I believe there are two primary objections among many Republicans, which might possibly prevent a vote for Ron Paul. I also believe that these objections can, and should be overcome.
Firstly, many Republicans may contend that in a "post-911 world", we can't afford to have a President who is weak in the 'War on Terror', or who will back out of the "war" in Iraq. Some might even call this a "cut and run" position and think that Ron Paul will assure our defeat in Iraq (through withdrawal).
a) Ron Paul is not weak on defense - in fact, he would likely support cutting all other areas of government before ever cutting our defense spending. He does feel strongly that our military's role is to defend our country, not to operate as a police force or to assist in the rebuilding of post-war Iraq.
b) We already have WON a military victory in Iraq! Those who complain that withdrawing will assure defeat are just plain wrong. Our military is the most advanced, most powerful military in the world, which soundly and easily defeated the military forces of Saddam Hussein's regime. If our forces stay in Iraq, some level of insurrection and civil war will continue well into the future. If our forces exit Iraq, some level of insurrection and civil war will continue well into the future.
Furthermore, regardless of where you stand on Iraq or the 'War on Terror', Ron Paul is a true conservative who supports less government, family values, protecting our 1st and 2nd amendment rights, lower taxes and less government intrusion, and restoring a sound economic policy to foment stability and growth! Perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul believes in enforcing our constitutional laws - and that includes securing our borders; not giving amnesty to 20,000,000 illegal immigrants (something our Republican frontrunners and Democratic frontrunners BOTH support). We're losing a cultural war that is eroding our heritage and morality - we need a leader who is truly a man of conviction - who will do what is right regardless of the influences of special interests, the media, or the pendulum swing of popular opinion. His honesty and integrity is unmatched among his peers, and the consistency of his voting record is truly unparalleled. When was the last time we, as Americans, voted a president into office and they actually voted consistently based on the same values and positions they used in their campaign? Ron Paul is that kind of man.
Secondly, many other Republicans, though acknowledging his honesty, integrity, and admirable strict adherence to our Constitution, contend that he's not worthy of a vote -- because he simply cannot win. This couldn't be further from the truth. Ron Paul is a true conservative who will energize the base of conservative Republicans in a way we haven't seen since Ronald Reagan. In addition, his position on the war in Iraq appeals to a wide range of voters - even liberals and libertarians who would otherwise not consider voting for the Republican candidate. Those are votes that a Giuliani, McCain, or Romney definitely would NOT get.
If Giuliani or McCain gets the nomination, many of the core conservatives will flee to a 3rd party candidate or just stay home, whereas the Democractic base will be energized and flock to the polls for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But, if Ron Paul is on the Republican ticket, some of that Democractic base will cross-over. As a true conservative through and through, Ron Paul can appeal to the conservative base of the Republican party, while also appealing to anti-war Democrats, to the growing numbers of libertarians (in particular, the young vote), and even to the moderate voter simply fed-up with our immigration policy (or lack thereof). Ron Paul not only has a real chance to win in '08, a strong case can be made that he has the best chance to win!
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Can Ron Win?
Many voters - Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, may be reluctant to throw their support behind Ron Paul with one powerful reason in mind; he simply has no chance to win. But is Ron Paul just a relatively obscure, "lower tier" candidate who cannot distinguish himself from the rest of the pack or who does not have a wide enough appeal? Or instead, is there something truly unique about Ron Paul and his candidacy? Is there a quietly growing groundswell of grassroots support that could spill over into strong showings in the early primaries?
Although the media widely describes Rudy McRomney as the top 3 candidates and many now throw Fred Thompson into the "top four," Paul has raised more money in New Hampshire than either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. Am I suggesting that Ron Paul is going to win the New Hampshire primary? Well, no. But could Paul shock many political analysts by making a very strong showing - possibly even in the top 3? If fundraising is any indicator then the obvious answer is yes! Now granted, it isn't enough for Ron Paul to make a respectable showing in New Hampshire and immediately declare victory. Naturally we are talking about his ability to win the whole thing -- to win the national primary (and then the presidency). However, the respectability of a strong showing in the first primary would give Dr. Paul even more of the national exposure he needs to showcase the singular nature of his candidacy.
This brings me to the real meat of the argument -- Ron Paul is the true conservative candidate in this election. He is the candidate that the real base of the Republican Party has been yearning for since the conclusion of Reagan's 2nd term, when the torch of the party was picked up by Bush Sr. in 1988. Most just don't yet know it. I readily admit that the possible or likely candidacies of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich could muddy the waters and make it more unlikely that a large number of Republicans will have the opportunity to hear Ron Paul's distinctive message. Yet I also assert just as readily that their presence in the campaign does not diminish the fact that he alone among the candidates is a true conservative. While others claim to be the standard bearer of the conservative movement, I think it can be plainly demonstrated that only Ron Paul passes the test.
The starting point is a non-interventionist foreign policy. This has historically been the conservative foreign policy position, as Ron Paul rightly has been insisting until he's blue in the face. Many people today don't realize that even George W. Bush espoused a non-interventionist foreign policy when he argued in his first campaign that we should not be policing the world. He did this precisely because he knew that position would resonate with his conservative base. Conservatives also attacked Clinton mercilessly for his interventionist foreign policy - including but not limited to the entanglements in Bosnia and Somalia. Ron also passes the conservative test on 2nd Amendment rights, taxation, abortion, immigration, and above all, limited government. He is the only candidate actively pushing to dramatically scale back the size and scope of the federal government, frequently invoking the Constitution to that end. There is simply no other candidate out there who is expounding these conservative principles.
An increasing number of Americans feel that our country is headed down the wrong path - that our politicians are selling us out, that we're losing a cultural war with widespread ramifications, and that we're a nation drifting away from the rule of law - a nation of contradictions. Americans are growing in their discontent with politics as usual, and with a run-away train bureaucratic Leviathan that grows every four years whether Democrat or Republican occupies the Oval Office. The bottom line is that our country needs a leader like Ron Paul.
The last Republican candidate for president who won decisively was Ronald Reagan - because he appealed not just to Republicans, but to independents, moderates, and "Reagan-Democrats." Who then has the best chance to win in 2008? Rudy McRomney or another candidate in the tradition of Bush Sr. or Bush Jr.? Or Ron Paul, whose honesty, integrity, and common sense approach will appeal not just to Republicans, but to Americans.
http://ronpaul.newlibertyusa.com
Although the media widely describes Rudy McRomney as the top 3 candidates and many now throw Fred Thompson into the "top four," Paul has raised more money in New Hampshire than either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. Am I suggesting that Ron Paul is going to win the New Hampshire primary? Well, no. But could Paul shock many political analysts by making a very strong showing - possibly even in the top 3? If fundraising is any indicator then the obvious answer is yes! Now granted, it isn't enough for Ron Paul to make a respectable showing in New Hampshire and immediately declare victory. Naturally we are talking about his ability to win the whole thing -- to win the national primary (and then the presidency). However, the respectability of a strong showing in the first primary would give Dr. Paul even more of the national exposure he needs to showcase the singular nature of his candidacy.
This brings me to the real meat of the argument -- Ron Paul is the true conservative candidate in this election. He is the candidate that the real base of the Republican Party has been yearning for since the conclusion of Reagan's 2nd term, when the torch of the party was picked up by Bush Sr. in 1988. Most just don't yet know it. I readily admit that the possible or likely candidacies of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich could muddy the waters and make it more unlikely that a large number of Republicans will have the opportunity to hear Ron Paul's distinctive message. Yet I also assert just as readily that their presence in the campaign does not diminish the fact that he alone among the candidates is a true conservative. While others claim to be the standard bearer of the conservative movement, I think it can be plainly demonstrated that only Ron Paul passes the test.
The starting point is a non-interventionist foreign policy. This has historically been the conservative foreign policy position, as Ron Paul rightly has been insisting until he's blue in the face. Many people today don't realize that even George W. Bush espoused a non-interventionist foreign policy when he argued in his first campaign that we should not be policing the world. He did this precisely because he knew that position would resonate with his conservative base. Conservatives also attacked Clinton mercilessly for his interventionist foreign policy - including but not limited to the entanglements in Bosnia and Somalia. Ron also passes the conservative test on 2nd Amendment rights, taxation, abortion, immigration, and above all, limited government. He is the only candidate actively pushing to dramatically scale back the size and scope of the federal government, frequently invoking the Constitution to that end. There is simply no other candidate out there who is expounding these conservative principles.
An increasing number of Americans feel that our country is headed down the wrong path - that our politicians are selling us out, that we're losing a cultural war with widespread ramifications, and that we're a nation drifting away from the rule of law - a nation of contradictions. Americans are growing in their discontent with politics as usual, and with a run-away train bureaucratic Leviathan that grows every four years whether Democrat or Republican occupies the Oval Office. The bottom line is that our country needs a leader like Ron Paul.
The last Republican candidate for president who won decisively was Ronald Reagan - because he appealed not just to Republicans, but to independents, moderates, and "Reagan-Democrats." Who then has the best chance to win in 2008? Rudy McRomney or another candidate in the tradition of Bush Sr. or Bush Jr.? Or Ron Paul, whose honesty, integrity, and common sense approach will appeal not just to Republicans, but to Americans.
http://ronpaul.newlibertyusa.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)