Rand Paul's surge in Kentucky

[Matthew Carberry]

I *am* the lunatic fringe.

Lunatic Fringe
from the Red Rider LP "As Far As Siam"


Lunatic fringe
I know you're out there
You're in hiding
And you hold your meetings
We can hear you coming
We know what you're after
We're wise to you this time
We won't let you kill the laughter.

Lunatic fringe
In the twilight's last gleaming
This is open season
But you won't get too far
We know you've got to blame someone
For your own confusion
But we're on guard this time
Against your final solution

We can hear you coming
(We can hear you coming)
No you're not going to win this time
We can hear the footsteps
(We can hear the footsteps)
Way out along the walkway
Lunatic fringe
We know you're out there
But in these new dark ages
There will still be light

An eye for an eye;
Well before you go under...
Can you feel the resistance?
Can you feel the thunder?

[Perd Hapley]

IMO, Ron Paul's biggest fault is his refusal to pick his battles better.  There are probably hundreds of issues Ron Paul could have picked that people would hear and say "yeah, that makes sense," but abolishing the Fed or going on a gold standard aren't them.  He is likely right, but that is a topic way too big for most voters.  To me, there are lots of things he could champion that are worth doing and wouldn't scare people.  If he could have picked 5 or so sensible issues to focus on, he could get a lot more traction.  

I think you've just stated the biggest reason why many people like Ron Paul will never win anything like the presidency.  They relegate themselves to the fringes, by riding fringed hobby-horses.  

Lunatic Fringe
from the Red Rider LP "As Far As Siam"

Cool.  I haven't heard that song in ages.  Youtube FTW. 

[roo_ster]

What amazes me is that for a clot of folks who claim to be free market types, they all seem to know absolutely nothing about marketing.

Take a page from BHO's book and keep the overt kook-level down, poll the public on your positions and emphasize the most popular, and impose some discipline.

[makattak]

What amazes me is that for a clot of folks who claim to be free market types, they all seem to know absolutely nothing about marketing.

Take a page from BHO's book and keep the overt kook-level down, poll the public on your positions and emphasize the most popular, and impose some discipline

Part of the problem is a compliant press that allows liberals to be duplicitous.

Barack Obama made numerous statements that contradicted his previous votes, actions and speeches that were ignored by the press.

Further, he was allowed to say things "off the record" to his supporters without the press touting it as well.

For that reason, extreme liberals will find it far easier to hide who they are than will extreme conservatives.

Additionally, extreme conservatives are more likely to be honest while extreme liberals will tend to believe the end justifies the means.

[MicroBalrog]

IMO, Ron Paul's biggest fault is his refusal to pick his battles better.  There are probably hundreds of issues Ron Paul could have picked that people would hear and say "yeah, that makes sense," but abolishing the Fed or going on a gold standard aren't them.  He is likely right, but that is a topic way too big for most voters.  To me, there are lots of things he could champion that are worth doing and wouldn't scare people.  If he could have picked 5 or so sensible issues to focus on, he could get a lot more traction. 

Ah, see, this is a valid point I have myself often elaborate on:

Nearly any candidate can be sold to the public, barring the usual living boy/dead girl contingencies that all too many people are embroiled on, and given quality handlers/managers. Ron Paul's campaign (and to some extent, Rand Paul's campaign) started out with a quality biography (think of Ron Paul's biography - but for his views, he'd be the all-American candidate), a vast team of volunteers, and a pile of cash. It's not a stretch to see that Ron Paul's people could have won had they done it right and had they received the endorsement of the talking heads. Even as it was, I bet with the help of the talking heads and some skilled campaign management (which was not in attendance), Ron Paul would have done far better.

On the other hand, if you want a radical candidate of whatever stripe, you got to put up with a doze of crazy of some kind. People don't usually dedicate years of their lives to fighting for an extremely unpopular view unless they're somehow slightly... off.

[Balog]

Given the increasing decline in credibility of the MSM I'm hoping a more "radical" conservative candidate can have a chance.

[MicroBalrog]

Oh, it's not to be forgotten many members of the 'conservative establishment' are fighting hard against Paul even now, and the treatment his father got was even worse.

[jackdanson]

The problem with Ron/Rand Paul isn't that they have "lunatic" elements (truthers/conspiracy nuts), it's that mid-road/establishment conservatives are afraid that Ron/Rand will actually follow through with what they preach.  They'd much rather elect a left-wing conservative or a doltish flag waver than someone who would actually follow traditional conservative principles and change the system accordingly.

Not that I think Ron or Rand is even close to electable.  Too many Americans have already been duped into thinking the fed.gov is their bestest friend, here to save them from the terrorists and give them free stuff.  I certainly don't agree with everything RP says, but I do believe he is one of the very few people who are trying to push us in the correct direction.  Both parties currently ignore the constitution as they see fit.

[MicroBalrog]

Not that I think Ron or Rand is even close to electable.

I'd think that leading in the polls sort of makes you electable.

Besides, Ron Paul and John McCain had absolutely the same degree of Presidential electability. That is, none. Neither of them won.

The problem with Ron/Rand Paul isn't that they have "lunatic" elements (truthers/conspiracy nuts), it's that mid-road/establishment conservatives are afraid that Ron/Rand will actually follow through with what they preach.

That is certainly true - which is why, I suspect, that the GOP leadership does so much for Grayson.

[Perd Hapley]

I'd think that leading in the polls sort of makes you electable.

Besides, Ron Paul and John McCain had absolutely the same degree of Presidential electability. That is, none. Neither of them won.

I'm not sure how that squares with the facts, when John McCain clobbered all his competition in the primaries and Ron Paul was one of those getting clobbered.  John McCain may not have been all that electable, but at least he could win the support of a large chunk of his own party. 

Not that McCain was my choice, either. 

[MicroBalrog]

McCain wasn't electable. Proof: He didn't get elected.

My whole point is that the people in the party who backed him based on his ostensible electability made a giant mistake.

[Gewehr98]

McCain wasn't electable. Proof: He didn't get elected.

My whole point is that the people in the party who backed him based on his ostensible electability made a giant mistake.

There's mistakes, and then there's mistakes.

Ron Paul was definitely a mistake compared to John McCain, even though the latter wasn't elected.  At least McCain had a snowball's chance in hell...

[Balog]

Fisty: that's some pretty revisionist history you've got there. McCain's primary win reflected a lot of things, but the support of a majority of R's was not one of them.

[roo_ster]

I'm not sure how that squares with the facts, when John McCain clobbered all his competition in the primaries and Ron Paul was one of those getting clobbered.  John McCain may not have been all that electable, but at least he could win the support of a large chunk of his own party. 

Not that McCain was my choice, either. 

Fisty: that's some pretty revisionist history you've got there. McCain's primary win reflected a lot of things, but the support of a majority of R's was not one of them.

Balog beat me to the punch.

McCain did best in open primary states where Dems & Independents could foul the Republican nest.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that if one of us were to gawk at the primary election exit polls, we'd have a tough time coming up with a GOP majority for McCain.

[Tallpine]

IMO, Ron Paul's biggest fault is his refusal to pick his battles better.  There are probably hundreds of issues Ron Paul could have picked that people would hear and say "yeah, that makes sense," but abolishing the Fed or going on a gold standard aren't them.  He is likely right, but that is a topic way too big for most voters.  To me, there are lots of things he could champion that are worth doing and wouldn't scare people.  If he could have picked 5 or so sensible issues to focus on, he could get a lot more traction. 

Well, it will probably make a lot more sense when the fed.gov defaults on its obligations, and/or the USA experiences Zimbabwe style hyper-inflation.

 

[makattak]

Well, it will probably make a lot more sense when the fed.gov defaults on its obligations, and/or the USA experiences Zimbabwe style hyper-inflation.

 

Gold standard will only prevent hyper-inflation.

It is likely to cause deflation and a collapse of the economy if/when the government defaults on its debts.

The gold standard is not a cure-all. All you do is trade one set of problems for another.

Many more people are drawn to the gold standard because they are only aware of the benefits because a gold standard has not existed for two generations.

[MicroBalrog]

If you read Ron Paul's report on the Gold Standard, he's actually advocating something more complex than what what existed before 1913.

[zahc]

[citation needed]

[MicroBalrog]

[citation needed]
[/quote

I've named the book for you.

