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 Phantom Inferiority Complex: Ron Reagan

Yesterday Ron Reagan, son of the famed America president and stalwart liberal, came out and claimed that his father was suffering from Alzheimer's Disease while he held the reins of the Oval Office, and that the condition affected his ability to make decisions as chief executive. While many sources around the late president have denied this, including his other son Michael, the vicious slurring of his father's legacy simply reaffirms a long since proposed theory about the ardent left-winger: that jealously guides his activism today.

From the start, perhaps the world of his parents was simply too much for Ron's young mind to fathom. As the son of Hollywood stars, he would only have nine years to live before his father swept into the governor's office of California, beginning a political legacy which would last for decades and see him through to a place as one of the most respected world leaders of the 20th Century--and indeed beyond that as well.

Unfortunately, this surge of success and respect was apparently too much for young Ron, and he chose to drop out if Yale University (a more prestigious school than his father's) to pursue a career as a ballet dancer. Throughout the Reagan Presidency, he raised hell for the first couple by appearing on less than flattering entertainment shows and mocking his patriarch's work for the nation and world.

Adding insult to the open wound, Ron made his next concentration be a jump into current events by helping to start Air America, a liberal talk radio channel famous for personalities like Al Franken--and for its bankruptcy in 2004.

Had the younger Reagan's focus been at least on on actual political career, he might still command some respect today, yet his insistence on taking a low road and tearing at his father's legacy only diminishes the potential of his own person.

In fact, despite his sensational disagreement with his father, Reagan Jr. loves to use the family name to benefit himself financially--and to pick up some poor excuses for attention from networks such as MSNBC. As with the latest comment, Ron loves to play as though he knows his father well, yet all reports suggest that he shunned the president and remained distant till the elder man passed away in 2004.

Children may sometimes find the successes of their familiars too much to accept, yet Ron Reagan truly has now valid justifications for his actions. His father's legacy has helped him even while he chooses to drag it through the mud, and that is something no American can be proud of.



Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

The Dangers of Jones and Paul

If one message showed most clearly in the terrible events of the January 8th Tuscon tragedy it is that anti-antisemitism is alive and well in the modern world, continuing to pose a threat to the Jewish People even years after Hitler's defeat and the end of the Nazi Holocaust. Perhaps the most shocking element to it all is that political figureheads within the United States of America seem to be actively aiding the vile spread if such poisonous language through their masses of tangles conspiratorial theories about a so called New World Order and the part which Jewish individuals have to play in it. At the forefront are both Alex Jones and Ron Paul, two men whose views have begun to verge into a vitriolic hate which places Jewish Americans in particular in danger.

The basis of the arguments spun by both men is that Jews control too much power or fall under the greedy stereotype all too much of a regularity in classics by authors such as Charles Dickens and Oscar Wilde. They continually stipulate that Semitic persons are responsible for the financial meltdowns and control both the media and government through their elitist educational ties.

While these claims have been proven inaccurate time after time, the mere presence of the views as they sink into an implied conservative body has left many Americans believing them to be an integral part of the right-wing in this country. As anyone might expect, their views pollute the environment of political dialog by confusing people about where they should best stand on the issue. People who consider an elected official like Ron Paul to be above the fray so to speak may cave to his borderline anti-Semitism because they believe him to be a guru on all other issues and cannot bear to leave his side on this one.    

It is not to say that Congressman Paul has been as furiously anti-Jew as his talk show associate, yet his focusing on particular issues and lack of support for the state of Israel seem to betray a marked disinterest in firmly rejecting the notion that Jewish people should be spat upon or in any way harmed. More flauntingly, Paul and Jones are helping to stitch the far right and left fringes together in order to construct a united front of skepticism towards Jews and Israel in general that damages both American unity and encourages anger to be focused on the ethnic and religious group.

Ron Paul needs to come out and reject this vicious hate for Jews which is simmering up from among his support groups because it places the American mission to the Middle East in jeopardy. If we are to win a war against terrorism and alongside Israel then we cannot have citizens in large numbers who question the merits of our closest ally in the region, as well as our only true fellow democratic nation there.

In today's world, another Holocaust is only one oppressive mob away from occurring, and America needs to quash it before it grows more problematic than a simple fringe group. Even now a Jewish congresswoman may never recover because of the hateful attitude towards Jewish people and six others are dead. For their sake, this nation has a responsibility to reverse this trend towards violence targeting Jews and Israel.



Matthew Keller

National Alliance Vice President for Religion and Spirituality 

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)