Monday, December 26, 2011

Embrace the Paulcolypse

We are on the brink of something momentous, wonderful, and even sublime, something that would remake politics in America. An event that is terrifying to many, but electrifying to many others. In just eight days Iowa voters will caucus, and if recent polls can be trusted, likely give Ron Paul the win. Count me in the group that would be electrified by a Paul win in Iowa.

Let me state that I very much prefer Romney to be our nominee. And I would be happy with a Romney win in Iowa. But I would be ecstatic with a Paul win in Iowa even though I am not keen on a Paul nomination.

There are three groups of republican voters who should be thrilled at the prospect of a Paul win Iowa. First is the obvious group of die hard Paul lovers. Nothing needs to be said about them.

Second are the Romney supporters. A Paul win in Iowa would Newter the Gingrich and Perry campaigns. Paul is polling in the top three in NH as well and if he pulled a second in NH after first in Iowa then it would be lights out for everyone not named Romney or Paul. In a long drawn out race Romney will galvanize the mainstream republicans and win by a significant margin.

The third group of GOP voters who should be thrilled at the prospect of a Paul win in Iowa are those who are repulsed by Iowa politics: repulsed by the unethical, undemocratic pay to play process of the Ames straw poll and endorsements from guys like Bob Vander Plaats; repulsed by the ravings of uneducated bigots like the very influential radio talk show host Steve Deace (who happened to vote for Obama in 2008); repulsed by the hypocrisy of the far right in Iowa who would overlook the political corruption of Perry and Gingrich, the serial adultery of Gingrich, the enormous mountain of flip flops by Gingrich, and the inability of Perry to articulate any policy position that doesn't fall back on drilling for oil while rejecting a smart, capable, and uncorrupt candidate, Romney; repulsed by a state that guzzles down ethanol subsidies faster than an oceanic tanker guzzles down diesel; repulsed by a state that keeps voting for the democratic presidential candidate by ever widening margins. Should we really be letting these people have such a big say in picking our nominee? No way! A Paul win in Iowa should be the sounding of a death knell for Iowa's importance in national politics.

To all my Romney friends, I implore you to say only positive things about Paul over the next week. Flood the comments sections of blogs with comments about how great Paul is. He is your best friend right now.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


Anonymous said...

I think Perry and Gingrich.......and Bachmann, Huntsman and Santorum.....have already "newtered" themselves by not qualifying in VA.

A Paul win would marginalize the Iowa "frenzy" relevancy.

Romney wins Iowa and shows Vander Plaats how irrelevant HIS style of evangelical politics is, too.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Dan!


Butch Deadlift said...

Screw it, let Romney win it all. Cyborg Ron Paul will be too old to run in eight years anyhow :-)

Tony said...

I can not stomach watching Ron Paul win anything over Romney. Paul isn't even a republican!Why should he win as the republican nominee? He is just using our party for publicity. Down with Paul! Romney2012!

Anonymous said...

Bury Iowa, and with it, losers like Deace and Vanderplatts. Dan is so right.


hamaca said...

Excellent point, Dan.

A Paul victory in Iowa could result in a much more positive view of Romney on the part of those who do not currently support him.

It'll hopefully prove to be a dose of shock treatment to shake some of the base out of the anti-Romney trance they're in.

Socrates said...

The only problem with a Paul win in Iowa and a second in NH is that if he doesn't win the GOP nomination, he may be crazy enough to think that a 3rd party run would be a great platform for his cause.

I'm sure to him, a Republican or Democratic win would be just as bad if he didn't get the Presidency so he would not mind being a spoiler for the Republican nominee vs Obama.

So from my point of view, Paul needs to be squasked like an ant NOW rather than later.

Anonymous said...

Socrates, you have a good point.


hamaca said...


On the other hand, Paul may currently feel that the GOP is giving him the best platform for his message.

If things get too ugly in Iowa, such that he and his supporters feel disenfranchised by the GOP, they could bolt 3rd part as well.

Question is, what will more likely keep them supporting the GOP nominee. Maybe very few ever will.

Anonymous said...

Socrates, I agree that Paul's followers are the most unstable and most likely to go third party. That would be very bad. But, I would still be willing to take that chance in order to lance the political boil that is Iowa.


Pablo said...

2 years ago I never would have imagined that Romney would be so lucky. All the ABR crowd had to do was get one credible candidate to enter the race. Instead the clown car delivered Romney's competition. And now the ABR crowd withers away, not with a bang, but with a whimper. I love it. I love it. I love it.

