Let's face it, dems like him because he's unelectable and is the most un-republican candidate. So if he got our nomination, they would be guaranteed the election. But he does have some excellent libertarian views.
If he somehow were running as a democrat, wouldn't he be an appealing candidate for the same reason: most un-democratic candidate, unelectable, guaranteeing republican victory?
2007-12-18 12:55:32 · 19 answers · asked by WJ 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I wouls have the same thoughts of him if he was running as a democrat. With Ron Paul it's not his party label that frightens me, it's his views.
2007-12-18 14:07:29 · answer #1 · answered by labken1817 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It's attack Ron Paul night, because the coordinated attack comes from a website called Multiply.com. Numerous supporters have pledged to attack him on YA and other sites tonight, due to the Glenn Beck interview. I am a mostly silent member there, just to keep tabs on them, and play along with their BS. Many of the non-ron's have multiple accounts as well (some as high as 7 identities). I really don't understand why they waste so much time denigrating Paul, and not supporting their candidate. Oh, I know, because they don't know who to support as a cohesive unit. The rant above is an answer to one of the other answerers, not the originator of the question.
Ron Paul cannot run as a Democrat, the closest to Ron Paul on the Democrat's side, is probably Mike Gravel (Kucinich sometimes refers to himself as a libertarian, but I don't see it, even if I respect him). I would possibly support Mike Gravel over any Republican so far, if Ron Paul did not exist, or I wouldn't care about politics, because until I learned about him, I was pretty ignorant. Most Democrat policies are entirely at odds with my views, the more I learn about history, and how things actually work.
2007-12-18 13:25:43 · answer #2 · answered by ThomasS 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
To the contrary he is very Republican. The only thing that makes him "un- Republican" is his stance on the Iraq war. We need to elect the best candidate regardless of their party affiliation. Thus yes I would support Ron Paul if he was a Dem or independent because his record speaks for itself.
2007-12-19 00:48:05 · answer #3 · answered by stunna3m 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He has an ad running now, saying he is against the NAFTA and wants to stop the silliness of opening our borders with Canada & Mexico. That will get a lot of votes...
2007-12-18 13:19:00 · answer #4 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Why would democrats like Ron Paul? Are they so focused on the war that they don't care about anything else? He is a very far right candidate.
2007-12-18 14:37:29 · answer #5 · answered by Manbearpig 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
well first off he is most definitely electable, but if he was running with the same platform yes i would vote for him.
2007-12-18 15:33:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I dont vote the party I vote for the man.
2007-12-18 13:50:52 · answer #7 · answered by kaisergirl 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Bush is not
conservative......NAILED IT. Perfectly. Best
Answer, he has my stamp of approval.
I would vote for him no matter what ticket he ran on.
2007-12-18 13:37:51 · answer #8 · answered by mspriveye 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The most "un-republican candidate" ? The republican party has traditionally been the anti-war & limited government party, it's lost it's way. All Congressman Paul is doing is adovacting the very principles the party was founded on. I like him the way he is, a true small government conservative.
2007-12-18 13:01:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 6⤋
I would probably support him more as a Democrat personally. And then maybe he wouldnt be as extreme in some of his positions which would make him more likeable and electable.
2007-12-18 13:00:54 · answer #10 · answered by asylum922 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