Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. Paul will most likely stay with the GOP through the convention. His supporters are now focused on getting delegate spots to the convention to change the party platform back to pre 9/11 values. We're also working to get Ron Paul Republicans installed into Congress.
It's an interesting strategy. Try and repair the party within (since the GOP is rotted from the core) or start a new "conservative" party. Obviously Paul is trying the former. I don't know the numbers of actual republicans are of Paul's mindset and see that a total re-tooling of the GOP to it's conservative roots is needed BADLY, but I would be interested to know. I would also like to know how many republicans left the party, like me, because of the sad shape it's in? McCain's elevation to the top maybe (hopefully) the neo-cons last gasp to run the GOP. Hence Paul's efforts to build constitutional conservatives within and get them to congress. The real test is making sure the Paul group in congress doesn't get poisoned with neo-con flu like so many other conservatives did just after they were elected. Good luck Paul.
Unless and until there is a proportional representation system in the US, anyone with common sense realizes that an independent (with few exceptions) or third-party strategy does not win elections*.
Ron Paul has common sense and he realizes that, so his strategy is to gain influence within the republican party and win Congressional seats.
*It may be argued that the Ross Perot campaign in, what was it, 1992, helped towards achieving a balanced budget later in the 1990s, but obviously he did not win the election.
Probably the only way the US would adopt a proportional representation system would be in the aftermath of some national catastrophe that totally discredited the two-party system ... chronic deficits, unrealistic promises of the welfare and ownership society, voting to fund foreign wars despite promises to end wars, huge loss of manufacturing jobs, suicidal monetary and credit policies, a clear defeat in a major foreign energy war, an attack on or invasion of the mainland?
But the US is too socially fractious for a proportional representation system to produce governability, so in the wake of disaster, some sort of dictatorship would be the most likely outcome.
The preferred path, then, is for common sense to prevail and attempt to reform both parties from within, both focusing on economic and responsible fiscal balance in the framework of reality, before a real catastrophe strikes.
It's not too late, but history shows that leaders indeed do lead entire nations and empires into disaster and catastrophe.
Unless and until there is a proportional representation system in the US, anyone with common sense realizes that an independent (with few exceptions) or third-party strategy does not win elections*.
Ron Paul has common sense and he realizes that, so his strategy is to gain influence within the republican party and win Congressional seats.
*It may be argued that the Ross Perot campaign in, what was it, 1992, helped towards achieving a balanced budget later in the 1990s, but obviously he did not win the election.
Probably the only way the US would adopt a proportional representation system would be in the aftermath of some national catastrophe that totally discredited the two-party system ... chronic deficits, unrealistic promises of the welfare and ownership society, voting to fund foreign wars despite promises to end wars, huge loss of manufacturing jobs, suicidal monetary and credit policies, a clear defeat in a major foreign energy war, an attack on or invasion of the mainland?
But the US is too socially fractious for a proportional representation system to produce governability, so in the wake of disaster, some sort of dictatorship would be the most likely outcome.
The preferred path, then, is for common sense to prevail and attempt to reform both parties from within, both focusing on economic and responsible fiscal balance in the framework of reality, before a real catastrophe strikes.
It's not too late, but history shows that leaders indeed do lead entire nations and empires into disaster and catastrophe.
Very interesting post. My personal views are that our two parties have become so special interest oriented, and that it is a mirror image of society in general, that a common sense party simply cannot compete. It gets bludgeoned to death by both sides.
Never bothered. I would almost certainly register to vote for the express purpose of blocking Hillary, but if it came to McCain-Obama, I'd have to decide whether it's worth getting out of my chair ... maybe for a Ron Paul congressional candidate if available in my district.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
