View Full Version : Ron Paul on the Michael Smerconish Show
Taco John
07-26-2007, 01:52 AM
Just a little something for the growing number of Ron Paul fans in here to enjoy. :)
A great interview!
Part 1:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2u0Ti8WBY8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>
Part2:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xxPuwwmkACg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>
BroncoBuff
07-26-2007, 03:16 AM
I heard that in a recent period (maybe quarter) that Ron Paul was the #2 money-raising Republican - behind only Mitt Romney? I do know the FoxNews viewers poll ranked him #1 after the debate in the Reagan Library.
Why don't the polls reflect these points?
I'll say what I said before: These jerks in charge now use the word "Republican" very loosely. Goldwater/Nixon/Reagan would be aghast at their wild, treasury-busting spending spree these last 4 years. Ol' "Rubber Stamp George" bears little if any resemblance to the Goldwater/Reagan conservative GOP paradigm. But Ron Paul does ... he's a worthy successor (at least policy-wise) to the Goldwater/Reagan legacy.
These crooks in charge now are some bizarre cronyistic/Neo-Christian amalgam of unqualified buddies in posts they have no business being in.
Harriett Miers = Supreme Court?! ROFL!
Alberto Gonzalez = Attorney General?! :~ohyah!:
Karen Hughes = Middle East Envoy?! Ha! she was laughably incompetent in that job! ROFL!
Dick "Paranoid Dick" Cheney = Fourth Branch of Government?! Hilarious!
Karl Rove = Domestic Policy Adviser?! LOL Since when are dirty tricks considered "policy"?
I'm thinking of moving to Canada now ... these last 18 months cannot go fast enough.
Taco John
07-26-2007, 03:39 AM
I heard that in a recent period (maybe quarter) that Ron Paul was the #2 money-raising Republican - behind only Mitt Romney? I do know the FoxNews viewers poll ranked him #1 after the debate in the Reagan Library.
Why don't the polls reflect these points?
Because it's still way too early in the process, and not enough voters know who he is. The only people who know who he is right now are the hard core politicos who follow the stuff like it's a religion. The good news for Paul fans is that he's raising money and is very effective at managing it. And better yet, the trend is that the more people learn about Ron Paul, the more they like him. In fact, Vegas odds have recently taken a substantial leap recently. He was once at 200:1 odds. He's since jumped to 15:1. That's a pretty huge jump, and there's only one reason for Vegas to do such a thing: they don't want to lose money.
Because it's still way too early in the process, and not enough voters know who he is. The only people who know who he is right now are the hard core politicos who follow the stuff like it's a religion. The good news for Paul fans is that he's raising money and is very effective at managing it. <b> And better yet, the trend is that the more people learn about Ron Paul, the more they like him. </b> In fact, Vegas odds have recently taken a substantial leap recently. He was once at 200:1 odds. He's since jumped to 15:1. That's a pretty huge jump, and there's only one reason for Vegas to do such a thing: they don't want to lose money.
That's a good point.
it's going to be fun to watch this.
I'm going to the East Coast in a week and I am going to look into campaigning for Dr. Paul. I got some time and I think it would be fun. just think of all the interesting people I will meet.
Bronco Bob
07-26-2007, 10:33 PM
I heard that in a recent period (maybe quarter) that Ron Paul was the #2 money-raising Republican - behind only Mitt Romney? I do know the FoxNews viewers poll ranked him #1 after the debate in the Reagan Library.
Why don't the polls reflect these points?
I'll say what I said before: These jerks in charge now use the word "Republican" very loosely. Goldwater/Nixon/Reagan would be aghast at their wild, treasury-busting spending spree these last 4 years. Ol' "Rubber Stamp George" bears little if any resemblance to the Goldwater/Reagan conservative GOP paradigm.
Robert Novak aka “The Prince of Darkness” said the other day that Bush tries
to pass himself off as a Texas conservative, but that Bush is really just
another Connecticut liberal.
epicSocialism4tw
07-27-2007, 03:03 AM
the trend is that the more people learn about Ron Paul, the more they like him.
For me its been more of a situation to where the more I have heard from Paul, the less I have been able to take any of the other candidates on either side of the isle serious. That's a good thing for Paul. He might actually be able to set the tone for political debate in the public forum, and that would be a significant achievement even if he doesnt win a nomination or the presidency.
Really, this could be the election where communication finally trumped propaganda. Paul's momentum has come from the internet. Earlier this summer, the immigration bill was defeated in large part because two forms of new user-interactive communication media (internet and radio) were able to play a role in uniting the constituency for a cause. Its becoming very difficult for politicians to hide behind vague propagandistic statements because of the level of scrutiny that they will face in the public forum.
alkemical
07-27-2007, 09:36 AM
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html
Pollster Justifies Why it is OK to Exclude Ron Paul from Texas Poll
Florida_Bronco
07-27-2007, 11:30 AM
Because it's still way too early in the process, and not enough voters know who he is. The only people who know who he is right now are the hard core politicos who follow the stuff like it's a religion. The good news for Paul fans is that he's raising money and is very effective at managing it. And better yet, the trend is that the more people learn about Ron Paul, the more they like him. In fact, Vegas odds have recently taken a substantial leap recently. He was once at 200:1 odds. He's since jumped to 15:1. That's a pretty huge jump, and there's only one reason for Vegas to do such a thing: they don't want to lose money.
I know it's a bold statement, but I really think Ron Paul will be our next president. In all my 21 years, I can't remember anyone that was getting such support from both political parties. I agree with you that the more people hear about Paul, the more they like him.
Taco John
07-27-2007, 11:41 AM
It's very bold... What we're seeing happening with Ron Paul is a New Media candidate taking on old media candidates. We've been told who the "acceptable" candidates are already, and Ron Paul doesn't fit the mold. But his position will him him viable all the way up to the Republican nomination. I personally don't think he'll get it, regardless of how well he polls. He answers to no one but the American people, and that's not how the partys are currently set up.
I think that September will roll around, and what we're going to see is a system where there are already three parties running for president: the Democrats, Republicans, and Bloomberg's unity party. I think Ron Paul will be convinced to run as an independant, or that enough people like me will write him in regardless of whether he gets the nomination or not. And if this scenario pans out and there are four parties vying for votes, this is anybody's election. The country is up for grabs...
...But that's not accounting for wild cards.
Wildcard#1 - Iran. This administration seems hell bent on attacking Iran. It's hard to say how such and event would play in presidential politics.
Wildcard#2 - Terrorism. A successful strike in America resets the clock to September 2001. I have to believe that Giuliani is the big winner if we get hit again.
Robert Novak aka “The Prince of Darkness” said the other day that Bush tries
to pass himself off as a Texas conservative, but that Bush is really just
another Connecticut liberal.
It does depend on what issue with Bush is terms of being a conservative:
He is NOT conservative on the boarder -- he doesnt even hold an American position on that one.
Ne is NOT a conservative on government spending
Those are two huge issues for most ideological conservatives.
I know it's a bold statement, but I really think Ron Paul will be our next president. In all my 21 years, I can't remember anyone that was getting such support from both political parties. I agree with you that the more people hear about Paul, the more they like him.
How does that compute with poll numbers that are barely on the radar? I sincerely dont have an ax to grind with the guy, and you may be right that he is gaining momentum, but going from one to two percent of the popular vote is not going to cut it.
I see what your saying Bob and I hope all those who do prefer what Paul has to say don't do the same thing that I hear every election time. "Well I would vote for him but he has no chance". WTH is that?
I see what your saying Bob and I hope all those who do prefer what Paul has to say don't do the same thing that I hear every election time. "Well I would vote for him but he has no chance". WTH is that?
QFT
Good! Point of the year so far.
We need to show our collective desire as American voters that we demand a viable third party by voting for the person we think is the best for the job or do you think it is more important to cast your vote for the Twiddle Dum that you hate the least for you prez.
<b>I have learned one thing from George Bush, I used to think it did not really matter who the president was.</b>
.
.
..
..
Ya know if the Bush fiasco causes people to realize that it does matter who there leaders are and they get involved in the process then his presidency would almost be worth it.
Yea, I never understand the "you wasted your vote" mentality. Or again, "he/she can't win so why bother". Well of course your not going to see who you would really like to see in there or make any kind of change if your whole philosophy is the lesser of two evils.
Atlas
07-27-2007, 03:54 PM
Here is Ron Paul on politcally incorrect.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FCL1Oh92ZTs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FCL1Oh92ZTs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Atlas
07-27-2007, 03:56 PM
whoops my bad that was Ingrid Coronado
Here is Ron Paul on Politically incorrect.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WUYDt7kC3Z0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WUYDt7kC3Z0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
alkemical
07-27-2007, 04:14 PM
Yea, I never understand the "you wasted your vote" mentality. Or again, "he/she can't win so why bother". Well of course your not going to see who you would really like to see in there or make any kind of change if your whole philosophy is the lesser of two evils.
The waste your vote mentality is influenced from the two party system. Of course NOT voting for them is wasting your vote (from their view point). It's one of the social engineering principles they operate from to keep power.
The waste your vote mentality is influenced from the two party system. Of course NOT voting for them is wasting your vote (from their view point). It's one of the social engineering principles they operate from to keep power.
Yes sir, I'm well aware. The FEDERAL Government (dems&rep) don't want competition. Why allow choices? We already have the people corralled and brainwashed. They'll be happy with the choices we give them.
BTW....That's our own damn fault.
The waste your vote mentality is influenced from the two party system. Of course NOT voting for them is wasting your vote (from their view point). It's one of the social engineering principles they operate from to keep power.
Just to play Devil's advocate: How many left-leaning folks are there, (knowing what they know now) who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 feel like they wasted their vote? In that instance -- if Nader did not run as the third party guy (who legitimately took votes mostly from the Dems) Gore would have won. So thinking about it …those that did not vote for Gore because they didn’t think he was far left enough, or was a sell out to big business (or whatever) ended up electing Bush by their choice – who even represents fewer of the far left’s views – so it seems like they screwed themselves that year.
I like the idea of a third party, I really do, but the person running for that third party I hope will be someone who will take equally from both parties, rather than just one. Selfishly because I don’t want a re-do of 2000 in reverse, but also because if the 3rd party choice steals from both parties ALL people will feel more free to vote their conscience.
Ron Paul might be the type of person who would take votes away equally from both established parties.
I wonder how many more politicians are out there that could make that claim. Maybe Ron Paul -- Maybe Jessie "The Body" Ventura?
RkyMtnThunder
07-27-2007, 06:19 PM
Just to play Devil's advocate: How many left-leaning folks are there, (knowing what they know now) who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 feel like they wasted their vote? In that instance -- if Nader did not run as the third party guy (who legitimately took votes mostly from the Dems) Gore would have won. So thinking about it …those that did not vote for Gore because they didn’t think he was far left enough, or was a sell out to big business (or whatever) ended up electing Bush by their choice – who even represents fewer of the far left’s views – so it seems like they screwed themselves that year.
I like the idea of a third party, I really do, but the person running for that third party I hope will be someone who will take equally from both parties, rather than just one. Selfishly because I don’t want a re-do of 2000 in reverse, but also because if the 3rd party choice steals from both parties ALL people will feel more free to vote their conscience.
Ron Paul might be the type of person who would take votes away equally from both established parties.
I wonder how many more politicians are out there that could make that claim. Maybe Ron Paul -- Maybe Jessie "The Body" Ventura?
I laughed when I 1st heard he got involved with politics - but after hearing him on a few programs my opinion changed 100%. I would love to see him throw his hat in the ring, but I dont think he ever will.
I do agree that Paul seems to appeal to many people regardless of party affiliation and that he very well may 'steal' votes from both sides in fairly equal amounts if he were to run independent. But I also heard that if he doesnt secure the Republican nomination that he wouldnt run independent.
Atlas
07-27-2007, 06:24 PM
Just to play Devil's advocate: How many left-leaning folks are there, (knowing what they know now) who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 feel like they wasted their vote? In that instance -- if Nader did not run as the third party guy (who legitimately took votes mostly from the Dems) Gore would have won. So thinking about it …those that did not vote for Gore because they didn’t think he was far left enough, or was a sell out to big business (or whatever) ended up electing Bush by their choice – who even represents fewer of the far left’s views – so it seems like they screwed themselves that year.
I remember in the begining Nader said that he wasn't going to run in swing states and sure enough later that year he was running a campaign in Florida, what a ****ing a-hole, god I hate that mother****er with a ****ing passion! Is he dead yet?
Taco John
07-27-2007, 06:42 PM
But I also heard that if he doesnt secure the Republican nomination that he wouldnt run independent.
That's what he's saying now, but I personally think he's going to be in the running all the way up to the Republican Convention, where an establishment candidate will get the nod. At that point, there is still an ocean of votes up for grabs without a candidate to represent them. I think Ron will have to see it through at that point and run as an independant, ESPECIALLY if Michael Bloomberg has his hat in the ring and is gaining support.
I really think this election is going to be unlike any we've seen in our lifetimes.
RkyMtnThunder
07-27-2007, 06:48 PM
That's what he's saying now, but I personally think he's going to be in the running all the way up to the Republican Convention, where an establishment candidate will get the nod. At that point, there is still an ocean of votes up for grabs without a candidate to represent them. I think Ron will have to see it through at that point and run as an independant, ESPECIALLY if Michael Bloomberg has his hat in the ring and is gaining support.
I really think this election is going to be unlike any we've seen in our lifetimes.
You mean an honest one - where all the candidates truly and sincerely have American public's best interest at heart, and we the people are not left to vote for a lesser of two evils?
Man I hope you are right!
Bronco_Beerslug
07-27-2007, 06:51 PM
That's what he's saying now, but I personally think he's going to be in the running all the way up to the Republican Convention, where an establishment candidate will get the nod. At that point, there is still an ocean of votes up for grabs without a candidate to represent them. I think Ron will have to see it through at that point and run as an independant, ESPECIALLY if Michael Bloomberg has his hat in the ring and is gaining support.
I really think this election is going to be unlike any we've seen in our lifetimes.
The only possible way for Paul to get elected is get the Republican nomination and that is far fetched at this point.
If he runs as an Independent the Democratic nominee will win in a landslide
I remember in the begining Nader said that he wasn't going to run in swing states and she enough later that year he was running a campaign in Florida, what a ****ing a-hole, god I hate that mother****er with a ****ing passion! Is he dead yet?
So Atlas tell us how you really feel. :welcome:
So, thus my point is further strengthened: that who ever runs on a third party ticket should be a Ron Paul/ Jessie Ventura type, because folks wont feel burned if they vote for the guy really want and they dont get elected, or folks like Atlas who may have not have voted for Ralph, but are pissed off at him because he threw the vote for Bush. If we can get a few years of increasing numbers of votes for a third option eventually, we might get surprised.
I know someone who lives in Minn and she was involved behind the scenes in some of the politics of the election that led to Jessie Ventura getting elected -- and she was saying that all of the polls were saying that he did not have a prayer -- when a ton of younger voters went out to vote, The People threw the "experts" and the establishment to the curb.
That would be a nice feeling wouldnt it?
Taco John
07-27-2007, 07:08 PM
The only possible way for Paul to get elected is get the Republican nomination and that is far fetched at this point.
If he runs as an Independent the Democratic nominee will win in a landslide
I wholeheartedly disagree. Bloomberg and his money, should he decide to get involved, is going to level the playing field and there are going to be 4 viable candidates running.
This much I know: If Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, there WILL be a third candidate running. There aren't a lot of conservative christians who are excited about voting for someone who is on record for publically funded abortions. Ron Paul can fill that space nicely. Enter Bloomberg to split the Democrat vote, and it's anybody's game...
Bronco_Beerslug
07-27-2007, 08:08 PM
I wholeheartedly disagree. Bloomberg and his money, should he decide to get involved, is going to level the playing field and there are going to be 4 viable candidates running.
This much I know: If Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, there WILL be a third candidate running. There aren't a lot of conservative christians who are excited about voting for someone who is on record for publically funded abortions. Ron Paul can fill that space nicely. Enter Bloomberg to split the Democrat vote, and it's anybody's game...Bloomberg wouldn't split the Democratic vote and Independents won't vote for another Republican this time.
Arkie
07-27-2007, 08:19 PM
I really think this election is going to be unlike any we've seen in our lifetimes.
That may be true. It's happened a few times in this country. Only two parties can survive in the long term though. Look at the history of our country or anybody else that's tried democracy. Passion and emotions take over throughout the generations, and it eventually becomes a contest to vote for the party who will most likely beat the guys you hate the most.
Bronco_Beerslug
07-27-2007, 08:26 PM
That may be true. It's happened a few times in this country. Only two parties can survive in the long term though. Look at the history of our country or anybody else that's tried democracy. Passion and emotions take over throughout the generations, and it eventually becomes a contest to vote for the party who will most likely beat the guys you hate the most.That is exactly it for the majority of Americans and for the many more it's who big money thinks is going to win.
One other thing I love about Ron Paul is when he is being interviewed he never has to hesitate with his answer because he speaks his honest position, he never has to pause to formulate his answer into political speak.
Hogan11
07-28-2007, 01:24 AM
The Libertarian Party needs to back Paul regardless....it's the best shot they've ever had at getting their message across to mainstream America.
alkemical
07-30-2007, 09:41 AM
Just to play Devil's advocate: How many left-leaning folks are there, (knowing what they know now) who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 feel like they wasted their vote? In that instance -- if Nader did not run as the third party guy (who legitimately took votes mostly from the Dems) Gore would have won. So thinking about it …those that did not vote for Gore because they didn’t think he was far left enough, or was a sell out to big business (or whatever) ended up electing Bush by their choice – who even represents fewer of the far left’s views – so it seems like they screwed themselves that year.
I like the idea of a third party, I really do, but the person running for that third party I hope will be someone who will take equally from both parties, rather than just one. Selfishly because I don’t want a re-do of 2000 in reverse, but also because if the 3rd party choice steals from both parties ALL people will feel more free to vote their conscience.
Ron Paul might be the type of person who would take votes away equally from both established parties.
I wonder how many more politicians are out there that could make that claim. Maybe Ron Paul -- Maybe Jessie "The Body" Ventura?
Just a different POV. Heh, most times i feel like i waste my vote no matter whom i vote for.