PPP: Ron Paul now second in Iowa

[Epic]

What if neither Mike Huckabee nor Donald
Trump ran and the candidates for President in 2012 were just Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

Michele Bachmann 10%
Newt Gingrich 15%
Sarah Palin 15%
Ron Paul 15%
Tim Pawlenty 9%
Mitt Romney 25%
Someone else/Undecided 11%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_IA_04191118.pdf

I think this is most recent poll without Huckabee.

[rp08orbust]

No Cain in that poll. Has there been any scientific poll (i.e., not Gallup interactive) since the debate with Cain included yet?

[SilentBull]

Sarah Palin isn't running. I think Paul could easily be at 20% without Palin and Huckabee.

[realtonygoodwin]

More like 16 or 18 probably

[ItsTime]

who would have f-ing thought Ron Paul would be at 15% anywhere?! This is just awesome news. FRONT RUNNER.

[Billay]

Time to play politics! We need to hammer the points that Romney was the creator of Obamacare and is pro-choice.

[Nathan Hale]

This Romney thing is UGLY. I hope his lead falls apart after he steps on the debate stage and gets his ass handed to him.

[Michael Landon]

Time to play politics! We need to hammer the points that Romney was the creator of Obamacare and is pro-choice.

Don't forget he supports gun control, or he did support gun control and flip-flopped... it was something like that anyway.

- ML

[eduardo89]

Romney should be lowr after his atrocious speech. And Palin won't run, so her votes wil be split between Ron and Cain probably. Same with Bachmann

[realtonygoodwin]

They did the same poll w/o Huckabee, Trump, and Palin.

Romney - 28%
Gingrich - 19%
Paul - 16%
Bachmann - 15%

[TIMB0B]

Has Romney even announced yet? Hell, he may drop out too.

[ItsTime]

^would be epic, but wont happen

[eduardo89]

Has Romney even announced yet? Hell, he may drop out too.

His hair would run without him and still poll top 3.

[Legend1104]

What if the unthinkable happened? What if Romney has an epic fail. What if Ron Pauls campaign in Iowa takes off? What if he does well in the debates? What if he wins Ames? What if he wins Iowa? What if fox realizes the writing on the wall? What if dr. Paul wins?

[nate895]

Has Romney even announced yet? Hell, he may drop out too.

That would be bad from Paul's point-of-view. Romney represents the NE liberal wing of the party in this election, and Paul does not appeal to that group. We want Romney in there to take their votes.

[IndianaPolitico]

A year ago, even a few months ago I was truely afraid that we wouldn't be able to pull this off. Now, the future is becoming much brighter!

[IndianaPolitico]

What if the unthinkable happened? What if Romney has an epic fail. What us Ron pauls campaign in Iowa takes off? What if he does well in the debates? What if he won Ames? What if he won Iowa? What if fox realized the writing on the wall? What if dr. Paul won?"...Then the American people, would learn the truth!"

[rp08orbust]

That would be bad from Paul's point-of-view. Romney represents the NE liberal wing of the party in this election, and Paul does not appeal to that group. We want Romney in there to take their votes.

But Romney is looking extremely difficult to beat in NH. If Romney drops out, Ron's chances have to go up.

[Nathan Hale]

Regardless, Ron Paul is officially a top tier candidate, and we should give them hell if they attempt to treat him as anything but.

[nate895]

What if the unthinkable happened? What if Romney has an epic fail. What us Ron pauls campaign in Iowa takes off? What if he does well in the debates? What if he won Ames? What if he won Iowa? What if fox realized the writing on the wall? What if dr. Paul won?

I really think it's up to Ron Paul at this point. If he is willing to reach out and run a professional campaign focusing on similar issues to what he said last time, he can very well sweep the primaries. Yes, that means win every single one of them.

[nate895]

But Romney is looking extremely difficult to beat in NH. If Romney drops out, Ron's chances have to go up.

They just move to some other NE liberal. That's all. There's usually only one NE liberal in the campaign because that's the only way they can win.

[schiffheadbaby]

do you still support RP nate

[low preference guy]

But Romney is looking extremely difficult to beat in NH.

With Romneycare, I doubt his campaign is still around by the time of the NH primary.

[Galileo Galilei]

Favorable:

Paul; 55%
Romney; 55%

Unfavorable:

Paul; 17%
Romney; 25%

Ron takes the lead by convincing people he can win and running TV ads where he looks "presidential".

