Ron Paul may or may not be seriously considering a third-party run, but if he is, I’m not sure why George Will is so certain about this:
… assume … that at least 80 percent of Paul’s votes would come at the expense of the Republican nominee.
Is Will simply unaware of the kind of campaign Paul is running now? And who’s responding to it, for what reasons?
… Several hundred young people, mostly students, packed the Great Hall of Iowa State’s Union building. Many wore flannel shirts and knit caps on a cold snowy night. They listened intently as Paul, standing behind a lectern, touched on some of his more esoteric views, on Austrian economists and returning to the gold standard. But they responded with enthusiasm when he got to issues they could relate to, like the threat he says is posed by the Patriot Act.
“There’s a serious attack on our personal liberties — your rights, your privacy, passing bills out of a panic mode and passing things like the Patriot Act. it does not help your personal liberty. I’d like to get rid of the Patriot Act, to tell you the truth.”
Paul also struck a chord when he called for a sensible foreign policy, one that does not feature thousands of American troops fighting and based overseas.
“That’s one of my major goals, is to get back to a sensible foreign policy and say a foreign policy ought to be for giving us a strong national defense — mind our own business and start bringing all our troops home from around the world,” Paul said.
Of course, Paul also got applause when he said the war on drugs had been a detriment to personal liberty, and that people should be allowed to buy and drink raw milk and to grow hemp….
It’s the stuff that seems progressive that’s working for Paul.
I’d say that Paul threatens to take far more votes away from Obama — but it seems more appropriate to say he’d take votes from what should be a Democratic Party constituency, namely young people. Paul’s economic ideas are nuts, and these young people seem not to get that (or not to care), but I think a lot of them will vote if he’s in the race and simply not vote otherwise. They’re certainly people Obama should have been able to win over again, but the economy is particularly godawful for the young, and the Goldman Sachs-ization of Obama’s administration can’t have escaped their notice. (Never mind the fact that a Ron Paul laissez-faire utopia would be even crueler.)
Paul has the potential to be the John Anderson of 2012 — people forget this, but Ronald Reagan actually won Massachusetts in 1980, largely because Anderson, who got 6.6% of the vote nationwide, received 15% of the vote in the Bay State. College students? In Massachusetts? Yeah, I’d say so. If Paul runs, I guarantee that a non-trivial number of voters in Massachusetts will vote for him and Elizabeth Warren.
(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog)
Yep, the White Supremacist (Newsletters to Prove it!) is ignored by the Press. Both the Racist Pauls want the Civil Rights Act overturned. He needs to be exposed or cede the Election.
Paul supporters tend to be young, but I don’t get the impression a majority of them would otherwise vote for a Democrat. Paul would get some left-wing support, but I think most of his votes would come from otherwise GOP votes. Hard to predict, however, because the average voter does not really know anything about Ron Paul
“It’s the stuff that seems progressive that’s working for Paul.”
Then why aren’t any progressives advocating that stuff? Is Obama fighting the Patriot act? No. He’s expanding presidential powers, claiming a right to order executions. Is he opposing wars? No. He’s expanding the Afghan war and tried his best to weasel out of the SOFA with Iraq to stay longer. He maintains the Bush level of hostility towards Iran, so that even if he doesn’t actually attack himself, he sets it up so that the next Republican president can do it more easily. Remember Clinton and desert fox?
The Democratic party would have attracted a lot more support if they *truly* adopted an anti-war, pro-civil liberties platform. And defended it without shame or embarrassment. But they don’t. So don’t blame people looking for alternatives.
P.S. IIRC John Anderson had been a Republican. It’s not at all clear that most of his voters would have gone to Carter.
The one Democrat who has — Russ Feingold — was opposed by libertarians. Libertarians care about that stuff about as much as Republicans when it comes down to it in practical terms.
If it comes down to taxation or civil liberties, Libertarians will side on taxation every time.
And I’m not saying that’s a bad thing necessarily. Just don’t say that the Democrats on net would gain supporters; it’s unlikely that they would.
Maybe not. But there are plenty of Americans for whom those things are important and the democratic party no longer represents them. (if it ever did) Ron Paul does.
I think Booman was referring to leftists and democrats who are attracted to Ron Paul, not traditional small government libertarians. Though I suspect a lot of them would respect Feingold.
Russ Feingold got a lot of support for opposing the patriot act (the only Senator, IIRC) and for opposing the Iraq war from the start. But he did not contest the democratic nomination in ’04 or ’08. I wish he had.
P.S. Feingold was also a proponent of auditing the Fed. He has more in common with Ron Paul than he does with many in his own party.
“Libertarians will side on taxation every time.”
I would GLADLY support Denis Kucinich against any Republican other than Ron Paul. Libertarian guru, Lew Rockwell supported McGovern in 1972 and is still proud of it today. For many of us, opposition to war is the fundamental issue and not low taxes. Though, ideally we would want a candidate who does both.
And likewise, I would support Ron Paul over a lot of Democrats if we were talking about the House. The Senate’s too important, and I don’t enjoy having Rand Paul’s running around because we agree on 40% of the issues while the remaining 60% causes the government to shutdown. Ron Johnson is not a libertarian or an opponent to war, and he had the backing of almost every libertarian that I know. And whenever I brought up Feingold as my ideal Senator to people on RP boards, they all said they could never support him if the Republican wanted lower taxes. Just sayin’
I’ve also noted on this site, to AG in particular, that I would really have to think about who I would support for president if it came down to Gary Johnson and Barack Obama. RP is not a libertarian in my book, he’s a paleoconservative. I’m not saying I’d vote for GJ over BO, but I would have to think about for who I am voting for the first time ever (and I suspect for the rest of my life, assuming the Republican/Democratic parties do not die and/or change). And it would be a pretty difficult choice for me…although I would prolly end up voting for O in the end.
I’m glad you have an open mind about it. GJ is an ok choice, though not as anti-war as Ron Paul.
I was a Democrat until 2007 when I switched to caucus for Paul in Nevada in ’08. Had there been a genuine anti-war, pro-civil liberties candidate that was attracting some real support, I would have stayed. Kucinich is great but he gets even less respect from his Party than RP.
At the Daily Paul most posters say they will either write Paul in or stay home or vote libertarian. None of them will vote for the Republican nominee. At least none will admit to it.
If it happens to be Newt, I’ll either stay home, or hold my nose and vote for Obama. Doesn’t make much difference, but I hate seeing Newt on TV.
Ron Paul’s not so much anti-war as he’s isolationist. I consider Gary Johnson to be an “anti-war” candidate, but not an isolationist. I also consider GJ to be an actual libertarian. I don’t see Ron Paul truly wanting to take on the military industrial complex so much as our Empire. He wants to militarize our southern border, and that’s not ok with me.
If your #1 issue is foreign policy, and the economy is a distant second, fine, vote for someone of a libertarian bent, like Paul or Johnson. In the libertarian paradise, you’d get isolationism and legalized hemp — but also a Dickensian economy that makes modern-day America look like Sweden. Want no foreign wars and a million kids sleeping under bridges? Work for a libertarian takeover of America.
Foreign policy isn’t my number one issue, but militarization and civil liberties are. This is why I have no love for Ron Paul (even if I were to ignore his newsletters, which try as Paulistas might, his explanation makes no sense). As I said, he does not want to go after the military, just our imperialism. That’s fine in and of itself, but if he wants to bring the military back here just so it can police the border, then that’s just moving them over here. Kind of funny that he opposes a wall for this very reason, but has no problem with 100,000 troops.
However, it gets to a point where you have to debate between systemic change, even if it means a hard crash down, or continue trimming around the edges until you’ve got another mandate with a mass movement. That’s where the debate in my head between GJ and O would stem from. And I’d probably still end up voting O in any case, but it wouldn’t be knee-jerk.
And in a libertarian government, yes, I believe you’re generally correct; libertarians want the government to be used for what it’s single purpose has always been: to enrich the powerful. It wants its only purpose for “defense” and to enforce contracts. I’m not so sure you’re correct if government didn’t exist at all.
Well, aside from climate change anyway.
And we would have ended up with George Bush again because Feingold is not interested in winning elections. IF you don’t see that by now..
And for the vast majority of this country what happens regarding national security is one of the very last things people worry about. the left doesn’t understand this simple fact.
Thank you.
AG
WOW! some big time lies in your comment. What conspiracy theorist site are you reading? Holy shit!
You wonder why Americans don’t focus on this stuff? Read your posts. You sound ridiculous. Obama doesn’t want to start a war with Iran but he’s purposely setting it up so another president could? He didn’t want to leave Iraq? You’re lying.
I am?? The guy thinks its cool to send flying robots all over Pakistan massacring thousands of people to get maybe a couple of dozen terrorists? (meaning people who fight NATO in their own country) He pretends to want dialogue with Iran but simply tries to get sanction after sanction? Keeps up the “all options on the table” rhetoric? Changes US nuclear posture to hint at the potential for a nuclear first strike at non nuclear states? Make Google your friend and look it up if you don’t believe me.
And Iraq? I can’t even count how many times he sent Panneta there, and Gates before him, trying to get the Iraqis to agree to extend US troop presence beyond the SOFA deadline.
Please spend five minutes looking all this up before calling me a liar again.
While you’re at it, check Clinton and desert fox and how that set up Iraq for the Bush invasion that followed.
What do you think the effect of John Anderson was in 1980? Yes, he was very popular on college campuses, he sure was at mine. But did he really help defeat Carter? I don’t think so. Anderson was a protest candidate in a landslide, not a spoiler.
All I said was that he got a lot of votes in a Democratic state and the Republican won. I’m arguing, further, that in a 2000-style tight race, someone who does something similar might hurt the Democrat.
If Ron Paul runs, he will split the white vote with the Republican nominee.
This is the game IMO: the President can be confident in winning the black vote IMO and with his outreach program win the Hispanic vote and Asian vote (his Pacific heritage helps a great deal here). The issue is limiting his loss of white voters; that will happen with the young white voters and white women. Now, if a third party candidate arrives from the right (and Paul is a right wing candidate) they are likely to split the white vote with the Republican nominee and take some of POTUS’ progressive white voters. However, given the base of minority support the President has he would likely be assured of an overwhelming victory and would likely carry the south.
A third party candidate, IMO, is a gift for the President.
Well, first of all I am quite certain that George Will cannot see much further than his necktie.
Secondly he is a tool of the centrist right and is thus being used as an anti-Ron Paul talking head. Just doing his job.
How’s that for “why?”
AG
Potentially? He has the capacity to spoil both.
And what fun that would be!!!
AG
Fun, if you have no skin in the game.
And also fun if what you do have in the game is a desire to see this country on its feet again. It would be a difficult therapy, but the patient would come through with flying colors, healthy once again.
That’s what I believe, anyway.
Will it happen?
We shall soon see, won’t we.
AG
Hegelling at the Market
The question is what voters would Ron Paul pull from the other parties. Most likely very few. A Paul third-party candidacy would bring in male voters who mostly have been sitting on the sidelines dissatisfied with the Republicans and not willing to vote for Democrats. I think he has all the pro-pot, anti-war Democrats he could get already supporting him.
What ultimately makes the difference is: what do you care enough about to vote on? Most people are not for strong gun rights, but most who will vote based on this issue are, and that is the strength of the NRA. There is a pro-pot constituency for whom that is the number 1 issue. I would guess it is about 8% of the population. Largely, they don’t vote, and no one really takes their side as a major issue, but many of them did vote for Obama, as he promised to respect state medical marijuana laws, and not expend resources on enforcing contrary federal law. He has broken that promise. If Paul enters the race, he owns these voters, and 8% can make a difference. There is an advantage to really meaning it, and to being extreme (Paul is for legalization of more drugs than marijuana, and even having been willing to say that – unlike marijuana legalization, a clear political loser – makes his position on pot highly credible.
PS. Yesterday, I had to talk someone out of saying he would vote for Ron Paul if he ran as an independent. Afterwards, he said “I guess I’m writing in Leonard Peltier again” This is not a vote taken from Republicans.