[POLL] IF Ron Paul looses out in the Primaries, Who would be the next best candidate?

hey look it's my good pal Will making his usual personal attacks after he criticizes everyone else for doing the same thing!

how you doin' bud, it's been awhile hasn't it?

 

No, but the history of man has been tyrants and kings. It's been aristocracies ruling the peasant class, collecting taxes or tribute, and then rounding up the peasants to fight wars of conquest.

That was the history of mankind until 1773.

Btw, you claim to be a Golderwaterite. Didn't Barry believe in an international banking conspiracy?

When you resort to mocking, it's just a way of putting perfume on the pig of surrender. You had no reply for my post, only typical neo-conservative tactics of off-topic attacks on reason or character.

 

I agree with much of the above, although I personally don't think the amplifier effect of RP's candidacy will have that kind of staying power, in any kind of paradigm or generational shift. But I think you are right, that it has injected energy into the current national debate, and will probably be revisited next cycle. And personally, I think, like you (am I right?), in the probable minds of most GOP candidates is the hope they lose, but lose valorously, to come back and fight again.

I think a Democrat will take the White House, just because the nation is very, very fatigued. And blames the G.O.P. Perhaps a bad example, since he was clearly victorious, but Winston Churchill's ouster, surprising as it was to many, isn't really surprising to me, from the perspective that a people get tired, and look for succor elsewhere.

And by the way, my comments above are obviously not a call that I believe RP supporters should give anything up - I applaud anyone fighting to the final hour for something they believe in.

 

There's nothing quite like a 16-day Bump to kick a thread back into life.

 

Notice a similarity of surrender in will spencers posts that gtech and deburped type when they are confronted with facts and cant respond with facts in kind. It has to be sad to work so hard to twist the truth for the benefit of the elite. Why else would they work so hard to bs? I simply refuse to believe its ignorance because they are wayy to intelligent for that.

 

Again, I can't stress enough to you that this is bigger than chasing the GOP nomination. That is very important, because if the campaign doesn't show well, it will hurt the future aspirations. I have not been into the nuts and bolts of political machines until this election, but I am absolutely amazed at the level of infrastructure that is being accumulated.

Ron Paul won't be back again after this run. He's be nearly 77 years old. Everyone understands that. It's not about Ron Paul. It's about the ideas. It's about organizing as a group, and pursuing those ideas. It's not a cult of personality, although I would be remiss if I didn't admit that is a part of it.

That's entirely possible. But I think that people might just be so pissed off and ready for change by the next election, that they will listen to a candidate who talks about ABSOLUTELY bringing the troops home, and restoring prosperity to America, while holding the government accountable.

I get that.

Do you know what a tremendous accomplishment it is to get a candidate on Jay Leno, and on a series of national debates, and have that candidate say, "We're broke" or "The government prints the money to make up for the shortfall, destroying savings and fixed incomes" or my favorite, the very trendy and chic term bandied about by authors and the media all of the time now, "Blowback".

A quick story. When Dr. Paul decided to run for the House again in 1996, he was opposed on the GOP side by a candidate that Governor Bush, and Newt Gingrich endorsed, because they didn't want to see Paul back in Washington.

He beat that candidate.

Then he beat a Democrat who ran the racist newsletter angle, a guy by the name of Lefty Morris, who up until the final results were in, wouldn't concede, because he couldn't fathom how Ron Paul could beat him.

Ron has some of the most intelligent and innovative campaigners outside the Beltway loop working for him. With a large and mobile grassroots, there is little that is absolutely out of his reach. He's already beat Brownback, Tommy Thompson and Tancredo. Everyone except Romney is broke, and even Romney has pulled his advertising from South Carolina because he's conceding the state. Paul meanwhile is sitting on a very impressive 4th quarter war chest, waiting for the big delegate states to arrive.

I guarantee that Ron will be at least in the Final 4, which is light years ahead of where anyone would have predicted 6 months ago. He might even finish 1st or 2nd.

 

Guerilla, you don't have to stress it. I understand what you are saying, and I understand its import to your point of view. I understand you, and people who share your view, are after changing a fundamental way of thinking in American politics. I just don't think it's going to achieve this kind of profound shift. I say this, probably, for three main reasons:

(1) the American electoral system doesn't encourage it; it is set up not as a pluralist democracy, but a two party republic, as you know, that structurally encourages a collapse to the middle and discourages the success of third party candidates, as well as grass roots movements generally. I don't think the internet phenomenon that marks RP's current run will change any of that, as it requires an infrastructural change in the electoral system and process to achieve that. You say you are amazed at the infrastructure being accumulated. I see none - no changes in the way parties bring in and nourish their candidates, no way local cells translate major structural shifts to national platforms, and no shifts in national electoral structure to alter the way that candidates not chosen by their party can ford the structural, tidal surge of politics as they are. Did you have some data/information supporting your view? Absent a profound shift in the way candidates are nourished and elections held, I don't see the kind of popular movement you have now making much of a dent over the long haul.

(2) Just call me cynical. Experience has shown me the extremely short memory of the electorate. Your candidate himself ran in 1988, and got a distant third (0.47% of the popular vote), achieving the Libertarian nomination in a bid pitted against Russell Means. I don't know what he'll end up with here, but in looking to others who have made a good electoral swipe at the political establishment, John Anderson and Perot come to mind in modern history, they did better than Paul did in 1988. Anderson took 6.61% of the popular vote in 1980, and Perot did far better, at 18.91 percent, in 1992. Where are they, their movements, or their successors now? Forgotten. I just think the public doesn't have the energy to think over the long haul for a fundamental shift - a "revolution" as you call it - to manifest in our political life.

(3) Paul's bid, and the arena of discussion for his politics, at least thus far, are built squarely on the internet's viral ability. The internet is notorious for pulling in gobs of attention, but it falls woefully short in its ability to deliver on the ground.

Based on these things, off the top - and this is just a cursory thing, I haven't put the time and energy into a more formal, statistically-based look for instance - I'm just skeptical anything will truly happen to fundamentally change American politics, by which I basically mean a centrist, controlled statist political economy.

The rest of the comments, as we are in the stream, we'll have to see. It is clear the guy works his ass off - both in congress, and in staying in touch with his constituency back home. Not to diminish anything accomplished, but:

-an appearance on Leno exemplifies the 15 minute public memory, and the more "celebrity" a run, the more it serves mass media's purpose. ephemera is the lifeblood of mass media. To me, his successful presence this time around is largely a testament to the internet's viral ability to gain a public ear. The internet is also, to me, the apotheosis of the ephemeral. The low translation of the internet phenomenon to votes at the booths, thus far, reinforces that conclusion, for me at least; and

-house runs are quite different, structurally, from presidential bids. There have been many candidates who have successfully translated a close touch with a local electorate into a congressional seat, but winning a seat in congress is, structurally speaking, a thing apart from taking the White House.

It is impressive to me that his internet bid has reaped him the money it has, and perhaps this will give him, and his movement, exactly the kind of ability to make a mark you contend it will. We'll see. I'd say, let's meet up again in 4 years. But then, if you find me here in 4 years, talking politics, please shoot me. But even assuming this kind of mark, to his politics itself, however you feel about it, institutions have legacies, they have their own extra-electoral, bureaucratic bases of power and inertia, and presidents do not have the kind of power to eradicate those legacies Paul would need to have in order to achieve his stated goals.

In my opinion, America will never be more than it largely has been - what I would call a controlled statist political economy. In terms of political economy, it has never been truly capitalist (collusion between the armed might of the central state and heavy industry at the inception of industrialization ensured that), has never been socialist (and has never had a strong trade union structure and movement, unlike France, for instance), never been too far from centrist in ideology and structure. Twas ever thus, and, I believe, 'twill ever be.

 

Well, if the mountain ain't high, what's the motivation to climb it!?

