No, what I meant by the question was, how does political viability in a congresssional district near Galveston Texas mean that the candidate will also be viable in say, Lansing, Michigan or Bremerton, Washington? The argument was made that since Paul won re-election in his district, that he is a viable candidate nationwide.
Where did I say it was the Fed’s job to create jobs? As a private citizen Romney created jobs. As governor of MA he showed he knows how to help create an environment that encourages job growth. What’s Paul done again?
To be honest I have no idea why you even ask that question. There have been polls taken and those polls indicate Ron Paul is one of the most competitive candidates versus Obama. So we dont have to speculate about Ron Paul’s viability. The polls tell us that he most certainly is a viable candidate. What I mean by viable is that he could win the contest versus Obama. To be sure Dr Paul’s biggest threat is the GOP who are so in love with war that they seem to prefer a flip flopping, pro abortion, pro Obamacare millionaire to someone who actually is consistently conservative and wants to limit the military to defense.
source
Dr Paul has delivered over 4000 babies. He has given free medical care to those who could not afford it. He has resisted the growth of the federal government which creates make work jobs, destroys wealth and slows productivity.
But he has great hair though!
I do not think any of the candidates have won a nation-wide race. When Obama ran, I do not think anyone outside Illinois knew him, yet he is in the White House.
That’s true, but some of them, not Ron Paul, have been in leadership positions.
No, its not ridiculous to question the viability nationwide of a candidate who thus far has only won in his safe district in Texas. I appreciate the fact that you like Ron Paul and want him to win, but hopes and dreams doesn’t make a candidate viable. Has Paul won a statewide race? No. Would the odd collection of stoners, isolationists, and conpiracy er, “theorists” propel the 77 year old Ron Paul to victory? Obama could win on a laundry ticket if Paul were to somehow win the nomination. Don’t kid yourself. Ron Paul of course won’t get the nomination, so this conversation is academic, but dream on if it makes you feel good.
All of the candidates won a statewide race except Gingrich and he was Speaker of the House. If Paul won the nomination the election he would be portrayed as an extremist nut. And many would believe it.
Did you even read what I posted? I linked to a poll where Ron Paul vs Obama was competitive. You are free to your opinion. But when there is evidence that a candidate would almost beat the incumbent president then your opinion seems at odds with significant evidence. What is the basis of your judgement that Dr. Paul could not win vs Obama? What is your basis that other Republican candidates could? How do you address the poll evidence I posted where Dr. Paul is within a few points of Obama in a heads up election?
pnewton;8826019As far as electability said:
Dr. Paul is very clear and open about what he does. So what you are saying is no surprise to anyone who has investigated Dr. Paul. He is against pork and if the rest of the politicians were equally motivated these bills would never pass. Dr. Paul is not foolish enough to let his district be taxed and then have all that money sent to other districts. It is not his fault the rest of the congress, Democrat and Republican are all too eager to vote for pork laden bills. His method is kind of like the rhetorical style of argument ad absurdum. Dr. Paul helps create a bill which by no means should ever pass and yet the party faithful Republican and Democrat pass it.
My basis is the knowlege that Obama would tear apart Paul in any general election because of Paul’s controversial statements he’s made over the years. Whether you agree with Paul or not, he would (rightly) be portrayed as out of the mainstream of America. If you think Newt has baggage, or that Romney will have to answer for his flip flops, just wait for Obama’s campaign to remind America what Ron Paul has said and done over the past few decades. Right now its the primaries. Aside from political junkies, the general public doesn’t even tune in until after Labor Day. American would learn about Ron Paul, and Obama would probably win a 50 state victory.
You’re right. That is a valid conclusion to make, if you don’t take into consideration political reality and the history of Ron Paul. I wouldn’t put much stock in a national poll that is conducted ten months before the general public has had a chance to learn about the candidate.
Ouch. I wish you could follow a logical train of thought. I was arguing about the ***viability ***of Ron Paul as a candidate, not arguing about whether he would make a good president. Although I don’t think he is either viable or presidential material. Look I understand your enthusiasm for Ron Paul. I just think you’ve let your emotions cloud your judgement.
Careful, you’re going against the idea that Ron Paul is the perfect candidiate for catholics who doesn’t compromise and can do no wrong, made all the right decisions, etc.
So it’s not Dr. Paul’s fault that he lies and is deceptive, pretending to be against pork while he scoops up public money for his district! It’s not his fault THE REST of Congress writes bills that he then tacks pork projects for his district onto! It’s not his fault THE REST of Congress falls for his trick and actually passes any phony bills he writes! In fact, NOTHING is Dr. Paul’s fault because he can do no wrong!
Here’s a list of what Dr. Paul tried to obtain for his district in 2011. He was one of only 4 Republicans to request earmarks. (of course he isn’t actually a Republican, so we should be honest and say he was the ONLY LIBERTARIAN to request earmarks.)
Ron Paul and Pork
Saying Dr. Paul lies is uncalled for and unwarranted. He is very upfront about what he does. You might find his methods hypocritical, but he does not lie. I dont know your political opinions but I can only assume you believe every other candidate lies based on your charges against Dr. Paul. All other candidates have compromised their declared principles. If that is the worst charge against Dr. Paul then he is still clearly the most honest politician in the race.
What controversial statements?
Well of course a poll is not the election. But enough people know enough about Dr. Paul at this point in time for him to be competitive against Obama. No one knows what the future will hold. But to declare with assurance Paul has not change against the current evidence requires super powers I for one do not have.
I’m pretty good with logic thanks. Please explain what you mean by viable. Apparently winning election multiple times, coming in a close 3rd in Iowa, a strong second in NH, being close to beating Obama in national polls, and being one of the few candidates to run a presidential campaign that can qualify for the ballot in many states does not make a viable candidate to you. What is your definition of viable candidate?
Let’s start with why he voted against the MLK holiday, said unkind things about MLK and go from there.
I looked into this accusation earlier and believe it to be totally bogus. I know personally of one item on the list of so-called pork that I know did not go through the congressman. Other items, I know by their very nature do not go through the congressman. It is not “pork” if some historical committee in a city applies for monies set aside for federal restoration. It is not “pork” if a road and bridge department get federal dollars for rebuilding a bridge from a fund set up for rebuilding bridges.