Final Iowa Ad War Begins

At Los Angeles Times, "Christmas cease-fire over."

And for your full Iowa coverage, check the Des Moines Register's "Iowa Caucuses" blog and, of course, The Other McCain, "Fear and Loathing at BWI."

VIDEO: Ron Paul's Keynote Address to the John Birch Society 50th Anniversary Gala

Well, there you go.

Is that strange, or what?

When I was a kid growing up in Orange County, folks attacked my home turf as the stronghold of the "racist" John Birch Society. When it was announced that the Society was a sponsor of the 2010 meeting of CPAC, progressives had a field day bashing conservatives as unreconstructed white supremacists. There's a bad reputation there that's not going away, despite the organization's best efforts to come out from the cold. See the New York Times, "Holding Firm Against Plots by Evildoers."

That's why it's revealing that Congressman Ron Paul decided it was perfectly fine to speak at the organization's 50th anniversary celebration in September. That's not the first time Paul has spoken at the Society's events, and his questionable ties to the group, obviously, haven't had a noticeably negative impact on his political fortunes. Perhaps that will change with Paul still leading in the Iowa polls. Jamie Kirchick focused explicitly on Paul's ties to the Birchers the other day: "Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters?" And just out is this devastating indictment of Ron Paul at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, "How Did We Get Here? Or, Why Do 20 Year Old Newsletters Matter So Damn Much?" (via Memeorandum and Reason). The author, Steve Horwitz, speaks of the "Rothbard-Rockwell strategy" of appealing to the "paleo-libertarian" base to build a movement fighting "the collapse of Western civilization at the hands of the blacks, gays, and multiculturalists." And to quote Horwitz at length:

The paleo strategy was a horrific mistake, both strategically and theoretically ... The explicit strategy was abandoned by around the turn of the century, but not after a lot of bad stuff had been written in all kinds of places. There was way more than the Ron Paul newsletters. There was the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, which was another major place publishing these sorts of views. They could also be found in a whole bunch of Mises Institute publications of that era. It was the latter that led me to ask to be taken off the Institute’s mailing list in the early 1990s, calling them “a fascist fist in a libertarian glove.” I have never regretted that decision or that language. What the media has in their hands is only the tip of the iceberg of the really unsavory garbage that the paleo turn produced back then.

Through it all though, Ron Paul was a constant. He kept plugging away, first at the center of the paleo strategy as evidenced by the newsletters. To be clear, I am quite certain he did not write them. There is little doubt that they were written by Rockwell and Rothbard. People I know who were on the inside at the time confirm it and the style matches pretty well to those two and does not match to Ron Paul. Paul knows who wrote them too, but he’s protecting his long-time friend and advisor, unfortunately. And even more sadly, Rockwell doesn’t have the guts to confess and end this whole megillah. So although I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist, like Archie Bunker, he was willing to, metaphorically, toast a marshmallow on the cross others were burning.

Even after the paleo strategy was abandoned, Ron was still there walking the line between “mainstream” libertarianism and the winking appeal to the hard right courted by the paleo strategy. Paul’s continued contact with the fringe groups of Truthers, racists, and the paranoid right are well documented. Even in 2008, he refused to return a campaign contribution of $500 from the white supremacist group Stormfront. You can still go to their site and see their love for Ron Paul in this campaign and you can find a picture of Ron with the owner of Stormfront’s website. Even if Ron had never intentionally courted them, isn’t it a huge problem that they think he is a good candidate? Doesn’t that say something really bad about the way Ron Paul is communicating his message? Doesn’t it suggest that years of the paleo strategy of courting folks like that actually resonated with the worst of the right? Paul also maintained his connection with the Mises Institute, which has itself had numerous connections with all kinds of unsavory folks: more racists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, the whole nine yards. Much of this stuff was ably documented in 2007 and 2008 by the Right Watch blog. Hit that link for more.

