What is with these people who like both Ron Paul and Barack Obama?

[patteeu]

I can't get over all the people for whom these two guys are their first and second choices. They couldn't be much more different, IMO.

---

Barack Obama wants to dramatically increase the size of government and raise taxes to pay for it.
Ron Paul wants to dramatically decrease the size of government and eliminate the income tax.

---

Barack Obama says he might attack al Qaeda in Pakistan even if it would create an international incident.
Ron Paul wants to withdraw our troops from the world.

---

Barack Obama supported the comprehensive immigration reform devised in the last Senate that would continue to extend social services and welfare to illegals, did nothing about birthright citizenship, and granted amnesty to non-felons who have entered the country illegally.
Ron Paul wants to deny social services and welfare to illegals and end birthright citizenship. He refuses to grant existing illegals amnesty through such devices as Z-Visas.

---

Barack Obama believes that the constitution protects abortion rights.
Ron Paul wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned because it's an affront to the constitution.

---

Barack Obama attends a church that preaches black nationalism.
Ron Paul knowingly accepts campaign contributions from white nationalists.

---

Barack Obama wants to reform social security by increasing the degree to which funds are redistributed from the wealthy to the poor.
Ron Paul wants to transition our population toward investing money for their own benefit while living up to the commitment the country has already made to our older citizens.

---

Barack Hussein Obama has the name of a decendant of Mohammed who led a protestant Shia army in violent protest against the Caliph.
Ron Paul has the name of a Catholic saint who lived long before Martin Luther broke from the church.

---

These are just a few of the differences between the two men (some, obviously, less serious than others). How can we have so many people who support one of these two candidates and indicate that their second choice is the other one?

[Cochise]

My guess is that you might find some hypercolor shirts, slap bracelets, and reebok pumps in a box in their attic.

[Laz]

i think it's more about integrity and change than it is policy.

people believe that obama and Paul are honest and sincere in their beliefs. They also think that Paul/Obama really would try and change things in washington.

it's about the person not the policy

[Mr. Kotter]

Anti-establishment/Anti-Washington types......on both sides of the spectrum will overlook a lot of inadequacies (for example, electability, in the case of Paul....at least, and arguably in the case of Obama.)

[dirk digler]

i think it's more about integrity and change than it is policy.

people believe that obama and Paul are honest and sincere in their beliefs. They also think that Paul/Obama really would try and change things in washington.

it's about the person not the policy

Yep but you can't discount Iraq and how they both feel exactly the same about it.

[HolmeZz]

I think they're people who are voting mainly on foreign policy.

[Hydrae]

i think it's more about integrity and change than it is policy.

people believe that obama and Paul are honest and sincere in their beliefs. They also think that Paul/Obama really would try and change things in washington.

it's about the person not the policy

That is the bottom line and it should not be a surprise given the approval ratings in Washington lately. This country is fed up with the status quo. This is why Hillary is not doing as well as expected, she is part of the status quo.

The reason there is still a race on the Rep side is that none of these guys are really looked as as beltway insiders so the people are having to decide which one they like. On the Dem side, you have a former candidate and former 1st lady and the new guy on the block.

[Taco John]

Anti-establishment/Anti-Washington types......on both sides of the spectrum will overlook a lot of inadequacies (for example, electability, in the case of Paul....at least, and arguably in the case of Obama.)


Kotter's shallow digs at Dr. Paul are my favorite, because he reaches to insert them wherever he can, even if it disrupts the flow of what he's saying. Plus, there's a certain deliciousness about a Fred Thompson supporter railing against anyone else's electability...

[StcChief]

it's change for change sake. doesn't matter who it is.

[Hydrae]

it's change for change sake. doesn't matter who it is.


Exactly. That is why I have said all along that a strong charismatic Independent could win this year but we have not seen that person yet and doubt we will at this point.

[Baby Lee]

i think it's more about integrity and change than it is policy.

people believe that obama and Paul are honest and sincere in their beliefs. They also think that Paul/Obama really would try and change things in washington.

it's about the person not the policy
There's also the aspect of Obama at least projecting a conservative temperment.
Now that has nothing, necessarily, to do with policy or ideology, but has to do with mental processes and approach.

