Ron Paul: Trouble back home

The Hill ^ | 11/14/07 | David Hill

[Jean S]

While Texan Ron Paul’s stock is soaring nationally, there is trouble on the home front. In September, Paul finished third in a straw poll of 1,300 Texas Republican activists who had been delegates to recent Republican conventions.

The congressman corralled just 17 percent of the votes cast, trailing California’s Duncan Hunter with 41 percent.

This outcome says Texas Republicans aren’t terribly concerned about viability. Otherwise, one of the national front-runners like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney would have beaten these long-shots. But if they were willing to “waste” their votes on Hunter, why didn’t most back a fellow Texan? The truth is that Ron Paul, the angry prophet, has little honor in his own land. He’s about to lose his congressional seat.

Paul, a long-time incumbent, was first elected to Congress in 1976. After a detour to run against Phil Gramm for the Senate in 1984 and for president as a libertarian in 1988, the former physician took over the district 14 seat in 1997.

It’s assumed he’ll seek reelection in the Republican primary next March, at the same time he’s still running for president. It’s entirely possible that Paul will be wreaking havoc in early-primary states across the country just as his base in Texas implodes. What kind of impact would that have on his presidential candidacy? It would be like a NASA astronaut aboard the International Space Station hearing that his home back in Texas burned down and firefighters discovered a meth lab in the smoldering embers. The trip home would, at once, be both devastating and embarrassing. Because NASA is based in Paul’s district, the metaphor may fit.

Angst over Paul has been building for years. In 2004, disgruntled Republicans asked me to find encouragement for challengers. We polled his suburban Houston district and found that voters resist his contrarian and stark libertarian perspective that even sells out local interests. When told that “Ron Paul consistently opposes taxpayer funding for NASA and wants to eliminate the agency,” 61 percent of Republican primary voters said this information would make them less likely to vote for Paul’s reelection. Similarly, a 54 percent majority said they’d be less likely to vote for Paul when told he “was one of only four Republicans in Congress to vote against President Bush’s plan to encourage faith-based charities.” The list of negatives was long.

To be fair, the 2004 polling also found that his voters endorsed some of the quirky congressman’s actions, particularly his refusal to take a congressional pension and his vote to allow airline pilots to carry guns after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. But there was significantly more bad news than good in that poll for Rep. Paul. But detractors were unsuccessful is recruiting a suitable opponent.

Zoom ahead to this election cycle, almost four years later. Recent polling by another Texas Republican pollster confirms that Paul’s electorate doesn’t appreciate the increasingly leftish libertarian bent of Paul’s voting record. In the eyes of voters, Paul is now also wrong to oppose the Patriot Act, off base on energy policy that affects Texas enormously, and to be faulted for knee-jerk opposition to the fight against terror in the Middle East.

The difference this time is that Paul’s critics have a bona fide challenger lined up: Chris Peden, a mainline social conservative who has distinguished himself opposing the tax hijinks of local elected officials. If Paul files to run for both Congress and the presidency by the Jan. 2 deadline, he’ll likely lose to Peden on March 4. That’ll be OK, though. Dr. Paul can just move to New Hampshire where the libertarian Free State Project might try and elect him their first governor, leveraging the boost in name ID and image that his presidential bid will have wrought. Good riddance.

Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for GOP candidates and causes since 1988.

[Just mythoughts]

I can only guess that because he refers to the Constitution in most every sentence he has conned a lot of people.... but the sound of his voice drives me nuts.

[xrp]

When told that “Ron Paul consistently opposes taxpayer funding for NASA and wants to eliminate the agency,” 61 percent of Republican primary voters said this information would make them less likely to vote for Paul’s reelection. Similarly, a 54 percent majority said they’d be less likely to vote for Paul when told he “was one of only four Republicans in Congress to vote against President Bush’s plan to encourage faith-based charities.” The list of negatives was long.

So, in other words, they don't like him because he doesn't act/vote like a Democrat, like Bush, Guiliani, Hastert, etc.

[George W. Bush]

I like how this "journalist" admits he's working for Republican activists who dislike Ron Paul. And he cites using a push-poll which is nothing but an attack on Ron Paul to try to drive his numbers down.

This reminds me of how the RNC ran ads against Laffey to protect Chafee or against Randy Graf in Arizona in 2006. In the wake of that attempt by the national party to meddle in state primaries, support for the GOP sagged, thousands of longtime Republicans dropped their party affiliation, and the RNC fired their fundraising staff entirely because it was so unproductive.

The Stupid Party marches on.

[ImpBill]

An ignoble end to an ignoble career!

[Lord Basil]

Because NASA is based in Paul’s district, the metaphor may fit.

Sorry, it isn't. It's in Nick Lampson's district.

From his Web site: "Congressman Lampson is also thrilled to once again represent the Johnson Space Center."

[The Old Hoosier]

Many Texas Republicans hate Paul because he destroyed their guy in a primary during his return to Congress. This writer is clearly engaged in wishful thinking when it comes to Paul’s district. Not only does he misidentify the home of Nasa, he also tries to pass off his push poll as if it were a real poll (I wonder whether he polled the correct district?). He’s been hired by the opposing candidate, so he’s shilling for him.

And really — the Texas straw poll? Which only allowed convention-goers? Do you think Ron Paul people are likely to be included among that number? I don’t.

[drpix]

" When told that “Ron Paul consistently opposes taxpayer funding for NASA and wants to eliminate the agency,” 61 percent of Republican primary voters said this information would make them less likely to vote for Paul’s reelection."

Paul fools some by saying he wants to restore the Constitutional principles of our founding fathers. But the truth is that from The Alien and Sedition Acts of John Adams (founding father) to the Barbary Wars and Louisiana Purchase of Thomas Jefferson (founding father), America has rejected Paul like little minds who cried "it's unconstitutional" every time America rose to a challenge not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Obviously the founding fathers thought otherwise. And thankfully the space program was only another example.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Paulestinian pinheads set to detonate, en masse, in 10... 9... 8... 7... ;)

[John D]

I will bet cut and run's paulie girls will claim THIS straw poll Unconstitutional.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Ron Paul consistently opposes taxpayer funding for NASA and wants to eliminate the agency

The United States Constitution makes no reference whatsoever to this silly "moon" thing you're blathering about, young man. ;)

[Wallace T.]

The Texas Republican establishment is nothing to brag on. They gave us George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, Rick Perry, and Kay Bailey Hutchison, hardly shining examples of conservative principles. With an eroding margin in the Legislature and an unpopular governor, as well as once Republican Dallas County moving leftward, the last thing the GOP elite should be doing is trying to knock out a Congressman with a lifetime 82% conservative voting record (per the American Conservative Union's scorecard) on the basis of a vendetta because Paul is running an outsider, "a pox on both your houses" type of Presidential race.

It would be better for the Republican leadership to remember Reagan's old saying that it is best to look on someone who agrees with you 80% of the time as an 80% friend, and not as a 20% enemy.

[t_skoz]

“Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for GOP candidates and causes since 1988.”

This isn’t news, it’s a hit-piece written by the pollsters hired by the disgruntled, ex Ron Paul staffer who is going to primary Dr. Paul for his Congressional seat... and lose.

What tripe.

[t_skoz]

Anybody with even an elementary understanding of the Constitution and simple economics would know that our government-funded and government-run space program is indeed unconstitutional, however more importantly, far inefficient to the space program that we could have if it was privately funded and administrated.

All quips about Dr. Paul aside, if you argue that education and health care should be privatized or localized because it’s unconstitutional and inefficient, why on earth would you advocate a wasteful, over-regulated, unimaginative, government-run space program?

[Mr. Jeeves]

We polled his suburban Houston district and found that voters resist his contrarian and stark libertarian perspective that even sells out local interests.

Um....it's supposed to. The Robert Byrd-style porkfest has caused most of America's problems.

[drpix]

What 80% of Reagan's programs did phony, self-proclaimed, Reaganite Ron Paul agree with?

Not the Space Program. Not Radio Free Europe. Not aid the anti-Soviet groups behind the iron curtain (ex. Solidarity). Not his carrot and stick approach to trade with Soviet block countries. Not aid to the Contras. Not Grenada... not El Salvador... not Afghanistan

Little wonder "Reaganite" Paul left Congress in 1984, wrote a book highly critical of Reagan policies and quit Reagan's GOP to run for the Presidency as a Libertarian in 1988.

But RP does have a photo with Reagan (signed by a machine) so I must be wrong.

[drpix]

Good thing American leaders from Adams, Jeffersons, Monroe and Jacksons...... to Kennedy and Reagan did not have the Paulestinian "elementary understanding of the Constitution"... if they had America - if it had even survived - would have been no more than a "could have been" as a nation.

As for your "simple economics", JFK calls for an American moon landing in 1961... we land on the moon in 1969 - beating the Russian (& all others) by now going on 38 years, and you say Wall Street could have done it better. Can I laugh now?

[Allegra]

Paulestinian pinheads set to detonate, en masse, in 10... 9... 8... 7... ;)

Why yes, I believe I see them flapping their little anti-war, goldbug, moonbat wings in here now.

[ejonesie22]

heh heh...

But Ron Paul IS the next Reagan!!!

bwahahaha...

[ejonesie22]

Pop goes the Weasel(s)...