Why the GOP MUST Nominate Ron Paul

[BLS 315]

Why must the Republican Party nominate a 72-year-old grandfather from the Gulf Coast of Texas, until the past few months little known outside his district, as its 2008 standard-bearer? Very simple: the alternative is eight years of President Hillary Clinton. That ought to be enough to get the attention of every conservative who happens upon these words, so let me explain.

 

It should come as no big revelation to anyone inside or outside of the Republican Party that the GOP has lost touch with its conservative roots. Massive deficit spending that would make Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter blush; foreign adventurism beyond the wildest dreams of Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt; more big government programs than FDR or LBJ (Google "Medicare expansion" for a massive example) ... the Republican Party of the early 21st century is clearly not your father's or grandfather's GOP.

 

There are no more Robert Tafts, no more Barry Goldwaters, not even any more Ronald Reagans (as imperfect as he turned out to be after reaching the White House) ... except one: Ron Paul. Dr. Paul (an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies) is the last, best hope for the GOP to reclaim its once-upon-a-time status as the party of limited government.

 

It isn't his status as the leading advocate of limited, constitutional government that makes Ron Paul a must-nominate for the GOP, though. It is true that in the long run, the Republican Party needs him to help it reclaim its spirit, and this indeed will be his lasting legacy. But, in the short run, the party needs him to win the 2008 election and save the country from another Clinton presidency that would be far worse than the first. (Unlike Bill, who was apparently mainly involved in politics to get the attention of the ladies, Hillary is a true believer in socialism; and, with a Democratic majority in Congress, she will have an excellent opportunity to expedite its widespread implementation in America.)

 

Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination. She is an experienced, cut-throat politician with deep ties in the party, and can take Barack Obama down pretty much any time she wants to. And John Edwards is not serious about pursuing the nomination. He is just positioning himself to be the VP nominee again, because in the wake of the 2006 Congressional elections he believes that Hillary will win the Presidency by taking a few key states where John Kerry fell short. Long story short: forget the others - Hillary is the woman to beat in 2008.

 

Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country's voters. (Google "2006 mid-term elections.) 70% or more of Americans want out of Iraq, and for many of them, it is the defining issue of the campaign. You may agree or disagree, but it's a fact and it's going to decide the 2008 Presidential election.

 

If it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. any of the "establishment" Republican candidates, she wins by default. She may have voted for the war originally, but she will continue to claim that she was misled by the Republican administration, and that we should trust her to make things right. (Of course she won't really get us out of the Middle East mess, but Joe Six-Pack won't figure that out until after she wins the election.)

 

If any of the supposed "front runner" Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson) wins the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton is essentially a lock. Not only will she win over a sizable portion of the independent vote with her (perceived) status as "the anti-war candidate," but - simply put - the GOP will not turn out its base in sufficient numbers to win.

 

Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club. The social conservatives, along with the fiscal conservatives and the key swing voters (libertarians and constitutionalists) will either stay home on Election Day or vote third party. Rudy won't even carry his home state, and ask Al Gore how that usually works out. Slam dunk, Hillary wins.

 

Nominate Mitt Romney? You get basically the same result as Giuliani without the (bogus) "America's Mayor" 9/11 cachet. Conservatives in the South and West won't turn out for the former governor of "Taxachusetts" who has flip-flopped on virtually every issue they hold dear. The fact that Romney is a Mormon won't help him with the mainstream Christian base, either. He probably can't win the GOP nomination, but even if he does, Romney is toast in the general election.

 

Nominate John McCain? Not gonna happen. His campaign has taken a nose dive from which it will be virtually impossible to recover. As of the end of the second quarter, even (supposed) long-shot Ron Paul had more cash on hand - and, when the third quarter numbers come in, McCain will be even further behind in the money game. He probably won't even be in the top five on the GOP side. Stick a fork in him, he's done. And even if he could pull off the apparently impossible and come back to win the Republican nomination, he loses to Hillary on the war and many domestic issues as well.