Those of us who watched all of this happen over two decades knew it would come back to haunt us and so it has, unfortunately just as Ron Paul and libertarianism are on the cusp of something really amazing. And that only goes to show what a mistake the paleo strategy was: imagine if the newsletters were not an issue and Paul were to win Iowa. Yeah, he might get ignored, but he would not be the easy media target he is now, nor would all of libertarianism pay a potential price. The legions of young people supporting Paul did not come in via the paleo strategy; they came because libertarianism in general is on the rise in all kinds of venues (and yes, the Mises Institute’s post-paleo influence is important here, but it’s hardly the only institution that matters). These young people, for the most part, are surprised by all of this dirty laundry. That, in my view, is the real tragedy: I think libertarianism could have got to this point just as fast, maybe faster, without the toxic baggage of the paleo strategy.

So why deal with this now, when libertarianism is so hot? Because those newsletters are not what libertarianism is and the sooner and louder we make that clear, the better. There are too many young people who don’t understand all of this and who we need to help see the alternative liberal vision of libertarianism – and to understand that “liberal libertarianism” is radical, principled, and humane and not “beltway selling out.” To do that, we need to confront the past and explicitly reject it. That doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting Ron Paul in electoral politics, but it does mean that we cannot pretend the past doesn’t exist and it means that Paul and the others involved need to do the right thing and take explicit responsibility for what they said two decades ago. That has not happened yet. Then we need a complete and utter rejection of the paleo world-view and we need to create a movement that will simply not be attractive to racists, homophobes, anti-Semites etc., by emphasizing, as we have done at this blog, libertarianism’s liberal roots.

Read the whole thing at the link.

That's an admirable essay, and as an ideological initiative it's something that principled libertarians should be proud to embrace. The opposite is something like this, a particularly vile piece of paleo-bullshit propaganda: "Who Leads the Attack On Ron Paul?"

Retailers Brace for Hordes of Post-Christmas Shoppers

I'm looking forward to the total retail sales numbers.

A big holiday season will give the 4th quarter GDP numbers a boost. That's going to be great for Americans, and could help Obama's reelection prospects --- to the great consternation of Republicans.

At Los Angeles Times, "Hordes of post-Christmas shoppers expected."

Mitt Romney Leads in New Survey From New Hampshire

At Los Angeles Times, "Poll: Mitt Romney in command in New Hampshire":

Christmas brought good news for GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, who is holding on to his double digit lead in the critical early primary state of New Hampshire.

This morning’s Boston Globe poll shows the former Massachusetts governor leading the Republican field with 39% among voters likely to cast ballots in the Jan. 10 Republican primary. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has led in some national polls, was tied with Texas Congressman Ron Paul in second place with 17%.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who has spent virtually all of his time campaigning in New Hampshire, won the support of 11% of likely GOP voters. All of the other candidates ranked in the low single digits. (The University of New Hampshire Survey Center conducted the poll of 543 likely 2012 Republican primary voters. The margin of error within that group was plus or minus 4.2%).

Romney’s potential path to the Republican nomination relies on a sizable win in New Hampshire, where he owns a summer home and has been laying the ground work for his run since he withdrew from the 2008 presidential race. Though Iowans will be the first to cast ballots on Jan. 3, Romney spent three days touring New Hampshire last week in his campaign bus – hitting as many as six stops in one day.

We'll see how it goes. Romney should be okay with a New Hampshire win, and if Ron Paul takes Iowa we all can prepare for an epic attack campaign launched by the GOP political establishment. After that we could see Newt Gingrich raise a challenge in some key states. But the former House Speaker failed to qualify for the Virginia ballot, where the election is scheduled for March 6, which could cause problems for Gingrich if the campaign drags out to the later months of the season.

More a the Boston Globe (via Memeorandum).

Merry Christmas From Newt and Callista Gingrich

Well, here's a little equal time:

And at Los Angeles Times, "Gingrich may be too arrogant for Iowa."

