Forget about Paul’s rhetoric and just look at his rather shocking ineffectiveness as a legislator over the course of twentysome years in the House. In that time, of the 620 bills that Paul has sponsored, just four ever made it to the floor for a vote, and only one has ever been signed into law—- success rate: 0.2 percent.
In addition, Paul is strongly pro-Israel, strongly anti-abortion, and thinks (against all available and mounting evidence) that climate change is a “hoax”. That shit can be had from any garden variety conservative. No third party required.
Strange how many folks still fall for Ron Paul’s racket- the man who claimed to hate Washington party politics, and advocates for small government- the same man who spent decades in DC who campaigned for presidential nomination under the Republican ticket. He’s none better than the other candidates (Rick Perry, Newt) who wanted to be president of the U.S.A. but also favor the idea of seccession from the same union.
Lies lies lies.
@Matt: Thanks for passing along that explanation, it was very helpful. I don’t disagree that he appears ineffective, but could also be that he is just a super consistent black sheep?
@Falderal: I’m not saying that Ron Paul being the best candidate looks good, but I still think it’s true when you examine the utterly poor GOP field. Perhaps they are wisely awaiting 2016 because they know competition with Obama is futile. Speaking of Obama, he’s been a useless centrist who hasn’t changed anything, and goes running to comfort the elites, his true constituency.
Could you supply me with specifics or source on you criticism about something Paul said?
@Noir: Views on abortion don’t really concern me on presidential level. Paul would favor states deciding that for themselves. I share Paul’s sentiment that climate change has been politically exploited, and hastily at that.
I don’t mind if he’s pro-Israel to be honest. What matters to me about his foreign policy is that he is anti-war. Maybe not strictly, but quite strongly.
@Night: I think to bundle him with the other candidates, as some sort of commercial or opportunist candidate is an entirely unfounded argument.
“I don’t disagree that he appears ineffective, but could also be that he is just a super consistent black sheep?”
Maybe . . . but let’s face it, the presidency is a executive office, a leadership position, and, judging by Paul’s legislative record, this is not something he was good at. Even if one supports some of the various positions Paul has taken, there’s nothing on his record to suggest that he’s going to be able to persuade most of the country to support these to the point where they could be enacted as policies. President is not a legislative position, so obviously he could not simply enact things unilaterally, and if he can’t as a congressman get other congresspersons to support his proposals, why would anyone think he would be able to do so as president?
this guy is dead meat
more here. and here and here
“I’m not saying that Ron Paul being the best candidate looks good, but I still think it’s true when you examine the utterly poor GOP field.”
You know the reason the field was so poor was specifically because Ron Paul was such a vocal candidate for so long, right?
In 2000 a candidate like him would have been called a joke by Pat Buchanan. He wouldn’t have ever been considered a serious grassroots candidate.