With $20 milliion to spend New Hampshire could be the key to the rest of the election for Ron Paul.
A lot of folks are pinning their hopes for a great renewal in American politics on Ron Paul and his 'revolution.' Pollsters and pundits don't give Paul much of a chance when it comes to winning the Republican nomination, despite the unquenchable enthusiasm of his supporters. Their optimism tells them that all the polls and predictions are wrong and that Paul will surprise the world and come from nowhere and win primary after primary and seize the nomination by storm, and then be unbeatable with bipartisan support in the general election. Sure it's mostly pure fantasy, but it's a seductively appealing fantasy.…
Article comments
126 - Dr Dreadful
You're too nice, Clav.
I call stark stonking nutcase.
127 - Dave Nalle
Alan Keyes is running again?!?
You may get a shock when you see your ballot, Dr. D. There are about 30 candidates running in the primaries in various states who you've probably never heard of. Some may not qualify for the ballot, but the requirements in a primary in a lot of states are quite low, so a lot of them have. I've thought about doing an article on some of their interesting platforms if I have time.
Dave
128 - Clavos
"You may get a shock when you see your ballot, Dr. D."
Not only he, but I too. Doc's a Brit.
129 - handyguy
I have no idea whether Paul's web-zealot support will translate into votes. But I did shock myself by watching his entire interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press and actually finding the man fairly sensible and interesting.
Until he said some unfortunate things regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and then about Abraham Lincoln's 'error' in trying to preserve the union through Civil War, that is. Then my Nutcase Radar started beeping rather loudly.
And he squirmed like a real pol when Russert pointed out inconsistencies in his statements.
I'm not always a fan of Russert, but his series of quite tough interviews with candidates should be watched by everyone who cares about this election. They can all be readily watched online.
130 - Jacob
"And he squirmed like a real pol when Russert pointed out inconsistencies in his statements."
-- handyguy
What inconsistencies?
Of course, being on GE's NBC payroll, Russert had to play gotcha games by bringing up 'what if' issues that can be debated endlessly, but have no relevance to Ron Paul's positions to get the country back to economic reality.
131 - Baronius
Doc, please tell me all about the word "stonking"!
Handy, I watch Russert occasionally. His people actually do their research before an interview, and he asks pointed questions. The funny thing is, he doesn't even listen to the answers. He just moves on to another quote and question. So all the research goes to waste.
132 - handyguy
Russert plays 'gotcha games' with nearly all his interviewees. It's called journalism. If you choose to define him by who owns the network he broadcasts on, you're just demonstrating the smallness of your mind, not 'proving' anything.
The inconsistencies were mostly, but not entirely, about statements Paul made as a Libertarian candidate years ago: abolishing public schools, for example. And he pressed him on the practicality of abolishing the income tax. And he brought up those, um, embarrassing opinions about the Civil Rights Act and Abraham Lincoln, which I doubt you share, do you, Jacob?
Feel free to watch the interview yourself, and draw conclusions based on the actual tape and not your paranoid conjecture about it.
133 - Dr Dreadful
Doc, please tell me all about the word "stonking"!
It means "very big" or "a lot", and also manifests as a noun. The British aid charity Comic Relief christened one of their bi-annual telethons "The Stonker" a few years ago to advertise that they intended it to be bigger, better, funnier and raise more money than ever before.
I used it as more of a qualifier, as in "not just any kind of nutcase, but an extra-special one".
Of course, to enlarge on Clavos's original observation, you could also argue that "stonk" is the sound of bullshit hitting the ground.
134 - handyguy
Baronius, all due respect, but Russert certainly does listen, and respond, and follow up. That's his whole method, rather relentless. I find your observation just mystifying.
As I say, I'm not always a fan [I think he can be unimaginative and gives the Establishment opinion the benefit of the doubt too often], but let's criticize him on the basis of reality, not false perceptions.
135 - Dr Dreadful
#127: I just checked Alan Keyes's website and you're right, Dave, he is indeed running again.
So, not content with having his ass handed to him once by Barack Obama...
136 - Baronius
Handy, I just went onto YouTube and watched a clip of Russert questioning Paul. The clip was about 3:30. Russert asks a budget question that lasts 1:40. Paul answers it (not that well) until 2:30. Over the next minute, Russert says "well, let me ask you this" maybe half a dozen times, trying to move on to the next topic. Paul keeps talking about the budget, and Russert keeps joining in, trying to summarize Paul's position as inconsistent, then move to the next topic - in this case, term limits. Russert is always more interested in the next trap. Doesn't it seem that way to you?
