The attacks continued online as Carrie Dann of MSNBC.com wrote that Paul, “almost certainly lacks the campaign organization and wide appeal with GOP primary voters to shure sm7b review for 2017 in here be a serious contender to win the nomination” and “the poll’s results are certain to be dismissed as irrelevant by presidential contenders who have been building the staff and infrastructure necessary for a serious run.” Ironically, the infrastructure created by those staffs was not enough to secure a victory in the straw poll.
New York Times author Jeff Zeleny disregarded Paul’s win, saying “conservative activists signaled on Saturday that they were unsettled over who should win the party’s nomination, indicating a wide-open race for the right to challenge President Obama”.
Reuters columnists Johnathan Martin and James Hohmann also dismissed Paul’s straw poll victory calling it “a sign of the intense following he enjoys and the waning relevance of the surveys” and “The 75-year-old congressman may run for president again, but his prospects for winning the GOP nomination are nil.”
Patrick O’Connor of The Wall St. Journal didn’t waste any time with sennheiser live vocal mic his op-ed, marginalizing the results in the first sentence by claiming they “may say more about the organizing capacity of his supporters than the tastes of Republican primary voters as a whole.”
The attacks continued this morning as Rush Limbaugh said Ron Paul was “ok, but be real; he’ll never be the Republican nominee”.
National Review Online also released a poll today titled “Ron Paul Won the CPAC Straw Poll. You Would Have Voted For?”
Who is this man that the GOP establishment and media do not want us to consider in the next Presidential election? How is it that everyone is so sure that, even before anyone has announced his candidacy, this man cannot win? Why is it that no reasons are ever provided for why he cannot win? More importantly, what is everyone so afraid of?
It’s certainly true that Representative Paul’s positions are often outside of the mainstream, but perhaps that’s why voters have shifted hard left and back to the right over the last few years; because they haven’t quite found what they’re looking for. Perhaps Paul’s most controversial opinion is his stance on foreign policy. He maintains a “non-interventionist” position, in-line with the recommendations of the founding fathers and the US Constitution. This position suggests that the US should provide for a strong national defense at home, but cease its hyper-interventionist policies of “policing the world” and arming both sides of nearly every conflict abroad. He has argued that the US cannot afford to run more than nine hundred military bases in more than 130 countries and that the troops should come home to protect our country. Though during his 2008 Presidential run he was often misrepresented as an “isolationist”, he received more campaign contributions from active duty and retired military personnel than all other Republican primary candidates combined, including John McCain. Paul backs this position with CIA reports that claim the primary reason for terrorist attacks against the US is “blowback”, repercussions of our involvement in the affairs of other nations; including propping up cruel dictators, imposing sanctions that starve civilians, and bombing those who do not bend to our will. Most importantly, Paul is the only current GOP hopeful who has vowed to bring a swift resolution to the wars in the Middle East that have lingered for a decade and cost the lives of more than 5,000 soldiers and the limbs of tens of thousands more, not to mention the trillions of dollars spent with no stability to show for it and no end in sight.