What does Ron have that Peroutka and Badnarik lacked?

[Starks]

Is it because Ron did the smart thing and ran as a Republican?

[steph3n]

probably so.

[anewvoice]

endorsements from Badnarik and Peroutka? Really though, each race is a step forward and builds on previous steps.

[tekkierich]

Ron Paul has a voting record and 10 winning congressional campaigns behind him.

He is simply more qualified.

[starless]

An "R" next to his name.

[steph3n]

grassroots!

[noxagol]

The fact that he is a republican, plain and simple.

[anewvoice]

5 million dollars!

[risiusj]

teh internets!

[klamath]

The disintergration of trust in the GOP by the rank in file.

[stevedasbach]

He ran as a Republican and is a sitting, 10-term Republican Congressman -- thus he was included in the debates.

His performances in the debates were YouTubed and fueled the grassroots explosion.

He has a hot issue where the rest of the field is on one side and he & the American people are on the other.

He has the experience and judgement Americans look for when selecting a President.

He knows how to win elections and had a pre-existing national base to draw support from.

[Original_Intent]

It's not "just" that he is a republican although that helps.

He also has a 20 year consistent voting record.

He has been sending out "Freedom Report" newsletters to people all over the country for years. I think this helped seed his grassroots support.

I think there are a number of factors, and I also think the time is right with what has happened in our government in the last 20 years and esp in the last 4 years.

[LibertyEagle]

Is it because Ron did the smart thing and ran as a Republican?

Ron IS a Republican. He has been one for more than twenty years. He has the very same principles as traditional conservatives have.

Which is one of the reasons he is doing much better than the other people you mentioned.

[jj111]

Ron Paul has everything going for him except the mainstream media and Republican leadership.

1. Unmatched political experience. Perhaps the best Congressman in US history, and 10 terms to boot.
2. Great personal characteristics: polished delivery, tremendous intelligence, no scandals, happily married, doctor delivered 4000 babies, expert on the Constitution.
3. In the real political world: a Republican 10 term congressman running for Republican nomination.
4. In the televised debates.
5. Perfect timing: people are sick of Bush, sick of the war, sick of the post 9/11 police state, people are waking up and fed up.
6. Perfect timing in terms of competition: no other GOP is a true conservative, Hillary has high disapproval ratings and voted for Iraq War and Patriot Act, Obama is inexperienced and flawed in many ways. All the opposition have major flaws.
7. Internet is more developed. YouTube, etc. has made this campaign grow through the Internet.

All these and more. The perfect storm. The planets are all alligned. Now it is up to us the supporters to make this happen in the next 90 days and we have a lot of work cut out for us.

[RP08]

Broadband Internet widely available.

And, running in a major party (Republican).

[constituent]

street cred.

badnarik is a billionaire right?

[manuel]

As much as I hate to admit it, it's probably the Republican thing.

[Man from La Mancha]

I sincerely hope he can succeed in the republican party but there are 2 parties out there willing to run him in every state and with more than a $100 million he could still kick ass.:)

.

[JMann]

Ron Paul is a ten time US Congressman. Badnarik had tax issues and if memory serves and has never held public office. Idea people like Harry Browne are all well and good but have no experience holding elective office and therefor would never get my vote for President of the United States.

[kylejack]

Is it because Ron did the smart thing and ran as a Republican?
The same reason Ron took only 500,000 votes in 1988...people aren't ready for a third party. An (R) or a (D) is very powerful.

[angelatc]

Is it because Ron did the smart thing and ran as a Republican?

Yep.

[kylejack]

Frankly I wish we had a more pure libertarian that was viable, but Ron is the best we have right now, so I'll roll with it and do all I can for him.

[atilla]

30 years practical political experience makes him more credible

[mconder]

20 years in office at the federal level within one of the two major parties and near perfect consistency during that period.

[sunny]

street cred.

badnarik is a billionaire right?

wrong, badnarik is NOT a billionaire......i know they guy and he really isn't.

[hopeforamerica]

Hate to say it, but timing! The war, economy, years of lying politicians, etc.... America is finally waking up and ready for this message. We've had to feel the pain first.

