Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

Interesting!

This is scary. I say that because, over a couple of cycles now, Cong. Paul's grass roots support has grown, to the point where his movement matches that of Ross Perot. In retrospect, that movement only served to split the Conservative vote, as the low support numbers for "political republicans" shows above.

The writing is on the wall! It is in black and white, and unless a lot of Tea Party and grass roots organizers wake up and look at history they are doomed to repeat it! I will NOT be sucked in again, no matter how strongly I feel support for the extreme right Cong. Paul represents. He cannot pull the middle, they will vote Republican, and if the backlash to the middle is strong enough, republicans will suffer in congress too. (Coattails, or lack thereof). Please think people. He is right, but too much so.

Char, Paul has shown no interest in running in a third party. If he runs he will run for Republican nomination. Would you be able to support him at least through nomination?

IDK, I really like him! But, even if nominated, many "Independant" voters might actually go left rather than go so far right. I just don't know, maybe if he promised to take Newt with him, and listen to him once in a while, I might consider it viable.

I prefer the reverse ticket!

We'll see, I'm sure economic conditions will platy a big role in the political environment. Some independent voters will be turned off by Paul while others will vote for him because of his foreign policy or because they were tired of the GOP's disconnect with the voters.

I'd be curious who RP would consider for VP though.

Nepatism maybe but I would like Rand Paul for VP

I'd vote for Ron Paul, but if he brought Gingrich with him, I couln't support that.

Dorothy, you would vote for Paul? I sure did think you were Dem to the core. Are you sure you aren't just saying that, because you know Newt has a better chance than Paul? What do you have against Newt?

Char, as for independents, Paul is more popular, according to the poll: Voters not affiliated with either major party give Paul a 47% to 28% edge over the president.

Thanks for posting this to 4 US, World News & Opinions.

that over time will change

Yep, hopefully more people will come to favor a Constitutionalist candidate.

Paul is an unknown so far as administration is concerned ( like Obama was when he ran for the Presidency) and Obama has a track record now.

I would stick with Obama at this point but the election is not until 2012 and I could change my opinion by then.

Has Obama shown any interest in changing our money?

Only a few hundred people in all the world are even aware that is a possibility. I would be astonished if Obama or any of his "inner circle" have ever had the thought cross their minds.

You are one of the few who has ever considered the possibility in any way.

I'm sure Obama hadn't heard of your system, but I was wondering if he had supported any type of change, including a gold standard, for instance. He should at least recognize some basic problems of our current system. Unfortunately I think he is satisfied with the status quo.

He seems to have conservative economists as advisers. His background in economics is probably quite orthodox with makes finding a solution almost impossible. All the orthodox solutions have already failed many times.

Larry M. said, "His background in economics is probably quite orthodox..."

I have been following RP for quite a few years, but I have never heard him referred to as "orthodox". His economics is the economics of freedom, the theories of Ludwig von Mises and the "Austrian school of economics". The orthodoxy of economics are the failed theories of John Manard Keynes. This may sound like a discussion of "theories", but it is actually the core of his beliefs: FREEDOM.

Al,

I was referring to Obama in that comment.

The theories of von Mises are also quite orthodox. There are several orthodox theories within economics. Mises is just one of the crowd.

I have no idea what Ron Paul actually believes. But he is lying in this particular video.

But he is lying in this particular video.

Wrong post? There's no video here :-)

obama had no track record when he went in and now the track record is He Is A Moron.

The track record is that Obama is orthodox. That doomed him from the start. There are no orthodox solutions to our problems as history shows.

Concur on that Larry. The solutions to our economic woes in times past have always been extraordinary outside circumstances that the Federal Government had little to no choice in.

Yep!

Thanks for stopping by, haven't seen you here in awhile :-)

Glad you're back.

JMO but I think if he runs as a Republican he could get the nomination regardless of the negative hype from the main stream media or maybe because of it.

If he became the Republican nominee he would be elected.

With the main high mucky mucks in the Neocon Republican Party against his he has only a small chance of ever getting the party endorcement. The Neocons are more afraid of him than they are a Democrat candidate.

Agreed, but they would not make it easy on him. Neocons will fight real hard. I hope there would be enough support to fight back.

The interesting thing is that Paul will never get the Republican nomination. I doubt he'd do well as a third party candidate. The artificial situation of the poll where the only choices are Obama and Paul makes me think that responders were thinking "Obama, don't want to vote for him. OK, I'll pick the other guy."

Paul has cult appeal. I doubt very much that he could survive an election campaign with TV attack ads and debates.

I agree he won't even waste his time running in a third party, but there's always a chance he could get the Republican nomination.

He could survive an election, particularly in the debates, I'm guessing he would wipe the floor clean debating Obama.

I attended a town hall meeting where Paul was there with some challengers; he appeared too old, stammered a bit just didnt' seem very forceful. I was not impressed. I just hope he doesn't split the conservative vote assuring that the liberals stay in power.

he appeared too old

What about Ronald Reagan?

stammered a bit

I agree he's not the best communicator.

split the conservative vote

He's said running in a third party is a waste of time with how the laws are, so there will be no vote split. The battle will occur in the primaries in the event that he runs.

To me Paul seems to be the only major contender that is serious about limited government and cutting spending. He's been consistently walking the talk for several decades.

I think Ron Paul could win the nomination. He was also neck and neck with Mtt Romney, in that one straw Gop straw pole, and won by 39% in the cpac vote. I think the youngsters are going to be showing up at the voting booths this year.

Keeping my fingers crossed...

thanks for posting

Nothing like basing your money supply on a shiny yellow metal

Yes, look how well it worked for Greece and Rome. Look at U.S. history when we were on the gold standard. Did we have boom and bust cycles? Did banks fail? Did the big corporations (railroads for example) get lots of government handouts? So how would gold make a difference?

That would be a major improvement.

Anyone who is anti Obama that will repair all the damage. Also support Israel and condemn Iran. I bet Bush wishes he destroyed Iran before taking on Afghanistan. I think it would of been a totally different campaign if we sat in the drivers seat while we hit Iraq and the Afghans.

Gather Times (Where true Americans go!)

We would be three times as bad off as we are today if not worse. That's how the campaign would be different.

Although I would never support Paul I will say he is the best straight shooter in the opposition, as opposed to the whack-a-doos who have been working 24/7 to nullify the 2008 election by any means possible.

Paul is at least willing to treat the symptoms. He doesn't seem to understand the underlying causes any more than the rest do.

I need to do some reading before commenting fully and intelligently, LOL, but I already know that dismantling government is not the answer for me. Just saying it seems to me that he will at least speak his Truth honestly and if I were opposing Democrats I'd be jumping at that compared to Mitt, Sarah or Newt.

Larry, You need to go to the Representative Ron Paul site and read his statements and bills before congress. He not only knows the symptoms he has pointed out the cause and submitted legislation to correct the cause many times.

Gail could you tell us what you mean by dismantling government? I know Paul isn't an anarchist and he thinks there is a proper role for government.

Sorry, you are right Col., gotta be careful of the language. I believe I heard him say government just for the national defense (and maybe whatever it is they say about economic opportunity) which, of course, is not dismantling government but a lot of Departments. I appreciate that you kept prodding me, Col., or I would have been contributing to distributing misinformation. Thank you.

the constitution set up a federal govt for basically foreign affairs and for some few laws that would need to be a part of all states, while it is up to the states to regulate everything else. The presidents job is technically to lead the combined army of the states in a war against us and he really has no other purpose.

Unless you take the constitutional General Welfare into consideration.

Any way Paul and Pawlenty have lost all chances yesterday evening, IMO.

General Welfare was not a general grant of power.

Gilbert, I don't know how either one killed their campaign chances yesterday.

I think there is much history that would disagree with your assessment on that, Matthew, beginning with John Wintrop (Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1630-ish) to Ben Franklin's basis for Junto (1730-is) to Hamilton (Opinon on the Bank essay, 1790-ish) to the First President of the United States who implemented his Secretary of the Treasury's definition of the General Welfare to Chief Justice Marshall and then, of course, to FDR's New Deal. And probably lots more in between on the General Welfare being constitutional, fundamental to the nation and funded.

I get my view from several sources, among them, James "father of the Constitution" Madison himself:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

-Excerpted from Federalist #41 (emphasis mine)

I prefer to use sources that are about the Constitution, rather than another document(s) (Wintrop, Franklin). I don't consider Hamilton reliable, since his opinions after the Constitution was ratified were at odds with his promises for a limited government before ratification. Methinks the way he sold the Constitution to the people is far more important than what he claimed after the people bought it.

This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.

-Excerpted from Federalist #83

There are numerous additional sources which I will not cite right now. I do intend to cover this in more deatil in an upcoming post on the Constitution at my group, Striking at the Root.

Here's the problem, as I see it, Matthew, Hamilton advocated for a strong federal government which included providing for the General Welfare, which was acted on by the First Administation making discussion irrelevant.

Are you saying that the actions of the Washington administration define the meaning of the Constitution (and trump the Federalist Papers)?

I am saying the Federalist Papers were political public relations to sell something and what was actually implemented has much more relevance.

That assumes what was implemented properly reflected the Constitution. I think it's incredibly dangerous to rely upon the rule of man vs. the rule of law. Hamilton's flip-flop isn't excusable. It seems like bait-and-switch.

Even if the FP were just meaningless PR, their are other sources on the subject (which I will include in that future article).

I'm not sure where Hamilton flip-flopped. My knowledge of him was that he was consistantly for a strong central government -- stronger than was actually agreed to in the end and he was considered to be our 1st Constitutional Lawyer.

Washington was the overseer of the Philadelphia Convention and asked to be our First President and I can only make an educated guess that happened because all parties involved trusted his judgment.

I think they both understood the Constitution quite well and their understanding of the General Welfare has, with a couple of blips, lasted 'til now.

Of course, it is a bit more complicated than that since their work also brought into play implied powers, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause as well.

I see light at the end of the tunnel.

I hope he does not run on a third party ticket
and split the votes. That did NOT help McCain last time. I, unfortunately, was one of those people who voted for Ross Perot many moons ago, and I learned my lesson then. There are some good possibilities in the Republican ranks who may run, and I would like to see who actually does.

I agree with November girl, we have already discussed here at home what we will do if BO gets a second term. We are going looking for far away, remote land and moving away from any large cities. Probably take plenty of ammo with us too.

He won't, he knows it is a waste of time and money.

He might run as a Republican though.

I really hope we don't get stuck with a Democrat (Obama) and and Democrat-lite phony conservative this time around.

thanks for posting

This content has reached at least ten comments and has been cleared from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

If anyone has any brains, you will first stop voting just because they are a republican or a democrat, or because they are black or white, you would vote for who you think is the best for the job, and since no one so far is, DON'T VOTE and see how that shakes the system up. Or vote independent and get some new blood in there.

Don't vote when there are no candidates independent of the status quo, that sounds good.

My contention about seeing Ron Paul debate is the one I have with all strictly conservative options. They must have the ability to transition away from the 'laissez faire' response to economic hardship and offer concrete, immediate job producing plans in order to avoid seeming heartless in the face of economic turmoil. This is a problem that Republicans frequently have in the face of economic issues, and Reagan's ability to sway the crowd was an unusual example. I doubt Ron Paul has Reagan's touch with respect to public speaking (having only seen him speak in public in a few debates and speeches, none of which impressed me greatly).

The philosophical under-pinning is what is of concern. Is it morally right for the highest law of the land to choose to do nothing when its people are suffering because government intervention is, in the long term, worse than spending the peoples' money? Alternatively, is it morally justifiable to, in response to an economic crisis, lower taxes on the wealthy who are suffering least, in order to, sometime in the future, stimulate job production for people at the bottom who are suffering most (particularly when said job growth is not guaranteed and is usually months or years in the future)?

I don't disagree that small government is preferred and that government interference in the market is dangerous, except in order to keep the market free of unfair practices (market hoarding, monopolism, etc).

I agree that Paul has a firm grasp on his policy understanding and a great wealth of knowledge about the past performance of government. But Obama is, himself, a scholar with a great deal of public speaking experience and debate experience. To suggest that Ron Paul would wipe the floor with him, I think may be over stating matters. If Obama can hit that philosophical chord often enough and hard enough, the inherent failing of Conservative fiscal policy with regards to economic crisis will shine through. That's exactly what Roosevelt did in 1932 and, I expect, how Obama could attack a strictly conservative candidate like Ron Paul. I expect the outcome of any such debate would be more nuanced than you have suggested here, Matthew.

The biggest problem Paul faces is himself. He's not the greatest speaker, undoubtedly. Especially when limited to 30 second sound bites.

I can think of a number of persons very similar to Ron Paul who are fantastic in the public speaking and debate departments. I wish one of them could run, but they lack the political experience and large support base Paul has.

Whether Paul is taken as a serious candidate by the average voter is mostly dependent on him and the campaign's willingness to run a serious campaign, including debate coaching and more focus on image. I see some major improvements over the last campaign, but not enough yet.

Unfortunately, most voters focus on shallow things, while Paul is usually talking about weightier matters that require a little thinking. If he's going to get their vote, the campaign better start working on it soon.

Completely agree, Matthew. And I wish that most of our nation's discourse occurred at these levels of thought. Unfortunately, our attention spans are now so short, that even a 30 second sound bite loses Americans' interest.

Sadly true.