yung-lysenko asked: Why do you not favor Ron Paul running for President in 2012? Old age?
I mean if I think there is one man capable of running this country, one man who truly understands American monetary and fiscal policy, it is Ron Paul. I could not ask for a more perfect candidate to run!
Oh, I’m not saying I don’t support him winning — I absolutely support that. But let’s be realistic: He’d be treated with more respect, hopefully, this time around, but the Republican Party would never give him the nomination. And if he ran independent…well, we all know how that would go. It’s the running in current conditions I oppose, not the winning.
As for old age — nah. I don’t care about that, though I’m not naive enough to think that the voting public shares my view.
In a nutshell, what I think is this: Remember how Ralph Nader ran a bunch of educational campaigns? The first couple times it was a good thing for his cause. He forced discussion of issues that might otherwise have been ignored. But with each successive campaign, he was taken less and less seriously, until finally the Green Party wouldn’t even have him as their candidate. I don’t say that to trivialize Nader, but simply to state a fact.
The thing is, Nader rose to fame in a mostly pre-internet America. With the internet, everything happens faster — much faster. That’s why I think Ron Paul has more to lose running than not: It might not take three or four campaigns nowadays to get to Nader’s position. It might only take two. The first time is educational, the second failure.
My second reason is that Ron Paul’s in a good place right now. He’s on the news all the time, sharing his views with massive audiences. He’s chairing the monetary policy subcommittee. He has a committed and active grassroots base and good fund-raising abilities. What would he gain from running again?