Sarc, I gotta commend your endurance with all these haters. I can understand if you dislike the guy, but to waste precious time by searching for lil things to toss into the wheels of the Ron Paul Revolution seems petty and childish to me.  I just tuned them out long ago much like I tune out the Hillary crowd and all those holy rollers who claim that a vote for anyone but a strict traditionalist is a vote for Satan.  It just seems to some people, having the right to their own opinion isn't enough, they need to force it upon others and pass it off as objective and the real deal.  At any rate, keep it up, I've yet to see any of them truely stick it to ya, which I guess is no suprise when you find that they are merely attacking the supporters and not the canidate.  Afterall, I'm sure there's alot of creepers out there and bigots and evil that support ALL the canidates on both sides.  A politician cannot decide who backs them and who does not, they can only reach out to those they wish to speak to and for.  Ron Paul has not once tried to rally the viewpoints of the white supremacy movement, the Neo Nazis, the KKK, the anti-semetics, or any of the other crazy fringe groups who's policy is based on exclusion and hate.  Dig all you like my friends, you may find bones, but none in his yard. 

Again, disagree with him if you wish, I can totally understand that.  What I can't understand is this childish need to lie in wait for any reason, albeit always small and irrelevant, to try and sully Ron Paul.  He loves America, and while his ideas may clash with yours, I can tell you if the roles were reveresed, he wouldn't do what you are doing and try and find anyway to paint you as a moron and crazy merely because you differ in viewpoints.  Guess we're lucky the roles are as they are then.  I can't imagine the campaigning if some of you ran for office.  It'd be so much negative press you'd think CNN and Fox became E television! :-P

I'll just add one thing to show how little things can turn elections:

The reason MoveOn was able to win the primary was that Joe didn't take neophyte deer-in-the-headlights Ned Lamont seriously.  Even his campaign manager was new and not from Connecticut, so she wasn't really familiar with CT political dynamics.

On losing the primary, Joe got serious and re-hired his old campaign manager.   As a result, he easily won the general election.

Sorry RJ, but I gotta disagree with your reasoning. First, if the CW is believeable, Hillary is a much more popular figure with Democrats than Lieberman was. The question would be how popular she would be as an Indy, going against the real first black president?

I would imagine there would be a lot of lingering resentment if by some miracle Hillary won the presidency as an Indy. The question is: would that matter? Would Speaker Pilosi have the moxie to take on President Clinton? That would make for a great political wrestling match.

As for losing leadership, I don't see that as a problem. Unlike being senator, and a small fish in a big pond, Hillary would be the lone big fish, so there's no leadership issues to cede to anyone else. I also don't see leadership points as being Lieberman's passion either. I think he has much more influence as a swing vote on the Dem side than he ever did with a senate leadership position.

so...just what did he say that constitutes "stump speech"?

All I saw quoted was pretty "sermony".

v

"If we know the Lord, there ought to be joy," Huckabee said.

TM, I think you are partially correct. I think we all have our prejudice, its natural and efficient because we do not have the time or ability to know everyone intimately. But most do not raise their prejudice to the level of a bigot.