I think the thing that bugs me most about Paul is that his supporters seem to think he's the first candidate in 200 years worth voting for. Um, there's one of these guys nearly every election. Grow up and move on.

well well, Phillip...fun Article

now we'll see how fast and furious the Paul supporters react to your little *tantrum*

heh

Excelsior?

Oh boy, this will be funny when your comments gets overloaded with corrections from Paul's supporters. Oh yeah, by the way, you really need to do your homework before posting something about someone you really don't seem to know anything about. More importantly get your facts straight. First, Ron Paul is NOT dead last. His numbers are growing and his is polling at about 5-7% nationwide, ahead of Fred Thompson.

Also see this morning's associated press on Ron Paul.

When you post garbage like this you are going to expect you be eating up by REAL Facts. I will let most others get involved. Enjoy...

Ron Paul internet supporters are so zealous because this is their first time to participate in the Presidential election process and they see their efforts paying off. I'd wager most supporters did not participate in the Howard Dean internet movement due to ideology differences.

However, I disagree that Ron Paul supporters are of the crazy mindset that he'll be able to push through his agenda the first week of his term. Instead, they are fed up with the current direction the government is taking and view Dr. Paul as a the leader best suited to reverse the trend. For as many "Ron Paul wants to disband the IRS" posts out there, I have yet to read a "Vote for Ron Paul so you won't have to pay income tax in 2010" thread.

Blasphemy! You'll smoke a terd in hell for that, non-believer! Vote Ron PAUL 08!

Phillip,

I mean, if you are going to write an opinion, let it at least your conclusions be based on facts, rather than erroneous assumptions. Also, I am not so sure that raising 4.2 million in ONE day is so delusional. You write Phillip, that Paul is a" man who seems to believe that the U.S. President has the power to set the federal budget all by himself," Where are you getting this from? Do you always make it up as you go along?

You also write that Paul "wants to take the United States back to the "good old days," before we started essentially unprovoked wars against foreign powers that were no imminent threat to us, before we spent money on things like social security, welfare, or public schools." You mean the days where the US Constitution was ratified? Or you mean the days when we began implementing communist principles? Which one do you like the most Phillip? The Bill of Rights or the Communist Manifesto's 10 planks? I'm not sure about you Phillip, but I will take the former, you can take the latter.

Since when it is okay for someone like yourself, Phillip, to decide who should and should not run? Who made you the election king? You say you are "not out to get Ron Paul" but your article is infested with some pretty vile opinions that would make any reasonable person believe you are out to get Ron Paul. But hey Phillip, what do I know, huh?

Oh yeah, and then we have the regular smear tactic about Paul's "racist friends and beliefs." That one should get your readers to really hate Paul, but wait; did you really do your homework Phillip? I would say it is safe to assume you didn't. None of those accusations have any merit whatsoever, but let's stick our head in the sand and use the ostrich argument.

I'm done for now. Enjoy

Gosh, Brian, if only I'd linked the words "Ron Paul is dead last" to a chart of some kind, showing that he's dead last, behind everyone else. Of course, things change, and the last poll on that chart is currently 11/11, so who knows? Maybe in the last four days he's tripled his support to pull ahead of Huckabee, putting him into fifth place out of six. That would be impressive, wouldn't it?

I don't expect anybody to care, but I'm not looking for "corrections." What a beautiful euphemism! I'm making very few factual assertions, and supplied links for most of those. What I've done a lot of is express my opinion, which is why this article is classed as "opinion" rather than, say, "news." In my opinion, most Paul supports are stuck at about high school level when it comes to political discourse, and what's most unfortunate about it is that they haven't learned that nobody else cares.

If you are interested in "corrections," here's one for you: That link you provided on polling data (a press release from the Ron Paul campaign, incidentally) is talking about New Hampshire only, while the poll results to which I linked are national. Thompson is doing especially poorly in New Hampshire, and Paul is doing well there.

Given the libertarian leanings of New Hampshire, I would expect Paul to be polling near 70%, so 7% is just another indicator of how niche is his appeal.

I'm sorry, I forgot to add this one for you too Phillip.

Paul seems to be gaining momentum. But that can't be Phillip. You just wrote the opposite? Who should we believe? A sophomore or the real Press? I'm sorry, are you even a sophomore?
Enjoy

John-Ross, you hit the nail on the head so early, I guess I can quit responding to comments already! It is, indeed, the first time involved in the political process for many, maybe even most, of Paul's supporters. The interesting thing about first-timer is that they lack the perspective that sitting through a few decades of elections brings.

Also, first-timers don't tend to vote. It's weird, but Bush won in 2004 despite a huge projected turnout from first-time Democratic voters. Apparently that turnout, like many other projections of large turnouts by first-timers, failed to materialize. It certainly failed to make a difference.

Everybody's a first-timer once. Election night always hurts, and you rarely get quite as excited about politics again, but there you go.

Phil, I have to say your bias is showing. I dont adore Ron Paul either, but your writing makes it sound like you have a personal vendetta against him. I follow a lot of candidates because the issues are important to me. I can think of two off the top of my head that you twisted around.

1- His economic stance, even Steve Forbes voices support for Ron Paul on fiscal issues. Alan Greenspan wrote articles backing the Gold Standard. It just sounds radical because we are indoctrinated to think the market cant exist without the FED's heavy hand.

2- Rewriting history? I find it interesting that you think our actions can inspire no reactions, but if someone crosses us, then our own reactions are directly caused by others transgressions against us. Any student of history will tell you that nations dont exist in a vacuum.

I like some of what Ron Paul says because it makes sense. I also liked it when McCain said dont commit torture in my name, because it made sense. Or when Bush said, lets get Bin Laden in Afghanistan, because it made sense. It sounds like this is just a hate article, perhaps you have good intentions, but we need real journalism and not media obfuscation of where our candidates stand. There are people who look to you for real information on the issues. You have such power to help your fellow Americans, please employ that power justly.

James, did you read what I wrote? The only thing I said about Paul's economic policies was supported by a link demonstrating that even after accounting for inflation, Paul's statement about income tax being unnecessary is off by about $600 billion. That's it. How did I twist Paul's economic stance around?

Your point about our actions not existing in a vacuum is a great one. It also happens to be exactly the point I was making, so I'm glad we agree!

Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

Uniblogger, it's spelled "turd." Thanks for the comment.

wow. another moron cashing in on ron paul related hits. man you should be able to line your lame blog with even more shitty ads. congrats fuckface

Brian, even with my long comments, I suspect you'll exceed the number of words I've written on this page before long!

Did I say Paul was losing momentum? Can you show me that in my article? Somehow I missed it. In fact, I led the article with a short list of ways in which Paul is gaining momentum, not losing it.

Thanks for the comment, though. Do you want my corrections? I suspect not.

All Hail the Election King!

thanks joey i appreciate your comments. i hope the punctuation and capitalization within the article wasnt too confusing. ill look into the more ads things some other time. im trying to set a one day ad revenue record on thanksgiving day. wanna help.

Gosh Phillip,

You write "I'm making very few factual assertions, and supplied links for most of those. What I've done a lot of is express my opinion, which is why this article is classed as "opinion" rather than, say, "news."

Well, you said it Phillip. Very "few" factual findings." You have an absolute right to write your opinion, BUT it has to be based on something. Can you imagine we had news organizations just give opinions with no basis in fact or supporting evidence? Oh wait, we do have those. Hannity and O'Reilly so I apologize.

You do realize that you do yourself and your readers a disservice when you write just you make up as you go along. A court renders an "opinion" (conclusion) BUT it is based on the facts and evidence. Do yourself a favor and stick to that principal.
Then your assumption that Ron Paul voters that never voted before and that they lack perspective. Let me get my Barney Dinosaur doll and pacifier cause I'm about to cry.

