The Crossed Pond

I realize we haven’t put up a Ronslaught post in like 12 hours. Sorry Adam! Here’s one!

Brian Doherty, who has been following Ron Paul for almost as long as Rojas, has what I think is the most reasonable take on the CPAC thing, and the one with the most perspective. Bonus: he is saying everything we are saying, including linking the same things we’re linking. Anyway, I think it’s a take worth reading for opponents and supporters alike, though it doesn’t really come to any conclusions (something Reason has been doing a lot of lately, but I digress). Still, the sense of almost numb shock at seeing a guy who was at one time a totally obscure curiosity possibly ushering in a normalization of really hardcore libertarian ideals is worth reading, and is something I and I know Rojas can relate to.

I predicted last September that Ron Paul could well be playing a Goldwater in 1960 role—the first stirrings of a strongly anti-government coalition whose electoral effectiveness won’t become manifest for a while—and the CPAC victory is an encouraging sign in that direction. The usual caveats apply about the unknowability of the future, and the generally predictable pusillanimity when it comes to liberty of both the voters and politicians who have tended to decide the Republican Party’s direction.

Still, it does feel like something is happening, and we don’t know what it is, do we Dr. Paul? I’ve been following Ron Paul’s career since 1988, when my buddies in the University of Florida College Libertarians brought him—then the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate—to our campus to speak. He drew 100 or so people, copped a front page story in the college paper, and fed into my and my comrade’s youthful sense of a subterranean liveliness in ideas and politics that it was still possible to dredge, at least for a moment, to the surface. Swaying masses in that libertarian direction seemed…well, I suppose it was the goal, but in the same sense that interstellar travel might be seen as the “goal” of reading and thinking about science fiction. Libertarian Party politics seemed at best an entertaining vehicle toward the semi-actualization of some wild, hopeful imaginings.

Sorry for the Ronslaught of late, but this was good.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

One thing I didn’t realize: this year, 54% of CPAC attendees were between the ages of 18-25, which everyone keeps mentioning, mostly in the context of it proving the vote was worthless.

Last year, 57% of CPAC attendees were between 18-25, and Mitt Romney won, and I can’t recall anybody ever mentioning that.

When gay conservative groups established a bold presence at CPAC, and when they came under fire from the usual bigots, guess whose supporters rallied to their defense?

Like you didn’t already know.

The Paul-inspired groups were responsible for one of the pivotal moments of the three-day conference. On Friday, Students for Liberty president Alexander McCobin used his speech in the rapid-fire “Two-Minute Activist” line-up to “commend CPAC for inviting GOProud,” a gay Republican group. That got a rise out of Ryan Sobra, an anti-gay activist who followed McCobin and condemned the conference for inviting the group. When he was booed, Sobra confusingly attacked Jeff Frazee — the head of Young Americans for Liberty. But he was onto something — it was the presence of Paul fans, who had crowded into the room for his upcoming speech, that meant Sobra would get more boos than cheers.

“I was thanking my lucky stars that the Ron Paul fans were there,” said Jimmy LaSalva, the executive director of GOProud, in a Saturday interview with TWI. “The Campaign for Liberty deserves a lot of credit for setting that tone.”

The more I read about CPAC, the more I think that the straw poll was only the tip of the iceberg. The performance of the young Paulites was simply sensational at every level–and their insistance on full respect for gay attendees is particularly inspiring. This has been way too long in coming, and there is clearly still a lot of work to be done. But for the first time, there seems to be a meaningful insurgency within party ranks on the issue.

I have never been prouder to be part of this movement.

Glenn Greenwald–as authentic a civil libertarian as you’ll find–points out that the Republican record of governance is incompatible with the small-government preferences of the Tea Party movement, and wonders why on earth Paulites in particular would consider an alliance of convenience with the neoconservative Republican establishment.

Two responses.

1. Greenwald makes the same mistake as a large portion of the media in considering the Tea Party movement as an ideological monolith. Of course, he makes the mistake in a different way; while the mainstream media sees them all as Palinites (and I suppose that from the ideological starting point of the media, everyone on the right might seem to be), Greenwald sees the movement as overwhelmingly Paulite. I only wish that were true. Ironically, it’s been observers on the right who’ve painted the most accurate picture of the internal divergences in the movement. Perhaps this is a function of the right-wing media having actually attempted to understand the story they’re reporting on instead of using it as a target for mockery. Which leads us to:

2. Greenwald forgets that, from its inception, the Tea Party movement has been the target of widespread mockery and resentment on the left. Its members have been accused of fanatacism and racism at every turn. To the extent that any effort has been made to understand the concerns of the Tea Partiers, it has been made by Republicans.

The truth be told, I strongly sympathize with Greenwald’s criticism; I’ve been outspoken in these pages about the need for the Tea Party (particularly the Paulite segment) to remain independent in their outlook and avoid being coopted by one party or the other. In point of fact I think that’s a necessary strategy for libertarians generally at this stage. But there isn’t much point in wondering why the Tea Party movement leans the way it does. As badly as Ron Paul and his sympathizers have been treated by the Republican mainstream–and at times they have been treated very, very badly indeed–it doesn’t hold a candle to the way the entire Tea Party movement has been ridiculed by the Obama faction and their media enablers.

No, most Tea Partiers don’t have an awful lot in common with the Republican establishment. No, they shouldn’t be signing up as that party’s footsoldiers. But the movement’s partisan lean didn’t drop into existence out of a clear blue sky, and civil libertarians like Greenwald ought to reflect upon its causes rather that gaze bewildered at its effects.

First, The Corner, because I was most interested in seeing the partisan Republican take.

Aside from two VERY noticeable dissenters (John Derbyshire and David Freddoso), National Review has not, shall we say, been on board the Ronslaught. They invested themselves even more than most partisan organizations into the 2002-2006 neoconservative narrative, so Paul was seen as, at best, a lunatic, and at worst, a traitor not in the party sense, but in the American one.

So it’s nice to see the top post at The Corner about Ron’s victory in the CPAC straw poll giving the good doctor a tip of the hat and a healthy dose of respect (they’re also perhaps less inclined to dismiss CPAC straw polls, as they trumpeted Romney’s heavily).

I’ll quote it in full. From Robert Costa:

There may have been some boos, but Paul was by far one of the more popular speakers at CPAC this year. “End the Fed!” was one of most-heard chants and his “Campaign for Liberty” group was everywhere. Heck, a lot of the time, it seemed like they, not the American Conservative Union, was CPAC’s host. Even Ann Coulter, who drew a huge crowd herself, felt compelled to give a shout out to Paul-mania, saying she agreed with everything he stands for outside of foreign policy — a statement met with cheers.

Paul supporters were the most visible and vocal throughout CPAC — waving posters, signs, and passing out pamphlets. Unlike the 2012 wannabes, Paul doesn’t play coy: He has a manifesto and wants to broadcast it. Period. No worries about the media spin or whether the speech gets headlines (see Pawlenty, Tiger doctrine). And, instead of the usual anti-Obama talk, Paul framed a hefty chunk of his CPAC address upon a critique of Woodrow Wilson. And the crowd dug it.

Some older CPAC attendees don’t seem to care much for the Texas congressman, sure, but many young activists seem to regard him as a hero of sorts. When he talks about the debt, like he did on Friday, calling it a “monster” that will “eat up” our future, it was with a passion that you can’t fake in politics. He also didn’t mind challenging many of the room’s security hawks on foreign policy. “There is nothing wrong with being a conservative and having a conservative belief in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense and don’t go to war so carelessly,” Paul said. That line was met with a lot of silence, some nods, but, based on my conservations with activists afterward, strong respect from many for not simply pandering.

As Paul strolled through the lobby on Friday, slightly hunched and rail thin, cell phones galore lit up the Marriott Wardman Park. Students, a huge CPAC contingent, flocked. That should have been a sign to anyone looking to predict the straw poll. While Paul mingled with his acolytes, the big guns — Pawlenty, Romney — were often shrouded by aides or mingling backstage. Believe me: CPAC folks noticed. And now, thanks to the straw poll, for a moment, Paul’s opening line from his address is true: His “revolution is alive and well,” at least this weekend.

More below the jump.

(more…)

Steve Forbes reviews “End the Fed” for his editorial section in Forbes.

End the Fed–by Ron Paul (Grand Central Publishing, $21.99). When it comes to money, the mainstream media like to portray Congressman Ron Paul (R–Texas) as a gadfly. Let Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke enjoy his Time-ly accolades, because history will judge that Paul had it right when it came to the Fed and its often misbegotten monetary policies.

Paul has aroused the fear and ire of the Federal Reserve with his bill calling for the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed. This tenacious Congressman makes the point that independence should not be confused with a lack of accountability. One doesn’t have to agree with Paul’s ultimate conclusion that the Fed should be done away with to realize that this powerful institution is a kingdom unto itself. The Fed can bring about depressions (many historians agree with Milton Friedman’s belief that the Fed was the chief cause of the Great Depression), horrific periods of inflation, as it caused in the 1970s, as well as the current economic crisis, which the Fed fueled with its excessive easing of monetary policy several years ago. Without the excess liquidity, the housing bubble could never have happened. Yet Congress exercises no oversight of the Fed. In fact, no one outside the Fed has the right to examine to whom it lends money or the agreements it makes with other central banks around the world.

Paul makes the argument that we don’t need the Fed at all, that particularly in this high-tech era we can allow–and efficiently function with–competing currencies. Strange? The U.S. did exactly that for most of its existence, up until the Fed was created in 1913. Needless to say, that part of Paul’s thesis is highly controversial. But what shouldn’t be controversial is his belief that gold should be the ultimate anchor for money. Politicians always end up trashing paper money. Paul correctly hammers home the point that the Federal Reserve’s repeated attempts to smooth business cycles and create perpetual prosperity have backfired badly and destructively. As for the Fed’s ability to manage money, Paul simply notes that since the Fed’s inception the dollar has lost more than 95% of its value.

For those of us who got on the Paul bus early, when Paul was either flatly ignored or roundly derided as a dismissible lunatic, I find this little review rather remarkable.

So declares the LA Times.

I haven’t used the tag in awhile, but it’s starting to seem appropriate again, as The Independent does a feature on Dr. Paul for their UK audience. The lede is sort of priceless.

Pull US troops out of Afghanistan. Leave Iran alone. Legalise drugs. Get the government out of people’s private lives. Say no to the bailout of Wall Street fat cats. As a menu of policy prescriptions, you might think that this all puts Ron Paul on the Soviet wing of the Democratic party. But you’d be wrong.

Despite that cheekiness (and the headline “Every man for himself!”), the article is a pretty good/fair one.

Amidst all the babble about “tea parties” and “astroturfing,” it is easy to miss the central fact of the matter: we are currently witnessing the greatest surge of direct citizen activism in the recent history of American politics. Whoever may be winning the ground wars, it is clear that apathy is taking it on the chin.

And it’s worth remembering that it all started two years ago today, when a group of about 35,000 people, self-organized and willing to vote with their wallets, defied the media and the political establishment.

For one brief moment, we proved that a small group of determined people could, through concerted action, seize the reins of the national conversation.

Happy anniversary.

A quick search reveals that Senator Graham’s anti-Paul sentiments are not new:

The straw poll at the Value Voters conference should give some indication about the Nuge Factor that is rattling some traditional Republicans. Nugent was the star of the show in some of the Texas “tea party” rallies on April 15. Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, was sent almost to seizures when a purely conservative crowd started chanting “Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul … ” to the tune of “USA, USA, USA … ” during one of his speeches. Paul is not a Republican, Graham shouted back at the group.

There are a couple of things that we ought to note about this.

1. Sen. Graham is clearly picking a fight here. You will not find Ron Paul on record claiming that Lindsay Graham is not a Republican. Indeed, you will not find Ron Paul conducting purges of any kind. Paul was very consistent during the campaign advocating the inclusion of what he called “Robert Taft Republicans” in the party debate; at no point did he assert that other ideological factions be silenced or expelled. The advocacy of running RINOs out of the party is Graham’s, not Paul’s–which is what makes his comments yesterday so hypocritical and repugnant.

