Paul/Pawlenty 2012?

[The Jay]

What are people's thoughts on Ron Paul getting the Republican nomination for in 2012? I have only scratched the surface on my research for the 2012 Election but I'm reading a lot about Ron Paul lately.

I used to be of the opinion that he was a bit of a quack in the Republican party, does this have any basis in reality?

Tim Pawlenty also seems like he has a bit of buzz about him but he seems a bit young and inexperienced for the Republicans to vote for.

So Ron Paul/Tim Pawlenty for the Republican ticket in 2012?

These are just the thoughts of one not too knowledgeable Aussie but I'm just interested in any thoughts on what I've said?

[Marley23]

Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination. He has some enthusiastic supporters and some of his ideas look appealing at first blush, but he is very far from the mainstream - Democrat, Republican, ANY - on a lot of issues. There is no way anybody is going to get elected President arguing for a return to the gold standard, for one thing. His strongly isolationist views on foreign policy and support for the relaxation of drug laws would not work very well in the Republican primaries. Even most Republicans want a more active federal government than he does. Pawlenty is often mentioned as a possible VP candidate because, I don't know, he exists. I'm not sure if he has a shot at being on the ticket or not.

[Lord Feldon]

I think perhaps Ron Paul's nutso ideas on fiscal policy (among other batshit ideas he has professed) might turn away a lot of the money that a primary fight (let alone a general election campaign against an incumbent president) would burn through. Ron Paul isn't the kind of candidate who's going to be able to walk away with the nomination after doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire. If that came to pass, I think the strongest not-quite-so-insane Republican candidate would get just about all of the establishment Republican backing (and cash). Sales of commemorative Liberty Dollars and potlucks at the North Dakota Free People's Liberty Militia headquarters aren't going to fund a serious national campaign.

[BobLibDem]

Ron Paul has a much better chance of becoming pregnant than he does of being nominated. He has a smattering of support because for whatever reason it was trendy to follow him at one point, but the more people know about his batshit crazy views and the racist crap he allowed to be published in his newsletters, that base of his, small as it is, will evaporate.

[The Jay]

haha thanks for all the wise words everyone.
I had thought of Ron Paul in the past as being a bit of a nutso, but I had read some polling results recently which made me think he was gaining ground among the Republicans.

[Marley23]

I think the wave of support for Ron Paul crested in 2008 and it's not going to get bigger than it was. You could argue it's spread to other candidates because some of his issues are popular with Tea Party supporters and his son is now in the Senate, but if he runs for president again, he's not going to do better than last time. He's a fringe figure and I've seen it argued that House Republicans gave him the least important position they thought they could get away with.

If you want to get further into the practicalities of Paul making a real run, I'll point out that he's 75. He's in good health as far as I know, but he's a bit older than John McCain.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I think the wave of support for Ron Paul crested in 2008 and it's not going to get bigger than it was.

I agree. After the Iraq War, financial collapse and eight years of Bush, there was a pretty big nitche in 2008 for an "anti-Republican Republican". Now that the memory of Bush has receded somewhat, the GOP is more focused on getting rid of Obama, and the Tea Party has filled whats left of the "anti-Republican" niche in a way thats far less threatening to the actual GOP establishment , there isn't much of a place left for him to generate the buzz he had in the last election. If he runs again, he'll far under-preform his mediocre '08 showing.

[Jonathan Chance]

I will eat my cat if Paul gets more the 5% of the delegates at the 2012 convention.

He's an easy figure for the goldbugs/conspiracy theorists/dishonest libertarians to rally around. He speaks up, he supports their looniness, and so forth. But he's a freak with little actual understanding of economics. Hell, I once heard him advocate for a 100% fractional reserve system for banks. While it's true that 1/1 is a fraction it's not a helpful one if one wishes to empower banks to loan money.

Take that into account and also that his first witness for the subcommittee he chairs describes Lincoln as a murder and has apparently advocated a second secession of the southern states and European American empowerment and I'd say he's going to find that being a gadfly is easier than being in power.

[MeanOldLady]

"Well, it was leaked … John McCain could be leaning towards Tim Pawlenty. I know what you're thinking – the Tim Pawlenty? Apparently, McCain wants to lower his profile even more. I'm not even sure who Pawlenty was. And so I Googled him and it said, ‘Who?' " - Jay Leno

Yes, the joke is a bit dated, as people are increasingly aware of who Tim "Charisma Vacuum" Pawlenty is these days, as Courage to Stand is balancing roughly 5,000 uneven coffee tables across Middle America, but I wouldn't place my bet on him being anywhere near the 2012 presidential ticket.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

There is roughly a zero percent chance (+/- 0%) in this ticket coming to fruition.

[Duke]

Not to mention, on top of all the above, that Ron Paul is going to be 77 years old at Election 2012. That's the same age that Ronald Reagan was when he left office.

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

Take that into account and also that his first witness for the subcommittee he chairs describes Lincoln as a murder and has apparently advocated a second secession of the southern states and European American empowerment and I'd say he's going to find that being a gadfly is easier than being in power.

Just correcting a typo, because of course President Lincoln was murdered. In congressional hearings, Paul described Lincoln as a "murderer" for Abe's conduct of the Civil War.

[Really Not All That Bright]

A Paul presidency could be quite entertaining. It'd be just like electing George Washington to a third term in 2012, only without the war hero bit.

"Negroes can vote, you say?"
"And the ladies too? Despite their delicate constitutions? What if they refuse to obey their husbands?"

[astroidea]

Ron Paul... what a nutbag. Doesn't he know that Americans are all about spending money that they don't have? Hell if we run out, we can just print more. Doesn't he know that Americans just love the idea of bullying countries overseas, even considering that it makes the world hate them enough that they'd be willing to strap a bomb on themselves just to rid the world of a few of em? How dare he use reason and logic in his rhetoric. Doesn't he know that the only way to gain any kind of support in America is to repeat canned responses that hold true to the standard issue model of their party?

That old fool ought to just give up. There's no room for a good honest politician that reasons when he speaks.

Sarah Palin 2012! America needs your good ol' family values, even though your daughter got knocked up, you can't even recall a single founding father, and SNL was able to make a parody of you by reciting you verbatim. But at least you're against abortion.

[Really Not All That Bright]

If it wasn't for the abolish-the-fed stuff, nobody would think Paul was a nutjob. Well, maybe the fact that he claims to be all for liberty, but opposes abortion even more stridently than Palin. Oh, and opposing the Civil Rights Act.

[Jonathan Chance]

My favorite Paulism was the '100% fractional reserve' for banks.

That would sort of make it difficult to make loans, wouldn't it?

[Tom Scud]

There is absolutely no chance that the Republican Party as currently constituted would ever nominate an anti-militarist candidate. (Or an anti-Drug War candidate). People are citing the stuff that looks crazy to liberals, but his positions on those two issues pretty well limit him to the 5% or whatever he got in the 2008 primaries.

[Chronos]

If it wasn't for the abolish-the-fed stuff, nobody would think Paul was a nutjob.

I dunno, what does it for me is his desire to nationalize the precious metals industry. Which is admittedly related, but separate.

What I can't understand is how on Earth he got a reputation as a libertarian.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Pawlenty could be a possible VP choice for somebody like Romney, but I think even that's unlikely since (aside from having a boring and bland personality) Pawlenty wouldn't be able to deliver his own state in a General Election. He left Minnesota in pretty bad financial shape, and was never really popular to begin with.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by astroidea

That old fool ought to just give up. There's no room for a good honest politician that reasons when he speaks.

This gets exasperating. Some of Paul's views sound pretty reasonable and common sense-y. Others are paranoid and crazy, and you can't wipe them away with a little bit of 'yeah, fiscal sanity sucks' sarcasm. Paul says there is a "fascist elite" that wants to combine the U.S. with Canada and Mexico in a single-currency North American Union. (Link to cites.) And of course, there's the small matter of his ardent support for the gold standard. The people who enthusiastically support Ron Paul believe in that kind of thing. It's nuts, and it really defies belief to suggest one of the two major political parties is going to throw its support behind that kind of platform.

[Tom Scud]

Originally Posted by Chronos

What I can't understand is how on Earth he got a reputation as a libertarian.

He's the only elected official in a national body who holds and held most of the Libertarian Party positions on the drug war, police powers, taxes, military spending, foreign military adventures, and so on. (And almost the only elected official of any sort who opposed to the drug war and the war in Iraq from the word go.)

Also, there's a lot of crazy in the Libertarian Party; Paul is basically a centrist there.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Can a President actually do anything to compell us to adopt the gold standard? Unless he's got congress behind him, it's a non-starter.

[howye]

Originally Posted by The Jay

haha thanks for all the wise words everyone.
I had thought of Ron Paul in the past as being a bit of a nutso, but I had read some polling results recently which made me think he was gaining ground among the Republicans.

Late to the party and all, and this has become a thread focused on the nuttery of Ron Paul, but perhaps the polling results you have been seeing are for Rand Paul?

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Well, maybe the fact that he claims to be all for liberty, but opposes abortion even more stridently than Palin. Oh, and opposing the Civil Rights Act.

He also wants Congress to pass a bill that would ban federal courts from hearing cases related to religious freedom, establishment of religion, privacy (including abortion and sexual practices), and marriage unless the case was over a federal law. States would be free to establish religion, punish people for their religious beliefs, engage in whatever warrantless searches they pleased, jail women for receiving abortions, or (re-)criminalize homosexuality if Ron Paul, the candidate of liberty, had his way.

[Chronos]

Well, but those are states! It doesn't count as evil government if it's the pure and holy states that are doing it. It's only evil if a bunch of states get together and all decide something.