McCain's Ron Paul Problem

That's what I talked about in Part VII of my eight-segment interview with L.A. Times political blogger Andrew Malcolm (note: this was recorded before Bob Barr won the Libertarian Party nomination). Part VI was a discussion of the role of religion in McCain's life and politics. Parts I-V are linked to and described here.

Speaking of Malcolm, he has a shrewd take here (and not only because he quotes me!) about how McCain's underdog mentality has placed him right where he wants to be, at least psychologically ? hopelessly behind.

Comments

[JMR]

I'm not amazed that Ron Paul lost, given his campaign's "professionals," but it still astounds me that McCain won. IMO the only rational explanation is the wife's family money behind the scenes, but I have 0 proof of that.
JMR

[h-dawg]

Babar is BHO's best friend right now. Does McCain give a damn?

[ChicagoTom]

Sorry for the thread-jack but check out the Libertarian Star Power that is about to go on display in Kentucky:

From this article:

Sonny Landham carved out a tough-guy reputation in a series of big-screen roles, from roughing up Sylvester Stallone to getting tossed out a window by Carl Weathers. He pulls no punches in his newest role: Libertarian challenger to a man known for political toughness, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

[Bazil]

Ron Paul lost because he spoke a truth that has been buried under decades of propaganda about our foreign policy, the way we run government institutions, and how much our politicians and civil-servants ignore and bypass the constitution.
Such candor got the predictable reaction an enlightened person receives from a intellectually lazy electorate and party establishment; scorn and ridicule which hid a nervous realization that he was onto something.

Ron Paul was however illogical in his immigration position. Instead of engaging in a thoughtful discussion about all the issues involved, he had the tone and the words of a fear mongering politician going as far as calling it an "invasion", to which the best possible response would be to steal Gracus's (Lawrence Olivier) line from the movie Spartacus: "Don't worry senator we'll send you two legions to protect you from your stable boys"

[Happy Jack]

Reason sucks!

Sorry, wrong author.

[Immigration]

Bazil's assessment of Paul's immigration plan is a little off base.

Paul's stance is that we need to rid the system of mandates that require states to provide illegals free education, health care, gives them social security and welfare (that they don't pay into) etc... This is a form of subsidization. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. And when you take US citizens money away to pay for them, US citizens suffer. Further, as Paul stated, "if we stopped giving them all these free hand-outs, the people that come here would not be seen as the scapegoat. Rather, we would need them and welcome them." [quote not exact]

[Matt Welch]

gives them social security and welfare (that they don't pay into)

That's exactly backwards.

[Nigel Watt]

Paul's immigration position was a pander, which I think he even winks towards when he makes his comment about wanting and needing immigrants in the strong economy a free society would produce.

[Aaron]

Please dont vote for McCain or Barrack.

Ron Paul was like a beacon of light mixed in with all that political scum.

[temjr.pgh]

Paul's immigration position wasn't a pander, but a restatement of the issues in recognition of the facts.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico are a boon to big business. The use of illegal aliens for labor allows circumvention of price fixing that comes in the form of minimum wage. In addition some of the compensation for illegal immigrants comes in the form of social programs.

This situation serves big business just fine, and it won't change since they lobby the pants off of Washington.

We need a USSR style collapse and widespread recognition of the root causes and conditions that enabled this situation (inflationary fiat petrodollars) before anything changes.

[Leonardo]

Zzz...

A whole lot of nothingness...
Back to sleep I go...

Zzz...

[Chilli]

If you had a child that behaved as badly as the Republicans have over the last eight years you would make them take a "time out." (In an early, less politically correct age, that "time out" would have also included a close encounter with a hickory switch.) The same concept should be applied to the Republicans. Such abominable behavior should not be rewarded. The GOP should have their head handed to them on a platter this fall, even if it hurts us more than them. We can survive eight years of Obama, we cannot however survive even four more years of a Neo-con controlled GOP. It will only be by losing badly that the GOP finally reassess their current ways and reconsiders a new, hopefully more libertarian approach. If the Republicans lose by a landslide this fall, many more of them will start to reconsider whether those crazy "Paul" people might not have been so crazy after all. The libertarian revolution may not happen this November, but it can only be made to happen at some point in the future by making 100% certain that Republicans know that it is not in their interest to further marginalize us.

[joe]

McCain won the nomination through process of elimination.

If Mitt Romney was a Methodist, we'd be discussing whether McCain would be a good VP.

[x,y]

I think joe's point raises an interesting issue. With the nominating of Obama and Mitt's candidacy going basically nowhere, are U.S. citizens now more afraid of exotic religions than they are racist?

[NH]

McCain has a problem in NH where he is not helping us take back the legislature here. The Dems have gone wild and are ruining NH.

McCain has instead been avoiding the word "Republican" and instead of shoring up our excellent A+ for liberty GOP candidate, is schmoozing with the Democrat incumbent citing that 'party doesn't matter'.

Well to hell with you Senator -- you won't get my vote unless you stop throwing NH under the bus!!!!!!!!!

[NH]

By the way, exit polls showed that people voted for McCain because they thought he was the 'most likely to get us home from the war'.

Why? Even though facts would demonstrate otherwise, the NYT and all the other liberal papers endorsed him, thus the sheeple followed.
Perception is everything, reality means crap.

[JL]

The socialists, totalitarians, fascists, etc. will only take this country as far as we let them. And now, I can't help but wonder if it isn't past the point of political reform. If you deprive the masses of enough basic necessitites for life, you then have the French Revolution and Washington is too busy kissing itself in the mirror to even notice.

[Gather00214]

Ron Paul is the only Presidential Candidate from last years gang of 20 who will have a legacy. All of the rest threw away millions of dollars and have nothing to show for it.