During the long winter nights when Ron Paul and his boisterous supporters were raising hell in caucus states, one of the regular themes sounded by many mainstream media political observers was the damage the libertarian outlier was doing to the Republican brand and ultimately the party’s chances of defeating Barack Obama. Paul’s cheering throngs were loud and clear at the GOP’s presidential debates, and his strong showing in Iowa seemed to presage a dangerous extremist tilt to the opposition party.
But today, as Paul announced that he would no longer be campaigning in the remaining primary and caucus states, those warnings ring hollow. Paul may have had his moments during a fractious race, and his supporters will continue to make nuisances of themselves at state conventions, but in the end, his remained a symbolic candidacy that had little appeal to most Republicans. His libertarians will probably be heard from again in four or eight years if his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, takes the torch from his father and tries his luck at the presidential game. And some will claim he influenced the race and made great strides during his previous presidential runs. But the fact remains that his efforts fell flat as soon as the real voting started. Ron Paul ends his presidential run pretty much the way he began it: as someone outside the broad consensus of the Republican Party.
It should be conceded that Paul’s campaign was well-organized and highly effective in any state where delegates were chosen in caucuses where low turnouts minimized his main deficiency: the lack of broad support from the voters. Any place where tiny groups of motivated activists could seize control of the situation was one where Paul could make a good showing. Under those circumstances, Paul’s appeal to young, disaffected Democrats and independents who loved his isolationist stance on foreign policy and libertarian approach to social issues could make up for the fact that the overwhelming majority of Republicans had little interest in his ideas.
Paul was able to briefly shine in Iowa and stole the show at times in debates with his bizarre attacks on the Federal Reserve or his defense of the Islamist tyrants of Iran. Some liked his unassuming style and were charmed by the fact that, unlike the others on stage at the debates, he had no real plans to be president and therefore made no effort to pander to the voters. But his sideshow carnival candidacy ran out of steam as primary voters began to choose between the first tier candidates and he began a streak of last place finishes that were a better indication of his importance than the Iowa results.
His exit from active campaigning will, no doubt, provoke some pundits to claim that in 2012, his libertarians stopped being a marginal factor in the GOP and entered the mainstream. But this is, at best, an exaggeration. There was some overlap between Paul’s strict libertarianism and Tea Party sentiment about the size of government, debt and taxes. But that common ground was dwarfed by the gap between Paul’s conspiratorial view of economics as well as his foreign policy views that had more in common with the knee-jerk anti-American doctrines of the far left than with that of most Republicans.
Though many on the left wrongly assume his extremist approach resonated with the party’s base, the truth was, he had little to offer average Republican voters. Nor can it be credibly asserted that he moved the conservative discussion in his direction on any issue where it had not already moved. Every time he opened his mouth, he demonstrated the strong distinction between his own extremist approach and that of even most Tea Party hardliners.
Despite all the noise he made and the delegates he won, on the day when his campaign ended with a whimper, the chasm that separates Paul’s followers from the rest of the Republican Party is no smaller than it was a year ago.
No. Ron Paul did not change the Republican Party. The Republican Party is the same war-mongering half of the Democrat-Rupublican "War Party" that it has been for decades.
His campaign didn't "end". What about his statement makes that unclear?
It seems obvious to me that Ron Paul has been avoiding the big states for some time now. He simply has no money nor the organization to wage a campaign in Texas followed by California. My guess is that he will attend any and all of the remaining states with caucuses. His supporters are the pros at that game and he will end up gaining a few delegates in order to add or modify a plank or two at the National Convention. n nAs for who truly influenced the current direction of the Republican campaign, it was not Ron Paul. Harking back to the debates, the candidates agreed with Newt more than any other participant. – and that included Mittens. But I will see nothing here that will ever give Newt the respect that he is due. We have seen the last of Newt and the last of Ron Paul. I truly hope that we have seen the last of Rick Santorum. If Mitt blows this, conservatives had best mount a Palin campaign stating January 1, 2013.
You're asking the wrong question. Not "did Ron Paul change the Republican Party" but "did Ron Paul change the Republican mind?".
If Ron Paul had been able to move the Republican Party away from the Trotsky-ite/Big Government/Interventionist, the Party might have a chance for a renaissance but now they are facing their worse fears, they have become the neo-Whigs.
Not sure how this article made it to Drudge. Its just another poorly written article about what Ron Paul has actually done and what his stances are. The author clearly does not understand to what degree what the Fed has devalued the value of the U.S Dollar, nor does he care to understand what Paul's stance is on foreign relations. It's interesting that the author thinks that Paul didn't want to be president because he 'didn't pander to the voters'. So what the author is really saying is that because Paul maintained his integrity throughout his campaign – and still does since the campaign is not over – he never really wanted to president. The author clearly likes to be pandered to and really doesn't understand what the Paul movement is all about. Interesting that there is no mention of all the Paul supporters that have secured positions of leadership in the GOP. The author makes no mention of this. If Paul's campaign was a fleeting moment, then how does the author explain the leadership roles Paul supporters won and continue to gain at state conventions?
Trash! I expected much better than this from Drudge if they want me to read their BS! nAs if we all aren't aware of the flagrant fraud that has taken place including the vote flipping via the electronic voting machines??? You've lost your mind! I hope they fire you! nWhat are you working for the CIA??? nJust like how you reported that he dropped out! nHe has not dropped out, he's going where his bread is buttered, and if you think that you hold the majority opinion in this country, you're sadly mistaken!
I have to be honest, I stopped reading the article after the author said that the Paul people would go on making nuisances of themselves at the state conventions. Most of the articles I have read concerning the problems were either that Paul had the majority and "stole" it all, or that they wouldn't shut up when the rules got broke. n nA quick search of state convention delegate wins pokes huge holes in the idea that Romney is the nominee. The media is hyping a story, unfortunately the better Paul does the more baldly they have to lie. Pretend the populace is stupid at your own peril. n nI seriously doubt many of Dr. Pauls supporters have ever questioned his long-shot status. That the GOP appears ready to burn their tent down to keep his people out says a lot about his effect. That his people also now own a number of state parties, and with the RNC and Romney starting shadow parties in Nevada in response, this election is just getting fun.