2. Graham is an experienced enough political operator that we can assume he is picking the fight for a reason. Indeed, it is not hard to see how a South Carolina politician would profit–at least in terms of his own constituents–by attempting to pivot off of another politician who opposes overseas military operations. As Graham is under fire for diverging from party orthodoxy on issues such as the Supreme Court and cap and trade, is it perfectly sensible of him to try to deflect anger towards another target. Hence, it is important that Paul’s supporters not rise to the bait. There’s no need to become the caricatures that Graham wants South Carolinians to see Paulites as.

So, Senator Lindsay Graham finds himself facing down a group of angry tea-party style Republican activists, who accuse him of being a “Republican In Name Only.” And he responds thus:

One attendee of the event asked the senator, “when are you going to announce that you are switching parties?” The question drew loud applause from the crowd. Graham defended himself, and denounced the influence of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on the Republican party:

GRAHAM: I’m going to grow this party, I’m not going to let it get [inaudible], I’m not going to let it be hijacked by Ron Paul. [...] I’m going to find people in Maine, Delaware, Illinois, other places–

AUDIENCE: Move there!

GRAHAM: That can win as Republicans, and I’m going to go up, and we’re going to move this party, and this country forward, and if you don’t like it, you can leave.

The brazenness of it is astounding, really.

Ron Paul stood up on stage after stage and took on his entire party’s establishment. He and his followers caught nothing but savage hell from the party regulars for eighteen solid campaign months. He garnered no meaningful endorsements and was shut out of the party convention after finishing third in the primaries. And then he faced a House primary challenge which was supported by many of the same Republicans he’d been fighting against.

And now that the same sort of Republican Purity Crusade is being launched against better-connected Republican figures, who is to blame? Who is the establishment figure whose ideological policing is stripping the party bare and crippling outreach to new constituencies? Why, it’s RON PAUL, of course. His followers are ruining the party by their hegemonic control of its ideology.

I do.

A beautiful post by Nate Silver on how the future of the Republican party is beginning to shape up. I can’t say I’m totally on-board with his definitions, the presumptions of which strike me as a little condescending. But still. He notes four big elements of Obama’s first 100 days.

1. Concerns over “Big Government” are now the #1 stated priority of Republican voters (versus, say, cultural issues, or national security). (actually, Nate’s is a bit of an ancillary point to that, but it’s true as well, and more direct).
2. The GOP budget alternatives have all been, if opaque, than severely limiting in terms of the scope of government.
3. Gay marriage is an issue Republican insiders are starting to cringe away from.
4. No other cultural issues appear ready to takes it place.

Anyway, his conclusion:

Maybe you see a pattern there and maybe you don’t. But of the roughly four different pathways the Republicans could take in the post-Obama universe — toward Ron Paulesque libertarianism, toward Sarah Palinesque cultural populism, toward Mike Huckabeesque big-government conservatism, or toward Olympia Snowesque moderation/ good-governmentism — the libertarian side would seem to have had the best go of things in the First 100 Days.

He has really nothing but his own impressions to back that up with, but those impressions match my own (and I’d even add a fifth different pathway—American Greatness conservatism / muscularity in foreign policy, running the gambit from John McCain (on the good end) to Dick Cheney (on the other one).)

Massively premature 2012 Presidential race prediction: Ron Paul gets a speaking slot at the Republican national convention.

When Ron Paul and Barney Frank get together to write a bill, you know it’s going to be good:

Sponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the bill would allow U.S. farmers to grow industrial, non-psychoactive hemp, which manufacturers use for everything from soap to shoes to car upholstery. Current law allows hemp to be imported, but not cultivated domestically.

Introducing the bill on the House floor yesterday, Paul said that prohibition is a mistake, particularly in a difficult economy.

“It is unfortunate that the Federal Government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that Federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained Federal Government.”

Aside from Paul and Frank, nine other House lawmakers have signed on their support, seven Democrats and two Republicans.

As fond as I am of Ron Paul, I often express skepticism about certain specific views he espouses. I am no fan of the gold standard, for instance. I have also been skeptical of Paul’s conspiracy-theorizing about the Federal Reserve. His expressions on the subject have always struck me as reminiscent of late-19th century populist blather about shadowy bankers’ cabals.

