Ron Paul’s Base of Support: Not Republican

Redstate ^ | 12/27/2011 | Leon H. Wolf

[TBBT]

Via Ben Domenech’s Transom comes perhaps the least surprising news of the month. That news is that almost exactly half of all Ron Paul supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire self-identity as non-Republican. Without the support of these Democrats and Independents, Paul pulls roughly the same trivial level of support he got in 2008. This has some important implications for the state of the race.

First, as Neil Stevens has been patiently noting here on the front page, this makes Paul’s level of support in Iowa potentially much softer than it appears. While these voters can at least theoretically register as Republicans the day before the caucuses and spend all day caucusing with other Republicans even though this is something they have never done before, that is a lot to expect effort-wise from all but the most dedicated chaos causers. New Hampshire and SC are marginally easier for party jumpers to game and these folks won’t have a Democrat Presidential primary to distract them. However, by taking the R primary ballot, they give up a chance to vote in any D contested races downticket. It is impossible to quantify how many, if any, would be Democrat Paul voters will be deterred by this.

Third, this is conclusive validation of what I have been saying since 2007 when I saw Paul’s hippie supporters en masse on the campaign trail. Although some of his support comes from the last vestiges of the Buchananites, the vast majority would otherwise identify as liberal Democrats (or be too high to self-identify) as anything. As more and more of Paul’s crazy and extremist past comes to light, it is clear that Dems have seen an opportunity to tar Republican primary voters by associating them with Paul’s odious views.

[rightwingextremist1776]

I'm with you brother...

My initial point was that this kind of thing, to one degree or another, has been done many time in the past....way before Rush came up with making such moves general knowledge.

[garbanzo]

If you don't understand that man is first a venal and selfish being, then you will always be wrong.

But man is also a noble and compassion being as well. But you seem to fall into the idea that government is somehow better than the rest of us and knows what's best for us poor venal souls just like the liberals. Which is why there is increasingly little difference between the Republicans and Democrat.

[garbanzo]

If you don't understand that man is first a venal and selfish being, then you will always be wrong.

But man is also a noble and compassion being as well. But you seem to fall into the idea that government is somehow better than the rest of us and knows what's best for us poor venal souls just like the liberals. Which is why there is increasingly little difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

[Raider Sam]

So if Republicans/conservatives dont stand behind laissez-faire behavior, then what type of behavior are they for? Coerced? Government approved morality?

And historically, Republicans were isolationists, so which foreign policy beliefs should we have?

[italianquaker]

The occupiers are probably members of pauls team

[InterceptPoint]

the vast majority would otherwise identify as liberal Democrats (or be too high to self-identify) as anything.

I think an Occam's Razor analysis would indicate that it is his far left foreign policy that attracts Dem voters to Ron Paul. For me that is a lot easier idea to swallow than some grand Dem conspiracy to mess with the GOP primary process.

[Jukeman]

“God’s Grace” - yes, He must be first.

[Lakeshark]

I'm just shocked, shocked that libs would like Ron Paul......

[OPS4]

Rick Santorum, A True Conservative, Vote Rick Santorum for President!

http://www.freewebs.com/globalwatch/ourchoiceforpresident.htm

[DaveyB]

Of course Ron Paul supporters are not Republicans, why would libertarians belong to the party of spineless talkers who favor big government. Operation CHAOS happened when progressives infiltrated the party. It launched smear and destroyed missions aimed at any non-liberal candidate, and will complete its mission when the GOP nominates a big government liberal (mitt or newt). The choice is crazy or evil - Ron Paul or Newt/Mitt - one will be ineffective the other highly effective at continuing the expansion of government and the reduction of liberty; one will humiliate the party as a fool and butt of every late night joke the other will destroy the morale of the conservatives and the remaining morality of the nation and still be the butt of late night jokes. All things being equal, I would rather have a crazy powerless magistrate than a evil effective tyrant - but then again not all things are equal.None of the above is looking better all the time!

[HighlyOpinionated]

As A Man Thinketh by James Allen

It has been usual for men to think and to say, "Many men are slaves because one is an oppressor; let us hate the oppressor." Now, however, there is amongst an increasing few a tendency to reverse this judgment, and to say, "One man is an oppressor because many are slaves; let us despise the slaves." The truth is that oppressor and slave are co-oporators in ignorance, and, while seeming to afflict each other, are in reality afflicting themselves. A perfect knowledge perceives the action of law in the weakness of the oppressed and the misapplied power of the oppressor; a Perfect Love, seeing the suffering which both states entail, condemns neither; a perfect Compassion embraces both oppressor and oppressed.

He who has conquered weakness, and has put away all selfish thoughts, belongs neither to the oppressor or oppressed. He is free.

A man can only rise, conquer, and achieve by lifting up his thoughts. He can only remain weak, and abject, and miserable by refusing to lift up his thoughts.

http://jamesallen.wwwhubs.com/

[Sudetenland]

Our Founding Fathers understood the true nature of man, which is why they established a republic rather than a democracy. As for government, I will merely quote what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I don't argue that government is better than us, only that it is necessary, because men are venal and selfish. Men will naturally gather to themselves all the power over their fellow men they can. Government prevents that.

Government which in America, is the people, has the right to a limited extent control our behavior. Communities have the right to establish standards of behavior--moral standards, if you will--laws by which we all agree to behave. Without those laws, we descend into chaos. That is why pure democracy doesn't work.

Fortunately, Republicans like most people learned from their isolationist mistakes. America paid an enormous price for their isolationism, it was called World War II. Isolationism caused that war--Ron Paul thinking in the form of Neville Chamberlain, caused that war.

In the days of sail, isolationism worked because travel times for troubles to reach our shores were weeks--even months. We no longer have the luxury of ignoring what happens in the rest of the world.

[Mozilla]

I know Ron Paul’s foreign Policy is completely wrong. But red State is a rino website supporting the non-conservative establishment.

[mas cerveza por favor]

“America paid an enormous price for their isolationism, it was called World War II. Isolationism caused that war”

You must have never studied history. It was our ill-advised entry into WW I that caused WW II. Hitler would never have risen if the Kaiser had not been unwisely deposed.

[Sudetenland]

You must not know anything about Neville Chamberlain and his "Peace for our times." Hitler could have been stopped any number of times quite simply and relatively bloodlessly if anyone had been willing to step in and stop him.

It was because the French weren't willing to confront him when he moved on the Rhine, that he was able to occupy the Rhineland. It was because Neville Chamberlain was convinced that diplomacy could convince Hitler to behave that he was able to occupy the Sudetenland.

It is clear that you have not spent anytime studying history if you believe it was because of what America did in WWI that caused WWII. The presence of absence of America had little bearing on the roots of WWII beyond assuring an allied victory.

America WAS isolationist during WWI--and in the beginning of WWII. We entered WWI because Germany was threatening to conquer Europe and isolate our ally, Britain. We also entered WWI because the Lusitania was sunk by the Germans, an unprovoked attack.

There are many causes of WWII, but there would have been no actual war had the allies not been so dedicated to "non-intervention." The rise of Hitler, or someone like him, was inevitable, but actual war could and would have been stopped had someone bothered to actually oppose him.

What Paul and apparently you fail to understand is that aggressive powers do not leave you alone if you ignore them. They see that as a sign of weakness. They see appeasement and negotiation as signs of weakness--they see diplomacy as a sign of weakness. They will invariably seek to exploit that sign of weakness--that is what causes wars. Peace through strength isn't simply a catchy motto, it is a hard learned lesson of history.

[Raider Sam]

I would never argue that some form of government is not necessary. But I draw the line at the government protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anything beyond that is not necessary for the government to do. That is where the morality issues come in.

For me, the government should not allow anyone to interfere with another’s life. Second, they should not allow anyone to interfere with someone’s liberty, unless that person’s life is at risk. Third, nothing that can prevent a person from pursuing his life, unless it interferes with someone else’s life or liberty.

As to WWII, it wasnt our war. Our not going in didnt make it happen. It was a war for Europe. The only military reason we joined in was because of allies.

And we dont have to be traditional isolationists, but we definitely dont need an empire.

[Raider Sam]

Whose responsibility is it to go in and stop dictators before they get too powerful?

I think the remark about our involvement was if we didnt take out the Kaiser, Hitler wouldnt have become the Fuhrer. And the Kaiser was not our enemy.

[trisham]

What Paul and apparently you fail to understand is that aggressive powers do not leave you alone if you ignore them. They see that as a sign of weakness. They see appeasement and negotiation as signs of weakness--they see diplomacy as a sign of weakness. They will invariably seek to exploit that sign of weakness--that is what causes wars. Peace through strength isn't simply a catchy motto, it is a hard learned lesson of history.

************************************

Exactly right.

[x]

I'm skeptical. I'd have said Paul's support came from non-political, anti-establishment types who usually don't vote. But then I found this:

all progressives should register republican and vote for ron paul... because we can't, can't have Newt take the lead. it's more disturbing than anything ron paul would do. so please do it!

...

Democrats AND Independents need to make sure they're registered and able to vote in the republican primaries. I think the young people, dems, and independents will make such a huge impact in this election that it won't matter how much the mainstream media tries to bash him.

If you live in one of these states, keep an eye out for Democrat acquaintances, neighbors, and relatives at the polling place or caucus site.