Ron Paul
I have aimed for the blandest headline here possible, knowing that the subject of Ron Paul is one of those things that at times makes supporters and detractors unhinged. Over on the Member Feed, there's some intelligent back and forth on the rules change that have so upset the Ron Paul people are upset by, and in today's Wall Street Journal my colleague Steve Moore says that pushing the change now was a ham-fisted move that was unnecessary.
My own take is simple. I sympathize with quite a bit of Ron Paul's economic argument, not to mention his pro-life stand on abortion. In this regard, I believe him a healthy influence on the GOP (his foreign policy, on the other hand ...). That said, I also believe the Republican Party is thoroughly within its rights to deny him a speaking slot. As much as Ron Paul might suggest he owes the GOP nothing, the opposite is true. He did not gather a national following simply because many find his views admirable; he got it, in good part, because he has been given the stage of Republican debates that allowed him to present those views to a much larger swath of the nation than had he been a member of, say, the Libertarian Party. He seems, however, to want it both ways: to compete as a Republican when that benefits him, but to jettison the team when he fails to win. On Fox News this week, he stated that he remains undecided.
I therefore do not understand why it is unfair for Republicans to insist that anyone who speaks at the Republican National Convention be clear and explicit about his or her support for the Republican nominee. Organizations have the right to set their own rules. It may be politically unwise to insist on them at this moment, as Steve suggests, given what Mr. Paul's supporters might be inclined to do, but that is another story. Surely no one doubts that even without this contentious rule change Mr. Paul would still have withheld his support for his party's nominee.
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Ron Paul
Paul's Libertarian purism isn't helping the dialog. He refused to let the RNC review his speech and thus wasn't given the floor. His supports will likely not vote for Romney, and Paul's hedging is disingenuous.
They have decided they're not Republicans, why treat them as if they were?
Feb '11
Re: Ron Paul
Ron Paul has obtained more air for his views because of being in the several Republican debates. Mr. McGurn is totally correct. That he believes Ron Paul will be huffing at the side and not supporting Romney/Ryan is a sad commentary on him. Does he want Obama to further weaken America in a second term?
Mar '11
Re: Ron Paul
Another story? Instead of making this about Rep. Paul should that not have been the crucial consideration in weighing this move? It almost seems that irritation with the Congressman overrode good sense by sending a message that the man's supporters are being taken for granted or even worse not wanted in the party at all.
How does this enhance support for the party's nominee?
May '12
Re: Ron Paul
I agree with your analysis that Cong. Paul wants to have the republican party and eat it too. I agree with his budget/economic views as well, though not so much his views to abolish the Fed and institute the gold standard. His economic views are not consistent with the big government platform of the republican party. His foreign policy is at odds with almost everybody irrespective of party affiliation so why does he keep hanging around the republican party? I think you have it correct - to use them as a stage.
Apr '12
Re: Ron Paul
Roberto
Another story? Instead of making this about Rep. Paul should that not have been the crucial consideration in weighing this move? It almost seems that irritation with the Congressman overrode good sense by sending a message that the man's supporters are being taken for granted or even worse not wanted in the party at all.
How does this enhance support for the party's nominee? · 0 minutes ago
It's my belief that they are simply using the Republican Party's national exposure to launch their own independent party.
The handful of Paul supporters that will vote for Romney will do so only to prevent Obama, not because they were pleased with the RNC.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul
For the life of me I don't know why the GOP wastes its time on Paul. He is completely unreliable and does not contribute anything worth the damage he does to the GOP. His record on convincing people of anything is unambiguous failure. I don't think the GOP can learn anything from him about winning elections.
May '12
Re: Ron Paul
I don't think he is unable to convince people of anything and may help the GOP in the long run because he is the only person in the party that begins to address our debt.That said I think his participation in the republican party is hypocritical.
Dec '10
Re: Ron Paul
I don't think we need much more than Diane's post to remind us about the value of public contributions from some Paul-supporters. As to Rep. Paul, himself, he may have contributions to make, but I am not adequate to discern what they may be.
May '11
Re: Ron Paul
I wasn't alive when Barry Goldwater was running, but as someone who doesn't dismiss Paul out of hand I'd like to think I would have been somewhat ahead of pack back then as well.
Nov '11
Re: Ron Paul
The primary season was one not-Romney-flavor-of-the-week after another until Romney ground them down with organization and the momentum of being the establishment choice.
Nobody is excited about Mitt Romney.
Ron Paul is the only one bringing young people and energy into the party. So, of course, the party [defecates] on him.
Ron Paul is stepping aside, but his wing, his base, the people who he excites, are the future.
Of course people despise him. He's not a politician. He doesn't sell his soul. He doesn't bent to the establishment whim. No, he's not a team player, he stand on principle.
He's come to the point where he realizes he has to do business with one of the two major parties. Single member district systems naturally benefit a two party structure, but the two parties use their power and dominance to ensure that third parties aren't allowed to play.
Nov '11
Re: Ron Paul
Witness the Commission on Presidential Debates, established in 1987 by the two parties to make sure only their guys get to play. It's not an independent organization, it's owned by the two parties as a means to perpetuate their dominance.
Before that the debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters, and the parties didn't like that because they didn't control it. So they created the CPD to lock out potential challengers to their two party structure.
Between 1912 and 1988 there were 5 elections where a third party candidate got five percent of the vote or more. Since 1988 there were two, both were Ross Perot, and he wasn't included in the debates in 1996.
The CPD sets a bar of 15% in national polls for third parties, and if polls only ask about the two candidates, then there's no need for the two parties to have to worry.
Nov '11
Re: Ron Paul
Add to that the games that the two parties play on the state level to lock out third parties. The ballot challenges, the other stupid petty games they play, for example what they're doing in Michigan to Gary Johnson.
So, like it or not, in order to even be allowed to play the game Ron Paul has to participate in the two-party system.
Jun '12
Re: Ron Paul
Highlama: Paul's Libertarian purism isn't helping the dialog. He refused to let the RNC review his speech and thus wasn't given the floor. His supports will likely not vote for Romney, and Paul's hedging is disingenuous.
They have decided they're not Republicans, why treat them as if they were? · 3 hours ago
I am a Ron Paul Supporter. I live in MN, and was an alternate to the state Republican Convention. We had strength, and were treated very fairly. The State Republicans treated us with respect. We will be working for Mitt Romney, and I believe most Ron Paul supporters will end up voting for Mitt Romney because the alternative is unimaginable. If you would show some respect it would go a lot further towards bringing people together. There are a lot of people that worked hard, spent a lot of money to head to their state conventions and now to the national convention that deserve to be treated better than they are being treated.
Someone once said "whoever is not against us is for us" We could use a little of that sentiment today.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul
Fred Cole
Ron Paul is the only one bringing young people and energy into the party. So, of course, the party [defecates] on him.
Ron Paul is stepping aside, but his wing, his base, the people who he excites, are the future.
Of course people despise him. He's not a politician. He doesn't sell his soul. He doesn't bent to the establishment whim. No, he's not a team player, he stand on principle.
Well he isn't the only one bringing young people and/or energy to the party. He brings kooks and fringe fanatics who think approvingly of Obama and vote for him into the party, except that they're not coming into the party.
If his "wing" is the future then this country is done with.
He's worse than a politician, he's a utopian ideologue. And he's not even a man of integrity because he dabbles in the same pork barrel politics everyone else does but he's too self-righteous and fanatical to admit. He's just as duplicitous and dishonest as other politicians but the difference is that, like Obama, he drinks his own kool-aid.
May '11
Re: Ron Paul
bereket kelile
Well he isn't the only one bringing young people and/or energy to the party. He brings kooks and fringe fanatics who think approvingly of Obama and vote for him into the party, except that they're not coming into the party.
If his "wing" is the future then this country is done with.
He's worse than a politician, he's a utopian ideologue. And he's not even a man of integrity because he dabbles in the same pork barrel politics everyone else does but he's too self-righteous and fanatical to admit. He's just as duplicitous and dishonest as other politicians but the difference is that, like Obama, he drinks his own kool-aid.
I made this point earlier, but for the sake of argument I'll repeat:
(For those of us young enough to have no personal memory) Has no one studied Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan? Do you not understand that there was a time RR was a radical in the party? A Tea Partier, a libertarian and a kook? The man sang the praises of Milton Friedman. Milton "off his rocker kooky libertarian wack-job" Friedman. Listen to yourselves!
Jun '10
Re: Ron Paul
Fred Cole
...
Of course people despise him. He's not a politician. He doesn't sell his soul. He doesn't bend to the establishment whim. No, he's not a team player, he stands on principle.
He's come to the point where he realizes he has to do business with one of the two major parties. ...
Which is it, Fred?
Jun '10
Re: Ron Paul
bereket kelile
...
Well he isn't the only one bringing young people and/or energy to the party. He brings kooks and fringe fanatics who think approvingly of Obama and vote for him into the party, except that they're not coming into the party.
If his "wing" is the future then this country is done with.
He's worse than a politician, he's a utopian ideologue. And he's not even a man of integrity because he dabbles in the same pork barrel politics everyone else does but he's too self-righteous and fanatical to admit. He's just as duplicitous and dishonest as other politicians but the difference is that, like Obama, he drinks his own kool-aid.
Bereket, I can't improve on this description (and your comment #6) so I won't try. Kudos.
Jul '10
Re: Ron Paul
When Reagan lost the nomination in 1976, he didn't threaten to take his ball and go home.
I like Rep. Paul, actually. It's important to always have someone in the room saying, "Can we afford this? Is it even an appropriate role for the government?"
I'd like him and his supporters more if they could understand that other people have principles they feel strongly about too. Too many of them (especially in the Non-Ricochet internet) act like jerks and then complain that they're not given respect.
Apr '11
Re: Ron Paul
I really though that he was this time. Paul's decision not to endorse and not to give a speech was a very, very disappointing one. He could have talked about the Fed and Paul issues all he wanted to; half the speakers seem almost entirely solipsistic in their speeches. It would have been a great platform for whatever message he chose. Instead, his message has been "Libertarians are a bunch of malcontents, much persecuted by the world".
Since his followers already had a persecution complex and were already widely dismissed, he set the clock back on a good and useful movement, and moderately increased the odds of an Obama win. A Paul prime time speech on domestic policy (perhaps toughing on disarmament, but not focused on it) could have been a great educational moment for the country. Such a waste.
Nov '11
Re: Ron Paul
You guys misunderstand Paul's purpose. It's not to gain political power. Ron Paul is on a long term educational mission. Viewed through that lens all his actions are perfectly reasonable.