Prior to the Iowa Straw Poll, its credibility and repute were proclaimed throughout the land. The Washington Post characterized it as “arguably the first major vote of the 2012 presidential contest.”
Then came Saturday’s results in Ames: Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul finished first and second, respectively, with Paul only 152 votes and less than a percentage point behind Bachmann, no other candidate coming anywhere close.
So, mainstream analysts now call it a three-way race — with Mr. Paul not one of the three!
A story in USA Today postponed mere mention of Congressman Paul till the 13th paragraph: “Candidates Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain are also seeking the Republican presidential nomination.”
On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” GOP strategist Mike Murphy laments that “If 75 people had changed their minds, [Ron Paul] would have won the Iowa straw poll, which would have kind of shaken up the race and it would have put the straw poll out of business forever.”
Out of business? Forever? What sort of electoral contest should or would be abolished if a certain candidate wins?
Murphy’s statement generated neither rebuttal nor even any notice from the folks on the program.
“One reason the bipartisan establishment finds Paul so obnoxious is how much the past four years have proven him correct — on the housing bubble, on the economy, on our foreign misadventures, and on our national debt,” wrote Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney.
In other words, time to ignore him.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
17 replies on “The Ron Paul Problem”
[…] Paul Jacob with Citizens in Charge offers a bit of common sense regarding Ames and Dr. Paul. Share this:FacebookTwitterLike this:LikeOne blogger likes this […]
[…] First, I found an article from Paul Jacob with Citizens in Charge. In his blog, called Common Sense (which you’ve been able to find in the links section of this blog), he helps to expose this apparent contradiction. […]
Is there a Gresham’s Law in the GOP, i.e., The bad elements driving out the electable candidates? Seems like the lunatic fringe has taken over.
The left wing lib/prog media is frantically trying to marginalize anyone who would be an effective conservative candidate and who might actually win over Presbo in 2012.
They do this by ignoring the results of things like the straw pole when its results don’t fit their agenda.
You are so right … and what about Gary Johnson … Gary Who?
If the Republican party really wants the White House back, they had better start to rally behind Ron Paul. Without him as their candidate, Obama will probably win. His followers, for the most part, will not vote for anyone else. Ron Paul can recapture the Reagan Democrats, the youth vote, and retain all of the loyal Republican voters, and get most of the independents. Ignoring this will assure another Republican loss.
As a conservative, I find Ron Paul repugnant. (His son almost as much).
the reasons – hypocrisy.
Ron paul- always- “I am a Constitutionalist” – follwo the Constitution,e tc.
Whiel the Constitution does NOT call for term limits, it talks abotu a “Citizens” legislature. BUT RON PAUL HAS BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR OVER 30 YEARS, feeding off the public trough.
And his son?
FIVE MONTHS INTO HIS FIRST TERM, (AND OTHER THEN NEWXMAX HAVING ” THE PETITION THAT OBAMA FEARS” AND OTHER ITEMS, has done little that is observable OTHER THEN FILE FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2016.
Looks liek he also wants in on the federal/congressional gravy trian-on his way to being another career politician.
sorry if any words are spelled wrong
Jon Stewart was pretty funny on this subject:
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/jon-stewart-daily-show-ron-paul-iowa-straw-poll
And 100% on target!
If the media is ignoring him, its because they think he can win.
First they ignore, then ridicule, then attack.
Not my first pref, but I’d vote for a libertarian,even a career one, over a lib/prog any day.
The real thing to be concerned about is WHY are they trying to marginalize him??? If by some grace of our Founding Fathers he gets elected, he better find a deep and secure bunker to live in…Kennedy was a piker compared to what Paul wants to do.
Why is the Iowa caucus given so much weight? The Ames straw poll is next to meaningless.
Jay: Texas voters have had many opportunities to limit Paul’s term. So far, they’ve chosen not to.
There is an argument to be made for not unilaterally disarming. Why should Paul quit when others won’t? He and his son may be feeding at the public trough but both (and all other public officials) have their enablers: voters. If WE voted against all incumbents, even the Ron Pauls and the Paul Ryans, we would see change in Washington and in state capitals. The decision is ours.
No doubt the Iowa straw poll is an important event, but not because it has any real impact on the overall election cycle. It is mostly a test of who can put in the most time and organize the best in that little microcosm of the event itself. Sure, a guy like Pawlenty can find this a reasonable test of how much impact he is having, and drop out as a result. But to take Ron Paul’s numbers here and extrapolate from that some notion that he can duplicate this anywhere else is just not realistic.
Paul Jacob points out that Ron Paul was right about the housing bubble, the economy and national debt. So what? (I’ll quibble on the foreign policy point.) So have many others, both in and out of office. George W. Bush, for example, had his people annually calling for reform of Fannie and Freddie in anticipation of the housing mess from at least 2001, but it was largely in testimony before Congress and totally ignored by the media. Bush should have used the “bully pulpit”, but that wasn’t his style.
Someone above said Paul voters won’t cast for anyone else. Probably true. But when Paul proves once again that he has support only from about 10% of primary voters, it won’t be the ignorance of the press that is at play. It’s the fact that half of Paul’s policies simply don’t play for most of the electorate.
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson need to raise holy hell via proxies, so they don’t look like typical grasping politicians. What’s happened to both of them has been horribly unjust.
Jay — I can’t say Paul’s 30 years in the House have corrupted him. He continues to vote for liberty and limiting government.
As far as being “effective” I’d rather see them unsuccessfully vote no on government expansion, then vote yes on government expansion. Hasn’t Paul been right on gold, the Fed, the housing crisis, financial regulation, foreign military meddling blowback, etc? And has Perry and others taken up his positions in an attempt to co-opt him? Isn’t that effective?
What exactly is hypocritical about Paul? He still works as a doctor. He’s not like most of the politicians who use their position to fatten their wallets by handing out government favors at our expense. And Paul supports term limits: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10943 When enacted I’m sure Paul will step down when required, along with the others who don’t support a freedom agenda.
[…] big news story last week became the media’s non-coverage of the Ron Paul campaign. After Jon Stewart of The Daily Show successfully brought out the full nature of the media […]
[…] déjà-vu all over again: GOP strategist Mike Murphy said back in August that had Congressman Paul received just 75 more votes and won the Iowa straw poll “it would have […]