Realpolitik Decrees…

Realpolitik Decrees… February 27, 2012

Only a fool would support Paul, since all the other candidates are electable and will beat Obama, but it’s impossible for him:

Rasmussen Poll:
Romney 45% Obama 43%…
Paul 43% Obama 41%
Obama 45% Santorum 43%
Obama 49% Gingrich 39%…

"Mark 16;15 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach ..."

Dear Prolife Suckers
"I suggest you start discriminating between anecdotal evidence and history, and I also suggest you ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I'll tell you another weakness you have. You tend to overreact to criticism of or ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tominellay

    Yes, Ron Paul can win!

  • Actually Romney is going to be the candidate, or so the press continues to report. Either he gets the nomination, or he doesn’t and all chaos breaks loose. One or the other. The idea that anyone other than Romney will get it doesn’t appear to be on the media radar, at least from what I can tell.

    • That is indeed their hope. I doubt it, though. Romney has topped out around 30% in the GOP polls and even if he maintains that, I doubt he could find the additional 20+% he would need to get over the top even if two of Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich dropped out.

      Besides, McCain beat Romney in 2008, and Obama trounced McCain, so why should we really think that Romney is a good candidate this time around?

      • The question is can anyone seriously, in reality, beat Obama. First, the media will do everything – every thing – to ensure Obama is reelected. See the MSM’s take on the whole HHS mandate, how quickly and easily it was able to turn it to ‘male Bishops attacking women’s health.’

        No GOP candidate has really been ‘vetted’ yet. That is, the MSM hasn’t obliterated them, yet. Romney has, despite his best efforts, gotten away with little real scrutiny. Santorum, being the one polling highest in the primary vs. Romney, has received the brunt, being labeled as a religious freak who wants to abolish birth control, turn America over to the Pope, and worst of all, actually believes those ‘stupid’, ‘evil’, and ‘wrong’ teachings regarding things like homosexuality, abortion, and religious liberty. Ironically, the problem issues that most Catholics who don’t support Santorum have (torture, just war), aren’t on the media’s ‘why we should hate and fear Santorum’ prompters.

        Gingrich, of course, isn’t worth discussing. Every time he gets up there, I recall that train wreck scene in The Fugitive.

        Which brings us to Paul. Paul, according to a CNN report, is one of two (Romney being the other) who tightly controls his campaign, not being one for impromptu interviews or rope line chatting and Q&A. Plus, Paul is typically ignored by the media, or when he is interviewed on CNN or Comedy Central, he’s more or less given a blank check since as often as not, the bulk of his fury is reserved for the GOP.

        If Paul was to go under the media knife, it’s hard to say what would happen. We got a tiny taste before Iowa, when all of a sudden you had Nazi Paul, racist, anti-Semite, anti-Civil Rights, and wanting to abolish the federal government so that babies could starve and die. And that was just in a few days when he looked as though he might pull of Iowa. Since then, he’s more or less been ignored again.

        Could Paul withstand that full blown assault? Could he withstand each and everything he ever did, said, supported, or endorsed being dragged across the screens, interpreted by our glorious media in the most horrible way possible? Hard to say.

        I just know those are the options, and right now, since the media’s narrative is that everything is getting better, and anything that isn’t getting better isn’t the fault of Obama anyway, I just can’t see anyone at this point beating him in November. As one fellow said on another site, it’s the committee to reelect Obama.

        • You are right about the media. The nice thing is that whichever candidate makes it through will be able to speak in their own words to the American people.

          It’s possible that all the accusations that the media would pull out would derail Paul. It’s also very possible that it would destroy the media’s credibility, when people oppose the media’s words to the real Ron Paul that people hear speaking.

          Romney, Paul, and Santorum all have a chance to win. For now, I think people just have to support whoever they think is the best candidate, and let the chips fall where they may.

        • Joseph

          Ironically, the problem issues that most Catholics who don’t support Santorum have (torture, just war), aren’t on the media’s ‘why we should hate and fear Santorum’ prompters.

          Well, their Lord and Master supports torture, having the power to condemn and immediately carry out the execution of Americans at his whim, torture, etc. as well. The last thing the media wants are those things highlighted. They’ve been working overtime to spin Obama’s 4 years of war, murder, and torture as either the residuals of the Bush administration or justifiable in one way or another.

  • It’s not that Paul can’t win the entire country. Paul can’t win the Republicans. The party just will not nominate him. They would rather spend the next four years under Obama, who has the double advantage of pursuing their own policies with nearly the same enthusiasm as they and being someone on whom they can pin all the government’s failures, than someone like Paul, who will immediately upset their precarious apple cart.

    • Kirt Higdon

      Well put, Jon W. Ron Paul does better with the electorate as a whole, especially with independents, than he does with the plutocratic and militaristic Republicans. The election is Obama’s to lose. If the economy stalls out and tanks again, he’ll lose to any Republican. If the economy continues to improve, even a little bit, he’ll win, but not by as large a margin as last time.

      • $5.00 gas says otherwise, though. Not all voters are urban dwellers who can take the trains or buses, although I’d say that if you look at a red/blue map from 2008, the urban centres did sway the election towards Obama…..having a weak contender in McCain was another factor.

        • Kirt Higdon

          I agree that gas reaching $5 per gallon and continuing on there until the election would sink Obama. But gas prices and the price of oil on the world market are volatile and can go down as easily as they can go up. In the summer of 2008, high oil and gas prices were on everyone’s mind. By election day, prices had fallen and many other concerns took precedence.

          • Correct – the TMZ electorate was tired of Bush and the GOP, so they wanted Change and Hope and boy howdy did they get it.

            I think the bloom’s off the rose…but I think Tyrant Obama’s intelligence is overpowered by his arrogance in that he believes he knows better than the plebes.

            If the US Constitution was a star in the sky, relative to the position of the earth, the light from it would take a million years to be visible to the earth….that’s how far off course from the Constitution we are. It did not start with Obama, but it looks like he’s trying to finish it off….aided and abetted by a spineless congress and eager media.

            • I do believe the TMZ electorate will re-elect the tyrant so they can go back to sleep and get their free candy+.

        • Joseph

          They’ll find a way to announce that chocolate rations have been increased before “Stupor Tuesday”. Trust me.

  • Ben

    Not much criticism of Ron Paul on this blog. Isn’t he in favor of legalizing all prostitution and all drugs, including heroin and LSD? Hard to defend that in a general election. Not exactly in-line with The Church.

    • Tominellay

      Ben, I think it’s Romney who’s L.D.S….

  • John H.

    Ben,

    Is that what Ron Paul is about? Really?

    You are mistaken sir. Ron Paul is about limited federal government, which is a good thing. Big Fed=HHS mandate, Patriot Act (aka. torture, assassination of US citizens, suspension of Habeus Corpus), etc.

    Small Fed means that the states get to outlaw LSD, Prostitution, Heroin, Abortion, Homosexual adoption, etc. Big Fed means the states have to adopt whatever crazy universal principle the federal government decides is right for everyone. We’ve see how well that works out for us. The Constitution is clear, the Federal Govt. does not have this authority, and for good reason.

    • Ben

      So you are saying he would leave it up to the states. Correct?

      • I’m sure Paul has opinions, on various issues, on what the states should do, too, but said opinions are nearly irrelevant, since he is not running for state office and has no interest in usurping the states rights to make those decisions.

        • Although, I should mention, Dr. Paul does favor a federal amendment to define life as beginning at conception, so he does break his normal stance of no federal intervention, because it’s a life issue.

          • John H.

            Dave,

            Yes, normally, but “life” being a term used be the Constitution means that it must be “defined” at the federal level. Of course, by “defined” I don’t mean that the Federal govt. gives it a definition, rather it recognizes it.

      • Ben, that’s the way it should be. 10th Amendment and all, y’know…

      • Colonel Klink

        So you are saying he would leave it up to the states. Correct?

        I think it’s more precise to say Paul believes the federal government has no power to legislate with respect to those subjects.

      • Mark Shea

        Correct. His (perfectly reasonable) view is that you win this by changing the culture.

        • Go ahead. Change it. Who’s stopping you?

          • Mark Shea

            I am.

