Ron Paul: Anyone more electable?

[drmomentum[$]]

I don't think any Republican is more electable in the '08 presidential election than Ron Paul. What do you think?

[phoenixx]

I agree. Though I think Romney may have given himself a fighting chance with the racist contingent by stating his potential hiring practices.

[slick4591[$]]

I don't like any of them.

Oh, and who the hell is Fred Thompson and why is he running?

[brian_igo]

Man, if Ron Paul is the most electable Republican...that's a bad place for the R's to be.

Huckabee poses the biggest problem for the D's. He locks up the south for the Republicans and he'll get social conservatives to turn out across the country. Since he would get the most votes and give the D's the biggest headache, that makes him my pick for most electable.

[erik_kosberg]

There is a more electable Republican. Unfortunately for Republicans, his name is Ronald Reagan. Dead people aren't allowed on the ballot.

[brian_igo]

Have the final GOP Iowa debate on in the background...what a train wreck. Lincoln and Douglas are bouncing off the rev limiters.

[drmomentum[$]]

I'm tellin' ya. Ron Paul.

[brian_igo]

Break it down, JP. Why is Paul the most electable?

I think he's got a dog whistle campaign, if you can't hear it you just don't get it. I don't.

[erik_kosberg]

Because he's doing well at intrade? vdare had a story not long ago about it so if intrade's a good predictor, maybe.

[jgibson2[$]]

He's managed to present himself as a minor, unelectable, candidate while amassing quite a significant amount of money. Next "money bomb" is scheduled for December 16. The media might just sit up and take notice if this campaign is as successful as the previous one.

If the media does take notice, we'll find out if he has any skeletons in his closet.

[drmomentum[$]]

Paul could attack weaknesses on the Democratic side regarding Iraq War opposition, and he could lay claim to the unfulfilled promise of Bush on defense of the Constitution. I don't know how he is in a fight, but I bet that if the Republican leadership were actually behind him, he might cause real problems for the Democrats by representing a clear and simple message. In really complicated times, a simple message can be powerful. See "terrorists under your bed."

That said, I don't think he would ultimately win. I have to admit that I am cynical about the way Republicans (OK - people in general) think, and although Ron Paul seems to represent a lot of what conservatives tell me they want, it's not what they really want a lot of the time, when it comes down to it. And he won't excite the evangelicals.

I think Paul is viewed as less electable. I see him as no less electable. I don't think any of the Republicans are more electable. I think Romney is viewed as electable, which perplexes me. He became governor of Massachusetts by running against a really weak candidate. And he made a really crappy leader. There is less leadership to Romney, I think, than even GW Bush. What did he do for Massachusetts? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? It's not a big state and I can't recall ever seeing him around here.

If folks are as disenchanted with Republicans as I think they are, Paul seems to be the one most likely to be able to convince people that he's not happy with the direction of the country and that he hasn't been part of that.

But perhaps if you don't hitch your star to increasing the party's political power and/or court the extremely religious, you can't earn Republican support. 'Cause it's obvious that fiscal responsibility is out the window.

-JP

[brian_igo]

drmomentum said

Paul could attack weaknesses on the Democratic side regarding Iraq War opposition, and he could lay claim to the unfulfilled promise of Bush on defense of the Constitution. I don't know how he is in a fight, but I bet that if the Republican leadership were actually behind him, he might cause real problems for the Democrats by representing a clear and simple message. In really complicated times, a simple message can be powerful. See "terrorists under your bed."

A couple of things. It seems like you're basing Paul's electability on conditions that don't exist, are against him, and/or are out of his control. If the Republican leadership was behind him...that's not going to happen in 2008 no matter how much he rakes in or how much excitement he stirs among the under-30 demographic which is racing away from the GOP. The GOP isn't going to voluntarily give up the base it has for whatever it might get from the Paul supporters. If they want to take that from the GOP they'll have to fight for it and overthrow the people who are in power now, and Paul for his part has made it clear he has no desire to become the Republican Howard Dean.

Would Paul be stronger on Iraq than, say Hillary Clinton? I don't think so. I think the last two election cycles have taught us that voters will choose their trust in the perceived strengths of a party over the claims of the candidates. Both Gore and Kerry tried to convince voters they were the more competent on the things that Republicans promised to do. Maybe they were, and maybe Paul would be more competent on Iraq than HRC. But that doesn't change the perception of the party's ideology, and it's exposes the position as a matter of trust. Take the candidate names off the table, would you trust a Democrat or a Republican to end the war in Iraq? It's really hard for a candidate to get elected when they're running against that type.

That said, I don't think he would ultimately win. I have to admit that I am cynical about the way Republicans (OK - people in general) think, and although Ron Paul seems to represent a lot of what conservatives tell me they want, it's not what they really want a lot of the time, when it comes down to it. And he won't excite the evangelicals.

This is harsh, and it will piss some people off, but what Republicans want has very little connection to reality. They've created five trillion in new debt in just eight years, and they insist on even more tax cuts while fighting even more wars. They want seven million people to turn themselves in to be deported, on the promise that maybe they'll be re-admitted a decade from now. They want to base our national security policy on a bad TV show.

On a practical level, the people who are left in the GOP are clinically delusional. Their platform has become a fairy tale, and what they want most from a presidential candidate is someone who can read the story convincingly. That, more than anything else, is why you've seen the exodus of support to Huckabee. He can read the story in a way they like to hear. He makes them believe it can really happen in a way no one else in the field can.

This crowd has as much interest in facing the hard truths of Iraq, fiscal policies, foreign affairs and the preservation of individual rights as I do with moving back to Florida.

If folks are as disenchanted with Republicans as I think they are, Paul seems to be the one most likely to be able to convince people that he's not happy with the direction of the country and that he hasn't been part of that.

Are you saying that if people are disenchanted with Republicans they will listen more to a Republican about changing what Republicans have done?

[drmomentum[$]]

When he says he doesn't want to be the next Dean, was he referring to not getting the nomination?

[...]what they want most from a presidential candidate is someone who can read the story convincingly. That, more than anything else, is why you've seen the exodus of support to Huckabee. He can read the story in a way they like to hear. He makes them believe it can really happen in a way no one else in the field can.

This view is supported by George Lakoff's work. Republicans have been banking on tons of time and money spent laying the groundwork for that story, and so they're always looking for someone who can get the right code words out in the right order. It's very powerful.

Are you saying that if people are disenchanted with Republicans they will listen more to a Republican about changing what Republicans have done?

The Massachusetts Republicans I know might very well. But maybe they are strange fellows.

-JP

[brian_igo]

To answer the question his supporters ask, this is Ron Paul.

In the comments thread to my previous post on Ron Paul, the indispensable Trefayne compiled a series of posts on Paul's track record as a congressman, particularly those bills he sponsored or co-sponsored.

Here's Trefayne:

What's more, consider Ron Paul's record in Congress. Not that he'll ever occupy the Oval Office, but what would he do after pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq? His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has proposed, not merely voted on, but sponsored. And you can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which suggests they are important to him.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
-- He opposes the right of women to be free to control their own reproductive systems if they happen to live in particular states or other countries, or if they work for the Peace Corps.

Ron Paul introduces three pro-life bills

H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.777: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.1548: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.AMDT.1003 (A024): Amendment no. 17 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funding for abortion, family planning, or population control efforts.

H.AMDT.380 (A022): An amendment no. 9 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funding for population control or population planning programs; family planning activities; or abortion procedures.

H.AMDT.312 (A011): An amendment, printed as amendment No. 32 in the Congressional Record of July 16, 1997, to prohibit the use of funds appropriated in the bill for Family Planning, birth control or abortion.

H.R.4984: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for the Peace Corps to be used for travel expenses of individuals in order for abortions to be performed on those individuals.

-- He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person

H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

H.R.392: A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to life.

-- He would deny the use of the Federal court system -- and even Federal precedent -- to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. This would also limit the cross-state recognition of same-sex marriages. Some of these bills he cynically calls this the "We the People Act".

H.R.300: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.4379: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.5739: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.3893: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.1547: To restore first amendment protections of religion and religious speech.

H.R.4922: To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

H.R.5078: To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

-- This includes limits on courts' hearing cases related to abortion, and he has introduced bills specific to these kinds of cases. He also uses the deceptive term "partial-birth abortion".

H.R.1545: To prohibit Federal officials from paying any Federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions.

H.R.1546: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

H.R.2875: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

H.R.3400: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

H.R.3691: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear partial-birth abortion-related cases.

H.R.15169: A bill to eliminate the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to certain abortion cases.

-- Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag

H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

H.J.RES.82: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

LAWS IMPROVING THE LOT OF THE WORKING CLASS

-- He has tried to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act:

H.R.2310: A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

H.R.13264: A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

-- He would like to make it much easier to decertify labor unions:

H.R.694: To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit elections to decertify representation by a labor organization.

-- He opposes the Minimum Wage:

H.R.2962: A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.

-- He would deny the prevailing wage to employees of federal contractors, and remove prohibition on kickbacks in Federal projects:

H.R.736: To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act.

H.R.2720: To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act.

-- He wants to severely weaken Social Security:

H.R.2030: A bill to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to make social security coverage completely optional for both present and future workers, to freeze benefit levels, to provide for the partial financing of future benefits from general revenues subject to specified conditions, to eliminate the earnings test, to make changes in the tax treatment of IRA accounts, and for other purposes.

H.R.4604: A bill to repeal the recently enacted requirement of mandatory social security coverage for employees of nonprofit organizations.

VOTER ISSUES

-- He has come out against attempts to make the United States more democratic, including the idea of eliminating the Electoral College, even *after* the debacle in the 2000 Presidential election:

H.CON.RES.48: Expressing the sense of the Congress in reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.

H.CON.RES.443: Expressing the sense of the Congress in reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.

-- He wants to repeal the "Motor Voter" Act, which has made it easier for people to register to vote.

H.R.2139: To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

CORPORATE POWER

-- He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others.

