Why is Ron Paul a Republican?

Ron Paul is by far my favorite Republican, I dont agree with everything he does but I feel like he is often the voice of reason. He seems to be way outside of what most people would call a Republican and it seems he is listening to the beat of a different drummer.

Sometimes he says crazy things but that isnt all bad. I kinda feel like him and Dennis Kucinich are opposite but equal in many respects. They have very different philosophies but they tend to think differently than their respective parties. They may not agree but I can respect each one for their dedication and honesty with respect to common sense and logical thinking.

So why does he consider himself a Republican? Isnt he more of a Libertarian? Does he choose to be a Republican because he feels it will help him in elections? Same for Kucinich.

Could several of these outside the box thinking politicians with very different philosophies form a new 3rd party based on common sense, logic and compromise? There are people that I dont always agree with but I can respect their position and feel like there is a middle ground where we can both meet. While being strong to your principles is important, if everyone does this, its tough to get anything done.

I am outspoken and opinionated in my daily life but I have to compromise regularly with my spouse, family and friends. This is just how life works. To quote the Rolling Stones; "you can't always get what you want". I may not always get things MY way but I am usually happy with the compromise.

Sorry if this thread seems completely foolish. I am very short on sleep and this idea just popped in my head...so take it easy

I very much doubt that Paul considers himself a Republican per say . He wears the Republican tag because as an interdependent he would get far less media exposure that all there is too it .

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


Actually iac, I think the better question to ask is probably "why is everyone in the GOP a republican other than Ron Paul."

In my opinion he better represents the fundamental conservative ideals of the republican party than any of the other pretenders.

republicans used to be against wars, socialist security, welfare, federalization of schools, market intervention, etc.. etc.. etc..

Ron Paul is a republican. As was stated, he's the only real republican in congress.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


Often wondered that one myself. I know one thing...Ron Paul has introduced legislation
(HR 4995) to end Obama’s corporate healthcare mandate. The mandate violates the basic freedom to make one’s own decisions and it will lead to price controls, shortages and monopolistic enforcement of “authorized” treatments. And is goes against the Constitution in that it mandates and forces fine for non compliance.

On your question, I entered that question into Clusty.com, and found this. I too am an avid supporter, and am backing Dr. Paul for president.

Both Kucinich and Paul are Libertarians in my opinion. Kucinich would be a social Libertarian and Paul a constitutional Libertarian. Both views have their place under the libertarian flag. Kucinich wants an America that follows the rule of law and takes care of the people first and foremost, and regulate business that works against the betterment of the people. Paul wants an America that follows the constitution and promotes freedom throughout a free market system allowing everyone to experience the mistakes and rewards of their own decision. The real debate between Paul and Kucinich is between a responsibility personal or collective. Kucinich promotes collective responsibility in a free system. Paul promote personal responsibility in a free system.

Neither should be in any party...but they must to get the funding and equal opportunity. Additionally, too many people don't have the brain power to be able to see outside the scope of two possible choices. You give someone 10 choice and they think the system is broken as their brain cannot process that much information and perspectives.

He's not a Republican.

He's an HONEST Republican, apparently.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


Why is Ron Paul a Republican? Maybe because he is a Republican brand. You should ask yourself how the Republican party did it. Essentially the Republican party got 2 or more million votes from a voter demographic that is suppose to be against the two party system, a voter demographic that does not trust either party. So how did the Republican party still manage to gain their support? All thanks to their brand extension, Ron Paul.

Its like Coke you know? Some people like coke but cannot consume high counts of sugar, so they purchase Diet Coke. At the end of the day they are still purchasing Coke regardless of whether it is slightly different. It is the same brand. That brand is using an extension to attract in a segment of consumers and that is exactly what the Republican party had been doing with Ron Paul. His a brand extension for the Republican party. Sure, the man tells it like is but then again thats just part of the brand. Its little to no different to what the Democrats do with Kucinich.

People can sit here and continue to celebrate how wonderful Ron Paul is but when they put that vote out for him they are voting the Republican party and assisting in gaining that party's momentum. If Ron Paul was well and truly different from politicians of both parties, he would not be apart of that system.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Very good point. I guess i worded it that way because the majority of Republicans are not what Republicans claim to be or historically have been. I guess I just assume that the Republican party as a whole has changed so much that he is now the odd man out.

reply to post by ExPostFacto



More great points. I think that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich should run for President as a new party ticket.

They obviously have differences but sometimes compromise between to opposite but similar individuals can have very positive results.

I believe it was Lincoln who made a point of bringing in dissenting views into his white house.

