Ron Paul: why he could win.

Status
Not open for further replies.
He ran on the Libertarian ticket. It doesn't mean he switched parties. Certainly he didn't switch ideologies. Phil Gramm switched parties when the Democrats left him as did Ronald Reagan. With Reagan leaving office and George HW Bush running Republican, certainly no friend to liberty, I would run as well on another ticket.

You may recall that a lot of libertarians populate the Republican party. The Libertarian party is to the Republicans what the Greens are to the Democrats. It is a place where people who think their party has gone astray go to register a dissenting vote. Exactly what I will do if Rudy gets the nod. I guess I am a party switcher too though. I'd vote Democrat if I thought they could run somebody who would make me a freer man at the end of four years.
 
The LP nominated a Republican in 1988, Don.
Click to expand...

If he represented the party he believed in that party and was a part of it. You're trying to split hairs. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck; it's a duck. He's running as a republican in this election, but who is his support base? From my observations Libertarian. Just because he may wear a girl scout uniform it doesn't make him a girl scout.









Oh wait that's Rudy in the girl scout uniform:D
 
This discussion could get stupid pretty quickly, so let me just say that you're missing some parts of the picture, Don, like the years Ron Paul was a Republican before he ran in 1988, his support of Reagan's candidacy in 1976, and the fact that there is no way a Libertarian drawing on Libertarian support could raise a million dollars in a campaign, much less $4.2 million in a day. Ron Paul is drawing in support from across the political spectrum because freedom enjoys broad popularity in many forms. It give me hope for America.
 
This discussion could get stupid pretty quickly, so let me just say that you're missing some parts of the picture, Don, like the years Ron Paul was a Republican before he ran in 1988, his support of Reagan's candidacy in 1976, and the fact that there is no way a Libertarian drawing on Libertarian support could raise a million dollars in a campaign, much less $4.2 million in a day. Ron Paul is drawing in support from across the political spectrum because freedom enjoys broad popularity in many forms. It give me hope for America.
Click to expand...


I can agree with you on that.
Trust me it's not my intention. I've tried to like him and believe what he says. I just can't bring myself to do it. Call it bias, call it stubborn or whatever you would like. I just don't trust him for the reasons I've listed. IMO he's hovered on the line of Libertarian/Republican to suit his needs whatever they may be at the time. I find no honor in it. But, then a gain I don't find honor in many if any politicians.
 
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals--if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say..." --Ronald Reagan
 
Have you ever met him in person?

I have, on a number of occasions, both this year and in years prior, and he's a very affable, likable guy, the kind of fellow you might wish to have as a grandfather.
 
MVPEL,
I met him on several campaign stops back in 1999. At one he was raffling off guns to raise money for his congressional campaign in Gonzales (Home of my signature line: "Come and Take it.") IIRC, he raffled off one really nice Henry .22 lever action that some kid won. Beautiful wood. He doesn't speak very well compared to what he writes. He had a campaign manager that gave a very good introduction for him, but he pretty much just says what he believes, addresses constituent concerns for a particular area.

This was in the waning years of the Clinton's so guns were on everybody's mind there and so raffling them off was especially well-recieved. He was not somebody who I would think could win a run for the presidency and I always had him pegged to run for Senate.

Who knows- if his bid for the White House doesn't work out, then he'll have a lot of money to run for Kay Bailey Hutchison's senate seat!
 
I don't think Paul has a chance of the nomination. There is just too much money and power against him. An outsider that does not support the status quo has little hope for support from corporate interests.

However, even still his message is refreshing, and has at least brought ideas of personal responsibility, limited government, and respect for the Constitution to national attention.
 
My local paper called him "Ron Quixote" - but the Man of La Mancha inspired everyone he met to believe in the best, most noble aspects of themselves.

It's not all about victory, it's about the quest itself, undertaken with zeal and commitment, and the effect it has on other people.

Let's hope that Ron Paul's candidacy, even if eventually unsuccessful, will similarly inspire the Republican party.
 
However, even still his message is refreshing, and has at least brought ideas of personal responsibility, limited government, and respect for the Constitution to national attention.
Click to expand...

so now then the GOP is just socialism-lite? If the above ideas cant win for the party...the party is done...it will be reduced to just a war party. And the Dems (which do socialism better than anybody) will clean house.
 
And Ron Paul has been part of the Republican "socialism-lite" group for years.

Just look at all of Ron Paul's earmarks. He loves to spend as much as the other "socialist" Republicans and Democrats. How else do you explain shrimp pork? Long-distance learning pork? Construction pork? The list of Ron Paul earmarks goes on and on, for page after page. So if you love the pork spending we've had in the last 6 years, vote for Ron Paul!
 
Ron Paul has his faults too. I don't think anyone here has suggested he is perfect. I disagree completely with him about Iran. But its hard to argue that any candidate is for small govt more than RP. Even with RP, there is still room to make government smaller.
 
Earmarks are allocations of funds already appropriated. Unlike, say, the $3 million Duncan Hunter wants to take from the rest of the nation for a study of water storage and distribution in San Diego.
 
Earmarks are spending federal taxpayer money for a politician's pet projects that will typically benefit local big corporations, like shrimp producers and construction companies.

No, if Ron Paul truly believed that the taxpayers are getting screwed -- and if he were truly against excessive federal government spending -- he wouldn't be willing to allococate taxpayer funds in the form of earmarks for his own pet projects. But Ron Paul isn't willing to forgo his pork; like all of the other democrats and republicans, he wants his share of the pork, too.

It is interesting that Ron Paul purportedly stands for a smaller government, while at the same time he is specifically designates a share of the pork pie for Texas. Just like all of the other democrats and republicans in congress who do the same for their respective states. That's my point, folks: Ron Paul isn't any different from the rest of the politicians in congress when it comes to the giant pork-fest that consumes so much of your federal tax dollars.
 
Awsome video Slash
I can't wait to see how much he raises and what all the gloom and doomers say.
Lions and tigers and bears OH MY:D
 
That's my point, folks: Ron Paul isn't any different from the rest of the politicians in congress when it comes to the giant pork-fest that consumes so much of your federal tax dollars.
Click to expand...

That's where you're incorrect. Putting an earmark on appropriated money to the benefit of your constituents from a bill that you voted against and didn't sponsor is quite different from sponsoring and voting in favor of a bill that appropriates more money, like Duncan Hunter and his $3 million pork water system study bill for San Diego.
 
Putting an earmark on appropriated money to the benefit of your constituents from a bill that you voted against and didn't sponsor is quite different from sponsoring and voting in favor of a bill that appropriates more money
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the difference is irrelevant at the end of the pork trail. It doesn't matter that he voted against the bill, because in the end, Paul made sure that he grabbed his share of the money from the appropriations so that that federal taxpayer money would be spent on Paul's pork projects. If the bill was so terrible, why didn't Paul refuse to reserve taxpayer money for Texas pork projects?

"Oh! This bill is terrible! I hate it! I'm voting against it!. And by the way, here's my list of pork that I'd like to reserve from the terrible bill. That bill is terrible, I tell you! Wait a minute, I'd better double-check my pork list to make sure I've reserved all of the money that I can from that terrible bill...." :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top