Friday, May 28, 2010
Ron Paul's Civil Rights Act?
In an interesting bit of irony considering the political headlines of the last couple of weeks, Rep. Ron Paul made a little bit of history last night: He was one of five House Republicans to vote for repealing "don't ask, don't tell" (the measure passed 234-294, with 26 Democrats voting against ). The other four GOPers? Brand-new House member Charles Djou of Hawaii, Vietnamese-American Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana, Cuban-American Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Judy Biggert of Illinois. In case you couldn't tell from the names and description, that means Paul was -- as noted effusively on Twitter -- the only white male Republican to vote for repeal.
Given how much attention made to the against-conventional-wisdom view of Paul and his son, Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul, about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, this vote is both surprisng and maybe less so.
Read more »
|
Given how much attention made to the against-conventional-wisdom view of Paul and his son, Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul, about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, this vote is both surprisng and maybe less so.
Read more »
Labels: don't ask don't tell, gays in the military, Ron Paul
Thursday, May 20, 2010
An A-Pauling View on Civil Rights
Memo to Republicans: Stop rehashing "civil" matters.
How wonderfully ironic that two of the freshest new faces on the GOP scene both managed to trip themselves on age-old "civil" issues. Last month, new Virginia Gov. Bob MacDonnell made an unforced error by issuing a proclamation to recognize April as Confederate History Month -- that didn't mention slavery.
Now, Rand Paul, fresh from a great primary victory in Kentucky decides to double-down on previously-written opposition to the Civil Rights Act. He explored his views on the Rachel Maddow show last night. Sorry, but it was appalling (and no, my conservative friends, this could hardly be called a "gotcha" interview).
If GOP candidates from southern and "border" states (how weird it is to use that phrase in 2010 not in the context of Mexico and immigration) really want to present themselves as ready to lead this country in the 21st century, re-arguing and re-litigating 50- and 150-year-old American history isn't really the best way to go. Especially when it touches on the nation's awkward attempts to expiate its original sin.
I have a great deal of respect for the Senate nominee's father, Ron Paul. His views on economics (which some might call "obscure") are actually insightful and gaining traction. He also has an important perspective to be heard in foreign affairs. But it is the height of stupidity to decry the "private property" implications of the Civil Rights Act (as he did on Meet The Press three years ago), when a major goal of the legislation was to overturn state laws that overwhelmingly restrained the economic advancement of a group of people who were once classified as private property.
Republicans -- whether one calls oneself conservative, libertarian, free-market -- shouldn't have philosophical opposition to the basic goals of the Civil Rights Act (hell, the bill passed because of Republican votes!) It's perfectly fine for contemporary fans of Barry Goldwater to say that the man was wrong to oppose the CRA -- whether on philosophical or political ("hunting where the ducks are") grounds. It's fine to say that the Civil Rights Act has been too broadly interpreted in the decades since. But, the 1964 Act and the Voting Rights Act which followed in 1965 were designed to overturn geographic apartheid in parts of this country.
The Pauls seem to concede to the validity of the Act's overturning of discrimination in public settings, such as transportation. But why aren't they -- as libertarians -- outraged that Jim Crow laws themselves infringed on private property and free exchange of goods? Jim Crow said whites and blacks couldn't eat together or live in the same hotels. If you were a white restaurant owner and wanted to serve blacks, you could be shut down. Once again, Jim Crow prevented whites and blacks from engaging in a basic economic relationship. That is the power of the state at its worst. And Rand Paul calls such a reality "obscure"?
This, by the way, speaks to something that an astute and philosophically honest libertarian, David Boaz, has noted: There never was a golden age of lost liberty in the United States:
UPDATE: Rand Paul stated today that the Civil Rights Act is "settled" law and "unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Well, that's a relief. However, Paul still avoids the major problem. He says, "I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere." However, as said above, Jim Crow also prevented private property owners from engaging in economic activity between the races. It's not just a "public sphere." That a libertarian would stumble over something as basic as this is problematic, to say the least.
|
How wonderfully ironic that two of the freshest new faces on the GOP scene both managed to trip themselves on age-old "civil" issues. Last month, new Virginia Gov. Bob MacDonnell made an unforced error by issuing a proclamation to recognize April as Confederate History Month -- that didn't mention slavery.
Now, Rand Paul, fresh from a great primary victory in Kentucky decides to double-down on previously-written opposition to the Civil Rights Act. He explored his views on the Rachel Maddow show last night. Sorry, but it was appalling (and no, my conservative friends, this could hardly be called a "gotcha" interview).
If GOP candidates from southern and "border" states (how weird it is to use that phrase in 2010 not in the context of Mexico and immigration) really want to present themselves as ready to lead this country in the 21st century, re-arguing and re-litigating 50- and 150-year-old American history isn't really the best way to go. Especially when it touches on the nation's awkward attempts to expiate its original sin.
I have a great deal of respect for the Senate nominee's father, Ron Paul. His views on economics (which some might call "obscure") are actually insightful and gaining traction. He also has an important perspective to be heard in foreign affairs. But it is the height of stupidity to decry the "private property" implications of the Civil Rights Act (as he did on Meet The Press three years ago), when a major goal of the legislation was to overturn state laws that overwhelmingly restrained the economic advancement of a group of people who were once classified as private property.
Republicans -- whether one calls oneself conservative, libertarian, free-market -- shouldn't have philosophical opposition to the basic goals of the Civil Rights Act (hell, the bill passed because of Republican votes!) It's perfectly fine for contemporary fans of Barry Goldwater to say that the man was wrong to oppose the CRA -- whether on philosophical or political ("hunting where the ducks are") grounds. It's fine to say that the Civil Rights Act has been too broadly interpreted in the decades since. But, the 1964 Act and the Voting Rights Act which followed in 1965 were designed to overturn geographic apartheid in parts of this country.
