Rep. Ron Paul files for Republican presidential bid: AP

Alright he really doesn't stand a chance, the GOP is too far gone to remember small government, No Taxes, No nation building, no creating HUGE new government agencies to ever select Paul. Hopefully however enough of those who still support that kind of politics will at least show some love for him and try to support him to at least get to watch him enter the debates.

Will Ron Paul and his stand on issues have any effect on the GOP platform?

Would he stand out compared to generic standard issue GOP candidates?

For the free market, anti tax, limited government, non interventionist Libertarians out there, aint it great?

Will Ron Paul and his stand on issues have any effect on the GOP platform?

Would he stand out compared to generic standard issue GOP candidates?

For the free market, anti tax, limited government, non interventionist Libertarians out there, aint it great?

Ron Paul is a true conservative. He doesn't engage in policies he cannot afford. That said he will never be offered up as a serious candidate because he will never attract the campaigning dollars on a low-perk platform. IMO he has a much better grasp of implementing self sustaining social programs because of his conservative banking views but he lacks the youth and charisma of a Barack Obama.

Any civil servant schooled in austrian economics will stand out like a sore thumb when compared to tax and spend Hillary supporters.

He is great but the same traits that make him great disqualify him from big business and especially the fed. They would fear him. Considering his quiet low key nature, I would like to see Ron Paul replace Ben Bernake.

Such an action would accomplish two things..

One we would see a slowing of the debt bubble, and possibly a rise in interest rates. Paul does not print money out of thin air to keep mania's going. His arrival may even cause a recession in the stock market because it survives on regular injections of money by the fed.

We would see more difficulty in defense spending because he would seriously castrate the appropriations committee by stifling liquidity. IE less money for wars! Less spending period.

Overall I see him as a the Buckleys approach. He may not taste the best, will definitely leave a bad taste in the mouths of the banking and big business sectors but is some much needed medicine for an ailing country.

Will Ron Paul and his stand on issues have any effect on the GOP platform?

Perhaps, but not unless he can rally the shrinking libertarian coalition within that party. The ruling Big-Government Conservatives (neocons?) consider him a crank and a thorn in their side. That's why I'm not Republican. If one of the two major parties would nominate Dr. Paul, I'd join up. But they won't.

Would he stand out compared to generic standard issue GOP candidates?

Sure, he'd stand out among Republicans. Like a sore thumb. A sore thumb the party would rather amputate than medicate, I fear. But its a good thing he and Bush won't debate each other-- some of us might need subtitles.

For the free market, anti tax, limited government, non interventionist Libertarians out there, aint it great?

It's great. It would be even better if he stood a snowball's chance. He did wonders for the Libertarian Party around here back in the day. If more Republicans would actually think through what he says and read what he writes, he might just end up giving the GOP a much-needed infusion of principle. I wish him well. If he's nominated, I'd stump for him. In a heartbeat.

AHAHAHAHAHA...No. The GOP is firmly in the grasp of social conservatives. Ron Paul is the only stateman left in Washington D.C. and he would easily win a general election [every libertarian in the country would vote for him] but he won't get past the primary because the Republican party is no longer interested in downsizing government.

Yes, he's way too reasonable and common-sense for the Republican Party. I mean, who does this guy think he is, "Constitutional government"...what a liberal. Of course he'll stand out, just as any ibertarian leaning conservative would. Believe me I hope I'm wrong, Ron Paul is my IDEAL candidate, but I'm not optimistic.

The best news I've heard in 6 years, I actually have some degree of hope for the next election now.

CP

Ron Paul- I am hoping that the Republicans are starting to see that they have a much larger base of "closet libertarians" that vote for the guy/gal that is the least percieved threat to thier freedom- and Ron Paul has been pretty consistant in his libertarian beliefs, even with the issue of abortion- which is a break from libertarian principles (he is pro-life)- but he doesn't believe it should be a goverement issue- same as marriage- he is against same sex marriages, but believes the goverment has no compelling interest nor is it constitutional for the goverment to regulate marriage.

I would love for him to win the presidency, despite some differences in philosophy, however, or at least, get away from the PROFOUNDLY anti-freedom fascists neo-con philosophy that we have had since Reagan took over.

If Ron Paul gets some national attention, and in a big way- it will have a profound shift in republican circles- because the old guard "classical conservative" will finally, hopefully, put a stake in the heart of possibly the worst shift in polictical ideologies since reconstruction.

If he doesn't get any "good buzz and momentum"- it will have 0 effect.

I do see some jockeying for the libertarian minded crowd going on by both parties- right now

1) Dems are more competent- 'pubs had EVERYTHING they needed to get a variety of jobs done- didn't do any of them

2) Dems are posturing as the more fiscal responsible party- and, compared with the pubs since 1980- I would say that is correct- the "tax and spend" liberal is a dead end anachronism. "borrow and spend" 'pubs are the norm. And worse.

3) Seem to listen to the public more, instead of the pronouncement on high like GW does now. Regardless, if the dems listen and react- then they have an edge

So Ron Paul, if he doesn't come off as an extremist whack job, could shift 'pub politics actually into more common sense territorey- would would be good for the 'pubs.

He will DEFINATELY be a fresh gulp of cold air compared to the corporate types that the 'pubs seem to favor.

I am very happy if he does semi-well!

Will Ron Paul and his stand on issues have any effect on the GOP platform?
None whatsoever. The GOP has in essence become the Democratic party. Any ideals of smaller government, fiscal accountability and overall personal responsibility have been thrown by the wayside and their new culture of nepotism, bloated bureaucracy, and spend, spend, spend has taken root. Deep roots.

