Ron Paul’s Impact on The Election (Semi Barf Alert)

Reuters ^ | July 24, 2007 | Ron Chusid

[2ndDivisionVet]

Yesterday I looked at the Ron Paul phenomenon as an expression of the anti-big government sentiments among some people in each of the major parties. Such voters have limited options among the other candidates this year. While the Paul supporters commenting vigorously disagreed, I also expressed the belief that Paul cannot win the Republican nomination. What if I am right? What will his supporters do?

It is hard to see Paul supporters being loyal Republicans and backing their party’s winner–which should be a matter of concern for the Republicans. If I was a GOP leader I’d be questioning Paul’s loyalty to the party and pressing him for a pledge to support the nominee and encourage his supporters to do the same should he lose. Of course it is questionable as to how many votes he could deliver to the authoritarian war mongers who dominate the Republican field should he be willing to do so.

I don’t even know that Paul would agree to support another Republican candidate. Would Paul jump ship and run as a Libertarian again? If not, will the Libertarian Party candidate benefit from what Paul has done? That will depend partially upon the candidate, but the LP will have the problem that many people are reluctant to vote for a third party which has no real chance of winning.

If they are reluctant to support a minor party, will many Paul supporters back the Democratic winner as the best shot of having an anti-war candidate win? That will depend a lot on the nominee. Richardson already has some libertarian support but remains a real long shot. Edwards will have a real tough time attracting any libertarian support, between his previous support for he war and Patriot Act when in the Senate to his current populist economic policies. Clinton will also have problems here, but I could see Obama managing to find a way to bridge liberal ideas with libertarian ideals as he has shown he is willing to avoid pandering to traditional Democratic special interests.

While I don’t think Ron Paul has any real chance of winning the Republican nomination, his candidacy is doing far better than might have been expected initially, and he very well may have a lasting impact on the race. Between the out right libertarians, as well as the more traditional conservatives who are becoming increasingly outraged by the current Republican leadership, there will be a number of Republicans looking for an alternative. Whether the Democrats can become a majority party will depend partially on whether they can attract a portion of these voters. To do so will mean not only opposing the war but showing they recognize that the 2000’s are not the 1930’s and their old New Deal coalition is long gone.

[CatholicEagle]

I agree. The mocking is pretty bad but so are the distortions and outright lies. It’s the cacaphony of parrots repeating lines from Limbaugh and Hannity.

I offer the following:

http://www.house.gov/paul/

Finally, even if Paul calls for an investigation into the 911 WTC tragedy, it should be a no brainer for the government to clear itself and lay waste to the conspiracists. You know, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear...seems to me Clinton would be on the losing end of any investigation.

[Digger]

They're going to stay home or vote 3rd party as they always do since they feel they're not represented by either the GOP or the Democrats

Do you think that 90% of the people on FR are represented by this corrupt "Two-Party Cartel"? Until we eliminate this cartel there is really no need for discussing politics. We must vote for the least puke, which is a goofball republican, as to avoid shear disaster. This is what the political ramifications are. Definitely the least of 2 evils.

[narses]

He is nuts.

[gov_bean_ counter]

In addition, I’e set aside Steven Covey’s “Principle Centered Leadership” and “The Art of War” to read on the way over. I should be one confused little sh!t by the time I arrive. :)

[jrooney]

;) - That is a good idea to read, to keep your mind occupied. You will feel better for doing it.

[George W. Bush]

I would like smaller federal government on the radar this election season.

After the vast expansions of government under LBJ Junior President Bush, I'd think conservatives would want their candidates at least forced to talk about it. And guns and many other issues that bring voters to our party and keep them voting for us.

I think it's good to have Dr. Paul on the stage to keep them honest and make them address those issues.

[CatholicEagle]

You really must read the Constitution someday; you know, that thing that Bush said was only a g——m piece of paper.

Criminal laws are under the jurisdiction of the states, not Washington, D.C. and numerous states have enacted their own fteal homicide laws. Should Washington enact such a law and should the Supreme Court uphold it and should the Democrats later repeal it, the ability to enact new similar laws then is stripped away from the states, just as Roe v. Wade wiped out the abortion laws of all 50 states.

[traviskicks]

“He is nuts.”

Do you really think this is ‘nuts’?:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1779543/posts

[jrooney]

Since you are a believer in our dear Lord, let’s see you explain that to him when you meet him, or are you just a catholic in name and not teaching? It is our responsibility at all levels of government to protect the unborn.

[CatholicEagle]

Agreed that the protection of life is the responsibility of all levels of government, but to do that you MUST pass a constitutional amendment. By passing a federal fetal homicide law, you set the stage to make the protection of life more difficult and less certain. That’s exactly what happened with Roe v. Wade 50+ million dead babies ago.

[narses]

You want nuts - here you are!

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

[ontap]

What he is is irrelevant like most libertarians who show up every four years to harp and then sit on their thumbs and sulk when they they don’t get everything their way. Libertarians ad nothing to the Republican party.

[new yorker 77]

Ron Paul is the perfect example of why terrorists think they can get away with killing Americans.

He is a feckless wimp who has allied himself with Osama Bin Laden.

Ron Paul is a traitor to his country.

[CJ Wolf]

From the same source:

Paul scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America’s mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women’s health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization’s preferred position.

[traviskicks]

When you compare the article I posted with the article you posted, it illustrates our respective priorities, which we apparently differ on. I don’t agree with everything RP says, but I agree with him on more than any other politician. I think our own government is and has proven to be a greater threat to our liberty and way of life than any stone age islamic terrorist.

[narses]

The idea that the US government is the enemy and that Islam is not is, well, NUTS.

[narses]

Choice Statement:
Rep. Ron Paul declined to provide NARAL Pro-Choice America with a statement on choice.

Voting Record:
Rep. Paul has an anti-choice record. He received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.

2006:	65 percent
2005:	75 percent
2004:	65 percent
2003:	0 percent
2002:	20 percent
2001:	35 percent

Click here for all of Rep. Paul's scores from 1997-2006.

Public Statements about Choice:
A selection of Rep. Paul's public statements on this issue is below.

"Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion is simply not a constitutional issue…."

[Ron Paul, Federalizing Social Policy, Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk – A Weekly Column, January 30, 2006, http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst013006.htm (accessed May 9, 2007).]

[cva66snipe]

I think it's good to have Dr. Paul on the stage to keep them honest and make them address those issues.

Without Ron Paul there will be no serious addressing of issues within the GOP that's a for certain.

[ValenB4]

"The GOP will embrace liberal turds like Giuliani or Specter but they'll kick the guy who actually carries out their beliefs to the curb.'

The GOP establishment has been doing that for awhile. In 1976 with supporting Ford over Reagan. And pressuring the Reagan campaign to accept Bush as VP in 1980. This year is nothing new.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Libertarians ad owe nothing to the Republican party.

Remember that when you come begging for our votes, and try to blame us for the fact that you're a minority party.