You mistake mainstream with just being known. Did you see how his heroin answer went over at the debate? Disaster. Where exactly did the million come from? If I was a crafty Rat, I would be funding this dope to screw up the election.
No, it’s just true.
Back in 2008, to criticize the US foreign policy was to criticize Bush. In 2008, that did not go over well with Republicans.
Now in 2012, to criticize the US foreign policy is to criticize Obama. In 2012, this will not be as big a problem as it was in 2008.
In 2008, there was no “tea party”. The only “tea party” was the Ron Paul Tea Party Money Bomb.
In 2012, Ron Paul’s son Rand was clearly identified as on of the top newly elected tea party leaders.
In 2008, only Ron Paul made the Constitutionality of the Federal Governments actions a centerpiece of his campaign.
In 2012, likely many candidates will be talking about limited constitutional government.
I saw the debate. The heroin answer was not a good one. I agree with you there. But most of the Ron Paul supporters seemed to really like it. And I did think it was funny.
Ron Paul, though, seemed to be invisioning a world where heroin was legal. I thought his position was that States should make that decision. And no states would legalize it, most likely.
People don’t want legal heroin. But a lot of people would like to see an end to the Federal Governments WOD.
I really do think the argument “Just let the States decide. Less Federal Government intervention.” is a stronger argument than “People aren’t just going to become junkies if heroin becomes legal.” Because even though it’s true, people still don’t want heroin to become legal.
Right now, the people really only want marijuana legal, and that’s only in some states. I thought that Ron Paul’s policies would allow that to happen. Each state would be able to keep as much illegal as they wanted.
But now Ron Paul’s talking about legal heroin, and that’s bound to lose a lot of people.
The media does not like Ron Paul. Ron Paul does present a dangerous threat to the bankers, and last time around, at least, they went out of their way to ignore and marginalize him. Things could’ve changed in 4 years, as perhaps Palin is seen as a realer more immediate threat, and in that context, they might push or hype Paul to try to keep people away from Palin.