If the GOP pushed Ron Paul to the front wouldn't that save the votes they are losing on foreign policy?

Question

It just seems like if the Republicans wanted to win and restore their party and image they should be looking at the one guy who matches the Democratic party and might actually pick up quite a few Democratic votes as well.

The Republicans are losing hundreds and thousands of votes because of Iraq. Ron Paul says he will end the war and bring home the troops immediatly. So wouldn't it be smart for the Republicans to save their votes and party by selecting Ron Paul?

Answer 1

I agree with your sentiment very much....

"Republican opposition to Ron Paul is largely misplaced support for the Bushies Iraq War. It is reflexive - knee jerk - and not well considered. On state and local levels, party officials are very afraid of another rout like 2006. As the primaries get closer, I predict that Ron Paul's anti-war position will seem more reasonable given the great unpopularity of the War."

You know what I find interesting; the only two candidates that voted No against the Iraq war were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.. They predicted this very outcome, had better judgment then all the other candidates.. and yet they are labeled "crazy"...

It's unfortunate.. all my life I've heard, people wishing there was a politician for change.. and finally someone comes along who actually has a genuine interest in helping the common man, and this is the kind of reaction he gets.. Explain to me now that both the top tier candidates from BOTH parties have folded on the Iraq issue.. can we afford to continue this war for several more years? how many more need to die?

I'm beginning to think this country deserved Bush as a president, and will deserve the next incompetent liar we elect into office..

The republican party is kidding itself if they think a pro-war candidate will win this election..

"Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination. She is an experienced, cut-throat politician with deep ties in the party, and can take Barack Obama down pretty much any time she wants to. And John Edwards is not serious about pursuing the nomination. He is just positioning himself to be the VP nominee again, because in the wake of the 2006 Congressional elections he believes that Hillary will win the Presidency by taking a few key states where John Kerry fell short. Long story short: forget the others - Hillary is the woman to beat in 2008.
Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country's voters. (Google "2006 mid-term elections.) 70% or more of Americans want out of Iraq, and for many of them, it is the defining issue of the campaign. You may agree or disagree, but it's a fact and it's going to decide the 2008 Presidential election.
If it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. any of the "establishment" Republican candidates, she wins by default. She may have voted for the war originally, but she will continue to claim that she was misled by the Republican administration, and that we should trust her to make things right. (Of course she won't really get us out of the Middle East mess, but Joe Six-Pack won't figure that out until after she wins the election.)
If any of the supposed "front runner" Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson) wins the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton is essentially a lock. Not only will she win over a sizable portion of the independent vote with her (perceived) status as "the anti-war candidate," but - simply put - the GOP will not turn out its base in sufficient numbers to win.
Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club. The social conservatives, along with the fiscal conservatives and the key swing voters (libertarians and constitutionalists) will either stay home on Election Day or vote third party. Rudy won't even carry his home state, and ask Al Gore how that usually works out. Slam dunk, Hillary wins.
Nominate Mitt Romney? You get basically the same result as Giuliani without the (bogus) "America's Mayor" 9/11 cachet. Conservatives in the South and West won't turn out for the former governor of "Taxachusetts" who has flip-flopped on virtually every issue they hold dear. The fact that Romney is a Mormon won't help him with the mainstream Christian base, either. He probably can't win the GOP nomination, but even if he does, Romney is toast in the general election.
Nominate John McCain? Not gonna happen. His campaign has taken a nose dive from which it will be virtually impossible to recover. As of the end of the second quarter, even (supposed) long-shot Ron Paul had more cash on hand - and, when the third quarter numbers come in, McCain will be even further behind in the money game. He probably won't even be in the top five on the GOP side. Stick a fork in him, he's done. And even if he could pull off the apparently impossible and come back to win the Republican nomination, he loses to Hillary on the war and many domestic issues as well.
Fred Thompson? He's the last hope of those Republicans who are looking for a "mainstream" candidate to save them from looming, seemingly inevitable defeat in 2008. On the surface, he appears to have more of a chance than the previously mentioned "big three." After all, he has the "actor factor." It worked for Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California - couldn't it work for Fred, too? Well, no, not this time around.
When you look at it objectively, there isn't a single one of the "Big Four" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head. And none of the "second tier" candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter,
Tancredo, et al) have stepped up to the challenge. Really, there is only one remaining viable Republican candidate: You guessed it, Ron Paul.
Only Ron Paul can take advantage of the Internet the way Howard Dean did before he imploded four years ago. Indeed, he has already captured the Internet ... the Ron Paul Revolution is already in full swing online. It sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Net for Ron Paul supporters to take over, wasn't it?
Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else ... which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008.
Only Ron Paul, who is truly pro-family (married to the same woman for over 50 years, with five children and 18 grandchildren - no "trophy wives" here) can motivate the socially conservative base to actually turn out and vote.
Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS (and a host of other federal agencies) and stop the Federal Reserve from devaluing our money through runaway, printing-press inflation, can motivate the fiscally conservative base to cast a GOP ballot in 2008.
Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy.) While the LP and CP may command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two."

soucre: http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_114454.asp

To Sageandscholar, I've addressed everyone of your claims in the last question... and while I appreciate that you have obviously looked into him somewhat.. I really wish that you wouldn't latch onto misconceptions.. and really look beyond these things to see what he is really advocating and why.. I don't agree with everyone of his positions, but I don't have the moral conscious to vote for someone who is going to continue on with this mess, and possibly create another one.. and btw.. I am a former democrat that switched parties to vote for him... If you respond I would be more then happy to address the issues with you again.. .. thanks

Answer 2

Historically, the only thing that has kept the Republican Party in contention has been its strong aggressive foreign policy. Now instead of gaining a large number of votes for the Republicans, it is only gaining a small number of votes for the Republicans.

If Ron Paul's foreign policy was merely that we went a "little" too far in Iraq, then he might be a candidate who could help the Republican Party. His philosophy, however, dates back to a policy which the Republican Party has not followed since at least 1940. For the past sixty years, the foreign policy of the Republican Party has been interventionist. If you replace that policy with isolationism what do the Republicans have left as an attractive electoral policy -- the dismantling of the government programs that have reduced poverty among the elderly? allowing trust fund billionaires to pass on that wealth generation after generation free from the taxes that the rest of us have to pay?

All that Iraq has done is destroy the credibility that the Republicans have as the party best able to manage foreign policy. It has not changed the fundamental dynamics of the support for the two parties in which the Democrats are the preferred party on domestic issues. Narrowing the differences with the Democrats on foreign policy is just a formula for major losses by the Republican Party in 2008. The only way that the Republicans win in 2008 is not to abandon the principles on foreign policy but instead to blame Bush and Rumsfeld for being completely and totally inept in executing those principles.

Answer 3

Yes, that might save the GOP. 38% of registered voters are either registered independent or with one of the minor parties. With the republicans acting like Fascist these last seven years, they have pushed the independent vote away from the party, Ron Paul is the man that could draw those votes back. He would certainly get consideration of my independent vote.

Answer 4

You are absolutely correct. Dr. Paul is. Ronald Reagan was in fact one of the best presidents this nation ever had. How many dems have ever won 49 of the 50 states in a presidential election? NONE. I believe you will find both the reps and DEMS voted the man into office not once but TWICE unanimously. Ron Paul is his own man, but i see something in him that was also characteristic in Reagan. He trusts the ppl as well. I don't think you could ask for much more. But this time around it will not be to secure an elitist agenda. this time its about restoring true freedom and independence. not enslavement to FALSE DEBT under the guise of "democracy". But with true freedom and independence comes much responsibility on each individuals part.

jessis beautiful: Way to go young lady.;)

Answer 5

The Republican Party?
They stick together like glue. To them, party is the most important thing of all. Anyone outside the fold is snubbed, ignored or ridiculed. They are determined to find their "Daddy" candidate, and if they have to they'll nominate Thompson and hope he can pretend to be Ronald Reagan long enough to get elected. They don't like Ron Paul, he isn't one of them, they turn their noses up at him and they show him no respect whatsoever, especially in the debates. Republicans would chew off their own arms before nominating Ron Paul as the nominee.

The only real chance Paul has and that's a long shot too - is to run independently.

Answer 6

Well, considering that this next election will basically be a referendum on Iraq, then yes, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that neutralizes an issue which basically makes it impossible for any of the other Republican candidates to even hope to have a chance at winning. That alone would lead me to believe that Paul may not win, but he's the only Republican running that could say he's even got a real chance at winning.

Answer 7

i dont think these people follow much of the parties history, i think there the old dems that came over to the rep. party aka the neocons.

Republicans have always had a non interventionous foreign policy, cut taxes and spending .

Rudy and romney are the democrats, with there elaborate war spending proposals.

if they win, welcome the war machine. WW3 is on its way

Answer 8

well Ron Paul is one of 2 candidates that are calling for immediate withdrawal so were are the guys who left going to go but Ron Paul. who is the true republican conservative


only kucinich is calling for immediate withdrawal from the Dem's

Answer 9

Ron Paul is the best hope; not only for the GOP, and not only for the USA, but for the WHOLE WORLD. This guy is brilliant and I am pissed off by the fact that many people don't understand how essential he is to mankind.

Answer 10

It may - but it would cost a great deal more from Republicans who actually know how our central banking system works and who recognize the value of multilateral solutions to global problems rather than an isolationist role in the world.
As for picking up Democratic votes - why would Dems give up on thier values and vote for reduced services, isolationist foreign policy and regressive taxation when they can easily end the war themselves?