Ron Paul Quietly Converting GOP Believers

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.thestreet.com/s/ron-paul-quietly-converting-gop-believers/markets/marketfeatures/10372302.html?puc=_tscana

[Larofeticus]

I like it.

Once we get to the point where people realize the iraq war is not conservative, then we've got everything set.

[Slugg]

There are two 'neo-cons' I work with. They love Ron Paul, but hate the 'cut and run' policy. After some debate (about three weeks to be exact) they came to the conclusion that no matter who gets elected (RP or not) we will not leave Iraq in an unsafe manner. So they stopped looking at that issue altogether. So now their issue with RP is only "He can't win"....but I'm getting them on that too :D

[nullvalu]

good article.

[inibo]

good article.
Very good.

[JaylieWoW]

There are two 'neo-cons' I work with. They love Ron Paul, but hate the 'cut and run' policy. After some debate (about three weeks to be exact) they came to the conclusion that no matter who gets elected (RP or not) we will not leave Iraq in an unsafe manner. So they stopped looking at that issue altogether. So now their issue with RP is only "He can't win"....but I'm getting them on that too :D

This might be slightly off the subject but after reading this and also after talking to a friend of my own, who is not a neo-con I have come to a conclusion about people who still support the war. There are basically 3 different types.

1. Neo-cons.
2. We were justified to go but we messed it up so now we have to stay longer.
3. We were NOT justified in going but as the saying goes, the "cat is out of the bag" so we have to stay and finish the job.

Just something to keep in the back of your head for now. I'm really just thinking out loud at the moment.

[jacmicwag]

The article is a big win for us. Main stream media at least taking RP seriously.

[beermotor]

Yeah I liked the article too.

[Cowlesy]

AWESOME.

Lot's of people in the finance world check out TheStreet.com. I'm not a big fan of Jim Cramer (runs TheStreet.com), but hey one step/article at a time!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Barry Goldwater was A LOT better than Ronald Reagan. I think Reagan was a nice guy, but I just think he's overrated! Is it me or does Ron Paul remind you of a politician you'd see like in the late 19th and early 20th century? I don't say it in a bad way, he's very good.

[Cowlesy]

Author's Blog: http://blogs.thestreet.com/politics/

I wrote him a 1 liner thank-you note for giving Paul a fair shot, and he wrote back:

"I cynically wonder why he doesn't get more support. I wonder if it's because he's honest and can't be bought."

Which may have been caused by seeing a quote on another big financial rag everyone reads called dealbreaker.com

"Ron Paul will never be President because we could never pay enough money to buy his support and thus have him in our pocket.

Those candidates who refuse to submit and support us will never see a nickel of our money, and cannot win without it.

Sorry RuPaul.

Posted by: Sherwood | August 6, 2007 05:59 PM "

[Swmorgan77]

I like it.

Once we get to the point where people realize the iraq war is not conservative, then we've got everything set.

I have been calling in to a local frothing Neo-Con radio host named Kial 2k here in Utah. After going back and forth a bit about whether the authorization was Constitutional, which didn't have him sold, I just said this:

"Look, ok we disagree on the Constitutionality and that's fine, but have you actually read the authorization for Iraq? Did you know that one of the two objectives cited for the authorization is to enforce United Nations resolutions? Do you think its a good idea to make our military an enforcement mechanism of the United Nations??!!!" This is one of the objections that Ron Paul raised about the authorization at the time.

He stopped dead in his tracks and said "that's a REALLY good point".

This guy is a pro-war conservative as you could imagine, though he has spoken out against Bush on illegal immigration, etc.

I suggest this approach when talking to the average Neo-Con. My experience is that they really don't care about the Constitution. It's sad, but that's reality and talking about original intent and Constitutional war is not going to win them over.

However, they still don't like the U.N. and most of them are not aware of the actual wording and nature of the 2002 authorization. This can have a dramatic effect in getting a Neo-Con to question the war.

