More on Ron Paul Vs. Hillary
October 2nd, 2007 by Steve
For some time, I’ve been writing on a theme that nominating Ron Paul is probably the only chance the GOP has to beat Hillary (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The Chattanoogan just published an op-ed written by Joe Dumas which consolidates these arguments in a very coherent manner. Here’s the question with which he begins:
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.
And here’s his conclusion:
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.
You’ll have to read the portion in between to see how he drew this conclusion.
One Response to “More on Ron Paul Vs. Hillary”
Leave a Reply
About
Archives
Categories
- Alabama Politics (138)
- Articles (12)
- Bad Democrats (50)
- Bad Media (25)
- Bad Republicans (128)
- Bob Barr (14)
- Civil Liberties (68)
- Culture (43)
- Economic Policy (14)
- Election Reform (10)
- Fiscal Responsibility (30)
- Foreign Policy (21)
- Graphics (1)
- Health Care (17)
- History (3)
- Housekeeping (12)
- In the News (13)
- It's a Southern Thang (56)
- Judicial Issues (1)
- Just for Fun (37)
- Libertarian Movement (208)
- Libertarian Party (81)
- National Politics (279)
- Other places I blog (1)
- Prohibition Mentality (10)
- Regulatory Burden (5)
- Ron Paul (186)
- Satire (25)
- Sex and Politics (15)
- Supreme Court (2)
- Taxes (20)
- Tech (11)
- The Media (2)
- Travel (7)
- Wasteful Spending (29)
- Zero Tolerance (7)
Meta
Alex Wallenwein wrote on 10/3/07 at 6:05 am :
Two consecutive, nominally “Republican”, administrations have seen big government enlarged, nations built, and individual freedom diminished to a far greater degree than even Bill Clinton could have dreamed of. Now, Neocon pundits are telling Paul supporters that their unwillingness to support any other GOP candidate is proof they are not really “Republicans.”
The sad truth is that neither the pundits nor the other GOP candidates are really Republicans. They are Neocons. They only speak Conservatese - while pursuing the exact opposite agenda. Ron Paul supporters’ unwillingness to support any other current GOP candidate is therefore PROOF that they are the true Republicans.