Dr. Ron Paul is running for the presidency of the United States. His goal is to restore our sovereignty, our liberty, and our freedom. As a result, the media and the established politicians in Washington, D.C. have united against him.
As evidenced by articles and polls that either exclude his candidacy altogether or refer to him as a “fringe” or “darkhorse” candidate, as well as a virtual blackout of any news relating to Dr. Paul, the media has indulged in several tactics that won’t bear close scrutiny. How can the front-runner in the straw polls be a fringe candidate? How can the lead fundraiser of both parties be a darkhorse candidate?
The founders of our nation foresaw that any government ruled by humans would tend toward corruption, so the Constitution was created to limit the powers of the government. Yet slowly, almost imperceptibly, our Constitutional rights have been infringed upon and eroded by our elected officials.
Both supporters and detractors of Ron Paul’s candidacy agree that if he wins the Republican nomination, he has excellent odds of winning the general election. Professional gamblers have taken note of the situation, adjusting his odds of winning from 200/1 to 15/1. Is he not the only candidate who plans to end the war immediately? Is he not the only candidate who puts Americans before the American bureaucracy?
The true battle is in the primary elections, where only a minority of Americans vote. But as Samuel Adams, one of the founders of our great country said, “It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
Once the primary hurdle has been passed, there is no doubt that Ron Paul’s candidacy will soar. His message resonates with the American people. His straw poll numbers and head-to-head records are a good indicator of what the world can expect in a general election. We want our freedom and our liberties protected. Most of all, his honest patriotism has reignited the flames of liberty that had nearly been extinguished here in the United States.
As you love liberty and your country, vote for Ron Paul in the primary elections.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - AAAAANDRE
Well said!
2 - L. A. Dietz
Landslide wins for Ron Paul in last two debates: 82% (Univision, Miami) and 59% (Iowa).
And your article heading is most accurate.
3 - Mick Russom
Ron Paul is the greatest candidate I've ever seen. Consistent for 30 years. No flip flops. We are done with WAR, we want a real currency, we want peace, we want the welfare-state for the military industrial complex to END, we want to fix America and stop policing the world and to stop the authoritarian oppression here NOW.
4 - Christopher Early
Great article. Much better than the "Wanted: An FDR for the 21st Century" article that was in the 'see also' box. I say "Wanted: A Thomas Jefferson for the 21st Century". Now THAT would be a much better article than FDR half-truth ranting. More people need to understand that the antonym of truth is not lies but falsehood. People are always looking for falsehoods when checking up on candidates yet they fail to realize that it is terribly easy to lie whist telling the truth. Example:
Truth: White is white.
Falsehood: White is black.
Lie: One could easily say that white is black.
The lie is true because they words are easy to utter. The lie is a lie because it is structured to promote a falsehood.
Sorry about the mini-rant; I clicked and reviewed all of your sponsors advertisement links to help show my support.
5 - Know It All
Ron Paul is the most fringe of fringe candidates. This writer clearly has no concept of today's political world (foil-hatter, perhaps?). Any candidate has a better chance than Paul.
Altho' I might vote for Paul in the primaries, just to ensure none of the real candidates gives Hillary a run for her money.
6 - Corey k
Excellent Article. I will be sending this post out to everyone I know.
7 - Jacob
"Ron Paul is the most fringe of fringe candidates."
Right.
All the others are the same "middle of the road" politicians who believe in the status quo.
In that case, the 'fringe' looks pretty good.
Especially because the 'fringe' is where the country started.
8 - handyguy
Ron Paul's supporters are good at posting zillions of online comments. On rare occasions, these comments are even literate and worth thinking about.
The question is: will any of these people actually go out and vote, either in the primaries or in the general election?
9 - rad racer
good question, handyguy. I wonder how many people will actually support Ron Paul when push comes to shove.
I will be there, I just wonder if I will have company
10 - Lark
I feel sadness for anyone who's not sufficiently cognizant of the underlying issues adversely affecting our freedoms and prosperity. Left unresolved, they will surely enslave us and our posterity.
Thank you for the hopeful, positive note you strike for liberty!
11 - David
Handguy, Ron Paul's supporters can be counted on to vote almost to each and every one. That's a given. The question is how much can that base can be expanded in the short time left.
12 - Ray Ellis
"As you love liberty and your country, vote for Ron Paul in the primary elections."
This isn't an article so much as it is an ad. That's all well and good, I suppose. Paul's supporters are a rabid lot, and though he doesn't stand a prayer of getting the nomination, he makes the Republican race interesting. He's a spoiler, and probably ensures a dark horse like Huckabee that party's nomination.
On the other side, Clinton won't win the Dem's nomination. It will either be an Obama-Edwards or an Edwards-Obama ticket.
It's not that I hate Paul-- he has some good ideas. But Obama and Edwards express those ideas more eloquently and practically.
13 - RicknHouston
Ya, Ray !!! You guys have psissed of the wrong people this time around. get ready to stand in longer voting lines than you have ever imagined...
Ha Ha! Go Ron and Go my fellow Paulites, Paultards, revolutionary's .... let them call us what they will but by this time next year they will be calling Ron Paul PRESIDENT !!!!!
14 - Ray Ellis
Thanks, RicknHouston. You illustrated my point more eloquently than I ever could have on my own.
However, foaming at the mouth does not make you a revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination.
BTW, since you're in Texas, have you not heard of early voting? Takes care of long voting lines rather nicely.
15 - Steve
"The question is: will any of these people actually go out and vote, either in the primaries or in the general election?"
You bet. Every single person supporting Ron Paul writing those comments, who is over 18, is voting. Ron Paul supporters have pushed hard for the last six months to get out the vote and providing information about the primaries. Need info about primaries in your state? Just go to Ron Paul 2008 dot com. it's all there.
I betting the farm that there is going to be a massive turn out of Ron Paul supporters in Jan & Feb. Will they be enough to off set the vote? Time will tell.
16 - Dave Nalle
Has Ron Paul lit the world on fire, or has he just lit a really, really strong fire in a small corner of the world?
Dave
17 - Joel Henderson
Hear! Hear!
Thanks for writing a positive and well-balanced piece!
I'll continue to go door-to-door, make phone calls, speak with family & friends, hand out printed campaign materials...and YES, vote in the primaries (and again in the general election).
In short, just like the majority of Congressman Paul's supporters - I'll do whatever it takes (in a classy, legal & non-confrontational style, of course) to get the man elected...
18 - Ray Ellis
Nice analogy, Dave. I'd take it one step further, though. He's more lik one of those 99 cent lighters that spark and spark valiantly, but can't manage a flame in a light breeze.
Paul doesn't frighten me--his supporters--at least, the ones commenting here--do.
19 - rad racer
Question for you Ray... if you thought Ron Paul had a better chance, would you vote for him?
20 - Dave Nalle
I was thinking more in terms of him being a puddle of lighter fluid which burns very hot and very quickly and burns off leaving nothing behind.
Dave
21 - Shohadaku
This is bigger then America. They are protesting in London on Dec 16th at Parlament. Ron Paul is a spark. Meetup groups and websites from all over the world support Ron Paul.
Freedom is popular
22 - Ray Ellis
Nope, Rad. The following reminds me waaay too much of Europe in the eary thirties.
Shodaku's comment bears that out.
23 - James
I enjoyed the writer's comments about the media blackout of Ron Paul.
I just read an article called, "Online Only: Ron Paul Beats Hillary."
Much of the news about Ron Paul that talks about his support suggests that Ron Paul's support is "Online Only," and phrases things to suggest that the Online Community is a small segment of the U.S. population.
Really? Who doesn't use the internet? I don't personally know anyone who doesn't use the internet.
Well, I looked it up and the fact is that the vast majority of Americans are "online."
So, it's probable that Ron Paul's support is the vast majority of Americans.
Cool!
24 - STM
I'm sure Ron Paul's heart is in the right place, however some of his policies seem really bizarre and totally out of touch with reality. As one commentator astutely notes, American politics is about much miore than America.
He wants to do away with the Fed, and pull the US out of the UN and NATO. I find much of this attitude of a return to the isolationism of the 1930s and early '40s totally off the wall, especially this month being the anniversary of the day of infamy.
It's quite well known that America's isolationist policy and total lack of preparedness for war - in a war that other nations who would become allied to the US had already been fighting for three years and which eventually would have engulfed the US no matter what (and FDR, possessed of great foresight, was fighting a losing battle in his own country trying to warn of the dangers) - contributed hugely to the early disasters and dreadful loss of life suffered by the US in the first days of its entry to WWII.
The obvious one is Pearl Harbor, and there were early defeats in South East Asia (The Philippines) and setbacks caused by a small army showing its inexperience in North Africa when the US first joined the British by invading from one side of the continent while their new allies were coming from the other side with the Germans on the run.
All these cost far too many American lives, and absolutely needlessly. The Boy Scouts' motto: "Be prepared", would have been a good one for the US at the time and would have saved an awful lot of American lives. It's also not inconceivablwe that had the US entered WWII in 1939, the Germans and Japanese might have pulled their murderous heads in.
The problem then, until America engaged all its big-business, can-do skills into a total war effort, was purely lack of preparation and was the result of its many years of isolation - a policy driven from small-town America that wielded its power in Washington. The world is in crisis again, and now is not the time for America to be isolationist.
I'll say it again: the price of peace is eternal vigilance. Luckily, Ron Paul won't become president, but good on him for having a go.
The problem is, while some of his policies sound enticing to a lot of Americans, America isn't the world, and right now America has a great responsibility both to the world and to itself.
On the UN issue alone, as the US has the right of veto as a permanent member of the security council, so to leave the UN would actually be far more dangerous to the US than staying. So did anyone think that one through?
That's what worries me about Paul and his followers.
The whole thing seems mired in ignorance, despite some good ideas.
I can't say I disagree with the notion of getting out of Iraq and stopping the incessant and somewhat arrogant meddling in other nations' affairs (and I can say that as a citizen of a country that belonged to an empire that arrogantly meddled in just the sae way, so I'm not being anti-American here).
But none of it is that simple, is it? It's OK to say, "I'm all right, Jack, you do whatever you like as long as we're fine", but in a world where a strong hand is needed, America can't afford to stick its head in the sand again.
Somewhere between the idiocy of Bush ("we don't talk to terrorists", which means they don't talk to just about anyone who wants to kill Americans), and the well-intentioned foolishness of Paul's isolationist position might be a good place to start.
Talk might well be a cheap ... but it IS a lot cheaper than sending fleets of aircraft carriers and armies to far-flung corners of the globe, so it's probably the preferred option.
But disengaging America from a modern world that is largely of America's making?
Absolute madness.
Those who really love liberty will want America to preserve it, and it won't be preserved by pretending everything disasteful outside America is just going to go away.
How can that wonderful country of yours so quickly forget the lessons of the past?
25 - Clavos
"How can that wonderful country of yours so quickly forget the lessons of the past?"
I don't think the words typed on a blog, even one as varied and open as BlogCritics, are a true snapshot of the status of the real world country, Stan, especially not those coming principally from the supporters of a fringe candidate.
The USA is till a great, compassionate (and powerful) country, and not likely to exit the world stage any time soon.
We have stumbled in recent years, and are currently undergoing a quintessentially American process of self-examination, re-orientation and re-affirmation (not for the first time in our history), but it would be premature to count us out yet.
We Yanks are a hardy and resilient lot (much like our not-so-distant cousins Down Under).