Wall Street Journal Weekend Interview: Mitt Romney On Taxes, 'Modeling,' and the Vision Thing

It's amazing that Newt Gingrich dropped back down in the polls so quickly. The negative attacks took their toll and the Newt-phoria on the Iowa campaign trailed cooled off rather decisively. Now it's Ron Paul's turn to start fading in the less-than-two weeks we have left until the caucuses. All the attention to the racist newsletters should take some of the luster off Paul's campaign, although he's got the ground game in place so who knows? If Romney can hold on for the win in New Hampshire he'll be able to match whatever momentum emerges for the Iowa winner, and with his fundraising edge he'll likely be able to compete more effectively in the number of upcoming contests through January.

In any case, an interesting interview at WSJ, at the link:

Does Mitt Romney have a governing vision, a dominating set of political principles? It's the big question many voters say they have about the GOP presidential candidate. So when the former Massachusetts governor visited the Journal editorial board this week, we put it to him squarely, if perhaps tendentiously.

Voters see in him a smart man, an experienced executive, plenty of managerial expertise, great family—but they also see someone with the soul of a consultant who has 59 economic proposals because he lacks a larger vision of where he'd take the country. What does he think of that critique?

Mr. Romney has been garrulously genial for an hour, but here he shows a hint of annoyance. "I'm not running for president for 59 ideas," he says. "I'm not running for president because the country needs a management consultant or a manager. I'm not even the world's greatest manager. There are a lot better managers out there.

"People who know me from my years at Bain Capital, Bain and Company, the Olympics and Massachusetts wouldn't say he was successful because he was a great manager. They'd say I was successful because I was a leader, that I had a vision of how to change the enterprise, any one of those three enterprises, to make it greater."And that vision is? Mr. Romney says he's running "to return America to the principles that we were founded upon." He goes on, expanding on his campaign theme, Believe in America: "We have a choice in America to be remaining a merit-based opportunity society that follows the Constitution, or to follow the path of Europe.

And I'm the guy who believes in the former. I believe America got it right. I believe Europe got it wrong. I believe America must remain the leader the world. . . . I am absolutely committed to an American century. I see this as an American century."

He concludes with even more force, "America doesn't need a manager. America needs a leader. The president is failing not just because he's a poor manager. It's because he doesn't know where to lead."

Continue reading.

Newt Gingrich Goes After Ron Paul on Newsletters

At New York Times, "With Paul on the Rise in Iowa, Gingrich Takes Aim":

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Newt Gingrich turned his fire on Representative Ron Paul of Texas on Friday, saying that his Republican opponent had to answer for political and investment newsletters that included racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel passages that Mr. Paul has disavowed.

Mr. Gingrich also sharply criticized Mr. Paul for what he said were his isolationist views on foreign policy. The pointed comments suggested a new dynamic in the presidential primary race, with Mr. Paul as a new and enticing target. His fortunes have risen in Iowa, scrambling the field as some polls suggest that Mr. Paul could pull off a victory in the caucuses on Jan. 3. But in recent days, he has come under increasing scrutiny for offensive passages in newsletters that bore his name, although he has denied writing or approving them. 

“These things are really nasty, and he didn’t know about it?” Mr. Gingrich said to reporters after a town-hall-style meeting here.

At the same time, Mr. Gingrich refrained from criticizing Mitt Romney, with whom he has frequently sparred, calling him, at worst, “a Massachusetts moderate.”

Speaking to a large and enthusiastic crowd outside the Blue Marlin restaurant here on a warm and sunny day, Mr. Gingrich mainly framed his candidacy in opposition to President Obama. But he strongly criticized Mr. Paul’s foreign policy positions. Mr. Paul’s criticism of American military involvement overseas is at odds with the views of many Republican voters who may otherwise be attracted to his strong antigovernment message.

“The only person I know who is for a weaker military than Barack Obama is Ron Paul,” Mr. Gingrich said.

“His positions are fundamentally wrong on national security,” he added. “I do not agree with him that America is at fault for 9/11, I do not agree with him that we can ignore an Iranian nuclear weapon, and I do not agree with him that it’s O.K. if Israel disappears.”

A top official with the Paul campaign, Jesse Benton, suggested that Mr. Gingrich’s comments were slanderous and an overreaction to the possibility that Mr. Gingrich might not have collected enough signatures to get on the nominating ballot in Virginia — a matter not yet resolved.