And historically the VP was the 2nd place winner of votes of the presidential election. I think this can be a good thing.

These guys should get together, find a little common ground and try to change washington.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Both Kucinich and Paul are Libertarians in my opinion. Kucinich would be a social Libertarian and Paul a constitutional Libertarian. Both views have their place under the libertarian flag. Kucinich wants an America that follows the rule of law and takes care of the people first and foremost, and regulate business that works against the betterment of the people. Paul wants an America that follows the constitution and promotes freedom throughout a free market system allowing everyone to experience the mistakes and rewards of their own decision. The real debate between Paul and Kucinich is between a responsibility personal or collective. Kucinich promotes collective responsibility in a free system. Paul promote personal responsibility in a free system.

Neither should be in any party...but they must to get the funding and equal opportunity. Additionally, too many people don't have the brain power to be able to see outside the scope of two possible choices. You give someone 10 choice and they think the system is broken as their brain cannot process that much information and perspectives.

Your idea of what constitutes a "libertarian" is misguided.

Libertarians are against big government. - That's what liberty is: Freedom from government.

Kucinich is for BIG government, far far faaaaaaaaaaar bigger than what we have now.

Calling Kucinich a libertarian is like calling Mao a capitalist. Kucinich could be called a liberal by todays definition because he wants radical expansion of government. But he's certainly not a libertarian.



[edit on 19-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by iamcamouflage

 

Why is Ron Paul a Republican? Maybe because he is a Republican brand. You should ask yourself how the Republican party did it. Essentially the Republican party got 2 or more million votes from a voter demographic that is suppose to be against the two party system, a voter demographic that does not trust either party. So how did the Republican party still manage to gain their support? All thanks to their brand extension, Ron Paul.

Its like Coke you know? Some people like coke but cannot consume high counts of sugar, so they purchase Diet Coke. At the end of the day they are still purchasing Coke regardless of whether it is slightly different. It is the same brand. That brand is using an extension to attract in a segment of consumers and that is exactly what the Republican party had been doing with Ron Paul. His a brand extension for the Republican party. Sure, the man tells it like is but then again thats just part of the brand. Its little to no different to what the Democrats do with Kucinich.

People can sit here and continue to celebrate how wonderful Ron Paul is but when they put that vote out for him they are voting the Republican party and assisting in gaining that party's momentum. If Ron Paul was well and truly different from politicians of both parties, he would not be apart of that system.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Southern Guardian]

What a load of tripe.

Ron Paul's voting record speaks for itself.

He's been in congress for decades and has never voted in favor of war, increased taxes, or the destruction of liberty.

Ron Paul stands for what the republican party used to represent before it was infested by liberal neocons that favor big government.

Ron Paul is the only real republican left in congress.

reply to post by mnemeth1


That is essentially what I am saying. The Republican party is no longer what it used to be. It is more likely that "true" Republicans should form a new party than hold any hope that the name Republican ever reverts back to what it originally was.

The term Republican means something completely different today than it meant in the past.

As another poster stated, Ron Paul is more aligned with Libertarians than Republicans.

And if he does not have anything in common with the current Republican party, why does he still want to call himself a Republican? Why doesnt he run as an independent? Libertarian? Paulatarian?

Why align yourself with a group of people that no longer hold the same views as yourself?


[edit on 19-4-2010 by iamcamouflage]

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

That is essentially what I am saying. The Republican party is no longer what it used to be. It is more likely that "true" Republicans should form a new party than hold any hope that the name Republican ever reverts back to what it originally was.

The term Republican means something completely different today than it meant in the past.

As another poster stated, Ron Paul is more aligned with Libertarians than Republicans.

And if he does not have anything in common with the current Republican party, why does he still want to call himself a Republican? Why doesnt he run as an independent? Libertarian? Paulatarian?

Why align yourself with a group of people that no longer hold the same views as yourself?


[edit on 19-4-2010 by iamcamouflage]

Obviously you're not very familiar with the way our electoral process works.

The laws very from county to county and state to state, but the overwhelming majority impose undue burden on third parties. The republicans and democrats have worked very very hard to keep political parties contained between the two.

This is why there are almost no non-republicans or democrats in congress.

I think there might only be 1 or 2 that aren't affiliated with either party.

Because of this, its much easier to work within the party and change it back to its roots rather than to try and run on a third party ticket.

Additionally, the republican platform isn't all that bad. Its just that after they get elected, republicans throw the platform ideals in the trash.




[edit on 19-4-2010 by mnemeth1]