A couple of days ago, I posted “Marking Up the GOP’s 2012 Contenders,” my thoughts on what I believed to be the most viable Republican ticket to challenge Barack Obama in the next presidential election.
The response has been both amazing and troubling. I didn’t reference Texas Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, an oversight that was neither intentional nor malicious. I agree with most of Dr. Paul’s policies and philosophies and I wish more candidates had his passion for what he believes is right. My omisson of him from the 2012 debate was based solely only electability on a national scale, not his politics.
Nonetheless, this omission led to a wave of comments launched from several Ron Paul websites and bulletin boards. “NEED HELP Comments requested RON PAUL left out again!” “They are already pulling this CRAP!” (“They?”) I’ve included some of the more colorful ones below.
The point of my original post was to emphasize that to successfully contend for the presidency, the GOP needs someone who has enough electoral wherewithal to counter the Obama machine and its liberal network. Despite the enthusiasm of his supporters, I just don’t believe Dr. Paul can do it.
In the 2008 Republican nomination for president, Ron Paul carried no states in the primaries or caucuses, finishing second in ten and third in 17. Although these “place” and “show” numbers seem impressive, he only gathered 35 delegates, a mere 1.6% of the total. To put THAT in perspective, Dr. Paul finished second to Mitt Romney (271 delegates/12.5%) who withdrew from the race after Super Tuesday – seven months before the September convention (Paul dropped out in June, the last challenger to McCain). Mike Huckabee, the second place finisher (278/12.8%) left the race a month after Romney.
Indeed, that was two years ago and, in politics, that’s a lifetime. Since then, the Tea Party movement has swept the country and conservative ideals have enjoyed a resurgence. And, true enough, a consistent run of polls show Ron Paul giving Barack Obama a very close race, some even having him polling better than the candidates I did include. But, come election time, voter and media scrutiny will eat into those poll numbers.
For one thing, Dr. Paul is 75 and will be 77 during the 2012 election. That’s eight years older than Ronald Reagan was when he became president. I’m no “age-ist,” but that will matter to very many voters. In 2008, Obama collected 66% of the 18-29 year old group and 68% of first time voters. Paul is 26 years older than Obama whereas General Petraeus is only 9.
Further, Paul will be cast and castigated as a right-wing nut job, a fringe candidate and an extremist. Naturally, the liberal-dominated media will attack him even more viciously than it has the Tea Party folks. His followers will help paint him so.
Here are some of the comments from my previous post:
Dr. Ron Paul, my congressman is “the defender of the Constitution”. All those other dwads are just “puppets in waiting”.
We certainly do not need to continue to enable the CFR and it’s minions moving us toward a NWO.
Who owns this blog? Who makes the decision as to who gets on “the list”? The money changers who don’t know you and don’t care about you? or You?
Trends forecaster Gerald Celente predicted a year and a half ago that by 2012 families who have lost their jobs and homes will be squatting in abandoned shopping malls. And he also predicted a viable third party made up of former democraps and former repugnantcans. Celente’s predictions have a 90% rate of coming true.
Ron Paul will blow the field away in 2012 becuase enough American’s have figured out the NeoCon’s cowtow [sic] to the Globalists.
Petraeus is an empty fainting suite [sic].
Petraeus is a mindless tool of the industrial/military political establishment.
You sir are NO friend of Liberty.
The author of this blog is obviously a paid GOP hack
We all fully understand that no candidate can or should be held responsible for the words and actions of his/her supporters, but this kind of vitriol and name-calling will help Dems and their media minions make the case for marginalizing Paul in a general election
For a group of people who claim to cherish the military, the comments about General Petraeus are not just uncalled for, but stupid, distasteful and unpatriotic.
As for calling me “NO friend of Liberty” and “a paid GOP hack,” your ignorance is truly your defining trait.
But this isn’t about me, it’s about Ron Paul; a good man with great ideas and sterling principles. As for being elected President of the United States, I don’t believe the American political environment in 2012 will favor him.
Although what he stands for is timeless, Ron Paul’s time has gone.