Who's Afraid of Ron Paul?
 

No one is afraid of Ron Paul.

Not last election.

Not this election.

Because he has no chance whatsoever to win.

And his semi-libertarian influence over his fellow (R) candidates is minimal at best.

As such, no one is afriad of him, or even cares about him, outside his cadre of cult-like followers.

Libertarian Conservativism is in dire need of a voice for the future.

That voice is not Ron Paul.

You're only partially correct.

No one is afraid that Ron Paul is going to win an election. That is absolutely right.

But both the extreme left (because of his appeal to moderate Dems) and the extreme right (because of his appeal to moderates Reps) are terrified of his message and the fact that the public is starting to catch on to it.

His message is one that is a direct threat to the two-party see-saw of extremists we've been dealing with. His message threatens to put away with us having to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Paul is the first in a line of stepping stones for Libertarian Conservatism. You're correct that they need a young, powerful voice. But he has enabled the movement. He has awakened young, moderate voters. He has inspired a group, and hopefully out of that group, we eventually get that voice you want.

Everyone, including Paul, knows he has no chance of being President. But his candidacy is far more important.

No, I am 100% correct. Only the Paul-cult thinks Paul influences the (R) at all. And they're simply wrong.

For example, Paul was a candidate last round, and moved McCain absolutely not at all. The same will stand in 2012, whomever wins the (R) nod will not be influenced by Ron Paul in any meaningful manner. The Tea Party, sure, but Ron Paul (whom even the Tea Party has not embraced), no.

No one is afraid that Ron Paul is going to win an election. That is absolutely right.

Terrified? Really?

Overstate much?

No one is intimidated or scared of Ron Paul or his message, as the "public" is not behind him, nor is the Tea Party (a group one might think would be, yet isn't). If Paul cannot even win over the like-minded Tea Party folks, and he hasn't and won't, he will not scare anyone.

And the fact that is cming from a lol-fail racist like him is part of teh reason third parties continue to fail to take off. Only the fringe crazies run as third party players.

Paul is an evlutionary dead end for Libertarian Conservativism. A branch that did not work out, and will die off.

He is not the future.

Stop drinking the desperatation cool-aid, it's not becomming for someone as bloody smart as you are Tater. You know better than this sillyness.

Some of his ideas are common sense, but the man has almost no charisma. In the popularity contest of the US Presidential election, that counts unfortunately.

Sorry Fish, you're off on this one. There's no denying that Paul has energized young voters that would have ordinarily been apathetic to politics. And it simply is not true that the Tea Party hasn't embraced him. Many, many have. The Tea Party simply has no standout leader. It's a faceless movement based on solely on fiscal responsibility, which is core to his message. Some Tea Partiers support Paul, some support Palin, some support a myriad of others. Paul was in fact the first Tea Partier.

Again, I haven't said he is the future. But he is sowing the seeds for the future. You may see him as a crazy old fringe candidate, but I guarantee you, 10-15 years from now, the Libertarian Conservative candidate that you so strongly desire that does have a shot at this thing will claim Paul as an influence.

Paul is the one educating young GOPers now on the perils of the War of Drugs, illegal foreign confrontation and similar issues. Who else is representing these views on the right? NO ONE.

An isolationist who supports not raising the debt limit is not a reasonable Presidential candidate and the public appears to get it.

It's always sad to see a truly bright mind overtaken by a cult. Be that cult one of religious superstion and fear, or one of desperate wishful thinking, the results are always the same. Spouting silly illogical PR talking points, wishful dreaming and doe-eyes lovefests instead of cold hard reality, and the same big eyed, blank looked far-away stare of one who's drank one glass too many of the "special" cool aid at the last cult meeting.

It's exactly this foolish clinging to Ron Paul, a horrible uncharismatic done-nothing-of-note politician with horribly unrealistic and often counterproductive ideals, that bars the door for real third options to come forward.

Because all the cultists keep saying "Rooooon.... ..Paaaaaaaulllll.... ...Roooooon... ...Paaaaaulllllll...." over and over and drowning out everyone and everything else.

Ron Paul is a total unelectable national-level failure and a no-chance nobody who will never amount to anything more than he is today, a fringe Rep from a small district in Texas with a thin resume of actual legislation and accomplishments.

Some of his ideas (the standard issue Libertarian-based Conservatvisim) are good and solid, but most of his stuff is pipe dream foolishness, no different from Dennis Kucinish or other far away space cadet losers with cult-like followings.

You've failed to get my point entirely. And you are sounding a bit like JSJ with your cult comments too. You don't want to become that, do you?

I have clearly stated that Ron Paul is unelectable. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that before you realize that I agree with you. It's funny, whenever we have a Paul thread, people post the same thing over and over and over and over as if the post before theirs didn't even exist. "Many great ideas, some bad ones, no charisma". Repeat, repeat, repeat. You're not bringing anything new to the table with that. I have no delusions of him being anything more in public office than he is now.

What I'm saying is he has touched a sector of the public that to this point was completely disinterested. Many of Paul's positions are ones that you share, Warfish. Many of them. The few that you despise (which are what exactly?) are causing you to overreact to the facts of what he is affecting.

Like I said, only time will tell, but some day, if and when you get your dream candidate, you can take it to the bank that he/she will list Paul as an influence.

Again, I will ask you, and I hope you answer this time: WHO ON THE RIGHT BESIDES PAUL IS DISCUSSING AN END TO THE WAR ON DRUGS?

Ron Paul got one thing right: legalize prostitution. It will solve all our financial problems, as long as there are no "loopholes."

:D

What if you're willing to pay extra?

:D

OT, as a longtime registered (moderate) Conservative, I find some of Paul's stuff to be genuinely appealing. As a whole, I find him tiresome and a bit wacky. I certainly don't see him as being influential in the next election beyond giving some of the more "electable" candidates talking points they wouldn't normally have considered.

This is exactly right. Paul at least brings something different to the table. None of these GOP candidates are worth a damn and all of them will lose if chosen to face the Obama train wreck.

But God forbid someone come to the table with something other than the same old tired crap that goes no where. The crap that took what should be the dominant party and reduced it to nothing in 2008. God forbid you come with even a little bit of outside-the-box thinking. How dare you, when in reality that's exactly what we need.

Love or hate his politics, there's one thing for certain about Ron Paul. He is in it to work for his own beliefs. He isn't there to win over mass appeal. He isn't in it for the lobbyists. He's in it because he has a core belief in defending The Constitution to a t.

Funny thing about this thread is the of all the current candidates, the views of Paul are by far most closely aligned with the opinions that WF has expressed here in the past. Maybe Ron kicked his dog.

Libertarians... like herding cats. They'll never constitute a party. How can they? Anarchy is not a system. Libertarianism is only valuable as a counter thrust to an existing governmental structure. It has no substance as form of governance.

I'm not like him, because I can see that Cult-like behavior isn't limited to Faith, but also of movement. Ron Paul's fanatical, but tiny, following clearly falls into that category IMO, almost a Savior-Figure for those deseperate for one.

Sadly, he's just not it.

I am well aware we agree on that point, the most vital one.

Where we disagree is his effect on the election and on politics. You see it as huge and vital, I see it as almost nonexistent. You see him touching the masses, I see a masses who (beyond his cadre of loyalist) hardly knows who he is. And that included 95% of the Tea Party he supposed was the first member of.

Thats true. Loyalsts and critics alike.

Agreed. But he is simply the wrong man to be in that role, and harms the movement by being it's supposed face than he helps it. Libertarianism doesn't need slow steady steps, it needs a treu leader, with massive personality and charisma, who can grab the bull by the horns and TAKE the people with him, in a huge shift in the libertarian direction. Slow will get us nowhere, as we'll lose as many as we gain over time as folks see little gains, and go down the "wasted vote" road. We need a big shift, with a real leader, espousing our views.

Paul isn't the man for this job.

If you really think libertarianism is aimless anarchy, you are far FAR dumber than I'd ever have guessed, as I actually give you alot of credit in the brains dept LiL.

WF, when and if you get your dynamic, charismatic Libertarian leader, those same exact Ron Paul supporters you call "cultists" will be right in his/her corner too. And how do you think they will react and support? The same exact way. I suppose you'll begrudge him/her as a candidate because of how people react to him? Something completely out of the candidate's control?

It's funny - you want certain ideas to be represented, yet when people react passionately to those ideas, you mock them. I see nothing wrong with young, enthusiastic voters who want to see these ideas heard. I see nothing wrong with seizing on tools like the internet to push that message.

I'm surprised at you, to be frank. You come here often lambasting people for their rhetoric, yet today you come here and compare a group of young people that share your own ideals to followers of David Koresh. But whatever floats your boat. It's a free country ;)

He may be a unelectable kook, but he's a better choice than the current loser, and whichever loser is nomainated to run against him. Sad.

I find merit in both your positions.

I can only add that I an almost always finding myself listening and agreeing with a lot of what Ron Paul had to say, and would vote for him despite his flaws if he were the GOP candidate and probably would vote for someone who ran on a platform he seems to somewhat occupy.

I can say this: any candidate that has the the same platform without some of the flaws that Paul has would get my vote, not sure if before I knew who Paul was I could have said that.

of course, I voted for Bush (2000) and Obama (what a track record!)...so you may not want my vote, I think it is the kiss of death.

I'm afraid of Ron Mexico.

Ron Paul however, no.

I will say that a significant Ron Paul 3rd party run could split the GOP and hand the race to Obama.

AND he's all in here, done with Congress.

So if you're a fan of this incompetent b.s. artist of a president - there's hope.

The GOP is so lost right now, that the race already is Obama's