Did I say that, though?
Did I say that “unpopular wars should be avoided so that Republicans can win”?
I said that IF Republicans want to win, they should avoid unpopular wars. Maybe they feel it is more important to get involved in unpopular wars than it is to keep their jobs.
There is really no way for either me or you to really prove what caused the election defeats of Republicans in 2006 or 2008. Lies of the press and election fraud are factors that always exist and always benefit Democrats. White guilt was a factor specific to Obama, as was money from overseas. The economy is always a huge factor in Presidential elections.
The overall negativity toward the Republicans in 2006 (primarily) and also 2008 was due mostly to the Iraq war.
I had a hard time getting anything specific out of anybody who was anti Bush besides Iraq War when asking why they didn’t like him. Conservatives who were disappointed with Bush had more specifics to complain about.
Many Democrats know that they’re going to lose in November for voting for things that Obama wants that the people do not want. Many of those Democrats aren’t running for reelection.
As I see it from this post, there is absolutely no purpose to the points you have been trying to make. No thought from you as to what the logical consequence of your words meant.
Let me say one last time.........IF the Republicans in Congress had not run away like scared little children from the War in Iraq in 2006........IF the Republicans in Congress (and on the street for that matter) had defended our troops' mission and the Commander in Chief against the incessant lies of the media and leftist politicians, THEN the war would not have been "unpopular."
Your entire point that Republicans should avoid "unpopular wars" to win elections is based on a false assumption that the Republicans in Congress behaved corrected regarding the support of that war, which they did not.
The war in Iraq is part of the reason we did not have another terrorist attack on US soil under George W. Bush. The enemy gathered in Iraq and fought our military there and did not attack us here because they were being killed in Iraq.
It was a necessary war, and the spineless Republicans only lost Congress in 2006 because they were cowards. NOT because the war was "unpopular."
2008 had a whole other set of complications, including some of the things I have already listed, but having very little to do with Iraq.
At any rate, avoiding foreign wars is not an acceptable position for a commander in chief, and therefore Ron Paul cannot be our President on that fact alone. He won't do his Constitutional duty and protect us.
Besides which, he is only supported by a small minority of rabid internet, poll-happy, sometimes paid groupies, and could never get more than a percent or two of the vote.
It would be best to give up on the guy. He's not presidential material by any standard.