It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ron Paul, my new favorite Democrat

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:45 PM
What's starting to interest me is how little I see about Ron Paul from opponents, particularly Democrats. When others mis-step- losing staff, saying they want presidential powers without having to run for president, etc, we hear it. But so far Paul is stealth.

Whats the deal? Is he just a joke to them, considered to be a problem for the Republican primaries to solve? Is word of him just not escaping the right?

That second possibility would bode ill for him. You can't win an election with just the conservative wing of the Republican party. You can barely win an election with just the entire Republican party- it's important to remember that recent republican victories were tight, and the dems have more room for improvement in their voter-mobilization.

He's got to make news of himself for the other side, not just for his base. Anyone have a perspective on why he isn't doing so?

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:13 AM

Originally posted by The Vagabond
That second possibility would bode ill for him. You can't win an election with just the conservative wing of the Republican party.

IMO if an candidate is to have any reasonable chance of winning the White house they have to mobilize there party supporter base and attract the support of moderate voters from the other side of the fence.

Ron candidacy is doomed from the start because his core supporter base are Libertarians rather then Republicans. Ron is targeting the wrong audience I am sure of that much. Ron supporters tend to be Libertarians and Free thinkers. Now there are some Republican free thinkers the problem is just that there isnt enough of them.

He's got to make news of himself for the other side, not just for his base. Anyone have a perspective on why he isn't doing so?

This is where things get a lot more complicated. If one accepts that Libertarianism stands on its own as an political ideology in the US then it is very unlikely that Ron would gain support from anyone who subscribes to an differnt political ideology.

There is another more darker element at work as well that needs to be considered .
We know that Ron is against the status qua and that an awful lot of US politicians and corporate interests have an very large vested interest in the status qua. Given that major media outlets in the US are owned by corporate interests it is an case of you scratch my back and I will scratch your back and not straying from his own kind.

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:06 PM
You raise good points xpert, but I wonder if the average voter, particularly the average voter from one of the two major parties, really knows his own ideology well enough to know that Ron Paul isn't a Republican.

Even granted that Ron Paul is something quite distinct from a Republican, he still doesn't hate God and neither do Republicans. He still wants a small government and so do many Republicans. He still thinks the feds should defer to the states on some issues, and so do some Republicans.
I think that gives him a bit of a leg to stand on in trying to reach more of the party.
He'll have to really bring his A game when it comes time to explain to those people why he thinks abortion has to be decided on at the state level, because I'm sure a lot of them would prefer for him to disregard his constitutional stance and just fight like hell to stop it, but considering that their side is losing at the federal level it's not unsellable.

As for Paul being boxed out, it's very hard to argue against that after what was done to him in Iowa. He may need to get more controversial- say and do things that can't be ignored, or that people will talk about thinking they will be percieved negatively, forgetting that there are people out there who will like it.
Let's face it, the media loves a good drama fest. A few Hillary Clinton jokes might be good for Paul. They'll try to make him look immature and mean, but let's face it, Republicans hate Hillary and as long as Paul isn't too offensive, just a little mean, that kind of bad behavior may endear him to average joes just the way that George Bush's inability to complete a sentence did in 2000.
He also might consider a little light-duty stalking of the front runners- try ambushing them at issue-centric events and confront them with a faux pas from the debate Paul was excluded from to force debates. The liberal wing of the media will show things like that to hurt whoever he attacks.

In short, Paul had better start thinking and acting like a guerilla, or the gorillas are gong to rip him a new one. The fact that nobody is attacking him much is a bad sign in my opinion.

Edit to add: This is naturally a primary-only strategy. Once he gains some traction in the primaries- at least enough to make himself a respectable candidate for the next time out- it'll be time to shift gears and start talking about the war more than core Republican issues, to make a name among moderate Democrats.
One of the big things Paul has going for him as a Republican that isn't really a Republican is a chance to impress those who vote "democrat by default", and present a new idea of what the Republican party could be for non-Republicans who wish they had a second choice.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by The Vagabond]

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:40 AM
Hmm there is quiet a lot on offer to ponder.
Anyway I better make a start then. Not everyone fits into the extremist labels of Liberal and Conservative that gets thrown around in American political debate. Despite appearances in some cases it may not be that simple to work out what the two party's stand for given that people sometimes change there party affiliation in order to increase there chances of being elected. So its not so much people knowing there own stance its them knowing the candidates up for election.

I have commented on the Christian right elsewhere on AP so all I am going to say that the first clue to there hypercritical nature can be found in the fact that there relationship of convenience with the Republican party began to take hold when they were used by an divorced former B grade Hollywood actor get elected to the White House.

The Vagabond as for your comments about Ron tapping into Republicans who support state rights I was reminded of a conversation I had with my mum that went along the lines of the fact that we always see our parents as being old because we cant remember them ever being young. Many people are to young to remember Goldwater , Nixon supporting affirmative action and Reagan Free Market advocacy. Many younger people who are around my age group will have accepted the Republican party as the representation of the conservative movement in the US.

As for small government the Republican party doesn't practice what it preaches and my comments about remembering your parents when they were young also tie in with Ron trying to tab into the bank of supporters of state rights. If Ron was to interrupt any of Hillary planned events the media would grab at the chance to portray Ron as a Cindy sheen type nut case.

While I'm not sold on Ron as a candidate I think that he (appears) to have to much integrity to put a D next to his name which might have given him an better shot at getting elected if he had moderated some of his stances and relied upon voters not researching the candidates background. Of course that doesn't deal with the issue of the lengths that the establishment will go towards preserving the status qua.

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:50 PM
Where does the Ron Paul's campaign money come from, aside from the usual small donations from supporters? It defies my logic.

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:41 AM
reply to post by RELDDIR

People who think that
A. It is OK if Iran gets the bomb
B. Leaking national security secrets that get soldiers killed is a good thing

<< 1   >>

log in