Ron Paul is the Ross Perot of 2008

[Zomby Woof]

They even have the same initials, lol.

They are both loudmouthed Texans known for their folksy cheeseball witticisms and outbursts. They are both conservatives who happen to win appeal and approval from non-conservatives just because they were each correct about one thing in their entire campaigns. Perot was right about the importance of reducing the deficit and the debt, and Paul is right about the war.

But that is about it, and Perot didn't get my allegiance any more than Ron Paul will get mine. As my converse to Reagan's '11th commandment' of not speaking ill of any Republican, I refuse to speak well of any of them.

Good for Ron Paul for speaking up against the war and occupation in Iraq. But if you look at his record, the hell with him. :thumbsdown: Scratch a Republican, and you get... just more Republican ooze underneath.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Let's remember that Perot

helped Clinton in '92. Maybe Paul will do the same for the Dems in '08.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

2. Ross Perot was against NAFTA

Gore was for it and insulted Ross Perot (and American workers) for being against it.

Ron Paul is a free-trader of the Austrian School. Not at all like Ross Perot.

[Zomby Woof]

4. I was speaking of '92

Pre-NAFTA.

I wasn't saying they had similar views. The analogy is based on their faux-populist style (Texas schtick) and the fact they embraced ONE issue with which they had crossover appeal.

The lack of critical reading comprehension skills around here never fails to floor me.

[BuyingThyme]

14. The sucking sound stuff was about NAFTA and occurred during the '92 cycle.

[SteppingRazor]

3. Well, except for the fact that he's not an Independent

The thing about Perot was that he ran 3rd party. Without that, Paul's just another discarded lump in the trashbin of history, once the primaries are over.

[Zomby Woof]

6. That is an important difference tactically

I was only referring to their niche/crossover/romanticized appeal, and being known as one-issue campaigners.

As long as Paul doesn't go independent (Perot was a Republican before he declared his candidacy), and he probably won't, I agree with your assessment.

[blondeatlast]

8. I think he may be prepping for a third-party run.

And I'm really afraid he will split-off votes from woefully ininformed Democrats (witness the support he's already found on DU).

[SteppingRazor]

13. I don't consider a third-party run by Paul as very likely, but...

even if it did happen, I think it would steal away a lot more Republican votes than Democratic, especially by the trime the general election rolled around.

[napi21]

5. By peersonality, maybe, but there's a BIG difference!

Ross had personal (almost) unlimited funds, and as quirky as he was, he was a very successful business man! I'm not slamming Ron Paul, but in all fairness, he doesn't have anywhere near the $$ Ross had, and his success has come from being a Dr. I think Ross's background attracted a lot of voters from all sides.

[Zomby Woof]

7. All I meant was personality and niche appeal

Not their professions and backgrounds.

I do recall that when Chimp was governor of Texas, he ripped off Perot's education reform plan and claimed it as his biggest success.

[IChing]

9. Ron Paul is a kernel of corn

that is undigested in a pile of human shit
which represents the rest of the Republicans

It's corn and probably edible to some but
but no matter how you wash it
most would not eat it if they knew
where it came from.

I vote pro-Ron Paul on every on-line poll (non-democratic party)
hoping that the Republicans will it that corn.

[Zomby Woof]

10. Haha!

Best analogy yet. Emphasis on analogy. :hurts:

[IChing]

11. Thanks I was gonna post that one on its own thread.

but couldn't wait after drinking coffee.


:rofl: :rofl:

[Swamp Rat]

12. LOL!

Ron Paul is going to divide the repuke party in two. I've already talked a few repukes into supporting him. ;)

[nini]

15. Perot was better material for SNL skits though

:evilgrin: