Ron Paul Has Won

PatrickRuffini.com ^ | November 26th, 2007 | Patrick Ruffini

[rob777]

I find the comparison to Pat Robertson's campaign interesting. That campaign was responsible for bringing a lot of politically active Christians into the GOP. Will Ron's campaign do the same for limited government conservatives? While I do not support his campaign this election cycle, the long term political impact of the movenevt he has inspired is of intense interest to me.

[Petronski]

In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party.

Yes, but it's not a positive image.

[Cat loving Texan]

I wish your analysis were correct and Ron Paul would draw attention to libertarian principles but his attention has been mainly fueled by his anti-war message. Far more Democrats than libertarians are coming to his support.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I think he has raised the profile. I’m not sure he has raised it in a positive direction.

[reagan_fanatic]

[lormand]

Masterpiece!

[Mr. Mojo]

In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party.

Yeah, but that profile isn't complimentary. His campaign has done more damage to libertarianism than anything else by connecting it with surrendering in the WOT and appeasement of Islamists rather than what that political movement should be known for -- limited gov't advocacy.

[woofie]

lib•er•tar•ian

n. 1. a person who believes in the doctrine of the freedom of the will

2. a person who believes in full individual freedom of thought, expression and action

3. a freewheeling rebel who hates wiretaps, loves Ron Paul and is redirecting politics

Libertarians are for the Freedom of all but the Ragheads in faraway places with hard to pronounce names

[traditional1]

"If you seek to destroy a free society, we will destroy you. "

Destroy? The only Defense the Liberatarian uses is an all-out frontal assault with HOT AIR weaponry.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s of interest to me as well. The problem as I see it is this. Those that agree with Paul’s decent views stand a very good chance of being blackballed as simply another fellow traveler of Paul.

Paul presidential campaign has done nothing for true conservatives as far as I am concerned. No, instead he has given the press grounds to dismiss those that support smaller government, less taxation and on and on...

[Baladas]

His negatives are in the mid-50s among likely voters in Iowa - the more Paul is known, the more he is disliked by his own base.

[DoingTheFrenchMistake]

I think the one thing that Ron Paul running will guarantee is a Democratic victory. Much like Ralph Nadar’s running guaranteed Bush’s election by drawing off votes from then vice-president Al whats his name.

[stimpy17]

(gad) As long as I don’t have to see the “VOTE RON PAUL” threads any more. Da freak.

[rob777]

"His campaign has done more damage to libertarianism than anything else by connecting it with surrendering in the WOT and appeasement of Islamists rather than what that political movement should be known for -- limited gov't advocacy."


That has been my concern ever since it was announced that he was thinking of running for President. At first, I ignored the campaign for that very reason. Lately, I have been curious as to the make up of the movement he is attracting, so I did some research. Contrary to the standard assumption on this site that most of his support comes from the antiwar left, I have found that he draws a lot of support from those who believe that the GOP has betrayed the cause of limited government. Financially, he seems to be getting some support from the investment community, particularly the hard money investors. I have been desperately looking for a sign that the limited government movement still has some life within the GOP. The story of the Ron Paul campaign is going to be in what becomes of the movement he inspired after the campaign is over.

[sageb1]

Jackie Mason Rebuts Ron Paul Supporters

[ctdonath2]

Didja read the article?

It starts out observing that Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee - so don’t go into how bad it would be if he is.
The point of the article is that he’s getting rousing the libertarian subset of the Republican party - and that it’s a force to be reconed with.

Ron Paul won’t be the nominee. We know that. Nobody seriously contends he will.
HOWEVER, he’s making it clear that there’s a whole lotta Republicans that agree with him on a lot of issues, and while he won’t “win” by being the nominee (much less POTUS), he has already “won” by garnering lots of support and not being easily dismissed.

There’s a lot of us who, while perhaps put off by some of his comments, agree with him on a LOT of points which other contenders are missing.
Don’t underestimate the influence of the libertarian branch of the Republican party; a successful candidate won’t.

[Sonora]

But, why post this article here?

[rob777]

Ping

[mvpel]

... imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe.

We were defending ourselves in Bosnia? We were defending ourselves in Somalia? Are we defending ourselves in Djibouti, Ghana? Or in the Philipines, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Uganda, Denmark, Cyprus, Germany, Honduras, and Spain?

[Prime Rib Minister]

Ron Paul is rousing the moonbat subset of the Republican party. True constitutionalist as well as true conservatives think his stances are bunk. Republicans fund him in the hopes he runs as a 3rd party candidate and in doing so pulls votes from the Democrats- not because his message “resonates.” He’s given libertarianism a black-eye.