Ron Paul has pulled within 1 point of the lead in Iowa according to a new poll from Public Policy Polling. He has taken a large chunk of Newt Gingrich's support and now trails him 22%-21% only a week after it looked like Gingrich would keep building on his Iowa lead. Ron Paul has also cut into Gingrich's support in New Hampshire according to a new poll from Rasmussen Report. Romney still leads comfortably in New Hampshire with 33% support, but Ron Paul is pulling 18% support, good for third place, only 4 points behind Newt Gingrich.
Why the change? Well, Ron Paul's consistent constitutional message is resonating, as is his plan for massive spending cuts. You also can't discount the fact that, as some of my prior posts discuss, many conservatives are very wary of Gingrich. Ron Paul has launched two scathing attack ads against Newt Gingrich, and it is reasonable to think that these are playing a big role in the decrease of Newt's support in Iowa and New Hampshire.
"Serial Hypocrisy"
"Selling Access"
It will be interesting to see if, as happened to Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain before him, Newt Gingrich's support will continue to erode as people look more closely at him and learn more about his personality, his views and his record. If that does happen, and race comes down to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, it will make for a very interesting primary season.
Ron Paul's campaign lays into Newt with another strong right hook in this new ad:
I wonder how long it will take for Newt's terrible record to catch up with him. I hate to say it, but it looks like it won't be as much of a factor as it should be. As I detailed in my last post, though, Newt Gingrich will not win the nomination, because Ron Paul won't let him.
As so many supporters of Ron Paul, I am constantly looking for new articles, new thoughts and new insights on Dr. Paul and his candidacy. This morning I ran across an article that got me thinking: Ron Paul says Romney more “diplomatic” than Gingrich. What if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination and decides against a third party run? Does he endorse anyone? If Gary Johnson got the Libertarian nomination, I could see Dr. Paul backing him, but I think Ron Paul is going to keep himself very involved in the race, and I think his involvement will be above and beyond simply endorsing a third party candidate.
Before I get too far into it, let me make two things very clear:
1) I believe more strongly every day that Ron Paul does have a very real (though still unlikely) path to the Republican Nomination. It starts with winning Iowa and following it up with a strong 2nd in New Hampshire. So please don't take what I'm going to discuss as anything more than speculation on what might happen if Dr. Paul doesn't win. I'm certainly not assuming he won't win.
2) I think that there is a very strong possibility that Ron Paul will launch a third party campaign if he does not get the GOP nomination. And I think it is likely that he might end up being the American's Elect candidate (very interesting site/movement/organization--check it out if you're not familiar). So what I'm about to discuss it the third most likely option for Dr. Paul.
Now that that's out of the way, I do think it is possible that Ron Paul could end up as Mitt Romney's VP. Dr. Paul will never work with Newt Gingrich, as they have a pretty significant history with one another, and not one that bodes well for Newt if he hoped to have Ron Paul's endorsement at any point:
So, what about Mitt Romney. Well, the article I linked above seems to indicate that Dr. Paul is far more open to Mitt Romney. And here's the thing about Mitt: He is an inconsistent flip-flopper, but he'll flip to whichever position helps him achieve his goals. Is he reliable? Yes and no. You can rely on him to accept influence or advice if that influence or advice will lead to him achieving his goal. The closer we get to the Iowa caucus, the more this GOP race looks like a three-man battle: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul may not put up the consistently high numbers in the primaries like Mitt and Newt, and won't appeal as much to the run-of-the-mill Republican, but he will perform very well in the caucuses, and he has the money and organization to stay in the race for the long haul. I am confident that Ron Paul, even if he doesn't win the nomination or have the most delegates, will have a solid chunk of the delegates. Solid enough to prevent either Romney or Gingrich from having the necessary numbers to earn the nomination outright.
What happens then? A brokered Republican convention. Now, my dream scenario is that Ron Paul ends up winning if we get to that point, but likely the two establishment politicians would battle it out. And the article I linked above regarding Mitt Romney, combined with Ron Paul's obvious distrust of and dislike for Newt Gingrich, makes it far more likely that Ron Paul's delegates, in a negotiated deal, go to Mitt Romney. Beyond the bad blood between Gingrich and Paul, why would Paul go with Romney? As I said, Romney is more easily swayed to change his positions. And any brokered deal between Romney and Paul would have to include Paul having a huge say in the Republican platform decided at the convention. I also think this kind of deal would result in Ron Paul as the Vice Presidential nominee.
And Ron Paul as Mitt Romney's VP probably benefits Romney a lot more than his supporters, or any of the establishment people in the GOP, would want to admit. I may dedicate a future post to this topic, but neither Romney or Gingrich will be able to pull enough independents and disenfranchised/ticked off Democrats to beat Barack Obama. Gingrich is the least capable because he is so inflammatory. Newt, Ron and Mitt would all get the same GOP votes that McCain got in 2008, but they need the independents and Democrats. Only Ron Paul can bring them in. By making Ron Paul the VP nominee, Mitt Romney expands his base of potential voters by as much as 10-20% (remember Ron Paul, in recent polls, including this one discussing in this article by pollster John Zogby, Ron Paul has garned in the high teens in a theoretical 3-way race between he, Romney and Obama). Without Paul, Romney may be able to go moderate enough in the general election race to win, but with Paul, Romney gains the army of loyal Paul supporters who Romney expressed being so impress with in last night's debate.
I don't think there are any other Republicans that would impact the general election so much if chosen as VP. A few might solidify the already-solid Republican support. So what? None of them would bring Paul's dedicated support. Most of Paul's supporters would write Ron Paul in or stay home if his name isn't anywhere on the ballot.
This is not to say that Ron Paul would compromise on his strict constructionist views. The beauty of this is that Romney is so pliable, Ron Paul could force him to change a great deal. Ron Paul might not get everything he wants (such as a complete ending of all foreign aid), but domestically, I could foresee Romney giving Paul almost-free-reign, and I do think that Dr. Paul would have a significant impact on foreign affairs, even if we don't bring everyone home.
The other option regarding Ron Paul working a deal with Mitt Romney would be Paul gaining a cabinet position (possibly Secretary of the Treasury--Ben Bernanke's nightmare). That might be great for Dr. Paul, but it wouldn't help Romney win the election. That's why I think Ron Paul as VP is a very possible scenario.
Will any of this happen? There's really no way to know, but I think the above represents a very plausible scenario. One this is certain: Ron Paul's impact on today's Grand Old Party is undeniable. As some of the other candidates proved in last night's debate, Dr. Paul philosophical impact on party policy is quite prevalent. Even Sarah Palin has acknowledged the real impact that Ron Paul will have on the nominee if it isn't him. And I am confident that the fantastic organization and impressive fundraising prowess of Dr. Paul's 2012 campaign will guarantee that, even if he does not end up with the most delegates, Paul will have a substantial impact on who the nominee is. If Ron Paul doesn't end up as King, he'll be the King Maker, and I think that is very bad news for Newt Gingrich.
So those are my thoughts. I'd appreciate any questions or suggestions as to how else things could shake out if anyone has any other ideas. This should be a very interesting presidential election cycle, that's for sure. Feel free to comment, or email me at mshelbylaw@gmail.com .
I really like the website Politifact. I don't always agree with their conclusions, but it is pretty interesting. And while I don't think they are the final word on who is honest and who is a liar, it is pretty interesting how things end up breaking down. The people you'd think of as less truthful tend to have lower "scores." And the people who are viewed as more honest tend to have higher "scores." So, without further adieu, let's take a look at the Politifact report cards for each of the three candidates leading the GOP race:
1) Newt Gingrich: -Half True or Better--14
-Mostly False or Worse--18
That's a 43.75% truthfulness score.
2) Mitt Romney:
-Half True or Better--54
-Mostly False or Worse--31
That's a 63.5% truthfulness score.
3) Ron Paul:
-Half True or Better--18
-Mostly False or Worse--10*
That's a 64.3% truthfulness score.
I think that this pretty telling. Not determinative of honesty, but pretty darn interesting and (I think) absolutely relevant.
*Just as a note on two of Ron Paul's "False" ratings:
1) Dr. Paul said the country is bankrupt. Politifact concluded that if we can meet our obligations, we're not. But they are obviously using a vastly different definition of bankrupt. The continued devaluation of our currency through forced inflation means that if we owe $50 today, and pay it in a couple of weeks, we haven't actually met our obligations, because the $50 is worth less now. We're skating by for now, but eventually we will have to stop printing fiat currency to pretend to meet our obligations. I emailed Politifact with this explanation (well, actually a bit more detailed) and they actually emailed me back pretty quickly, acknowledged the concerns and said they'd review it. Didn't ever happen of course. At any rate, I think this should have at least been "Half True."
2) Ron Paul only votes for things expressly allowed by the Constitution. Politifact names a few obscure votes that are a little borderline and gives this statement a "False." I think anyone who knows about Dr. Paul's record would question this. This deserves a "Mostly True." So I personally think he should at least have a 71.4% truthfulness score.
