Top

Ron Paul

January 11, 2012 by · Comments Off on Ron Paul 

Ron PaulRon Paul, Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul waves to supporters after speaking at his primary night campaign rally on Jan. 10, 2012 in Manchester, New Hampshire. According to early results, Paul finished second behind Mitt Romney. Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul waves to supporters after speaking at his primary night campaign rally on Jan. 10, 2012 in Manchester, New Hampshire. According to early results, Paul finished second behind Mitt Romney.
The career of Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), just peaked. The 76-year-old congressman never passed much legislation. He lived for this moment when he would bask in the glory of his maximum popularity. After performing surprising well in the Iowa caucuses, Paul has finished second in New Hampshire with 23 percent of the vote.

But it’s all downhill from here. The campaign will now head on to Southern states, where Republican voters are more hawkish and socially conservative than those in New Hampshire. The media will lose interest in Paul once Mitt Romney, who won both Iowa and New Hampshire, has the nomination presumptively wrapped up. Paul has said he won’t run for re-election to Congress this year, and he’s unlikely to run for president again in 2016. His maximum relevance was yesterday.

You’d never know it, though, from the demeanor of Paul and the majority of his supporters. At Paul’s election night celebration Tuesday night in Manchester, New Hampshire, he addressed a crowd that was younger, longer-haired and noticeably more boisterous than those drawn by his competitors at their recent campaign events. Where other candidates’ supporters have only cheers that reflect their candidate preference-“Mitt, Mitt, Mitt”-Paul’s have cheers for all his major platform planks. Whenever Paul hit the appropriate line in his speech, the crowd would break into a chant: “End the Fed!” “Bring them [our soldiers] home!” and “Ron Paul revolution, we support our Constitution!”

Paul proudly declared “a victory for the cause of liberty tonight,” and promised, “This effort will not go unnoticed.” But it probably will. In 2008 Paul performed surprisingly well in the primaries, but the Republican Party has hardly adopted his platform. Most of his opponents are as hawkish as George W. Bush. The only movement towards Paul’s position on one of his hobbyhorses is the mainstreaming of demonizing the Federal Reserve and fretting about the “soundness” of our money. But that’s only because there’s a Democrat in the White House and the Fed-which incidentally is still run by Bush appointee Ben Bernanke-taking action to boost the economy, could damage a Republican’s chances of winning the presidency. As soon as there is a Republican president, Republicans will rediscover the virtues of goosing the monetary supply when a recession hits.

Ron Paul 2012

December 14, 2011 by · Comments Off on Ron Paul 2012 

Ron Paul 2012, The recent Public Policy Polling survey of the political landscape in Iowa just weeks before the state’s first-in-the-nation caucus is causing quite a stir. With former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s boost of support dwindling and Ron Paul surging (and Paul having the organization and momentum to carry the day) Republicans are bracing for a Ron Paul win. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the conversation has turned not to what this means for the GOP and the 2012 election but the dubious future of Iowa’s already precarious first-in-the-nation status.
National Review’s Jim Geraghty writes “while I have no particular beef with Iowans, I find the state and its near-isolationist, agriculture-driven, almost communitarian political culture far from ideal to play such a pivotal role in the nomination process. So in a strange way, seeing Ron Paul win Iowa would be just peachy from where I sit.”

Chris Cillizza notes in his column at WaPo that “A Paul victory there, while intriguing and a case study for political scientists for years to come, would almost certainly mean that the real race for the nomination begins a week later in New Hampshire.”

On Monday, the Washington Post examined the decreasing importance of the Hawkeye State’s vote, nothing that candidates are spending far less time and money in that state unless, like for former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum or Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the state is part of a strategic shot of adrenaline needed to keep donations coming in throughout the long primary season.

The report by Dan Balz quotes Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad worrying aloud about the diminished importance of the state’s caucus. “We worry about that just like we worry about the price of corn,” Branstad said. His jocular tone betrays the genuine concern he is expressing over the future of the caucus which, every four years, provides a much-needed injection of capital into his state.

Romney has provided the model that scares Branstad most; should he come in third place or better in that state, the lack of time and money he invested in Iowa could prompt future candidates to emulate his moderate success while they focus on the primary states.

While the conversation about Iowa’s future is surely driven partially by traditional conservative voter’s genuine fear over a number of policy proscriptions espoused Paul, and his seeming resistance to the ideological flexibility required of a president in office and not of a campaigner, there is merit to the argument that Iowa simply does not matter as much as it did 20 or even 10 years ago.

Bottom