As may be clear from my recent article about Al Gore, I'm getting pretty desperate for some alternative to the Hillary Clinton juggernaut in 2008. That I'm willing to draft Gore and accept his mediocrity and ecopimping shows just how desperate I am. But recent developments have offered me another faint hope which might be closer to my heart and better for the country as a whole than a Gore presidency. Ron Paul is turning into a real candidate.
Previously, I've been skeptical about Paul's candidacy for a number of reasons, from his fanatical lunatic fringe followers, to his lack of charisma and rhetorical skills, to his naive and unrealistic foreign policy, to his very un-libertarian views on religion and government. I did campaign for Paul and voted for him as a Libertarian in 1988, but since that time his performance as a Republican didn't inspire me with confidence. I've been particularly bothered by his inability to write realistic and passable legislation and his ongoing wrongheaded position on issues like abortion and school prayer. It's not enough to just vote 'no' on every piece of legislation, and I don't want to see prayer in school or postings of the ten commandments. Plus, looming over it all, was the fact that I just didn't have confidence in Paul's ability to raise money, gather support and run a viable national campaign.
To be fair, there's no candidate with whom i agree 100% on every issue, and no matter who I end up supporting, I'm going to have to put up with some positions I really don't like to get good positions on other issues which I think are important. Who among us, regardless of party, isn't in the same situation? Can you honestly say there's a candidate who you think is utterly flawless and will do everything you want in office and nothing you don't like?
It does get discouraging. The candidates with all the money and all the press coverage and the backing of party insiders often seem to be the absolute worst choices. The top democrats are making ridiculous promises and the top Republicans seem to have nothing new to say at all. They've all sold their souls to special interests, most of which I have fundamental disagreements with. I don't want a president who's more loyal to unions or oil companies or military contractors or Jesus or the UN than he is to the voters the taxpayers and the constitution.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ron
I couldn't agree with you more; very well put. I just wrote an article on my blog about the knowledge I've gained about Ron Paul in the past few months. Initially my reaction was, "who is this guy?", but now has been replaced by a feeling that he might really be on to something.
You mentioned in your article "[c]an you honestly say there's a candidate who you think is utterly flawless ...". My response would be, can we truly expect anyone to be flawless? Or have the exact points of view we have about how to run the country? I do understand this is for POTUS, but I think it it would be foolhardy to think anyone will be perfect.
We need to find a candidate who is principled and of consistent character, and wanting to work in the best interests of the American people. I think Ron Paul could be a very intriguing candidate from the Republican side.
2 - handyguy
Paul should drop out of the Republican race and run as an independent, or as a Libertarian. I believe that will help increase the chances of a Democratic win, although that's not necessarily the reason I'm suggesting it. He's more of an independent than any sort of traditional two-party-system candidate, and more likely to make a splash as such, once the free exposure of debates is over with. Possibly after New Hampshire this is what he'll do.
3 - Baritone
Dave,
I understand your desparation. While I am obviously in Clinton's camp, that's not to say I am wildly enthusiastic about her. As I noted, she has disappointed me as regards her lack of support for the gay community, and her initial support for the Iraq war amongst other things. But, also, as I've noted, I don't believe that she will be a bad president. I know that seems to come down to the old "lesser of evils" approach to choosing which candidate to support. Guilty as charged.
I could not, though, in good conscience support Paul. He may be a man of integrity, and that's a good thing. I don't know how well it will play in DC, though. I know he's been in Congress for a number of years, but the presidency is another animal. He might find operating within the Washington mine field at that level teacherous going at best. As you've noted, his record at writing successful legislation is spotty at best. Can he maintain his supposed unflappable integrity in the face of the pressures that will certainly come to bear on the next president? It may well be necessary for any president to succeed, he or she must have a bit of larceny in his or her soul.
The deal breaker for me, though, is his position on abortion and his too strong connection with his religion. As an atheist, I don't look upon that as a plus. I haven't seen specifically where he stands on gay marriage/civil unions, but I can guess. Personally, the thought of another protestant fundamentalist in the White House is more than I can stand.
