"Ron Paul can't win the GOP nomination"Submitted by JasonX on Mon, 10/17/2011 - 01:24
This is the kind of statement I'm hearing among diehard Republicans. They say he can't win because he is not hawkish. Of course, we disagree with neocons, but even a friend of mine who likes and largely agrees with Ron Paul (and even wants him to be our president) is convinced that he can't win.
In fact, here is what he said to me:
"To be a republican is to be a hawk on defending this nation, and Ron Paul's correct constitutional approach has always been communicated in precisely the backwards way. He should have stated what a hawk he would be in defending this nation *from our own shores.* (Missile defense, strong military retaliation strike capability, swift justice for terror threats on our own soil, etc..) Yet he hasn't been a hawk after 9/11, and instead he sounds like he doesn't take seriously the world's dangerous regimes. In some cases, he even sounds like he defends Iran and others to be aggressive military powers. And he doesn't seem to have the political common sense to realize he's shooting himself in the foot when he makes such claims. "
Keep in mind that this is the impression he gets from Ron Paul, so it could just be him, however, I think he does have a valid point: convincing republicans may require such a message where the people see how he would constitutionally defend America. In other words, Republicans want to see a military that displays might, not weakness. So, it's one thing to be against unconstitutional wars, policing the world and nation building, but it's another thing to demonstrate strong military defense which many Republicans appear to need. Basically, they perceive Ron Paul as a weakling because of the way his message is being communicated.
Moreover he adds:
"Jason, Ron Paul does not have a military message that can ever sell to republicans, and so Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee, and thus will not be the U.S. President of the United States. it's his own fault for horrific messaging after 9/11. I agree with him 100% that we should not be the world's policeman; but, we should then be very prepared to defend from here at home and be ready for quick strike action once those aggressive regimes hit us. He's done little to assure the American GOP that he has a positive vision for strong U.S. military defense"
Obviously, we would disagree, since he Dr. Paul consistently receives the most amount in campaign contributions, but to a large extent, Dr. Paul hasn't really gone into detail regarding what a 'strong defense' looks like. So, I think my friend has an absolutely valid point.