Wanted: a new president with an understanding of economics, knowledge of international affairs, and a dedication to constitutional rights.
It has become cliché for political pundits to proclaim every four years that the presidential election campaign is the most important in the nation’s history. Given that our economy is on the brink of collapse, we are currently engaged in five wars, and our civil liberties are under attack as never before, next year’s presidential election will truly rank right up there with the most important elections in our country’s history. Accepting that view, there is only one candidate in the race for the White House in 2012 who has what it takes to restore America to its previous greatness. That candidate is Congressman Ron Paul.…
Article comments
76 - ConcernedAmerican
Awesome article.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds" - Samuel Adams
77 - zingzing
"Secondary to what, zing?"
ad revenue. readership does have a certain relationship to that, but the material worth of each reader is a mercurial thing. i'm sure there's some algorithm that decides such a thing, but it's just someone's best guess. really, i, a frequent visitor exposed to many ads on this site, should be worth more than the one-time visitors to this thread. i don't know that i am, in the end, because i never click on ads. i'm sure i don't have a full grasp on the economics of this site, but i do know that readership is a secondary goal. the real goal is making the money.
78 - Purple Pundit
The article seems incomplete. Great, you like Paul, but how is he going to leapfrog over the establishment?
79 - Kenn Jacobine
If Paul were to win no doubt he would have a mandate from the people. He would appeal directly to them. Also, as commander in chief he would have the power to immediately end the wars. For instance, he could veto spending bills. If Congress persisted he could instruct his departments to not spend the money. In other words, he could employ presidential nullification by not enforcing the laws/programs that Congress passes.
What is the alternative - more of the same?
80 - Purple Pundit
You are looking way too far ahead. Maybe I should have been more specific. How is Paul going to leapfrog the party establishment? Before Obama 08, who was the last candidate that wasn't the party's man from the outset. Maybe Clinton? But when has it happened for the Republicans?
Do I want more of the same, no. But you need to think big or maybe outside the system for some serious change to take place
81 - zingzing
so, kenn, you're suggesting paul view his power as absolute?
82 - Kenn Jacobine
Purple,
Congressman Paul is not running for reelection to the House. In polls done by Harris and Rasmussen he runs very well against Obama. He is in it to win the Republican nomination but if the Republican primary voters are still bent on nominating a neocon, clueless about economics candidate, my guess is that he will run as an independent (not having to worry about being a Republican for his House seat). In that scenario, his ideas are disseminated for the whole next year and as the economy continues to deteriorate they develop even more appeal. As an independent in the general election, he gets a pretty big chunk of the disaffected Republican voters plus huge chunks of independent voters and anti-war liberals. Obama and whoever the Republican is split the rest of the vote. If Romney is the nominee Paul could pull a significant portion of the evangelical vote as well. I think this scenario is quite plausible. With five wars and the economy in depression we live in interesting times. I think a lot of things are possible that were not in 2008. It wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat ran against Obama - say Hillary?
83 - Kenn Jacobine
Zing,
The powers I outlined are well within those granted the president under the Constitution. His power would not be absolute in that he would have to stand for reelection in four years.
84 - El Bicho
No Dem is going to run against Obama. Didn't work with Carter and Kennedy, and won't work now. When has an incumbent Pres been defeated in the primaries?
As to Purp's question, might it go all the way back to '64 when Republicans were divided? Seems like Rockefeller would have been establishment candidate before Goldwater knocked him off. Anyone else want to weigh in?
85 - zingzing
kenn: "The powers I outlined are well within those granted the president under the Constitution."
sure they are. but obama says to stop prosecuting doma (an obviously unconsitutional law,) and there are people calling for his impeachment upon those grounds. so, things are not so simple.
this "mandate from the people" rhetoric would be challenged at every move. if not, obama would have easily pushed health care "down america's throat" without complaint. i don't understand why paul would be afforded powers that obama wasn't.
86 - Jet Gardner
84-EB... Franklin Pierce was the only president so far to not get the nomination for a second term by his own party.
Pres. Pierce was considered one of the worst presidents ever to serve and is credited with hastening the Civil War.
Barbra Pierce was a direct descendent of Pres. Pierce... of course she was later known after she married as...
...wait for it!
Barbara Bush... and who was her son?
87 - El Bicho
very interesting. serious thanks for the history lesson, Jet. hen I am sure t
88 - Glenn Contrarian
Jet -
My vote for worst president ever is Woodrow Wilson. Read "The Great Influenza" and you'll see why. For instance, nearly a million Americans (out of a population of about 100M) died from the H1N1 flu in less than four months, yet he NEVER mentioned the flu epidemic in public - for fear that it might be demoralizing and would hurt the war effort. There's a lot more - he was in many ways farther to the right than Rick Perry ever thought of being - but I'll leave it at that.
89 - STM
Glenn, I go for a few, starting with Madison: Allowing himself to be sucked into a war with the British that he could neverwin, and alienating a fair proportion of the citizens of the fledgling US in the process and almost sending it broke;
Closely followed by the lunacy of LBJ in bumping up the US commitment to Vietnam without thinking of the obvious risks of such a war and they it was waged by the administration.
Wilson was a bit wishy-washy.
Nixon, however, for all the good he did on the stuff up by Johnson, certainly blotted his copybook and must feature among the also-rans.
Speaking of "blotting" ... how about Bill Clinton for ruining one of the most successful US presidencies because he couldn't keep his zipper done up. Sadly, and he must know this too, that is what he's going to be remembered for.
And despite not agreeing with his politics, I put Reagan among the front runners in the modern era, along with FDR, especially for his statemanship in a changing, modern world during the ending of the Cold War.
Someone on BC once told me that their American grandmother kept pictures of FDR and Churchill on the mantlepiece.
My British grandmother also kept a pic of Roosevelt.
If that wasn't one of the most important and pivotal partnerships of modern history, thus putting FDR at the top of the list, I'll eat not only my hat, but also my coat.
Harry Truman proved to be a great statesman too.
And George W.Bush might have called his war on terror something stupid, but let's give him credit for at least not allowing the US to keep its paper tiger status.
He deserves a few brickbats for his handling of the Iraq invasion, but the opposite might be in order in ridding the world of a man and a regime that gets equal billing with those of Hitler and Stalin.
Obama, BTW, is far from the worst IMO. He's not doing much, granted, but I wonder what he can do - and he did inherit the mother of all messes courtesy of the previous administration and those wonderful, wonderful people on Wall Street.