America's Debate > Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid

Google

Sponsored Links

barnaby2341

Dec 24 2007, 03:54 PM

QUOTE(Aquilla @ Dec 24 2007, 04:29 AM)

I would encourage everyone who is talking about Ron Paul to watch his interview with Tim Russert (of potato fame) on Meet the Press today. You can find the the webcast of that program here. There is also a transcript of the interview as well, but the video is much better. At times it had me laughing out loud literally at some of the responses Ron Paul had to the questions. I still don't know if he actually believes he can do what he says he wants to do (eliminate the IRS and pay for it by bringing ALL of our military forces home and that means ALL of them). If North Korea wants to attack South Korea, oh well, Paul doesn't care - not his problem.

Iran wants to attack and destroy Israel, Paul doesn't care. He doesn't think they'll do that, but what the hey, if they do, not our problem. Israel has nukes he claims so they can take care of themselves. And oh by the way, he wants to get rid of both the FBI and the CIA - kinda sorta. As soon as I can stop laughing at this idiot's interview and stop rolling my eyes, I'll pull up a few of his more "interesting answers" for discussion here. This guy is a nutcase.

Aquilla

Aquilla,

You are going to have to change your Politics to Tax & Spend Imperialist, because you sir are no Conservative. Let's take it one by one because you need things broken down to you.
North Korea & South Korea
Exhibit A: The United States fought North Korea between 1950 to 1953, an armistice was reached. There is a DMZ set up between North and South Korea guarded by both sides, with US troops stationed in the South.
Exhibit B: The United States fought in Vietnam starting in the late 50s or early 60s up until 1975. The North won and took over the South. Vietnam became one country.
Outcome A: North Korea is threatening the United States with nuclear war.
Outcome B: We trade goods with Vietnam.

I would guess that if the US left Korea, there would probably be a war, but in the end they would resolve their differences. Regardless, how exactly is this the United States' problem?

Iran attacking Israel
Iran has invaded zero countries since the 1979 Revolution. Israel has a vastly superior military, but let's just assume for arguments sake that Iran decides to attack Israel. Have you looked at a map of the Middle East recently? If Iran was to launch any kind of attack they would need permission from virtually every country in the Middle East to do so. If they were going to launch a nuclear attack they would be outgunned, a much bigger target to hit, and hope to hit Israel, an extremely small geographic country, without affecting any of the surrounding countries. But even if the stars align and this does happen, why should the United States care?

FBI and CIA
Paul wants to reduce their role in our society; specifically no spying on citizens and not starting covert wars. Since you love the FBI and CIA so much, you should read the recently unclassified documents showing that Hoover was planning on arresting 12,000 American-born citizens. Read Here.

QUOTE

"The index now contains approximately 12,000 individuals, of which approximately 97% are citizens of the United States," Hoover wrote in the now-declassified document. "In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the writ of habeas corpus."

Habeas corpus is the right to seek relief from illegal detention, and is a bedrock legal principle.

All apprehended individuals eventually would have had the right to a hearing under Hoover's plan, but hearing boards comprised of one judge and two citizens would not have been bound by the rules of evidence.

Jackboots anyone?

I understand why you are trying to paint Ron Paul as a lunatic. You are a Fred Thompson supporter. Fred Thompson recently made news by going after the other Thompson's supporters.

Maybe if he gets that vote he'll get up to 13%. Hoisting one for stupidity.

ottimista

Dec 24 2007, 05:54 PM

QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Dec 17 2007, 06:43 PM)

I'm completely torn on RP. On the one hand, I agree that he is sending a message to the Republicans in particular that people will vote for a small government conservative. A lot of people. And they're passionate about it. On the other hand you have a small government conservative in the race already, who also has a great opportunity to win in the general. John McCain isn't as tried and true as Dr. No, but he has spent a large portion of his career fighting pork barrell spending. I won't repeat everything that I wrote about him here, but the one thing the man has shown is fiscal discipline. He's not as extreme as many would like, but if the Republican Party has to completely turn around to satisfy the RP constituency then they are less likely to do it.

QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 17 2007, 01:05 PM)

Really, calling yourself a conservative and NOT voting for Ron Paul, well, really, you are a just a liberal trying to wash off your spots, since NO other self claimed conservative has any history or inclination to behave as, well, you know, one of those small goverment conservatives.

Disagree. McCain is fiscally conservative.

I hope that Ron Paul will have a significant place in history as the candidate who ignited a movement for a strong Third Party Candidate! The Republicans are no longer true conservatives, and the Democrats are not the Dems they were when JFK was president. I agree regarding John McCain, and will probably vote for him in the primaries. Unfortunately, I still have no enthusiasm for anybody who has a chance of winning!

lederuvdapac

Dec 24 2007, 08:00 PM

QUOTE(Aquilla)

If North Korea wants to attack South Korea, oh well, Paul doesn't care - not his problem.

Aquilla, NKorea does not want to invade SKorea. And if it did, it would get destroyed. NKorea has a larger active military force than the current Skorean army, but its military capable population is less than half that of South Korea. Do I even need to mention the differences in technology and industrial capacity? The fact is that NKorea cannot invade SKorea nor do they want to. SKorea and NKorea want to become one nation again. It's none of our business.

QUOTE(Aquilla)

Iran wants to attack and destroy Israel, Paul doesn't care. He doesn't think they'll do that, but what the hey, if they do, not our problem. Israel has nukes he claims so they can take care of themselves.

It doesn't matter what Iran wants to do, only what it is able to do. Israel completely and utterly overpowers Iran. Iran is a third world country...your fear is irrational.

QUOTE(Aquilla)

And oh by the way, he wants to get rid of both the FBI and the CIA - kinda sorta.

He says explicitly in the interview that he wants to abolish the practices by the FBI and CIA that include spying on US citizens and torture. Is that unreasonable Aquilla?

Individual liberty and the Constitution used to be tenets of the GOP Aquilla, do you not agree?

nighttimer

Feb 13 2008, 08:28 AM

Looks like Ron's parking the blimp.

February 8, 2008

Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky, of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.

Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron link

Soooooo....does this mean the doctor is out?

lederuvdapac

Feb 13 2008, 02:33 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Feb 13 2008, 03:28 AM)

Looks like Ron's parking the blimp.

February 8, 2008

Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky, of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.

Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron link

Soooooo....does this mean the doctor is out?

Not so fast nighttimer. This isn't the last that we have heard of Dr. Paul. Here is Dr. Paul's latest video explaining the state of the campaign: Ron Paul: Going the Distance. Basically the campaign is being scaled back because there are less contests to fight over. With more of the delegates already taken, there isn't as much need for the current level of staff (or as the logic goes...).

Here is the blog article that Paul mentions in his video: The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election.

Dr. Paul is planning a march on Washington some time in the next 3-4 months to hold a Constitution Rally. I for one am excited about such an event and plan to attend.

So his chances are bleek, his campaign is being downsized...but this is not the end of Ron Paul. Revolutions take tme.

VDemosthenes

Feb 13 2008, 02:35 PM

QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Feb 13 2008, 09:33 AM)

So his chances are bleek, his campaign is being downsized...but this is not the end of Ron Paul. Revolutions take tme.

When one yields little to no legal power, sometimes they don't even get underway. This surge in libertarinism Paul seems to be stirring landed him on the cover of NewsMax last week saying that he'll "Change the GOP forever." So? In fifty years, who's going to remember Ron Paul of Texas? He's been a leading candidate on the cusp of the MySpace generation, but he's done relatively poorly in the primaries and caucuses.

Amlord

Feb 13 2008, 03:54 PM

Ron Paul quotes Trotsky? Does anyone else find that dripping with irony? Perhaps Dr. Paul will found the Fifth International?

Dr. Paul's campaign has had some little influence, but not much. If he weren't so dovish and isolationist his economic positions would have come out in a better light. As it is, the whole of his candidacy was an abject failure.

lederuvdapac

Feb 13 2008, 04:31 PM

QUOTE(Amlord)

Ron Paul quotes Trotsky? Does anyone else find that dripping with irony? Perhaps Dr. Paul will found the Fifth International?

Dr. Paul's campaign has had some little influence, but not much. If he weren't so dovish and isolationist his economic positions would have come out in a better light. As it is, the whole of his candidacy was an abject failure.

I disagree with your analysis Amlord for a plethora of reasons. For one, the amount of progress that Paul made in a year going from an unknown to the largest GOP fundraiser is astounding. He tapped into a sentiment in the electorate that has been ignored by the two major parties. He revealed the truth about the Republican Party and how it has lost its conservative roots. That message, more than any other, will resonate. The base of his support is young people. People who will make up the future of America and a constituency largely ignored by the GOP. The GOP will be in crisis after the humiliating defeat it suffers in November, especially if (when) Obama is the Democratic nominee. The Republican party has no principles to guide them to victory. Much like the Goldwater Revolution, Dr. Paul is the beginning of a larger movement aimed at restoring the ideas of limited government, individual liberty, and free markets.

Dr. paul is not perfect, but he is the right man at the right time. He is going to leave a legacy that most politicians can only dream of.

VDemosthenes

Feb 13 2008, 04:38 PM

QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Feb 13 2008, 11:31 AM)

Dr. paul is not perfect, but he is the right man at the right time. He is going to leave a legacy that most politicians can only dream of.

Really? Because I'm young and none of my friends know who he is. He's got his followers, but anybody can weave together a group of supporters who don't sway the same direction in four, eight, sixteen, so on years.

Gray Seal

Feb 13 2008, 05:49 PM

Ron Paul has been successful in gathering a nucleus together who see the political problems we have in the United States. Some of the problems this nucleus sees:

-two major political parties which do not follow the constitution
-two major political parties which are much more concerned about what is good in the short term for their special interest and not so much for principles which give freedom to everyone
-fascism in the form of corporatism running government
-a devaluation of freedom and civil liberty
-weak monetary policy
-we do not mind our own business and being the super power has given many an overinflated opinion of themselves as U.S. citizens
-main stream media not doing the job they claim to be doing of providing information and equal access
-unrealistic spending by the central government
-unconstitutional control and power of the federal government

Paul's campaign has been unsuccessful in his bid to become President. To some that is the only parameter. To those looking to the future, there are other parameters.

---------------------

After being on AD since its first year and hearing all of the reasoned discussions from interested people who are paying attention I am frankly boggled by the fact that so many here on AD still cling to the notion that the Democrat and Republican Parties (including the quaint idea of most every political position being either liberal or conservative) represent individual's pursuit of happiness or any sort of principles which are deserving of their precious vote. The supporters of Ron Paul are a break from this small mindset where the window dressings of the candidates discussed by the candidates, their managers, and the Washington pundits is all important.

lederuvacpac may be correct that Ron Paul will have a lasting legacy. It all depends on whether this small nucleus grows or not. The Ron Paul campaign is not just about Ron Paul. For the supporters it is primarily the ideals he represents. Those ideals are not hard to find. Read the Constitution.

The status quo is continuing to win the day. There is hope as we have 5 to 10 per cent seeing the light. So many do not even know who Ron Paul is to this day. The questions remain: (1)will those who do not know of his positions like those positions when they learn of them and (2) will those who like Ron Paul's positions but feel compelled to support the status quo finally vote their convictions.

BecomingHuman

Feb 13 2008, 07:03 PM

QUOTE(Amlord)

Dr. Paul's campaign has had some little influence, but not much. If he weren't so dovish and isolationist his economic positions would have come out in a better light. As it is, the whole of his candidacy was an abject failure.

It seemed like Ron Paul (or his followers, considering the tremendous sums of money they raised) never treated his candidacy as an abject failure. Their attempt at the White House was driven with more gusto than perhaps any other candidate on the field, and certainly more than any republican candidate. Ron Paul has become the most well-known libertarian of our time. That never would have happened without his candidacy.

I'm not sure about you, but I'm certainly going to remember Ron Paul after this!

I've had the distinct pleasure of listening to Ron Paul supporters, and in my personal experience, they tend to be more knowledgeable about politics than any of the other candidates supporters out there.

Take the average Obama supporter (and there are alot of them) and ask them what they like about his candidacy. You typically get responses about "bringing the country together," "change," "charisma," or, unfortunately, "right time for a black man." They know his position on Iraq well enough, but if you dare ask them about his stance on the minimum wage, his plan to stimulate community service with college tax credits (genius, IMO), or his intense focus on alternative energy, you tend to get "ohs," "uhs" and "whats."

The typical Ron Paul supporter, on the other hand, seems to know his positions by heart: Non-interventionist, gun protection, elimination of the IRS, no federal reserve, etc. A couple even talked to me about what monetary policy actually does (open market operations in particular) and why they felt that it was bad.

I think the difference is that Ron Paul has a position-driven candidacy. That is, the exciting thing about his campaign isn't Ron Paul himself, but what positions he stands for. Thus, Ron Paul supporters tend to know his positions.

Contrast that with Obama, who is a prime generator of excitement himself. You don't have to know any of Obama's positions to love him, and boy does it show.

QUOTE(Amlord)

he weren't so dovish and isolationist

I know the Republican party has lost its way when they insist their candidates borrow billions from foreigners (we certainly couldn't raise taxes for that!) to fund unnecessary excursions into threat-less countries. Its a sad day when I refuse to vote republican because I'm worried about them expanding the powers of the federal government.

ConservPat

Feb 13 2008, 07:19 PM

QUOTE(Amlord)

Dr. Paul's campaign has had some little influence, but not much. If he weren't so dovish and isolationist his economic positions would have come out in a better light.

Heh...And if the media bothered to ask him about his economic and social positions, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course he's dovish and isolationist...He's not a neoconservative. He's something different. But hey, maybe when the Republicans suffer a Presidential defeat and the Democrats have control of the entire federal government, they'll finally realize that they need to change their party drastically.

Or maybe they won't, who knows?

QUOTE

As it is, the whole of his candidacy was an abject failure.

How many times, prior to this year, had you ever seen a libertarian on MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS? How many times have you see one since? His campaign did a great job of 'getting the message out'.