Oh my friend, you have too much humanity in you, both flaws and excellence, to say that and believe it in your heart of hearts to be true.

Keep your DP email address is up to date 4 years from now. I'll be sure to send you a progress report.

 

Hahahha - OK, will do.

No, to be honest, I do believe it. But I believe it as an existentialist believes in the hell we are in as a species - smart enough to know we're out of the swamp of the unconscious, dumb enough to still cling to hope that anything can be done about the human condition. As a species, we're stuck in our own Tantalus - we seek to leave the swamp, we seek to cling to heaven - and neither is available to us. The former, no longer, the latter, it never was.

Which is why I more and more just retreat into art, the last place where I believe, in its own, limited way, "human" can still be affirmed, despite the descending greyness. The reading and writing of fiction is the place I go to, since I'm done with the would-be overtures of active man.

OK, off the soapbox.

 

True, but ron paul supporters are not republicans. They migrated over from the extreme fringes of the left.

I'd like to see the poll amended to included Mr. UFO, Dennis Kucinich. That's really where they belong. The kooks and cranks belong in the dem party, where they've always been.

 

African and Jamacian immigrants are doing a lot better than african americans that have been in the US for generations.

People have to educate themselves and intergrate themselves into the system.

The US does not have a national school system and schools are paid for from local property taxes.

 

I'm just cranky.

 

That's so blatantly false, and coming from you (someone who migrated from the left), laughable.

Neo-conservatives, which is what every one of these other candidates are with the exception of Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes, have leftist ideologies. Even the neo-conservatives admit they migrated from the left.

Ron Paul supporters have a domestic policy that mirrors "Mr. Conservative" and a foreign policy that mirrors "Mr. Republican", I think a Bill Clinton, military reducing, foreign interventionist, globalist leftist such as yourself should consider not making such a fool of yourself.

Of course, that is what neo-cons are. Fools. They draft up and implement assinine policy full of repercussions their sunshine ideology never planned for.

This is a great time in America. People have turned on the neo-conservatives. Now we just have to make sure they don't turn to the neo-liberals.

Where are Jefferson and Jackson when you need them?

 

Laughing in their tears.

 

More dishonesty from guerilla. You really don't place any value on being honest, do you?

I have not migrated from the left. Prior to 9/11, I didn't know what left/right/dem/republican/liberal/conservative were. Of course, you know that I have explained this before, yet you would dishonestly suggest I "migrated" from the left, of which I didn't know what was at the time.

More importantly though, you really need to look at the poll results in this thread. It clearly demonstrates my point and proves YOU are blatantly false.

Let's see, in the past, you have painted Huckabee as a liberal, as basically just like Ron Paul, as a neocon (code word for Jew) and no telling how many other "labels" you could. You attack republicans, while defending liberal democrats (as do most ron paul supporters here).

Incorrect. Ron Paul supporters want to gut the US and have NO foreign policy. Their foreign policy is to surrender at all cost, retreat, curl up in a ball, and blame America. An isolationist foreign policy. You really should stop making a fool of yourself. You've proven this yourself, by giving aid and comfort to Iran, defending them, excusing them, and speaking very highly of them, knowing they have American blood on their hands. You alone, epitomize this more than any other, yet have the gall to suggest someone other than yourself is making a fool of themself. Heh!

More "Jew" code speak, eh? Stick with your blame America drivel. Hating on your country and giving aid and comfort to those with "our" blood on their hands is what you do best.

You were and are a liberal. You always have been, since you showed up here. People have turned on Ron Paul and "blame America first" idiots that suck up to dictators and rogue nations. Get used to it.

Probably rolling in their graves, watching someone blame their country first and give aid and comfort to our enemies. Just sayin'

 

Didn't Jackson invade Florida and take it over without Congressional authority?

 

that last statement by you gtech was another twist on the truth. We dont support a lie that was brought upon us based on fairy tale wmds that never were found and terrorists that were never there. It is you that is not only lieing but on top of that your backing up the lie by supporting this lie of a war.

