Romulus wrote:
 
Blasphemy!
 Fox 'News' is fair and balanced! MSNBC leans forward!

No WAY could legitimate news outlets be deceptive or persuasive. They just report the facts, right? Right? Please, tell me they just report the facts...

 steeler wrote: 
Fair enough, but, Santorum was/(is?) and employee of Fox. Bain Capital owns half of Clear Channel. And neither of them have been vetting properly as much as they dog on Ron Paul. Gingirch is an excellent debater. That helps. Ron Paul is very much an imperfect messenger with a less than stellar appearance, so it all comes into play. If Santorum was vetted properly by Fox, I don't think his numbers would be up so high. We can't deny the media isn't deceptive and persuasive.

 Romulus wrote: 

That itself is a myth.

How do you explain, for example, the rallying of Santorum to challenge Romney these last couple months?  He complained about being ignored and written off by the media, and, in those early stages, he was polling low and being written off by prognosticators. Remember him standing at the far end  of all of the early debates? He had no traction of which to speak nationally. He bet the ranch on Iowa, spent nearly all of his pre-2012 tinme there, and that strategy seems to have actually worked for him. 

We've seen almost every GOP nominee cycle from bottom to top and back to bottom again — and everywhere inbetween.  It has been a remarkable primary in that regard.  Gingrich has been pronounced dead by prognosticators several times now.  

The reality is that folk are free to vote for whomever they wish.  If someone is so wishy-washy on his or her voting preference (much less commitment)  as to be swayed into voting for someone else whom they don't even like just because of what someone has written in the media, well, that sort of speaks for itself.

 

 Beaker wrote: 
Yes, because 1. We are broke. 2. Neither one of the 3 GOP stooges will admit that and propose borrowing and printing more money to bomb Iran. and a big 3. Individual liberty matters! The TSA and Drones aren't the answer.

Would prefer Obama over Ron Paul?

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Give chance a piece!

 Beaker wrote: 

Sure we will give peace a chance. How do you know it won't work, we have never tried it before and the war thing does not seem to be helping any, now does it? Besides, I thought you were concerned about the deficit, he and Johnson are the only ones with the chutzpah to actually present a true deficit reduction plan, those is the facts jack.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
there ya go.

 Beaker wrote: 
That is Ron Paul you fruit. 12 terms in Congress and head of the House Financial Services Committee?

The system is rigged against any 3rd party. That's why they have to run as R's. And when they do, the system unites against them because they challenge the corrupt establishment.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
As in: You don't want anyone to be president, or there's no one on the ballot you want to vote for? Answer to the first is move to Cuba, answer to the second is write it in.

 Romulus wrote: 
I said this morning I can't believe I'm taking Santorum's side but NPR was all "Romney had a solid performance yesterday, taking 6 out of 10 states, and winning hotly-contested Ohio." Wait, what? He won Ohio, split the delegates (again) and comes away leading, but not really pulling away with any conviction, yet they're literally saying now that he's the presumptive nominee. I guess they're looking at the calendar and trying to guess what will happen but this is the most interesting primary season in a long time (hillary/obama was pretty great too, I guess) and they should just let it play out.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

and when there is no such person?

 Beaker wrote: 
That is what I am doing, I am left with no choice. What is the matter with voting for who you feel is the best candidate especially when they are an official choice on the ballot? Last time I checked this was a representative republic where our leaders are elected after counting all of the votes. What would you do a.: If you were an American and could vote here and b. were left with the choice of Paul and Obama? Would you not vote? How would that help?  BTW, I am amused if you think Romney, Santorum or Gingrich is any different than Obama especially regarding the economy and the deficit. You are no different than the liberals who support Obama just because he is a Democrat. Funny how the most hatred and vitriol are reserved for those that are most alike. I find this ironic and amusing.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
And by the media either ignoring or repeating "Ron Paul can't win" myth over and over.

People willfully accept what's presented to them.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
followed next week by  HOT DOG SALES SKYROCKET!

 Beaker wrote: 
Well if that's your metric, we can all stay home.
 
At some point, we have to start voting for the person we want to win, and not try to play bookmaker and strategize... because that's how Romney has kept his frontrunner status, by repeating "I'm the only one who can win" over and over and over. 

 Beaker wrote: 
So does participating in a false choice of Mitt vs O.

If you vote on principle, it's never wasted.

 Beaker wrote: 
Lots of people will write him in anyway. And not sure R's. Many folks jumped the D's shipped already, thanks to Obombya, just like the former R's did thanks to Bush. So the myth that RP will hand the election to O is a myth. He pulls support from all sides.

 LordBaltimore wrote: 
You're not wrong, probably, in your assessment of the voters except that anyone voting Romney is trying to choose the best candidate to run against Obama. He's nobody's first choice but if you have to choose ABCorD, you hold your nose and pick one.
 
Had an "Anyone but Obama" guy spouting off in the office yesterday and he said he could walk down the street and pick a guy who could be a better president. I chuckled to myself that it ain't that easy, then I thought, sure, I can name a few people in this county who would be the best president this country's ever had. But there's one problem: they aren't running. All this talk of Mitt attracting this voter and Santo attracting that voter, makes no sense. At this point, few people are voting for Any Of The Above out of a true belief that they are uniquely qualified to lead the nation. It's a question of "you gotta eat. Want a lukewarm hotdog, or some of this soup from last week?" You spend 5 minutes going I Don't Care, Whatever, then just grab a hotdog and the press screams "HOT DOGS PREFERRED BY NATION'S LUNCH-EATERS."  

 Beaker wrote: 
Why wouldn't he. Libertarian party has ballot access to 50 states... amiright?

 LordBaltimore wrote: 
Most people act based on the appearance of something. It's a superficial world.

Newt is correct when he said, "People don't care what I do, they care about what I say".