Posted on 12/14/2007 10:58:50 PM PST by neverdem
Ron Paul is no compassionate conservative. His supporters love him for it.
If there's been a phenomenon in this Republican presidential race, it's been the strength of a fiery doctor from Texas and his message of limited government. As the GOP front-runners address crowds of dispirited primary voters, Mr. Paul has been tearing across the country, leaving a trail of passionate devotees in his wake.
Paul rallies heave with voters waving placards and shouting "Liberty! Liberty!" Money is pouring in from tens of thousands of individual donors--so much cash that the 10-term congressman recently admitted he wasn't sure he could spend it all. A fund-raising event on Guy Fawkes Day (in tribute to Mr. Paul's rebel persona) netted his campaign $4 million, the biggest one-day haul of any GOP candidate, ever. He continues to inch up in the early primary polls, and even bests Fred Thompson in New Hampshire.
Mr. Paul isn't going to be president. He trails in national polls, in no small part because his lack of a proactive foreign policy makes him an unserious candidate in today's terror world. But his success still holds lessons for the leading Republican candidates, as well as those pundits falling for the argument that the future of the GOP rests in a "heroic conservatism" that embraces big government. Mr. Paul shows that the way to many Republican voters' hearts is still through a spirited belief in lower taxes and smaller government, with more state and individual rights.
It helps, too, if voters know you mean it. In nearly 20 years in the House, Mr. Paul can boast he never voted for a tax hike. Nicknamed "Dr. No," he spent much of the time Republicans held a majority voting against his own party, on the grounds that the legislation his colleagues were...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
“In case you haven’t figured it out, all candidates that win anything do so by bringing together a diverse group of supporters. You can make anyone sound bad by naming any negative people from any group that might support them, but candidates do not pick who supports them. It is the other way around.”
Fair enough but can you explain exactly what attracts the neo-nazis and truthers to Ron Paul? And, when will Ron Paul denounce the support given by these groups? If, these are such a small percentage of his support, surely Ron Paul can do the right thing and tell them to bug off.
LLS
I don’t even know the statistical breakdown along those lines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I confess that I have not paid much attention to Ron Paul but let me tell you the first place I noticed one of his campaign signs. It was on the roadside in front of a house belonging to a well-to-do family still living on King’s grant land handed down through the generations. Descendants of the old southern aristocracy who speak in the mellow tones of the educated old-fashioned southern gentlemen. I draw no conclusions from this, just an observation.
I hope you don’t think I am a Ron Paul Supporter?
I am the Anti Ron Paul at Free Republic
My photos are to add evidence
Would you want to make Iraq the 51st state also?
That's been suggested, although I haven't seen it recently.
But, But, but those people don’t really support Dr.Leary. Havn’t you been reading? It’s all MSM spin that truthers and nutters and anti war LIBS are big Paul supporters. Why real Paul supporters are as pure as the wind driven snow, Yes my FRiend They are pure and they know more about the Constitution than anybody ALIVE! And anyway all those kooks supporting him in those pictures aren’t attracted to his message, they are attracted to his beautiful eyes.
We have reached a new low when Wilson's intervention into a trade war that was not much more than family squabble in WWI is considered responsible in any time.
It is too bad that actively promoting liberty where it is wanted around the globe is too kooky of an idea to seriously embrace...because there is a way
Perhaps because the Framers would have considered you out of your ever loving minds to even suggest such a principle?!? Forcibly changing the government of a nation (created from Wilson's mistake 80 years ago of course) is called 'actively promoting liberty to those who want it'. Funny most sane people would call it invasion, occupation, and regime change in that order
Just think of the conclusions you could draw with a bunch of pictures of the Klan walking around with their Bibles.
If Ron Paul had emphasized his core conservative/libertarian message, he would be getting a lot more traction and could be a serious candidate, the kind of candidate that conservatives like us are hoping for. Instead, he and/or his campaign made an INTENTIONAL decision to play up his anti-Iraq-war stand and go after the anti-war moonbats, the Code Pinkos and the 9/11 conspiracy idiots, at the expense of his domestic policies that conservatives like me would find a lot more palatable.
I’m like a lot of folks here—I could get behind Ron Paul based on his domestic stands. But his foreign policy is at best naive, and at worst suicidal. Plus, I have a bit of distrust on where he stands on illegal immigration; his website, last I saw, had some very general statements, but until I see whether he supports a border fence, mass deportations, and a strong presence on the border (including the military), the jury’s out.
}:-)4
Nice try, the Bible can be proved not to support the Klans philosophy, Ron Paul can be proved to SHARE the philosophy of the aforementioned rabble(at least on the W.O.T.)
Let me make this clear once and for all, I don’t think all Paul supporters are amongst those groups, many are (in my estimation)sincere albeit misguided. But it is undeniable that a large portion of his supporters fall in to those groups.
The burden of proof is on you, not me.
A handful of nutjobs out of thousands does not make all of Paul's supporters believers in conspiracy theories.
Do you or do you not believe these theories?
Absolutely not.
Do you stand apart from those who do AND support Sr. Paolo?
I denounce any of the leftists, kooks, or truther nuts who are trying to exploit Dr. Paul's campaign. Paul has mentioned numerous times that he does not agree with these people.
Based on evidence obtained from his rallies, his fundraising, and his extensive grassroots support, I would say that the majority of his supporters consists of regular joe-schmoes who never cared about politics before until Paul entered the race.
At least, or at most?
“My photos are to add evidence”
Great photographic record
Those supporters know who their man is, from Barry Manilow to David Duke, Paul attracts a type. His supporters may be political opposites, but they all share a psychological similarity that brings them together for this quirky man that accepts all of them in his embrace.
Paul denounces none of their conflicting goals, he appears to support all of them and accepts their money and whatever power their radicalism gives him.
LLS
As Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are not member states of this union and their occupation did not threaten the borders of this union, the Constitutional answer would have been to tell them to go pound sand. You are dealing with a region with 'borders' for the most part that were only established in the last 70-80 years. And then by outside forces in a grab for land and influence. Who's to say those borders were the correct ones in the first place? The British, French, these US?
And Darfur? Unless that mysteriously appeared yesterday in central Kansas, the same goes for it
It was an observation of an ideal that i’d like to see promoted through the cooperation of others who share the same ideal, peacefully, without coercion. Think the founders would agree with that, or not?
On that we fully agree and I support. Apologies for any overreaction
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.