I do mean progressives because the moderate Dems and independents are less likely than progressives to embrace Paul.
On the other hand the Blue Republican Facebook page is I suspect a libertarian created page and mostly liked by life time libertarians or supporters of Paul who were converted during the last election. The strategy of trying to convert progressives to libertarians so they will vote for Ron Paul will not work. Imagine if Romney were president now and Kucinich supporters were telling libertarians come vote for our candidate and he will end the war and restore civil liberties. There's not enough bait on the hook. However, if Kucinich said that he would devote 50% of the money saved on drawing down the empire to debt reduction so that we have a net reduction in the overall size of government, libertarians would begin to at least listen. Let's then say that Kucinich offered a pledge to reduce taxes for 98 percent of the population beyond the current Bush rates. The listening then starts turning to movement. Then Kucinich says I promise that all revenue gained from increasing taxes on the top 2% will go exclusively to debt reduction. Now we have a candidate who wants to end the empire building and maintenance, restore civil liberties, lower taxes, reduce the size of government and significantly pay down our national debt. Now the Libertarian is faced with this opportunity to support a candidate who is endorsing a great deal more of the libertarian agenda than the incumbent and certain party nominee. Looking down the primary ballot she sees no competitive races involving a libertarian Republican... what is she going to do?
Hey what's up buddy! First of all let me thank you for sticking around and staying the fight. It takes a lot of courage to keep supporting a candidacy for President under the circumstances you have. Bravo.
I do however disagree with several of your points --
Of course true liberals & not centrist hypocrites are more likely to vote Paul. Makes sense. But, Ron does get some sugar from independents in the voting booth election after election. Many "independents" are previously apathetic voters, that's Ron's specialty.
I don't personally care who started Blue Republicans, it's a great idea and a mega-valuable asset to the campaign. As far as I'm concerned, your blog, my upcoming web stuff, fb stuff for Blue Repubs...we can all work in tandem to make this happen. BR's facebook creator hangs out here so you might ask him if he's a hardcore intolerant libertarian, but I think he at least has a lot of sympathy for (true) liberal views or he'd never spend so much time engaging with so many of them.
I know what you mean about disguises, like the one guy's blog "Classical Liberal" with all the links to Cato and Reason.
I think you are mistaken that a lot of libertarians wouldn't vote for Kucinich. The issue of war is so large because it's a double or tripled-edged sword. I'm a libertarian & I see Kucinich as a true classical liberal. He would rather spend small amounts of government $ at home helping the poor than massive $ overseas killing people. That would be preferable to any libertarian who votes pragmatically & uses common sense. Many won't allow themselves to vote for any liberal democrat out of general principle. But I'm not sure it's the majority of us.
The other thing that struck me is that the hypothetical Kucinich plan you suggested is the identical Paul plan proposed in his 2012 campaign! Bring home the troops, half of the saved money shores up programs for the elderly & the unable, half of it pays down the debt. So you see Kucinich & Paul have always been proposing the same basic solution. Let's put it this way -- put Paul the classical conservative and Kucinich the classical liberal in office for 10 years as co-Presidents. The first five years would go swimmingly! Wars ended, wasteful spending stopped, entitlements shored up, drugs decriminalized, currency crisis over, economic recovery. It is only in the 2nd half of the 10 year 'term' where disagreements would flare up, over funding social programs at home. Paul would say let the volunteers help people & we'll give them grants & advantages. Kucinich might say he wants 700B a year for nationalized health care. So, yes those would be issues. BUT if the five-year (or four year) plans are by and large alike, then...*gulp* electing Paul is the same as electing Kucinich! Either one would be busy fighting off generals & corporate lawyers and slugging it out w/ the Fed on their way out for at least three years without getting to health care or food stamps as major agenda issues. And BTW, Ron has criticized cutting food stamps.
Again, great to have you around & will be in touch soon.
Ron Paul 2012
Contrast that with my mom who voted for Obama. (80+ y/o black woman and demographically the least likely person to vote in a republican primary). Recently I told her "Mom, you've just got to consider voting for Ron Paul. I'm not kidding around. Our country is going to hell in a hand-basket". Her response? Son I think you're right. Obama's just giving us more wars anyway. It's no different than under Bush! I know that's just anecdotal evidence, but I'm sure I'm not the only person with such an anecdote.
