Ron Paul (blog) is running for president. Is he the Republicans answer to an anti-war conservative? Seems he is prolife, yet antiwar? Logically, there's something to it, but it looks more in vogue to be prochoice and anti-war, or, and they do seem vewy vewy qwiet these days, prolife and pro-war.
With Ron Paul in the mix, is he a real candidate, or just a third voice to provide noise among Republicans? John McCain is stumbling, and it looks like he may not make it back to the barn.
Hillary Clinton represents the standard liberal position: anti-war, prochoice. Barack Obama is more or less the same (though he is not as antiwar as it first appeared - he may just be anti-Iraq). Can either withstand a candidate who takes on their anti-Iraq stance and embraces it, yet retains a standard conservative platform?
3 comments:
Dr. Paul could be Hillary in the big dance easily. She supported the war before she didnt. (sound familiar at all?) LOL
He gets support from Conservatives, Anti-War Libs, Libertarians, Constitution Pary and many more.
Paul still is missing the throngs of support necessary to pull it off. He gets support from a range of voters, as you well note, but will there be enough?
I do not think the fact that Hillary flopped on the war will make a difference to voters. What matters is not what she did, but what they believe she will do. While questions of political integrity may muddy the conversation, I do not think voters believe that she will do anything but try to pull the USA out of Iraq. That meets pacifist goals, anti-Iraq goals, and pro-Islamic rule goals.
Paul has a huge awareness barrier to get over before being considered in the big dance. He must win the Republican primary, which is only now starting to heat up.
Regarding Ron Paul info:
Ron Paul for President
Ron Paul stuff here:
http://cafepress.com/paulron
Obama is also far less pro-choice than Hillary or many other Democrats. He still is, but not as much.
Post a Comment