 

Fred Thompson? He's the last hope of those Republicans who are looking for a "mainstream" candidate to save them from looming, seemingly inevitable defeat in 2008. On the surface, he appears to have more of a chance than the previously mentioned "big three." After all, he has the "actor factor." It worked for Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California - couldn't it work for Fred, too? Well, no, not this time around.

 

Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson is reasonably good at reading a script. Unlike the Gipper, though, Fred is just awful at speaking extemporaneously. In case anyone was wondering why Thompson waited so long to declare his candidacy, it's obvious to those who know anything about his abilities and liabilities: he wanted to avoid as many debates as possible.

 

Like Obama on the Democratic side, Thompson is an empty suit. He looks reasonably presentable, but sooner or later he has to open his mouth, and when he does he doesn't say anything of substance. The less he speaks in public (especially with other candidates around to rebut him), the better for Fred. Unfortunately for Thompson, while he has so far been able to duck any direct confrontation with his GOP rivals, he won't be able to avoid debating Hillary if he wins the Republican nomination. And about five minutes into the first debate, with no "Law and Order" writers to put words in his mouth, it will be over. Game, set, match, Hillary.

 

When you look at it objectively, there isn't a single one of the "Big Four" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head. And none of the "second tier" candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter,

Tancredo, et al) have stepped up to the challenge. Really, there is only one remaining viable Republican candidate: You guessed it, Ron Paul.

 

Only Ron Paul can take advantage of the Internet the way Howard Dean did before he imploded four years ago. Indeed, he has already captured the Internet ... the Ron Paul Revolution is already in full swing online. It sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Net for Ron Paul supporters to take over, wasn't it?

 

Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else ... which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008.

 

Only Ron Paul, who is truly pro-family (married to the same woman for over 50 years, with five children and 18 grandchildren - no "trophy wives" here) can motivate the socially conservative base to actually turn out and vote.

 

Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS (and a host of other federal agencies) and stop the Federal Reserve from devaluing our money through runaway, printing-press inflation, can motivate the fiscally conservative base to cast a GOP ballot in 2008.

 

Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy.) While the LP and CP may command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two. Ask Al Gore if he could have used a few thousand of Ralph Nader's votes in 2000....

 

Yes, when you look at things objectively, there are only two candidates who can win the White House in 2008: Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. The contrast could not be more stark, nor the results for the future of America more divergent. If you are a social or fiscal conservative, a libertarian, a constitutionalist, or just a concerned independent ... now is the time to consider your options and act accordingly while there is still time to affect the outcome.

 

The Ron Paul Revolution has begun.

 

Joe Dumas

joe@joedumas.com

[paradoxical 1]

Agreed, the war has been such a fiasco in American's minds that the only way republicans can beat Hillary is with an anti-war candidate. I pray the GOP realizes this and doesn't give away this election.

[VikesFan 1]

The article is well done.

[Me_2006 14]

Am I the only one who gets an odd, sinking feeling about this upcoming election?

 

 

As someone who's about to be old enough to register to vote, I'm fairly pissed off by being told that "the only way to defeat Hilary" is to vote for so-and-so. I mean, wtf? We can't all jump behind every candidate on the GOP ticket just to keep Hilary Clinton from being the next president. I'm fine with people talking about a candidate's philosophy and ideals, but to "scare" us with a Hilary-led America if we don't follow a certain candidate is the exact strategy that has turned so many Americans off to the Republican party already.

 

If we want the GOP to get back to it's roots, let's try running some real candidates with conservative values and traditional ideals and focus on that, not fear tactics and "we're better than the scary alternative" scenarios.

 

 

end rant.

[Cdub100 3,996]

Hilary has NO chance in winning. Let me repeat NO CHANCE!!!

[Angry White Male 0]

RINO

[paradoxical 1]

Hilary has NO chance in winning. Let me repeat NO CHANCE!!!

