Dr. No (Paul) Says No to Other Potential GOP Candidates

Ron Paul in a recent interview has made a statement that will send shockwaves through the Republican establishment:

Paul called his Republican presidential rivals, including frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, “neo-conservatives” whom he couldn’t support in the general election should his own bid fail.

“They think we’re supposed to spread our goodness through force,” Paul said. For example, none will pledge not to wage war on Iran, he said. “How could I support something like that?”

The Carpet Bagger Report also points out that in a recent interview with MSNBC, Paul got interrupted at a key point when answering a question about a third party run:

PAUL: No, I don’t plan to run in a third party. That’s not my goal. But if we have a candidate that loves the war and loves the neo-con position of promoting our–

Great point to cut in with another question, right. However, the door to a third party campaign is not firmly shut for Ron Paul. In fact, for Paul personally, a third party bid could make sense. At age 72, he’s got maybe two more terms in Congress left, and the odds of him accomplishing anything are basically nil. He doesn’t need extra pension money. He’s been dissed by many of Conservative activists and journalists, as well as the Republican establishment. He’s got a huge amount of money that will continue to come in regardless of what party he’s running under.

As an Independent or Libertarian, he could get away from all the baggage that comes with being a Republican in the Black Community, etc.

Republicans have got to hope he decides not to make a third party bid, because it adds an uncontrollable factor into the Fall Presidential Race. With Rudy Giuliani, it’ll be particularly bad because of the abortion stance and his character issue. How many folks will cross over to support a pro-life Candidate with a strong 50 + years of marriage over a pro-abortion thrice divorced candidate?

However, Paul will hopefully weigh the situation carefully. The Democratic Nominee will usually be worse for American liberty and will grow the size of government. This may not be the be all and end all of the decision, but it should be a factor.

Also, does he really want to replace Ross Perot as the favorite GOP scapegoat for losing elections?

In other notes:

• Mike Huckabee goes to church and actually preaches about Jesus rather than stumping for himself. While I’ve been critical of Huckabee in recent weeks, I like this move. I’m really put off when political candidates use church services, which are meant magnify God and to praise Him, in order to magnify and praise themselves. There may be political motives behind it, but we can only judge the actions, not the heart.
• One blogger is playing strategist suggesting that what is really needed now for Fred Thompson’s campaign to succeed is for Mike Huckabee to win Iowa. (Hat Tip: Blogs for Fred Thompson) He writes:

My friends, if Huckabee wins Iowa, Mitt Romney’s campaign is over. His numbers will slightly fade in New Hampshire, though not much since the time difference will only be a week between the two elections, but Romney’s South Carolina support will fade after a perception of unelectability, and he will quickly become the candidate that has too much to overcome (Mormon, Massachusetts, flip flopper).

Enter Fred Thompson. Under this scenario, Huckabee’s Iowa upset will be short lived as he will undoubtedly fade after finishing 3rd in New Hampshire’s election.

Fred will win South Carolina handily, and from the boost of winning the first in the south and finishing a strong 3rd in Iowa (I’m predicting above 20%), along with Mitt considered out of the race, he will compete to win over conservatives from Rudy in Florida and beyond on Super Tuesday.

He’ll continue his southern strategy and maybe, just maybe, could compete against Rudy’s big delegate counts from sweeping the Northeast and California.

This is a nice scenario. The hole in the plan? What do you think the rise of Huck and the fall of Mitt will do in South Carolina, particularly if folks think the other former governor in the race (Romney) is unelectable. This could give South Carolina to Huckabee. Any strategy that depends on another candidate doing something for you is in trouble, because that takes your success out of your own hands.

• Fred Thompson isn’t buying into the strategy, slamming Huckabee for another abortion contradiction. While Huckabee now sings the praise of the Human Life Amendment, in 1995, it was a different story in a piece by Ralph Zallow of the Washington Times:

“In the spirit of federalism, the proposed GOP revision also would replace the abortion amendment with a statement saying the issue should be left up to the individual state legislatures to deal with as each sees fit. ‘That’s exactly what we have looked for, and if it’s left up to the states, more of them are going to put some restrictions on abortion,’ Arkansas Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee said in an interview after appearing on a conference panel yesterday.”

This is disturbing because Huckabee has based his claim to being the pro-life candidate in part on his claim to being the Pro-Human Life Amendment Candidate. Now, the news is coming out that as late as 2006, he didn’t favor the Amendment, saying the issue should be left to the states. It’s disturbing to say the least, and Huckabee will have some ‘splainin’ to do. As it is, his best case on the pro-life issue is that he would better communicate the pro-life viewpoint than Fred Thompson, then again, it would be hard to communicate it worse.