As it happens, though, the present financial crisis is drawing more attention to the specific actions of the Fed, and the lack of regulatory supervision thereof. It is, of course, all well and good for us to argue back and forth about Congressional spending of vast sums of bailout money. But what good does it do to reject the bailout at a legislative level if an unregulated government body is spending (or creating) even MORE money? Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone:

The reason the number has dropped to nothing is that the Fed had simply stopped using relatively transparent devices like repurchase agreements to pump its money into the hands of private companies. By early 2009, a whole series of new government operations had been invented to inject cash into the economy, most all of them completely secretive and with names you’ve never heard of. There is the Term Auction Facility, the Term Securities Lending Facility, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility and a monster called the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (boasting the chat-room horror-show acronym ABCPMMMFLF). For good measure, there’s also something called a Money Market Investor Funding Facility, plus three facilities called Maiden Lane I, II and III to aid bailout recipients like Bear Stearns and AIG.

While the rest of America, and most of Congress, have been bugging out about the $700 billion bailout program called TARP, all of these newly created organisms in the Federal Reserve zoo have quietly been pumping not billions but trillions of dollars into the hands of private companies (at least $3 trillion so far in loans, with as much as $5.7 trillion more in guarantees of private investments). Although this technically isn’t taxpayer money, it still affects taxpayers directly, because the activities of the Fed impact the economy as a whole. And this new, secretive activity by the Fed completely eclipses the TARP program in terms of its influence on the economy.

No one knows who’s getting that money or exactly how much of it is disappearing through these new holes in the hull of America’s credit rating. Moreover, no one can really be sure if these new institutions are even temporary at all — or whether they are being set up as permanent, state-aided crutches to Wall Street, designed to systematically suck bad investments off the ledgers of irresponsible lenders.

“They’re supposed to be temporary,” says Paul-Martin Foss, an aide to Rep. Ron Paul. “But we keep getting notices every six months or so that they’re being renewed. They just sort of quietly announce it.”

None other than disgraced senator Ted Stevens was the poor sap who made the unpleasant discovery that if Congress didn’t like the Fed handing trillions of dollars to banks without any oversight, Congress could apparently go fuck itself — or so said the law. When Stevens asked the GAO about what authority Congress has to monitor the Fed, he got back a letter citing an obscure statute that nobody had ever heard of before: the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950. The relevant section, 31 USC 714(b), dictated that congressional audits of the Federal Reserve may not include “deliberations, decisions and actions on monetary policy matters.” The exemption, as Foss notes, “basically includes everything.” According to the law, in other words, the Fed simply cannot be audited by Congress. Or by anyone else, for that matter.

Maybe the looting of the treasury is necessary for the economic salvation of the republic. The point is at least arguable. But even if so, isn’t it best that it be done by accountable elected officials?

Ron’s got a scene in Sacha Baron Cohen’s next movie, sounds like.

Some of the left-libertarian crowd might take Paul’s conduct as evidence of homophobia. Maybe. But I think people ought to be given a pass on saying “he’s a queer!” and running from the room when a guy drops his pants and tries to mount you.

A February report for Missouri Law Enforcement titled “The Modern Militia Movement” was released, and includes this gem:

The Feb. 20 report called “The Modern Militia Movement” mentions such red flags as political bumper stickers for third-party candidates, such as U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, who ran for president last year; talk of conspiracy theories, such as the plan for a superhighway linking Canada to Mexico; and possession of subversive literature.

Well crap.

You ever meet anybody with a Rudy Giuliani bumper sticker on their car? Now those motherfuckers are crazy…

I am putting this post up as a placeholder until the YouTube comes online. Just caught the tail end. All I can tell you was that the final discussion was on Stephen Baldwin (aka The Dumb and a Little Wetbrained Right-Winger Baldwin) and Ron Paul’s respective experiences with marijuana.

Ha. Ron Paul = awesome.

Paraphrase: “I voted against every appropriation bill ever put in front of me, so you can’t say I’ve ever voted for an earmark. But the point is, I’d rather we had more earmarks rather than things like TARP, where you have no idea where it’s going. And besides, if I can give my district any of its money back, I will; that’s the same reason I vote for every tax cut put in front of me, no matter how ridiculous.”

