Some thoughts on Iraq, the GOP, and Ron Paul

[2/325Falcon]

Bush can simply not replace the Surge troops after they finish their tours and call this a draw down. The only GOP candidate this wouldn't help is McCain and his campaign is already imploding. The Iraq war won't be an albatross for the GOP in 2008.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
The GOP would appear to be making a collosal mistake; they are essentially saying that the Iraq issue is more important than every other issue combined, and by doing everything possible to marginalize Dr. Paul, they are guaranteeing the loss of the presidency in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borodog,

I think it's fair to say that no Presidential candidate can be elected with only his own party's support, and therefore, needs at least some crossover from moderates in order to win.

Would you say that someone whose glowing endorsement of this book is on its front cover has a high chance of winning a lot of moderate votes?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact:

If you are NOT a Republican/Conservative PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POLL. No democrats, no anarchists, pretty please with sugar on top.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice...how about taking a poll of the 98% of Republicans who are NOT currently Ron Paul supporters.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Most importantly, I believe, is that the GOP is entirely made up by people who benefit massively from the banking system (as is the Democratic Party, of course), which Dr. Paul is vehemently against. I believe that the exposure of the real structure and workings of the banking system to the public is seen as a far greater danger to the power of those in the GOP than is the mere loss of the presidency; hence they are throwing Dr. Paul, and any hope of retaining the presidency under the Democratic bus.


[/ QUOTE ]

Average voter's reaction to a campaign based on this:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[lehighguy]

There really isn't much of a party structure anymore. Do you really think there are a bunch of guys in a smoke filled room somewhere? Politics is more about individual candidates these days.

Even if there were, do you think they are that scared of a Hillary presidency. Is she really all the different from them. At least with her they can gain control of the health and energy industries outlaw competition.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
You're just wrong that Ron Paul represents Republican party principles on smaller government and taxes. Most Republicans want a slightly smaller government. And that's what all of the GOP candidates are campaigning for except Paul. But most Republicans are much closer to Democrats (who want a slightly larger government) than they are to Paul on this issue.


[/ QUOTE ]
They campaign on it but they certaintly don't do it in practice. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Republican congress in '94, Bush 2 all talked about shrinking government to get elected then made government larger.

Or as Borodog already pointed out, their stated goals differ from their actual goals. In actuality, many republican congressmen may indeed be for lower government accross the board, but the party apparatus and the higher ups are definitely not.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You're just wrong that Ron Paul represents Republican party principles on smaller government and taxes. Most Republicans want a slightly smaller government. And that's what all of the GOP candidates are campaigning for except Paul. But most Republicans are much closer to Democrats (who want a slightly larger government) than they are to Paul on this issue.

On a scale of 1 to 100, with the current size of government being a 50, most Republicans are a 45 and most Democrats are a 55. If Ron Paul is a 10, who do you think most Republicans will vote for between him and a Democrat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't talk to many actual Republicans, do you?

Give them that exact hypothetical: current government is a 50. How much government do you think is correct? The VAST majority of everyday Republicans will answer much closer to 10 than 45.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do 2/3 of Republicans still approve of George Bush?

Republicans may say they want drastically smaller government, but the majority of them are all talk.

[mark_foley]

The average GOP voter is very militaristic and only worried about killing the terrorists and all other issues are secondary.
Why else would the mayor of 9/11 be leading in South Carolina.

[wheelflush]

[ QUOTE ]
There really isn't much of a party structure anymore. Do you really think there are a bunch of guys in a smoke filled room somewhere? Politics is more about individual candidates these days

[/ QUOTE ]politics is more about money, media, and momentum these days. paul has 1 out of 3.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
There really isn't much of a party structure anymore. Do you really think there are a bunch of guys in a smoke filled room somewhere? Politics is more about individual candidates these days.



[/ QUOTE ]

You discount the party structure to quicky, lguy. I can only attest first hand to 2 states, NJ and Ca, but I don't think its any different anywhere else. The political machine is very much functional and determinitive of who moves up the political ladder to positions of any prominence. There may be less smoke, but theres still plenty of fire in those rooms.