Posted on 11/06/2007 8:10:23 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Rep. Ron Paul, the maverick Texas Republican who is running as an anti-war libertarian in the Republican primary, has come charging out of nowhere to become the leading fundraiser in the brief history of the Internet. Yesterday, his campaign reported a one-day take around $3.8 million, with an average donation of $98.
In one respect, Paul deserves his success. He is a far more articulate and coherent critic of administration policy in Iraq than any candidate on the Democratic side, speaking as he does the frank and plain language of the isolationist. “The fundamental question remains,” he said in 2004, “Why should young Americans be hurt or killed to liberate foreign nations? I have never heard a convincing answer to this question.”
What distinguishes Paul from the anti-war gadfly Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Party is that Kucinich speaks alternately the language of the brainless pacifist — he would form a Department of Peace to replace the Pentagon — and the language of the far from brainless New Left, according to which the sins of the United States are sufficiently grave to deny it any kind of moral legitimacy abroad. Paul’s isolationism is rooted in the age-old American fear that we will be morally compromised by the sins of other nations who do not breathe the same sweet air of American exceptionalism.
At the same time, it seems to surprise many that Paul’s undeniable grassroots effectiveness hasn’t translated to a showing either in national or state polls. That’s surely due to the fact that many if not most of those who are sending money to Paul are not, in fact, Republicans. They are more plausibly among the 3 million or so who voted for Ralph Nader on the Green Party line in 2000, or even among those who rained money down on Howard Dean in the summer of 2003.
Which brings to mind an interesting scenario for 2008: Could Ron Paul run an independent candidacy for president in 2008 on a libertarian/anti-war/anti-monetarist platform? At this moment, it seems plausible, especially if the Democratic party nominates Hillary Clinton, who is bizarrely considered a neocon hawk by the Left netroots.
And despite Paul’s nominal standing as a Republican — and it is nominal — wouldn’t his candidacy draw more from disaffected Democrats, as liberal Republican John Anderson’s 1980 third-party candidacy pulled voters away from Jimmy Carter and not from Ronald Reagan?
I gave money to Ralph Nader last time around to help him stay in the race to hurt the democrats.
All the BS comes down to causing a Democrat “probably Hillary” elected.
So who’s the genius on this thread that can justify that outcome for the sake of Ron Paul or third party worship?
Articulate and Coherent? Has this idiot actually listened to Run Paul during the debates? What a joke. Run Paul did nothing more than ramble and bumble his way through saying nothing at all.
You must remember that “divide and conquer” is an ancient strategy still in use today.
He is,as nader,paul is a looser.
That still qualifies as more articulate and coherent than the democrats.
Point well taken.
He’s seemingly very popular in the Seattle area. That should say something. My opinion, he’s popular with the anti-war left that also finds the high taxing & nannystate nature of the democrats unappealing.
Ron Paul would not pull any of the leading Republican’s votes away. As an independent, he would definately hurt the Democrat candidate. Actually, I think he is hurting them now by 1). pulling money away from Hillary and Obama... and the other dwarfs 2). Showing people that the Republicans are not monolyths. That we have independent thought - even as crazy as some might me.
Nope.
I gathered some signatures to try to get Nader on the ballot in '04.
Is there a time limit or scheduling problem for Ron Paul to register independant if he loses Republican Primaries? Can he do that?
The same thing could also be asked of Al Gore, Michael Bloomberg, and other possible-read possible-POTUS candidates.
That "embarrassment" is currently #1 in fundraising for the 4Q.
Right, the Ron Paul voters I’ve met in Texas are Left-if-not-Socialist types who do not like a single “Republican”.
There is a movement among the Left to discredit Ron Paul not because of any ties to support from White Supremacist groups but because he mentions God ocassionally and says he is against abortion. The Left also doesn’t try to discredit Ron Paul over any “911 truther” claims he or his supporters have made.
The Left is afraid that he could whitle down their numbers.
I don’t think that there is a candidate in this race that Ron Paul would publicly endorse. How many voters who support Ron Paul would vote for another Republican candidate if he doesn’t get the nomination? They exist, but a lot of others have said they will sit it out.
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.