Conservative Group Backs Rick Santorum

Mitt Romney remains the most likely candidate to win the Republican nomination, but there has been another event which could lead to the less likely scenario I discussed after the Iowa caucus which makes Rick Santorum the nominee. A group of social conservative activists met in Texas and, after three ballots, voted to back Rick Santorum. If, and this is a big if, conservative voters in Republican primaries were to fall in line behind this endorsement, Santorum could win.

There are obviously many obstacles in Santorum’s way. Romney is helped tremendously by the fragmentation of the conservative vote. Newt Gingrich, who did poorly in the first two contests, is running closest to Romney in many polls in South Carolina and does not appear likely to leave the race. Andy Borowitz calculates that “Newt Gingrich has now been in the race longer than any of his marriages” and, based upon his past behavior, does not believe Newt will leave the race unless it gets cancer.

Ron Paul, whose support is increasing in South Carolina,  is helping Mitt Romney by accumulating a block of delegates which are irrelevant towards choosing an actual nominee. It is not clear what Paul’s end game is, but I certainly do not see him throwing his delegates to Santorum.

There is a question as to whether this is the right year for Santorum, who is far better known for his reactionary views on social issues in a year in which economic issues dominate. However, as Republican economic policy consists primarily of repeating ideas which never work in the real world, it shouldn’t be difficulty for Santorum to learn to speak to Republican voters on the economy. Santorum might also be hindered by a Dan Quayle level of intellect, but that did not stop Republican voters from nominating George W. Bush.

A big question remains as to whether any of the more conservative candidates can emerge to the point where they can come in first place when the nomination battle moves to the winner-take-all stage in April. Even if a single conservative cannot beat Romney consistently, if different ones manage to beat him in different states there is a chance, although small, that the campaign could even be taken to the convention.

Quote of the Day

“Nation, unless you live in a cave, I’m sure you’ve heard that yesterday’s New Hampshire primary was won by Mitt Romney. And if you do live in a cave, I’m guessing you voted for Ron Paul.” –Stephen Colbert

The Impact of the Iowa Caucus

The 2012 Republican Iowa caucus had far less impact on the race than the 2004 and 2008 Democratic races which propelled John Kerry and Barack Obama to victories in their party. The biggest question is whether we are seeing a repeat of the 2008 Republican caucus, with Rick Santorum playing the part of Mike Huckabee. Santorum benefited from being the last non-Romney candidate standing, surging with too little time for media scrutiny to harm his campaign. His eight vote loss to Mitt Romney might be analogous to Mike Huckabee’s win if it turns out to be an isolated win for a social conservatives. There is an outside chance that Santorum might capitalize upon this win to become a strong enough anti-Romney candidate to pull an upset. If conservatism was really a small-government movement a supporter of big-government such as Santorum would have no chance, but deep down many Republicans must realize their small government rhetoric is all talk. Even the Tea Party members (who have always been dominated by social conservatives) gave Santorum support.

The biggest difference between 2008 and this year is the desire of conservatives to prevent a replay of 2008 and allow someone they see as more moderate win the nomination. Newt Gingrich now wants an anti-Romney alliance with Santorum, but this looks a lot like a losing candidate trying to remain relevant. Gingrich might destroy Romney, and in the process destroy the GOPs chances at winning the general election. It is about time Gingrich does something useful.

Meanwhile conservative leaders are meeting in Texas to attempt to find a consensus conservative candidate. Good luck finding someone who adheres to the conservative line on most issues and doesn’t come across as bat-shit crazy to moderate and independent voters in a general election.

The biggest loser was obviously Michele Bachmann who dropped out of the race. Rick Perry almost left the race. As he has been raising money better than he has been debating, he might as well remain in the race. As volatile as this race has been, he could still maintain hope of becoming the surviving anti-Romney candidate down the road.