Ron Paul will be ignored, chastised and ridiculed by the party that he nominally belongs to. They will treat him no better than Ross Perot.

Hopefully..........hopefully, his platform issues may convince some republicans of what our citizens truly want and need, instead of lining pockets or holding onto outdated cultural bents.

At least Paul would finally give me somebody to vote FOR, instead of simply trying to decide who to vote AGAINST.

Would he stand out compared to generic standard issue GOP candidates?
Like a spotlight in a roach motel.

1. Not many people know who Ron Paul is. Therefore, he will have limited impact.
2. No.
3. Libertarians are a fringe party like the greens. They have almost no power in this country.

In order to become president, you need to establish name recognition, credibility, an image, and generate positive "emotion" from the population. That's the reason for the coordinated PR campaign promoting rookie Senator Osama Obama from Illinois for example.

Ron Paul has as much chance as Kucinich. None.

I'll get you the link when I find it LH, but libertarians [notice the small l] make up 15% of the electorate, almost as much as the Christian Right, so I'd be careful with that kind of statement.

Link




CP

From the 2004 presidential results. The numbers speak for themselves. Source Election results

Candidate.................Party.............Votes............%

George W. Bush.....Republican.....62,040,610......50.7%
John F. Kerry.........Democratic.....59,028,111.....48.3%
Ralph Nader...........Reform...............463,653.......0.4%
Michael Badnarik....Libertarian...........397,265.......0.3%
Michael Peroutka....Constitution.........144,498.......0.1%
David Cobb............Green.................119,859.......0.1%

Like I said, "fringe".

How the Libertarians did in past elections is irrelevant, Ron Paul isn't running as a Libertarian, he's a libertarian who is running as a Republican. Small l libertarians make up 15% of the population, libertarianism is not a fringe ideology.

CP

LH- you are confusing party with ideology here- Ron Paul is a republican- NOT a registered libertarian- he has libertarian IDEALS- which make up a sizable group in the US- I vote Dem in an election without a strong liberarian condidate- because I believe the Republican part since Reagan has been the big brother we worry about so much- however, I would love for there to be a strong libertarian candidate, from the libertarian party, instead of trying to find out which of the two parties ideology and actions I can stomach more. I knew GW from the outset was not what he was representing- heck, anyone can tell that just from his demeanor- a rich east coast scion of privilege, while he perpetrates this "aw shucks, just a poor texas" image- pure malarkey.


Same with the libertarians that aren't registered that way- but lean that way in ideology- think someone like Dennis Miller- that says "I am more libertarian" vs "I am more conservative".

I have to agree with ConservPat. Ron Paul wouldn't make it past the primaries as the social conservatives would annihilate him there. You would see ads about the legalization of marijuana and he would be done. Voters would be scared out of their wits with images of young people high and sitting in the streets rather then in the pews. It would be every campaign manager's dream come true for his opponents, while a nightmare for Paul's manager. He most certainly would stand out, he could really hit back about the war and privacy rights. However, the previously mentioned stance on drugs would doom any advantage that he would have.

The issue of Dr. Paul's party affiliation is confusing because he has been a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party since 1987, even while being nominated for Congress since the 1970s on the Republican ticket. Having two party affiliations is not entirely unheard of. The Democrats have several candidates who are also members of one or more of the various splinters of the Socialist and Communist parties in America, particularly the Social Democrats (wiki) allied with Tony Blair's Labour Party in the UK. The U.S. Social Democrats do not directly nominate candidates to national elections, but help get them nominated through the Democratic Party, instead.

This is Dr. Paul's second run for the White House. His first run was on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988 (I voted for him), when he finished a solid third place behind HW and Dukkakis. However, if he were nominated on the Republican ticket (very long shot), he'd have the GOP partisan vote (the "anybody but a Democrat" group) and would probably have a significant appeal among voters traditionally classified as "undecided". The social conservatives in the Republican Party would not vote for Hillary against someone so well-liked among social conservatives in his home district.



Although such a situation might happen, it will be nothing new to Dr. Paul. He has decisively won every election so far where this tactic has been tried. In fact, the more smear campaigns that are run against him, the better he does in elections-- when he bothers to respond. From his Wikipedia article:

The most telling information from his district elections is that Dr. Paul ran unopposed in 2004. Both parties wanted him out of office, but they knew from past experience it was a lost cause. Because the Dems smelled blood in the water in 2006, they decided to nominate Shane Sklar as his opponent, and invest far more money in the most massive smear campaign ever waged in the district. The campaign attempted to convince everyone in the district with a mailing address that Dr. Paul was an embarassment, either off his rocker or too much of a social liberal to represent the district's conservative character. Dr. Paul didn't even bother to respond to the allegations, but just reran his fluff ads from the past couple of elections, and still won handily. Dr. Paul wouldn't have nearly as much trouble from conservative voters as he has from the Big Government non-Conservatives (neocons) who dominate the GOP and just use social conservatives for their votes.

Dr. Paul mails frequent newsletters to his constituents, most of whom are social conservatives that he's almost singlehandedly converted into proud libertarians. Although Dr. Paul writes very well, his extemporaneous speeches often leave listeners with the false impression that he's unintelligent, which is why we almost never see him opening his mouth in his own campaign ads. That might work fine in Texas, but in a national campaign where he has no name recognition to fall back on, his accent will probably work against him in this particular Presidential Election. Native Texans can easily distinguish Dr. Paul's drawl from W's, but outsiders often have the first impression that he's fresh off the farm, and that won't play well up north or out west after 8 years of W inspiring endless riddicule and derision for homespun "demeanor" verging on superficial anti-Texan bigotry.

These statistics might actually be relevant if Presidential elections were structured as an automatic run-off instead of breaking down when there are more than two popular candidates (read about the 1860 election for an example-- Democrats shared 60% of the popular vote, but the Republican candidate won the Electoral College). As it is, few of my fellow Libertarians actually vote for party nominations at the top of the ticket if they have any sympathies at all with either of the two major parties. According a U.S. Dept. of State article, It goes on to describe how about 75% of independents and members of third parties tend to loyally vote for either the GOP or DP candidate in presidential elections.

A better measure of the influence of the Libertarian Party compared to other third parties is that it reports 600 of its members currently hold office (more than all other 3rd parties combined) and has more than 200,000 dues-paying members (more than all other 3rd parties combined). It has also garnered more than a million votes for its national candidates for three elections in a row, the first time in history for a 3rd party; and more than 3 million Americans voted for LP candidates in the last election.

Combine the LP's success as a third party with the fact that many politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties claim to agree with libertarian principles, and it becomes more and more difficult to write off the Libertarian movement as a voting bloc that doesn't matter.

Using stats from Gallup, USDS, Pew, Harris over about 10 years, if we divide U.S. voters into only three groups: Republican Partisans (avg. about 30%), Democrat Partisans (avg. about 30%), and "The Fringe" (avg. about 40%), then sure, I guess the LP becomes part of "The Fringe". But if so, it accounts for more than half of "The Fringe" who bother to join third parties, and has more than a few sympathizers among the GOP and DP, too. Both parties have historically trailed "The Fringe" in party identification, and because the DP has had larger affiliation than the GOP since 1994, the GOP in particular has had to rely on "The Fringe" to help it win elections slightly more than the DP.

With Ron Paul exploring a run for the GOP nomination, this is the next major step in the LP making a more credible bid for the presidency than ever before by virtue of a dual-party (GOP+LP) candidate. It will be interesting to see how both parties handle the situation; if the LP decides to officially co-nominate a GOP candidate, the DP will be forced to prove its own little-l libertarian credentials for future elections. If the GOP doesn't nominate Dr. Paul, but he remains on the ballot as the LP nominee (more likely), then the GOP might be wise to actively court libertarians again to avoid spoilage in the day and age of razor-thin presidential elections.

"The Fringe" may not have any seats in Congress or any hope of winning its own presidency under the current system; but its influence in American politics shouldn't be written off, especially not its most dominant organized group, the LP.

I welcome the possibility of a US President who is not an attorney. A person who has already demonstrated the old fashioned idea of returning to civilian life after serving as a representative. Career politicians tend to forget who works for who.

I seriously doubt Paul will be allowed to debate. After all, Michael Badnarik was on the ballot in all 50 states during the last election. And even his attempt to join the debate (and his subsequent arrest) didn't make the news.

Will Paul win? Doubtful, but I will no longer throw away by vote by voting 'for the lesser of two evils.'

I will take the high road and vote for what I feel is right. I invite you to give thoughtful consideration to your beliefs and do the same.

Ron Paul isn't worthy of the Republican party [as are some others as well]. More specifically, this week's extraordinary statement:

"Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner."

Yeah, "friendly trading partner" and one of the most anti-libertarian places to be found on earth. Just the kinds of friends we need, and so we sell ourselves to them as shamelessly as the village whore. Just the morals I was looking for, Mr. Paul.

Our next gem from Mr. Paul:

"Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region."

I don't suppose that he's ever read Anwar Sadat. Funny how Sadat dumped the USSR and used us to broker Egypt's peace with Israel.

And Mr. Paul appears to be as grand a conflater as has ever lived:

"Since 2001, we have spent over $300 billion occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. We're poorer but certainly not safer for it. We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan – much to the delight of the Iranians, who consider the Taliban an archenemy. Warlords now control the country, operating a larger drug trade than ever before.

Similarly in Iraq, our ouster of Saddam Hussein will allow the majority Shia to claim the leadership title if Iraq's election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.

Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran's worst enemies, and placed power in Iraq with Iran's best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?"

Which war, Mr. Paul, as they are two separate wars? And the Taliban's treatment of its own people was enough reason for the rest of a compassionate humanity to do something. And never mind, re the Shia, that the Shia in Iraq are Arab, while a goodly number of the Shia in Iran are Persian. Apparently, the notion of an Arab - Persian divide has never crossed his mind.

And maybe we could put the man in a room of full of South Koreans and have him repeat this garbage:

"For perspective, consider our ongoing military commitment in Korea. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $1 trillion in today’s dollars over 55 years. What do we have to show for it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear weapons, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector. stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who fought in Korea give little thought to what was gained or lost. The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region. "

Sorry, but our effort there has made the world a much better better place for millions upon millions of people who call [long form] Taehan Hanguk, "home". And if he's too poor to go, please, one of you so fond of him, pay for his travel here:

http://www.pbase.com/image/63123727

Now notice the flags, and just whose flags are flying and whose aren't. Every member nation of the UN that sent troops to Korea has its flag flying at the War Memorial in Seoul. Maybe Mr. Paul can expound at length on the "ambivalence" of that gesture. Or maybe he can learn a little something about that fierce sense of national pride possessed by your average Korean, since that's what he mistakes for "ambivalence".

