While some on our blog (including many regulars who I respect) disagree, I have never hidden my respect for Ron Paul. I have occasional lunches with Paul who is one of the brightest and most engaging minds in Congress. This segment by John Stewart does a great job in addressing the concerted effort to ignore Paul despite his almost winning the recent Iowa straw poll. Even “XXX” got more attention by Associated Press.
Though we do not agree on all issues (and sharply disagree on some), Paul is currently the only candidate (including Barack Obama) who has consistently opposed the wars and spoken out against the rollback on civil liberties. The Stewart segment is worth watching. One would think that an anti-war candidate in the Republican primary would receive overwhelming attention. This is the one guy in either party who is actually challenging the claims supporting these wars — and receiving significant support among Republicans. Yet the mainstream media seems intent on avoiding any acknowledgment that Paul or his GOP supporters exist. Why?
Consider the sharp contrast with Rick Santorum:
lottakatz – Where is Paul advocating that state government (or any government) has the power to enslave citizens? I must have missed that.
I know you’re a fan of unfettered government power if it sits at the federal level, as you wrote recently:
Judging by the comments here it sounds like the bipartisan war machine will march on until the US is either obliterated by acts of retaliation or the empire collapses in financial ruin.
Or both.
Ekeyra,
IMO if states had free reign under someone like Paul we’d have legal slavery in some of them. It’s his state’s rights approach that some of us are unhappy with. Didn’t his son say the free market would have taken care of (made it unnecessary) slavery? Apples falling close to their trees methinks.
So murdering foreigners is cool as long as we can keep handing out money to people who dont have jobs. Really? Besides That, half of you complain about his personal views while disregarding the fact that he wouldnt be imposing them on anyone, considering he would let states decide most of the issues they should be deciding for themselves now. As for whoever complained we’d have less privacy if he was elected, tell me how much of your privacy would be lost when he ends the patriot act and dismantles the tsa and the dhs. Hate his personal views all you want, but you know that voting for him is the only way to ever see an end to america’s wars in you or your children’s lifetime.
rafflaw:
Sorry. I guess I was confusing him with G.W.F. Hegel.
Rich-
If you want to pose as an expert on Dennis Kucinich, first spell his name correctly.
Kucinish has proved to be an ineffectual national figure. He rarely proposes anything and doesn’t know how to get things passed. he was a disaster as mayor of Cleveland with a cult-like cabinet of arrogant incompetents and got his start as a race-baiting city Councilman. Like Paul, the more you know about him, the less plausible/attractive he becomes.
Ron Paul has essentially the same base as he had in 2008 – white males with tea party libertarian leanings.
for fox news ron paul is like the villain from harry potter.
he who shall not be named
The Prof’s link to the Jon Stewart piece is the wrong one. It should be :
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
“Indecision 2012-Corn Polled Edition-Ron Paul & the Top Tier”
(click on the picture of J.S. and Ron Paul). Take a look- You’ll like it!
I supported Kucinich early in 2004. In my opinion, Kucinich’s voice and.debating style aided in his marginalization. Then I supported Dean and he lost it and screamed. Dean did very well as DNC chair with his fifty state strategy. Paul’s voice makes him sound old and cranky.
So true Lotta! Look what the MSM did to Howard Dean who was the frontrunner and how they marginalized Dennis Kucinich.
There’s a saying in the entertainment industry that resolves all decisions regarding who to point a camera at when more than one entertainer is at the same place: follow the money. The bigger the star the more camera time.
The MSM (including the debate moderators and planners) have marginalized the low-odds politicians running for president for years, Democrats, Republicans and Independents. That this works to keep a candidate marginalized is just icing on the cake for the folks that like and want it that way.
Mike A.,
If you mean Chuck Hagel, I would look closely at his ties to the electronic voting machines.
Mike A. is correct…..
Summary:
A presidential candidate is free to choose anyone he/she wants as a vice-presidential running mate. Though he candidate chooses someone from their own party, since their chances of being elected with a running mate from a different party would be minimal.
Historically the VP was the candidate who lost the election. Now the VP is selected as a running mate. A presidential candidate decides who he/she thinks would provide a good “draw” to the voters.
Because of the differences in JQA and TJ we got the 12th Amend…which states as follows:
“The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
anon:
There is no impediment to members of different parties from forming a joint president/vice president slate to run.
I also like Chuck Hegel, despite the R next to his name.
“Mike Appleton
1, August 16, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Whatever the merits of any of his positions, Ron Paul has become the symbolic right-wing maverick in the House, just as Dennis Kucinich has become the symbolic left-wing maverick in that body. And the chances are nil that either one of them can ever be elected President.”
Too bad, they would make a great team. What both these guys have, in contrast to Cheney’s bullshit “gravitas”, is not gravitas at all but something American’s long for: no bullshit integrity.
Which is one reason that I would prefer to vote for either of these candidates, regardless of any policy preferences of their’s that I disagree with, than vote for yet Barack Obama who will promise one thing, and then obstruct that same thing, while catering to his opposition in a continual bid for re-election.
(IIRC, Professor Turley represents both of these guys and 8 others in a lawsuit against Barack Obama regarding Libya — or has that suit ended?)
Kucinich, asked who might be a good running mate, regardless of party and he immediately says… Ron Paul:
http://www.skepticaleye.com/2011/05/dennis-kucinich-on-ron-paul.html
Ron Paul, asked who he would vote for for President were he not running, says, … Chuck Hagel in the Rs, and Dennis Kucinich in the Ds.
It is good just to ask the question. It should be asked.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/perry-leads-new-national-poll Perry takes the lead at 29%. Paul has 9%.
Mike A.,
I’ll agree with that statement but with the caveat of “each for their own distinct and different reasons”.
Whatever the merits of any of his positions, Ron Paul has become the symbolic right-wing maverick in the House, just as Dennis Kucinich has become the symbolic left-wing maverick in that body. And the chances are nil that either one of them can ever be elected President.