193 votes

Ron Paul will get a bump in New Hampshire and nationally with his comment on serving even though he was married and had 2 kids

Ron Paul will get a bounce nationally and in NH from his VietNam statement about serving even though he was married and had two children.

I believe this statement could possibly give him the Presidency.

You have to understand that Paul has been made out to be afraid to defend America.

This one statement changes all that - it shows Paul was willing to sacrifice himself, wife and children to serve his country.

That sacrifice shows that Paul will always protect this country because he sacrificed himself and his family already.

It runs deep folks, this is what all Americans want in thier President.

Americans are proud to have that kind of person, wether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, 3rd Party or Independent , as thier President.

I hope people here understand how big this really is.


And the bump begins, new Poll after debate shows Paul surging


UPDATE 2: South Carolina is the place to show the difference between a man that served when he was called to go, and the rest that didn't (except Perry).

Let's not forget to keep this fact and that exchange between Newt and Paul debating, alive and front and center. Campaign, super pac, or whoever can we get a TV ad purchase with the exchange out there?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Campaign or Super PACs let's get this debate exchange on air

let's make some ad buys

To all of you good old S.C. boys

I just can not buy the idea that Ron Paul can not do good in SC.
Living just down the road in GA, I know for a fact that people in SC are a lot like us, and we surly will not let Ron Paul slip through our fingers. I use to do a lot of hunting up in SC and got to know a lot of good people who had good common sense. No SC will not throw this guy to the dogs just like we here in GA will not throw him to the dogs. Romney and that Mormon deal will not sit well in the south. Just wait and see. I truly think RP will do real well in the south. It is hard to pi** down our backs and then tell us it is raining, like Newt, Romney and Santorum try to do.

Great point, but I don't know

Great point, but I don't know if we have time to propagate it.

Yes - That was a huge moment for Dr. Paul.

And a shot to Gingrich - the Chicken-hawk.

Now I actually support anyone not going to fight that rotted Vietnam war BUT...

...then you can't go around decades later saying you support wars today (using other people's kids).

A few weeks ago Gingrich said at one of the debates that he is a hawk - but a cheap hawk.

THAT is why Ron called him a chicken-hawk.

If Gingrich had never advocated wars, there would have been no issue there.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

No brochures in NH

Imagine The good Doctor's poll boost if we saturated NH with brochures the same way we did Iowa.

It was a bad call for us ignore NH.

Those willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.



im not sure

i donn't think Ron did any much better this weekend than his other debates. he may have gained a few more votes but nothing all that much.

the important thing though is that romney is already losing his iron grip on the state and i think that without any voter fraud ron can get another near tie and gather even more delegates.

and after florida i think ron will capture alot of states such as nevada, idaho, california, texas (?) and force the GOP into submission at the convention or even win the whole gosh darn primary!

Peace sells... but who's buying?

jumped 3 points after that debate

Nationally it will take re-runs of that debate statement on tv ads and it will resonate.

Honestly, how many people watched the debate? How many people

actually heard him say this and paid attention other than us? That concerns me.

NH and SC folks did

that's important, but the campaign can use the the exchange in tv ads and I think it plays big.

We got the debate performance

We got the debate performance we have been praying for.
It couldn't have been better suited for NH.
I have been calling NH for the campaign, and 3 out 4 people I surveyed said that bringing the troops home was their number one or number two issue.
Way to go Ron.
Please folks, make those calls!!!!!!!

Ron Paul will

Win New Hampshire
Mitt Romney will loose 12 points in the next 72% hours as John Huntsman will pick up 10 of those points... Ron Paul surge 8-10 Points before Tuesday... The last few hours before the vote the undecideds will spit..

17% undecided still
Ron Said NH is wide open.. And all the chatter from the campaign is showing a surge 24 hours before the vote...
Some polls had him at 24% the debate will prob help us with another 4%.. and final day Ron Picks up another 4%..
Final Vote Ron Paul 32% Mitt Romney 29-30% John Huntsman 20 Percent Newt Gingrich 9% Rick Sanatorium 7% Rick Perry 3% or less

Comeback Kid

I predicted before Iowa that NH would tighten up but Romney would hold on narrowly: Romney 32, Paul 27, Huntsman 23, the rest in single digits. Even before the debates Suffolk and Marist had Paul gaining and Romney beginning to drop. Others are showing movement for Huntsman, which comes straight out of Romney's vote. Gingrich and Santorum are non-factors - his bounce has already subsided.

New PPP and Suffolk polls out later tonight will hopefully show continued tightening thanks to the debates.

Close 2nd would be great for the campaign and as good as a win given Romney was up by 29 points as recently as Jan 2 and we would have closed 20+ points in a week. It would be vindication after a third place Iowa finish and Paul could steal Clinton's line and call himself the Comeback Kid. Romney's been campaigning here for 5 years, got 32% in 2008 and has never dropped below 34% in polling this past year and has recently polled in the 40s, so I think an outright Paul win is a stretch. But take nothing for granted as we could easily underperform polls on Election Day like we did in 2008. We need to turn out the independents and the youth vote like we're 20 points behind no matter what the polls say.

Hope you're right, but I

Hope you're right, but I don't think Huntsman will come up that much. Santorum was fairly strong in the debate. Predict Ron Paul 31%, Mitt Romney 28-29%, Rick Santorum 15%, John Huntsman 12%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Rick Perry 5%. Huntsman and Perry will both drop out.

If you are not OUTRAGED, you're not paying attention!

Perry is not going to drop

Perry is not going to drop out before SC...

South Carolina will be

Newt Gingrich, Paul, Mitt Romney, John Huntsman,Rick sanatorium, Rick Perry

Nevada will be Paul ,Gingrich , Romney

Romney will win Florida
Paul will win Texas, Idaho, California, Louisiana, Utah, Ohio..

Romney will eventually will loose to Paul

I like your thoughts on this,

I like your thoughts on this, but I don't see any way for Romney to lose Utah.

Utah...for Paul???

Utah is a solid lock for Romney and Huntsman(@2nd).

Paul will be a solid 3rd in Utah. Gingrich and Santorum will share the bottom 6%.

But remember. Utah's primary is in late June. The nominee will be decided by then. And if the nominee is Paul, Utah will still vote for Romney.

With 2 Mormons in the race. I'm shocked that Utah didn't put their primary at the front. Say, the February 1st.

Those willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

I'd also add... it is

I'd also add... it is actually quite likely that the nominee will -not- be decided by June. Romney is going to have a hard time getting 50+% of the delegates. A brokered convention may very well be in our future.

Yes, Romney will take Utah...

Yes, Romney will take Utah... But the others you listed will be out by then, including Huntsman... So they won't get any percentage of the Utah vote.

One think that Obama, Romney,

One thing that Obama, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum have in common is that they are not afraid of sacrificing the lives of OTHER Americans. As long as they are not in danger, they are quite belligerent. But when the ball was in their court, they found ways to avoid putting themselves in harms way.

Gingrich is indeed a Chicken Hawk, but then so is Romney, Santorum and Obama. They all want to play "Commander in Chief", but none of them had the backbone to step up to the plate. I think we need to drive this fact home to the American people. We veterans already know it.

We veterans difintely know it.

The ones of us who were not rich or could not pull some strings had no choice but to load up. My only brother and I graduated the same year and we both had to load up. War was never declared in Vietnam so they sent us both. Now Romney he was off on a crusade in France but he was all for Vietnam. Sure he was he did not have to fight it. Then good old Newt pulled a few strings and got him self a deferment. This is why they can be such good war mongers. They have never had to face what we the veterans had to face. They never had to see what we saw. If they had they would no be so fast on the trigger. But they will have no problem when it comes to sending your sons and daughters into harms way. They do not deserve to be elected president.

how much more are they

how much more are they going to waste everyone's time with questions about the newsletters, a third party run, and paul not being able to pass things through congress??

Until he hits a home run

The responses still sound unconvincing. The newsletters probably has no better response, the question of effectiveness was answered correctly on Sunday but will keep coming up until Paul successfully turns it back on his big-govt opponents.

