Huffinton Post: Hey, Ron Paul Republicans!?! It's Time For A GOP Palace Coup

[rational thinker]

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Hey_Ron_Paul_Republicans_It_s_Time_For_A_GOP_Palace_Coup#

 

[Matt Collins]

Pretty much what we are trying to accomplish

 

[nobody's_hero]

Well, if the Huffington Post says so . . .

I would never have thought of this, really. Never.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Sorry..I still like Sarah Palin and i believe she , like Ron Paul, was tanked by her own party..just listen to newt gingrich minimize her popularity...said she definately was not a party leader. Evidently, she, like Ron Paul, was not corruptable. tones

 

[WRellim]

I think the reason why this is present on HuffPo is well said by one of the comments below the article:

Hell yes. While I don't believe in many of Paul's ideas, his brand is much better for the nation as a whole. I'm tired of debating with crazies. You can't get anywhere. A person consumed by an ideology can never step back and look at a decision objectively. It's never about what's best for the country or the world, because they believe that no matter how crazy it seems, it will eventually work out because the demagogues say it will. As long as we have religious nuts like Palin, neocons like Bush, warhawks like Rudy, controlling half of our political discourse, our country is going to teeter on the brink of disaster. GET THEM OUT. Let's have a opposition party based on what's best for the COUNTRY AND THE WORLD, rather than what best fits a set of ideological principles. While I'll probably never vote for a Paul-like candidate, at least I could have a conversation with my Republican friends that was based in reason.

​

Which means there is a measure of awareness and even respect (however minimal) there that the POSITIONS and the ISSUES of the Ron Paul-centered movement were RATIONAL -- and certainly the HuffPo types found Ron's anti-war stance refreshing.

Now they (HuffPo types) went whole-hog and swallowed the vague "change" and charisma of Obama -- and when he proves to provide no change at all, then a portion of them (not all, but SOME -- a percentage of the intelligent ones) will realize they have been "duped" once again -- and will need somewhere else to turn (because Obama will have a "lock" on all the Donkey party mechanism for nearly a decade). They just MIGHT reset their priorities and be willing to switch parties (much as the legendary "Reagan-Democrats" did after the disaster that was Jimmy Carter).

See that probably in the comment quoted above? While minimal, it DOES crack the door open to at least admit the POSSIBILITY of this guy changing parties and voting GOP (if there were a principled Ron Paul type in charge).

Secondly, HuffPo is a "community blog" with a number of voices -- and if you check the archive of articles by the author of this posting, Lee Stranahan, you will see him ALREADY beginning to question just how much "change" Obama will bring. In other words, he already senses and suspects that he has been (and will contune to be) duped and betrayed by his charismatic savior!

 

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Sorry..I still like Sarah Palin and i believe she , like Ron Paul, was tanked by her own party..just listen to newt gingrich minimize her popularity...said she definately was not a party leader. Evidently, she, like Ron Paul, was not corruptable. tones

<insert all sorts of facepalms here>

 

[slacker921]

<insert all sorts of facepalms here>

.... so true..

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Think for yourself, stop with the popularity contest...sarah palin was this forum's pick for Ron Paul's vp. There must have been a reason for that somewhere back down the line...what you didn't like is that she was selected by mccain...but look...people loved her. I say she was not corruptable...that's why the gop tanked her . Can you read between the lines at all? If sarah palin was able to be manipulated....believe me, with her popularity...she would be IN like flynn. tones

 

[Kotin]

Think for yourself, stop with the popularity contest...sarah palin was this forum's pick for Ron Paul's vp. There must have been a reason for that somewhere back down the line...what you didn't like is that she was selected by mccain...but look...people loved her. I say she was not corruptable...that's why the gop tanked her . Can you read between the lines at all? If sarah palin was able to be manipulated....believe me, with her popularity...she would be IN like flynn. tones

um.. sorry but she is a drug warrior, and a statist.


why do I even bother with you tones

 

[angelatc]

......what's best for the COUNTRY AND THE WORLD,

Country, world, then individual. Wonderful.

 

[trey4sports]

Think for yourself, stop with the popularity contest...sarah palin was this forum's pick for Ron Paul's vp. There must have been a reason for that somewhere back down the line...what you didn't like is that she was selected by mccain...but look...people loved her. I say she was not corruptable...that's why the gop tanked her . Can you read between the lines at all? If sarah palin was able to be manipulated....believe me, with her popularity...she would be IN like flynn. tones

jesus.

no

and

no

and

no.

everyone liked her because she said some kind words about ron paul and we'd all love to drill that ass.
look at her policy stances shes a neocon like the others in the party

 

[powerofreason]

Sarah Palin is a staunch neocon and a real dipshit to boot.

The Neocon Flag (for emphasis)

 

[rprprs]

I think the reason why this is present on HuffPo is well said by one of the comments below the article:

Hell yes. While I don't believe in many of Paul's ideas, his brand is much better for the nation as a whole. I'm tired of debating with crazies. You can't get anywhere. A person consumed by an ideology can never step back and look at a decision objectively. It's never about what's best for the country or the world, because they believe that no matter how crazy it seems, it will eventually work out because the demagogues say it will. As long as we have religious nuts like Palin, neocons like Bush, warhawks like Rudy, controlling half of our political discourse, our country is going to teeter on the brink of disaster. GET THEM OUT. Let's have a opposition party based on what's best for the COUNTRY AND THE WORLD, rather than what best fits a set of ideological principles. While I'll probably never vote for a Paul-like candidate, at least I could have a conversation with my Republican friends that was based in reason.​

​

Well, I'll take the support where I can get it (I guess). But, the rationale of that HuffPo comment has my head spinning. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but to suggest that he is a more appealing candidate than the likes of Palin, Bush, or Rudy because he is less ideological is mind blowing. Paul is nothing if he's not ideological. And it's the consistent soundness and purity of his ideological principles that make him great.

 

[Jeremy]

Huffington Post = FAIL

 

[nate895]

The appeal of Ron Paul was his ideas, not his lovable ole' funeral director looks.

Ron Paul does look like the undertaker, doesn't he?

 

[devil21]

Think for yourself, stop with the popularity contest...sarah palin was this forum's pick for Ron Paul's vp. There must have been a reason for that somewhere back down the line...what you didn't like is that she was selected by mccain...but look...people loved her. I say she was not corruptable...that's why the gop tanked her . Can you read between the lines at all? If sarah palin was able to be manipulated....believe me, with her popularity...she would be IN like flynn. tones

There was very minimal discussion about VP picks and it was the evangelical Paul supporters that wanted her. She was not "this forum's pick". Most of us were paying attention to the ongoing campaign. Only the idiot rednecks of the GOP were enamored with Palin. And if you want my opinion, I think that Palin was picked in order to help McCain lose. The GOP knew they had no chance this election so McCain/Palin became the sacrificial lambs.

 

[Conza88]

Think for yourself, stop with the popularity contest...sarah palin was this forum's pick for Ron Paul's vp. There must have been a reason for that somewhere back down the line...what you didn't like is that she was selected by mccain...but look...people loved her. I say she was not corruptable...that's why the gop tanked her . Can you read between the lines at all? If sarah palin was able to be manipulated....believe me, with her popularity...she would be IN like flynn. tones

 

[SnappleLlama]

FTA:

It's weeks past the election. Everyone should have sobered up by now. The fact that there is a significant chunk of Republicans that are still crushing on Sarah Palin shows that it's time show the same mercy for the Grand Old Party that The Chief showed to Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest -- any sense of rational thought is gone, so pull out the pillow and start smothering until the kicking stops.

I LOL'd like a schizophrenic wildebeest.

 

[WRellim]

[/indent]
Well, I'll take the support where I can get it (I guess). But, the rationale of that HuffPo comment has my head spinning. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but to suggest that he is a more appealing candidate than the likes of Palin, Bush, or Rudy because he is less ideological is mind blowing. Paul is nothing if he's not ideological. And it's the consistent soundness and purity of his ideological principles that make him great.

You have to remember that people VERY often repeat words that they do not really understand (for example, "isolationist" versus "non-interventionist").

My guess would be that the HuffPo commenter does not really understand what the word "ideological" really means -- and instead uses it for what he thinks it means: the closed-mindedness of Bush, Rudy, et al -- for example Bush's "You're either with us or you against us" regarding the Iraq war, -- or Rudy's constant pushing of "9/11, Terrorism -- 9/11, Terrorism -- 9/11, Terrorism" etc. -- or the constant "Drug Warrior" refrain from the GOP (and the Dems, but as a HuffPo reader he probably doesn't "see" that as it really is).

So there is a disconnect between what he wrote, and what he actually meant; if you can follow. (It's like reading something a child wrote... you have to read between the lines -- and sometimes what you find is GOOD, just as often as it is bad.)

 

[nobody's_hero]

I thought we determined that the Palin pick was to woo over support from the Hillary fanbase.

I believe the formula was:

Two-faced, RINO liberalesque old senator + folksy go-getter woman governor = millions of Democrat swing votes

Who would have thought that would have backfired among true conservatives, eh?