Ron Paul: Man with the Message?

Gopublius.com ^ | July 10, 2007 | GOPublius

[americanophile]

Sure he has a quirky style and his seemingly dovish and self-flagellating answer on the causes of 9/11 don’t make for good debate form, but in a time when the Republican Party is in desperate need of getting back to basics, Paul’s message may be the most basic of all.

Paul will never be president, but neither he nor his supporters are really operating under that assumption. Paul’s candidacy is part of a greater American tradition of running a campaign based on principles in order to highlight the need for change, which is why it is fundamentally different than every other Republican campaign.

Most campaigns are built around personality and electability, and others are based on a collection of current hot-button issues. By contrast Paul’s message is more intellectually comprehensive - it is a whole political paradigm that is focused on the proper scope of government, and has as its basis, gasp…the Constitution.

[TSchmereL]

0%

[Allegra]

Aw, geez; not this sh!t again...

[Petronski]

Which flavor today? Any word?

[xcamel]

Negative name recognition...

[Pete]

I was talking to a friend of mine who is not particularly political. He is conservative but he doesn’t read FR or the blogs or follow all the talk shows - so, just your typical conservative, average guy. He saw the Republican debate. He thinks Ron Paul is a nut. That’s the fact on the ground.

[West Coast Conservative]

Yes, a message of surrender and appeasement.

[americanophile]

I submit, merely for your perusal...

[americanophile]

I submit, merely for your perusal...

[The Blitherer]

There are some aspects of Paul's message that are really, REALLY good. But then he goes off the deep-end.

And his supporters are some of the angriest people on this side of the aisle.

[SamuraiScot]

Paul’s candidacy is part of a greater American tradition of running a campaign based on principles in order to highlight the need for change ensure that the main candidate from your own party, who only agrees with you 95 percent of the time, loses to the opposing party's candidate, who agrees with you 0 percent of the time, and the stewardship of your country be damned.

Just a suggestion.

[americanophile]

Agreed.

[wideawake]

Paul will never be president, but neither he nor his supporters are really operating under that assumption

Clearly the author of this article did not interview the coterie of Paul deadenders on FR.

[Jack Black]

I liked Ron Paul prior to the debates. But like others (Buchanan) with a old-school Republican isolationist foreign policy I can't support him.

It didn't work when much of the GOP supported it in WW2, and it won't work now. Read the statement of Zawahiri. Even if we pull every US soldier out of Iraq it's not going to end their Jihad.

Sadly, Ron Paul doesnt' get that. He susbscribes to the Chomsky view of history, which is fatally flawed, in my opinion. I can't stand American hating leftists when the spew "it's all our fault" rhetoric, and I like it from a GOP candidate for President even less.

Thus, I will not be supporting Ron Paul despite his many excellent characteristics, like being pro-liberty, pro-limited government and a Constitutionalist.

We are at war, and while otherwise a fine man, a do not think he has either the background or the temperment to lead us given that.

[DakotaRed]

desperate need of getting back to basics, Paul’s message may be the most basic of all.

Abandoning struggling allies is not the message of the American people. Paul's message of abandonment is the left's losers message.

While he may have some decent ideas elsewhere, that one single messsage over shadows the rest with this Viet Nam veteran.

If we expect a strong America, I suggest checking out Duncan Hunter, the one candidate the lamestream media fears enough they give no coverage to.

[TWohlford]

“There are some aspects of Paul’s message that are really, REALLY good. But then he goes off the deep-end.”

I always thought that Lyndon LaRouche had a few good points in the first few minutes of his infomercials as well. Then... deep end.

[americanophile]

Haha, personally I’m not for Paul, so criticism of him is not offensive to me, but I do think he takes the Constitution more seriously than most.

[americanophile]

I have to say, I’m very impressed with Duncan Hunter.

[TSchmereL]

My comment referenced that fact that Ron Paul received 0% in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

I appreciate Ron Paul for some of his constitutional interpretations. I would not trust him as commander-in-chief.

[NavyCanDo]

What is the Leftist love affair with Ron Paul all about?

I took the family to Seattle’s Green Lake last week, which is right smack dab in the middle of the most leftist commie area of Seattle, and what do I see? Dozens of Ron Paul supporters walking around the lake with Ron Paul signs handing out fliers to people they passed. Now I would not be caught dead walking around that area of the city with a campaign sign of another Republican candidate. The verbal abuse you would get would be something else. In fact - just having a Fred Thompson bumper sticker on my car got my car a nice key job on the door.

But- these Ron Paul supporters were being received very well, and seemed to be having a great time. Go figure! I have also tuned in to liberal talk radio on several occasions and found the host and callers supporting Ron Paul.