Posted on 12/24/2011 6:52:00 AM PST by Kaslin
This piece was co-authored by Ford O'Connell
It’s time to have a frank conversation about “the one,” and we are not talking about President Barack Obama.
The latest round of polling coming out of the Hawkeye State suggests that Texas Congressman Ron Paul could indeed win the 2012 Iowa caucuses.
In 2008, long-shot candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee scored a surprise win in Iowa, but his candidacy was serious and he was a governor. That year, eventual nominee Sen. John McCain essentially skipped Iowa, finishing fourth and marginalizing Iowa’s political impact.
Should Rep. Ron Paul, who first ran for president in 1988, win Iowa, it may be the last time the state has the honor of being the first state to hold a vote every four years.
We know Iowa GOP caucus-goers are frustrated with the status quo in Washington and are extremely concerned about the future direction of this great nation, but casting a vote this January for candidate Paul is beyond unwise for three reasons.
First, Ron Paul will not defeat President Obama in 2012. The most recent general election polling may suggest that Rep. Paul is within striking distance of Obama, but the president will score an easy victory next November if Paul is indeed his opponent. While conservatives and some establishment Republicans rightly cheer as Paul professes smaller government and fiscal accountability, his outrageous positions on U.S. foreign policy, particularly given the meteoric rise of China and continued saber-rattling by Iran and North Korea on the international scene, will cause most general election voters to double down on Obama before they pull the lever in Paul’s favor.
Let us also not forget that should Paul actually be the nominee, his decades-old incendiary (although unbylined) newsletters — once Team Obama highlights them — will likely damage the Republican brand for years to come. Simply put, if Paul is the Republican nominee, President Obama will be assured four more years in the White House, and Americans just cannot afford that.
Second, Ron Paul will not win the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, so there is no need to give him momentum. We know the field is large and there are several viable choices to be the Republican Party’s standard-bearer next year, but giving Paul a victory in Iowa can only serve to hinder the eventual Republican nominee’s chances in the general election.
In the past, Paul has not demonstrated himself to be a team player, and with our new primary rules, Paul could wreck havoc all the way to the convention in Tampa. This counterproductive behavior was on display in 2008, when he refused to endorse then-nominee McCain and proceeded to hold a protest near the national convention. If Paul accumulates enough delegates in 2012, he could cause some real problems for the eventual nominee and the party at the convention. Regardless of which candidate not named Paul ultimately wins the nomination, every potential GOP voter needs to be unified if Obama is to be defeated in 2012.
Third, voters must not embolden Ron Paul to make a third-party presidential run. Many of Ron Paul’s most ardent supporters display a mania for him that transcends policy and becomes idolatry. There is no need to give Paul’s supporters any reason to think that Paul will fare better in a three-way general election than in a two-candidate race. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News national poll, a third-party bid by Paul would almost certainly doom the eventual Republican nominee’s chances of capturing the White House in 2012, as he would draw many more votes from the Republican nominee than from President Obama. It also doesn’t help that Paul has yet to publicly rule out a third-party run.
Congressman Paul is extremely dangerous and his candidacy for president should not be taken lightly. He cannot be allowed to gain momentum in Iowa, either within the Republican field or in preparation for a third-party general election run. Our country’s future literally hangs in the balance. Helping Paul win a victory in Iowa will not only be a wasted vote, but it will likely challenge the party’s wisdom of permitting the Hawkeye State to hold the first nominating contest in the future.
Paul winning Iowa is akin to Obama winning a town in the Mississippi Delta - inconsequential as he hasn’t a chance in the State.
Bull. He uses the Constitution just like the muslims use it against us. He is the pork king of congress. Liar, fraud.
How many "conservative" Republican candidates agree with Clarence Thomas on the abuse of the Commerce Clause by Congress?
That is an extremely weird statement. How can you not think Obama is a one-term President?
I (and others) have said Elmer Fudd could beat Obama.
The only hope he has of being close is his huge campaign money, and that doesn't guarantee a win.
I say, me lass, I think ye have hit the nail squarely on the haid! . . . or, as JarJar Binks might put it: My give it up. Meesa 'spect yousa Bombas right! ;-)
How ridiculous for Paul to say he had no knowledge of what was in his own newsletters - with HIS name on it. This makes the Clintooon seem almost truthful! Add to that his charging Bachmann and Santorum with anti-homo, anti-Muslim hatred is worse than tawdry.
But Ron Paul's biggest problem is that HE IS TOO OLD!!! Everyone seems to overlook this handicap.
Post of the Year!
Heck, at this point I wouldn't assume that we even have an election.
Oh but I do. I think he wants to be a one term president, el presidente for life.
Oh but I do. I think he wants to be a one term president, el presidente for life.
Damnable windoze keyboard...
“Nuclear Iran” falls into foreign policy, which I already mentioned. Some of the other stuff you mentioned has to do with federalism vs. centralized power, not so much conscious policy positions.
There are certainly some kooks who like Ron Paul for those reasons. I was just pointing out that there are a lot of issues where the left is diametrically opposed to Ron Paul.
Don't put that idea past the dems. They would love nothing more than to have "Dear Leader" suspend elections "for the children".
That said, Obama is probably the most beatable incumbent Democrat since Jimmy Carter, who he resembles politically.
Hard to say, but I get nervous when the rules are ignored.
I haven’t picked a candidate yet. I seriously don’t agree with all of them about one thing or another. Off the top, I think Perry agrees with Thomas. The others, Santorum talks the talk, but hasn’t always walked the walk; Bachmann also agrees until it comes to her own pet views; Gingrich, ya ha; mitt, foregone, begone! The rest aren’t there. Invisible candidates.
That doesn’t make paul any less a liar and a fraud, though, does it?
I’d agree if there was a rule it shouldn’t have been ignored.
Were that to happen, it would be worth a Paul win, but I'm for Santorum.
Behold, Amoral human waste from both sides of the aisle, in my opinion!
Folks, it ain't gonna happen! America will simply not elect a 77 year old man to be President! Ron Paul can of course be a spoiler...
No, he would not.
If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.
Or you can get raw with these strings.
How about this gamechanger from America's Got Talent (which they SHOULD have won).
Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.
Do it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.