Why the GOP Must Nominate Ron Paul
stolen from: Joe Dumas

Why must the Republican Party nominate a 72-year-old grandfather from
the Gulf Coast of Texas, until the past few months little known
outside his district, as its 2008 standard-bearer? Very simple: the
alternative is eight years of President Hillary Clinton. That ought
to be enough to get the attention of every conservative who happens
upon these words, so let me explain.

It should come as no big revelation to anyone inside or outside of
the Republican Party that the GOP has lost touch with its
conservative roots. Massive deficit spending that would make Bill
Clinton or Jimmy Carter blush; foreign adventurism beyond the wildest
dreams of Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt; more big government
programs than FDR or LBJ (Google "Medicare expansion" for a massive
example) ... the Republican Party of the early 21st century is
clearly not your father's or grandfather's GOP.

There are no more Robert Tafts, no more Barry Goldwaters, not even
any more Ronald Reagans (as imperfect as he turned out to be after
reaching the White House) ... except one: Ron Paul. Dr. Paul (an
OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies) is the last, best
hope for the GOP to reclaim its once-upon-a-time status as the party
of limited government.

It isn't his status as the leading advocate of limited,
constitutional government that makes Ron Paul a must-nominate for the
GOP, though. It is true that in the long run, the Republican Party
needs him to help it reclaim its spirit, and this indeed will be his
lasting legacy. But, in the short run, the party needs him to win the
2008 election and save the country from another Clinton presidency
that would be far worse than the first. (Unlike Bill, who was
apparently mainly involved in politics to get the attention of the
ladies, Hillary is a true believer in socialism; and, with a
Democratic majority in Congress, she will have an excellent
opportunity to expedite its widespread implementation in America.)

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.

Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson is reasonably good at reading a
script. Unlike the Gipper, though, Fred is just awful at speaking
extemporaneously. In case anyone was wondering why Thompson waited so
long to declare his candidacy, it's obvious to those who know
anything about his abilities and liabilities: he wanted to avoid as
many debates as possible.

Like Obama on the Democratic side, Thompson is an empty suit. He
looks reasonably presentable, but sooner or later he has to open his
mouth, and when he does he doesn't say anything of substance. The
less he speaks in public (especially with other candidates around to
rebut him), the better for Fred. Unfortunately for Thompson, while he
has so far been able to duck any direct confrontation with his GOP
rivals, he won't be able to avoid debating Hillary if he wins the
Republican nomination. And about five minutes into the first debate,
with no "Law and Order" writers to put words in his mouth, it will be
over. Game, set, match, Hillary.

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. Ask Al Gore if he could have used
a few thousand of Ralph Nader's votes in 2000....

Yes, when you look at things objectively, there are only two
candidates who can win the White House in 2008: Hillary Clinton and
Ron Paul. The contrast could not be more stark, nor the results for
the future of America more divergent. If you are a social or fiscal
conservative, a libertarian, a constitutionalist, or just a concerned
independent ... now is the time to consider your options and act
accordingly while there is still time to affect the outcome.

The Ron Paul Revolution has begun.

Peep It.