 Rep. Ron Paul, (R-TX) waves after he announced his candidacy for U.S. president May 13, 2011 at Exeter Town Hall in Exeter, New Hampshire. Paul was the second republican last week to announce his candidacy, with fellow republican Newt Gingrich also announcing earlier in the week. Salon's Kornacki rates 2012 GOP candidatesONLY ON THE BLOG: Answering today's OFF-SET questions is Steve Kornacki, the news editor for Salon.com.  He’s previously written about politics for the New York Observer and Roll Call, and his work has also appeared in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and on the Daily Beast. And he's a frequent In The Arena guest. On Friday, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) announced that he will run for his party's presidential nomination in 2012. He has run twice before. What do you think he has learned from those two experiences? From his first run in 1988 (as the Libertarian nominee against George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis), he learned that he's not bigger than the two-party system. As a Republican, he'd served in Congress for four terms and had run for the Senate in Texas in 1984, but as a third party presidential candidate, he was treated as an absolute nobody and he made zero impact on the race. Moreover, the experience left him in the political wilderness for a decade; it was a minor miracle that he managed to win back a seat in the House in 1996 (when he defeated Greg Laughlin, a Democrat-turned-Republican congressman who ran with the national GOP's full backing). From that point on, Ron Paul has never hesitated to speak his mind and buck the GOP leadership - but he's done so as a member of the party. From his 2008 campaign, he learned (and we all learned) how much easier it's become for candidates to raise serious money and convey their messages to activists. On paper, Paul should not have made a dent in '08 - a 73-year-old House backbencher with a shaky, confused speaking style. But he made it into the debates, brought in big bucks, and did respectably in the early contests. And he ermeged as a genuine political celebrity. So why not do it again? He can't win, but he'll get a lot of attention. So when you look at the top-rated Republicans—Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, Michele Bachman and Rick Santorum—what picture in your mind is forming so far about the 2012 race? Which GOP candidates intrigue you the most? My sense of the field is that there are three likely candidates who have very real chances of winning the nomination: Romney, Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels. The there are a bunch who are sideshows - they have no chance of winning, but they could impact the debate and (at the very least) provide some entertainment: Gingrich, Santorum, Herman Cain, Bachmann, etc. I don't consider Trump a serious potential candidate; his standing in polls is already declining rapidly, and his brief rise a few weeks said a lot more about the state of the GOP than it did his seriousness. I have no clue what Palin will do, but I am convinced she won't win the nomination if she were to run; the GOP "elites" - influential activists, commentators and opinion-shapers in the party - seems to have turned decisively against her, and they've used their platforms to erode her standing with the rank-and-file. I really don't agree with the idea that Romney is now dead in the water, thanks to healthcare. That doesn't mean he won't take significant abuse within the party - he already is, and I imagine it will endure for a while. But I liken this to John McCain with immigration (and his long history of insulting the GOP base) in 2007. For a time, it killed his campaign. But then, many (but hardly all) GOP elites looked around, didn't like their other options, and came back to him. They worked backward from there, devising all sorts of justifications and rationalizations for ignoring his apostasies, and then sold those justifications and rationalizations to rank-and-file GOP primary voters. It was enough for McCain to come back and win. And it could work for Romney too, especially against this competition. (Editor’s note: CLICK HERE to read CNN PoliticalTicker coverage of Mike Huckabee’s decision not to run.)
In your view, how has the killing of bin Laden changed Mr. Obama’s re-election prospects? Barely, if at all. It's pretty well-established, I think, that his polling spike will be temporary. I guess there's some long-term value in the fact that this takes the air out of the GOP's attempts to convince swing voters that Obama is "another Jimmy Carter" - a weak, indecisive leader and so on. In a close election next year, anything could make the difference; so denying the GOP this line of attack end up having an impact. But basically, it will be the economy that decides Obama's fate. If economic anxiety is as high as it is now (or worse), he'll lose. If it's improved significantly, he'll win with ease. If it's somewhere in between - it will be a toss-up. How much do you think the 2012 election will be about the candidates’ messages versus their ability to raise the millions necessary to reach the finish line? Or, is it just about jobs and the economy? Like I said above, it's basically all about the economy. The ideal model for Obama has long been Ronald Reagan, who faced a brutal recession during his first two years in office (and suffered a drubbing in the 1982 midterms), only to watch growth soar in Years 3 and 4 and win a landslide, 49-state reelection. But the nature of this recession is different; that kind of rapid recovery just isn't happening, and won't. The question, then, is whether the economy can improve enough for swing voters to include that Obama has the country moving in the right direction. The flip side to 1984 is what happened to George H.W. Bush in 1992, when unemployment was well over 7 percent on Election Day. technically, the early '90s recession had already ended, but it didn't feel that way to swing voters yet. Against that backdrop, Bush's insistence that the worst was over and good times were just around the corner fell on deaf ears - and swing voters were very receptive to Bill Clinton's claims that major philosophical (and generational) change was necessary. CLICK HERE to read Richard Viguerie's answers to the same questions. CLICK HERE to read Tim Phillips' answers. |
  @inthearena on Twitter Last night was our final show. Thanks so much for your support. What will you miss most about the show? #cnn inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/04/mar…
Columnist Laura Washington and @nprscottsimon revealed their 50th birthday wishes for President @BarackObama. #cnn inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/05/50t…
#Debt commission co-chair Alan Simpson slams the "disappointing" debt deal, saying Washington is "dysfunctional." #cnn inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/04/deb…
Ben Stein says we may very well be headed towards a double-dip recession, but "things are not that terrible." #cnn inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/04/ste…
Our last show is 2nite, please join us at 8pm ET. One of our favorites was @FareedZakaria, who was on last night! #cnn inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/03/zak…
 |
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
So you write a long analysis of Republican candidates and you don't mention Gary Johnson?
Why not?
- He was a two-term GOP Governor in the 1990s and 2000s
- He was the most fiscally conservative Governor in the nation, saving New Mexico taxpayers billions
- Before politics, he was a successful entrepreneur who built his own company and created jobs using his hard work alone
- He has a proven record of political success: he won both of his statewide elections by 10 points
CNN ought to be embarrassed by this sort of sloppy, superficial, incomplete coverage.
Gary, is that you?
Johnson is my second choice for the nomination, and I expect he will be just as unfairly discounted as my first choice. Look at how the media ignored or trivialized Ron Paul in 2008, and how they are already doing it again. The Libertarian message is obviously becoming more influential despite the obvious attempts by the GOP, the Democrats and the media outlets they control to discredit it. Fox will likely exclude Johnson and Paul from their debates, and CNN will try to paint them as "fringe candidates" if they mention them at all. All the while more people from both sides of the political spectrum are embracing the Libertarian principles and pragmatic policies. In 2008 we had one Libertarian running for the nomination, now we have 2, next we'll have 3 and so on until the Falwellian social conservatives no longer run the party.
Note that McCain won the nomination but the base wouldn't turn out to vote for him. Pawlenty and Romney would have the same effect. Daniels needs more study.
I think you might be surprised at Ron Paul's impact this race. He may not win, but he may well be the 'conservative alternative' for the base, imho.
I think Ron Paul is quite abit more than a seventy something year old man with a shaky voice. This article is crap in my opinion.
Right on. He doesnt even acknowledge the fact that Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll. If people actually researched what Ron Paul was about he would be the PEOPLES choice.
Unfortunatly his is poor reporting on Ron Paul. I think it's bad reporting and mostly personal opinion to say "Ron Paul won't win." Anything is possible, as we saw in the 2010 election with all the "Tea Party" members entering the arena.
I for one happily voted for Obama in 2008, and I've been very unhappy since. Simply becuase of the ammount of money he has allowed to be printed by the Fed and how he waited two years before even address the debt level. I work in media and I'm seeing a 10 to 20 percent hike in media prices next year(2011) alone. This means our dollar will lose an average 15% of it's value very shortly. In a form, this is a tax on everyone. So basically, he printed money to cover the 800billion bail out, gave it to the bankers, banks are saved, they loan money and make more money while our dollars lose value, our wages remain flat and the general population suffers. If you doubt how much he printed, google it. It's alarming and scary. This in basic form, is completely insane! I've discovered Ron Paul is really the only candidate that seems to be even addressing this issue. As of the moment he announced he was runnning in 2012, he has my vote, and honestly I'm seeing most of my friends and family starting to wake up like I did and are starting to listen to this guy too. Even if he isn't elected (which i really hope he is, because I feel he is our only hope) I hope other politicians will start to take a page out of his book about the economy and controling the Fed.
Agree.
The first question asks what Paul has learned from his previous campaigns, not if he can win the nomination (Why do people feel like they have to say this, really?). From what I can tell, Paul hasn't really been doing anything different at all. He still holds the same views for limited government and our state of liberty, that he has in the past. It's the consistency and honesty of his views that has been gaining ground with a growing number of Americans. People are looking at him raise the same points and questions about government and are finally starting to listen. However, it does appear that this time around Paul is getting better at confronting distorted images about his principles and beliefs, but that can be attributed to more time with the media.
The editor's interjection about Paul's chance to win is irrelevant. I'm assuming that when people say this its because Paul's views are so far away from the mainstream. With his ideas gaining so much ground and support, anything is possible. Please, ignore opinion comments like this, look into the foundation of his principles and decide for yourself.
Once again we see the media discounting Ron Paul unfairly. "He can't win" and "isn't viable" are code for "I don't have a reasonable argument, so I'll just just try to convince you that it's not realistic to vote for him." We are told over and over who the "viable" candidates are in an attempt to validate them. Vote your conscious, and every candidate is viable. Vote how you've been told and we're stuck with more of the same. Don't let the media pick our candidates.
So sick of these trash articles and their writers who are so dumb they can't even at least cite an argument against Ron Paul, all they can do is something a grade school child would do – cry 'he can't win!'
I think it's hilarious that the illiterates who write these articles think *they* decide who will win, and who will not win. All mainstream media is plummeting in ratings by the day. Why? Because most Americans just don't buy your trash anymore.
I am with you. I think many Americans feel this way.
I'm sorry to tell you but America has already become trash, look around.
This might be the most pathetic article I've ever read. Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul is picking up a lot of steam.
He'd easily be the best president.
Ron Paul 2012!
'he can't win!'... That may have been the case last election before social media gained much influence in elections, before the tea party, and before all of the comments on this article about all the GOP candidates where about how this very quote is incorrect.
We are ready to be active, we are educating our family and friends, we see our vote as more than just one in a million, we count our voice as more than just part of the crowd. As true hard working Americans we want control of how are money is spent back and to choose when we borrow rather than having our "representatives" borrow in our name.
I will vote for Ron Paul in the primaries (age 23) because if you really honestly look at the government spending you know you are better off paying less taxes having a balanced budget and possibly saving for your own retirement in solid currency. Than hoping you win the roulette and get social security and medicare at the cost of at least ten cents on every dollar I earn and that that same ten cents will be worth anything when we retire.
I can't stop this gets me fired up but my dad could buy a candy bar for five cents now its 75 cents at best. That makes me feel like if politics continue as they are. They will very likely need to create notes and coins with higher values on them like countries I have visited in south america. Is it really worth it? Does it really make it so you don't need to worry about retirement and healthcare? Even if your late fifties let alone twenty three like me.
While I agree that Ron Paul doesn't have the likeliest chance of winning the Republican nomination, it is only because so many republicans don't get it.
The issue is like this, all those people who would vote for Romney over Obama (if Romney won the nomination), would also vote for Ron Paul over Obama (if Ron Paul won the nomination). However, the opposite isn't true. All those who would vote for Ron Paul wouldn't necessarily vote for Romney, a lot would, but Ron Paul supporters like him because he is principled, and won't stand to vote for either Obama or Romney.
Essentially, maybe only 5% of people like Ron Paul, but the GOP can't win without that 5% in the matchup against Obama. So whereas, yes people are afraid of extreme ideas like liberty, and free market capitalism, and non interventionism (the communists think those ideas are extreme too) so therefore Ron Paul won't win the nomination, by him not winning, the GOP guarantees to lose the election.
Be responsible for your own thinking and actions. Majority against Ron Paul or Gary Johnson are the ones in power, AKA: getting rich with lifetime retirement/bennies/and protection from you and I- the bosses that "hired" them. Do your own research and know who you are sending to UPHOLD the oath of office. America has been fine, the problem is the people we sent to live and die by this oath are not. We don't need "new" America anything, we need America's beliefs exercised and lived according to those principles, NOT a takeover or weakened anyfurther. IN GOD WE TRUST, is America's motto, not in media we trust.
The average American has no idea who Pawlenty and Daniels are. They are apparently beneficiaries of the Republican 'adult' meme that folks like 'Kornacki' get sustenance from. Johnson should have as equal a claim in this regard. Unknown governors that is.
With Trump and the Huck out, the twenty five percent of the GOP represented by Romney cannot overcome the Obamacare wannabee smear. Newt dumped two wives and won't get the social conservatives also. This will be a tired lame political season without Ron Paul stirring things up.
Nice review! This is exactly the type of blog post that should be shared around the internet. Sad on the search engines for not ranking this blog post higher!
The author is just another big government cheerleader. In the last four years both sides have learned that big media can't be trusted and does not have any interest in providing the people with unbiased information. Kick and scream and cry all you want. No matter what you do, Ron Paul is a freight train barreling towards the Whitehouse like an unstoppable juggernaut.
You seriously underestimate the political saavy of Ron Paul. Do not forget he also learned from his last presidential run how to channel the energy into a sustainable PAC, move from back bench to a position of House leadership, and become chairman of the monetary committee. And of course his celebrity translates into folk music songs about him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZSvKWVp-kY
Total hit piece aimed at Ron Paul. I suggest readers take a look at polls (and actually read the poll questions, lest they monkey the headline on that too). CNN (owned by Time Warner) knows a lot about rigging polls. A LOT. Maybe it's this sort of yellow journalism that got your guys worth @ $350 billion in 2000 to less than $40 billion today.
And now you want to pass of a guy whose media company sells at 12 cents a share as a political analyst instead of a hack?
The gig is up CNN. Why don't you go back to doing 30 second segments about trash cans and rain and leave deciding who is and isn't a viable candidate to the voters. Maybe Jay Kernis and Steve Kornacki are kicking themselves for taking stock options instead of bullion for their retirements, which will be coming a lot sooner than they think.