Republican Ron Paul predicts a President Obama come January

Rep. Ron Paul, the House member from Texas who technically remains in the race for the Republican Party's presidential nomination against Sen. John McCain, predicts that Democratic Sen. Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States.

According to the campus newspaper of Maryland's Goucher College, the 72-year-old Paul made the surprising statement during campaign remarks Thursday at a school presidential forum.

The newspaper report said the auditorium was overflowing with students and parents, who interrupted the congressman with applause nearly two dozen times during his speech.

Paul was very successful in political fundraising during the past year, amassing more than $34 million, more than twice the amount collected by more prominent candidates such as ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee.

But Paul, whose views often run counter to standard Republican policies, had very disapppointing showings in party primary elections, with a couple of second-place caucus results but mainly third-, fourth- and fifth-place finishes in primaries. At one point in New Hampshire,...

...Fox News even excluded him from a nationally-televised GOP debate as politically irrelevant.

Paul has absolutely no chance of turning his handful of delegates into an upset over McCain, who already has sufficient votes to capture the nomination in Minneapolis-St. Paul come September. But he may hope to disrupt the candidate's coronation with platform or floor fights.

But despite the adverse numbers and his professed belief that a Democrat is destined to win on Nov. 4, Paul has continued to campaign sporadically, often on college campuses where he receives large crowds and enthusiastic responses to his message of drastically smaller government and an end to foreign military involvement.

His dedicated followers have scored some recent successes at county GOP conventions that his partisans hope will boost the number of delegates pledged to Paul at the national convention.

Paul, a former ob-gyn who is unopposed for his 11th House term in November, was the lone Republican presidential candidate to oppose the Iraq war and, as a result, refuses to endorse McCain, a strong proponent of finishing that job without a precipitous withdrawal.

As reported in The Ticket, Paul is also traveling to promote his new book, which was released this week and, propelled by the eager purchases of his dedicated followers, immediately soared to No. 1 on the Amazon.com bestseller list.

According to the Goucher paper, The Quindecim, besides his unexpected Obama prediction, in his nearly 40 minutes of remarks Paul touched on his standard strict constitutionalist positions, advocating much less federal involvement in citizens' lives. Many of the students were apparently more curious than they were devoted Paulunteers.

"I told my mom I was coming to see him," said Lindsey Rich, a senior international relations major, "and she was like 'Oh my God, that's the lunatic fringe!' "

-- Andrew Malcolm

                                                                                             Photo Credit: AP

Comments

[Dave]

Do you have ANY facts in this article? What a joke!

[Alex Libman]

Ron Paul should be doing less predictin' and more endorsin' right about now. Mary Ruwart needs his support for LP nomination, or else the Libertarian Party will end up Republican Lite with someone like Bob Barr or Wayne Allyn Root...

If he's not going to be on the ballot himself in November, he should campaign for someone who will. (And we all know it wouldn't be for McCain / Clinton / Obama.)

[Andrew Austin]

One of the biggest myths this campaign season is that Ron Paul is a "strict constitutionalist" who advocates "much less federal involvement in citizens' lives." Moreover, the corporate media has pinned the label "libertarian" to Paul.

In fact, Ron Paul is a white nationalist and Christian extremist who wants to get the federal government out of the way of state governments bent on restricting personal liberty.

Paul believes that white property owners have a right to discriminate against black people in public accommodations. Paul believes the state should control women by criminalizing abortion and restricting contraception. He believes states have the right to criminalize homosexual conduct.

The fact that he believes states have rights shows us more clearly than anything could that he is an anti-constitutionalist.

States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. The federal bill of rights protects individuals from the tyranny of state governments. Paul doesn't believe the bill of rights exists for this reason.

The truth is that no presidential candidate running in this election seasons has a poorer grasp of the Constitution than does Ron Paul.

The myth that Paul is a constitutionalist and a libertarian has been largely constructed and perpetuated by a corporate media that has demonstrated a reckless regard for the truth. They have similarly constructed and perpetuated the myth that Barack Obama is a different kind of politician. Both Paul and Obama enjoy the support they do in part because of the media's efforts to repeat the propaganda of their campaigns.

Thankfully, Republicans saw beyond the propaganda. Increasingly, Democrats are waking from the hypnotic gaze, but I fear it's too late in the case of Obama.

[Pietro Cappello]

Are you kidding me?
if you listened to iwhat he said after he he was asked who he would vote for of the 3 he pretty much said that they are all the same with obama being slightly, slightly , slighlty more in tune with his view that the conflict in iraq must end. but also that obama's voting record isnt that consistent with what he is saying

[John]

Andrew, you're doing a fine job reporting on Dr Paul's campaign. Thanks for continuing the coverage.

[Scott Frost]

It is amazing to me that some people still feel so threatened by Ron Paul's ideas that they feel the need to leave insulting comments directed at him on myriad web sites. He has been out of mathematical contention for the Republican nomination for almost two months now and still we see, on this blog and others, comments stating that Ron Paul is a loser, a lunatic, a quack, an idiot or, as one commentor wrote on Top of the Ticket a few days ago, "a cook." Is that just an amusing typo or is there a show on the Food Network in Ron Paul's future?

The people who insult Ron Paul and his supporters (or who insult libertarians, in general) almost never explain WHY he is any of these things, however, so they don't have much credibility. And I doubt that any of them have a best-selling book to back up their point of view.

The article ends on such a note, with the words, "...that's the lunatic fringe!" But when did hitting number one on Amazon.com become "fringe?" When did double digit vote totals become "fringe?" When did having your supporters take over the majority of people at a state level political convention of a major party become "fringe?" Curious.

I am hoping that the Libertarian Party nominates somebody who is as liberty-oriented as Ron Paul. Right now, it looks like some of the prominent Libertarian Party candidates are much less libertarian than Ron Paul. I am thinking of Mike Gravel, Bob Barr, Wayne Root and a few others.

Wouldn't it be ironic (and embarrassing for those of us who are members of the Libertarian Party) if the Republican Party turned out to have had a candidate (Ron Paul) who was more libertarian than our own party's eventual nominee?

Personally, I am supporting Mary Ruwart for the Libertarian Party's nomination. Her platform differs from Ron Paul's only on immigration and abortion, though, even on abortion, if the states decided the issue, her personal opinions would be relatively moot. In fact, as you know, letting the states decide is also Ron Paul's position. Mary's rhetoric is more radical than Ron Paul's, but her platform is more or less the same.

The Libertarian Party nominating convention is May 22nd-26th. It should be covered by C-SPAN. It looks to be a convention that will be full of drama. But what else is new in this unusual election cycle? :)

[RogueMerc]

"Ru Paul -OOps! Ron Paul--you're such an idiot and loser."

The only idiot I see here is someone by the name of "Liberty".

[raza]

Oh okay Liberty....Ron Paul supporters are un-American crackheads? Hmmmm .....Ron Pauls top campaign donaters are the United States Army, Navy and Airforce and they are DEFINATELY not un-American. Might want to educate yourself before posting such ignorant slander, or you could just pin your flag or yellow ribbon on your lapel and go wave your change sign.

[raza]

Oh okay Liberty....Ron Paul supporters are un-American crackheads? Hmmmm .....Ron Pauls top campaign donaters are the United States Army, Navy and Airforce and they are DEFINATELY not un-American. Might want to educate yourself before posting such ignorant slander, or you could just pin your flag or yellow ribbon on your lapel and go wave your change sign.

[Joe S.]

The Establishment accused Barry Goldwater of being a lunatic by claiming that he wanted to launch a nuclear attack. Now they're accusing Ron Paul of being a lunatic because he doesn't want to launch a nuclear attack.

[Tominellay]

One of the refreshing things about Paul is that, after so many years in the House, he still speaks and acts like a doctor, calmly prescribing what will restore the republic to health. I admire him!

[Mike]

You have no video footage that it took place. Instead all you have is an article from someone else. Next time, do real journalism.

[Phil]

"Ru Paul -OOps! Ron Paul--you're such an idiot and loser.
Nothing but losers, backstabbers and wannabes are coming out for a half-American crackhead with a non-American name. LOSERS! "

I guess the level of intellectual discourse in the blog itself translates into equally shallow comments.

[Web Smith]

Ron Paul's Republican views often run counter to the neocon policies that the Republican party has adopted.

Hopefully, after Obama gets selected he will evaluate the situation, come to his senses and realize that there is no money for any typical Democratic feel good programs.

There wasn't $140 billion for the tax rebates, there's no money for Hillary Care, none for mortgage bailouts, and we don't have the $770 million that Bush has asked for as a meaningless contribution towards feeding the world. There's no money to give to Israel, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia and there's no money to fight the war.

[Mike]

I would like to read your comments on his new book, AFTER you have read it. It would be interesting to read an article that either proves or disproves that "lunatic fringe" comment that you felt compelled to put in.

[Al]

Americans will rue the day they neglected to correct our very corrupt voting system , and wish they had elected the only man of integrity, honesty, and capability. That man being Ron Paul.

If getting rid of the bogus IRS and illegal banking that is being done by the Federal Reserve is "lunatic fringe", then the dumbed down American sheeple get what they deserve. No jobs, no money, more prisons, more taxes, more government interference, world empire, bankruptcy, and on & on...so long America, it was fun being a middle class citizen.

[Jabli Izvesti]

This only shows how vehemently Ron hates McCain.

[Carol]

I'm not upset with this article. Andrew Malcolm mentioned that more and more people are coming out to Paul's speeches out of curiousity. That's a great thing! Once they hear the message, they are converted.

It was the mom in the article who had no curiousity, and just wrote the Paul campaign off as the lunatic fringe. But the youth of America are not yet victims to the mental grooving that exists within the stifled brains of their parents.

[Jay]

When Ron Paul was asked a question of who he preferred of the supposed "top three", he hesitantly answered and said that all of them were the same except for Obama's foriegn policy was a little better than the others. He also said if you look at Obama's record that it did not support what he spews forth. And Mr. Malcolm your coverage of Ron Paul has gotten to the point where all you can do is criticize and make snide remarks about him. I am thouroughly disgusted with your lies.

[NH Republican]

re: ignorant troll RougeMerc

that's a brilliant argument, you are a master of linguistic skills and a fountain of constructive criticism... (moron)

[David Alan]

"Paul has absolutely no chance of turning his handful of delegates into an upset over McCain...."

Isn't making absolutist statements like that, acting as if you're gods ?

How about a bit of a qualifier, like, "Barring some unlikely turn of events...." or "Humanly speaking,....." or "Without Divine intervention......" nah that wouldn't work, you guys in the media ARE Divine, right ?

[And you've no plans whatever to assist Dr. Paul by allowing him to speak, un-interpreted through your grid !]

Ok maybe it's stretching to say you think you're Divine, but at least you're 'high priests" whose divine mandate includes framing reality, for the benefit of we, the benighted, ignorant masses.

This is why you find yourselves compelled to report regularly on interesting men like Ron Paul, but always have to spin it.

This is puffery. None of us know the future. At best, we guess based on limited knowledge.

Let God be God. He, alone, is the sole determiner of human affairs. We play a role, but it is secondary, and derivative, not primary & determinative.

The one reason Dr. Paul is a superior man is he KNOWS - and practices - the fact that TRUTH always wins, that men of PRINCIPLE endure while those who compromise or embrace faulty principles, in the very end, face shame & disrepute.

So this gives him boundless confidence that absolutely mistifies men who have either yet to discover this Truth, or who war against it.

The Biblical admonition and precept here should be noted: "Do not despise the day of small beginnings...."

Your continuing coverage of Dr. Paul is appreciated, but think on this: If or when a huge turnaround becomes Dr. Paul's reality, you guys may have quite a 'Lot of 'Splainin to do' ! , even compared to those who totally ignore him now.

thanks, David

[Frank]

It's obvious Lindsey Rich's mother isn't too sharp (to put it nicely) but is it really necessary to embarrass Lindsey by printing an irrelevant quote that makes it appear that she has a mentally challenged parent? That's low Andrew.

[NH Republican]

correction: it was "Liberty" who posted the idiot comments, not RogueMerc (my apologies)

[Republicae]

I am absolutely amazed at the actual ignorance exhibited by some on this forum, such as Mr. Andrew Austin. He proved his argument was foiled by the ignorant display of the Constitution, the Debates of the Constitutional Convention, the State Conventions, and all the ancillary documents that came afterwards.

If you read all the notes of the Constitutional Convention, as well as other writings, such as the Madison Papers, you will find that the Founders viewed the States as the People, both in Rights and Sovereignty. The doctrine of States Rights is corollary to Individual Rights and is perfectly structured on Constitutional Law and construction.

So, peddle your vile and ignorant ramblings elsewhere, along with the debunked racist tripe intended on smearing Dr. Paul.

[averros]

The real lunatics, of course, are the people who uncritically believe what newspapers, TV, and other mass-media franchises tell them. Which, sadly, is the majority of Americans.