Number Six with a Bullet

David Weigel | July 31, 2007

Top political reporters Marc Ambinder and Chuck Todd are out with their latest ranking of the 2008 GOP race and Rep. Ron Paul has been bumped up to sixth place (out of 10).

He has $3 million, an extremely aggressive Internet base, and seems to be angling for an Ames surprise. A plugged-in GOPer (Patrick Ruffini) thinks he'll place second. On the other hand, Ruffini also thought Paul would raise twice what he raised last quarter. One wonders if all of us slightly overestimate his Internet prowess.

I'd add that it's not just Ruffini saying that—Paul's campaign is talking about a top three finish.

A brief history. Two weeks ago Paul was ranked eighth:

He has the cash on hand to stay in the race, and an online supporter network that is not going anywhere.

In May Paul was slotted in 12th place with this explanation:

Just please stop e-mailing us.

The continued strength of Rudy Giuliani, the implosion of John McCain, the popularity of Ron Paul—those have been the first, second, and third biggest surprises for the 2008 reporting class.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

fyodor|7.31.07 @ 1:23PM|#

The nice thing about Paul's situation is that he doesn't have to win to win. Just a surprisingly high finish in the early going will get him much needed attention and momentum. Nomination politics often seems to work that way. Keeping that momentum is often a tricky matter, but getting it in the first place is a major coup, and a top three finish would do the trick. Top six? Hmmm, maybe.

|7.31.07 @ 1:29PM|#

FYI, John Derbyshire has a piece up on National Review's website about "the Ron Paul temptation."

I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter, but I have no illusions that he'll get the nomination. But I'm willing to be proven wrong!

I for one would like to see Dr. Paul in the white House.The amount of veto pens needed would be staggering,not to mention Congressmen having to defend their spending.

|7.31.07 @ 1:30PM|#

Of course that list was gamed.

|7.31.07 @ 1:32PM|#

The thing is Paul needs to win the Iowa straw poll to have any real chance of getting the nomination. Like some other blog pointed out, second place or lower there will only result in short-term bragging rights. To muscle the prize away from Romney will be tough, though. Also, all the other lower tier candidates have been stomping their quite a while.

danb|7.31.07 @ 1:33PM|#

If he doesn't get 1st in the iowa straw poll I'll be disappointed and need to rethink my Kool-Aid consuption levels.

|7.31.07 @ 1:34PM|#

In six months - number two and a campaign slogan:
It's either RON PAUL or Hillary.

Roll THAT in your "lesser of two evils" paper and toke on it!

RON PAUL '08

|7.31.07 @ 1:43PM|#

This race, on all sides, started off seemingly bland and predictable.
At this rate, two months from now Romney will reveal himself to be a robot and Hillary will give birth to a cat.

|7.31.07 @ 1:51PM|#

...those have been the first, second, and third biggest surprises for the 2008 reporting class.

Few have lost money betting against the prevailing beleifs of the Fourth Estate. Even in hindsight, the vision isn't 20/20.

Great, Romney will get the geek vote and Hillary will have PETA's endorsement wrapped up. It's over, folks.

|7.31.07 @ 2:07PM|#

I'll predict a third place straw poll finish, but I wouldn't be shocked to see him finish second.

Matt Tievsky|7.31.07 @ 2:10PM|#

Is there any talk of Paul getting a VP offer?

|7.31.07 @ 2:17PM|#

Is there any talk of Paul getting a VP offer?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A VP offer? From candidates who think his anti-war stance makes him a traitor to the party? From people who don't believe he should be sharing a stage with them?

That's funny!

Is there any talk of Paul getting a VP offer?

Only in the fevered dreams of Ron Bailey. Unfortunately. Paul's spent so long antagonizing the Republican Powers That Be, they wouldn't pee on him if he was on fire, let alone make him veep.

Edward|7.31.07 @ 2:19PM|#

At this point there is just no way Ron Paul can lose. He's in a classic lose-win position, which is the best place for a loser to be. Usually losers are in a lose-lose position, never in a win-win position, and rarely in a win-lose position, a position Paul would slip into if he did the unthinkable and won at this point, but he won't. Boy, this is exciting.

|7.31.07 @ 2:19PM|#

It's not the anti-war stance. It's the consorting with Truthers.

