Ron Paul Would Save the Constitution

Noting Ron Paul’s sponsorship of such bills as “American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007,” Andrew Sullivan proclaims that “Only one candidate will really” defend the Constitution.

If ever there were a time for the subjunctive mood, this is it. While a theoretical President Ron Paul might well defend the Constitution better than any of his competitors, the chances of his election are slightly lower than that of the Miami Dolphins to win this year’s Super Bowl.

FILED UNDER: General, , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Steve Verdon says:

    While a theoretical President Ron Paul might well defend the Constitution better than any of his competitors, the chances of his election are slightly lower than that of the Miami Dolphins to win this year’s Super Bowl.

    Doesn’t really speak well of the American publics regard for the Constitution.

  2. Dave Schuler says:

    Trolling for bots again, eh James?

  3. James Joyner says:

    Doesn’t really speak well of the American publics regard for the Constitution.

    I don’t expect the electorate to make choices based on abstract theories. And, frankly, it’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle on things like the IRS.

    Trolling for bots again, eh James?

    Heh. It’s just a fascinating phenomenon. I’m not surprised that people like Sullivan find Paul’s message appealing, just that they take the candidacy seriously.

  4. Alex Knapp says:

    I’m not surprised that people like Sullivan find Paul’s message appealing, just that they take the candidacy seriously.

    Doesn’t this attitude lead to some self-fulfilling prophecies, though? If journalists dismiss candidates and don’t give them much coverage, doesn’t that create a positive feedback loop that determines that the only “viable” candidates are those that journalists say are viable candidates?

    To take Paul as an example, in most polls I’ve seen, over 70% of those polled haven’t ever heard of him. If the media dismisses his candidacy as “not viable”, he won’t get covered, and that 70% of the population won’t be exposed to a candidate to whom many might be attracted to.

  5. Alex Hammer says:

    Comment in violation of site policies deleted.

    Those wishing to buy candidate advertising should send inquiries to otb@blogads.com

  6. James Joyner says:

    Doesn’t this attitude lead to some self-fulfilling prophecies, though?

    Sure, although it’s inevitable. You have to draw a line somewhere and it’s just incredibly implausible that a backbench House Member with ideas as far outside the mainstream as Paul will catch fire.

    To be sure, more media coverage would help. But that means taking away coverage from people who are much more plausible candidates.

  7. Steve Verdon says:

    I don’t expect the electorate to make choices based on abstract theories. And, frankly, it’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle on things like the IRS.

    Doesn’t bode well for the future of this country. All the railing about the erosion of freedoms that we hear these days, it really doesn’t matter in the end.

  8. James Joyner says:

    All the railing about the erosion of freedoms that we hear these days, it really doesn’t matter in the end.

    Probably not. I’m not sure there’s all that much railing, really, outside the libertarian-right blogsosphere and the Netroots. And the latter is likely concerned about liberties only because Bush is the one trampling them; if Hillary gets in there, they’ll likely pipe down.

  9. Michael says:

    Those wishing to buy candidate advertising should send inquiries to otb@blogads.com

    Come on, admit it, you posted this story just for the fun of sticking it to the Ron Paul or Huckabee supporters who come over to troll.

    It’s like Peanuts’ Lucy holding the football:

    Come on little Ron Paul supporter, tell us about how glorious your candidate is, we’ll take you seriously this time….

    DELETED!

    Ha ha ha, they fall for it every time.

  10. Beth says:

    I see the dedicated spammer Disciple “Alex Hammer” has crapped his copypasta spam here, too. And the Paultards get pissed when we call them “spammers.” Heh.

    Doesn’t really speak well of the American publics regard for the Constitution.

    Yeah, yeah, we know, Strawman Steve. If you’re against Ron Paul the Messiah, you’re against America, the Constitution, freedom, capitalism, and fluffy kittens.

    /eyeroll

  11. James Joyner says:

    Come on little Ron Paul supporter, tell us about how glorious your candidate is, we’ll take you seriously this time….

    DELETED!

    Heh. Pro-Paul comments are fine. Long, drive-by posts — especially those with multiple links — are deleted, though. That’s true for all the candidates, though.

    I’m a lot more lenient in that regard with regular commenters, too.

  12. Mark Jaquith says:

    If ever there were a time for the subjunctive mood, this is it.

    I trust that I can safely skip the subjunctive when I say: “One of either Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton will further destroy the Constitution.”

    You’ll have to pardon my preference for the less plausible but infinitely less depressing Ron Paul sentence.

  13. Michael says:

    Heh. Pro-Paul comments are fine. Long, drive-by posts — especially those with multiple links — are deleted, though.

    Wait, you mean it’s possible to have a Pro-Paul comment that isn’t a long, drive-by troll? Next you’ll tell me it’s possible to have a conversation with Kucinich supporters too.

  14. Pete says:

    Booga!

  15. Dodd says:

    While a theoretical President Ron Paul might well defend the Constitution better than any of his competitors, the chances of his election are slightly lower than that of the Miami Dolphins to win this year’s Super Bowl.

    Now that’s just not fair. Ron Paul’s statistical probability of winning is orders of magnitude higher than the Fins’ of winning the Super Bowl.

    Put another way, Ron Paul has a non-zero chance of resorting to the indicative mood, while the Fins have only the subjunctive left their prospects this season, including for not finishing 0-16. This should not, of course, be construed as implying that such an improvement of Paul’s grammatical prospects is in any way probable; rather, it is merely highly improbable, as opposed to all but impossible.

    P.S. I confess that I, too, wondered if you were trolling the fringes. Or pining for the fjords. Or something.