Matchup Between Ron Paul and Barack Obama : View from the Border Fort
68If Barack Obama were to to wake up one morning to find Ron Paul had cinched the GOP nomination, he would be at terrible risk: He might hurt himself from laughing so hard.
That's a fact.
It's also a fact that few people outside of Ron Paul's hardcore cadre of supporters--what some wag dubbed "the Paulbots"--believe it's even remotely likely Paul will be the nominee despite his showing in Iowa and his chances in New Hampshire. Which begs the question: Why on Earth is Ghost wasting his time writing about a Paul-Obama matchup?
There are reasons:
1. Readers asked me to do a full series on the various candidates, and I couldn't resist the peer pressure. Ghost the wimp.
2. Despite the dim nature of his long term prospects as a candidate, he is kicking butt well enough in the early states to rate a Hub. It's the Indian you don't see that kills you.
Oops. Slipped right into western fiction mode there. But...why not? After all, the Ron Paul story reads like something right out of the Twilight Zone, doesn't it?
3. Sarah Palin got it right (as she usually does) when she emphatically declared that the GOP must not ignore Ron Paul's supporters. They're a powerfully committed bunch, they care a whole heap about any number of important issues, and a third party run for the Presidency by Paul could well clinch the election for Obama.
That said, here we go with the boxing ring set up outdoors under the light of the uncaring moon. Veteran ring announcer, Bruce Buffer, introduces the combatants:
"In the red corner, the little ol' Texan with the attitude a-flexin', the legislator so feared by the feds that putting his bumper sticker on your car is enough to get you surveiled by the FBI, the voice in the wilderness...challenger CONGRESSMAN...RON-N...PAU-U-U-L-L-L!!
"And in the blue corner, the community organizer with more present votes in his career than Santa has presents in his sack, the giver of your tax dollars to anyone not native to these lands, the body-surfing, vacationing, one and only...PRESIDENT...BARACK...HUSSEIN...OBAM-M-MA!!"
"Let's get ready to RUM-M-M-BLE!!"
The betting is fast and furious, most of the money on the man many suspect secretly approved the deadly, illegal, and highly disastrous gunwalking program known as Fast and Furious. The Prez seems both cocky and snarky; he doesn't even glance at his teleprompter as he sneers down at his tiny, wizened, old-white-man opponent....
The Tale of the Tape
This is a tough one...in large part because Ron Paul (and no other candidate) has a policy position or two that are (literally) real killers. But...here we go anyway:
1. Age: On Election Day, Barack Obama will be 51 years of age. Ron Paul will be...77?! Whoa, really? (*triple checks*) Yep. 77. Well, we saw how well the last old white man did against Barack. Killer Advantage: Obama.
2. Iran: Obama's not the most effective dude we could have when it comes to foreign policy, but he's definitely not too thrilled about the idea of Iran getting nukes. Paul believes the jihad-driven country ought to be able to have 'em if they want 'em. Killer Advantage: Obama.
3. Israel and/or the Holocaust: Obama is no friend to Israel--duh!--but he's an absolute mensch compared to Ron Paul. The Ronster does not believe we (America) should have become involved in World War II at all "just to save the Jews". Because we were attacked, yes; he does agree that our folks getting shot at is cause for combat.
But not to save the descendants of Abraham from total annihilation. None of our business, says he. Unconstitutional. Triple Killer Advantage: Obama.
====================================================
Enough. No more Tale of the Tape. Please.
The question any quasi-informed reader has to be asking is: How the #&%$!! did Ron Paul pull 21% of the votes in the Iowa caucuses, with polling numbers in New Hampshire that aren't that bad, either?
Got me. Here's what the pundits are saying, though:
1. Ron Paul is consistent. He's never flip-flopped in his life.
2. He believes in smaller government than anybody else out there. That has a lot of appeal to folks who resent federal intrusion in their lives--if that was all of it, I'd vote for him.
3. He wants our troops back home. All of them. For many, worrying about the rest of the world just isn't in their mindsets, and/or they see our farflung military bases and military actions around the globe as imperialistic--a really hateful thing.
4. Paul also wants marijuana regulation (or the lack thereof) left entirely to the states, which gives him the stoner vote by default. Plus, a whole lot of intelligent people have come to realize the War on Drugs is a sucky thing that mostly serves to incarcerate a big chunk of the population while lining certain pockets...and that decriminalizing pot has a lot of attractive aspects to it.
5. He looks a lot like the average Paulbot's twinkly-eyed grandfather.
Hey, don't discount the Grandfather Effect.
Is there a chance in Hell that Ron Paul will be the eventual GOP nominee? No. I don't believe there is. And that's a (*whew!*) good thing. But while it's not likely we have to worry about him gaining the White House, there is legitimate concern out there about him giving Obama a second term by running independently and siphoning votes away from the Republican candidate in a year when ABO (Anybody But Obama!) has to be the conservative warcry.
But...why would he do that? He must know he can't win without the GOP...doesn't he?
Yes. I think he does know that. But here's the problem: Ron Paul is every bit the ideologue that Barack Obama has demonstrated himself to be. That is, first, last and always, for him it's a matter of POP--Principal Over Practicality. It's not inconceivable that he would run in order to deliberately sabotage the GOP candidate if (just for example) he felt the Republican would definitely bomb Iran.
Would a Ron Paul run as an Independent or a Libertarian or a Klingon add up to a certain death sentence for the Republican nominee's chances? No. The pundits say yes, but no. Nothing is over till it's over.
On the other hand, such a run would certainly up the Alka Seltzer and Pepto Bismol sales until the results were tallied on Election Day.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
CommentsLoading...
Josak, I love your post--it actually encourages right winger me. That is, if Ron does run a third party candidacy, you're indicating he might just pull as many votes from Obama as he would from the GOP guy.
I do respect Ron Paul. No question. I see him as dangerously mistaken in a couple of deal-killer areas and unelectable because of those, but that doesn't lessen my regard for him as a human being. And (fiscal right winger or not) I absolutely agree with you when it comes to LGBT issues.
In that area, I'm as liberal as they come.
Hmm im not so sure that you should be encouraged... See if he ran as an independent his supporters would vote for him (allmost all of which are right wingers) but I doubt any leftists would give him their vote when it is obviously pointless as left wingers see him as less bad rather than good. But anyway thanks for the reply, now knowing how you feel about LGBT I will go read your Perry vs Obama comparison.
Umm...okay. That ought to be interesting, since I haven't written that one yet, just Santorum vs. Obama and Romney vs. Obama. But maybe you can see into the future--my somewhat psychic redheaded wife does, sometimes. :)
Ah yes :P I spent about 5 minutes lookign for it before realising I just assumed you'd do him before Paul being less of an outlier and all. Im curious do you support the right to gay marriage? hope the question isnt too personal or anything.
I do support gay marriage. And there are few questions I'd consider "too personal".
I am actually surprised, you seem to like Santorum and I guess are aware of his views on this if not here are some qoutes: he stated he did not have a problem with homosexuals, but "a problem with homosexual acts". The right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution". AND possibly worst of all: sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family"
I understand there is a lot more to a candidate than his views on this but I have several gay and lesbian friends (all great people) and I have a serious issue with their right to marriage being denied let alone the right to do as they wish in their own bedrooms. Whats your take on it? further info @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_
Yes, I'm aware of his views about gays and lesbians, and no, I don't agree with them. I'm also of the opinion that what folks do in their own bedrooms is their own business, BIG TIME.
But I can (and do) consider him as a viable candidate for the Presidency because I see the fiscal issues (and the government takeover of every aspect of our lives, which is expanding rapidly under Obama), as life-and-death urgent for the entire nation RIGHT NOW.
My gay and transgender friends (I have some of both) will survive a while longer in the shadows if they must...but if we reach the tipping point beyond which dependency on government is the norm for the majority of our citizens, America itself will not survive as such. It may still go by that name, but Liberty will have fled its shores.
We as a people stand perilously close to that precipice, that tipping point, at this very moment. Santorum's policies, if implemented, will pull us back from the edge of that cliff--and for that, I can tolerate his lack of tolerance for the time being.
It's sort of like having indigestion and bleeding to death from a gash in your leg at the same time: To Hell with the stomach cramps for the moment; get that damned tourniquet tied off and cinched down NOW!
Once the bleeding is stopped, we can look for the Alka-Seltzer.
It seems sad to have to ignore so much, we should have more political parties so we can vote for what we actually believe rather than the lesser of two evils. I understand youre point and while I could never vote for a man who seems to hate and certainly discriminates against 10% of the population I see where youre coming from. Thanks for the chat.
Ron Paul is the only Repub out there that I could vote for. His ideas are not far fetched and it is time we abandoned some of the policies that have cost us lives and money and have yielded little in return. I don't believe that we should have ignored the halocaust but it's time to re-evaluate the costs of all overseas support both financial and policywise. Isreal should not expect us to back their agression and it's time we limit our foreign involvement to what directly threatens U.S. people and soil. I admire Pauls' strait forwardness. I view all the other candidates as pandoring to the tea party mentality and they definitely don't hold the answer. Ron Paul really offers a chamge which may shock the rest of the world and return some credibility to this nation. Age 77 not a problem. Legalize marjuana go for it. Smaller government = less waste and less fraud. Why doesn't this appeal to both sides? Why? Because both sides suffer from tunnel vision. Both Parties want everything their way and shun compromise. If a bridge didn't have some swayiut would collapse and we are living in a culture on the brink of collapse. We need to abandone these candidates that heve an IQ of a parrot and fluctuating ideals that match their feathers. I just cannot understand how candidates that haven't read a book, magazine or newspaper or don't no our enemies location on a map can be considered for the highest office in the land or how someone who wants to outlaw masturbation can be perceived as credible. I don't want my president to concern himself with homosexual behavior, abortion, steroids, and college football scheduling. We have ministers and coaches who get paid to try and keep these things in perspective. I am willing to give Ron Paul a chance. The other Republican candidates, well, I wouldn't let them run a convenient store. The Democrats are so lost that they don't even realize it's time to change horses in mid stream. But then to do that you need a horse that can swim. Maybe Ron Puals' rising popularity is a sign that we need a strong third party that can trim the issues down to those that would rebuild this countries credibility and take us out of the soap opera/talk show arenas and reduce the polarization fueled by Americans' contempt for each other.
Great job as usual, Ghost.
I also think Paul has no shot at the GOP nomination.
(I didn't know about his position on WWII. How could anyone of good conscience say we should have sit back and let Hitler gas as many human beings as he wished, without taking action? I can't wrap my head around that one.)
If Paul does run as a 3rd party candidate, I think (and part of me hopes) that he would siphon as many votes away from Obama as he would from the GOP candidate. There are probably a lot of people who don't want to vote for Obama again, but who would never vote for a GOP candidate, yet would vote for Paul because of his positions on pot, the military, and gays.
The ever-helpful left wants to desperately wants to run against Ron Paul, because he's the easiest to defeat.
Thanks Ghost -- still listening and learning. Amazed that a very liberal Democrat friend of mine (I found out this afternoon) is supporting Ron Paul? What's with that -- this is a dyed in the wool, lifetime Dem! Oh, well -- great Hub with excellent information - Voted UP! (Keep 'em comin') Best, Sis
Josak: A lot of countries do have numerous political parties, of course. And it could go that way in the U.S. one day as well; you never know. You'd certainly think that a nation numbering more than 300 million Souls could produce a few sterling candidates, wouldn't you?
Thanks for commenting.
===========================
Joe: I actually agree with most of your post (with a blazing exception for your reference to "Israeli aggression")...but please realize, I AM the Tea Party mentality. So, what looks like "pandering" to you looks like "It's about time they paid attention!" to me. We've all got our mental filters.
