From Instapundit, about last night's "debate":

He's just terrible, even when -- which is often, once he's off the subject of the war -- I agree with him. His voice is too high, he can't remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station.

But that's good news, in a way. Paul's doing better than anyone expected. It's abundantly clear that he's not doing it on charisma and rhetorical skill. Which means that libertarian ideas are actually appealing, since Ron Paul isn't. Paul's flaws as a vessel for those ideas prove the ideas' appeal. If they sell with him as the pitchman, they must be really resonating. I suspect Paul himself would agree with this analysis. Er, except maybe the bus station part.

I'm glad that someone else listens to this stuff, so I don't have to.

Oh, and speaking of Ron Paul, check out the video over at Lileks' place:

The likelihood of a candidate’s victory is inversely proportional to his followers’ resemblance to religious cultists. The last time I saw someone this blissed out he wanted to tell me about Landru.

Insty says: Paul's doing better than anyone expected. It's abundantly clear that he's not doing it on charisma and rhetorical skill. Which means that libertarian ideas are actually appealing, since Ron Paul isn't.

Um, I fear it's not libertarian ideas that explain how well Paul is supposedly doing. I suspect his position on Iraq has led to some astroturfing.

Ron Paul is going to win this election. Wait and see, wait and see. This is like Jimmy Carter in 1976 all over again. People want change, and there is no one running who offers more change than Ron Paul.

Also, many people are so apathetic about politics that it will not take a huge number of people to win most primaries and caucuses.

You lose my respect for not only smearing a worthwhile candidate, but for not being smart enough to protect your own skin.

Right, you're exempt from losing your personal freedoms because you support neocon views on your blog.

Dream on, sucker.

I suspect his position on Iraq has led to some astroturfing.

Or rather, his position on Iraq makes him the only outlet for Republicans and libertarians who agree with him on that issue.

Rand, your comments on Ron Paul are verging into ad hominem territory. Criticizing the bona fides of a candidate by picking on some nutty supporter is hardly a legitimate criticism. In fact, it's a variant of the straw man argument. Every candidate in the field has nutty supporters. Stick to the issues or stick to the candidates. Be careful if you stick to the candidates too much. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a character and integrity which is wholly impossible to impugn or assassinate. The rest are easy targets, character and integrity wise.

I wasn't criticizing Paul for his supporters, which as you say, he has no control over. I (and Lileks) was simply pointing out the unlikelihood of him winning based on these kinds of supporters.

What bothers me about Ron Paul and Friends is thier mythology that an EU-style North American Union is only months away, complete with a common currency called the "Amero". This being forced upon us by a conspiracy involving everyone from the Bushes and the Clintons (working together) to Jewish bankers to large corporations to a still-alive Colonel Sanders.

They take any pro-NAU document or statement from any private citizen and hold it up as gospel and official government policy in three countries. When you try to sift the theories and accusations for actual evidence, you get the impression that the folks who made money off the UFO crowd have simply modernized their operation - first 9/11 conspiracies, and now the NAU.

Far from distancing himself from this crowd, Ron Paul has been known to milk the NAU conspiracy theory in his speeches. It's not like a candidate claiming "I once saw a UFO"; it's like a candidate claiming "The UFOs will invade next year! Only I am willing to stop it!".

I don't know if Paul has changed in recent years or if the scrutiny he is now receiving is uncovering character and intellectual flaws he always had. Either way, he is a deeply flawed candidate because of his isolationism and foolish views on international trade. The fact that a prominent minority of his supporters are shrill cranks is not Paul's responsibility but does suggest that Paul's candidacy is a flash in the pan. Lileks nailed it.

Paul gets support because he makes people with a particular set of values feel good. That's not the same as having a winning platform. Look at Giuliani, who is favored among Republicans (see Intrade). As far as I can tell not many people like Giuliani. I don't like him. He doesn't make many people feel good. But people support him because on balance he appears to be the least bad (on the issues that matter most) and the most competitive Republican candidate, and they think they could live with him as president. Ron Paul doesn't have those qualities. His isolationism is a deal-breaker for too many Republicans. His main source of political leverage is as a potential third-party tie-breaker.

I suspect that if Paul runs a separate campaign, that he'd probably pull more votes from anti-war Democrats than from Republicans.

That could be, particularly if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.

Giuliani gets support because, for whatever reason, people think he can win the general election. As far as Ron Paul running as an independent, given a fiscal conservative republican candidate, I think his anti-war views would be a spoiler for the democrats.

Rand... You do know, don't you, that I worked with the Paul campaign in 1987-88 and wrote his space policy? And that the Colorado LP worked with me to get him into an ISDC, making him the *only* Presidential candidate to ever speak at one of our events?