[Ron] PAUL’S AD PUSH

msnbc ^ | Oct 27 07 | Domenico Montanaro

[freedomdefender]

On the heels of a St. Anselm College poll showing Ron Paul in fourth place with 7 percent in New Hampshire, the candidate is starting to spend some of those millions he’s raised with radio ads and an upcoming TV ad. But Paul is also stepping up efforts in direct mail. The campaign put together a 12-page biographical pamphlet being mailed out in New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire Presidential Watch blog reports, “The mailing comes at the same time that Ron Paul will spend $1 million on five New Hampshire television commercials.”

Paul has also spent $430,000 on a new radio ad, which will run in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada. The 60-second ad, an appeal to New Hampshire independents, mentions Paul’s name 11 times and focuses on conservative principles of spending, foreign policy and taxes and mentions “flip-flopping” Republicans and Bill Clinton.

[Admin Moderator]

Knock it off and lose that tagline too!

[mkjessup]

Have a nice day.

[LIBERTARIAN JOE]

Hang in there.

You're one of the good guys.

[jmc813]

This would appear to be accurate. I am not aware of any bills filed by Ron Paul with the intention of banning abortions that made it out of the House and sent to the Senate, and the fact that abortions are still freely available on demand would seem to validate that.The federal government has no role whatsoever when it comes to abortion. It's a state decision!!! It's scary how clueless you people are on the Constitution.

[jmc813]

Uhhh, you’re a pro-Giuliani n00b. Shut up.

[jmc813]

Ron Paul the next Ross Perot ?????? Hillary’s only chance to win is by splitting the vote.

If Rudy's the nominee and Paul runs third party, I'll happily vote for Paul and laugh my a$$ off at certain anti-Paul freepers whose cognitive dissonance will make them twist like pretzels.

[mvpel]

Third party run fur shore!

I have met him on a number of occasions, and I don't believe that he is a liar as you're implying here.

[mkjessup]

The federal government has no role whatsoever when it comes to abortion. It's a state decision!!! It's scary how clueless you people are on the Constitution.

It ceased being a state decision in the wake of Roe v Wade, or did you perhaps sleep through 1973?

[mkjessup]

If Rudy's the nominee and Paul runs third party, I'll happily vote for Paul and laugh my a$$ off at certain anti-Paul freepers whose cognitive dissonance will make them twist like pretzels.

It's folks like you who voted for Perot and gave us eight years of Clinton.

You has met the enemy, and he is you.

[svcw]

7% and 4th place....even that is funny

raising 12 million dollars in the next quarter...thats funny

[freedomdefender]

raising 12 million dollars in the next quarter...thats funny

raising $5 million in the last quarter - whether you think that's funny or not, Ron Paul did it, and that's more than most of the GOP candidates raised!

[freedomdefender]

in Ron Paul's world the Iraqi people would still be fed into industrial shredding machines

You're not calling for a US invasion of China. Does that make you responsible for continued Chinese persecution of christians and political dissenters? No. By the same token, Paul wasn't for the invasion of Iraq - and that doesn't make him responsible for Saddam's persecutions. We can't invade every country that has a bad ruler, or 1) you'll have to hand over 100 percent of your paycheck to the government, to pay the bill; 2) we'll have to draft everybody over age 21, because there are dozens of countries around the globe that we'll have to invade.

[mkjessup]

A simpleton's excuse is what you're offering, and that doesn't surprise me a bit. Nobody is calling for a U.S. invasion of Communist China because quite frankly, Beijing has a few billion more people than did Saddam, and I never said that Ron Paul was responsible for Saddam's behavior, as usual you're twisting things around: what I SAID was that in Ron Paul's world, the Iraqi people would still be fed into industrial shredding machines and that is an absolute truism because he DID oppose the liberation of Iraq, just as he opposes any U.S. action against Iran.

And nobody I know is calling for "invading every country that has a bad ruler", that's a straw man argument and you bloody well know it.

The fact is, Saddam was in violation of the terms of his surrender to coalition forces after Gulf War I, he was in violation of countless U.N. resolutions requiring him to give up and account for ALL weapons of mass destruction and their accompanying programs, and he all but dared the international community to take him out, and it was up to the United States to do just that, and the Iraqi people will be better for it.

