He still has to win that race in November, you know...that little one...

Romney/Bush/Clinton/Obama they are all in wallstreets back pocket. Unfortunately the majority of American's gobble up the whole Red Team vs Blue Team, Dems Vs Repubs, Libs Vs Conservatives paradigm... and this central-global banking scheme is perpetuated endlessly. Hopefully we can get Ron Paul in office, for the sake of us not starting 4 more wars in the next year.

Sorry I was probably being a bit obtuse... I was suggesting that the (very) likely winner of the Repub nomination, that is, one half of the electoral duopoly is... this guy. I'm mostly just trying to troll republicans and Momney supporters (if they exist online), so sorry about that. Yes god I would give a leg for Ron Paul to win

Hm. Not sure why you'd be upset that it's Romney. Especially seeing as coming into the election, there was talk of Palin or Bachmann being nominated. Compared to those children, the GOP managed to nominate one of the only adults in the room.

Now, Romney's going to lose to Obama, so none of it will matter, but it would have been embarrassing to watch an Obama - Palin election.

George Romney, Mitt's dad, was a very good, honorable moderate Republican.

Romeny would be fine, and the election will be close. If the euro collapses, which unfortunately looks a bit more likely after France's downgrade today, then it might not even be close, considering the cartoonish amount of economic chaos which would result worldwide. Chaos which could easily be spun by Republicans as the inevitable result of huge deficits, something Obama has excelled at. Of course, a war with Iran (especially one that starts over the Strait of Hormuz, where the US would look in the right) would tilt things over to Obama considerably. After all, Romney has zero experience wiht the military. Obama escalated a war, started another, ended yet another, and gave the go-ahead to kill bin Laden. But even these scenarios could be bunk with one factor included, like Libya or Iraq unraveling under Obama or Romney saying something stupid about the euro. Anyone who says for sure who will be president in 2013 is a fool.

Except for the very first four words of Invictus's post, I completely agree.

If Romney's unacceptable to you, President Eden, then no Republican is acceptable to you. That's fine if it's what you really believe, but don't pretend otherwise.

Uh, no, Ron Paul is quite acceptable to me. I don't even see how you reasoned that out. I think what you're implying is that Romney is the only Republican who can beat Obama in the general - but aside from the fact that I disagree with you there, how is it that electability must determine which Republican is acceptable to me?

Palin and Bachmann were never a real risk, they're mostly unelectable even with a sitting duck incumbent. The polling's never been good. As for Romney, his reputation as a hollow, opportunistic weather-vane is well earned, but it's worse than that - he brings literally nothing to the debates, he has no credibility, he's repudiates any less-bad policy positions he might have previously had, and he's basically being paid to be blind to the major crises facing the United States (budgetary, military overstretch, the economy, the political system). He will show us the true meaning of blandness. His father is irrelevant, but the descriptor 'honorable' sorta reminds me of this cartoon about Reagan http://minorjive.typepad.com/hungryblues/images/08Reagan.jpg

Koch you're probably right to the extent that Mitt just looks shit compared to the sliver of hope represented by Ron Paul.

rant acknowledged

Can anyone actually explain in what ways Romney might actually be better than Obama?

His hair and voice are sexy as hell? (No, really. That's not a slight to Romney's policies. Just sayin', the guy's got the appearance down pat.)

I dunno man...As a person with a US military base down the road Mitt Romney scares the flying fuck out of me. Obama as well, just slighty less so. His appearances are sort of neither here nor there when it comes to the consequential stuff

im not american or too learned in this whole topic, so try and keep the abuse to a minimum
if Romney won this does that mean that Ron Paul cannot be President in this election?

He could theoretically, if he ran as an independant. His chances of getting elected wouldn't be good though.

ah, okay.
because i am australian but have only recently taken an interest into american politics and am wondering how on earth ron paul lost. seeing as all my information has been received via the internet, im guessing that's why i think that ron paul has more support.
my question is how did ron paul lose?

wogboy - he's done *relatively* well in the primary contests, but he doesn't have Romney's level of support, finances or establishment backing. He might still be able to pull it off though, mostly because he does have a pretty amazing number of volunteer supporters and popular 'respect' (you know for being consistent on important issues for a hell of a long time)

would he risk running as an independent?
(i'm assuming that it would be considered 'jumping ship' but again i dont really have any clue)

also if he lost to romney in these elections then what hope does he have in the presidential elections?

About 0.
In America, there has never been an independent who has come close to getting the presidency. All they achieve is split their original party's vote, allowing the other side to win. See: Theodore Roosevelt 1912.

Running as an independant would cause many people to blame him if Romney lost by less votes than Paul got. Even if Romney lost by more than that, he'd make himself very unpopular with certain people.

As for his chances of winning, they're not good. He'd miss out on the votes that always go to the Republican candidate, a lot of people daren't vote for third party or independant candidates because they think their vote will be wasted, and liberals and moderates think him too much of an extremist to vote for so he'd probably do much worse than in the primaries.

ah, well i dont know why (i guess the internet propaganda has worked) but i find myself saddened by this

He's run as the Libertarian Party candidate before, which for all intents and purposes is indie. I hope to god he does if he doesn't get the nom, if only to get him into the debates which in itself would be a public service. Disaffection with Romney (and Obama) is pretty huge relative to anything seen in recent history so he *might* have a shot

I think personally that he'd rather not. The overarching aim of the Paul campaign has never been winning the presidency... instead, it's been about educating the youth and building a "new" right-wing with libertarian ideology instead of neoconservative ideology. That Paul has a legitimate chance to win the general election is a nifty extra.

In that case, President Eden, wouldn't it be even better for Ron Paul to run as the Libertatian Party candidate as octopus said, to get even more coverage during debates?

"The overarching aim of the Paul campaign has never been winning the presidency"

I must admit to taking some offense to that if that's his true intent though, Eden.

After all...the point of a political race is to decide the next leader...discussing the ideas, admittedly is how you choose said leader--or at least how it's supposed to be--but still, that's a means to an end.

Treating a presidential campaign as a chance to spew philosophical and political ideologies with the aim and goal NOT winning the presidency and leading the nation, but merely as a chance to grab the spotlight and give a Ron Paul PSA...

Well, it makes RP out to be something of a political troll, I'm afraid.

Keep in mind--as abohrrent as I find nearly all of his ideas, I don't have a problem with RP spewing them, per se, again, I hate his ideas, but I fully support the fact that he should have the same freedom to prattle on about eliminating the Federal Reserve and Deptartment of Education as I should have in calling him out for what I see him, a dated and potentially-racist dinosaur who seeks what is an unfeasible and regressive path for America.

So.

As much as I hate RP's ideas, he should be free to share them...

But he should NOT use a Presidential campaign as a platform from which to prattle without a serious intention of winning, or treating winning and leading as secondary.

This is a Presidential Race, NOT a debate or essay contest or online forum, and, accordingly, discussions and ideas should be a means towards an end, namely, leadership, and not the other way around.

He should treat this thing more seriously and for what it is, if that is indeed his position and what he's doing.

@wogboy: Not really. The LP gets virtually no coverage compared to Republicans and Democrats. Plus the main goal is to build the new right, which means your audience is primarily the right - Republicans - and thus running as a Republican gives you the best chance.

obi, it's not a spotlight-grabbing Ron Paul PSA. You're telling me educating the youth using the biggest platform in America is offensive? How? It's not like he doesn't care about winning... he wouldn't have such a huge, organized campaign if he had no aim at victory. But having seen how his followers go to engage other people, the primary aim is not conversion to Paul but conversion to libertarianism. Supporting Paul is a natural consequence, usually, but far better to convert someone to become part of an ever-growing ideological base which supports Paul and other liberty-minded candidates. It's like the old fishing slogan... instead of just handing 'em a Ron Paul 2012 sticker, why not teach them about the libertarian platform and win their hearts that way?

Holy crap. So the presidential race is NOT an appropriate platform on which to win the minds of the people behind the policies that will direct the country?

Please tell me you're not arguing that, and that you'll redact that statement, because that's about as indefensible as they come.

Obi, does 'leadership' just mean telling other people what to do, in this context? Eden's right, if the election isn't about policy but about personality then politics dun broke in America. Also silly to think of winning the presidency and building a movement as contradictory goals ('does he want to do A or B?'): they're obviously incredibly mutually constitutive.