Could Paul Shake Up the 2012 Race? (If So, Which One?)

[bobbyw24]

When he ran for president in 2008, Ron Paul boasted several hallmarks of a top-tier Republican candidate: intense grassroots support, eye-popping fundraising prowess and a compelling message. Yet, he was a House member from Texas who had never won statewide, and after receiving relatively scant media attention, Paul did not break the double-digit threshold in any of the first three critical voting states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

In a primary fight in which every other significant GOP presidential candidate supported the Iraq war, Paul often served as a punching bag on the debate stage, and even his brand of libertarian-style conservatism on fiscal issues was lampooned by his rivals as being far outside of the Republican mainstream.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/07/could_paul_shake_up_2012_race_if_so_which_one_1094 79.html

[rp08orbust]

3% in Iowa? Wow, those are dismal numbers.

[Sola_Fide]

Good article nonetheless...

[cindy25]

3% in Iowa? Wow, those are dismal numbers.

because the GOP base is pro-empire

[iamse7en]

because the GOP base is pro-empire

Maybe we could do our own false flag attack, a covert, peaceful attack. We have one of our own, a truly Paulian candidate with great family morals, conviction, etc, POSE as a good-looking neocon. Perhaps he would have to get in the inner circles and fool people like Kristol and other warmongers. He could also pretend to defend the Fed and get support from big banks. To the public, he is pro-life, pro-empire, pro-low taxes, but he's moderate on environmental issues, welfare, etc. He captures the nation, the media backs him because they think he's pro-war and pro-banking cartel, and when he get's in office, he screws everyone over. Only gets Austrians and libertarians into his cabinet. Brings home all the troops, does everything he possibly can to limit the power of the federal government. Yes, maybe he would only last 4 years (because he lied to everyone - but doesn't every politician?), but a lot of good could be done! It'll be our version of a false flag attack.

[specsaregood]

Yet, he was a House member from Texas who had never won statewide, and after receiving relatively scant media attention, Paul did not break the double-digit threshold in any of the first three critical voting states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

I'd say that had a LOT to do with it. Things are a bit different now. Dr. Paul has gotten more media attention in the past 2 years than any other member of the house and more than most senators.

[sratiug]

I'd say that had a LOT to do with it. Things are a bit different now. Dr. Paul has gotten more media attention in the past 2 years than any other member of the house and more than most senators.

What he meant to say was "despite overwhelmingly negative, dismissive and condescending media coverage ridiculing all the things he said, which have of course now been proven to be entirely correct."

[doodle]

http://warisacrime.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/images/out.jpg

Credit goes to these guys (http://warisacrime.org/node/36920) for this logo.

[Matt Collins]

I don't believe that 3% number. And if polled in 4 months, I am sure it'll be very different.

[Southron]

I am just hoping he can shape the debate this time, instead of being ignored and laughed at.

[sailingaway]

I am just hoping he can shape the debate this time, instead of being ignored and laughed at.

He shaped the debate last time. And those who laughed and are still running have their credibility, not his, tarnished.

[acptulsa]

...a covert...false flag attack.

We're not so much ignoring you as saving your life. See, if we told you, well, we'd hafta...

[Southron]

He shaped the debate last time. And those who laughed and are still running have their credibility, not his, tarnished.

He wasn't vindicated until after the economic crash. He has much more credibility now, and can't be as easily ignored.

[IDefendThePlatform]

What he meant to say was "despite overwhelmingly negative, dismissive and condescending media coverage ridiculing all the things he said, which have of course now been proven to be entirely correct."

Lol. +rep

Also, RP got 9.93% in Iowa. I know that's not 10, but still kind of a jerk move to just leave it at "didn't break double digits"