Ron Paul = Newt Gingrich + Davis Straub's Worst Nightmare

[Free]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-usa-campaign-paul-idUSTRE7BD1TN20111214

Ron Paul gains ground, further stirring Republicans
12/14/2011
By Daniel Trotta

AMHERST, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul declared on Wednesday his campaign was "peaking at the right time" as polls show him closing in on the two perceived front-runners.

The libertarian congressman from Texas with a passionate core of followers complained that pundits were dismissing his longshot campaign prematurely and sounded optimistic about catching former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich.

All three and others are seeking to represent the Republicans and unseat Democratic President Barack Obama next November. The first of a series of Republican nominating contests is set for January 3 in Iowa.

"The momentum is building up and a lot of the candidates so far would come and go. They would shoot to the top and drop back rapidly. Ours has been very steady growth, then in this last week or two there has been a sudden extra growth," Paul told reporters after meeting voters in Amherst, New Hampshire.

Public Policy Polling released a survey on Tuesday showing him one percentage point behind Gingrich for the lead in Iowa.

Paul took 21 percent in the survey compared to 22 percent for Gingrich with Romney third at 16 percent.

In New Hampshire, which follows Iowa's caucus with a primary election on January 10, Romney led with 33 percent in a Rasmussen Reports poll released on Tuesday. Gingrich was second with 22 percent and Paul third at 18 percent. Paul's four-point gap behind Gingrich narrowed from a 10-point gap in the previous week's poll and marked Paul's best showing so far, Rasmussen said.

"In political terms, it probably means we're peaking at the right time," Paul said.

INFLUENCE THE RACE

Paul, who is making his third bid for the White House, is unlikely to take the nomination. But he may influence the race all the way to the end, acquiring delegates that stand to give him clout at the party's nominating convention next August.

He could tilt the nomination to one candidate should the race remain undecided by convention time.

"The other candidates are scared of him and his ability to attract strong supporters," said Jennifer Donahue, a fellow at the Eisenhower Institute at Gettysburg College.

"If Romney had a core like Paul does, no matter how small, he'd be much better off," Donahue said, referring to Romney's status as the establishment candidate.

Paul, 76, attracts voters with a libertarian vision of eliminating a role for the state wherever possible. But some of his views alienate traditional bases of the Republican Party.

His call to abolish the Federal Reserve alarms Wall Street Republicans. His advocacy for withdrawing from U.S. military engagements abroad concerns national security Republicans. Social conservatives may be wary of his refusal to oppose gay marriage, as Paul says the federal government has no business regulating any marriage.

"The special interests on Wall Street -- they might have a lot of money but they don't have a lot of voters," Paul said.

Loyal and boisterous followers flock to his campaign events, such as a town hall meeting in Peterborough, New Hampshire, on Tuesday.

"He doesn't think he's better than any of us. You can tell by the way he speaks to us. He seems very genuine and plain. He doesn't embellish," said Susan Davidson, 49.

"He's an extremely brave man to be able to speak his mind so simply but eloquently in the face of all the big stars and heroes in Congress. He's not afraid of them," she said.

Paul has also gained attention for television ads that have attacked Gingrich.

"He definitely takes more from Gingrich than he does from Romney," said Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist who said he is neutral in the nominating process. "He's doing to Newt Gingrich what Romney hasn't been able to do. In a lot of ways he's Newt Gingrich's worst nightmare."

[Free]

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html

Ron Paul For The GOP Nomination

And I see in Paul none of the resentment that burns in Gingrich or the fakeness that defines Romney or the fascistic strains in Perry's buffoonery. He has yet to show the Obama-derangement of his peers, even though he differs with him. He has now gone through two primary elections without compromising an inch of his character or his philosophy. This kind of rigidity has its flaws, but, in the context of the Newt Romney blur, it is refreshing. He would never take $1.8 million from Freddie Mac. He would never disown Reagan, as Romney once did. He would never speak of lynching Bernanke, as Perry threatened. When he answers a question, you can see that he is genuinely listening to it and responding - rather than searching, Bachmann-like, for the one-liner to rouse the base. He is, in other words, a decent fellow, and that's an adjective I don't use lightly. We need more decency among Republicans.

And on some core issues, he is right. He is right that spending - especially on entitlements and defense - is way out of control. Unlike his peers, he had the balls to say so when Bush and Cheney were wrecking the country's finances, and rendering us close to helpless when the Great Recession came bearing down. Alas, he lacks the kind of skills at compromise, moderation and restraint that once defined conservatism and now seems entirely reserved for liberals. But who else in this field would? Romney would have to prove his base cred for his entire presidency. Gingrich is a radical utopian and supremely nasty fantasist.

