Twelves Arrows For Ron Paul, Merry Christmas

John Hawkins has written yet another post at TownHall.com explaining why if Ron Paul were to win the Republican Nomination, Republicans would lose to President Obama. In fact, this chant is being repeated so often among Republican elites that even Rush Limbaugh on his radio program has repeated it, even though he has stated many times prior to the rise of Ron Paul in the polls, that a complete idiot could beat Obama.

But we have to ask, "Why?" Why is Ron Paul so easily beatable? Every where I go, I see Liberals, who are angry with Obama and see him as the evil anti-civil liberties person that he is, leaning to Ron Paul. Fiscally, Ron Paul is the only candidate who would actually do what Republican candidates say they would do. Therefore, Ron Paul would actually get support from both sides! Talk about uniting the country for liberty!

So let's examine Hawkins arguments.

First he explains to us that,

I'd be content to ignore Paul, too, except for the fact that there's an outside chance he could win Iowa, which is of course, perfectly ridiculous. Why is that ridiculous?

So why is it "ridiculous"? Well, here it goes.

Ron Paul is absolutely, unconditionally unelectable. By that, I mean that Barack Obama would have a genuine shot to beat Ron Paul in all 50 states, including Texas and Utah. If Hillary Clinton ran as a third party candidate, Obama would still probably take more than 40 states against Paul. If Obama DIED with 3 months left in the election and his campaign was suspended, he'd PROBABLY STILL beat Paul by a margin larger than the one he had against McCain in 2008.

Now here it comes. The big reason we should all bow down to and say, "Gee, thanks for reminding me of how stupid I am."

"Let me tell you exactly what Barack Obama’s strategy with Ron Paul would be. He would run a devastating negative campaign against Paul that would paint him as a kooky dangerous crank. Incidentally, his look fits right into that meme. Squeaky voice, odd, rambling speech pattern, weird head and arm movements, ill fitting suit..."

Really? This is the first big reason. The President might actually run a negative campaign against him? Really!!!! Am I supposed to believe the opponent on Ron Paul, who is the sitting President, might actually run a negative campaign against his opponent for President? What the heck is Rush Limbaugh doing? We haven't seen negative until he wins Iowa, and that negative campaign will be coming from Republicans like...say...John Hawkins.

But Hawkins does something that he would never allow a Democrat do. He simply cites 12 quotes as reason enough for Ron Paul to be considered a "kook". Now notice that if a Democrat were to use this form of argumentation (which isn't really an argument), he would counter the Democrat by saying you must deal with the substance of the quotes. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. Hawkins is most certainly inconsistent. He simply hopes that you will be so offended by these quotes that you will shut down your brain and cease from thinking through what is the actual substance.

For the sake of argument, I will offer a rebuttal to one quote so that it may be seen that Hawkins is appealing to his base's inability to be rational. Here is reason #6:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

My rebuttal is simply this. Even Rush Limbaugh has said similar things on his Radio Show. But even more importantly, the first time I had heard this argument in the form of private property rights was from Walter Williams, A BLACK MAN, who filled in on Rush Limbaugh's program!

We did lose liberty by the War of Northern Aggression. It was DC that caused a huge amount of racial tensions in the South. It was DC, by forcing people to use their private property in ways they did not want to that has inflamed racism. By doing this, they have caused a perpetual culture war that has been prolonged to this very day. Of course, as Walter Williams pointed out, this is how government grows in its power, through perpetual wars.

So in conclusion, Hawkins can keep his mindless base fed with such nonsensical arguments, or rather "quotes". But he will never go after the substance of the arguments. So basically Ron Paul is un-electable because they say so because they would hate to lose their power to someone who actually loves liberty and will seek to restore the Federal Government back to its Constitutional framework.

The "long knives" are out, but they are out for the "kook", who loves liberty.