Obama projects as not so much as appearing to do something, as to do the right thing.

It's the difference between social spending simply because there's a problem and something has to be done and spending is the easiest thing to do, and social spending because you have crafted a worthy, effective, and ameliorative program.

[patteeu]

Yep but you can't discount Iraq and how they both feel exactly the same about it.

They don't both feel exactly the same about it. Both call it a mistake, but Ron Paul is out of there tomorrow while Obama can't rule out still being there at the end of his first term.

[tk13]

I think this is an interesting topic, and I thought this after Iowa... Laz is right.... people were voting on personality as much as political positioning. Everybody wants to try and put some kind of spin and deep political analysis on what's happening, America wants this, that, this...and it might be very simple.

Guys like Obama, Paul, and Huckabee simply come across as way more likable than the others. They might be very far apart politically, but they're clearly the three who come across as the most genuine. And people are probably going to vote in someone who comes across as "real" over someone a bit uptight like Romney or Clinton. It happens every time... Bush over Kerry and Gore... Clinton over Dole... it's just how it goes, nothing to do a paint by number candidate who reels off the right positions on the issues.

[patteeu]

I think they're people who are voting mainly on foreign policy.

Either that or on the "anti-establishment feel" they have as others have pointed out.

[dirk digler]

They don't both feel exactly the same about it. Both call it a mistake, but Ron Paul is out of there tomorrow while Obama can't rule out still being there at the end of his first term.

Ok wrong choice of words but they are very similar in views on Iraq.

[BucEyedPea]

Barack Obama believes that the constitution protects abortion rights.
Ron Paul wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned because it's an affront to the constitution.
Because it's not an enumerated power of the Constitutiion but left to the state's.

Barack Obama attends a church that preaches black nationalism.
Ron Paul knowingly accepted a campaign contribution from white nationalists.
I believe it was one and he did not know it when it was first accepted.
And Paul does not believe in or preach white nationalism these guys hate the Fed for the wrong reasons of course. Yet, support a central bank if it's white. Paul is anti-fed period because it's policies hurt the economy, poor and middle-class.

Barack Hussein Obama has the name of a decendant of Mohammed who led a protestant Shia army in violent protest against the Caliph.
Ron Paul has the name of a Catholic saint who lived long before Martin Luther broke from the church.
Eh? Wtf?

These are just a few of the differences between the two men (some, obviously, less serious than others). How can we have so many people who support one of these two candidates and indicate that their second choice is the other one?

A little critical thinking would lead one to say it's because they are the only anti-war candidates. Not that Obama is as anti-war as Paul. He isn't. It's
more a disagreement over how to manage one.

However, Obama is perceived as anti-war. Edwards had voted for Iraq and Obama wasn't in national office. These things, which is marketing and salesmanship is mostly about perception, not reality.

Another reason, is because most folks are not political junkies up on every difference or they'd see the war point as well as the other points. To them what is opposite of what we have now is better than staying with what we have now. This simply means a Democrat and not a Republican. It's easier.

[recxjake]

it's change for change sake. doesn't matter who it is.

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Change means many things... Everyone wants change... but do you want higher or lower taxes? Do you want bigger or smaller goverment? etc etc...

I hope Obama is the nominee because the line in the sand is so clear that America will have an easy decision... more govt, or less.

[HolmeZz]

Who's bandwagon you looking to make a jump to, Jakey?

[Ugly Duck]

I think they're people who are voting mainly on foreign policy.

Or maybe they just see Ron Paul as the "lesser evil" Borrow 'n Spend Republican because he wouldn't give us another disastrous mistake like Iraq.

[BucEyedPea]

Yep but you can't discount Iraq and how they both feel exactly the same about it.
That is just NOT true. You're being misled. There is a difference on this issue between the two. In fact Obama has a NeoCon foreign policy advisor. Paul has NONE. Over at Lew Rockwell's there was an article on how it's the Obama guys that have been the easier ones to persuade to come over to Paul when these are pointed out. Even one of Obama's mgrs jumped camp to Paul. I think you want cheaper health care and don't trust Paul not to give it to you the way you want. And I also think you support "all options on the " Iran aka bombing/nuking if need be.

Obama is NOT anti-war.

[HolmeZz]

That is just NOT true. You're being misled.

You should probably listen to your own candidate. He said he and Obama shared a similar foreign policy during the ABC debate.

[BucEyedPea]

You should probably listen to your own candidate. He said he and Obama shared a similar foreign policy during the ABC debate.
I saw that.But there's more to it than a soundbite. I thought it was on Iraq only iirc. Obama did not vote against Iraq, as Paul did, because he was not in national office. And you should listen to your candidate's other statements that round out the picture more fully. I've posted then numerous times. Obama said all options were on the table regarding Iran aka bombing or even nuking him. Obama believes we must spread our values around the world. Their policies have some overlaps...but they are not the same or even similar.

[penchief]

I think people want such sweeping change that they'll buy into anything. I do appreciate both Obama and Paul for motivating people for change and giving people hope that change is possible. Edwards deserves kudos in that department, too.

That said, I think we have to be careful. So far, Paul represents a very narrow definition of change while, IMO, Obama has been pretty much vague. No way could I support Paul because of his extreme economic views which I don't think can bring about change in our corporate dominated system. But if Obama wins the democratic nomination I may have no choice but to vote for him. Because the only thing worse than another empty suit would be another empty suit from the right side of the aisle continuing on with this administration's disasterous policies.

[patteeu]

Because it's not an enumerated power of the Constitutiion but left to the state's.

Tell that to Obama and the people who like both candidates, not me.

[patteeu]

I believe it was one and he did not know it when it was first accepted.
And Paul does not believe in or preach white nationalism these guys hate the Fed for the wrong reasons of course. Yet, support a central bank if it's white. Paul is anti-fed period because it's policies hurt the economy, poor and middle-class.

I'm sure Obama's supporters would say he's not a black nationalist either. Nontheless, the associations are there.

[patteeu]

Eh? Wtf?

What? LOL

[BucEyedPea]

eh?

[patteeu]

Or maybe they just see Ron Paul as the "lesser evil" Borrow 'n Spend Republican because he wouldn't give us another disastrous mistake like Iraq.

That wouldn't explain the phenomenon under examination. Namely that some Obama voters think that Ron Paul is the best 2nd choice (not just the least bad Republican) and some Ron Paul voters think Obama is the best 2nd choice (not just the least bad democrat).

[BucEyedPea]

Tell that to Obama and the people who like both candidates, not me.
I was doing that...just channeling it through your post. Others will see. Particularly since you channel Podhoretz!

I do the indirect approach at times believe it or not. :p

[Adam]

I don't think I could ever vote for Obama unless the Libertarian and Constitution parties did not have a candidate on the ballot. Even then, the Republican candidate would have to be pretty bad. Bad enough to say things like we should wage war in Iraq for the next hundred years.

[Silock]

Holy shit. I agree with Pat on something. Supporting Paul and Obama is really, really retarded.

[Cochise]

Holy shit. I agree with Pat on something. Supporting Paul and Obama is really, really retarded.

I think it really only amounts to dislike for the Republican establishment more than anything else. If you're an antiwar.com type, you don't really care who sticks it to Bush (in your view) as long as someone does.

[go bowe]

That wouldn't explain the phenomenon under examination. Namely that some Obama voters think that Ron Paul is the best 2nd choice (not just the least bad Republican) and some Ron Paul voters think Obama is the best 2nd choice (not just the least bad democrat).i'm probably in that group...

hussein is my first choice (at this point)...

because he is who he is, sorta...

my second choice would be dr. no...

he's a little kooky around the edges...

but i love some of his ideas wrt foreign policy issues...

also, wrt ron paul, no congress is going to let him implement very many of his kookier ideas, so he'd be relatively harmless...


.

[Silock]

I think it really only amounts to dislike for the Republican establishment more than anything else. If you're an antiwar.com type, you don't really care who sticks it to Bush (in your view) as long as someone does.

Then it could be Paul and any of the Democratic candidates.