Ron Paul's Possible Path to Victory

The Ron Paul campaign positions its man to face off against Romney in a two-man race.


“President Paul! President Paul! President Paul!” chanted the 1,000 or so overwhelmingly young Ron Paul campaign volunteers and workers crammed into a ballroom at a Manchester Best Western on Tuesday night. Paul pulled a stronger-than-expected 23 percent in the New Hampshire primary, giving him a solid second place.

With dozens of national cameras pointed at him, Paul gave a great talk full of both raise-the-rafters red meat cheer lines and his professorial approach to monetary and foreign policy, not to mention the fight against crushing debt and the military-industrial complex. When it was over, a Paul volunteer next to me declared, with equal sincerity and irony, “I just had multiple Paulgasms.”

I first heard that “President Paul!” chant in Los Angeles back in September, at the California Republican Party State Convention. Paul handily won a straw poll that day, but got no attention or buzz for it. (A few weeks later Herman Cain did the same thing in Florida, in a straw poll more easily gamed by party insiders, and began his brief media-driven rise to the top. Paul fans thus have some reason to be disgusted by the media.) In L.A., the chant was the idea of Steven Vincent, a Paul grassroots superstar who is also a yoga coach. Vincent had a quasi-mystical take on the chant’s purpose, saying it was positive visualization. If his fans start saying it, if Paul starts hearing it, that will make it easier to manifest in the material world.

The whole world heard “President Paul!” on Tuesday night. But as I predicted, the disappointing media coverage on Wednesday largely missed the importance of Paul’s strong second place and his unique role in the Republican Party. So the world isn’t yet ready to believe that a Paul presidency is possible. But the world should begin to start imagining it.

From Tea Partiers to people seeking consistent pro-life stances to those searching for a principled opposition to state-run medical care and bailouts, and even to those tired of the wars (if you don’t believe they exist, then you don’t understand why Paul has already pulled the numbers he’s pulled), plenty of Republican voters will not be thrilled with having to go Romney. And they may shortly have nowhere to go but Paul.

The Paul movement is growingâ€"he pulled more than twice as many votes and more than three times the percentage as last time around in New Hampshire. Already, Paul has collected more than 25,000 total votes cast over his nearest competitor below him, Rick Santorum. No other not-Romney has any apparent hope of actually mounting a professional national campaign with funding and working bodies for much longer. Paul has always been, appropriately, a candidate of slow steady growth, not media or panic-driven bubbles and busts like Santorum or Newt Gingrich.

Paul’s specific achievements in Iowa and New Hampshire were built on an efficient, thoughtful, and very well manned machine of phone calls and door knocking, which backed up months' worth of personal candidate appearances. You know, Paul’s famous “strong ground game.”

Whether the Paul campaign will have either the money or the manpower to duplicate its months of extensive effort in the two early states remains to be seen. The campaign is going to have to hope for a bit of perception momentum from being such a close third to Romney and Santorum in Iowa and such a leading second to Romney in New Hampshire.

While Paul’s people still have the will and desire to continue volunteering for him in the next wave of states, as I learned from talking to dozens of them this week, they won’t necessarily have as much time outside the college winter break window of the last days before Iowa and New Hampshire. Paul’s political director Jesse Benton says the campaign still has plenty of volunteers on a waiting list and should be well manned for South Carolina and Nevada. Benton made a bold P.R. move after trouncing all non-Romneys in New Hampshire, declaring that the others really ought to drop outâ€"and he got front page headline placement on conservative rank-and-file thought leader the Drudge Report for his efforts.

Unlike what has happened with other candidates with momentum this season, the media isn’t spinning the story of an on-the-rise Ron Paul. He unquestionably has the ability to fundraise whether or not he’s winning primaries. His dedicated mass of volunteer laborâ€"and a professional operation competent enough to get him on all the ballots with a repeatable and strong get out the vote strategyâ€"makes it likely that he’ll be the last non-Romney standing.

But what will he be able to do with this position? If the question of electability against Obama is ever dealt with using actual data rather than the oft-heard assertion “everyone knows there is no way Ron Paul could beat Obama,” the campaign could point out that Paul gets more independents than Obama right now in a one-to-one matchup, and that he’s in a statistical tie with the mighty Romney against Obama as well. And a small percentage of progressives who care about war and civil liberties above income redistribution might come Paul’s way against Obama as well, making him potentially stronger than any other Republican candidate.

Tuesday afternoon, an eager Paul sign-waver at a Manchester polling place first hipped me to a rumor: Romney might consider Rand Paul, junior senator from Kentucky and son of Ron, as a vice presidential pick in order to keep Paul’s coalition on board with the Republican Party. By Wednesday, Neil Cavuto was talking the same rumor on Fox News. A source close to Paul tells me he overheard, in a friendly-jokey colloquy between the Pauls and the Romneys at one of the weekend debates in New Hampshire, Romney saying it was now just all about whether it would be Romney-Paul or Paul-Romney. Romney and Paul have not abused each other much, and pundits have noticed how even a winning Romney will need Paul people in November. 

Paul’s campaign has been ambivalent about how much to put into Floridaâ€"some Paul insiders have hinted that it just isn’t cost effective to spend the millions it takes to really compete for the state's only-50 delegates. But post-New Hampshire, there is now chatter to the effect that giving Florida some love is back on the agenda. At any rate, the campaign has its grassroots and at least some money for mail in the state.

It will do Paul little good to be able to fight it out to the end of the primaries without being able to pick up some or even most of the not-Romney vote that has been going to Gingrich and Santorum, neither of whom are likely to remain in the campaign much longer. For Paul to realize his possibilities moving forward, he needs to be a player in South Carolina on January 21. He’s currently polling a very distant fourth there. It’s supposed to be a very trad-conservative state for the Republicans (though they have a history of going for the anointed leader).

South Carolina’s popular junior Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, a libertarian-friendly social conservative and ally of Sen. Rand Paul, is openly calling for the Republican Party to respect and embrace Paul’s libertarian ideas. Paul himself has already moved on to South Carolina. He spoke at a rally there this week. And while he has no scheduled events there for the next few days, the campaign still has next week to send the candidate around the state, plus nearly a million dollars squirreled away to spend on TV ads. The campaign has also got a South Carolina-centered moneybomb planned for Saturday.

The Paul team has already been airing a couple of very right-wing-appealing ads in South Carolina. One features old patients of Paul's obstetrics practice talking about his unwavering pro-life beliefs and his steadfast integrity over the years. Another features Vietnam veterans praising Paul for being a vet and for helping them get commendations they deserved from the government.

Neither ad hit on what Paul talks about in personâ€"generally war, money, spending, and civil liberties. A gap between Paul’s personal messaging and official campaign ads and literature is common. The campaign's basic New Hampshire door-hanger targeting voters it had already identified as Paul supporters had six major divisions, and none of them was foreign policy. That subject is only mentioned under “spending,” with the line “stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars” amongst a longer list of spending cuts.

Paul is also running ads meant to chip at Santorum, painting him as an out of control spender and fake conservative. The campaign will also roll back out the notorious “Big Dog” ad for South Carolina, which aggressively talks up Paul’s government-cutting mania in monster-truck-rally tone.

As these ads show, it isn’t hard for Paul to sincerely sell himself to traditional southern Republican voters. Paul can even play right-wing cornpone honestly. Some Paul workers say, with some humor and some seriousness, that Carol Paul’s Ron Paul Family Cookbook, a pamphlet of recipes from and pictures of Paul’s children’s families that she distributes, won a lot of grey-haired Republican lady votes in the early states.  

Paul has the historic bonafides as the intellectual father of the Tea Party movementâ€"the original gangster of insurrectionist objection to not just taxes but spending and bailouts as well. But is there still a meaningful Tea Party movement? I’ve seen almost no evidence of it in Iowa and New Hampshire, and on this week syndicated right-wing radio host Kevin McCullough declared "from the looks of things the Tea Party died."

But as Paul’s campaign manager John Tate put it, “the issues that the Tea Party brought to the forefront are still important, and economic, spending, taxing issues” are still of key importance to that body of voters, whether or not the Tea Party banner is still widely waved. Even polls of pure pro-lifers, Tate says, show them listing economic issues as their number one priority now.

And Paul, with his trillion dollars in one year spending cut plan, a balanced budget in three years, and an impeccable record of not voting for unbalanced budgets or debt limit raises, will be reasonably well positioned to capture that group, which has clearly yet to coalesce around one candidate and will resist doing so around Romneyâ€"unless the wave of apparent inevitability overwhelms their stated ideology.

But what about foreign policy? Paul’s New Hampshire campaign chair Jim Forsythe, an Air Force vet and state senator, had a great summation of Paulite foreign policy that he delivered from stage Tuesday night: It’s “a foreign policy about defense for America.” How Republican! Possibly.

Still, Paul’s problems with many Republicans remain. Chatting with partisans and activists for other candidates around Iowa and New Hampshire, I found they can mostly manage to be polite about Paul. Their biggest concern with him is a sense of lack of party discipline or teamwork: seeing Paul constantly asked if he intends to run third party on TV seems to have achieved its purpose of undermining his campaign. Many other Republicans say they think it’s likely, and this worries them. This never makes them think the GOP should strive to satisfy Paul’s fans; it just makes them angry and mistrustful of him.

Paul fans should understand why Paul gets those questions, even beyond the fact that he’s run as a third party presidential candidate before. Paul and his fans figured out the loophole in the two-party system. If you are brave and smart, and have a message with national traction, you can succeed in a major party without really being of it. Paul makes it clear he can’t give his sanction to a fellow Republican who is not solid on his core issues. His core activists are certainly more dedicated to Ron Paul’s message than they are to the Republican Party.

For Paul to win states or get to the convention with an unignorable number of delegates still qualifies as unlikely with just the data in front of us. But coming strong out of New Hampshire, campaigns can and do go in unexpected directions.

I was talking on Tuesday to Gary Franchi, one of the principals of the Paul-supporting Superpac RevolutionPAC. That PAC spent $100,000 in New Hampshire airing an ad called “The Compassion of Ron Paul” (three times during the Saturday night debates), showing an old patient of Paul’s speaking of his generosity in giving himâ€"a poor black man with a white wifeâ€"free medical services. The Superpac also ran an all-day event of pure grassroots action out of a Manchester pool hall on Saturday, coordinating and sending out over 100 mostly out-of-state Paul road warriors to literature-drop and sign wave for Paul throughout New Hampshire. The PAC is also hoping to have enough money to launch a new foreign policy ad for the South Carolina market.

Franchi was frustrated with the first-day media spin he detected after Paul’s solid second. He sees pundits acting like it’s still really a contest between Romney and the likes of Gingrich or Santorum. But remembering some recent history encouraged him.

“You know who else had come in second place in New Hampshire?” Franchi asks, and then answers. “The last three presidents.”

The day after the New Hampshire primary, the social networking and email lists where Paul activists gather were full of organizing and plans for collecting every Ron Paul road sign they could find in the Granite State, renting a truck, and driving them on to other states, to the next battlefields in the Ron Paul Revolution.

Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of Radicals for Capitalism (PublicAffairs) and the forthcoming Ron Paul’s Revolution (Broadside).

NEXT: ATTN, DC & SF Reasonoids: Battle for Brooklyn, and The Tragedy of Urban Renewal are coming to an art house near you!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fist!

    1. me!

      1. He was so excited about being ‘first’, he shot his “r” before he could get his schlong out.

    2. You’re the opposite of d’Anconia.

      1. How so?

      2. Honorable mention: “Dagny T.” and “Hugh Akston.” Why do collectivists pose as individualists on a libertarian site? Cheap kicks? Or because they can? Discuss.

        1. Or perhaps, just perhaps, I’m not posing as anything.

          Maybe I just picked a character I admire as my moniker. Discuss.

          1. I have an interesting theory on why

            1. My small penis?

              1. small penis? Your mother lied 🙁

                I’m writing about the why, and alas, it will be under my pen name; sorry

          2. – is one of rectal’s sockpuppets. Ignore it.

            1. Ignore this Warty because it certainly can not be the Real Warty?, he promised to incif me a dozen times, and I’m sure he meant at least one of them

              Ignore me Warty

              1. I find it interesting how all this fisting talk dredged rather up out of her sea cave.



    1. Your cappzlock=fail!

    2. perhaps if we had followed the Constitution we wouldn’t have to listen to Dr. Demento now…

    3. Rage Against the Machine, Street Fighting Man.

  3. Who are we to believe here. Some mere primary and caucus results, or our duly appointed gate keepers in the media?…..r_embedded

  4. The voices in Doherty’s are really going nuts.

    1. Hsst! Head. Give ’em head.

  5. I think Ron is up from 13% in South Carolina. That’s a couple points more than last week IIRC.

  6. Are you highly intelligent?

  7. I’ll encourage everybody to check this out:

    It’s a cool way to send brochures on Paul direct to voters. I know people (myself included) don’t like being asked for money – my apologies, but I can’t help myself.

    1. No, this type of donating is MUCH better than the regular kind. You know exactly where your money is going.

  8. Brian, thanks for your coverage of Dr Paul. Your piece Tuesday night was really amazing!

      1. Have we won in Iran yet?

  9. When it was over, a Paul volunteer next to me declared, with equal sincerity and irony, “I just had multiple Paulgasms.”

    Geez, Brian, can’t you take a hint?

  10. “Horse Molester Jailed for Violating Probation by Repeating the Offense”…..fense.html

    1. The cow was obviously a pity fuck.

      1. I hear that the sheep/hip waders thing is pretty good. No video on Youtube. Sorry.

    2. BLOOMSBURG ? A Pennsylvania man who admitted having sex with 10 horses and a cow must spend a weekend in jail after having his probation revoked because he told a counselor he’d done it again.


      Prosecutors say 44-year-old Paul Ganter was nearly finished with court supervision when he was ordered Tuesday by a Columbia County judge to serve time instead.

    3. Moo, I say!

    4. Sheep I can see, but horses and cows? That’s sick.

      1. What, no rats?

      2. Of course I didn’t kiss her. She was an unusually ugly pig.

      3. See Gene Wilder and Daisy in Woody Allen’s “All You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask”.

    5. Rookie.

    6. A Cow???? Has This Man No Sense of Decency?

      1. Big tits.

        1. …and lots of ’em!

  11. Yeah, we Ron Paulers are just being whackos to talk about media bias.…..P_7ePK773Q

      1. Stewart has been very pro-Paul lately. Do you think he’s sincere, or does he have some kinda angle to show up later?

        1. He’s not pro-Paul as much as he’s anti-media stupidity. He likes Ron Paul as a person, it seems, but disagrees with him in the places that you’d think the average Democratic voter would disagree with Ron Paul.

        2. Stewart, to his credit, emphasizes civil liberties and anti-war themes, which means that he frequently quotes the Pauls approvingly.

          He handled the newsletters by saying “Other Republicans’ main problem with Ron Paul isn’t racist newsletters sent out under his name, it’s that he won’t pre-commit to starting a war with Iran.”

        3. Both points are true. I guess what I meant was for a fairly diehard liberal like Stewart, he seems very favorable towards him. I think he’s also gotten in a few quips about needing government for social safety nets, ROADZ, etc.

          1. he’s fair. stewart may be snarky, but he’s fair.

            he also decries media shenanigans, like the media is doing with paul

            look at stewart’s famous crossfire incident, if you doubt this

            stewart is just being consistent. he’s a liberal, but he’s a FAIR liberal

            1. Agreed. I think he does very well at not basing all of his material on the premise that his political opponents are stupid or evil.

  12. If Ron Paul wins will Reason become the official magazine of Air Force One?

    1. Or at least the official newsletter.

      1. I see what you did there.

  13. Paul should reach out to Latino voters in the next debate; let Gingrich, Romney and Santorum fight it out who will be the wall builder in chief.

      1. But Paul always talks about this in the context of the welfare state. If you had no welfare state, most of these illegal immigration issues would disappear.

        1. Do you really think that immigrants are coming over here simply to take welfare payments? They want jobs that pay better than they do at home. They want to send money to their families. That’s it. It’s that simple.

          And Ron Paul wants to end birthright citizenship. WHY? Think about the ramifications of that.

          1. To end birthright citizenship would require changing the constitution, so that’s not going to happen and Paul should know better than that. But there is a much easier fix, and that is to reduce labor costs, reducing the gap between legal and illegal hire.

            1. Applying birthright citizenship privileges, designed for released slaves, to people who swim the river in order to create an anchor baby, is silly. No one anticipated in the 19th century this situation, and the language in the Constitution here is muddled.

              Anyway, the correct thing to do is just prohibit government sponsorship of this activity, and remove the subsidies. If my son breaks his arm he shouldn’t get put in a line with illegals before he gets his x-ray. We already paid for that hospital.

              1. Considering the fact that when the Constitution was written, anybody who wanted to could stroll down from Canada or jump off a pirate ship in New Orleans and squeeze out as many anchor babies as they wanted, I really think that the whole “The Founders would have hated Mexicans just like me!” argument is a little specious.

                And you’re aware that birthright citizenship applies only to the baby and not to the parents, right? And that since the Constitution explicitly prohibits legal punishments that “work a corruption of blood”, no crime any parent commits can have any bearing on the status of a child born in the US, and given that prohibition there’s absolutely no difference between your birth here in the US and the birth of the some kid whose mom is still drenched in the waters of the Rio Grande?

                Until we decided we didn’t want any more Chinamen in California, nobody had any notion of restricting immigration to any part of the US. As long as you didn’t try to claim a title of nobility, you were good. And we had no problem granting mass citizenship rights to plenty of Mexicans following the merger with the Texas Republic and again following the Mexican War. I think people in the 19th century anticipated this situation just fine – they just liked it and didn’t have a problem with it.

              2. No one in 1791 anticipated how powerful arms would become in 200 years. And the language of the Constitution does advocate for a “well regulated militia”.
                Why don’t we think about this when we talk about the Second Amendment.

                1. I think that they wanted people to have weapons similar to soldiers of the day and won’t let the citizens keep up with technology. Firepower discrimination.

                2. Lol. Powerful arms…I’d love to hear what you’re talking about. It must be the nuclear weapons that all private citizens have? No…the rocket launchers? No…military-style automatic rifles? No…oh, you mean the predominantly semiautomatic hunting rifles and small-caliber pistols? I forget how incredibly powerful those are. Fuck off.

                  1. Damn right – let the citizens keep up with the military. I’d love to see the paramilitary organizations known as police department react to everyday citizens carrying M-16s through the streets. Somehow I think incidents of police brutality would disappear.

                  2. Yer right.
                    I’m sure the flintlocks of 200 plus years ago were just as quick to reload and as accurate and reliable as today’s “semiautomatic hunting rifles and small-caliber pistols.”

                    Oh yeah…get bent!

          2. Thinking about it. What’s wrong with the rule of law, and granting birthright citizenship to people who live here legally?

  14. After Gingrich’s recent attacks on Romney for being a heartless capitalist, I’m starting to take his claim that he’d vote for Obama over Paul less seriously.

    Gingrich obviously doesn’t speak for anyone in the Republican party. He speaks for his own personal pique.

    If Paul ends up as the only viable candidate besides Romney, it’s entirely possible that he could pull the Tea Party behind him and win the nomination.

    1. “If Paul ends up as the only viable candidate besides Romney, it’s entirely possible that he could pull the Tea Party behind him and win the nomination.”

      1. Paul did get a Tea Party “surge” in December. It’s not like he could never appeal to them.

        1. Fox News and their minions would have him shot!

          1. which will last about until FOX News decides that he’s their hero. It’s not like their terribly consistent in their principles about anything.

  15. Pizza Boomerang – it just isn’t weird enough here:…..ata_player

    1. Everything about pizza boomerang makes sense.

      When u think about it.

      1. I want to start a franchise, but out of that guy’s range.

  16. Romney might consider Rand Paul, junior senator from Kentucky and son of Ron, as a vice presidential pick in order to keep Paul’s coalition on board with the Republican Party.


    Seriously, that would be a smart move by Romneybot – could help him win and could totally neuter the Paulista’s influence on a new administration. I mean, how much good could Rand do hopping from one state funeral to another for four or eight years? And inheriting all the shittyness that Romney would make happen. “See? Libertarianism doesn’t work – we tried it in 2012-2016 when Ran Paul was vp, and it was a total disaster.”

    1. Unless the economy takes a sharp downturn in the next 10 months, Obama will probably win.

      If Romney were to pick Rand Paul as his running mate, it might give the latter a launch towards a 2016 or 2020 run.

      But I am betting that Romney will pick Santorum in an effort to patch things up with the Whitefolkforjezus faction.

    2. If Rand Paul were selected as vice president, I would vote for Romney, because the hope would be that Paul can influence Romney just enough to eke out some libertarianish policy victories, enough to improve the economy a bit. Then he could cruise to victory in 2020.

      1. Not to mention the possibility that Romney might accidental take a fatal overdose of hair gel after Jan 20/13.

        1. “Accidental”, of course. I like your style.

          1. Next they’re gonna try to tell me the Pope doesn’t shit in the woods. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.

          2. True enough, robot simulhair fibers don’t require product.

            1. Just replacement every 8-10 years. They have color changing capability, too.

              1. I think Paul followers are rabid enough to get Rand the Presidency if he becomes VP. There are some pretty obvious ways…

  17. For Paul to realize his possibilities moving forward, he needs to be a player in South Carolina on January 21. He’s currently polling a very distant fourth there.

    I mentioned this in the morning links. The very latest poll has Paul in a statistical tie with Santorum. If you look at the breakdown, Santorum is polling much much better among women than among men, and I think the poll overcounted females compared to what the turnout could be. Hopefully, Santorum will be the one who comes in a distant fourth on voting day.

    1. Insider Advantage puts him ~9 points out of 1st.

      That’s “anything can happen” territory.

      There’s another debate. Gingrich could blow a gasket. Romney could wither under Gingrich’s scorched earth attacks. Perry could rally and take support from Mitt and Newt. Anything can happen.

      1. Yeah, all four of those guys could fluctuate amongst each other, but it’s safe to say Ron Paul could snag a few votes from each but not a single Paul supporter is going to all of a sudden pull the lever for any of those guys. Having the strongest base is a good thing. Then you need to start picking off voters from the hacks.

      2. Perry won’t rally. People don’t want to vote for a fringe candidate.

    2. Actually the newest poll has Paul at 20% in SC behind Romney (29%) and Gingrich (25%) but well ahead of Perry(9%) and Santorum (7%) also huntsman was in low single digits somewhere too. This is the ARG poll from 01/11-01/12. With a surge of this magnitude it is actually (theoretically) possible for him to win SC. Now that’d really shake things up.

  18. Tying Rand Paul to a doomed Romney run would be a fine way to neutralize the threat to GOP business-as-usual his career, left to its own natural trajectory, might otherwise represent. That sabotage routine worked fantastically against Palin. Pre-2008, she had the same “GOP libertarian fringe character crackaz love could be president someday” buzz Rand has now. And she could have, someday, if she hadn’t accepted McCain’s offer to ride his ship into the reef.

    Don’t forget, the GOP went balls out trying to keep Paul II out of the Senate. It didn’t work, but only because voters really loved the guy. The anyone-but-Paul alliance (including certain locals here) smeared twenty points off the support he carried out of the KY primary?but twenty wasn’t enough. And the Party will never forgive Paul for winning that election.

    Regardless, even if none of the above is so, “Paul [in 2012] people” and Rand Paul fans are barely overlapping sets; adding a different Paul to a Romney ticket does no good with “Paul people.” Nor with the not-Romneyites. Because…Romney.

    1. Good point about Palin. Associating her with the establishment (not to mention warmongering) McCain pretty well destroyed her alt cred.

      1. It wasn’t just her presence on the ticket that undermined her — it was her inability to rise to the occasion. She’s never convincingly articulated much of a stance on anything except “Family Values” red meat since she got the nomination.

        I’m sure Rand Paul would come across more impressively in interviews and speeches than Palin. I hope he doesn’t end up being taken into that sort of “protective custody”, though, and I actually tend to doubt that he or his father would let themselves be “bought off” that way.

  19. Holy shit Doherty, you must be fucking a literature major….Your next piece:  It is a far, far better thing that Ron Paul had ever done; it is a far, far better rest that Paul will go on to…

    1. you must be fucking a literature major

      I think they all are…all but Matt who never got a college degree…

      Matt got his schooling from the hard knocks of jet set hippy binges in the 1990s ruins of the fallen soviet empire…

      And yes I am jealous.

        1. You guys are pussies. Watch Ireland.

  20. I don’t think Rand Paul would take a VP offer. Seems like way more downside (being associated with a failed Romney bid, or alternatively, poor results from status quo policies out of a Romney administration). I guess the upside would be more national recognition and VP to pres incumbent momentum if a Romney administration were to not suck. Which it would, so kinda moot.

    1. I think, assuming this rumor has any traction, that the Romneybot could be miscalculating on this one. How many Ron Paul supporters would actually vote for Romney just because Rand is his VP? Paulbots are more cynical and more knowledgeable of how the system works. They would know that as VP Rand couldn’t really do shit that matters. The only thing that will win over some of the Paulistas would be if Romney adopted (and probably signed some sort of “I will resign…”-type contract if he broke his pledge) major planks of the Paul platform (End the bullshit wars, don’t start wars for bullshit reasons especially without congressional approval, Fuck Foreign Aid, Allow the young to opt-out of failing horseshit, etc. ). But we all know that’s not going to happen. And if it did, some Republicans might hold down their bile long enough to vote for Obama because he would seem to be more pro-“kill the MOOOSSSLIMS!!!” than Romney at that point.

      In the end, the Paul supporters will cost Romney at least 5 percent in the general election and unless Obama rapes children in public between now and then, Mitt’s going to have to accept retiring to his giant house and swimming pool full of gold doubloons.

      1. How many Ron Paul supporters would actually vote for Romney just because Rand is his VP?

        I would. On Ron Paul Forums, when the question was brought up, it seemed like 20 to 25 percent of Ron Paul supporters would. But I bet it would be more.

  21. Has anyone noticed that the print, air, and web media keep repeating the same mantra?

    “No one other than an incumbent president has ever won both the Iowa and New Hampshire contests”

    There has been endless repetition of this is what has been the case, and ergo this is what will be, along with the oft repeated ” the others need to leave the race -it’s over for them.

    Ron Paul’s candidacy is a unheeded cog and his demographics is underestimated

  22. I’m seeing these “If Romney picked Rand Paul for vp” comments, and it’s like they think whoever Romney anoints as his running mate will just automatically fall in line. I know almost nothing or Rand Paul but I can’t imagine for a single moment he would play second fiddle to the Romneybot. Rand Paul does in fact have a choice, and I would be really surprised if he agreed.

  23. “of” Rand Paul!

    1. No way the Republican aristocracy will accept Ron Paul as VP but they may offer a ‘Joe Kennedy’ deal; a position of importance for Rand

      1. Does anyone like me think it is hilarious that the average self-described conservative voter loves Rand, and Loathes Ron. They are the same guy with the same positions….Coulter could write a whole book about the obvious lack of logic here. Of course she only write on that subject about liberals, maybe many self describerd conservatives harbor liberal tendencies no…..

  24. http://austrianrationalist.wor…..-ron-paul/ I have no idea why any Republicans would want a Romney as President.


    Any other fans of Spiked here? I was surprised to see this editorial there. Honestly, on what basis do people call Ron Paul “kooky”? I don’t get it. Even if I didn’t agree with him 93% of the time, I wouldn’t call him kooky.

    1. I would call him a racist bag of shit. In fact, I do call him that.

      1. The truth is often racist if you don’t like it.

        1. Ron Paul’s newsletters were racist, and that’s the truth.

          1. I hate f’in ni**ers as much as the next guy. But I won’t support someone who writes that.

            1. Funny,what you are referring to was debunked in 2008.He did not write anything racist.He was an absent editor,but he also thought the man in charge of the printing was doing that.Welcome to politics.

            2. If you hate it, why don’t you stop?

          2. Re: Maxipad,

            Ron Paul’s newsletters were racist, and that’s the truth.

            It’s not the truth, plus is irrelevant: Stephanopoulos killed the newsletters, the arrogant bastard.

            You lost.

          3. you’d have a hard time sayign that if you had actually read the ones in question. You can find them by google searching “ron paul newsletters the new republic” the first link should be the origional story with links to scans of the newsletter that you can read if you so desire. Pretty tame stuff by conservative “red meat” standards if I do say so myself though I will conceed it does rise at least to the level of politically incorrect, if you are a believer in the whole PC BS line of thinking.

    2. I agree the ‘kooky’ label is a childish maneuver but Libertarians call everyone they disagree with ‘cunt’.

      No wonder the Russians passed a new law.

      1. I confess, that’s one of those exaggerated stereotypes; Libertarians also call their subjects of wrath: ‘whores’ 😉

        1. Are Libertarians predominantly male because they are sexist, or are they sexist because they are predominantly male?

          It’s a chicken or egg kind of problem.

          1. Telling dirty jokes and acknowledging women are attractive is NOT sexist.

      2. It’s because we’re Anglophiles.

        1. It is because they are ASD males who have inchoate social skills. Their developmental stages of inamorata, and administration were traumatized but the lack thereof; ergo their divorces, government, law issues….

          1. You know, I try not to pick on you and generally try to argue in good faith with you. But saying we are all autistic AND male is fucking bigoted. There are a number of regular posters that are female. My wife is a libertarian. And neither of us have ASD.

            1. Males are the preponderance of libertarians, and they have a high-ratio of ASD; Do you know any other political movement that has an unbalanced sexual ratio? (google the question)

              I don’t consider disorders a ‘bad’ characteristic; on the contrary, I’m fascinated.

              1. My link failed

                and thank you for “not picking one me” but between you, me and anyone who reads old threads, I know a lot of the people on the site

    3. So far, three replies to my question with one of the three actually stating that calling RP “kooky” is childish. Good to know that even his detractors find no basis for calling him kooky.

  26. “Their biggest concern with [Paul] is a sense of lack of party discipline or teamwork: seeing Paul constantly asked if he intends to run third party on TV seems to have achieved its purpose of undermining his campaign.”

    He never threatened to vote for Obama if one of his opponents got nominated.

    It’s not as if Newt threatened to go to a third-party with purer principles; he actually threatened to endorse the Democrat.

    The Pauls will have to be cautious about keeping the lines of communication open to the Rs without getting assimilated. They certainly shouldn’t sell out their non-Republican supporters.

    1. Maybe I should order Mrs. Paul’s cookbook.

      I hear the fish sticks are great.

      1. ‘fish sticks’ I see what you did there.

  27. The reason so many Paul supporters do not trust other republicans: they never change policy and both parties seemed to be controlled by same special interests, big money boys. If Romney can change his positions and accept going against the real status quo there is a chance of working together.. and being a Mormon he might be willing to do that as Mormons know what an end to freedoms will mean.. as America heads fast track into police state.

  28. HYLP160287N6Just found your blog! I appreciate your words man.
    Michael Kors Outlet If you love color, run now and nab the absolutely amazing Michael Kors Gia Ostrich Embossed Clutch.
    l KorsSatchel
    It’s the attention-grabbing bag of the moment thanks to its brazen neon pink hue ? and before you argue that you won’t be able to carry it until spring, think again.

  29. Oh man, this sucks balls – I have hope! Why why why must I prepare for a crushed spirit!

  30. Good news: this website ) we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. Accept credit card payments, free transport. You can try oh, will make you satisfied.
    Tshirt price is $12Jeans price is $34

  31. Good news: this website ) we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. Accept credit card payments, free transport. You can try oh, will make you satisfied.
    Tshirt price is $12Jeans price is $34

  32. Good news: this website ) we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. Accept credit card payments, free transport. You can try oh, will make you satisfied.
    Tshirt price is $12Jeans price is $34

  33. http://proxy4biz?com
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel Women sandal is $30
    DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $35
    Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
    Jeans price is $34,Door to Door services!
    5 days arrive your home or you

  34. http://proxy4biz?com
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel Women sandal is $30
    DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $35
    Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
    Jeans price is $34,Door to Door services!
    5 days arrive your home or you

  35. http://yep?it/qpmsmn Look !!!,how the nice film pictures !!!

  36. There is no path to victory for Ron Paul. The Republicans will not hear of it.

  37. All us Democrats have our fingers crossed!


  38. There are positives to Rand Paul running as VP. He would get televised debates and then if they win, he would have at least four years of saying smart things all over the place. Every voter knows who Joe Biden is. Can you imagine the positive image Rand would get just by not being a public moron? He’d get to spew all his libertarian messages whenever he wants and fuck Romney’s Administration if he doesn’t like it. He can make Romney trend in his direction. Everyone knows Romney takes his opinion from others when those others say something people like. And what if we have a 50/50 Senate? Rand as tie-breaker!

  39. Obomney will win in the end. Resistance is futile.

  40. The Newsletters are not to be considered because they are old newsletters…and he didn’t write them…or he did. And there were many times when he didn’t edit them.

    We can review Ron Paul’s Words to confirm this.
    Ron Paul’s words 1995: “I also do an investment letter” “I also put out a political type of business investment newsletter”

    Ron Paul’s words 2011 CNN “Walk Out” Interview: “I didn’t write them. didn’t read them at the time and I disavow them.”

    Ron Paul’s words WHO radio interview Dec. 2011 (just days after “I didn’t write them”) “And I wrote a certain portion of them?But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in.”

    More recently, December 28, 2011, Ron Paul’s campaign gleefully accepted the endorsement of a preacher man who wants to execute gay folks.
    “We welcome Rev. Kayser’s endorsement and the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs. We’re thankful for the thoughtfulness with which he makes his endorsement and hope his endorsement and others like it make a strong top-three showing in the caucus more likely,” said Ron Paul 2012 Iowa Chairman Drew Ivers.
    Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals ? including the death penalty…
    On a lighter note Paul does have the support of the worlds oldest profession…


  41. Who cares that hookers support Paul? Is he responsible for societal judgments?

    Any campaign sends out thank you acknowledgements through social media for support; it’s impractical to be vetting every donation; try it yourself.

    I have an issue with the newsletters because at the very least it was incompetence on his part, and I have not seen any reports on who was the editor -I prefer full facts

    1. I think support from the Honey Bunnys would be more in line with the Paul campaigns Make RonLuv Not War platform than the gay killing minister.

    2. I love those who decry Paul for wanting to legalize prostitution. It already is legal at the federal level geniuses, otherwise the bunny ranch couldn’t be run. Paul can’t change state or local laws as president unless he wanted a new federal law…which he clearly doesn’t

    3. The editor changed over the years. During the period when all the objectionable material was written the editor was Lew Rockwell. The author of at least one (if not all) of the objectionable articles (the one about the LA riots) is known. Turns out his name was non the newsletter as the author the whole time. Meanwhile our intrepid news media was grilling Paul over who the author was. Paul did write a few articles, mostly of a financial nature in the Ron Paul political report. In the Dallas interview where he asks if the interviewer has “read my newsletters” they are talking investments, and he is clearly referencing the investment letter. This being said Paul should have clearly read everything before anything went out.

      1. I think the public is ‘freaking out’ about heroin via your local pharmacy.

        I must admit I’ve seen the name but I have never googled Lew Rockwell; I don’t understand their relationship, if any

  42. Rage Against The Machine, Street Fighting Man. Ireland’s “Troubles” coming to America soon. Good video, good tune.

  43. Bi-sexual? Bi-curious? seeking a safe and convenient site? “” is a good site for people with the same sexual orientation.

  44. That’s my President Paul!!!

  45. Hello,my friends!Here’s the most popular dating site for now__SeekCasual*com, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mates.Over 160000 happy members are waiting their lovers.Join free and have a try,nothing to lose..

  46. Look, the reason Rep Paul is so attractive is that his supporters demographics are young people. OTH, look at the possible demographic support for his foreign policy (which is the reason I find him attractive BTW)- he has a ceiling that is almost certain to prevent him from getting the Republican nomination.

    No, this Republican primary season is going just like the last one that produced JM’s nomination – Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line, and just like last time, a plurality of Republicans are falling in line behind the establishment candidate Romney.

    It is very obvious, and that is why the media and people in the know discount Rep Paul’s chances, not some big conspiracy.

    1. His ceiling is curiously always at the highest level that he has polled. He actually only does worse than Romney against Obama because he has lower support from Republican voters, probably the 20M who listen to Limbaugh weekly. Cracks are forming in that wall though, a good showing in SC could destroy the whole wall entirely. If Romney doesn’t take SC and the wall falls all hell could break loose in the Republican primaries.

  47. If his fans start saying it [President Paul!], if Paul starts hearing it, that will make it easier to manifest in the material world.

    Turning out to vote against the geezers and the neocons helps too.

  48. Thanks to Brian for the balanced, well written, objective piece. I hope we expect more of the same from Reason.

  49. Correction: Jim DeMint did NOT urge Republicans to “embrace Paul’s libertarian ideas”. To wit: “Ron Paul is right on the fact that we’ve got an out of control and unaccountable Federal Reserve that is eventually going to create a major crisis,” Mr. DeMint argued. “He’s also right in the importance of individual liberty and the whole constitutional limited government. And more of our candidates need to incorporate that,”.
    And, “You don’t have to agree with everything he’s saying,” DeMint told Ingraham’s audience, “but if the other candidates miss the wisdom in what he’s been saying on monetary policy and limited government…” What he actually said is, “I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.” Certainly not all!

    1. actually Paul is the only one pushing the FED, and smaller limited government/real spending cuts. Since no “conservative” will take those issues it think they are by default libertarian issues, at least if you buy that paul is a libertarian.

  50. When (not if) Ron Paul FAILS

    to get the Republican nomination (because he is NOT a Republican) the Mask will come off and the Liber(al)tarians will all go back to being the same old pain in the axx malcontents that they have always been.

    New conspiracies will be created out of thin air, Alex Jones will probably make a new conspiracy movie (about Romney being an alien from Planet X or something equally absurd) and all their little libertarian knives will be pointed at Mitt Romney.

    And Mitt might lose!
    But who cares as long as the PaulBots are UN-MASKED!! This election is no longer about Obama its about stopping Ron Paul (and the Libertarians) from taking over the Republican Party.

  51. The notion that Paul’s supporters would vote for a Romney-RandPaul ticket is a joke. The VP job is the most meaningless job in Washington – this isn’t a compromise, it’s a total sellout. Paul’s primary path is:

    1) At least one other non-Romney remains in the race to divide the non-Paul votes, at least through Super Tuesday or so.
    2) Paul continues to place in the top tier.
    3) No single candidate obtains a majority of delegates, resulting in a brokered convention in Tampa in August.
    4) By August, all national polls show Paul is the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama.
    5) Absolute war breaks out in Tampa between those willing to nominate Paul vs the status quo GOP who would prefer Obama over Paul.

  52. biased1,
    The Liberal News Mafia hopes to create a scenario where Ron Paul is the last man standing.

    Christians will never vote for Ayn Rand (aka Ron Paul). Ron Paul is the Liberal dream come true!

    The problem is that Ron Paul is a Republican In Name Only. He is a major flippin RINO! He is NOT a Republican in any way shape or form.

    Ron Paul is a Libertarian who believes in legalized HEROIN, legalized Marijuana, Gay Marriages, 9-11 truther conspiracies, blaming the USA for terrorism and a million other things that CHRISTIANS cannot support.

    To vote for Ron Paul would be like voting for Ayn Rand who is in HELL. If he gets the nomination Obama will win all 50 states.

  53. I see your point CarpHunter,avoiding WWIII and guaranteed economic armageddon would be pointless if the price we had to pay involved minding our own business and not prosecuting victimless crimes.My priorities are all WRONG! Now kindly fuck off and go back to your troll cave .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.