Cato: Ron Paul could = Hillary

[Matt Collins]

Google for a quick piece by Michael Tanner of The Cato institute and what he said yesterday:

"Ron Paul has clearly mined that vein of Republican discontent which caused so many limited-government conservatives and libertarians to stay home or vote for third party candidates last November, resulting in Democrats regaining control of Congress. His support is real, significant...and growing.

And here's the very real danger for Republicans: If Paul, as expected, fails to obtain the GOP presidential nomination - and should the eventual GOP nominee fail to woo and attract Paul's growing legions of supporters with a believable pro-Constitution platform - don't be surprised to see enough Ron Paul voter support swing over to the Libertarian Party nominee on the general election ballot a year from now and throw the race into the Democrats' column.

All the press attention over the past few weeks has been on the possibility of Christian conservatives rallying behind a third-party candidate should the GOP nominate Rudy Giuliani. But the party's growing libertarian-leaning wing could have the same effect. For the GOP to have a chance of beating Hillary next November, its nominee is going to have to find a way to appeal to both its pro-life wing AND its constitutionalist wing. A pretty tall order."

[rockwell]

Well then if the Republicans wish to keep Hillary out of the Oval Office the only smart move would be to throw in with Ron Paul.

That's called logic.

Git you some.

[Naraku]

My response would be, "He's going to take the anti-war vote from those peacenik Republican hippies?"

[freelance]

Well then if the Republicans wish to keep Hillary out of the Oval Office the only smart move would be to throw in with Ron Paul.

That's called logic.

Git you some.

LOL! Sounds right to me.

[Elwar]

Title should be: No Ron Paul = Hillary

[jacmicwag]

I'd have to hold my nose to vote for anyone Fox, Townhall or Redstate endorsed which of course will not be Dr. Paul. The mainstream GOP does not have a clue how their RP insults will result in "unintended consequences." But from out of the old GOP ashes, better things will grow.

[Taco John]

In my bush imitation voice:

"Heh. I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding a Hillary presidency, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing anyone but Ron Paul from getting the Republican nomination. heh."

[Brinck Slattery]

What's the deal with Cato? I know they can't endorse anyone, but I thought that having a more or less libertarian candidate would be kinda exciting for them.

Of course, I know the Lew Rockwell folks call them "State-o," which makes me laugh and shoot milk out of my nose.

[rockwell]

"For the GOP to have a chance of beating Hillary next November, its nominee is going to have to find a way to appeal to both its pro-life wing AND its constitutionalist wing. A pretty tall order."

It makes you wonder if they even read what they write.

They just described Ron Paul to a Tee.

[Highmesa]

What's the deal with Cato? I know they can't endorse anyone, but I thought that having a more or less libertarian candidate would be kinda exciting for them.

Of course, I know the Lew Rockwell folks call them "State-o," which makes me laugh and shoot milk out of my nose.

Here's an article from FMNN explaining CATO's stance:
Tanner on Paul (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50936)

[Brinck Slattery]

thanks, Highmesa. That's about what I figured.

[Highmesa]

Google for a quick piece by Michael Tanner of The Cato institute and what he said yesterday:

I'm not seeing this article. Whre is it?

[ItsTime]

easy to solve that problem. Reps should back Ron Paul and take out Hillary.

[Zydeco]

cato's true colors shine through -- it's a statist organization masquerading as a libertarian sentinel.

no surprise, since it was founded by bush family friend charles koch. its role is to co-opt the libertarian movement.

[Matt Collins]

cato's true colors shine through -- it's a statist organization masquerading as a libertarian sentinel.

no surprise, since it was founded by bush family friend charles koch. its role is to co-opt the libertarian movement.

Proof?

[Ron Paul Fan]

Paul > Hillary

[KingTheoden]

STATO is well known for being false opposition. There are so many other great grass roots libertarian and paleo conservative groups that CATO should not even be on of docket of groups to support.

[Brinck Slattery]

I like Cato, they're the guys that got me involved in libertarian thought in the first place.:(

Well, it really started with Ayn Rand...

[Matt Collins]

Here's an article from FMNN explaining CATO's stance:
Tanner on Paul (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50936)

I don't trust FMNN.. I've been burned by them in the past.

[Matt Collins]

I like Cato, they're the guys that got me involved in libertarian thought in the first placeYeah, most of what I've seen from them have been good. I am not an economist so I don't really understand the differences between their flavor and the flavor of Mises Institute.

[loupeznik]

Cato is right. If Ron doesn't get the nomination my vote is going to the LP.

Isn't that the point of the article.

[rp08rp]

Google for a quick piece by Michael Tanner of The Cato institute and what he said yesterday:

"Ron Paul has clearly mined that vein of Republican discontent which caused so many limited-government conservatives and libertarians to stay home or vote for third party candidates last November, resulting in Democrats regaining control of Congress. His support is real, significant...and growing.

And here's the very real danger for Republicans: If Paul, as expected, fails to obtain the GOP presidential nomination - and should the eventual GOP nominee fail to woo and attract Paul's growing legions of supporters with a believable pro-Constitution platform - don't be surprised to see enough Ron Paul voter support swing over to the Libertarian Party nominee on the general election ballot a year from now and throw the race into the Democrats' column.

All the press attention over the past few weeks has been on the possibility of Christian conservatives rallying behind a third-party candidate should the GOP nominate Rudy Giuliani. But the party's growing libertarian-leaning wing could have the same effect. For the GOP to have a chance of beating Hillary next November, its nominee is going to have to find a way to appeal to both its pro-life wing AND its constitutionalist wing. A pretty tall order."



possibly

[mjt]

I am a libertarian leaning conservative Christian so I know that I would not vote for Giuliani when he is given the nomination. If the Republican party would stop compromising with liberals, they wouldn't have to worry about the Constitutionalists and Christians voting for a third candidate. As far as I'm concerned, the potential race between Hillary and Giuliani is a race between a New York liberal and a lite beer version of a New York liberal.

Any more, it seems to me the media portrays that our country is separated into the East Coast/West Coast liberal and the Midwest/Southern conservative---all the more reason to be supportive of states rights!

And for the record, just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I don't like anyone who isn't.

[Delaware]

What i hate is that they say the nominee needs to cater to us, if the nominee is CFR, they are not going to do what they say.

[Anti Federalist]

I will write in Ron Paul if it comes down to it.

In 2008 I will vote for no other person, period.

Maybe this could happen nationally...

Maine mayor wins re-election by write in.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1120AP_ODD_Write_In_Mayor.html

[Menthol Patch]

The solution is simple. All of this pundits need to support Ron Paul! Then he can win the nomination!

[Matt Collins]

If the Republican party would stop compromising with liberals, they wouldn't have to worry about the Constitutionalists and Christians voting for a third candidate.You touched on a point that few people realize. The Dems and the Reps are in the game to win at whatever cost.

The Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, etc are all based upon philosophy and don't whore themselves to get power (which is also why they don't win unfortunately). The Dems and Reps platform changes with the polls to attempt to attract as many voters as possible.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

Vote Paul!

[weatherbill]

If Paul doesn't get in, it will be Hillary and then, the domestic terrorism begins! More Waco, more ruby ridge, more false flag opps......won't be a fun time

[NewEnd]

Guillary, Hilliani

Who cares, they both are dog *feces*

[Falmarri]

I think Ron Paul pulls his support more or less equally from both parties. The far right and far left both see things they like in him, and if people would just listen to his views, I think more would also agree. So I don't think his not winning the GOP nomination would cause a Hillary win necessarily.

[Menthol Patch]

You touched on a point that few people realize. The Dems and the Reps are in the game to win at whatever cost.

The Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, etc are all based upon philosophy and don't whore themselves to get power (which is also why they don't win unfortunately). The Dems and Reps platform changes with the polls to attempt to attract as many voters as possible.

The fact is the Dems and modern Republicans all want big government!

Only Ron Paul wants small government.

[mjt]

Amen Matt! Which ever way the wind blows.....

[Matt Collins]

Thanks MJT