The Pauls seem to concede to the validity of the Act's overturning of discrimination in public settings, such as transportation. But why aren't they -- as libertarians -- outraged that Jim Crow laws themselves infringed on private property and free exchange of goods? Jim Crow said whites and blacks couldn't eat together or live in the same hotels. If you were a white restaurant owner and wanted to serve blacks, you could be shut down. Once again, Jim Crow prevented whites and blacks from engaging in a basic economic relationship. That is the power of the state at its worst. And Rand Paul calls such a reality "obscure"?
This, by the way, speaks to something that an astute and philosophically honest libertarian, David Boaz, has noted: There never was a golden age of lost liberty in the United States:
The Cato Institute's boilerplate description of itself used to include the line, "Since [the American] revolution, civil and economic liberties have been eroded." Until Clarence Thomas, then chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, gave a speech at Cato and pointed out to us that it didn't seem quite that way to black people.
And he was right. American public policy has changed in many ways since the American Revolution, sometimes in a libertarian direction, sometimes not.It's one thing for conservatives to regularly force a reconsideration of major economic issues. It's legitimate to wonder if every part of the New Deal -- or Great Society -- should stay in place. But dismissing the Civil Rights Act -- without at least recognizing that the pre-Act status quo ante was an obscene era for freedom in the United States that required some sort of federal action -- is intellectually immoral and politically stupid.
UPDATE: Rand Paul stated today that the Civil Rights Act is "settled" law and "unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Well, that's a relief. However, Paul still avoids the major problem. He says, "I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere." However, as said above, Jim Crow also prevented private property owners from engaging in economic activity between the races. It's not just a "public sphere." That a libertarian would stumble over something as basic as this is problematic, to say the least.
Monday, February 22, 2010
"A Passion You Can't Fake In Politics"
National Review's Robert Costa and Lew Rockwell's David Franke explain the Ron Paul movement's hijacking of CPAC.
The rise of the Paulists also explains this fun occurrence on Friday. As the Franke piece points out, the big issue is deficits and the economy. Paulists care little for who is doing what to whom in the privacy of their homes.
|
The rise of the Paulists also explains this fun occurrence on Friday. As the Franke piece points out, the big issue is deficits and the economy. Paulists care little for who is doing what to whom in the privacy of their homes.
Labels: CPAC, Republicans, Ron Paul
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Super Tuesday
Well, I'm heading to the polls today.
With my my anticipated enthusiasm of voting against the former mayor of New York sadly gone by the boards (but, hey, my prediction that he wouldn't win a state outside of New York or New Jersey was, well, sort of right!), I now have to decide who I'm going to vote for.
Ron Paul had been my long-time favorite. Aside from raising the right questions on current U.S. foreign policy, the size of government, he's also the only candidate to actually mention the impact of the falling dollar on the economy (heck, if McDonald's commercials can make jokes about the falling dollar, don't you think politicians might realize that there's a potential problem here?). Unfortunately, Paul missed a strong opportunity to explain his rather repugnant newsletters from the '80s and '90s (as revealed in The New Republic last month). I don't think Paul is necessarily racist, but there should be a better explanation rather than, "Well, I didn'tright write them." In other words, Paul -- who's a straight shooter in other respects -- could deal with a little "straight talk" when it comes to things that have his name on them.
So, that leaves me with John McCain and Mitt Romney. Neither is perfect. McCain was my guy in 2000 and there's still much I respect about him -- even despite McCain-Feingold. I hate his view that we might need to be in Iraq for 100 years. On the other hand, despite his stance on war, he was the one who was holding Rumsfeld's feet to the fire on troop strength and strategy. When few other Republicans were. He has also demanded some accountability from the administration on Guantanamo and waterboarding (a position that has caused many conservatives to now claim, bizarrely, that McCain is "wrong on torture"). Furthermore, he's been railing on spending and earmarks for years -- more than his fellow GOPers can say.
On the other hand, Romney has flip-flopped on so many positions (agree with McCain or not, he generally stays with the position that he adopts), how he can be considered a reliable "conservative" -- as many on the right now wish to declare him -- is beyond me.
Thus, I will, grudgingly, vote for John McCain today.
Others may respectfully differ.
|
With my my anticipated enthusiasm of voting against the former mayor of New York sadly gone by the boards (but, hey, my prediction that he wouldn't win a state outside of New York or New Jersey was, well, sort of right!), I now have to decide who I'm going to vote for.
Ron Paul had been my long-time favorite. Aside from raising the right questions on current U.S. foreign policy, the size of government, he's also the only candidate to actually mention the impact of the falling dollar on the economy (heck, if McDonald's commercials can make jokes about the falling dollar, don't you think politicians might realize that there's a potential problem here?). Unfortunately, Paul missed a strong opportunity to explain his rather repugnant newsletters from the '80s and '90s (as revealed in The New Republic last month). I don't think Paul is necessarily racist, but there should be a better explanation rather than, "Well, I didn't
So, that leaves me with John McCain and Mitt Romney. Neither is perfect. McCain was my guy in 2000 and there's still much I respect about him -- even despite McCain-Feingold. I hate his view that we might need to be in Iraq for 100 years. On the other hand, despite his stance on war, he was the one who was holding Rumsfeld's feet to the fire on troop strength and strategy. When few other Republicans were. He has also demanded some accountability from the administration on Guantanamo and waterboarding (a position that has caused many conservatives to now claim, bizarrely, that McCain is "wrong on torture"). Furthermore, he's been railing on spending and earmarks for years -- more than his fellow GOPers can say.
On the other hand, Romney has flip-flopped on so many positions (agree with McCain or not, he generally stays with the position that he adopts), how he can be considered a reliable "conservative" -- as many on the right now wish to declare him -- is beyond me.
Thus, I will, grudgingly, vote for John McCain today.
Others may respectfully differ.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Ron Paul's Racism...
Very tough New Republic piece.
He's going to have a difficult time refuting these charges. I hope he does, but this is pretty ugly stuff. Andrew Sullivan wants answers. A fomer Paul-leaner finds it "indefensible."
