Pure political hyperbole.

If Ron Paul is energizing the under-30 base, is that why you're boasting about him raising a measly $2.4 million as opposed to the $32 million Barack Obama raised in the last three months?

While 20,000 YouTube subscribers may impress you lederuvdapac, Paul splitting 4 percent of the vote with the other GOP bottom feeders doesn't impress me.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is now supported by 3% of voters nationally while six other candidates split 4% of the vote (Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congressman Duncan Hunter, former Governors Tommy Thompson and former Governor Jim Gilmore). Twenty-one percent (21%) of likely Republican Primary Voters are undecided at this time. Governor Gilmore dropped out of the race during the past week of polling and will not be included in the survey from this point forward. link



I know that it's popular to bash the media for not giving equal time to fringe candidates and their supporters will cry, "The mainstream media wants to suppress the truth and act like our candidate isn't as popular as we know he is." Nobody at the Washington Post or CNN is holding clandestine meetings over how to keep Ron Paul out of the news. When you're bumping along in single digits in all the polls, you've already pretty much made yourself irrelevant.

Though I am disappointed that like all of the other Republicans (except Tom Tancredo) Paul declined to speak to the NAACP at their convention and apparently hasn't responded to a similar request by the more moderate National Urban League.

They received their invitations back in November, before some had even announced their intention to seek the presidency.

But with less than two weeks to go, not one of the 10 Republican presidential candidates has accepted the opportunity to take the stage at the National Urban League's annual conference.

The top three Republican candidates — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — already have said they aren't coming, citing scheduling conflicts or declining the invitations outright.

The Urban League is a nonpartisan civil rights organization based in New York that advocates on behalf of African-Americans. It does not endorse candidates and is viewed as a more moderate alternative for Republicans courting black voters than the NAACP, another national civil rights organization, which is traditionally seen as more liberal.

"I think (GOP candidates') decisions to not show up are gigantic mistakes," said Michael Fauntroy, author of "Republicans and the Black Vote." "The organization is less likely to be hostile to a Republican candidate."

Fauntroy sees the Urban League forum as a prime opportunity for Republicans to court African-American votes in a pivotal electoral state. The development appears to be a sign that GOP candidates may not make a serious attempt to engage African-American voters, he added.

"This is also their signal that they have no belief that they are going to win any amount of black votes," said Fauntroy, an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University. link2

It would appear when it comes to campaigning to win Black support, Ron Paul is just like all the other GOP presidential contenders; not interested.

Obama has quite a war machine that has picked up as of late. He has a lot of media attention and he is endorsed by celebrities. But it is still early in the race.



I assume that you have not watched the debates or the post-debate talk because when each news source held a poll on who won the debates, Paul comes in 1st or 2nd every time. But if you watch the post-debate talk, there is no mention of this. In my eyes, that is fairly blatant.



Didn't the Democrats decline an invitation to a debate hosted by the CBC? Do Democrats only care about winning Black support on CNN?

Oh, I agree. Actually Ron Paul's presence is the only thing that makes the GOP debates watchable. The other guys are either so programmed or trying to get their talking points out that they don't say anything of interest. Rep. Paul speaks his mind and even though I disagree with many of his positions, I think he's a breath of fresh air in these otherwise overly scripted and controlled debates. I think it's very telling that he's the most well-spoken of the Republicans.

But he'll never get the party's nomination. Being candid and outspoken doesn't necessarily translate into cash and votes.



You're partially right. The top tier of Democrats want no part of the Congressional Black Caucus debate being co-hosted by Fox News.

On one hand I agree with Clinton, Obama and Edwards that they don't get a fair shake from Rupert Murdoch's mouthpiece, but on the other, I think they should "cowboy up" and go into a less-than-friendly environment to make their case.

Neither which explains or excuses the way the Republicans (including your man) are totally blowing off the Black vote.

Oh sure. Hi Democrats, I'm an ex-Libertarian, ex-Republican Congressman from Texas who favors the elimination of almost all social programs, the IRS, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and am arguably the biggest free-trade advocate in Congress...Vote Ron Paul, Democrat for President.
Ron Paul would fit in with Democrats just as poorly as Republicans.

That's the thing about espousing a classical liberal, Constitution-based ideology, you don't fit in anywhere in American politics.

Ron Paul isn't interested in "black support"...Nor is he interested in "latino support"...Nor is he interested in "white support". He's interested in...support.

Ron, like most libertarians, isn't in the business of dividing people into groups. Libertarians are individualists, Ron Paul wants support from as many individuals as possible.

CP

Uh-huh. I suppose that's as good as any explanation why Ron, like most Republicans, is blowing off potential Black voters. Guess they aren't "individualistic" enough to bother with, huh?

Since Paul is still tracking in the single digits in all the polls it's safe to say it must be "individuals" who are supporting his bid. One...two...three individualists. How's that "support" working out for all you rugged individualists?

Ron Paul. Soon to be just another quixotic example of the divine art of tilting at windmills in presidential campaign history.

Since Ron Paul has thrown his hat in the Presidential ring, he's been accused of doing and being a lot of things...But I have to say, "tilting at the windmills" is the single most absurd thing to date. There has been no one in the United States Congress more principled than Paul...No one. No one. A short peek at his voting record reveals as much.