If measuring against expectations, Ron Paul also turned out to be a loser. After appearing to have a chance to win, or at least come in a close second, his third place left him virtually forgotten behind the close Romney-Santorum battle. Besides, there are few states where Paul has a chance to pick up many votes in a Republican primary.

Overall it was an unimpressive night for Republicans, who suffered from low turn-out, and for Mitt Romney. Romney spent years and millions of dollars to show that he could not appeal to any more voters than four years ago. Derek Thompson calculated how much each candidate spent per vote. Rick Perry spent the most per vote at $478.40.  Mitt Romney spent $154.90, Ron Paul  $103.30, Newt Gingrich  $89.84, Rick Santorum  $20.50, and Michele Bachmann spent $3.95 per vote. Santorum clearly got the most for his money.

It seemed that there were far more people tweeting about the caucus last night than participating. Some say it is unfair that such a small number of people could potentially choose our president. That is no where as bad as the 2000 election when the election was decided by nine people on the Supreme Court.

 

Once Again, Ron Paul’s Views Would Promote Conservatism and Even Authoritarianism, Not Liberty

Ron Paul’s opposition to virtually any action by the federal government means that he is on the right side of issues where government is wrong, including infringements upon civil liberties and waging unjust wars. His extreme support for states’ rights should not be mistaken as a philosophy which would increase liberty. Paul opposes the extension of the Bill of Rights to the states in the Fourteenth Amendment and has on many occasions indicated that he would find infringements upon civil liberties by the sates to be acceptable. He does make an exception to this usual support of states’ rights by treating abortion as murder nationwide.

While many libertarians and civil libertarians have seen through Paul’s faux-libertariansm, especially since his relationship to white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups were exposed during the 2008 campaign, some remained deceived by Paul’s rhetoric. Glenn Grenwald is the latest to write in favor of Paul without really understanding his views, while continuing with his pattern of exaggerating  and distorting Obama’s faults.

The issues regarding Paul were discussed at length in 2007 in the lead up to the 2008 campaign. In early 2008, while substituting for Steve Benen at his former blog, The Carpetbagger Report, I cross-posted a summary of my previous posts to show it would be a mistake for liberals to support Ron Paul. (Steve has since moved on to The Washington Monthly.) The previous post remains relevant and I will repeat the bulk of it below:

Seeing Ron Paul debate his fellow Republicans on Iraq, and even criticize their lack of respect for civil liberties, brought Paul justifiably favorable attention. This has included the support of some liberals who have not looked carefully at Paul’s views beyond these issues. Paul has lost a considerable amount of respect the last few days after an article in The New Republic reported on the racist writings in his newsletter, but there were reasons for both liberals and libertarians to question Paul even before these revelations.

To bring those up to speed who might not have followed the events of past week, The New Republic‘s exposure of racist writings in Ron Paul’s newsletter was the final straw after which many libertarians who had previously ignored Paul’s past realized they must disassociate themselves from Paul if they wished to retain any credibility. I have quoted the responses of several libertarians here and here. Paul’s defense was that the articles were ghost written by others and that he had not read the articles. He also claimed that he disagreed with the views expressed.

Back in November I discussed how libertarians were beginning to dissociate themselves from Ron Paul, and even half jokingly suggested that Reason would eventually do so on its cover to differentiate themselves from Paul’s markedly non-libertarian views. This week Reason clearly did realize the danger to their reputation in being linked to Paul. This led to Reason doing investigative work to debunk Paul’s defense.

Reason has reviewed public statements from Paul over the years which are quite incriminating. At times Paul defended the writings, and the context of the news reports suggests Paul was aware of them even if a ghost writer assisted him. For example, the May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News contains this (emphasis mine): “Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.”

This hardly sounds like someone who is either denying that he wrote the articles or denying that he agrees with what is published. My post on this topic yesterday includes another quote from a libertarian, Megan McArdle, which further debunks the arguments of many of Paul’s supporters, as well as dismissing the question of whether it matters if Paul is personally a racist or enabling racism.

