Being Realistic On Ron Paul
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Ron PaulSo then…
The reason I write this is I keep getting hammered in the comments sections of most of the Ron Paul posts I write…even ones that are positive! In fact, I’ve come to expect that a portion of the comments will be unnecessarily strident, propagandaish or down right mean.
And that’s okay because I don’t take the comments personally, but just so everybody knows, let me share a few of my opinions about Paul so we’re crystal about where I stand.
- I like Ron Paul.
- I like his message.
- I’m extremely impressed with his online strategy.
- His ideas about strict constitutionalism are interesting, but seem to be unworkable (in their present form) in our current political system.
- I don’t see any clear signs that he has a shot at winning the GOP nomination.
- I don’t think his views represent the majority of what GOP voters will want to vote for.
- I think his campaign mirrors Howard Dean’s in 2004 to the point that it’s crazy. The notable difference is that Paul hasn’t won any major “non-binding” contests yet, while at this point in 2004 Dean had won MoveOn.org’s poll.
- I believe Paul is a candidate who can
effectaffect the debate, but he’s pulling a lot (not all, but a lot) of new voters into the game. - For all of these reasons, I think he would make a viable 3rd party candidate since that could potentially give him a platform during the general election. Remember, if Paul is polling anywhere in the double digits, he’d probably get invited to the debates.
All clear? I hope so because I want to make it clear that I like him more than any other GOP candidate. That’s the reason I write about him in the first place. In fact, I started writing about him in May before a lot of blogs would even consider writing about him. I’m not anti-Paul, but I am pro-Reality.
Now then, here are some questions for Ron Paul supporters.
- If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, who will you vote for?
- How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
- What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
- Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
- Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
- What about those racist writings in his newsletter? I’ve heard Paul’s response, but I think most of us can agree it’s pretty weak. So if Paul does start leading the GOP race, what’s the communications strategy when that nugget hits the media?
- Have you taken a look at Unity 08? They’re offering any candidate who can get enough people behind them the ability to run on the Unity 08 ticket. What that means is Unity will make sure that the candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states, so the candidate doesn’t have to worry about it. Still think a 3rd party run doesn’t make sense?
Listen, I’m with all of you in spirit and the reason I write so much about Paul is because he’s harnessing a genuine, viable third party vibe…but nobody seems to really want to acknowledge this. At least not from the comments I’ve seen and the public strategy of the Paul camp. And that’s too bad, because his ideas could significantly effect affect the debate during the general election, but not unless he’s an independent candidate.
Roniacs…please learn from the Dean campaign. It’s not about how many people you get to travel to Iowa or New Hampshire to help. It’s not about how loud you shout for your candidate. It’s about how many people you can convince to vote for the Dr. It was that way in 2004, and it will be that way in 2008.
I welcome your comments, but to those who tear into me when I discuss flaws in Paul’s strategy…you’re just making the campaign look bad. Again, I can take it, but Paul needs you to be passionate AND smart.
UPDATE:
Well done everybody. There are truly some outstanding answers to my questions in the comments section, and I’m going to compile the best and put them in a post. Thanks again for the great responses and keep them coming.
I will be emailing everybody who comments when I publish the new post. Even those who think I’m deleting their comments. :)
UPDATE 2:
Hey all, be sure to fill out the reCAPTCHA below the comments section, otherwise you’ll get caught in our spam filters. Thanks!
UPDATE 3:
Actually, I think I may just take some of the complete responses and post them as individual posts. So stay tuned.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I understand where you are coming from and I agree the knee-jerk reactions you receive are unfounded. I too support Ron Paul and I have just donated another $100 to his campaign today. The single most important thing we can do is donate. This gives his camp the funds they need to spread the word and get the vote. We of course can continue to do what we do (mobilize and spread his message to the masses).
Be Passionate & BE SMART!
Kudos.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The reality is that Justin has no intention of voting for RP in the primary. Otherwise he would be supporting him, not writing hit pieces and trying to take steam away from the campaign.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Us Paulbots are wound a little tight at times, we are so used to people laughing off our guy that we cant seem to even recognize much else.
Times will change though. Nobodys perfect and Ron Paul isnt either.
We talk about the Dean campaign a lot and we know that we are doomed to fail if we repeat their mistakes. We already have a little of that grassroots infighting going on but its not widespread.
As far as 5th place=disapointing We started way too late it seems, Iowans seem to be the kind of people that dont believe anything that you tell/show them until one of their own says the same thing and then they go “yeah, I knew that” Arghh
I think Paul is already uniting people. I dont believe that is going to be a problem.
A Paul presidency would have extremely qualified people at all posts for sure. Keep in mind one thing, he cant do most of the stuff he talks about w/o congress, so they would have to get along. I am sure some pet projects will still get by as reward for congress tackling the big issues and severely knocking down spending. The IRS would be dead! We would probably end up with some kind of new system but it wouldnt collect nearly as much from us as the IRS and it would be FAIR. He would shut down the south border with national guard and technologies, and there would be NO amnesty, period. No cutting in line. Above all he would be the first honest president we have had in a long time, you would feel that he was leveling with you bad or good. He most likely will only serve 4 years due to age and will probably have a vice pres that is a duplicate of him like Sanborn from S.C.
Paul has stated that he wont run for a third party nomination.
At the moment, I would only consider Hagel. I wont vote for anyone who wants this North American union crap I.e. all of the rest of the candidates.
We like ya donklephant, were just wound up really tight right now trying to get this train moving.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
You used the wrong version of effect in your blog.
Affect
1. to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.
2. to impress the mind or move the feelings of: The music affected him deeply.
3. (of pain, disease, etc.) to attack or lay hold of.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I’ll answer a few questions… As an Iowan, I think the fact that he got 10% around here is huge. The fact that he’d like to do away with farm subsidies, in a state full of corn and soybeans, is a big deal. Also, while Iowans are generally nice, they’re very bigoted. I know that sounds mean, and it’s generalizing, but the die-hard Republicans around this state hate ‘Mexicans’, and Tancredo’s hardline ideas on immigration works well around here. If he wouldn’t get the nod, I’m not sure I’d vote; less out of protest than out of a lack of quality candidates. I suppose if he actually got a 3rd party nod, I’d support him till the end, but I still think he’d be ignored by most in the media, although I doubt he’d ever get into the debates; there’d be too much whining about it from the Republican side. Also, I think his views represent 90% of what all conservatives want from a candidate, they just refuse to look past Iraq, but I think that’s beginning to change, and more people will take a look at him… Just my thoughts though.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
1. I will write Ron Paul in as long as he is in the race
2. It is a good showing because he won 9% of the vote while spending the least amount of time on Iowa of all those that participated. He won, by a long margin, the ratio of votes per day spent in Iowa, and votes per dollar. Paul is on the upslope. Expect better results next time.
3. We would see many vetoed bills, a reversal of the executive orders, a humble foreign policy. States would assume greater control, as federal power is reduced. For once, we will see a decentralization of executive power.
4. Dr. No is about controlling the state, not the people. The people are not the state. Whenever the state tries to bring people together, we see fascism or communism.
5. Ron Paul has a stronger message. He will pull through, regardless of media smear.
6. Drop it. It is a non issue, and has been thoroughly explained. Can the media find one other example of Paul’s alleged racism? Just one more is all I ask.
7. What about the Unity Party? A 3rd party does make sense. Paul is a Republican though, and will push for the nomination first. SHould he not get it, he might run on a Libertarian/ Constitution ticket.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
1. probably still ron paul ;D
2. ron was barely in iowa. other candidates spent a lot more time there. i believe many votes were cast before he was first heard; because of his wife’s problems he did not deliver his 9am speech. showing had much to do with Christian values… i believe 2-4 were all the only creationists. not too scared of tancredo!
3. what do you mean what would it look like? would look pretty good i think! some stances may be too idealistic and a compromise may have to be made. but ultimately it is not leading us towards a police or welfare state even further where many others wish to take us.
4. paul is uniting all sorts of people now… i think anyone educated on all the issues would have a hard time disagreeing with his stances. 70% of the country is united in exiting the war… apparently 30% are misguided or ignorant IMO!
5. personally i have not, this is the first time i’ve been excited about politics or even voting. i have been in my internet tube more often and longer than most, yet back then i had no idea what was going on with howard dean. thus i would propose ron paul is MUCH bigger. in an age now of video and youtube i think we are talking about a different internet. btw i am 28.
6. i think the attack is pretty weak really. not sure what the communications plan is if it becomes scrutinized.
7. i think paul will run independently if he does not receive the nomination, because the people will demand it of him!
August 16th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
1. I will write Ron Paul in as long as he is in the race
2. It is a good showing because he won 9% of the vote while spending the least amount of time on Iowa of all those that participated. He won, by a long margin, the ratio of votes per day spent in Iowa, and votes per dollar. Paul is on the upslope. Expect better results next time.
3. We would see many vetoed bills, a reversal of the executive orders, a humble foreign policy. States would assume greater control, as federal power is reduced. For once, we will see a decentralization of executive power.
4. Dr. No is about controlling the state, not the people. The people are not the state. Whenever the state tries to bring people together, we see fascism or communism.
5. Ron Paul has a stronger message. He will pull through, regardless of media smear.
6. Drop it. It is a non issue, and has been thoroughly explained. Can the media find one other example of Paul’s alleged racism? Just one more is all I ask.
7. What about the Unity Party? A 3rd party does make sense. Paul is a Republican though, and will push for the nomination first. SHould he not get it, he might run on a Libertarian/ Constitution ticket.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Here are my answers:
1) It depends - if he doesn’t win the nomination, I would hope he would run (preferably with Mike Gravel) on an I ticket (maybe Unity 08 if they can really deal with the ballot issues). If not, I’ll probably vote for the Libertarian candidate.
