Fox Admits Romney Cannot Win With Out Ron Paul Supporters

[RobertNashville]

I've seen that trend at Fox, also. They have been pushing Romney since very early in the primary process.

I thought they were a bit blatant, too. He wasn't the only one several of the people at Fox painted unfairly.

That said, I remember Hannity gave a bit of good time to most of the candidates, for what it's worth.

There was also a lot of the other media sources pushing Paul, kind of like they meant it. I think they really

still want him in the race to be that Perot type spoiler, because I think they are worried about Obama's

re-election chances, which are shrinking.

I still ask why Paul has to only be a President. Can't he perform elsewhere in the adminstration effectively,

if his patriotism is driving him? It's happened with other contenders in the past.

My picks have long been removed, but I don't think they have given up on the country just because they can't

become President this time, or ever. They still seem to be engaged in other ways.

My question remains the same about him. Why didn't he get another handler to help him become just enough

mainstream to be palatable to more voters? I think it could have made a huge difference. But that's history, now.

I can't say I've noticed Fox pushing Romney; then again, I watch very little of Fox or any other TV news outlets these days so I guess I've insulated myself from it. It also means that Fox certainly hasn't formed my opinion of Paul!

Edited July 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

...Tis doubtful Ron Paul expected to be president any time he ran. That is kinda not the point in my opinion, though I'm not a mind reader and dunno RP's motives.

You know, you are probably correct about that but doesn't that raise another issue?

I don't have Fox sound clips in front of me but I'm pretty sure I've heard Paul say more than one that he's really running for President and running to win and expects be the nominee, etc., etc.

So...is he really expecting to be and and running to be the nominee or is he running just to make a point and push his agenda?

If he's really running to make a point/push his agenda (which I've heard others say many times in various ways) then isn't claiming otherwise a bit dishonest or at the very least, a bit questionable?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hi 6.8

Based on coverage and spin, it did seem rather easy to identify the couple of candidates most-favored by Murdoch. I like Paul but do not consider him an exceptional candidate. I generally expect that an uncharismatic average plodding libertarian would do a better job than a "more talented mainstream republican" if ever given the chance, merely because the libertarian ideas are better, even if the ideas are ham-handedly and ineptly applied. Which is just my personal prejudice. IOW, one monkey don't stop no show. How much talent would it take to veto 99 percent of legislation and stand there and explain to the press why and wherefore every day?

Some scuttlebut a few months ago-- Romney and RP were supposedly on friendlier terms and spent more time in pleasant off-camera interaction than others on the campaign trail. Some observers went so far as to speculate that RP was secretly helping Romney by selectively destroying Romney's "anti-romney of the day" in each debate. Going after Gingrich when Gingrich was on top, going after Perry when Perry was on top, etc, while in comparison treating Romney with kid gloves. Dunno if that had any merit. The debates were too dull, and there were too many of them for me to pay real close attention.

On the other hand if RP's strategy was to at least score second in as many elections possible, then the strategy would be the same-- Concentrate on inflicting maximum damage on whoever happens to be next-in-line behind Romney's popularity at each election or debate. People were so desperately anybody-but-romney that every candidate enjoyed a brief period of being the favorite anybody-but-romney candidate.

Dunno if another handler would have helped RP. I was surprised because crotchety old unstylish uncharismatic fossil Ron Paul really was drawing not only bigger crowds, but more-enthusiastic younger demographic crowds than anybody else. Young blood the R party desperately needs, considering that the average age of registered R's in most states is alarmingly high, forboding that R's could be on the wrong side of future trends. Am not a conspiracy theorist but really, seriously, the grumpy old farts running some states republican parties were trying every trick in the book to dilute RP's impact. Several states did stack the deck against RP. Which seemed odd that if they were aware that RP was drawing so much youth support and youth grassroots campaigning, that they would want to piss off future republicans in such large numbers. Either the grumpy old state R leaders were unaware of the youth RP groundswell, or alternately they would rather have an aged demographic smaller party rather than lose control of a bigger, younger, more vibrant party? Big fish in a smallpond?

Am not claiming that they literally stole elections from RP, but in some states it did seem what was going on. Ain't saying that RP really won or whatever, just that there was some fishy stuff going down in the media coverage and the state R parties.

Anyway I doubt RP would turn down a cabinet post but am not a mind-reader. For one thing, RP would need to be asked before he can either accept or turn down the job. For another thing, if asked and RP accepts, then it is doubtful that RP would just sit down and shut up on policy with which he disagrees, merely to be a good team player for Romney. If that is the case then the Romney people know it as well. They wouldn't want an independent-minded grumpy old guy in Romney's cabinet speechifying against Romney's bad policies. People will sit down and shut up if the pay is good enough and/or they need the money or crave the power. I just don't think RP would sit down and shut up, so there would probably be irreconcilable differences.

[sigmtnman]

I've seen that trend at Fox, also. They have been pushing Romney since very early in the primary process.

I thought they were a bit blatant, too. He wasn't the only one several of the people at Fox painted unfairly.

That said, I remember Hannity gave a bit of good time to most of the candidates, for what it's worth.

There was also a lot of the other media sources pushing Paul, kind of like they meant it. I think they really

still want him in the race to be that Perot type spoiler, because I think they are worried about Obama's

re-election chances, which are shrinking.

I still ask why Paul has to only be a President. Can't he perform elsewhere in the adminstration effectively,

if his patriotism is driving him? It's happened with other contenders in the past.

My picks have long been removed, but I don't think they have given up on the country just because they can't

become President this time, or ever. They still seem to be engaged in other ways.

My question remains the same about him. Why didn't he get another handler to help him become just enough

mainstream to be palatable to more voters? I think it could have made a huge difference. But that's history, now.

Yes, Fox and the other infotainment outlets obviously have their picks. The agenda extends beyond Paul and is more directed at his policies which are consistent with the Constitution. He just happens to be the messenger, so they use straw man tactics and ad hominem in order to discredit his message. It would not be in the best interest of most multi-national corps if we went back to a more Constitutional government, with less .gov largess and less or no protectionist laws.

Perhaps the more liberal infotainment outlets are pushing Dr. Paul in hopes of a spoiler affect, but again, I do know many, many independents and democrats who moaned about Bush the same way folks are now moaning about Obama. Now those same folks are disgruntled by Obama's continuation of many Bush era policies and stuff like NDAA, bailouts, etc and have stated they would happily support Dr. Paul because they feel he would be less likely to impose on their lives and give their money away. Of course, perhaps they are just saying that. I can't say for sure what they actually believe. But It's pretty much history now, as you point out.

Handlers can only do so much without asking a person to lie about what they believe and I don't see Dr. Paul doing that. For better or worse, it is what it is.

Finally, as Lester points out, it's doubtful he would ever be offered a position in an administration because no one wants a gadfly who may not toe the line. I'd imagine he would accept a position if offered, after the convention and the nominations has happened, but until the runners actually cross the finish line, the race is not over.

Perhaps that's old school thinking given the short attention spans of folks today, but what would it be like if a team or person just gave up before the actual end of an event? Why is this any different? In my mind he sees no need to talk about a backup plan and that's the sort of fighter I want.

Edited July 26, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest Baron]

Any vote other than for Romney will be a vote for Obama. Be symbolic and vote for a 3rd if you want, but you will be voting for Obama in reality.

I can't stand Obama or Romney. I believe they are both toxic to our liberty, welfare and future. I question the sanity of anyone who believes different.

I will be voting for Romney no matter who he chooses as a running mate (and I am a strong Paul supporter). Romney can't be trusted with anything. He has been so damn inconsistent on every issue, he may be schizophrenic. However, I am quite certain of Obamas motives and as a 2nd term president, nothing is going to divert him.

I am voting Romney strictly because it is easier to control a 1st term dirtbag than a 2nd.

[RobertNashville]

...Tis doubtful Ron Paul expected to be president any time he ran. That is kinda not the point in my opinion, though I'm not a mind reader and dunno RP's motives.

You know, you are probably correct about that but doesn't that raise another issue?

I don't have Fox sound clips in front of me but I'm pretty sure I've heard Paul say more than one that he's really running for President and running to win and expects be the nominee, etc., etc.

So...is he really expecting to be and and running to be the nominee or is he running just to make a point and push his agenda?

If he's really running to make a point/push his agenda (which I've heard others say many times in various ways) then isn't him claiming otherwise a bit questionable if not dishonest?

[plank white]

There has been a strong bias against Paul by the MSM "Main stream Media " since the begining and nobody cares thats the really bad thing about it

The guy has been blatently shut down time and time again and the few people that do notice really do get pissed about it because we have seen it non stop and nobody else cares people just accept and move on and its very frustrating as i post videos on different forums proving it I get almost instant rebutals from a majority of people who never even watched the video or videos etc. .Ive resigned myself to the fact that people just dont care . and when I say people "do what they are told" that is exactly what I mean but even though alot of folks see it and know whats going on the ones "doing what they are told to do " dont even realise they are being told. Maybe thats why it is so frustrating

[media=]

Edited July 26, 2012 by plank white

[sigmtnman]

I don't think it's so much Dr. Paul though as it is the messages. If another person were to put forth his Constitutional views and were serious about them, they would be shut down/out too.

Look at how many people believe they have "Constitutional" rights. That says something right there about the indoctrination of the .gov granting rights and people conception of what it's all about.

The .gov has already gone on the record and stated that people who put too much faith into the Constitution are probably terrorists. It's only fitting that their .com bedfellows help them out.

Edited July 26, 2012 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

There has been a strong bias against Paul by the MSM "Main stream Media " since the begining and nobody cares thats the really bad thing about it

The guy has been blatently shut down time and time again and the few people that do notice really do get pissed about it because we have seen it non stop and nobody else cares people just accept and move on and its very frustrating as i post videos on different forums proving it I get almost instant rebutals from a majority of people who never even watched the video or videos etc. .Ive resigned myself to the fact that people just dont care . and when I say people "do what they are told" that is exactly what I mean but even though alot of folks see it and know whats going on the ones "doing what they are told to do " dont even realise they are being told. Maybe thats why it is so frustrating

Why is it so easy for RP faithful to come up with cute pictures and videos but can't seem to generate votes at the polls? I'll answer my own question by citing (well, paraphrasing) 6.8 AR because I think it it has a great deal to do with how RP has been presented/presented himself. His message doesn't resonate with a majority of people not because his message is bad but because he doesn't put his message out there in a way that the average voter can accept and he ends up scaring people; that is where a good handler and/or campaign manager could have been a significant help.

"Shut out"? Really? Are RP's supporters ever going to stop singing that tired and untrue song? I'm pretty sure he was invited to the NRA National Convention but he was a no show so who is shutting him out? He's all over the networks with soundbites so who is shutting him out? I believe he was invited to all the debates (but didn't show up for at least one of them) so who is shutting him out?

He lost because he lost...he didn't get the votes (see above)...he didn't lose because people did what they were told...he lost because he didn't convince enough people to vote for him.

He's had three shots at the apple and he's missed each time by a pretty significant and the only one who is really to blame is the guy RP sees in the mirror in the mornings when he shaves.

Edited July 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yes, Fox and the other infotainment outlets obviously have their picks. The agenda extends beyond Paul and is more directed at his policies which are consistent with the Constitution. He just happens to be the messenger, so they use straw man tactics and ad hominem in order to discredit his message. It would not be in the best interest of most multi-national corps if we went back to a more Constitutional government, with less .gov largess and less or no protectionist laws.

Perhaps the more liberal infotainment outlets are pushing Dr. Paul in hopes of a spoiler affect, but again, I do know many, many independents and democrats who moaned about Bush the same way folks are now moaning about Obama. Now those same folks are disgruntled by Obama's continuation of many Bush era policies and stuff like NDAA, bailouts, etc and have stated they would happily support Dr. Paul because they feel he would be less likely to impose on their lives and give their money away. Of course, perhaps they are just saying that. I can't say for sure what they actually believe. But It's pretty much history now, as you point out.

Handlers can only do so much without asking a person to lie about what they believe and I don't see Dr. Paul doing that. For better or worse, it is what it is.

Finally, as Lester points out, it's doubtful he would ever be offered a position in an administration because no one wants a gadfly who may not toe the line. I'd imagine he would accept a position if offered, after the convention and the nominations has happened, but until the runners actually cross the finish line, the race is not over.

Perhaps that's old school thinking given the short attention spans of folks today, but what would it be like if a team or person just gave up before the actual end of an event? Why is this any different? In my mind he sees no need to talk about a backup plan and that's the sort of fighter I want.

After reading yours and Lester's points, I agree with you. There isn't much point to when he drops out. I just

wish he would stand up for Romney, like I would expect Romney to stand up for him, since they were both in

the Republican primaries.

The media folks definitely have an agenda, depending on which outlet we go to. For any one of the other

than Fox outlets out there, it could be shown that there was probably as much a push for Paul in the primary

race as there was for anyone else, other than Romney. There was a lot of deception on the media reporting

in general during that time. I expect more, just as the ads will increase from both sides.

It's not going to let up any time soon. Quite honestly, whoever wins, I expect the worst if we don't get the senate.

A split Congress will break this next time for Democrats for the house and at least narrow the margin if it doesn't

erode it completely. That's just more disaster.

As far as the handler goes for Paul, it would have made a huge difference in the way people, other than you and I

perceive him as a candidate. The typical American voter needs to see a less brash candidate. Too many folks

are probably scared of what Paul would actually do, the way he comes off. When I see a candidate say something,

and I scratch my head thinking he could have stated something different, I know there are probably millions of voters

who just got thrown off by a simple choice of words and how the media will eventually use those words against him.

You have to admit Sig and Lester, we are probably more attuned to the candidates than the average voter. More

care needs to be taken. I really think it would have made a difference. I still like Paul, but think he made himself

unelectable.

[plank white]

Look ..Romney Sucks

I Win ....

Now Give me some Pushups

Front Lean and Rest Position .............Move..