That always sounds neat and tidy, except you have no way of knowing that a more conservative candidate would have done better…or worse.
Who was the more pro-life candidate in 2008 over McCain? Who is the more pro-life candidate this time?
LOL! Ron Paul! (though this time I trust Santorum in this area)
Exactly! We don’t know. This is why I vote for who I think most matches my moral values and leave the results to God. We don’t know. That is what I have been saying all along. I am not the one making predictions and saying who is unelectable.
My point is that the “unelectable” probably were and may have done worse. Your fact that McCain lost proves nothing. Feel free not to take electability into account, but it is absolutely worth taking into account in my opinion. I have plenty of other reasons not to vote for Dr. Paul, but his unelectability is one of the factors.
FYI - The reason I do not take it into account is because I do not believe in it. Anything is possible with God, and the whims of the American people are so frivilous to the point that almost anyone is electable in the right circumstances.
Good for you. Take on those windmills! Attack!! Ron Paul will prevail!!!
Ron Paul was the more pro-life candidate in 2008? I didn’t know he ran. Which among the viable candidates were more pro-life than McCain? Which among the viable candidates now are pro-life? (hint: Ron Paul is not a viable candidate now, nor was he in 2008).
I think the most anti-abortion candidates now are Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.
Not sure how old you are, but I remember in the early days of the pro-life movement (late 70s, early 80s) the state-by-state solution was considered viable. Now it isn’t. And politicians who recomend it are now considered weak on the abortion issue. That makes me wonder about the sincerity of certain pro-life groups.
Ron Paul vs. Obama in polls is as competitive as any other Republican candidate. So I’m not really sure how you define electable.
Exactly. I’ve asked people who criticize Dr. Paul to explain to me what their candidate is going to do to end abortion. Dr. Paul would defund federal abortions. But that is part of his general policy of ending federal subsidizes to everything. The other candidates would do little tricks like defund the abortion payments to an organization but keep giving payments for other services which frees up money for abortion. But all of it is irrelevant since Congress makes the budget.
Cool. So, what do the polls say about his nomination prospects? Unelectable.
Your right, we arent ready for him.
The argument is Republicans aren’t voting for him because he wouldn’t win the general election. The facts are Ron Paul is competitive in the race versus Obama. The facts apparently do not make an impression upon many Republican voters. The Republicans finally have a true small government candidate and they probably will not nominate him because they love war so much. This is why Joe Sobran rightly called the Republican Party the stupid party.
That is not the argument; it’s just one argument. Most Republicans don’t agree with his foreign policy and recognize the fact that he has no history of leadership and no vision for implementing his views other than the veto pen.
The head-to-head polls are not enough for people to support a candidate they disagree with and find to be lacking in leadership ability. That’s not stupid. And, Republicans don’t “love war.” That is the sort of blind rhetoric that help to completely tune Republicans out of some of Dr. Paul’s more palatable qualities.
Of course I recognize that is only one argument for not voting for him. But the topic I responded to is his electability. Now you are talking about a different subject which is not his electability but specific policies some Republicans disagree with.
Sure they do. They love the drug war, the war on terrorism, the war on the latest country. If you put war in front of it the Republicans are all for it. If they hadn’t booed the Golden Rule and just voted for a guy whose solution to how to handle enemies of the US (which could be you or me) is to ‘kill them’ I’d not make such a bold statement. I’m still a registered Republican. Now they disgust me as much as the Democrats and I’ll not vote for them, save Ron Paul, anymore than I would a Democrat.
Ironic. The only political group I hear talking about their leader as a political savior are Ron Paul supporters.
:yawn: Rhetoric. But, I do like your “save Ron Paul” comment, which illustrates my earlier point.
I find this interesting, because Israel can’t even decide whether Iran’s a threat or not. And then on the other hand, Republicans say that Obama is going to bankrupt the country but keep on talking about more wars.
Anyone who knows anything about politics in Washington knows that the best leaders are the ones whose beholden to the biggest money. He predicted, as did Mises, that a politician like RP would not be very legislatively effective.
The republicans who love war are the ones who get rich off of it, the Democrats who love war are the ones who can achieve political gain off of it.
Any Republican supporter on here who talks about limited government, tries defending the constitution, and promotes limited spending…and doesn’t vote for RP and future politicians like him. Will never get any of it.
