A libertarian republican is a republican with libertarian leanings. For example, both a republican and a libertarian may agree with a freely operated economy but won't agree with each other when it comes to the war on drugs. They also disagree with each other about immigration. Many libertarians are open border many republicans are not. Now when it comes to Ron Paul he is for a free market, against the war on drugs which is a libertarian standing, but is against opened borders, a republican standing. So basically it's a mixture of the two. I'm a Libertarian and vote mainly for libertarian candidates but I do like Ron Paul and he is the only Republican I would compromise with.
2007-07-11 06:09:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
I've talked to Libertarians that say Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian because he is opposed to open borders and is pro-life. I've talked with Republicans who say that Ron Paul is NOT Republican because he is opposed to the Iraq War and he doesn't support the drug war. The truth is that he's been a conservative Republican longer than anything else. He was one of only 4 Republicans then sitting in Congress who supported Ronald Reagan for the Presidential nomination in 1976 against Gerald Ford. But he does have strong libertarian leanings, and has even been affiliated briefly with the Libertarian Party, which he used as a springboard for an independent run for President in 1988.
Today, he calls himself a Constitutionalist. Basically, he's been a Republican Congressman all his political life, and anyone who says he isn't a Republican is just a little clueless. Essentially, "Republican" doesn't mean anything other than that he's a member of the party, and he's been a member longer than most of the people who claim he isn't a Republican, so they should be laughed at.
He believes in liberty and in the constitution, and in the principles that our founding fathers had in mind when this country was formed. There's no "correct term" to pigeon-hole him. Some people use the term Libertarian as a pejorative, because they know that most Americans don't understand the word and it might scare them a little, so they hope that by saddling him with the name libertarian they will lose him some votes. It's not really working. He hasn't been marginalized the way they expected. He's now got more funds for the campaign than John McCain.
He's just the right man for the right time. I prefer to call him Mr. President. :)
2007-07-11 08:08:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by skip742 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ron Paul is registered Republican, however he believes in the view of the Libertarian Party, which he happens to have belonged to in the 80's when he first ran for President on there ticket, as a Libertarian he believes in less government and thus less government interference into the lives of the American People. The sites call him what they do based on there interpretation of his political beliefs, but he is technically a Libertarian (who happens to be registered Republican) otherwise he wouldn't get the press coverage that the 2 major parties would receive if he were a third party candidate. It's a broken system.
2007-07-11 06:16:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Greg 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
If you haven't noticed, no third party is ever allowed to participate in the debates of our so called "democratic process", so in order to be heard you have to pick one of the 2 parties that do get to participate, do you get where this is going...while Ron Paul is a conservative, he's also a libertarian, because he wants each state to decide on specific issues, just as the constitution
states, you can be pro-life, but not want to force it on everyone, that is what libertarians come in, if you don't like abortion being legal in your state, you have the choice to move to a state where it is illegal... and so on... for more on Ron Paul visit
ronpaul2008.com what matters most is that he is a true American!
2007-07-11 07:03:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by mom4peace 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Ron Paul was the presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1988. Indeed, he is in the Republican primary just to get better exposure. In my experience, Libertarians generally favor moderate Republican principles over Democratic principles...not that either of those parties are very good at following their own principles. The general idea is that the president has much more control over fiscal issues than social issues. Ergo, Libertarians are usually better off voting for a Republican than a Democrat...but the equation always comes down to people, not parties.
I don't know the specifics of Ron Paul's pro-life position on abortion, but that certainly goes against traditional Libertarian philosophy. But that's only one issue and one that the president has little real control of. I'm more concerned about his position on Iraq. Despite the dismal failure of Bush to control the situation, the next president must deal with the legacy...and it is wreckless to think we can just wash our hands of it.
2007-07-11 06:21:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
It means he's a Libertarian who thought he had a better chance of winning on a Republican ticket.
2007-07-11 06:06:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by CHARITY G 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Ron Paul is awesome. He thinks goverment should have little to do with peoples lives as possible. He is for abolishing the IRS, CIA and other agencys. I don't always agree with him but he I think he is a smart man.
2007-07-11 06:05:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mitch M 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
It really does not make any sense or difference what
is said about him. He cannot be nominated, nor could he win.
Those who actually determine who is nominated will not back him.
2007-07-11 06:10:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
It means "no chance of winning the nomination."
2007-07-11 06:04:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
1⤊
6⤋