What Will Ron Paul Do With His Money?

Michael Crowley wonders. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, here's what he should do: Invest heavily in New Hampshire and Iowa, as he's already doing, and see if his support in those states rises high enough to promise him a meaningful role in the GOP nominating process (and some delegates to take to the convention). If it does, great. But if he can't break 7 percent in a libertarian-friendly state like New Hampshire, I think he should strongly consider bowing out of the GOP race early, before too many "sore loser" provisions kick in, and pouring the rest of his money - and all the enthusiasm he's generated - into a third-party run as a Libertarian. The Giuliani-Clinton race that would have provided the ideal ground for such a bid looks less and less likely, but even in an Obama-Romney race (or any of the other permutations) Paul would still have more than enough oxygen for a national campaign. He's not going to have a better chance to take his message to the big stage, and if he isn't going to be a significant force in the GOP primary campaign, there's no good reason to have the Ron Paul Revolution die in mid-summer when it can last deep into the fall.

Update: Speaking of which ...

Photo by Flickr user Slobug used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

You said the secret word! Everyone scream real loud!

RON PAUL!!! AAAAHHHHHH!!!

Constitution! Gold Standard!!! WHEEEEEEEEEE!!1!!1!

Posted by anonymous | December 18, 2007 10:53 AM

Oddly enough, Paul is doing better in SC than in either NH or Iowa at the moment. I'm a little surprised that his numbers in NH haven't moved up past 8%.
One thing he does have going for him is that he's almost guaranteed to significantly outperform his poll numbers in Iowa (due to superior voter commitment), which means he can portray the outcome as a surge or an upset.
As for your third-party recommendation, I'm not sure what you think that approach would accomplish. Seems to me that spending the money in the primary is a better idea.

Posted by bbartlog | December 18, 2007 11:04 AM

Wow, kind of (pleasantly) surprised to hear you say that Ross. I mean, you've been off the reservation for some time, but I didn't realize that you were THAT far off the reservation, especially given that Paul isn't exactly an exemplar of the direction that you want the Republican party to go in.

Though I suppose that I can see the logic - the current republican establishment needs a bit more tearing down before it can be rebuilt in the direction that you favor.

Or I don't know, maybe a cigar is just a cigar and you're just suggesting what would be right for Ron Paul, and his followers, without regard to your own preferences. But I somehow doubt that.

Posted by LarryM | December 18, 2007 11:07 AM

A 3rd party run would also make it easier for Lyndon LaRouche supporters to get on board the bus.

Posted by gene | December 18, 2007 11:24 AM

BTW, your first link is broken.

Posted by bbartlog | December 18, 2007 11:36 AM

Independents (44% of NH voters) can vote in either primary in NH and determine the results of every election here.
As many Granite State pundits point out and as the count of lawn signs throughout the state will attest, the Independent vote in NH is splitting two ways - to Ron Paul and Obama.
Those will be the two big winners coming out of this state January 8th.

JM

Posted by James Maynard | December 18, 2007 1:19 PM

With so much money in the bank ($18.3 million in the fourth quarter), and so many volunteers signed up nationwide (85,000 in over 1,000 cities), Ron Paul will be in the fight for the Republican nomination all the way to the end.

Unlike poorly funded rivals like McCain, Huckabee, Tancredo, and Hunter, he does not need a miraculous finish in Iowa or New Hampshire to stay alive. He just needs to outperform the very modest expectations the national media have for him, and keep moving forward as the other guys falter.

If the race goes past February 5th, Ron Paul will be the only candidate with the money and the organization to challenge Mitt Romney nationally. I'm surprised more political "experts" aren't seeing this clearly, and taking Ron Paul seriously as a major contender.

If Fred Thompson had 85,000 volunteers and had just raised $18 million, don't you think the pundits would be discounting the poll standings just a little more? Didn't Huckabee's rise just prove that the polls lack much predictive value, and that the voters remain pretty much undecided?

Posted by Doug | December 18, 2007 1:47 PM

I can't see a 3rd party run for Paul making much sense...unless the actual Presidential campaign turns into a broken field, with for example McCain/Lieberman running on that "Bull Moose" ticket bloggers at The Corner adore, and/or NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg jumping into the fray after Feb 5, as a Forbes article a day or two ago said he would. In that case a Libertarian ticket headed by Paul could make some noise, at the very least. But if he's the only 3rd person running, all he will do is end up getting blamed for "throwing the election" to whoever wins, and that would be very bad for the Ron Paul Movement Ross speaks of.

Posted by DaveA | December 18, 2007 11:19 PM

You make it sound like Ron Paul securing the Libertarian Party nomination would be a cake walk. All he has to do is waltz in and say "I'm here, now give me your nomination."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Remember in 1988, Paul had to fight like a dog to win the LP nomination against Russell Means and 6 other contenders.

This year, Las Vegas Sports Gaming Sensation Wayne Root is way ahead for the LP nod. Root has already egged Ron Paul on, saying "Come on over, better the competition."

But Root is a fighter. He's scrappy. He won't let Paul go down without a fight.

And Paul pushing 73, might not have the energy in him.

Plus, he still must win his local Congressional seat. And if he switches to the Libertarian Party, he'll have to leave the GOP and run on that line. The folks in Galveston, Victoria, and Lake Jackson even, are not going to be excited about such a switch. The Republicans will be furious! Paul will be facing Republican Chris Peden. I can't see him winning his Congressional seat on the LP line.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003

Posted by Eric Dondero | December 19, 2007 7:02 AM

Well look, it's Eric Dondero Rittberg, who Ron Paul fired many years ago. For anybody that doesn't know, Eric has this annoying habit of showing up whenever somebody mentions Ron Paul and then he posts total nonsense about the good doctor.

I have to say, Mr Dondero actually was respectful in this post. Usually, he has nothing but bad disparaging things to say about Dr Paul. I must give him credit for his unusually good post, but I have to disagree with him about the LP switch on a congressional level, though.

Regarding LP switch: Dr Paul has said many times he has no plans to switch. It would be problematic for him to switch. As a presidential candidate, I think it would hurt him greatly. But as a congressional candidate, while it would hurt his chances a little, it wouldn't outright destroy them at all. I don't think Paul will switch, I mean, why change anything if your current way of doing things has produced great results with growing returns?

Regarding Chris Peden: Mr Peden had less than $400 in the bank for his campaign last I heard, while Paul had about $80k. Paul has had growing majorities in the elections for his house seat for years. I don't see Peden coming close to winning even if Paul switched parties.

http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=1672327e8b852faa

Posted by B Reyes | December 19, 2007 2:22 PM