Pages

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Postmortem on NH


Ron Paul’s second place showing in NH illustrates the perennial weakness of Romney. But a win is a win.

Still, winning big in NH reinforces his image as an Eastern Republican. The Rockefeller Republican repristinated.

But it seems to me that SC is a do-or-die state for Santorum. If he can’t win there, it’s hard to see him picking up primaries further down the line.

If Romney wins SC, it’s hard to see who’s going to stop him. If Santorum wins SC, then Florida may well be High Noon.

If Romney wins SC or Florida, I’ll probably tune out of the campaign season until November.

Ron Paul remains unlikely to net the nomination. He’s the ephemeral figurehead of a political movement. In principle, the movement will outlive him. Whether it waxes or wanes depends, in part, on how Ron Paul copes with losing.

If he runs as an independent, and hands the election to Obama, that will damage the movement. That will also damage Rand Paul–his heir apparent.

Ron Paul supporters will try to shift the blame to the GOP for failing to nominate a candidate they could vote for. That excuse is convincing to the faithful, but it won’t play as well outside the compound. To some extent the political fortunes of libertarianism depend on how Ron Paul deals with defeat. If he’s a spoiler, that will damage the cause going forward. 

Conversely, if Romney loses to Obama, that will damage the Republican establishment. And if Santorum loses to Obama, that will damage the religious right. 

18 comments:

  1. I heard Ron say, sort of firmly, "I am a Republican." So, he is, isn't he?
    Also, he ran last year, and he wasn't much, and he was happy that he was getting the word out about how this nation needs to embrace its Freedom once again.
    And so his cause has grown a lot in these past 4 years. Perhaps the next four years of Obama, or Romney will bring about his sons election in 2016?

    Just thinking out loud.

    With my small business I really do pray our Lord would allow us to have a nation under "The Declaration of Independence" once again. For my daughter's sake, and my four grandsons. Nevertheless, His will be done. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A friend wrote this on Facebook and it bears repeating because it makes the most sense of any position I've seen regarding Ron Paul:

    "[I]f you truly believe and trust in Gods sovereignty, Paul's view on Israel should not trouble you. God has promised He will not abandon His chosen nation. Israel already has the capability to defend itself and can prevent Iran from going nuclear. The other Islamic nations are not even currently poised to "coagulate" against Israel yet. Their youth want freedom and even though the theocratic islamists will most likely fill the power void in these uprising nations it [will happen] despite who our next president is.
    We need to get our house in order if we want to even be able to pay to defend ourselves in the future. And we need to steer our nation back towards liberty and the rule of law and the constitution.
    In another video on my wall, Paul points out that we currently give many times more $ to Israel's enemies. So the whole concern about cutting this blanket foreign aid is a ruse. It would actually help Israel because its been shown that these Islamic nations funnel our money to the terrorists. Israel will be fine and will still remain a friend."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know, just thinking out loud, too, but I find it remarkable that Paul is touted as the Constitutionalist and cannot give glory to the Creator at the end of his speeches like others, even though their faith is not the same as mine?

    2Co 4:13 Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, "I believed, and so I spoke," we also believe, and so we also speak,
    2Co 4:14 knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.



    Does anyone know what his religious belief structure is in here? Is he from a long line of Presbyterians?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with the post from Hays, and that is not always the case. ;)

    It is very doubtful that Ron Paul will run as an Independent. He thinks "change" will have to come through the GOP.

    We are looking at Romney as the next GOP candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @NatamLLC, king of the non sequitors:
    So you would prefer a Mormon or Atheist candidate so long as they stroke your emotional needs by referencing a generic "god bless America" at the end of their speeches in order to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
    I prefer honesty to pandering, and that's part of why most of the candidates are such a turn-off. They are a pack of wolves in sheeps' clothing, looking to continue America down a path of fiscal destruction.
    How some of you can actually desire to vote for any of those clowns and buy into their pandering rhetoric is pretty appalling. The wisdom granted to the believer by the Spirit may help with Scriptural understanding, but it seems that discernment doesn't always extend to other areas of life.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I hope Santorum wins in South Carolina.

    New Hampshire was an "open" primary.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Jacob,
    The 'fiscal destruction' part is certainly one to be 'very' concerned about, and Ron Paul has repeatedly raised the alarm there. Not getting our fiscal house in order will lead us to destruction possibly quite faster than an Iranian nuclear bomb would.

    Paul's military isolationism concerns me greatly. Chamberlain comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jacob, you wrote in response to my comments:

    So you would prefer a Mormon or Atheist candidate so long as they stroke your emotional needs by referencing a generic "god bless America" at the end of their speeches in order to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

    No, I would not and don't prefer a Mormon or Atheist candidate as the GOP nominee. Whoever the nominee is and whoever wins the election means little to me. What I am certain of is I will pray for them once they take the oath of office of President next January 20th like I pray for the current President and I didn't vote for him.

    I don't expect integrity or Truth coming out of any of these people.

    I quite agree that if the fiscal house is not revised and put in order, and quickly, there will be new and varied realities this entire nation will face.

    The one thing though, that has crossed my mind, comes from Paul the Apostle's point that he made to the Philippian Church, here:

    "...Php 1:18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,..."

    With Romney, at least, we can touch on our understanding of Jesus Christ and the true meaning of what a real latter day Saint is in contrast to his beliefs, don't you suppose?

