A very interesting snippet from Fox News Channel yesterday. Wallace:
"The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this, but to a certain degree, [if Ron Paul wins it] will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee."While I agree with that statement generally, I think that there is a circumstance that Wallace -- and dare I say most Republicans -- are not considering...
"The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this, but to a certain degree, [if Ron Paul wins it] will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee."It seems to me that Ron Paul and his ever-so-enthusiastic supporters are doing a much better job this time. In 2007/2008 in the lead-up to the Republican presidential caucuses/primaries, Ron Paul was largely the "fringe" candidate at which the mainstreamy GOPers were laughing. Now, while I think that there are many in the mainstreamy part of the GOP who are still laughing at the Paul campaign, I also think that there are many more who are starting to recognize the appeal of Ron Paul.
Or at the very least, the appeal of Ron Paul's message and political philosophy.
So, what if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses? Rather than wholly dismissing the First-In-The-Nation voting as being somehow 'lessened' by the result, isn't it possible that Republicans all over the county may take a second (or third) look at the Congressman from Texas? Isn't it within reason to think that rational people will say to themselves, "Huh. Iowa voted for Ron Paul, eh? Maybe I should See what he has to say."
That said, Ron Paul will never become President of the United States. Here's an old post at reason magazine's Hit & Run blog:
Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.My emphasis.
He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.
Now, Paul and his campaign have hashed and re-hashed this and many other questionable quotes from that time period. They claim that context is key, and that Paul was speaking philosophically, not literally.
I don't care. No one who says things like this will be able to win a general election.
But, I still would enjoy seeing Paul win the Iowa caucuses. His win there would really throw the proverbial wrench into the works of the mainstreamy GOP machinery.
The Pajama Pundit - Founder/Editor
