Friday, October 5, 2007

Ron Paul’s Chances of Winning Continue to Improve

Ron Dzwonkowski of the Detroit Free Press writes that Ron Paul 'is among what critics consider 'vanity candidates' or limited-issue folks who clog up the early going in every presidential race."
Follow this link to the original source: "No chance to win"

One critic whom Mr. Dzwonkowski is particularly fond of citing is Dr. Michael Coulter of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College. Dr. Coulter suggested in a recent essay that U.S. House members should be banned from running for president. One wonders whether Dr. Coulter has read the U.S. Constitution.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates just two requirements for eligibility to hold the office of President. The first is that the candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States. The second is that the candidate must be at least 35 years of age.

Dr. Coulter claims that James Garfield was the only House member ever to be elected President. Coulter conveniently fails to note that Abraham Lincoln, often considered to be our greatest president, was neither a governor nor a senator. But he was a member of the House of Representatives!

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the order of presidential succession places the Speaker of the House immediately after the Vice President. That makes Dr. Coulter's suggestion that House members be banned from running for president look absolutely ludicrous.

Dzwonkowski writes, "Coulter puts Paul in the 'less than no chance' category for winning the White House, which is accurate." Apparently, Coulter and Dzwonkowski have not checked out, which reports on Internet betting relating to presidential candidates.

Shortly after midnight on May 22, 2007, reported that Ron Paul was listed on with 200 to 1 odds of winning the 2008 U.S. presidential race. Nine hours later, it reported that the odds had been cut by half, to 100 to 1. Eight days later, the odds had been slashed to 15 to 1.

On August 7, reported that Ron Paul's odds had been cut to 8 to 1, putting him in a tie with Mitt Romney. By October 1, Paul's odds were down to 6 to 1, ahead of Romney, and just behind John McCain (5 to 1) and Rudy Giuliani (5 to 1). Fred Thompson is the favorite among Republicans with odds of 4 to 1.

That may strike those following the political scene as unbelievable, since mainstream media polls put Ron Paul way behind. Here's what has to say about that:

Forget those political polls. Throughout time (at least the last decade), oddsmakers have had an uncanny knack for predicting political races. It's not so much that they have a crystal ball, rather the lines adjust based on public action. When it comes to political betting, the public action is presumed to represent votes. The theory being that someone who is likely to vote on Mitt Romney probably won't bet on Ron Paul winning.

The gambling public seems to believe that 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul stands a very good chance of winning.

Coulter and Dzwonkowski also appear to be unaware of Ron Paul's domination of the Internet. Dr. Paul's superstar status in cyberspace was recently described in an article published by The New American magazine, which can be viewed here.

And this week it was reported that the Ron Paul campaign raised more that $5 million during the third quarter, a 114 percent increase over the second quarter. That increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.

No chance to win? That's what they said about Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, in the early stages of their campaigns. The story that the mainstream media is missing is that Ron Paul is looking more like a first-tier candidate with each passing day.

The continual drumbeat in the media that Paul is not a serious contender, though, says more about the media than it says about Ron Paul. Paul espouses a constitutionalist message and is finding that voters are responding. That message contradicts with the soft-socialist predilections of the mainstream media. Hence, most media organs will go to any length in their attempts to discredit that message. In due time, however, the propagandists in the mainstream media may find, to their chagrin, that they have lost the ear, and the respect, of the American people.



TruthgoneWild is PRO America. TruthgoneWild is not, in any way, connected to, or supportive of, any person(s) who engage in violent acts towards anyone or anything, for any reason. TruthgoneWild is not, and will never be, associated with, or support, any person(s) who are involved with any kind of religious, extremist, occultist, terrorist organization(s). TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the people who read the TruthgoneWild blog. TruthgoneWild posts consist of information copied from other sources and a source link is provided for the reader. TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the authors' content. Parental discretion is advised.

TruthgoneWild is exercising our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Those who attempt to hinder this right to free speech will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law. TruthgoneWild is not anti government. TruthgoneWild is anti corruption. And we the people have every right to know who in our government is corrupt.