Thanks to all who voted in the hypothetical presidental poll, which I touted here last month. As many expected he would, Ron Paul won convincingly over Barack Obama, 79 to 20 percent.
If the conventional wisdom is right that the Republicans are going to get hung out to dry on Nov. 4, then that would mean an essentially leaderless, rudderless party. Certainly Palin should be considered among the possible successors, but it remains to be seen if she can stand up to national scrutiny and maintain any sort of meaningful following. I haven't seen anything yet showing me that she can.
Dr. Ron Paul probably won't be the nominee in 2012, but he's set in motion a grassroots, pro-liberty effort that could have wide-reaching effects on the future of the Republican Party. That is the direction the party will have to take if it wants to be competitive again in the near-term.
More at:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/1488834-ron-paul
I'm sorry I missed your hypothetical poll. But I did vote for Ron Paul in my state's caucus on January 3. But that was only a real poll, not a hypothetical one, so it probably doesn't count. I can't say I'm surprised he didn't win the party's nomination, but I agree that the disdain for the Bush Doctrine, the out-of-control spending by both major parties, and his ideological purism is something that any conservative ought never forget.
I don't buy the rudderless party argument theory. The defining characteristic of the Republican party is, and always has been, since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, nationalism. That's all. Abject nationalism. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord. He is trampling through the vintage with his terrible swift sword. And all that. Nothing has changed with respect to the defining character of the GOP, and nothing is likely to. Lincoln, Bush, and every successful Republican in between has wrapped himself up in God and The Flag. And, frankly, there's nothing wrong with that. McCain may be a tired, old warrior stuck in another time--an over-patriotic warhawk during a period when we need peacemakers right now--but he's as nationalistic as Bush, Lincoln, and any Republican in between. The reasons he won't win are largely out of his control, though. The Republic and its voters have survived worse crises than those which exist right now. And one of the main reasons is that we're pretty good at knowing when we need to wrap ourselves up in God and The Flag, and when we don't. Right now just isn't the time. I, for one, plan on voting for Obama. And I think many unaffiliated voters and "liberal republicans" will do the same. So it really doesn't matter whether the GOP had nominated a less imperialistic nationalist like Ron Paul, or a more imperialist nationalist like John McCain, since right now the folks want us out of Iraq, out of unmarketable debt, and into easy liquidity. And those rants demand less nationalism and more reflexive politics. So it's not a good year for the GOP. But the Republicans will be fine with or without McCain. They'll meet whatever challenges their party faces, and they'll meet them successfully.
Hard call about 2012. But Ron Paul is a very old man, even now his best endorsement amounts to "hey, if you like cynthia mckinney better than john mccain, then by all means, vote for Cynthia McKinney." Somehow, that sounds like a tired old man. Noble in ideology, but frustrated. I don't see the Libertarian Party or the Republican Party nominating him in this lifetime. Anyone positioning himself for the Libertarian Party nomination in 2012 simply doesn't ask you to seriously consider voting for Cynthia McKinney in 2008.
