Who More Capably Represents The Republican Party - Rush Limbaugh Or Ron Paul?

[oz in SC]

Ron Paul is a 'paleo-conservative',he is as far separated from the GOP as JFK would be from the Democratic Party of today.

As to who best represents the current party....losers like McCain,Romney,etc do.

[ViewFromThePeak]

Originally Posted by Who?Me?!

"""because diplomacy, peace, and sound fiscal policy characterized by Ron Paul Republicans is at the bottom of the agenda. ""

Yup, summed up Repubs quite nicely! Those things ARE at the bottom of their agenda.

Oh, and it isn't just us nice liberals who want Rushy representing the Republicans...it seems to be REPUBLICANS who are advocating him, too!Loving his every word, bragging about his "popularity", listening to his radio show ....



Bush = Unecessary war and spending.

Still:

Obama = W-A-R and TONS OF SPENDING

Gosh, I love the sound of that especially when I think about all the peaceniks who voted for him in 2008.

Apologists will always claim their candidate backs the necessary evils. Suuuuuuure they do....

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by ergohead

Considering the disarray of the Republican Party, should the Republican Party assume the identity of a Republican Senator like Ron Paul?

Would this not cause the Party to gain public respect?

Does the public respect Rush Limbaugh?

Is Rush Limbaugh a Republican?

Just because Rahm Emanuel calls Rush the "head of the Republican Party" doesn't make it so. He is not. As for Ron Paul, he is a Libertarian.

Rush "represents" conservatism. Period. He does not represent the Republican Party.

So, Republicans should assume the identity of the Party of conservatism. Their abandonment of conservative principles is why they have been losing.