The Republican presidential nomination process is more than half complete, meaning Ron Paul’s supporters must face a hard fact. Their candidate won’t be the nominee. His delegate count is one-tenth that of Mitt Romney and only Maine has awarded Paul double-digit delegates. Even when Paul wins, he loses.

That’s not to say Rep. Paul in inconsequential; he’s not. But he has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as do the Pittsburgh Pirates of winning the 2012 World Series. So, where will Paul’s supporters turn in the general election? Believe it or not, the Obama campaign believes it can court alienated Paulites, citing common ground on budget issues and foreign policy.

Whatever the Obama campaign is smoking must be good stuff. Had it been available at Haight-Ashbury, the Summer of Love would’ve lasted a decade. Give the President’s advisors an “A” in spin, but the idea of Paul’s supporters voting Obama is pure fantasy.

Rep. Paul pledged to cut $1 trillion from federal spending immediately upon taking office. He’d like to repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish inheritance and capital gains taxes. Ron Paul might settle for auditing the Federal Reserve, but he’d prefer to eliminate it outright. And voters attracted to these fiscal positions will back Obama’s reelection? Fat chance, Barry!

It’s true that Candidate Obama preached fiscal restraint, criticized Bush’s “unpatriotic” deficit spending, and promised budgetary discipline. His campaign rhetoric left spendthrift Republicans little room to criticize tax and spend liberalism. But President Obama is accumulating debt at a rate that makes “W” appear cautious. Three years into Obama’s presidency we’ve increased debt from $10 trillion to $15.5 trillion, give or take a hundred billion. Trillion dollar annual deficits are the new normal. Welfare and food stamp participation has risen, and Washington has seized control of the healthcare industry.

Obama and Paul are as far apart fiscally as the East is from the West. And the notion that Obama’s foreign policies will appeal to Paul’s base is even more far-fetched.

Ron Paul is non-interventionist to the point of being isolationist. On Paul’s ideal plane there would be no appreciable U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Asia, or Europe. And we certainly wouldn’t commit forces to wars that Washington exhibits no apparent interest in winning. For right or wrong Ron Paul would bring home the troops.

Obama is following the nation-building war strategy he once condemned. Yes, we’ve withdrawn from Iraq, but on a timetable determined before Obama took office. The mission in Afghanistan is muddled, American aircraft are bombing targets inside Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen, and the administration seems content to subvert congressional authority and seek permission from NATO and the UN to intervene in Syria.

In terms of governing philosophy, Barack Obama is to Ron Paul what Karl Marx is to Thomas Jefferson. Only epic absurdity could prompt Obama’s campaign to believe it can woo supporters from a man who is the President’s ideological polar opposite.

Comments

28 Responses to “Obama is no Ron Paul”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I don’t know a single person who supports Paul who supported Dean at any point. Where do you come up with this crap in your rotting, delusional brain?

    EDIT: Directed to Brian

  2. Anonymous says:

    I don’t know a single person who supports Paul who supported Dean at any point. Where do you come up with this crap in your rotting, delusional brain?

    EDIT: Directed to Brian

  3. Thanks for this informative article. Hopefully it can prevent people from making the mistake I made and believing in Obama’s stumping. Obama is no Ron Paul at all, although when he was in the primaries and I fell in love with him he did look pretty similar.

    The main difference is that I truly believe that Ron Paul would do what he says he’ll do or die trying. That’s a really fantastic privilege to believe that of someone and not risk having that faith crushed on the rocks of political reality when they gain power.

  4. Thanks for this informative article. Hopefully it can prevent people from making the mistake I made and believing in Obama’s stumping. Obama is no Ron Paul at all, although when he was in the primaries and I fell in love with him he did look pretty similar.

    The main difference is that I truly believe that Ron Paul would do what he says he’ll do or die trying. That’s a really fantastic privilege to believe that of someone and not risk having that faith crushed on the rocks of political reality when they gain power.

  5. Anonymous says:

    The Pittsburgh Pirates are playing some really good ball in Spring Training so far….

  6. Anonymous says:

    The Pittsburgh Pirates are playing some really good ball in Spring Training so far….

  7. Anonymous says:

    I don’t believe it is as far a stretch as you presume it to be. Many of the Paulactive were the Deaniacs just a few short years ago. YYYeeeahhhhh!

    There is much common ground among the fringers of the Paul flock and the lefties. Just look at some of the language in this forum from some of the Paul followers. On social issues and on foreign policy there is great common ground. Obama’s only problem is that his foreign policy is not far enough to the left for many of the Paulective.

  8. Anonymous says:

    I don’t believe it is as far a stretch as you presume it to be. Many of the Paulactive were the Deaniacs just a few short years ago. YYYeeeahhhhh!

    There is much common ground among the fringers of the Paul flock and the lefties. Just look at some of the language in this forum from some of the Paul followers. On social issues and on foreign policy there is great common ground. Obama’s only problem is that his foreign policy is not far enough to the left for many of the Paulective.

Leave a Reply