George Will: An Independent Ron Paul Would Re-Elect Obama

Earlier this week, as Damon Root told us, nationally syndicated columnist George Will had many unkind words to say about the limited-government bonafides of Mitt Romney and especially Newt Gingrich. So what does the country's most syndicated columnist have to say about Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)? Among other things, Will says in a new column that an independent Paul run would tip the election to Obama:

When recently asked if he might mount an independent candidacy, he said: "I'm not thinking about it because, look, I'm not doing badly right now. … So we concentrate only on one thing: Keep moving up in the polls, and see how things come out in a month or two."

He is in the top tier in Iowa, and would alienate Republican voters if he indicated an interest in bolting the party next autumn. Nationally, his ceiling is low, but his floor is solid: His supporters are inclined to accept no substitutes because no other candidate espouses anything like his high octane blend of libertarianism and isolationism.

Furthermore, he is now nationally known (he campaigned for the 2008 Republican nomination, and was the Libertarian Party's 1988 presidential candidate), has a large base of small donors, and his intense supporters probably could get his name on most states' ballots. He is not seeking re-election to his House seat, so what has he got to lose?

Well, his candidacy might guarantee Barack Obama's re-election, and this might hurt the career of his son Rand, the freshman senator from Kentucky. Other than that, however, Ron Paul may think what his ideology implies - that Obama is only marginally more mistaken than Paul's Republican rivals, who do not wake up each day angry about the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. […]

At a minimum, a Paul candidacy would force the Republican nominee to spend time and money in places he otherwise might be able to economize both. And a Paul candidacy would make 2012 much easier for Obama than 2008 was. Now, reread Paul's words quoted above, particularly these: "right now" and "in a month or two."

Whole thing, including some back-of-the-napkin electoral calculations, here.

I think the biggest impediment to this scenario is that it is extremely unlikely to happen. The Paul insiders I have asked about this (including this week) have repeatedly said the same thing: It's not happening. Then again, the next six weeks or so may prove to be Ron Paul's high-water mark within GOP politics….

Comments

[Pro Libertate]

No, it's a good point. The GOP can't risk that. Therefore, the only possible solution is to nominate Ron Paul.

[Episiarch]

Yeah, that's a little too reasonable for the GOP, ProL. Scratch that, it's a lot too reasonable.

[Pro Libertate]

It's either Paul or Obama. George Will said so!

[Hugh Akston]

Well yeah, but I guarantee the Team Red inner party would far prefer a second Obama term to Ron Paul.

[PaulR]

Oh absolutely. Like Team Red, Obama is down for Imperialism Lite.

[chris]

Imperialism Lite?

[PaulR]

Sorry. Imperialism.

[chris]

S'alright. I'm just thinking that when an entire hemisphere of nations can't even write their own drug laws in regard to their own need but instead have to play the DC piper's tune, than we are definitely full blown imperialist.

[chris]

er, full bodied imperialist.

[juris imprudent]

No, it is Imperial Stout!

[William]

Humanitarian Imperialism, for your own good.

[Sudden]

It's triple hops brewed imperialism.

[PaulR]

I wouldn't go that far. How about Imperialism Ice with a 5.5% Invasion Coefficient as compared to a 4.2% IC? Or maybe Imperialism Stout.

Triple Hops implies Indian killing and slavery and haven't yet had to gumption to ratchet that one back up to Eleven.

[PP-l]

. . . the Team Red inner party would far prefer a second Obama term to Ron Paul.

And a pretty good chunk of the outer party, as well.

[Joe M]

Indeed. His 8% base isn't transferable, even if he doesn't run third party.

[Lost_In_Translation]

The republican party is currently pursuing a small tent philosophy and getting pissed that libertarians don't feel like crowding in it.

[Colram]

I believe the size of Ron Paul's hard-core base is reported to be closer to 18%.

[Joe M]

He's polling at 18% in Iowa, but I'm betting lots of those will still pull Red in 2012 even if he's not the guy. Still, nationally, his little chunk of dedicated supporters is more than enough to make it extremely difficult for a Republican candidate to win.

[Sudden]

Half of that is hardcore. The other half is middle of the road pubs who happen to like and agree with Paul more than the rest of the GOP field. He actually has far more appeal to rank and file GOPers and independents than most people give him credit for.

[CE]

Funny how Ron Paul's "8% base" used to be 1%, then 5%, then 8-12%, and is now edging up above 20% in Iowa, where voters have actually had a chance to hear about him and consider the alternatives....

[Snooky]

Maybe the Republicans need to loose when they nominate big government candidates. You know, because that isn't what people want.

[bosty]

That was my first thought as well, perhaps this is Will's roundabout way of getting there: Newt and Mitt are unacceptable, Paul Independent kills Team Red. Hmm, only a few ways to solve this, and they don't include "Bachmann" or "Santorum".

But then there's that And a Paul candidacy would make 2012 much easier for Obama than 2008 was.

oh.

[Proprietist]

I thought Will was in favor of Perry, but I might be wrong...

[Bam!]

His wife is working on Perry's campaign.

[Max]

Oh, please, God, make Ron Paul run as an independent. Please!

[Mr. FIFY]

Oh, please, God, make Ralph Nader run again. Please!

[God]

Stuff it, Max.

[Max]

Arf! Arf! Arf!

[Lost_In_Translation]

Libertarians are insiginificant and be ignored until they go rogue and don't vote for republicans. Then they should be tarred and feathered.

Ain't it great!

[Pro Libertate]

Or when they're deregulating things and running a totally out-of-control marketplace.

[Lost_In_Translation]

When do we get to run the out-of-control marketplace again?

Republicans are the evil older brother handing the broken vase over to the libertarians and pointing at them when mother finds them. And they're pissed that we don't want to be around them anymore.

[Pro Libertate]

We're behind the scenes, running the show. Except when we're insignificant.

It's so bloody obvious that statists attack us because they view us--correctly--as a threat to end the gravy. It's that simple--we're becoming a totally corrupt system.

[chris]

I don't think we are much of threat to them in that respect. Their appetites are a greater threat than we are. Overreach in both domestic and foreign policy is creating more frustration for their goals than we could ever hope to cause. However, they blame those limitations that the scarcities of reality place on those designs on us and pretend their appetites are fine, healthy and absolutely necessary.

[JW]

The other day, an old friend of mine made some crack (to someone else) on FB about what "the unfettered and unregulated free market has gotten us." It wasn't a favorable comment.

I didn't even bother correcting him. If someone in their 50's is still this deliberately ignorant and an unrepentant partisan, my time is better spent drinking to make me forget.

[Roger]

"high octane blend of libertarianism and isolationism." .....why are people not able to make the distinction between isolationism and non-intervention?

[MWG]

This.

Are people like Will disingenuous pricks or just dumb?

[Episiarch]

To interventionists and warmongers, non-interventionism is isolationism. Because to them, not fucking with other countries requires withdrawing from the world. Or something.

(Disingenuous pricks)

[Bones]

He's not dumb. He knows exactly what he's saying.

[Berr]

There is no difference. Paul harps on "non-interventionism" because isolationism is a word that polls poorly. People, wrongly, associate it with Neville Chamberlain and appeasement of Hitler. They also, wrongly, associate it with trade protectionism.

Paul's non interventionism is no different than the traditional American conception of isolationism espoused by Mark Twain, Robert Taft, a post-presidential Hoover, and the like. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't think the failure to accept and repeat Paul's politically motivated rebranding should be taken as such an insult.

[Metazoan]

It isn't simply a politically motivated rebranding, since isolationism in modern times (ie, not Mark Twain's era) has come to include trade protectionism. The meaning of the word changed, and RP's campaign had to change with it.

[Berr]

Even if you accept that, then they should try and reclaim the word, not run from it. America is isolated, geographically and culturally. And its a hell of a lot better off for it. America's federal government, having no business engaging or interfering with the foreign business dealings of her citizens, should be isolated.

I'm all for isolationism. Deal with the Mexicans and Canucks as necessary. Everyone else can go fuck themselves.

[Britt]

Can we bring "neutrality" back?

Or does that mean we're refusing to aid our noble allies against the NaziSovietterroristChinese threat?

[Richard]

Isolationism- the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

This pretty much describes Ron Paul. He's theoretically in favor of free trade but against NAFTA and other agreements that actually facilitate trade, because they result in "alliances..international agreements," etc. Also, he spent a lot of time last time around campaigning against the Amero and that NAFTA superhighway. Reason reported that these are figments of his imagination.

