Fear of a Ron Paul Planet

Posted on | December 19, 2011 | 59 Comments

“Newt Gingrich’s lead in the race for the GOP presidential nomination has evaporated, according to a new national survey.”
— Paul Steinhauser, CNN

“The model gives [Ron Paul] a 44 percent chance of winning Iowa based on the current standing of the candidates and the historic uncertainty of polling-based forecasts. Mr. Romney has a 32 percent chance of winning, while Mr. Gingrich’s chances have crashed to 15 percent.”
— Nate Silver, New York Times

“If Iowa picks Ron Paul as its caucus winner, two things will result. First, Mitt Romney will probably run the table as Republicans everywhere else but Iowa recoil in horror. Second, Iowa will likely end up losing whatever cachet it has managed to build over the last three decades as a first-in-the-nation proving ground for presidential candidates, and the drumbeat to unseat both Iowa and New Hampshire from the front end of the primary system will prove irresistible.”
— Ed Morrissey, Hot Air

“[T]he GOP establishment has so invested itself in Romney’s candidacy that it has increased the likelihood of the one thing that would hand Barack Obama the election, a Ron Paul third party candidacy.”
— William Jacobson, Legal Insurrection

Everybody chill, OK? It’s merely a poll. And despite the impressive increase in Ron Paul’s Iowa poll numbers, he’s still Ron Paul — a candidate with a “high floor, low ceiling,” as they say.

Furthermore, the panic over the evident “collapse” of Newt Gingrich’s support reminds me very much of the panic over Rick Perry’s collapse in September. Like Perry before him, Gingrich was cloaked with the mantle of “The Only Viable Alternative to Romney” and, when things went wrong, the argument was (and is being) made that those who fail to rally to the designated Not Mitt are objectively pro-Romney.

This argument was absurd when I was hearing it from Perry’s people three months ago, and is equally absurd — indeed, more absurd — when it is made on behalf of Newt Gingrich. His serial disloyalties to the conservative grassroots make Newt a strange choice as the Last Hope of the conservative moment. He joined Nancy Pelosi to endorse global warming theory. He supported RINO Dede Scozzafava in the crucial NY-23 special election. He collected big bucks from Freddie Mac. And yet Gingrich, of all the candidates in the GOP field, is to be the final repository of conservative hope in the 2012 race?

Are you people on drugs?

Arguments about “viability” and “electability” tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies, especially when the entire media establishment — including Fox News — have bought into the front-runner game, wherein only the media-anointed and poll-validated “contenders” are considered newsworthy. What is weird is how people buy into that game while asserting that they are, in fact, only being realistic, whereas those of us who don’t do the front-runner bandwagon thing — who don’t give a damn about anyone’s tautological “electability” arguments — are (at least implicitly) accused of being unrealistic dreamers. And yet now we see how the unrealistic dreamers who support Ron Paul have brought their dream to the verge of fruition, thereby inspiring nightmares in the minds of the Anybody But Romney brigades.

All your arguments on behalf of Newt as “electable” are going to look mighty damned silly if Newt finishes third in Iowa, especially if you were among those who previously boarded the Perry bandwagon, and Perry finishes sixth in Iowa — an increasingly real possibility.

“Don’t look at the polls. . . . Don’t pay attention to what the national media are saying, what the pundits are saying. Listen to your heart. Lead. Don’t follow.”
— Rick Santorum

Think about it: Santorum has gone from 6% to 10% in the PPP Iowa poll within the span of two weeks. He is now in a three-way tie for fourth with Perry and Michele Bachmann. Santorum’s campaign has recently collected several key endorsements, including Iowa’s Secretary of State, and a pro-Santorum “super-PAC’ just put him on-air with TV ads in Iowa.

Isn’t this what a last-minute surge in Iowa looks like? And isn’t it possible that if Santorum, who has relentlessly campaigned in Iowa, can keep up this momentum, he could get 20% of the vote Jan. 3? And if Santorum gets 20% on Jan. 3, he will instantly pole-vault to “contender” status, the Cinderella story of the entire 2012 campaign — the candidate everybody wrote off as doomed, suddenly emerging as the conservative David ready to take on the RINO Goliath Romney.

You say it can’t happen? Gingrich’s support was always contingent on his perceived status as The Guy Who Can Beat Romney, and that perception has taken a serious beating in the past couple of weeks, his support falling from 27% to 14%. How is Newt supposed to beat Romney, if he can’t even beat Ron Paul? So the “soft” Gingrich supporters have to go somewhere and — unlike either Bachmann or Perry — Santorum has never had that “Flavor of the Month” moment this year. He’s got a fanatical grassroots volunteer organization in the Hawkeye State, and now is the time when that kind of grassroots support matters most.

Santorum’s biggest problem is that he keeps getting the “yes, but” reaction from conservative pundits who emit mixed signals about him: “Yes, he made a good point in that debate, but . . .” — and what follows the “but” amounts to a dismissive suggestion that no one should take Santorum’s campaign seriously.

But if the Newt bubble is collapsing, so that both Ed Morrissey and William Jacobson now see the Republican Party faced with destruction in the jaws of a Ron Paul/Mitt Romney pincers movement, isn’t it time to take Santorum seriously? Eighteen days after Sarah Palin singled out Rick Santorum for praise on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, I say the time is way overdue.

RICK SANTORUM for PRESIDENT
‘Listen to Your Heart. Lead. Don’t Follow.’

Category: Election 2012, Hot Air, Iowa, Legal Insurrection, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul

Comments

59 Responses to “Fear of a Ron Paul Planet”

Pathfinder's wife
December 19th, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

Meh, I’m finding a lot of humor in it. Never wanted a conservative messiah (we already are burdened by the progressive one); realized I’d likely not get a representative of the people (since so many have gotten so invested, wrongheadedly imho, in having a hiemat) — so what the heck?
I have a fresh bucket of popcorn on standby — let the games begin anew!
Frank Roth
December 19th, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

Liking a candidates views doesn’t magically turn him into a viable candidate. The problem with Santorum isn’t his ideology, the problem with Santorum is Santorum.
AngelaTC
December 19th, 2011 @ 3:38 pm

I absolutely agree that the fear of all things Paul will drive the big government establishment “blame everybody else!” GOP to Romney. But I don’t think Romney will bring people out in the general.
Chris Hadrick
December 19th, 2011 @ 3:51 pm

As a consolation, he is going to cut a trillion dollars from the budget. I know it’s not as fun as bombing Iran but still, some upside to a Ron Paul presidency for the haters.
Pathfinder's wife
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:04 pm

Well, his domestic policy is one thing that does make him viable to me — and reasoning it out, our foreign policy will amount to a steaming pile of you know what if our economy goes belly up and sinks to the bottom.
And our foreign policy amounts to nothing if we become some charade of what we were constitutionally — so there’s that too.

Besides, I’m loving how the establishment on both sides of the aisle are aghast at Paul’s numbers: I like seeing them nervous and upset.
ThePaganTemple
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

The establishment is sending out that Jeb Bush trial balloon again, encouraging him to write articles for the Wall Street Journal to shore up his conservative bona fides, talking him up on Fox, one guy practically begging him to get in the race. If the establishment had a clue they wouldn’t get it. You have to spell things out for them, reeeeeeealllllll slllllooooooooowwwww.
Anonymous
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:16 pm

I will help the candidate that does not promote things like the patriot act, indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial, killing American citizens on mere suspicion, the TSA fondling kids, and the bankrupting of our country fighting in an endless war, in a place where there has never been peace.
NAME REDACTED
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:17 pm

Go Paul!
Its about time a libertarian candidate got a shot at this.
K-Bob
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:19 pm

Running to Romney? Captain “Squishy” isn’t really “analyzing” as much as projecting.

Paul is pulling in disgruntled, Obama fearing Democrats.

Not Conservatives.

He can pull those folks in all day, and it won’t help him anywhere but in the polling data (where said Democrats assure the pollster that they are Republicans).
Adjoran
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

You neglected to mention that betwixt the Perry and Gingrich “Great Right Hope” boomlets came a similar swooning over Cain. Before any of them, Bachmann had a lesser surge in the polls from her New Hampshire debate which at least carried her to victory at Ames.

Most of the Gingrich-backers are NOT “on drugs,” as you suggest: if they were, they would be for Paul. But most share a characteristic with most of the Paul support in that the bulk of neither man’s backers are fully aware of their backgrounds and policies, focusing on what they promise instead of past deliveries.

Jacobsen is particularly dismaying. As a law professor, he may be able to make some academic argument for Gingrich’s radical positions on the judiciary that may fly in class. The public won’t stick around for the inside baseball debate once they envision him having Supreme Court Justices arrested and marched in front of congressional show trials.

If Paul does run third party, his campaign manager will go with him, proving that those who backed him are every bit as foolish as those who gave us Christine O’Donnell, Angle, Buck, Maese, and Miller.