“Today was a bad day for Newt Gingrich,” Mr. Benton said in an e-mail, adding that the former House speaker had “jumped the shark trying to slander Dr. Paul.”

Continue reading.

And notice at the video how Rachel Maddow and Melissa Harris-Perry are using Paul's racist newsletters to smear not only the American right, but American society all together!

Ron Paul won't be the nominee --- indeed, he's probably in a situation akin to Herman Cain's: caught in the headlights upon emerging as the frontrunner, and even if he wins Iowa it's going to be a long primary process and Paul's scrutiny will only intensify. He'll have to answer and answer decisively at some point. But as noted, there's something of a nativist and isolationist trend that animating the primary process. That's something quite different from the small-government conservatism that drove the tea parties in 2009. All this together is extremely fascinating. And how some of these tensions are resolved over the next few months will go a long way towards determining the GOP's chances in defeating the Democrats next November.

Iowa and the Future of the GOP

This is a point I argued previously.

From David Yepsen, at Wall Street Journal, "No matter the outcome, Ron Paul's strength indicates a resurgence of the libertarian and isolationist wings of the Republican Party":

This race feels a bit like 1980. Democrats and some pundits tee-hee about the "dwarfs" in this race, but perhaps their snickers are premature. Can "has-been" politicians stage comebacks? Yes. Can new stars emerge? Yup. With the right candidate, can the party pick off a sitting Democratic president with weak poll ratings? You betcha.

Some insights to consider as the contest enters the final days:

• No matter the outcome, Ron Paul's strength indicates a resurgence of the libertarian and isolationist wings of the Republican Party. Hard times and unpopular wars will do that.

It's always wise to watch which candidate is attracting new people because they—or their message—are on to something. That was true with George McGovern in 1972 and Pat Robertson in 1988. In this race, the one candidate attracting hordes of new people is Mr. Paul. Many of them are young—and while Mr. Paul is unlikely to become the GOP nominee, those young adults will mature into a political force, just as Mr. McGovern's antiwar factions and Mr. Robertson's religious conservatives have done.

• The Iowa contest will also help the party chart its course on immigration—and it may not be a successful or wise one. Candidates are falling over themselves to bash illegal immigration.

While that plays well to GOP activists, it fuels the fire of nativism that burns so hot inside the GOP today. It also alienates people of Latino ancestry and is driving them and their children into the Democratic Party. That shift will have a huge impact in the fall campaign, since many toss-up states could be decided by the votes of Latinos.

You'd think the GOP would learn. Just as the Yankee Brahmins drove the Irish into the Democratic Party generations ago, many GOP leaders are pushing Latinos there today.

• Too much is made of the power of social conservatives, perhaps because both politicians and pundits tend to fight the last war. Polls show that only about 40% of likely caucusgoers describe themselves as evangelicals or born-again Christians. That would mean 60% aren't. (In 2008, some polls had it 60%-40% the other way.)

Continue reading.

Yepsen warns that the GOP could end up like McGovern in '72 --- getting clobbered in a landslide of epic proportions. But I'm not down with that suggestion. A conservative candidate --- I'd prefer Michele Bachmann --- can beat the president by hammering the administration on the economy. Progressives laugh when they hear such stuff, but hubris will do them in, and the president's the most hubristic of all.

New York Times Decries 'Right Wing Extremism' — Again

Well, since I've been reading the Times' editorials, here you go with the latest attack on the "extremist" right, "The Race to the Right":

The toxic effects of right-wing extremism in Washington were vividly on display during the payroll-tax fiasco — even to the right wing. On the campaign trail, though, those lessons are being ignored. The leading Republican presidential candidates are overtly competing for the title of Most Conservative, distorting their own records and advocating increasingly radical positions.

Candidates often move to the ideological edges to win a primary, because that’s where the primary voters are, but the frenzied efforts of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are particularly hard to watch. Neither has a record as a dogmatic conservative, and they are competing with candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann who have much longer and more consistent conservative records. That makes their rush to the right all the more desperate and convoluted.

