I promise not to go off the deep end with any hopes other than further education with respect to Ron Paul's recently announce 2012 run.

That said, here is an interesting article I came across. Basic idea is that Ron Paul has shown more dedication to "progressive" principles than Obama has.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/davis-ch1.1.1.html

That's interesting and all, but it totally misses the point. There's nothing inherently progressive about being anti-war. Progressive politics essentially boils down to the belief in positive government action to improve the lot of the poor, and it's far more concerned with domestic economic and social policy than with foreign and security policy. Now obviously it happens to be the case that the left are more strongly anti-war, but that's coincidental really. There's no progressive case for Ron Paul because his entire philosophy rejects the notion that good can come from positive governmental action.

You get more what you value as a progressive with Ron Paul than you do from Obama.

The facts are: he's pushed for the largest military budget in world history, given trillions of dollars to Wall Street in bailouts and near-zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve, protected oil companies like BP from legal liability for environmental damages they cause – from poisoning the Gulf to climate change – and mandated that all Americans purchase the U.S. health insurance industry's product. You might argue Paul's a corporatist, but there's no denying Obama's one.

And at least Paul would – and this is important, I think – stop killing poor foreigners with cluster bombs and Predator drones. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize winner-in-chief, Paul would also bring the troops home from not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europe, Korea and Okinawa. There'd be no need for a School of the Americas because the U.S. wouldn't be busy training foreign military personnel the finer points of human rights abuses.

Yes, I did read the article. I'd suggest that Paul's policies are going to take away a lot more that progressives cherish than they're going to give.

Anyway, genuine question now. Let's say Paul does somehow manage to get elected, which bits of his platform would you say he's likely to be able to actually enact ? Bearing in mind that he'd have to get a lot of it through Congress, which would be virtually impossible for large chunks of it. Ending the wars and bringing the troops home can presumably be done by Presidential decree. Ending the war on drugs seems eminently achievable I suppose, although I'm guessing this would also require a change in the law which would need Congressional approval. What else can he do without getting stalled in Congress ?

Ending the war on drugs seems eminently achievable I suppose, although I'm guessing this would also require a change in the law which would need Congressional approval.

He can end the war on drugs through his entire term by simply granting amnesty for any non-violent drug offenders (which he has said he would do.)

Vetoing every bill that comes before him that contains any provisions he views as unconstitutional (which is most bills) would force Congress to pass bills with a 2/3 majority (another benefit in my view since it means that there would have to be a greater consensus for any bills that do pass).

Doing those two things and dismantling the empire would be an enormous benefit to America.

So how do you rate Paul's chances this time round ? Once again he seems to be written off by all the pundits, which is probably fair, but it strikes me that the field for the Republican primaries is looking incredibly weak right now. Having built both a profile and a fanbase last time could he be set for a much better showing ? It would certainly shake things up, even if he has virtually no chance of winning the election.

Vince, all those actions seem possible in theory. However, what about the reality? What if Congress did unite against him? You'd have a lame duck president. What if they decided that he had acted unconstitutionally? It would result in a destructive court battle.

Still, I'd love to see you express your projections for Paul's 2012 run. The 2008 ones were hilarious!

theodorelogan wrote:That said, here is an interesting article I came across. Basic idea is that Ron Paul has shown more dedication to "progressive" principles than Obama has.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/davis-ch1.1.1.html

Good read. Thanks for posting it.

I think that Ron Paul will do better this time around, since his predictions about the housing bubble and economic crash came true, and his prediction that Obama was a warmonger came true. I also think that his spending philosophy will find a much more receptive public this time around.

What will that amount to? Not much, except for lots more people learning about liberty.

Sassenach wrote:So how do you rate Paul's chances this time round ? Once again he seems to be written off by all the pundits, which is probably fair, but it strikes me that the field for the Republican primaries is looking incredibly weak right now. Having built both a profile and a fanbase last time could he be set for a much better showing ? It would certainly shake things up, even if he has virtually no chance of winning the election.

Paul could win the Republican nomination this year, but only because Obama may be unbeatable. So what other way to try to draw libertarians in than by throwing him a nod on a year you know no one can beat Obama.

The neocon wing prefers Obama to Paul by a large sum because of his foreign policy. That should give liberals room to pause...

...but it won't.

In more statistical terms, Paul polls better than he did in 08--way better. Before he would poll in 3rd or 4th, but he is polling in second in both NH and IA--and he's trailing two different candidates (huckleberry in IA and moromney in NH).

Gary Johnson could also pull a dark horse win--being more "republican" than Paul, and because he's stated that he won't close Guantanamo. The neocons may find him less offensive, but not enough to promote him over Obama.

Let's face it. We have an 8 year presidency now.

I like Ron Paul. He's very bright and comes across as particularly honest. He's probably the most consistent politician out there, and maybe the brightest.

I heard snippets of an interview of him last night. He was asked about providing aid to people living in the south who had their homes destroyed by the recent tornadoes. He patiently explained how it is not the government's job to take money away from people who are smart enough to not live in tornado zones and give it to people who are foolish to live in such places and not by sufficient insurance. It was an intellectually reasonable argument, but I just can't see that perspective winning people over, especially when you see visuals of people losing homes, livelihood, and family members to nature's whims. A skilled politician could easily display him as cruel.

Politics is the art of compromise. It would be great if Paul could keep to his views but compromise as needed. I just don't see him being able to do that.

Ron would get slaughtered in a 1 on 1 debate--not because of a failing in his beliefs, but he is not the best communicator out there. He knows how to explain his ideology, and is great as a gadfly and under vitriolic attack, but doesn't do so well in explaining how his ideas are better. He reverts to constitutionality too often, in my opinion, but that's the game he's playing as a Republican.

I do disagree with portraying his lack of compromise as a failing. Where are the "compromise" candidates of 2008? Obama wasn't a compromise candidate. Moreover, Ron Paul's popularity has skyrocketed because of his principled consistency. Now principled consistency isn't a winner, but neither is pure compromise--especially when the economy sucks this bad and we've been at war for 10 years.

Ray Jay wrote:I heard snippets of an interview of him last night. He was asked about providing aid to people living in the south who had their homes destroyed by the recent tornadoes. He patiently explained how it is not the government's job to take money away from people who are smart enough to not live in tornado zones and give it to people who are foolish to live in such places and not by sufficient insurance. It was an intellectually reasonable argument, but I just can't see that perspective winning people over, especially when you see visuals of people losing homes, livelihood, and family members to nature's whims. A skilled politician could easily display him as cruel.

Well, "who choses where they are born?", would be the starting point for a response. The problem with such libertarian attitudes is that they assume people are actually able to make the 'choice' that they are being told they did.

Politics is the art of compromise. It would be great if Paul could keep to his views but compromise as needed. I just don't see him being able to do that.

I don't see his childish supporters doing much to help him. I mean "Moronmy"? It's way too early to be looking at polls, as the big guns in the GOP are (wisely) not making a move yet. wait till the end of the year. And this time, let's see how those 'straw polls' work out?

Moreover, Ron Paul's popularity has skyrocketed because of his principled consistency

According to a recent Fox news poll only 7% of republicans want to see him as the republican nominee. http://www.scribd.com/full/54158725?access_key=key-26pckzzekc16xems5954
How do you define skyrocketing?

Danivon it may seem too early to look at polls, except that in a poltiical system where it costs hundreds of millions to run for President, people are already making decisions about where their donations go.. And in a system where the primaries start in 10 months..... and where the organizatiion required is thousands strong... time is awasting...

The problem with such libertarian attitudes is that they assume people are actually able to make the 'choice' that they are being told they did.

Yeah, why do people choose to live in places where there is high crime or high pollution or hurricanes or tornadoes or etc. The truth is that people don't often make these kinds of choices. They live where they can find work. They live where their familiy has always lived. They choose to accept high risk jobs in coal mines becasue they don't have many other choices. And, if no one chose those jobs? The perfect world where there is an abundance of choice for everyone doesn't exist for the majority of people.left entirely to their own devices without the support of others in some form.
Libertarians ask that everyone ignore the evidence of history. They forget why people made choices to erect support systems within their government, and ignore that before these systems were erected the world was more alike the Libertarian view. A world where life for the working class was short and brutal and where the small middle class was often a disaster away from poverty.
And where everyone suppossedly was free to make more choices.

Guys,

While I agree that Ron Paul is a joke candidate who will not do any better this year then he did the last time, you are arguing the wrong point. He isn't criticizing the location in which they live but the lack of insurance. Now I know you are going to comment about costs and shit like that. So, just so you don't look like hypocrits make sure you make the same comments about Obama's comments to a Union member who complained about high gas prices that he should just trade in his 8mpg SUV for a car with better gas mileage.