Goldwater vs Reagan; and how will Dr. Paul be remembered ?

[Drivingrain]

Correct. But at the end of the day it is nothing more than a protest vote. It serves little purpose other than sending a message to your state GOP that the nominated candidate was not acceptable. Depending on the state that you live in, this may or may not have any impact whatsoever.

Sorry all that we're drifting off-topic here...

I think it's important that we make real gains from this campaign on a national level; even within the R party (though it would be nice to a see a D-iteration of the movement evolve). That is what the vote is for as much as anything else. The Tea Party imploded on itself the momemnt Palin started being associated with it and its failure is complete now given that Santorum is being supported people whoc claim to be Tea Partiers.

So a vote for Paul is a show of support for a new, Constitutionalist movement that has made huge gains over the last 4 years.

 

[klamath]

The key is in Rand. If Rand wins, RP will be enshrined, if Rand loses RP will become a footnote in history.

 

[Drivingrain]

The key is in Rand. If Rand wins, RP will be enshrined, if Rand loses RP will become a footnote in history.

But why do we care if it's Rand or Johnson or someone new? Isnt this about the ideas more than anything else? I'm pre-disposed to root against Rand versus others that can espouse the ideas equally because (1) I dont like family dynasties, (2) the movement will become too closely associated with a family more than its values.

 

[tbone717]

So a vote for Paul is a show of support for a new, Constitutionalist movement that has made huge gains over the last 4 years.

True, but this is hardly a new movement. This has always existed within the GOP, going back to Goldwater and even before with Taft. More recently, we can look at the RLC which was founded in '91. So the Ron Paul Revolution is just a moment in time of something that has been in place for decades, and will continue on long after Ron Paul has left the spotlight.

 

[Drivingrain]

Right, the label will be new. Clearly...we have the most old-fashioned ideas, yet we're viewed as complete paradigm-shifters because this R vs D paradigm we're now in has not changed since the mid to late 60's.

 

[tbone717]

Right, the label will be new. Clearly...we have the most old-fashioned ideas, yet we're viewed as complete paradigm-shifters because this R vs D paradigm we're now in has not changed since the mid to late 60's.

A lot of Paul's legacy will depend on how his supporters react if Paul does not win the nomination. RP supporters already have an image problem, so if we act graciously in our loss we can do well moving forward. If we act like sore losers, then we will see some want to distance themselves from us. Some of the Buchanan supporters had this issue when they jumped ship to the Reform Party. It is important for us to realize that this is not just about one man and one election, but about hundreds of elections not only this year, but down the road.

 

[gerryb]

We determine the legacy.

But only if we are involved locally.

 

[Ender]

True, but this is hardly a new movement. This has always existed within the GOP, going back to Goldwater and even before with Taft. More recently, we can look at the RLC which was founded in '91. So the Ron Paul Revolution is just a moment in time of something that has been in place for decades, and will continue on long after Ron Paul has left the spotlight.

There's a bit more to it than that.

Ron Paul has gained momentum because he has conscientiously and publicly kept the same constitutional principles in front of Americans for decades, while they have struggled to wake up. RP isn't a GOP panderer and he isn't a load of charisma in an empty suit. He is probably the first real Constitutional candidate since before Lincoln.

The Revolution isn't something that has been in place for decades; in fact it is the first time most of us have heard any semblance of truth for a very long time. The movement is new because it is actually working on young Americans and in many ways is more like wildfire than grassroots. The Revolution is also positive- most of the other movements have been based on negativity, which, in the long run goes nowhere.

So, don't dismiss Paul- he isn't just another guy trying to recover the GOP- he is, as the Judge says, the Jefferson of our time. He is also the Braveheart of our time- he may not live to see the results of his efforts, but we the people can make sure that there actually are results.

 

[klamath]

But why do we care if it's Rand or Johnson or someone new? Isnt this about the ideas more than anything else? I'm pre-disposed to root against Rand versus others that can espouse the ideas equally because (1) I dont like family dynasties, (2) the movement will become too closely associated with a family more than its values.

Because if Rand is elected, his election will be DIRECTLY tied to the work of RP, anyone else not so much, if what we are talking about is how RP is viewed by history.

 

[tbone717]

The Revolution isn't something that has been in place for decades; in fact it is the first time most of us have heard any semblance of truth for a very long time. The movement is new because it is actually working on young Americans and in many ways is more like wildfire than grassroots. The Revolution is also positive- most of the other movements have been based on negativity, which, in the long run goes nowhere.

No offence to those that are young, or have come on board recently. But there are a lot more of us who have been at this for years, then those that have come on board recently. Ron Paul coming on the national scene wasn't entirely Ron Paul's idea. He was courted by the libertarian wing of the party to run as far back as 2001. So just because you didn't hear about all this until recently, does not mean that it didn't exist. There have been thousands of people working at the grassroots level long before Ron Paul came on the national scene and there will continue to be long after he departs.

