Is Paul viable?

[fightingquaker13]

As a libertarian I feel I've let Mauler and FA down. So, here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor (a very serious source0 talking about Paul in Iowa. I have my doubts, but hey, his beliefs are closer to mine than anyone else in the race on either side, so a little crazy or not, what the hell. This is for FA and Mauler.
FQ13


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1120/Ron-Paul-s-strength-in-Iowa-shows-it-s-too-soon-to-write-him-off

[santahog]

No...

[crusader rabbit]

No...

Keen eye for the obvious, Santahog.

I, too, find myself in essential agreement with much of what Dr. Paul says.  I just can't swallow the really nutty parts.  His "whack-job" side is too pronounced for him to be viable.

Crusader

[atmiller]

Agree with others.  If his "whack job" views were a little tamer, he would be more viable.  But they are so far out that they overshadow the 95% of his views that are spot on. 

[mauler]

http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/11/new-iowa-poll-places-ron-paul-firmly-in-first-with-25/

[Sponsor]

[fullautovalmet76]

Thanks for the post, Quaker.

I think he is more than viable, he is very much needed at this point in our history. But I am not blind to the political realities. The electorate, specifically those who call themselves conservative, have bound themselves with the establishment orthodoxies that have permeated Republican politics for the past 30 years. The issue to me is not so much Ron Paul, as it is the expectations of the conservative base. In a sense, he is from an era long ago that we have forgotten and has been reintroduced back into the body politic. 

After last night's debate, I recall the feeling of fear when I heard Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Michelle Bachman talk about foreign policy and domestic issues. And I use the word "fear" very carefully here because as I listened to Newt Gingrich explain the constitution is for crimes but has no applicability to terrorism reminded me of the things I was warned about by my grandfather years ago are coming true. He warned about those who would come telling us to give up our freedoms in the name of security had nothing but evil in their plans....

[Pathfinder]

Reading this thread, I had a flash of an idea.

Every President in history has "handlers" who make sure there is a term #2, and the POTUS ends up being a little more careful with their more radical views. BJ klintoon is a good case in point, as he became more "moderate" (for him anyhow) after being elected. Even bho publicly has not pushed some of his loonier ideas - Gitmo, ending the war in '09, etc. Besides, he has the .gov bureaucracy to do most of his dirty work, and they are doing well at seriously destroying our rights and freedoms.

So here's the idea. Can we really do any worse than bho? Really? We can't trust any of the (R) candidates, all of whom are too embedded in the (R) "old boy's club".

I'm a hair's breadth away from supporting Paul all out to fix .gov and the economy, and deal with the 5% idiocy if and when it gets past the handlers and comes up publicly. None of the other candidates are doing anything.

So what do you say - let's all say eff it and put a concerted effort into backing Paul, libertarian nut job and all. Get his good ideas out there, let him and his handlers know that the loonier stuff won't fly, and work the locals to get his image up there and in line with our desires for freedom and liberty instead of this entitlement crap we have today.

Our goal should be to get rid of bho, get .gov cleaned out, and get this country back on track re' the Constitution. The who is not important, just the changes we want to see in this country.

Just like the last election where the 2A was the only litmus test, so should getting .gov back more in line with the Constitution be the only test for 2012.

Thoughts?

[crusader rabbit]

Our goal should be to get rid of bho, get .gov cleaned out, and get this country back on track re' the Constitution. The who is not important, just the changes we want to see in this country.

Heard someone call in to Glenn Beck who claimed that if a can of dog food was running against BHO, he'd vote for the dog food.

Odamna has got to go.  'nuff said.

Crusader

[mortdooley]

 Ron Paul has no chance of getting the nomination because if he were the front runner we would see a repeat of the Bob Dole nomination where he was the only candidate in all 50 primaries. It was common knowledge at the time Clinton had done such a poor job in his first four years he could never be re-elected until he only had to run against sour, unfaithful Bob Dole.

 I will be voting for the Republican nominee even if it is Romney who I believe is a true 24kt RINO. As I hold my nose in the voting booth I will be thinking anybody stupid enough to strap a dog carrier to the top of a car with a live dog in it has no business making decisions for the country. That is how bad I think BO has to go!

 http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/dog.asp

To the best of my understanding Rick Perry is the only candidate to regularly carry a firearm and would probably allow the re-importation of military semi-auto small arms from South Korea. He might even void the ban on the registration of new full auto firearms and open that market back up.

[fullautovalmet76]

Ron Paul has no chance of getting the nomination because if he were the front runner we would see a repeat of the Bob Dole nomination where he was the only candidate in all 50 primaries. It was common knowledge at the time Clinton had done such a poor job in his first four years he could never be re-elected until he only had to run against sour, unfaithful Bob Dole.
 

From part of my post above:
"The electorate, specifically those who call themselves conservative, have bound themselves with the establishment orthodoxies that have permeated Republican politics for the past 30 years. The issue to me is not so much Ron Paul, as it is the expectations of the conservative base. "

Mort's post is an example of what I'm talking about.