Why Ron Paul Won’t Be President
Ron Paul has recently moved into second place, behind Newt Gingrich, in the GOP race in Iowa, a measured by a new poll from The Des Moines Register. The poll has Paul with 18 percent support from likely caucus-goers, ahead of the candidate most pundits believe with ultimately end up the GOP nominee–Mitt Romney, who is at 16 percent.
While this poll might surprise some, it doesn’t surprise me.
Paul has the most loyal supporters of any Republican who, like their candidate, has been rock-solid on what they believe.
Add Paul’s steadfast supporters to those that have peeled way from others– with the implosion of candidates like Herman Cain and Rick Perry –and Paul’s numbers make sense.
First, let me say that I like Ron Paul. I read his book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, and agree with him on about 90 percent of the issues. I also appreciate Paul’s honesty and that he hasn’t vacillated on issues like almost every other Republican candidate, including Gingrich.
I split ways on him on foreign policy, although I feel he has some valid points on how we are overtaxing our military which was never meant to play the part of world policeman. Hayride proprietor Scott McKay has already dealt with problems of Paul’s foreign policy stance . My thinking is pretty much in line with that Scott wrote, so there is no reason to rehash the argument here.
There are some real problems with Gingrich and Paul had laid them out in this campaign ad.
All this being said, there are some real problems with Paul beyond foreign policy or any of his other position—his electability. As superficial as it might sound, the ability of Paul to get elected is paramount if we don’t want to face another four years of Obama.
For months, polls have appeared that put Paul neck-and-neck in a hypothetical match-up with Obama. Paul has consistently done better than Gingrich as measured against Obama, until polls following the former Speaker of the House pole-vault to the front of the Republican field. A recent Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters has Gingrich attracting 45 percent of the vote while Obama earns support from 43 percent.
The Main-Stream-Media is, of course, going to end up ripping to shreds whomever the Republicans choose as a standard-bearer, but Paul will suffer more than any other should he become the Republican nominee.
As this video from the Jon Stewart Show correctly depicts, media–even media like Fox News that’s usually friendly to Republicans– has always treated Ron Paul like the “crazy uncle.”
The point of the video is that Paul will never be given his due and if he were chosen to face Obama the narrative would be “How in the world did this nut get loose from the crazy house?” That would be Paul’s biggest obstacle and, unfortunately one that would give Obama a second term.
The media would harp on Paul’s most outlandish comments, and there have been many over the years, as well as point out that a member of the House of Representatives hasn’t been elected to the presidency since James Garfield and that was in 1880 and somebody shot him.
While Ron Paul might be the closest thing that we have to a Founding Father running for president, I don’t think that a single Founding Father could get elected president these days. Progressivism has spent the last 100 years tearing down the educational foundation that is the underpinning of limited, constitutional government. It’s going to take a lot of educating about our founding principles and a lot of pulling away from the public teats, before anyone like Ron Paul will be able to get elected nationally.
That might be a harsh reality, but one Paul supporters are going to have to accept if they want to cross the bridge from ideology to the real world. Even though he will never be president, I appreciate the way Paul has pushed the debate toward the more libertarian wing of the Republican Party and I hope he will stay in the race as long as he can without becoming a drag on the whomever will end up as the Republican nominee.
Outlandish Comments from Leading Candidates
Lets see……
Romney said he would have Israel set U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, now is he an Israeli firster or an American firster? The guy will pander to whatever special interest that will get him elected.
Gringrich, just keeps on giving outlandish statements, he is so full of himself he just can’t help it. This guy will pander to whoever will pay him including Al Gore and every GSA that exist.
There is not a candidate who can be perceived to have made outlandish statements including Paul especially if you like centralized authoritarian government. There are a lot of Republicans who would forsake liberty for safety and essentially nullify all the reasons the American Revolution was fought for.
Paul More Electable than Gingrich? Than Romney??
Ron Paul is a much better general election candidate against Obama than either Gingrich or Romney in Iowa, and in New Hampshire Paul comes fairly close to Romney against Obama. That’s one surprising takeaway from a just-released Marist poll for NBC News of Iowa and New Hampshire voters (pdf here). Marist is a high-quality polling outlet, so their numbers deserve to be taken seriously. Here are the stats:
Iowa
Gingrich 37%, Obama 47%
Romney 39%, Obama 46%
Paul 42%, Obama 42%
New Hampshire
Gingrich 39%, Obama 49%
Romney 46%, Obama 43%
Paul 42%, Obama 44%
In Iowa, a Democratic-leaning state at the presidential level, only Paul seems to have any chance against Obama. Indeed, his numbers in favor are larger than those for Gingrich or Romney (the latter difference might not quite be statistically significant), indicating that his relative strength against the incumbent is not simply due to lack of name recognition.
You can read the rest here: http://pileusblog.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/paul-more-electable-than-gingrich-than-romney/
Exactly,word for word,what the establishment media,including Fox,wants the populace to believe.Got your talking points from the Globalists,I see.
Which Globalists are these? Name them.
I will name them… All of the above! Name one federally elected official that ISN’T a globalists. Only one wants to trade with them all and not “GIVE” them the America’s wealth. That they have to EARN!
So in other words you can’t name anybody.
Thanks.
You do realize that it’s folks like you who make it impossible for your guy to get elected, right? People think you’re nuts, and therefore they can’t see how somebody you support can be sane.
Stupid blanket statements like that only cement the fact you’re never going to get anywhere.
Actually, we’re doing pretty well
If just 1/2 of all the people that said Dr. Paul was unelectable actually voted for him,
he would win in a landslide.
Yeah, except most of those people don’t actually like him.
“Ron Paul might be the closest thing that we have to a Founding Father running for president,”
Which is exactly why I vote for the man.
[...] me and I suspect a lot more people. I really don’t like Romney, but I don’t think that Ron Paul will ultimately be able to beat Obama. I also have problems with Paul’s national security stance. No candidate is perfect, of [...]
He’s not a 9/11 truther. Get your facts straight
[...] why I have written that I don’t believe he would ever be able to beat President Obama in the general election. That’s too bad, because I believe most of what Paul believes and [...]
[...] why I have written that I don’t believe he would ever be able to beat President Obama in the general election. That’s too bad, because I believe most of what Paul believes and I’m [...]
[...] I have blogged some about Ron Paul, who is leading the Iowa caucuses in recent polls, explaining the things I like about him, but making a case that he would never be able to beat Obama in the general election. [...]