Posted on 12/24/2011 6:52:00 AM PST by Kaslin
This piece was co-authored by Ford O'Connell
It’s time to have a frank conversation about “the one,” and we are not talking about President Barack Obama.
The latest round of polling coming out of the Hawkeye State suggests that Texas Congressman Ron Paul could indeed win the 2012 Iowa caucuses.
In 2008, long-shot candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee scored a surprise win in Iowa, but his candidacy was serious and he was a governor. That year, eventual nominee Sen. John McCain essentially skipped Iowa, finishing fourth and marginalizing Iowa’s political impact.
Should Rep. Ron Paul, who first ran for president in 1988, win Iowa, it may be the last time the state has the honor of being the first state to hold a vote every four years.
We know Iowa GOP caucus-goers are frustrated with the status quo in Washington and are extremely concerned about the future direction of this great nation, but casting a vote this January for candidate Paul is beyond unwise for three reasons.
First, Ron Paul will not defeat President Obama in 2012. The most recent general election polling may suggest that Rep. Paul is within striking distance of Obama, but the president will score an easy victory next November if Paul is indeed his opponent. While conservatives and some establishment Republicans rightly cheer as Paul professes smaller government and fiscal accountability, his outrageous positions on U.S. foreign policy, particularly given the meteoric rise of China and continued saber-rattling by Iran and North Korea on the international scene, will cause most general election voters to double down on Obama before they pull the lever in Paul’s favor.
Let us also not forget that should Paul actually be the nominee, his decades-old incendiary (although unbylined) newsletters — once Team Obama highlights them — will likely damage the Republican brand for years to come. Simply put, if Paul is the Republican nominee, President Obama will be assured four more years in the White House, and Americans just cannot afford that.
Second, Ron Paul will not win the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, so there is no need to give him momentum. We know the field is large and there are several viable choices to be the Republican Party’s standard-bearer next year, but giving Paul a victory in Iowa can only serve to hinder the eventual Republican nominee’s chances in the general election.
In the past, Paul has not demonstrated himself to be a team player, and with our new primary rules, Paul could wreck havoc all the way to the convention in Tampa. This counterproductive behavior was on display in 2008, when he refused to endorse then-nominee McCain and proceeded to hold a protest near the national convention. If Paul accumulates enough delegates in 2012, he could cause some real problems for the eventual nominee and the party at the convention. Regardless of which candidate not named Paul ultimately wins the nomination, every potential GOP voter needs to be unified if Obama is to be defeated in 2012.
Third, voters must not embolden Ron Paul to make a third-party presidential run. Many of Ron Paul’s most ardent supporters display a mania for him that transcends policy and becomes idolatry. There is no need to give Paul’s supporters any reason to think that Paul will fare better in a three-way general election than in a two-candidate race. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News national poll, a third-party bid by Paul would almost certainly doom the eventual Republican nominee’s chances of capturing the White House in 2012, as he would draw many more votes from the Republican nominee than from President Obama. It also doesn’t help that Paul has yet to publicly rule out a third-party run.
Congressman Paul is extremely dangerous and his candidacy for president should not be taken lightly. He cannot be allowed to gain momentum in Iowa, either within the Republican field or in preparation for a third-party general election run. Our country’s future literally hangs in the balance. Helping Paul win a victory in Iowa will not only be a wasted vote, but it will likely challenge the party’s wisdom of permitting the Hawkeye State to hold the first nominating contest in the future.
The Hawkeye State may become known as the Blackeye State. Maybe the State of Insanity.
The caucus format is kind of made for candidates like Paul because motivated followers can stack the result. There is a price to pay for voting for him, or anyone else, because you can't just walk in, vote, and leave. There is more of a time commitment.
On the other hand, voters across the nation have to be able to see this year the stakes are the Nation. Since it seems like no one in the Republican field has yet caught the wave, so to speak, any one of the candidates can be a big winner in Iowa. If someone other than Paul wins, that person won't have won becaue he or she was "allowed" to.
I'm still pulling for Bachmann. Her biggest mistake to date, if my history is any kind of indication, was to have me for a fan.
They let him be there for a reason.
I am no fan of Paul, but the mindless arrogance of the headline writer is breathtaking.
Who is this a*****e?
In a free society, no individual or group can presume to allow or not allow a winner. Nor rigged polls, nor blowhard pundits.
The free citizen and ballot box allow.
Correct, Ron Paul's top contributors are individuals, not 'bundlers' associated with the ethonal lobby, Goldman Sachs, etc. By employer, the three branches are his largest source of his donations.
Also, this data is based upon self-identification. IOW, anyone can claim to be military.
So your theory is that there a vast conspiracy amongst the individuals who contribute to Ron Paul to falsify their employment information? Got any evidence to support this? Perhaps I should introduce you to Occam and his lovely razor.
Why do you think those who self identify as active military donate overwhelmingly to Ron Paul? Why so few donations from the active military to Gingrinch or Romney?
“Correct, Ron Paul’s top contributors are individuals, not ‘bundlers’ associated with the ethonal lobby, Goldman Sachs, etc. By employer, the three branches are his largest source of his donations.”
Wrong, open secrets lists numerous corporations, investment groups, as the next six individual contributors including a capital management firm, microsoft, boeing, Google, Overland Sheepskin, and IBM. These six contributors contributed almost exactly the same amount as those in the top three.
“So your theory is that there a vast conspiracy amongst the individuals who contribute to Ron Paul to falsify their employment information? Got any evidence to support this? Perhaps I should introduce you to Occam and his lovely razor.”
Not a vast conspiracy, there are enough RPaul supports to constitute a ‘vast’ anything. But, RPaul supports do coordinate their contributions, ie, the money bombs, etc.
“Why do you think those who self identify as active military donate overwhelmingly to Ron Paul? Why so few donations from the active military to Gingrinch or Romney?”
It hasn’t been established that these are ‘active military’. One can put any thing they want on these cards. Besides the fact that RPaul collected a measly 0.5% of his contributions from those who claimed to be military prove next to nothing.
Open Secrets, the source of this data, indicates that the ‘US Army’ contributions came from only 71 individuals. The US Army home page says there are 488,000 Army troops on active duty. Even if you assume that all individuals correctly reported their employer, then the 71 contributors account for 0.015779% of the active duty strenght of the US Army. One cannot claim with an credibility that 0.015779% are any indication that US Army troops support Ron Paul.
There is a search engine there. Feel free to plug in US Air Force, US Navy, etc. I’m sure the numbers are comparable.
If that is true then I could never vote for him.
If I recall, Ron Paul is a congressman from the state of Texas as was LBJ. Perry a governor. Glass houses and all.
Ref. your Post #42: What is the Source for your chart? Anyone can graph a chart. Who/What is your Source? I’m a disabled Vet and every Veteran I know, would NOT spit in Ron Paul’s a** if his guts were on fire.
This reads like lobbyists afraid of losing a major-party haven. Don’t worry, the Democrats would still love to have you folk.
Haven’t you heard: Romney is the de facto nominee before the first vote is cast. People are so predictable.
“Not allowed” to win? So they should rig the results if he does?
I would think that even those here who hate Ron Paul, if they have any integrity, would be concerned about the election process and that the will of the people is not ignored.
Thank you. Mind if I steal that? ;-)
Even if Virginia votes for Ron Paul to spite Romney, Romney must not be allowed to win.
Mitt Romney cannot be allowed to win -- not in Iowa, not in Virginia, not in SC, not on Super Tuesday. This communist squish scumbag must be defeated.
Other than that he's probably a swell guy.
Can’t wait for Dr. Paul’s speech at the convention, regardless of whether of not he is the candidate!
RP is put there to be a lightning rod - to attract and shunt energy harmelessly to ground, while all around him remain untouched.
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.