Now please have a time out for 15 minutes and think hard on how your gonna twist this statement to benefit your stance.

Fact no 1 no wmd's were ever found
fact no 2 no al qaida were found

We had this discussion a million times and you were proven wrong yet again. Gtech can you at least send some like debunked to argue your points. Even though i dont agree with him on alot of things his answers are at least backed up with some facts and they sound mature

 

I see, so you didn't migrate from social spending and nation building to social spending and nation building. You were just ignorant. Ok, I'll try to buy that.

Huckabee is a liberal. Social conservatism is not a political ideology in America. It's a voting block. One that never gets it's reward for supporting a candidate, because the views are the extreme of what America stands for with regards to personal liberty.

See my last response re: Liberal Democrats.

It's not incorrect. You're projecting.

Who was "Mr. Republican"? Who was "Mr. Conservative"?

When you can answer those questions, then you can try to refute me. I'm trying to help you be less ignorant about politics Wade. It may have started on 9/11 for you, but much of the world has been, and probably will continue to be better educated than you.

You need to read Max Boot. He's a neo-conservative. He's a member of the CFR (shocker there). He wrote a great article in the WSJ in 2002, explaining what a neo-conservative is, and why he proudly considers himself one. And it's not because he's a Jew.

But Reagan was sucking up to Iran with Iran-Contra. And both Bushes have sucked up to the Saudi Princes. In fact, Musharraf is known around the world for supporting the Taliban, and yet you laud that we support him and give him money. I think it's you, and your failed neo-conservative ideology that promotes and sucks up to dictators and rogue nations.

Jefferson founded the Democrat-Republican party. He was a classic liberal. As was Jackson. They would probably both be abhorred at you, and your politics. You see, classic liberalism and classic conservatism are the foundations of what made America great.

Please get an education on history, and the men who made this country great. Then we can talk more. Right now, I have you at a tremendous intellectual disadvantage, and the constant name-calling is really destroying any credibility or self-respect you may have had.

 

I am not from the 'left' you however supported Clinton, I did not.
So I guess Bush supporters came from the left hey?

 

Personal attack. I'll be fighting fire with fire

So is this a flip, or a flop? You've called him about everything in the book so far. He's the same as Bush, he's the same as Ron Paul, he's a liberal, he's a social conservative. Anything else you want to get in there?

Extremist views = Ron Paul. I could be wrong, but I certainly don't see the largest state sponsor of terrorism releasing positive press releases about Ron Paul.

Personal liberty is just another term used by ron paul supporters for supporting terrorists rights to attack America without interference.

Heh, projecting! I can't help but wonder if you really know what that term means. I can't think of any group or candidate (even more so than democrats) that want to surrender America and comfort terrorists.

Who is "Mr. Republican?" Many are. Ron Paul certainly isn't. Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romeny (at least, he's changed his positions to be), John McCain, Duncan Hunter.

Refuting dishonesty is easy. If people were a little more honest, they wouldn't make refutting so easy. If you want to pretend to pick me a part because like so many other Americans, I was not part of the political process back then, be my guest. You may feel this will lead you to some sort of victory, but I can assure you it will not. As you've already demonstrated by dishonestly painting a picture of that, I will correct your dishonesty.

I need to read more Robert Spencer. George Soros, and many others are members of the CFR. Another big ron paul conspiracy theory?

Yet some have dishonestly tried to portray ron paul as Reagan? How does that work? Seems President Reagan is nothing more than a political tool for you, used when convenient.

We don't live in the 1700s anymore, nor am I interested in going back to the 1700s by dismantling the US. Liberalism today, is not the same today, nor does it reflect the same.

Let's get one thing straight. I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR YOU. NONE. ZERO. I do not respect those that dishonestly tear our country apart on a daily basis, who make lies to do so, and who dishonestly attempt to change a subject to cover those things up.

If you want to pretend a discussion exists on liberalism in the 1700s, you are more than welcome to delusion yourself with that thought.