1. His foreign policy ideas are simply the same recycled bad ideas that Jimmy Carter had. A foreign policy of ”let’s hide our head in the sand like an ostrich and blame big bad America and hope that everyone leaves us alone” is not only ignorant, but also dangerous for our country. And the big winners in last November’s elections were the ones who espoused ”american exceptionalism”, not the ones who espoused ”anti-american apologism”. Now I will admit Ron Paul’s foreign policy message would go over well with the Code Pink/Dennis Kucinich voters, but those type of people tend to be Democrats, not Republicans. One of my facebook friends put it best when he said ”if Ron Paul had been president during World War 2, we would all be speaking German now”.

2. He has no real political power. And this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2008. Yes, he can win any ONLINE presidential poll. So what. In 2007 the paulbots hijacked the same online polls and Ron Paul won them all. His followers then posed articles all over the internet touting his candidacy. He then suckered his gullible followers telling them that the ”polls showed he could win” and send to him money. Then came the 2008 primaries. Out of the 50 states that were availible for Ron Paul to win, guess how many he won? ZERO. And that is spelled Z-E-R-O. Now let’s go to the present day. His internet saavy paulbots are again winning all the online and straw polls for their idol. His followers are again posting articles about him like he actually has a legitimate chance to win. Next is going to come the annual ”moneybomb” when Ron Paul once again fleeces his followers by pointing out that he is ahead in the polls and has a chance to win this time. But their delusional fantasy is going to run into a buzzsaw called Republican primary voters. Paul got absolutely destroyed when he ran in 1988, got whipped by John McCain in 2008, and he will be a three time loser in 2012.

3. There are plenty of people who are ”one issue voters” in politics. And in the Republican party there are plenty of people that ”opposition to islam” is the one issue they feel strongly about. You can go to any anti islam or conservative jewish site and see that the two politicians that are diliked the most are Obama and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has said ”I don’t believe for one minute the religion of islam is our enemy”. And Paul also attacked the Sunshine Patriots for their oppostion to the ground zero mosque. Now i am not going to debate the muslim issue here, but the fact that a decent sized voting group in your own party considers you one of their main foes is certainly not good news for your campaign. Now to be fair, you will get the people who think Israel is oppressing Palestine and the pro muslim agenda voters will be on Paul’s side. The only problem with that is almost all of that crowd are Democrats who support Obama.

4. Let’s look at Ron Paul’s position on crack cocaine and heroin. Now I am totally fine with legalizing pot and prostitution in any state if the voters want it. If somebody wants to get laid or smoke a joint it sure isn’t any of my business. But we are talking about legalizing hard drugs because Ron Paul says that the government is unconstitutionally sticking its nose in peoples business by not allowing it. I say once it becomes legal, who is going to cover the costs of the people that get addicted to it to go to rehab or treatment centers. And please don’t say the addict. Probably the government will have to. Great, now here comes a great big expansion of government to fight the drug war that was ”caused by the tea party candidate”. Which by the way, I as a taxpayer will have to cover. Increased police and court costs etc, etc. But the issue isn’t what I think or Ron Paul thinks, the issue is what does the Republican primary voter think of this policy. The ”religious right” will certainly oppose it full force. And I would think that anyone that has had a family member suffer through the addiction process will be opposed to it. That’s two groups opposed. Of course, Paul will pick up the ”left wing hippie” vote and the anarchists vote. Except the left wing hippies are already card carrying members of the Democratic party. And all the anarchists who want to overthrow big bad America are already his supporters.

5. If he were alive today, Ronald Reagan would strongly oppose him. Reagan believed in spending generously on our national defense and certainly had an interventionist foreign policy. And according to the Ron Paul playbook, that would make the greatest president of my era ”a neocon”. Their policies and beliefs are totally and completely different. Naturally Ron Paul’s followers will attempt to hide that fact by showing you an old video of Ronald Reagan praising Ron Paul as a candidate and using that as proof that Ronald Reagan would support Ron Paul in 2012. Now watch me dismantle that silly argument!!! Does anyone remember Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania? Arlen was the senator that everyone on tea party and conservative sites called a liberal RINO. He was challenged by a tea party backed conservative in the primary named Pat Toomey and when Specter saw how opposed conservatives were to his candidacy he changed parties to Democrat. He voted for TARP, Obama’s socialized health care plan, and was pro affirmative action and amnesty. Yet, Reagan praised him as a true conservative back in the 1980′s and even cut a campaign ad for him. But go ask a Pennsylvania tea partier what they think of Specter today. LOL. If you were a House or Senate member, and of course running as a Republican, Ronald Reagan would praise you as a candidate for office. That’s part of what a sitting president does for members of his party.

