Why The Ron Paul Presidential Run Will Be A MUCH Bigger Deal This Time Around

Ron PaulWill Ron Paul be a serious presidential contender for the 2012 election? Joe Weisenthal writes for Business Insider:

It’s just obvious that in the last four years, since the last time Ron Paul ran for President, the ideological center of gravity in the GOP — and the whole country for that matter — has shifted a lot closer to Ron Paul’s position.

In 2008, Paul ran a cult campaign as a libertarian, anti-Fed, anti-war Republican.

At the time, nobody in the GOP really cared about the Fed, and for the most part, Bush’s wars enjoyed broad support.

Today they’re Obama’s wars, and the Fed is one of the most disliked institutions around, taking daily abuse even from mainstream outlets like CNBC.

It’s inconceivable to think that in the GOP primary, candidates won’t be asked for their position on Bernanke, quantitative easing, the role of the dollar, and of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has made a career on all these issues. In fact, after decades fighting his fight, he must be somewhat shocked that in just the last few years, his ideology has become so popular (or maybe he’s shocked that it took so long).

In 2008, the GOP primary was dominated by Serious candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain and Fred Thompson and even Rudy Giuliani. They were content to basically ignore what Ron Paul had to say. This time, they’ll be fighting on his turf.

For more information, see original article.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • http://twitter.com/D351 D351

    Woo hoo! Another never-gonna-get-elected to march right next to Trump and split the conservative vote. Now, if only we could get an anarchist candidate and a pirate candidate in the news, things could get really interesting…

  • http://twitter.com/D351 D351

    Woo hoo! Another never-gonna-get-elected to march right next to Trump and split the conservative vote. Now, if only we could get an anarchist candidate and a pirate candidate in the news, things could get really interesting…

    • FaultyAssumptions

      You are making the faulty assumption that only conservatives will vote for Paul. I am as liberal/progressive as they come and will not be voting for Obama again…

  • Shamanica

    Government is never going to bring about positive changes in society, it never has.

  • Monkey See Monkey Do

    Government is never going to bring about positive changes in society, it never has.

    • ArgosyJones

      Except how it eliminated polio and measles through mandatory vaccinations, and provides the basic framework that enables people to co-operate on a day to day basis, such as laws, police and courts, and in many countries ensures the health of all of it’s citizens, then yes, government never brings about positive changes in society.

      Well, except for when it does I guess.

      • Sroek

        “laws, police and courts”

        Naive motherfucker.

        • ArgosyJones

          Laws, police and courts are better than the actually available alternatives, Sroek. Until somebody shows me otherwise, I don’t think I’m being Naive in the least.

          • Anonymous_Reader

            “ensures the health of all of it’s citizens” … you mean “ensures the health of the bottom line of the medical-industrial complex.”

  • Anonymous

    If he goes after the Fed, tries to eliminate it or tries to print debt-free currency, he WILL end up like JFK. No question. Money controls the world. Governments are the tools of the international banking cartel. He cannot eliminate the Federal Reserve. He would have to declare war on the entire worldwide banking system.

    No matter who runs for office, they will tell us what they think we want to hear in order to get elected, but then it will be business as usual. End the war? Close Gitmo? Eliminate the Fed? ROFLMAO!

  • Anonymous_Reader

    If he goes after the Fed, tries to eliminate it or tries to print debt-free currency, he WILL end up like JFK. No question. Money controls the world. Governments are the tools of the international banking cartel. He cannot eliminate the Federal Reserve. He would have to declare war on the entire worldwide banking system.

    No matter who runs for office, they will tell us what they think we want to hear in order to get elected, but then it will be business as usual. End the war? Close Gitmo? Eliminate the Fed? ROFLMAO!

  • FaultyAssumptions

    You are making the faulty assumption that only conservatives will vote for Paul. I am as liberal/progressive as they come and will not be voting for Obama again…

  • ArgosyJones

    Except how it eliminated polio and measles through mandatory vaccinations, and provides the basic framework that enables people to co-operate on a day to day basis, such as laws, police and courts, and in many countries ensures the health of all of it’s citizens, then yes, government never brings about positive changes in society.

    Well, except for when it does I guess.

  • ArgosyJones

    He is such an attention whore.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      Isn’t that the definition of any political candidate?

  • ArgosyJones

    He is such an attention whore.

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    Isn’t that the definition of any political candidate?

  • Sroek

    “laws, police and courts”

    Naive motherfucker.

  • ArgosyJones

    Laws, police and courts are better than the actually available alternatives, Sroek. Until somebody shows me otherwise, I don’t think I’m being Naive in the least.

  • Anonymous

    “ensures the health of all of it’s citizens” … you mean “ensures the health of the bottom line of the medical-industrial complex.”

21