Got another email from Pat Buchanan

First of all, almost all issues that Buchanan stands for are the same as Dr Paul's positions. I don't know why Buchanan has changed his position on Dr Paul but if he wants to be a hypocrite about his own views, so be it. Buchanan's positions are very well known and so are Dr Paul's so in a since, Pat has already endorsed Dr Paul but doesn't want to admit it :) Let's stay focused.

Dear Mr. Buchanan,

I have been a great fan of you over the years. Your books adorn my bookshelves, one which you signed here in Dallas. However, I have been very disappointed with you coverage of the presidential race, today's article being an example. You run through the list of candidates and fail to mention Ron Paul. Clearly, you are just as mesmerized by the poll data as your misguided colleagues in the main stream media. Instead of taking an independent position and prove your journalistic integrity, you chose the road most traveled on.

There is a huge disconnect between the poll numbers and all the other metrics that measure a candidate’s popularity. Fundraising is an obvious starting point...

The Internet has made it possible for supporters to form Meet Up groups. Ron Paul has close to 1,400 Meet Up groups, with more than 80,000 members and 21,000 events so far this year…

Straw polls used to a pretty good indicator of a candidate’s support. Suddenly, this time round, the media doesn’t want to talk about straw polls, because Dr. Paul is cleaning everybody’s clock on this score as well.

On Internet metrics that track web traffic and the like, Dr. Paul is overwhelming the winner. Talk to Google, Alexa, You Tube, My Space, Facebook, etc. for confirmation.

Dr. Paul regularly attracts more than a thousand people at his rallies and as much as 5,000 when he met on a cold Saturday afternoon in the open air with his supporters in Philadelphia. No GOP candidate ever attracts more than a couple of hundred supporters, that is, if they are lucky.

More importantly, Dr. Paul is achieving these incredible results without the help of the media and opposition from rightwing talk show hosts.

There is clearly a mismatch between poll data and other hard evidence of Dr. Paul’s popularity…

The least you could have done was to explain why you chose to ignore Dr. Paul. Stick your neck out and say that despite Dr. Paul’s incredible groundswell support, in the final analysis the polls are the only accurate predictor of election outcomes.

The link below list responses to NPR from Ron Paul supporters in answer to the question: “Who are the Ron Paul supporters?” I speak for all of them, when I say you have disappointed us and we feel like jilted lovers.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/...

It would appear that your opposition to the Iraq war and the Bush administration, as enumerated by you for years, is only skin deep. Here is an anti-war candidate, who did not vote for Bush (probably voted for you), publicly stated that he will not vote for a GOP candidate who is pro-war and is strongly pro-life and you refuse to give him any credibility.

The devotion of Ron Paul supporter’s, from all sectors of society, all political persuasions, the religious and the irreligious, the young and the old, is in itself a phenomenal story. This devotion expresses itself in a number of unusual ways. Someone dropped $85,000 on USA Today for a full page advertisement. A few others businessmen leased a blimp to spread Ron Paul’s name in a fashion never seen in US political history. Untold number of bands and musicians wrote songs about Ron Paul and performed them at Ron Paul concerts. An endless stream of You Tube videos produced by Paul devotees are downloaded everyday. The news media reports about Paul supporters waving banners in the traffic, regardless of weather conditions. For those who have followed the campaign closely it is something never seen before and yet the media, by and large, are strangely silent. One can expect that from the journalists controlled by Rupert Murdoch, but I would never in a thousand years have attributed an article like, “Is it down to Mitt and Mike?” to Patrick Buchanan.

Pat Buchanan has helped wake up a lot of people to important issues over the years. He's someone I admire and respect greatly. I trust that he will continue bringing important issues to light for many years to come, God willing.

That said, as for as his recent articles, I cannot find one yet that endorses a single candidate. He's said a lot of positive things about Ron Paul in the past, but I know that he disagrees with many of the more libertarian stances (such as drug laws).

I know that my vote is going for Ron Paul and I'm doing everything I can to help wake people up to his campaign, and even more importantly, to the core issues and principles he presents. It would be nice to see Pat Buchanan do the same, but to be honest, I really don't know if Ron Paul was out there supporting Pat Buchanan's campaign when he ran.

Ron Paul may not be Pat Buchanan's idea of a perfect candidate, but it's not like Pat's out there slamming Ron Paul. I think people need to chill a bit.

After writing what he did in "Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong", Buchanan should be ashamed of himself for not doing everything in his power to get Ron Paul elected. Maybe Pat is jealous that his campaigns never caught on fire like Paul's has.

And when we WIN the NH primary, send it back to Pat saying, "I'm here, where are YOU?!"

Who gives a damn what Pat robertson says?

He has sold his soul to the devil by endorsing RUDY

That man could tell me the sun was out and i would not believe him if his tomgue came notorized.

Dr. Steve Parent

He thinks it's Mitt and Huck but Huck is going to do poorly here in NH.
January 9th is the day after our primary.

He won't ever endorse Paul, unless he is the nominee.

how about

he meant he will see you on the day Ron Paul is sworn in!

isnt that on January 9th?

January 8th, I believe. He's just saying we'll all know after the 8th. I don't like that he doesn't think that Ron will do well. He's mistaken. Apparently, he's sold out too.

As he was a better choice than most in past, his integrity pales in comparison to Ron Paul.

"And though the 2008 GOP race may seem wide open, it is already probably down to three candidates, could be over by Jan. 4 and will probably be down to two by Jan. 9, the morning after New Hampshire"

From www.creators.com opinion

That would be the day after the New Hampshire primary when the outcome of that primary would be known. I think he was essentially saying, wait and see.