There are two stories coming out of New Hampshire. The big story is Mitt Romney. The bigger one is Ron Paul.
Romney won a major victory with nearly 40 percent of the vote, 16 points ahead of number two. The split among his challengers made the outcome even more decisive. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were diminished by distant, lower-tier finishes. Rick Perry got less than 1 percent. And Jon Huntsman, who staked everything on New Hampshire, came in a weak third with less than half of Romney’s vote. He practically moved to the state — and then received exactly one-sixth of the vote in a six-man contest. Where does he go from here?
Advertisement
But the bigger winner was Ron Paul. He got 21 percent in Iowa, 23 in New Hampshire, making him the only candidate other than Romney to do well with two very different electorates, one more evangelical and socially conservative, the other more moderate and fiscally conservative.
Paul commands a strong, energetic, highly committed following. And he is unlike any of the other candidates. They’re out to win. He admits he doesn’t see himself in the Oval Office. Those aiming for the White House are one-time self-contained enterprises. Paul is out there to build a movement that will long outlive this campaign.
Paul is less a candidate than a “cause,” to cite his election-night New Hampshire speech. Which is why that speech was the only one by a losing candidate that was sincerely, almost giddily joyous. The other candidates had to pretend they were happy with their results.
Paul was genuinely delighted with his, because, after a quarter-century in the wilderness, he’s within reach of putting his cherished cause on the map. Libertarianism will have gone from the fringes — those hopeless, pathetic third-party runs — to a position of prominence in a major party.
Look at him now. He’s getting prime-time air, interviews everywhere, and, most important, respect for defeating every Republican candidate but one. His goal is to make himself leader of the opposition — within the Republican party.
He is Jesse Jackson in the 1980s, who represented a solid, African-American, liberal-activist constituency to which, he insisted, attention had to be paid by the Democratic party. Or Pat Buchanan (briefly) in 1992, who demanded — and gained — on behalf of social conservatives a significant role at a convention that was supposed to be a simple coronation of the moderate George H. W. Bush.
No one remembers Bush’s 1992 acceptance speech. Everyone remembers Buchanan’s fiery and disastrous culture-war address. At the Democratic conventions, Jackson’s platform demands and speeches drew massive attention, often overshadowing his party’s blander nominees.
Paul won’t quit before the Republican convention in Tampa. He probably will not do well in South Carolina or Florida, but with volunteers even in the more neglected caucus states, he will be relentlessly collecting delegates until Tampa. His goal is to have the second-most delegates, a position of leverage from which to influence the platform and demand a prime-time speaking slot — before deigning to support the nominee at the end. The early days of the convention, otherwise devoid of drama, could very well be all about Paul.
This is perhaps the best analysis of the impact of Ron Paul that I have read. I see the movement continuing to grow, especially, given the heir apparent, Rand Paul.
Paul would be the future of the GOP if it were only about economic policy, where he is usually spot-on.
But his "Little Bo Peep" foreign policy (Leave them alone and they'll go home...) is as disastrous as when the same policy was tried by Euro-elites leading up to WWII. Reality intrudes. Aggressive tyrants mean it when they say they want to destroy us and conquer the world. So if Paul managed to correct all of Obama's disastrous economic policies while outdoing The One in bowing and kowtowing to our enemies while abandoning our friends we still end up in an existential crisis.
Two major candidates for the GOP nod made a point, during their careers, of repudiating Reagan and insisting they were not Reaganites. They are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, the top two finishers. How far we have fallen.
"Aggressive tyrants mean it when they say they want to destroy us and conquer the world."
REALLY??? Who's going to take over the world, lol. We spend about as much on military as the whole rest of the world. No one else even comes close.
And can you really say we are safer from spending a trillion dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq?
Paul isn't about kowtwoing to anyone. He's about only using the US military against actual threats to America instead of trying to police the world, or nation build. That's something Republicans used to be in favor of.
"Almost all Republican politicians invoke the name of Ronald Reagan when campaigning. They refer to him as the greatest conservative leader we've had in modern times. But only one of the 2012 candidates - running or potentially running - has been endorsed by The Gipper himself.
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense," said Reagan in a Ron Paul campaign ad. "As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
"Like Paul, Reagan ran for President a couple of times before finally winning in 1980. In fact, when Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination in 1976 he was opposed by the Republican leadership and was even considered a “kook” by many in the party. Sound familiar? At that time, only four Republican congressman supported Reagan and Ron Paul was one of them."
Look it up. Reagan was principled, So is Dr Paul. We haven't fallen, we have come full circle. Now let's recognize that and elect Dr Paul to save our govt from collapse. If the Euro-socialists can adopt austerity, why can't we?
I did do my homework. You should do yours. Reagan did endorse Paul when he was an unknown running for Congress - as presidents frequently endorse members of their own party in a general election.
In 1988 I was employed as a radio talk show host. Ron Paul was the libertarian candidate for president. I did a two-hour interview with him. He was far more gentlemanly than his followers are. Same economic policy as now; same insane foreign policy. But at that time, he was not trying to have it both ways on Reagan, who is now universally recogninized as a hero.
