Ron Paul, The Republicans, and the “Hidden Support”by Chris Byrne
Doctrinaire Libertarians always assume that:
1. They are right, without question (after all, their perfect doctrinal system says so).
2. It is so obvious and intuitive that they are right, that there must be a huge but silent majority that agree with them entirely.
Thus, their anointed representative in the Republican party MUST have huge reserves of previously unseen support, the polls are inaccurate, they aren’t measuring all the libertarians, he’s ready for a surge blah blah blah.
Ron Paul never had anything more than a snowballs chance in hell. I agree with him on most things, but his stance on 9/11 and the war alone put him (and almost every other doctrinaire Libertarian) into the “would vote for McCain first” zone.
For anyone who knows me, that is as stinging a rebuke as I could possibly give without resorting to vulgarity; or invoking a Clinton.
Let me make this even clearer. I like Paul, I respect him, I agree with him on far more issues than any other candidate; BUT FOR HIS POSITIONS ON THE WAR AND 9/11 ALONE, I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM.
Do you know how many MILLIONS of people out there feel exactly the same way?
Funny enough, unlike the phantom Paul supporters, those people aren’t hidden; they’re the ones campaigning for Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson… or misguidedly supporting Romney because they think that somehow he’s electable and at least better than McCain or Rudy.
I can’t stomach Paul for president AND I’M A LIBERTARIAN FOR GODS SAKE. I MIGHT vote for him over Hillary; but I’m more likely not to vote in such a contest.
Does this not put any lights on over anybodies heads?
The support you seem to believe is there?
The agreement you seem so sure is there?
The surge you seem to think he’s going to make…
Do the math.