"The Case for Gold", pp. 243-245, where Ron Paul explicitly criticizes the pre-1912 Gold standard and calls for an entirely different institution.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Care to describe Paul's superior version of the gold standard for those of us who don't have a copy of his book nearby?

[MechAg94]

I heard a guy on the radio that sort of spoke my thoughts on Ron Paul better than I did.  He basically said that the American electorate generally does not like Extemist or Fringe candidates or guys with crazy ideas.  We might like to listen to them or criticize them, but we don't generally elect them President.  Most people like the status quo because they understand their place and they don't want someone to come in and screw it all up.  Now, Micro is correct that many candidates disguise their extremism, but Ron Paul didn't even try.  I hope Rand Paul does better. 

This is the main reason why I suggested Paul would have helped himself by picking 5 issues that are actually achievable and running on those issues only.  Keep it simple.  Regardless of whether the gold standard ideas are right or not, there was and is absolutely no chance that Congress would pass that sort of law in the next 4 years had he actually won.  If that is the case, why bring it up at all?  Talk about stuff you can actually do.  

Nobody seems to like GWBush much, but he did that when he ran for Texas Gov.  He had 3 issues and just about all of his speeches were some version of those 3 issues.  I heard him speak early in the election in person then saw him on TV later and he was saying the same things the 2nd time around.  IMO, Paul would be wise to adopt tactics like that.

I'd like to hear a summary of Paul's gold standard plan myself.  

[agricola]

I heard a guy on the radio that sort of spoke my thoughts on Ron Paul better than I did.  He basically said that the American electorate generally does not like Extemist or Fringe candidates or guys with crazy ideas.  We might like to listen to them or criticize them, but we don't generally elect them President.  Most people like the status quo because they understand their place and they don't want someone to come in and screw it all up.  Now, Micro is correct that many candidates disguise their extremism, but Ron Paul didn't even try.  I hope Rand Paul does better. 

This is the main reason why I suggested Paul would have helped himself by picking 5 issues that are actually achievable and running on those issues only.  Keep it simple.  Regardless of whether the gold standard ideas are right or not, there was and is absolutely no chance that Congress would pass that sort of law in the next 4 years had he actually won.  If that is the case, why bring it up at all?  Talk about stuff you can actually do.  

Nobody seems to like GWBush much, but he did that when he ran for Texas Gov.  He had 3 issues and just about all of his speeches were some version of those 3 issues.  I heard him speak early in the election in person then saw him on TV later and he was saying the same things the 2nd time around.  IMO, Paul would be wise to adopt tactics like that.

I'd like to hear a summary of Paul's gold standard plan myself.  

Is Paul an "extremist" though?  In recent political history that just seems to be a word used by the political class to label those who dont exactly match the orthodox view of things held by the political class, as we are seeing in the UK (where the Tories have left their federalist group in the European Parliament to set up an anti-Federalist one).

[MicroBalrog]

Care to describe Paul's superior version of the gold standard for those of us who don't have a copy of his book nearby?

I will post a detailed defense of it on Sunday if so required. A copy of the book is availble here, in PDF

[zahc]

Is Paul an "extremist" though? 

It's a sad state when being American is considered being an extremist.

[Balog]

This is the main reason why I suggested Paul would have helped himself by picking 5 issues that are actually achievable and running on those issues only.  Keep it simple.  Regardless of whether the gold standard ideas are right or not, there was and is absolutely no chance that Congress would pass that sort of law in the next 4 years had he actually won.  If that is the case, why bring it up at all?  Talk about stuff you can actually do.   

This. "But, but, but... I'm right!!! seems to be the rallying cry of many fringe type people on gold standard type issues. Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but preaching stuff that your voters are gonna find wacky is not a way to get elected.

Example: I think Alaska/Vermont carry should be the rule in all states, guns should be treated like books, FA and suppressors etc shouldn't be regulated any more than other arms etc. I'd support a candidate running on that platform. But I don't think that would be a good thing to run as a main idea of your campaign, as it'd not be popular. Having good ideas != being able to get elected.

And yes Micro, we know: "ZomgJohnMcCainwhereisyourelectabilitynaoeleventyone etc etc" It's true we don't need mostly liberal candidates in the name of electability. We should not sell out our ideas to get a Democrat Lite with an R in front of his name in office. But a prime requirement for a candidate is being able to get elected. You can't ignore that aspect entirely.