Ron Paul... Equals Real Non-Establishment Change

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


With Herman Cain out of the race the question now becomes, whom will his supporters coalesce to? As Cain was a bit of a maverick, ie: non establishment GOP, it seems Ron Paul is a natural transition for Cain supporters.

The Hill Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Sunday he hoped voters attracted to Herman Cain's "independent mindedness" would take a second look at his presidential campaign with Cain now out of the race.

"We’re paying a lot of attention of that, because obviously they’re going to go somewhere," he said on CNN's "State of the Union." "I’m optimistic that we’ll pick up some votes from there."

Cain suspended his campaign Saturday, blaming allegations of multiple sexual improprieties as a distraction to the race and harmful to his family.

Paul struck a generally optimistic tone about his chances in the campaign, saying that his message resonates with a key bloc of voters: independents.

"You don’t win just with the hardcore Republican base, you need to have a candidate that appeals across the political spectrum," he said.

And Paul, well known for his stance on a number of issues that have at times put him out of the GOP mainstream, said that resoluteness will pay off in the long run.

"We continue to do what we’re doing. We’ve had the flavors of the month up and down so far in this campaign. I like to think of myself as the flavor of the decade," he said.



As the field thins it is becoming acutely clear that Paul is the only candidate that offers real change. Change from the mindless status quo on both side of the aisle that has steered America towards the proverbial cliff.

Via: Memeorandum

9 comments:

  1. Is Ron Paul electable? They've been electing him for three decades.

    Here's a better question. Could Ron Paul be any worse than Barack Obama?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Answer - A resounding NO. He would be light years better than Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The thing about Ron Paul is that he is the ultimate Outsider-Insider. To ignore all the horse trading over 11 terms in congress and stick to his belief in the constitution. That takes some real courage. To be an outcast among your party for more than 30 years. The Republicans would run people against him in the primaries and they would complain "How the hell can I beat a guy that either delivered the voter's baby or delivered the voter!" I guess with 4000 babies delivered he pretty much blanketed the district.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Should have read a resounding yes. Guess O experienced a momentary distraction. :(

    ReplyDelete
  5. I admire Ron Paul's consistency on his policies, but his foreign policy ideas are just too isolationist for my taste. As a displaced Cain supporter, I'm now forced to take a closer look at Newt & Romney. That said, if he managed to snag the nomination, I'd certainly hold my nose and vote for Dr. Paul over Chairman ZerO.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The country needs to have an election to decide the direction of the country, not just a change in the chief executive. Ron Paul is the only candidate running who gives them that choice. It's a return to constitutional governance or the collapse of our society in the next few years.

    Time to decide, not to pick between "electable" slicksters. If Paul is the nominee, conservatives, libertarians, Republicans and independents will line up behind him against Obama. He will win handily if he is the nominee. Too bad he will have a tougher time in the GOP primary than he will in the general election.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Grant - You nailed it with respect to the "bigger picture", which is the need for a return to constitutional government. As well as rethinking our foreign policy.

    Mr. Paul is not a isolationist, he is in fact for a strong defense. STRONG DEFENSE, not a ever more bloated MIC and acting as the worlds policeman/police force.

    I agree Grant that he will have a real tough time winning the nomination. It is likely that there are just too many sheeple in the republican party {read establishment republicans}for a candidate of Paul's intellectual and principled views to overcome.

    We can hope... and work harder in our own behalf to get him nominated.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Brian, Paul is electable only in his district. In that sense he's little different than Maxine Waters.

    He isn't even electable in a statewide election, much less national office.

    He's definitely antiestablishment which is good. Many of his views are wonderfully idealistic. Other than that, he's a complete fruitcake.

    Returning to Constitutional principles is wonderful, in principle. I'm not sure many people with that goal understand what they are up against. Two centuries of Supreme Court rulings have rendered the 9th and 10th Amendments to mere inkblots. The growth of the federal state began in earnest after the Civil War and picked up pace in the New Deal, Great Society, and other stupid initiatives from both parties.

    We can't and we won't unwind these things in our lifetimes. We might see marginal improvements such as the strengthening of gun rights, the end of Fannie and Freddie, overturning affirmative action, reversal of eminent domain for private uses. Agriculture and energy subsidies might begin to disappear. But dispense with any notion that the Federal Reserve, our expeditionary military, Medicare, and Social Security are going away any time soon.

    The Supreme Court is the key, not Congress or the President. One president's executive orders and cabinet rulings are overturned by the next. Laws are passed and repealed by Congress. But Supreme Court decisions last for decades, if not forever. In fact, a lot of laws are passed to overturn court decisions which is why we have so many laws.

    I deeply appreciate your desire to return to our founding principles. I just don't think it's as easy as you think. For every libertarian, there is an equal and opposite statist.

    And in the middle are millions who don't know and don't care, as long as they believe they are relatively free, relatively safe, and relatively secure in their lifestyles. Those are the people who choose our leaders. You and I do not.

    We could all become communists overnight, and the country would not notice.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nick you said ... "And in the middle are millions who don't know and don't care, as long as they believe they are relatively free, relatively safe, and relatively secure in their lifestyles."

    How prophetic... "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Ben Franklin

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.