My take: Dr. Paul should run on his socially conservative record since he's up against Romney alone and since the Republicans don't generally care about expenditures.
You tell me what Santorum-"social conservatives" find to be "social conservative" about Ron Paul.
According to self-proclaimed "social conservatives" he doesn't count as being "pro-life" because he's not in favor of a federal mandate against abortion.
See how Fox News explains the "social conservative" angle:
Why Social Conservatives Should be Leery of Ron Paul
And then, just for you, No2statism, here's what Ron Paul has to say about your suggestion:
Malachi:Now that santorum is out, Dr. Paul and all of us will have more bandwidth for our message.
You'd think so...but I wouldn't be so sure about that.
In signing the Personhood Pledge, however, Paul issued an "addendum" in which he reiterated his position that life begins at conception, said he supported a human life amendment to the Constitution, but at the same time argued that the federal government should not interfere with the states in passing laws on abortion. "Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents," said Paul. "While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life," Paul continued. "I don't just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law." In the same statement, Paul went on to say: "A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does--through state laws. "To summarize my views--I believe the federal government has a role to play," said Paul. "I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence."
"Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents," said Paul.
"While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life," Paul continued. "I don't just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law."
In the same statement, Paul went on to say: "A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does--through state laws.
"To summarize my views--I believe the federal government has a role to play," said Paul. "I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence."
Um. What?
Yeah, JJ, is that Paul's stance?
Is what his stance?
That whole quote was just another lame-duck Malachi joke. I didn't even read it. Spell out your question for me.
1) Ron Paul is a social conservative - his personal values are socially conservative
2) Unlike the others on the stage, Ron Paul isn't just saying whatever people want to hear. These really are his views.
3) But it doesn't matter - the Faux News-controlled dialogue has determined that opposition to Federally imposed social values is anti-social-conservatism.
4) Santorum is a lackey of the Establishment. His dropping out now is not a good sign for Ron Paul. Every interview from here on out is going to be just a single question repeated over and over "Now that Rick Santorum has dropped out, it's clear who the front-runner in the Republican nomination is, so don't you think you would better serve your party by uniting behind the apparent Republican nominee rather than continuing to fragment the Republican base?"
There are two paths forward. The low path is to continue slogging through the primary and hope for a VP spot. This seems unlikely. Ron Paul as VP would actually be a bad thing since he wouldn't be able to speak his heart and mind as much once in office. The redeeming value of this strategy is that it could act as a set-up for a Rand Paul Presidential bid.
The high path is to drop out of the Republican primary and go independent. People don't realize that if it was a three-way race between Obama, Paul and Romney, Romney would be way behind either Paul or Obama - I'm thinking something like 40% Obama, 35% Paul, 20% Romney. Romney does not poll well in the general election. An Obama v. Romney race is just a rubber stamp on Obama's 2nd term.
Clayton -
run for what?
thats interesting. How often do you feel compelled to reply to posts you havent read?
Clayton:There are two paths forward. [...] The high path is to drop out of the Republican primary and go independent. People don't realize that if it was a three-way race between Obama, Paul and Romney, Romney would be way behind either Paul or Obama - I'm thinking something like 40% Obama, 35% Paul, 20% Romney. Romney does not poll well in the general election. An Obama v. Romney race is just a rubber stamp on Obama's 2nd term.
Swap Paul and Romney percentage and you'll be closer. I'd say it'd go closer to 15% for Paul. Maybe. Don't forget the Ross Perot stats. Yes, I'm aware Ron Paul is at the head of a revolution, but it's still pretty early in said revolution. Sure the tipping point may have already been crossed, but that doesn't mean everything changes this election cycle. Leviathan is still pretty large, and the people are still largely sheep. And if you notice, it took the Paul campaign almost 4 or 5 days just to raise $1 million in the latest moneybomb a couple weeks ago. (Granted, it didn't seem to be as canvassed as others have been, but still.)
And after '92, the establishment made sure no third party would ever get in the main debates again. And there is no way in the hell of hells that Ron Paul is going to break through that barrier.
It's been said before but it's true: the only thing a Ron Paul 3rd party run would do is piss off rank-and-file Republicans and ruin any chance for a Rand Paul run. Plus Ron doesn't want to do it anyway.
No, the 1st choice path is to garner enough Santorum delegates to force a brokered convention. It's a long shot, but it's possible. Paul was already in good shape in the caucus process for something like half a dozen states...good enough for a plurality of delegates in multiple caucuses. If he were able to gain enough Santorum delegates and keep Romney from getting the needed majority, he could quite conceivably win the nomination. It's been done before.
Short of that, I'd say just continue the Campaign for Liberty and leverage as much of a concession from Romney as possible (even if it's just a speaking slot), and just watch Obama win.
JJ
Paul went on to say: "A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does--through state laws.
Am I the only one that laughed at the thread title?
The title should be "Santorum pulls out."
But, anyway, I didn't expect this today. It will make it harder for Paul and Gingrich to force a brokered convention. Gingrich will drop out early as well, I predict.
Wheylous:JJ Paul went on to say: "A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does--through state laws.
Makes sense. Paul says life begins at conception, and that abortion is a form of violent aggression. Therefore, according to the Constitution it should be dealt with at the state level. I understand many people don't agree about when life begins, and therefore are able to make the argument that abortion up to some arbitrary point along the gestation period is not an act of aggression because they are classifying what is being killed as "not really alive" or at least, "not human" (kind of like the way offenders of genocides justify their killings). Either way, as always, Paul's consistant.
The article gives a link to Paul's full addendum.
I pretty much agree with 100% of what Clayton said. I'm disappointed that Dr. Paul hasn't ditched the GOP by now. I've always been wondering why he hasn't since I think the percentages Clayton predicts are probably exactly right. It would be funny seeing one of the 2 major Parties come in 3rd place. It would be good for the future as well, because then surely that would kill the Party of Lincoln.
JJ is right about what Dr. Paul said, and I hadn't really been thinking about that when I started this thread. I think that was a good argument, because then uninformed people would think he was inconsistent if he started running as a social conservative.
Aristophanes:The title should be "Santorum pulls out."
Double-entendre?
Aristophanes:But, anyway, I didn't expect this today. It will make it harder for Paul and Gingrich to force a brokered convention. Gingrich will drop out early as well, I predict.
I read a headline on Google News within the past week that said Gingrich is all but dropping out of the race.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Clayton: The high path is to drop out of the Republican primary and go independent. ... An Obama v. Romney race is just a rubber stamp on Obama's 2nd term. Clayton -
The high path is to drop out of the Republican primary and go independent. ...
An Obama v. Romney race is just a rubber stamp on Obama's 2nd term.
I agree. RP should go independent and WIN on the platform of "No Difference between Romney, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush". He has the coverage, the momentum. People will listen. He is nothing like Ross Perot, and these times are nothing like when Ross Perot was running.
At the very worst, even if he ends up last and guarantees an Obama victory, he would have educated millions new young minds about liberty between now and November.
No2statism:I pretty much agree with 100% of what Clayton said. I'm disappointed that Dr. Paul hasn't ditched the GOP by now. I've always been wondering why he hasn't since I think the percentages Clayton predicts are probably exactly right.
"40% Obama, 35% Paul, 20% Romney."
40 > 35.
35 + 20 = 55.
55 > 40.
And you can't figure out why Ron Paul hasn't ditched the GOP? Have you even listened to his response every time he's asked about a third party run? First you wonder why he doesn't bank on "social conservatism", when the man himself says that's "a losing position", and now you're wondering why he doesn't go 3rd party when the man himself (essentially) says "it's a losing strategy."
Do you even listen to what the man has to say, or are you just some "Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul would win in a landslide. Dr. Paul just needs to do a bunch of stuff that he's currently not doing. Dr. Paul."?
It would be funny seeing one of the 2 major Parties come in 3rd place.
That would not happen. I guarantee it.
JJ is right about what Dr. Paul said, and I hadn't really been thinking about that when I started this thread.
Ya don't say.
z1235:RP should go independent and WIN on the platform of "No Difference between Romney, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush". He has the coverage, the momentum. People will listen. He is nothing like Ross Perot, and these times are nothing like when Ross Perot was running.
You people are delusional. Just look at the popular vote so far. I would be surprised if Ron Paul even got as much as Perot got. (Which, again, was 0% of the Electoral College.) (And let's not forget, Perot was actually in some debates.)
Are you insane? "At the very worst"? Did you miss the part about pissing of every rank-and-file Republican to where his son might not even get re-elected to the Senate 4 years from now...let alone win a Presidency? You're not thinking long term.
And Paul has already "educated millions new young minds", and will do that "between now and November" anyway. He doesn't need to piss of literally millions of Americans who would otherwise put his son in the White House in 4 years.
In fact, the reality is the exact opposite of what you're saying. There is virtually nothing to gain from Ron Paul running in a 3rd party for President in the 2012 election.
Going socially conservative is a mistake for two reasons:
1) Santorum never polled very high, usually around 38 percent in national polls when matched against Obama. This is mainly due to the fact that the 40 percent, who are the conservatives in America, will vote for anyone except Obama. But even conservatives are not totally on his side. He is big with evangelical nuts, but most of these nuts love war, Israel (for armageddon purposes), and more harsh laws and less civil liberties. Because evangelicals believe that humanity is depraved.
2) You alienate the moderates, who make up about 36 percent of the electorate. This part is crucial to a win. Alienating them will keep you trapped in the 40 percent who just want Obama out of office. And this can only be won with winning them over to positions that liberals might agree on: ending the drug war, stopping the wars abroad, defunding foreign regimes, overturning government intrusions by Bush and Obama, etc.
(36 percent and 40 percent are from Gallup Poll. Santorum's national numbers are from Real Clear Politics).
I think RP could do two things, however.
1) Show that one can be non-liberal and anti-war.
2) Show that one can be libertarian and principledly against abortion.
"Perot was actually in some debates"
The only thing Perot did was make sure that Clinton won twice.
That reminds of of the insane amount of time Santorum seems to spend thinking about gay sex. In his efforts to save society from the evils of sexuality, he seems to have become obsessed with sex. I'm sure Freud would have had something to say about Ricky...
John Ess: "Perot was actually in some debates" The only thing Perot did was make sure that Clinton won twice.
Tell that to these lovestruck puppies who keep talking about Paul needing to run 3rd party. My whole point about mentioning Perot getting in debates was to point out how those are probably the single most important aspect of a Presidental run. Sure other things are pretty important, but there is no one other thing more important than those debates. They put you on a national stage, and as much as the convention is to talk ill of how little Americans pay attention, those debates get good ratings. And not only that, but they provide content for the news stations to analyze and talk about...meaning more exposure. And it's all water cooler fodder as well. "Did you see what Senator Yahoo said in the debate last night?"
You can't go anywhere in a national campaign without being in the debates. And my point in mentioning Perot actually being in them was to illustrate that even getting on that national stage, and having a bottomless pit of personal funding to draw on if necessary, the man got 19% of the popular vote...and 0% of the Electoral College. And there is no fucking way in hell Ron Paul would be in any Presidential debate representing a third party. It's just not going to happen.
And again, Perot got those results not only with being in the debates, but the guy was buying entire 30 minute and full hour-long slots on major television networks to speak directly to the public, and in the final days of the campaign was spending $5 million [$7.7million in current dollars] per day. AGAIN, it took Ron Paul 4 or 5 days just to raise $1 million in the latest moneybomb a couple weeks ago.
People talking about "Ron Paul needs to run 3rd party" are just delusional.
Now's not the time folks. I understand Paul is exciting and the movement is getting promising. But we're just not there yet. Please be awake to reality.
I'm definitely looking at the future (after all, the worst has yet to come), but I'm not sure that being loyal to the Republican Party is the way to get the best future. I don't see the Republicans pandering to libertarians no matter how much libertarians try to run as Republicans. As for Dr. Rand Paul, his voting record is way too different from his father's. I really think he's more of a Chicago Schooler, and I'd be surprised if he's even spent more than 5 minutes reading Rothbard's works. He also doesn't seem as principled as his father. He threw his full support for the Keystone XL (instead, he should've advocated that TransCanada give the property that they bought through eminent domain back to the owners with interest), I heard he took medicare when he was in private medical practice, and he supported the FairTax (which is no better than the income tax). I also read that he said the Koch Brothers should've been arrested for polluting public waters. A libertarian would say that we shouldn't have water socialism and wouldn't believe in the Federal government arresting people anyway. Finally, he's voted for managed trade agreements.
All of that said, I'm sure he could be a Republican Party Presidential nominee some day since he adheres the Republican Party platform so much.
Anyway, If Dr. Ron Paul isn't elected President in 2012, then I think his supporters either need to move out of here and buy some private property elsewhere or work towards abolishing the U.S. Federal Constitution because there is no one alive other than him who would be an acceptable (to libertarians) executive (i.e., no one has his record). I'm getting more and more scared of the state as each day goes by, and something needs to be done quickly. That is, I need to know where to flee to, so I won't be around when hyperinflation rears its ugly head.
I didn't think Rand Paul winning a future presidential election was the goal here.
No2statism:I'm definitely looking at the future (after all, the worst has yet to come), but I'm not sure that being loyal to the Republican Party is the way to get the best future.
Who said anything about "loyalty" to the Republican Party?
As for Dr. Rand Paul, his voting record is way too different from his father's.
He's been in Congress for a year. His father has been there for 30 times that. Please explain how you have compared the two.
I really think he's more of a Chicago Schooler, and I'd be surprised if he's even spent more than 5 minutes reading Rothbard's works.
Evidence?
He threw his full support for the Keystone XL (instead, he should've advocated that TransCanada give the property that they bought through eminent domain back to the owners with interest), I heard he took medicare when he was in private medical practice
I fail to see the point in any of this. Are you suggesting you would prefer someone else for President? (Someone who would actually run, of course).
he supported the FairTax (which is no better than the income tax).
a) It is better than the income tax. I have no idea where you're coming up with this stuff
b) What is Ron Paul's tax plan?
No2statism:I also read that he said the Koch Brothers should've been arrested for polluting public waters. A libertarian would say that we shouldn't have water socialism and wouldn't believe in the Federal government arresting people anyway.
a) Source?
b) Did he say they should be arrested by the Federal government?
c) What is "water socialism"?
d) Are you suggesting people should face no consequences for polluting?
Finally, he's voted for managed trade agreements.
Source?
Anyway, If Dr. Ron Paul isn't elected President in 2012, then I think his supporters either need to move out of here and buy some private property elsewhere or work towards abolishing the U.S. Federal Constitution
Have fun with that.
there is no one alive other than him who would be an acceptable (to libertarians) executive (i.e., no one has his record).
I would love to know who these "libertarians" are that require someone spend three decades in Congress before he is deemed "acceptable".
I'm getting more and more scared of the state as each day goes by, and something needs to be done quickly. That is, I need to know where to flee to, so I won't be around when hyperinflation rears its ugly head.
I know someone you can talk to.
John, perhaps you'd like to clearly explain your position rather than simply trying to bully your opponents into silence.
A salient LRC article on this very topic.
@JJ: Thanks for the reply: )
Dr. Paul's tax plan is whatever brings in the least amount of revenue to the government. The FairTax is revenue neutral. It criminalizes sellers who don't collect it. It's just another centralized bureaucratic tax that can be just as easily manipulated as the current tax code could be.
"Water socialism" is government ownership of the the waterways.
Here is a backup to some of my claims.
If someone pollutes private property, then the market should work that out. I'm suggesting no one should be punished by the state especially over polluting the property of the state
Clayton brought up a good article, but I don't think the Hamiltonian system or the electoral system we're currently stuck in can be fixed or reformed. It needs to be abolished.
"I didn't think Rand Paul winning a future presidential election was the goal here."
I think people hate Rand Paul. He may have won some conservatives by being elected the year he did, but all of the liberal sites have already destroyed any chance for him to become popular outside of his state. Because of his comments on civil rights. All liberals now think that he supports jim crow and that he hates poor people.
At the same time, he already has sacrificed a lot of libertarian principles for expediency (or perhaps because of his own beliefs) and it is hard to win that back now.
Clayton:A salient LRC article on this very topic.
No2statism:Dr. Paul's tax plan is whatever brings in the least amount of revenue to the government.
And Mitt Romney's plan is to roll up his sleeves and get America working again.
What is Ron Paul's tax plan?
Which waterways? Where did the Koch brothers pollute? Where is this quote from Rand Paul? What are the facts of this case?
That is a list of Rand Paul's votes. That is not a "backup of your claims".
If someone pollutes private property, then the market should work that out.
What the hell does that mean?
Clayton brought up a good article
You mean an article that echoed virtually everything I said.
I find it interesting you neglect about half of my questions. And the only "backup of your claims" you provide is a list of Rand Paul's votes. Again:
No2statism: I really think he's more of a Chicago Schooler, and I'd be surprised if he's even spent more than 5 minutes reading Rothbard's works.
also read that he said the Koch Brothers should've been arrested for polluting public waters. A libertarian would say that we shouldn't have water socialism and wouldn't believe in the Federal government arresting people anyway.
he's voted for managed trade agreements.
Such as?
John James: If someone pollutes private property, then the market should work that out. What the hell does that mean?
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
What happens to Santorum's delegates??
Badass Ben Swann on the local Fox affiliate's got your back:
The Texas Trigger:Come one, JJ, you know what he means. He is trying to give (albeit poorly) the standard Libertarian homesteading argument that any avid Mises daily reader could give.
Maybe. Or maybe he just knows the "right answer" is always "market. Not state." and is just throwing it out there because he knows it's not wrong (especially in this forum). Kind of like how he attacks Rand Paul for favoring the FairTax plan (which I'm not even sure is true, he didn't offer any proof of this), and when faced with the challenge of offering something better (i.e. Ron Paul's supposed tax plan) he gives me the equivalent of "roll up your sleeves and get it done."
...which to me says, he has no idea what Ron Paul's tax plan is, and he himself doesn't have one at all...which puts him in great company with all the leftists who devote themselves to nothing more than proving that something human has imperfections. He has no real solution, he's just decided that voluntarism is the answer and seems to simply espouse it without any sort of reasoning or practical application whatsoever (and I'm speaking here based on his history of posts).
Or, are you just trying to get him to expound on this more?
Basically yeah. Because I don't think he can.