"I've said it before: Ron Paul sounds like the guy pacing and ranting outside the hippie coffee shop with the white beard and the big wooden staff...but he's interesting; you pay attention to him when he talks."

I find many of Paul's views troubling, but my take on him is different from yours.

1) He seems competent and rational, unlike your ranting guy

2) He seems honest and with a backbone of integrity

Now, 1) & 2) is caveated by what seems to be an incredible story of how he never read those newsletters, nor did any of his friends or family read them or warn him about them.

Perhaps more troubling, I am not convinced that he would ever listen to anyone. I like his soft-spoken manner, and I like that it is easy to trace many of his decisions to a consistent application of the principles he believes in. But can he negotiate? Change his mind? Persuade others?

But it will be interesting to see how Gary Johnson comes along.

If he is Ron Paul for Grownups, he might appreciate Ron Paul beating the path before him.

Ron Paul is mostly consistent in his views. But those views are homophobic and racist. Also, he doesn't believe in evolution or a woman's capability to make the most important moral choice one can make. He is not fit to be President.

Could you elaborate franko, on what leads you to this point of view about Paul?

Hey franko, you left out the anti-semitism. Paul doesn't just support a Palestinian state alongside Israel, he supports a Palestinian state in place of Israel.

He's not that consistent in his views.

When it came time to vote for the first Authorization for the Use of Force against al Qaeda/Taliban in Afghanistan, he voted for it. To be consistent, he should have voted against it.

But he realized that would lead to him being voted out in the next election...

Apparently Paul intended to vote against the Use of Force resolution but his staff threatened to resign en masse if he did. That coupled with the certainty of not being re-elected caused this "principled, consistent" man to change his mind and vote yes.

If we are about to implode into a third-world horror show of anarchy and pain, we might as well look funny doing it. Ron Paul is the clown we need to make the end of civilization HILARIOUS.

I like Gary Johnson a lot. He had a shot at being where Paul is now in the Republican primaries, until Paul got in the race. Johnson is the best candidate the Libertarians have ever run - he has the credentials of a major-party candidate (successful, popular two-term governor), government-cutting credibility, and none of the baggage of someone like Paul. I'm hoping that once Paul is eliminated in the race for the Republican nomination (which will happen, Mitt has that sewn up, absent a horrible gaffe or a Perry miracle), Paul's supporters give Johnson enough support to get him into debates with Obama and Romney. I think people will like what they see.

Gary Johnson is my dream candidate, but when I see him on TV, I have the same reaction as Amy. He's got the charisma of a wet dishrag (despite being very handsome, in my opinion).

He was permitted to participate in one of the early GOP debates, when audience members booed a gay soldier. Johnson later said he regretted not having the presence of mind to pound his fist and call them out:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gary-johnson-heard-the-booing-of-gay-soldier-that-rick-santorum-missed-at-gop-debate/

I regret it too. He would have won hearts and news coverage, and he might be a serious contender right now.

Compared to the haircuts, halfwits, hairballs and hacks the GOP wants us to consider as capable of beating Obama, Ron Paul comes across as interesting and intelligent.

Nobody kicks a dead dog. Paul is scaring the breakfast out of the established order. I like that.

Guys, it's not even CHRISTMAS... The election is ELEVEN months away

well, it's not even New YEars... the election REALLY IS 11 months away

That's really interesting Insufficient Poison -- he may be regretting that for a long time.

And I agree with you Gog, I find most of the media objections against Paul to mainly be summarized as "Paul is clearly a better person and candidate than the asshole we want, therefore..."

There is plenty to disagree with Paul about than to bandwagon and call him a racist for newsletters written 20 years ago that most people agree he did not write when his actual legislative record and his own behavior shows a) no signs of racism and b) there are far more recent and troubling issues -- view on evolution.

And so, I am pleased with how upset Paul is making the media and the pundits, and I hope he continues to do so, that is two groups of people that should jump off a cliff.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

That's a whole lot of crazy to be published under his name. If he was unaware of all of this, he is unfit for the public office. If he was aware of it, he should be shunned like the nutty old crank he appears to be.

Here's my pet conspiracy theory:

There was a concerted effort to make sure Gary Johnson's candidacy never saw the light of day (or the podium on the debate stage.)

Simply: he is too much of a threat to co-opt the twentysomething vote. (After all, this is the guy who competes in IronMan triathalons, climbed Mount Everest, supports medical marijuana and doesn't think the government should be your nanny.)

There are too many people with a vested interest in portraying the GOP as the party of Perry/Bachmann/Romney conservatism.

Full post: http://malloryfactor.com/2011/12/15/sorry-governor-johnson-but-according-to-the-media-republican-can-never-equal-cool/

well, it's not even New YEars... the election REALLY IS 11 months away

Primary season to political junkies is like spring training to baseball fans - except with Nate Silver instead of Bill James. Iowa! Caucuses! Ground game! Weather! Paul, Mitt, Santorum, Gingrich! Yeah, sports is a good lens.

> Primary season to political junkies is like
> spring training

No. This is insane... This is not merely the interest of sophisticates or responsible voters.

People have been watching Republican debates since fucking August of the year before the election. It's never been like that before. Most of these viewers couldn't share a fart's worth of political insight with a pistol a pistol at their temple. The broadcasts are making money for someone... Certainly the Stewart & Colbert shows do well. Their pretense of irony and sarcasm is paper thin, and they flatter power much more than they trouble it.

There are two explanations for interest in these candidates at this hour.

[1.] Government is the new religion.

[2.] Idiot voters don't have the courage to confess that they were wrong about Obama.

Fat chance. Government has given us one hundred trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities and a regulatory regime in which there's zero chance for that wealth to be created.

One hundred trillion dollars.

I am pleased with how upset Paul is making the media and the pundits, and I hope he continues to do so, that is two groups of people that should jump off a cliff.

It's fascinating that politics in America has devolved to the point where it doesn't matter any more what's good for the country and its people -- only that a candidate be perceived to drive his or her opponents, or the media, crazy.

Besides, it's 180 degrees from the truth; if anything was to drive the media crazy (and 'media' in this case would refer to those in the executive suites), it would be the lack of a horse race, the lack of any colorful candidates, the lack of any interesting positions or topics.

Herman Cain described himself as "black walnut" ice cream; Paul is tutti-frutti. The only flavor the media wouldn't like would be plain vanilla. Where's the zing in that?

... unless you think Ron Paul's ideas are some sort of threat to the established order, which they're clearly not; he's a small-government advocate who's sucked off the government teat in office for more than 30 years. He's about as toothy a threat to the existing order as Bernie Sanders, who hasn't exactly lit a fire under the cause of Socialism during his tenure.

One hundred trillion dollars.

@Crid

I think you are off base a bit.

I think there are two things going on. One is a very energized Republican party, with a large portion of its base thinking the president is someone who (to put it mildly) does not have the county's best interests at heart and a Presidential front runner that most Republcians loathe in a primary system designed to quickly award the nomination to the early front runner. As a result, essentially the entire conservative media establishment has been seeking an alternative to that front runner (Hi Mr. Kristol!). As a result, the horse race commentary started early, the debates were proposed, and everyone accepted, especially because that same media could make good money selling ads against programming containing those debates.

Related, Republicans both hate Obama and think him very vulnerable. Therefore, they perceive the stakes as quite high; whoever wins the nomination, they think, has a very good chance of beating a weak incumbent. Emboldened by the success of the tea party, candidates such as Cain and Bachmann entered the race. In an ordinary year, they would never have run or would have been ignored by the media; this year, they enjoyed their brief times in the sun, while the next not-Mitt waited in the wings (Hi Newt!.. Hi, uh... Rick?)

But still, I come back to sports and the preseason. Most of the people paying attention now are highly self-selected. They have a rooting interest in the success of their side, but they are not yet confident in their lineup. So they read a lot, talk smack to fans of other teams, and second guess their options (O Christie where art thou?), in the end, they'll support their team no matter who is run out there.

> One is a very energized Republican party

You're a drinker, right?

$100,000,000,000,000.00. That's one times ten to the fourteenth, in dollars.

I am not much of a drinker. I am an astute and wel-read observer of our world.

Your weird and deluded statements - government is the new religion - make me think you might be projecting about the booze thing though.

> I am an astute and wel-read observer

Yeah?

Government has given us one hundred trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities and a regulatory regime in which there's zero chance for that wealth to be created.

This!

Crid, I recommend "When Money Dies" by Adam Fergusson. I am especially drawn to the diary entries of Anna Eisenmenger from Vienna, late 18-teens. We're down to a couple of choices:

1) Admit to everyone that the money they've paid into the entitlement programs is gone, or

2) Hyperinflate the currency to nothing.

Bad times.

Andrew wrote:

Here's my pet conspiracy theory: There was a concerted effort to make sure Gary Johnson's candidacy never saw the light of day (or the podium on the debate stage.)... There are too many people with a vested interest in portraying the GOP as the party of Perry/Bachmann/Romney conservatism.

Andrew - I was at the last two Republican Leadership Conferences, and from what I saw, a Gary Johnson (or a Buddy Roemer, or a Jon Huntsman, or a Mitt Romney) was the last person that crowd wanted to hear from. It wasn't the Democrats or the media that set the agenda at the RLC, but the crowds there turned out in droves for Palin, Bachmann, and the other candidates favored by Tea Party-affiliated delegates.

I think there's a simpler solution than conspiracy: the GOP found the Tea Party was great at getting out the vote in the midterms, and now that wing of the party is driving the bus. I'd love to see a debate that included Johnson, Roemer and Huntsman, but I can tell you from experience that those men would have drawn dozens, not thousands, at the last two RLCs.

Yeah?

Verily.

Maybe it's time we stopped going for charisma and expensive haircuts, and started going for intelligence and integrity.

Johnson has my vote. I've also met him, and agree he doesn't sizzle with charisma. But I think he just might be the only candidate who isn't, at least in some measure, a sleazy, inconsistent blowhard.

> Maybe it's time we stopped going for charisma
> and expensive haircuts, and started going for
> intelligence and integrity.

Absolutely. But I'll settle for integrity: We've had a number of brilliant presidents who've done nothing worthwhile with the executive branch. Candlepower ain't the problem.

PS— Lincoln: Best president, shittiest haircut.

I read somewhere that Lincoln had a high-pitched, irritating speaking voice, too. He'd never get elected today.