Posted on 01/14/2008 2:28:06 PM PST by mnehring
It was supposed to be a revolution. Ron Paul was set to take America and the world by storm by winning primary after primary on his way to the White House. The supporters of the ten-term US Congressman from Texas were convinced that the money he raised would equal support at the actual ballot box. Now in the cold hard days of January, the truth has broken though.
So what has happened to Ron Paul? The answer isn't difficult; his support was never very large to begin with. It was magnified by a presence on the Internet (or the "Internets" if you prefer) and it would never push through into the real world of voting. This was never really anything more than an online revolution that could never come close to cracking the mainstream of political thought.
***
For a dark horse candidate, he made all that he could out of his Libertarian philosophies. He brought forward a whole bunch of young folks that didn't really understand the political process and they are now excited and involved. Of course, Iowa and New Hampshire slapped many of them across the face and Michigan and New Hampshire will do the same. Come February 5 even the staunchest Paul political supporter will have to realize that it isn't going to happen.
The problem that many didn't really understand is that Paul wasn't preaching anything new. This was the same Libertarian Party line that had been regurgitated over and over in one form of another for election after election. I'm not certain why so many thought it might be "magical" this campaign season.
***
There is a reason that the Libertarian Party exists in relative obscurity. Though many of us hold several of the ideas of the party dear to our hearts and believe them fully, once the movement of the fringe takes hold it is too much to bear for most people.
Many scoffed at the "mainstream" and believed they didn't need them as their man Ron Paul would rise above and dominate. They didn't believe the polls that showed little support and the true believers don't even believe the votes that have been cast at the ballot box. I'm not certain if Paul and his supporters will go away quietly, but one thing is certain, they won't win this election or even come close enough to move the political debate.
Exactly - the problem is the candidate.
Some of what he says makes sense - but if you want to avoid being dismissed as a raving lunatic, you should probably stop raving like a lunatic. A deeper voice and correct pronunciation probably wouldn’t hurt things.
He makes for painful listening.
Then some of what his says is madness. Even my wife (she’s no political wonk) said that his rambling that Israel should have kicked Hussein out of Kuwait was kooky.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." - GK Chesterton
LOL!
Here they are:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1954004/posts
The Ron Paul supporters I have read here just talk about his support of the constitution, small government, etc.
If you confront a leftist nutjob in the street, then yes, bombard him with calumny.
But here on FreeRepublic the only calumny I have seen has come from the anti-Paul faction.
‘What has happened to Ron Paul?’
He was dropped on his head right after birth. He’s been hearing strange voices ever since.....
Neocons(faux conservatives)infiltrated the conservative party to change it. That's what happened.
Oh believe me, there are tons of Ron Paul signs everywhere. Plus I’ve gotten several mailings. He’s either spending every dime on signage and not much else, or he has alot of money, which begs the questions, where’s it coming from?
There are Thompson signs here (upstate SC) not alot , but visible.
The ones I've seen all but one were on private property owned by middle class and signs were off the right of way in the yards. Meaning to me the homeowner put them up. I've got a hunch a lot of middle class Americans from many walks are getting fed up with what the GOP and DEMs are offering as choices. I think the polls aren't reflecting it. The voting booth is showing some of it which IMO is more accurate. The GOP can not afford to tell Paul supporters to pound sand nor Hunter voters for that matter. Paul sounds fringe to some but when Hunter is being shut out as well {the two most conservative ones running} I don't think many in the GOP are going to take kindly to it in November.
A lot {not all but a lot] of Paul supporters could probably vote Hunter in the general election. That is about as far toward center as the GOP is going to get from them. A shut out of both will cost the GOP the Oval Office. Jerry Ford's "where else can they go" will not work.
“I have seen none of that here on FreeRepublic.”
Did I say that it happened here?
“The Ron Paul supporters I have read here just talk about his support of the constitution, small government, etc.”
Once again did I say it happened here?
“But here on FreeRepublic the only calumny I have seen has come from the anti-Paul faction.”
BS.
You need to get out more, and read something other than the pro-paul propaganda.
Actually, we were talking about yesterday was some liberal town clerk trying to cover up for her carelessness by blaming the people who called her on it. It didn't have anything to do with Paul other than he was the candidate she was trying to cheat.
