Just as a matter of full disclosure, I am not a Ron Paul supporter. He is interesting, and far more substantial than MSM gives him credit for. He is not a media darling like Huckabee or McCain, which is why I prefer him to those two. I am currently in the Thompson/Hunter end of the party; still, Ron Paul should be given a look.
Ron Paul is a dark horse. He has raised close to $19 million in the 4th quarter of this year and his war chest is growing daily. He has raised over $4 million in a single day. The man’s support consists of 25 to 50 dollar contributions. This equates to lots of people when one looks at the amount of money he has raised.
Ron Paul has more volunteers than one can count. His supporters have been beating the grass at every major conservative blog, annoying the bajeepers out of me on many an occasion. They also swarm all over the MSM sights like locusts. I drive down small country roads in PA, WV, MD, NY and VA and see signs on front lawns extolling Ron Paul. Not home made signs, but your standard campaign fare, this implies that there is some organization. Paul is ignored by the media, but not by the conservative base of the Republican Party. How much is going on under the radar screen?
For example Ron Paul won the Virginia GOP Retreat Straw Poll at the Republican Party of Virginia’s Republican Advance Convention:
Ron Paul 182 (38%)
Fred Thompson 112 (23%)
Mike Huckabee 51 (11%)
Rudy Giuliani 45 (9%)
Mitt Romney 43 (9%)
John McCain 23 (5%)
Duncan Hunter 19 (4%)
Tom Tancredo 4 (<1%)
This was a convention of politically active Republicans. The media noted it, but in comparison to Huckajive’s polling numbers this is the bigger deal. Why? The active party members were voting here. The standard polls sample the public in general. The public in general is not really paying attention, yet. The wonks, the active, those who eat and breathe politics, those who actually will volunteer to do campaign work are interested in Ron Paul in the state of VA. Many of the top tier contenders have name recognition, but as the public gets to know their positions, they wilt.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Ron Paul has a large presence in New Hampshire. The WSJ article’s main message is that ‘Paul beats Rudy’. This is a huge leap up for Paul. If he comes in the top three in NH, the MSM will have to move him from the children’s table over to the adult’s. According to the article and the Paul campaign the support for Paul is primarily Republican and not Independent. The question is whether this support is another candidate bleeding out, or are the undecided making a decision?
The blogosphere is interested in Ron Paul. The blogs are a new branch of the news media, messy and amateurish for certain, but more honest about their positions than the shrinking MSM. Thus, they are more trusted than the MSM. Ron Paul has a voice here, detractors and admirers. In the past few years, the comment sections of blogs have become the new town squares; each commenter, on his box, yelling loudly. Messy, crude, factually challenged at times, it is truly a democratic medium. It is a medium where Ron Paul fares better than Huckabee or McCain. Ron Paul is beginning to get some traction in the MSM, but his presence in the blogs is old hat at this point. MSM does not really lead anymore, it follows, especially among conservatives.
When it comes to domestic policy, Paul has a strong libertarian bent. This is something the Democrat Party walked away from close to 80 years ago; today they are socialists. Socialism is at odds with the original/founding character of our nation. The Republican Party has lost this libertarian bent more recently, something that will cost it its conservative, small government base if it does not correct course, and soon. The 8000+ earmarks in the bill signed by GWB are only marginally better than the 10000+ earmarks in Pelosi’s original version. Ron Paul is head and shoulders above his peers in this regard; he has the most consistent record out of all of them when it comes to voting against earmarks.
On matters of trade Ron Paul is against our joining organizations that impinge upon our sovereignty. The WTO and NAFTA are prime examples. ‘Avoid foreign entanglements’ was the phrase used by Washington on this matter; it would a good thing if our political class took the words of our founders more seriously. Paul is a free trader, but this is still miles away from putting ourselves under the control of foreigners who are eager to sacrifice our well being in order to advance some other agenda. We came out of WWII with an understanding that we can no longer be isolationists, but the pendulum has swung too far. A little enlightened self interest may be in order on this front.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is naive. We, as a nation, were forced onto the world’s stage on Dec 7, 1941. After the war we were confronted by Socialist/Communist totalitarian aggression. The Cold War ensued. With the end of the Cold War history did not end – new forces were now able to emerge. The U.S. did not create Wahabiism. The U.S. was unfortunate enough to be the sole super power when the Islamic Fascists crawled out form under their collective rock. Returning all the troops we have overseas will not put the Genie back in its bottle. For better or worse, we are stuck on the world stage. 20-20 hindsight is not a recipe for leadership.
Paul’s organization has a lot of loons supporting it. Ron Paul does not appear to be anti-Semitic. His anti aid-to-Israel stance is consistent with his no aid to anyone principle. However, some of his supporters are of a different stripe. The media also has a collective responsibility to ask Paul directly what his views are regarding these colorful types, and the positions they take. The MSM, however, has shown little ability for such reporting, especially when it suites MSM’s political agenda. Paul needs to distance himself from all the nuts or his campaign will go down in flames. This is not just a matter of PR; it is a matter of principle.
UPDATE:
Ron Paul in his own words on Iraq. The money quote:
“With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?”
Curious-er and curious-er.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, December 30th, 2007 at 2:43 pm and is filed under Campaign 2008.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
HEY JACOB,
WELL DONE ARTICLE. BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU,
WHAT WOULD THE WORLD DO IF WE, THE AMERICAN’S CLOSED ALL OUR OVERSEA BASES, BROUGHT HOME ALL OUR TROOPS TO PROTECT OUR HOME LAND AND BORDERS.
IF WE STOPPED GIVING FINANCIAL AID, FOOD OR ANY OTHER SERVICE THAT WE FREELY OFFER. CALLED ALL DEBTS FROM BOTH SIDES “PAID IN FULL”.
WHAT WOULD THE WORLD DO IF WE SAID “NO MORE” AMERICANS ARE FINALLY FIRST IN LINE.
THE AMERICANS THAT SUPPORT A MAJORITY OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHO LIKE OUR LIFESTYLE AND FREEDOMS,YET HATE OUR GUTS. (YES I SAY AMERICANS, WHY..OUR TAXES OF COURSE)
IF RON PAUL’S FOREIGN POLICY IDEAS ARE NAÏVE THAN CONSIDER WHAT OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE CURRENTLY AND IN THE PAST WITH FOREIGN POLICIES. HAVE THEY BENEFITED OUR COUNTRY AT ALL?
Marjorie,
“WHAT WOULD THE WORLD DO IF WE, THE AMERICAN’S CLOSED ALL OUR OVERSEA BASES, BROUGHT HOME ALL OUR TROOPS TO PROTECT OUR HOME LAND AND BORDERS.”
I believe that in many places things would go very poorly …
Europe: The Serbs would re-invade Kosovo. Russia would put the Ukraine under its heal, Poland would be stuck in between Germany and Russia, again. Turkey and Greece have some unresolved issues. They would quickly come to a boil (war is something we are constantly having to stop).
Middle East:
Israel and its neighbors … need I say more?
Iran and ITS neighbors, while this is sorting itself out (violently) Israel might find the time to resolve the border with the Palestinians, to its advantage.
The Sudanese Arabs/Muslims would annihilate the tribes to the south (both pagan and Christian).
Africa:
The Ethiopian and Ereitrian conflict would not take long to restart. Do you see any kind of European (Fr. Gr. Br.) response? They do not have the logistical system.
Lets see, currently there are six African nations with open civil wars going on. Without the threat of the Marines landing do you think the blue-helmets can keep the peace on their own? The last time this was tried we got Rwanda.
Asia:
The big one here is the Pakistani-Indian conflict over Kashmir. Both sides have nukes. Those two had a border incident just 5 years ago, with India sending over a Million men to the border. We diffused that. Care to see what happens after we pick up our marbles and go home??
China and Japan. China and Taiwan. China and South Korea. China and Vietnam. China and Malaysia. China and Russia. You think all is well in those relationships?
“IF WE STOPPED GIVING FINANCIAL AID, FOOD OR ANY OTHER SERVICE THAT WE FREELY OFFER. CALLED ALL DEBTS FROM BOTH SIDES “PAID IN FULL”.”
I think our current debt to China and others exceeds the debts of others (third world countries) to us. I don’t they will let us off the hook.
“WHAT WOULD THE WORLD DO IF WE SAID “NO MORE” AMERICANS ARE FINALLY FIRST IN LINE.”
I mentioned ‘enlightened self interest’. This means we continue to trade with the rest of the world.
“THE AMERICANS THAT SUPPORT A MAJORITY OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHO LIKE OUR LIFESTYLE AND FREEDOMS,YET HATE OUR GUTS.”
Aside from Israel, the majority of our aid goes to third world countries. Who would you cut off?
“IF RON PAUL’S FOREIGN POLICY IDEAS ARE NAÏVE THAN CONSIDER WHAT OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE CURRENTLY AND IN THE PAST WITH FOREIGN POLICIES. HAVE THEY BENEFITED OUR COUNTRY AT ALL?”
These other presidents have kept us in the game. Hindsight is always 20-20. I try not to fault the guy in to WH for making a decision. He has a difficult job. Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem. GW treats it as a guerrilla warfare issue. The execution is not something either of them have total control over.
Once you leave the field, the other team can score all it wants. The world is more messed up in someways now than back in the cold war.
Does that answer your question(s)?
SO, GOOD RESPONSE:
EVEN THOUGH THE USA SEEMS TO BE THE TIE THAT BINDS ALL NATIONS OF THE WORLD, I STILL HAVE TO WONDER IF NATIONS WOULD WAKE UP AND THE WORLD WOULD FIND A HAPPY MEDIUM TO LIVE IN, SOMETHING LIKE GENE RODDENBERRY THOUGHT OF IN STAR TREK, NEXT GENERATION…..NO MONEY, LIVE IN RELATIVE PEACE AMONG NATIONS, TO GROW GLOBALY AND WORK AS ONE UNIT…….NO, I DON’T THINK SO, WE’RE TO UNCIVILIZED FOR THAT TO HAPPEN YET.
Good post on Mr. Paul. However I have to disagree with you on the “20-20 hindsight” part. Paul misses the point totally on the issues in the Muslim world and our struggle with them today. His web page on this issue seems to me to be misleading and falsely accusatory in what has happened there. It is an isolationist view that as you imply should be rendered to the history books. My thought would be he views this issue through rose-colored glasses.
Similarly Paul has a naive view on things like the drug problem in America today. I think his libertarian leanings here are a bit too far for realism’s sake.
He seems to have very strong pro-life credentials as well, however his position papers on the issue seem to focus solely on the states rights argument of the Constitution. I on the other hand believe that the right to life expressly written in the Federal Constitution makes this clearly an issue the Federal government should address. His writings on this issue sound eerily familiar to arguments used to support slavery and against civil rights. I’m not saying the man is a racist, but I do believe some issues of this nature in the end need to be addressed by the federal government. Especially when human lives are at risk. I suppose he would appoint judges who would reverse Roe vs Wade, but then again those same judges might support legalization of drugs, gambling, and prostitution if I read his libertarian views correctly.
Mr. Paul is a bit too extreme for me (no oun intended)
RwE,
I think Rose Colored glasses is exactly right. He seams to think if we pick up our marbles and go home, our problems will do likewise.
I believe Ron Pauls popularity is being misinterpeted by many of the media pundits. Many conservative Republicans, independents as well as some Libertarians feel abandoned by the Republican party that took control of congress in 1994. After some initial gains many of those same Republicans( self proclaimed conservatives ) lost their direction and fell prey to the Washington Power trap. Stacked atop those institutional failures of the Republican leadership in congress is the current administrations inability to do what we as conservatives believe needs to be done, such as control spending and shrink the size and scope of our federal government. We saw a glimmer of hope with these leaders that maybe just maybe we were going to start rolling back the federal governments insatiable appetite for power. In short we though we had found leaders willing too stop using the Commerce Clause as a vehicle too expand an already bloated federal government. With the exception of a very few, we were wrong.
These are the events and circumstances that in my opinion motivates so many too be attracted too Ron Pauls message of smaller government,states rights and reduced federal spending. Many are willing too look past Paul’s more controversial positions in order too advance the cause of these fundemental tenents of conservatism that are at the core of reforming or redefining our government.
G. Stone,
I agree with your analysis above and I share those same concerns. Unfortunately those who look past Paul’s more controversial positions do so at their own peril because of the clear greater importance of those positions to our national security.
I would prefer to find a candidate who shares all of the concervative values I do, but does not have such a flawed view of international relations. Some may be supporting Paul as a protest vote until better candidates emerge. I have been known to do this in the past in supporting Alan Keyes for example. Keyes I think has a much more balanced view than Paul though. I don’t want to create something in Paul on a protest vote that I could not live with if it caught on.
Good post and follow up discussion.
One thing to bear in mind is we rarely get a truly great choice in candidates. Duncan Hunter, for instance, is probably not going to last past South Carolina. So in the end we will have to hold our collective noses and support the “least bad” choice for president.
Romney and Giuliani are suspect conservatives (although the guy in the White House now is also one). McCain is terrible on immigration. Thompson has Spencer Abraham working for him. Huckabee might just be the candidate who would inspire me to consider voting for a Democrat.
With the amount of money and, as Jacob notes, grassroots support Ron Paul has, he is in the race to stay. Those supporting him are, I would argue, doing so for largely rational reasons.
All,
Considering the how neglected the small/limited government and border enforcement issues have been, we should not lament that the grassroots are willing to overlook the Paul’s failings. These two issues need to be brought front and center.
Tancredo took the border enforcement issue as far as he could, we need a new torch bearer for this. The limited government issue needs to be resurrected, it died on us a few years ago when we were not looking.
Excellent point. Here’s what that also made me think: What if Paul’s widespread level of support signifies the number of erstwhile GOP supporters who want the Iraq war over yesterday?
That’s an interesting thought Joe, but unfortunately implementing Paul’s approach would be no guarantee of the end of the war. Just that we wouldn’t have people dying overseas, at least for the time being.
Right, but I don’t think the point is whether any of the candidates actually has a better plan for winning or ending the war, but who best represents the viewpoint voters identify with.
If the guy was not an isolationist he would be in my opinion killing his competition. Lets not forget that. It is his foreign policy I find worrisome. Even in that are we not resembling an empire? We got troops stationed in just about every country one can imagine in Europe, Africa, the ME and Asia. We also have a presence in South America. Bring em ALL home? No. But do we need to be everywhere?
…appreciate the foregoing discussion. I like a lot of Paul’s rhetoric but he scares me on foreign policy. the world hegemon simply cannot retreat within its borders. to do that is to invite global chaos with significant economic consequences, the establishment of a new, worse world hegemon and attack within our own borders. After all, when you are the biggest kid on the block, anyone who wants status will be looking to take you down.
TO ALL ABOVE BLOGGERS,
EACH OF YOU HAS SOME FINE POINTS ABOUT PAUL’S FOREIGN POLICY. BUT HERE’S SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
HOW CAN WE,AS A NATION, THE NEXT PRESIDENT MAKE OUR NATION AND CITIZENS IT’S NUMBER ONE PRIORITY?(
AS I SEE IT HILLARY IS JUST FOR HILLARY,
OBAMA, WELL I’M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HIS NEW PARTRIOTISM IS….ANYONE KNOW THAT ONE?
AS FOR ALL THE OTHERS, SSDD KINDA THING…..
BORDER SAFTEY, MEDICAL ISSUES AND SO FORTH.
RON PAUL DOES HAVE AMERICA’S INTREST, BUT JACOB IS CORRECT, THE UNITED STATES IS SO INTERTWINED WITH NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD.
OUR PAST PRESIDENTS AND PRESENT MAKES DEALS WITH THESE COUNTRIES AND AMERICA GETS SCREWED, WTF..WHEN DOES IT STOP?
OUR MISTAKE WAS NOT FOLLOWING THOSE NATIONS NUMBER ONE PRIORITY:”WE COME FIRST IN EVERYTHING, TAKE WHAT WE CAN, IF WE CAN HELP THAN SO BE IT, IF NOT,OH WELL.”
Ron Paul’s isolationism agenda would not float and that would fix itself in short order. He would never have enough power or control to be able to master that feat. The intriging part would be-would he get the United Nations out of the U.S.? That in itself would get him some vote consideration from me.