"a vote for ron paul is a vote for hillary" nonsense

[sickmint79]

i had my family sign a petition in il tonight for rp delegates and for rp to be on the ballot for the primaries. they weren't sure they were all voting for him but they all signed it... except for my dad, who refused. he has used fox talking points about the war before and this time he made the claim in the title. my dad is very smart. and this is most frustrating. the following is a letter i drafted to him - any advice on improvements or things i can include? thanks!

i have heard people say this before, although i think the logic behind it is kind of poor.

first off it implies that paul is running as an independent in the general election; something he said he would not do (although i hope he would) should he not receive the nomination. realistically if that happens i would expect him to get a lot of independent votes and the democrats likely to win the election. however, the dems are already likely to win the election.

per wikipedia, 2004 statistics whow 42 million independent voters, 55 million republican, 72 million democrats. i have heard stats from multiple sources saying 60-80% of people oppose the war in iraq. it seems to be a fairly common claim online that the republican base has been eroding for years, and this is largely because of the bush administration and its foreign policy. based on this alone, it is easy to see that the republicans will have a difficult battle keeping the presidency, regardless of whom is running in either party.

i have heard the argument that hillary is polarizing and people dislike her so much that they'll vote against her, but in the end will there be enough? i believe the same idea was floating around when she ran for senate, which she easily won.

i am on ron paul sites all the time. it is almost daily that i see someone that is an independent mentioning that they switched to republican in a closed primary state to vote for ron paul. i have seen plenty of democrats doing this too. ron paul is expanding this base. do you think many democrats are switching parties to vote for rudy? for romney? in a time when the party is shrinking i would think it would embrace a republican that has new blood flocking towards him. i've never voted or cared to myself before, yet i will be voting for paul, i've donated money and i'll be doing it again. it is extremely trivial for me to go out and find others with similar stories.

while the neoconservative ideas are pushing people away from the party, paul is pulling people towards him, across all political lines; a traditional conservative with libertarian leaning ideas. why do some people assume that he would have a difficult time beating hillary when his support is drawing people in from everywhere?

i think the hard part for paul is the republican nomination; i think he would win the general election with ease. he is a 10-term congressman, constitutional scholar, doctor and well regarded austrian economist. i would love to see a paul vs. hillary or obama debate. he opposed the iraq war while obama and hillary were for it. as for universal health care, who could present a strong debate against it? a lawyer? a senator? or a doctor/economist? the choice is obvious to me. and paul is no stranger to actual debates, as he has participated in many academic debates. here is part 1 of 7 of the freedomfest debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_eA1NWiwMQ that took place this year, libertarians vs. conservatives on the iraq war. note the quote that starts off the video. ron paul would without a doubt absolutely dismantle hillary, obama or whoever in a general election debate, issue after issue.

--
Tucker: "What's your strategy for tonight's debate?"
Ron Paul: "Well, just telling the truth like I did last time."

[Goldwater Conservative]

That's a silly thing to say. A vote for Ron Paul in the primaries is a vote to have not only the best and most qualified candidate represent the party in the general election, but to have the strongest candidate represent the party in the general election. Contrast that with what is possibly the most overhyped candidate in the race: Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy is a pro-choice, pro-"gay rights", pro-gun control, pro-open borders New Yorker who supports the extremely unpopular war in Iraq and Bush's failed foreign policy and favors restricting civil liberties in the name of a false sense of security. So is Hillary. Much of the GOP base would stay home or vote third party instead of voting for him.

Paul, on the other hand, has a position on the war, foreign policy, and civil liberties that would attract people who would otherwise begrudgingly vote for Hillary. He would also appeal to independents and moderates without losing the conservative base like Rudy would. Both new voters and long-since disgruntled voters who have given up on politics would be drawn to Paul's consistent and anti-establishment message and his record as a man of exemplary integrity, honesty, and courage.

The only issue of national prominence that Hillary could run to is health care, and Paul is a medical doctor who can explain that other issues like foreign policy and monetary policy have had a severely negative effect on Americans' ability to adequately provide for their own care. Hillary would be toast. People are looking for an excuse to not vote for Hillary. Rudy isn't it. Mitt isn't it. Ron is it.

...unless, of course, the Iraq war is so important to you that you'd rather have Hillary than a true conservative. :)

[noztnac]

A vote for Romney or Giuliani is a vote for Hillary.

80% plus Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Nominating a pro war candidate is suicide.

[jenninlouisiana]

Romney is really a democrat. McCain is a loose canon. Rudy is just plain mean and nasty.

My dad is all up Romney's rear. Yet dad knows nothing about romney-- only that he "looks presidential".

Just wait. You'll find your opening at some point. For me, it was when my dad told me how he and his liberal democrat brother finally agree on something... how the world must be coming to an end because they both like romney.

Tee hee hee... this was so easy... I replied, "Well, you know, Dad, that Emile likes Romney because Romney is basically a democrat, right." Silence.

Dad did admit that romney "flip flops" and that was the end. He heard me though.

So many times it isn't what people say back to you that counts. It is what you have said to them that sticks in the back of their mind... and slowly eats away at their realities.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

They are all (Rep and Dem) big government at home and interventionist abroad - just with different shades of gray - Ron Paul is our only hope.

[Theocrat]

This is a classic argument and tactic for voting "the lesser of two evils," and it is a very dangerous viewpoint. Americans should ALWAYS vote for who's the most qualified for any given office, based on morality, intelligence, wisdom, and adherence to the rule of law, among other factors.

I think the major fallacy of this tactic is flawed on the premise that national poll numbers accurately reflect the outcome of likely voters. People's minds change almost everyday about who they will vote for, and these polls only sample a very select few of likely voters, usually by means of landline phone-users.

Our media today perpetuates this notion that we should vote for a particular candidate because the OTHER PERSON is bad. I'm sorry, but I refuse to vote AGAINST somebody instead of voting FOR someone whom I believe is the best candidate for my country. This electoral strategy is naive, at best, and traitorous, at worst, because it undermines our democratic process and the traditions of our Founding Fathers.

Instead of looking at the situation as "a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Hillary Clinton," we should realize the obvious. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for upholding the Constitution, following the admonitions of the Founders, sound monetary policy, a much needed attempt at balancing our budget, preservation of our civil liberties and rights, the freedom to engage in TRUE free market capitalism and free trade, a nonintervention foreign policy, which helps us befriend other nations, and a host of other positions that made America "the land of the free and home of the brave." A vote for Hillary Clinton brings the opposite of these things, i.e., the destruction of America.

When will we stop being "scared into voting" for one person just because the other person is worse? This fearmongering attitude needs to quit! Voting out of a good conscience is MUCH better than voting out of ignorant fear, as Samuel Adams once said:

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual--or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country."

[hawkeyenick]

Hillary is a pro war candidate, she says shes against it, but votes for it every opportunity she gets

[truthbetold]

No One Is Responsible To God For How Someone Else Votes!!!!

We Are Responsible For How We Vote Only!!

[truthbetold]

A vote for Romney or Giuliani is a vote for Hillary.

80% plus Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Nominating a pro war candidate is suicide.

All polls show that Ron Paul will beat Hillory by a landslide...
:)

[theseus51]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeu1FLulWCo

[realitywiz]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg




_____

[Theocrat]

No One Is Responsible To God For How Someone Else Votes!!!!

We Are Responsible For How We Vote Only!!

I just wanted to bring to your attention, truthbetold, that Samuel Adams said "each citizen" is accountable for his (or her) own vote, not for someone else's vote. Just reread the quote again, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Thanks for your concern, though.