Ron Paul Announces He Will End Actively Campaiging for President

 Bookmark and Share Texas Congressman and three time candidate for President Ron Paul, has officially declared an unofficial end to his third race for President.

The announcement came in a statement released on Ron Paul’s official 2012 presidential campaign website and in it Paul carefully avoided to declare that he was ending or suspending his quest for the Republican presidential nomination.  In fact the statement Paul highlighted a phrase contained in his statement.  It read;

“We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future.”

The announcement comes at a time several weeks after most everyone else has taken for granted  that Mitt Romney, Ron Paul’s only remaining active opponent, is the Republican nominee.

Paul used his announcement to deny defeat and make excuses for why he was unable to win.

According to him, “success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have” but went out of his to add that in his opinion, he did win a degree of “electoral success” which he claims that his  critics denied were possible.

While it is true that Ron Paul did have some electoral success, it is also true that in this case, success is relative to his past two races for President, but his campaign was far from successful when compared to the reality of the race that he ran.

Throughout this long nomination contest, Ron Paul did almost win a barely contested, non-binding caucus in Maine but that’s it.  Aside from Maine, despite statements by Ron Paul which often claimed that more people attended his campaign events than did the campaign events of other candidates, in the end he won a grand total of 104 delegates to the Republican National Convention.   And while it is true that Ron Paul’s fundraising did exceed that of all the other Republicans in the race except for Romney, it is also true that when one breaks down the more than $36 million that Ron Paul raised, he paid $345, 243.00 for each of the 104 delegates which he won.  That is compared to Mitt Romney’s $90,530.00 per delegate, Newt Gingrich’s $173,016.00 per delegate and Rick Santorum’s $77,951.00 per delegate.

So it is no wonder why Ron Paul finally admitted that it would take too much money for him to win.  Based upon what it cost him to win just 104 delegates, it would have cost him more than $3.2 billion dollars in order to win the 1,144 required to win the nomination.  $3.2 Billion!

At that rate of spending, to win just the Republican nomination, Ron Paul would have needed to spend more than 3 times the $1 billion that President Obama intends to raise to win reelection to the White House.   Talk about money in politics.

Yet through it all, Ron Paul still remains a legend in his own mind as he promises to continue trying to get more delegates in order to influence the Republican Party platform at the national convention in September.  According to Paul, it is all a part of his “campaign for Liberty”.

The problem with Paul’s “campaign for Liberty” though is that it is based on several severely flawed beliefs which fail to acknowledge that any true campaign for Liberty must include the willingness to defend Liberty and despite his denials, Ron Paul failed to ever acknowledge the foreign threats that do exist.

Paul preferred to focus solely on the very undeniable and very real self inflicted, domestic threats to Liberty that Americans have allowed our federal government to put in place.  Threats such as irresponsible taxation and spending and the Nanny State mentality that attempts to make the federal government act as each American’s caretaker from cradle to grave.

I truly appreciate Ron Paul’s Paul Revere-like warnings of the latter but it is his denial of the foreign threats mentioned in the former which frightens me.

Ultimately, the number of delegates that Ron Paul accumulates will probably not make a much of difference, at least not on foreign policy, and national security and defense.  On those issues, most American’s believe in a better safe than sorry approach and most of them refuse to fall for Paul’s pitch for such things as allowing Iran to have nuclear capabilities because they are not a threat to us.

On such issues, 104 delegates out of the 2,286 delegates in attendance, will not be enough to change the platform positions of a vast and overwhelming number of Republicans who understand that the United States can not relinquish its leadership role on  the world stage to others.  However, paul’s delegates could make the difference on several economic planks in the platform, such as calls for the elimination of several federal agencies or cabinet positions.

Ron Paul’s full statement read as follows:

“As I reflect on our 2012 Presidential campaign, I am humbled by the supporters who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much. And I am so proud of what we have accomplished. We will not stop until we have restored what once made America the greatest country in human history.

“This campaign fought hard and won electoral success that the talking heads and pundits never thought possible. But, this campaign is also about more than just the 2012 election. It has been part of a quest I began 40 years ago and that so many have joined. It is about the campaign for Liberty, which has taken a tremendous leap forward in this election and will continue to grow stronger in the future until we finally win.

“Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future.

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have. I encourage all supporters of Liberty to make sure you get to the polls and make your voices heard, particularly in the local, state, and Congressional elections, where so many defenders of Freedom are fighting and need your support.

“I hope all supporters of Liberty will remain deeply involved – become delegates, win office, and take leadership positions. I will be right there with you. In the coming days, my campaign leadership will lay out to you our delegate strategy and what you can do to help, so please stay tuned.

For Liberty,

Ron Paul.”

Ron Paul Responds to President Obama’s State of the Union Speech

Bookmark and Share  Following President Obama’s third State of the Union address, three time presidential candidate Ron Paul issues a scathing assessment which accused the President offering rhetoric that contradicts with his policies.

In his statement Paul also criticized President Obama for perpetuating what he called establishment Republican policies and for neglecting to address balancing g the federal budget and bringing transparency to the federal reserve.

Ron Paul’s Rebutal to the President’s SOTU

“Tonight, President Obama once again showed that he does not represent the fundamental change this country needs. Instead of offering solutions to the problems our country faces, the President was intent on delivering a campaign speech, further dealing in the typical Washington political gamesmanship that has gotten us exactly nowhere close to improving the lives of the American people.

In a speech where much of the rhetoric was devoted to job creation, it was strange that President Obama would brag about his job-destroying national health care plan, Obamacare, and the Dodd-Frank bill, which, contrary to the President’s claims, guarantees future taxpayer bailouts of large institutions. Unfortunately, President Obama’s ‘job creation’ policies amount to little more than continuing to allow government bureaucrats to pick winners and losers, which is a recipe for continued economic stagnation.

President Obama claims to want an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. Yet he remains committed to the same old system of debt, deficits, bailouts, and cronyism that created our economic problems. The President speaks of giving us energy independence from unstable nations, yet he refuses to allow the type of development needed to achieve this goal, while at the same time his administration hands out favors to the politically connected – those given to the likes of Solyndra, who fail to produce jobs or energy but succeed in ripping off the taxpayers.

Of course, President Obama refuses to even mention the role the Federal Reserve plays in creating an economic system where some are denied a fair shot or even to support my efforts at bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. Also not mentioned by President Obama is the very crucial need for reining in spending and balancing the federal budget. What is called by some ‘the greatest threat to our national security’ seems not to be of great importance to this President, although I, like many Americans, believe it to be cause for immediate measures, like the $1 trillion in spending cuts that would take place in my first year as President under my Plan to Restore America.

In the area of foreign policy and civil liberties, President Obama’s rhetoric may be different, but the substance of his polices – as shown by his administration’s defense of the TSA’s treatment of my son, Senator Rand Paul, is hardly ‘change we can believe in.’ No wonder more and more Americans, especially young people, are rejecting the phony alternatives of Obama and establishment Republicans and embracing my campaign to Restore America Now.”

Bookmark and Share

Time to Stand

Bookmark and Share    One of the greatest problems plaguing the political scene is cowardice. More particularly it is ideological cowardice. It is an admitted fact that candidates run to the fringe during primaries and then run to the center for the general election. That is considered good politics. Unfortunately, it makes for bad government.

The level of disgust with our elected government is astonishing. If it were just political partisanship, we could expect that approval ratings would be somewhere around 50%. Yet that is not the case. Approval ratings have dropped into the single digits numerous times for Congress and into the 30s for Presidents. Clearly the people are disappointed even in their own party’s elected officials.

The reason is simple. Politicians are cowards. They are for something one second and against it the next. Recently we’ve seen an uptick in the “I’m for it, but not for how it is being done” or “These are special circumstances that require measures I wouldn’t normally support.” They are two different ways of saying, “I don’t want to look like a flip-flopper but I want to be on the side of political expediency.” It is as if almost our entire elected government has become filled with Arlen Specter clones.

It is difficult to find a candidate that you can really believe will do what he or she claims. It is difficult to find a candidate that consistently speaks from an ideological foundation that is firm. The one thing all our “greatest” Presidents had in common was their willingness to stick to their principles and govern as they promised. Granted there were some Presidents who were equally consistent and failed, but at least the people knew what they were getting and they could decide whether or not to support those men. Today we treat ‘political conversion’ or ‘position adjustment’ as some sort of normal behavior.

