Ron Paul is a much, much more dangerous candidate to the Democratic party than any of his Republican contemporaries.

If the 2008 election came down to Obama vs. Paul - that is a real debate I would have loved to see take place. And the final choice in the voting booth would have been much, much harder.

>> ^HaricotVert:
Ron Paul is a much, much more dangerous candidate to the Democratic party than any of his Republican contemporaries.
If the 2008 election came down to Obama vs. Paul - that is a real debate I would have loved to see take place. And the final choice in the voting booth would have been much, much harder.


So true, so true. Unfortunately in the USA's political climate, the candidates up for SELection (not election mind you) wouldn't give him equal time and give the PEOPLE the opportunity to decide on their candidate. The individual parties select their primary short list of candidates and direct their electability through mass media campaigns and selective advertising. They sideline viable candidates, such as Ron Paul, by omitting him from the spotlight as much as possible.

Free and fair elections? No they aren't. Not in the least.

Actually, I don't find Ron Paul or libertarians dangerous as a Democrat at all.

Scenario One: Libertarians and Paul fail to garner electoral success. No gain or loss for Democrats.

Scenario Two: Paul's Campaign for Liberty hollows out the Republican Party and turns it into the Libertarian (but still pro-Life) party. Big Democratic gains here -- no more problems with torture from the opposition, no problems with legalizing gay marriage, or marijunana. In theory, they'd also help with all kinds of anti-corruption measures too (lobbying limits, campaign finance, etc.), and the reasonable ones might realize the environment really is an issue, and needs to be addressed by the state. Cap & trade where the proceeds are used to cut income taxes might actually become a viable compromise.

Scenario Three: Libertarians break off a sizable chunk of the Republican base, and America becomes a 3 party system. Assuming the groups are roughly even in size, they'll have to work together just to reach bare majorities in Congress, and two fully united parties could break filibusters. I'm not sure how that would work in practice, but it'd be fascinating to see for this political junkie.

The implications of Rand Paul running for Senate in KY works out the same way from my point of view; it's only good news.

However, the DSCC is still hoping Bunning decides to run, because then it becomes a possible Democratic pickup.

"Rand" Paul, "Ayn Rand" Paul?

Rand Paul == 1/10 his pure libertarian pop.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^That must be right.

*badrug.

Hm, my choice of the word "dangerous" may have been a poor one; I agree that Ron Paul is not a "threat" to the Democratic party in that he could dismantle or polarize it, I meant more in the sense that he presents a much more palatable and reasonable alternative to the stances that Democrats take - more so than any other Republican I can think of.

Also of note is his ability to actually AGREE with Democrats on certain points as opposed to being a contrarian Republican ("I must take the opposite position no matter what") that so many conservatives have become. As a whole, Ron Paul is a very appealing candidate even to me, a very progressive liberal (I'm so far left I'm not registered Democrat), because although he takes a more traditional stance on economic and foreign policy issues, he is extremely rational in his opinions and beliefs. Someone who can present an alternative point of view to many of the controversial positions Democrats take is exactly what is needed to help Republicans. I really want to see open and even-handed debate, not this lopsided mess that Republicans keep digging themselves deeper into.

I also really like his belief in the power of States' rights to ultimately make their own local decisions on whether to allow the most controversial issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Even though I wish there would be constitutional amendments for those sorts of major issues, he might be right that just letting the States themselves decide what they actually want to do would be the only way of actually getting those debates settled and the necessary legislation passed.

TL;DR version: Ron Paul is articulate and not a spluttering blowhard, and is not immune to the forces of social and generational change.

>> ^NetRunner:
Actually, I don't find Ron Paul or libertarians dangerous as a Democrat at all
...
The implications of Rand Paul running for Senate in KY works out the same way from my point of view; it's only good news.
However, the DSCC is still hoping Bunning decides to run, because then it becomes a possible Democratic pickup.

What I don't get is why the media shunned Paul so much. I just have no idea why they tried so damn hard to keep him off the radar. Even CNN's website on the primaries - Paul actually beat McCain in Arizona, and CNN decided it was so close that they put their names in alphabetical order. It was weird.

A new apprentice, Ron has.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Rachel Maddow, Rand Paul, Republicans, Torture, MSNBC, Politics' to 'Rachel Maddow, Rand Paul, Republicans, Torture, MSNBC, Politics, debut' - edited by MrFisk

*dead , tos

Invocations (dead) cannot be called by GeeSussFreeK because GeeSussFreeK is not privileged - sorry.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by NetRunner.

Awarding rasch187 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.