From Brian Doherty:
Ron Paul came in second with 23 percent, roundly outperforming all polls leading up. This is not just living up to expectations. This is exceeding them. This is, as his campaign announced, very good reason for everyone not Paul and Romney to give this campaign up. Those two define a division in style and substance that will shape the Republican Party this year, and in the future. Paul’s anti-interventionist, scrappy, radical libertarianism smashed Gingrich’s 90s think tank conservatism, Santorum’s outmoded social conservatism (which Paul nearly matched in Iowa as well) and Jon Huntsman’s smarty-pants mealy-mouthed mainstream moderate Republicanism (even with its “I don’t seem like a total jerk or fool” veneer).
From James Ostrowski:
To say that the mainstream media is extremely hostile to and biased against Ron Paul is not to allege a conspiracy but merely to acknowledge an obvious fact. A few examples will make the point. In Iowa, the MSM helped create a Santorum surge while giving him zero scrutiny and trashing Ron Paul. In New Hampshire, they did the same for Huntsman—promoting his nonexistent surge while trashing Ron Paul. There was zero scrutiny of Huntsman’s record. As with Iowa, they kept insisting that Ron Paul was fading. In spite of that attempted self-fulfilling prophesy, Ron Paul beat Huntsman decisively.
From Matt Welch:
Bottom line: Paul tripled his vote in New Hampshire over 2008, after more than doubling it in Iowa. Romney was the same in Iowa, and slightly up in New Hampshire. He’s got the Mitt-mentum, and the glide path to the nomination, but something very interesting is happening in the underbrush.
ADMIT IT: Ron Paul’s Performance In New Hampshire Was Impressive – Business Insider
How ‘dangerous’ is Ron Paul to the Republican Platform? : Ron Paul finished a strong second in New Hampshire, which means his ‘dangerous’ ideas will likely shape the GOP platform. Ron Paul followers are younger and older independents. – Christian Science Monitor
Ron Paul Confounds New Hampshire Polling -campaignsandelections.com
Paul’s end of the night speech:
If any of the Republican candidates other than Ron Paul (or Jon Huntsman, maybe) wins the presidency, we can expect war with Iran, Syria, and Pakistan, more nation building, more policing of the world, more drone attacks that kill dozens of innocent civilians, more secret prisons, more military tribunals, more assassinations of American citizens, the expanded use of torture, more money for the military-industrial complex, and the expansion of the police state. At least, that’s what they assured us during last night’s CBS “debate” on national security issues. They had plenty of time to tell us since Ron Paul was allowed a grand total of 90 seconds of speaking time during the televised portion of the joint press conference.
But hey, if we get lucky, we might not be forced to buy health insurance.
Jonathan Bernstein is right. The GOP presidential debates have largely been substance-free on foreign policy.
Why are the debate moderators not trying to provoke more clashes like those between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum? Like Paul, Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman also dissent from the neoconservative line on war and national security (if not to the same extent). Why won’t the moderators allow them to debate the others on this topic? These events are supposed to be debates, right?
And even aside from the largely ignored moral and strategic dimensions of American foreign policy, it’s absurd that in an election where government spending is supposedly a huge issue, none of the “top tier” Republican candidates are talking about America’s trillion dollarempire.