1 vote

Why Ron Paul Can’t Win (A thought on a nation's self reflection)

Why Ron Paul Can’t Win
by danwheelerblog
http://wheelerwrites.com/2012/03/01/why-ron-paul-cant-win/

So what do you think of Ron Paul? The more I hear and read about each of the candidates the more I find myself saying, “this guy has got it figured out and he knows what needs to be done!” He’s talking about “real problems” and offering logical solutions. So many people I’ve talked to feel the same way but then they chuckle and say, it’s too bad he can’t win. And, I find myself drawing the same conclusion but not understanding why.

I have given it a lot of thought. Is it his age? Are his ideas too far “outside the box?" Is it the fact that you cannot label him as a liberal or conservative? Is it a lack of money or a media bias? None of these explanations were good enough.

But I believe I have finally found the answer. When he talks about our foreign policy over the past 50 years we feel ashamed that we have started wars based on lies, and have killed or maimed millions who were no threat to this country. We also don’t want to acknowledge that we shed the blood of our own in these wars. It is unacceptable to our sense of who we are as a nation and our basic sense of morality.

Read More:
http://wheelerwrites.com/2012/03/01/why-ron-paul-cant-win/

------------------

I think DailyPaul readers will like this article copied from Dan Wheeler's blog. I didn't like the title so much because it's not an inevitable future, but the title is just his thesis statement which he supports blow by blow with arguments, and the arguments tell us the the problem is with the people. Maybe people reading the article will do a little introspection and wake up? I think many-many have, and many more will. Cheers.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If Paul doesn't win,

it's because his campaign staff didn't learn anything from the last election. They've got a "once in a lifetime candidate". They should have been prepared to challange vote fraud right away in Iowa, where it could have made a huge difference. Now, it's water under the bridge and it's been repeated. Also, they should have made public challanges with the sponsors of the debates about air time. They should have gone after some well known celebrity endorsments to validate the public acceptance of Ron Paul. Phil Donahue and Barry Manilow both expressed support. Did the campaign get any utility out of this? Heck no. They didn't even call and thank them! They should have had more surrogate speakers out on the stump for the same reasons. They can't even get Rand to show up anywhere. They shouldn't have surrendered Florida so easily. That looked like a surrender. Didn't have to be that way. You still have to show that you're a fighter. College campus rallies are free. Even the Florida Gators endorsed Ron...you'd think he'd host a huge rally at one of the Country's largest universities-especially when there is a primary in play in Florida! I just see a staff that can't get 'er done. Santorum started with NO STAFF, and he raised $9MM last month. Maybe Ron Paul is sneaking up on the nomination in a stealth way, but it looks to me like they've got him right where they want him. I'm no expert in politics, but I just don't see a strategy. And, when they do show signs of a decent strategy, that of quietly collecting delegates, they tell EVERYBODY what they're doing, almost as a challange. So now, you can bet your sweet tush that they'll all be locking down the delegates. Notice the emphasis on the news media about "delegates" all of a sudden. It's kind of like this staff went to a gunfight with a knife.

alan laney

You wrote: "But I believe I

You wrote:

"But I believe I have finally found the answer. When he talks about our foreign policy over the past 50 years we feel ashamed that we have started wars based on lies, and have killed or maimed millions who were no threat to this country. We also don’t want to acknowledge that we shed the blood of our own in these wars. It is unacceptable to our sense of who we are as a nation and our basic sense of morality."

Is this really the undisputed truth?

I'd argue that few contemporary conservatives would vote for a candidate that holds the view above. If Paul were to say, instead (and I am not asserting he would say what you say above or agrees with anything I say below):

"In the last 50 years, perhaps because we were buoyed by the defeat of fascism in World War II and had a huge military system in place, we often chose an aggressive/interventionist approach, when a reluctant/minimal response approach would have been better. At times no response would have been better. Our intentions were good. Mostly we were standing up to communism in a cold war strategy that is now completely outdated. Later, we were standing up to Islamism. We defeated communism and we have severely impaired radical Islam and Al Quaeda. But in the process we created many unintended consequences - namely growing resentment around the world. And in the process we have had perpetual war with no end in sight if we stay on the current path. We have created a military industrial complex that is bloated and corrupt and must be dismanted because we cannot afford it anymore. We are still employing a massive Army Cold War strategy in a post-cold war assymetrical world. It is time to reign that in.

And over time we have come to see ourselves as the policemen of the world. That is not what our Founders intended and it has made us bankrupt. It is no longer our job to be that if it ever was. It is time to allow other countries to defend themselves and to bring our troops home. In some cases, our efforts have created more problems than we have solved.

I envision a new world in which the United States of America is a reluctant interventionist. We cannot afford any more wars. We are no longer charged with telling other people what to do. We will have no troops in other countries but if need be we will defend our land vigorously. We will remain strong but we are embarking on a new American non-interventionist era. Unlike the 20th Century, the 21st Century will be a peaceful Century for the United States."

This brings people along gradually and does not force them to face the shame you refer to above.

bigmikedude's picture

I'll plus one this, even though his title is crappy

He has an interesting perspective, and I can accept a new perspective when it is logical, instead of living in denial-land (as so many Paul supporters do) where anything not perfectly pro-our hopes, or that creates the discomfort of possible reality entering the fantasy, is bad, resulting in a down vote just because they don't like a title or hypothesis that threatens their bubble.

bigmikedude's picture

And js -

I had to shorten it and add the link.

see http://www.dailypaul.com/guide

3. Do not post the ENTIRE text of articles from other sites. This is copyright infringement, and could get you, me, and this site in trouble. (In fact, it already has!) Feel free to post a short intro, and then a link to the original article. Understanding fair use would be wise, also.