I wish you were right

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Hilary has NO chance in winning. Let me repeat NO CHANCE!!!

 

 

I've been saying this from the start. The best thing that could happen to the Rep party is Hitlery being the Demwitmoveon.org Party nominee.

 

With almost half the registered voters already on record saying they would never vote for her, and the fact sooner or later she will have to answer some tough questions with something other than her insipid cackle, she will never see the WH again.

 

[Cdub100 3,996]

I wish you were right

 

I loved Bill

 

I voted for Gore & Kerry

 

But I've come to realized people HATE her. I mean they really hate her. Michigan is a Blue state right now we've voted for Dem presidents the last 5 elections I think we have a Dem governor etc.. I know I've said this before but when I was at a pistons game last year they were doing the celeb look-a-like on the big screen. They put Bill up there and people cheered and what not the minute they put Hilery up there the place went nuts booing her. It was crazy hearing the venom in their boos.

 

Anyway unless the Repubs put up a gay pedo asz... wait that's not too far fetched this day in age. If the Repubs put up hitler then she'll prolly still lose.

[Me_2006 14]

I loved Bill

 

I voted for Gore & Kerry

 

But I've come to realized people HATE her. I mean they really hate her. Michigan is a Blue state right now we've voted for Dem presidents the last 5 elections I think we have a Dem governor etc.. I know I've said this before but when I was at a pistons game last year they were doing the celeb look-a-like on the big screen. They put Bill up there and people cheered and what not the minute they put Hilery up there the place went nuts booing her. It was crazy hearing the venom in their boos.

 

Anyway unless the Repubs put up a gay pedo asz... wait that's not too far fetched this day in age. If the Repubs put up hitler then she'll prolly still lose.

She can't run for both parties.

 

HTH.

[Cdub100 3,996]

She can't run for both parties.

 

HTH.

 

Good one

[Recliner Pilot 61]

She can't run for both parties.

 

HTH.

 

POW!

 

Zing!

[Angry White Male 0]

Hitlery has cankles.

[Voltaire 5,538]

One party running the government hsan't worked in my lifetime. Splitting Congress and the Presidentcy has become a new checks and balances.

 

I thought Bill was a great president but he had Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole to (help? contain?) him. Reagan and Smart Bush both had Dems in Congress to balance things out.

 

Carter went nutso left with Dems in Congress as did Bill Clinton the first two years. Retarded Bush + GOP Congress was a flaming disaster.

 

------

 

So with that in mind, I think the Dems will hold Congress, for sure the Senate. Normally, I'd like to see a GOP president with a Dem Congress. While I thought her husband was great, I never liked Hillary all that much. Too smarmy and too far left.

 

But I am really flaming mad p*ssed at the GOP right now. Focking hate them, feel totally betrayed and don't trust them at all. Plus I beleive it will take a Dem president to end this war. I think McCain and Guiliani especially are great candidates in would not hesitate to vote for them over Hillary most years, but this war.... But that's where Ron Paul comes in. Paul is what the GOP use to stand for, would be a fine counterweight to the Dems in Congress, and would not hesitate to end the war. Plus the guy is brimming with class and integrity. Honestly, this is the guy that America would be best advised to put in the White House.

[dats007 1]

With almost half the registered voters already on record saying they would never vote for her....

Evidence? Link? Back-up? Which registered voters are we talking about here?

[Flashover 0]

I think a major point to this thread is that the GOP has betrayed the American People & has gotten away from what it used to be. This administration and what used to be the Republican controlled congress really did a lot of damage to their party(not to mention our country too). People are getting tired of their fear/slander tactics and the war. They don't want to be lied to anymore and don't want to hear about another scandal. Ron Paul may indeed be the best candidate for the Republican party. Who knows if he can win but he may be the best candidate to steer the GOP back to what it once was.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I've heard people say that before about Giuliani...that the republican base won't turn out to support him because of some of his more liberal views. But I think the Republican party will turn out and support whoever the Republicans nominate...soley because of their deep hatred of Hillary Clinton.

