Having dispensed all that realism in the previous post, I shopuld mention that despite not having as much opportunity to talk as he should have been given, Ron Paul did fine with the few opportunities that were afforded him. He is much more polished than last May, when the first GOP debate occurred. I was proud that he is still forthright on the war and roeign policy, because I believe the sentiment that the United States shoold rethink being policeman of the world is fairly widespread among thoughtful Americans, including many who don't think of themselves as libertarian and aren't. Just his being in the race and making the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy will pay dividends in policy in years to come, I believe. As the Iraq war winds down (it has to some day, doesn't it?) people should be ready to think seriously about the kinds of assumptions about the U.S. role in the world that got us into that mess. One consequence of Ron Paul running and becoming the phenomenon his campaign has made him, is that a non-interventionist approach is more likely to receive serious discussion.
I had a chance to talk with Dr. Paul briefly, as I did in New Hampshire (he's the only candidate who ventured into the Spin Room himself; the others all sent surrogates). He was mobbed by reportgers and did several TV interviews, though I couldn't tell with whom; might have been foreign. We did a brief interview that should be on the Register Web site tomorrow, so I'll link to it when it goes up. He is in very good spirits and plans to see the campaign through to the end. He hasn't had as grueling a schedule as some candidates, but it has been very demanding; he seems to be holding up well.