The average age of a Paul supporter is about 20 – which means they haven’t a clue about the constitution or the world they live in. Ron Paul will not rule out a third-party run, if he happens to lose the GOP nomination.
Paulestinians (aka – rabid Ron Paul fanatics) have a full-court-press on for the upcoming Iowa Caucus, as if winning Iowa makes one a lock to win the eventual GOP primary. Iowa has a distinguished history of getting it wrong most of the time.
In 2008, Iowa chose Mike Huckabee for their GOP nominee and gave John McCain a 13% fourth place finish, which was still above Ron Paul who won only 10% in Iowa last time. John McCain went on to become the GOP nominee.
In 2004, Iowa got it right with George W. Bush. But Bush ran unopposed in 2004…
In 2000, Iowa gave George W. Bush a nod with 41%, meaning that 59% of Iowa Caucus goers got it wrong. Bush became the GOP nominee.
In 1996, Iowa chose Bob Dole, who became the GOP nominee before getting slaughtered in the general election by Impeached President Bill Clinton. Iowa picked another loser.
In 1992, Iowa got it right again with George H. W. Bush, but he was also running unopposed.
In 1988, Iowa chose Bob Dole, who was defeated by George H. W. Bush, whom they only gave 19% of their confidence. Of course, Bush won the nomination and became President of the United States.
The point is — Iowa has a long history of getting it wrong in Republican primaries. If I were a GOP candidate, I’d be trying not to win Iowa, as winning Iowa appears to be a jinx to any GOP candidate seeking the GOP nomination or the White House.
Winning Iowa is like your momma telling you what a great singer you are, even though you can’t carry a tune in a bucket.
So, why all the hoopla over Iowa and Ron Paul? — He’s “Mr. Constitution” they say! (with great pride and vigor…) Why are they only going half-way here? Why President Ron Paul when they could have President Alex Jones? Maybe Alex will be his VP pick, and their Inaugural Hajj will be held at Area 51, complete with an alter call by Glenn Beck…
Yeah? Where does Mr. Constitution stand on Obama’s Article II ineligibility? Mr. Constitution would fight for all of the constitution, not just the cherry-picked sections his anti-war base appreciates. Besides, the average age of a Paul supporter is about 20 – which means they haven’t a clue about the constitution or the world they live in.
Once again, why Ron Paul? What does his thirty-year career politicians résumé hold to give his followers such confidence in Mr. Constitution, who remains totally MIA (Missing In Action) on Article II, which disqualifies Obama for office and every member of congress, including Ron Paul, knows it!
Mr. Constitution would know that the primary function of the Federal Government is to protect and defend the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. – To do that in a 21st Century world, you had better have one hell of a standing Military, which Mr. Constitution also opposes.
All of the Tea Party candidates are already out of the race, systematically eliminated by Team Obama. They successfully killed off four GOP messiahs in a row, Palin, Bachmann, Perry and Cane. That was easy!
RNC darlings Romney and Gingrich have also received the Obama hatchet job, clearing the field for whom? — Ron Paul and Rick Santorum…. Rick who? And Ron Paul… Gee whiz… how’d that happen so fast?
Obama likes running unopposed. He has won every political race by eliminating his opponents, one by one, leaving him unopposed in the general election. That’s what we are watching right now.
In 2008, the Clinton’s had so many skeletons rattling around in their closets that Obama was able to derail the greatest political war room ever known to modern politics by simply cutting a backroom power-sharing deal, making Hillary Secretary of State and opening the door for Bill on the international scene.
Hillary Clinton was a lock for the DNC nomination headed into the 2008 primaries. Then the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and not so much as a birth certificate, stole the show. By the DNC convention, Hillary was just a memory and despite threats to defect by Clinton supporters, they rallied behind Obama in the general election anyway.
In the end analysis, the left always marches forward in lockstep, despite their many internal disputes. But the political right is more divided and scattered than ever in U.S. history, and they are no match for the unified international left that has already eliminated any real opposition for Obama in 2012.
Ron Paul will not rule out a third-party run, if he happens to lose the GOP nomination. Paul promises to play spoiler even if he has to do it from outside the GOP.
The Ron Paul campaign is built on a foundation of social liberals, chronic anti-war misfits, modern day peaceniks seeking legalized drugs, atheists, and Democrats and Independents with liberaltarian leanings. Nowhere in there is “conservatives…” who oppose Paul as much as they oppose Obama.
If Ron Paul really was a constitutionalist, he would attract the conservative vote, because it is conservatives who have spent a lifetime trying to protect and preserve our nation’s founding principles and values, hence the term “conservative,” to conserve.
But conservatives are not easily fooled by constitutional rhetoric, whether coming from the lips of Teddy Kennedy or Ron Paul. Even Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar and no one has been as successful at undermining the constitution as Barack Obama.
Ron Paul is at odds with conservatives on numerous key issues.
· Paul supports same-sex marriage
· Paul opposes the death penalty for violent criminals
· Paul opposes mandatory sentencing for three-time losers
· Paul supports legalizing illicit drugs
· Paul opposes firm enforcement of immigration laws
· Paul opposes free trade
· Paul opposes a strong U.S. Military and National Defense
· Paul opposes foreign diplomacy and prefers isolationism
· Paul opposes stricter limits on criminal campaign finance
· Paul opposes the Patriot Act, but also insists on letting terrorist live amongst us
· Paul supported the arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq that resulted in deadly terror attacks hours later
· Overall, Paul falls in the Middle ground, where libertarians, moderates and populists are found, not conservatives
As a result, he cannot muster the conservative vote in November 2012, without which, he cannot defeat Barack Obama.
Most of Paul’s “social conservative” congressional votes are actually Tenth Amendment votes, which sidestep the actual issue at hand and redirect the discussion to states right. He is a career politician, supported by folks who claim to oppose career politicians.
While conservatives are strong on Tenth Amendment states right, they are also strong on founding principles and values grounded in the moral laws of nature, at the foundation of our Constitutional Representative Republic.
In short, Paul is actually a liberal leaning populist candidate, rather than a Jeffersonian libertarian. He has very little in common with American conservatives and that presents a serious problem for him in any national election, especially at a time in history when conservative voters are looking to reverse course in America.
Paul has been MIA on far too many constitutional issues to call himself a constitutionalist with a straight face. Beyond lower taxes and less government, he has literally nothing in common with conservatives and even his smaller government leanings can’t work in a socially and morally bankrupt society.
Then we have the issue of white supremacists and anti-Semites in his past, which won’t come up from other Republican candidates in the primary, but will come up from Team Obama in the general election. Remember, Obama must run unopposed… and the U.S. press will tear Paul from limb to limb long before next November.
If Obama’s name is allowed to appear on the 2012 ballot, he will be re-elected.
None of the 2012 GOP candidates deserve the support of truly engaged and patriotic Americans. Of course, neither does Obama.
Voters who grasp the reality that the nation is on the brink of total collapse and the world is on the verge of WWIII, are looking for who can defeat Obama and who might have the backbone to protect the nation from eminent danger on several fronts.
I’m not sure such a candidate exists in the 2012 election, but I am certain that Ron Paul isn’t it. Facts don’t have any friends, but so far, Paul fans don’t seem too impressed by facts. Paul is unqualified for the job he seeks on this single issue alone! His anti-Semitism and poor-pitiful misunderstood jihadists, blame America first and often rhetoric should be enough to end his campaign… but do the facts matter anymore? People who can’t vote for a lesser evil are in real trouble this time, as every candidate in the race is a lesser evil. We will see what the people’s real priorities are…
Our nation hangs in the balance…
· Paul supports same-sex marriage
You obviously don't understand Paul's position on this issue
· Paul opposes the death penalty for violent criminals
True. Anyone with a brain should rethink their support of the death penalty in light of the many DNA exonerations of innocent people.
