Would Ron Paul have been more successful if not for the War

[BKenn01]

Just curious, I think Ron Paul would have fared better in the primaries if there was not a war in Iraq. This is one of the main issues that hurt him most among the rank and file G.O.P. It is also the issue I disagree with him most.

I probably agree more with him on most issues than McCain or the also ran GOP candidates.

Could there someday be a President Ron Paul? If the war ends, that takes away one of his biggest hurdles with the GOP base.

[Cory02]

He probably would have fared better if the economic trouble we are having now would have happened during the primaries.

[BKenn01]

I agree. He has answers that would appeal to Joe 6 pack.

[VinVega]

The mainstream party voters are not going to jump ship. The 2 party system will be Ron Paul's undoing every time.

[BKenn01]

The mainstream party voters are not going to jump ship. The 2 party system will be Ron Paul's undoing every time.

But Vin, he ran as a Republican. I realize he is really a Libertarian, but many of his positions you could argue are old school Conservatism. This is why I think the war was the biggest pitfall for him with Republicans.

[Baron Of Hell]

Ron Paul is a ultra conservative to the nth power. The problem is the republican party is socially conservative but not true conservatives.

[Josh-da-man]

No, Ron Paul rode anti-war sentiment to where he was. That was really the only thing he had going for him, and it appealed to a reasonably broad base of disaffected voters from all political persuasions (left, right, center, libertarian).

[wendersfan]

No, Republicans won't support a candidate who means it when he says he wants smaller government.

[starman9000]

No, Ron Paul rode anti-war sentiment to where he was. That was really the only thing he had going for him, and it appealed to a reasonably broad base of disaffected voters from all political persuasions (left, right, center, libertarian).

Exactly.

Like Cory2 said, he may have benefited by the current economic outlook. But the war helped him more than anything.

[Red Dog]

Hell no.

[classicman2]

No!

[Venusian]

He might have gotten more GOP support, but a lot of his internet following was contingent on the fact that he was anti-war

[classicman2]

The internet followers don't have time to go to the polls & vote.

[VinVega]

The internet followers don't have time to go to the polls & vote.
Hey, they vote in our polls. :grunt:

[Venusian]

yeah but they gave him money and that is why he got any of the press he got

[CRM114]

The war is what got him the widespread support he DID garner.

[classicman2]

Each party's primary voter is a little more radical than the general election voter.

However, they're not radical enough to vote for Ron Paul. :)

[CRM114]

No, Ron Paul rode anti-war sentiment to where he was. That was really the only thing he had going for him, and it appealed to a reasonably broad base of disaffected voters from all political persuasions (left, right, center, libertarian).

:up:

[VinVega]

The war is what got him the widespread support he DID garner.
Well, people do like to hear about cutting government programs, they just don't like to hear about THEIR government program being cut. ;)

[CRM114]

Well, people do like to hear about cutting government programs, they just don't like to hear about THEIR government program being cut. ;)

And people like to hear about cutting the biggest program, national "defense." Paul wanted to remove all troops from every deployment around the world. Talk about a budget savings.

[orangecrush]

No, Republicans won't support a candidate who means it when he says he wants smaller government.
:lol: it's funny (and sad) because its true.

[mosquitobite]

Ron Paul is a ultra conservative to the nth power. The problem is the republican party is socially conservative but not true conservatives.

:up:

thanks W :rolleyes:

[Groucho]

The war was the least of Paul's problems. His biggest problem was his lunatic fringe supporters.

[VinVega]

The war was the least of Paul's problems. His biggest problem was his lunatic fringe supporters.
Another shot at mosquitobite. -ohbfrank-

;)

[Sierra Disc]

No, Paul was never going to be much more than fringe, the equivalent of Jerry Brown in the 1992 race.

Also overlooked is that he's even older than McCain (not by much, but still I think that would've been an issue if he'd ever gotten out of the fringe realm).

[Baron Of Hell]

Ron Paul doesn't show his age as much as McCain. I was surprised when I found out he was in fact older.

[BKenn01]

And people like to hear about cutting the biggest program, national "defense."

That would not be a popular position with Republican voters.

No, Republicans won't support a candidate who means it when he says he wants smaller government.

I disagree. I know a lot of Republicans, including myself who really do want smaller government . Are you confusing Republican voters with Elected Republicans?

[wendersfan]

I disagree. I know a lot of Republicans, including myself who really do want smaller government . Are you confusing Republican voters with Elected Republicans?I'm most certainly not. People say they want a smaller government, but they are liars. They want a government that protects them from themselves, the irrational fear of TV violence, sex-crazed illegal immigrants who are planning to move next door, dangers from imported produce, and every other idiotic thing that pops into their heads. And of course we need laws to protect the children! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?

[Josh-da-man]

I'm most certainly not. People say they want a smaller government, but they are liars. They want a government that protects them from themselves, the irrational fear of TV violence, sex-crazed illegal immigrants who are planning to move next door, dangers from imported produce, and every other idiotic thing that pops into their heads. And of course we need laws to protect the children! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?

When you hear Republicans saying they want a smaller government, they actually mean a smaller "liberal" government. They then get into power and start cracking down on things that are offensive to conservative sensibilities like pornography, gambling, abortion, gay rights, stem cells, bad words on TV...

[FlickMan]

Just curious, I think Ron Paul would have fared better in the primaries if there was not a war in Iraq. This is one of the main issues that hurt him most among the rank and file G.O.P. It is also the issue I disagree with him most.

I probably agree more with him on most issues than McCain or the also ran GOP candidates.

Could there someday be a President Ron Paul? If the war ends, that takes away one of his biggest hurdles with the GOP base.

I would have voted for Ron Paul but instead IF I decide to vote, will vote for Obama, whilst holding my nose, crossing my fingers and saying a prayer to sweet lord little baby jesus.

[Dr Mabuse]

I don't think either party wants smaller government.

And the voters for either party damn sure don't want smaller government.

[jessecrx]

The war was the least of Paul's problems. His biggest problem was his lunatic fringe supporters.

And the ref takes a point away!

Careful with those words, Groucho. I am one of those "fringe" supporters, and the biggest reason I supported him was his stance on following The Constitution and preserving civil liberties. Everything from the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he voted against them and to me that shows clearly that he's got something both parties are lacking..and that's consistency in the voting record and courage to do what's right.

As for the war...I won't touch that subject with a ten foot pole. I mean with all the giant elephants in the room surrounding that subject n all :)

Even now I speak to both Obama and McCain supporters and even though they don't agree with everything Paul has to say they have all agreed that Paul is the ONLY one speaking out about the erosion of the Constitution and civil liberties.

But hey, if we're not doing anything wrong then I guess it's ok to sacrifice our liberty for security

[Birrman54]

Doctor Paul is the only person who was speaking sense about the current financial crisis for the last decade.

[Josh-da-man]

And the ref takes a point away!

Careful with those words, Groucho. I am one of those "fringe" supporters

I think Groucho was referring to the racists and other lunatic fringe types that Paul was known to pal around with.

[classicman2]

Get rid of the Federal Reserve

Return to the gold standard

[Red Dog]

And the ref takes a point away!

Careful with those words, Groucho. I am one of those "fringe" supporters, and the biggest reason I supported him was his stance on following The Constitution and preserving civil liberties. Everything from the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he voted against them and to me that shows clearly that he's got something both parties are lacking..and that's consistency in the voting record and courage to do what's right.



Those aren't the lunatic fringers, and I don't think people with the views you posted are what Groucho was talking about.

The Paul lunatic fringers are the ones who believed in 9/11 (and other) conspiracy theories and had particular views on race (and supremacy) in this country.

The Paul embrace of these lunatic fringers is exactly what cost him my support.

[classicman2]

I would have voted for Ron Paul but instead IF I decide to vote, will vote for Obama, whilst holding my nose, crossing my fingers and saying a prayer to sweet lord little baby jesus.

Question: How can anyone say they would have voted for Ron Paul, but will vote for Obama if they decide to vote?

Aren't they virtually polar opposites?

[wendersfan]

The Paul embrace of these lunatic fringers is exactly what cost him my support.Yes, exactly.

[wendersfan]

Question: How can anyone say they would have voted for Ron Paul, but will vote for Obama if they decide to vote?

Aren't they virtually polar opposites?No. The candidate who was the closest to being the polar opposite of Ron Paul was probably Governor Huckabee.

[classicman2]

I can name at least a couple of things that Paul and Huckabee agree on.

[Red Dog]

No. The candidate who was the closest to being the polar opposite of Ron Paul was probably Governor Huckabee.


Agreed. I think McCain is more of an opposite to Paul than Obama is.

