Well, the good news for both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul is that their New Hampshire Zogby Poll numbers have both roughly tripled from January to May. Of course, that's an improvement from 13% to 35% for Romney and a change from 1% to 3% for Paul, but, hey, you gotta take your good news where you find it.
Over at Unqualified Offerings, Jim Henley thinks Paul's libertarian-in-the-punchbowl act (a.k.a. to Michelle Malkin as a "9/11 Truthist" or to FOX News more generally as "the Invisible Man") may actually enjoy enough blowback to remain "viable late into the primary season." Covering his bases (as I would, too), Jim notes Paul may well flame out long before then, too.
The interesting question to me at this point is whether Paul's continued presence is helping or harming either the front-runners or the Republican party's prospects in general.
Julian Sanchez probably should be working on a PhD in philosophy rather than wasting his formidable intellect vivisecting the conceptually challenged follies of the Republican Idol lineup. Nonetheless, as G.E. Moore once said of Wittgenstein's "dissertation," Sanchez is fully qualified for Talking Head gigs, even if only of the self-produced variety, as here.
Julian suggests that Paul may at least make campaign b.s. more difficult for the front-runners and the other wannabes, who "have a vested interest in preserving a certain level of ambiguity," as when he noted that "enhanced interrogation techniques" was just so much New-Speak for torture in the last 'debate.'
Maybe. I fear such distinctions without differences will continue to be uttered by the candidates because, with or without Paul to call b.s. to such tactics, they resonate with a public deeply desirous of someone who will get the "dirty but necessary" job done but who also will spare them the gory and thus blame-sharing details. (I say this, by the way, as one who does not believe torture never works or can never be morally justified. However, having taken such a position, I think it would indeed be immoral to then try to hide from what an ugly thing it is.)
In any case, unless the Republican Party is willing to thin the herd of all the declared candidates to pretty much the top three at this point, excluding Paul would be a bad move. Not only because of the potential blowback from Paul supporters and sympathizers but also because, truth be told, truth has nothing to do with these 'debates," as the positive reaction to Giuliani's attack on Paul's 9/11 blowback comments so clearly demonstrates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hey man. The blog is called Unqualified Offerings. It says so right at the top of the page.
"High Clearing" is just "Henley" translated out of early middle english ("Heah Leah," which eventually becomes my family name). I registered the site years before I knew what a blog was, and wasn't really doing anything else with the top-level domain, so I stuck it there.
Interesting. (Who says the internet isn't educational?) I've seen your blog on other blogs' blogrolls listed as High Clearing, hence my question. Unqualified Offerings it is, then.
It's true! Some people do that for whatever reason. Way about three years ago I thought about registering unqualifiedofferings.com, but the notion could not overcome my famously high moment of inertia.
Ah, well, speaking as the owner of a newbie site, 'tis better to be linked incorrectly than never linked at all. Still, I shall endeavor to cite your site correctly, inertia and all!
Post a Comment