H.R.1247:
To ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by exempting health care professionals from the Federal antitrust laws in their negotiations with health plans and health insurance issuers.

H.R.1789: To restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law commonly referred to as "antitrust law", and for other purposes.

-- He would gut the regulatory power of Federal agencies, forcing Congress to micromanage all decisions:

H.R.1204: A bill to an Act to restore the rule of law.

DISCRIMINATION

-- He has tried to make it easier for racial and ethnic discrimination in our society:

H.R.3863:
A bill to provide that the Internal Revenue Service may not implement certain proposed rules relating to the determination of whether private schools have discriminatory policies.

H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.

H.R.4982: A bill to provide for civil rights in public schools.

-- He would propose an amendment to the Constitution to gut the Fourteenth Amendment by denying citizenship to people born here whose parents aren't already citizens "nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States". That latter part could produce some serious political discrimination, especially if radicals can have their citizenship revoked:

H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

H.J.RES.42:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

-- He would limit or try to repeal various environmental protection laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act, the Soil and Water Conservation Act, and the use of devices that protect the "bycatch" of sea life:

H.J.RES.104: To disapprove a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to proposed revisions to the national pollutant discharge elimination system program and Federal antidegradation policy and the proposed revisions to the water quality planning and management regulations concerning total maximum daily load.

H.R.3735: To disapprove a rule requiring the use of bycatch reduction devices in the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico.

H.R.4423: To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide that the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery shall be managed in accordance with such fishery management plans, regulations, and other conservation and management as applied to that fishery on April 13, 1998.

H.R.2504: A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to postpone for one year the application of certain restrictions to areas which have failed to attain national ambient air quality standards and to delay for one year the date required for adoption and submission of State implementation plans applicable to these areas, and for other purposes.

H.R.7079: A bill to repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.

H.R.7245: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters which are navigable and for other purposes.

Ron Paul also has a lot of bills relating to the shrimp industry and trying to block competition. Maybe he's in their pocket?

-- He would promote offshore oil-drilling, the construction of more refineries, coal-mining on Federal lands, and block conservation measures. This would further threaten our coastal and internal environments, and further trap our economy in fossil-fuel dependency:

H.R.2415: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.

H.R.4004: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.

H.R.393: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters which are navigable and for other purposes.

H.R.4639: A bill to repeal all Federal regulations and taxes on the production of fuel.

H.R.5293: A bill to prohibit the imposition of unreasonable severance taxes or fees on coal or lignite mined from Federal lands.

H.R.6936: A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from promulgating any federal emergency energy conservation plan which would restrict recreational boating.

-- He has fought ratification of the Law of the Sea. As President would he "un-sign" it? [More here.]

H.CON.RES.56: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND MILITARY ISSUES

-- This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:

H.R.1665: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

H.R.3769: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

-- He would continue U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court, despite the usefulness of this body for prosecuting war-crimes that are not challenged domestically.

H.R.1154: To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States, and for other purposes.

H.AMDT.480 (A010): An amendment numbered 9 printed in part A of House Report 107-450 to prohibit funds authorized in the bill from being used to assist, cooperate with, or provide any support to the International Criminal Court.

H.R.4169: To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States, and for other purposes.

H.CON.RES.23: Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.

H.RES.416: Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court.

-- He has promoted the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, and otherwise sought limit the protections of international law. He would also prohibit U.S. courts from citing foreign laws or policies (other than English ones) in their decisions:

H.J.RES.1028: A resolution proposing the Bricker amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to force and effect of treaties and executive agreements.

H.J.RES.492: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to force and effect of treaties and Executive agreements.

H.CON.RES.49: Expressing the sense of Congress that the Treaty Power of the President does not extend beyond the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, but are limited by the Constitution, and any exercise of such Executive Power inconsistent with the Constitution shall be of no legal force or effect.

H.R.4118: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

H.R.1658: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

-- He would end U.S. participation in the United Nations. Failing that he would prohibit or severely curtail appropriations for U.S. payments to the U.N. or its affiliated agencies. Please note that isolationism is not the same as anti-imperialism:

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.285 (A038): An amendment numbered 11 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit use of funds in the bill to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.190 (A024): Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for any U.S. contribution to the UN or any affiliated agency of the UN.

H.AMDT.191 (A025): Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for use toward any U.S. contribution for UN peacekeeping operations.

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.306 (A006): Amendment sought to eliminate the authorization of funding for any United Nations program.

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.138 (A010): Amendment sought to provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.

H.R.1146: To provide for complete withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.

H.R.3890: A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.

H.R.3891: A bill to terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.

H.R.6358: A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.

H.R.14788: A bill to limit U.S. contributions to the United Nations.

-- Not having any success there, he has worked to block U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization:

H.CON.RES.132: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should formally withdraw its membership from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

H.CON.RES.4: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

H.CON.RES.443: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should formally withdraw its membership from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

H.CON.RES.489: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

-- Would he pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?

H.J.RES.566: A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972.

-- Oh, but he would "protect" U.S. soldiers from wearing any insignia of another country or the U.N.