The New Republican

[TheNewRepublicans.net]

What can we do to attract the youth to the Republican party? How can students be engaged?

Our forum is an open-minded forum that is aimed at students (http://thenewrepublicans.net). We were recognized on Politico.com. We are building this grassroots movement with students from the ground up. We would like your input, and invite any of you who are interested in joining us on our team.

Thanks!

[Terrence Abrams]

I think Paul misses one critical fact we've been targeting. Ron Paul did not reach very many young voters at all, even when he was dead on with some of his finer points.

The fact missing is, even though Obama won the youth vote 2:1, that was measured by the ages of 25 on down to 18. 26 years of age was where pollsters considered the youth 'out in the job market long enough...' that they were no longer just "youth voters".

Oddly enough, of all the registered College Age 18 and up voters, only 17.7% acutally voted. Of those 17.7% of voter-eligible students, a staggering 48% were african american students, who often told reporters that the only reason they voted for BHO, college education and all, was "....because he's black!.."

How sad.

I believe working over the campuses correctly, with some of the plans we've been laying out here, could turn out 50% of the youth college vote, making a much bigger difference. Youth vote did not just worry about the IRAQ War, that was a popularity contest if you talk to enough students, they worry more about the perception that the GOP reduces scholarships and student loans, and that their ability to just 'get through college' is the issue. DNC shills point out how during the Reagan years, the one other thing besides our environment and alternativey energy which got budget-shafted, by Reagan's administration ( and I loved Reagan guys...) it was indeed a huge loss of college scholarships and student loans.

Keep your eyes on what the students actually say when their hair is down, its not the talking points you hear about where Obama won the youth vote.

[Young Jeffersonian Republican]

Terrance, thanks for discussing the issues in a manner which is very inviting and on point, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on a few points being that I speak on behalf of the youth because, well, I am the youth. Ron Paul, in fact, did have a very large and active following that was mainly comprised of young adults. This phenomena was no fluke. The reason for this is because we, the youth, are fed up with all the debt that the Republican Party is putting on our shoulders. They have spent WAY beyond their means, and we're the ones who have to pay for all this mess down the road. Do you think Mccain is going to be the one paying for this? We're are the ones paying into social security which we won't see a dime of down the road because it is effectively bankrupt. This has got to stop, and the youth will not support a party which is stealing away their opportunity for a prosperous tomorrow.

Another reason why Ron Paul attracted the youth of this party was because we, the youth, are very open and accepting of others which we may not agree with. We are very tolerant of alternative lifestyles because that is the society we grew up in, and, simply stated, you cannot take that experience away from us no matter how hard you try. The elders of this party are very unwelcoming to alternative lifestyles and what not because that was the society in which they grew up around. You cannot overlook that fact, and if this party doesn't come to that realization then the future for his party is bleak. We are a principled bunch, and we recognize the egregious common sense errors of our elders. We know we can't spend more than we earn, and we want to get rid of those in this party that are extremely fiscally irresponsible (basically all of the "leadership"). The Republican "leadership" is acting like ignorant high school kids that have massive amounts of debt because they have registered for their first credit card, and they don't understand how to control their spending. The Republican 'leadership" has clearly shown to us youngsters that they do not care that they are wrecking our future so they can selfishly live in relative prosperity today. Simply stated, the Republican "leadership" (Bush, Mccain) is placing the burdens of today on the future of tomorrow, and we are not going to take it any longer.

Ron Paul was the only one with common sense solutions to the problems of today. His solutions were very simple, yet very effective. Ron Paul was the only one talking about drastically cutting spending, and was 100% committed to decreasing the size of government. I could go on and on, but I think I will just create a blog post which states this point more in depth and more coherently...thanks for the blog post idea :)...



Terrence Abrams said:

I think Paul misses one critical fact we've been targeting. Ron Paul did not reach very many young voters at all, even when he was dead on with some of his finer points.

The fact missing is, even though Obama won the youth vote 2:1, that was measured by the ages of 25 on down to 18. 26 years of age was where pollsters considered the youth 'out in the job market long enough...' that they were no longer just "youth voters".

Oddly enough, of all the registered College Age 18 and up voters, only 14.7 acutally voted. Of those, a staggering 48% were african american students, who often told reporters that the only reason they voted for BHO, college education and all, was "....because he's black!.."

How sad.

I believe working over the campuses correctly, with some of the plans we've been laying out here, could turn out 50% of the youth college vote, making a much bigger difference. Youth vote did not just worry about the IRAQ War, that was a popularity contest if you talk to enough students, they worry more about the perception that the GOP reduces scholarships and student loans, and that their ability to just 'get through college' is the issue. DNC shills point out how during the Reagan years, the one other thing besides our environment and alternativey energy which got budget-shafted, by Reagan's administration ( and I loved Reagan guys...) it was indeed a huge loss of college scholarships and student loans.

Keep your eyes on what the students actually say when their hair is down, its not the talking points you hear about where Obama won the youth vote.

[Terrence Abrams]

With all Due Respect, Jeffersonian, in most areas I observed, most of Paul's followers in Texas, his home state, were 40-somethings on up, with a smattering of youth at best. And oddly enough, I noticed that most of the 40-somethings on up, were all in careers where they did not have much public visibility, for whatever that is worth.

I loved some of Ron Paul's ideas, but cringed when he lost it. Mitt Romney had great ideas, but could not seem to 'sell' himself, Huckabee is better now on Fox TV than he ever was on the campaign trail, and is now being urged by followers to run again. Sarah Palin, if she sharpens up on economic tech-specs and foriegn policy, could also be a force.

Ron Paul, went awfully negative on a few things, and lost his appeal to much of the GOP, sounding more like a Libertarian than a conservative.

That is where he got snagged badly.

Like Paul and Hardcore, I agree we ought to push a reconciliation of Ron Paul and the GOP, but he has to learn he might not win, and going temperamental hurts the party more than helps it.

I see a lot of Ron Paul supporters here, but can't find anything where Ron Paul is even interested in this party anymore.

So its hard for me to reconcile some of your statements Jeffy, as much as I do respect your perspective!

[Nathan Davis]

Terrence and everyone else....

I believe that you are very lucky to live in the state where Ron Paul is presiding and if you are in the 14th District... even better. Now I need to add to the discussion on the popularity of the good Doctor's message. I am not surprised that a lot of his supporters in Texas are my parents age. They are the age group that first elected him and have supported him through the present age. Those old timers have sustained his influence to the point in time when he could have a greater impact on my generation. But they are not the only age bracket that are fans of the Doctor.
As a Calvin College student in Grand Rapids Michigan who grew up in Eastern Pennsylvania I am one of these so-called "young republicans"... I think I know my generation pretty well, in order to gauge the perspectives of my fellow young people I will tell you that mostly all of my facebook friends, bohemians at the coffee shop, and classmates congregated around two political figures: Obama and Ron Paul.
Out of those who didn't endorse Dr. Paul or "want" him still agreed with him, but refused to vote for him because they were under the impression that it was a wasted vote and he couldn't win. Now if you ask me the reason he was viewed as unelectable was because he was not endorsed in anyway by his own party, and was ridiculed by the other candidates/media, but that is a different rabbit trail.
If you still don't believe me about his popularity amongst the youth, check facebook on his "fan page" he has over 108,000 fans and 20,000 wall postings... not from middle aged farts, but from us.... the youth. Count how many "groups" there are on facebook... over 500 of these "groups" are devoted to Ron Paul. How many can the other Republicans boast??? I guarantee you not that many...
If this isn't enough seriously check out http://blog.yaliberty.org/ (young americans for liberty) THESE GUYS ARE "FLIPPING" AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They officially started the site last week and already have 50 college chapters and 45 more in the immediate works.
Watch youtube videos by young indie film makers who are following Dr. Paul.
He is what we want and we are the future!!!!!
If you think about it, what if instead of John McCain vs. Obama in 08' we had Ron Paul vs. Obama.... Just think about it. Ron Paul could steal people from Obama in a way that every other Republican could only dream of (no need for PTA president Palin). If given a chance he could have won a lot of the young vote from Obama, instilled a conservative vigor in the older generations who had backed Ronald Reagan, and be unapologetically different from the neo-conservative brand of the republican party that this country has mandated it is sick of. His campaign was based on something different from the same old stories suggested by McCain and Obama, as well as the gumption to vote against all the bailout bills...very much unlike Mr. McCain who caved when put to the test of opposing "pork barrel spending."
Above all else however Paul has real solutions to the education system failings, health care,energy, and social security.... These are major issues to today's youth. No one in the election ever thought twice about detailing their ideas except for the principled Doctor. My generation wants these issues to be addressed. People falsely assume that we are apathetic, if we come off that way sorry, it must be a reflection of our baby boomer parents who are stuck in their suburban neighborhoods, driving gas guzzlers, wanting to "free" Iraq from the comfort of their own lazy boy.. (Though there are definite exceptions to the rule) There are a growing number of my age who are desperate for progress, reform, change, etc and we will go to anyone who can offer it.
Ron Paul was and is the best option.... A new republican should be well versed in his ideals... If this "new" republican has some varying opinions, who am I to judge, but he must be apart of the framework of our conservative tapestry

Please share what you think I am all ears

[Young Jeffersonian Republican]

I appreciate the good discussion, Terrance! But where I'm coming from is from a college campus. There were more Republicans that supported for Ron Paul than any other Republican candidate, but the majority had had enough with Bush, his endless spending, and, of course, the wars with the majority of the youth weren't behind (which 65% of the country didn't support as well) and they subsequently supported Hill/Obama. The youth vote was overwhelmingly on board Paul's limited government platform or anything that was antithetical to Bush (such as Obama/Hill).

Mitt Romney, in my opinion, had nothing but stale ideas with the usual empty rhetoric of changing Washington w/o any concrete plan to significantly decrease its size (besides the fact he came across as 100% phony)...

Huckabee is someone who I actually liked to a small degree. He actually had a new idea: The Flat Tax! I am all in favor of changing our tax code, and I liked the fact he was bold enough to pursue something untried. But, of course, he had no plan to significantly cut Washington and the ever increasing debt burden so he was off our radar...

I go back to the same point...All Republicans (less Ron Paul) were not speaking on behalf of the future! They all were fine with this massive debt, and they had no problems keeping the budgets unbalanced. Who was talking about the fact that if we continue on this path the youth were going to have huge problems handling this debt which our irresponsible candidates had no qualms about increasing even further? That's where Ron Paul comes into play, and he was the only one with a concrete plan to reduce the size Washington and balance our budgets (like a true Conservative), and to significantly decrease the tax burdens of all Americans by eliminating the Federal Income Tax simultaneously.

You were dead on though when you stated "Ron Paul, went awfully negative on a few things, and lost his appeal to much of the GOP, sounding more like a Libertarian than a conservative." and that EXACTLY why the youth liked him more than anyone else...

The reason he went negative was because he was correctly pointing out the fact that the Republicans had lost their way! He was saying if the Republicans continued to lose sight of what is truly Conservative we were going to lose the next election..and we did. That is why we are in this mess because everyone (but Ron Paul) was talking like Big Government Republicans that only had plans to increase the debt burden on my fellow youngsters. Us Youngsters have enough debt problems to worry about in the future, and we don't want any more of it! So if any candidate was talking about more big government schemes (or keeping the government relatively the same size), we wanted no part of there plan to continue to destroy our future with enormous amounts of debt. We are young, and all our young eyes have seen is the largest government this country has EVER had, and it was brought on by a Republican, sadly enough. We have seen the evils of big government which the Founding Fathers had warned us about, and we are not about to further destroy our future with another Bush or Bush-Lite (ie Mccain).

Another point...you mentioned that he was more Libertarian than Conservative, and that is another reason why the youth liked him more than any other candidate. Like I said earlier, the youth are a lot more tolerant than the older R's, and that is merely a product of the day and age we grew up in. You grew up in an age where tolerance of alternative ideas and lifestyles were unwelcome, but that is unequivocally not the case with us youngsters. We are more libertarian, like it or not, and we are not going to change in that respect due in part that that is all we know because that is what we grew up around.

The future of this party lies in Libertarian-leaning Republicans, and this party can either recognize that fact or continue to ignore it, thus further alienating the youth vote which will subsequently decrease the size of this party and ruin its future.

I hope you really understand the fact that the Republican youth are fed up with debt and this unbelievably irresponsible spending has got to stop. We are more accepting of alternative ideas and lifestyles due to the environment we grew up, and I hope you recognize that are the future. We want nothing but to decrease the size of government, and to stop taxing our people at a level (35%) where the Founders would undoubtedly revolt.

I know that wasn't the most coherent response, but I'll lay out something clearer in a blog post which I hope you look at haha.

Thanks for the discussion, Terrance, and I appreciate the kindness :)



Terrence Abrams said:

With all Due Respect, Jeffersonian, in most areas I observed, most of Paul's followers in Texas, his home state, were 40-somethings on up, with a smattering of youth at best. And oddly enough, I noticed that most of the 40-somethings on up, were all in careers where they did not have much public visibility, for whatever that is worth.

I loved some of Ron Paul's ideas, but cringed when he lost it. Mitt Romney had great ideas, but could not seem to 'sell' himself, Huckabee is better now on Fox TV than he ever was on the campaign trail, and is now being urged by followers to run again. Sarah Palin, if she sharpens up on economic tech-specs and foriegn policy, could also be a force.

Ron Paul, went awfully negative on a few things, and lost his appeal to much of the GOP, sounding more like a Libertarian than a conservative.

That is where he got snagged badly.

Like Paul and Hardcore, I agree we ought to push a reconciliation of Ron Paul and the GOP, but he has to learn he might not win, and going temperamental hurts the party more than helps it.

I see a lot of Ron Paul supporters here, but can't find anything where Ron Paul is even interested in this party anymore.

So its hard for me to reconcile some of your statements Jeffy, as much as I do respect your perspective!

[Nathan Davis]

Seriously man take a chill...
Passion is great and though we may have differences mud slinging and "calling out" others isn't going to solve anything of value. Calling a fellow blogger "arrogant" because of their different take on the issues or because their exposure to something is different than yours is done in bad taste. We are all on here with a single root cause, many may have different perspectives but that does not given one a carte blanche to go beyond tempermental. Personally I think that is the beauty of the blogosphere, you can channel your feelings, emotions, ideals, etc so that they may be edifying to others.
This has not been productive and I hate sounding like a teacher (though that is my professional track) but keep the words above the belt. Ignorance and negativity does not look bad only on you but the rest of those who may support political ideals.

i am not saying this out of jest but simply to acknowledge that this has been a productive string of commentaries on the idea of appealing to the younger voters. People from all sides have contributed in a way that has been educational and diplomatic----- For the life of me I cannot see how telling someone to kiss your rear via the interweb is a contribution. Seriously, courtesy


Can we please continue on

[Terrence Abrams]

Guys, I am listening, and do respect your very good points, and I do go check on the urls you post. But outnumbered here I may be with my view, but Ron Paul got "creamed" in the election, not only because of his rift with the rest of the GOP, but also because a lot of Republican youth also went elsewhere for their candidates.

However, I have no doubt we will get everyone back on-board by 2012, hopefully by 2010.

To use a youthful metaphor.... "scoreboard" guys...!

I know full well a lot of Dr. Paul's philosophy will be re-adopted by the new GOP reforms, I don't hear anything at any age group level that inhibits that whatsoever, but Dr. Paul will also have to learn, little things like those supporting the Iraq War, once we were already there, are Not "War Mongers" and not everyone supporting a bailout, controversial and stupid as this thing has become, is a "tax thief".

It was iconoclasting many good republicans like this, going across the lines of reason to mass insult, that split Ron away from the GOP in the first place.

Does he have very good points and most of his philosophy, you bet! But, he did not offer a 'clear' better solution, or he would have been THE Candidate.

[BiasedGirl]

Whitehorse (Robin Ray) said:

Benjamin Dickmann said:

The supporting of an unconstitutional war in Iraq is very unpopular with the youth. The Republican Party has been painted as a group of rich warmongers. The majority of the people do not support the war and are easily turned off from any candidate who does. I remember holding Ron Paul signs in Springfield, Ma last year and people asking me what Party he belonged to. Once I said Republican, they immediately would walk away or drive off, obviously not wanting to hear anymore, which is a shame. They also realize the fiscal burden that the war is. This is where the Republican Party lost touch with the voters. We need to show people that not all Republicans support preemptive war, and that it is a very Conservative stance.

Students also realize the financial burden they are inheriting from wasteful government spending including these useless bailouts. They're already up to their noses in student loans, Social Security has basically been thrown out the window, and the value of our dollar is taking a nose dive. With that being said, Republicans need to show these kids why Conservatism works and that wasteful spending will only lead to bigger problems. However, we have Republicans in office who don't set that kind of example. What happened to fiscal Conservatism? Why are there Republicans voting FOR these ridiculous bailouts and bigger government, which is clearly the opposite of what Taft/Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism stood for.

Promoting the small government, individual liberties, personal/fiscal responsibility kind of message always works. You just need Republican leaders who vote that way.

I have to take issue with calling the liberation of Iraq an unconstitutional war, because that's simply not true. The American people's disenchantment with it came during what I call the "rope-a-dope" years between 04 & 06, before the surge. The American people want Iraq "won & done," & were not happy it was taking so long & that we were in a defensive posture. A free & prosperous Iraq shows the islamic world that there is something else besides being stooges for islamist extremist leaders.

You are extremely correct stating that promoting individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and small government works when tried. We've simply not had enough conservative Republicans in leadership to promote these ideals. In addition to updating our communication, activism, & mobilization apparatus, this site is also very powerful for promoting a return to the conservatism that wins elections & governs effectively.

I would also like to add We are Still Talking about the Republican Party, not the Libertarian Party. And Ron Paul's ideas on National Security and the War in Iraq were obviously Libetarian in nature and in my Opinion just as dangerous as any Liberals.

[Jim Rock]

why are you so offended by mere words typed into cyber space for? Your a good example of the DNC symbol , not much in the brains department but still all ASS

Paul said:

Terrance, you are arrogant and I am Temperamental. What do you mean by this crap?
"And oddly enough, I noticed that most of the 40-somethings on up, were all in careers where they did not have much public visibility, for whatever that is worth". you can kiss my ass. Since when has being in a career have anything to do with being American! This is exactly why you and the rest of the GOP that thinks like you need to get the hell out of this party and form your own. You think that because you wear a damn suit to work it makes you any different from the guy that shovels dirt. you are a true idiot

Young Jeffersonian Republican said:

I appreciate the good discussion, Terrance! But where I'm coming from is from a college campus. There were more Republicans that supported for Ron Paul than any other Republican candidate, but the majority had had enough with Bush, his endless spending, and, of course, the wars with the majority of the youth weren't behind (which 65% of the country didn't support as well) and they subsequently supported Hill/Obama. The youth vote was overwhelmingly on board Paul's limited government platform or anything that was antithetical to Bush (such as Obama/Hill).

Mitt Romney, in my opinion, had nothing but stale ideas with the usual empty rhetoric of changing Washington w/o any concrete plan to significantly decrease its size (besides the fact he came across as 100% phony)...

Huckabee is someone who I actually liked to a small degree. He actually had a new idea: The Flat Tax! I am all in favor of changing our tax code, and I liked the fact he was bold enough to pursue something untried. But, of course, he had no plan to significantly cut Washington and the ever increasing debt burden so he was off our radar...

I go back to the same point...All Republicans (less Ron Paul) were not speaking on behalf of the future! They all were fine with this massive debt, and they had no problems keeping the budgets unbalanced. Who was talking about the fact that if we continue on this path the youth were going to have huge problems handling this debt which our irresponsible candidates had no qualms about increasing even further? That's where Ron Paul comes into play, and he was the only one with a concrete plan to reduce the size Washington and balance our budgets (like a true Conservative), and to significantly decrease the tax burdens of all Americans by eliminating the Federal Income Tax simultaneously.

You were dead on though when you stated "Ron Paul, went awfully negative on a few things, and lost his appeal to much of the GOP, sounding more like a Libertarian than a conservative." and that EXACTLY why the youth liked him more than anyone else...

The reason he went negative was because he was correctly pointing out the fact that the Republicans had lost their way! He was saying if the Republicans continued to lose sight of what is truly Conservative we were going to lose the next election..and we did. That is why we are in this mess because everyone (but Ron Paul) was talking like Big Government Republicans that only had plans to increase the debt burden on my fellow youngsters. Us Youngsters have enough debt problems to worry about in the future, and we don't want any more of it! So if any candidate was talking about more big government schemes (or keeping the government relatively the same size), we wanted no part of there plan to continue to destroy our future with enormous amounts of debt. We are young, and all our young eyes have seen is the largest government this country has EVER had, and it was brought on by a Republican, sadly enough. We have seen the evils of big government which the Founding Fathers had warned us about, and we are not about to further destroy our future with another Bush or Bush-Lite (ie Mccain).

Another point...you mentioned that he was more Libertarian than Conservative, and that is another reason why the youth liked him more than any other candidate. Like I said earlier, the youth are a lot more tolerant than the older R's, and that is merely a product of the day and age we grew up in. You grew up in an age where tolerance of alternative ideas and lifestyles were unwelcome, but that is unequivocally not the case with us youngsters. We are more libertarian, like it or not, and we are not going to change in that respect due in part that that is all we know because that is what we grew up around.

The future of this party lies in Libertarian-leaning Republicans, and this party can either recognize that fact or continue to ignore it, thus further alienating the youth vote which will subsequently decrease the size of this party and ruin its future.

I hope you really understand the fact that the Republican youth are fed up with debt and this unbelievably irresponsible spending has got to stop. We are more accepting of alternative ideas and lifestyles due to the environment we grew up, and I hope you recognize that are the future. We want nothing but to decrease the size of government, and to stop taxing our people at a level (35%) where the Founders would undoubtedly revolt.

I know that wasn't the most coherent response, but I'll lay out something clearer in a blog post which I hope you look at haha.

Thanks for the discussion, Terrance, and I appreciate the kindness :)



Terrence Abrams said:

With all Due Respect, Jeffersonian, in most areas I observed, most of Paul's followers in Texas, his home state, were 40-somethings on up, with a smattering of youth at best. And oddly enough, I noticed that most of the 40-somethings on up, were all in careers where they did not have much public visibility, for whatever that is worth.

I loved some of Ron Paul's ideas, but cringed when he lost it. Mitt Romney had great ideas, but could not seem to 'sell' himself, Huckabee is better now on Fox TV than he ever was on the campaign trail, and is now being urged by followers to run again. Sarah Palin, if she sharpens up on economic tech-specs and foriegn policy, could also be a force.

Ron Paul, went awfully negative on a few things, and lost his appeal to much of the GOP, sounding more like a Libertarian than a conservative.

That is where he got snagged badly.

Like Paul and Hardcore, I agree we ought to push a reconciliation of Ron Paul and the GOP, but he has to learn he might not win, and going temperamental hurts the party more than helps it.

I see a lot of Ron Paul supporters here, but can't find anything where Ron Paul is even interested in this party anymore.

So its hard for me to reconcile some of your statements Jeffy, as much as I do respect your perspective!

[Terrence Abrams]

Jeez Paul,, I'm not sure what set you off or what you find as "crap" I was just reporting what was observed and polled in our district and with the Ron Paul supporters who use to camp in our neighborhood (literally!). I said in my post I did not know what that stat went to in terms of worth, it was just an honest observation.

Somebody pissed in your beer?

Talk atcha' later bud.

[Suzanne]

I am not a college student, but Ron Paul DID have a LOT of young followers, even MIDDLE school kids were turning their parents onto Ron Paul.

I don't believe that Ron Paul ever wanted to be president. Ron Paul wanted to start a movement back to Liberty and the Constitution. Ron Paul was a huge success with that. What I find about many Republicans is what i call the "football mentality". WIN WIN WIN no matter what ...party over principle. Winning is not always the best thing...but truly adhereing to your party PRINCIPLES..is the best thing..and the win will come from that.

The difference between the Ron Paul youth and the Obama youth is this...if you ask a Ron Paul youngster about policies...they can give you a dissertation on sayy...the Federal Reserve, the Constitution, sound money, Austrian Economics, ...but an Obama youth? They probably don't even know what the Federal Reserve's function is. Obama was trendy...he had the Obama girls...etc etc.

One more thing..to those of you who keep saying "But look what Saddam was doing to his people." My question is this..why is it our business? Don't you think there are other countries around the world with dictators who are doing bad things to their folks? Are we there? No. But we would be if they had oil and told us they were going to start trading in Euros rather than the dollar.

[Young Jeffersonian Republican]

Thanks for the response, Terrance, but your making some very errant points. You stated "Ron Paul got "creamed" in the election, not only because of his rift with the rest of the GOP, but also because a lot of Republican youth also went elsewhere for their candidates."

Well, of course he was at rift with the GOP and proceeded to get crushed! That's because the GOP hasn't been Conservative for years, so why would a true Conservative like Paul have any chance?! Paul was actually talking about true Conservative issues such as dramatically decreasing the size of government, not borrowing billions of dollars from China everyday in order to continue the war (who cares about fiscal responsibility? We'll just create more debt for the youth of tomorrow all the while bankrupting our country today), and balancing budgets. But you are correct in the fact that the youth did go elsewhere for their candidates, they went to the Democrats and third parties in order to stay as far away from "Bush Conservatism" (which isn't Conservative at all) as possible!!

You then state "Scoreboard, guys!"

I don't know about you, but the last time I checked the scoreboard we got our butts kicked!! Whose coaching this team anyway, a well known pseudo-Conservative like John Mccain or something?!...o woops, he was our coach...

You are then quoted as saying, "not everyone supporting a bailout...is a "tax thief"."

You're kidding, right? What is your definition of a tax thief? How is someone stealing my money in order to support an act that is 100% against my will and moral code not considered a tax thief? To further propagate my point, I will quote a man whom is undoubtedly not on your side in this particular argument, Thomas Jefferson. He States "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."...and he is right, as usual.

You then proceed to state, "It was iconoclasting many good republicans like this, going across the lines of reason to mass insult, that split Ron away from the GOP in the first place."

Iconoclasting many good Republicans? How are any of these men "good Republicans? I'm sorry for the intensity, but HOW IS THE IDEA OF MASSIVE DEBT FINANCING (WHICH ALL THE CANDIDATES SUPPORTED NOT NAMED PAUL) EQUATED TO "GOOD REPUBLICANS? The answer plainly is, "it isn't". The Republican Party lost its way, and Ron Paul was the only man speaking on behalf of true Conservatism. If the majority of the party was courting these blatantly anti-Conservative positions, hooray for Ron Paul for not being duped into supporting these unjust and UnRepublican ideas.

You finally write, "But, he did not offer a 'clear' better solution, or he would have been THE Candidate."

...Yea, because the Republican Parties majority was so intelligent to support John Mccain with his "clear" and better solutions, which were.........What exactly was his clear, better, and Conservative solutions? Bailouts, more debt, more amnesty? The majority of this party strayed away from what is truly Conservative, and my thanks to Ron Paul for telling the nation something which I already knew...that our leaders are not truly Conservative.

But I do enjoy the discussion, Terrance...I've wanted to have this discussion out in the open for some time now to discuss the issues before us....



Terrence Abrams said:

Guys, I am listening, and do respect your very good points, and I do go check on the urls you post. But outnumbered here I may be with my view, but Ron Paul got "creamed" in the election, not only because of his rift with the rest of the GOP, but also because a lot of Republican youth also went elsewhere for their candidates.

However, I have no doubt we will get everyone back on-board by 2012, hopefully by 2010.

To use a youthful metaphor.... "scoreboard" guys...!

I know full well a lot of Dr. Paul's philosophy will be re-adopted by the new GOP reforms, I don't hear anything at any age group level that inhibits that whatsoever, but Dr. Paul will also have to learn, little things like those supporting the Iraq War, once we were already there, are Not "War Mongers" and not everyone supporting a bailout, controversial and stupid as this thing has become, is a "tax thief".

It was iconoclasting many good republicans like this, going across the lines of reason to mass insult, that split Ron away from the GOP in the first place.

Does he have very good points and most of his philosophy, you bet! But, he did not offer a 'clear' better solution, or he would have been THE Candidate.