[Metazoan]

Unfortunately, the connotation of the word in voters' minds is more important than the dictionary definition.

[CE]

Ron Paul didn't dream up the Amero -- it was a serious proposal by serious people, who decided to wait a while before pushing it, since Americans don't like the idea.

And the NAFTA Superhighway was Rick Perry's idea, not Ron Paul's.

[Proprietist]

Technically you are totally right. Paul's opposition to corporatist trade agreements, world government, international treaties and military alliances would mean that his government is absolutely isolationist. Like Switzerland. Not really a bad thing, since Switzerland is the only country that didn't get screwed by World War II, or the coming Euro collapse, etc.

That does not presume the government will necessarily limit the flow of goods and labor in or out at the individual/company level. Nor does it mean we can't respond to or prevent imminent attacks from outside.

[MWG]

When people accuse Paul of being an isolationist it is overwhelmingly related to his foreign policy and not his views on trade.

[tiffany]

Finally someone caught that! There is a definite distinction between isolationism and non- interventionalists. Im am so tired of people confusing the two when they are so different.

[PaulR]

People who are politically knowledgeable enough to use both words in a single sentence are never confused. It's intentional. It's a smear tactic.

[Some dude]

Nobody could call Ron Paul a spoiler if he came in second or better.

[Bones]

The only thing that would make me happier than Ron Paul becoming president is if Ron Paul became president as an independent. Talk about beholden to no one!

[PapayaSF]

And then he could get all the Libertarians in Congress to pass... oh, wait....

[Britt]

Actually if Ron Paul won on an independent bid I could see him being able to swing things his way in Congress. Imagine the Paulinistas bombarding key Senators with messages supporting a given proposal.

Although I remain of the opinion that if the country elected Ron Paul then we wouldn't need Ron Paul to repeal these laws. We are a democracy, have been for nearly a hundred years now, and in democracy the people know what they want, and they get it good and hard.

[Joe M]

My fantasy is the GOP candidate polling third leading up to the election, so I can tell all my Republican friends that a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, both figuratively and literally, and they're throwing away their votes. Delicious.

[Triumph]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Proprietist]

This would be truly awesome. The GOP can die in a fire for all I care.

[The Derider]

The only thing that would be worse for the Republicans than Ron Paul running 3rd party would be if he won the republican nomination outright.

He's not electable. Full stop.

[Pro Libertate]

And Obama is? It's like a woman having to marry one of two guys--the one she thinks is okay if a little off and the one who beat and raped her.

[The Derider]

He's already won one presidential election. Yeah, he's electable.

[Pro Libertate]

Please. He won being an empty void into which people's hopes and desires could be placed. That ship has sailed. Now he's a known disaster.

[Field Marshall Gill]

He's not electable. Full stop.

The very fact that Barak Obama is President right now gives lie to this statement.

[Zeb]

I'd like to think that is true. But people like middle of the road bullshit and that's what Obama campaigned on.Ron Paul is a known quantity and is known to say what he means. There are enough people in the country (including his own party) that just don't agree with him that I fear he may indeed in some sense be unelectable. But I have been very impressed by the progress he has made so far and it seems just possible that he could win NH and/or IA, so I hold out some hope that I am wrong.

[The Derider]

Reality is calling:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1750.html

He's polling about 8 points down from Obama in a head to head. Worse than Gingrich and Romney.

[Beloved Rev. Blue Moon]

The general has not even started yet. Head-to-heads are irrelevant before primaries.

[Field Marshall Gill]

Hmmm, I wonder what Obama was polling before he was nominated? I can't say I know but I remain unconvinced that as the other candidates crash and burn Paul could not get the nomination as a Republican, especially if he can win in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Mensan]

In December 2007, Obama was polling at 22% nationally for the Democrat nomination. For a general election, he was tied with McCain, and leading Ron Paul by 19 points.

[jinushaun]

You're not living in reality. 1) Obama is electable because he has already been elected once. 2) Obama is still leading in the polls against each of the Republican nominees.

As for the electability of Paul in a national election, that's a non issue. There will always be people that vote Red no matter what, and people who will vote Blue no matter what. Their votes basically don't count because it doesn't matter who is running. Elections like these are won by independent voters, by swing states. Considering Obama's performance right now, 2012 can really go either way. Paul's real problem is not getting elected but getting nominated in the first place. You have an entire machine (the GOP) adamantly opposed to what Paul stands for and they will not allow Paul to be nominated. Remember, the people don't nominate the candidate?the party does at the convention.

[PaulR]

He's right. Ron Paul will never be elected. Never. Sunny cheery optimism will never change that (The Elders of Team Red will make sure he never wins the primary, and if he did, the newsletters would finish him off in less than a week). However, I will continue to support him and vote for him. He's the man and he gets my vote, electable or not.

[sage]

This. I pick losers at every election so at least I won't be surprised.

[CE]

He's not electable. Full stop.

Not true at all. The early head-to-head polls showed Ron Paul polling better against Obama than anyone else, except Romney in some cases. Then the major polling firms stopped asking the question.

[Karl Hungus]

"His supporters are inclined to accept no substitutes because no other candidate espouses anything like his high octane blend of libertarianism and isolationism."

It surprises me that George Will doesn't understand the difference between isolationism and noninterventionism. Or, maybe he does, and that was just a cheap shot.

[anon]

Will knows he is full of it there. But it is important to realize that is the same thing the Bammer will say.

[Metazoan]

Given a choice between a neocon GOPer and a neocon Dem, I'd take the Dem, because at leas then in popular perception it's easier to blame the resultant failure one what should be blamed- the government.

[PapayaSF]

Look at (e.g.) the 5-4 vote on Citizens United for good reasons why Republican presidents are better at appointing justices who are at least more likely to uphold liberty in the Supreme Court.

[Progressive Judge]

[pats fake mustache]

Corporations are below the law!

[Robert Fellner]

I am noticing a very consistent treatment of the only candidate who delivers what Reason allegedly stands for, Ron Paul, recently. Reason never emphasizes his enormous strengths and continually reports inaccurate critiques without ever bothering to correct them, or god forbid, add their own commentary on this unprecedented pro-free market candidate.

It is becoming really bizarre to reconcile this continually dismissive, albeit subtle, treatment of Dr. Ron Paul, while wearing the slogan of "Free Markets and Free People."

To quote the following untruth:

"his high octane blend of libertarianism and isolationism."

And not pause to remind the readers this is factually incorrect and Ron Paul is non-interventionist, and is extremely open to trade and diplomacy etc. is a glaring journalistic error.

Non-interventionism is not isolationism. That's why they are different words, with different meanings!

[Lew Rockwell]

Cosmo-Fags!!!!!

[James Franco]

I enjoy it when unwashed men cum on my face at truckstops.

[Pro Libertate]

Nick Gillespie just published (and just posted here) an article in The Washington Post debunking Paul myths. I don't think the fact that they have some concerns with him means that they don't prefer him to any other leading candidate.

[Beloved Rev. Blue Moon]

Love the Paul, Hate the Paultard.

Reason never emphasizes his enormous strengths and continually reports inaccurate critiques without ever bothering to correct them, or god forbid, add their own commentary on this unprecedented pro-free market candidate.

If you guys don't start falling all over yourselves RIGHT NOW, that's proof you hate DR PUAL!!1!

[PaulR]

Which Reason are you referring to? The majority of Ron Paul coverage I have read here is overwhelmingly positive.

[Apatheist]

Cancel my subscription!

[cynical]

To quote the following untruth:

"his high octane blend of libertarianism and isolationism."

What, you mean like the Matt Welch did? That's George Will saying that.

[CE]

Reason has been unabashedly pushing Ron Paul this time, unlike in 2007. No complaints here.

[Double D]

Don't be an ass. Supporting Ron does not mean kissing his ass or thinking he is perfect. Libertarians, in general, are not TEAM MEMBERS, and thus don't do the messiah cheerleading you may be hoping for.

[Urpinion]

I think a Gary Johnson LP run could tip it to Obama too. And I'm much more excited by that prospect, as Johnson is a better candidate in all respects apart from the fact that he's fundamentally lousy at campaigning.

I honestly don't believe we'll be any worse off with four more years of our idiot president than we'd be with four years of Gingrich or Romney (particularly the former).

I'm not just saying that assert my independence, I really don't think it will make a damned bit of difference.

[anon]

Johnson is a good guy, but he hasn't been willing to roll up his sleeves the way Paul has this time around. Hopefully he can be president before he dies; Lord knows this country could use men like him.

[PapayaSF]

Wouldn't Johnson make a good VP candidate?

[cynical]

Considering the history of Johnsons as VP, yes -- if you hate the P candidate.

[Mensan]

You do have to consider that Dr. Paul would be 77 years old at his inauguration. That puts him at 85 by the end of his second term. The average life expectency for a white male his age is 83.5 years. There is a not insignificant chance that his VP would end up being President.

[PP-l]

Yeah, but, to put it in techinical terms, he's as healthy as a fucking horse. As President, he'd probably be more likely to die of unnatural causes.

[Proprietist]

That's not true. He simply can't compete as the second choice for the constituency he was hoping to capture that has the highest commitment to their first choice of any candidate in the field. If Paul wasn't in the race, Johnson would possibly be a frontrunner. The media, party, etc. instead saw him as a redundancy with no chance.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Technically, Huntsman falls into the same place with regards to Romney. We've got a Mormon and thus didn't need another and he didn't espouse many views in opposition.

[fish]

Okay..okay okay!

Newt for Prez...Johnson for VP...RP for Treasury Sec.

Hope for fatal presidential heart attack.

[Arthur J. Rodriguez]

See it is that simple. We have two choices and only two choices. The way we solve problems is the same - we can spend more money or we can spend more money.

Honestly, how many times can either team keep this argument running - Hey you hate the other guy more than you hate our empty suit, right? So vote for us again - remember they are for the rich/socialism/drugs/guns etc.

No more. It has to end. Every election we line up for the ball punch or eye gouge. Not voting for either of the big two.

[PaulR]

I see it as a perfectly constructed fear. Right before election time, the base gets whipped into a hysterical frenzy by politicians and pundits- "We have to vote for the lackluster Team (Blue/Red) candidate who in no way supports our ideology because if we don't the Other Team's Candidate WILL DESTROY THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OMFG OMFG!!!
I saw this with Gore and Bush, then with Kerry and Bush, and then with Obama and McCain. Each opposing candidate is demonized as the worst (Facist Conservative or Socialist Democrat) this nation has ever seen so WE HAVE TO STOP HIM OMFG OMFG!

It's the only way I can explain watching rabid Ron Paul supporters who wouldn't piss on McCain if he were burning switch to supporting McCain after he won the primary. "We have to beat Obama", they said. It was the same with a liberal I knew. He was supporting someone other than Obama, yet after the primary, he supported Obama because, "We have to stop McCain," who sadly went from being a milktoast conservative derided by Hannity and Limbaugh to A FUCKING NAZI OMFG OMFG STOP HIM!!

[anon]

Could you imagine how hilarious a debate between Newt and the Bammer would be? Two dudes who personify academic dilettantism masturbating their egos for a few hours.

Then think of Paul speaking in his simple clipped sentences taking them to the woodshed. Paul can win this, guys.

[Berr]

They would never let him into a general election debate.

[Karl Hungus]

"They would never let him into a general election debate."

Are you really trying to say they'll never let him win the nomination? Because that's the only way they'd be able to keep him out of the general election debates.

[Berr]

I meant as an independent. Whether LP or America First or Reform or whatever, Barry and Newt would never sit down for a three way debate with Paul.

[Karl Hungus]

I don't know how that would work . . . wouldn't a third-party candidate polling high enough be entitled to participate? And if so, would the two major-party guys really abstain? I'm hazy, but didn't Ross Perot participate in debates with Clinton and Bush in '92?

[Berr]

The general election debates are controlled by the two party organizations, and have been since 1988. They can let in whoever they want, for whatever reason. They decided to let Perot in, probably because of the ridiculous amounts of his own money he was willing to spend making fun of them if they didn't. Either way, I say they would never let Paul in, under any circumstances.

[Karl Hungus]

"I say they would never let Paul in, under any circumstances."

That's a reasonable argument, and you're probably right. But I don't think it would matter too much. If RP does run a third-party campaign, the Republican nominee will lose.

[PaulR]

I will. The GOP will never allow Ron Paul to win the nomination.

It all boils down to the unforgivable sin- Ron Paul's view on foreign policy. This is the only reason why Republicans despise Ron Paul. They hate him, and always will as long as he opposes our Imperialism Lite.

[CE]

Then think of Paul speaking in his simple clipped sentences...

Ever try to diagram some of Ron Paul's debate statements? I think he's great, but if I didn't know all of his positions and philosophies already, it might be a little difficult to follow sometimes...

[4d7711]

"Two dudes who personify academic dilettantism masturbating their egos for a few hours. Then think of Paul speaking in his simple clipped sentences"

"A rhetorician of times past said, that to make little things appear great was his profession ... They would in Sparta have sent such a fellow to be whipped for making profession of a tricky and deceitful act ... 'Tis an engine invented to manage and govern a disorderly and tumultuous rabble, and that never is made use of, but like physic to the sick, in a discomposed state. In those where the vulgar or the ignorant, or both together, have been all-powerful and able to give the law, as in those of Athens, Rhodes, and Rome, and where the public affairs have been in a continual tempest of commotion, to such places have the orators always repaired. And in truth, we shall find few persons in those republics who have pushed their fortunes to any great degree of eminence without the assistance of eloquence ... Eloquence most flourished at Rome when the public affairs were in the worst condition and most disquieted with intestine commotions; as a free and untilled soil bears the worst weeds." -Montaigne

[Karl Hungus]

"I honestly don't believe we'll be any worse off with four more years of our idiot president than we'd be with four years of Gingrich or Romney (particularly the former)."

I think you're exactly right. I also think that if Ron Paul ran as an independent, and if that was enough to tip the election to Obama, then there would be a clear upside to it. Because then, the Republican Party would be forced to acknowledge that as long as they cling to this fetish for war and love of big government, they'll never win another election as long as the voters are offered a meaningful third-party alternative. Ron Paul swinging the election to the Dems would be very much like rubbing a puppy's nose in its own shit: sure, you're making a mess, but what better way to really drive the lesson home?

[anon]

I'm not there yet, since I might be willing to hold my nose and vote for Romney. If Newt is the GOP candidate I will write in Ron Paul if I have to.

[Beloved Rev. Blue Moon]

I'm not there yet, since I might be willing to hold my nose and vote for Romney.

I guess that makes you part of the problem then.

[anon]

That's right -- attack the small group of people who think like you for not being pure enough. Worked so well for libertarians in the past, huh?

[Beloved Rev. Blue Moon]

You obviously don't think like me at all. You are going to give your only vote to Romney. I don't care what excuses or conditions you place in your own head as to why you are going to do it --- to the electorate, you're the same as the enthusiastic GOP supporter.

Saying you are going to "hold your nose and vote for Romney" might as well be the same as "I am going to skip in there and pull down the lever for Romney while singing "The Sun'll Come Out Tomorrow""

There's no difference.

[PaulR]

You don't think like me, either. I don't buy into the the lesser of two evils argument anymore, and so have no reason to vote for anyone other than my personal candidate of choice, who may or may not be electable, or even running. Since 2008 I vote on my principles, not on my fear of the Democrats (the main impetus for conservative voters).

[Mensan]

I did think like you until 2008, but after that election I realized that choosing the lesser of two evils was still choosing evil, and I wanted no hand in it. Since then I vote principle; often with full confidence that my preferred candidate has no chance of winning. Regardless of whether the blue statist wins, or the red statist wins, my conscious is clear.

[Mensan]

*conscience

[Karl Hungus]

"I'm not there yet, since I might be willing to hold my nose and vote for Romney."

That only serves to perpetuate the problem. If I'm going to hold my nose, it's going to be as a matter of principle: by voting third party, writing someone in, or abstaining altogether. Neither Newt nor Willard will be getting my vote simply because they have an 'R' after their names.

[EB]

If the GOP establishment (including Will) a) would stop treating the libertarian wing of their party like shit, and b) stop lying about their commitment to small government, this wouldn't be an issue.

[dave eave]

Please stop with the isolationist mantra.

Not having military bases all over the world and dictating foreign affairs in not isolationist, its anti-imperialism.

Get it right.

[Beloved Rev. Blue Moon]

Go tell it to Will.

[PaulR]

That is brilliant, because it is true.

[Matt]

I cringe every time I read or hear someone claim isolationism. When will people learn the difference between isolationism and interventionism?

[David]

Agree. Seems as though most who oppose ron paul always bring up this isolationist bs, which means they just read something someone else said that misinterpreted something that RP said and so on. Bunch o' misinformed or heresy horse pee.

[Colin]

It's matter of semantics. Paul is an isolationist based on how the word is commonly defined today.

[William]

Semantics are the name of the game. Given your quoted definition, Switzerland and North Korea have the same Foreign Policy, which is kind of rediculous.

[James Ard]

Shouldn't Will say that a third party run elects Hillary? Because at this rate, Obama won't even be on the ticket.

[anon]

lol wut?

[yogi]

Ron Paul does not know how to play poker and, AFIK, wouldn't play the game even if he knew how. At age 76, that's a problem that can't be fix.

Paul show his cards to everyone as if the only point of the game was to see who was dealt the best hand. Yeah, he's got Aces and Kings, but Putin would beat him with a pair of 3's.

[anon]

He is still a crazy Texan. The world still remembers what the last crazy Texan did.

[Sevo]

And the one before that.

[Al Steinle]

I think that RP has a much greater chance of getting the GOP nomination than people believe. As this story correctly indicates RP has the power to bring down the republican nominee if its not him. He can't come out and say "if you don't give me the Republican ticket I will run third party" because that would alienate the Republican party and he wants the ticket. He leaves it unsaid that if he isn't the republican nominee he will bring them down.

[Colin]

I wish I was drinking what you're drinking right now.

[CE]

I agree. He will see a huge uptick in support after he wins Iowa. A lot of people like his record and what he's saying, they just don't think he can win. Once he's clearly a contender, that 8-12 percent will become 20-25 percent, and go up from there.

[Colin]

The thing is that no one who would vote for Paul would ever vote for Romney or Gingrich. I don't think it would hurt the GOP anymore than John Anderson hurt Reagan (and remember, that election also had the strongest LP candidate in the history of the party.)

[Joe M]

It may have hurt him, but just not enough.

[CE]

Not true at all. Ron Paul has a solid libertarian base of around 8 percent, but could get over 20 percent of the vote in Iowa and other states. (He topped 20 percent in a few states back in 2008, and is better known now.)

A lot of regular Republican voters are considering him now, but would probably vote for Romney in a 3-way race, after all the talk radio hosts scared them into doing it.

[Mensan]

Speaking of which, I caught part of Limbaugh today and he was claiming that the media is advocating for Ron Paul, and he was telling all the Rush-worshippers that they had to stop him from getting the nomination.

[chris]

A Paul presidency would accomplish exactly one thing and that is to reveal for all to see that there isn't really ta lot of power invested in the actual office. Power has shifted to the bureaucracies. The illusion has been maintained because it is rare for a president not to be copacetic with the goals of the bureaucracies.

Reagan had one significant victory when he fired the air traffic controllers, but they had several more victories over him. The EPA was on the target list, but it wasn't even midterm before James Watt was made to clear his desk, along with the agenda to put a leash on that beast. Nixon clashed with them, and they totally ass raped that bitch. They got the numbers, and operate in the shadows. Presidents are out in front of the cameras, and are easy to trip up.

[Devil Inchoate]

What are you going on about? Nixon clashed with the EPA? Was that after he created it in 1970? And what did Watt have to do with the EPA?

[chris]

I didn't say Nixon clashed with the EPA.

[cynical]

You made a statement that could certainly be interpreted that way. It was poorly written. The last mention of "the bureaucracies" was in the previous paragraph, so it's reason to assume that "them" was the last group mentioned, the EPA.

[chis]

Not really. I set up examples of president's clashing with the bureaucracies. From that set up, it should be assumed I'm using different examples in the context of those presidents. Every educated person is aware of where Nixon clashed with the bureaucracy, and so would make an educated assumption of what I was referring too. I'm just not going to bring in unnecessary details to baby talk down to people. It is why I'm here and not on YouTube that I can make assumptions about the general level of knowledge being pretty high, and not get bogged down in piddly shit like this.

[chis]

If I was to do it all over again, I would have added that the EPA honchos viewed the mine leases as a means to get around them, and thus marked him.

There should have been no confusion on anyone's part on the Nixon part, you get an big fat F there, but not everyone recalls the internal squabbles of the early Reagan administration. Though libertarians should because that is where government reform was thwarted by the bureaucracy.

[chris]

Learn to read.

[Devil Inchoate]

Learn to write.

[chris]

Watts' increase of mining leases clashed with the EPA's brass. Note, Anne Gorsuch didn't last either.

[independent worm]

Is that actually him in the photo? If so, what's he doing in the old Memorial Stadium in Baltimore in a 70s/80s Astros jersey?

[CE]

It's really him -- there for the annual Congressional baseball game. Ron Paul hit a home run out of the park, the only Congressman ever to do so -- look it up in Ripley's believe it or not.

[NAL]

I'm very disappointed in George Will. I have a lot of respect for him and based on his columns, he's closer in ideology to Ron Paul than any other GOP candidate, but instead of supporting him (or at least ignoring him), he's stabbing him in the back. You think you know someone...

[NAL]

BTW, Rush Limbaugh went off on Ron Paul today too. I think it's starting to sink in to the conservative establishment that he's becoming a real threat.

[Proprietist]

Rush Limbaugh scoffs at your notion that he is the Republican establishment, even though he is.

[NAL]

I think there are "layers" of Republican establishment. The top-most layer is the big-government DC/east-coast Republicans. There is virtually no philosophical difference between these guys and liberals. They're corporatists, they just favor different corporations.

Rush is in the second layer which is the small-government-in-everything-but-military Republican. They're stuck in this notion that the U.S. must always and forever be the overwhelming (mostly peaceful) military presence everywhere in the world.

[PaulR]

Given that conservatives rely on radio personalities to inform their political opinions (Ideology. Who to vote for. Etc.), this is one of the main examples as to why Paul will not win the primary. It won't happen.

[Hacha Cha]

If he does bad in Iowa and New Hampshire, he could stay on the ballot as GOP candidate in the other states that don't have sore loser laws and then run as 3rd party. I don't know if he should try it or not, I would support him either way. But if he is going to he better decide soon after Iowa, because New Hampshire does have a sore loser law.

[juris imprudent]

So let's go to the bodycount. Will is down on Mittens and Newclear Titties, and of course the good Doctor. Will isn't pimping for Perry is he? Or, is George just reflecting the Republican disillusion that Reagan hasn't been disinterred and run as a zombie. Living people are the only ones prohibited from serving more than two terms, right?

[NAL]

Will has disclosed in other columns (and on ABC This Week) that his wife is an "advisor" to the Perry campaign. Still, I would have thought he could be more impartial than that. Seriously, I feel like a kid who just got told to "Fuck off" by his favorite sports star.

[PP-l]

I vaguely recall seeing the origin of the "Newclear Titties" gag, but the details have slipped my mind, undoubtedly because I had thought (hoped) that the Tits had gone Up, so to speak. Could someone refresh my memory? Thanks.

[Ob]

Mr. Will does have a good point about Obama beating Paul in the national election. I mean can you just see the voters faces when Paul outright rejects one of Obama's latest giveaways like free petcare or free tires or some shit? Virtually all Dems and most Repubs are going to look at Paul like he has a dick growing out of his forehead when he says we can't afford it.

[terrymac]

Refusing to beat up on one's neighbors does not make one an "isolationist", but a non-interventionist. It's just the sort of policy which leads to peaceful relations with one's neighbors. What's wrong with that?

[liberty4ev]

When one is inside one's own echo chamber, it's a little difficult to see what's going on at the grassroots level.

Will, et. al. misunderestimates the number of new supporters RP has; that many of them are former Obama supporters; that RP supporters got lessons in how the party structure works last go round; and that from what I'm hearing locally, unlike last time, RP supporters are NOT going to vote for Big Government Red Team or Blue Team in the general no matter what. Fool me once, and all that.

They also don't take into account that the economic woes so many are experiencing are making a lot of people more receptive to RPs ideas. I personally know a number of people who DESPISED him in the 2008 cycle but are now big supporters.

And don't forget the just-coming-of-voting-age, social media obsessed youngsters who like what they hear from RP. RP nets two new voters in my household.

I predict a RP win in Iowa; no worse than 2nd in New Hampshire (which he'd win handily if the non-voting anarchists would vote this one time) and the snowball effect from there on.