James Ostrowski
Lew
Rockwell.com
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
I got accused of "hubris" for writing that Ron Paul
is Hillary’s worst nightmare. I’m not sure that my
confidence in the candidacy of another can be considered hubris
but I won’t quibble over that.
[Full disclosure. I only met Ron Paul once and am not involved
in his campaign in any way. I only know what I read on the web.]
Here’s my point. I warned those leaning to Bush over Kerry
in 2004 that a Bush win could put Hillary in the White House for
two terms. I’m sure many laughed at that line also. Now,
Hillary has to be considered the clear favorite to win the Presidency.
She leads the Democratic candidates in the polls and number two
is Barack Obama whose entire résumé says: "very
good public speaker." That’s a very good place to be.
(By the way, I’m sure many also laughed when I predicted
on December 3, 2003, that John Kerry would be the Democratic nominee.)
Many people cannot believe that Hillary has a chance because
everyone they know dislikes her. But that’s because birds
of a feather flock together. Your friends are not a scientific
survey.
Now look over at the Republican side and start laughing. Rudy
Giuliani and Newt Gingrich? Call Dr. Laura; you need her badly.
McCain’s in there too. Ron Paul versus three establishment
centrists who supported the war sounds like a good scenario in
the Republican primaries.
Pre-Ron Paul, John McCain was the presumptive nominee in my view.
For many reasons I believed Hillary would beat him. Reason number
one is his ferocious support of the failed war in Iraq. If it’s
Hillary versus McCain, Hillary has the good fortune of being the
antiwar choice even though she supported the war.
All that being the case, why in the world would she want to upset
the applecart and face an unknown commodity like Ron Paul? She
has nothing to gain and everything to lose. The expression "beware
of the amateur" comes to mind. Not that Ron Paul is an amateur
but the principle applies just the same. Hillary knows exactly
what McCain will do and say, but she has no playbook on Ron Paul.
Nobody does. It’s an entirely unpredictable race. She’d
take McCain any day over the Great Unknown.
Now, consider the fact that on the key issue of the campaign,
the Iraq War, Ron Paul beats Hillary. He voted against the war
and she for it. On three other key issues, the economy, immigration
and health care, Ron Paul’s views should fare quite well
against Hillary’s.
So, when I say people should take Ron Paul seriously, I’m
not just whistling Dixie. Which brings to mind another reason
to take him seriously: Southerners tend to win the White House.
A Ron Paul candidacy in the Republican primaries is a historic
opportunity. The last Jeffersonian president was Buffalo’s
own Grover Cleveland who left office in 1897. This campaign is
an opportunity to take care of a lot of "old business"
that has accumulated since that time.
History shows that major political change happens like an earthquake.
Energy builds up slowly over time, hemmed in by the enormous power
of the status quo. Then, just one more calorie of energy can cause
an enormous earthquake. And just like real earthquakes, political
earthquakes are impossible to predict in advance. They only seemed
inevitable after the fact.
All I’m saying is that the Ron Paul campaign could be a
political earthquake. We won’t and can’t know until
after the fact.
So far, the establishment press has largely ignored or dismissed
his candidacy. That’s good! That means that if he becomes
a serious candidate, it will be a victory for the blogosphere
against the establishment press. In the meantime, enjoy the ride.
How often do you have a chance to strike the same blow against
the political establishment and its partner in crime, the establishment
press?
Email