2) Reagan lost the 1979 Ames poll, and his activists looked at the amount of time he had spent there compared to the votes he got, and decided it was worth carrying on. Reagan later on went on to win the nomination and presidency. Tancredo spent (IIRC) a month in Iowa before the poll compared to Paul’s four days. Paul also spent far, far less than Tancredo (who, again, IIRC, blew his entire wad of money on that one straw poll). Fifth place isn’t bad for 4 days in Iowa and 250k spent. If Reagan can do it, so can Paul.
3) Can we spell VETO? LOL. Congress would come to a rude awakening pretty quickly that they can’t get anything passed that is not authorized by the Constitution w/o an override.
4) No, in fact we may see more division - but that is not what is important - what is important is re-establishing Constitutional law to reign in the powers of future executives, D and R. I would rather live in a divided republic at peace than in a unified aristocracy (sp?) embattled in constant, unending war. Remember - the world in 1984 was unified too, but I wouldn’t call that a successful society.
5) Yes I have - fortunantly, I don’t think Ron can scream that loudly. LOL.
6) Everyone has said stupid stuff in their lives. I’m no exception. I’d respond by saying that I didn’t think I had thought those comments through as well as I might have, apologize for them, and then offer to take another question about it from any reporter who has never said anything stupid in their lives. That oughta shut them up. LOL.
7) I’ve looked at their site a couple times - Interesting - Like I said, if Hillary gets the D nominatin and the Rs nominate anyone but Paul, then yes, a unified R/P anti-war ticket could take it all. I wonder though if they actually DO have what it takes to get someone on the ballot in all 50 states.
Lastly - Remember that RP is now polling at or above the numbers at this point in the election for Carter, Reagan, Dukakis (won nomination) and Clinton. Clinton was a dark horse even until AFTER the Iowa caucus - It was only then that Gennifer Flowers steped up accusing him of an affair and he went on 60 minutes to explain himself. He took 2nd in NH after that. Those who say it can’t be done are ignoring recent history.
Hope I made some sense! Thanks!
August 16th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Actually Justin you can’t seem to take personal criticism, otherwise you may have posted my comments about your suggesting that social conservatives are what reelected Bush. Hey, its your site, but if people who disagree with your suppositions are not approved, then you are no different than Fox news.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Can of worms, Justin! what did you just do? Repent, sinner!
August 16th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Hi,
Good post. I share some of the concerns you express here, but for now I’ll limit myself to trying to answer your questions. I suppose I should make it clear that I am not speaking for Ron Paul’s campaign here, but just giving my own perspective.
~~~~~
1.) If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, I will still write him in when I vote. I cannot bring myself to vote for any of the current Democratic candidates, nor can I bring myself to vote for any of the other Republican candidates. Besides, if the Republican Party is so clueless that they reject the one candidate who can restore them to relevance, they don’t deserve my vote.
2.) Tancredo spent more time and effort campaigning in Iowa before the straw poll. Ron Paul had little invested in Iowa, yet still gave a good showing and demonstrated that the “scientific” opinion polls are largely invalid.
Furthermore, I believe that Ames was a high water mark for Tancredo, while it was Paul’s breakout moment. Tancredo is a single issue candidate, while Paul is multi-faceted. As Tancredo’s campaign falls apart over the coming months, Paul can pick up his supporters due to Paul’s strong stance on immigration, and he can also educate them on other pressing issues of our time.
3.) I think Paul’s own words are a good indicator: “We need a strong president, strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power the President shouldn’t have.” I think the major changes we will see involve balanced budgets, a reduction of the deficit, and executive branch non-enforcement of patently unconstitutional laws. What we won’t see is signing statements, strong-arm tactics, and a belligerent state department.
4.) Again, we can look at Paul’s own words. In a brief speech to supporters at Ames, he said:
“The programs we’ve had, the type of government we’ve had, and where we’ve been drifting to are very divisive. Because what happens is the government takes over, they tell us how to live, they take over all the resources of the country, then it all goes to Washington. We can’t use our property and we can’t spend our money without permission, so what happens? Everybody goes to Washington and they claw after the largesse and the loot they take from us.
This program that we talk about is exactly the opposite. It releases the energy, it allows people to be creative, it allows wealth to be built, and it brings people together. So this is why our groups are always diverse. It always brings people together, whether they’re conservatives, liberals, or independents.”
5.) I haven’t really studied Dean’s campaign in detail, so I don’t know what to tell you here. My impression from a distance was always that the media killed Dean.
6.) That “nugget” has already hit the media, and it’s gone nowhere. Even the New York Times absolved him of the charges in their lengthy article on him. Anyway, if that’s all they can dig up to slander him with, they’ve got nothing. The man is teflon.
7.) I haven’t heard of them, but I’ll look into it. For a while there have been rumors that both the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party were also toying with the notion of nominating Paul, which would ensure him ballot access in all 50 states even if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination, but I’m not sure that will actually pan out.
~~~~~
As for your exhortations to study the Dean campaign so as not to repeat their mistakes, I will certainly take your advice. Thanks.
-Kent
August 16th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
On one hand… I think Ron Paul’s main weakness is nothing more than the psychological warfare of people saying “he won’t win!” on the other hand, that was a pretty good article.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I’m trying to comment, but I’m not sure it’s being let through.
Perhaps my comment was too long, perhaps I didn’t get the spam validation right, or perhaps comments require moderation even with the validation codes.
Either way, some kind of notification about whether or not my comment was accepted would be nice. :-)
August 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
So you think we need someone to keep everything “unified” , even when that unity is based on error? A politician who has demonstrated time and time again an unwavering obedience to the Constitution and the laws of the land no longer has any place in the White House according to your logic?
The reason why Ron Paul is so popular, with a larger grassroots movement than any other candidate (which don’t underestimate is a very real strength for a campaign) is because of his message.
The event in Iowa was an isolated event. It was also not only the fact that Ron Paul spent less than almost every other candidate, just like Reagan (who lost the straw poll and then went on to win) for the ammount of time he spent campaigning (a week) he averaged more votes than any other candidate. That’s how powerful his message is, even when the established press does all it can to ignore him. And don’t forget who helped get Reagan into office, Ron Paul.
I had friends who drove 400+ miles to Iowa. They mentioned that Tom Tancredo supporters couldn’t be seen anywhere. The Straw Poll is a fund raising event for the GOP. It has nothing in reality to do with winning the election. But a passionate group of thousands of supporters willing to travel across the country just to be there to show their support of a candidate is recipee for the strength of a campaign and it’s ability to stand the test of time like nothing else. Unlike some of these soon to be short lived campaigns who just throw all their money on one event to make a big splash, and not having the substance to form a substantial base.
Just some ideas for you there buddy. It cracks me up how everyone thinks themself a prophet, you go from one website to the next and the opinion changes from night to day. It makes me wonder what the writer’s agenda is exactly when I hear someone try to explain how a candidate doesn’t stand a chance especially so early in the election cycle.
What all Americans really need to ask themselves in all sincerity is:
How much do I value my Liberties?
How highly do I esteem the Constitution?
How dear to me is my Country?
Because I can guarantee you if you don’t support this man, and we get yet another special interest bought and paid for politician in the White House we can kiss all of the above goodbye.
Don’t listen to the self proclaimed “experts” assert Paul’s message of Freedom, Prosperity and Liberty is an old fashioned impractical ideal.
We can take this country back. Join the rest of us for the worthy cause.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Gandhi
http://www.RonPaul2008.com
August 16th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
So you think we need someone to keep everything “unified” , even when that unity is based on error? A politician who has demonstrated time and time again an unwavering obedience to the Constitution and the laws of the land no longer has any place in the White House according to your logic?
The reason why Ron Paul is so popular, with a larger grassroots movement than any other candidate (which don’t underestimate is a very real strength for a campaign) is because of his message.
The event in Iowa was an isolated event. It was also not only the fact that Ron Paul spent less than almost every other candidate, just like Reagan (who lost the straw poll and then went on to win) for the ammount of time he spent campaigning (a week) he averaged more votes than any other candidate. That’s how powerful his message is, even when the established press does all it can to ignore him. And don’t forget who helped get Reagan into office, Ron Paul.
I had friends who drove 400+ miles to Iowa. They mentioned that Tom Tancredo supporters couldn’t be seen anywhere. The Straw Poll is a fund raising event for the GOP. It has nothing in reality to do with winning the election. But a passionate group of thousands of supporters willing to travel across the country just to be there to show their support of a candidate is recipee for the strength of a campaign and it’s ability to stand the test of time like nothing else. Unlike some of these soon to be short lived campaigns who just throw all their money on one event to make a big splash, and not having the substance to form a substantial base.
Just some ideas for you there buddy. It cracks me up how everyone thinks themself a prophet, you go from one website to the next and the opinion changes from night to day. It makes me wonder what the writer’s agenda is exactly when I hear someone try to explain how a candidate doesn’t stand a chance especially so early in the election cycle.
What all Americans really need to ask themselves in all sincerity is:
How much do I value my Liberties?
How highly do I esteem the Constitution?
How dear to me is my Country?
Because I can guarantee you if you don’t support this man, and we get yet another special interest bought and paid for politician in the White House we can kiss all of the above goodbye.
Don’t listen to the self proclaimed “experts” assert Paul’s message of Freedom, Prosperity and Liberty is an old fashioned impractical ideal.
We can take this country back. Join the rest of us for the cause.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Gandhi
http://www.RonPaul2008.com
August 16th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Now then, here are some questions for Ron Paul supporters.
AND HERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS!
Q: If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, who will you vote for?
A: Dumb question now. Ask it again in one year after Denver x2 and St. Paul.
