Posted on 12/06/2011 7:14:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Rep. Ron Paul rarely makes news, and his candidacy is frequently ignored by Beltway reporters. But headlines, his aides say, are overrated. In fact, the Texas Republican’s low-key autumn was strategic. As Paul’s competitors stumbled and sparred, he amassed a small fortune for his campaign and built a strong ground operation. And with January fast approaching, his team is ready to surprise the political world and sweep the Iowa caucuses.
“This was a movement when he first started running in 2008,” says Trygve Olson, a senior Paul adviser. “Now it’s turned into a highly professionalized campaign, but the energy from that last run is still there, and at the heart of what’s keeping up his momentum.”
The latest polls back up that confidence. In the influential Des Moines Register poll published over the weekend, Paul placed second. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, captured 25 percent of likely Iowa GOP voters, but Paul garnered 18 percent, two points ahead of Mitt Romney, who in 2008 placed second in the caucuses.
If Paul wins Iowa, the upset could upend what many politicos say is a two-man race between Gingrich and Romney. According to state GOP insiders, a Paul victory is a real possibility. In background conversations, many say Paul is much stronger than outside observers believe, with deep and wide support among a frustrated electorate. With Herman Cain’s departure from the race, operatives see Paul potentially collecting a quarter of caucus attendees.
“Ron Paul is definitely for real out here,” says Tim Albrecht, the communications director for Iowa governor Terry Branstad, who has not endorsed any GOP candidate. “He is going to get 18 percent in the caucuses no matter what. If there’s a snowstorm, he’ll probably win, since he has such dedicated, passionate supporters. The question is whether he can move higher than that.”
Paul, for his part, thinks that he can close in on Gingrich, who has seen a recent bump in both state and national polls. “We’re getting pretty close to it being within the margin of error,” Paul told CNN on Sunday. “I think we continue to do what we’re doing. We’ve had the flavors of the month up and down so far this campaign. I’d like to think of myself as the flavor of the decade.”
Indeed, Paul’s consistency, his strategists say, is integral to his strength, especially in Iowa, where GOP voters have shuffled through an array of favorites. “Iowans, after testing Bachmann, after testing Perry, after testing Cain, and now Gingrich, are realizing that Ron Paul, all along, has been their candidate,” says Fritz Wenzel, Paul’s pollster. Unlike many primary fights, “this is becoming a race about principles,” he says, “and Ron Paul has stood up for true conservative principles for decades, not just in the last month.”
But campaign strategy, of course, has also played a major role in sustaining Paul’s poll numbers. The campaign combines a strong online presence, centered on volunteer organization, with prolific fundraising. Perhaps more important, however, is Paul’s “traditional” strategy in Iowa, which combines a heavy candidate presence with constant mailings and outreach.
“He’s run the most traditional caucus campaign of the year,” Albrecht says. “Multiple mailers, multiple ads, and multiple visits. Rick Perry has run ads, but hasn’t really visited. Mitt Romney has taken the shy approach, and Newt Gingrich hasn’t been here as often.”
“We’re following the traditional model because it works,” says Drew Ivers, the campaign’s Iowa chairman. “This is the fifth time I’ve chaired an Iowa campaign, and in this state, you can’t beat grassroots politics. The caucuses are like a business meeting. You don’t just come and vote; you go to participate. You need committed supporters; we have them.”
Steve Grubbs, who recently worked as Herman Cain’s Iowa director, has seen the enthusiasm for Paul up close. “I was driving down Interstate 80 two weeks ago and saw a hitchhiker carrying a Ron Paul sign. I didn’t pick him up, but I’m sure a Paul supporter gave him a ride,” he says. “I spot them everywhere, wearing their T-shirts and carrying signs.”
You’ll also find thousands of Ron Paul backers on the web — on message boards and on social-networking sites — talking about Paul and his criticism of U.S. foreign policy and the Federal Reserve. As Paul’s team invests in the ground game, it is taking care to intertwine its above-ground legwork with that web world. And it’s paying off, his advisers say, not only through donations, but in building a cohesive network of voters. An early example of its power came in August, when Paul nearly won the Ames straw poll, finishing a close second to Michele Bachmann.
