Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2012, 08:20 AM
Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(CNN) -- Newt Gingrich quit the presidential race on Wednesday. Long after he exhausted the patience of the voters, he finally concluded that the mathematical probability of winning the Republican nomination was next to nil. Why spend money and raise false hopes if you can't win? Best to get out now and join the veepstakes.

That's the kind of logic that an ordinary, candidate-focused campaign employs. Ron Paul, on the other hand, refuses to drop out. Having carried only one state and barely scraped 20% of the vote elsewhere, it could be argued that the 76-year-old libertarian has even less reason to carry on than Gingrich -- except perhaps to collect the air miles.

However, unlike Gingrich, Paul's campaign represents a message that is bigger and perhaps more popular than the candidate himself. As it continues to collect small numbers of delegates and capture control of local GOPs, Paulism is proving itself to be in rude health. Long after Mitt Romney is nominated, feted at the convention, beaten by Obama and recycled as a question on Jeopardy ("In 2012, he lost every state but Utah." "Who is ... Britt Gormley?"), Paul's philosophy will still be a factor in national politics -- something to be feared and courted in equal measure.

Team Paul has certainly made some big errors this year, such as exclusively focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire. Although he did well in both, only a first in either would have really justified the expense. Thereafter, the campaign unwisely ignored South Carolina and Florida, reasoning that their expensive media markets weren't worth the effort. As a consequence, Paul was ignored for weeks until Nevada. I am informed by Paul sources that their campaign was counting on Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to drop out after they realized they couldn't win, which would have allowed Ron Paul to emerge as the only conservative challenger to Romney.

Of course, that's not what happened.

Strategy aside, the candidate had his faults, too. I have to declare a great deal of affection for Paul. Unlike other politicians, he seems motivated by ideas -- and he communicates his passion with the zeal of a nutty professor detailing the thrilling possibilities of quasars and black holes. This is a doctor who refused to accept Medicare payments but lowered his prices for patients who couldn't afford him, who declined a government pension and never voted for a tax increase, who told Republicans they need to end the War on Drugs (and most other wars, too). He's pure.

But Paul has also been around a long time and is starting to look like a perennial candidate. His emphasis upon a noninterventionist foreign policy might be what attracted so many activists and donations, but it has also contributed to the sense that he is a marginal candidate. There simply aren't enough anti-war conservatives within the Republican Party to justify the energy that Paul generates around the issue, while the GOP brand is too toxic to attract enough crossover anti-war liberals into the primaries to turn him into a contender. Ann Coulter's remark that "I love Ron Paul on everything but Iraq," is a good summary of his problem: While Paul's platform is attractive to many conservatives, he remains solely identified by his opposition to the war on terror.

Nevertheless, Paul's 2012 candidacy has had certain hidden successes. Aside from all the money he raised, Ron Paul also attracted an unusual coalition of young people, libertarian Republicans, and disaffected Democrats -- a coalition large enough for him to run even with Obama in some polls. The pull among the kids was big enough to fuel talk of a new generational voting bloc. In Iowa, he took 48% of the under-30s, compared with Santorum's 23% and Romney's 14%. In New Hampshire, he got 47%, while Romney took just 26%.

There was a problem, however. In Virginia (the only state that was a straightforward Paul vs Romney vote), Paul's vote was overwhelmingly young but not orthodox Republican in its views. His supporters were more inclined to be pro-choice on abortion, nonevangelical, and opposed to the tea party. Given that Paul is pro-life, religious, and wildly supportive of the tea party, this confirms the growing tension between the man and his movement. In the future, a Paulite candidate might do better by running third party on a more socially tolerant platform. Young people seem to like their libertarianism to be socially tolerant as well as fiscally prudent.

Within the GOP, the Paulites are still the unbeaten masters of the administrative procedure. Last Saturday, they swept a confusing ballot process in Louisiana to give themselves control of 70% of delegates attending the state's nominating convention, which could mean they end up numerically "winning" Louisiana. Similar things have happened in Minnesota and even Romney's home state of Massachusetts.

Combine this administrative brilliance with generational politics and you get a silent grass-roots revolution that is putting many Paulites in positions of power. In 2010, more than a dozen of them won elections as Republicans, including Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan and Sen. Rand Paul (son of Ron) of Kentucky. This year, two dozen active Paul backers are seeking election to Congress, along with more than 200 running for local office. The Paulites have effectively taken over the Iowa GOP. The state central committee now has six members who are passionate for Paul, and the head of the local party is now a Paulite. Given the importance of Iowa to the 2016 nomination, this is a coup in every sense.

All of this means the GOP can no longer ignore its libertarian "fringe." On the contrary, it will have to reach out to a new generation of activists who don't regard religious piety or continual warfare as sacred tenets of conservatism. Even Romney will have to take Sarah Palin's advice not to "marginalize" the Paulites if he is to emerge from the nominating convention with a united party.

Whatever happens in 2012, we are living through a significant moment in the history of conservatism. The age of Bush and Obama -- twin specters of lavish spending and imperial design -- have birthed anti-government movements of right (tea party) and left (Occupy). The one that will last longest and have the most impact is the one that has been the most pragmatic and politically savvy. The Ron Paul revolution won't stop here.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Timothy Stanley.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/04/opinion/st...hpt=hp_bn7

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
04-05-2012, 09:02 AM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Quote:However, unlike Gingrich, Paul's campaign represents a message that is bigger and perhaps more popular than the candidate himself
There we go with the drama queen routine again. The vast majority of Americans do not even care about Ron Paul. Sure, go ahead and tell me that isnt true, and how very very popular Paul is and there is probably a conspiracy against him and yadda yadda yadda. Its always the same thing, a very small handful of zealots only car about Ron Paul. And as always they try to find some new angle to sneak Paul into the presidency because they know there is not a snowballs chance in hell that Paul will ever EVER be legitimately elected president. Pauls message, on the other hand, is only somewhat slightly popular than him (in other words, not at all popular). The conservatives love his ideas on smaller government andno regulations FOR BUSINESSES, but everything else they wish to be controlled by and iron fist.
Think about what they are doing, they are going beyond the popular vote to try and force Paul into office. Think of the consequences even if they did succede? How many republicans would refuse to vote for Paul as president? If my state popularly chose Romney, and I liked romney, and thenfound out a handful of Paulites crammed the system and FORCED Paul delegates in then i would flat out refuse to vote in the finals. In other words, WHY THE FUCK WOULD I VOTE FOR DELEGATES WHO DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT MY VOTE?!? - its underhanded. Its sneaky. And it portrays a clear message about libertarianism and Paul: "We cant win without duping the system, and we are willing to dupe it."

"Praise Sweet Baby Jesus!" - RevJ. Cool

My Sites: www.jesuschristarcade.com - www.facebook.com/jesuschristarcade - Twitter@jesusarcade
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 09:34 AM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Paul draws 3 and 4 times larger crowds than Romeny, Santorum, or Gingrich at every single event he's at. Over 50 voters are the reason Paul doesn't have 50% of the popular vote. But before long all of our under 30s and under 40s will be in their 50s and give a Paul like candidate a very good chance. Among people actually interested and involved in politics (not just your average clueless registered voter) Ron Paul dominates. And you can hate on his delegate strategy all you want. He's playing exactly by the RNCs rules that were put in place to help Romeny win social conservative states. Paul just executes it better.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Yup, yup....yadda yadda "Paul is the most popularist popular person EVAR!!" ...yadda yadda... "Here are some numbers to show how fucking AWESOME and popular Paul is"....yadda yadda..."Those people who voted for romney in the caucus are just clueless, we will steal their vote from them."...yadda yadda..."PAUL DOMINATES forEVAR!!!!"
-
Typical Ronbot. No matter what is presented you can never, ever admit ANYTHING negative about Ron Paul. It cant be done. Paul must be worshipped as perfection. Let me explain this to you again:
-
If I were a republican, and I went to a primary to vote for Romney and Romney WON that popular primary vote then I would be VERY happy. Then as soon as I heard that people like you were cramming the system to make the popular vote turn out in favor of Ron Paul instead of Romney...what the fuck do you think Im going to do? Especially when you say things like "I am clueless" just because I didnt vote for your candidate?---> The answer is clear. I will refuse to vote in the election, which means your delegates will not receive their mandate to vote for Paul.
-
you are a Ronbot. I dont expect you to say a single thing negative about Paul nor do I expect you to see the wisdom of my words. I fully expect you to be a good Ronbot and tell me how out of touch I am, and how Ron's little backdoor delegate action will work and he will become president and yadda yadda...be sure to have a conspiracy theory ready for when Ron fails again this coming november because we all know how extremely popular and faultless Ron Paul is.

"Praise Sweet Baby Jesus!" - RevJ. Cool

My Sites: www.jesuschristarcade.com - www.facebook.com/jesuschristarcade - Twitter@jesusarcade
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 10:53 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 11:01 AM by germanyt.)
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
I think you are overreacting to an opinion article. And your last post is all wrong. It doesn't bother me to be called a Paulbot if that's how you feel. If I'm a Paulbot then I'm also a Drew Breesbot or Neil Tysonbot. I'm a fan and supporter of Ron Paul and his ideology. And so are millions and millions of Americans. Just becasue a great number of people prefer Romeny or Obama or whoever that doesn't make that person the best candidate. The same can be said about Ron Paul himself. I happen to be on Paul's side of the argument in most cases. Not all, but most. So your assumption that I find no negative in his is incorrect. I'm not sold on his environmental policy and obviously don't know enough about the labor market as I might need too. Ron Paul is a Christian and a creationist. But those things alone cannot overcome the support I have for his economic and foreign policy. No one identifies 100% with a politician but I believe you mainly look for fault in him because his supporters irritate you.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 11:12 AM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
No, what irritates me is that twice ihave pointed out how twisted and fucked Ron Paul is for doing what he is doing to the delegates, yet you brush it aside.

"Praise Sweet Baby Jesus!" - RevJ. Cool

My Sites: www.jesuschristarcade.com - www.facebook.com/jesuschristarcade - Twitter@jesusarcade
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 11:12 AM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(04-05-2012 09:34 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Over 50 voters are the reason Paul doesn't have 50% of the popular vote.
No this should re-phrased as "Voters under the age of 50 who like Paul but don't get off their lazy butts and vote in the primaries are the reason Paul doesn't have 50% of the popular vote." They support him but find voting too inconvenient to participate in.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 11:16 AM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(04-05-2012 11:12 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(04-05-2012 09:34 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Over 50 voters are the reason Paul doesn't have 50% of the popular vote.
No this should re-phrased as "Voters under the age of 50 who like Paul but don't get off their lazy butts and vote in the primaries are the reason Paul doesn't have 50% of the popular vote." They support him but find voting too inconvenient to participate in.
This is true as well. And a documented fact. Polling will indicate significantly higher numbers of Ron Paul supporters and voter turnout still remains low. Apparently 20 somethings are difficult people to get out of bed and to the polls at 8 AM. That or they just forget. Older voters are much more consistent in showing up at the polls.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 11:17 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 11:21 AM by reverendjeremiah.)
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(04-05-2012 11:12 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(04-05-2012 09:34 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Over 50 voters are the reason Paul doesn't have 50% of the popular vote.
No this should re-phrased as "Voters under the age of 50 who like Paul but don't get off their lazy butts and vote in the primaries are the reason Paul doesn't have 50% of the popular vote." They support him but find voting too inconvenient to participate in.
Right...and the vast majority of americans support Gingrich. they are just too lazy to get off of their butts and vote for him as well....LOL. What other conspiracy theories do you have about why Paul isnt president yet? I would figure after SEVERAL DECADES of him trying to be president something would have happened by now, especially considering how popular the ronbots keep saying Paul is.

(04-05-2012 11:16 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(04-05-2012 11:12 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  No this should re-phrased as "Voters under the age of 50 who like Paul but don't get off their lazy butts and vote in the primaries are the reason Paul doesn't have 50% of the popular vote." They support him but find voting too inconvenient to participate in.
This is true as well. And a documented fact. Polling will indicate significantly higher numbers of Ron Paul supporters and voter turnout still remains low. Apparently 20 somethings are difficult people to get out of bed and to the polls at 8 AM. That or they just forget. Older voters are much more consistent in showing up at the polls.
hmmm, well if what you say is true then apparently Libertarians are mostly lazy and unreliable. ME? I show up reliably everytime a vote for ANYTHING happens so as to help wipe out as many right wingers and moderates as possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. - frankly I am glad the vast majority of Ronbots are unreliable and lazy...could you imagine how screwed up our country would be if Paul was in charge? FUCK!

"Praise Sweet Baby Jesus!" - RevJ. Cool

My Sites: www.jesuschristarcade.com - www.facebook.com/jesuschristarcade - Twitter@jesusarcade
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 11:25 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 11:29 AM by germanyt.)
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(04-05-2012 11:12 AM)reverendjeremiah Wrote:  No, what irritates me is that twice ihave pointed out how twisted and fucked Ron Paul is for doing what he is doing to the delegates, yet you brush it aside.
I'm a fan of his strategy. I love that he is more successful at it than Romney, which is the sole reason it's even possible. The RNC created this delegate process specifically to aid Romeny in securing delegates in districts that he would not win. They've made it very clear that it's not about the votes, it's about the delegates. If anyone is to blame it's the RNC, not Ron Paul. Maybe you're just scared because you know Ron Paul can beat Obama.
(04-05-2012 11:17 AM)reverendjeremiah Wrote:  out as many right wingers and moderates as possible.
You're a loon dude. Fringe to the point of extremism. God forbid those crazy fucking moderates get elected.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: