Ron Paul 2004

[Corned Beef Renegade]

I voted for Badnarik in 2004. He essentially said all the same things that Ron Paul said in 2008, but had no traction because Iraq was not considered a quagmire yet.

In 2008, Paul got attention because he was the only person saying the obvious (when it comes to war, no one supports his views on Civil Rights) in a room of 10 people during a debate. However, in 2004 he would not be viewed as right (though he would have been.)

Iraq was considered a quagmire and another Vietnam to a lot of people on the left from the start. I guess that it took a while to become a more widely accepted view.

 

[iddt3]

2004 would have been way too early for Ron Paul. While a lot of Republicans would have loved his small government proposals, the party was still very much controlled by the War Hawks. After all, the Iraq War still hadn't turned into the utter disaster it would become.

2008 was much better. Ron established his credentials, organized the caucuses and did extremely well in identifying his fanatical base. His son also managed to establish himself in the Senate in 2010 and will inherit that machinery. The Revolution will happen, its just going to take a little time

Right... that's geological time right? I love that a nominally anti establishment individualist group is perfectly OK with multi-generational personality cults.

 

[Corned Beef Renegade]

Right... that's geological time right? I love that a nominally anti establishment individualist group is perfectly OK with multi-generational personality cults.

You speaketh Ill of the doctor? The NWO Rothschild illuminati zionists must have chemtrailed your brain with Monsanto Floride! Wake up sheeple

 

[Emperor Julian]

"President Joe Lieberman" sounds look the perfect recipe for a strong Ron Paul performance in 2004 (no, he won't win the Republican nomination without everything going to Hell).

How bad can Iraq or Afghanistan get by 2004? Maybe Cheney gets in power instead of Bush and invades Iran and Syria as well?

 

[LordKalvert]

Right... that's geological time right? I love that a nominally anti establishment individualist group is perfectly OK with multi-generational personality cults.

I would prefer a storm the beaches revolution but hey, you take what you can get

 

[Orville_third]

"President Joe Lieberman" sounds look the perfect recipe for a strong Ron Paul performance in 2004 (no, he won't win the Republican nomination without everything going to Hell).

How bad can Iraq or Afghanistan get by 2004? Maybe Cheney gets in power instead of Bush and invades Iran and Syria as well?

I have three ways he can pick Lieberman:
1. Bush tries to look "bipartisan" when he picks his running mate. Further, numerous Republicans backed Lieberman over Republican Alan Schlesinger in 2008.
2. Dick Cheney's Texas voter registration is ruled to be proof of his Texas residency, thus making Texas vote for a different VP pick.
3. The election dispute goes to the House and Senate. Bush gets sworn in as President with Lieberman as VP. They get along so well that Bush keeps him.

All that has to happen after that is Bush having something bad happen...

 

[pattersonautobody]

Iraq was considered a quagmire and another Vietnam to a lot of people on the left from the start. I guess that it took a while to become a more widely accepted view.

To be fair, I think there were a lot of right wingers (like me) uncomfortable with the left but unaware there was someone who shared their views. They were convinced only if people knew Ron Paul was, they would be enthralled with him (hence the "Google Ron Paul" blimp.)

I was in college back in 03-04. Dark times to be telling conservatives they were hypocrites and the war in Iraq was unjust and a disaster.

 

[iddt3]

I would prefer a storm the beaches revolution but hey, you take what you can get

What revolution? His views are a mix of classic paleo conservatism and outright reactionary nonsense. He's just appealing to people's discomfort with the complexities of modern life by advocating a return to some weird nostalgic version of pre 20th century US politics. Add to that he's only a libertarian at the National level, at the state level the policies he wants are moralistic authoritarianism. Successfully Primarying a sitting president is already nearly impossible, trying that in 2004 with a less extreme Republican party, with a candidate who's views are massively unpopular with said party at that moment (Anti War is the big one, but his views on pretty much everything else aren't going hold much attraction for the GOP of that era either), is a recipe for irrelvency.

Ron Pauls current popularity is only possible in the context of failed foreign wars and economic meltdowns that dramatically undermine confidence in politics as usual. Trying the same note when the GOP is riding on economic and military triumphalism, and expecting it to have the same resonance it has now completely misses how context sensitive politics are.

 

[Orville_third]

You are forgetting the Duelfer and Kay reports which came out in 2004 and which should have ruined the careers of anyone who claimed that Iraq had WMD. Of course, a major factor is the media, most of which was in the tank for an invasion of Iraq, and who was mostly proven dead wrong, with a few exceptions, most of which were partisan (The Nation, Counterpunch, Pacifica Radio, The American Conservative).
If more media outlets were willing to report things that contradicted the establishment push for war (like, for example, if media outlets dug up Hussein Kamil's interview where he stated Iraq was disarmed- in 1995), we could see not only Ron Paul, but other antiwar candidates getting better coverage.