The third-party question is the easiest to dismiss but has been handled the worst. Paul isn't playing the game as the media are accustomed. You are expected to deny it outright up-and-down until you're blue in the face. As Christie said, "do I have to kill myself to convince you guys I'm not running?" yet still he was considering it. So when Paul says "I'm not an absolutist" (which of course he is on the Constitution, so stop using that phrase Ron - too easy to call you out) the media sees the door as being wide open. Any politician they leaves the door open that much is assumed to be planning a run.

The proper answer is "I had a chance to go 3rd party in 2008 but I am committed to restoring the party I grew up in to it's conservative principles so we can in turn restore America. I am going to win the nomination of our party and am the only one who can best Barack Obama in November."

If they persist, have them ask the other candidates if they will commit to supporting the Republican nominee regardless of the outcome. Say that even if you cannot support all the positions of the nominee they you will work tirelessly to defeat Obama and restore constitutional conservatism to the GOP.


Frankly, this issue creates a lot cognitive dissonance for me. Newt is a chicken hawk, and Paul is right to call him out on it; however, I'm not sure Paul did the right thing by aiding the war effort.

If the war was improper, Paul could have refused to participate. I don't expect people resisting the state to sacrifice more than necessary, so seeking a deferral is a reasonable means of refusing. In this sense, Paul is also a hypocrite.

If Paul believed the war proper at the time, he wasn't a hypocrite at the time, but then he has flip-flopped. This flip-flop is virtuous, of course. People should change their thinking for the better.

On the other hand, Paul served as a doctor, so his participation in the war involved minimizing the war's harm rather than contributing to it. Even so, he should have opposed the war while participating this way. I've heard him describe mixed feelings about his participation, but I don't know how he actively opposed the war.

Fortunately, Newt will never explore the issue so deeply, because he's too much of a hypocrite himself.

Dr. Paul participated in a

Dr. Paul participated in a very responsible manner. He was a medical doctor and he served as a flight surgeon. He wasn't a boot on the ground, but the skills he acquired by his education allowed him to best serve our soldiers in their hours of need. He saved lives--valuable lives--that could have otherwise been lost.

I understand why Gingrich didn't serve--he was a brat who wanted to be running the show, not taking orders. Back 22 years ago, there was an article on him: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/boyernewt1.html He took his deferments as a father and a student. Ron Paul didn't have that option--he's a trained doctor and was called into service. I'm sure he could have found some way to defer--by claiming disability or unreasonable accommodation (like slimy Newt's stepfather's excuses). But he didn't--he went and he did his best for his peers.

Now then, Dr. Paul's seen the results of war and realizes that Vietnam was unnecessarily bloody. We listened to the generals and their lieutenants on the ground. We took our foreign policy from them. That was a failure on our presidents' parts--El Pres is the Commander in Chief, superior to the Joint Chiefs and all our Generals and Admirals. We spent treasure and blood in areas we had no interest in truly securing--we should have cut our losses and, yes, run. And we still should--additional blood & treasure is providing accommodations and helping multiply the reactions to our foreign policy.

Saving our Soldiers

The men and women fighting on the ground needed him; I can imagine that he saved many lives by providing his services as a flight surgeon. If there is war, what better way to serve than by saving your own people? His stance against war is just a better way of saving our own soldiers.

We are not sure if Paul was

We are not sure if Paul was even 'awake' at that point. There was no internet and fear mongering was probably greater at that time than now. It's like Adam Kokesh, we can't be mad that he went to fight in Iraq only because he didn't know any better.

"you're a funny dude, but who gives a fuck about that? I don't care about someone's wit, I care about the courage of their heart and the honesty of their mind."

At his rally yesterday

Paul said he couldn't shoot anybody for the Vietnam cause, so he said it was better for him to be a flight surgeon and get out there to help people instead.


God Bless Ron Paul

I fight for the old man. I give all I can spare to his campaign. If anyone talks sh*t about him, I will defend him. I will not allow anyone to mar his good name. I do this because he is a good person and has a good heart. He has the courage to stand alone and fight against something that no other politician would even think about doing. They say there is no more heroes left in the world. He is one of the few left from that generation. He is worth fighting for and protecting. I call out to the world to recognize this man and do everything you can to preserve, protect, and defend him with everything you can muster. There comes a time in your life when you have to get your ass off the couch and fight for a something you believe in. Just know this Mr. Paul: WE ARE WITH YOU TO THE END.