Q: How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
A: Because Tancredo is broke and Paul isn’t; because Tancredo is a one-horse show and Paul isn’t; because Tancredo spent a lot of time in IA and Paul didn’t; and because Tancredo got MSM coverage and Paul didn’t.
Q: What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
A: A lot of empty buildings in DC with “For Sale” signs in front of them. A lot of fuller wallets in the USA proper from a lighter tax burden. A lot of troops coming home. And a lot of corporations having to actually make money instead of relying on government subsidies and corporate welfare. A lot less government, a lot less fear, and a lot more freedom and optimism.
Q: Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
A: Of course. The authoritarians in the DP and GOP will unite against him cutting off their government feedbags and then self-destruct in temper tanrtums of hate and doomsaying after he exercises exectuive authority on his branch of government and kills the offices, leaving the rest of us to thrive since we never had those feedbags in the first place.
Q: Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
A: Yes, and no screaming allowed.
Q: What about those racist writings in his newsletter? I’ve heard Paul’s response, but I think most of us can agree it’s pretty weak. So if Paul does start leading the GOP race, what’s the communications strategy when that nugget hits the media?
A: Old news. He didn’t write them, but he did take responsibility for them. If the MSM harps on it then they reveal their own racism. Paul’s long voting record and written record speaks for itself far more than one bit written by a subsequently-fired staffer 15 years ago.
Q: Have you taken a look at Unity 08? They’re offering any candidate who can get enough people behind them the ability to run on the Unity 08 ticket. What that means is Unity will make sure that the candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states, so the candidate doesn’t have to worry about it. Still think a 3rd party run doesn’t make sense?
A: Not that a 3rd party doesn’t make sense, but Unity08 has no ballot access and has little clue on how to get it. Ask Richard Winger about that. The LP does have that nationwide ballot access, but is running uphill against an unequal system designed to malevolently slam the door on third parties until the GOP goes the way of the Whigs in twelve years if Paul doesn’t get the nomination.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I don’t have answers to all of your questions, but #4 stood out: Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
Over the last few weeks of being involved with Ron Paul meetups and seeing - online and in flesh and blood - the types of people involved, I’ve been amazed at how Ron Paul’s candidacy has brought such diverse people together. I’m a fairly typical hippie vegan leftists and I’m joined by many other hippies, libertarians, gun-toting Republicans, and most of all, people who had previously given up on politics and/or the U.S. I too was considering just moving to another country, but thought I’d just see how this whole Ron Paul thing shakes out.
My point is, I’ve NEVER seen any candidate or any person bring people together the way Ron Paul has.
And to answer question #1 - Who will I vote for if Ron Paul isn’t nominated? I will probably write in his name. I don’t think I can stomach the rest of the lot anymore. I’m thinking of moving to New Zealand or somewhere pleasant like that.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
One question for anyone reading this highly slanted take.
Are you going to continue voting for the candidate that all the “experts” are telling you to choose, or are you going to go with the one remaining man who is telling you the truth and who you can believe in?
August 16th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
thank for clarifying your position, i was beginning to wonder why people keep writing articles about dr paul if he has no shot as they claim, anyway to answer your questions:
1. who will I vote for? well it depends on whom else gets the nomination, but it certainly will not be a republican. if its hillary on the democratic side i will write ron paul in anyway, lol. actually i will write him in regardless, why should some committee choose who we can vote for?
2. why is 5th place great for ron paul? well every news agency has him polling at 2% and suddenly he is now polling at 9% thats quite an overnight jump, as for tancredo i assume that the people in iowa were very supportive of his anti-immigration policies and he also spent alot more time there prior to the straw poll, 66 campaign events compared to ron pauls 17.
3. i don’t understand this question, what did the jefferson administration look like? after all it was him who started the republican party.
4.YES!!! do you think people actually know how the candidates vote? or why they chose to vote a certain way? no i think they care more about how that decision affects them, i think people would not be very happy with the legislators that voted for the patriot act and the no child left behind act if they actually had any idea what was in these bills and how disingenuous they are. ron paul votes no because those bills hurt people more than help them, the constitution should unite this country but only if we actually follow it.
5. howard dean again, who (that is not involved with politics) has even heard of him? i really dont get how you can compare him with ron paul, technology is light years ahead of where it was then and social networking sites are substantially more popular, so he won a online poll, big wow. ron paul wins every online poll but people just say that us ron paul supporters have somehow hacked into the server and manipulated the results , or better yet, hit the ron paul button 50 times, lol.
6. did you actually read that article? I did, and it was more in regards of a race of people taking advantage of a situation in order to loot their own neigborhood more than it was racism, this was also when gang violence in LA was very bad, i don’t see how saying the words black people can be racist, anyway he said that he didn’t write that article and the guy that did was let go, if you read all the other article in that news letter you can clearly see Dr. Paul is not racist, he is a constitutionalist which guarantees every person equal rights, in fact it never gave any rights to an exclusive group of people, it was not following the constitution that led to having to add the 13, 15 amendment every part of the bill of rights say PEOPLE not black people, white people, christians, women, etc. just people.
7. No, that would be political suicide, how many independent debates have been televised on cnn,abc,cbs,fox or any other major media outlet? who cares if their name is on the ballot when people walking in the booth already know who they are going to vote for and have no who idea who John Cox is?
August 16th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Be nice now. This hardly qualifies as a hit piece.
To answer your questions from my perspective:
1) I’m not sure who I’ll support if Ron Paul doesn’t win. Most likely I’ll look at the third party offerings, but there are some Democrats I could support if third party efforts look needlessly quixotic. Staying home and drinking is also an option :-). There are no other Republicans I would be likely to vote for.
2) Ron Paul’s finish was good from a return-on-effort perspective. Of course this just means the question of where he would have placed had he spent 60 days in Iowa remains unanswered.
3) I don’t really know, and speculating on it would take up a ton of space. The thing is that I am sufficiently unhappy (despairing even) with the direction the country is going that I would be willing to put up with a lot of gridlock and strange events for a chance at making things better. If nothing else, I imagine foreign wars and Guantanamo would end, and Paul could rescind the anti-civil-liberties signing orders of Bush.
4) Why do we need unity again? People are deeply divided over serious issues. I don’t expect (most) people who think Islamofascism is an existential threat to the nation to come around and agree with me; I simply hope that other, more sensible people will beat the snot out of them at the polls. The same goes for other issues.
5) No, I haven’t. If I were Ron Paul’s campaign manager, this would be a crushing indictment. Are there mistakes that a plain old supporter should be avoiding as well?
6) It’s unclear. I do think that some supporters underestimate the potential for a negative carpet-bombing that exists, should the more well-financed campaigns ever feel the need to go negative on Ron Paul. However, given the size of the cryptoracist vote on the Republican right, I think they would actually choose some other issue to bludgeon him with (at least in the primary).
7) I’ll take a look at the Unity site. But see my answer to 4); I don’t exactly see why unity by itself is such a great thing. I certainly wouldn’t be against Ron Paul running on a Unity ticket if it seemed to make sense.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“His ideas about strict constituionalism are interesting, but seem to be unworkable (in their present form) in our current politcal system.”
Well, there ya go then!
Vote for the “lesser of two evils” AGAIN, if it will help you sleep at night.
Our “current” political “system” IS the problem.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Justin: Don’t try to be reasonable with the Paul cult. I’m a very long time libertarian and know Ron Paul. He is not representative of libertarianism. He is a right-wing conspiracy nutter.
These people are unreasonable and irrational and none too bright. Look how one of them compares a scientific poll of the population to the straw poll where Ron Paul paid to admit 800 people to vote for him. He paid the $35 fee to get them in. This was not scientific. For god’s sake Pat Robertson won this poll one year. Yet the dumb seem to think it proves Paul has 9% public support not the 2% that the polls show (actually many state polls have him lower.) These people are brain dead. Reason won’t convince. Logic won’t convince them. And come next spring when Paul drops out due to a lack of support they will create a mythical conspiracy of international bankers to blame it on — just the way Paul does on many issues. Loons.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
1 - If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, who will you vote for?
Whoever the Democratic candidate is.
2 - How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
Because the Paul is painted by the media as being a “fringe” candidate. The fact that he did not end up at the bottom with the one-percenters is a win.
3 - What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
The war in Iraq would end, the IRS would be abolished, the illegal executive orders Bush signed would be canceled, and that’s just to start.
4 - Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
We’re united to end the war in Iraq. If Paul does that it doesn’t matter what else he kills.
5 - Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
Uh, I’m not campaigning for anything… why would I be at risk for repeating Howard Dean’s mistakes?
6- What about those racist writings in his newsletter? I’ve heard Paul’s response, but I think most of us can agree it’s pretty weak.
You mean how he didn’t write or say the comments? I think the only thing he’s guilty of is being inattentive towards the newsletter that bore his name.
7 - Have you taken a look at Unity 08?
Nope. Haven’t even heard of Unity 08.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
1: Vote for RP as independent.
2: The exit polls clearly show Paul won in a landslide, the GOP just stole it cold. Fact.
3: This is, of course, complex. In brief, America has some surgery to go thru, and it’s going to hurt at points, but we MUST take this bitter pill. The bankers will try to fight for their gravy train, the FedRez, with every cheap trick they have, but we MUST kill fiat money, once and for all, period. Astute observes will note that there is MUCH corruption that needs to go, and the corrupt do NOT want to give up their ill-gotten gains. But I’ve picked my side (Justice), and you must as well. So, expect some hardship, because I intend to contract the money supply to shake out the bad credit. It has to be done. Now, if you do not know what that will do, you REALLY want to learn ASAP.
4: Well, what indeed are the “unifying principles” of America? Again, if you know what’s going on, “constitutionalism” is THE core value of this country, and of its people, if they have two ganglia to rub together.