Paul said that Reagan had betrayed the conservative cause. Paul made it clear he was not a Reagan Republican - and regarded the outgoing president with no little contempt. I did not just read about this. Ron Paul sat in my studio and explained it.
So he is not only not a Reaganite: he was an ingrate to the great man who endorsed him when he was an unknown hopeful for Congress.
Krauthammer takes a break from advocating ceaseless foreign wars to hedge his bets. Actually, Paul may win; and Krauthammer knows that the movement Paul is building is the future of the GOP.
This is also the latest meme used by the establishment media to marginalize the Paul campaign.
The Paul campaign is NOT settling for a pointless convention speech, worthless amendments to a meaningless platform, or a say in a powerless party hierarchy. His campaign is not a didactic exercise; it is a program for elective victory.
There are still 48 states to go and over a thousand delegates yet to be awarded.
By "bust" you of course mean (though you probably don't know it) a third party candidacy intended to split the Republican vote. More Democrat money is funding Ron Paul's breakaway campaign than will probably be spent directly funding Obama's re-election bid. After all, he has the full support of the media and the bottomless coffers of the government to draw from.
Your summary is, as usual (you've heard that a great deal, I'm aware) somewhat prescient (that, less so).
So, you're ambivalent about Paul, which is why you can't resist the FEMA camp peccadillo.
Of course it's not about FEMA camps.
Rather, it's about the fact that because terror attacks are so very rare, they are impossible to statistically model in a way that comports with the fundamental methodological criteria of reliability and validity (leaving aside, of course, those thorny legal issues).
Therefore, the NR platform has no empirical evidence it can adduce in support of its War on Terror (for criticism of the a priori basis of the platform please see my response to Mr. French).
No, it's not about the FEMA camps--Instead, it's about the phantasized idea (sorry for the Kleinian spelling) that without Paul supporters, the gameshow host (tired, I know) loses.
We like the fact that Ron's suits don't fit (who's the next standard bearer we're supposed to rally behind? Paris Hilton? LiLo?).
Therefore, and I promise this is not a non-sequitur, it's about the idea that we've heard a bunch of whistling in the dark about the Constitution and the iniquity of socialism, but we haven't seen any results.
Now, we've got a fellow that 40 years worth of behavior proves is ardently, unflinchingly opposed to socialism, and we're told (sub silentio, at that), without any empirical evidence whatseover, that the chief reason to oppose his nomination is that Romney sees a terrorist under every tree and is therefore the best way to go (to be sure, let's not forget that his principles forbid him to refer to Mr. Obama as a socialist).
Talk about paranoia!
Gosh, we're starting to think the scales haven't *really* fallen off!
Speaking seriously for once: our numbers are sufficiently large that we've reason for believing you need to work with us.
So, would you be so kind as to drop the snarky FEMA camp references and either debate relevant empirical evidence (and there isn't any to debate) or the a priori theoretical claims?
Let's talk, and let's compromise. Otherwise, we'll either stay home or vote for Obama.
I was pleasantly surprised by the fair and respectable treatment given to Ron Paul in this article (as opposed to Kevin Williamson's vicious and unnecessarily acrimonious cover piece for NR).
However, I didn't quite care for the following quote:
"The Republican convention could conceivably feature a major address by Paul calling for the abolition of the Fed, FEMA, and the CIA; American withdrawal from everywhere; acquiescence to the Iranian bomb — and perhaps even Paul’s opposition to a border fence lest it be used to keep Americans in...For libertarianism, it would be a historic moment: mainstream recognition at last."
These aren't really the ideas libertarians are pushing hardest on, or even the ones on which libertarians have universal agreement. I'm a libertarian, and I'm actually not in favor of any of those things! (Except perhaps abolishing FEMA, but to tell you the truth I've never even thought about it before.)
To see a very clever libertarian publication that I know at least some NR writers like to read, check out Reason Magazine: www.reason.com
Anyhow, Ron Paul is a flawed messenger: aside from being old and cranky, he has too much paleo in him (that's where the newsletters come from) and focuses too much on foreign and monetary policy. His son Rand is indeed a shiny star and I look forward to his future Presidential run (although there are a lot of rising stars in the GOP right now.)
Rick Santorum is wrong: libertarian influence in the GOP IS a good thing. The domination of the GOP by social and national defense conservatives is exactly why during the 2000's, the GOP was a fiscally liberal (or even quasi-socialist) party. Libertarian influence work to keep the Party true to its fiscal conservative roots. Often times, this is directly at odds with moral bigots like Santorum and exploitive chickenhawks like Dick Cheney.
Libertarianism is broad church. - the one unifying tenet is that indivduals own themselves and have a natural property right in themselves. Therefore they have a right to do with their property (themselves) what they will - engage in free enterprise, speak and worship freely, assoiciate with others freely. You do not have a right to violate others' rights or commit agression against them, and others have no right to do the same to you. (except in immediate self defence)
That natually inplies a minimialist or non existent state whose only role is to protect individuals from coercion, force, or fraud.
Outside of that there is quite a lot of diversity in the movement. I agree that that Ron Paul has positives and negatives, (thought I think there are more positives than negatives) I do think people should consider the libertarian propostion and philosophy based on its own merits separate from any individual political leader.
Come on, the only real universal belief of Libertarianism is that pot should be legal. Anyone else may share some conservative or limited government beliefs with Libertarians, but if they don't accept that tenet, they're not a part of the movement or party.
Ironically, most pot smokers are Democrats, and only those that aren't cool enough to fit in with the crowd, or too dense to realize the Democrat disavowal of legalization is an expedient ruse become Libertarian.
Apparently there are a lot of losers and fools these days.
fijiaaron are you serious? I mean, do you really believe what you posted? Because if so, and you are a representative GOPer (guessing you are a RINO), then I definitely will avoid voting red in November,.
Libertarianism is broad church. - the one unifying tenet is that indivduals own themselves and have a natural property right in themselves. Therefore they have a right to do with their property (themselves) what they will - engage in free enterprise, speak and worship freely, assoiciate with others freely. You do not have a right to violate others' rights or commit agression against them, and others have no right to do the same to you. (except in immediate self defence)
That natually inplies a minimialist or non existent state whose only role is to protect individuals from coercion, force, or fraud.
Outside of that there is quite a lot of diversity in the movement. I agree that that Ron Paul has positives and negatives, (thought I think there are more positives than negatives) I do think people should consider the libertarian propostion and philosophy based on its own merits separate from any individual political leader.
Libertarianism is broad church. - the one unifying tenet is that indivduals own themselves and have a natural property right in themselves. Therefore they have a right to do with their property (themselves) what they will - engage in free enterprise, speak and worship freely, assoiciate with others freely. You do not have a right to violate others' rights or commit agression against them, and others have no right to do the same to you. (except in immediate self defence)
That natually inplies a minimialist or non existent state whose only role is to protect individuals from coercion, force, or fraud.
Outside of that there is quite a lot of diversity in the movement. I agree that that Ron Paul has positives and negatives, (thought I think there are more positives than negatives) I do think people should consider the libertarian propostion and philosophy based on its own merits separate from any individual political leader.
When was it that indiscriminate bombing of anything that moves become the right's position. Within the 20th century were marked by wars, just or unjust, in which the left entered the US (WW1 - Wilson; WW2 - FDR, Korea - Truman, Vietnam - Kennedy, Gulf 1&2 Bush 1&2, Afghanistan - Bush 2). Other than Bush 1 &2 these are all lefties and I think we can, now that he is no longer the standard bearer, agree that Bush was not exactly a principled conservative.
Second, Dr. Paul believes that Israel should stand alone and not subordinate its sovereignty to the US. That is NOT good news for Iran. Israel would crush Iran with or without the US. And without the security blanket of the US, may find that decisive action against Iran is in its best interest sooner rather than later.
As far as all matters of big government and individual responsibility, to call Dr. Paul a RINO is completely and utterly ignorant. One who bothers to research his positions for more than 5 minutes will find Dr. Paul more in-line with Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe than any other candidate in the race (e.g. Romney see Romneycare et al, Gingrich - see couch/Pelosi and Romney/Obamacare inventor, Huntsman - see Obama administration, Perry - see Texas Dream Act, Santorum - see anti-NAFTA & Medicare Part D supporter/ Compassionate Conservative i.e. not conservative/ thinks capping leviathan take of your income at 20% of GDP is "conservative" ).
Dr. "Strangelove" Paul is a second rate hack who is so out of touch with reality he didn't know his own newsletter was printing racist and anti-Semitic articles or at least that’s his claim. This ultimate DC RINO insider is a disgrace with his addiction to gov't pork, ineffectiveness as a legislator and defense of traitors and anarchists. As for his policies aside from his defense of the New Deal and Great Society Ponzi schemes they’re only popular radical leftists, dope smoking liberalterians and losers who are fixated on guy who has no meaningful achievements in decades of being a DC insider aside from tens of billions of dollars in earmarks for his pet projects.
What? Thanks for the incoherent, non-nonsensical blather.
Dr. Paul is a first rate constitutionalist who rails against Obamacare, the Social Security and Medicare as the unconstitutional programs that they are. Further, to call Dr. Paul a "DC Insider" and say he is "addicted to gov't pork" shows a utter lack of seriousness.
There are many things to dislike about Paul; primarily his often foolish rhetoric on foreign policy in general and the judicial system as it relates to race. I have not read his newsletters and will not comment on there content; taking him at his word that he didn't know what was in them, to me, shows very poor judgment and management of the newsletter operation. However, there is no strong defender of individual liberty and the constitution running for the presidency. There is no one who actually plans on cutting spending in the first year of office. Frankly, if you are cutting immediately then you are not serious about cutting.
If you want to kick the can down the road, vote for the others, if you want to secure liberty and address the debt today, vote Paul.
666, sounds like you are a can kicker; good luck with that.
Follow