On another note, I loved McCain's pronouncement the other day about prefering a christian as president. As Jon Stewart said, looking back at our current and former presidents, that would include only ALL of them. Of course the question - an absurd one given the tenor of the times (like, that's going to happen) - could McCain accept a Muslim as president. Of course then McCain, in order to be PC, backed up and said that, yes, he could accept a Muslim president as long as he (or she, presumably) was fair and impartial, yada, yada, yada...
You seem to be desparately grasping at straws - also looking for the lesser of your perceived evils. Good luck with that (You know of course, I don't mean that.)
Baritone
4 - Dr Dreadful
Perhaps you can tell all this to the MSM, who consistently assume Ron doesn't have a cat in hell's chance at winning the keys to the White House and knows it himself.
I'm put in mind of Carter in '76, who came from nowhere to win...
...And all right, perhaps that didn't work out too well. But let's face it: a Paul presidency (or a Hillary one, for that matter) can't possibly be as scary as your latest profile pic - !
;-)
5 - Jack T
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
6 - Dr Dreadful
And here's some food for thought for everyone:
Given the perceived dearth of good candidates - either declared, possible or feasible - if you could pick any eligible American - any at all - as your nominee for Chief Executive, who would it be? Who would make a des. pres.?
(Caveat: nominating any member of the Bush family will disqualify you immediately.)
7 - gonzo marx
George Carlin/Jon Stewart!
you could slip Lewis Black into either slot if needs be
there's the real Freak Power ticket...
how bad could they be?
Excelsior?
8 - Baritone
Gonzo,
I'd LOVE to hear Louis Black's "fireside chats." That'd be a hoot. Of course, you should be considered as long as you retain the use Gonzo as your actual name. Having a president named Gonzo would be great.
B-tone
9 - Paul
Thank you for that well-thought-out article. And even moreso, thank you for the reconsideration on Ron Paul!
10 - Dave Nalle
Paul should drop out of the Republican race and run as an independent, or as a Libertarian. I believe that will help increase the chances of a Democratic win, although that's not necessarily the reason I'm suggesting it. He's more of an independent than any sort of traditional two-party-system candidate, and more likely to make a splash as such, once the free exposure of debates is over with. Possibly after New Hampshire this is what he'll do.
That would almost certainly doom him to having no chance of winning, so I'd advise against it. He needs the GOP party funds to run an effective final campaign. Perhaps he could go independent or Libertarian after getting elected.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
Given the perceived dearth of good candidates - either declared, possible or feasible - if you could pick any eligible American - any at all - as your nominee for Chief Executive, who would it be? Who would make a des. pres.?
That's an easy one. Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. He's like Ron Paul but with charisma, political savvy and a willingness to be practical on issues where Paul is inflexible.
Dave
12 - Baronius
Antonin Scalia
13 - bliffle
The repubs seem to be backing away from The War, while the dems seem to be embracing it! How odd. Maybe that's why Bush/Cheney are doing nothing to help repubs get elected.
Hersh quoted in Huffington
When George Bush and Dick Cheney talk about their plans to bomb Iran, they are told "You can't do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated"--that's what a Republican former intelligence official told legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. "But," the former official went on, "Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President."
14 - Dave Nalle
As Bush has pointed out, unless a candidate is totally irrational, their position on the war is going to change the moment they get their first White House security briefing.
I suggest that you read Jim Dunnigan's article Iraq, the Facts on the Ground. Dunnigan's conclusions based on his years of experience, inside sources and acknowledged expertise in the field may not resonate with you, but past experience suggests that Dunnigan is almost always right.
Dave
15 - bliffle
The electoral debacle we face in 2008 is a direct result of the contrived Bush election in 2000 and the severely partisan atmosphere they've encouraged and exploited ever since.
Is there anyone in the two crowds who is good enough to save the situation? Doesn't look like it to me. Seems like we'll have to go back in the direction of decreasing presidential powers.
16 - bliffle
"As Bush has pointed out, unless a candidate is totally irrational, their position on the war is going to change the moment they get their first White House security briefing."
I think the dem candidates have already had that briefing. But I think the nature of the briefing is quite different. That the purpose was to pressure them into adopting Bush/Cheney policies. Not on the merits, but on pressure and threat.
If Bush REALLY had something that would convince people he could have trotted it out publicly long ago. But in a sealed room with your favorite arm-twisters in attendance you can browbeat a person into almost anything.
Remember, LBJ was so good at that kind of close-quarters manipulation that he bragged that he could end the Vietnam War overnight if he could just get Ho Chi Minh in a senate caucus room alone.
17 - GoRonPaul
Most people don't realise how badly in shape the US has become.
1) Foreign policy is a mess.
2) The economy is a mess. Government lies on inflation. Astronomical national debt. A consumption driven economy losing it's ability to borrow for further consumption. A nosediving currency. A collapsing housing bubble that was caused by irresponsible monetary policy and government backed mortgage securities that made them look much safer than they really are.
3) Big government has lost touch with the people and is doing more harm than good. High taxes destroying the US's ability to compete productive nations. The North American Union - who voted for that?
The Ron Paul supporters I've met tend to be more aware of these dire issues that the US faces and when you look at the root cause of this issues it is the US government. The rest of the herd's only source of information is the main stream media that seems blissfully unaware of all of these issues. It's more concerned with the welfare of Britney Spears than this nation!!! It's astounding!
18 - Dave Nalle
I think the dem candidates have already had that briefing. But I think the nature of the briefing is quite different.
Yes, but you've demonstrated more than a few times a total disconnect from reality and a sadly typical leftist ignorance of basic facts.
That there is more than meets the eye to the situation in the middle east is so obvious that only those who are woefully uninformed or deliberately ignoring reality for political reasons remain in denial at this point.
Dave
19 - Baritone
It's pretty much always the libs who are uninformed and the cons who are on top of everything. It is presumed that if you don't hate and mistrust pretty much everybody that you are an uninformed bleeding heart liberal. What a crock!
B-tone
20 - stuttle
With this country over 9 TRILLION dollars in debt, Ron Paul needs to win for us to avoid bankruptcy!
21 - justoneman
Let me make a prediction...write it down morons!
Hillary will be defeated by a greater margin than the last 4 presidential elections. Just as the Dumbs went wild for G(wh)ore, Kerry, Dean all losers the average American can't stand!
As election day nears people will think more about her annoying cackle, fugly face and her "stand by your man" debacle...on election day the REAL voters, NOT the morons who gave her all that money, will either not show up or vote for "anyone else" but her...
"And it shall come to pass"
JOM
22 - handyguy
Me: "Paul should drop out of the Republican race and run as an independent, or as a Libertarian."
Dave: "That would almost certainly doom him to having no chance of winning, so I'd advise against it."
He has no chance of winning anyway, and I think you probably agree with me about that, your article notwithstanding. But he might be able to add some spice to the debate, a la Wallace, Perot and to a lesser extent, Nader. This spice may not be very palatable to me or to others, but it doesn't hurt to have maverick voices.
But Mr. Paul, like Messrs. Wallace, Perot, and Nader, will never be a major-party nominee, and will never be president. That's not really the point of his running, is it, if we keep our conversations grounded in reality rather than far-out fantasyland?
23 - Dave Nalle
Sorry, you're just wrong, Handy. I ran for office as a Libertarian and got the highest percentage of any libertarian running that election. If I had drawn those votes plus the people who voted straight republican ticket I would have won the election. As It was I was soundly defeated.
Paul may not have much of a chance, but it's not even worth the effort if he doesn't have the core 33% of the voters who will vote Republican no matter who the nominee is and all the money the party can raise for him.
dave
24 - Dr. Joe Frazier
When God Wants Something Done, He Always Gives It To ONE PERSON To Do â€" a Abraham, a Moses, a Peter, a Paul, a John, a David, a Gideon, a Mary. Had you noticed??? One Person, Committed To A Goal, Is All God Needs To Change The World!!! He’s done it many times. And if history turns many more pages, He’ll surely do it again. At the very least, You and God Together Can Change Your World!!! Ron Paul 2008!!! Dr. Joe Frazier â€" WorldWide News Report
25 - Dr. Joe Frazier
Dave Nalle: This was a very good article & well thought-out... Thank you very much your honesty, Dr. Joe Frazier - WorldWide News Report