Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 06, 2008, 09:05:13 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23512959
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is hinting to supporters that he is ending his long-shot campaign for the presidency.
The Texas Republican congressman addressed supporters in a 7 1/2-minute video on his campaign Web site Thursday night and did not specifically say he was quitting the race.
Republican frontrunner John McCain already has enough delegates to clinch the party's nomination, and other contenders have dropped out.
Post by: johnster999 on March 06, 2008, 09:21:32 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2008, 03:23:31 AM
Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 07, 2008, 03:37:41 AM
I hope you're not going to say that it will be impossible for him to become President.
Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
Yeah, his chances are dead. Unless the Media decides to give him all the air time they give Obama, Klinton and McStain.
Post by: S. Williamson on March 07, 2008, 03:42:23 AM
I hope you're not going to say that it will be impossible for him to become President.
Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
What chance, pray tell, do you think he has? Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
From another thread:
Ron Paul Wins!
5% of the vote in his home state that is.
Guess that just wasn't what the country was looking for.
5% of the vote in his home state that is.
Guess that just wasn't what the country was looking for.
Quote
Only Texas Rep. Ron Paul remains but it's now impossible for him to become the nominee. He has not indicated when he will concede but his departure is inevitable.
Post by: ilbob on March 07, 2008, 03:45:50 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2008, 04:13:18 AM
I hope you're not going to say that it will be impossible for him to become President.
Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
What chance, pray tell, do you think he has? Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 07, 2008, 04:36:41 AM
I hope you're not going to say that it will be impossible for him to become President.
Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
What chance, pray tell, do you think he has? Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
Not impossible, but with the Media only using his loony-sounding soundbites, when they give him airtime at all, I'd venture to guess alot of people don't even know who he is.
Post by: ilbob on March 07, 2008, 05:02:24 AM
Not impossible, but with the Media only using his loony-sounding soundbites, when they give him airtime at all, I'd venture to guess alot of people don't even know who he is.
Unfortunately, he is very good at making loony sounding sound bites, and pretty poor at making good sound bites, despite his very solid positions on all but one issue.
Post by: Scout26 on March 07, 2008, 06:27:11 AM
Quote
The Texas Republican congressman addressed supporters in a 7 1/2-minute video on his campaign Web site Thursday night and did not specifically say he was quitting the race.
WOO HOO, I went long on Chee-to Futures !!!!!
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 07, 2008, 06:49:32 AM
I hope you're not going to say that it will be impossible for him to become President.
Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
Ya know, even if he drops out (and this report is just a fabrication by the left wing media. Or is it the right wing media? Anyway, its fabricated) he could still become president. I hope you noobs realize that. Its not like his chances are dead.
I'm gonna have to check this one.......
Post by: Manedwolf on March 07, 2008, 07:14:23 AM
Thank you, clean up the cheetohs and turn off the light in the basement.
Now maybe they will shut up and go back to their UFO sites, out of everyone's sight. But to be serious, watch out for crazed anarchists doing something stupid in response to the news.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on March 07, 2008, 07:16:56 AM
Now remove your post and let the fun continue.
Post by: El Tejon on March 07, 2008, 08:19:09 AM
Post by: GigaBuist on March 07, 2008, 08:22:16 AM
I wonder how the Paul folks will act if he refuses to make an independent bid.
He did that weeks ago. I didn't see much of a reaction.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 08:46:32 AM
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 07, 2008, 01:10:36 PM
"The presidential campaign will soon wind down, but we do still encourage all effort to gain the maximum number of votes and delegates in all the remaining primaries and to continue the caucus process that's ongoing in the other states by loyal volunteers."
Turns out I was wrong about one thing: Alan Keyes hasn't dropped out, either, so it's a three-person race. I'm somewhat amazed at how little press time Keyes got... I suppose only black Democrats are acceptable...
Post by: The Rabbi on March 08, 2008, 03:44:48 PM
"The presidential campaign will soon wind down, but we do still encourage all effort to gain the maximum number of votes and delegates in all the remaining primaries and to continue the caucus process that's ongoing in the other states by loyal volunteers."
Turns out I was wrong about one thing: Alan Keyes hasn't dropped out, either, so it's a three-person race. I'm somewhat amazed at how little press time Keyes got... I suppose only black Democrats are acceptable...
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 08, 2008, 05:02:54 PM
He was probably more viable than Ron Paul ever was.
Post by: El Tejon on March 08, 2008, 05:08:57 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 08, 2008, 07:11:50 PM
Hey, is Pat Paulsen still alive?
He was probably more viable than Ron Paul ever was.
He was probably more viable than Ron Paul ever was.
It would probably be easier for him to get elected if he wore pants.....
Post by: Bogie on March 08, 2008, 07:49:30 PM
Post by: K Frame on March 08, 2008, 08:09:22 PM
When did he ever BEGIN his long-shot candidacy?
Post by: outerlimit on March 09, 2008, 03:50:59 AM
My question is...
When did he ever BEGIN his long-shot candidacy?
When did he ever BEGIN his long-shot candidacy?
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07mar12.paul.official/
Just about a year ago.
Post by: K Frame on March 09, 2008, 11:58:39 AM
Post by: outerlimit on March 09, 2008, 04:02:13 PM
So, he declared he was a candidate for President, but from what I can tell, he never actually RAN for President...
The media made sure he got almost no mention.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 09, 2008, 04:29:19 PM
and the media mighta disregarded paul due to the freakshow he draws. like the liberty dollar nonsense
Post by: K Frame on March 09, 2008, 07:20:01 PM
So, he declared he was a candidate for President, but from what I can tell, he never actually RAN for President...
The media made sure he got almost no mention.
Oh please.
If Ron Paul had had a half a chance in hell the media would have given him a lot more coverage.
The media gave him PLENTY of coverage before he did his first in a series of "face first into a brick wall at 55 MPH" performances in the primaries.
The media isn't going to waste column inches on a candidate that the voters don't support.
This crap about "It's the media's fault that Ron Paul's campaign crashed and burned" is scapegoating BS of the maximum depth and stench. It's the epitome of sour grapes by people whose candidate proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he didn't have the first clue about how to campaign for the presidency.
I guess it's also the media's fault that Paul was more content to sit on his war chest of contributions than he was to actively campaign and advertise in contested states.
I guess it's also the media's fault that Paul could only pull in what, 7% of the vote in his home state?
Hell, even Walter Mondale, in the bitch slapping that he took in 1984, managed to win his home state.
So yes, yes, let's all blame the convenient target, the media, instead of looking to place the blame squarely where it should rest.
Post by: outerlimit on March 09, 2008, 07:33:22 PM
So, he declared he was a candidate for President, but from what I can tell, he never actually RAN for President...
The media made sure he got almost no mention.
Oh please.
If Ron Paul had had a half a chance in hell the media would have given him a lot more coverage.
The media gave him PLENTY of coverage before he did his first in a series of "face first into a brick wall at 55 MPH" performances in the primaries.
The media isn't going to waste column inches on a candidate that the voters don't support.
This crap about "It's the media's fault that Ron Paul's campaign crashed and burned" is scapegoating BS of the maximum depth and stench. It's the epitome of sour grapes by people whose candidate proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he didn't have the first clue about how to campaign for the presidency.
I guess it's also the media's fault that Paul was more content to sit on his war chest of contributions than he was to actively campaign and advertise in contested states.
I guess it's also the media's fault that Paul could only pull in what, 7% of the vote in his home state?
Hell, even Walter Mondale, in the bitch slapping that he took in 1984, managed to win his home state.
So yes, yes, let's all blame the convenient target, the media, instead of looking to place the blame squarely where it should rest.
