Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Paul Presidency Begins... Today!
He seemed noncomittal about the idea at CPAC, but it's about to become official: Ron Paul is running for president.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a strict constitutionalist and fierce anti-war critic, will formally declare his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination Monday when he appears as a guest on a C-SPAN call-in program. Paul, R-Texas, created a presidential exploratory committee in January, allowing him to begin collecting money on behalf of his bid. Kent Snyder, the chairman of that committee, said Saturday that Paul would make his candidacy official on Monday.
Yeah, I don't know why the article was written in future tense. The Campaign '08 reporters filed early to get to the Hagel "Put Me On TV '08" presser?
|3.12.07 @ 1:30PM|#
On NPR this morning Juan Williams kept talking about this Nebraska Senator who could be the "lone Republican presidential candidate who's against the war". I kept screaming Ron Paul's name at the radio, but I don't think Juan heard me.
|3.12.07 @ 1:32PM|#
On NPR this morning Juan Williams kept talking about this
Nebraska Senator who could be the "lone Republican presidential
candidate who's against the war". I kept screaming Ron Paul's name
at the radio, but I don't think Juan heard me.
Juan Williams does not believe in the existence of Ron Paul, of a
strict constitutionalist. Heck, Williams does not believe there is
such a thing as a Constitution and limited government, why would he
believe in the existence of Mr. Paul?
tros|3.12.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Wow. If he wins the primary we could make the Democrats the pro-war party? How bizarre would that be?
|3.12.07 @ 1:53PM|#
As a member of the pro-life movement, I think it would be funny
if the Repubs nominate Giuliani, and Paul runs with a third party.
Most committed pro-lifers say that they would never vote for a
pro-choice candidate under any circumstances, but I really can't
see them accepting Paul's stance on drugs, etc.
It would be interesting, which would be a small comfort for being
guaranteed to have a NYC politician in the Oval Office...
I. Self. Divine.|3.12.07 @ 1:54PM|#
tros: I only foresee that happening if HRC gets the dem nomination.
|3.12.07 @ 1:56PM|#
It could be that no one is taking much notice of Paul because he
doesn't have a chance in hell of being nominated.
Don't get me wrong-he's probably the least offensive politician out
there. But his candidacy is a non-starter.
Paul|3.12.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Oh my god, let the media gang-rape begin. I will vote for you, Mr. Paul, but when the MSM gets the first whiff that you might actually CUT something, let alone slow the growth, you're dead. They'll come in the night when you least expect it. You think Gingrich got a rough ride with his "wither on the vine" comment, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
|3.12.07 @ 2:06PM|#
The thing that bugs the hell out of me about Ron Paul is his Pat Buchanan bullshit view of American history that the U.S. was an isolationist country until the evil Wilson got us into World War I. It is a position of at best willful and at worst staggering ignorance of American history. America has always been engaged with the world and has never been isolationist. The Monroe Doctrine was certainly not isolationist. The list goes on and one. The war against the Barbary Pirates. Near war several times during the Napoleonic wars. The War of 1812, the Mexican War, The Spanish American War, imperialism in Hawaii, gun boat diplomacy in Japan, any number of interventions in Central and South America, the list goes on and on. Yes, the U.S. was not involved in a major war in Europe during the 19th Century. People who make that point never bother to mention that between 1814 and 1914, other than the Franco Prussian War, there were no major wars in Europe for the United States to get drug into. I suppose that the U.S. was isolationist in the sense that it managed to stay out of Napoleon III's attempt to evict Austria from Northern Italy or German Unification, but the U.S. had no interest in those conflicts. The only thing that has changed is the U.S. has interests in a lot more places than it used to.
|3.12.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Paul- There won't be a gang-rape. An MSM gang-rape would require the media to acknowledge Paul's existence.
Fluffy|3.12.07 @ 2:10PM|#
I just wish he didn't oppose NAFTA and hate immigrants. But you can't have everything I guess.
|3.12.07 @ 2:10PM|#
...but when the MSM gets the first whiff ...
Yeah? Well, just two words: BRING IT. I hope Ron Paul gets loads of
coverage. I hope everyone who thinks Ron Paul is the harbinger of
the apocalypse, goes completely ape, and does nothing but cackle
anti-Ron Paul Chicken Littlings from now until election.
Christopher Monnier|3.12.07 @ 2:12PM|#
I think whatever coverage Paul gets from the mainstream media
will ignore his libertarianism and focus on his views on
immigration and abortion. Ironically, these issues taken alone make
him look like a far right-winger! A worst-case scenario would be if
these issues get correlated with "libertarianism" and therefore
cast the view that "libertarian" = Republican on steroids.
I know, I know, there's internal debate amongst libertarians
regarding immigration and abortion. But I think we'd all agree that
these issues (whatever your stance is on them) do not
epitomize libertarianism. But I fear this is the
perception the media will create!
|3.12.07 @ 2:13PM|#
"It would be interesting, which would be a small comfort for
being guaranteed to have a NYC politician in the Oval
Office..."
Hillary's "a NYC politician" now?
Should she win the nomination, it will be interesting to watch the
Republican masses pull down the "Carpetbagger Hillary Fake Yankee
Fan" posters, and put up the "Hillary: Spawn of the Capital of
Evil" posters.
stephen the goldberger|3.12.07 @ 2:13PM|#
this announcement should make rudy, mccain, and especially
romney drop out of fear for embarassment.
but they won't
|3.12.07 @ 2:18PM|#
this announcement should make rudy, mccain, and especially
romney drop out of fear for embarassment.
but they won't
Ron Paul's tears can cure cancer. Too bad he never cries.
|3.12.07 @ 2:27PM|#
I don't see how anyone who claims to be a libertarian could vote for someone who opposes free trade. If there is one unqualified good in the world it is free trade. Only ignorent superstition and entrenched local interests keep the world from having open markets.
Paul|3.12.07 @ 2:30PM|#
There won't be a gang-rape. An MSM gang-rape would require
the media to acknowledge Paul's existence.
It depends on how hard he plays the anti-war card. MSM types have
always had a kind of curiosity about Republicans that don't toe the
major party-line. Like the time Jim Jeffords left the Republican
party. He was carried to the top of the charts on NPR for a while.
Admittedly though, this won't last. But with his anti-war stance,
he can use that as his big opener. His big closer? (cue harp music
and fade to the future):
Paul Proposes Big Medicare Cuts
In a move which angered healthcare rights groups, presidential
canidiate Ron Paul made remarks today, indicating that he would
like to bring Medicare spending more in line with inflation,
suggesting that growth at four times inflation indeces would be
more appropriate.
Paul|3.12.07 @ 2:33PM|#
I don't see how anyone who claims to be a libertarian could
vote for someone who opposes free trade.
John, you are 100% right on this... in theory. So please, suggest
another candidate which looks more favorable* to the libertarian,
and we'll vote for him or her early and often.
*candidate that has a snowball's chance of winning- which is about
the chance Ron Paul has.
duh|3.12.07 @ 2:37PM|#
What are the chances that the LP will do the right thing and
cross-nominate him?
Yeah, I didn't think so...
|3.12.07 @ 2:42PM|#
I don't see how anyone who claims to be a libertarian could
vote for someone who opposes free trade.
You can support Free Trade and oppose Free Trade Agreements. That
appears to be his position, and it has merit.
As for immigration, I wonder what his stance would be if social
supports were reduced/eliminated?
|3.12.07 @ 2:43PM|#
duh,
I'll lay you five to one that if Ron Paul seeks the LP nomination,
he gets it.
uncle sam|3.12.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Well I support free trade, which makes me ambivalent about government negotiated trade agreements such as NAFTA.
|3.12.07 @ 2:49PM|#
A true free-trade agreement can be written on a single sheet of
paper. How many pages in NAFTA?
Ron Paul is right to oppose NAFTA in that it is to free trade what
the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is to
democracy.
OK that was a little harsh, but I am getting tired of politicians
slapping titles like "free-trade" and "deregulation" onto bills
that are in fact creating state managed "markets", usually with
rules designed to make the politicians' friends very rich.
|3.12.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Re: Paul on trade and immigration.
While the sound bites on RP's positions on these issues sound very
anti-libertarian, his revised and extended remarks fall softer on
libertarian ears.
With NAFTA, he is in favor of free trade but believes that NAFTA is
a deceptively named treaty that actually restricts trade.
