From the Archives: Author Brian Doherty explains Ron Paul’s ambivalence on gay issues

Publisher's note: This article is part of a series to mark June as Gay Pride Month. It was originally published on Examiner.com on May 18, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Author Brian Doherty explains Ron Paul’s ambivalence on gay issues
May 18, 2012 10:13 PM MST

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has a record on gay-rights issues that can best be described as mixed.

For instance, Dr. Paul was one of only four Republicans in the House of Representatives to vote in favor of repealing the ban on openly gay personnel in the armed forces known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Paul also opposes a federal constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage across the United States, yet he is the sponsor of legislation that would remove from federal courts the jurisdiction to hear and rule upon challenges to laws that ban gay marriage.


‘Voluntary and consensual agreements’
In his 2011 book, Liberty Defined, Paul suggests there should be a separation of marriage and state, just like there is separation of church and state.

In his chapter on marriage, he argues that “[if] the government was not involved, there would be no discussion or controversy over the definition of marriage. Why should the government give permission to two individuals for them to call themselves married? In a free society, something that we do not truly enjoy, all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized. If disputes arose, the courts could be involved as in any other civil dispute.”

This reference to the courts as protectors of contracts seems to be at odds with the bill he introduced to take marriage laws out of the jurisdiction of the federal courts.


‘One man and one woman’

While Paul seems to be tepidly endorsing the idea that same-sex couples could wed, he has said on several occasions that he thinks marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.

While campaigning in Iowa earlier this year, he said that he believes “that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state.”

Journalist Brian Doherty has covered Ron Paul since 1999. He is the author of a new book, Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired. After a panel discussion about his book this week at the Cato Institute, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked Doherty about what appears to be Ron Paul’s “uncharacteristically studied ambivalence” about gay rights issues, particularly with regard to marriage equality.

Something ‘weird’
Paying a compliment to his interviewer, Doherty replied that “It is likely that you know every twist and turn of his thoughts on this issue better than me,” but he did go on to offer a partial explanation for Paul’s positions.

“I remember where he’s come to at this point, where I think he reliably will give the ‘get government out of marriage entirely’ answer, but I know his history with things like DOMA is more complicated than that. I’ve honestly forgotten every twist and turn of it.”

At bottom, Doherty explained, Paul’s inconsistent positions on gay rights issues can be explained by the fact that “he’s a 77-year-old American man who’s lived in Texas. There probably is a personally rooted, religiously rooted sense” – and here Doherty spoke sotto voce – “that there’s something a little ‘weird’ about homosexuality that maybe he’s not entirely comfortable with.”

‘Bruno-esque’
At the same time, Doherty noted, “I’m pretty sure both from watching him and knowing some of his associates, that that doesn’t come out in person, except possibly in a Bruno-esque situation” -- referring to a bizarre episode in the 2009 film Bruno in which actor Sacha Baron Cohen makes a pass at Ron Paul in a dimly-lit hotel room – “which I think is understandable.”

But, Doherty added, “circumstances and time had to probably open his mind a little on that question and I don’t personally fault him for it too much.”

In the end, he said, the answer to the gay-rights question that Ron Paul has come to embrace “seems to me about the correct libertarian-qua-libertarian answer.”

Complete audio of this interview with Brian Doherty can be heard as a podcast through Bearing Drift.

Additional excerpts from this interview focus on a post-Ron Paul political future and the decentralized nature of the Ron Paul phenomenon.

Interview Series on Ron Paul with Author Brian Doherty

Last week at the Cato Institute, I had the opportunity to interview Reason magazine senior editor Brian Doherty about his new book, Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

The interview ended up serving as the material for four separate articles on Examiner.com.

Please feel free to check them out:

Libertarian author Brian Doherty compares Ron Paul and Gary Johnson

Journalist Brian Doherty foretells GOP's post-Ron Paul political future

Historian Brian Doherty examines the unprecedented Ron Paul phenomenon

Author Brian Doherty explains Ron Paul’s ambivalence on gay issues

The audio of the interview is available as a podcast on the Virginia conservative web site, Bearing Drift.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Is There a Litmus Test for Conservative Republicans?

In April, it was announced by the American Conservative Union that Christopher Malagisi had been hired as the new director of CPAC (the annual Conservative Political Action Conference), succeeding Lisa De Pasquale.  Malagisi's appointment was part of a changing of the guard that included the retirement of longtime ACU chairman David Keene and the tapping of his successor, Al Cardenas.

It's no secret that the choice of Cardenas was seen by many as a rebuke to Keene (and perhaps, indirectly, to De Pasquale) for being too open to libertarian and non-social conservative ideas and groups.  (The conflict came to head -- if it wasn't actually a tempest in a teapot -- when several social conservative organizations claimed to boycott CPAC this year because of the presence of GOProud, a gay conservative group.)  The ACU board, it was alleged, wanted to shrink the "big tent" that CPAC had been under Keene's leadership.

Last week, Malagisi stepped into a political tourbillion when, writing an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he set up a five-stage litmus test for conservative Republican candidates that, by his estimation, disqualified Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson as contenders for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.  (It's noteworthy that in 2011, Paul and Johnson came in first and third, respectively, in the annual CPAC presidential straw poll.)

In his article, Malagisi asked, not rhetorically:

Why do Republicans let people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson participate in Republican presidential debates? They are obviously trying to win the “Who’s more Libertarian?” or “Who’s the least Republican” debate as opposed to the actual Republican debate taking place.

He argued that the Republican Party rests on five pillars (which he does not define):

The Republican Party as a whole though is based on five fundamental principles – individual freedom, limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and preserving our traditional values and heritage. The modern Republican Party is based on the foundation of the conservative movement.

The conservative movement is a coalition made up of three disparate, yet amenable groups – classical liberals or libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists – or modernly referred to as fiscal, social, and defense conservatives. While each entity emphasizes different issues, they all work together in a political compact of sorts with a shared sense of reason operating within tradition. They also understand that together, as a fusionist coalition, they have the best chance of winning elections and actually legislating their conservative principles.

