You got it right. I really enjoyed watching Newt smack down of Chris Wallace. Wallace's face had the look of a naughty boy coming out of the principal's office.

National Review may or may not suffer under the current leadership (I've long been underwhelmed, myself). But the extent that they do, it isn't because they refuse to take Ron Paul seriously. The man is to the left of Obama on foreign policy. And his prescriptions for domestic policy can be a little wacky (legalize heroin and prostitution?)

Neocon rag?

What does it say about Ron Paul when fully half of his supporters ADMIT that if Paul isn't the nominee, then they're going to vote for either Obama or a 3rd Party?

Just because Paul has somewhat reasonable positions on taxing and spending doesn't mean he's a conservative - a classical liberal perhaps, but not a conservative (neo-conservative or otherwise).

Our enemy is not our enemy because of our position on Israel, or on anything else. Our enemy is our enemy because their god commands them to be our enemy. I'm sorry Dr. Paul isn't smart enough to understand this very clear and incontrovertible fact.

When he says absolutely IDIOTIC things like, "If we mind our own business, no one will bother us", he disqualifies himself from absolutely any serious discussion as a Republican president.

William R,
As someone who has also been reading NR since the (early) 60s I can think of no time that it has ever supported the kind of pacifistic/isolationist-divorced-from-reality ravings that we heard tonight from Ron Paul. The man is a better fit for a padded room than the Oval Office, and that is from someone who actually agrees with him on domestic/financial issues about 85 or so percent of the time. The fact that a lunatic makes occasional sense does not, however, make me more inclined to make him President. In fact, he is the only candidate in the field who would force me to go fishing rather than beat down the door to the polling booth to help oust Obama. A dithering socialist is bad enough, but I would not be able in good conscience to turn the country over to someone who seems so obviously unstable.

Rich, I feel like I've become the internet's lone Pawlenty defender, but I thought he did better than people are giving him credit for. I think some pundits maybe underestimating the appeal of attacking Bachmann for being a speechgiver and a gadfly with no record. Further, Bachmann was simply untruthful in some of her attacks. For whatever it is worth I talked to my Father who is 84 and unsolicited he said he liked "the Governor of Minnesota." (I'm the Frank Luntz of the WW2 vet set!) Whether this means anything and he can gain any momentum out of Ames remains to be seen.

The Santorum-Paul moments while fun, were a waste of time in my opinion. Neither has much of a chance, and the debate over foreign policy is likely to be with Obama not within the GOP. I thought Bachmann came off poorly in the statements about the debt ceiling, but probably not with the hardcore base.

That is all.

National Review does not want to go to war with Iran no more than Bill Buckley and the National Review of the 1960's wanted to go to war with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, then as now the National Review stood up for a strong foreign policy over those who like Ron Paul now would overlook the threats to our national security. I haven't been reading the National Review since the 1960's, but I have been reading since the 1980's, and though Rich may not make the same choices as Bill Buckley he is an honorable successor who has continued to make National Review the most important conservative publication--digital and print.

William R,
As someone who has also been reading NR since the (early) 60s I can think of no time that it has ever supported the kind of pacifistic/isolationist-divorced-from-reality ravings that we heard tonight from Ron Paul. The man is a better fit for a padded room than the Oval Office, and that is from someone who actually agrees with him on domestic/financial issues about 85 or so percent of the time. The fact that a lunatic makes occasional sense does not, however, make me more inclined to make him President. In fact, he is the only candidate in the field who would force me to go fishing rather than beat down the door to the polling booth to help oust Obama. A dithering socialist is bad enough, but I would not be able in good conscience to turn the country over to someone who seems so obviously unstable.

I don't know if it's isolationism or whatever, but If you read some of his comments on 9-11 he sounds like a mental patient.

Ron Paul talking on the Alex Jones show (a show for mental patients, host by a mental patient):

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

REP. PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.