Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Kiroy]

Originally Posted by Aulirophile

I know what his stance is, I was wondering what Vinen didn't like about it. A lot of people have spun it to say "He's again abortion." Which he is, personally, but as President he would make no effort to make it illegal so it is a moot point. He wants it to be up to the states.

I know you knew - I just put it out instead of trying to set the guy up to look like a douche.

Oh and ron paul is live on fox news in a few seconds - color me surprised.

[Tolanin]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Oh I've been going on and on about the Libertarian upswell for the last few years believe me. I've actually blogged (and I think I even posted here) about how I think Paul's momentum will translate to a systemic adoption of libertarian values within the Republican party in the same way Howard Dean's influence grew AFTER he lost his primaries.

I don't think it'll be entirely healthy--in fact, I think it would be healthier if Paul would mobilize the Libertarians and allow us to sweep aside the socialist incrementalists in the DNC---but I'm sure Ron Paul's success will promote internal transformation amongst the Republicans one way or the other.

I mean you're already seeing some of it. Huckabee de-emphasizing his close ties to the religious right. Thompson outright declaring that "he's not dancing to anyone's tune" when asked about the religious right. And worse yet, the religious right itself declaring that ultimatum they made requiring a pro-life stance from any candidate before they endorse him (which amounts to desperation).

Paul's remarkable fundraising efforts, not just yesterday but his last $5-million quarter (better than McKain's), will certainly help push towards that direction. Though I'm still doubtful about his nomination.

nomination is still a huge stretch.. VP is looking far more promising, you put up a semi social liberal like guiliani up and you gotta put a VP on the ticket to balance out the fact that the far right wont be that happy.

Its libertarian judges who would really matter tho. Aside from withdrawing from Iraq the president doesnt have the power to do anything that paul wants to do... especially since alot of it is getting rid of legislation which is far harder than putting it there in the first place.. i dont see how you could do it aside from having judges willing to overturn alot of the real big stretches in federal power that have just gotten a pass for so many years.

[Khorum]

Hmm a Giulani/Paul ticket would exclude the Moral Right vote altogether (which remained the leading exit-poll decision factor in 2000 and 2004). The Religious Right's Pro-Life Ultimatum is largely targetted at Giuliani, whom they distrust about the prolife issue. If Giuliani gets the nomination it's pretty much a sure bet that he'd have to yoink Huckabee for his veep, to placate the moral vote. Although, I was particularly proud that the Republican candidates were canny and opportunistic enough to know that they needed to steer away from the extremist right arm of the party, something the Democrats have yet to realize about their dependency on Moveon.org and and Soros.

A Huckabee/Paul or a Thompson/Paul nomination would be favorable. While Paul's libertarian and pro-life beliefs appeal strongly to the religious right (very strongly actually), the moral right also happens to be strongly interventionist and are probably the strongest supporters of the Iraq war. I still think THAT is harming Paul's appeal to the moral majority voting bloc.

[The Ancient]

Being against Roe v. Wade means that you are for states being able to render abortions illegal. If you believe in a woman's right-to-choose it's a bad thing. If it's a key issue for you, it's definately a mark against Ron Paul. I suspect a lot of people are willing to make a concession on it because they believe strongly in Paul's other talking points and because they know it isn't the President who has the final say on a Supreme Court ruling.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

Being against Roe v. Wade means that you are for states being able to render abortions illegal. If you believe in a woman's right-to-choose it's a bad thing. If it's a key issue for you, it's definately a mark against Ron Paul. I suspect a lot of people are willing to make a concession on it because they believe strongly in Paul's other talking points.

But being FOR Roe v Wade would've been inconsistent with Ron Paul's entire libertarian worldview about reduced federal authority and restoring state's rights. That's his whole position with it (and something that could have traction with strong states-rights sentiments amongst the Religious Right).

Paul's 10-term career is the both the longest and the most consistent political career of anyone running for President, on both sides, and his stance on federal judicial authority over abortion (or over anything that should be a state decision for that matter) is just one example of that consistency.

[darksensei]

Originally Posted by Khorum

But being FOR Roe v Wade would've been inconsistent with Ron Paul's entire libertarian worldview about reduced federal authority and restoring state's rights. That's his whole position with it (and something that could have traction with strong states-rights sentiments amongst the Religious Right).

Paul's 10-term career is the both the longest and the most consistent political career of anyone running for President, on both sides, and his stance on federal judicial authority over abortion (or over anything that should be a state decision for that matter) is just one example of that consistency.

Shocker Fox News has gone from trying to censor him, to trying to exclude him.

Republican Party of Iowa to host
presidential debate in DES MOINES

Debate to be nationally televised by FOX NEWS CHANNEL

The Republican Party of Iowa announced today that it will hold its presidential debate at Hy-Vee Hall in downtown Des Moines. The event, to be held the evening of December 4, 2007, will be the first debate in Iowa to be televised by FOX News Channel this election season, as well as the first debate sponsored by the Republican Party of Iowa.

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Ray Hoffmann said, "With the caucuses less than a month away, our December 4 debate will be very telling to Iowans and the nation. We are thrilled to be having this event in central Iowa, and right in downtown Des Moines which will be the epicenter on caucus night."

The debate will be limited to those candidates who have satisfied the following criteria:

1. Announced a formal campaign for President: and
2. Filed the necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission; and
3. Met all U.S. constitutional requirements; and
4. Garnered at least 5% of the national electorate as determined by an average of the most recent national telephone polls of registered voters conducted by non-partisan public opinion polling organizations leading up to the registration deadline as determined by Fox News Channel and the Republican Party of Iowa or garnered an average of at least 5% in the most recent polls of Iowa voters conducted by the American Research Group and the Des Moines Register.

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Khorum

But being FOR Roe v Wade would've been inconsistent with Ron Paul's entire libertarian worldview about reduced federal authority and restoring state's rights.

No argument here. I was just stating that if you are pro-choice his stance is definately not favorable to you. You* can't just dismiss it based on the fact that he's not explicitly for anti-abortion legislation. Roe v. Wade is the only thing keeping abortion legal in a number of states.

*"You" in this case meaning the informed voter, not specifically Khorum.

[Khorum]

Exclude him by that phone poll? Last I checked Paul hasn't LOST a Fox phone poll. The whole 5% exclusion criteria would likely wipe out Tancredo, but I didn't know Paul's actual numbers were that bad heh. Can't really say I'm surprised, TBH.

Originally Posted by The Ancient

No argument here. I was just stating that if you are pro-choice his stance is definately not favorable to you. You can't just dismiss it based on the fact that he's not explicitly for anti-abortion legislation. Roe v. Wade is the only thing keeping abortion legal in a number of states.

Oh I'm not voting for Ron Paul heh. Was just saying. I agree with a lot of his Goldwater values, and I can see his appeal to the Goldwater wing of the party, but his anti-war/anti-intervention angle is where I got off the bandwagon.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Hmm a Giulani/Paul ticket would exclude the Moral Right vote altogether (which remained the leading exit-poll decision factor in 2000 and 2004). The Religious Right's Pro-Life Ultimatum is largely targetted at Giuliani, whom they distrust about the prolife issue. If Giuliani gets the nomination it's pretty much a sure bet that he'd have to yoink Huckabee for his veep, to placate the moral vote. Although, I was particularly proud that the Republican candidates were canny and opportunistic enough to know that they needed to steer away from the extremist right arm of the party, something the Democrats have yet to realize about their dependency on Moveon.org and and Soros.

A Huckabee/Paul or a Thompson/Paul nomination would be favorable. While Paul's libertarian and pro-life beliefs appeal strongly to the religious right (very strongly actually), the moral right also happens to be strongly interventionist and are probably the strongest supporters of the Iraq war. I still think THAT is harming Paul's appeal to the moral majority voting bloc.

Paul has made clear that, even were he offered it, which he won't be, he would not accept the Vice Presidential nomination if it came from someone who did not share his core beliefs regarding the Constitution, foreign policy, civil liberties, etc. (i.e. everyone else running).

[darksensei]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Exclude him by that phone poll? Last I checked Paul hasn't LOST a Fox phone poll. The whole 5% exclusion criteria would likely wipe out Tancredo, but I didn't know Paul's actual numbers were that bad heh. Can't really say I'm surprised, TBH.

Oh I'm not voting for Ron Paul heh. Was just saying. I agree with a lot of his Goldwater values, and I can see his appeal to the Goldwater wing of the party, but his anti-war/anti-intervention angle is where I got off the bandwagon.

He only has 26% name recognition, and the phone polls only call people who voted republican in 2004. The problem is Ron Paul supporters are not Bush supporters, and that's about 70% of the nation who disapprove of Bush. I'm not saying he's doing fantastic, but he could easily be getting 5% if they polls were accurate.

[Khorum]

That's what I meant, I knew he was a dark horse but I didn't think he'd be below 5%. I know that exclusion probably bodes ill for Tancredo, but I bet Paul will get into the debate np. Likewise I'm not surprised if FNC did try to exclude him some other way, namely by stacking the questions.

[MrGraham]

In conversation today, out of my IT department (as in a younger crowd), only one other person out of 10 knew who Ron Paul was.

Our presidency is a beauty pageant with the media as the judges.

[Mimirswell]

Originally Posted by MrGraham

In conversation today, out of my IT department (as in a younger crowd), only one other person out of 10 knew who Ron Paul was.

Our presidency is a beauty pageant with the media as the judges.

Well, it's more nuanced than that. They certainly marginalize any campaign that doesn't conform neatly in the two party system and they can set the tone and mood the campaign takes.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by MrGraham

In conversation today, out of my IT department (as in a younger crowd), only one other person out of 10 knew who Ron Paul was.

Our presidency is a beauty pageant with the media as the judges.

Now THAT'S trouble. Unless your IT guys are yoinked off trade schools and mail-order cert programs, that's exactly the sort of crowd that Paul's viral campaign is banking on.

[Soriak]

For argument's sake, what would happen if he became President?

Obviously he can't implement the gold standard, get rid of the fed and/or the income tax - Congress wouldn't do it. He also can't overturn Roe v Wade, that'd require a constitutional amendment. (or the Supreme Court changing its mind, which isn't something the President can affect directly)

Would he have the necessary backing in Congress - in either party - to get anything done?