Comments on: Ron Paul Can Still Win, if . . .

By: Cooltruth

Cooltruth — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:58:21 +0000

Hillary & Obama wouldn't end the war in Iraq. Ron Paul would put a quick stop to it. We NEED a President intelligent enough to put a quick end to it! Now that the world is rid of Saddam, why continue indefinately with it? It is costing the country more than we can afford to continue the Iraq war when there isn't enough benefit for what's being spent on it. 9/11 Truthers noticed WT7 come down like a planned demolishon the same as I did. Ever see buildings demolished?
Some of us are tired of the neocons & nanny staters running the government. We want better candidates to vote for such as Ron Paul, a Statesman who is NOT a chickenhawk & whom we can feel patriotic about voting for! The country needs an intelligent, frugal spending President. That would be Ron Paul.

By: Phillip Ellis Jackson

Phillip Ellis Jackson — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:30:08 +0000

Dan: So, what you're saying is that Ron Paul has engendered a lot a discussion on the internet that has had virtually no impact on the Republican party base, but has been warmly received by Code Pink, the 9/11 Truthers, and Liberal Democrats everywhere.

I can accept that. Finally, we are in agreement.

By: Dan Phillips

Dan Phillips — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:21:14 +0000

Phil, I am in a Ron Paul Meet-up group. The people in that group are not primarily anti-war lefties and independents. They are conservatives and libertarians. I have been to several Paul events. Again, few if any leftist that I know of. The Paul supporting crowd differs from the traditional conservative crowd that you might run across in that there is a larger young boho libertarian element, but certainly not run-of-the-mill leftists.

But Paul definitely is changing the debate on the internet (a thought leader) whether you care to admit it or not. When the War first started and I would argue for non-intervention I was a very lonely voice. Now you frequently run across conservative non-interventionist making their case. Paul is very much responsible for this.

By: Phillip Ellis Jackson

Phillip Ellis Jackson — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:59:37 +0000

Ron Paul is running in the Republican primary. Those are the voters he is introducing his non-interventionist ideas to. Those are the people rejecting him. Ergo, he has not "changed the debate on foreign policy". This is not a difficult concept to grasp unless you want it to be.

I pointed out before in "Whose Crazier the Far Right or the Far Left?" that Hillary and Paul hold identical policy goals regarding Iraq. If you want to now concede that Paul and Hillary are two sides of the same coin, it's okay with me. I've always maintained that Paul appeals to the Hillary/Obama crowd, not Republican voters.

By: Dan Phillips

Dan Phillips — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:03:16 +0000

It has been rejected so far by the majority of Republican Party primary voters. That the GOP base is supportive of the War and intervention is hardly a revelation. But when you choke down the words "President Obama" or "President Hillary" you will have your little War to thank. BTW, I don't subscribe to the theory that numbers determine right and wrong.

By: Phillip Ellis Jackson

Phillip Ellis Jackson — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:51:00 +0000

"He has introduced the idea of non-intervention to people who would not have otherwise heard it."

*** And it has been soundly rejected by the voters.

By: Dan Phillips

Dan Phillips — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:47:33 +0000

Phil, check what I wrote above. I support him, but I never said Ron Paul could win the nomination. I do think he has changed the debate on foreign policy. He has introduced the idea of non-intervention to people who would not have otherwise heard it.

By: Phillip Ellis Jackson

Phillip Ellis Jackson — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:14:27 +0000

Dan, lighten up. If I wanted to go for the jugular, I’d have reminded you about the Ron Paul juggernaut you said was transforming American politics.

By: Dan Phillips

Dan Phillips — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:59:59 +0000

The Constitution is the law of the land whether I like it or not. If the original objection was that it would not be followed (which it hasn’t been), then it makes perfect sense that anti-Federalists would be some of the strongest modern day advocates of it being followed as originally intended. It's really quite simple Phil. BTW, I was throwing you a good natured bone. You can't even let that pass without a jab.

By: Phillip Ellis Jackson

Phillip Ellis Jackson — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:44:16 +0000

Jeff: Dan's definition of pragmatism sounds a lot like the dictionary definition of opportunism. Depending upon the audience and the point he needs to make, he's a strong supporter of the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution.