Double-entendre?
I read a headline on Google News within the past week that said Gingrich is all but dropping out of the race.
I agree. RP should go independent and WIN on the platform of “No Difference between Romney, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush”. He has the coverage, the momentum. People will listen. He is nothing like Ross Perot, and these times are nothing like when Ross Perot was running.
At the very worst, even if he ends up last and guarantees an Obama victory, he would have educated millions new young minds about liberty between now and November.
“40% Obama, 35% Paul, 20% Romney.”
40 > 35.
35 + 20 = 55.
55 > 40.
And you can’t figure out why Ron Paul hasn’t ditched the GOP? Have you even listened to his response every time he’s asked about a third party run? First you wonder why he doesn’t bank on “social conservatism”, when the man himself says that’s “a losing position”, and now you’re wondering why he doesn’t go 3rd party when the man himself (essentially) says “it’s a losing strategy.”
Do you even listen to what the man has to say, or are you just some “Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul would win in a landslide. Dr. Paul just needs to do a bunch of stuff that he’s currently not doing. Dr. Paul.”?
That would not happen. I guarantee it.
Ya don’t say.
You people are delusional. Just look at the popular vote so far. I would be surprised if Ron Paul even got as much as Perot got. (Which, again, was 0% of the Electoral College.) (And let’s not forget, Perot was actually in some debates.)
Are you insane? “At the very worst”? Did you miss the part about pissing of every rank-and-file Republican to where his son might not even get re-elected to the Senate 4 years from now…let alone win a Presidency? You’re not thinking long term.
And Paul has already “educated millions new young minds”, and will do that “between now and November” anyway. He doesn’t need to piss of literally millions of Americans who would otherwise put his son in the White House in 4 years.
In fact, the reality is the exact opposite of what you’re saying. There is virtually nothing to gain from Ron Paul running in a 3rd party for President in the 2012 election.
Going socially conservative is a mistake for two reasons:
-
Santorum never polled very high, usually around 38 percent in national polls when matched against Obama. This is mainly due to the fact that the 40 percent, who are the conservatives in America, will vote for anyone except Obama. But even conservatives are not totally on his side. He is big with evangelical nuts, but most of these nuts love war, Israel (for armageddon purposes), and more harsh laws and less civil liberties. Because evangelicals believe that humanity is depraved.
-
You alienate the moderates, who make up about 36 percent of the electorate. This part is crucial to a win. Alienating them will keep you trapped in the 40 percent who just want Obama out of office. And this can only be won with winning them over to positions that liberals might agree on: ending the drug war, stopping the wars abroad, defunding foreign regimes, overturning government intrusions by Bush and Obama, etc.
(36 percent and 40 percent are from Gallup Poll. Santorum’s national numbers are from Real Clear Politics).
I think RP could do two things, however.
-
Show that one can be non-liberal and anti-war.
-
Show that one can be libertarian and principledly against abortion.
“Perot was actually in some debates”
The only thing Perot did was make sure that Clinton won twice.
That reminds of of the insane amount of time Santorum seems to spend thinking about gay sex. In his efforts to save society from the evils of sexuality, he seems to have become obsessed with sex. I’m sure Freud would have had something to say about Ricky…
Tell that to these lovestruck puppies who keep talking about Paul needing to run 3rd party. My whole point about mentioning Perot getting in debates was to point out how those are probably the single most important aspect of a Presidental run. Sure other things are pretty important, but there is no one other thing more important than those debates. They put you on a national stage, and as much as the convention is to talk ill of how little Americans pay attention, those debates get good ratings. And not only that, but they provide content for the news stations to analyze and talk about…meaning more exposure. And it’s all water cooler fodder as well. “Did you see what Senator Yahoo said in the debate last night?”
You can’t go anywhere in a national campaign without being in the debates. And my point in mentioning Perot actually being in them was to illustrate that even getting on that national stage, and having a bottomless pit of personal funding to draw on if necessary, the man got 19% of the popular vote…and 0% of the Electoral College. And there is no fucking way in hell Ron Paul would be in any Presidential debate representing a third party. It’s just not going to happen.
And again, Perot got those results not only with being in the debates, but the guy was buying entire 30 minute and full hour-long slots on major television networks to speak directly to the public, and in the final days of the campaign was spending $5 million [$7.7million in current dollars] per day. AGAIN, it took Ron Paul 4 or 5 days just to raise $1 million in the latest moneybomb a couple weeks ago.
People talking about “Ron Paul needs to run 3rd party” are just delusional.
Now’s not the time folks. I understand Paul is exciting and the movement is getting promising. But we’re just not there yet. Please be awake to reality.
I’m definitely looking at the future (after all, the worst has yet to come), but I’m not sure that being loyal to the Republican Party is the way to get the best future. I don’t see the Republicans pandering to libertarians no matter how much libertarians try to run as Republicans. As for Dr. Rand Paul, his voting record is way too different from his father’s. I really think he’s more of a Chicago Schooler, and I’d be surprised if he’s even spent more than 5 minutes reading Rothbard’s works. He also doesn’t seem as principled as his father. He threw his full support for the Keystone XL (instead, he should’ve advocated that TransCanada give the property that they bought through eminent domain back to the owners with interest), I heard he took medicare when he was in private medical practice, and he supported the FairTax (which is no better than the income tax). I also read that he said the Koch Brothers should’ve been arrested for polluting public waters. A libertarian would say that we shouldn’t have water socialism and wouldn’t believe in the Federal government arresting people anyway. Finally, he’s voted for managed trade agreements.
All of that said, I’m sure he could be a Republican Party Presidential nominee some day since he adheres the Republican Party platform so much.
Anyway, If Dr. Ron Paul isn’t elected President in 2012, then I think his supporters either need to move out of here and buy some private property elsewhere or work towards abolishing the U.S. Federal Constitution because there is no one alive other than him who would be an acceptable (to libertarians) executive (i.e., no one has his record). I’m getting more and more scared of the state as each day goes by, and something needs to be done quickly. That is, I need to know where to flee to, so I won’t be around when hyperinflation rears its ugly head.
I didn’t think Rand Paul winning a future presidential election was the goal here.
Who said anything about “loyalty” to the Republican Party?
He’s been in Congress for a year. His father has been there for 30 times that. Please explain how you have compared the two.
Evidence?
I fail to see the point in any of this. Are you suggesting you would prefer someone else for President? (Someone who would actually run, of course).
a) It is better than the income tax. I have no idea where you’re coming up with this stuff
b) What is Ron Paul’s tax plan?
a) Source?
b) Did he say they should be arrested by the Federal government?
c) What is “water socialism”?
d) Are you suggesting people should face no consequences for polluting?
Source?
I would love to know who these “libertarians” are that require someone spend three decades in Congress before he is deemed “acceptable”.
John, perhaps you’d like to clearly explain your position rather than simply trying to bully your opponents into silence.
A salient LRC article on this very topic.
Clayton -
@JJ: Thanks for the reply: )
Dr. Paul’s tax plan is whatever brings in the least amount of revenue to the government. The FairTax is revenue neutral. It criminalizes sellers who don’t collect it. It’s just another centralized bureaucratic tax that can be just as easily manipulated as the current tax code could be.
“Water socialism” is government ownership of the the waterways.
Here is a backup to some of my claims.
If someone pollutes private property, then the market should work that out. I’m suggesting no one should be punished by the state especially over polluting the property of the state
Clayton brought up a good article, but I don’t think the Hamiltonian system or the electoral system we’re currently stuck in can be fixed or reformed. It needs to be abolished.
“I didn’t think Rand Paul winning a future presidential election was the goal here.”
I think people hate Rand Paul. He may have won some conservatives by being elected the year he did, but all of the liberal sites have already destroyed any chance for him to become popular outside of his state. Because of his comments on civil rights. All liberals now think that he supports jim crow and that he hates poor people.
At the same time, he already has sacrificed a lot of libertarian principles for expediency (or perhaps because of his own beliefs) and it is hard to win that back now.
And Mitt Romney’s plan is to roll up his sleeves and get America working again.
What is Ron Paul’s tax plan?
Which waterways? Where did the Koch brothers pollute? Where is this quote from Rand Paul? What are the facts of this case?
That is a list of Rand Paul’s votes. That is not a “backup of your claims”.
What the hell does that mean?
You mean an article that echoed virtually everything I said.
I find it interesting you neglect about half of my questions. And the only “backup of your claims” you provide is a list of Rand Paul’s votes. Again:
Evidence?
He threw his full support for the Keystone XL (instead, he should’ve advocated that TransCanada give the property that they bought through eminent domain back to the owners with interest), I heard he took medicare when he was in private medical practice
I fail to see the point in any of this. Are you suggesting you would prefer someone else for President? (Someone who would actually run, of course).
What is Ron Paul’s tax plan?
also read that he said the Koch Brothers should’ve been arrested for polluting public waters. A libertarian would say that we shouldn’t have water socialism and wouldn’t believe in the Federal government arresting people anyway.
a) Source?
b) Did he say they should be arrested by the Federal government?
he’s voted for managed trade agreements.
Such as?
there is no one alive other than him who would be an acceptable (to libertarians) executive (i.e., no one has his record).
I would love to know who these “libertarians” are that require someone spend three decades in Congress before he is deemed “acceptable”.
Come one, JJ, you know what he means. He is trying to give (albeit poorly) the standard Libertarian homesteading argument that any avid Mises daily reader could give. Or, are you just trying to get him to expound on this more?
No2Statism, JJ is right. You need to be more clear about the facts when you make assertions like the one’s you are making about Rand Paul. Maybe everything you say is true, but do you honestly expect the kind of people who frequent this forum to just take your accusations as fact at your word? You are in the wrong place if you think confirmation bias will have much effect here, my friend.
What happens to Santorum’s delegates??
Badass Ben Swann on the local Fox affiliate’s got your back:
Maybe. Or maybe he just knows the “right answer” is always “market. Not state.” and is just throwing it out there because he knows it’s not wrong (especially in this forum). Kind of like how he attacks Rand Paul for favoring the FairTax plan (which I’m not even sure is true, he didn’t offer any proof of this), and when faced with the challenge of offering something better (i.e. Ron Paul’s supposed tax plan) he gives me the equivalent of “roll up your sleeves and get it done.”
…which to me says, he has no idea what Ron Paul’s tax plan is, and he himself doesn’t have one at all…which puts him in great company with all the leftists who devote themselves to nothing more than proving that something human has imperfections. He has no real solution, he’s just decided that voluntarism is the answer and seems to simply espouse it without any sort of reasoning or practical application whatsoever (and I’m speaking here based on his history of posts).
Basically yeah. Because I don’t think he can.