Late to the game on this one, between moving unpacking and stocking up new house, it fell through the cracks but as I see headlines declaring Ron Paul's rise in the polls (flashback to 2007-2008 campaign season where rising poll support did not translate into voter support at the booths), it reminded me of a piece I read in The Hill just six days ago.Headline "Ron Paul questions his own stamina in protracted nomination fight."
Ron Paul questioned Wednesday whether he would be able to endure a protracted fight for the Republican presidential nomination, wondering to reporters if he would be able to "hold up" through a long primary battle.
"I'm not looking forward to anything being long and protracted. So I hope it ends rather quickly and we do real well in the beginning of the year," Paul said while campaigning in New Hampshire, according to CNN. "The organization is fantastic. The question is: am I going to hold up if I keep doing all this."
The obvious question here is if Paul doubts his own ability to "hold up" through a protracted primary season, how on earth does he think he would "hold up" for four solid years if he won the presidency?
Paul is 76, yet unlike some others, I do not discount someone based on their age. I have seen a 50 year-old who could barely remember their own name and an 80 year-old so spry and mentally clear they could run circles around me, so it is more dependent on the person, not just the age and the older the candidate, the more likely I am to look at who the vice presidential candidate would be, just in case.
With that said, when I see a candidate questioning their own ability or stamina, that is a huge red flag.
.
