"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"
– Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
For this reason I present to you my series:
Understanding Ron Paul
The Only Man Who Can Beat Obama
If the GOP would like to take the White House again in 2013 their only chance is Ron Paul, and I'll tell you why.
It's in the Math
Ron Paul would win:
|
Obama would take:
|
Newt Gingrich would take:
|
Obama would win:
|
Mitt Romney would take:
|
Obama would win:
|
Skeletons
Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on his medical mandate, flip-flopped on abortion, has had a poor voting record, has catered to lobbyists and gets his funding from the large banks the people bailed out.
Newt Gingrich have voted for every socialist program to date, has flip-flopped on numerous topics, was kicked out of congress for 60+ ethics violations (fined $300,000), has had 3 marriages (is married to his latest mistress), sells his brand, is a career politician.... the list goes on... and on... and on.
Ron Paul is a successful doctor who delivered 4,000 babies, raised successful children, served 12 terms in congress, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a tax increase, does not collect lobby money, served in the military, refuses to accept a tax funded pension, predicted the housing crisis, and has been married to the same woman for 50 years. Basically a squeaky clean record.
So, of this group, who would be the easiest for Obama to defeat? Who would be the most difficult for Obama to defeat?
Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat Barrak Obama.
Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index
Follow @transfer_point
I don't think Mitt has flip flopped on abortion, he's just changed the definition of what it means to be pro life. I listened to an interview with Ronald Scott, the author who wrote the book on Mitt's politics (and a big Mitt supporter). He said that Mitt was personally against abortion, but didn't think there should be any laws against it. Scott painted those who'd want to overturn Roe v. Wade as fringe radicals.
ReplyDelete@chris l
ReplyDeleteYour making excuses to justify a man who has flip-flopped on many, many topics. But let's say he had NEVER flipped on anything. He's still a rich politician who works for the big bankers, he represents the problem. He cannot beat obama because he has an unenergetic base.
I think you missed the point of my comment, Dan. I was saying that Mitt has always been "pro choice." He just changed the definition of "pro life" to suit his needs.
ReplyDelete