The more I listen to the GOP candidates the sicker I get. None of them seem to have real individual beliefs. They are simply riding their system approved talking points all the way to the finish line. They all seem out of touch with the common reality of Americans. What would a general election be like if Romney, Gingrich, or Perry wins the nomination? It would be the usual horse race that we've come to know and expect. Attack ads will question Barack's character and record. The GOP candidate will talk endlessly about lowering taxes and saving 'merica from socialism. It will be substance free with lots of American flags. How do we raise the level of debate in this country? Easy, nominate Ron Paul. Can you imagine the debates between Paul and Obama? They both have drastically different visions. It would be a real debate. I think there is a huge undercurrent of people in this country who are tired of the status quo, And even if Paul isn't elected we might break ground on a lot of issues that have been 3rd rail issues for too long. I might even register GOP to vote in the primaries….
Debate? Debate what? Oh hey, the Federal Reserve needs to be destroyed and we need to put in the gold standard? We should legalize pretty much all drugs ( legalizing mar1juana? That's one thing. Legalizing meth, cocaine, heroin? That's completely different)? We should withdraw from international affairs almost completely? The fact that Paul has different views from the rest of the GOP means nothing. The only thing that matters are the actual merit of his views, and his views are generally completely bat**** nuts. The Communists, and I mean true Communists, have radically different views from the rest of the political spectrum. That doesn't validate what they say, and as far as I'm concerned, libertarianism is just right-wing Marxism. Not to mention that for a group that likes to stress its difference from the rest of the GOP, Paulites make the Tea Party look like wise agents of compromise.
I agree the debates would be a lot better. I don't know if the country would be any better off though. Debates are overrated.
Because most of Paul's ideas are dumb, infeasible, and basically lower the discourse with silly distraction. We fought a civil war in this country - his side lost, sorry but that issue is closed.
Is it generally understood a vast majority of the GOP party are lunatics at this point? I know obviously there's no challenge with Obama running on the Democrat side, but si the GOP really the mess I keep reading/hearing about?
The ship sailed on attacking Obama's character a long time ago. The birthers, the rev wright stuff, bill ayers, secret muslim, secret commie, etc. All of that crap sank like a stone. Attacking Obama's record isn't going to be easy, either, since Pubbies have only been preventing Obama from doing stuff from day 1, and not putting forth solutions of their own or compromising in any way. They have nothing to run on this cycle, at all.
I would disagree with that assessment. No doubt he holds a number of positions that are untenable and infeasible logistically. But many of the positions he holds challenge the dominant discourse in a meaningful way- his positions on a range of foreign policy issues, civil liberties, and the drug war are at the very least thought provoking. Unlike the rest of the Republic field (Obama is often guilty of this as well), he doesnt propose empty platitudes and doesnt seek to constantly pander. I actually think his candidacy would elevate the level of discourse in this country and ignite a more substantial, purposeful debate than anything the republican party has produced in the past decade.
I doubt how a discussion of tax policy, where one side opens with "we need to abolish the IRS and abandon the unconstitutional income tax" is going to be remotely productive. I mean it will be illustrative in that it would broadcast how wrong and specious his Joseph Smith -like reading of the constitution is...but otherwise it's a non-starter.
Ron Paul, in 2 full campaigns, has yet to destroy great debaters such as McCain, Fred Thompson, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry.
riiiiiight <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AD7dnFDdwu0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's funny Ron Paul fans talk about his lack of votes as if it results from some sort of "the man keeping Ron Paul down and silencing liberatrians" conspiracy. The truth is that the electorate (both primary and general) has heard as much from the Ron Paul faction as they have from any other points of view and that the electorate simply don't buy what Ron Paul is selling. I was friends with some Nader supporters back in 2000 and they basically had the same mentality.
I actually dont know. My guess is that he'd attempt to appeal to their sensibilities by shifting the blame to the public sector, excessive taxation, and the federal reserve rather than focusing on corporations.
I dont agree with Paul's stances when it comes to issues like that, but I doubt anyone would start the discussion with something like that. It's become common in the political arena to caricaturize a candidate by way of a particular position, and I think Paul has suffered to a certain extent from this. I dont think he'd win over the majority of America on tax policy, but I dont think its unfeasible to assume he'd win a substantial subsection of the country. The value I see in a discussion like that is that it would engender a more fruitful discussion on tax policy and the tax code. Obama would probably have to get acclimated with aspects of fiscal policy that he hasnt evaluated previously, and the general populace would also be forced to read into the issues more substantially. That, I think, is productive.
True, but Paul supporters do have a legitimate gripe when it comes to the way the Republican party and its affiliate networks treat Ron Paul. For example, there have been multiple debates where he polls in the top three, but receives little to no air time on televised broadcasts of those debates. Republican pundits have also been openly dismissive of Paul as a candidate even though his positions on a number of issues are far more pragmatic than the remainder of the field (especially the nuttier candidates).
