RON PAUL IS IN
By Shaun Kenney | Monday, April 25th, 2011 | PoliticsOpen thread — Ron Paul has launched his presidential campaign.
So does Paul have a chance? Are his issues more relevant now than in 2008? Can he muster more than single-digit responses and a handful of convention victories? Or have enough Americans heard the message and see Ron Paul as the last, best hope to join Reagan and Goldwater in a Trinity of Conservatism?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
22 Responses to "RON PAUL IS IN"
Goldwater? Didn’t he get crushed worse than McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis?
Well, I’ll say this; Donald Trump has been right about one thing so far in this election cycle.
Given who is running, I could vote Paul. That’s not an endorsement, merely that I’m willing to listen. Much more traction with me than at this time in 2007.
Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance.
*Crickets*
Henry,
I wouldn’t say that Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance. I calculate his odds as being slightly less than those of Sarah Palin and Michele Backmann, but better than those of Donald Trump and my wife’s cat.
If he solicits the help of a speech coach he has a real shot at this. Not in any way knocking the man, he is brilliant, its his delivery that needs work.
HisRoc,
Even my lizard has better odds of becoming president than your cat, and, between us, it is not even a natural born citizen.
I agree that I am a lot more willing to listen to him this time more than in 2007. He did have some traction even then. This cycle’ crop is so dismal and pathetic (Trump? PLEASE!) that I think Ron Paul can recycle this one and perhaps turn it into a real political debate–if nothing else, at least a debate about issues. Goldwater was 1964 who begat Reagan in 1980 (well, 1976 actually). This is going to be 2012. No need to compare one with the other.
Ron Paul doesn’t need to win to be relevant; he just needs to be on the podium to drive conversation. In ’08 we poked fun but this time he brings the street cred that comes from being right. Very glad he’s in the mix. Paul is an Austrian School economist and he’ll keep ‘em honest & keep it real.
Interesting remark about the “Austrian School” and also that this time he will be able to drive the debate. I only wish he were about 10 years younger.
Do we really want a life long legislator?
Jay,
Not only does Paul now “bring the street cred that comes from being right,” but the establishment has no one to run against him who is not either an unknown or has not established themselves as being wrong, for being part of the establishment. Another big plus for Paul at this time will be that he will enjoy an almost undivided, enthusiastic support of the Tea Party movement.
This, incidentally, could also do wonders for the Tea Party movement, giving it a worthwhile cause that may enlist participation and support of the younger generations.
Its about time someone speaking Von Mises outside of engineering FMEA stress tests took the spotlight.. Truth in Economics for 2012.. Let free markets reign!
Ron Paul – running for President since 1988.
He’s our LaRouche
That’s a little harsh, Brian. He’s a more serious candidate than LaRouche has ever been. He cuold get some traction in early states given the muddled state of the Republican field so far.
Since the 08 election of Obama, the US is less safe or secure than we have ever been. Ron Paul’s foreign policy/national security positions haven’t changed, despite the ever increasing threats we face, with far fewer allies, thanks to the current regime in DC. According to Ron Paul it’s all our own fault, blame America first, we caused it all because of our Empire Building, and occupying the radical islamist countries. What a naive fool who would believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, and completely ignore the fact that all non-Muslim Americans are the infidels, who should be beheaded. That is if they don’t succeed in wiping the US off the map first, along with Israel. What a naive fool to think that if we cut spending, and get to a surplus, all will be goodness and light in the world. The only thing a Ron Paul run will accomplish will be the re-election of Obama. When you have someone like a Donald Trump leading or close to the top in polling, and Paul still in the single digits, you know Paul is still considered the same disillusioned fool he has always been. I guess with his announcement, the KKK, the John Birch Society and the skinheads are greasing up their donation machines once again to donate to his money bombs.
Brian, Paul is to LaRouche what you are to Richard Simmons..
Our economy would be in far better shape under the influence of a President Ron Paul. Considering the fiscal disaster that we are in the midst of, Ron Paul looks like a respectable choice.
Given his lack of the traditional charisma often used to shepherd the blind sheeple, if he was elected, it would have a fiscal mandate written all over it.
He’d be right up there with Hoover.
We are borrowing (and printing) so we can deficit-spend more than 10% of GDP. We are then claiming we have 2% GDP “growth.” Our armies occupy the world, and we borrow the savings of the world to support them. Here at home the economy has been hollowed out by offshoring; high corporate taxes chase capital investment away. The economy is a train wreck, seemingly held together by unsustainable deficits. The largest foreign holder of our debt is our obvious nemesis: China. Do any of you see a problem with this? What’s your plan?
Morons like Michael Moore complain that there still is money here in the U.S. which the progressives haven’t yet stolen so we need to get busy.
Meanwhile Singapore, for example, has a flat 17% corporate tax rate (vice 35% in the U.S.) and has been aggressively lowering it in recent years: http://www.guidemesingapore.com/taxation/corporate-tax/singapore-corporate-tax-guide Where is all the investment going, and why? We could be borrowing to invest, but instead we borrow just to consume. Our consumption doesn’t produce wealth here in the U.S., it produces wealth in China.
Ron Paul talks about economics all the time, and knows what he is talking about. His association with the Mises Institute and the Austrian School are well known.
Yet, rather than discussing economics, people come here and spout opinions about foreign policy. I’ve got some news for you: foreign policy is driven by economics. If any of you think that our failing economy is not going to drive our foreign policy decisions, let him or her make the argument. National strength flows form a strong economy. Who here can make the argument that our economy is strong? Hmmmm?
Now then: let’s talk about economics, and what is needed to restore the productive American economy. Do any of you have any ideas at all how to do that? I know Sandy doesn’t, as she is too busy reading Hegel; Nietzsche can’t be far behind (why do you hate freedom so much?).
Dr. Paul, on the other hand, is extremely well versed in economics, and has deep support on this front, intellectual and otherwise. So let’s bash Dr. Paul and continue to spout nonsense about how we need to maintain our status as occupier of the world, while completely ignoring how we’re going to pay for it.
God help us.
Problem is that Ron Paul runs as a libertarian. You are not allowed to pick and choose, he comes as a package deal.
Ron Paul wants to legalize prostitution, legalize recreational drug use and destroy Social Security.
He’s well versed in economics? Well Brian Kirwin is not too far off. Lyndon LaRouche had quite a few economists during his time that praised his understanding of economics as well. Ron Paul wants to abolish the Fed? Wasn’t that one of the things Lyndon LaRouche wanted to do as well?
Leave your response