And Then There Were…I Don’t Know, However Many Are Left
Posted: April 10, 2012 Filed under: Ron Paul, Santorum 3 Comments »Three months ago, it was marginally interesting when Huntsman (then in last place, I believe) dropped out. I posted that day—not much, but it seemed to warrant some kind of acknowledgement. The number-two guy closes up shop today, and I can’t think of a single thing to say.
Has Ron Paul renounced his citizenship and moved to the South Seas? Seriously—is Ron Paul still in this?

Plan 999 from Outer Space
Posted: March 8, 2012 Filed under: Newt Newt, Ron Paul, Santorum 4 Comments »On it goes.
Dave Wiegel or someone made a good point yesterday: that after a period where the objective of the media is to prop up the notion that there’s a race, eventually a point is reached where impatience sets in with candidates who hang around for no discernible reason. Blatantly no reason, that is—you could reasonably argue that no one except Romney had any business running in the first place.
That point seems to have arrived. From Sullivan starting a series of Gingrich-related posts entitled “Get. Out. Now.” to a couple of pieces I’ve seen that express more puzzlement than usual as to what exactly Ron Paul’s after, impatience is creeping in. A part of that—with me, I know, and I imagine with others too—is simple exhaustion from months of false Romney-implosion alarms. Anyway, here’s my own assessment of the various reasons why the other three won’t quit. I realize some of this is obvious.
1) A belief that you can still win. Santorum, probably—I get the feeling he’s holding out some measure of hope that if he can get to the convention with Romney short of the required delegates, there’s still a small opening for him. Gingrich, I think (no matter that he says otherwise), has finally moved past denial, and obviously Paul (no matter that he jokingly says otherwise) always knew he had no chance.
2) Angling for 2016 (or, please no, 2020). Santorum, yes; Paul, no; Gingrich only if he’s as crazy as everyone thinks he is. Romney will be one more next-in-line Republican nominee, so that pattern is a big incentive for Santorum to play for second place. Truthfully, though, I don’t think 2016 (much less 2020) will be a next-in-line year. I cannot see Santorum as anything but a bad echo once Rubio and Christie and the rest finally announce.
3) A desire to shape party direction. Paul, definitely, Santorum almost as definitely, Gingrich…is out there in the astral plane, so who knows.
4) Angling for a job if Romney wins. I don’t think any of them are in it for a job. And I think Romney, if he were to win, would be smart enough to pretend to not even remember who these people are the day after he’s inaugurated.
5) Hoping to cash in by other means. Gingrich, of course; whatever it was that he was doing for the past decade, he’ll go back to doing it for twice as much money and armed with ten times as much proof of his world-historical importance. I don’t think Santorum or Paul has hit the lecture and book-tour circuit yet, although that’s probably the last stop for every losing politician eventually.
6) Trying to do whatever you can to muck things up for Romney. I thought (and was hoping) that Newt was going to be a one-man Pretty Hate-Mitt Machine after Florida, but that never really panned out. He still gets his digs in, but being such a slimy character himself, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s secretly Romney’s biggest fan by now. Santorum, though, does seem to be developing a genuine antipathy for Mitt, so maybe that’s part of his motivation, even though he’ll of course pretend otherwise when the time comes. Paul spends a lot of time chuckling like an insane man, so it’s hard to tell—he doesn’t seem to have any use for anyone, although supposedly he’s part of a secret alliance with Romney.
7) Sundry other reasons. Things like Paul clearing a path for his son Randolph, or Gingrich knowing he’ll never again be so in-demand for the Sunday morning shows. Fred Thompson went from losing in 2008 to tremendous success as a spokesperson for reverse mortgages, so you never know what kind of doors will be opened up once you’ve run for your party’s nomination.
Okay—now that all of that’s settled, the next thing to do is to try to figure out why I haven’t bailed on this four-ring circus. That one requires a little more thought.

Heart of Gold
Posted: January 13, 2012 Filed under: Nixon, Ron Paul Leave a comment »A transformative Ron Paul moment (from Joshua Green’s 2010 profile):
One day in 1971, Paul left his busy medical office and made a pilgrimage to Houston to hear [Ludwig von] Mises, then 90, speak on the topic of socialism, in what would turn out to be one of his final lectures. When, that same year, Richard Nixon closed “the gold window” and imposed wage and price controls in an effort to tame inflation, Paul felt he could not stand by. “I decided,” he wrote, “that someone in politics had to condemn the controls, and offer the alternative that could explain the past and give hope for the future: the Austrian economists’ defense of the free market.”
The Owls Are Exactly What They Seem
Posted: January 12, 2012 Filed under: Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, Newt Newt, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Santorum, Sarah 1 Comment »Nice Game Change mash-up. I’m always on the lookout for déjà-vu-all-over-again subplots and scenarios in how campaigns play out. When it looked like Rick Perry was about to jump in, I threw out the possibility on the message board that 2012 might turn out to be 1980 all over again: complacent Democrats get trounced when they foolishly convince themselves that the other party’s buffoon will be enough to distract from the economy. (Buffoon from the vantage point of complacent Democrats—I think the idea that Reagan was a buffoon has been pretty much discarded, even by avowed enemies.) It was an excellent analogy…right up to the moment when Rick Perry jumped in. Anyway, I just finished David Pietrusza’s 1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon (The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies), and here’s Mitt Romney 50 years ago, when his name was Stuart Symington: “the most possible of all nominees, but he was also a man lacking any deep and abiding political philosophy…his appeal is largely to the older-line professional politicians, and their hope is that the convention will find objections with each of the other candidates and agree on Symington.” (I’m conflating three different speakers there.)
I hope we didn’t wait too long to get this going, Scott—I worry that we missed all the good stuff. Perry’s “One, two, can I get a lifeline?”, Romney’s “for Pete’s sake” hissy fit, supernova nice-guy Newt (his turn at the top was easily the highlight for me so far—I really think Obama/Gingrich would have been as endlessly entertaining as last time), and just about everything to do with Herman Cain. I still periodically check the Cain Solutions for some guidance and wisdom in these troubled times, but it’s down altogether right now, before it ever got off the ground. I’m shocked and disappointed.
Another problem, believe it or not, is that I don’t despise any of these guys. Not even close, in fact. As I said earlier, Huntsman’s about the worst, but he’s just bland and phony. Ditto the current frontrunner, although I find him more agreeable than Huntsman. I should despise Santorum for some of his caveman ideas, but for some reason—the Jimmy Olsen vibe he gives off?—I don’t. Perry just makes me laugh; he’s the guy I want to have a beer with, just before we get out our shotguns and go shoot up a bunch of stuff. I like Paul, although that requires not thinking about the newsletters (or believing his explanations, which I don’t). And I think I fundamentally, completely get a kick out of Gingrich. Most of the time I find his ideas-guy blather and monumental self-regard engaging, and the other Newt, the reptilian hatchet man, well, I like having a late-model Nixon in our midst. Last time I had Hillary to hate on for the first half, and then someone came along to fill that role beyond my wildest dreams. I need some more of that to bring this thing to life.
Guaranteed to Make You Cry
Posted: January 7, 2012 Filed under: Debates, Rick Perry, Ron Paul Leave a comment »Dickerson called it pretty early on, sometime within the first round I think. I have no idea who the other tweeter is, I just tried searching for “Ron Paul Rick Perry,” and that one somewhat captures what I thought was one of the more bizarre side squabbles. I’m actually starting to wonder if Perry went home after Iowa, with every intention of quitting, was called up by Mitt, with an offer of VP on the table, “if you take out Paul for me.” Just a theory, and a conspiratorial one at that, but Perry jumped on the guy at least twice, which seems bizarre, especially in light of how he didn’t lay a finger on Romney. Hmmm.
Earlier today, I listened to part of a podcast I’ve come to like some, called “The Majority Report” with Sam Seder. Matt Taibbi was the guest, and he said something about the Republican race being a “sideshow” to the real story, an idea that usually makes me cringe, though I think there’s more than a grain of truth to it this time around, and for me, it feels like an indication of what might actually make this election enervating, thrilling, scary, possibly inspiring, almost certainly a little insane (and yes, very much There’s a Riot Goin’ On — thanks for that one, Phil). It struck me today that whatever I end up doing in this space, it may be less about covering an election than about covering an election year. (In truth, I’m not really here to “cover” anything, just to mess around and hear myself think… but you know what I mean). There was a whole lotta yadda yadda up there on the stage tonight, I find most of it “interesting,” but it doesn’t (yet) feel like the story I think I’ll be following this year (though we’ll see what happens when Obama enters the picture).
We Often Know How to Make a Watch, But We Don’t Know the Time of Day
Posted: January 6, 2012 Filed under: Ron Paul 1 Comment »I call your Scorsese, Phil, and raise you an Altman!
A Man For All Reasons, Texas Monthly, November 1987




Comments