Politics The Marginalization of Ron Paul (or How Media Plays Favorites)

Ron Paul's approach would be totally different. He wants to end all wars. He wants the U.S. to stop sticking its nose in other sovereign's business. But first and foremost, he is not going to implement any policies that don't put American interests and well being first and foremost. How refreshing it would be.

 

I'd look forward to that. Another case study to flesh out my theory.

 

Ron Paul is as near to an isolationist as we have seen in a long time.

Pledging not to engage in foreign wars, particularly in cases of invading and occupying a foreign country with no provocation is admirable and is probably the only position of his that has support from Independents and Democrats.

But his approach to foreign policy goes well beyond that to the extreme. Cutting all foreign aid, both military and economic, disengaging from NATO, withdrawing from the UN, suggesting he would not honor treaty obligations with allies, and essentially removing the US from the negotiation table with adversaries is shortsighted and not in the best interest of the country.

 

Both sides of the aisle in Congress would get in his way for different reasons.

The US cant exist in a foreign policy bubble and expect to be part of the global economy at the same time.

But then again, Paul is not interested in the US being competitive in the global economy either.

 

would congress really get in his way? if he does get elected, which you harp on nonstop about how unelectable he is, would he not have a congress behind him? a president doesn't get elected without being able to execute his plan for at least a couple months or more. i mean if paul is in, then there are many more tea party reps and senators in. he should at least be able to do something.

what is wrong with his policy of trade with everyone make war with no one?

right now we put sanctions on countries that have done nothing to us while allowing china and other countries to trade with us that use their slave labor forces to produce goods. what is so shocking about the ron paul stance on trade?

 

Of course he is not electable.

But if pigs fly and hell freezes over, Congress would still get in his way from both sides,, mostly because of special interests (unfortunately). He would have the shortest honeymoon in history. You think Republicans in Congress who are fighting furiously to maintain a bloated defense budget will suddenly roll over?

Whats wrong with his trade policy? Trade involves two sides . His "free trade" policy assumes we can buy and sell what we want and where we want with no restrictions. Trading partners would hardly agree.

 

I don't think Barack Obama was prepared to stand up to the defense power structure. The military and intelligence agencies have something pretty amazing with the wars and the massive rolling back of civil liberties in the name of vague, nonexistant threats, and have a vested interest in keeping this bizarre new status quo going.

I also think he's a coward pretending to be a pragmatist.

He actually believes the insane stuff (there's no separation between church and state, deregulation magically fixes everything, he opposes hate crime laws, he wants to end birthright citizenship for children of immigrants, he wants to end the minimum wage, and he wants to shut down virtually all government agencies) that comes out of his mouth. We haven't had a president like that in some time. That said, if he were miraculously elected, he'd be unable to do anything because no one in government likes him, Republican or Democrat.

 

ron paul has moved into 2nd in iowa, 21 to 22 versus newt. his negative attack ads against newt must be working well. im still kinda suprised newt is so popular despite his terrible record. he does have a way with words that is appealing to some voters i suppose.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-iowa-paul-closes-to-within-one-point-of-front-runner-gingrich/

 

I suspect Gingrich and Paul are splitting the Cain vote, giving rise to both at the expense of Romney. But Romney was never expected to do well in Iowa given that the biggest wing of the Republican party in Iowa are the evangelicals.

I always said Paul would do well in Iowa given that he has the best ground organization and has appeared in the state frequently. But then again, Huckabee won Iowa in 08 and McCain had a dismal showing.

He might do well in NH, the "live free or die state" despite claiming yesterday in speech in NH that medicare in unconstitutional. I see him coming in a distant third in SC and FL primaries later in Jan, then picking up again in the states with caucuses that follow - NV, ME, CO.

He is still lingering below 10% nationally and I just dont see him winning or even a close second anywhere other than the handful of caucus states....unless Gingrich does something incredibly stupid, which is possible given his ego. Then Paul could become the anti-Romney by default, not by choice.



Keep Hope Alive!

 

Ron Paul is the only reason to watch these 'debates'. Huntsman and him are the only ones with any rational solution to problems we are facing.

And regarding the debates, I think a 30 minute interview with each candidate would be just as good. Jay Leno had Ron Paul on last night, and you were better able to understand their position when they don't have buzzers and other candidates attacking them (the interviewer should question them on it however).

 

I have yet to hear a solution from Paul that is realistic, although he did come close to calling Gingrich a fascist in the last debate.

You must be watching different debates.

 

I will say it again, Huntsman is the only hope for the Republicans to win. He's the only rational one in the group and the only one that could pull the soft middle to his camp, away from Obama.

 

President Obama isn't just a good orator in general, he's also strong in debates. Even when he doesn't know what he's talking about. I see him easily destroying Huntsman in any debate and sweeping the election. Huntsman isn't a bad guy, in fact relative to the group of idiots he finds himself in he seems like a diamond in the rough, but he doesn't come off as a strong speaker and he really doesn't come off as an authority figure for a party that desperately wants a dictatorial leader. Infuriatingly, I think that's why Newt is doing so well: despite the fact he's a sack of shit as a human being and a complete moron, he has that confidence and swagger that the right adores in a leader. Huntsman has neither confidence nor swagger that I've seen.

 

So who is the ultimate all hat, no cattle candidate in the race? I'd say Perry if his hat wasn't already shot full of holes. I think Newt is too intelligent for them and he doesn't have the right hair for the job. He's also a bit of a moral mess. Ron Paul is a maverick, which they like, but he's got these weird ideas about drugs and terrorists. I think they see Santorum as a wimp and possibly a closet homosexual, Michelle Bachmann won't look good in the hat and she's marginalized herself into the batshit corner with her batshit supporters. Huntsman is invisible. No hat, no cattle, no swagger, no desire to win the nomination by relinquishing his intelligence or his positions on the issues in order to garner favor with the lowest common elements of the party. He'll never survive the early primary races.

That leaves Mitt. Looks good in a hat. Lots of swagger and confidence. Willing to do or say whatever is required. What cattle he has he's wisely locked in the barn for the winter. I think he'll walk away with the nomination.

 

I had to google "all hat and no cattle", as I've never heard it before, and I came up with this:

Full of big talk but lacking action, power, or substance; pretentious.

I like that idiom. If there were such a candidate in the 2012 election that your idiom best describes, it would be President Obama, imho. I remember Senator Obama, in 2007, saying the president doesn't have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack that doesn't involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. When push came to shove on most things, it turns out Senator and candidate Obama's words had no substance, they were just talking points to earn the votes of people on the left.

But, looking at the potential GOP nominees, yeah, I'd say Mitt is the ultimate all hat, no cattle candidate. The radical change he went through from the early 2000s to now is incredible. Clearly none of his current positions are held because of principle, they're just espoused to earn the nomination from the right.