Ron Paul - POTUS 2012

foobar75

Master
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
2,332
Westside said:
foobar75, I have a question. If Fox News is Faux, what are the other networks? Worse no doubt. If Fox News is Faux is every single respect on every political subject or aspect. America might as well pack in and look to the demise of the country and third world status and just wait for the Chinese along with their Marauding Mongolians to conquer, pledge and rape.

Because the White Sheeple and DWFs will just drift along, worrying about their affelet dominated football teams will be a 500 team or make the playoffs. Tune into their pathetic daily ritual of listening to sports talk on the radio or satellite. Bottom line a huge waste of time, better spent on learning on what is happening to them and the direction of the country.

For the record, I believe they are more truthful than the rest. Nothing against you, foobar75, just a little rant.

Westside, the truth is that none of the news networks are worth watching. I used to have a higher opinion of Fox, but that is no longer the case. Sure, they are a bit more tolerable at times than the rest of the media/entertaintment complex (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS), and it appears that they lean more conservative. You're not going to hear on Fox the pro-illegal immigration/homosexual/diversity propaganda that's constantly on the so-called MSM channels. But Fox is just the other side of the same coin. Instead, they promote the Neo-con agenda, complete with the so-called "war on terror" against manufactured muslim enemies, led by the O'Reillys, Vannitys, and Suckabees of the world.

I find it best to get my news elsewhere, anywhere but these TV networks. They are all faux as far as I'm concerned.
 

Westside

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
7,703
Location
So Cal
foobar75 I agree with you on getting news from a variety of sources. To me its the best way to be well informed.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,361
Location
Pennsylvania
It's very difficult for me to watch any of the dinosaur networks anymore. I'm a news and politics junkie, but I get all the news and views I need from the internet.

Same with prime time "entertainment." I stopped watching it over 30 years ago and it's just plain unwatchable to me. And I'm glad it is because the DWF mentalityis usually thestrongest in those who watch a lot of network television.

And best I can tell, Fox, the supposed "conservative" network, airs more worthless, immoral crap "entertainment" than ABC, CBS, and NBC.
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
NeoCON hack implies CPAC straw poll vote for Dr.Paul lacks "courage". As if said "courage" is shilling for the PTB & kissing the Z0G's @$$.
smiley8.gif


Straw poll results overlook 'political courage'

Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 2/16/2011

An author and former member of the Reagan administration doesn't believe the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) provided a true reflection of where America's grassroots conservatives are today.

Those who attended this year's CPAC gathering participated in a presidential straw poll. As with last year, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) finished first with 30 percent of the vote, while former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney finished second with 23 percent. All others listed on the ballot trailed far behind, only claiming single-digit figures. (See earlier article)

"I don't believe CPAC is really a reflection of where the American people at the grassroots level are, because Ron Paul came in first [and] Mitt Romney came in second," notes Tom Pauken, who formerly served on Ronald Reagan's White House staff and later chaired the Republican Party of Texas. "Mitt Romney -- by anybody's account -- is neither an economic nor a social conservative."

Tom PaukenHe believes the American people are looking for someone like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who tied for third in the CPAC poll with just six percent of the vote.

"What Chris Christie has done in taking on the liberal establishment up in New Jersey takes political courage," Pauken contends. "And I think one of the reasons that Chris Christie did well in that poll, and one of the reasons that Jim DeMint has a lot of support, is both of these individuals have shown political courage when it wasn't in fashion."

But the former White House administrator points out that DeMint, the South Carolina senator, was not even on the straw poll ballot.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1295082


Edited by: DixieDestroyer
 

FootballDad

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
5,464
Location
Somewhere near Kansas City, MO

Deus Vult

Mentor
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
648
Location
Louisiana
Pauken is actually a pretty good guy, not a neo-con. He helped Buchanan in Texas in 1996.

I don't know why he appears to slight Ron Paul. I also wonder if he knows that Christie is a stinkin' liberal on immigration!?!?
 

FootballDad

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
5,464
Location
Somewhere near Kansas City, MO
Here is an interesting article, no, shocking article that I found while schlupping around the web today, from neo-con central. It's an article about Dr. Paul that I was sure was going to be a hit piece, but turns out to be highly supportive of his principles. It would be nice to think that the "mainstream" so-called conservatives are coming around.
March 11, 2011
<H1>The Curious Case of Ron Paul</H1>By Andrew Foy, MD

<DIV id=article__ad>
<DIV =article_>
He is kind of like a rock star, a nerdy professor, and your crazy uncle rolled into one. Ron Paul, a medical doctor and longtime Republican congressman from Texas, is a fundraising machine who, despite his quirkiness, should be considered a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. But according to the mainstream conservative press, he is nowhere in the equation.

In his recent editorial"TheFighters vs.The Fixers"appearing on National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg discussed what I suspect is his crop of contenders for the upcoming election: Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee. Considering that Paul smoked all of these candidates in the 2011 CPAC straw poll, where he garnered 30% of the vote, it was an odd choice to leave him out, and even more so when you account for the fact that Goldberg's recently edited book Proud to be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation featured several essays in which the authors expressed strong libertarian points of view.

But Goldberg is not alone; among his peers; it is difficult to find anyone who does not shrug off Paul as anything more than a nuisance. In my opinion, that is a big mistake. First and foremost, among contemporary politicians, Paul is the most zealous defender of individual liberty as it was classically defined and understood by the founders. In a country where 50% of the citizens pay no income tax and the redistribution of wealth has become standard operating procedure, conservatives should cheer when a politician has the courage to proclaim, "The government should not be able to do anything that an individual cannot do [without committing a crime]."

That was from Paul's recent CPAC speech, and it harkens back to the great classical liberal thinker Frederick Bastiat, who opposed redistributionist policies on moral grounds. In his famous work The Law, Bastiat defined legalized plunder as follows:

<BLOCKQUOTE>
See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.<SUP>1</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE>

At a time when the official Republican position against increasing taxes on the wealthy (those making greater than 250K per year) argues that doing so would harm the economic recovery -- which is true, but not the point -- it is refreshing to know that there is a politician who will speak to the morality of the issue.

Next, Paul is an outspoken advocate of Austrian economics. Without being an economist myself, I would say that this economic school of thought argues against econometric models, state planning, bailouts, economic stimulus, and the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. One of the hallmarks of Austrian economics, for which Hayek won a Nobel Prize, is the view that central banks create asset bubbles and hence the business cycle. Austrian economics predicted the recent housing collapse and economic recession when the mainstream economists and politicians, to whom we're still wedded, were telling us that everything was "A-okay."

In a 2007 address to the American Economic Association, Bernanke proclaimed, "The greatest external benefits of the Fed's supervisory activities are those related to the institution's role in preventing and managing financial crises. In other words, the Fed can prevent most crises and manage the ones that do occur." A year later, we were mired in the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression. While the great majority of politicians today (Democrats and Republicans) are happy to heed the advice and inflationary policies of the Fed, such as QE2, Paul is a lone voice in the wilderness crying foul. Conservatives should welcome his dissent.

Finally, and most contentiously, Paul argues against the United States' current foreign policy. While I do not agree with his view that America is imperialistic, I do believe that conservatism in general would benefit by taking his point of view seriously. What we can learn most from Paul is that intervening in other countries carries with it many unintended consequences, even when the premise of the intervention is benevolent. Paul brought up an excellent point in his CPAC speech when discussing how in the past we assisted the Mubarak regime in Egypt because it was viewed as friendly toward the United States. Unfortunately, now that the people of Egypt are rebelling, they are angry at not just the dictatorial Mubarak regime, but also the United States for giving the former so much financial assistance ($70 billion to be specific) over the years. Paul decries the practice of providing foreign aid to other countries, arguing that "[it] is taking money from the poor people of a rich country to give it to the rich people of a poor country." If only this was not so true.

Paul vehemently opposes the practice of nation-building, arguing that we cannot hope to impose our system of government (or one close to it) on people with very different philosophical views and expect it to work. This is a logical position that can save us from wasting an untold amount of money on fruitless endeavors going forward. That being said, I agree with an offensive military strategy when the safety of our country and its citizens is threatened, whereas Dr. Paul seems to strictly believe in non-aggression unless we have already been attacked. However, I find myself having to concede that an offensive strategy carries with it a demand for nation-building to ensure that the same threat or one much worse does not recur in its place. Frankly, I cannot neatly reconcile my views in favor of an offensive strategy and against nation-building, and considering that we are currently borrowing the entire defense budget -- which, as Mitch Daniels pointed out in his CPAC speech, "is not a robust strategy" -- I am more amenable to Paul's point of view.

In my opinion, conservatism needs Dr. Paul, and more importantly, America needs him. For too long, conservatives have stood idle while the Democratic and Republican parties have begun to transform the United States from a constitutional republic into a social-democratic welfare state. The "tug-of-war," as Hayek called it, between conservatives and progressives has affected the speed but ultimately not the direction of contemporary political developments.

For the upcoming election, conservatives need to figure out what they are actually trying to conserve. If the answer is a European-style social democracy, then they should continue to ignore Dr. Paul. However, if it is the American Republic, whose original intent was the protection of individual liberty, then they should give him a listen.

Andrew Foy is a medical resident and writer whose work was recently included in Jonah Goldberg's book Proud to be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation. He can be contacted at Andrew.Foy@gmail.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_curious_case_of_ron_paul.html at March 11, 2011 - 10:28:39 AM CST
< =text/ ="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js">



_uacct = "UA-31527-12";
urchinTracker();
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Nice find, FootballDad! I just passed it on.
 

whiteCB

Master
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,282
I hope Ron is out there in New Hampshire and Iowa knocking on every door possible. He performed poorly in those two states 4 years ago and it had him playing catch up during the whole primary process.

Ron needs to harp loudly on his economic views and how he knows he can fix the economy. That will be they key to his success. If Ron can get people to think he has the solutions to our country's economic mess he can win votes. He is not going to win Republican primaries with his social individual liberty views. Ron Paul = Economic Prosperity. That is Ron's golden ticket to the Presidential Race. Man having worked on state political races before I know what Ron needs to do to win. Economy, economy, economy.....
 

Franco

Newbie
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
12
Location
Southeast Asia
Ron Paul's trip to New Hampshire is quite a success, drawing in more than 550 dedicated supporters.
smiley20.gif


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51916.html

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110325/GJNEWS_01/703259932/-1/FOSNEWS

He'll decide within a month or two whether to run for 2012.

Paul again makes another strong statement against the US department of Education, calling it a propaganda machine, aiming to indoctrinate, not to educate the American Youth.

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/rep-ron-paul-indoctrinate-children/

There is a miscegenation-driven advertisement called "FilipinoCupid.com"
smiley21.gif
, notice in the photo a misguided white guy with a pygmy Filipina. I've done much traveling lately and I've been seeing more and more White guy-Filipina couples as of late. Even by my own Filipino standards, every one of these Filipinas with the white guys are plain UGLY and SHORT (5'0-5'2). The poor white guys are about 6'0-6'4. Talk about wasting a gifted gene on such ugly women.
smiley6.gif
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
Dr.Paul outgains the NeoCONs!
smiley20.gif


Exclusive: Ron Paul's $3M pot of gold

Ron Paul has had success with grassroots-powered online fundraising. |

By ANDY BARR | 3/31/11 12:35 PM EDT Updated: 4/1/11 10:01 AM EDT

Ron Paul raked in roughly $3 million during the first quarter through his various political organizations, POLITICO has learned.

Though not all of that money can be transferred to a potential presidential campaign, the big haul demonstrates Paul's continuing force as a grassroots-powered online fundraiser.
The Texas congressman raised $1 million through his federal PAC and $2 million through Campaign for Liberty, a 501C(4) which cannot transfer funds directly to political organizations. Paul's fundraising documents, to be filed later Thursday with the FEC, will also show he has $1.7 million on hand in his congressional campaign account.

"Dr. Paul's fundraising comes almost exclusively from individuals, not special interests,"Â￾ LibertyPAC director Jesse Benton told POLITICO. "He received contributions from all 50 states, and his average gift this quarter was under $70, demonstrating his broad grassroots support.

"Dr. Paul's grassroots fundraising prowess is unmatched, and any 2012 political endeavor on which he embarks will have the financial backing it takes to win,"Â￾ Benton added.

Much of Paul's funds came via a Presidents' Day money bomb that netted $700,000 for his federal PAC. The money bomb was promoted through Paul's Facebook page and libertarian websites promising his fans that "if we show him enough support, he will announce his official candidacy for 2012."Â￾


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52317.htmlEdited by: DixieDestroyer
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland

C Darwin

Mentor
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,181
Location
New York
after the debate last night, the black dude is leading in approval rating on facebook. he said some decent things, foreign policy was zionist lock step, the stats could be manipulated.
 

Riddlewire

Master
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
2,570
C Darwin said:
after the debate last night, the black dude is leading in approval rating on facebook. he said some decent things, foreign policy was zionist lock step, the stats could be manipulated.

If the hive-mind deep inside the GOP wants this guy to be their nominee, then they will engineer that outcome. It doesn't matter who the people actually prefer. Last night was a good example of that. It was a double-tap stage show. In one corner you have the custom selected audience, in the other corner you have the Luntz "Focus Group" that they claim is a cross-section of America. With the aid of television sound and audio, and an assist by TV and Internet pundits, it's easy to create the illusion that Cain destroyed his opponents and is a "rising star" in conservative politics.
If the GOP does pick Cain, it will be the same old story we've seen countless times out of DWFs: "Our negro will beat your negro!".
 

Tom Iron

Mentor
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
1,597
Location
New Jersey
I have no idea if Rep. Ron Paul has even an outside shot at becoming President, but what I absolutely do know is the established parties are in complete dred of such an occurance. The X factor of such a presidency would be what piece of garbage he was saddled with as his VP.

Tom Iron...
 

Westside

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
7,703
Location
So Cal
According to some posters we have no free will, everything is planned and sorted for us. Just one huge conspiracy. Why even bother to contribute funds to a candidate, why even pay attention and voice our views if it already preordained? It would be a waste of time.

Of course I do not believe this. If the entire country of Whites believed this dynamic full tilt, it would be a self fullfilling prophecy. Its kind of depressing and frustrating to come to CF Happpy Hour and constantly read posts from numerous Carnac the Magnificants predicting our further demise.
 

Riddlewire

Master
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
2,570
Westside said:
According to some posters we have no free will, everything is planned and sorted for us. Just one huge conspiracy. Why even bother to contribute funds to a candidate, why even pay attention and voice our views if it already preordained? It would be a waste of time.

Of course I do not believe this. If the entire country of Whites believed this dynamic full tilt, it would be a self fullfilling prophecy. Its kind of depressing and frustrating to come to CF Happpy Hour and constantly read posts from numerous Carnac the Magnificants predicting our further demise.

You have free will. We all do.
But only if you first understand that there are those who are trying to manipulate you into thinking whatever they want. It's not a conspiracy theory. Most of American history is filled with examples of "managed information", where they put on a carefully crafted show to influence your opinions (and, consequently, your actions).
If you accept that, then your choices become your own. But realize also that most of our population happily devours the vaudevillian media theater. That is why American liberty is imperiled.
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
FYI, Herman Cain's another NeoCON. He was chairman of the KCMO "Fed" & stated there was no need to audit the Fed. He's given chickhawk rhetoric at times against the Islamo-boogeyman.
 

FootballDad

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
5,464
Location
Somewhere near Kansas City, MO
Here is one of the many-to-come hit pieces on Ron Paul. This one is from Michael Medved, a "moderate conservative" radio commentator. Oh, he's also Jewish;-) Here is how the article starts out, and it doesn't get any better from here:

How would you describe a perennial presidential candidate who insists in a televised debate that government has no more right to interfere with prostitution or heroin than it does to limit people's right to "practice their religion and say their prayers"Â￾?



The phrase "crackpot"Â￾ comes immediately to mindâ€"and in any contemporary political dictionary that term would appear alongside a photograph of Congressman Ron Paul.
Read the rest here.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
FootballDad said:
Here is one of the many-to-come hit pieces on Ron Paul.  This one is from Michael Medved, a "moderate conservative" radio commentator.  Oh, he's also Jewish;-)  Here is how the article starts out, and it doesn't get any better from here:
<div> </div>
<div>How would you describe a perennial presidential candidate who insists in a televised debate that government has no more right to interfere with prostitution or heroin than it does to limit people's right to "practice their religion and say their prayers"Â?</div>
<div>


The phrase "crackpot" comes immediately to mindâ€"and in any contemporary political dictionary that term would appear alongside a photograph of Congressman [COLOR=#0058a6">[i]Ron Paul[/i][/COLOR">.
<div></div>Read the rest here.</div>

For Medved and the other israli-firsters what really makes Ron Paul a crackpot is his assertion that a bankrupt america shouldn't be sending billions of dollars to a foreign country. With that in mind they will do and say ANYTHING to prevent him from getting within a breath of the presidency.

Not gonna happen anyway. Is a voting public that put a totally unqualified african half breed in the postion going to support a man that is serious about the issues? HA HA Ron Paul is a useful way for the PTB to vent white male anger and divert their time and resources. If Medved wasn't such a hollywierd dufus he would be talking Paul up because whatever limited success he might have will siphon off true conservative energy and allow the proffered pro-semite neocon to win a spot for losing to barry in the annual 4 year charade.
 

Liverlips

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
4,197
I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 but now that he is an open-borders guy I cannot do so.
 

FootballDad

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
5,464
Location
Somewhere near Kansas City, MO

FootballDad

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
5,464
Location
Somewhere near Kansas City, MO
This is directly from Ron Paul's website. Now where does he say he's for open borders?
A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.


If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.


Ron Paul's six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

  1. <LI>Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.</LI>
    <LI>Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.</LI>
    <LI>No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.</LI>
    <LI>No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.</LI>
    <LI>End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. </LI>
    <LI>Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.</LI>


The facts on the ground are being created right now. Every day that passes makes it more difficult to reverse the damage that has already been done.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Paul was skewed in a recent piece on Vdare.com, while I think the author overstated Pauls pro-immigration views it is not impossible to imagine a President Paul celebrating MLK day with the announcement of the passing of some grand amnesty + border security. Except Ron Paul will never be elected President.

"Worse than A Crimeâ€"A Blunder"Â: Ron Paul's Tragic Turnaround On Immigration

VDARE.com wrote extensively about Ron Paul's mixed but interesting immigration record during the 2008 campaign, including an interview he did with Peter Brimelow. Back then we noted that he was generally good on the issues of amnesty, sovereignty, welfare for illegal aliens, and above all birthright citizenship (of which very few professional politicians had then heard). He was bad on E-Verify and Real ID. And his positions on legal immigration were disturbingly vague.

But as the 2008 campaign wore on, it became clear that Paul had no idea how to use the immigration issue, with the result that the chameleon Mike Huckabee and the amnestiac John McCain (!!) regularly outpolled him among self-reported immigration patriotsâ€"greatly to the disgrace of his campaign managers.

Since the presidential primaries, Paul has been virtually silent. His post-campaign book, The Revolution, did not mention immigration at all.

Paul's congressional website's platform for 2010 was identical to that for 2008. He called for increased border security, rejection of amnesty, an end to birthright citizenship, no welfare for illegals, and a vague "true reform"Â of legal immigration.

On the legislative front, Paul has been Missing In Action. He voted against the DREAM Act, but has not co-sponsored any significant piece of immigration legislation.

Now, at last, Paul has finally given a comprehensive discussion of his views on immigrationâ€"in his latest book Liberty Defined, where he lists his positions on fifty different issues.

But what heâ€"or the left-libertarian faction that seems to have his ear/ byline after the strange death of Rothbardian paleolibertarianismâ€"actually says about the issue of immigration is a profound, and in fact tragic, disappointment.

http://www.vdare.com/washington_watcher/110428_immigration.htm
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
Rep. Ron Paul takes second in New Hampshire CNN poll

The State Column | Staff | Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Texas Rep. Ron Paul is performing well in the latest CNN poll of potential Republican primary voters.

Mr. Paul, who declared his candidacy for president last week, took second in a CNN/WMUR poll released by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which shows former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney favored by 32 percent of likely Republican primary voters.

Mr. Paul took second with 9 percent support.

The CNN poll is the second poll in as many weeks to find support for a Paul candidacy. An earlier CNN poll showed Mr. Paul leading amongst Republican voters.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani tied for third place, with 6 percent each. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and Indiana governor Mitch Daniels each received 4 percent.

The Texas Republican, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2008, continues to gain in name recognition. The Texas Republican has already traveled to a number of key primary states, including Nevada and New Hampshire, meeting with potential supporters and fundraisers.

Mr. Paul's candidacy likely benefited throughout the week as a number of potential Republican presidential candidates announced they would not seek the 2012 nomination. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and New York real estate mogul Donald Trump said last week they would not enter the race. Mr. Daniels said Saturday that he, too, will not run for president.

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/rep-ron-paul-takes-second-in-new-hampshire-cnn-poll/

Edited by: DixieDestroyer
 
Top