[itsjjw 1]

I'm voting for Hilary.

 

I would not object to Ron Paul as president either. I like him.

[Voltaire 5,538]

I've heard people say that before about Giuliani...that the republican base won't turn out to support him because of some of his more liberal views. But I think the Republican party will turn out and support whoever the Republicans nominate...soley because of their deep hatred of Hillary Clinton.

 

The Republican base sucks turds directly from George W Bush's retarded ass and can piss off. Guiliani or Paul would get <80% of swing voters and the base can decide to sit it out and watch Hillary roll if they want or nominate somebody they like who won't win.

[Toro 3]

We can't all jump behind every candidate on the GOP ticket just to keep Hilary Clinton from being the next president.

 

Oh, yes. Yes we can, sir.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

The Republican base sucks turds directly from George W Bush's retarded ass and can piss off. Guiliani or Paul would get <80% of swing voters and the base can decide to sit it out and watch Hillary roll if they want or nominate somebody they like who won't win.

 

I don't see that happening...I understand they want to be inspired by a candidate or whatever...but I think they'll be inspired just as much, outof their hate for Hillary. Giuliani has a shot of winning New York too, at least I think...and doing so would definately give him a good shot at winning the election. The guy is loved in NYC and upstate votes Republican.

[Voltaire 5,538]

If the GOP wants to win they have to go with Paul or Guiliani (or McCain). Anything else = President Hillary.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

If the GOP wants to win they have to go with Guiliani

 

fixed

[Voltaire 5,538]

fixed

 

Maybe, maybe.

 

I just got done reelecting Jennifer Granholm agains and obnoxious Republican for Michigan governor and I dislike Granholm much more than I dislike Hillary. I'm not even sure I dislike Hilllary- more that I'm uncomfortable since she was far let of her husband and the Dems will run Congress.

 

BUt I really, really like Paul, McCain and Giuliani. The war is a huge huge drag on these last two guys though.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Maybe, maybe.

 

I just got done reelecting Jennifer Granholm agains and obnoxious Republican for Michigan governor and I dislike Granholm much more than I dislike Hillary. I'm not even sure I dislike Hilllary- more that I'm uncomfortable since she was far let of her husband and the Dems will run Congress.

 

BUt I really, really like Paul, McCain and Giuliani. The war is a huge huge drag on these last two guys though.

 

I know the poll up there says 70% of Americans want out of Iraq...but that's not very specific. Is that 70% want out now...or want out when the government can handle itself. I don't know all the facts on this one, but I'll research it more. I just don't think anyone can take Paul seriously, I've read about him a bit since BLS has been talking about him so much and I like alot of what I read, but...

 

I disagree on Iraq, I think the war has been a disaster. But I do think leaving now would be catastrophic to the region, not just because Bush and Cheney tell me so,but the history of the area and the problems there now...they need a US presence for some time.

 

And also, during the debates...Paul comes across as a crazy idiot. Now I say that but I actually am sick of all these robot politicians who say what they think they have to say to get elected...with no emotion, with the fake smiles, with all the B.S...I will say Paul is the only one who doesn't come across fake like the rest do. However, he needs to find that middle ground...between robotic and insane....he's too far on the insane side for me right now.

[paradoxical 1]

guiliani can't be president, is already president of 9-11. Seriously though, that guy scares me just as much as hillary.

 

he said in one debate I believe: "freedom is about authority."

 

kiss your civil liberties goodbye if he gets elected.

[hoytdwow 202]

HEEEEEEEEEEEYAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!

[wiffleball 4,799]

If someone like Ron Paul doens't get elected - and I highly doubt he will - It says more about the country than the candidate. I've said this for a long time now; An ignorant and apathetic populace gets a stupid and ineffective government.

 

But, it's damn sure be nice to have a change in the course of American Government.