[classicman2]

Paul and Obama have a totally different view on the role of the federal government.

Both Huckabee & McCain are closer to Paul on that issue.

[Dr Mabuse]

No. The candidate who was the closest to being the polar opposite of Ron Paul was probably Governor Huckabee.

In what way? How do you arrive there?

Agreed. I think McCain is more of an opposite to Paul than Obama is.

Same question.

I had thought Ron was pretty much opposite of all the other politicians.

[Red Dog]

Paul and Obama have a totally different view on the role of the federal government.

Both Huckabee & McCain are closer to Paul on that issue.


On fiscal matters. That's only one part of the equation. Hucks is quite populist and McCain is still far far way from Paul on those matters.

There is also the social and civil libertarian side of things as well as foreign policy and Obama is certainly closer to Paul on those things than McCain or Hucks.

[classicman2]

Huckabee & Paul basically agree on the decentralization of government.

I don't believe Obama shares that view.

Probably McCain doesn't either.

Of course there's the question of abortion. Yeah - Paul & Obama have the same view. :rolleyes:

[Red Dog]

I had thought Ron was pretty much opposite of all the other politicians.

Absolutely. We're talking matters of degree.

[Red Dog]

Huckabee & Paul basically agree on the decentralization of government.



Where on earth do you get this?

[Birrman54]

Huckabee & Paul basically agree on the decentralization of government.

I don't believe Obama shares that view.

Probably McCain doesn't either.

Of course there's the question of abortion. Yeah - Paul & Obama have the same view. :rolleyes:

I can't believe I'm agreeing with CMan, Ron Paul would disagree vehemently with Obama's tax policies, his economic response strategies, his belief on healthcare, climate change, abortion, foreign interventionism, etc.

They're vaguely similar on some civil liberties, but even Obama can't bring himself to say the War on Drugs is a complete failure - and he voted for PATRIOT ACT reauthorization.

[classicman2]

Where on earth do you get this?

From what he says. He talks about federalism all the time.

[jessecrx]

Those aren't the lunatic fringers, and I don't think people with the views you posted are what Groucho was talking about.

The Paul lunatic fringers are the ones who believed in 9/11 (and other) conspiracy theories and had particular views on race (and supremacy) in this country.

The Paul embrace of these lunatic fringers is exactly what cost him my support.

Ehhh...I can see your point but then again what happened to "I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it".....oops...wait, I forgot they now have free speech zones for those who want to speak freely lol!

I am sure there are people who believe in aliens, ghosts and even religion ;) but they aren't being shunned for their beliefs, are they??

The bottom line is you can't control who supports you and you can't control the actions of others. But in the eyes of the media and the public all it takes is one bad apple to spoil the bunch.

I helped organize many meetup groups and even helped with teaching people how to caucus at their conventions and there was always a few oddballs who just didn't fit in with the rest of the bunch. Saboteurs, maybe??

Funny how whenever grassroots dissent is brewing or when someone is speaking out against the course our govt is taking there just happen to be provocateurs at the marches and rallies. These people don't just talk and act like protesters...they go out of their way to provoke unpopular attention and sometimes even commit a crime. Perfect ammo for the media and let's be honest...who wants to be associated with these "nutjobs" regardless if the group they are with is actually trying peacfully do something about our current state of affairs?? Oh, not me...no way Jose :p

Get rid of the Federal Reserve

Return to the gold standard

No, let's let the Fed keep inflating the currency so that by the time I retire my savings won't be worth anything. By that time I am sure I won't even be able to file for bankruptcy either! ;)

[Red Dog]

Ehhh...I can see your point but then again what happened to "I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it".....oops...wait, I forgot they now have free speech zones for those who want to speak freely lol!

I am sure there are people who believe in aliens, ghosts and even religion ;) but they aren't being shunned for their beliefs, are they??

The bottom line is you can't control who supports you and you can't control the actions of others. But in the eyes of the media and the public all it takes is one bad apple to spoil the bunch.



Where did I or anyone say that I was against the right of these fringe groups to say whatever they want? They certainly have the right to their beliefs just as I have the right to call them a bunch of kooks for said beliefs. There is a right to free speech. There is not a right to say whatever you want and not be criticized for it. That's what makes the country great.

