Ron Paul and what if Part 2
Here' s a scenario I was thinking about recently. What if this last Presidential Election came down between Ron Paul and Barack Obama? Many of the issues that plagued John McCain I don't believe would have impacted Ron Paul the same way. Obama wouldn't have been able to attack Paul on the issue of Iraq, because Paul would have basically been on the same page as Obama. Iraq and the surge was the main platform for McCain. The real Maverick is actually Ron Paul when you think about it. Ron Paul was anything but a follower of the almost liberal policies and spending of George Bush. If the youth vote was backing Ron Paul, Barack Obama would have lost. Another reason why I believe Ron Paul could have beaten Barack Obama. Ron Paul has a sharp command of economic issues. Barack Obama is basically green as grass. When the housing market collapse started to overflow into the stock market around September, Paul could have easily communicated to the American people the reasons for the credit crunch, and he would have came out against the seven hundred billion dollar bailout. That would have put him in the position of being a true limited government conservative and a champion of middle class America. Several polls released after Bush signed the bailout bill into law showed that most Americans were against the bailout. McCain and Obama were for it. I guess we will never know the official outcome of a Paul vs Obama match up, but I believe Paul could have won or at the very least it would have been an extremely close lose mirroring the 2000 election.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 8:21 PM
5 Comments:
Dr. Ron Paul is a stalwart Libertarian and many have admired his "Doctor NO" reputation in Congress, voting "No" on most federal spending Bills on principle.
That said, Paul's foray into 9-11 Truther moonbattery really hurt him and his performance in the debates made him appear like the GOP's version of Dennis Kucinich.
I've liked Paul's economics a great deal from a distance, but up close, Ron Paul came across decidedly "not ready for Prime Time," and I say that with no small amount of regret.
Yes, Rep paul motivated a large youth movement and his core supporters bordered on zealotry....similar to Obama, but without Obama's charisma and charm.
The disaster of this election was twofold; (1) while Bush and McCain DID work hard to TWICE foist much-needed oversight and regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they failed to go to the American people and warn them of the potential upcoming disaster and (2) the media (chock full of math and logic challenged people) misinterpreted the primary cause of the crisis, a turbo-charged CRA(1995) that mandated that banks offer more subprime loans and, in the words of both Andy Cuomo and barney Frank, "Not to just offer loans to the rich" (a/k/a those who can pay them back).
The problem with this media ineptitude is that it's been used to endorse MORE of the same kinds of policies that helped create this crisis in the first place.
JMK "That said, Paul's foray into 9-11 Truther moonbattery really hurt him and his performance in the debates made him appear like the GOP's version of Dennis Kucinich."
I agree 100% jmk. I believe he came out to strongly against Iraq. I myself wasn't a big supporter of our military going into Iraq, but once the troops were committed, I had to support. That is really the approach Paul should have followed. It's pretty astonishing that the one issue of Iraq is what really did Paul in jmk. I don't think Paul could ever be considered the right's version of Dennis Kucinich. That nut case is in a league all to himself lol
jmk "I've liked Paul's economics a great deal from a distance, but up close, Ron Paul came across decidedly "not ready for Prime Time," and I say that with no small amount of regret."
That is the same thing I thought about Allen Keyes too jmk. The guy is a genius when it comes to grasping social conservative principals, but Keye's approach to communicating his thoughts is what made him a non viable candidate as well. So why is it so hard to find true conservatives that can understand core social conservative beliefs like Allen Keyes, and strict fiscal monetary principals like Ron Paul, jmk. Romney is a great communicator, but he is hardly a conservative on either the fiscal or social side. The same can be sadi for Huckabee.
P Allen "Yes, Rep paul motivated a large youth movement and his core supporters bordered on zealotry....similar to Obama, but without Obama's charisma and charm."
True jmk. Both seemed to be able to attract their far share of devoted kooks.In a way jmk, I believe that is also what limited Paul's support. When seminar callers supporting Paul called into a talk radio show,they came off sounding like a zombie repeating talking points. Most of the time it was unnerving just listening to them try and explain why people should have supported Ron Paul. The same thing happened among the Obama fanatics and it still is happening.
jmk "The disaster of this election was twofold; (1) while Bush and McCain DID work hard to TWICE foist much-needed oversight and regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they failed to go to the American people and warn them of the potential upcoming disaster and (2) the media (chock full of math and logic challenged people) misinterpreted the primary cause of the crisis, a turbo-charged CRA(1995) that mandated that banks offer more subprime loans and, in the words of both Andy Cuomo and barney Frank, "Not to just offer loans to the rich" (a/k/a those who can pay them back)
Bush in part was partially repsonsible too for another reason jmk. Bush also pushed for an increase in home ownership. I don't know if he supported increasing home ownership "at all cost" or not.At the end of the day jmk, I'm glad McCain lost. I feel that as conservatives we would have won the battle of preventing a liberal with a D by his name from winning the White House, but the message to the RNC if McCain would have won is that a liberal with an R by his name is they way to win elections thus losing the war. What also did McCAain in more so then anything was when McCain said point blanks that "the economy wasn't really my strong suit". When the stock market started to tank, Obama already had McCain's sound bite to use against him. Since Democrats by and large created this global financial crisis we all find ourselves in, I think it is ironic that in the end they are stuck with their own creation jmk. For that I'm actually kind of glad. I know they can't fix the problem, but it will be nice knowing that can't blame Republicans for their inability to fix their problem.
jmk "
The problem with this media ineptitude is that it's been used to endorse MORE of the same kinds of policies that helped create this crisis in the first place"
I bet libreals are going to use the "blame bush card" for the reason the economy isn't turing around over the next four years. It will be interesting jmk to see how much mileage they can get from that card before people even the Obamatrons start to rethink their support of their beloved messiah. The media can only cover Obama up to a certain extent jmk, they can't fudge bad economic data on increase the consumer confidence numbers.
Iraq, very early on, became a lightening rod for BDS, Tyrone.
Right after 9/11 many on the far Left excoriated the American military intervention in Afghanistan....that fringe was corralled by the organized political Left (funded by Soros and others and aided by a complicit media), but few now recall how the far-Left went ballistic after America's incursion into Afghanistan and there's no doubt that THAT fringe would've exploded no matter what the Bush administration did going forward.
Ironically enough, Iraq HAD been a stalwart pro-Western, pro-American ally (it was our proxy in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war against the Soviet-backed Iranians) UNTIL Bush Sr. decided that it was no longer a necessary ally.
When Iraq complained to Bush Sr.'s administration about Kuwait's slant drilling across its border, in effect, stealing Iraqi oil, the first Bush administration responded, "We don't get involved in such petty border disputes," which Saddam's Iraq took as a green light for them to deal forcefully with Kuwait, BUT when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, the first Bush administration howled about "The Rape of Kuwait" and Iraq was invaded and emasculated in front of its Mideast neighbors.
From that point on, Saddam's Iraq saw America as a backstabbing enemy.
There was Iraqi involvement in the first WTC attacks in 1993 and al Qaeda DID have bases in Iraq (the Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq) and Saddam's Iraq cooperated with those al Qaeda bases AGAINST a common enemy - the Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq.
In the wake of 9/11, that "Axis of Evil" (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and N. Korea) was indeed the fulcrum of international terrorism, BUT the second Bush administration failed to accurately define the enemy in the War on Terror (WoT) which was not "terrorism", but radicalized Islam. That bit of political correctness has had a very negative impact on that effort.
Throughout it all, there have been TWO groups of anti-Iraq Americans - actual dissenters, like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell and others who've opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as they opposed Gulf War I on the grounds that America shouldn't engage in such "foreign entanglements," and that such wars were really “unnecessary and counterproductive.”
The treatment of TRUE dissenters like Rockwell and Buchanan and Paul proves the LIE that some on the Left have clung to, that "Conservatives have derided anti-war dissent as anti-Americanism."
ALL of those above mentioned Americans opposed the war, NONE of them were excoriated as "anti-American" because NONE of them engaged in anti-American rhetoric. The closest, ironically enough, was Ron Paul, with his foray into the edges of 9-11 Truther territory.
NONE of them compared the Bush Jr. administration to the Third Reich, which IS anti-American, NONE of them called America "the world's biggest terrorist", which is anti-American, NONE of them excoriated America’s troops as the far-Left has, which is anti-American and NONE of them compared Bush to Hitler, which is also anti-American.
The far-Left in America is not only anti-American, BUT it's actually been and remains an active "enemy within America." Buchanan, Paul, Rockwell and other Paleo-Libertarians have always stood against such wars, but have never crossed the line to anti-Americanism.
<
<
“Bush in part was partially repsonsible too for another reason jmk. Bush also pushed for an increase in home ownership.” (Tyrone)
Yes, that was the Jack Kemp legacy to the GOP.
Kemp was another, and perhaps the MOST influential Moderate/“Rockefeller-wing” Republican, in recent history. Unfortunately, Jack Kemp mistook a manifestation for the event, making the logical error of “cause and effect” (Just because a manifestation follows an event, doesn’t necessarily prove that it caused that event) and turned that critical error into public policy.
Kemp saw that home-owners tended to be more responsible, more goal-oriented and generally more Conservative in outlook than renters. He erroneously attributed those attributes to home-ownership, rather than the individuals themselves. In short, the Kemp-school embraced the view that there was some “magic of home-ownership,” rather than understanding that it wasn’t home-ownership that made people better, but that “better people” (more goal-oriented, more self-responsible people) tend to willingly take on the burdens of property ownership.
So yes, that critical error has explained the reason so many Moderate/Rockefeller Republicans so readily embraced a renewed tie to Keynesianism – big government solutions. The allure of the Kempian doctrine to Rockefeller Republicans is that its core error validated their innate faith in Keynesian public policy.
Nixon, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. were all devout Keynesians at heart, for that matter, so was Eisenhower! Only Reagan was a Republican aberration.
<
<
“up close, Ron Paul came across decidedly "not ready for Prime Time," and I say that with no small amount of regret." (JMK)
<
“That is the same thing I thought about Allen Keyes too jmk. The guy is a genius when it comes to grasping social conservative principals, but Keye's approach to communicating his thoughts is what made him a non viable candidate as well.” (Tyrone)
<
<
Personally, I think Alan Keyes was badly used in that run for that open Illinois Senate seat against Barack Obama.
It was naked carpet-bagging and the Rockefeller-wing of the GOP used opportunity to draft a Conservative Republican, in order to marginalize a Conservative candidate who’d actually won the Primary debates in 1996 and the Presidential debates in 2000. They drove out Pat Buchanan earlier.
Ron Paul has too many verbal characteristics in common with Ross Perot and Frank Perdue (the chicken guy), Alan Keyes has been marginalized MAINLY over his religious views, which is ironic since Roland Burris (“The hand of God touched him (Blagojevich) to appoint...”) has not been.
I’m also glad that McCain didn’t win, for many of the same reasons and because, quite frankly, there’s no evidence that a McCain administration would’ve been much different than an Obama one. If McCain had won, it would no doubt be Conservatives being appalled by a slew of Left-wing appointments...BOTH administrations would be staggeringly Centrist and by “Centrist”, I mean anti-market, pro-big government.
Let the Democrats take the blame for the coming melt down going forward.
jmk "Right after 9/11 many on the far Left excoriated the American military intervention in Afghanistan....that fringe was corralled by the organized political Left (funded by Soros and others and aided by a complicit media), but few now recall how the far-Left went ballistic after America's incursion into Afghanistan and there's no doubt that THAT fringe would've exploded no matter what the Bush administration did going forward."
jmk, you know I'm extremely analytical if the facts. I couldn't get behind Iraq from the start due to Bush presenting a weak connection between Iraq and terrorism. The 19 911 hijackers were all Saudis not Iraqis. I always kept thinking why isn't Bush going after Saudi Arabi instead of focusing on "IRAQ"? Then Bush came up with the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" argument in regards to Iraq. Once again I still focused on the fact that the hijackers weren't Iraqis but Saudis. When Bush joked about their not being any weapons of Mass Destruction, that did it for me jmk. There were a few sarin shells left over from the first gulf war,but that was it. It looks like to me jmk that we committed 145,000 troops and over a trillion dollars for a wild goose chase. Even Bush now finally admits that the intelligence was faulty.
jmk "I’m also glad that McCain didn’t win, for many of the same reasons and because, quite frankly, there’s no evidence that a McCain administration would’ve been much different than an Obama one. If McCain had won, it would no doubt be Conservatives being appalled by a slew of Left-wing appointments...BOTH administrations would be staggeringly Centrist and by “Centrist”, I mean anti-market, pro-big government"
I can't understand their reasoning in thinking because McCain lost somehow conservatism jmk. Unless they are looking at the outcome of the election through a special prism that we don't have access to, I don't see how they figure this. Is it wishful thinking on their part jmk, or are they trying to play conservatives for fools?
jmk "Let the Democrats take the blame for the coming melt down going forward"
My thoughts exactly jmk, There sub prime chicken has come home to roost and they have to deal with it.
jmk "
Ron Paul has too many verbal characteristics in common with Ross Perot and Frank Perdue (the chicken guy), Alan Keyes has been marginalized MAINLY over his religious views, which is ironic since Roland Burris (“The hand of God touched him (Blagojevich) to appoint...”) has not been."
Allan Keys suffers from the same problem Newt suffers from. They both are brilliant conservative thinkers, it's their personalities as to how they are perceived by the public that is the problem. Of course Burris can use a reference to god, he's a liberal. He has a "double standard doesn't apply" card.
"I couldn't get behind Iraq from the start due to Bush presenting a weak connection between Iraq and terrorism. The 19 911 hijackers were all Saudis not Iraqis." (Tyrone)
<
<
It's sad that the passing administration (1) was not able to make the proper case for Iraq and (2) failed to accurately define the enemy in the War on Terror (WoT).
In the first case, Saddam's Iraq became a viscious enemy of America's after Bush Sr.'s administration winked, then emasculated that nation over Kuwait.
Why was Saddam Hussein alienated and discarded, once he was no longer needed as a proxy?
I don't know, but that created an Iraqi problem in the Mideast....for us.
Al Qaeda DID have camps in northern Iraq - the Ansar al-Islam camps...and Saddam's Iraq DID cooperate with those al Qaeda camps AGAINST a common enemy - the Iraqi Kurds.
The Saudi government, despite funding many radical madrasas, DID offer tacit cooperation with the U.S. some of it, out of fear of losing power to its own internal radical groups. Musharef's Pakistan did the same.
There was no actual link between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11...there WAS an actual link between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda and he did sympathize with terrorists, giving sanctuary to notorious terrorists Abu Abbas.
Was the case made that Iraq SHOULD HAVE been a more primary target than say Iran or Syria?
Not in my view, BUT it could be argued that Iraq offered what NEITHER of those two other members of "the Axis of Evil" did NOT - a central staging point within the Mideast, a bulwark from which to continue the WoT.
Could it be argued that "we should've focused on Afghanistan FIRST and finished the job there (including getting bin Laden) before moving on to other targets?"
Yes, it certainly COULD...and CAN be argued, and the Bush Jr administration did little to sell the urgency of going into Iraq.
Post a Comment
<< Home