Ron Paul: Something is Happening and You Don't Know What It Is, Do You Mr. Right Wing?

There's a fantastical "this can't be really happening" feeling to the continued extent and power of Ron Paul's popularity among the most dedicated young activists within the Republican Party, not only to those like me who've been largely cheering him from the margins of the margins of American political power for decades, but also for those who have been actively trying to drive him off even those margins.

Herewith, a survey of some recent flailings at Ron Paul's repeat CPAC poll victory, and the ever-larger impact of Pauls--both Ron in the House (and the prospective GOP presidential field) and now Rand in the Senate.

*Young Americans for Freedom follows in the kicking-out-of-the-Right spirit of their founding father William Buckley and boots Paul from their advisory board; as Dave Weigel notes at Slate, internal division results, including YAF's own "coordination intern" quitting, and a public dustup with rival right-youth group Young Americans for Liberty, more reliably Paulite.

*Right-wing radio dude Kevin McCullough sputters at Fox News's site about the "bizarre nature and overall oddity" of a right-wing political gathering that gave so much play to Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, accusing the libertarian leaning of disrespectfully "hijacking" CPAC's "mission," moaning about an "unabated" libertarian streak. Look, if the excited politically motivated younger folk who actually show up at conventions about politics and activism dig Paul and Johnson, it just might behoove the GOP powers to mind them rather than distance themselves from something as apparently unconservative as limited government--but something there is about a libertarian that makes even simple political horse sense go out the window; as McCullough declares, "libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation."

*Bernie Quigley at The Hill thinks that the more palatable Johnson rather than Ron Paul will be the ultimate successful standardbearer for the libertarian tinge of the GOP on the national stage, but notes that hysterical reactions against them (though he is focusing on prog-liberal angst, the same is true of trad-right angst) are "prelude to a nervous breakdown." And he sums up the surprising rise of Paul Power:

What the Pauls have achieved was unimaginable just five years ago, when Ron Paul’s diatribes before Congress were dutifully transcribed only in small, esoteric libertarian journals. Today, if this week’s CPAC convention in D.C. is any indication, libertarianism is the creative rising karma in the Republican Party.

*Right-wing thought leader Donald Trump accuses Paul of un-electability; Paul asks, how many elections has Donald Trump won? (That the anti-Ron Paul forces are actually using an argument that depends on admitting there is any scintilla of a possibility of a hope he could win the presidential nomination is kind of staggering.)

*Ron Paul makes it clear that he's more radical than the right-wing's Tea Party populist troops on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," complaining that:

some Tea Partiers aren’t measuring up when it comes to the tough defense and entitlement program cuts he believes are needed to save the United States from economic cataclysm.

“They don’t want you to touch Social Security. They don’t want you to touch anything but Obamacare,” Paul says. “Some of them are real Republicans and they wouldn’t dare touch Bush’s increase in medical care costs, you know, prescription health programs.”

“They treat the symptoms and they don’t look at it philosophically,” he adds.

*Jim Antle reported in the Guardian on the tensions between the Paulite CPACers and the others, including Paul fans booing Bush-era GOP heroes Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld:

The event attendees were mostly social conservatives. The audience was more willing to contemplate Pentagon budget scrutiny – but still more hawkish than not and very concerned about radical Islam. The boycotts did not hurt attendance: the conference attracted more than 11,000 conservative activists and its DC venue was packed with people.

But the hostility between Ron Paul's supporters and everyone else was palpable. When Paul won the straw poll, about half the crowd shouted "Ron Paul!" – but the other half booed. When Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who is being targeted for a possible Tea Party challenge in 2012, attempted to defend his vote for the Wall Street bailout, Paulites cried out, "Liar!" This prompted a Hatch supporter to sternly remind the audience, "As conservatives, we can disagree without being disagreeable."

Like I noted after his last CPAC poll victory, there's a strong likelihood that if you didn't vote for Paul, you hate him--he was likely few people's second choice (except maybe Johnson voters).

Why can't the powers that be of the Right handle Paul? I explained this last year after his unexpected first CPAC poll victory, and nothing has changed except his continued and expanding popularity, and that of his senator son, make it all the more ominous:

There’s a very good reason anyone with any skin in the game of the status quo—politician, commentator, or citizen—has to find it very difficult to take Paul seriously. That so many citizens and activists in the Tea Party movement are taking him seriously is scaring the establishment for good reason. Paul doesn’t just represent an opposition politician, he represents an absolute denial that “the system” makes any sense, has any justice, or is sustainable. It is this radical oppositionism that makes it so easy for standard issue pundits to just write his fans off as nuts and a bit scary.

Newsweek started to get at this important aspect of the Paul phenomenon, noting that “tea-partiers, Paulites, etc.─seem less interested in finding practical solutions to Washington's endemic problems than in tearing down Washington itself. As the 2010 elections approach, this nihilistic feeling will only grow stronger.”

That’s because the radical solutions that the Paul worldview demands—an end to overseas military adventurism, ending government’s ability to manipulate paper currency, severe cuts in spending on all the myriad income-shifting promises Washington has made the past 80 years—don’t register as “practical solutions” to (for lack of a better word) the establishment. They seem like nihilism, though they are actually a belief in the American Constitution.

Any standard Republican or movement conservative really can’t take Paul seriously without massive cognitive dissonance. You mean, we really really have to obey the Constitution, we really can’t keep borrowing and inflating forever? Signs like the CPAC vote of a significant number of politically active youngsters believing in Ron Paul are indeed a sign of an apocalypse of sorts for the world that most politicians and pundits know. If Ron Paul is right, then everything they know is wrong.

Matt Welch will be on MSNBC tonight about all this Ron Paul business. Nick Gillespie on libertarian power at CPAC. More from Gillespie on Paul's CPAC speech.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Any standard Republican or movement conservative really can’t take Paul seriously without massive cognitive dissonance

    This is not quite true; it's both TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE that can't take him seriously, not because they actually believe in anything, but because what he represents is something that isn't TEAM RED TEAM BLUE. There is nothing TEAM RED fears more than not having TEAM BLUE around, and vice versa; they are symbiotic, and anything other than their 2-party dynamic is a threat to them.

  • Tony||

    So what's with the R next to his name? Ron Paul isn't the only one not in complete lockstep with one of the party platforms. Dems are far more diverse than Republicans anyway.

  • sevo||

    "Dems are far more diverse than Republicans anyway."

    Yep, that ol' Strom Thurmond was about as diverse as could be.

  • ||

    Uh, paul doesn't disagree on merely one of the party's platforms. He disagrees on a wide range of issues. The only thing conservative about him is his stances on abortion, immigration, and arguably state's rights (but he goes further with state's rights than most conservatives).

  • ||

    You're failing to make the distinction between a real conservative and the 'social conservative' moral crusaders that call themselves the republican party today.

  • Erisian||

    Most fail to differentiate between the two. The progression (pardon the expression) of names is classical liberal => conservative => libertarian. Each time the small-gubmint-individual-rights people get used to a label some other contrary group (usually statist) hijack the name.

  • ||

    Trying to decide whether the Republicans or Democrats are "better" is the most useless activity in the history of mankind.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Please list all pro-capitalist, limited-government Dems in the space below, Tony.

    [ ]

    Don't worry, I left plenty of room.

  • cynical||

    Uh oh. You said "pro-capitalist". Now he's going to list some corporatist dipshit, since progs can distinguish between capitalism and corporatism about as well as they can distinguish between charity and welfare.

  • Tony||

    There is a nauseating amount of Democrats who would have been Republicans a decade ago. Its policy center is to the right of most leftist political parties in the world. As such they tolerate policy diversity far more than the Republicans, who are as far right as anything in the democratic world and increasingly intolerant of impurity.

  • Rudan||

    So we're acting like neo-liberals never existed?

  • sounds real good||

    "they are symbiotic, and anything other than their 2-party dynamic is a threat to them"

    Conjoined twins!

  • ||

    I didn't see this elsewhere so, Threadjack

    Jeff Flake is running for the Senate

    Back to your regular scheduled programing

  • Ray||

    Screw him, voted for the PATRIOT Act extension.

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Yeah, I can never support him after that. Anyone who claims to support freedom and limit government and then turns around and votes to extend the USA PATRIOT Act is the worst kind of hypocrite.

