How would Ron Paul be doing as a Democrat?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-21-2007, 12:50 PM

Let's say Ron Paul was running as a Democrat. What sort of reaction do you think we'd be seeing? Obviously he wouldn't be getting smeared by the neocons like he is now because his foreign policy blends in with the other Democrats, but would that result in him being completely unnoticeable?

Although his running as a Republican will likely doom him, is that the only reason we're hearing about him? Because it gives him a chance to attack interventionists on a national stage?

JaJae · 05-21-2007, 12:52 PM

He would fail because he's against socialized healthcare and a lot of other things the mainstream democrats are slowly starting to move towards.

lew · 05-21-2007, 12:56 PM

We probably wouldn't even be hearing anything of him. It's precisely because he is the lone anti-war Republican candidate that he is getting attention.

Stylerod · 05-21-2007, 01:04 PM

Besides being anti war, I don't think he has a single thing that relates to being a Democrat (and saying Democrats are anti-war probably isn't even true anyway). Does he?

motivez · 05-21-2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Besides being anti war, I don't think he has a single thing that relates to being a Democrat (and saying Democrats are anti-war probably isn't even true anyway). Does he?

He wants the government out of peoples social lives as far as I can tell, but stuff like abortion being a states issue wouldn't fly too well

6SpeedTA95 · 05-21-2007, 02:51 PM

To assert that the democrats wouldn't smear him or talk bad about him is ridiculous. Look what htey did to lieberman.

The guy is criticized because he's criticized the war and our foreign policy.

DosEquis · 05-21-2007, 03:14 PM

He should stick with republicans who haven't been brain washed, conservative independents, and libertarians. That is his best hope. He could pick up some democrat votes on his war position but every other thing they will generally disagree with him.

The only reason i'd consider voting for him is because of that foreign policy and I am confident a democratic controlled house/senate would pass his anti-war agendas. Everything else he would veto and they wouldn't have enough trump his veto with the current "majority". The democratic government would also keep him from placing goofy supreme courty justices.

RMNIXON · 05-21-2007, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

He would fail because he's against socialized healthcare and a lot of other things the mainstream democrats are slowly starting to move towards.

That was too easy.

RMNIXON · 05-21-2007, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by lew

We probably wouldn't even be hearing anything of him. It's precisely because he is the lone anti-war Republican candidate that he is getting attention.

I think you are right. If he went with the Democrats he would be another nobody dismissed for his wacky libertarian social views and would hardly get noticed. If anything Ron Paul can stir things up on the Republican stage and force some answers out of the other candidates you might not get otherwise. I have no problem with that even when I don't agree.

Thorgrim · 05-21-2007, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

To assert that the democrats wouldn't smear him or talk bad about him is ridiculous. Look what htey did to lieberman.

The guy is criticized because he's criticized the war and our foreign policy.

Yeah, we really smeared Gravel when he went off on other candidates...

BTW, Lieberman was attacked by his fellow statesmen, who didn't even give him the majority of the vote when the time came...Republicans, Indepedents, and some democrats banded together and couldn't even give him a majority vote, that's how unhappy CT was with Lieberman as a Senator

I've said in another post, he's out raising funds for Republicans against moderate Democrats...you think the GOP would sit by if Republican Rep. Ron Paul started raising money for Democratic Rep. Nick Lampson TX-22?

Stylerod · 05-22-2007, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Yeah, we really smeared Gravel when he went off on other candidates...

BTW, Lieberman was attacked by his fellow statesmen, who didn't even give him the majority of the vote when the time came...Republicans, Indepedents, and some democrats banded together and couldn't even give him a majority vote, that's how unhappy CT was with Lieberman as a Senator

I've said in another post, he's out raising funds for Republicans against moderate Democrats...you think the GOP would sit by if Republican Rep. Ron Paul started raising money for Democratic Rep. Nick Lampson TX-22?

Considering Lieberman got 10% more votes then the Democrat (I don't even remember his name anymore) that was running, I guess that shows how unhappy CT was with the Democrats candidate.

Thorgrim · 05-22-2007, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Considering Lieberman got 10% more votes then the Democrat (I don't even remember his name anymore) that was running, I guess that shows how unhappy CT was with the Democrats candidate.

He took a vacation for like a month after he won the primary, and never seriously pressured the Democratic establishment to support him afterwards, he shot himself in the foot

On TV, he looked like a real rookie, and CT struggled between a Senator they didn't like and a guy with no real experience...in the end, the fear of change had Lieberman eek out a plurality

Bottom line is that this was a CT problem...the Democratic leadership, establishment and big money all did not go against Lieberman

Any talk of them not "tolerating" Lieberman is ridiculous, and a red herring

Stylerod · 05-22-2007, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He took a vacation for like a month after he won the primary, and never seriously pressured the Democratic establishment to support him afterwards, he shot himself in the foot

On TV, he looked like a real rookie, and CT struggled between a Senator they didn't like and a guy with no real experience...in the end, the fear of change had Lieberman eek out a plurality

Bottom line is that this was a CT problem...the Democratic leadership, establishment and big money all did not go against Lieberman

Any talk of them not "tolerating" Lieberman is ridiculous, and a red herring

Hey, you brought up CT not liking Lieberman, yet they voted for him even though he ran as an independent.

I know it hurts, but there you go.

Thorgrim · 05-22-2007, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Hey, you brought up CT not liking Lieberman, yet they voted for him even though he ran as an independent. I know it hurts, but there you go.

Nothing hurts, the 2006 elections were an amazing success

I didn't bring up Lieberman...ofcourse they don't like him, a majority voted for someone else and he's been an incumbent for how long, that someone of his seniority could do so poorly in a general election was a historic event

I think it's rather sad that this is your one example of Democratic "intolerance" as compared to the GOP trying to kick one of its Congressmen out of the debates

When Kucinich was being a rambling idiot in 2004, well after it was decidely between Kerry and Edwards, Kucinich STILL got a seat to debate them, even with like 5% numbers...even though Kucinich just made them look bad...thats how open the Democratic Party is

The GOP, as Robert Novak once said, would prefer to select it's candidates "in smoke-filled backrooms" just like in the old days