Wednesday Morning Coffee - Ron Paul Third in Iowa - Granite Grok

Wednesday Morning Coffee – Ron Paul Third in Iowa

Dr. Paul wins third place in IowaAn “ends justifies the means” approach to a Republican primary is how ‘Republicans’ for Ron Paul justify begging Democrats to register as Republicans or independents so they can screw with the results of the GOP Primary to their candidates advantage.

In Iowa, assuming it worked, this netted Congressman Paul a decent third place showing.  We are left to wonder what the numbers would be without the interlopers, but it seems certain Ron Paul owns third place by a wide margin.  In Iowa that is as reasonable a launching pad for the Oval office as first, second, or fourth.

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, where a near-majority of voters register as independents,  Dr. Paul should expect to do better.  But if he can’t there is no reason to believe he will find improvements in South Carolina or Florida.  Failing to win New Hampshire is by no means fatal, but if he can’t pull out a first or second here, the odds of doing it anywhere else dim considerably despite his otherwise outstanding campaign mechanics.

Personally,  don’t think he can win the nomination.  Now I’d like to think that the unlikelihood of a Paul convention victory is a result of principled conservatives and Republicans blanching at the willingness of the Paul campaigns roots to scrounge for votes among people who think it is OK to kill babies and use government muscle to rob citizens of their property, but I suspect it is because far too many primary participants are establishment voters who are against Obama’s brand of big government, but not the brand altogether. This is a result of left wing run education, of course, but deeper down we have to consider it as an Overton Window sort of problem.  The left has been moving the window their way for decades.  The TEA party only began fixing this back 2009.

They started moving the window of middle-ground thinking back toward the right, away from the Democrat/Obama-style brand of big-progressivism.   And I believe American’s want to a more frugal government.  But there is something else they want more, or perhaps less.  They do not want a dramatic shift–and this is the core of the idea that America is essentially a conservative nation.  Conservatism takes measured steps, testing each result, then moving on in a planned and orderly manner toward the ultimate goal.  It does not mean ‘get to the right as fast as we can.’

Ron Paul’s message, or that of his more visible and audible supporters, is that we need intimidate and dramatic change.  Instead of moving the window they might just rip it out and toss it in a corner.  While there is a strong case for dramatic change, unless you’ve been asleep for the past three years, American’s do not like the sound of dramatic change.  A pendulum swing is one thing, a leap off the other side of the other cliff is another.

Markets, corporations, and people, like predictable outcomes.  Dramatic shifts do not provide that.  And Americans quickly reject them for something else.  They like to see and feel the change coming at a measured pace.   The Democrat’s failure to do that cost them big in 2010.  So the lessons is that we need long term control to felicitate the necessary changes.   But measured is not what the Paul campaign supporters have promised us.

We are being flayed with apocalyptic scenarios whose only cure is massive and dramatic austerity–one only Ron Paul can deliver.   Republicans and conservatives who do not brook with Dr. Paul on matters of foreign policy are branded as traitorous neo-cons–with a nod to left wing Alinsky like tactics I might add.  But again, whether the apocalyptic prognostications are true or not, it is a mistake to let your message be marketed in that way.   A Conservative nation will reject dramatic change no matter which way it takes us. And that is exactly how the Democrats–some of whom seem willing to vote for Paul in a primary but Obama in a general–will sell the narrative if he is the Republican Candidate.

In the end that may well be what prevents Ron Paul from resonating with enough regular voters to get the delegates he needs, and it is exactly how the Democrat strategists will campaign against the guy.    Make Obama look less scary and Obama can win.  Same as every campaign.   It makes no difference if he is right.  If the general electorate kills the messenger it will cost him the primary or the election.

It is also troubling that many Ron Paul supporters–again, same people recruiting Democrats to vote for their guy in the Republican primary–won’t vote for anyone but Ron Paul in a general election.  It’s almost Pyrrhic.  It is most certainly hypocritical.  And it reeks of the cult of personality mentality we are trying to escape from with Obama.  Except that Democrats will almost always vote for any Democrat to keep things from getting away from them.  To many Paulists would let Rome burn, rather than grab just any bucket of water.  Most Republicans, and almost any Conservative understands that.  It is why they will not support him.

So while on Paul won third place in Iowa.  Not bad.  But does it matter?  While it may be too late to undo the long term damage, toning the rhetoric down could go a long way toward helping Dr. Paul keep pace.  But is that even possible?

 

 

>