137 - Jacob
“Russert plays 'gotcha games' with nearly all his interviewees. It's called journalism.”
-- handyguy
The better term is superficial.
If you choose to accept Russert knowing that he is a pimp for GE and the MIC that’s your problem.
I don’t know what Ron Paul said almost 20 years ago and I don’t care. If he did change his mind so what? Abraham Lincoln changed his mind in much shorter time periods but no one thinks it is relevant.
If Russert was to interview Lincoln today would he say, “Well, Mr. Lincoln, when the war started, didn’t you say it wasn’t about slavery?
What Ron Paul said about slavery being abolished without civil war in other countries such as in the British Empire has validity.
And Ron Paul wants public schools to be locally controlled and wants to abolish the Department of Education just as Reagan and other Republican candidates have said in the past. So why did Russert focus on that?
Russert brought up abolishing the income tax. But he didn’t let Ron Paul answer it.
Go back and watch the interview again and see if you can view it without exhibiting a menopausal reaction.
138 - handyguy
Time limitations may give all TV interviewers shorter attention spans than one would prefer. But the entire Paul interview is about 25 minutes, and I'd say in the longer form you get more of an idea of Tim Russert's ability with a follow-up.
And Jacob, if you read my original comment, I said I was surprised how reasonable the good doctor was. Until that pesky Civil Rights Act came up. He said he would still vote against it, today, right now [not 20 years ago], because it trampled on private property rights.
I don't want anyone who could say that in the White House.
Scuse me, time for my estrogen.
139 - handyguy
Russert was if anything harder on Giuliani and Romney than on Paul. Does this fit into Jacob's dumb conspiracy theories?
GE is not likely to be a left-wing organization, even if they did control what their reporters say. Which is a ridiculous notion anyhow. Have you ever watched Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews? I don't think anyone tells them what to say, and I don't think they 'pimp' for corporate America either.
And what's the MIC anyway? Google just comes back with it as an abbreviation for microphone.
140 - Jacob
Russert was if anything harder on Giuliani and Romney than on Paul. Does this fit into Jacob's dumb conspiracy theories?
What conspiracy?
Russert is in a different position than Olbermann or Matthews. The reputation of Meet the Press and its ability to form public opinion is unlike the other NBC shows.
And what's the MIC anyway? It’s been the same as when Eisenhower tagged it as the Military Industrial Complex.
Glad to hear you’re taking your estrogen. You’re less cranky now.
141 - handyguy
Well, Giuliani and Romney would likely be candidates that the Military-Industrial Complex would welcome. So Tim's bosses musta been sore at him for giving Rudy and Mitt the third degree [and making them look quite ridiculous, at least to my utterly non-objective eyes].
142 - Jacob
There's not much Russert could do to keep Giuliani and Romney from looking ridiculous.
Anybody could have done that.
143 - handyguy
But since he's pimpin' for the big defense contractor that owns his studio, wouldn't he be trying to make the militarist Republicans look good? If, as you claim, that's the reason he was trying to make poor defenseless Dr. Paul look bad. Or were you just kiddin'?
144 - Dave Nalle
I haven't watched the Romney interview yet, but Giuliani certainly didn't look ridiculous. He faced the toughest questions any of them have been hit with that I've seen and dealt with the head on and with a refreshing honesty.
Dave
145 - Jacob
The MSM is against Paul. That includes NBC.
It should be obvious.
146 - Clavos
"The MSM is against Paul. That includes NBC.
It should be obvious."
Good tactic, Jake.
Keep repeating that periodically; make sure everyone sees it.
You're gonna need the excuse...
147 - Jacob
O.K.
The MSM is against Paul. That includes NBC.
It should be obvious
148 - handyguy
This is not my own line, it's from the Newsweek commentator who appears often on the Chris Matthews show:
Giuliani's fake, forced grin during Russert's tough prosecutorial grilling about security guards for his girlfriend, shadowy business dealings, etc., was held in place so long he began to resemble Jack Nicholson as The Joker in Batman.
Of course, Dave has already practically decided to vote for Rudy, and I think Rudy would be one of the worst presidents ever, especially following the current one [meaning he's a despicable bully who would make the current bad situation even worse, both domestically and internationally]. So it's not surprising we look at the same interview tape and perceive it so differently.
149 - Jacob
The country will be the loser if Giuliani doesn’t make it to the White House.
The country will lose its last chance to get Bernie Kerik in as head of Homeland Security.
150 - Clavos
The reports from Iowa are in.
