Posted on 12/20/2011 6:23:02 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
Precisely. Paul is hardly an ideal candidate, but he's just the man to shake things up.
I happened to be there when Newt was in office, and I worked for the Reagan campaign, when Newt was very much a part of the “outsider” camp.
Save you stereotypical labels for someone else, because you won't “educate” me one bit about something I lived through as well as, played a strong role in making happen.
Ron Paul is a true sign that what we have is not working. People want real, effective strong change. They do not want a Demoplican or a Republicrat.
Libertarian political and economic policies are very attractive to many who want to work on the US and who see that past policies have had their day.
You might tone your rhetoric down a bit n00b. There are several Troll hunting groups on this forum that eat Trolls for lunch, and you are headed that way rather fast.
In Madison’s Notes of the Federal Convention, it surprised me how often our Constitution’s architects expressed their concern about establishing a system where the voting masses were allowed to have too much power, due to the ignorance of most, and their ability to be easily swayed by the agenda of those desiring power.
The “Factions”, which ultimately became the Parties, and for most of our history merely two Parties, was also a grave concern to some Founders. The whole election process was seen as a weak link by some.
And then, of course, there were the Anti-Federalists . . . . . They lost.
True. Normally, the Establishment's dismissal of him as a fringe crank would stick, but that doesn't work when the Establishment is thoroughly discredited.
Correct.
Yeah we all know that being an “outsider” is how you get to be Speaker of the House. If you really were there then maybe you can’t see the problem because you have become part of it.
Let us just wait and see if you can make Newt happen, bigshot.
“BTW, when was the last time any non-incumbent, Republican who won Iowa, got the nomination?”
GWB - 2000
before that Dole in 1996.
The media always plays their enemy (us)against each other.
This cycle started with Palin, then went to Bachmann, Then Perry, then Cain, now Gingrich is in the crosshairs.
Those that fall for it cheer them on unless it is their candidate, then it is unfair.
As long as we play by their rules, we should not be surprised at the results.
“Paul poses an existential threat to the state’s cherished kick-off status”
That kick-off status should also be on the table. The kick off should rotate to different regions of the nation. This process with Iowa and New Hampshire is designed to give momentum to leftist establishment GOP candidates, by using voting open to both parties.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815463/posts
Notice post #5 while you are at it, arrogant Troll.
The Paul Spam monkies are swarming Iowa, in hopes that this will get him started in all the other states where Paul is regarded as a Cult Kook. Iowa is easy for them manipulate due to it’s lax rules.
You need to relax a bit there psycho. I read your “arrogant” remarks regarding Rick Perry on another thread where you questioned his intellect. You are started to come off a lot like Karl “Tokyo” Rove. You spout an interesting line, but essentially your full of crap.
Coming from you, I will take that as a compliment.
Jealous Trolls like you, always have trouble with the truth.
Then tell me, was Newt your first choice in this race? For many I think that he is just the default candidate because none of the others have even a remote chance of winning. I know Paul won’t win the nomination, I preferred Cain, and I could never support Romney. For now Rick Perry is my candidate until someone better, maybe Paul Ryan, jumps into the race. But if you want Newt to win the nomination I think you will be disappointed. He fails the trust issue, deserved or not, and that is the biggest problem the voters have with government today.
Always trying to educate people aren’t you? It’s like you are the smartest fool in the room or something.
It’s you who don’t know squat about the candidates, and yet you are informing me of all this wisdom you claim to have about absolutely nothing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815463/posts
It appears you could use a little education, however, I am just expressing my opinion. To educate you on the subject would require a book. So did you support Newt before December 2, or are you just kissing ass?
I have a different take. Romney is outspending everyone, what, 35 to 1, I heard, and he still can't win Iowa? He'll probably go on to win NH, but if he doesn't make a strong showing there, he's still going to look bad. Then it's on to SC and Florida. If Romney can't buy Iowa, he for darn sure can't buy SC and Florida. And Paul sure won't.
Fair point on Romney. He has trouble cracking 30 no matter how much he spends for good reason. He probably wins NH and has trouble in SC and FL under just about any circumstance for the very reason you give.
That said, I think a Paul win in Iowa is the one thing that will freak out enough people to get them to hold their noses and vote Romney out of shear panic. In that sense, a Paul win in Iowa would be better for Romney than if Romney won Iowa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.