Posted on 10/03/2007 7:03:51 AM PDT by traviskicks
Edited on 10/03/2007 7:51:05 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
For twenty years Dennis Kucinich has been gaining traction (sarc)in the democrat party and he is still in single digits. I’m afraid that is what Ron Paul will become. I respect most of the Ron Paul supporters and agree with a lot that they say but I hope they are not betting the farm on his candidacy. I also have serious doubts that they will do what they want us to do and support whoever the nominee is.
‘Just curious. Would you support a third party if Paul somehow won the nomination, even if it meant a possible Hillary victory? ‘
If Ron Paul won the GOP nomination, the Republican party deserves Hillary Clinton as President.
We see it the same way.
I understood what you were trying to say.
-----------------------
The GOP Plot to Defeat Ron Paul
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49739&fb=1
NEWS ANALYSIS AND OPINION
It is not enough that seemingly every state that can is desperately moving up primary contest dates to as close to January 1, 2008 as possible in the hopes of derailing the momentum that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) will derive from a good New Hampshire finish. Now the GOP in many states has apparently taken to shutting down the possibility that Independents or Democrats can vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
Such contests, inviting a broad electoral spectrum, have taken place in the past without controversy or interference.
Why now? What is the hurry? Is it all coincidence?
=====
Gambling911.com reports today
http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-New-Voting-Rules-100307.html
Many states, in an effort to shut out Ron Paul are now closing their primaries. That means that only Republicans can vote in the Presidential primaries for a Republican candidate. Many states are doing this quickly and quietly and giving people very little time to learn about the new rules. For example, New Hampshire decided only a week ago that you will now have to change your party affiliation by October 12, 2007 or it will be too late to do so. New Hampshire also has a closed primary and only Republicans and possibly Independents will be allowed to vote for Ron Paul.
=====
The moves of the GOP, and those behind the GOP, to thwart a possible Ron Paul victory nationwide are, in fact, astonishing – especially since, were Ron Paul were to win the nomination, he would be a considerable challenge to any major Democratic candidate and have a good chance to win the presidency.
What is happening in modern American politics, thanks to Ron Paul, is therefore unheard of, significant, extraordinary. The bosses of a major, American political party are apparently willing to do anything in terms of the electoral mechanism itself to defeat the candidate - their own candidate - who likely has the best chance of taking the White House.
Yes, it seems clear. The GOP - whose Old Guard core has been revealed to be as expansionistic and spendthrift as its Democratic "opponents" - would rather ensure Ron Paul's defeat than win a national presidential election. The disconnect between the GOP, its former claim to the party of modest government and the people that support it is becoming a fissure, and, over time, a gap as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Unlike in previous elections, because of the Internet it is fairly easy to track what is actually taking place. No longer can the power elite “steal” the election through rigged voting mechanism and suddenly created electoral rules without anyone noticing. While the mainstream media report the rush to move primaries forward as a disconnected reality - a game that pols play to one-up each other - those who wish to observe cause-and-effect will see a far more serious set of circumstances in play.
Ron Paul is a Jeffersonian conservative who believes America's over-reaching, voracious, bloody 20th century empire is not constitutional. He believes in limited government and does not wish for America to be entangled in foreign wars. He is an American citizen of the kind who informed the electorate up until the early 20th century. The effect of his campaign, no matter what happens now, will be to spawn millions like him, educated about the fundamentals of a Republican constitutional government in the best sense. From this point of view, Ron Paul has already had his victory. Yet the primaries have not yet begun.
FMNN has long held, that were Ron Paul's message to take hold, the election cycle, both Democratic and Republican, would turn on defeating a man the mainstream media still characterizes as a second tier GOP candidate.
That prediction seems to be becoming true.
Second tier? Here is a question: How much does Ron Paul threaten the Old Guard? Answer: The GOP (and now even Democrats, perhaps) would rather ensure Ron Paul's defeat in the primaries, than have him run and win the presidency.
He'll also become 92.
Harold Stassen ran for President for over 40 years and live to 93 or 94
I wish him well, but he's not a serious candidate.
Neither the Dems or Republicans aren’t ensuring his defeat in the primaries. He’s doing a great job of doing that on his own. Most people I know are just ignoring Ron Paul.
well Guiliani called and he wants his pink dress back...
I think the pig would look better in it.
More for the kooky tin-foil hat crowd
Becoming????
Libertarianism as defined by the modern “Libertarian” party is simply codified infantalism.
Thank you for your honesty. I'd rather keep her out of the oval office, however, and, given the 2006 debacle, Ron Paul is the only hope to accomplish this goal.
You're insane.
If Ron Paul won the GOP nomination, the Republican party deserves Hillary Clinton as President
“Thank you for your honesty. I’d rather keep her out of the oval office, however, and, given the 2006 debacle, Ron Paul is the only hope to accomplish this goal.”
Ron Paul can’t win the GOP primaries, so its a moot point...and would be an unmitigated disaster as the Presidential nominee.
He’s the only way Clinton wins in my view. He makes her look ‘sane’.
>> I’ve criticised him for his stance and explanation on earnmarks, his use of the word ‘neocon’, and aspects of his ‘gold standard’, immigration, and foreign policy to name a few.
Then why are you supporting him? I can certainly understand sticking with someone when you disagree with his earmarks, terminology, the gold standard, and even POSSIBLY immigration ... but foreign policy is a dealbreaker for me.
Ultimately, foreign policy is the primary reason I think Ron Paul would be an entirely inept President, and a poor flagbearer for the conservative movement. His foreign policy stances are entirely naive, and would probably be granted a warmer welcome on DU than it will here.
H
Doesn't take 'magic'. . .just available time.
Geez, these Ronbots are such loons.
And, given the 2006 loses, why do you believe that a pro-war candidate can beat Hillary? Are you willing to live with four more years of Hillary in exchange for supporting a quixotic pro-war candidate?
I said I disagreed with ‘aspects’, meaning mostly small things here and there.
I think domestic policy is more important than foreign policy, im not one that believes we are going to be under ‘sharia’ law anytime soon regardless of who is president, i don’t give the terrorist and islamists that much respect...
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.