As the Super Tuesday Caucus and Primary results rolled in showing no major surprises with the detestable poster boy for Ultra-Religious Right Wing Bigotry Sen. Froth winning two bible-belt states and North Dakota and Vampire Squid Goldman Sachs’ Manchurian Candidate Romney taking six of the other states while Mr. Morality Fig Newton took Georgia, a state he once represented in the House, a startling thought occurred to me out of the blue.
Ron Paul should never have run for POTUS. Now, don’t get me wrong, I adore the man and I sincerely believe he’s the only honorable man running on a platform of Constitutional adherence and tolerance of others. But the simple truth is, it’s going to take a billion dollars to buy … err … win the Oval Office in 2012 and Dr. Paul’s fervent followers only managed to raise $32 million for this campaign.
The reality of the situation is POTUS is a mostly meaningless political office unless you’re a narcissist like Comrade Zero or Mr. Morality and have the will to simply ignore what Congress does or wants. I’m not certain Romney has the capacity, though I’m certain Frothy does, to simply issue orders in defiance of the Constitution, common sense or any of the other binding laws the last two presidents simply disregarded when they became inconvenient.
So why should Paul have never run? Simple. For $32 million he’s going to spread his message to perhaps another 10 percent of the population actively engaged in politics at best. He’s likely going to have a platform at the RNC in Tampa and may even be granted a major speaking slot, though I doubt the GOP has any desire to allow such an opportunity. Let’s face it, corruption is the stain on both statist parties. The wolves, as the saying goes, are arguing over dinner while the sheep slumber on.
The Republican Party will not allow Paul to win, regardless of how many delegates he gets. So what should he have done differently? He should have harnessed his following and put the $32 million toward winning as many seats in the House as possible. A quick look through opensecrets.org shows the majority of candidates have raised significantly less than a million smackeroos each thus far, a trend which will surely change as we approach the elections in November.
But not all of the seats in the House will go to highly contested seats with significant fund raising campaigns. What I think Paul should have done or should consider doing if his popularity continues to grow in 2014, is push the fund raising as he has for the last 4 years, but instead of focusing on the most powerful office on the planet, he should instead hand-select candidates he trusts to stick to the principles so many of us support out of the districts with candidates raising the least amount of money.
The correlation of fund raising to winning elections is obvious, not impenetrable, but obvious. If you raise more money than your opponent, you’re probably going to win. Thus, the $32 million raised for the 2012 POTUS campaign, might represent as many as 64 seats in the House. Now you want to talk about changing the discourse? The Tea Party hacks like Colorado’s Cory Gardner demonstrating all the Constitutional understanding of a nightcrawler would be shredded on the floor by the Don’t Tread On Me Congressional Caucus.
It might only last one session, but the simple truth is, it’s going to be much easier to take back Congress than the White House and the federal government is intended to be a Congress-run government anyway. War Declarations, the purse strings and the veto-override are all to be found within Article 1. I say it’s time to piss off the statists in both parties and take back the House.