I don't know about that Shiz -- apparently (from my husband's research), Ron Paul is INCREDIBLY popular on the internet, though you're right about his almost insignificant share outside the electronic realm. I don't know if that means anything...except it might not be good to discount him so early in the game.
It means he has a small number of Internet savvy, highly motivated supporters.
I just don't see 2008 being a 3rd party year. I could be wrong. In 92 people wanted to a change from Bush 41, but they were not happy about Clinton. Hence the Perot phenomenon. In 08 people may or may not be hankerin' for a change from Republicans, and again not be willing to vote for a Clinton. But I don't see it, especially as I think the R nominee will be someone unlike Bush 43--Guiliani or Thompson.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
Howard Dean was extremely popular online. He was a disaster though. I think most folks recognize that a radical candidate, while fun to invite to parties, isn't really the type of guy you want with their hand over the big red button...
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
I have to agree with Shiz's comments as well as Ray's. Nothing to worry about with Ron Paul. I do not see him running third party successfully (much less at all) if he doesn't get the Republican nomination (which he most likely won't).
I think that the major parties should worry a lot more about the disaffected voters who won't be voting for anyone than they should be about those voters who choose to vote for a third party. After all, someone voting for a third party candidate is still politically involved and cares about the process. Specifically, if the Republican party actually stood for something they could get hordes of voters interested in the process again. The Republican party isn't about small government (both the legislative branch and executive branch republicans have been in a contest with the democrats to see who can expand government the fastest), they aren't about keeping spending down (again, the republicans in both branches make drunken sailors look like penny pinching misers). The Republican party keeps telling people to hold your nose and vote. There are a lot of people who therefore just give up on the process.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I think that the major parties should worry a lot more about the disaffected voters who won't be voting for anyone than they should be about those voters who choose to vote for a third party. After all, someone voting for a third party candidate is still politically involved and cares about the process. Specifically, if the Republican party actually stood for something they could get hordes of voters interested in the process again. The Republican party isn't about small government (both the legislative branch and executive branch republicans have been in a contest with the democrats to see who can expand government the fastest), they aren't about keeping spending down (again, the republicans in both branches make drunken sailors look like penny pinching misers). The Republican party keeps telling people to hold your nose and vote. There are a lot of people who therefore just give up on the process.
__________________
"There is order in the way the Lord reveals His will to mankind. . .we cannot receive revelation for someone else's stewardship." L. Tom Perry
It is an over-generalization to state the entire Republican party is for bigger government and more spending. I think the bigger problem is lack of backbone and uncertainty about what the constituents want. The politicians are on a endless re-election chase that does a disservice to the citizens of this country.
I cannot take Ron Paul serious with his following of loony conspiracy theories from 9/11 to the North American Union (sorry, that's the way I feel and believe). Then he gives legitamacy to freaks like Alex Jones by showing up on his radio program. If it wasn't for his oddities and stance on Iraq, Ron Paul would be a viable candidate to me. It seems the problem with many third parties and independents is they have to throw in some off the wall following.
I was watching Glen Beck last night and he commented how he is accused of ignoring Ron Paul yet Ron blew off the time he was supposed to be on the show and totally ignored Beck's invitations to come on his radio show. Yet he still gets hounded by Ron Paul supporters about the media conspiracy to ignore Ron Paul and that Glen is a part of the conspiracy. Huh?
No offense intended to any Ron Paul supporters, but just in response to the title of this thread, I have to say he probably has visions of grandeur that he is the Ross Perot of 2008...
But then again, that would also apply to Keyes, Tancredo, Huckabee, Hunter, Brownback, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, and Richardson...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I've been noting Ron Paul's activities in Congress for most of the 20 years he's been in Congress, and he is the only candidate to whose campaign fund I have ever contributed, and I've dons so regularly, even though he's from Texas and our home is in Arizona. He is absolutely the only congresssmen since the late Democrat Larry MacDonald to promote adherence to the US Constitution, and refuse to propose or suppport any legislation that he considers would be a violation of the Constitution. I really feel that if LDS people especially are so unappreciative of Ron Paul as it seems, they deserve Hillary as president. And don't anybody try to tell me Romney espoused the US Constitution. I've posted adequate evidence to the contrary on this forum.
Sour grapes lundbaek, sour grapes... cuz what you're implying is that if LDS people were living righteously, they all would not only appreciate but back Ron Paul...
Just like supporters of Bo Gritz did over a decade ago...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Again, Ron Paul has clouded his pro-Constitution stance with loony fringe followings as I listed before. Lack of rational thought on some issues and events is enough to avoid him. Quite the contrary, anyone who votes for Ron Paul (as a third party candidate - the only way he is going to be on the Presidential ballot) deserves Hillary Clinton.
