Think the Republican Debates Will Be Boring?

Think again.

Ron Paul has accepted an invitation to participate in the first national presidential debate in New Hampshire on Wednesday, April 4. It will be hosted by Wolf Blitzer and will be carried on CNN TV, radio, and cnn.com from 7-9 p.m. EST.

I know that's internal GOP news, but for those of us that consider ourselves Libertarian Democrats, or for people that just want to see the Republican Party's feet be held to the fire from the inside, the Ron Paul candidacy promises to offer a lot of joy and merriment.  Ron Paul is a crazy old coot, no doubt, and he has no chance of winning in today's GOP (though he could end up running for their nomination and then running as an independent with the Libertarian Party's endorsement (he was their presidential candidate in 1988, and the most successful Libertarian presidential candidate to date)), but just having him around, particularly given a national platform (however small), will be endlessly amusing.  

Ron Paul, for those that don't know, is a Republican congressman from Texas.  He is also the most anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-police state, anti-Big Government GOP member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, by far.  He has on any number of occasions positively eviscerated the GOP, over and over again, on any marquee Republican position you can name.  

For a good example/primer of why establishment Republicans would really rather he just go away, check out a seminal speech of his from 2004 to the U.S. House of Representatives, titled:

"Neo-Conned"

A lot more writings here, and his congressional webpage has an impressive archive as well.

Again, he's not going to win.  And, for Democrats, there's no reason to get behind him--he is Libertarian through and through, to the left of Dennis Kucinich on a lot of issues, but to the right of Pat Buchanan on others.

But his role in the debates is going to be similar to Al Sharpton's in 2004.  Untethered, giving him the ability to say what a lot of people are really thinking, without being bothered by such considerations as the crushing weight of viability.

 
It'll be a lot of fun to watch.

Go Ron Paul go!

Cross-posted at http://thecrossedpond.com/

•  will their debates be interesting?

  It really depends.  Ron Paul is kind of like the Kucinich of the right, if Kucinich were FAR more out of step with the mainstream party thinking.  Believe it or not, there's even more cognitive dissonance between the GOP and its voters today than there was within the Democrats circa 2003, when Deaniacism exploded on the scene.

  So what will make things interesting is whether the GOP will get a candidate who strongly represents a large and totally neglected subset of the GOP (and preferably has real crossover appeal), and then how far the party apparatchiks will go to crush the dissent.

  I'm not getting my hopes up for them.  At this point, their field (with the exception of Ron Paul) is a bunch of slimy, pandering empty suits who'll say or do ANYTHING to get ahead.  McCain, Romney, Guiliani... they're just whores.  Now, Brownback wading in could get interesting, but a: it's not like the religious right is totally neglected, and b: he has ZERO appeal outside the religious right.

  Want to see things get interesting?  Bring in a GOP candidate who can say the war in Iraq was and is wrong, that withdrawl is the only sane option, and make sure that candidate has been consistently right on the issue all along.  That'd win the neglected faction who have doubts about the war now, even if they believed in it back in 2003/2004, and it'd have crossover appeal for the burned-out moderates.  But the ONLY candidate who MIGHT pull that off is Hagel, unless I'm missing something.  Will he really go for that brass ring?  Maybe.

  by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:09:49 PM PDT

  •  Well...

    
    Want to see things get interesting?  Bring in a GOP candidate who can say the war in Iraq was and is wrong, that withdrawl is the only sane option, and make sure that candidate has been consistently right on the issue all along.

    That's Paul.  He voted against the Iraq war resolution (the original), against the Patriot Act, against everything that's been put in front of him along those lines, from the beginning, and has been VEHEMENT in his opposition all along.  He's got a better record on that stuff than Feingold, even.    

    That's why I'm excited about his candidacy.  The problem is, there really ISN'T a mainstream Republican candidate who qualifies--not even Hagel.  I agree with you about how out of step the party establishment is with the electorate, such as there remains for the GOP.  That's why I think Paul is going to be such a fun candidate.  He's a nobody, who is the only one in the party representing (by now) majority American views.  That he is able to waltz into the MAINSTREAM position basically unopposed is such a testament to how screwed up the GOP is, and will be a lot of fun to watch.

    So long as Rudy and McCain are the frontrunners, the party isn't going to move with the rest of the country on Iraq by 2008.  Paul running, and having a voice in the debates, is going to make that disconnect stark, for those paying attention.

    Certainly, he gives us in the peanut gallery something to cheer for in sitting through the Republican debates, which are sure to be otherwise awkward and pandering.  

    by glibfidget on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:44:37 PM PDT

•  Wasn't Bob Barr

  thinking about running on the Libertarian ticket?

  by js noble on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:50:20 PM PDT

  •  I dunno

    Be interested in hearing more of that though.  Barr publicly (and formally) quit the Republican party for the Libertarians in December, but said he has no plans to run for office.

    Barr said he has no plans to run for office. In his new role as the Libertarian Party's regional representative for the South, he will help promote the party's message and recruit candidates, he said.

    I know Aaron Russo, who kos talked about some in the runup to 2004 as a good potential Libertarian spoiler, is firmly behind Paul and plans to work hard and spend hard for him.  Andrew Russo is a Hollywood producer who unsuccessfully ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2004 and lost, because Libertarians decided that a high profile presidential candidate would detract from resources and attention better spent on down-ticket races (no joke).  Because of that, Russo got shut out for the nom and the LP went with Michael Badnarik, who posted the worst results for a Libertarian presidential candidate I think ever.  

    George Mason University economist (and, bleh, Washington Times syndicated columnist) Walter Williams will probably also be a Ron Paul guy.

    Be interesting to see what Paul does after he loses the nomination, and what the LP does with theirs.      

    by glibfidget on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:01:49 PM PDT

•  Libertarians

  The most successful Libertarian Presidential candidate was either Ed Clark (over 1% of the vote) or John Hospers (1 electoral vote).  Hospers' running mate, Antonia Nathan, was the first woman to receive an electoral vote.  The Democratic Party, justly proudly, provided the second woman to receive (many more) electoral votes.

  Badnarik's campaign was about as successful as the two preceding campaigns.  The 1984 and 1992 campaigns were much less successful.  

  Finally, having served as Aaron Russo's National Volunteer Coordinator (I then did the same for Michael Badnarik) I would suggest that Badnarik beat Russo because (1) Badnarik did better at the debate at the National Convention, (2)Pointed differences between Russo and third place canddiate Gary Nolan leading to Nolan endorsing Badnarik after being eliminated via finishing third (we use multiple ballots with the bottom candidate being eliminated after each round), and (3) Badnarik finishing second rather than third at the National Convention by a dozen votes.

  George Phillies

  by phillies on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 05:17:14 PM PDT