  • William

    I have been very involved in the Ron Paul campaign for 5 years. If he doesn’t win, whoever does win will have to reach out to him in a major way (as in VP for him or Rand) to get his supporters to the polls. Romney would be smart enough and willing to do this. Santorum despises Paul and would never do this.

    • Colonel Klink

      What we must all remember about Santorum is he is a traitor to the cause of life. He talks the pro-life game, but when the chips are down, he will not stand up and be counted. In Pennsylvania we had a chance to knock off pro-abort Arlen Specter in 2004. Santorum endorsed Specter, rather than the pro-life Toomey. In a close election, Santorum’s endorsement saved Specter’s bacon. Specter then went on to cast a critical vote in favor of Obamacare. Thanks a lot, Rick!

    • Yeah, Santorum said that he fights very hard against libertarian ideas, while Reagan said that libertarianism is the soul of conservatism.

      I’m paraphrasing so don’t shoot me if the quotes aren’t exact…I’m going with Reagan on that one.

      • Here you go:

        “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

        Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”

        the miracle of the Internet.

    • ds

      William, do you think he will run third party?

      • William

        ds, I do not. But, anything is possible.

  • I would be very wary of anyone who says he can change the culture of a small town, much less a nation of 300 million people.

    • I’m not sure that anyone said they could change the culture, did they? But we can all do our little part, by changing ourselves, and perhaps to some small extent, those in our circle of influence.

  • Consistency

    The culture is constantly in change. Your statement precludes any kind of political action or really any attempts to change minds or educate the masses.

  • Given our current socio-political circumstance there is nary a good reason to let one’s vote be swayed by electability. Voting for any “electable” candidate means compromising actual values for one’s preferred mascot. In truth, when the media or the ruling elites tell you who’s “electable” they’re telling you “we went ahead and narrowed it down to these candidates that we like. Now exercise your ‘freedom’ to elect who you want to office (snickers) and pick one of the pre-selected candidates. Otherwise, you’re being unpatriotic and wasting your sacred vote (how dare you).”

  • John C

    I think people are coming to understand that Obama is a radical. He represents the fag end of ’60s liberalism. He is a craven suck-up to the “women’s movement” and the “gay rights” movement, which means he will always favor abortion for-whatever-reason, and will always oppose traditional marriage. He is fundamentally unmanly. My hope is that a candidate who represents “normalcy” and traditional behavior will have enough support to beat him in November. That’s why I’m going with Romney. It’s going to be very close.

    • Kirt Higdon

      “He represents the fag end of ’60s liberalism. He is a craven suck-up to . . . the “gay rights” movement. . . ”

      Puns intended???

  • Clare Krishan

    Yup and he made into the illustrious pages of a Vatican’s Pontifical Academy Journal too, see citation at foot of page 114
    22 Out of the very rich literature criticising the notion that governments should manage economic crises, or have successfully managed such crises in the past, see for example Woods (2009), Salin (2010), Paul (2009), Huerta de Soto (2006), Rothbard (2005), Higgs (2006), Powell (2003), Shlaes (2007), Taylor (2010), and Altmiks (2010).
    http://www.vatican.edu/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdsoc/documents/newpdf/actapass16.pdf#page=113

    Χαρά! Χαρά!

  • Tominellay

    Clare Krishan: thanks for the link to the Pontifical Academy Journal above. Reading a few pages of that overview by Hulsmann, it becomes obvious that Ron Paul’s view of statism and the role of central banking in the world’s economic crisis, is not just a crazy uncle’s rant. Ron Paul is right about money and the economy, and it appears the Vatican thinks so, too. Maybe Mary Ann Glendon will endorse Ron Paul…

  • Mark S (not for Shea)

    Paul would have a VERY good chance at winning — if we still lived in a democracy. But we don’t. Only the outward trappings of one.

    • We never had a democracy Mark S. We were supposed to be a representative republic, which we were until 1861 when Lincoln started centralising the federal government.

      • Mark S (not for Shea)

        We never had a “true democracy,” no, but a “true democracy” has never existed beyond the village level. But at one time we had a democratic republic, where the votes of the people actually mattered and their representatives actually tried to represent the views of the people. We don’t anymore.

        It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Paul runs as a Third Party candidate. I think he’ll even do fairly well come election day. But he won’t win.