RedStateEclectic

My First Rump Convention!

I have written very little about my political activities of late.  But after tonight’s activities, I thought I might bring our readers up to speed on what’s been happening in Nebraska.

A Little Background

• Nebraska has a beauty contest/advisory primary. No delegates are chosen as a result of the primary.
• Our State Parties choose national delegates via their state conventions.
• State Convention delegates are chosen by their local county parties *in convention*.
• County Convention delegates are required (by state law) to file for election with their County Election Commissioner no later than March 1.  In practice, the party typically sets the number of delegates per precinct so high that there is never an election, and anyone who is filed receives a “certificate of election,” after the primary (which they would theoretically be elected in).
• County conventions in our state take place between June 1 and 10th, so we’re in the midst of it.

Results

Results in our state have been mixed, so far.  The Republican Liberty Caucus/Paul/Tea Party forces have had one very large success, on the 2nd day of conventions, in the 3rd largest county in the state.  They’ve also picked up delegates, as well as county officers and state central committee members in a few other counties.

There have been a few places where the establishment has reared its ugly head, violated the law, and the Party rules, and done everything in their power to trample all over the “new kids”.  One happened in a central Nebraska county (Buffalo) on Monday night; the other happened tonight, in Dodge County.  In both instances, the Party appears to have deliberately ignored the law—and probably their by-laws (which of course, can’t be contrary to the governing law of the state).  I wasn’t at the Monday night event—a Ron Paul staffer was—so I won’t describe what happened there in any detail, as it would constitute hearsay.  I WAS in Dodge County tonight, and I think it entirely possible that Dodge County’s convention will end up as YouTube video in the not-too-distant future.  Here’s a brief write-up by one of the delegates on The Daily Paul.

What I Saw

I’ve been working with the folks in Dodge County for a month or so, helping them figure out an appropriate strategy to maximize their results at the convention.  We knew they had the majority of the filed delegates (unlike in Buffalo County, where the numbers were a little closer). We knew that there was often a move to seat unfiled delegates (those who didn’t do the paperwork in February), in counties in Nebraska.  My general instructions in the smaller counties that I worked with was this: know your numbers, and know how many people the other side has.  If you still have the advantage, seat additional delegates, as a sign of goodwill.  If you’ll lose the advantage by seating, well, politics isn’t bean ball.

Tonight, when I got there, a rather large room was already filling up (no not just with the 13 filed delegates).  They had food at the local country club, along with entertainment (!)—a gal who I would have described as a “nightclub-type singer”, providing background sound.  The former County Chair (who is now—I believe, the Vice Chair), who I’ve had some friendly interactions with, came up and talked to me, since I was from “somewhere else.”  Then the State Chair, and presumptive state chair of the party—in attendance in their formal capacities, came by to talk with me.  It was friendly enough, I guess.  Some comments about me being out “organizing”, followed by me asking if that was a bad thing.

Our delegates had planned NOT to seat additional delegates.  State statute says that the elected delegates *may* seat additional delegates, but not that they must.  No Rules Report was voted on.  No Credentials Report was given.  The Chair started some of the business (approval of minutes, treasurer’s report) and called by approval by the full body.  Our folks tried to object, on the grounds that no one else had been seated as delegates, and they were the properly elected delegates.  They were ignored.

Things got progressively worse.  Motions that were made and seconded and voted on affirmatively by the seated delegates were ignored.  Later, motions were made and seconded, and the chair “rejected” their motions out-of-hand (I didn’t think chairs could do that!?!).  [I’ve been told that our appropriate move at this point would have been to “challenge the ruling of the chair”, which would have appropriately required a majority vote of the delegates to uphold—I’m not sure I could have conveyed the appropriate way to vote, though, via text message..] All this time, I was in and out of the room, talking to the Paul campaign experts.  (We had organized for the last several months loosely as Paul supporters, and more specifically as anti-establishment liberty-lovers who want to change the Party).  The suggestion I got: get our delegates to stop the convention, and take it outside.  Hmm.

So, I got one of our delegate’s—a brave soul—attention.  I explained what we wanted to do, and suggested to him the way to do it.  He went back in, stepped up to the podium, and made a motion stating (paraphrased): “Madam Chair, this convention is being conducted in a manner contrary to Nebraska law, the Nebraska GOP Constitution, and the Dodge County GOP Constitution. I move that we adjourn for 10 minutes, for the purposes of reconstituting duly elected delegates in another location.”  The motion was seconded.  The Chair said something along the lines of “I don’t accept your motion.”  The fellow making the motion, still at the podium, called for a vote of the *elected* delegates, and the “ayes” had it.  A few minutes later, I and 7 of the delegates (a quorum, given there were 13) headed outside.  Not sure what happened to that 8th delegate…

And, I suspect, in a few days, we’ll be YouTube sensations—for better or worse.  After a brief, somewhat hostile exchange with someone who had stepped out for a cigarette, we held our own convention, with me chairing (not what I’d planned when I took off for the evening).  We elected a slate of delegates, as well as county officers (and of course, they did the same thing inside).  One of the delegates had a camcorder running for the whole time.

Aftermath?

I’m not sure what’s going to happen out of all of this.  There was an open motion on the floor when the Buffalo County convention adjourned the other night, so it appears likely that they’ll try to resume their convention (by “they”, I mean the Paul/liberty folks).  Not sure how that one will work out, but it sounds like the Paul campaign might be sending lawyers in to explore other possibilities.

As for tonight’s rump convention, I don’t know what the results will be in the end.  I suspect that, there again, there will be a legal action of some sort.

And THIS is why I’ve been largely absent around here lately .

 

LLE

Watching CSPAN With the AC On

I’ve avoided it until now.  In spite of having a number of days in the high 80s or even low 90s this spring, I’ve refused to turn on the air conditioning.  But the humidity has just made it too miserable to keep the windows open and the fans running, so I closed all the windows in the house up, and turned on the air conditioning.  And tomorrow, it’s going to be in the 70s again .

CSPAN is currently covering the Libertarian Party convention.  I turned on just at the tail end of Gary Johnson’s speech, and the convention is currently balloting on their presidential ticket.  Much different than the GOP or Democrat conventions.

I’m still steeped in GOP politics here in the state.  A group of us are trying to do some work at getting more young liberty-folks involved in the GOP…but the GOP doesn’t seem to appreciate our efforts…  We haven’t seen outright hostility yet, just hints of disgust for us.  Strange, isn’t it, that the Republican Party wouldn’t want to welcome young folks into the fold—regardless of who they supported for President, Senate, or Mayor?

Speaking of Senate, we’ve got an interesting Senate race here in Nebraska.  The current Attorney General, Jon Bruing; State Senator Deb Fischer; Former Attorney General and current State Treasurer Don Stenberg; and businessman Pat Flynn are all vying for the nomination.  Three against one seem to be the odds, as Flynn was left out of the last debate, and has been left out of major press coverage, in the last couple of weeks.

Flynn is resonating somewhat with Paul supporters in the state, and a number of them are volunteering for his campaign.  Our primary is on May 15th

My next two weeks promise to be exceptionally busy.  I really, really hope that things will slow down soon—although I’m not holding my breath on that—I seem to replace any found gaps in my schedule with new commitments…

LLE

Bubama Advancing

Image credit.

 

It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America.

In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies “due process” as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote of the Holder speech:

“All the Administration has said is that they closely and faithfully follow their own guidelines — even if their decisions are not subject to judicial review. The fact that they say those guidelines are based on notions of due process is meaningless. They are not a constitutional process of review.”

It is particularly bizarre to hear the logic of the administration claiming the right to target its citizens according to some secret selection process, when we justified our attacks against Iraq and Libya because their leaders supposedly were targeting their own citizens! We also now plan a covert war against Syria for the same reason.

I should make it perfectly clear that I believe any individual who is engaging in violence against this country or its citizens should be brought to justice. But as Attorney General Holder himself points out in the same speech, our civilian courts have a very good track record of trying and convicting individuals involved with terrorism against the United States. Our civilian court system, with the guarantee of real due process, judicial review, and a fair trial, is our strength, not a weakness. It is not an impediment to be sidestepped in the push for convictions or assassinations, but rather a process that guarantees that fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I am encouraged, however that there appears to be the beginning of a backlash against the administration’s authoritarian claims. Just recently I did an interview with conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham who expressed grave concern over using these sorts of tactics against Americans using the supposed war on terror as justification. Sadly, many conservative leaders were silent when Republican President George W. Bush laid the groundwork for this administration’s lawlessness with the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, and other violations. Similarly, as Professor Turley points out, “Democrats previously demanded the ‘torture memos’ of the Bush administration that revealed poor legal analysis by Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo to justify torture. Now, however, Democrats are largely silent in the face of a president claiming the right to unilaterally kill citizens.” The misuse of and disregard for our Constitution for partisan political gain is likely one reason the American public holds Congress in such low esteem. Now the stakes are much higher. Congress and the people should finally wake up!

The People Who Like Gary Johnson

Image credit.

Of course, I know Ron Paul (´s credentials and philosophy) a lot better than Gary Johnson ('s). If I faced an either-or-decision, I would support Ron Paul over anyone else - but this does not mean that I am adverse to Johnson.

In fact, there is much to be said for Johnson, not least that he attracts support from people (a) I admire and (b) personally like - (a) and (b) holding true with respect to Laura, (a) applying to the Coyote, who has this to say in his blog, today:

I decided today to volunteer for Gary Johnson’s independent libertarian run for President.  I have always been a Johnson supporter, and was disappointed that he did not get more attention in the debates and nomination process.

Yes, I know folks will be saying that if Gary Johnson does well, it will just be guaranteeing an Obama victory.  You know what?  Given the choices, I don’t care.  My other choices seem to be the guy who pilot-tested Obamacare and Rick Santorum, perhaps the only person the Republicans could have found with a deeper authoritarian streak than Obama.  You know those 2×2 matrices where one leg is “government intervention in social issues” and the other is “government intervention in economic issues?”  Where libertarians are low-low and Republicans and Democrats are each in one of the low-high boxes?  Did you ever wonder who was in the high-high box?  Well, Obama has moved pretty strongly into that space.  But Santorum staked it out years ago.   He is right out of the John McCain, I-am-nominally-for-small-governemnt-but-support-authoritarian-solutions-for-a-range-of-random-issues school.

In fact, I might argue that freedom and small government would be better served by an Obama second term that the yahoos likely to gain the Republic nomination.  First, there is nothing worse than having statism and crony capitalism sold by someone who is nominally pro-market (see either of the Bushes as an example).  Second, Republicans are much feistier about limiting spending and regulation in Congress when in opposition.  They tend to roll over for expansions of state power when they have a fellow Republican in the White House — just compare spending of the Republican Congress under Clinton vs. Bush.  Medicare Part D, anyone?

The source.

While the cold is giving way to thaw here, people in Amsterdam are skating the frozen canals - enjoy, and nite, nite:

 

The Slime

Four more years of Obama in the Oval Office would be better, in my view, than four years of Gingrich there: each man is mad for power; each man’s Promethean opinion of himself is quite the opposite of what a realistic self-opinion would be; each man is a font of economic idiocy; and each man’s principles are such that each would – recalling Mencken’s description of FDR – fatten up a crew of missionaries on the White House lawn for slaughter if he thought that endorsing cannibalism would get him more votes.  Yet the countless nutty and destructive policies that Pres. Gingrich would likely implement would inevitably be described by our crack mainstream press as “laissez faire” – thus creating more public misunderstanding.  (Of course, four more years of Obama in the White House might also be better than four years of Romney there….)

The source.

I tend to think that the stereotypical augury about the lesser evil has hardly more substance to it than the fact that it does help to keep the system going. What is left out of the picture is that there is more than one way for politicians to produce intolerable levels of damage. Both Obama and Gingrich are sure to maintain those levels.

Take a rest from the slime and the slimeballs, Rep. and Dem. Enjoy a nice piece of kinetically supported music:

 

PS

Actually, as a child I did see, smell, and touch this kind of sea foam on our visits to South African sea resorts. It looked just like this:

Image credit.

Obama's Puck

That is, of course, Bubama's puck.

Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas released the following statement Monday evening regarding his absence from the Bruins' visit to the White House this afternoon:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.

This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT"

The source.

(1/2) The Obamatised Nation - The Long March

Or rather the Bu(sh=O)bamatised nation.

Are the Americans not just another social democratic people? Is this not what Steven Kates is saying in his below comment?

An interesting, a challenging view from an excellent economist from down under:

If true conservatives want to have a truly conservative candidate in a truly conservative party they will have to commit to the long march. You know, ‘the long march’ like the one the left took through out political, academic, religious, and media institutions. The one they spent decades on. The long hard road to political supremacy. The one that takes work and money.

They will also need a truly conservative voting population, which the United States does not have nor will ever have again assuming it ever did. Any country that could elect Obama even in a moment of sentimental absentmindedness, and could think of doing it again after seeing his first four years as President, is not even remotely conservative no matter what they tell the people from the Gallup Poll.

Mind you, the libertarian march is much harder than the march of the statists, both of the left and the right. Statists, as the name reveals, worship the state, they are therefore much more likely to be accommodated by the state, and much more likely to seek such accommodation, to make common cause with and benefit from the state than those who stick to the principles of liberty.

Statists have it much easier, because they need not think much - all that is required for them to feel comfortably righteous is to jump from impulse to impulse, from the superficial to the specious, from undigested theme to undigested theme. They can wallow to their hearts content in the views of society natural to primitive man, only to earn the roaring applause of the many who are 'right' because they are many and share the same feelings (the emotionally privileged, as I call them), rather than being rooted in a sincere desire to seek the truth. State meddling is omnipresent - thanks to the state's insatiable appetite and uncontested ability to help itself to monopoly rights and other unfair advantages -, so much so that a different state of affairs is hard to imagine, especially for those who are anyway inclined to favour the coercion, the paternalism, the favours, and the protection of the state.

Consider Judge Napolitano's reflection of the matter.

Kudlow Interviews Paul, Shows DeMint Clip Supporting Him

The Senator from South Carolina suggests that Ron Paul’s domestic ideas need to be the core principles of the Republican Party.

DeMint is very popular down here and may be the reason why Paul’s numbers have popped 11 percentage points recently.

It was good to hear Dr. Paul bring up Sarbanes-Oxley, one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written; right up there with the Morrill and Smoot-Hawley Tariffs. Also mentioned was the just-released Federal Reserve transcripts revealing their misreading of the housing collapse (see Central Bank Blinders).

A typically endearing Ron Paul moment occurs when he's asked to deliver a keynote speech at the convention. Dr. Paul expresses his delight in doing so, provided that they don't write it for him. Classic.

Ron Paul's Strategy

What is Ron Paul up to?

This is a question a lot of the fans of the Republican Congressman from Texas have been asking themselves for the last few weeks. The overall strategy of the Ron Paul for President campaign has been difficult to discern in many ways.

For instance, why does it seem like Ron Paul is attacking every other candidate in the race from Perry to Gingrich to Santorum to Huntsman but using kid gloves on the strongest candidate - Romney? Why does Paul not seem to be bothered at the prospects of a third place finish in Iowa or a likely second in New Hampshire? 

I believe the Ron Paul campaign is moving in much the way that the campaign team originally planned when developing its strategy probably some time in early Spring. To understand the campaign strategy I believe it is important to understand how unconventional Dr. Paul's plan is compared to the traditional Republican presidential campaign. It is also important to recall the nature of the 2008 campaigns for the Democratic and to a lesser extent Republican parties.

Reason to Run for President    Ron Paul is not your typical Republican candidate running for president. In fact, I'm not sure any candidate of any prominence recently has run not be president as much as a way to promote a message. Presidential campaigns are a way to bringing new ideas to the party's grassroots. This is probably a clumsy way of accomplishing this goal, but for someone as far out of the mainstream of his party and leadership as Paul is, it is really the only way to express his views on foreign and monetary policies.

This singular motive completely changes your strategy for waging a presidential campaign and, I think, explains the unusual nature of the Paul campaign. It fundamentally alters how you approach debates, advertisements, and campaigning within states. It is also completely different from the traditional Republican campaigns where one looks to score some early decisive wins, show an ability to raise money, and then finish off your rivals on Super Tuesday.

It's about Ideas, not the Office   If your goal is to change the way the party and the country look at issues then your focus is on more than the short term goals of a presidential campaign. Clearly, it would be best for your promotion to win the nomination but a realistic view of the electorate - especially the Republican electorate - would show that Paul's ideas are out of the mainstream. They are growing in prominence (just look at his showing at the Iowa Caucuses from 2008 to 2012 with over 100% growth) but they are at most a large minority within the party probably no more than 25%.

Assets in Place   Despite what many inside the media perceived, Ron Paul had massive assets coming into the campaign. To outsiders, Paul was seen to have a few rabid fans and a large donor base who were small contributors. What they missed was the Campaign for Liberty. 

Launched in 2008, the Campaign for Liberty was a way to keep Ron Paul supporters from 2008 engaged with the Congressman's activities and help promote his views within Congress. This was best exemplified with the push and eventual passage of the Federal Reserve Audit in both the House and Senate. But more importantly, the Campaign for Liberty provided the superstructure for converts to Paul's crusade to network with each other and plan... for 2012.

Although not affiliated with any official Ron Paul campaign, the Campaign for Liberty was the resting home for all of Paul's campaign apparatus which he would need in a 2012 bid for president. Not surprisingly, a strong emphasis was placed on building up the Iowa and New Hampshire Campaign for Liberty teams and successfully getting friendly people put in place within the local and state GOPs. For instance, unofficially, the Paul camp had achieved securing over half of the county GOP chairs or leaders and many on the state's central committee in Iowa.

Most important to realize is that the Campaign for Liberty is a truly national organization with its reach in every state. This means that Paul has de facto campaign bases in each and every state making him competitive on a national scale - not just early primary and caucus states.

An Unorthodox Approach   Because of his unique assets and his even more unusual goals, Rep. Ron Paul, I believe, is engaged in a very unorthodox presidential campaign. He recognizes that although his message is very popular and growing within a section of the electorate - it is by no means a majority position. His plan then is to wage a long drawn out process that relies more on looking towards delegate acquisition than on outright victory - perhaps even winning a single state.

Clearly, winning all the delegates in a state is a goal and will very likely be accomplished in many of the caucus states where Paul's organization and zealous supporters will have the most impact. Winner-take-all primary states are the least desirable for a campaign like Paul's where they feel their message will be viewed in a hostile manner by a majority of the GOP base who receive much of their information from the establishment and its mouthpieces like Levin, Savage, Hannity, and Limbaugh.

The established portions of the party will resist Paul's forces and will probably succeed in many of the caucus states, especially as it becomes more obvious what Rep. Paul is up to. Overall, the primary focus is gaining delegates to gain prominence going into the convention. 

The Not-Romney Candidate   What is becoming increasingly clear, is that the Paul campaign is looking to become what has been termed the "Not-Romney" candidate. Tea Partiers, and the Republican base is definitely disappointed with Romney as their nominee. National polls have shown him to struggle breaking above 30%. Romney represents the liberal East Coast establishment candidate similar to John McCain (who although from Arizona was the epitome of a big government squishy Republican).

The Paul campaign recognized early on that the only candidate that would compete long term was Romney. Therefore, they looked to eliminate the 'chaff' in order to become the de facto 'Not-Romney' candidate. The sooner they can take down the other candidates, the better as it allows them to accumulate a larger share of the delegates. 

The Other Not-Romney Candidates  A quick look at the other candidates trying to make the race a two man race shows how Paul's strategy has been working perfectly. Cain is out. Bachmann is out. Huntsman looks increasingly like a one state wonder who will drop out soon. Perry is limping into NH polling at 1% and around 5% in SC. His future is dim. Gingrich can potentially last a few more weeks but with little funding his earned media will dwindle and he will possibly last a few more states through Florida but he is not on the ballot in his home state and has no funding to compete in a national super Tuesday contest.

That brings us to Santorum who has no funding or organization and will attempt to use his social conservative credentials to sell himself in the South. He will be target number one from the Paul campaign as he is the one who could potentially carve into their delegate count on Super Tuesday if he is still viable - especially if his funding picks up and he is able to run more television spots in Florida and beyond.

I believe the Paul campaign is looking to make the race a two man race as soon as possible. This is probably their schedule:

SC: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry    LA/WV/FL: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum    WI/NV: Romney, Gingrich/Santorum    NV/ME: Romney, Gingrich/Santorum

Since the other candidates by this point will have lost nearly every contest to Romney their funding and ambition will have dried up and they will be unable to push on to Super Tuesday. Only Paul will remain as the alternative. Obviously, they will endorse Romney to get a plum cabinet spot and Paul will be all that's left.

From there, Paul and his forces will be an enormous thorn in the side of Romney unless he cuts Paul a deal. Whether that is a prime speaking spot at the convention, a VP slot for Rand, a cabinet position, or some other combination. Romney is a man who deals and will want to save his resources and shift his campaign's focus against Obama as soon as possible. This strategy, although not a 'winning one' is one that will have a lasting legacy and impact within the Republican party.

And The Race Gets Smaller…

After last night’s Iowa caucuses, it appears that the GOP nomination race is going to get smaller. 

Michele Bachmann, who had put a lot of time and effort into her Iowa strategy, came in 6th place (beating out only Jon Huntsman, who opted out of Iowa).  Absent some sort of surprise, it looks like she’s going to leave the race today, given that she had canceled campaign appearances in South Carolina, and has a press conference later this morning in Iowa.  I suppose it’s possible that she’s got something else in mind, but as a native Iowan and current member of Congress from neighboring Minnesota (not to mention “values” candidate), she needed to do better in Iowa.

Likewise, Rick Perry appears to be considering a departure, as he returns to Texas for “prayer and reflection” as he considers “whether there is a path forward” for him to the nomination this year.

Jon Huntsman has put all of his eggs in the New Hampshire basket, where he is doing reasonably well in the latest polls—although one has to wonder how much of a bump he could get out of a “no-place” showing in Iowa, followed by a 3rd or lower place showing in New Hampshire.  He needs to finish 1st or a strong 2nd in New Hampshire, in my opinion, in order to have any momentum moving into South Carolina.

South Carolina and Florida look likely to be the “make it or break it” for Newt Gingrich’s campaign.  Falling into 4th in the Iowa caucus, and 5th place in the most recent New Hampshire poll, Gingrich needs South Carolina to stage a comeback.  South Carolina has a much better reputation for selecting the ultimate nominee of the Republican Party that either Iowa or New Hampshire (probably because those other two states do a lot of the culling of candidates), so I’d expect a big push there.  Gingrich should have the resources to stage a big fight there, and though they’re almost 3 weeks old, polls in both South Carolina and Florida were showing him in a strong position, so he’d have something to build on.

Which brings us to the three who definitely lived to fight another day: Romney, Santorum and Paul:

• Romney’s “victory” (by something like 8 votes across the state of Iowa) was tenuous.  It points to the notion that even among the establishment types, there is a certain “not Romney” sentiment.
• Santorum’s de facto “victory” (coming from WAY behind to nearly “win”).  He’s at the top of the “not Romney” and “not Ron Paul” pile right now.  Based on the e-mails that have come into my inbox in the last 10-12 hours, it looks like he’s trying to capitalize on his showing in Iowa for fundraising (and renting lists from everyone from tea party groups to National Review conservatives), asking for “URGENT” contributions of “at least $35”.  Most accounts suggest his campaign has been operating on a shoestring budget.  He’ll need an infusion of cash and a healthy showing in New Hampshire (where he hasn’t spent much time) if he is to move into South Carolina and have any hope of staying alive in the battle of the establishment titans (Romney and Gingrich).
• Ron Paul.  Well, my Twitter feed suggests a certain disappointment by supporters.  Paul supporters really hoped for a “stick it to the man” first place finish.  Of course we don’t really know how well organized the Paul folks were—the actual delegate count, after the Paul folks move through the convention system in Iowa, could be much higher than his strong 3rd place finish would suggest.  Still, I fear the results demonstrate a certain “cap” on Ron Paul support at this time.  The highest polling numbers he’s seen anywhere, anytime (except in his congressional races), were in Iowa.  His poll numbers in New Hampshire (next Tuesday) have topped in the high teens, and his nationwide numbers tend to be in the low-to-mid teens.  Is there a possibility of him getting the nomination?  Well, sure, I suppose so.  But it’s hard to see how from where I sit.  As I’ve mentioned before, he would have to reap the benefits of some of the “drop-outs”—but beyond the infinitesimal Gary Johnson support in New Hampshire, it’s hard to see where that support might come from (well, maybe some from Huntsman if he exits, but he’s really a non-consideration beyond New Hampshire at this point).

Nevertheless, while some people (including some people who I consider friends here in Nebraska) consider Ron Paul “bats**t crazy”, his presence in the race—win or lose—has the potential for value, if his supporters will learn to play the game, rather than just picking up their balls and leaving when they get struck out.  In a Twitter conversation with a friend last night, he suggested that Ron Paul’s supporters would follow any of the candidates (presumably Santorum, Gingrich or Romney) who would “co-opt” (his words) Ron Paul’s fiscal message on sound money and the Federal Reserve.  I begged to differ, because I thought that painted Paul supporters as shallow and unprincipled. 

The Republican establishment assumes that if “someone else” (the eventual nominee) were to take on a couple of Paul’s key issues, that Paul supporters will support the Republican candidate over Barack Obama in the General Election.  That attitude shows both a thoughtful realization that the Paul supporters are important to the end game, and a delusion which suggests that the Paul folks aren’t “different” and can be bought off (in a manner of speaking) by just whispering “sweet nothings” into their ears.  Paul supporters—crude though they may be at times (my Twitter feeds last night were full of “f” bombs)—are really quite discerning, and won’t be easily convinced by “Johnny-come-latelys” to the fiscal discipline/constitutionalism show.

My friend asked whether Paul people would really vote for Obama or stay home, when Ron Paul didn’t get the nomination, even if the GOP candidate “co-opted” some of Paul’s issues.  My response (paraphrased):  “Darned right—or they’ll vote 3rd Party.”  At that point, he said (direct quote): “Sad. That would leave the Republican party with no choice but marginalization.”

To which I kind of chuckled, and pointed out that the Ron Paul folks have largely been marginalized already (in spite of trying to work within the Party) for the last 4 years.  Why should we expect anything different?

EDIT:  As I published this, this came across in my reader:

“Here’s the deal,” Palin told Fox Business Network’s Neil Cavuto. “The GOP would be so remiss to marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters as we come out of Iowa tonight and move down the road to New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, et cetera. If we marginalize these supporters who have been touched by Ron Paul and what he believed in over these years, well, then, through a third party run of Ron Paul’s or the Democrats capturing those independents and these libertarians who supported what Ron Paul’s been talking about, well, then the GOP is going to lose. And then there will be no light at the end of the tunnel.”

“So, the worst thing that the GOP machine can do is marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters,” she added.

Palin said that while she disagrees with Paul on foreign policy, the Texas Republican “does have good ideas when it comes to the austerity measures that domestically we must engage in in order to be secure, in order to be solvent as a nation.”

“The supporters of Ron Paul, they hear that. They have been touched by that,” she said.

UPDATE 2: Bachmann is out for sure.  Twitter feeds suggest that Perry is in through South Carolina, anyway—which may make it tougher for Gingrich and Santorum to lay claim to the “not Mitt Romney” establishment vote.