Ron Paul planning to run for 2012 nomination

[Blakenzy]

Well, actually he is launching an "exploratory committee". Just heard it on "Hannity" FWIW. To be formally announced tomorrow. I normally don't bother to watch that clown's show, but hey, it's rare to see Rep. Paul interviewed on TV so I thought I would make an exception. Is the situation ripe for a Libertarian this time around?

[MicroBalrog]

I think it would be a ridiculously bad idea for Ron Paul to run in 2012.

Here's why: Ron Paul could have, I insist, won in 2008. However, every person who had access to the campaign management  team at the time confirms that they were massively incompetent, contributing to Ron Paul's loss (although of course the moral failure of the GOP leadership had contributed as well). There has been no evidence of some kind of reorganization in Ron Paul's staff, or a change in his message. There's no evidence, in other words, that his campaign do stuff better this time.

In the previous election, Ron Paul has managed to perform what I insist is a political victory - gathering and organizing a political movement out of the people who supported him in the primaries, training them and bringing them together to support other candidates who went on to win - Rand Paul being the most popular, but others include Justin Amash.

If Ron Paul continues to run for President, and - most likely - fails yet again to get nominated, he would squander a lot of this political capital. Remember that failed candidates usually get less and less votes if they run again. c.f. Ralph Nader.

A Ron Paul run would be made even more difficult this year by the existence of candidates like Gary Johnson, who would siphon off at least some of Ron's support.

[makattak]

Paging Captain Renault. Captain Renault to the white phone, please.

[Waitone]

By running, Paul will keep his agenda points in the public eye.  Not so if he's on the sidelines. 
I'd prefer he run a campaign for Sec. Treasury 2012. 
I for one want the popcorn concessions.

[MicroBalrog]

By running, Paul will keep his agenda points in the public eye.  Not so if he's on the sidelines. 
I'd prefer he run a campaign for Sec. Treasury 2012. 
I for one want the popcorn concessions.

But then remember he's not the only liberty candidate this time around.

[seeker_two]

He'd make a great President....which is why he'll never get elected..... 

I'd rather see him run for Governor of Texas...he'd probably win that...and I'd love to see him thumb his nose at Obama's second term while Slick Rick whimpers on the sidelines....

[TommyGunn]

If we weren't dealing with Islamic extremists I would like Ron Paul.
I think his foreign policy is naive. 
While our curren policies have lead us to many mistakes now is not the time to engage Ron Paul's solution.  In different times, I might say otherwise.
Unfortunatly what I do see is few solutions and a great many problems. 

[MicroBalrog]

The islamic extremists are a weak, pitiful minority. They literally cannot hit the country they're aiming at with a mortar.

They're not enough to justify maintaining the status quo. But again, I do not think Ron Paul should run.

[makattak]

The islamic extremists are a weak, pitiful minority. They literally cannot hit the country they're aiming at with a mortar.

They're not enough to justify maintaining the status quo. But again, I do not think Ron Paul should run.

And so were the Nazis until they weren't. (And I just Godwinned the thread- WINNER!)

They are a weak, pitiful minority that has aims at nuclear weapons (Iran). We have a massively porous southern border and hostile states to the south (Venezuela) that are more than willing to help that weak, pitiful minority come into this country.

Mr. Paul has delusions about how the world works interspersed with some good domestic policies. He would be disastrous for this country and the world, though- good policies notwithstanding. (Note, that statement can be said about Barack Obama, but replace the word good with terrible.)

[MicroBalrog]

Let us forget, here, that I oppose Ron Paul running.

Let us forget that Ron Paul is in favor of securing the border.

Because the issue here is a philosophical issue which will be reiterated in every future Presidential election until something changes.

Ron Paul's platform (with minor differences, and so forth) drew criticism from conservatives principally on the point of foreign policy.

Ron Paul's platform essentially was "Demolish the Welfare State and make Americans as free as the Constitution states they should be BUT foreign policy will suck for the duration of the Presidency." (Even if we forget good points of his foreign policy).

Effectively, those who supported his opposition - in practice, 95% of GOP voters and most of the conservative political leadership at the time made the reverse choice: "Sustain the political status quo if that is the cost of fighting the war on terror."

If you are unable to forgo chasing about a pile of illiterate losers incapable of even the most basic achievements of civilizations - can you name a single invention made by a Radical Islamist, ever? - as the price of your own liberty, when are you going to have liberty?

[MicroBalrog]

And so were the Nazis until they weren't. (And I just Godwinned the thread- WINNER!)

For the comparison to be true, America should have started a draft, rearmed itself, and declared a state of emergency when Hitler first joined Anton Drexler's 20-man party.

Alternatively, for the comparison to be true, Afghanistan and Iran need to be populated by literate Europeans capable of producing high-tech weaponry superior, unit per unit, to Abrams tanks and F-22s.

Contemplate that Germany was closer to producing nuclear weapons in 1943 than Iran was in 2010. (Germany had just-almost-gotten it right. Iran is perennially 'ten years away from a nuclear bomb').

[longeyes]

If he really wants to help America he will unpack the machinations of The Federal Reserve and make the case for its abolition.

[De Selby]

"real world" views about security may soon prove to have destroyed our country, literally. 

Give me the unrealistic fantasies of Ron Paul on foreign affairs over what those "experts" in power over the last thirty years have come up with any day.

The idea that Osama was ever going to come to America and force me to pray has always been a farce.  So was the idea that saddam was a threat, even if you believe in his balsa wood airplanes.  Yet we've mortgaged the country to fight these fantasies.

Some day, historians will marvel at the propaganda feats that led us to this point. 

[Waitone]

The center of gravity is the Federal Reserve.  That is Ron Paul's destiny.  The sooner he gets on with it, the better off we will all be.

[TommyGunn]

The islamic extremists are a weak, pitiful minority. They literally cannot hit the country they're aiming at with a mortar.
They're not enough to justify maintaining the status quo. But again, I do not think Ron Paul should run.

They get much better when they come over here and commandeer widebody aircraft ... don't they? 
While you make some valid points about Nazis .... I think it would be nice if we dealt with the IslamoNazis before they developed as far as Nazi Germany did.
We aren't ... of course.... we're twiddling our thumbs and playing whack-a-mole with remote control drones and........

...oh, never mind ...  me getting started on that will only result in my blood pressure going ballistic.

[AZRedhawk44]

We aren't ... of course.... we're twiddling our thumbs and playing whack-a-mole with remote control drones and........

...oh, never mind ...  me getting started on that will only result in my blood pressure going ballistic.

Hear, hear!

Either nuke 'em so their great-grandchildren glow in the womb 75 years from now, or leave 'em alone.

"real world" views about security may soon prove to have destroyed our country, literally. 

Give me the unrealistic fantasies of Ron Paul on foreign affairs over what those "experts" in power over the last thirty years have come up with any day.

The idea that Osama was ever going to come to America and force me to pray has always been a farce.  So was the idea that saddam was a threat, even if you believe in his balsa wood airplanes.  Yet we've mortgaged the country to fight these fantasies.

Some day, historians will marvel at the propaganda feats that led us to this point. 

This above is proof that common ground can be found with ANYONE... even De Selby!

[doczinn]

If you are unable to forgo chasing about a pile of illiterate losers incapable of even the most basic achievements of civilizations - can you name a single invention made by a Radical Islamist, ever? - as the price of your own liberty, when are you going to have liberty?

Quote of the week!