Ron Paul as a leader

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do his contributors simply forget to vote?
Click to expand...

No, I think he has a very fired-up, but very small, following.

Most of the other candidates have a wide range of luke warm support. Ron Paul has a very small range of very zealous support.

I bet a much higher percentage of RP supporters actually donate money, as compared to other candidates
 
The middle of the pack is the safest place to be this early in the race. Maybe y'all have not noticed, but the early leader never gets the nomination. The frontrunners today are tomorrow's roadkill. The dumb bastards think they are little Ronnie Reagans, but in reality they are a bunch of doomed Gary Hart photocopies.

That's the way it works.
 
What the ?

Wow I was kinda expecting another bash fest when I clicked. Imagine my suprise when I saw a lot of good points to think about for and against. I think part of the problem is getting people of libertarian bent to follow is kinda like herding cats. Ron Pauls belief in freedom is possibly his achilles heel in that he doesn't like to tell people what to do, which leads to a very decentralized campaign which in turn leads to ineffective get out the vote drives and arguing issue minutia instead of building phone lists, organizing buses and the packaged soundbite that seem to be required today. I also think a lot of our citizenry would prefer not to think as jtaylor mentions in his first post. Ron Paul is not attractive to those type of folk.
 
Why doesn't Ron Paul step up at the next debate and lay out the circumstances where he would use military force? Another Pearl Harbor? Another 911-like attack? How about WTC 1 in 1993? Only if British troops impressed US sailors? If RP could make the case that he is not an idiotic dove who is ready to dismantle military and intelligence capabilities like Jimmy Carter, he might actually get heard on domestic issues.

(Hint, don't mention the weak dollar being the cause of US intervention in places where they want to live like it's the year 631, or mythical Israeli oil.)
 
25 posts and no examples of leadership ability by Paul. We've seen people try to make excuses. Some the excuse that people are to dumb, some that the dark powers that be are manipulating the system against him, some that just being president makes a leader, some stating that leadership doesn't even matter.

Fact is leadership ability isn't just important, it is the foundational attribute. People will decide if the intended applications of that leadership is what they want done. But a lack of leadership ability will quickly result in a lack of people willing to give you control. Leadership doesn't come free with the title either. Becoming President doesn't automatically endow you with leadership, it endows you with authority. And if you have ever seen someone get authority that lacked leadership ability your familiar with the rapid decline of order that ensues. As mentioned, the void WILL get filled. Likely with someone that has other priorities.

The end of the Paul campaign shouldn't end the movement that was started however. The majority of what Paul supporter imagined would happen when Paul took office can't be done unilaterally by the president anyway. The Congress has to cooperate. The President can't assert his will over the objection of the Congress.

The Congress CAN, with a 2/3 majority assert it's will over the president. And that is where this Paul movement can continue. The Congress can make the changes that Paul supporters imagine Paul would do if elected President. Within a year the changes could be enacted whether or not whoever gets elected President likes it or not. This isn't just a Presidential election after all, it is also the election of the 111th Congress. Using Paul's example as a measure, focus that energy on only voting for 'Paul Standard' Representatives and Senators.

Let's face it, the message is fiercely powerful and holding Congressional candidates to the standard Paul has exemplified AS a Congressman can get the changes made where it counts, in Congress.

Who knows, Paul could be selected Speaker of the House.
 
What I see above is dedication to the "fuhrer prinzip", the leader principle. That's based on the notion that the nation needs leading, needs someone out front telling us where to go, how to go, and what to do when we get there. The leader principle is what has brought us to the unitary executive idea, something that's really been a problem with several 20th century presidents, particularly Franklin Roosevelt and Bush II.

In point of fact, Americans don't need a leader at all. What we do need is someone able to capably run the government within its strict and narrow Constitutional envelope, and nothing more.

The last thing America needs is an executive, corporate style leader.
 
Pat said:
In point of fact, Americans don't need a leader at all. What we do need is someone able to capably run the government within its strict and narrow Constitutional envelope, and nothing more.

The last thing America needs is an executive, corporate style leader.
Click to expand...

The President doesn't run the Government Pat, Congress does. He is Chief Executive of the Executive Branch and executive leadership abilities may be appropriate ya think?

Thanks for the humor, I needed it, rough day, a Patism is always good for a giggle.

Last thing we need is an executive as chief executive of the executive branch.......a non-leader Commander-in-Chief that would do Congress' job.........OKAY

Anyone but Paul would be a FEURER.....right......

I guess Chief Executive, Executive Branch, and Commander-in-Chief are 20th century concepts. Is this another revisionist history lesson?
 
In point of fact, Americans don't need a leader at all. What we do need is someone able to capably run the government within its strict and narrow Constitutional envelope, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow.
 
At last night's debate, RP belittled the puny speedboats that could not possibly have been a threat to the mighty US Navy. The attack on the USS Cole has somehow escaped his notice. Once again, reality does not intrude into the world of RP. Not commander in chief material.
 
Paul's assertion that Osamah Bin laden was a one-time allay of the US was similar lunatic nonsense.

How many times does that lie have to be debunked before the loonies like Ron Paul finally give it up?

Paul demonstrated very clearly last night that he lacks the basic background in foreign affairs and the mental stability necessary to be President.
 
In actual fact, Ron Paul took the rest of the candidates to the woodshed on foreign policy, showing them all to be feckless warmongers in comparison to himself.

bin Laden was a crucial part of the Afghan mujahedin pipeline, that's very well documented, and no Bush'ist counter-arguments will alter that fact. The Taliban consider bin Laden to be a heroic figure in support of their crusade against the Soviet Union, that's why they didn't give him up when Bush demanded it.

Ron Paul is the best of the bunch. Hopefully, he'll carry his campaign into the brokered Republican convention and will prevail there.

An excellent video from the last debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TkmE5t1Pk
 
Last edited:
Americans don't need a leader at all
Click to expand...

Well, Ron Paul is certainly the most qualified candidate when it comes to lacking leadership abilities, so I suppose that Pat is right about Ron Paul being the best candidate from that perspective.

See, we can all get along and agree; gimmie a hug!!!
 
Pat,

So let me get this straight...RP does not need leadership to run the executive branch of the United States? He does not need it because

...we do need is someone able to capably run the government within its strict and narrow Constitutional envelope, and nothing more...
Click to expand...

How do you expect RP to do this if he can't lead to do it? Is he just wishing his views out there and they are going to get done?

Pat...I almost think the man is smarter and more intelligent than you make him seem. Its almost as if he may have a chance if people were not putting him on this huge pedestal and saying he is the next miracle to come.
 
Why doesn't Ron Paul step up at the next debate and lay out the circumstances where he would use military force?
Click to expand...

His writings and voting record are quite clear on the use of military force. He voted for the war in Afghanistan. He later offered up the Letters of Marquis and Reprisal act against Al Qaida so that they could be pursued into Pakistan, Sudan or anywhere else in the world they went. That went down due to lack of interest.

With Iraq, he has all but begged to have a declaration of war and never got it.


I have met and spoken with the Congressman on two occasions (long before he ran for president, he was my congressman). He is NOT charismatic. He is not what you'd point to as a leader based on that. He is somewhat shy and pretty reserved. He likes to talk about ideas.

No- I don't think he will be elected. Regardless- the Republicans would be a rather steamy pile of stupidity to not glance over and see some totally uncharismatic man, with few raw leadership skills, who has so energized about 10 million people behind him in an almost fanatic way by talking truthfully about (of all things) Monetary Policy.

Maybe a slight shift from the neoCon side towards the libertarian bent, might pick up enough of these people to win an election. Maybe not, but the more Republicans talk liberty and freedom, the better they tend to do in elections. When Republicans talk about how big they'll grow their favorite agencies, they tend to lose.

Ideas win elections for the Republicans when delivered with some charisma. The Democrats can win elections on Charisma alone.
 
I'm just going to lay it out there.

I didn't like him. I didn't like his stance on the war in Iraq, and I didn't like his stance on Israel.

I don't care who's fault it is that we are in Iraq, or all the crap that's rolled up in that argument. The fact is, we are there, and we need to find a way to get out. We can cut & run, or we can find a way to win. I want someone committed to finding a way to win.
 
His writings and voting record are quite clear on the use of military force. He voted for the war in Afghanistan. He later offered up the Letters of Marquis and Reprisal act against Al Qaida so that they could be pursued into Pakistan, Sudan or anywhere else in the world they went. That went down due to lack of interest.

With Iraq, he has all but begged to have a declaration of war and never got it.
Click to expand...

well, I've got to admit I don't know the man at all. Sad, that I too am from Texas.

But he came across totally different last night, than what you are posting here.

Sure, he sounds intelligent, but I don't see him being a strong enough candidate to beat Hillary/Obama, and that's going to play big in my decision.
 
The fact is, we are there, and we need to find a way to get out. We can cut & run, or we can find a way to win. I want someone committed to finding a way to win.
Click to expand...

In order to find that, you first have to define "win". What if there is no "win"? Not every scenario is winnable.

What's a "win" here?

This war has been planned and prosecuted for the last six years by he best and brightest the conservatives have to offer, and the end of our involvement there is not even close to being in sight. We blow half a trillion dollars a year on Iraq, and it's costing us on average a thousand dead and a few thousand more wounded and crippled every year. How long can we realistically afford to try and untie that particular knot?

You can be sure that the current administration and military leadership are very much committed to finding a way to win, because they want to get that tar baby off their hands. If they haven't found a way in six years, even after changing leadership many times over, what gives you the confidence that there is a way to win this one?
 
There is no known methodology available to the US government to win in Iraq. There was true on day one of that war, and is true today.

Anyone confused about this issue needs to take a long, hard look at what would be required juxtaposed on what the US government has available to prosecute a war.

Correcting the mistake that the invasion of Iraq was and is is not "cutting and running", it's correcting a mistake.

As for explaining those facts to the relatives of the nearly 4000 young soldiers who have lost their lives, and the over 30,000 with permanent debilitating injuries, I'll leave that up to those who advocated this debacle.
 
Correcting the mistake that the invasion of Iraq was and is is not "cutting and running", it's correcting a mistake.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Under the same circumstances, Suddam Hussien failing to comply with U.N. Sanctioned inspections(for our safety), I hope our leadership would make the same decision today(under the same provisions we had at that time, being the U.N., France, & Germany having their hands tied as a result of being in bed with Hussien.). It was the right thing to do then, and it would be the right thing to do today.

Now clearly defining what win is... we defined what "win" is when we first went into Iraq, although somewhat loosely. We've ammended that definition, and have defined more clearly what "win" is, and we are working towards that end.

Leaving Iraq in the state it is in today, can in no way be considered the right thing to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top