Ron Paul, Relaunched and Back in Pajamas

David Weigel | June 11, 2007

Radley's still waiting to confirm Paul's fundraising numbers, but here are two minor bits of Paul web news.

- Paul's official campaign site has relaunched and the new engine (built by Terra Eclipse) is pretty impressive. The social networking sites—Facebook, MySpace et al—where Paul has had so much success are prominently linked on the front page and integrated into the site. The donate/volunteer/join a local group features are only a little less intense than the top tier candidates' features, about as well-designed as Bill Richardson's, better than Mike Huckabee's. It looked for a while like Paul's internet surge was going to continue as a decentralized, chaotic force as he ran with a typical low-budget website. This makes Paul look more credible—if you hear about the guy for the first time during a debate and you click on his site, he looks as on-the-ball as the rest of the field.

- Speaking of credibility, Paul is back in the storied Pajamas Media poll, having hit 1 percent again in Gallup's survey. But it doesn't really matter anymore, as the fussing and rule-writing and hand-wringing by PJM drove away all interest in the poll. The first week (before Ron Paul was even added), 19,539 people voted in the poll. The last week (Feb 19-26) that Paul was included, when he won the GOP poll, 9360 people voted. When Paul was purged, the votes fell to 7393. Last week, as the oddball Gallupcentric rules included Al Sharpton (who got second place!) and George Pataki but excluded Paul, a rock-bottom 3135 people voted in the poll.

It was all a very weird, very unneccessary lesson in how trying to control an online community eventually brings on extinction, or at least dwindling popularity.

Not like they couldn't have used that traffic...

Comments

Fluffy|6.11.07 @ 11:59AM|#

That was the thing about SpamPollGate that really confused me the most.

These people were complaining that other sites and bloggers were directing Paul supporters to their site to vote in their poll.

So we have website owners complaining that other people were driving traffic to their site. For free.

I think the Google guys have to have a conversation with these folks.

LarryA|6.11.07 @ 12:07PM|#

The political "we know what's best for you" philosophy is always going to unimpress the web. Insert pushing-on-a-rope analogy here.

ed|6.11.07 @ 12:15PM|#

trying to control an online community eventually brings on extinction

Doesn't a political (or any other) poll have to have some kind of "control" to be reasonably accurate and meaningful? Otherwise what's the point?
Unless the point is a circle jerk.
Then it's ok, I suppose.

Fluffy|6.11.07 @ 12:30PM|#

Ed -

I think that having a poll where you can vote only once is pretty easy to do. I doubt that would "extinctify" anyone.

But I think what happened at Pajamas, LGF, etc. is that the website administrators believe in the myth of "organic" site membership - that there's some set of persons who constitute the "real" audience of the site. This leads them to get angry when "outsiders" visit the site and change its day-to-day makeup. This isn't just reflected in polls, but in prosaic things like Comments sections and fora, where mass bannings, closed registrations, etc. are employed to attempt to control the audience sample so that it reflects the "true" audience.

The problem of course is that the whole idea is balderdash and has been since crosslinking was invented. No political site has a "true" or "real" audience. It has a core audience that's outnumbered at any moment in time by lurkers and redirected political omnivores who are just following their interest or the scandal or argument du jour. When they put the words "Ron Paul" on their website, LGF and Pajamas and all the others made Ron Paul supporters their audience. Sulking about it and trying to put your finger in the dyke is just silly.

stephen the goldberger|6.11.07 @ 12:46PM|#

They wanted to impress "important people" with "accurate poll numbers" instead of generate traffic to their website. They had no interest in figuring out who people that visited their site supported, which is all that they were going to learn.

In short they wanted to be those big time important political analysts they see on the television screen and read about all the time.

Karla|6.11.07 @ 1:12PM|#

I know that when I put on my pajamas, I'm going to go to sleep. To me that is pajamas media...they are truly asleep and unable to admit that Ron Paul is their "WORST" nightmare.

|6.11.07 @ 1:31PM|#

I always thought that the term "pajamas media" was too cute by half and destined to be one of those ideas where the name greatly outlives the cleverness of the original term.

I was right.

|6.11.07 @ 1:34PM|#

"But I think what happened at Pajamas, LGF, etc. is that the website administrators believe in the myth of "organic" site membership - that there's some set of persons who constitute the "real" audience of the site."
I was part of their "real" audience since day one of Pajamas Media. They have (or had) a very large libertarian audience, in large part to their libertarian leaning blogs (reynolds, althouse, etc). So it should nto have surprised them that a libertarian leaning candidate kept winning the polls.

Their moralizing on the issue, and one sided "punishments" were too much. PM has alienated a large part of its traditional audience.

|6.11.07 @ 1:49PM|#

Sulking about it and trying to put your finger in the dyke is just silly.

Fluffy,

Intentional or Freudian?

|6.11.07 @ 2:18PM|#

Ron's surge is real, and unlike other surges we've seen in the past, it's not built around a cult of personality or media members in need of a storyline.

Instead, it's built on solid intellectual and moral principles Ron Paul has been hewing to for decades, both in and out of congress.

Which is why I gave him $2,300 a few days ago even though I can't *really* afford it. Felt great!

|6.11.07 @ 2:25PM|#

Zorkon, you do realize that all of Ron Paul's polling numbers have been within the bounds of sampling error, right?

|6.11.07 @ 2:31PM|#

If Ron Paul makes it to Super Tuesday, I'll dance with the devil and register Republican so I can vote for him.

If he's still in it past Valentine's Day, I'm sending cash.

|6.11.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Marcvs,

I gave the money on principle, not with the expectation of receiving government largesse in return.

The two best arguments I've heard against Ron Paul so far are "he's crazy" and "he can't win."

Both are so far from the truth.

|6.11.07 @ 2:40PM|#

Warren,

Why wait to send him money? He is already in the millions of dollars, as you'll find out this week. And his campaign is much thriftier than the other campaigns.

By the end of June, Paul will be 3rd or 4th in cash and headed way up.

|6.11.07 @ 2:59PM|#

Zorkon,
I'd be making one of those private donor one-time donations. His campaign may be flush with that money now, but as many candidacies have shown, it dries up quickly. I predict that will happen to Obama. I want Paul to get a little influx when he needs it most.

I seriously doubt Paul will be "3rd or 4th in cash and headed way up" by June. The big corporate and organized labor donations that fuel major party campaigns could never be available to Paul. Those people aren't making contributions, their making investments. A Paul administration would (it is hoped) not engage in shilling for their rent-seeking supporters.

Plus, I want to spend my money wisely. Total victory for Paul in 08 as far as I'm concerned would be if he speaks at the convention. There's comfort to be had in lesser goals, but my money might be more effective elsewhere.

Even so, I have great hopes for Ron Paul.

zero|6.11.07 @ 3:24PM|#

God damn he needs a new picture on his site. He looks like such a yokel with his mouth open like that.

Duckman|6.11.07 @ 3:30PM|#

I think the best reason to contribute to Ron Paul now is to create early buzz. The media won't be able to ignore the fact that a supposedly also-ran candidate who has marginal poll support somehow raised 1/2 the cash of John McCain all from individual donors.

IMO the crossover rate from "just heard about Ron Paul" to "Ron Paul supporter" is pretty high, percentage-wise, compared to other candidates. Given how few people have heard of Ron, I believe once Ron has an advertising budget, he could really take off.

|6.11.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Warren,

I hear you, but I think Ron Paul's boomlet will have a different ending than Howard Dean's or Barack Obama's. Those were largely built around cult of personality, whereas RP's is built on deeply-held principles that the country needs right now on a host of issues (Iraq/Iran wars, out of control govt. spending, illegal immigration, etc.).

I truly believe Ron will win the nomination and the presidency. I've never seen anything quite like what's happening.

I even think that around 2040, when the Federal budget has been cranked back to about the equiv of 750 bil - 1 tril in today's dollars, historians will look back and say: the maturing of the internet allowed people to rise up against the special interests.

|6.11.07 @ 3:57PM|#

"IMO the crossover rate from "just heard about Ron Paul" to "Ron Paul supporter" is pretty high, percentage-wise, compared to other candidates. Given how few people have heard of Ron, I believe once Ron has an advertising budget, he could really take off."

Agree completely.

Ron will announce this week he has somewhere between 3 and 5 million in the bank. That buys a lot of ads.

|6.11.07 @ 4:13PM|#

I too remain cautiously optimistic about his campaign.

But then there are times, like this weekend, when I'm talking to my friends and they ask me what I think about the presidential races so far and I'm like "I'm all for Ron Paul" and they just respond "who?"


We've got some work to do.

|6.11.07 @ 4:23PM|#

"By the end of June, Paul will be 3rd or 4th in cash and headed way up."

I hope that translates into 3rd or 4th in the polls. Maybe then, the other Republican candidates will come to the realization of how bankrupt their foreign policy is.

|6.11.07 @ 4:24PM|#

RP's [surge?] is built on deeply-held principles that the country needs right now on a host of issues (Iraq/Iran wars, out of control govt. spending, illegal immigration, etc.).

Well, I agree (mostly, I don't think he's quite there on illegal immigration) but what the country needs and what people vote for, ain't exactly similar. Do you really think McCain or Giuliani supporters are going to slap their foreheads and go "Wow, Now I see that I was totally wrong about the war" if they see enough Ron Paul ads?

I truly believe Ron will win the nomination and the presidency. I've never seen anything quite like what's happening.

I've got a pair of rose colored glasses too. I like to put them on and take a look around now and again. But you can't go believing the world actually looks that way.

That said, Ron Paul in 08, is getting more done to mainstream the libertarian message than anything since Reagan, possibly Goldwater.

GO RON PAUL!

|6.11.07 @ 4:28PM|#

"I truly believe Ron will win the nomination and the presidency. I've never seen anything quite like what's happening."

Aren't you the optimistic one, Zorkon? I wish I could be that optimistic. On the other hand, no. I don't want to have a big letdown.

|6.11.07 @ 4:28PM|#

Agreed Duckman. The 'snowball's chance in hell' argument is weakened a bit when the snowball has some cash to buy some A/C. Plus, the concept of fair weather fans extends well past sports. A lot of people need to at least 'feel' like they are supporting a 'winner.' Finally, there is no doubt that news outlets use money raised as one factor in determining face time. $3 mill attacts a lot more flies than $300k.

I made my first contribution to a Pres cadidate ever as well last week, and hope to send a little more as the budget permits...

|6.11.07 @ 4:55PM|#

Isn't it amazing? I am still being told that Ron's supporters are all getting around these legitimate polls by 'emptying their caches' and 'resetting their IPs'. Most people I know don't know how to copy and paste or what a browser is, let alone do that!

PM's poll was purposely rigged to be a sham, from the beginning and now they've lost any credibility they might have had before this, along with that other idiot on HotAir.com.

|6.11.07 @ 5:12PM|#

John Kerry was in the single digits a month before Iowa.

I don't think Paul's going to win the nomination, or even win a single state, but he very well could change the whole direction of the campaign.

|6.11.07 @ 5:29PM|#

The Republican Party is scared to death of Paul (not that he'd lose the general, that he'd win!), so they're thinking of floating Fred Thompson in there as a solid alternative for the voters.

Only one problem...from wikipedia:

"From 1975 to 1992 Thompson worked as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He represented such clients as Westinghouse, General Electric (the current corporate owner of the NBC Universal-NBC television network), and the Tennessee Savings and Loan League.[8]"

Imagine the debates if it came down to Paul and Thompson. I can see the average voter thinking, "let's see, do I trust the baby-delivering, clean-living congressman who says Washington is corrupt and he wants to fix it, or the guy who goes in and out of government office on either end of a 17-year lobbying career?"

|6.11.07 @ 5:42PM|#

Ron Paul will address the GOP convention, but he will not win the nomination. Still, this will wake up 1.5 million people to the fact that both Dems and Reps offer nothing but war mongering, big government candidates.

If the Libertarian Party has a non-looney candidate ready in the wings, they could double their previous high vote total. I'm predicting 1.8 million votes.

|6.11.07 @ 6:11PM|#

NoStar,
Right On. That's the dream I'm holding on to.

Except the part about non-loony LP candidate. I use to get all twisted up when people accused LP candidates of being loony. Then I figured out that by loony they meant "the MSM has not told me to like this person yet". Ron Paul has been frequently tarred as loony, but watch how that label gets used less and less as he gets more popular. So you see the LP can't nominate a non-loony candidate because anyone running on the LP ticket is loony by definition. Until the day they aren't.

|6.11.07 @ 7:35PM|#

Folks,

Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination, I predict, because the country has been waiting a long time for someone to say exactly what he's saying.

People listen to him and don't see someone who's "crazy" or "a kook" as they're still desperately trying to label him.

Instead they hear someone's who's rational, experienced, moral, compassionate, intelligent, and accomplished. It makes people wonder: someone like this is clearly not crazy, so why would they be telling me he is?

And that begins an interesting line of personal inquiry.

GoRonPaul|6.11.07 @ 7:38PM|#

Support Ron Paul! Put your money where your libertarian mouth is!

You'll get your investment back 10-fold when he eliminates the IRS and income tax...

GoRonPaul(dot)com

|6.11.07 @ 7:47PM|#

One other point: it's not like libertarianism is some bizarro strain of conservatism that 3% of the country prefers and that we'll have to trick them into falling for for Ron to win. Not at all. The word "libertarian" itself is a little tainted with images of stoners, but it's still a malleable enough concept in people's minds that it can be quickly redefined by Paul and his campaign and supporters.

I've long suspected a 30%-35% base for a big-tent, compassionate libertarianism in the country, with strongholds in the Interior West, Midwest, Plains and Northeast. In addition to this conservative/libertarian base The philosophy is appealing both to antiwar liberals and disillusioned 60s liberals who never got the social progress they wanted from big government and are intrigued that maybe you can do more with less, libertarian-style, in domestic social policy as well as in foreign policy.

So there are plenty of votes out there for Ron to win the nomination and then the general election with room to spare. This isn't some alien philosophy we're importing -- it's our freakin' Constitution!

|6.11.07 @ 8:18PM|#

Great point "zorkon" Ron Paul's 3 million dollar war chest is equivalent to 10 or 15 million of theirs due to their drunken sailor spending. Ron Paul is frugal and treats this resource with the respect it deserves! I love this guy, just an idea, I'm going to suggest that Ron Paul set something up so that we can donate our frequent flyer travel miles as I'm sure lots of money must go to his air travel.

|6.11.07 @ 8:35PM|#

The Libertarian Party is going to be in for a shock.

they had a chance to change their by-laws and endorse Ron Paul and failed to do so.

I won't be having anything to do with that party again and I know I'm not alone - we haven't really voiced this anger because Ron PAul's canidacy is what matters at the moment. The knock on the Libertarian Party is right - they don't know the first thing about winning and don't even seem to care. You don't get everything in one election - it took a century or more to get to where we are today.

I had to change my designation to 'R' for this election and I'm not going back to the do nothing party (with a big DNP)

|6.11.07 @ 9:34PM|#

I'm going to ask again - let's say Ron Paul wins the election.

Is there any reason to think that he would do an effective job advancing a legislative agenda, running the executive branch, making quality appointments to foreign service posts - you know, the day to day business of being president that isn't nearly as much fun to ponder as Really Big Ideas, like abolishing the IRS.

Would President Paul be a responsible and effective chief executive? Or would he stand there during the next Hurricaine Katrina lecturing people about von Mises?

|6.11.07 @ 9:47PM|#

Joe,

He can't be any worse than GWB, can he? Can you even imagine a debate between those two? It would be like watching a boxing match between Mike Tyson and Stephen Hawking.

The Pajamas Media blog poll is truly pathetic. Even this week, with Ron Paul 20% ahead of Fred Thompson, their little weekly poll summary trumpets how great Fred Thompson's doing (like it does every week) and *doesn't even mention Paul!* Can you believe that?

