In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected President because 19% of the voters were naive enough to pull the lever for a certified wackjob: Ross Perot. Looking at the results of the Ames straw poll, I have a sinking feeling that history may repeat itself in 2008.
In the straw poll, Ron Paul garnered 9% of the vote. This confirms that he has virtually no chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee. Unfortunately, it also confirms that he is capable of siphoning a significant number votes away from more credible candidates.
Here’s why this gives me the “willies”: Once it becomes clear to Paul that he hasn’t a prayer of getting the Republican nod, he may well run for President on the Libertarian ticket (as he did in 1988). He won’t get the number of votes that Perot received, but it won’t take that many to guarantee Hillary’s election.
As in Perot’s case, almost all of Paul’s support in a general election would come from voters who would otherwise (though perhaps reluctantly) vote Republican. Because the major party candidates will likely be within a couple of percentage points of one another, even a 5% showing for Dr. Paul would cinch it for Clinton.
So, if you like the idea of government-run health care, you should get in there and work your heart out for Ron Paul. His candidacy constitutes Hillarycare’s best hope.
Comments 19
The number of people who will vote for Ron Paul who would vote for ANY of the neocon pro-war Republicans is infintesmally insignificant. If anything, Paul would garner more votes from anti-war liberals, thus securing a GOP win in your unlikely scenario. Most Paul supporters would likely not vote at all if he weren’t running or write someone unlikely but philosophically acceptable in.
Posted 12 Aug 2007 at 12:16 am ¶He won’t. He has stated time and time again that he WILL NOT run on a third party ticket for 2008 no matter what the outcome.
Posted 12 Aug 2007 at 12:22 am ¶Perhaps you should support Ron Paul’s bid for the nomination then? After all, he can’t siphon support from the Republican nominee if he IS the Republican nominee.
The usual Republican Hillaryphobia fear tactic didn’t work in ‘92 or ‘96 then failed again in her Senate races in ‘00 and ‘06…and it isn’t going to work this time either…and you know it.
The proof is the lousy attendance at the Straw Poll today. The Republican base doesn’t care about Hillary Clinton.
Wake up.
Posted 12 Aug 2007 at 12:41 am ¶Of course, the correct solution is to work for Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination, so that we can not only avoid the socialists, like Hillary, but also the fascists, like Bush. Remember the Medicare prescription drug program? Lets face it: these neocons are all ex-Trotskyites, who are just approaching socialism from another direction, with God on their side to keep the theocrats in line. They have stolen the republican party. The only answer is freedom, which means either Libertarianism or Ron Paul.
Posted 12 Aug 2007 at 3:16 am ¶He has stated time and time again that he WILL NOT run on a third party ticket for 2008 no matter what the outcome.
He also claims to be against government intervention in the health care market and runaway spending. But, as I point out here, he often reneges on his commitments.
Posted 12 Aug 2007 at 6:18 am ¶No neo-con will get my vote.
Posted 12 Aug 2007 at 11:37 am ¶Your fear is valid. Hillary Clinton will probably become president and bring socialized medicine with her. But your solution is completely false. The only way to insure a GOP victory is to SUPPORT Ron Paul. Like it or not Iraq will decide this election. There are still some people left in the Republican party that want to stay the course, and they will try their hardest to elect the candidate that will (romney, guiliani, thompson, take your pick), but Hillary or any other Dem for that matter will OWN them on the war issue, which MOST of the country is against. Bring in Ron Paul, now he trumps the Dems who all voted FOR the war. And then you get the added bonus of all the social conservatism and economic freedom that you can handle.
If you ignore parties and look at the general attitude of the voting public, the only chance the GOP has of defeating Hillary is Ron Paul.
Posted 12 Aug 2007 at 3:42 pm ¶The only way to insure a GOP victory is to SUPPORT Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has no prayer of getting the Republican nomination. If (by some miracle) he were to get the GOP nod, the media would immediately turn on him and make him out to be a dangerous nutjob.
Posted 12 Aug 2007 at 4:53 pm ¶Funny, one of the writers above calls George Bush a “Fascist.” Apparently “Rich Paul” (wonder if there’s any relation?), is not aware that his hero Ron Paul was a big Bush back in the middle to late 1990s. If it were not for Gov. Bush, Ron Paul would not be a Congressman today.
Ron faces a very tough general election fight against a well-funded Austin-backed Democrat - Lefty Morris. Bush (though Karl Rove), pulled out all the stops for Paul. He had every Republican who was anybody like DeLay, Hutchison, Bonilla, Armey, et.al. come down to Texas Congressional District 14 to campaign for Paul.
We won the general by a hair - 51 to 47.5%.
Ron Paul returned the favor to Bush, by backing him, and even appearing at fundraisers for him, in 1999 for his Presidential race.
Ron Paul even had Bush’s portrait in the entrance way to our main Congressional office in Freeport - very first thing one saw when walking through the door.
But now it’s convenient for Ron Paul to bash Bush and the War in Iraq, cause he sees that as an avenue to garner liberal media attention for his whacky views on the Gold Standard and the “coming Depression.” (Which coincidentally will serve to boost his significant interests in Gold stocks.)
Posted 13 Aug 2007 at 10:08 am ¶David, that was a most excellent editorial.
It hasn’t occured to all these Ron Paul Cultists yet, but if and when they vote for a 3rd party in 2008, presumably Ron Paul as a Libertarian, or lesser-known LPers like Steve Kubby or George Phillies, they will be voting for Hillary Clinton, and thusly, implementation of complete Socialized Health Care for the United States.
What could be more anti-libertarian?
David, wonderful editorial. Permission to reprint over at http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com? And dognabbit! How about a photo of yourself that I could include with the editorial?
Posted 13 Aug 2007 at 10:10 am ¶Mike,
And just where do you think those of us who support the War on Islamo-Fascism would go in such a scenario: Paul winning the GOP nomination.
I would never, ever, not in a million years, vote for someone Republican or Democrat who is soft on Islamo-Fascism. And I dare say 60 to 70% of the entire Republican Party, not too mention 95% of all Military Voters, feel the same way.
If by some huge accident Ron Paul were to win the nomination, you’d see a massive 3rd party effort develop among those of us who support our Troops, the Military and our continued efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We’d probably draft a Military hero like Tommy Franks or Norman Schwarzkopf for President. And against two anti-War fanatics - Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul - our side would win hands down.
Posted 13 Aug 2007 at 10:16 am ¶Eric, I’d be delighted for you to reprint the post (and I’ll e-mail a photo).
Posted 13 Aug 2007 at 11:14 am ¶Those of you who think that the Republicans are going to hold the line on whatever term you use for single payer healthcare are fooling yourselves. When big business comes calling looking to dump its healthcare obligations, they’ll find willing ears, just as a Republican Congress and a Republican Pres. were more than willing to enact the largest expansion of entitlement programs since LBJ. You can pretend that this isn’t the case with scare tactics, but any fool knows that scare tactics is all it is.
As for the “war on Islamo-Fascism”, given that Paul supported going to Afghanistan, I doubt he is “soft” on it. You need to check the polls of Republicans, and the military, on Iraq. Given the lack of any indication of competence in running the Iraq campaign from anyone but McCain, Paul’s position of pulling out and concentrating on actual threats with clearly defined goals is likely quite appealing to the Republican party voters.
Posted 13 Aug 2007 at 9:32 pm ¶David, your article is not up on the site with your photo. Looks great!
http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com
Posted 14 Aug 2007 at 10:31 am ¶Matt,
Ron Paul did not actually support Military intervention in Afghanistan. I was serving as his Senior Political Aide at the time. Myself and another Senior Staffer had to literally threaten to resign to get him to vote for the War in Afghanistan. He dithered til the very last possible moment.
The only thing that pushed him over the edge, was the “other Senior Staffer” telling him straight out that he would absolutely lose Victoria, and have no shot at reelection if he would not vote for the War.
Why the major media has not covered this incident is beyond me. Although, the NY Times did mention it in passing in a feature story about him last month.
Still, it says an awful lot about Ron Paul’s character or lack thereof. He cared very little, if at all for the victims of 9/11.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
Posted 14 Aug 2007 at 10:34 am ¶US Congressman Ron Paul, R-TX
1997-2003
So a vote for it does not count as supporting it? Who knew?
Although, if he cared for the victims of 9/11 so much, a vote to invade Saudi Arabia would have been more effective in terms of retribution, given the nationalities of the perpetrators of the act, wouldn’t you say? If you think Iraq was a better target, what does that say about your character?
Posted 14 Aug 2007 at 2:21 pm ¶You guys are all insane. I would suggest looking at the voting record of the candidates and choosing which is closest to your own beliefs. Your reasons for bashing Ron Paul aren’t very good. If don’t like his record or message then don’t vote for him. He is not Hillary Clinton; a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. I really wish you guys would vote for someone you believed in instead of picking the closest thing with the most money.
Posted 17 Aug 2007 at 2:21 pm ¶Ron Paul is the only ONE of the candidates(and probably most of those in government positions) that is FOR the people and NOT the government(that is why the globalist owned media is smearing him any way they can and blacking him out most of the time).Ron Paul unlike the other candidates is NOT a member of the CFR=NWO=more slvery and control from the government of the people,stealing our money through taxes/IRS and taking our personal liberties away under the scare tactic of “terrorism” and smokescreen of “security”.Only time we should be at war is to DEFEND our soil here at home.If the military surrounded the borders of the USA then it would be pretty hard,if not impossible to infiltrate the United States.But the NWO elite know that if the military is spread thinly away from home then they can implement more restrictions on american liberties one by one unless we have a noose around our neck when they kick the chair out from underneath us.And the ones that are left will be herded like sheep to the slaughter until their is no more left to resist their NWO which is equal to Hitler supremacists.
The welfare state(americans taxes being stolen from us and being distributed to support illegal aliens bills when we can barely support ourselves and our families) and war is breaking the economy down so badly that
we will be forced to submit to the NWO just to survive.
Ron Paul is a very intelligent patriot(with integrity) that CAN be trusted based on his non hypocritical(non flip floppy)past in the political arena.He has also written books in regards to the economy and follows after some world renown economic leaders who knew what they were talking about.
Ron Paul is the only one running who actually speaks truth without hypocrisy(look at his historical voting record and speeches-he has always been for the under dog and poor/middle class and NOT big business/government who steals from us.
I don’t want another 4-8 years of Bush type individual running this dying country.What we need is an honest patriot like Ron Paul.
Posted 20 Aug 2007 at 9:10 pm ¶You always know when someone is full of it when they start with name calling and labels and are weak on facts. Ross Perot was right. America has been sold out and jobs have left by the millions.
Posted 02 Sep 2007 at 12:20 pm ¶If you want to blame anyone for electing Hillary put it right on the shoulders of the worst President in American History. George W. Bush.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a moot point if he can’t secure our borders and sovreignty at home.
Post a Comment