Ron Paul, the Republican Party's Last Chance

There are things I like about Ron Paul, but I'd be surprised if he would receive the support of more than a fourth of the Republican party, and if he were the party nominee, he'd be defeated in the general election in a landslide so lopsided, it would set records. If Paul were the nominee, the Giuliani-McCain wing of the party would endorse the Democratic candidate.

The next shot the GOP will have at the White House will be in 2016.

 

I don't see how it would be a land slide. Paul would have the support of conservative Republicans (not to be confused with neo-conservative wannabes), Libertarians, Constitutionalists, the anti-war folks, and if Hillary gets the Democrat nomination...the anyone but Hillary crowd. He would have a nice cross-section of support and conceivably could put on a very good challenge.

 

I just wonder if the very vocal anti-war crowd would vote for Paul based on his stance on the war, or hold their noses and vote for Hillary anyway.

 

BTW, From all appearances, it looks like Giuliani would win in a head-to-head versus Hillary. Albeit, the election is a long ways off, but Giuliani is much better liked by the general public over Hillary. He was also pulling in some 20% of Democrats.

He says he would appoint conservative judges and leave other "sensetive" social issues to the states to decide, so that may be enough for him to pull in enough social conservatives to win the GOP nod. I also think, unless something really unexpected happens, that he would win the Presidency if he gets the GOP nod. Giuliani transcends political borders.

I still wouldn't vote for him, but I don't get to dictate who is the President...yet.:laugh:

 

I didn't say it made sense.

Really now, how much in politics has made sense in the last several years?

What you will find is people, Democrats and Republicans, holding their noses on election day. Anti-war Democrats voting for Hillary, who promises to put an end to the illegal war that she voted for, and conservative Republicans voting for Giuliani, who promises to only appoint judges who aren't like him.

And you're asking me about sense?:laugh:

As long as we get the R, or the D, in the WH, Congress, SCOTUS, or wherever, that is all that really matters.:BangHead:

P O W E R !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ron Paul is too extreme to get the support of the moderate element of the Republican Party which is still the majority. He'd get some, but not all, Libertarians, most of the small handful of people who call themselves "Constitutionalists" which only make up about 3% of the electorate, and maybe a fifth of the Anti-War vote, which will go overwhelmingly to whoever the Democrat is. The "anyone but Hillary crowd" is a minority of voters that is shrinking as we speak. I don't see how he could ever overcome the moderate element of the Republican party to win the nomination, but if he did, I don't see his support groups being able to muster more than 35% of the popular vote, and that's a high estimate. He'd be another Goldwater, carrying Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, and maybe Nebraska and South Dakota.

There are things I like about Ron Paul, but there's no way the Republican Party will nominate him.

If the Republicans nominate a candidate pushed by the religious right, like Brownback, Huckabee or Romney, they will lose enough moderates to the Democrats to lose the election, regardless of who the nominee is. The religious conservatives aren't going to settle for a second-place candidate on the ballot. If Giuliani or McCain wins the nomination, religious conservatives will either vote third party, or not vote, and the Democrats will win. I think Romney is dangerous for the GOP because there are a lot of evangelical Christians who will not vote for a Mormon, no matter how conservative he is, and Romney is a known wishy washy flip flopper whose sudden anti-abortion views are suspiciously thin. Then there is the fact that "Bewsh" still has almost two years to go to add to his already record level of inept incompetence.

 

While many of your points are sound, I disagree with the belief that he would only get a fifth of the anti-war crowd and that the vote would go overwhelmingly to whomever the Democrats nominate. If it is Obama perhaps this would be the case as he's been consistently opposed to the war. However, if it is Hillary then Paul would seem to be in a much better position having always opposed the war whereas, Hillary has been a supporter.

 

But then, Paul has the problem of being a conservative Republican. The majority of the anti-war crowd will support a Democrat who hasn't always been against the war over a Republican that claims he always has been, though there is evidence that he too supported Bush early on. Among the GOP here in Tennessee, there is very little support for Ron Paul, who is generally considered as an extremist. He would have a long, long, long, uphill battle to convince 10% of Tennessee's Republicans to support him in a primary election.

Realistically, McCain and Giuliani represent the GOP's best chance of keeping the White House. The moderate wing of the party is still larger, and more effective in battleground states, than the right wing. But even if Republicans set aside their differences and got completely behind their ticket, they've lost two thirds of the independent voters to the Democrats in the last two years. What's killing the Republicans is their failure to deliver on the right wing social agenda. Had Bush nominated, and fought for the confirmation of two staunch pro-life Supreme Court justices, instead of appointing pro-choice Roberts and unknown Alito, and spent what little political capital he had at the time on that, this wouldn't be a problem. Now, the right wing is no longer going to support candidates who are either weak on pro-life, or opposed to it altogether. Their candidates can't win the nomination without moderate support and won't win the independent support they need in the general election. Moderates won't be able to win the general election without the right wing. Ron Paul won't get majority support from any of those groups.

 

I was perplexed by that comment as well and look forward to the evidence to support the contention. Below is a link to a speech from Ron Paul one year after the attacks which suggest, pretty clearly, his opposition to the "war".

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ

 

From the alignment of the GOP in Indiana, I would say that Ron Paul could never win the GOP primary. Here it is between Rudy and McCain with Newt there as a dark horse. The Indiana GOP supports Bush still. They attribute the Democrat victory of 2006 to GOP corruption in Congress coupled with some war weariness. However, the Democrat margin of victory is still paper-thin and it does not mean that Hillary can win in 2008 because so many dislike her from her attempt to institute socialized medicine in the USA. So the GOP still has a chance. Whoever is nominated will have to run on the Reagan platform in my opinion.

 

And who might that be? The GOP has no chance in 2008. The Democrats gathered upwards of 60% of the vote during the mid-terms, and won big in both the battleground states and some of the marginally red states like Virginia. They'll easily get the tiny fractions of percentages they will need in the battleground states that will put them over the electoral top, and that's assuming that Hillary is the candidate. Obama and Edwards might do even better (especially if Ann Coulter keeps up her screeching). And there's always the possibility that Al Gore would run. He's be their strongest candidate, and all he's have to say is, "I told you this would happen back in 2000."

Congressman Paul was included in meetings with the Republican house leadership prior to our invasion of Iraq in 2002. I interpreted his attendance and participation in these meetings as support for Bush prior to the war. Certainly the Bush administration attempted to project this image. The earliest statement I can find from Congressman Paul regarding the US involvement in the war is from September 2002. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

 

Ron Paul is an unreconstructed Libertarian in Republican clothing. I don't know if he ever supported the war or not. I doubt it. He doesn't support the Reagan platform. Since as a Libertarian he only got a half million votes, how can he get much more if he were to get the GOP nomination? He would bring about a defeat worse than Goldwater's and perhaps even the end of the GOP. Ron Paul has no support that I know about among GOP leaders in Indiana. A regular Republican would really have to hold his nose to vote for Ron Paul.

 

I agree. and would rather go down to defeat with an honest conservative with a true caring spirit for the American people like Ron Paul, than go down to defeat or even win with liberal republicans like Guiliani or McCain or Romney. The most pitiful creature on earth is a liberal republican.

 

Do you guys think that Ron Paul's opposition to the war is the only bad thing he has against him from a Christian perspective?

God Bless!