They're really trying to keep Paul down. This is fascinating. Before the Internet, it would've been easy.

Now -- good luck!

|6.11.07 @ 10:11PM|#

That's setting the bar a little low, Zorkon. But no, I will grant you, even if Ron Paul were to spend the aftermath of Hurricaine Katrina standing on a rooftop in the 9th Ward lecturing people in passing boats about von Mises, he would still be a better president than George Bush.

I know it's shallow and superficial to say this, but the whole Thompson surge is shallow and superficial?Fred Thompson is heading for a crash, because he looks like a frail old man these days. Thompson's only strength is that he looks like a president out of central casting - except he doesn't anymore. I've watched a lot of Law and Order, and when I saw a live shot of him recently, I was stunned how old, thin, frail, and bald he looked.

For someone with a strong resume and record or a powerful vision and the skill to articulate it, this wouldn't be a problem. But for someone who's strength is "I was in The Hunt for Red October," it's fatal.

Edward|6.11.07 @ 10:16PM|#

Reading the posts here makes me feel as though I've stumbled into a Bozo the Clown convention. I've always though that conservatives were hard-nosed realists compared to the loony, wishful-thinking, soft-headed left, but you guys take the cake. Do libertairans always measure their strength by their ambitions, or are you some sort of weird mutants?

|6.11.07 @ 11:13PM|#

For all us nutty Ron Paul supporters, remember "that mighty forest was once just a group of nuts that held their ground."

|6.11.07 @ 11:14PM|#

Well Joe, he's a physician and has been a member of Congress for 20 years. Pretty good start. Listen to him speak and if you like his message, vote for him.

Edward, Ron Paul getting the nomination is an eminently reasonable goal to work towards!

Z. M. Davis|6.11.07 @ 11:18PM|#

We're mutants.

Doug|6.12.07 @ 12:29AM|#

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Ron Paul were third or fourth in fundraising in the second quarter. He was sixth in the first quarter, with a late start, and should easily overtake Tancredo and Brownback (who were fifth and fourth, respectively.)

Fred Thompson just got started, and as McCain's poll numbers plummet his financial support is bound to dry up -- when you're backing a front-runner, you expect good odds for a return on your investment, and McCain doesn't offer that anymore.

Doug|6.12.07 @ 12:33AM|#

Winning the nomination is on the optimistic side, but a little optimism can go a long way. The first key was getting noticed and separating from the second tier, and Ron Paul is beginning to do that.

The next key will be moving up in the polls. Once he hits five percent, the bandwagon effect kicks in. It happened with Ross Perot -- he was called a kook and fringe candidate at first, then he got on 60 Minutes, then he hit 8 percent, then he was suddenly the front-runner.

Edward|6.12.07 @ 1:15AM|#

Edward, Ron Paul getting the nomination is an eminently reasonable goal to work towards!

Zorkon, it's reasonable in the same sense that it's "reasonable" to pray for rain. The big difference is that it might actually rain. God, I wish there were some way to make bets with all you reasonable Ron Paul supporters.

|6.12.07 @ 1:35AM|#

Ron Paul and his attraction is similar to what I see with Liberation Theology. A combination of the promise of salvation along with getting causation wrong in major historic events.

His association with the Truther movement cannot go over well with the majority of Americans.

Lottery player|6.12.07 @ 1:49AM|#

Is the $2,300 contribution cap per calendar year?

James|6.12.07 @ 1:56AM|#

Ron Paul does not have an association with the Truther movement.

|6.12.07 @ 2:15AM|#

There are lots of gambling sites that do odds on presdient, Edward.

|6.12.07 @ 2:18AM|#

I've heard a lot of people mention, and even thought myself on occasion, that it's not likely that Ron Paul will win the presidency...
BUT I think, really, that whether or not he has "a snowball's chance in hell" isn't really the issue. This man is standing up for what's right AGAINST all odds. That's what an honorable and honest person should do, regardless of consequence, isn't it? Let's leave the "odds" of winning or losing aside, and stand up for what we think is right, regardless of consequence, shall we?
For those of you who agree with this sentiment, I think it's best we spread it around.
America needs to stop doing what's 'practical' and start doing what's RIGHT.
Thanks for you're time, people.

Adam|6.12.07 @ 2:21AM|#

Edward,

According to Gambling911.com Ron Paul's odds were slashed 15 to 1 from the 200 to 1 (about the same odds of writing a New York Times best seller). And NFLSystems.com broke down the '08 election and concluded of everyone running, Ron Paul has the highest value. While anyone can predict the favorite to win (Benito or Hillary) the art of handicapping is picking based on value. Ron Paul is the man!

- Adam

|6.12.07 @ 8:57AM|#

@James....

Could you then, tell what it is that distinguishes his thoughts on American foreign policy and the thoughts of the 9-11 Truth activists?

All the video shorts I've seen of Ron Paul show either a modest contingent of Truthers showing support, or Paul articulating a vision of terrorism that shares the Truther view on causation.

|6.12.07 @ 9:02AM|#

Truthers supporting Paul does not equal Paul supporting Truthers.

Duckman|6.12.07 @ 9:12AM|#

The 9-11 truth activists believe the US was responsible for 9-11, that it was staged in order to put the public in a position to support middle east wars (particularly the Iraq invasion). Many also believe this was done as part of a wider conspiracy to bring about one world government (the so-called "New World Order" or NWO).

Ron Paul believes all foreign pre-emptive wars are wrong. Ron Paul is also a staunch opponent of giving up any amount of US soverignty to international organizations (for this reason he opposes the idea that a UN resolution can force the US government into a war, etc.) Ron Paul also opposes the federal reserve system and fiat money, which he believes enriches bankers and those with "connections" instead of the general population. (Many truthers/NWO believers think the federal reserve and similar fiat money systems are run by NWO conspiracists and are being used to force a one-world order because of debt "enslavement" between nations).

There is some overlap between Ron's positions and those of the truthers, and no other candidate expouses these particular ideas, which is why they appear to rabidly support Ron Paul. (Alex Jones, the somewhat rabid leader of the truthers, has repeatedly endorsed Ron Paul because he believes Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not tainted by the NWO. He believes this because of Ron Paul's positions on US soverignty, US foreign policy, and the federal reserve).

Ron Paul is not a truther. He does not personally believe in any 9-11 conspiracy, nor do I think he believes in the NWO conspiracy which is closely associated with the 9-11 conspiracy. However, he is bringing radical new ideas to the table which MANY disparate groups see as good ideas, including (perhaps unfortunately) truthers.

Edward|6.12.07 @ 9:51AM|#

Duckman

If Ron Paul suddenly surged and actually won, it would be a troubling sign that the conspiracy mentality of his most rabid supporters was gaining ground.

Zorkon

I want to place a bet with the kind of odds a rabid Ron Paul supporter might give me.

Duckman|6.12.07 @ 9:56AM|#

I disagree. I think people are just damn tired of the Iraq War, see the War on Terror as an endless stalemate because we are fighting a religious idealogy instead of a particular country, and are hungry for a new direction. I don't think Ron Paul's support is majority truther by any stretch.

|6.12.07 @ 12:36PM|#

You can't write off Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. Of all the candidates, he's the only one on the right side of the Iraq War issue, by far the most important political issue of our time. Americans in general are sick of a president who sends our troops to die and busts our budget chasing some sort of weird candy-and-flowers fantasy - and actually creates only a massive quagmire strengthening Al Qaida and cutting our oil supplies. The general public has now turned against the war, hard, and even the Republicans are turning against it now. Paul will have a hard time getting elected but an easier one than any other Republican candidate, because nobody supporting the war will have a ghost of a chance in 2008. In any case, he's the only outlet for antiwar Republicans now, and there's a lot of them. He'll do quite well.

|6.12.07 @ 1:21PM|#

There is a fundamental difference between Paul and the "truthers":

Truthers claim that American government did 9/11 to us. Paul claims that radical Islamists attacked us on 9/11 because of American foreign policy. His entire foreign policy rests on the fact that our current foreign policy causes hatred by Islamists - a complete opposite of the government-caused truther conspirators.

No genuine association; just an attempt to marginalize Paul, and by some anti-Paul comments I've seen online, the misplaced association has worked...

|6.12.07 @ 3:22PM|#

So then, the primary distinction to be made between the Ron Paul vision of 9-11 and terrorism against the U.S. and the Truthers vision is that Paul does not view the towers as an inside job.

I'd submit that whether or not Ron Paul thinks that pre-emptive wars are wrong, that the Barbary War was one such war. I'd also add that James Madison, no NeoCon he, once said... ""How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?" ~James Madison, Federalist No. 41, January 1788.


Ron Paul may be correct, that our current foreign policy causes hatred of the U.S. by Islamists, but it may also be true that our current foreign policy causes Harry Reid to cry on the Senate floor and for Michael Moore to have tantrums, none of which is a compelling argument to alter foreign policy on the merits of those observations and none of which adequately proves causation of those observed behaviors.

I think a Ron Paul presidency has zero hope of becoming a reality and were I a betting man, I'd bet the farm on it not happening.

Isolationism in the Buchanan mold is what Paul's foreign policy sounds like and it's unreasonable to think we could ever return to that stance, as enticing and comfortable as that might sound.

Unless of course, one would welcome Chinese hegemony?

CoolName|6.12.07 @ 5:22PM|#

There are 2 reasons why Ron Paul is the GOP's only chance for getting back in the White House.
1. He's the only Republican that opposes the war in Iraq (like the majority of Americans)
2. He's the only one who will be able to get the swing voters and quite possibly steal votes from the Democrats. I know because I'm a Dem that would vote for Ron Paul should he get the nomination.

Realistically, I don't see Ron Paul getting the nomination simply because he's so far off base from the majority of the Republican party. As much as I would like to see the people win this one, I think the money makers are going to do their best to blackout and marginalize Ron Paul. Money talks all too much in this country.

Charles Hueter|6.12.07 @ 5:41PM|#

Isolationism in the Buchanan mold is what Paul's foreign policy sounds like...

Then you haven't been listening closely enough. Paul wants the DoD to live up to the third word in its title and not be used to tamper with other nations. Paul also wants to free the US economy to engage with other economies as much as possible. His view of foreign policy is to promote minarchism and leave other nations alone until they screw with us. Calling this "isolationist" and comparing him to Buchanan is more smear tactic than analysis.

I say all this, by the way, as an anarchist who won't be voting for anyone, let alone donating to a political campaign.

|6.13.07 @ 12:38AM|#

Quoting Charles Hueter:

"Then you haven't been listening closely enough. Paul wants the DoD to live up to the third word in its title and not be used to tamper with other nations."

Oh yes, I understand quite clearly what he intends the department to do, or rather... not do. I don't find that approach reasonable, nor does it have much of a historical precedent.... In the U.S., or in any major world power in history of Western Civilization. To bind the Dept. of Defense to a position dissallowing it to, as you say "tamper with other nations" would be to sign a suicide pact where various fanatical and/or tyrannical regimes would encroach upon the West and commit heinous acts of terror worldwide, without any resistance from the U.S. See the Madison quote from Federalist 41 if you feel this is an unreasonable or activist role for the Dept. of Defense.



" Paul also wants to free the US economy to engage with other economies as much as possible. His view of foreign policy is to promote minarchism and leave other nations alone until they screw with us. Calling this "isolationist" and comparing him to Buchanan is more smear tactic than analysis."

Minarchism is great as an economic practice. For example, what the "Chicago Boys" did for Chile. To express Minarchism as "leaving other nations alone until they screw with us" , is not exactly what Hayek or Friedman or Sowell have espoused. Check Sowell's recent editorials for a counterpoint to Paul's foreign policy vision.

"I say all this, by the way, as an anarchist who won't be voting for anyone, let alone donating to a political campaign."

This is the sort of profile I see a good deal of when talking with fans of Chomsky and of Ron Paul. It's an odd meeting of fairly polarized philosophies which happen to agree on ending U.S. hegemony, though I seldom hear a reasonable alternative expressed, were their vision to be realized.

Sound reasonable?