Why Ron Paul Will Lose

In the wake of President Obama's bumbling policies related to the economy and the unconstitutional war currently being waged in Libya, many in the Paulist column have come out and openly argued for his election to be the nominee of the Republican Party in next year's critical presidential election. Without delving too much into it, there is some decent evidence that this may in fact be a viable consideration, especially when noting that one poll from Rasmussen showed the Texas congressman trailing Obama by a single percentage point 42-41%. Even when real estate mogul Donald Trump attempted to claim Paul could not win the 2012 race, the latter's supporters launched vitriolic responses across the internet, bashing the whole notion that he would not triumph.

(Photo credit goes to BusinessInsider.com)

Before this I have spoken at length about my disagreements with Mr. Paul on foreign policy in particular, but it would be wrong to solely use this as reason why Trump's assessment is correct. Instead, it is more important to analyze Paul's greatest thorn: the illusion of a national-regional movement.

Anyone understands Paul's history knows he is a prolific fundraiser with a network of support across the nation,  allowing him to raise funds of grandiose proportions in little time, yet this does not make up for the congressman's lack of pluralities in the regional arena. Regardless of how strong one's national visibility may be, without connections in the state committees or trusted presence there, winning a primary is essentially impossible. Mayor Giuliani discovered this in 2008, with his campaign crashing and burning throughout each state's convention as he failed to win over the regional voters. No one would deny Giuliani had a strong national profile, but his familiarity with the state-by-state process was so weak that it destroyed his chances at the nomination.

Beyond the simple issue of local support, the Campaign for Liberty's chairman faces a conundrum when considering the prospects of his fellow vying comrades in the quest for the GOP's banner. The congressman may like to rip them as "establishment picks," yet that exact factor is what will reliably lead to his loss next year. Given the building scenario of Romney-Bachmann-Cain-Palin, it is almost impossible to imagine the good doctor coming up on top without some serious dropouts across the GOP field. Assuming Palin does not run, with both Santorum and Johnson dropping out, Paul still faces a steep climb to cinching the nomination.

Taking Iowa or South Carolina into the discussion it is not hard to see the frustration of Paul's hopes. Given her flamboyant conservative rhetoric, let us speculate that Michele Bachmann wins 34% in Iowa, followed by Romney at 25%, and a third non-Constitutionalist taking about 9%. With these numbers, Paul has already lost a crucial primary that could well decide the two top candidates of the race, even if he manages to grab the remaining 32%.

But this model is flawed in an obvious way: it fails to consider more than three candidates on the ballot other than Paul. In a more liberal state like New Hampshire, Romney would likely win 35%, followed by Huntsman or Perry in the mid twenties and then a non-Paulist candidate with double digits, be it Bachmann or Cain. So even in the best case possible, Paul's chances of winning in such a crowded field are miniscule.

Unfazed by this, Paul's supporters will likely call for an independent or Libertarian Party run, effectively getting their message out there while reelecting Barack Obama to the White House. Even if the GOP nominated a flimsy candidate like Santorum or Pawlenty, the prevalence of the two-party system would cause the chosen Republican to take at least 6% of the vote, enough to return Obama to the Oval Office. Were we to guess that that Paul lone would take 52% of the vote, the inclusion of the GOP third-party would cause him to sink below Obama's popular vote total, likely bringing about his defeat.

Ron Paul may be an honorable man, but he will not win the presidency in 2012. 

Brandon Dawson

National Alliance Vice President for Elections

The Matter of Trump

It's official: The Donald is now a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Following a rather long hiatus of flirtations, Trump is suddenly veering dangerously close to the waters of candidacy, and progressively his statements have become more bold and less attune to uncertainty. With only months before his hit television show comes to a finale, there raises the entirely viable possibility that he may indeed step into the upcoming race, spelling potential trouble for those who are quick to write him off as a "hothead," or "egotistical."

(Courtesy of pbpulse.com)

For starters, Trump has the necessary cash. This is perhaps the primary qualification for a viable candidate, especially seeing as most GOPers are still struggling to keep up with the promising tide of Barack Obama, whose war chest is set to be well over $1 billion. For Trump, this is less problematic, as he has already committed to $500 billion for the campaign, putting him well within reaches of Obama's money totals. He who has more funds tends to triumph in American politics, and Trump is no exception.

Another factor facing the GOP versus Obama match-ups is notability. Whilst Obama has been a world icon for the past three years, most of the GOP candidates outside of Sarah Palin are vaguely recognized by voters: a sure death knell if the race is judged on popularity. Trump differs in his television show screen time and massive celebrity, both beneficial elements which could very well bolster the rest of his campaign. His prevalence on screen could save him considerable funds early on the in the race, as his own companies run commercials with his namesake for corporate purposes.