If nothing else, this report could severly damage a third-party run that might depend on anti-war votes from the left.
|
The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
......
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
He's going to have a difficult time refuting these charges. I hope he does, but this is pretty ugly stuff. Andrew Sullivan wants answers. A fomer Paul-leaner finds it "indefensible."
If nothing else, this report could severly damage a third-party run that might depend on anti-war votes from the left.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, racism, Ron Paul
Friday, January 04, 2008
The Iowa Story
1) An historic achievement: On the macro level, Sen. Barack Obama, a black American won the state of Iowa in convincing fashion -- eight point over a guy who came in second four years ago and had practically moved into the state in the interim. Then, on the micro-level, he gave former first lady, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her first electoral defeat -- and the first defeat for the vaunted Clinton political machine since Bill's first gubernatorial re-election in 1980. And lest anyone forget, the man can give a helluva speech:
2) Mike Huckabee defeated the Republican candidate who spent the most and had the largest political machine.
3) As Dick Polman noted Thursday, only one person has won Iowa outright and gone onto win the presidency the same year -- George W. Bush in 2000.
4) George H.W. Bush came in third in Iowa in 1988 -- and went on to become the eventual nominee and then won the White House.
5) John McCain's de facto tie for third place with Fred Thompson sets him up well to deliver a near-fatal blow to Mitt Romney on Tuesday.
6) At the Democratic Party event I attended, several people identified McCain as the person they were most nervous about facing in November.
7) Ron Paul crushed Rudy Giuliani -- more than doubling the former mayor's votes. The Texan has a few millions to spend over the weekend in New Hampshire and may produce a few more surprises before this primary season is over.
8) Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't dead yet. She is still the likely Democratic nominee. The question is whether can she recalibrate her campaign in the way other front-runners have done following early setbacks. She faces a major challenge, however: Is she prepared to put her husband, the former president and his administration, on the sidelines -- and make a case for herself on her own merits? Elections are ultimately about the future -- not the past, regardless of how well that moment might be fondly remembered by some partisans.
|
2) Mike Huckabee defeated the Republican candidate who spent the most and had the largest political machine.
3) As Dick Polman noted Thursday, only one person has won Iowa outright and gone onto win the presidency the same year -- George W. Bush in 2000.
4) George H.W. Bush came in third in Iowa in 1988 -- and went on to become the eventual nominee and then won the White House.
5) John McCain's de facto tie for third place with Fred Thompson sets him up well to deliver a near-fatal blow to Mitt Romney on Tuesday.
6) At the Democratic Party event I attended, several people identified McCain as the person they were most nervous about facing in November.
7) Ron Paul crushed Rudy Giuliani -- more than doubling the former mayor's votes. The Texan has a few millions to spend over the weekend in New Hampshire and may produce a few more surprises before this primary season is over.
8) Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't dead yet. She is still the likely Democratic nominee. The question is whether can she recalibrate her campaign in the way other front-runners have done following early setbacks. She faces a major challenge, however: Is she prepared to put her husband, the former president and his administration, on the sidelines -- and make a case for herself on her own merits? Elections are ultimately about the future -- not the past, regardless of how well that moment might be fondly remembered by some partisans.
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, GOP 2008 President, Hillary Clinton, Iowa Caucuses, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Money, Love & Headaches
As the Iowa and New Hampshire votes loom over the next six days, Ron Paul has the money -- evidently blowing away the Republican field in fundraising in the last quarter of '07. Of course, if he doesn't translate that into votes, it will only become only a footnote in the '08 primaries (a la Howard Dean in 2003-'04). On the other hand, a third-party run was never an option for Howard Dean. It is for Paul.
And, things are perfectly falling into place for that to happen, because...
John McCain appears to have the love as the only candidate viewed favorably by a majority of voters .
Simultaneously, he's now surged to a full-fledged tie in New Hampshire with Mitt Romney and is leading the GOP pack nationally for the first time in more than a year. GOP strategist (and one-time Rudy activist) Patrick Ruffini now predicts a McCain "blow-out" next Tuesday.
This leaves headaches for Mitt Romney -- whose campaign will be effectively dead if he loses both Iowa AND New Hampshire (indeed, a loss in the latter state alone would be fatal) -- Rudy Giuliani and, oddly, Hillary Clinton.
Mike Huckabee is poised to win Iowa -- though his nutty "attack ad/non-attack ad" press conference on New Year's Eve may have been self-inflicted wound that a candidate wants to avoid during the last 48 hours of any campaign. (If Romney ekes out an Iowa win, he can thank both Huckabee's gaffe and Fred Thompson mild resurgence among social conservatives.) And the latest Zogby tracking poll has Paul ahead of Giuliani! Given early debate exchanges between the two -- and Rudy's demagoguing Paul -- such a result would have to be only too sweet for the wacky libertarian from Texas. Meanwhile, Giuliani's recent comments on Pakistan even received a slap from a usually friendly source.
With strong pro-war candidate John McCain emerging after next Tuesday as the de facto GOP frontrunner, the likelihood increases that Ron Paul launches a third-party run for president. If Mike Bloomberg also throws his hat in, the twin pressures of both an avowed anti-war candidate and a lifestyle billionaire liberal would eat away at so much blue state support that the odds of McCain becoming the next president of the United States are looking a whole lot better than they were three months ago.
So, yeah, Hillary Clinton is popping the Excedrin right about now, too.
|
And, things are perfectly falling into place for that to happen, because...
John McCain appears to have the love as the only candidate viewed favorably by a majority of voters .
Simultaneously, he's now surged to a full-fledged tie in New Hampshire with Mitt Romney and is leading the GOP pack nationally for the first time in more than a year. GOP strategist (and one-time Rudy activist) Patrick Ruffini now predicts a McCain "blow-out" next Tuesday.
This leaves headaches for Mitt Romney -- whose campaign will be effectively dead if he loses both Iowa AND New Hampshire (indeed, a loss in the latter state alone would be fatal) -- Rudy Giuliani and, oddly, Hillary Clinton.
Mike Huckabee is poised to win Iowa -- though his nutty "attack ad/non-attack ad" press conference on New Year's Eve may have been self-inflicted wound that a candidate wants to avoid during the last 48 hours of any campaign. (If Romney ekes out an Iowa win, he can thank both Huckabee's gaffe and Fred Thompson mild resurgence among social conservatives.) And the latest Zogby tracking poll has Paul ahead of Giuliani! Given early debate exchanges between the two -- and Rudy's demagoguing Paul -- such a result would have to be only too sweet for the wacky libertarian from Texas. Meanwhile, Giuliani's recent comments on Pakistan even received a slap from a usually friendly source.
With strong pro-war candidate John McCain emerging after next Tuesday as the de facto GOP frontrunner, the likelihood increases that Ron Paul launches a third-party run for president. If Mike Bloomberg also throws his hat in, the twin pressures of both an avowed anti-war candidate and a lifestyle billionaire liberal would eat away at so much blue state support that the odds of McCain becoming the next president of the United States are looking a whole lot better than they were three months ago.
So, yeah, Hillary Clinton is popping the Excedrin right about now, too.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, John McCain, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani
Monday, December 31, 2007
An A-Pauling Decision
Given obvious professional conflicts here, all I will say regarding coverage of this particular GOP debate in New Hampshire is that I agree with both Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan.
Josh's polling chart makes the point very strongly -- as does the fact that Paul was either first or second in raising money in the final quarter. Furthermore, this is a state tailor-made for his particular message.
|
Josh's polling chart makes the point very strongly -- as does the fact that Paul was either first or second in raising money in the final quarter. Furthermore, this is a state tailor-made for his particular message.
Labels: Fox News Channel, GOP 2008 President, media, Ron Paul
Monday, December 17, 2007
All Ron Paul...
...all the time!
Marc Ambinder and the on the significance of the Marc Ambinder and the LA Times on Paul's "money bomb" and the impact it may have in the early states.
Andrew Sullivan "endorses" Paul for the GOP nomination.
And a cool YouTube video of the moment the campaign hit $12 million for the quarter.
|
Marc Ambinder and the on the significance of the Marc Ambinder and the LA Times on Paul's "money bomb" and the impact it may have in the early states.
Andrew Sullivan "endorses" Paul for the GOP nomination.
And a cool YouTube video of the moment the campaign hit $12 million for the quarter.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Ron Paul
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Another Reason To Love Ron Paul
Not only is he a comic book fan -- his favorite is a Batman comic:
Conversely, if the question just happened to get to a Paul staffer who was aware of the comic, Paul gets major kudos for actually having someone on the campaign who knew about the story -- and matching it with Dr. Paul's philosophical viewpoint. Now, just try to imagine how much polling Hillary Clinton would have done before assessing what her favorite comic should/would be.
|
'My favorite comic book superhero is Baruch Wane, otherwise known as Batman, in The Batman Chronicles. 'The Berlin Batman,' #11 in the series by Paul Pope, details Batman's attempts to rescue the confiscated works of persecuted Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, from Nazi Party hands. “Batman's assistant Robin writes in the memoirs, '[Mises] was an advocate of individual liberty, free speech, and free thinking... and so, should I add, the Berlin Batman.' Batman, a Jew in hiding in Nazi Austria, was willing to risk his life for the sake of the promulgation of freedom, and I find this to be super-heroic.'Admittedly, it is "non-canon", i.e. an alternate or variation on the traditional Batman, but it so random and rare that Paul definitely gets points for being aware of its existence .
Conversely, if the question just happened to get to a Paul staffer who was aware of the comic, Paul gets major kudos for actually having someone on the campaign who knew about the story -- and matching it with Dr. Paul's philosophical viewpoint. Now, just try to imagine how much polling Hillary Clinton would have done before assessing what her favorite comic should/would be.
Labels: Batman, comics, Ron Paul
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Go$pel of Paul
Funny what the combination of the Internet and a message will do. Ron Paul rising. $4.2 million in 24 hours.
“Remember, remember the 5th of November.”
Some inside background on their fundraising machine.
|
“Remember, remember the 5th of November.”
Some inside background on their fundraising machine.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Ron Paul
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
The Gospel of Paul (and Mike)
Some praise for Ron Paul from a relatively surprising source -- our friends at National Review Online, who have generally been pretty contemptuous of Paul's efforts.
Dave Kopel shares his experience with Paul at the Gun Rights Policy Conference:
Paul is doing better than Huckabee in fundraising (and, seemingly, in nationwide enthusiasm) -- but both are far behind the frontrunners in the polls.
Neither really has a chance of becoming the GOP nominee. Huckabee has a 50-50 chance of being the VP pick (greater if Giuliani is at the top of the ticket).
Still, today's debate, the first with the full, set-in-stone, GOP field may cause some movement. Huckabee has crept up to third place in Iowa ahead of Giuliani and Paul's money can produce some ads that can resonate with independent-minded, gun-loving New Hampshire.
Stay tuned.
|
Dave Kopel shares his experience with Paul at the Gun Rights Policy Conference:
Last Saturday night, at the buffet dinner and reception, the speaker was Ron Paul. The difference between Paul as a speaker in 1988 and in 2007 was startling. In 1988, he was perfectly competent. This time he was electrifying. In 1988, his campaign could do little more than leave some literature on a table. This time, he had volunteers to hand out literature, including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson. (Included among the materials distributed were Romney’s gubernatorial signing statement of the Massachusetts ban on so-called ““assault weapons,”“ and a copy of Sen. Russ Feingold’s letter to Senator Thompson after the passage of McCain-Feingold, with Feingold’s handwritten thanks, claiming that the bill never could have passed without Thompson’s help.)Kopel sounds like Huckabee is his second "favorite" among the GOP field. That's true for me as well.
