posted on May, 26 2007 @ 09:24 PM
This is more fun than milking rattlesnakes.
So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Is Ron Paul down in the polls because that's how the voters feel, or do the voters feel he can't win
because he's down in the polls?
It would seem, IMO, that all the ruckus caused by his comments in the debate would have moved him one way or the other, not left him right where he
started. I mean he was important enough to have a lot of comment made after the debate.
Now if I put up a website saying that the reason Pluto got kicked out of the 'planet club' was because Scientist have too much macho image to allow
a dwarf rock to be in our 'family', at least two people out of a hundred would agree. If Carl Sagan's ghost came back and took me to task on that,
on live TV, it would get enough extra attention to make at least two more people jump in to defend me. So my approval rating would go up.
What's the old saying, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity"? Well, Ron Paul got publicity. And since he was on the bottom of the pile, he
could only go up. So it makes no sense that he didn't change at all.
And I'm not pushing to say he should have went up by 20% or something foolish. Just seems he would have moved a percent or two out of pure
recognition for his name, if nothing else.
I can't put my finger on it, but it just looks 'fishy'. And contrary to popular belief, I think coming out looking for answers to a question is
just as valid on this forum as being one of those with all the answers.