The term "electable" sure gets thrown around a lot when discussing the candidates. In the mainstream media, when the concept of electability gets brought up when referencing Dr. Paul, we learn that he is actually "unelectable."
Just what in the hell does "electable" mean, and why does it not apply to Dr. Paul?
If we are led to believe that the "most electable" candidate in the race is Mitt Romney, I get really, really confused. How can this be? I suppose "electable" means the candidate must look good, speak fairly well and flip-flop left and right and deliver constant spin, double-talk and even, in some cases, flat-out lies.
Having said that, "unelectability," as it relates to Dr. Paul, must mean the candidate doesn't have the classical presidential look, speaks with a fair amount of unpolished nervousness, but will have a consistent message, a penchant for telling the truth and an unwavering commitment to follow our Constitution to the letter.
Mitt may have the look and the more refined (or shall we say, robotic) delivery of his message, but what is it worth when his message is garbage? Dr. Paul may come off as something of a strident pipsqueak, at least when compared to Romney...and perhaps he is not the best orator to deliver the solid message of freedom, but what should that really matter when the message is pure, simple and consistent? The message speaks for itself.
If "electability" means picking the smoothest and most convincing liar, whereas "unelectability" means rejecting the candidate with a proven track record of obeying the Constitution and telling the truth, we as a nation have willingly elected to flush our future down the toilet, all because of a tremendously false and misguided notion (lovingly created and packaged for you by the insidious [but infinitely clever and resourceful] mainstream media) of who should be worthy of occupying the Oval Office.
I implore you, South Carolina, to do the right thing and vote with your brains.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper