Looking back, Paul vs Kuchinch

Looking back, Paul vs Kuchinch

A question I have been pondering since the 2008 election, is that of why did Ron Paul's campaign work so well, where Kuchinich's didn't? As more of a leftist myself, especially on economics, I would have personally preferred Kuchinch or Nader to be the one who built a movement and got some traction, but I do respect Paul, and agree with many of his other ideas also.

Of course the men are quite different in many political views, but to me both had the opportunity to capitalize on their runs and build a movement, due to the areas they are similar in. Some similarities I see in the men are:

They both are outliers of their party, who will generally take a stand if they disagree. For example Paul went against the party on issues such as war, and Kuchinich went against the party on issues such as the bailout.

They both have an air of honesty and integrity around them, partly for the reason I stated above.

They both have fairly consistent voting records matching their espoused views.

They both appeal to populist ideas at times, favoring the 'people' over the 'elite'.

This were both mostly anti-war at a time when the war is unpopular.

I don't think it's as simple as something like "Oh, but Kuchinich is a gun grabber, so of course no-one will get behind him", as many democrats/progressives do believe in this, but didn't get behind him. So I don't see it as a particular policy issue. Where they differ on policies, so do the public, so they could have still drawn people to them. I also don't think that it is because Kuchinich is seen as a bit of a buffoon at times, as Paul can suffer from the same effect, with his currently unorthodox, and to those unfamiliar with his way of thinking, strange policies, and poor speaking manner. (The 'crazy old man' effect)

My personal opinion, is that Paul won out, because many of his followers had come in from various conspiracist movements and tax protester movements, and the like, who were much more used to activism, especially on-line, and already had systems in place, such as good knowledge of and ability to access and use well various blogs, forums, and radio shows, and the willpower to take it to the streets.

Perhaps it was also in part down to things as simple, but important, as choosing the right staff.

But my mind isn't made up on 'why?' at all yet, and I would like to hear others opinions on why Paul was the one to get the momentum and end up building a useful movement for his aims.

paul and kuchinch both served their purposes

although i like them both, especially Paul, i think its time for some new faces around town

id like to see some ATS members make their way up

I haven't been witness to too many presidential campaigns bc of my age, but you would think in not the too distant future we will most likely see an "Internet President"

Someone that is totally grassroots, like me just "running all the sudden", and it catching on like wildfire (cough, cough around 2020), a site like this could totally wield that IMO if some 10,000+ even got behind it. The power of exponential expansion (have one friend tell a friend etc.) is explosive.

That is of course saying that the internet will not be "controlled" at that point. The internet has to be a place of total freedom for this to take place.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by GreenBicMan]

reply to post by jimminycricket


It's mainly because America is a center right nation.

Kuchinich is anti-gun and that pretty much seals the deal., as far as growing a grass roots movement. Paul is all about the constitution in its entirety. Also I think it has to do with what you said though Paul is a true Republican, which is way more progressive than the progressives.

If you read the history the republicans were all about freedom and pushing for more freedom, Lincoln was even for an earned income tax credit. He also freed the slaves. Then the Republicans during the civil rights movement were all about giving the black their rights.

Then at some point the parties switched, I think that has a lot to do with it. It is the long standing values of the Republican party is why people drifted to Paul, imo at least.

Fun fact, did you know Thomas Jefferson started the Republican-Democrat party in opposition to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist party?

That is way I see it at least.

reply to post by jimminycricket


A lot depends on how you define successful in this case . Paul didn't come close to winning a primary . Rudy did better then him and he flopped as a candidate . The anti establishment crowd love Paul because they perceive him to be against the evil establishment . You see the anti establishment crowd can spew out there views all the while enjoying clean drinking water due to current regulations .

Cheers xpert11 .