As Bob Costa reported, Ron Paul has become a very formidable contender in the Iowa caucuses. In my piece today, I look at how Paul has achieved that uptick in the Iowa polls:
Ron Paul’s message hasn’t changed in the past four years. But his style of his message has — dramatically.
The most obvious example of that shift is his TV ads and Web videos, which are among the most professional and polished this cycle, and are helping propel Paul from a middle of the pack candidate to a top-tier contender in the all-important Iowa caucuses.
“Ron Paul has run excellent ads at a very heavy rotation in Iowa,” observes Tim Albrecht, communications director for Iowa governor Terry Branstad and Mitt Romney’s Iowa communications director last cycle. “Those ads, combined with the candidate’s visit to the state, have made a significant difference, and it’s reflected in the polling.”
Full piece here.
Ron Paul will not be the nominee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, he won't. But, does that mean he also won't be on the ballot 11.06.2011?
I'm not so sure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2012, not 2011. Oy vey.
Is an "edit" button too hard to program?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShouldn't be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEdit buttons always allow for some swindler to alter the comments - and this was greatly abused by a number of Democratic Partisans on other conservative forums in the past.
We all understand typos - no worries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIIRC, they are using Drupal. There's a feature they have to turn on that will allow users to edit their own comments.
It seems they are hiring technical people all the time. My guess is they pay squat and rely on kids to keep the site running. That's the way it is in the publishing business. It's hard to make a profit when you give away your product.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott, no one can prove a negative, but the way Paul's opponents repeatedly accuse him, with no evidence, of being on the verge of a third party run seems to be no more than a shallow strategy aimed at delegitimizing his candidacy and painting him as an unfaithful conservative and Republican.
Paul has repeatedly said he is not running as an independent or third party candidate - which is more than Jon Huntsman, for instance, will commit to.
In fact the history of third-party Republicans shows they come from the mushy center of the party. From John Anderson to Ross Perot, from the third party musings of Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg this cycle to Jon Huntsman opening that same door. It is always "centrist" Republicans who spurn the dreaded overly conservative nominee (Reagan, Bush(!)) and go down this path. Never the mainstream conservatives, socons, or right-libertarians.
Ron Paul doesn't have to prove his Republican or conservative credentials to anyone. He has been a longtime conservative presence consistenly voting with and even to the right of the party. Paul has been a reliable conservative Republican since a time when Rick Perry was still a Democrat and Mitt Romney was running to Teddy Kennedy's left on social issues in Massachusetts.
If anyone other than Huntsman, Trump, or Bloomberg is at all likely to try to play the role of Perot this cycle, it's a lot more likely to be the ambitious centrist billionaire Romney than it is Paul. If Newt gets the nomination, I won't be holding my breath wondering if Paul will take no for an answer. But I will about Mitt. He seems constitutionally unable to stop running for president, and I'm not sure he'll sit back and wait for 2016 if the voters reject him again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Paul has repeatedly said he is not running as an independent or third party candidate "
If only that were true. On Cavuto's show just a couple weeks ago, Paul said this when responding to a question about him ever running as a 3rd-Party candidate....
"The odds of that happening are so slim,”
In fact, this is but one of several interviews recently where Paul passed on the opportunity to issue an unequivocal rejection of a 3rd-party run. He could put it all to bed with this simple statement: "I will not seek a 3rd-Party nomination, nor will I accept a 3rd-Party nomination if asked and I will enthusiastically support whomever the GOP nominee may be."
Can we expect anything less from someone who aspires to actually be the GOP nominee? I don't think so.
With respect to Huntsman et. al, I think you're setting a low bar, don't you. There's a reason Huntsman is polling at 1%.
"In fact the history of third-party Republicans shows they come from the mushy center of the party."
You must not be old enough to remember a guy named Pat Buchanan. Maybe you're not even old enough to remember a guy named Alan Keyes. I don't know.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe the lesson of Buchanan is that the self-appointed commissars of conservatism such as WFB shouldn't excommunicate conservatives from the movement mob capo style, unless they’re ready to accept the consequences. Buchanan didn't leave mainstream conservatism. He was thrust out of it by the "small tent" conservatives. Just as they'd like to do to Paul today.
It shouldn't really be Paul's job to repeatedly disprove the notion that he's seriously considering a third party bid. The question should be, why is he the one repeatedly confronted with this distraction rather than say, party-switching Rick Perry.
The other candidates haven't pledged to enthusiastically support the GOP nominee, even if it's Paul. So why would you require Paul to do the reverse first? In fact, as we see here and elsewhere, too many backers of Romney, Newt, and the others insist they would not support Paul under any circumstances. Why should Paul preemptively write a blank check of support for people whose supporters seem to take delight in announcing they would never support Paul?
