But I thought this comment about why Ron Paul deserved to be included in any GOP debate was hilarious. Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Paul Supporters Target Fox News:
"An accomodation should be made for Ron Paul. His supporters are highly educated (but not necessarily via the formal route of college), have studied his voting history, have read his policy proposals, and have judged his ethical standard to be acceptable. Though polls indicate that Paul ranks in the high single digits, the quality of Paul’s supporters is extremely high.Attaboy . . . that's how you attract support. And there's even more to this comment. Is it any wonder that most Conservatives aren't interested in Paul? That sounds like a comment from a Liberal, pseudo-intellectual if there ever was one.
.
By contrast, most supporters of the other candidates ignore the voting records of the candidates, ignore their policy proposals, and shockingly ignore their ethical standards. What counts for these supporters is gotcha’s, imagery, and glitz. Just look at all the dumb image posturing before the start of the Iowa caucuses. That posturing occurs because the candidates know that the typical American (who enthusiastically supported sending a too small military force of 170,000 soldiers to Iraq) is an ignorant fool who is easily swayed by some sound bites."


2 comments:
The few I've run into wear me down with their "You need to read this." and "You haven't studied the issue like Dr. Paul" and "You are just buying the establishment doctrine".
My first person testimony, my research, my POV carried absolutely no weight with them. I'm wrong. They're right. I just need to accept that.It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with too many of the.
And, frankly, I'm tired of seeing their signs in the right of way. There was one (a painted white sheet) hanging from the city loop near 2nd Ave Sunday. Complete disrespect for OUR property isn't going to win my vote, btw.
Yes, I love it when you see consensus (among vacant lots and rights of way) begin to build for a particular candidate.
And I agree about those other "issues" that come to mind. The "this article will change your life" dimension of his supporters is bothersome (and typical of multi-level recruiters plus conspiracy folks) And it kind of is odd to insist on referring to him as "Dr." I guess it reflects a preoccupation with "authority" or "title" rather than substance.
Post a Comment