Other than that, well, he claims that some of us don't know our history, so I suppose that all that need be said in his regard is, well, since pictures speak a thousand words, some people crossing over the Taedong River near Pyongyang:

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/refug.htm

Oh, and Seamus, if Hillary will fight for Korea, she has my Republican vote over Mr. Paul's any and every day of the week, and if need be, twice on Sundays. You see, I've a little friend, she's 12 years old now, and she lives in Uijongbu [of all places]. Tell Mr. Paul for me that she's worth fighting for and that there's no ambivalence whatsoever in terms of our relationship. She calls me, sam chon Paul [uncle Paul]. I call her Ji-Soo or Sherri.

Lastly, christopher, by showing him some love, do you mean sending him to Pyongyang so that he might see how the other half lives? He can borrow my copy of the DK's Holiday In Cambodia. Call it mood music for his journey of discovery and enlightenment.

Sorry, one more, but the man is against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the US government having anything to do with public education, he voted "no" on federal aid for victims of Katrina, he wants us out of the UN and NATO, he doesn't want us to play any meaningful role in the Sudan affair, etc.

He otherwise is "unintelligent" at least in terms of our history. The Washington Post puts it best:

"As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."

("Where to begin with this one?" asks Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied charity case records from the early 20th century. "The stories just break your heart, the kind of suffering that people endured. . . . Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food, who lived in tiny, little rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated, who were sick all the time, who had meager clothing . . .")"

So the man lives with dreams of a fantasyland that never was. And so no surpise, in his own words:

"I'm generally very much ignored."

And for good reason, and again, he's not worthy of being a member of the Party of Lincoln. And if he had the integrity that he claims, he would leave our party and not use the same as a lying means of gaining the office that he would never hold were he not a claimed "Republican".

Not worthy of the Republican Party...Not worthy of a Party so corrupt that it was swept out of both houses of Congress and whose White House enjoys the lowest approval ratings of any President this side of Nixon? You're right KHT, Paul doesn't have a rap sheet, hasn't been involved in any scandals, votes consitently in defense of the Constitution while the true Republicans brush it aside and he voted against the War in Iraq...What IS the man doing in the Republican Party? You've got it backwards, KHT, this Republican Party isn't worthy of Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn't pretend to be a true Republican, and thank God. He doesn't hide from his Libertarian affiliation and ideology, he embraces it, partially because he understands that not being a "real" Republican may be one of the best compliments you can receive nowadays.

Well, could this sentence be in any less context? Do you mind showing us the rest of the speech it was in...Or maybe the rest of the paragraph?

I don't necessarily agree with Paul's views on Afghanistan, but he doesn't say anything factually inaccurate here. Shias are in charge in Iraq, the drug trade is booming in Afghanistan which is also largely run by warlords. He draws different conclusion from these facts than me or you, but they are facts.

Okay, so where's the factual inaccuracy here? We've been in Korea of a long time, spent a lot of money and North Korea is on the brink of nuclear capabilities while the South Koreans hates us and want us to leave...Yeah, that's about right.

Well, I'm not going to lie, I don't agree with Paul on the issues of the UN, NATO or Federal aid for Katrina, but the rest of it is simply eliminating programs that the Federal government never had the legal authority to establish. Also, back in the day the Republican Party was all about abolishing the dept. of Education and elminating the Feds from the education process...It's a good thing they aren't around now, they wouldn't be worthy of this Republican Party.

CP

This was former Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay's dream - to get rid of the Department of Education. Yet, he seemed to be worthy of the Republican Party.

Ron Paul has at least three things going against him:

1. He's a Libertarian (big L). That means the two big Achilles' heel issues of the Libertarian party apply to him: legalization (of drugs, pornography, and prostitution mainly) and foreign policy.

The dovish, isolationist foreign policy will not fly in today's world. Even committed libertarians (such as 's old school member Izdaari will break with national Libertarian candidates for that exact reason. In the current global political and security climate, isolationism simply is not a policy that is viable. The US is the world's economic and military power. There are very few politicians (let alone voters) that would give away that position.

The social issues are just as problematic. As I have said before, no soccer mom is going to vote for a guy who even hints that drugs should be more prevalent in our society.

2. He is not very charismatic. This can be glossed over in local politics, but on the national stage, speaking ability trumps a lot of other flaws. If he could convince someone over the television that his stances were really the best thing for America in this day and age, his ideas might take some hold. As it is, I don't see him convincing anyone.

3. He's a poor speaker from Texas, ala George W. Bush. This, as mentioned, is a huge liability. The next candidate cannot remind anyone of GWB because of all the negative press that Bush's speaking ability has generated.

By the way, the context of Paul's Vietnam comment is found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul382.html. It was in a speech on the floor of the House speaking out against the war in Iraq.

Most of your charges aren't worthy of a response. I direct the interested reader to the links in my sig for full context of most quotes. Here's an example.

I, too, have friends in the Koreas and elsewhere in East and Southeast Asia with very high opinions of the US, often in stark contrast to the views of their governments. I commend your efforts, but keep in mind that Dr. Paul was discussing the political and economic leaders in South Korea, not the people. Your mischaracterization of his intent here typifies most of your post. Another example:

Landru Guide Us and I got into this debate starting about here in topic 14264. Before the Great Depression, particularly during the Roaring Twenties, private charities did a very fine job of serving the needs of the poor. During the Great Depression, donations collapsed with the economy and left many in poverty without a safety net. Dr. Paul and I are not Great Depression deniers, and we have a pretty good grasp of history when we're quoted in context.

I'm not surprised many Republicans are angry with Dr. Paul for bolting to the Libertarian Party in 1988, for failing to toe the party line during his 30-ish years as a Republican representative, and for continued dual membership in both the Libertarian and Republican Parties. It's potentially subversive to modern big-government Republicanism, so it naturally makes a few folks a little angry.

My advice to Paul-haters is to just ignore him while resisting the urge to twist his words. If his real message isn't compelling enough, he'll never be a threat to anyone in either major party; in other words, its easy to marginalize folks like us without misrepresenting us. I agree with Amlord and others that Dr. Paul is a long shot, at best, and we Libertarians will probably remain so within my lifetime. Dr. Paul didn't run for President in 1988 and again in 2008 with any realistic expectation to win election-- merely to champion principles shared by many, but disproportionally underrepresented in Washington. The LP and libertarianism have come a long way, and have a long way yet to go. Even though we don't agree on everything, a focus on Liberty through limited government is certainly a worthy goal. Neither major party is particularly interested in such goals anymore, so I'm going to remind them they pay a price for it-- perhaps currently a small price, in their high-and-mighty self-important opinions, but they can't trample Liberty underfoot forever and expect to get away with it politically unscathed.

Dr. Paul is an annoying reminder to the Republican Party (and the Democratic Party, too) that they have both sold their souls for power at the expense of the Liberty. Both major parties, by and large, have corrupted themselves to they point they are unworthy of libertarians, capitalized or not. Sure, there's a decent candidate here and there, and plenty of good grassroots members of both major parties. But overall, they are being sold down the river by their leaders. Keep on annoying them, Dr. Paul.

I'd be curious to know what the Ron Paul supporters have to say about this roll call vote. Is support for (or non-condemnation of) Ahmadinejad furthering the cause of liberty?



There were two "nay" votes - Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a proponent of an isolationist foreign policy. He doesn't like the UN and he is against any sabre-rattling with Iran that could produce a conflict. That pretty much sums up why he would vote against this toothless resolution. This resolution to support another resolution in an even more bureacratic institution reminds me of college students in student government who think they are making a difference by condemning the genocide in Darfur. I think the message was: Let's stop wasting our time and actually fix some of the problems of this country.

Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand



I am not sure whether or not this should be seen as really good for Ron Paul or realy bad for John McCain. But I think its a testament to those who support Dr. Paul. His support may be small, but I think that they are undoubtedly the most loyal and fierce group of any candidate.

The very fact that KT is a neo-con and Ron Paul is a REAL conservative gives me great hope for this candidate.

Though morally and ethically correct, and obviously a defender of real freedom in this country- his stance on the drug policy can't get around the average idiot voter in this country.

Let's face it- American voters, ESPECIALLY republican voters since the last election-

1) Actually believed John Kerry would take away thier bibles
2) Actually believed the swift water liars
3) Actually believe that GW is competant- AFTER seeing his prior four years.

Being libertarian means being able to understand the concept of liberty FOR EVERYONE- not just a select few. That alone, I am afraid CP- does doom us to "fringe" status.

I have debated this at length with the "campus libertarians"- a fairly dynamic and growing section of the libertarian party, up here, and nationwide.

The question remains "how do we get elected?"

I think in baby steps- Ron Paul is mainstream enough, and possibly Mike Gravel as well- my "dream ticket".

You would think those that want ACTUAL honesty in thier goverment would elect these two- but I don't think the average American REALLY wants freedom or honesty- they WANT to be lied too- look at Clinton and GW as examples. They lied- and got re-elected- both of them.

I couldn't agree more CR . The important thing is for Dr. Paul to get more and more attention about what his beliefs are all about. He was not considered a top contender at all, but his performances in all the debates netted him in the top 3 of the GOP candidates by pollsters. The more he is able to express his views, the more people will listen and understand what his message is about. I think this year, more than any other, is a prime time for candidates like Paul to atleast make headway in the GOP field. Paul may not have the electability that many of us like, but its possible that he will pave the way for another candidate of similar views down the line...similar to what Goldwater did for Reagan.

I am very pleased to see "Ron Paul" banners and signs EVERYWHERE up here- on overpasses, sidewalks and busses- I mean EVERYWHERE- totallly subversive- non-media driven campaign.

I will vote for him- no doubt about it.

However- don't get your hope up to much about the Goldwater-Reagan thang. Reagan dropped libertarian ideals like a hot skillet.

I would hate for Ron Paul to lead to another lip-service politician.

It is all still about corporate sposorship - NOT about integrity or honest discourse of ideas- look at the way Mike Gravel wiped the floor with the other candidates in the dem debates- he IS a charismatic and great speaker- but too much for personal freedom for the average American to stomach. American's LIKE to oppress others IMHO.

I am definately considering giving Dr. Paul my first presidential vote. And the Goldwater-Reagan analogy probably works only on a superficial level. They both talked a big game, but Reagan failed to deliver on some of the principles he supposedly supported. But if we take the analogy as the successed of ideas (limited government, increased federalism, etc..) then it fits quite nicely.



Thats an interesting assertion CR, a point fit for the philosophy forum. But i dont think that its so much that Americans like to oppress others but that they think that certain policies are doing the opposite of what they are actually doing. If John Q Representative tells his constitutency that they will greatly benefit from a certain policy, he may be only half right because he fails to mention the drawbacks. We need politicians like Paul and like Gravel to continue to stand up and speak.

No- I really believe the average American REALLY wants to control his nieghbor's behavior- but wants his own behavior to be free and unfettered- Hienlien said something to the effect of "No one writes a law to change THIER behavior- it is some other poor sap he wants to control"- no one says "Oh my, I use to much marijuana- I need to write my congressman and tell him to pass a law so I won't smoke so much rope" - no- it is "ewww, his behavior is yucky- there ought to be a law"

The Ron Paul juggernaut keeps on rolling. According to the latest USA Today poll.




Message received. Isolationist foreign policy is one reason that I'm not a libertarian anymore. While I'm not a huge fan of the UN, Rep. Paul wouldn't do bilateral treaties or interventions either. He'd just pretend we were the only country in the world. Not realistic, when you import oil and stuff.

Speaking of the UN, Dave Mustaine of Megadeth speaks out!

I agree that the isolationist theory will never work, but unfortunately down here in the South people really believe that mess. I hear it all the time from relatively well educated people, not to be crass but especially Southern Baptists.

I'm not a UN fan, but we can't build a wall around the US and peer out through peep holes like our front door. The thing is though... that I'm sure he'll get a vote or two. I can't wait to see how the Republican caucauses work out. This is gonna be a good one.

Ya, like the interventionist policy has been SUCH a raging succes - at some point, we need to learn to keep our noses out of others business and realize it doesn't do american any good.

I haven't noticed how finland or Norway has had to have a giant military force out there to protect thier oil supplies

Nice to see RP brought down a notch, thanks Carlito. That guy needed to be taken down a peg, I mean just who does this guy think he is, with his talk of the Constitution and traditional American values. The nerve!



Everyone's aware of Ron Paul's lack of success. Everyone. The great thing is: his supporters [myself included] Do. Not. Care. We're here for the message and to attempt to shake our fellow Americans out of the pro-government slumber they've fallen into. Ron Paul is doing this country a service, regardless of his showing [or lack thereof] in polls. Still though, I have to wonder, how can one legitimately ask for change in our political climate and then taunt an individual most likely to bring it?

Maybe X more years of the same ol' will make some of us go back and think, "I wonder what would've happened if we'd elected that crazy old guy from Texas back in the day?"

Also, Aevans, don't confuse Isolationism with a foreign policy of nonintervention. Isolationism implies protectionist trade policies among other policies that literally isolate the US completely from the outside world. Whereas a foreign policy of nonintervention would just entail a modest, traditional American foreign policy that does not seek to police the world and/or interfere with domestic affairs of foreign and sovereign countries.

CP

You said that very nicely CP- and you know what? That is a challenge Ron Paul is going to have to face- how to explain it, communicate that in a sound bite manner that the average numb and tired voter can uderstand. Most voters are not informed policy wonks. Remember how many poeple actually bought into the swift water liars ads? -

Ron Paul has to articulate clearly "Hey, it is not that we won't protect our interests in regards to security- but we don't involve ourselves in other countries internal matters. There are plenty of rich countries that don't spend 14% of thier budget on their military, and then use it to go mess in business that doesn't concern us. And on top of that, we get all huffy when the rest of the world doesn't jump right in with us.

There is a HUGE difference between non-intervention and isolationism- and Ron Paul can't even get our message across at all, if he can't articulate that difference for all of America to understand.

That is why he needs Mike Gravel- Mike can articulate it much better, and is on the same page on this.

First off- we can re-open most of those closed bases with mothballed facilities all across the US with serviceman that can patrol our own borders.

Ron Paul is also saving a ton of cash because of his hardcore supporters.

Opednews



Funny how he's polling at 0% on the Gallup polls, but here at AD it seems his supported a by more then an insignificant portion of this board. CP, Seamus, CR, DTOM, Lederuvdapac.... Check out the social networking sites, such as Myspace, Youtube, facebook. Maybe when Ron Paul releases how many contributors it took to get those 2.4 million dollars the media might take him more seriously.

Hey CP, are Syria and Iran "foreign, sovereign countries?" Was Afghanistan in 2001 a "foreign and sovereign country?" Does the USA have any interest in their domestic affairs, or should we just leave them alone? In my humble opinion, we are in an existential struggle against militant islam. Feel free to call me crazy and wrong, but a few others agree, notably the guy we elected twice to govern this mess. If he would have been speaking as clearly and powerfully as he did in Cleveland yesterday for the past seven years, we wouldn't have Ron Paul to kick around, because the American people would have understood what we are up against.


I heard that in 2008 they are thinking of replacing the electoral college with MySpace. Each candidate gets a number of electors based on how many 'friends' they have linked.


Yeah, non-interventionism and isolationism - it's like 2 different worlds. Last night, John McCain was quoting Mike Gravel on the Senate floor during the last military pull-out debate - Cambodia in 1970. Gravel sounded as competent and serious then as he does now. Advocating a military withdrawal from Cambodia, he was saying that "life will go on, with traffic jams and what not." That's what's beautiful about being a liberal non-interventionist - you never have to be sorry when your wrong decision kills 3 million people.

By the definition of both "foreign" and "sovereign", yes. Even countries we don't like, are, in fact, foreign and sovereign.

Yes. And Dr. Paul voted FOR the Afghanistan war because the Taliban regime attacked us. Paul isn't a pacifist nor is he an isolationist. Non-intervention means just that, we don't INTERVENE in country's domestic affairs; it does not mean we don't defend ourselves.

You're not crazy, you're right. I'm simply not terrified enough of militant Islam to vote for a President that would further infringe on the rights of the American people and use our military as an international peace-keeping organization/police force. It is possible to fight terror without invading countries and seeking to rebuild them in same mold as Western democracy [bad idea].

That might weed out the really irrelevant candidates, like that Mc...Mckeen, is it? That old guy from Zona? Yeah him, what the hell is that guy still doing here?

Mocking the support of traditionally the most apathetic group of voters in America just doesn't make sense Carlito. "Conservative" columinsts and pundits already do so at their own peril. The fact is that a good many young people are going to register Republican this summer [myself included] so they can vote for Dr. Paul in their respective state's primary. This should be something to embrace if you're a GOPer. But then again, maybe more of the same is what this country needs, and God knows "real" candidates like Fred " " Thompson and Rudy "So there I was on 9/11" Giuliani will give us just that.

Again Carlito, ignore the difference between the two words at your own peril. Pre-WWII US was isolationist, it was highly protectionist on top of having an extremely inactive military. Non-interventionism would entail the US staying out of the domestic politics of sovereign states while simultaneously trading with them.

CR:
I hear you about RP not being able to get that message through to the people. The negative/positive about RP is he's not really a politician, he's a human. So he doesn't have that ability to wrap himself in rhetoric like the others do. So while that will make him appear as more genuine [something Americans say they want, but don't], but unable to make Americans understand subtle differences such as the one we've mentioned: isolationism v. noninterventionism.

CP

So, all a country has to do do incur the wrath of RON PAUL is to attack us and kill thousands of our citizens. I feel safer already. Nothing like defending yourself to put your economy in the toilet for 2 years.



Well, since I'm not a "GOPer" I'll take that with a grain of salt. The NRC and all of their committees get zero carlito cash this cycle, at least until the general election. Although I'm still probably voting for Rudy.


Guys, we are already in Iraq. You realize that, right? Just like we were already in Cambodia? It's not a theoretical discussion anymore.

As for our Pre-WWII isolationism, would you say that this stance increased or decreased the amount of American blood and treasure expended in order to save the world from Japanese Imperialism and Naziism? After WWII, would you say that the highly interventionist Marshall Plan helped or hurt our precious trading relationship with Western Europe? How about the highly interventionist administration of a defeated Japan?

That's the thing that sucks about war, Carlito...Something bad has to happen to start it. Now, I know you're aware that we had several chances to kill Bin Laden and/or prevent the September 11th attacks well before they happened, meaning, we could have prevented said attack without being an interventionalist force. Sept. 11th was horrible, I'm not downplaying it, but let's put this into some kind of perspective. Should I be any more terrified post-9/11 than pre? The terrorist threat was JUST as real prior to the attacks as it is now. Yet now I'm expected to have a "post 911" mindset despite the fact that my odds of being killed by a terrorist [along with every other American's odds], are just as astronomical as they used to be. I will not be scared into abandoning traditional American values of liberalism [classic] and our traditional foreign policy.

Never said you were:

I'm not sure that either I [certainly not I] or CR mentioned Iraq, Carlito. We're talking about our general, overall foreign policy. For the record, and as I've said elsewhere. I do not support an immediate troop withdrawl. I don't think we can afford to leave Iraq as it is because the result could very well be a central hub for radical Islam/terrorism.

CP

OK, I'll be the first to admit my ignorance of the "non-interventionalist" school of foreign policy. Are you telling me that it allows for the execution of foreign terrorist leaders while they are on sovereign foreign soil?

I don't see why it wouldn't. Noninterventionalism puts its emphasis on not intervening in the domestic policies of another country. An individual terrorist leader's assassination would not qualify as doing such. So yes, it would certainly allow for such a thing, although my guess is that it would prefer cooperation with the country in which the leader is hiding. But if there is evidence that a terrorist leader hostile to the US is in X country, the initial step would be to approach that country's gov't in an attempt at cooperation, but if not, killing him would be acceptable.

CP

OK, so when Ron Paul says the following, is he agreeing with you and fighting to secure Iraq from Al Qaeda and regional war, or is he advocating that we bring the troops home now? Because I can't find a clear statement on his website other than this.



As for terrorist assassinations, I'll vote for Paul only if you are his SecDef!

No, Dr. Paul and I are certainly NOT in agreement regarding Iraq. He believes in immediate withdrawl [to his credit, he is the most consistant member of Congress in opposition to the war, he has never voted in favor of it, including the initial resolution] whereas I believe we should stay in Iraq until our leaving would not result in the take-over of the country by Islamic radicals/jihadists.

Hey, I can give a "known knowns vs. unknown knowns" speech better than Rumsfeld.

CP

CW- history has shown that we have been totally ineffective in bringing anything but pain and suffeing to ourselves and to the poeple of any country we invade- the list is very long

and anything you bring up about southeast asia and our reason for being there shows how horrible we have been in our policies- Yes- we should have NEVER been in Cambodia, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan (the russian one, I believe we were justified in the Bin Laden, new, invasion)- our interference in foreign goverments' affairs has cost us men, money and our ideal as a country that loves freedom.

With the exception of Grenada and Korea- we have pretty much just been the bad guys. No way to get around it. We killed what, 2 million or so Vietnamese in our intervention there- once again- no one can even come up with a good reason for us to be there, and it is much better now than when we left it- so yeah, it proves quite handily that a soveriegn country can plot thier own affairs, and if thy want to commit genocide in thier borders- so be it- it is not our business to go around overthrowig goverments we dont' like, and then attempt to rebuild them into some mold we want

CW- when has our intervention had a positive effect on the country? Panama maybe- but then again- we put the bad guy in charge in the first place

You keep bringing up these interventions- it doesn't make your argument- it just shows how bad our policies have been.

What good did Vietnam do for the US, could have it done for the US? Nothing, zip, nada- 'cept maybe coffin makers and the defense industrial complex.




The generatiobn that CP is talking about, the kids on myspace and who are putting home made banners on overpasses near you- they get it- American foriegn policy isa policy of oppression and genocide all by itself- ya, 600,000+ dead Iraqis are SOOO much better off now that we have killed them with our policies

There simply is no good example of our foreign policy working post-WW2.

At some point, smart poeple are going to figure this out, and how much the poeple that want to harm the US are motivated by our killing of thier loved ones, and our backing of despots in countries that start this radicalism in the first place.

We jabber and jabber about Al-Qaida in IRaq- well, wasnt' there BEFORE we attacked- WE created Al-Quaida in Iraq.

Ron Paul is smart enough and brave enough to say "hey, what has this poliy got us? Not a damn thing- time to do something different"

And, thank god, seems the younger generation, mine and those younger, are starting to listen to that idea.

BTW- had we not intervened in a number of foriegn entanglements that brought us nothing but misery- there would have been no 9/11 either.

There is a cause and effect of our policies you know.

A long list indeed.

Off the top of my head
Berlin airlift - good all around
Phillipines - we directed the put-down of the Huk Rebellion. Any doubt that the Filipinos were better off without communism?
Korea, you have conceded already, thanks.
Latin America - Are the various sets of rightists we supported really worse than the communists? Given the track record where communists prevailed, I'll go with no. let's call that a stalemate.
Grenada - good
Panama - positive, but as you note, some of this was our fault. Now that the Chinese are colonizing them, let's see how they do...
Iraq / Kuwait 1991 - good for the Kuwaitis, that's for sure.
Yugoslavia / Bosnia / Kosovo - good, if not great. A great example of what happens when you leave Europe to 'take care of itself' - wholesale slaughter on the modern enlightened socialist-lite continent.
Somalia - I'll give you that one, but Clinton screwed the pooch.
Haiti - we deposed Cedras and put Aristide back in. I think that was good, but didn't follow too closely.
Afghanistan - Taliban out, democracy a work in progress
Iraq - ditto, but more violence. A convenient place for Al Qaeda types to die without need for trial


Yeah, 'they get it.' USA = bad. Everything else = good. Nice job our educational system has done, wouldn't you say? Give me a break.



I note that both you and ConservPat try to have it both ways, claiming that we were "non-interventionist" (sic?) before WWII. Then, we ignore WWII, because everyone agrees that was a good war, then we move on to the US "invasions" of other lands. Which leaves me wondering, as I asked before, did our "non-interventionalist" stance create more or less loss of life and treasure in WWII? Heck, WWI? Since we were so isolationist, how did that affect our participation in the two global armed conflicts last century? Or perhaps we are in some post-modern, never-gonna-be-a-world-war-again mode?


Well, I'm sure that knowing you are 'smart poeple' and, by your assumption, those who disagree must be 'dumb poeple' makes you feel better. However, to believe what you write, you seem to forget what happens in the absence of our action. To wit - someone else far worse fills the vacuum - Iran, Venezuela, China, etc. Our neo-isolationism won't stop the bad guys from "radicalizing" anyone either.

Would he stand out compared to generic standard issue GOP candidates?

Ron Paul supporters, please tell me why he was on Alex Jones' radio show. Again. Why, why, why, when he wants to be taken seriously as a candidate, is he appearing on the political equivalent of the Art Bell show? Here he is, seeming to hint that we are in for a "Gulf of Tonkin" or some other false pretext for war with Iran.

For those of you unfamiliar, Alex Jones is a 'truther,' who promotes a lot of conspiracy theories. Example - the Bush family and other "global elites" sacrifice human beings at the altar of a giant owl Hello?

If I had to guess it's because these people were crazy enough to appear on Jones's radio show, too. I think Paul and the same people on that list would love to appear on Limbaugh's show. Not because he's less of a nut, but because of the size of his audience. Rush and other "traditional" conservatives aren't gonna give Paul the time of day because of his positions, not because he's approached by conspiracy theorists. If the only people interested in Paul's message are conspiracy theorists, do you think he should bail out? Also, am I a conspiracy theorist for thinking the administration wants to do more than rattle its saber towards Iran?

I feel like we've come full circle. You're like the people whou sounded the alarm about Bush before he was appointed to office by SCOTUS. I usually consider buyer's remorse when I vote for someone, but I think you're getting ahead of yourself. If Paul decides to completely distance himself from these people will someone else open a door for him? It's not as if he's going to be elected anyway. Why the alarm, Carlito?

Yes. Or he should run as a Democrat, since 35% of them think "Bush knew" and another 26% "aren't sure" about our dear leader's role in the World Trade Center attacks. May as well find fertile ground if you're going to court the nutball crowd. Beats getting 0% of the Republican primary vote anyway.


Of course not. Now, if you think that we are going to attack ourselves and blame Iran, well...



I hate to see his good libertarian ideas marginalized by the insane crank factor. That's it. I wish I could find a candidate that would espouse libertarian domestic policy, yet be more assertive in fighting