  • DMXRoid||

    It's sort of surprising that Johnson got any mention at all, he's been pretty much ignored in discussion of '12 candidates, possibly because his "Ron Paul without the baggage" air would force people to take the ideas seriously. I mean, most of the criticism that you hear about Ron Paul doesn't even focus on policy shit, it's all the distasteful associations that've cropped up now and then. If you take that away, people might be forced to actually come up with a good reason why the government should be a massive, liberty crushing behemoth.

    I'm a non-voter, but GJ '12 wouldn't be that bad.

  • sevo||

    DMXRoid|2.14.11 @ 6:51PM|#
    "It's sort of surprising that Johnson got any mention at all, he's been pretty much ignored in discussion of '12 candidates..."

    For an idea of how the MSM treats politicians to the right of, oh, Ried:
    We have two former Governors of relatively minor states.
    One is pretty much a ditz, has maybe one "idea", gets coverage and outrage at every turn.
    The other was VERY successful at cutting costs, lowering the cost of government in general, and is now promoting a similar effort for the federal government. And gets ZIP coverage.

    I've got problems with Johnson's wimp on equal rights for gays (and his campaign folks haven't responded to my questions on the matter), but he might be the "good" as opposed to the "perfect".
    He was in the neighborhood for a 'meet-and-greet' last summer, and his talk was pretty impressive.

  • ||

    Actually, I think you don't hear much about Gary Johnson because he is looked at as not as good a candidate as Ron Paul. He didn't even get much of Ron's vote as second choice.

  • Tippy||

    Gary Johnson talks good domestic policy, but has some sticky interventionist foreign policy ideas... like the US getting involved in 'humanitarian wars' and supporting Israel militarily.

  • johnl||

    That is a strange song even for Dylan.

  • Almanian||

    "libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation."

    If this is so, then I will publicly declare myself a libertarian. I've never belonged to a political party, and never declared a political "preference" or "leaning".

    But if libertarian's the "worst" according to the establishment, well then that's what I am!

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Makes me think that if we were transported back to 1776, Team Red and Team Blue would be marching up Bunker Hill, and we'd be at the top, firing down on them.

  • tarran||

    You're not too far off:

    George Washington, Madison and the other Federalists were horrified when Shay's Rebellion occurred, and decided that it was time to backtrack on the whole freedom thing.

    The U.S. Constitution was really a sort of a counter-revolutionary coup, which is why so many signers of the Declaration of Independence refused to sign it.

    And, or course, the U.S. constitution was validated as an instrument of tyrrany when the U.S. Army invaded Pennsylvania under George Washington, and Adams was able to isntitute a reign of terror with the "Alien and Sedition Acts".

    Incidentally, this is why I have reservations about Ron Paul's support for the U.S. Constitution. Yes, his vision is far freer than the oppressive government that entangles us in a Saragossa Sea of regulation. In the end, though, he is hoping to achieve freedom by using a legal document crafted by those who wished to put a yoke on the backs of the American people. Even if he succeeds in his methods, he will fail in his stated goals.

    Despite this, I respect the man, and love the revolt he is stirring in the hearts of our countrymen.

  • sevo||

    "In the end, though, he is hoping to achieve freedom by using a legal document crafted by those who wished to put a yoke on the backs of the American people."

    Care to explain that statement?

  • RyanXXX||

    There is a view among some Libertarians and Anarchists that the Constitution is where America really went wrong, and that the Articles were much preferrable.

    Which may be true, but the population just isn't ready to hear that yet.

    The Secessionist liberal Kirkpatrick Sale (author of "Human Scal") wrote a pretty good essay on this:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/sale10282010.html

  • Almanian||

    Awesome - thanks for the link

  • ||

    Right, we would have been much better if the Brits had reconquered us. The militia system was utterly inadequate as a defense against invasion (see War of 1812) and that's all the US had under the Articles (assuming the states responded to federal begging for troops, that is).

  • tarran||

    Ah yes, what was it the founder of YAF said?

    "we have got to accept Big Government for the duration–for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged...except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores."

    But you are right, to a point, if the militia system was an adequate defense against central armies, the Pennsylvanians would have gunned George Washington down when he showed up with his army to collect Hamilton's vile tax on whiskey.