It’s still a wide-open race, but no matter how emotionally invested people get in “their” candidates, we must all remember the Prime Directive is to beat Obama, PERIOD, and it doesn’t matter if we have to beat him with Gary Johnson stoned in a clown suit – beat him we MUST.
Finrod Felagund
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

I’ve already lined out my objections to Santorum here before; I just see the race as coming down to Romney, Gingrich, and Perry, and out of those flawed three, I’ll go with Gingrich, who pretty much is the only candidate that’s willing to admit he’s made mistakes in the past.
Pathfinder's wife
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

He is pulling those in, but he is pulling in people other than Democrats. I think many have misjudged just how angry the electorate is with both parties — if anything, this may be the strongest protest vote we have seen in quite some time.

And I’m all for protest voting over jumping to the other alternatives.
Dan
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

I could easily vote for Paul. Frankly I would love to have a conservative candidate that knows that it is not conservative to invade other countries, and would actually cut the budget.

The only reason I don’t support him in the primary is that I’m convinced that the GOP establishment would go Mugwump on him, making it impossible for him to win in the general.

Personally, I’m pretty sure the GOP establishment has chosen the Whig path for it’s future development.
Frank Laughter
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

Unequivocally, Rick Santorum would lose to Obama BIG TIME. Stick to your “it doesn’t matter as long as the nominee is pure conservative” and you’ll guarantee another 4 years of socialism, only worse. There are only three possibilities currently in the race that can beat Obama. Its either Perry, Romney or Gingrich and if as expected Obama slays Perry in debates Perry would lose. In fact, if the GOP and conservative bloggers continue on the present course, I think their going to snatch defeat from certain victory.
Joe
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

I find no danger in it either. Paul could win Iowa (maybe). Paul will never win the nomination. Frankly not everything Paul says is bad (Paul is great on fiscal conservatism) and Romney (and Santorum) would be wise not to dismiss it all.
Anonymous
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

This is potentially the last rodeo for the GOP. If Ron Paul wins in Iowa next month, which is likely, and the GOP Smart Set + MSM comes after him with guns blazing as they have done to others there will then arise in the heartland a 3rd party. You can take that straight to the bank.

The consensus here in Iowa is that Romney has stood for election 22 times and won 5, that is not the record of a winner. The other contenders all have issues that do not bode well for success in the primary or general election. Based on this, the mood is glum. So, why not just stir up the pot and watch the fireworks?

What difference does it make if the country is going to go over the cliff and land on the rocks below if it goes over at 1mph or 100 mph?
Dan
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

This is laughably stupid. Please support your bald assertion that Santorum is unelectable. What quality makes Santorum incapable of winning the election? What policy position has he taken that is beyond the realm of American discourse?

Romney is demonstrably incapable of getting >25% of the Republican vote. He’s being beaten by Ron Paul, for God’s sake! Where are all the Democrats that will line up for him?

Perry is polling EVEN with Santorum. He’s had his chance and blew it.

Gingrich is a vehicle for the conservative vote to not vote for Romney. As he has gotten better known, his support has dropped.

This is precisely what I mean by “the Whig path of party development” above.
SDN
December 19th, 2011 @ 4:59 pm

“some upside to a Ron Paul presidency for the haters.”

Exhibit A: the best reason not to vote for Paul is his supporters.
Pathfinder's wife
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:00 pm

Perry would not win the general; there is a lot out there on him, and the Democrats would use it (or worse, they’d let him win and after 4 years you could have the people baying for Republican blood — the man is not a good choice at all).
Gingrich is intelligent, but a loose cannon — he might do ok. Then again, he might be a disaster as president.
Romney isn’t a conservative and is a flip flopper — but is likely the likeliest mutt out of this disgusting threesome. He is probably less likely to do real harm compared to the other two, but he will likely do no good either. Besides, he can’t rally people to him; this is a big problem.

Still, any of the above could could beat Obama (especially, and this must be emphasized, if the global economy keeps tanking, and it shows no signs of doing anything other than that — and with this tanking will come increased threat of aggression, both internal and external throughout the world). So the big question should be: where would each respective canidate have the GOP standing vis a vis the Dems after 4 years? (the Dems could win this even by losing this year if the GOP fumbles and completely loses the electorate which is turning to them however slightly now, and that is what concerns me most — and I think should concern everyone else). 4 years during a rough patch economically and with threats of conflict hanging over everyone is a small price to pay for the destruction of your chief rivals, is it not? What will happen if the GOP steps in it royally and not only gets branded the party that sent the nation into “depression” and led it into more war?

I highly doubt Paul could get elected (but he might suprise) — but I am concerned that the GOP will once and for all destroy any good will the electorate has for them through stupid political decisions which will have a disasterous effect of clearing the path for a complete progressive takeover.
So, long story short, I don’t really give a ___ who is most likely to beat Obama as much as who is most likely to at least weather the coming storms (and all great and good if they can manage a miracle and turn the country around, but that’s asking a lot, maybe too much).
Classic Liberal
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

What is the “stood for election 22 times and won 5” info on Mitt? I’ve heard that, but only found he lost the Sen. to Teddy, and won the Gov.’s race – 1 of 2.

Just asking.

I agree with the basics though, and moreso for Santorum. Rick got clocked in his last race, which dilutes all his talk of his good, prior races. He needed to run for something else and win before going for this. Interesting that Mitt is on the same boat to some extent.

I was surprised at how poor a campaigner Perry was, but he may have the reverse problem – too many easy wins and no hard fought races.
Pro-Santorum is Anti-Romney « Catholic Bandita
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

[…] McCain is none too happy with the freaking out that’s going on over Iowa and Ron Paul. I can’t blame him and […]
Pathfinder's wife
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:13 pm

And this is the sort of knee jerk reaction that is going to wind up costing the GOP dearly.

Instead of writing off people (outside of the lunatic fringe, which truth be told every canidate has those unreasonable diehard supporters) wouldn’t it be better to realize that some of the things the Paul supporters want are very valid and reasonable things? Wouldn’t it be more productive to realize that perhaps the problem really does lie in the direction the GOP is taking? I could say the same about the issues between the social and fiscal cons — Santorum supporters have some very valid points and beefs. I don’t agree with all of them, but to write them off is foolish.

Same with the Paul supporters: there are some legitimate things they bring up that the GOP is very stupid to overlook.
Pathfinder's wife
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:23 pm

As a resident of Illinois I can vouche that. The mood here is resigned, but also angry. A vast majority of the people hate both parties and see the government as a big, awful joke. One thing about my state, it’s an interesting field study as to what might happen to the rest of the country in regards to both political parites.

Things could get very interesting indeed.
Adjoran
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:24 pm

Just wait, then: you’re gonna LOVE all the blood in the streets.
Mortimer Snerd
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:25 pm

Amen. Let’s face it. Rick isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Pathfinder's wife
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:27 pm

Perry was perhaps over-hyped by some, and the system in Texas perhaps allowed for him to look better than what he actually is. Also, the Democrats in that state haven’t really fielded much against him, nor has his own party.

I wouldn’t count him out just yet — he has been very clever before in judging what the people want to hear and then running on that. However, he hasn’t had to run up against such opposition before either — overconfidence can be a problem for anyone.
Pathfinder's wife
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:31 pm

Please, that’s a fair bit of hyperbole don’t you think?

If Paul getting the nomination would result with blood in the streets, then we really have gone round the bend and you should be terrified indeed of what could happen if both parties keep on their present course.
Joseph G Figliola
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:39 pm

Let’s just make sure everybody gets behind the eventual nominee in the general, and nobody runs a counter-productive third party campaign as a sore loser.
Christy Waters
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

I love Ron Paul’s domestic side. It’s his foreign policy that would cause me to lose sleep at night, which is why he won’t be getting my vote. But the scariest part about Ron Paul is the fact that he’s considering a 3rd party run, which would hand the election to the Royal SCOAMF like a giant golden turd that the rest of us would then be forced to bow down to.
Ccoffer
December 19th, 2011 @ 5:57 pm

” The public won’t stick around for the inside baseball debate once they
envision him having Supreme Court Justices arrested and marched in front
of congressional show trials.”

Can you make your case without making shit up, or is making shit up what your case depends on?

Do tell.
Anonymous
December 19th, 2011 @ 6:04 pm

How do you propose to prevent the “counter-productive third party”? Pleading from the GOP Smart Set is not going to catch it this time and the presumptive nominee will not be so lucky to find another Palin. My guess is the presumptive nominee will run a general campaign that looks just like the 08 McCain campaign, should end the same way.
Joe
December 19th, 2011 @ 6:16 pm

The GOP elites want you to bury your heads again, but not in the sand…
Chris Hadrick
December 19th, 2011 @ 6:18 pm

It’s kind of amazing to me that for all Ron’s radical positions on huge spending cuts, legalizing drugs, etc the thing he gets the most pushback on is foreign policy when we’re already in two wars. You know no one is actually going to do anything on Iran anyway. Is it that important for someone to be up there McCain style PRETENDING?
Robert Birch
December 19th, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

Here is a nice video about Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Ron Paul hasn’t said he is considering a 3rd party run, Donald Trump has.

Anyway, I like Ron because he is consistent compared to all the the other politicians and America needs somebody who is consistent not compromising their principles
Pathfinder's wife
December 19th, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

His foreign policy bothers me in some areas as well, but then again, if we are domestically in tatters the foreign policy won’t matter all that much.

As for a third party run — that is something that hasn’t happened yet. Right now there are Republicans stating that they may vote for Obama if Paul gets the nomination; that’s handing it to Obama as well. And not one primary vote has been cast yet.

I think people need to settle down; no sense worrying over what’s going to happen a year from now, or even in a few months. Not yet anyway.
Tennwriter
December 19th, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

Most hard core conservatives have little problem with RP’s fiscal plans. So, I rather suspect that Rick does not either.
Tennwriter
December 19th, 2011 @ 7:41 pm

True dat.

The Whig RINO Smart Set Country Club Republicans realize the Conservative Base aka Socons hate them, but hope to be a 120 pound rodeo rider on a two tonne mad bull once more for just enough time to win again. Maybe they expect that the bull will finally be broken, and they can abuse the libertarians and conservatives at will, or maybe they have no plan other than power now and apres deluge.

But this time, the bull has figured out the game…

Which is why Santorum is on the rise in an overall sense.

And part of the game is ‘your Real Conservative candidate just can’t win…so give up now before something bad happens.’
Quartermaster
December 19th, 2011 @ 7:57 pm

IT’s sad that Paul doesn’t have a realistic foreign policy. I think he would be forced into something similar to what Jefferson did with the Barbary Pirates, but there’s no way to tell.

Of course, we have no way to tell if anyone else will either. We do know that most of the lot aren’t all that different from Obama, alas (and hold the grousing about me being insane – I look at what they are, not what I wish them to be).
Quartermaster
December 19th, 2011 @ 7:59 pm

I don’t think Adjoran really cares. He’s simply a mindless Paul hater.
Quartermaster
December 19th, 2011 @ 8:02 pm

The GOP, of which SDN and Adjoran are typical, don’t really much care about the country. They haven;t thought things out enough to realize that we are on the verge of not being able to defend ourselves because teh economy is about to be drug into the tank by a bloated FedGov. It really isn’t going to matter in about a year if we have a foreign policy or not. What Paul is preaching he wants to do to FedGov is absolutely necessary if we are going to turn things around.

The rest are just mental and moral midgets. I doubt Santorum has what it takes to get things done either.
Joseph G Figliola
December 19th, 2011 @ 8:07 pm

I propose to prevent an ill-advised third party run the way the Founders intended – through persuasive argument. Another Obama term would be an utter disaster for the republic. Period. End of sentence.

d(^_^)bhttp://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/”Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
richard mcenroe
December 19th, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

Has anybody got a link to the Rick Perry/cowboy leathers ad? Thanx
Quartermaster
December 19th, 2011 @ 8:16 pm

All progressives are failures, even if they win at the polls. We can hope the Obummer fails this time, but I’m not holding my breath. The GOP is acting in their normal stupid way.
Anonymous
December 19th, 2011 @ 8:24 pm

It is not known as The Stupid Party for nothing.
Publius
December 19th, 2011 @ 8:32 pm

Good luck persuading William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection to rethink his fanatical devotion to all thinks Newt. He’s even blocking commenters who make effective points against Newt. Kind of pathetic, really, and goes to show you why conservative bloggers should take a page from Rush’s book and not put themselves in the tank for any one candidate.
Monday Roundup 12/19/11 Stories and Links | Katy Pundit
December 19th, 2011 @ 9:30 pm

[…] of the day drawn from The Other McCain: “If Iowa picks Ron Paul as its caucus winner, two things will result. First, Mitt Romney will […]
Garym
December 19th, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

No way in hell will I vote for anyone who dances with the 911 truthers. I will write in anyone but Paul. Fuck Him!
ThePaganTemple
December 19th, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

I think you must have misheard Dr. Paul. Are you sure he didn’t actually say he could eat a million boogers?
Tennwriter
December 19th, 2011 @ 9:45 pm

Chill man. I realize things are bad, but we’re not a year away from having to scuttle our navy for lack of oil, and create an infantry brigade to push each tank. If we were, your comment about not needing a foreign policy in a year MIGHT make sense.

And its going to take a lot to undo the Progressive Project. I’m hardcore, but if after 4 yrs. of Rick, we’ve only reduced (for real reductions, not cuts in planned growth) the gov’t by 2%, I would count it a raging success.

The first thing we have to prove to the addict is that he can live for one day without his drug before we can convince him of bigger things.
ThePaganTemple
December 19th, 2011 @ 9:46 pm

That’s a good point. Hell, Charlie Manson could sing a mean tune when he really tried, we should not judge him solely on that one unfortunate Tate incident.