What is Digg?12 Comments
- nalicosh, on 10/14/2007, -0/+7Now is the time for Ron Paul. Public discontent is at a peak. The People are fed up with this type of fuzzy logic. We've been voting for the lesser of evils for decades and we can plainly see the destructive results. It is time to stop voting Against the wrong candidates and policies and started voting FOR the Right ones. How can you possibly think that more of the same from the Republicans will beat Clinton, or any Democrat for that matter in this climate?!! The only way Republicans can possibly win this election is by drastically changing our image. We need to reclaim the moral high ground, and that type of revolution occurs in the realm of Ideas. The ***** and the Neocons have already lost, it is up us to Restore this Republic!
- inactive, on 10/14/2007, -0/+7he is the only one that can beat hillary ,this argument is illogical ...................
- dmjarrington, on 10/14/2007, -1/+7This is the same kind of logic that got us our current president. Stop being stupid, people.
- Robjayne, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5If Ron Paul is not nominated and wins it won't make any difference who wins.
- dmjarrington, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Yes he can. People are voting for him like crazy in all the straw polls and txt message polls. He's getting more donations from real people than any other candidate in either party. he's becoming one of the most popular men in America with hardly any attention at all from the mainstream media. If the Republicans don't find another candidate or attract new voters soon, Ron Paul will win by default.
You fail. - PSWTyrant, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4I'm done voting for the "least worst" candidate (that's how we got here in the first place!). I'll vote for people I support wholeheartedly, and write-in all the others.
- maz2331, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3Actually, I believe that Ron Paul is the only Republican with any chance at all against the Hillary Clinton machine. Here is the reason why:
First, his anti-war position is perfectly aligned with the vast majority of Americans, much more so than Clinton's is. He flat out owns this issue, and is much more clear in his articulation of it than any other candidate from either party. While there's still a substantial number of Republicans who favor our involvement in Iraq, almost an equal number are ready for withdrawl. No Republican who "beats the war drum" in 2008 can win against a general 70% public opionion favoring withdrawl. In short, he takes the Republicans' greatest liability and turns it into a positive.
Will this greatly anger the bellweather conservatives such as Sean Hannity? Yes. However, as the 2006 elections indicated, these guys are not able to really influence public voting opinion. They are seen more as entertaining "blowhards" than anything else by quite a few Republicans and nearly every Democrat. They've carried too much water for too many "dirty" Republicans for too long. Indeed, being hated by Sean and Rush is a great position for any Republican seeking to win a national general election.
Second point: The public is in a generally angry and hostile mood over the perception that they have been lied to over several issues, and quite gloomy about future economic prospects. Paul offers a clear vision of what America is "supposed to be," not merely a tweak or two to the current situation. That is a huge advantage.
Third point: Paul actually has an interesting charisma. He comes across as absolutely honest and dedicated to what he believes. Meanwhile, Clinton tends to come across as "phony as a three dollar bill" unless wrapped in layers of media hype and distortion.
Paul's debate performances, when he has had a chance to speak, have been stunningly effective. The man can argue a point better than any of the other milqetoast Republicans on the stage, and often gains a very loud applause for it. Arguing against his fellow party member's positions and having half the audience cheer is a sign of a winner.
Drive around many cities, and you will see hand-made Ron Paul signs hanging up already. This indicates a candidate who is able to inspire his supporters to go out and work for his election, without paying them. The Internet traffic he generates is off the charts, again indicating a near-fanatical following. No other Republican even comes close.
Low poll numbers at the current stage of the campaign is actually a bit of a plus for Paul. It lets him claim the mantle as a "breakout" candidate, which adds excitement to the race. Remember a couple other "no chance" breakouts lately: Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Both were panned as having zero chance, and both won.
The key to a possible Paul win is that he represents a sharp change from the Republicans of the last 20 years or so, whereas Hillary represents a continuation of the same Democratic Party we've had for quite some time.
Don't count this guy out at all. - jbrownfield, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2You can make a lot of arguments that Al Gore might have been better than Bush (Bush's Patriot Act, for instance). The neocons are would-be fascists while the lefties are would-be communists. If you've ever read "The Road to Serfdom" by FA Hayek, he explains that both positions wind up with the same result -- tyranny. This strategy by the neocons to run around with their hands in the air screaming "Watch out for the [insert bs demon here]! You've got to let **US** remove your freedom so that **THEY** can't!" is wearing pretty thin. Hillary is today's demon. You guys want her out of the way so you can get back to the regularly-scheduled demons.
We're not buying your BS any more. Ron Paul is the best hope we've seen for turning around on the Road to Serfdom, and we're going to help him in any way we can. - jbrownfield, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2It's funny how the neocons refer to us as "Ronbots," when in fact they are the ones robotically following their leaders over the cliff -- both politically and in the real sense that they're willing to trash the country just so they can be the ones in power while it happens.
- badmedia, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1If you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you are still voting for evil.
- Smight, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2I'm thinking Gore wouldn't have been so bad since we had a republican house and senate he would have been a lame duck the entire time and wouldn't have been able to suspend the constitution to the same degree that Bush has.
- MrUnloadingzone, on 10/14/2007, -7/+1and we would have done worse with Al Gore. I appreciate your idealism, but it's time to be realistic. Hillary is a real threat. Ron Paul can not beat her in a general election right now. Do the right thing and stop Hillary
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is