Ron Paul won the Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC this year, making a 2-year winning streak at the convention. He beat Mitt Romney by 7 points, but the story apparently is how Mitt(ens) is the stronger than expected candidate – strength now being defined as the ability to bring in less than a quarter of the nonbinding votes at a political convention.
And people say we’re dumbing down our language. Hah!
I could vote for Ron Paul, but I could not vote for Mitt Romney. Seriously, how can Republicans put forth a candidate that created a state run health care system that served as a model for Obamacare, while at the same time saying that Obamacare needs to be repealed? It will come across as power-seeking, when the people of this country want a return to the values and convictions that made this country free. Romney is not a good candidate – at times he looks like he is only seeking power, while at other times he looks like a pandering, calculating politician of the same stripe that got us into this mess.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, has support in the party that’s a mile deep and a foot wide. He sticks to his principles better than any other candidate I’ve seen with an R after their name, but always comes in last in the only elections that count – the primaries. I probably will vote for him, if he chooses to run, but I don’t see him winning. Not that it matters – my conscience is more important to me than picking the winning candidate.
The Republicans, it appears, are settling for the candidate that will win against a Democrat, and aren’t accepting the best one available. Not that the candidate necessarily is Ron Paul, but I don’t see who it could be at this point.
Just remember, CPAC is notoriously bad at picking the winning nominee at their convention. According to the chart at Wikipedia, they’ve picked the eventual nominee in just 3 out of the last 14 contests (I’m not counting 2009-2011, since we don’t know the next Republican nominee).
So Ron Paul haters, take heart. At least he probably won’t get the nomination.