  • CE||

    ...if the militia system was an adequate defense against central armies, the Pennsylvanians would have gunned George Washington down when he showed up with his army to collect Hamilton's vile tax on whiskey.

    The Whiskey Rebellion is a bad example to use to assess the efficacy of militias. They didn't fight Washington, because he was a national hero. Why do you think he commanded the army, instead of letting Hamilton do it?

    Even the loosest, most disorganized militias give central armies nightmares. An armed, trained, and vigilant citizenry will never be conquered. When was the last time Switzerland was invaded?

    The story goes that prior to WWII, a German general visited Switzerland and learned that they had 3 million men trained to take up arms in their militia. The general asked what they would do if they were invaded by a 6 million man army. The answer was short and to the point: "Shoot twice."

  • ||

    Even the loosest, most disorganized militias give central armies nightmares.

    I take it you've never heard of the War of 1812. True, professional armies have as much trouble holding territory in the face of guerilla tactics as anyone else (eg, the American Revolution), but militias proved to be very little defense against smash-and-grab operations of professionals.

    Switzerland's neutrality, terrain, and frankly its geographical irrelevance have more to do with its freedom from invasion.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Switzerland's neutrality, terrain, and frankly its geographical irrelevance have more to do with its freedom from invasion.

    Looks like someone slept through their European History class. Being right in between the Italian states, France, and the Holy Roman Empire, the Swiss were invaded by both the HRE and then Napoleon as a way to provide a buffer zone against the bigger powers they were concerned about.

    Tulpa, a grognard you are not.

  • mad libertaruian guy||

    So how do we explain Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam . . .?

    All militias, and all gave the mighty US military fits (Afghanistan also held back the USSR as well, which had ROE nothing like ours.

    Militias don't win battles, but they make waging wars unsustainable. That is how they ultimately win.

  • ||

    There is a view among some Libertarians and Anarchists that the Constitution is where America really went wrong, and that the Articles were much preferrable.

    My 6 year old thinks that going to bed at 8:30 is wrong. She believes that 11:30 is much preferable. She also thinks that not eating candy all day long is wrong. Eating candy all day is much preferable to a balanced diet.

  • tarran||

    Wow Marshall?!?

    What a stunning argument!?!

    You just rebtted everything 'Brutus', Patrick henry and all the Anti-Federalists wrote during the ratification debates!

    And what a beautiful, persuasive argument it was!

    Just to make sure I wrap my childish mind around your profound argument,

    Patrick Henry and Lysander Spooner were like children that petulantly refuse to go to bed at a healthy hour, while believers in big government are grownups who know better, right?

    I'm sorry if I got it wrong; after all, you are making a grown-up, profound argument, and its very hard to wrap our minds around it.

    Did I get it right, Marshall?

    Please don't leave me hanging!

  • smartass sob||

    Drip, drip, drip - the sarcasm pitter- patters to the floor. :-)

  • ||

    It seems pretty obvious, but since you need me to, I will spell it out for you.

    Wanting something isn't the same as having it. The Articles of Confederation didn't work. It doesn't really matter how much you wished they did, they didn't.

    Could any argument be more adolescent than "but I don't want to"? I realize that, for you apparently, this is considered a powerful argument, but really it is not.

    You just rebtted everything 'Brutus', Patrick henry and all the Anti-Federalists wrote during the ratification debates!

    No, actually history did this. Confederations do not last, and can not resist outside forces.

    It is called balance. Law balanced with Liberty. Without Law, individual Liberty is not protected. Oh, I mean, I wish there wasn't police, cause I should be able to do whatever I want!

  • tarran||

    Wow Marshall, I am filled with pity for you - if you ask the Reason webmaster to take down your post, I'll be happy to pretend you never wrote it.

    Your major mistake is assuming that people who disagree with you concerning the goals for organizing society must be childish immature babies. If you had withheld from the insults, you might have come out of this exchange with some dignity as well as becoming somewhat enlightened. But, I'll guess we'll just have to settle for enlightenment cum embarassment.

    Of course the Articles of Confederation failed! The congress tried to spend like they had the coercive powers of the British government backing them. They didn't. Their attempts to print money and threaten people with capital punishment for refusing to accept the printed money as being equivalent for specieeventually trigerred rebellion and created great economic hardship.

