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 ...
He offers simple answers in short sound bites, just what simpleminded youts understand best.
What does that have to do with rolling government back to its proper role (defense against enemies foreign and domestic, maintenance of rule of law within which disputes can be peaceably resolved)?
It'll be interesting to see how well his son does in that regard.
Really? You should tell theNational Right To Life council. They give him a 56% rating.
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
As for College Professors? I have tilted with enough of them through the years to know whereof I speak. No, they are not adequate to take on a true Conservative, who understands the issues; but most undergraduates are easily snowed, when their imagined role models are shown to have clay feet--inconsistency.
William Flax
So, you think Reagan was a cynical pander bear? I disagree.
If you can see the two of them walking the same path as Reagan indicated, then you see how far they go together.
Keep in mind, an election is about who can collect the most votes. If you want to win, you need more votes than your opponent.
The youth of America is splitting into two camps - the Libertarian-leaning camp and the Occupy/Socialist camp.
If you want to win an election and start rolling back the Government, you need to go where Newt is going and court those libertarian-oriented kids.
A winning coalition is made up of people who are traveling the same road.
We can debate how far down the road we can go together, but the point still is -- if you say to the Libertarians, "We can give you an awful lot of what you want - work with us to get there," then you can put together a winning coalition.
Bashing people and insulting them when there truly is common ground is how we get them to stay home when there is an election going on. THAT type of behavior needs to stop because it alienates voters you need to win.
Newt gets it. He has adopted most of the Ron Paul economic platform and is even going so far as to declare military intervention a last resort when everything else has failed which is as it should be. You don't go to war first thing.
He'll pick up those Ron Paul votes if he keeps it up. The rest of us need to understand why Newt is doing this and bring these kids into our camp as much as we can.
You are confusing Reagan the candidate with Reagan he president. A lot of libertarians make that mistake, but Reagan the president was only a bit more libertarian than, say, Jimmy Carter.
Both the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine have dozens of articles for your edification on how President Reagan was no friend to libertarians.
You must be a blast at parties.
FEAR. fear that voting for any of the adult candidates will turn them into adults.
I also think there are naive parents who don’t understand that Ron Paul is really really really assiciated with the drug crowd.
They seem to be of the same delusional minset of the college students of the “hippy digger” episode of Southpark.
Can you blame him? 16+ trillion in debt. Bush, Obama, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole.
Ronald Reagan, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"
My guess is that the bulk of kids supporting Ron Paul would otherwise vote Democrat, particularly the heavy anti-war types.
As for College Professors? I have tilted with enough of them through the years to know whereof I speak.
So have I.
No, they are not adequate to take on a true Conservative, who understands the issues; but most undergraduates are easily snowed,
You should see what happens when they take on my girls. As a primer, here is a paper they wrote at the ages of 12 & 13. I think you'll derive from it my opinion of most college "education."
when their imagined role models are shown to have clay feet--inconsistency.
Frankly, the professors spend more time throwing unsupported barbs founded in popular truisms than by comparing facts. Facts demand citation, and that takes actually reading what conservative authors have written or said. It's much easier to engage in character assassination by gauzy presumption.
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.
Snoop Dog and Willie Nelson agree with you.....
Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
Where in your graph does it parse out pro- versus anti-postings regarding any of those candidates? Allow me to provide an example - I’ve posted many more comments on FB regarding R-U-N Paul than I have all the other candidates combined, albeit negative comments each and every one made regarding R-U-N Paul. Thus, the graph is meaningless drivel.
Was ending Prohibition of the drug alcohol, as supported by that era's conservatives, 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.
The Constitution leaves all those matters to the states. Will you vote for your state to legalize heroin and methamphetamine on school grounds?
But, this is beside the point. Where Reagan compromised the libertarian values to obtain what he could, he also compromised the Conservative values. In the American context, they are basically the same.
Correcting--if we can--the drift to a sick dependence on the Collective, will take more than one Administration. The tragedy is that the Reagan turn back towards the fundamentals of the American achievement was not followed up in the past 23 years. But it is vital that we do so. There is no substitute for the social fabric built upon individual responsibility & accountability, which made the America that entered the 20th Century on the cusp of true affluence, possible. None! Subsidizing failure; bribing people to be irresponsible; the premises of the Left are a gathering disaster.
Personal liberty & material success for us, as peoples, are inseparable. If one will but focus on the dynamics of personal achievement, that must become increasingly obvious.
Put another way, Collectivist/Egalitarianism Sabotages Human Potential. A people increasingly dependent upon Government cannot even be trusted to manage the legitimate powers of the Government--those so carefully set forth in the Constitution, for example--well. Their judgment as well as their incentives, are all compromised.
William Flax
Reagan WOULD NOT support the libertarians of today, especially NOT R-U-N Paul. The Libertarianism Reagan was speaking to was much different than what is followed now.
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.
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.
I did my research: Drug criminalization, like Prohibition (opposed by conservatives) before it, is "progressive" social engineering that has succeeded only in enriching criminals.
Yeah you could say Ron Paul is all giving Grandfather to that generation 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.