Is Ron Paul, Newt's "opposite," a serious contender for the GOP nomination?
Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) has shared a Tweet with you:
"rickklein: Ron Paul on Gingrich: 'He may be the opposite of what I’ve been doing for 30 years.'" (link)
If Paul has been the opposite of Newt, and Newt has been utterly loathsome in pretty much all ways, shouldn't it follow that I'm a huge Paul fan?
Hmmm.
No, because each is just a variation of right-wing extremism, though, to be fair, Paul, while less politically pragmatic and ideologically flexible than Newt, is certainly admirable in his opposition to militarism and empire-building, as well as in his passionate support for civil liberties, willing to take renegade positions in the GOP while remaining philosophically consistent and often finding himself on the outside of the party looking in.
But can he win? Is he ready a serious contender for the Republican throne? Is he poised for a surge?
I continue to say no, though, sure, he may do well in Iowa, tease his intensely loyal followers, and make the talking heads sputter in disbelief. But that would be all. He's way to much of a renegade, not just for the party "establishment" but for the Rush-led counter-establishment. Even if he secures more Tea Party support, he just isn't Republican enough to be the GOP standard-bearer in 2012.
Or ever.
Sorry, Ron Paul fanatics. The truth hurts. And denying it will just bring more disappointment.
"rickklein: Ron Paul on Gingrich: 'He may be the opposite of what I’ve been doing for 30 years.'" (link)
If Paul has been the opposite of Newt, and Newt has been utterly loathsome in pretty much all ways, shouldn't it follow that I'm a huge Paul fan?
Hmmm.
No, because each is just a variation of right-wing extremism, though, to be fair, Paul, while less politically pragmatic and ideologically flexible than Newt, is certainly admirable in his opposition to militarism and empire-building, as well as in his passionate support for civil liberties, willing to take renegade positions in the GOP while remaining philosophically consistent and often finding himself on the outside of the party looking in.
But can he win? Is he ready a serious contender for the Republican throne? Is he poised for a surge?
I continue to say no, though, sure, he may do well in Iowa, tease his intensely loyal followers, and make the talking heads sputter in disbelief. But that would be all. He's way to much of a renegade, not just for the party "establishment" but for the Rush-led counter-establishment. Even if he secures more Tea Party support, he just isn't Republican enough to be the GOP standard-bearer in 2012.
Or ever.
Sorry, Ron Paul fanatics. The truth hurts. And denying it will just bring more disappointment.
Labels: 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich, Republicans, Ron Paul
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
8:22 AM
1 Comments:
I suggest that not only can he win, but he is the only one who could attract independents and democrats away from Obama. Making him *possibly *the only one republican presidential candidate who could bring Obamas miserable first term to an end.
By
ToeTaggerH, at 5:29 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home