GOP plan to dump paul - Page 2

Case Closed · #11 10-03-2007, 10:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-...es-100307.html

I say barring people from joining your party who would help nominate the only person who can possibly win the general election for you this year is a winning strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two points:
1. Ron Paul has less of a shot at winning the general election than does Rudy or Thompson. His views are radical and that does not help him out.
2. The republicans do not have a good recent track record of doing things that would help them win elections.

Misfire · #12 10-03-2007, 11:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
His views are radical and that does not help him out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a sad state of affairs when Paul is a radical while Giuliani and McCain are not.

maxtower · #13 10-03-2007, 11:09 PM

Why is ending the war and bringing the US closer to financial solvency radical?

Thats the problem with the US public. Fighting in Iraq, and continuing to spend beyond our means should be the radical positions.

lehighguy · #14 10-03-2007, 11:24 PM

Between this and what is going on with the Dems, primaries have become such a joke.

phillydilly · #15 10-04-2007, 07:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His views are radical and that does not help him out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a sad state of affairs when Paul is a radical while Giuliani and McCain are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

hadn't thought about that
so true, so sad

bluesbassman · #16 10-04-2007, 10:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His views are radical and that does not help him out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a sad state of affairs when Paul is a radical while Giuliani and McCain are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Ron Paul is more radical, i.e. he is much more consistent. In Paul's case he is consistent about defending liberty and limiting the proper role of government in a free society. Radical doesn't necessarily mean "bad."

Giuliani and McCain aren't consistent about anything other than being political whores like almost all other politicians. It's a sad state of affairs that a (more) consistent defender of liberty is considered too "radical" in a derogatory sense to be electable.

elwoodblues · #17 10-04-2007, 11:15 AM

Getting beyond just Ron Paul here, why would/should either party want/let non-members of the party to vote in their primaries? The whole purpose of the primary is for the party to pick a nominee for the general election. Allowing non-party members allows for serious skewing/distorting of the vote.

Ron Paul is actually a pretty good example of this. While Paul is a republican, he is more more like a libertarian than a republican. Even on this forum, we hear people all the time talk about how his support is difficult to capture because it doesn't come from typical Republicans, but rather it comes from unregistered "republicans" or libertarians, or the millions of anarchists. I have no problem (in fact I think it is better for the party) if Republicans want to disallow these people from their primaries.

The whole thing reminds me of a prank I helped organize in college. The College Republicans were holding their "election" for president of the organization at their general meeting. We brought in a large number of ultra-liberal students to the election to join the club and vote in one of the liberals as president of the org.

Kurn, son of Mogh · #18 10-04-2007, 11:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-...es-100307.html

I say barring people from joining your party who would help nominate the only person who can possibly win the general election for you this year is a winning strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been a libertarian for close to 30 years, and while I'd love to believe that Ron Paul could win a general election, I see no evidence in just talking to people that a libertairian would not be crushed in the general election. I really doubt Harry Browne would've won many States in either '96 or '00 even if he had been the GOP nominee.

Trust me. I wish it were different, but the truth is, the vast majority of people think big government is a good idea.

That said, Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would be a good way to at least shape the debate properly for the future.

Case Closed · #19 10-04-2007, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The whole thing reminds me of a prank I helped organize in college. The College Republicans were holding their "election" for president of the organization at their general meeting. We brought in a large number of ultra-liberal students to the election to join the club and vote in one of the liberals as president of the org.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sweet jesus do I hate when this happens. This actually happened to a local chapter of the Green Party. A bunch of libertarians came out of nowhere and elected themselves to all the positions because they had a hole in their constitution. Very random stuff.

elwoodblues · #20 10-04-2007, 11:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole thing reminds me of a prank I helped organize in college. The College Republicans were holding their "election" for president of the organization at their general meeting. We brought in a large number of ultra-liberal students to the election to join the club and vote in one of the liberals as president of the org.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sweet jesus do I hate when this happens. This actually happened to a local chapter of the Green Party. A bunch of libertarians came out of nowhere and elected themselves to all the positions because they had a hole in their constitution. Very random stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's totally stupid (I know), but it highlights why the primaries SHOULD be restricted to party members.