‹ Ron Paul ‘Suspends’ Presidential Race •
John McCain survived the New Hampshire primary thanks to receiving the support of the bulk of Republicans opposed to the Iraq war. McCain also did much better with the antiwar voters than other GOP candidates in the crucial Florida primary.
Ron Paul, who announced he was dropping out of the race last night, never made his opposition to the Iraq War the key theme of his own campaign. (He did superbly when asked about this issue in debates or interviews, but most voters never saw the debates or interviews).
After McCain had emerged as a near-frontrunner before the Florida primary, a single 30-second ad highlighting his warmongering could have had a huge impact. Even if the Paul campaign only paid to have it broadcst a single time, it would likely have gotten picked up and frequently rebroadcast as a new story (the same tactic other candidates used).
Stressing an antiwar message probably would not have allowed Ron Paul to capture the GOP presidential nomination. But educating voters about McCain’s record could have made all the difference.
Losing the antiwar vote to McCain is like losing the chastity vote to Bill Clinton.
It is perplexing that a candidate who voted so courageously against the war in Congress would siderail this issue in his presidential campaign - and thereby possibly miss a chance to block the biggest GOP Senate warmonger from the nomination.
Ron Paul DID NOT DROP OUT
I NEVER saw a Ron Paul commercial! Where was the money spent? I also never saw a Mike Gravel commercial, but at least he had an excuse - he had no money!
Some of Gravel’s campaign videos are quite good. He is also the only candidate emphasizing impeachment, now that Kucinich is out.
His main flaw is akin to Paul’s, thinking matters can be resolved from the top down, rather than holding the Executive Branch accountable.
Without impeachment, it really does not matter much who is elected president.
Depends on where you were… if you were in an important primary state, you saw them. I saw them here in Washington State… but not before the primaries got here. No disrespect intended, but maybe you are not in a politically decisive area. We certainly had a lot of his signs and posters here in Spokane!
“We certainly had a lot of his signs and posters here in Spokane!”
Another one of the many reasons why I look forward to a return to Spokane - one of the country’s best kept secrets. Enjoy every day there, Kevin.
“I saw them here in Washington State…”
Those observations, no doubt, were made either in or east of Ellensburg. People talk about “North” and “South” California… Kevin can probably attest to the fact that Eastern and Western Washington are not only quite different geographically, but also politically.
I’ve always thought it would be great if Eastern Washington told Olympia to “stick it” and then, with an alliance of the residents Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho and Montana, form the Great State of Jefferson, and then proceed to secede, of course. :-)
And as an aside, there is STILL no state income tax in Washington State. And that, of course, is not for a lack of trying. Do you think for one second that would be the current state of affairs if it weren’t for the freedom loving, “Galveston Cousins” in Eastern Washington?
Yea, I know. I’m going “off topic”.
So byte me (spelled that way on purpose).
You’ve got to admit, a daily dose going on for years of reading antiwar.com and now the blog entries can sometimes get so g*dd*mn depressing.
It’s a bitch being right again and again. Am I right? :-) Do we feel like we’re in some g*dd*mn Twilight Zone episode? With everyone around us thinking the most g*dd*mn, ignorant and stupid… do I dare call them… “thoughts”?
I swear sometimes I think the pods really are growing in the greenhouse and gardens and all these “people” around me aren’t really people at all.
I’ll stop ranting (for now)… sorry for the interruption… enjoy your Sunday. I think I’ll just start my own damn blog.
Yeah, he SUSPENDED HIS CAMPAIGN… for four more years.
Oh, he dropped all right.
That man was handed his hat time and time again and for some reason he couldnt except defeat.
Hes nothin but a memory now.
While I agree that Ron Paul’s campaign wasn’t as media savvy as it should have been, and his ads were weak. I don’t believe it was at all possible that he could overcome the the Media bias against him in just one year.
The important thing now is how to carry on the revolution for 2012. Another four years and the revolution could be effective.
The revolution needs to carry on, recruiting people to swell the grass roots and plan for an extremely efficient and organized campaign in 2012. I would estimate that RP has about 20K dedicated supporters now. That number should grow to 100K in the next three years. Then the money bombs will be much bigger. Then we can hire marketing firms and break through the media black out.
One major obstacle is that Ron Paul is probably too old to run for 2012. We will lose the advantage of having the most conservative congressman / doctor / serviceman at the helm. We need someone new to carry on the message. Some one who believes in the message of personal freedom and liberty. Someone who is not compromised by historical baggage. Someone who is as eloquent in his answers as the good Dr. That will not be easy to find.
Another gynecologist perhaps?
LOL!
Yeah well I don’t think those 1 million or so people who will no doubt be killed by the Warmongers in the White House can wait until 2012. This is not an “oh well” situation. Lives of millions are at risk. World War 3 could be on the horizon by 2012. Without Ron Paul there is no choice. Hillary’s War or McCain’s War won’t matter.
If Paul had 100,000 die-hard supporters there could be a march on DC. Think French Revolution without Robespierre.
The problem, realy, is that Americans never saw a war they did not like. Every war has brough victory, with victor’s huge dividends, without any significant cost or sacrifice; no bombs falling on our schools, churches, stadia or malls, no shortages, no rationing, no inflation, few dead or maimed, no fear of cholera epidemic or malnourished, damaged children, no refugees and no soldiers dead and unaccounted for. Only ticker tape parades,, new highs for Wall Street, more country’s ‘hosting’ our troops at obscene cost to their economies and obscene profits for pentagon from which to develop new weapons and plan new wars (always against weak enemies and certainty of victory) Folks, America will not heed Antiwar.com until there is a cloud over Kansas City or Minneapolis or Orlando (mushroom cloud, that is) and that ain’t gonna happen.
“It is perplexing that a candidate who voted so courageously against the war in Congress”
Paul was always a weak campaigner. He had no sound bites, kept using cryptic phrases like ‘blow back’. IMO if you want a liberterian revolution start with local mayors or lower. Then you might get a stable of potential candidates.
It should also be noted that his supporters were quickly targeted. For example closing Liberty Dollar?
My suggestion, he use the money he raised to fund candidates in Texas and create a Liberterian ‘machine’ that could be copied in other states.
that’s a good idea.
Uhm….watch the video again.
The MSM has misinterpreted it.
That is good news.
It ain’t over until WE say it is over.
Ron Paul has not quit.
He is still spreading the message. We will do the rest.
He has not asked for his name to be removed from any ballot.
Lightning may strike between now and the convention.
Goodness knows that McCain is NOT well liked among Republicans. He is just the best that Americans can vote for with MSM like your self slanting the results.
Please quit spreading falsehoods. Admit the ambiguity of what he said in the video and URGE people to listen to the video themselves. There is a strategy afoot that needs McCain to shoot himself in the foot. You are hurting this by saying he is out when he is only talking about realities and odds. We know the odds. Do you? And the outcome if we fail? Get real and start helping
We ain’t giving up!
“Admit the ambiguity of what he said…”
Is that what the campaign has come down?
Supporters are supposed to sift videos for ambiguity???
Sort of like when I sift the kitty’s litter box, maybe?
But I have to wonder - don’t you actually have to be doing things indicative of being IN the race before you can get OUT (or suspend, depending on which ambiguity we’ve sifted).
But you’d never been “in the race” since you’d simply used the earlier posturing to bait and switch attention to your re-election campaign. And, yes, there is indeed in this case a rather profound similarity to what one might sift from kitty’s poopie box.
Hes OUT..He quit, its over so except it for gods sake.
Hes not going to be President….So your choices now are Obama, Clinton or McCain. And i for one can only hope that it comes down to Clinton and McCain. The last thing we need in office right now is a Muslim.
Mr Bovard, Dr.Paul has not exactly dropped out. Please revise your article to reflect the difference between ‘dropping out’ which implies walking away and shutting down, and at least make mention of Paul’s Liberty PAC, the Free Foundation and his continuing effort to change the system.
“Victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race…”
Was it ever?
“We do still encourage all effort to gain the maximum number of votes and delegates in all the remaining primaries and to continue the caucus process that is ongoing… I will continue to make every effort to visit any state where the enthusiasm for liberty exists. The campaign for freedom will continue in this new phase.”
I also posted this comment at my own blog. Some of the comments coming in there are clarifying the situation and the campaign nicely.
The first comments are from Brian Wilson, a prominent radio host who relates how he tried many times to get Ron Paul on his show to no avail.
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2008/03/07/ron-pauls-missed-chance-against-mccain/#comment-112618
May we summaraize–”Tune in, turn on, suspend”?
Go to http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com and download/listen to the audio interviews (his conversation in Missouri and Indy and verify it is NOT over). He did NOT suspend. In the video he said he is available for campaigning in all the states. The maximum delegates is important, but it would also be good to solidify support in the remaining primaries, now witht he real two alternatives during the race practically left. (Alan Keyes has also not dropped out as far as I know, but he is no factor). Even if he does not get the nomination, a strong showing in the remaining primaries, where he could get say 30% plus will be very important for the future, but also as a bargaining power during the RNC. The GOP can ignore Ron Paul even less then.
“… he is available for campaigning…”
Well, that’s very considerate of him.
I live in Maryland, where there were legions of Ron Paul supporters.
I am not aware that Ron Paul ever did anything in Maryland.
And it is not exactly an arduous trip here from Capitol Hill.
If I am mistaken about Paul not doing anything in Maryland - especially in the weeks before the Maryland primary - I hope one of his supporters will correct me.
When did the word “campaign” become a passive verb?
Why “Ron Paul supporters” rather than supporters of some of his watered down Libertarian ideas?
And why now of all things his seemingly uncuttable umbilical to the Republican Party?
That, and Paul’s tepid support for impeachment, make the whole shebang suspect.
Has anyone taken a close look at the actual contributors to his campaign, and what the motivation of some of the larger ones, if there were such, may have been?
It is always useful to learn to think like the enemy–what use might a Rove have found in having an important portion of the anti-war movement identified with a maverick Republican?
Well, as someone who is a maxed out donor… my motivation was that I *thought* we were going to get a solid, professionally run, TRUE REPUBLIC-an candidate that would actually go out and campaign, and yes mainly against this stupid Clintonesque-Wilsonian war.
What happened instead is I got *sucker-punched* and my money got mainly squandered on shitty commercials and a woefully inept campaign, with the remainder paying ridiculously high salaries to a bunch of entirely incompetent, irresponsible, non-communicative, former staff *cronies* of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sickened and pissed off. I will NEVER donate a penny to any candidate that I do not get to look *RIGHT* square in the eyes and truly JUDGE their character.
Ah, yes, yet another hymn of praise to that kind, principled, Ron Paul. Gottcha where it hurt, did he, jkhutz? My sympathies. He only grazed me. I was going to vote for him if he’d just had the authenticity to run as an independent. But somehow, all of that decency stumbled over the grandfatherliness and there we were, independentless. It seems he’d needed to spend most of his time making U-Tubes stroking those folks in the campaign that bilked you and taking care of number one: His Republican House seat. Oh, but you’ll hear from them again, of course. Even money you’ll get an e-mail solicitation for more scratch.
Justin, you are way off. *Everyone* who knew anything about Ron Paul knew that he was the anti-war Republican candidate. Why would he broadcast what everyone else already knew? His struggle was not to be a one-issue candidate.
It sounds like you’re blaming the victim here. He had little chance in the first place, and went much further than I ever expected. Let’s not be sore losers.
That’s what he’s saying, anything who knew anything about Ron Paul wasn’t that many people.
He maybe coulda broadcast that to the people who didn’t know, i.e. the vast number of people in the US who had either never heard of him or were convinced by hyper-liberal media sources that he was slightly more right-wing that Hitler.
Most people I knew had never heard of him and the rest were convinced he would end all rights and suspend the constitution(!?) I mean for real.
Let’s face it. The Paul campaign was one huge debacle …The TV ads stunk ….There was never sufficient funds deployed to Iowa or NH ….And most curiously there are 6 million dollars left in unspent campaign funds - to be used for what purpose ? … The antiwar issue was his trump card and the morons who ran the campaign flooded voters with anti-immigration pamphlets …..Didn’t they know that Tancredo’s message was a market-tested loser? ….Oh well someone will get to spend those unused campaign funds , won’t they ?
And all of the above simply for openers, sad to say. Why anyone might feel inclined to vote for Ron Paul in the Fall given knowledge of this kind of track record absolutely boggles the mind. I’ve previously used the term schmegeggi, or schmegeggie, if you prefer, in making an appraisal of Paul. I’ll advance it once again. I mean, would you vote for a schmegeggi?
I know I wouldn’t vote for the John Lowell that comments here, but yes, would for the Honorable Ron Paul. The latter is kind.
Presumably, then, you would, in fact, vote for a schmegeggi, peace. :-)
Just to add to the variants, Saul Bellow has it “shmegeggy” (Herzog 1964).
Others seem to suggest a reduplication from S(c)hmeg and there is also, Schmegegke, which looks alarmingly close and means “left-over food”.
Bellows would be a fine choice, Eugene, but I wonder if there’s anything more profound involved in these differences than a preferred spelling. I mean, really, schmegegge, shmegegge, schmegeggi, and this one of Bellows you bring us, schmegeggy. There’s this from
the Yiddish Glossary, for example: “Shmegegi - Buffoon, idiot, fool. Or this from Dictionary.com: schmegegge, noun (Yiddish) baloney; hot air; nonsense. There is certainly a shift of emphasis from “buffoon” on the one hand to “hot air” on the other, but I’d be suspicious of the latter, frankly. I think one has to consider precisely how the term might apply to Ron Paul, for example, to get something more of its authentic flavor. And here my decided preference would be for buffoon, the Yiddish Glossary definition.
Actually, I agree and will take it further, part of the vibrancy of Yiddish is its elusiveness.
I would have gone with “Nebbish” (also “nebbich”, etc.), just for example.
But who cannot defer to Sophia Loren?
One of the interesting things is that, if (and at this point no one knows for sure) it is a currency made in America, and truly Yinglish, as opposed to strictly Yiddish, there is also a possibly Rabelaisian cryptotype.
Actually, it is also possible that it is not one word in origin or use, but several conflated under the same approximate form.
Another high point of the language was Hoffman to Hoffman in a court in Chicago not that long ago.
You’re clearly on to something here, Eugene. Perhaps we have your awareness of the fact than hands count little when it comes to Sophia Loren to thank for that. :-)
There can be little question that the experience of assimilation - after an earlier ghettoisation - brought observable effects on European languages and music here. One thinks of the evolution of Slovenian or Polish polka music from its basis in Europe as a rather dramatic example. Why would there not have been a related effect on Yiddish language usage in the Jewish community in New York as it approached the second third of the 20th century? The movement from “schmegeggi” to “shmegeggi” might be explained that way but someone more knowledgable than I would have to offer the micro-analysis. Perhaps Sophia Loren if you can draw her in somehow. :-)
As to “nebbish”, one conjures up something even dwarfish here although not of necessity. The Yiddish Expressions website has nebbish as “a nobody, a simpleton, weakling, awkward person”. It was a term very commonly in use by Jewish friends of mine while at university fifty years ago. And, you know, I suppose you maybe right: It captures the mood respecting Paul a bit more precisely. Paul is less fool than simpleton. Just don’t ask me to edit my posts. :-)
Paul should have attacked McCain on the war saying such provocative things the media would have to take notice. Something like: “McCain talks of ‘Honour’ in Iraq. There is no possibility of that. Bush has shamed our nation, we are drenched in blood., rightly despised, and on the wrong side of history and McCain is either too stupid to see it or too dishonest to admit it. I fear it may be the former.” would have had Riley quoting him within hours.
But Paul failed to say what needed to be said and fizzled out.
Hallelujah! This is exactly what I was thinking. The anti-war sentiment is what would have carried him. But the danger in this strategy is that the media would have portrayed RP as the dangerous nut. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that nothing he could have said would have gained him the publicity he needed to change the outcome.
Furthermore, it does not appear to be in his character to attack his opponents in this fashion. It really is not in him.
As Jim Bovard reeferenced above, after having Ron Paul on my show 3 times in the past 2 years - and dozens of times over the last 12 - he became unavailable (as in unresponsive) during the entire course of this campaign.
As in Maryland, Ron Paul signs wallpapered the NW Ohio landscape. As the only talk show host pounding on the pulpit for Paul (illiteration not intended), it was beyond frustrating to get him on the show to answer the questions of the understandably ignorant and extol the rightness and virtue of his beliefs and campaign - especially in an area that is decidedly anti-war, pro-2nd Amendment and stultifyingly stupid when it comes to matters of Freedom, Ignorance and Individual Responsibility. To not even get a return cal, e-mail, smoke signal, Carrier pidgeon from RP Campaign HQ was beyond a travesty - it bordered on criminal prevention of spreading Freedom. Unlike other campaigns, Paul’s couldn’t/wouldn’t/didn’t even have a surrogate.
As posted on Bovard’s blog, this is what happens when campaigns are left in the hands of fans, ideologues and amatures. Proven here is the fact that Adrenalin is a lousy fuel to run a political campaign. And some socialists on the Democratic side have already exploited the catchy “change” and “hope” buzz words. Sadly, there were boatloads of pros who would have happily engaged had they been asked.
Maybe lightening will strike. Maybe pigs will achieve lift-off. Problem is - as Ben Franklin once said - “Lost time is never found again”.
Pity.
Brian Wilson
PD/Talk Show Host
WSPD/Toledo and other fine talk stations
across America
“And some socialists on the Democratic side have already exploited the catchy ‘change’ and ‘hope’ buzz words….”
If this is directed at Senator Obama, I note that, as Raimondo himself has pointed out, that good senator was vociferously against the attack on Iraq in 2002, and after 9-11, when it was not the easy or popular thing to do, though indeed Illinois was more against the war in Iraq than perhaps anywhere in the country.
Not only that Obama specifically identified the neo-Con agenda and mentioned Wolfowitz, et al. by name.
Senator Durbin too, who is not on many issues my cup of tea, also early opposed attacking Iraq.
mr.costa i guess you have drunk too much kook-aid and been little light on actual reading .
here is a link to start . about the so called ” antiwar ” obama against iraq war in 2003 and since then..
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_25/cover.html
Raimondo’s article on the subject is sufficient:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12366
And I said nothing about “anti-war”, I said “against the attack on Iraq.”
Incidentally, the other Illinois Senator, Peter Fitzgerald, whose seat Obama won, resigned, explaining in a private letter to his supporters, read carefully between the lines, that the way the two parties went about their business in Congress made any further efforts on his part a waste of time.
The poor fellow did not say so, but he was clearly taken in by Bush’s and Cheney’s and the Neo-Cons’ deceits in regard to Iraq, including non-existent WMD and the uranium or whatever from Africa.
Pardon, not “resigned”, declined to run for reelection.
Resigned was more his attitude.
duh !
he was ” against the attack on iraq before election . his that ” famous speech ” has more buts and ifs then i use in all my days talk .
surprise ! the speech disappeared from his web page once primary was safe and he was thinking of general election . bush was popular you know .
and he kept his stellar opposition to that war by doing every thing in senate when he actually had some power . right mr.costa ???
