How can truly conservative republicans not support a candidate like Ron Paul? He fits the bill of what?

Question

conservatism(also including old fashioned liberalism) represents. I'm sorry i just don't understand why they can't support him i guess. Is it out of fear? I'm just curious.

Michael H: Wasn't it Wilson that signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as well? I agree with you on your analogy actually. however if anything we would be drawn into it pretty well the same way we were drawn into WWI. But Dr. Paul is correct in the measure he wants to take in relation to this problem.

Answer 1

The only reasons they may not support him, is because they may be ignorant, (because they repeat what they heard talking heads say), or they actually do like war on multiple fronts (as long as they aren't doing the actual fighting, just pushing others to do their job for them and thinking it's ok as long as they have a yellow ribbon on their car). They might also be the neo-conservative form of conservatives, which are actually ex-liberals gung-ho for larger government.

I lived in Yongsan Korea AFB for 2 years, as well as Pusan, I bought stuff at the uso and commissary, I worked and talked with officers and enlisted people all the time. This was when I was 16-18 due to my father's job. They aren't the chicken hawks you see around here. Much more educated about worldly affairs than people who have never stepped overseas.

If Ron was pro-war like the rest, they would definitely support him. That's what sets him apart, and that's probably why many of his grassroots supporters DO support him. He wants congressional approval for wars, not pre-emptive, unchristian wars. Our country is at a fork in the road, and we have already turned towards the wrong side. We can still save it, or we can become continually hated by the majority of the world. We must be seen as just, if forceful. Right now, that's not the case.

Answer 2

Right-wing voices in the media, like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc. etc. have used the words Republican and 'conservative' to mean the same thing for years. In fact, since Reagan at least, they mean very different things. Conservatives in the media never criticize the Republican Party for abandoning its conservative principles, which they do very often. It's much more about party than about political philosophy.

The Republican Party isn't about a man it's about an agenda. ALL the Republican candidates support the agenda, which is why they all have the same opinions and positions on all the same issues. This is why they loved Bush so much, a man with no real agenda of his own, no ideas, who would just read what they put in front of him.

Ron Paul has his own agenda, his own knowledge and ideas. I don't agree with him much but I really admire his honesty. But shouldn't ALL candidates be like that so you have a choice?

Paul is the only one who's interesting to listen to because everything he says is not 100% predictable like the others. He can appear in a hostile environment like Bill Maher's show and give a good account of himself, give an interesting interview. Wouldn't it be great if ALL the candidates did that? I mean, besides making the election more interesting and fun, it would open up new possibilities for the country.

Answer 3

Most of what Ron Paul stands for is good old conservative values. His biggest drawback is his stance on Iraq and dealings with other radical nations like Iran. He simply does not understand that when your foriegn policy allows for cancers to grow, eventually that cancer takes you over and kills you. If Paul's is able to implement isolationism, which his policy basically is, then it would not be long before Israel is forced to retaliate and we are drawn into another world war. I believe that the Wilson administration found that out the hard way.

Answer 4

Ron Paul is not a conservative--and doesn't claim to be; he is running on a libertarian platform.

That's not a criticism (though I have some real problems with the political version of libertarianism--which doesn't follow or try to make realistic proposals drawn from libertarian philosophy). But you're making a claim that simply is incorrect. And--there are thus many points of Ron Paul's approach that conservatives simply aren't going to support.

Answer 5

I'm an isolationist. So is Ron Paul. I should be supporting him and fundamentally, I do.
The problem is, guys like me have the luxury of seeing the sense in it and promote it, as president, he would actually have to do it. He has no plan. That puts him in the same category with Edwards and Hillary.
He won't get very far by calling the entire congress, of which he is a member, a bunch of criminals in violation of the constitution.
He won't get very far repeating poll numbers about the war and offering nothing comprehensive.
He's an angel's whisper away from being a moon-bat.

Answer 6

Many conservatives do support him. Republicans, however, tend not to, because what he says flies in the face of what the rest of them say.

Really shows the danger in voting according to party rather than values.

Answer 7

Ron Paul would bring anarchy to the country if he were to succeed with his pie-in-the-sky impractical ideas. If by some miracle he were to be elected to the presidency he would have to get Congress to pass all that stuff. Not likely to happen. So dream on but don't sob too loudly when the primaries and caucuses see your precious Ron Paul bringing up the rear or not winning enough to get anywhere.

Answer 8

That is true. Conservatism has traditionally been about smaller government and constitutionalism. Unfortunately, I guess the big government neoconservatives have changed things.

Answer 9

this man is awesome! He knows what he wants and isn't afraid to let us know.

Answer 10

No it is because he is an idiot that believes 9/11 was an inside job..enough said...