I’ve been following Ron Paul at Liberal Values for quite a while. Initially, despite some disagreements, I found aspects of his campaign to be of interest. Besides his views on Iraq and civil liberties, I saw Paul’s campaign as a sign of the general anti-government sentiment in the country, which liberals would be wise not to ignore. As I continued to follow Paul, and reviewed his writings well before The New Republic did, I found many disturbing aspects beyond the questions of racism.

One policy I generally followed in my criticism of Paul’s views was to hold him to a standard of supporting freedom, but generally ignored disagreements based upon basic libertarian views. We might disagree with Paul over issues such as eliminating certain government programs, but in discussing libertarians that goes with the territory. Such disagreements with liberals are to be expected. Objections are much more interesting when they pertain to areas in which the so-called libertarian’s views are contrary to principles of individual liberty.

Paul’s views are far better characterized as social conservatism with extreme support for states’ rights as opposed to libertarianism. Despite his reputation as a libertarian, Paul is actually hostile towards First Amendment rights where they conflict with his religious views. Besides the Iraq war, and related abuses in the “war on terror,” the greatest threat we now face to civil liberties comes from the religious right.

As I’ve previously noted, Paul has incorrectly claimed that, “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” He has also supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn. Paul has both criticized secularism and claimed that the founding fathers envisioned a Christian America. Paul has supported the Sanctity of Life Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Marriage Protection Act.

Paul’s views on abortion show both his lack of respect for the rights of the individual as well as how he is willing to ignore his principles on federalism to promote his personal views. Besides supporting the federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions, Paul has supported federal legislation to over ride state law which differentiates between a zygote and a fully developed human. I would expect someone with training in Obstetrics to be concerned about such scientific nonsense, but this is less surprising after hearing his views on creationism versus evolution.

Ron Paul supports a Constitution which is quite different from that envisioned by the framers. Besides failing to understand the intent to form a secular state, Paul’s views on federalism stem from a lack of understanding of the plan to have over-lapping sources of authority with blurred jurisdiction between federal and state power. Paul ignores the reasons why the framers supported a stronger federal government following the failings of the original Articles of Confederation.

The fight for liberty is an on going process, with the American Revolution and later establishment of our democracy being steps along the way. Few would return to the conditions of our early days when slavery was allowed and women were denied the right to vote. While some of the founding fathers wished to have the Bill of Rights extended to the states, this was a battle which had to be left for a later date. The Fourteenth Amendment ultimately extended such rights, but this view is rejected by Paul and many of his supporters.

The consequences of these views are of tremendous consequence. While traditional views of liberalism and libertarianism deal with rights as being inherent in the individual, Paul’s view of states’ rights leads in practice to a situation where state governments trump the rights of the individual. I discussed this a couple of weeks ago from the context of Paul’s view that state governments have the right to ban flag burning. Similarly, Paul’s views would have prevented the federal government from taking action against Jim Crow laws. With the Bill of Rights not being seen as applying to the states, any violation of our Constitutional liberties might be justified if coming from a source other than the federal government.

This also explains why extremist groups such as the white supremacist Stormfront have endorsed Ron Paul. They understand that, even if their views might differ from Paul’s personal views, Ron Paul’s philosophy of government would allow them the chance to impose their views upon others. It is far easier for extremist groups to receive a majority vote in a local area, or even an entire state, than nationally. A campaign which started with well-deserved opposition to the Iraq war has turned into one where the main freedom they are defending is the freedom to discriminate and oppress. Paul’s refusal to return a contribution from Stormfront founder Don Black was the point when many first recognized that there is something seriously wrong with Paul and his supporters who defend this. In addition, to see that he shares the xenophobia exhibited by his fellow Republicans, check out this ad which he ran on illegal aliens and those people from “terrorist nations.”

