Posted on 09/09/2007 5:30:35 PM PDT by traviskicks
For better or for worse — well, for worse — Ron Paul has become the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican Party.
His presidential campaign is an Ayn Rand express train rolling through a country already taken over by collectivists of various stripes. That there may be a caboose full of crazy sitting at the end of that train is enough to doom his chances.
But please, Ron, don't drop out just yet. The country might not want another Texan with nutty ideas and a political tin ear, but it may need one.
Many conservatives breathed a heavy sigh of relief when Fred Dalton Thompson confirmed Thursday that he was running for president. But while Thompson may be the best overall candidate for the Republicans, having someone like Paul in the hunt ought to generate healthy debate and more informed politics.
Unfortunately, it seems from the poll numbers that Americans like their politics devoid of straight talk. And it's not just Hillary Clinton trying to run away from her vote on the Iraq invasion.
Rudy Giuliani, running on the basis of his outstanding leadership around 9/11 (and the willingness of people to forgive earlier missteps), promises he would appoint pro-life judges, while still holding the pro-choice line. Mitt Romney is a large mass of wishy-washy whose riskiest stance so far was turning his back on soon-to-be-former-senator Larry Craig.
John McCain still speaks with conviction, but everyone seems disinterested in hearing what their cranky grandfather has to say about military strategy and the uselessness of torture.
Paul, however, is consistent with his message of defanged government and neo-isolationist policies. He talks about getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service and making sure the government leaves its citizens well enough alone.
That kind of talk ought to rally Texas conservatives, with the "get off my land" attitudes so prevalent over the past, oh, 170 years. Honestly, if all his positions are taken as a whole, it looks like the backbone of Texas conservatism. But he's barely making a dent in the polls even in his own backyard.
Because Paul still comes across as a little nuts. He doesn't fit in with the rest of the GOP, somehow. Opposition to the Patriot Act and the Iraq war just prove he's not a team player. He's putting principles above party, which is exactly how not to get ahead in Washington these days.
He's also fearless about his image. He's willing to spread his message on potentially hostile grounds such as The Colbert Report, Real Time With Bill Maher or the Republican debates.
In the Information Age, you're not likely to see many candidates take such a cavalier attitude. The current administration has taught them to seek familiar, friendly ground before saying anything that passes for substance these days. Surrounding yourself with sycophants, yes-men and screened supporters during the modern campaign is just a rehearsal for the later office.
Though Texans especially should have an appreciation for a straight-talking rogue, Paul has no realistic chance at nomination, much less election. Not even if he ran against a Clinton-Obama double bill.
But now that Thompson has (finally) formalized his plunge into presidential politics, he might think about taking some lessons from the contrarian Paul.
Thompson's running mate no matter who else joins the ticket is the ghost of Ronald Reagan. This would be the same Reagan who bucked his party by running for the 1968 and 1976 Republican nominations as the conservative alternative.
Reagan got elected in 1980 by finding a way to build a bridge between the "Religious Right" and low-tax libertarians, but he made his career with a rabble-rousing speech in support of Barry Goldwater's failed 1964 campaign.
The Republicans also seem to forget that they achieved power in 1994 by speaking their mind and promising policies that would return the country to congressional sobriety.
Thompson appears to be a fine federalist with charisma to spare. Here's hoping that he'll follow his convictions and become a strong presence and strong leader, able to convince others that his is the right path, rather than just being obstinate.
Virgil noted that "fortune favors the bold." Looking at Ron Paul, that may not be true.
But Paul's boldness could help rattle the conventional wisdom of today's Republicans and elevate the national discourse and direction. If so, he's the most important man in the race.
Even if nobody votes for him.
What does this mean? If nominated republicans would rather vote for hillary/obama than Paul - or that hillary/obama would be an easy ticket to beat for any republican but Paul?
Dr. Ron Paul, King O’ The Feebs!
You're seeing what you want to see. Do you honestly believe that those people didn't see it as an opportunity and take advantage?
I agree. If Ron Paul, who at present does not have the chance of a snowball, ends up with even 3 or 4 percent of the Republican vote, that 3 or 4 percent may make the difference in a general election. We have had some close ones recently. I am not sure the constant demeaning and belittlement of Congressman Paul is going to do a lot to encourage his supporters to back the GOP nominee or be friendly to those who were so critical of their guy and his supporters.
Ron Paul is snookering the public - he converted to Republicanism - the one true party dedicated to the good of the nation - only for the purpose of stirring the pot - to get his message out, knowing he cannot possibly win the nomination.That is exactly correct. I tried to sound the alarm on this too, but the Paulistas quickly stepped in to deny it and claim Paul has promised not to run if he loses the GOP nomination.Then he will return to the Liberterian Party, running as their nominee, hoping for a coup.
As with Perot, most of his votes would normally be Republican. Remember Clinton would not have won either election without Perot. They are an odd couple (Clinton/Perot)- but the strategy gave us slick willie.
Ron Paul is NO Ronald Reagan! You didn’t hear Reagan suggesting we ‘disengage’ from the Cold War and let the rest of the world go on its way while we went on ours. Paul may be fiscally conservative (though his own earmarks suggest differently) but he is NOT like Reagan. Reagan had vision and encouraged the best in us. Not so Ron Paul.
I tend to agree with those who believe he might be the Perot of this race should he decide to run as an independent or libertarian..which is what he was initially before becoming a republican.
>> Do you honestly believe that those people didn’t see it as an opportunity and take advantage?
Well, I sure don’t believe it.
But since you and your fave nutjob feel otherwise, instead of speaking in code innuendo, JTN, why don’t you spell out...
1) EXACTLY WHO you’re talking about when you say “those people”.
2) PRECISELY WHAT they saw as an OPPORTUNITY and PRECISELY HOW they planned to take advantage of it.
Paul would have fought a real War on Terror rather than running to the "international community" or the UN for permission.
He is also in favor of border security & a missile defense system.
If you think Paul is a pacifist, then you also think Bill Clinton is a Saint. Paul has supported all of Reagan's defense buildups in the 80s and has always supported the troops.
There is a list of names of those who were in the Alamo battle.
One might be able to find the list on the internet.
It is not wildly known or covered.
Thought you might like to know.
Vigilance, I've been saying this since virtually Paul entered the race. He has a strong network of grassroots supporters from across the political spectrum. These folks aren't going to hold their noses for the nominee, except for the possibility of Fred as Fred shares most of Paul's federalist beliefs except for foreign policy. That's why most of these posters, at the same time, keep asking whether or not will Paul run as a 3rd party or independent candidate. Paul scares the feces out of the establishment, go to YouTube and witness liberal dinosaur Mike Wallace's son sneeringly mock Paul and the Rockefeller candidates with their non-existent grassroots support & Bush status-quo snicker at Paul in the background.
He is not running as a 3rd party or independent candidate! And even if he were, he's not going to win anyway according to you hyenas, right? He's a kook, remember? LOLOLOL
Of course he won’t win, but he will syphon off just enough of the GOP vote to ensure another Clinton election theft.
This whole GOP primary farce is just to set Paul up for his 3rd party run so he can help get Hillary elected. And people like you are willing accomplices.
>>Ron Paul is snookering the public - he converted to Republicanism - the one true party dedicated to the good of the nation - <<
The RINOs in control must be purged before this statement is accurate.
He made a promise to his wife that he wouldn't run as a 3rd party or independent candidate. So tell me how is he going to "siphon" off votes in a primary election from another Republcan candidate, unless I didn't get the memo that Hillary Clinton is going to run as a Republican?
This whole GOP primary farce is just to set Paul up for his 3rd party run so he can help get Hillary elected. And people like you are willing accomplices.
You call us Paul supporters nutty, yet you guys engage in the very conspiracy tin-foil garbage that you accuse us of engaging in. You can believe what you want, but even if he did run as a 3rd party candidate, why are you concerned? Paul doesn't owe the Republican Party NADA. This same party laughed at him, ridiculed him, supported RINO candidates against him in his Congressional elections, and then expect subservience in the general from him? Please. Paul won't run, but you have to convince the thousands of his supporters WHO WILL NOT HOLD THEIR NOSE FOR THE GOP CANDIDATE AFTER WITNESSING THE ABUSE AND HYPOCRISY FROM CONSERVATIVES & THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT HAVE HEAPED ONTO PAUL!!!
He is not running as a Liberterian Party candidate now, but just wait.
of course he can’t win. But neither could Perot. Perot won because Clinton won. Paul will win if he causes a Dem to win.
- and remember my words
>>I agree. If Ron Paul, who at present does not have the chance of a snowball, ends up with even 3 or 4 percent of the Republican vote, that 3 or 4 percent may make the difference in a general election.<<
The Perot principle. This could all be avoided if the Republicans would rewrite their platform on conservative, constitutional principles. We are hungry for this.
Horse feces, I'll take Dr. Paul's word (spoken to his wife) over yours or any other FReeper anyday.
of course he can’t win. But neither could Perot. Perot won because Clinton won. Paul will win if he causes a Dem to win
Newsflash: The GOP doesn't own anyone's vote. They have to go out there and field a candidate who can earn them. If Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate (and no, I will NOT support him if he does) and Hillary wins, that's the fault of the GOP, NOT DR. PAUL'S!! The only other GOP candidate who can attract libertarian and swing voters without alienating social conservatives is Fred Thompson. The other candidates CAN NOT build a coalition of voters.
When they read this word of encouragement, Paul campaign staffers convened an emergency strategy meeting to figure out to leverage this article into the GOP nomination!
Hank
cheap shot, but LOL.
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.