Ron Paul Revolution

Re: Ron Paul Revolution


I just watched the guy on the Tucker Carlson show...he made quite a few good points about government. If it were between him or anyone other than Hilary I'd vote for him. He's the only guy on the right side that I think I'd vote for right now though.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make any noise?

If a revolution happens....................................................................?

Dont worry Okie... Just stand aside and watch it happen.

Paul has been crying in the wilderness forever. He has been delivering his message so long now, I can't recall when he started. I don't see him getting much traction now.

Interesting article. "Could Ron Paul Win in New Hampshire?"

FreeMarketNews.com
Thursday June 7, 2007

Could Presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) win the Republican national primary in New Hampshire? If he did so, the momentum would be significant - and the press coverage massive - as New Hampshire may be the first state to hold a formal election, even beating out the Iowa caucus.

"Ron Paul could win in New Hampshire," says a source close to the campaign. "It would be an explosive political act - one that would devastate the common wisdom. The mainstream media hasn't realized it yet, but folks in New Hampshire take him seriously."


Ron Paul could use a win in New Hampshire to provide momentum in other states - especially if New Hampshire positions itself as the nation's first primary again. The state actually has considerable flexibility in terms of setting a primary. The system allows state officials to wait right up to the last minute before they commit to a date. It's possible that the primary could be held in the second week of January, or even earlier, in December 07. This may explain why the Ron Paul campaign is not putting a lot of emphasis on Iowa but has just hired a campaign manager in New Hampshire with considerable professional experience.

While the Ron Paul campaign isn't commenting on any moves, New Hampsher-ites likely sat up and took notice recently when James "The Primary Source" Pindell reported that "Former New Hampshire state Representative Barbara Hagan of Manchester endorsed Texas Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign and will organize outreach to the state's pro-life community."

http://www.boston.com/news...

Hagan is a powerful figure in New Hampshire politics, and her backing means that Ron Paul has made substantial inroads into the conservative wing of the GOP in New Hampshire. However, even the conservative wing of the GOP in New Hampshire is more liberal than most in the classical sense. In fact, both GOP-ers and the state's huge independent group of votes tend, opinion-wise toward small government, low taxes and free-market solutions.

That's why Ron Paul's message has appeal - and why he could gain momentum. In fact, the maverick conservative-populist Patrick Buchanan won the state's Republican nomination in 1996, defeating Senator Bob Dole by about 3,000 votes. Wikipedia describes it this way:

At a rally in Nashua, he said, "We shocked them in Alaska. Stunned them in Louisiana. Stunned them in Iowa. They are in a terminal panic. They hear the shouts of the peasants from over the hill. All the knights and barons will be riding into the castle pulling up the drawbridge in a minute. All the peasants are coming with pitchforks. We're going to take this over the top." While campaigning, Buchanan energized his supporters with the slogan "The peasants are coming with pitchforks", occasionally appearing with a prop pitchfork, thus earning him the nickname "Pitchfork Pat."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan

Ultimately, as the above excerpt shows, Buchanan chose to run in the American "populist" tradition. Ron Paul, a true political throwback, is doing no such thing. He is, instead, grounded in the timeless tenets of Thomas Jefferson's agrarian republicanism. He is a constitutional scholar, an admirable polemicist and principled politician. His fundamental beliefs are actually those upon which the country was founded - and from which he believes it has grievously and dangerously strayed.

People who actually get to hear his message about small government, lower taxes and free markets often appreciate the fundamental moral conviction of his message. It is quickly clear that Dr. Paul is no normal politician. He is known, for instance, as "Dr. No" in Congress because he will not vote for any measure that he believes is unconstitutional.

As heir to Thomas Jefferson's thought, Ron Paul is far more dangerous to the political elite than Buchanan ever was. Buchanan could not take his message from the fringe to the mainstream. He marginalized himself consciously or unconsciously.

Ron Paul is no marginal figure. Should he get beyond New Hampshire - and likely long before that - his message may command considerable resonance in the public arena. It already does on the Internet, and for good reason.

Dream on.

What an ironic article title.

Gaining Traction - Ron Paul's Message and His Support Getting Noticed

LINK

What's your beef with Paul? He's the most conservative candidate running for the Republican ticket.

Ron Paul is the most conservative and ideologically pure candidate running for either Party. His message has great appeal for folks like me, but I don't support his candidacy. The problem is that I don't believe that the American electorate are likely to vote for him in sufficient numbers to win the White House. We have to continuously aim for the center, and that makes McCain, Guilliani, and perhaps Thompson better candidates. This is especially true in the coming election with a sizable portion of the public supporting more liberal views. Some of Paul's views maybe ideologically pure, but they're still problematical even for conservative Republicans. The 21st century world requires some modification of a Political Platform that would have been great in the 19th century. Ron Paul is, I think, a good yardstick to measure other candidates by.

When the president came to New Jersey the other week.. a friend and I were supporting Ron Paul with a big banner.. We got lumped in with the democrats who were protesting.

Anyway.. a woman comes up to me and is real happy that we're supporting for Ron Paul.. and she goes on to talk about how great he is.


She then says that she'll probBLY wind up voting for Obama although her heart belongs to Paul.. That shows me a person who is afraid of standing for what they believe in.

I dont care if I have to write his name on the ballot. I will vote for Ron Paul.. all the others can die

It is exactly that kind of thinking that has us choosing between bad and worse in every general election, and it's why money plays more and more of a role each election season. Why bother voting? Why not just say that the person with the most money wins? Just put the oval office on the auction block and see what we can get.

Exactly right.

Let 2008 be remembered as the year the people saved America.

Vote for Ron Paul.

This illustrates one huge problem. If I heard what Ron Paul said in the debate correctly, he is a long way from agreeing with the idealogy of an Obama, or any Democrat. That is if he told the entire truth about what he believes. The huge problem is the people on the street and on this forum have a poor understanding of what the politicians and the parties actually stand for. I am talking about the root or basic foundation of their political philosophy. I think the liking of Ron Paul has alot more to do with the fact that he opposes Bush and the establishment Republican party than it is what he really believes.

If I heard Paul correctly, Paul is more of a constitutionalist. Although he disagrees with the current Republican stance on foreign policy and the war, the Republican party is far closer to his political foundation beliefs than the Democrats. So I find somebody that says they would vote for Ron Paul if they thought he could win, but otherwise they will vote for Obama, as an example of somebody that is totally lost in terms of understanding political philosophies.

I don't think so. I think it's more a sign of the times. A lot of people who are politically conservative find themselves more aligned with the Democrats as the Republicans drift too far to the right (until they are almost left). The problem for you is that over the last 6 or so years Democrat and Liberal have come to mean everyone who opposes Bush. And Bush is not a very conservative president. So the blurring of political and ideological lines has more to do with the marketing of this administration than anything else.

What I think that woman was saying is that she would vote for someone who made sense, who could clearly see what our nations problems are, and who looked like they might approach them with something resembling competence. Either Obama or Paul would fit that bill, IMO.

Obama is a big government person, as is every Democrat. If I heard Paul correctly, not so. Two basic beliefs. One, the government can fix everything and be involved in everything. The other, the rights of the individual reign supreme with the least government at the smallest possible government jurisdiction to keep the country going. Vastly different philosophies, with Obama on one end of the scale, and Paul at the other, that is if Paul said what he believes. I really don't know much about Paul, but it appears his main difference with Republicans is foreign policy, where he favors isolationism.

I think you're right, there is a huge misunderstanding as to what the parties and candidates stand for. Yours first and foremost.

Both parties favor big government, they just have differing notions on what that huge bloated governing body's priorities should be.

I guess if anyone is so delusional that they think they are going to ride the Ron Paul wave to victory, then it becomes obvious to me how easily they might be mixed up on other things as well.

Asherman, you and I don't often agree, but this time I have to ask you for a little more confidence in the candidate whose message most appeals to you. As you may know, my vote would be in play if I was an American citizen yet, and I'm strongly leaning Democratic at this point. To me, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who would stand a chance with me. For me, the showstopper for Rudy McRomney is that they continue the Bush administration's denial of reality. By contrast, Ron Paul embraces reality with both hands, then offers conservative solutions to the real problems America has. While I don't agree with every solution he offers, he has infinitely more to offer me than your other nine candidates have.

Just because Rudy McRomney promise to spend like Democrats and tax like Republicans, that doesn't make them appealing to swing voters. Ron Paul is much, more appealing than they are to this swing-voter-wannabe.

There's this word "obvious" introducing a non-obvious point again.

Here is how Obama and Ron Paul might be someone's #1 and #2 choices. When Pollsters ask Americans to prioritize problems in public affairs, the #1 problem, by a very long shot, is the war in Iraq. Paul and Obama have fairly similar opinions about these. Further down the list, they also share quite a few opinions about corruption in government and about the war on terror (it's degenerating into an authoritarian shtick for eroding the rule of law.) True, Obama and Paul offer radically different solutions to these problems, but at least they see the problem. That makes them about equally attractive candidates to me, and collectively much more attractive than the other Republican contenders.