The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Better late than never, I just listed to last week's free podcast, which included a fair amount of spitballing and prognosticating about the 2012 GOP Presidential primary. I know we all wonder if there's a worthwhile candidate in the bushel. Someone, perhaps, who:
1) Can attract Tea Party support without alienating independents.
2) Is experienced in public policy.
3) Has proven he or she can build a national election infrastructure.
4) Knows how to raise bucketloads of cash.
5) Is in tune with the economics issues around which the 2012 presidential election will center.
6) Is a strong, consistent Constitutionalist.
Well, there is such a candidate. But even though this race is as wide open as as the sky in Nebraska, his candidacy is summarily rejected out of hand on a podcast filled with personalities who's opinions I otherwise rank so highly.
Why do you all think Ron Paul's candidacy is rejected so summarily? Please, I am not necessarily inviting a debate regarding his merits as a candidate or his positions.
My question is different: Why, given all of the above points, is his candidacy treated with such casual contempt while, simultaneously, the candidacy of Mitch Daniels is considered to be so obviously with merit? What has Daniels done outside of Indiana? What is his name recognition? What money has he raised? Do the grassroots activists give one hoot about him at all?
Don't get me wrong. I understand what Daniels brings to the table. I also understand Paul's political faults. But, for now, Ron Paul polls just as well as anyone else in an open field, and has a great infrastructure. Why isn't Ron Paul even invited to the same dinner as a complete non-entity as, say, Hunstman?
- Comment (76)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
May '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Ron Paul wants open borders. Case closed.
Jul '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Look, I've contributed to Ron Paul's congressional campaigns for 20 years, even though I don't live in Texas.
But lately, Paul has gone gonzo with regard to national security. His statement that we shouldn't have killed Osama Bin Laden was so bizarre that I can no longer take him seriously.
Dec '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Brian:
That is not true. Take a read here.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html
It includes these quotation from Rep. Paul:
"We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form."
"Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped."
Kenneth:
Rep. Paul said he would have preferred to capture OBL, try him, and hang him like we did the Nazis at Nuremberg. If I'm not correct, I believe this is the same position as John Yoo.
Like I said, I'm not really in the market to debate is candidacy per se. But we should be careful to answer my question "Why is he not seriously considered" on the basis of accurate statements of fact.
May '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Aside from his libertarian fanatical fanboys (and girls), Ron Paul doesn't have a wide enough base of appeal for various good reasons.
I like a few of his positions but I can't stomach the whole package. Same reaction I have to libertarianism in general. There are some good ideas and principles on the economic side but even there they get taken to an extreme at times. On foreign policy and social issues, forget it.
Jul '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
KarlUB: Brian:
Like I said, I'm not really in the market to debate is candidacy per se. But we should be careful to answer my question "Why is he not seriously considered" on the basis of accurate statements of fact. · May 17 at 12:18pm
He's not taken seriously because most people do not understand libertarianism. Understanding true libertarianism is beyond the intellectual capacity of most Americans - even the pundit class. So instead of understanding, they parody: Oh, he's an isolationist; he wants to legalize drugs; he's a gold bug.
That's a hard thing to overcome - especially when you're shooting yourself in the foot with an idiotic statement about the death of Bin Laden.
May '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
My name is in every post I make. I would expect that you could spell it correctly.
To quote Ron Paul:
""Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they "take" are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered."
Sorry, wrong answer. Americans should not have to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs, simply because
Dec '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Sincerely sorry I misspelled your name, Bryan.
I trust you read the link I provided in full you and saw Ron Paul is not an open borders advocate, and believes illegal immigration depresses wages for blue-collar jobs. Therefore illegal immigrants end up taking jobs American citizens won't do at the wage offered. That is a simple statement of fact, and any tour of a farm or nursery in California's central valley will confirm it, and Rep. Paul does not like it.
You don't have to like Ron Paul. But don't cite open borders as a reason. Compared to most Congressmen he has a pretty good score from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. How many other candidates running for president would baldly say they support Constitutionally eliminating birthright citizenship rights, and don't support any amnesty whatsoever? If immigration is your main issue, and that's not good enough, I guarantee you that anyone short of Tom Tancredo is going to disappoint.
Dec '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Kenneth
He's not taken seriously because most people do not understand libertarianism. Understanding true libertarianism is beyond the intellectual capacity of most Americans - even the pundit class. So instead of understanding, they parody: Oh, he's an isolationist; he wants to legalize drugs; he's a gold bug.
That's a hard thing to overcome - especially when you're shooting yourself in the foot with an idiotic statement about the death of Bin Laden. · May 17 at 12:37pm
I hear you, there. I wonder, though, if people are doing this on their own or if they are taking cues from elsewhere. What do you think?
Of course, I also hear you on the foot-in-mouth problem. He has this habit of leading with the controversial conclusion, and then burying the reasoning rather than the other way around. But such a disease is not necessarily a barrier to political success: See Bush II, Kerry, and Biden.
Jan '11
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
His chances of becoming president next election are the same as mine, and I am not running, nor was I born in the USA.
May '11
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
As far as Paul being persona non grata, I think it's the assertiveness of his principles that are in direct opposition to many Republican voter's values. Issue's such as drug legalization, drastic reductions to "untouchable" government programs and a completely unrealistic view on foreign policy.
Personally, I like having him at the debates. It's good to see someone who isn't afraid to call out fellow Republican's on their very unprincipled transgressions.
Whether I would ever vote for the guy is a tough one to answer.
Dec '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
How about John Huntsman, Erik? Or Bolton? Or Allen West? Or Cain? Do you think they are more likely to be the President of the United States than Rep. Paul? I wouldn't bet money on any of them, but of them all I would say Paul has the best chance. Yet he is the one-- in polite company-- who cannot be afforded the courtesy of being taken as seriously as all the others.
My question is why.
That seems to explain some of it, to me. But to those issues I give you-- in order-- National Review, Paul Ryan, and the entire pre-1940 GOP. I get Rep. Paul isn't doctrinaire, but he does not seem THAT far outside the bounds of polite company.
Dec '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Sorry about that darned typo in the title, btw! I proof stuff for a living, so it is unsurprising I would take a break here.
[Ed.: Corrected.]
Edited on May 18, 2011 at 8:32amJun '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Kenneth
He's not taken seriously because most people do not understand libertarianism. Understanding true libertarianism is beyond the intellectual capacity of most Americans - even the pundit class. So instead of understanding, they parody: Oh, he's an isolationist; he wants to legalize drugs; he's a gold bug.
That's a hard thing to overcome - especially when you're shooting yourself in the foot with an idiotic statement about the death of Bin Laden. · May 17 at 12:37pm
It's partly the message, and partly the messenger. Paul is not the best spokesman for libertarianism, he does not come across as sober, principled but moderate man. He comes across as a purist, an idealist, and a bit of a wild-eyed fanatic. He invites parody, he's almost a self-parody.
Jan '11
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
KarlUB @ 1:50 - sorry about my glib comment without context! :)
I think there is no hope for Paul - the press would lambaste him, he would be mercilessly mocked by the "shadow press" (Maher, Colbert, Stewart, etc), and his message would not resonate with younger voters. I feel he's had his time in the sun, it was entertaining, but we're now on to the next spectacle. Cheers!
Jun '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
My problem is not with libertarianism but with Libertarians (the Party). It seems that most people who have joined that party have become mentally defective in some way. Is there a secret drink that they give their stepford adherents?
Is Paul a Truther or not? Does he really think our government was involved in 9/11?
May '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
KarlUB: ... Someone, perhaps, who:
1) Can attract Tea Party support without alienating independents.
I dispute that. How much? All Tea Party support, or just the faction that already supports him? The Tea Party is much larger than just the libertarians, try as they may to claim the Tea Party mantle for themselves. I know he wins straw polls and such, but that is just because the rest of the field is so divided at this point. And independents are just as likely to be alienated by some of Ron Paul's strange positions as by anyone else.
3) Has proven he or she can build a national election infrastructure.
4) Knows how to raise bucketloads of cash.
Again, both limited to his existing fan base and historically shown to be unable to break out of that fan base. On point 4, Mitt Romney just blew him away by a factor of more than 10. (No fan of Romney here...)
How many of your points are merely wishful thinking on your part?
Edited on May 18, 2011 at 12:13amApr '11
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
KarlUB Why do you all think Ron Paul's candidacy is rejected so summarily? Please, I am not necessarily inviting a debate regarding his merits as a candidate or his positions.
My question is different: Why, given all of the above points, is his candidacy treated with such casual contempt while, simultaneously, the candidacy of Mitch Daniels is considered to be so obviously with merit? What has Daniels done outside of Indiana? What is his name recognition? What money has he raised? Do the grassroots activists give one hoot about him at all?
It is too easy to caricature him as the Right's Dennis Kucinich--an ideologically pure garden gnome off by himself in the corner shouting at the wall. This is of course mostly unfair, but it seems to make sense if you don't pay close attention to what his actual positions are.
Dec '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Chris Deleon
How many of your points are merely wishful thinking on your part? · May 17 at 2:16pm
Probably some. But I should note I am not totally on board the Ron Paul bus. I am more a Buchanan man, for example, on trade. I just think they way he is treated by the MSM and punditry reveal a different rulebook is applied to him, and I don't like it.
Paul has already proven he can raise more money-- right now-- than anyone *but* Romney. As for breaking out of his existing base, doesn't it seem to you it keeps getting larger? And at least he has a base off of which to build. Where's Mitch Daniels's base?
As for what tea party support he has, I will submit this: More than Mitch Daniels, John Huntsman, New Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney combined.
The optics of Paul are certainly a problem. As is the fact he stacks up heterodoxies that are probably OK individually, but tough to swallow in the aggregate. Which, actually, probably does make it easier for people to believe things that are untrue about him, like that he supports open borders.
May '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
OK, he is against a central bank. I am a Hamiltonian when it comes to having a central bank.
And, I think the Libertarians are wrong. Any party that tries to also be an all encompassing philosophy of life is not a conservative party. That is a liberal (in the modern sense) goal.
I am also against legalization of drugs, against going onto a gold standard, and against, frankly, ignoring social issues as if they don't matter.
I am not a Libertarian. Therefore, I don't want one to be President. I want a conservative to be president. Ron Paul is not it.
Dec '10
Re: The Candidate Who Shall Not Be Named On Ricochet
Larry Koler:
Is Paul a Truther or not? Does he really think our government was involved in 9/11? · May 17 at 2:03pm
To my knowledge, Larry, Rep. Paul absolutely does not think the United States government had anything to do with 9/11, or intentionally ignored warnings that it was about to happen.
I do think he believes the 9/11 Commission Report is a big bucket of bollocks mostly designed to 1) Protect people who screwed up before and after the attacks, and 2) Justify war in the middle east.
How someone could think a largely impenetrable bureaucratic document issued by bureaucrats could have the protection of the bureaucracy's interests as its primary objective I can't imagine...