I wish I could say that this is a surprise, but it isn’t. On my way back home from Iowa last week, I was seated on the plane next to a Ron Paul campaign worker who had been flown in from out of state to work the caucuses. He was young, a little unkempt, looked and sounded 100% liberal, and over the course of a conversation with the gentleman on the other end of the row, said he was a liberal and had supported Obama in 2008. But he was disappointed that Obama had not taken our foreign policy far enough in the direction he had promised, and he believed Ron Paul would finish the job. When Paul takes ill-informed pot shots at the military, it’s bound to help him with folks like my fellow traveler.
Then, incredibly, the Paul supporter said he also supported Paul because he was scared that the government was spending too much. No acknowledgment that the man he voted for last time was responsible for that, or that Paul has no record of actually cutting spending at any point in his long political career.
Paul’s Democratic base is 10 points larger than his Republican base. And on their beliefs:
Here’s one for cognitive dissonance. Social issues may be the one area where Ron Paul is firmly in the GOP mainstream: He’s pro-life and anti-gay marriage. But don’t tell that to his liberal base.
This is evidence that Paul’s supporters don’t actually know much about him. His actual social views and those racist newsletters he published just don’t exist. He has become a symbol, and for many, a symbol of the change they voted for last time, and which has failed. Any guess which camp they’ll be in after the primary is over and Paul isn’t the nominee?
Am I out of line to consider it foolishness, that we’re letting liberal Democrats in bluish states pick the Republican nominee? Again?