I’ve been criticizing Paul on these issues for several months. Thanks to all the talk around the blogosphere among libertarians following the story in The New Republic I find that some libertarian sites (such as here and here) have raised very similar objections.

Since this was posted additional contradictory statements from Paul have been publicized, further demonstrating the lack of credibility of his denials of involvement with the racist and homophobic material published under his name.  More material has been posted here under the Ron Paul tag. Also see the rebuttal to Greenwood written at Lawyers, Gun$ and Money, including this accurate assessment of the consequences of Paul’s beliefs, tying in his racism and extreme view of states’ rights:

It’s wrong to think of Ron Paul’s racism and his libertarianism as two distinct parts of his political persona, when in fact they are deeply tied together. White supremacists understand what Glenn, apparently, does not; the absence of Federal authority makes it easier for private actors and local governments to repress the civil and political rights of minorities. Paul’s libertarianism emerged in a regional and cultural context that was deeply hostile to Federal efforts at integration. The newsletters give strong indication that none of this is lost on Ron Paul. A notional President Paul is just as likely to use the powers of the office to gut Federal enforcement of a wide range of civil liberties protections as he is to do any of the things that Glenn would like him to do.

Ron Paul and the GOP Polls: Question of the Day

Why do some pundits find it surprising that Ron Paul’s support among Republicans continues to rise as more information comes out about his racism, antisemitism,  homophobia and belief in conspiracy theories?  Do they understand nothing about the right wing?

Posted in Polls, Ron Paul. Tags: , . 4 Comments »

Gallup Shows Voter Misconceptions Regarding Views of the Candidates

In recent years multiple polls have showed that voters are far closer to the Democrats, including Barack Obama, on the issues when questions are asked purely based upon issues and not candidates. However, this has often failed to translate into support at the ballot box, partially because of voters not knowing the actual positions of the candidates. A Gallup poll shows that voters perceive the views of  Republican candidates to be closer to their own while they see greater differences between themselves and Obama. In other words, there are voters who agree with Obama on the issues but, due to all the right wing propaganda claiming he is a far left socialist, many voters fail to realize this.

On the one hand, this shows the success of the right wing noise machine. On the other hand, looking further into the poll, it is Republicans, as opposed to either independents or Democrats, who are most likely to see Obama as being on the far left. Republican views are so warped that they shift the overall result, while the perceptions of candidates by independents are far closer to those of Democrats. The poll found, “Obama’s mean ideology rating ends up furthest away from Americans’ own mean score because Republicans place him far to the left, with an average of 1.7, compared with 2.5 among independents and 2.8 among Democrats.”

Another example of how little voters in the poll understand the actual position of the candidates is seen with Ron Paul. Those who see other Republicans as having view similar to their views say the same of Ron Paul.  Regardless of whose views are preferable, it is clear that Ron Paul does not occupy the same portion of the political spectrum as other Republican candidates. This shows why Paul has surged in some Iowa polls, but once his views become known it is hard to see him surviving in GOP contests beyond Iowa and New Hampshire.

While it is primarily Republicans, who would not vote for Obama under any circumstance, who see his views as far different from their views, there are bound to be some swing voters who now are saying they will not vote for Obama based upon misconceptions about his ideology. At least it will be far easier to win the votes of such individuals by showing what Obama’s actual views are, as opposed to having to change people’s minds on the issues.  The Democrats have an edge if they can actually get people who agree with them on the issues to vote for Democratic candidates. The Democrats need to make it clear where they stand, as opposed to frequently allowing the right wing media to define them.