But rather than look at a 30 year old video let’s look at Ron Paul has to say about Ronald Reagan. In 1987, Ron Paul wrote a letter to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee, starting that he wanted to totally publically disassociate himself with the policies of Ronald Reagan(funny but he yet to publically disassociate with the 9-11 truther movement or Code Pink). He later told the Dallas Morning News that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was a ”dramatic failure”. OK, let’s take a look at the political success of both politicians and decide if that is true. In 2008 Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary for president. He got 5% of the vote. In other words, 19 OUT OF 20 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL IN THE LAST ELECTION. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected as the president of the United States in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states, and his 525 electoral votes were the the most of any candidate in American history. Hmmm, I think we have to score this one for the Gipper.

6. Illegal Immigration. According to the highly respected anti immigation group NUMBERS USA, Ron Paul has the lowest grade of any Republican presidential candidate out there, coming in with an F. Naturally, his paulbots try to put a spin on this by saying ”welfare and benefit programs should be unconsititutional so illegal immigrants wont come here”. If Ron Paul threw puppies off a tall building his hynoptized followers would be applauding and yelling it was ”constitutional”. That argument wont cut it with the voters. Polls overwhelmingly show that Americans are in favor of closing our borders and against all forms of amnesty. And that really holds true with Republican voters. April has posted articles by former Ron Paul allies like Tom Tancrdeo that blast Paul on the immigration issue. Yet again, Ron Paul thinks like a liberal Democrat, and in fact even has the same ”F” grade that NUMBERS USA gave Obama.

7. Paul’s pork problem. One thing career politicians learn to do is talk conservative while picking the taxpayers pocket for money. And ”Porkulus Paul” has this shady routine down pat. First of all, let’s go back to last November’s elections to get the proper perspective on this issue. The Republicans destroyed the Democrats on November 3 due to the energy and votes of the tea party!!!!! Now the tea party came in and deservedly wanted to flex it muscles. And decided to take a principled stand against the unethical practice of pork(earmarks). The fight against earmarks was led by the Tea Party Patriots(TPP) and other tea party and conservative groups against the pork loving Democrats. In fact, TPP leader Mark Meckler considered this such an important issue that he promised to run a tea party challenger against any Republican that accepted them.

“We’ll do what we always do,” said Meckler. “Our members will put immense pressure on every senator to vote against earmarks. This is a fundamental issue — it’s both substantive and symbolic. Will they vote against the politics of the past or are they still stuck in it? This is a vote that will never go away, like TARP. Tea Partiers have long memories. Politicians have always taken advantage of the fact that voters have short memories, but we’ll know, we’ll remember, and in 2012 when they have aggressive, well-funded primary challengers, they’ll know why.”

Then it came out that a Republican asked for 150 MILLION DOLLARS IN PORK FOR HIS DISTRICT!!! Surely this was a RINO. Maybe Olympia Snowe or Scott Brown? No, it was actually Ron Paul.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.

Ron Paul is to the far left of the tea party on just about every major issue. Actually he looks just like a liberal Democrat to me.

http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2011/06/21/why-ron-paul-has-zero-chance-to-win-the-republican-presidential-primary/



150 Million eh Ron? Wow.

"His followers then posed articles all over the internet touting his candidacy."

that look familiar this go round also.........

I love it when the haters reveal their ignorance like this.
1) RP's foreign policies are strictly Constitutional and rational. He opposes UNDECLARED war and occupation, not pacifism.

2) RP routinely ranks as a top tier candidate in offline polls as well.
Polls Show Ron Paul Rising In Iowa, Nationally As Gingrich Swoons http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/19/143963906/polls-show-ron-paul-rising-in-iowa-as-gingrich-swoons
3)Ron Paul's position is the correct, constitutional one. Even Netenyahu agrees with Ron on his Isreal position.
4)Ron Proposes leaving that issue to the States, per the Constitution. The Drug war is an even bigger failure than Prohibition was.
5) Ron and Reagan were friends. They had their differences but respected each other. Reagan endorsed RP during his congressional run. see this-(the endorsement comes just after the 7 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgF-s1voM_Y&feature=player_embedded#!
6) Ron Paul's position on this issue is that of the Constitutional conservative. He prefers to leave this issue to the states. Militarizing the borders is irrational-it grows the State's power at the expense of liberty.
7) RP again did his Constitutional duty-getting money for his district. If congress would do the moral thing and eliminate the thoroughly unconstitutional income tax (as RP desires), there wouldn't be the need for constituents badgering congressmen for a bigger piece of the pie. Further, earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to the real waste of money in the government. Simply look at the GAO reports to verify this for yourself. Further yet, Ron does not listen to lobbyists-which is why they long ago stopped wasting time coming to his office.

Come on, Lp...you can do better than this misinformation.

You expect too much of him HB.... information requires a space for storage!

