So I think it's about time that someone brought this up... If there's one thing everyone can agree on, it's that Ron Paul is consistent. I mean the man is like a rock, I remember reading that his entire voting record in Congress correlates as high as 93%...he doesn't waiver positions, is never willing to compromise his principles or negotiate. Well, guess what? Politics is entirely a game of compromising your values. Republicans will never nominate someone who won't balance their platform in the general election. In other words, say Paul is up against Obama, what are the chances that Paul will change his ideology to appeal to Democrats? None. Your average Republican voter is concerned about one thing above all: Beat Obama! The 2nd major issue is Ron Paul does not look presidential! Appearance has been a huge factor since the first televised debate in the Kennedy election. You look at someone like Romney with the hair of a 30-year old, deep set eyes and a firm jaw, he's gonna win 10% of the vote based on looks alone! So please share your explanation if you feel differently, I always love being proven wrong!
I'm still optimistic as it is too early to call the race. I haven't seen anything convincing that demonstrates Paul has no chance at winning the nomination. No one can prove you wrong (yet). We will just have to wait and see.
All the Republicans I talk to seem more concerned with impending Armageddon/social collapse. But they were buying ammo when I was talking to them....
I can assure you that is NOT Romney's hair. All his male family members are bald on top by 30. Its a weave. As fake as his top front teeth.
I think Ron is beginning to win the battle of ideas. I have hope that he'll win. If he doesn't, I don't really foresee much good in our future, unfortunately. The Fed will continue debasing the currency, the wars will continue and escalate, our liberties will be continually eroded, and our empire will collapse, as all empires do.
Compromise is why we gradually lost a great many of our former freedoms, and it's why statism has slowly crept into our society and taken over. Compromise is why we no longer even have 2 separate parties to choose from, only one fascist party that is split in two. Ron Paul's total uncompromising commitment to freedom and liberty is why me, and many others support him with so much passion. We are at a point in our history when uncompromising principles are what is needed, and the American public are realizing that more and more.
im not saying he will win but why even have morals or ideals if you want them compromised on anyway? bipartisanship is nothing but a BS way of saying the citizens lose and the politicians win. its a cop out for them to sacrifice and slide on everything you voted them into office for...
i agree w/ you OP.. right now. but a lot can change in a year.. if gas prices are crazy and more people lose their homes and go broke.. then who knows?
It's too early to decisively say who the nominee will be. In late 2007 everyone thought the frontrunners were America's mayor and Former Law & Order actor turned Senator. So trying to decisively say who can and can't be the party nominee is a little presumptuous and premature.
Simply put, compromise really gets us nowhere. We "compromise" on debt deals, by "cutting" in certain areas while we continue to spend more and more in other areas. I'd rather have someone like Ron Paul who says what he believes and doesn't falter on his stance than someone who's just going to keep making useless compromises.
That's exactly the point, comprising your values is never good, but it's what it needs to be done to gain political power. Once you're in, it's much easier to implement your views. But Paul won't do that, and that's what makes him unique. He'd rather wait for the public to come to him and to understand his message. Is the public ready? That's the problem. Just 2 years ago they chose McCain. McCain to Paul would be an enormous jump of ideology for 4 years. I just don't believe that many people have changed.
Compromise and bipartisanship isn't inherently bad. Unwillingness to compromise and being stubborn just shows immaturity in my opinion. Countries like Britain form coalition governments. The US forms piss battles.
Paul has already said he would compromise, specifically when he said he would cut spending from military and corporate welfare to shore up social programs so long as a portion of the savings are applied to the debt. Coming from him that's a huge compromise. His problem is that he's asked deep philosophical questions about libertarianism, and not how he would apply that to policy.
People typically don't vote with their brains... most of them were voting for the winner. You know how Paul followers all say they were "woken up"? And lots of people didn't vote for McCain...
Yes, it could cost him the nomination. I agree on that, but I don't believe that he should start compromising in order to gain votes.