Politics has always been a popularity contest…it’s just that for awhile now the pro-freedom candidates have been either non-existent, really unlikeable, or crazy…hence, unpopular. Reagan (a very likeable personality) won on a pro-freedom platform, however, and did some good things. Goldwater (who also had a lot of charisma) lost his election but ended up changing the direction of the GOP. There’s nothing wrong with a candidate who runs on radical ideas about individual freedom, it’s just a matter of finding the pro-freedom candidate who has enough charisma to both sell those ideas to the public and get the public to like him enough to vote for him. When you don’t have a candidate who possesses both those qualities, then of course nobody’s going to vote for him…they’re going to vote for the likeable guy promising to give them stuff. Like I said, Ron Paul’s not the perfect pro-freedom candidate and he’s got his weaknesses, but he’s also been the best that we’ve had for quite awhile, he’s been improving on the PR/communication side of things and there’s still a decent chance he could end up surprising everybody in this election.

Doug is not opposed to Ron Paul, he is trying to be objective about the reality of the campaign.

No, he’s not. He’s playing devil’s advocate. He’s trying to temper the exuberance of most supporters and by doing so, he ends up primarily trumpeting negative (non-)stories.

Paul knows about the “unsavory” supporters. We know about them. Doug knows about them. We know Doug knows about them. There is no productive value in an endless echo of such posts.

The campaign has flatly repudiated the ideas that those groups stand for, but they made it very clear that they’re not going to spend good money instituting a vetting process.

Maybe Doug has a compulsive need to write about this subject. I suggest, however, that if he truly supports Dr. Paul, he should write them in a private journal. Publishing such thoughts ad nauseum is absolutely self-defeating.

Over the top optimism that is disconnected from objective reality does no one any good, least of all Dr. Paul.

I challenge you to find any of my comments that are “over the top”. I am very optimistic, but my comments are also very measured. I realize there are a lot of potential pitfalls.

Politics today is a popularity contest, and there’s nothing more popular than promising people something for nothing.

Telling someone what they expect to hear is a close second. It’s an almost perfect form of flattery to state as fact something the listener already believes to be true. It lets the listener congratulate himself for being so smart.

That is Paul’s biggest obstacle. The popularity thing is already starting to swing toward his favor, but he can’t win unless he convinces a lot of stubborn people to set aside their preconceived notions for a few minutes.

I think if someone like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, Mill, etc. were running today, they’d be labeled a “right-wing extremist” and marginalized as if they were lepers.

After all, they’re idea men. Politics today is a popularity contest, and there’s nothing more popular than promising people something for nothing.

I agree…I think that if someone like those three were running Ron Paul would do what he could to support them. I’m generally loathe to trust politicians, but Paul seems like somebody dedicated more to the principles than the power of the office so I think that if there were a better candidate out there who intended to follow through on a pro-freedom agenda Ron Paul would do what he could to help them.

But he’s certainly no messiah…and I should know, I’ve followed a few :)

If someone at the level of Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater were alive today and running for office, I seriously doubt that libertarians would be giving Ron Paul even a cursory glance.

If said people were running for president, I doubt Paul would be.

Ron Paul is obviously the best candidate in this race, but he’s far from the best candidate in history. He hasn’t got the ability to work the press the way Goldwater did, he isn’t an accomplished public speaker like Reagan, and these ideas he espouses aren’t his. They belong to people like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, John Stuart Mill…

Frankly, the biggest reason that he’s so attractive in this race to supporters of individual freedom is because of the dearth of other pro-freedom candidates. If someone at the level of Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater were alive today and running for office, I seriously doubt that libertarians would be giving Ron Paul even a cursory glance. He’s a good man, and a decent politican but he’s not a great man, nor is he the greatest politician who ever lived. He’s just the best candidate to vote for in this particular race.

Also, this whole Cult of Ron Paul thing that all you Paulestinians have cooked up…the doctrine by which you worship the man and not the ideals that he’s espousing. It’s bullshit. It’s indicative of people who are too weak, cowardly and stupid to think for themselves and are looking for a dear leader to tell them how to live their lives. Ron Paul, if elected, will do a lot of things to help people who want the freedom to make their own choices. He will not, however, create a perfect world of unity and peace, he will not solve all of your problems for you, nor is he claiming that he will do so because his issues are not based on messianic fantasy. Get a clue about the reality of things before you go spouting crap like this…it makes you look ridiculous and by extension it makes Ron Paul’s campaign look ridiculous since you claim to be a supporter of his.

5) It is valid to say both that Guliani won and Paul won. But the better angle is how Paul loses the battle but wins the war, while Guliani wins the battle but loses the war.

Good point. It does reinforce the point we’ve made all along that if he somehow manages to win the Primary, he stands a very good chance in November.

1) Either the GOP base is all neocon (not likely) or Dr. Paul still has work to do on the base (true and ongoing). But strong showings in the early states will help.
2) Dr. Paul can win in the general election if he gets the nomination. The RNC needs to understand this and call off their dogs if they want to actually win something in 2008, since in Congress they’re heading for a good old-fashioned whupping again, 2006 part 2.
3) The blind bios were all loaded and it was relatively easy to decipher who was who in them. That may have been a factor in the results, hard to say.
4) Huckabee and McCain were probably not included because they are mainly broke media myths and Jones knows it. Notice that Tancredo and Hunter weren’t in there either. It was Paul, Romney, Thompson, and Guliani only.
5) It is valid to say both that Guliani won and Paul won. But the better angle is how Paul loses the battle but wins the war, while Guliani wins the battle but loses the war.

Oh thats right, they are truthers (prnounced idiots).

Moreover, the astounding performance of Ron Paul among general voters isn’t at all surprising to those who follow the prediction markets like intrade.com where people put their money where their mouths are.

Ron Paul has led the entire GOP pack in the likelihood of being elected president if nominated according to the professional gamblers:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/11/19/ron-paul-most-electable-republican-for-the-last-seven-weeks/

Now, the question is: Why can’t the RNC think straight about the proper strategy to take for victory in November 2008?