It had to happen eventually. With Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas scoring big in the fundraising derby, the in-the-knowsters are finally paying attention. Today's report from Rasmussen shows that in a head-to-head race with Hillary Clinton, Paul trails by 10%, which puts him in the same statistical ballpark as other potential Republican nominees in the Hillary sweepstakes. Interestingly, against Barrack Obama he trails by 17%, suggesting that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Paul draws some of Obama's anti-war vote, but what's even more interesting is to watch the pundits take their shots at him

First, there's Rasmussen themselves saying of Congressman Paul:

“Ron Paul has passionate supporters and a lot of campaign money, but just 17% think he has any chance of winning the general election if nominated. Only 4% believe he would be Very Likely to win it all…. “Among all voters, 46% think Giuliani has a chance to win if nominated, 43% say McCain has a shot and 40% say the same about Thompson. Thirty-two percent (32%) say Romney could win, 22% see Huckabee as at least a somewhat likely victor and 12% think Paul could possibly win if nominated.”

You gotta love pollsters. Rasmussen is saying that 17% think he has any chance of winning the election, then two paragraphs later they say that 12% think he could win if nominated. So let me get this straight, Rasmussen: you're saying that after the Republican nominee is determined, Ron Paul's chance of winning slips from 17% down to 12%???

Then there's Fox's Sean Hannity claiming that his own network's straw poll that Ron Paul won hands down doesn't mean anything, that it's “Just for fun.” I'm certainly glad to hear Mr. Hannity is finally having some fun, since he's far too emotionally unstable most of the time.

Over at townhall.com there's Phil Harris claiming that, “Ron Paul and others believe we should simply duck and cover.” National Ledger's Jim Roberts is declaring, “This weekend [Paul] was likely just passed by Mike Huckabee.” This followed by one day an article by National Ledger's Tim Morgan saying:

“The 'Libertarian Leaning' candidate was hit in the face with a bit of that [idea he can't win] recently when he was included in a poll by Zogby poll that asked, 'Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?' “The man that is often referred to by supporters of the head of the Ron Paul revolution grabbed forty-seven percent in that poll. That means that almost half of the country would not vote for Paul under any circumstances.”

MSNBC reported about Sunday night's debate:

“But at last night's GOP debate, something happened for the very first time: A candidate — Ron Paul — drew boos “What Paul said that produced those boos is nothing new for the anti-war, libertarian Texas congressman. 'I think the American people, if we as a party realize this and understand it … the people in America want the [Iraq] war over with. They're sick and tired of it, and they want our troops to come home.' “While many in the audience weren't happy with Paul's comments, those Republicans represent a minority of Americans — which highlights a looming general election problem for the GOP.”

Then there's the news that redstate.com, a pro-war Republican website, has declared that Paul supporters aren't welcome at their website anymore. Leon H. Wolf, a redstate.com editor, posted a notice saying:

“Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.”

But the best part was Wolf's reason why he was instituting the ban:

“We are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once”

Well, that's certainly refreshing honesty. Leon's philosophical brother at redstate.com, Mark Kilmer seconded the motion saying:

“I no longer think Ron Paul should be included in any serious discussion of the Republican Party or its Presidential candidate. (I've recommended Leon's diary, which you may count as a co-signature.) Ron Paul has ceased to be that amiable figure, the eccentric insisting that government derives its mandate only from the consent of the governed. “It's the surrender bit, completely incompatible with what I had thought of Ron Paul; it is, however, a good way to drag confused Code Pinkers and pseudo-libertarians into the cash-donating aisle with the Red Light special.”

For those who don't regularly drink red Koolaid, what Kilmer means is that he doesn't like the fact that Paul is opposed to our presence in Iraq and wants to pull the troops out. In short, what Kilmer, Wolf, and others at redstate.com are saying is that any discussion of pulling troops out of Iraq is off the table and should never be discussed.

The significance of their banning Paul and his commentary isn't that they're opposed to Paul (no surprise there) but rather that they now feel threatened by his participation in the Republican primaries, because Paul represents what to them is an unthinkable threat…the idea that the Republican Party could conceivably nominate a candidate who opposes neo-con thinking. The fact is that threat is intolerable to them, which is why they're paying so much lipservice to the idea that Paul is unelectable.

Wolf did state that, “Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect.”

I'd like to take a moment to invite Wolf, Kilmer, and those redstaters over to our site if they really want to respectfully discuss the issues. Unlike redstate.com, our website is open to everyone: libertarians, liberals, conservatives (including neo-conservatives), statists, and centrists. Of course, I don't expect any of them to participate here, but it doesn't hurt to ask. In all likelihood, they really don't want to debate. They just want the 2008 campaign to be little more than preaching to their choir, particularly where Iraq is concerned. Frankly, I don't think they have the guts for a real debate.

But getting back to my main point, which is this. All of this attention on Ron Paul is due to the fact that he has astonished everyone with his ability to raise money. So it really doesn't matter whether the attention is positive or negative…or even blacklisting (in redstate.com's case). What matters is that a tiny trickle of commentary on Ron Paul from outside the reaches of his loyal followers is starting to flow, and in the long run that can only help his campaign. Truly, for a long-shot candidate like Ron Paul there is no such thing as bad publicity at this stage of his campaign.