Will Ron Paul fizzle out?

Post Reply New Topic

^^^

That's two distinct and different types of nut.

The evil wing of the party (Bluebloods like Cheney, Romney, GHW Bush) could manipulate the religious nuts by keeping them distracted with abortion issues, gay marriage etc, but they can't cope with tea party nuts...

They're like mongoloid two-year-olds on crack--hell bent on breaking everything at once.

Latest PPP poll of Iowa: Ron Paul 24%, Romney 20%, Gingrich 13%, Bachmann 11%, Santorum 10%, Rick Perry 10%, Jon Huntsman Jr 4%, Buddy Roemer 2%

Paul has actually gain a point despite full on assault the MSM has been waging against him. Gingrich lost another point as well. Besides that everything is the same.

The smears, they do nothing!

January 3rd marks the end of the relevancy of Old Media.

Ron Paul won't fizzle out, they'll just put polonium in his food and that'll be that.

The other Repugnicans seem to have started taking him seriously

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/us/po ... &emc=tha24

Ron Paul will always have his base, which alone is not strong enough to secure the nomination, or even close enough.

As a pundit, whose name I am blanking, said "Paul has a high floor, but a low ceiling".

Paul's reputation has been left in tact, because his poll numbers were initially low and his opponents did give any attention to him. But now the spotlight is on him, he will have to face up to negative ads against him.

And he will have a hard time convincing the public WHY:

- He wants to cut medicaid, student loans, housing for the poor
- Make the billionaires pay 0% in taxes
- Allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons
- Legalize cocaine and heroin

I just think there's too much salient stuff that the republican party can't and won't agree with Paul on. Foreign policy (uproot and bring it all home), hard drug legalization, etc.. I think Paul is really just emblematic of other ideas cropping up right of center and that the right libertarians want to be heard more. Additionally it gives the other contenders someone to actively reflect their ideas against rather than having the room feel like a near echo chamber.

I'm still pretty certain that it'll be Romney. He seems to be right out in the middle of the field and could likely pick up a lot of independent voters himself simply by not being less of a wingnut than ...say.... Santorum or Bachmann. True, some conservatives have concerns about his views on global warming or his involvement with Romneycare but, compared to another four years of Obama I think most of them could set aside the need for ideological perfection.

As for Paul somehow making the nomination - that would be odd. The bigger problem you'd have as well; when he got in, do you think he'd have any chance of actually implementing what he says that he wants to? I remember Obama talked constantly about closing Guantanamo, ending the Iraq war, and things went almost exactly the same on foreign policy as if GWB was still in office. I have the feeling that Ron Paul would find out exactly why Obama had no luck - rather quickly, and so many of his bold statements and declarations of what he planned to do with the US economy, drug law, or foreign policy would go up in smoke. What would really be left of the man they elected in terms of presidential action's correlation to campaign promises? Probably nothing noteworthy.

dp