June 22, 2007

Ron Paul "Students for Ron Paul" Commercial




This will be the year of unauthorized campaign commercials - thank you youtube.

Here's the first I've seen for RP. Not bad.


Posted by blogger at 6/22/2007

Labels:

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yesterday the House passed landmark civil rights legislation, H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, by a vote of 422-2. The bill, sponsored by Representatives John Lewis (D-GA) and Kenny Hulshof (R-MO), would re-open hate crime cases during the Civil Rights Era, focusing on investigating and prosecuting murder cases occurring prior to 1970.

The two votes against? Georgia's Lynn Westmoreland and that darling of people who aren't paying close enough attention to reality, Ron Paul.

http://tinyurl.com/37x7z7

June 22, 2007 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...

great commercial!

hey very first Anonymous, pre-1970s Civil Rights Era hate crimes are an issue for those state's where they occurred and the FedGov shouldn't GROW ANY BIGGER to deal w/ it b/c the bureaucracy is already OUT OF CONTROL and would not prosecute crimes pre-1970s w/ any sort of efficiency.

Ron Paul promotes strong stewardship by handing the responsibility over to those on the ground and dealing w/ implementation of laws... NOT by giving more power to the FedGov.

June 22, 2007 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...

Gee, what a great idea - if the gubment had absolutely nothing else to do.

June 22, 2007 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...

Finally a presidential candidate who understand my pain and suffering. Where can I donate?

June 22, 2007 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...

I vote Dr. NO
Contrarians unite!

June 22, 2007 3:51 PM
Reddy Watt said...

And it's being held up by Coburn too. I generally don't agree with Coburn, but he is very fiscally conservative (except when it comes to war).

Here is the text of the bill:
http://tinyurl.com/2af6va

It appropriates $10 mill per year through 2017 to set up a new office in the FBI.

Isn't this the kind of thing the FBI and local law enforcement is supposed to do already with their current budget?

If you followed the first posts link to Daily KOS, you'll notice that their article gives little info about the bill, but makes a great emotional appeal. It also fails to mention the true cost, underreporting it by a factor of 10. That's some fine PR work!

June 22, 2007 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...

Just contributed my $100 for Ron Paul's campaign.

June 22, 2007 4:36 PM
Anonymous said...

Who?

June 22, 2007 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...

He's at 2% in the latest Cook poll and has just overtaken Tom Tancredo making him the official leading right-wing loon candidate.

Congrats Doctor.

June 22, 2007 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...

Not bad.


I wonder if we are going to see a repeat of 1992. A third party (paul makes a last gasp independent bid, perot then) will receive enough republican votes to enable clinton to win. It will go something like clinton 43%, republican 35%, paul 22%

June 22, 2007 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...

that guy makes dollars look good.

June 22, 2007 6:48 PM
Anonymous said...

Here's a radio interview with Ron Paul:

http://stephaniemiller.com/blog.php?Date=20070618

June 22, 2007 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Not bad.


I wonder if we are going to see a repeat of 1992. A third party (paul makes a last gasp independent bid, perot then) will receive enough republican votes to enable clinton to win. It will go something like clinton 43%, republican 35%, paul 22%

June 22, 2007 5:03 PM


==================================

Do you really believe 22%? I mean seriously putting aside your wishes, your dreams. Does anyone here honestly believe that Ron Paul can get anything more than 2, 3% in an national election?

Reality has to set in for you people eventually. If you want to waste your money on him go ahead. Although donating $100 to cancer research or the humane society would do more good. But hey it's your money.

June 22, 2007 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...

Collapse comments

Anonymous said...

Yesterday the House passed landmark civil rights legislation, H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, by a vote of 422-2. The bill, sponsored by Representatives John Lewis (D-GA) and Kenny Hulshof (R-MO), would re-open hate crime cases during the Civil Rights Era, focusing on investigating and prosecuting murder cases occurring prior to 1970.

The two votes against? Georgia's Lynn Westmoreland and that darling of people who aren't paying close enough attention to reality, Ron Paul.


?
That's a reason not to support Dr. Paul?

I happen to agree with him.

What a waste of money.

Why stop in the civil rights era?
Let's spend all of China's money investigating all "hate crimes" throughout history. Where do I pickup my check?
Yeah, that's the ticket. How could anyone pay attention to the imploding economy and loss of our national identity, with all of these unsolved hate crimes in the world?

Have a nice cry victim.

June 23, 2007 2:07 AM
Anonymous said...

Great commercial. Ron Paul has some pretty unique ideas love him or hate him, but it would be refreshing to see someone with a different approach in the white house.

June 23, 2007 2:11 AM
Anonymous said...

MUST SEE! This video sums up the Ron Paul haters!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voxIAhFcRis

June 23, 2007 6:20 AM
Anonymous said...

It's very sad when people say Ron Paul is unique and different when all he's saying is to enforce our Constitution!

You know. The one all our public servants swear to uphold.

June 24, 2007 1:24 AM
Anonymous said...

Keith, it truly is the elites against everyone else.


The Iowa Crime of '07
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.



As I wrote on Wednesday, the misnamed Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance (ICA) have chosen to exclude Ron Paul from their candidates’ forum on June 30.

There is more to report.

I’ve received emails from people telling me that the folks at the ICA insist that they had nothing to do with excluding Dr. Paul, and that the blame rests with Ed Failor of Iowans for Tax Relief. (Ed’s not too popular with a lot of people these days, apparently.)

Now I have no doubt that there may be some decent people at the ICA, and that they may really believe what they are saying. But that organization cannot possibly be believed when it innocently claims it has nothing against Ron Paul.

The ICA has a page on its site that lists all the announced candidates for president. Here is the link.

Until yesterday, when I pointed it out on the LRC blog and embarrassed them a bit, there was no Ron Paul.

Now look at the list again. Ever heard of Hugh Cort? John Cox? Mark Klein? The people at the ICA evidently have, since there they are on the list. But they apparently hadn't heard of Ron Paul until just yesterday.

Actually, though, they did know who Ron Paul was. They even used to have him on their list, as this Google cache shows. But then he disappeared.

They also used to have a link to Paul’s YouTube site, along with those of the other candidates, at the bottom of the page, but that’s also been suppressed. So if they thought they could claim that deleting the link to Ron Paul’s campaign site was some kind of innocent mistake, that isn’t going to work.

Heck, they even include a list of "potential" candidates. That list includes Al Sharpton.

So Al Sharpton merits inclusion, but Ron Paul does not. There is the faith of the apostles, according to the Iowa Christian Alliance.

Now let’s return to my other favorite Iowa organization, the Iowans (Allegedly) for Tax Relief. Its executive vice president, Ed Failor, wasn’t happy about my LRC article on Wednesday. Not happy at all.

In fact, he called me on Wednesday and insisted that I correct something I’d said – that by replacing Jim Gilmore with Duncan Hunter at the last minute (a fact I discovered by comparing press releases from earlier this month), Iowans for Tax Relief implicitly revealed that the reason they were excluding Ron Paul – that the event had supposedly been organized months ago and was now cast in stone – was bogus, and a lie.

Here is the earth-shattering change Failor wanted me to make. Hunter, he said, had been one of the original invitees – man, these guys are just great at picking out the credible candidates, aren’t they? – but failed to respond by the deadline. So when Gilmore dropped out, they went back to Hunter, who accepted.

But if they really wanted "credible" candidates, why would they do such a thing? By now even the zombie population can see that Ron Paul is far more credible than Hunter by any measure. The comparison is almost laughable. And since Hunter had his chance to participate but elected not to respond, why not give Paul a chance, since his initial exclusion – on the ludicrous grounds that he was not a "credible" candidate – has subsequently been shown to be a gross misjudgment? Paul seems particularly "credible" given that he came in second behind Fred Thompson in a straw poll that Iowans for Tax Relief itself co-sponsored!

Meanwhile, with Failor’s technicality off his chest, he had absolutely nothing to say about 99 percent of what I wrote: he never denied his support for the execrable George Pataki (what non-hack ever supported Pataki for anything, much less for president?), his support for Pataki’s spending increases, or his donations to the McCain campaign, for which Failor is a senior advisor.

The humorless Failor appeared on Jan Mickelson’s radio program later that day in order to justify his organization’s exclusion of Dr. Paul; Ron Paul campaign manager Kent Snyder also appeared. You can listen to it here.

My favorite part is Failor’s claim that other non-credible candidates weren’t invited, either, so Ron Paul hasn’t been treated unfairly. And which candidates would those be? Why, Hugh Cort, John Cox, and Mark Klein, of course!

You cannot make this stuff up.

The "Rudy McRomney" moniker is meant to suggest that the establishment’s favorite Republican candidates are indistinguishable from each other, and that they collectively represent the same inoffensive commitment to nothing that characterizes the entire political mainstream. As surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, electing one of these men means absolutely nothing will change. Of that you can be certain.

And that’s just the way Ed Failor, Rudy McRomney supporter, evidently likes it. No Ron Paul revolution for him. Who needs a revolution when you can vote for John McCain and get a slightly more maniacal status quo?

This is the man who sits in judgment of Ron Paul?

And no, Ed, I don’t buy your phony explanation. Neither does anyone with an IQ over 75.

June 24, 2007 4:12 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)