Only Ron Paul Can Beat Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign continues to gain momentum. Her fundraising lead over the top Republicans continues to grow. She has widened her lead in the polls against her Democratic rivals, and in head-to-head matchups with Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain. Republicans looking for a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election should turn to Ron Paul instead.
Why is Ron Paul the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton? Because he is the only Republican candidate who can appeal to Democratic and independent voters on the most important issue to them, without losing the Republican base, and because of his long record of consistency and integrity.
Every other Republican candidate starts out on the losing side of the Iraq war issue, with 70 percent of the voters against them. Nominating a pro-war candidate means handing the White House to Hillary Clinton.
Unlike Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul can appeal to independents and moderate Democrats without alienating conservatives -- he is solidly pro-life. Unlike John McCain, Ron Paul can appeal to independents and moderate Democrats without alienating conservatives -- he is solidly against amnesty for illegal aliens. Unlike Mitt Romney, Ron Paul has earned the trust of social and fiscal conservatives with his unwavering consistency throughout his career in Congress. Unlike Fred Thompson, Ron Paul can generate grassroots enthusiasm and communicate the ideals of freedom, free markets, and Constitutional government to a diverse audience, including liberals.
Against Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton will be on the losing side of the Iraq war issue. She voted for the war; Ron Paul did not. She wants to leave tens of thousands of troops there; Ron Paul wants to bring them all home. On immigration, Ron Paul will clearly have the upper hand. On government spending and taxes, Ron Paul would once again be the winning candidate. On civil liberties, voters would clearly trust the principled Constitutionalist Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton when it came to not abusing the powers of the presidency.
Only on health care would Hillary Clinton have some appeal to voters looking for the government to "do something" about the issue. But Ron Paul is a medical doctor, and can argue from first hand experience about how past government intervention in health care has contributed to the current problems, and how moving toward more government control is a bad idea. Many liberals are drawn to Ron Paul for his anti-war stance, but find themselves persuaded by his clear and principled explanations of free market ideas.
Some conservatives wonder whether Ron Paul is electable enough to make him the Republican nominee, pointing to his standing in the polls. But polls measure mostly name recognition, and Ron Paul would be a household name after months of television exposure in the general election campaign. He would be on the winning side of the biggest issues. He would compare favorably to Hillary Clinton on integrity and consistency, in a way that Giuliani or Romney could not.
Other conservatives question whether a candidate who is as fiscally conservative as Ron Paul, or as Constitutionally pure, could appeal to enough voters to win. But given the importance of the Iraq war issue to the voters, none of the other Republican candidates has any chance to win, so why not give Ron Paul the chance to sell an unapologetic and principled defense of liberty, free markets, and smaller, Constitutional government to the American people? He is one of those rare candidates who could move mainstream thought in the direction of freedom and smaller government -- many have called him "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."
Only Ron Paul can beat Hillary Clinton.
Read more at Paul 4 Prez
Why is Ron Paul the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton? Because he is the only Republican candidate who can appeal to Democratic and independent voters on the most important issue to them, without losing the Republican base, and because of his long record of consistency and integrity.
Every other Republican candidate starts out on the losing side of the Iraq war issue, with 70 percent of the voters against them. Nominating a pro-war candidate means handing the White House to Hillary Clinton.
Unlike Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul can appeal to independents and moderate Democrats without alienating conservatives -- he is solidly pro-life. Unlike John McCain, Ron Paul can appeal to independents and moderate Democrats without alienating conservatives -- he is solidly against amnesty for illegal aliens. Unlike Mitt Romney, Ron Paul has earned the trust of social and fiscal conservatives with his unwavering consistency throughout his career in Congress. Unlike Fred Thompson, Ron Paul can generate grassroots enthusiasm and communicate the ideals of freedom, free markets, and Constitutional government to a diverse audience, including liberals.
Against Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton will be on the losing side of the Iraq war issue. She voted for the war; Ron Paul did not. She wants to leave tens of thousands of troops there; Ron Paul wants to bring them all home. On immigration, Ron Paul will clearly have the upper hand. On government spending and taxes, Ron Paul would once again be the winning candidate. On civil liberties, voters would clearly trust the principled Constitutionalist Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton when it came to not abusing the powers of the presidency.
Only on health care would Hillary Clinton have some appeal to voters looking for the government to "do something" about the issue. But Ron Paul is a medical doctor, and can argue from first hand experience about how past government intervention in health care has contributed to the current problems, and how moving toward more government control is a bad idea. Many liberals are drawn to Ron Paul for his anti-war stance, but find themselves persuaded by his clear and principled explanations of free market ideas.
Some conservatives wonder whether Ron Paul is electable enough to make him the Republican nominee, pointing to his standing in the polls. But polls measure mostly name recognition, and Ron Paul would be a household name after months of television exposure in the general election campaign. He would be on the winning side of the biggest issues. He would compare favorably to Hillary Clinton on integrity and consistency, in a way that Giuliani or Romney could not.
Other conservatives question whether a candidate who is as fiscally conservative as Ron Paul, or as Constitutionally pure, could appeal to enough voters to win. But given the importance of the Iraq war issue to the voters, none of the other Republican candidates has any chance to win, so why not give Ron Paul the chance to sell an unapologetic and principled defense of liberty, free markets, and smaller, Constitutional government to the American people? He is one of those rare candidates who could move mainstream thought in the direction of freedom and smaller government -- many have called him "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."
Only Ron Paul can beat Hillary Clinton.
