The political world can't stop speculating on the next presidential race, but as it continues to daydream about 2012 it should include room for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R). Two surveys [here and here] this month of Republican voters sought to size up the potential GOP field but did not include Paul. This is a mistake because Dr. No's philosophy is closer to the Republican mainstream than it was last year when he ran for president.
When the primaries began, Paul's warnings against inflationary money printing, an unaccountable Federal Reserve and an ever-expanding federal government seemed overheated to most Republicans. That was before the Fed printed $1 trillion this spring; the Treasury bought major shares in banks and automakers that are lynchpins in their respective economic sectors, and Democrats announced big plans for health care.
Now you hear conservatives worried about the Fed and inflation, and railing against the government's quasi-control of private businesses.
Republicans in Congress have been voting more like Paul since the primaries ended, namely on economic policy. First, half of the House GOP and Paul voted against the final version of the bailout authorization last October. Then, every single representative voted with Paul against the stimulus bill this year. (However, Paul and the GOP are still at odds on staying in Iraq and Afghanistan much longer.)
Furthermore, more than 150 House Republicans are now co-sponsoring Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
Paul's primary election results were not great, but they weren't inconsequential either: he won 10 percent of the votes in Iowa and 8 percent in New Hampshire.
If the economy isn't growing well in three years and the government has maintained its expanded economic role, it should only reason to stand that Paul would do better among Republicans than he did in the primaries, at least based on how Republican politicians are voting and conservative leaders are speaking. (For what it's worth, Paul won third place in the Conservative Action Political Committee's 2009 straw poll of activists' choices for president.)
Paul is just as plausible a candidate to run for the Republican nomination as are Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or Mike Huckabee who were tested in polls this month. Like them, Paul's run for the White House (twice) before and has said he isn't opposed to doing it again, albeit he said it's "unlikely." What's more likely, based on the circumstantial evidence, is that the Republican voters would receive Paul better than they did last year. Feature him in polls from now on and we can test this hypothesis.
Well, he's going to lock down the queer vote.
Make that 275 co-sponsors.
You can see that the 'plunge' team has already shown up on site.
Yes, yes, he's racist because he's going to get rid of the horrific drug war that disproportionally targets vast amounts of blacks and hispanics for non-violent crimes.
He's homophobic for wanting the government out of marriage and applying the law equally to everyone, no matter what you are.
And he's bigoted because that's pretty much what you call someone when you can't competently debate their policies.
perhaps he's racist from the material in the publication he was connected with for years.
perhaps he's homophobic because he voted for DADT, which is hardly a libertarian act, but ties up with him calling 'bruno' repeatedly a 'queer'.
Or perhaps everything is a conspiracy eh.
So is Al Sharpton and Sonya Sotomayor.
At least Ron Paul has a Clue about how to put the Country down the Right Path.
It isn't by Taxing our Middle Class to Death, Especially during a Depression!!!
If "Bruno" pulled that crap on me, I would have called him queer many times while I was beating his ass.
The only conspiracy here is the question of why you're relying on ad hominem attacks instead of actually attacking his policies. I think being called a racist these days is starting to be stretched about as thin as being called a socialist. And how, exactly, did he ever vote for DADT?
Basic Fact,
Thank you for being the one to claim Ron Paul is homophobic because he called the character/ambusher "bruno" queer. Dr. Paul didn't say bruno was "a Queer", but indicated that bruno's actions and overtures were queer.
Go ask your ninth grade English teacher the difference.
You showed your colors on this one, Basic Fact.
The basic fact actually is, the Merriam-Webster fifth edition 1947 definition for queer is:
queer - adjective - 1. Differing in some odd way from what is ordinary; singular; peculiar. 2a. slang - Spurious, counterfeit.
2b. colloq - Suspicious, questionable. 2c. colloq - Eccentric. 3. Not quite well; qualmish, faint.
Synonym- See STRANGE
you can look up the rest.
My point, Dr. Paul is unassailable. His use of the descriptor word, "queer" was within its original definition. Not as a bigoted pejorative, as Basic Fact unsuccessfully tried to suggest.
John Thune for President With Ron Paul as his Veep in 2012
The Senator from South Dakota is a True Republican and has Balls.
It could only be a conspiracy if it were secret.
I for one would love to see a politician on TV who knows the meaning of inflation. Honestly, from what I've seen, I really do not believe that elected officials understand what currency is, and what the implications of their policies on currency are.
Perhaps its because they were brainwashed in college not to question certain liberal establishments, but thats an idea...
It would be an interesting way to see if there is any truth to Republicans moving in a more libertarian direction--but under no circumstances is Rep. Paul a plausible Presidential candidate (unless you simply mean "It is plausible that he could try to run"). Contrarian rhetoric aside, McCain barely passed the age threshold in the last election, and Ron Paul is even older than John McCain is. I seriously doubt anyone will receive the nomination who would hit the big 8-0 while in office. Maybe Gary Johnson or someone else can fill that space, but that remains to be seen.
The age of the president is the lest of our worries
A couple of ignorant comments above. You need to read up on Congressman Ron Paul at campaignforliberty . He is the most honest and decent man in Congress, who is there for no other reason than to serve his country, and we need him badly.
If they include Huckabee and based on donations Dr. Paul should certainly be included. Paul raised almost 30 million dollars. Huckabee only raised 9 million, Paul raised 3x more than Huckabee. As a matter of fact Paul raised more cash than Romney, if you exclude what Romney loaned his campaign.
I for one would be honored to vote for Ron Paul. As someone who voted for Obama and has been disappointed in everything he has done I want to believe that Ron Paul would follow up with the things he talks about. I can't imagine a way that I would vote Republican any time soon but Ron Paul on the ticket would cause me to do that.
Ron Paul is a man that understands our problems and seems to be focused on fixing those problems.
If you wish to vote for hope and change Ron Paul is the right person.
I definitely would like to see Ron Paul included in a poll with Palin and Romney.
Ron Pauls surprising success was one of the most exciting things about last years election. The (entirely justifiable) implosion of his campaign after the racist newsletters story blew up was one of the most disappointing.
I see no reason why this year would be any different.
While I think that the inclusion of his ideas would be valuable, I find it hard to get excited about the prospect of repeating last years debacle.
The "racist newsletters" hardly touched Ron Paul's campaign last year. He was torpedoed because the Party leadership united against him, and GOP rank and file were stubbornly following the war policies of GW Bush. I hope the fact of a Democrat in the White House will cause both to rethink their position. The same thing happened to Pat Buchanan in '96. If Dr. Paul's health holds up, that would be a mighty ploy for '12 - a la Ronald Reagan, announce early a ticket of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan - the smiling reassuring doctor and his intellectual attack dog, both committed to respect for the Constitution and non-intervention. I think they'd take the convention by storm!
Obama is a relatively young guy and look how he is destroying our country and making it become a new USSA. McCain, on the other hand, is an inept trying to play being a "moderate" (what the heck is that anyway? Is that like kissing God and the Devil at the same time?) Ron Paul is neither. He is for individual freedom which is what the founding fathers planned for our country. The problem with modern Republicans and Democrats is that they either want to legislate religion and morality or want to legislate individuals behaviors to the nth degree like in the old Soviet Union. Both parties are currently engaged in supporting the biggest robbery that the world has ever seen, while the common American is just sitting and watching how his future generations as well as his own will be the new "slaves" of the State. None of the modern candidates —except for Dr. Paul— have a clue about history or even modern events, less a concept of how to fix anything; or they are just concerned about how much is there for their personal gain. All of them are for bigger government while Dr. Paul is for reducing it as much as possible. That alone is a good reason that Dr. Paul should be seriosly considered by all Americans who love their country and most importantly, love their freedom.
Excellent post Georg, couldn't have said it better.
I for one would vote for Paul if he runs again, his age doesn't bother me one bit.
If he's still mentally sharp, and fit as he appears to be at the present time (very possible), and...
the other candidates are as bad as they were in '08 (very likely),
it would be hard NOT to support him.
I think one of Ron Paul's basic tenets is that everyone has the right to do do what they want to themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. As other commenters have pointed out, his policies support equal rights regardless of opinions and his actions tracks well with what he says. This is quite rare in politics these days, and seemingly non-existent in the presidential race.
If he preached equal rights while voting against minorities and homosexuals, then I could see a reason to pull the racist/homophobe card. But if his actions continue to match his speeches, and he continues policies that are non-discriminatory, why attack him? Isn't that what is supposed to make America great?
Actions speak louder than words, and Ron Paul's actions speak volumes.
It's good to note his exclusion today, but there were much more severe and blatant efforts during his campaign: http://www.lostrepublic.us/archives/1961