With immigration, he want to control the border and keep out
illegals, but he also wants to let more people in legally.
|3.12.07 @ 2:58PM|#
With immigration, he want to control the border and keep out
illegals, but he also wants to let more people in
legally.
I do happen to take issue with this
quote:
We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to
get better.
When a person breaks an unjust law, their status as a "lawbreaker"
is surely up for question.
In general, I see his immigration view as being pragmatic, in that
he believes that the current social support infrastructure would be
unable to support a mass migration of people at bottom end of the
income spectrum. Although I disagree with this position, I am far
more sympathetic to it than the "they're takin' ur jobs" or the
"they donta speaka no english" position of other anti-immigration
blowhards.
|3.12.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Warren,
I remember reading an RP statement (on LewRockwell I think)
paraphrased as "with a welfare society like ours, we can't afford
illegal immigrants using the system".
Of course, he also discounts thinks like work vouchers that would
allow "illegals" to pay into the system via taxes and above board
jobs so I am not sure how he rectifies that in his mind.
Despite my disagreement with RP over immigration and abortion, I'd
still vote for him. He isn't perfect by any stretch but he is
better than everybody else on the playing field.
|3.12.07 @ 3:05PM|#
I'll lay you five to one that if Ron Paul seeks the LP
nomination, he gets it.
Naaah. He's not crazy enough to qualify.
|3.12.07 @ 3:18PM|#
I don't think Ron Paul wants the LP nomination. It caused him
nothing but headaches back in '88.
But the LP should want the free media of having a sitting
Congressman as their candidate. In a sane world, that would
give them at least a Nader-level of mainstream media coverage.
|3.12.07 @ 3:29PM|#
I remember reading an RP statement (on LewRockwell I think)
paraphrased as "with a welfare society like ours, we can't afford
illegal immigrants using the system".
Probably paraphrased from this piece.
|3.12.07 @ 3:29PM|#
duh,
If Paul doesn't want it, I don't think it would be wise to foist it
upon him.
There's no way we'd get Nader-level coverage. Paul wouldn't get any
more coverage than he is now, and a tiny portion of that would be
"Ron Paul doesn't want to be the Libertarian candidate, but the LP
nominated him anyway".
If he asks for it, I say he takes it in a cake walk. If not, he's
still the greatest living statesman in the US Congress. We wish him
well and carry on best we're able.
|3.12.07 @ 3:40PM|#
duh,
I don't know about the national party, but I do know that the LP of
Ohio thought enough of Paul's declaration to send me an email
regarding it.
http://mail.lpo.org/lists/Announce/Message/285.html?Language=
|3.12.07 @ 3:51PM|#
The Libertarian and Constitution parties should move up their conventions and declare they are nominating Ron Paul if he wins the Republican primary or have their second choice if he doesn't.
lkfa|3.12.07 @ 5:16PM|#
Hmmm. Not the best public speaker, judging by that web site. He'll need a better PR/speechwriting team.
Gene Berkman|3.12.07 @ 7:52PM|#
I backed Ron Paul in 1988 and I think he is the best candidate
this time too, despite some bizarre stands on immigration.
I honestly think that he is running this time because every 4 years
people ask him to run, and he wants to get them off his back. He is
saying no to an LP run so that he can file for re-election to
Congress after he has been in some of the GOP presidential
debates.
But if he does run on a third party ticket for President, I have
campaign buttons left from 1988.
|3.12.07 @ 9:20PM|#
I just finished a Bloody Mary from one of my "Ron Paul for
President" glasses from the 1987 Florida LP Convention.
Oh wait, what were we talking about again?
|3.12.07 @ 10:44PM|#
One time, when I was a very young boy, my dad and I stayed up to
watch the electoral results come in. We were dissapointed to see
Bill Clinton win the presidency. I was youing, concerned, and a bit
angry, since I'd listened to a great deal of talk radio the month
before.
My father is a wise man. So wise, in fact, that I can hardly
believe that he is still a republican. In any case, that night, as
I climbed the stairs to my room, he said something I'll never
forget...
"Son, America always gets the president she deserves."
This year, more than ever, I hope he was wrong.
America deserves another mildly evil nimrod with corruption
problems, but I sure hope it gets Ron Paul instead.
|3.13.07 @ 9:36AM|#
He's all the way up to 2% in the latest poll. The Ron Paul
revolution has started......
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245