    Now, there were two paths the elites could have taken in the face of the failure. They could have dialed back on the spending and economic interventionism, or they could grant themselves more taxing power.

    You claim that the U.S. Govt is superior since it went the second route. I view the spending and economic interventionism as being a problem, you don't.

    Furthermore, your arguments are fundamentally Whiggish; that every institution that supplants another insititution over the passage of time must be superior to its predecessor.

    Of course, this idea is quite easily dispensed with: was the Soviet system a better one than the short lived republic it overthrew? Were the Nazis better than the guys in the Weimar Republic? Pop quiz! - Julius Caesar or Caligula! Who would you prefer ruling over you?

    You claim to support the notion of looking for a mature balance between Law and Liberty. There is no balance required! A political order that is incapable of violating liberty will lead to the people living in peace and following the laws that arise through a Hayekian process. The notion that we need some tyrant with the power to crush any opposition who stays his hand in an enlightened manner to create a pocket of liberty, on the other hand, while emotionally appealing, rarely works in practice.

    That's why Pennsylvania was a much better place to live than Massachusetts during the youth of Ben Franklin.

    Now, you'll note that I am not accusing you of being childish. Just because you agree with one of Ayn Rand's more wrong-headed ideas does not make you immature. After all, like you, Bill Buckley thought that freedom was best preserved by building a totalitarian state to preserve it. And nobody accuses him of being childish.

    But, I strongly encourage you to stop accusing people who don't hold to simplistic Whiggish views about the inferiority of earlier things and the superiority of later things, or who engage in the cognitive dissonance of seeing powerful government as the best protector of individual liberty as being childish. It just makes you look like a shallow ass.

  • Fluffy||

    The Articles of Confederation really were only bad for two purposes:

    Creating a powerful nation-state that could conquer a continent.

    Generating enough tax revenue to pay off revolutionary-era debts.

    If those two things weren't important to you, the Articles of Confederation served quite well.

    It's not really a matter of not having institutions of law, Marshall. Law was administered quite capably within each of the original states, and no one has argued that it wasn't.

    What the states didn't have was the instrumentality of conquest. And if you're the sort of person who loves parades and Sousa marches, that's a big deal. If you aren't, it's not.

  • ||

    State governments weren't exactly full of bleeding heart libertarians at the time either, tarran. All oppression and abuse of power does not originate at the federal level, it only seems so to us now since that's where the power's concentrated.

    The US Constitution also has the advantage of enduring for 200+ years, while the Confederation was already falling apart at the seams only a few years after the Revolution.

  • tarran||

    State governments weren't exactly full of bleeding heart libertarians at the time either, tarran. All oppression and abuse of power does not originate at the federal level, it only seems so to us now since that's where the power's concentrated.

    No shit, Sherlock! It wasn't after all, the feds that put down Shay's Rebellion, was it?

    On the other hand, the whole fucking point of Centralization is to allow the tyrants access to more resources!

    The town of Amesbury has access to a small population and production base, it would struggle to tax the shit out of its population. The state of MA, on the other hand, can muster more resources and command more men, sufficient to put down opposition in a particular town. However, it struggled to put down Shay's regulators. The Federal Govt, on the other hand had access to the resources of a whole continent. Thus Washington was able invade and crush the resistance in Pennsylvania.

  • young American for freedom||

    "libertarians are the worst form most American of political affiliation in the nation."

  • Doug Stevens||

    Thanks Brian... good post.

    I agree it is kind of exciting. Like you, I've been "cheering him from the margins of the margins" but am not going to hold my breath for any substantive changes. I hope I'm wrong and things are different this time.

  • ||

    Obviously Hatch is indeed a liar, but Paul's more visible (or in this case audible) supporters once again are the biggest thorn in his side. They don't care about winning, they don't even care about persuading; they just want to shout their opinions.

    Episiarch is of course correct about the TeamRed / TeamBlue dynamic, but the face of Ron Paul Nation that the public sees is essentially that of a fanboy as well.

  • Fluffy||

    They don't care about winning, they don't even care about persuading; they just want to shout their opinions.

    To a certain extent, this is true.

    The Paulites view themselves as aggrieved and as betrayed. Specifically, aggrieved and betrayed by identifiable, named Republicans.

    And naturally they want to air those grievances and deliver reproach for that betrayal first, before addressing the issue of moving forward.

  • ||

    Being that we are technically the bosses of politicians...vocalizing our disapproval should be standard.

    How do you nicely inform someone they are a criminal?

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Brian,

    That's a mighty long stretch for your headline and probably over the heads of 90% of the H&R'ers.

    ... Mr. Hobbit Jones

  • alan||

    Appreciated in some corners though. 'That album changed my life!'
    Also, it conveys the terror the establishment has been feeling for the last few years ever so well.

  • sevo||

    Cue Max:
    5.......4.......3......2.......

  • Max||

    Ron Paul just wants to reduce the size and power of the state so he can use the increased state power to oppress black people! No, wait...

    Uh, he just promotes individualism because he's a racist that only thinks of black people as group! Wait, shit!

    Oh, he's a RACE BAITER! Ooga-booga-booga!

    Heh, still got it.

  • Spiny Norman||

    That's way too grammatical to be a convincing Max.

  • Maxie||

    Arf?

  • jubjubbird||

    Mediocre Dylan. In fact, Bob Dylan = most overrated artist of the 20th century.

  • sevo||

    "In fact, Bob Dylan = most overrated artist of the 20th century."

    Naah. The Beatles.

  • Cytotoxic||

    They both sucked.

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Say what you will about the Beatles, but at least none of 'em sound like they have a nasal cavity the size of a cantaloupe.

  • sevo||

    "at least none of 'em sound like they have a nasal cavity the size of a cantaloupe."
    Well, that's something.

  • Almanian||

    Please - the Beatles were teh awsum and had all kinda musical range. Some better sings, some not quite so good, but by FAR the broadest range of styles and the most impact of any band. Ever.

    Dylan? Guy's been at it for, like, 60 years and STILL can't play harmonica. OR sing. HE sucks.

  • ||

    Ah, but who is the most underrated artist?

  • Almanian||

    Bill Nelson of Be Bop Deluxe.

  • mike c.||

    The fat guy from the Sin City Deciples then Tenderloin...Ernie Locke.

  • johnl||

    Prince.

  • johnl||

    Prince.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Tito Puente's gonna be dead, and you're gonna say, "Oh, I've been listening to him for years, and I think he's fabulous."

    or Dick Dale

    ... Hobbit

  • Sun Ra||

  • CE||

    Tom Petty.

  • Another Phil||

    Adrian Belew

  • jubjubbird||

    AMERICA = BIG ISRAEL

  • ||

    If the Constitution and Liberty collide, who do you root for? To believe they are equally coextensive is obviously false. The Constitution was a retrenchment document, and the product of almost innumerable compromises. That didn't make it bad, but it pretty much assured it was very far from ideal as well. The most famous proof is the Civil War, of course, but the most obvious is what most people disregard, because they are swimming in it constantly--namely, the degraded form of governance we now endure was all achieved "Constitutionally". Some people want to pretend the Constitution has been "hijacked", but that is just an infantile form of denial. The Constitution is a slut, easily pliable to the wishes of those who get enough votes at the right time. The Constitution of the imagination has died a thousand deaths, but yet people like to pretend it still lives somewhere. The yearning for sacred texts is inescapable.

  • juris imprudent||

    ...it just might behoove the GOP powers to mind them rather than distance themselves...

    No, because in their minds, being a conservative means walking around with the same huge stick stuffed up your ass as is up theirs.

  • Partisan Establishment Fanboy||

    It's still real to me, dammit!

  • ||

    Ron won the combined first and second ballots, too (to get to your 'second choice' point.) It is true a lot of that was the sheer margin between his first place and Romney's second place, but Romney didn't pick up much in second choices, either. Ron did get slightly more than just Johnson's votes as a second place though, and when you look at the first choice shares of Palin, Bachman, Gingrich etc.... he got more as second than any few of them got as first choice.

    And personally I'm betting a lot of the write ins (which they didn't distinguish) were for Rand.

  • LibertyBill||

    Paleocons and Neocons both hating on Dr. Paul is music to my ears.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement