"Winning". Who knew? Before a man called Charlie Sheen decided to publicly play out what a personal and professional meltdown looked like in front of the whole world in 2011, to most of us the word "winning" was primarily relegated to sports and political competitions. In reality we won't know if ole "Tiger Blood" is truly "winning" for another year or two at best. But like most, I wish him the best in whatever he decides to do next. If anything I'm sure it will be interesting.
Speaking of "winning", I was pondering the Ron Paul dilemma this morning. On the one hand Ron Paul appears to stand well above all the other candidates on both sides of the fence in his ethics integrity and understanding of what the American constitutional republic is supposed to look and act like, and how it was originally meant to function. The American people have known him for years now; he's not a Ross Perot/Herman Cain like newcomer out of left field. Everyone seems to know who he is and almost everyone seems to like and respect him.
He's a respected doctor (I've got two different friends from Texas who he "delivered" when they were born many years ago - he's truly beloved in his hometown), an admired loyal family man, and a civil servant who's been re-elected to Congress multiple times. He makes sense when he speaks. He doesn't waffle shift or switch his positions on 'the issues'; doesn't accept bribes, lobbyist money or giant corporate campaign contributions. No Wall Street croneys, no shady skeletons in his closet to hide, mask, or explain away.
He's the only candidate in the race on either side of the fence who is bold enough to speak the truth about the secretive nefarious private foriegn banking cartel known as "the Federal Reserve". For that alone he is one of the most heroic public figures in American politics today. A living "founding father" legend.
From a distance Ron Paul appears to be as popular a cultural figure with the American people as any modern day celebrity. And yet he has not "won" or placed "first" in any of these little pre-primary electoral games they play thus far in the political party he's decided to run in. It's an odd situation, an anomaly. Ron Paul may be winning the hearts and minds of popular culture both in America and abroad, he is not winning Primaries.
To even consider that the Republican Party may decide to select someone like Miitt Romney or Newt Gingrich as their "nominee", with all their respective baggage and their "questionable at best" repuatuons, to run against one of the most revered presidents in recent memory, Barack Obama... It's truly a bewildering thought to ponder. If Ron Paul is so beloved, why is he such a distant third? What is it that registered Republicans do not see in Paul? (Yes, please feel free to answer if you call yourself a Repub)
And further, do any Republicans really believe that The Newt or The Mitt have even a slim chance of beating Barack Obama in the general election? Personally speaking, I'm stymied by it. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who has a chance of earning Democrat or Independent votes; which is what it's going to take to beat Obama come November. So what gives? What are Republican voters thinking? Why havent they embraced the slightly whacky brilliant and honorable lone wolf? Any ideas?
The reason he isn't winning is simple - election fraud and gentlemen agreements. Karl Rove said himself that they decided to give Santorum votes which explains why he all of sudden did so well in Iowa. Meanwhile, Newt who had to cancel campaign stops because of poor turnout in SC, while RP was bringing in the crowds, did better than RP. And the reason they don't want Ron Paul at all is because he is not owned by the less than 1% that actually own and run the United States and its government. So he may not win the rigged game; after all, who can win that game if they aren't a CIA operative or financial pirate. RP is winning the minds of people across the world - waking them up and there is no going back.
ReplyDelete