Weigel went after Michael Moore pretty hard for humoring the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but for some reason Ron Paul gets a pass?

|7.31.07 @ 2:21PM|#

That may scare the Dems if Paul was able to get at least a VP nomination. The GOP could go back to being a party of limited government instead of being a party of the religious right. It's a nice dream, but realistically, it's about as likely as the Dems moving to the center as well.

|7.31.07 @ 2:23PM|#

I think if they thought choosing Ron Paul as the VP candidate would help their chances of election, Giuliani or Romney would easily be capable of doing so. Those two are craven enough that they'd sell their mothers into slavery if they thought it would help their chances.

Edward|7.31.07 @ 2:30PM|#

When Ron Paul wins the nomination, he'll be crazy not to choose Justin Raimondo as his running mate. Loons of a feather win together, and this loon is shooting for the moon. Fuck the old guard. Let's go for broke. Paul/Raimondo for '08! Yes!

|7.31.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Has anyone talked about Paul parlaying this attention into a possible Senate run? I guess Texas is still a little too Texan for him (he'd do better in, say, 1970s Arizona).

|7.31.07 @ 2:33PM|#

[cheapmormonjoke]In Romney's case, it depends on which mother you're talking about.[/cheapmormonjoke]

Dave Weigel|7.31.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Weigel went after Michael Moore pretty hard for humoring the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but for some reason Ron Paul gets a pass?

Moore took the truth guys aside, shared some 9/11 theories he'd heard from firefighters, and complimented the truthers for what they were doing. Paul has said multiple versions of "nice to meet you... I don't trust the government." A bit different.

GILMORE|7.31.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Ron Paul Blah Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah BlahRon Paul Blah Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah BlahRon Paul Blah Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah BlahRon Paul Blah Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah BlahRon Paul Blah Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah BlahRon Paul Blah Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah BlahRon Paul Blah Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah BlahRon Paul Blah Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah Blah

TLB|7.31.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Meanwhile, Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly says Ron Paul is "barking mad" because he wants to (per John Derbyshire) "abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve; balance the budget; go back to the gold standard; pull out of the U.N. and NATO;....fence the borders; deport illegals..."

Note: Washington Monthly has a habit of deleting or editing legitimate comments without notice.

|7.31.07 @ 2:37PM|#

Edward, you either are Dan T or are such a perfect imitation of his inanity that you are redundant.

People on message boards are always saying how crazy Raimondo is, but they never back it up with any specific anecdotes.

To me, he's just an interesting reporter who did better than expected aganst Pelosi in a congressional race, but then who am I?

|7.31.07 @ 2:40PM|#

The ONLY reason Ron Paul would not get the nomination is because of people saying he won't get it. Every article written and interview done I've seen so far includes a phrase along the lines of "Ron Paul, the long shot GOP nominee...". Even NPR is guilty of this. When people hear something over and over, they start believing it's true, even when there is no evidence to support the claim. If you really support Ron Paul, stop spewing nonsense like, "I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I know he can't win.". The media doesn't need your help in discrediting him.

|7.31.07 @ 2:41PM|#

|7.31.07 @ 2:43PM|#

An even more interesting question would be, assuming Paul wins the nomination, who does he choose as his running mate? I could see him tapping Tancredo, or if you want to get really outside the box, Bill Richardson.
And then we all could go to Candy Mountain, and drink from the rivers made of Mountain Dew and afterwards we would ride our magical flying ponys to the whore house where the woman have no sores!

|7.31.07 @ 2:44PM|#

David, how many times does he have to show up on Alex Jones's show before he's gone too far?

Does telling Jones that he fears another Gulf of Tonkin count for nothing?

|7.31.07 @ 2:47PM|#

My hope for Ron Paul's VP?
Janice Rogers Brown

|7.31.07 @ 2:50PM|#

Well, Ricky, there's also the possibility that he won't get the nomination because a large majority of the Republicans who participate in the caucuses and primaries disagree with him passionately on many issues.

In my mind, the value that Ron Paul brings to this race is the way his presence forces the other Republicans to acknowledge and contend with facts and arguments that they would just as soon ignore. Look at the way the presence of Perot in the 1992 general election debates forces both Clinton and Bush to think and speak seriously about the budget deficit.

|7.31.07 @ 2:51PM|#

A VP offer? From candidates who think his anti-war stance makes him a traitor to the party? From people who don't believe he should be sharing a stage with them?

