PDA

View Full Version : NRO: I Suspect Ron Paul's Support Is Non-Transferrable




Green Mountain Boy
11-26-2007, 03:57 PM
I Suspect Ron Paul's Support Is Non-Transferrable

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjFhMzg1MzM5NjgwZmQ5NjBiMDJkMzE2ZTg5YzQyNGU=

The always must-read Patrick Ruffini:

Pat Robertson’s 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues.

I disagree, and I disagree with the triumphalism of the Nick Gillespie-Matt Welch op-ed that spurred the Ruffini’s post. But I’ll put it to the never-lacking-for-words Ron Paul-backing Campaign Spot readers out there… I think that if and when Ron Paul ceases his presidential bid, his supporters will go in a thousand different directions, including many saying "to hell with politics." They're not inclined towards compromise, and they're not going to be harnessed by half-a-loaf or even eighty-percent-of-the-loaf candidates. In other words, Ron Paul’s support is non-transferrable.

Ruffini asks, “Assuming Paul loses, where does small-l libertarianism go from here?” (First, he guarantees himself a million e-mails when he suggests that Paul may not win.) I think they become about as cohesive and effective as Howard Dean’s grassroots backers did after 2004. Maybe they find a lower-race candidate who stirs their blood, as Ned Lamont did for Dean’s supporters in 2006. Maybe some political consulting firms focusing on grassroots and Internet advertising emerge out of this. But Dean’s backers are an afterthought to the dynamics of the 2008 Democratic race, as no serious successor to Dean’s mantle emerged. I don’t see any younger, up-and-coming Ron Paul figure ready to emerge for 2012.

For starters, the Ron Paul crowd will never throw their weight behind another GOP presidential candidate this cycle, even to reject the least libertarian candidate, as they see the field in binary terms: Ronpaulian perfection and statist sellout warmonger scum. There’s no guy in the field who they see as almost as good as Ron Paul, with a better shot at winning the nomination.

And while Ron Paul’s fans are full of energy, drive, and willing to open their wallets, they do not – so far - seem eager to do the “blocking and tackling” basic political activities to become a force at all levels of the government, local offices, state offices, Senate and House races, etc. (They’re libertarians; in the end they would rather not deal with the government.) The thought of putting enormous effort to nominate a libertarian-leaning Republican in a Senate primary won’t energize or enthuse a large enough segment of the Paul base, which is, let’s recall, so far demonstrated to be about eight percent of the Republican primary electorate in some states.

Contrast this to the Christian conservatives – they were eager to get their candidates running at all levels of government with a fairly coherent platform – anti-abortion, anti-pornography, anti-gay-marriage, school prayer, no condoms in schools, etc.

I could live quite happily with a more libertarian GOP, and more libertarian government overall. But when Gillespie and say, “it's clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics. That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him,” I think they’ve got it backwards, and that most figures who try to tap into the “Ron Paul rEVOLution” in future campaigns will find his followers find most of his aspiring successors pale imitations of the real thing.

11/26 04:46 PM

Gorgy
11-26-2007, 04:07 PM
This guy is spot on. I don't support panderers or "me too" people. I only support principle and proof thereof. It's Ron Paul or bust.

ronpaulyourmom
11-26-2007, 04:10 PM
I hate to say it but I think he's got a good point.

We'll just have to make sure we dont lose. :)

me3
11-26-2007, 04:10 PM
It's just another attempt to steer the attention away from the message by saying that we're all obsessed with some pubescent hero complex when it comes to Dr. Paul.

But that's about as much as you can expect from people who neither agree with his positions, or that the country is in bad shape. If they can't see the reasons for the rally, then they won't be able to understand the movement.

Bruehound
11-26-2007, 04:27 PM
There are many leaders emerging to carry forward the Freedom Movement.

Perhaps Dr. Rand Paul.

Fyretrohl
11-26-2007, 04:28 PM
MAybe they need to understand, as I believe Dr Paul does, that we are not voting for Ron Paul. We are voting for what was intended by the Founding Fathers vs the Marginalization of 'We The People'. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for that message. The rest are like the Capital One commercials...The 'Big Banks' vs Small Business. Well, it is Big Government vs We The People.

shadowhooch
11-26-2007, 04:35 PM
I think the article is pretty accurate. Yes, it is about the ideas. But even moreso, it really is about Ron Paul the man.

Afterall, it is his proven consistency and integrity in the face of so much adversity that convinces most of us that he is a man of his word.

If Mitt Romney was speaking the same message that Ron Paul was, I don't think this grassroots movement would be near as strong for him. And I think fewer people would be inspired because it would appear as the same old lip service that most politicians give.

We will be hard-pressed to find anyone as consistent and principled as Ron Paul in our lifetime.

DRV45N05
11-26-2007, 04:46 PM
I'm not going to support another GOP candidate if one gets the nomination, that's for sure.

This is why Ron NEEDS to run as a LP candidate if he doesn't get the GOP nomination. He has said time and again that his campaign is about his message. If he just goes back to Congress and does his usual routine, he's going to get pushed back by the media again as just another guy who ran for the GOP nod. He needs to run to the finish and make sure that his message doesn't die this time, because it needs to be thrust before Americans until the votes are counted in November 2008.

Brutus
11-26-2007, 04:58 PM
Why-oh-why would I vote for more of the same? Isn't that really the question? If someone could show me how Romney or Giulliani or Huckster or McCaini were 80% of Ron Paul that would be different. However, they aren't even 5% of Ron Paul. I've held my nose and voted too many times. All it got me is screwed by someone I voted for. No great treasure, that.

The war, the current police state and the collapse of our currency are the most important issues, and none of the other candidates even touch those issues, so they have no appeal to me at all.

Syren123
11-26-2007, 05:16 PM
Why-oh-why would I vote for more of the same? Isn't that really the question? If someone could show me how Romney or Giulliani or Huckster or McCaini were 80% of Ron Paul that would be different. However, they aren't even 5% of Ron Paul. I've held my nose and voted too many times. All it got me is screwed by someone I voted for. No great treasure, that.

The war, the current police state and the collapse of our currency are the most important issues, and none of the other candidates even touch those issues, so they have no appeal to me at all.

Exactly. And the GOP nimrods do NOT understand that. It's astounding that they ask Dr Paul whom he would support if he doesn't get the nomination...are they just not paying attention?! That's an absurd question if you have one clue about what this campaign is all about.

But then again, we're not dealing with the brightest bulbs on the tree. These are career politicians and kool-aid pickled media shills.

angelatc
11-26-2007, 05:20 PM
There are many leaders emerging to carry forward the Freedom Movement.

Perhaps Dr. Rand Paul.

I have to confess that when Congressman Paul started gaining popularity, I didn't think he could win, but I did think he could ultimately father a new conservative movement.

Of course, now I think he will win, so the movement will even be named after him.

loupeznik
11-26-2007, 05:41 PM
Ron Paul IS my compromise. Normally I vote LP and I will again if Ron doesn't make it past the primaries. Would anyone like to join me?

garrettwombat
11-26-2007, 06:08 PM
we should tell the GOP that if ron paul isnt elected all our votes are going to hillary...

it would be a lie, but i wonder if it would scare them.

jenius
11-26-2007, 06:11 PM
we should tell the GOP that if ron paul isnt elected all our votes are going to hillary...

it would be a lie, but i wonder if it would scare them.

LOL, that's interesting. It might work to get Fox News to stop attacking Ron Paul so much, except for the fact that Ron Paul scares the neocons even more than Hillary does. They'd RATHER have Hillary than the guy who wants to reduce federal power and remove the influence of special interest groups.

me3
11-26-2007, 06:31 PM
we should tell the GOP that if ron paul isnt elected all our votes are going to hillary...

it would be a lie, but i wonder if it would scare them.
Might not be the best way to build a coalition.

mconder
11-26-2007, 08:41 PM
I think the time for a viable third party is upon us and that Ron Paul is laying the groundwork the realization of all the hopes of this revolution, hopes that will be delivered on by a future third party candidate, possibly as soon as 2012. If anyone seriously thinks that the Republican party is going to let another Ron Paul blindside them is seriously delusional. I wish Ron Paul would reconsider his promise not to run third party as it would strengthen our cause in 2012. For me, I realize that Ron Paul will in all likelyhood not be our next president, but that doesn't keep me from thinking that the message will not win out in the end. Eventually the "enough is enough" sentiment will perkelate to the masses, once Hillary or whoever jukes the American people for yet another 4 years.

hypnagogue
11-26-2007, 08:50 PM
I'll just vote libertarian as usual.

anotherone
11-26-2007, 09:12 PM
Ron Paul IS my compromise. Normally I vote LP and I will again if Ron doesn't make it past the primaries. Would anyone like to join me?

ditto.

The other GOP candidates are all big spending liberals. I could never vote for those pandering losers.

Hurricane Bruiser
11-26-2007, 09:38 PM
Well before I knew Ron Paul was running I was planning on voting Libertarian for the first time. That party most closely represents me but I do prefer Ron Paul's approach to some issues that slightly differ from the LP.

nigh_eve
11-26-2007, 09:55 PM
I think the article is pretty accurate. Yes, it is about the ideas. But even moreso, it really is about Ron Paul the man.

Afterall, it is his proven consistency and integrity in the face of so much adversity that convinces most of us that he is a man of his word.

If Mitt Romney was speaking the same message that Ron Paul was, I don't think this grassroots movement would be near as strong for him. And I think fewer people would be inspired because it would appear as the same old lip service that most politicians give.

We will be hard-pressed to find anyone as consistent and principled as Ron Paul in our lifetime.

Agreed -- I always shake my head when I hear someone, including the good Dr. himself saying, "It's not the man, it's the message..." For me, it is AS much the man as it is the message. Props to Dr. Paul for standing true to his convictions and not selling out to the temptation of power during his tenure as a Congressman. How many others could it be said the same is true? Like many here, I am committed to RP with a write-in vote if necessary and my hope for our government hereafter is that some among us (perhaps our children) will carry the torch in the manner and after the example of Dr. Paul.

ChicagoLawyer
11-26-2007, 11:01 PM
If Ron Paul doesn't win I'm going deep into the GOP to make it safe for libertarianism again. If you guys want to go build third parties or just give up on politics that's cool, but I have to tell you, it's the only way we're going to get many of Dr. Paul's ideals enacted.

Look at what Dr. Paul has done himself if you need any guide. Apart from his 1988 presidential run, has he tried to change things through third parties? No! He's been a Republican, won as a Republican, and voted consistently for liberty as a Republican, and has even taken a few people with him. His Liberty Caucus in the House has over 20 members, and many of them will vote with him on issues important to us. We need to swell their ranks and put more similar legislators in state houses and governors' mansions. Look at the few legislators around the country (I can think of ones from Montana, Missouri, and New Jersey at least) who have endorsed him. They were elected--and with our help more can be.

loupeznik
11-26-2007, 11:21 PM
If Ron Paul doesn't win I'm going deep into the GOP to make it safe for libertarianism again. If you guys want to go build third parties or just give up on politics that's cool, but I have to tell you, it's the only way we're going to get many of Dr. Paul's ideals enacted.

Look at what Dr. Paul has done himself if you need any guide. Apart from his 1988 presidential run, has he tried to change things through third parties? No! He's been a Republican, won as a Republican, and voted consistently for liberty as a Republican, and has even taken a few people with him. His Liberty Caucus in the House has over 20 members, and many of them will vote with him on issues important to us. We need to swell their ranks and put more similar legislators in state houses and governors' mansions. Look at the few legislators around the country (I can think of ones from Montana, Missouri, and New Jersey at least) who have endorsed him. They were elected--and with our help more can be.

Republican and Democrat are just names in the "us vs. them" game. That game is the game that got us this socialist United States. I usually vote LP not because they are my tribe or team but because I see individuals with principles I share. This year I happen to see a guy with an (R) next to his name that shares many of my principles.

Dan D.
11-26-2007, 11:58 PM
The article brings up a good point. It'd be great if the campaign could give us a list of who to vote for in the House and Senate primaries. State level elections would be good too, but that's asking a LOT.

Goldwater Conservative
11-27-2007, 12:15 AM
If Ron Paul doesn't win I'm going deep into the GOP to make it safe for libertarianism again. If you guys want to go build third parties or just give up on politics that's cool, but I have to tell you, it's the only way we're going to get many of Dr. Paul's ideals enacted.

I'll probably go back to voting write-in or third party like I did in '06, but I agree that working from within one of the major parties is the best way to do things... unless a third party rises on the single issue of voting reform, which is the biggest obstacle to real electoral choice.

Also, I think we should at least consider influencing the Democrat party as well. With the mountain states and southwest growing in prominence, there's room for Democrats who are basically libertarian, except in supporting very basic state and local social programs.

RonPaulNCR
11-27-2007, 12:38 AM
Why can't we look at the grassroots effort and understand how efficient it is? Then realize just how efficient this country would be if it were run in the same manner! The time is ripe to finance and support a third party! No longer will we be stuck with the lesser of two evils.

Let's face it, the only thing Dr. Paul may be able to do is reduce our military operations. But that's just tangibles. His voice and reason resonating over the entire USA would have lasting and profound impact on our country! The people will eventually change and want more. Then Congress changes, the country changes! That's what this revolution is all about. Change. A viable third party is a smaller stepped change but change none the less. We need to change this country and if plan A doesn't work, we need a plan B.

JaylieWoW
11-27-2007, 11:05 AM
We will be hard-pressed to find anyone as consistent and principled as Ron Paul in our lifetime.

Hammer, Nail, Head!

Yes it is the "message" that drives us, but it is also that the messenger is sincere in its delivery. You cannot separate the message from the messenger. Any candidate that suddenly started speaking like Ron Paul would be immediately exposed as a fake. The media can accuse me of being a "hero" worshiper all they like, I am rather proud of supporting someone so honest and principled, therefore I will take it as a compliment.

I've often thought about the "what if" of if Ron Paul does not make it to the White House. It doesn't mean I don't think he'll make it or cannot make it, rather it is thoughtful and honest consideration of all the possibilities.

One thing is very clear to me. No matter what '08 turns out, I would be absolutely THRILLED if all of Ron Paul's supporters continued to maintain the energy being displayed now. Certainly via Meetup and other tools, supporters could continue to find other candidates (maybe even become candidates themselves), to work towards achieving a restored Republic.

I also have said before and will say again, from here until another true "messenger" comes along, I will be writing in Ron Paul on every single presidential ballot. PERIOD.