The GOP and media establishments have no interest in the man. But his electoral track record is pretty impressive:
Ron Paul is the only current member of Congress to have been elected three times as a non-incumbent. Given the 98 percent reelection rates for House members, it’s no great shakes to win three terms — or 10 terms — in a row. It’s winning that first one that’s the challenge. And Ron Paul has done that three times.
And he may be out-fundraising most of the minor candidates.
Rich Lowry diagnoses it: too much integrity for today’s GOP:
The tricky thing about political leadership is that it has to involve some followership, too. Mitt Romney would have no chance to lead the Republican party as a relatively moderate northeasterner, because that’s not where the Republican party is. Nor would Rudy Giuliani, which is why he has distanced himself from many of his positions as mayor (although in not as jarring a fashion as Romney).
McCain’s record is more conservative than that of both of those rivals, but, temperamentally, he’s a go-it-alone crusader. That’s not a good fit for leading a political party. McCain’s political persona says, "Here I stand, I can do no other." The emphasis is always on his personal honor and integrity. When he was crusading for campaign-finance reform, McCain seemed to disdain political parties and offered in contrast his lone voice of righteousness… The flaws of the other Republican presidential candidates are so manifest that McCain could yet come back. But who can doubt that when John McCain essentially says he’d rather be right than president, he means it, and it could prove prophetic?
(Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty.)
David Boaz understands what motivates the left on raising revenue:
"Let’s go and get it from those who’ve got it."
Hugh Hewitt is absolutely right to note the barbarism of Hamas, and some of the MSM’s squeamishness in reporting such (much of Hugh’s evidence comes from the MSM, of course). Dean Barnett is also on the mark, I’d say, on this point:
Hamas was the popularly elected government in the Gaza Strip. It reflects the will of the Palestinian people. For those who fantasize about a great silent majority in that part of the world hungering for peace, the events of this week should provide a needed reality check.
But I’d like to know more about this Hewitt aside:
The connections between Sunni Islamist radicalism and Shia Islamist radicalism are also obvious, and do not appear to be at all troubled by the savage sectarian blows one delivers the other in various cities around Iraq.
Can Hewitt substantiate the "obvious" connections between al Qaeda and, say, Ahmadinejad, between Wahhabists and Persian Shiites? Whether we are facing two foes who can be pitted against one another or one homogeneous group called "Islamist terror" is surely critical to crafting a strategy for victory. Everything I have read suggests deep, deep division within the Islamist world, and deep, deep distrust between the Shia and Sunni forces. Yes, they all hate the Jews. But that could be said for almost everyone in the Middle East. My fear is that by conflating the two groups, we not only miss important opportunities but also risk fomenting such a unity. And why on earth would we want to do that? Except for the purposes of crude Republican electioneering?
I think Kos is onto something:
Many Democrats, especially its pathetic consultant class, still believe that the way Democrats show "strength" is by huffing and puffing and threatening to bomb the "f" out of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, or whatever the latest boogeyman of the moment might be.In reality, Democrats are seen as weak because they are afraid to stand for those things they believe in. And if they won’t fight for what they believe in, how can voters trust them to fight for anything that truly matters, whether it’s national security or anything else?
The lesson of Reagan and to a lesser extent Thatcher – the pre-eminent conviction politicians of my lifetime – is that even those who deeply disagreed with them eventually respected their ability to stand for something unpopular and to lead. When I look at the Democrats today, I see no such conviction. That’s a problem. No one is worse than Clinton, of course.
What’s not to like about the YouTube age? Imagination, skill, humor, subtlety – all the stuff they pay campaign consultants millions for and still don’t get. Now it’s all free, and they can’t even police free speech in peer-to-peer free advertizing. Yay! Of course, these ads are probably too good to actually sway anyone. But they’re making this campaign one of the most unpredictable and democratic ever. This Calvin-Klein-Obsession-style Gravel ad was on the Daily Show last night. Here’s more (no, you’re not stoned):
My quote for the day was originally Jon Stewart’s.
Brad Delong analyzes who on the right sussed out Bush when. I’m in the Class of 2004. But I’d like to mention that my complaints about runaway spending date from well before that. If 9/11 hadn’t happened, I think I would have bailed sooner. I hated the Medicare bill, compassionate conservatism, and the FMA. And as the years pass, the happier I am I bit the bullet and refused to endorse Bush the second time around. That strikes me as the real litmus test, although Bruce Bartlett should be forgiven for finding Kerry a pill too bitter to swallow:
It’s true that I never said I would vote for John Kerry. What I did say, publicly, was that if Bill Clinton had been running in 2004 I would have voted for him.
I admit, with the benefit of hindsight, that I should have seen the light sooner. My defense is that I didn’t believe anything George W. Bush said during the 2000 campaign. I thought "compasionate conservatism" was just BS cooked up by Karl Rove or somebody because it got a good reaction in focus groups.
I assumed it was bullshit as well – bullshit designed to put a Clintonesque gloss on old-style conservatism. I didn’t quite appreciate that Bush might actually believe it – and I deserve a shellacking for my naivete. Still, no one beats Ed Crane in foresight.
Sticking to his pro-life guns.
Pejman wonders why no one has really noticed or absorbed the broader lessons. They have, I think. Check this new NPR story out that Pejman links to. Yes: NPR. The dynamic of Sunni tribes deciding they cannot tolerate Jihadist foreigners is the only paradigm that will eventually work – just as Iraqi Shiites will have to turn on Persian extremism. The question is whether an indefinite occupation of the whole country helps or hurts that process. A smart withdrawal that exploits these fissures as they occur is the key, it seems to me. In fact, a smart withdrawal, if done with finesse, might conceivably undo some of the damage of the dumb occupation. But we also need to be cautious here. As soon as we get news of tribal alliances, we get news of tribal discord. This is Arab culture. They will support you one second and murder you in cold blood the next. And they will do exactly the same to one another.
The Dish 