5: Dean != Paul. Totally different, and not least because the web’s come a long way in the years between. However, this is REALLY about the absurd policies of the elites. This is a populist revolution against an entire mode of thought, ie: the neocon (Clinton, Obama…) agenda. Dean’s core supporters are now Obama supporters, not Paul supporters, e.g.: they’re in it for schoolgirl crushes and fabian socialist pipe dreams, not rational libertarian principles. Check your premises if you think otherwise.
6: He didn’t write them, and said so. What’s “weak” about that? Look at his record - he’s a meritocratist sine qua non. How COULD he be racist? A single incident is NOT a “pattern”, by definition. Absurd.
7: As per my response on #1, we’re going to push him to make the run no matter what. At some point one has to understand that we will not be disenfranchised any more. We are buying guns, storing food, and “hoarding” gold. We are not f*cking around, ya hear? I’ve studied history, and I WILL have my freedom, so I’m ready for a hot war, whether the idiots who think Obama’s “cute” are or not. We don’t care all that much about those folks - they are largely inconsequential, I’m sad to say.
This really is for all the marbles, bro. It’s Germany 1932 in America right now, and WE KNOW IT. It’s fight or flight, and there’s nowhere to run to. Backed into the corner, we have turned to face the assailant.
Now, either help us turn back the tide of tyranny, or get the hell out of my way. If you CHOOSE to help them, one way or another, I would not expect too much mercy from us when we win. Or: the traitors in DC are going to see some jail time (if they’re lucky!), and it ain’t gonna be Club Fed.
Paper ballots at the county level, folks. Ron Paul 08.
Be well.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
1. Someone not Mitt Romney or Benito Giuliani. Of course Ron Paul if he runs independent. Otherwise it is to be determined. Someone with libertarian values.
2. Tancredo spent a substantial amount of time (2 months) and spend at least $100,000 more in Iowa. Ron Paul spent 2 weeks and spent his money in the last week leading up to the poll, in my opinion money not well spent as the results would of been the same. Ron Paul got his votes on message, while Tancredo was on persistence. Ron Paul’s campaign persistence is a growing presence as you have felt.
3. He could weaken the powers of the executive branch, force Congresse’s hand in fiscal responsibility (otherwise Congress faces the wraith in 2010), direct a executive bureacracy standdown (DEA, FDA, FTC, DHS, etc), and pull us out of other peoples business (Iraq, Korea, Japan, Germany, etc).
4. Why does the country need to be brought together? People want their liberties and will decide for themselves if they will agree or disagree on issues. We need Congress to get out of bed with each other so that principles can again mean something. Compromise at times can mean quitting (is Senator McCain listening?).
5. Howard Dean took for granted that he was the source of his popularity and not his message. Ron Paul is more centered and has already indicated his candidacy as one for ideas and not selfish reasons.
6. His explanation stands with me. The remarks were not really racist, but falling into prejudicial stereotype. The remarks did not actually aim to keep anyone down.
7. All though the Unity08 concept is intriguing, their platform falls out of step with Ron Paul’s principles. And as you know by now, principles are what matter to this campaign.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
1. If the nomination comes down as prescribed by big corporate media, then it won’t matter who I vote for unless there’s a viable 3rd party candidate.
2. RP’s fifth place finish in the IA straw poll was calculated by Diebold voting machines! ‘Nuff said?
3. RP not voting on anything that isn’t sanctioned by the constitution would mean that individual states would have to legislate those issues. Imagine, each state having more than property and vehicle tax rates to distinguish one from another… Oh the horror!
4. Putting the federal government in charge of every last legislative detail doesn’t create unity, it creates apathetic slaves like we have today. Let the people sort things out for themselves and give them back their otherwise wasted tax dollars so that they can do something good with it. Even with the highest tax rates in history, the U.S. is the most charitable nation in the world.
5. Sorry, I haven’t studied the campaign of Howard Dean. I guess I’d just tell RP not to get overly excited and beware of the big corporate media.
6. I’ve not seen Dr. Paul’s newsletter so I can’t confirm or deny the allegations of racism. However, if, as you’ve established, he’s not going to vote on anything not sanctioned by the constitution, what difference would it make how he feels about peoples’ race?
7. I haven’t read much about Unity ‘08, but I certainly will. I totally agree with you that RP stands very little chance against the corporate spin machine. If we don’t break this cycle of voting for rich, corporate sponsored a**hats that could care less about the average citizen, then this country is doomed.
Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that there will actually _be_ an election in 2008. If Bush decides to declare himself president for life between now and then, I’m sure the democrats will bend over and take it. At least then we’d finally get past the fantasy that this is a free country…
August 16th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I’m sorry but ever since this Ron Paul Mania began to wash over the body politic, whenever I hear about it I always think of America as “The Dude” in his bath and Ron Paul as the Marmot in this scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZiIbKlO8bk
We can talk about Paul, pro and con, but the fact of the matter is that America, even in its death throes, will not elect a marmot.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
1. Ron Paul
2. If Tancredo and Paul were the only two candidates in the straw poll, your question would make more sense.
3. Imagine a president that actually uses his veto pen on spending bills. Forcing the Republicans and Democrats to pass bills with a 2/3′rs majority. Proving, finally, that they are the same party.
4. Psychobabble. Unity is just another word that sounds good but never happens. I want to agree to disagree. But when you disagree don’t get congress to take my money and force me to agree.
5. Be less socialist? Don’t scream like a crazed cowboy? Ron’s got that covered already.
6. I’d have to see this newsletter. And if Paul actually wrote it. It won’t matter whether Ron Paul did or didn’t do/say it. The media will do it’s best to bring him down. They have already chosen the candidates they like best. They fawn over them constantly.
7. If the unity candidate is allowed in the debates. That might be nice. But Unity 08 has no real ideals. They’ll probably take anybody. Sounds like people who don’t know what they believe in.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
What irks me — not necessarily about you, but about a lot of the neutral or negative commentary on RP — is the noncommital attitude. “I think Ron Paul’s a great candidate, but he won’t/can’t get the nom/win/whatev.”
If you think he’s the best candidate, how about an endorsement? A few thousand of those, and he’d have a better chance than most are giving him. This attitude smacks of not wanting to be caught dancing with the loser.
If someone else is a better candidate, who? I don’t mean “if someone else has a better chance at winning”. I know how to analyze that (just count the money). I mean tell us about your pick if it’s not RP. You can change your mind later, no one will bite you.
As to your questions:
1. I’ll write in “Ron Paul” if I can. If not, most likely HRC.
2. The 5th place was an okay result.
3. First, President Paul would end all the unconstitutional wars we’re currently fighting. If he did that and then sat on his duff for 4 years, it’d be a great administration.
4. Is there ever a time when we don’t need unity? Saying “no” to unconsitutional actions should not be a divisive thing to do. It should not even be *necessary to do, because in an ideal world some of the laws that are passed would be constitutional.
5. I don’t know much about the Dean campaign. But I estimate the opposition to the Iraq war at about twice what it was then.
6. Those comments really bother me. All other things being equal, I would actually withhold my support because of them. But all other things aren’t equal.
7. I read something about Unity 08 awhile back. I think Waterston vs. Fred Thompson would be a great matchup in the general election.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Justin, I’d be happy to answer your questions.
1. If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, who will you vote for?
Ron Paul supporter are from all walks of life with a common bond of wanting to get back to the constitutional principals of the founding fathers. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents are finding Paul’s message of freedom and peace appealing. The Republican party is blessed to have him on thier ticket. The loyalty is to the man, not any party. Your question is unanswerable and not even worth considering.
2. How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
As of the end of the last quarter, Tancredo spent $2,209,606 as opposed to Ron Paul’s $655,142. Tancredo putting the majority of his time and money into Iowa while Paul didn’t even have a campaign hq there until 2 days before the straw-poll. Paul spent a grand total of a week in Iowa to Tancredo’s months. What you really should be asking is how did the guy who only spent a week in Iowa and didn’t rent a single bus even come in 5th?? Tancredo will be done soon, same with McCain, Huckabee, and Brownback while Ron Paul continues to build his war-chest and is gaining more loyal supporters everyday.
3. What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
Uh, WONDERFUL! You couldn’t posibly be suggesting anything different. Only a complete ignoramous would suggest that the American Utopia lies not in the Constitution.
4. Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
Yes. It is proven by his supporter base.
5. Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
I remember it like it was yesterday. I also remember how the Clinton DLC machine destroyed his chances simply to get Kerry the nomination. I assure you, it wasn’t because that wanted Kerry to beat Bush. If Bush had lost in 2004, Hillary would NEVER of had a chance to become president. The problem for Dean was he is no Ron Paul. Dean had dems and some indies, but Ron Paul has support across the board. Ron Paul is also one of the most disciplined speakers I have ever seen. He will not be tripped up by any “Paul Scream”. Look at how he turned Giuliani’s rant in the second debate into political gold. The other mistake in Dean’s run was Trippi’s spending. Again Ron Paul is too fiscally conservative to fall into that trap. Apples and oranges, Justin.
6. What about those racist writings in his newsletter? I’ve heard Paul’s response, but I think most of us can agree it’s pretty weak. So if Paul does start leading the GOP race, what’s the communications strategy when that nugget hits the media?
I like how you say “those” in “his”. You know he didn’t write it and you know he didn’t approve it. Ron Paul hasn’t been shown to have a racist bone in his body. There are no Ron Paul “Mecaca” videos. In fact, I can’t even find a coper of the newsletter. CAN YOU?
7. Have you taken a look at Unity 08? They’re offering any candidate who can get enough people behind them the ability to run on the Unity 08 ticket. What that means is Unity will make sure that the candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states, so the candidate doesn’t have to worry about it. Still think a 3rd party run doesn’t make sense?
Third party run is unnecessary. Unity 08 has LAME writen all over it.
Vicky
August 16th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
To those observing this topic:
Please take note of the differences between the responses of Paul’s supporters and those of his detractors. Which of the two offers reasoned responses, and which offers name-calling and inanity?
Think about it.
We now return you to your originally-scheduled programming.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Yeah Vanderleun, and the other media sponsored canidates are the Nihilists that want our money. Vote Nihilist.
What an idiot.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
To Answer Your Questions:
1) If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, who will you vote for?
I will most likely vote for the GOP nominee. If RP runs third party, I will probably vote for him.
2) How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
We won’t accurately know how much any candidate spent in Ames until Oct 15, but we know who spent money there, and who didn’t. Tom Tancredo hired 59 buses to bring in supporters, and most likely bought their tickets. All this on top of weeks of campaigning in Iowa.
Compare Ron Paul who bought 800 tickets, and got 1300 votes. That means at least 500 people, on their own dime, made their way to Ames to vote for someone they almost certainly had not shook his hand, given Dr. Paul’s limited appearances and presence in Iowa.
Ron Paul’s people won the visibility contest. They may have been from out of state, but they were energized. And, contrary to many popular reports, they exist outside the internet, at least enough to beat out Thompson and Hunter.
The race goes not to the swift, but to the steady.
3) What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
Lots of vetoes. If Congress is determined to violate the Constitution, the very least the POTUS can do is make them do is get a 2/3 majority.
Lots of pardons. It is a plenary power given only to the POTUS, and virtually unchecked by either of the other two branches. I would encourage him to use it vigorously.
Withdrawal of troops from most places on the globe, with a portion of them given responsibility for border enforcement, primarily on our southern border.
Rescindment of most previous executive orders and Presidential directives, particularly those that infringe on the rights of US citizens.
4) Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
I question your premise of “unity” being a necessary precondition for political improvement, short of the unity required to get 50.1 percent of the vote.
5) Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
The Dean campaign spent money like a drunken sailor, and appealed to the farthest left-wing of his party. Ron Paul’s campaign is thrifty, to say the least, and has appeal that runs across the ideological spectrum.
And Ron Paul is not the type to bay at the moon on national TV.
6) What about those racist writings in his newsletter? I’ve heard Paul’s response, but I think most of us can agree it’s pretty weak.
His response that he didn’t write them, but took responsibility for publishing them? That’s what passes for weak nowadays?
I would invite anyone to listen to his message, check out his campaign and his issues, and make their own judgements about whether he is a racist. Personally, I think it’s rather silly.
7) Have you taken a look at Unity 08?
Why would I go and do that? We’re going to win the GOP nomination for Dr. Ron Paul.
Ron Paul ‘08. Because taking your country back should be fun.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
To Answer Your Questions:
1) If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, who will you vote for?
I will most likely vote for the GOP nominee. If RP runs third party, I will probably vote for him.
2) How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
We won’t accurately know how much any candidate spent in Ames until Oct 15, but we know who spent money there, and who didn’t. Tom Tancredo hired 59 buses to bring in supporters, and most likely bought their tickets. All this on top of weeks of campaigning in Iowa.
Compare Ron Paul who bought 800 tickets, and got 1300 votes. That means at least 500 people, on their own dime, made their way to Ames to vote for someone they almost certainly had not shook his hand, given Dr. Paul’s limited appearances and presence in Iowa.
Ron Paul’s people won the visibility contest. They may have been from out of state, but they were energized. And, contrary to many popular reports, they exist outside the internet, at least enough to beat out Thompson and Hunter.
The race goes not to the swift, but to the steady.
3) What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
Lots of vetoes. If Congress is determined to violate the Constitution, the very least the POTUS can do is make them do is get a 2/3 majority.
Lots of pardons. It is a plenary power given only to the POTUS, and virtually unchecked by either of the other two branches. I would encourage him to use it vigorously.
Withdrawal of troops from most places on the globe, with a portion of them given responsibility for border enforcement, primarily on our southern border.
Rescindment of most previous executive orders and Presidential directives, particularly those that infringe on the rights of US citizens.
4) Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
I question your premise of “unity” being a necessary precondition for political improvement, short of the unity required to get 50.1 percent of the vote.
5) Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
The Dean campaign spent money like a drunken sailor, and appealed to the farthest left-wing of his party. Ron Paul’s campaign is thrifty, to say the least, and has appeal that runs across the ideological spectrum.
And Ron Paul is not the type to bay at the moon on national TV.
6) What about those racist writings in his newsletter? I’ve heard Paul’s response, but I think most of us can agree it’s pretty weak.
His response that he didn’t write them, but took responsibility for publishing them? That’s what passes for weak nowadays?
I would invite anyone to listen to his message, check out his campaign and his issues, and make their own judgements about whether he is a racist. Personally, I think it’s rather silly.
7) Have you taken a look at Unity 08?
Why would I go and do that? We’re going to win the GOP nomination for Dr. Ron Paul.
Ron Paul ‘08. Because taking your country back should be fun.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Donkelephant: LOL! The first & foremost presidential candidate that I Google all of the time is Ron Paul. Not that I really support him, but him and his supporters are funny and cute in their mad dash to get him president.
The blog that I keep on coming to in Ron Paul analysis isn’t a Ron Paul enthusiast or detractor, but you. Please, Donkelephant … do not get so worried about Ron Paul not winning or over-winning where you crowd your website with too much Ron Paul information. No one candidate is worth all of the time that you spent worrying about Ron Paul and you really put in the heavy hours worrying about the guy. So come to it then.
Ron Paul is nothing more than a radical with bad jingoistic ideals that a bunch of like-minded individuals flock to him by ratio because nobody makes his ideals more apparent than he does. In “bad” I mean “bad” in every sense of the word. Nothing good can come by converting money into the gold standard at a time where credit cards are being overused, or by shutting down fundamental organizations too vital to de-federalize, or any other silly, antique notions that this guy keeps on promising to put into place.
I love the guy, but he seems to be a one-note candidate, and in this day & time, we need somebody more.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
1. I will write him in. I had dropped out of national politics after 2004’s media-engineered lesser-of-two-evil election, only to be brought back by Paul. I don’t mind “wasting” my vote on someone whose views matches my own. At this point, a vote for a “Top Tier” Republican or Democrat is a vote for AIPAC policies. I don’t support AIPAC and subsequently won’t vote for their candidates.
2. Paul and Tancredo are targeting the same audience, albeit with different maxims. They are both speaking to the voter with no faith in the political system. Both are routinely tagged hopeless or insane by the media. A vote for them is in some way a vote against old-media. I think if Tancredo runs out of money Paul will receive his votes. Tancredo’s nearly broke now. Just as Huckabee and Brownback’s have divided a large Christian vote, when Tancredo and Paul’s votes are combined, the GOP will be forced to address their platforms (immigration and freedom).
3. Take a look at Calvin Coolidge’s presidency. America was prosperous and mass immigration came under control. Quiet Cal was a vastly underrated president, IMO.
4. Yes. More so than the fear peddling which is uniting us in terror. Between Chertov’s gut feelings and ambiguous “Orange Alerts”, the average citizen is either ignoring or cowering from the world around them. If your question is in regard to current civil rights laws which violate our freedom of association, then no. It’s long past time to rid ourselves of carpet bagging heavy handedness, IMO.
5. Two words “Dean Scream”. The media destroyed Dean. Some claim his loss to be due to a poor performance at a straw poll. I don’t buy it. Ask the average person about Dean and they’ll talk about his scream. His policies and candidacy were ruined in a constantly-looped unflattering soundbite. We’re going to get around these “mistakes” by putting the focus on the media when they resort to smearing. The media needs to be held accountable. If old-media decides to take the low road, we’ll take them with us.
6. Ghost writer, now fired. This has been explained elsewhere numerous times. You either accept it or you don’t. The standard “racist” smear is to repeatedly ask for explanation after explanation until the person being smeared is mired by this one issue. An apology is then asked. Once given, the smearing increases. Paul has explained the situation. It’s over. People harping on the issue aren’t interested in “racism”, they’re interested in moral demagoguery.
7. Unity08 will get as much media coverage as the Constitution or Reform parties (none). It’s a bad idea. Now, at least, the media is –begrudgingly– forced to acknowledge Paul’s presence in the debates.
Now I have a question for you. Why are you treating this election like a football game? It seems you’re spending time worrying if Paul can win rather than if he should win. Why not get behind him if you agree with him?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
If you can’t address stuff like this:
http://majorityrights.com/images/uploads/foxnewsfraud.png
Then you have no business making any comments about Ron Paul.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
1. If Ron Paul does not win, I’ll write his name in.
2. I’m trying to figure out how NON-Candidate Fred Thompson got on the poll. Being 5th beats being 11th eh?
3. Ron Paul’s presidency would help states focus on fixing their problems, honoring state rights laws, while not trying to fix those who don’t want America to fix their problems, or empowering those who do want America to fix their problems with force.
4. The US Constitution empowers people through laws first, force when diplomacy can not be had. You cannot force people to unify, only empower them to want to unify, feel safe through trade and justice.
5. Howard Dean’s mistake was attacking Nader and then bowing out to Kerry. Ron Paul is not attacking or bowing to anyone. He’s making a point, “We’ve got to get back to our constitutional foundation”.
6. I don’t see Dr Paul as a racist. I don’t see any white sheets or swastikas. I see a presidential candidate making points to a divided country that finds ignorance is bliss and being a victim pays. I believe his response to your charge is employing the Constitution as empowering ALL people with rights.
7. Unity08 has named Ron Paul and Mike Gravel as their leading choices. Unity08 cannot make any promise on ballot access. How will they get on the Oklahoma ballot? How will they do better than Nader with Democrats employing attorneys to file bogus lawsuits to drain money from the campaign? The state of Pennsylvania has threatened to “freeze Nader’s bank account if he tried to run as an independent, even though the real reason Nader wants ballot access is that as a consumer advocate who wants to research election laws, being elections are bought, the federal elections Commission insists , to challenge an election or vote, one MUST be on the ballot. The GOP only threw gas on the Democrats’ fire to burn Nader, and Media gave them the logs to keep it going forevermore. Unity08 does not have a chance in hell, anymore than Nader or Perot.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Justin, there’s nothing wrong with liking Ron Paul. This is your blog and while you wish to be fair and neutral as much as you can be, you like who you like. There’s a reason you like Ron Paul, he makes a hell of a lot more sense than any other of these Republicans. Truth is, the Republicans have made so very big mistakes, they have hurt this country and while the Democrats are a bunch of power hungry politicos , they are nonetheless far more desirable than any of these war mongering, war profiting Republicans, save, Ron Paul.
No, it’s not just you. You aren’t alone. The majority of America regardless of their political persuasion know in their hearts this country has major challenges ahead of it. If you hear some of these war mongering, illogical, ignorant Republicans bashing you about paying too much attention to Ron Paul, you need to realize that it is these same people that got us where we are today.
Ron Paul is the [only] Republican that is making any damn sense. If you supported any other Republican, you’d be just like the rest of these damn idiots destructing the world first and asking questions later. Any American that “truly” gives a shit about this country knows what is happening now is just WRONG. It’s just that simple. It’s time to end the corruption of both of these parties. Americans with all their distractions still know bad government when they see it. This current government is [not] America at its best, it is America at its worst. Any American that actually gives a crap about this country should be absolutely livid.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
You ought to know that 10 percent in a matter of days and the most energetic supporters was a coup in Iowa. Tancredo spent his wad and months there and provided free transport. He could have easily competed with Romney if he spent half as much as Mitt. No he is no Howard Dean, he answers all questions concisely with a frame of reference no othere candidate has. Unity 08 will implode, Paul is better off on both the Constitution/Liberterain ticket. And lastly not one of those so called frontrunners will win a general election for the repubs. Heck, they are all too afraid to debate Ron and the networks intentionally give him no time. I however would be completely satisfied if everyone treated him fairky and then he did not win, at least the democratic process would take place, but this censorship because of fear only makes his group stronger.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Excellent questions, here are my answers:
1) I’ll either vote Libertarian or simply not vote, depending on who the LP nominates.
2) 5th place isn’t anything to get overly excited about, but considering that Ron Paul spent just about a week in Iowa, and very little money, 9.1% isn’t bad. Especially considering his 1-2% showing in the national polls.
3) I think a Paul presidency would change his nickname to “Dr. Veto”, which is unquestionably good. The less that gets done in Washington, the better off we all are. Aside from using his veto power on anything unconstitutional, I would expect that the massive body of Executive Orders would be repealed, pressure would be put on Congress to repeal the 16th Amendment, we’d see a panel of Austrian School economists devising a way to return us to commodity-backed currency, and our foreign policy might just become sane. If Ron Paul accomplished nothing more than repealing Executive Orders and shutting down the vast majority of our 170+ overseas military bases, I’d be satisfied.
4) I’m not entirely sure what you mean when you say we need “unity.” Unity between the liberals who love the welfare state and the neoconservatives who love the warfare state tends to lead to the welfare-warfare hybrid we’ve had in this country since Woodrow Wilson. If that’s what “unity” means in Washington, we need to run screaming from anyone promising more of it.
5) I was in Iraq during the 2004 election, so I didn’t really have time to follow Dean’s candidacy. From what I’ve heard, though, he was another big-government liberal who thought our Nanny State should provide us with “free” medical care, a chicken in every pot, and all the other Utopian promises of modern socialist planners. Thus, his wasn’t a campaign I would have been interested in watching, even if I hadn’t been deployed.
6) Yeah, I agree that this needs to be addressed more strongly by Ron Paul. His own writings on racism are essentially the same thing Ayn Rand had to say on the subject: Racism is a primitive form of collectivism, the antidote to which is individualism. When the time does come that this must be addressed, he should stick with this sort of language.
7) For reasons explained above, I have a sort of automatic reaction against any party called “Unity.” Maybe this is just knee-jerking, but I think it’s clear that when liberals and conservatives unify, we get the worst, not the best, of both worlds. If Ron Paul doesn’t win the Republican nomination, I hope the Libertarian Party will nominate him again.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Ron Paul should back out of the campaign. He should let One World Government happen unhindered. That way, the demise of One World Government will come about much sooner. No one can rule for long, who builds their foundation upon lies and corruption. Let them rule, and then see them fall. The seeds of One World Government failure have already been planted. It will self-destruct due to corrupt factions, within.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
1. I would write in Ron Paul. I refuse to throw my vote away on anyone else. I cannot vote for someone I don’ believe in. I don’t believe in any other candidate republican or democrat.
2. Ron Paul made a great advance over what he showed in national polls. I think that shows movement and being that he is fiscaly conservative he has the money to continue the momentum. Tancredo does not..
3. A Ron Paul presidency would be the best medicine for this country. I can imagine his state of the union speeches, where he takes the lawmakers to task to finaly tow the line and get back to the business of representing the people rather than special interests. He would bring them all back to reality. The power of his pen could get rid of most of the stupid and constitution destroying executive orders that have been put in place by Bush and Clinton. He would be a great leader by example. Not to mention the fact that if he did win everyone would be in so much shock and fearing for their own positions that they would soon be listening to us rather than the special interest groups and PAC’s.
4. Dr. No (or as I prefer Dr. Know) is allready uniting the country. Anyone who knows anything knows that Ron Paul is talking about the things that real life Americans are dealing with every day. Rather than him uniting the country, I think the country is elevating him as their own voice. We are allready united against ‘more of the same’.
5. The internet is far different than when Dean ran. There are more tools and things like meetup.com bring people out in real life to become ‘boots on the ground’. Also having YouTube where you can go and really get a feel for the man and what he says is helping bigtime. You can watch him give a speech and his honesty and integrity really comes thru. For me it’s the best way to get my friends introduced to Dr. Paul. Once they watch a few videos they are hooked and want more information. This is probably going to mean alot to campaigns in the future, but the candidate has to be genuine. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video must be worth a million. I also don’t think Dr. Paul is prone to whacky screaming and making a fool of himself on stage. Dean tanked because he made a bufoon of himself. Ron Paul is a far more serious person and won’t let that happen. Besides if Dean can become head of the democratic party after all of that, I would be happy if Ron Paul took the same position in the republican party. He would bring it back to it’s roots where it ought to be.
6. I think if you look at that point in history and his positions now, his comments would maybe be a bit less offensive. In historical context, DC was having a massive breakdown and crime was rampant. It may be an unfortunate truth that poor black people were doing lots of crimes in that city at that time. But Dr. Paul also points out that our economic policies keep people poor and desperate. The gang violence among black youth over drug money and turf also contributes to the ‘black voilence’. All that said I think he will say that what he said is based in statistics and even though it may have offended people he wants to help lift people out of poverty so they don’t have to resort to crime to survive.
7. I don’t think Ron Paul wants to be a ’spoiler’. I truly think he is in this to win. He is not just running for president, he is starting a true revival of the republican party, he is starting a ‘revolution’ that will last far beyond any presidency could. I think this is more important than anything else. He has lit a fire under our collective butts and it’s not going to go out if he looses. We will continue to ‘vote the bums out’ who don’t represent us untill we finally have candidates who emulate his values.
On a side note, I think alot of people don’t really read an article with an open mind. They may read, but not really learn what the author is trying to say. I for one am happy that you comment on the good Dr. at all. If there are lessons to be learned we should learn and go forward with that new information. If an article says that ‘Dr. Paul cant win because…’ then we should go out and find out why and how to turn that around.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Methinks CLS, as a LONG TIME LIBERTARIAN, has taken their stance on personal drug use to heart…
August 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Justin,
I’m setting myself a goal to answer all 7 of your questions in 100 words or less (not counting this intro). Is it possible? Let’s see…
1. Nobody. The rest sell influence openly.
2. Tancredo spent 66 days in Iowa, Paul spent 17. Paul is running a national campaign.
3. He would reduce the size of the federal government substantially, but restrained by both his understanding that dependency takes time to break and the power of Congress.
4. Yes! The Constitution brings us together because, unlike today’s left and right, it preaches “live and let live.”
5. Dean and Paul’s campaigns are only superficially similar (antiwar, physicians, both harnessed the internet) and will have different outcomes (I predict). They are substantively different in that there was no there there to propel the Dean antiwar excitement forward; he was just a REALLY big government lefty. Will Paul there is a big there there: making the U.S. a constitutional republic again. Exactly what we need.
6. Non-issue. Research it more.
7. 3rd party run not necessary, Paul is going to win the Republican nomination.
150 words. Ron Paul would be disappointed by my inefficiency!
August 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
1. If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, who will you vote for?
Ron Paul
2. How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
Tom Tancredo spent more time and money than Ron Paul did. Just because Tancredo had a good showing doesn’t mean that Paul didn’t have a good showing. Both of them did well!
3. What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
I imagine it would actually be a presidency with integrity for once. I foresee many vetoes. Government growth would come to a screeching hault. There might possibly be a few members of Congress learn from Ron Paul, follow his lead, and begin upholding their oath of office. It would be great for once, instead of shameful!
4. Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
Yes. As Paul has said several times, “The freedom message brings people together, it doesn’t divide.”
5. Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
I don’t study socialism, well I’ve studied enough to know that it doesn’t work. So, I wouldn’t put much time or effort into studying someone that wants to further implement socialist ideas into our government. Ron Paul’s message is polar opposite of Dean’s, so the campaign is quite different.
6. What about those racist writings in his newsletter? I’ve heard Paul’s response, but I think most of us can agree it’s pretty weak. So if Paul does start leading the GOP race, what’s the communications strategy when that nugget hits the media?
Ron Paul isn’t a racist.
7. Have you taken a look at Unity 08? They’re offering any candidate who can get enough people behind them the ability to run on the Unity 08 ticket. What that means is Unity will make sure that the candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states, so the candidate doesn’t have to worry about it. Still think a 3rd party run doesn’t make sense?
I’m voting for Ron Paul no matter what “ticket” he is on.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Ron Paul certainly does NOT have a chance in hades of winning anything. I am appalled at how unrealistic his ideas are. I saw a billboard on the side of the highway the other day which said something like, “Ron Paul thinks paying taxes is unconstitutional.” I was hoping it was a joke. With so many serious issues going on in the world today, it is extremely irritating to see candidates bluster about ridiculous things like that.
He’s not going to get the GOP nomination, he will not be a viable 3rd party candidate, and I hope for all our sakes that he has no influence on any debates. We all have better things to do.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Geo wrote:
“I am appalled at how unrealistic his ideas are. I saw a billboard on the side of the highway the other day which said something like, “Ron Paul thinks paying taxes is unconstitutional.” I was hoping it was a joke.”
Geo –
It’s not *taxes* that are unconstitutional, it’s the *income tax* specifically.
How unrealistic is it to get rid of the income tax? Let’s take a look:
Income taxes account for ~35% of revenue collected by the IRS.
The federal government’s budget for 2007 is $2.8 trillion.
In order to get rid of the income tax altogether, we’d have to get that down to about $1.8 trillion.
The federal government’s budget in 2001 was $1.8 trillion. Ergo, we would only have to return to 2001 levels of spending to get rid of the income tax entirely. Do you really believe returning to the level of spending we had six years ago is “unrealistic”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Take-home lesson is: if you give politicians X dollars, they will spend >X dollars, no matter how high X is. Getting rid of the income tax is just plain common sense — repeal that 16th Amendment, bitchez!!
August 16th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
All and all, this was a pretty good post by donklephant. I thought that the questions that were put forth to RP supporters were not only answered but done so in a very polite and thoughtful manner. I cannot do better than some of the other responses, however I will add my two cents.
The United States is broken and has severely lost it’s way. With the exception of Ron Paul, not one of the other candidates has an original idea to their name (except more of the same BS). My friends, the gravy train has come to the end of the line and the big spending party WILL end. I am sixty years old and this is the very first time that I have ever gotten excited about and actually believed in a presidential candidate. So much so that for the first time in my life I’ve contributed hard earned money to a campaign. I consider myself a great judge of character. To me, Ron Paul stands out as the most honest, descent and intelligent candidate in my memory. Simply for NOT being a CFR member should make everyone want to vote for the man.
I honestly think Ron Paul can win the nomination, and when he does, he can beat any one of the democrat talking heads. Great men like Ron Paul only come along every hundred years or so. I hope that Americans will finally wake up from their stupor and get this man elected. Consider these words:
“Loss of freedom seldom happens overnight. Oppression doesn’t stand on the doorstep with toothbrush moustache and swastika armband — it creeps up insidiously… step by step, and all of a sudden the unfortunate citizen realizes that it is gone.”
– Baron Lane
It’s time to fight to get our freedoms back. This may be our very LAST chance. Ron Paul 08′
August 16th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
CB et al
I think the single most important thing we can do for Ron Paul is to spread his message. Word-of-mouth is much more efficient and effective than any other form of persuasion. Donations are also important but should be secondary.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I’m sorry you’ve received your share of brickbats from fellow Ron Paul supporters. We can be, how can I put it? A bit too passionate if you know what I mean. However it should be pointed out for some reason Google News picks your posts up as “news” about Dr. Paul so needless to say hit pieces on him that you write are going to be responded to.
Before you confine us to the Third Party (or non-major party I prefer) ghetto, can we at least try for the GOP nomination? Right now I don’t think the average Republican knows what they want in a nominee or someone would be way out in front.. So long as that volitility exists and if events break his way this fall, then Ron Paul has as much chance as anyone with the money he has on hand. Yes his camapaign is a longshot but one worth taking. If he can do well and or win the five early small states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Wyoming where the media is cheap and the electorate base small, the momentum he gains could carry him to the GOP nomination just as winning Iowa carried John Kerry to the Democratic Party nomination in 2004.
Yes finishing fifth in Iowa is not a great result but not bad given the context. He spent the least amount of time and money in Iowa compared to the other candidates and unlike Tancredo, Huckabee and Brownback, he’s not flat broke either. And unlike them he has a national base of support. Such supporters are willing to post signs anywhere and contribute through the internet to pay for newspaper and radio and cable TV ads in the five early primaries and caucuses. It was through such grassroots advertising that RP was able to get 1,300 supporters at all.
In other words, Ron Paul is the best positioned candidate in the GOP to grow his support. Why would we give that chance up and give up the ability to be in the GOP debates to run another losing third party effort? Americans are a two party people. Otherwise you wouldn’t be calling yourself Donkelphant if that wasn’t true. Ron Paul has been down the third party route and so have many of his supporters and we can all tell you it is a monumental waste of time and money.
Anyone who was in Ames will tell you that the Republican Party bases is growing older by the minute. RP offers the party an infusion of new blood to the party’s committment to human freedom. What we have right now are two Democratic Parties, and what’s left of the old GOP of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan which RP represents. And so long as we can carry that flame forward until people rediscover it again, we will happy to do so.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
That was an admirable post. And fair on all accounts. I was a Howard Dean supporter and saw him speak many times. Ron Paul certainly shares some of his ideas and that’s why I like him.
To be frank, I’d back anyone who wants to return to the piece of paper that this country was founded on: The Constitution.
And in fact, many of the candidates are not only supporting of the current views and ideals, they want to take us even futher away from it.
I’m not voting based on my heart; I’m voting based on logic, facts and figures. I don’t know why so many others refuse to do that.
We all know that polls and politics depend largely on name recognition. Which is the only logical reason why Clinton and Giuliani have made it so far and stand so high on the polls. We need to educate people (since they won’t do it for themselves) as to the history of this country and to what degree it has strayed from what it was meant to be and why it has had so many decades of success.
Logical question one: How can any intelligent person look at the current atmosphere (social, economical and political) and want more of the same or to continue down the obviously failed path. Why don’t people say, ‘whoa. Wait a minute. Something is wrong and it seems to get worse. Let’s look at the mistakes we’ve made, (admitting them would be a good first step) and let’s try to move away from those and towards the system that actually worked.
When people could afford homes, people were able to get good medical care, people were able to find jobs that helped prop up our own economy.
If anyone can look at the trillions of dollars we’ve racked up in debt and say that any of these candidates other than Ron Paul have a viable option to start to rectify that situation, I’ll listen. I’ve heard absolutely zero. I’ve heard zero good ideas in regards to immigration.
I just want a change and that’s the bottom line. A good change, a step back from the mire we’re teetering on.
And after exhausting reading and research, most of these candidates are the exact more of the same of the current administration. They want Band Aids on wounds that need tourniquettes. I’m not a radical; I’m a patriot. I believe what I was taught in school about history. I was taught to respect, acknowledge and honor our founding fathers for it was those people who made us what we (were).
So more of moving away from the Constitution is not an option. We kept this country sovereign for a long time using that piece of paper as a blueprint and people wonder how things go so badly. It’s directly related to straying from that blueprint. Without doubt.
So the question remains: How can people look around and say, ‘yes, I want more of the same?’ Again, I don’t feel that Hillary/Giuliani supporters know the issues, they don’t know the history, they don’t know the candidates stances (in fact, their stances are still being developed as they seem to change with the tide).
Nobody can convince me that if Dr. Paul doesn’t get listed on the ballot not to write him in. I will, if only to make a small statement that the two party system isn’t only outdated, it is indeed corrupt. Rotten and decaying from the corporations that feed it and dictate the course of this country. Until such time that we remove that cancer out of the political environment, our elections will always be a futile attempt at making people feel they have the power.
Remember 2000? Remember 2004? I certainly do.
I just want to hit the pause button for a minute with this country and then hit the rewind button as fast as possible. Going forward on the current plan is not only dangerous, it’s a detrement to our very existance as a sovereign nation.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
You said:
I’m extremely impressed with his online strategy.
He HAS no ‘online strategy!’ This is just his support….it’s wide and it’s solid.
You said:
His ideas about strict constituionalism are interesting, but seem to be unworkable (in their present form) in our current politcal system.
Well we need to get back to those ideas.
You said:
I don’t see any clear signs that he has a shot at winning the GOP nomination.
He can’t win if you don’t vote for him.
You said:
I don’t think his views represent the majority of what GOP voters will want to vote for.
I’m a long time GOPer and think he’s the most conservative. In fact Bush even ran on the non-interventionist platform…
You said:
I think his campaign mirrors Howard Dean’s in 2004 to the point that it’s crazy. The notable difference is that Paul hasn’t won any major “non-binding” contests yet, while at this point in 2004 Dean had won MoveOn.org’s poll.
You have to be kidding! Ron won the most important NH poll with 65% and is poised to win another on Aug 18th. LOL
You said:
I believe Paul is a candidate who can effect affect the debate, but he’s pulling a lot (not all, but a lot) of new voters into the game.
He’s pulling more than you think.
You said:
For all of these reasons, I think he would make a viable 3rd party candidate since that could potentially give him a platform during the general election.
He has said NO. What part of NO do you not understand?
You said:
Now then, here are some questions for Ron Paul supporters.
If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, who will you vote for?
No one.
