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

In the UK, I think the expression is either "All mouth and no trousers" or "All fur coat and no panties".

 

ron raised 3.5 million after the last debate. everything i have been hearing in iowa is that his supporters are much more active than the other candidates. i dont think a paul win in iowa is out of the question.

 

I agree. As I've said repeatedly, he has the best ground team in Iowa and spent the most money. The commitment of his supporters is a significant factor in a crowded field in a caucus state where voters are required to spend hours sitting in drafty school gyms and church basements.

So what? He's a one trick (caucus) pony ...much like Huckabee. Unless you really believe he can win or even have a respectable showing in the primaries in NH, SC and FL that follow.

Dont bet the house on it.

The only question that remains in my mind about Paul is if he will screw the party establishment, take his $millions and run under the Libertarian Party (or another third party) banner. A campaign he cant win, but can certainly influence in Obama's favor.

ps.

I still would like to hear how Paul's unilateral "free trade" policy would work....or how his isolationist foreign policy is in the US best interest....or how he would provide critical govt services while eliminating five govt agencies....

 

Paul will have a good showing in NH. And he might win Nevada which comes after. And the way the GOP system is working this year, I think it is a proportional system for some of the states. So you don't get all the delegates if you 'win' a state.

*I looked it up, and the nomination process is even more of a mess than the candidates running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012

 

I dont think the nominating process is a mess at all. The Republicans have finally adopted the primary process the Democrats have had in place for 30+ years.

It now ensures that a candidate cant lock up the nomination with the required number of convention delegates by Feb or March, like McCain '08, which made the later primaries meaningless. The question is how many candidates can hang around w/o a top three showing in early states. Most wont have the money.

Paul does have the money and is in for the long haul, which I think will ultimately convince most of even the most reluctant social conservatives and Tea Party crowd to hold their noses and vote for Romney.

 

I say it is a mess because they and the democrats both let 'tradition' overrule fairness. Why doesn't a different state go first every year instead of Iowa?

I do think the system has made an improvement with the proportional setup, but I still worry about the media effect. If Gingrich wins NH, SC, and FL, which is easily possible, I doubt that voters in other states will 'throw away' their vote on someone else. They will either not vote, or vote for the 'winner'. In a proportional system, it makes a little more sense to continue supporting the candidate that matches your views until the end.

There is probably a good poly sci/psych thesis there.

And I wouldn't rule out a third party run for Paul on this last attempt. It might even push Obama further to the left on some issues, which would be interesting to watch. Paul's proposed military budget is ~$500 billion, where Obama's is ~$800 billion. Both are over the $300 billion during the Clinton presidency where it should be I think.

 

I don't want to be the skunk at the garden party here, but has anyone actually looked at some of Ron Paul's history? Ta-Nehisi Coates (who I don't think anyone will accuse of being part of the establishment) has put the whole sickening thing up on his site. Have a look. It ain't pretty. Just because someone mouths some platitudes you happen to like doesn't mean you have to elevate him; judge the entire product you're getting.

 

I can almost understand how that stuff came about -- libertarianism in general was pretty fringe back then, so any libertarian ended up attracting a lot of cranks and whackjobs. Some of them worked for or with him. But really - winking at racism? trafficking in conspiracy theories? spewing some not-so-borderline antisemitic bilge? At a certain point you have to question his judgment, even if he himself is perfectly rational, if he allowed his name to be associated with that stuff. And it's not like he was young and naive, either. Whether or not you like William F Buckley, you have to give him points for telling the Birchers to get lost - he didn't want allies if that's who his allies were going to be. Ditto for the US labor movement and the communists. There is no reason Paul couldn't have done the same thing.

 

Race relations in 1992 were a little different than they are today.

But after seeing what is happening to Mexico, and how the gang problem is dealt with in the US, I don't have a problem with 'gang' profiling. I'm sure white 'gangstas' would be dealt with in the same way.

 

Paul has some qualities that are appealing, he is also freakin' nuts (His son being even more so)....it is unsettling that he amongst the most stable and human of the GOP candidates.

 

I agree that his son is very different from him. The only thing I wish Ron Paul would do is put these Tea people in their place and educate them on a few things.

 

If, he wants to get the nomination...that will have to wait until the election is over. No one ever said politics was a fun game.

 

Oh, hey, Tec.

 

Will....missed 'ya dude

 

i'm not sure how to take the racist newletters other than to say it seems those most offended are white neo-cons.

he remains the most popular candidate among non-whites in the republican field.

 

The racist newsletter of 20 years ago is not nearly as meaningful or as potentially impactful as Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act (would have voted against it, not because he supports "whites only" policies, but he supports property owners "rights" to have "whites only" policies), the Voting Rights Act (among only a handful of Republicans who voted against latest authorization in 06 again in defense of property rights), his position on the 14 Amendment (would end "birthright citizenship)....

 

The one thing Ron Paul has (had) going for him was honesty and sincerity. You can (could) stand on the opposite side of his opinions and still remain respectful of the fact that the man is (was) speaking from conviction and willing to defend everything he says (said).

I don't think he'll lose a single supporter over this and if he stood up and admitted that these were his comments and beliefs (at least in 1992) he'd probably find himself supporters from within the ranks of those who continue to think this way.

 

He just needs to say what his vision for race relations and solving problems in the inner cities will be in the future. That is all I care about.