 

Paul Accepts Support Of Advocate Of Execution Of Homosexuals

While Ron Paul has virtually zero chance of winning either the Republican nomination or a general election in this country, there is something about him which makes following his campaign interesting. Part of it is having a candidate who does not fit well into the normal left/right divide of today’s politics. It is also fascinating to watch who does and does not support his campaign. Paul is essentially a candidate of the old, isolationist right. His opposition to the war resulted in many supporting him without giving adequate consideration to his full philosophy. His support for  states’ rights and opposition to most actions by the federal government gives the illusion that he is libertarian. I’ve found that some libertarians do support him, while others do see through him, especially since his connection to other common viewpoints of the old right, racism and antisemitism, were exposed during his last presidential run. The latest embarrassment for those who mistakenly see Paul as being pro-freedom is the endorsement by of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska. Talking Points Memo discussed Kayser’s views and how they tie into Paul’s version of federalism:

Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.

“Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just,” he argued. “But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative. Biblical law would recognize as a matter of justice that even if this law could be enforced today, homosexuals could not be prosecuted for something that was done before.”

Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals — including the death penalty — even if he didn’t see much hope for it happening anytime soon. While he said he and Paul disagree on gay rights, noting that Paul recently voted for repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he supported the campaign because he believed Paul’s federalist take on the Constitution would allow states more latitude to implement fundamentalist law. Especially since under Kayser’s own interpretation of the Constitution there is no separation of Church and State.

“Under a Ron Paul presidency, states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what’s politically correct,” he said. “What he’s trying to do, whether he agrees with the Constitution’s position or not, is restrict himself to the Constitution. That is something I very much appreciate.”

There is a history of homophobia being expressed in Paul’s newsletters, and we recently learned of his fear of using the bathroom of a gay supporter. While Paul may not advocate the death penalty for homosexuals, he does have a strong history of accepting infringements upon individual liberty by the states (as opposed to the federal government) as part of his fanatical states’ rights viewpoint. The neo-Nazis and white supremacists who have backed Paul understand the consequences of his views far better than the remaining libertarians who support Paul. They understanding how Paul’s views would destroy civil liberties at the state level and make it far easier to impose fascism. Fortunately some libertarians do seem to understand, such as Doug Mataconis who writes:

So basically this guy supports Ron Paul because he thinks a President Paul would make it easier for him and people like him to enact state laws that mirror the Book of Leviticus, and the Paul campaign welcomes his support. This is not libertarianism.

The first commenter to the post cited above also makes it clear:  “Paul’s Federalist Libertarianism (hat tip: Popehat) is nothing new. He’s fine with authoritarianism as long as it’s at the state level.”

Ron Paul Aide on Charges of Racism and Anti-Semitism

There have been many articles and blog posts over the past week over the racist and anti-Semitic articles in Ron Paul’s old newsletter. So far this has primarily been a repeat of material which was widely discussed four years ago, especially after Paul’s denials of knowledge of the articles were debunked. (Besides, even if it was true that others were posting these articles under Paul’s name and Paul really was unaware, this still would raise questions as to Paul’s ability to run the federal government). The New York Times also raised the old issue of Paul’s support from extremists today. One new aspect to this story was raised today when former Paul aide Eric Dondero wrote a post which “defends” Paul from charges of racism and homophobia in a manner which really appears designed to harm Paul.

Dondero is a former Paul aide who split with Paul over the Iraq War. The two are at opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to Paul’s isolationism, with Dondero being a strong supporter of military action in Iraq. I’ve seen a number of claims on line that Paul fired Dondero, which Dondero has denied in comments previously posted on this blog. Regardless, it has been clear that Dondero has had poor relations with Paul which may or may not have a bearing on the accuracy of the statements in his post. Here is an extended portion, with more in the entire post which can be found here:

Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.

He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.

One caveat: He is what I would describe as “out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

Again, American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign. (One synagogue in Victoria, and tiny one in Wharton headed by a well-known Jewish lawyer).

On the incident that’s being talked about in some blog media about the campaign manager directing me to a press conference of our opponent Lefty Morris in Victoria to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments.

There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.

Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.

There were two incidents that I will cite, for the record. One that involved me directly, and another that involved another congressional staffer or two.

(I am revealing this for the very first time, and I’m sure Jim Peron will be quite surprised to learn this.)

In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”

The second incident involved one or two other staffers many years later at the BBQ in Surfside Beach. I was not in direct presence of the incident. But another top staffer, and I believe one of our secretaries, was witnessed to it. This top staffer adores Ron, but was extremely insulted by his behavior, I would even say flabbergasted to the point of considering resigning from his staff over it.

“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.

Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be around gays on a personal level. It’s a personal choice. And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way.

Clearly this is a “defense” of Paul which will not be of any help to him.

Posted in Ron Paul. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »

Newt In Free Fall, Ron Paul On The Rise

In the Republican nomination battle what goes up inevitably seems to come down. Following similar patterns by Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich is now falling in the polls. In retrospect it shouldn’t be surprising that people taking a close look at him would be turned off.  Republican voters are still understandably not happy with the choice of Mitt Romney. As Gingrich falls, the number of undecided voters have increased. Plus there has been an increase lately in Ron Paul’s polling numbers in Iowa.

This leads some to question if Paul can actually win in Iowa. Ed Morrissey raises this question as a reason to review Paul’s racist and anti-Semitic past. Many libertarians abandoned their support for Paul when his denials regarding the racist writings in his newsletter were debunked. Libertarians really should have taken a closer look at Paul’s ideas as well as past. Paul is not as much a libertarian as a supporter of the old right’s views on states’ rights and isolationism,  also tainted by the racist and anti-Semitic views common on that end of the political spectrum. Add to that a belief in numerous wacky  conspiracy theories and acceptance of creationism.

Paul will inevitably fall if he should take the lead and receive the type of scrutiny which other candidates have received. With the race so volatile, I wouldn’t rule out the chance that he could win in Iowa before this occurs, but I doubt it. Even if he could win in Iowa, it is hard to see him having much success in subsequent states, which ultimately helps Mitt Romney if no serious threat to him can emerge in Iowa.

The nomination of Mitt Romney cannot be called inevitable considering the degree of hostility towards him by many on the right. He still might be stopped if conservatives can unite around another choice (or perhaps several choices, sending the nomination to the convention). As each candidate rises and falls, it gets harder to see a scenario actually playing out to deny Romney the nomination. On the other hand, polls taken weeks before a primary have limited predictive value and we still might see some surprises in the early contests.

The Republican Circus Can Get Even Wilder

The Republicans have a real problem. Mitt Romney has been running for the nomination, and sometimes has even led the race, since before Barack Obama became president, but the Republicans just don’t want him. Conservatives have been trying to find an acceptable candidate to promote their beliefs but it is just not possible to find a sane leader for a movement which has become outright bat-shit crazy. To demonstrate my point, at the moment they are stuck with Newt Gingrich.  I’ve speculated in the past that that this could lead to none of the current candidates winning and the race going to the convention. The possibility of someone else winning the nomination received further attention after Nate Silver wrote a post today on this topic.

This possibility exists because of the problems with the candidates and the structure of the primaries. Republican caucuses and primaries held before April 1 cannot be winner-take-all, but afterwards they can. This means that it will be hard for anyone to take an overwhelming lead early, making it possible for a candidate with momentum late to win winner-take-all contests and win a larger number of delegates. Theoretically this could be a candidate entering late, but I wonder if this is really possible as anyone not currently in the race will lack the campaign infrastructure and will miss many of the filing deadlines to enter the contests. I suspect that if some of the other candidates recover it might be possible for different ones to win in different states, preventing anyone from clinching the nomination prior to the convention.

Once caucuses and primaries begin they create a new atmosphere and the previous pecking order might be meaningless. If someone wins convincingly in the early contests they should be able to lock up the nomination. The lack of a conventional campaign infrastructure creates doubt as to whether Newt Gingrich can win despite his current lead in the polls, but if the conservative movement, including the Tea Party, line up behind him this might be enough to beat Romney. It certainly doesn’t look good for Romney to be trailing Gingrich in Michigan as he is at the present. A loss in Michigan would probably be the end for Romney, but on the other hand the Michigan polls, as most other states, will probably shift based upon the results in the early states.

If none of the Republican candidates please conservatives, there are a couple of names being raised as potential independent candidates. Donald Trump, angry that only Gingrich and Rick Santorum are attending his debate says, “I am unwilling to give up my right to run as an independent candidate.”

Trump is particularly angry at Michelle Bachmann:

“She came up to see me four times,” Trump said. “She would call me and ask me for advice. She said if she wins, she would like to think about me for the Vice Presidency.”

As I’ve suggested in the past, it makes more sense for Trump to run as an independent than in the Republican primaries as it allows him to continue on Celebrity Apprentice this season. That said, there is a strong likelihood that Trump is only talking about running to attract more publicity. Ron Paul, who has declined to offer support to any other winner of the Republican nomination, is also increasingly being discussed as a possible independent candidate. Paul has been on an upward trajectory, but there is also a low ceiling for his potential support. He will suffer the same fate as candidates such as Bachmann and Cain when his views and past receive greater scrutiny. Speaking  of Cain, he never had a chance to become president, but one organization is interested him–Fox.

Donald Trump To Host GOP Debate

The Republican debates have already been compared to a bad version of Survivor in which losers don’t get voted out. The reality-show comparisons are even stronger now that Donald Trump is going to moderate a Republican debate in Des Moines on December 27. If anyone objects that Trump lacks real journalistic credentials it shouldn’t matter. Trump is joining with Newsmax to host the debate. Newsmax presents right wing fictions as “news”  to a degree that by comparison Fox is almost Fair and Balanced.

Some bloggers such as Steve M are saying that the Republican Party cannot be taken seriously after having Trump moderating their debate. It is already way too late. Trump’s lunacy fits in perfectly with the off the wall views of Michele Bachmann, the sexual scandals surrounding Herman Cain, the ignorance of Rick Perry, the push to repeal the 20th and 21st century by Newt Gingrich, the promotion of wild conspiracy theories by Ron Paul, and the total lack of consistency or sincerity in the views of Mitt Romney.

There was a time when Donald Trump might have responded to the inevitable nonsense to come from the Republican candidates by telling them, “You’re fired.” That was when Trump was calling George Bush, “probably the worst president in the history of the United States.” That was also when he was saying, “it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.” This year Trump has preferred to adopt the know-nothing attitude of the far right, between his promotion of Birtherism to Trump asking, ““It’s cold outside…so where’s the global warming?”

The winner of the debate is clearly Jon Huntsman who is not attending the event and sent this comment: “”Lol. We look forward to watching Mitt and Newt suck-up to The Donald with a big bowl of popcorn.”

Update: Ron Paul also not taking part, calling Trump as moderator ‘”wildly inappropriate.”

Quote of the Day

“The Republican candidates were asked to name their favorite movies. Ron Paul picked ‘No Country for Old Men.’ Rick Perry chose ‘Clueless.’ Michele Bachmann chose ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,’ and Herman Cain chose ‘Snatch.’” –Jay Leno

The Advantage Of Running Against Bat-Shit Crazy Opponents: Obama Leading All Republican Candidates In Ohio

The conventional wisdom is that Obama is doing poorly in the rust belt and that will have difficulty holding on to states he picked up in 2008 such as Ohio. Polls a year out are hardly conclusive, but a Public Policy Polling survey does show that Obama has large leads over his potential rivals in Ohio:

One person who should be feeling particularly good about last night’s election results in Ohio is Barack Obama. On our weekend poll, which got the final result of Issue 2 correct to within a point, Obama led all of his Republican opponents in the state by margins ranging from 9-17 points.  After a very tough year for Democrats in Ohio in 2010, things are looking up.