There is no way you could not have a crush on that secksi 72-year-old piece of hot untamed ass!

haha are you serious Philly? What kind of lame ass title is that?

"I don't have a crush on Ron Paul"

Closet Homo. hehe.

Brian, I agree with you! That's why I provided links supporting my factual statements. Do you have any examples of facts I got wrong? Does Paul not plan to shut down the departments I listed? Was the War of 1812 provoked? (That's actually more opinion than fact, but I'm trying to be generous.)

By the way, speaking of facts and getting things right, it was John-Ross Cromer who first suggested that Ron Paul supporters to be getting involved for the first time. I know a guy in his sixties who has been a Republican elector for decades who supports Ron Paul, so I'm well aware that John-Ross Cromer's assertion isn't universal. I don't think he suggested it was.

Phil, thanks for actually answering reader comments in your blog, even if I believe what you write is rubbish and probably done to get some hits and traffic, but I am interested in what horse you have in the race?

Also I believe Paul is the furthest thing from a sound bite candidate...

See Also: By Rep. Ron Paul - Entangling Alliances - November 15, 2007. Ron Paul as Vice President For Barack Obama.

TORMENTORRR, I'm confused. Are you saying that you have a crush on Ron Paul sexually? But I'm the one harboring but denying homosexual leanings?

I don't think the average young girl with a crush on her favorite celebrity is actually seriously contemplating said celebrity's hot untamed anything, but I've never actually been a young girl, so I could be mistaken on that point.

Thanks for the comment.

Waz up Phillip my man,

You write: "[d]id I say Paul was losing momentum? Can you show me that in my article? Somehow I missed it"

When did I say you said Paul was NOT gaining momentum? Show me where? I was simply making a point to counter your erroneous conclusion that is implied from your article that Ron Paul is dead last, thus has no chance in hell. Well, we are still one year away, and let me tell you this Phillip my man. Bill Clinton was doing poorly around this time, now he is a second term President.

Oh yeah my man Phillip, what can we do to change your mind about Dr. Paul? Is there any particular issue that would change your mind, and if so, what would you need?

Your new buddy Brian

PS> aren't we having fun? You love the attention don't you. I know you probably wrote this article because you were bored and tired of watching free 10 sec porn on the Internet. =)

When things are in such dire straits here in the US, then why shouldn't a radical change be warranted? Things may be going great for you, but those of us living paycheck to paycheck, with no health insurance or savings, NEED a radical change. Right now, Ron Paul is the one that is not only proposing that radical change, but doing so in a straight-talking way. I don't like being BSed, and that is what Giuliani and Hillary, Edwards and Obama, Romney and Thompson are all doing. They want to win, and they will do and say what they need to in order to do it.

Frankly, I went into this election season under the impression that I would rather abstain than vote for someone that I don't trust. Two weeks ago I found out about Ron Paul, and now I'll gladly give my vote to him, and him alone. I don't even have a bed to sleep on, but I gave his campaign a donation - the first one I've ever given to a politician.

If he's not on the ballot, and no other real 'maverick' emerges, then I'm staying home on election day.

This proves that bloggers are worthless human beings, sitting and typing nonsense articles in their mom's basement. Maybe if you actually read something about Paul (doing your job, however sad it may be), you would be able to write about what he really stands for. And also you did a great job of alienating all of your readers that are voting for the first time in this upcoming election.

My advice to you sir, is to go pick up a copy of A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by Dr. Paul, and there you can read all of his official speeches on the floor of congress from the 70s until present, and there you will see that if we listened to this man 30 years ago the entire world would have been better off.

Didn't your mother ever tell you to do your homework?

Jared, I'm a Republican, though I've become disillusioned with "my" party that 2008 may mark my departure. I voted for the Libertarian candidate in 2000, but now regret that. There are some things I like about McCain, but many things I don't. I'd vote for Clinton before I'd vote for Giuliani. I might skip the Presidential ticket before I'd vote for Romney. I heart Huckabee in some ways. I even like many of Paul's positions, not that they'll ever appear on a national ticket.

Your sound bite comment is a good point. Generally speaking, Paul is to be commended for issuing long statements on issues rather than avoiding details. It is specifically on his "blowback" assertion that I'm most disappointed with what seems like an overly-simplistic description. Paul says that if we hadn't armed the Taliban against the Soviets, there would have been no 9/11, no war in Afghanistan or Iraq, and so on. This may be true. It's a debatable point, given the decades-long history of Islamist terrorism.

However, as I pointed out and as James agreed in #10, every action prompts a reaction. We helped the Taliban against the Soviets because we saw the Soviets as a serious threat and thought we could weaken them on their south porch. All of this is arguable without resolution, since there's no way to be sure, but it seems to have worked. In other words, arming the Taliban against the Soviets appears to have contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union. So avoiding the current Islamist conflagration, assuming we could have done so by not arming the Taliban, might have the adverse effect of causing us to lose the Cold War.

Alternate history is never simple, but it's fascinating, which is why so many novels are dedicated to the genre. I think that Paul's assertion turns a very complex set of issues into what amounts to little more than a sound bite in this case.

In a sense, it's neither here nor there, since history is done. The real question is what he would do going forward, and whether a hasty troop withdrawal would create more killing fields or not.

How could anyone ever get tired of watching free 10 second porn on the internet?

Great article, Phillip.

Man, the Paulies are like ducks on a junebug, the second someone posts anything even remotely critical of his campaign!

The biggest negative to Paul is his almost complete lack of a coherent foreign policy plan, IMO.

Hey my man Phillip,

Here we go again pal'o'mine. You write: "Do you have any examples of facts I got wrong?"

When did I say you got your facts wrong? Do you have a condition suffering from selective reading? I think you do, because you overlooked a lot of what I had to say, I guess conveniently. I said that your OPINION should be based on facts.

Let me ask you this my homie Phillip. Are you a communist or someone who supports communist ideas in the closet? I'm not being sarcastic.

Your ghetto friend

Brian.

odds that the Paul supporters swarm and crash the website?

but it will gather enough google juice to up the revenue from the clicks...great job!

Excelsior?

Brian (#23), in #8 you wrote "Paul seems to be gaining momentum. But that can't be Phillip. You just wrote the opposite?"

That prompted my question in #14, asking where I suggested Paul was losing momentum. Perhaps a better "the opposite" would be to say he's "not gaining momentum," but I didn't write that either. I've twice now provided a link to a polling chart showing that he's rising. From last to still last so far, but he might shoot up into fifth or even fourth place in the next nine months!

I hope you appreciate the correction!

Vegan wrote: "I don't even have a bed to sleep on, but I gave his campaign a donation - the first one I've ever given to a politician."

The same here. I have NEVER voted for a Republican and I have NEVER donated money to ANYONE, except Ron Paul. Something about him get the passion out in people and mostly from people who will go in with an open mind, rather than getting the sound bytes from people like my man Phillip. RON PAUL 2008

Vegan (#24), I'm glad you've found a candidate you like. I hope your state has early primary voting, so you get a chance to vote for him.

You asked a question, "When things are in such dire straits here in the US, then why shouldn't a radical change be warranted?" I haven't said that radical change is unwarranted, just that expecting it is naive. In addition, "radical change" could mean anything! I've known people who believed, especially during the 1990s, that it was time for an armed overthrow of the U.S. government. Militia nutjobs, by and large. Are you talking about that kind of radical change? I must warn you, the pigs will start sleep in the beds!

Change for the sake of change isn't enough. Things are bad in many ways, but not all, and they can always get worse!

Jon (#25), how can one single article prove that "bloggers are worthless human beings, sitting and typing nonsense articles in their mom's basement?" How can one single article prove anything?

I wonder what your comment proves...

WAZ UP!! P H I L L I P !

Can we get back to the real issues I posted, like what it would take for you to change your mind. Also, when you get a chance address some of the other issues IO posted which you conveniently ignored instead of focusing only on Paul's numbers, which ARE rising. Unless you want to explain how Clinton won in 1992 after being so far behind around the same time, or even unknown, but ended up not only with the democratic nomination but the presidency.

Now, I'm no delusional person and will acknowledge that Paul may be a long shot, BUT you can NEVER predict what will happen, especially with what is going on with Hillary and Giuliani right now. IF both go down in numbers others will take their place.

Clavos (#27), isolationism is coherent! :-)

Thanks for your kind words. I suspect I'll get very few today.

I could refute your bullshit point-by-point but why bother? I'll just cut through the crap and say, "You're an asshole".

"Let's step back a moment and realize that we're talking about a man who seems to believe that the U.S. President has the power to set the federal budget all by himself, and dissolve department after department of the government single-handedly."

Ron Paul has stated over and over that the Presidency is not a dictatorship and what he really wants is to help start shifting the culture in this country that we need government to do every little thing for us and that America has lost its faith and understanding of how markets operate.

This is just one of the many incorrect or misguided statements you make in this article. I have no problem with you opposing Paul. But you resort to the 'soundbite' hackery you claim to disdain.

"I'll just cut through the crap and say, "You're an asshole"."

Nothing better for our country than good, intelligent political discourse, I always say...

But indicative of the mental acuity of the American voter, perhaps?

God help US!

I'd be utterly willing to debate energy policy, science & technology policy, & space policy (all things that Ron Paul advocates may do badly on - but I note that other candidates are ignoring these issues, too. I saw a ray of hope the other day in seeing obama publish something on those issues)

Paul supporters tend to be focused on the things that cost the most money, and the most blood, and the most freedom, and I think they have more than a few valid points to make there.

Your last argument regarding polling numbers is somewhat circular. If it isn't obvious to you that it takes money, lots of it, spent over years, to even register new (or old) ideas on anyone's brain, then you haven't been paying attention.

Your links back to the war of 1812 are interesting, as that war was the last successful invasion of continental US soil. The British, a great sea power, controlled the seas, and ultimately invaded and burned Washington in retaliation for the US incursions into Canada... and the US was the one who declared war first, in support of territorial ambitions at a time when Britain was involved in another distracting war.

The US mistakenly thought that the former US citizens living in Canada would welcome the invasion. They didnt.

1812 is a fascinating example of history.

Substitute events in Iraq for either Canada or the US in 1812 and think through how it might have played out. Think also how China and other world powers of today, such as Venezuela, think of the current conflicts the US is involved in, in context of how France and Spain thought of the 1812 war....

Brian (#28), you're now asking "When did I say you got your facts wrong?" Let's see, in #3 you suggested I would be "overloaded with corrections" and that I needed to "do [my] homework" and "get [my] facts straight." You also called my article "garbage" and said I would be "[eaten] up by REAL Facts."

In #6 you contrasted what you labeled my "erroneous assumptions" with "facts."

In #8 (where you referred to a campaign press release as "the real Press," which gave me a chuckle) you incorrectly suggested that I wrote the opposite of a fact.

I could go on, but you've posted a lot of comments!

I like the McCarthy shout-out -- very nice!

PHILLIP my man,

You rock brother. I wanted to give you an example of a straight forward fact based article so you may learn in the future how to write a decent article.

I just laugh, because I can hear the nervousness in your squeaky voice. Ron Paul will take the Republican nomination, and, as a liberal, I will vote for him!

I'm running a bit short on time and will be offline for a few hours today, but I will be back to respond to most comments later. Sorry!

I still know people who believe a violent overthrow of the government is the only way to change things. Maybe in a few years, I'll think that way too. Right now, almost any change WILL be for the better. When you're on the bottom, there's not much farther you can sink. Frankly, I think his ideas for change are good (despite my utter hatred for the rich), and are the only ones that also include a plan to stop the US from being the world's leading *sshole.

Ron Paul isn't the one preaching about ending poverty - that would be Edwards, the rich guy who spends hundreds of dollars on haircuts (which IS a sign that he just doesn't get it). He doesn't need to be the one making glib statements about the poor for me, one of those "poor," to support him. There were a lot of people from North Philly at his rally on Saturday, and we were all there for one reason - he's our best chance. Having $50 extra in our paycheck each week can make a big difference to someone who can barely eek out a living on what they're currently getting.

Phillip, are yoi gonna continue to stay on the "facts" issue, and disregard everything else that you obviously don't or can't answer? Let me know so I don't waste anymore time.

Yes, there are plenty of others here that have corrected your erroneous conclusions.

for Brian - the desire of Paul and his ilk to get rid of NASA alone is enough of a reason to not vote for him, imo

R&D spurred by Fed spending is responsible for quite a number of achievements, including the very Internet we are holding this discussion on

earlier, one Commenter tried to conflate some U.S. policies to "the Communist Manifesto", that one really bloggled my Mind...

closest i can see to that would be Social Security, and that is a FAR cry from anything "communist"

it's that kind of sloppy thinking that turns many folks off to Paul's more reasonable positions

wasn't he one of those who sided with Creationism over evolution theory? i'm truly curious about that one...

Excelsior?

To pick one statistic to support your assertion "he is dead last" isn't fair. He isn't last in all polls, and in fact he is a leader or winner in some polls.
He is definitely a leader/winner of straw polls. That is real people showing up to vote. Less telling but still interesting are "text polls", which, even though people whine about them being "spammed", each cell phone number can only vote once.
The main issue is just that a lot of people haven't HEARD of Ron Paul. Yet. Many people haven't really started to follow the Presidential campaigns. So if they do offer a name in a poll, it might just be one of the big ones they can't well avoid, since "Giuliani" and "Clinton" are tossed around right and left.

Ron Paul hasn't said that he votes "no" 100% of the time. He votes "no" a LOT, but he votes to uphold the Constitution. And, I suppose sometimes he has to vote choosing the lesser of two evils. Ron votes with conscience, conviction, and consistency, a rarity in today's world.

Of course he doesn't expect to have all his ideas enacted during his first week of Presidency. Some of them would take a long time to put in place, and others might never be put through. That doesn't mean he shouldn't try. That doesn't mean they are "crazy" ideas.

Wanting to run America the way America was intended to be run... nothing crazy there.

I'm a citizen of the USA, and Ron Paul has my vote.

GUYS GUYS GUYS! This guy is not annoyed with RP - he's annoyed with people who support him passionately. Every candidate has people waiting in the bushes to rip them - it's just that RP has white-hot momentum and so he's now the target - it's flattering actually. I don't see anybody posting "Duncan Hunter is Not Your Savior" articles! However, you do see a lot of articles ripping Rudy - he's a front runner. (Of course, Rudy deserves it. If this guy thinks RP presumes to set budget policy all by himself, what does he think Rudy believes?)

gonzo,

I would disagree with your assessment of the affect of Fed funded R&D. I actually type this from an office that consults clients on procuring and administering grants and tax credits for things like R&D. Since being here, I have learned one thing: the government hasn't the faintest clue on how to encourage growth and development. I deal directly with the government and clients and its pathetic the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of this system. Of course companies love it because they get free money (for things they often will do anyway). The government agency can then make claim that their funds made the resulting expansion, development, invention, etc possible. It's not true and I have spoken to my clients about it. Taking money away from people like you and me to give to companies to research is not a sound, effective system. Once again, in my mind, the market has proven to me that it should be left alone.

but at the same time somehow still manage to win the Cold War so we're not all speaking Russian.

I was actually taking this article seriously until I read this sentence.

Fine opinion on Paul. Many have the same opinion in my family: his vision is limited and he has too simplistic thinking.