[eduardo89]

I think Romney should stay in. He'll take most of thr vote of people who wouldn't vote for Ron anyway, doesn't appeal to socons ad he's damage enough by Romneycare, gun control and abortion that he won't win.

[TIMB0B]

His hair would run without him and still poll top 3.

Pfft. Damn American Idol voters.

[nate895]

do you still support RP nate

I'll vote for him and I want him to win. I sincerely believe it is up to him to do that at this point. We have to do what we can to help him, but, in the end, the burden is on his shoulders to get the voters on his side. He is the candidate, not us.

[Jordan]

Holy shit dudes, we're gonna do it!

I really hope Ron kicks it into gear; I hope Rand takes an active (as much as he can) role in leading the campaign.

[nate895]

Holy shit dudes, we're gonna do it!

I really hope Ron kicks it into gear; I hope Rand takes an active (as much as he can) role in leading the campaign.

If Rand's model is looked to, Ron Paul will be the next President of the United States. If it isn't, he won't win a single primary. I believe it's that stark.

[eduardo89]

If Rand's model is looked to, Ron Paul will be the next President of the United States. If it isn't, he won't win a single primary. I believe it's that stark.

I completely agree. Ron needs to run a mainstream, professional campaign.

[JCLibertarian]

If Rand's model is looked to, Ron Paul will be the next President of the United States. If it isn't, he won't win a single primary. I believe it's that stark.

Agreed, he has to hit home on the national debt(this includes the Federal Reserve and economic issues) and foreign policy, almost exclusively, and find a way to bring these points into every political conversation he encounters, as these are his popular sticking points with the electorate. His positions on these issues can also appeal to Conservatives, Independents, and Liberals.

[low preference guy]

I completely agree. Ron needs to run a mainstream, professional campaign.

He should hire the best people from the 2008 Huckabee campaign.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

No Cain in that poll. Has there been any scientific poll (i.e., not Gallup interactive) since the debate with Cain included yet?

It's called: "Someone else/Undecided."


I completely agree. Ron needs to run a mainstream, professional campaign.

It ain't looking good at the start (heroin, really?) but hopefully Paul will. It's too golden an opportunity to throw away this electoral chance just to make some political point that will be lost on most people and quickly forgotten.

[PermanentSleep]

who would have f-ing thought Ron Paul would be at 15% anywhere?! This is just awesome news. FRONT RUNNER.

+1 woohoooo!!!!!@#$@#$

[nate895]

He should hire the best people from the 2008 Huckabee campaign.

Ed Rollins is a good campaign adviser. He has done a tremendous job in every campaign he has run, even Huck '08 considering where Huck started. I don't know if he'd be willing to help Ron, but he'd be a good person to look to.

[nate895]

Agreed, he has to hit home on the national debt(this includes the Federal Reserve and economic issues) and foreign policy, almost exclusively, and find a way to bring these points into every political conversation he encounters, as these are his popular sticking points with the electorate. His positions on these issues can also appeal to Conservatives, Independents, and Liberals.

Oh, but that means you want him to lie about his beliefs. /sarcasm

[Agorism]

We just the smallest amount of momentum to put him into a clear second in these polls.

Early momentum is key I guess

[JCLibertarian]

Ed Rollins is a good campaign adviser. He has done a tremendous job in every campaign he has run, even Huck '08 considering where Huck started. I don't know if he'd be willing to help Ron, but he'd be a good person to look to.

Whoever ran Rand's campaign should suffice, no reason to beg for beltway insiders to run the campaign. Doing so would also run contrary to Ron Paul's image as the perennial political outsider and anti-establishment candidate.

[nate895]

Whoever ran Rand's campaign should suffice, no reason to beg for beltway insiders to run the campaign. Doing so would also run contrary to Ron Paul's image as the perennial political outsider and anti-establishment candidate.

It didn't harm Huckabee's image as a down-home outsider when he did that, but Rand's campaign advisers would be good as well. I'm not loyal to a person in that regard, I just want someone who knows what they're doing.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

His hair would run without him and still poll top 3.I don't know...his hair is looking thinner and greyer.

[PaulConventionWV]

Favorable:

Paul; 55%
Romney; 55%

Unfavorable:

Paul; 17%
Romney; 25%

Ron takes the lead by convincing people he can win and running TV ads where he looks "presidential".

