Ron Paul–Stalking Horse For Military/Industrial Complex?

As the primary season opens tomorrow, the candidacy of Ron Paul looms as an important factor in the election of 2008. There is no question he will never win the Republican nomination, but his run as an independent might have disastrous consequences for those concerned about the end of war in Iraq and the erosion of civil liberties in the United States. In a sense, Ron Paul, could become the Ralph Nader of 2008. the Nader votes in Florida in 2000 transformed a Gore presidency into a Bush fiasco and the horror of Iraq. There will be many contested state elections in which a few thousand votes could turn the tide and provide right wing Republicans a chance for victory.

Ron Paul supporters ignore the consequence of a Giuliani or Romney or Huckabee victory. At least two of the Supreme Court’s liberal members who have fought for individual rights are rather elderly and their death or retirement opens the door for a new president to make two key selections that could alter the composition of the court for at least two decades. A Republican victory ensures the death of abortion rights in America, it maintains the horror of Guanatanamo, it ensures the Patriot Act will be supported, and makes more difficult fighting to obtain equal rights for gays and workers.

A Republican victory in 2008 will make more difficult creation of an equitable system of health care in this nation. Ron Paul and his libertarian views on ending the income tax or opposing national health insurance or opposing worker rights to form unions makes him a poster boy for the corporate world. If he siphons off votes in key states and allows a Giuliani to win then Paul has done more to maintain the madness of Iraq than any other candidate. Ron Paul claims he wants American troops withdrawn from Iraq but his candidacy stands an excellent chance of ensuring that does not happen.

In the 2000 election, Ralph Nader supporters were righteous in their indignation against voting for Gore on grounds it made no difference who won. That attitude allowed Bush to triumph. The question confronting every Ron Paul supporter is whether it holds true today– does it make a difference if a Giuliani or Thompson or Romney wins as against a victory for a Barack Obama or Edwards of Clinton? If Ron Paul wants to end the war in Iraq, he will gracefully walk off the stage and avoid a third party candidacy.

  • Michael

    First I disagree with your baseless assertion that “Ron Paul will never the Republican nomination”. All the evidence shows that he CAN win the nomination.

    He’s polling between 9% and 13% in some of the early states for the primaries despite the fact that the polls don’t do a good job of representing his true support. Here are a few reasons why this is the case:

    1) A lot of his supporters use cell phones and not landline phones, so these group of ppl don’t get polled

    2) The polls are usually from a pool of Republicans who voted in 2004 and this base has shrunk significantly.

    3) Also, consider that he is drawing support from lots of crossover Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and people who will be voting for the first time in this election and these groups of people just won’t get polled in the Republican nomination polls.

    4) He is also polling better at this point than Clinton and Carter were polling. Those two went on to win their respective parties nominations and the presidential elections.

    5) In straw polls (which are a better indication of election success since ppl have to actually come out and vote), Ron Paul is doing fantastically well.
    He has come 1st in 29 out of 52 straw-polls, 2nd & 3rd in a further 7 straw-polls each summing up to a top three finish in 43 out of 52 strawpolls and he’s got a winning record against each of the other Republican nominees. I think these are winning numbers, no?

    I would be happy to hear any reasons you have for saying “Ron Paul will never the Republican nomination”.

  • Jamie

    “There is no question he will never win the Republican nomination”

    Says who? Fox News?

    “does it make a difference if a Giuliani or Thompson or Romney wins as against a victory for a Barack Obama or Edwards of Clinton?”

    It makes a huge difference. Ron Paul is the only top-tier candidate not mouthing the talking points of the Israeli lobby when the topic comes up.

    One either backs Ron Paul or one is backing the same ol’, same ol’.

  • Fred Stopsky

    I guess you believe that Al Gore would have gone to war in Iraq and opposed doing anything about global warming. I guess you believe Al Gore would have appointed men like Alioto and Roberts to the
    Supreme Court.
    Ron Paul is a 19th century mind wrapped in a 20th century body who doesn’t have a clue about life in the 21st century.

  • Fred Stopsky

    Perhaps, Ron Paul supporters can identify a Third Party candidate who won a presidential election in American history. You might argue for Lincoln. It ain’t going to happen. If this nation ever suffered the calamity of an ignorant man like Paul getting elected, my advice would be to head for Canada. The man doesn’t have a clue about 21st century economics, does not grasp the importance of medical care, would be lost at a meeting of world leaders, and would make America the laughing stock of the world.