What's not to like for a young person?
no doubt there is a lot of those supporters in that group, there are many others who don't quite know they are Conservative.
I know quite a few clean-cut, hard working young people who support Paul. They have latched onto Paul's general anti-big government (low taxes/cut spending) themes. I have learned that what attracts them to Paul is they believe he's the only one being honest about the fiscal mess.
so while it's fun to needle the Paul supporters, a good bit will definitely vote for Newt it he get's the nomination. That's why Sarah, Newt and others don't criticize Paul too much. I think that Paul and many of his supporters can be folded into our camp.
While I have not endorsed Dr. Paul, this year--nor any of the other candidates;--and have criticized all of them for the nasty tone of their personal attacks on one another; I will certainly take exception to your description.
I do not believe that Dr. Paul has ever taken a "pro-drug" stand. There is an immense difference between recognizing that certain Western States have a right to adopt their own policies with respect to drug legalization, and being "pro-drug." The one is inherent in our Constitutional Federalism, the other would raise a host of other questions, not relevant to this campaign. (And all the sanctimony over certain drug usage, seems a bit strained when the Federal Government now pays for the use of similar drugs, once prescribed, under Medicare.)
Dr. Paul is not anti-war, only anti-undeclared wars, and against wars by which we try to change other people's cultures. So were George Washington & Thomas Jefferson. (And see Pseudo Pragmatism.)
And on the subject of "war," at least one of the other candidates has certainly sounded like he wants to start a war with Iran, without even taking the issue to Congress. That is the sort of thing that should alarm all of us. For openers, if Iran is really such a threat to regional stability--it would be time for Europe to start protecting their back yard. Since the Monroe Doctrine, there has been a now neglected understanding that we take care of problems in this Hemisphere, and they take care of problems in their Hemisphere. The idea that we should risk the lives & limbs of young Americans, as well as drain our material resources. while Europe sits on their hands, is not defensible. Nor does it make a lot of sense to go after Iran, when North Korea is the more likely source of a nuclear threat, actually closer to American territory, and probably willing to sell nuclear weapons to other countries, being cash starved as she is.
Finally, how is Dr. Paul anymore "anti-tax" than any of the other Republican candidates, all of whom--with most of us approving--favor drastically reduced tax burdens. Bravo for that!
Dr. Paul's appeal to the young, is that he has been the most consistent, through the years, in maintaining the traditional American stand for limited Government & maximum individual responsibility. That consistency has tremendous appeal--especially to those who have recently gotten out of high schools and colleges, where Leftist teachers harped on the contradictions in the voting records of many nominal Conservatives. Unless you have fought in the trenches on a campus--so to speak--you will not appreciate how important such consistency really is.
William Flax
RP is pro-drug, anti-war, and anti-tax, the “no consequences” candidate.
What’s not to like for a young person?
***************
In a nut shell. Very good summary. That said, some of these positions are correct to a point, and none of the other candidates are much touching on them with any conviction. The two remaining conservative candidates would do well to address a couple of these, and poach some votes from him.
This really is an open primary for GOP nominee. There are two Republicans, a Democrat and a Libertarian running.
He’s the only candidate telling the truth about the unsustainability of big government and the welfare state. The rest are either denying or downplaying it.