In response to:

Dear Mitt: Please Don’t Morph into a Wuss During the Debates. Regards, Doug Giles

Doug5049 Wrote: Sep 30, 2012 11:05 AM
Like in 2008, the GOP chose the worst candidate. Ron Paul would have a much better chance against Zero. Here's why: First there are the mindless masses who vote for "R" or "D", regardless of candidate. They will vote how they will vote. Period. However, there are two groups, substantial in numbers, whose votes are affected by who the GOP candidate is, and they are the antiwar left and the "Ron Paul or nobody" crowd. The former would have voted for Paul over Zero, but will vote for Zero over Romney. The latter group will not vote. On the balance sheet, the Democrat side gains one large voting bloc, and the Republican side loses two. Not a winning formula. Obama's going to win, and America's going to crash and burn.
WodenofAzgard Wrote: Sep 30, 2012 12:13 PM
Paul was easily the best candidate in the field of Repub dwarves but he'd probably be too tough a sell to the minority voters needed to win in the general, given the views expressed in his newsletters.

The establishment Repubs didn't want him cuz they couldn't control him and the social conservatives didn't want him cuz he's too libertarian for 'em.
Doug5049 Wrote: Sep 30, 2012 12:22 PM
Agreed. He's a giant who towers over the dwarves of the right and left. the views in the ancient newsletters were not his.
Harold15 Wrote: Sep 30, 2012 11:33 AM
Ron Paul, while he is a fiscal conservative, is an extreme liberal on other major issues, especially defense. I was attacked, and had my life threatedn on Twitter last year by Paul suppoerts, for claiming he doesn't believe we should take action even if we are directly attacked. The next day, on Fox, he said that very same thing. Many people on Twitter are of the opinion that he was the only candidate running who would be worse than Obama. I am in total agreement with that.
Doug5049 Wrote: Sep 30, 2012 11:55 AM
"...he doesn't believe we should take action even if we are directly attacked."

A blatant, bald-faced lie.
Jack2894 Wrote: Sep 30, 2012 11:18 AM
The right wing bubble talk gets more and more pathetic. You get awful campaigns for a reason! The political correctness of the right is as extreme as on the left. There are ideas, words, and concepts that candidates HAVE to worship. Any variation from the script sends the right wing into a conceptual seizure: your candidates twist themselves into knots to keep the far right from forming a lynch mob yet still appeal to those in the middle of the road. At the same time, right wing pundits have reached a saturation point. No one except the already committed (pun intended) pays any attention to them anymore, leaving the field your opponents. But you are too PC to realize it.
traitorbill Wrote: Sep 30, 2012 11:14 AM
Then why isn't Paul campaigning for Romney?
Doug5049 Wrote: Sep 30, 2012 11:19 AM
Because Romney espouses too many things that Dr. Paul opposes.

I’ve got to admit … I’m a wee bit concerned about the upcoming presidential debates. My fear is that Mitt, for whatever reason, will take the McCain fetal position before Obama and not come out swinging for the fence.

Mitt ought to do this Wednesday what Babe Ruth did in ‘32 and point to Chicago like the Bambino pointed to centerfield bleachers and then verbally hammer Obama out of the park and back to Illinois.

In addition to Mitt being the aggressor versus a genteel back-pedaler, I’d like to see some former Navy SEALs in the crowd stand...