Ron Paul has separated from the pack in New Hampshire and now trails only Rudy McRomney. According to a CNN/WMUR poll, Paul now garners the support of eight percent of likely primary voters. Already he is ahead of where the naysayers thought he'd be--dead last. But beating the competition and not expectations is the task at hand. New Hampshire, with its quirky, Yankee libertarianism, is tailor made for a candidate such as Ron Paul. Pat Buchanan, a candidate whose positions were less in tune with prevailing Granite State attitudes, won the state in 1996. Eight percent is encouraging, but Paul must do better if he wants to be more than a protest candidate.
Similarly, Mike Huckabee has made major strides in Iowa, a state where Pat Robertson finished second in 1988. He currently runs second in most polls of likely Iowa caucus goers. Ric Flair, Ted Nugent, and Chuck Norris, a trio whose superpowers include the figure-four leg-lock, the 300-m.p.h. crossbow, and the roundhouse kick, have endorsed Huckabee. One celebrity, I am told, does not concur.
The script wasn't written this way. The approved candidates are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. They posted early name recognition, showed capacity to raise money, appeared on magazine covers, and, most importantly, never dared express contrarian opinions. Support another candidate and GOP opinion makers will look at you as if you were Yoko Ono, or O.J., or their secret child. Do as your told, Republicans. Vote for Rudy McRomney or Fred. No thanks, the voters are saying. They want more choices then the ones shoved down their throats. Huckabee and Paul have ideas (one's quite different than the other's). They have personality. They have neat histories. Because of this, their candidacies have shown the most positive movement.
It would reinvigorate our democracy if either of these guys won a primary or caucus, or gasp, made a run at the nomination. Elections, voters would be reminded, aren't decided by money or media a year in advance.
You are right Dan, it would be great to see the American people tale back the elections from the MSM-Beltway machine.
Looking at the PDF on the poll in its entirety there are a couple of more fascinating points about it.
1) Rudy is trending up significantly in the number of voters who have decided they would under no circumstances vote for him.
2) The fluidity of the support for the front-runner Romney as measured by the extent to which his supporters are still open to changing their votes.
3) The strong views for or against Paul. His supporters are very decided in his favor, and he also has the largest percentage of Republicans polled who say they would not vote for him under any circumstance. That made me smile, man the GOP blows.
What the last point means is that the 8% number of Paul is likely a more solid number than the percentages for the candidates ahead of him, so given that he also has 22% who would consider voting for him he has room for growth since when they decide to vote for him they apparently don't change their minds.
Finally, this poll doesn't seem to measure too well what the independents are going to do. They may vote in the Obama/Clinton Dem race, or may come to the GOP side, in which case a good number would possibly vote for Paul. He is doing well w/ the independent segment as is and there is still a huge chunk of them up in the air.
I think that Zogby dude said 15-17% is likely for Paul, and I can see that right now. Of course, I hope he spends more time there and really pushes that money into ads and makes an even bigger impact.
I think he is also polling around 7-8% in Arizona.
I have picked on Huckabee a lot here and, well, that probably won't stop, but here is a column that Jonah Goldberg wrote that lays out a major problem I have w/ Huckabee, namely his statist moralism (i.e. progressivism):
This must be the first thing he has written I didn't find completely dumb. The right could stand to have a serious discussion about its post Cold war philosophy. I think a fusionism would still work if we could jettison this "big-government conservatism" or "compassionate conservatism." Rather we should recapture that animating federalism which made the pre-WWII conservatives such forceful critics of the growth of the nanny/bureaucratic state at home as akin to the communist threat from abroad. The culture war can still be fought (I say even better) if conservatives would again push for a proper scope to the Federal government, giving more power to the local and the state level to work most issues out.
Remember to cover the "Huckabomb" today.
http://nov20forthechildren.com/index.htm
Obi,
That is awesome! LMAO, too precious.
I've never understood how being the Mayor of a city that was attacked makes Giuliani the "best-equipped to handle terrorism."
how has mccain "never dared to express contrarian views"? hasn't he been crushed by advocating a comprehensive immigration plan? didn't he call for more ground troops at the beginning of the iraq war? didn't he advocate fiscal responsibility when others were spending out their asses and irresponsibly lowering taxes?
i don't agree with mccain politically, but it's always baffled me that he doesn't get more love from mainstream conservatives of integrity, despite his neo-conservative inclinations.
To be honest I find Ron Paul's success to be extremely frustrating.
Instead of drawing attention the Great Libertarian Message, which has a lot to teach us, the campaign itself as expounded condemnation of neoconsevatives (which is GOOD but isn't a good campaign platform) and a Neville Chamberlain-esque approach to war.
Worst of all, the fringe left and fringe right of his supporters are boosting his popularity AND his notoriety while doing nothing to help spread the Anti-Leftist messages. The Anti-War lefists in his political gang and the White Nationalists just make Ron Paul look worse which blurs the Great Libertarian Message. I was hoping that while Ron Paul loses the nomination (and he will lose the nomination) he would be able to spread the Message and I don't see it.
Instead all I hear are discussions about how he should dismiss his fringe Nationalist supporters (he should) and how his Constitutional interpretation may be off.
It's starting to look like the opposite of Tom Tancredo's campaign. He got his message out for his GREATEST ISSUE and the BEST THING ABOUT HIM is done but he's been phased out.
Chris: How do you "dismiss" supporters? A sports team, candidate, or a rock group doesn't choose its fans. Its fans choose them.
Chris,
He is trying to win a nomination and stays on that topic, so upon what do you think his campaign is reduced to a condemnation of neocons? Further, how could you possibly call his "approach to war" Neville Chamberlain-esque? Not only is that historically ignorant it is simply a misplaced slur. How can you purport to be opposed to the neocons, and support a "Great Libertarian Message" and possibly slur him in such a way for his non-interventionism? Something smells rotten in Denmark.
Finally, the only ones pushing the meme to smear Ron Paul b/c of the purported prominence of extremists amongst his supporters are neocons and there lackeys. Even the MSM is ignoring it because it is patently absurd to ask a campaign to screen its donors for ideological purity. Ron Paul has had well over 100,000 individuals donate money to him and not even Hillary's staff is large enough to research such a number of donors.
The man simply cannot be bought, no interest group owns him at all (unlike the many lobbies that the "major" candidates are owned by). He is a consistent conviction statesmen. That is why you are resorting to smear tactics, b/c you can't compete on ideas.
To answer Dan's query to Chris, I'm a supporter who has been dismissed on many occasions. Certainly by singing groups who choose to spout off about their personal politics instead of entertaining me with thoughtful songs. Definitely by politicians who get inside the beltway and forget where they came from. And while this isn't personal, I'm glad I wasn't a fan of the Florida Marlins who gutted their championship team, showing total disrespect for their fans. Dismissed, all of them.
If that makes me a rareity for demanding accountability for my buck or my vote, or even my support, well that's just sad in my worldview.
As for Ron Paul, by making sure his message is distant from those at the fringes of Libertarianism, the unwelcome supporters would probably fade away. Personally I'd like to see Mr. Paul, as well as all other politicians, loudly and clearly, disassociate themselves from their followers' more distasteful messages and from failed philosophies that otherwise refuse to die.
Daniel,
Paul's message is already distant from that of racists and others, therefore he has nothing to be concerned about. His message is consistent, clear, and backed by 30 years in public life w/ his speeches readily available online. You have to connect his message to these extremists to be making any point at all, but none of these "conservative" critics of his are even willing to try and do that.
Let me take a stab at the possible motivation of a neo-Nazi to support Paul. Paul for 30 years has been opposed to the manipulation of the value of our currency by a central bank/the Fed. He holds this view and argues for it on many rational grounds (its unconstitutionality as well as economic grounds such as that it causes inflation). Let's guess that an anti-semite Nazi might hold the stupid opinion that the money system is controlled by an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers. He sees a guy running for president criticizing our central bank system and says, hey that's my guy! Does the addled "logic" of a neo-Nazi thus impugn the arguments of Ron Paul? No, of course not. Does Paul have any cause to place caveats on his positions by saying "I am critical of the Fed for reasons of a, b, c, d but NOT because I believe their is an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers!" Don't you see how absurd that is? Everyone would at all times have to add addendums to their positions and basically spend more time disclaiming any crazy reason someone can come up w/ to hold that same position than arguing for their position.
And THAT is exactly the point of these smear tactics, to shut Paul up. The point is to avoid and end political debate over the ideas he espouses and the positions he holds. His detractors are demanding that he spend his time explaining how he holds views NOT based on racist or conspiratorial reasons. But since he doesn't hold opinions on those grounds . . . he already DOES NOT need to defend himself against the charge.
Btw,
Besides being a reprehensible tactic there is something suprmemely immature about this notion that it is somehow wrong to support a candidate not because of their views and stances but because of some of the people who are attracted to and support that candidate.
It is equivalent to saying "look, those nerds like so and so for class president, so we better support this other guy, who wants to do what a nerd does!" Or, "all the cool kids are giving money to cause A so I will to." How could the ideological "purity" of grassroot level supporters of someone running for national office ever be taken as a serious factor in whether or not to support that candidate? It is completely lacking in perspective.
Giuliani actually has many shady cronies, not the least of which is Kerik. That is much more revealing. And w/ a slight effort of research I am certain that all the candidates could be revealed to have received donations from nutjobs and racists. That no one bothers to pursue this line w/ all the candidates reflects the fact that it is a bankrupt line of attack engaged in from a position of weakness as regards actual ideas.
Bruce
Perhaps what I should have said was "continuing his message" instead of "making sure." I like Ron Paul, and I know he doesn't have to answer every criticism, but sometimes I just want to hear it. Maybe by pointing out the unfair way his detractors are attacking him, he can advance the real issues. Or maybe I just need a new prescription for my rose-colored glasses.
But Daniel,
Whenever a journalist bothers to interview him they could simply ask him these questions to allow him the chance to respond. This controversy is really only on the Blogosphere, it hasn't cracked into the MSM much at all so far as I have seen. And Paul hasn't exactly been plastered all over the major news outlets in case you haven't noticed. And despite his popularity on the web his campaign has generally been very hands off w/ it, they are still a relatively speaking tiny operation. He is also out there stumping in very traditional fashion. So where is he supposed to make this open defense of himself? Is he supposed to add it into his stump speech ("Let's get rid of the Fed . . . btw, not because I am anti-Semitic so bugger off all you Nazis!"), that would certainly be an odd spectacle.
If you say his campaign site, well he does currently have a response from his campaign to Mona Charen's smear job. But note how they felt it worthwile politically to write a letter to the editor of National Review, to defend themselves in that media outlet, the traditional major organ of the conservative movement. I just don't see the campaign trying to bother w/ responding all over the blogosphere to the multitude of leftist or neocon outlets that have made this charge against him. He has named the neocons as the people he is trying to defeat w/in the GOP on national televison, and clearly the left is his natural opponent. But the campaign HAS made a defensive appeal to a major conservative establishment. This shows that their game plan is to stay on the offensive in spreading their message rather than fall into the trap of trying to defend themselves to people who would never support him under any circumstances.
The only thing I have seen the media ask him in television interviews a couple times is about the "Truther" element that supports him. And when asked if he thinks 9/11 was an inside job, he says, "no of course not, that is absurd." So far I have yet to see anyone ask him about the supposed multitudes of other "kooks" who support him (racists, southern secessionists, etc.).
The best thing for everyone to do to marginalize racists is to ignore them. This neo-Nazi guy has gotten so much free publicity for himself by writing that $500 check, it is really pathetic. That is why I won't mention him by name.
I may as well provide the link to the Paul campaign's defense of itself posted on NRO.
Paul doesn't need to be all over the net defending himself against smear jobs when he has the Dark Avenger to do it for him! (At least at Flynn Files).
