Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

FreeMarkets (90.01)

Three Simple Ways to Defeat Ron Paul

Recs

24

January 06, 2012 – Comments (13)

Ron Paul has three great weaknesses, and any politician running against him can easily defeat him.

# 1: Attack his foreign policy and economic ideas as naive and dangerous.  This will deflect the fact that he predicted all the outcomes of the last 10 years AND deflect the fact that more active duty military members support him than all other Republican candidates combined.

# 2: Attack him as unelectable.  This will make Republican voters wary as they consistently put "electability" not philosophy as their #1 reason in choosing a candidate. This also deflects the fact that Ron Paul garners more independent and Democrat votes than all other Republican candidates combined.

# 3: Attack him as a racist.  This will allow potential voters to ignore the fact that he receives more black votes than all Republican candidates combined.

The beauty of the above 3 strategies is that you don't have to debate any specific issues.  They are simple ad hominem attacks that allow the lazy American voter to come to a determination without exercising their brain.  They are simple and fit well into the 7 second sound bite that news organizations now use to bring their audience the daily news.  They can be used over and over again.

13 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 06, 2012 at 11:03 AM, outoffocus (23.17) wrote:

I've heard all the accusations about him being racist.  But unlike most of the other Republican candidates, I just don't see Ron Paul as a racist.  He hasn't said anything racist publicly since he began running for president.  The other candidates on the other hand have made both blatant and underhanded racist comments, some using them as rallying points to ignite their "base".  A lot of people point to his stance on the Civil Rights Act as racist but I've heard his entire argument and he argues against the big government aspects of the act rather than the premise of it. 

I cannot explain the Ron Paul letters though.  Thats a huge smoking gun and not anything to gloss over.   Simply saying "I didnt write them" when they are clearly in your name does not help your argument.  If he didnt write them, then tell us who did. Also why would you allow people to write views that you don't agree with in your name?  I would think that is something you would pay a bit more attention to.  If someone wrote offensive things that I didnt agree with and sent them out in my name then I would be suing them for libel. 

But otherwise I'm intrigued by Ron Paul because both the liberal and conservative media are intentionally blacking him out and misrepresenting his actual influence.  He's so against the establishment that the establishment is going out of their way to ensure he doesn't make it past the primaries.  That alone makes me want to vote for him. If he is THAT anti-establishment then he must be good for this country. 

Report this comment
#2) On January 06, 2012 at 11:31 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

I think the media does a good job of marginalizing him when they refer to an unnamed sources talking about his "crazy" foreign policy won't work :)

Report this comment
#3) On January 06, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Mega (99.96) wrote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Report this comment
#4) On January 06, 2012 at 12:12 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

Well, he's admitted to being a homophobe and that doesn't play well either. I don't doubt he's a racist - he's 75 years old and from the south - and if you write a bunch of racist letters and sign them with your own name (or let somebody else sign your name to them) for years, it's a little hard to deny.

For the record, more military members donate more money to Obama than to Ron Paul. But Ron Paul romps all the other Republicans in terms of military donations.

Report this comment
#5) On January 06, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.46) wrote:

He's never admitted to being a homophobe, nor is he one.

Report this comment
#6) On January 06, 2012 at 4:42 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Sad that such nonsense gets put out by people with no knowledge of the situation.

Ron Paul has spoken out about the racist origins of the drug war and its inherent racist inequality on blacks for decades.

Ron Paul voted for naming MLK day a national holiday.

Ron delivered African American babies for free when their parents could not afford to pay.

He has for years, if not decades, cited MLK and Rosa Parks as personal role models.

Some racist. He must just be very bad at racism. 

You have a few racist/insensitive sentences in his newsletter by a ghost writer, versus hundreds or hours of speeches and thousands of essays that cherish individual liberty and speak out against racism.

But the media gets you because you don't know about that. Your ignorance about his record is their primary weapon is convincing you he's a scary spooky racist.

As far as the homophobe nonsense, it's just that. He wants the government out of marriage, which means any state that allows gay marriages would be fine by him.  He must just be a bad homophobe too.

David

Report this comment
#7) On January 06, 2012 at 4:46 PM, leohaas (31.08) wrote:

Strategy #4: Ignore him. If you attack him, you implicitly acknowledge that he is a serious candidate. This has worked fine over the last year, so why would anyone change it?

Republicans will have to figure out whom they want to challenge Obama. As I have argued here (some scrolling needed),  within the party the neocons are still in charge. These neocons are:
 1) kind-of-but-not-always in favor of keeping the Government out of our economic lives
 2) strongly in favor of Government intervention in moral/social issues
 3) defense hawks in favor of agressive intervention all over the world.

On point 1, the neocons can probably find enough in common with Ron Paul to vote for him. On point 2, Ron Paul is with them only when it comes to abortion, but definitely not when it comes to any other social issue. On point 3, Ron Paul and the neocons are polar opposites. For how many neocons will this be enough to support RP? Not many in the Primaries for sure, as long as a neocon (ANY neocon) remains in the race!

I just don't see how Ron Paul can win the nomination. Sorry!

Report this comment
#8) On January 06, 2012 at 5:11 PM, outoffocus (23.17) wrote:

2, Ron Paul is with them only when it comes to abortion, but definitely not when it comes to any other social issue.

My understanding is Ron Paul also wants that decision left up to the states. 

Report this comment
#9) On January 06, 2012 at 11:12 PM, leohaas (31.08) wrote:

#8: I guess you did not click on the hyperlink you copied. Here is what it says on the Ron Paul 2012 web site:

"And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”"

Whoever wants to use Federal Law to define life as beginning at conception, is definitely NOT leaving this issue to the states.

Report this comment
#10) On January 07, 2012 at 12:21 AM, DarthMaul09 (29.74) wrote:

Mike Krieger On Why He Supports Ron Paul

 

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/05/2012 15:33 -0500

Report this comment
#11) On January 07, 2012 at 11:12 AM, outoffocus (23.17) wrote:

preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction

sounds like states rights to me.

Report this comment
#12) On January 07, 2012 at 11:26 AM, leohaas (31.08) wrote:

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Sounds like using the Federal Government to ban abortion to me. It would mean that abortion=murder by Federal Law. It would mean no say for any state in this matter.

Report this comment
#13) On January 09, 2012 at 5:19 PM, rfaramir (29.32) wrote:

leo,

States already protect the people against murderers. That he wants to remove the fig leaf of respectability from laws that let murderers of unborn children to go free or even be subsidized, is not using the feds to ban abortion, it is restoring the constitution to apply to all murders.

outoffocus

"If he didnt write them, then tell us who did."

He has covered this multiple times. It was done 20 years ago. It was discovered 10 years ago. There is now no evidence in existence to see who did it, so we don't know and cannot know unless the perpetrator steps forward. He has distanced himself from it, which is all he can do at this point.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement