Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state’s 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
In spin rooms, bar rooms and online forums, the what-to-do-about-Paul conversation has become pervasive as polls show him at or near the top here just weeks before the January 3rd vote.
Paul poses an existential threat to the state’s cherished kick-off status, say these Republicans, because he has little chance to win the GOP nomination and would offer the best evidence yet that the caucuses reward candidates who are unrepresentative of the broader party.
“It would make the caucuses mostly irrelevant if not entirely irrelevant,” said Becky Beach, a longtime Iowa Republican who helped Presidents Bush 41 and Bush 43 here. “It would have a very damaging effect because I don’t think he could be elected president and both Iowa and national Republicans wouldn’t think he represents the will of voters.”
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
3 comments:
Paul has campaigned for President of the United States twice before, first during 1988 as the nominee of the Libertarian Party and again during 2008 as a candidate for the Republican nomination.
Controversial claims made by an unidentified author in Ron Paul's newsletters, written in the first person narrative, included statements such as "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." Along with "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."[141] Two other statements that garnered controversy were "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions". In an article titled "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."[142]
These statements were first brought up by Paul's opponent in 1996 Congressional Race, Charles "Lefty" Morris. At the time Paul admitted to writing the newsletters, stating that they were taken "out of context" adding "If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" [143] In March 2001, Paul stated that the documents were authored by ghostwriters, and that while he did not author the challenged passages, he bore "some moral responsibility" for their publication.[144]
At the end of 2007, both the New York Sun and The New York Times Magazine reprinted passages from early 1990s publications of Paul's newsletters, attacking them for content deemed racist.[8] These were the same newsletters that had been used against Paul during his 1996 congressional campaign.
I just saw a CNN reporter attempt to beat him up over them and Paul categorically denied writing, saying, or publishing those papers. They were ten years old when Paul found out about them. When the reporter kept asking the same crap over and over, Paul ended the "interview". Watch it yourselves and decide.
Ron Paul in 2012!
I may vote for Ron Paul.My only concern is his age.
Post a Comment