I don't believe Romney or Gingrich would cut entitlements as drastically as Paul. But most important, I don't believe that any of the other candidates, except perhaps Huntsman, would cut the military-industrial complex as deeply as it needs to be cut. What Paul understands - and it's why he has so much young support - is that the world has changed. Seeking global hegemony in a world of growing regional powers among developing nations is a fool's game, destined to provoke as much backlash as lash, and financially disastrous as every failed empire in history has shown.

We do not need tens of thousands of troops in Europe. We do not need to prevent China's rise, but to accommodate it as prudently as possible. We do need to get out of the Middle East to the maximum extent and return our relationship with Israel to one between individual nations, with different interests and common ideals, not some divine compact between two Zions. We do need a lighter, more focused, more lethal war against Jihadism - but this cannot ever again mean occupying countries we do not understand and cannot control. I suspect every other Republican would launch a war against Iran. Paul wouldn't. That alone makes a vote for him worthwhile.

Breaking the grip of neoconservative belligerence on conservative thought and the Republican party could make space again for more reasoned and seasoned managers of foreign policy. Embracing the diversity of a multi-cultural, multi-faith America is incompatible with Christianism and the ugly anti-illegal immigrant fervor among the Republican base. But it is perfectly compatible with a modest, humble libertarianism that allows a society to find its own way, without constant meddling and intervention in people's lives. Just as vitally, no other Republican (or Democrat) would end the war on drugs, one of the most counter-productive, authoritarian campaigns against individual liberty this country has known since Prohibition.

He could also begin to unwind the imperial presidency. We would no longer go to war without a full Congressional vote and approval. Torture would not return under Paul, making it more likely that we can contain that virus to the criminal regime of Cheney and Bush. Politics would be marked more by what wasn't done, rather than what was - a truly conservative move and in stark contrast with the man who really would have made a good Marxist, Newt Gingrich.

The constant refrain on Fox News that this man has "zero chance" of being the nominee is a propagandistic lie. Nationally, Paul is third in the polls at 9.7 percent. In Iowa, he may win. In New Hampshire, it is Paul, not Gingrich, who is rising this week as Romney drifts down. He's at 19 percent, compared with Gingrich's 24. He is the third option for the GOP. And I believe an Obama-Paul campaign would do us all a service. We would have a principled advocate for a radically reduced role for government, and a principled advocate for a more activist role. If Republicans want a real debate about government and its role, they have no better spokesman. He is the intellectual of the field, not Gingrich.

I am, like many others these days, politically homeless. A moderate, restrained limited government conservatism that seeks to amend, not to revolt, to reform, not to revolutionize, is unavailable. I'm a Tory who has come to see universal healthcare as a moral necessity that requires some minimal government support, who wants government support for a flailing reovery now, but serious austerity once we recover. I favor massive private and public investment in non-carbon energy, because I am a conservative who does not believe our materialism trumps the need for conseraving our divine inheritance. I back marriage equality and marijuana legalization as Burkean adjustments to a changing society. I see a role for government where Paul doesn't.

But Paul's libertarianism may be the next best thing available in the GOP. It would ensure real pressure to make real cuts in entitlements and defense; it would extricate America from the religious wars of the Middle East, where we do not belong. It would challenge the statist, liberal and progressive delusion that for every problem there is a solution, let alone a solution devised by government. As part of offering the world a decent, tolerant conservatism, these instincts are welcome. As an antidote - and a very strong one - to the fiscal recklessness and lawless belligerence of Bush-Cheney, it is hard to beat. The Tea Party, for all their flaws, are right about spending and the crony capitalism it foments. So is Paul.

I regard this primary campaign as the beginning of a process to save conservatism from itself. In this difficult endeavor, Paul has kept his cool, his good will, his charm, his honesty and his passion. His scorn is for ideas, not people, but he knows how to play legitimate political hardball. Look at his ads - the best of the season so far. His worldview is too extreme for my tastes, but it is more honestly achieved than most of his competitors, and joined to a temperament that has worn well as time has gone by.

I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born. He is the "Change You Can Believe In" on the right. If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul. Of you are a Republica concerned about the degeneracy of the GOP, vote Paul. If you are a citizen who wants more decency and honesty in our politics, vote Paul. If you want someone in the White House who has spent decades in Washington and never been corrupted, vote Paul.