He's actually won more than 2 states by taking the majority of delegates in 8 or more, and stands to do the same in several others as well.

Why?

Because Robme just flies in, passes out free sandwiches (a felony!!!!), then is gone after the vote.....never to be seen or heard from again!

Robme, or Obozo, have ANY support from the grassroots populace, only banker backing and expensive fundraising affairs!

Robme gets crowds of maybe 100 people, Obozo a few more, while RP draws crowds of THOUSANDS!

Robme and Obozo's campaigns pass out grassroots signs to people who will stand behind them for the cameras.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnjzX9FthO4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GkR4dIHKKE&feature=player_embedded


Ron Pauls supporters carry homemade signs in the hundreds to EVERY event, so much so it is difficult for the grassroots media (since the MSM refuses to cover RP, simply ignoring him....until now) to get good footage from the obstruction caused by them.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/may/8/media-just-wont-let-ron-paul/

TAMPA, May 8, 2012 – It’s official. Ron Paul has won two states. He’s probably going to win more.

In response, most media outlets have chosen to ramp up their passive-aggressive attacks on Paul’s campaign.

Ever since he announced that he would seek the Republican nomination for president back in 2007, Ron Paul has been covered like no other major party candidate in U.S. history.

Let’s review:

During his previous campaign for the 2008 Republican nomination, the media largely pretended he wasn’t running at all. When he was covered, virtually every article or segment described him as a “gadfly” and his campaign as “quixotic.” Even before the first debate was held, we were assured at least twice in every news piece that Paul “had little chance of winning the nomination.”

At the start of this election cycle, the gadfly’s quixotic campaign was covered in much the same manner. Admittedly, the insinuations that Paul’s views were “fringe” or “crazy” had diminished. It’s hard to call someone crazy after all of his economic predictions come true and all of the predictions of his opponents prove wrong.

Nevertheless, the media covering the 2012 nomination race initially pretended that Paul didn’t exist, prompting Jon Stewart’s now classic lampoon. After Paul’s virtual tie in the Ames, Iowa straw poll, we were told that the new “top tier” Republican candidates were Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman.

Remember them? Perry dropped out after failing to recover from forgetting the names of the federal departments he proposed to eliminate in a debate. Among Bachman’s finest moments was the New Hampshire speech in which she asserted that the American Revolutionary War broke out at Lexington and Concord in…New Hampshire.

Once the media could no longer ignore Ron Paul, we were once again assured that he had no chance to win the Republican nomination. When it appeared that he might win the Iowa caucuses, we were told that a Paul win would be meaningless. When he finished a close third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, the media acknowledged that his performance was surprising but maintained that he still couldn’t win.

He was in better shape than Bill Clinton was at that point in 1992. Why didn’t Clinton get the same treatment?

The media again began ignoring Ron Paul’s campaign after Super Tuesday, despite his predictions of eventual victories in several of the caucus states. After his predictions started proving accurate, the media immediately began suggesting that there was something sneaky or undemocratic about his strategy, even though it is perfectly legitimate.

Now that Paul has won the majority of delegates from Maine and Nevada to the Republican National Convention (RNC) and his predictions for similar results in Missouri, Washington, Iowa, and other states suddenly sound very credible, the media have a new disclaimer to add to the list.

Not only must any mention of Paul contain the usual negatives, but the deliberately republican (small “r”) delegate selection process is suddenly “arcane.”

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, arcane means:

“known or knowable only to the initiate : secret <arcane rites>; broadly: mysterious, obscure <arcane explanations”

The rites of initiation during the ancient mysteries at Eleusis were arcane. The activities of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are arcane. The secret handshake known to members of Fred Flintstone’s Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes Lodge No. 26 is arcane.

The delegate selection process for the Maine Republican Party is not arcane. It is published on the party’s website in sixth grade English and is available to everyone. However, since Ron Paul has had success within that process, it now seems that disparaging implications must be made about it, in addition to him.

With all of the disclaimers that the media attach to coverage of Paul, it’s starting to take several minutes just to get to the actual “news” in the article.

“Libertarian gadfly Ron Paul, who continues his quixotic campaign for the Republican nomination despite not having won a single state (even though he’s won two and counting), and who cannot, never could and never will be able to win the nomination, who has many supporters who believe in fringe conspiracy theories but have nevertheless ‘hijacked’ the Republican state conventions in several states by ‘exploiting’ arcane rules governing the delegate selection process, but who still has only secured 80 delegates to the RNC despite the fact that we just told you that number is grossly understated because the people reporting it don’t know about the arcane rules, today announced…”

What other major party candidate in U.S. history has been covered this way?

Regardless of whether they agree with Ron Paul on the issues, even the minimally curious have to wonder why the media appear to be trying so hard, especially concerning someone they repeatedly assert has no chance. Whether Republican, Democrat, independent or disinterested, they should be asking the same question that I asked last week.

What about Ron Paul are the media so afraid of?

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

because Rob Pablo is a wacko nutcase? Just sayin..

Your opinion, and tho I disagree whole heartedly, you are welcome to it, and I respect the fact that you don't "preach" it, but only state your opinion. Respect, for which I offer respect in return.

I dont know, I think that is very strong language that when a person uses that really for anyone they need to back it up or be seen as a schmuck. Just sayin . . .

I can't speak for the media but to me he seems to be the GOP answer to Dennis Kusinich. Just me.

I got curious and looked up Ron Paul. If he becomes President he can't directly affect me but the policies he enacts can and most probably will have an effect onmy own nation.

All in all ........ not too bad. Would I be convinced to vote for him if I could ....... Sorry but no. There are policies that I cannot and will not agree with.

His policies from http://www.ronpaul2012.com


Energy

* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington
................

So then endangering human life, natural habitats and damaging ecological balance is all good in the name of big bucks?

What happens when the damage caused affects other nations?


Abortion

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
..................

He would prefer a return to back-ally clothes hangers? Repealing Roe vs Wade would turn back the clock on the right of a woman to decide what happens to her own body.

The "Defining life as beginning at conception" part ... just seems to me that he is bringing personal religious belief into it. If it can survive out of the womb at conception .... then sure it deserves to live. That's why "The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]"







2nd Amendment

* Introducing legislation to repeal the “Brady Bill” and the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban.”
....................

Make it easier for fruitcakes to obtain and bring weapons to schools / workplace that can be used to take more lives in a shorter time frame?

Even I don't agree with everything, but the options are MUCH worse!

For one you know the president can't just make laws right? Secondly he is making abortion a state decision not a federal one. I don't think the fed should have anything to do with it anyway. Just to say a few things.

He can't enact or pass anything alone........this is not a dictatorship....yet. But we'll see how the election turns out.