[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I’m not saying he will make another run, but If Ron Paul DOES run a primary bid, you know for a fact his run will be even stronger than he previous primary run. The Tea Party Can’t Not Support him, and he is very good in debates. He IS the type of politician we all say we like, running clean campaigns, getting most of the money from the grassroots, not attacking other people just their positions.
I hope he runs, If not, I need to see a Limited Government Republican run or I’m voting Libertarian again.
V[/quote]
Paul will never be elected President of the United States. He is not a marketable commodity ina a media and Internet savvy age. Perhaps at the bottom of the ticket, but even then he does not have what it takes to help at that level. How about a nice cabinet appointment for him? Maybe I can do something there, call me we’ll have lunch.
[/quote]
I never said he would be, All I really said was IF he decides to run, he is going to be a major handful in the GOP primary. He has a LOT more backers, He cannot be kept out of debates or the Tea Party will flip thier wigs and they are too big of a movement for the GOP to ignore right now. Personally, I think your arrogance for “knowing” he will never be president is a tad bit sad. If you have such an ability to know the future, I’d expect you to have predicted the winner of all of the past elections. Should I go back and see if you KNEW McCain would win?
V[/quote]
Yeah go check it out - I knew Obama would win (Did anyone think that a white haired old man was going to beat Obama? Seriously? MEDIA-MEDIA-MEDIA). I think anyone who knows anything about politics and the media could see that McCain was absolutely NOT going to win. Even the McCain people were aware that it was an uphill fight. People were sick of GW and the entire republican party was going to be punished for it, and they were. McCain’s hail mary play picking Palin as the VP backfired badly for several reasons. He would have gone with a more known entity if he thought he had a chance to win. How many electoral votes does Alaska have? That would be “3”. Normally what does a Presidential candidate look for in a VP?
In no particular order:
1-National Prominence or stature (Colin Powell is a good example- Not associated with any state but is well known and respected)
2-A balancing of the ticket. If the Presidential candidate is from New York for example he may choose a VP from the Southern or Western region.
3-Someone who can gain the ticket those very important electoral votes. As you (and Al Gore) know it’s not about the popular vote, electoral votes are all that matter.
Let’s go back to Jimmy Carter as an example of someone who balanced out his ticket very nicely. He chose Walter Mondale because Mondale was the Senator from Minnesota where 10 electoral votes could be had. Carter being from (Gov) Georgia had 15 electoral votes. That’s 25 going into the race. A nice start.
Ronald Reagan is another good example of someone who had a leg up BEFORE the race began. He was a former two term Governor of the biggest electoral bonanza of them all California with 55 electoral votes. He then chose George Bush (Sr.) to balance the ticket. They called Bush “Mr. resume” as he had more experience in government than just about anyone at the time. He was a Congressman, Ambassador, envoy to China, head of the CIA, and also at one time republican national committee head. So Bush had a high national stature and also as Congressman in a district in Texas was seen very much as a Texan. Texas has 34 electoral votes. Add that to California’s 55 and you begin with 89 electoral votes in your column.
There are other good examples of Presidential candidates balancing their tickets. When I saw McCains choice I knew that he knew that the only way he was going to win was if this dramatic off the charts play worked. As we all know, it didn’t. On a side note a better choice would have been US Senator Kay Baily Hutchison from Texas. Then he would have had a lock on the 34 electoral votes in Texas plus the effect of choosing a woman as a running mate.
Remember all the times you called me old on this here forum sonny? LOL well I’ve not squandered my time on this earth. I have a bit of experience running some campaigns both locally and state wide. But, big deal I can still be wrong, anyone can. Sorry though I don’t see paul as the next President and would put his odds just above Mickey Mouse and below Donald Duck’s. Okay, that was harsh but you can take a joke we both know that.
Here’s why Paul can’t win:
1-Too old, he’ll be 77 years old by the time the election rolls around. The oldest man to get elected to the office of President was Ronald Reagan and he was only 68 (and a good looking fairly young 68 who had serious speaking and acting skills-Remember? media-media-media). Granted someone older could certainly get elected. But, that person will not look like Ron Paul.
2-Check the last time a sitting Congressman was elected to the Presidency. Never mind I’ll do it for you. James Garfield 1876. There’s a reson for that. They represent a very small area compared to a senator or Governor. Who gets elected President? Governors are the first choice. Look around for a good GOP Governor, someone like Chris Christie or Tim Pawlenty. They have the fresh face that we need to beat Obama.
3-Ron Paul is basically a fringe sort of candidate. That means that while those like you think he’s the answer to the problem others have never heard of him and when they finally do they are not impressed. They don’t see what you see in the man. They see a tired looking old guy spoutin off about big government not very centrist sounding is he?
4-He has run before and has had very poor results. Granted sometimes it takes a while for people to open their arms to a candidate, but with Paul that’s not the case. I think he’s run for President 4 or 5 times. It all began back in 1988, that I remember pretty well. The people don’t want him he does not have what it takes to capture the hearts of the American voter.
Sorry man, I think he’s a very well intended guy with some good ideas about small government. But it’s time for him to pass the torch to someone who can represent those ideas on the national stage, Paul can’t do it.
Anyway…
there are a bunch of clowns running around within the GOP (I’ve spoken with a few of them) thinking that they’ve got this Obama fellow beaten in 12’ already. But I don’t call that arrogant I call it ignorant. Obama is an incredible political package. He is articulate, charismatic, intelligent and he has one very important thing going for him that no one else has; he is currently the President of the United States. As we have seen in the past Presidents can do all sorts of things to push the game in their favor. Obama will pull out all stops to win a second term. Throw in an adoring national press and a whole lot of loot and this guy will be formidable for anyone. Sorry am I being arrogant again? I don’t mean to be, it seems obvious doesn’t it?
I can assure you it will take a dynamic candidate (probably a Governor or former Governor) to beat that guy. Even if Paul were fortunate enough to be the republican nominee WHICH HE WON’T BE he’d never beat Obama. You can call it arrogance as I said, but in all seriousness anyone who feels that Paul actually has a chance to beat Obama is politically ignorant. [/quote]
I’m not sure I ever said Paul could beat Obama, Or that he could win the GOP primary. At this point, all I have done is say Paul WOULD make a LOT of noise in the GOP primary, and might shape the eventual winner on policy because that person would understand what a large chunk of the GOP (tea partiers etc…) stand for.
Trust me, I would love for a younger, more enrgetic version of a Ron Paul Republican to come foward so that RP doesn’t have to keep carrying the torch. For Decades, he was the ONLY guy in congress holding onto it. At least now he has some friends in the house and even the senate. Also I think Govenors are uniquley intuned to just how much of a problem the size of the federal government is. Look how many are planning on fighting the Fed over healthcare. So that pool of prospective candidates is moving closer to a republican/libertarian style of governing instead of the past 30 years or so of Neocon governing style.
The economy is beaten down and is ready to come back, it WANTS to come back. Housing prices are so low it’s rediculous. All the government has to do is get the F out of the way just a little bit and banks will start lending and people will start buying. Only this time, they will be buying a house that is worth what they pay for, not something that is inflated to 300% of it’s actual value.
Anyway I agree that Ron Paul would be a very loing shot to actually win the presidency. BUT in that regard, I don’t think he needs to and I don’t think we NEED a republican president. The president doesn’t write law after all. So, as long as there is a conservative congress or at least one house that is conservative, we are not going to go over the cliff. But we still need more people to be turned on to small governemtn so every couple years, we gain true conservative seats in the house and senate so we can start actually cutting back peices of the federal government. If it happens too fast, I think there could be too much pain associated with it and the american people will view it as a bad thing and will vote the progressives right back in because htey make the pain go away.
V
