Why a Ron Paul GOP Nomination Would be Good

[Tiggeroshii]

As 2012 nears, and the choice of GOP candidates becomes clearer, I found it a reasonable idea to consider the benefits of having an unorthodox candidate take the stage in a general election match-up against Barack Obama. Now, by "unorthodx candidate," I am speaking of course of Ron Paul: The 10 term Texas congressman who has championed his opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Federal Reserve and Israel. His positions on many of these issues makes him an ideal candidate for the GOP nomination -not because he would be a great candidate for president, but for the issues he would bring to the table. Paul has been a steadfast opponent on "the war on terrorism," as well as for Guantanamo Bay and torture. He has opposed the Patriot Act and assailed the CIA secret prisons that were uncovered during the Bush presidency. Paul will likely bring a debate during the 2012 election season on issues that badly need to be discussed -and have long been avoided in this increasingly myopic political atmosphere.

For too long, we have had election seasons with neither candidate truly questioning the status quo: are there other systems of government that work? How about for the economy? What happened to the Patriot Act: Is it constitutional? How about this jaded history of US intervention over the years? Shouldn't we discuss it? The debate has always focused on which candidate is the most centered politically and who could label the other more extreme. But what if this wasn't an issue? What if we had a candidate who was extreme and had no qualms about criticizing the status quo and forcing an explanation and debate about the most serious issues that concern the state of the union: Like torture, poverty, the state of human rights and civil liberties during the "war on terror," and the reputation the US has had since?

Now, Ron Paul is clearly not my ideal candidate for president. He is no doubt the epitome of the "extremist" candidate that is invoked to scar opponents in a general election contest, and has had a reputation of incendiary comments against blacks and gays. His history of racicsm and homophobia alone would make me the first to shove a hornets nest down my pants and regret ever writing this were he to win. He also wants to get rid of our Federal Reserve and basic institutions that I feel are necessary for our basic economic function. However, his ability to raise issues on the war in Iraq, US intervention, our history in regards to Human Rights and civil liberties -as well as the current president's failure to make good on his promise to close GTMO; are all things that likely would not be central issues unless Ron Paul were to win the GOP nomination. Too much of the discourse in this country is singular in nature. Too often, discussions often revolve around how to either make a bad idea worse, or keep it the same. We need somebody to stir things up again, and I think Ron Paul has the best chance of doing this. A change in theme would likely be good for our political discourse.

Albeit, much of this is inspired by my firm belief that -while Paul has a chance of winning the Republican nomination, he will probably not win the general election. And like I said in the previous comment; if he won: it's gonna really hurt.

[customerserviceguy]

1. There's only one reason a Ron Paul Repuke nomination would be a good thing

It's because he absolutely will not win. And that's the number one reason he will not win their nomination.

He's wildly popular with the fringies who attend GOP events, but when it comes to the average Rethug voter, they cannot stand his libertarianism if they're a fundie, or his antiwar stance if they're a neo-con, or his economics if they are a country clubber Repig who likes corporate welfare. Take away all those groups, and you have a guy who cannot get above 20% in anything other than a fringe state with relatively few delegates.

[vaberella]

3. You sum it up perfectly. n/t

[AlinPA]

10. Yes, but IMO the "average repig voter" is really the fringe now. They control the party. nt

[customerserviceguy]

13. We'll see

but my prediction is that Paul doesn't have a shot at the Repuke nomination. He's just pissed off way too much of their base, even though his libertarian supporters are fairly vocal and active.

[Arkana]

11. There's only one other reason--it would force Obama to the left on Afghanistan.

Otherwise, a Pron Haul nomination would sink the Republicans in 2012. It would be a landslide on par with Reagan/Mondale or Nixon/McGovern.

[Hokie]

2. The corporate money will never be behind this idiot

Which means he has zero chance.

[Democat]

4. If he doesn't get blessed by the Koch Brothers, he won't be the GOP nominee

What do the Kochs think of Paul? It's easy enough to check his donations.

[Blue_Tires]

5. Having Ron Paul in would just push all the candidates further right

no thanks...

[PoliticAverse]

6. Ron Paul won't be the republican nominee. Just like he wasn't last time. n/t

[Dokkie]

7. You forgot the war on drugs issue

"And like I said in the previous comment; if he won: it's gonna really hurt." But are you trying to imply that a Paul win would hurt more than a say Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Palin? because you need your head examined if you think the country would be better off with another war in the middle east which would undoubtedly occur with any of the other front runners winning.

[krabigirl]

9. I would love to see a debate between Obama and Paul re the WOD and the wars overseas.

It will never happen, though.

[Tiggeroshii]

12. That's kinda what I'm getting at here...

I really think the US needs to be debating these things still -since they have been largely ignored over the recent years.

[former9thward]

8. Ron Paul was too old in 2008 and in most of their primaries

he got less than 10% of the vote. He is four years older now and wouldn't get the votes that he got in 2008.