Replies

Ron Paul is the most abused political figure in the country. He has higher negatives among the nattering nabobs of the political class than anyone in the US and more negative press coverage, including here on FR than anyone. Yet he keeps going and going and going.

Ever puase to find out why? What does he say that gets a hard core to continue to support him?

Instead of smearing him you might listen and try to find out what others among his auditors hear. And no, I don' believe Ron Paul is going to be President, nor does he. But you should try listening to what he has to say because either he is extremely dangerous, or else he is making sense to a lot of people despite all the efforts to label him as a nut case.

I am far from being a Ron Paul fan, but I agree with you that people should pay more attention to phenomenon that is Ron Paul.

I don't plan to vote for him.
I don't like his foreign policy.
I don't like his social policy.

But I always tell people I want to dramatically shrink government, and of all the candidates out there, I don't see anyone who is more in favor of limited government than Ron Paul. He has the right message on that topic. When people rush to dismiss him, they are casting away strong arguments in favor of reduced federal spending.

He makes the case that our government is out of control. Who am I to disagree with him on that?

I have listened to him, and I even agree with a lot of what he says, but he just takes it too far.

There is a legitimate roll for government in society, especially a primarily high density urban one. Where that line is drawn between freedom and needed government is what the argument is about. Paul just draws the line too far towards freedom than most are comfortable with.

There was a time in America, in it's long ago rural past where what he supports would of been possibly workable, but that time is long past.

If another “responsible” world power stepped forward and wanted to take over the “policing” role we have played for the last 100 years, I would not have a problem with that. But until that day comes we simply can not just retreat onto ourselves and hope for the best when it comes to world events.

Paul has a libertarian take on things, and his supporters must have that same view. Therefore, I’m thinking they should be viewed as “independents.” Will they find the democratic party liberal social views the deciding factor, or will they find the republican party’s conservative fiscal policies to be more important.

My sense is that it will depend a bit on the republican.

A liberal republican conservative in fiscal matters would seem to be the place they’d go, but Romney has been such a flip-flopper that they’d trust his record with romneycare before they’d trust anything he’d say. Huntsman could be a direction, but he’s not going anywhere. I think supporting Obama gives them very little of what they’re looking for.

Who would they like the least among the republican conservatives: Perry, Palin, Bachman, Santorum, Cain, or Gingrich? All of those claim to be both socially and fiscally conservative. I think the religious conservatives would make them fear a para-dominionist twist to their policies: Perry, Palin, Bachman and Santorum.

That leaves them with Cain and Gingrich, neither of whom can win.

Ron Paul ran as the libertarian candidate in ‘88 or so. If he did that again, he’d split off more than enough of the party to throw the race to Obama, and he’d have no chance of winning.

Their best alternative has to be Perry, Palin, or Bachmann.