Best. Candidate. Ever.

There is still some talk of a third-party Ron Paul run, an idea I favor, although he has pretty much ruled it out. He is right to concentrate on his house seat, mostly to keep his ideas in play. One divided by four hundred thirty six is not much but it's not zero.

The calculus changes considerably if Paul (and/or Walter Jones) loses his House primary. There will then be exactly zero Constitutional Republicans in power nationally. The system has already won; however the Ron Paul candidacy was “worth” the expense, in that

a. it messed up the script for the primary charade only being open to pre-approved candidates.
b. completely exposed the corruption of the MSM being in on the charade
c. re-introduced the concept of the Constitution as law that applies directly to our biggest problems, war and the economy, a concept that may prove useful in the near future.
d. took out Rudy, although he was able to lateral the 911 whistle to McCain
e. gave the Republicans the last possible benefit-of-doubt: they blew it.
f. showed how a gentleman conducts himself.

If he loses the House primary, he will be free of any imaginary debt to the Republican Party, or perceived duty to his donors and volunteers.  He could easily justify retiring, having done more in either of his careers than most men do in one.  I'd like to see another moneybomb as a thank you/retirement gesture.  If it were big enough it might tempt someone into one more tilt at the windmill, before the damned thing shakes itself apart.

Bob Barr - Good Enough for Government Work

From Antiwar Blog:

(Ex. Congressman) Bob "Barr is rumored to be considering a Libertarian Party run for President this November. The LP nominating convention will be held in late May." I was a big fan of Congressional Republicans circa. 1995, not so much by circa 2000. My impression was that he was one of the few that didn't get all gooey when they were no longer in opposition. I'm not sure if he was beaten at some point or he just quit and if he did, more power to him. In any case he would make a better president than anyone running, ERP. Speaking of whom,

Ron Paul's House primary is in two weeks, according to his page
(give him $50.00 while you're there)

If, God forbid, he lost the primary, how would that effect the overall equation?
Would anyone care that he almost promised that he wouldn't run as a third party candidate? I wouldn't mind seeing Paul/Barr on both Lib and Const. tickets, but I could live with Barr/(Paul Craig) Roberts. (for instance)

It's somewhat unlikely that a third party might win, and that the most likely outcome is to help elect the democrat; Okay by me. I fail to see how one liberal Senator could be worse than another, and there is a (very) faint chance that Obama might (three-and-a-half years, like Nixon) pull out of Iraq. Besides, they will be out of money and probably in a depression. McCain needs to lose because he will be able continue Bush's policies without effective opposition. A Democrat will not.

Last One Out that can figure out how, Get the Lights

From a comment over at Half-Sigma:

"...why is a Depression necessarily bad? If you're intelligent, you've already paid off your house and have enough money to live off for the next decade. It's not my problem if most people can't save a dime and live off credit.
I don't think it would be a bad thing to see useless bankers jumping from windows and pompous Lexus-renting suburbanites in soup lines. I think the US deserves a depression."

Really. Unless you own stock in Goldman, why should you give a shit if it collapsed. We're screwed when they manipulate the interest rate, blued when they inflate the money supply and tattood when they bail out the (supposedly) private institutions that fail, and if you don't like it - "Dude, don't you love your fellow countryman?" That's the real reason the GOP hates us Paultards; nobody likes a smart-ass, especially when he's right about every goddam detail.

The Fed was sold to us as a way to prevent bank panics; depositors not being able to get their savings out. What savings? We have net negative savings because we already earn less in interest than inflation and the entire system depends on the government loaning money to the banks at even lower rates. Why shouldn't we eliminate the middle man and just borrow directly from the government? Better yet, why shouldn't we all just have government jobs and pensions with free healthcare and broadband so we can telecommute, and then get bailed out if we still can't make ends meet after we get our stimulus rebate and mortgage moratorium?

What's really mystifying is that there enough Americans smart enough to fill out the loan forms.
Schmucks