Ron Paul "moneybomb" trend collapses

[Thorgrim]

Ron Paul made big news with his first "moneybomb" of 3.9 million, he got airtime, was getting some before that, certainly, while Rudy, and Thompson had been sleeping through December and the first half of January, I heard a lot more about Ron Paul in the media and internet than I did about those two, who were both THE frontrunner candidate at one point

So, he gets his gathering, the GOP hears his message, he gets out on the media

Has another moneybomb, 6 million, gets even more coverage, gets lots of coverage, interviews, etc, was in every debate while much more "establishment" republicans like Duncan Hunter got the boot, and much more conservative republicans like Keyes also got the boot

The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary hit...young people, new voters, independents, all come out big time, break every record...the dream for Ron Paul is at hand! Except all these new people pick someone else

Ron Paul had two huge advantages: In Iowa, the biggest breakthrough of young and new voters ever seen, should be "sick of the old liberals and neocons bickering" yet they go 2-1 Democratic

In New Hampshire, he has the most libertarian state in the country "live free or die" it doesn't get anymore easier...and records were broke...the biggest democratic primary in new hampshire history

Hillary Clinton the "communist nazi" gets 112,000+ votes, Ron Paul gets less than 19,000...losing to Rudy who we barely heard from as he has clearly been hiding behind his firewall in FL, and stands completely against "live free or die"

Now, the 3rd Ron Paul Money bomb has gone off...less than one third of his last moneybomb, and less than half of the one before that...about 1.9 million...

Instead of growing, or even staying steady...or even going back to his November levels, he's collapsed financially

Less votes...less supporters...now less money

Libertarianism has dramatically failed in America

[Publius]

Ron Paul is not libertarian. Your thread is a failed attempt at trolling.

[JaJae]

I have to say this was a good post and I even chuckled at some parts. But the last line got me. Ron Paul does not define libertarianism, nor is his failures as a candidate mean libertarianism is done. He's doing well enough and he's doing much better than anyone would have expected a libertarian candidate to do on the national level. This could just be the start of libertarianism. Ron Paul could open the door to more libertarians on the local and state level as well as future candidates.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Publius

Ron Paul is not libertarian.

I have to disagree, he's certainly a libertarian, he ran as the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party before, and certainly conforms to a set of standard libertarian ideas.

He ran this time as a Republican because he's admitted as a third party, you spend half your time and half your money getting on the ballot.. I'm certain that played into his calculations to remain a Republican.

I think what this shows is that despite the more mainstream libertarian ideas being popular as ideas, people don't want everything they're selling.. and those who take it to the extreme that Paul does have no traction with America. It also shows that if they want any of their ideas to have the support of the majority of America, they're going to have to tone it down and take much smaller steps toward their eventual goals.

I don't think it means libertarianism has failed, but it's certainly a big failure and a setback for the libertarian movement.. their golden boy who was supposed to be a huge upset and finally be the one to show everyone that their ideas were popular has had a dismal showing, despite the massive amounts of money thrown at his campaign.

That said, they can certainly use this failure as a way to bolster their ranks, as I'm sure his campaign has attracted many more people to libertarian ideas... but I think if they want to compete on a national level, they're going to have to tone it down.

I also think they'd do good to get more people like Paul elected to local legislatures, and the House.. if they could get a majority anywhere and have some way to measure the success or failures of their ideas, then they'd actually have something concrete to point to for the American people, instead of what generally amounts to rhetoric and theory.

I'm really surprised there hasn't been some kind of movement to get libertarians to start moving to some sparsely populated area and set up their own libertarian dream world government to the best of their ability.. that seems like the libertarian thing to do, self reliance and personal responsibility and whatnot.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Publius

Ron Paul is not libertarian. Your thread is a failed attempt at trolling.

Of course he is. He's a libertarian running within the Republican party.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm really surprised there hasn't been some kind of movement to get libertarians to start moving to some sparsely populated area and set up their own libertarian dream world government to the best of their ability.. that seems like the libertarian thing to do, self reliance and personal responsibility and whatnot.

a Galt's Gulch, if you will?

[Thorgrim]

I'd like to see positions he's changed since running his 1988 libertarian campaign and today

Big positions he strongly believed and campaigned on in 1988, that today, if you asked, he'd say "no, i've seen the error of my ways, I no longer believe in that..."

I haven't heard of anything like that

On the success of libertarianism: How much more of a spotlight do you guys want as a third way? How many more advantages do you have to just be handed to you...

In a post-post 9/11 world, new coalitions are forming as the Democratic Party struggles on which way to expand into voters, Republicans are trying to rebuild a new version of the Reagan coalition...people have had huge problems with the two parties since 1992, and this can't go on forever, IMO by 2012 either the GOP will have found itself again and/or the Democrats will have formed their newest coalition ever increasing as the Hispanic vote grows and grows, and it'll be back to 1976/1980/1984/1988, where people say "oh i hate congress/political parties" but only 0.2% vote for something like libertarianism

[Donkey®]

Bandwagon broke down once we stopped talking about the internet and moved into the realm of real world action.

[Publius]

The most obvious difference is that Ron Paul's stance on immigration is counter to that of the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement. His abortion stance is also quite different from that of the libertarian movement's mainstream.

Ron Paul's stance on many issues is similar to, but not quite, the libertarian stance. Just because he is the most libertarian of the candidates does not make him a libertarian (in the same way it can be argued that Hilary may be the most socialist Democratic candidate, but she isn't a socialist).

The LP recruited him in 1988 to run for president because they wanted someone with a higher profile. He was a Republican before that and has been a Republican since then. He accepted their nomination for the reason I mentioned above, many of his beliefs are SIMILAR to libertarianism but are not 100% libertarian.

Ron Paul is undoubtedly the most libertarian of the main party candidates, but I reiterate that he is not a libertarian.

[Thorgrim]

I don't recall John Edwards or anyone running for the Socialist Party in 1988? I certainly don't remember Edwards recycling lines from his socialist party run that never happened...so that's a false comparison

If I'm reading your post correctly, out of the hundreds and hundreds of issues, when he was running as THE Libertarian in 1988, he held the exact same beliefs and used the exact same material, nothing has been switched around, he didn't argue for open borders in 1988, and it's only a minor addition

On 99.9% of things, he's running his 1988 campaign, only he calls himself a Republican

[Publius]

you're incorrect, but your blind and irrational fear or hatred of all things Libertarian blinds you to any argument otherwise.

[Thorgrim]

why am I afraid of them again...do they have my family captive or something?

I couldn't read through all your differences between his 1988 libertarian campaign and 2008 libertarian campaign, I think you forgot to include them

[lew]

Originally Posted by Publius

The most obvious difference is that Ron Paul's stance on immigration is counter to that of the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement. His abortion stance is also quite different from that of the libertarian movement's mainstream.

Ron Paul's stance on many issues is similar to, but not quite, the libertarian stance. Just because he is the most libertarian of the candidates does not make him a libertarian (in the same way it can be argued that Hilary may be the most socialist Democratic candidate, but she isn't a socialist).

The LP recruited him in 1988 to run for president because they wanted someone with a higher profile. He was a Republican before that and has been a Republican since then. He accepted their nomination for the reason I mentioned above, many of his beliefs are SIMILAR to libertarianism but are not 100% libertarian.

Ron Paul is undoubtedly the most libertarian of the main party candidates, but I reiterate that he is not a libertarian.

oh come on, now you're just doing doing the No True Scotsman.

Paul is a libertarian. He's not "libertarian-minded." Mark Sanford is libertarian-minded. Paul is a libertarian.

Being pro-choice and pro-mass immigration is not the litmus test for libertarianism.

Unless you are going to argue that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard are also not true libertarians?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by lew

oh come on, now you're just doing doing the No True Scotsman.

Paul is a libertarian. He's not "libertarian-minded." Mark Sanford is libertarian-minded. Paul is a libertarian.

Being pro-choice and pro-mass immigration is not the litmus test for libertarianism.

Unless you are going to argue that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard are also not true libertarians?

I actually would argue that, as would the Libertarian Party.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Bandwagon broke down once we stopped talking about the internet and moved into the realm of real world action.

Bandwagon hasn't broken at all. He came in 2nd in Nevada. And has repeatedly beaten Thompson and Giuliani in several states. And despite what Thorgrim has said, Paul has NEVER received more attention than Thompson or Giuliani in the MSM.

Louisiana caucuses are today, he's expected to do well there, who knows if he will, and we're not even to Super Tuesday yet.

Paul has done extremely well this campaign. Six months ago, people would have scoffed at the idea that Paul could raise over $20 Million and place second in a state and repeatedly beat Thompson and Giuliani.

So, if he does nothing else this campaign, he's still performed well and above what the pundits and the average person thought was possible for his campaign.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Publius

I actually would argue that, as would the Libertarian Party.

Well being that Rothbard formed the LP, and that the LP is not the authority on all things libertarianism, I would disagree with your point.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by lew

Well being that Rothbard formed the LP, and that the LP is not the authority on all things libertarianism, I would disagree with your point.

Rothbard helped form the party, but he was always a member of fringe groups within the party. He also quit the LP in the 1980s, choosing instead to "mend bridges" with the developing neo-conservative right.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Publius

Rothbard helped form the party, but he was always a member of fringe groups within the party. He also quit the LP in the 1980s, choosing instead to "mend bridges" with the developing neo-conservative right.

He didn't attempt to mend bridges with neoconservatives.


He attempted to mend bridges with paleoconservatives.


And saying "fringe groups" is funny since we are talking about the LP in the first place, which is considered "fringe" by most Republicans and Democrats.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by lew

He didn't attempt to mend bridges with neoconservatives.


He attempted to mend bridges with paleoconservatives.


And saying "fringe groups" is funny since we are talking about the LP in the first place, which is considered "fringe" by most Republicans and Democrats.

when you're on the fringe of the fringe, you've got to wonder about your beliefs.

[Thorgrim]

Well witnessing this little debate has really restored my faith that libertarians are ready and organized for 2010/2012