Wednesday, June 20, 2007

President Paul?

James Ostrowski speaks:

As I said before, anyone who runs against Hillary starts with 45 percent of the vote just on general principles. Ron Paul can pick up those last five points by outflanking Hillary "from the left" on the Iraq War, drug war, monetary populism and opposition to the corporate state and the military industrial complex. His experience practicing medicine both before and after Medicare/Medicaid will allow him to checkmate Hillary on her key domestic issue. We already know he’ll hammer her on her support for the war. So, Ron will best Hillary on the key foreign policy issue and a key domestic policy issue. Perhaps Hillary will score points on extraterrestrial policy issues. Ron is indeed Hillary’s worst nightmare.

NRO, at least partly, confirms his observation:

A new Gallup poll shows Republicans losing in every 2008 national matchup with Democrats. Here they are:

Clinton 50
Giuliani 46

Clinton 49
McCain 46

Clinton 53
Romney 40

Obama 50
Giuliani 45

Obama 48
McCain 46

Obama 57
Romney 36

Edwards 50
Giuliani 45

Edwards 50
McCain 44

Edwards 61
Romney 32

Now, I've written that I don't believe Ron Paul has "the proverbial snowball's chance in hell." And I stand by my less than sanguine statement. But it is worth noting that my hope fails when it comes to his ability to capture the nomination, not in his chances at beating Hillary, heads-up, once the nomination is secured. I will not claim that the Republicans are going to throw the election for the sake of the Democrats, though this is a distinct possibility, but the party is far too wrapped up in interests which are diametrically opposed to their platform to nominate someone who takes it seriously. Remember Bob Dole?

The mainstream media, and the cheap imitators over at Fox News, as well as most of the nationally syndicated talk show hosts, will continue to insist that Paul is unelectable, while simultaneously claiming that we have to support Rudy McRomney, or the equally offensive, Fred Thompson, who could actually take out the Lizard Queen. Only they can't, because they happen to agree with her on almost every issue. If Bush were a popular president with a popular agenda it would make sense to run someone who is an idealogical relative. Rudy and Bush certainly share an ignorance of all things historical , but more importantly he, and the other three front-runners, are "conservatives" cut of the same cloth. The only way for the Republican party to have a shot at the presidency in '08 is to run someone who is significantly to the right of Bush. And, perhaps more importantly, though paradoxically, to the left of Hillary.

Enter Ron Paul. In truth, a return to a non-interventionist foreign policy is a move to the right. As Paul has rehashed countless times, it has been Republicans, traditionally, who were sluggish in gunning for war. But Paul's move, if one could call it that since the man has always been a non-interventionist, is seen as a move to the left. This is significant. Liberals who were against the war have a hard time stomaching candidates, like Clinton, who voted for the war. Whatever his stance on fiscal issues, Paul is appealing to the anti-war crowd, a not insignificant portion of Hillary's base.

The Lizard Queen has plenty of negatives. But if the Republicans trot out Rudy, or one of the other stooges, they will not be able to exploit this weakness of hers. When faced with two career politician bereft of principle, voters will plug their nose and pick their favorite letter, the independents going with the away team this time around. Only a genuinely principled and likable man like Paul has a chance to get liberal voters to turn away from Clinton, even if not necessarily towards Paul.

After eight years of Bush, America will be dying for a regime change. In some sense we already are, which is why I'm even bothering to talk about this. The Republican candidates, Paul excepted, though truthfully some of the other minor candidates aren't so bad, represent more of the same. Hillary represents a slight change in flavor, a change in degree if not in direction. Ron Paul alone stands for the real change that politicians always promise and for which people always clamor. It's up to his party to give him a chance.

5 comments:

Bob said...

Earlier today, I published a post about the audacity of Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance to omit Rep. Ron Paul from the presidential candidates forum they're sponsoring in Des Moines June 30. Now, thanks to a Bob McCarty Writes™ reader, I was able to provide this update:

Ed Failor Jr., executive vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief, is listed as a senior advisor to Sen. John McCain's effort in Iowa [Source: Democracy in Action]. The Muscatine, Iowa, resident also made two contributions totaling $1,250 to the McCain campaign March 31, 2007 [Source: FEC].

Fully realizing that Senator McCain, like Congressman Paul, is not listed in the order of Republican candidates scheduled to speak at the event, I realize you might be wondering what, if anything, the tidbits about Ed Failor Jr. might prove. Here's what I think they might prove:

Why isn't McCain participating in this Iowa forum? Because he feels like he's already "toast" in that state. You might recall that McCain was chastised by many Republicans in Iowa for what they perceived as his "ditching" the state during his 2000 presidential election.

Why would McCain operatives want to keep Paul out of the forum? Because they see Paul as the only other GOP candidate able, like McCain, to garner votes from both Democrat and Republican voters in Iowa. [Note: Rudy Giuliani's not going to carry Iowa, regardless of how many promises he makes; hence, the reason he's not participating in this forum.]

Finally, does it really matter whether Paul is allowed to participate in this Iowa forum? Not really. Unlike McCain's dying campaign, Paul's presidential election effort -- both online and offline -- is experiencing exponential growth despite the bastard-stepchild treatment he's receiving from the entrenched GOP bosses in states like Iowa.

Doom said...

Bah, I haven't believed this is a democracy longer than you have been alive. On the upside, I also believe that those in power give the two sides enough bones to keep there from being a wholesale revolt. It's dem's turn. Though, like soap operas, I could be wrong and the writers might surprise. Though Ron Paul just doesn't play the game right to be a consideration. He might, foolishly, or not, change something.

By the way, my mother asked for advice, politically. She knows this is my game and that I play fair. She told me what her beliefs are, what she wants, etc. I told her to check into Ron Paul. He fits her to a T. Yea, I didn't like it, and I don't think he has a chance, but I am honest. She is a traditional Democrat, but I think even she sees the problem with that.

Anyway, I hope your summer is going well. Mine is. If I wasn't so broke doing a thousand things, life might be a hair better. Still, I can't complain. You are in my prayers, boy. Ha!

Oh, would you change the word verification to, at least, personal choice (via email)? I hate that thing.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

My summer has been going well. I'm far too busy, but that's a decent problem to have. I'll be praying for you as well.

Oh, would you change the word verification to, at least, personal choice (via email)? I hate that thing.

Blogger must have done this on its own because I removed the darn thing some time ago. I hate it too. Consider it removed.

Doom said...

Oh, I read this again and am wondering why Ron Paul isn't running on a Democratic ticket, perhaps independent? I see him mostly as a Democratic candidate, no offense meant. I think he would get more votes with a -D beside his name with his views.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

No way Doom. He's against Big Government, which puts him, at least theoretically, in the Republican camp. In any event it disqualifies him from running as a Democrat.

His views on foreign policy are likable to both Democrats and Republicans alike, especially the former, but the only people who can stomach his fiscal policy are libertarians such as myself.

Still, traditionally, Paul would, beyond question, be a Republican, so I have no problem with him running as one.