Let’s let Romney pledge that he’ll support Newt or Paul or whoever gets the nomination. And poll leader Newt do likewise. Then you can call on candidates like Paul and Bachman to follow suit. It’s not the job of the candidates trying to climb the poll ranks to preemptively undermine their own campaigns by talking about endorsing anyone the GOP chooses to nominate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It shouldn't really be Paul's job to repeatedly disprove "
As I have demonstrated, Paul hasn't initially "disproved" (better word, refuted) a 3rd-party run, much less done it "repeatedly".
"The other candidates haven't pledged to enthusiastically support the GOP nominee, even if it's Paul. "
I CLEARLY remember both Romney and Gingrich saying during separate debates that they would support the GOP nominee, whomever it may be because everyone on the dais would be an improvement on Obama. Still, I would have absolutely no problem demanding that all the candidates make the same explicit pledge that I suggested.
"So why would you require Paul to do the reverse first"
Ron Paul, to my knowledge is the only person who has hedged when asked this question. If you're aware of another candidate doing the same, please let me know.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't forget that Ron Paul has already run for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988 after leaving the GOP because Reagan(!) wasn't conservative enough, and was the only primary candidate not to endorse McCain in 2008.
So, yes, I think people are justified in questioning Paul's loyalty to the GOP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not a Paul supporter... yet... but you sound just like the guys that keep telling us that Romney is inevitable. Resistance is futile.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed. Iowa might break some candidacies but it won't make Paul's. His national support isn't big enough and some of his views on foreign policy (among others) are simply too far outside of the mainstream.
And Paul cannot win as a third-party candidate. Running as one will hand the election to Obama. The only reasons to run for Paul would be that he thinks the GOP nominee is worse (not likely) or ego.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo doubt, after pushing a disastrous Beltway Insider who swiped 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie in Newt Gingrich. This after the endless hype over Trump, Cain, Bachmann, Perry, etc.
Our side will look just wonderful giving Paul, another Washington Politician who contradicts his entire message, who has the most delusional isolationist denial, the Iowa Caucus.
Iowa, with either Gingrich or Paul, will further cement it's loss of credibility. It will lose all influence, and slowly fade away from being taken seriously.
It is that obvious.
Ironically, Ms. Trinko never mentioned Chris Christie was stumping for Romney in Iowa yesterday, why not mention this? Or have I missed it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI consider myself a libertarian, and tho' I object to Paul's isolationist stance, I very much appreciate Ron Paul's contributions to conservatism/Republicanism. No, he won't be president, but he has already had more influence than any of the other candidates ever will. Why? Because libertarians are more faithful to the conservative principles of freedom and small government than conservatives are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHurmph!
I would not vote for Paul, other than as a protest vote. I think much of foreign policy views are crazy. He has, however, served a valuable purpose in the GOP. He's helped clear the path for seriously debating roll back of the welfare state. He's also helped usher in serious criticism of the Fed.
Sadly, I suspect he fades away like Pat Buchanan, leaving no lasting impression on a party that lacks an identity. But, maybe some of the young people who are smitten with him will stick around and help make the GOP into the party of small government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh yes, the "reluctant libertarian voter" routine. We know this criminal propaganda tactic well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Ron Paul has consistently shown libertarian integrity throughout his career as well as total dedication to the Constitution (some sort of document 'crazy' people across the country attribute some significance to) but unfortunately, he's 'crazy'. Why is he crazy? Oh, uh...because my masters say so. Otherwise, I would vote for him."
(shakes head laughing)
The "reluctant libertarian voter" criminal propagandist at work.
Soooo...no more mention of the "isolationist stance"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat doesn't concern you anymore now that it's been shown to be falsely attributed to Paul?
Now you won't vote for him because you suspect he will "fade"? Is that it? That's the new schtick?
(shakes head chortling)
Carry on, shill.
Then rejoice, because Ron Paul doesn't HAVE an "isolationist stance". That's just criminal propaganda that's fed to the masses by a terrified establishment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, it's the other candidates like Romney, Bachmann and Perry who want to build a fence across Texas to keep the Mexicans out, uphold the Cuban embargo, and impose sanctions on Chinese goods who are "isolationist". If it's isolationism you don't like, then stay away from THEM, not Ron Paul.
Ron Paul preaches NON-INTERVENTIONISM (I capitalized it because since he's repeated it about 500 times, it's kinda curious you didn't hear about that if you're following the race at all, so maybe it wasn't loud enough...)
Non-interventionism says: Trade with everyone; Alliance with no one.
Just like in the Constitution! How about THAT?
Yeah, calling Ron Paul "isolationist" despite him not being one at all while other candidates ARE is a CLEAR case of criminal propaganda.
Don't fall victim to it, C-toon.
Aannnd....now we learn that Newt has the same problem as Cain.
External Link
Countdown until Newt 'suspends' his campaign starts in......3........2......
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse