Ron Paul makes his move

Rep. Ron Paul, the oldest person remaining in the presidential race and the only one who's also simultaneously running for Congress (you know, on the off chance he doesn't reach the White House), came in second in the Montana Republican caucuses, right behind former Gov. Mitt Romney.

The 72-year-old onetime ob-gyn, who was the most successful fundraiser among all Republicans last quarter, got 25% of the GOP vote in Big Sky Country to Romney's 38%. Paul also beat Sen. John McCain, who got only 22%, and Mike Huckabee, who trailed with 15%.

In North Dakota, Paul, with 21%, fell behind McCain, at 23%, and Romney, at 36%.

Elsewhere, Paul, a strict constitutionalist who opposes the Iraq war and in 1988 ran for....

president on the Libertarian ticket, slipped back to his familiar single-digit showings, despite the determined, earnest efforts of thousands of outspoken Ron Paul Revolutionaries, including an endorsement from THE Jane Roe, an eight-state ad campaign, not one but two appearances on Jay Leno's show and stunts such as hiring a plane to circle downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday dragging a giant Ron Paul banner.

With incomplete results, Paul looked to finish in the Golden State with about 4% of the GOP vote, way behind Huckabee at 12%, Romney at 25% and McCain at 44%. Alaska, where Paul had thought he might do well, also turned out to be disappointing, as Romney easily won.

In West Virginia, Paul's forces did gain three of the state's 18 GOP convention delegates in a deal to throw in with the winning Huckabee supporters and deny Romney his expected win there.

In Maine, where the arcane uncommitted caucus system defies explanation, Paul forces finished third in voting recently but believe they will end up ahead of McCain in terms of state convention delegates and second only to Romney. Paul also finished second to Romney in the Nevada caucuses and ahead of the now departed Rudy Giuliani in Iowa.

In other Super Tuesday states, some with incomplete results, Paul's showing was not so super. He finished last virtually everywhere -- with 8% in Colorado; 6% in New York and Tennessee; 5% in New Jersey, Arkansas and Illinois; 4% in Missouri and Arizona; and 3% in Oklahoma, Alabama, Massachusetts and Utah, though he beat Huckabee there.

Many in Paul's dedicated legions of supporters profess incomprehension over how he does not attract wider support among voters. The only explanation they can imagine is that he would do much better in elections if it wasn't for a mainstream media bias that forces supporters to conspire on the Internet, has barred him from a major New Hampshire debate and often eliminates him from regular candidate listings.

For instance, The Times' recent tepid Editorial Board endorsement of John McCain in the California Republican primary discussed every remaining GOP candidate except Paul, who's outlasted more famous competitors like Giuliani and Fred Thompson and is the only GOP candidate to increase his fundraising  every quarter last year.

Many will now fill the comments section beneath this item with complaints about the mainstream media's bias and little recognition that the words themselves in this item contradict that claim in this forum. And, of course, they are welcome, as always.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Chad_Underdonk]

Malcolm, I hear you. But there is some validity to the claim that if he had gotten a free conduit to the general audience as have other candidates he would have done better. This blog from West Virginia gives credence to that: http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/2008/02/ron-paul-speaks-at-wv-gop-convention.html

The truth is that we will never know what could have been in an honest competition. But considering the number of people that I hear and read about talking about voting based on values that Ron Paul embodies more than any other candidate I can only assume that they were thrown off scent of a candidate that was worth their attention.

Thanks for the opportunity to soapbox for a moment ; )

[Ron]

"Many will now fill the comments section beneath this item with complaints about the mainstream media's bias and little recognition that the words themselves in this item contradict that claim in this forum. "

Strange wording, Andrew. Surely you're not stating that the fact that you have a Ron Paul blog proves that there wasn't blatant mainstream media bias against Dr. Paul? Exclusion from the Fox debate, six minutes or so in the msnbc debate, etc. Not to mention truly strange things. Why, for instance, such focus on those newsletters, and the question of whether or not Dr. Paul is homophobic when he clearly is not, wearas Huckabee is on the record saying homosexuality is an abominible sin and AIDS patients should be quarantined? There is a mainstream media bias against Paul. But thanks for the blog.

[Bob A]

Andrew and Don... thanks for your unbiased coverage of Ron Paul throughout the election cycle. Kudos.

[Stephen]

Voter fraud! Do you really think people are that excited about McCain or Romney? NOT. The country has been stolen. I witnessed fraud in my precinct and we're suing, but it won't do any good. A bill should be passed into law that anyone who commits voter fraud is executed for treason.

[Jacob]

Okay, my comment on the biased media ;-D
Maybe if the news woulda mentioned that endorsement by "THE Jane Roe", instead of going on and on about some celebraties endorseing mccain the same day.
Maybe a little news about how Ron Paul received more money, from more indivisual donors, of our active service men, then the other three rep. canidates combined. Little news about that on cnn the night before primaries woulda done him some good. I think these leading news agencies need to be sued for their bias, and made to actualy give fair and balanced news.

[Stephen]

Voter fraud! Do you really think people braved the weather because they were so excited to vote for "son of" Cain or Romney? NOT. This country has been stolen. Your vote doesn't matter. It's the ones that count the votes. I witnessed fraud in my precinct (candidates for delegate who are old guard politicians were counting the ballots) and we're suing, but it won't matter. A bill should be passed into law that mandates anyone caught committing voter fraud must be executed for treason.

[Drew]

Andrew, I'm sorry, but just because a blog posting is sponsored by a major print outfit does not make it mainstream. It is subject to the same audience that is already educated enough to go out and find out about the candidates on their own.

The problem is that broadcast media is just allowing these candidates to outright lie to the public and they do nothing to counteract that. When Ron Paul DOES get mention in the media, it is often accompanied by some snide or dismissive remark.

But tell me, why do the Fox News goons allow Romney to stand in front of the people of the United States and trumpet that he is the best candidate for the economy because he was a CEO? Or even a governor for that matter? Any dimwit with a high school economics course can tell you that monetary policy, tax policy and government waste (generating more taxes and pouring money OUT of our economy through defecit spending) are THE most important factors to the US economy.

Romney has ZERO experience in monetary policy or currency control, meanwhile Ron Paul has written books on it.

Romney is well-known for underhanded tax raises in Massachusetts. With one hand he cut taxes and with the other hand he simultaneously instituted a complex system of "fees" that resulted in the average taxpayer dishing out more of their hard-earned wages than before. Ron Paul wants to end the unconstitutional Federal Income Tax and abolish the IRS. Which, by the way, would leave the Federal government with the same revenue it had in 2000. To put that in perspective, ending the Iraq war and closing down the IRS would leave us in BETTER shape than we were WITH the taxes.

Romney almost made me puke when I heard him talking about making healthcare affordable for everyone. He takes a near-socialist position on this and wants to do it through government regulation and subsidies. This is just one example of how Romney intends to be yet another false Republican and grow government. Reagan was a great uniter, but even he grew government.

If we're ever going to fix this country, it isn't by eliminating pork barrel legislation and saving what amounts to a few pennies here and there. It is going to be by ending a war that is going to end up costing us $1 trillion dollars. For effect, that is $1,000,000,000,000. To put that a little bit more in perspect, if you counted as fast as you could 24 hours a day with no breaks for the rest of your life, you likely wouldn't even reach 1 billion.

We can save this country by closing agencies like the IRS and National Council for Women that receive hundreds of millions of dollars in financing each year. The NCW is responsible for terrible waste and achieves little to nothing (have you ever heard of them?) and yet they continue to exist. Meanwhile, there are children who are digging through the dumpster at your local McDonalds hoping that someone couldn't finish all their fries. Does that sound right to you? Who is the true humanitarian?

Ron Paul wants to give you 20-30% of your paycheck back every week immediately. That sounds a whole lot better than a measly $300 once every 3 years when the economy recesses.

For educated America, Ron Paul is the only rational choice. We realize that some of his ideas may be a little wacky, but you know what? That is why we have Congress and the Judicial Branch. Checks and balances. Before we can fix anything else, we HAVE to fix our economy and Ron Paul is the only candidate who can do that.

Not Mitt Romney.
Not John McCain.
Not Mike Huckabee.

None of them have the experience.

Ron Paul does. Think about it. It's your country.

For more information on Ron Paul, please visit ronpaul2008.com

[Matthew Glover]

I hate to ruin your delusions of grandeur, but an op/ed blog buried in the LA Times website doesn't exactly qualify as mainstream media.

(It must be too hard to find since you did. Actually, it draws so much traffic it's always also listed on the homepage. But I am glad you and hopefully others finally agree with me that this blog is not MSM. I've been arguing that all fall with you guys. Glad you came around.)

[Karen]

Thank you Andrew. I couldn't find any news online last night, nor could I find much through watching either CNN or ABC. In frustration I finally just took a sleeping pill and snoozed. Thanks again for the information I wanted so badly on the candidate my friends, family, military family and I think would do this country so much good! I'd hug you if you weren't so far away.

[brent]

Thank you, Andrew. We all knew deep down that Ron Paul's campaign was an uphill battle. I appreciate the numerous columns you've written and the obvious desire to take him serious as a candidate and do your part to give him equal face time.

[brent]

Thank you, Andrew. We all knew deep down that Ron Paul's campaign was an uphill battle. I appreciate the numerous columns you've written and the obvious desire to take him serious as a candidate and do your part to give him equal face time.

[Mike Clapp]

America and the world know we Americans say one thing and do another. This is not a big surprise. Too many people I know say they believe he is most qualified and has the right integrity. Someone needs to ask the people if Ron Paul led by 60% in polls, and there were no partiy affiliations, "would they vote for Ron Paul".

If a political party leadership told their members to vote "yes" on a bill they didn't read, is it treason? Afterall they have pledged their loyalty to this group over the american people. PATRIOT ACT

Who will recall/impeach the congress when they are the branch empowered to impeach?

I for one have taken Dr. Paul's course "conservatism 101" and passed. By scientific polling principles the 5-10% of the conservative country represented by those that actually voted translate to about 5 million people who believe in these ideas. That will grow as apathy wanes.

Take a look at those candidates that are now taking (saying) similar stands and compare this to what they were saying just 6 months ago. Once Ron is gone, I am sure you will see the adoption of a lot of his ideas.

[Delling]

Is it possible to "lose" nearly every battle and still "win" the war?

However disappointed I may be by the lack of state victories on Tuesday, it was still a good day. Huckabee and Romney did better than I expected, leaving the Republican race more wide open than it was before.

Ron could be in much worse shape. He still has boatloads of cash and dedicated supporters willing to see this thing all the way through. September is far away yet so lots of interesting things could happen.

Let's hope for a decent showing in Washington state. The first county won by Paul was Jefferson county. If he won Washington as his first state, that'd be sweet.

Paul got good percentages of support in Alaska, Montana and Minnesota, not too bad in Colorado, so hopefully he'll build on that momentum in the NW.

[Michael]

Andrew, thanks for you column.

Hopefully everyone realizes that 'news' does not count towards the 'equal air time' that the FEC requires. And when you have 3 24hour national news stations mentioning nothing but McCain/Romney and Clinton/Obama, that tends to skew the polls they then conduct.

Look at how Huckabee won more states than Romney WITHOUT the media gushing news stories all over him. Just imagine if the media covered Paul with that intensity?

How can anyone not vote for someone who wants to uphold our Constitution?

How can any news stations/paper not report on the fact that the Patriot act directly violates the Constitution, yet there are 3 candidates running for office who violated their oath of office and voted to allow the government to perform warrantless searches/seizures?

[liam malone]

Silly person

[Sameso]

This ONLINE BLOG may be an exception to the media blackout, but online support is clearly not the issue. Have your blogs been printed in the LA Times? Even then, the LA Times would only be one paper in the crowd of the entire media. On the rare occasion he was mentioned, he was often marginalized. Therefore the media, in general, dissuaded possible supporters from voting for a candidate that "can't win."

[R]

"and little recognition that the words themselves in this item contradict that claim in this forum."

Ah yes, the irrefutable influence that the LA Times BLOGS site enjoys, from the breadbasket to the beltway. The Ron Paul Revolution hereby acquiesces to the apparent balance and objectivity that has fallen over the TV, Press, Radio, and any news site beginning in "www" made apparent by a single blog post that may or may not appear on the third or fourth page of a Google News Search today. Fair at last. Fair at last.

[Trent G.]

Thank you once again Malcolm for even mentioning Dr. Paul. It's more than many other media outlets are willing to do.

[Kevin]

Just because you mention Paul here doesn't mean you vindicate the rest of the corporate media for ignoring Ron Paul or for ignoring the fact Gravel hasn't called it quits either.

The corporate media should really clarify its coverage and say---We cover those who we do not disagree with and anybody else who rubs us the wrong way will not be compared closely with those we think can win. "Can" being deceptive because any amount of coverage similar to the coverage Clinton got for injecting race into the election could skyrocket Paul's or Gravel's numbers.

[Jim]

This was a fairly good article until the last paragraph. I think you will find Paul supporters generally praise anyone in the media that gives our candidate any positive attention.

The fact is when people hear Dr. Paul’s message they get it, too bad they are not hearing all sides before they have to make a decision.

[Norma Sullivan]

I have always been a republican. I voted for Ron Paul.
I will not be voting for McCain if he wins the primary election. I know there are many republicans who feel the same way. As a matter of fact, I have decided to change my party affiliation to independent in order to vote for the independent party who will be in this November election.

[Andy Brown]

The fact that Paul has gained as much support as he HAS comforts me. Republican primary or not, Paul is a Libertarian. Some would call him a progressive Republican but he's really just an old-fashioned Constitutionalist. The man wants this country to be what is was ALWAYS intended to be: a union of states run by the PEOPLE.

The other candidates are opportunists and virtual carbon copies of each other.

[Dave]

Don't forget you guys in the media called him kook/longshot/crack pot... just like children in grade school.

[Robert]

I'm a Paul supporter and maybe it's not the media. Maybe Americans are just plain stupid. They spout "change" yet vote for the status quo. Idiots! No wonder the rich rape and pillage these morons!

[Steve - San Francisco]

Ron Paul is fighting the good fight. You'd think his plan to abolish the IRS and to bring the troops home would be a huge winning strategy. But, voters are sheep, and they can't think beyond what is spoon fed for them on the tube. If there were a history test required to vote, Ron Paul would win in a landslide.