CP

Amlord

Feb 13 2008, 07:27 PM

QUOTE(BecomingHuman @ Feb 13 2008, 02:03 PM)

QUOTE(Amlord)

he weren't so dovish and isolationist

I know the Republican party has lost its way when they insist their candidates borrow billions from foreigners (we certainly couldn't raise taxes for that!) to fund unnecessary excursions into threat-less countries. Its a sad day when I refuse to vote republican because I'm worried about them expanding the powers of the federal government.

I agree with much of what you've said, BH, until this last point. I understand that this is how you feel but if the United States is going to be defeated, do you think it will come militarily or economically? The Soviets fell because of their unworkable economic system, not their lack of military might.

The US is indeed on a precipice. But failure to recognize that the US economy (indeed, the world economy) is absolutely dependent on access to Middle East oil is short sighted.

Were I President I would absolutely cut federal spending. However, it is unthinkable in today's political environment. The only possible solution is a leader that is so charismatic that he can appeal directly to Americans and explain to them how our system is not working and that how asking for money from the federal government simply cannot work going forward.

Ron Paul's economic ideas are probably in the right place. However, his complete lack of charisma or speaking ability leaves him as not only a losing candidate, but somewhat of a laughing stock as well. His ideas, EVEN IF CORRECT, will not carry the day because he, himself, cannot carry the day.

Even on

where we have (in general) very informed people, there is a constant cry for the government to do more. The elderly need help, the poor need help, middle class people need assistance sending their kids to college, we need more unemployment benefits, higher minimum wages, and whatever else.

Washington is broken because the government has promised too much, NOT because it is doing too little. It simply cannot afford to pay for all of its obligations.

I can't tell you how dismayed I was watching the Budget Director being grilled by Congress. There was the usual accounting issues (the Iraq budget seems too low) but there was also the whining of "how can we cut this program (construction budget for cleaning up something or other)" and "does $8 billion in pork mean anything when the unfunded Medicare/SS burden is $30-70 trillion" as if $8 billion needn't concern anyone.

Spending is out of control. Ron Paul has this right.

However, the man himself is an ineffective vessel to convince anyone that he is right. Despite our fiscal position, the US needs to maintain its primacy on the world stage. Not only do we have international commitments, we must keep the Pax Americana which has led to the current boom in the world's economy. If we lose our position, the world will turn on us like jackals on a wounded lion.

lederuvdapac

Feb 13 2008, 07:51 PM

Ron Paul provides a shameful reminder that we as Americans are asking the wrong questions when it comes to government. People are obssessed with what the government should do. The government should help this group or that group or fix this problem or that problem. Paul reminds us that we should be asking if the government is allowed to do it. Paul has truly showed me how a majority of the electorate and a majority of politicians see the US Constitution more as a nuisance than as the supreme law of the land. The lack of respect for the document has never been so apparent to me.

Again, I iterate that Paul is not a great orator. He is old, he rambles, and he loses focus. But for people who are truly listening, he is talking about returning this country to what made it great. The message is whats important and that message may be ignored this election cycle, but humiliating GOP defeats may be enough to change the party for the better.

Dontreadonme

Feb 14 2008, 12:19 AM

QUOTE

Ron Paul provides a shameful reminder that we as Americans are asking the wrong questions when it comes to government.

Amen brother! Allow me to take it further. Paul is providing a shameful reminder that Americans today, by and large, are not really even part of the political process. They are pandered to, to get votes and then quickly forgotten.
Americans actually allow candidates to preen and strut about, speaking of change. Change from what? All the major party candidates are doing is re-arranging the deck chairs. None of them stand for meaningful change, its smoke and mirrors. When a candidate does come along who actually speaks of a paradigm shift in how we view the state and how the state should serve the public, they are derided as a kook, or a poor speaker, or they dress funny.
Most Americans believe themselves to be free….land of the free and home of the brave…..USA! USA! You know…..the good propaganda. Most Americans don’t really grasp that they are only allowed to live with a certain level of freedom bequeathed by the government. We have a higher measure of freedom compared to many nations, but we are not truly free. What happens when a candidate speaks of breaking the chains that keep us from being free? They are derided as a kook, or a poor speaker, or they dress funny.

I said that Paul IS providing a shameful reminder, but in reality the sentence should go, Paul SHOULD be providing a shameful reminder. Sadly, many Americans are so locked into the narrow mindset enabled and maintained by the two parties, that they can’t even contemplate a third way. It’s like telling someone after all this time that the earth is indeed flat, they simply cannot seem to grasp any theory that is contrary to what has been drummed into them by politicians and the media. Politics in America consists only of money and how to accrue more money, power and how to accrue more power, and cosmetic appeal.

Americans have voluntarily and involuntarily given up many forms of freedom, either at the point of a government gun or because of a desire to feel safe, to feel secure or to feel empowered. All the while government grows, government intervenes domestically and internationally and we become less secure, less empowered and less safe.

So Paul was never going to win, and was going to drop out at some point; I simply wish more Americans had waken from their political slumber during this time and demanded actual change instead of remaining willing slaves of the two party system.

nighttimer

Feb 14 2008, 11:54 AM

QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Feb 13 2008, 09:33 AM)

Not so fast nighttimer. This isn't the last that we have heard of Dr. Paul. Here is Dr. Paul's latest video explaining the state of the campaign: Ron Paul: Going the Distance. Basically the campaign is being scaled back because there are less contests to fight over. With more of the delegates already taken, there isn't as much need for the current level of staff (or as the logic goes...).

Dr. Paul is planning a march on Washington some time in the next 3-4 months to hold a Constitution Rally. I for one am excited about such an event and plan to attend.

So his chances are bleek, his campaign is being downsized...but this is not the end of Ron Paul. Revolutions take tme.

Uh-huh.

Pardon me if I'm just a tad cynical that Ron Paul isn't retreating from the battlefield, but actually advancing in a different direction.

QUOTE

But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

Ron

That sounds like Paul hedging his bets. Dilute the spin out of the statement and what I get is, "I'm not going to run as third party candidate. I'm a Republican and I'm gonna keep riding this GOP thang even though it doesn't represent my interests and I sure don't represent theirs."

I fail to see what beyond political expediency and convenience is gained by such a position.

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Feb 13 2008, 12:49 PM)

Paul's campaign has been unsuccessful in his bid to become President. To some that is the only parameter. To those looking to the future, there are other parameters.

---------------------

After being on AD since its first year and hearing all of the reasoned discussions from interested people who are paying attention I am frankly boggled by the fact that so many here on AD still cling to the notion that the Democrat and Republican Parties (including the quaint idea of most every political position being either liberal or conservative) represent individual's pursuit of happiness or any sort of principles which are deserving of their precious vote. The supporters of Ron Paul are a break from this small mindset where the window dressings of the candidates discussed by the candidates, their managers, and the Washington pundits is all important.

lederuvacpac may be correct that Ron Paul will have a lasting legacy. It all depends on whether this small nucleus grows or not. The Ron Paul campaign is not just about Ron Paul. For the supporters it is primarily the ideals he represents. Those ideals are not hard to find. Read the Constitution.

The status quo is continuing to win the day. There is hope as we have 5 to 10 per cent seeing the light. So many do not even know who Ron Paul is to this day. The questions remain: (1)will those who do not know of his positions like those positions when they learn of them and (2) will those who like Ron Paul's positions but feel compelled to support the status quo finally vote their convictions.

That's a nice Valentine's Day present to Paul, Gray Seal, but politics is at its cord a game of numbers and here's the only numbers for Paul that matters: 14 delegates and 7.3 in national polls

Five to ten percent of the American population "seeing the light" is not a revolution. It's a fringe. Fringes can make waves, bang the drum and raise a little hell, but they don't pull off a full-scale rebuke of the two-party system. All Ron Paul has proven is while the Internet can fuel a virtual campaign, it doesn't translate into victories in caucuses and elections.

This revolution rhetoric would have a bit more legitimacy if Paul had won something, somewhere. Paul didn't win a single state and nothing in his home state of Texas on March 4 is going to change the losing streak. Maybe the final destination was never 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but holy hell, are you trying to tell me Paul couldn't beat a broke John McCain or a non-entity like Mike Huckabee anywhere?

Is that all $30+ million dollars gets you these days? A protest candidate who maintains his "status quo" by staying in a party that doesn't want him?

Supporters of Paul really work my nerves with their rhetoric that those of us who chose not to drink the Kool-Aid, are "willing slaves" to the Dems and Repubs. C'mon, Dontreadonme, you're better than that. I'm not calling Paul supporters suckers for backing Paul. But I've been called "sheep" for supporting Barack Obama over Paul. Where do you guys get off with this smug and elitist view that you've got convictions and everybody else is just a drone?

So Paul isn't leaving the Repubicans, says he's still a Republican, is winding down his presidential campaign to protect his congressional seat and won't back John McCain, the all-but-in-name Republican nominee.

Which raises a interesting question. Where do Ron Paul supporters go from here? Back to a Republican Party that marginalized and muzzled Paul and a nominee who represents the antithesis of Paul? All the rosy rhetoric aside about revolutions and what Paul accomplished, will all you Paul supporters keep your hands in your pockets on Election Day?

lederuvdapac

Feb 14 2008, 02:54 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer)

This revolution rhetoric would have a bit more legitimacy if Paul had won something, somewhere. Paul didn't win a single state and nothing in his home state of Texas on March 4 is going to change the losing streak. Maybe the final destination was never 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but holy hell, are you trying to tell me Paul couldn't beat a broke John McCain or a non-entity like Mike Huckabee anywhere?

Is that all $30+ million dollars gets you these days? A protest candidate who maintains his "status quo" by staying in a party that doesn't want him?

Parties change over time. Twenty, even 15 years ago, Paul would have been a staple Republican. Now he is an outcast. His rhetoric has not changed in the least bit from when he was first in Congress in '76. Its the party that changed. You are right when you say that we now know that millions of dollars and a strong base isnt enough to win the presidency. But we also learn the importance of media attention and its role in presidential politics. When a debate has Romney speaking for 16 minutes and Paul speaking for 6 minutes...it gives an unfair advantage to one candidate to develop his/her views. Paul is forced to make the best of the small amount of time he is allotted. If the media continually declares you as a fringe candidate, then thats what the people will believe. Its particularly odd because he is anti-war, a position many in the media agree with. So i don't really understand why he was never given a fair shake.

QUOTE(nighttimer)

Supporters of Paul really work my nerves with their rhetoric that those of us who chose not to drink the Kool-Aid, are "willing slaves" to the Dems and Repubs. C'mon, Dontreadonme, you're better than that. I'm not calling Paul supporters suckers for backing Paul. But I've been called "sheep" for supporting Barack Obama over Paul. Where do you guys get off with this smug and elitist view that you've got convictions and everybody else is just a drone?

I do not believe that DTOM or I have ever labeled you a "sheep" for your support for Obama nighttimer, so please save your frustration for those who have. The analysis of DTOM is accurate in my opinion. We have become a nation of big government and special interests. Liberals believe in civil liberties but do not believe in economic liberty. Conservatives believe in economic liberty but not so much in civil liberty. When a new party takes office, the only thing that changes is where the government will now intervene. Nobody stops to ask if the government should intervene at all! The Republicans support big business with their corporate subsidies and the Democrats support unions and such with their welfare and social programs. Its all a matter of taking from one and giving to another. I, and i think DTOM would agree, think this is wrong.

I will reiterate what I am sure you already know, I like Obama. I find him exciting and would probably find him the least painful to swallow of all the viable candidates left. But what is this "change" that he promises? I have studied his positions and all that I see are more social programs and more big government. There is nothing new or different about his proposals, just his rhetoric. Paul addresses issues that Obama would not touch with a yard stick. We have major crises coming to this country. Our monetary policy is in shambles, entitlements like SS and Medicare will reach 70% of our entire budget, and our foreign policy is unnecessarily costing us billions of dollars. Paul's answer to these policy problems is the Constitution. I do not know what Obama's position is and if i did, I probably would not like it.

QUOTE(nighttimer)

Which raises a interesting question. Where do Ron Paul supporters go from here? Back to a Republican Party that marginalized and muzzled Paul and a nominee who represents the antithesis of Paul? All the rosy rhetoric aside about revolutions and what Paul accomplished, will all you Paul supporters keep your hands in your pockets on Election Day?

Paul's supporters will in no way support McCain. We are not party loyalists, we are loyal to principles. Form what I garner, if Paul supporters do vote on election day it will be a write in for Dr. Paul or even a vote for Obama. I think that many Paul supporters (like me) would welcome a GOP defeat in November. A humiliating loss may be the only thing that shocks the GOP back into finding its identity.

Gray Seal

Feb 14 2008, 06:14 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer)

That's a nice Valentine's Day present to Paul, Gray Seal, but politics is at its cord a game of numbers and here's the only numbers for Paul that matters: 14 delegates and 7.3 in national polls

I agree with you that outcomes are important. The processes which determine those outcomes are also important. You are quoting numbers which are inaccurate. The Times have been reporting them correctly. The most accurate delegate number is 42. Still way short of being significant but why the misreporting? Why do you use inaccurate numbers? It seems many are scared of the challenge proposed by the Ron Paul Revolution and are quick to diminish it as much as possible. It is important to recognize Ron Paul has managed to get his votes without the MSM informing the voters about his policies or even that he is in the race. Raising money and spending it to advertise a candidate is one way to get information to voters. MSM is free and provides much more contact time to voters and a much better means to advertise. MSM is very powerful and is the king maker as our system exists.

Dontreadonme is right on the mark with his statement about

QUOTE(Dontreadonme)

Most Americans don’t really grasp that they are only allowed to live with a certain level of freedom bequeathed by the government.

I would add that most Americans don't grasp that they are predominately given information which inside big business and special interest want them to have.

QUOTE(nighttimer)

Five to ten percent of the American population "seeing the light" is not a revolution. It's a fringe. Fringes can make waves, bang the drum and raise a little hell, but they don't pull off a full-scale rebuke of the two-party system. All Ron Paul has proven is while the Internet can fuel a virtual campaign, it doesn't translate into victories in caucuses and elections.

You have reached a conclusion but why are you not asking questions? Why was a candidate not given more access to MSM when it is clear that those who had access to it via the internet like this ideas? Which leads to Dontreadonme's statement

QUOTE(Dontreadonme)

I said that Paul IS providing a shameful reminder, but in reality the sentence should go, Paul SHOULD be providing a shameful reminder. Sadly, many Americans are so locked into the narrow mindset enabled and maintained by the two parties, that they can’t even contemplate a third way. It’s like telling someone after all this time that the earth is indeed flat, they simply cannot seem to grasp any theory that is contrary to what has been drummed into them by politicians and the media. Politics in America consists only of money and how to accrue more money, power and how to accrue more power, and cosmetic appeal.

Can you see at all that you are one of those trapped in a narrow mindset who wants a biased media and who is unwilling to look past the two party system?

It could be that freedom is a fringe issue. At this point in time we do not know. It will need to get bad enough before voters start questioning the propaganda they are being fed. Will the current economic situation be severe enough? I think there is an outside chance it will be. The Iraq situation has gotten the attention of many. It has given the idea of freedom a chance. It will take even more bad to break down the doors of corporatism.

Dontreadonme

Feb 14 2008, 06:38 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer Today @ 02:54 PM )

Supporters of Paul really work my nerves with their rhetoric that those of us who chose not to drink the Kool-Aid, are "willing slaves" to the Dems and Repubs. C'mon, Dontreadonme, you're better than that. I'm not calling Paul supporters suckers for backing Paul. But I've been called "sheep" for supporting Barack Obama over Paul. Where do you guys get off with this smug and elitist view that you've got convictions and everybody else is just a drone?

I wasn't intending to come off as insulting, I've been part of the problem that I'm railing against for most of my life. But face it, American politics is like trying to play a game of football inside of a playpen. The game is intentionally kept small and manageable, and has strict rules for play, ie. "mainstream".
There are many informed Americans who are happy with the two party system, either for reasons that it benefits them or that their logical conclusion is that it is the best way. But I believe the majority of Americans are simply utterly ill informed as to the level of subservience they live under. As long as the cable doesn't go out, we have the guy with good hair telling us what is 'news' and there are people less fortunate than us in dusty parts of the world, they go merrily about their way.
Paul isn't even the perfect candidate. His trying to affect any meaningful change within the Republican party is like trying to urinate up a rope. I had at least hoped that his candidacy would awake some people from their stupor.

Christopher

Feb 14 2008, 07:32 PM

QUOTE

There are many informed Americans who are happy with the two party system, either for reasons that it benefits them or that their logical conclusion is that it is the best way. But I believe the majority of Americans are simply utterly ill informed as to the level of subservience they live under. As long as the cable doesn't go out, we have the guy with good hair telling us what is 'news' and there are people less fortunate than us in dusty parts of the world, they go merrily about their way.

DTOM my friend you are making a mistake if you think that your fellow Americans are uninformed or under any illusions. For the number of Americans who are not diehards for their political stripe D R or L the rest do NOT care. Until it gets so bad they have to most are content to just live their lives. We here in America have it real good. We don't have to care or even try to.
One can abstain from all of it and live very well indeed and actually happily ever after. They're not exactly lotus eaters but akin to.

for the rest they have their political and philosophical mindsets represented by the 2 parties and find the talking points of each the best way to express what they think. They have an enemy always at arms length to blame for everything they dislike and to excuse their own actions. They have causes to add substance to their lives.
For the rest they have cable or hobbies or porn.

You want a different world DTOM? the onus is upon you.
Great article says it pretty well and if you have the free time read it.David Brin
The gist of it pertinent to this is 2fold.
first they are not uninformed or lacking in knowledge but until there are good solid exciting examples of the world folks like you and I want they aint going to lift finger one.
Second, We need to make the model homes to sell our concepts instead of talk about very very dead very opinionated and boring guys who wrote books about monetary policy and the "failures" of everyone else's ideas. basically we need

"yeah yours is cool and all, but check this out!"

Its all marketing.
Just like we are going to ask the venture capitalist to back our idea we need to wow them and make them so hot for our vision they have sex thinking about it.

Better mousetrap and "if you build it they will come" and all that jazz.
Ron Paul is only inspirational to people like us--and we're basically political geeks. We are the glassy eyed evangelicals that gave rise to the phrase "Back away slowly and don't make eye contact".

My advice DTOM, forget politics and find a way to walk it with style and make people want to be like you.
Its political and philosophical DIY time. but our presentation had better be stylish and WOW or the song remains the same.

at the very least we can enjoy our lives doing it and at the same time physically, emotionally and spiritually "Step into the arena"

barnaby2341

Feb 15 2008, 06:03 AM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Feb 14 2008, 06:54 AM)

Supporters of Paul really work my nerves with their rhetoric that those of us who chose not to drink the Kool-Aid, are "willing slaves" to the Dems and Repubs. C'mon, Dontreadonme, you're better than that. I'm not calling Paul supporters suckers for backing Paul. But I've been called "sheep" for supporting Barack Obama over Paul. Where do you guys get off with this smug and elitist view that you've got convictions and everybody else is just a drone?

So Paul isn't leaving the Repubicans, says he's still a Republican, is winding down his presidential campaign to protect his congressional seat and won't back John McCain, the all-but-in-name Republican nominee.

Which raises a interesting question. Where do Ron Paul supporters go from here? Back to a Republican Party that marginalized and muzzled Paul and a nominee who represents the antithesis of Paul? All the rosy rhetoric aside about revolutions and what Paul accomplished, will all you Paul supporters keep your hands in your pockets on Election Day?

Maybe you get the drone label because African-Americans vote like sheep. In SC they voted for Barack Obama 80-20, in subsequent elections it's been 90-10. No other ethnic group in our country votes like this. Can you explain this dynamic?

This Paul supporter is going to vote Democrat; preferably Obama if not, Hillary will do, not really a difference between the two.

Paul wasn't marginalized by the party, he was marginalized by the media. Paul had the people's interest and the media power structure had no interest in letting the people have power, so they allowed him three questions at every debate, and those questions were usually something like, "Congressman Paul, do like bunnies?"

nighttimer

Feb 15 2008, 10:25 AM

QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Feb 14 2008, 09:54 AM)

Parties change over time. Twenty, even 15 years ago, Paul would have been a staple Republican. Now he is an outcast. His rhetoric has not changed in the least bit from when he was first in Congress in '76. Its the party that changed. You are right when you say that we now know that millions of dollars and a strong base isnt enough to win the presidency. But we also learn the importance of media attention and its role in presidential politics. When a debate has Romney speaking for 16 minutes and Paul speaking for 6 minutes...it gives an unfair advantage to one candidate to develop his/her views. Paul is forced to make the best of the small amount of time he is allotted. If the media continually declares you as a fringe candidate, then thats what the people will believe. Its particularly odd because he is anti-war, a position many in the media agree with. So i don't really understand why he was never given a fair shake.

I've heard a lot of Paul supporters gripe about how the mainstream media has dissed Ron Paul and there may be something to it. However, a quick search of some of the news sites I read regularly (Salon, Slate, The New York Times, The Nation) reveals no shortage of stories about Ron Paul.

THE NATION: The little man who wasn't there at the Republican TV debates is Ron Paul, the short-of-stature libertarian physician and Congressman. The debate moderators, who are threatening to become the ruin of electoral politics in the United States, almost never turn to ask Paul a question--that is, when he is allowed in the hall to participate.

On the occasions when they do toss a question Paul's way, they seem not to listen when he answers. And when he's finished, they turn away as if he hadn't said anything. Granted, libertarianism is a little outré and can sound as if it is close to anarchism. But there are times when Congressman Paul says things that are worth listening to.

He is the only candidate who brings up what is happening to our money, which is another way of saying that he is worried about why the cost of buying groceries is going through the roof. While the other presidential contenders are silent on the topic, Paul reminds us that "government officials consistently claimed that inflation is in check at barely 2 percent, but middle-class Americans know that their purchasing power--especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition--is shrinking much faster than 2 percent each year." link

SALON: At the same time, the Paul campaign has created something far bigger than just the best canvassing after-parties in the 2008 cycle. His message -- a vocal opposition to the war in Iraq, a strict libertarian interpretation of the Constitution and a wholesale rejection of the nation's economic policies -- have caused tens of thousands to rally to his cause, including many who typically shun the political game. "I never voted before in my life," says Trevor Lyman, 37, a former music promoter who now does independent online fundraising for Paul. "I always thought that the system was working. The war showed me that it wasn't."

A Web site Lyman built raised $4.2 million for Paul from more than 38,000 Americans in a single day, Nov. 5, which was chosen because it was the day Guy Fawkes, a 17th century British revolutionary, had attempted to blow up parliament with gunpowder. Until Saturday night at Murphy's, Lyman had never met Paul, and to this day, Paul has never seen "V for Vendetta," the 2005 cinematic thriller that familiarized Lyman with the Fawkes story. But none of that matters to either Paul or Lyman. For most of this year, Paul has effectively given up control of his campaign effort to his supporters, who organize online, through Meetup groups and Web sites like Operationlivefreeordie.com. At his own volition, Lyman is now organizing another major fundraising day, Dec. 16, a date commemorating the Boston Tea Party in 1773. "I would bet almost anything that we will beat $4.2 million," Lyman tells me at Murphy's. Already, he adds, 23,000 people have pledged to donate on that day.

Such mass mobilization has inspired Paul, a lifelong libertarian who has often been treated in Congress as a dotty old outcast with strange ideas. Throughout his political career he has argued for legalizing gold and silver as legal tender, ending most foreign aid, abolishing the income tax, eliminating the Department of Education, and ending the federal war on drugs, among other things. But it is his constant and outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq and President Bush's expansion of federal powers in the war on terror that has gained him notoriety. His appearance as the antiwar gadfly at recent Republican presidential debates turned him into a sort of counterculture star. "What has happened to me is almost unbelievable," he told a group of college students Saturday morning in Manchester. "The campaign is going much further along than I have ever dreamed." link 2

THE VILLAGE VOICE: Lettuce B-Free won't give out her real name; she prefers her World of Warcraft moniker. She grew up on Staten Island and moved to Florida, where she shares an apartment with a friend and works in retail. There are two things that get her up in the morning: online gaming and the maverick libertarian politics of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. "He's an amazing man, and I agree with almost every one of his positions," she says. "I was raised to have a deep respect for the Constitution, and wow, he wants to bring it back!" On December 26, Lettuce B-Free found a way to bring the two together: organizing a Ron Paul rally in the World of Warcraft universe.

"One of our members, who went by the name of whoisronpaul, came up with the idea," Lettuce B-Free says. "And we just jumped on it. . . . So at like three in the morning, me and a bunch of people got together and signed a group charter. And it's been really fun chaos ever since."

Ron Paul's supporters have already distinguished themselves by their unorthodox campaigning—the blimp that's been floating around the South for the last month, the Guy Fawkes Day fundraising blitz. But running a virtual-campaign rally in an Internet gaming site must surely rank as one of the highlights of the season. The word went out through the online magazine World of Warcraft Insider, ronpaulforums.org, and the Wired blog. Soon, hundreds of people pledged to don their chain mail and shake their broadswords for Paul. link 3

REAL CLEAR POLITICS (thanks BoF!

): You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.

Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line. link 4

Paul has received front page features in The New York Times, The Washington Post, TIME and NEWSWEEK. I can't speak for the electronic media, but as far as print media goes, as low as the expectations were for Paul that has been openly admitted by his supporters in this thread, Pauh has received an extremely fair amount of coverage.

It's easy to make the media the whipping boy, but before you do, I have to ask, as far as his millions of dollars go, what did Paul spend it on? It doesn't seem to have been on television or radio spots. I've seen Ron Paul lawn signs here and there in Ohio, but I'd like to know more about where he put his money because it doesn't seem to have been invested in buying media in key states.

I want to go back to something you wrote lederuvdapac and that's about the debates and how in the last Republican debate, Paul was pretty much left as an onlooker. The problem is that these "debates" really aren't. They're scripted events that are tightly controlled by the two political parties. When debates were sponsored by such groups as The League of Women Voters they were far more inclusive and fair. The major candidates and the two parties control the debates, the format, even whom is chosen to ask the questions.

The League of Women Voters faithfully served as a nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor from 1976 until 1984, courageously including popular independent candidates and prohibiting major party campaigns from manipulating debate formats.

In 1980, over President Jimmy Carter's objections, the League invited independent candidate John B. Anderson to participate in the presidential debates. Carter refused to debate Anderson, but the League did not acquiesce to Carter's demands. Instead, on September 21, 1980, the League hosted a presidential debate between John Anderson and Republican nominee Ronald Reagan that attracted over 55 million viewers. The CPD would never, in its wildest dreams, even consider sponsoring a presidential debate without a major party candidate.

In 1984, the major-party campaigns tried to manipulate the debate format, and the League made them pay a price for it. The League had always prohibited candidates from selecting the panelists outright. Instead, the campaigns could submit a list of 15 suggested questioners. After eliminating some names and adding others, the League would send back a shortened list of proposed panelists, and, if absolutely necessary, the candidates could veto a biased or incompetent reporter. That procedure produced no vetoes in 1976 and only one veto in 1980. In 1984, however, all 12 names on the list were rejected. By the end of the process, the League had submitted 71 more names, of which 68 were vetoed, in roughly equal numbers by both camps. Despite angry threats not to participate from the major party candidates, the League held a news conference and lambasted the campaigns for having "totally abused" the process. As a result of the criticism, the panelist selection process for the second debate was entirely different. Not a single journalist was rejected; the candidates were too afraid of the public outcry

The nonpartisan League served the public interest well, and it's precisely because the League served the public interest so well that the CPD was created. The major parties didn't want a debate sponsor to include popular third party candidates and employ challenging formats. The major parties wanted presidential debates under their control. The major parties wanted their candidates to exclude whoever they want and to choose any panelists they want.

link 5

What we have now are not real debates or inclusion of third party candidates or "threshold" candidates like Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Keyes and Mike Gravel.
What we have now is every bit as controlled and scripted as wrestling. The ref is blind, both sides cheat and the fix is in. The difference is in wrestling the audience is in on the gag. The presidential debates are presented as being genuine, but it's all illusion and public relations.

