The media is finally catching on to what many of us have thought for a while. Ron Paul is likely to win the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd of next year. Now of course, in the 24-hour news cycle in which we live, that same media also has to make this a really big deal, or something nearly earth-shattering.
They say that a win in Iowa will propel Ron Paul to the main stage and he has a chance of winning the nomination. Well guess what, it won’t. They say that if Ron Paul wins Iowa he will likely seek a third party run after the establishment GOP does everything it can to keep him from the nomination. Well, once again, that seems really doubtful. They say that a Paul win in Iowa would be the undoing of the Iowa caucuses, making them completely meaningless in the future. Well, how would that be any different than now?
The Iowa caucuses, at this point, are nothing more than a media spectacular. It is actually quite sad when you think about it. A state that literally gets zero attention in the general election becomes the fixation of all political junkies for months, and only because it happens to be first. The truth it that under most circumstances, the Iowa caucuses do nothing for the person who wins them. They are only slightly more meaningful than the death sentence that has become the Ames Straw Poll (ask Michele Bachmann about that one). Think about it, these are the same caucuses that gave us George H.W. Bush in 1980, Bob Dole in 1988, and Mike Huckabee in 2008. Going back even further, in 1972 and 1976 it gave the Democrats victory to “uncommitted” and in 1992, Bill Clinton got less than 5% of the vote. And sure, they get it right sometimes, it worked out for Barack Obama, but think about it, there are only so many people running in a given cycle, statistically it has to happen once in a while.
The point is, Ron Paul poses no risk to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the Iowa caucuses. In fact, he is the perfect candidate for them. He is a dark horse candidate with a cult following and a ton of cash playing in a state with a system that lends itself to cult personalities (see President Obama) and constant political advertisement. Paul supporters are the most hardcore among us, they will attend a caucus any time and anywhere so long as they have the ability to stand up and preach about his consistency and adherence to constitutional principle, which really cannot be denied. The congressman has been running for this very primary contest since 2007, he almost deserves it.
The real problem will be if I am wrong and Paul really does get some momentum. Not because he would be a bad President, but because he would be a political nightmare for the party. It is not just Paul’s positions on certain (i.e. foreign policy) that poses an issue in the general election, its a slew of other, less substantive things as well. Ron Paul was born during the Great Depression. When compared to President Obama, Paul is ancient coming in at 76 years old. He is older than John McCain when he ran in 2008, and his age was considered an issue then (especially after he chose Sarah Palin to be VP). Ron Paul also is not the most disciplined campaigners. While he can do no wrong in the eyes of his followers, he is known for sometimes speaking before he really thinks. Not in the same way as Newt Gingrich, but certainly enough to get tripped up by an unfriendly media or a slick debate question next fall. A prime example was his recent comments on Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann during an interview with the tonight show. While I cannot stand Santorum or Bachmann, I still cringed every time the clip of Paul was replayed on television the next day.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVJbDHPHVQo
Recent polling has shown that if Paul were to run as an independent candidate, something he has done in the distant past, that President Obama would handily beat Mitt Romney if the election were held today. However, without Paul in the race, Romney would tie the President at 47%. While I feel that American could likely learn a lot from four years with a President Paul, I am not so sure that we would be better off learning about four more years under President Obama, which seems like it would be inevitable, from Candidate Paul. Paulites should take pride in their coming victory on January 3rd, and then check back into reality. American taxpayers have a country to take back in November, and it is just not going to happen if Ron Paul gets his way.
I have to disagree. He has the best shot against Obama in many polls and he attracts more democrats and independents then any other candidate.
He's also a neo-confederate cranky blame-America-first jew-hating isolationist 9/11 truther-friendly nutbar, while we're counting.
that bringing the tpoors home will solve all of our financial problems, however I truly believe we put ourselves in more danger, and are spending more money than what is neccessary to secure our safety, occupying 130(give or take) countries across the world. I find 20% was spent on the Defense Dept., or your 1/5 that sounds insignificant, but in fact is 689 billion of the nations 2010 budget. Not exactly a drop in the bucket, Matt. Also, Ron Paul is for getting rid of/cutting entitlement/spending increases, respectively. I'm sure you do agree with some of Ron Paul's policies, you're just not informed on them because you can't get past his (and the constitution's) foreign policies.Funny that you mention the Soviets in the Cold War era, perhaps you need to open that text book and understand that overexpansion was the main cause of the bankruptcy and end of the USSR, and not just them, look at other great civilizations throughout history. America's isolationism was hardly a cause of WW2, sanctions after WW1 placed on Germany, sanctions placed on Japan's fuel sources, nationalistic tension(resulting from countries wanting control over other countries), racism, and the rippling effects of the Great Depression did. Ron Paul thinks the border fence is a bad one, and I agree. Having a strong military IS the federal gov. most important constitutional duty. However, how we use that military needs to be on a constitutional basis. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan(with the exception of killing Bin Laden) and Libyan operations were unconstitutional. Ron Paul had more donations from members of the US military than all the GOP candidates combined, also beating out Obama, the current commander in chief. So even the men and women overseas are beginning to see the fruitlessness of our occupations. I'll take the views of the people that are actually serving overseas, over someone sitting in their underwear, blogging in Jersey. Bush ran on the idea of no nation building in 2000, Obama in 2008 said he would bring our tpoors home from Afghanistan within months of him being president. Both knew these were popular ideas among the nation(it's what the majority of the American people want), neither president stuck by their promises. I like the last quote you had. However, you're just confused as to where the constitutional boundaries lie.
Matt,Ron Paul's policies aren't isioatolnist theories, they're non-interventionist's theories. Occupying these countries only isolates us more from the people of that region through resentment(but then again you probably don't care about them when it comes to your safety'.) We're not making any progress in the war on terror. One leader dies, another replaces him just as quickly. It's not our responsibility to protect Israel, the stoning of women, and other barbaric acts in other countries. Ron Paul recognizes that we are broke and shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of border disputes half way across the world, especially when we can't assume control of our OWN border. Making comments such as Ron Paul is crazy because YOU don't agree with his logic, yes logic(ideas not based on raw emotion such as fear of terrorism)is unprofessional and misleads your readers. Let's look at the facts, our country is broke, our military is spread too thin, and we need a serious makeover both socially and economically. Look at the protests on both sides as proof. To vote for these status quo candidates will only keep this country heading in the same downward spiral we've been going down for the past century. Neo-cons want less government in the financial sector, yet they want big government when it comes to militarism. Well guess what, you can't have both.