 |
  Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 • |
       |
| Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave |
A pretty good article, better than you might expect from WSJ.
Posted on 09/01/2007 6:52:16 PM PDT by oblomov
Computer engineer Jonathan Morey says, "I have never voted for a Republican, ever." Nathan Hansen, a lawyer, says, "I've been a Republican all my life." Yet a political meeting in St. Paul, Minn., brought the 31-year-old friends together for the first time -- in support of presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Officially, Mr. Paul is a Republican, elected to Congress 10 times and now running for the party's presidential nomination. But the party label hardly describes the obstetrician from south of Houston. And it certainly doesn't explain his appeal to a growing, if still small, number of voters across the political spectrum, many of them much younger than their spry 72-year-old idol.
The iconoclastic "Dr. Paul" is a libertarian advocate of minimalist government, a foe of the Federal Reserve and anything else not explicitly allowed by the Constitution, and perhaps the most antiwar candidate in the race. Thanks to the unprecedented number of early debates, he has been able to share the stage with his better-funded Republican establishment rivals.
But it is the Internet that has amplified his message and introduced Mr. Paul to voters alienated from both parties. His rise, though modest, is testament as well to the power of his noninterventionist message, even in a party led by President Bush. [Jonathan Morey]
As polls track the public's disaffection, political strategists are on alert for a third-party movement. Paulites insist their man can win the Republican nomination, though he has gone from zero to just 2% in polls. If he can't, their fervor suggests they would push him to run independently. But having run as a Libertarian in 1988, when he took just 0.47% of the vote, Mr. Paul has discouraged such speculation.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Why doesn’t he just “moon” us, next photo-op...
is this the part where we are supposed to call Paul bad names and mock his character?
Ron Paul will never, ever, ever, ever be President of the United States.
I wonder if he’ll ever be re-elected to anything ever again. At least not as a Republican.
And just why would that be? His chances are as good as anyone else’s... unless you know of plans to do him violence if he were to gain the nomination...
Yes, I’m sure that we’ll continue to have the government we deserve.
That seems to be the pattern. If he’s such a non-threat, why do some FReepers get so worked up about him?
It’s okay, I’d rather have another fake conservative anyway.
Personally I hope he does well - at least for a while - and attracts a legion of followers.
I just bought a bunch of tin futures.
Hank
I'll be happy to, at least for myself, answer that question. I get "worked up" too. I used to get "worked up" over Alan Keyes supporters. I used to get "worked up" over Pat Buchanan supporters. In all cases it was not because I saw any of these candidates as a "threat". Instead it was simply I found their supporters to be so loud and obnoxious I began to see those candidates as personal enemies. For me it is really not about Ron Paul at all. It is all about his supporters, especially those here on FR. I just find the most vocal of them to be loud and obnoxious.
Ron Turd is the POS candidate.
What was odd to me, was driving thru Philadelphia and seeing Ron Paul signs in the same locations I used to see Toomey signs.
And you must really love Al-Queda.
I view them with even more disdain than I do you. They are dangerous and need to be put down like rabid dogs.
Doubtful.
I'll not hazard a guess about those online but I'll say this about those I know in real life. Two main reasons Rep. Paul is getting grief. First, he's for ending the police action. Too many of my friends have the mistaken belief that you just continue bombing until the other side gives up. While that works when fighting a nation you can't very well continue that policy against an action or idea. And no even at the coldest of the Cold War we were 'fighting' the Soviet Union, not communism, over territorial gains.
The second, and surprisingly more important to the Republicans I know, is that Rep. Paul would actually cut whole departments. Some of these departments (like NASA, Homeland Security, etc.) are sacred cows to my friends. 'We' are the 'USA' and 'we' should have these departments because they forward nationalistic pride. Never mind pointing out they're redundant or they're not business of the national government, 'we' need them.
What is surprising is that Rep. Paul is pretty much preaching the same message President Reagan did. Cut departments and strong defense. I keep hearing how this person or that person is going to be the 'next' Reagan. And yet except for Rep. Paul none of the candidates have specifics about what they would cut. Why? Because once in office they wouldn't cut a d#mn thing.
And of course even Reagan recognized the futility of involvement in the Middle East. But we're not supposed to point that out....
|
Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 • |
|
| Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave |
I heard that if Rudy gets the GOP nomination, he’s going to pick Ron Paul for his VEEP.
(Is this where I put the sarcasm symbol?) /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.