“Nor is it smaller government, vastly smaller taxation and spending.”
Your pet retard paul isn’t for smaller government or spending.
IF he ws for smaller spending then why did he put in $400 million dollars worth of earmarks into the budget?
Why did he request to have federal money fund what should have been state, local, or privately funded projects?
“Nor protecting the linchpin of ALL our God-given rights, the Second Amendment.”
Your pet retard paul isn’t for the 2nd Amendment either.
He’s all for allowing unlimited class action lawsuits against the gun manufacturers.
What you paul worshippers don’t understand is the anti-gun nuts are going to use the courts to file lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit until all the gun manufacturers, importers, and dealers in this country are put out of business.
paul is against measures to prevent the anti-gun nuts from going this route.
“Nor securing our borders.”
Your pet retard is against placing troops on the border.
“Nor even fighting the war against Jihadist terrorists.”
Your pet retard is against doing this also.
He has voted against every military budget since 1997.
He has voted against funding to provide our troops with body armor, MRAP vehicles, and anti-IED devices such as WARLOCK.
“You are no conservative, by any stretch of anyone’s most vivid imagination”
You’re not much of one either, so what’s your point?
“Barry Goldwater didn’t bash this nation or its soldiers. Constructive criticism is one thing, hating the greatest nation on this earth and blaming it for all the world’s ills is another. I used to have some respect for Paul but since I saw him in the debates, he disgusts me. We are at war, for heaven’s sake.”
I agree.
paul has called our troops who served in Desert Storm “war criminals”, and has accused those who served as part of Operation Gothic Serpent of “gunning down women and children”.
paul has said that the clinton defense cuts didn’t “go deep enough”.
paul has pushed for the elimination of the B-2 bomber.
paul has voted against every military budget since 1997 to include pay raises, housing and barracks renovations, and equipment modernization.
Americans don't want a president that will adhere to the Constitution. They don't want a President that will do what is right for the country. No they want to continue being placated with the same BS year after year after year.
That is right. One thing America does not need is an actual statesmen who will actually adhere to that silly document known as the Constitution for the United States.
We need more politicians that will keep calling this country a democracy and placating the people with more and more entitlements.
We do not need statesmen that will bind down the government with the chains of the Constitution. We need more politicians that will keep promising smaller government, but in actuality government will continue to grow and grow.
We definitely do not need a statesmen that will get rid of the largest terrorist organization in the world (the IRS). No no forbid we ever return to the only forms of taxation allowed by the Constitution.
We need more politicians that will promise to lower (Unconstitutional) taxes instead of implementing only those taxes authorized by the Constitution.
We most definitely do not need a statesmen that will return this country to a solid (specie backed) monetary system coupled with a smaller frugal government. A monetary system that is not run by international banksters that rob the people of their wealth, but creates real wealth and no run away national debt.
No we need more politicians that will keep that privately owned bank in business printing up more or less (depending on the whims of the banksters) of their worthless fiat currency. We need the country’s monetary system run by crooks and other assorted thieves.
That's right. One thing America doesn't need is an actual statesmen who'll actually adhere to that silly document known as the Constitution for the United States.
So your saying you love war and all the death and destruction that goes with it?
War may be necessary at times. If we are attacked yes and then only after a formal declaration (as stated in the Constitution for the United States) by congress. Once a formal declaration of war is declared from congress, then the congress should step aside and allow the military to do it's job.
What do we have today or for the pass 50 or so years? We have Americans being sent all over the world to fight every one else's battles. We have an American president asking permission not from congress, but from the United Nations
"...and pretty much nothing else."
I see, so Ron Paul isn't about restoring our country to a constitutional representative republic?
Logic ended sometime before you wrote this first sentence of many other "creative" ones.
I'll put it another way so maybe you might understand it better.
Anyone who is against the horrors of war are kooks in you eye, is that correct?
Mikey, I’m afraid you’re not going to win this one. The anti-Paul winds are blowing hard on FR, and from the top.
Its not about whether I win or loose. The question is a simple one. Do you believe that anyone who is against war (except when actually attacked) is a kook?
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.