i just think it's a bit misleading to call it a return to their roots. a shift to a new ideology is more appropriate. the parties are so vastly different from their initial forms (the dems as the racist party of the solid south?) that it's a joke to say that is the meaning of the party.
Ok...fair enough. However, the primary roots of the Republican party remain very Libertarian, regardless of how you want to craft words around the history. It doesn't represent a "new ideology". The ideology is as old as this nation and at many times, particularly during their inception, the Republic party has used these ideals as a foundation.
the parties aren't born to be anything. they are always reactive to the needs of the times. now if ron paul can get the nomination and shift the republican party away from those christian nutcases, i might have to switch parties.
The only way that can happen is for people to vote for him. Ron Paul represents America's best defense against federal Christian moralizing. A small federal government that adheres to strict Consitutional interpretations will find little room to impose religious dogma on this nation.
Ok...fair enough. However, the primary roots of the Republican party remain very Libertarian, regardless of how you want to craft words around the history. It doesn't represent a "new ideology". The ideology is as old as this nation and at many times, particularly during their inception, the Republic party has used these ideals as a foundation.
The only way that can happen is for people to vote for him. Ron Paul represents America's best defense against federal Christian moralizing. A small federal government that adheres to strict Consitutional interpretations will find little room to impose religious dogma on this nation.
yes, but my point is at various times the dems have adhered to the libertarian ideology as much as the republicans. neither party can be said to have the libertarian values. they both just go with the flow of the times and adopt politically expedient values corresponding to the day. neither and both parties can be said to be returning to libertarian roots. so i think it is more appropriate to say RP is pushing for the republicans to adopt a libertarian ideology, just as kucinich is pushing for the dems to adopt a more liberal one. the ideologies are old, their use by the parties wildly inconsistent.
im hoping he gets the nomination. if he does, i will vote for him in a heartbeat. though im not sure i can vote in the republican primary. im currently a registered dem and being out of state it's a real pain to try and switch to vote for him in the primaries.
It depends on the "issue". I'm largely a one-issue voter. Liberty is the only product I'm interested in from government.
liberty is an ideology, not an issue. and it is something that can be applied to many issues... will this law enhance or restrict liberty? you can't do that with gun control. you can't go "well, i stand for gun control, so i guess ill vote for abortion."
liberty is an ideology, not an issue. and it is something that can be applied to many issues... will this law enhance or restrict liberty? you can't do that with gun control. you can't go "well, i stand for gun control, so i guess ill vote for abortion."
Well, how do you know 69charger isn't coming from a more ideological position in his post? I'd suspect his political views run deeper than "I want my gun".
yes, but my point is at various times the dems have adhered to the libertarian ideology as much as the republicans. neither party can be said to have the libertarian values. they both just go with the flow of the times and adopt politically expedient values corresponding to the day. neither and both parties can be said to be returning to libertarian roots. so i think it is more appropriate to say RP is pushing for the republicans to adopt a libertarian ideology, just as kucinich is pushing for the dems to adopt a more liberal one. the ideologies are old, their use by the parties wildly inconsistent.
I certainly agree with this.
im hoping he gets the nomination. if he does, i will vote for him in a heartbeat. though im not sure i can vote in the republican primary. im currently a registered dem and being out of state it's a real pain to try and switch to vote for him in the primaries.
Not voting in the primary will make it very tough to vote for RP in the overall election. He'll need every vote he could possibly get to win that nomination.
I'm going to have to modify my own registration here as well to vote in the Republican primary. I'll switch it back to Independent shortly after. But that small amount of effort is certainly worth it to support the only principled candidate in the race.
Well, how do you know 69charger isn't coming from a more ideological position in his post? I'd suspect his political views run deeper than "I want my gun".
im going based on his posting history and the way he seemed to think this is the supreme and only quality he needs in a leader. it's only a guess. i dont know. thus why i responded with the rolling eyes. if im off the mark, he can explain it. but the way his post was worded implied that that one bill was reason enough to vote for him, which is ridiculous. the current state of the republican party is proof positive that you need to look at what a candidate stands for overall, not just their stance on one pet issue.
Not voting in the primary will make it very tough to vote for RP in the overall election. He'll need every vote he could possibly get to win that nomination.
I'm going to have to modify my own registration here as well to vote in the Republican primary. I'll switch it back to Independent shortly after. But that small amount of effort is certainly worth it to support the only principled candidate in the race.
