Can Ron Paul get Elected?

[brer]

If he splits the party, so be it.

The neocons currently run the party but they cannot win without the Goldwater type conservatives.  Might be after a loss they may start getting back to actual conservatism.

May be that the republicans will start fielding candidates that I can vote for if this happens.

[Bogie]

Oh yeah... Right...
 
Last time the party got split, we had Perot, and Clinton got elected.
 
Then Bush was the best the Republicans could get to run against Gore.
 
Sheesh.
 
I predict that in 2012, if they're still having elections, that the Republicans figure that if what they did this time didn't work, they need to do it twice as hard, and they'll try to elect some backwoods snake handlin' nutjob...
 
In actuality, the Republicans _really_ need to lose the religious right. There are a LOT of people who are fiscally and politically conservative, but they get REALLY turned off by the rhetoric from all the folks who defected from the democrats... Or maybe that was the plan... Hmmm...

[Perd Hapley]

In actuality, the Republicans _really_ need to lose the religious right. There are a LOT of people who are fiscally and politically conservative, but they get REALLY turned off by the rhetoric

Can't keep from pimping that line at every opportunity, can you?      Bogie, the Religious Right is a HUGE chunk of the conservative and libertarian base that you identify with.  Lose them, and you'll be lost in a sea of one-worlder, RINO neo-con-type "moderate" Republicans.  Good luck with that.  The social-issue, values-voter issues attract far more than they repel.

[brer]

The primary problem is that the majority of the religious right that spew the retoric are not conservatives.  They often believe they are.  They identify themselves as conservatives.  But they are a different fish altogether.

If you actually want to do a relative set of judgements, Bill Clinton's presidency was actually far more conservative than Bush's is.

If the republican party does not want to follow classic Goldwater conservatism in lieu of neoconservatism, that is fine.  I will vote democrat just to oppose them.  I find neoconservatism far more distasteful than most democrat viewpoints.

[Paddy]

Bogie, the Religious Right is a HUGE chunk of the conservative and libertarian base that you identify with.  Lose them, and you'll be lost in a sea of one-worlder, RINO neo-con-type "moderate" Republicans

Sorry to bust your bubble. dude, but the 'religious right' has long since been marginalized to the lunatic fringe.

[Perd Hapley]

Riley, please explain.  The RR has its lunatic fringe.  It also includes a far larger block of mainstream conservatives that vote.  And, despite libertarian-conservative tunnel-vision of the Bogie variety, their views on abortion, homosexual marriage and other issues are shared by a great many not-so-religious conservatives - such as Ron Paul.   

brer, I hope you can also expand on your point of view, if you please. 

[Paddy]

their views on abortion, homosexual marriage and other issues are shared by a great many not-so-religious conservatives - such as Ron Paul.   

Not federal issues, see the 1st Amendment. Also, Ron Paul is a nonstarter.

[Perd Hapley]

Riley, what are you talking about? 

[Paddy]

I'm talking about your fantasy of relevance when you said

Bogie, the Religious Right is a HUGE chunk of the conservative and libertarian base that you identify with.  Lose them, and you'll be lost in a sea of one-worlder, RINO neo-con-type "moderate" Republicans.  Good luck with that.  The social-issue, values-voter issues attract far more than they repel.

Apparently, you believe the hype from the pulpit.

[Perd Hapley]

Um.  Okay.   

[brer]

Fistful

Expand on what?  Conservatism? 

Most republicans are the same as liberals in their views of how much power the federal government should have. 

Just usually the way they want that power expressed is much different. Generally these are the neocons.

Most conservatives want the federal government relegated solely to its constitutionally defined duties.  That is one of the big reasons RP is such a beacon to conservatives.

The republican party?

The republican party started courting the religious right back in the seventies.  Nowadays it is almost a religious duty for many to vote republican.

The republican party also courted the conservatives.  But strayed from classic conservatism into the neoconservatism that guides it now.

I do not know what percentage of the party are from the religious right, but they have enough presence to swing policy.  Take a look at how many people in the current administration graduated from baptist colleges.

[Perd Hapley]

brer, thanks for your reply.  Perhaps I've been misunderstood.  My overall point is that "losing" the religious right will ruin the party, rather than revitalize it.  This is because a great many of the "true conservatives" you speak of are also part of the religious right.  Losing them would only give greater control to the so-called neo-cons.  Furthermore, abandoning "social conservative" positions on homosexual marriage, sex education or abortion would lose millions who aren't especially religious. 

It's true that the Religious Right hasn't been so good at getting the Republican Party to effectively address their more obvious agenda items (abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, etc).  But what is often missed is the fact that the Religious Right has other, not so religious, goals, both as a movement and as individuals.  Religious conservatives were among those pressuring Bush to appoint more conservative/libertarian justices to SCOTUS.    And I think most conservatives and libertarians agree that he has at least made some major improvements to the Court.  This has been a major goal of the RR for some time, seen in many of the mailings I've received, and heard in the RR talk shows to which I listen.  I've even heard about in sermons, I think.  The RR is also very vocal on education reforms, and in opposing McCain-Feingold, the Fairness Doctrine, and hate crime laws.  These are areas where they are very close to conservatives and/or libertarians.  The same would be true of educational vouchers, faith-based initiatives, trade with China (where Christians are persecuted), and other issues which divide the Religious Right, just as they divide Republicans in general. 

In areas other than social or religious issues, the religious right also tend, in my judgment, to be just as "true conservative" as non-religious conservatives.  Religious conservatives are just as likely to favor lower taxes, liberalized gun laws, border enforcement, etc. and to oppose the Kyoto treaty, the U.N., the welfare state, etc. 

The point, again, is that the religious right are not some fringe group of fanatics.  Most of them are mainstream conservatives with the standard conservative helping of libertarianism. 

 

[roo_ster]

Ron Paul is not perfect, but no one has given me a reason beyond they don't like his foreign policy to support anyone else when I asked.  Finch is absolutely right in his appraisal of the situation.  When a rational person looks at the current situation, it's apparent who the best choice is at this time in history.  The opposition to his candidacy seems to consist of an irrational, emotional reaction Finch has so elegantly summarized in so few words.

What the?  His foreign policy is reason enough.  It's idiotic and dangerous. 

In a world where A lunatocracylike N Korea can sling a missile with a nuke at the USA, sitting back behind one's borders and hoping for the best in folks is  one of the signs of rectal cranial inversion.

I have a soft spot for Paul, but he's gonna have to clean the *expletive deleted*it outta his ears before I'll take him seriously.

---------

To answer the OP.....

Elected to what?  He gets elected to the US House every two years from his district.  That is the limit of his electoral competence.

[roo_ster]

Good luck with kicking religious conservatives to the curb.  I mean, they are only the largest body of conservatives in America.  Without them, conservatives would never be elected and they could navel-gaze all day long like the libertarians as a substitute for victory.

I can give you an idea of what the country would look like without religious conservatives: UK.

[Bogie]

Fistful, how old are you?
 
Prior to around 1976 or so, the "religious right" were almost exclusively democrats... Who defected en masse to the Republicans during the reign of Jimmy Carter...
 

[Archie]

I do not like Ron Paul's stunning lack of perception regarding Islamofascist terrorism.  I'd rather see someone else as President.

Having said that, if Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, I'd happily vote for him rather than Senator Clinton, Senator Obama or - the dark horse - Albert Gore.  But I don't think Ron Paul will get the nomination.

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful, how old are you?
 
Prior to around 1976 or so, the "religious right" were almost exclusively democrats... Who defected en masse to the Republicans during the reign of Jimmy Carter...

I was born in 76.  Why do you ask?  Why do you talk about that all the time? 

[brer]

Fistful

You are confusing the classical definition of a conservative with the modern definition. 

I am a Goldwater type conservative, nowadays I would be called a constitutionalist.  Neo means new, thus a neocon is a new conservative, generally one holding socially conservative values.

Just as an example.  A person with conservative social values would do his best to outlaw gay marriage on the federal level.  This would effectively make him a neocon.  A person with conservative political views would say that the federal government has no authority under the constitution to regulate marriage.  This would make him a conservative.

The problem with the religious right is that they often have conservative social values that they wish to enforce with the liberal  use of government.  They tend to also promulgate candidates whose primary qualifications are their religious views.

The republican party does not have a stranglehold on the conservatives.  There are many conservative democrats.  Remember LaRouche just as a for instance? Or the many midwest and southern democrats that are also very conservative?

I can easily find me another candidate to vote for if Ron does not get the nod, but it will not be for a republican for the next few election cycles.

[Perd Hapley]

Neo means new, thus a neocon is a new conservative, generally one holding socially conservative values.

Neo does mean "new."  The rest of your sentence is simply incorrect.  Neo-conservatism has little to do with "socially conservative values."  Your definition is so far off the mark, that even the most basic research would have been helpful.  Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

Nor is your view of the Religious Right very sophisticated.  It is more stereotype than reality.  You may feel free to lecture me on American conservatism, but only after you figure out what you're talking about.  Thank you.

[Matt King]

Bogie, the Religious Right is a HUGE chunk of the conservative and libertarian base that you identify with.  Lose them, and you'll be lost in a sea of one-worlder, RINO neo-con-type "moderate" Republicans

Sorry to bust your bubble. dude, but the 'religious right' has long since been marginalized to the lunatic fringe.

Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, no one can deny that the religious right holds enormous power within the Republican Party. Bush won both times due in large part to the RR.

[Len Budney]

Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, no one can deny that the religious right holds enormous power within the Republican Party. Bush won both times due in large part to the RR.

I have no trouble believing that. But it makes me sad to think that Christian should be spelled s-u-c-k-e-r.

--Len.

[Physics]

What the?  His foreign policy is reason enough.  It's idiotic and dangerous. 

I'm sorry, but isn't this a little bit like endorsing gun control?  I say this because both gun control and "bringing the fight to the terrorist" are meant to make us FEEL safer.  My question is: Does bringing the fight to them MAKE us safer? 

Dr. Paul has a good point in my opinion.  What reason would the terrorists have to attack us if we are not involved in the M.E.? If America were to stop funding global police actions, what reason would they have to attack us?  Isn't the entire reasoning behind 9/11 (According to the 9/11 report) because of our foreign policy in the Middle East?  I'm not trying to justify their reasoning, just see what it is, so we can learn from it.  Because making the terrorist not want to be a terrorist would be the best outcome.  You think the terrorists would still attack us if we had dropped food into Baghdad instead of bombs? 

Also, how are they going to attack us if our borders are secure?!?  In addition, what is the point in "bringing the fight" if we aren't securing the border? 

"It is far better to focus our efforts on immigration reform and ridding our country of suspected terrorists than to restrict the constitutional liberties of our own citizens. The fight against terrorism should be fought largely at our borders. Once potential terrorists are in the country, the task of finding and arresting them becomes much harder, and the calls for intrusive government monitoring of all of us become louder. If we do not want to move in the direction of a police state at home, we must prevent terrorists from entering the country in the first place."
-Ron Paul
http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=234

"Noninterventionism is not isolationism.  Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations.  It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."
-Ron Paul
http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=491


^^^^ That last quote is beautiful.  Other countries can do what they want, we can do what we want. 


My last point on Ron Paul's foreign policy, and non-intervention in general: When was the last time Switzerland was attacked? 

Let's lead by example, making America great, rather than by force. 

[Perd Hapley]

Again, idiotic and dangerous.   

[Physics]

Again, idiotic and dangerous.   

If you disagree, by all means, tell me why I am misled. 

[Perd Hapley]

I'm sorry, sir.  I should not have responded, as I don't have the time or patience to unravel a point of view so utterly averse to reason.  Unfortunately, my very being cries out at such shocking simple-mindedness being used to ignorantly slander this country's national security program and our leadership, and restraint was lost.  Again, I apologize.  Never mind.