Not only isn't he going to be President, come January 2009 he won't even be Congressman.

Paul, a long-time incumbent, was first elected to Congress in 1976. After a detour to run against Phil Gramm for the Senate in 1984 and for president as a libertarian in 1988, the former physician took over the district 14 seat in 1997.

ItÂ’s assumed heÂ’ll seek reelection in the Republican primary next March, at the same time heÂ’s still running for president. ItÂ’s entirely possible that Paul will be wreaking havoc in early-primary states across the country just as his base in Texas implodes. What kind of impact would that have on his presidential candidacy? It would be like a NASA astronaut aboard the International Space Station hearing that his home back in Texas burned down and firefighters discovered a meth lab in the smoldering embers. The trip home would, at once, be both devastating and embarrassing. Because NASA is based in PaulÂ’s district, the metaphor may fit.

Angst over Paul has been building for years. In 2004, disgruntled Republicans asked me to find encouragement for challengers. We polled his suburban Houston district and found that voters resist his contrarian and stark libertarian perspective that even sells out local interests. When told that “Ron Paul consistently opposes taxpayer funding for NASA and wants to eliminate the agency,” 61 percent of Republican primary voters said this information would make them less likely to vote for Paul’s reelection. Similarly, a 54 percent majority said they’d be less likely to vote for Paul when told he “was one of only four Republicans in Congress to vote against President Bush’s plan to encourage faith-based charities.” The list of negatives was long.

To be fair, the 2004 polling also found that his voters endorsed some of the quirky congressmanÂ’s actions, particularly his refusal to take a congressional pension and his vote to allow airline pilots to carry guns after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. But there was significantly more bad news than good in that poll for Rep. Paul. But detractors were unsuccessful is recruiting a suitable opponent.

Zoom ahead to this election cycle, almost four years later. Recent polling by another Texas Republican pollster confirms that PaulÂ’s electorate doesnÂ’t appreciate the increasingly leftish libertarian bent of PaulÂ’s voting record. In the eyes of voters, Paul is now also wrong to oppose the Patriot Act, off base on energy policy that affects Texas enormously, and to be faulted for knee-jerk opposition to the fight against terror in the Middle East.

The difference this time is that PaulÂ’s critics have a bona fide challenger lined up: Chris Peden, a mainline social conservative who has distinguished himself opposing the tax hijinks of local elected officials. If Paul files to run for both Congress and the presidency by the Jan. 2 deadline, heÂ’ll likely lose to Peden on March 4. ThatÂ’ll be OK, though. Dr. Paul can just move to New Hampshire where the libertarian Free State Project might try and elect him their first governor, leveraging the boost in name ID and image that his presidential bid will have wrought. Good riddance.

I've met Chris Peden a number of times, and he is a good guy -- a real conservative. And I know many folks in Paul's district just itching to get rid of him -- and I'll be glad to make the 5 minute drive into the district to offer my support to Peden.

But I'm shocked at a mistake in the article. NASA is not located in Ron Paul's district, though I believe it was at one time. It has been a part of CD22 for several years, put there to ensure that Tom DeLay would look out for the interests of the space program. Johnson Space Center is currently (mis)represented by Nick Lampson (D-Carpetbag), pending the return of Congresswoman Shelley Sekula Gibbs to office (or the election of one of several other fine GOP candidates) after the 2008 election.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 677 words, total size 4 kb.