why ron paul has ZERO chance to win the republican presidential primary
1. His foreign policy ideas are simply the same recycled bad ideas that Jimmy Carter had. A foreign policy of ”let’s hide our head in the sand like an ostrich and blame big bad America and hope that everyone leaves us alone” is not only ignorant, but also dangerous for our country. And the big winners in last November’s elections were the ones who espoused ”american exceptionalism”, not the ones who espoused ”anti-american apologism”. Now I will admit Ron Paul’s foreign policy message would go over well with the Code Pink/Dennis Kucinich voters, but those type of people tend to be Democrats, not Republicans. One of my facebook friends put it best when he said ”if Ron Paul had been president during World War 2, we would all be speaking German now”.
2. He has no real political power. And this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2008. Yes, he can win any ONLINE presidential poll. So what. In 2007 the paulbots hijacked the same online polls and Ron Paul won them all. His followers then posed articles all over the internet touting his candidacy. He then suckered his gullible followers telling them that the ”polls showed he could win” and send to him money. Then came the 2008 primaries. Out of the 50 states that were availible for Ron Paul to win, guess how many he won? ZERO. And that is spelled Z-E-R-O. Now let’s go to the present day. His internet saavy paulbots are again winning all the online and straw polls for their idol. His followers are again posting articles about him like he actually has a legitimate chance to win. Next is going to come the annual ”moneybomb” when Ron Paul once again fleeces his followers by pointing out that he is ahead in the polls and has a chance to win this time. But their delusional fantasy is going to run into a buzzsaw called Republican primary voters. Paul got absolutely destroyed when he ran in 1988, got whipped by John McCain in 2008, and he will be a three time loser in 2012.
3. There are plenty of people who are ”one issue voters” in politics. And in the Republican party there are plenty of people that ”opposition to islam” is the one issue they feel strongly about. You can go to any anti islam or conservative jewish site and see that the two politicians that are diliked the most are Obama and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has said ”I don’t believe for one minute the religion of islam is our enemy”. And Paul also attacked the Sunshine Patriots for their oppostion to the ground zero mosque. Now i am not going to debate the muslim issue here, but the fact that a decent sized voting group in your own party considers you one of their main foes is certainly not good news for your campaign. Now to be fair, you will get the people who think Israel is oppressing Palestine and the pro muslim agenda voters will be on Paul’s side. The only problem with that is almost all of that crowd are Democrats who support Obama.
4. Let’s look at Ron Paul’s position on crack cocaine and heroin. Now I am totally fine with legalizing pot and prostitution in any state if the voters want it. If somebody wants to get laid or smoke a joint it sure isn’t any of my business. But we are talking about legalizing hard drugs because Ron Paul says that the government is unconstitutionally sticking its nose in peoples business by not allowing it. I say once it becomes legal, who is going to cover the costs of the people that get addicted to it to go to rehab or treatment centers. And please don’t say the addict. Probably the government will have to. Great, now here comes a great big expansion of government to fight the drug war that was ”caused by the tea party candidate”. Which by the way, I as a taxpayer will have to cover. Increased police and court costs etc, etc. But the issue isn’t what I think or Ron Paul thinks, the issue is what does the Republican primary voter think of this policy. The ”religious right” will certainly oppose it full force. And I would think that anyone that has had a family member suffer through the addiction process will be opposed to it. That’s two groups opposed. Of course, Paul will pick up the ”left wing hippie” vote and the anarchists vote. Except the left wing hippies are already card carrying members of the Democratic party. And all the anarchists who want to overthrow big bad America are already his supporters.
