntsman

Haven't you heard? He just doesn't exist anymore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiAaUAyM ... r_embedded

Oh. For FUCKS sake.
christ on a stick.

THIS is the interview from right around Iowa Time that really fuckin' flipped me off. It is the most blatant full-on, constant, no-apologies smear effort you could possibly pull leading up to a vote. Actually, it is SO bad the interviewing douche DOES apologize (in a sense) by way of acknowledging just how (mis)"leading" one of the scripted "questions" was, when he starts talking about "isolationist foreign policy" and then clearly makes an unscripted comment, "I know YOU don't characterize your policy that way but..."

... yeah, cuz in honest journalism (har har) you have to back track your initial question with the caveat that you know it's not even valid \ fair.

Oh, and, "I don't mean to keep bringing it up, but going back to your NEWSLETTER, ONE MORE TIME ..."

:roll: :roll: :roll:

polaris_x

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Oh. For FUCKS sake.
christ on a stick.

THIS is the interview from right around Iowa Time that really fuckin' flipped me off. It is the most blatant full-on, constant, no-apologies smear effort you could possibly pull leading up to a vote. Actually, it is SO bad the interviewing douche DOES apologize (in a sense) by way of acknowledging just how (mis)"leading" one of the scripted "questions" was, when he starts talking about "isolationist foreign policy" and then clearly makes an unscripted comment, "I know YOU don't characterize your policy that way but..."

... yeah, cuz in honest journalism (har har) you have to back track your initial question with the caveat that you know it's not even valid \ fair.

Oh, and, "I don't mean to keep bringing it up, but going back to your NEWSLETTER, ONE MORE TIME ..."

:roll: :roll: :roll:

just want to point out how many times obama had to address his birth certificate thing ... this is the media for you ...

g under p

mikepegg44 wrote:

pandora wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Mitt IS doing something right. Mitt has been so pleasant, smiling, and even approving of his rivals when it is most due that he's gotten a rabid Paul supporter like me to actually like him. That said, he'll never get my vote, I don't agree with his policies at all, and remember how much of a smug prick he was back in '08 when the national dialog was a lot different. I do not trust him.

Paul's supporters can be his biggest strength and weakness at the same time. We're passionate people who have grown impatient with the system and the very real bias against him. Yes, he does suffer from a cult of personality to a large degree-- and he'll be the first one to say it's not ME, it's the ideas. It really is the ideas, but he is a very likable spokesperson for those ideas. He really has accomplished a lot and can speak as an expert in many areas from real life experience: a veteran, OBGYN, 12-terms in Congress with the most consistent voting record, and a student of the Austrian School of Economics for over 30 years.

His speaking is not the best. He has a tendency to not simplify what he speaks about and assumes that other people understand things from his background and education, particularly the economy. He also has a tendency to rush when he speaks, after years of being forced to rush, and often times can formulate entire sentences of complete stutter. However, his writings are spot on, and when he's given a comfortable environment to sit down and explain his ideas, he does very well. The last few debates he has done a great job on his feet.

He should finish a strong second in New Hampshire, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Huntsman in 3rd. He seems like a pretty reasonable guy, he just didn't catch on... However, once the latest Santorum craze subsides, maybe it'll be Huntsman's turn?

thanks for this VINNY GOMMBA

I was wondering if the Republicans do indeed take the White House
is there any chance Ron Paul could get a Cabinet position?
With his record, trustability, likability with the American public
and his abilities and experience what post would do us well?

I'm not throwing in his towel
just wondering about his possibilites to serve in a higher post.

You know much about him I have read and enjoyed.

I honestly think he has a better chance of getting an offer from the Obama administration

I would agree with that...RP has been marginalized and pushed aside similar to what happened to Dennis Kucinich....that sucks.

Peace

unsung

They stopped a BS interview yesterday, it was awesome.

She was telling him about an Obama voter that wanted to shake his hand at an event and then vote for him but she wasn't able to get to him (due to the crushing media crowd) and now she won't vote for him. Dr Paul says to her that it's her fault not his, then Jesse Benton ended the interview due to the "garbage question".

I loved seeing them stand up to it.