Gingrich: Ron Paul versus Obama would be “a very hard choice”

posted at 7:26 pm on December 27, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, not the only case of a Republican hitting Paul hard today. Santorum’s been attacking him on his foreign policy, his age, and his track record on legislation, saying, “Show me one bill he’s passed in Congress. He’s been there 20 years.” The joke’s on you, Rick: He has passed one. Exactly one.

The clip’s worth watching not for Gingrich’s slightly outré admission that he wouldn’t support his party’s nominee over The One — Paul himself hasn’t even categorically ruled out a third-party bid, for cripes sake — but for the barrage of detail about Paul’s newsletters that he unloads in the first few seconds. He knew he was going to get this question so he used his answer time as a massive oppo dump for the benefit of people watching in Iowa who might have tuned out of the news over the past few days. Tough, tough stuff for a guy who’s sworn not to go negative. I wonder how long he rehearsed it. And I wonder what Romney would have said to the same question. The last thing he’d want to do right now is give Gingrich, Perry, or Santorum an opening by weakening Paul, and as the likely nominee, he has to be careful about alienating any of Paul’s supporters by going after him bareknuckle. Expect Mitt to play nice and gentle unless and until Paul starts to threaten him in New Hampshire.

Question: Is Gingrich really crossing the party by saying he wouldn’t vote for Paul as nominee when Paul’s support is being driven by non-Republicans?

In an analysis accompanying his most recent survey in Iowa, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted, “Romney leads, with Gingrich in second, among those who consider themselves Republicans. Paul has a wide lead among non-Republicans who are likely to participate in the caucus.”

The same is true in New Hampshire. A poll released Monday by the Boston Globe and the University of New Hampshire shows Paul leading among Democrats and independents who plan to vote in the January 10 primary. But among Republicans, Paul is a distant third — 33 points behind leader Mitt Romney.

In South Carolina, “Paul’s support is higher among those who usually don’t vote in GOP primary elections,” notes David Woodard, who runs the Palmetto Poll at Clemson University.

In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Paul’s supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.

At the Daily Beast, Peter Beinart predicts “the dominant storyline at the Republican convention will be figuring out how to appease Paul sufficiently to ensure that he doesn’t launch a third party bid. And in so doing, the GOP will legitimize its isolationist wing in a way it hasn’t since 9/11.” Really? What could they offer Paul to “appease” him? The obvious carrot is a speech in primetime at the convention, but they’d surely want him to endorse the nominee in return and it’s hard to imagine that happening. How is a guy who, in the words of his own son, has “always stayed true to his principles and convictions” supposed to lead a round of applause for mandate fans Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? He and Santorum are polar opposites on foreign policy and on gay rights so that endorsement’s not happening either. Maybe he’d consider endorsing Perry, but Perry’s probably a 50-1 shot right now so we don’t need to think too hard about it. The only alternative, I think, is to offer Rand Paul a primetime speech at the convention. He might be willing to endorse the nominee to prove he’s a party man ahead of his own presidential run down the line, and paying Ron Paul the respect of granting his heir apparent a national spotlight might deter him from running as an independent. That’s the only way out, I think. Any alternatives?

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Talk about delusional! Ron Paul does not acknowledge that there are certain countries that seek war with US. He is not pro-peace, he is anti-American.

Like several others here have stated, I will sit out the election or vote for Obama in the unlikely event he is the nominee. I am convinced that he will not even defend this country even if we are attacked (again!) on our soil.

JannyMae on December 27, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Your post is delusional. You will vote for Obama over an extremely fiscal conservative who wants to balance the budget just because you don’t like his foreign policy? And what exactly convinced you that Paul will just sit around and let other countries attack the U.S. without any repercussions? You fall for ridiculous propaganda. He doesn’t want to start a war with Iran. Automatically this means he doesn’t care if the country is attacked? You are in serious need of coming out of your media induced coma.

Jerry Bear on December 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM

All name calling is not prejudicial or an ad hominem. Paul is a RINO( Republican In Name Only ), because he is really a libertarian, which is why he will not say if he supports the Republican candidate.

RonDelDon on December 27, 2011 at 10:12 PM

It doesn’t particularly mean anything to be a Republican ever since the neoconservatives hijacked the ideology of the party after Reagan. That’s why I consider myself a conservative over a Republican even though I’m registered as one. Paul is a conservative libertarian. He doesn’t take some of the extreme positions of the leftist libertarians and I know he will stand by his convictions. Newt Romney will govern as progressive big government internationalists. If they aren’t RINOs, I don’t know what is. Since when did foreign policy dictate whether or not you are a Republican? You may want to check on the history of the Republican party who normally opposed interventionism.

Jerry Bear on December 28, 2011 at 4:27 PM

One of the things about Ron Paul that I intensely dislike is his negativity.

Unlike President Reagan, who sought to elevate and appealed to the best in people, Ron Paul appeals to the worst emotions in people, like Obama does. He blames America for Islamic terrorism (though wonder why the terrorists attack Buddhists, Hindus and other faiths?) He appeals to people’s stinginess and bigotry, like hating Israel and blaming them as well.

His saying the Bush administration was “gleeful” about 911 is one of the nastiest, vile and false things I’ve ever heard a politician say regarding the subject.

I really detest him for being such a small man: he is the Grinch of the GOP.

dukecitygirl on December 28, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Newt vs. Obama would be far tougher than voting for Paul. Newt is a big guv’mnt guy with questionable principles. With Paul, what you see is what you get.

EconomicNeocon on December 29, 2011 at 12:17 PM