New at Reason

Who is targeting all the anti-war members of Congress? In "Lord of the Gadflies," David Weigel analyzes the intra-party campaigns against Reps. Gilchrest, Paul, and Kucinich. Read about "the battle to make Congress more boring" here.

Comments

John | February 12, 2008, 3:22pm | #

"That isn't an indictment of anti-incumbent challenges"

As long as those challenges don't involve someone you like or supports something you consider important. Something tells me that if a quirky pro-war gadfly were being thrown out of office by his anti-war constituency, Weigel wouldn't be so concerned, which is right. But don't insult people's intelligence by claiming your concern over Paul and company involves anything beyond your opposition to the War.

Timon19 | February 12, 2008, 3:25pm | #

Whereas Paul losing his seat would be a blow for freedom and conscientious anti-war sentiment, Kucinich losing his seat would be only bad for anti-war reasons and doubleplusgood for a lot of other reasons.

. | February 12, 2008, 3:26pm | #

I read on Politico that (as of last month) Paul's approval rating in TX-14 is over 70%.

If the neocons succeed and he loses hit seat, I suppose it would be stating the obvious that he'll be running for president on a 3rd party ticket.

I wonder if they'll go after Jeff Flake next.

Kolohe | February 12, 2008, 3:29pm | #

Idiosyncratic candidates which get national attention often start to see unusual political pressure against them due to the increased media scrutiny. This is independent of any particular stance on the war (or has Cleveland gotten more bellicose?) It explains Paul, Kucinich, and in an earlier era Cynthia McKinney, but not Gilchrest - no national media attention excpet among the hardcore addicts among political junkies.

I think Gilchrest is more akin to the race in the MD-4 on the Dem side; not a referendum on the war nor any particular issue per se, but a desire for more ideological purity.

It is a phenomenon touched on by your secondary point of the article: a trend for each party to move toward their respective bases, mainly due to the cummmulation of several decades of gerrymandering that have made the majority of districts 'safe' seats.

So 'Gadflies' will only have a problem if they buck a trend to the other teams direction (e.g. Lieberman, and to some extent McCain). But if they argue that some on their side aren't doing enough in the normal Blue/Red direction, their power is somewhat acendent these days.

Kolohe | February 12, 2008, 3:31pm | #

And I should add: And a more polarized Congress may or may not be good for the country, but it will defintely be *less* boring.

creech | February 12, 2008, 3:37pm | #

If the GOP establishment screws Paul out of his congressional seat in the Texas primary, I think the RP followers will mount Independent challenges to several sitting GOP congressmen who barely squeaked by in 2006. There's one in our sights here in Penna. right now! So the price of screwing Paul is the price of losing several more incumbents.

BaBar | February 12, 2008, 3:42pm | #

I'm writing in Dondero. Hopefully Giuliani is available to be his congressional page.

Tommy | February 12, 2008, 3:51pm | #

According to Lewrockwell.com, Ron Paul held a congressional campaign rally in Lake Jackson on Sunday and 2000 people showed up. His rival in the primary, Chris Peden, also held a rally which attracted a grand total of 50 people.

Gus | February 12, 2008, 4:18pm | #

""Lord of the Gadflies," David Weigel"

I believe that should actually read, "Lord of the Gadflies, David Weigel"

Craig | February 12, 2008, 4:20pm | #

According to Lewrockwell.com, Ron Paul held a congressional campaign rally in Lake Jackson on Sunday and 2000 people showed up. His rival in the primary, Chris Peden, also held a rally which attracted a grand total of 50 people.

According to a local newspaper, the Brazosport "Facts", Ron Paul's rally had 200 people show up, while Peden's had 100. For some reason, they didn't run any pictures....

Happy Jack | February 12, 2008, 4:21pm | #

Ron Paul held a congressional campaign rally in Lake Jackson on Sunday and 2000 people showed up.

How many were actual constituents of his?

Lost_In_Translation | February 12, 2008, 4:21pm | #

50 people know about Chris Peden?

He must have a larger extended family.

Lost_In_Translation | February 12, 2008, 4:23pm | #

Yeah, I thought about going to Paul's rally, but decided to take a nap instead.

R C Dean | February 12, 2008, 4:52pm | #

And I should add: And a more polarized Congress may or may not be good for the country,

Seeing as Congress's legitimate functions are somewhere less than 10% of what it actually does, I can't see how a more paralyzed Congress wouldn't be good for the country.

Internal gridlock, baby!

Paul | February 12, 2008, 5:31pm | #

purging the odd man out. Consider also the case of another failed presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), whom Paul spoke fondly of last year, and who said he might give Paul the vice presidential slot in his own White House. Kucinich is in critical danger of losing his Cleveland-area House seat to Democrats bored of his publicity-seeking and presidential bids. The Cleveland Plain Dealer endorsedhis strongest opponent, and Kucinich has been reduced to rattling his tin cupin front of YouTube viewers.

So once again, the real anti-war candidates are perpetually on the ropes. And we're to believe there's a groundswell of anti-war sentiment why?

Nash | February 12, 2008, 6:03pm | #

"I read on Politico that (as of last month) Paul's approval rating in TX-14 is over 70%."

What? They actually like Paul in his own district? According to Eric Dondero, Chris Peden and his 400 dollar campaign war chest was going to crush Ron Paul in a head to head race!!

Look out Freedom!

economist | February 12, 2008, 7:19pm | #

Too bad. Still, I guess it makes sense for Paul to focus his resources on a probable but by no means inevitable victory in his home district than on a protest presidential campaign. Most people who plan to vote for him will vote for him anyway, as a protest vote. Others who have become resigned to John McCain will vote for McCain to show "party unity". Still, it was nice to be able to watch a few Republican debates that did not consist entirely of trying to outdo each other on who was staying in Iraq longer. I'm seriously thinking that it's time not to vote and let Clobama win, so we at least get out of Iraq, and after they've screwed up the country in their own way, people might start considering the possibility that the best solution to problems caused by government is...less government.

Geotpf | February 12, 2008, 7:40pm | #

I think most districts, and even states (for Senate races) are becoming either more Red or more Blue. A large part of this is the Southern Strategy (eliminating most Southern Democrats except those in majority-black congressional districts) and the Northeastern Backlash (eliminating most Northeastern Republicans period). The Southern Strategy is almost complete. The Northeastern Backlash is now in full swing.

Take Lincoln Chafee, ex-senator from Rhode Island. He was a 100% RINO; voted against the Iraq war, pro-enviroment, the whole works. He was defeated in 2006 when his opponent (correctly) pointed out that that didn't matter, he would still vote for Republican leadership in the Senate. He's now an indie. If he had any balls and defected a year or two before the election, he would still be senator. (He said he was afraid the Bush administration would punish Rhode Island if he did so.)

Now, in the rest of the country, urban areas are Democratic, rural areas are Republican, new suburbs are Republican, older suburbs are Democratic. I imagine one could correctly guess the political party of the vast majority of congressional districts by factoring in those factors.

bob | February 12, 2008, 8:12pm | #

I'm sorry to say it folks, but over time, I've reached the conclusion that on the whole, with notable exceptions, reason.com has become yet another inside the beltway entity dependent upon suckling at the teat of a hopelessly corrupt two party duopoly. If it goes away, so do they.

Chris Peden has increasing support from the republican establishment in Texas. He's a neocon theocrat that failed to fight a city ordinance banning smoking. Not only does he believe the "Global War on Terror" can be won by increased implementation of the Bush Doctrine. He's also proud of his opinion that we can "Win the War On Drugs." (That's a quote from his campaign website, but the link to the Asylum Street Spankers is my addition.) The candidate, and anyone that supports him should definitely have their meds checked.

Peden's congressional campaign is largely self funded, according to mandatory FEC reporting. He ain't fessing up any first quarter numbers yet.

Ron Paul's congressional campaign pulled in well over 250K in the last 4 days. Trumping Peden's entire 4Q2007 haul.

This isn't the first time the republican establishment has tried to take down the incumbent Congressman Ron Paul. In primaries past, they've gone as far as to bribe (with congressional favors) a democrat to change parties and run against Paul in the primary. It didn't work then, and it won't work this time either.

And you can trust me on that simply because I'm far outside of the beltway... for now. But I'm planning to visit our nation's capitol soon, along with a few of my friends. Maybe we'll stop by an give ya'll a big Texas Howdy!

Brent | February 12, 2008, 8:17pm | #

I think the email he sent out last week was widely misunderstood. He is not dropping out, he is cutting staff from 150 to 50 and he is still going to go all the way. Here he is in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMliyeIDp4

Also, delegates are needed to the convention so they can make a difference. Changing the plank, like they did in the Alaskan GOP, is something they are going to do. And if something crazy happens and they end up choosing who the nominee at the convention, Paul will be there (with a possible March on Washington D.C. that can influence them)

Now, personally, I think he may well not be the GOP nominee. He's too real, he doesn't speak like a politician, and the media doesn't care for him. His ideas, however, will live on. The planks will change, more Ron Paul republicans will emerge, and the GOP will have their fair share of Paulites. I believe it will be like the 60s when Goldwater changed the party. Hopefully it doesn't take 16 years to have the results in the white house.

R C Dean | February 12, 2008, 10:40pm | #

If he had any balls and defected a year or two before the election, he would still be senator. (He said he was afraid the Bush administration would punish Rhode Island if he did so.)

Sure, he stayed with the party that was helping fund his campaign to protect Rhode Island.

He might even believe it. I think most politicians are so adept at lying they fool themselves most of the time.

R C Dean | February 12, 2008, 10:41pm | #

the battle to make Congress more boring

Umm, Mission Accomplished?

Texas Toast | February 12, 2008, 11:40pm | #

He's a neocon theocrat that failed to fight a city ordinance banning smoking.

I know there's a drinking game out there somewhere that's trying to keep up and failing.

Where do these idiots come from? You want to see theocracy? You're going to have to look farther away than Lake Jackson, I can tell you that.

Mark Watson | February 13, 2008, 3:31am | #

You know, it seems to me that Reason "should have been" supportive of the only real libertarian with a chance at federal office in years. Instead we get beltway types who seem to have drunk the cool-aid, printed the smear hit piece they knew was fabricated and dealt with years ago. Why? Free Minds and Free Markets? Why? Ron Paul believes in these things. He was your best shot, and thankfully- its not over yet. It should also be obvious to anyone paying attention that the Limbaugh/Hannity's of the world who support Hillary along with Fox, are not really conservative- for all that really matters. I just think that of all organizations- REASON should have stood strong for Paul when he needed it- and still does. Time to drop the pro-war, pro-big government ideas- and return to rothbardian libertarianism- the real stuff. Maybe spend some time away from the CATO beltway for a while.

Banged Turnip | February 13, 2008, 5:09am | #

To all those dissing Reason: I agree completely.

As for Ron Paul: I kinda hope he does lose the primary. That way he will be free to run third-party which is what I think he should be doing anyway. I don't see the logic that the r3VOLution is hurt by Ron Paul not being in Congress. Being one lone voice of sanity in a village of idiots may be "feel good," but nobody except political wonks are reading Paul's congressional speech transcriptions. His message would get wider "play" if he hired a booking agent and hit the lecture circuit.

I suppose one could argue the the Liberty Committee would be hurt by Paul's absence, but given that it boasts a whopping 8 members out of 435 congressmen, I'm not sure that matters much anyway.

Kevin W. Parker | February 13, 2008, 1:32pm | #

It'll never happen, but I think the Senate should be redone so that every voter is allowed to cast, say, five votes for any candidate in the country, and the top 100 vote-getters get seated. So you could easily have a Senate filled with a variety of personalities, each with their own constituency. That would liven things up: imagine Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Barry Commoner, and Newt Gingrich trying to agree on anything!