Perennial Paul
62 days until President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden take the oath of office, and Congressman Ron Paul is already contemplating another doomed presidential campaign. Paul, like other oft-mentioned 2012 candidates, will need to lay the groundwork for his campaign in the next 9 months, says Jesse Benton, Paul’s grandson-in-law and Press Secretary.
The 73 year old hobbit from Texas launched his “kill the beast from the inside” campaign for the Presidency in January, over 11 months before Iowa’s caucuses. While the Paul campaign raised notable sums of money through unparalleled (Republican) grassroots (online) activity, he failed to pose any real threat to John McCain, Mitt Romney, or weight loss enthusiast Mike Huckabee. 4 months after every sane political observer knew it, Paul grudgingly accepted the obvious: “Victory, in a conventional sense, is not available in the Presidential race.” He would have to make the trek to Mordor with his faithful companions at a later time.
Benton acknowledged the fringe element associated with third party candidates, and says Paul “would be very likely to run as a Republican,” though they “try not to ever deal in absolutes in politics” – unless of course you’re talking about the gold standard, foreign military intervention, abortion, and taxes.
Team Liberty’s new-found disdain for third-parties is rather peculiar, particularly with Paul’s earth shattering endorsement for Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin, not to mention his former (failed) run for the Presidency as a Libertarian in 1988. Paul’s endorsement for Baldin, who altogether got 11 votes, was nothing more than a juvenile cry for attention and one last chance at YouTube stardom.
Step aside, Ralph Nader; we have a new perennial candidate.
UPDATE: The AP reports FOX News host Mike Huckabee won’t rule out a 2012 run. Guys, 2012 is not a 2008 re-do. You had your chance, and you lost to McCain’s shoe string-budget campaign.
UPDATE II: Welcome, Hot Air readers!
You don’t know anything about Paul.
“after every sane political observer knew it, Paul grudgingly accepted the obvious”
…he didn’t grudgingly accept anything. He stayed in because his supporters wanted him too. He said he’d bow out when they didn’t want him too. They continued to send money and volunteer… even long after he officially dropped out.
“new-found disdain for third-parties”
He didn’t show any disdain for third parties. He has shown disdain for laws that are biased against third parties. A big part of his message during the presidential campaign was to encourage people to vote third party, any third party…
“nothing more than a juvenile cry for attention”
…and he endorsed Chuck Baldwin very, very quietly.
At the end of a long blog entry, and not at the national press conference on third parties.
Maybe they’ll take him seriously, since everything he’s been predicting for over thirty years is coming true.
Last October, at a debate in Michigan, he talked about the inflation tax. He called it a “transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to Wall St.” I bet people know what he’s talking about now.
Ron Paul had some ideas that could have been implemented into the Party platform, but has lost all integrity.
He defeated himself. Great.
Long live the new generation of anti-Paulites.
Anti-Paulites? Are you kidding me? Ron Paul represents what republicans should be. How can you take issue with a man who puts life, liberty and freedom above all else when it comes to political ideology.
You must be one of the republicans who think Taft, Goldwater and Reagan were bad for the party.
@Chance Haywood (urbanelephants.com ?)
Goldwater (before, during and after) and Reagan were great heroes in American History. Paulbots don’t have exclusive claim to their ideology.
Take a history lesson.
“represents what (R)epublicans should be.”
It’s the bigots like you who kill this party and say, “it’s this way or the highway.” Face it, the majority doesn’t agree with you.
Bigots like us? It’s bigoted to let people live their lives the way they want, so long as they aren’t violating other peoples rights? It’s bigoted to want to stop bombing others who don’t go along with our foreign policy?
Not seeing it.