Sara Palin warns the GOP not to “marginalize” Ron Paul supporters.
Many Republicans fear that a “disrespected” and embittered Ron Paul might accept a third party bid for the presidency and thus insure President Obama’s reelection. Mr. Paul, himself, has left the possibility of a third party candidacy open by repeatedly refusing to rule it out. There is no question that an almost fanatical segment of his following would certainly push him to do so.
But should Republicans despair if Ron Paul, failing to win the GOP nomination, decides to run as a third party candidate? Will his candidacy necessarily drain votes from the GOP nominee similar to what many believe the Ross Perot candidacy did, resulting in the defeat of GHW Bush by Bill Clinton? Indeed, should this prospect have Republicans trembling in fear?
Veritas thinks another scenario should be considered . . . that A Ron Paul third party candidacy could be the Obama administration’s worst nightmare, and they know it!
Dick Morris and Michelle Bachmann have charged that Ron Paul, because of his stated positions on certain key issues for the 2012 Presidential campaign is actually to the left of Barack Obama!
This seems to be confirmed by a column by lefty Glenn Greenwald. In it Greenwald deplores what he terms the “central fallacy” that drives progressive discussion when Ron Paul’s candidacy is mentioned: progressives reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are “anathema” to liberalism and then say: “how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position?” Greenwald writes:
“Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform…who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote…Barack Obama…advocates views on these issues…that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.” (How’s that for a third party theme?)
Greenwald concedes that it is perfectly rational for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. But then Greenwald describes what he terms an “honest line of reasoning” to support this rationale:
“Yes, I’m willing to continue to have the Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage”, and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations,broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.”
“This is why Paul has been the chosen ally of key liberal House members such as Allen Grayson (on Fed transparency and corruption), Barney Frank (to arrest the excesses of the Drug War) and Dennis Kucinich (on a wide array of foreign policy and civil liberties issues)”, Greenwald notes.
Indeed, Paul’s anti war, anti-military (though he claims otherwise) stances, his anti-Israel bias, and his call for legalizing drugs, including heroin and cocaine, have found great popularity among some past Republican voters but also with more than a few key segments of President Obama’s base.
So, while most hardcore progressives will stick with Obama whether or not they can agree with many of his positions and actions, the less committed members of Obama’s base, particularly the youth, college students, the anti-war crowd, some of the “social justice Christian left”, many Occupiers may decide that Ron Paul is more attuned to their views than their one-time Messiah.
The part of Obama’s base on the hard left who relishes the idea of the annihilation of Israel may be disillusioned with the President’s slow walk approach to that end. Ron Paul can easily be seen as a protest of, or an answer to, that “problem”.
Paul also gives the “Occupy” thugs a reason to favor him over the crony capitalist, Obama, in the way he frames his animosity for the Federal Reserve.
And, if one needs some additional evidence of the inroads the doctor is making on the Obama base, Tuesday’s “rock star” welcome at a Des Moines high school may be it. A big hit with his audience there was his charge that “skyrocketing” college tuition costs are all because “the value of money has gone down”…presumably the villain being the Federal Reserve, Paul’s favorite whipping boy. It is hard to imagine that these students’ views of Ron Paul were discouraged by the progressive education establishment in Des Moines…thus the warm reception!
Although Sara Palin warns the GOP not to “marginalize” Ron Paul supporters, we believe there is a case to be made that if Ron Paul does not get the GOP nomination, something his followers are convinced he is entitled to, and chooses to run as a third party candidate, Republicans need not be devastated. Obama supporters, however, might want to stock up on the Maalox.
DLH