A candidate certainly can take steps to demonstrate that they don't subscribe to such radical beliefs. I don't believe Ron Paul satisfactorily did that. If these radical groups came out and publicly supported McCain, you don't think he would emphatically respond that he in no way subscribes to their beliefs? Also, look at how Bob Barr did when it came to such support: he put out press releases saying that his campaign would not be a vehicle for fringe and hate groups to promote themselves, even using such language as "Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!"

Paul accepted money from such groups. Paul put his name on a newsletter throughout the 1990s that contained a lot of racist material. He said some pretty damning stuff himself back then as well. This demonstrates a fundamental lack of judgment and responsibility. Then what made it worse is that he wouldn't acknowledge that fact - he basically deflects responsibility for it. The fact is that he has associated himself with these people to a certain degree and won't own up to it - I can't give my support to someone who would do something so reckless.

[jessecrx]

Where did I or anyone say that I was against the right of these fringe groups to say whatever they want? They certainly have the right to their beliefs just as I have the right to call them a bunch of kooks for said beliefs. There is a right to free speech. There is not a right to say whatever you want and not be criticized for it. That's what makes the country great.

Criticism is one thing, but being ridiculed and sometimes detained is another. Show up at the RNC with a pro McCain shirt and your welcomed with open arms. Show up with any kind of protest material and you could be labeled an enemy combatant and formally charged.
http://www.mndaily.com/2008/10/12/u-student-plead-not-guilty-terrorism-charges

And THAT is precisely my point. Dissent in all it's forms is being cut to pieces before the message is even heard...then it's labeled and hung up for the world to see how these wackos are promoting civil unrest and terrorism.

People who stand around and applaud the armed guards for escorting protesters along with those who stand around and watch as someone is being tazed for speaking freely in an open public forum against the status quo are the ones the bother me the most. THAT is what's making this country not-so great.

I remember reading..
"People need to watch what they say, and watch what they do"
Ari Fleischer

I nearly spewed milk out my nose when I read that statement!

IMO when the govt goes out of it's way to step on people for speaking out against the political establishment it quickly sends a chill through those who feel the same way as those who have been smashed. People start to think twice about dissent or saying certain words over the phone or checking certain websites.

In that kind of political climate..dissent stifles itself before it can even begin to develop. It leads to fear and then to silence and being silent is the most un-American thing anyone can do imo.

This clip from Boston Legal sums up what I am saying pretty clearly
(Watch this at home, not at work please)
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TwDAbVqQqv0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TwDAbVqQqv0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


A candidate certainly can take steps to demonstrate that they don't subscribe to such radical beliefs. I don't believe Ron Paul satisfactorily did that.

I guess a persons' word just isn't good enough anymore, is it? Maybe if he lit a match and stamped his feet crying out how he felt...or maybe burn some CD's at a giant rally bonfire..or maybe take a bunch of white sheets and painted them red white n blue and called them "freedom sheets!" I bet that woulda been a more mature thing to do while angering those racist groups, right? /sarcasm :p

Sarcasm aside, it didn't matter what Paul did to distance himself from the groups or from the stuff that was written. In the eyes of many the damage was already done. Redemption happens quite a bit in the pop/rock star world but not in the political world for some odd reason.

And you are right. He accepted money from people with all sorts of prejudices and bigotry. That's the downside to accepting online donations via credit card. Next thing you know politicians are gonna be singled out for accepting donations from felons and drug users.

And fyi he did take moral responsibility for what was written despite the fact that he has never said such things. Let's go back in time and take a look again, shall we :)
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u39z38xjraw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u39z38xjraw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I can't give my support to someone who would do something so reckless.

But you can support one of the lesser of two evils that pose an even more reckless threat, right? Neither one of them talk about civil liberties or following The Constitution. But if I don't choose one of the two processed candidates I am throwing away my vote...so I've been told. Not sure if you saw this clip on CNN but they talk about the whole lesser of 2 evils subject..hits the nail right on the head
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eEw0qKjP7hk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eEw0qKjP7hk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Red Dog]

But you can support one of the lesser of two evils that pose an even more reckless threat, right? Neither one of them talk about civil liberties or following The Constitution.


No I cannot and will not support one of the lesser of 2 evils. I did not vote for President in 2004 (I voted for other offices). I will either vote for Bob Barr or not vote this time.

I also have no idea what your discussion of dissent and posting Alan Shore rants has to do with the racists and conspiracy nuts that gravitated to Ron Paul. I completely agree with you about dissent and government responses to it, but I don't know what it has to do with racists and conspiracy nuts.

And that CNN interview is hardly what I call 'taking moral responsibility.' All he did was say that he didn't write or say the stuff that was in a newsletter that carried his name. That interview was exactly what I had in mind when I said he didn't own up and take responsibility for the newsletters. He basically claimed ignorance and that the newsletter wasn't important to him. These newsletters were bringing over $1M/year. He never said who wrote the trash. He wouldn't say what his association with the writers in the newsletter was. He never explained how he could continue to lend his name to such a publication each time racist material was published. I don't believe him for a second that he would never have read a newsletter that was published under his name and was bringing in a lot money. It makes no logical sense.

[jessecrx]

No I cannot and will not support one of the lesser of 2 evils. I did not vote for President in 2004 (I voted for other offices). I will either vote for Bob Barr or not vote this time.

Well, that's good to know. I am not alone after all. I sent a few donations to the man as well.


I also have no idea what your discussion of dissent and posting Alan Shore rants has to do with the racists and conspiracy nuts that gravitated to Ron Paul. I completely agree with you about dissent and government responses to it, but I don't know what it has to do with racists and conspiracy nuts.

It has to do with the idea that no matter how stupid or despicable a persons views are they have the right to express them...and of course(like you said) to be naturally criticized by their peers as well but it's when govt steps in that everything changes. So all I am trying to say is that even those who are simply ant-war or are against the patriot act are being "listed"(and that is FACT..not conspiracy). To be labeled an enemy combatant on the basis of your political opinion is the real threat imo. This is wandering off into dangerous territory and nobody seems to care. It's the big picture of things.

As for Paul(or any candidate for that matter)distancing himself from racist groups or hate groups...I am sure there are many people here who have certain prejudices and hateful thoughts themselves. Of course nobody is gonna come out and say it because...well...it's just not the right thing to say at the time. All one would have to do is say "I'm (insert whatever label you want) and I support so n so!" and you could easily say X candidate is accepting support from Y group. I guess we can say it's a catch 22??

And that CNN interview is hardly what I call 'taking moral responsibility.' All he did was say that he didn't write or say the stuff that was in a newsletter that carried his name. That interview was exactly what I had in mind when I said he didn't own up and take responsibility for the newsletters.

(crosses arms and leans back) and what would you have wanted him to do in that situation?? I am just curious to know, what would it take to undo the damage? I mean c'mon, he's been apologizing for the same thing for over ten years.

Racism is the least of our problems, especially when our govt it out of control. It's like trying to exterminate rats from sinking ship.

[Red Dog]

It has to do with the idea that no matter how stupid or despicable a persons views are they have the right to express them...


And nobody here is stating otherwise.



(crosses arms and leans back) and what would you have wanted him to do in that situation?? I am just curious to know, what would it take to undo the damage? I mean c'mon, he's been apologizing for the same thing for over ten years.

Racism is the least of our problems, especially when our govt it out of control. It's like trying to exterminate rats from sinking ship.


I wanted him to name some of the writers and explained what prompted him to have them write material in a profitable newsleter bearing his name (in other words, what was his relationship with these writers) instead of ridiculously feigning ignorance and/or willful blindness.

He hasn't been apologizing for it. That's the point. He's never adequately explained it, and he continually tries to downplay their significance.

I certainly wouldn't say racism is the least of our problems. Is it as big a problem as others? Of course not - not today anyhow, but it most certainly an important issue in this country. However, while the message of smaller government, civil liberties, and non-interventionism offered by Paul is, by and large, correct, I think he is lacking good judgment and responsibility as an individual, and I have the ability to separate the man from the libertarian message.

[Hank Ringworm]

He's a fringe candidate and will be treated as such in any circumstance. He's an especially intelligent fringe candidate, but a fringe candidate all the same. I understand that some people, when they say "fringe," mean "nutjob." And I agree.

That's really all that needs to be said about Paul.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

ron paul didn't have a chance in hell to begin with.

[Gcomeau]

No he didn't have a chance but he was right about the dollar's devaluation a year and a half ago. He talked about the dollar among other economic issues here in 1983.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6epCVUppjJM

[awil1026]

Wow, I'm actually pretty depressed after reading some of the posts in this thread regarding where we are as a country. It's a gigantic issue that weighs on me daily. Will our freedoms ever be restored? Or is this country doomed?