· Paul opposes mandatory sentencing for three-time losers
Very difficult to make the case that this is a core conservative position.
· Paul supports legalizing illicit drugs
Care to provide your constitutional authority for the federal government's anti-drug war? Or maybe you think there was another amendment after the 18th that gave the feds this power.
· Paul opposes firm enforcement of immigration laws
This is pretty much a 100% false statement.
· Paul opposes free trade
Another false statement.
· Paul opposes a strong U.S. Military and National Defense
I think you mean Paul is opposed to foreign entanglements just like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
· Paul opposes foreign diplomacy and prefers isolationism
Good job. Two false statements in one line.
· Paul opposes stricter limits on criminal campaign finance
What are you talking about?
· Paul opposes the Patriot Act, but also insists on letting terrorist live amongst us
One might think the Patriot Act is a good idea but it is impossible to argue that it doesn't conflict with constitutionally protected rights.
· Paul supported the arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq that resulted in deadly terror attacks hours later
Not actually true.
What does the author actually wish to conserve? As a Constitutionalist, I want to conserve and preserve what our Founders intended to be the structure of our Union… a relatively weak central government providing only those common functions that the sovereign States delegated to it. Sounds like the author wants to conserve and preserve a police state. His bio-sketch pretty much says it all… he is "actively engaged in returning the power to the right people in America" (emphasis mine). Who exactly are the "right people in America?" I want to return power to "the People."
To me, the author is exactly the kind of person Newt Gingrich was talking about when he discussed the similarities of right-wing and left-wing social engineering. The only differences are the particular issues. I won't go through author's misstatements point-by-point, because it would be a waste of my time. jdbray above addresses these above (though without much detail), but I would agree (and I'm pretty sure Dr. Paul would) with most of it.
I would like to feel comfortable supporting other Republican candidates, but deep down inside can you really say that any of them are substantially different from Obama? Are any of them really serious about cutting spending, eliminating unconstitutional departments, and working to restore the balance of government our Founders intended? They want to tinker around the edges. They think that big government is OK as long as the "right people" are in charge. That kind of thinking is what has gotten us where we are today, where there is little substantive difference between the major political parties.
And I'm not some 20-something dope-smoking wannabe hippie populist. I'm a 40-something that has actually read the Constitution and studied the ratification debates.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm a Paul supporter, but I don't have much hope for a Paul presidency, even if he were to win. This blog entry is indicative of exactly the kind opposition he would face unless he were to receive an overwhelming popular vote (for political reasons, not Constitutional of course). I'll hold my nose, wear gloves and a HEPA mask, and vote for Romney (though he doesn't stand much of a chance in my state). I'd really just like to see someone different, visionary.
Jdbray says the author of this piece has deliberately misrepresented/ mischaracterized each and every one of Dr. Paul’s positions: Because jdbray said so. Not because of any reference he bothered to provide that proves such. Maybe you could cite passages from Dr. Paul’s previously published newsletters sir. I’ve found them to be interesting reading that tell me just about all I need to know about how Dr. Paul would fair in a general election: Especially against a candidate who has a penchant for drowning his opponents in their own squalor (look at any of Obama’s primary races or actual elections in Illinois for reference). If you believe that Dr. Paul would stand a snowball’s chance against a political machine built around the race card and a MSM that takes absolute delight to subjecting opponents to public rectal exams you are entitled to your fantasy.
Before you ask; If this is so why is the MSM not scrutinizing him now that he’s leading Iowa?” The answer is the Obama team and David Axelrod would LOVE to run against Dr. Ron Paul. Just as the MSM picked the most beatable candidate in 2008 in John McCain; then assured they built him up enough to win the primary, they’re hoping to do so once again. They’ve torn every Republican poll leader to shreds with the exceptions of Paul and Romney; why? Because Obama can beat those candidates. He loses to Gingrich. Everyone else is bottom drawer.