Most impressive, however, was the large crowd of young people who showed up to hear Paul’s speech. They were enthused and energized, many of them sporting Ron Paul Revolution t-shirts. (The shirts are very clever, since they use “Revolution” to also say ““LOVE”,” which makes revolution seem a lot nicer.)
I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in 1983-84, while I was at the University of Michigan’s Law School. In terms of support from young volunteers, Paul is miles ahead of where Hart was before the Iowa caucus. After Hart finished second in Iowa, and then won New Hampshire, his campaign attracted a huge number of students, but not before. Paul, on the other hand, has what appears to be a staunch contingent of young supporters already.
The volunteers loved Paul’s speech, of course, and so did the large majority of the rest of the GRPC crowd. The GRPC activists are very wary of politicians whose pro-gun positions are a matter of convenience or calculation, rather than sincere dedication to the Constitution. The top tier of the Republican field obviously has a problem with candidates whose 2007 positions on guns or other issues are inconsistent with some of their past actions. You have to get down to Mike Huckabee before you can find a candidate who doesn’t have a consistency problem. (Huckabee’s record on the Second Amendment is perfect, and his statements clearly prove that he understands and believes in the issue, and isn’t just reciting platitudes and talking points.)
Paul is doing better than Huckabee in fundraising (and, seemingly, in nationwide enthusiasm) -- but both are far behind the frontrunners in the polls.
Neither really has a chance of becoming the GOP nominee. Huckabee has a 50-50 chance of being the VP pick (greater if Giuliani is at the top of the ticket).
Still, today's debate, the first with the full, set-in-stone, GOP field may cause some movement. Huckabee has crept up to third place in Iowa ahead of Giuliani and Paul's money can produce some ads that can resonate with independent-minded, gun-loving New Hampshire.
Stay tuned.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
The Case For Ron Paul
My friend Todd Seavey explains it to those on the right.
Oh, and here's Todd's blogosphere spot.
|
Oh, and here's Todd's blogosphere spot.
Labels: Ron Paul
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Ron Paul, George (No Ringo)
To celebrate the return of Madscribe to RAGGED THOTS, let's check last Sunday's New York Times Magazine feature on the honest, sane, maverick in the presidential primaries (Mike Gravel is a real joke). It's a very good and fair story by The Weekly Standard's Chris Caldwell.
My favorite passage -- just because it shows how Paul is not afraid to take on entrenched interests, regardless of their ideological allegiances:
Go, Ron, go!
UPDATE: Ross Douthat follows up Andrew Sullivan on the idea of Ron Paul being a significant spoiler if he chooses to run on the Libertarian line in '08.
|
My favorite passage -- just because it shows how Paul is not afraid to take on entrenched interests, regardless of their ideological allegiances:
I also love the fact that the only big names to support his effort were Steve Forbes and Nolan Ryan!In the first days of 1995, just weeks after the Republican landslide, Paul traveled to Washington and, through DeLay, made contact with the Texas Republican delegation. He told them he could beat the Democratic incumbent Greg Laughlin in the reconfigured Gulf Coast district that now included his home. Republicans had their own ideas. In June 1995, Laughlin announced he would run in the next election as a Republican. Laughlin says he had discussed switching parties with Newt Gingrich, the next speaker, before the Republicans even took power. Paul suspects to this day that the Republicans wooed Laughlin to head off his candidacy. Whatever happened, it didn’t work. Paul challenged Laughlin in the primary.
“At first, we kind of blew him off,” recalls the longtime Texas political consultant Royal Masset. “ ‘Oh, there’s Ron Paul!’ But very quickly, we realized he was getting far more money than anybody.” Much of it came from out of state, from the free-market network Paul built up while far from Congress. His candidacy was a problem not just for Laughlin. It also threatened to halt the stream of prominent Democrats then switching parties — for what sane incumbent would switch if he couldn’t be assured the Republican nomination? The result was a heavily funded effort by the National Republican Congressional Committee to defeat Paul in the primary. The National Rifle Association made an independent expenditure against him. Former President George H.W. Bush, Gov. George W. Bush and both Republican senators endorsed Laughlin. Paul had only two prominent backers: the tax activist Steve Forbes and the pitcher Nolan Ryan, Paul’s constituent and old friend, who cut a number of ads for him. They were enough. Paul edged Laughlin in a runoff and won an equally narrow general election.
Republican opposition may not have made Paul distrust the party, but beating its network with his own homemade one revealed that he didn’t necessarily need the party either. Paul looks back on that race and sees something in common with his quixotic bid for the presidency. “I always think that if I do things like that and get clobbered, I can excuse myself,” he says.
Go, Ron, go!
UPDATE: Ross Douthat follows up Andrew Sullivan on the idea of Ron Paul being a significant spoiler if he chooses to run on the Libertarian line in '08.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, libertarian, Ron Paul
Friday, July 06, 2007
Ryan's Hope
Congratulations to my friend, erstwhile colleague and inveterate campaign finance reform nemesis Ryan Sager as he weds Emily Gitter this coming Sunday evening in the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens.
I'm not sure about Emily, but I'm pretty sure that Ryan is registered at RudyYesMcCainGodNoPleaseGodNo.org (heh heh).
Given that, this little item should amuse him to no end.
UPDATE: Yep, Ryan is amused to no end. At the risk of turning this post into something semi-serious, perhaps he should give more love to the Paul-heads. I mean, what does it say that the so-called "fringe" GOP candidate has more cash-on-hand than three former governors (Huckabee, Gilmore and T. Thompson), two currently-serving U.S. senators (Brownback and McCain) and his two other House members running for POTUS (Hunter and Tancredo).
|
I'm not sure about Emily, but I'm pretty sure that Ryan is registered at RudyYesMcCainGodNoPleaseGodNo.org (heh heh).
Given that, this little item should amuse him to no end.
UPDATE: Yep, Ryan is amused to no end. At the risk of turning this post into something semi-serious, perhaps he should give more love to the Paul-heads. I mean, what does it say that the so-called "fringe" GOP candidate has more cash-on-hand than three former governors (Huckabee, Gilmore and T. Thompson), two currently-serving U.S. senators (Brownback and McCain) and his two other House members running for POTUS (Hunter and Tancredo).
Labels: Ron Paul, ryan sager, Senator John McCain, wedding
Friday, May 18, 2007
Not-so-Retro Record Moment
Madscribe:
I still haven't bothered to watch the video or read the transcript of this week's GOP "debate." However, having introduced the Ragged Thots Regulars to a certain former military physician cum Congressman from Texas, the link below seems like a fitting tie-in for another Retro Record Moment. The possibility that "Dr. No" may actually have a shot at being to the 2008 election what Ronald Reagan was to 1980 is, to say the least, very interesting. Someone finally had the guts to inject a needed Goldwater sensibility into a party overrun by the embracers of bloated (and bloody) bureaucracy.
I can honestly say Rep. Paul is one of the ONLY politicians in America of whom I don't feel one iota of disgust, even though I think it is his forthrightness and honesty that will make him unelectable. As much as Americans whine about political duplicity and the need for a "new politics" (a phrase which is as about as grounded in reality as the dot-com's "New Economy"), Americans love a sweet talker that lies. It's why con artists were once referred to as "Confidence Men," as it takes two to bunko: the scammer that promises something for nothing and the scammed that actually hoped to GET something for nothing. After the Great Immigration Sell-Out of 2007, however, I don't think it's Rep. Paul that's going to be singing the title of the great Queen/David Bowie duet ...
For your weekend reading pleasure, the Definitive Defense of Paul's 9/11 comments (and excoriation of Giuliani Goosestepping) here.
|
I still haven't bothered to watch the video or read the transcript of this week's GOP "debate." However, having introduced the Ragged Thots Regulars to a certain former military physician cum Congressman from Texas, the link below seems like a fitting tie-in for another Retro Record Moment. The possibility that "Dr. No" may actually have a shot at being to the 2008 election what Ronald Reagan was to 1980 is, to say the least, very interesting. Someone finally had the guts to inject a needed Goldwater sensibility into a party overrun by the embracers of bloated (and bloody) bureaucracy.
I can honestly say Rep. Paul is one of the ONLY politicians in America of whom I don't feel one iota of disgust, even though I think it is his forthrightness and honesty that will make him unelectable. As much as Americans whine about political duplicity and the need for a "new politics" (a phrase which is as about as grounded in reality as the dot-com's "New Economy"), Americans love a sweet talker that lies. It's why con artists were once referred to as "Confidence Men," as it takes two to bunko: the scammer that promises something for nothing and the scammed that actually hoped to GET something for nothing. After the Great Immigration Sell-Out of 2007, however, I don't think it's Rep. Paul that's going to be singing the title of the great Queen/David Bowie duet ...
For your weekend reading pleasure, the Definitive Defense of Paul's 9/11 comments (and excoriation of Giuliani Goosestepping) here.
UPDATE: Curtis LeMay notwithstanding, there must be something about Air Force officers and libertarianism that makes me think I served in the wrong service (although I was a USAF brat). Goldwater, Paul; and this column on Paul, by retired Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski. Is Ludwig Von Mises part of the commissioning process for fly boys and girls? And like the LTC, "I’m sorry that I didn’t believe in possibility that a serious person in the American political arena would commit that most radical act of speaking truth to power," and temporarily giving into the power of Darth Va---er, Judge-me-not Rudy.
And wouldn't you love to see this beautiful couple on Pennsylvania Avenue? I mean, they look like friendly, next-door-neighbor NORMAL AMERICANS. When I look at some of the recent tenants (or aspiring ones) of the National House, I hear the voice of Blaine Edwards ("Oh my, clutch the pearls and close the purse!").
Labels: Ron Paul
Ron's Right Stuff
Andrew Sullivan points out conservative defenders of Ron Paul.
He also points to Slate's John Dickerson (not a conservative) who puts forward basic common sense reasons why Paul shouldn't be jettisoned from future debates. Dickerson, by the way, raises a question that's been bothering me for a while: It seems OK to "heed" Osama bin Laden's words when it supports the stay-in-Iraq position -- during the presidential debate, McCain said (about the 2:21 minute mark in the first part of the Fox debate video), "You read Zarqawi, you read bin Laden, you read al Qaeda; they'll tell ya: They want to follow us home." (Like a puppy?). However, given the response to Paul, it would appear to be verboten to listen to what bin Laden actually said with regard to his declared "fatwah" on America.
As Dickerston reports:
|
He also points to Slate's John Dickerson (not a conservative) who puts forward basic common sense reasons why Paul shouldn't be jettisoned from future debates. Dickerson, by the way, raises a question that's been bothering me for a while: It seems OK to "heed" Osama bin Laden's words when it supports the stay-in-Iraq position -- during the presidential debate, McCain said (about the 2:21 minute mark in the first part of the Fox debate video), "You read Zarqawi, you read bin Laden, you read al Qaeda; they'll tell ya: They want to follow us home." (Like a puppy?). However, given the response to Paul, it would appear to be verboten to listen to what bin Laden actually said with regard to his declared "fatwah" on America.
As Dickerston reports:
Here's just one instance, from 1996, in which Bin Laden in one of his declarations of war said exactly what Paul claims: "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanctions) imposed on Iraq and its people. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime, are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, whatever treaty you have with our country is now null and void."In short, Paul wasn't crazy in articulating one of bin Laden's declared motives for wishing to attack the United States. Paul's not offering an excuse for an horrific crime -- or suggesting that America deserved to be attacked (anymore than a murder victim "deserves" to be killed because of various jealousies and hatreds on the part of the murderer). He is, however, saying that American foreign policy is a reason stated by bin Laden and al Qaeda for the 9/11 attack. Besides, there are any number of foreign policy experts on the right and left who point to the America's pre-9/11 problematic relationship with various Arab regimes as one reason why "we are hated."
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Iraq War, Ron Paul, war on terror
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Ron Paul Petition
To counter calls from some Republicans that Ron Paul should be dumped from future GOP presidential debates, an online petition to the Republican National Committee has been drafted.
It is posted here for your information. Do with it what you will.
|
It is posted here for your information. Do with it what you will.
Labels: Republican presidential debate, Ron Paul
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Ron Paul Mania
Andrew Sullivan applauds -- and supports -- the Ron Paul boomlet.
It was quite clear watching the post-debate show on Fox that the new talking points among GOP pundits is that Paul must be banned from future debates. Why? His views on foreign policy -- especially with respect to the Middle East -- are certainly unorthodox.
So what? He is a currently elected member of Congress. Thus, he has the same legitimate standing (given poll numbers) to be on the stage as, say, Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo. Besides, Paul's forthrightness gave Rudy Giuliani the opportunity to produce the applause line of the night. Why toss out a guy like that?
Furthermore, he's at least sparked getting people to support him in the Internet and text-message polls the cable networks have organized so far. And no, it's not just the anti-war Kossacks who are bum-rushing the cable polls. As Andrew's follow-up notes, the far-right folks at World Net Daily are climbing on the Paul bandwagon!
Paul Fever -- catch it!
|
It was quite clear watching the post-debate show on Fox that the new talking points among GOP pundits is that Paul must be banned from future debates. Why? His views on foreign policy -- especially with respect to the Middle East -- are certainly unorthodox.
So what? He is a currently elected member of Congress. Thus, he has the same legitimate standing (given poll numbers) to be on the stage as, say, Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo. Besides, Paul's forthrightness gave Rudy Giuliani the opportunity to produce the applause line of the night. Why toss out a guy like that?
Furthermore, he's at least sparked getting people to support him in the Internet and text-message polls the cable networks have organized so far. And no, it's not just the anti-war Kossacks who are bum-rushing the cable polls. As Andrew's follow-up notes, the far-right folks at World Net Daily are climbing on the Paul bandwagon!
Paul Fever -- catch it!
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Republican presidential debate, Ron Paul
The Giuliani-McCain Bounce Back
The GOP presidential debate overview is late, since illness and other reasons kept me from catching this live. I instead watched the midnight rebroadcast.
Winners: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
Both were much more on their game than at the MSNBC debate last week. McCain gave a solid defense of his Iraq position, but sounded much more avuncular and less snappish this time. His answers denouncing the use of torture on morality and efficacy grounds might not have played to the crowd, but they felt genuine He slapped Mitt Romney vert adroitly when the former Massachusetts governor went after him on McCain-Feingold: After saying that he's stayed consistent on both campaign finance and pro-life, McCain said, "I have not changed my position on even-numbered years or changed because of the different offices that I may be running for." His "drunken sailor" line in reference to congressional spending went over much better (though Huckabee's trumped him shortly afterwards) .On the other hand, McCain's claim that Republicans lost Congress not because of Iraq, but only because of overspending and corruption was a little too cute.
Giuliani got the applause of the night in responding to Ron Paul's "blowback" theory of 9/11. Paul was dumb to include U.S. patrolling of the Iraqi no-fly-zone after the first Gulf War in his claim that U.S. Middle East policy had a role in the run-up to 9/11. Hardly any If he had just stuck to bin Laden's statements about U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, he would have been on more solid ground.
But Rudy was smart to jump on Paul's overstatement and pulled the "I paid for this microphone , Mr. Speaker" line of the night: "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
The house erupted.
(However, in the interest of precision, it should be noted that Paul's initial answer -- on general Middle East policy --actually drew light, scattered, applause. Don't take my word for it. Check the replay online.)
That aside, Rudy managed to deflect the abortion and "not conservative-enough for a conservative party" questions and played to his strengths -- security and leadership (strengths which the debate format played). He also managed to display light humor (his embracing of Gilmore's anti-"Rudy McRomney" line as a "ticket" he liked.
Mike Huckabee was also a winner because he took the role Jim Gilmore had in the MSNBC debate -- smart, balanced, knowledgeable conservative -- and added the red-meat anti-Democratic candidate line of the night, that Congress had "spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop." That's a textbook example of how to deliver a cheap shot -- make it very funny. His defense of his tax policies -- his 94 tax cuts vs. increases for highway maintenance showed the legitimate trade-offs a chief executive has to make. At the same time, he also seemed like the guy who had a broader vision than just the "issues" under discussion that evening.
Losers: Mitt Romney -- aside from the exchange with McCain, Romney didn't have any real flubs. On the other hand, he didn't say or do anything that particularly distinguished him apart from the rest of the crowd -- in ways that McCain, Giuliani, or even Huckabee did.
Gilmore, unfortunately, didn't distinguish himself this time either. When asked to be explicit about the stands of opponents that he had criticized by name on the campaign trail, he backed away. Be direct, Jim, if you have the opportunity. Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter and Tommy Thompson were "OK", but that's not enough in this crowded field (which may get more crowded with Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich pondering a run).
Tom Tancredo is a one issue candidate -- immigration.
Ron Paul was neither a winner nor a loser. Obviously, he has no chance of becoming the nominee, but he came across this time as the equivalent of Mike Gravel in the Democratic contest: He had a real influence on the debate, for good or ill. He articulated the libertarian view of the role of government (and, in a post-debate sequence on Hannity and Colmes, explained how one can be libertarian and pro-life). Furthermore, his historical/ philosophical analysis of the Republican strain of non-interventionism is supported by the facts; his appropriation of Ronald Reagan's assessment of the "irrationality of Middle East politics" is, I believe, something that will be picked up, sooner or later, by another candidate. Mark my words.
Finally, Fox News Channel's presentation was a marked improvement over the MSNBC/Chris Matthews Ego Fest. I give it a solid B for its coherent format and question selection. (Fox had an interesting meta-message going too: White House correspondent Wendell Goler's presence meant Fox had a more diverse panel of interlocutors than MSNBC, a fact that Chris Wallace was able to underscore when he asked the "diversity" question: Why does the GOP field look like a country club? Wonder if the Democrats regret blowing up the FNC-Congressional Black Caucus debate?)
However, FNC loses points for its ill-advised hypothetical terror question at the end. Contrary to the "Law And Order" ripped-from-the-headlines plot motif, the question seemed like a ripped-from-the-last-two-seasons-of-'24' idea. I'm absolutely serious: The endangered shopping center premise was taken from the 2006 season; the one-successful-attack-and-more-to-come-with-the-need-to-debrief-captured-enemy-combatants-in-Guantanamo was the story arc from the first quarter of the current season. Tancredo didn't realize how correct he was saying that his response to the question's premise would be to go "looking for Jack Bauer." That's Bauer's storyline! As Paul noted, correctly, there are enough actual ways that the nation has changed because of 9/11 that putting together a hypothetical was a waste of valuable time.
Look, I like corporate synergy as much as the next guy, but this is going a bit too far.
|
Winners: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
Both were much more on their game than at the MSNBC debate last week. McCain gave a solid defense of his Iraq position, but sounded much more avuncular and less snappish this time. His answers denouncing the use of torture on morality and efficacy grounds might not have played to the crowd, but they felt genuine He slapped Mitt Romney vert adroitly when the former Massachusetts governor went after him on McCain-Feingold: After saying that he's stayed consistent on both campaign finance and pro-life, McCain said, "I have not changed my position on even-numbered years or changed because of the different offices that I may be running for." His "drunken sailor" line in reference to congressional spending went over much better (though Huckabee's trumped him shortly afterwards) .On the other hand, McCain's claim that Republicans lost Congress not because of Iraq, but only because of overspending and corruption was a little too cute.
Giuliani got the applause of the night in responding to Ron Paul's "blowback" theory of 9/11. Paul was dumb to include U.S. patrolling of the Iraqi no-fly-zone after the first Gulf War in his claim that U.S. Middle East policy had a role in the run-up to 9/11. Hardly any If he had just stuck to bin Laden's statements about U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, he would have been on more solid ground.
But Rudy was smart to jump on Paul's overstatement and pulled the "I paid for this microphone , Mr. Speaker" line of the night: "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
The house erupted.
(However, in the interest of precision, it should be noted that Paul's initial answer -- on general Middle East policy --actually drew light, scattered, applause. Don't take my word for it. Check the replay online.)
That aside, Rudy managed to deflect the abortion and "not conservative-enough for a conservative party" questions and played to his strengths -- security and leadership (strengths which the debate format played). He also managed to display light humor (his embracing of Gilmore's anti-"Rudy McRomney" line as a "ticket" he liked.
Mike Huckabee was also a winner because he took the role Jim Gilmore had in the MSNBC debate -- smart, balanced, knowledgeable conservative -- and added the red-meat anti-Democratic candidate line of the night, that Congress had "spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop." That's a textbook example of how to deliver a cheap shot -- make it very funny. His defense of his tax policies -- his 94 tax cuts vs. increases for highway maintenance showed the legitimate trade-offs a chief executive has to make. At the same time, he also seemed like the guy who had a broader vision than just the "issues" under discussion that evening.
Losers: Mitt Romney -- aside from the exchange with McCain, Romney didn't have any real flubs. On the other hand, he didn't say or do anything that particularly distinguished him apart from the rest of the crowd -- in ways that McCain, Giuliani, or even Huckabee did.
Gilmore, unfortunately, didn't distinguish himself this time either. When asked to be explicit about the stands of opponents that he had criticized by name on the campaign trail, he backed away. Be direct, Jim, if you have the opportunity. Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter and Tommy Thompson were "OK", but that's not enough in this crowded field (which may get more crowded with Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich pondering a run).
Tom Tancredo is a one issue candidate -- immigration.
Ron Paul was neither a winner nor a loser. Obviously, he has no chance of becoming the nominee, but he came across this time as the equivalent of Mike Gravel in the Democratic contest: He had a real influence on the debate, for good or ill. He articulated the libertarian view of the role of government (and, in a post-debate sequence on Hannity and Colmes, explained how one can be libertarian and pro-life). Furthermore, his historical/ philosophical analysis of the Republican strain of non-interventionism is supported by the facts; his appropriation of Ronald Reagan's assessment of the "irrationality of Middle East politics" is, I believe, something that will be picked up, sooner or later, by another candidate. Mark my words.
Finally, Fox News Channel's presentation was a marked improvement over the MSNBC/Chris Matthews Ego Fest. I give it a solid B for its coherent format and question selection. (Fox had an interesting meta-message going too: White House correspondent Wendell Goler's presence meant Fox had a more diverse panel of interlocutors than MSNBC, a fact that Chris Wallace was able to underscore when he asked the "diversity" question: Why does the GOP field look like a country club? Wonder if the Democrats regret blowing up the FNC-Congressional Black Caucus debate?)
However, FNC loses points for its ill-advised hypothetical terror question at the end. Contrary to the "Law And Order" ripped-from-the-headlines plot motif, the question seemed like a ripped-from-the-last-two-seasons-of-'24' idea. I'm absolutely serious: The endangered shopping center premise was taken from the 2006 season; the one-successful-attack-and-more-to-come-with-the-need-to-debrief-captured-enemy-combatants-in-Guantanamo was the story arc from the first quarter of the current season. Tancredo didn't realize how correct he was saying that his response to the question's premise would be to go "looking for Jack Bauer." That's Bauer's storyline! As Paul noted, correctly, there are enough actual ways that the nation has changed because of 9/11 that putting together a hypothetical was a waste of valuable time.
Look, I like corporate synergy as much as the next guy, but this is going a bit too far.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain Mike Huckabee
