By Dan Balz
Ron Paul is the Republican the Republican establishment wants to ignore. Right now they can’t seem to take their eyes off him.
Many Republicans see him as a fringe candidate, a politician whose views on foreign policy and the legalization of drugs put him far outside the mainstream of the party. They would like to dismiss him, but here in Iowa it’s impossible to do so. Among the candidates, only Mitt Romney seems happy with the strength Paul is demonstrating.
Paul is a potential threat to win the caucuses Tuesday, but just as important, he is an obstacle to every candidate other than Romney. They are seeking to get into a post-Iowa pairing match-up against the former Massachusetts governor, who appears to be positioned to win here but who wouldn’t mind losing, if Paul is the winner.
Paul is therefore an unwelcome threat and the others are coming after him. Newt Gingrich, dropping in the polls here, said Tuesday he would not vote for Paul if the libertarian candidate were the GOP nominee. Joe McQuaid, publisher of the Union Leader newspaper in New Hampshire, which endorsed the former House speaker, wrote an editorial in Thursday’s editions calling him “a truly dangerous” man because of his foreign policy views.
Rick Santorum, rising in the polls in Iowa at just the right moment, said Paul has no track record of accomplishment in Congress. He said Paul may talk big but can’t deliver on anything. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is attacking a lot of his rivals, went after him at a breakfast Wednesday as well.
Michele Bachmann, embarrassed by the stunning defection of her state chairman to Paul’s campaign Wednesday night, has been hammering him for weeks. She told reporters Thursday morning Paul is dangerous on Iran, weak on same-sex marriage federally and plain wrong on drugs.
Romney has generally refrained from criticizing Paul, but even he said this week his rival is dead wrong on Iran. But he probably won’t go much farther right now in trying to knock down the congressman from Texas. He’d like nothing better than a final contest matched up against Paul rather than, say, Gingrich or one of the others.
That’s why the super PAC supporting Romney’s candidacy is still focused here on Gingrich, with a new ad out Thursday. This strategy is reminiscent of what happened in 1996 when conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan and his “peasants with pitchforks” were charging toward victory in the New Hampshire primary over front-runner Bob Dole.
Dole’s campaign ignored Buchanan, knowing he was not a long-term threat, and used its TV ads in the final days there to attack a rising Lamar Alexander (then the former governor of Tennessee and now a senator from that state). Buchanan won and went nowhere. Alexander finished third and was never a worry after that.
Romney and his allies are playing the same game now. The others can’t afford to. Paul is someone they have to deal with. But they are dealing with a rival who is nothing if not unusual and whose supporters represent a coalition unlike anything anyone else can attract.
He is the candidate who rails against military intervention abroad but is the only candidate in these last days in Iowa to hold a patriotic, salute-to-veterans rally Wednesday night, which drew a big and boisterous crowd.
He vigorously denounces Wall Street bailouts and drew a handful of protesters from the Occupy movement at his rally Wednesday night, including a few who agree with his call to get rid of the Federal Reserve.
His campaign speeches are more tutorials than political oratory. He talks about obscure economic theories. He casually tossed into a speech Wednesday the fact that there are 371 grains of silver in a silver dollar. Which other Republican even knew that or cared?
He was tea party before “tea party” was a phrase in the modern political lexicon — tea party when tea party wasn’t cool. He sees his rivals as cut from the same establishment cloth. “If you pick another status quo candidate, nothing is going to change,” he says.
He wants to shrink government drastically. He would put five departments on the chopping block. He said Wednesday that about 80 percent of what the federal government does is “technically unconstitutional.”
Some supporters are drawn by the quirky positions he holds, the social libertarianism he espouses. What brings many others to his candidacy is that he presents the purest version of constitutionality to his political views. The appeal is straightforward: “Why don’t we just follow the Constitution?”
Paul’s support may have a low ceiling, given the nature of his view. That’s been the theory that his rivals have long assumed. He got just 10 percent here four years ago but is polling at about double that number at this point. He may not be able to get above 25 percent, depending on the vagaries of turnout and whether his organization is as good as reputed. But with the field closely bunched, even a candidate with a ceiling can have a significant impact.
Paul could prove to be nothing more than a passing storm for the party. If Romney were to win here Tuesday and follow that with a victory in New Hampshire, he obviously would be in a strong position to win the nomination. In that case, attention could shift quickly from Paul’s candidacy. But his coalition includes many conservatives the eventual nominee will need as motivated supporters in the general election, as Romney must know.
No one would have predicted a year ago that the Texas congressman would get the kind of attention he is getting now. What the party does about him will be one of the challenges ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment