Ron Paul: Why a Top-tier Candidate Is Ignored by Republicans
---
because he refuses to support a failed interventionist policy, nation
building and israel

On Aug 31, 7:30 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> "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 atThe Weekly 
> StandardandNational 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 areneoconservative."Ron Paul: 
> Why a Top-tier Candidate Is Ignored by RepublicansWritten by Jack Kerwick, 
> Ph.D.   
> Friday, 26 August 2011 00:00
> 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 asJon Stewarts'The Daily ShowandThe 
> Huffington Post, this phenomenon has not gone unnoticed by everyone.
> Let’s think about this.In spite ofthe 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. AFox 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.
> ACNN/Opinion Research Corporation pollreleased 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.
> AGallup pollfrom 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)twopoints (47 percent-45 percent); but it has 
> Obama beating “top-tier” candidate Bachmann byfourpoints (48 percent-44 
> percent)! However, when it comes to that much cherished “independent” vote, 
> PaulleadsObama by three points. The significance of this vis-à-vis my 
> contention that Paulisa 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 
> (butonlythis much). “Top-tier” candidate Perry leads Obama in this category 
> by two points while “top-tier” candidate BachmanntrailsObama among 
> independents bysix points.In aTexas pollamong “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 pollshows 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” governmentpar 
> 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 atThe Weekly 
> StandardandNational 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 areneoconservative.In all 
> fairness, it may be a lack of familiarity with the conservative intellectual 
> tradition or even a reliable history of the conservativemovementin 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.http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/8751-ron-paul-why-a-top-tier-candidate-is-ignored-by-republicans

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to