I'm a Paul supporter, but I respect that opinion as well. I fear people who have your opinion equate long winded explanations and 'status-quo' (because it's gotten us here and we're not bankrupt yet, so if we continue our path we should be alright..., meanwhile, ignoring the signs of economic recession) with well thought-out rational thinking. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer.

At least you've given time to look at Ron Paul as a legitamite candidate.

Freewheeler - do note that i was NOT talking about R&D grants given out by the Fed, but rather R&D done BY the FED...ARPA net turned into the internet we are talking across...

and form NASA alone we have many things , transistors, which lead to the IC chip, miniturization processes, medical telemetry and more

thanks for the Thought, but the facts differ

don't mistake me, there are many things the Fed should NOT be involved in..like warrantless wiretapping and datamining the Internet

the Debate is over how, and when the Fed shoudl be involved...and that's a large part of what political discussion should be about in our Nation

neither the outright socialists, or the minimalist libertarians are correct, imo

but both those extremes have some valid points, and figuring it all out is what our process is for

Excelsior?

Goldwater was never elected, but he destroyed the Democratic party and set the stage for Republican dominance.

Ron Paul may not win, but he is setting the precedent that it is ok to be against the Iraq War and the Drug War and still be a Republican. Honestly those are the only two issues were Republican's are on the wrong side of history.

Capitalist economics are already dominant, more and more economic theory is becoming orthodox behind capitalism and there the Republican party is on the high ground. But over the endless war in Iraq they are on the wrong side. And over the War on Drugs, they are behind one of the most cartoonish and obviously ineffective prohibition efforts in history.

By moving the party in a Libertarian direction, Paul is securing a new and very powerful base for the Republicans, and assuming the Democrats stay the course they will get utterly mauled in the coming decades.

Phillip,

Is there a candidate who is not speaking as if the Presidency were omnipotent? All of the candidates describe how they would "attempt to" run America, and everybody knows that we have congressional and supreme court checks on that power (in theory, only, it seems these days). Hillary doesn't declare that she will make an abortive effort at passing healthcare reform that will be hopelessly mauled by congress. She declares that she will pass healthcare reform.

It also seems unfair to me how you claim that Ron Paul is reducing the debate to soundbites. It appears that you qualify that statement later in your comments by confining the criticism to his foreign policy platform. His position is more detailed than the prevailing "good vs. evil" platform of Giuliani's campaign - and is no less detailed than what the other candidates are offering.

What do you want him to do? Write a book about it? He has. I appreciate your point about arming the Afghanis and believe America and its foriegn policy would benefit from a lively debate about the unintended effects of foreign policy policies (including the unintended effects of a non-interventionist policy).

Would you at least agree that he's adding value to the state of political discourse if you don't perhaps view him as a viable or desirable presidential candidate?

Gonzo wrote:
"earlier, one Commenter tried to conflate some U.S. policies to "the Communist Manifesto", that one really bloggled my Mind..."

That was I. Well, if you did some reading you might come to that conclusion.

Let's see what Marx had in mind with his 10 planks:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
Comment: Dare I say eminent domain, and also how many owners do we actually have today, except a few? Most people either rent or are enslaved to the bank on a mortgage they probably never will be able to pay off.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.on earnings
Amendment 16th, US Constitution. We went from 1% on an exemption that equals $60K today in 1913 to NOW about 30% with a $6500 exemption. Go figure, but that is graduated.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance: Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines
Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.
IRS, seizures without due process.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly

The Federal Reserve Bank.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Driver's licenses control the highways at the state level.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Social Security.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother's care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together

Public School.

Note, that NONE of these things were part of the Constitution, not did nay of the founding fathers intent to implement such policies. So ask yourself, are we not closer to a communist/socialist society than the vision of the founding fathers? VOTE RON PAUL 2008

Ok, ok, I see how this works. Create a blog, get advertising on the blog and then write something to infuriate Ron Paul supporters. Then profit from all the blog hits. Brilliant!

I'm not sure why they fall for it everytime.

Gonzo,

I don't believe libertarian to be extreme. Of course I may be biased, but there are those anarchists.

As for Fed research, why should we believe that internal Federal research would have results any different than Federal funded research. You cite some examples such as the internet and various contributions from NASA. I, and other libertarians, would make the arguement that these things would have been produced by the market as the need for them arised, and they would have been better and cheaper. The Federal Government does not have the expertise or true incentive to discover and develop these things. Often, these ideas are born out of the market and then taken by the Federal Government as their own. The Fed did not create the internet. Although, Al Gore would like to think otherwise.

A serious problem I believe that exists with Federal funding and the debates over federal spending is that they only go one way. Government has grown every year since the beginning of the 20th century. When things such as the Deparment of Education or Homeland Security are brought up by some as wasteful and counter-productive, they are tossed to the curb as extremists and wanting to "hurt the children". Free market solutions are almost never actually considered. And why should it? With this government stands to lose, as do the interest groups who stand to benefit.

TYPICAL SMEAR article and absolutely wrong on so many points. Dr. Ron Paul has NO ILLUSIONS that one man can change the system overnight. This he states over and over again and we supporters realize that. As Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces he can get our troops home from Iraq which is probably first and foremost on our minds. He can effect *some* policies in government and perhaps get OTHER TO JUMP ON HIS BANDWAGON TO ABOLISH FEMA, DEPT OF HOMELAND INSECURITY, THE PATRIOT ACT, etc. etc. etc. AND HE IS TRANSLATING INTO REAL VOTES NOW THAT HE HAS FINALLY started to spend money... He waited until it counts instead of throwing away Millions like Romney and Ghuliani did in early on Caucuses...
SMART MORE that is now translating into votes...
Just wait until Dec 16th when we raise TEN MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE RON PAUL TEA PARTY... jump on board and donate that day.... wait til the media gets aload of THIS MONEY BOMB... be a part of history!

By the way, can someone please explain to me how it could possibly be argued that we need social security??? This is simply a way to finance the government with interest free loans (negative real interest rate). Why should I be forced to throw my constantly devaluing money into a box in the ground to get back when I am older? Let's give they money back to the people who put into it and abolish it. Or if you want to keep it, allow others to not use it if they don't want to.

Most socialist policies I can at least see how someone can make the arguement, however misguided. But this, I just can't wrap my head around.

I don't think you get it. Ron Paul understands how government works. He is a US congressman. You think Paul wants to be a dictator when time and again he says he wants to reduce the power of the presidency the way the founders intended. He knows he can not single handedly abolish departments set up by congress. However he can work with congress to reduce the size or even eliminate departments should congress decide to.

I think what is amusing is you don't understand how government works. The president isn't a dictator (hence the reason why Ron Paul is running, to curtail the power of the presidency). And congress isn't full of libertarian republicans. Ron Paul has acknowledged he can change only several things as president:

Foreign policy, the movement of our troops and court appointments.

Everything else depends on what congress wishes to do gto work with Ron Paul. So yes, while in an ideal world he would like to eliminate certain departments, he also knows the reality of who occupies congress. The fact you and other detractors can't grasp that reality scares the heck out of me.

So I am voting for a man with principled integrity who can move our troops away from Iraq who will work to stop runaway congressional spending and work to cut or eliminate income taxes.

When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1976, Ron Paul was only one of four congressmen to support his candidacy. Was Ron crazy then? Or ahead of his time?

Freewheeler - we need top be able to agree on definitions as well as Facts here for the discussion to progress...

in the realm of the Internet, it most assuredly was a product of the Fed funding and military R&D

try this for starters

now , the WEB was a product of CERN, but the underlying tech comes form ARPA

hope that clears things up on that front

now, i must clarify...i don't think either libertarians or socialists as a whole are "extreme", there are positions from each i can easily agree with (healthcare/education on one hand, and none of the above on the other , as an example)...

but there ARE many *extreme* positions held by some in each faction

NO single faction is or should be in charge of the U.S.

by the definition of our Declaration and Constitution, the exact opposite is true

it's the process of debate, discussion, and fact finding/checking that steers the ship of State

and i wouldn't have it any other Way

you might be Interested in this site in order to help with political definitions

Excelsior?