I know many people who favored Paul above the other candidates on the issues, but wouldn't vote for him because "he doesn't have a chance". Don't you agree that the media creates this perception? The media basically chooses who they think should be candidates and the people for the most part vote the lesser of evils. People don't vote for candidates that they are told won't win.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 10, 2008, 01:31:01 AM
Last spring the media were saying that McCain's campaign was finished and he didnt have a chance. I guess your theory just crashed and burned.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 10, 2008, 03:49:52 AM
So, he declared he was a candidate for President, but from what I can tell, he never actually RAN for President...
The media made sure he got almost no mention.
Oh please.
If Ron Paul had had a half a chance in hell the media would have given him a lot more coverage.
The media gave him PLENTY of coverage before he did his first in a series of "face first into a brick wall at 55 MPH" performances in the primaries.
The media isn't going to waste column inches on a candidate that the voters don't support.
This crap about "It's the media's fault that Ron Paul's campaign crashed and burned" is scapegoating BS of the maximum depth and stench. It's the epitome of sour grapes by people whose candidate proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he didn't have the first clue about how to campaign for the presidency.
I guess it's also the media's fault that Paul was more content to sit on his war chest of contributions than he was to actively campaign and advertise in contested states.
I guess it's also the media's fault that Paul could only pull in what, 7% of the vote in his home state?
Hell, even Walter Mondale, in the bitch slapping that he took in 1984, managed to win his home state.
So yes, yes, let's all blame the convenient target, the media, instead of looking to place the blame squarely where it should rest.
Mike, I disagree.
IN the early stages of the race, McStain placed poorly in polls and the first few primaries. They gave him oodles of coverage and he came back. Then after a decent showing, Hucakbee started to slide. Same thing he still got lots of coverage.
Some coverage I watched mentioned every candidate except Dr. Paul. Yes his placing was last in said primary, but to mention all the others but him was absurd.
Much like Alan Keyes a few years ago, outside the debates they gave Dr. Paul almost zero coverage.
Would he have won? I'll be a realist and say no. Would he have placed better if the Media had actually gotten his message out? Certainly.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 10, 2008, 03:56:30 AM
If a group physically attacked one of your employees, would you be interested in promoting their agenda?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 10, 2008, 04:05:33 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 10, 2008, 04:14:13 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 10, 2008, 04:17:23 AM
I stopped being interested in the details of the Ron Paul campaign approximately after New Hampshire or possibly Nevada.
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 10, 2008, 09:03:51 AM
Fox had good reason to start really ignoring him after a bunch of Paulians, carrying signs, chased Sean Hannity across Manchester while screaming like a crazed attack mob.
Methinks someone's timetable is off. Or deliberately being distorted.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 10, 2008, 09:04:35 AM
Fox had good reason to start really ignoring him after a bunch of Paulians, carrying signs, chased Sean Hannity across Manchester while screaming like a crazed attack mob.
Methinks someone's timetable is off. Or deliberately being distorted.
It's a conspiracy.
Post by: K Frame on March 10, 2008, 09:41:04 AM
No, I certainly do not agree that the media creates the perception that Ron Paul is unelectable.
Many candidates in years past have overcome SIGNFICIANT critical media attention to win elections.
A good example is John F. Kennedy. Many newspapers in the United States flat out questioned his ability to serve the American people if he was "serving the Pope."
Given the kind of hostility that Kennedy faced in a largely protestant nation you'd think that he would have been crushed in the polls.
Kennedy countered with TONS of advertising across the nation, a multi-point message that resonated with voters, employing one of the most effective campaign staffs ever, and putting on a ton of miles campaigning all across the United States.
Ron Paul did hardly any of that. At the point that it became clear that he wasn't mounting a serious campaign for President the media started to ignore him. Why should they give him press when he's apparently not serious about running?
Post by: Tecumseh on March 13, 2008, 07:12:46 PM
I know that the democrats are -really- hoping that a libertarian/conservative third party candidate runs...
Me as well, but I am not a democrat.