Do you Republicans realize that if you nominated Ron Paul you'd have a Republican President in '08?

Question

1/2 of the Democrats would vote for him over Hillary!
Why don't more of you like this man? He's everything a conservative Republican is supposed to be.

Stone K: So you are admitting that you'd rather be lied to?
LOL! THAT IS funny!!!

Hey Earnest --- It completely SUCKS starting over from scratch doesn't it?
They did it to me too!! Sorry it happened to you.

Answer 1

I am a dem that would cross party lines to vote for Dr. Paul.

Answer 2

We have to wait until Hillary locks up the Democratic nomination. Even a large portion of the Democrats can't stand Hillary and they definitely want to vote for Ron Paul. He'll neutralize the war issue because Hillary voted for the war and intends to keep troops there (not to mention the fact that the Iraqi Liberation Act that started it was signed into law by Bill Clinton). He also neutralizes health care because he is a doctor and can put a stop to the calls for socialism with his knowledge of economics (he's probably the most economically knowledgeable person inside the beltway, but that isn't saying too much because the beltway is filled with people who think that constantly borrowing money and raising taxes are good ideas). He also is strong on the immigration issue (unlike the GOP "frontrunners," he isn't pro-amnesty) and on the 2nd Amendment (the NRA has criticized him in the past for not compromising in his support for gun rights).

Unless the only issue of importance to Republicans is war, I don't see why they wouldn't support Ron Paul. I'm sure they remember what happened when they ran RINOs against Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and Ross Perot ran as a conservative independent, splitting the vote twice and giving us 8 years of Bill Clinton. Ron Paul's credentials on the issues they claim to care about are stronger than anybody else and his record proves it. The alternative to Ron Paul is 8 more years of the Clintons.

The Daily Kos and the Kucinich campaign are actually frustrated that so many left-wing "netroots" have been switching parties to support Ron Paul. The majority of the electorate wants to end the policy of no-win wars, but they also want the Free Market and to secure our borders. Ron Paul's positions are more in line with the vast majority of voters than any other candidate.

Answer 3

Ron Paul is everything a Republican "used" to be.

But to be fair, I don't understand why any Democrat would back Hillary Clinton to be President. There is not one single Republican that would vote for her because she is a Clinton, a Democrat, and a Woman. That is three strikes against her as far as the Republicans are concerned. There are Democrats that won't vote for her for a variety of reasons. None of which are the above three. I believe that if Hillary wins for the Democrats, there will be a Republican in office in 2008 and that's the last thing this country needs.

Answer 4

Although he might be the true Conservative running he'll never get the support of the Bush believers because of his foreign policy stand.
Ironically Bush ran in 2000 on a platform against nation building and more isolationism than under Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slmr024JYaA
I like his foreign policy and civil liberties positions better than the rest of the GOP though they ARE extreme and extreme isolationism has never been beneficial for America in the long run. He's the polar opposite on foreign policy of what happened the last years and it's natural for people now to think that's a good idea after the Bush debacle.But isolationism is not new and History shows it also has it flaws.

When it comes to issues like poverty and equal opportunity he's too far to the right.I don't think the free market is best to provide health care,education or help people out of poverty.I believe in those area's society as a whole has a role to play.Ron Paul is too much laisez faire for my taste

Answer 5

i think of all and sundry ought to alter their call to "end The Fed".... does not that be candy? (in basic terms have distinctive avatars of direction) besides, human beings did no longer nominate Ron Paul as a results of fact they have been skillfully misled by using the mainstream media into believing that purely McCain stood of project against the competition as a results of fact of his wartime checklist. They have been made fools while they pledged their allegiance with a guy wherein the MEDIA chosen FOR THEM. to no longer point out that Ron Paul wasn't even invited to his very own occasion's debate at one element. This alongside with a ton of different information (each and every 'candidate' became right into a CFR member) proves that the elections have been staged. Giuliani? I mean heavily....who the hell could EVER vote for that moron? he's like Bush's retarded little brother. yet he became into up there as an insignificant prop guffawing and gooing like slightly college female at Ron Paul's present day techniques.....it made me pick to punch that bastard in his lisp. sure, I pronounced 'lisp'. do no longer forget.... All mainstream media is owned by using 5 distinctive agencies (Time Warner, GE, Walt Disney, Viacom, and Newscorp) and all 5 have enormous protection contracts with the government. to permit Ron Paul to alter into president and make his enormous proposed funds cuts (which might definitely take place consistent along with his checklist), it may be financially unfavourable to all 5 agencies. So, they had to make valuable their puppets remained happy with their 6 determine earning as they proceed to evangelise propaganda on the evening information in help for his or her governmental pastimes.

Answer 6

Sorry but if we nominated Ron Paul, the Dem candidate would have a cake walk into the White House! No dems would vote for Paul and maybe 3% of Republicans.

I really wish you Paul supporters would face reallity and realize we will not be saying "President Paul." Almost everyone has a better chance than Paul!

Answer 7

I am most concerned about principles, rather than party.

Yes, I tend to agree with Republicans much more.

But Ron Paul doesn't share my positions on important issues.

I want something more than a Republican in name only, especially in the executive. (Sometimes a RINO is acceptable in the House and senate if there is no better alternative - at least he or she will vote for Republican leadership of that house.)

Answer 8

Im very liberal and Id vote for Paul over Hillary, no question.

Answer 9

I don't know why he's running as a Republican. We'll give
Ron Paul to you free as he's a thorn in Republican's side.
He leans towards liberal ideas (such as legalizing marijuana
and wanting our troops to surrender in Iraq)....not things
conservatives agree with. Also, if Hillary should win, you
guys will be sorry sooner, rather than later.

Answer 10

Sounds like a good idea to me! If Hillary is the democratic nominee, then any republican looks better. Its incredible the democrats would even consider voting for such an unwinnable candidate.

Answer 11

Ron Paul has the subtance to win, but not the charisma. Democrats won't vote for him but left leaning moderates might.