Ron Paul: Not your average long-shot candidate

November 6th, 2007

I’m not too proud to admit it – In the 2000 election, I supported Nader. In 2004, at least for the primary, I voted for Kucinich. Obviously, most others did not. Interestingly, very few people argued with me about their political platforms. The largest obstacle to getting these long shots elected was that people didn’t want to waste their vote on a candidate who couldn’t win. Even in Texas, where I lived during the 2000 election, and where Bush was guaranteed a victory, liberals would not support Nader because they didn’t want to “steal votes” from Gore. The Ron Paul presidential campaign is very different in that literally no one who supports him worries about taking votes from another candidate.

When people hear Ron Paul speak and are inspired to support him, they do so emphatically. They tend to come to the immediate conclusion that all the other candidates are entirely unacceptable because they don’t defend the most sacred of American documents, the Constitution.

It is difficult to accuse Ron Paul of stealing votes because he pulls from all political groups. Liberal hippies, gun enthusiasts, registered libertarians, brand new voters, “old guard” republicans, and the previously apathetic, are all flocking to Ron Paul. So which campaign could possibly argue that he is stealing their votes and guaranteeing the other side a victory?

Some Ron Paul supporters are sure he will win. Some are sure he has no chance. And many others believe it’s possible with a lot of hard work. But the key is that his chances of winning are completely irrelevant to the supporters’ enthusiasm and dedication to getting him elected. No one is concerned about wasting votes because Ron Paul isn’t just the best candidate in their eyes – he is the only candidate.

Whoever the powers are who “anoint” the front-runner candidates, they have made a serious miscalculation in attempting to undermine Ron Paul’s campaign and relegate him to fringe status. It has not discouraged people from supporting his candidacy. On the contrary, it has inspired tens of thousands of people to work harder than they ever have to get the word out about Ron Paul. People who have never given more than a vote to a political campaign are now giving as much time and money as they can spare, toward both official and unofficial activities. You can be that not a single one will be staying home on election day.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [Ma.gnolia] [MySpace] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Yahoo!] [Email]

6 Responses to “Ron Paul: Not your average long-shot candidate”

  1. Katherine/Aunt Kathie Says:

    One of the things I find particularly troubling at this moment in time is that the media is trying to force certain candidates down our throats while conducting a virtual white-out (for want of a better term) of Kucinich, Ron Paul and others. This pre-selection of candidates should worry us. It does give me hope that Paul and Kucinich are both triving despite distorted polls and the media’s efforts to silence them.

  2. Justin O. Says:

    As a Ron Paul supporter, I can tell you that while I was certainly going to support Ron Paul in the primaries, there was a chance that I might’ve gone for another Republican candidate in the general election (though I’d rather lose a limb than vote for Giuliani). I have seen other Paul supporters (admittedly a minority) who have also expressed less than hardcore disdain for other candidates.
    However, there is no longer any chance whatsoever that I will support any Republican candidate other than Paul. There is one reason for this: the absolute disdain and vitriol that supporters of other candidates (I’m looking at you, RedState) heap on his supporters. I’m tired of being called a kook, moonbat, moRon, Paultard, etc.

  3. Katherine/Aunt Kathie Says:

    Good call on Guiliani. An limb’s a lot to lose, but I lived in NYC while he was mayor and you’ve made the right choice.

  4. Eric Says:

    I voted basically the same way in the previous 2 presidential elections, Nader in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

    Anyway, I’ve been doing some reading and hoping about the primaries and if you think about it, there are a few things in Ron’s favor:
    * The current published polls tend to be based on likely republican voters. The definition of this can vary, but it generally excludes those that don’t vote strictly on ‘party’ lines.
    * Many individuals when randomly sampled will claim that they will vote in the primaries, but the turnout generally ends up rather low, maybe with percentages in the teens or less. This can be explained by the primaries not seeming significant enough to get marked on the calendar or important enough to take time off of work or to find a babysitter, or whatever. Whatever the reason, the fervent Ron Paul supporters will treat the primaries *very* seriously. The sample of Ron Paul supporters voting in the primaries could potentially turn out to be much, much greater than the totals for the other candidates combined.
    * The number of choices which might still be as many as 10 candidates is high. The more candidates there are the more the votes to ‘top tier’ candidates will be peanut-buttered across the ‘second’ and ‘third tier’ candidates. This normalization of the vote distribution means that a candidate like Ron Paul that can polarize supporters like a magnet will be able to transcend the inevitable and arbitrary votes for the other candidates that are all so similar that a choice for them is not based on policy but for superficial reasons like hair style or more polished TV ads or simply because of name recognition.

    I sure hope he wins as he is our only hope of restoring the duty of our congress to protect the constitution. In a republic, a dictator doesn’t come to power by force but by representative vote, for example Germany in the 1930s: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp. The fact that it is even possible to ‘suspend’ civil liberties seems like a hole in the system.

    After observing how our own Americans can vehemently support Bush, I’m not at all surprised by this paragraph from that link:

    The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation…. The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed…. On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country.

  5. xondie Says:

    Thank you for the truly frightening quote about Germany. And for the uplifting observations about the primary elections. I think that makes a lot of sense. But shhhh! Don’t tell the other guys. We don’t want them to know they have to work that much harder to get voters out. ;)

  6. Grandma Susana Says:

    Now I’m on the other side of the coin from those who posted before me. I grew up aligned with the Republicans–until 1975 when I felt that party had left me. So I went Libertarian until now. I’ve been telling my friends who are Paul supporters how exciting it is to see so many of us with such divergent political views come together in support of this man! Why? Because he stands for America and for our Constitution! All the others stand for one thing today and something else tomorrow. Paul is consistent!

    I am changing my registration back to Republican just so I can vote for Dr. Paul (though I may leave them again right after the primaries)! As Vegan Girl said above, Paul isn’t just the best candidate; he’s the only candidate!

    Aunt Kathie has described the situation very aptly–deliberate suppression of news about Dr. Paul while force-feeding us with those other puppets. Okay, call me a conspiracy theorist, but I’ve studied this for many years, and I believe there is an international cabal that wants to destroy the Great American Experiment, to bring down our way of life and return us to a system of feudal slavery under a one-world government of self-appointed elitists who think they know what’s good for us better than we do for ourselves. “They” work behind the scenes to find people they can buy off who will make whatever promises are needed to get elected and then do the puppet-masters’ bidding. How else do you explain that both major candidates in 2004 were Skull and Bones members or how a totally unknown southern governor (who just happens to be a disciple of Carrol Quigley, author of “Tragedy and Hope”) was propelled upon us in 1992?

    I hope Eric’s election analysis is right. God willing, the MSM’s suppression of real poll results will jump up and bite them in the you-know-what come election day!

    So to have the many of us with our otherwise divergent positions unite behind this 100% American gives my aging soul great joy. My greatest fear is embodied in a quote from Joe Stalin; it’s now how people vote, it’s all in who counts the votes! Can we rally enough of us behind Dr. Paul to so completely overwhelm the vote such that even rigged voting machines can’t steal our choice?

    Speaking of suspension of civil liberties, Eric, just note the news in recent days about Musharrif in Pakistan! And Bush (whom I mistakenly supported in 2000 because I think Gore is a loser–but not in 2004) is doing exactly the same kind of thing with his executive orders! That quote about Germany is so spot-on descriptive of the U.S. today!

    I suspect that that “overwhelming support” for Bush may have largely been a “hold-your-nose-and-take-the-lesser-of-two-evils” approach. But alas, the lesser of several evils is still evil. Dr. Paul is righteous and a candidate I can support with no reservations!

Leave a Reply