“Ron Paul is the most consequential guy running for president,” said Grover Norquist, an anti-tax activist and Republican organizer. “All the other guys are basically saying the same things, and one gets to be the nominee. But Ron Paul has changed the nature of the modern Republican Party and brought into it discussions not only of non-interventionist overseas policy but monetary policy.”
Norquist addressed Paul’s alternative 2008 convention and calls it “one of the McCain era’s tactical errors” not to embrace the congressman and his supporter base that year — in effect discounting a potentially energized group of campaign volunteers. He said Paul, unlike his rivals, was drawing new people to the GOP, just as Pat Robertson helped lure millions of evangelical voters into the party with his 1988 presidential bid and the tea party movement attracted more activists in 2010.
“I hope to be there to watch [Paul] speak from the main stage in prime time” at the 2012 GOP convention, Norquist said.
Paul’s organization is expected to be a key advantage in dealing with a new set of Republican Party rules that allow for proportional awarding of convention delegates in many states. GOP strategists said his campaign is studying the rules and mapping a plan to collect hundreds of delegates, even by finishing second or third. That could give Paul a prominent speaking slot, or a central role if there is a brokered convention.
The Paul rise underscores the volatile nature of today’s Republican Party, which through its presidential nominating contest is struggling to balance the ideological views of its newly energized tea-party base with a deep desire to find the best candidate to defeat Obama.
If Romney is the pragmatic choice for voters who are worried about electability, Paul is the pick of a certain breed of ideological purists who have grown skeptical of both parties. And other contenders who might have tapped into that strain — Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann, for instance — have fallen back or stepped aside.
In the short term, Paul’s presence seems most beneficial to Romney.
The congressman’s TV ads in Iowa, combined with an assault on Gingrich from a “super PAC” backing Romney, have eroded Gingrich’s lead in that state. A Gingrich win there would be damaging to Romney, but a Paul victory would help deplete Gingrich’s challenge and help Romney shore up his status as the inevitable nominee.
Part of Paul’s success is that he has largely avoided the kind of scrutiny and campaign attacks that have been heaped upon other top-tier candidates considered more viable White House contenders.
That may change. An extensive Weekly Standard piece published this week details missives published in a subscription newsletter bearing Paul’s name that critics say are racist and anti-Semitic. Paul has said that he did not write the newsletters and that he does not agree with the content.
On Tuesday, Gingrich offered delicate criticism designed to tap into doubts about Paul’s views on foreign policy.
“National security really matters,” Gingrich responded when asked by a reporter about Paul. “Iran really matters. The fact that bad guys attacked the U.S. on 9/11 really matters. People need to take seriously when they go into the caucuses the issue of national security.”
Staff writer Amy Gardner contributed to this report.
Loading...
Comments