Chris Wallace: Iowa ‘won’t count’ if Ron Paul wins

“The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this,” Wallace began. “But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee.”

“So therefore, Iowa won’t count,” he added. “It would certainly be a knock to Gingrich because, you know, right now he was the frontrunner — or a week ago he was the big frontrunner in this state so it would be missed opportunity for him.”

www.rawstory.com...

And that's why FOX NEWS sucks, Wallace. Cause of idiots like you. I take that back- You don't even qualify for idiot status.

Fricken dip****.

If only there was a way to REMOVE media bias from politics.

True reporting is dead in this country.

I'm not sure exactly how it all works..

But even if he wins every state, doesn't he STILL have to be nominated by the Republican Party?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Ron does address this in his usual eloquent style, not sure where it is but that 16 minute video of just Ron, did you catch that last night? I will try to find it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


What if he wins Iowa and NH and Florida, will they all "not count?" Will the establishment then entirely ignore the will of the people and put their own puppet in place despite the voter outpouring?

I think that is a real possibility. I think Paul could be the very clear people's choice, and have the polls to back it up, and the campaign fundraising to back it up, and he could still get left out in the cold by the RNC.

Right now, FOX News (if you can call it that) is his worst enemy.

Unfortunately, what Chris Wallace said is very likely true. If Paul wins in Iowa, the GOP will discredit Iowa because they DON'T want Paul as their candidate.

I don't know why you blame Wallace for stating the truth...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I was watching this when Mr. Wallace said that.

It's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Chris Wallace is a moron.

Apparently if Iowans decide for themselves who they believe would be the best nominee then it is not credible if he disagrees with it.

Chris Wallace

reply to post by getreadyalready


Not just faux. It seems to be the entire movement has conspired to shut him out. I guess now they figure that we are not competent to make our own decisions. It has always left me uneasy to hear people rant "If you dont vote then, yada yada yada" I always knew that it was wrong to state it that way because really it was just political promotion that won in the end.

I think the backroom deals have already been laid out and the money spent, so without their candidates making it to the WH, the 'play' is over anyway int he financial markets. I dont even know if RP can bring the budget back if that happens, but I suspect he would be happier at a reset and rebuild than pimping it all up in a false economy anyway.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Sure, but aren't they then discounting the voters themselves? Saying the voters don't matter? Saying an entire state doesn't matter? And what if he wins more states?

And, Chris Wallace is to blame, because his words carry weight. By saying this, he is possibly influencing voters in Iowa to not vote for Ron Paul, because they don't want their vote to "not count." Chris Wallace is directly and intentionally influencing the outcome of that primary and it should be illegal.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I agree. As I said, I was watching when Wallace said that. The context was pretty clear.

If Iowa goes for Ron Paul, then Iowa loses credibility.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I'm not sure exactly how it all works..

But even if he wins every state, doesn't he STILL have to be nominated by the Republican Party?

I think before that there's something called the primaries so people can vote, where one person equals one vote, unlike these polls people keep harping on about.

Lucky me, I was looking for a thread just -now- like this'un. I'm listening to (Mossad's )"NPR" with the ancient croaking crone Dian Rheme, and they are trying to be dismissive of Ron Paul, and they just said "Well, Paul wont get out of Iowa with that head of steam he built up there, which will make Romney happy" < Now this is not an -exact- quote, but -very nearly- so, because I just heard it.
Those self satisfied sons of b*****s.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


No.

There is no rule stating that Ron Paul MUST be the party nominee in order to win the presidency.

This chills me.

This is dangerous - why don't people freaking see it?
THIS is your recipe for revolution.
Where's the CIA and FBI and homeland security on this one?

I am asking, because aren't they SUPPOSED TO PROTECT America?
(No matter what they really do, aren't they SUPPOSED TO PROTECT the US?)

You have a group of people that are not happy with status quo so they donate a LOT of time, money, and effort into getting a politician elected. What happens when then the corrupt party heads say Oh, it doesn't count.

It's a form of theft - and I don't think people will take it lightly - and even people that did not support the candidate - mainly the democrats I think would be affected because they won't be so blinded to the help it would give their republican pick- they will SEE the American system does NOT work. I'm pretty sure they already saw it when Bush got to be president instead of Gore.

That's very destabalizing - that's setting up revolution - and I don't mean by vote.

What the heck is going on?

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I'm not sure exactly how it all works..

But even if he wins every state, doesn't he STILL have to be nominated by the Republican Party?

Gingrich said in the debate he supports any of the candidates over Obama, but that maybe a blatant lie.

If Paul wins the primaries and they still don't except him as the nominee, well, that won't happen unless these people reaaaallly want Paul to win in the real election. That's because people would be up in arms if he chosen by republican voters but not at the convention.

reply to post by CREAM


Paul also said any candidate on the stage could probably beat Obama, but I don't agree with that. I believe Paul is the only one with a chance to beat Obama, because none of the other candidates will create any excitement, or any decent turnout in the election. Obama will motivate and energize his supporters, the Republican puppets won't be able to do that.

Paul is the only candidate with the ability to defeat Obama.

It isn't even ABOUT RON PAUL - it's about extortion. That's a threat to the voters of Iowa.
It's crap and it's not fair.
Maybe someone needs to occupy the FBI until they do their job. This sort of thing can't be legal.
It probably is though, and because the only things that are made illegal are things that benefit big corporations.

People put in a lot of money, time and effort.

It's just saying ' Joke's on you! You can't have ANYTHING for your money, time, and effort. You can't have part of America, it's ours and we aren't giving it up."

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Right now, FOX News (if you can call it that) is his worst enemy.

I wish we had the excess support in order for RP to completely boycott Fox, and refuse to appear in any further interview from them. But he chooses his battles too wisely to get caught up in vindictiveness. And worse if they are hosting the debates. He can't afford any further lack of exposure.

We might disagree on what his worst enemy is though. People's lack of time and/or interest enough to research candidates is probably hurting him worse. Cause if they did, and saw what RP is about, RP COULD afford to give FOX the big bird.

I think this guy sums it up pretty well



Thread here on that video, in case anyone would like to comment:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


And that video is supposed to relate to the main stream voters? That video is supposed to convince people Ron Paul isn't supported by a bunch of radicals?

Look, I support RP as much as the next guy, if not more, AND I can tell you that video does nothing but "prove" everything people say about RP and his supporters.

For RP to have a chance, we need less of that type of support.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by CREAM

 

Paul also said any candidate on the stage could probably beat Obama, but I don't agree with that. I believe Paul is the only one with a chance to beat Obama, because none of the other candidates will create any excitement, or any decent turnout in the election. Obama will motivate and energize his supporters, the Republican puppets won't be able to do that.

Paul is the only candidate with the ability to defeat Obama.

Paul only said that so he didn't have to endorse any of the other candidates, I admit, honest Paul kinda dodged that one question, but like a real *Rick Ross voice* BOSS */* of Liberty would.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Unfortunately, what Chris Wallace said is very likely true. If Paul wins in Iowa, the GOP will discredit Iowa because they DON'T want Paul as their candidate.

I don't know why you blame Wallace for stating the truth...

Asolutely correct.
The Paul looney brigade descending on Iowa to skew the results will not change anything, Paul won't get the nomination.