Chris Wallace is a brave man, and I’m sure his inbox is quickly filling with thousands of unintelligible hate messages from Ron Paul fans as I type. He is right, though. Because Paul has zero chance of winning the Republican nomination, a victory in Iowa would basically just reset the clock:
“Well, and the Ron Paul people aren’t going to like me saying this, but, to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he is not going to end up as the nominee. So, therefore, Iowa won’t count and it will go on.”
But while a Ron Paul win in Iowa would likely be meaningless for his own campaign, it could have some interesting effects on the race. First, it would shake up the current narrative of the two-man competition, and potentially provide an opening for a candidate other than Gingrich or Romney to rise up. It could also be the pin that deflates the Gingrich bubble, since the former Speaker would fall short of expectations if he loses in Iowa.
But it could have some negative impacts as well. Phil Klein writes that supporting Paul in Iowa for strategic reasons may lend credibility to his crackpot views on Israel and foreign policy:
There is no question that a Paul victory would rattle Washington’s GOP establishment. But a Paul victory in Iowa would also help mainstream his noxious foreign policy views — particularly on Israel.…
If Paul won Iowa, his elevated status, at a minimum, would give more credibility to his foreign policy views. It could also allow global propaganda outlets to boast that a leading contender for the U.S. presidency thinks Gaza is a “concentration camp,” and argued that the raid that killed Osama bin Laden violated international law. And that’s just for starters.
Those who want Paul to win Iowa merely to “send a message” should realize that a Paul victory won’t send the message that they hope it will.
Support for Israel is a core value issue for Republicans, and one win by Paul isn’t going to change that. But Republicans in Iowa would be sending a message that Paul’s unforgivable flaws – the bigotry-laced newsletters he published for years, his dangerous foreign policy positions – are somehow more acceptable than Gingrich’s and Romney’s faults. If you’re going to throw away your vote on that, what’s the point of voting at all?
Right on. A victory for this isolationist nut job would discredit Iowa and the GOP as well. But who can figure Iowa? Four years ago, this state went for Mike Huckabee. You could not wish for a more pro-Israel nominee. But then New Hampshire went for Pat Buchanan back some years ago. You could not wish for a more anti-Semitic anti-Israel candidate. All this points to the insignificance that these tiny states have with their premature primaries. Two things are notable here. The news media should not play to these insignificant states. A constitutional amendment should be passed requiring all states to have their primaries simultaneously.
Right on to every one of your points. This is not a game show or a sports event. The future of this country rides on these primaries. Iowa and NH are too small of a sample for such bid decisions.
If you want to make our election about Israel, Israel will lose. If you try to push America into another Middle east war for political gain, you will see many more Americans with crackpot ideas, crazy ideas about America first.
Support for Israel could be left intact under Paul. After all, the Congress still has a say, and many of Paul’s positions would require compromise on his part if he ever did become president. What is more disconcerting is the way the Republican party has disowned the Libertarians altogether. Paul’s supporters could be at about 15 to 20% strong, and many of them will not vote at all if he doesn’t get the nomination. n nThen we have this from CBS this morning: 1 out of 2 Americans are at or near poverty level based on census stats and new poverty guidelines. Still the Republicans continue to boisterously defend tax cuts for the very rich while saying little about how they could/will help the middle class and poor. This is not true libertarianism; it’s corporatism. Yes, Obama is guilty of corporatism also, but a lot of the 50% at or near poverty level must be thinking something like, “well at least under the Democrats, I’ll get a little bone thrown at me.” And then there is the complete lack of discussion by any candidate, Democratic or Republican (except Paul), regarding civil liberties. n nWhile most likely Paul will not get the nomination, the ideas he has brought to the discourse have resonated with a sizable percentage of the voters. The Republicans will have only themselves to blame for not harnessing this energy when Obama wins.
I'm a reader of this blog AND a Ron Paul supporter. I think the republican jewish coaltion lost out when they didn't invite him because he IS pro Israel in many ways but I guess in general Israel and it's supporters are fine with the status quo. n n nAlso, it's crazy that Ron Paul gets so much pushback on foreign policy when he has so many radical ideas. People are I guess fine with legalizing heroin, eliminating the dept of Education and cutting a trillion dollars from the budget, but they are worried he might not shake his fist at iran as vigorously as some other guy.
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER WAR! nRon Paul 12/15/11
Israel is the overwhelming winner if Ron Paul is elected President. Think of all the US dollars going to the UN and all the Arab nations compared with foreign aid sent to Israel. By ending all foreign aid; for every dollar lost to Israel; over 20 dollars would be lost to the anti-Israel states. Most certainly, a President Paul would NEVER disrespect Israel's Prime MInister as President Obama has! 1-888-322-1414
Yet another article about how, no matter if he wins Iowa and N.H., Ron Paul will never be the nominee because aid to Israel is too important. Of course, Ron Paul can win the nomination. Not just because he has an army of hard core supporters but also because his ideas are finally resonating with american voters who are tired of useless and costly wars, the horrifying loss of civil liberties, and the bundling of government and corporate interests. The Republican mantras have grown tired and are not resonating with anyone but senior citizens. Aid to Israel is one of those mantras. Few believe that Israel actually needs the aid and even fewer believe that the Israel – U.S. relationship has benefitted Israel or the United States. The mainstream Republican establishment shuns younger voters and clear headed ideas to its own detriment. It stubbornly continues along its current path solely to placate the special interests who have enriched themselves over the decades. Whether Paul wins or not is actually immaterial; the Republican party will be forced to abandon its old ways because they are simply outdated and unpopular. Fox and the rest of conservative media cannot stop the death of the old Republican party no matter how much nonsense they spew about Dr. Paul's "electability" or alleged racist remarks made by his associates. In fact, they will look all the more ridiculous as they dismiss Ron Paul's wins in each state. Their reaction to his campaign only bolsters his assertions as to his outsider status and the existence of entrenched interests that desperately want to cling to a failing system at the expense of americans. As a Paul supporter, I hope Commentary and the rest of the mainstream Republican establishment continue to criticize our candidate.