United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Ron Paul: Why a Top-tier Candidate Is Ignored by Republicans
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/opini ... date-is-ignored-by-republicans
Published: Aug 27, 2011
Author: Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.
Post Date: 2011-08-27 11:04:29 by Capitalist Eric
Keywords: None
Views: 2386
Comments: 9
It is hard not to be amazed by the blackout of media coverage of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. Had Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, or any second-tier candidate been performing remotely as well as Paul has, he would no longer be regarded as a “second-tier” candidate. To the credit of such left-leaning outlets as Jon Stewarts' The Daily Show and The Huffington Post, this phenomenon has not gone unnoticed by everyone. Let’s think about this. In spite of the extent to which Paul has been ignored by the establishment media in both of its leftist and rightist varieties, he unfailingly elicits explosive applause in every GOP presidential primary debate in which he has participated. A Fox News poll, of all places, shows that the overwhelming majority of its respondents hold that Ron Paul achieved a decisive victory over all of the other candidates in the most recent debate in Iowa. Of 7,991 “active” cities nationwide that participated in the poll, and 43,293 total votes, 27,459 people thought that Paul won the debate. Newt Gingrich came in second place — with 5, 906 votes. Statistically speaking, Ron Paul practically tied with Michele Bachmann for first place in the Ames Straw Poll, a contest that is evidently so significant that “top-tier” contender Tim Pawlenty’s third place showing compelled him to abandon his campaign. Bachmann beat Paul by a meager 152 votes. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released back in May showed that among possible Republican contenders (Perry may not have been a consideration as of yet), Paul stands the best chance of beating President Obama. This poll showed Obama leading Paul by only seven percentage points, while he led Romney by 11. Since then, however, things have changed. A Gallup poll from August 23 shows that if the election were held today, Mitt Romney would beat Obama by two percentage points (48 percent-46 percent) and Rick Perry would tie with him (at 47 percent). It is true that this same poll has Obama beating Paul by (only) two points (47 percent-45 percent); but it has Obama beating “top-tier” candidate Bachmann by four points (48 percent-44 percent)! However, when it comes to that much cherished “independent” vote, Paul leads Obama by three points. The significance of this vis-à-vis my contention that Paul is a top-tier candidate himself and should be recognized as such becomes obvious once we grasp that Romney is the only other Republican candidate who leads Obama among independents by this much (but only this much). “Top-tier” candidate Perry leads Obama in this category by two points while “top-tier” candidate Bachmann trails Obama among independents by six points. In a Texas poll among “882 highly active Republican voters,” these voters said that if the Texas primaries were held at the time that the poll was taken, they would vote for Congressman Paul before they would vote for any other Republican contender — including their own Governor, Rick Perry (who was second choice). As I write this, a Gallup Presidential Nomination preference poll shows that Paul has leapt ahead of “top-tier” candidate Michele Bachmann and is now third place behind Perry and Romney. Twenty-nine percent of those polled prefer Perry; 17 percent are partial to Romney; and Paul picks up 13 percent of the vote against Bachmann’s 10 percent. Polls fluctuate. In any event, they are no substitutes for actual votes. Still, the point here is not that Paul is likely to get his party’s nomination or that he would actually win the general election if he did; in these propositions it is not my purpose to either affirm or deny. Rather, the point is only to show that by the very standards by which establishment pundits and pollsters determine top-tier candidates, Paul should be considered a top-tier candidate. But he is not. The reason for this, I think, is pretty clear. Even though he is the partisan for constitutional or “limited” government par excellence, Paul is despised and feared by the party of “limited government.” That is, he is anathema to the GOP establishment, for while he has proved prescient regarding the economic collapse of 2008, and while an ever increasing number of Americans generally and Republican-minded voters in particular have gravitated toward embracing many of his views over the last three years, Paul’s uncompromising repudiation of his party’s foreign policy vision has earned him quite a few enemies within it. Let us be blunt: The stone cold truth is that for all of their talk of “conservative” principles and the like, Paul’s Republican opponents in Washington and the so-called “alternative” or “conservative” media are not now, nor have they ever been, genuinely conservative. Whether we are discussing Fox News contributors — a shocking number of which are refugees from George W. Bush’s administration — the writers at The Weekly Standard and National Review, or such talk radio personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett and all of the rest, such “conservative” commentators aren’t conservative at all; they are neoconservative. In all fairness, it may be a lack of familiarity with the conservative intellectual tradition or even a reliable history of the conservative movement in America that accounts for why some of these folks wrongly, but sincerely, confuse their commitment to neoconservatism with conservatism proper. As for many of them, though, I suspect that they know exactly what they are doing when they deceptively identify themselves as “conservative.” My intention here is not to criticize Paul’s detractors for being neoconservatives. The term “neoconservatism” is not, or at least should not, be interpreted as a slur. As I and others, including its apologists, have argued, neoconservatism is a distinct political-philosophical orientation, an expression of the Enlightenment liberal rationalism that continues to dominate our political imagination. But philosophically, neoconservatism is as far from classical conservatism as is socialism. There is no more shame in a neoconservative arguing and defending his convictions than there is shame in anyone else doing the same. There is, however, shame in a neoconservative pretending that he is something other than he is. And, like today’s “progressives” who pretend they are not “socialists” because of the unpopularity of the idea of “socialism,” our neoconservatives pretend they are “conservatives” because of the unpopularity of neoconservatism. To sum this all up, Ron Paul has proven to be, at the very least, competitive with the best that this GOP primary race has to offer. However, as long as his party remains dominated by neoconservatives, he will face an uphill battle.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Capitalist Eric, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin*, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)
IMO, Ron Paul is the only Republican that can beat hObama, but he's unlikely to get the GOP nomination. The bushbot neocon globalists want 4 more years of whining about Obama. After that, they figure they might have a real shot at getting a liberal neocon traitor elected in 2016. Hopefully this is the final nail in the GOP coffin, and a conservative alternative party emerges, to restore America to a Constitutional Republic.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
The economy is not going to be much better next fall and it could be worse. Under these conditions, a parrot that repeats "jobs, jobs, jobs..." could beat Obama.
Sigh ... you look kind of insane here. YOU know that RonniePaulie is NOT a repukelican't, he is a LIBERTARIAN. YOU know that he will NEVER be the GOP candidate for president, EVER. We all know that even once American Conservatives take over the GOP, (and we WILL), RonniePaulie will NOT be electable to a national office. We all know that he'll be too old and frankly too KoOkY for the vast majority of Americans. You are PaulTARDS are just pissing into the wind while you are already soaking wet and standing in a yellow puddle. I guess that you really like the wet/warm feeling that it gives you? Or maybe you like to cry about how nobody loves your wee hero, so you can play the victim? I don't know and I don't care. I still have $100. USD that says RonniePaulie will not be nominated, will not be elected president. Yet NONE of you PaulTARDS will take that bet. Because you KNOW you are pissing into the wind. You KNOW RonniePaulie has ZERO chance at being president. What does that make YOU? I'll let you spin that. IF you can.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
"American Conservatives" "We" So tell us, just who do you "American Conservatives" ("We") - endorse for president in 2012?
If you want to take over the RNC then you have to start at the State level, you have to get rid of the "Establishment type" Republicans and replace them with Truly Conservative people.... Then you should be able to get a truly Conservative candidate nominated and elected..... Until then you're just pissing in the wind....
When asked by a Liberal what I bought my Granddaughter for her 1st birthday I replied, "MORE AMMUNITION"!!!! -----------------------------"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
YOU know that RonniePaulie is NOT a repukelican't, he is a LIBERTARIAN. That's kinda funny coming from you. We're probably both a bit nutz. You think the Republican party can be reformed. I think that some non-existent "third party" will somehow be able to fix all the gov corruption. Both are unlikely, and we're probably screwed. Ron Paul is a Republican. Sad but true. Ron Paul in responsible for a HUGE number of people registering as Republican. Bob Barr was the Libertarian prez candidate in '08. Ron Paul did NOT endorse him, but instead Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
jimmy boy; "American Conservatives" "We" So tell us, just who do you "American Conservatives" ("We") - endorse for president in 2012? LOL! Do you mean who do WE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES endorse for president? Well you see jimmy boy we here in America have this system called the election process, it starts out with the rules laid out in a little thing that we AMERICANS call the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Ever heard of it jimmy boy? No? You really ought to check it out jimmy boy, it will answer SO many of your questions jimmy boy! But the short answer to your deeply stoooopid question is this jimmy boy, ... WE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES HAVE NOT YET DECIDED WHO WE WILL SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT. You see jimmy boy, that's what us grownups are busy doing right NOW! And do you know what jimmy boy? EVERY FOUR YEARS we AMERICANS do this! Isn't that interesting jimmy boy? But don't you worry your little head about it jimmy boy, we grown ups know what to do! I promise you jimmy boy, that WE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES will take the decisions as to whom WE SUPPORT way before the up and coming presidential elections! So EVERYBODY will know then jimmy boy! Isn't THAT special? Don't you feel all that much "smarter" now jimmy boy now that the good 'ol DAWG has splained it to ya? Now ..., isn't it past your beddy bye time wittle guy? Nighty night jimmy boy! ROTFLMAOAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
Uh .... with respect. DUH.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
YOU know that RonniePaulie is NOT a repukelican't, he is a LIBERTARIAN. That's kinda funny coming from you. We're probably both a bit nutz. You think the Republican party can be reformed. I think that some non-existent "third party" will somehow be able to fix all the gov corruption. Both are unlikely, and we're probably screwed. Ron Paul is a Republican. Sad but true. Ron Paul in responsible for a HUGE number of people registering as Republican. Bob Barr was the Libertarian prez candidate in '08. Ron Paul did NOT endorse him, but instead Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. No, I don't think that the repukelican't partee can be "reformed". WE will have to destroy the RINO center and establishment, from the inside, and then return it to it's roots, or it WILL cease to exist. It doesn't matter how difficult that will be or how long it will take. Because we are running out of time and alternatives, fast. Please, let's not quibble over semantics. Ron Paul is a MEMBER of the repukelican't partee, but we all know that Ron Paul is NOT a repukelican't in any other way. And I'm no repukelican't either, I'm a CONSERVATIVE. Partee means shit all to me other than as a vehicle to do what is right for AMERICA and AMERICANS. Personally I don't give a shit if people that I despise TRY to label me in any pejorative way. That's what these libTURD filth DO. F em ALL. AND the horse they rode in on.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
Fox News contributors — a shocking number of which are refugees from George W. Bush’s administration — the writers at The Weekly Standard and National Review, or such talk radio personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett and all of the rest, such “conservative” commentators aren’t conservative at all; they are neoconservative
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#2. To: hondo68 (#1)
IMO, Ron Paul is the only Republican that can beat hObama,
In a global economy, borrowing money to stimulate demand is a foolish proposition -- jwpegler
#3. To: hondo68 (#1)
IMO, Ron Paul is the only Republican that can beat hObama, but he's unlikely to get the GOP nomination.
#4. To: Mad Dog (#3)
We all know that even once American Conservatives take over the GOP, (and we WILL),
#5. To: Mad Dog (#3)
We all know that even once American Conservatives take over the GOP, (and we WILL),
#6. To: Mad Dog (#3)
(Edited)
Sigh ... you look kind of insane here.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#7. To: Jameson (#4)
md; We all know that even once American Conservatives take over the GOP, (and we WILL),
#8. To: CZ82 (#5)
If you want to take over the RNC then you have to start at the State level, you have to get rid of the "Establishment type" Republicans and replace them with Truly Conservative people.... Then you should be able to get a truly Conservative candidate nominated and elected..... Until then you're just pissing in the wind....
#9. To: hondo68 (#6)
Sigh ... you look kind of insane here.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]