Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 06/16/2008 9:19:33 AM PDT by traviskicks
While most Republicans are likely to consider Rep. Ron Paul of Texas a mere pest, his devoted followers could be a problem for Sen. John McCain in November.
Paul, the GOP congressman with the squeaky voice but with a following of vocal supporters, will not go away. He's suspended his presidential campaign but his crusade goes on.
Paul got into the presidential race with no chance of winning. But his opposition to the war in Iraq, his isolationist foreign policy, and his leave-us-alone views on the domestic front won him faithful supporters during the debates earlier this year.
Based on those performances, the Paul campaign raised millions of dollars, especially on the Internet. As of the end of April, he had pulled in $35 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks these things. It was one of the surprises in this campaign with many twists and turns.
Now Paul's band of followers are planning their own little rump convention in September, when the GOP meets in the Twin Cities to certify McCain. While the real convention meets in St. Paul, the Paul crowd plans a meeting on the University of Minnesota campus in Minneapolis.
The Paul meeting is certain to draw some coverage during the highly programmed main event across the river. The media loves a little controversy amid an orchestrated convention.
Earlier, Paul's website reports a rally next month in Washington. It is called a rally for "freedom, peace, and prosperity."
The Libertarian Party has already endorsed former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, a crusty right winger, as its presidential nominee. But Barr has little following compared with Paul, a previous Libertarian candidate who has not endorsed the Georgian.
Paul has serious disagreements with the nominees of both major parties. It is hard to see him back either McCain or Barack Obama. Paul is certain to win re-election in his congressional district south of Houston. He'll barely have to sweat.
The Republican nightmare is for Paul backers to stay at home in a close presidential election. It could happen, since everything else has this campaign.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
He’s suspended his presidential campaign but his crusade goes on.
Obviously this writer didn’t get the memo about the use of the word “crusade”. That word is to be avoided because it can be offensive to certain people. Bush was raked over the coals for once referring to the war on terror as a crusade. He hasn’t called it a crusade ever since.
Maybe political correctness hasn’t completely taken over the MSM.
Yes - unless he suddenly gets some mental help.
Brings to mind Ralph Nader. I wonder what percentage of the left will go with him instead of Obama?
I don’t think Paul can bring a whole lot of voters to Barr, but in an election like this, “not a whole lot” can still be critical. I still think that Paul’s active courting of the anti-war left got him more votes than his libertarian stands in the Republican primaries, but even though I think Barr and the LP have roughly the same platform on the war that Paul did (i.e., cut and run now), I can’t see it translating over.
If Paul himself had decided to throw it all away, quit the Republicans, possibly ditch his House seat, and run for either LP nominee or as an independent...then that would be trouble, and he’d do much better than Barr IMO. But considering the profile of so many of Paul’s supporters, I really don’t know whether he’d pull more votes from McCain or Obama in that case!
}:-)4
Very few, if any. Paul's supporters are not deranged anti-war nutjobs, despite what you hear in both the liberal media and from RNC bootlickers on blogs.
These people either have never participated in politics before or are fed up with the GOP ignoring fiscal and libertarian conservatism. I predict many will write in Paul's name or stay home, and that will be the fault of Republicans, not Paul.
Does the Libertarian Party accept federal funds for its campaigns?
And then the Beltway GOP power brokers and other moderates will, in arrogant fashion, blame defeat on the conservatives and fail to learn yet once again.
A “mere pest”?
Well ok, sure, if you’re a traitor to the Constitution and an enemy of the conservative cause I guess you might see it that way.
I’ll try getting away to St. Paul for the convention(s). And since I’m not much for associating with spineless RINOs and neocon scum, there’s not much debating which one I’ll attend. I’ll gladly go there to stand with Paul.
I live in Texas and whether we are democrat or republican or independent....whether we agree with Paul or don’t agree with hm or agree with him on some issues....Ron Paul is highly respected here. We like him, whether we agree with him or not.
let freedom Ping!
True, if your primary reason to vote for Ron Paul (as I did in the Primary Election) was his stand on the Iraq War then unfortunately your only effective choice now becomes Obama.
Excellent points.
I'm with you there if that would prevent us from invading sovereign nations by presidential decree without congress first declaring war.
And you were hanging out in the parking lot because?
Ron Paul is out there because there is some government contract he wants.
He ran in order to stop nafta in order for his little border airport to be a pivitol location in a nafta free environment.
Ross Perot is for Ross Perot.
remember Buchannan’s absurd run under the reform party?
I remember reading on Horowitz’s Frontpagemag.com how the Reform party had become an extension of teh CommunistpartyUSA.
If Perott was serious he would be using the angst of the democrat party this time.
same old song.
Not believable.
From what I have read it seems like Paul supporters are divided between Barr and Baldwin with many still unsure which way they will go still. It would be nice if they could sort it out quickly and rally behind one of the two, becase this is the first election in a very long time where a third party candidate has a chance to contend.
I cannot see how any Paul supporter would the turn and support either McCain or Obama. Paul is a libertarian, McCain and Obama are statists - they are polar opposites.
Most Republicans have never heard Ron Paul speak or read anything he's written, thanks in part to the rigid control the RNC and state Republican organizations exercise over their official meetings.
Why does the author omit the very obvious fact that Ron Paul and his supporters have been systematically excluded from debates, conventions and Republican-sponsored events in the interest of "party unity?"
. . his isolationist foreign policy . .
One more journalist who needs some remedial education. Ron Paul is not an isolationist by any stretch.
Now Paul's band of followers are planning their own little rump convention in September, when the GOP meets in the Twin Cities to certify McCain. While the real convention meets in St. Paul, the Paul crowd plans a meeting on the University of Minnesota campus in Minneapolis.
A little editorial sleight-of-hand here would make the reader think Paul's people are staging their own "rump convention." Why?
Could it be that the Republican bigwigs who are planning the coronation of Juan McCain do not plan under any circumstances to give the podium to Rep. Paul or any of his delegates at the convention? This had been suspected for quite some time, and the Paul campaign's announcing plans a couple of weeks ago for a rally across the river in Minneapolis seemed to confirm it. A good reporter would want to find out the circumstances that led to this "rump convention" before rushing into print, wouldn't he?
The Paul meeting is certain to draw some coverage during the highly programmed main event across the river. The media loves a little controversy amid an orchestrated convention.
The only paragraph in this piece I can fully agree with.
OK, I agree that Ron Paul is kind of a burr under the saddle for establishment Republicans, and that his campaign was doomed from the start, not for lack of money or organization but because of what's known as part loyalty. It's the same kind of thinking as "my country, right or wrong," leaving out the "wrong."
However, I can't go along with those who voice concern that the votes of Ron Paul supporters--many of whom are Gen-Xers who never bothered to vote until this year--will be the difference between electing Obama and McCain next November. It won't even be that close.
The major issues -- undeclared "pre-emptive" wars against countries on the other side of the world, the related destruction of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, centralization of all government power in Washington, DC, Constitution be damned -- that Ron Paul tried, unsuccessfully, to enlighten the Republican rank-and-file on in the primaries will continue to plague the Republicans in the general election and beyond.
Republicans didn't get it, or didn't hear it, and seemed to think continuing the Bush administration another four years would be an easy sell, despite all the negatives reflected in the various opinion polls.
Not that the Democrats are any better, mind you. They are expert at saying what people want to hear, but are devoted pragmatists once they get into office. Their principles are all over the map because they really have none.
Republicans will argue that Obama is the next thing to a socialist, of course, using this year's variation on the scare tactics that worked in the past. It's to energize the base, which will need some energizing after nominating a candidate like McCain. The unaffiliated, and especially the Hillary-or-bust Democrats, won't be persuaded by this ploy.
Republicans are on a downhill course to defeat in November, not because of Ron Paul and his followers but rather due to the horrendous performance of the Bush administration.
Get ready for it.
You're right in a way. Paul and Obama believe that we shouldn't be fighting terrorism overseas, but should be fighting it on U.S. soil instead. I don't agree.
The only terrorists we are truly positive about all came from Saudi Arabia. It is fairly obvious to the whole friggin’ world we lost our directions.
RON PAUL 2012
So Ron Paul thinks we should invade Saudi Arabia then? I didn’t think he was that dumb.
Instead of strip searching, they should maybe spray them with some quality psychotropic drugs.
Do you feel that way about all conservatives, or just him?
Actually, Ron Paul is aware that Osama bin Laden was offering to fight against Saddam Hussein until we went into Saudi Arabia.
Nutcase, obviously.
What a moron. Doesn't he realize this nation wants to be sheep? What's even more idiotic of him is to think the Republican party is still in favor of these things!
:-(
Exactly. He's a non-interventionist, but is strongly against isolationism.
That'll leave a mark! :-)
"Now see here Larry, we were separated at birth. Both of us are as sane as stump."
See here Larry, Ron Paul and I are the same person, have you every seen us together Larry? Think about it Larry, Ross Perot, Ron Paul, RP, RP. We’re one in the same Larry.
Paul would first have to be a conservative.
Nonsense. We weren’t in Saudi Arabia in any meaningful sense before 1991. Our footprint there for Gulf War 1 was small and shortlived.
We’re not there anymore in any meaningful sense. .
And his first bombing attack was in 1992. Thank you for popinting out his response to Crown Prince Sultan using non-Muslim troops.
We’re not there anymore in any meaningful sense.
Thank you for calling our troops in the Muslim world "meaningless." I'm sure they appreciate it.
Please post in English.
Ah, you are in SF. Explains you trolling parking lots.
Well, in a sense, you're right that he's too far to the conservative side to be called "conservative" if you use most of today's conservatives as a standard.
I couldn’t agree more. The Republican Party has completely turned its back on libertarian conservatism and limited government. Republicans controlled EVERYTHING for a a number of years and government only got bigger. Massive increase in the National Debt, huge increases in education and Medicare spending, hiring mercenaries/contractors at pay rates far higher than our soldiers (of which I am one), not enforcing the border which makes anything we do abroad meaningless, etc.
The same GOP that stabbed conservative principles in the back?
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.