He did that last time: "He's catching on, I'm tellin ya!"

That sure convinced people he could win. :collins::collins:

[bolidew]

Ed Rollins is a good campaign adviser. He has done a tremendous job in every campaign he has run, even Huck '08 considering where Huck started. I don't know if he'd be willing to help Ron, but he'd be a good person to look to.

As long as Ron Paul is willing to spend this time.....

[JCLibertarian]

Oh, but that means you want him to lie about his beliefs. /sarcasm

I would never encourage Paul to back down from his core principles, but to continually reiterate the aforementioned policy positions. If he starts to shape the political dialogue and command it by shaping his campaign around those policy positions, the media will be forced to mold their line of questioning around those points.

But I don't have a problem with him talking about reversing CRA and Federal Drug Laws if it is a part of an overall greater message that promotes individual freedom. I don't think his positions on those issues have hurt him with the electorate. In fact, I think it appeals to independents and liberal republicans. My mom, without and influence from me, now supports Ron Paul after she heard him articulate his position on these issues based on the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility; and how he emphasized the threat of unconstitutional federal power grabs on liberty. She now says she is concerned about an encroaching federal Government and thinks the Feds have created more problems through their various interventions. She said even though she disagrees with racial discrimination and drug use that giving the Feds this kind of authority leads to a slippery slope of out of control big government. She is part of the college educated middle age independent voting group we need to appeal to to win.

[Fredom101]

Time to play politics! We need to hammer the points that Romney was the creator of Obamacare and is pro-choice.

I'm pro choice, but I'm anti-Romney.

[Eric21ND]

The more time Ron spends talking about Bin Laden and Civil Rights, the less time for the economy and inflation.

[nate895]

The more time Ron spends talking about Bin Laden and Civil Rights, the less time for the economy and inflation.

Talk Show Host: Bin Laden.....

Ron Paul: Letters of Marque and reprisal, which is a free market solution to this terrorist problem. Let individuals with high-profit motive go after these thugs. But the more important issue is the economy, which is hurtin' everyone right now...

[TroySmith]

If Ron takes even 2nd place in Iowa I think it would be huge. He would instantly lose the "I like him, but he can't win" attitude that many people had in the 08' election. "Electability" is a key perception. If Ron takes 1st or 2nd in Iowa he will take 1st in NH and be on his way to be the next potus.

[eduardo89]

If Ron takes even 2nd place in Iowa I think it would be huge. He would instantly lose the "I like him, but he can't win" attitude that many people had in the 08' election. "Electability" is a key perception. If Ron takes 1st or 2nd in Iowa he will take 1st in NH and be on his way to be the next potus.

He needs first in Iowa and first in 2/3 of NH, Nevada and SC.

[R3volutionJedi]

Romney cannot win the Christian vote in Iowa.

[nate895]

He needs first in Iowa and first in 2/3 of NH, Nevada and SC.

I really think that if he gets the message down in a way that could be understood to the average voter, we could be looking at a sweep.

[realtonygoodwin]

If he can pull a strong 2nd in Iowa and New Hampshire behind Romney, and then win South Carolina, that will help get the ball rolling.

[specsaregood]

The poll referenced in the OP is a month old.

[eduardo89]

If he can pull a strong 2nd in Iowa and New Hampshire behind Romney, and then win South Carolina, that will help get the ball rolling.
Iowa is a must win. Both Ames straw poll and caucuses.

[nate895]

If he can pull a strong 2nd in Iowa and New Hampshire behind Romney, and then win South Carolina, that will help get the ball rolling.

In order to make the nomination a contest, you have to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, especially if another candidate wins both of the contests. Iowa should be a cakewalk for RP, really. He needs 50,000 votes at the most, probably less since there's no excitement behind anybody but him. If Ron Paul cannot win Iowa, we are in big trouble.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Nate, I agree with so much of what you're saying. I agree that Romney running under these circumstances is a good thing. Also consider if Palin doesn't run, and it's between Ron and Mitt, our campaign can hammer Romney (a pro-choice Mormon who copied Obamacare) to Christian conservatives. I think we consider that it's IOWA...and we lick our chops.

But I think the possible sweep thing is a bit of a stretch. Unless something special happens w/ crossover voters in New Hampshire, we can't beat Romney there. And how would you beat Romney in his Governorship state? Let's postulate on 48 potential wins instead, and hope we get 30+ when it's said and done.

[McBell]

It ain't looking good at the start (heroin, really?) but hopefully Paul will. It's too golden an opportunity to throw away this electoral chance just to make some political point that will be lost on most people and quickly forgotten.
He was asked about it. He didn't bring it up. Should he have lied/squirmed his way out of the question?

[nate895]

Nate, I agree with so much of what you're saying. I agree that Romney running under these circumstances is a good thing. Also consider if Palin doesn't run, and it's between Ron and Mitt, our campaign can hammer Romney (a pro-choice Mormon who copied Obamacare) to Christian conservatives. I think we consider that it's IOWA...and we lick our chops.

But I think the possible sweep thing is a bit of a stretch. Unless something special happens w/ crossover voters in New Hampshire, we can't beat Romney there. And how would you beat Romney in his Governorship state? Let's postulate on 48 potential wins instead, and hope we get 30+ when it's said and done.

Yeah, it is a bit of an exaggeration, I guess, but it isn't outside of the range of possibilities if the campaign goes really well and the other campaigns do not do so well. I think 46 (minus CT, MA, NH, and RI) is probably a more realistic number that we can actually work towards if a policy of reaching across the lines to reach limited government conservatives is used. NH might have been a relatively bright spot last time for us, but it is the least likely state for us to win right now outside of Massachusetts.

[nate895]

He was asked about it. He didn't bring it up. Should he have lied/squirmed his way out of the question?

He should have said something along the lines of: The drug war hasn't worked. We are wasting our money there. That money can be better spent by others to attack the drug problem without using the police.

No one is suggesting that he lie (well, someone might be, but it isn't someone I know of). We're just suggesting he go at it in a way that appeals to people who are concerned about that issue.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

He was asked about it. He didn't bring it up. Should he have lied/squirmed his way out of the question?

Just because the media offers the bait doesn't mean one has to take it.

[low preference guy]

NH might have been a relatively bright spot last time for us, but it is the least likely state for us to win right now outside of Massachusetts.

What?

RP has the second highest favorables in NH.

[realtonygoodwin]

Iowans and New Hampshire -ites seem to be mostly unaware about RomneyCare... If they stay ignorant, Romney is polling way ahead in both states.

[eduardo89]

What?

RP has the second highest favorables in NH.

But Romney is polling over 40%

[nate895]

What?

RP has the second highest favorables in NH.

But Romney is so far out ahead there that it's like Buchanan vs. Bush in 1992 there. Bush was so far out ahead that 52 for Bush vs. 37 for Buchanan seemed like a win for Buchanan. Same thing with Romney today. It's not outside the range of possibility, but it would be an uphill battle. Not an impossible battle, but an uphill battle.

[low preference guy]

But Romney is so far out ahead there that it's like Buchanan vs. Bush in 1992 there. Bush was so far out ahead that 52 for Bush vs. 37 for Buchanan seemed like a win for Buchanan. Same thing with Romney today. It's not outside the range of possibility, but it would be an uphill battle. Not an impossible battle, but an uphill battle.

My prediction: Romney campaign will be over or almost over by the time of the NH primaries.

Even without that, NH is nowhere near the most unlikely state for RP to win. One reason is that it's one he'll try really hard to do well in.

[South Park Fan]

Ron Paul really lucked out by Huckabee dropping out. Paul has the highest favorability margin out of all the candidates in Iowa. We really need to ignore all national polls in the meantime and focus on getting in the top two in the Ames Straw Poll this August. That was key to Huckabee breaking out of the second tier four years ago and will be critical for Ron Paul to pose a serious threat to Romney. Romney will likely collapse once his health care position becomes well known, so it is important that we make sure Ron Paul fills the gap rather than someone like Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, or Mitch Daniels.

[Chester Copperpot]

Romney should be lowr after his atrocious speech. And Palin won't run, so her votes wil be split between Ron and Cain probably. Same with Bachmann

What speech did Mitt RobMe give?

[Flash]

What about Ron Paul spending from now until August campaigning in Iowa non-stop? To ensure he wins the straw poll. Would this be a good idea or would that be putting all of our eggs in one basket.

[AuH20]

If Ron didn't say anything stupid, he'd be leading Iowa.

[QueenB4Liberty]

who would have f-ing thought Ron Paul would be at 15% anywhere?! This is just awesome news. FRONT RUNNER.

Exactly!

[nate895]

If Ron didn't say anything stupid, he'd be leading Iowa.

He can recover. It's still early. If he runs a professional campaign and doesn't make this a crusade for libertarianism. If this is a crusade for libertarianism, it will mark libertarianism's high tide in the GOP, and that's it.

[nate895]

What about Ron Paul spending from now until August campaigning in Iowa non-stop? To ensure he wins the straw poll. Would this be a good idea or would that be putting all of our eggs in one basket.

All our eggs are already in one basket, might as well commit to it.

[schiffheadbaby]

He can recover. It's still early. If he runs a professional campaign and doesn't make this a crusade for libertarianism. If this is a crusade for libertarianism, it will mark libertarianism's high tide in the GOP, and that's it.

nate please don't be so serious about your "future political career." RP became famous for his libertarian bent, I HOPE HE DOESNT LOSE THAT

[McBell]

He should have said something along the lines of: The drug war hasn't worked. We are wasting our money there. That money can be better spent by others to attack the drug problem without using the police.
He still would have been attacked, because people would put the words in his mouth. Might as well be blunt if they're going to treat you like you were no matter what.

Just because the media offers the bait doesn't mean one has to take it.
What, exactly, do you believe he should have said?

[HarryBrowneLives]

He can recover. It's still early. If he runs a professional campaign and doesn't make this a crusade for libertarianism. If this is a crusade for libertarianism, it will mark libertarianism's high tide in the GOP, and that's it.

Agreed +1776. Hopefully, that bad gaffe the other day was early enough to wear off some as we go along. We can't afford another one of those now.

[McBell]

He can recover. It's still early. If he runs a professional campaign and doesn't make this a crusade for libertarianism. If this is a crusade for libertarianism, it will mark libertarianism's high tide in the GOP, and that's it.
It is a crusade for libertarianism, I hope. It will be fantastic if Ron is elected, but that isn't the entire point.

[Flash]

nate please don't be so serious about your "future political career." RP became famous for his libertarian bent, I HOPE HE DOESNT LOSE THAT

That's true. Without Ron Paul's bluntness we wouldn't be where we are. However, to advance to the next stage (winning) we need to change strategy. We have to take back America, even if it means campaigning as Moderates, Conservatives, or Neo-Cons. That's what Libertarians need to understand.

[low preference guy]

However, to advance to the next stage (winning) we need to change strategy.

Ron will not change strategy. He will keep doing what he is doing. He will answer questions honestly and candidly and let the chips fall where they may.

[AuH20]

He can recover. It's still early. If he runs a professional campaign and doesn't make this a crusade for libertarianism. If this is a crusade for libertarianism, it will mark libertarianism's high tide in the GOP, and that's it.

He can embark on his crusade for libertarianism on relevant issues. The other stuff is irrelevant. It's intentionally brought up to trip up his campaign.

[HarryBrowneLives]

He still would have been attacked, because people would put the words in his mouth. Might as well be blunt if they're going to treat you like you were no matter what.

What, exactly, do you believe he should have said?

"I'm glad Bin Laden is gone and if the government would have followed what I said in 2001, we could have gotten him then without all the lost time and the massive cost."

[nate895]

nate please don't be so serious about your "future political career." RP became famous for his libertarian bent, I HOPE HE DOESNT LOSE THAT

Libertarianism has been a dead ideology for a long time. It has its highs and lows, but conservatives have been warned by Russell Kirk and the like to be weary of libertarians, and they have heeded their advice ever since. I'm not embarking on a libertarian crusade, not so much because of any political future I might have, but because I'm not a libertarian and I don't want to be associated with someone who is such a fierce one so as to miss the golden opportunity. This is Ron Paul's golden opportunity. He need only reach out and try to understand where conservatives are coming from.

[McBell]

"I'm glad Bin Laden is gone and if the government would have followed what I said in 2001, we could have gotten him then without all the lost time and the massive cost."
Was referring to the heroin question, not the Bin Laden question.

[HarryBrowneLives]

The Heroin question could be laughed off as it was to some degree onstage. The Bin Laden question was spun to be the political equivelent to saying Kennedy was a jerk the day after Dallas. The latter hurt us far more than the former.

[jabrownie]

"I'm glad Bin Laden is gone and if the government would have followed what I said in 2001, we could have gotten him then without all the lost time and the massive cost."

Heck of a good answer...

[AuH20]

Libertarianism has been a dead ideology for a long time. It has its highs and lows, but conservatives have been warned by Russell Kirk and the like to be weary of libertarians, and they have heeded their advice ever since. I'm not embarking on a libertarian crusade, not so much because of any political future I might have, but because I'm not a libertarian and I don't want to be associated with someone who is such a fierce one so as to miss the golden opportunity. This is Ron Paul's golden opportunity. He need only reach out and try to understand where conservatives are coming from.

Libertarianism has it's strong and weak points, like anything. I don't think it should be summarily dismissed for it's weaker traits.

[wgadget]

Whoever can win the INDEPENDENTS wins.

Fact.

[AuH20]

Whoever can win the INDEPENDENTS wins.

Fact.

And Obama's approval rating with independents went skyward after he killed OBL. Sad but true.

[Legend1104]

Libertarianism has been a dead ideology for a long time. It has its highs and lows, but conservatives have been warned by Russell Kirk and the like to be weary of libertarians, and they have heeded their advice ever since. I'm not embarking on a libertarian crusade, not so much because of any political future I might have, but because I'm not a libertarian and I don't want to be associated with someone who is such a fierce one so as to miss the golden opportunity. This is Ron Paul's golden opportunity. He need only reach out and try to understand where conservatives are coming from.

You are certainly right about this being his golden opportunity. If Huckabee was being truthful, maybe God did tell him to stay out because he already told Ron Paul he was going to win this one.

I honestly believe that this may very well be the best chance our generation may ever have to save itself. It kind of feels like we are on the edge of a knife. Fall one way and we go into the promised land, the other and it is oblivion. Wow, without Huckabee, if the field is Romney, Pawlenty, Santorum, Cain, Dr. Paul, Newt, Johnson, and maybe Trump; Ron Paul really does have the best shot in my lifetime to be a real President.

He already has a leg up over Cain, Santorum, Pawlenty, and Newt with name recognition, support, and fund raising. You guys are right. If he can pull out a win at Ames and set him up for a win in Iowa, he will be leagues ahead of them. When Dr. Paul wins an actual state and Ames he will have erased the "unelectable" name tag, and with that gone, he will be able to handedly defeat Romney in the battle for the most conservative, knowledgable, and winable Republican.

This is an exciting time people. I am so glad that I am here for this. Maybe one day I can tell my kids a story about how I was part of helping an honest man save the world.

[South Park Fan]

Oh, and for what's its worth, Ron Paul is currently the favorite on Intrade.com to win the Ames Straw Poll. Hopefully we can live up to the odds.

[nate895]

Libertarianism has it's strong and weak points, like anything. I don't think it should be summarily dismissed for it's weaker traits.

If you think I have summarily dismissed libertarianism, you neglected to read how many posts I have on these very libertarian forums. I've read anarchist literature, for Pete's sake. I find libertarianism to be distasteful, both intellectually and from a human perspective. It is too simpleton. It's absolute liberty. Conservatism takes a balanced approach. Now, of course, Ron Paul is much more of a conservative than anyone else in the race and agrees with me more on the issues than the other candidates, so I will vote for him.

[Bruno]

And Obama's approval rating with independents went skyward after he killed OBL. Sad but true.

That could be just a temporarily blip that will go away when the wars continue. Long way to go.

[McBell]

If you think I have summarily dismissed libertarianism, you neglected to read how many posts I have on these very libertarian forums. I've read anarchist literature, for Pete's sake. I find libertarianism to be distasteful, both intellectually and from a human perspective. It is too simpleton. It's absolute liberty. Conservatism takes a balanced approach. Now, of course, Ron Paul is much more of a conservative than anyone else in the race and agrees with me more on the issues than the other candidates, so I will vote for him.
Would you mind elaborating? I'm curious.

[nate895]

Would you mind elaborating? I'm curious.

http://www.mmisi.org/ma/25_04/kirk.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/a-dispassionate-assessment-of-libertarians

Not that I don't think for myself on the matter, he just says it more eloquently.

[AuH20]

If you think I have summarily dismissed libertarianism, you neglected to read how many posts I have on these very libertarian forums. I've read anarchist literature, for Pete's sake. I find libertarianism to be distasteful, both intellectually and from a human perspective. It is too simpleton. It's absolute liberty. Conservatism takes a balanced approach. Now, of course, Ron Paul is much more of a conservative than anyone else in the race and agrees with me more on the issues than the other candidates, so I will vote for him.

