What happens if Ron Paul wins Iowa?

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

PERRY, IOWA - Don't be fooled by the fact that Iowa is landlocked: Ron Paul and his supporters in the Hawkeye State are on their own little island.

You see it in the unblinking allegiance of Paul supporters like Kent Voth, who said before a Paul rally here Thursday that he wouldn't support the Republican presidential nominee if it isn't Ron Paul.

"He's the only politician I've heard in my adult life that I agree with 100 percent of his message," said Voth.

You see it in the foreign policy rhetoric offered by the Texas lawmaker, who has come under heavy fire from his rivals over his isolationist views--which they call dangerous. To Paul, the sanctions against Iran are "acts of war." Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz are the result of U.S. aggression -- an effort, he said, to get America to "back off."

Full CBSNews.com coverage: Election 2012

And you see it the outlook of Paul's young supporters, many of whom had come to hear Paul speak with a parent in tow. Among them was Jordan Sorensen from Adel, Iowa, who called himself "libertarian-leaning" and said he doesn't really feel at home in the modern Republican party.

"I think that the neoconservatives have really taken over the Republican Party and really pushed social issues and pushed these very hardline military, foreign policy views that I strongly disagree with," he said.

With less than a week left until the January 3 caucuses, polls of likely caucus-goers show Paul in a statistical dead heat with Mitt Romney atop the field. Paul has the best get-out-the-vote organization of any candidate in the state -- a result of his 2008 bid and the "campaign for liberty" that grew in its wake -- a major advantage in the caucuses, which require voters to attend what is essentially a community meeting on a cold January evening.

And while Paul's campaign dismisses the conventional wisdom that the 76-year-old Texan can't win the nomination, the candidate himself seems somewhat taken aback by his rise in the polls - and the media scrutiny that followed. On Wednesday, he twice mentioned how many cameras there were at his events, and reporters are swarming him as he concludes his speeches, elbowing each other and shouting (mostly ignored) questions as the candidate leaves the podium.

Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry surely did not envision trailing Paul on the verge of the caucuses, and their criticisms of him have been particularly vicious. (Gingrich said Paul's views are "totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American" and that he wouldn't vote for Paul in the general election; Bachmann said Paul "will not defend United States of America in the event of a nuclear attack"; Santorum has taken to referencing Paul's advanced age, erroneously suggesting Paul is actually 78 years old, not 76.) A unifying theme of their criticism is that Paul will not keep Americans safe: To quote Perry: "You don't have to vote for a candidate who will allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the earth because America will be next."

Paul, who is known for his ideological consistency, is trying to deflect the criticism by drawing a distinction between military spending -- which he wants to cut significantly as part of his proposal to cut $1 trillion in his first year in office -- and defense spending, which he says he supports. Paul, who wants to end the war in Afghanistan and remove troops from Germany, Japan and South Korea, says America can "cut significantly overseas and never have to cut defense."

The one Republican who has gone easy on Paul so far has been Romney, in large part because Romney doesn't seem to see Paul as a threat. (One senior Paul staffer told CBS News Political Hotsheet that the Paul and Romney campaigns don't feel like they're fighting for the same pool of voters.) But that will change if Paul wins Iowa and no other candidate emerges as a strong alternative to Romney - setting up the prospect of an unlikely two man race between the Texas Libertarian and the former governor the Gingrich campaign derisively calls a "Massachusetts moderate."

Should such a situation develop, Romney would be the heavy favorite. Paul seems to have a natural ceiling among GOP voters: A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that nearly half of Republican voters feel Paul's foreign policy views are a major reason not to vote for him. Indeed, the primary reason Paul has an opening to win in Iowa is that no consensus candidate has emerged among social conservatives, which dominate the GOP electorate here -- a situation that allows Paul to potentially win with less than 30 percent of the vote.

Still, a Paul win in Iowa would have significant ramifications. It would go a long way toward pushing his Libertarian views, long dismissed as outside of Republican mainstream, to the center of the conversation. The resultant media coverage would allow Paul to further spread his message -- and potentially win a host of new supporters. And if Paul can do well in New Hampshire on January 10, where he is currently tied for second place with Gingrich, Paul could even move to shared front-runner status with Romney, who is now ahead by more than 20 points in New Hampshire)

(That would also mean an increased focus on those aspects of Paul that raise serious questions, including a series of racist newsletters that went out under his name.) 

It is not clear what will happen if Paul gains significant traction but doesn't become the GOP presidential nominee. Paul says he has no plans to run as a third party candidate, but if he doesn't win the nomination he will face enormous pressure to do so from supporters like Nick Hofstetter, who says flatly, "I don't think I'd support any of the other Republican candidates, because they're dangerous in my opinion."

