Obi-wan Paul — The GOP’s Only Hope

Jim Babka on Nov 1st 2007

Note: This is my first blog post at Positive Liberty. I’m a fan of the guys here, and thus, obviously, quite thrilled to be included. Generally, a new blogger would write their first post about who they are. But that idea sounds only slightly more interesting than watching your neighbor’s slide show titled, “What we did on our summer vacation.” So, I’m just diving in. You’ll get to know me over time, and you’ll like me ;-)

Ron Paul is the GOP’s best hope of winning in November, 2008.

Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson can’t win. I doubt Mike Huckabee could either, though he at least has a personality that could work for him (there’s something in the water in Hope, Arkansas).

But none of the aforementioned “leaders” have distanced themselves from The Decider. And that is their Achilles Heel.

Hypothesis: The major party nominee who is perceived by the public to be the most likely to bring the troops home from Iraq (and potentially Iran by that point) the fastest, will win.

By default, that means a Democratic victory — unless Ron Paul is the nominee.

Republicans prattle endlessly about how Hillary has high negatives. It’s false comfort and they know it. But the beam is in their own eye. Guiliani is peaking amongst security fetishists in the GOP base. He is at the zenith of the politics of fear. Fear of terrorist boogeymen has probably attracted all the adherents it ever will, unless a nuke gets denotated in one of our cities (a very unlikely occurrence, unless Pakistan falls into the hands of Muslim extremists).

You only vote for Guiliani if you believe that war mongering is a fantastic policy. That’s great if he wants a show on FoxNews after his campaign is over, but it won’t win him the Presidency.

Now, it’s a well-established fact that politicians aren’t leaders; they’re responders. And they’re usually the last to know about any significant trend. They only embrace a trend at ubiquity.

More and more people are saying, “I am not afraid.” They’re exhausted by fear-mongering; tired of losing their civil liberties. They’re starting to put things in perspective.

Here’s another trend — more than 70% of Americans believe the troops should be brought home. Does that mean the remaining 30% believe that war mongering is a fantastic policy?

Democrats aren’t much better at recognizing this trend. They’ve done next to nothing about bringing the troops home because they lack a profile in courage. They’re waiting for ubiquity.

Voters are frustrated. And candidates like Hillary Clinton are trying to have it both ways. So only Ron Paul can have his cake — and eat Hillary’s too.

Now, I’m not guaranteeing Ron Paul could or would win. Every candidate has his weakness. He hasn’t been put through the Media crucible yet. What they build up, they always bring down. Paul is enjoying the beginnings of a warm relationship with coverage he probably didn’t even dream of when he started this venture. But like the scorpion, the Media will sting him. It’s their nature. And when they do, he too might have high negatives and be unelectable. Time will tell.

But for now, the Republicans, such as the obnoxious, frat boys at RedState {no link provided, on purpose}, would do well to stop censoring him. They might find he’s the long lost Jedi of Republican politics — that he’s their only hope.

Filed in The Basement

5 Responses to “Obi-wan Paul — The GOP’s Only Hope”

  1. AMWon 01 Nov 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Hypothesis: The major party nominee who is perceived by the public to be the most likely to bring the troops home from Iraq (and potentially Iran by that point) the fastest, will win.

    Alternative Hypothesis: Every politician represents a basket of goods to the voters, and while most voters can find at least one good in Dr. Paul’s basket that they approve strongly of, few can find enough to justify voting for him. The left may be anti-war, but I’m guessing they’ll prefer the candidate who advocates univeral healthcare, more spending on schools and a tough stance on the drug war, even if she’ll only make marginal changes to the Iraq strategy. And the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers at Red State et al. would sooner trade in their AM talk-shows for NPR than give a “surrender monkey” like Paul the satisfaction of their vote, minimal government advocate or no.

    I’m inclined to believe that Dr. Paul is the only GOP candidate who deserves to beat Hillary. But I’m also pretty sure he’s the one with the least chance of doing so.

  2. Chris Berezon 01 Nov 2007 at 5:04 pm

    Hi Jim,

    First of all, welcome to PL. I think it will be very cool having you here.

    Concerning RedState blocking Paul’s supporters from commenting, my understanding was that they were acting more as trolls rather than seeking to engage in discussion. I don’t read RedState myself, however Kip over at A Stitch in Haste has argued this point

  3. Jason Kuznickion 01 Nov 2007 at 6:00 pm

    I’ll just say this, speaking purely as a private individual here: He’s the only major party candidate in a very long time who on balance makes me look forward to voting. That’s pretty remarkable all by itself.

  4. AMWon 02 Nov 2007 at 8:12 am

    He’s the only major party candidate in a very long time who on balance makes me look forward to voting.

    Agreed. I haven’t voted in over a decade* on economic grounds (the probability of my vote affecting the outcome is nil). But if Ron Paul were to win the nomination, I would happily waste my time for that man. I would even vote in the primary, but Kansas doesn’t usually hold them (and with Brownback out, they will almost certainly repeat the pattern).

    It’s also nice to just have someone speaking up on the GOP side who doesn’t sound anything like the other candidates. Both major parties need their Dennis Kuciniches.

    *The first - and last - time I voted it was for Bob Dole. Can you believe that? I can’t even blame it on state loyalty, since I’ve only lived in Kansas for two years.

  5. Ed Braytonon 02 Nov 2007 at 2:05 pm

    Welcome to the group, Jim. I think you’re wrong on this issue - I don’t think Ron Paul has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning any office higher than he already has, much less president - but I’m really glad to have you here as a contributor. You’re a gentleman and a scholar as well as a friend and I think you’ll be a great addition to Positive Liberty.

Trackback URI |