The problem I have with libertarianism is that it's completely historically ignorant. The species, through it's various incarnations of trial and error, is smarter than the individual. But as we currently see, the wisdom of the past has been forsaken for the scam-atopia we're currently living in.

[nate895]

The problem I have with libertarianism is that it's completely historically ignorant. The species, through it's various incarnations of trial and error, is smarter than the individual. But as we currently see, the wisdom of the past has been forsaken for the scam-atopia we're currently living in.

That is one problem, and the lack of recognition of human nature. People aren't just naturally good. You aren't gonna be able to wave the magic anti-government wand and all of the sudden have "spontaneous order." It almost seems like magic to me.

[sailingaway]

What if neither Mike Huckabee nor Donald
Trump ran and the candidates for President in 2012 were just Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

Michele Bachmann 10%
Newt Gingrich 15%
Sarah Palin 15%
Ron Paul 15%
Tim Pawlenty 9%
Mitt Romney 25%
Someone else/Undecided 11%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_IA_04191118.pdf

I think this is most recent poll without Huckabee.

Thanks. That is before the debate and before he had his exploratory committee. I think things will shake out preliminarily in the next few weeks as candidates decide they are, or are not, running.

[McBell]

That is one problem, and the lack of recognition of human nature. People aren't just naturally good. You aren't gonna be able to wave the magic anti-government wand and all of the sudden have "spontaneous order." It almost seems like magic to me.
But by what means do people become good when they are elected?

[low preference guy]

That is one problem, and the lack of recognition of human nature. People aren't just naturally good.

I thought that someone who has been at the forums for so long would realize you're debating a straw man, and we know it, and it's more ridiculous than persuasive.

[McBell]

+rep

[nate895]

But by what means do humans become good when they are elected?

They don't. That's why I'm here and not on Democratic Underground or MittRomneyForums.com (I don't know if that exists, but you get the point). Limited government is the only way to deal with some of the problem. Now, sometimes that government is going to go out of control like it is today, but that does not defeat the idea that we need a limited government. The state, the family, the church, and other institutions all play a role in restraining the passions of men. Two of those are weak today and the other is a monster.

[AuH20]

That is one problem, and the lack of recognition of human nature. People aren't just naturally good. You aren't gonna be able to wave the magic anti-government wand and all of the sudden have "spontaneous order." It almost seems like magic to me.

I don't think many sound minded libertarians believe that humans are good. I think they understand that liberty can only grow from the soil of order.

[nate895]

I thought that someone who has been at the forums for so long would realize you're debating a straw man, and we know it, and it's more ridiculous than persuasive.

I'm not debating limited government conservatives (and most people who call themselves libertarians are that, not actual libertarians).

[McBell]

They don't. That's why I'm here and not on Democratic Underground or MittRomneyForums.com (I don't know if that exists, but you get the point). Limited government is the only way to deal with some of the problem. Now, sometimes that government is going to go out of control like it is today, but that does not defeat the idea that we need a limited government. The state, the family, the church, and other institutions all play a role in restraining the passions of men. Two of those are weak today and the other is a monster.
But weren't all of those created by men?

[AuH20]

They don't. That's why I'm here and not on Democratic Underground or MittRomneyForums.com (I don't know if that exists, but you get the point). Limited government is the only way to deal with some of the problem. Now, sometimes that government is going to go out of control like it is today, but that does not defeat the idea that we need a limited government. The state, the family, the church, and other institutions all play a role in restraining the passions of men. Two of those are weak today and the other is a monster.

I'd replace the Church with spirituality. The Church can be quite corrupt as seen with it's collusion with the European monarchies.

[nate895]

I don't think many sound minded libertarians believe that humans are good. I think they understand that liberty can only grow from the soil of order.

That isn't libertarianism. That's conservatism of a particularly small government variety (one of the links up there spells that out before he speaks). If Ron Paul runs as that, I'm going to be excited. If he runs as the type of libertarian I'm talking about, I won't be. It's too early to tell, and I can't help with the early campaign much anyway. People outside of Iowa and New Hampshire don't care, and even if I'm excited I ain't makin' the trip all the way to Iowa or New Hampshire.

[McBell]

I'm not debating limited government conservatives (and most people who call themselves libertarians are that, not actual libertarians).
Use defines meaning.

[nate895]

I'd replace the Church with spirituality. The Church can be quite corrupt as seen with it's collusion with the European monarchies.

All of them can be corrupt. They're all made up of men. We must be forever vigilant against our own vices and the vices of others. It's a tremendously hard task, suppressing sin is.

[JCLibertarian]

But by what means do people become good when they are elected?

That is my problem. Democratic Statists(or "Republican" Statists) start with the premise that man is imperfect, therefore these imperfect men must elect imperfect men to govern the lives of other imperfect men. There argument falls flat on it's face. It would make sense if they advocated an technocracy, or rule buy intellectual oligarchs, but they argue for a arbitrary involuntary top down government by the imperfect people whom they claim if left to self government would result in chaos.

[nate895]

Use defines meaning.

In the regular world, yes, but I'm speaking on philosophical terms here. I'm using jargon. Personally, I wouldn't identify as a libertarian politically, but I have no problem with people who just think the state's too big using it of themselves in a commoner context. I'm not going to try them for heresy or anything.

[McBell]

I don't really see any point in making the distinction, in any context.

[AuH20]

All of them can be corrupt. They're all made up of men. We must be forever vigilant against our own vices and the vices of others. It's a tremendously hard task, suppressing sin is.

I think we should let folks sin so as to purify themselves. I think trying reform others' behavior outside our families is a lost cause. Men are wicked creatures and need to find their own salvation.

[nate895]

That is my problem. Democratic Statists(or "Republican" Statists) start with the premise that man is imperfect, therefore these imperfect men must elect imperfect men to govern the lives of other imperfect men. There argument falls flat on it's face. It would make sense if they advocated an technocracy, or rule buy intellectual oligarchs, but they argue for a arbitrary involuntary top down government by the imperfect people whom they claim if left to self government would result in chaos.

I argue for the Rule of Law. Laws must govern men, not men govern laws. That's why I'm opposed to the present regime that situates itself on the Potomac.

[nate895]

I don't really see any point in making the distinction, in any context.

You obviously haven't written many papers for philosophy or theology courses, which is a shame. You have to make distinctions in those cases, there just is no other way to talk without confusing people and being misunderstood. I'm just trying not to be misunderstood here.

[KurtBoyer25L]

I don't think many sound minded libertarians believe that humans are good. I think they understand that liberty can only grow from the soil of order.

I have philosophical problems undercutting this whole debate. Human beings each have an individual consciousness. A few are good, many are bad & most are just floating with the current.

That said, Nate's argument is not completely rational here...he has used meaningless phrases like "it is too simpleton" and has misused the word "balanced." In the context given, balanced means some liberties taken away.

But politically, the fact is Ron is not a Libertarian. He understands and sympathizes with them but he's more of a strict Constitutionalist, Jeffersonian, early 1900's Republican...take your pick.

[nate895]

But politically, the fact is Ron is not a Libertarian. He understands and sympathizes with them but he's more of a strict Constitutionalist, Jeffersonian, early 1900's Republican...take your pick.

I hope he runs as one. I'm not judging the good doctor. I'm just concerned that he might miss the golden opportunity to change this government back to the rule of law.

[McBell]

You obviously haven't written many papers for philosophy or theology courses, which is a shame. You have to make distinctions in those cases, there just is no other way to talk without confusing people and being misunderstood. I'm just trying not to be misunderstood here.
Alright then. Maybe I just have some trouble taking it seriously because I primarily see the distinction made on internet discussions such as this. I get it now, though.

[Flash]

Ron also needs to clarify his position on illegal immigration. If he isn't willing to build a fence, then he won't be elected. I know he wants to do away with government programs that subsidize illegal immigrants, but a fence will severely HELP the cause. And more importantly, most Conservatives agree with me. Ron needs to do something about this before it becomes an issue.

[AuH20]

I have philosophical problems undercutting this whole debate. Human beings each have an individual consciousness. A few are good, many are bad & most are just floating with the current.

That said, Nate's argument is not completely rational here...he has used meaningless phrases like "it is too simpleton" and has misused the word "balanced." In the context given, balanced means some liberties taken away.

But politically, the fact is Ron is not a Libertarian. He understands and sympathizes with them but he's more of a strict Constitutionalist, Jeffersonian, early 1900's Republican...take your pick.

It depends what you define liberty as. A so-called Sovereign Free man, or as Russell Kirk stated, a canary, if released from it's cage into the jungle, would be ripped to pieces in a matter of minutes.