He's polling well on-line, but that's a very different beast from the off-line polls which haven't been done recently. The latter are much more scientifically valid, and will likely show that Ron Paul's support is certainly not what it appears to be on-line. I'd guess he got a significant bump from the last debate and a lot of the on-line buzz that currently surrounds his candidacy, but he's likely not anywhere near a front-runner.
His candidacy is obviously very much a long shot. But a long shot candidacy aimed at a very dispirited voter base, combined with very poor mainstream candidates gives it some real potential. And that potential can only be realized by people sticking their necks out there and supporting someone who likely will not win. But what's the worst thing that can happen by supporting a losing effort by Ron Paul? It's only upside, in my opinion.
I don't think he is polling that well but after the debate he definetly got some good press and a bump in polling. Hopefully he can carry that momentum into the next debate and build on it.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
But a long shot candidacy aimed at a very dispirited voter base, combined with very poor mainstream candidates gives it some real potential.
This is a good observation. I thinl Paul really has a decent shot if he starts to receive the coverage that the front runners are getting. There are a lot of disgruntled Republicans and moderate Democrats who I can see supporting this guy. the onlt problem is getting his message out there for them to hear it.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
This is a good observation. I thinl Paul really has a decent shot if he starts to receive the coverage that the front runners are getting. There are a lot of disgruntled Republicans and moderate Democrats who I can see supporting this guy. the onlt problem is getting his message out there for them to hear it.
I don't see the moderate Democrats switching parties in large enough numbers. Plus, he needs to raise some money to get his message out to the masses. Debates aren't watched by enough people who are watching with an interest in figuring out who to vote for. Most people watching a debate are cheering on their guy more than actually learning where people stand. He needs some TV presence in December of 2007 and will need some targeted mailings and phone calls.
I don't see the moderate Democrats switching parties in large enough numbers. Plus, he needs to raise some money to get his message out to the masses. Debates aren't watched by enough people who are watching with an interest in figuring out who to vote for. Most people watching a debate are cheering on their guy more than actually learning where people stand. He needs some TV presence in December of 2007 and will need some targeted mailings and phone calls.
True, but I believe there are enough moderates out there willing to move past party affiliation. Not that I'm a democrat but knowing what you know about me would you have ever pegged me for a Ron Paul supporter. To me Ron is a candidate who transends party lines.
I have already volunteered to do my part, here in NJ, for his campaign.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
True, but I believe there are enough moderates out there willing to move past party affiliation. Not that I'm a democrat but knowing what you know about me would you have ever pegged me for a Ron Paul supporter. To me Ron is a candidate who transends party lines.
I have already volunteered to do my part, here in NJ, for his campaign.
I would definitely love to see that you are right on this. I wouldn't have pegged you as a Ron Paul supporter a year ago. I think I have agreed with you more and more as time has gone on though.
Ron Paul certainly does seem like a candidate who could bring up some important issues in debates, and one who could certainly "speak truth to power". If anything, he certainly makes a better spokesperson for libertarian ideas than that blue-skinned guy.
"All governments are murderers and liars."
-Bill Hicks
If anything, he certainly makes a better spokesperson for libertarian ideas than that blue-skinned guy.
LOL, the blue skin would have been cool if the dude was part of the Blue Man Group. Unfortunately Stan Jone's blue skin was a result of some wacky fear of Y2K. He ended up concocting some sort of antibiotic laced with silver. As libertarian as I am, I might have had trouble voting for papa smurf.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Well, how do you know 69charger isn't coming from a more ideological position in his post? I'd suspect his political views run deeper than "I want my gun".
They do run deeper but "I want my gun" is pretty high up on that list! What's liberty without a right or means to defend it?
I love the idea of small government and "leave us alone and we'll leave you alone but you take a swing and it will be the last swing you take".
I also like the idea of the EU stepping up and containing the mess in Darfur. We have our hands busy with the nutjobs in the middle east.
Even though I consider myself strongly libertarian, I do not think an 'anything goes' society is working out for us. I see too many parallels with our society and that of ancient Rome.
I would definitely love to see that you are right on this. I wouldn't have pegged you as a Ron Paul supporter a year ago. I think I have agreed with you more and more as time has gone on though.
