Here‘s David Weigel, speculating about Ron Paul running as a third-party candidate:

“According to Paul, every time he’s been asked, the answer is no. But it’s the question among libertarians in DC right now. Some want him to fight on assuming he loses the GOP primary, letting his House seat go and becoming probably the most successful independent libertarian candidate in histroy. Some want him to stay in the House, imbued with new fame, fans and clout. Downsides to scenario one: If, as would seem likely, Republicans lose the White House and the Democratic candidate doesn’t break 50 percent, many will blame Paul for bringing back the Clinton dynasty (or creating an Obama one). You can look at Ralph Nader’s post-2000 career to see what would happen after that. Downsides to scenario two: Paul’s fame will fade after the election and most reporters will blow off his speeches about fiat money and ask him whether he’ll run in 2012. If that second scenario’s more likely it’s because Paul cares less about his own fame and personality cult than Nader ever did.”

Uh, first of all, listen closely to what Paul is saying about a third party run: he says “It isn’t my intent to run”—but, of course, it is his intent to win the GOP presidential nomination. However, if he doesn’t, and his supporters ask—nay, demand!—that he run on his own ticket. Well, then … As far as I’m concerned, Paul’s “denial” is a clear indication that he is, indeed, running. I see I’m not the only one who is getting this impression. As this Baltimore Sun piece concludes:

“He is realistic about his chances of winning the Republican nomination, and there is already talk about a third-party run in 2008. Paul says he has “no intention” of doing that, which is usually politician-speak for “wait and see.”

Seondly, thanks to Lyndon Baines Johnson, Rep. Paul doesn’t have to choose between running for President and running to retain his congressional seat.

Weigel says he’d “bet a lot of money against a Paul third party run,” but if I were him I’d keep my dineros—just like Ron Paul.

As for Weigel’s “downside” to this scenario: isn’t that just too g*damn bad about the GOP?! They threw out their principles of less government, less spending, constitutionalism, and a prudent foreign policy in favor of the neocon agenda—“Big Government conservatism,” “national greatness,” and perpetual war. Who’s to blame for that?

”A Nightmare With No End in Sight”—General Ricardo Sanchez, recently retired, speaks out on the “surge”:

“Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is to stave off defeat.

“€œThere is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.”€

In an interview with TV Guide, Chris Matthews talks about the War Party’s efforts to silence him:

“TVGuide.com: You caused a stir with some remarks you made at the 10th-anniversary party for Hardball, at which you said [referring to the perjury conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s aide Scooter Libby] that the Bush administration had “finally been caught in its criminality.”

“Matthews: I thought on the 10th anniversary it would be good to celebrate the First Amendment, which gives us all our living. We reviewed in brief the remarkable experience of covering the Clinton [scandal] and the defense of the war with Iraq. And the difference in these two cases was that although I was extremely tough on Clinton, there was never any attempt to silence me “€” whereas there was a concerted effort by [Vice President Cheney’s office] to silence me. It came in the form of three different people calling trying to quiet me.”

Over at “Realclearpolitics,” one Tom Bevan accuses Doctor Paul of “malpractice,” but Paul Mulshine—fast becoming one of my favorite columnists—has the antidote for Bevan’s brand of poison.

And over at Antiwar.com, I’m blogging up a storm: on the revival of the cold war, an absurd—and dangerous—lawsuit, and the vicissitudes of Nancy Pelosi.