Obama takes Iowa

Richard Masters said:
FOX News hardly ever discusses Ron Paul's campaign, whereas Rudy, McCain, and Thompson get free undeserved airtime (and positive coverage, too). As such, Ron Paul's campaign has room to grow, or potential; plus, they are polling equally despite uneven coverage.
Click to expand...

RP has been a lot more in the public eye, all over the internet, and even on liberal talk radio, and he still couldn't beat Fred Thompsoin, one of the most lack-luster, zombie-like wastes of a ballot slot to ever run for president, and could only beat a the least likeable, most mobbed-up, smarmiest posturing monkey of the lot by putting in hundreds of times more money and effort.

Your optimism is a bit baffling.
 
leftysergeant said:
RP has been a lot more in the public eye, all over the internet, and even on liberal talk radio, and he still couldn't beat Fred Thompsoin, one of the most lack-luster, zombie-like wastes of a ballot slot to ever run for president, and could only beat a the least likeable, most mobbed-up, smarmiest posturing monkey of the lot by putting in hundreds of times more money and effort.

Your optimism is a bit baffling.
Click to expand...
I was listening to NPR the other day (sorry, no transcripts, I'm lazy) and the reporter seemed to indicate that actually Guiliani has spent tons of money in Iowa and New Hampshire, he just didn't campaign much in either place personally. The only article I could find in a brief spasm of productivity seems to correspond with that idea, although it's no longer particularly current.

I'm still waiting for Fred Thompson to incorporate the Law & Order transition sound effect into his TV spots. Then I would totally vote for him.
 
leftysergeant said:
RP has been a lot more in the public eye, all over the internet, and even on liberal talk radio, and he still couldn't beat Fred Thompsoin, one of the most lack-luster, zombie-like wastes of a ballot slot to ever run for president, and could only beat a the least likeable, most mobbed-up, smarmiest posturing monkey of the lot by putting in hundreds of times more money and effort.

Your optimism is a bit baffling.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Daredelvis, but it keeps coming up.

A LOT of people who don't hang out on the internet have still never heard of Ron Paul. Thompson is that man from the TV.

I'm pretty sure your contention that Paul put in hundreds of times more money and effort than Giuliani in Iowa is an example of extreme hyperbole.
 
I tell you what, I might actually be able to stomach Ron Paul if he didn't allow himself to be associated with the likes of Alex Jones and the 9/11 truth movement.

As for Obama, excellent!!!

As a Canadian who follows American Politics, he is DEFINITELY the change in direction the USA needs...IMO.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I tell you what, I might actually be able to stomach Ron Paul if he didn't allow himself to be associated with the likes of Alex Jones and the 9/11 truth movement.

As for Obama, excellent!!!

As a Canadian who follows American Politics, he is DEFINITELY the change in direction the USA needs...IMO.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I've been judged based on who I've 'allowed' to be associated with me so maybe I'm just more sympathetic.

I hope the Obama train keeps on chugging, too. I don't trust Clinton to do the things I agree with her on, but I do trust her to accomplish the things that I don't. Obama seems more trustworthy, but maybe I was sucked in by his book about his father.
 
Last edited:
Richard Masters said:
In blind studies, Ron Paul beats all Republicans.
Click to expand...
I've done one of those, which asked me what I thought of the issues, and it told me that Ron Paul was my favorite Republican.

The trouble is, it didn't ask me about any of the very special issues that Dr Paul has that make him so endearingly unique.

This, I feel, is a methodological flaw.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I've done one of those, which asked me what I thought of the issues, and it told me that Ron Paul was my favorite Republican.

The trouble is, it didn't ask me about any of the very special issues that Dr Paul has that make him so endearingly unique.

This, I feel, is a methodological flaw.
Click to expand...
And here I thought you were going to say something about blind tests and Ron Paul's delightfully Grape-y flavor.
 
Richard Masters said:
Ron Paul only campaigned in a few counties. He didn't invest much in Iowa.

Besides, I'm content with Hillary and Giuliani doing badly. Obama has been my second choice for a while.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul did not do any television advertising in Iowa which is strange since he is sitting on a pile of money. Thompson came in third with little campaigning, but he did run televisions ads. I wonder where Thompson got the money to run these ads, perhaps from some Neocon deep pockets at American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Paul could have came in third if he ran televisions ads.
 
Ron Paul has been on every left-wing talk show he can get to, apparently sharing the dellusions of his twoofer followers that he has something to offer to liberals. I know he has been face-to-face with Ed Schultz, and I believe with Thom Hartmann.

It isn't working.

I do see him touted on TV (even as little as I watch the boob tube.) He is not that obscure. He is better-known thasn the people around him give him credit for.

We know him, we just don't think he has what america needs.

Fact is, most of think America needs NOT to have what he has to offer.
 
latent aaaack said:
I have so many questions for people who support Obama. Generally the Paul people are transparently crazy and the Nixon/Bush&Cheney/next people are transparently politically viking-like.

But what makes you want to support someone who has "rock star charisma" or have that influence your opinion of his leadership ability in a democracy?

In what specific actual way does he 'represent change' excluding the fact that he presents himself as a nice man who says he will change the tone of politics and be a uniter (Bush did it in 2000).
Click to expand...

Obama gave a great speech last night but he said nothing. Both Obama’s and Hillary’s speeches say nothing. Some guilt-ridden Whites like Obama simply because he is Black. There is nothing more to it than that.
 
I wouldn't put too much stock in Iowa. It's a strange system, there is no secret ballot. I think most people really don't want everyone to know who they voted for, and these people certainly didn't vote in Iowa. Or they did but just went along with the popular crowd.

New Hampshire is also suspect as a harbinger of things to come, Super Tuesday will be the big one.
 
MaGZ said:
Obama gave a great speech last night but he said nothing. Both Obama’s and Hillary’s speeches say nothing. Some guilt-ridden Whites like Obama simply because he is Black. There is nothing more to it than that.
Click to expand...

What would you count as "something"? Policy issues? It was a victory speech.
 
ZenFountain said:
He lost by 24 points, that's how I view election results. Additionally I cannot begin to count the number of times RP supporters said the polls meant nothing because his unseen supporters would sweep IA and NH. I concede that 10% was more than I though Paul would receive though, in fact I remember saying there was no way he would hit double digits. I was wrong but Paul's campaign is still effectively over, leaving his most ardent supporters with the choice of either not voting or voting 3rd party in the general election.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul’s campaign is fully funded to February 5, Super Tuesday. McCain and Huckabee’s campaigns can’t claim this.
 
Richard Masters said:
Ron Paul hardly gets the coverage that Giuliani gets on the news, and yet Ron Paul crushed Giuliani. Whenever Ron Paul is on TV he is smeared (except very recently). Nobody in the media ever discusses his policies in depth; instead they criticize his policies at the surface and dismiss them as 'kooky'.

The fact that McCain and Thompson are still in the race is good for Ron Paul, because the pro-war vote will be divided. And the longer Ron Paul stays in the race, the more his numbers will improve as a result of exposure.

So, I disagree that Ron Paul's campaign is over. It already survived (if not benefited from) exclusion in previous debates, and the coming exclusion by FOX News is high profile and more unjust than the last exclusion.

FOX News hardly ever discusses Ron Paul's campaign, whereas Rudy, McCain, and Thompson get free undeserved airtime (and positive coverage, too). As such, Ron Paul's campaign has room to grow, or potential; plus, they are polling equally despite uneven coverage.

In blind studies, Ron Paul beats all Republicans.

I don't expect Ron Paul to win, but his campaign is better off today than it was yesterday.
Click to expand...

Fox News is the establishment Republican Party network. Their favorites are (in order) Rudy, McCain, Romney, Thompson.
 
leftysergeant said:
RP has been a lot more in the public eye, all over the internet, and even on liberal talk radio, and he still couldn't beat Fred Thompsoin, one of the most lack-luster, zombie-like wastes of a ballot slot to ever run for president, and could only beat a the least likeable, most mobbed-up, smarmiest posturing monkey of the lot by putting in hundreds of times more money and effort.

Your optimism is a bit baffling.
Click to expand...

Most people I know don't know anything about any candidates except about Rudy from 9/11, and Fred Thompson because he's in Law and Order.

If you are not voting on the issues (and a lot of people aren't, because they have no clue what they are) then you go with name recognition. Most FOX News viewers still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

This is why advertising agencies spend money on name recognition.

What baffles me is that you continue to make arguments based on your hatred for Ron Paul, and not on facts or reason. For example, you still haven't explained why I am wrong to be optimistic, even though I explained exactly why I am optimistic.

Based on this, I think your intent is to provoke me, not to objectively address Ron Paul's campaign.
 
Last edited:
Obama's speech was inspiring both in its presentation, and in its vision. It did not have a lot of "meat" to it, but since when does a victory speech have to.

Your racist comment, that white people like him out of guilt is not only in poor taste, but at least in my case, is completely untrue.

TAM:)
 
Hokulele said:
My response was completely invisible?

And can someone please translate that first sentence for me? Thanks.
Click to expand...

What I meant was your's and Tsusaka's response contained more rational reasons for supporting Obama and didn't mention the common beliefs about him that I challenged. The common beliefs are that it's good to vote for politicians with rock star charisma who get crowds pumped up and that Obama 'represents change' even if their campaign is light on policy.

And I was referring to how Obama's campaign and many other supporters answer questions about his lack of experience. The common answer I've heard is that experience 'in Washington' isn't necessarily a good thing now because there are a lot of experienced people in Washington that have created our problems, and that Obama will shake up and change Washington politics because he's an outsider to it and has ambitions to change it's tone and behavior anyway.' Their response is, by the way, word for word, almost exactly what Bush said in 2000.

In that way Obama supporters are just as wacky as Ron Paul or republican candidates. But only people who don't have such weird beliefs have answered so far - d'oh.

edit: Your response left it unclear - are you aware that Obama and his campaign have directly flatteringly compared him to Lincoln several times? For me the dangerous mixture of audacity, idiocy, and balls it takes to do that especially in response, of all things, to the fact that he's new, unknown, and inexperienced makes him for now an untenable candidate all by itself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom