Could a hot topic catapult a GOP second-tier candidate into the 2008 presidential nomination?

Earlier this year, it looked like illegal immigration could be that topic. It brought headlines to Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, and headaches for President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Now Republicans seem united in opposing illegal immigration. In last week's presidential debate, McCain, after making an insensitive reference to "the Guatemalans" on Mitt Romney's lawn, said, "No one, by the way, is for amnesty. I and the president of the United States, both of us from border states, came forward with a plan that we thought was comprehensive and workable with the priority being border security, which remains my position."
What remaining issue could spark an insurgency? Iraq. Anti-war Rep. Ron Paul of Texas articulated his anti-war argument in New Hampshire.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, anti-war voice of the Republicans, continues to blast his party for its militaristic stances.

The New York Times reported a testy exchange on Iraq between Paul and ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Wednesday's GOP debate.

"The American people didn't go in," Paul said. "A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy."

"Congressman, we are one nation," Huckabee replied. "We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under God. That means, if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America."

This isn't the first time Paul has drawn ire from his conservative colleagues. Pat Buchanan listed as "the decisive moment of the (Republicans' May) South Carolina debate" a confrontation between Paul and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

On Fox News last night, the GOP candidates -- sans Fred Thompson -- went at it again. There were some more fireworks than in previous face-offs and the race is starting to get more heated. Iraq, immigration, abortion and the greater War on Terror were the main topics with immigration and Iraq taking up the most time.

Winners would include John McCain although it's too little, too late and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee had a sparring match with Ron Paul in which Huckabee definitely had the crowd on his side and in my opinion won the match. You can see why Paul attracts some devotees but I have to agree with Glenn Reynolds that his notion that the "neocons" led us to war and not the nation as a whole rings hollow. Paul is essentially rewriting history as he knows full-well that the President went to Congress for approval and went to the UN as well. In fact, the process was extended because of that and that allowed Saddam to set up the insurgency in my opinion. So the idea that a few "neocons" got us into war is ludicrous at best. Huckabee is running a decent campaign being that he came from nowhere.

McCain hit some good points and came across as prepared and on his game, unfortunately he sank during the "shamnesty" bill imbroglio and can never get back to the point he was, especially with Fred Thompson now in the race. A McCain upset in the early primaries is a possibility but not probable. The Arizona Senator had the funniest line of the night when busting on Thompson for missing the debate and doing the Leno show: "Maybe we're up past his bedtime," although McCain is four years older.

Rudy Giuliani didn't make any huge mistakes but he didn't exactly blow anyone away either. He was Mayor of New York, we all know he was Mayor of New York and we all know his record in New York. Start talking about the rest of the country, Rudy.

It's good to get out from behind the desk here in L.A. and find some perspective. I just spent a long weekend in southeast Texas, home of 100+ degree temperatures, finger-licking-good BBQ and...... Ron Paul. In the tiny town of Driftwood (population: a few hunnerd) there were a host of signs along the main drag touting the maverick Republican -- dozens of them, in numerous front yards, all hand-painted. One said: "Ron Paul will end the war." Throughout the Hill Country, there were tons of Paul bumper stickers on the backs of trucks. Nary a sign of support for Giuliani nor Romney. None of that surprised me too much though. After all, Paul is a Texas boy with a libertarian streak and it makes sense that the pickup-and-gun-rack crowd would rally behind him.

But I was really shocked during the time we spent in Austin -- an oasis of blue in one big red state. Yeah, there were a few Obama '08 t-shirts, some Hillary stickers. But not a lot. Then my friends started pointing out the Paul bumper stickers alongside the Nine Inch Nails and Queens of the Stone Age decals on the backs of beaters, presumably the cars of UT students. The owner of one old pickup truck had painted "What do you think of Ron Paul?" on the sides of his vehicle, along with Paul's web site address.

In a bar I spotted a dude -- tattoos, rocker haircut -- in a Ron Paul shirt with the sleeves ripped off. We chatted briefly and he told me he's never voted Republican in his life but is pulling for Paul because of his stated intention to yank U.S. troops from Iraq immediately. Wow.

Obviously all this is anecdotal and the random counting of bumper stickers is hardly scientific polling. But if Ron Paul is a fringe candidate, as he loves to say he is, he's got to be awfully pleased with his support on the fringes. Down there in Texas, the grassroots appear to be growing strong.

Here's hoping she's OK:

Carol Paul, wife of Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul, was hospitalized today in Iowa, where the couple was awaiting results of a statewide straw poll on the GOP presidential contenders.

Carol Paul, 71, was taken to a local hospital after suffering shortness of breath and low blood pressure, said Kent Snyder, a spokesman for Ron Paul's presidential campaign.

A presidential campaign is a serious grind on all concerned and the fact that it is now starting two-years out doesn't help. The candidates spouses are there for nearly every event and have to glad-hand and smile the entire time, a process that has got to be tedious at best. The fact that she is 71, where most of the other candidates wives are younger is something to be taken into account as the travails of the stump must be trying for someone twenty years younger.

I hope that Carol Paul takes a break from the rigors of campaigning and gets some rest as there are more important things than campaigning for primaries that are 4-5 months out.

When you're right, you're right. And when it comes to the subject of Iraq, the only candidate to be able to brag on that score at yesterday's GOP debate in Iowa was Ron Paul. What a breath of fresh air the man is. To the party establishment, however, Paul carries a foul, heretical odor. I'm sure they wish he'd just go away. Here's a recap of all the Paul highlights.

Note to the other Republican candidates: even your own base is now splintered on the question of the war. Sticking by the president is a losing issue. You'd be wise to listen to Ron Paul, at least insofar as the war is concerned.

Republican, Dr. Paul Broun Jr. defeated the Republican State Senator Robert Whitehead for the seat formerly held for Rep. Charlie Norwood. Since no Democrat finished in the top two in the September primary, this seat was a given for the Republicans. So who cares? What is the big deal?

Dr. Broun was way behind in the polls. He had very little money. Somehow, he put together a coalition of liberal Democrats and unhappy Republicans and beat his opponent by 1% of the votes cast.

In his campaign, he promised that before voting he would apply this four way test:

"Is it constitutional and a proper function of government? Is it morally correct? Is it something we really need? Is it something we can afford? He has said that, like libertarian congressman and fellow physician Ron Paul of Texas, he will always carry a pocket copy of the Constitution with him and consult it before voting. In an effort to limit pork-barrel "earmark" projects, he says he will even apply that standard to requests for federal funds made by local officials in his district."

Hey, why not?

The Ohio Democrat and the Texas Republican have a significant bond: They're antiwar activists detested by their party establishment who, on a bipartisan or third-party ticket, could command significant grass-roots support.

During Monday's debate among the Democratic presidential hopefuls, Dennis Kucinich used his time extensively and expertly, detailing his anti-war credentials. His finest moment came in response to a questioner who cited the flags that "covered the coffins of my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son," and asked, "By what date after January 21st, 2009, will all U.S. troops be out of Iraq?" Kucinich replied, "The underlying assumption here is that we're going to be in Iraq until the next president takes office, and I reject that totally. People can send a message to Congress right now -- and this is in a convention of this appearance -- they can text peace, and text 73223, text peace. Send a message to Congress right now, you want out."

If Kucinich really wants the U.S. out of Iraq, he should transcend party politics and connect with Republican candidate Ron Paul.

One of Ron Paul's men in the field is worried about the nice group of followers the candidate has attracted:

Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."

Paul also said that he sees no problem with the John Birch society -- a group of conspiracy theorists who see bogeymen every where.

The Paul campaign has been interesting to watch. He has amassed a strong core of zealous supporters who act within seconds to engage anyone who they perceive as wronging their man. The problem is that -- just as described above -- the people he is attracting are fringe lefties and righties who have no where else to turn. A substantial portion of the groups believe that 9/11 was an inside job and rabid Israel haters.

I know this is a hit piece by the Times and they would never attack an John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or Baracl Obama. But what they are saying is pretty damning. The facts are the facts and it paints a picture of a campaign that has been somewhat successful in organizing, but not in appealing to mainstream America. Paul's positions are not the norm and as such he has attracted a following that is dedicated, vigilant and small.

We've known for quite some time that Ron Paul is a "9/11 Truther" (or at least supported by those who are)--one who believes that 9/11 was done with the knowledge or complicity of the Bush administration. Now he's agreeing that conspiracies that have not yet happened will in fact come to pass:

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, the Texas Congressman was asked his opinion on Cindy Sheehan's recent comments that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of the infrastructure of martial law that Bush recently signed into law via executive order, as well as public pronouncements from prominent officials that the West needs terrorism to save a doomed foreign policy.

"I think we're in great danger of it," responded the Congressman, "We're in danger in many ways, the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

He believes that a terror attack will be staged to allow the evil Neo-cons of the Bush administration unimpeded access to attack Iran.

Today, ABC reports an astonishing bit of news. Ron Paul's campaign actually has more cash on hand than rival John McCain's:

Paul's cash on hand puts him in third place in the Republican field in that important metric, although he is well behind leader Rudy Giuliani, who has $18 million in the bank, and Mitt Romney, with $12 million.

On the one hand, this shows the dismal turn of events for McCain. But the fact that Paul is more liquid than all the other Republicans running is something of a surprise. Though it is highly doubtful that Paul has any real chance of winning the nomination, his continued rise from national obscurity is something to consider. He boasts an impressive and fervent following owning to the fact that he has clearly defined principles and sticks to them. Unlike Giuliani, Romney, and McCain, you won't hear people calling Paul a flip-flopper. So long as he's allowed to participate in the debates, he will continue to draw disgruntled voters from across the political spectrum. And if he continues to raise large sums of money, he may just succeed at infusing his Libertarian-inspired issues back into the Republican party.

The esteemed representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul writes this on his Web site:

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future - and yours.

Hmmm. If that's the case, why is Rep. Paul asking for megabucks in earmarks for his district in Texas?

Read these requests (file in PDF) and note how vague they are and the lack of concrete numbers asked for. There are over a hundred requests for funding of various projects including "marketing wild American shrimp" to "construction" and "engineering services." The requests must be in the high millions or billions of dollars.

Paul seems to have adopted the "do as I say, not as I do" approach to governance so popular with the left. Perhaps Rep. Paul can forgo all earmarks to set a good example for the rest of Congress. He can be the anti-pork leader in the bloated legislature. Come on Rep. Paul, I challenge you to drop every single request for earmark funding and help us lower the debt. That seems to be your goal, but alas, I foresee you continuing your high-spending ways.

Hat tip: Ace, who is not nearly as nice as I've been.

Since it's Friday, I thought I'd write something on the light side. I couldn't think of anything lighter than the gravitas of the Ron Paul campaign.

Paul is a congressman from Texas who calls himself a Republican but is more of a neo-libertarian. He constantly refers to the Constitution and acts as if his interpretation is the only true interpretation. He has a rabid, small following who Google his name three times a day (this will help them find this piece: Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul) and comment on every Web site that mentions him. If what is said is derogatory, they become venomous and launch ad hominem attacks at the writer, kind of like LaRouchians. They go to every Internet presidential poll and vote for him repeatedly and then carp that America loves the man because he won a poll they rigged.

But let's look at Ron Paul on the issues. Let's start with national security:

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Note that the only one to ever call or talk about a draft is Ron Paul and Charles Rangel and Rangel did it purely for political reasons. For the record, Congress did vote. I believe Paul was serving at the time. Note also every answer has the word "Constitution" in it.

Without a doubt, Ron Paul is the surprise story of the primary elections. Who would have thought the former Libertarian candidate for president would wrest away the "Straight-Talk" moniker from John McCain? While I don't always agree with his positions, he makes a whole lot of sense when it comes to Iraq and the internet. And in regards to his David and Goliath debate tussle with Rudy Giuliani, though the initial consensus among conservative pundits was that Paul fared poorly, the Texas Congressman continues to articulate his position and attract supporters. But have a look-see for yourself.

Kudos to Ron Paul for infusing the presidential race with a very unexpected twist. From this week's dust-up at the Republican debate, Paul and Rudy Giuliani locked horns on the notion of "Blowback," a term coined by the CIA back in the 1950's which postulates negative repercussions as a result of United States foreign policy. First, have a look at the issue from the perspective of Mr. Paul's camp:

There's a lot here that I agree with. For a while now, Giuliani has been guilty of politicizing 9/11. As much as I admired the mayor's humanity and steadfastness in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack, I have recoiled from his absurd insistence that America won't be as safe if we elect a Democratic president. This from the man who nominated mob-linked Bernard Kerik as the head of Homeland Security?