Posted on 08/24/2011 4:38:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Republicans dodged a big bullet at the Ames, Iowa, straw poll. If just 77 of the 4,283 people who voted for Rep. Michele Bachmann had voted instead for Rep. Ron Paul, then Paul would have won the straw poll. In the end, Bachmann came out ahead with 28.55 percent of the vote to Paul's 27.65 percent. No other candidate was close.
Some well-connected Iowa Republicans viewed it as a bullet dodged because they had long feared the possibility of a Paul victory.
"It would pour jet fuel on the East Coast narrative that Iowa is just too nutty to have such an important place in the nominating process," says one of those Republicans.
Before the poll, they saw a Paul-Bachmann one-two finish as the worst-case scenario. They ended up with Bachmann-Paul -- a result establishment Republicans viewed as somewhat better than the other way around -- and got a lot of the criticism anyway.
The criticism came not just from Democrats or so-called Eastern elite RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).
"Ron Paul is going to destroy this party if they keep him in there," said Rush Limbaugh the day after the Aug. 11 Fox News-Washington Examiner debate in Ames. "This is nuts on parade."
Key Republicans in Iowa -- and around the country, too -- are genuinely baffled by the Paul phenomenon. They understand (and share) many of Paul's views on the Constitution and limiting the size and scope of the federal government, even if they think Paul sometimes goes too far. What perplexes them is Paul's take on foreign policy, especially the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
"Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon?" Paul asked at the Fox-Examiner debate. "They'd be given more respect. ... What's so terribly bad about this?"
As for sanctions against Iran, Paul said, "Countries that you put sanctions on, you are more likely to fight them. ... I say stay out of their internal business."
The crowd in Iowa State University's Stephens Auditorium included a large group of Paul supporters who broke into loud cheers every time Paul spoke, including when he gave his views on Iran. "That audience goes nuts," Limbaugh said the next day. "I think, 'Oh, my gosh, what am I watching here?' "
It's likely most Republicans agree with Limbaugh's assessment, and Paul's ability to say such things and still remain a force in the party confuses many in the GOP.
"What part of his support is attributable to a different world view, and what part is attributable to the economic libertarian world view?" asks the well-connected Iowa Republican, who freely admits he doesn't know the answer.
No one fears that Paul will walk away with the Republican nomination. But with a strong core of supporters, he has the means to stay in the race nearly as long as he wants. That core support also earns him a spot in high-profile debates.
To qualify for the Fox-Washington Examiner debate, for example, candidates had to have at least 1 percent support in five national polls. Paul qualified with plenty of room to spare; in the most recent RealClearPolitics average of polls, he has 9 percent support, well ahead of fellow candidates Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum and, until his post-straw poll withdrawal from the race, Tim Pawlenty.
Paul also has enough money to do what he wants. He reported raising $4.5 million in the second quarter of this year, with about $3 million in the bank. Since he has decided to retire from the House, he can also spend unused funds raised for congressional campaigns.
Speaking of retirement -- one aspect of the Paul phenomenon that has received little attention so far is his age. Born in 1935, he will be 77 years old on Inauguration Day 2013 -- the same age Ronald Reagan was when he left the White House after serving two terms. If Paul were elected and re-elected, he'd be 85 at the end of his time in the White House. Even though Americans are living longer, most people would probably agree that's too old for a president.
But the Paul campaign isn't really about the practical possibility that he might become president. It's more about Paul's supporters forcing the larger political establishment to acknowledge that he's right.
"The day will come soon when candidate Paul will get his due," tweeted one supporter recently. "Blowback is gonna be a b---h."
Of course, most Republicans don't believe that. But Paul commands enough support to make his presence known all the way through next year.
Like RP said, “What are they afraid of”!!!!!
RP’s economic policies are the only thing that can save us form total collapse. The time for minor adjustments has long passed. I am more concerned about domestic collapse and chaos and then probably total government control than I am about some terrorists.
Ron Paul even being in the top 5 made a joke of the whole event.
Now and then...truth does prevail sooner than later...
Semper Watching!
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
Ever puase to find out why? What does he say that gets a hard core to continue to support him?
Instead of smearing him you might listen and try to find out what others among his auditors hear. And no, I don' believe Ron Paul is going to be President, nor does he. But you should try listening to what he has to say because either he is extremely dangerous, or else he is making sense to a lot of people despite all the efforts to label him as a nut case.
...The RINOS, NEOCONS and the GOP have been a joke for the last 40 years. And shill Limbaugh has been the Ringmaster of that circus...
A lot of people (too few, in my estimation) have had the royal sh@ts of big government. So far, unfortunately, the only candidate who promised, with any real conviction, to actually shrink government, rather than slowing its growth, cutting spending, cutting taxes, etc, is Ron Paul. Whatever one thinks of his foreign policy views, that is a fact that is difficult for the GOP to accept.
The problem is that RP is antithetical to RHINOism. The RINOs just want a different division of the spoils than the libs. RP says that the spoils should just go away.
I don't plan to vote for him.
I don't like his foreign policy.
I don't like his social policy.
But I always tell people I want to dramatically shrink government, and of all the candidates out there, I don't see anyone who is more in favor of limited government than Ron Paul. He has the right message on that topic. When people rush to dismiss him, they are casting away strong arguments in favor of reduced federal spending.
He makes the case that our government is out of control. Who am I to disagree with him on that?
...It's supposed to be about the issues, not the personality. If Paul loses it won't be with any shame, unlike the McCain-Palin debacle in 08...
There is a legitimate roll for government in society, especially a primarily high density urban one. Where that line is drawn between freedom and needed government is what the argument is about. Paul just draws the line too far towards freedom than most are comfortable with.
There was a time in America, in it's long ago rural past where what he supports would of been possibly workable, but that time is long past.
If another “responsible” world power stepped forward and wanted to take over the “policing” role we have played for the last 100 years, I would not have a problem with that. But until that day comes we simply can not just retreat onto ourselves and hope for the best when it comes to world events.
Ron Paul nuttiness aside, there's a reason that a vast majority of his supporters are in the less than 30 college student demographic. Their other choices are supporting a tone deaf GOP who keeps re-electing big spending, corporate welfare statists that act much like democrats or listen to their professors and join the dark side of the extreme left hell bent on spending us into a marxist-socialist state. Either choice is viewed as a pretty dim future for them to live the American dream that preceding generations have enjoyed up to this point.
No, ultimately the joke is on the GOP because they are losing replacement support from the under 30 crowd at a rate faster than they are retaining existing membership. This is a recipe for self inflicted extinction over time.
The significance of Ron Paul is not his Presidential aspirations that simply won't endure against the current political backdrop. The significance is who he appeals to and why.
Because of our financial problems we are going to be doing a whole lot less world policing than we are presently. The trick will be maintaining the security of our own boarders and control of our own region.
Paul has a libertarian take on things, and his supporters must have that same view. Therefore, I’m thinking they should be viewed as “independents.” Will they find the democratic party liberal social views the deciding factor, or will they find the republican party’s conservative fiscal policies to be more important.
My sense is that it will depend a bit on the republican.
A liberal republican conservative in fiscal matters would seem to be the place they’d go, but Romney has been such a flip-flopper that they’d trust his record with romneycare before they’d trust anything he’d say. Huntsman could be a direction, but he’s not going anywhere. I think supporting Obama gives them very little of what they’re looking for.
Who would they like the least among the republican conservatives: Perry, Palin, Bachman, Santorum, Cain, or Gingrich? All of those claim to be both socially and fiscally conservative. I think the religious conservatives would make them fear a para-dominionist twist to their policies: Perry, Palin, Bachman and Santorum.
That leaves them with Cain and Gingrich, neither of whom can win.
Ron Paul ran as the libertarian candidate in ‘88 or so. If he did that again, he’d split off more than enough of the party to throw the race to Obama, and he’d have no chance of winning.
Their best alternative has to be Perry, Palin, or Bachmann.
Now... not so much.
Paul and Palin do not belong in the GOP. Neither do most of us.
Of course, Paul is too old now to run for governor and still hope to be president. And Bachmann probably can't win statewide office, let alone national office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.