5. If he were alive today, Ronald Reagan would strongly oppose him. Reagan believed in spending generously on our national defense and certainly had an interventionist foreign policy. And according to the Ron Paul playbook, that would make the greatest president of my era ”a neocon”. Their policies and beliefs are totally and completely different. Naturally Ron Paul’s followers will attempt to hide that fact by showing you an old video of Ronald Reagan praising Ron Paul as a candidate and using that as proof that Ronald Reagan would support Ron Paul in 2012. Now watch me dismantle that silly argument!!! Does anyone remember Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania? Arlen was the senator that everyone on tea party and conservative sites called a liberal RINO. He was challenged by a tea party backed conservative in the primary named Pat Toomey and when Specter saw how opposed conservatives were to his candidacy he changed parties to Democrat. He voted for TARP, Obama’s socialized health care plan, and was pro affirmative action and amnesty. Yet, Reagan praised him as a true conservative back in the 1980’s and even cut a campaign ad for him. But go ask a Pennsylvania tea partier what they think of Specter today. LOL. If you were a House or Senate member, and of course running as a Republican, Ronald Reagan would praise you as a candidate for office. That’s part of what a sitting president does for members of his party.
But rather than look at a 30 year old video let’s look at Ron Paul has to say about Ronald Reagan. In 1987, Ron Paul wrote a letter to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee, starting that he wanted to totally publically disassociate himself with the policies of Ronald Reagan(funny but he yet to publically disassociate with the 9-11 truther movement or Code Pink). He later told the Dallas Morning News that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was a ”dramatic failure”. OK, let’s take a look at the political success of both politicians and decide if that is true. In 2008 Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary for president. He got 5% of the vote. In other words, 19 OUT OF 20 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL IN THE LAST ELECTION. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected as the president of the United States in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states, and his 525 electoral votes were the the most of any candidate in American history. Hmmm, I think we have to score this one for the Gipper.
6. Illegal Immigration. According to the highly respected anti immigation group NUMBERS USA, Ron Paul has the lowest grade of any Republican presidential candidate out there, coming in with an F. Naturally, his paulbots try to put a spin on this by saying ”welfare and benefit programs should be unconsititutional so illegal immigrants wont come here”. If Ron Paul threw puppies off a tall building his hynoptized followers would be applauding and yelling it was ”constitutional”. That argument wont cut it with the voters. Polls overwhelmingly show that Americans are in favor of closing our borders and against all forms of amnesty. And that really holds true with Republican voters. April has posted articles by former Ron Paul allies like Tom Tancrdeo that blast Paul on the immigration issue. Yet again, Ron Paul thinks like a liberal Democrat, and in fact even has the same ”F” grade that NUMBERS USA gave Obama.
7. Paul’s pork problem. One thing career politicians learn to do is talk conservative while picking the taxpayers pocket for money. And ”Porkulus Paul” has this shady routine down pat. First of all, let’s go back to last November’s elections to get the proper perspective on this issue. The Republicans destroyed the Democrats on November 3 due to the energy and votes of the tea party!!!!! Now the tea party came in and deservedly wanted to flex it muscles. And decided to take a principled stand against the unethical practice of pork(earmarks). The fight against earmarks was led by the Tea Party Patriots(TPP) and other tea party and conservative groups against the pork loving Democrats. In fact, TPP leader Mark Meckler considered this such an important issue that he promised to run a tea party challenger against any Republican that accepted them.
“We’ll do what we always do,” said Meckler. “Our members will put immense pressure on every senator to vote against earmarks. This is a fundamental issue — it’s both substantive and symbolic. Will they vote against the politics of the past or are they still stuck in it? This is a vote that will never go away, like TARP. Tea Partiers have long memories. Politicians have always taken advantage of the fact that voters have short memories, but we’ll know, we’ll remember, and in 2012 when they have aggressive, well-funded primary challengers, they’ll know why.”
Then it came out that a Republican asked for 150 MILLION DOLLARS IN PORK FOR HIS DISTRICT!!! Surely this was a RINO. Maybe Olympia Snowe or Scott Brown? No, it was actually Ron Paul.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.
Ron Paul is to the far left of the tea party on just about every major issue. Actually he looks just like a liberal Democrat to me.
SAY NO TO THE FAR LEFT TURN, STAY RIGHT. NO PAUL IN 2012.