Something that has surprised me is the amount of support Ron Paul has on the internet, look at any news article and you will see fervent support, more importantly Paul supporters seem to suffer far less attrition over time which explains his steady but ever-rising levels of support, he has relatively few skeletons in the closet (in theory) and offers what is being seen as a radical ticket as the "only true conservative", goes down well with pundits and the public alike, the outsider, the renegade, the man with integrity and vision fighting the corrupt interests of the MSM and washington lobbyists...

 

Whether the January elections are pivotal, or as some suppose, Ron Paul beating Gingrich in Iowa actually helps Romney I can't help but feel there is something of a grassroots movement that closely resembles (to me) the Obama campaign against Hilldog.

 

The difference in the internet age is HOW supportive of their candidates voters are - when a candidate succeeds in energising even a relatively small number of people they have a viral effect on social media, forums, blogs and news outlets (not to mention real life), love or loathe him BO's supporters did exactly that and it won him the election. 

 

The other thing that he has going for him is that he seems like a nice guy which is why the following attack-ad against Gingrich really surprised me - brilliantly executed and the message is damning, if he develops an electoral brand around a modern-looking, future-savvy identity that is clearly-understood by voters then even Romney's vast campaign budget may not help him. 

 

 

A few weeks ago I'd assumed Paul was way out in the wilderness, since that point the amount of support for him I've seen around, combined with the low-rate of attrition characterised by campaigns that run on simple, well-communicated ideas safe from the prospect of skeletons in closets or questionable voting records.

 

Interesting stuff...

 

R 

 

 

 

 

 

You are taking the republican circus too seriously. Half of the republican voters at least agree with Paul on domestic and economic policy. He is popular even before this year.

 

The problem is that circus is circus. Follow the money, and you'll find what's actually going on.

 

It's already a done deal.

 

I simply cannot embrace Ron Paul.  A lot of Republicans are intrigued by some of Paul's ideas, and Libertarianism itself has a certain allure to a lot of people, but when you allow Ron Paul to talk too long he really shows his colors.  Too many of his ideas are just too "out there" for the mainstream on both ends of the political spectrum, and I think his nomination would virtually guarantee victory for Barack Obama.  All they would have to do is roll video on some of Paul's most controversial statements and his goose would be cooked.  Even if he didn't drive a lot of votes to Obama, a lot of voters would simply stay home and not vote at all, which in this election would be the same as a vote for Obama. 

 

I like a lot of the things Gingrich has to say, but he is a polarizing figure and carries too much personal and political baggage to win the Big One.  That leaves Romney for now.  That man is way too squishy for my taste, but in the end if he gets the nomination a lot of Republicans will once again hold their nose and vote for the Republican nominee and hope that Romney attracts enough moderates to pull off the victory.  

 

 

He is flat out looney-tune one card short of a full deck whacky. He needs a trip to a rest home.

 

Evidence 1.... 

 

Evidence 2.... 

 

Evidence 3.... 

 

I want a smaller government and more personal freedom, but that man is a luddite and a dangerous lunatic.

 

H.

 

 

 

Looked at your two pieces of 'evidence' for Ron Paul being 'crazy.'

 

The first was his opposition to the fence with machineguns approach and the second was some poorly articulated blatherings from a half-wit leftists.  I'm didn't give your evidence a third chance.

 

Frankly, if anyone doesn't like the US Constitution then they ought not vote for Ron Paul.  If anyone is completely opposed to the US Constitution then they ought to offer an alternative Lockean contract.  Ron Paul is consititutionally sound, his opponents aren't.  

 

I disagree with Smithy.  I think Ron Paul can beat Obama - particularly if the key issue becomes the economy which it ought to.  Ron Paul can wipe the floor with Obama at least as equally well as he's been able to do with his Republican challengers.  Other than Ron Paul I feel Romney can possibly beat him but it will be difficult and Newt Gingrich stands absolutely no chance once the mainstream media start publicizing his past.  So ultimately, apart from Obama it's the choice of Ron Paul or Obama lite Romney.  Which frankly, I feel, ought to make the choice an easy one.

There is nothing that will convince you?

 

Evidence 4.... 

 

Evidence 5.... 

 

Evidence 6.... 

 

The man is inflexible and delusional.

 

H.