It is an impossibility for a nation of approximately 300 million people to invade "every country that has a bad ruler", but you knew that.

But Saddam needed to be taken out like the garbage he was, and the civilized world is silently breathing a sigh of relief.

Except for Ron Paul, who indeed isn't responsible for Saddam's crimes, and nobody suggested he was.

The fact is, unless the liberation of Iraq had been absolutely totally scripted according to Ron Paul's definition of what is a "Constitutional War", he (in my opinion) wouldn't have given a good g*d@mn about the Iraqi people as long as America could hide between our two oceans like we used to do way back in his 'good old days' that he aspires to.

Back to you Sparky.

[BlackElk]

My reaction and its force were meant as a reaction to what I perceive as an error in your interpretation of Paul's abortion position; i.e. the distinction between his probable pro-life thoughts and his effectively pro-abort neutrality as to actual action or non-action. He simply claims that he can do nothing beyond an end to Roe vs. Wade. No offense to you was meant. I apologizeif it seemed otherwise.

As to requesting to be pinged when I have not been, I do that with everyone friend or foe or in between when I (even erroneously) imagine myself as having been mentioned or even referenced in a post.

[rideharddiefast]

I am glad you know who I am supporting because I still do not know who it is yet. I can and will support whoever is the Republican nominee is except for two candidates. I could not support McCain because I do not think he is mentally stable enough. I also could not support a blame America first terrorist appeaser who would rather surrender to the terrorists than win the WOT like cut and run Paul.

As far as Rudy Giuliani goes I would have no problem supporting him. He has a record that shows he is willing to cut taxes and shown he will fight to win the WOT. As far as abortion goes the president will never have any say on this issue. It will have to be settled in the courts, and Rudy has already said what type of judges he will nominate if elected.

Our national security is my major concern in choising a president. All the Republican candidates have shown they are pro-America except cut and run. I could never support someone who is more concerned with appeasing terrorists than defeating them.

[jmc813]

It's folks like you who voted for Perot and gave us eight years of Clinton.

Whatever. Have fun voting for your gun-grabbing baby killer. You'd better hope Thompson is the nominee or I'll be spending election night getting wasted and taunting you people.

[Grunthor]

No problemo.....but I would like to know, beyond judges what exactly a POTUS could do to affect Roe.

[BlackElk]

EEE: Your last post to me???? Is that a promise or a threat? Hopefully, the former. Got along without you before I met you and I'll.....

Meanwhile you can continue to claim that paleoPaulie's absolute REFUSAL to do anything meaningful about ENDING the abortion holocaust beyond, maybe, appointing judges to end Roe vs. Wade and, if the babies are lucky, maybe the states will decide to protect them, maybe, but after all the fedconstitution (in the curious and eccentric view of the simultaneously waffling Dr. Demento who somehow imagines Congress and POTUS as utterly impotentto do anything more effective when also taking care to issue loads of politicoyak about how pro-life he is and filing bill after bill which suggest that the fedgov has such power.

I spent a lot of time getting all but 30 of 1100 arrested pro-lifers who actually SAVED lives through Rescues off the legal hook and not a one of them got arrested playing Hamlet which is what Dr. Demento does.

I do not concede to Dr. Demento or his websites or his love slaves the right to exclusivity in defining his legacy and I won't so long as he insists on being the two-faced fraud and phony that he is. Delivering babies as an OB-GYN is an occupation and not a political or moral effort.

As to Julie Annie and your prior support for it, that is as relevant as Mitt Romney's record or John Kerry's. You brought up Julie Annie in attacking MaggieM. I did not. I simply filled in the rest of the story so she would understand the context of the source of the attack on her. I'll do that every time.

I would also remind you that if you mention me, courtesy suggests that you ping me. You have failed to do that several times lately even when directly attacking me.

Finally, I tried to access SOME of what you suggested and got back that it was not available on this server. Not that I am interested in further indulging your fantasies about Dr. Demento nor that I want to encourage you to post more nonsense in favor of his doomed fantasy candidacy.