    The debate most likely won't go there anyway so this whole exercise is moot.

    I was sincere when I asked about Mr. Paul's beliefs? Do you happen to know what his background is regarding Christianity?

    I haven't followed him or the others to really know? I do know that Governor Perry is supposedly an Evangelical and possibly Arminian? He is from Texas as Ron Paul is. That is not to say or group all Texans as Arminian. I have been to Texas and know personally there are some very fine Christians who call Texas their home.

    As I said, non sequitor or not, I, like donsands, was just thinking out loud and asking about Mr. Paul's background in the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  9. nata,

    From RP's website:

    "My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain. Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Santorum lost this battle eight years ago when he supported Arlen Specter.

    "But in his conscience, Rick Santorum has a new burden to bear. For every vote Specter casts to keep abortion legal, for every dollar Specter adds to a spending bill or subtracts from a tax cut, Americans can blame Santorum." -- Timothy P. Carney in The National Review, 2004

    http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/carney200404280839.asp

    Thankfully, Specter is no longer in the Senate to carry on his feminist-driven, pro-abortion agenda -- no thanks to Santorum. RINOs may embrace Rick, but true conservatives will always be suspect of his political ambitions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Matt.

    That sounds like wisdom to me?

    Do you have a problem with exercising his public faith that way?

    Maybe because of that declaration of his Faith, that is why the news media doesn't give him as much air time as they do others?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not sure. I would hope that I would never use my faith as a means to political gain. One of the greatest sins that I have consistently struggled with in my life is the sin of worshipping that praise of men.

    I praise the Lord that He has sanctified me, and has through His Spirit killed much sin in my life surrounding that struggle, but I would have a very difficult time being a politician, perpetually seeking votes. It seems to incentivize deceit and pretense, and that would be a serious struggle for me.

    Dr. Paul's faith seems genuine. Many politicians seem to use faith simply to pander, which pains me. It's difficult to tell.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tom: Thankfully, Specter is no longer in the Senate to carry on his feminist-driven, pro-abortion agenda -- no thanks to Santorum. RINOs may embrace Rick, but true conservatives will always be suspect of his political ambitions.

    Tom, I don't have time to get into this, but look at my post this morning on the Supreme Court decision yesterday, with its 9-0 decision and the opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. I heard about this story from Jim Quinn, who is a morning radio talk show host from Pittsburgh. One of the things Quinn mentioned, when noting this story, was that we might not have a "Chief Justice John Roberts" if not for Santorum's support for Specter's re-election.

    You are not the one who gets to define who is and who isn't "a real Republican". Santorum was the #3 "real Republican" in the real U.S. Senate not long ago. I'd suggest his Republican credentials are a lot better than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  14. John, two points. One, yesterday's decision was 9-0, a no brainer even for the libs. Second, Roberts won confirmation by a margin of 78-22. Specter's vote was irrelevant.

    Santorum's support for Specter 1) during his presidential bid in 1996 and 2) against conservative Pat Toomey for Senator in 2004 are two examples that give conservatives around here the willies when Santorum's name is mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tom -- a couple of things:

    One, yesterday's decision was 9-0, a no brainer even for the libs.

    That's not true. If you read some of the other news stories about it, you'll notice that liberal groups ranging from Obama's Justice Department to Barry Lynn and "People for the American Way" made arguments that were on the losing end of this case.

    Second, Roberts won confirmation by a margin of 78-22. Specter's vote was irrelevant.

    Specter was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Roberts confirmation hearings, and given Roberts's prior medical condition ("seizures"), Specter's influence was huge in enabling a vote on Roberts even to occur. A "Senator Toomey" in 2005 would not have had anywhere near the influence that a committee chairman had.

    As I said, I understand why some people would not like Santorum, but you have not begun to understand the world that Santorum dealt in -- you don't understand the relationships between these men, or what it takes to exercise power and influence at that level.

    ReplyDelete
  16. John,

    Specter also significantly participated in the Bork debacle and Thomas witchhunt. Proof that he could swing any way he wishes. No one knew at the time how Specter might act in another situation with a conservative SC nominee.

    I understand compromise to get along with the power establishment in Washington. That was Senator Santorum legacy.

    The fact that evangelicals would back a Santorum in 2012 speaks volumes about the quality of the field.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tom -- I'm not going to defend Specter except to say, the state of Pennsylvania elected and re-elected him to the U.S. Senate a number of times. And so, if you're going to be a Senator from Pennsylvania, as Santorum was, Specter is going to be part of the "real estate", and you've got to deal with him. The "power establishment" in Washington is what it is, and the fact that Santorum got as far along as he did with it, (especially given his moral perspective), is a great tribute to his skill as a politician.

    Fiscally, I like the Ron Paul plan, but from a moral perspective, I don't think that's a direction we need to head. And Steve has written extensively about his national defense plan.

    And nor am I happy with the rest of the field; I do think Santorum would be the best among the choices. That said, my life doesn't revolve around this election. God is in charge, he'll do things his way. We may not understand it, but we can accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Steve Drake:

    Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. His camp has said, for instance, within the past few days, that a President Paul would use military force to keep the Straights of Hormuz (sp?) open, should Iran try to close them militarily.

    Rather than think Chamberlain, you should think Madison, Jefferson, and crew.

    ReplyDelete