Friday, January 12, 2007

Ron Paul in 2008?

I've not been able to fully verify this but...today, incorporation papers were filed in Texas for a Ron Paul 2008 presidential exploratory committee that would enable him to begin raising money.

Rumors are swelling at the news of this but one of those that is most intriguing is that Ron Paul's intention is to form a GOP/Libertarian/Constitution fusion endorsement run. Since members of those three parties can't get along in the same room it would be interesting to see if this were possible.

If Ron Paul is on the November ballot it will give me the chance to correct a vote I placed back in 1988 for George H.W. Bush. Had I understood that year that the GOP did not represent my views then Ron Paul would've received my vote on top of the 400,000+ others he earned.

If Ron is in fact running then voting for him would break three of my own rules for candidates for president:

1. Texans should not be allowed to run.

2. I'd have to technically vote for a Republican.

3. I never trust anyone with two first names.

So I'm a hypocrite. I'd support him in a heartbeat.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

So if you're not a Bush backer then why are you wanting to support a republican for president in 2008

little-cicero said...

How soft is he on social issues. If he's a typical libertarians, he has no more chance getting the religious right than Giuliani, but I do believe there are a great deal of "liberals" who would fully agree with a libertarian candidate- they just wouldn't vote GOP to save their life. I guess what I'm saying is, without any evidence I'm telling you this guy hasn't a chance. That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for him, but because of his second party status he won't be able to get past the GOP Primaries in the presumably socially conservative state of Iowa.

Tracy said...

LC - I'll do my best to explain.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. 100% Libertarian. He ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988.

That said he has had full support from the Religious Right but not by as many Rockefeller Republicans. Ron Paul is a Christian and a medical doctor. He supports many issues that those on the religious right support though he doesn't advocate federal solutions for them. This gives him a pass in the same way they give Bush a pass for spending like a Socialist.

You must also understand that Ron Paul has been in the Congress for nine terms as a Republican even though the Republicans run someone against him every two years.

The Texas district where Ron Paul comes from is more conservative than any in Iowa.

The fact of the matter is that there is no conservative horse in the race. Ron Paul has street credibility with Conservatives in both the GOP and Constitution party but has a solid libertarian pedigree. He is a regular speaker at the LP national conventions.

Gino said...

libertarian philosophy tends to be socially conservative more times than not.

of the social issues that frost the conservatives, 99% of them were the result of govt, or courts, meddling where it didnt belong in the first place, in areas the libertarians would not have touched.

LC: think of any social issue. and you'll find the issue would not have been created had a libertarian mindset been in charge.
social conservatism is by nature reactionary,(folks getting pissed at judicial/govt over reaching) not revolutionary.

Tracy said...

Looking at Libertarians as 'soft' on social issues is also a rather sophomoric view of the issues. Is allowing someone property rights being 'soft' on the environment? Is upholding gun rights being 'soft' on crime?

Libertarians promote self-ownership not just so people can do whatever the hell they want but instead because it allows for a better society by allowing society itself to govern the things that we celebrate.

We are not soft on any issue, but instead we ask if there is a federal role. To us the Constitution isn't just a good idea...it's the law.

robert the grump said...

Thanks for the explanation of Libertarian politics, Tracy and Gino. Now I understand.

Libertarians are not soft on issues, they just avoid them like a homeless person with a hand out.

Everything is the State's problem, not the Feds. Or better yet, individual property owners should fight it out with dueling pistols.

I'm not sure the Libertarians have a better solution. Sounds more like passing the buck.

little-cicero said...

Well the subject matter here is not political theory, although I discuss that ad nauseum on my blog- we're talking politics, as in actions and the political positions that cause those actions.

Bush is a compassionate conservative, which means he is an economic conservative who infringes on that conservatism to give way to social programs out of Christian compassion. That Christian ethic also drives him to act strongly against societal homosexual normalization and abortion. He's basically a Christian Democrat who uses the market to fix the economy.

Tracy said...

Your 'Christian Democrat' idea still needs more fleshing out.

Also, Steel Tarrifs is not a freemarket solution but rather price fixing. George Bush is a numbskull mess of a president and neither Compassionate or Conservative.

Back to Ron Paul. His biggest problem is that he comes from the House of Representatives which hasn't done well electing presidents in ages and he does not work to elect mainstream Republicans (because they're idiots generally) so this leaves him without the GOP election machine behind him.

robert the grump said...

LC, I completely disagree with your label of "compasionate Christian" for Bush. I also did a double take when you called him an "economic conservative." Say what? The biggest deficit in history and the biggest government in history are not the legacy of any sort of conservative.

He spends money like a drunken sailor, but not on social programs, unless you include his ill-advised Medicare reform. I personally think he did that to destroy Medicare, and then go after Social Security.

I do agree with you that Ron Paul has no chance. Hillary or Barack Obama would beat him easily, and I wouldn't bet money on their chances, either.

But I'm not sure that coming from the House of Reprehensibles is really a drawback. Didn't Bush '41 come from the House? And Gerald Ford, if you want to count someone who never got elected. Nixon served in the House and Senate. It's a bigger problem to me that Ron Paul comes from Texas. Haven't we learned our lesson?

Tracy said...

Bush 41 came from the Vice Presidency more importantly.

Gerald Ford was a space alien who tricked everyone with his magic spaceman powers to become president. He was also on the Warren Commission (which was our country's first all space alien government appointed commission)

I've written Ron Paul and asked him to revoke his Texas citizenship and become an American.