Obama Vs Ron Paul

The problem for Obama with facing Paul would be that Paul actually walks the alot of the talk Obama ran on in his first election. Issues of civil liberties and fiscal responsibility are just not areas Obama can claim he has lived up to his talk on. The racism and homophobe nonsense claims can be pretty easily destroyed with demonstrable history of Paul's work, both as a physician and a congressman. His consistency is also easily displayed. I have converted more people than I can count with a simple 8 minute video of him in his own words over the last 30 years. Try that with Obama. You can't even get 3 years of consistency with Obama, let alone 3 decades. I have been following the delegate process over the last few days and I have to say that although I was skeptical at first, Doug Weed is a freaking genius.

I think they would really have to scramble to deal with Ron Paul. Their basic strategy would be the same as the Republican party. Call him extreme, crazy, isolationist, anarchist, etc. They would use the SuperPACs to frame him as a racist homophobe. In my opinion the incumbent always has the advantage. Obama has a horrible record, and he's been a dishonest and crappy president, but he's still the president. He gets to fly around the country campaigning on the taxpayer's dime. He doesn't have to spend money getting people to know who he is, because they already know. He didn't have to worry about spending money during the primaries because, as an incumbent, he pretty much automatically won all the primaries with only Oklahoma showing any real opposition. Ron Paul would be at a disadvantage because he still doesn't have as much name recognition as presidential candidates generally do. He also talks about abolishing things like the Department of Education. Since many voters think the DOE has been around forever, it's easy to make that sound like he wants to end public schools. With the level of ignorance in this country, it would be hard for him to get voters to understand all the things wrong with this country and why his plans are the right way to fix those problems.

I'm afraid we very much know who the Republican nominee is, for better or for worse. All I can say is I'm GLAD I can say I had no part in picking from that sorry bunch...lol! Seriously, though, I think it's totally unfair to those who actually bothered to take the time to get out and vote or caucus for the delegates to be non-binding. I know if the candidate I supported had actually won the most primaries and was clearly the top choice of the voters, even if they weren't all exactly enthusiastic in their support, and then at the convention the delegates decided to "go rogue' and choose someone else, I'd be livid and would feel very much disenfranchised as a voter along with millions of other voters. All of that having been said, I'll answer you question anyway; I don't think it would be much of a contest between Obama and Paul, despite how loyal the latter's supporters may be. The truth is, they may be a loyal and vocal bunch but there's really not very many of them, otherwise Paul would have made a better showing throughout the primaries. I kind of liken him to the crazy uncle who now and then says something brilliant but who is kind of weird much of the rest of the time. I've also found him to be quite adept at answering questions in a way that his loyal fans consider to be an example of his straight talk while in fact not really answering at all. When he's spoken about issues such as abortion, health care and/or Social Security it seems like he's said a little of what both sides want to hear to the point where anyone who WANTS to think he shares their views can convince themselves that he indeed does. Annie

I think Taskr is right, they would just marginalize him, call him crazy. Obama would win in a landslide. It wouldn't take too much for the mainstream media to make everyone afraid of Ron Paul and his dislike for social programs, etc. Say what they will about Romney, he's giving the media a hard time when it comes to finding labels that are insulting enough. Other than he's rich, which isn't going to make as many people hate him as Obama thinks it will. They've had to stoop to long, investigative reports on Romney's religion, for one. Oh yeah, there's the "you put your dog on the roof", "oh yeah, well you ate your dog", sort of banter. Romney may not be much of a contrast, but Paul would be too much and the media would destroy him in no time flat. That's not a nice thing to think about, Paul's a good guy, overall.

I would not mind seeing Ron Paul run against Obama. Just because I think he would change the topic of discussion in a way Romney can't. I personally think Romney is the worst type of person this country needs right now to lead it. The guy just reaks of Wall Street insider. The last thing this country needs is someone from Wall Street running the country after the last 5 years we have had. In my opinion of course. So I would be very interested to see how Ron Paul would counter Obama's plan on where to take the country. The problem is it will never happen unless Ron Paul runs as a independent. The Republican delegates are not going to support Paul over Romney.