Ron Paul is not the Republican Howard Dean
I've now heard a number of people refer to Ron Paul as the "Howard Dean of '08." Here's Jose Antonio Vargas of the Washington Post:
Ron Paul truly is a fringe candidate, a guy whose writings (as Kevin Drum recently put it) have a "Unabomber-esque" quality to them. Perhaps that's a bit harsh, but it's certainly true that Paul endorses a number of positions that have very little mainstream support (returning to the gold standard, abolishing the Federal Reserve, getting rid of most federal agencies, etc.). Moreover, many of Paul's positions on key issues of the day are diametrically opposed to those held by most of the Republican base, which explains why Paul was overwhelmingly named the "Least Favorite Person on the Right" by this recent survey of right-wing bloggers.
There is zero chance that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination or, after he loses, become a major leader in the Republican party. His constituency consists mainly of libertarian types who are either not Republicans or have not felt at home in the Republican party for quite some time.
And unlike Dean, I think it is pretty unlikely that Paul will endorse the eventual Republican nominee. In fact, I suspect Republican party officials are a little worried about Paul's plans for the general election. Though Paul has so far disclaimed any intention of running as a third party candidate, I think he would have little trouble securing the nomination of various third parties (like the Constitution Party) that will have a spot on the ballot in most states. If Paul can raise his profile enough to secure himself a place in general election debates (as Ross Perot did in 1992), he may well be tempted to accept a third party nomination.
Paul is much more like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader than Howard Dean. His support comes from people who are fed up with the two major parties and don't feel represented by either of them. Those who want to see a Republican in the White House come 2009 should be very careful how they treat Ron Paul and his supporters. He has the potential to become a very effective spoiler in the general election.
Is Ron Paul the Howard Dean of 2008?Paul's ability to raise money online is one superficial similarity with Dean, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. Despite attempts by conservatives to paint Dean as some sort of fringe leftist, the fact is that Howard Dean was a thoroughly mainstream candidate with a long record of moderate policy positions. He raised WAY more money than Paul has and came very close to winning his party's nomination (he was even endorsed by his party's previous nominee, Al Gore). He then went on to become the head of the Democratic National Committee, primarily because of his popularity among the Democratic rank-and-file.
Among the Texas congressman's loyal, passionate, Web-savvy supporters, that's not a question. It's a statement -- and a semi-accurate one. Here's a very important similarity: Like Dean, Paul has been against the war on Iraq from the beginning, setting him apart from the rest of the GOP field.
And just as Dean's insurgent campaign effectively used the Web to raise money, rally its supporters and create buzz the year before the 2004 elections, Paul's campaign throughout the year has singularly relied on the Internet to fuel his engine.
All that popularity has translated to online money: $5.1 million in the third quarter, with at least 70 percent of it coming from online donors, according to Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. He raised about $3.1 million in the first and second quarters -- 80 percent of it from online donations.
Ron Paul truly is a fringe candidate, a guy whose writings (as Kevin Drum recently put it) have a "Unabomber-esque" quality to them. Perhaps that's a bit harsh, but it's certainly true that Paul endorses a number of positions that have very little mainstream support (returning to the gold standard, abolishing the Federal Reserve, getting rid of most federal agencies, etc.). Moreover, many of Paul's positions on key issues of the day are diametrically opposed to those held by most of the Republican base, which explains why Paul was overwhelmingly named the "Least Favorite Person on the Right" by this recent survey of right-wing bloggers.
There is zero chance that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination or, after he loses, become a major leader in the Republican party. His constituency consists mainly of libertarian types who are either not Republicans or have not felt at home in the Republican party for quite some time.
And unlike Dean, I think it is pretty unlikely that Paul will endorse the eventual Republican nominee. In fact, I suspect Republican party officials are a little worried about Paul's plans for the general election. Though Paul has so far disclaimed any intention of running as a third party candidate, I think he would have little trouble securing the nomination of various third parties (like the Constitution Party) that will have a spot on the ballot in most states. If Paul can raise his profile enough to secure himself a place in general election debates (as Ross Perot did in 1992), he may well be tempted to accept a third party nomination.
Paul is much more like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader than Howard Dean. His support comes from people who are fed up with the two major parties and don't feel represented by either of them. Those who want to see a Republican in the White House come 2009 should be very careful how they treat Ron Paul and his supporters. He has the potential to become a very effective spoiler in the general election.
posted by A.L. at 1:17 PM
29 Comments:
AL,
Well, if there was really "zero" chance Ron Paul would become the Republican nominee, you wouldn't be writing about him. Intrade has him at about 7% chance to get the nod -- and that's been rising.
Ron Paul's ideas aren't "fringe"-- they're classical libertarian positions that would have been familiar to and embraced by Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, Goldwater, and Reagan.
It's just that in the past 40 years, "neoconservatism" has managed to insert itself as "mainstream" conservatism. That is changing -- people are sick of the endless wars, the skyrocketing debt and government spending, the illegal immigration, all the neocon crap.
Going back to the gold standard is a "fringe" idea, eh? Well, here's someone who knows something about monetary policy disagreeing -- back in 1966.
http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
Ron Paul's ideas aren't "fringe"-- they're classical libertarian positions that would have been familiar to and embraced by Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, Goldwater, and Reagan.
Two things. One, I don't think all of Ron Paul's ideas are fringe ideas. Just some of them. Second, to call something "fringe" isn't necessarily to impugn the merits of the position; it just means that the position is one that isn't widely held among our political leaders. I think it's fair to say that Ron Paul takes a lot of positions that not too many others take. The same was not true of Howard Dean.
Second, what's considered "mainstream" changes over time. Today, re-adopting the gold standard or doing away with nearly every federal agency are fringe ideas precisely because those debates have long since passed, with one side having achieved a consensus. Again, maybe the wrong side won, but that doesn't change the fact that it's pretty radical to suggest revisiting those issues at this point.
"Ron Paul truly is a fringe candidate"
Sorry, fringe candidates don't rank 5th in fundraising out of 11 candidates, 1st in volunteers, 3rd in cash on hand, 1st in straw polls, 1st in the size of crowds drawn, and 1st in grassroots activism.
"many of Paul's positions on key issues of the day are diametrically opposed to those held by most of the Republican base"
Wrong. Only on the war is Paul out of step with the base, and 30% of Republicans agree with him. On abortion, the Second Amendment, illegal immigration, taxes, and spending, he is more conservative than the other top tier candidates.
Another ridiculous post.
Ron Paul is well respected in Republican circles in DC.
He his the favorite of Andrew Napolitano, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, John McLaughlin, Pat Buchanan and John Cafferty.
He is no spoiler and would never run as third party candidate.
PJB won the NH primary in '96 after going in with 6%. His total take? 27%.
Ron Paul is the only real republican we have left in congress. We will NOT avoid a Hillary presidency with Rudy, Mitt or McCain...you might as well hand it to her right now if you do nominate any of those.
He is no spoiler and would never run as third party candidate.
Maybe he won't this time around, but he has before. In 1988, he ran as a Libertarian.
Wrong. Only on the war is Paul out of step with the base, and 30% of Republicans agree with him.
It's not just the war. It's foreign policy generally. And while there may be support for many of Paul's ideas among Republican voters, many of his positions (on a wide range of issues) are not held by most Republican politicians.
I don't want to get into a semantic debate over the meaning of the word "fringe." My point was simply that Howard Dean's policy positions were much closer to those of his rivals than Paul's are to his rivals. Howard Dean was much more of a "mainstream" Democrat than Paul is a "mainstream"
Republican.
Ron Paul has my support and im an independent.
RP 2008!! from Maryland, a blue state
I trust in Jesus Christ my lord and saviour to deliver us from the hypocrites. I am an American loving, gun loving freedom loving American who was formerly a Democrat. Paul brings best part of liberal and conservative Christianity. He cares for the downtrodden and respects life as opposed to caring for money and warfare. With the help of Christ we will overcome the judgements of people like this author.
BTW I was not just a democrat but a liberal Democrat who grew up around all walks of life, I hate war and fascism, I used to fight racist skinheads and have gay friends, athiest friends and very Christian friends so you cannot pigeonhole us we are not liberals or conservatives we are Americans and we will be heard.
There is zero chance that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination or, after he loses..
I hate it when I do that. If he has zero chance, he won't be losing, right?
His support comes from people who are fed up with the two major parties and don't feel represented by either of them.
Uh, that would be me, but I don't support him.
Fact is, we have a long menu of issues and two parties can't offer us what we want. Perhaps 20 parties couldn't.
Republicans have some good ideas and positions as do the Democrats and Libertarians. Hell, even the Socialists and Communist parties have some things I agree with.
But we realistically have only two choices and have to decide which faction best represents what we want.
