Some thoughts on Iraq, the GOP, and Ron Paul

[Borodog]

It seems to me that the GOP apparatus appears on the surface to be making an obvious and collosal mistake. Twice in the 20th century, opposing party candidates have been elected to get America out of unpopular wars, namely Korea and Viet Nam, and it can be argued that an important part of GWB's victory in 2000 was his platform of a "humble foreign policy", with "no nation building."

The Iraq war is nothing if not unpopular, with almost 3/4 of Americans (and growing) opposing it in some fashion. If the war continues the way it is going now, the 2008 Presidential election will be the 2006 congressional election writ large for any Republican candidate . . . with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

I believe this one single issue will AUTOMATICALLY doom ANY Republican candidate EXCEPT Paul, simply from the numbers. The issue is one of the most important in the electorate, and it is incredibly lopsided.

Couple this with the fact that Paul is DEAD ON with every other issue that the GOP claims to be for: small government, low taxes, individual liberties, state's right, pro 2nd Ammendment, secure the borders, pro life, and on and on and on.

The GOP would appear to be making a collosal mistake; they are essentially saying that the Iraq issue is more important than every other issue combined, and by doing everything possible to marginalize Dr. Paul, they are guaranteeing the loss of the presidency in 2008. Hence, they will lose on EVERY front, INCLUDING IRAQ ANYWAY. Although part of their calculus must be the fact that whatever Democrat wins the presidency will not end the war anyway.

The point is, that if the GOP wants a shot at maintaining the presidency, they should be kissing Ron Paul's feet, as he is their only chance in hell.

So the question has to be asked, why does the GOP want to marginalize Paul? The answer can only be what people like myself have said for years: the stated goals of the GOP are not its actual goals. The GOP is not interested in shrinking government. The GOP is not interested in protecting individual liberties. The GOP is not interested in lowering taxes, except perhaps cosmetically. The GOP is essentially not interested in the Constitution at all. Rather, they are interested in expnding if they can, but at least protecting at all costs, their political power. Therein lies the solution to the conundrum.

Most importantly, I believe, is that the GOP is entirely made up by people who benefit massively from the banking system (as is the Democratic Party, of course), which Dr. Paul is vehemently against. I believe that the exposure of the real structure and workings of the banking system to the public is seen as a far greater danger to the power of those in the GOP than is the mere loss of the presidency; hence they are throwing Dr. Paul, and any hope of retaining the presidency under the Democratic bus.