If Paul was only interested in what was realistic, he wouldn’t have run in the first place. I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought that if only the American public knew of the evils of fractional reserve banking, they would reject it. Not to mention the evil Fed and the easier to explain gold standard.
It is all about being heard, and perhaps about forcing the Romney delegates to vote against these true blue (sorry, true red) libertarian positions.
Sure the platform is meaningless - it is all about sound bites.
What he wants is to get heard. I assume that even Paul isn’t crazy enough to think his positions are a majority even in the party.
You need to add “to his bid for the presidency” to the end of that, because if Romney wanted to do the most good and the least harm overall, he’d never have gotten within 30 miles of the GOP nomination…
The Romney platform, designed in collaboration with Microsoft. Each plank is implemented by Javascript which changes the wording depending on poll results and the web browsing history of the reader of the platform. Patented Flip_Flop™ technology makes sure every potential voter gets the view of the platform that they want to see.
Or rolls up a grade, and settles in.
Our partisan politics are in need of a change. Pauls methods seem a bit extreme to me, but we need something.
I think someone with his philosophies winning states sends a message not only to the 2 entrenched parties, but to the voters.
Personally, I think his success is more symbolic
Ah. Well, that would be very different from anything Paul would want in there.
If you want to change our partisan politics as such – change them for real, so that they are different than in all our previous history, when a two-party system has prevailed at almost all times – then what we need is proportional representation, instant-runoff voting, and electoral fusion. None of which I have ever heard Paul mention, and I actually wonder if he has ever heard of such things or understands their significance.
I agree with the idea that Paul is just trying to get his message out there. At this point, it’s a given that Romney is the candidate, and I don’t think anyone but Paul’s most diehard fans believe otherwise. So Romney’s supporters and those who are simply okay to settle with that will be quieter, but those who aren’t happy with some of his positions will be louder. I think maybe Paul thinks if he can demonstrate that his supporters are a large enough bloc, the Republican party will need to do something to appease them for fear of them staying home.
I seriously doubt Paul could get many of his more extreme positions considered, particularly his economic ones, but I wouldn’t be surprised if, as a result of his showing, he might not get them to at least quiet down about a couple things that might otherwise farther alienate the libertarian wing.
Either way, I seriously doubt his endgame is, or realistically ever was, any sort of realistic shot at the nomination, just a real shot to have his message heard on a national stage. At least from my perspective, the hype he’s generated over the past few elections has definitely grown, so I’d even say he’s being moderately successful at it.
I’m not sure that’s true. If so, there was no reason to give up his House seat after this election cycle. He’d be in a better position to keep his message on the national stage if he was still in Congress after losing the nomination.
Of course, there’s the pragmatic argument that the Texas Republicans were tired of him and going to field a credible primary challenger, but that would mean he was admitting his defeat at getting his message across in his own district, much less the entire country.
Here in Texas (we’re next door to his district), the best we can figure it is that this run is a last ditch, all out effort by a True Believer, and he’s going to win or go down fighting.
Actually, particularly given the year, Elections is the place for it.
Off you go.
This is fantastic news, everyone knows that the US is a Republic based on representative democracy, not an actual democracy. If the vulgate actually got their demands, why, we’d see such horrendous policies as a redistribution of wealth or universal healthcare! No, far better to have enlightened individuals in place to temper the passions of the people, exactly as the founders intended. Though perhaps the founders were not sufficiently conservative: we could adopt stable systems from our allies, such as Saudi… Something immune to the rancorous cries of the proles, a hereditary form of government.
- Poe smily.
He has a hoarding problem.
The message it sends is that Paul knows how to work the system - which is fine; candidates need to know that. But it doesn’t mean there is so much support for Paul’s positions that his demands must be heeded; it means there is a passionate minority that supports him. That doesn’t mean very much on its own.
??
I agree.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.
I do not think Tea Party folk are close to any kind of a majority but they are a significant enough minority and coherent enough in purpose to have an effect out of all proportion to their size.
Looks like Paul supporters are managing much the same thing by gaming the system.
See, I see it as a way to shore up more Romney-bound votes and for a way for Dr. Paul to get more exposure/pass the torch to Rand. I’m still thinking that Rand is on the short list for Vice President, but I’m just as much of an armchair quarterback as you guys. To backtrack and clarify, I think Ron’s delegates have been “going” to Romney for a while now. Paul stopped sending attack ads against Romney for some time here in order to act as a firewall against Santorum/Gingrich. Ron Paul sees this process as a way for him to pass the torch/garner a few more political points and his supporters see it as a super sneaky way to win the nomination, which has a Lloyd Christmas chance of happening.
That’s not the case for the Democrats in my state (it might be for the Republicans, but I would doubt it).
Nevada and Maine are both caucus states. That might make things slightly different than they would be in a state with a primary process.
-
Since we’re in elections… why not substitute approval voting for instant runoff?
-
Following your point, I opine that Ron Paul is a loyal Republican. That makes sense: the odds of getting all those reforms passed are slim, alas.
-
I don’t know what Ron Paul is after. But I’m guessing it’s not about platform, but rather about extending his family business. The Presidency is a conciliation prize: Ron is building up his mailing list. I’ve never seen the Paul family build coalitions to advance his ideas: instead they work off of the gadfly/nutcake model. As a business model, his behavior makes perfect sense.
I’m thinking that IRV is easier to sell because the ability to rank-order the candidates by preference offers more psychological satisfaction.
Paul is about the least loyal Republican in Congress. Joe Lieberman is a more loyal Republican than Ron Paul. He won’t support Romney, he’s willing to crash the party to further his message, and he’s left the party before. I’d like to know in what way he has demonstrated himself to be a " loyal Republican."
So you accuse Paul of running for personal gain. Why do you think Barack Obama ran?
Of course there’s going to be benefits to running for president but I think it’s pretty clear that he’s evangelizing at this point. There has been several times over this campaign season that Paul could have moderated his views and increased his support manifold. He chose not to.
You don’t see him beboping and scatting all over the place on issues like Romney or Obama.
He doesn’t build coalitions? He has worked with Democrats like Kucinich and Frank. Endorsed McKinney and Nader.