Friday, December 16, 2011

Why Ron Paul Can't Win

From Kim Strassel, at Wall Street Journal. Strassel raises the interesting point that not that much has changed about Ron Paul from his earlier campaigns for the GOP nomination. The key significant difference is found not so much on the issues --- Paul has moderated a lot of his positions on domestic affairs --- but in the the candidate's seriousness:
Mr. Paul was largely written off in the past as an ideological crank, a man who ran primarily to have his views heard, and many political watchers have made the same mistake this time. But if there has been an overlooked theme in this race, it has been Mr. Paul's new seriousness about winning the nomination. The Ron Paul of 2012 is a different candidate from the Ron Paul of the past. Aware that his absolutist positions worry voters, the libertarian has been conducting a far more mainstream campaign.
Not that he's flipped on any major positions. The Paul campaign knows that its greatest opportunity is attracting voters who are dissatisfied with the other front-runners' policy timidity or lack of consistency. Mr. Paul is neither timid nor inconsistent, and it ought to make him a star....
Organizationally, the 2012 Paul campaign has also sloughed off its 2008 disdain of the establishment, and in Iowa at least Mr. Paul is engaging in retail politics, sitting down with party elders and activists. These are the efforts of a candidate newly willing to work within a certain framework, if it means a shot at the White House.
Except on foreign policy, where Mr. Paul does himself in. In discrete areas, Mr. Paul's "noninterventionist" approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid. And note that Mr. Paul has made small stabs at reassuring voters of his patriotism, as with a big national TV ad that highlighted his own military service and commitment to veterans.
But none of this has addressed voters' big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland. Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because "we've been in the Middle East."
Far from toning down such views, Mr. Paul has amped up the wattage, claiming this year that 9/11 prompted "glee" in a Bush administration looking for a pretext to "invade Iraq." He's condemned the Obama administration's killings of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and he insists the U.S. is "provoking" Iran.
Ron Paul's a freak. I posted on this last night: "Taking Ron Paul Seriously."

Added: From Linkmaster Smith at The Other McCain, "You See, Mr. Paul, History Does Not Support Scientific Experiments."

5 comments:

smitty1e said...

I posted this.

Evan Lagace said...

Uh..... Hello out there!--- have you checked the CIA's answer to why 9/11 happened? No, I guess not. Ron Paul is telling us the truth (yes, 100% fact) while the mainstream media is trying to paint another picture.

Regarding foreign policy: a weak America will continue to destroy the value of our dollar sticking our nose in everyone else's business. We can't afford it! Every war we get into, our prosperity declines. To get America strong again, we need to rebuild our economy on proven, free market, principles. Again....... Guess what??? Ron Paul is telling the truth.... And he is right.

Wow, my facts make your article worthless banter. Watch him win the presidency, an along the way restoring your constitutional rights. Even though you have no clue and bring up this nonsense, the good doctor is still fighting the establishment for your freedom. Thank him later.

Michael said...

Uh... Hello out there! Why don't you link the CIA report you are referring to? Oh that's right... because it doesn't exist! Ron Paul supporters use the same lines over and over. They're the kind of people who read spam e-mails and then tell you it's true and they heard it from a friend. Come back to reality.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe the Wall Street Journal is publishing articles with titles like this.
WSJ may have once been a legit publication, but you just exposed yourselves for the frauds that you are.

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, you should be fired and never employed at a media publication ever again. Articles like this are a treason against the American People, WHO CLEARLY WANT RON PAUL and you, are just a bribe taking whore- just look where it's got you... Now it's you who can't win.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe the Wall Street Journal is publishing articles with titles like this.
WSJ may have once been a legit publication, but you just exposed yourselves for the frauds that you are.

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, you should be fired and never employed at a media publication ever again. Articles like this are a treason against the American People, WHO CLEARLY WANT RON PAUL and you, are just a bribe taking whore- just look where it's got you... Now it's you who can't win.