Email Doodlings - Really? We HAVE to support Ron Paul because if we don't, he'll run as a 3rd Party and Obama will win - Granite Grok

Email Doodlings – Really? We HAVE to support Ron Paul because if we don’t, he’ll run as a 3rd Party and Obama will win

Essentially, this is the political equivalent of “don’t make me mad or I’ll kill myself!”.  Another way of putting it is “I’m Sampson (in my own mind, anyways) – if you make fun of me, I’ll bring down your house!”.  Here’s the assertion:

Here is my claim: Republicans have no choice whom they support. They must support Paul. Here is the reason: Paul can defeat Obama. If Paul runs 3rd, the Republican loses. Therefore, Paul is the best choice. What do you disagree with? You can rail on about how you don’t like these realities, but they seem like realities to me. Show me where I am mistaken.

Let me restate it (again):

  1. Paul can beat Obama
  2. If you do not vote to have him be the nominee, Paul will run for President via a 3rd Party.
  3. Whoever you vote for then, will lose to Obama
  4. Therefore, you HAVE to vote for Paul NOW.

My response was this:

I will vote for him if he is the nominee – that is clear and cast in concrete.  But I reject the premise that only Ron Paul can defeat Obama.

Paul running as a 3rd party only would prove his vanity (like Ross Perot).  Simply stating that” if Paul goes 3rd party and causes the Republican to lose” is a losing proposition to claim he is the best choice [it is also a very silly and sad argument].  All it says is that folks would vote for him that otherwise would not for another candidate.  In essence, it only proves that Ron Paul would not support the Republican Party or its nominee.

While it can be a reality that Paul can siphon off sufficient votes to throw the election to Obama, that in itself, is not a sufficient reason to believe he would be the best President.  Nader and Perot actually did so [that is, run as a 3rd Party candidate], and both would have been horrible Presidents, IMHO.

>> Paul can defeat Obama, as a Republican

That may be true.  It may also be true for Romney or Newt as well – that’s why we vote instead of just declaring a winner – nobody knows until the votes are counted.

Still doesn’t change my assertion that your premise of Paul can skew the vote to Obama if he goes 3rd Party proves he would be the best choice.  Just means he relishes the role of being a spoiler a la Nader and Perot.

My earlier thoughts here.

>