Can Ron Paul get Elected?

[Paddy]

If you need an infallible guide to conservatism, I am available for a modest fee.

Conservatism does not include Christian activism.  That is a phenomena that has only existed in your short lifetime, fistful. If you want some Barry Goldwater quotes on the subject, I'll be happy to provide them. In the meantime, please understand that the decline of the Republican Party began with the infestation of the RR in the late 70's and early 80's.

[Perd Hapley]

I've seen some of Goldwater's quotations on that, thank you.

What Christian activism are you talking about? 

[Paddy]

What Christian activism are you talking about?

My dear Mr. fistful,

Do you really want me to get into the disgraced Ralph Reed and his Christian Coalition?  His arrest record, his affiliation with Enron,  his direct mail overbilling scandal, his connection with Abramoff, the graft, corruption, money laundering schemes?  Or the paranoid Pat Robertson, who thinks Freemason, the Illiuminati and Jewish bankers are the root of all evil?

How far do you want me to go, fistful?  Think carefully, you're way more vulnerable than your pastor there in Misery has told you. 

[Perd Hapley]

Riley, Mike has warned us, so I'm going to start a new thread for the discussion of The Religious Right. 

But I asked about what you consider to be Christian activism, as opposed to normal political activism.  Ralph Reed's misdeeds and the lunacy of Pat Robertson, who very few Christians take seriously anymore, doesn't answer the question.  Please see my new thread, so we can talk about it.

Think carefully, you're way more vulnerable than your pastor there in Misery has told you. 

I'm "vulnerable"?  To what?  I haven't discussed my "vulnerability" with my pastor.  Should I?  Riley, you really kill me.   

[tmg19103]

To stay on topic, I thought Judge Andrew Napolitano has some interesting points in this interview in regards to what differentiates Ron Paul from the other GOP candidates. Yes, Ron Paul has a tough road ahead. I personally love his message, which Judge Napolitano gets into in the below link. The Judge also promotes his new book A Nation of Sheep, which tells me by the title that Ron Paul has a tough battle ahead of him.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/JudgeNapolitanoNationofSheepinterviewDavidAllenShow092007.mp3

[brer]

wrong thread

[tmg19103]

wrong thread

If you are referring to my above link, the judge speaks to Paul's electability, so I see it as relevant, since the title and topic of this thread I started is "can Ron Paul get elected". That also goes beyond a "yes" or "no" answer, but rather the reasons Ron Paul may or may not get elected. The above link speaks to this, and even though it links to Ron Paul Radio, the actual interview is a tape from an independent radio station and show. Judge Nap is a regular on Fox News and highly regarded for his political views.

[roo_ster]

Jfruser

You would rather have a candidate whose views never change over the course of a long life?

I made no value judgment as to AuH2O's positions over his lifetime or the changing of them in my post.  My point was, you claim to be a "Goldwater Conservative," but do not tell us which AuH2O you reference.

This is of a part with your general confusion about the conservative movement.  Perhaps you don't even know yourself which Goldwater (AuH2O)  is your, ah, lodestone (Fe3O4)*.

* Yes, I am not above chemistry humor. 

[brer]

tmg

My fault, not an attack on you, I accidentally posted a reply to this thread when I was looking at another.

[brer]

Jfruser

Fistful has a new thread on the religious right.  This thread is not the place for this debate. Either place it there or start a new thread on Goldwater.

[Perd Hapley]

Bark orders much?    But thanks, as I do appreciate jfruser's comments on the other thread. 

[brer]

Fistful

Either it is apropriate or not to argue Goldwater in a Ron Paul thread.  It is one thing or the other.  If you and Jfruser want to continue the arguement, start a new thread.  I am not playing in this one.

I am not giving orders, I am simply telling you and him that this thread is not the place to argue it out.  Allowing you to get a thread about a candidate you do not like, shut down over thread drift is in your best interest, not mine.

[Perd Hapley]

Easy now.   

[MechAg94]

No, Ron can't get elected.  He is an idea guy and a good one.  Not a leader to me.

Other reasons:
Supporters have a bad habit of putting him in a bad light by their behavior and background.  Maybe that is just a Libertarian Party thing.  Unfortunate since there are a lot of good ideas that should get serious discussion.  Probably just a few people I know, but it still doesn't help.

He argues absolutes too much.  I haven't heard him lately, but it seems to me he needs to list out all his major issues and ask himself a question:  "If I don't have a libertarian Congress, what can I get done on each of these that will move the govt in the direction I want it to go?"  Think baby steps.  Then campaign on those changes, not the end point he envisions.  Talking about eliminating the Federal Reserve might be a good discussion topic, but not a good Presidential campaign item.  People don't want their happy lives changed or messed with.  They don't want a President who is going to change the world if they think the world is okay. 

Is that on topic? 

[Perd Hapley]

I just heard the Presidential debates on the radio.  Mr. Paul can't get elected, because he doesn't sound Presidential.  Every time he talked, he sounded like someone desperate to prove some little-known point, to a very skeptical audience.  And he is.  I sympathize with that.  But it doesn't sound Presidential, whatever that means. 

Is that shallow?  Yes and so are the voters. 

[Paddy]

 [/quote] Mr. Paul can't get elected, because he doesn't sound Presidential.  Every time he talked, he sounded like someone desperate to prove some little-known point, to a very skeptical audience.  And he is.[/quote]

All libertarians sound that way.

  I sympathize with that.  But it doesn't sound Presidential, whatever that means.

Is that shallow?  Yes and so are the voters.

Perception is reality.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ron Paul sounds like a loon whenever he speaks.  He has a few good ideas, but he can't articulate them worth a darn.  He also has plenty of loony ideas, which sound even loonier when delivered in his trademark screechy way.

Like all Libertarians and most libertarians, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything more than a seat in the House.

[tmg19103]

Mr. Paul can't get elected, because he doesn't sound Presidential.  Every time he talked, he sounded like someone desperate to prove some little-known point, to a very skeptical audience.  And he is.[/quote]

All libertarians sound that way.

  I sympathize with that.  But it doesn't sound Presidential, whatever that means.

Is that shallow?  Yes and so are the voters.

Perception is reality.
[/quote]

I agree perception is reality. Just depends on your reality.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071010/cm_thenation/1241385

[Paddy]

From the link provided:

Asked whether he would obey the Constitution and consult Congress before sending US troops into combat, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney says he would consult his lawyers first.

That's it. I don't have to read beyond that.  A candidate who can't read and comprehend the Constitution without 'his lawyers' is spectacularly unqualified to be POTUS. He's done.

[yesitsloaded]

What about a Fred Thompson President/ Ron Paul Vice president match up? Kinda like the puppet and the puppet master. Oh wait, we tried that last election

[v35]

No. I'm voting for him anyway.

How sad it is when people base their decisions on who "looks Presidential" or "sounds Presidential". What the heck is that supposed to mean? Abraham Lincoln certainly didn't meet those requirements. If he were campaigning today he'd be laughed at for his high squeaky voice. Beneath Lincoln's gangly appearance and ill-fitting clothes was a superior mind one can only appreciate through his writing. I'm certain there are many well-qualified people today who unfortunately could never get elected to public office because they're simply too bald, or too fat, or too old.

Ron Paul is the thinking man's candidate. His writing indicates clearly developed positions, all of which have been consistently grounded in Constitutional law. The one absolute requirement for President ought to be one who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ron Paul has consistently demonstrated that he would fulfill that requirement. Photogenic (and now, "telegenic") personalities are nothing but a distraction. If you doubt that ask yourself why Barack Obama has become so popular. Good looking, glib, personable, check. Beyond that he's an empty suit. His popularity began its decline the moment he attempted to communicate his positions. Fortunately it seems Clinton is beginning to expose the same flaws.

I like Fred Thompson but his voting record isn't as consistent as Paul's. Giuliani comes across as a leader but he equivocates on Constitutional issues.

I'm voting for Ron Paul. My conscience will be clean. If you vote for someone else, you can't tell me you won't be holding your nose while you do so. If you do, I submit you're part of the problem that has brought us to where we are today.

And to answer the question, no, I don't think Ron Paul stands a chance of getting elected. Most people are too lazy to weigh all the issues, or are simply incapable of independent thought. Most people will follow the herd. Folks, we're not cattle. Stop thinking like livestock. Challenge the status quo, or live with it. Your choice.

[Len Budney]

How sad it is when people base their decisions on who "looks Presidential" or "sounds Presidential". What the heck is that supposed to mean? Abraham Lincoln certainly didn't meet those requirements. If he were campaigning today he'd be laughed at for his high squeaky voice. Beneath Lincoln's gangly appearance and ill-fitting clothes was a superior mind one can only appreciate through his writing...

Some of us would consider that an unfortunate example. Lincoln did more to damage the Constitution than anyone before or since, including Bush. Though the parallels between Bush and Lincoln are quite striking, including the suspension of due process and habeas corpus.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Somehow we again seem to be ending up with douchebags and turdsandwiches as our viable presidential alternatives. It is stunning for such a large, rich, diverse country.

[Perd Hapley]

Ron Paul is the thinking man's candidate.

That is the funniest thing I've read today.   

[Soybomb]

No. I'm voting for him anyway.

Of course the reality is he won't get the republican nomination, will you be taking the appropriate measures to be sure a write in vote for ron paul gets counted in your election area? 

I don't believe ron paul can get elected at this time.  I'm not happy about that because he is the candidate I agree with the most, but not enough americans share my political ideology.  The concept of freedom is relatively dead to most Americans.  Even on alot of the gun forums people talk big about it but at the end of the day they still want to force their values on others with the war on drugs, banning flag burning, worrying about whats going on in other people's bedrooms, even look at the thread on THR right now where people think it would be a great idea to mandate gun ownership.  Many americans don't think there is any way to help the poor or invalid without the government being involved even though most of them would probably also say the government is incredibly incompetent and wasteful.  Eventually people might change, but I think its going to be a while.  In the meantime RP will be looked at by most people as a nut, the republicans and the democrats will each run more of the same, and americans will vote for the person that isn't a republican as bush backlash.