Obama led Mitt Romney 50-41 on our poll. He was up 11 points on Herman Cain at 50-39, 13 on Newt Gingrich at 51-38, 14 on Ron Paul at 50-36, 14 on Michele Bachmann at 51-37 and a whooping 17 points on Rick Perry at 53-36. It used to be Sarah Palin’s numbers that we compared to Barry Goldwater, but Perry’s deficit would represent the largest Republican defeat in Ohio since 1964.

The biggest thing Obama has going for him right now is an extremely unified Democratic base. Obama gets 88-92% of his party’s vote against the six Republican candidates.  What makes that particularly notable is that his approval rating with Democratic voters is actually only 73%. But these numbers suggest that when election time comes around the party base will get around Obama whether they’re totally thrilled with him or not, and that’s a very good sign for his reelection prospects.

Obama continues to suffer from poor approval ratings in Ohio with only 41% of voters approving of him to 49% who disapprove. But voters don’t seem to consider any of his opponents to be viable alternatives. Cain has the best favorability of the bunch at a still poor 33/43 and it just gets worse from there- 28/48 for Romney, 31/51 for Gingrich, 24/47 for Bachmann, 20/50 for Paul, and a truly woeful 17/58 for Perry. This field of GOP contenders just doesn’t seem to have much appeal to swing state voters.

Besides calling into question the predictions that Obama will lose Ohio next year, this poll also shows that there is limited correlation between approval ratings and ability to win a state. With the Republican Party now under the control of extremists who have moved far to the right of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, it is possible that Obama can win states despite mediocre approval ratings. It is also very likely that Obama’s approval will improve once he is seen in a head to head contest with a bat-shit crazy Republican.

Republicans Believe The Darndest Things

Conservatives believe a wide variety of bizarre things. While the exact list differs with the individual, many of the presidential candidates have admitted to being told to run by voices in their head. Other conservative leaders have even gone to war based upon religious prophesy. Many conservatives believe that lowering current tax rates will increase tax revenue and create jobs, believe that creationism is a valid alternative to evolution, believe that all the scientific evidence for climate change is an elaborate hoax, some such as Rick Perry still  question if Barack Obama was born in the United States, some still  believe Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack, and some believe a wide variety of conspiracy theories (especially if named Ron Paul). Herman Cain adds another bizarre belief to this list. Michelle Cottle wrote about Cain’s belief in numerology:

Raise your hand if you have a favorite number.

Keep it raised if you believe this number to be your “lucky” number.

Now keep it up only if you think this number has a literal, meaningful, ongoing impact on your life.

Finally, if your hand is still up, ask yourself this: If you were running for president and wrote a campaign book, would you devote an entire chapter to this number, explaining how its frequent appearance in your life signals that you are meant to win and explaining that, though you are “not a devout numerologist,” this number clearly keeps popping up “more than coincidentally”?

If that hand is still raised, it probably means that you are Herman Cain. (Hi, Herman!)

As Cain enjoys his tour as the GOP’s Anyone-But-Mitt of the moment—and reaps the consequent saturation media—one can’t help but wonder when the candidate’s peculiar obsession with supernatural signs and signals is going to become a subject of interest.

In Chapter Nine of This Is Herman Cain—entitled “‘Forty-Five’—A Special Number,” Cain notes that his “conception, gestation, and birth all occurred within” the year 1945 (true of pretty much anyone born in the last three months of that year). He then launches into a detailed account of how “45 keeps on popping up as I go about the business of being elected—you guessed it—as the forty-fifth president of the United States of America.”

The article goes on to describe further examples of how Cain  “sees divine messages everywhere.”

Raise your hand if having someone as delusional and unqualified as Herman Cain as president makes you nervous.

Keep it raised if you are also worried about the other Republican candidates this year.

Quote Of The Day

“Between Ron Paul and Rick Perry, I think the lesson is don’t get sick in Texas.” –Bill Maher