Anonymous said...


If Huck were in I be he would be walking away with this race.


Ashley Jones said...

Pablo: "All the ABR crowd had to do was get one credible candidate to enter the race."

DanL: "If Huck were in I be he would be walking away with this race."

Although I love both of these posters, these statements are nonsense. Mitt is actually a very strong candidate who has run a brilliant campaign and would have been extremely difficult to beat for anyone. All candidates have flaws. The reason we're so familiar w/the flaws of Perry/Newt/etc. is because they got in the race and were compared to Mitt for weeks at a time. Many of the other potential choices would have experienced the same thing. Huckabee would have had plenty of problems too if he had joined. The grass always looks greener on the other side. When candidates start standing next to Mitt they start looking less impressive.

Slick-Willy said...

Although I like the general concept of this post, I think Iowa will be diminished with a Romney win as well. It will show that Iowa can easily be won w/o spending $ or time in the state. A Mitt win, like a Paul win (but to a smaller degree), hurts Iowa's power to some degree.

Anonymous said...


Pablo and I are both Romney supporters. I loathed Huck in 2008 and am grateful that he isn't in now. It is lucky for us that Huck sat it out. He was a strong campaigner and connected well with a lot of voters, he'd been polling very well from 08 until the time that he announced that he wouldn't enter the race this year. He would have been tough to beat.


Ashley Jones said...


I'm not suggesting Huck was a nobody. He would have been a viable candidate and the likely favorite in Iowa. But saying he'd be "walking away" with the nomination is a big overstatement.

As I said, the grass is always greener...

Huck has baggage. Real baggage. No one thinks about it right now because he's irrelevant. But it would be in plain view if he became relevant. One of the reasons he didn't get in is because he didn't want his negatives plastered all over the news again.

Huck (or Daniels, Christie, Ryan, Rubio, etc.) made a choice not to run for various reasons. One of those was that they all realized it would be a tough campaign that would show their worst side. And they all realized losing was a real possibility. Perry was probably the only guy deluded enough to think he'd be "walking away" with the nomination. Huck is not that dumb.

Ashley Jones said...

BTW, I'm familiar w/your posts DanL (and Pablo's). I know you support Mitt and I generally agree with you both. I just think many (Romney supporters included) have been prone to buy into the concept that Mitt's current success is due to a weak field. IMO Mitt had a high chance of success regardless of the competition. And the most formidable and intelligent competition realized it and were satisfied with Mitt leading the party, so they stayed out.

Anonymous said...

Well I do give Huck credit for seeing the lay of the land rather well, and deciding he probably didn't have the where-with-all to overtake Romney.

Every one of the others like Christie, Daniels, Ryan all saw the same obstacle. Not saying they couldn't have done it, but they had to wonder how difficult it would be, and whether it would be worth it.

Everyone calls Mitt the weak frontrunner, but maybe that's a misnomer, cause he's still the guy standing.


Convicts4Huck said...

"All candidates have flaws. The reason we're so familiar w/the flaws of Perry/Newt/etc. is because they got in the race and were compared to Mitt for weeks at a time."

Awe comeon Ashley...The great Reverend Huckabee had few flaws.

He was my hope outa here. Now with this mean spirited Romney, I'll probably never get a pardon. The Reverend, was so understanding and forgiving.

newark hawk said...

Why didn't Mike Huckabee enter the GOP race? Answer: 2 words - MAURICE CLEMMONS Voters, especially GOP voters, don't take too kindly to cop killers, nor to Governors who grant them clemency.

Convicts4Huck said... just don't understand the forgiving nature of the Reverend. He understands that man is not perfect. And sure, I've made a mistake or 2..or 5..The amount, doesn't matter. It's what's in the heart that counts.

Reverend Huckabee lived by this understanding.

marK said...

I have always been opposed to these sorts of games. Honesty is always the best policy.

And I agree that Mitt would be right in the thick of things if Daniels, Huckabee, Thune, Barbour, and just about anybody else who is mentioned were in. It isn't Mitt's fault that the rest of the field is so weak.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Nice Job DanL.

Put me squarely in camps 1 & 2.

I also agree with DanL that Huck would been a formidable candidate.

I also agree with Ashley and marK that Mitt would have been just as formidable had all the "That could be me up there" candidates gotten in.

Wait a agreeing with so many different points of view, does that make me a shape=sifting flip=flopping panderer?