Why are the Republicans so worried about Ron Paul?

mvpel said:
He has said repeatedly, and it has been repeatedly repeated, that he will not do it.
Click to expand...

Did you ever hear the phrase "groundswell" or "grassroots" or "mandate"?

In fact, look at Nader. The syphon factor was discussed openly for months and he still ran. The issue hinged on the fact that some issues are too important to bypass, a mandate is needed.

And I see the "green issue" rising up again. There was a story in today's WSJ about a group raising money to encourage Gore to run again. As if Obama and Hillary aren't wasting enough political capital savaging each other, now Gore's name is mentioned again. And a lot of people feel that Gore won the last election, anyway.

This ideology could happen to conservatives.
 
"No matter who carries the Republican torch throughout the primaries, the best thing for the conservatives is to find a horse, one horse, and ride him to the end of the race."

By that reasoning , maybe we should all just get behind Hillary. She'll certainly make it to the end of the race and that's what counts. Right? /sarc
 
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
 
Why are the Republicans so worried about Ron Paul?
Basically because this current GOP likes spending money and likes their version of big Govt.



There isn't a right minded republican who is afraid of Ron Paul. There are many of us who are afraid that he will split the republican vote enough to either 1) lose the presidential election or 2) deny us a better nominee.
Click to expand...
cart before the horse logic here
Paul will not split the GOP vote. The Gop voters ARE spilt right now because of the current moderate/neocon control. Conservatives where already slpit (thanks to Bush) before Paul ever ran for President.


deny us a better nominee.
Click to expand...
please explain this one for me.


The concern is that Ron Paul will run a third party race.
Click to expand...
He will not. Rightly so he has said if he did that, all his money and time would be wasted just trying to get his name on all of the state ballots. He knows the system is not fair for other parties.
(he will force the GOP to stick to its limited Govt platform, being the anti moderate that he is))
 
cart before the horse logic here
Paul will not split the GOP vote. The Gop voters ARE spilt right now because of the current moderate/neocon control. Conservatives where already slpit (thanks to Bush) before Paul ever ran for President.
Click to expand...

That may be true, however people voting for Paul would otherwise likely vote for Thompson if Paul was not in the race. Any dilution of the vote helps Guliani as he is the front runner. Thats just statistics 101. Paul in the race makes it harder for Thompson to win.


He will not. Rightly so he has said if he did that, all his money and time would be wasted just trying to get his name on all of the state ballots. He knows the system is not fair for other parties.
Click to expand...

And yet there is no shortage of Paul yokels on this board and several others that have unequivocally stated that even if Paul loses the nomination, they will write his name in for the general election. And there are those that have said that if Paul doesn't win, they wont vote at all.

Its this waste of votes and sheer stupidity that makes me afraid.
 
“By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

- 9/11 Commission Report
 
After speaking with a lot of conservatives in local discussions, the main fear/idea here is that the lefties stand a very real chance of winning. Even if they voted for both Bush41 and Bush43, you get the feeling that the Iraqi war has really shaken America's faith.

I even wondered out loud that with the war, health care and Social Security for aging 'boomers and other social problems, it might be better to just throw this election and let Hillary have it. It's going to be a real firestorm for the new President.

Considering this, RP doesn't have a snowball's chance. In fact, I don't really see a GOP front-runner. You hear Giuliani's name, but you also hear about a lot of baggage. Frankly, I don't think I want a Prez who believes that NY runs really great. Guys like that think the main part of the USA is just boring "fly over."

I wish Reagan was still President. If we have to have a woman President, why not Liddy Dole.
 
And yet there is no shortage of Paul yokels on this board and several others that have unequivocally stated that even if Paul loses the nomination, they will write his name in for the general election.
Click to expand...

I haven't gone that far, but one thing is certain: I won't vote for Giuliani nor Romney, ever. If one of those guys is the Republican nominee, it's a clear signal that my vote was not wanted, and my vote for someone else is a clear message that the signal was received.
 
I haven't gone that far, but one thing is certain: I won't vote for Giuliani nor Romney, ever.
Click to expand...
I have. I won't subsidize something I don't want more of. A vote for the other front-runners is a clear signal to the RNC that the status quo is acceptable. If the Republicans lose the next ten election cycles due to my vote, that's their fault for not promoting a candidate I can stomach.
 
I believe the Republicans worry about Ron Paul because even if Paul does not win the nomination, he has a tendency to make them all look bad - or at least like the neo-Republicans they are.

Ron Paul represents what traditional Republicans once stood for and what many current Republicans believe the Republican Party still stands for.

Ron Paul may cause too many comparisons between the current neo-Republicans and the traditional Republicans and the illusion would be shattered.

That is what they are afraid of.
 
I have. I won't subsidize something I don't want more of. A vote for the other front-runners is a clear signal to the RNC that the status quo is acceptable. If the Republicans lose the next ten election cycles due to my vote, that's their fault for not promoting a candidate I can stomach.
Click to expand...

You should write that down. When they come for your guns, jack up your taxes and then "buy" your land from you for a new shopping mall for the "common good", you can pull it out, read it again and it will make you feel better. After all, you "showed" them.


It always amazes me when people treat their rights like poker chips and are really bad gamblers.
 
When they come for your guns, jack up your taxes and then "buy" your land from you for a new shopping mall for the "common good", you can pull it out, read it again and it will make you feel better. After all, you "showed" them.
Click to expand...


Who is the "they" you are referring to?

I would say the leading Republican is about as likely to take your guns and steal your land as the leading Democrat.
 
Unregistered,
You beat me to it. We can either continue down this road until there is no difference between Republican policy and Democrat policy, or we can force the Republican party to walk their talk.

What "STAGE 2" here fails to appreciate is that the Republican front runners are doomed regardless of how I vote. One scenario results in a Democrat victory and a clear message of reform to the Republicans, while the other results in a Democrat victory and the mistaken impression that I approve of the current situation.
If this guy is serious about defeating Hillary, he'd best get behind a candidate who can actually defeat the Dems instead of bellyachin' about how I won't vote for someone I don't like.
 
Oh sure, there's no difference between Hillbama and the republican candidates. I love it. No, no difference at all. :rolleyes:
 
Not any real difference. The democrats are simply more honest about their agenda than the leading republicans. In both cases their agenda is simple: to increase the size and power of government at the expense of our freedom.
 
Who is the "they" you are referring to?

I would say the leading Republican is about as likely to take your guns and steal your land as the leading Democrat.
Click to expand...

Yeah. This is the cute little fabrication I see made by all of you Paul supporters. "Oh they are all the same". "A vote for anyone but Paul is a vote for Hillary". Well I hate to burst your bubble, but thats just completely untrue.

All one has to do is to look at the gridlock in congress to know that there is a distinct difference between the two parties. While rebublicans certianly do need major improvement, to say that they are no different shows sheer stupidity.

Which party has cut taxes and is trying to make the cuts permanent.
Which party is trying to raise taxes.
Which party believes illegal aliens should recieve drivers licenses
Which party killed the immigration bill.
Which party lobbys for gun control.
Which party believes in universal health care.
Which party thinks the free market is a better place for investment vis a vis social security.

These are just some of the many examples. Republicans and democrats are not the same. Not by any stretch of the imagination. "They're all horrible" is the rallying cry of the lazy. Those of you waiting for the day when things are perfect haven't been paying attention to the last 200+ years of american politics.


What "STAGE 2" here fails to appreciate is that the Republican front runners are doomed regardless of how I vote. One scenario results in a Democrat victory and a clear message of reform to the Republicans, while the other results in a Democrat victory and the mistaken impression that I approve of the current situation.
If this guy is serious about defeating Hillary, he'd best get behind a candidate who can actually defeat the Dems instead of bellyachin' about how I won't vote for someone I don't like.
Click to expand...

I'm as serious as a heart attack. But here's the problem. There isn't any evidence what so ever that 1) suggest Hillary is unbeatable or 2) that Paul can win either the nomination, or the general election.

Your "feelings" or some lame straw poll where 200 people vote doesn't mean anything. Paul is out matched in the funds department, and hes being crushed in the polls.

Hillary has problems as well. She may have a high favorable rating, but she's also the only candidate with an unfavorable rating that's almost as high. And this doesn't even begin to take into account that very large skeleton vault she's dragging around.

So with all that said, do you have any valid evidence to support either premise? Here's a hint, "Paul has been gaining" or "Pauls support is getting stronger" isn't evidence. Paul's numbers could triple and that would put him at a tie with Huckabee, who no one thinks has a chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top