Is Ron Paul the Right's best chance at a win in '12?

It is no secret that liberals aren't too pleased with Obama at the moment, but this is still his election to win or lose, regardless of which core republican runs.

If Bachman/ Perry/ Palin/ Romney wins the primary Democrats will have to choose between voting for Obama or not voting at all; we won't vote for one of those guys, and infact, many who would not have voted will come out just to vote against them. Most of us would rather have another for years of Obama then one of those canidates.

The most feasible way for Republicans to steal Obama's base out from under him is by running Paul because we actually LIKE that guy, he has a lot of views we can get behind. If he runs I predict a large number of cross party voters and a higher percentage of stay-at-home democratic supporters.

Also, Republican voters might sit this election out, but no one who was willing to vote for B.P.P. & R is going to vote for Obama out of spite.

 

You are correct in your 1st sentence..
Off base with the rest.

MY MAIN REASON to support ROMNEY is I feel that he would be the ONLY person to help heal the divide the nation has felt.
End the class warfare..using color or religion to make political brownie points.

He is not in the same class with Perrry..Bachman..Newt ..Huntsman..being he has broad support among independents and democrats as well as mainstream Republicans.
He isnt running against the Fed..or lowering taxes ..for the sake of a vote.
He is running on a creation of jobs and fixing a broken economy..
Which one side or the other CANNOT Fix by themselves.
Paul doesnt speak about unifying a nation.. bringing people together..he speaks only on a principle he holds..along with a few staunch supporters.
Good principles in theory..but does he have the ABILITY to LEAD ?

The others talk about tea..and the far right meat they throw at their base.
Someone need to remember they aint running for TEA president..TEXAS PRESIDENT..or libertarian president ..or MORMON president..

But President of The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 

The Left will not vote for Paul once more about his entire philosophy comes out (he's an extreme states' rights paleo-conservative and a hardline economic libertarian-- pretty much the opposite of the Left). Unless cognitive dissonance is even greater than I expect (after all, the hatred of Obama expressed by Firedoglake bloggers defies all reason).

But the Left who would even consider backing Paul over Obama are a tiny group as it is.
Paul would lose the support of a sufficient portion of the conservative base: neo-cons and hawks.

 

Very good post...Ron Paul would divide the country even more than it is now.....Personally he is absolutely not my kind of guy.
Romney is considered a rino by the teapartists because he doesnt run around talking about more tax cuts and murdering the working class and eliminating SS and Medicare so the rich can pay alot oess......but if elected he would be under great far right pressures just the same

 

Look at this from a different view.
Obama ran on Hope and change.. didn't mention progressive socialism.
He ran as a democrat..Not A Progressive.
Paul is a libertarian..who runs as a Republican...
We know very little about libertarian led governments..since we have so few elected in office here.
Where would he get his power from..??

So which candidates threaten or scare others with their extreme opposition political viewpoints ?

Paul scares everyone but libertarians.
Bachmann scares everyone but tea party people.
Huntsman ? better be a Mormon from Utah..
Perry..Even Texans think he's nuts...
Newt ..not a chance in hell. UN electable
Rick is for the west wing.Cain as ambassador ?
Romney isn't perfect..but he doesn't scare anybody...he is moderate..

He is the Mini van..non exciting...
Some want a 4x4 truck.
Some want a sports car..
Some want a eco car...electric..
It might be we need a practical work vehicle... a compromise..
The mini van that does.

 

I'd say second best chance, Huntsman being the best chance.

 

You are forgetting that the majority of America considers themselves independents, and I don't just mean of those who vote. I mean those who could vote but have given up from, as far as they are concerned, both parties being the same. RP would attack the FED from every angle, guarantee America not being a global police force for his term, and would end the patriot act, things the majority of all Americans would stand behind, but think isn't possible. The great majority of what he believes in can't be implemented, as congress writes legislation, not the president. The key to the status quo keeping him from being considered is America not realizing that little fact. What we all like about Paul can come into play, the things we might argue over are a moot point with him as president. Things like the war on drugs. A non-issue. Can't change anything as POTUS.

 

Also, his greatest threat as far as republicans are concerned isn't neocons, as those who are truly neocons are a small minority, the cheese and wine republicans, and grassroots republicans have all but destroyed the term. We already know what the left thinks of the term. The problem he will face is the "do-what-you're-told" social conservatives, or "religious right", if you will. Most of the religious right are actually paleocons at heart, as well, but they are the type who don't read, at their own detriment.

 

This is why I have no fear of Paul's more controversial ideas.

 

Better the nation be divided between right and wrong than united under wrong.

 

The question is how any intellectually honest "progressive" can vote for Obama, who doesn't have a progressive bone in his body.

 

And, of course, neither does Ron Paul.

 

RP might not be appealing to the extremists, left or right, and certainly not to the feed at the big trough voters, but to the more informed and clear thinking Americans from both sides.
Folks were swept away by hope and change, but now, mostly recovered from BDS, are a bit more mellow.
Those who do research, instead of cheering fanfare and fine words, will have to realize that Paul is the answer.

 

ron paul recent comment that the US was responsible for 9/11 would hurt him with the republicans..

he complained about foreign policy helping israel

 

"Independent" is meaningless. Most Independents are conservatives or liberals who just don't want to claim party affiliation. Of those left, there is no consensus that pulls them together.
And what makes you suspect that most Independents want the destruction of the Fed and the end of the Patriot Act... but not ending the war on drugs?
You're just projecting your own ideas on to an unknown majority.

And it's a bit naive to vote for someone who has radical ideas you disagree with just because you think he'll be stopped. You cannot know he'll be stopped for his whole term and by backing him you allow a "mandate" (a political fiction that allows elected politicians to pass unpopular things by claiming it's why he/she was elected).

Not sure what you mean? Progressivism is a broad (to the point of meaningless) group of movements. It's really just a word that replaced "liberal" for liberals who were too much of pansies to call themselves "liberals" after Reagan demonized the word.
Not all liberals and progressives are anti-war isolationists?
Was FDR? Was TR for that matter? LBJ?
The left's history is not Ghandian.

 

Well, you've got a point. The mainstream "Left" has a long and illustrious history of being anti-peace, anti-civil liberties, and pro-presidential power.

But then the question becomes why so many of them lie about it.

 

No I think you missed some of The point
The left is anti peace ..anti civil liberties and pro presidential power only when they get to pick n choose.

All presidents want more power..and congress has acted like babies ..and gave theirs away.
Right after Contract for America.

When Republicans held the WH the left protested every day..
Now that Obama has it.. CRICKETS.

When ever a Conservative rises..the left appears magically wanting the brown vote.. the yellow vote..the black vote..then when elected the left vanishes on all those issues dear to the colors..

Conservatives have a track record..of wanting All Americans to rise..not pick winners and losers based upon voting support.

Ron Paul the rights best chance..no..
libertarians last chance..
You can be Republican and Democrat and have libertarian leanings..not just that PAUL is the best answer.

 

This is his last chance. He is putting everything he has into this election.

 

From what I've seen, both the Left and the Right could stay home election day. They are trying their best to pigeonhole the rest of America into their equally warped positions. This election is fast becoming about a choice between two extremes, neither of which I care for.

At this point, I would like to see an Independent Paul/Huntsman ticket. O-blah-blah and all the RINOs can just go pound sand.

 

What do you think of a Paul/Cain administration?

 

That wouldn't bother me as far as issues. I like Cain. The reason I say Paul/Huntsman is pretty simple. They could together finance a tremendous campaign. I'm not so sure a Paul/ Cain ticket could raise the funds. Huntsman could finance a campaign by himself, but couldn't draw the support on his own, even though his rep is on the rise. Ron Paul has many donors plus support. As I said, a tremendous campaign, both from a money and an issue standpoint.

I think they should all stay where they're at for now. They're getting exposure. If the MSM gets their way, none of them will be the nominee. That's when it's time to think Independent.

 

I meant the war on drugs, pertaining to the "religious right". You can already tell that is one of the fear tactics the GOP establishment is using to dismiss him. You are a sharp person, Java. Do you honestly think anything will change with globalist puppets being control, whether they deem themselves right or left leaning globalist puppets? The status quo is working to help destroy America, for you can't have the American dream and globalization. You can't be for "fixing America", and be a "globalist" at the same time. One is the antithesis of the other. People need to pick a side. The elite are united, right or left means nothing to them. The only way for America to be fixed is for the lower brackets to unite, with right or left meaning nothing as well.

 

Bingo. I think the OP has a good analysis. Ron Paul would steal so many liberal votes from Obama that it's not even funny. The Republicans do not care about "winning" because they are controlled by the same elite who control the Democratic Party. All they care about is that a collectivist gets in power. Collectivist #1: Obama. Collectivist #2: Every Republican candidate except Ron Paul.

 

You start from the assumption that globalization will destroy America.
I would think a return to mercantilism and big wars would do more damage.

Globalization is a force that is occurring. The question is whether it will be adapted to in a manner that helps just elites or the rest of us.
Anti-globalists pick the elite side by abstaining from the actual fight.

 

Globalization is not a force, and globalists are not Jedi. We cannot even have a conversation on that subject as there is no common denominator to begin with. Nations are ran by elite, and have always been so. Globalization is a decision, not a born trait like someone might argue homosexuality is. Nations traded long before free trade, and globalists don't hold the key to the garden of everyone getting along. People who care about the "world" *cough cough* are always going to deem America has enough already. Especially when there are vast sums of gains at stake, for said elite. It is simply time for new elite. Obviously, if schools push globalism was the work of traitors, than so so shall the majority see it. If people can argue individuals shouldn't be punished for having more, than that same logic must be applied to nations as well.