Why Ron Paul doesn't belong in debates any more

The people want me to expand on why I think Ron Paul is a crank. That may have been going a little too far, so I'll take that back. Still, here is my reasoning for why I wrote it at first.

First, some background. I understand that he's really a libertarian, and he thinks the Republican party should shift in that direction as the more conservative party. I can respect that on a certain level, as I have a lot of sympathy for going back to the original intent of the constitution.

I very much disagree with him on his foreign policy views, as he thinks our meddling in Middle Eastern countries is causing Islamic terrists to want to strike against us. He's wrong, but I can see in a very limited way how he can think that. Also, I'm by no means an expert on our monetary system, but his views on the Federal Reserve seem kind of silly. I mean, it's not going away, so what's the point in railing against it? It just makes him seem nutty.

Despite all that, until last night I merely respectfully disagreed with him on these issues. However, last night he had the time to expand on his answers, and it wasn't pretty. Even on questions not having anything to to do with monetary policy or foreign policy, he was steering his answers toward those issues near the end of them. The result was a bunch of rambling, meandering statements that kind of hit on all these views. He was completely unfocused, and he was more like a crazy bum on the street talking about how the Trilateral Commission was after him. That's why I called him a crank, but I'll retract it, as it was mainly due to a horrible debate performance.

Fred at one point did a great job of calling Paul out on his views on the Fed and marginalizing him, and after that the other five guys basically ignored him. Thankfully, so did the moderator.

Paul has a very intense support, which translates into mildly respectable poll numbers and surprisingly good fundraising. However, he just isn't going to break beyond his current level of support. He's just not going to get the support of the majority of the Republican party who are concerned about Islamic terrorism. It's a reasonable proposition that any of the other five could, though, which is why I'm glad he's being excluded from the Fox News debate tonight. He just doesn't add anything at this point for people who are trying to determine who they want to support.

UPDATE: Vodkapundit drunkblogged (as he puts it) the debate last night. It's a good recap. One thing to note is that he was sympathetic to Paul, but he didn't like him last night, either.