Last week, Mr. Romney blasted Mr. Gingrich as “an extremely unreliable leader in the conservative world,” citing specifically Mr. Gingrich’s criticisms of Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan and his appearance with Nancy Pelosi in a commercial against global warming. Mr. Gingrich, in turn, claims he’s “a lot more conservative” than Mr. Romney.

Real conservatives, in their columns and magazines, say neither of them qualifies, noting that both have previously called themselves “progressives” when appealing to very different audiences than the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mr. Romney once supported abortion rights, though now he says he has changed his mind. Mr. Gingrich fiercely opposes the government’s role in the housing market, but worked for Freddie Mac. Both have supported an individual mandate for health insurance, as well as the TARP bailout of Wall Street.

To make up for their lapses in orthodoxy, each has now adopted positions at the far end of the ideological spectrum. Mr. Romney wants to send home all 11 million illegal immigrants and make them wait many years to return. He equates the president’s goal of raising taxes on the rich with redistributing wealth until the government achieves “equal outcomes” for everyone, all but calling President Obama a Marxist. Rather than demonstrate prudence after the death of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, he recklessly demanded that the United States now push for regime change there. (Without feeling any need to explain just how that might be done, just as he has failed to explain precisely how he will end Iran’s nuclear ambitions once and for all.)

Mr. Gingrich, meanwhile, is now dispensing with the Constitution in his call to drag federal judges before Congress to explain their decisions...

Continue reading.

Call me a right wing extremist, because I don't think any of that stuff from Romney is that exceptional. Sure, both Romney and Gingrich are pandering to the base, but frankly, the concerns of the tea party and others at the grassroots aren't going to be easy to ignore heading into the general election. Republicans have to stay on  message on the economy. They have to hammer this administration for painting extreme economic conditions  in order to seize more power for a massive bureaucratic response to the recession. It hasn't worked. Just keep plugging away on that and in no time the payroll tax debacle will be ancient history and Obama will have to run on his economic record fair and square. And screw the New York Times' editors. These people are pathetic losers cheerleading for more of the same old failed policies. Progressives suck like that.

Ron Paul Has a Lot of Disqualifiers That Make It Impossible for Him to Be the Next President of the United States

From John Hawkins, at Right Wing News, "Liberalism In 120 Seconds: Ron Paul’s Fans Can’t Have It Both Ways":

Also, from Jamie Kirchik, at The New Republic, "Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters?" (via Eric Dondero).

Ron Paul Talks About Newsletters in 1995 Video

Ron Paul can't keep walking out on interviewers when asked about racially inflammatory statements.

With videos like these, he's on record in the mid-1990s as being very knowledgeable about the content of things put out under his name. The New York Daily News has a report, "Video surfaces of Ron Paul talking about racist newsletters in 1995, far earlier than he said he knew about them."

And the New Republic has a roundup, "TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters."( Via Memeorandum.) And see also David Weigel, at Slate, "Ron Paul and the Coming Race War."

By this time it's pretty much all out there. The best thing for Ron Paul would be to come clean. His name is on some of these newsletters, so it sounds like a bald faced lie when he denies knowledge of them.

And see previously at Pamela's, "BOMBSHELL! RON PAUL'S RACIST NEWSLETTERS."

Mitt Romney Highlights His Marriage in New Hampshire

This is part of Romney's bid to batten down the hatches in the Granite State.

At Los Angeles Times, "Spotlight on Romney's marriage casts shadow on Gingrich's past":

Reporting from Lancaster, N.H.— It was a simple errand, a husband buying a Christmas gift for his wife. But in this case it was Mitt Romney buying for Ann Romney, the woman he introduces alternately as "my bride," "my sweetheart" and occasionally "the boss."

And with 13 days before the first votes are cast — with thousands of voters to win over — the former governor brought more than a dozen reporters, cameramen and photographers along for the holiday excursion.

Taking his wife of 42 years by the hand, the former Massachusetts governor led the way Thursday around the outdoor outfitter Simon the Tanner: "Ann, keep your eyes open here."

They reminisced about the best Christmas gifts he's given her — a horse, which he called "the gift that keeps on giving" — and the worst.

"For the first, I don't know, 10 years of our marriage, I would buy her clothing of various kinds," the candidate told reporters at the store, "and she would say, 'Ohhhhh, this is so nice,' and then it was gone a week later."

The candidate suggested presents along the shelves without much success. Finally, Ann Romney tried on a sleek white ski jacket and modeled it for her husband as he looked on approvingly.

"Christmas accomplished," he beamed. After picking up the $300 tab, which included socks for his eldest granddaughter, he joked to his wife that she was lucky he hadn't picked out her gift at the next stop, an Agway farm store.

Continue reading.

Romney denies that he's playing the marriage card to hammer Newt Gingrich, but with this latest video narrated by Ann Romney --- featuring nostalgic pictures of the early family --- it's undeniable that the value of family is central to Mitt's persona. And no doubt he has a nice family. He seems genuinely doting. But some have already indicated that Romney will get hammered for suggesting his family's better than Gingrich's. Divorce is a fact of life in this country. The issue is whether Newt cheated during his first and second marriages. Perhaps so, although there's considerable dispute on the details. Either way, it's a potential minefield. Gingrich has admitted his mistakes and signed a pledge to "uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others." Romney will look like he's browbeating if he keeps harping on the issue.

George H.W. Bush Endorses Mitt Romney

Unofficial, they say, but it still counts quite a bit from a former president.

At New York Times, "Elder Bush Tells Paper Romney Is 'Best Choice'."

And at the Houston Chronicle, "Bush 41 backs Romney for president, admits he’s not Gingrich’s ‘biggest advocate’."

Obama Claims Victory as Congress Reaches Payroll Tax Deal

It's a good thing Boehner took the deal. The GOP was getting hammered on this, letting the Obama-Democrat-Socialists seize the mantle of tax-cutters. What a joke that is.

At Los Angeles Times, "Lawmakers reach tentative deal on payroll tax cut; House action Friday":

The agreement amounts to a reversal of sorts for the House Republican majority, which had rejected a compromise plan that the Senate overwhelmingly passed last weekend to extend relief for wage-earners for 60 more days.

Boehner had said the House wanted a full-year extension, and called on President Obama to demand the Democratic-controlled Senate return to Washington to continue negotiations.

Earlier Thursday, the Ohio Republican showed little sign of reversing course, convening his top negotiators in an otherwise-empty Capitol to call on Democrats to join them for "serious negotiations."

Asked later about the perception that Republicans had caved, Boehner said, "I think our members waged a good fight." He admitted, though, that it may not have been a politically popular one.

The White House issued a statement from Obama congratulating members "for ending the partisan stalemate.""This is good news, just in time for the holidays," he said.

"This is the right thing to do to strengthen our families, grow our economy, and create new jobs."

I commented on this debacle previously at length. But check Howard Portnoy at Hot Air, "The GOP’s costly fumble over the payroll tax extension." And also, Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Capitol Hill Fiasco Again Shows Why Obama is No Pushover." More at Memeorandum.

Experts See a False Dawn in Economy's Recent Gains

Here's hoping the bad economic news weighs heavier on the voters than GOP incompetence.

At New York Times, "Signs Point to Economy's Rise, but Experts See a False Dawn":

WASHINGTON — As the fourth quarter draws to a close, a spate of unexpectedly good economic data suggests that it will have some of the fastest and strongest economic growth since the recovery started in 2009, causing a surge in the stock market and cheering economists, investors and policy makers.

In recent weeks, a broad range of data — like reports on new residential construction and small business confidence — have beaten analysts’ expectations. Initial claims for jobless benefits, often an early indicator of where the labor market is headed, have dropped to their lowest level since May 2008. And prominent economics groups say the economy is growing three to four times as quickly as it was early in the year, at an annual pace of about 3.7 percent.

But the good news also comes with a significant caveat. Many forecasters say the recent uptick probably does not represent the long-awaited start to a strong, sustainable recovery. Much of the current strength is caused by temporary factors. And economists expect growth to slow in the first half of 2012 to an annual pace of about 1.5 to 2 percent.

Even that estimate could be optimistic if Washington lawmakers fail to extend aid for the long-term unemployed and a payroll tax cut for the United States’ 160 million wage earners.

At stake is about $150 billion, the bulk of which would go to middle-class families and the unemployed. If Congress does not pass the measures, economists say, it would significantly weaken growth from already-damped levels anticipated early in the new year.

Well, come to think of it, Boehner and friends may still find a way to give the Dems all the political advantages of the lousy economy.

More on that coming up later...

Ron Paul's Positions Play Well in Iowa

Too well, unfortunately.

At Wall Street Journal:

FORT MADISON, Iowa — On the debate stage, Rep. Ron Paul often finds himself isolated from his rivals for the White House. All the major Republican candidates call for limited government, but Mr. Paul's platform is unique in saying that means scaling back drug laws and opposing aggressive action to rid Iran of its nuclear capabilities.

Here in Iowa, however, Mr. Paul's mix of positions has found an audience—and it's big enough to give him, at least for now, the unlikely title of front-runner in the state.

The Texas congressman holds a lead among younger voters, some of whom cite his skepticism of U.S. military action and opposition to federal marijuana laws. Mr. Paul is also drawing a share of fiscal conservatives due to his longstanding call for smaller government. And with his call to "end the Fed," he is attracting voters who are wary of the Federal Reserve and Wall Street.

"I will be a Ron Paul supporter first and then a Republican," said Frank Conrad, a 62-year-old corrections officer and cattle farmer, who has had a Ron Paul sign on his garage for four years. "He's saying the things I believe."

Few people think Mr. Paul's coalition can carry him all the way to the GOP nomination. His isolationist foreign-policy views have turned off many Republicans. Evangelical Christians, a prominent part of the party, tend to look to other candidates, partly because they believe Mr. Paul will be insufficiently protective of Israel.

But amid a highly fractured GOP field, Mr. Paul has held the lead in three of the last four publicly available polls of GOP voters in Iowa, with support ranging from 20% to 28%.

More at the link.

PREVIOUSLY: "What Ron Paul Thinks of America."

What Ron Paul Thinks of America

From Dorothy Rabinowitz, at Wall Street Journal:

Ron Paul's supporters are sure of one thing: Their candidate has always been consistent—a point Dr. Paul himself has been making with increasing frequency. It's a thought that comes up with a certain inevitability now in those roundtables on the Republican field. One cable commentator genially instructed us last Friday, "You have to give Paul credit for sticking to his beliefs."

He was speaking, it's hardly necessary to say, of a man who holds some noteworthy views in a candidate for the presidency of the United States. One who is the best-known of our homegrown propagandists for our chief enemies in the world. One who has made himself a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace. 

Hear Dr. Paul on the subject of the 9/11 terror attacks—an event, he assures his audiences, that took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions. True, we've heard the assertions before. But rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us—and so resounding a silence about the suffering of those thousands that the perpetrators of 9/11 set out so deliberately to kill.

There is among some supporters now drawn to Dr. Paul a tendency to look away from the candidate's reflexive way of assigning the blame for evil—the evil, in particular, of terrorism—to the United States.

Continue reading.

Paul can win Iowa. He can't win the GOP nomination. See, "Why Ron Paul Can't Win."

Folks suggested earlier that the Republican establishment would turn on Paul if he came close to securing the nomination. Again, he's sounds too crackpot to me for that thought to even register, but this is a crazy year in politics, so I don't dismiss an intra-party program of merciless destruction if push comes to shove.

The racist newsletter problem is bad enough, from a credibility standpoint, at least. But Paul's foreign policy is not something he can brush off: he's campaigning on it. To give that platform serious legitimacy by elevating its advocate as the GOP standard-bearer would be a horrible omen for the future of politics on the right. And it would also tell us something about the shape of the conservative political universe that this particular candidate could come so far into the mainstream. It would be a testament to the visceral dislike with the Obama-Democrat policy agenda, but it would also signify a mainstreaming of political isolationism in American foreign affairs. That alone would be one thing, but Paul's ideological program is closely intertwined with the bubbling up of anti-Semitism from the fringes, and would combined horrifically with the left's program for the extermination of the Jewish state.

That's what bugs me most about Ron Paul and his paleoconservative brew.

See AoSHQ for a refresher.

Ron Paul Walks Out of CNN Interview

You know, Gloria Borger's been in the business a long time, and she's not haranguing the candidate. And she's apologetic as he pulls the microphone off of his lapel. But Paul is very defensive and his answer is too pat considering his status as the Iowa frontrunner.

The CNN report is here, with video in case this one gets pulled: "Ron Paul defensive over past newsletters."

And today's Los Angeles Times made a serious effort to accept Paul's explanation, saying that:

Paul has disavowed the ranting of the newsletter published under his name (just as he did when the subject came up in 2008) and his spokesman says that Paul didn't write it and "disagrees with it totally." That's comforting. Sort of. It helps distance Paul from these lunatic scribblings, but it fails to answer the question of why he allowed them to be published in the first place. He and his admirers complain bitterly when he's ignored, then protest when he's scrutinized. Paul should answer for these writings.

That sounds reasonable.

See also, Saberpoint, "Solving the Problems of Race in America."

Republicans Losing the Tax Issue to Obama

As I was saying about those MFM headlines.

At New York Times, "Obama Gets a Lift From Tax Battle With Republicans":

WASHINGTON — After a long stretch of high unemployment, legislative turmoil and, in turn, slipping public approval, President Obama seemed to regain his political footing this week with the help of House Republicans, whose handling of a standoff over payroll taxes had even leading conservatives attacking them for bungling the politically charged issue.

At stake were continued payroll tax cuts for 160 million workers and aid for several million long-term unemployed Americans that expire Dec. 31. The holiday brinkmanship over the issue recalled the December budget showdown 16 years ago between another first-term Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and a new Republican Congressional majority — a fight that capped their year of confrontation over the nation’s fiscal priorities by reviving Mr. Clinton politically as he began his re-election race.

But the impasse was not without risks for Mr. Obama. Democrats fretted that Mr. Obama’s vow to stay in Washington through Christmas and New Year’s to get a deal would backfire should he join his family in Hawaii before a resolution. Also, though House Republicans were bearing the brunt of criticism for the latest show of Washington dysfunction, Mr. Obama could be hurt if the tax break and jobless aid are not extended and the fragile economy sours, as nonpartisan economic forecasters have warned it will without the continued stimulus measures.

And while even other Republicans were predicting that the House Republicans would have to blink, or risk further political damage, the ugliness of the fight reminded Americans yet again of the seeming futility of Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to make Washington work as the year of his re-election race is upon him.

Sounds balanced, right? Obama faces liabilities just like the GOP? Well, not exactly. Republicans have to run not only against their Democratic opponents but against the MFM as well (i.e., the "Mother F***ing Media). Republicans won't get breaks from the press. So they can't afford to screw up as bad as they are right now by giving the Democrats the upper hand in the public relations battle. The irony is that John Boehner's right: Republicans are the party of tax cuts, but they're blowing the year-end politics on a grand scale.

Miracles do happen, of course. Maybe the Democrats will beat the odds and manage to screw up this gift they've been given by Boehner's incompetence. It's a riveting political battle, at least.

GOP's Taking a Beating On Payroll Tax Extension

Image is everything, as Andre Agassi used to say.

And I can't see how the House GOP expects to win the public relations battle over the payroll tax holiday when you've got this kind of obstructionist imagery right at before the Christmas holiday. It looks really bad:

And the MFM headlines aren't helping either. At Christian Science Monitor, "In payroll tax battle, GOP shows cracks under Democratic pressure." At CBS News, "House GOP takes a political beating in payroll tax fight."And at Washington Post, "After payroll-tax debacle, GOP goes into damage-control mode."