Paul, who ran for president on the Libertarian line, could also potentially endorse the Libertarian presidential nominee, though his campaign has signaled such an endorsement is unlikely. Either move could potentially splinter the Republican vote and prompt criticisms of Paul as a spoiler akin to Ralph Nader, whose 2000 presidential run helped lead to George W. Bush's victory over Al Gore.

Before Paul's rally here Thursday, Paul supporter Kim Greenlee of Panora, Iowa said she would have to "regroup" if Paul isn't the nominee -- "because he is really the only one who I have an interest in, and it's because he's so different."

Echoing that comment was Terry McCrary of Marshalltown, who said that if Paul isn't the nominee, "I don't know who I would support." After saying he wouldn't back President Obama or the Libertarian candidate, he was asked if he would simply sit the election out if Paul weren't on the ballot.

"I just don't know," he said. "I'll probably vote for some Republican -- but right now I have no second choice."

28 Photos

Ron Paul on the campaign trail

[mpetre28]

Continued from last post (Israeli's view on Ron Paul)

You get hooked on Ron Paul and you desperately seek more and more, any video
you can find from the past, any speeches you missed, anything he said that
you haven't heard yet, even though you've heard it a thousand times
already in different words. You can't help yourself. The voracious hunger
to be able to use your God-given freedom takes you over entirely. It's like
you suddenly realize you're human and the Divine Image with which God
created you comes alive and catches fire.

But something else happens to you. Once you get hooked on Ron Paul, you can
no longer bear to listen to a man who wants power, and you become instantly
disgusted when they start saying words. Before, they were just boring. Now
they're revolting. Listening to Romney or Gingrich or Bush or Obama makes
you sick and you don't know how Ron Paul gets through those debates without
getting nauseous. You see a political veneer in these politicians that's so
transparent it's like a ghost flapping its ethereal tongue at you. You
can't bear it.

What's so maddening about hearing Romney or Gingrich talk is that there's
someone standing there saying things, but there's no soul in it. These are
not free men. These are power men. Not that Romney or Gingrich don't have
souls. They do. They are men just like you and I. But they have practically
forfeited their souls to try and attain power, to control others with spin
and talking points and contradictory statements like "I want to cut the
budget and expand the military!" and they'll say it with a polished tone
and a straight face, just like a soulless recording. Their humanity is so
buried under the mountain of lies they have told themselves, that neither
they themselves nor you can even sense their souls in the human continuum.
The scene of a human body speaking but no soul communicating can drive a free
man mad.

The reason that Ron Paul never goes down in the polls is that he's not
"convincing" people in the everyday sense that he's right on whatever
issue. He's activating human souls, lighting spiritual fires one by one
speaking about freedom. Once a soul gets activated, and the man realizes that
he IS free no matter what people do to him or tell him, there is no turning
back. The other candidates are trying to turn heads with snappy one-liners
that sound cool. Slaves follow these one-liners like mobs, and follow each
other from candidate to candidate. Slowly but surely, Ron Paul activates a
few of the individual souls in the mob as they bob from snappy comeback to
snappy comeback and he goes up in the polls.

Yet, we cannot expect every man woman and child to understand or get excited
about the message of liberty. In fact, most just can't handle it. Being
truly free is as terrifying as it is electrifying. The Bible tells us this
very clearly in the story of the Exodus from Egypt. When Moses finally
accepts the role of deliverer from God, he was assigned to say the following
to my great-grandparents the Israelites:

"Therefore say to the Israelites: I am God. I will free you from the labors
of the Egyptians and deliver you from their bondage. I will redeem you with
an outstretched arm and with amazing signs. And I will take you to be My
people and I will be your God, and you will know that I am the Lord who freed
you from the labors of the Egyptians." (Ex. 6:6-7)

And what was my grandparents' response?

"And Moses told this to the people, but they didn't listen due to lack of
spirit and cruel bondage." (6:9)

Not everyone can handle the message of freedom. It's too frightening for
some people, and some are just too enslaved. Those are the people that
despise Ron Paul, the same types who rebelled against Moses in the desert and
attempted to go back to Egypt. Freedom is too much for them and they can't
handle the Divine gift. They want and need someone to control them. Their
souls have been too battered by slavery, taxation, and wars.

But nonetheless, God forced my stiff-necked great grandparents to leave
Egypt, and as a result I'm here today, preaching freedom once again,
fighting not only for America's freedom, but for my own from America's
influence in my own region.

Vote Ron Paul and let my people go once again! Stop meddling here and stop
trying to buy influence by giving me money. Stop trying to be the all
powerful Peace Maker and let us work out the problems here on our own! If we
think Iran is a threat, we can handle it and we'll take the consequences.
It's not America's problem and you can't afford another war.

Now I understand why people will give everything to this man. Whenever he's
asked the question, "Would you legalize heroin?" Ron Paul answers, "I
want to legalize freedom!" Little do these people understand that freedom
is a thousand times more addictive than heroin.

[mpetre28]

An Israeli's view on Ron Paul: (His foreign policy is the only legitimate and moral way for the U.S. to proceed.)

From Israel: Vote Ron Paul and Let My People Go!

by Rafi Farber

Lately I've been having trouble sleeping. I sit here in my living room in
Karnei Shomron, Israel, on the 8th night of Chanukah, wondering what other
miracles lay in store on January 3rd and in the months ahead. The name Ron
Paul is constantly at my fingertips. I've typed it in so many times the
past month it's insane. I'm experiencing an excitement I've rarely ever
felt, and I don't even live in America anymore. During the last Republican
debate I woke myself up at 3am Israel time to watch an 8pm EST live stream on
YouTube, with no fatigue whatsoever. I'm on overdrive, and I can't calm
myself.

I've only recently figured out what this excitement actually is.

I first got interested in the whole freedom movement when I heard that Ron
Paul wanted to end all foreign aid, including to my country, Israel. This
seemed like a spectacular idea to me. I hate the idea of taking American tax
payer money I don't need. The only reason we take it, by the way, is not
because we need it. It's that we don't want to feel alone, and Jews
always feel a deep existential isolation and loneliness. "As I see them
from the mountain tops, gaze on them from the heights, this is a people that
dwells alone, not counted among the Nations," says Balaam of the People of
Israel in Numbers 23:9. We still feel that loneliness. So we take the money.
It's shameful, it's theft, it's destructive, it's morally wrong, and
it makes people hate us for tying them into a conflict they have no business
trying to solve. I wanted it to end and didn't trust any Israeli leader to
give it up on his own, so I looked up more about Ron Paul.

What I found was fascinating. On the forums, I learned of people who, back in
'08, literally gave their lives short of death to this man. Some poured
money into his campaign they could not afford to give, and some even lost
their marriages because of their single-minded insane dedication. This
shocked me. I couldn't yet understand it, but after a few days of listening
to him, it began to click.

What is it about Ron Paul that inspires such extremes? Such maddening support
on the one hand, and such fear and loathing on the other? I can give the
answer in one word: Soul.

The essential soul of a human being is by definition free. The idea that men
are free as determined by God is a concept that is foreign to most men. This
is because most men want to control others, to take away their freedom. This
is usually referred to as the drive for power. The drive for power is
antithetical to freedom because power means the ability to control others.
There is only one legitimate thing that power can and should be used for,
whether it be military, legislative, or executive power. That is, to legalize
freedom.

Ron Paul doesn't want to be President to "give" me freedom. He
doesn't own my freedom and he didn't give it to me. The only reason Ron
Paul wants to be President is to stop punishing people for using their
freedom that is rightfully theirs. He wants no power. This is clear to anyone
who listens to him speak.

There are two kinds of human beings. Those who want power, and those who want
freedom. You can tell which one's which very easily. Those who want freedom
are straight-edged. They are consistent, principled, and you can feel their
human soul when they speak to you. There's a continuum out there of human
souls somewhere in spiritual cyberspace, and when you come into contact with
one of these souls, you know immediately, because souls are by definition
free. You sense sincerity, realness, consistency, a free human being. If
you're a man who seeks freedom and you come into contact with a real human
soul, you become instantly addicted and you swallow up anything you can get
your hands on. You want to unite immediately, no matter what you disagree on.
There are people in the freedom movement that don't exactly like Israel,
especially me being a "settler" and I don't care. If they want freedom,
I sense it and my human drive for individualism suddenly turns into an
intense desire to unite into a collective - but a collective of free
individuals. It's a beautiful dialectic, and it doesn't matter what we
agree or disagree on, as long as we agree on freedom.

[casestudies]

What happens if Ron Paul wins Iowa? Maybe people with a vested interest in the current political system will be disapproving or even nervous.

For an example of the problems caused by the current system, consider that the banking deregulation that led to our current economic hardships was caused mainly by lobbying of both Democrats and Republicans. The banking lobby will take Paul more seriously, and they'll be publicly negative about him.

Ron Paul is the only Republican who shows significant appeal among independents and even some Democrats. If the Republicans accept Ron Paul as a lesser evil than Obama, and come out to vote for Paul, then Paul might improve their odds of beating Obama. The big risk is that apathetic voters would be freaked out enough by Paul that they would come out to vote for Obama.

For the purpose of running for President, Ron Paul has exhibited lousy judgment by pandering to racists and advocating a few dangerously unrealistic policies. He also might be racist himself, even if he denies it. He does not show direct evidence of being against Jews; he might be against Israel, but I don't much care about that. His opponents will focus even more on those newsletters.