If Paul gets into double digits, and the nominee realizes those includes voters he didn't get, then maybe. You think politicians who will say or do anything to get elected would take that off the table?

That said, it's a long haul from 2% in the polls to double digits.

|7.31.07 @ 2:55PM|#

Chris,

I don't see how someone can look at the aircraft carriers we've got in the Persian Gulf and not conclude that Bush a) wants war and b) wants to be provoked into it to sell it to a reluctant American populace.

In other words, Gulf of Tonkin II.

anomdebus|7.31.07 @ 2:55PM|#

MyTube put down his copy of Das Kapital and wrote:
I really like the idea of electing somebody who doesn't believe in government to lead the government.

In fact, I'm going to try the Ron Paul approach on my next job interview: "I don't think your company can possibly be successful. Please hire me."

In you next interview, you can try this instead:
I think your company should focus on its core competencies and stop trying to dominate every possible market.

|7.31.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Paul's running mate will likely be South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. They are ideologically close and served in the House together for a few terms. On 4xx-single digit # votes, Sanford and Paul were often two of the single digit voters.

matt|7.31.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Does telling Jones that he fears another Gulf of Tonkin count for nothing?

Oh no! If we reference the (obviously) phony terror of the past the terrorists win!

|7.31.07 @ 3:00PM|#

Does anyone think that Romney can win the general election? Pro-war with 70% of the country against it? Doubling Guantonamo (-2 sp)? Ron Paul has very broad support from the Constitution party to Anarchists. He has a message that truly unites a divided country. He is the only hope for a Republican victory in '08.

|7.31.07 @ 3:02PM|#

In six months - number two and a campaign slogan:
It's either RON PAUL or Hillary.

Roll THAT in your "lesser of two evils" paper and toke on it!

More like "the lesser of two weevils."

|7.31.07 @ 3:05PM|#

Dork, Matt: Alex Jones was asking Ron Paul to confirm his suspicions that the US government would stage "false flag" attacks to get us into another war. Ron Paul said yes. This is hunky dory?

|7.31.07 @ 3:07PM|#

Beware high expectations.

dhex|7.31.07 @ 3:07PM|#

"David, how many times does he have to show up on Alex Jones's show before he's gone too far? "

he could gay marry alex jones wearing a dress made out of "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" t-shirts and he'd still be a better candidate than anyone else the republicans can toss up there.

fyodor|7.31.07 @ 3:09PM|#

I really like the idea of electing somebody who doesn't believe in government to lead the government.

In fact, I'm going to try the Ron Paul approach on my next job interview: "I don't think your company can possibly be successful. Please hire me."

If that company enjoyed "success" by telling people they've got to do what it says or they go to jail or get shot, then I would sure wish it a great dearth of success, and I wouldn't mind it hiring a CEO determined to reign its abuses in.

|7.31.07 @ 3:11PM|#

Testify dhex!

RON PAUL '08

|7.31.07 @ 3:15PM|#

Gee, I can't help but wish we had a libertarian in the race.

And am I the only one who thinks Justin is Matt and complimented himself -- again.

|7.31.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Gulf of Tonkin: Incident used as an excuse to get us into a disastrous military intervention completely outside our national interests.

I am not a Truther, no way, no how. But only an idiot would not be fearful of another major terrorist attack, which would be used as an excuse for war, Patriot Act III, and ubiquitous domestic surveilance.

Dr. Paul's sin is not fearing another Gulf of Tonkin, but stooping so low as to appear on Alex Jone's show. There is a huge difference between the John Birchers of the past and the Truthers of today: at least the John Birchers had a somewhat consistant libertarian-leaning conservatism. The modern conspiracists aren't libertarian in the least. They don't like the Federal Reserve, but would be content with a central government bank. They don't like the IRS, but would be content with an income tax if they could be convinced that the 16th amendment were properly ratified and 26USC properly legislated. They rail against "Globalization", which to them is more than just a one world government, but also includes free trade and immigration.

To the 9/11 Truther and modern conspiracist, government is a great good, just so long as it isn't being run by the Rothchilds, Insiders, Illuminati or Red Lectroids.

rho|7.31.07 @ 3:38PM|#

Dork, Matt: Alex Jones was asking Ron Paul to confirm his suspicions that the US government would stage "false flag" attacks to get us into another war. Ron Paul said yes. This is hunky dory?

Actually Alex Jones's question was a lot longer and more rambling than that. It's this kind of hand-waving that makes people's slurs on Dr. Paul so desperate-sounding. As to him even appearing on Alex Jones's program, any media coverage is better than none. This guilt-by-association stuff is bush-league.

And as for Gulf of Tonkin II, how about another Optimus Prime-like mobile chemical weapons lab? It was enough to get us into Iraq and it turned out to be bogus and possibly exaggerated beyond reason.

|7.31.07 @ 3:44PM|#

OK forget the Gulf of Tonkin.
Remember the Maine.

|7.31.07 @ 3:50PM|#

"They don't like the Federal Reserve, but would be content with a central government bank. They don't like the IRS, but would be content with an income tax if they could be convinced that the 16th amendment were properly ratified and 26USC properly legislated."

Bullshit. Anyone insane enough to get believe in 16th Amendment ratification nonsense will always find a reason to wear a tinfoil hat.

|7.31.07 @ 4:06PM|#

Yellowcake, bitches. Yellowcake.

Don't you dare drop that!

|7.31.07 @ 4:16PM|#

I really like the idea of electing somebody who doesn't believe in government to lead the government.

I wouldn't say Ron Paul is anti-government, rather that he believes government is involved in things that it shouldn't be involved in.

It would be like interviewing for a CEO job and saying that you think the corporation should sell off some of their subsidiaries so that they can focus on their main business.

|7.31.07 @ 4:28PM|#

Bullshit. Anyone insane enough to get believe in 16th Amendment ratification nonsense will always find a reason to wear a tinfoil hat

But of course! But that does not negate the assertion of many tax deniers that they would gladly pay their income taxes, if only it could be demonstrated to them that it was legit. And what's the Jekyllite's objection to the Federal Reserve? That it's a *private* banking system!

|7.31.07 @ 4:32PM|#

And am I the only one who thinks Justin is Matt and complimented himself -- again.

Nah, I'm Matt from Columbus, Ohio. I post here all the time. This thread is boring now. I'm going on a walk.

No! It's horrible that he'd even suggest such a thing! Our government is clearly far too kind and moral to trick us into war.

/sarc

robc|7.31.07 @ 4:50PM|#

In fact, I'm going to try the Ron Paul approach on my next job interview: "I don't think your company can possibly be successful. Please hire me."

There are, in fact, people hired for this very purpose. A company that KNOWS it is going to be going thru bankruptcy soon can hire a specialist CEO to lead them thru their demise.

|7.31.07 @ 4:50PM|#

Have you noticed the trick yet?

Someone brings up the subject of whether the government would mislead us in order to take advantage of an attack to start a war or implement a "security" crackdown that they've been wanting, and Republicans reply, "Our government would never stage a false-flag attack! You're crazy!"

See the switcheroo? This is what's called misinformation. You provide a truthful statement that sounds like it answers the question, but doesn't.

My favorite example is Oliver North being asked, "Was any money from these transactions diverted to the Contras, in violation of the Boland Amendment?" and Ollie answering, "Senator, no tax dollars were sent to the Contras in violation of the law." Oh, ok, moving right along, then.

|7.31.07 @ 5:19PM|#

Ron paul answers (in audio) about the Truther question:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=519_1185293237

Clear as could possibly be. Anyone who calls Paul a truther or conspiracy nut needs to be directed to that interview.

Herr Borges|7.31.07 @ 5:30PM|#

Truthers are benign. Cheney, Giuliani, Romney, Clinton... not so much.

rho|7.31.07 @ 5:33PM|#

Clear as could possibly be. Anyone who calls Paul a truther or conspiracy nut needs to be directed to that interview.

Not good enough, z, because then the charge morphs into "Truther-pandering". The real charge is GOP heresy, which is unforgivable but polls poorly.

|7.31.07 @ 5:47PM|#

And am I the only one who thinks Justin is Matt and complimented himself -- again.

I'm confused. I thought Justin was Dennis.

|7.31.07 @ 5:49PM|#

Paul DOES believe in government and his idea of a CONSTITUTIONAL government.

He has made it a point to say he is NOT an anarchist type of "libertarian."

He obviously believes in nation-states with borders, etc.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements