One more thing on Ron Paul.
Obviously you’ve read this great piece from Jonathan about Ron Paul, but let’s consider a few other things. Ron Paul, as Jonathan notes, has no caucus or sympathetic bloc in Congress that would allow him to enact his agenda. Sure he can veto some bills, but that’s a world away from the constructive, peace-building rhetoric he aims for. Much the same way Nader had no Green presence in Congress, come to think of it. Also, despite his apparent - so we’re told - popularity, and his distaste for much of what is Republican orthodoxy, at no point has he ever risked his career and his name on these fantastic and apparently publicly-supported policies. He’s been elected as a Republican. Regardless of how weak intra-party discipline is, he’s still taken that ballot line time and time again. Any time he’s had something to lose, he’s run as a Republican. Now, on his retirement, he’s decided to chuck some bombs. For a conviction politician, which is what he’s supposed to be, that’s pretty lame. Besides which, even comparing his vote with the vote the Republican presidential nominee or Senate candidate gets in Texas doesn’t tell us what the voter who fills in his circle actually means - I like Republican policies, or I like Ron Paul policies. His Presidential campaign risks nothing, makes some nice points but has little capacity to change anything. So he can get 20% in a frankly shit primary field. Big whoop. So some of his ideas are good. Lots of them are bad and he’d be bad or worse at implementing them. Ron Paul is not happening, even in the most fertile soil he could ever have wished for. That is why as I mentioned a few posts ago, you can not trust this man to lay out the road map to his own damn utopia. Here endeth my perhaps ill-advised incursion into American politics. I’ll just say: Forget it, Huntsman isn’t going to happen and if I read one more article about how X or Y situation is “favorable” for him, I’m going to kill everybody. But first, I’ll find the U.S. state to commit the crime in for the most “favorable” conditions, which are likely to be about as favorable for me as the current electoral climate is for Huntsman.
yeah (to the bold), i wanted to say this to everyone writing those articles about how he could be president because he “might win iowa.” even if he had beaten Country Club and Butt Froth, he would’ve had to have done so by a HUGE margin, as the 75% against him is just one big split vote AGAINST him and for the republican party line. and even if he managed to secure the nomination, would there be enough dem crossovers to make up for all the fox news republicans that would probably find some lunatic third party candidate to support instead? i’d be interested to know if fox news would suddenly start supporting him if he were the nominee, but we’ll never know. i’m guessing not.
(Source: screwrocknroll)
Via 
