From a conversation I've referenced previously in earlier posts (see here, here, and here), Former Mitt Romney aide and now Mike Huckabee supporter Hunter Golden ripped into Ron Paul recently in a manner that I'm surprised nobody else has done. This was in response to someone calling Paul the "only conservative in the field".
I'm fine if you want to vote for him, but really, the guy's as electable as my keyboard is in the end. We can debate what a pure conservative is and isn't until the cat comes home, but it doesn't mean a lick in the end. Right now he's sitting on about 13% of the Republican vote which makes up less than 5% nationally. Hardly electable. Sure, I'm sure the always cynical independents will like him, but they've got brains and would rather support a winner in the end. Really, it's all moot.
He's sat around in Congress doing a whole lot of nothing for 20 years except tell us what he 'believes in' for 20 some odd years yes hasn't passed much in the way of anything important. He likes to play the 'conscience' of the congress thing, but really it doesn't fly when you don't vote on much of....well....anything. The guy won't even vote to condemn genocide because it conflicts with what his view of the U.S.'s role in the world should be. The last thing this country needs is a "take my ball home when I don't get my way" legislator racking his brain for four years trying to figure out how to do the same as an executive. Our current President's most admirable quality and glaring fault is his unwavering commitment to his ideals. It makes for great men, but not great government.
Paul's problem isn't his conservatism, it's presence or lack thereof. It's the fact that he's 1) got nothing to run on; 2.) as a result, is based on what everyone isn't doing. If he were President he would, uh, not do what everyone else would do. Great.
Golden makes a lot of sense, here. While Paul is running on a libertarian platform, a lot of his message is comparing his libertarian principles to other candidates, instead of simply presenting these principles.
You would think that if he felt these principles were right for America, he would've pushed them harder during his tenure in Congress...maybe introducing some libertarian-based legislation, or something. Instead, he simply votes "no" on most issues or abstains altogether.
As I've said previously, I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for. However, I think most people have a problem with the messenger more than the message.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
How is polling as the current favorite among Republicans at 13% make him unelectable. By that lack of logic until the fields on both the Democrat and Republican sides thin out to the the point where there is a clear favorite polling upwards of 50% nobody is electable. If Hillary Clinton is polling at around 35% that simply means she only has the support of around 20%. Bill Richardson is polling at a comparable level to Paul, are we going to argue he's unelectable, how about John McCain.
An argument can be made about Pauls electability, but using his current poll #'s (apperently poll #'s that are much higher then any media report has suggested) to argue electability is pure stupidity, and if there are indications that he is polling around 13% among Republicans then it can only be assumed those comments were made out of fear that Paul will in fact have a chance to win the nomination or at least take Huckebee out of contention.
Because 13% among Republicans is referring to registered Republicans. Paul is not doing as well amongst right-leaning independents.
Also, Golden used to be an aide for Mitt Romney, and being an aide to a politician means that you have to look at things like poll numbers and electability factors. Hence the reason he makes these statements.
He also believes that Rudy is unelectable as a President due to his not-so-clean personal past. Which makes sense. He's looking at this from an election POV, not an ideological POV.
I completly agree Rudy is unelectable, despite the fact his poll #'s are pretty good at this point at least among Republicans.
As for the fact that he has to look at poll #'s and electibility because he's an aid, I don't have the slightest clue what that has to do with arguing he is unelectable because of his poll #'s among the Republican field. If he's polling at 35% in head to heads against the Democrat contenders that would be relevent but to argue that he's unelectable based on overall poll #'s when fairly electable candidates such as Bill Richardson and John McCain are polling in the same range. It could be that every Republican this year is if not unelectable a long shot, although I think Huckebee is the most electable candidate on either side if his Republican challangers don't destroy him, and despite the fact I think Mitt Rommney should be unelectable it seems if the public is willing to buy into all of his lies.
My main point is that if there is evidence Ron Paul is unelectable I want to see it. As best as I can tell the best argument that he won't be elected is that he won't win the Republican nomination which of course is probably true. Maybe he's so unelectable that there is no need to think about what he would do head to head against Clinton or Obama, but this right leaning independent thinks he could beat any Democrat thrown at him with the exception of Bill Richardson.
While political insiders tend to know more then the average person sometimes when an agent of change emerges and gains real support the insiders are the last to know it.
I believe Ron Paul's electability problems lie within the fact that mainstream America does not fully understand the good points of libertarianism, nor would they be willing to accept it at this time. He's advocating ideas that are foreign to most average Americans (because they're not used to it, we're not a country that accepts change easily), and it leaves them scratching their heads.
The mainstream Americans who will vote Republican will do so because of two reasons. 1) It's not a Democrat and 2) they are part of the 30-odd percent that approve of Bush's job performance.
The mainstream Americans who will vote Democrat will do so because of two reasons, as well. 1) It's not a Republican and 2) The Democrats are seen as an agent of "change" from Bush, since he is a Republican.
You are right about the insiders usually not knowing an agent of change when they see one...but at the same time, Barry Goldwater was an agent of change...and he got BLOWN out of the water by Lyndon B. Johnson. However, it set things in motion to bring about the Reagan Revolution.
Post a Comment