by Patrick Appel
Conor Friedersdorf is blind to the dangers of putting Paul in the White House:
What's the worst that Ron Paul could do? Try to get America back on the gold standard, only to find that he doesn't have the votes in Congress to do it? I am not just being funny. Though Paul has some radical domestic policy ideas, I just don't see any of them getting passed into law. And in foreign policy and national security matters, the areas where he would exercise the most unchecked discretion, he is the candidate you'd least expect to unwisely provoke or launch a war.
Yglesias outlines major problems with Paul. Wilkinson continues asking the media to give Paul more coverage. And Erica Grieder sees Paul's as a net positive, but her argument rests on him losing the nomination.
My fear is simple: Paul, like Bachmann, is comfortable being the only no vote on massively popular legislation. His ideological rigidity would result in a de facto government shutdown wherein almost all legislation would require a two-thirds majority in both houses in order to override Paul's veto. Like Conor, I find aspects of Paul's ideology attractive; Paul's defense of civil liberties, desire to end the drug war, and foreign policy restraint are all sensible.
But imagine the debt-ceiling debacle with Paul or Bachmann in the White House. Imagine the 2008 financial crisis if the government had a president unwilling to act. Or consider more mundane legislation, like passing an annual budget. Paul wouldn't need to get his nutty domestic policy agenda passed into law in order to wreak havoc; he'd only need to stymie the most basic and routine actions of the US government.
(Photo: Signs for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) are stacked outside the Hilton Coliseum in Ames, Iowa on August 13, 2011. By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The Dish 