You said:
How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
Iowa was fake. Mike and Tom and Sam have 0 support in NH. Mike and Sam are for open borders/amnesty.
You said:
What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
It would be wonderful.
You said:
What about those racist writings in his newsletter?
Not an issue. Hillary and Obama and Richardson are all racists….they even belong to racist organizations. So what?
You said:
Have you taken a look at Unity 08? They’re offering any candidate who can get enough people behind them the ability to run on the Unity 08 ticket.
Screw that! These are communist quislings who want to dilute the GOP message. They are pro-UN ACTORS… Same Waterston? You must be kidding. UN lackeys.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
You said:
I’m extremely impressed with his online strategy.
He HAS no ‘online strategy!’ This is just his support….it’s wide and it’s solid.
You said:
His ideas about strict constituionalism are interesting, but seem to be unworkable (in their present form) in our current politcal system.
Well we need to get back to those ideas.
You said:
I don’t see any clear signs that he has a shot at winning the GOP nomination.
He can’t win if you don’t vote for him.
You said:
I don’t think his views represent the majority of what GOP voters will want to vote for.
I’m a long time GOPer and think he’s the most conservative. In fact Bush even ran on the non-interventionist platform…
You said:
I think his campaign mirrors Howard Dean’s in 2004 to the point that it’s crazy. The notable difference is that Paul hasn’t won any major “non-binding” contests yet, while at this point in 2004 Dean had won MoveOn.org’s poll.
You have to be kidding! Ron won the most important NH poll with 65% and is poised to win another on Aug 18th. LOL
You said:
I believe Paul is a candidate who can effect affect the debate, but he’s pulling a lot (not all, but a lot) of new voters into the game.
He’s pulling more than you think.
You said:
For all of these reasons, I think he would make a viable 3rd party candidate since that could potentially give him a platform during the general election.
He has said NO. What part of NO do you not understand?
You said:
Now then, here are some questions for Ron Paul supporters.
If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, who will you vote for?
No one.
You said:
How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
Iowa was fake. Mike and Tom and Sam have 0 support in NH. Mike and Sam are for open borders/amnesty.
You said:
What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
It would be wonderful.
You said:
What about those racist writings in his newsletter?
Not an issue. Hillary and Obama and Richardson are all racists….they even belong to racist organizations. So what?
You said:
Have you taken a look at Unity 08? They’re offering any candidate who can get enough people behind them the ability to run on the Unity 08 ticket.
Screw that! These are communist quislings who want to dilute the GOP message. They are pro-UN ACTORS… Same Waterston? You must be kidding. UN lackeys.
I’m shocked James Maynard would suggest Gravel, but then again you can’t trust libertarians.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I’m from colorado.I can tell you this as a swing voter.I will not vote for the republican party unless Ron paul wins the party nomination.I have registered republican to vote for Ron Paul. I will vote for a 3rd party candidate, Ron Paul or who ever isnt in the corrupted democratic and republican parties.I hope Ron Pauls message is heard loud and clear in the republican party,if not.Then no amount of money will allow the republicans to win the next election.I’m over both parties as much of america already is.Thats why in the last 3 elections more people have voted outside the 2 parties then ever in election history.There is no wasted vote,only a strong vote for change. Ron Paul 2008 Colorado and spreading the message.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
1) I’ve never voted Republican in my life
2) I didn’t realize until recently that a NEO-CON and a REPUBLICAN are completely different
3) I’m voting for Ron Paul even if he doesn’t get the nomination as a write in candidate
http://www.VoteWriteIn.com !!
August 16th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Justin, you have to understand that those of us who support Ron Paul are tightly wound to say the least. We are so used to seeing our message and our messengers capriciously ignored or simply maligned by folks in the media and the political establishment that we are easily set off.
What is so maddening to us is that our message is not (should not be considered) radical or “kooky.” We are simply advocating adherence to a document that served us exceedingly well for about 150 years. Of course, there is a small exception of allowing for the genocide of a native population, the slavery of another and the disenfranchisement one of the two genders.
Still, it was this document and the goals it espoused which remained a stubborn truth that forced us to deal with the tragedies I just mentioned. For the most part we prospered, created great advancements for ourselves and humanity, and avoided external wars.
The uniquely American culture of self reliance and individualism championed in the founders generation and Emerson’s generation made for an exceptional country.
Those of us familiar with history, certain economic truths, and an appreciation for the individual have watched in horror as the last decade has taken us further down the road to a place where this past prosperity and beauty of individual existence will no longer be possible.
A pedestrian analogy is that of a grand old house that owes its beauty to solid craftsmanship and past maintenance but because the termites on the beams have been so ignored that despite its beauty and history may crumble before its time.
Paul supporters are the folks that have been pointing out this fact only to be met with ridicule and dismissal.
So imagine what it is like when the pest control finally shows up but he is denied access to the house.
But you asked me a few questions so I will answer:
1.If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, who will you vote for?
If Obama wins the nomination, I may vote for him simply because of his age and the fact the he is an outsider (at this point). Although, I may not agree with his economic policies I will risk their discussion for a little honesty and an interesting tenure.
I think he will be another Carter or Kennedy. He will not be too successful and will probably remain for only one term because if he like Carter or Kennedy remains an outsider and independent, he will be besieged by his own party as well as the obvious opposition.
But this kind of paralysis in the executive would be healthy for our country.
(Assuming a Paul Volcker type doesn’t tighten the money supply.)
2. How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
The Ames Straw poll reflects the ability to speak to the traditional base (last half decade) who are active in the party. Ron Paul supporters are not these folks. These guys are theocrats and hawks.
They will not ultimately be big fans of the socially moderate front runners but they will eventually be drowned out and somewhat irrelevant on Super Tuesday—that’s why we did not see the front runners there (except Romney who needed to purchase a headline).
I would characterize the Ames result as positive in that it was not a death nail for the campaign. Further, it demonstrated to the movement that widespread and vocal support is not enough, we must engage the process to have a real chance. So, it could be a very healthy event in the history of this campaign.
3. What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
Implicit in this question is a recognition that most federal lawmaking these days is not sanctioned by the Constitution (you are correct).
Paul’s presidency would look a lot like the one I described Obama having except more dramatic. His opposition would be fierce. He will be besieged and will not have a second term absent a Reaganesque populist breakout. Although, I think he is great, he lacks the charisma of Reagan or Andrew Jackson.
But, this “failure” of a presidency I just described would be the best thing to happen to this country since the end of segregation. Freedom will at least have a chance to be considered.
Liberty will be a proposition to be affirmed or negated rather than simply brushed aside in order to “protect us from those who hate our freedom” or to reward those who want seemingly simple solutions to complex resource issues like medical care.
His unbridled use of the veto power will be a refreshing breather from Leviathan’s growth and corporate America’s conglomeration.
Finally, as commander in chief he will have the authority to ensure that Americans will no longer be killing Iraqis and being killed by Iraqis that alone is a good enough reason to take the gamble of elected someone who will face a difficult presidency.
4. Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
Do we really need “unity?”
Why is this time any different than any other in our history?
The Constitution is a very distrustful document which creates unity by limiting the power of the participants. This is all of the unity we need—assurance that we are free from one another. This assurance is what allows us to work WITH one another.
Any other form of unity is based on more sinister motives and coercions.
The disunity that the media so often complains about is partisanship. It has become bitter but it is not about policy it is about position. These are children arguing over toys. If another kid like Ron Paul shows up shows up in the school yard threatening to take their toys away they will unify in an instant.
In this sense, Paul is the unity candidate for the Democratic and Republican parties.
5. Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
Dean lost because the Democrats wanted to defeat Bush so bad that they heartlessly dismissed doing the right thing, they were simply afraid, and so they unintelligently voted for Kerry who lost anyway. They were the tin man, lion, and scarecrow all at once unable to find Oz because they were put off by Dorothy’s screech.
6. What about those racist writings in his newsletter? I’ve heard Paul’s response, but I think most of us can agree it’s pretty weak. So if Paul does start leading the GOP race, what’s the communications strategy when that nugget hits the media?
His response is not weak in context. I have spent time with Paul this response is consistent with his personality. He is not a spinner. He does not obsess with the horse race and public perception.
Those comments were not consistent with his career spanning several decades.
No one can honestly try to attribute those comments to reflecting his views.
You are right they will be a major story some day and we shall just have to see how he handles it.
Already there are those claiming he hates gays for voting for the marriage bill while ignoring the fact that he voted against the Constitutional Amendment each of these votes having a solid formalistic position.
Likewise, there are those claiming he is a racist and a “despicable human being” for voting against the anti-Dafur investment act which again was based on a well thought out principled stance.
Paul may have trouble in a 15 second sound bite world. However, this is not enough for me to abandon his candidacy.
7. Have you taken a look at Unity 08? They’re offering any candidate who can get enough people behind them the ability to run on the Unity 08 ticket. What that means is Unity will make sure that the candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states, so the candidate doesn’t have to worry about it. Still think a 3rd party run doesn’t make sense?
I don’t think he’ll do it. This campaign will exhaust him as it is and he’s been down that road. T
hird party candidates face many institutional obstacles beyond ballot access.
I wouldn’t blame him if he said, “screw it I did my bit for Liberty I met the people more than half way.”
It comes down to this Justin. Paul is a unique messenger for liberty because he is so unassuming and matter of fact. His quiet Gandhi style approach is the only hope to rise above the din.
You see how quickly those starving for this message rally behind him. Thank goodness we know this guy is trustworthy–we could easily fall prey to some pied piper because we are so hungry and so desperate to see a serious treatment of liberty.
This is why he is a unique opportunity which we must exhaust every amount of effort we can in getting him as far as we can get him. There is no final destination in this campaign and to consume oneself with the end is to distract oneself from the purpose.