More dangerous than, say, a $12T debt?

by Smitty (h/t HotAir)

I'd like to pose a few questions to Frederic Mishkin,

the elite fellow quoted by Bloomberg:

U.S. Representative Ron Paul’s proposal to allow audits of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy is "incredibly dangerous" and could stoke inflation, said Frederic Mishkin, a former Fed governor.

"The Ron Paul bill is incredibly dangerous," said Mishkin, who is now a Columbia University professor, in a Bloomberg Radio interview. "It is remarkable the kind of attacks that are occurring on Fed independence."

Here is a small set of questions:

• How much power given to unelected officials is 'too much'?
• Why should a power such as the Federal Reserve exist without an explicit Constitutional Amendment to support it?
• Why is the view that the Federal Reserve is an undemocratic cartel 'remarkable'?
• How specifically would you refute the claims of the Austrian Economists who argue that you and your ilk preach, more or less, Economic Global Warming?

May Fortune bless the efforts of Representative Paul, Mr. Mishkin. 2013 shall mark a century since the bluff of you and your cronies should have been called. Inflation? Bring it on, Mike Foxtrot: better a period of suffering now than enslavement to the condescending elite.

God Bless Ron Paul

by Smitty (h/t LCR)

The effort to bring some transparency to the Federal Reserve (why on earth is this hard?) could bear some fruit.

A U.S. House committee advanced a proposal to remove a three-decade ban on congressional audits of Federal Reserve interest-rate decisions, a measure backed by a lawmaker who has called for the abolition of the central bank.

The House Financial Services Committee today, in a 43-26 vote and a second voice vote, attached the amendment for a broad audit of the Fed to legislation creating a council of regulators to monitor systemic risk. The proposal was offered by Representative Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, and based on a bill with more than 300 co-sponsors.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has opposed the Paul legislation, saying it may result in interference with monetary policy.

Hey Ben: get bent. You and your ilk have really [verbed] the [direct object] for decades. It's time for your unholy reign to end.

'What Is the President Trying to Tell Me?'

Why is he gesturing with his middle finger extended?

How have things reached such a state of political crisis that Michelle Malkin is linking Ron Paul?

Why have my Mommy and Daddy started talking about home-schooling me this year?

UPDATE: Now a Memorandum thread, with a slew of conservative bloggers commenting about the president's Sept. 8 speech to school children: Hot Air, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, And So It Goes In Shreveport, Pundit & Pundette and Caught Him With a Corndog.

No, but you might be a Progressive

by Smitty

Jesse Hathaway has published an attack on Ron Paul's policies, RePaulicanism is not the answer. Hathaway offers some history on the John Birch Society and then says:

Ron Paul is a relic, a holdover from a time when the Birchers held sway, and when "conservatism" meant economic and political isolationism, xenophobia, homophobia... all those things that so-called "little 'r' republicans" and "non-partisans" believe in. They like to bloviate about "empire-building" and how "socialist" and "totalitarian" the government is. They are often either disinterested in foreign policy, as in Ron Paul's case, or have liberal-esque foreign policies as Pat Buchanan does.

Further on:

Libertarianism is not the same as Buckleyist Conservatism, and it annoys me when liberals use Libertarians like Paul as a bludgeon against Republicans. He is a Republican In Name Only, and I wish he'd at least be honest with people and identify as Libertarian.

As is so often the case, a clarification post follows. I Must Be A Communist:

When I say "fetishizing the Constitution," I was refering to the Repaulican maneuver of holding it up and opposing anything that isn't expressly spelled out in the Constitution. For example, there is no literal right to privacy in the Constituion. There is nothing in the Constitution about a federal highway system, or publicly funded schools. Birchers would point to these things as examples of creeping fascism, examples of how we live in a totalitarian state.

I submit that a bit more historical detail may help.

• "We the People" have been running a 233 year experiment.
• The Declaration of Independence was revolutionary on a variety of levels.
• The Articles of Confederation (AoC), by comparison, make the European Union look relatively strong. The federal government was notional.
• The 1787 Constitution, while awesome, was not flawless, talking its way around the topic of slavery as it did. It was relatively stronger than the AoC, and there was a federal government with some teeth.
• 74 years later, that flaw shattered the nation. In restoring the country and abolishing slavery, the federal government took on increased strength.
• The Progressive movement came in the late 1800s. Ideas such as the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment marked 1913 as a turning point in American History.
• The Federal Government, especially since FDR, has increased its power, at the expense of the 50 States. Vastly expensive bureaucracies employ armies of point-headed little bureaucrats, and pile up debt on a scale that literally escapes comprehension.

You might have thought that the Information Age would have allowed for decentralization of power. Quite the opposite. The country is being emptied of value by our "political class", the very existence of which is antithetical to what "We the People" areshould be about.

Seen from the standpoint where the US is a tub, power is water, and Washington, DC is the drain, Ron Paul is quite valuable as a rubber ducky for tracking the drainage. Sure, I think his neo-isolationist approach to foreign policy amounts to wishful thinking. No, I'm unconvinced that his gold standard solution actually buys much. However, the fact that we have any breath of intellectual fresh air in Pelosi's House of Horrors is crucial.

Is Ron Paul a RINO? Arguably, from a libertarian standpoint. RINOs like Stacy's cousin, in my mind, are Progressive squishes who've failed systematically to uphold the three-branch/three-level Consitution that I hold rather close. Am I a Constitution fetisher? Guilty as charged. Watching the presidential debate, and hearing Senator McCain talk about having the Treasury work directly with lenders to "solve" the mortgage crisis, I was thoroughly pissed to hear such a non-grasp of the chain of command coming from a retired Navy Captain. WTF, Senator? Where is the analysis that says the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was a giant, steaming, and expensive load of fertilizer? Oh, that's right: we're talking about a Progressive RINO here.

Is Jesse Hathaway a Progressive? Here is a litmus test. Do you think that the Federalism Amendment makes sense? Nothing is perfect, but I submit that this is an idea that any actual, no-kidding, ant-RINO conservative should consider supporting substantially.

Paul Ryan: Looking Good!

"If you believe in freedom, liberty, self-determination, free enterprise, I don't care if you're a Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic, Christian, gay, straight, Latino, black, white, Irish, whatever. Join us."
-- Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Good Looking)

Yeah, it's easy to see why Ryan's a rising star for the GOP. C'mon, ladies: Those blue eyes? That thick hair? That aw-shucks grin?

A dude like that could tempt Cynthia Yockey. Oh, what the heck -- he could tempt me.

This was one of my basic insights into the massive fail of Crazy Cousin John. Even without his RINO deviations, Maverick had the problem of being old, short, grumpy and, worst of all, bald.

When was the last time America elected a bald president? Ike. Welcome to the TV age. Therefore, when in doubt in a GOP primary, always vote for the guy with the best hair.

Unlike Mitt Romney, however, Ryan's not only got great hair, he also seems to have conservative principles. He's also very shrewd. I remember being in the press lounge at CPAC this year while Ryan was giving the keynote address. I was checking my e-mail and moderating comments, and the TV was on behind me, so I heard, rather than saw, Ryan's speech, when I made this update:

In his keynote address, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) just called for "sound money" -- evincing cheers from the Paulistas.

Ding! That impressed me, even before I turned around and saw this good-looking Irish kid who's got "telegenic" like I've got "crazy."

The Paulistas were a well-organized presence at CPAC this year, with young volunteers handing out fliers in the hotel corridors and various events scheduled throughout the conference. The phrase "sound money" is like magic with Paulistas and, whether it was pre-planned or ad-libbed, those two words were the smartest thing Ryan said.

If there is one lesson to take away from the 2008 campaign -- besides the hopeless folly of running an old bald guy for president -- it's that Republicans can't win unless they unite their base as the foundation of a broad coalition strategy.

Ron Paul got 1.2 million GOP primary votes and raised $35 million. Compare that to Rudy Giuliani, who spent $59 million to get fewer than 600,000 votes. Giuliani represented no constiuency that John McCain did not equally represent. Watching those two during the GOP debates was like watching Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy.

Given the current political realities, the Republican Party simply can't afford to ignore the votes, the money and the grassroots energy that the Paulistas offer. And with two words -- "sound money" -- Ryan acknowledged that fact. Very smart.

Ryan's a married Catholic father of three, so he can count on the family values vote. If he can sound like Peter Schiff on economics and sound like Mark Krikorian on immigration, he would have no problem getting the rest of the Reagan coalition on board for 2012.

Yes, I said 2012. This doesn't mean I'm abandoning Sarah Palin. But tempus fugits, and if she doesn't have time to attend CPAC or the GOP congressional fundraiser in 2009, then if she's going to run for re-election as governor in 2010, it's going to be hard for Palin to catch up with all the Republicans who are organizing 2012 presidential campaigns now.

If conservatives don't want to be faced with a choice between Romney and Jeb Bush -- No More Bushes! -- we're going to have to get behind somebody PDQ, and Ryan is definitely somebody. He's extremely young (only 39), and he's only a congressman, not a senator or a governor, but he's from a Midwestern swing state (and attended college in Ohio), so he's got that Electoral College factor going for him. Plus, the Heritage Foundation loves the guy.

Lots of Republican strategists harbor little hope for beating Obama in 2012, so if Palin wants to wait for 2016 or later . . . hey, why not let the Irish kid take a shot? You gotta admit: Ryan's looking good.

Digging deeper

At AmSpecBlog, I attempt to put into words my vast exasperation with the transparent bogusness of Obamanomics:

This goes back to September, when John McCain declared, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Michelle Malkin finally got fed up with what she called the "Pollyanna conservatives" and burst out: "The fundamentals of the market suck." And the sucking has only grown louder since then. . . .
We are headed for '70s-style "stagflation." Never mind what the Dow Jones does today; it will be below 6,000 by Christmas. Obama doesn't know what he's doing, and what he's doing is standing at the bottom of a hole demanding we dig faster.

Our financial problem is caused by excessive debt, and you cannot borrow your way out of debt. Somebody owes Ron Paul an apology, because he's been right about this problem all along.

Re-inflating the bubble?

The news that Senate Republicans have added "tax relief for homebuyers" to the stimulus bill is not good news, says Doug Bandow at The American Spectator:

The housing market bubble burst. It cannot be reinflated. The bust will be painful, but dumping more money into the market in an attempt to inflate prices will only slow the adjustment process. The pain is unfortunate, even tragic for some people, but inevitable.

Exactly -- a point made by Ron Paul just yesterday. While driving to Washington, I was listening to C-SPAN radio coverage of the House Financial Services Committee hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and caught this:

Ron Paul . . . says that, as a free marketer, he is also upset that Congress wants to prop up housing prices when there is a glut of housing on the market. "What's wrong with allowing the market to allow these prices to adjust," and drop quickly, so that "we can all go back to work again?"

That is to say, from a free-market perspective, those houses are worth whatever they'll sell for. The losses caused by the collapse of the bubble are real, and until those losses are realized -- that is, until the houses are sold and the market readjusted -- we are living in a state of economic denial, which Senate Republicans are attempting to prolong.

This is what Michelle Malkin has been trying to say in her many months of outspoken opposition to Washington's bailout/stimulus frenzy. The market is the market, and you can't fool the market. It might be the only thing that Ron Paul and Michelle Malkin agree about.

UPDATE: While trying to find video of Dr. No's statements yesterday, I found this video from February 2007 -- two years ago, before the bubble burst -- where he's talking "fiat money.":

This sounds kooky at times, but his essential points are correct:

• By manipulating the money supply and interest rates, the Fed conceals economic reality behind a wall of artificial price-signals.
• During the "bubble," the consumer price index (CPI) did not accurately reflect the inflation that Americans were experiencing in higher costs of housing, health care and college tuition.

We had government "experts" telling us that inflation was running only 2% annually, even while housing prices soared, effectively pricing many young people out of the market.

In retrospect, we see that kooky "Dr. No" was prescient, and all the "experts" were full of crap.

America's No. 1 growth industry

(BUMPED; UPDATES BELOW) Somewhere around here in one of my bookshelves, I've got a copy of Stephen Moore's 1995 classic, Government: America's No. 1 Growth Industry: How the Relentless Growth of Government Is Impoverishing America, the title of which speaks a truth that is now truer than ever.

That title recurs to memory because of a few items Instapundit linked this weekend. Item No. 1:

While the private sector was shedding millions of jobs in 2008 and government budgets were collapsing under the weight of waste, fraud and carved-in-stone personnel costs, the public sector had another banner year. Governments at all levels hired 164,100 new employees and were largely responsible for the addition of a further 96,600 jobs in education and 371,600 in health care. Now President-elect Obama wants to add 600,000 to the bloated federal payroll. . . .
Lip service by public officials about fiscal austerity notwithstanding, governments and their public-employee unions seem to be approaching 2009 as if the recession is none of their concern.

Item No. 2:

After the 2000 Census, the richest county in America was Douglas County, Colorado. By 2007, Douglas County had fallen to sixth. The new top three are now Loudon County, Virginia; Fairfax County, Virginia; and Howard County, Maryland. All three are suburbs or exurbs of Washington, D.C. In 2000, 14 of the 100 richest counties were in the Washington, D.C., area. In 2007, it was nine of the richest 20.

Government growth is parasitical, like a tick growing fat with the blood sucked from its host. The private sector is the only place that real wealth-creation occurs. Government's collection and expenditure of revenue can only redistribute wealth, not create it.

The necessary result, then, of the unequal fiscal action of the government is, to divide the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes, and, of course, bear exclusively the burthen of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds, through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into tax-payers and tax-consumers.

The great failure of the Bush administration and of the Republican congressional leadership was their failure to understand and act on this principle. Bush cut taxes, but he failed to restrain the growth of government and, indeed, through No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D, actively expanded the size, power and expense of the federal government. The tax-consuming ticks grew fatter.

In 1994, the Republicans who gained control of Congress did so by pledging themselves as representatives of the taxpayers, and passage of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was their greatest achievement. But some Republicans grew weary of being called "mean-spirited" and, after Bob Dole's defeat, these GOP fainthearts heeded the siren song of "national greatness" -- that oxymoronic chimera "big government conservatism" or, as the Bushies called it, "compassionate conservatism."

We now see the bitter fruit of that poison tree: Once they ceased to be the party of taxpayers, Republicans were left without a raison d'etre. If the GOP cannot be trusted as thrifty stewards of our taxes, what is the point of voting Republican? There are many explanations for why the Republican share of the popular vote plummeted from 62 million in 2004 to 58 million in 2008, but the fatigue of the taxpaying host and the concommitant fattening of the tax-consuming ticks is the clearest explanation. Political cowardice has reaped its inevitable reward.

This was the grand idiocy of "compassionate conservatism" as an outreach strategy: "Look how blithely we betray our core principles! See how eager we are to backstab our staunchest supporters! Vote Republican!"

Why should any Republican feel malice toward Barack Obama? His election is the necessary consequence of Republican failure. If you don't like Obama, blame Bush, blame Karl Rove, blame Tom DeLay, blame Denny Hastert, blame Mitch McConnell, blame Trent Lott -- blame every Republican who adopted that go-along-to-get-along stance toward the ceaseless growth of the federal Leviathan. You can't feed the ticks and expect the host to remain healthy.

Next time you hear some Republican whining about the liberal media's fawning over Obama, ask them this: How on earth did John McCain -- a/k/a "Obama's secret weapon" -- get the Republican nomination with only 47% of the primary vote? Who were those 47% and why couldn't Republicans prevent the nomination of an unpopular candidate who had spent the previous decade stabbing his own party in the back?

If Republicans cannot unite on the principle of limited government, they will be divided and conquered by the united advocates of unlimited government. If you are unwilling to lose an election by standing firmly on principle, you might win a few elections in the short run, but eventually you will be defeated by your unprincipled betrayals.

The only glimmer of hope for the GOP at this point is that the incoming Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress are singing unison from the Keynesian hymnal, advocating a plan that will inject the tax-consuming ticks with hundreds of billions of taxpayers' blood. Conservatives know one thing for sure: It won't work. More deficit "stimulus" spending won't produce economic recovery and will, in fact, make the recession much worse.

"Central economic planning doesn't work. That's why we're in this mess."
-- Ron Paul

Now that the election is over, now that "Republican foreign policy" is a moot debate, now that the Surrender Lobby is fully in control of the White House, can Republicans stop hating on Ron Paul long enough to admit that he is absolutely right about the fundamental principles of political economy? You don't have to be a gold-bug conspiracy theorist to recognize that the open-the-floodgates policy at the Fed ultimately served only to enrich the Tim Geithners of the world. And among Geithner's Republican defenders, we see who sides with the tax-consumers against the taxpayers.

Since conservatives know that the neo-Keynesian methods of Obama and the Democrats are doomed to a disastrous end, this low ebb ought to be the beach head on which we plant our flag. Any Republican who votes for more "stimulus" is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and deserves to be treated as the traitor he is. Perhaps the candidates for the RNC chairmanship should be asked to take a pledge: Not a cent of party contributions will be spent to support the re-election of any Republican member of Congress who votes for the Democratic stimulus package. If party discipline can't be enforced, at least ensure that the sellouts betray conservative principles on their own dime.

Obamanomics can lead to only one result: Weimar America. And that reminds me of a third item Instapundit linked:

"Why wait until the government gets around to issuing them in 2011, when they'll buy a single measly gallon of gas?"

Heh. And mega-heh. Taxpayers or tax-consumers? Take your pick, and make your stand.

UPDATE: Linked at Libertarian Republican. Thanks!

UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin refuses to join the Kumbayah Conservative Chorus.

UPDATE III: So predictable: "Shrill racist hatemonger Michelle Malkin indulges in a little codespeak . . ." Translating the code: "Shrill racist hatemonger" = Republican. Thou shalt not criticize Obama.

Ron Paul explains it all

"Central economic planning doesn't work. That's why we're in this mess."

Via News Alert.

Ron Paul endorses . . . who?

This is odd news. Ron Paul decides to catch the last train to kookville. Why? Apparently in revenge because Bob Barr snubbed Paul's recent "anybody-but-McCain-or-Obama" press conference.

What's more discouraging than Paul's fit of pique is the idiotic anti-political behavior of Paul's supporters. Back when the Barr campaign for the Libertarian nomination was taking flight, it seemed logical to expect that the Paulistas would climb aboard the Barr bandwagon. There were lots of rumors to that effect in May, and indeed many former Paul supporters did join the Barr campaign.

Paul basically pulled the plug on his GOP campaign in February, but kept Barr at arm's length, apparently because Paul wanted to satisfy his more rabid supporters, who seemed chiefly interested in making a protest at the Republican convention. (I suspect it may be relevant to all this that Barr refused to associate himself with the anti-Semitic kook fringe types who had embarrassed Paul.)

If Paul had endorsed Barr in May, when the media was all over the Libertarian threat, it would have made all the difference in the world. Paul's endorsement of Chuck Baldwin in late September -- when the media is fully absorbed in the Obama-McCain battle -- is barely a pebble in a pond.

This is a sad way for Paul to end a campaign that once inspired a lot of young libertarians and anti-war conservatives. Last fall, I went with an intern to cover a Ron Paul event at the Boulevard Wood Grill in Arlington, and that room was on fire with enthusiasm from 20-something and 30-something activists. Seeing it all come down to a fizzle like this -- well, it's just sad.

Ron Paul & Bob Barr: A Comparison

At Third Party Watch. Also here's Paul on CNN:



"He's saying the things he should be saying. He's joined the Libertarian Party and he presents these views and he talks our language. So I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message and that people will have a chance. That gives everybody a choice in the matter."

Ron Paul quits

The Revolution ends in Texas. Cui bono?

Barr & Paul on Iran

From my latest article in The American Spectator:

Not all the speakers at the "It's Time To Talk" event were liberal Democrats, however, and the occasion allowed Barr an opportunity to say hello to a former congressional colleague he calls "a very good friend," Texas Rep. Ron Paul.
Much of Barr's hope to make his Libertarian candidacy a serious threat in November depends on his ability to capture the energy -- and phenomenal fundraising potential -- demonstrated by Paul's anti-war insurgency in the GOP.
Already, many of the activists who supported Paul in the Republican primaries are working for Barr. Monday, two pro-Paul bloggers sent out an e-mail explaining they were backing Barr because his campaign would "retain the philosophical core of Ron
Paul's message." So far, however, Barr has yet to match the online money machine that helped generate more than $30 million for Paul's primary campaign. As of yesterday, the Barr campaign's website reported he had raised about $250,000.

Read the whole thing. Meanwhile, See-Dubya wants to "get a rise out of the Other McCain" by reporting that Tom Tancredo says he can't vote for Barr. Why? Tancredo says Barr's got "a blind spot on radical Islam." I'll see Barr in a couple of hours (he's speaking at Grover's Wednesday morning meeting) and ask him about that.

Barr campaign in Atlanta

Barr slammed the Bush administration today:

Bob Barr blasted the Bush administration on Wednesday for eroding the privacy of U.S. citizens, which he called the most fundamental of American rights.
"Obviously, under this administration, the right to privacy not only isn't important, it doesn't exist," Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president, told the Clayton County Rotary Club.

(Via Jason Pye.) I'm in the Atlanta area today, but didn't go to the event in Jonesboro, because I was visiting with friends and family, including my high school drama and chorus teacher, Carolyn Hansard, whose son Bart Hansard has built a career as an actor.

Something else from the AJC story:

[Barr] already has campaign events planned in Washington, New York, Las Vegas and Portland, Ore., with more to come, he said.

I had a brief phone conversation today with a Barr operative, who told me the campaign staff is currently busy meeting the legal requirements, doing necessary paperwork, "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" of establishing the campaign infrastructure. The candidate will continue doing media -- he appeared on Neal Cavuto's Fox show today -- and fundraising for the general election will get underway. Expect to hear a lot more from Team Barr in June.

Meanwhile, a clueless MSM report from Newsweek:

Barr's goal is snag the support of 15 percent or more of registered voters and participate in this fall's presidential debates. That's unlikely to happen. One big reason: Ron Paul. With his cult-hero bid for the White House, Paul has done more this year than any of his predecessors to popularize Libertarian ideas--no foreign interventions, minimal government, a return to the gold standard. But the trouble is, he ran (and is still running) as a Republican, and shows no signs of abandoning his party. If Paul continues his campaign through the GOP convention, as he's already promised, he'll monopolize much of the newly-unleashed Libertarian energy--the record-breaking donations, the clever online organizing, the passionate activism--at least through September.

Moron. Paul's campaign makes it more likely (not "unlikely") that Barr will reach double digits in the polls. Paul's campaign within the GOP is effectively over. Paul's delegates will make noise at the GOP convention, but as fair as advancing the goal of his supporters -- to dethrone their pro-war conservative adversaries -- the Paul campaign has failed, where Barr may yet succeed.

Dozens of delegates at the Denver LP convention had been active Ron Paul supporters in the GOP primaries. Now their support (their time, effort and money) will be devoted to Barr.

Don't believe anything the MSM writes about Barr. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Aaron Sheinin is the only MSM reporter who has even really tried to be fair to Barr. Otherwise, go to Third Party Watch.

Ron Paul: Thanks, chumps!

UPDATE Saturday 10:30 p.m.: Newbie bloggers, pay attention. If you say your prayers at night, one of these days, you might get the awesome Instalanche. Thanks, professor -- even if I am a little harsh sometimes. I've been hanging out with Ace too much, I guess. Or maybe Jimmie.

Also, I'm posting this from a borrowed computer in LaFayette Hall at George Washington University, and Marilyn gives a big shout-out to all her GW College Republican homeys. (More updates below.)

* * * * *

First, Mitt quits, now Ron Paul hangs it up:

With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no 3rd party run. ...
I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.
In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Translation:

"Hey, chumps, ever heard of something called a 'bait and switch'?
"Remember all that money you donated so I could campaign for president?
"Well, instead I'm going to use it to campaign for re-election to Congess, you stupid chumps.
"However, just in case you're not smart enough to realize you've been played for a sucker, I will maintain a token presidential campaign. That will allow me to continue paying fat salaries to the genius pimps who masterminded this scam.
"You've been so totally punk'd, dude. I got your hopes up, then screwed you over.

"To quote a great American, 'Never give a sucker an even break.'
"If I can't win re-election in Texas, my advisers plan for me to have a second career doing late-night infomercials for no-money-down real-estate scams.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Like the Romney supporters left brokenhearted by Thursday's announcement from Mitt The Quitter, now the Paulistas can begin to come to grips with the fact that they've been misled and exploited.
.
I'm still at CPAC -- or, actually, I'm about a block from CPAC, at the home of my friend Matt Keller. I understand that another of my friends, Matt Vadum, got shanghaied by bloggers last night, while I was hanging with ... well, that's another post.
.
UPDATE (Saturday p.m.): Guess Matt Vadum wasn't lying, huh? And excuse me for my inability to modulate my voice. Also, excuse my French. Mon dieu!

UPDATE Saturday 2:15 p.m.: More at Memeorandum, Reason Magazine, The Caucus, and Don Surber, who says:

If he is not a 3rd Party candidate, then I was wrong about the guy. I apologize for being so harsh to judge him and his supporters.

Don, the problem is, you were not harsh enough. Please keep reading.

And to the stupid commenter who accused me of being un-American: Screw you, you gullible chump. You just got played, and you don't even recognize when somebody's trying to give you a clue. A sucker is born every minute.

UPDATE Sunday 6:40 a.m.: I cannot believe the True Believers in the comment field. I mean, isn't profound skepticism intrinsic to the libertarian worldview?

Friday and Saturday, I spent several hours conferring (as we say in Washington) with the libertarian brain trust, including Shane Cory, Bob Barr, staffers at Cato and CEI, and the editors of Reason magazine. While not all of them agree with my ultra-cynical analysis of Paul's Friday night letter, I think it fair to say that Brian Doherty's reaction of disappointment is widely shared.

UPDATE Sunday 9 a.m.: As Deborah Corey Barnes testifies, the DCVIPCC's invitation-only party at CPAC was a smashing success:

[I]t was a blast held by Stacy McCain and Matt Vadum until the hotel management cut it off ... there are many luxury suites in the Omni Shoreham. In fact, it seems like the management spends most of the nights during CPAC breaking them up. Why?

My theory, Mrs. Barnes? God gives us enemies for a reason, and thus we should be grateful for His blessings.

Like the Roman centurion, Jesse the Security Chief is "a man under authority." Who knows what misery was averted by Jesse's intervention? What might have happened, I ask you, if Jesse hadn't broken up the party before Bob Barr arrived? I remind you that Congressman Barr has been known to exercise his Second Amendment rights at social occasions.

Therefore, I will be grateful. And next year, we'll either (a) convene our soiree elsewhere, or (b) invite Jesse to the party. This will be a topic of discussion at the next meeting of the DCVIPCC.

As to the historic nature of the "blast," I will quote one of our uninvited guests (I have a nostalgic admiration for clever party-crashers): "Dude, that was epic."

Exit question: Was Stephen Glass a fabulist ... or a visionary?