Malagisi's exclusionary position immediately came under fire, beginning with 92 comments on the Examiner's web site, nearly all of which were in disagreement with him.

Bloggers also took aim at Malagisi.

First out of the box was The Minority Report's Alex Knepper, who says in a piece called "Yes, Ron Paul Should Be Allowed To Debate" that he is no fan of either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, yet he still called Malagisi's op-ed "misguided," adding:

The term ‘Republican,’ however, refers to party affiliation, not to political philosophy. Anyone whose priorities are right-of-center can find a home in the GOP. This is why Ronald Reagan, who famously stated that libertarianism represents “the heart and soul” of modern conservatism, remains the icon of a party in which Mike Huckabee, who believes that libertarianism is a greater threat to America than liberalism, finds himself leading many presidential polls.

The logic of exclusion would appear to be that candidates who espouse heresy should not be considered legitimate Republican candidates and should hence be shut out from the debates.

Really, now? What to do, then, about Rick Santorum, who has previously stated that he finds “the whole personal autonomy thing,” which Malagisi holds as a hallmark of modern conservatism, to be completely overrated?

Knepper concludes by saying:

As Malagisi probably knows deep-down, there is no such thing as this creature known as the “true conservative.” Conservatism proper is a disposition, not an ideology. It is an attitude toward life, not a checklist of particulars that can be legislated from on-high. It remains, as it always has been, an argument with itself. If Ron Paul is wrong about foreign policy — and I think that he is — then it’s up to others on the stage to demonstrate that he is wrong. I hope that they can do that, rather than take the cowardly route of shutting him down.

Oklahoma blogger Brian Altenhofel goes straight to Malagisi's list of five principles and finds them "exceptional," as you will see:

I would have expected a much better level of rationality from a "President of the Young Conservatives Coalition, a National Review Institute Washington Fellow, and an Adjunct Professor."

The Republican Party has been referred to recently as the The Party of No. But I don't think that's quite accurate the more that I read articles and hear people speak about alleged Republican principles. A more accurate term might be The Party of Buts — "...based on five fundamental principles – individual freedom (BUT only those we approve), limited government (BUT so long as 'limited' means 'slower than Democrats'), free markets (BUT with federal financial support of private companies), a strong national defense (BUT only if it includes nation-building and holding Israel high on a pedestal), and preserving our traditional values (BUT only if those values don't conflict with our personal religious beliefs) and heritage."

Another blogger, The Virginia Conservative, posted a lengthy rebuttal to Malagisi on Sunday, also calling him "misguided":

I believe that Malagisi’s conclusions are just flat out wrong. He starts out claiming that the Republican Party is a three-legged stool, a merging of libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists....

Malagisi’s work devolves into fairly mindless bashing of Paul and Johnson for embracing this libertarian or “classical liberal” wing. He claims that both men are more suited to be Democrats rather than Republicans because they don’t support the war on terror or imposed moral standards coming out of Washington D.C. Doesn’t it seem strange that Malagisi admits there are three legs of the party, while at the same time seeking to saw off one entirely? Although this news may come as a shock to those who lack either common sense or a basic understanding of physics, but this two-legged stool that Malagisi seems to be advocating cannot stand.,,,

Both Paul and Johnson are a welcome change to the current Republican politicians as usual who advocate a blend of fiscal irresponsibility, moral pandering absent any real commitment for meaningful legislation, wars without end, and the shredding of our Constitution. Now, I will admit that Johnson is too libertarian for my tastes, after all, I am a social conservative. However, with the recent debate as a guide, I would support him over Rick Santorum. Although Santorum and I agree on many social issues, his statements in the debate lead me to fear that he would support an agenda more akin to fascism than liberty.

Despite what you may think from this post and others populating this blog, I am not a libertarian. However, as a constitutional or paleo-conservative, I see libertarians as allies as we both seek to rein in the power of the federal government. We can and do disagree on a number of social issues, like abortion and defending our borders, but the party should welcome these folks to counterbalance the Republicans who abandon any notion of limiting the power of government while Republicans reign....

I would wager that either Malagisi is woefully ignorant of Paul and the conservative movement (unlikely) or he is a neoconservative who longs for the return to big government Republicanism. Either way, I encourage my fellow traditional conservatives and libertarians to steer clear of his poisonous rhetoric. Although he is welcome to his opinions, given his current political position, I fear how many other potential allies will become unknowingly tainted by his misguided and baseless words.

One final example.

Pulling no punches, the Northern Virginia Conservative begins like this:

I just can't stop myself...

...from fisking this piece from stereotypical neoconservadouche Chris Malagisi. This guy is one of Newt Gingrich's henchmen, and periodically plugs him, and even started this page on facebook to "draft" Newtie. I, of course, couldn't stop myself back then, either... and this appeared. Whoops.

And he ends like this:

Spare me your smarm, your condescension and your arrogance. No sale. Don't you have a Newtie event to go to?

In addition to the comments on the Washington Examiner's web site and the well-considered rebuttals on blogs, there has also been chatter about Malagisi's commentary piece on Facebook and Twitter. If his ill-considered attack on two solid conservatives -- Ron Paul votes "no" on virtually everything that comes to the floor of the House of Representatives, on the basis that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to do virtually everything it does, and Gary Johnson vetoed 750 pieces of legislation during his eight years as New Mexico governor, arguing that most of it was fiscally irresponsible -- has not already been withdrawn, you can bet that he'll think more carefully about making similar attacks in the future. It would be unseemly, not to say uneconomical, for the new director of CPAC to make enemies of the people who buy about half of the tickets to that annual conservative event.

For other blog posts that discuss disputes and divisions between conservatives and libertarians, check out "Mt. Vernon Is No Sharon" (February 16, 2010); "Rick Santorum's Views on Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan" (October 16, 2010);"Yep, I'm a Mugwump" (March 15, 2006); and "Obsessed with Sex" (February 22, 2010).

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Let's Moneybomb Alexandria

During the seemingly endless 2008 presidential campaign, supporters of Texas Congressman Ron Paul (who was seeking the Republican Party's nomination against rivals John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee, among others) created and popularized the concept of the "money bomb."

A "money bomb" is a concerted effort to corral donations to a candidate's campaign within a narrowly defined period of time, usually 24 hours. It was through the money bomb process that Ron Paul's presidential campaign set records for on-line fundraising.

In one 24-hour effort in November 2007, Paul supporters acting independently of the campaign apparatus raised $4.2 million, while a month later, with more participation by the official campaign, that earlier record was broken when $6 million was raised in one day. Those efforts and others contributed to Paul exceeding his fourth quarter (2007) fundraising goals by more than 50 percent.

While political newcomer Joe Murray may not have the stature or name recognition of Ron Paul, his supporters in his bid to succeed Delegate Brian Moran (D-Alexandria) in a special election next week are enthusiastically sponsoring a money bomb effort on Monday, January 5. (Murray has set a goal of raising $10,000 in new contributions by January 7. That date is due to the urgency of the need, since the election is Tuesday, January 13 -- one day before the General Assembly's 2009 session opens.)

RedStormPAC, an organization created to raise money for Republican candidates for state and local office in Virginia, is collecting money on Murray's behalf. Contributions can be made using this easy-to-navigate on-line form.

If you would like to learn more about candidate Joe Murray and his campaign to become the new member of the Virginia House of Delegates from the 46th district, check out the Friends of Joe Murray web site.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

Scenes from the Revolution...

Poor Dick Heller! The lead plaintiff (and namesake) of the landmark civil rights lawsuit that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last month, D.C. v. Heller, had the misfortune of following Ron Paul to the dais at last Saturday's Revolution March and Rally in Washington.

Heller, whose celebrity in the wake of SCOTUS's pro-Second Amendment ruling has resulted in a "Draft Heller for Congress" movement, tried his best to retain the attention of the crowd, but to no avail. Thousands of people had converged on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol to see Ron Paul, and after waiting for hours to see the Congressman, they booked it out of there when he left the scene.

The crowd was eclectic, if mostly young. It was not, from my perspective, a gathering of libertarians.

While a few libertarian themes were sounded from the podium, they were outnumbered by nationalist/xenophobic appeals to the anti-immigration crowd, weird conspiracy theories (one speaker asserted that some international agency is putting dots of various colors on our mail boxes; the color of the dot signals whether the occupant of the house will be a compliant slave or one who resists tyranny, with gradations in between), eminent domain activists who oppose tolls as user fees for road building and maintenance, and passionate anti-war protesters.

The sorts of groups one usually finds at libertarian gatherings were not in evidence. While there were a few signs waved, here and there, calling for an end to drug prohibition or touting the Second Amendment, there was no palpable presence of anti-drug or pro-gun organizations. (One of my friends told me he could detect the fragrant aroma of cannabis smoke, but I hadn't noticed it.)

One result of the panoply of speakers, whose views were (to be kind) out of the mainstream, was that when Congressman Paul took the stage, he appeared, by comparison, to be the moderate voice of reason. Whether this was the plan of the rally organizers or just a happy accident, I don't know.

In fact, Dr. Paul was on the top of his game. He appeared relaxed, wearing a blue-and-white striped golf shirt. He was full of energy and he smiled broadly at the reaction of the crowd, as well he should have done.

Why? The multitude treated him like a rock star. The crowd had been spread out widely on the lawn west of the Capitol building, but when whispers of Dr. Paul's arrival on the premises began to circulate, they surged, almost as one, to the front of the stage. Plenty of elbow room gave way to the shoulder-to-shoulder intimacy of a tightly-packed elevator.

I felt like I was at a Barack Obama rally, without the Democrats and empty rhetoric.

This was the first time I had seen Dr. Paul in person since his pathbreaking GOP presidential primary campaign began last year. I had read press reports about the way he was received at political rallies and on college campuses, but this was my introduction to it by way of direct observation.


One of the things I noticed is that the messenger is more salient than the message. The people who attended this march and rally are, first and foremost, RON PAUL SUPPORTERS. They adore the man. Other speakers echoed parts of his message during the hours preceding his appearance, but they were largely, if politely, ignored.

When Dr. Paul arrived, however, the audience was enraptured. They hung on his every word. They chanted his name. (I don't remember anyone chanting "Howard Phillips, Howard Phillips!" or "Chuck Baldwin, Chuck Baldwin!" And there was nobody left to chant "Dick Heller! Dick Heller!) They cheered. They demanded an encore, even though Congressman Paul had a plane to catch and a place to go.

So I have to wonder if anybody else -- Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, or any other currently active politician -- can be as an effective a messenger for Ron Paul's platform or for libertarian and constitutionalist ideas. Dr. Paul, I know, demurs. He insists that it is the message that matters, not the messenger. I hope he's right, but I fear he's wrong.

See for yourself. I took about 55 minutes of video at the rally and edited it down to about 40 minutes in five segments. (I posted these videos to YouTube just about 24 hours ago and they have already had more than a thousand hits, which is a record for any of my YouTube videos.)

What do you think? Are we seeing the apotheosis of Ron Paul's ideas, or of Ron Paul the leader? It's your call.

Scenes from the Revolution Rally - Part I:



Scenes from the Revolution Rally - Part II:



Scenes from the Revolution Rally - Part III:



Scenes from the Revolution Rally - Part IV:



Scenes from the Revolution Rally - Part V:

Theocratic Party -- I mean, Constitution Party -- presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin introduces Ron Paul in Part III, and the rest of Dr. Paul's speech is in that segment and Parts IV and V.

Other speakers heard on the video include Howard Phillips and Michael Scheuer. The audio tidbits are not well-edited, but you might hear some interesting or intriguing thoughts. In taking the video, I was aiming for the capture of visual images. What's more, I knew my battery power was depleting rapidly in the heat, and I wanted to save my charge for Dr. Paul's climactic address. (Even so, my battery ran out a couple of minutes before Congressman Paul ended his speech; I got most of it, however.)

For other perspectives on the march and rally, check out Steven Latimer's blog (also with video) and the Virginia Conservative. (Other bloggers who were there and who wrote about this, feel free to post a link in the comments section, below.)

Other photographs from the rally can be found on Facebook, here and here.

Update: Dave Weigel has an excellent report at the Reason "Hit & Run" blog, making me wish that I had also seen (in person) the banner that read "Mises Saves." Weigel has video of Naomi Wolf, and his additional photos are here.

Is a Return to the Gold Standard Desirable?

My friend, Warren Coats, who spent a career at the International Monetary Fund before retiring in 2003 (and who taught economics at the University of Virginia before joining the IMF) has posted an interesting and informative paper that he presented Thursday at FreedomFest in Las Vegas. (Las Vegas in July...... mmmmm! Actually, I wish I was there. The program looked intriguing and intellectually stimulating.)

Warren's paper is entitled "Should the U.S. adopt a Gold Standard?" and, while presenting the pros and cons of such a policy, his ultimate answer is "no."

His full paper is well worth reading, but I will just excerpt the conclusion here:

The United States should not adopt a gold standard. Such a regime would have prevented the Federal Reserve from supplying the additional liquidity the banking system suddenly demanded this past year as part of the subprime mortgage crisis.[11] Without the injection of the additional liquidity, there would probably have been a financial sector meltdown and recession of hug proportions. Had the U.S. had a gold standard, it would not have survived such a financial crisis.

The United States should adopt inflation targeting. The Federal Reserve act should be amended to establish price stability as the primary objective of monetary policy, freeing the Fed from its statutory requirement to “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”[12]

Funny how Warren presented this argument just two days before the big Ron Paul Revolution March on Washington, where many gold bugs will be in attendance. I've always been an agnostic on the gold standard, but when a libertarian thinker like Warren Coats suggests that going back to the gold standard is a poor policy choice, my agnosticism gives way to atheism.

Not that that will stand in my way of attending the rally on the west side of the Capitol tomorrow. The Revolution takes place under a big tent.

Average Is Just Not Good Enough

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) released its annual ratings of Members of Congress on Tuesday, and Virginia's congressional delegation did not fare well. The averaged score among Virginia House members was 50 percent; in the Senate, that score was a dismal 33 percent.

All four Democrats who serve in Congress from Virginia earned an embarrassing "F" grade. The grades of the nine Republicans were all over the map.

First, some background. According to NTU's press release:

The multi-year decline of lawmakers' pro-taxpayers scores under Republican control of the House of Representatives and Senate entered a nosedive in 2007 with a new Democratic majority, according to the National Taxpayers Union's (NTU) 29th annual Rating of Congress. The scorecard, the only one to utilize every roll call vote affecting tax, spending, and regulatory issues, was based on a record 609 votes -- 427 in the House and 182 in the Senate.

"Despite campaign-trail promises from many Members of Congress to put Washington on a stricter diet, our 2007 Rating shows that, by and large, the only things shrinking on Capitol Hill are lawmakers' pro-taxpayer scores," NTU President Duane Parde said. "Overburdened taxpayers looking for an end to 'earmarked' spending, an extension of President Bush's tax cuts, and an honest entitlement reform plan won’t like what they see in Congress's performance so far."

Between 2006 and 2007, the average "Taxpayer Score" in the House fell from 39 percent to 35 percent. The Senate's average plummeted by 11 points, from 48 percent to 37 percent. This spiral takes scores closer to the all-time low (in 1988) of 27 percent and 28 percent, respectively, for the House and Senate. The highest marks were reached in 1995, when House and Senate averages were 58 percent and 57 percent, respectively.

Even though 2007's overall results were not the worst in the Rating's history, several other dubious records were achieved last year, including the lowest score ever (1 percent) and the largest number of single-digit scores (over 200 in the House and Senate). The latter result produced the lowest median scores (not averages) in the history of the Rating, and reflects tremendous political polarization between fiscally liberal lawmakers and the rest of Congress.

The scoring system used by NTU has long been considered an objective measure of how legislators vote on spending and tax issues. As the news release explains:

Unlike those of other organizations, NTU's annual Rating does not simplistically focus on a handful of equally weighted "key votes," but every roll call vote affecting fiscal policy -- appropriations, authorization, and tax bills; budget target resolutions; amendments; and certain procedural votes that could affect the burden on taxpayers. For this reason, it has received praise from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including former Sen. William Proxmire (D-WI), creator of the "Golden Fleece Award." A Member of Congress's "Taxpayer Score" reflects his or her commitment to reducing or controlling federal spending, taxes, debt, and regulation.

For the fifth consecutive year, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was the top scorer in the House with a 96 percent rating -- bringing him one year closer to Rep. Ron Paul's (R-TX) record of six first-place finishes from 1979 to 1984. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) captured first place in the Senate for the second year in a row with a 93 percent rating. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) received the worst score in the Rating's nearly 30-year history: 1 percent. Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) was the biggest spender in the Senate with a 3 percent rating.

The NTU scorecard can also be used to show which Democratic and Republican Members of Congress fell the furthest in their relative ranking from 2006 to 2007. Among Democrats, they are Rep. William Jefferson (LA), who dropped 156 slots in the House ranking, and Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY), who declined 30 steps in Senate rank. Rep. Tom Petri (WI) slipped the most among GOP House Members (75 places) while Sen. John Sununu (NH) lost 20 steps in Senate Republican rank. In 2005, Sununu was the upper chamber's top scorer.

Among members of the Virginia congressional delegation, only Representative Eric Cantor (R-7) earned an "A" grade and the designation "Taxpayers' Friend."

The full list of Virginia House members (in alphabetical order) shows the following grades and scores:

Rick Boucher (D-9) -- F and 5 percent
Eric Cantor (R-7) -- A and 87 percent
Tom Davis (R-11) -- C and 57 percent
Thelma Drake (R-2) -- B+ and 75 percent
Randy Forbes (R-4) -- B and 70 percent
Virgil Goode (R-5) -- B+ and 79 percent
Bob Goodlatte (R-6) -- B+ and 78 percent
Jim Moran (D-8) -- F and 5 percent
Bobby Scott (D-3) -- F and 3 percent
Frank Wolf (R-10) -- C- and 44 percent

STATE AVERAGE -- 50 percent

(I did not include the late Jo Ann Davis [R-1] or her successor, Rob Wittmann [R-1], whose votes were not reported by the NTU. Wittmann can count on being rated next year.)

On the Senate side, retiring Senator John Warner (R) earned a "C" grade and scored 55 percent, while first-term Senator Jim Webb (D) earned an "F" grade and scored 13 percent, for an average state score of 33 percent.

For those in other states who might be interested in their own congressional delegations or their own individual Members, NTU has a searchable database of scores and grades going back to 1992.

The middling performance of Virginia's Senators and Representatives brings to mind that famous quotation of Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska, who said with regard to failed Supreme Court nominee G. Harrold Carswell, "So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?"

I guess we're getting mediocre representation in Virginia ... in spades.

Ron Paul: The Revolution Continues

While not withdrawing officially from the 2008 presidential race -- but still acknowledging that the goal of the nomination for Republican standard-bearer is unattainable -- Congressman Ron Paul has laid out his vision for a post-campaign strategy designed to renew America's commitment to liberty.

Using the new media -- posting a video on YouTube -- Dr. Paul explains that elections are short-term while revolutions are long-term projects. He suggests that supporters of his campaign should continue to work together to promote the ideas brought to the fore by his campaign. Dr. Paul, it seems, knows that this effort was always bigger than one man. (Unlike Obamamania, for instance, the Paul campaign has been about ideas and not a cult of personality.)

Dr. Paul mentions the date of June 21 as the best one for a march on Washington, in which lovers of liberty can gather in the Nation's Capital to bring their ideas to the backyards of Congress and the President, with the eyes of the media on them, as well. With good luck, hard work, and good organization, perhaps this will be a (non-violent) repeat of 1968 and the "whole world [will be] watching."

Here is Congressman Paul's video message, which is dated March 6:

"The revolution will be televised"? That is so 20th century.

Central Virginia Republican Straw Poll

At the monthly breakfast sponsored by the Albemarle County Republican Committee, Central Virginia Republicans had a chance to express their presidential preferences in a straw poll modeled on the one that took place at the Republican Advance in Arlington last December 1.

The results were decidedly different: Although Ron Paul won the statewide straw poll handily in December, today the winner was former Massachusetts Mitt Romney -- who has suspended his campaign for president.

The vote totals were Romney 56; John McCain 28; Ron Paul 21; Mike Huckabee 3; and Fred Thompson 2.

I was able to make video recordings of most of the proceedings.

In Part I, Keith Drake, chairman of the Albemarle GOP Committee, recites the Virginia Republican Party Creed:



In Part II, Northern Virginia attorney Chris Kachouroff speaks on behalf of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, urging the party to return to its Goldwater-Reagan roots:



In Part III (here divided into two segments, "A" and "B"), Chairman Drake introduces former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who speaks in favor of Senator John McCain of Arizona. Oddly, Eagleburger appears to disagree with McCain on as many issues as he agrees with the Senator on; the thrust of his argument is that we should vote for McCain because he is neither Hillary Rodham Clinton nor Barack Obama:



At one point in Part III-B, Eagleburger refers to the Senator from Illinois as "Obama bin Laden." This is a cheap shot; someone who is as respected an elder statesman as Secretary Eagleburger should be respectful, as well. That the audience laughs at the line reflects poorly on those in attendance. Watch this carefully:



In Part IV, the ballots are counted and Keith Drake announces the results:

We will see on Tuesday if the unexpected result -- Romney winning so overwhelmingly -- carries over into the primary election. Could Romney receive a signal from Virginia that he should "unsuspend" his campaign?

Update: The Charlottesville Newsplex has a report by Matt Holmes. Christina Mora reports the story on Channel 29. WINA also has a report, but it won't be on the station's web site for long.

Ron Paul Supporters on the Radio

This morning in Charlottesville, two Ron Paul supporters took the case for their candidate to the airwaves, explaining their enthusiasm and urging other Central Virginia voters to cast their ballot on primary day for the Congressman from Texas.

The guests on WINA-AM's "The Schilling Show" were the Ron Paul precinct captain in Walker Precinct, David Brown, and his counterpart from Jefferson Park Precinct, Bill Ways. The host of the program, former Charlottesville City Councilor Rob Schilling, posed a few questions to get the conversation going.

I was there from 7:30 to 8:00 a.m. to get the show on video. So for those of you who were not awake at the time, or who might have been tuned to NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, here is your chance to listen and watch.

Part I:



Part II:

Ron Paul is one of six Republican candidates on the primary ballot in Virginia on Tuesday, February 12. Polls are open from 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.

The Question Was Answered Six Years Ago

Why is Jamie Kirchick's story in The New Republic about distasteful passages in newsletters published under Ron Paul's name nearly two decades ago getting so much attention?

Those passages were raised by Dr. Paul's opponent in the congressional election of 1996 and discussed widely at that time. The voters in the 14th District of Texas did not seem perturbed by the revelations.

And in an October 2001 profile in Texas Monthly (not a right-wing publication by any stretch of the imagination), Dr. Paul discussed the newsletters in a straightforward manner with reporter S.C. Gwynne:

Paul's return to congressional politics.... happened in 1996. With Nolan Ryan as his honorary campaign chairman, he entered a bruising Republican primary against incumbent Greg Laughlin, who had switched parties the year before. Paul was now running in a new district, the 14th (he had moved his residence from Lake Jackson to his beach house in Surfside). It was a demographic oddity that connected the Gulf Coast and Central Texas and included the Brazos, Colorado, and Guadalupe lower river basins and the small cities of Victoria, San Marcos, and Freeport. Paul immediately discovered that the electoral ground rules had changed: With the Democrats trying to regain control of the House, which they had lost two [ ] years earlier, and Speaker Newt Gingrich backing Laughlin, whom GOP regulars viewed as the stronger candidate, someone who had run for president on the Libertarian ticket—and who had advocated things like the repeal of federal drug laws and an end to the "so-called drug war"—was now a much bigger and more visible target. "My image was completely different in 1996 than in 1976," Paul says. "You can't just get passed off as an average Republican having done what I did. We got hit hard."

Most of the hitting was on the drug issue, first by Laughlin, whom Paul beat convincingly in a runoff, then by Charles "Lefty" Morris, Paul's opponent in the general election. Morris was certain that Paul's radical views would discredit him with voters. "We just have to get his ideas out, and people will know what he really stands for," Morris said at the time. He ran ads saying that Paul advocated the legalization of illegal drugs, which was not entirely accurate. Though some of Paul's public remarks had suggested that he supported full drug legalization, his official position was (and is) that federal drug laws ought to be repealed: Let the states handle all drug laws. Then Morris' subalterns dug up something even more damaging to Paul: copies of a 1992 newsletter he had published that contained racially tinted remarks.

They caused a minor sensation. In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

That controversy ought to have destroyed him. Lefty Morris certainly thought it would, and things looked even bleaker for Paul when the AFL-CIO kicked in with a heavy rotation of anti-Paul ads. That may explain why, even after midnight on Election Day, when the newspapers were all giving the election to Paul, Morris still refused to concede. He simply couldn't believe it.

I would like to highlight something that Gwynne wrote in that article, quoted above:

What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

This has been the most common reaction in the past few days from people who have known Ron Paul, who have followed his career, and who are familiar with the issues that motivate him and the way he expresses himself.

Let me speak from my own experience as someone who has met Dr. Paul on several occasions, all of which were characterized by civility, politesse, and good humor. I have never seen any evidence from Ron Paul the man that he has a hateful thought or possesses an animus against any group or individual. He, like most libertarians, is focused on ideas, ideas principally aimed at promoting human dignity, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

Nearly fifteen years ago, I was running for the Virginia House of Delegates (in the 49th District, then completely within Arlington County, one of the most heavily Democratic and liberal districts in the state).

The campaign took place during the period that, according to Kirchick, "Ron Paul" was making derogatory, anti-gay remarks in "his" newsletters. As it happens, I was running as an openly-gay candidate for the Virginia General Assembly. (It was my second run for that office after a previous attempt in a special election in January 1991. The same district currently has an openly-gay Democrat representing it in Richmond.)

During that 1993 campaign, Ron Paul issued a letter on my behalf, soliciting funds from libertarians and votes from constituents. (We sent the letter to both groups.) Dr. Paul (then a former Congressman) was aware I was running as an openly-gay candidate and he raised no questions, concerns, or objections. I hardly think a homophobic bigot would have sent out a fundraising letter over his own signature, endorsing (as the Washington Times stylebook would have it) an "avowed homosexual" for public office.

Did Ron Paul exercise poor judgment in allowing others to publish badly-written newsletter articles under his name? Yes -- and that is something that he acknowledged more than a decade ago, and quite explicitly in that 2001 Texas Monthly article. He has taken responsibility for his error, owned up to it, and did not even beg for forgiveness. In fact, he has reacted to this smear attempt in a cool, evenhanded, and direct manner.

If people want to dredge up the past of politicians, how about paying attention to the way Mike Huckabee has consorted with Christian Reconstructionists, who want to institute a sort of sharia law in the United States that would include the death penalty for adulterers and homosexuals?

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

 

Pundits Give Hopeful Post-Iowa Marks to Ron Paul

Sean O'Brien, executive director of the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia (and soon to be head of the new Center for the Constitution at James Madison's Montpelier) was a guest on the 11:00 news on WCAV-TV in Charlottesville, commenting on the results of the Republican and Democratic caucuses in Iowa on Thursday. He had some positive things to say about Republican contender Ron Paul.

As everyone knows by now, the winner on the Democratic side was Illinois Senator Barack Obama. On the Republican side, it was former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Interviewed by anchors Dan Schutte and Stephanie Hockridge (and transcribed by me), O'Brien noted:

There are candidates out there that people in New Hampshire or Virginia or California would love to have the chance to vote for, but will probably be forced to drop out because they won't be getting any money and people won't be paying attention to them. [The Iowa caucus system] really doesn't promote the democratic process....

On the Republican side, really the [television] graphic has shown four people [Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain] but really five or six people are coming out on the Republican side in a good position. Giuliani never expected to do well in Iowa, so the fact that he's not in there is no big deal.

But Ron Paul, with his very fanatical fan base of supporters, coming out with 10 percent, that's going to make them feel really good, they're only just behind McCain and Thompson, who, at one time, McCain was the front runner and Thompson was seen as the savior. So they've got to be feeling pretty good. It's going to be very fascinating to watch into New Hampshire next week....

It's going to be very hard for Huckabee in New Hampshire, probably, because the "Huckaboom" phenomenon has really risen for him in Iowa. It's an evangelical state, he's an evangelical person, and so that may not play as well in New Hampshire, so it's going to be hard for him. But I'm sure he's on a plane right now.

On the other side of the country, Gambling911.com analyst Christopher Costigan saw reasons for Ron Paul supporters to "look on the bright side." Costigan made seven key points:

1. Ron Paul got 10% of the vote and was within striking distance of both John McCain and Fred Thompson, the later of whom is likely to drop out of the race after New Hampshire.

2. Ron Paul came in third place in Johnson County, which perhaps has the closest demographics to that of New Hampshire. It is home to the progressive college town of Iowa City, full of young voters who Paul's campaign is reliant on.

3. He beat Rudy Giuliani by a landslide and Giuliani is considered the frontrunner nationally. And like Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul did not focus as aggressively on the state of Iowa.

4. Wolf Blitzer of CNN called Ron Paul's showing "impressive".

5. With McCain and Thompson tied for 3rd, Ron Paul technically came in 4th place.

6. There were some counties in Iowa where Ron Paul excelled.

7. Iowa is not an Internet state and the inquiries coming in for Ron Paul (and Internet traffic in general) is not very heavy from Iowa. The great news is that the most significant search inquiries for Ron Paul were coming in from Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Tennessee, Massachusetts and California.

The Iowa caucuses are a terrific throwback to a purer, more personable form of democracy. The caucuses are more than just early cogs in the presidential nomination machine. Watching C-SPAN tonight, one would have seen a Democratic precinct caucus in Des Moines debating various resolutions aimed at influencing the state Democratic party's platform, on issues like road maintenance, education, and health care.

Still, because they have arcane rules and attract so few participants, they are not an accurate bellwether for future primary contests. New Hampshire, as Sean O'Brien noted, is different from Iowa. And Virginia is different from New Hampshire. Whether they use caucuses, conventions, or primaries, there are fifty different contests (more, if you count D.C. and the territories) in each party leading to the presidential nomination. Iowa is just the first in line.

First Post of the Year

Besides being the first day of 2008, today is also significant because it would have been Senator Barry Goldwater's 99th birthday.

In a memoir published in 1988, shortly after he retired from the U.S. Senate, Goldwater wrote of his early years in the Arizona Territory (pp. 34-35):

Three people -- my mother, an uncle, and a teacher -- finally convinced me that contributing something to the community was a lot pleasanter life than getting my britches burned in all kinds of trouble. My brother, sister, and some friends stood by my side when the going got tough.

My mother was a very individualistic woman, patriotic and dedicated to her community. Uncle Morris offered decades of public service to Arizona politics and the Masonic Order. Sandy Patch, one of my instructors at Staunton Military Academy, was one of the finest military officers this country ever produced.

My mother had a greater influence on my life than any other individual. It seems worth recalling some of those early years to see how and why the character of one person can leave such an impression on another. One of the things I remember best about Mun -- the three of us always called my mother that -- was our annual summer trip from Phoenix to the cool beaches of Southern California.

Mun and her three desert rats drove to California every summer because Phoenix was too hot. The trip across the Arizona and California deserts took about a week.... We had about two dozen flat tires each way. My brother, Bob, and I patched the innner tubes in mostly 120-degree heat.

Mun wore knickers, leggings, and a beat-up old hat that she'd tilt at odd angles to make us laugh. She was about five feet four inches tall and a hundred pounds of double-barreled action. Mun was a tomboy who loved the outdoors -- camping, hunting, fishing, and climbing. She was spunky and spontaneous, and she spoiled us rotten.

Dad was home minding the store. Outdoor exercise was not his game.

Mun had the uncanny ability of having fun and teaching at the same time. She kept her rifle cocked along the meandering route for coyotes, rattlesnakes, or any other critter that might bother her brood. We learned a lot about guns, camping, and protecting one another. Learning from her was never boring. None of us ever forgot those adventurous treks across the desert because she had so much time to pepper us with her wit and wisdom....

She stitched the forty-seventh and forty-eighth stars on our flag when New Mexico and Arizona entered the union. I was only three years old at the time. She talked about that day for years.

My mother spoke a lot about our country when we were kids -- our heritage of freedom, the history of Arizona, how individual initiative had made the desert bloom. Mun was a conservative Republican and proud of it.

You may have noticed a brief reference to "Staunton Military Academy" in the second paragraph quoted. That is Barry Goldwater's connection to Central Virginia: He spent his high school years in the Shenandoah Valley, just across the mountain from Charlottesville. (Of course, in the early 1920s, traveling between Charlottesville and Staunton was a lot harder than just hopping on Interstate 64 and heading west for about 40 miles.)

Goldwater recalls his years in Staunton on pages 51 through 55 of his eponymous memoir:

My father was always fashionably dressed. Some people called him a dandy because he wore pince-nez glasses and was elegant even when playing poker and billiards at the Arizona Club. However, fashion and elegance were his business. Goldwaters [department store] had a reputation for quality -- the latest and best fashion, especially for women.

Dad was also a very private person. He confided in few people apart from our mother. However, he didn't always hide his feelings, especially about my comportment in high school. One evening at family dinner, he was looking down at me over his pince-nez like I was the two of spades. Dad may have liked cards, but not wild ones.

He didn't care that I'd been elected president of the freshman class or that I was good enough for both the football and basketball teams. His voice lowered as his eyebrows raised. My father said sternly that I was going to Staunton Military Academy in Virginia, and there wasn't going to be any back talk. I felt as though I'd just been sentenced to the state pen. It seemed the whole family was ready to form a firing squad -- except my mother. She was worried about my being so far from home. Dad appeared to say, the farther away, the better -- until I learned some discipline. Then I could come home and return to school in Arizona.

In a long passage about his year as a "Rat" (a first-year student) at the Academy, Goldwater has this minor digression, which should raise a chuckle among certain Ron Paul supporters:

I only had one fight. That was with my first roommate. I owed him money for something and paid him in silver dollars. He'd never seen a silver dollar and said it wasn't U.S. money. I'd never seen paper money, although we talked about it at home. So we put up our dukes and fought a financial war.

True to Goldwater senior's wishes, young Barry did learn discipline:

In my senior year at Staunton, I won the outstanding cadet award and was offered an appointment to West Point. However, my father was not well, and Mother thought it best that I return home.

It was a big mistake. I should have gone to the Point. To this day, I believe I was better equipped, psychologically, to be a military officer than a politician.

Politics is a life that is often out of focus, that rises and falls with the tide of events and everchanging public opinion. For the most part, the military has clear, singular goals. If I had my life to live over again, I'd go to West Point.

The concepts of duty, honor, and country are genuine to me. Patriotism is real. There's no greater service to this country than the defense of its freedom.

Barry Goldwater was a military officer, of course, as well as a politician. And his country is better off because he chose that latter course. (And whether, in the 21st century, the "military has clear, singular goals," is a question quite worthy of exploration -- and doubt.)

On his 99th birthday, let us salute Senator Barry Goldwater. What a celebration we shall have in the centenary year of 2009!

Ron Paul Blimp Greets 2008 in Charlottesville

Last Friday on his new blog, veteran political reporter Bob Gibson of the Charlottesville Daily Progress wrote about the Ron Paul "mini-blimp" that has found its portable home in Central Virginia:

The size of a small whale, Ron Paul’s Charlottesville blimp has been lighting the night skies along Rio Road and, as of today, Fontaine Avenue.

The white blimp—asking who the heck Ron Paul is—was trucked from its home base on East Rio Road late today to its new home in the sky near the Interstate 64 intersection with U.S. 29 just south of Fontaine Avenue.

The lighted blimp adds a new dimension to the surging Paul effort and appears not to be floated on hot air, but that other Washington staple—a shot of noble gas.

The GOP’s Paul, a Texas congressman and libertarian, is the first of 12 presidential candidates on the Feb. 12 Virginia primary ballots, six in each party, to get his blimp floating over the outskirts of the liberal enclave of Charlottesville.

That blimp is no longer on the outskirts. In a brilliant marketing move, the blimp's mover and shaker, Jack Faw, placed it right in the heart of Charlottesville for New Year's Eve. The blimp is parked near the corner of Main Street and McIntyre-Ridge Road. Lit up, it can be seen for quite a distance from all directions.

Faw, a retired goat farmer, and his blimp have already been the subject of feature stories on two local TV stations. In fact, the Christmas Eve story by Matt Holmes on WCAV-TV's web site is the number-one most accessed story among the station's recent archives. Holmes wrote:

Faw says Central Virginia's going to see a lot of that blimp.

"Staunton has already asked. Harrisonburg has asked. Lynchburg's interested. Richmond is interested. I-64 in Fluvanna County, some of our members down that way would like to have it."

The 72-year-old Paul has raised $19 million so far this quarter and he won the Virginia Straw Poll earlier this month. Still, the Texas congressman lags significantly in the national polls.

Annie Scholz of Channel 29 filed a story on the Ron Paul blimp on Christmas Day. She reported:

Faw special ordered the big balloon online and says it was worth it to take the campaign to new heights.

"I found a dealer and a manufacturer in California and with a lot of phone calls over a couple days is all. By the second day I had ordered it and paid for it," shared Faw.

Faw plans to take the balloon to different locations across Albemarle County. He says he'll put anywhere anyone will let him.

Faw won't tell us how much he spent on the balloon or the rest of his Ron Paul paraphernalia. He'll only say it's the price he's willing to pay for freedom.

With thousands of people streaming into Charlottesville tonight for First Night Virginia, to see the fireworks, or to dance the night away at Club 216, the Ron Paul blimp will be seen by many people heretofore unfamiliar with the presidential candidate from Texas. No doubt the question, "Who is Ron Paul?," will be on many lips this evening.

Talk about being lit up for New Year's Eve!

Update: I just received an email with a link to this story from Central Florida, where the official Ron Paul blimp -- not official in the sense of being connected to the campaign, but official in the sense that it's the original, full-size blimp that has spawned (through inspiration) the mini-blimps around the country, including Jack Faw's -- is slated to fly over the Capital One Bowl (a football game):

The Capitol One Bowl Tuesday was set to pit Florida against Michigan.

Besides their teams in the big game, the two states have one other thing in common: both are holding presidential primaries in January.

At least one candidate has taken advantage of having all those voters in one place.

The Ron Paul campaign planned to put a blimp up over the Citrus Bowl Tuesday before the game, so more than 70,000 fans attending the Capital One Bowl would be able to see it pass by the arena.

Presumably, a blimp flying over the stadium will also end up on TV screens across the country, and seen by far more than the 70,000 people in the stands. And CFNews13 was first with the story.

Ron Paul Rising

It doesn't come from one of the key states of Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, and it's not strictly an endorsement. Still, an editorial in Sunday's Colorado Springs Gazette comes as a very strong recommendation for Ron Paul as a choice for Republican presidential primary voters.

The newspaper, located not just in one of the most conservative communities in the mountain states but in James Dobson's back yard, has this to say about the congressman from Texas:

Ron Paul, the libertarian-oriented and commendably antiwar 10-term Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate, has in some ways been the most interesting phenomenon of the early going in the campaign, although a case can be made for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Paul’s Internet-oriented supporters are not only fervent, they have supported him with record-breaking amounts of money, most notably in two single-day fundraising “bombs” of more than $4 million and $6 million respectively.

Few observers would have predicted last summer that Paul, little known outside Texas, would be a financially viable candidate long after former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo had dropped out.

Now, Paul’s enthusiastic support is starting to show up in poll numbers. We’ll soon see if it translates into actual votes....

In Congress, Paul has consistently voted against tax increases and against spending that he doesn’t believe is authorized by the Constitution. As a small-government proponent who also advocates a more modest non-interventionist foreign policy, he speaks to what many voters used to think the Republican Party stood for. His positions also appeal to a substantial number of younger people.

The Paul campaign is already the most significant pro-freedom mass movement of recent times. It’s time to find out if it brings him enough votes to at least give him a seat at the table when future policies are determined — and perhaps more.

The enthusiasm of Ron Paul's supporters has become legendary in Republican circles. Recall three weeks ago, when Dr. Paul trounced all of his opponents in the Virginia GOP straw poll. That unexpected victory led to this above-the-fold, front-page headline in the Charlottesville Daily Progress on the day after the event:


This morning on Meet the Press, despite hectoring questions from Tim Russert -- to be fair, it is Russert's job to be hectoring, and one would be disappointed in him if all he did were to lob softballs -- Dr. Paul more than held his own. He kept on message, coming back again and again to the need to cut spending and to shrink the government to Constitutional size. It is no wonder he is gaining praise and garnering more support around the country.