Where are the loyal backers of DeMint, Newt, Sarah, etc??
That's what I took from it too. Ron Paul's at the head of a genuine mass movement, which will permanently affect American politics. I don't quite know how, but he's been spectacular (given what he believes) at reaching the young. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Ron Paul was the long shot who, by all conventional rules, should have remained obscure.
The secret to his success is his, or at least his message's, appeal to youth. Sometimes, I wonder if some of the criticism of him here results from jealousy and sour grapes.
For the first time in a very long time, there's a good chance that a youngster will go off to college and not come back a liberal. The Ron Paul movement has accomplished that feat.
Moreover, for those who think that Ron Paulism is a genuine danger, there's reason for hope down the line. Once Ron Paul retires, his movement will likely fade into the background. Many people will say that it will have faded away entirely. But, the movement will have left a definite residue: a permanent skepticism about the use of government - and not just in war, either.
Remember, demographers such as Neil Howe were predicting that the Millenials would be a new "Greatest Generation" devoted to public service. In other words, they'd be a new breed of self-confident liberals. The Ron Paul movement has gone a long way towards derailing that.
Also, keep in mind that kids who are conservative at heart become genuine conservatives when they mature. Rand Paul is already being denounced by libertarians as a sellout: here, for example. Many of today's Ron Paul youths might well be middle-age Burkeans in twenty years' time.
Now that primary season is effectively over, it might be worth everyone's while to drop the hostility towards the Ron Paulians on these two grounds:
a) Libertarian is better than liberal;
b) The kids will grow out of it.
There's evidence that some libertarians are conservative at heart. The notion that "libertarian" implies "pro-choice" is actually controversial in those circles. At least one hard-core libertarian has argued in digital print that a true libertarian must be pro-life.
And what if the Ron Paulians grow up to be liberal? If they do, then they'll be liberals with foxes in their bosoms. They will be less confident when pushing government "solutions," and some of them will always be half-hearted.
Primary season is now over for Ron Paul, permanently. There's less reason to be aggressively defensive now - and more reason to leave a key under the "Go Away" mat.
The secret to his success is his, or at least his message’s, appeal to youth. Sometimes, I wonder if some of the criticism of him here results from jealousy and sour grapes.
The youth are able to see that the emporer has no clothes. The establishment of both parties are little more than mafia using government to take from the people that actually make the country work and give it to the well connected. Any serious conservative would insist on a Fed audit. Whether or not Paul is who people think he is, there is a sizeable chunk of voters who are fed up with tweedle dee tweedle dum politics and Paul has tapped into it.
Well put, and see my previous post.
I spent a good bit of time talking to Paul delegates at GA GOP conventions this year. We need to work with these folks, we as conservatives have a lot in common with them. They dislike the GOPe as much as we do, but in many cases mistake us for being part of them. Explaining that is how I learned they often don’t like Paul’s foreign policy blissninnyism.
IMHO, the criticism of him here results from an epidemic of total Constitutional ignorance.
A LOT of what we're told the Constitution 'says' as we're growing up is bass-ackwards to the intent of the actual Compact.
The only political signs I saw carried by Ocutards at Zuccotti Park were Paul signs.