Can you hear it? The sound of Hillary Clinton's campaign in free fall. She placed in Iowa. She is down by more than ten percent in several polls of New Hampshirites. Barack Obama is absolutely destroying her in two recent South Carolina polls. Spouses share love, not necessarily personality traits. Bill Clinton was the "comeback kid" because he had energy, tenacity, and charisma. Hillary has none of the above. As I noted in an earlier post, her strength relied almost entirely on perception--that her winning the nomination was inevitable. Now that Obama has burst that bubble, Clinton must find something real--perception, though it often corresponds with reality, isn't necessarily reality--on which to attract potential voters. I am definitely going to win isn't a strong campaign pitch when your campaign doesn't look like it's going to win.
A few items make me pessimistic about the GOP's chances in the fall. Democrats not only outnumbered Republicans among Iowa caucus goers, but more viewers tuned in to Democrats than Republicans debating on ABC Saturday night. Both parties have exciting contests on their hands, but the Democrats have the exciting candidate.
After watching the media analysis of the ABC News debates, I am beginning to understand, but not agree with, the enthusiasm for Romney among some conservatives. The media despises him. He is public enemy number one among the fourth estate. Conservatives, more so than ever, seem to take their cues from the Left. When the Left hates someone, be that person George W. Bush or Mitt Romney, the Right reflexively likes him. It sounds strange, but Mitt Romney is the beneficiary of all that hatred.
A writer for the Boston Herald characterized Ron Paul supporters as "people you want to have a beer with." I got a conflicting report from a local bartender over the weekend. In December, Paul's supporters invaded his bar, wringing out their wet socks in the pub, spouting 9/11 "truther" conspiracy theories, and taking up space without buying drinks. The bartender actually felt compelled to comp drinks for several hot girls who, upon witnessing the Boston bar turn into the Star Wars bar, were ready to bolt for the door. I didn't want to believe it, but the truth is the truth (unless it's a truther's "truth"). I am a Ron Paul supporter, and hope people want to have a beer with me (or even buy me a beer). But I wonder how off-putting some of Paul's supporters, particularly ones who abuse the campaign by dragging in fringe issues not supported by the candidate, are. Can't we trade some of these people for some milquetoast McCain supporters and a few Eagle-Scouts-for-Romney to be named later?
If McCain beats Romney in Romney's backyard, the former Massachusetts's governor's campaign is in serious trouble. He alone has fought tooth-and-nail to win Iowa and New Hampshire. To loosely paraphrase Frank, if Romney can't make it here it's hard to see how he can make it anywhere. Alas, he can always rely on his various "home" states--Michigan, Utah, Massachusetts. But, like Hillary, he has a lot riding on New Hampshire. Losing won't be the death blow, but it might very well set it up.
Ron Paul is clearly in it for the long haul, but a strong finish (third?) in New Hampshire would give his campaign a boost. With the state's libertarian tradition and Free State invasion, one would think New Hampshire would be tailor made for Paul's Old Right views. Lest anyone think a presidential bid that doesn't land the presidency is a fool's errand, remember Pat Buchanan's 1992 wake-up call to conservatives that put the immigration issue on the political map. He was villified within the GOP for proposing a border fence. Now support for a border fence is obligatory among Republican presidential candidates. Sure, Barry Goldwater lost the race for the presidency in 1964. But his ideas won sixteen years later. Paul may not win the nomination, but his mere presence ensures a debate (instead of just a clash of personalities), revives forgotton ideas that were once standard, and, perhaps, launches a movement that results in candidates more committed to smaller government, a Washingtonian foreign policy, and the Constitution. In other words, if you run an ideas-based campaign, you can still win without actually winning.
Like the very public, non-secret ballot voting in Iowa, the New Hampshire tradition of Dixville Notch and Hart's Location casting midnight ballots is so cool. When those votes get cast, you know primary day--something special like the Olympics that happens only once in four years--has officially arrived.
I like Ron Paul. But his supporters make me not want to. They are creepy, straight up.
Ben-T,
How many of them do you know? I think that people really tuned into the net can easily get the sense that there are a ton of nutjobs out there that support Paul. It can also be an impression left about supporters about other candidates (just ask my girlfriend about online supporters of Hillary that run in the same internet circles as her). The internet amplifies crazies due to the anonymity and ease of it. It makes it easy for fanatics to post multiple times under different names, and how can you know if someone is a crazy for Paul or is actually anti-Paul and trying to undermine him by acting crazy on his behalf.
As for in real life I have attended two large rallies for Dr. Paul, one in NYC that is all over You Tube and was picked up on CNN coverage. It ended up in Grand Central Station so you may have seen it online. The other was in Philadelphia and had well over 500 people in attendance. I have only been left w/ positive impressions of Pauls's supporters from these events and saw a total of one "Truther" (he had a t-shirt which declared it).
Beyond the way the internet works there are two reasons Paul's supporters give off the nutjob vibe to many imo. One is that correct perception of Paul as a principled "outsider" who (unlike the sham Obama) is really arguing for significant philosophical change in the way the Fed govt is run attracts bad sorts who have their own anti-government pet projects. It is far easier to be a crazy "hanger-on" to an outsider like Paul than Mitt Romney.
Second, He just is not given enough mainstream attention to make his mainstream supporters clearly outweigh the small number of driven and visible nutjobs out there. Particularly since he is doing well w/ young people and likely most of these nutty Paul supporters are college aged at best (I have never run across a Truther in any forum who was not young).
If you watch him, like in last night's Tonight Show appearance, it is clear that Dr. Paul is not a nutjob, or eccentric even. He is really just a throwback conservative and it is unfamiliarity w/ what was common sense for conservatives in an earlier era that makes his ideas ring odd for some.
He should of course be judged by the quality of his ideas and character and not his goofiest supporters.
I went to his Boston Tea Party event, and I attended Mises University 07 an event put on by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which, while not a Ron Paul event, pretty much everyone at supported Ron Paul. I also know a few personally.
They are not all creepy (I am not creepy for example, at least I hope!) but many are.
I have to say that w/e one's impression of some of Dr. Paul's supporters he does have the most creative supporters of any candidate. In addition to signs I have seen such as "Dr. Paul cured my apathy" and "Don't tax me bro!" this video is absolutely ingenious and classic, I wish it ran as a real campaign ad:
Waahahahahahahaha. IT'S SO HARD RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!
Just heard Ron Paul on Laura Ingraham. Hate to say it, but he does sound a little nutty. Another one that thinks that if we just leave everybody alone, they'll do the same for us.
Holee $hite! Picture on Drudge of a rally where John McCain is holding up a stop global warming sign. More proof that this guy is whacked. I half expect him to start rolling the ball bearings and complaining about the missing strawberrys.
asdf: I don't think it is wacky at all to think that, in general, when you mind your own business you minimize people's desires to mess with you.
In fact, I think the Bush idea -- that by attacking and occupying countries in the middle east, we are likely to decrease the desire of young men in the middle east to kill our citizens -- is downright wacky.
I really believe it's naive to think that if we mind our own business the World will leave us alone. I know where Paul is coming from on this and in a fair and equitable World where everyone is civilized and listens to reason, it could work. But it isn't ever going to happen. Especially when we need to do business around the planet and no matter where we go or what we do, there will be some reason for others not to like us.
If we were going exercise that philosophy, where do we start? Do we sit here with our hands folded and wait until Islamists forget the grudges for every little insult and snub we supposedly perpetrated on them?
And I'm not convinced Bush believes that our aggression will decrease anything in the Middle East with the exception of reducing their will to attack us. But, make no mistake: there will always be someone out there to attack us.
I don't know if I would consider 50 years of sustained interference and aggression a "little snub" asdf. It is possible that the Muslims are attacking us because they are just irrational warmongering killing machines, but occam's razor would suggest otherwise.
So, what's the solution? Is the grudge ever resolved?
ASDF,
You seem to have an expansive view of what "minding our own business" means as far as our national defense grows. I mean in a couple of comments in this thread you say there will always be people out there finding reasons to hate us and attack us . . . but then you think it is "whacky" to suggest reducing our profile so as to encourage as *few* of such people as possible?
Do you think there is some fixed number of "people who hate America and want to attack it"? That is, such people can't be "created"? B/c you seem to think that indefinite occupations of Arab countries has neither a positive or a negative effect on the amount of people who want to attack us nor their desire to do so. Seriously, that is a whacky idea.
The only conclusion to draw from what you are saying is that we SHOULD just sit here wringing our hands b/c YOU are saying that we can never eliminate what you you think it would be a mistake to discount, that there will "always be someone out there to attack us."
But Dr. Paul's position has never been to "sit here wringing our hands." He supported the invasion of Afghanistan (though not the indefinite occupation) and as I mentioned in another thread has repeatedly tried to have letters of marque and reprisal issued. Look it up if you don't believe me. You are attacking a "whacky" strawman that exists only in your mind.
ASDF,
I just listened to the Laura Ingraham interview you refer to and she is the nutjob, I don't know what you were listening to. I had not listened to her before, she sounds like a malicious idiot to me (i.e. radio talk show host). And it was a very short exchange that you are again basing your name calling of Dr. Paul on.
"So, what's the solution? Is the grudge ever resolved?" - asdf
Ceasing to interfere in their affairs and commit aggression against Muslim nations might help.
Bruce, with all due respect, you are the ultimate Paul rumpswab. From my perspective (and I could be wrong) I think Paul sounds nervous and a tad unhinged.
Ben, you're living in your own little world.
By the by...uberfrau may have misquoted me with the 'wacky' reference and you gents just continued to run with it. Maybe you're not reading as carefully as you should be.
I said Paul sounds a bit 'nutty' and McCain was 'whacked'.
And as Marcus Aurelius said the Maximus in 'Gladiator', 'there is always somebody left to fight'.
ASDF,
It is nice that this is all anonymous and online b/c those are fighting words (rumpswab) where I come from you dickwheat.
You've got to be kidding Batman. Hope all Paul supporters aren't as thin skinned cause' you're all in for a long painful haul if you are.
ASDF I find it odd that you are so devoted to the notion that dropping military-grade explosives on innocent people is the only way to solve the problem of terrorism that you are unwilling even to discuss the idea of alternative solutions.
P.S: What do you think the proper response would be from us if the Chinese government invaded the USA, occupied much of it for fifty years, repeatedly bombed Boston, blockaded the city so that we could not get proper food or medicine, relentlessly interfered in American-Mexican relations etc?
Ben-T,
I never said that there was anything “so conservative about him”. In particular, that is. Just that people seem confused with their need for conservatism and balancing that need with which candidate would be the best ‘R’ for President.
Even RR was not the perfect Conservative and as the country seems to be moving to the center/left anyway, I don’t know if we’ll ever see another RR Conservative who is a viable candidate. Some people think that’s Paul and they’re probably right, but unless he can bring his numbers up he’s not a viable candidate.
That leaves the big three. And out of them, the guy who was a Republican Governor and who did the best job he could do (pi$$ing against the Dem tide) to run a state full of leftists, had run successful businesses, had run a successful endeavor like the Olympics, is anti-illegal immigration is finally right on abortion and, by all accounts, is a normal and happy family man with strong values and religious convictions seems to stand out.
Bottom line is, find me the perfect person/candidate and I’ll vote for him. Or her.
Bruce,
When thinking about it, I sometimes forget that words have meanings so I'd like to apologize for that comment earlier. To me, that slang word means nothing. However, to you it did and I'll try to be more careful going forward.