I hope I am right. I know I've stated this before but in my 14 years as a registered voter I have never been this enthusiastic about a candidate. Even though I don't agree with Ron on certain issue, abortion & same sex marriage, I agree with his stance that the final say on this issues is up to the states and it's citizens.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
mammasan posted this elsewhere...thought I'd include it here as well.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA: Congressman Ron Paul's support has soared since the first Republican presidential debate. Conservative commentator John McLaughlin, host of "The McLaughlin Group," cited Ron Paul as having given "the best performance of the debate." In fact, the Paul campaign's apparent strength has many other pundits scrambling to explain it. Paul campaign officials offer the following examples of the candidate's rising success.
Since the debate on May 3, Ron Paul:
1. Handily won two post-debate polls posted by event sponsor MSNBC.
2. Placed a close third (18%) in a post-debate poll on the conservative Drudge Report.
3. Won an ABCNews.com online debate poll with 84%.
4. Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%.
5. Became the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton, according to the reputable Technorati.com.
6. Produced a YouTube.com video that was ranked the 8th most popular overall video, and the most-viewed political video.
7. Was featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.com.
8. Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul.
9. Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!.
10. Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com.
"These figures speak for themselves," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul has quickly become a strong contender for the GOP nomination because of his powerful message of freedom and limited government."
the only problem is, the media doesn't seem to care. everywhere you look it's hillary, obama, mccain, and guiliani.
with the overwhelmingly positive response following the debate, the media's lack of attention paid to paul cannot be a mistake. it's another case of the corporate media telling us who to vote for.
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
Congressman Ron Paul now has the most YouTube subscribers among the Republican candidates for president. During the last 24 hours, Congressman Paul passed Mitt Romney to take the #1 spot.
The second major debate among the GOP presidential candidates will be broadcast live tonight from the University of South Carolina. The 90-minute debate will be broadcast by Fox News starting at 9:00 p.m. ET.
Comments
Ok...fair enough. However, the primary roots of the Republican party remain very Libertarian, regardless of how you want to craft words around the history. It doesn't represent a "new ideology". The ideology is as old as this nation and at many times, particularly during their inception, the Republic party has used these ideals as a foundation.
The only way that can happen is for people to vote for him. Ron Paul represents America's best defense against federal Christian moralizing. A small federal government that adheres to strict Consitutional interpretations will find little room to impose religious dogma on this nation.
It depends on the "issue". I'm largely a one-issue voter. Liberty is the only product I'm interested in from government.
yes, but my point is at various times the dems have adhered to the libertarian ideology as much as the republicans. neither party can be said to have the libertarian values. they both just go with the flow of the times and adopt politically expedient values corresponding to the day. neither and both parties can be said to be returning to libertarian roots. so i think it is more appropriate to say RP is pushing for the republicans to adopt a libertarian ideology, just as kucinich is pushing for the dems to adopt a more liberal one. the ideologies are old, their use by the parties wildly inconsistent.
im hoping he gets the nomination. if he does, i will vote for him in a heartbeat. though im not sure i can vote in the republican primary. im currently a registered dem and being out of state it's a real pain to try and switch to vote for him in the primaries.
liberty is an ideology, not an issue. and it is something that can be applied to many issues... will this law enhance or restrict liberty? you can't do that with gun control. you can't go "well, i stand for gun control, so i guess ill vote for abortion."
Well, how do you know 69charger isn't coming from a more ideological position in his post? I'd suspect his political views run deeper than "I want my gun".
I certainly agree with this.
Not voting in the primary will make it very tough to vote for RP in the overall election. He'll need every vote he could possibly get to win that nomination.
I'm going to have to modify my own registration here as well to vote in the Republican primary. I'll switch it back to Independent shortly after. But that small amount of effort is certainly worth it to support the only principled candidate in the race.
im going based on his posting history and the way he seemed to think this is the supreme and only quality he needs in a leader. it's only a guess. i dont know. thus why i responded with the rolling eyes. if im off the mark, he can explain it. but the way his post was worded implied that that one bill was reason enough to vote for him, which is ridiculous. the current state of the republican party is proof positive that you need to look at what a candidate stands for overall, not just their stance on one pet issue.
is he truly polling as well as it seems?
He's polling well on-line, but that's a very different beast from the off-line polls which haven't been done recently. The latter are much more scientifically valid, and will likely show that Ron Paul's support is certainly not what it appears to be on-line. I'd guess he got a significant bump from the last debate and a lot of the on-line buzz that currently surrounds his candidacy, but he's likely not anywhere near a front-runner.
