Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Paul 2012? No Thanks.

Political bloggers love to speculate about the future, especially in regards to the upcoming 2012 Presidential election. However, some of them enter the twilight zone and discuss a potential bid by either Rand, or Ron Paul. Even Ben Smith of the Politico discussed the possibility this morning.

And that's just crazy for three reasons:
  1. Rand Paul has been in the Senate for almost three months*, which means Barack Obama would have more experience than the potential candidate at this point in his campaign in 2007. A situation we really don't need.
  2. Ron Paul's base is 10% of the Republican Party, and his main priorities of shutting down the federal reserve and cutting off foreign aid to Israel isn't that popular with the American electorate at-large.
  3. Neither Rand, nor Ron Paul believes that America should lead the world, which is in direct opposition to almost 70-80% of American citizens who believe our superpower status is a blessing and not a curse.

Politics is everything to everyone, but could we please make an exception when it comes to discussing a potential Paul 2012 campaign?

What say you?

* - Obama had 27 months of U.S. Senate experience at this point.

1 comment:

  1. We paleoconservatives are not popular or their is a conspiracy to supress such sentiment--and leave it unrepresented.

    The 90's was our time.