Imagining a Ron Paul Presidency (NRO)

National Review Online ^ | 12/14/07 | Jim Geraghty

[traviskicks]

It will be interesting to see how much is raised during tommorrow's Boston Tea Party Money Bomb (FR link). Another $5-6 million?

[traviskicks]

"Suddenly the appropriators of both parties find themselves constantly bumping up against a president who forces them, for the first time in anyone's memory, to justify the existence of this federal department and its attending bureaucracy, much less the size of its budget."



Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[traviskicks]

ping

[devere]

Ron Paul is an outstanding man. But his foreign policy is too rigidly isolationist, and would quickly lead to disaster. Even George Washington in his famous farewell address advocated honoring current treaty obligations. Ron Paul seems to have skipped those lines in the speech.

[Vanbasten]

“I can’t deny that it appeals to some dark corner of my fiscal conservative psyche.”

Me neither. I think at least that part of it would be great.

The emboldening of the enemy is what would worry me.

[rellimpank]

-- well… I can’t deny that it appeals to some dark corner of my fiscal conservative psyche--

--while I do feel this way, for those interested in what happened when a city council composed of Libertarians took office, you can search the Leadville, CO Herald-Democrat (www.leadvilleherald.com) for the results--

[Russ]

The House and Senate would override every veto in a heartbeat. Oh well, it isn’t going to happen so why even speculate?

[canuck_conservative]

Nice try, but politics isn’t a science experiment where you can just change one variable at a time, and everything else stays the same. In the real world, everything affects everything else.

SO IF the American electorate were so fed up with the current system as to make Ron Paul President, why wouldn’t they change Congress as well?

[Maelstorm]

Ron Paul could be President if he would recast himself just a bit but since he won’t he is left with a cult of Ron Paul rather than a group that will elect Ron Paul. I think Ron Paul will do much better than expected in states that allow cross party primaries. He is still stopped dead by his comments about Iraq unless he can win the support of those liberals that would find his little government approach too constraining.

[JerseyHighlander]

As per the money bomb, there is very little chance he’ll break 4 million tomorrow.

215,00 pages views, 30,000 signed up, and the running average internet donation is about $100.

I’ve worked in a business that did mass mailing to self selected members and the response rate is usually no more than 4%, anything over 4% is considered gravy. Same basic principle that has spammers sending out the billions of spam emails.

Now, Paul’s supporters are ideologically enthusiastic, so even if of the 31,278 pledges at 4:43 pm EST 12/14/07, and 210,762 total visitors - 12/10/07, they have 7% response and maintain the $100 avg donation, he’s looking at only $1.5 million or so in donations.

[gidget7]

Well if it is all internet based that will be one thing, but the weather doesn’t look too good for it’s success!

[Dan Middleton]

"Suddenly the appropriators of both parties find themselves constantly bumping up against a president who forces them, for the first time in anyone's memory, to justify the existence of this federal department and its attending bureaucracy, much less the size of its budget."

More likely President Paul would get steamrolled by both sides of Congress. We're talking vetoes overriden every other week. Mr. Paul's illustrious HoR career didn't exactly develop his leadership skills.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

Actually....if this was the only “fear” of a Paul presidency...it wouldnt scare me.

I think we are finding more and more that “conservatives” [sic] lose their conservatism when criticizing Paul.

If Paul wants to get rid of a government agency....conservatives should welcome it.

Maybe those “conservatives” arent really conservative when criiticizing Paul’s “less government” ideas.

Now, there are legitimate concerns with Paul. He is a little naive on foreign policy....holding hands and singing kumbaya with our enemies is not going to work. You better be prepared to deal with them militarily and diplomatically. The USA needs other nations to respect it...not be friends with it

Also, my biggest fear of Paul is that he goes back to his Libertarian ways....Open Borders, Unchecked Immigration, and Business Socialism...all hallmarks of Libertarianism. I am not sold on his opposition of NAFTA, GATT, illegals, etc...since Libertarians tend to support these things

[Bernard]

SO IF the American electorate were so fed up with the current system as to make Ron Paul President, why wouldn’t they change Congress as well?

Interesting question. Who would they change it to?

[xrp]

215,00 pages views, 30,000 signed up, and the running average internet donation is about $100.

ThisNovember5th.com had around 18,000 signed up, yet Ron Paul set a GOP 1-day fundraising record of over $4,000,000.00. Hmmm...

[Bokababe]

"SO IF the American electorate were so fed up with the current system as to make Ron Paul President, why wouldn’t they change Congress as well?"

Good point. And Americans would start looking at every vote, what the issue was and who voted to override. It would be an excellent selection process for who gets to stay and who goes in Congress in the next election.

I think that the idea that a Ron Paul presidency would be so "isolationist" that would have America sitting around contemplating its navel, is ridiculous. However, some introspection as to how we do things and why is healthy for a country and that Ron Paul would give us.

[LRS]

...Official Washington would grind to a halt...

And that's when America's enemies start their move

Paul and Huck are similar in my view. I might agree with the Huckster when it comes to things such as the real importance of marriage, or turning back the slide into an insane nation of depravity. Dittos when it comes to Paul and the insane expansion of government. But, we didn't get to the point where we are overnight, and we can't change things overnight either...

[traviskicks]

I supported Ron Paul even before I agreed with his foreign policy and here is why. Wars are won because of economic principles. We did not win WWI and WWII because of any other reason than that we were a freer nation than our opponenets, and thus had a bigger manufacturing base. The only way we loose the war on terror, IMO, is if we bankrupt ourseleves here at home with ever expanding American socialism, cause economic strife, leading to political strife, causing us to fall behind countries like China, India, and the European Union, and 50-100 years from now the US is a second rate power. I don't think that's going to happen, because the United States has always been the beacon of liberty in the world, we've led by example, by respecting individual liberty.

Let's face it, the War in Iraq is won, what is done is done. The fact is our troops are in too many third world countries, providing the defense of too many nations so they can spend $$ on social programs. In general I think the ME would be better off without us, and us without them. We've seen enough of our tax dollars stolen from us and given to dictators and socialists (the two always go together) to generate enough resentment, and for good reason.

It goes without saying this type of foreign policy, Paul's foreign policy, is much different from the views espoused from those on the left, my thoughts on this were previously posted here.

[xrp]

Also, my biggest fear of Paul is that he goes back to his Libertarian ways....Open Borders, Unchecked Immigration, and Business Socialism...all hallmarks of Libertarianism. I am not sold on his opposition of NAFTA, GATT, illegals, etc...since Libertarians tend to support these things

Dang...you should spend a little time on youtube.com viewing videos of Ron Paul where he addresses just about everything you mentioned.

For further clarification, Ron Paul has always been a Republican, he just ran for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Ron Paul is far more 'Republican' than George W Bush.

[JLS]

Sorry but Ron Paul is way too statist to be a Libertarian no matter what he calls himself. He favors huge increases in parts of the government bureaucracy.