Trump's forward-talking behavior may shock some more sensitive politicos, yet his passionate tirades may be just enough to propel him to viability in American political discourse. Recent attacks on President Obama's birth certificate from the real estate mogul might seem childish, but they show a tenacity and courage which not all candidates have on the national stage. And considering that his issues platform is built upon anti-interventionist philosophies, Trump will have an easier time at raking in independent support than naysayers might project.

No candidate for the presidency so far has demonstrated a likelyhood of defeating Barack Obama, so counting Trump out without due analysis would be foolish at the very least. He may have a pompous image in the minds of those around the country, but a tense campaign may warm citizen hearts and draw in their votes to change the outcome of the day.

So the question remains, will The Donald tell Obama "You're fired," in November next year? Only time will tell.




Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Saluting a Patriot

Senator James Webb recently announced his decision to not seek reelection to the upper body in 2012, paving the way for a likely showdown between his predecessor, George Allen, and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine. A summarization of the election is inevitable in coming days, yet instead Virginians and Americans should stop and pay tribute to the utmost service granted by Webb to his country over the past forty-five years, both in an outside of uniform.

Upon his graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy, he entered the Marines and served honorably during a tour in Vietnam which would come to give him a bronze star for valor and service. Returning home, he attended law school at Georgetown and was appointed Secretary of the Navy by President Ronald Reagan. He would serve for almost 2 years before leaving and following his journalistic interests around the world.

An accomplished author, Webb has written countless articles, several novels and autobiographies, and even a film script, adding to his repertoire of life.

In 2006, he entered the Virginia race for the United States Senator, overcoming low name recognition and a strong incumbent to defeat George Allen and swing control of the deliberative body over to the Democratic Party by a margin of 9,000 votes.

Despite this slim and controversial victory, Webb wasted no time in making himself known as a steward of bipartisan issues in the Senate, and his work resulted in the reform of the GI Bill to benefit veterans across the nation. His work on social justice is also notable, and his office wasted no time in helping local colleges to receive additional funding from the federal coffers.

No matter what one's views may be, Senator Webb is deserving of the complete respect from Americans of all race, creed, and affiliation for his undying service; without a doubt, he is a truly great American hero.



Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

2012: Avoiding a Third Party

In spite of the defeats of nearly 61 incumbent Democrats only weeks ago, Axelrod, Plouffe, and Obama are all salivating at their prospects for 2012, and with good reason. This year's election campaign may have been a hit for the presidency, but it showed true the ability of the third party advocates to make--or break, candidates. In California, Chelene Nightingale cost Meg Whitman considerable support, and Libertarians across the map drew enough votes to successfully, albeit narrowly, reelect many vulnerable Democrats. Our democracy fully supports active participation, but in the best interests of the people, both the Libertarians and Constitutional members will abstain from big shot campaigning in 2012, which has the pretentiousness to turn into a close race.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama has been slapped across the face; but sometimes the undecided maiden can be wooed to the injured one's side. As long as the Whitehouse can spin a convincing message that the president is being bullied by John Boehner and the Tea Party, his reelection prospects will still remain in healthy territory. So little as a bump in the economic levels could be equally endearing, and the raucous yammering of the Right about taxes is unlikely to carry through unless it can be solidified into firm pro-business message. Congress may have been won through the tactic, but no Republican, one-on-one with the president can simply hope to win  by that singular view, so precautions need to be adapted.

As if the color isn't more visible, this means blocking all those who might attempt to launch a third-party run; figures including Mike Bloomberg, Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, or even the mentally undecided Alex Jones. Bloomberg is the largest danger because he holds a unique position of visibility, decent fiscal stewardship credentials, and a boatload of money to run with. He may also draw enough independents away from both parties to let the larger Democratic base win the night.

Paul, who is still basking in his son's recent glory in the state of Kentucky, has the potential to stand up and deliver the GOP defeat which all the Washington crowd desires. His rhetoric, often suspicious and borderline anti-Semetic, could splinter the party--at least in the media's view, and bring about a crippling downturn of hopes against the president. He leads a joint coalition with Jesse Ventura, whose 9/11 inside job claims might attract enough fringe support to hurt the GOP. More importantly, his celebrity status will attract more backing,  taking votes away from Obama's strongest opponent.

Jones...well, suffice to say we do not need more intellectually robbed individuals seeking the presidential office.

Like it or not, the Tea Party has to face the facts: Barack Obama will be re-inaugurated on January 20th, 2013 if its members continue to request ideological purity. Whoever holds the GOP banner in 2012 must be capable of appealing to the entire nation, not one small pocket of beliefs. And while conservatives outnumber liberals by a long shot, the extent which some of these candidates force their views are enough to push even the most disgruntled independents and moderates back to voting for our current commander in chief.  


Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

A New Voice for Washington

Generally speaking, we tend to avoid endorsements as an organization, but in an election which has so many improbabilities yet so much at stake, the National Alliance Foundation is committed to helping certain key candidates with their attempts at election, especially to the United States Senate. Since 2001, the state of Washington has lacked any representation within the upper house other than firebrands for the Democratic Party. Even Slade Gorton's strong constituent services were not enough to overturn Maria Cantwell's momentum, resulting in his sacking by the people in the race of 2000. And after nearly eleven years of such partisan leadership, the state is in trouble, most critically with its economic condition.

For this reason, the National Alliance Foundation is stepping forward to endorse Dino Rossi for the United States Senate in 2010. Despite serving only six years as a state senator, Rossi managed to successfully balance a massive state budget even while a reigning Democratic governor sat in anguish over it all. And while his two runs for governor came up short, first due to a largely unfair recount and then due to a Democratic sweep, Rossi has stuck to a firm pro-business career to deliver jobs for the Evergreen State through his real estate ventures.

On the other side, Senator Patty Murray is simply a disappointment for the state, and even for the nation. Her election successes largely the result of poorly prepared opponents and swing election years, Murray has not worked tremendously on small business legislation in the Senate, instead preferring to be a lap dog to Wall Street's benefits within the higher chamber. A recent report by CQ Politics even suggests that Washington's lady channeled about 20 million in taxpayer money to her lobbyist friends, which should be enough to disqualify her from reelection.

But even more glaring is Murray's voting record, which sadly fails to ever move from anything but a poster for the socialists and social democrats of American political interests, avoiding the qualms and difficulties which average Washingtonians face on a daily basis. Removing her from the senatorial throne is the first step in cleansing America of elitism and corruption, forming a base from which prosperity can grow once more. There is no doubt that filth remains from the years of Republican rule, yet part of that mire was also age old Democratic senators such as Murray, so their elimination as viable political figures is part of the cleaning process.

The year of 2010 is not just any other election; it is an opportunity to hold Washington D.C. accountable to the American people. If voters send a strong message by defeating Murray and other incumbents, thy will pave the way for a better future in which the capitol is directly answerable to the public--not the special interests. Wasting such an opening would be disastrous to say the least, and everyone must vote for what is sensible, not the usual.


Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations

Masquerade: the Saga of Ron Paul

(This article was written by a National Alliance Foundation author on an independent blog, and does not necessarily represent the views of the organization).

So I have made the decision to remove myself from the thin-skinned group of pundits and go for the throat; supporters of Ron Paul be upset or not. I no longer hold any sympathy for the views of the good doctor, no matter how popularized they might have become over the past three years.

I admit, despite holding a more moderate stance than many of my colleagues, I felt at least a strong initial attraction to the Texas congressman's radical policy proposals. And honestly, so did a lot of people. What could be better than a tough as nails constitutionalist who is sharp on the budget but equally wise on social issues? Like a decent share of the public, I felt he was genuine...until I began to realize what his entire movement was built upon.

As much as he enjoys playing the above the fray card whenever political discourse gets into the heat of issues, Paul still has yet to establish himself as a truly independent--and viable, movement. Even during the 2008 campaign, while still floundering for life as the two major parties shifted into a domineering mode over the election, the congressman would not isolate himself from both parties, instead ensuring that he noted the similarities between himself and then Senator Barack Obama on the issue of Marijuana legalization. While I am quick to endorse more social democracy in our country, the drug problem is not an avenue to take, no matter the libertarian argument in favor of action. The move really came off as a cheap shot to draw in supporters, not something which Dr. Paul truly subscribes to. Perhaps the federal branch should simply apply more freedom, but not in such a way that endangers citizens through self-destructive behavior.

But regardless of his political opinions, I cannot make myself believe that the Campaign for Liberty's poster legislator has the temerity and calm to ever be elected--or serve effectively, as a United States President. Though he may possess a coalesced brigade of support in his safe conservative district, nothing about him inspires national or foreign leadership as a president. Paul believes America should remain isolationist, even while the country holds so many unavoidable international ties with companies and other nations.

Years ago, Ron Paul's foreign policy might have been prudent, but these days it simply comes off as surrealistic. Even more liberal democrats know that withdrawing from the world goes hand in hand with regret later on. Had the 1990s been lead by a more confident interventionist president, the Iraq War might have been prevented. Instead, isolationist and strictly economic policy wrecked such a follow up's chances of success.

He may hold the attentions of the more obstinate undecided voters now, but as 2012 roles around the corner, Americans would be wise to choose a leader who is committed to principles, not the popularity of a grassroots movement. Dr. Paul may offer advice on governmental issues, but his presence on the national scene is more destructive to reality than beneficial to the nation.

Rick Thomlinson

Citadel of the Left (Original article source)