“Ron Paul’s Internet operation is to Republicans in 2012 what Barack Obama’s Internet operation was to Democrats in 2007 and 2008,” Olson says. “It’s very grassroots and national, with thousands of very active supporters who spread the message in every state. That energy is the undercurrent to what’s happening on the ground, where people are going person to person.”
Still, even with the top-tier showing in Iowa polls and recognition by Iowa operatives of their on-the-ground prowess, Paul’s advisers aren’t taking anything for granted. In coming weeks, “Ron Paul is going to be living part-time in Iowa,” says Dimitri Kesari, Paul’s deputy campaign manager. The entire focus will be on coordinating turnout and stoking enthusiasm. Over 500 college students, for example, will move to Iowa over the holidays to participate in an initiative called “Christmas Vacation with Ron Paul.”
“He’s a different kind of candidate,” Kesari acknowledges, a “highly organized outsider.” But in January, he could also be a winner. And Iowans, at least, wouldn’t be surprised.
— Robert Costa is a political reporter for National Review.
Spot on AND hilarious. Good one!
I see a lot of recent sign-up dates supporting Ron Paul. They're following their marching orders from ronpaulforums, infowarrior and Daily Paul...
P.S. I don't care what paleoPaulie CLAIMS to believe. He is running for POTUS and not for wannabe philosopher king. What matters is his track record, his fraudulent two-faced dishonesty on most issues (or his rank insanity as you may prefer) and not his carefully rehearsed act.
And? So are laws against stealing, murder, etc. Can you show me where the USC bans murder and theft?
The USC is supposed to be a document that sets up the role of govt between fed and state as well as the 3 branches of the Govt.
The BOR was only adopted as a concession to get states on board to get it ratified. Has nothing to do with morals, etc.
The SCOTUS already rammed sodomy down the craw of every state in TX vs Lawrence.
That horse has been out of the barn for quite some time.
And what about the Full Faith and Credit thingie that mandates states shall recognize a marriage performed in another state? That’s coming down the tracks at us right quick.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that amending the Constitution is unconstitutional ? Are you also trying to tell me that the US WAS NOT founded as a Judeo-Christian nation ?
WOW. I’ve seen it all today.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that amending the Constitution is unconstitutional ? Are you also trying to tell me that the US WAS NOT founded as a Judeo-Christian nation ?
WOW. I’ve seen it all today.
And? So are laws against stealing, murder, etc. Can you show me where the USC bans murder and theft?
What conservatives want is the ability of the states to be able to make laws against gross immorality such as sodomy, teaching children that "gay is good", forcing the homosexual agenda on everyone else via a vast network of legislation, abortion, and so on.
The huge giant fedgov has been legislating IMmorality on the states for decades. THAT is the problem.
Hmmmm. Time for you to get back on your medication. You’re decompensating again. Where exactly did I state I was surprised? Why is there a need for your rant in your reply to me? YOU indicated that Iran wasn’t a problem in your earlier comments to another FReeper. I attempted to point out that there ARE reasons to fear Iran, especially given that China will support them. Does this clear things up for you? Or, do you need me to type slower?
I’m telling you that amending the USC for marriage sets a bad precedent. Why do you want the FEDERAL GOVT to be getting in the marriage business?
The USC should be left alone for all but the most urgent and pressing need. Look at the disaster we face with the 16th Amend, Prohibition, etc.
Let the states and the PEOPLE & CITIZENS decide what they want.
Funny to - i bet you are screaming about Obama suing AZ, SC, AL, etc over immigration laws they pass right? Why is that? When you allow the Fed Govt to grow so big like this, the states get little or no leeway to deal with anything.
Leave marriage to the states along with most other things.
Anti-war? I'm a military vet sonny. How about you?
In fact, what this country needed 20 years ago, was a leader, who instead of fighting "compassionate" wars, spending the American treasure and lives, for decades at a time, who winked and nodded at tens of millions entering our country illegally, during *wartime* no less, would have immediately gained the respect from these medieval religious fruitcakes. They only fear one thing. Wipe a few of their dusty towns clean off the map, seized their oil fields, allowing them just enough to heat their voodoo temples. Make an example, send the GD message. Is this too anti-war for ya?
What we did was send them plane loads of American tax dollars, pallets full... which got lost...Shazamm. Can't find it! And what did their voodoo leaders say? We didn't do enough!
They wanted damns built instead of American generators. They want the U.S. to baby sit their voodoo tribes..The Afghan president has insulted us multiple times. They demand we stop night operations. They want cash... In fact Karzai, recently said he would side with Pakistan if the United States ever went to war with that country.
In a country gone mad
To quote my buddy little jeremiah:
“And what about the Full Faith and Credit thingie that mandates states shall recognize a marriage performed in another state? That’s coming down the tracks at us right quick.”
And of course, there’s those pesky morals.....
To quote my buddy little jeremiah:
“And what about the Full Faith and Credit thingie that mandates states shall recognize a marriage performed in another state? That’s coming down the tracks at us right quick.”
And of course, there’s those pesky morals.....
Homosexuals should have equal protection(not special)under the law
I on the other hand as an individual should have the right to SHUN them
Most Americans want nothing to do with queer marriage. Most of the time, queer marriage is inflicted on the people by activist judges who think they have the right to legislate from the bench.
That’s another very big reason a Constitutional amendment is needed to keep these social engineers at bay.
Are you aware of the many federal and state laws on the books forcing the homosexual agenda on us? Or are you not aware?
I didn't say that. I said our military could bounce Iran off the lunar surface and back. Now, suddenly after fighting compassionate wars for over decade in voodooville, Communist China is siding with Iran? What did you or anyone expect, that Communist China would support the U.S. in voodooville or anywhere?
What now? Ya going to bribe Red China? Nuke them? Take out Iran and tell the Chicoms, your move, give it your best shot?
It should have never got to this point.
Again, Communist China has already threatened the U.S. with nuclear weapons if we intervened regarding Taiwan. Our country is crawling with Communist Chinese spies...Our borders are a national security nightmare and a global embarrassment, and have been for decades...Where is the concern while so-called leaders in border states offer some of the offenders rewards and coupons?
Everyone keeps suggesting our foreign policies are great, and should remain on the course we're on. Are we supposed to forget these corrupt policies have sent this country to the brink, and now, have possibly painted ourselves into a corner?
Can we not protect our interest, borders and homeland without destroying ourselves? Yes we can, but we clearly haven't done that.
Our homeland is vulnerable due to a lawless internal invasion of our country, our borders a lawless joke, the economy and standard of living are in total decline, while our military is spread all over the planet playing baby sitter while passing out cash to those who stab us in the back and want to see the U.S. on it's knees. Unfortunately We're almost there.
I find these destructive foreign policies, a country killing recipe for disaster.
Bet the rent, we stay this course of being the global compassionate baby sitting sugar daddy, we're doomed.
The problem with equal protection under the law is that homosexuals are mentally ill, for one. Second, they are highly prone to molest children, so in a sane and rational society they would not be allowed to have jobs or vocations that allow them contact with children. Or jobs of a classified or highly important nature as they are prone to blackmail and as beforementioned, are mentally ill.
Once again, trying to help you out here, my post was all about providing an explanation why Iran is a problem. I'm certainly very happy YOU are not in any way responsible for making any military decisions in regards to attacking Iran - according to YOU, there would be no negative ramifications for such action. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. I find it incredible that you are incapable of understanding this.
It's also incredible that you desire to employ the "shotgun" approach to a discussion about Iran. Bringing into the discussion all sorts of tangential issues. Wow!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.