 

[flynn]

Some of indicators for a libertarian rise are already here. 16% of the population in the u.s refused to identify themselves as either democrat or republican. Come 2016, the millennial voting group would rival the elderly voting block. And as always, independents are the biggest voting block in the u.s. On the money support side, Peter Thiel, Peter Schiff, the Koch Brothers would infuse their cash backing for more individual liberty centered movement and more wealthy donors would come, once they realize supporting either the GOP or the DNC is an lose effort for the future of their business. Ron Paul, in a way, already won the battle for freedom that will stay in the long time to come. And I know you guys are here to fight for the same cause in your life time. All for individual liberty.

 

[tbone717]

Some of indicators for a libertarian rise are already here. 16% of the population in the u.s refused to identify themselves as either democrat or republican. Come 2016, the millennial voting group would rival the elderly voting block. And as always, independents are the biggest voting block in the u.s. On the money support side, Peter Thiel, Peter Schiff, the Koch Brothers would infuse their cash backing for more individual liberty centered movement and more wealthy donors would come, once they realize supporting either the GOP or the DNC is an lose effort for the future of their business. Ron Paul, in a way, already won the battle for freedom that will stay in the long time to come. And I know you guys are here to fight for the same cause in your life time. All for individual liberty.

Any notion that some third party is going to arise from this all is nonsensical. This is exactly what happened in the 90's when some of the Buchanan folks broke to the Reform Party. They accomplished nothing. It has been tried and has failed more times than you can count. The key to growth is to work within the GOP at the local, state and national level because there already is in place an organization and system that is working towards electing more libertarian-conservatives to office. Bolting for a mythical third party that is somehow going to change the world, will only wind up dividing our energy, and leaving us without the core base of voters that we need to get our people elected to office.

 

[DEGuy]

Can someone tell me about the policies supported by Barry Goldwater, which led him to get quite a large number of followers and to his Presidential bid ? Was he too like Dr. Paul ?
It seems he led the resurgence of Conservatism in GOP, but then lost to Johnson.
If he somehow won the Presidency, would he have been better than Reagan ?

On the other hand now Reagan is touted as the latest greatest Republican icon and most try to associate themselves with him. Or was that because he was President, even though later he backtracked from his campaign promises and increased debt etc ?
Is there any truth to the info that his policies changed much after the attempt on his life ?

I was wondering how Dr.Paul would be remembered in future - probably depends on whether he wins or loses.

Goldwater has some strong libertarian views, but he made a lot of "shoot from the hip" comments that made him look crazy extreme. At least on FP, Paul is actually closest to Eisenhower who was probably the last true non-interventionist. As far as elected presidents from the last century, that's probably the closest comparison.

Reagan campaigned as a warmonger, and supported asome crazy interventionist policies (Iran-Contra, weapons to Afghanistan, etc). Eventually he toned it down and became more diplomatic with the Soviets, especially in his second term. Reagan took a lot of flak from both sides for that, but it (arguably) helped to end the Cold War.

Reagan also raised taxes, a lot, and had some pretty right wing social conservative views that Paul would not agree with, for personal liberty reasons. It's mixed, but I think Reagan was a net negative on liberties.

 

[flynn]

Any notion that some third party is going to arise from this all is nonsensical. This is exactly what happened in the 90's when some of the Buchanan folks broke to the Reform Party. They accomplished nothing. It has been tried and has failed more times than you can count. The key to growth is to work within the GOP at the local, state and national level because there already is in place an organization and system that is working towards electing more libertarian-conservatives to office. Bolting for a mythical third party that is somehow going to change the world, will only wind up dividing our energy, and leaving us without the core base of voters that we need to get our people elected to office.

I haven't lived long enough to know that. But I know most young people would support individual liberty oriented candidate which ever party they are running on. With the coming financial crisis, the young people are going to be the bulk of voters who would vote against the establishment. I still have hope on a third major party that would swallow up majority of the support.

 

[tbone717]

Goldwater has some strong libertarian views, but he made a lot of "shoot from the hip" comments that made him look crazy extreme. At least on FP, Paul is actually closest to Eisenhower who was probably the last true non-interventionist. As far as elected presidents from the last century, that's probably the closest comparison.

Reagan campaigned as a warmonger, and supported asome crazy interventionist policies (Iran-Contra, weapons to Afghanistan, etc). Eventually he toned it down and became more diplomatic with the Soviets, especially in his second term. Reagan took a lot of flak from both sides for that, but it (arguably) helped to end the Cold War.

Reagan also raised taxes, a lot, and had some pretty right wing social conservative views that Paul would not agree with, for personal liberty reasons. It's mixed, but I think Reagan was a net negative on liberties.

Reagan's biggest problem was that he was working with a Dem controlled Congress, so in order to get some of his legislation passed, he had to make compromises in other areas. So while the top marginal tax rate was lowered, he also had to sign legislation that raised taxes in order to get other agenda items through Congress. Reagan's thinking, as I remember, was that his presidency was just the start of a movement and not a one off deal. Sadly though, by backing Bush in 88 we turned the course in a much different direction. Bush campaigned that he would carry on the Reagan legacy, but as we all know he did not.

Paul could possibly be in a similar situation if he won the Presidency. While it is likely that he will have a GOP house, the Senate is still up for grabs. And if that is the case, he will have to work with the Senate in order to get his legislation passed. While we like to think that a Paul presidency will result in every issue we care dearly about being followed through with, the reality is that the power of the executive branch is limited and he will still need to work with Congress in order to accomplish his goals.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Liberty is young again. A rebirth, if you wish. Ron has won what I view to be the only real prize he ever sought. Have you ever seen the grin on his face when he speaks of the youth who came and listened to what he had to say? The youth who, because of him, are of the crtical thought and will to ensure that liberty has a lifetime that far exceeds that of old men whose ideas almost made them forget that it ever existed in the first place?

Rons legacy is the future, my friends. And it's constant. Remember that. Even if a Ron Paul only comes around every century or so.

Politics are irrelevant in that regard.They are the very blood of life for those same old men who made us forget what liberty was the last time it came around.

Just my opinion.

 

[tbone717]

I haven't lived long enough to know that. But I know most young people would support individual liberty oriented candidate which ever party they are running on. With the coming financial crisis, the young people are going to be the bulk of voters who would vote against the establishment. I still have hope on a third major party that would swallow up majority of the support.

The only way an effective third party can come about is through a mass exodus of elected officials. You would have to see a nice handful of Congress, along with a sizable amount of state officials leave the party for a new one en masse. It takes more than one man, and a handful of grassroots supporters to build a party.

Take Perot for example. After his run at the White House in 92 (where he got 18.9%), he formed the Reform Party. In 96 he got 8.4%. In 2000 the Reform Party candidate got 0.43%. In 2004, 0.38% and in 2008 a whopping 481 votes. In their history they never elected anyone to Congress.

So honestly, I would not sit around waiting for a third party to happen. Instead work within the GOP to elect libertarian-conservatives to office. The GOP is ripe for our message, as it has won elections in the party countless times.

 

[tbone717]

Liberty is young again. A rebirth, if you wish. Ron has won what I view to be the only real prize he ever sought. Have you ever seen the grin on his face when he speaks of the youth who came and listened to what he had to say? The youth who, because of him, are of the crtical thought and will to ensure that liberty has a lifetime that far exceeds that of old men whose ideas almost made them forget that it ever existed in the first place?

The question that remains to be seen is what will the youth do once Paul is no longer on the scene? For them, is it about the man or the message. Some, sadly, are caught up in the cult of personality of it all, and we don't expect to see those people with us for long. But hopefully, there are enough among the younger crowd that understand the work that is being done here, and can learn from the experience of others so that we can progress forward.

 

[klamath]

The only way an effective third party can come about is through a mass exodus of elected officials. You would have to see a nice handful of Congress, along with a sizable amount of state officials leave the party for a new one en masse. It takes more than one man, and a handful of grassroots supporters to build a party.

Take Perot for example. After his run at the White House in 92 (where he got 18.9%), he formed the Reform Party. In 96 he got 8.4%. In 2000 the Reform Party candidate got 0.43%. In 2004, 0.38% and in 2008 a whopping 481 votes. In their history they never elected anyone to Congress.

So honestly, I would not sit around waiting for a third party to happen. Instead work within the GOP to elect libertarian-conservatives to office. The GOP is ripe for our message, as it has won elections in the party countless times.

I agree with the third party points. A lot of people think that a third party would be this sudden panecea of political enlightenment. Wrong. Once a third party became strong enough to win national elections it will have watered down its message to appeal to a broad enough group of people that it would become exactly what the R and D parties are.
Parties don't really matter the platform and the people elected are all that matters.

 

[flynn]

The only way an effective third party can come about is through a mass exodus of elected officials. You would have to see a nice handful of Congress, along with a sizable amount of state officials leave the party for a new one en masse. It takes more than one man, and a handful of grassroots supporters to build a party.

Take Perot for example. After his run at the White House in 92 (where he got 18.9%), he formed the Reform Party. In 96 he got 8.4%. In 2000 the Reform Party candidate got 0.43%. In 2004, 0.38% and in 2008 a whopping 481 votes. In their history they never elected anyone to Congress.

So honestly, I would not sit around waiting for a third party to happen. Instead work within the GOP to elect libertarian-conservatives to office. The GOP is ripe for our message, as it has won elections in the party countless times.

I think a third major party would be a reactionary to the financial and debt crisis that is to come. The factors that would contribute to the financial crisis are Mainstream media vs the internet, young vs the retired in term of social security, government interventionism vs free market, the anti war vs the war profiteers and entitlement population rise up against the productive because their welfare checks would buy nothing. If enough people is on one side, a third party could run a play. Of course, this is pure speculation.