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Feb 14 2008, 01:14 PM)

QUOTE(nighttimer)

That's a nice Valentine's Day present to Paul, Gray Seal, but politics is at its cord a game of numbers and here's the only numbers for Paul that matters: 14 delegates and 7.3 in national polls

I agree with you that outcomes are important. The processes which determine those outcomes are also important. You are quoting numbers which are inaccurate. The Times have been reporting them correctly. The most accurate delegate number is 42. Still way short of being significant but why the misreporting? Why do you use inaccurate numbers? It seems many are scared of the challenge proposed by the Ron Paul Revolution and are quick to diminish it as much as possible. It is important to recognize Ron Paul has managed to get his votes without the MSM informing the voters about his policies or even that he is in the race. Raising money and spending it to advertise a candidate is one way to get information to voters. MSM is free and provides much more contact time to voters and a much better means to advertise. MSM is very powerful and is the king maker as our system exists.

I linked to the source of my numbers on Paul's delegate count, Gray Seal. You say I am quoting inaccurate numbers, but where is your source for the 42 delegates you claim Paul has won? You say, "The Times has been reporting them correctly" but which "The Times" are you referencing? It sure isn't The New York Times. According to The NY Times, Paul either has as many as 14 or as few as 5 delegates.

I don't mind being corrected or someone pointing out when I make an error. It's happened before on

and it's bound to happen again. What I don't appreciate is when someone accuses me of "misreporting" and using "inaccurate numbers" and particularly so when they can't be bothered to provide any supporting evidence to the contrary.

Barring your providing something substantial and credible to contradict the delegate numbers I quoted before, Gray Seal, I stand behind my original
estimate.

QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Feb 15 2008, 01:03 AM)

Maybe you get the drone label because African-Americans vote like sheep. In SC they voted for Barack Obama 80-20, in subsequent elections it's been 90-10. No other ethnic group in our country votes like this. Can you explain this dynamic?

What's to explain? Obama had to work like hell to convince skeptical Black voters he could win. The upset of Hillary Clinton and Iowa and her husband's shrill, race-baiting response were eye-opening moments for Blacks who counted themselves among their strongest supporters. Suddenly, it appeared that "the first Black president" was willing to scorch the earth to prevent the real deal from making the ascension to The White House.

The Clintons made a rash assumption: They thought the good will Bill had built up could be transferred over to Hillary, but after South Carolina, they realized they would have to earn it and they had not anticipated that.

Besides, where else can Black voters go? To John McCain and his seven percent lifetime voting record in favor of civil rights according to the NAACP? Given a choice between disinterested Republicans (including Ron Paul) and an arrogant Hillary Clinton who assumed Black support was hers by divine right, it's not a surprise African Americans have taken a second look at Obama and liked what they saw.

Sheep may be led to the slaughter. Lemmings who just follow the lead of a Internet sensation commit suicide. What's so admirable about that?

QUOTE

Paul wasn't marginalized by the party, he was marginalized by the media. Paul had the people's interest and the media power structure had no interest in letting the people have power, so they allowed him three questions at every debate, and those questions were usually something like, "Congressman Paul, do like bunnies?"

Nice bit of revisionist thinking there, but it's not true. The GOP, conservatives and neo-cons have absolutely tried to marginalize Paul:

Some Republicans are angry at Ron Paul, the libertarian presidential candidate, for his forthright stance at the Republican debate earlier this week. When George W. Bush repeatedly asserts unpopular opinions in the face of withering criticism, it's seen as a sign of strength and resolve. But when Paul asserted unpopular opinions in a debate, his remarks became the grounds for derision and threats. Paul suggested that the United States' actions in the Middle East—and in Iraq in particular—might have motivated Bin Laden and the 9/11 attackers. Rudy Giuliani immediately jumped on Paul, demanding that he withdraw the comment. Now one GOP official is circulating a petition within the party to remove Paul from future debates. link 6

We know that Ron Paul did great in the Republican presidential debate sponsored by Fox News and held in Durham, New Hampshire, because how else can we explain neocon Andy McCarthy's exclamation of despair over at the National Review group blog? "Why," he cried out in anguish, "is there so much cheering for Ron Paul?"

As the last of the neoconservative dead-enders, holed up over at "The Corner," mutter darkly, Paul, the ten-term libertarian Republican congressman from Texas, is stealing the spotlight from the so-called frontrunners. For the first time in many a moon, we witnessed a genuine knock-down drag-out brawl between presidential contenders: a real mix-up in which Rep. Paul, the only antiwar candidate in the GOP pack, succeeded in framing the debate around his challenge to neocon orthodoxy on the all-important issue of foreign policy.

By the way, thanks to Fox News for their brazen hostility to Paul, which blew right back in their faces. The refusal to even acknowledge him until a good twenty minutes into the debate, and Chris Wallace's consistently sneering tone when a question finally came Paul's way, didn't stop the Texas troublemaker from stealing the show anyway. link 8

"Giuliani finished behind the screwball Ron Paul." --Debra Saunders

COLMES: Finally tonight, the results of our State of the Union poll. The winner. Ron Paul. I'm just kidding.

HANNITY: That was funny. --- Hannity and Colmes

At best, the eccentric Dr. Paul, whose views on the monetary system could charitably be described as coming from the fringe, seems indifferent to both the poison of bigotry, and of the moral necessity of disassociating oneself from those who advocate it. --- Dallas Morning News

BLANKLEY: I think he's as much a crank as he is a libertarian. His foreign policy is a farce, and nobody outside of the periphery of politics takes it seriously. And he's not going to get more than two to four or five percent in any election. So he can spend as much money as he raises. I don't think it's going to make any difference. --- Tony Blankley on Hannity and Colmes referring to Ron Paul.

Some media types surely find him interesting, especially given his views on Iraq. And people who cover "new technologies," including the Internet, have a self-interest to hype Paul's Web hits and Internet fundraising. But you hear very little about his kooky votes.

Hardly anyone is bothering to talk about his votes against resolutions calling on the government of Vietnam to release political prisoners and on the Arab League to help stop the killing in Darfur. Nor do they note that he said during his 1988 Libertarian bid for president that he would do away with the FBI and CIA, abolish the public schools, eliminate Social Security and all farm subsidies, and withdraw from NATO.

Reporters don't talk about his views and philosophy because they know he isn't a credible contender, but at the same time they refer to his fundraising and Web presence as if he's relevant.

The Internet undoubtedly has made it easier for Paul supporters to connect with the campaign and with each other, and it's become a terrific way to raise cash for a candidate with emotional followers. But Web chatter, declarations of undying support on Facebook and even surprising fundraising totals don't make a serious contender out of a candidate from the political fringe. --- Stuart Rothenberg

For Paul to ridicule the term "Islamofascist" as propaganda and to insinuate that anyone who uses it is a warmonger seeking to spread conflict in the Middle East shows how wildly out of touch he is with the vast majority of the American public. More to the point, Paul's willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists calls into question his fitness to fulfill the constitutional duty of the Commander in Chief to protect the country from all threats, foreign and domestic. --- Tom Bevan, executive editor of Real Clear Politics

Plenty of good, smart people have no realistic chance of reaching the Oval Office. The bad news for Dr. Paul and his followers is that their brains are simply too full of nutty things for them to be taken seriously in any grand sense. --- Mark Davis, Dallas Morning News columnist

Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a legitimate representative of Republicans, because the 9/11 truth virus is something that infects only a very small proportion of people that would identify themselves as conservative or Republican...You know, I try not to spend too much time in these cesspools, but it is worth taking a visit to places like, you know, these WTC7 sites and Students and Scholars for Truth, and I note that Ron Paul has basically allied himself with these people. He appears with Students for Truth on campus and he's appeared on radio shows like 9/11 conspiracy nut Alex Jones. And I would hope that that would disqualify him the next time around for appearing on stage with other Republicans. --- Michelle Malkin, syndicated columnist & FOX News contributer

"Ron Paul, when you look at the totality of his positions, is a pretty frightening guy." --- Bill O' Reilly

Some of my best friends are libertarians and the greatest intellectual influence on me was Hayek. However, in practical political matters, libertarians tend to live in alternate universe, without regard for the real world consequences of their actions. Ron Paul – the only Libertarian in Congress – is a disgrace. He has waged a war against America’s war on terror, in lockstep with the left, and against the state of Israel, the frontline democracy in this war. --- David Horowitz

And Paul wants to remain marginalized and ridiculed in a Republican Party full of people who call him "nutty," "a pretty frighting guy," "a disgrace" and a "crank" among other endearments?

Maybe he's just into being abused.

Gray Seal

Feb 15 2008, 02:58 PM

This is the Times report on delegate count. Here

This is a media coverage study on the first part of 2007. Here

This is a study for the weeks leading up to Super Tuesday. Here

As a more current follow up to that study there was this recent NPR show where Tom Rosenstiel said:

"It raises obviously one of the fundamental questions: is press coverage a self-fulfilling prophecy? Can a candidate who doesn’t get press coverage win votes, or do you need the exposure, the oxygen of attention? Last week, the week before Super Tuesday, the coverage that ended Feb. 3, Ron Paul was a significant or primary figure in zero percent of the stories that we analyzed, 600 stories across 48 different news outlets.

Andrew is correct in suggesting that the press has discounted the chances of Ron Paul having any success. The fundraising success that he’s having is one of the traditional metrics that journalists use to test viability. If someone is raising money, usually that translates into some attention.

For a variety of reasons, some of them are obvious and some of them are mysterious, Ron Paul gets less coverage than he does raise money, and he gets less coverage than he gets votes. We can go on and on about this. There is no doubt, it’s an objective fact, that the press has decided Ron Paul is not a viable candidate."

--------------------

I am not sure why The NY Times is reporting multiple versions of delegate counts. The Ron Paul camp had this break down as to where the delegates they have come from.

Amlord

Feb 15 2008, 04:08 PM

Bully for Ron Paul that he doesn't say (at least I have not heard it) that we are living in a police state, as is the Libertarian (or libertarian) mantra.

An interesting quote from Christopher's link :

QUOTE

"Any comfortable American who is cynical of progress -- or the competent decency of modern civilization -- hasn't pondered how life was for our ancestors. Any day that cossacks haven't burned your home should start out a happy one, overflowing with optimism."

- M.N. Plano

Libertarians like to point to a golden age past that never existed where men were men, women were women and you could be killed by stage coach cowboys outside of Tombstone Arizona. Oh wait, they leave that last part out.

The government's role is to provide security, just as a parent's role is to provide security to his/her children. The child is too small to do it for himself and the individual is too small to provide security for themselves. This is a legitimate power of government.

Yes, it takes some degree of individual freedom away, but it is necessary for a functioning society.

Libertarians are not conservatives, although the tenets of the two overlap in some areas.

David Brin in his article says that "Nobody makes me choose between freedom for my children and their safety!". This is true because there is a societal expectation that he provide for their safety before their freedom. There is not a choice between safety and freedom, safety (to some degree) is a prerequisite to the types of freedom that he is talking about.

Now, on the other side of the coin, there is a truth in the fact that there must be risk in order to bring reward. The absolute safest way is not necessarily the best way.

Bringing this back to Dr. Paul, Dr. Paul believes that if we leave others alone, then we will not suffer consequences here. If we quit meddling in foreign affairs, foreign affairs will not meddle with us. This may have been the case when the world was larger and it took weeks to cross the Atlantic but it is no longer the case.

The security of the US is the highest responsibility of the federal government.

VDemosthenes

Feb 15 2008, 05:03 PM

QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 15 2008, 11:08 AM)

The security of the US is the highest responsibility of the federal government.

I'd make the case that the protection of liberty is the highest responsibility of the federal government, and it wouldn't really be able to do that if the Income Tax didn't darken our doorways in 1,913.

Alas, Ron Paul. I believe more libertarian-minded people flocked to him because they liked his iPositions. When you read some of his literature [as seen in this thread] he comes across as someone who cannot be trusted with the reins of government. As much as I love the idea of freedom and equality for all, I'm not voting for a total dove.

ConservPat

Feb 15 2008, 06:47 PM

QUOTE(Amlord)

Libertarians like to point to a golden age past that never existed where men were men, women were women and you could be killed by stage coach cowboys outside of Tombstone Arizona. Oh wait, they leave that last part out.

Ah, so enters the "Wild West" myth. The Wild West wasn't so wild, in reality, I really wish this MYTH was busted in public so its particular line of statism dies out, but I won't hold my breath.

QUOTE(Nighttimer)

I've heard a lot of Paul supporters gripe about how the mainstream media has dissed Ron Paul and there may be something to it. However, a quick search of some of the news sites I read regularly (Salon, Slate, The New York Times, The Nation) reveals no shortage of stories about Ron Paul.

NT, come on, man. You and I both know that you're more literate and far more intelligent than the average American. The average American doesn't read Slate or the Nation [Hell, a bunch don't even read the Times]. Meaningful coverage on RP must come from what people actually watch/read...Cable news and/or the Daily Show [which is more credible, in my book], and frankly, in that respect, coverage on RP has been lacking.

QUOTE

And Paul wants to remain marginalized and ridiculed in a Republican Party full of people who call him "nutty," "a pretty frighting guy," "a disgrace" and a "crank" among other endearments?

Maybe he's just into being abused.

Oh, please. Of all the criticisms of RP, this is the most ridiculous. Of course he'll remain a Republican because third party candidates don't get elected to Congress. His Republicanism is purely pragmatic and everyone knows it [and he makes no secret of it, given the fact that he is still a member of the Libertarian Party].

CP

Dontreadonme

Feb 15 2008, 08:15 PM

QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 15 2008, 07:08 PM)