if you want to throw Ron Paul in a classification (liberal, conservative, facist, etc), he fits in with Libertarian's dogma better than any other groups.
if you want to throw Ron Paul in a classification (liberal, conservative, facist, etc), he fits in with Libertarian's dogma better than any other groups.
He basically is a libertarian. I don't know why he didn't run as such, maybe he wanted to more directly expose how lost the Republican party is.Originally Posted by Verik
no... i think its more along the lines that libertarians don't have a major media outlet to promote him... thus if he wanted to win then he'd have to sit on the side that has most chance of supporting small gov't (i.e. more conservative than liberal) therefore he was thrown into the ring w/ mccain, romney and huckabee.
True, but the republican media hates Ron Paul. So I don't think him running as a Republican helped him at all except for him being able to debate with thim.
Right wing media hated him bc of a few key things... yeah he was exactly what they were looking for in terms of smaller gov't less spending, tax reform, etc. But when it got to the social issues he differed from them (roe v wade... common foundation for conservative principles). Plus I dont think they wanted to support another republican who wouldnt be able to gain the favor of the full party and lead it into a split party vote (thus giving obama easier victory) similar to what happened in 92 w/ Bush Sr, Ross Perot and Clinton. Perot ran independent and took 10% or so of the conservative votes away from Bush Sr, giving Clinton a free ride to office.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote