No matter who emerges as the Democratic nominee, having McCain as the GOP standard-bearer seems to pretty much burst Michael Bloomberg's third-party bubble. (Haven't heard much on that front lately, have we?) On the other hand, it still leaves a fair amount of space open - relatively speaking, I mean - for Ron Paul to make a third-party run under the Libertarian banner. True, McCain isn't as ideal a foil for Paul as Rudy Giuliani would have been, but given his maximalist position on Iraq and his leftward tilt on immigration, one can certainly see the rationale for Paul to attempt a Nader-style protest candidacy - one that would also presumably attract a few Naderite votes from the anti-war left as well. I doubt he'll do it, but the opening is there.
« McCain And Immigration | Main | Should McCain Pick Huckabee? » Whither Ron Paul?06 Feb 2008 01:25 pm Comments (25)
First, the issue that will bring the most interest to Paul is Iraq. Spending cuts, monetary policy, social issues (pot/gay marriage), are either off the table or too wonky. In the debates, Iraq is clearly where the sparks fly with Paul and it is on this issue where he gets his most support. John "100 years" in Iraq McCain is probably the best and worst candidate for Paul to face. On the on hand, Paul can draw a clear policy distinction with McCain. But on the other hand, McCain offers the most morally compelling defence of the war. I think McCain-Paul-Clinton debate probably will pose some issues for Clinton. She'll be stuck to some degree between McCain's hard line stance to stay in Iraq and Paul's pull out today argument. I don't see it as a big issue, but McCain and Paul will both be able to make hay of her being too close to the other guy policy wise. 
Ron who?
Paul has stated (e.g., Meet the Press) that he does not intend to seek any third-party nomination. And what makes you think the Libertarian Party would want him?
I'm surprised more people haven't commented on Paul's spoiler potential as a third-party candidate with a far-right position on immigration.
Yeah, that consistent 3% Paul pulled last night really holds out a lot of promise.
He would do better as a 3rd party candidate than he did as a GOP nominee. I know in California alot of people wanted to vote for Ron Paul, but their votes weren't counted because they weren't registered as Republicans at the time. The GOP is pretty much dead. The democrats have a much bigger base these days due to GWB, and many people have been leaving the GOP left and right. Ron Paul was the only candidate to actually bring in new people for the GOP, and they dumped on him hard. No way am I going to vote for McCain or Romney. I know a fake when I see one. And these guys should both be on the democrats side. The only difference between these 2 and the democrats is they openly support the war, while the democrats pretend they don't, while supporting it. I think the GOP will probably get about 30% of the vote, if they are lucky. Those faithful fox news viewers, and thats pretty much it. There is a reason people have been leaving the GOP in mass, and it's going to continue with these nominees. Ron Paul should run 3rd party. The GOP doesn't help him, and the biggest obstacle I run across is saying he is a republican. No way a pro-war republican is going to win this election.
Don't downplay Ron Paul's spoiler possibilities, especially if he'd go with my suggestion for a running mate to balance his ticket. Ron Paul/Ru-Paul '08! This has to happen almost as much as McCain/Mary Cheney does.
Both McCain and the Dem are extremely vulnerable on one issue, an issue that the corrupt MSM continually lies and misleads about. If supporters of a third party candidate went to appearances by McCain and the Dem and discredited them on the issue, it would make a third party run much easier. It would also help clean up the MSM. And, no, the issue isn't Iraq.
He's against the war, no doubt, but I think any impact Paul might have on the Dems would be blunted by the fact that both Hillary and Obama are planning to withdraw the troops (and if Obama's the nom, the Dems will have consistently antiwar candidate). Paul could potentially draw off some voters from McCain, hardcore libertarian and paleocon types who are against the war, want a border wall, and are nostalgic for the gold standard. Ultimately though, I'd be surprised if Paul surpassed the roughly 3% of the vote Nader got. Internet trolls aside, his kind of goldbug crackpottery has a very limited constituency, and his history of publishing the most vile racist, anti-semitic, and economically batshit stuff in his newsletters should effectively limit any crossover appeal.
He's against the war, no doubt, but I think any impact Paul might have on the Dems would be blunted by the fact that both Hillary and Obama are planning to withdraw the troops (and if Obama's the nom, the Dems will have a consistently antiwar candidate). Paul could potentially draw off some voters from McCain, hardcore libertarian and paleocon types who are against the war, want a border wall, and are nostalgic for the gold standard. Ultimately though, I'd be surprised if Paul surpassed the roughly 3% of the vote Nader got. Internet trolls aside, his kind of goldbug crackpottery has a very limited constituency, and his history of publishing the most vile racist, anti-semitic, and economically batshit stuff in his newsletters should effectively limit any appeal beyond his cult.
Yeah, that consistent 3% Paul pulled last night really holds out a lot of promise. Check the stats again, my friend. CNN has them all on its website. 3% was the worst Ron Paul did, in a few of the most neocon-friendly states. In the primaries, he earned up to 7% in New York. In the caucus states, he did even better: 16% in Minnesota, 17% in Alaska, 21% in North Dakota, and 25% in Montana. Clearly he has a broad base of support, and a functioning political organization, which is required to do well in caucus states.
...his kind of goldbug crackpottery has a very limited constituency... Yeah, who would want a currency backed by something of actual value, like gold, as the US did for the better part of two centuries while it was becoming the world's foremost economic power? Clearly it makes a lot more sense for a quasi-governmental board of private bankers to centrally manage interest rates and the money supply, and to print money that's not redeemable in anything at all. Geez, anyone with half a brain can see that.
Craig, if you want to go back to a 19th century of catastrophic booms and busts and economic inequality that makes even today's chasm seem small be my guest. The fact is, gold has no inherent value either. Exchange value is something a society agrees upon in some fashion, and yeah, I'd much rather have the Fed than stocks of bullion backing my dollars. And Paul's performance in Caucus states only points to the efforts of tiny but energetic minority who have yet to come anywhere close to winning a single state. Paulbot numbers are a drop in the bucket in general election terms. So do you agree with Paul about those sinister Jewish banking cabals running our economy? How about the coming race war? Face it Craig, your man is a fringe bigot who deserves to go down in ignominy.
Re: Yeah, who would want a currency backed by something of actual value, like gold, as the US did for the better part of two centuries while it was becoming the world's foremost economic power? Going back to gold would be as dumb as junking indoor plumbing and going back to outhouses. Yes, there are some problems with the current currency regime, but they are an order of magnitude less than the calamities the 19th and early 20th century economies produced every few years.
and his history of publishing the most vile racist, anti-semitic, and economically batshit stuff in his newsletters You mean like saying that the Rodney King rioters were black and probably on welfare? Or questioning whether the end of white rule would be bad for South Africa (look how well it turned out in Zimbabwe)? Or perhaps the statements that AIDS in the U.S. was a disease mostly of gay men and that the media's claims to the contrary were lies? The fact is, gold has no inherent value either. Exchange value is something a society agrees upon in some fashion, and yeah, I'd much rather have the Fed than stocks of bullion backing my dollars. The difference is that gold has value because individuals value it and the fiat dollar has value because the government tells you it will imprison you if you are not willing to use it for making exchanges. The benefit of gold is that the government cannot create it or produce as much of it as they want at will, inflating the currency to worthlessness to finance its programs and wars.
Hey there Glaivester, I suppose you're OK with Paul's newletter calling Martin Luther King a pedophile too. Or with predicting countless financial apocalypses which have never come to pass. Face it, the man's a creep. Folks don't consider paper to have value because the gov't will lock them up. You wanna cut deals with other folks through barter, gold, whatever, go ahead. People believe paper money has value because you can effectively use it buy and sell goods and services. People aren't pining to go to gold but prevented by the government holding a gun to their heads. Paper Money works pretty well around here.
Folks don't consider paper to have value because the gov't will lock them up. Paper money is legal tender. This means that if you contract to be paid in gold, the other person can force you to accept paper. You wanna cut deals with other folks through barter, gold, whatever, go ahead. Uh, if you think that the government allows this, you have no idea what you are talking about. You hear what happened to the Liberty Dollar people? According to the U.S. Department of Justice, "the use of these gold and silver NORFED 'Liberty Dollar' medallions as circulating money is a Federal crime."
I don't know about pedophilia, but the claims that he was a philanderer and that he beat up his lovers have been supported. So we may have one false accusation, but plenty of likely true ones.
The Klansman Glaivester links to the racist VDare site and claims "Carl Rowan substantiated blah blah blah." Here's what the site actually says: "The late African American journalist Carl Rowan discussed conversations he had with congressmen who heard FBI surveillance tapes of King making sexually suggestive comments towards Abernathy. Other FBI agents who monitored King have told many similar stories. We will not know the extent of it until his file is unsealed in 2027. (Why so late?)" That's far from substantiated. I've heard that Glaivester's mother used to do donkey shows in Tijuana for quarters and tequila, but I'll admit that all I have to substantiate that is Glaivester's own claims. Maybe when the FBI files on the donkeys are unsealed in 2030 we'll be able to say for sure.
Since this election for Republicans, excepting Romney and his voters, has been less about winning and more about trying to redefine the party (and for some excising some element they don't like) AND if the consensus candidate is on his way out... why not have a slug fest between the neocons and the paleocons? We've had religious conservatives versus moderates and populists versus capitalists... What's another fight!? Here's a slogan already created inspired by Buchanan: McCain: The Candidate of Perpetual War, Open Borders, and Vanishing Jobs
Careful, Glaivester. Your sheet's showing.
Well, Moe, I will admit that I should have read that more carefully and thought of a better choice of words on the Rowan issue than "substantiated." My point was simply that these accusations were not simply made up by the writers of the newsletter. And unless the statement about the autobiography is an outright lie, I think that "substantiated" is appropriate as a word to use for the Abernathy claims. I will have to see if I can find the autobiography for myself to prove or disprove that Abernathy said this. As for my opinion on King? Too much of a leftist socialist. But he did stand up against the Vietnam War, which was the right thing to do.
"16% in Minnesota, 17% in Alaska, 21% in North Dakota, and 25% in Montana. Clearly he has a broad base of support" People living in sparsely populated lands in the high lattitudes? Could he try for leader of Greenland perhaps?
've heard that Glaivester's mother used to do donkey shows in Tijuana for quarters and tequila, but I'll admit that all I have to substantiate that is Glaivester's own claims. Maybe when the FBI files on the donkeys are unsealed in 2030 we'll be able to say for sure. Sorry, Mo. I think those files were all shredded by the CIA.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
If he uses PowerPoints as well as Ross Perot did he's a shoo-in!
Posted by SMK | February 6, 2008 1:45 PM