Topic: Ron Paul
Paul vs. Clinton Why Ron Paul can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.by Republic Writer
(libertarian)
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Lets take a logical look at each issue and see who could win the general election, Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton.
We will start with Iraq. Ron Paul is the only person on the GOP side that voted against Iraq from the beginning. So he is the only one that literally negates Clinton's flip-flop opposition to the war. Paul is more anti-war then Clinton so this turns it Iraq into a non-issue. If we have two anti-war candidates (though I am not completely convinced Clinton is anti-war) then voters are forced to look to other issues.
While it is true that Hillary Clinton is much more familiar to the people of our great nation this is not as much of an issue as it is being pushed as. When the general election rolls around every one will know both of the candidates names and at least be somewhat familiar with where they stand on issues. Name recognition has some importance in the primaries but not so much in the general election. Also, Clinton's name recognition brings some negative connotation to it as well. According to the recent Gallup poll a full 50% of those polled have a unfavorable opinion of Sen. Clinton, this is a huge hurtle for her to overcome and it is one that Rep. Paul does not have to deal with. Paul only has a 13% unfavorable as of the latest poll with many people still unfamiliar with him.
Illegal Immigration is a hot spot today and again, Ron Paul is more in tune with the American people then Hillary Clinton. Apart from Sen. Clinton's many flip-flops on licenses and border security she is strongly in support of a "path to citizenship" that allows illegal immigrants legal status in our country. She also supported an amendment to make "family reunification the guiding principle of our immigration system". On the other hand Ron Paul is for a fence and against amnesty, he does not believe we should reward illegal behavior. This issue is divisive and some citizens will not vote for Ron Paul because of it, but I do not believe the majority of Americans would throw out a candidate because of this one issue.
The last issue I am going to look at today is America's place in the world. Ron Paul believes we need to trade, talk and travel with all but never use force unless it is to preserve our own security. He believes in peace. He believes America leads best when leading by example and not forcing our way of life on others through the barrel of a gun. Historically colonialism and forced assimilation does not ever end well, we cannot intervene in the matters of other nations. Hillary Clinton wants us to intervene in other nations. According to her website she wants us in Darfur, she wants us to interfere with Hamas, she wants us to be involved in Northern Ireland. She also wants to send tax money to support the public schools of other nations and that " America is stronger when we lead the world through alliances". I don't think the American people want this, I think the American people want peace. It is one thing to activily pursue terrorist threats against our nation, but it is quite another to be using our money to set up beaurcracies and alliances with nations across the globe. The American people will not elect Hillary Clinton against Ron Paul. Unfortunately for the GOP, if they do not nominate Ron Paul then a large group of voters will go third party or simply "write in Ron Paul" and the GOP will be crushed.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 76 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Republic Writer only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Republic Writer is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I agree. I think Ron Paul is the only Rep. candidate who has a good chance of beating Hillary because he's the only one that actually DIFFERS from her on the core issues. Apart from Paul, the Dem.'s & Rep.'s all want the same things..they just want them in different ways. Plus, he knows his stuff. He knows the issues and he knows the actual solutions. He can explain how the system works (wether its Liberty, Economics, or Foreign Policy) and show the american people the only way it can be fixed.
I saw another analysis by Gallup or Zog or another big pollster which showed Paul was the only Republican candidate who could beat Hillary, and I don't doubt it one bit.
Yet it's clear that the money men and back-room controllers of the GOP (and all the other GOP candidates) would rather see Hillary in the White House than Ron Paul. It's frightening really, unless Paul wins I fear our country is lost.
all of the republican frontrunners are all establishment shills. dr. paul is the only chance for change, even huckabee is a shill for the establishment. don't buy the lie and support ron paul.
I'm beginning to take an interest in Ron Paul because he seems to be very different from all the other candidates, but I don't see why you have to misrepresent Hillary's views and agenda and talk about flip-flopping. Voting authorization for the use of force in Iraq, for example, when even Colin Powell was convinced there were WMDs there, doesn't mean she or anyone else has to agree with all the mess GWB has since made of Iraq, the debt spending and the expending of lives for some unknown purpose. No one has to agree with absolutely everything the President says or does just because that authorization was given in 2002. I don't see any flip-flopping there, just regrets.
Nor are there "many flip-flops" concerning driver licenses and border security. Clinton has always favored strengthening border security but just thinks building a Berlin wall is not the best way to do it. Concerning driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, I'll admit she didn't look so good in the Philly debate because she wouldn't come right out and say that she didn't support the idea, but this was just because she didn't want to throw her Dem governor under the bus. When Spitzer later dropped the idea, she supported him again and clearly said she didn't like the idea. Again, I don't see the flip-flop, no less "many" flip-flops. So while your article interests me for what it says about Ron Paul, it's clear that you're saying nothing true or noteworthy of Clinton.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-11 19:40:51
Ed Sweeney's question points out the hazards involved in making derogatory comments about other candidates. It can actually work against your own efforts to win favor for your candidate.
To Ed, I would point out that while "flip-flopper" may be a bit overly negative, there is certainly little doubt that the Senate (and the House) saw evidence that the rest of America was not privvy to at the time when considering the so-called WMD threat. They got to see first-hand how flimsy the evidence was, but instead of thinking about it independently and coming to their own conclusions, they came to the conclusions they were instructed to come to by those who presented the evidence.
We need leaders who are able to think critically, not "leaders" who are actually followers and don't question non-credible evidence when it is presented to them. This is what makes less than credible their claim that they were duped; it's not just Hillary's claim, but also the claims of all others who originally supported the Iraqi invasion, It's not like they didn't see the evidence, because they did see it. They bought into it much too easily.
So while calling Hillary a flip-flopper on WMDs might be a bit overzealous, saying that she showed very poor judgment would be right on the mark. And good, sound, incisive reasoning and judgment from a president is precisly what we so desperately need today.
To Walt Thiessen, I add that I think you are entirely right about the poor good judgment in Clinton's vote to authorize the use of force. Her only excuse is that she wasn't the only one in high places to be duped; but I condemn them all, because it was quite apparent that GWB just wanted to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam. In July 2002, ie 3 months before the vote, news got out that the Pentagon was planning an invasion of Iraq. It was obvious to me at the time that GWB just wanted to finish the job his father had left unfinished. It was two months later, after the Anthrax scare, that GWB started talking about WMDs in Iraq and whipping up scare stories of Saddam's supposed ties to terrorists. This was so evidently fake, with Wilson debunking the nuclear accusation and the DIA debunking the rest, and it being obvious that evil secular Saddam had no ties whatsoever with religious fanatics, that I can't fathom for the life of me why so many Dems bought into it. So, one big point against Clinton; but her current disavowal of the war over the past four years is no flip-flop.
The author informs me that Ron Paul wants trade, talk and travel but the use of military force only to preserve our own security, contrasting this with Clinton, who "wants us in Darfur... interfere with Hamas... involved in Northern Ireland." Now I think this is a fair comparison worthy of investigation. Is Ron Paul an isolationist? Does he want to withdraw into a Fortress America that turns its back on the world? How do you trade, talk and travel in a world turned hostile? What about protecting Americans and their interests overseas? I think the Clintons' involvement in Northern Ireland was and remains a lasting achievement. They brokered a peace between warring factions that had lasted 70 years, and didn't have to use the military to do it. With a little help from the military, they also brokered peace in the Balkans and stopped the ethnic cleansing. These were positive achievements for the peoples in question and did good for America's prestige in the world. Now there's ethnic cleansing again in Darfur, and an intelligent American commitment in the region could again bring peace and a boost to American prestige. I may be old school, but I don't see how turning our backs on the world is going to help either the world or us. The author quotes Clinton saying "America is stronger when we lead the world through alliances," and I agree. The author claims that the American people don't want this, and I disagree. Does Ron Paul agree with the author or with Clinton and me?
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Isolationism is defined as " A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries" and this is the opposite of what Ron Paul desires. He fully wants peaceful discussion and trade, but he does not want military intervention into the affairs of other nations. We would oppose to it here and they often oppose to it in other nations. There is nothing wrong with using peaceful discussion to solve the world's problems but using our military in foreign lands against someone that is not a threat to our nation is not the purpose of our armed services. Ron Paul has spoken many times about his commitment to the founding fathers belief in peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.
The world and our country will benefit from greater trade with all people. It is not our duty to police the world. We are not somehow ordained by a supranational organization to solve the worlds problems. Let other nations learn by our example, not through the barrel of a gun.
I am a democrat but would choose Ron Paul over any of the democrats, but, if I don't get that choice I will vote for the democratic option. After the damage of Bush, the GOP will have an a tough go, unless they choose Ron Paul. If he wins the GOP nomination, I predict a land slide as there are many others like me.
Ron paul would devastate hilary and obama in the general election, however if the GOP nominates anyone else the democrats will win for sure, people are sick of the iraq war and of our foreign policy.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