His candidacy is obviously very much a long shot. But a long shot candidacy aimed at a very dispirited voter base, combined with very poor mainstream candidates gives it some real potential. And that potential can only be realized by people sticking their necks out there and supporting someone who likely will not win. But what's the worst thing that can happen by supporting a losing effort by Ron Paul? It's only upside, in my opinion.
I don't think he is polling that well but after the debate he definetly got some good press and a bump in polling. Hopefully he can carry that momentum into the next debate and build on it.
This is a good observation. I thinl Paul really has a decent shot if he starts to receive the coverage that the front runners are getting. There are a lot of disgruntled Republicans and moderate Democrats who I can see supporting this guy. the onlt problem is getting his message out there for them to hear it.
I don't see the moderate Democrats switching parties in large enough numbers. Plus, he needs to raise some money to get his message out to the masses. Debates aren't watched by enough people who are watching with an interest in figuring out who to vote for. Most people watching a debate are cheering on their guy more than actually learning where people stand. He needs some TV presence in December of 2007 and will need some targeted mailings and phone calls.
True, but I believe there are enough moderates out there willing to move past party affiliation. Not that I'm a democrat but knowing what you know about me would you have ever pegged me for a Ron Paul supporter. To me Ron is a candidate who transends party lines.
I have already volunteered to do my part, here in NJ, for his campaign.
I would definitely love to see that you are right on this. I wouldn't have pegged you as a Ron Paul supporter a year ago. I think I have agreed with you more and more as time has gone on though.
-Bill Hicks
LOL, the blue skin would have been cool if the dude was part of the Blue Man Group. Unfortunately Stan Jone's blue skin was a result of some wacky fear of Y2K. He ended up concocting some sort of antibiotic laced with silver. As libertarian as I am, I might have had trouble voting for papa smurf.
They do run deeper but "I want my gun" is pretty high up on that list! What's liberty without a right or means to defend it?
I love the idea of small government and "leave us alone and we'll leave you alone but you take a swing and it will be the last swing you take".
I also like the idea of the EU stepping up and containing the mess in Darfur. We have our hands busy with the nutjobs in the middle east.
Even though I consider myself strongly libertarian, I do not think an 'anything goes' society is working out for us. I see too many parallels with our society and that of ancient Rome.
I could go on...
I hope I am right. I know I've stated this before but in my 14 years as a registered voter I have never been this enthusiastic about a candidate. Even though I don't agree with Ron on certain issue, abortion & same sex marriage, I agree with his stance that the final say on this issues is up to the states and it's citizens.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA: Congressman Ron Paul's support has soared since the first Republican presidential debate. Conservative commentator John McLaughlin, host of "The McLaughlin Group," cited Ron Paul as having given "the best performance of the debate." In fact, the Paul campaign's apparent strength has many other pundits scrambling to explain it. Paul campaign officials offer the following examples of the candidate's rising success.
Since the debate on May 3, Ron Paul:
1. Handily won two post-debate polls posted by event sponsor MSNBC.
2. Placed a close third (18%) in a post-debate poll on the conservative Drudge Report.
3. Won an ABCNews.com online debate poll with 84%.
4. Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%.
5. Became the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton, according to the reputable Technorati.com.
6. Produced a YouTube.com video that was ranked the 8th most popular overall video, and the most-viewed political video.
7. Was featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.com.
8. Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul.
9. Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!.
10. Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com.
"These figures speak for themselves," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul has quickly become a strong contender for the GOP nomination because of his powerful message of freedom and limited government."
-30-
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
the only problem is, the media doesn't seem to care. everywhere you look it's hillary, obama, mccain, and guiliani.
with the overwhelmingly positive response following the debate, the media's lack of attention paid to paul cannot be a mistake. it's another case of the corporate media telling us who to vote for.
Congressman Ron Paul now has the most YouTube subscribers among the Republican candidates for president. During the last 24 hours, Congressman Paul passed Mitt Romney to take the #1 spot.
Paul: 1,961
Romney: 1,889
Giuliani: 1,276
McCain: 1,184
Hunter: 246
Huckabee: 146
Tancredo: 136
Brownback: 65
Gilmore: 26
Ron Paul 2008 YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom
May 15th in South Carolina. Televised on Fox News.
Thanks.
The second major debate among the GOP presidential candidates will be broadcast live tonight from the University of South Carolina. The 90-minute debate will be broadcast by Fox News starting at 9:00 p.m. ET.
Ron Paul will be involved in this debate.
-Bill Hicks