Ron Paul Would Beat Obama: Why Romney Must Be Replaced If the GOP Hopes to Win in 2012
Throughout the Republican primaries, the Mitt Romney campaign did a fairly decent job at keeping Romney above the fray. He made the occassional $10,000 bet on national television and agreed with Obama's signing of the NDAA, but for the most part, he remained low key. It was his front-runner position to lose after all, right? Instead of critiquing the assumed front-runner, the mainstream media hyped up the "anti-Mitt" candidate. Newt Gingirch, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum — who claimed "Romney was the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama,"then later endorsed Romney — were all considered top contenders. Now that the spotlight is focused on the presumptive nominee, his flaws are all too apparent. Is Romney really the best choice for conservatives?
The most recent gaffe by the Romney campaign involved spokeswoman Andrea Saul, who made the mistake of a lifetime by touting Romneycare in response to the recent controversial attack ad from a pro-Obama super PAC. "Conservatives" are freaking out. Both Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have condemned Saul's impromptu response, even demanding the Romney campaign fire Saul. This just adds to Romney's troubles. His 40% favorability mark for presumptive presidential nominees is the worst since 1948. Even the conservative group "Jews and Christians Together" released a memo advising delegates to abstain from voting for Romney on the crucial first ballot. Time is running short, and momentum is not in his favor. In order to defeat President Obama this November, the GOP must nominate the consistent conservative Ron Paul instead of the Goldman Sachs warmonger Mitt Romney.
Think about it. Does Mitt Romney have a base? And if he does, isn't it mostly those "anyone but Obama" voters? Without the support of the Paul faithful, the already-weak Romney faces a difficult challenge against the campaigner-in-chief Barack Obama, who will have plenty of ammunition to use against Romney in the debates. With so little difference between Romney and Obama, its hard to imagine Romney being able to gain the upper hand against the incumbent. The GOP needs to make a decision fast: continue with a struggling Romney, or choose an idealogically consistent champion of liberty to defeat Obama.
As I mentioned in a previous article, Barack Obama's promise of hope and change in 2008 did not deceive everyone. Even then Ron Paul asserted that Obama offered no change, and would only reinforce the status quo.
Dr. Paul would have an incredible advantage over President Obama in a debate. Obama's continuation of the same failed Keynesian policies that more often than not benefit campaign contributors hasn't revived the American economy. The wasteful spending overseas and the outright ignorance of the coming fiscal cliff, not to mention an impending dollar crisis, have put our country on a course to financial ruin. Doom and gloom, yes. But economic law cannot be repealed by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's magical printing press. Obama would be forced to defend his assault on civil liberties, his unconstitutional war on Libya, his defense of the banking establishment, his attacks on medicinal marijuana users and his overall involvement in the same type of crony capitalism that has resulted in a massive transfer of wealth to the politically connected.
Ron Paul has already won six states, and potentially more. This means he will be on the ballot at the Republican Convention later this month. If the GOP can be convinced to nominate Paul, he could go on to combine the full support of the GOP with those disallusioned Obama supporters and Independents, who are tired of the wars and the failing economy, and become the 45th president of the United States.