Must have been the MSM's fault, including NBC.
It's obvious.
151 - Clavos
"Ron Paul says no to all special interests."
Apparently, the favor got returned.
The people (of Iowa) spoke.
Loud and clear.
152 - handyguy
Paul was never looked at as a strong candidate in Iowa [was he?]. If he has a chance anywhere early on, it's New Hampshire.
The big news tonight is that Romney and Clinton lost, and that Obama and Huckabee won. That news may only last 5 days. NH happens on Tuesday.
153 - Gary
-it was almost a three way tie for 3rd
(pretty good for a lack of media coverage for Paul)
-perhaps it was really a four way tie for 3rd. (Giuliani was surprisingly low)
- Assuming Thompson, McCain, Paul, & Giuliani each had roughly 10%
Then it is conceivable that 6% of Giuliani's supports split to support Thompson and McCain to boost their numbers up to around 13%
Now,
The negative attack adds between the leaders can tear each other down leaving Paul unmolested.
Wyoming on 01/05/2008 may be a good showing for Rep. Ron Paul (although probably little media coverage)
New Hampshire, with it's libertarian leanings, may be really big for Paul.
Also, I suspect that Nevada on the 19th will be good for Paul especially if N.H. is big on the 8th.
Let's hope that the money raised by Rep. Paul can be put to good use in the lead up to the 5th of February.
Lastly,
Paul's fund raising has been increasing at an exponential rate and far surpasses Huckabee.
Slow and steady wins the race, and if Paul is picking up speed then all the better.
I still remain optimistic for the Paul candidacy.
154 - handyguy
Well, none of you will admit it yet...but on Feb 6, Paul is either a 3rd party candidate, or he's history. His campaign has little or nothing to do with the Republican Party anyway.
155 - Gary
Note: I meant to say that Giuliani's supports who may have made up his other 6% (60% of his support if we assume 10%) split to support McCain and Thompson.
156 - Kris
Well"
Now you know that the polls can be accurate. Ron Paul placed fifth in the Iowa Caucus.
We capitalists should apply a free-market analysis to this election. The Ron Paul brand failed miserably in Iowa. He had a chance to place third, and he placed fifth.
Only a radical re-tooling of the Ron Paul message will result in victory. He has the money to get out the message, but that message needs serious tweeking, starting tomorrow.
All three leading Democrats in their Iowa post-caucus speeches emphasized health care. Edwards and Obama used specific heart-wrenching stories about the hard-luck cases. Huckabee talks with heart-felt authenticity about the middle class.
Notice that the big winners Obama and Huckabee both emphasized bringing the country together. At least in Iowa, that was the winning message.
In New Hampshire, Paul needs to go after Thompson and McCain" that’s where a lot of the potential Paul votes are going.
If Paul doesn’t finish at least third in New Hampshire, what’s the game plan after that?
Yours in liberty,
Kris
157 - Dave Nalle
How the hell could Paul retool his message? It's not the kind of message that can change to fit the whims of the audience. It's take it or leave it.
And his 10% in Iowa wasn't bad considering what his message is and what a terrible environmnet a caucus was for his kind of campaign. Caucuses favor insiders and Paul is about as far from that as you can get.
Dave
158 - Tam
His Iowa finsih was horrible... and he should have gotten at least 20% if the campaing and supports actually understood what matters to Iowans instead of buying into the stereo-type.
He supports/is against a lot of things that matter to us, it was just never talked about.
159 - Tam
Oh - crossovers from the Dems and Independants, didn't need to "plain in advance". In Iowa, you can register (or switch affiliation) at the door.
160 - Dave Nalle
Yes, but the ones who were from out of state and fanatically moved to Iowa - as some apparently did - needed plenty of advance planning.
Paul was hardly counting on Iowa, and even while focusing most of his attention elsewhere he did pick up 2 delegates, which is better than a whole bunch of pretty well established candidates, including Giuliani.
Dave
161 - Tam
If they even tried to understand Iowans, and actually appealed to them instead of the stereo type, they wouldnt have need a bunch of out of staters.. and out of staters did not help his cause
162 - handyguy
Caucuses favor insiders and Paul is about as far from that as you can get.
Neither Obama nor Huckabee is an "insider." The Establishment candidates in Iowa were Clinton and Romney, and they both fell short.
163 - Dave Nalle
Handy, Obama and Huckabee are far more 'insiders' than Paul is. Both of them are working with party leaders and established power groups within their parties and have the nod of approval for their candidacies. Paul is running an entirely independent campaign inside the GOP.
Dave