Here's why Ron Paul can't win.....

[Boats]

I think the distinction is that trade is difficult without some modicum of international security. The question always is, "who provides the market?"

Usually the hegemon. Whether it the feudal lord ensuring a faire, the Mongols keeping the Silk Road open, or the Royal Navy's domination of international waters for over 300 years, someone is always doing the heavy lifting on security that makes trade possible.

The upside is that of having one's currency be the "global" reserve currency. Whether Roman coins, Spanish dubloons, Pound Sterling, or the Dollar, when people hold your money, sometimes in preference to their own, everyone who is part of the hegemonic country profits by that byproduct of being the international guarantor of free trading.

We do that now. International trade depends upon international stability, the two are interconnected and unseverable. Thomas Jefferson figured out early on that a country needed to be able to project its power or run the risk of being put into insufferable political positions, such as paying tribute to petty crooks. Projecting power inherently ruffles the feathers of others, so it seems that unless the desire is to become as militarily impotent as most of Europe, one has to exercise such power from time to time when it is tested.

 

[buzz_knox]

In case ya hadn't noticed, Ron Paul is a Pub.

He's also being billed as the shining hope for the Libertarian party, and is said to be a Republican only so that he can get elected. Then again, playing the game in this way is what so many detest as being dishonest and immoral, isn't it?

 

[budney]

Then again, playing the game in this way is what so many detest as being dishonest and immoral, isn't it?

Where exactly is the dishonesty? Anyone can join any party they want to. Joining the Republican party doesn't involve swearing a blood oath to support any and all mass-slaughter of dusky foreigners, so RP never lied or swore falsely.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

That's strangely contradictory. I can't think of a strict constitutionalist who won in that time period.

I was younger then and had a different POV. Regean won twice. Bush Sr. won once. My views started to change a lot after AWB I. They really flipped with the repeal of the Bill of Rights.

So if I think someone, say Fred Thompson, can win, but Paul can't, that's my opinion. Addressing that by repeating how much you and the American people agree with Ron Paul does not answer the question: can he win?

Why can't he? I will be the first to admit the odds are well and truly against it. I have never said otherwise. When you state something as fact when it is your opionion that is dishonest though. When you state it as opinion then you need to back it with more evidence instead of simply repeating your opinion over and over again.

 

[Jeff]

Prince Yamato said:

I think when Libertarian ghosts haunt a building, they say, "Patriot Act" instead of "Boo".

It's been said that only a certain few people can see or experience ghosts (if you believe that sort of thing), so it stands to reason that only a few-- unfortunately-- can see the dangers of the Patriot Act.

Personally, I'm far more frightened of the Patriot Act and all its future repercussions than I am of "boo," so I guess you are correct.

buzz-knox,

Dr. Paul is a member, and has been for quite some time, of the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Libertarian wing of the GOP. It's a genuine and moral attempt to bring the GOP back to its conservative roots, as in paleo-conservative, not the nauseating neo-conservative we have now.

Why do you think pundits like Rockwell and Buchanan support him? They are paleo conservatives.

 

[Titan6]

Projecting power inherently ruffles the feathers of others, so it seems that unless the desire is to become as militarily impotent as most of Europe, one has to exercise such power from time to time when it is tested.

Spoken like a true NEOCON.

 

[ArmedBear]

"State something as fact?"

This is ALL opinion. Yours, mine.

These are facts:

1. The default winner of the 2008 election is the Democrat candidate.
2. Barring a catastrophe not seen since 1860, a third party candidate will not win, though it is possible he might throw the election if it's close.
3. Candidates need to be able to communicate on TV and now on the Internet.
4. A GOP winner will have to outshine both a Democrat in the political position to blame everything bad on the GOP, as well as Bush, who has dragged down the GOP.
5. The vast majority of anti-war votes will go to the Democrat by default. Paul might ALLOW more votes for him that way, but won't ATTRACT them that way.

Given that, I have my opinions about what it takes to win. From what I've seen, Romney doesn't have it. Guiliani doesn't have it. Paul might. Fred Thompson does.

The best card Paul does have up his sleeve is this immigration bill. Will he play it?

If he plays it well, my opinion will change completely. He has a chance TODAY to prove that he's a real fighter. Will he? If he does, I will believe he can win. If not, it will reinforce my belief that he's a great guy but not someone who will take the gloves off and beat his Democrat opponent.

Fred Thompson ALREADY proved that with his immediate, clever, fun, and no-holds-barred response to Michael Moore.

Does that make sense?

 

[buzz_knox]

Dr. Paul is a member, and has been for quite some time, of the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Libertarian wing of the GOP. It's a genuine and moral attempt to bring the GOP back to its conservative roots, as in paleo-conservative, not the nauseating neo-conservative we have now.

That I understand. I was just pointing out the irony that so many Libertarians shun any involvement with the Republicans because they don't want to be affiliated at all with "neo-con" evil by being in the party. Yet, the one shot for anyone with a libertarian viewpoint getting close to the White House is someone who disregarded this losing strategy and actually became part of the "evil" the Libs despise.

