This is the ninth in a weekly series looking at possible 2012 presidential contenders. Click here to learn more about the series.
No Republican candidate inspired deeper support in 2008 than Texas Congressman Ron Paul. But despite a passionate following, his base wasn’t nearly large enough, and Dr. Paul finished a distant fourth in delegates during the primary season.
Dr. Paul hasn’t ruled out another run in 2012, but does he have the seven traits that all eight winning presidential candidates have had since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980?
He definitely has many of them. More than almost any other candidate, Dr. Paul appears completely comfortable in his own skin, a trait general election voters reward. He comes across as sincere and passionate, but never angry. And there’s no denying his charisma, which is particularly disarming when he directs all credit to his supporters while rejecting any praise aimed his way.
Dr. Paul, known as “Dr. No,” is well-aligned with constituent concerns on reducing the size of government. As you’ll see in the below clip, his message is clear:
“I don’t think government’s very good at delivering anything – mail, or any services, I don’t think they’re good at fighting wars, I don’t think they’re good at delivering welfare.”
I’ll review Dr. Paul’s flaws as a communicator and give him his grade below.
Voters tend to reward optimistic candidates who sell “Morning in America,” a “Bridge to the 21st Century,” or “Hope.” Dr. Paul does not fall into that camp:
“I’m not planning to give you a lot of stuff….the government’s bankrupt. That’s the problem on the Hill, no one admits the bankruptcy. That’s why this whole debate on medical care, the people think it’s so foolish. An endless war, an endless welfare, and we’re going to raise the national debt this year two trillion dollars. The people understand that, but there’s very, very few on the Hill that have the vaguest notion what that really means, and it means trouble for this country if we don’t straighten up our act.”
Dr. Paul is badly out-of-synch with most Americans when he argues people don’t have a right to a job. Unemployed independent voters are almost certainly less interested in a well-made philosophical argument than in learning how a leader would help lower the nation’s unemployment rate.
Finally, there’s his age. Ronald Reagan was the oldest president at 69 when elected to his first term. Dr. Paul would be 77 when sworn in to office, a factor that would likely prevent many voters from choosing him.
I can understand Dr. Paul’s appeal – and he indeed has some of the seven traits that all eight winning presidential candidates have had since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980. But that won’t matter. His views are not well-aligned to that of general election voters, who will not reward his views on abolishing Social Security, eliminating the federal Medicare benefit, and replacing Medicaid with volunteer medical care.
GRADE: D+
To see the other candidates I’ve reviewed so far, click on their names: John Thune, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Gary Johnson, Jim DeMint, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama
December 15th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Paul won the debate tonight and Gingrich took the worst hit.
The GOP better look more at who can get the independent vote. Only Paul is getting them on board and they are very unlikely to vote for Gingrich, Romney or Perry.
Other than Paul only Huntsman gets more than a tiny ripple.
It is the independents who determine the winner in every election.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:00 am
James – You’re right that it is the independents who determine the winner in most general elections. But the candidates have to make it through primary season first. Tough to see Ron Paul’s path to the nomination.