Breaking: Michele Bachmann Iowa campaign co-chair endorses Ron Paul

page: 4
116
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 
PURE...GOLD - her own political director is basically calling her a liar:

In Case You Missed It: Bachmann Key Aide’s Statement on Sen. Kent Sorenson Defection

Bachmann Iowa political director Wes Enos fires back at Mrs. Bachmann’s claim that Sen. Sorenson’s desertion was financially-motivated
:
ANKENY, Iowa – U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Iowa political director Wes Enos recently made enlightening comments concerning Iowa State Sen. Kent Sorenson’s defection to the Ron Paul camp from his position as Iowa Chairman for the Minnesota congresswoman’s campaign for the presidency.

Hours ago, Sen. Sorenson resigned from his post with the Bachmann camp and publicly endorsed Ron Paul for the presidency, committing to get out the vote for the 12-term Congressman from Texas in the pivotal first-in-nation voting contest.

Mr. Enos made his comments in response to unfounded allegations that Sen. Sorenson’s defection was made due to financial incentives made by the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign. Mr. Enos’s comments on the matter follow, and are presented in full:

“I won’t say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated. His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset. While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a ‘sell-out’ ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision,” said Mr. Enos.


Oh Michelle...this is spinning the wrong way for you. Sorry darlin'.




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Michelle reminds me of a bitter scorned lover.

I guess next...she'll go bomb his FB with her tirade....that's what scorned lovers do right.....



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I'm starting to think Paul actually has a chance. Yesterday I drove about nine hours and listened primarily to political talk shows whenever I could (CD player was broken). You can really tell the media is becoming concerned about his momentum. All I heard about Dr. Paul from the hosts were rants regarding his racism and lack of electability. Yet, the callers were all in support of Paul and would defend his racist newsletters. One host went so far to call one of his callers an ignoramus for supporting Paul, then said "what kind of doctor is he anyway?". It's quite obvious political agendas and views are handed down from above.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 


Thanks for the embed.

From 40:10. What's this!? A prominent US politician advocating a sensible policy on drugs and addiction? See it's things like this that go global and better the entire world. The UK may see a shift in US drugs policy and say, "Hey, why don't we use this policy instead of filling our prisons with young people caught with a bit of *insertdrugnamehere*"

That's how it works, the world looking up to the USA again, leading by example. A peaceful US would have global effect almost immediately (don't mistake the word "peaceful" for "pacifist" though, the US must maintain a strong military). I don't honestly feel I am making a mountain out of a molehill here, this man could save the entire GLOBE.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 
Oi vey...Occupy Iowa chicks. I wish they would actually take the time to learn about Paul's policies and realize that he's been actively working against "the 1%" for his whole career, that yes - he does care about them & their families, and that federal student aid and various other government involvement in these programs is a good part of what has driven the cost of education up so much in the first place.

I definitely appreciate that they're upset, I just wish they would understand some of the underlying issues at play AND would also realize that there are better ways to either get the answers they're seeking or show their concern than disrupting functions like this.

And I wish they were a little less shrill and screechy, as well...



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 
PURE...GOLD - her own political director is basically calling her a liar:

In Case You Missed It: Bachmann Key Aide’s Statement on Sen. Kent Sorenson Defection

Bachmann Iowa political director Wes Enos fires back at Mrs. Bachmann’s claim that Sen. Sorenson’s desertion was financially-motivated
:
ANKENY, Iowa – U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Iowa political director Wes Enos recently made enlightening comments concerning Iowa State Sen. Kent Sorenson’s defection to the Ron Paul camp from his position as Iowa Chairman for the Minnesota congresswoman’s campaign for the presidency.

Hours ago, Sen. Sorenson resigned from his post with the Bachmann camp and publicly endorsed Ron Paul for the presidency, committing to get out the vote for the 12-term Congressman from Texas in the pivotal first-in-nation voting contest.

Mr. Enos made his comments in response to unfounded allegations that Sen. Sorenson’s defection was made due to financial incentives made by the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign. Mr. Enos’s comments on the matter follow, and are presented in full:

“I won’t say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated. His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset. While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a ‘sell-out’ ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision,” said Mr. Enos.


Oh Michelle...this is spinning the wrong way for you. Sorry darlin'.




I have emailed Ms Bachmann and posted on her Facebook wall, asking her for further clarification in this matter.


Either Ms Bachmann is FLAT-OUT lying about Sorenson being offered a bunch of money, to bascically defect for 5 days of Iowa campaign or Sorenson and Enos(her Iowa political director ) are both lying. Apparently the Bachmann campaign is falling apart and I'd say she was caught off-guard by Sorenson's defection.

My money is on Bachmann lying for sure!
edit on 29-12-2011 by freedom12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 
If you get a response - which I kind of doubt - please be sure to pass it along to us here on-thread so we can follow this whole thing.

I have to agree with you, though - I think she didn't take it well, overreacted, and now it's biting back. Thanks dear, keep us posted.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 

I highly doubt they'll respond either Praetorius!

On a side note, I did email the Iowa GOP regarding the moving of the totalling of the ballots form the precincts to an "undisclosed location" yesterday. I received a phone call back later in the day from them, saying that they would be putting out a press release to clear up some "misconceptions" that were in the Politico and CNN reporting about the move. It did surprise me that they called instead of emailing me back. They did issue the press release last nite also!



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I think the MSM is in a panic these days, since their usual M.O. is not working on the public like it always has.

It is starting to look like people actually want to hear the Real Truth these days, let's hope that the moment reaches all the rest of the sleepy heads that are left.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


I know this all seems great that Ron Paul is right at the top, but doesn't anyone find this a bit suspicious that they have ignored him for years, despite his high ratings and poll numbers and now all of a sudden, not only is he second in the pols by a small margin, but now there are candidates that are going to support him? These are the same people that haeve worked for the elites from the beginning. Now why would the eliteist puppets all of a sudden support Ron Paul? I am beginning to wonder if Ron Paul was bought out. I hope not, but you know as well as I do that the elite "place" which president into office they want....they are not voted in, Bush proved that in the last election. Has anyone else wondered this? They say, everyone has a price and if you think that money can't buy you happiness....you're shopping at the wrong places.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I saw this. Excellent news with just 6 days until the caucus! Ron Paul is on fire!


I've said this in about 200 other posts, but... Ron Paul is going to win Iowa in a landslide.


Unfortunately, you can say it a million posts and it still wont matter.

Ron Paul will simply never be the repubic candidate. His only chance lies with the long shot of a third party, which would need a lot of talent, and money to be taken seriously.

The problem with Dr. Paul is he's too conservative to be a democrat, and he's too liberal to be a repubic. Personally, I like his ideas, but think he's too weak when it comes to military decisions I would be afraid of what would happen, especially with the BS currently going on in Iran.

Lets not forget, we need a smart leader, but a STRONG leader. Jimmy Carter refused to act when those americans were held hostage for almost a year, then the day Reagan was elected guess what happened? They were let go, because they knew damn well Reagan wouldnt hesitate to do whatever it took to secure the safety of his people.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phenomium
reply to post by Praetorius
 
I know this all seems great that Ron Paul is right at the top, but doesn't anyone find this a bit suspicious that they have ignored him for years, despite his high ratings and poll numbers and now all of a sudden, not only is he second in the pols by a small margin, but now there are candidates that are going to support him? These are the same people that haeve worked for the elites from the beginning. Now why would the eliteist puppets all of a sudden support Ron Paul? I am beginning to wonder if Ron Paul was bought out. I hope not, but you know as well as I do that the elite "place" which president into office they want....they are not voted in, Bush proved that in the last election. Has anyone else wondered this? They say, everyone has a price and if you think that money can't buy you happiness....you're shopping at the wrong places.

Hi Phenomium. I normally have a pretty hefty suspicion level, but so far I'm not seeing anything to trigger it with Paul. His consistency and long-time disinterest in self-promotion and aggrandizement has always put my fears down, and with the media increasing its hostility as his polling improves, I've not got much reason to think it's a set-up...they are still doing all they can to attack and drag him down, and the party is actively fighting him.

As far as the other candidates supporting him - I take it you mean Romney and Santorum (and maybe some besides Gingrich) saying they would vote for him? Multiple reasons there - first one being is a good many republicans are sadly convinced that they have to oust Obama regardless of who the nominee is, and for a candidate to speak against this can rub a good many people the wrong way (I can't say I mind this if Paul's the nominee, but it's sad to have such straight party-supporting group think instead of focusing on issues and principle, to me). Secondly, as you mentioned, Paul's numbers aren't bad this time around as he's been a consistent third in the national polls - some of the candidates (and I'd say the party as well) are cautious about alienating Paul's supporters because they're so dedicated to Paul and the republicans will have a very hard time of winning the general election without them.

As to the vote not counting much - I do have to agree as far as Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, but you also have to remember that the Bushes have a long political history, a lot of tie-ins, and Bush sr. was former head of the CIA. Otherwise, the general election/popular vote pretty much always stacks up with who's elected (even if that person might be an arse since people don't get involved with the primaries like they should).

Given the hostility he's facing, I'm not (yet) worried about Paul being a sleeper or otherwise bought off - what we're seeing with the momentum in his campaign, as far as I can tell, is pretty much just general disgruntlement with anything resembling typical government, a much better campaign by Paul this time, and him having greater recognition than he did last time around.

Take care.
edit on 12/29/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by WhiteDevil013
 
*sigh*

I appreciate your input, friend, but more research would benefit you before you continue to advocate an aggressive foreign policy or talk about "the BS currently going on in Iran" (I would be very appreciative if you could clarify exactly what BS you're referring to so we can analyze it). Blowback is a reality as confirmed by the CIA, and Paul DOES take strong action when there is good cause to do so as evidenced by his introduction of Letters of Marque and Reprisal against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and Somalian pirates, as well as the authorization of military force in Afghanistan after we received evidence suggesting Bin Laden was likely there at the time.

As far as the ending of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, a little historical review may be called for as well since the crisis didn't end because the Iranians were afraid of Reagan, but because the Algiers Accords were brokered between Iran and the US on January 19th of that year (and surprise surprise, we've pretty much been breaking them for years now...) and the Iranians likely also wanted to punish Carter for supporting the Shah:

The Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981, were brokered by the Algerian government between the United States and Iran to resolve the Iran hostage crisis. The crisis arose from the takeover of the American embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, and the taking hostage of the American staff there. By this accord the 52 American citizens were set free and able to leave Iran.

Among its chief provisions are:

1) The US would not intervene politically or militarily in Iranian internal affairs
2) US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran
3) Both countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran – United States Claims Tribunal.
4) The US would ensure that US court decisions regarding the transfer of any property of the former Shah would be independent from "sovereign immunity principles" and would be enforced
5) Iranian debts to US institutions would be paid


Please remember, the popular "history" of events tends to rarely be the correct one when things are looked at further - and are usually sold to you for a reason to benefit those telling the tale.
edit on 12/29/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I think Bachmann may feel like a scorned lover and lying or misrepresenting the facts.

But for a big campaigner notable to come out for Ron Paul like this makes people do a double take and think "Hey this guy knows something"

Good for Paul either way.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
We have eleven plus months until the election and I am soo over it already.

All of this Ron Paul cheerleading makes me not even want to listen to the man's message anymore.

ATS has become Ron Paul campaign headquarters.

Does the minutiae of every single press snippet have to make the front page every day?

I thought that ATS had a bunch of critical thinkers as members.

You sound like a bunch of religious zealots, worshipping at his holy feet.

Bachmann's campaign guy defects, woo hoo.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
I thought that ATS had a bunch of critical thinkers as members.


Surely that tells you something about Ron's message?

A "bunch of critical thinkers," your words, have thrown their support behind a politician. I don't know about you but that gives me reason to pause and listen.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
We have eleven plus months until the election and I am soo over it already.

All of this Ron Paul cheerleading makes me not even want to listen to the man's message anymore.

ATS has become Ron Paul campaign headquarters.

Does the minutiae of every single press snippet have to make the front page every day?

I thought that ATS had a bunch of critical thinkers as members.

You sound like a bunch of religious zealots, worshipping at his holy feet.

Bachmann's campaign guy defects, woo hoo.


LOL. Nobody forced you to click the link and read the article friend. Nobody shoves Ron Paul down your throat except you. Why do you force yourself to read these threads, articles and then post how much you hate it? If you don't like it, don't do it.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jimnuggits
 


Not religious zealots, no one worships the man they worship the ideas...

If wanting to follow the constitution makes me a zealot, then fine im a zealot.

If wanting our troops home and only fighting when we are attacked or really in danger makes me a zealot, then fine im a zealot.

If wanting to really fix our country's debt and out of control spending and not trying to patch it up just to kick the can along in the same direction makes me a zealot, then fine im a zealot.

If wanting to audit or end the unconstitutional federal reserve who prints money like toilet paper and hands it out to their wall street and banker friends makes me a zealot, then fine im a zealot..


Their are two types of people. Those who see where the country is heading and know for a fact it is not good, not good at all, and those who put their heads in the sand ignoring all the signs while saying everything is fine lets just keep voting the establishment picks in.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Seeing there is so much hope and promise surrounding Ron Paul (unlike 2008) it'll be very disappointing if Dr Paul doesn't at least win the nomination.
He's electrifying and I don't know where he's getting his energy from.
He amazes me more and more with each passing year!


Ron Paul 2012



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 


Very poetic.

You do know that Ron Paul has been in said 'establishment' for decades, right?

You are being manipulated by a public image, nothing more.

He has had literally years and years in the one place in America where real change is possible, the Congress.

He has passed one bill, One.

And that was to grant historical landmark status to somewhere in his own district.

You are being fed an image that is not true.

Have fun with that.





new topics
top topics
 
116
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join