Brian (#23), why do you think I need my mind changed about Ron Paul? My article was primarily about his supporters, not the candidate himself. My complaints about Paul himself are minor, and my primary objection is that he won't appeal to enough mainstream voters to win the presidency. Of course, I don't think he'll appeal to enough voters to win the primary, either, so it's a moot point.

There's really nothing needed to change my mind about Paul, but... well, I'd like him a little more if his supporters hadn't taken over several sites I used to enjoy reading. Could you do anything about that? ;-)

I've listened to Paul speak and I've watched him interviewed whenever I could, and I'm just not impressed. It seems to me he isn't interested in digging into problems, coming up with ideas, entertaining alternatives, talking out scenarios and finding solutions to problems. I fear that he's just another one-idea zealot who will substitute slogans for real ideas, and end up unable to handle what doesn't fit into his preconceptions.

It took until #31 for the phrase "open mind" to come up. I think I lost a bet. I thought I'd see that one early and often!

This site would be a wonderful place for opinion if the dogone ad strip (can't delete it) didn't carry on down the middle of the opinion page. Sorry, I guess I'm just not computer savey enough to eliminate this ad window.

Brian #34, I'm not sure you've realized this, but I'm trying to respond to comments more or less in order. So if you've posted something in, say #34, but I'm still responding to comments earlier than yours, like #27, that doesn't mean I'm ignoring you.

I think I've responded to the issue you've brought up, at least up through #34. I certainly haven't been spending time focusing on Paul's poll numbers, except to respond to you, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

If you'd like answers to any questions you've asked through #34, please ask them again (after #34), because I missed them somehow.

gao xia en (#36), that's a neat trick! I'd have tried that, but this site has a 200-word minimum article length, and requires more substance to boot. I'll have to wait for someone else to write an article on the topic of Ron Paul supporters to try your comment trick. Thanks!

Phillip wrote: " My article was primarily about his supporters, not the candidate himself. My complaints about Paul himself are minor, and my primary objection is that he won't appeal to enough mainstream voters to win the presidency."

Why didn't you say that in your article? Your article paints him as a nut job that SHOULD not run for President? That doesn't sound like you are just after his supporters. Perhaps this blog is beginning to change your mind?

If you are not concerned about Ron Paul or you think he has no chance of winning, why bother writing about him? Write about the candidates that you think actually can win. Instead of poking fun of Dr. Paul. Perhaps because he is gaining support, but if that is so and you say you relaly don't have problem with him, why not support his gain, or better, him?

Freewheeler in #60 asks - "By the way, can someone please explain to me how it could possibly be argued that we need social security???"

ask a disabled, blind person...or a retired person whose company pension disappeared due to bankruptcy of the corp, or other Trickery by the officers of a corp (the airlines are a recent example)

those types of instance alone are sufficient for a society that holds one of it's prime tenets to be "promote the General Welfare"

there are also many instances where Fed regulation is required for the protection of the Individuals against mismanagement/criminal behavior of corporations

dumping of toxic substances into the environment and other safety concerns are simple examples

can our Government be pared down, remove pork and make many of these things more efficient?

of course

but to abolish many of these services and leave the Individual to the non-existent mercies of the profit motive alone is completely illogical and not rational at all

working together to resolve issues and solve problems is part and parcel of the secular Covenant of our Constitution

Excelsior?

freewheeler (#37), on the one hand, yes, Paul obviously does not intend to establish a dictatorship in the United States. On the other hand, his campaign platform is built on something a little more specific than "I'll work with Congress to do more of the same." When a politician says, "I'm going to cut taxes" or "I'm going to raise taxes," one figures he or she may have a political battle on their hands. When a politician proposes eliminating personal income tax entirely, well, that's just not something one calls in favors to get passed, you know?

Eliminating the Department of Education, a goal of Paul's, is only feasible under a dictatorship. Collective bargaining with the teachers union (the NEA) ensures that even major reforms are blocked.

I could give many more examples, but I think those demonstrate the point. If Paul wants to help shift culture, he should understand -- and maybe he does -- that such a thing is many decades in the making, and he's not even really gotten started yet.

From zero to hero? He'll have to run a dozen more times first, and he's not young.

Gonzo,

I do not have the time right now to look through that Wikipedia article. However, it does interest me and I will read it through later.

Even if the internet was 'created' or 'born' out of ideas from internal Federal research, it doesn't change the fact that as a whole, Federal research will never be as productive and efficient as the private sector. While I am sure the internet would be here even if they had not done what you claim, kudos to them for contributing to something. But when you dump so much resources into an area, your bound to have some results. My arguement is that they will never be as positive as free market solutions. Additionally, why should the government be allowed to take taxpayers money for use of these things.

And I don't know where your going with saying no single faction should run the country.....what's your point? I don't make this claim. What should run the country is the parameters of government reach as described in the Constitution. Even if Government gives us some things that are good, this was never the intention of Government by our founders....to 'give' us things. It opens the door for them to take more and more power and reduce our freedoms. This would include taxes.

And I don't know if to take insult with that last line or not. I will ignore it for now I guess...

Gonzo wrote:

"ask a disabled, blind person...or a retired person whose company pension disappeared due to bankruptcy of the corp, or other Trickery by the officers of a corp (the airlines are a recent example)"

First, you are under the erroneous assumption that Dr. Paul would get rid out these programs cold turkey. That is far fro true and he repeatedly states that.

Second, why do you think forced contributions are good? What is the difference between the person in need putting a gun to your head demanding you help, than having the Government intervene and with the same effect, i./e. the threat of imprisonment?

What's wrong with charity? The church and other non profit organizations seem to be doing great doing just that without it being forced.

Again Dr. Ron Paul has been smeared when it comes to Social Security - He has said NOTHING about abolishing it. He merely wants to give the people the option to back out of it. Besides its being depleted quickly and our children wont get much if anything out of it anyways. Of course the $2 trillion dollars spend on the Iraq war would have gone along way to bump up the Social Security Accounts but NOOOOO we spend it on the OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD to protect us from Weapons of Mass Deception... Dr. Paul is not a fanatic or an idiot - 10 terms as congressmen?? He knows the system well. His thoughts on the main issues like War, Federal deficit, devaluating dollar etc. etc. are well documented and well supported by even the likes of Mr. Greenspan... so who are YOU Phillip to say you know better than he does. If there was *one* correct answer to many of the governmental problems seems people would be smart enough to use it...

Mike (#39), you're far too thoughtful to be a typical Paul supporter! :-)

Unfortunately, I don't think our federal government is structured to allow for truly sensible discussion of anything like energy or technology policies. That would be nice, though.

The War of 1812 fascinates me for many of the same reasons you mention. It does demonstrate that American wars have been fought poorly and for poor reasons from just about day one, doesn't it?

Anyway, I'm not sure I get what you mean about my "last argument" regarding polling numbers. In the article? In the comments?

One common argument I hear -- though I'm not sure you're making it -- is that it's foolish to ignore someone like Paul, because if everybody who thinks Paul has no chance would just vote for him anyway, why, he'd end up with 70% of the vote! Of course, I've heard this for at least a dozen candidates at the Presidential level over the years, and even caught myself saying it when Kinky Friedman was running for Governor of Texas. It's nonsense, though, for precisely the reason you state: it takes decades -- or an especially humiliating defeat -- to change priorities in a political party.