It's because we as Americans want real change, something we won't get with the other "cookie cutter" republicans or democrats. Obama promised it, but after four years, his administration has done nothing to spark any except raise the debt exponentially.

RP 2012!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6fxDS3dBwo

This sums it up...........

Where you are concerned....it sure does! Shows you will fall for and believe ANYTHING that suits your purpose!

The “Racist” Newsletter Gambit, Revisited: The Smearbund Escalates its Assault on Ron Paul
Posted on 23 December 2011 by William Grigg


Man of Peace: Ron Paul on the Campaign Trail


Brandishing a handful of inconsequential quotes from ancient newsletters, the opinion cartel is pretending that Ron Paul is a covert racist who secretly pines for a “race war” in the United States. In a week that witnessed the death of North Korea’s mass-murdering dictator, and the first tentative but unmistakable steps toward war in Iran, Huge amounts of bandwidth, broadcast time, and column inches have been devoted to affected outrage over the idea that Ron Paul once permitted “insensitive” things to be published in a newsletter bearing his name.

The coordinated assault on Dr. Paul began with Fox “News” media personality Sean Hannity, whose unabashed whorishness would bring down the moral tone of a Tijuana brothel. For several days following Dr. Paul’s emergence as front-runner in the Iowa caucus polls, Hannity – no doubt working from notes written in small words with big, crayon-inscribed letters – tirelessly flogged the supposedly scandalous Ron Paul newsletters on his radio program and TV show.

From there this reheated pseudo-scandal – a casserole of stale, leftover smears from the 2008 campaign – was taken up by the entire corporate media establishment, from the neo-Trotskyite Weekly Standard and the CIA-controlled National Review and CNN.

In apportioning moral outrage, the collectivist left employs a sliding scale. The late Ted Kennedy killed an innocent girl through depraved indifference and lived a life of impenitent debauchery, and yet was hailed as a moral titan because of his devotion to official plunder and regimentation. The same devotion to the holy cause of State-sanctified theft purchased Robert Byrd a plenary indulgence for his membership in the Ku Klux Klan as a young adult – a background he shared with more than a few Democratic Party luminaries.

President Obama is presently slaughtering innocent “people of color” in at least three countries. His administration continues to imprison young black and Hispanic men for drug “offenses.” This is done by way of a “Justice” system riddled with racial profiling and sentencing guidelines that result in wildly disproportionate sentences for black offenders – a system that has been denounced, in detail, by Dr. Paul, who has called for an end to the insane and terminally corrupt exercise called the “War on Drugs.”

Newsweek-affiliated blogger Andrew Sullivan, a self-described conservative who supported Obama in 2008, has been grudgingly impressed by Dr. Paul’s ethical and ideological consistency. Referring to the contrived controversy over the supposedly racist newsletters, Sullivan writes: “[A]sk yourself: you’ve now heard this guy countless times; he’s been in three presidential campaigns; he’s not exactly known for self-editing. And nothing like this [the purportedly shocking quotes from the newsletters] has ever crossed his lips in public. You have to make a call on character. Compared with the rest on offer, compared with the money-grubbing lobbyist, Gingrich, or the say-anything Romney, or that hate-anyone Bachmann, I’ve made my call.”

Nelson Linder, president of the Austin, Texas chapter of the NAACP, has known Dr. Paul for decades. Speaking for himself on the basis of that long and close association, Linder emphatically denies that the mild and avuncular Congressman is a racist or bigot of any kind, and commends him for his repeated denunciation of police repression of black people.

Linder points out that Dr. Paul has made powerful enemies by his public opposition to the Federal Reserve System and its allied War Lobby.

“If you scare the folks that have the money, they’re going to attack you and they’re going to take [your statements] out of context,” Linder points out “What he’s saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that’s what they fear.”

While the collectivist Left is assailing Paul as a secret “racist,” the proto-Fascist Right continues to execrate him as an “appeaser.” Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who has endorsed pre-emptive war on Iran and publicly expressed support for a bizarre Islamo-Communist cult called the MEK – a terrorist group that seeks to seize power in Tehran – recently told a group of schoolchildren that Dr. Paul would permit them to be killed by non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons.

Political consultant and notorious foot fetishist Dick Morris, who made a lucrative living as an adviser to Bill Clinton and then a fortune condemning him on Fox News, insisted on Sean Hannity’s radio show that “no true patriot could be for Ron Paul.” Dorothy Rabbinowitz of the Wall Street Journal , offended by Dr. Paul’s campaign to end Washington’s deranged interventionist foreign policy, traduced the candidate as “the best-known of our homegrown propagandists for our chief enemies in the world.” That description wouldn’t be recognizable to the countless military personnel – both active-duty and veterans – who have donated to Dr. Paul’s presidential campaign. Ron Paul is the uncontested front-runner among military donors in the 2012 presidential election cycle.

