The numbers on the Republican poll dwindle to nearly a drip at a time in favor of Ron Paul. Why? Why such a uniquely brilliant man, one who wants to rewrite the government only to benefit it's people? Yet, we continually dismiss. Most recognize Paul to be out of his mind, and in some ways he is; limiting the role of the government, withdrawal from Iraq; all this on a Republican slip of paper; clearly the man is conservatively insane. Yet it is this insanity, this opposing grind against the wood, that has generated such an interest in this candidate. Of course, this is an interest from the minority here, the younger generations barely able to vote in primaries, let alone in the upcoming November election. He has inspired the crowd; he has brought about evolution, better yet, a "Ron Paul Revolution". His minor set-back: he has targeted the wrong crowd; he has politically ignited the young and rebellious, but what of the conservative vote, the older conservative vote he would need to ever think of winning? I believe, and I am fairly sure he has recognized, he will fail and lose the election. Maybe fail is too harsh a word, seeing as he did not fail to awaken the young in America, just as fellow runner Barack Obama has done on the counteracting Democratic side. Ron Paul has awaken a scale, a scale of Americans, and even people living abroad, from the realm of blogging and the internet--as he has been seen topping the charts on the site www.digg.com, and the realm of the school classroom where students and teachers, hand in hand, are believing the evolution of America, and the evolution on this outlook of Hope, that little of us see in the fostered care of the current administration.
Should such an advocate of youth political activism step down from the plate, retire, and never try at this level of government again?
I beg to say no. Not that I am in favor of Ron Paul ever becoming president, or ever getting close to it; but I believe that we need Paul as a figure in this crucial electing time, as a reminder of a better America, a hopeful America.
I don't think Paul's campaign really targeted the young. They focused on an internet campaign because it was cheap and the young rallied around him.
What, by the way, is your candidate of choice and why?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Candidate of choice-- Hillary Clinton. Mainly because Al Gore and John Edwards are not running anymore, and I don't think Obama can carry the country. I also have a stronger push towards her stance on the environment, which is an extremely big deal to me, and yes, Obama does have plans, but he sticks with policies, where as Hillary seeks action. i see action as a trivial component for the elections. As far as orating goes, Obama has that in the bag, but then again, Obama does have a 26 year old that writes his speeches, which gives a fresh edge. I have seen both in person, and have felt a stronger reassurance from Clinton
You might dig this recent poll. I hate to play the 'electability card' but evidently Obama is showing he can carry this country and I really believe the Republicans want to fight the politics as usual. That's why I hear them calling for a fight with Hillary. They don't know about this Obama character... (Hillary Clinton is the only net negative candidate polling. Meaning there's a higher number of people polled who view him negatively than do positively.)
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=407
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Nice blog! I agree with a lot of what you said; I doubt I'd ever vote for him but his ideology and his presence are needed in America.
In a lot of ways, though, I guess people don't realize that Paul is a conservative's dream. Most of his views sound incredibly radical in this day and age, where one side of the spectrum wants heavy involvement in our economy, and the other wants heavy social involvement, but really, they're largely what the country was founded on. In the past he has run as a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist.
The reason he won't win votes, though, is the extreme to which he wants to limit federal government. He wants to leave a lot to the states, seeing that as the way the country originated, but this includes pressing social issues that many of the Huckabee and Romney supporters want national uniformity on.
Primary voters also have to consider who can win in the general election- I personally agree with his ideology more than any other candidate, but public image and name recognition are equally vital parts in a candidate's ability to earn votes. In the general election, Ron Paul would be flat-out smoked by the Democratic nominee. Hell, if Edwards were still in it I could see an electoral near-sweep.
I believe that if we're going to have a limited government, we have to do it in baby steps. I don't think America is ready for Ron Paul, but despite my mistrust of George W. Bush I'd like to see the GOP keep the presidency because that way we have a better chance of making the nation ready for him, or his successor.
good points, thanks!
also, just on mere speculation, and I might be wrong, but seeing as you still want the GOP, would you be more in favor of McCain?
Yeah. He's closer to the middle of the spectrum, and although I agree with Paul and I think that the government should just let the Invisible Hand run our economy, I don't want to vote for a social conservative. I respect those who do hold morality in such high political esteem and will vote for their beliefs; personally I just think it's a job best left to the individual, or at least the states. I may flip-flop and go Obama though, just because I think it's important that we get out of Iraq. But then we'd have Democrats controlling both Congress and the White House.
hmm, funny that you do not mention Clinton for getting out of Iraq? I think she wants it just as much as he, even acting in segments of time, despite her formerly being for the war nearly seven years back.
I do agree with you on the aspect of individualism; I suppose it is in the hands of the members of society and how they will perceive that individual with morals included.
I would think that Paul has the best chance in the general election against a democrat. Why? He's strongly opposed to the war.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
again, do you see no other candidate as being for that same ideal?
You misunderstand. Being pro-war in this election is a bad thing. Therefore, the fact that Paul is against it would've helped him in the elections if he had made it.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
I meant the same ideal as opposing the war, not supporting it.
That's my point. Supporting the war=bad. McCain and every other Republican candidate supports it. Hill and Barry don't. This gives Hill and Barry and extra boost. Against Paul, they would not have that since he also disagrees with the war.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Oh, okay, gottcha. I didn't catch the part where you said "against a democrat" and I was thinking "umm...democrats are against war". I suppose I skimmed over that, sorry.
lol. :-&
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Ron Paul is probably the best candidate for those of us who love the governmental foundings of the Founding Fathers. I plan to vote for him even though he'll lose, but it's only a primary and I refuse to vote for a president during the general election because personally everyone else is political and biased toward their own party than toward the American people. What set Paul out from the rest is that he is clearly more interested in the betterment of the American people, much more than even Barack Obama. Paul might be running as a republican, but his beliefs are much closer to the founders, which is usually seen as Anarcho-capitalist and believes that goverment is a necessary evil, something that none of the other candidates seem to believe.
Any other candidate will only expand our government or keep it the same and if they miraculously make it smaller, it will only be a minute difference. And like I said, before they are representing the people, they have to basically give head to their political party before they can help the American people. Paul might have a party, but I don't see him bowing down to the people who will try to handle him. Obama might not bow down, but that has yet to be seen, but for me, his views are awful for my beliefs so I won't vote for him.