Unabomber-esque is kind of weak given that the Unibomber's rhetoric is very similar to Al Gore's rather than Ron Paul's.
I am a radical libertarian who is supporting Ron Paul, but I am noticing a wide range of people who are supporting him. In fact, I'd say a majority of his supporters are not radical libertarian computer geeks like me.
In any case, I doubt he'll do a 3rd party run. RP has mentioned how the system is stacked against 3rd parties. If you ever get involved in 3rd party or independent candidate politics, you'll learn quickly that this whole voting thing is quite a scam. The system is truly rigged. No conspiracy theories here, just the way the laws are written to keep others out.
I suspect that Ron Paul would be more interested in a movement that would help purge the Republican Party of the neoconservatives who have taken over.
I think what you are leaving out is what Ron Paul represents. He represents the Old Right, the Ronald Reagans, Barry Goldwaters, and Robert Tafts. He is what a Republican used to stand for.
But now the party is all up in arms for war, entitlements, and bureaucracies. They used to fight the Federal Reserve and the Gold Standard, but they seem to have just left their ways.
And I don't think he has "ZERO" chance. Given the fact that he got 3rd place, 17% of 2004 Bush voters, in Texas (they surely love their wars), I would have to say he has at least 17%. I won't even count the straw polls he won.
Of course Ron Paul is the "Least Favorite Person on the Right". Ron Paul is a true conservative, and the GOP has been hijacked by liberal, big government neo-conservatives who can't stand a member of their party sticking to its long held principles.
If I had to pick an analogue, I think Ralph Nader comes closer. Not in actual politics of course, but in style, impact and "fringe-ness."
Nader's followers also had rhetoric and passion (and sensitivity to perceived insult) similar to some of these responses here - especially the "(name-of-party) has been hijacked by...", and "(name-of-candidate) is a 'true' (name-of-party-affiliation)" language.
Also, while Nader was/is indeed fringe, he also had a big enough following to have a major impact. Being "fringe" doesn't mean being a nobody.
I don't think Ron Paul's foreign policy views are as far from the mainstream of Republican voters as the Republican elite may believe. I have to believe that most Republicans are as bewildered as I am how resolving the myriad internal problems of Iraq became a vital interest of the United States (indeed, vital interest may be too weak-- the rhetoric of the Administration would suggest that saving Iraq is as crucial as preserving the union was during the Civil War). Still, Paul-- not being a scripted politician-- does have a tendency to go a bit far, sometimes sounding like 9/11 was our fault. That kind of thing Republicans are not going to go for.
Howard Dean was much more of a "mainstream" Democrat than Paul is a "mainstream" Republican
This is true
Ron Paul is the real deal. Vote for him. Google "Ron Paul" and see for yourself.
You can't really make a case that Ron Paul is the "least favorite person of the Right" because it no longer makes any sense to take about "The Right" as one homogeneous group. "Conservatives" these days are badly splintered now between the old-school libertarian / classical-liberal style conservatives and the Neo-Con / Fascist types. Only to the extent that the Fascist camp has seemingly edged out the libertarian camp can you claim that Ron Paul does not represent Conservatives.
I believe most Conservatives are not actually Neo-Cons / Fascists, and what we're seeing is just a reflection of the way a few of those guys got themselves into prominent positions within the GOP through smoke and mirrors, and a reflection of the way so many Americans tend to just "follow the crowed." Or, in other words, I would say that among people who self-identify as Conservative, if you isolated out the deeply ideological fascists, and the deeply ideological libertarians, the numbers would probably be about even, but both groups combined would be much smaller than the "Joe Sixpack" type who doesn't spend much time reading, researching, and concerning himself with what's going on and just follows the perception of what "the crowd" is doing.
If I'm right, momentum on the Conservative side could easily swing back to the classical-liberal / libertarian side very easily, and suddenly Ron Paul would be the mainstream candidate and McCain would be the fringe candidate with his Fascist ideology.
You should thank Andrew Sullivan for your boost in hits today from your Ron Paul post. I would have never seen this blog without linking to it, and only link to Andrew from Google News when I search to see what bloggers are saying about Ron Paul.
Always interesting to know the e-trail of how non-blogger types show up and start posting comments.
P.S. RNC Life Member here, and Ron Paul speaks for me. We aren't all Libertarians and disaffected Republicans. There is no chance in hell we beat Hillary in 2008 but with Ron Paul---and yes, I acknowledge it's going to take a freakin' miracle to get the message out--but when it does, it resonates VERY WELL with a broad smattering of the general public.
