Second point: Cato, Reason, and other outlets are important sources for ideas in the Republican Party, so singling Ron Paul out as the sole focus -- or even the main source -- of libertarian influences on the Republican Party is silly. There are conservatives who are not religious conservatives, and to the surprise of many on FRee Republic, they represent about 1/3 of conservatives in the country. Many are still socially conservative, but aren't religious, but many are sympathetic to libertarian ideas.
More on this second point: Surely you jest if you think Ron Paul is the only Republican with this problem. I would like to draw your attention to the number of so-called Republicans, and even in a few cases a few so-called "conservatives" who would not only not endorse the Party's candidate in 2008, but who actually endorsed Barack 0bama!
However flawed Christine O'Donnell may have been as a candidate (and I am stipulating to this for the sake of advancing the discussion, because I do not personally think she was particularly flawed) Castle had an obligation to endorse her once he was defeated in the primary. He did not. He is not unique in this regard. ALL of GWB's minions trashed her. Is Karl Rove then not a Republican? Again, FReepers might not adore him as they once did, but he is a Republican still.
Conservatives -- in a conservative party -- are constantly called up to fall in line and support the "moderate." Yet, it is typically the case that when the RINO loses, he jumps ship and trashes the very people whose efforts made his candidacy possible in the first place. IN NY 23 Scozzafava threw in with the Leftist Party after accepting nearly a million dollars in campaign money from the GOP.
So, please.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and I'll repeat my statement in light of these remarks: you may regard him as a stalking horse for the Libertarian Party, but the truth is that Paul is a better Republican than just about any "Republican" east of the Hudson River, or west of the Sierras.
I wish that were not true. But it is.
Your being nice. COD was a horribly flawed candidate who had absolutely no chance to win in Delaware no matter what Karl Rove had to say. "I'm not a witch" LOL, come on, seriously. Still, using her as an example of the establishment abandoning conservatives doesn't work too well once you know the full story. In 2006 when COD lost the Republican primary for Senate (she came in 3rd, and famously claimed she had classified information that China was trying to take over the United States), she immediately dumped the Republican party and ran as a 3rd party write in candidate (and failed miserably btw). So she had a history of not sticking with the party, which is at least some of the reason much of the party refused to stick by her.
No, I don't agree with you. The Ron Paul forums don't necessarily represent Ron Paul voters across the board. In any event, they're a source of potential votes once they put down their bongs and start working.
Ron Paul does better than the average Libertarian because A) he runs on a major party label and B) he has focused heavily on the socially liberal aspects of his agenda which has strong appeal to college kids. He also refuses to write off the irresponsible kook vote. Ron Paul gets a ton of cult like support from the Alex Jones segment of the populace.
Conservatives -- in a conservative party -- are constantly called up to fall in line and support the "moderate." Yet, it is typically the case that when the RINO loses, he jumps ship and trashes the very people whose efforts made his candidacy possible in the first place. IN NY 23 Scozzafava threw in with the Leftist Party after accepting nearly a million dollars in campaign money from the GOP.
I agree it happens. While I don't count COD as a good example of this due to her history of having already done the same thing, I do agree some establishment RINO's lash out at us uppity primary voters who kick them out and end up supporting a Democrat sometimes. Still, Ron Paul just effectively did the same thing in 2008. He refused to endorse McCain. However flawed McCain was, he was still our candidate and Paul and his supporters refused to help in the effort to defeat Obama. You expect him to do something different this time? I don't. He will not likely endorse the eventual Republican nominee, and his supporters will mostly vote Libertarian or for Obama. Why in the heck is he in the Republican party, using the major party label to his advantage, when we all know he and his supporters will not back the party when it counts. As I've said, he is being dishonest - he should be running as the Libertarian we all know he really is.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and I'll repeat my statement in light of these remarks: you may regard him as a stalking horse for the Libertarian Party, but the truth is that Paul is a better Republican than just about any "Republican" east of the Hudson River, or west of the Sierras.
Not if he won't endorse the eventual Republican candidate. The presidential race is where it really counts, and you can't count on Ron Paul. He already made that clear in 2008. I expect no different in 2012. When Ron Paul encourages his network of supporters to get behind and work on behalf of the eventual Republican nominee, come talk to me then. I don't think it's going to happen.
Second point: Cato, Reason, and other outlets are important sources for ideas in the Republican Party, so singling Ron Paul out as the sole focus -- or even the main source -- of libertarian influences on the Republican Party is silly. There are conservatives who are not religious conservatives, and to the surprise of many on FRee Republic, they represent about 1/3 of conservatives in the country. Many are still socially conservative, but aren't religious, but many are sympathetic to libertarian ideas.
I saved this point for last because your right and I agree with you. There are actually a lot of conservatives with libertarianish leanings (the South Park Republican types), and many libertarian think tanks that most particularly focus on economic issues that advance the conservative agenda. Don't misread what I am saying here. I am not against EVERYTHING Ron Paul has to say. I think he makes many good points on some economic issues. If he were a conservative with libertarian leanings in some areas, with a base of support that actually helped build the Republican party, I'd be much more receptive to him.
The problem is, Ron Paul isn't one of those people. He is a straight up pure Libertarian using the Republican label for his own benefit, while delivering no real benefits to the Republican party.