A Scenario in which Ron Paul Wins is Feasible

[galtgulch]

http://tinyurl.com/393uc4

Excerpt from article in Blogcritic Magazine:

<<<"With the combination of money, momentum, enthusiastic support and the right audience in the right state, Ron Paul stands a real chance to stage an upset in New Hampshire. I think it's possible for him to win, though it's still a longshot. If his $20 million suddenly turned into a really clever one-week advertising campaign that absolutely saturates the state, then a miracle could happen and he could win.

Even if he doesn't blow his whole warchest in New Hampshire, Paul really ought to be able to mobilize more votes than the polls are suggesting. I don't think it would be at all surprising to see him beat Huckabee and Giuliani who are only a few points ahead of him. A third place showing based mostly on grassroots support and little spending would be respectable, but it's really not sufficient.

As a 'dark horse' candidate, Paul really needs to pull off a surprise win in New Hampshire and it's the one state in the early primary process where he can potentially do it. He ought to spend every cent he has and turn out every supporter he can to win the state. Never mind that it will leave his warchest empty. If he wins New Hampshire there will be plenty of new money flooding into his campaign from all over the nation as those who have been reluctant to take him seriously come on board and start to contribute.

If Ron Paul wins anything at all, it's going to start with New Hampshire. There's no more fertile ground for his libertarian message. Conversely, if he doesn't win New Hampshire he's certainly not going to win anywhere else either, and that's the real peril. ">>>

Edited December 30, 2007 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

A quick look at the link bring back a line I heard many years. He'd have a ham sandwich if he had some ham and if he had some bread. It not going to happen.

Edited December 30, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[georgedonnelly]

Sadly I don't think he is going to make it, either. Even if he wins in NH, Super Tuesday will crush him.

In any case, we advocates of personal liberty would do better IMO to focus on the process of reaching the goal rather than obsess too much about one visible step along the way. Whatsmore, while I like Ron Paul better than any of the other candidates, there is a lot of space between his platform and laissez-faire capitalism.

Finally, most Americans still want a government safety net of some sort around them because they're afraid they may need it, afraid of what would happen under laissez-faire capitalism. We will never reach our goal as long as that statement remains true.

[galtgulch]

A quick look at the link bring back a line I heard many years. He'd have a ham sandwich if he had some ham and if he had some bread. It not going to happen.

With pro freedom friends like you, who needs enemies!?

Your ham sandwich line is funny until you realize that Ron Paul does know much more than his fellow candidates about the matters at stake in this election.

We are aware that Ron Paul is familiar with the Austrian School of Economics and has an understanding of the issue of inflation which has eluded Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee among others in the race. He would take the necessary steps to deal with our government spending problem, our preemptive war problem, our national debt problem, our military presence in Korea, Germany, Iraq, Guantanamo, Japan and dozens of other countries, the fact that there is nothing backing our currency but the government's power to tax, the illegal and immoral federal direct or indirect and un-proportioned "income" tax, and, among other things, the imprisonment of men and women for victimless "crimes."

He may not have ham, but I would say that in response to the inquiry, "Where's the beef?" Ron Paul does have it in abundance whereas his competitors are sorely lacking.

You should listen to yourselves. You sound so utterly resigned to your pessimistic, realistic fate. You are defeated before the battle takes place. With your attitudes, if all Ayn Rand's adherents had the same attitude, there would be no hope of realizing the free society you purport to hold as your ideal and realistic goal.

If I were you I would get in touch with the side of yourself which is willing to man the barricades in the fight for our freedom and do so with all your heart and soul, (figuratively speaking of course.) Use your ingenuity to find some way to harness your awareness of Objectivism and your understanding of economics and politics and whatever else you have at your disposal, e.g. spirit, love of life on earth, ethical certainty, intellectual certainty, to decide what role you want to play in our struggle.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution. Watch Ron Paul's videos. www.ronpaul2008.com www.whoisronpaul.name; go to www.youtube.com and search for Ron Paul

galt

Edited December 31, 2007 by galtgulch

[Selene]

A quick look at the link bring back a line I heard many years. He'd have a ham sandwich if he had some ham and if he had some bread. It not going to happen.

With pro freedom friends like you, who needs enemies!?

Your ham sandwich line is funny until you realize that Ron Paul does know much more than his fellow candidates about the matters at stake in this election.

We are aware that Ron Paul is familiar with the Austrian School of Economics and has an understanding of the issue of inflation which has eluded Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee among others in the race. He would take the necessary steps to deal with our government spending problem, our preemptive war problem, our national debt problem, our military presence in Korea, Germany, Iraq, Guantanamo, Japan and dozens of other countries, the fact that there is nothing backing our currency but the government's power to tax, the illegal and immoral federal direct or indirect and un-proportioned "income" tax, and, among other things, the imprisonment of men and women for victimless "crimes."

He may not have ham, but I would say that in response to the inquiry, "Where's the beef?" Ron Paul does have it in abundance whereas his competitors are sorely lacking.

You should listen to yourselves. You sound so utterly resigned to your pessimistic, realistic fate. You are defeated before the battle takes place. With your attitudes, if all Ayn Rand's adherents had the same attitude, there would be no hope of realizing the free society you purport to hold as your ideal and realistic goal.

If I were you I would get in touch with the side of yourself which is willing to man the barricades in the fight for our freedom and do so with all your heart and soul, (figuratively speaking of course.) Use your ingenuity to find some way to harness your awareness of Objectivism and your understanding of economics and politics and whatever else you have at your disposal, e.g. spirit, love of life on earth, ethical certainty, intellectual certainty, to decide what role you want to play in our struggle.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution. Watch Ron Paul's videos. www.ronpaul2008.com www.whoisronpaul.name; go to www.youtube.com and search for Ron Paul

galt

[Chris Grieb]

Galt and Ron Paul supporters; I don't have a quarrel with you folks. I still don't think he can win the nomination or the general election. Please don't accuse me of not wanting freedom.

Disagree without being disagreeable.

[BaalChatzaf]

Galt and Ron Paul supporters; I don't have a quarrel with you folks. I still don't think he can win the nomination or the general election. Please don't accuse me of not wanting freedom.

Disagree without being disagreeable.

Those who want freedom must be willing to kill for it (circumstance so requiring). Is Ron Paul our Killer in Chief? We are currently at war (de facto). Is Ron Paul a worthy war chief?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[georgedonnelly]

You should listen to yourselves. You sound so utterly resigned to your pessimistic, realistic fate. You are defeated before the battle takes place. With your attitudes, if all Ayn Rand's adherents had the same attitude, there would be no hope of realizing the free society you purport to hold as your ideal and realistic goal.

Now you're using hyperbole and near-intimidation to ram your opinion down our throats.

Since you mention Ayn Rand: Ron Paul is not an objectivist. He's an excellent candidate and if I were geographically able to vote for him I would, but I am not.

If you want to we can compare how much we have contributed to his campaign. I bet I will win.

In any case, even he wins the nomination and beats the Democrat and any independents, he still has to fight the Congress, ongoing public opinion and the bureaucracy. This is no small fight. So, his election does not mean we "have won". In order "to win" we not only need to win the presidency, we need congress and most importantly a majority or better of the public.

[BaalChatzaf]

In any case, even he wins the nomination and beats the Democrat and any independents, he still has to fight the Congress, ongoing public opinion and the bureaucracy. This is no small fight. So, his election does not mean we "have won". In order "to win" we not only need to win the presidency, we need congress and most importantly a majority or better of the public.

Can you see the Public voting to end Social Security? I sure can not. How about ending the FDA and the FCC?

Ron Paul, however right he may be, is out of step with the voters.

If Ron Paul were elected (fat chance!) it would make a splash and some ripple. I do not see any fundamental changes in public attitudes or values. We are so far down the Statist Path we have forgotten where we started from.

Will the Public put up with at least ten years of economic and social pain to purge a hundred years (or more) of State intervention? I doubt it. The only way this country can mend its waywardness is to go cold turkey or for the economy to go belly up. Neither alternative will be chosen voluntarily by the voting public.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[studiodekadent]

Regarding the above "fear of loss of safety net," I dont think removing all safety nettage should be priority 1. If anything, the first priority should be complete deregulation of industries while keeping the net in place. To he honest, I don't think (in the current context, with humans acting as they do now) all safety nets will ever be removed, and there is a case for a (singular) minimal safety net. What we CAN do, however, short of philosophical revolution, is deregulate, decontrol, detax, etc.

Mill's distinction between authoritative and advisory intervention is valid. The former is the primary evil. The latter is a secondary consideration. I would view a (minimal) safety net as the latter, wheras regulations are manifestly an example of the former.

So we can still make great progress towards Laissez-Faire, even achieve a status of operational Laissez-Faire (I think that an absense of the authoritative controls constitutes Laissez-Faire), under current circumstances. We should try for this. Any further dismantlings will require a philosophical/ethical revolution.

[Chris Grieb]

We will have an idea of the correctness of these posts today and Tuesday. Ron Paul is making an effort in Wyoming today and Tuesday is New Hampshire.

Edited January 5, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[georgedonnelly]

If anything, the first priority should be complete deregulation of industries

Unfortunately in today's environment I think a lot of people would interpret that as more government-business collaboration, no matter that it wouldn't be true, and would react against it in a knee-jerk fashion. IMO there is a lot of fraud being perpetrated by business and we would need a whole new class of law enforcement personnel do deal with that kind of deregulation.

I think Ron Paul is on the right track by emphasizing as a first step the dismantling of the taxing apparatus and the overseas military operations. Those are 2 very unpopular items that affect a lot of voters.

[Selene]

Curiouser and curioser as Alice looked in the looking glass!

Ron Paul moves to third in NH and is one of the 3 in double digits.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...ublican_primary

[Chris Grieb]

Ron Paul got no delegates in Wyoming. The revolution has yet to win a delegate.

[Greybird]

I don't know why GaltGulch is wasting his time.

Too many of the "VIP Members" here have signed on fully to the lunatic, world-trashing, neoconservative ravings about an "Islamofascist" conspiracy. So has The Atlas Society. So has the Ayn R- ... er, Leonard Peikoff Institute.

He's not going to persuade any of the above, or those admiring any of the above. Facts, such as the imperial establishment bestriding the world (or Ron Paul winning three delegates in Iowa, for that matter), are held to be irrelevant. Drawing of any broader context is ignored.

The Empire State Building is swaying over a foot, from side to side, due to tremors which have their epicenter in a cemetery in Valhalla, New York. This figurative reality is being disregarded.

Why are you bothering with this?

Edited January 7, 2008 by Greybird

[studiodekadent]

If anything, the first priority should be complete deregulation of industries

Unfortunately in today's environment I think a lot of people would interpret that as more government-business collaboration, no matter that it wouldn't be true, and would react against it in a knee-jerk fashion.

Not if the first deregulation is a constitutional ban on corporate welfare

But I certainly understand your point. Many people comprehend only "give money to business" versus "take money from business" and have not grasped that there is a third alternative.