Short and Fine (Ross Perot/Ron Paul)
Published in Veja
(Brazil) on 29 November 2011
by Caio Blinder (link to original)
(Brazil) on 29 November 2011
by Caio Blinder (link to original)
Translated from
by Gustavo Nascimento.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
With 80 percent of Americans dissatisfied with the direction the country is headed, plus an unhappy vast majority when it comes to the two main "political parties," it seems to be the perfect scenario for an independent candidate in next year's elections. In a much less bitter time (when only 40 percent of Americans were dissatisfied), Texas billionaire Ross Perot overturned the 1992 election, winning 19 percent of the popular vote (zero in the electoral college). The success of Perot, who was at the time investing against the fiscal deficit and globalization, made it easy for Bill Clinton, the Democratic candidate, to win the elections and destroyed George H.W. Bush’s hope for re-election in a moment when the country was gaining freedom from recession.
It is unlikely that New York City's mayor, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, will make a presidential bid; after all, Bloomberg is seen as moderate and centrist. How about another Texan, without the money, who is as outspoken as Perot? Well, Republican Ron Paul captivates some areas of the country with his rigorous message of fiscal discipline (and a bizarre and unviable call to abolish the Federal Reserve), a speech in the name of liberty (which shocks many conservatives because it calls for, among many other things, the legalization of drugs) and an isolated and unrealistic posture when it comes to foreign policy. Ron Paul is in the Republican primaries, but he has no chance of winning it.
The classic image of Ron Paul is that of a weird uncle who says whatever comes to mind at the dinner table. However, since it is known that politicians are moved to sheer marketing and possess the consistency of a sponge, Ron Paul shows some integrity as seen in the Republican debate last week when he defined torture as torture. He says he has no "intention" of running as an Independent; however, he can't completely discard that possibility yet.
A recent survey conducted by The Wall Street Journal/NBC News shows that 18 percent of voters would vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama and the Republican Mitt Romney. These are surprising numbers. In general, the talk of a possible candidate running as an Independent is scarier to Republicans than to Democrats, because even a centrist Independent would be more favorable than Obama. If that's the case, then there needs to be a variation of the classic phrase coined by James Carville, who was Clinton's marketing man; it should be: "It's luck, stupid!"
It is unlikely that New York City's mayor, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, will make a presidential bid; after all, Bloomberg is seen as moderate and centrist. How about another Texan, without the money, who is as outspoken as Perot? Well, Republican Ron Paul captivates some areas of the country with his rigorous message of fiscal discipline (and a bizarre and unviable call to abolish the Federal Reserve), a speech in the name of liberty (which shocks many conservatives because it calls for, among many other things, the legalization of drugs) and an isolated and unrealistic posture when it comes to foreign policy. Ron Paul is in the Republican primaries, but he has no chance of winning it.
The classic image of Ron Paul is that of a weird uncle who says whatever comes to mind at the dinner table. However, since it is known that politicians are moved to sheer marketing and possess the consistency of a sponge, Ron Paul shows some integrity as seen in the Republican debate last week when he defined torture as torture. He says he has no "intention" of running as an Independent; however, he can't completely discard that possibility yet.
A recent survey conducted by The Wall Street Journal/NBC News shows that 18 percent of voters would vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama and the Republican Mitt Romney. These are surprising numbers. In general, the talk of a possible candidate running as an Independent is scarier to Republicans than to Democrats, because even a centrist Independent would be more favorable than Obama. If that's the case, then there needs to be a variation of the classic phrase coined by James Carville, who was Clinton's marketing man; it should be: "It's luck, stupid!"