[FreedomLover]

I have been calling in to a local frothing Neo-Con radio host named Kial 2k here in Utah. After going back and forth a bit about whether the authorization was Constitutional, which didn't have him sold, I just said this:

"Look, ok we disagree on the Constitutionality and that's fine, but have you actually read the authorization for Iraq? Did you know that one of the two objectives cited for the authorization is to enforce United Nations resolutions? Do you think its a good idea to make our military an enforcement mechanism of the United Nations??!!!" This is one of the objections that Ron Paul raised about the authorization at the time.

He stopped dead in his tracks and said "that's a REALLY good point".

This guy is a pro-war conservative as you could imagine, though he has spoken out against Bush on illegal immigration, etc.

I suggest this approach when talking to the average Neo-Con. My experience is that they really don't care about the Constitution. It's sad, but that's reality and talking about original intent and Constitutional war is not going to win them over.

However, they still don't like the U.N. and most of them are not aware of the actual wording and nature of the 2002 authorization. This can have a dramatic effect in getting a Neo-Con to question the war.

That's a great angle to use. Most everyday neocons probably don't pay attention to the wording or the objectives outlined in legislation, but just mention something simple like the UN and they might start thinking.

I'll remember this for later use.

[Perry]

Wow! Nice.

[Cowlesy]

http://blogs.thestreet.com/politics/2007/08/09/rep-ron-paul-2/#comments

Could someone with better knowledge than I have about Paul and returning to some sort of gold backed currency issue a comment?

At least if I recall correctly, Paul doesn't advocate a complete return to the gold standard, but some sort of hybrid of it?

Maybe I am off here.

[DeadheadForPaul]

amazing article. Thank the writer!

[LibertyEagle]

This is a GREAT article.

[LibertyEagle]

Brain fart...if someone can delete my prior post with the blog address (which I entered in my previous previous post) go ahead and delete it.

You can edit it yourself.

[Paulitician]

"He's a firm believer in the Constitution and the separation between church and state."

Hehehe, the latter not what some atheists would think, nor is it exactly what Ron Paul thinks either. S'pose it's accurate to say that he just doesn't like to mix his politics with his religion.

[american.swan]

LINK: http://www.thestreet.com/s/ron-paul-quietly-converting-gop-believers/markets/marketfeatures/10372302.html

ARTICLE:
Ron Paul Quietly Converting GOP Believers [thestreet.com]
By John Fout
TheStreet.com Political Correspondent

Why haven't conservatives leaders embraced their own ideals and come out to support Ron Paul in public?

I pondered this issue in an article in June. I saw Paul as the one second-tier candidate who might have a chance of a breakout from the pack. It turns out I might have got it right. He has remained the most popular GOP candidate on the Internet. This genuine outpouring of support is rivaled only by that for Barack Obama.

Paul remains low in the polls, but his fund-raising suggests he has moved into a separate tier not shared by other small candidates. His campaign has $2.4 million on hand -- more than that of Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.). I spoke with Jesse Benton, Paul's communications director, and he says funding continues to be positive for this quarter.

The other second-tier GOP candidates need to do well in the Iowa Ames Straw Poll to stay in the race. Paul does not. His money and popularity over the Internet have separated him from the others.

Paul's campaign recently scheduled several last-minute events in South Carolina with a few days notice. They drew 450 people at one and over 1,000 at another. Front-runner Rudy Giuliani would love to draw those kinds of crowds.
So Paul has gotten support. Sometimes, his supporters don't always agree. A recent New York Times Magazine piece excerpted the following from a supporter's letter to Paul headquarters:

We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country. And in a Ron Paul Meetup many people will consider each other "wackos" for their beliefs whether that is simply because they're liberal, conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, evangelical Christian, etc. ... We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next "Star Trek" convention or whatever.

The New York Times piece, nevertheless, demonstrates that Paul's support is genuine.

Then, the National Review Online jumped into the Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) debate last week. It seems that NRO feels conflicted about supporting Paul for president, as do many conservatives.

First, John Derbyshire wrote glowingly about all of the conservative credentials of Paul. Derbyshire's final conclusion, however, was that he could not embrace his own dreams and ideals:

Ain't gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!

Then Todd Seavey came to Paul's defense a day later. He sees Paul as the perfect fusion candidate to bring together the fiscal and social conservatives:

Presto! The much-lamented divide between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, which has seemed to be widening lately, is eliminated. As has oft been said, Republicans tend to fare best when they pursue the program (pioneered by National Review and praised last year by Ryan Sager in his book Elephant in the Room) called "fusionism," yoking together social conservatism and the libertarian desire to shrink government.

Paul's positions are also genuine. He has a very consistent voting record, so much so that it occasionally puts him in hot water in his own district. But his ability to stay on message will get him support from an important corner of the Republican Party -- the evangelicals.

The evangelicals in the GOP have experienced fatigue over the last few years. They have heard quite a few promises from Washington but have had precious few real victories to celebrate. How long can they put up with the pandering from the top tier candidates like Giuliani (pro-choice), Mitt Romney (a flip-flopper), and Fred Thompson (a lobbyist).

Paul has always been pro-life. He was also an original supporter of Ronald Reagan in 1976 against Gerald Ford. But you won't hear him discussing his views on religion in public. He's a firm believer in the Constitution and the separation between church and state.

So what is stopping conservatives from coming out and supporting Ron Paul in public? I return to Derbyshire's piece:

If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington's not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater.

Derbyshire basically admits to all of the foibles that have damaged the Republicans over the last seven years -- the lobbyists and scandals. Conservatives have gone from a party of ideals to a party of money, power brokering and winning at all costs.

Unfortunately for the GOP, it has caught up with them. They lost soundly in 2006 and may well repeat it in 2008. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) didn't help their cause last week with another ethics scandal. He's also the senator responsible for an earmark for the "bridge to nowhere."

So why not take a chance on Ron Paul? Even if you can't win, at least conservatives would feel good that they did the right thing by cleaning house. Besides, the last time a conservative got drubbed in a presidential election was Barry Goldwater in 1964. His loss did lead conservatives to their greatest win -- Ronald Reagan.

Thoughts?

[EvoPro]

Great Article, he calls out all the conservatives that say that "Ron Paul is so perfect," but then follow that up with "I can't support him because he won't win." Talk about apathy! They'll come around though.

[inibo]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=11505

Merge?

[american.swan]

yeah merging would be good. (but my original post is more colorful :D)

[idrake]

"He's a firm believer in the Constitution and the separation between church and state."

Hehehe, the latter not what some atheists would think, nor is it exactly what Ron Paul thinks either. S'pose it's accurate to say that he just doesn't like to mix his politics with his religion.

As one of the atheist here, I know what you mean. I've read his writings on this subject and it's one of the biggest fundamental differences Paul and I have. I don't expect him to take God off our currency and out of our pledge (even though neither originally mentioned God).

The important thing is he respects my rights as an atheist. As a country we have bigger issues to worry about.

[ThePieSwindler]

As one of the atheist here, I know what you mean. I've read his writings on this subject and it's one of the biggest fundamental differences Paul and I have. I don't expect him to take God off our currency and out of our pledge (even though neither originally mentioned God).

The important thing is he respects my rights as an atheist. As a country we have bigger issues to worry about.

Dude Ron has clearly stated he believes in separation of church and state, for the states benefit and for the church's benefit. He also believes many ideas behind our constitution have some christian basis in origin. This is true - however, the constitution is not a christian document, and Ron paul has said this - he has said it is simply a document that has many christian principles (not necessarily biblical principles, just ones based from Christian/theist/deist ideas).

Think of it as being similar to the scientific method. A friar, francis bacon, was the first to develop and use the scientific method as we know it today (though he took from greek empiricist thought etc), and he developed it out of a belief in the rationality of the universe as created by God. It doesn't mean the scientific method is a Christian method, but it does have roots from christian thought/principles.