Let’s look at this from another perspective. Is it normal to convert from Catholicism to Islam and then again to Lutheran? Such a thing would be considered absurd. But how are ‘political conversions’ any different? Sure, decades ago someone might go from Democrat to Republican because the parties themselves were transformed – BUT the reason for the change in party affiliation was based on a desire to be in the party that represented that person’s UNCHANGED positions on issues. Such changes are more like a member of the Episcopal Church becoming a Lutheran because that person did not support changes in the Episcopal Church doctrine (such as ordaining gay clergy). The person’s beliefs never changed, but the group to which he belonged changed in a way that was incompatible with those beliefs. That is not what is happening in politics today.

What we have today are people who are claiming to have changed their beliefs or to have found exceptions to their beliefs. That’s like a man saying he’s straight, but another guy at the gym was unusually attractive and in that extraordinary circumstance it made sense to have gay sex. Be it abortion or government bailouts or foreign affairs, it seems that ‘anything goes’ is the new normal. Whatever the political winds of that day happen to be, so too are that candidate’s “convictions”. It is disgraceful.

What will a candidate do if elected? Who knows? Maybe their record will shed some light on that and maybe it won’t. Maybe their previous positions will shed some light on that and maybe they won’t. It all depends on which parts of those they agree with today and which ones they see as ‘mistakes I’ve learned from’. Of course, today’s convictions may be tomorrow’s ‘mistakes I learned from’.

These ideological void candidates are not the only problem. We, the people, are equally to blame. We are cowards ourselves when we fear our beliefs might bring us criticism. We allow critics of our beliefs to bully us into silence about them rather than be labeled ‘extremists’. We end up supporting a candidate based not on what they truly believe and whether that matches our beliefs, but rather on who we dislike least of those ‘who can win’. We sell ourselves out first and then are upset when the person we supported does the same thing. We feel betrayed that the candidate that didn’t really share our views governs in a way that is contrary to our views instead of in the way promised during a campaign.

I have been one of those cowards this year. I have strong ideological beliefs. Yet, I refused to support the candidate that most reflects those views because I didn’t think he could win. I bought into the lie that we should support the one who can win over the one who is right. I took the side of those who refused to support Goldwater in ’64 and Reagan in ’76. I tried, in vain, to find another candidate who could serve as a ‘good enough’ choice and that ‘could win’ according to the pundits. I was an ideological coward.

Today that changes. Today I set aside my indecision between candidates I don’t really agree with who pundits say can win and throw my support behind the candidate with whom I am in the most ideological agreement. Maybe he can’t win the nomination. If he doesn’t, then I’ll support who does as any of them are better than Obama. But, this is my vote. This is my party. This is my ideology.

My endorsement for the 2012 Republican Nomination goes to Congressman Ron Paul.
Congressman Ron Paul

I fully recognize Ron Paul’s limitations. He has never been a chief executive. He’s not supported by the leadership of his party. He’s not a great speaker. His foreign policy scares the establishment. All those things were said about Barry Goldwater in 1964 but history proved that he would have been far better than what we got. His campaign sparked a movement that eventually brought us Ronald Reagan and the Republican Revolution of 1994.

We live in a different world than in the days of Reagan. An evil empire is not our chief concern and primary security risk. Today we face isolated terrorist cells around the world and the threat of economic destruction through control of energy, currency manipulation and cyber attack. Our national debt is greater than our GDP and our economy is built upon pushing money around more than actually creating anything of real value. Our entitlement system has grown so precariously huge that it threatens to bankrupt us within the foreseeable future.

There is only one candidate who sees that these issues are the greatest threats facing us. There is only one candidate who will use the power of the Presidency to force real cuts in spending and not just in the rate of spending growth. There is only one candidate who will rethink the old Cold War era military thinking and re-position us for responding to the threats of the 21st century. There is only one candidate who has been ideologically consistent for decades and who has correctly predicted the problems we are faced with today. There is only one candidate who won’t be corrupted by polls or pundits or lobbyists. There is only one candidate who believes more in governing within the confines of the Constitution than in finding excuses to circumvent it. There is only one candidate who put his life on the line for his country. There is only one candidate for me.

That candidate is Ron Paul and he has my endorsement and support.

Bookmark and Share

After Ron Paul’s Last Hurrah, Where Will His Supporters Go, and What Will They Do?

Bookmark and Share    As Ron Paul embarks upon his last political campaign for either the presidency or Congress, and as the curtain comes down on his over two decade long political career, he promises to go out with a bang.  Instead of exiting the stage on a high note and trying to better articulate and advance his deserving message of liberty, personal responsibility, and a limited, constitutional government, Ron Paul has decided to embark upon a scorched earth campaign that aims its fire at anyone who passes him in the polls.

As he leaves elected politics, he does so in a very ungraceful way that follows the stereotypical negative political path that voters claim they are sick and tired of.

So far, in this his third run for President, instead of being a true leader who demonstrates that their can be a new way forward, and a more positive political path to take us there, Ron Paul has chosen to be a follower who takes his mighty message down the same low road that most politicians have taken.  Instead of building himself up with his message and articulating actual coherent policies that can translate ideological purity into realistic accomplishments, Ron Paul has decided that he must tear others down in order for his message to succeed.  So he was the first to launch highly exaggerated, brutally negative, webads first against Mitt Romney, then Rick Perry, and now Newt Gingrich.

Now Rick, and Mitt, and Newt, are big boys who should be able to defend themselves and with the exception of Newt Gingrich so far , they are not immune from their own negative ads that they have produced against each other.  But Ron Paul is suppose to be a different kind of leader.  He was suppose to be the non-politician, champion of the people, defender of liberty, and defender-in-chief of the U. S. Constitution.  Yet his ads convey more of a very uncharacteristic first blood-like theme that is the total antithesis of his anti-war message and the noble cause he claims to represent.

Some might justify Paul’s highly negative campaign by claiming that he means business, is in this to win it, and will play by the same rules that his opponents will.  That may be so.  But I have yet to see Newt Gingrich produce an attack on the character of any of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination.  In fact with Newt, at least so far, it is quite the opposite.  In Newt we see a man who is brave enough to stand behind his own record, his own ideas, and his own message, without resorting to cheap shots and investing his campaign’s money and time in to ads designed to allow him to become some sort of defacto winner because he is the last man, or woman, standing.  Unlike Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich is showing himself to be a leader in this area and blazing the path for a new campaign model that is relying less on polling and polarizing language, and more on solutions, ideas, and vision.

Seeing Ron Paul exit the political stage in such a way is in many ways sad.  Ron Paul deserves much credit for making sure that words and phrases like constitutional and limited government have never been left out of the political debate.  He has done much to make people think twice about what role government is suppose to play in our lives.  While Ron Paul has never quite been able to move his message very far within the legislative process, for the last two decades he has at least been an integral part of insuring that the question of government’s rightful role in our lives is at least an issue given consideration during the legislative process.   For that I give Dr. Paul much credit.  Which is why I would have prefered to see the curtain come down on his years in elected office in a much more dignified way than he has chosen.  But that is Ron Paul’s decision and as he would be the first to tell you, that is his right.

But as Ron Paul does leave elected office, and yes I say leave, because while I may not be sure who the ultimately Republican nominee will be, I am positive that it won’t be him and I see little chance of him being on anyone’s short list for Vice President. So as he “leaves” elected office without seeking reelection to a thirteenth term in Congress, I can’t help but wonder who will take his place.

Who will pick up the Libertarian Party torch and lead the way?

As a political party, Libertarians are a mess.  By their very nature, they are not an agreeable bunch.  In many ways, they are admirably not prone to any kind of groupthink mentality, but also irritatingly unable to consider a differing opinion.  As such, their independence and strong individualism makes them an inherently unruly, impossible to organize bunch.  As one observer put it;

” If you get 10 libertarians into a discussion, you’ll have 10 different opinions on many things, maybe even 11″.

Legendary Libertarian stalwart, Dr. Mary Ruwart  was even quoted as saying;

 “I was at the 1983 convention and it was so spiteful and destructive that I was almost done with the party.”

Responsible for such reactions is the very real Libertarian quality to be disagreeable and independent.  And the fact that Ron Paul was one of the few people that the vast majority of Libertarians could get behind,  simply makes Ron Paul an even more valuable figure and adds to a long list of legitimate credit due him.  Ron Paul is one of the few, if not the only figure that most Libertarians could ever truly unite behind.   Yet at the same time, Ron Paul has not sought out their presidential nomination since 1988, when he first ran for President, and probably for good reason.   While Ron Paul may be a bit, how can I say this…………unconventional.  Yeah.  That’s it,…… unconventional.  While he may be unconventional, he is not stupid.  Even he knows that he can not get elected President with only the Libertarian nomination.  So he runs as a Republican.

So again, with him leaving the spotlight, who else can carry the Libertarian banner with a unified Libertarian following?

Possible popular figures include Wayne Allyn Root, the 2008 Libertarian VP nominee, and Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson who has joined Ron Paul in a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, as well as beloved Libertarian candidate, Mary Ruwart.  Yet while these may by leading names within the Party for various reasons, they can hardly be considered figures who can unify the Party and get their message out any more than Ron Paul has been able to.

The way I see it, aside from Ron Paul’s son, freshman Kentucky Senator  Rand Paul, no one has even the slightest chance of doing that.  And even Rand may fall short of being able to fill his father’s shoes among LP members.  While Rand Paul is an apple that has not fallen from the tree, his Libertarian roots are not quite as solid as his fathers.  Many Libertarians might even consider him to be too much of an interventionist for their tastes.

The sad fact is that as a Party, Libertarians are simply dysfunctional and they can barely be considered their own national Party.

As Dr. Walter Block,  a professor of economics at Loyola University, once noted, the Libertarian Party seems to be on the verge of being taken over by conservatives.  Which is part of the reason why the bombastic former conservative Republican Congressman from Georgia, Bob Barr was the Party’s presidential nominee in 2008.

Block writes that in 2008 he was struck by the fact that the Libertarian National Convention  had conservative  Richard Viguerie give what he called a “high profile” and “very well received speech”.  Then he was struck by the designation of conservative Jim Pinkerton as the moderator of the convention’s presidential debate.

All of this has already raised some big questions regarding what is really more of Libertarian movement than a Party.  Will it be taken over by conservatives and their often spoken of “neo-con” nemeses?  Will we see the Libertarian movement dismembered by a division between  conservative-Libertarians or libertarian-Conservatives and old guard Libertarians?  Will we see the rise of Conservatarians?  Or maybe we will see the Libertarian Party consumed by the TEA Party movement?  These questions become even more pertinent now that Ron Paul heads off in to retirement.   Having become the only widely recognized national leader of libertarianism, where do his supporters go after him?    And how will his supporters vote when he fails to win the Republican presidential nomination?  These questions and the lack of an answer to them are probably Ron Paul’s greatest failing as as the perceived father of contemporary, American libertarianism.  His inability to look beyond his own presidential aspirations and to  prepare for the future of his movement, leaves its future in great doubt.   Maybe Ron Paul believes that his son will inherit the libertarian limelight.  If so, the Libertarian Party will soon fade away as a political organization because as a member of the U.S. Senate, Rand Paul’s Party loyalties to the Republican Party are far greater than many may be willing to accept.

Rand Paul could however be a bridge.

He could become a bridge that finally helps lead to what really needs to be done here….the creation of coalition of Libertarians, and Republicans, and Conservatives, together in one great cause to save the principles that founded this great nation.  At least until we have steered ourselves safely away from the shoals of socialism that could run our ship of state aground.

While I have these questions, I do not have the answers.  But what I do know is that our nation is at a very critical juncture in its history.  Our current President has taken a hard left turn that has advanced the cause of socialism in America at a pace faster than I could have ever imagined.  And while Republicans, even prior to President Obama, have not always effectively stood their ground for the principles of limited government, after losing all control of government in 2008 and regaining some of it back in 2010, the hope is that they have learned their lesson.  But even if they have, the non-liberal, anti-socialist voters of America are still leery of the G.O.P.  So much so that in a close election in 2012, a conservative or libertarian oriented third party candidate could easily insure the reelection of President Obama.  This we must avoid.

Quite unfortunately, Ron Paul’s scorched earth campaign strategy is not willing to accept that.  Instead, the way he sees it, if he can’t be the Republican presidential nominee, then no one other Barack Obama can be President in 2012.

Bookmark and Share

The Disadvantage of Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann

Bookmark and ShareThe debt. The deficit. The debt ceiling. Default. Social security checks. Medicare payments. Balanced Budgets. Tax increases. Gang of six. Cut, Cap and Balance. Headlines all in the past week. Headlines that, for the most part, the Republican candidates for President have been able to take a stand on without actually having to take a solid position. That is unless you are Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann, the 2 candidates who are sitting members of the House Of Representatives.

2012 GOP Presidential leader and former MA Governor Mitt Romney has stated that “The answer for the country is for the president to agree to cut federal spending, to cap federal spending and to put in place a balanced budget amendment.” “If the president were to do those things, this whole debt issue would disappear.” He has declined to say whether he would support a compromise.

Former MN Governor Tim Pawlenty said in Iowa this week, “Eventually you run out of money, but what you do is you buy yourself a bunch of time to have the debate about real reform.” A vague statement but one that allows him to offer an opinion without having to land solidly behind a plan.

Paul and Bachmann however are forced, through their House seats, to vote for or against the actual plans. They are not afforded the luxury to simply make broad statements without taking a position that the other candidates are. Both Paul and Bachmann were also among the nine House Republicans who voted Tuesday night against the ‘cut, cap and balance’ bill that would reduce 2012 spending by more than $100 billion, cap it over the next decade and prohibit more government borrowing until Congress passes a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Harry Reid has vowed it will not pass the Senate and the President has vowed to veto it if it does.

Ron Paul said it wouldn’t live up to it’s promises, passing the cuts off for years and Bachmann said it didn’t go far enough to cut spending.

So are candidates that hold seats in Congress at a disadvantage when it comes to being able to use the rhetoric on an issue? Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was a top economic policy adviser to Republican Party presidential nominee John McCain in 2008 but not aligned with any of the contenders this time around stated, “What they would like to have is the issue and that’s the difference between them and the congressional leaders. They need an issue. The congressional leaders need a result.”

We will see in the coming days and months leading up to the Iowa caucus if the other candidates try to pull the votes of Paul and Bachmann into the fray. While the other candidates can rely on rhetoric and easily take the stance that the polls dictate are popular, sitting members of Congress have to take a solid stand on the bills before them. A disadvantage for sure in a large candidate field with a mere 2 current legislators in it’s ranks.

Bookmark and Share

Ron Paul to Make His Presidential Campaign Official in New Hampshire

Bookmark and Share Congressman Ron Paul will officially declare his candidacy for President of the United States on Friday, May 13th. The announcement will be made in Exeter, New Hampshire

According to CNN, along with Pauls announcement will come several endorsements.

After appearing in last Thursdays presidential debate, the announcement that he is running for President comes as no surprise, but what would be surprising is if Ron Pauls campaign gains anymore traction than either of his previous two presidential campaigns did.

Bookmark and Share

Tim Pawlenty Could Stand To Gain While The Big Names Sit On The Sidelines

Bookmark and ShareThe 1st GOP Presidential debate is in the books. There are those who feel it lacked the “Wow” factor that it would have had if the top polling candidates had taken part. With Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin all declining to attend, the field was filled with candidates whose names are not well known on a national scale. Texas congressman Ron Paul is probably the exception to that statement but his public persona and Libertarian views have never played well to most in the GOP.

Of the remainder of the field that included former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO and conservative talk show host Herman Cain, Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, it may have been Pawlenty that came out with the most to gain from the absence of the big name candidates.

Most of those polled said that they came away with a better opinion of Herman Cain than any other candidate. I agree. Cain came away as the non-politician’s politician but he is an unknown to most voters and will need much more than this debate to get the recognition he will need to mount a serious run. Santorum is known to a certain degree through his work on Fox News but has established himself as the social issues candidate so far in a time where the economy will likely reign supreme. Gary Johnson is the poor man’s Ron Paul and did little to move up the ladder in the debate and at points looked uncomfortable on the stage. Ron Paul is simply Ron Paul. Most Republican’s tend to agree with his economic stances and most independents with his social stances but he has difficulty communicating them in a manner that helps him in a conservative GOP primary.

That leaves Pawlenty, who did little to “Wow” the audience but came across as a solid candidate when put next to the CEO with little experience, the Libertarian’s with little communication skills and the evangelical social issue guy, as a possible challenger to the big name candidates who themselves have issues that will be exploited if and when they decide to enter the race. Romney has to answer for his health care program he implemented while Governor of MA. Gingrich has had marriage issues that have haunted him for years. Huckabee has issues regarding his stances on crime while Governor of Arkansas and Palin, well she has always incurred the wrath of the media and I expect if she decides to run in 2012 it will be no different.

So although he may have not brought the “wow” factor with him to South Carolina last Thursday night, it could be Tim Pawlenty who very well takes away the most from the debate. Although Herman Cain may have hit the “wow” factor it was Pawlenty who by reason of recognition stands to gain the most from the decision of the big names to sit this one out. If he stays on message and the more recognizable names continue to sit dormant, Tim Pawlenty has one up on the other candidates.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: