You think so? Ron Paul voted against Iraq, Hillary didn’t. Most Dem voters would swing to the GOP for a fresh, outsider politician who is anti-tax and for smaller government (much like Reagan).
So let’s say Paul got the nomination. Would all of the FReepers who talk big about “sucking it up for the Party” against Hillary if someone else’s man didn’t get the nomination vote for Dr Paul? Or would the Constitution Party get their votes?
Remember that Dr. Paul is 90% of what most conservatives want. The first rule of campaign school is “All Or Nothing Always Gets You Nothing”. Which is what we’ll continue to get with more RINOS.
Sure. I’d vote for him against Hillary and so would most Freepers.
But that would still put him in single digits.
The Paulites are mostly "anyone who doesn't agree with me 100% of the time should be shot" purists, so they follow the same rule of thumb that the RINO politicians do.
Mainly, they demand you vote for their guy if he wins the nomination so we can "stop the Democrats", but if the shoe is on the other foot and my guy wins the nomination, they sit at home and sulk about it. It's a one-way street. The only difference is the RINOs will demand you support them in the general election but refuse to support the conservative because he's too "extreme" and "unelectable". The Paulites will demand you support them in the general election but refuse to support the conservative because he voted the wrong way on ONE "socialist" bill they dislike.
There are plenty of people who agree with them "90% of the time" that the Paulites will utterly refuse to support. For example, check Lindsey Graham's voting record and you will discover he supports the right positions 90% of the time (solidly pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-ANWR drilling, pro-tax cuts, pro-spending cuts, etc.). A bunch of purists here will refuse to support Graham under ANY circumstances (including the general election) because Graham doesn't agree with the "100% pure" crowd on amnesty. One loudmouth Ron Paul supporter is even encourging people to vote for the Democrat canidate who's 90% socialist if Lindsey Graham wins the nomination instead of their guy (I diss Paul alot, but at least I don't stoop to endorsing his Democrat opponent when he wins the GOP nomination in his district). BTW, it's rather odd they are so up in arms with Graham, Kyl, etc., supporting amnesty when they had no problems with Ron Paul joining the open borders Libertarian Party. Perhaps they don't realize that the Harry Browne crowd is more "open borders" than Lindsey Graham ever was when he joined forces with the McCain crowd.
So sorry, I don't want any more lectures from freepers about how a Presidential candidate agrees with me "90% of the time" and therefore I should support them, when the hypocrites are demanding their Senators agree with them 100% of the time. Kool-aid drinking libertarians are nortorious for bitterly attacking people who agree with them 99.99999% of the time. Bob Barr was one of the best allies the libertarians ever had on gun rights and small goverment and civil liberties, and they worked their butt off to defeat him in the general election because he disagree with them on ONE issue -- the war on drugs. (oddly enough, Bob Barr himself if now a card-carrying Libertarian)
Let's me know when these freepers demanding we "get behind" Ron Paul because he agrees with us "90% of the time" do the same for U.S. Senators who win the GOP nomination and agree with them 90% of the time.
Until then, those who advocate "do as I say, not as I do" can get bent. Remember the golden rule.
The Paulites are mostly "anyone who doesn't agree with me 100% of the time should be shot" purists, so they follow the same rule of thumb that the RINO politicians do.
Mainly, they demand you vote for their guy if he wins the nomination so we can "stop the Democrats", but if the shoe is on the other foot and my guy wins the nomination, they sit at home and sulk about it. It's a one-way street. The only difference is the RINOs will demand you support them in the general election but refuse to support the conservative because he's too "extreme" and "unelectable". The Paulites will demand you support them in the general election but refuse to support the conservative because he voted the wrong way on ONE "socialist" bill they dislike.
There are plenty of people who agree with them "90% of the time" that the Paulites will utterly refuse to support. For example, check Lindsey Graham's voting record and you will discover he supports the right positions 90% of the time (solidly pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-ANWR drilling, pro-tax cuts, pro-spending cuts, etc.). A bunch of purists here will refuse to support Graham under ANY circumstances (including the general election) because Graham doesn't agree with the "100% pure" crowd on amnesty. One loudmouth Ron Paul supporter is even encourging people to vote for the Democrat canidate who's 90% socialist if Lindsey Graham wins the nomination instead of their guy (I diss Paul alot, but at least I don't stoop to endorsing his Democrat opponent when he wins the GOP nomination in his district). BTW, it's rather odd they are so up in arms with Graham, Kyl, etc., supporting amnesty when they had no problems with Ron Paul joining the open borders Libertarian Party. Perhaps they don't realize that the Harry Browne crowd is more "open borders" than Lindsey Graham ever was when he joined forces with the McCain crowd.
So sorry, I don't want any more lectures from freepers about how a Presidential candidate agrees with me "90% of the time" and therefore I should support them, when the hypocrites are demanding their Senators agree with them 100% of the time. Kool-aid drinking libertarians are nortorious for bitterly attacking people who agree with them 99.99999% of the time. Bob Barr was one of the best allies the libertarians ever had on gun rights and small goverment and civil liberties, and they worked their butt off to defeat him in the general election because he disagree with them on ONE issue -- the war on drugs. (oddly enough, Bob Barr himself if now a card-carrying Libertarian)
Let's me know when these freepers demanding we "get behind" Ron Paul because he agrees with us "90% of the time" do the same for U.S. Senators who win the GOP nomination and agree with them 90% of the time.
Until then, those who advocate "do as I say, not as I do" can get bent. Remember the golden rule.
LOL. Right. Dem voters want pork. They want something for nothing. If they were anti-tax and for smaller govt., they wouldn't be Democrats. In 1980, Jimmy Carter still got 40%. That means he still got most Dem voters.