By Rand Paul, MD
Analysis of Ron Paul's success or failure all seem to miss
the mark. Many critics point to this or that ad or this or that tactic
that prevented victory. I think such analysis misses the forest for the
trees.
I believe that no candidate can win the presidency without
the day in and day out constant television coverage. In other words,
unless the media grants you first tier coverage, the electorate will not vote
for you in significant numbers. A large percentage of voters will not
vote for a candidate they don't believe can win and that belief in "winnability" is still entirely controlled by the MSM.
That said, I think we should revel in the extraordinary
successes of the campaign.
Ron Paul began with nearly zero name recognition and was
relegated from the beginning by all MSM media to the second tier. I
believe pundits should recognize the great strides in achieving between 5
and 10% of the vote in almost every state and receiving 11% in a
Rasmussen poll running as a third party candidate. Not to mention over
20% in several caucus states, including second place in Nevada,
Montana, and Louisiana.
Ron Paul's name recognition nationally now likely exceeds
50% of the electorate.
Any analysis must begin by acknowledging that many better-known US
Senators and Governors received less of the popular vote. Many such as
Biden and Dodd received less than 1% even though they have been staples of the
Sunday morning news programs for decades. Not to mention the fact that
Ron Paul trounced candidates with far greater name recognition such as Fred
Thompson and Rudy Guliani.
I believe Ron Paul gained nearly the maximum possible vote
in a Republican Party primary. Polls in NH show that only 6% of
Republicans believe in immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Nearly 50% believe in some in-between position or reassessment of war
strategy. About 30% believe in "staying the course" no matter
what.
In Michigan, 37% of the Republicans expressed displeasure about the Iraq War and the vast
majority of these same people voted for McCain. I believe his image as
someone who will challenge Bush and the establishment blinded these voters to
his public comments on continuing the war for 100 years if necessary. I
also believe if the poll questions asked about "immediate withdrawal"
that the percentage in the Republican primary is closer to 6% nationally.
After the last NH presidential debate, I turned around to
Chris Matthews and tried to get him to host Ron Paul because Fox was excluding
us the next night. His eyes glazed over a bit and he thought about Ron
Paul and the Iraq war. You could tell by his response. He said, you know, Ronald
Reagan probably wouldn't have gotten us into the Iraq War. Trying to be
agreeable, I nodded my head. He then followed by adding that if
McCain had been president we also probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq.
I shook my head in disbelief and reminded him that the day
before McCain had made the comment that he would keep the troops in Iraq for 100
years. Matthews hemmed and hawed and said, "Oh, he's just being a
good soldier now."
My take, Matthews and the liberals in the media love
McCain so much for his pandering to their global warming agenda that they
simply give him a pass on the war.
In the final analysis, I believe about 5-10% of the
Republican Party are ready for a non-interventionist foreign policy and Ron
Paul got that vote. A significant portion of the electorate heard Ron
Paul's chastisement on the huge federal deficits and nodded their heads in
agreement. Innumerable Republicans come up to me and love much of the Ron
Paul message, but can't quite come to agree with the foreign policy of
non-intervention.
On foreign policy, at some level, they listened to the
message about the erosion of our civil liberties but could not
escape the image of helicopters fleeing the embassy in Saigon in 1975. This image still bothers many Republicans and they can't
embrace a quick exit from Iraq
even if they know in their heart of hearts we need to leave.
My interpretation of the Ron Paul Revolution, though a
biased one as the son of the candidate is that we should rejoice in getting
5-10% of the vote given that we got 1/1000th of the media attention and did
not get enough attention to enter the realms of winnability in the public's
mind.
To me, though, the campaign remains an unqualified
success. My prediction for 2008: an utter crushing defeat for
Republicans. Not out of anger for Ron Paul's loss, I think he won, but
because Republicans are failing on two fronts: not living up to the
promises of limited government and balanced budgets and failing to understand
how unpopular the Iraq War has become.
One last prediction! We will elect at least one Ron
Paul Republican to Congress this year.
Rand Paul, MD
Bowling Green, KY
