The Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul beat John McCain to come in second in Montana, with 25% of the vote.  I’m hearing his campaign thinks they have a chance at winning Alaska.

Mitt took Montana with 38%.  It seems to be that the farther Romney gets away from Massachusetts and the Northeast, where we’re all very aware of the fact that he has no soul, the better he does.

But back to Ron Paul.  His performance in Montana would indicate he has a chance of taking Alaska, but if I were to place a beer bet, I’m betting McCain takes Alaska.  What’s all this mean?  It definitely tells me is that the free state project folks picked the wrong state to try to move to.  They picked New Hampshire, when clearly Montana would be the better choice.

I actually hope all the folks who put a lot of energy, money and enthusiasm into the Paul campaign don’t get disillusioned and drop out of the process.  I am optimistic that more liberty oriented ideas can resonate with the general public, if fronted by a candidate who can carry the message.  Elections are popularity contests, and are only peripherally about ideas and policy.  We need a candidate who can win in that kind of environment, and that isn’t, and wasn’t really ever going to be Ron Paul.

12 Responses to “The Ron Paul Revolution”

  1. Jim W says:

    Ron Paul’s message is very similar to this guy’s, but this guy had better delivery.

  2. Jim W says:

    Wow, listening to Reagan defend individualism, the constitution and capitalism is truly awesome. It also makes me sad that we don’t have a better messenger to carry the torch these days. All the charismatic ones are batting for the wrong team this time around.

  3. Sorry to say, but it’s over. At least Ron Paul got his ideas out there. I guess the country needs to go further down the tubes and become more broke before more people wake up.

  4. Linoge says:

    It is not a matter of the country being unreceptive to his ideas, Fielding… I honestly believe the country was not receptive to him.

    Personally, I think his message is a great one, and I would absolutely love it if our country could go back to the Constitution that created it. The problem was not the message. The problem was that the person delivering the method came across as a lightly-frothing lunatic. And while that maybe should not matter when it comes to a positive, needed message… it does, especially when the person in question is striving to be the leader of one of the stronger countries in the world.

    A great message is squat without good delivery, and Ron Paul’s campaign, in my estimation, was a victim of Ron Paul.

  5. Weer'd Beard says:

    +1 Linoge!

    Minus his Isolationism (Which would be enugh for me to not support ANY candidate period) I’m behind 90% of Paul’s ideals. He doesn’t show well in debates (appears loony) But also I think of the Meet The Press interview where he got his ass royally kicked by Russert on fairly softball questions.

    All this adds up to me assuming that Dr. Paul doesn’t live in the same reality that I do.

    I would be nice to see some more main-streams liberty-minded candidates taking the feild. Weather under a Libertarian Standard, a Democrat Standard, Republican standard, or otherwise

  6. Robb Allen says:

    Well, Ron Paul is still a better vote than any of the other schmucks. I love the man’s message (well 80% of it, anyway) but he has all the charisma of stale bread. And for a populace who votes more for American Idol than they do politics, that’s simply not going to work.

    Even Fred! suffered from that problem. He was exponentially better than the pile of crap we have to choose from now, but he didn’t condense his entire campaign into 30 second soundbytes. When you cut into “Survivor”, you lose a lot of people’s attention.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Fred was a bit too long winded. Fred’s mistake was he thought he could win by appealing to the intellectuals, and the rest would take care of itself. He needed a campaign to win over the intellectuals, but on the other hand, he needed to charm the hell out of the media, which is where he fell over.

    Fred had more depth on the issues than any candidate I’ve seen in my voting lifetime, but in addition to depth, you need charm, you need the ability to run a strong campaign, and you need to shake hands, kiss babies, and do all the other bullshit politicians do.

  8. Mike M. says:

    Despite all the things I can’t stand about McCain, he’s the most electable when put up against Obama or Hillary. We, the Republican Party, cannot allow either of those socialists move into the White House. If they do, kiss the American Dream goodbye and start asking your Brit friends how to be a good subject. McCain, at least, won’t force us to suck at the teat of Mother Government for our well being, and he won’t hand the world to the mullahs.

  9. llanok says:

    Don’t put too much stock in Montana numbers. There was no public vote on the matter.

    The primary vote isn’t until June, but this year the Republican party called a ‘caucus’ and decided who the Montana GOP supports on super Tuesday. Oh, and that primary vote in June… doesn’t matter. The Montana GOP intends to just pretend it doesn’t exist.

  10. I’m upset about the marginalization of RP’s following. By ignoring and trivializing the candidate, the media and pundits are ignoring and trivializing his followers.

    It seemed to me that many of them (including myself) are disaffected and disillusioned with the main parties. I doubt many of them would have been involved politically much less voted if it weren’t for RP.

    Do we want to drive these people away? The media shouldn’t complain about voter turnout after crapping on these folks.

  11. Sebastian says:

    I’m upset about the marginalization of RP’s following. By ignoring and trivializing the candidate, the media and pundits are ignoring and trivializing his followers.

    They did the same thing to Fred. It’s not so much that they are trying to trivialize anyone. Too many people out there make it to be some kind of media conspiracy, when it is more the candidates themselves. Fred had a bad relationship with the media from the get go, because his campaign didn’t have their media outreach shit together. Ron Paul is hardly what I’d call charming or good in front of a camera.

    Yes, it’s unfortunate that we have to put actors rather than wonks before the voting public, but that’s how the game is played and won. Look at Obama. Obama in terms of wonk policy is completely vacuous, but the man talks a talk like no one I’ve seen in politics for a long time. You can listen to him speak, and feel good, and if you don’t think deeper to realize he hasn’t said anything of substance, you’re hooked. The media loves him. That’s the kind of candidate we need to front, only instead of being a front for soft socialism, he’s a front for liberty.

  12. Free State says:

    The FreeStateProject didn’t pick the wrong state. (it was voted on by the participants).
    RP actually got 8% of the vote.. the highest percentage of a primary for him so far. (Caucuses are different)
    NH has no income tax.
    NH has no general sales tax.
    A Free Stater has been elected to the NH House.
    EVERY single bill gets reviewed to see if if it proliberty or not.
    There are only 500 or so FSPers here. We are just gettting started.