He advocates some policies that sound radical or outlandish when you first hear them. The problem is that too many people don't bother to think further about the reasoning behind his ideas. These ideas become more plausible as you think longer and harder about them, with some important exceptions. But his opponents will speak dismissively about those policies, even more than they do now.

I don't worry much about those ideas of Ron Paul that are genuinely dangerous. He would require the cooperation of Congress to implement most of those ideas. As President, he would not write laws; Congress does that. He would get to choose nominees for his Cabinet and the Supreme Court, but the Senate must approve them. His area of free reign would be mainly with executive orders. He will use his executive orders and threat of veto power to make the government smaller and closer to his preferences, but he won't have enough power to single-handedly put his policy ideas into effect. But Ron Paul's opponents will try to make voters think he will have more power than a President really does.

This makes me wish we had a better candidate who doesn't take influence money. Until I see such a person, I'll continue to support Paul and throw a protest vote in his favor. I don't expect him to win, but this isn't a popularity contest where we have to worry about joining up with the winning side.

If more people start voting for Ron Paul or those minor party weirdos you see on ballots, it becomes more likely that sensible independent candidates will emerge in various elections. Then we can vote for those people. Also, that will pressure the two main political parties to adapt to voter preferences more than big campaign donors would like.

That third party strategy has a risk of splitting the liberal vote between two candidates (as happened with Ralph Nader) or the conservative vote between two candidates (as happened with Ross Perot). The best outsider candidate would be a non-weird centrist who can steal votes equally from both parties.

[1984answeris1776]

paul has been called by lobbyists-"INCORRUPTABLE" SO, WHAT ELSE DO U WANT- A REAL BONAFIDE HONEST MAN (not a politician) or more of the same? and incidently, those charges of racism dont hold merit after a five second search of the facts. A GOOD START IS TYPING INTO YOUR FAVORITE SEARCH ENGINE-N.A.A.C.P LINDER SAYS "PAUL NOT A RACIST" ONLY PEOPLE THAT GET ALL OF THEIR NEWS SPOON FED TO THEM BY THESE MAINSTREAM MEDIA PRESSTITUTES THINK THAT PAUL IS A RACIST!!!!!

[w1945]

The Republican and Democratic machines may be coming unglued.
A USA TODAY analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 18 states.

[w1945]

I see a lot of people on here asking the question "what can Ron Paul do if he gets elected. How can he get congress on board." First he does not need congress in order to bring our troops home. So if he can do that then why will we need 900 plus empty foreign military bases. Right there is a good start. Now congress loves to pass useless bills which end up costing us the tax payers money. He can veto every single one of them. Oh but they can over ride his veto. Sure they can but that does not happen very often especially since the guy just got elected. Make no mistake a sitting president can give a ton of politicians a bad case of heart burns. He can cause them to have sleepless nights. He can cause big money wall streeters to jump out of high buildings. He can cause Nancy girl to get the running scares. He can cause Harry R to bite off his bottom lip. He can bring down my blood pressure. The things he can do are endless.

[w1945]

Michelle Bauchman says if some country launched a nuke at the U.S. Paul would not defend us. Has this woman completely lost her mind?
What is even worst is she honestly expects us to believe that. I mean really does she think we are that stupid? This is just beyond me.

[Herne42]

The VERY first sentence of this article is an OPINION....News reporting should only include FACTS....This is a bogus so-called news report.
P.S. Ron Paul for 2012!

[1984answeris1776]

right on!

[1984answeris1776]

leftyortejas-cnn and the rest are no better-its fox news and the empire on the right-and the commie news network on the left-we need real news networks that report the facts and only the truth-instead of spin- theory and conjecture. Oh and by the way, u need to be the one to get over it when Paul shines the spotlight on these creatures and they all scatter like vampires that do nothing but lie and suck the life out of our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sassan31]

I urge people to watch this short video clip with Ron Paul answering a question on "why won't he come out on the truth about 9/11". It is astonishing and it makes a rational observer conclude that Ron Paul indeed is a truther. Watch for yourselves: http://youtu.be/3u0tgNUfOL8

[SamJoeWilkins]

Or perhaps the truth is that we had blundering idiots in power who were not on the ball, and scrambled to control the outcome of the findings? how's the for rationality pal? Sometimes we elect idiots and then those idiots surround themselves with more idiots. Did rational observation compel you to consider that?

[SamJoeWilkins]

I said it in another article and I'll repeat it again:

Ron Paul is the only candidate I would want to shake hands with. This is the only person that I can believe in and trust. His convictions are that of someone who understands what the journey and process of life is all about. A quality character. God help us if Ron Paul doesn't become our next president.

[greco99-2009]

No other candidate will actually cut spending - most just slow the rate of spending increase.

Gingrich foreign policy = borrow from China and give to Pakistan.

Romney foreign policy = borrow from China and give to Pakistan and lie about it.