Ron Paul and the GOP
03-18-2008
By David Franke
Editor
UltimateRonPaul.com
The smartest move by Ron Paul at the beginning of his campaign was to run as a Republican candidate for President, not as a Libertarian Party candidate for President.
One of the worst moves by Ron Paul as his campaign progressed was to limit himself to the GOP campaign, and to reject a simultaneous or successor campaign to be the Libertarian Party candidate for President.
Whoa, you may be saying at this point—aren’t those two statements contradictory?
Not at all. And here’s why.
Smart Move
Under normal circumstances, running as a Libertarian Party candidate for President is an invitation to obscurity. You think the media was unfair to Paul during this campaign? They literally showered him with attention compared to the publicity he would have received if he had announced from the beginning as a Libertarian Party candidate.
And it isn’t just Libertarians. Ask Ralph Nader how much coverage he has received since he announced his candidacy a few weeks ago. There were a few disparaging stories when he announced, then he went down the memory hole.
That’s how the media treat third party candidates, Right or Left, under normal circumstances. Most of the time you can’t even find out how many votes these candidates got, the week after the election. Their vote totals don’t appear on the scorecards. You have to go to the state election boards to dig out that information.
By announcing as a Republican candidate, however, Ron Paul was included in the GOP television debates—well, most of them—and television is the key to public exposure. If we had a name-recognition poll today, perhaps as many as 50% of likely voters might recognize his name (even if they got it wrong and thought he was the DA character in Law and Order). That’s simply incredible for a member of the House of Representatives (one out of 435) who is honest and therefore hasn’t been caught in a sex or corruption scandal.
After he appeared on the TV debates a number of times, Paul started raising big money on the Internet and that only increased his visibility. But in the beginning it was only the Republican television debates—and his unique ideological position in those debates—that brought the Ron Paul candidacy to life.
Wrong Move
The day after he won his March 4 primary battle with 70% of the vote, Ron Paul should have announced that he would seek the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party nominations for President, even as he would show up at the Republican convention with his delegates and try to influence at least the GOP platform.
He had nothing to lose with the GOP at this point. He has no Democratic opposition for his congressional seat, and he has repeatedly announced that he will not support or vote for John McCain unless John McCain ceases being John McCain.
And he had everything to gain. On “Spotlight News” I have placed an article by Rand Paul, M.D., Ron Paul’s son who campaigned vigorously for his father. Rand considers his father’s GOP campaign a success because he got as much Republican support as he could ever get. And he’s right about that.
Today’s Republican Party is not your father’s Republican Party, assuming dear old Dad had the opportunity to vote for Ronald Reagan. Today’s Republican Party is a corrupt, imperialist Big Government cesspool, and it’s getting worse as we speak—look at how they’re climbing on board the torture movement, led by John McCain. I’m not surprised that only 5% to 10% of the Republicans actually believe in the principles enunciated by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. I’m surprised there are that many left.
No, Ron Paul needed to start out in the Republican tent to get the visibility he got, but the GOP is no longer the natural home for people who believe as he does.
Rasmussen Reports is the only pollster I’m aware of who has actually paid attention to the sources of Ron Paul’s support. And he’s the only pollster I’m aware of who has investigated how Ron Paul might do as the Libertarian Party candidate in November.
At a time when Paul was getting only around 5% of the vote among Republicans, and was running sixth among the six surviving Republican candidates, Rasmussen estimated he would get 8% of the vote as the Libertarian Party candidate in November.
And let this soak in: “Perhaps because of his position on the war in Iraq, Paul attracts more support from Democrats than Republicans. He also earns 14% of the vote from unaffiliated voters.”
Remember, I said before that under normal circumstances the media shove third party candidates down the memory hole. But what about not-so-normal circumstances?
The media would not be able to shove Libertarian Party candidate Ron Paul down the memory hole, first, because of the money he has raised and has demonstrated he can continue to raise, and second because this promises to be a close presidential election where Ron Paul’s vote could make the difference, just as Ralph Nader played a critical role in the 2000 race.
This promises to be a solidly Democratic year in the Senate and House races, but at the presidential level the Democrats are up to their old game of self-destruction. And faced with a choice between two fascists, McCain and Clinton, wouldn’t you really, really, really love to have a pro-freedom candidate to vote for?
Ron, your work for the Republic is not yet done. But it’s getting late.
| Add This Article To: | |||
 Del.icio.us |
 Digg |
 Google |
 Spurl |
 Blink |
 Furl |
 Simpy |
 Y! MyWeb |
Comments:
©2007 UltimateRonPaul.com
