Why Ron Paul Should Not Run for President Again
I wish Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination in 2008. I wish Paul had won the general election and was president right now. But he’s not, and by the time the 2012 primaries start, he will be 76 years old. This is past the age of almost any contender for the presidency that I am aware of. (In all of American history, I think only one major party contender was older than that–Mike Gravel in 2008.)
Of course, it is seriously unlikely that Paul would get elected if he did run a second time, so there is arguably no danger in him running what would effectively be another educational campaign. I think the problem is that it gives the impression that the liberty movement is solely focused and led by Ron Paul, which is not the case…or at least I sure as hell hope not. We need to put forth some new blood, which we are already seeing in Congressional and Senate races, most notably Paul’s son Rand in Kentucky. This must eventually be reflected at the top of ticket as well, whether it be in 2012 or later.
There might already be an good candidate out there to pickup where Paul leaves off in former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson appears to be interested in running, and he lines up with Paul the vast majority of the time. Furthermore, he is from the Mountain West where libertarian ideas are most popular, which could deliver whole chunk of delegates.
The great danger here is that the liberty movement could be reduced to infighting if both Paul and Johnson run. The ideal situation in my mind is for Paul to endorse Johnson for president and then proceed to campaign around the country for him during the primaries. Any successful movement needs leaders (pl.). Repeatedly running the same candidate–no matter how ideal–only shows weakness.
Ron Paul may not necessarily be the “leader” of the new conservative movement but he did open alot of peoples eyes to the idea of a truly conservative party. Also, because of his record and strict intrepretation of the constitution it will be very hard to find a candidate close the those ideals. Hence, why Fox news and the other conservative mediums are not as trusted right now by most of the new conservative movement. My hope would be that we get together with the rest of the conservatives and really hash out what the republican party should be. Starting with the platform, and a single question. What really is the scope of our Central Government and what should it be? This open discussion will bring to light the many differences encompassed by conservatives and really begin the process by which we can take back the country and end the entitlement stupidity once and for all.
I could care less how old Dr Paul is. I would rather have his and his wisdom than some “young dynamic president” like Obama. ACK.
RUN DR PAUL….RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This would be a disaster. Ron Paul is best known for his defence of strict constitutionalism and opposition to foreign wars and the Fed. Johnson is best known for his support of drug legalisation. This would allow the “liberty movement” to be tarred and feathered with the brush of social decadence. You would lose most all paleoconservative votes.
If there be no alternative, it is best that Paul run again and that he himself make some effort to groom a future spokesman.
maybe ron paul should hand pick a successor or run on a ticket with his son as VP.
people trust ron paul but they don’t trust other politicians. trust is going to be a very important part of the next election.
According to http://www.garyjohnson2012.com :
-He didn’t raise taxes as Governor once.
-He vetoed over 1,000 spending items.
-He cut taxes 14 times.
-In a state dominated 2 to 1 by Democrats he served two terms.
-He left New Mexico with a balanced budget.
-He competed in the Bataan Death March, a 25 mile desert run in combat boots wearing a 35-pound backpack.
-He climbed to the top of Mount Everest, despite a broken leg.
I am a Paul supporter to the bone, but I hate seeing his supporters think somehow he is the only one who can lead us on the political level.
He is the god father of the movement and I honestly think would do more good as you suggest putting his weight behind a Gary Johnson, as evident by my blog.
Describing Mike Gravel as a “major party contender” in 2008 says all you need to know about the level of political analysis here. C’mon now.
There won’t be a disaster if Gary Johnson and Ron Paul run for President. I think most libertarian-Republicans, federalists, minarchists et al would rather see as many principled libertarian-Republicans on the primary ballot instead of just one libertarian-Republican against a large wave of the same neo-conservative lapdogs.
The infighting between Hillary and Obama didn’t cost Obama the election. He still handily won. With that in mind, if Paul and Johnson both run, I say go for it, and I will be supporting both and getting the word out for both candidates.
In my opinion, the best thing Dr. Paul could do is set himself up as a commentator on the election. He gets more airtime and ink now than he did as a candidate and he would likely be drowned out by the “bigger” names in 2012; but not if he positions himself as an authority.
If he’s a commentator/pundit he could potentially get more airtime/ink than he ever would in the debates. He would be the one commenting on them in multiple media sources after the fact and maybe directing the debate from the sidelines.
I agree that having another viable candidate from the budding liberty movement would be helpful. After all, it’s the message, not the man. We don’t want to end up like the Republicans/conservatives spending their years waiting for the second coming of Reagan.
We can’t have Ron Paul worship like the conservatives have Reagan worship; it’s not healthy.
Ron has all the momentum. He predicted so much which has happened, this is not debatable! So in any run for president any attacks will like water off a ducks back and lose credibility of the attacker. Whatever happens, if he runs, everyone learns more truth!
HE is the focus, but he is not the message.
I don’t think that Ron Paul wants to run again. That said, I think there are stronger candidates out there than Gary Johnson. In a recent poll of who should be VP if Ron Paul ran Gary Johnson was hardly a blip and was surpassed by Sarah Palin of all people. http://www.voiceofarizona.com/DONT_CALL_ME_ILL_CALL_EWE-5031-2-42596.htm
I too hope there will be more candidates like Ron Paul. I kind of like Judge Napolitano and Peter Schiff. Most of all I miss Harry Browne.
But you can be darn sure that I won’t vote for just any libertarian leaning candidate. They better be someone who walks the walk and doesn’t just talk the talk.
I don’t see any harm in Ron Paul running, at least to get things rolling. He has name recognition and would bring his large following into the mix of things… I agree with Brian’s point (see above) that having “many principled libertarian-Republicans on the primary ballot instead of just one libertarian-Republican against a large wave of the same neo-conservative lapdogs” would be a breath of fresh air…
I don’t agree with the author’s final comment about repeatedly running the same candidate… Ron didn’t get the nomination, he only campaigned for the nomination. Why couldn’t he do that again? And who cares about his age? I care about his wisdom… Which is why I would vote for him in a heartbeat…
I don’t think Ron Paul could possibly be the only one who could inspire trust, but so far no one with nearly as compelling a record has turned up. And unless one does, I think RP should run again.
A few brief replies:
AStarSpangledGirl, I’m not suggesting a “young dynamic president” like Obama, I’m suggesting a younger president like Gary Johnson or Rand Paul (hopefully after some years in the Senate.)
Thomas, Paul and Johnson have the same opinion on the drug war, and even though Paul isn’t as well known for that stance as Johnson is, he did not make any attempt to hide it in 2008. I don’t think Johnson would alienate supporters of Ron Paul on that issue.
Finally to Brendan York, I’m not saying Gravel was likely to win, but he was running for the nomination of the Democratic Party, which is a major party, ergo Gravel was a major party contender–albeit a quixotic one.
John,
Peter Cooper (born on February 12, 1791) was the candidate of the Greenback party in 1876, when he was 85 years old. So, Paul would at least be the third eldest presidential nominee of a major party contender.
My bad. I should have just put “contender” in quotes. Just because they let you get in the ring with the champ doesn’t make you a contender.
John,
take a look at Doug Wead’s article a few months ago on his blog on why Ron Paul should run in 2012. he makes a very compeling case and I agree with it. Konrad Adenauer was about 85 or so I think when he retired as German chancellor and he was one of the best in Germany, and also in France De Gaulle was about the same age when he retired. People are often in their best form when they are in their seventies and they understand the world very good and has calmness, wisdom and respect. In Asia and Africa people look up to older people as an example and leader. McCain – a year younger than Paul – look very old for his age (his mother almost look younger), while Paul looks 10 year younger and acts with sharpness and intelect of a fifty year old. During but also after the election when he received more media coverage – his speeches as well as appearances on TV and debates has improved and he is now outstanding. He also inspires the youth, who look for someone who inspires, is idealistic, has an exemplary record etc. Paul is IMHO in his best form now. His son would be too inexperienced for president in 2012 if he hopefully wins his senate race (IMHO) and having him as VP with Paul would perhaps not be the best thing. Also, Paul has name recognition now, which he did not had in 2007 and early 2008 and I am sure not all really still know about him or received a skewed impression. Some are already taking a second look at him and there are those who wished they had voted for him, thought he was jsut a flash in the pan. The anti-war youth vote is what the GOP needs to win, as well as Independents and soft Democrats and Paul appeals to all of them, like no other. Personally I think an ideal team would be Paul – Johnson. Paul can say he will server only one term as president and you have a youth, experienced and accomplished and dynamic two term governor as VP, who can fill his shoes when needed. I am sure they will work excellent together. Therefore it is very good that Johnson started his PAC and to become involved in the debate, an raise money and speak on behalf of candidates in 2010 and build up some brand name. So if (hopefully when) Paul announces, Johnson will be better know and can campaign with him. Many people probably did not knew about his endorsement of Paul in early 2008 as well. A governor has experience governing a state and his record is very good and Paul has the economic depth and will and know what to do. As a saying goes, age is only a number. Last year a D senator has won in NJ and I think he will be 90 by the time his six year term is over. Paul is still very active, and exercise every day. On the other hand I know of fifty year olds that look and act very old for their age again. And what makes one think Paul cannot win? And if you think Paul cannot win, but Johnson can win, please explain? Paul has a much better name recognition than Johnson, and I agree with you Johnson is a very good politician and has an excellent track record. Paul started with 10% in Iowa and at the latest states – where he really did not even campaign, but his name recognition improved already, he received 21%, 25% etc. In 2011/2012 the primaries will be a whole different ball game, as they say. Paul should not announce too soon IMHO, but rather take the time to build up further momentum, fundraising is already starting, with Campaign for Liberty – an infrastructure now – has raised more than 4 million, while SarahPAC only about 700 000 I think. Paul should just appeal to the social conservatives better, as well as to older voters. One needs an experienced campaign manager, someone in her or her fifties or so, not a twenty or thirty year old something, and someone who can articulate the message clear and well to ordinary people. Of course the ads also needs to be in top form. Paul can campaign for a whole lot of races in 2010 – after winning his primary – and also see if he can accept at least one of his many overseas invitations. A travel abroad will raise his awareness. He is already the most favorite politician overseas in the US. And he would need a few endorsements and if there are a few ex generals also, also admirals etc. endorsing him, it would be excellent. I think some Americans had the wrong perception he would be “weak” on threats, which is not the case.
Problem with a new face is he’d have to run once just to get his name out there. Paul has already done that and now he’s finally getting air time because of his economic predictions. These are the same predictions that the republican contenders laughed at in the debates.Don’t worry the Republican Party will find a way to lose in 2012.There are a slew of independents who voted Obama but are disgusted with his unkept promise to end the war.The GOP will send them back into Obama’s arms by nominating Palin. Paul could win them over.
You have to figure that either Ron or Rand Paul will garner a lot more interest than Johnson.
I was impressed with the article to say the least. The idea that all at once the ideas stewing in my uneducated brain actually held water made me even more excited to do more research on the topics laid to bare during the campaign. It lasted almost a year and a half, and then reality sank in.
There is something terribly wrong with this country, people are too ignorant and stupid to lead themselves to the trough, or for that matter to a job.
The lack of true education in this country is astonishing. The lack of personal responsibility is also astonishing.
So to all of that I agree if for no other reason than to further expose the ideals I hold, I wish Ron Paul to run for President in 2012, any other candidate will be met with utmost scrutiny and disbelief.
The only chance we have started back in 2007 when Ron Paul announced he would win. Just wait a bit longer and things will begin to fall into place, there will be no stopping the movement this time.
(I may seem terribly idealistic, but the fact is I haven’t lost hope in this country and at every rally, and every person I’ve spoken to that even has a hint of intelligence has in part at least agreed with some of ron paul’s platform.)
Sorry but if Paul is in there Im sticking with him come hell or high water!!!!
Conservatives can go to hell. There is nothing “conservative” about the modern Conservative movement. I can sum you up with two words “Warfare/Welfare”. Your telling me to accept Big or Bigger Gov’t. I’ll back the only “conservative” in Washington and that is Ron Paul and I hope he starts a 3rd party movement in 2012.
Ron Paul has my vote, 100%.
This is a fallacy of false cause. The fact that a candidate has run previously does not mean that the candidate is weak. Logic works.
Also, what statistics or logic brought you to the conclusion below?
Perhaps just your “gut feeling”?
John Payne,
If you had read my comment carefully, I did not deny Paul and Johnson have the same view on drugs, I said it is Johnson’s pet project, what he is most known for. Paul does not go around the country making speeches that are centred on legalising drugs.
The movement behind Paul was broad. There were mainly two groups: libertarians and paleoconservatives. A few of the latter are against the drug war but most are uncomfortable with legalisation. If someone emphasised legalising drugs in a campaign, he would be destroyed by the media and other candidates, and on this issue most of the paleos would not stand behind him.
Somehow I think talking about the Fed builds a wider coalition these days now that people have something to say about the banking system.
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012! IT’S HIS DESTINY!!
Hmmmm, Your artical reeks of age discrimination, Ron Paul is the only choice, I being a life long Republican am shocked how the Republican party invests it’s time and money into the parade of hacks and liars, and crooks, While they shrill against the only man with a once of crediblity left in Government! I love how you praise Dr. Paul with one hand and with the other plunge a Dagger in his back with your Age crack! It is these left handed attacks are a joke, Dr Paul will outlive us all!
RON PAUL 2012
Everyone is assuming that Dr. Paul actually wants to be president…what if he doesn’t?
Selfish of me perhaps, but I hope he runs in 2012 … 76 is the new 46 dont ya know … lol…
if he runs he will have big impact this next go round on the platform … he will be seen as the ONLY one that saw this coming ….and if treated the same way at the debates … more and more people will awaken …
… and if he is finally allowed to speak at the Convention we will know the Liberty movement will have turned a corner …
RonPaul for the long haul means exactly that.
oh … and what better way to stick it to the FED than to have Ron Paul as POTUS during their 100 year anniversary … as they wither and die during his first term…
Ron Paul ~ FED Killer.
I agree that Ron and Carole Paul would be very exhausted at their age if in the White House and first lady role. Just imagine all the gossipping paparazzi and endless meetings, travel, and other time consuming and freedom restricting controls on their lives by security people.
His age isn’t a factor (that’s just a number), it’s his brain.
Gravel at 77 wiped the floor nightly with his Democratic debate counterparts. If Ron Paul is as smart in 2012 as he is now, he will have my vote.
Gravel, like Paul, kicked all sorts of ass in the debates.
Love those guys,
Rep. Paul I think is very sincere when he says he has no plans to run in 2012 (the media hears that phrase and assumes the politician is lying, which in most cases they are. Dr. Paul is a refreshing example of non-power lust). Given his age and given the fact his wife had to be hospitalized not once but twice while out campaigning I think means a presidential bid is not something he either making plans for nor anticipating nor is something he really wants to do.
However, given this vacuum, it’s time for others to step up to the plate and show leadership for those who support, not so much Ron Paul, but his ideas first a foremost. Gary Johnson could very well be this person if wishes to be. Certainly Ron Paul would endorse someone like him would take up that mantle transfer much of his support to himself.. But if more time passes and no one emerges, then the vacuum becomes a vortext that sucks everything in and only lead to chaos. Hopefully that doesn’t happen.
If you want fresh blood in the libertarian movement to run for office, us young things are supplying it in buckets.
Either Sanjaya (American Idol star) or Sarah (Palin, the current political media star) have more celebrity and star power than Ron Paul and Gary whatsisname. Shoot, Palin even has a book out which, though entirely ghostwritten, will be cited by her followers as proof that she can write or at least read (most of them having done neither). Possessing this kind of star power in today’s news vaccuum equals name recognition, the gold standard for getting elected to high public office.
To sort this all out, Americas will inevitably turn to “news stars” like David Gregory, Chris Wallace, or Brian Williams. They will tell us who is ahead in the polls, who is more likely to garner the most votes and who is too “quirky” or “polarizing” to be elected. Just ask Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.
Besides, they don’t look “Presidential.”
Is this a great country or what!
We need a Ron Paul / Andrew Napolitano ticket in 2012. If Dr. Paul doesn’t run, I would like the Judge to go for it.
I am in my early 30′s and have never even voted before until last year were I ran into the booths to write Dr. Pauls name down twice.
I am not saying I would not vote for a candidate that had a similiar messege, but it would really take a truly constitutional style candidate with a record like Dr. Paul’s to bring me back to that level of enthusiasm again in a candidate. I could care less about his age.
I would take an 76 year old Paul than any President that I have seen to date since I have been at the legal age to vote.
Ron Paul is a true statesman. He just needs a good VP; someone like Judge Andrew Napolitano who is a strict constitutionalist. The mainstream neocon talk radio heads don’t particularly care for him; and this is one obstacle that will be somewhat difficult to get past. But in terms of having a President who truly understands economics, monetary policy, foreign policy and always looks to our constitution to guide our principles and policy; Ron Paul would never let us down. Dr. Paul does not have a populism personality like Sarah Palin; but he has a record unmatched that is 100% pro-American, 100% pro-liberty. Dr. Paul understands clearly that the Constitution regulates the federal government, not the people. I plan on doing whatever possible if he runs again in 2012, and that 2012 bumper sticker on my truck gets interesting looks every day. Whether you are a 60′s liberal who believes in civil rights, or a conservative, you cannot argue much with Dr. Paul’s pro-liberty, pro-life natural right and limited government stance. He has the facts to back-up what he says.
I’ll be rooting for Dr. Paul in 2012. If he does not run, i’ll champion whomever he supports. I just don’t see the passion from the grassroots coming out if Dr. Paul does not run in 2012.
Third parties haven’t worked in the US because they always immediately go for the top job. A third party could work but it must start locally and build it’s support district by district. It shouldn’t run a presidential candidate in it’s first election or perhaps even the second. It’s aim should be to gain seats in local government and the House of Representatives in the first election…and governorships. After it has established itself then it can run senate and presidential candidates without the inevitable effect a third party normally has…electing the democrats or republicans they least want to see in office.
Ron Paul could be the first elected member of a new third party but he shouldn’t run for president..he’ll just give us four more years of Obama.
Cons are mad about Obama's trip because there are no spoils involved with diplomacy.