Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Unless our elections are rigged, Congressman Ron Paul — like anyone else running for president — has a bona fide chance to win.

Because we regular people get to decide. It’s our votes; it’s our caucuses.

So, why does the news media keep telling us that Ron Paul has no shot?

A brand new Public Policy Polling survey shows Paul leading the pack in Iowa at 23 percent to Mitt Romney’s 20 percent, with Gingrich falling precipitously to 14 percent.

Queried about a possible Paul victory in Iowa, Fox News’s Chris Wallace responded, “Well, and the Ron Paul people aren’t going to like me saying this, but, to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he is not going to end up as the nominee.”

Hmmm. Ron Paul can’t win. So, if he does win, it discredits the process.

It’s déjà-vu all over again: GOP strategist Mike Murphy said back in August that had Congressman Paul received just 75 more votes and won the Iowa straw poll “it would have put the straw poll out of business forever.”

According to a Washington Times story, “Paul could be positioning himself as a spoiler or worse.”

A spoiler? Worse? Dr. Paul is positioning himself as the next president. Which I guess spoils things for Wallace, much of the media and the Washington establishment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

By: Redactor


  1. […] = '';} } Travel And AdventureThe 10 Most Inspiring FilmsOn 71The GodfatherAnd the President Is . . . Subscribe to RSS […]

  2. Neal says:

    If he wins, it discredits nothing; except maybe those that say it does.

    I don’t care what the Polls say…Common Sense says it’s not likely he will end-up as the GOP nominee.

    Does you vote count…YES…may times if you live in certain parts of the country.

  3. 2WarAbnVet says:

    No true patriot can support Ron Paul. That critical element of the Constitution that he eschews is the government’s responsibility for national defense. He would decimate the military, and make America one of the weakest nations on earth. He would allow our enemies free rein to run roughshod about the world. While Obama seeks to destroy our children’s future through active measures Paul would accomplish the same outcome through inaction.

  4. Keith Blythe says:

    Ron Paul is not about weakening the military, BUT about bringing it home to defend us here. He is NOT for a weak military.

  5. Drik says:

    Would also spoil things for the military industrial complex who advocate for infinite war, for the K street lobbyists, and for the congressmen who plan carreers around catering in order to get reelected.

  6. Paul jacob says:

    Paul has received more contributions from active military personnel than any other candidate. Worth noting.

    But beyond the issue of whether one favors Paul or does not is this bizarre media behavior. There is something rotten in the media control room for their conduct to be so obviously biased.

  7. Tj says:

    Seriously. Does anyone really believe the media? The are all so slanted left or right it boggles the mind.

    Watching the news not only requires listening to every single word and understanding its meaning but a person must also realize what is “not” said. I don’t think we get the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sometimes what is NOT said speaks louder than what is said. Sound bites are as miss-leading as “labeling”. Good Luck.

  8. Pat says:

    Iowa is one state. Why is it wrong to suggest that Paul cannot be the nominee regardless of whether or not he wins in Iowa? Not every state shares Iowans’ interests. President Huckabee went really far in 2008 after winning Iowa, didn’t he? Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire deserves to be the final arbiter of the nominating process.

  9. MoreFreedom says:

    Hey 2WarAbnVet, the US spends as much on our military, as the rest of the world combined. It seems to me that we shouldn’t spend more than any other country, because we don’t need to defeat more than a single country.

    Paul wouldn’t “decimate” the military. He’d bring the troops home from the hundreds of foreign countries, and allow them to defend the US rather than be policeman of the world.

    In fact, it’s my opinion (and many others) that our military spending and foreign military meddling makes us LESS SAFE, not more. Have you heard of blowback (like Noreiga, Hussein and Bin Laden all of whom we supported and provided military hardware, before them became out enemies). Even the 9/11 terrorists say our foreign military presence led to their attacks (not the neo-con lie that they “hate us for our freedoms”). You can read the terrorists own words at

  10. 2WarAbnVet No true patriot can support Ron Paul.
    True patriots can only support Paul in the Republican primary. If anyone tells you different, they’re a fool.

    That critical element of the Constitution that he eschews is the government’s responsibility for national defense.
    I’m well-defended, with or without the government. And I’d be a lot better defended if my busy-body government hadn’t made a lot of laws against me owning new machine guns, and didn’t jack their price through the roof with absurd regulations or bans for everyone except cops and active military. …But that’s all just part of a nation that views its citizens as subjects.

    I’d also need to defend myself less if my government hadn’t gone around the world murdering insane religious minorities with bombing campaigns coercively financed by ME. You see, that legitimately makes me a target, on the grounds that I didn’t deny my oppressor (and their oppressor) my support.

    If America wasn’t already eviscerated, what you’re saying would be obviously incorrect, even to you (because we’d be like Switzerland, with a machine gun in every house, and more than enough private training to make messing with us a serious mistake for anyone so delusional). As it is, it’s just incorrect, but the government schools have made that hard to for you to see, by denying you a proper education.

    What if we could keep the money we earned, as we could under a Paul presidency? With everyone so wealthy, so many new private security firms, and so many guns in the hands of private citizens, under a Paul presidency what nation’s going to invade or occupy us? We only have something to fear if your conception of America is wrong, in which case, Paul’s course of action is the only one that’s morally acceptable, because we’ve become an oppressor. Moreover, let’s say that the jihadists want to blow us up: the angered citizenry the jihadist sociopaths rely on for support would disengage, because we wouldn’t have bombed their wives and kids into bloody rubble. That can make an enemy, you know?

    He would decimate the military, and make America one of the weakest nations on earth.
    See above. Only a fool could believe that with every State following VT, AK, AZ, and WY, toward unrestricted CCW, Americans would be in greater danger. In fact, power would be vastly more decentralized, and we’d have a lot less to fear from our own standing/UNCONSTITUTIONAL military (that is now used to enforce our idiotic drug policy around the world).

    He would allow our enemies free rein to run roughshod about the world.
    Sell your boogeyman to the timid, you Abnormalvet.

    While Obama seeks to destroy our children’s future through active measures Paul would accomplish the same outcome through inaction.
    Like all simpletons, you seem to mistake freedom of action and privately-retained wealth for inaction; the absence of government dictates for the absence of productive activity. This is an often fatal mistake, because it encourages one to embrace active tyranny, instead of voluntary-assessment of problems and voluntarily-chosen solutions. For instance, right now, there is no candidate who thinks you should be allowed to save your own life with B17 treatment, should you get cancer. Therefore, the chance is good that you, being servile, don’t even know about this cure, or don’t have accurate information about it (since the government always makes accurate information about prohibited goods illegal).

    So go ahead, choose tyranny. …And may you and your family die the slow, painful cancer deaths you deserve. You won’t have my sympathy, because when you vote for something you also impose it on others. By voting to steal my money and give it to a mass-murdering military industrial complex, the FDA, DEA, ONDCP, IRS, and every other manner of parasite, you’re aggressing against me.

    By voting for Paul, I’m asking the coercive government to impose less on you, and less on myself, as any decent human being should. By doing so, I’m minding my own business, and not asking or demanding anything of you. In your daily private life, chances are, you do the same. The problem is that your inconsistent and inadequate education has inculcated a double-standard in you when it comes to government. You become willing to vote for things you’d never dream of doing on your own, as a private citizen.

    I don’t have that servile view of existence. I don’t need the bad products at inflated prices that the government offers, (or their outright mass-murdering tyranny). …And I’d never foist those things on other people, even if I did think they had a great value.

    If you don’t extend me the same courtesy, I sincerely hope that you receive the fate all coercive collectivists deserve: to receive all of the mindless coercion (and accompanying destruction) that you voted for.

  11. Pepper says:

    At last some rationality in our little dbeate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2020 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top