Skip to comments.Moderates For Ron Paul
Posted on 01/19/2008 1:51:25 PM PST by NonZeroSum
...at least not to the AP:
Romney did better among more conservative voters, while McCain and Paul each got about one in five moderates, who made up about 20 percent of the electorate.
OK, what kind of a "moderate" would vote for Ron Paul? I can't think of any position that he takes that could be considered "moderate." He's what most people would call an extremist*. If someone called themselves a "moderate," or someone whom the AP would call a "moderate" would vote for Ron Paul then the word has no meaning whatsoever.
And frankly, I find people who call themselves "moderate" to generally be people with no firm or coherent political principles whatsoever. All it really means is that they are neither "liberal" or conservative, so the media types find them difficult to pigeonhole. And given the large number of possibilities of positions one can have without being in either of those media pigeonholes, that means that we can't draw any conclusions whatsoever about them. We need a different word for such people than "moderate."
* Not that there's anything wrong with that--so am I, on many issues. I'm just (as I think that Glenn Reynolds once said of himself) an eclectic one.
So jello people support RP.
Meleable? Impressionable? Fickle?
In 1968, a lot of people voted for Gene McCarthy who probably wouldn't have agreed with him on many issues.
RON PAUL!!11!!1! RON PAUL!!11!!1! RON PAUL!!11!!1! RON PAUL!!!!!!1!
I’m under the impression that moderate pretty much means Mush-Minded.
McCain does well with this sector.
A moderate is someone who can’t make up their mind.
They either understand exactly what they are doing, and are fine with being political torpedoes; or, they neither know nor care about the implications of how badly they are shredding the Republican Party — in which case they are merely political loose cannons, OR, behind door number 3, they are saboteurs from the left with explicit marching orders to support now and abandon later in favor of the lefty democrat.
Another possibility is that some "moderates" are simply not very well educated about the issues, and even though they may have done some thinking about them, don't have enough factual information to be able to know where they come down on any given issue.
Why not? Communists, nazis, troofers and others who are dumb as a bag of hammers are drawn to him. Why not “moderates”?
Oh, and the same people who lied and checked “military” on their donation cards could, I suppose, lie and say they are “moderates” instead of commie turds when exit-polled.
I don't claim to be all-knowing, but since I have been studying this and attempting to educate my fellow Americans for over 15 years, I have had plenty of opportunity to witness general ignorance.
One could speculate that if every American knew the truth of certain matters, there would not be nearly so many "moderates".
Ron Paul is a sacrifical annode to keep the naderites and libertarians busy.
>One could speculate that if every American knew the truth of certain matters, there would not be nearly so many “moderates”.<
True. I wish I had the time to investigate and research all the avenues to determine ‘the truth of certain matters.’
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.