he's not in a position to affect policy in any significant way
I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy.
As president, on the other hand, the job is to find ways to implement the policies that the Congress has defined.
We get all excited about Presidential election, but at least in theory, the Executive is less important than the other branches.
On the other hand, Congress has ceded so much power to the Executive branch (e.g., giving the EPA, IRS, FDA, etc., so much latitude in defining regulations) that power tilts significantly in that direction -- although not to that office itself, but to that branch.
And I suppose that it's natural to focus on the single individual figurehead, when the power of the Legislature, even if it really is more important as I claim, is more diffuse across all the members of that body.
> I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy.
We're evaluating individuals here, not branches of government.
The House is probably the most most important single body in the government, and if we are unhappy with the laws, we should indeed generally hold that body as the first layer of accountability.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of 435 members of the House. He does not chair a committee and has chaired one subcommittee for one year. He heads a congressional caucus--that's good--but it has ~12 members and virtually no record of legislation or other action. Separately he has gotten ~1 bill passed in his career and a very small number of notable amendments. He has not been a decisive vote on virtually any issue.
Many individuals have policy powers vastly exceeding this, including not only (obviously) the president, AG, Supreme Court, and perhaps 100+ Congressional leaders, but also (I would aver) the Cabinet, Federal Reserve Board, OLC, JCs, and dozens or hundreds of others.
I think it's very common for people to treat all members of Congress as if they're the same, but Ron Paul is not John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi.
Ron Pauls's power comes from his writings and speeches on various principles of governmental power and the economy. If he's been remiss on that exact front--hired famous cranks like Lew Rockwell to ghost for him and then failed to review his work--then he's mismanaged his power. I'm not saying that he's a criminal in the sense that, say, Warren Harding is a criminal, but it's absolutely relevant to his candidacy.
edit: Ron Paul does chair one subcommittee as of Jan 2011--misstated that.
I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy.
As president, on the other hand, the job is to find ways to implement the policies that the Congress has defined.
We get all excited about Presidential election, but at least in theory, the Executive is less important than the other branches.
On the other hand, Congress has ceded so much power to the Executive branch (e.g., giving the EPA, IRS, FDA, etc., so much latitude in defining regulations) that power tilts significantly in that direction -- although not to that office itself, but to that branch.
And I suppose that it's natural to focus on the single individual figurehead, when the power of the Legislature, even if it really is more important as I claim, is more diffuse across all the members of that body.