Ron Paul, who won second place in the results of the New Hampshire vote, said Tuesday the results prove he’s the only candidate challenging Romney in the GOP race.
“We’re next in line to [Romney], so I’d say we’re the only ones really in the race with him,” Paul told CNN.
Paul has consistently held second place in recent polls of the Granite State but trailed far behind Romney in the state, where he draws large crowds of passionate supporters. “We just get close to [Romney], it’s going to be a real big news story,” Paul told Fox News this week.
The New Hampshire vote was called shortly after the last polls closed there, with Romney projected to take first, Paul second and Huntsman third.
“The people’s attitudes have changed,” Paul told CNN of his success in the state. “The people have come around to being concerned about the spending. I think they looked closely at the need to cut spending, and I was the only one that offered a plan to cut spending.”
(Source: The Hill)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
8 Responses
ימח שמו
I cant wait for voting in REAL states to begin!
@Give Me A Break,
Why don’t you save that slur for more deserving politicians.
Ron Paul wants Israel to have full sovereignty without needing to call Washington to approve every decision they make.
Just because AIPAC has you believing that Ron Paul is the boogeyman who is going to give Israel to the Arabs and outlaw Yeshivos doesnt mean you have to believe it.
And even if you do believe that he is no great lover of the Jews, let me remind you that even our good friend George W. Bush caved to international pressure when his friends the Israelis needed him.
No politician likes Jews, they tolerate us due to the disproportionate political power/influence we yield. I personally would rather have a leader who is honest about how he feels about us then some snake in the grass who changes his opinion based on poll numbers.
Moderators Note: Maybe watch some videos available on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/d1t4O9CcZQ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4M
Commenter No. 3 writes, in part: “No politician likes Jews, they tolerate us due to the disproportionate political power/influence we yield.”
If one substitutes “them” for “us” and “they” for “we” in this statement, one would have a quote from a myriad of raging anti-Semites. This is remarkable because, I suspect, Commenter No. 3 considers himself an observant and righteous Jew. He nevertheless buys into a myth of Jewish power and influence which he shares with the authors of and believers in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” This implies that the level of ignorance in the Jewish community – or some subset of the Jewish community – is as equal to the ignorance of the anti-Semites.
@Moderators Note: Maybe watch some videos available on YouTube
Thank you for these video’s very enlightening i never knew he was this bad
If Israel were my only concern in voting, I’d be 100% for Dr Paul. Regardless of what he thinks of us, his policy is the best thing for Israel: no money, and no opinions. Israel can do whatever it likes to defend itself, and the USA will not say a word. No money for our enemies either. And no restrictions on what weapons Israel can buy.
I’m not supporting him because I think he’s bad for America (though better than Obama).
@nfgo3
That power and influence exists big time. The Iraq war was the dreamchild of a whole bunch of neocons who have last names that you would find in a shul.
And while I dont think the power levels are at Protocols level I do think they are disproportiatly high for a group that is only 2% of the population. How else can you explain all of the pandering to the larger Jewish community (including the secular jews)
All AIPAC needs to do is give a wink and a nod then all of the sudden a candidate is smeared as “anti israel” or the dreaded “anti-semite” label
The only difference between Dr Paul and every politician is that he’s never hidden how he feels. I respect that alot more then the flip flopping by every president all the way back to Kennedy.
No. 7: So you agree with Comment 4? Except, maybe, the inference of ignorance?