This is a major reason why I despise Ron Paul. He convinced donors to give him money based on this cockamamie and evolving strategy of getting delegates to the RNC convention. And what did they get out of it? Zippo. And the worst part is Paul knew all along it wouldn’t work.
First, Paul tried to convince people he knew the delegate process better than Mitt Romney and could successfully get enough delegates to steal the nomination. People gave him money in droves. Next, he changed the strategy so his delegates could influence the party platform as if that had any effect on real policy. People then gave him more money in droves. Following that the rumor was he was working a deal to either get Rand Paul on the ticket or a prime speaking role at the convention. People continued to donate their hard earned cash. None of the aforementioned stated goals ever came to fruition. In fact if you actually believed any of those goals then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Now the talking point is he is trying to lay the foundation to change the Republican Party in the coming years to a more libertarian philosophy.
In other words, there is no clear goal. He has found away to keep the wallets of his supporters open for an indeterminate amount of time. He can keep peddling this notion of transforming the GOP until he thinks of some other way to get your money. And people will keep writing checks. This frustrates me to no end because I hate seeing so many people get taken advantage.
If you think I’m wrong then answer this one question. If you can’t answer it off the top of your head then you’ve been hoodwinked: What is Ron Paul’s single greatest legislative accomplishment? How about his top 3? He’s been in and out of office since 1976. You’d think he’d accomplish something, right? If you did then you’d be wrong:
Of the 620 measures that Paul has sponsored, just four have made it to a vote on the House floor. Only that one has been signed into law.
House colleagues say the genial Paul has often shown little interest in the laborious one-on-one lobbying required to build a coalition behind his ideas. This year, for instance, Paul has sponsored 47 bills, including measures to withdraw from the United Nations, repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones and let private groups coin their own money.
None has moved, and 32 have failed to attract a single co-sponsor.
He’s a congressman. It’s his job to get legislation passed. He has a lifetime achievement of 0.2%. How exactly would he be an effective president? He can’t even do his current job effectively and he’s been trying since the 70′s. If hell froze over and he became the chief executive then what could we expect? More talk? Crazy chatter? No one would follow him because he’s not a leader. He’s a campaigner in futility.
Here is the reality of the situation. If you donated to Ron Paul because you believed in his message then you might be able to pat yourself on the back. Although I don’t agree with it since there isn’t really a clear direction and it seems to shift depending on Paul’s rant of the day, he still got to espouse it in debates and through the added attention of the campaign spotlight. If you donated to him because you thought he could become president then you were seriously ripped off. He is stringing people along for his own gain, and that’s just wrong. He knew he would never win the presidency and has gone on the record saying he never wanted to win in the first place. Running a message campaign has its limits. There have to be clear goals and Ron Paul didn’t meet any of them.
My prediction is he will follow the path of the Pat Buchanan people and fade into obscurity. With Paul out of office and if he never runs for president again then he will cease to be relevant. In 4 years I believe him and his followers will be a distant memory. Rand Paul has potential but does not carry the cult of personality of his father. The Paulites are already upset with him for endorsing Mitt Romney so you have to believe he won’t get the same type of following.