This was the question posed by The Economist website (http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/should-ron-paul-be-considered-serious-contender-republican-nomination) Two response comments were significant and worth repeating here, in the hope that they may get more exposure. I don't necessarily agree with what they are saying about Ron Paul, but what they are saying about the Republican field of presidential candidates is right on:
Current total votes: 10189 as of 3:00 PM EDT 21 August 2011
The exact wording of the question was: "Should Ron Paul be considered a serious contender for the *Republican nomination*," not "for the presidency." The latter is debatable, the former much less so. His problem from past elections--that he comes across as a crank--doesn't really apply when you put him on the same stage as Bachmann. Or Cain, or Gingrich, or essentially anyone at Ames bar Pawlenty.
He sounds distinctly reasonable by comparison; he has crank positions, but he gives the strong impression of having thought them through and done research of some sort. The fact that he's been expounding those same crank positions for decades, without swerving, makes him utterly immune to the charges of flip-flopping that devastate Romney. He has Tea Party cred, but isn't super-strongly associated with them and the gag reflex they presently trigger in the American psyche. Throw in his horde of gold-standard-mujahideen supporters, and you've got a solid contender.
His main problem now, as I see it, lies in his tendency to stammer his responses. That's the downside of actually thinking about what you're saying instead of fishing about your memory for a vaguely pertinent pre-rehearsed sound bite. But what do I know? I'm a left-leaning centrist.
Due to Republican-instituted changes in election rules in many states, and the current shape of the electoral college (owing mainly to population shifts), it appears to me that a second term for Obama is in serious jeaopardy. I'm not even sure that it would be the best thing for the nation or the Democrats (moderates and liberals) for Obama to be re-elected.
Just as only Nixon could go to China, create the EPA, and retreat from Vietnam, it may be the case that only a sane and decent Republican can deal with the tea party and the other self-obsessed Republican rabble that currently occupies Congress. For that reason, I am hopeful that Republicans will nominate either Mitt Romney or John Huntsman, who at this point in time, appear to be the only Republican candidates who aren't certifiable as lunatics; and I mean that seriously. The others would be considered a joke at any other time in American history. I have never in my many years seen anything like the existing Republican slate of candidates seeking office in America. Their lack of comprehension, sense of 'real history', and compassion is shocking. To propose tax increases on the poor as a solution to the nation's debt problem is vicious and patently absurd, as is labeling the filthy rich as 'job creators'. Their doublespeak and semantic dishonesty is beyond compare.
I am losing hope for America, for the first time in my life. Our Constitution was not designed to deal with politicians who placed only their own interests above all else. Tea Partiers and their ilk would see 10 million people die in the streets before they would consent to one tax increase - even one returning rates to the 1950's. It's truly preposterous.
*****************
It does give you pause to consider, when the best that the rabid-publicans can put forward as candidates are backward looking, intellectually "lights are on but no one's home", certifiable nut cases, Ron Paul almost looks legitimate. Scary!! I feel the same way about Barack Obama that I did about Arnold in California - "You elected the guy to take on the most significant crisis in recent history that was twenty years in the making (or more!!) and then bitch because he hasn't "made everything right in two years???" WTF???!! Are YOU crazy??
Thanks for reading - and have a GREAT day!!
Smokemaster
