Thursday, January 31, 2008

Is Ron Paul Too Economical When Discussing Economics?

I'm much more a saver than a spender at heart, so I'm quite reluctant to condemn anyone for being too economical. In Ron Paul's case, however, it isn't his frugality with money I'm concerned about, but rather instead his economical use of language. Paul is easy to understand when he talks about the war in Iraq and other wars like it. He expresses his ideas both forcefully and in terms most anyone can comprehend. Indeed, it is sometimes his opponents who are less clear in their language when they throw out phrases like non-interventionism in criticism of Congressman Paul. One of Paul's other favorite things to discuss is the economy and his idea of government's quite limited role in economic affairs. Given the gloomy economic outlook that many have right now, I think people are interested in hearing about alternative approaches to economic issues. Thus far, however, Paul hasn't seemed very effective at pushing forth his economic message in an easy to understand manner.

One of the things I like about Ron Paul is that he is a reader and a thinker. He has been quite good at appealing to the intellect of those who are willing to give him the time of day, and I think his lasting political legacy will be the interest in politics and economics that he has sparked in the minds of many people, including numerous young people and others who don't ordinarily pay much attention to elections. I doubt Paul relishes the role of teacher, but his unorthodox politics have essentially necessitated that he try to appeal to an audience that has not already been converted to his views (as Paul discovered in 1988, there simply aren't enough libertarians to elect a libertarian president on their own). In that sense, Paul has a much harder road to the White House than a religious conservative candidate whose supporters base their core political beliefs on their faith or a socially liberal candidate whose supporters have been voting for pro-choice, pro-education candidates their entire lives. Sure, Paul also has a base of true believers to call his own, but it's relatively small compared to the base of voters that will support a Mitt Romney or a Hillary Clinton. Paul has had no choice but to sway minds in order to win votes.

Swaying minds is much more difficult when one speaks above the head of one's audience, however, and I think this is a mistake Paul makes too often, especially during the debates when discussing economics. For instance, in the last Republican debate at the Reagan Library, Paul made a reference to the "guns and butter" tradeoff that governments must face when planning budgets and setting policies(the guns represent defense spending and the butter represents social spending). It is a classic dilemma that just about everyone who has ever studied economics is familiar with, but there are an awful lot of people who have never studied economics to any degree. Paul should realize that a lot of people have never given economics a chance; "guns and butter" is going to sound like gibberish to them, even though the concept being referenced is actually very easy to understand. Paul would be more effective if he went straight for the concept and left the confusing lingo behind. Talking like an economics textbook isn't wise in a country where economics textbooks rely on a captive audience of college students to account for most of their sales. Similarly, when Paul talks about monetary policy and the gold standard in vague terms he is also losing the attention of some of his audience. Some of the people who are listening to him have never even thought about what gives their currency value; some of them don't understand what the gold standard is; some probably think American money is still backed by gold and don't know what the big deal is about. To effectively reach a large audience with wide differences in education level and interests, Paul needs to do some explaining as well as expressing. That is hard to do during a debate, where speaking time is limited, but Paul needs as many people as possible to both hear and understand his message.

Although I've singled out Paul in this post, I think most politicians could probably be more effective if they avoided vague language and terminology that might be unfamiliar to much of their audience. For instance, I personally feel uncomfortable with the oft-repeated term "Islamofascism." My first thought on hearing that term is that Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists have formed a government that operates similar to how Mussolini's Italy did. The term is confusing to me because I primarily associate fascism with a certain time and place in history; I don't just think of it is as a political ideology. I was also taken by surprise by John McCain's recent attacks against the Alternative Minimum Tax, but only because I had no idea what that was until he started mentioning it. I was curious enough about the tax to google it, and I thus discovered that one of the controversies surrounding this tax is that a lot of people don't learn about it until after they start to owe it. What one politician thinks is a big issue is often something the people he or she is speaking to have never heard of; politicians sometimes need to inform before they can persuade.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Barack Obama, the Last Pro-Choice Democrat (on Health Care)

One of the clear policy differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (and between Obama and John Edwards) is related to their plans for universal health care. Although both Democratic candidates for president have promised to make universal health care a reality if they are elected, they disagree philosophically on whether or not health insurance is something that should be mandatory -- a nice way of saying "forced" -- or not. Obama wants to correct the flaws in the present system which lead to people being unable to get insurance because of the high cost of premiums or because no health insurance company is willing to offer them insurance. From Obama's perspective, health insurance is something almost everyone wants, but it is also something which not everyone is currently being allowed access to. Thus, Obama thinks that government's role in health care reform should be to tear down the barriers which are preventing people from getting insurance. People who can't afford health insurance will be subsidized; people denied insurance from private companies will have access to a national health care plan, like everyone else. Obama draws a line at having government force people to have health insurance, although he does insist that all children be insured. Clinton and Edwards don't draw that line; in fact, they believe it would be wrong to let anyone go without health insurance, even if certain people don't want to have insurance.

I think the pivotal question here is whether or not people have the right to make decisions that might be wrong or dangerous to themselves and costly to society. As individuals, most people would undoubtedly prefer to have as many choices open to them as possible because they trust themselves to make good choices and don't want the government to tell them how to live their lives. As members of society, people tend to fear what other people who think differently than them might do, so it becomes more appealing from that perspective to limit other people's choices. Yet when we limit other people's choices through government intervention we also end up limiting our own choices as well. Anything that supposedly makes society better through the limitation of individual choice also makes our country less free. That doesn't mean we should never limit an individual's ability to make choices, of course, but I do think we should at least think about how taking choices away will affect the individual whenever we make policy decisions that will limit freedom.

Is there ever a legitimate reason to not want health care? I tend to think a fair number of people who would be insured by Clinton and Edwards probably won't be insured under Obama, but I also think the number of uninsured will fall dramatically. The continuing numbers of the uninsured will likely include wealthy Americans who aren't worried about the costs of health care, Americans who can afford health insurance but for whom it would be a significant and recurring cost they'd rather not take on, poor Americans who fall through the cracks of the system and don't get insured even though their insurance would be subsidized, and Americans whose beliefs and opinions prevent them from seeking either health insurance or health care of any kind. Each of these groups brings a set of problems to the table. The wealthy and other people who opt not to buy health insurance don't pool their funds to help pay for the health care of others. Taxes, though, will insure that this group does still pay something. The poor who don't get insured will be victims of bureaucracy, denied by government inefficiency what they were previously denied in the name of corporate efficiency. From a civil liberties perspective, it is the fringe group of people who don't want health insurance because of their beliefs or opinions who are most in danger of having their rights trampled on. Personally, I'm not too fond of hospitals, but that wouldn't stop me from going to one if I really needed help, and I do think most people who work in hospitals are trying to do the best they can to save lives and restore health. I also think health insurance is a good thing and I'm glad to have it. Still, I cringe at the thought of telling someone that they are wrong for distrusting doctors and hospitals or for having beliefs that discourage the use of modern medicine. Health care, after all, isn't just sweetness and light. People do die and suffer because of ill-treatment and incompetence in health care institutions, the insured and the uninsured alike. While I think health insurance and health care providers are the cause of much, much more good than they are of evil, I can't say that it is invalid or wrong or crazy to take the opposite view and not want to have health insurance as a result. Similarly, if you don't want to buy into a health insurance industry that has, by most accounts, not done a very good job of allowing access to health care for everyone, I cannot fault you for that. The reason people are clamoring for universal health care is because private insurance failed to deliver it to meet the needs of all; the leading Democrats seem to think government and private insurance can work together to make health care work, but I could understand why anyone might be skeptical of that notion. Thus, it seems to me that there are legitimate (although sometimes selfish and sometimes odd) reasons to not want health insurance. However, it is worth noting that while people may willingly opt out of having health insurance they may not be so willing to opt out of receiving health care (they may even be so injured that they can no longer make such a choice at all); in those cases, the cost of providing health care to a "free rider" will sometimes have to be born collectively by society as a result of an individual's choice.

All things considered, I do like Obama's approach towards health care reform better than the approaches of his Democratic rivals. I think he is right that most people do want health insurance and would choose to have it if it is truly available to all. I don't think it is government's responsibility to put a gun to people's heads and say, "Get insured!" Instead, I prefer government to be an advocate and an enabler rather than a tyrant. Simply making health insurance available to everyone who wants it will be a serious funding and bureaucratic challenge; why further complicate things by also forcing health insurance on people who don't want it? This would be a partial rather than a complete solution, however, because there will still be people who remain uninsured. In an imperfect world where people do not think or believe the same things, perhaps a partial solution is the best we can have.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Mike Huckabee and the Constitution

Although the Constitution is by design a living document that can be amended, I think one of the main reasons it continues to hold such an important place in American political thought is its relative simplicity. The Constitution can still be read in one sitting, in stark contrast to the United States Code. It is still possible to commit each constitutional amendment to memory if you so desire. In my opinion, three factors have helped maintain the Constitution's simplicity. Firstly, those who hold the Constitution in high regard have traditionally been reluctant to alter the document unless they deemed it absolutely necessary, so they sought to implement government changes in other ways than through amending the Constitution. Secondly, chance has played a big role. I'm sure there have always been politicians who have wanted to alter the Constitution to suit their own aims or to mold it to fit to their personal philosophies; we're actually quite lucky that only one amendment, the 18th Amendment, had such a negative effect on the country that it was actually repealed. Most importantly, though, the Constitution is difficult to amend; while a constitutional amendment can be proposed by either Congress or state legislatures, it can only be ratified by a broad agreement of 3/4ths of the state legislatures, an impressive plurality.

Difficult as it is to amend, the Constitution in its present form is considered by at least one presidential candidate to be quite lacking in at least two areas. That candidate is Mike Huckabee, a champion of both a "right to life" amendment and a "defense of marriage" amendment. A president really can be little but a champion of any proposed constitutional amendment; if Huckabee really wanted to be directly involved in the process of amending the Constitution, he'd need to serve in Congress or in a state legislature. Nevertheless, Huckabee has used his position in the public eye to bring attention to two possible future constitutional amendments, and in so doing I think he has displayed his own attitude towards the Constitution. Indeed, Huckabee made his attitude quite explicit with his recent statement that he would like to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards." Clearly, Huckabee has no qualms about amending the Constitution when he thinks it's the morally right thing to do, but I wonder just what Huckabee wouldn't be willing to amend the Constitution over. If the Constitution is amended to the point where it is merely a reflection of whatever ideology happens to be popular at the time, it will become both complicated and meaningless. Huckabee's whole attitude towards amending the Constitution seems to be too flippant to me -- if he really believes the Constitution needs to be amended, he should make a case individually for each amendment and tell us why a constitutional amendment is preferable to other means of achieving the same goal. As it is, I'm left with the impression that a President Huckabee would uphold the Constitution only after it has been thoroughly "cleaned up" to meet some higher standards. (I'm imagining the governor hovering over the Constitution right now with a pen in his hand and a container of Wite-Out at his side).

Still, Huckabee's attitude towards the Constitution shouldn't cause anyone to reject the amendments he supports out of hand. I certainly think it is possible to respect the Constitution and yet still want to change it; I can't imagine the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country with legalized slavery and where women could not vote, so in my opinion constitutional amendments have brought about many very positive changes over the years. If, however, not every change is important enough to warrant an amendment, how does one possibly decide on what is worthy of an amendment and what is not? My pet theory is that the best constitutional amendments enshrine the rights of citizens rather than limit their freedom by prohibiting something. So many state and federal laws tell citizens what they cannot do -- don't drive above a certain speed, don't trade stocks based on insider information, don't run around naked in public, don't do this, don't do that. If restrictions can make society as a whole better off without hurting the individual too much, then that's OK (though I do tend to think we have too many laws), but I don't want all this stuff cluttering the Constitution. It's interesting that the amendments that Huckabee supports are often referred to with very positive-sounding names. A "right to life" amendment sounds like an affirmation of what many consider to be a very basic human right. A "defense of marriage" amendment sounds like a guarantee of a couple's right to have a recognized marriage. However, in practice, a "right to life" amendment will prohibit abortion and a "defense of marriage" amendment will prohibit gay marriage -- those prohibitions are the driving force behind the support for both proposed amendments. Depending on how these amendments are worded, they could end up having some unexpected effects when interpreted by the courts. For instance, a "right to life" amendment could end up being the demise of the death penalty, something Huckabee certainly would not support. A "defense of marriage" amendment could also be the last word on polygamy in America. Still, both amendments are ultimately prohibitions, and I don't think either belong in the Constitution any more than the 18th Amendment did. The "right to life" amendment is definitely closer to what I would consider a good amendment than the "defense of marriage" amendment, but there would need to be a much broader consensus in this country on a whole bevy of life issues -- not just abortion, but also the death penalty, health care rendered in life and death situations, and access to prescription drugs -- before such an amendment could or should be passed. I don't think I'm alone when I say I struggle to take a strong stance on many of those issues -- they're controversial for a reason.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

New Hampshire: Live Safe or Die

I didn't think the polls could maintain a perfect record of predicting the primary/caucus victors for very long, but I didn't realize New Hampshire would give us the first real surprise victor of the 2008 primary season. Of course, this surprise victor was the expected winner a few weeks ago, so nothing too shocking has occurred. Nonetheless, Barack Obama seemed to have everything going for him after his caucus victory in Iowa. Recent New Hampshire polls showed him with a decent lead over his nearest Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, and his supporters across the country were energized and prepared for another celebration. Clinton, however, played the role of buzz-killer by winning the New Hampshire Democratic primary by a narrow margin over Obama. John McCain's victory in the Republican primary was predicted by the polls, but he was also in a tight two-way race with Mitt Romney. Both McCain and Clinton are comeback kids to an extent -- McCain struggled in early polls and led a fiscally irresponsible early campaign, causing some to count him out well before a single vote was cast, while Clinton has been overshadowed in recent weeks by the energetic and charismatic Obama. What was it about these two that won over New Hampshire?

The winners in Iowa, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, share a common weakness. Neither of them have a reputation for being well-versed on foreign policy; by association, this suggests they might not be the best people, to use a very hackneyed phrase, to keep America safe. This is much more of a real weakness for Huckabee, I think, because he has already made several public gaffes when speaking on foreign policy, with Pakistan being his real Achilles heel so far. Obama had a questionable Pakistan moment of his own earlier in the campaign, but he seems overall more comfortable with foreign policy issues than Huckabee. The big national security related question mark hovering over Obama is his inexperience, and Hillary Clinton has been very careful not to let anyone forget it. Huckabee is even more inexperienced in foreign policy -- it's just not something governors deal with to the extent that senators do. Huckabee and Obama's victories in Iowa, thus, probably had very little to do with foreign policy or national security; instead, Iowa voters seemed to have domestic and social issues first and foremost in their minds.

I don't want to paint the New Hampshire voter as being a reactionary force that was merely responding to the vote in Iowa, but I do think the New Hampshire primary voters had very different issues in mind compared to the voters in Iowa when they cast their votes. Most of the Republican candidates have tried to win their party's nomination by focusing on national security, but I've thought John McCain has had an edge over all the rest on this single issue from the start. I associate McCain's name with the troop surge in Iraq right along with the names of George Bush and David Petraeus. He's a military man. He's extremely experienced in dealing with national security issues. As tough an opponent he was to George Bush in 2000, McCain is in 2008 now quite suited to take on the Bush mantle. The only way Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Duncan Hunter can challenge McCain is through rhetoric -- none of those candidates has a record comparable to McCain's from a national security standpoint alone. In New Hampshire, though, Romney is well-known as the governor of Massachusetts, and he campaigned hard and spent freely in the state. It made sense for him to finish second. Giuliani, I think, was his own worst enemy -- his "big state strategy" was so public that it undermined his own hard work in New Hampshire. Still, Giuliani did narrowly finish ahead of Ron Paul, the only Republican to completely repudiate President Bush's foreign policy. Thompson and Hunter were also their own worst enemies, but for a different reason: they didn't give themselves much of a chance in New Hampshire because they didn't devote their time and energy into the state. Huckabee probably feels pretty pleased to finish 3d in a state that seemed pretty focused on national security considering how recently he made his series of foreign policy gaffes; however, I think that voters elsewhere will need to be more focused on domestic and social issues if he is to win the Republican nomination.

On the Democratic side of the race, there is quite a clash in views when it comes to foreign policy. Several candidates are running on a peace platform and promise an approach to American foreign policy that will be utterly unlike what was seen during the Bush administration. Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson perhaps ought to have appealed more to Iowan voters than the results indicated because they do very much believe that most all American problems can be solved at home, rather than abroad. They studiously avoid the politics of fear, but can be criticized for not focusing enough on national security issues. These three candidates were essentially afterthoughts in New Hampshire -- Richardson, experienced in foreign policy and a supporter of the military, did the best by winning nearly 5% of the vote, but he still finished a distant fourth here just as he did in Iowa. While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have all had harsh words to say about the war in Iraq since they began running for president, these three candidates don't advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq unlike Richardson, Gravel, and Kucinich. Obama and Edwards, though, are more focused on domestic issues, and neither have really presented themselves as a "national security" candidate in the Republican mold. Hillary Clinton, though, has done just that. She constantly points to her experience as evidence that she will be ready to lead through tough times. She essentially warns people about voting for Obama because he is so inexperienced that it might be unsafe to elect him. I think this message worked for Hillary in New Hampshire, but she doesn't have the edge over her fellow Democrats that John McCain has over the other Republicans. I just can't quite buy that being the spouse of a president gives experience comparable to actually serving in government; granted, Clinton was an active First Lady who was regularly in the spotlight, but most associate her with health care reform, not foreign policy or national security. When it comes right down to it, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all inexperienced senators in my view -- McCain will win the battle of years of public service every time. The presidency is no award for service, however, and I don't think national security issues alone will decide the ultimate winner or even the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees.

Friday, January 4, 2008

The Lessons of Iowa

Until yesterday the presidential race existed largely in the collective imagination of the American voting public. The few ways we had of gauging the support a candidate was receiving were none too reliable: polls can never be trusted completely, campaign donations do not always lead to votes, and people attending rallies are not necessarily true supporters. The Iowa caucuses changed all that; finally, Republicans and Democrats have made their choice for their favored candidate in a fashion that allows no argument (unless there was voter fraud). Whether or not Iowa will play an important role in choosing the nominees remains to be seen, but the important thing is that Iowa has played its role. People have voted. The race is truly underway now.

I expected Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee to win the Iowa caucuses as they did -- I must admit that I personally trust polls more than I should! Obviously, this is wonderful for both of those candidacies, but there were other important stories as well that emerged out of Iowa. The race for the Democratic nomination just got a lot more boring because Joe Biden and Chris Dodd dropped their presidential bids after their poor showings. I don't think either of those candidates really got a fair hearing from the Iowa electorate -- instead, what seems to have happened is that three Democratic candidates were assumed to have a chance at the nomination, and virtually everyone elected to support one of those three rather than risk backing a losing horse. While Obama won comfortably with help from a youth vote surge, John Edwards bested Hillary Clinton by only the narrowest of margins. The three-way race was exciting, but I think Iowa voters shortchanged themselves by only allowing themselves three choices. Iowa Republicans chose a different course: five candidates received 9% or more of the vote. The battle for third was arguably the most interesting: Fred Thompson received slightly more votes than John McCain. Given that there was one media report that Thompson was considering dropping out of the race, this third place showing is good for the man from Tennessee. Fourth and 13% of the vote is, frankly, awesome for a John McCain who did not make Iowa a priority for his campaign. John McCain is a serious contender again if he does well in the New Hampshire primaries next week as polls predict he will.

This is the first presidential election I've covered in this blog so I feel like I should consider the Iowa caucuses from a learning politics perspective. What can the caucuses tell us about the presidential race and politics in general? I think there are a few lessons to be learned from Iowa.

#1. Smooth speakers do have an advantage.

Many American presidents haven't been very charismatic speakers. Many politicians in general aren't particularly effective communicators despite the fact that speaking is an integral part of their job. I usually rationalize this by assuming that a candidate who doesn't speak flawlessly may seem more human than one who conveys too perfect a public persona. Iowa suggests something different: namely, that smooth speakers do have an advantage over the competition provided their politics also connect with voters. Why has Mike Huckabee succeeded where other religious conservatives have failed? The core values policies remain the same, but Huckabee is much more capable of transmitting his message in an appealing way to his base and everyone else than a Gary Bauer or a Pat Robertson (who, to his credit, did finish second in Iowa in 1988...I'm judging him on his charisma based on the 700 Club and other more recent TV appearances, so maybe he's actually awesome on the stump). Of course, another factor is that Huckabee isn't a one-dimensional candidate; he's comfortable discussing social issues and his support of the Fair Tax ought to garner him some support from non-evangelicals. The other really smooth Republican is Mitt Romney...who finished second. Barack Obama is probably the most gifted long-form speaker in the race this year, and I think his victory was also a testament to the power of good speaking. One of the reasons I'm disappointed that the second-tier Democrats have remained second-tier candidates (or dropped out) is that I sometimes find it hard to distinguish between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama policy-wise. Clinton says she's more experienced, Edwards talks about class, and Obama promises hope and change...where is the policy there? Given the similarity of this trio, Obama's charisma and speaking ability has given him an edge on the competition. Once you have lent the Illinois senator your ears, Obama can differentiate himself from Clinton and Edwards by virtue of his more open foreign policy and his health care plan that promises near universal but not compulsory coverage.

#2. It's dangerous to ignore Iowa, but you might be able to get away with it.

Rudy Giuliani can be pleased over one thing about the Iowa caucuses: he totally destroyed Duncan Hunter. The problem is that although Hunter is barely a blip in most national polls and Giuliani has been a consistent frontrunner the two were essentially in the same boat in Iowa: both decided to focus their efforts elsewhere. Giuliani has a big state policy that could certainly earn him the nomination theoretically, but a big loss is never good press. There is a certain herd mentality in politics that makes a lot of voters not want to support a loser, so I have to wonder if Giuliani's new position as "Mr. 3%" is going to impact his electability in other states as well. Worse yet, the momentum other campaigns are getting threatens to overwhelm the Giuliani campaign. Nonetheless, Giuliani is working diligently in the background, focusing on big states like Florida. Giuliani might be feeling just a little bit bitter about another Republican who also failed to focus on Iowa: his name is John McCain. While McCain's debate performances have been strong, I assumed he would pay a heavy local political price for ignoring the Ames straw poll and not swarming Iowa as other candidates have done. Well, maybe McCain did pay a heavy price -- given that he finished 4th and was extremely close to catching Thompson for 3d, I have to wonder if McCain might not have won Iowa if he had taken a different strategy. I don't think any of the Democratic candidates ignored Iowa like McCain and Giuliani did. Indeed, I wonder if that is not one of the reasons that the big three Democrats totally stomped on the rest of the Democratic field. By not giving Iowans their due early on, McCain and Giuliani may have opened the door for ultimate caucus winner Mike Huckabee. I think Huckabee deserves his success, but considering that other deserving candidates have been almost totally ignored I don't think Huckabee's Cinderella story was inevitable by any means.

#3. Iowa cannot be bought.

What Mitt Romney tried to do with money Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback tried to do with their time and presence. Hillary Clinton counted on her organizational resources to carry her to victory in Iowa. None won. It's interesting that the Romney campaign's financial largesse did help lead Romney to victory in the Iowa straw poll and give him the early edge in the state, but it could not quite take him the whole way. Instead, a cash-strapped candidate whose campaign resonated more with the Iowa voting public ended up victorious by a significant margin. Clinton's vaunted organization could only deliver a third place finish in the caucuses...albeit an extremely strong third place finish. Although Dodd essentially made Iowa his home and Brownback visited every Iowa county, Iowans didn't flock in great numbers to either campaign. So, candidates can peddle their campaigns in Iowa till their wallets are empty, their organization is demoralized, and they themselves are physically exhausted and it still might not mean a thing: Iowans are fickle with their votes. Now I really question the wisdom of Chris Dodd's decision to focus so strongly on Iowa. It got him so little he would have some justification if he felt somewhat insulted at this moment -- I would strongly recommend that future candidates not pursue such myopic one-state strategies.

I'm sure there will be a lot more lessons to be learned from the coming primaries and caucuses. Although the media will be focusing on the New Hampshire primaries next week, don't forget the Wyoming Republican caucuses on Saturday. Little Internet birds have been whispering that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul could do well, so that should be fun.