Is 2008 lost for the GOP?
Posted by BrianThe GOP would be well served to not only back off of the criticism of Ron Paul, but to actually back him enthusiastically. Otherwise 2008 will be gift wrapped for the Democratic candidate - guaranteed.
The reaction from the right to Ron Paul’s comments at the South Carolina debate has pretty much sealed the party’s fate. Any number of predictable right wing blogs vilified Paul for having the nerve to suggest that our interventionist foreign policy creates both friend and foe and that the latter might just act on their feelings. Aside from his opinion on the Iraq war, which has at least been consistent, Paul is far and away the most “conservative” candidate from any number of perspectives. He would actually cut spending. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, the era of big government really would be over if Paul were elected. He advocates personal freedom and decreased government intrusion into the personal lives of citizens. He is fiercely pro 2nd Amendment. I could go on.
Looking across the expanse of alternate GOP candidates the field is, shall we say, weak. It is replete with big government statists. The “Rudy McRomney” triad all have serious flaws that should give any voter pause. Some of the so called second tier candidates have good credentials in limited areas, but other than Paul none have remotely remarkable records. The apparent messiah, Fred Thompson, isn’t even all that great. He’s best known for being an actor-politician with a weak work ethic.
So, with the candidate descriptions dispensed, how is the 2008 outlook? The one word answer is Iraq. Whether you think the war is right or wrong one thing is clear: a growing majority of Americans do not support the war. For the GOP to field a candidate who supports the war in opposition to ANY of the Democratic candidates who will doubtlessly oppose the war will be political suicide. It certainly doesn’t help that the crop of presumptive GOP candidates all have serious flaws. There are two options:
- Come to grasp with the reality the 2008 winner will oppose the Iraq war. Field a candidate who takes that huge advantage away from the Democrats.
- Field a candidate who supports Bush’s war in some form. Suffer a sound defeat.
With the first option there is at least the possibility that a bonafide small government candidate wins. With the second option we will be faced with the government take over of health care, expanded amnesty for illegal aliens, higher taxes, the “fairness doctrine,” regulation at every turn, and a vast increase in the welfare state. That is it. Your choice.
Related content:
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
As Dr. Paul likes to say, our choices will be between the welfare state and the warfare state. I for one will stay home if those are my only options
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:39 pm
even if you don’t agree w/ ron on everything - surely we can agree that he is brave and honorable to stand up against the neo-conservatives who are pro-war at any cost. If you are concerned about our aggressive foreign policy of “empire building”, “policing the world”, “pre-emptive strike” and going to war without declaring war (WWII was the last time we declared war as the constitution says we should) think about how many people needlessly die when we don’t declare war - yet we go over in North Korea, and Vietnam. If you stand against this dangerous direction you should support Ron Paul - even if you don’t vote for him (but please do–and you may need to register as a republican to do so - find out for your state) but even if you don’t, we should support the truth on the left and the right - so that we all move closer to rational foreign policy. yeah, i’m a total nerd, i know. good night.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Come by.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php
Oh, and also be sure and Subscribe to RP’s YouTube site if you haven’t already. We’re almost at 10,000. That’s more than any other candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Brian, after reading a few of Rep. Paul’s speeches I found that I liked much of his domestic policy, but he is wrong about foreign policy. For example, he says: “The Founders of this country were precise in their beliefs regarding foreign policy. Our Constitution reflects these beliefs, and all of our early presidents endorsed these views. It was not until the 20th Century that our nation went off to far away places looking for dragons to slay.”
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr012402.htm
This is historically incorrect (our first real war after independence was the Barbary War - the ‘Shores of Tripoli’ - when Jefferson fought the pirates / terrorists - without a declaration of war). Jefferson arguably knew more about the Constitution and the Founders than does Paul.
I’m certain he will not be the GOP candidate and I doubt that he will even keep his Congressional seat.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 am
Reactionary,
We did not initiate the Barbary War. In 1784 our government began paying a tribute to pirates in the region for passage of our vessels. Jefferson did not approve and when he became president he ceased the payments. The Pasha of Tripoli declared war (without a formal document) on the U.S. by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. embassy. Other Barbary states followed suit. Jefferson responded to the declaration of war on us. I would hardly say that we were looking to get into a fight.
By contrast, Iraq did nothing to harm us or place us in immediate danger. Bush took the foreign policy approach of drawing a line in the sand and Saddam crossed it by refusing to allow inspectors to verify his disarmament. I initially supported the war because I thought Bush’s foreign policy was sound, but I’ve since realized I was wrong. We chose to preemptively fight Iraq. The results speak for themselves.
The failure of Bush’s “line in the sand” policy was quite apparent with North Korea. Bush talked tough about not letting them acquire nukes, but they did and he had no recourse to follow through with his policy because of how badly he has screwed up Iraq. Instead he looked impotent because he tried to take a position of strength and essentially bluffed.
I’ll take your lack of rebuttal of my main point that Iraq will decide 2008 and that the GOP will be taking a walk off a plank if they field a pro-war candidate as an implicit agreement.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 am
Congress did not declare war against the Barbary States. Rep. Paul may not have approved. I agree that we weren’t looking for a fight; another lesson is that appeasement doesn’t work.
I don’t think you can separate Gulf1 and Gulf2; Gulf2 is a resumption of hostilities - not preemption. Plus I think that the terrorist / Saddam links (ansar al-islam, 93 WTC bomber, PLO terrorists, etc) - plus the other reasons Congress voted on - plus sanctions weren’t working - justified Bush’s implementation of US policy (bi-partisan under Clinton) to remove Saddam. I think that Bush’s biggest failure has been in sustaining public support for the war.
North Korea is a big problem - Bush inherited a bad situation and it’s gotten worse - and I don’t know of any good solutions. Bush has been all hat and no cattle. How would Rep. Paul handle the Norks? You can’t just say we shouldn’t be there and walk away, can you?
I’m trying to keep it short or else I’ll have to learn the formatting. But on the main point - Iraq and 2008 - I don’t agree but you may be right; the GOP in Lincoln’s day had it tough before an election too.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I have no idea how Paul (or anyone else for that matter) would handle the Dear Leader. It is always complicated dealing with irrational dictators or religious extremists (i.e. Iran). Bush’s strategy hasn’t exactly been a resounding success and I would argue that Clinton’s policy merely set the stage for failure.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I like Ron Paul a lot. I disagree with him about the Iraq War, but I agree with you that most of the “conservative” attacks on his position have been disingenuous and unfair. I just wish we could find someone with his domestic policy views - and his extraordinary talent for explaining them - to replace Bud Cramer.