If Giuliani wins the nomination and fails to carry even New York, that would be the sort of large-scale failure required, but even then I'm not sure that ignoring Paul's policy proscriptions would be seen as the cause, but rather Giuliani's support of abortion and various "moral issues."

Phillip,
Paul is not where our loyolty necessarily lies, but the message he conveys. It just so happens that he is probably the best representative in decades to carry that message.

He is more than aware that certain things cannot be done by him. And he doesn't have a blind faith that he will win the Presidency and then everything will be resolved. But as of now, there is no one that carries this message that is in a true position of power. Even if he doesn't win, as this board is demonstrating, this movement is a means to move in the right direction. And striking down his ideas stating that he doesn't understand how the system works is wrong. He has said many times, there needs to be transitions and as they occur, people will begin to see the waste that government has spread over us.

Brian sez - "What's wrong with charity? The church and other non profit organizations seem to be doing great doing just that without it being forced."

bullshit

ask anyone who survived the Great Depression

Freewheeler sez - "My arguement is that they will never be as positive as free market solutions."

show your proof for that Postulate and we can talk..i cited and linked to examples demonstrating mine, you have yet to refute it with anything more substantial than Opinion...

i require objective evidence to influence my decision making, not Ideology...no matter how well intentioned

Excelsior?

just a Thought

Excelsior?

Brian (#41), first you refer to a press release from the Paul campaign as "the real Press," and now you give me "a straight forward fact based article" that's three short paragraphs basically amounting to a press release from Iowegians for Paul '08, linked on a site that's populated almost entirely by similar Paul advocacy articles.

Hilarious!

Not much for the concept of press integrity, are you? There's a difference between reporting and advocacy. Mine is an opinion article, but I still think it falls into a different category than the pure marketing fluff to which you've linked!

1 vote (#42), your comment, by virtue of timing, contains the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything. And you spend it declaring that? Really?

-squeak-

Gonzo in #73 writes: "ask a disabled, blind person...or a retired person whose company pension disappeared due to bankruptcy of the corp, or other Trickery by the officers of a corp (the airlines are a recent example)"

But correct me if I'm wrong, these disabled, blind, or retired people only get out of SS what they put in. It is literally like putting your money in a box in your backyard. Except your not allowed to dig it up until your what, 103 years old now, and by then inflation has taken all its worth. A dollar today has the purchasing power of 4 cents in 1913(year Fed was created and 16 amendment).

This is not helping these people!

It's great when bloggers try and attack Paul they try so hard yet have no ammo. Try and find dirt on all the other candidates matter of fact the dirt from the other candidates will find you first. Ron Paul stands for the constitution not under it.

Vegan (#44), I disagree about the relative position of the U.S., both compared to other countries around the world and compared to the U.S. historically. I appreciate that you believe we're at the bottom, but I don't.

As far as tax cuts, I'm generally for them, though nobody actually asked. You supported the Bush tax cuts, right? Of course, tax cuts are better when they're accompanied by spending cuts, and Bush spends like it's not his money.

Oh, wait.

Gonzo,

I agree non-profit charities do not have the power government agencies do. This is because they are crowded out and cannot compete.

You want 'actual support' for my arguements, I don't know where to begin....

I suppose the best start I can think of is John Stossel's "John Stossel Goes to Washington". There are 6 parts...sorry for the length.

And just for the record, Ron Paul does make an appearance, but I saw this 4 years ago, well before I even knew who he was.

Brian (#45), I should probably have quit responding to your comments long before now, given how none of them have survived the sniff test, but I'll say it again: if you've got something to say that I haven't responded to before #45, please repeat it. Far from seeing how any of my erroneous conclusions have been corrected, I think I've spent more than a little time instructing you on what you yourself have said. But hey, I'll keep reading.

Gonzo (#46), I knew we couldn't agree forever! ;-)

On the one hand, I'm a big fan of NASA for many reasons (and a big hater for other reasons), but on the other hand, is that the best use of federal funds? In an age in which private companies vie to put people into space, do we need NASA?

It's funny to me, but back when I was a Libertarian, NASA was near the top of my list to axe. Now that I've softened a bit, it seems like it actually provides (at least in the past) a decent return on spending, from a purely pragmatic perspective.

Very simple explanation. Phillip is deeply (and I mean deeply) in debt. He needs the Fed to really inflate the money supply and devalue the dollar significantly over the next few years so that he can repay that debt with hyper-inflated dollars.

It's his only way out.

Since Ron Paul would stabilize the money supply and essentially halt the Fed in it's inflationary phase, Phillip would still be in deep doodoo. Hence his hatred of Ron Paul.

Also, he likely receives a big portion of his income from dividends on his Halliburton stock -- which would likely crash within weeks of Ron Paul taking office. So he'd be in double deep doodoo.

Freewheeler sez - "This is because they are crowded out and cannot compete. "

no offense, but that statement is complete bullshit

NO ONE is stopping ANY charitable organization from giving to anyone...the very idea that someone form the government is going to try and stop anyone from giving is ridiculous, such charity is even tax deductable in many instances

i appreciate the discourse, but it appears we just cannot agree upon some basic objective reality

interesting that you have "no time" to peruse the link i provided to prove an earlier statement, yet you have plenty to hang on this thread and argue using unsubstantiated opinions...

Question, do you work for the campaign?

Excelsior?

Bubbleskid (#47), I didn't pick "one statistic," I picked the main statistic - national poll results. People picking individual states, or hypothetical races, that's cherry-picking. I'm summarizing. There's a difference.

Straw polls are primarily fund-raisers, and rarely a good predictor of eventual general election results.

It's common to hope that one's candidate's biggest problem is a lack of name recognition, but it usually isn't true. If Paul manages to become more well know, it's as likely his poll numbers would drop as rise. Outside of the militia movement and college campuses, there's not as wide support for Paul's policies as one might hope.


The "Dr. No" label isn't based on Paul voting "no" on every bill, but he used to claim that he votes "no" on every spending bill, which obviously is no longer the case. He's voted specifically for increased federal spending on several things that aren't clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, which was a bit of a surprise to me when I began researching this article a few days ago. I don't mean the fence in this case, by the way. That one could be argued to be part of national defense. Section 8 housing vouchers, though? I'd love to hear his reasoning behind that vote!

I'm glad you recognize Paul won't manage to accomplish his life's work within his first week in office. I wish you'd let other Paul supporters know that!

Fazsha (#48), you get it! Somebody gets it!

I do draw a distinction between Giuliani and Paul in this way: Giuliani's budget proposals would be debated, tweaked, expanded, and passed. Paul's budget proposals would be rejected and replaced completely with budget proposals more in line with what we usually get stuck with.

Congress controls the power of the purse, but lets President think they have some influence only as long as the President proposes something close to what Congress really wants. Giuliani would do that. Paul wouldn't. I'm not sure Paul, or at least Paul supporters, see the difference.

Gonzo, it is disappointing that an attempt at actual discourse is met like this. I fundamentally disagree with your view on the role and effects of government. But I understand why people feel this way and try to keep things cordial. No, believe it or not, I am not for the Paul campaign.

The concept of government crowding out private investments such as charities is far from a radical view. I suspect you have very little understanding of economics and the many fallacies of intervention.

However, your in luck. That video I sent you, that you obviously did not watch (despite mocking me for not reading your article)has a portion that addresses private charities and their struggles. And guess what, they have many times more problems from government than lack of support.

You know what's funny? Everyone keeps talking about what an internet phenomenon Ron Paul is, which is 100% true. They also talk about how - in the real world - he doesn't stand a chance.
But what these people are forgetting is that 70% of Americans use the internet.
So... the fact that Ron Paul is a hit online, um, those people don't count?
Come ON journalists- think of something else to attack him! You should be able to do better than that!

Go Ron Paul!

martin (#50), that was the line that turned you off? So late in the article? I know I edited out some of the more incendiary stuff between yesterday and today, but I was pretty sure I'd left in some zingers!

Seriously, I'm guessing you're not close to my age, or you'd recognize "we'd all be speaking Russian" as shorthand, slang for losing the Cold War. Obviously it's not to be taken literally. We'd all be speaking Spanish, same as now.

;-)

I think Ron Paul's supporters are a fairly diverse lot, and many feel strongly about single issues (as you have said in a demeaning, condescending sort of way). All presidents have to deal with congress, so its obvious that he can't wave a magic wand and eliminate all the departments he dislikes. He's the only candidate who talks about real change in our federal drug laws, and this is an important issue to many people. Drug prohibition causes so much more damage than drugs do. The only way to massively reduce the violence (here and in Latin America) is to legalize and regulate the trade. I don't want any more drug dealer shootings in my neighborhood. I do want to be able to keep my handgun and carry permit, and Ron Paul is a strong advocate of the right to self-defense. Taxes? I'm used to paying them. The Fed? Maybe its bad, maybe its wonderful. Its not a concern of mine. Either way, I'm voting for Ron Paul in my state's primary because he represents me on issues that I care about, not because I think he's going to win.

Gonzo,

By the way, I have a degree in economics and continuously educate myself through reading and other sources. I do not have 'unsubstantiated' opinions. I simply do not fee like writing a book on this board. And I would not call references to Wikipedia as substantiating your arguement. I have read the works of economists like Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. I do not say this to mock you, but to defend myself from you.

Freewheeler, you are mistaken here...

first, you have no clue as to my position on government and it's role...merely soem comments about very specific examples

second..i was not "mocking" you..merely observing a simple fact
this quote from you - "I suspect you have very little understanding of economics and the many fallacies of intervention."

demonstrates your ignorance as well as your bias against actual discourse

and as another aside, i'm partway through the video..and could spend a day agreeing with parts, and debunking others

enjoy your day

Excelsior?

Matthew Clark (#51), thank you for your thoughtful comment!

If the four leading candidates were to somehow die or become incapacitated and Paul won the Republican nomination (I'm assuming Paul can get up to fifth place in the next 11 months), I'd vote for him. I'm not happy with the status quo, and I don't know anyone who is. Of course, for half of my friends the answer is more spending, and for half its less. Perhaps it really is just the same amount of spending but on totally different priorities. My point is: don't mistake a resistance to radical idealism for comfort in the status quo.

If Paul want to make a change, he should write more books. Campaigning for President just sets up yet another generation to have their hopes for future of the country crushed.

since another comment came up while i was writing...

Freewheeler sez - "I do not have 'unsubstantiated' opinions"

this may well be the case, what i stated was that you have NOT substantiated those Opinions here in the medium of our discourse

to wit - merely because you state that you are an expert in economics does NOT establish or substantiate the claim...not that i don't believe you, but it is clearly and objectively unsubstantiated

hope that clears some things up

Excelsior?

Ah you ridiculous fool.

Ron Paul is against coercion, and he is against unconstitutonal federal programs.

1) coercion. Any time the government wants to provide a service, it must raise money by taxing citizens. Citizens are coerced into handing their money over at the threat of facing prison sentences/fines. Coercion is completely immoral. Nothing justifies it. The proper role of government is to raise a minimum amount of taxes in order to have the apparatus in place to protect people's liberty from those who would subject them to coercion. This means funding police, courts and a military. Anything beyond that is unnecessary coercion and is completely immoral.

Remember, one can't have a "right" to healthcare, or education, because rights are created by social contract, and one can't create a social contract that can give you anything material like food, water or healthcare without violating others' rights to their labor.

I conclude this section with the following:

"How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington

2) Unconstitutonal federal programs. Even if you believe in coercion against innocent people to provide material things like food, water and health care, you should not advocate politicians breaking their oath to the Constitution and having the federal government providing these things. The Constitution gives the federal government very limited powers, which are basically meant to keep the states in a union and protected from mutual outside threats. The federal government was never meant to dictate domestic economic policy. The Constitution explicitly states that all powers not granted by it to the federal government are reserved by the State governments and the people. Therefore, if you believe in any socialist policy, you should advocate it at the State level, not the federal level. Trying to homogenize a nation of 300 million people with one set of economic policies is stupid and ineffective. It's time to respect the federated model that the Constitution espouses.

I want to conclude with this eye opener about how fucked America is now:

--------------------------
Washington is all about the money, he writes. In 2005, the Census Bureau listed seven suburban counties around the capital as among the 20 richest in the country. And it's not just Republicans cashing in on their service. "Upon leaving office," he notes, "more than half of the senior officials in the Clinton administration became corporate lobbyists."
----------------------------

The nation's comptroller, the government's top accountant, says that there is no doubt that the nation will collapse in the coming 3 decades if present trends continue. Everyone in Washington is too busy getting rich off of the trillions in tax revenues to bother doing anything about it, everyone except Ron Paul.

gonzo - *it's the process of debate, discussion, and fact finding/checking that steers the ship of State*

...and you think I'm a dreamer

jmklein (#53), it's like the good comments cluster together when Brian takes a lunch break, or something!

Giuliani is campaigning to demonstrate that one can be a Republican and support abortion. Paul is campaigning to demonstrate that one can be a Republican and support decriminalization (yay!) and withdrawl from Iraq (meh!). I'm not sure either will accomplish what he expects even if he succeeds! Republicans have generally been against wars started by Democrats (see Clinton, Bill). Republicans have run on small-government platforms before (see Reagan, Ronald). It's really only decriminalization that's new, and I expect that to happen someday, but I make no predictions about which party will finally lead the charge.

Actually, I suspect it will be the Republicans, because the Democrats can't, if you know what I mean. Sometimes politicians of one party can do things their own party wouldn't allow the opposition to do.

Foreign Policy:

If you want to under Ron Paul's foreign policy, and if you want to understand how the Soviet Union would have collapsed a lot sooner if the US had followed the foreign policy Ron paul advocates, read Ron Paul's book, "A foreign policy of freedom":

-----
Foreign Policy of Freedom

There is one and only one voice in Congress for a foreign policy of freedom, and it belongs to Ron Paul, who has stood alone for freedom for many years. Ron is the seemingly impossible: a voice for reason and truth in a den of thieves.

A Foreign Policy of Freedom is his 372-page manifesto, a collection of inspired statements to the House of Representatives that show him to be the most consistent and morally responsible politician, perhaps, in the whole of American history.

This book takes on a special significance with his 2008 run for the US presidency. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., writes the introduction.

Recently, you might have heard Ron condemning foreign aid, the Iraq War, our vast and needlessly growing military budgets, bombings of this country and that, troops in most all countries in the world, and all the other meddlesome activities of the US empire. This foreign policy, Congressman Paul has pointed out, is contrary to American ideals, diminishes American liberty, and ends up making worse the very problems it seeks to alleviate.

But did you know that Ron has been delivering this message through thick and thin from his first day in Congress in 1976 until the present day? That's 31 years of prophetic warnings, 31 years of courageous stands against the tide, 31 years of being proven right by subsequent events. There are no flip-flops, backpeddles, regrets, or coverups. He has told the truth again and again, no matter what it cost him.

In the middle of the Cold War, he decried the endless streams of subsidies from the US to communist governments. At the same time, he stood firm against aid to insurgents seeking to overthrow those regimes. He sensibly pointed out that the Soviet Union would collapse if it had to face financial reality, and an end to US aid would make that possible. He has been a stickler on the power of the presidency, refusing to grant the president authority to start wars without Congressional approval.

Herein you will find a chronicle of hypocrisy. Paul condemned the policy that subsidized Saddam Hussein, and the policy that waged war on Iraq and killed Saddam. The same is true of Noriega in Panama and the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan who later made up the shock troops of Al-Qaeda.

"Our experiment with foreign policy interventionism has failed, just as our experience with domestic economic interventionism has failed," he said in 1982.

He said the same in mid-1990s.

"War, and the threat of war, are big government's best friend," he wrote only recently. "Liberals support big government social programs, and conservatives support big government war policies, thus satisfying two major special interest groups. And when push comes to shove, the two groups cooperate and support big government across the board -- always at the expense of personal liberty. Both sides pay lip service to freedom, but neither stands against the welfare-warfare state and its promises of unlimited entitlements and endless war."

In many ways, this book is a history of a quarter century of folly, told by a man who saw what others did not, and had the temerity to state his view publicly. No voice for peace has been as consistent in the demand that government stop its intervention across the board. No supporter of free markets has been so determined to apply the logic of liberty to all aspects of foreign policy.

This book makes Ron Paul's place in history. There has never been anything so forthright, truth telling, and ultimately devastating from a US politician. Not since Taft has there been a book like this, and this one makes Taft's own classic seems vague and abstract by comparison.

the only thing ron paul could do to stop abortion is appoint judges who are anti-roe v wade and get the federal ruling on abortion lifted. that stops taxpayer funded abortion. if you OWN state still likes abortions, that's nice. you can get all the abortions you want there from a private physician. if your state doesn't like abortion, drive to a state that's "cool" with it.

everyone's happy.

Matt (#54), good point. I do think there's a difference between proposing a course change of a few degrees (where one can speak with better than even certainty that the course change will go through) and proposing a full stop and reverse at 20 knots (where one has better odds of sprouting a third arm).

Hillary Clinton has, I think, a 50/50 chance of passing decent health care reform, and probably an 80-90% chance of passing *some* kind of health care reform. Paul has roughly a 1% chance of shutting down even a single one of the many departments he's proposed shutting down.

I do think Paul is contributing to good political discussion. His supporters, by and large, not so much.

I'd even be willing to spend some time having a discussion about one or more of Paul's books in the coming year. Maybe a weekly 30 minute radio show? I've got the technical means at my disposal, so I'll keep it in mind.

Maybe some countries view us favorably, but where do you make the case that we aren't on the world's sh*t list? I have some friends from India, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Laos, and god knows where else, and they all same the same thing - other countries either detest the US for being the moral bully, or they fear the US for being the moral bully. Folks in other countries that I keep in contact with for activism purposes (I agitate for change, but never saw the government as an effective tool for that...) have all come back with the same view too.

Ron Paul supporters WILL show up at the polls, just as they do every day of the week to wave signs and get the word out. That is the main difference between Paul supporters and supporters of other "candidates" - we are not a bunch of lazy people regardless of how losers like you try to portray us. We actually care about this country more than the TV and our bag of chips. You all will be eating your words, then losing your pathetic jobs when he is elected.

DavidG (#55), Barnum once said that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. I wouldn't put it in quite such stark terms, but I'm not quite sure why "they" fall for it every time, either.

No, I'm teasing. I'm grateful to have a platform to write about something that has been bugging me, and for the platform to have high standard so that I had to research and rewrite the article a few times to make it cogent and concise. Well, more cogent and concise than when I started, anyway!

Brian (#57-58), I think I'm going to stay out of general discussion of Libertarianism, at least this week. I used to be a pretty hardcore Libertarian. Had a web page and everything. (Note to self: make sure that page is offline.)

An ex-Libertarian is like an ex-smoker. We can be nasty, and it's not always fair. :-)

How come I still can't find one article of an anti-Paul person explaining why their candidate is better?

No one dissects the other candidates like they do Paul. We can barely even get a straight answer from the others...seriously. It's as if we accept them as hot air and pander. But when one candidate is to the point, doesn't flip-flop or bullsh*t us - they are crucified.

Now I want Ron more than ever to lead us. This is crazy.......

".Let's step back a moment and realize that we're talking about a man who seems to believe that the U.S. President has the power to set the federal budget all by himself, and dissolve department after department of the government single-handedly. Health and Human Services?"

Phillip you idiot, he doesn't believe that. He has said over and over again that as president he CAN'T eliminate deparments without Congress' cooperation. What he can do though is start withdrawing US troops from overseas bases thereby saving tens, if not hundreds of billions a year.

He can also start vetoing new spending bills and thereby check the growth in government spending. This is very important, as it means lower deficits, and eventually a reduction in taxes as the economy grows and tax receipts increase. As an example, if government spending had stayed at 2000 levels, then by today the income tax could be eliminated with no change in the deficit.

"How come I still can't find one article of an anti-Paul person explaining why their candidate is better?"

Exactly.

devils.advocate (#59), you probably ought to confer with Brian and some others on this page before suggesting that Paul's supporters "know" Paul can't upend established political process. After decrying the expansion of the executive branch by the last several Presidents, some now seem to assume the President can do almost anything!

Anyway, I appreciate you reading my "TYPICAL SMEAR article," and I hope you can make time to list some of the many points I've gotten wrong. No hurry.

the federal employees would work for the state or private sector. his policy allows state to run their own programs, so instead if fed employees you would have state employees. the benefit to this is that blue states can truely be blue and red states can truely be red.

Freewheeler (#60), I'm not touching this one. Perhaps Gonzo will speak up. I think he's close to collecting benefits. ;-)

DavidG (#61), so is it your assertion that the difference between Congressman Paul an President Paul is bringing the troops home from around the world? He can talk to Congress members more easily as a Congressman than as President, right? Separation of powers, and all that.

So are you campaigning for Paul, or Kucinich? If we elect someone else who will bring all our troops home and leave Paul in Congress, aren't we getting double benefits?

Paul was definitely ahead of his time in supporting Reagan. I'm sad that he wants to destroy himself after watching Reagan do the same, but I suppose it's a noble sacrifice. Fortunately, I don't think he'll be called upon to actually make it.

I've caught up to myself at #63, and now I need to take another break, quite possible a very long one. I'll try to catch up later.

I don't know why I read useless stuff like this with opinions based on poor research. Paul has voted for spending in a few instances. He has explained those few votes: the money was going to be spent anyway and he voted to spend the money in the most wise fashion. See, it is attempts like this to down an opponent which only result in proving just how little credibility the attacker has.

I think I've figured it out.

Humans are creatures of habit. They prefer familiarity and comfort to change and progression.
(patriot act is a big one, politics another...)

It's very unfamiliar to have a man basically change all we are used to. But it has to be done. Folks laugh him off.."he's going to just do away with these departments and change our currency like that..." YES - That's exactly what they did to us so long ago. But information was very limited and basically Americans didn't have a choice.

Your comfortable sleep may feel good for a while longer - but friends, open your eyes. We're in decline, America is spread and thinning. It's becoming obvious almost daily that the people we trust and elect really don't care. We have let the original dream of America turn to a circus of spending and corruption, financed by our fellow Americans blood, sweat and tears. I don't hate you, I'm just trying to wake you. If not Paul, fine, someone else - but acknowledge the elephant in the room, don't deride the ones who care to notice and ask...

Interesting commentary, Philip. Thanks for the info, not that I would have voted for him, anyway. I sure hope you're wearing asbestos undies and have an unlisted number. Seems you've brought the crazies out of the closet and into the sunlight.

i would say that the United States is certainly on a trendline of diminishing innovation and personal wealth. the future expansion of the tax-state will continue decelerating innovation as well as self-reliance. baseless foreign wars, occupations and nationbuilding will also accelerate the process.

when people say "omg, the federal govt doesnt have THAT much power you paranoid freak!" they speak without grasping that the true power of federal govt lies in taxation and expansion into facets of your life that were pre