Friday, May 4, 2012

Paul's campaign represents a message that is bigger and perhaps more popular than the candidate himself. "

I never expected something like this to be published by CNN, even if it is a Timothy Stanley op-ed piece:

 Newt Gingrich quit the presidential race on Wednesday. Long after he exhausted the patience of the voters, he finally concluded that the mathematical probability of winning the Republican nomination was next to nil. Why spend money and raise false hopes if you can't win? Best to get out now and join the veepstakes. 
That's the kind of logic that an ordinary, candidate-focused campaign employs. Ron Paul, on the other hand, refuses to drop out. Having carried only one state and barely scraped 20% of the vote elsewhere, it could be argued that the 76-year-old libertarian has even less reason to carry on than Gingrich -- except perhaps to collect the air miles.
However, unlike Gingrich, Paul's campaign represents a message that is bigger and perhaps more popular than the candidate himself. As it continues to collect small numbers of delegates and capture control of local GOPs, Paulism is proving itself to be in rude health. Long after Mitt Romney is nominated, feted at the convention, beaten by Obama and recycled as a question on Jeopardy ("In 2012, he lost every state but Utah." "Who is ... Britt Gormley?"), Paul's philosophy will still be a factor in national politics -- something to be feared and courted in equal measure.
 Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's Daily Telegraph.


  1. yeah, "courted." f- you buddy. try it.

  2. "As it continues to collect small numbers of delegates..."

    This guy hasn't gotten the memo either.

  3. I've seen it in my own local Republican convention. The libertarians are participating, going against the rubber stamp of the existing party establishment. The establishment can play games with caucuses and rules and credentials, but from what I saw, the establishment people are all geriatric, and will either be replaced by libertarians, or the party will die.

  4. Sean O'Donnell -

    He hasn't got the memo. Tim Stanley has blogged the GOP race from the start for the Telegraph and has barely mentioned Ron Paul.

    As with most of these experts, Bachmann is the front runner, then Cain, then Huntsman's coming through, now Gingrich will win, then Santorum will get the nod, and under every post he puts up is a string of comments asking why he never mentions Ron Paul.

  5. It's a decent piece, but like the above commenters say, he's missed some of the biggest points. In particular when he says:

    "Given that Paul is pro-life, religious, and wildly supportive of the tea party, this confirms the growing tension between the man and his movement."

    Ron Paul is not quite "pro-life" the way most Republicans are--his view on this issue is a little more nuanced, and in line with the philosophy of personal liberty; he does NOT wear his religion on his sleeve; and is NOT wildly supportive of the Tea Party that has come to be. I don't know if this confusion between the Liberty movement around Ron Paul and Glen Beck's Tea Party is out of sheer ignorance or if it is done deliberately with the intention to turn people off.

  6. By providing two totally unacceptable candidates, the game plan is to get you to vote for the lesser of two evils. In this way they hope to get one of their show ponies elected. They care not which party wins, they own them both. How does one answer? You vote for the greatest evil (in their world) - Dr. Paul.

    "Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I am the evilest son-of-a-bitch in the valley..."