[ARealConservative]

Dr. Paul's writings have bee a source of inspiration on the web for the disenfranchised conservative for over a decade.

He truly is a mentor and teacher for many of us.

With that said, I think a more skilled orator could achieve what Dr. Paul has been able to achieve.

[ConstitutionGal]

Dr. Paul came into this battle already having a HUGE following on the Internet. Many of us have been familiar with him and his writings for years and have been telling others that he would be our dream candidate for POTUS. Now our dream is finally coming true!!

His voting record and the R behind his name have allowed him to participate in the debates and both were BIG factors lacking with both Peroutka (whom I voted for last time) and Badnarik.

[Shink]

Is it because Ron did the smart thing and ran as a Republican?

He's better at calming those who are alarmed at the ideas of freedom. I speak only in Badnarik's case, don't know much about the other guy. He also has a LONG voting record to give him shitloads of credibility.

[amakris]

A drivers license.

[kylejack]

A drivers license.

Haha, good one.

[drednot]

The real value of of the R is getting in the debates.

Getting on TV and being the only anti-war candidate going up against Rudy & co: priceless.

But as the most famous libertarian in Congress he's also had a passionate base to start with.

Also, lots of folks have you-tubed their speeches, but Ron's are on Capitol Hill which adds gravity you can't buy.

[OceanMachine7]

A drivers license.


LOL

[winston_blade]

Maybe because running as either a R or D is the only way to win.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Is it because Ron did the smart thing and ran as a Republican?

The Republican Party.

[thehittgirl]

Is it because Ron did the smart thing and ran as a Republican?

I believe this. Many are still too sleepy to take an interest in a 3rd party. Hubby voted for Buchanan and sleepy me, was not interested in voting for a 3rd party candidate. I learned my lesson.

[Duckman]

I think Ron Paul could have won in 1988 if he had been in nationally televised debates. The frequency of debates this election cycle and the fact Ron Paul is included in them is the KEY FACTOR causing Ron Paul's success. Our grassroots efforts are also very important, but without Ron Paul's presence in these frequently nationally televised debates there's no way he would be where he is now.

With each passing debate, Ron gains more strength. Ron debates well IMO and of course he is 100% right on all the issues.

That's why he will win!

[TVMH]

Frankly I wish we had a more pure libertarian that was viable, but Ron is the best we have right now, so I'll roll with it and do all I can for him.

Not to be critical, but IMO, Dr. Paul IS a pure libertarian (as opposed to "libertine").

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Not to be critical, but IMO, Dr. Paul IS a pure libertarian (as opposed to "libertine").

a "pure libertarian" wouldn't really care about the US Constitution lol. he IS a libertarian alright, just not an extreme libertarian. He's fine

[Nash]

1) A Sitting Congressman with a 20 year voting record
2) Able to participate in the debates (because he's a sitting congressman)
3) The Internet
4) Primary run as a Republican allows the campaign to get around the "lesser of two evils" mentality when it comes down to voting.

His experience in congress is a huge plus for me. Given two individuals with identical platforms it is much easier for me to support the guy with 20 years in congress than a pot activist.

The other major benefit is that Republicans voters have nothing to lose by voting for him because a vote for Ron Paul doesn't mean that Hillary takes the White House. You couldn't make this claim if he was running third party.

[kylejack]

Not to be critical, but IMO, Dr. Paul IS a pure libertarian (as opposed to "libertine").
He's made comments that I'm not fond of. The thing about TSA employees, for example. I'd also like to see him propose amendments to the Constitution to defend religious freedom on the federal level, rather than attempting to pass a bill that would take the matter out of the hands of federal courts. He rarely talks about increasing immigration quotas. I suspect he would favor some drug prohibitionism on the local and state level. He's not pure, but he's the most viable we've got.

[stevedasbach]

Maybe because running as either a R or D is the only way to win.

By itself that isn't enough. Neither Badnarik not Peroutka would have been included in debates even running as Republicans or Democrats (e.g. John Cox). Their campaigns would have been less effective at attracting new supporters for their respective parties/messages if they had run as D's or R's.

Ron has a track record as a 10-term Republican Congressman, which made it virtually impossible for him to be excluded from the televised Republican debates.

[OceanMachine7]

a "pure libertarian" wouldn't really care about the US Constitution lol. he IS a libertarian alright, just not an extreme libertarian. He's fine

Yeah, the Libertarian Party gets a lot of anarchocapitalists who don't even believe in a lot of the legitimate functions of government outlined in the Constitution.

[TVMH]

a "pure libertarian" wouldn't really care about the US Constitution lol. he IS a libertarian alright, just not an extreme libertarian. He's fine

Allow me to clarify: vis-a-vis the US Constitution, Dr. Paul is a pure libertarian.

I suppose without regard to the Constitution, a "pure libertarian" would actually be an anarchist?

I'm not flaming here, just trying to establish precise definitions. :)

[DeadheadForPaul]

1.) An R next to his name
2.) A stereotypical American sounding name
3.) 10 terms in office!
4.) The message

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Allow me to clarify: vis-a-vis the US Constitution, Dr. Paul is a pure libertarian.

I suppose without regard to the Constitution, a "pure libertarian" would actually be an anarchist?

I'm not flaming here, just trying to establish precise definitions. :)

nope. A "pure libertarian" would be a radical individualist. They still believe in a minarchy, however -Night Watchman State-. They're the gate keepers before you hit anarcho capitalism lol and let's not limit it to libertarian here. Extreme liberalism essentially is democratic socialism, and extreme (neo) conservatism is basically corporatism, serfdom. Every philosophy has their extremes ;)

[TVMH]

nope. A "pure libertarian" would be a radical individualist. They still believe in a minarchy, however -Night Watchman State-. They're the gate keepers before you hit anarcho capitalism lol and let's not limit it to libertarian here. Extreme liberalism essentially is democratic socialism, and extreme (neo) conservatism is basically corporatism, serfdom. Every philosophy has their extremes ;)

Word :cool:

[kylejack]

nope. A "pure libertarian" would be a radical individualist. They still believe in a minarchy, however -Night Watchman State-. They're the gate keepers before you hit anarcho capitalism lol and let's not limit it to libertarian here. Extreme liberalism essentially is democratic socialism, and extreme (neo) conservatism is basically corporatism, serfdom. Every philosophy has their extremes ;)
You're describing minarchism more than libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalists can also be classified as libertarians. I'd say that anyone that agrees with the NAP can be called a libertarian, and people have different ideas about what exactly that means for the role of government, making them either minarchists or An-caps.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You're describing minarchism more than libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalists can also be classified as libertarians. I'd say that anyone that agrees with the NAP can be called a libertarian, and people have different ideas about what exactly that means for the role of government, making them either minarchists or An-caps.

anarcho capitalists believe in a non voluntary government? first time I have heard of this! Libertarians believe in some sort of state.. ancaps go off the deep end and call for the abolishment of state

[kylejack]

anarcho capitalists believe in a non voluntary government? first time I have heard of this!
No, your mistake is assuming that to be a libertarian you have to believe in non-voluntary government.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No, your mistake is assuming that to be a libertarian you have to believe in non-voluntary government.

and why not? ancaps believe in only a voluntary government

[kylejack]

and why not? ancaps believe in only a voluntary government
I think we have a disconnect here.

My opinion is that:

libertarian: anyone who agrees with the NAP.
An-caps: Agree with it and do not believe in involuntary government.
Minarchists: Agree with it, but think there should still be a Night Watchman state to defend life and liberty.

Thus, An-Caps can be considered libertarians.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

to me, libertarianism is about individualism no matter the form of government that exists. miarchism><anarcho capitalism to me describes the level of government you want to exist. You want a small establishment? you're a minarchist. If you want nothing more than voluntary government, you might fit into the ancap category

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think we have a disconnect here.

My opinion is that:

libertarian: anyone who agrees with the NAP.
An-caps: Agree with it and do not believe in involuntary government.
Minarchists: Agree with it, but think there should still be a Night Watchman state to defend life and liberty.

Thus, An-Caps can be considered libertarians.

and what of the consequentialists?

[kylejack]

to me, libertarianism is about individualism no matter the form of government that exists. miarchism><anarcho capitalism to me describes the level of government you want to exist. You want a small establishment? you're a minarchist. If you want nothing more than voluntary government, you might fit into the ancap category
Right, so we're on the same page. Both minarchists and an-caps can be considered libertarians. You said that minarchism was the last stop on libertarianism before you get to An-Caps, and I'm saying that An-Caps are libertarians also.

[kylejack]

and what of the consequentialists?

They're a tricky fit. I have always preferred to refer to them as classical liberals rather than libertarians.

[Johncjackson]

Peroutka and badnarik have just about... nothing.

Dnt get me wrong, the (R) helps a lot, but RP actually has a 30+ year history of accomplishment and is much more well known and respected. And as much as some of his views are labeled "extreme"- he is a lot more mainstream.

In comparison to badnarik for example- Ron Paul didnt decide to run for POTUS as a 50 year old bachelor , unemployed programmer/skydiving/scout leader/whatever, with no Driver's License, tourng the country in a Kia.

I am less familiar with Peroutka, so I won't get too much into him. However, I know a lot of people in the CP who don't like him, and if he's "too much" for the CP, that's saying a lot. If someone is too out there to fit in the CP collection of theocrats, good luck with manstream America.

[kylejack]

Hey now, no need to talk about Badnarik in those tones.

[Johncjackson]

Hey now, no need to talk about Badnarik in those tones.

He's a good guy and fine libertarian activist, but he was hardly presidential ( or even Congressional) material. This describes a lot of LP activists. They want to go straight int the POTUS, even if they can't even get 2% for State rep or cant even get elected to LNC,etc.

[Tidewise]

What does Ron have that Peroutka and Badnarik lacked? Timing.

[kylejack]

He's a good guy and fine libertarian activist, but he was hardly presidential ( or even Congressional) material. This describes a lot of LP activists. They want to go straight int the POTUS, even if they can't even get 2% for State rep or cant even get elected to LNC,etc.
That argument's commonly used against the LP, but I don't think its valid. Significant effort is put into having an L candidate running in as many districts as possible. Also, while local, state, and Congressional elections are a good starting point, nothing provides a bully pulpit like a Presidential campaign to help build a base of steady nation-wide supporters. While the no driver's license thing was a turnoff, Badnarik had a great manner of speaking, and got a good deal of people interested in learning about the Constitution.

LP presidential candidates have always been more instructive than viable, of course, and frankly that seems like the best role for them to try and take. You can't storm the castle in a day, after all.

Still, the LP's been an utter failure over the past 30 years.

[winston84]

An "R" next to his name.

Exactly, that is the only difference. Its something I wish people who won't change party affiliation would realize!

[JMann]

I believe this. Many are still too sleepy to take an interest in a 3rd party. Hubby voted for Buchanan and sleepy me, was not interested in voting for a 3rd party candidate. I learned my lesson.

For some reason the third party's don't even nominate a candidate until early summer of the general election. After months of Republican and Democratic campaigning and primaries there is no way a Badnarik raise the money and build name recognition in 3 or 4 months to even compete. I follow politics pretty closely and had never even hear of a Badnarik (regardless that he was utterly unqualified to be President) until May or June of aught four. I've been saying since 2000 that the 3rd parties need to have their nominating conventions the year prior to the general election. This way the Libertarians and Greens would already have a presidential candidate out there building support.

[mconder]

I also forgot to mention that fact that RP already had a cult following of true believers before he announced his presidential bid. For instance, Ron Paul has been listed at the top of the John Birch Societies Conservative Index for many years. Ron Paul running for president has been an unfulfilled and unspoken wish of many people way before it's time.

[Bradley in DC]

but Badnarik was a joke. I've voted LP for Dr. Paul in '88 and Harry Browne twice.

[kylejack]

but Badnarik was a joke. I've voted LP for Dr. Paul in '88 and Harry Browne twice.
We could have had better, but I would have been really disappointed with Russo and slightly disappointed at Nolan. Badnarik was our best choice of the three.

[V4Vendetta]

Running as a Republican

ALEX JONES

youtube

Google

Most people have broadband and internet now

[quickmike]

5 million dollars!

He wouldnt have the 5 million without being able to be in the debates and be able to get on the ballots in all 50 states. They screw libertarians and other 3rd parties so they cant make any headway. Badnarik could have done VERY well if he ran as a republican and got the exposure. Hes very well spoken, and pretty much has the same message Ron does. Ron comes off as more friendly though, thats about it, and hes not as strict on libertarian principals as Badnarik is.

[Jared Callanan]

There are a lot of things that Ron Paul has that Peroutka and Badnarik didn't.

Ron Paul might be considered an unknown but he is much more well known than Badnarik and Peroutka combined. He is a congressman; an elected official of one of the two major partys - which right away gives him an edge because a voter will be more likely to give him a look as compared to Badnarik and or Peroutka who were totally unknown and ran for third partys that are considered fringe.

More then anything has been the fact that he has been in the debates and has been able to seperate himself from the rest of the field. The debates have given Ron Paul more television time then all of the third party candidates in 2004 combined. The debates mean so much especially in the general election and the rules to get into the debates during the general election are stacked against all third party candidates, its one of the reasons I think its the republican nomination or nothing for our campaign.

[paulitics]

The timing and running as an R where he can debate nationally.

[JMann]

The Libertarian Party could also start having primaries and let voters pick their nominee as opposed to the extremist that make up their convention.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

That argument's commonly used against the LP, but I don't think its valid. Significant effort is put into having an L candidate running in as many districts as possible. Also, while local, state, and Congressional elections are a good starting point, nothing provides a bully pulpit like a Presidential campaign to help build a base of steady nation-wide supporters. While the no driver's license thing was a turnoff, Badnarik had a great manner of speaking, and got a good deal of people interested in learning about the Constitution.

LP presidential candidates have always been more instructive than viable, of course, and frankly that seems like the best role for them to try and take. You can't storm the castle in a day, after all.

Still, the LP's been an utter failure over the past 30 years.

No driver's license thing is a turn off? I'd vote on that alone! :D

[sunghoko]

a good campaign manager......


badnarik would have chopped up kerry bush in the debates. America would have asked who is this guy and why is he making so much sense.

[dircha]

Is it because Ron did the smart thing and ran as a Republican?

No, it's because those others guys have, to my recollection, never been elected to a national political office, not even a statewide political office.

Ron Paul was doing the people's work when those guys were teenagers.

How about a showing a little respect here, huh?

[Matt Collins]

badnarik is a billionaire right?HA! Hardly. But he is a great guy for sure!

[USPatriot36]

What does Ron have that Peroutka and Badnarik lacked?

The loss of Freedom based upon the Patriot Act and suspension of Habeus Corpus.
The War
The Internet for several reasons: No need to rely on MSM. The feedback that showed us that there were thousands of others who shared our views.
His character and record. We trust him.

The main thing though is that his MESSAGE appeals to a broader audience than the libertarian message. Advocating that we move goverment activities to the state and local governments has wider appeal than totally eliminating them from government. Basing his solutions on adherence to the Constitution appeals to the Patriot in all of us. The libertarian parties' advocacy of open boarders and pro-abortion have no differentation from the Democratic party.

[mport1]

Badnarik was awesome, but Ron Paul is WAY better.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Badnarik could never get away with running Republican lol

[BuddyRey]

I personally never would have voted for Peroutka, because he's too much of an authoritarian theocrat for my taste. I was thinking of voting for Badnarik in '04, but the "don't waste your vote" crowd got into my head, and I ended up voting for Kerry.

The fact that RP is running in one of the two "accepted" parties has increased his chances a hundredfold, which is both good and bad. Good in that he has a real shot, bad in that he had to compromise himself to attain it.