Ron Paul and Sarah Palin: The Ross Perot Moment

[Bruno]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-a-budget/59257-ron-paul-and-sarah-palin-the-ross-perot-moment

Ron Paul and Sarah Palin: The Ross Perot moment
By Bernie Quigley - 09/17/09 01:35 PM ET

The most startling statistic to come out this month is the latest Washington Post/ABC poll that shows 43 percent of Americans now consider themselves to be independents.

Much of the celebrity thrill seems to be gone, as Wall Street Journal commentator Fouad Ajami said it would, with the hip new president who gives such charming speeches. Could be that hip is not what you want in a president when the only difference between Cheney’s war in Iraq and Obama’s war in Afghanistan and Bush’s missile defense program and Obama’s is the better cut of the new commander in chief’s suit. On the two main fronts, the economy and the war, majorities oppose, and he has even lost 10 percent of the young'uns since July. Twenty-two-year-olds consider themselves to be immortal. They don’t want health insurance.

Change is about, without question, but Obama himself may only be the harbinger, not the change. We could be approaching not a Kennedy or a Roosevelt or a Lincoln moment, but a Ross Perot moment.

Ross Perot came out of nowhere back in the early 1990s and with a kooky Texas freshness, a crateful of his own cash and a bunch of charts, he took almost 20 percent of the vote in 1992. At one point in the summer he commanded a lead with 39 percent. What the Perot moment indicated was that World War II or Elvis or the Beach Boys or something had freed Americans from their old constraints. But Ronald Reagan really turned the sea. Prior to Reagan you could with accuracy count on good Boston Irish going to the Catholic Church and voting Democrat every time. You could count on New York Jews and Southern Baptists to do the same. But when Reagan took 49 states in 1984, it was all over with that. Americans were free. With 43 percent claiming to be independent today, they apparently still are free.

This week Arianna Huffington, the liberal doyenne, and Ron Paul both appeared on "Morning Joe." They seemed to like each other and to be in increasing agreement on economic issues. But what was striking was the new legitimacy that Rep. Paul (Texas) has gained since Obama’s bailouts have taken hold. Given the high disapproval ratings on both the economy and the war, it could be said today that the country is moving to Paul’s positions by osmosis. Paul opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He opposed the bailouts. He opposed the entire Keynesian perspective that the Obama administration has adopted lock, stock and barrel. Morning Joe — no radical libertarian — pulled out an old script to read in amazement how the housing crisis had played out exactly as Paul said it would back in 2003. Paul advocates Austrian economics, and as he gathers continuing respect, Austrian economics gains a new authenticity as well.

Sarah Palin and Ron Paul bear kinship. Those who like Paul very often also like Palin. She has said she admired Paul’s independent streak and Paul, like Palin, was considered a pariah when America’s support for Obama was in the 70s and all three networks were head over heels for Obamanomics. But as the sweet and authentic Mary Travis of Peter, Paul and Mary unfortunately passed away this week, I was remembering how the charmed old labor songs that the Weavers used to sing took flight when I was a teenager. Bob Dylan was the pariah then; now he’s everywhere — selling Pepsi and women’s underwear on TV during football games, playing bar mitzvahs. You can’t get rid of the guy.

Such an awakening is ahead again, perhaps, as the old ideas inevitably yield to time. But different times yield to different ideas.

There are maybe subtle hints that the networks seem to be catching on. Charles Gibson, the ABC News anchor, who led the major networks in their idolatrous backing of Obama, is retiring this year. He will be replaced by Diane Sawyer. Comment was that they wanted a woman for the job. But there are certainly lots of other women who could do it. Sawyer goes way back, to Nixon, to Kissinger, to the Time of Tall Men. My instinct was they were making a correction, ditching the lightweights and getting their best people up front for what lies just ahead.

[angelatc]

I didn't know she died. :(

[MRoCkEd]

PALIN? *barfs*

[kahless]

Too bad she blew it when she took a hard Neocon turn which makes her no longer credible in the eyes of those that supported Ron Paul. She could however be helpful for fund raising and campaign events for the clueless sheeple that we need to win elections.

[Deborah K]

Love this:


This week Arianna Huffington, the liberal doyenne, and Ron Paul both appeared on "Morning Joe." They seemed to like each other and to be in increasing agreement on economic issues. But what was striking was the new legitimacy that Rep. Paul (Texas) has gained since Obama’s bailouts have taken hold. Given the high disapproval ratings on both the economy and the war, it could be said today that the country is moving to Paul’s positions by osmosis. Paul opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He opposed the bailouts. He opposed the entire Keynesian perspective that the Obama administration has adopted lock, stock and barrel. Morning Joe — no radical libertarian — pulled out an old script to read in amazement how the housing crisis had played out exactly as Paul said it would back in 2003. Paul advocates Austrian economics, and as he gathers continuing respect, Austrian economics gains a new authenticity as well.

When Perot came on the scene, that was when I left the two party system. I voted for him because no one else made any sense to me.

[jmdrake]

Hmmmm.....maybe I've got this all wrong. But how can the author cast the GOP vice presidential candidate of the last election and cast her as an independent of the Ross Perot mold? Forget about whether you love or hate Sarah Palin. You can't get have more of an "insider" status than being on the actual ticket.

That said, otherwise that's a great article.

[kahless]

Hmmmm.....maybe I've got this all wrong. But how can the author cast the GOP vice presidential candidate of the last election and cast her as an independent of the Ross Perot mold? Forget about whether you love or hate Sarah Palin. You can't get have more of an "insider" status than being on the actual ticket.

That said, otherwise that's a great article.

The comparisons are way off since they are not fit to hold a candle for Ron Paul. Palin for her obvious Neo-Conservative foreign policy and Perot campaiging on raising gasoline taxes so we all pay $2 a gallon like the Europeans. I did however have to vote for Perot since he was still a better choice over Bush and Clinton.

[Bruno]

The comparisons are way off since they are not fit to hold a candle for Ron Paul. Palin for her obvious Neo-Conservative foreign policy and Perot campaiging on raising gasoline taxes so we all pay $2 a gallon like the Europeans. I did however have to vote for Perot since he was still a better choice over Bush and Clinton.

Me too

[tremendoustie]

Which Paul supporters like Palin? I don't know any. This whole connection is an MSM figment. Palin is despised by the left, so perhaps the purpose is to innoculate progressives against libertarian ideas. "What, you mean those Beck/Palin kooks? Why would I listen to them?"

[specsaregood]

Which Paul supporters like Palin? I don't know any. This whole connection is an MSM figment. Palin is despised by the left, so perhaps the purpose is to innoculate progressives against libertarian ideas. "What, you mean those Beck/Palin kooks? Why would I listen to them?"

Indeed I know a lot of Paul supporters in real life and can't think of a single one that cares for Palin.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I say the neo cons used Palin to throw the democraps off course, which it worked for a little while..they didn't know who she was...they freaked out, and a woman also? they had to scramble. I say Palin is NOT one of them, if she was one of them, she would still be governor and they would be calling her a party leader..no the NEO CON's in the GOP dumped Palin a long time ago. Her popularity is with the people...certainly not the party leaders. They hate her as much as some of you do. tones

[amy31416]

I say the neo cons used Palin to throw the democraps off course, which it worked for a little while..they didn't know who she was...they freaked out, and a woman also? they had to scramble. I say Palin is NOT one of them, if she was one of them, she would still be governor and they would be calling her a party leader..no the NEO CON's in the GOP dumped Palin a long time ago. Her popularity is with the people...certainly not the party leaders. They hate her as much as some of you do. tones

So why is Bill Kristol, America's biggest neocon, such a fan of hers?

[Deborah K]

The comparisons are way off since they are not fit to hold a candle for Ron Paul. Palin for her obvious Neo-Conservative foreign policy and Perot campaiging on raising gasoline taxes so we all pay $2 a gallon like the Europeans. I did however have to vote for Perot since he was still a better choice over Bush and Clinton.

It was Dole and Clinton.

[specsaregood]

It was Dole and Clinton.

The second time around in 96 it was. But not the first time, the BIG run for Perot in '92 it was Perot, Bush or Clinton.

Many blame perot (rightly probably) for putting clinton in office. Conspiracy theorists say he did it on purpose to get some lucrative govt contracts.....

[Cowlesy]

NEO CON's in the GOP dumped Palin a long time ago.

Really. Why did she co-sign with Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor, Karl Rove and the rest of the FPI (run by the PNAC people) people?

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/node/11818

[akforme]

Those who like Paul very often also like Palin.

Who here likes Sarah, if you do, let me get up on my soap box and tell you about that shill.

[Brian4Liberty]

So why is Bill Kristol, America's biggest neocon, such a fan of hers?


Really. Why did she co-sign with Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor, Karl Rove and the rest of the FPI (run by the PNAC people) people?


Don't confuse the Palin supporters with facts! ;)

To be fair, there are a a lot of Palin fans who are the "I don't know anything about politics" types. They just like her. They wouldn't know the difference between the positions of Bill Kristol, Jimmy Carter or Barry Goldwater.

[newbitech]

Lets get out our Voodoo Sticks

YouTube - The FIRST political infomercial- (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERlGndQ_xtM)

[kahless]

Don't confuse the Palin supporters with facts! ;)

To be fair, there are a a lot of Palin fans who are the "I don't know anything about politics" types. They just like her. They wouldn't know the difference between the positions of Bill Kristol, Jimmy Carter or Barry Goldwater.

They like her since if you put her Neocon polices aside, both men and women find her attractive in various ways. I feel the same way about her but do not let it over shadow the facts about her that the sheeple do not seem care about.

[Pauls' Revere]

I could go for a Paul/Palin ticket if it gets America off the two party system and our guy in office. I could hold my nose for Palin under those conditions but how much McCain baggage does she have?

[SamuraisWisdom]

I don't think comparing Paul/Palin is a bad thing. Sure we here all know they're almost completely opposites, but if it makes Paul seem more legitimate to mainstream Republicans than that seems ok to me.

[tremendoustie]

I could go for a Paul/Palin ticket if it gets America off the two party system and our guy in office. I could hold my nose for Palin under those conditions but how much McCain baggage does she have?

Well, I can't stand Palin, but I'd vote for that ticket for the same reason I'd vote for Paul/Obama. The top of the ticket is what matters. Of course, I'd have to wonder what was wrong with Paul if he chose Palin ...

[jmdrake]

The comparisons are way off since they are not fit to hold a candle for Ron Paul. Palin for her obvious Neo-Conservative foreign policy and Perot campaiging on raising gasoline taxes so we all pay $2 a gallon like the Europeans. I did however have to vote for Perot since he was still a better choice over Bush and Clinton.

I was saying it was (otherwise) a good article because it was positive to Paul. I didn't know Perot was in favor of raising gas taxes. Certainly a bad idea. Ron Paul supports ending the "military subsidy" by forcing Saudi Arabia to pay for its own defense. I didn't vote for Perot but I wish I did. He and Paul are both true outsiders. Palin is not.

[Vessol]

I like Palin? Wut?

[jmdrake]

I say the neo cons used Palin to throw the democraps off course, which it worked for a little while..they didn't know who she was...they freaked out, and a woman also? they had to scramble. I say Palin is NOT one of them, if she was one of them, she would still be governor and they would be calling her a party leader..no the NEO CON's in the GOP dumped Palin a long time ago. Her popularity is with the people...certainly not the party leaders. They hate her as much as some of you do. tones

The neocons hate us because we hate their foreign policy, their bailouts and their approach to the GWOT. Thus they have no reason to hate Sarah Palin. The dislike for Palin is because rightly or wrongly they blame her for McLame's failure as a candidate. Some of that blame was well placed. Dress it up as the "evil liberal media" all you want, but she did trip all over herself when she stated the bailout was about "tax cuts" or when she couldn't think of a newspaper or magazine she read. Come on Sarah, at least mention Newsmax or something. :rolleyes: Ron Paul had the same antagonistic media that Palin did. Nobody ever tagged him for not being prepared.

[squarepusher]

The comparisons are way off since they are not fit to hold a candle for Ron Paul. Palin for her obvious Neo-Conservative foreign policy and Perot campaiging on raising gasoline taxes so we all pay $2 a gallon like the Europeans. I did however have to vote for Perot since he was still a better choice over Bush and Clinton.

in Palin defense, she didn't even know where Africa / RUssia were (joke), but yes, how much more agnostic foreign policy can you get? And isn't that what libertarians stand for?

[pacelli]

Hmmmm.....maybe I've got this all wrong. But how can the author cast the GOP vice presidential candidate of the last election and cast her as an independent of the Ross Perot mold? Forget about whether you love or hate Sarah Palin. You can't get have more of an "insider" status than being on the actual ticket.

That said, otherwise that's a great article.

Future projection, perhaps. Maybe that's where all of this "neo-libertarian" propaganda is leading.

[Mini-Me]

in Palin defense, she didn't even know where Africa / RUssia were (joke), but yes, how much more agnostic foreign policy can you get? And isn't that what libertarians stand for?

...yet she's a hawk on the war and thinks it was a mission from God. Being a warmonger is bad enough, but being an oblivious warmonger is pretty much as bad as it gets. ;)


Well, I can't stand Palin, but I'd vote for that ticket for the same reason I'd vote for Paul/Obama. The top of the ticket is what matters. Of course, I'd have to wonder what was wrong with Paul if he chose Palin ...
I disagree here. When it comes to someone as revolutionary as Ron Paul, the bottom of the ticket is just as important. If someone like Ron Paul ever put a neocon or opportunist in the VP position (as if he ever would), we'd all be one assassination away from returning to the status quo.

[tremendoustie]

I disagree here. When it comes to someone as revolutionary as Ron Paul, the bottom of the ticket is just as important. If someone like Ron Paul ever put a neocon or opportunist in the VP position (as if he ever would), we'd all be one assassination away from returning to the status quo.

A fair point.

[dannno]

TONES has a blog?

[Deborah K]

The second time around in 96 it was. But not the first time, the BIG run for Perot in '92 it was Perot, Bush or Clinton.

Many blame perot (rightly probably) for putting clinton in office. Conspiracy theorists say he did it on purpose to get some lucrative govt contracts.....

You're right. My bad. Old age, what can I say.

[Pericles]

You have to remember the primary purpose of the Perot 50 cent a gallon tax on gas was to balance the federal budget, and a secondary purpose of everyone having "skin in the game" by getting off of the false notion that everything is possible by taxing only the rich.

When everyone feels the pain of higher taxes to pay for the federal programs, it is possible to have the dialog of how about getting rid of the Department of Education, Energy, Agriculture, et. al. and have your taxes go down .... The point was to end the deficit / print money scheme.

As to the Perot caused Clinton the be elected lie put out by the GOP, the survey is that at the national level the 19% of the vote for Perot came 10% from the R and 9% from the D. But the election is one of the 51 elections that matter and Perot support came from Reagan democrats in the Northeast to Midwest, and from the R in the South and West. The Perot vote would have had to gone more than 2 to 1 for Bush in over 21 states to have given Bush enough electoral votes to win.

[james1906]

http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/Pics/FatFaeries.jpg

As this is an article about Sarah Palin, I am obligated to post this photo.

[jmdrake]

You have to remember the primary purpose of the Perot 50 cent a gallon tax on gas was to balance the federal budget, and a secondary purpose of everyone having "skin in the game" by getting off of the false notion that everything is possible by taxing only the rich.

When everyone feels the pain of higher taxes to pay for the federal programs, it is possible to have the dialog of how about getting rid of the Department of Education, Energy, Agriculture, et. al. and have your taxes go down .... The point was to end the deficit / print money scheme.

As to the Perot caused Clinton the be elected lie put out by the GOP, the survey is that at the national level the 19% of the vote for Perot came 10% from the R and 9% from the D. But the election is one of the 51 elections that matter and Perot support came from Reagan democrats in the Northeast to Midwest, and from the R in the South and West. The Perot vote would have had to gone more than 2 to 1 for Bush in over 21 states to have given Bush enough electoral votes to win.

Good point! And it seems like Perot might have taken a sizeable amount of the black vote away from Clinton too.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/bill-clinton-got-historically.php
1984 Walter Mondale 90% Ronald Reagan 9%
1988 Michael Dukakis 90% George H.W. Bush 10%
1992 Bill Clinton 83% George H.W. Bush 10%
1996 Bill Clinton 84% Bob Dole 12%
2000 Al Gore 90% George W. Bush 9%

That missing 7% in 1992 and 4% in 1996 had to go somewhere.

[expendibleater]

Which Paul supporters like Palin? I don't know any. This whole connection is an MSM figment. Palin is despised by the left, so perhaps the purpose is to innoculate progressives against libertarian ideas. "What, you mean those Beck/Palin kooks? Why would I listen to them?"
I don't get what this rag is trying to achieve with the framing of this story? Why are they trying to sell a Paul/Palin ticket to their audience?

[YumYum]

http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/Pics/FatFaeries.jpg

As this is an article about Sarah Palin, I am obligated to post this photo.

Who is the shiktsa on the right?

[Bradley in DC]

YouTube - The FIRST political infomercial- (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERlGndQ_xtM)

NOT the first political infomercial. I still remember watching the 1980 Libertarian Party presidential campaign half hour infomercial (or was it an hour?)! (Not that I was old enough to vote, but I was very political at a young age.)

[John of Des Moines]

Pretty much the only thing I like about Palin is her leading GMILF wing of whatever party she may attend.