 

[Jeff]

buzz,

That's not true. There is plenty of room in the Republican party for both the group that sabotaged it and the group trying to bring it back to its roots.

 

[ArmedBear]

That's not true. There is plenty of room in the Republican party for both the group that sabotaged it and it the group trying to bring it back to its roots.

Let's hope so.

There are many in the GOP who don't think so.

Is Ron Paul the one who can spearhead the movement back to its roots? I hope that, too. Or someone else. I'm not attached to one man. I do know it will take someone with certain attributes. Does Paul have them?

Isn't that the important question?

 

[buzz_knox]

That's not true. There is plenty of room in the Republican party for both the group that sabotaged it and the group trying to bring it back to its roots.

Jeff,

Throughout many of these threads, I've seen Libertarians refusing to have any compromise or association with Republicans. Republicans are often depicted as being more of an enemy than the worst gun grabber/totalitarian Democrat known. And that was my point.

I know that there is room in the Republican party for people working with it. You know it. And the people who say they'd be contaminated by joining it know it. But they don't care because the substance is less important than the style. It's easier to be a voice in the wilderness than it is actually doing something.

Everyone wants to be the Lib president; no one wants to be the Republican councilman who effects change at home, gets elected to a higher office, and keeps working their way up the ladder until it's not one Libertarian against the system, but a Republican with conservative views and a mass of fellow politicians and constituents that he or she has shared these views with and "converted."

 

[Biker]

AB...

Tanks to de www, Paul doesn't *have* to look so good on de teevee. At least dis is what I hope.

Biker

 

[buzz_knox]

Thanks to the www, Paul doesn't *have* to look so good on de teevee. At least this is what I hope.

Biker

That's not much to hope for. The web enables the message to be spread, but the messenger has to be able to communicate it effectively in person or in the widest available medium.

 

[ArmedBear]

Thanks to the www, Paul doesn't *have* to look so good on de teevee. At least this is what I hope.

Two words: Howard Dean. You gotta have both, I think. The 'net's still a good wildcard, to be sure, but I don't think TV is dead just yet. With YouTube, it might even be getting bigger in a different way. Fred Thompson clearly thinks so.

Of course, I wouldn't AT ALL mind if Paul, like Dean on the other side of the aisle, becomes the chairman of the GOP, should he lose the Primary.

 

[Chui]

"the messenger has to be able to communicate it effectively in person or in the widest available medium."

That's obviously not true with "the Decider".

 

[HiroProX]

Thompson only counts... IF he runs.

Of the candidates for the GOP nomination who ARE running, only Ron Paul can create a contrast between himself, and Little Miss "We're going to take things away from you".

He'd destroy Hillary on practically every issue. But most importantly, he'd completely nullify the Iraq war as an issue. Hillary voted for it, Dr. Paul voted against it. And right now, dissatisfaction with the war is all the Democrats have. Running a pro-war candidate will guarantee a GOP loss.

 

[Biker]

Knox, AB...

Y'all messed up me whole Rasta thing by spelling "thanks" and "the" the wrong way-it be "Tanks" an' "De". Quote me right, Mon.

Biker

 

[Titan6]

These are facts:

1. The default winner of the 2008 election is the Democrat candidate.

Not a fact.

2. Barring a catastrophe not seen since 1860, a third party candidate will not win, though it is possible he might throw the election if it's close.

Right now the congress and the president have approval ratings lower than OJ Simpson and Mao. How much worse does it have to get before people start looking for the real deal?

3. Candidates need to be able to communicate on TV and now on the Internet.

Maybe, Bush did not do Internet, Gore and Kerry did. Bush won. But the only real question is how well? Also Bush is a terrible communicator on TV.

4. A GOP winner will have to outshine both a Democrat in the political position to blame everything bad on the GOP, as well as Bush, who has dragged down the GOP.

That is a strategy. But not really a fact.

5. The vast majority of anti-war votes will go to the Democrat by default. Paul might ALLOW more votes for him that way, but won't ATTRACT them that way.

You can not really tell without more accurate polling data. Why are people against the war right now for example? If they thought the war was still a good idea and poorly executed they will not vote for Paul. If they think now that we never should have gone in the first place they may. a lot of it depends upon packaging.

Given that, I have my opinions about what it takes to win. From what I've seen, Romney doesn't have it. Guiliani doesn't have it. Paul might. Fred Thompson does.

Well, Fred is polling fourth behind Guiliani, McCain and Romeny. The word is long out he may be running and he has shown no improvement in the polls. Thompson is more polished then all of them but Romney, who is on equal ground. They all lack substance except Fred whose ideas of freedom really bother me.

The best card Paul does have up his sleeve is this immigration bill. Will he play it?

Fred Thompson ALREADY proved that with his immediate, clever, fun, and no-holds-barred response to Michael Moore.

1. Call someone out 2. They challenge you 3. You turn your back on them; is more what I would call an act of cowardice. I guess if you like Fred it is funny, but in no way no holds barred. Moore said he would debate him any time. Fred said no and tried to make a joke. End of story. The lack of backbone sickens me.

Does that make sense?

Yes, except for the part about the immigration issue. Paul does not keep anything up his sleeve, he wears it all openly. But I see where you are headed. For Paul to win he has to package his ideas and sell them in a way that people understand. He needs a good image consultant?

 

[Sage of Seattle]

These are facts:

1. The default winner of the 2008 election is the Democrat candidate.

*looks at his 2007 calendar*

Wow, I really must have missed the FACT that the year changed. I wonder what other FACTS I've missed?

Ah. Of course. It is said, therefore it must be true. How silly of me.

 

[ArmedBear]

right now, dissatisfaction with the war is all the Democrats have

No it's not.

Socialized medicine is a big one. With an aging population of Boomers who won't be paying real taxes, but think they will receive real benefits, it's a vote-getter. Michael Moore is jumping on that bandwagon, if you haven't heard, and he has a good eye for bandwagons that will make him money.

Can Ron Paul articulate not just that socialism is bad, but WHY and HOW? Many of us are already in the "it's bad" camp. But what about swing voters who think there are benefits for them, and little cost?

If he can do it, he can beat Hillary. If he can't, she'll take it away.

There are other issues as well, like judges. Many people on the left don't WANT to see constitutionalist judges, and they have others scared of the horrible things that will happen if someone like pro-life Paul appoints judges.

I'm not being defeatist. I'm pointing out realities that a GOP candidate will have to face (well, not Romney, who is a socialist anyway).

 

[buzz_knox]

That's obviously not true with "the Decider".

That level of derision sort of proves the point, doesn't it?

 

[D.S. Ambrose]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3193288&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

American Satisfaction at New Low
AP-Ipsos Poll: Few Americans Feeling Optimistic About Future, Direction of the Country
WASHINGTON May 20, 2007 (AP)

It's gloomy out there. Men and women, whites and minorities all are feeling a war-weary pessimism about the country seldom shared by so many people.

Only 25 percent of those surveyed say things in the U.S. are going in the right direction, according to an AP-Ipsos poll this month. That is about the lowest level of satisfaction detected since the survey started in December 2003.


Rarely have longer-running polls found such a rate since the even gloomier days of 1992 ahead of the first President Bush's re-election loss to Democrat Bill Clinton.

The current glumness is widely blamed on public discontent with the war in Iraq and with President Bush. It is striking for how widespread the mood is among different groups of people.

Women and minorities are less content than men and whites, which has been true for years. But all four groups are at or near record lows for the AP-Ipsos poll, and at unusually low levels for older surveys, as well.

Three in 10 men and two in 10 women said this month they think the country is on the right track, down from nearly half of each who felt that way at the end of 2003.

By race, 28 percent of whites and 18 percent of minorities said the same just over half their rates of optimism from late 2003.

Asked in April why they felt things were veering in the wrong direction, one-third overall volunteered the war and one-fourth blamed poor leadership.

Nine percent faulted the economy, 8 percent a loss of moral values and 5 percent gasoline prices.

"We need to get out of war, get our economy back up, quit spending money outside of America and bring it here," said Democrat Lisa Pollard, 45, an insurance company analyst in Arlington, Texas.

Sounds like it's the Republican Party, aside from Ron Paul that is out of touch with America.

 

[budney]

That level of derision sort of proves the point, doesn't it?

Proves what, exactly? Bush himself was the one who said, "I'm the decider," concerning Rumsfeld's resignation--though it applies equally well to his view of his role as Commander-in-Chief. On that latter point, he said, "I'm the commander guy."

He hasn't specifically said so, but I imagine he'd also agree that he's the "boss d00d," the "honcho man" and the "big-kahuna person." They all add up to one thing: he greatly overestimates the powers granted to the executive in the Constitution.

--Len.

 

[ArmedBear]

Sounds like it's the Republican Party, aside from Ron Paul that is out of touch with America.

No doubt that's true!

However, the economy is doing very well, so I would say that the poll also shows that perception and reality are different.

Bush is just TERRIBLE at touting it. We have recent examples of people who knew how to play it up when things were doing okay, and finesse the downsides, in Clinton and Reagan.

I am very serious when I say that the next President will be someone who can communicate well, and that the Democrats are the default winners in 2008, if the GOP doesn't have someone who can REALLY shine.

I don't think that "issues" will be the only factor. How they're framed matters a whole lot more, since there are two sides to every issue anyway. Bush in particular and the GOP in general have become TERRIBLE at framing issues.

 

[Autolycus]

So Armed Bear what do you suggest those who support Ron Paul do since he cannot win? Who do you suggest we vote for? Neither major party really reflects my interests or views. Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party reflect my interests but I dont believe the LP is running a candidate since Paul has thrown his hat in.

I figure since you have all the answers you should give me the advice I seek. I find the Democrats more appealing than the Republicans so I assume I should vote Democrat?