Peddle your Tendenz elsewhere.
gee you do not like actual facts ! mr. costa what a surprise .
voting money for iraq war and elctioneering ACTIVELY iraq war monger Lieberman ( against an iraq war opponent ) i am sure was an act of senator obama’s strong principled and ongoing opposition to iraq war . right ???
go drink more obama kool aid by all means but spare us and few of these poor pixels :)
You have no idea whatsoever of what I think about Obama, if anything.
Anyone with half a brain would have easily garnered a singular fact from what I said above.
Since you haven’t, you are presently running at less than fifty percent.
But feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.
You won’t mind much I don’t pay attention, will you?
There are so many to choose from.
Not to feel badly, Brian, rather simply to accept with joy the fact that you’ll never feel moved again to invite St. Paul to join you on your radio show. Such resolve will place you squarely in sanity’s precincts, far removed as they are from the imbecile enthusiams of the yahoos who ran the Paul campaign and who continue to insist even here that all is not lost, that the “cause” must and does continue. One can feel almost paralyzed searching to find language suitable to describe such lickspittle. Perhaps better to think in terms of remedies than language, you know, the recommendation of certain emetics and the like.
Mr Lowell, please stop talking like a hot air balloon about to burst, I don’t get half of what you’re saying.
Thank you, Brian Wilson. How awful that Ron Paul was not a real campaigner. Shame on him. He should have been all over the media, 24/7.
“Ron Paul, who announced he was dropping out of the race last night, never made his opposition to the Iraq War the key theme of his own campaign. (He did superbly when asked about this issue in debates or interviews, but most voters never saw the debates or interviews).”
I am disappointed in this article. So far as I know Ron Paul did not/is not dropping out. The campaign will continue on with is supporters. And anyone who thinks that the Iraq War/Foreign Policy is not at the “front and center” of his campaign is out to lunch, and has been watching an entirely different campaign than the one I have followed. Having said that, I think Ron Paul has done a wonderful job of not being a “single issue candidate”. But it is amazing how the #1 issue, Economics, is undeniably linked to Foreign Policy… two issues that Ron Paul is second to none on .
Paul’s economics are best the kindergarten level, as is his unveiling of “self-ownership”, which is a logically reflexive and legal absurdity.
I respect Paul on many fronts, and have for a very long time, but economics is not one of them. Too, his initial opposition to Kucinich’s move to impeach Cheney, and his now tepid support for sending it to Judiciary, have done severe damage to what was earlier a high regard for his Constitutionalism.
“Self-ownership” a legal absurdity, eh? So does that mean I can own you? Probably not worth the cost of feeding…
The usual kindergarten response, keyed on the absurdity of Locke and the universal extension of an ambiguous definition of “ownership” and “property”.
I certainly would will not stop you from thinking you own yourself, and the self you own thinking it owns itself, and that self thinking it owns itself….
You are obviously also incompetent in the way of understanding legal fiction.
Have a very pleasant infinite recursion.
Spengler would be much amused.
corr: “certainly will not”
In what manner is the idea of “self-ownership” absurd? It is actually quite logical (depending on one’s definition).
A modern presidential campaign lives or dies by its media campaign.
Can you point me to the TV ads the Paul campaign produced and aired that stressed his opposition to the Iraq war?
The campaign had the resources to produce and air such an ad.
Why didn’t they do it?
I have to agree 100% with Mr. Bovard. Dr. Paul had to know that his main base of support in this campaign was neither libertarians nor paleocons, but ordinary Americans of all political stripes who were fed up with the occupation of Iraq, the “war on terror,” and the “clash of civilizations” that the Bushniks and neocons are slavering for. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — Paul needed Democratic and independent crossover voters in order to get a significant number of delegates. I changed my registration for 4 months - how many others did? How many were asked to? When I gave money to the campaign, I was of course thanked for my donation, but WAS NOT EVEN ASKED if I was a registered Republican, or wanted to be one. I am probably about 60% to 70% in disagreement with Congressman Paul on the issues, but I set this aside for the sake of nonintervention, anti-imperialism, and civil liberties. His campaign did NOTHING — less than nothing — to convince others in my position to do the same. A simple ad with Dr. Paul saying something like, “I know that my views are a minority position, even within my own party, and I can’t be expected to win most of you over to them in a single campaign. I don’t ask for your vote because you agree with everything I believe in, but because you understand that this nation is at an important historical crossroads — we must either restore our Republic to it’s rightful, constitutional condition, or we must be prepared to let it change into a modern imperial Rome, whose citizens can only expect bread and circuses along with unending wars, but no freedom. If elected, I will govern constitutionally, immediately suspend enforcement of the unconstitutional Patriot Act and fight for it’s repeal, and bring our troops home from the Iraqi desert hellhole to which an unchecked, unaccountable government has illegally dispatched them, and will never allow such a thing to occur on my watch. As for my other ideas, which I will discuss at another place and time, and you will of course be free to use the democratic process to support or oppose them. But if you agree with me on the centrality of restoring our Republic, then I need your vote.” This would have been a truly reassuring, and uniting, message, that we simply did not hear.
What a wonderful message for Ron Paul to give, created above by A.G. Philbin, and very necessary.
Kind of late to close the barn door after the cows have already gone to pasture and the chickens have left the chicken coop.
This gets at the one aspect of Paul’s campaign that was less than principled: he strategically downplayed this issue hoping to win the nomination of a party whose base still supported the war.
It didn’t win him the nomination, of course, It just made him him look weirdly reluctant to won up to his strongest selling point, and consequently, a little less genuine — a little more like just another politician, afraid to be himself.
Ron Paul’s real error was seeking the Republican nomination…
McCain won the GOP nomination because of (not despite) his fear mongering war whore ways. Face it, (what’s left of) the Republican faithful is composed primarily of fear addicted warfare staters. The kind of people who still give Bush 70% approval ratings, even while the nation as a whole weighs in at 30% approval.
The presidential election is gonna be a welfare state vs warfare state exercise in illusion of choice politics. The concept of liberty has been relegated to sporadic local and regional appearances, at best, with no place on the national stage.
I disagree completely. For those who got off their ass and became delegates, they found their competition in wanting.
GOP was, and still is, the weak party.
What worked against Ron wasn’t the GOP, it was the military-industrial-complex-owned media.
I have to agree with this. Down at the grassroots level, even in true red-state-fascistland, Ron Paul Republicans had a lot more allies in the county GOPs than they had recognized. Most of the local parties have seen their membership shrink drastically and therefore welcomed the new members.
Well, yes and no. He had to seek the nomination of his own party, and if done properly (it wasn’t), it could have strengthened his potential position as an independent. His mistake was in acting as if he were solely out to win the Republican nomination, thus effectively abandoning most of his antiwar, pro-liberty base. It had to be a different kind of campaign, one that sought to use outside forces to gain leverage within the GOP, chiefly independent and Democratic crossover voters. The Republican Party is simply not self reformable. His campaign should have been less about electing a president than about changing the national conversation, as promulgated by the media. A 20% vote in the GOP primaries would have done that, in spite of the media. Attacking the Democrats equally for their pro-war stance and Patriot Act support would also have caught the attention of a disgruntled, and mostly disenfranchised, public. Appearing in public with Kucinich and Gravel would also have helped. I think Dr. Paul had too much respect for his party, a favor they have not, and will not, return.
Finding someone with the cajones to be a candidate is not sufficient for a political sea change. Nothing will change for the better while public opinion is controlled by a media dominated by the Israel First crowd and while members of that group sit on every choke point of the federal government. What is the solution? There may be none.
It was always well-known that Ron Paul was the only candidate for the Republicans who opposed the war.
The debates were a sham as far as giving all the participants equal time was concerned. If Ron Paul was lucky, he was asked two questions.
It is really duplicitous on the part of Bovard to try and speed Dr. Paul’s exit from the race. He will leave it when he feels he should, not before.
I sincerely hope he does not fall for the “our party is now a team and we should all close ranks”, because endorsing John McCain, the most avid warmonger, would make me retch.