Could Ron Paul win the Republican nomination?

He is, to some extent, what McCain pretends to be: a principled iconocalst in the form of a real deal, no bullshit, unapologetic old-school Goldwater right-libertarian. He thinks what he thinks and fuck 'em if they don't like it. That attitude's going to score big points (already has, I think) in the red-state heartland, where all those pictures of Rudy in a dress aren't going down all that well.

What do you think, DU? Could Paul walk away with the nom? If he does, what are the implications for the general?

for whom withdrawing from Iraq was more important than anything else, would you be obliged to vote for Paul over, say, Hillary? That would be truly weird.

It's just more shtick. Ron Paul is as phony as a $3 bill.

And that rhetoric is striking a chord with many people.

but I fail to see the Corporate Masters letting him win.

I have to say it would be amusing, at least for a second or two, to hear my right wing friends who told me to "get over it" for the last few years complain that their votes were changed. Honestly, if something like that happened, then perhaps it would suddenly make the fair elections issue less partisan seeming.

ron paul doesn't appeal to more than 10% of repuke primary voters.

I guess his supporters are just louder and more proud of their candidate, so they seem like more.

:bounce:

of the RudyMittFredMcCainObamaHillary news cycles. There's others running?

He's completely anti-establishment, and the Repubs are ALL about the establishment.

They're not nominating a boat-rocker.

allow him to win.

I saw a sign the other day that said "Who is Ron Paul?":puke:

Wouldn't that be nice?

Using the GOOP primaries has helped him reach millions he wouldn't have any other way. He's raised a nice chunk of change in recent weeks. I've long predicted that he'll bolt a fracturing party after the primaries and go back to his old Libertarian Party.

If you actually sit down and listen to him, he is "anti" everything. He'd undo about 60+ years of governmental history, given the chance. Even the GOP has accomplished some things in the last 60 years that they want to keep. This guy is a warmed over Buchannan.

Because he is a one trick pony. I keep hearing he is a nutcase, so it must be true. My father in law is a Republican and said Ron Paul is crazy. I see many DUers hammering that home as well. I'm so glad I don't have to do anymore thinking on my own.

I find it difficult to understand how Dennis Kucinich could like a Charles Manson type of character. My wife's friend (Dem) says Ron Paul is against the Constitution and he's thinks we are winning the war on drugs. She also thinks he pandering to the people who are anti-war. I said to her if only other Americans were so well informed as you... this country wouldn't be in this crisis.

I thanked her for the info and went back to the football game.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

"500B on War on Drugs since 1970s has been a total failure

On the issue of drugs, we have spent nearly five hundred billion dollars on the War on Drugs, since the 1970s. Total failure. Some day, we have to admit it. Today, we have the federal government going into states that have legal medical marijuana, arresting people--undermining state laws--arresting people who use marijuana when they're dying with cancer and AIDS, and it's done with, as a compassionate conservative. And it doesn't work."


It's too bad that the only voting possibilities to stop the war and the war on drugs are two total whackos.

Oh, and welcome to DU!! :hi: :headbang:

Now Ron Paul is a two issue candidate?

I've been lurking for a while and decided to join in on the fun. :)

He has a lot of support from somewhere, but I think a lot of it comes from independents and libertarians.

ala Ross Perot and then all he'd do is serve as a spoiler.

Republicans, like most modern Americans, do not really want to be free.

most of us are slaves and don't want to be free?

and don't realize it.

Some realize and live with it, and some are the slave holders.

most Americans do not want the freedom to take on those responsibilities. They would rather give up their freedom for security.


"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Benjamin Franklin

let him win the nomination. Not a snowballs chance.

same thing, different party. The magic happy unicorn faction.

It WILL be Hillary vs Rudy.

If Republicans are as disenfranchised from their current "leaders" as many Democrats are, he might. :shrug:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/ronpaul2008.com/ronpaul2008.com?h=300&h=400&range=6m&site0=ronpaul2008.com&site1=joinrudy2008.com&site2=&site3=&site4=&size=Medium&w=610&w=700&y=r&z=3&z=3

Plug in your own candidates website to see their traffic in comparison.

Just as if Democrats were honest with themselves Dennis would be.

His poll numbers are often worse than Kuch's, and the RePuke field is far weaker than ours.

Goldwater came around and supported abortion (not to mention allowing gays to serve in the military). Comparing Ron Paul to Goldwater is more than a little silly.

and the hell with party orthodoxy; he's also basically a right-libertarian, with a few wrinkles.