New Republican Poll

Herodotus · 08 Jan 09,, 21:56

Originally Posted by Johnny W

Accusing me of idiocy eh? Name calling and derision tends to be the last resort of those that can't handle an disagreement. I have noticed that tendency in some of Paul supporters. Some of them are reasonable folks who agree with most of his positions, but others can't seem to accept that the nation's voters thoroughly rejected Paul and his positions.

The part that isn't true is when you said Ron Paul defeated every candidate at least once. If you don't finish first, that means you didn't defeat anyone. He didn't win a single contest. He never even came close to winning a single contest. He was completely rejected by the voters, both Republican and Independent.

Did he finish ahead of Mccain in a few primaries. Sure he did. In the scheme of things, that means absolutely nothing. He lost every single primary, never getting more than 24% of the vote, and more often than not, getting less than 5%.

And fwiw, I am neither republican nor conservative. Conservative is some label that someone came up with long ago, that means nothing to me. I judge each issue on its own merit, and don't follow some laundry list of positions that some say conservatives should support. And I did vote for Mccain, but did not vote for W.

Technically Paul finished second; at the convention he had the second most delegates to John McCain. A very, very distant second 2,343 to 15. The Paul votes were not read aloud during the Roll Call so it was not known until later how Paul did. The name of the game is delegates, and primaries are only a means to an end.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml

A major defeat no doubt, though I don't think Paul ever thought he had a realistic chance to begin with.

And for what it is worth "conservative" is not a label that "someone" came up with "long ago' but rather a definition of an attitude that a group of people adhere to. That definition has evolved over time but Russell Kirk has given a good overview of what it means to be "conservative" http://kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

Call it a philosophy rather than an ideology. Paul, in my view of those Republicans running represented the closest thing to a conservative by Kirk's definition. However I also think that Obama comes close to a classic conservative in his mannerisms, and his prudence. It is also debatable how "conservative" Bush was. Republican yes, even ideologically rightist, but one can be a Republican, even rightist, and not be a conservative.

Jeffrey Hart, a man who will never be confused with a left-wing liberal, made a good case for Obama as the conservative choice in the election, and has written about Bush's un-conservative ideology: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar...nion/op-hart12

**JAD_333** · 10 Jan 09,, 02:17

Originally Posted by Ryan Bailey

Thanks for acknowledging my point of Paul's more votes won than McCain and all the rest in certain States, glad you can cede this simple fact, others seem to not understand it since they can't see through their "Paul Derangement".

It appears you are inflating Paul's primary successes, which amount to one case in which he came out ahead of McCain (Arkansas, which Huckabee won hands down) and another in which he tied with McCain 5-5 (North Dakota). Overall Paul won 24 delegates to McCain's 1504, Romney's 242, and Huckabee's 286. What is more telling is that Paul didn't get a single delegate from his home state of Texas while McCain took 121 and Huckabee 16 and unpledged 3.

Fact is Paul's run was a dismal failure in terms of electorial support, although he gets an A+ for noise and discussion board hit teams. Oddly enough there are a good many Republicans who agree with him on some issues, including myself. However, he is far too over-principled for my taste on some constitutional questions and too under principled on others, like earmarks.

**Ryan Bailey** · 10 Jan 09,, 09:30

Originally Posted by JAD_333

It appears you are inflating Paul's primary successes, which amount to one case in which he came out ahead of McCain (Arkansas, which Huckabee won hands down) and another in which he tied with McCain 5-5 (North Dakota). Overall Paul won 24 delegates to McCain's 1504, Romney's 242, and Huckabee's 286. What is more telling is that Paul didn't get a single delegate from his home state of Texas while McCain took 121 and Huckabee 16 and unpledged 3.

Fact is Paul's run was a dismal failure in terms of electorial support, although he gets an A+ for noise and discussion board hit teams. Oddly enough there are a good many Republicans who agree with him on some issues, including myself. However, he is far too over-principled for my taste on some constitutional questions and too under principled on others, like earmarks.

I agree friend, A+ indeed.

I guess I identify with that whole "principle" thing since that is how I choose to live my life.

You're very perceptive... there are a "good many Republicans who agree with him on some issues".

He was the only conservative candidate technically; i.e. the only one who was anti-interventionist, anti- welfare, anti-big government, anti-IRS, pro-states rights, pro-constitutional currency, pro-independence.

Wow, twenty-four delegates, are you sure ? Another had it at 15 which is quite amazing when you consider the amount of money spent by the Communists in both parties and the media to cover-up his Americanist campaign.

Honestly though, can you believe that Rep. Paul won more delegates than Giuliani, Thompson, Thompson, Huckabee, Romney et al ........ COMBINED ?

Unfortunately it was a "dismal failure" for all GOP presidential candidates this year, but Ron Pul won on election day & I'm proud to have him in Wasington standing up for us all.

He makes me proud of the great country we're here in Iraq in order to defend.

Have a great day

Herodotus · 11 Jan 09,, 02:05

Originally Posted by Ryan Bailey

Wow, twenty-four delegates, are you sure ? Another had it at 15 which is quite amazing when you consider the amount of money spent by the Communists in both parties and the media to cover-up his Americanist campaign.

15 delegates per the floor vote at the convention. I agree that Paul did more with less given the odds against him. And as Andrew Sullivan pointed out Paul was the only Republican to run an up-beat campaign talking about freedom, etc. while other candidates dealt in resentment.

I think though Paul made a mistake in dealing with the Stormfront controversy, and the newsletter issue. It was too easy for his opponents to characterize him as a racist with guilt by association.

The only chance Paul ever had would have been at a brokered convention, and even then a slim one given the Republican tendency to back the natural heir-usually the runner-up in the previous election and/or sitting V.P. (Eisenhower to Nixon, Nixon to Nixon, Nixon to Ford, Ford to Reagan, Reagan to Bush, Bush to Dole, Dole to Bush, Bush to McCain).

Paul could have done what Goldwater did in '64, lead a conservative insurgency, and he is the natural heir to Goldwater, but he couldn't muster a broad appeal due to the fracturing of the base. With the base fractured due to Bush's policies the heir apparent-McCain-wins by default.

**lwarmonger** · 11 Jan 09,, 03:33

Insurgencies don't tend to work as well with the republican party as they do with the democrats anyways, as the republicans tend to be more united.

**Johnny W** · 11 Jan 09,, 07:17

Originally Posted by Ryan Bailey

Good post and I respect, nay acknowledge your Bush/Paul hate, Texans are usually polarizing, I understand because I was one via Army Assignment, although I hail from the east coast.

Have a good day....

I don't hate Paul, in fact I have a great deal of respect for him. As Mccain himself said, Paul is the most honest man in Congress. I do think that some of his supporters tend to border on the fanatical at times.

I just don't think the man would make a good president. To be a leader, one has to be able to compromise, and that is something that Paul seems to not be able to do. Even Jefferson, whom Paul seems to admire, learned to compromise his own principals at times for the good of the nation. But Paul is fine as a Congressman, and I hope he stays there for a while.

I don't hate W either, I just don't think he was qualified to be president.

**Ryan Bailey** · 11 Jan 09,, 08:08

Originally Posted by Johnny W

I don't hate Paul, in fact I have a great deal of respect for him. As Mccain himself said, Paul is the most honest man in Congress. I do think that some of his supporters tend to border on the fanatical at times.

I just don't think the man would make a good president. To be a leader, one has to be able to compromise, and that is something that Paul seems to not be able to do. Even Jefferson, whom Paul seems to admire, learned to compromise his own principals at times for the good of the nation. But Paul is fine as a Congressman, and I hope he stays there for a while.

I don't hate W either, I just don't think he was qualified to be president.

Roger, you will forgive me for disagreeing with you on leadership.

I never wish to compromise my principles; i.e. Army Values, 39 Articles, Family Principles etc., and have no respect for any leader that does.

**Ryan Bailey** · 11 Jan 09,, 08:11

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Insurgencies don't tend to work as well with the republican party as they do with the democrats anyways, as the republicans tend to be more united.

Acknowledged.

Do you feel as do I that the Presidencies of Reagan & GW Bush were the results of political insurgencies by outsiders disliked within the District of Columbia ?

**Johnny W** · 11 Jan 09,, 16:59

Originally Posted by Ryan Bailey

Roger, you will forgive me for disagreeing with you on leadership.

I never wish to compromise my principles; i.e. Army Values, 39 Articles, Family Principles etc., and have no respect for any leader that does.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. All the great leaders know when to stand firm, and when to compromise for what they consider to be the greater good. Take Jefferson for example. He didn't believe that he had the constitutional authority for the Louisana Purchase, but did it anyway because he believed it was in the best interest of the US.