Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Revolution and the Right Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_revolution_and_the_right#17324 Post contents: The interpretation of Paul's performance during the debates can be debated. Generally he performed very well, with a lot of substance and detail, when he had the chance. His answer to the electability question was one of his best, and his CPAC speech one of his very best. Of course every good candidate should learn some skills through the whole process, and one could see progression with Dr. Paul. The limit in time makes it difficult to explain the subtle issues in short. Here and there he could have used a different wording, so as to avoid misunderstanding. His question about the financial markets (the "protection plunge team"), I thought was very good, and aware others were not so positive about it. It exposed McCain's inability to understand basic eonomics. The average voter/TV viewer did not need to understand Paul's question exactly, to understand that McCain had no idea and demonstrated his own ineptness. It was correct for Paul to point out the connection between war in Iraq and the current economic situation (to Tim Russert), he should have done it only in a different, more kind way IMHO. His question about the financial oversight was very well thought out, I thought. About the reference that there should be more sunlight, Paul gave the sublime message that the workings of the committee, on which McCain's own people would be sitting, are - just like the Federal Reserve - very secretive: Nobody know really what they do with taxpayers money to pump money into the system and to buy beaten down stocks in order to help stabilize the market, an inherently state/socialist enterprise. It implies it is not up to the free markets to go through the crisis, it is an artificial pumping of stocks and can be risky, as the stocks can fall further (cf. C for instance). The printing of USD by the Fed which also does not always help the market with the lowering of interest rates, is also a suspect market. The question also demonstrated - intended by Paul - his competence and intelligence to voters. Paul has a touch balancing act to do between criticizing the ideas and oppositions of his opponents in the party and appearing as a uniter. He could have shown himself as a uniter, not only in the party, but also of the country (between the parties) perhaps a bit stronger, but he did not really had the time for this. During the debates differences should be debated. He never had any negative campaign against his opponents. For those who come to know him, his kindness is an example and source of attraction, besides his honesty, intelligence, humbleness and sincerity. It is not easy to explain a laissez-fair economic, social (according to what the constitution allows) and foreign policy (non-interventionism), as the gOP has drifted so far from what it once was. Dissent among current GOP practices, is seen as not acceptable and unpatriotic by some, whereas Paul represent not only his own positions, but also those of the GOP establishment has been 8 years plus ago. With two-thirds of the GOP for the Iraq war, it is indeed a difficult case to defend yourself and it will take more than one year to really overcome the "neoconservatives". Paul could have stated the danger of extremist elements in religious groups, perhaps stronger, but he had to combat the reasons and misperceptions about how it came about, and one should indeed take a deep historical tour: which is difficult to explain in short. I think he done a good job of it. There are always things one could have added and said. Some oneliners wordings that could hit out his opponents, could have meant a lot, but none of the opponents had this also and it can be risky (could backfire). Dr. Paul has demonstrated he can think very fast. His kindness was/is mistaken as a weakness. If he complained too much about being left out, the media would (mis)use this again and portray him as a disgruntled politician that is so negative. If the Iraq invasion had occurred during a Democratic administration (it was planned under Clinton!), Paul would have been the frontrunner in the GOP from the start. With the fact that it happened under GOP administration, Paul is seen as a rebel in his party and as a liberal. Paul could have stressed, with his defense of civil liberties and criticism of the Patriot Act, that security is also of prime importance to him and pointed out that with the troops from overseas back in the US< it would make the US not only safer, but also provide with jobs. Lately, he has done this. With more than 2/3 of Americans against the war, Paul does have a lot of potential and related to his performance compared to the equally outspoken anti-war Kucinich and Gravel, he has been much more successful. IMHO there is still a possibility that he could be the GOP nominee, for various reasons: a lot can still happen during the next months till 1 September in St. Paul. Paul's campaign has made some mistakes, but the media blackout had a big effect in limiting exposure to his message thus far. One can understand Dr. Paul wanting to use only people he can trust, but one wonders what influence the use of a well oiled and experienced campaign would have been. If he has voiced his personal religious beliefs more strongly, it could have helped a lot in rallying the christian power base in the GOP behind him, but he is principled in not misusing religion in politics (unlike someone like Huckabee has done). More campaign by recognized politicians within the GOP like Barry Goldwater - who did campaign in H - and Gary Johnson (he coudl still campaign in the future with Paul), would help a lot in rallying especially middle and older aged people. Paul's support among young voters are high and a big encouragement, for the future. It would be a mistake for him to run as third party, in any case at this stage. He could get 10-15% at this stage (not 5%) IMHO, but that would not really help the cause in the middle to long term, as he would have to resign his seat and isolated from the GOP. In case he does not get the GOP nomination, it is best for his supporters to focus on electing Ron paul Republicans and then after the election, which the GOP is expected to lose substantially, the GOP will be in an identity crisis and the neoconservatives in disarray and this could be the ideal moment for Paul to step up and take control, giving the GOP new identity by returning to its roots after the soulsearching. Given a very specific certain set of circumstances, it could possibly be a possibility for Paul to go third party/Indy (Reform Party, not LP or CP) and then his aim should be to win, no protest vote. Otherwise he will be in the political wilderness, even if he get more than 20%. It would appear that there is a possibility that the combination of Huckabee and Paul could enforce a brokered convention after all, where Paul could be a kingmaker. In any case: he has been already successful in more than one way and want and should ensure that this is a lasting movement with concrete success to be achieved in later elections. BTW: Certain pro-war conservatives within the GOP like Ann COulter is on record of saying she vote rather note only vote, but also campaign for Clinton over an above McCain. The GOP can then take control in two years time in midterm elections, rather than having a RINO administration that erodes the conservative principles, and then getting a left wing Democrat elected at a later date. If a "left wing Democrat is elected now, they would be responsible after two years and be a rallying point to unite on a conservative base. Sent at: 2008 05 16