“[Buchanan] left the party in 1999 and a lot of people, and I was one of them, said, goodbye and good riddance, you’re not in the mainstream of the Republican party, go run as some Reform party candidate . . . he did in 2000 and he didn’t get many votes and actually George W. Bush I think was helped—and the Republican party was helped—to be free of Buchanan’s extreme isolationism, protectionism, anti-Israel views, and the like. Ron Paul is a little different from Pat Buchanan—but he’s no better, in my view. And I actually think we’d benefit in the long run—but even in the short run . . .”
I tend to agree that the GOP might benefit in the long term from taking a few things from Paul’s positions (I think some of the libertarian and quasi-libertarian ideas make sense in the Republican party, and some are just nuts. Same for the Democrats) and then ignoring the guy. But I don’t think it would benefit them at all in the short term. But maybe I’m wrong. Paul isn’t going to be the nominee. Would he be more likely to run as a third party if he gets dissed by the GOP in some way, and if he did would he pull many votes away? Or are his voters, by and large, not going to vote Republican if he doesn’t get the nom, so who cares if they are disaffected?
There isn’t really anyway to “kick him to the curb”. They actually tried to primary him out of his TX House seat once or twice, but that didn’t work. As long as he keeps getting people to show up to Primary elections to vote for him and/or fund his campaigns, he’s not going to be ignorable by the GOP.
In any case, he’s retiring next year and is 77 years old, I imagine he’ll be off to meet the Blessed Exchequer in the Divine Treasury relatively soon and Bill Kristol will be able to breathe easy.
The Republican party is aging, so let’s kick the only GOP candidate with youthful support out of the party. Sounds like a great long term plan to me, just like the Iraq invasion. I can’t believe anyone takes this idiot seriously.
I’m a bit confused. You seem to be admitting that Paul’s young voters are ill-informed.
Yet you argue that the GOP should get behind this senile bigot?
Why?
We’re talking about an idiot who believes in various conspiracy theories, is completely ignorant of American history, and who’s apparently afraid and intolerant of both blacks and gays.
In anycase, while I agree with Kristol that Paul is “not a good guy”, just from a strategic point of view I think he’s wrong that the GOP would be better off if he left the party. A third party Paul candidacy in '12 would be pretty damaging for Romney’s chances of beating Obama, while the damage done by having Paul in the GOP primary debates is pretty minimal.
Kristol has a major part in getting Palin on the ticket in 2008, so he definitely should be listened to. Enough abuse, and Paul will run as a third party candidate, which would mean Kristol helped to elect Obama both times. Sounds good to me.
There’s a connection between Palin and Paul though. Both have brought short-term excitement and embarassment to the Republican Party. Neither is a long-term fix for the party’s problems.