Moving on from there:
That isn't what I said, so, no. My point is simply that when you speak of the "black vote" you are dividing people and subsequently grouping them by race, which is a form of collectivist thought. Libertarians such as myself and Dr. Paul reject that line of thinking. Ron Paul is attempting to get his message of limited government and Constitutional rule of law to the masses, not to white people, or black people, or hispanic people...Just people. So, he didn't speak to the Urban League...Gasp! Ron Paul isn't looking to pander for the sake of looking good to people who believe that speaking to the Urban League constitutes a grapevine to all black people. Paul is looking to voice his views to the American people. There is no reason to divide them into groups based on race, all Americans should hear his message.


This is a complete non-sequitur. Ron Paul is not doing well in the polls, in fact he's doing terribly in the polls...And? His ideology of maximum liberty and Constitutional government are not resonating with the American people; this is quite obvious. I'm simply pointing out that the very fact that his aforementioned ideology is not resonating with Americans [of all colors] is an accurate reflection of just how far gone our country is. None of that, however, has any connection to any alleged "blowing off" of black voters.

I really would like to believe that John Q. Black American isn't personally offended by Paul's decision not to speak to the Urban League...It would truly be sad if he was.

CP

There's a vast difference between being principled and being impractical. Or doesn't the fact that Paul had to run as a Republican-in-name-only speak volumes about how well he understands that? If he's more of a Libertarian than a Republican, why not just unmask like Michael Bloomberg did and own up to the patently obvious fact that he ran as a Republican not because he believes in their principles but it was the practical way to get elected.

Additionally, it's very easy to take "principled" stands in the House of Representatives when you're a caucus of one.



And how exactly do you expect all Americans to hear his message? By opening up an account on YouTube? I'm not buying this jive about "collectivist thought" and "pandering." If you're a candidate you go where the votes are. PERIOD. Paul isn't going to get elected dogcatcher, let alone POTUS by speaking only to those already receptive and inclined to vote for him! Preaching to the choir where lederuvdapac and ConservPat already know all the lyrics to the hymns is all well and good for you like-minded souls, but it doesn't do diddley to broaden Paul's appeal.

And quiet as its kept---the NAACP and The Urban League DO constitute a "grapevine" to a lot of Black people. Those Black people are politically aware and astute and a lot of them are open to someone else showing them some interest for their votes besides the Democrats. But let the GOP (which I guess nominally includes Paul) keep up with their high-handed and arrogant disdain. All that will get them is the same thing it's always gotten them: No juice and single-digit Black support. Which kind of goes along well with Ron Paul's polling numbers.



Paul's position in the polls with non-entities like Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Duncan Hunter is not an indication of "how far gone our country is." It's an strong indication that what he's selling nobody is buying. It's just the marketplace talking loud and clear. The Libertarian message sells--but only to other Libertarians. Even an outright Socialist like Bernie Sanders can ride that horse all the way to the U.S. Senate. How far will being a "Republictarian" take Paul?

Paul can remain pure and refuse to "pander" and all that's gonna get him is a warm seat in the back rows of the House of Representatives as just another insignificant Congresscritter from Texas. Big hairy deal.

Finally, there's nothing "alleged" about Paul "blowing off" Black voters. Do the math. Rebuffed invitations to speak to both of the most prominent civil rights groups in this country. Not a word on Ron Paul's website about racial relations, schools, urban
redevelopment, ethnic diversity, Darfur or rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by Paul's apparent indifference if this statement attributed to him is correct:

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action." link

Does "sensible political opinions" mean you agree with Ron Paul? Well, that would explain a lot...

The federal government isn't the place where the black vote should be focusing their efforts. It's the state and local governments that are far more damaging to the prosperity of African-Americans than anything a President could do. Besides the black vote is a paradox wrapped within a conundrum. If you cater to it, you risk alienating the other 85% of the population. And if you try to be all-inclusive you appear to be indifferent to the issues that are important to the black community. The black community needs to focus their effort on the Sell-outs and Uncle Tom's that they elect as their police chief, aldermen, and school board members rather than the President of the United States.

Ron Paul is the people's choice. When talking about Republicans, there is Giuliani, socially unpopular, John McCain, who is on campaign life support, Mitt Romney, religiously skeptical and a serial panderer, Fred Thompson, the second coming of Jesus Christ and Ronald Reagan, except that he's not even a candidate yet, and then Ron Paul who has been virtually ignored by the major networks because he is wildly popular with the insignificant majority. He is a serious threat to the elitist power structure.

So the smart move is to cater exclusively to 85% of the vote that isn't Black? Sounds to me like a strategy worthy of David Duke to pander to White paranoia and fear.

Uh-huh. Black folks shouldn't waste time trying to exert any influence upon who becomes the next President of the United States. Keep the focus on local politicians on the grass roots level. Got it. Next time all the Black folks get together at our secret meetings I'll make sure that's added to the agenda.

Which people? White people? It sure doesn't appear like you think there's much reason for Black people to get excited about Ron Paul.



If you're part of "the insignificant majority" how are you "a serious threat to the elitist power structure?" Does that make any sense at all?

Really Nighttimer? Paul is unprincipled because he's running as a Republican...Really? Ron Paul is not running as a Libertarian for the same reason Bernie Saunders and Dennis Kucinich aren't running as Socialists...They would stand no chance based on their affiliation only. At least now, Paul stands no chance based on his views.

This makes no sense at all. It's easy to take principled stances if you're the only one doing so? Nighttimer, feel free not to like Ron Paul, but do give him some credit. Calling Ron Paul unprincipled the eqivilant of calling Bill Clinton dull and uncharismatic simply because one doesn't like him.

I don't. I don't expect Americans to hear his message because the media largely ignores his views and because frankly, our fellow Americans are too lazy to learn more about him or libertarianism on their own.

Again, Ron Paul has been called a lot of things...But arrogant is among the most ridiculous. Whether or not you "buy" my collectivist v. individualist "jive", Nighttimer is completely irrelevant; in either case what I'm saying is exactlyt the case. Paul isn't interested in pandering to groupthinkers in an attempt to gain their votes; doing so would constitute bending to the campaign windmills. As for the Urban League and NAACP being a grapevine. If that is true than that is disheartening. Speaking to a group of people proves nothing...Anyone can do it. Ron Paul hasn't spoken to any national multi-racial association either...Yet somehow, I think I'll get over that fact and continue to support him. This goes back to the point I was making earlier; are you an individual or a member of a group [race]. Are you a guy or a "black guy" or "white guy" or "hispanic guy" who sees the pandering to your group as some kind of goodwill gesture. Personally, I could not possibly care less who Ron Paul speaks to, I'm slightly more interested in what he has to say. If there is a person in this country, black, white or otherwise who will not consider Paul as a candidate because of who he chooses not to speak to; that person is among those who sees himself as a part of a group and not an individual, as such, Paul never had a shot at winning that person over to begin with.

To be fair, all it's gotten them is 4 of the last 6 Presidents.

Right, that's my point. The marketplace has rejected Paul's ideals of traditional American values; this is a great reflection of what is wrong with our country.

I'm guessing as far as it's taken him already. He's a US Congressmen [10 terms] and has just raised more money in the last quarter than John McCain. Will he win the Presidency, no. But frankly, I don't care. His canidacy gives him the chance to be heard by a wider audience [although the aforementioned media's lack of willingness to help him out in that area is a bit of a roadblock to that].

Gee, Nighttimer, you're right. He should pander to racial groups that way he'll...lose anyway. Staying principled in the face of adversity used to be a good thing...I'm not sure when it became a vice.

So he didn't speak to the NAACP or Urban League, doens't believe in government social engineering regarding race in schools and other areas, doesn't believe our military should be in the business of patrolling the world as a peacekeeping force and doesn't believe that FEMA is a Constitutional entity. For the record, I disagree with him regarding FEMA, but you'll notice that his reasoning for his ideals are not based on race. You are turning them into racial issues, he [and I] see them as issues of the proper role of government.

Wow, it's been a solid 2 months since this gem was debunked. Paul did not write the article containing that quote, it was written by a staffer without his knowledge. He has addressed it several times; as have Paul's supporters here.

For someone who's "irrelevant", I find it funny that there are so many negative rumors circling about the internet in attempts to discredit the good Doctor.

CP

I'll preface this by saying that I'm really not a Ron Paul fan, predominantly because of his non-stance on the war and his silly immigration ideas (i.e ending birth right citizenship... how did this country get founded again?)

Anyway- NT, you see things through some seriously "brown colored glasses" sometimes man.

I assume by "most prominent" civil rights groups you're talking about the NAACP? It's the same org that had Kwame M-Racist-E as their leader. The same org that has a report about racial disparity that tries to pin "society" and the "US Gov't" for the woes of Black Americans? The same org that has a program specifically partnered with historically black colleges? No cards for anyone that doesn't buy into their agenda. Only 1 Republican showed up for their GOP pres candidate forum. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter. Black/Brown/Whatever people that make educated decisions about their elected leader will vote based upon what matters to their families. Other people will vote based upon "perceived notions", which we all have agreed on more than one occasion that Black Americans usually are less inclined to vote for a Republican anyway.


The truth is that Darfur isn't an issue for most candidates. I believe it SHOULD be, but look at Clinton's website. Nada there either man. Obama? Yes. Of course, but I'm not sure if it's because he wants to ENSURE that he gets EVERY SINGLE black vote or because he really cares? Whatever. SADLY, our nation doesn't care as a whole. It again is sadly barely on the radar of consciousness.

Racial Relations, Ethnic Diversity, and New Orleans (all black, black, and black NT issues) are only an issue for you man. Seriously. Most people just see their neighbors as the "Joneses", white or black or somewhere in between. Look at the candidates websites. I'm not even sure that Obama is chasing that rainbow.

Take a peek.
www.barackobama.com
www.hillaryclinton.com

New Orleans is a tragedy, but again. Maybe you haven't broken pace with the notion, but we're a capitalist society and hand outs don't change the overall fate of an economy. Maybe tax breaks, maybe some good deals on tourism inbound (breaks for fuel for companies that give cheap flights to New Orleans, etc) might help. But if we send in billions in federal dollars, it will seriously go right into the gulf. It seems that you understand little about about New Orleans, and really should consider that the people still haven't given Nagin walking papers. I can't wait for Jindal to oust ol' dispicable Blanco. Louisiana will always be home in my heart, but it's going to carry a certain "aire" of corruption so long as people like that are in office. Hell, the elections of Landrieu say enough by themselves.

Taxes, immigration, employment, security, etc are what are going to win this election. Black issues (which really aren't necessarily just "black issues" but moreover American issues) should involve how to keep people employed, how to ensure that public schools are held to some mark of efficiency in urban areas (or other socio-economically poor areas to include rural parts of the US), and how to get the US out of the mess in Iraq but still have at least a marginally effective outcome.

The thing is that this election has just begun. Ron Paul speaks to many people in the US, even if just more than other candidates. I think once dollars start pumping in, he and Mr. Thompson will have a run for their money. It's gonna get interesting here pretty soon.

He surely isn't against the black vote. He (along with most other candidates) just doesn't carry the cross of "non-issues". He's a politician NT, and sells what he thinks people are buying. The thing is that many of his stances, white or black, make sense to some people. SOME people (white or black) believe in stronger immigration reform, some people believe in lower taxes, some people believe in nixing our relationship in NAFTA and surely the UN.

I don't know how far it will carry him. Only time will tell man... but to say that he "doesn't care" about "black issues" is absurd. That's as silly as that darn P Diddy "George Bush don't like black people" song. Then again, I bet you agreed to that too.

I am sorry to burst some bubbles around here, but Ron Paul, like Dennis Kucinich, is a non-factor.

Both Paul and Kucinich are true believers. That doesn’t seem to help. Paul, in my opinion, would do about the same as a Libertarian as he’s doing as a Republican. Kucinich could run as a “Frog Kisser” and that wouldn’t make any difference either.

Here are some recent poll numbers for Paul.

Fox gives him about 2%.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/071907poll1.pdf

Gallop gives him about 3%.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28144

Zogby gives him 1%.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1336

They may stick around after Iowa and New Hampshire, but they both need to pack up.

I am not saying I don’t have some affinity for Paul and Kucinich, but they are both next to politically dead. They need to get a new, more efficient soap box to proclaim their ideas.

Can't speak to Dennis the Menace Kucinich's socialist credentials, but Senator Bernie Sanders has never made a secret of his political leanings and he ran and won despite not hiding them under the pretense of being a Democrat.

Sanders is a democratic socialist, but because he does not belong to a formal political party he appears as an independent on the ballot. Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments. He was the only independent member of the House during much of his service there and is one of two independent Senators in the 110th Congress, along with Joe Lieberman. Sanders is the first self-described socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders



Oh, THAT again. The media "ignores" poor ol' Ron Paul. Guess the New York Times must not have got the memo because they killed a lot of trees to run a lengthy piece about him just yesterday.

Frankly, ConservPat it's a lot more comforting for true-believers to suggest Americans are "too lazy" to learn more about Paul and libertarianism than to consider the nagging possibility that they have learned enough to consider it a political fringe movement.



I didn't want to be accused of selectively quoting or editing your words, but your convoluted explanation/spin aside, every politician HAS to "pander" to certain groups and appeal to enough of them to put together a winning campaign. There aren't enough Libertarians to elect Ron Paul. So apparently he has been able to pull this trick off before. If Paul isn't going to make any attempt to broaden his appeal beyond the hardcore true believers that would explain why he's doing so miserably in the polls. You can dismiss this all you want as "pandering." I call it "outreach." Apparently that's a distinction lost upon both you and Paul.

Additionally, I'm not saying Ron Paul is bigoted. According to Project Vote Smart he has a fairly middle-of-the-road record on civil rights:

2005 Representative Paul supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 52 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 38 percent in 2005.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_cat...can_id=BC031929

Though whatever credit Paul gets on one hand might be snatched away on the other based on his 100 percent approval rating from The John Birch Society.



Uh-oh. Right-wing talking point alert! "Traditional American values?" There's a loaded phrase if ever there was. It always kicks off my early warning detector when someone claims to be defending "traditional American values."


So does his apparent preference to be heard by a "whiter" audience. That's a bit of of a roadblock too.



When the NY Times devotes considerable space in their Sunday magazine, Paul is less "irrelevant" and more of a "media curiosity." As for negative rumors, as a Barack Obama fan, welcome to the party.



When you're a Black man navigating through a predominantly White landscape, one must tread carefully, keep your head up and always step lightly lest a racial landmine go off under your feet. If I see things through a Black perspective it's based upon years of experience of my own and those that came before me.

But I don't expect anyone that considers me to the defender of all things Black to understand that AE.

<edit>



I'm not particularly interested in your observations about Louisiana politics or the NAACP. Been there. Done that.

"Black NT issues," "non issues" and "black issues" aside, the fact is promoting the betterment of race relations, ethnic diversity and the rebuilding of New Orleans are among MY American issues, AE, and if you don't see it that way, I'm not overly inclined to convince you. Apparently, only your issues such as immigration reform, lower taxes and getting out of NAFTA and the UN deserve serious consideration? I'll make you a deal: don't blow off what issues are important to me and I won't blow off what's important to you. We don't have to agree on the burning issues of the day, but the casual dismissal of "black issues" by you and others that think like you can be interpreted only as disrespect.

I don't recall any Diddy song about George Bush not liking Black people. Sure you don't have him mixed up with Kanye West?

To the point though, I do agree that George Bush doesn't like Black people. That's okay. Black people don't seem to be too wild about him either.

What I believe some of the detractors are missing, is the point of Paul's support. I believe ConservPat mentioned it, and I agree, that this campaign and our support of it is more about the message than it is about the man. I am a little bit more optmistic about his chance to actually make an impact on the race than ConservPat, but i think we both agree that the message of freedom and limited government is what is needed to survive, not so much Ron Paul. Paul is legitimizing the classical liberal/libertarian/paleoconservative philosophies again. He is putting those ideologies on the highest stage and staunchly defending them against the big government Republicans and Democrats. He is talking about issues that no other candidate is willing to (the North American Union, fiat money by the Fed, and is the biggest proponent of non-interventionist foreign policy). As I said earlier in this thread, maybe Dr. Paul won't win, but he has an opportunity to make his viewpoints heard around the country and to plant the seeds for future generations of freedom-loving Americans. I cannot account for his low poll numbers. I DO believe that the media is not covering him enough and this is not due to my support for him but due to his ratings and debate performances. The more debates that the GOP has, the better it is for Ron Paul because he just has another way in which to get across his message. I honestly believe that if Dr. Paul hangs in there, that he could take a chunk of the electorate (approx 15%). And to me, that would be vindicating. It would prove to me that there are people in this country who choose liberty over the Leviathan, the Constitution over the 'easy way."

Whenever he is labeled a 'radical" or "fringe candidate" it really makes you think about how far this country has strayed from its principles. Believing that the Congress should be the ones able to delcare war is radical? Believing that our civil liberties should not be infringed upon, particularly during war is on the fringe? I bought a Ron Paul t-shirt off his campaign site with the slogan "Hope for America" and I truly believe that is what he is providing. Dr. Paul is just the first warrior in a long fight to reclaim our liberty.

Saw the article, read the article, my point stands. The argument that the media must not be ignoring Paul because the Times ran one on him yesterday is a complete fallacy. If asked what Ron Paul believes regarding <insert social issue here> most Americans would shrug their shoulders and go back to watching "So You Think You Can Dance".

I've never claimed that libertarianism is unpopular BECAUSE people don't know much about it. I've claimed that it is unpopular AND that people are uninformed as a result of their own laziness and the media's complete and utter failure to educate them. Any connection between the two was an invention of your own, not mine.

Nighttimer, you are not distinguishing between winning over opponents and pandering to a group for the sake of pandering. Paul has attracted Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents during his Congressional campaigns [which, oh by the way, were quite the event given the fact that the GOP pumped primary opponents of his full of money and openly campaigned against him]. He did not pander to racial groups then, he will not do so now. Forgive him his consistancy.

You'd think you would know me well enough by now than to accuse me of using "right-wing talking points". Let me ask you Nighttimer, if the Constitution isn't a traditional American value, what is? Oh, and the "right-wing" hasn't defended the Constitution [THE traditional American value] since Goldwater, so any confusion you may have with regards to any connection I have with the rightwing should be cleared up.

Again, you interject race where it is completely unnecessary to do so. You're kidding yourself if you think Ron Paul would not like more supporters, regardless of race. I'll say it again, dividing people, classifying people and courting people based on race is contrary to libertarian ideology. Paul and myself [and possibly leder, but I don't want to speak for him] do not think as you do regarding race. One black guy voting for Paul = One white guy voting for Paul...We could care less WHO votes for Ron, just that they agree with his message of Constitutionalism and limited gov't.

So which is it Nighttimer, you've cited Ron Paul's poll standings and claimed he is of the same ilk as other "nonentities" and then you hint at his existant, albeit little significance. You can't have it both ways.

CP

Spoken like a true believer, lederuvdapac.

However, belief is not enough to elect Ron Paul as the next President of the United States. It's not enough to get him up to 15 percent of the electorate. Even billionaire Ross Perot was only able to garner 18.9 percent of the popular vote in 1992. Any candidate still treading water in the single digits at this point in the presidential campaign would never be able to raise the funds, pull together the political organization or strike the right responsive chord with the American voter. The notion that Paul could somehow pole vault out of the polling cellar up to a possible independent threat to the Democratic and Republican nominees is wishful thinking at best, misguided fantasy at worst.

BoF's links to the polls indicate that while Paul may be a internet sensation and something of a media freak (Google his name if you don't believe me) that has not translated into numbers to lift him out of the "fringe" category. He is a political oddity and a non-factor. If he's lucky, the Republican National Convention may allow him a forum next summer to speak, but it won't be in prime-time and he won't be asked to be on the ticket by whomever the GOP does nominate.

It's great that Paul has generated interest and excitement for those whom are disaffected by the Twiddledee and Twiddledum candidates of the two major parties, but any expectation that he is the forerunner of more formidable Libertarian candidates of the future is a major leap of political faith.

I expect that at least some of those supporting Paul will maintain their enthusiasm for politics and work for candidates in the future. Heck, I supported Harry Browne in '96, and I didn't drop out of politics after he was denied entry into most debates, and failed to win a significant percent of the vote. I'm still reasonably active in politics.

Something I am sure an Obama support would understand.



Thats your opinion, sure. But some of your statements are not historically accurate. When Jimmy Carter entered the 1976 Presidential Race, his poll numbers resembled that of Dr. Paul's. They remained that low until approximately 7 1/2 months before the election. But that is just one example. You appear to forget how early it actually is in the campaign. If the numbers remain the same a year from now, then yes, it might be time to pack it in.



Which imo says more about the GOP than it does about Dr. Paul.



Again historically inaccurate. Goldwater got smacked in the Presidential election. But many would contend that his ideas didnt truly resonate until more years of bad government led to the election of Reagan who, while by no means a libertarian, spouted the ideals of limited government and individual liberty. If the modern political age has taught us anything, its that anything can happen. If you told me two years ago that Obama would be 2nd in the polls for the Democratic nominee, I would have called you crazy. But right now a one term Senator with no qualifications for President has been manufactured into a serious contender. Dr. Paul is talking about issues that not many candidates are willing to touch with a 10ft stick and he will probably be the candidate many will look back and say, we should have paid more attention to.

Ron Paul is not in need of my forgiveness. What he is in need of is money and votes. He doesn't have a lot of the former and isn't likely to get many of the latter.

And I'm still not getting how being invited to speak the nation's two most respected and venerable civil rights organizations is "pandering." If anything it's a gesture of respect to Ron Paul that the NAACP and Urban League would allocate time to speak with a guy who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.



If I knew you well enough I wouldn't be so surprised you consider a Black civil rights group extending an invitation to a White Republican, "pandering," ConservPat. But there we are, huh?

And I'm also the wrong guy to ask if the Constitution is a traditional American value. It took three amendments to the Constitution for Black people to enjoy the same rights White people had all along, so excuse if I don't fall to my knees in shock and awe over the monumental majesty of the Constitution. It took a long while to close the loopholes that permitted slavery to exist so comfortably in this nation.



I "interject race" because not only is it necessary, it's the only reason I posted in this thread in the first place. Paul and his fellow Republicans made it an issue when they so obviously told 30 million Black Americans they weren't interested in their votes. I'm not the one kidding myself, Conservpat. You are if you think the only way Libertarian ideology will ever be more than a quaint boutique political philosophy is by eliminating millions of Americans from consideration simply because they don't ALREADY share your political philosophy.

This isn't "Field of Dreams" where if Ron Paul builds a political machine, Blacks will come. Voters like to think they're valued and their issues resonate with the candidates. Apparently, only true believers and bored yuppies with a fast Internet connection are considered suitable, prospective Ron Paul supporters. How tragically elitist.



Not living on the same planet as the rest of us tonight, leder? Would you care to point out which one of my statements are NOT historically accurate? There's a vast difference between the situation of Jimmy Carter in 1976 and what Ron Paul faces in 2007.

Barring the complete and total collapse of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney (and whether or not Fred Thompson stops testing the waters and jumps in) please explain to me the chain of events that would propel Ron Paul from also-ran status to the standard bearer of the Republican Party. It doesn't take a degree in political science to theorize there is no plausible situation that would give Paul the nomination. He doesn't even register in any of the polls being conducted in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Without winning a primary somewhere--ANYWHERE, there is no possibility of winning the nomination. Even in the unlikely event of a brokered GOP convention there isn't a hope in hell the Republicans would turn to Paul as their savior. Without the money, organization and resources that come with being the Republican nominee all Paul is, can be or will be is a novelty candidate: interesting enough to deserve some attention but not viable enough to get elected.

Yes, I know it's early in the campaign. It's just too late for Ron Paul.





Sure, if falling back on a tired cliche is all you have then by all means enjoy the delusion as long as it lasts. Ron Paul is no Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter. He's Ron Paul and right now that works against him more than it works for him.



How exactly is Barack Obama been "manufactured" and what precisely qualifies as "no qualifications," leder? What is it precisely that so offends your so finely-tuned sensibilities about the junior Senator from Illinois? Are you just venting a bit of frustration over how Americans have chosen Obama's viability over Paul's eccentricities? I can sympathize, if not necessarily identify with how annoyed that must make you feel.

By all means, do enjoy that conversation to come in the future when you and the rest of the Ron Paul rat pack gather together in some smoke-free bar to toast a candidate too odd to be ignored, but too crazy to be elected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_carter


Your statements were historically inaccurate in that you claim "Any candidate still treading water in the single digits at this point in the presidential campaign would never be able to raise the funds, pull together the political organization or strike the right responsive chord with the American voter." I just showed one example (and I am sure there is more) where candidates in the single digits WERE able to come back and win the nomination.



Did you miss my previous post where I stated that I do not believe that his chances at winning the nomination are very good? I did say I thought he could possibly garner 15% of the vote though.



I just found it a bit hypocritical for you to belittle me and CP for our "leaps of political faith" and being "true believers" in a 10 term Congressman with a consistent voting record while you have your support in a one-term Senator who has the lightest resume of any candidate in the race. I'm not knocking Obama because despite our obvious political disagreements, he is an exciting politician which I admire (and he has a voice like The Rock). I am just saying that the pot is calling the kettle black. It takes a whole lot of political faith to put the presidency in the hands of someone who has barely gotten his feet wet in Washington. I am not saying that you are wrong about Dr. paul nighttimer, by all intents and purposes you are probably right. But I hope that you are wrong and will not be nearly as surprised if he becomes a top tier candidate in only a few months.

Because speaking to a group of people for the sake of looking good to a racial/ethnic group constitutes pandering in my view.

I have never called the invitation "pandering". I have explained why Ron Paul didn't accept it; which again is because speaking before a group for the sake of looking good to a particular ethnic demographic as pandering.

It seems to me that now that those loopholes have been closed, there shouldn't be too much of an argument for not following the law of the land. But that is neither here nor there, Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist; his views aren't resonating with the Americans that do know something about him, which as I said, is a poor reflection on our country.

Right, it has to be that simple, Ron Paul just doesn't want a 'black vote'. He'd rather lose than have those people vote for him It is absolutely nonsensical, and might I add, backed up by nothing with the exception of Paul's refusal to speak to two civil rights groups to think that Paul would rather not have black people voting for him. If you're going to accuse Paul of rejecting the 'black vote' then you had better come with something slightly more substantive than not speaking to the Urban League or NAACP. To be blunt, it is an insult to black people to say that their apathy is correlates directly with who does and does not interact with the NAACP and Urban League. I'd like to think that Americans are capable of having political thought independent of a given group. Let me ask you Nighttimer, what would Ron Paul have to do to make himself more attractive to black people, in your opinion. Given that I'm only 1/2 non-white, this is not in my jurisdiction.

A couple of things Nighttimer, to call all Ron Paul supporters "true believers" or "bored yuppies" quite possibly may be the most [tragically] arrogant statement made in this thread. I'm not a yuppie [yet ] and the term "true believer" is a fluffy buzzword that I'll now ask you to either define or cease using, as it does nothing to advance any kind of intelligent debate. So what exactly makes us 'true believers'? Second, I have never claimed that if Paul builds it, blacks will come. Again, I have never said a word about attracting black voters because I do not look at them as "black voters", just as voters. Anyone who believes in Paul's fundamental principles of limited government, low taxation and Constitutional government will make their way to his corner. If 10% of them are black; groovy. If it's 2%; okay.



It's amazing that both of those quotes came from the computer of the same person.

CP

leder, for the sake of the Republican Party they had better hope that Ron Paul is successful in his message of smaller, limited government and a return to more traditional principles resonates. The rank and file of the GOP has been betrayed by the neo-cons and George W. Bush. It may take the sight of Hillary Clinton raising her right hand as she takes her oath of office for real conservatives to take their party back.

Any candidate that galvanizes the attention of young and cynical voters is a tonic for democracy. I don't dislike Rep. Paul personally, but I do take offense that he has joined his GOP bretheren in their decision not to speak with the NAACP and the Urban League. I think that is a missed opportunity and for the Republicans going into 2008 as the underdogs, every missed opportunity can be the difference between victory and defeat.

However, the Republican candidates will be going before a panel of Black journalists in a debate forum hosted by Tavis Smiley in September. This will be the first time the candidates will go before a predominantly Black audience and I anticipate they will be asked to speak on issues that are of great concern to African-Americans. I hope Rep. Paul participates because I will be watching with great interest.

As for his presidential aspirations, nothing has happened to make me doubt the correctness of my previous remarks, but as Dennis Miller says, "It's only my opinion. I could be wrong."




I don't think the Democratic candidates that have spoken to the NAACP and Urban League consider accepting the invitations as just a beauty contest where they can "look good." I'm of the mindset that they see the organizations as an important part of a important constituency. Next month both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will address the National Association of Black Journalists, an organization of which I'm a member. President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and General Colin Powell have all spoken to NABJ in the past. I wonder would you call them "pandering" as well?

Hopefully, Congressman Paul won't lose any face with you when he appears before a panel of Black journalists at a historically Black university hosted by a Black moderator.

IF he appears, of course. Apparently, if he listens to you he won't.

Of course I would. Why wouldn't I apply to them [people I do not like or respect, with the exception of Powell] as I do to others? I'll ask again, because I don't think you answered, what types of steps do you think Paul would have to take to win over black voters?

Oy vey, Nighttimer. He won't lose face with me for appearing before a panel of black journalists, or any panel with any black people...If that were the case I would be a racist. While the thought of me, the racial mutt, being a racist is entertaining it's relevance stops and ends there. I am all for Ron Paul reaching out to all Americans; I am not for Ron Paul performing a song and a dance in front of the UL and NAACP just for the sake of it.

You'd do better to let me make statements for myself. I never said he shouldn't appear before the council you mentioned [how could I, given the fact that you just mentioned it?] nor would I have a problem with im doing such a thing. Please stop putting words in my mouth...Especially illogical words.

CP

Gee, I dunno, ConservPat. Howzabout actually talking to them? How's that for a suggestion?



And I am? I don't know where you have gotten this nutty idea that Ron Paul would have to do a slow soft shoe in front of a civil rights organization. On the other hand, you seem to be tap-dancing around not saying directly what's so demeaning about a presidential candidate going before two predominantly Black organizations?



It seemed quite logical to conclude since you were so adamantly opposed to Paul appearing before the NAACP and the Urban League, you would be equally less than sanguine if he were to appear at a HBCU to be grilled by a panel of Black journalists about issues neither he or the other Republicans have spent much time addressing.

I have no interest in putting words in your mouth. The words you've written thus far are subject to interpretation and I'm giving you mine. Nothing to go meshuggana over.

That's a spectacular suggestion. I think Dr. Paul should actively campaign all over these United States, meeting and greeting as many people as he can, black, white or otherwise. It is completely possible for him to do so without giving a "because I have to" performance in front of the UL and NAACP. It is far more genuine to do the former rather than the latter. With that said, you and I both know that Ron Paul will not gain substantial support from black voters by simply talking to the UL or NAACP, so I'll ask again; what can Ron Paul do to gain support among that demographic?

Once again, Nighttimer, I'll ask that you not put words [especially illogical words] in my mouth. I never called a proposed appearance before the NAACP or UL, "demeaning". You used that word, not me. I've claimed that such an appearance is not genuine and called it 'pandering', the word 'demeaning' has not passed through my lips, er, fingertips.

No, NT, not logical at all. Simply because I do not want him to give the obligatory song and dance before two black groups does not mean that I would prefer he not meet with black people...that is ridiculous and flies in the face of what I've been saying since the beginning of this discussion.

I hope you haven't confused my current state for upset...Asking you to stop making arguments [and illogical ones at that] for me is not the act of an angry person, angry people aren't that reasonable. You have, indeed put words in my mouth. You decided that I wouldn't support RP meeting with a panel of black reporters...You were wrong about that. You also decided that I find a meeting before the NAACP and UL to be "demeaning"...You were wrong about that. So again...I'll make my argument for myself...That's what I'm here to do .

CP

That question has been asked and answered. Whether or not you like the answer is up to you. To the point, I couldn't disagree with you that it is possible for Ron Paul to expect anything but a chilly reception from African-Americans after his demonstration of disdain by rebuffing two prominent organizations that protect and advance their interests.

You're far better off stating what you know than presuming what "you and I both know," ConservPat. I DON'T know that Ron Paul will not gain substantial support from Black voters by simply talking to the Urban League and the NAACP. What I DO know is it his refusal to do so will not help him raising Black support---not that I've seen any effort or interest by him to do so in the first place.

Your persistence is asserting that appearing before two Black civil rights groups would be less than "genuine" and a insincere "because I have to" performance (your words) leads me to believe you feel it would do more harm than good to Ron Paul's candidacy.

As you previously stated:



First, it's very egalitarian to look at Black voters just as part of the great mass of voters, but it's politically unsophisticated to
presume one-size fits all and all voters are driven by the same concerns. Voters do not all come to the table with the same vested interests. At times they may be contradictory and contrary to the positions of the candidate. That can best be determined if the candidate is willing to be vetted before specific groups of voters in order to make an intelligent and informed decision.

Many people--including Blacks---believe in Paul's fundamental principles. We agree on the first part of your statement. I disagree that they will or even should "make their way to his corner." He's running for to be President of the United States for ALL Americans. Not just the ones that "make their way to his corner." Mohammad must come to the mountain. Not the other way around. You can open a five-star restaurant with the best food in the city, but if nobody knows about it because you're just assuming they'll come running, you probably won't be in business very long. The same principle applies to second and third tier presidential candidates running uphill all the way.

Even a candidate with millions of dollars and thousands of staff on the ground in 50 states (which Paul doesn't have) can't meet enough individual voters to make a difference. It's not an effective or efficient strategy in a country the size of America. The logistics make such a one-on-one approach impossible and impractical.

Ron Paul cannot change the facts of political gravity. He can shake up the status quo but he can't change the dynamics that transform contenders into champions.



I repeat: your words as well are mine are subject to interpretation. You persist in this argument that a meeting between the NAACP and Urban League and Paul would require him to perform a "song and dance" or just to "look good." I interpret that as you considering such a meeting as pandering and demeaning. That's my] interpretation and unless you can provide a more fleshed out explanation as to why such a proposed meeting would be superficial and fruitless, that's the interpretation I'm going to go with in the absence of a better one.

Call it "putting words in your mouth" if you wish. I call it a reasonable determination based upon your own statements.

So all Dr. Paul has to do to attract black voters is to appear before the NAACP and UL...Wow, that's incredible...It almost sounds too easy or too good to be true.

Well let me say this then. Speaking to the NAACP sure has done wonders for Tom Tancredo's campaign. Especially with it's regards to his ability to attract black voters .

And you are believing incorrectly. In fact, I have never said such a thing, my point this entire time is that it will not affect Paul's campaign at all...neither good nor bad will come from it. And that fact, coupled with my view that visting the NAACP is simply a piece of political theater, I see no reason for Paul to engage in it. I'd rather have him court the black community as individuals; as opposed to getting the NAACP "white guy stamp of approval."

And I agree completely. However, I disagree that the only way of doing so is by way of making an appearance before the NAACP and UL.

And I contend that asking me 'why I think such a meaning would qualify as faux-genuine' would make more sense than 'interpreting' a reason for me. In any event, I see a meeting before the NAACP just as I do an appearance before the Christian Coalition, it is a purely political event put on for the sake of looking good to a particular segment of the population. In a word, pandering.

CP