I do agree with sbennett’s statement that; “…there is little substantive difference between the major political parties.” But an independent run by Ron Paul will not solve that. All an independent run by Dr. Paul will guarantee is four more years of Barack Hussein Obama unencumbered by a need to win another election. I would remind people that in 1992 Bill Clinton won with decidedly less than a plurality, 43%. Ross Perot siphoned 19% of the vote from Bush 41. If we had added Perot’s number to Bush senior’s 37% Clinton would have been toast instead of a two-timer, err…two termer.
As much as it pains me to have to point this out; well OK it really doesn’t: Dr. Ron Paul cannot possibly win a national election. His ‘supporters’ will have to decide for themselves what to do about it. They can vote their conscious as is their right. But I guarantee that an independent bid by Dr. Paul becomes a 2nd term for Barack Obama; your convictions notwithstanding. And any ‘reasonable’ person knows this.
Mr. Wavering I provided the exact same amount of reference as Mr. Williams provided in the original post. Which is to say no supporting reference at all. That was the point. Anyone wishing to make a small effort can easily google and see that my characterization of Mr. Paul's is far more accurate than Mr. Williams. Consider the first assertion that Paul supports gay marriage. You can read Paul's position on this issue here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html. To save you some time here is a quote:
"I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."
I have not yet decided who I will support in this election. I think Ron Paul would be one of the weaker candidates against Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with the substance of his position. He is a poor public speaker to tends to ramble and uses 100 words wherever 10 would suffice. That doesn't work well in this shallow age. I do think that he is by far the most faithful to the constitution and the only candidate who understands the economic threat facing the country and the only one who has proposed serious reduction in the size of the government. Nevertheless is may be wise to buy some time with a candidate whose position aren't as good but who has a better chance of winning. Generally I prefer to stand on principle but I think another term for Obama will be catastrophic, and perhaps fatal, for the U.S. Buying time may be the best we can do right now.
I'm a fifty something father and grandfather. I've never voted for a democrat in my life and keep a nice picture of myself shaking hands with President Reagan. Not exactly the crude stereotype presented by Mr. WIlliams. I would hope everyone who considers themselves a conservative would be willing to check their biases against the constitution. SBennet said it quite well that the original poster sounds like he wants to preserve a police state.
Understood: I’m not questioning your credentials. Everyone has an absolute right to comment here. I don’t believe I’ve stated anywhere that Dr. Paul is unqualified; unelectable certainly, but not unqualified. I do find many of Dr. Paul’s positions appealing. However; having said that; I believe conservatives must coalesce around the most conservative candidate that can win. I’ve heard many comment that a ham sandwich could beat Obama. Not true. If it was, McCain would have won in 2008.
There are some lessons we need to remember: The Obama/Chicago machine style of politics beat the first family of the Democrats in 2008; the Clintons. I was raised in Chicago, I saw the original Mayor Richard J. Dailey in action while in high school. Trust me; you under-estimate those Chicago politicians at your peril.
The most important lesson to take from the 2010 mid-terms is the proof that holding one-half of one branch of government isn’t enough. We require a candidate with, if you’ll pardon the cliché, long coattails. Only solid majorities in both houses will provide the opportunity to reverse the damage.
I ran for local office in 2010. Yes half of us who run, lose; but local T.E.A. Party candidates did win 22 of 23 races and turned a County Courthouse from Democrat to Conservative for the first time since Reconstruction. I figure I just made some novice campaign mistakes (got outspent 4:1 for instance); but I get a story to tell. How many can claim they actually put their money, time, and talent where their convictions lie?. Probably shouldn’t have waited so long. If I’d been 37 instead of 57 I’d have whipped that 20 something at his own game, huh?
Bill,
Agreed beating Obama isn't a foregone conclusion. Good for you running for office. I did that many years ago and came in fourth where the top three became delegates. Made the mistake of doing it part way as I was working for a Senate candidate at the time. Got out of the political arena to raise a family. Feel like I need to get back involved for the sake of my kids and grandkids.