I'm in the process of writing (re-writing actually) a piece about Ron Paul's visit to the Seattle area yesterday. Contrary to an account in the Seattle P-I about 300, not 75, energetic supporters came out during the afternoon to hear Paul stump. Not the first, and certainly not the last, instance of sloppy and lazy political reporting by a writer who didn't care enough to stick around longer than 45-minutes to cover the full story.
With that said there is a serious question to ask. Where do Ron Paul supporters go "IF" he loses the Republican nomination or drops out of the race? Honest, realistic answers would be nice.
The Paul campaign has been doing an admirable job of signing up PCO's and Precinct Captains across the country. His website claims to have 16,000 "precinct leaders" nationally. He has attracted a cadre of new, young voters.
If you're a national party this is great news. If everyone sticks around.
Conservative "WINO's" are puling, moaning and threatening not to vote if McCain gets the eventual nod. How about the Paul-bearers? If your guy loses do you stay home? Do you stick with the GOP. Do you vote Democrat? Or Libertarian? If it's Romney or Huckabee would you support them?
McCain is by no means a shoo-in at the moment. Not with a candidate supported by conservatives in Mitt Romney and an actual conservative candidate in Mike Huckabee still manning the guns. However, things are mighty bleak for Paul no matter which way the wind of political fortune blows.
Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani supporters I've met and heard were straight-forward enough to discuss their Plan B options while their guys were still technically in the race. The rest of the GOP is no doubt curious to see whether Ron Paul supporters will step under the canvas of the "big tent party" too.
(Respectful please)
Update: It is Friday and am heading out to be around friends. A nice reminder to all the commenters, fresh and otherwise, there is a topic to this post which isn't just "rah-rah-Ron Paul" but what your own particular political choice will be come November and beyond.
I'm also curious and a bit amazed that there hasn't been one Paul supporter (yet) who has said that they will stick with the GOP and will work to bring change from within.
(Respectful please)
Posted by DonWard at February 01, 2008 04:11 PM | Email ThisI guess they'll all be like Ann Coulter and voting for Hillary.
DW: No. That question can be asked when the time comesn and has been discussed repeatedly below. The topic is about RP. Warned.
Posted by: Cato on February 1, 2008 04:43 PMPaul - 92
Hillary - 62
Obama - 61
Romeny - 33
Huckabee- 33
McCain - 11
If Paul is gone I will take the next one from the top. If they are gone take the next .. etc etc...
Simple...
Posted by: Josh on February 1, 2008 04:57 PMHowever, I have a feeling he will run third party....
Posted by: Paul on February 1, 2008 04:57 PMPaul supporters will go to the same place as Nader supports, no where in particular.
Posted by: Giffy on February 1, 2008 05:11 PMAs far as your question, I'm a recent RP supporter, and I'm having a hard time deciding when November comes "IF" he is not on the ticket. Honestly - I will probably do like I have done in the past - not so much vote for R, but vote against D (with a very bad taste in my mouth)....
Posted by: David on February 1, 2008 05:15 PMsecond, if the GOP does't give Dr. Paul the nod, he'll threaten to go independent and take 14-17 points away from whomever is the GOP nominee. That is as of January polls... therefor, he's in a position to get the GOP nod or the GOP loses in November.... simply put, will the GOP step under our tent?
Posted by: Rhys on February 1, 2008 05:17 PMIf paul gets the nom I vote for Paul, If Mitt Romney gets the nom I write in Paul, If John McCain gets the nom, again, I write in Paul. You get the picture.
When it comes down to it though while I will vote for Ron Paul no matter what, this is my preference:
Hillary v. Mitt - Mitt (reluctantly)
Obama v. Mitt - Mitt (reluctantly)
Hillary v. McCain - McCain (very reluctantly)
Obama v. McCain - Obama (very reluctantly)
Those not voting in the republican party because of the obvious lies from the front runners need to do themselves a favor and write in their candidate. Have your voice heard!
This isn't a vote for prom king. Last I heard we could vote for whomever we wanted. Stop voting on party lines and start voting for principles. These people who claim to have your interests at heart do not...and it's pretty obvious.
Stop the political families...start the Revolution.
Posted by: Alex Rogowski on February 1, 2008 05:24 PMI was at the RP office "christening" on The Ave. and hoofed it over to the HUB and watched 72-year old Ron Paul climb up on a stairwell to address his faithful followers. Best moment of the day was when someone shouted out "FREEDOM" a la Mel Gibson in Braveheart.
Missed the invite-only event because 1) didn't get the location in time and 2) the Paul campaign is about his volunteers, college students etc. and not a bunch of VIPs.
Shoddy reporting by Gregory Roberts, again, is still shoddy reporting.
I'm anti-war and small government, which pushes me towards Paul 1st.
However, I'm an atheist and heavily want to avoid a Rep. theocracy, so I'd go over to the dems side after Paul. McCain and Romney have already promised to elect theocrat judges to erase our 200 years of separation between church and state.
Also, a study by the National Tax Payers union came out and said Paul was the only canidate who would cut money in the budget according to their proposals. If there is going to be debt no matter who is there, I think an honest guy like Obama will make some good changes.
Posted by: josh on February 1, 2008 05:40 PMBottom line, in politics, if you don't show up, you don't matter. Ron Paul shows up, and has done so for almost 20 years total in the US House. He positions himself where he can make the most difference without compromising his principles. If you folks choose to do the same, we would all see a significantly more principled GOP, which would be of great benefit to everyone, and you'd find more allies on more issues than you might imagine.
I understand you asking the question but to be honest, he is SO much different from all the other candidates. He does not want to tinker with the foreign policy he wants to change it. That alone has the greatest impact on our country and he does not need congress to do it.
Maybe we should take all of our members, along with others and push the Republican party out of existence. After all it has forgotten the People and only thinks of Big Business, The Military Industrial Complex, and Big Government. It is they who are out of step with free thought and Liberty.
R3VOLution
Posted by: RT on February 1, 2008 06:00 PMThis is by no means a cult of personality. Frankly if RP had a more powerful personality he would not be so far down in the polls. The RP movement is all about ideas and issues.
A debt based monetary policy and fractional reserve lending are the real evils we face - not some islamic terrorist threat or a Chinese threat. RP just happens to be the only one who understands the problems we are facing.
I may be idealistic, but I do have enough realism to see that RP's chances are not the best...the movement will live on and it will take time, and I hope for our country's sake that it catches on before we the people allow our government to destry our country as we know it.
Posted by: TJF on February 1, 2008 06:08 PMBoth nut jobs!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Norm on February 1, 2008 06:08 PMhttp://KnowBeforeYouVote.com/
Now, I support Ron Paul, and I will write him in for the general election if he drops out of the race. Why? In a word, integrity.
I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate with whom I disagree with on many of the major issues (to me). I don't believe in "tactical" voting or voting against someone. I believe in using my vote to make a statement and let my voice be heard - voting FOR someone - and I'll be damned if I violate my integrity and throw in my support falsely for someone I don't *really* support.
Winners and losers will ultimately be decided on a scale much larger than myself - so why compromise my integrity for such small stakes?
Posted by: Zachariah on February 1, 2008 06:09 PMRonpaul is as popular as the non-hijacked polls say he is - a blip.
He might want to think he's powerful and "take" away the election from the Republicans. More power to him. That's a spoiler, not a serious candidate. And that's the mark of someone who is not a Republican.
Posted by: steve miller on February 1, 2008 06:34 PMIf Ron Paul loses the nomination he does not cease to exist. I assume he won't run on a third party ticket. He will decide on his own vote and will rally the RPR to this decision. His decision will be guided by what he sees as the long term interests of the 'Ron Paul Revolution', which is likely to be renamed along the way.
An Obama/Clinton ticket could coalesce another demographic or two to Paul's recommendation.
Posted by: Haigh on February 1, 2008 06:37 PMThe feelings are becoming mutual.
Posted by: Frank Nappa on February 1, 2008 06:53 PMWould that be a wasted vote? Only if LOADS of other people didn't do it. It wouldn't have the same effect as seeing "Alf" or "Kermit the Frog" winning millions of votes (although I would support them over the warmongering, albeit well-meaning dinks that are on either side of the political spectrum), but it WOULD send a rather loud message to the political establishment that "Change" (patent pending), the buzzword of every single candidate, is actually something we'd literally LIKE here in the U.S.A. I know I can count on my fellow loonies to use a pen.
I've read the criticisms of the Doc's philosophies quite often, and it's kind of like reading a review of a movie; you can tell whether you'd like a film just based on WHO thinks it's horrible and waste of time. His critics, for the most part, just don't "get it". Then again, they think the same of us. Thankfully, we on the Paul side of things have 20-40 years of ludicrous government failure and steadily worsening economic conditions as an example to suggest that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, we might actually be right.
The other side has...umm... 4 people saying almost the same thing with different views on killing fetuses and Huckabee, spouting off "Ron Paul Light" rhetoric with a side of Jesus. I think we're doing OK.
-The Rat
Posted by: Wharf Rat on February 1, 2008 06:57 PMI heard a description of the malady described very well in regard to the Wesley Snipes trial. He fell in with the Tax Revolt true believers. He didn't pay his taxes under the specious theory that only income received from foreign sources was taxable. The prosecutor in the case described it very well:
"In lengthy filings to the IRS, the three defendants claimed they did not legally have to pay taxes, citing an obscure section of the tax code that establishes that foreign sources of income for U.S. citizens are taxable. Protesters take that to mean only foreign sources are taxable, and wages made in this country are not.
"They string unconnected things together in a way that they're just not intended to be strung together," said Chris Rizek, a former Treasury Department lawyer who specialized in tax policy. "And the courts have repeatedly said 'No, that's the wrong interpretation, listen to this.' And they just don't listen.""
That's what's going on with the Paulzis. They have no perspective on their unrealistic belief structure. Their public behavior is abominable. They justify all of the extreme positions and inconsiderate actions with the absolute belief in the pure truth of their positions, and their rather pathetic need to get everyone else to follow them down their garden path.
Smaller government? Great!
More personal responsibility? You bet!
Abolish the Federal Reserve! Huh?
Return to the Gold Standard! You're kidding right?
Secret plot to create the North American Union! I think I'll just back away slowly.
It just doesn't matter where the Paulzis go when their candidate is inevitably ignored by the electorate. They won't move as a block, so they will just become background noise. Loud and obnoxious noise, but noise nonetheless. Even if Paul runs as an indy he will hurt both sides pretty much equally.
It's just a sideshow. Have some popcorn. Give a chuckle or two. Time to move along. The main event is getting ready to start.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on February 1, 2008 07:11 PMWho'da thunk it?
Posted by: Hinton on February 1, 2008 07:13 PMYet ANOTHER description of HillBill. Duffer, you're on a roll today!
Posted by: Hinton on February 1, 2008 07:17 PMThe definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, and expecting different results. Yet, WE are the confused ones? I guess someone forgot to mark on the calendar here that it's "Opposite Day". Darn it all to heck!
Call us deluded. Say we're in denial. Mock our mental capabilities (there's simply no possible way that many of we "Paulzi"'s are intelligent folk who actually understand simple concepts like "money created with NO BACKING = less valuable money"). I guess we must be nuts.
How's that SANITY treating ya, naysayers? Tell me on April 15th... if you can still afford to. Gotta watch out, for I hear lots of houses are getting foreclosed. I wonder why?
Perhaps you should consult a dictionary. Nepotism would imply that they were hired by a relative or friend. The 3 presidents you mentioned were all elected by the people not hired by relatives or friends. If Hillary should win, then she too would have been elected.
In short, fiancial conservatives, constitutional conservatives, and anti-war conservatives can push to minimalize the social conservatives and evangelicals. Really what are they gonna do, vote pro-choice Democrate.
social conservatives do not like to lose while the rest are use to it. However this can't be done by Dr. Paul but maybe by someone like me, Who knows?
Posted by: David Monk on February 1, 2008 07:31 PM
The reason I ask is I know of two indiviuals who were turned
Down for just that reason.
For the record I don't think its
right that the KCGOP is doing this.
As the economy grows worse and more people learn about what is really going on, the ground swell will turn into wave. Patriot Congressmen and Senators will be elected.
Perhaps the next Congress that the President will have to deal with will be a Patriot Congress.
Posted by: Web Smith on February 1, 2008 07:41 PMI was a Thompson supporter. Unfortunatly, I did not have a plan B, as there was none I could accept.
I cannot and will not vote for McCain. I have NEVER not voted, but if McCain was the only name on the ballot, I would stay home.
Nor can I vote for Romney. On the several "litmus test" issues I have, he is on the wrong side of all of them.
Ron Paul has his own problems, in fact I totally disagree with his stance on the war. I can buy on to most of the rest of his platform.
At this point, I may just vote for Paul.
Since Washington will go to the Democrat no matter what I do, it's not that much of a wasted vote.
Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on February 1, 2008 08:22 PMThen we will all be the subjects of Islamists, because we will all be too scared to tell them they are wrong. Ron Paul will be the little man in the Oval Office wondering what happened. He will be confused that all these years his anti-Semitism seemed so right, that Jews really were the scourge of the earth. Now all he can do is pay homage to his new master, the president of Iran.
Great. Just stay home if Paul loses. I don't think it will matter, since in each election so far he has gotten a small percentage of votes. So you supporters are loud, but just not numerous.
Posted by: janet s on February 1, 2008 08:24 PMThe sticker price does not bother you.
3.50 for a gallon of gas is OK with you.
You think we will be the ones hiding in caves.
You can't get enough stupid people into that tent here in Washington State that goodness.
A 3rd Party has a tremendous chance in November...much better chance than Perot.
Unfortunately, Ron Paul is not a real viable candidate...although I agree with his smaller, less costly, less intrusive government positions.
I too disagree with Paul on the War and some of his extreme isolationist ideas. Paul is a good kook....not electable, like Perot was.
Kind of like why Fred never took hold. He has all the ideas, none of the organization.
A third party is just a pathetic way to have a temper tantrum. But, again, no one is there, so I don't care about all you saying that's where you will go. There just aren't that many of you.
Posted by: janet s on February 1, 2008 08:50 PMKind of like why Fred never took hold. He has all the ideas, none of the organization.
A third party is just a pathetic way to have a temper tantrum. But, again, no one is there, so I don't care about all you saying that's where you will go. There just aren't that many of you.
Posted by: janet s on February 1, 2008 08:51 PMI have said in several post here, that as soon as Ron Paul reached 5% in the polls I would consider him a candidate. As of now he has not.
That said, if Ron Paul became the GOP candidate, I would hold my nose and vote for him. But I do not have enough hands to hold my nose to vote for the Socialist Democrat presidential candidates.
Posted by: Ken Howard on February 1, 2008 09:01 PMThe best thing he and his supporters can do is concentrate on Congressional elections. There are already 2 dozen or so Ron Paul Republicans running for Congress, and the number may rise by September. Paul should spend the following two months campaigning for those candidates in their districts, and his supporters should donate and campaign for the same.
Should 10 Ron Paul Republicans be elected, they will form a significant block, with the current Liberty Caucus, in the next Congress; enough to have a balance of power on many issues.
While the beliefs of those who feel terror at the thought of... well, TERRORISTS and believe that we should have our soldiers hang out all around the world to stop the vile forces of "The Toilet" (that's the correct English translation for al quaeda... look it up!) can certainly be understood, it's quite possible that you folks don't really "get" the Doc's position on this. I'll break it down...
First off, he never blamed US for 9/11, but rather our foreign policy (and he was supported in this explanation by that anti-American organization known as the CIA... "blowback" was that silly term they used to explain such.)
As for the term "isolationist" being applied to him, this is also understandable... but incorrect. The man is simply saying that we need to bring our troops back here to solve our domestic problems... which, in case no one has noticed, are QUITE prolific. Been to the border lately?
I know, I know... "We must stop the terrorists over THERE or they'll come HERE!" Gimme a break. (This is coming from a guy with 2 brothers, one of whom served in the region and one who is currently dismantling MINES over there... who both agree with your less than humble commentator's opinion on this matter)
Granted, on 9/11, some evil bastards DID attack us... and they even told us why WAAAAY beforehand. However, this reasoning was NOT because we are "free". They were mad that we were on their turf. Look it up. Doesn't make what they did right, and thankfully, most of the perpetrators (that we know of) are extremely dead. But the Doc knows why they were so angry in the first place; THEY TOLD US. Was Paul the only one listening that day? Anyway, that brings us to Iraq, land of...well..sand and Scuds.
Iraqis want to kill us BECAUSE WE'RE THERE. When the Doc stated that WE would feel the same way if someone came over HERE and tried to "liberate" us, he was mocked. Think long and hard... would you REALLY like it if, say, the French wanted to liberate your state and teach you to eat Croissants properly in the name of peace? No, only one outcome would occur then: dead French people. Just because Iraqis are a different culture than us doesn't mean that they are gonna change their way of life with glee simply because WE think they should. They will shoot at us. Watch the news... they seem to be doing that; even the government wants us gone. Why not let them have their wish?
Back to the point of "isolationism"... the Doc is not an isolationist. He merely doesn't want to spend our money hanging out in other countries when we could spend the money over here. He wants us to have the *gasp* FREEDOM to visit any country we wish, if they'll allow it and promise not to kill us when we go through customs. In other words, "live and let live". He doesn't want America to tell other places how to operate their countries, and refuses to accept orders from anyone but OUR CITIZENS on how to run the country.
That sounds pretty simplistic... and that's the beauty of it. However, if "The Toilet" WERE to threaten America again, after we'd left all those foreign countries alone and limited our dealings with them to trade and travel, do you seriously think that we would not, say, JACK THEM UP?! Our military is superior, and history shows that America doesn't deal well with being threatened or attacked, no matter WHO's inhabiting the office of President. We'd be just fine, and have a lot more money to spend on things like, say... paying back the debts we owe China and such.
I know, I know... the simplicity of this is astounding. If we LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE, they'd do the same for us. And if they decided to mess with us, we would then be authorized to kill them and test out whatever new weapon we created out of boredom. What's sad is that this position is actually disputed by intelligent people!
Anyway, I'm sure there are loads of holes in my attempt to explain the Doc's foreign policy in simplistic terms, but that's the best I can do. Read his damn site if you want to know the WHOLE truth, or don't and keep failing to "get it". You'll have plenty of company... and McCain will appreciate your vote.
Which is why I despise him: a selfish 5 yr old who would rather break his toys than share. Absolutely despicable and proves he's a liar when he calls himself a Republican.
#33 Well that's a find Howdy-doo to hundreds of thousands of new supporters isn't it. ... Maybe we should take all of our members, along with others and push the Republican party out of existence.
Which has been my point about all these "new" supporters. They aren't new CONSERVATIVES, they are liberals in drag, whose point seems to be the destruction of the GOP. Duh.
#74. I have many friends who are Libertarian. When there is no Libertarian candidate, they vote Democrat. I do not see anyone who has said they would vote for Hillary or Obama to be a minus vote in the Republican column. Without Ron Paul in the race, they would vote Democrat anyway.
BINGO! See the above referenced 'Duh'.
Isn't is just amazing all these new SP commenters suddenly crawling out of the woodwork! By golly, it's almost as if a bot has been programmed to search for any mention of RP and sudddenly start to spam en masse: "I'll write him in", "I'll write him in", "I'll write him in", "I'll write him in", "I'll write him in", ... "There's no place like home"... "there's no place like home"... just be sure to click the heels of your ruby slippers 3 times and for heavens sake, hang on to Toto!
Good grief
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 1, 2008 09:26 PMI am pretty sure that Ron Paul will not drop out of the race until at or after the convention. However, I think Huckabee will drop out after super Tuesday. Ron Paul will come to the convention with a lot of supporters, and a lot of delegates, but he will be in third place. I doubt he would agree to serve as VP with either McCain or Romney, unless they adopted a quick exit strategy from Iraq. They will never do that, of course, and I don't suspect they would offer him the VP slot anyway.
Ron Paul will speak at the convention, and his speech will have a galvanizing effect. Many convention goers will hear him for the first time, and will wish that he were the nominee. He will create a hunger within the party loyalists for a more libertarian candidate in four (or eight) years.
I do think that Ron Paul as VP would re-inforce the limited government leg of the Republican coalition, and would do a lot to keep the Ron Paul fans in the GOP. But it won't happen, and I wouldn't vote for McCain or Romney, even if Ron Paul were the VP. VP's do next to nothing.
But the main effect of Ron Paul's candidacy has been to re-energize a disenfranchised conservative interest group. Ron Paul is the nexus around which the freedom movement has re-organized itself. This movement will last long beyond his campaign. Part of it will stay with the R's and work for reform from within. Part will join the Libertarian Party, part will go back to the Democrats, and part will return to the apathetic majority. In any case, the freedom movement is much stronger for the campaign of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has also united the left and the right. Many Republicans found themselves rubbing shoulders with anti-war Democrats in the Ron Paul campaign, and found they had a lot in common. I think that Ron Paul may have done more to heal the partisan divide than any other candidate out there. Kucinich endorsed Ron Paul when he dropped out, and Arlo Guthrie endorsed him. But conservatives like Barry Goldwater Jr., also endorsed him.
Young people realize that government does not work. If the Republicans are smart, they will figure out a way to snare this important segment. The youth are key to success in the future. They know there is no social security for them, and they know the deficits and the debt are on their shoulders. Adopting a more libertarian message is the way for the GOP to do this. I offer this idea with no fear that they will adopt it, and take voters from the LP. The GOP just isn't in a position to do that.
Barry Goldwater went down in flames, but prepared the way for Ronald Reagan. Ron Paul will probably not get the nomination, but could pave the way for the next true limited government president. McCain and Romney are no Reagan.
I'm voting my conscience. That is why I am probably voting Libertarian.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 1, 2008 09:42 PMRon Paul always says this at his campaign speeches, that it is not about him, it is about his message. It is his message of liberty and the Constitution that resonates with his supporters.
If the GOP ran a Barry Goldwater, these supporters would be there for him instead.
It is absurd to say this is a cult of personality. Ron Paul does not have a flashy personality or a polished and persuasive manner of speach like Reagan or MLK jr did. He's a skinny, squeaky little old guy. It is his message that is the important thing.
It is so much deeper than skin deep.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 1, 2008 09:48 PMGosh - Give me a hard question.
Posted by: David Hoff on February 1, 2008 09:52 PMGosh - Give me a hard question.
Posted by: David Hoff on February 1, 2008 09:52 PMPublicbulldog @ 89:
Thanks for posting a WHOLE ENCYCLOPEDIA for a comment! You're the BEST. Ever try posting on the public blog instead of copying and pasting the length of a master's dissertation? No one is going to read that. I didn't, and I won't. I don't care what in heck it's about.
To everyone else: staying home isn't going to help squat. There are many other local, state, and national races that are IMPORTANT for you to vote in, however you vote. If Paul's not on the ballot, write him in, whatever, but please, PLEASE don't NOT vote at all. It's your privelege, and there are thousands upon thousands of people who have died so that you can keep your freedom and the privelege to vote.
I'm not a big fan of Paul by any means, but I do understand his point about the value of the dollar. It really is common sense economics. I do, however, disagree with him on a whole slew of other topics. But hey, if his winning charms are getting people in their forties to register and vote for the first time, then kudos to him.
Posted by: Cydney on February 1, 2008 11:38 PMDon't let the duplicitous media convince you otherwise.
Posted by: Rolland on February 1, 2008 11:45 PMIt's that simple. A lot of people have told me I'm wasting my vote, but what's it worth anyway? I don't get a prize for choosing the winner.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 1, 2008 11:51 PMPblfttt.
Kisses, Ron and his merry band of Paulbearers
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 2, 2008 12:44 AMGreat post! I was at the rally too. And I think you "mis-underestimated" as well, but nice of you to call the media on it. I have a video posted at Life of the Party and if people want to get a real picture, they should look for themselves. My estimate was about 1,000. Someone I spoke with tonight said about 1,600.
As for what I'll be doing "IF" he doesn't get the nomination? Same as I've been doing since 2004. I will remain within the Republican Party and keep working for change and fight the war that TB defines so well at #27. I encourage all Ron Paul rEVOLutionaries to join me and others who are with us and we will get this party back on track! There is no rule that you have to vote for every Republican on the ballot.
At least, not yet. Ron Paul supporters should get involved in the party to make sure we elect more principled Republicans like Ron Paul in every position we can.
Posted by: Michelle on February 2, 2008 01:27 AM
It seems to me that many support Paul because they agree with position on the war and/or see him as a honest and principled person. These are the same type of voters who supported Nader in 2000. They want to vote for someone who they see as a non-politician. Someone who speaks his mind without a political filter and who is willing to stand up for what they believe.
There are also a fair number, at least based on comments by his supporters that buy into various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, the Fed, and the government in general. The Zeitgeist crowd so to speak.
All in all I don;t see many of these people as coming from either party nor staying with either party after the Paul phenomenon dies out. Most are not really libertarians, nor are they necessary conservatives. For the most part they seem to be people who feel left out of the political process and are attracted to candidates like Paul, Kucinich, Nader, etc and harbor dreams of radical shifts in though and social change.
I think Bruce summed this view up best @82 whne he said Ron Paul will speak at the convention, and his speech will have a galvanizing effect. Many convention goers will hear him for the first time, and will wish that he were the nominee. He will create a hunger within the party loyalists for a more libertarian candidate in four (or eight) years.
Essentially if only people hear what X has to say they will be convinced. The problem is that's just not true. There is little public support for the majority of what people like Paul, or Nader, or Kucinich, advocate. Sure there are some issues, like the war in which their position finds support, but people are turned off by the stuff beyond that. Hence why all three don't break 5% in national polls.
But their supporters are anything if not principled and pretty likely to stay that way. Thats not a bad thing, but I think it does mean that for many, voting for a candidate like McCain on Clinton is simply not an option.
Posted by: Giffy on February 2, 2008 08:24 AMThere's no way I am gonna vote for McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Hillary or Obama! Not in this lifetime!!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on February 2, 2008 09:13 AMTo Vote Or Not To Vote; That Is The Question
EXERPTS:
" So, at the end of the day, while a third party can certainly influence an election, it does so not by propelling its candidate or philosophy, but rather by doing the exact opposite. Nader, as a fringe candidate, was too radical to find a home in the party of Al Gore. Instead of settling for some of his views being represented by a Gore presidency, he opted for helping to elect a man who represented none of his views. Four years later, instead of using a "failed" Bush presidency to propel his ideology to new heights, Nader received even fewer votes than 2000 as Bush solidified his hold on the presidency. Perot's vendetta against Bush 41 had similar results. He campaigned on a platform of smaller, more fiscally responsible government, and succeeded in electing Bill Clinton. "
7. The Law of Unintended Consequences
" Non-voters and third party voters have made themselves irrelevant to the electoral process. There is no reason to pursue either of these groups when an active, mainstream voting population already exists. These active voters have needs, wishes and desires -- most pragmatic, some ideological. These voters are a candidate's target, the people who are willing to participate in the system as it currently is, not only when the system is changed to suit their needs. "
" To those who argue that it's all or nothing before they'll give a candidate their support, I guarantee that you'll get nothing. To those who say it's better to lose on principle than win with a flawed candidate, I remind you that losers have no power; and winners have power over you. To those who think that non-voting or voting for a third party will "send a message," I ask you to consider again what I've said above. Your message will not be received. And if it is received, it will not be understood. And if it is understood, the payoff to a candidate is higher if he solicits active voters who participate in the current system than it is to try and bring in disaffected voters who dislike the system or its ideology. "
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 2, 2008 09:17 AM"There's no place like home", "There's no place like home","There's no place like home"... just be sure to click the heels of your ruby slippers 3 times... and for heavens sake, hang on to Toto!
Ron Paul seems to have a lot of the necessary parts.
What Paul needs is for his devout followers to become REPUBLICAN PCO's. There are many PCO positions for the taking. Paul organizers should be running a 2-prong approach FIRST aimed at reforming the Republican Party and if that fails, pave the way for a 3rd Party Organization. Like I said previously, I view Ron Paul as a good kook. However, many of his ideas are HIS ideas and have not been vetted with followers. Paul needs to have both advisers & followers to help him "refine" his message so it is more palatable.
Ron Paul cannot win in 2008. I'm very frustrated with Bush & the neo-Con movement on the size of government & the intrusive role/costly role it has taken in our lives. I'm outraged at the Debt and implications it has for Chinese ownership of our precious assets. Huge mistakes have been made.
Yet I truly believe Paul ought to take the 2-prong approach of 1st reforming the Republican Party while at the same time laying the groundwork for a VIABLE 3rd Party.
My impression of most Paul supporters is that they are lazy. They love posting on Blogs...but when it comes to organizing door-to-door campaign efforts, waaaaay tooooooooo many ardent Paul supporters are no where to be found.
If Paul truly has the breadth of support and enthusiasm supporters claim, you should have been able to go door-to-door to every registered voter by November, 2008.
Instead, too many of you feel you are helping by posting on Blogs and ranting to anyone in earshot. No real organization. No clear concise message. Not enough time to do so for 2008.
Can Paul's primary messages of smaller government & no more US World Police resonate with voters???
You bet.
But supporters need to focus the message and get busy DOOR-TO-DOOR.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 2, 2008 10:01 AMI believe a more simple, common sense message delivered door-to-door will work wonders. Knock off the conspiracy theory bullshit. It drowns out the positive Less Instrusive, Less Costly, Less US World Police message that truly resonates.
The problem is there are so many conspiracy theorists in the Paul camp. it will be hard to rope them in as they like to scream the loudest and make the least sense.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
John Quincy Adams
(American 6th US President (1825-29), eldest son of John Adams, 2nd US president. 1767-1848)
Power corrupts (said Lord Acton) and Ragnar has been corrupted by the desire for power. I think that he would vote for Joseph Stalin if he were the Republican nominee. "My party, right or wrong." This view destroys principle. The quest for power destroys all principles, and all morality. This describes McCain and Hillary to a T.
Your vote can not determine the outcome. You have only one vote, and the margin of victory is almost guaranteed to be greater than one vote. Therefore it makes no sense to vote for a candidate just because he or she has a chance of winning. The only rational reason to vote (if there is one at all) is to make yourself feel good in your private thoughts. That is done most effectively by voting your conscience, not voting in a vain attempt to gain power for your party. If everyone took this view, then the quality of candidates would improve, and America would be a more free, prosperous and just nation.
I love what Andrew Brown said @ 96:
"A lot of people have told me I'm wasting my vote, but what's it worth anyway? I don't get a prize for choosing the winner."
And Ragnar, our votes are our own. We will take them and go home if we please. They are not yours to play with as you choose. Yes, we will indeed take our ball and go home. When the Republicans EARN our votes, then perhaps we will give them. Until then, demanding a vote while abusing our values is not the way to gain our support. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Recently, Ann Coulter said on national TV that if McCain wins, she will actively support Hillary Clinton. (Do a search on YouTube.com if you want to see the clip.) Why? Because McCain is bad for the party. He represents too much compromise with the liberals. Coulter also pointed out that Hillary has been a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. By the way, this is why Ron Paul could beat her. He would get most of the anti-war vote. Ron Paul has more credibility on the economy as well...
But Coulter is also advocating support for the lesser of two evils. That is one more reason I dislike Anne Coulter.
By the way, isn't it interesting how many Ron Paul supporters have the guts to post under their real names? Brave patriots, all.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 2, 2008 11:07 AMAnd "I resemble that remark!" :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 2, 2008 11:09 AMFederal Government ought to be providing no-frills infrastructure and Defense. I do not mind a strong defense but am tired of watching other Country's nitpick at us while WE are providing their defense. Case in point....the useless French. Long ago, I felt we ought to be SELLING Defense...why should America pick up the tab??
Bush loves to give it away! So did Clinton & other prior President's. WHY?? The alternative is for these other Country's to invest in their own defense.
Anyway, we should certainly not be the Earth's Police....we should pick our battles carefully. That said, I support the efforts in Iraq. Fundamentalist Islam, left unchecked, will be much worse than Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.
Infrastructure, defend our borders & trust & empower people. I sound like a Libertarian!
Posted by: Mr Cynical on February 2, 2008 11:48 AMThese people are not going to back McCain or Romney. Fortunately there have never been nearly as many of them as their clamoring would have you believe.
What I'd really like to hear is this: how many "Republicans" backing Ron Paul have voted for Republican candidates in the past? If we looked at breakdown on past voting records for people, I think it would go something like 60% Libertarian, 30% Democrat, and 10% Republican. And I think I'm being generous with the 10%.
I tend to think it is more like this:
40% Libertarian
40% Republican
20% Democrat
I think if Paul goes as a 3rd Party, it would hurt R's more than D's.
My 2 cents.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 2, 2008 12:28 PMIn response, I commented on the purpose of the PCO position, and the role of the PCO as the most active and most loyal representative of the Republican Party in his or her neighborhood. I wrote:
"No loyal and committed Republican Party activist should be excluded from becoming a Republican PCO, regardless of which Republican presidential candidate they support. We should keep in mind the purpose of the Republican PCO. They are the representative of the Republican Party in their neighborhood - advocating and doorbelling for Republican candidates and policies, publicizing Republican events, raising money for Republican candidates and Republican organizations, and helping increase Republican voter turnout so that Republican candidates are elected. These activities are not for everyone, but anyone who is willing to put themselves forward and meet the responsibilities of a PCO, who meets the qualifications of a PCO and goes through the appropriate process to become a PCO should be welcomed.
"I respect the fact that some people, including some Republicans, may want to leave their options open for the general election. Some may want to campaign actively for an independent, Libertarian, or even a Democratic candidate. While I respect their right to do so (and in that sense I don't "hold it against them"), I disagree with them. Also, people who want to keep their options open in this way should consider carefully whether they can faithfully serve as a Republican PCO."
During one of the early GOP presidential debates, Ron Paul alone among the GOP contenders refused to pledge to support the eventual nominee. And as this thread shows, many Ron Paul supporters - I don't think I would be exaggerating to say virtually all Ron Paul supporters - agree with this refusal to back the party's nominee. They're entitled to that opinion, but they are not the ideal people to serve as PCOs.
Even if they serve as PCOs, participate in the caucuses, and nominally (briefly) consider themselves Republicans for the purpose of the caucuses and primaries, there is little reason to expect more than a handful of them to "remain" in the Republican Party for any other purpose. (Of course, generally speaking, I'm in favor of giving people who wish to be Republican PCOs the benefit of the doubt, especially if they present themselves as loyal, committed Republicans and in the absence of evidence to the contrary.)
We have a governor's race in this state, and we have numerous state and federal candidates who will be running in 2008. We need active PCOs - Republican PCOs - to help these candidates gain supporters, raise funds, promote Republican policies, and win elections.
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 2, 2008 02:08 PMListen, I am all for a Libertarian-like candidate. What I am telling you is probably hard ro hear as perhaps you are more of a "WORKER" than a "SHOUTER".
But here is the bottom-line Gene. If Paul had a more focused message & more door-to-door efforts, he would be doing a whole lot better in these primaries. Paul does not have the clear message that will appeal to even close to the majority of voters. November is too close for him to have even a prayer of winning.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Get rid of the kooks Gene....otherwise Paul & his movement will be riddled with Conspiracy Theory garbage....and the real message lost.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 2, 2008 02:10 PMIf Ron Paul himself does not possess even this minimum level of support for the Republican Party, what guidance is he providing his supporters with regard to the level of true support they should provide the Republican Party in the general election?
Whether or not Ron Paul runs as a Libertarian, both the Democrats and the Libertarians will run antiwar candidates in the general election, while the Republicans will run a pro-victory, pro-national defense candidate in the general election.
The pro-victory, pro-military Republican candidate will win the election, with their electoral triumph all the larger in proportion to the degree they also run on a platform of fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and opposition to illegal immigration, amnesty, and open broders. (Because of the issue of illegal immigration, I believe that Romney would be a better candidate than McCain.)
It is not just about the war against Islamic fascism, but overall foreign policy philosophy. During the Reagan administration, Ron Paul was highly critical of the Reagan foreign policy, including on Grenada, Libya, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Over his political career, Ron Paul's foreign policy has been sharply counterposed to the Republican and conservative foreign policy in the tradition of Reagan.
Defeating the Democratic candidate in 2008 (whether Obama or Clinton) is important - we need to block the Clinton/Obama/Pelosi/Kennedy/McDermott agenda of amnesty for illegal immigrants, government-run health care, tax increases, unrestricted abortion, and defeatism and weakness in the war against Islamic fascism.
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 2, 2008 02:40 PMI'm pretty sure that one poster has already clarified this but there were 3 events on Thurdsday. The 75 supporters Roberts is referring to were at the economic speech at the Lake Union Crew Club. Although, I do agree with your assessment of his journalistic capabilties. His article was a regurgitation of the same garbage that has been written about Paul for months by those who wish to undermine an honest man and an honest message. Joel Connelly wrote a much better piece regarding the economic meeting and I commend him for his fair assessment.
Let me address your question you are trying to get at. You want to know who Paul supporters are going to vote for should he not gain the nomination. Also from our conversation at the Hub, and more importantly, I think you would like to know where this movement goes post-election.
I can tell you from all my experience with Paul supporters, and being one myself, that we see him as a shining beacon of truth and honesty within the GOP, the others do not compare. Not one of the current GOP survivors will change the party or take it the direction that Dr. Paul would, we have no options. Should we sell out our values to be loyal to a party that has proceeded to mock us in national publications, laugh at our canidate in debates, and continually ask when we are going third party? A vote for McCain, Romney or Huckabee is only a vote for the GOP establishment which is exactly what we would like to change. You would think that it would be the party changing its platform to accomodate us given their rapidly dwindling numbers, not the other way around. There is no viable alternative for us to go within the GOP outside of Paul. I disagree with your statement labeling Huckabee as a conservative. While he may be socially conservative he is far from politically conservative. Please tell me, what is conservative about raising taxes, paying for healthcare and college for illegal immigrants, and supporting pre-emptive war? I'd also like to add that it should be no suprise that Thompson and Giuliani supporters move their support to either McCain, Romney or Huckabee. There is essentially no difference between any of them. You seem to imply that they should get a pat on the back for being "good little republicans" and sticking with the party.
Also I believe you are bringing up the question way too soon as we spoke about on Thursday as well. Remember our conversation about a brokered convention? Keep in mind that the party has quite possibly never been this divided, anything can happen this time around.
This all eludes to the fact that there is a dogfight going on for control of the GOP as we speak. Progressives and Independents supporting McCain are looking for a foothold with the base but are having a hard time with that to say the least. Romney can not be trusted even to the casual observer and Huckabee represents the religious right that is having trouble garnering support with the younger generation among many other problems with his campaign. This leads us back to Paul and his legion of devoted followers, where do we go? Will the party not accept us because we would like them to follow the constitution, the principles of sound money, reduce the size of government and stay out of entagling foreign alliances? Sounds traditionally Republican to me, it will be up to the party to garner our support by changing the platform. In my opinion the GOP will lose the general election badly if they do not listen to our message and well they should. How will a Paul supporter voting for anyone other than Paul help to show the GOP that it is pushing a dying platform? Isn't that what voting is all about? To help messure the concensus of the general public? Also, please don't tell any of us this will be a wasted vote because the only wasted vote is the one not cast.
This particular Paul supporter has no idea what he is going to do should the good Dr. not capture the GOP nomination. With the war and the economy on the top of my agenda (the two are inter-connected) I see no canidate offering ANY viable solution to our problems other than Paul, only more of the same. The Democrats would end the war but continue spending by taking the foreign policy budget (Obama and Hillary have not pleged to remove troops from Afghanistan or anywhere else other than Iraq by the way) and spending it here at home on social programs. This would only continue our failed "print and pay" monetary policy, encourage dependence on the state, and continue our downward economic spiral.
I guess I will write Paul in if given the chance. I would rather my vote be heard and go for what I believe is right. I have no interest on voting according to party, throwing my vote towards who I think will win, or throwing it against someone I do not want to win. That is how Survivor is played, that is not how you should vote for the leader of the free world.
Personally I plan to take part in as much of the party as they will let me to try to influence the party from within. This movement is not about Dr. Paul, as he will tell you. This is about changing things in the GOP for years to come. Look for many "Ron Paul Republicans" to emerge from the woodwork in the coming years ahead as they will have a grassroots organization at their fingertips that will be the strength of the GOP in the near future. The neo-conservatives and their "Project for a New American Century" will be buried and forgotten as a bunch of over zealous, belligerent morons who clearly never had American's best interests in mind. I for one couldn't see that day soon enough.
Josh
Posted by: Josh on February 2, 2008 03:52 PMHowever, a review of Ron Paul's record as a congressman during the Reagan administration, as an ex-Republican author in 1987, and as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, reveal that this is not the case.
I've posted an article on the Public Blog, entitled "Ron Paul vs. Ronald Reagan" which takes to task some of the key foreign policy errors in Ron Paul's 1987 book "Freedom Under Siege."
This just touches the surface; a close examination of the 1988 Libertarian Party platform would likely reveal many policies and goals quite unacceptable to conservatives, especially social conservatives and national security conservatives. Also, careful research of the Congressional Record and other primary sources of Ron Paul's 1981 to 1985 term in congress would bring to light his complaints about the Reagan administration that led him to quit the Republican Party.
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 2, 2008 04:38 PMVoters should not vote for him, because he needs Congress to enact legislation.
(SO we should what never vote for a person who is bent on doing the right things for citizens & Congress is a unchangable entity?)
Maybe if we start to understand communication between people is so much easier (email, text, blogs etc.,) that citizens will start to feel more powerful in regard to their government.
Lesser countries have gone to the streets to change their corrupt goverments lately.
If they can do it.... I hope to GOD that Americans still have the will to & are not so hypnotised by old school politics as usual.
McCain, Romney, Obama & Clinton all have big holes in their armor when it comes to being bought & paid for.
Think about one thing.
Why is the mainstream media totally avoiding this guy?
It seems that he has the most support from individual contributions & they refuse to list him as a candidate in the New York TImes on their election page (until last week)
CNN & Fox virtually ignored him during all debates. Giuliani got tons of time & he had no support at all.
It all seems a little off- kilter to me.
Clinton = Insider commodity trading & Walmart union busting
Obama = Close ties to mafia figure Tony Rezko (Rezko is his largest individual contributor & paid for Obama's beautiful new house....1 lot away from Rezko's own.)
Mc Cain = Keating Five Savings & Loan scandal & sweetheart real estate deals
Romney = In Bushes & Saudi's pocket | Business as usual.
I think its a very positive step in the right direction for this country to take. Things are never going to be perfect, but they can sure attempt to be alot better.
Lets see his positions:
Getting rid of the IRS (Which mostly pays for a war nobody can explain the benefit of.)
Reducing spending to year 2000 levels.
Making the government smaller & less intrusive in our lives.
(No more secret sneak a peek search warrants where they can go in your house & take a look without telling you)
Allowing more competition in healthcare & prescription drugs so we can actually afford healthcare.
If you think Clinton or Obama have this covered....you are in for a big unhappy surprise. Health care will be mandatory....but guess who pays for that still huge bill. YOU !
Posted by: Jeff on February 2, 2008 06:28 PMVoters should not vote for him, because he needs Congress to enact legislation.
(SO we should what never vote for a person who is bent on doing the right things for citizens & Congress is a unchangable entity?)
Maybe if we start to understand communication between people is so much easier (email, text, blogs etc.,) that citizens will start to feel more powerful in regard to their government.
Lesser countries have gone to the streets to change their corrupt goverments lately.
If they can do it.... I hope to GOD that Americans still have the will to & are not so hypnotised by old school politics as usual.
McCain, Romney, Obama & Clinton all have big holes in their armor when it comes to being bought & paid for.
Think about one thing.
Why is the mainstream media totally avoiding this guy?
It seems that he has the most support from individual contributions & they refuse to list him as a candidate in the New York TImes on their election page (until last week)
CNN & Fox virtually ignored him during all debates. Giuliani got tons of time & he had no support at all.
It all seems a little off- kilter to me.
Clinton = Insider commodity trading & Walmart union busting
Obama = Close ties to mafia figure Tony Rezko (Rezko is his largest individual contributor & paid for Obama's beautiful new house....1 lot away from Rezko's own.)
Mc Cain = Keating Five Savings & Loan scandal & sweetheart real estate deals
Romney = In Bushes & Saudi's pocket | Business as usual.
I think its a very positive step in the right direction for this country to take. Things are never going to be perfect, but they can sure attempt to be alot better.
Lets see his positions:
Getting rid of the IRS (Which mostly pays for a war nobody can explain the benefit of.)
Reducing spending to year 2000 levels.
Making the government smaller & less intrusive in our lives.
(No more secret sneak a peek search warrants where they can go in your house & take a look without telling you)
Allowing more competition in healthcare & prescription drugs so we can actually afford healthcare.
If you think Clinton or Obama have this covered....you are in for a big unhappy surprise. Health care will be mandatory....but guess who pays for that still huge bill. YOU !
Posted by: Jeff on February 2, 2008 06:29 PMSomeone else in this thread spelled it out for you when they stated that Obama was their second choice. That does not surprise me one bit. Ron Paul is peddling radical change. Obama is peddling just plain old change, but he'll be viewed as the next best thing to someone who believes the entire system is broken.
This may help us illuminate foreign policy differences.
Reagan deserves credit for his skill at articulating a free market ideology. He was the right man at the right time, but in no way does he deserve the lions share of the credit for bringing down the Soviet Union. The fall of the Soviet Union was pre-programmed by the flawed DNA of its centrally planned economy. This fatal flaw and its own expansionary ambitions did far more to bring it down than Americas defense budget or Reagans inspiring speeches.
The interventionist foreign policy of the time was justified with the Domino Theory (see wikipedia). The Domino Theory failed to take into account communisms fatal flaw and as a result lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans in Korea and Vietnam. It could be argued that a non-interventionist foreign policy during the last century might have lead to an earlier demise of the Soviet Union, costing far less in lives and treasure. If only Hayak (The Road to Serfdom) and Von Mises had dominated 20th century economics rather than Keynes we might have had a wiser, less costly foreign policy.
I expect todays Islamofascism justification for interventionism will prove to be as wrong headed as the Domino Theory. A strong defense built on non-interventionism is counter intuitive to those of us reared on the Domino Theory, hence McCains strength. But its not counter intuitive to the younger generation who will be handed the $53 Trillion dollar bill for the baby booms retirement and will need to reject todays expensive and anachronistic foreign policy.
But I feel I must return the favor. You are totally deluded if you think a "pro-victory" (i.e. pro permanent or very long-term occupation of Iraq) presidential candidate can win. McCain is on tape as having no problem with a 100 year occupation of Iraq. The vast majority of Americans do not want this. This will be all over the media and the internet at the time of the election. The same thing that caused the Republican defeats in 2006 will crush a pro-Iraq occupation Republican candidate in 2008, and anyone who thinks otherwise is committing an act of delusion equal to the Ron Paul supporters who think that Ron Paul will get the Republican nomination.
In other words, look forward to Hillary winning in 2008. Why? Because the Republicans have alienated the small-government segment of the triad of the Republican coalition that Reagan assembled.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 2, 2008 09:06 PMSorry kiddo, the vast majority of Americans won't even pay attention... which is why they don't complain about troops in Kosovo, troops in Korea, troops in Germany, troops in Cambodia, troops in Vietnam and 130 OTHER countries. Hells bells, the vast majority of Americans AND average American could probably not locate half of these 135 countries on a map.
Here is the list:
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D'lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
This means that the United States has troops in 70 percent of the world's countries.
Bush's Secularist Triumph
The left apologizes for religious fanatics. The president fights them.
By Christopher Hitchens
"....George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he--and the U.S. armed forces--have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries. The "antiwar" faction even recognizes this achievement, if only indirectly, by complaining about the way in which it has infuriated the Islamic religious extremists around the world. But does it accept the apparent corollary--that we should have been pursuing a policy to which the fanatics had no objection?
Secularism is not just a smug attitude. It is a possible way of democratic and pluralistic life that only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state. We are now in the middle of another such war and revolution, and the liberals have gone AWOL. I dare say that there will be a few domestic confrontations down the road, over everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the display of Mosaic tablets in courtrooms and schools. I have spent all my life on the atheist side of this argument, and will brace for more of the same, but I somehow can't hear Robert Ingersoll* or Clarence Darrow being soft and cowardly and evasive if it came to a vicious theocratic challenge that daily threatens us from within and without."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109377/
I have no doubt that many Ron Paul supporters have voted for Democrats in the past. Many of them are new to politics, or have been discouraged or apathetic in the past.
But as for me, I have never cast a vote for a Democrat in a partisan race in my entire life. And I have been voting regularly for about 15 years. In partisan races, I have ONLY voted for Republicans and Libertarians. I'll bet there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters who are like me. We are Ayn Rand fans or Goldwater conservatives.
I voted for George HW Bush (R), Harry Browne (L) and Michael Badnarik (L). I never voted for GW Bush (II). In state and national races I have usually voted for Republicans in races where there were no Libertarians. Lately, I have stopped voting for Republicans who did not rise to my standards, and left a lot of races blank. I have happily voted for libertarian Republicans like Toby Nixon, and for non-partisan libertarians like sitting WA State Supreme Court Judge Richard Sanders, who always attends both State LP and R conventions.
I very much doubt that Ron Paul will run for President on the Libertarian or indy tickets. He will run for his old congressional seat. He knows he can do more good there. But the eventual Libertarian candidate will draw about equally from D's and R's, but will draw more from partisan L's and people who would not have voted for either. The Libertarian candidate will draw about one million votes, and get about 1%. In other words, the Libertarian candidate will probably not alter the outcome of the race.
But the Libertarian candidate will give about one million people a choice and a chance to vote for someone who will make him or her feel good about voting. When the Republicans fail to nominate Ron Paul, I will proudly cast my vote for the partisan Libertarian.
My vote has been the Republicans' to lose, and over the last decade, they have lost it more and more. I am in play. Nominate a true fiscal conservative and I will vote Republican.
Dino Rossi? He is a possibility... A good fiscal conservative. If Ruth Bennett had not been in the race for WA Governor, I might actually have voted for him.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 2, 2008 09:46 PMSurprisingly, it was Bill Clinton who presided over the least growth in government in a long time. It was he who said "the era of big government is over." This may have had something to do with Newt Gingrich, but Bill Clinton was a cleaver political strategist, and his overall effect was not as bad as GW Bush's.
At the time, I thought Bill Clinton was a terrible president. But since I have seen GW Bush, I don't feel that way as much. Now Hillary is quite a bit different. I think she is a total nanny-state socialist, and is the only candidate on the list who would be worse than GW Bush as President, in my opinion.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 2, 2008 10:05 PMI think Reagan was great as well, but he obviously didn't take on the Dems in congress like he should have, he had the power that he could have been more successful than Bush has been at taking on the Dems. However Bush has taken them on and won (granted in the things you don't want him to win at like the war in Iraq, but the point is..) and I think he is a great President, at least he probably has been one of the most power wielding Presidents we've had (for good or bad depending on your view - I think he's done pretty well mostly because his compass is in the right direction).
Clinton can only be considered a success because of Newt. Without Newt and the Republican Congress, Clinton wouldn't have reduced the size of the govt. like he did. Of course it did take Clinton being a weak President in order to do that, so you can't knock that. But the end result is that Newt was running the government there for 2-3 years and we are better for that.
Posted by: Doug on February 2, 2008 11:11 PM(By the way, Libertarian Ruth Bennett "took" more votes from Gregoire than from Rossi. Ruth is an out-of-the-closet lesbian, and only advertised in King County, and did not emphasize fiscal issues. The race wouldn't have been close if she hadn't been in the race. You Republicans owe her a thank-you.)
I think that in a race where only about 100 votes will be cast, say, for a city council race in a very small town or if you are a member of a small council and will be one among 9 votes, then voting for the lesser of evils might make sense. But in any election of the general public where there will be more than about 1,000 votes cast, the odds that the election will be decided by one vote are miniscule. Thus, you should vote your conscience, and not in order to attempt to keep the worst candidate out of office. Your one vote can't do that.
I think my vote made a bigger difference cast for the Libertarian candidate for Governor. And yes, I do feel good about my vote. That's all you can expect of your vote, since it almost certainly can not change the outcome of the election.
It feels good to vote FOR someone instead of against someone. Making you feel good is all your private vote can possibly do. When you "hold your nose" and vote for the lesser of evils, you deprive yourself of even that. If that is what you are going to do, then why bother to vote at all?
The world would be a better place if no one voted for the lesser of evils in big races. We would have higher quality candidates. Evil exists because of the sanction you give it, said Ayn Rand.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 3, 2008 09:57 AMAn excuse and hooey of the greatest magnitude.
It is exactly THAT lousy selfish attitude that accounts for increasingly low voter turnout.
I think it's absolutely disgusting, but unsurprising since Ron Paul is the current undisputed leader of that nasty behavior.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 3, 2008 11:39 AMThanks again, Bree
I am a High School math teacher, and it looks like you may have slept through a class or two.
And here you are, using a pseudonym from Ayn Rand, and decrying selfishness? (i.e. rational self-interest.)
Tell me, have you actually READ any Ayn Rand?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 3, 2008 01:23 PM
In 2004 only 55.3% of voting age population bothered to vote... THAT's mathematics for you.
In 2002 only 37% of voting age population bothered to vote... THAT's mathematics for you.
In 2000 only 51.3% of voting age population bothered to vote... THAT's mathematics for you.
In 1998 only 36.4% of voting age population bothered to vote... THAT's mathematics for you.
And THAT'S what happens when people like you, whether lazy, selfish or just plain uninformed, believe their one little vote doesn't matter.
Your vote certainly DOES matter. It matters to YOU.
Your vote has the power to make you feel bad about yourself or make you feel good. Your vote gives you the chance to advocate your values, or work against your own values. When you vote for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate, you hurt yourself. You advocate something that is, to an all-too-great extent, against your values.
The problem of voter-apathy that you state above is real, but the cause is shoddy thinking, and bad choices in candidates.
If people had high standards for their votes, we would have better candidates.
You, on the other hand, seem to advocate having low standards for your vote. You would vote for Giuliani if he had the Republican nomination and was running against Hillary, wouldn't you? What I am telling you is that this strategy is self-destructive in the long run, and based on bad thinking about what voting is and can do for you and the nation.
And re-read your Ayn Rand, Ragnar. I suggest "The Virtue of Selfishness" for a start. You are working against the very values of your name-sake in "Atlas Shrugged."
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 3, 2008 02:56 PMMac reminds me of Dole ( They should have ran Dole's wife, she was more suited for the job) A 71 year old simply is not able to cope with the demands of the office. The hours are long and the stress is enormous. Hell, most 40 year olds would come out 30 years older in four years. What we need is a young, charismatic champion that can stir the very cockles of the heart. A person that can communicate sound ideas that make sense the next day and the next month. A person that has experience managing people. Where are these people. We can find these people in business. They are successfully operating their companies and know what it takes to sign the front of checks. We are not going to find these people in government feeding on the public teat. And most certainly these leaders are not politicians, attorneys or other liberals that have not made a contribution to society. Ask yourself what did any of the last Democrats every accomplish for themselves. Kerry married rich. His running mate Edwards sued doctors for a handsome living and enriched barbers. Hillary couldn't manage her husband.And her husband couldn't manage little Willie. And all of them promise to take care of the impoverished with your money at every opportunity. You have to be kidding yourself if you think for one moment that any of them give two cents for the poor or middle class. I'll bet that you the reader of this post probably gave more to your charity then they ever did. I automatically suspect anyone disembarking a private jet with a message for the disadvantage. It just doesn't pass the smell test.
Republicans it is time to introduce young (under 40) business people to the joys of running for government positions. It truly is scandalous. Now tell me which Frankenstein to vote for? Who is the best monster in the House of R. I simply will not vote for a Democrat which is nothing more than a shrieking vampire ready to suck out your life forces.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 4, 2008 12:15 AMEveryone has to decide how high or low their standards are, but holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils is the path to feeling bad and reducing the average quality of candidates.
I have cast ballots in which I have voted on the initiatives and cast no votes for any people, because none of them rose to my standards.
In a ballot with ten or more races, I have always been able to find a candidate whom I felt good voting for. But if they think they can have our vote just because they are marginally better than their competitors, then we really have a race to the bottom in terms of candidate quality.
"None of the Above" should be an option to vote for in all races, but until it is, leaving the ballot blank for that race is the next best thing. Doing that at least sends a message to the system that neither candidate was acceptable. Voting for the lesser of two evils tells the system that you support all of the positions of the lesser of two evils candidate.
I know that no one candidate will ever agree with you 100% of the time, but each voter gets to set his or her standards, and setting them low, as in the lesser of two evils, is the thing that has made our choices worse and worse over time.
So, vote your conscience. You will feel better as a result, and in the long term, things will get better. Don't just vote for the lesser of two evils. Your single vote can't keep the more evil candidate out of office anyway.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 4, 2008 09:58 AMThat BS is so disingenuous it makes me want to vomit.
The little lie of ommision is that you and the other loony paulbearers are encouraging as many as possible to do the same. You hide behind your "one little vote", while subverting the election. You decry "lesser of two evils" while your actions support the WORST of all evils.
Christ, you could give Whorrabillarly a run for her money on the phony face front... you certainly are quite good at playing the game out of her book.
Tkae your toys and run along... it's what we've come to expect from you paulbearers, the single most selfish political organization in business today.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 4, 2008 10:53 AMI am not advocating that.
I am however sick to death of the RP-Selfish Syndrome. Can you not see that their agenda of "not voting" is to be able to gloat when WhoribillaryHussein takes the oath? Their's is a selfish dangerous gotcha game of chicken. The smug, 'we'll destroy it if we can't have our way' is despicable. I truly hope that nut loses his congressional seat and flutters away to gynecological obscurity.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 4, 2008 12:41 PMNo intent on my part to kick anyone out, no intent on my part to shun anyone. I'm just saying that some (perhaps most) Ron Paul supporters probably prefer to leave on their own, shunning the rest of us.
There are many libertarian-minded longtime Republican activists who have no intention of leaving the GOP, and who would support the nominees (including Rossi, McKenna, Reichert, and even me) despite disagreements.
But many of the Ron Paul supporters are really in a distinct group - not part of the traditional libertarian segment of the GOP.
Again, there is no reason to kick anyone out, or to shun anyone, etc. I am trying to persuade Ron Paul supporters to have the same approach - willingness to support the eventual nominee, willingness to support other candidates (such as Rossi, McKenna, Reichert, and maybe even me if I run again), willingness to become a permanent part of the party.
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 4, 2008 01:41 PMSteve Beren @ 129, Have you read "A Choice Not an Echo"? Highly reccomended reading for traditional conservatives on foreign policy and the war within the Republican Party.
Posted by: Michelle on February 4, 2008 02:21 PMThe paulbearers have been pretty much unanimous in their contempt for the declared party (of convenience and pragmatism) of their spoiler... er, candidate.
Bruce thinks he gets points for chiding me about Ayn Rand, but Bruce conveniently fails to remember that she also believed in the unvarnished cold hard truth... and especially in recognizing about one's self.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 4, 2008 02:29 PMI will not play that game. I will vote for all appropriate liberty, or none; To compromise and just give up part of it only postpones the day when it will be able to be taken back in full.
I have to assume that you enjoy Rand's works, specifically Atlas Shrugged, because of your pen name; Do you remember when John Galt was being held captive and they wanted to force him to fix their economy?
He offered the solution. It was simple - repeal everything and reduce government to its minimum level to provide for common defense, police, justice, and such. When they said "no, not possible, can we just compromise on this one thing?" he refused to help them.
You want me to compromise and vote for some character that you have deemed best for me - but I'm not interested. Especially when I consider that your crowd has been careful to ridicule people of my mindset for probably a year now; and you want our help?!
As Bruce said, try earning my vote instead of acting entitled to it.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 4, 2008 03:27 PMThe little lie of ommision is that you and the other loony paulbearers are encouraging as many as possible to do the same. You hide behind your "one little vote", while subverting the election. You decry "lesser of two evils" while your actions support the WORST of all evils.
I understand the difference between reality and fiction and in not lying to myself, I honor the values of rand.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 4, 2008 03:48 PMAnd Steve B @ 154, just as the Republican Party is a big tent, the Ron Paul campaign is a big tent. I see four places for Ron Paul supporters to "go" after his campaign is over:
1) Some will stick with the Republican Party, and work to re-inforce the support for limited government within the GOP.
2) Some will join (or re-join) the Libertarian Party.
3) Some will go back to being Independents or even Democrats.
4) Others will go back into the apathetic majority, whence they came.
I have no market research to indicate the likely proportions of these things. From what I have observed at campaign events, I suspect that 4) is the biggest segment. I'd say that a huge proportion of partisan Libertarians are supporting Ron Paul, but Partisan Libertarians usually mean only about .5 to 1% in Presidential elections, so that is only 5% to 10% of Ron Paul's supporters.
Ron Paul supporters tend to be young. They are mixed in their religious views. Lots of them are in high tech, especially computer programming.
When Ron Paul's campaign is over, there will be a bit of a competition between the R's and the L's to pick up the movement. Who will win a higher percentage is an interesting question. I suspect that both parties will win, because the net effect will be to bring apathetic voters to the LP and the GOP. The overall effect of the Ron Paul campaign will be to strengthen the freedom movement, both within the GOP and the LP. Perhaps even within the D's!
But it is nice to feel welcomed, Steve. I think this is a good move on your part. Big-tent strategies tend to win.
But to Ron Paul supporters, the message and the philosophy is all-important. If you nominate McCain, don't expect to snare a lot of us. McCain just doesn't share our values.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 4, 2008 03:54 PMIf Ron Paul doesn't make it the Jim Taggerts, Wesley Mouchs, etc of the world can do what they will and I'll go back to my own business. Paul is the only guy out there now who sparks my interest. I couldn't care less about picking the least objectionable amongst the rest.
Brian
Posted by: Brian on February 4, 2008 03:56 PMFor me, voting for McCain is voting to move east.
I want to go west.
This is a long-term struggle for liberty. In the short term, it might make sense to support the lesser of two evils. But my Ron Paul support sends a more powerful message to the system than would my public McCain support.
If I send a message to the system that libertarian values are popular, then in the long term other candidates will champion my views in order to gain power. But if I sell my vote cheap, or if I give lip-service to the lesser of two evils, then the candidates I get to choose from in the future will continue to stink.
What you neglect, Ragnar, is that this is not a one-time election. It is a repeated game. I am thinking in the long term.
And I find it amazing that you do not know the difference between selfishness and ego-agrandizement on the one hand, and having principles on the other hand. Having principles is supposed to be a GOOD thing, right?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 4, 2008 04:02 PMPerhaps I'm subverting the election as you'd like to see it... but people like you did the same to me, so why should I even consider helping you?
Why do you feel entitled to my vote?
I plan to play ball proudly - that's why I post with my real name! There are many issues that I wholeheartedly agree with the Republican party on, and I will not stop being a Republican over this, although I certainly have something of a libertarian streak as well.
However, telling me that I'm subverting the election because I choose to write someone in instead of blindly supporting the Republican candidate that takes an opposite stance to my views is hardly a great way to keep people involved - although I'm not saying that you personally did this, of course.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 4, 2008 04:31 PMOf course, I also hope the same of Huckabee, Guliani, Thompson, Brownback and Elmer Fudd.
A brokered convention is the only route left for a true conservative to save the GOP.
Fortunately RP will be left out of that as he is not a true conservative and is a member of the GOP for the pubicity it garners him.
I do indeed hope RP and the other assorted losers and cartoon characters take a ton of delegates and I do indeed believe the only hope the GOP has is a brokered convention. I think that would go much farther to waking up sleeping Conservatives than the silly, selfish and meaningless token gesture of throwing away my vote in an angst ridden fit of pique.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 4, 2008 05:08 PMRagnar - Are you just playing with us or did you actually miss the plot that badly?
Nice try.
"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality." {Ayn Rand WMail Issue #48}
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 4, 2008 06:23 PM"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." - From The New Intellectual
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- From "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons"