Apparently Ron Paul supporters are liberals...

[Flabbergasted]

I've spent a little time reading blogs about Ron Paul....

A couple of weeks ago Paul bloggers were banned from Red State...

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/leon_h_wolf/2007/oct/22/attention_ron_paul_supporters_life_is_really_not_fair

This claim is echoed by several other articles/blogs I read.

This claim is actually largely unfounded. Although he certainly has a few liberal supporters attracted by his anti-war and anti-NAFTA message his supporters are by and large donating from "liberal bastions" like DALLAS and HOUSTON TEXAS. Yes some of his supporters are donating from San Fran.

see here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/geog.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008

According to this map his top donor area is the mountain-west including Montana, Idaho, and Nevada.
http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/donors.html

Paul is actually more like Reagan than Bush. BTW Paul was one of four to endorse Reagan over Ford for president in 1976. Bush is seen as having betrayed the Reagan era and the GOP would rather not have to deal with the "fringe group" of the Republican party which was the mainstream until 9/11.

A principled candidate contradicts the GOP's main messages and would force it to redefine itself. They would much rather elect a new Bush than a new Reagan.

[NightWatcher]

1. wow, some of those rw blogs need to learn the diff between "liberal" and "libertarian"

I guess the whole concept of "liberty" is a new one to them.

[jpgray]

3. You speak for me. "Liberal" Ron Paul is not.

[leaninglib]

34. Actually, Ron Paul is a classic liberal.

[Flabbergasted]

20. He's not even a libertarian.

[backscatter712]

38. He used to be a member of the Libertarian Party.

Most of his politics seems to be out of the Libertarian playbook - He's for his ideal of liberty, which means that yes, he's against the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretapping, but he's also a state's rights type. He's all for "small government", which means he's against government getting involved in health care, welfare, social security, etc - he wants to abolish social programs and make everyone sink or swim (though on the bright side, he also wants to abolish corporate welfare - get rid of the tax breaks and loopholes that play favorites with corporations.) He's also pro-life.

Sure he's against the war, and against Bush's surveillance state and oppressive anti-terror crap. The only problem is that aside from his views on abortion, his economic views make Grover Norquist look like a moderate...

[gateley]

2. I was initially very interested in Ron Paul, precisely for his anti-war, anti-NAFTA

stand, but after looking into his positions a little further found many things that caused me concern.

On the surface I imagine his almost anti-government approach is attractive, since we're so fed up with the government we have.

What an interesting time and what an interesting race this is turning out to be.

[ConfidentialStatus]

35. Are you familiar with his

Rosa Parks vote?

[gateley]

36. No and I don't need to know - I'm not interested in him at all. nt

[skipos]

4. The Ron Paul fans who post on his discussion forums are mostly Republicans

and independents.

[Baby Snooks]

5. The threat of the Libertarian Party

The Republican Party fears the Libertarian Party at this point because of the threat it represents. Its platform is more reflective of "mainstream" Republicans at this point than the Republican Party's particularly with regard to fiscal conservatism which the conservatives in the Republican Party apparently no longer believe in.

Ron Paul probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected by a majority of Republicans but his support base, which is growing, is sending a very clear message to the Republican Party.

The dissastisfied Republican vote may go to Paul. But it may also go to the Democratic candidate. Depending on who that candidate is.

I think "mainstream" Americans are just fed up with both parties since at times there doesn't seem to be much difference.

[sam sarrha]

6. libertarians are worst fascists than the ones in the white house, it is a package deal, there are no

liberal libertarians.. what part of no public schools don't you understand.

they will privatize everything and remove all protections for workers

[Baby Snooks]

10. Not all are so fascist...

Ron Paul is sort of the poster boy for extremism within the Libertarian Party. The extremism in all the parties is really what has turned everyone off finally.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Actually there are left wing libertarians

the right wing make all the noise, but why they have not replaced the GOP is that their tent is so wide that it makes ours look narrow in comparison.

And some are corporatists, trending right

[Flabbergasted]

17. Left wing libertarians are called liberals. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. No, no they are not... last time I checked liberals

did not have a smidgen of an authoritarian personality. I am talking of the Liberatarian party and it runs the gammut

[sam sarrha]

28. but the party makes the rules.. just like the lock step republicans.. if you want to keep your job

you better vote in lock step.. no matter who it hurts.. the party will protect the golden goose

[Flabbergasted]

29. I disagree....

Liberals = personal freedom, socialist government.

Libertarian = personal freedom, limit government to essential inherent functions.

There is a spectrum of each but the major difference is the function of government.


Ron Paul is not a Libertarian BTW IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. This dictat runs across the conservative echo chamger

he is the dark horse for the Repubican Party and they want to destroy him

Why?

Well he is actually doing pretty well in state polls, not that FOX would tell you this... the dictat covers all the echo chamber

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. This dictat runs across the conservative echo chamger

he is the dark horse for the Repubican Party and they want to destroy him

Why?

Well he is actually doing pretty well in state polls, not that FOX would tell you this... the dictat covers all the echo chamber

[TwilightZone]

9. Apparently, a few of them are....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3688155

[Flabbergasted]

16. Nah. There are alot of anti-Hillary people here. nt

[brazos121200]

11. I think it would be great if Ron Paul could be persuaded to

run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. He would take many more votes away from the Repub candidate than from the Democrat. Paul in the race would enable the Democratic candidate to run up a huge electoral vote majority.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. He did that in 2000 and went nowwhere

he will run in the RNC and in that is why the dictat is there for the Right Wing Echo machine

[Flabbergasted]

19. He would have a more effective run as an independent.

[brazos121200]

21. Harry Browne ran on the Libertarian Party ticket in 200 and went nowhere. Ron seems to be much more

popular this year for some reason. He has been getting a lot of press and a lot of donations, which means there are people out there who would desert the Repub party and vote for him. Nothing would make me happier than to have a strong independent candidate running with right wing tendencies, Ron Paul or anyone else. This is what the Repub leadership is trying to prevent at all costs. And, at the same time, they are doing all they can to get Nader to run again as a Green.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Nader isn't going anywhere fast. The Greens don't want him because he won't even

join their party;

And he's getting pretty old. I'm not sure he has the stamina for a run.

[brazos121200]

26. That's good to know. By the way, Paul is getting long in the

tooth himself, I think he'll be 72 next year. I'm surprised he's so anti-choice, I thought libertarians wanted government out of people's lives, not dictating private behavior to them. At least that's the way it was back in the 60's.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. There was a great post ealier today that had a lot of the worst of his sponsored

bills.

I'll see if I can find it for you.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. Here's a list of the dark side of Ron Paul

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2264406

[brazos121200]

32. Thanks.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Montana, Idaho and Nevada are not the mid-West. They are the mountain West.

I love Ron Paul because he is creating so much havok amonsts the Repos.

He is pricipled, but some of his priciples are horrible, like destroy OSHA, outlaw choice, and many more really bad ones.

[blondeatlast]

15. Is he? I think he's as marginalized on that side as Kucinich is among rank and file Dems. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

22. He's doing well in some state polls, and he set a Repo internet record for raising

money. He's got lots more cash on hand than McCaine, Hucklebee, and many others.

He's way more solidly anti-choice (and has the credentials to back it up) than the Ghoul or the Morman.

And his supporters are extremely loyal.

So yeah, I think he's creating havoc to some extent.

[Flabbergasted]

18. oops edited. Thanks. nt

[Iris]

23. why would any self-respecting liberal pretend to be a Republican?

And would any liberal really think Ron Paul is someone worth shilling for?

[mdmc]

31. I've met more then a couple liberals that support him

They really love Kucinich but see... something... authentic in Paul.

I haven't figured it out yet (except the drug war / war thing).

:shrug:

[Snarkturian Clone]

33. I admit it, I laughed at this part.

"we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once."

[ozone_man]

37. His supporters are generally not liberal, but tend to be libertarian.

Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian, so for a social libertarian like me, i find some of his positions very good. Not the social (Ne Deal) issues, but the ant-war, abolish the private organization of 13 banks that controls our money (the FED), ending corporate welfare, something that DLC Democrats like Hillary Clinton would never approve of, and even legalizing pot.

So, liberal is not an attribute that Paul has. He attracts conservatives and libertarians. Some great libertarians as Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, Ghandi, and the Dalai Lama. They are all left libertarians.



When asked which Democrat he would support if he had to choose, he said his choice would be his friend Dennis Kucinich. :)

[Politicub]

39. They must be uninformed liberals

Because Paul isn't liberal in the slightest. Perhaps they are dyslexic and confuse the word liberal with libertarian.