Posted on 01/31/2012 12:00:06 PM PST by presidio9
The first primaries of 2012 are complete, but the fight over the proper role of government continues. The question before GOP primary voters is who best reflects their own answer to that question, and then, who is best suited to make that case to the American people?
A clear winner has yet to emerge, but there is little question about who has captured the loyalty of young Republican voters on this issue. Although finishing fourth overall, Ron Paul once again won the youth vote in South Carolina, winning 31% of ages 18-29, compared to Newt Gingrich who won 28%. Paul’s appeal, or more accurately, the appeal of Paul’s limited government message, is a key story to emerge from the Republican primaries.
There’s no mistaking the trend.
Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary, getting approximately 39% of the total vote. Ron Paul finished second with 23%, Jon Huntsman finished third with 17%, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum each won about 9% of the vote.
Yet young voters would have picked a different winner. According to Fox News exit polls, in New Hampshire, Paul won nearly half (46%) of the votes of people ages 18-29, while Romney won second place with just 26%.
Paul also won the youth vote in Iowa. In the Hawkeye State almost half (48%) of the Republican caucus goers ages 18-29 supported Paul, compared to 23% for the otherwise victorious Santorum, and 14% for Romney.
What is so appealing about Paul to young voters? One answer is that Paul has been the most outspoken candidate defending the importance of free enterprise and the limited role of government. And he has had a
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
two words
legal drugs
Kids are as nutty as he is.
The establishment Republican party has lost all credibility on “small government” and “fiscal responsibility”. That leaves an opening for somebody like Paul to exploit.
We're doing much better with the poison alcohol than we did with the "progressive" policy of banning it.
it’s important to send the message that being out of your mind relieves you of any responsibility,
It’s important to send the message that your mind belongs to you and not the government.
and as long as there are some poisons available, let’s promote
Legalization is not "promotion" - it's perfectly legal to insult one's wife.
an ever expanding array of poisons with which to undermine ambition and productivity.
It's not within the legitimate authority of government to compel ambition or productivity.
they think RP is going to legalize their weed.
Of course it is - just like opposition to alcohol Prohibition was a conservative idea. Drug criminalization, like Prohibition before it, is "progressive" social engineering that has succeeded only in enriching criminals.
To many, religion, marriage, and abortion are big barriers.
Ron Paul is pro-life.
I think they have a healthy anti-government mentality. That’s why the pro-government republican establishment is so intent on destroying or at least marginalizing them.
My daughter, I’ll admit, is a Ron Paul supporter.
And she’s squeaky clean. And incredibly smart, and successful. Works in New York, in the financial district. She’s only 24. That’s all I will say about her. Most of her friends like her also support Paul.
She FERVENTLY believes Ron Paul is the ONLY one who speaks to the deficit, to the Federal Reserve issues, and to the spending problems. She sees him as consistent, pro-life, and generally a good man who lives a humble life. She believes that he means what he says.
I can’t say I disagree with her on any of those points.
Where we diverge is when it comes to foreign policy. But she sees the run up of debt from the military/industrial complex thing is sees even more reasons to vote Ron Paul. She’s not anti- war ...she’s just against unconstitutional wars and “military welfare.”
I mean — not all these kids are pot heads. I think, personally, if Newt courted kids like my daughter, and at least convinved them to compromise a tad ...we’d gain their trust and their votes. There IS a way to compromise with them. I also met many Ron Paul supporters in line to see Herman Cain in the past.
Really — you’ve got to admit ...NEITHER side, over the years, has put the breaks on any real spending cuts. It just keeps going up, up, up — admittedly to an obcene level after Obama, who is THE WORST.
And she WILL admit that.
But she has also told me that (brace yourself), Newt is a “communist.” That’s what she believes, for some nutty reason.
It’s twisted, I know ... and believe me, we’ve had several heated arguments. I don’t want to alienate her too much ..so I’m careful.
Many young people will have a “let me do my thing” attitude towards government and many will have a “government should take things from the old farts so I can have it” attitude.
Sadly, many of them have both attitudes and don’t see the conflict.
At the last debate, here behind the very nice CNN bade was a large crowd of Paul supporters chanting "End the Fed" holding home made signs that read things like "The Liberal Media Lies". Maybe yall might think about cutting them a little slack, just a thought.
Paul has no intentions on winning, and is in the race because he does not see any distinction between Obama and the other Republican candidates, much less Romney and the "not Romney" candidates.
Pot smokers are his backers.
The other part of the equation is that what we have done to them is disgraceful, and there really are no excuses.
If your contention here is that Ron Paul is the only conservative here, you are misinformend. Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. The two are very different political philosophies. This is how Reagan can be the benchmark for modern conservatism when he constantly opposed libertarian values throughout his presidency.
Snoop Dog and Willie Nelson agree with you.....
While I have not endorsed Dr. Paul, this year--nor any of the other candidates;--and have criticized all of them for the nasty tone of their personal attacks on one another; I will certainly take exception to your description.
I do not believe that Dr. Paul has ever taken a "pro-drug" stand. There is an immense difference between recognizing that certain Western States have a right to adopt their own policies with respect to drug legalization, and being "pro-drug." The one is inherent in our Constitutional Federalism, the other would raise a host of other questions, not relevant to this campaign. (And all the sanctimony over certain drug usage, seems a bit strained when the Federal Government now pays for the use of similar drugs, once prescribed, under Medicare.)
Dr. Paul is not anti-war, only anti-undeclared wars, and against wars by which we try to change other people's cultures. So were George Washington & Thomas Jefferson. (And see Pseudo Pragmatism.)
And on the subject of "war," at least one of the other candidates has certainly sounded like he wants to start a war with Iran, without even taking the issue to Congress. That is the sort of thing that should alarm all of us. For openers, if Iran is really such a threat to regional stability--it would be time for Europe to start protecting their back yard. Since the Monroe Doctrine, there has been a now neglected understanding that we take care of problems in this Hemisphere, and they take care of problems in their Hemisphere. The idea that we should risk the lives & limbs of young Americans, as well as drain our material resources. while Europe sits on their hands, is not defensible. Nor does it make a lot of sense to go after Iran, when North Korea is the more likely source of a nuclear threat, actually closer to American territory, and probably willing to sell nuclear weapons to other countries, being cash starved as she is.
Finally, how is Dr. Paul anymore "anti-tax" than any of the other Republican candidates, all of whom--with most of us approving--favor drastically reduced tax burdens. Bravo for that!
Dr. Paul's appeal to the young, is that he has been the most consistent, through the years, in maintaining the traditional American stand for limited Government & maximum individual responsibility. That consistency has tremendous appeal--especially to those who have recently gotten out of high schools and colleges, where Leftist teachers harped on the contradictions in the voting records of many nominal Conservatives. Unless you have fought in the trenches on a campus--so to speak--you will not appreciate how important such consistency really is.
William Flax
Actually a libertarian idea, not a conservative one. The precedent for this dates back to the nation's first president and the Whiskey Rebellion, and runs through Lincoln who stated that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If you are for pot legalization on strict constitutional terms, than you must also be for no regulations on drugs. Therefore heroin and methamphetamine should be legal, even on school grounds if you are being consistent.
I think you’d best do some research. You’ll find that those who want to legalize drugs are those with libertarian or liberal ideology, not conservative ideology. Legalizing drugs is NOT a conservative position, period.
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.