Like Josak's first post, yours (especially your closing sentence) does reinforce my suspicion that a third party Ron Paul candidacy might actually help the Republicans more than it would Obama--something none of the pundits are able to see at all.
But then, the pundits have about as poor a record at prediction as does the average weatherman.
===========================
Will: Agreed--it's impossible to avoid that all too obvious conclusion. Even my brief little "Tale of the Tape" shows why.
===========================
Sis: "What's with that" is simply that a number of Paul's match up with Democrat-style thinking. Joe's final sentence sums it up in a nutshell.
Hey Ghost, my refernce to tea party mentality may be a little out of line because there are many views from many sides that I don't agree with but I usually show respect for anyone who takes astand and stands behind his beliefs. I think I hold a grudge against the tea party becaus ethey have fallen for and/or accepted Karl Rove and did nothing to neutralize his power and he represents everything that I felt the teaparty wanted to change. This guy in the long run is gping to undercut the teaparty. The Bush Cheney admin was no more conservative than Reagan but the teaparty still aligns themselves with these two administrations that grew the government like a liberal. You must realize how much Homeland Security and the Patriot Act cost us in money and freedom these two entities should fly in thee face of a true conservative. Karl Rove was the puppetmaster who ran the White House, engineered the emptying of the treasury and still owns your Republicaan Party.
As for Israel they owned no land in the mideast until the U.S and Greaat Britain cut them out a prime piece of real estate which infringed on the Palistineans. Ron Paul is right we can't afford to continue funding foreign goverments. Isreal needs to learb to stand on their own two feet. It is not anti-semetic to want Isreal and every other country to get their hands out of our[pockets. In case no one has noticed our country is bankrupt. We are on the verge of losing our preferred currency status. You know how conservatives don't want their tax dollars spent on abortions, well there are some of us who don't want our tax dollars spent on foreign governments
Joe: Got it. Believe me, I'm no Karl Rove fan...though I don't believe he has the power to "undercut the Tea Party"--mostly because we (Tea Partiers) are an accumulation of so many different, small, and hard-to-hit targets. In a sense, we're next to indestructible.
Nor have I ever appreciated the Patriot Act.
But...OWN the Republican Party? I call B.S. Rove is nothing.
I'm quite familiar with the history of Israel's creation. Yes, there was a time when they did not exist as a nation. There was also a time when the United States did not exist as a nation.
I do agree our financial support to other countries--including Israel--is way overdone. As in, DUH. But there are strong elements in Israel itself who feel the same way and would just as soon declare, "Mom! I can do it MYSELF!"
I'm with you all the way on not wanting our tax dollars spent on foreign governments. Spending them on OUR government is bad enough.
Fred - Paul has his loyal group of supporters but, as in the past, his sizzle will begin to fizzle. His has far too many "out there" ideas, his view of this country's place in the world among them. We have been keeping the hounds of hell (terrorists) away from our shores again by pursuit, not withdrawal. Now we also see Obama proposing withdrawal. Clinton did it and we see that the world isn't a safe place nor will it be any time in the near future.
The Frog
Is the world safer after Bush? statistically there have been allmost quadruple the number of extremist Islamic attacks this year as there was in 2001, whatver he did, it didnt work.
Josak - When was the last time there was a successful attack on American soil? Get the picture? It has worked quite well. bin Laden is dead as are a number of his lieutenants. They weren't killed on American soil now were they. You living on the same planet than the rest of us?
Frog: Yes, Jim, I expect (as do most students of the game) to see Ron Paul begin to fizzle down the line a bit.
Josak and Frog: Josak asks, "Is the WORLD safer...?"
Now, taking that literally, I'm not sure I can answer that question. I'm certain AMERICA was safer after Bush until Obama got going and that it's becoming less safe by the day during the current President's tenure in office--the increasing danger coming from within as well as without.
But...the world? Not so sure about that one. With Iran on the brink of nuclear warhead capability, the Arab spring turning into Holy Crap winter, the North Korean nutcase being replaced by a much younger and likely more energetic nutcase, TSA groping granny and grade schoolers alike, yada yada yada...there's no easy answer to that one.
But I do know this, and it's a knowledge that lines up precisely with Frog's outlook: The ONLY sure deterrent to aggression in all its forms by folks who don't like you is KOC, i.e. Knowledge Of Consequences. That's true on the schoolyard bully level, and it's true at the global level as well.
Heck, it's most likely true at the interplanetary level as well.
During my time in service, we encountered a guy here and there who would throw his weight around any time he got the chance. Which is the way of human beings; we've all seen it: Get a bunch of men together in a tight bunch, and somebody's going to try it.
In our commo platoon, there was one big fellow who hailed from...Arkansas, if memory serves. He had a 3rd grade education and a pea-sized brain, if that. Good worker, but dumb as a box of rocks...and he had a temper. There were people to whom he never showed his anger, and people he yelled at with impunity.
(No, I was never one of those yelled at. Wrestled him once, but that's a story for another time.)
There was one man he REALLY never messed with. Not a big dude, nor really small, either--but something like a head shorter and 80 pounds lighter than Mr. Temper. The smaller man wore glasses, was a devout Baptist (I'd nver met a devout anything before), and truly looked on the surface like "nothng much".
But he had the right attitude. We were talking about Willie one time (Mr. Temper), and this man--who knew he could never whup one side of the bully in a fight--simply promised (with fire in his eyes) that if Willie ever DID thump him, he (Mr. Baptist) would later lay up behind a door with a baseball bat and return the battering with interest.
Willie wasn't present at that little meeting, but he obviously KNEW; he had Knowledge of Consequences when it came to the guy wearing the glasses.
Courtesy incarnate.
Just saying.
Well first of @ Frog, no there have been no more attacks on american soil (no succesfull ones anyway several just foiled) but there have been many more attacks on Americans outside America and that is no progress at all) To ghost: Do you really think thats the attitude we have? I would wholeheartedly approve if we just scared off people by looking badass (sort of worked during the cold war) having said that I have a serious issue with this sort of preliminary aggression, my father grew up in Argentina under a facist dictatorship which was American backed, my grandmother, four of my uncles and aunts and his fionce were all tortured and killed by US operatives working with Argentine government forces, their crimes? well to get one case his 17 year old fioncee passed out pro democracy pamphlets, but offcourse the U.S. couldnt allow elections because the socialists might win, so they kidnapped her from her bedroom, took her to a military base used electric shock torture on her for days then raped her for days then cut off her fingers and then when she couldnt tell them anymore they drowned her in a barrel of human waste shot her and then threw her out of a helicopter out to sea to ensure her body would never be found (thus denying the family the right to atleast a burial) she was one of about 50 000 my father was interrogated and tortured too just for having known her but was released he still has the grill marks on his backfrom being tied to a steel frame and electrocuted. America has done terrible things in the name of its own security even ont he other side of the world, I hope we will not do them again Argentina is just a small example similar things have happened in dozens of countries, and a lot worse.
Sorry about he wall of text its a subject I feel strongly about
We Americans enjoy no real security against terrorism. You can line every airline passanger up, strip them naked x-ray them put them in induced coma and fly them to their destination and that can prevent an airplane full and a skyscraper full of people from being killed. But because we, at least when Bush was president, only inspected 5% of the cargo passing thru our ports, we are open to the largest terroristic attack imagineable..an atomic bomb the size of a cargo box. And I doubt that Obama increased our port security. But don't worry it is not in the cards. You must realize two things. Terrorists want to kill Americans and upset our economy. They have done that and we made it easy. We sent over a hundred thousand troops to the mideast and lost over four thousdand and mamed and disabled more. And then between private contractors and weaponry we bankrupted our country. The mideast doesn't want us all dead and totally broke or they would go broke because they depend on our oil dollars. Those who can look at the big picture and think outside the box might be able to understand that our future is already written. We are on our way to becoming a third world economy and culture. We are the last puzzle piece needed for globalization. The world will be controlled by a few million people, if that many. Terrorism will be daily life and won't take explosives. Money is not even the target. Right now it is resources. When a world power controls food, water, precious metals and energy domination will be easy. And since there will be a need to trim the world population there will be a zero tolerance for terrorism or rebellion. People don't see it because it is happenning one degree at a time. So, while you are worrying how safe we are from another attack you will be distracted enough to lose everything. We have already been distracted enough for private contractors to rob us blind in Iraq. Billions of dollars that are and will continue to be used against us. Distracted enough to have our rights stolen by the Patriot Act that was in fact written before 911. What happened on 911 started before 911 and will continue along the path of killing the nation that I once knew. And we are making it easier for the transformation because we choose between the dummest and the criminally greediest amongst us to develop our policies both domestic and foreign. While you are worrying about the bin ladens of the world you will be overtaken by the bin plannings of the world.
Josak & Joe: It's time for me to cut this discussion short, simply because my Hubs are (as I state repeatedly) opinion pieces, not public debate forums. At this point, y'all have thoroughly hijacked the page, and I need to rectify the situation.
BUT I'm going to let both of your most recent "text walls" (good term, Josak) stand because for the sufferings of Josak's family. No one should have to go through that, nor do I doubt your word, Josak, that the events happened as described. Man's capacity for inhumanity to his fellow does appear boundless all too often, and the United States has without question participated in its share of atrocities.
Joe, I'll briefly comment on your understandable but (in my view) overly pessimistic take on the global situation...and then, after this post of mine, any further comments that don't directly address the topic of the Hub (Paul vs. Obama) will be summarily deleted.
Let me just jump to your closing line: "While you are worrying about the bin Ladens of the world, you will be overtaken by the bin plannings of the world."
My response:
1. Brilliant, Joe. Very well coined.
2. I agree the attempt to take over the world by the globalists has long been under way.
3. I do not agree that their success in such a venture is a foregone conclusion at this point.
We will see.
Now...back to the Presidential campaign.
Fred - There seems to be a troll patrol hitting articles. Off topic nonsense most of it. As we head toward November it will get worse but the delete button usually works so well.
The Frog
Youre right about staying on topic Ghost, so im going to break the cycle and not respond the jibe above, you all have a nice day and again interesting hub.
Something ocurred to me and it is on topic, I hope it won't be taken as an attack just an honest question. I was reading your post that if our country continues under Obama it will cease to be America in a true sense, and I get that I am not a fan of all Obamas legislation, especially fiscal and especially bailouts and a sustainable economy is crucial for any nation. But is that what makes America? When people are asked what makes America great I dont think many respond responsible fiscal policy, what they might say (what I want to be able to say) is America is great because it grants equality to all, it awards people on merit and not who their father was, it is a country that will treat you fairly no matter your race, religion, sex or sexuality, in my mind thats what makes America what it is thats what grants "liberty" as you put it if we lose that then what makes us better than say China? Their economy is infact better than ours. Fiscal policy doesent make America, moral policy does... In my opinion.
Another great job Ghost. Ron Paul will not be the nominee, but he does make things a bit more interesting. Oh, if only we could weave together the best from all these people and come up with The Candidate we can all get behind.
"America is great because it grants equality to all..."
No, America is great because it recognizes that Our Creator grants all rights and freedoms, not man and his government. What God grants, man cannot take away.
Really you dont think that governement can take away our rights and freedoms? because a quick perusal of any history book will tell you otherwise, the point is the government DOES not and SHOULD not take away their rights be they given by a creator or not, which was my point from the start.
"Really you dont think that governement can take away our rights and freedoms?"
No. Governments can and do suppress our rights and freedoms all the time, but, since they are granted by God, they always rebound, sooner or later.
In any case, a close reading of the Constitution reveals that it does not 'grant' a single right. It protects the preexisting rights granted by Our Creator.
Check it out!
Frog: Yeah, Jim, I do know where the Delete button is located. However, sometimes a troll is not a troll, either. If it looks like there might be a chance at real communication between us, I try to cut a little slack here and there. Only up to a point, of course.
Josak: Your view on what makes America America is on target IN A WAY...and in its own way, makes my point for me. The biggest single problem with Obama's agenda is the inescapable fact that it bulldozes the entire country toward being a nation of "dependents" who must check with Uncle Sam before doing pretty much anything.
But (just for a moment, and then we'll call this sidetrack "done", too, 'kay?) let's talk about China and its "better economy". I've not toured the provinces in China and can't say how the average peasant farmer there is doing compared to the average small farmer here--but I can most certainly respond on the "moral policy".
In China, they still skin dogs alive and toss the dying animals onto piles of previously skinned carcasses to live out their last minutes, in shock, just looking around...till Death brings release.
In China, girls are still considered vastly inferior to boys, and female children are not infrequently secretly killed by their parents in order to hope for a boy next time.
In China, a top career for a computer whiz can consist of illegally hacking into U.S. computer databases.
In China, the manipulation of their currency to keep its value low (instead of allowing it to float) has enabled them to create a monstrous trade imbalance with the U.S...and without that trade imbalance, their economy would NOT be doing all that well; it's built on America's back.
Summary: China is light years behind us on moral issues and its seemingly robust economy is a house of cards.
BPop: Nice thought, and one I suspect we've all had from time to time this go-round.
Will: What you said; thanks.
Well, you know I don't like the idea of our current so called leader winning so much I would vote for Paul. I actually like some of what he stands for but like most of the rest of us his foreign policy sucketh for me. I really like some of his economic views. If he runs as an independent, God help us because it most likely will split the vote. I so hope I'm wrong on that because I could see him doing it. I'm not a huge fan of any of them, but the guy in charge now has to be beaten, period.
Thanks for putting things in perspective and giving me something to think about, again. BTW, loving the match up introductions to these, too cool.
Great hub ... must agree to disagree tho ... Ron Paul is by FAR my favorite candidate, and I've even sent all of my 2011 online earnings to support his campaign. I believe in his views ideologically, and if he does not get the nomination, will do as I did in 2008, and write him in. Voted up!
poetvix: The more I hear from Democrats, the less concerned I am about the possibility of a Ron Paul 3rd party campaign taking votes from the GOP candidate. It's looking like he might actually pull more from Obama--or at least make it a wash.
Brett: Understood. I was in precisely your position vis-à-vis Ross Perot in '92. Campaigned for Ross, sat 15 feet from him at a Rapid City, South Dakota rally, and helped him pull 22% of the Presidential vote in that state. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do, and good for you.
Thanks for the Vote Up.
I am volleying back and forth between Ron Paul and Huntsman. I don't see Paul being weak on foreign policy. There is no one out there that U.S. can't whip but we can't continue to waste military dollars on occupation and obsolete weaponry. If we need to defend or retaliate against an enemy we can do from our home soil with drones and similar technology. We don't need the expense of bases throughout the world. We need a few strategic bases in strategic areas. If the Repubs run any candidate other than Paul or Huntsnman I will either not vote or if they choose the likes of Newt, Santorum,Bauchman or Palin I'll come out and vote for Obama. Iowa was a non factor. They almost don't even count. Now is when I will start seriously evaluating Repub candidates.
Well, recent results placed Santorum where he should remain for the rest of the race and Huntsman and Paul came up to where they belong. I think Newt can withdraw now. He won't even be worth placing an anti-ad on the primary commercial media mud board. Santorum should also leave but he won't until the religious right cuts off their money. But it won't be a whole lot longer before he joins Bauchman at the losers table. I am fairly happy about todays results. I just hope that the Repubs can settle with three choices and don't trash them because I feel that two out of three of these candidates can beat Obama.
maverick47: I happen to agree with you that we would do well to pull back from many of the military bases we currently occupy around the globe. As for whether you'll be voting for Obama or staying home in November, you should have a pretty good idea after South Carolina. Unless Romney gets whomped there, anyway.
Joe: I will say that watching Romney's speech tonight (after being declared the NH winner), I could for the first time really "see him" as President. The others are going after him right enough, but I doubt they can trash him. Seems like he's got a pretty good handle on handling the attacks, at least so far.
As for "anyone else"...well, I guess South Carolina will (or at least should) tell. I agree with you that Newt doesn't seem likely to survive too much longer, though I've been surprised before. Which brings it down to disagreement between on us regarding just one candidate, i.e. Santorum. Having studied up on him a bit, I'm not able to count him out just yet.
I totally agree with Brett Winn. I think most political pundits have no clue about the grass-roots appeal of Dr. Paul. He will continue to gain popularity as his message can no longer be squelched by mainstream media when he places near the top in primary after primary.
Count me down as a Proud Paul Bot!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've heard the phrase, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't?"
Well, as you've basically said, Paul is completely known....you could create a program or something that would predict exactly what Paul would do, and you'd be right....no shocks, no surprises, and no errors.
The age thing is a factor - my opinion is that we desperately need Paul to set things back somewhat in order, no more "patriot act," and no more other tyrant bs such as Bush and Obush gave us so ...freely.
It's not like he'd be a two term guy, you know, and it's not like we'd even need a second term.
kenredd: Well, it doesn't look like he placed near the top in South Carolina--but 13% (the last number I saw) isn't anything to sneeze at, either, and as he told his supporters, it's FOUR TIMES the number of voted he pulled 2008.
Wesman: Yes, Paul's predictability is definitely a powerful asset.
One thing I'm glad to see here lately: The other candidates are recognizing his importance and acknowledging his contributions in their speeches. In the victory speech by Gingrich this evening in South Carolina, he gave full credit to Ron Paul for being "right about the Fed for the last 25 years". And I recall Romney saying "I agree with Ron Paul" (don't remember which issue) in one of the debates.
Clearly, no matter where it goes from here, Paul's success with the voters this year IS having a positive impact.
I get a HUGE lot of flack about supporting Paul....mostly, it's from Obama supporters.
Of course I read your profile...and knew I'd not get that from you, and that is why, really, I only talk "Paul" on "conservative type's" hubs or blogs or ...whatever.
I don't think Paul is "perfect" or ...whatever. I just think the guy is honest, and a man of principle.
If he says he'll do "X" ...then I'm sure that he will.
I honour that. I admire that. That's what I try to be.
I don't like Obama for him being a slick talking salesman...the guy that should have been working at a car dealership (I used to do that....so I can say that, LOL!)
Understood. I was a hardcore Ross Perot supporter in 1992, campaigned for him (in South Dakota), and that state gave him 22% of its Presidential votes.
I've been referring to Obama as either a "snake oil salesman" or a "used car salesman" for a lo-ong time. And I, too, once worked at a car dealership, but only for (ahem!) two weeks.
Wessman the reason Obama supporters give u a hard time for liking Ron Paul is because he is the only real threat out there. He will not melt down or flip flop and I am afraid if it isn't Ron Paul then it will be two more years of Obama. If the only two that can rally enough support is Newt Or Mitt toss in the cards the hand is over. As an independent those two scare me. I don't trust either of them. Can't say I agree with Ron Paul across the board but I feel that I can trust him and that is hard to say about any candidate..any party
Josak Level 6 Commenter 4 months ago
Interesting hub as a left winger I like Ron Paul more than the other candidates (because all the others are horrible) they take a swing at gays serving their country and risking their lives in our military they forget what their three main points are etc etc I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul not because I agree with all of his policies (only some) but because he hasnt flip flopped because he has shown himself to have integrity and honesty, I see no corruption and he truly believes in what he runs for, I also think that if by some miracle Ron Paul did become president we would see some of the bad habits shaken out of Washington. In conclusion I think you are mistaken about Obamas reaction to running against Ron becuase while the GOP might have some doubts about him he would probably steal a lot of votes from disolutioned Obama supporters who would never vote for any other republican he might steal mine if Obama screwes anything else up...