The Credibility Factor
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Democrats have Denny Kucinich and Mike Gravel and the Republicans have Ron Paul running for President. The GOP, I guess, deserves one more gas bag running for President, so we only had to bide our time until Alan Keyes came through the door.
That leads me to a poll question. My vote is with Ron Paul. And that should speak volumes.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | "Liberals Think That The Best Way To Help People Is To Punish Them" — Comments (8) »
The Credibility Factor 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
If you look at that survey, RP is winning by only a few percentage points. And based on the typical past RonPaul! ballot-box-stuffing, I'd guess that Keyes is probably the real winner.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
When I posted my comment, Paul had 100% of the vote.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I don't think I posted my original response long after yours. Maybe there's a closet contingent of Alan Keyes poll spammers out there to battle with the Ronulans...
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Your obsession with Ron Paul never ceases to amaze me. Why are you so interested on tearing down a candidate whom some of us (okay, I) support and who has no chance of winning instead of spending more time attacking vulnerable Democrat members of the House and Senate? Within the last few months, your anti-Paul posts have to be in the double-digits, but I can't recall a post against a vulnerable Democrat member of Congress since your post on Nancy Boyda at the end of July.
...Erick's been firing both barrels squarely at most of the Republican field for some time now. Sure, some of Paul's positions (mainly in regards to Iraq and fiscal policy) are rather out there, but I agree... the ammunition should be being fired at the other side. (Granted, I'm less concerned about a Hillary presidency than, say, an Obama or a Dodd administration, but I'd rather have any Republican in the field, Paul and Keyes included, over Hillary.)
I still have a hard time believing Keyes' statements on reparations are serious, though... other than that, he's a solid conservative mind, even if his voice is almost impossible to take seriously.
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke
Finally found somebody worse than Paul, a real accomplishment.
Is anybody aware of published journalistic standards that address when it's ok not to cover a candidate or to intentionally give them less attention? 'Cause it seems like everybody just makes it up as they go.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
that we're giving Paul short shrift here.
Au contraire. We've covered Paul's policy views probably about as comprehensively as any other candidate (with the possible exception of Fred Thompson and Erick's favorite candidate, Mitt Romney [sarcasm dripping]).
If anybody's followers have a right to be upset with the amount of coverage they've been getting here, it's not the Paulites. Rather, I'd point to Brownback, Hunter, and possibly Tancredo in that regard. Granted, all of them have the same odds of winning the nomination as Paul (about the same as picking a specific molecule out of a mole), but their platforms have barely been addressed here at all.
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke
Brownback's gotten plenty of attention thanks to the hire of Leon.
Tancredo got a series of front page interviews I believe.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I wasn't trying to promote anyone, I just wanted to know if there's any objective yardstick by which the media measures a candidate worthy of covering. If there is one, it's easier to hold them to a standard.
He's as bad as Paul, but obviously no one is crazier on our side (basically) than alan keyes.
He's just flat out wrong, being a Buchanan-wannabe and all.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Ron Paul is an air force veteran, a doctor, and a 10-term U.S. Congressman.
Alan Keyes is...well....he was an ambassador. He also wrote a couple books.
You decide who has the better resume.
And here's a lesson for Keyes that Gilmore learned the hard way: just because there is a website devoted to getting you to run, does not mean there is a groundswell of support for you to be President. It just means someone made you a website.
Keyes is a jerk. I was at a conservative event in DC in 1999 that most of the GOP POTUS candidates attended, including Bush. Bush gave his usual speech and everyone in the audience (around 3000 or so) gave him polite applause as they did with all the candidates. Then when Keyes got up he started chastising the audience for clapping for Bush! It was very insulting and made little sense.
"Reparations" shattered my view of Keyes.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.