Was Ron Paul's presidential campaign a success?

[perdedor]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

[perdedor]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

[perdedor]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

Uh, no.

Then enlighten me, Libertas; Where is this 'everybody else' you speak of? Is it the tea parties? If so, then I would certainly say that Paul accomplished nothing (outside of encouraging a new outlet for fascism, which is ironic.)

[perdedor]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

Uh, no.

Then enlighten me, Libertas; Where is this 'everybody else' you speak of? Is it the tea parties? If so, then I would certainly say that Paul accomplished nothing (outside of encouraging a new outlet for fascism, which is ironic.)

The tea parties which Paul inspired were not an outlet for "fascism" and that's a rather ridiculous claim to make.

Is it? The imagery is there, the 'common enemy' is there, the nationalism is there, the xenophobia, the fear mongering, so on and so forth.

Wasn't Sarah Palin the keynote speaker of the tea party convention? That alone doesn't exactly play to the tea party's 'freedom' credentials.

[perdedor]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

Uh, no.

Then enlighten me, Libertas; Where is this 'everybody else' you speak of? Is it the tea parties? If so, then I would certainly say that Paul accomplished nothing (outside of encouraging a new outlet for fascism, which is ironic.)

The tea parties which Paul inspired were not an outlet for "fascism" and that's a rather ridiculous claim to make.

Is it? The imagery is there, the 'common enemy' is there, the nationalism is there, the xenophobia, the fear mongering, so on and so forth.

Wasn't Sarah Palin the keynote speaker of the tea party convention? That alone doesn't exactly play to the tea party's 'freedom' credentials.

A) There was and is no monolithic "tea party convention".

B) The Barack Obama movement was much closer to fascism than the tea parties are, even today.

A) http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/home.aspx ....curious.

B) There are more aspects to fascism than a present cult of personality, there is an ideology behind it that is far more prevalent in the tea party movement.