(Guest Writer: gk)
Although I agree with Ron Paul on some things (like being a strict constitutionalist) - there are other areas upon which I vehemently disagree - his Isolationalist ideas are the main ones. I simply think it is impractical to withdraw to a "fortress America" and abrogate all our standing trade agreements and national mutual defense agreements, and not expect that our national security or standard of living will not be severely jeopardized. If we were to unilaterally withdraw our military from around the word - those areas we withdraw from, would soon be over-run by whichever crazie holds forth in that part of the world - i.e. Middle-East - Iran, Middle Europe - Russia, Far East - China or N.Korea and as soon as these countries were under their control, they would soon all gang up on the U.S. and either individually, or collectively, attack us. So it's fight them over there or over here - take your choice. We tried isolationist policies after WWI and didn't work then either. Germany overran Europe and Japan attacked first China and then all the Pacific Islands and then finally Pearl Harbor, when we finally got in it. We are still thinking about both Pearl Harbor and 9-11. Some people have forgot.
We also produce much more of everything then we can consume - especially in food products, wheat, etc, and we depend on our world-wide trade to give our national producer's their profit - in turn - buying other nations products that we don't produce. Without this global economy, which I understand Paul wants to withdraw from, the world would go into a world-wide depression - bottom line, nations would starve - and we too, would be very hard put to maintain our economy. With hostile nations in charge of most of, if not all the world's oil - our entire U.S. economy/society would grind to a huge halt without oil. I could go on and on- but Paul's ideas are just not practical or reality. He has a 1776 Constitutionalist mentality in a very complex world-wide/mutually dependent 2008 world - and his simplistic ideas simply won't work. So, it serves no purpose to take his ideas one-by-one and consider/discuss them.
I also disagree with McCain on some things, but his main claim to fame is backing G.W. on the War on Terror and specifically Iraq and Afghanistan - which is my number one priority campaign issue. So if it comes down to McCain and whoever the Dem's candidate is, they have already said (like Ron Paul) that they would "cut and run" in Iraq - and McCain has said, he would stay there for 100 years if necessary to insure our nation's safety, so that's a no brainer who I would vote for. If our nation doesn't have security, all the rest of it is moot.
I don't agree with your assessment that McCain can't win.
Against Hillary, I think McCain gets the nod - depending on their running mates.
Against Obama - I'm not as sure McCain can win - that will be a question of how many would vote for a black man, with some great amount of confusion about his true loyalties - Muslim background/seems a bit reluctant to salute the flag, etc. And of course, the other great unknown about Obama is that so far has said "He's for change" "Trust me" and not much more. When he gets down to his stand on specific issues - if he ever does, maybe he won't fare so well. And then the race will tighten up a lot more. Not much is unknown about McCain, but there is not much that is known about Obama, and as he becomes better known, I think he will lose a lot of his appeal. He is a glib speaker, has a lot of charisma and sex appeal - as compared to McCain, but I think when it comes down to pulling the lever, the Soccer Moms of this world will vote for their family's security and go with a proven warrior and that is McCain . Not "cut & run" Obama. (or Billary or Paul)
It's beginning to look more and more like a McCain/Obama race - so it will remain to be seen who is electable and who isn't.
Not withstanding the Ron Paul email that is circulating saying - ignore the MSM and the way to get Ron Paul nominated as the Republican Nominee, is to gain enough delegates to the Nat'l Convention is to get delegates at the various state's conventions, and that way, win at the Nat'l Convention. I am very skeptical that that is doable. McCain already has 703 delegates, by winning previous Winner-take-all states or through caucus states to now and winning caucus/popular delegates that are committed delegates at the Nat'l level. Ron Paul has 14 to date. Bit of a disparity there! Little humor!
There are 2503 delegates to the Republican Nat'l Convention. 1191 are need to secure the nomination. So far, according to today's Herald - 1200 are already assigned/committed. When the other candidates concede, traditionally and historically, they release/assign their won delegates to the front runner as a sign of unity. This means Romney (293) & Huckabee (190) and between the two of them, they have enough votes they could throw to the nomination to McCain today, assuming not another delegate is assigned from today. Traditionally, these delegates follow their candidate's wishes but occasionally a few rebels will still vote another way. It's not common but it has happened to a few votes. So the nomination is already over assuming tradition is followed - and Romney and Huckabee either now or eventually throw their votes to McCain (vs Paul) and I fully expect that in the interest s of party unity and giving McCain a head start on campaigning against whomever the eventual Democrat candidate will be.
Almost half of the available Republican Delegates votes are already decided to now in primary elections. Of the remaining states primary elections, in order for Ron Paul to catch up with McCain/Huckabee, he would have to win 1176 out of the remaining 1303 uncommitted states delegate votes. Good luck to Paul in winning 91% of all the remaining state's primary popular or caucus vote! Not going to happen! Especially since to date, he has typically garnered around 3-5% of the primary votes. His delegate percentage at present is around 1.1%. So if he can turn this around and win 90 some % more of the popular vote then he has to now, he can just about tie the front runners in the remaining states.
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's grass roots workers, but reality is reality. The political system as presently structured is stacked against fringe candidates such as Ron Paul/Perot's/Ralph Nader's/etc.
Running for president costs a lot of money. Romney spent 35M of his own trying to get nominated - and has 293 delegates. He has conceded today. He will probably throw his delegates to McCain, but we'll see. Ron Paul hasn't spent that kind of money - hasn't got that kind of money, won't get that kind of money - and now that it is only McCain and Huckabee, besides him, I don't think Paul is going to create any ground swell with about 52% of the remaining delegate vote up for grabs and win a vast majority of those. He would have to win an overwhelming majority of these remaining delegates to pull it off. I just don't see it in the cards.
Much as I hate to say it, I think the rest of the remaining state's presidential primaries and caucus's are just going through the motions - including our Washington State primary. I think that McCain is pretty much a lock. Today's Herald below the fold front page headline thinks so too.
But - believe what you will, I haven't been right yet in any of my predictions, except about a year ago, I predicted that Billary won't even win the nomination, much less the presidency. That prediction is still alive. All my other predictions have gone down in flames - i.e. I picked George Allen to be the Republican nominee and he didn't even get out of the gate at the beginning of the race - Giuliani did, as did Duncan Hunter, Tancredo, Fred Thompson, Romney, Alan Keyes, and they are all dead in the water - so, this has been a brutal race to predict! So, maybe a huge miracle will occur and Ron Paul will finally win? We'll see. -gk