Dean was demonized thanks to the Rove machine. I'm not talking conspiracy theories. Its clear to me that the Bush cohorts attacked the candidates that were the toughest opposition to Bush and Dean was one of them.
His support comes because he upholds the Constitution. You know, what all of our elected leaders swear they will do? The difference is that they fail. Mr. Paul does not.
Most of Dr. Paul's positions are within the GOP mainstream, if not on the far right bank of the stream. I don't think a consensus has been reached on matters such as elimination of Depts. such as energy, education, homeland security. For God's sake, has DHS existed long enough for us to have reached a consensus on?
His monetary ideas are out there on the fringe, but that is largely a result of economic illiteracy in this country, an affliction that apparently goes from chronic to acute upon entrance into the halls of Congress. There is little doubt that the Fed is run to the benefit of a financial elite, and that a gold standard would put an end to such shenanigans. The question then arises whether the benefits of a gold standard would outweigh its comparative shortfalls to the fiat system (of which there are at least a few). It's a debate worth having, IMHO, but one must be willing to really think about things, rather than relying on blind trust in the Fed bankers, who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.
Dr. Paul's foreign policy could be taken, page for page, from the playbook of Mr. Republican, Bob Taft. Granted, Sen. Taft was never POTUS, and his non-interventionist policy was swamped by Ike and his world galavanting ways. But with a war that is not going well, when the GOP is suffering at the polls because of the policy that led to this war, and when we may be facing a costly economic crisis, what better time to give our foreign policy a close examination?
As far as how "Republican" his supporters are, it can be summed up in two simple sentences:
Our party has been hijacked. And now, we're going to take it back.
Vote Ron Paul 2008. Because taking your country back should be fun.
Hmmmm. Are you sure that you don't merely fear a Paul nomination win? Because trust me, if Paul wins the GOP nod, he will win the general election. The only one who could possibly beat him is Obama, but Obama lacks the years of Federal political experience Paul has. This makes Obama suspect; while Paul says unconventional things, he's been doing it for years, and he acts on those principles, consistently. One is forced to wonder how long Obama could resist the pressure from the DC machine before selling out to it. (I'd like to think he's got the inner strength to tell them all to go pound sand, but can we count on it?) We need not wonder this about Paul. He'll go to his grave following his principles; he's proven that.
Ron Paul really is the last best hope for America, and thus, in many ways, for the world...
"Ron Paul Gets It"
That should be his slogan, especially since it appears to come up a lot.
"It's not just the war. It's foreign policy generally."
You're wrong. Paul cites again and again that he is merely offering up the humble foreign policy that Bush got elected on in 2000: no nation-building, policing the world etc.
This is the classic Republican position. Throughout the 20th century it was republicans candidates that fought against the very thing that these pretenders pushing upon us.
And if 70% of the American people are against the war, who is holding a banner on the republican side addressing that consensus?
Whose pulse are you feeling, man?
Ron paul scares me the same way the Hillary, Guliani, Obama, and Rommney scare me.
They all have "THE WAY" to get amaerica back to where it was and move forward.
Seriously, 5 people can't all have different plans and all be right.
Ron Paul like John Edwards made his money as a high price professional and yet feels he is connecting with the regular man. I hope he is a third party candidate like Nader, so we can right him off now.
I was born and raised a republican. Short & sweet America is one of the dumbest countries in the world and we all live in a fairy world. Recession??? FED says whatever let's print some more 'imaginary' money. Plus this so called 'economic stimulas' that we get to drop the value of a dollar further to get a couple extra bucks in our pocket , give me a break. Americans 'can't handle the truth' so of course when people hear Dr. Paul speaking of what we should do instead of promising lies like health care for all , taking all taxes off gas , and being shot at by Bosnian snipers lol. My point is regardless who wins , Obama Clinton or McCain will fail just like Bush because our countries ideas of economy and government are completely wrong and the statistics will tell you that. My Name is James Edward Kirk II and I proudly support Ron Paul.
That should be his slogan, especially since it appears to come up a lot.
kral oyun
Ron paul scares me the same way the Hillary, Guliani, Obama, and Rommney scare me.
They all have "THE WAY" to get amaerica back to where it was and move forward.
oyunlar
Ron paul scares me the same way the Hillary, Guliani, Obama, and Rommney scare me.
They all have "THE WAY" to get amaerica back to where it was and move forward.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home