“As of the last reporting date, at the end of September, Paul leads all candidates by far in donations from service members,” observed Tim Egan of the New York Times. “This trend has been in place since 2008, when Paul ran for president with a similar stance: calling nonsense at hawk squawk from both parties. This year, Paul has 10 times the individual donations – totaling $113,739 – from the military as does Mitt Romney. And he has a hundred times more than Newt Gingrich, who sat out the Vietnam War with college deferments and now promises he would strike foes at the slightest provocation.”

Bellicose blatherskites like Gingrich and Romney are indecently eager to propagate war and bloodshed. However, those “who actually fought in Iraq know better,” Egan observes.
“They can tell a phony warrior from a real one. And in Ron Paul, the veteran who served as a flight surgeon for the Air Force, the man some call crazy, they hear a voice of sanity – at least in the realm of war and peace.”

For decades, as a private citizen, activist, and elected representative, Ron Paul has espoused and lived by a philosophy of individual liberty protected by law. No public figure in recent memory has more consistently preached and practiced the non-aggression axiom – more properly called the Golden Rule – than Dr. Paul. In political terms, this means the categorical rejection of aggressive violence, including state-licensed coercion.

His fidelity to principle has entailed a considerable degree of personal sacrifice: As a private obstetrician, long before he was dragged reluctantly into politics, Paul refused to accept government subsidies through Medicare or Medicaid. He also refused to have anything to do with abortion – thereby displaying the same unqualified respect for the sanctity of human life that led him to become an outspoken opponent of war, and a proponent of abolishing the death penalty.

During the past two decades, those deemed to be “respectable” have supported more than a half-dozen foreign wars – two in Iraq, as well as one in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya, in addition to low-grade but bloody proxy conflicts in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Columbia, and Mexico – that have slaughtered millions of people. In 1996, at roughly the same time that Ron Paul’s supposedly intolerable newsletters were in circulation, Madeleine Albright, the Clinton administration’s UN representative, blithely said on 60 Minutes that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children through starvation and disease as a result of a U.S.-imposed embargo was “worth it.” Those words resonated in the Muslim world – and their deadly echoes were heard on the morning of 9-11.

Ron Paul, a guileless and principled man, has seen his reputation come under pitiless assault because he has adamantly refused to endorse genocide in Iraq, or aggressive war anywhere. According to the canons of collectivist piety, bombs and drones may break our bones, but only politically incorrect words can hurt us.

Nope, but try again.

Taken from Business Wire from a CNN poll.... funny, CNN was perpetuating the smear campaigne on the newsletter issue....

December 21, 2011 03:53 PM Eastern Time
Ron Paul Polls Strong v Obama in Relation to Paul’s Competitors
Survey shows Dr. Paul popular among broad, conventional voting base

LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul polls strong against incumbent President Barack Obama in a general election matchup, according to a new CNN / ORC poll has Ron Paul.

Poll highlights include Paul besting Obama 47 to 46 percent among those 65 years and older, said to be the most reliable voters. Paul also beats Obama among whites 51 to 46 percent, persons who reside in rural areas 52 to 44 percent, and independents by 48 to 47 percent.

When compared to other Republican presidential hopefuls in a general election matchup against Obama, Paul does best among the following population segments: males; persons ages 18 to 34; persons under 50 years of age; persons earning less than $50k per year; persons who have attended college; crossover Democrats; self-identified liberals; self-described moderates; residents of the Northeast and Midwest geographic regions; and those residing in urban areas. Noteworthy as well is that Paul fares better than all of his GOP competitors against Obama among non-whites – garnering a solid 25 percent, or one in four non-white adults.

“This poll further debunks the establishment-created myth about Ron Paul's electability and shows an expanding base of support,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “Americans of all stripes are tired of the status quo Washington insider games, and are looking for someone who represents real change. Congressman Paul is that candidate.”

ORC International surveyed 1,015 adult Americans via telephone from December 16th to the 18th. The margin of error for this total sample is +/- 3.0 percentage points. Total sample includes 928 registered voters, with the margin of error for this group also +/- 3.0 percentage points. Error margins for micro-targeting can range much higher.

Anyone would beat Obama in Texas.......

Hmmm...... Didn't realize Texas had absorbed the 50 states....interesting

LAKE JACKSON, Texas

Online polls are not accurate since the candidates have their supporters flock to the websites to vote for them and push the polls. I get emails all the time from EVERY Republican candidate "Please take a minute to go to this website and vote for me in this poll".

He maybe a top tier candidate in Iowa but Iowa counts for NOTHING being if it did, Reagan wouldn't become President and Huckabee would have gotten the nomination.

Do you actually believe the drivel you spout? AMAZING!

CNN is a world news publication.....Texas