Pssst: Ron Paul has already won
posted at 2:01 pm on May 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Ron Paul announced yesterday that he would not campaign in any states where primaries have yet to take place, a statement that many took to be a withdrawal from the campaign. This morning, the campaign held a conference call with the media explaining that they had no way to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the nomination outright with bound delegates, but they still hope to have a “major impact at the national convention” anyway:
Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign conceded Tuesday it probably cannot win enough delegates to be the Republican presidential nominee, though it said it still will try to play a major role at August’s convention in shaping the GOP’s rules and platform going forward.
A day after the Texas congressman told supporters he is scaling down his campaign and won’t actively compete for votes in the 11 states still to hold primaries, his campaign said Mr. Paul still will try to maximize the number of actual supporters he has going to the convention — even though in many cases they may not be able to vote for him to be the nominee over front-runner Mitt Romney.
“Several hundred will be bound to Dr. Paul, and several hundred more, although bound to Governor Romney or other candidates, will be Ron Paul supporters,” said Jesse Benton, Mr. Paul’s chief strategist, in a memo describing the state of the race.
“Unfortunately, barring something very unforeseen, our delegate total will not be strong enough to win the nomination. Governor Romney is now within 200 delegates of securing the party’s nod. However, our delegates can still make a major impact at the national convention and beyond,” Mr. Benton said.
Politico reports that the campaign wants to get more control over its supporters, seeing a series of incidents in state conventions as embarrassing and potentially harmful to their long-term plans:
In the past few days alone, several incidents cast the campaign in an unfavorable light: Mitt Romney’s son Josh was booed off the stage by Paul backers in Arizona on Saturday, and Romney surrogates Tim Pawlenty and Gov. Mary Fallin received similarly rude treatment in Oklahoma. They were the latest in a string of recent disruptions from Maine to Alaska that threatened to tarnish Paul’s legacy and marginalize the ideas he believes will one day dominate the Republican Party.
“It concerns him,” campaign chairman Jesse Benton told POLITICO. “He wants to convey to everybody and our staff want to convey that we’ll lose more than we gain if we go and we’re disrespectful. Respect and decorum are very important to Dr. Paul.”
“You need to give respect to get respect,” he added. “We are confident that there will be mutual respect at the convention. We want to make sure that we take every step we can to make sure that happens.”
Paul will retire from the House at the end of this year, and his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, is widely expected to run for president in 2016 as a Republican. Against that backdrop, the Paul high command worries about Pyrrhic victories: hostile takeovers at state conventions that win hordes of delegates but generate a backlash that could hurt the younger Paul in four years and prevent up-and-coming libertarians from obtaining positions of leadership in local parties.
In fact, that has been the goal all along. While Paul’s rank-and-file supporters wanted to believe that he could win the nomination, especially at a brokered convention, that has always been an unrealistic expectation — and nothing indicates that the Paul campaign believed it. Their focus on caucus states hints at a much different, longer-term strategy, as does their qualified exit from the remaining primaries. As I explain in my column today for The Week, the timing has nothing to do with supposedly avoiding embarrassing losses in upcoming states, but is an indication that Paul has already succeeded:
The real story comes from the event types still left in the nomination process. All eleven contests are primaries, all but one binding on delegates. Paul cannot compete with Romney in primaries, and hasn’t bothered to even put up a fight in primaries for months. The last state with at least part of its delegate allocations from caucusing was Indiana, an event that took place last Tuesday, where Romney cleaned up. The last non-binding event takes place this week in Nebraska. After that, every state will hold binding primaries, and Paul will have no hope of winning delegates in any of them. Why waste money on a dry well? …
So what is the real endgame? Some wonder whether Paul wants to stage a demonstration at the Republican convention, which he adamantly denied last week. Rumors have also circulated that Paul would flex his muscle to get the rules changed and unbind all delegates at the convention, but he doesn’t have that kind of muscle, and it wouldn’t result in a Paul nomination even if he did. Paul’s delegates will have an impact on the party platform, which most believe is the object of Paul’s strategy, but party platforms don’t really have that much practical impact. Few people read them, and even fewer candidates feel bound to them.
Most people miss the fact that Paul has already achieved his end game, or is within a few weeks of its conclusion. The aim for Paul isn’t the convention, which is a mainly meaningless but entertaining exercise in American politics. The real goal was to seize control of party apparatuses in states that rely on caucuses. With that in hand, Paul’s organization can direct party funds and operations to recruit and support candidates that follow Paul’s platform, and in that way exert some influence on the national Republican Party as well, potentially for years to come. Paul hasn’t won every battle in that fight, but Minnesota will probably end up being more the rule than the exception.
Having that kind of organizational strength at the local and state level does more than just put Rand Paul in position to run in 2016 or 2020. Most of those party positions will be subject to new elections within the next two years, if not sooner at the more local levels. Paul’s supporters have to show that they will stick to their mission well enough to keep winning those elections in the precincts and Congressional districts, and then use their influence to boost candidates who follow the Paul agenda. It’s a strategy for long-term evolution rather than momentary revolution, which is why Benton wants to tamp down on disruptions that could discredit and derail the mission before they have a chance to influence Congressional and gubernatorial elections in 2014.
Don’t be surprised if Paul makes nice with Romney before the convention, either. He’s playing a longer game than anyone else thus far, and whatever one thinks of Paul’s platform, his strategy is undeniably succeeding.
Update: Here’s another data point for my argument:
A top campaign official for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign says there’s “no chance” that the Texas Republican congressman will endorse Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson for president over presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
“No,” campaign chairman Jesse Benton said in a response to a question from The Daily Caller about whether Paul would discuss the possibility of an endorsement with Johnson during a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. “There’s no chance of that.” …
While that’s good news for Romney, Benton said he does “not believe that that is likely” Paul will endorse Romney, though he kept the option open.
Paul is focused on transforming the GOP, not bypassing it.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

North Korea fires three short-range missiles as Japan envoy pays “secret” visit

DC firm shaking down Chevron learns lesson about poking the bear

Burglars lock homeowner in gun closet with predictably hilarious results






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Jazz thinks Stuart Stevens is a serious person. Bless his heart.
steebo77 on April 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM
Your idea is stupid too… the problem isn’t who is moderating the debates but the idea that debates need moderators to begin with.
Just set a debate topic and let the candidates speak on their own… and then let them ask questions to each other.
ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM
So far the Rs are proving to be LESS SMART on so many levels.
CoffeeLover on April 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM
The 2016 primary is a bit unusual in that there is a clear top-tier of candidates (whoever runs from the Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie group.) As a result, it’s likely to be easier to control the debate process if they can be convinced that’s in their best interest to limit appearances.
Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Nevermind… I just skimmed over and I thought your entire idea was have Hugh Hewitt et al moderate the debates…
I think we need to just do Lincoln Douglas the whole way though… just have random drawings to keep the debates small at the beginning.
ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM
That’s a great idea. I’d also say that each candidate should be given equal speaking time, to use as they wish – give them a button to activate their microphone, and cut it off permanently when they’ve run out of allotted time. If one guy wants to talk for 10 minutes on a single topic and then have no time for any other exchanges, let him.
Inkblots on April 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM
How is this any different from a series of interviews? Presumably, the candidates will be engaging in more than enough of those?
The emphasis on policy proposals is a bit problematic since it ignores other things that will determine whether someone can be an effective President, such as their accomplishments in the past. In a discussion that is just about policy, there’s nothing to distinguish a failed state legislator from a popular Governor.
Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM
I say run a tournament of one-on-one debates.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Imagine Candy Crowley moderating the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and therein lies the problem…
Khun Joe on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Sounds good.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM
I agree with Jazz, Republicans are running to be the Republican NOMINEE not the DEMOCRAT Party nominee. I don’t get why they want to appear on Democrat news. If they want to go on ONE big cable news it should just be Foxnews moderated by Hannity and Erick Erickson.
Rush should also have his own debate forum. Republicans should just stick with going on blogs and conservative places like Glenn Beck.
No MORE going to debate hosted by Marxist.
BroncosRock on April 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM
From what I remember, the moderators of Lincoln-Douglas debate don’t get to ask questions. It’s a strait up one-on-one point and counterpoint about a single topic.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM
How about a radio debate on Rush’s show?
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:54 AM
How about duct taping the mouths of the leftard moderators and let the candidates talk?
Old Country Boy on April 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM
A new way to handle primary debates…..
Don’t listen to ANYONE connected to the failed gop that has had anything to do with any national election since 1988.
Limited government Conservative values haven’t been on the ballot since 1984 (and to be honest that wasn’t really smaller government). It at least had the veneer of having someone at the head that preached it constantly (and appeared to believe it).
PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM
View the DOTUS and all his glory (his fundamentally transformed United States of America) here.
http://glennhenson.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/image001-obama.jpg
2017 here we come.
PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM
I would love to see mark levin moderate a debate.
karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Surprised no one suggested the Republican candidates stand silently on the stage while the liberal media debates how bad each Republican candidate is compared the the Democrat running for office.
;-)
albill on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Awesome picture. That needs to be used in campaign ads next year to help dethrone Reid in the senate.
karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM
It is about time the GOP did what the Democrats do. Hire moderators that share the philosophy. We simply are not interested in Stephanopolis’s delusional presumptions.
pat on April 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Nice article Jazz Shaw..You made some very valid points..:)
Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Hear!..Hear!..:)
Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM
You’d think this would be the easy part, but no…… *shakes head*
GWB on April 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM
A version of this scenario is what we saw over and over ad infinitum in 2012. If Republicans allow this outrage to be repeated … They. Will. Lose. Again. And deserve it.
marybel on April 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM
The first thing I would do is refuse to have any debate on CNN. After Candy Crowley set Mitt Romney up there is no reason to give that network any recognition until such time as they recognize the harm they did and rectify the situation.
bflat879 on April 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM
No political circus would be complete without Mr. “Etch-a-Sketch,” Stevens, Andrea Saul, Mike Murphy, Kevin Madden, Alex Castellanos, Ed Gillespie or the rest of the clowns from Team Romney.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM
There have been some watchable formats that differed greatly from the ‘stand around the stage as targets’ venue.
Huckabee did a very good job with the candidates and they each got to answer questions but on their own, no back and forth, just state your position without knowing what anyone else had said before that.
The Value Voters Summit is, perhaps, one of the best venues that has happened and is a very good format style as a table-talk discussion not a ‘please indict yourself for the moderator’ junk we normally get.
Then there is always the strange concepts of asking the campaigns to each submit moderators and put their names into a hat and pick out two and then go to an online venue for this stuff.
Or ask Brian Lamb to host them on CSPAN with someone on the clock to cut off microphones.
Anything but the last two go-arounds all over again.
ajacksonian on April 6, 2013 at 1:02 PM
But, does anyone think Jazz is a serious person? Doubtful.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Geraghty and Erickson are the only ones from that list that aren’t total RINOs and Erickson is a complete jerk.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM
I’ve always been a proponent of the Lincoln-Douglas format with moderators serving only time-keeping functions. That just isn’t practical with eight debaters. Jazz’ suggestion of 15-minute segments would yield far more substance than the current system, but I wonder if the lack of confrontation would cause the networks to lost interest in covering them.
It is insane to allow the media to control the selection process for the Republican nomination. They are not neutral brokers, but active enemies of our side and agents for the other side.
Adjoran on April 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Here’s an idea: how about having real debates that force the candidates to actually answer the question by ADDRESSING THE ISSUE?! And stop allowing them to drone on and on about anything but the issue. O/T a bit, but how about fielding candidates with iron balls instead of the shriveled little ones the dweebs we now see seem to possess? And clear the field of ANYBODY who was even the slightest associated with the last election. Fresh meat is what we need.
HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM
At this stage the only near-”absolute” I think that needs to be corrected is a new way of picking moderators.
No more hostile lib/pro Dem questioners who live for the chance to embarrass and marginalize GOP candidates…ever. And no wire hangars either!
Sacramento on April 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM
Nein, nein, nein
Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM
HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM
+1
Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM
There need to be some debates.You can’t let candidates just get away with spouting their ideas unchallenged.And debates are good practice for the 3 in the general against the Dem candidate.Under no circumstances should any GOP candidate agree to appear onstage with a liberal moderator,and this should be insisted upon in advance by having each candidate take a pledge not to do so.If the networks want to host a debate they will provide a conservative moderator.Lastly,the sheer number of debates was ridiculous.Limit them to one each on economic policy,social issues,and foreign policy.
redware on April 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Maybe your problem is the answers, not the questions.
If your argument is sound, why should it matter how it gets asked… a candidate is interviewing to be president of the united states, and they’re afraid of MSNBC?
triple on April 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM
…someone should insist on it!
KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM
I think the moderators should be Michelle and Hussein official jock holders from the white house staff.
fair and balanced
tom daschle concerned on April 6, 2013 at 4:35 PM
I am thinking we should bring back “Win Ben Stein’s Money” to weed out the unprepared.
Jimmy Kimmel can’t be any more partisan than Candy Crowley, and far more intelligent and easy on the eye’s to boot.
Snowblind on April 6, 2013 at 4:52 PM