Ron Paul-- and the 'Pink Slip'

The Weekly Standard ^ | February 1, 2012 | Jim Prevor

[JimPrevor]

As such, the Obama/Clinton/Biden analogy rings hollow. Though every candidate might have his own specific plan, and one can prefer a candidate for myriad reasons, there was never any serious ideological split between these candidates. So handling the end of the primary season and attempting to unify the party, required massaging egos and satisfying personal ambition. Thus, the approach the Welches are proposing here – giving consolation prizes to the losers so they feel connected and valued – makes sense only in that context.

When, however, there are substantive policy differences, the efforts to make the losers feel valued can wind up allowing the public to associate the policies and beliefs of the losers with those of the eventual nominee.

Consider Pat Buchanan’s 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention. Buchanan was given the opportunity to give the keynote address and endorsed the reelection of President George H.W. Bush. In a sense, Republican leadership followed the advice the Welches are urging on this year’s eventual nominee: “Whatever speaking role Dr. Paul wants at the convention, give it to him.”

Yet it is not clear that it helped the Bush/Quayle ticket. Many analysts believe that Buchanan’s angry speech, which, heavy to social issues such as abortion, became known as the “Culture Wars” speech, alienated moderates from the ticket.

[JimPrevor]

Allowing a speech at the convention that is discordant with a nominee’s positions is only going to lead to confusion and alienation. Bringing in advisers whose advice a nominee has already decided to reject is a recipe for a blow-up later on when supporters learn the advisory role was disingenuous.

[oblomov]

I think it’s better to have a nominee with actual opinions and policy ideas. Then the other speeches at the convention won’t confuse viewers.

Once Bush I broke his tax pledge, it was difficult to imagine him having conviction about anything.

[svcw]

Having alterPaul given any place of “honor” would be a stupid move. You would end up with a twenty-five minute speech of incoherent/delusional ramblings plus sound bites used against the nominee.

[Vermont Lt]

Giving him 25 minutes to rant, keep it on the economy and the congress, and then you will not have to deal with him in a 3rd party.

I think most folks agree with 90% of what he says. They do not agree with his foreign policy or his 9/11 crap. But I do agree with his mistrust of the Fed and the stuff he says about Congress...even though he doesnt always follow his own advice.

That said, the powers that be CAN agree to let him speak without rambling about his feelings about Islam and the Middle east.

[Tribune7]

Many analysts believe that Buchanan’s angry speech, which, heavy to social issues such as abortion, became known as the “Culture Wars” speech, alienated moderates from the ticket.

If Ross Perot didn't run Bush would have won.

While Perot ran as a pro-abort -- as did Bush in '80-- what truly motivated him was

1. A dislike for Bush's economic policy

2. A really strong dislike for Bush

And Bush's bragging about a "new world order" was far more damaging to him than anything Buchanan said.