Interesting Ron Paul Newsletter Excerpts

His message does resonate with a segment of the public. But I think those people generally agreee with him on an issue here and there. For instance, he's outspoken about the war but he also want's to get rid of the Federal Reserve. He's also made some controversial statements about public education.

I think if he were a leading candidate and was under the spotlight 24/7 like some of the others, most people wouldn't take as seriously as they suppose they do.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

His views are pretty diverse, and I think almost anyone in the country would agree with him on one point or another. I think he just hasn't gotten enough exposure for people to see the full spectrum of his ideas.

Personally I kind of like him. Not saying I'd vote for him, as I haven't researched him enough yet, but he's at least different and not afraid to speak his mind.

I think one of the things people find attractive is that he's very specific in his plans and ideas, very concrete. On the other side of the fence I think that's what Hillary has going for her too, she's pretty concrete and particular about what to change.

What blows me away is that people don't see through a guy like Obama. Listen to him speak for 20 minutes and you get this very nice, hopeful sounding bit of rhetoric with no real substance. Even go to the guys website and look at his stance on various issues and most of it is vague fluff. I finish listening to him and pretty much think, "Ok...that sounds very nice, but what the hell are your actual, specific plans?"

I think you hit the nail on the head.

His views are pretty diverse, and I think almost anyone in the country would agree with him on one point or another. I think he just hasn't gotten enough exposure for people to see the full spectrum of his ideas.

Personally I kind of like him. Not saying I'd vote for him, as I haven't researched him enough yet, but he's at least different and not afraid to speak his mind.

I think one of the things people find attractive is that he's very specific in his plans and ideas, very concrete. On the other side of the fence I think that's what Hillary has going for her too, she's pretty concrete and particular about what to change.

What blows me away is that people don't see through a guy like Obama. Listen to him speak for 20 minutes and you get this very nice, hopeful sounding bit of rhetoric with no real substance. Even go to the guys website and look at his stance on various issues and most of it is vague fluff. I finish listening to him and pretty much think, "Ok...that sounds very nice, but what the hell are your actual, specific plans?"

Ron Paul is good for the process regardless of where he stands. Because at the end of the day, even if his policies and views are way off, at least he's engaging the American people on some level.

As far as Obama goes, since I'm actually supporting him, I won't dare get into anything that will dispute what you believe or think about him. But being around the campaign, I will say that he has definitely laid out some very concrete plans on a number of issues. It's just that the clamour around him is so "loud" at times, that's not what people are buzzing about.

We'll see how it all shakes out in a few weeks.

I'm still on the John McCain bandwagon (and have been for quite some time). I really didn't like the way he handled himself in the pass year or so, drifting away from the "Maverick" that spoke with passion against corruption in the Gov't, but he's still my front runner.

He's starting to make a nice little comeback, and against the likes of extremes like Romney and Giuliani... he looks more and more like the rational Republican. Here's a little excerpt from the Washington Post Op-eds today...


"Mr. McCain offers a voice of reason tempered by the knowledge that many voters are furious about illegal immigration. His deep knowledge of foreign affairs, clearheaded approach to the threat of Islamic extremism and unwillingness to abandon his support for the war in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iraq?tid=informline), even when it threatened to cost him his bid for the presidency, are admirable, as is his unswerving opposition to the use of torture by U.S. personnel. Although we disagree with the Arizona (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Arizona?tid=informline) senator on a host of domestic issues, including tax policy, abortion rights and gay rights, his willingness to take on such issues as climate change and campaign finance reform -- neither of which were particularly popular with his party -- reflects well on his character and judgment."

From washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010804600.html)

McCain is making a nice comeback. If I'm Republican, I think this is the guy you want to get the nomination. Mitt Romney has been trashing McCain of late, but I think it's just a matter of time before he's fully exposed for what he is.

Mac is Back!

Ron Paul is good for the process regardless of where he stands. Because at the end of the day, even if his policies and views are way off, at least he's engaging the American people on some level.

As far as Obama goes, since I'm actually supporting him, I won't dare get into anything that will dispute what you believe or think about him. But being around the campaign, I will say that he has definitely laid out some very concrete plans on a number of issues. It's just that the clamour around him is so "loud" at times, that's not what people are buzzing about.

We'll see how it all shakes out in a few weeks.

There can be plenty of clamor around a candidate who is mostly "fluff."

He's young, good looking, excellent speaker. The masses love that, regardless of what he's actually saying or not saying.

Like you said, I'm really not even debating political viewpoints here, but more campaign/candidate strategy and presentation. I've read through his issue stances on his website, and it all strikes me as incredibly vague. It's stuff like "Let's improve healthcare" and why it's so important, but never gets into the nitty gritty of how he's going to do it. That's really not even commenting on him as a person or an individual, but how his team is presenting him to the public.

Like I said, Hillary does a better job of this than Obama. I'm absolutely not a supporter of her and it'll be a cold, brisk day in hell before I cast a vote for her, but I think she beats Obama out on presenting substance and being detailed.

Ron Paul is good for the process regardless of where he stands. Because at the end of the day, even if his policies and views are way off, at least he's engaging the American people on some level.

As far as Obama goes, since I'm actually supporting him, I won't dare get into anything that will dispute what you believe or think about him. But being around the campaign, I will say that he has definitely laid out some very concrete plans on a number of issues. It's just that the clamour around him is so "loud" at times, that's not what people are buzzing about.

We'll see how it all shakes out in a few weeks.
That's what we need more of.

Sometimes, the candidates that don't have a real genuine shot at winning tend to be the most attractive. They'll speak there mind, and give you a lot of unadulterated information... that might not sound pretty, but is at least genuine.

Just because an idea is a little extreme, doesn't mean it's not worth talking about.

That's what we need more of.

Sometimes, the candidates that don't have a real genuine shot at winning tend to be the most attractive. They'll speak there mind, and give you a lot of unadulterated information... that might not sound pretty, but is at least genuine.

Just because an idea is a little extreme, doesn't mean it's not worth talking about.

Conversely, the candidates who are the forerunners seem to get more and more vague, as if by being specific and honest they think risk alienating people.

I guess if you're in front it pays to suddenly go vague and fluffy.

His message does resonate with a segment of the public. But I think those people generally agreee with him on an issue here and there. For instance, he's outspoken about the war but he also want's to get rid of the Federal Reserve. He's also made some controversial statements about public education.

I think if he were a leading candidate and was under the spotlight 24/7 like some of the others, most people wouldn't take as seriously as they suppose they do.
God forbid a person for making a comment about doing away with the well run federal public school system. I no nothing of the guy nor do I think I would vote for him but I get a kick out of when people talk about doing away with the federal school system. Everyone says its failing but its not the system failing its the lack of money. So we give them more money and things keep getting worse so we again give it more money and thing keep going down hill. If anyone metions doing away with the federal goverments role with schools everyone freaks out like they are doing such a great job. The way it works now we send our tax money to the fed then they take about 20% of the money for their share of cost in running schools then send us back the difference. We could increase spending with thet alone by 15 or more % then let the local people who know our local needs take care of education. If they are failing just vote them out of office.

There can be plenty of clamor around a candidate who is mostly "fluff."

He's young, good looking, excellent speaker. The masses love that, regardless of what he's actually saying or not saying.

Like you said, I'm really not even debating political viewpoints here, but more campaign/candidate strategy and presentation. I've read through his issue stances on his website, and it all strikes me as incredibly vague. It's stuff like "Let's improve healthcare" and why it's so important, but never gets into the nitty gritty of how he's going to do it. That's really not even commenting on him as a person or an individual, but how his team is presenting him to the public.

Like I said, Hillary does a better job of this than Obama. I'm absolutely not a supporter of her and it'll be a cold, brisk day in hell before I cast a vote for her, but I think she beats Obama out on presenting substance and being detailed.

Ummm...I beg to differ. There is, or at least there should be, a very comprehensive outline of his healthcare plan on the website. And I've personally heard him outline segments of it as well. Not one candidate - not one - has outlined their entire healthcare plan in a public setting. It's just too nuanced and detailed.

As far as Obama v. Hillary. There are some style differences in how they present their ideas, concepts and policies. I won't argue that point. He's definitely a dymanic orator, and if that's one of his strengths, then he should by all means play to his strengths. I think at this stage in the race though, enough people have kicked the tires and looked under the hood enough to know that there is more to Obama than flash and glitz.

Conversely, the candidates who are the forerunners seem to get more and more vague, as if by being specific and honest they think risk alienating people.

I guess if you're in front it pays to suddenly go vague and fluffy.

I agree with you here. Generally speaking, when a candidate is considered the front runner, he/she starts playing the polls like a scared boxer in the 12th round. Just don't get knocked out, play it safe. At that point, it's all about keeping the poll numbers steady.