Sort of convoluted, and clearly he’s trying to have it both ways, but pretty funny anyway.

Last week, Michael Steele was on D.L. Hughley’s show and ended up creating for himself a crisis of leadership in the Republican party.

This week, Ron Paul goes on the show and gets his ass kissed.

+1 Ron Paul

Adding: the most prominent black talk show host in America just told Ron Paul that he convinced him on the Civil war.

+2.

Wait for it…

WASHINGTON (Feb. 28) — Conservative activists on Saturday named former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney the winner of a poll for best 2012 GOP presidential candidate.

The poll marked the third consecutive year Romney came out on top.

No suprise there. The Republicans are royalists, and tend to nominate whosever turn it is. Still…waaaaait for it…

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal placed second in the annual poll, conducted at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Romney received 20 percent of the vote and Jindal got 14 percent.

Reasonable, given the de facto Limbaugh endorsement. And waaaaaaaaaaait for it…

Close behind were Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who each received 13 percent of the vote.

OK. Yes, I understand, the Paulites had a chance to rally at CPAC. But…thirteen percent??? And a tie with Palin in a poll of her core constituency? I damn well GUARANTEE you that the CfL rally did not involve thirteen percent of the attendees.

And all of this, mind you, after Dr. Paul has formally ruled out a run.

I did not expect this. Not at all. Strange things are afoot in the GOP.

Apparently there’s a site that lets users submit their own Obama-esque posters. One of the entries is a retouch of a photograph our friend Clay took in a dispatch I posted here (no idea what happened to the code in that post).

Paul was on Morning Joe today, and they threw apparantly everyone they had in the studio at him in the course of 10 minutes. Clearly, the answer that we can’t necessarily solve the current financial crisis isn’t one anybody wants to hear.

As nominated to the Dallas Morning News by, of all people, Rob Dreher.

The same GOP establishment that mocked and reviled Dr. Paul now lies shattered. Who believes in this Republican Party anymore? The party destroyed itself with its own unprincipled recklessness, both in foreign and fiscal policy. And it has ruined its reputation among the young – the most ardent of Dr. Paul’s supporters, incidentally – who are far more likely to identify with the Democrats.

Out of this destruction, some creative young conservatives may rise up and decide to take back the Republican Party. Perhaps they’ll run against the overweening power of the federal government and in favor of decentralizing power (but unlike today’s Republicans, they’ll actually mean it). Maybe they’ll fight for an America that lives responsibly, within its natural limits both overseas and at home. And maybe, just maybe, they might make the Republican Party worth following again.

If that day comes, it will be thanks to the lifelong labors of Ron Paul and his 2008 campaign based on ideas. If those ideas germinate into genuine reform and restoration of sanity in our government, America will look back on Dr. Paul as a gift from Texas and a worthy nominee as Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year.

Read the whole thing. Dreher is by no means a natural ally, but as a guy who has put himself out front and center for the rebuilding of the party, the essay sure is a high compliment.

Still proud to call myself a Ron Paul Republican.

Ron Paul, speaking the self-evident truth.

Once the Republicans were in power, though, the promises faded, and all policies were directed at maintaining or increasing power by trying to whittle away at Democratic strength by acting like big-spending Democrats.

The Republican Congress never once stood up against the Bush/Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil liberties here at home, and an economic policy based on more spending, more debt, and more inflation — while constantly preaching the flawed doctrine that deficits don’t matter as long as taxes aren’t raised.

But what the Republican leadership didn’t realize was that ALL spending is a tax on middle-class Americans through price inflation and that eventually the inevitable consequence is paying for the extravagance with a financial crisis.

Party leaders concentrated only on political tricks in order to maintain power and neglected the limited-government principles on which they were elected. The only solution for this is for Republicans to once again reassess their core beliefs and show how the country (not the party) can be put back on the right track. The problem, though, is regaining credibility.

After eight years of perpetual (and unnecessary and unconstitutional) war, persistent and expanded attacks on our privacy, runaway deficits, and now nationalization of the financial system, Republicans are going to have a tough time regaining the confidence of the American people. But that’s what must be done.

Otherwise, Republicans can only mimic Democrats and hope for an isolated victory here and there. And that’s just more of the same that brought on the disintegration of the party.

Bonus:

During the debates in the Republican Presidential primary, even though I am a 10-term sitting Representative Member of Congress, I was challenged more than once on my Republican credentials. The fact that I was repeatedly asked how I could be a Republican when I was talking a different language than the other candidates answers the question of how the Republican Party can slip so far so fast.

Freakonomics, a favorite blog of mine, is going to hosting a question and answer session with Ron Paul. They will be passing along some of the questions asked in the comments of this post to be answered by Ron Paul in a separate and forthcoming post. It’s a kind of unique opportunity and something to consider taking advantage of.

The wreckage is still smouldering, and the Republican party awaits a new vision. There is a massive power vacuum that will be filled in fairly short order.

If we’ve learned anything at all about how to sell our message, now is the time to do it.

One interesting thing to watch tonight, if you can find results this specific, is how well Ron Paul, of all people, does.

In the two towns that began voting at Midnight in New Hampshire, Lew Rockwell notes the full results:

Two tiny towns in New Hampshire voted after midnight: Obama 32, McCain 16, Ron Paul 2. Not good news for my hunch (though, note, I also thought that Barry [The Other One] had a chance against LBJ), but good for the libertarian 4%. Funny to think that Ron as a write-in non-candidate might get more votes than Barr. (Thanks to Andrew Murphy.)

Aside from the general amusingness of it, the Ron Paul effect could have real implications for Nevada and Montana.

And the counter-factual sure is interesting; in retrospect, I think Ron should have run independent or third party. Had he done so, he would have probably done 3% or better, and would have been a real, real interesting injection of conservatism into the race with which to begin the process of a small-government pushback against a President Obama, and with which to expediate Republican navel-gazing.

Ah, what might have been.

WASHINGTON—After piling the last of his Campaign for Liberty signs in the back of a beat-up Ford truck Thursday, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) once again abandoned his candidacy for president and rode on out toward the low western sun, but not before vowing to come back to Washington “when [the country] is ready.” “When the river swirls and the wind blows, and when uncontrollable inflation forces us to revert to the gold standard, and the Federal Reserve bank is exposed as the unconstitutional, neofascist cabal it really is, you’ll see me coming over that hill,” said Paul, leaving a dusty cowboy hat and a stack of “no” votes on his seat in the House of Representatives. “But don’t you fret, America. If you ever feel like your government is getting too big or too intrusive, just give a little whistle, and there I’ll be. I’ll be there quicker’n you can spit.” Although no one has seen or heard from the Texas congressman since Thursday, sources report the Ron Paul for President campaign has gained an additional $2.3 million in contributions since his disappearance.

Guess who Ashley Todd, the woman who perpetrated the “B” carving beat-down hoax, was a supporter of during the Republican primaries?

Just guess.

In March, Ms. Todd was asked to leave a grass-roots group of Ron Paul supporters in Brazos County, Texas, group leader Dustan Costine said. He said Ms. Todd posed as a supporter of former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and called the local Republican committee seeking information about its campaign strategies.

“She would call the opposing campaign and pretend she was on their campaign to get information,” Mr. Costine said last night. “We had to remove her because of the tactics she displayed. After that we had nothing to do with her.”

About a month earlier, he said, Ms. Todd sent an e-mail to the Ron Paul group saying her tires were slashed and that campaign paraphernalia had been stolen from her car because she supported Mr. Paul.

“She’s the type of person who wants to be recognized,” Mr. Costine said.

The bright spot: you heard that right. She was asked to leave a Ron Paul Meetup group for being too crazy. Good job Brazos County.

In related news, that same Post-Gazette article has the best news article conclusion I’ve seen all year.

On her MySpace profile, where her screen name is “Italian Pajamas,” Ms. Todd gives her occupation as “Being a badass.” Next to her picture, she references the title of a song by the group Panic at the Disco: “Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her cloths (sic) off,” but adds to it “but its (sic) better if you do.”

Among the books she lists as favorites: “The Scarlet Letter.”

Give a golf clap to Post-Gazette staff writers Michael A. Fuoco, Jerome L. Sherman and Sadie Gurman for that one.