Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party IV

[Matt]

Ron Paul is the only national figure whose philosophy is consistent with the Founder's vision of liberty, the only national figure equipped to engage in a critique on mainstream macroeconomic theory, the only national figure who has the courage not to resort to whitewashed political rhetoric and instead deal with substance.

If voters want a principled leader who is willing to actually take on the broken status quo, their only option is Ron Paul.

It is as simple as that.

People who speak of the Framers' as if they were infallible and claim that we should be upholding their ideals today are just as wrong as those who claim that the ideals of the Framers hold no validity because they had slaves.

 

[Kelly]

Well, we know THAT WON'T HAPPEN, if Obama is re-elected....lol

 

[Paradoxium]

I don't think Ron is campaigning to win in 08. It's the same story for 12. He is trying to push Libertarianism discussion/discourse towards the mainstream. Problem is, there is many variations of libertarianism as well.

 

[StorminNorman]

I think that Ron Paul would be in a much better position in a financial position in the Presidents Cabinet than as President. Someone like the Secretary of the Treasury or Chairman of the Federal Reserve can do a lot more than a President who would never get anything done due to Congressional opposition.

Ron Paul is better as Chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy subcommittee than Treasury Secretary (there are plenty of Austrian economists you can put in that position, only a few of them in Congress and none with his seniority). Now Chairman of the Fed? You could win me on that.

 

[StorminNorman]

People who speak of the Framers' as if they were infallible and claim that we should be upholding their ideals today are just as wrong as those who claim that the ideals of the Framers hold no validity because they had slaves.

The Framers aren't infallible, but man was meant to be free. That's what classical liberalism is. That's what Ron Paul advocates.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't think Ron is campaigning to win in 08. It's the same story for 12. He is trying to push Libertarianism discussion/discourse towards the mainstream. Problem is, there is many variations of libertarianism as well.

Austrians of the World Unite!

 

[Kelly]

I prefer that Celts unite....thank you. *smiles*

 

[Matt]

The Ron Paul of the 2012 cycle is completely different than the Ron Paul of the 2008 cycle.

The Ron Paul of 2008 only got any recognition when it was too late for him to have any major effect and even then the mainstream media tried to cut him off. The Ron Paul of 2012 has a much larger and more energized support base, more recognition within the mainstream media to the point where it is impossible to ignore him like they did in 2008, more money, more clout with his chairman ship on the Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee, along with the rise of the Tea Party in 2009/2010.

Ron Paul did pretty good for a candidate who was just a blip on the radar in 2008. Imagine what he can do now in 2012. I don't think that he'll win the nomination or the general election because his views are unfortunately unelectable, but he certainly will have a major impact in shaping the race and positions of whoever becomes the Republican nominee.

I think that you overestimate his influence and I think that the election will show once again that Ron Paul simply is not taken seriously enough amongst the general public to make any sort of real influence.

He really shouldn't take responsibility for things that he did not write and the only people who really harped on him for it are the extreme progressive blogosphere such as the Huffington Post (no surprise there).

If he signs his name to it, then the buck stops with him.

He is a viable leader of the libertarian movement, not the kind that will win the Presidency, but still a viable leader who has given the libertarian movement some much needed attention and focus.

He's not a viable leader. If someone stands up on a soap box and shouts so loud that they attract a crowd of hecklers and eye rollers than they are not a viable leader for a movement just because they attract attention.

The Libertarian movement needs a leader who can attract attention in a positive light. Ron Paul cannot express his ideals to the masses and inspire their loyalty. Just as Nader is not a viable leader of the Green Party because he cannot express his views to the general public, Paul is not a viable leader to the Libertarian movement as he is incapable of attracting anything more than a very vocal minority of about 10 % (at most) to the movement.

I think that Ron Paul would be in a much better position in a financial position in the Presidents Cabinet than as President. Someone like the Secretary of the Treasury or Chairman of the Federal Reserve can do a lot more than a President who would never get anything done due to Congressional opposition.

No president will ever appoint him to a position of power. He is just too much of a liability.

 

[Marx]

What happened to Gary Johnson?

 

[Kelly]

He is still around, he just will not ever get the Republican candidate position....

 

[Paradoxium]

The Libertarians needs a super Alpha Male + to garner any seriousness. But chances are this Alpha Male is probably too busy enjoying life.

 

[hippie_hunter]

What happened to Gary Johnson?

Ron Paul canceled him out.

 

[Matt]

The Libertarians needs a super Alpha Male + to garner any seriousness. But chances are this Alpha Male is probably too busy enjoying life.

The Libertarian movement needs someone with the smoothness, electability, and charisma of Obama or Romney but with the ideals of a Libertarian rather than a rambling, angry, crazy old man.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Ron Paul is better as Chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy subcommittee than Treasury Secretary (there are plenty of Austrian economists you can put in that position, only a few of them in Congress and none with his seniority). Now Chairman of the Fed? You could win me on that.

If I had to pick and choose I would go with Chairman of the Fed, but I think that he can do a lot if he had either position.

 

[Marx]

He is still around, he just will not ever get the Republican candidate position....

Ron Paul canceled him out.

I see.

 

[Paradoxium]

The Libertarian movement needs someone with the smoothness, electability, and charisma of Obama or Romney but with the ideals of a Libertarian rather than a rambling, angry, crazy old man.

Alpha gravitas, you agree with me

The problem is, fiscal conservatism = unelectable. So it is a no go right off the bat.

 

[Kelly]

I would be ok with him giving up his seat in Congress and taking Chairman of the Fed......but right now, I'm glad he's in Congress keep the flame burning under many people's asses.

 

[Marx]

Alpha gravitas, you agree with me

The problem is, fiscal conservatism = unelectable. So it is a no go right off the bat.

I wouldn't necessarily say that...

 

[Matt]

Alpha gravitas, you agree with me

The problem is, fiscal conservatism = unelectable. So it is a no go right off the bat.

I usually do, Dox.

And yeah, I agree once again. No one likes being told that we need to tighten our belts.

 

[Kelly]

Independent voters will vote for it, if the person with the plan, explains it with passion, and plays NO POLITICS in the messaging.

Unfortunately there is not a Republican in the mix so far that is brave enough to go for it.

Which I DO NOT UNDERSTAND....Republicans WILL VOTE for a Republican, the RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES WILL VOTE for a Republican, RIGHT WING CHURCHGOERS WILL VOTE for a Republican, TEA PARTIERS WILL VOTE for a Republican.....WHY? As a vote against Obama...

So, someone needs to take a stand, or enjoy 4 more years of Obama....

I DO NOT BELIEVE that Fiscal Conservatism is unelectable.....NOT FOR A SECOND.

Obama is not going to get his first time voters back in the numbers that he did before....I predict an extremely dirty campaign from his camp which will turn off Independent voters in great numbers....

If a fiscal conservative can come out with a plan, that they get out there and door to door explain, 100's of town hall meetings....and I mean 100's.....and leave the dirt to the Obama campaign. THEY CAN GET ELECTED.

And that is something that my mind CANNOT be changed on.....no way. We (fiscal conservative Independent voters) had our best chance with Mitch Daniels, but I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND why he isn't running....because the Obama campaign has already begun showing its colors........and it would be all about Mitch Daniels wife, not the issues from the Obama campaign, and I don't blame him for not wanting to put his wife through that.....totally repsect him for that decision.

 

[Paradoxium]

You might have better luck convincing hardcore evangelicals on gay marriage than fiscal conservatism.

 

[StorminNorman]

I've pointed out many examples of his craziness, you've opted to ignore them. Which is fine. Paul is smart. I take no credit away from him for the accomplishments you have posted. But he still says crazy **** that makes him unelectable.

Your examples have either been wrong or do not fit the definition of crazy.

When he says something good we should listen to him or we lack a desire for substance, but when he says something nuts we should just shrug it off. Funny that this is coming from a guy who recently condemned Obama over Jeremiah Wright.

He didn't say what you accused him of, simple as that. There is a difference in having a writer of your newsletter say something stupid and for you to spend 20 years with someone who says the sort of things Wright has. If Ron Paul kept the guy on his staff for 20 years, this would be a better comparison.

Two months ago you said that the Tea Party has no founder or leadership. Funny how your opinion changes when convenient. Paul's influence on the Tea Party's formation is negligible. The Tea Party was founded based on the fact that we have a black president. That's why a majority of these people weren't out protesting in 2007 and 2008. The Tea Party wasn't formed because Ron Paul entered the scene and was a messianic figure to Tea Partiers, otherwise they would've voted for him. The Tea Party was formed because the black guy won.

The Tea Party has no leadership, but the grassroots Constitutional-based approach comes from Ron Paul's campaign. (And the spread of Austrian economics nationwide did as well). Ludwig von Mises is being quoted by Republican Congressional Chairmen, freshmen Republicans are more willing to speak out against American intervention. Ron Paul.

The Tea Party were the same Republicans that didn't show up in 2006. Obama's race was irrelevant.

He's one of the "top two nominees," because he is in a race right now with the likes of Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty. Once Romney, Huntsman, Perry, Pataki, Giuliani, and Palin enter the race, Paul will only be a top candidate in the sense that he is at the top of the bottom tier alongside the likes of Bachmann and Jimmy McMillan.

We'll see.

Ah Norm, I missed that ego of yours during your self-imposed two week exile from the Hype.

You're right. In 2008 the American voters elected and subsequently got burnt by a self-proclaimed revolutionary and idealist. If history is any indication (and it always is) they will not turn around and vote for another one. They will nominate a safe candidate, either Romney, Huntsman or Pawlenty.

The difference is Ron Paul has a history of being right (the economic crisis, inflation, etc.) as well a library of substantive books.

Funny how someone who claims to be so much smarter than the rest of us must resort to silly semantics to hide from a point that he is incapable of addressing.

You credited Ron Paul with a quote he never said. It's pretty simple.

My Lord, I'm not even addressing this. The Ron Paul "revolution," is only so big in the minds of his die hard supporters who equal a little more than the loyal soldiers of Lyndon LaRouche's "revolution," and a little less than the soldiers of the Ralph Nader "revolution."

 

[Paradoxium]

Independent voters will vote for it, if the person with the plan, explains it with passion, and plays NO POLITICS in the messaging.

Unfortunately there is not a Republican in the mix so far that is brave enough to go for it.

Which I DO NOT UNDERSTAND....Republicans WILL VOTE for a Republican, the RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES WILL VOTE for a Republican, RIGHT WING CHURCHGOERS WILL VOTE for a Republican, TEA PARTIERS WILL VOTE for a Republican.....WHY? As a vote against Obama...

So, someone needs to take a stand, or enjoy 4 more years of Obama....

I DO NOT BELIEVE that Fiscal Conservatism is unelectable.....NOT FOR A SECOND.

Obama is not going to get his first time voters back in the numbers that he did before....I predict an extremely dirty campaign from his camp which will turn off Independent voters in great numbers....

If a fiscal conservative can come out with a plan, that they get out there and door to door explain, 100's of town hall meetings....and I mean 100's.....and leave the dirt to the Obama campaign. THEY CAN GET ELECTED.

I look at Greece right now, it leaves me with no hope for fiscal conservatism. Here is a country on the brink on bankruptcy and they still protesting. Norway already pulled funding, IMF is threatening not to fund them anymore. People are already withdrawing money from Greek banks en masse. Where the hell is the money gonna come from? It's so bad that there is more public jobs than private. And yet they complain about cuts.

It's easier to fear monger about cuts than it is being straight about cuts. It nets you easier short term political capital. It's just how the system is designed.

This is the future.

 

[Kelly]

I have faith in the "people", not the "government"...


Greece fed off of Socialism for too many years, "full on Socialism", was its demise.

 

[StorminNorman]

Independent voters will vote for it, if the person with the plan, explains it with passion, and plays NO POLITICS in the messaging.

Unfortunately there is not a Republican in the mix so far that is brave enough to go for it.

Which I DO NOT UNDERSTAND....Republicans WILL VOTE for a Republican, the RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES WILL VOTE for a Republican, RIGHT WING CHURCHGOERS WILL VOTE for a Republican, TEA PARTIERS WILL VOTE for a Republican.....WHY? As a vote against Obama...

So, someone needs to take a stand, or enjoy 4 more years of Obama....

I DO NOT BELIEVE that Fiscal Conservatism is unelectable.....NOT FOR A SECOND.

Obama is not going to get his first time voters back in the numbers that he did before....I predict an extremely dirty campaign from his camp which will turn off Independent voters in great numbers....

If a fiscal conservative can come out with a plan, that they get out there and door to door explain, 100's of town hall meetings....and I mean 100's.....and leave the dirt to the Obama campaign. THEY CAN GET ELECTED.

And that is something that my mind CANNOT be changed on.....no way. We (fiscal conservative Independent voters) had our best chance with Mitch Daniels, but I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND why he isn't running....because the Obama campaign has already begun showing its colors........and it would be all about Mitch Daniels wife, not the issues from the Obama campaign, and I don't blame him for not wanting to put his wife through that.....totally repsect him for that decision.

Ron Paul has passion and he doesn't mess with political grandstanding. And he actually preaches fiscal conservatism - not the Paul Ryan budget.