I am not sure I follow the "taking food from children's mouths" argument. In chapter three of the bill (click the link previously provided) every American (this is why it is called the Fair Tax Act) will recieve a prebate each month that will equal the estimated amount of tax paid when purchasing necessities such as food, personal hygiene products at the poverty level.

I can understand your scepticism about politicians supporting this bill, but between the House and the Senate, there are over 70 cosponsors. This bill has been stuck in committee since early 2007, so it could garner more support if it actually got sent to the floor. Given Paul's voting record of not supporting any unbalanced budgets, or increases in taxes, I think he actually will push for this bill.

The whole FOX News vs. the Paulbots brouhaha is something else. Rather lame reason by Fox for not including him.

It is actually playing to Paul's advantage. His campaign has received an impressive amount of media attention today for the debate exclusion and his fundraising. Many are calling him upsetting Giuliani and Thompson in Iowa. He may even beat McCain for 3rd. A 3rd place finish would be very impressive from my standpoint. My ideal situation would be Huckabee, Romney, Paul, McCain in Iowa. This would knock Romney down big time and NH and may catapult Paul to the top.

Ron Paul is polling single digits in virtually every poll being conducted. RealClear Politics. He is not a viable candidate as a Republican, but he is an interesting distraction.


Aquilla

I agree. Like I said, I had to change party affiliations just to be able to vote for the guy!

He really just needs to make a third place showing in NH and Iowa for the "mo" to go his way completely, IMHO.

There are just so many poeple that don't want a republicrat in power anymore.

Only the party neo-cons really dislike him, I get a feeling that the majority of republican voters are just afraid he will lose to hillary. And personally, I find this idea a bit dumb.

If it is just he and hillary, I think he will mop the place with her.

Des Moines Register Poll

According to this poll, Paul is at 9%, tied with Thompson and ahead of Giuliani. With a margin of error of 3.5%, his support trails McCain's 12% by a very small margin. His support among independents is also an impressive 16%. Only about 80,000 people will caucus for the GOP. We know Paul's supporters are very loyal. I think both tomorrow college football game and cold weather play to his advantage. Many pundits are predicting that he overcomes Thompson and Giuliani in Iowa. I think making up McCain's numbers are realistic.

I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement, CruisingRam. If people thought Reagan-Mondale was a beating, Paul-Clinton would be Washingtonian, meaning 100% of the electoral college. Paul is a Republican that appeals to Independents and left-wing rationales, the mainstream media would call them radicals, but everything in politics is flipped. He would be guaranteed the Republican vote and would siphon off the anti-war vote from the Democrats. We could see the first 70%-30% in our nation's history.

Hillary is the very last candidate I would vote for, and even then, I might just do a write-in in for Scooby-Doo.

I will take it a step further on this one- Ron Paul will mop the floor with any dem EXCEPT for possibly Edwards, who seems to be trying a Ron Paul-eque run here- as an outsider and true reformer- though Obama has that as well, perhaps even better than Edwards, Edwards is white pretty boy.

IN a contest between Edwards and Ron Paul, I don't think Ron can pull it off. In fact, I don't know if he is even beatable at all when it comes to Repub vs Dem. I know some will disagree with me, but many disagreed with me even before the primaries in the GH Bush vs Clinton- But if Edwards gets the nod- it is over for the republicans. The "faithfull" will flock to him in droves, the independents that would go Ron Paul, the left leaning types, will go Edwards, and it cascades from there. Obama is black, and that is his biggest deficit.

You should have heard my mom trying to explain to me how Obama is secretly a muslim

Those polls are of registered republicans that intend to vote in the caucus. They don't include independents, third party and democrats that intend to register at the caucus as a republican so that they can caucus for Paul. In about 12 hours, we will see how things end up.


With her being so polarizing and Paul being in favor of so many positions that both parties can support, I would agree. I think most republicans are praying for Hillary to get the nomination, I think it will be easy to stop her between now and November.

This is where I disagree- with the field of same, same, same republican candidates, Hillary will beat anyone in the field EXCEPT Ron Paul. She has a very, very large base that will vote for her just to NOT vote republican, unless the republicans can come up with a candidate that is NOT uber-religious (Huckabee, we have had enough of the right wing religious whackos, as a country) NOT Rudy (though, of all of them, I think he stands a real chance) NOT Romney (oh lord, where do I begin with this one> ) etc etc.

I am not entirely certain you are right. There are too many democrats that will not vote, vote for Micky Mouse, or vote either third party, independent or republican before they vote for Hillary. I have talked to too many democrats that absolutely will not vote for her under any circumstances. Of course those that I have talked to are in my own little piece of the world and not across the entire country, but I think the republicans have a chance. I don't know if there are as many on the right that will outrightly not vote for one of the nominees, at least not as many as there are on the left against Hillary.

Do we really need any other reason to NOT vote for Ron Paul?

Seriously, Paul is out there as a message candidate, and nothing else. Just like Kucinich stays in the race only to beat the anti-war drum (which desperately needed beating), Paul is in there to force a few (desperately needed) financial issues into the Republican debate. But actually electing this guy would be crazier than electing Kucinich. Have any of you fans of Paul put any real thought into his platform?

National Sales Tax? Regressive. All sales taxes are. The only way to make them progressive is to complicate them with, say, rebates. And it still doesn't work. Even with the rebate, the national sales tax will be regressive over much of the income curve - and of course, it just happens to be that part of the income curve that I reside on. Flat taxes, for all of you Steve Forbes fans, present the same problems. You know what kind of tax is truly progressive? The tax system we have now. All it needs is a little (or a lot of) simplification.

Pull out the troops right now? Even I think that's a bad idea, but I guess he wants to get them back inside out borders before he builds a giant wall around our country.

Restore the gold standard? Really? Does any country use that anymore? No? I wonder why not......

Eliminate the Federal Reserve??? You have to wonder what would happen to the world economy were that to happen. I have no idea, but I'd stock up on batteries and canned goods if it ever came close to happening.

On the environment? He favors private and local anti-pollution initiatives over federal intervention. I guess that's because it has worked so well in the past. The only part of his energy/environmental policies I like is the elimination of subsidies for the gas and oil industries - but I'd rather see my government fund research into alternative energies.

Opposes national health care, and favors tax credits for health insurance and drugs. Here, he's not even in agreement with his own platform - how are you going to do anything with tax credits when your only tax is a national sales tax??? Again, the fascination with using tax credits to help the poor demonstrates the complete disconnect of these wealthy politicians from the people they are supposed to represent. YOU CANNOT HELP THE POOR WITH TAX CREDITS! They don't pay enough in taxes to be affected. It's like the home mortgage interest deduction - the idea is good: encourage home ownership and stability. The execution, though, is terrible - you have to have a pretty big mortgage (middle America home prices) just to feel any benefit over your standard deduction, so there is no benefit at all for those people buying smaller, cheaper homes. That was never the intent, but it is the reality. So, to sum up - tax credits for health care: either complete cluelessness, or utter disregard for the poor.

My conclusion: either the guy is only in the race to put his issues on the table and he's having more success than he ever dreamed of, or he really wants to be President, but he's absolutely bat$#*! crazy. Let's hope it's number one.

First, I am NOT for hillary- but I don't underestimate her base or appeal either. If it were just "wow, I don't know anyone that supports hillary"- well, I heard the same about GW Bush in two elections

She has an enormous base- don't take her for granted my brutha. It is NOT the dems that are dispirited by thier parties behavior, it is the republicans, remember, the real liability in this election is to simply have an ® behind your name. The Neo-cons have done incredible damage to that party, and one mustn't underestimate that damage.

this time, it is the republicans that are offering incredibly weak candidates, while the dems have at least two very strong ones, possibly three.

Yes, hillary has very strong negatives, but those poeple are generally not going to vote for her anyway, and I believe that the republican party are the ones that will have to work the hardest to get thier base out to vote- in other words, the anti-last 8 years are motivated to vote against the R party, while the dems are motivated to get out and take over again.

I think this is the Dems election to lose, and this is NOT because I am some kind of Dem lover

Right, if there's anything we don't want in a candidate is his or her being attractive to young educated people.

Have I really put any real thought into his platform? Yes, yes I have. You'll find that here at America's Debate nearly everyone is informed and can therefore make an intelligent decision. Whether or not you agree with that decision is another issue. Read over some of the past Ron Paul debates and you'll see this to be a fact. But to be honest, I'm a member of three political boards and there has been an influx of new members raising the same complaints against Ron Paul and responding to them all is getting very tiresome, so let me cut to the chase.

Is Ron Paul and ideal candidate to me, no. I disagree to some extent with his environmental policy, some of his immigration ideals, re-integrating the Gold Standard, etc. But as a whole, I believe that Ron Paul is far and away the best man for the job. He has a clear record of supporting the Constitution of the United States and that is why I'm voting from him.

Ultimately though, Ron Paul won't win the nomination because Ron Paul's approval or disapproval comes down to how each individual answers one question..."What is the role of the Federal government". If you believe that government is some way responsible for taking care of individuals who some would say 'can't take care of themselves' then you will not like Ron Paul's answer's to some of your questions. I suspect, JohnfrmCleveland, that you and I [and Dr. Paul] have substantially different ideas regarding the proper role of government, as a result there is nothing I can say in response to your points that could possibly change your mind about Paul.

CP

That point is exactly why I am caucusing for Paul tonight, in about an hour and a half, in fact. Taking care of individuals is the responsibility of the States, not the federal government. Anyone either R or D that wants to take care of the individual is fighting for the same thing=Bigger Government. Paul is the only one that interprets the U.S. Constitution the same as me. He gets my vote, and I predict he will get more votes than the 6% he was getting at RealPolitics earlier this week. We will know in a few hours. I am sure many of you will be watching, I know I will be.

azwhitewolf


Well thats a fair argument except for the fact that I'm starting to think much of the GOP want her to win the primary narrowly for the reasons you pointed out, if she won she would be more easy to pick apart than any other democratic candidate, because of her own history and voting record. A part of me even wants her to take the primary, she is the most disliked candidate of any democrat once you get outside her supportive base, and thats for good reason.

What you stated below is really hard for me to buy and I'll explain.................



Now when looking at alternate motives, your argument is that Conservatives are guilty of using the war to their advantage, correct? That by stating the dangers of terrorism and supporting the war in Iraq they are using this as fear mongering to help them in the polls. Well I have a hard time buying that because I think to myself who would they be trying to convince by using Fear mongering to obtain votes?

The sad truth is somewhere around 70% of this nation do not believe in this war, and they are not interested in our nation continuing to fight this war. Therefore support for the war is a negative not a positive for a candidates campaign, especially for the upcoming general election. Ive personally been looking for the candidate who supports the war yet can get ahead in other areas. Thats how much of a hit a candidate takes simply by supporting the war.

My conclusion is that, if at this point the war is going to be used to a candidates advantage in the polls its going to be by someone who does not support it. Support for the war shows integrity in times like these. It shows you will fight for an Idea you believe in despite the blow your campaign will take for that reason. 4 years ago you could argue that a person could support the war simply for political gain, but not today.

I'm convinced however that a large number of politicians who don't support the war and are running today for president are getting the edge over those that do support the war because of that particular issue. Take that away and the Democratic party probably loses 10% - 20% of its support just like that. Same goes with Ron Paul this war is the issue more than anything else giving him support. The only reason he is not as successful as Hillary is because most people who don't support the war are registered Democrat and will be putting their eggs in another basket.

So this brings up the realization that those who don't support the war, are obviously well aware of the additional support they get for that reason, and there are some who even supported the war at a time when the national opinion on the issue was a supportive one. Two of the democratic front runners Hillary, and Edwards are great examples. To the credit of Ron Paul, he has always been what I consider an isolationist. I think he believes we could cut ourselves off from the rest of the world every time something devastating happens. If 9/11 happened on his watched I'm not really convinced he would have done anything at all that requires any balls. Who knows maybe he would have gone on national television condemning the actions of Al Qaeda, and said "Don't Do That! Bad terrorist" lol.

Then the hypocrisy of the American Culture would have been painfully obvious as most people would have complained that we didn't do enough to strike back.
Well I guess thats the way it goes sometimes, people want action yet are rarely happy or appreciative when they get it. My opinion is and always will be the same, We didn't do enough to counter Al Qaeda, and we made several mistakes along the way. However this wont cause me to forget what happened, and we can argue all day about how relevant Iraq was to the war on terror but one thing is clear, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, he needed to be stopped, although I would have went about it differently.



Well good for you, thats a plus, as for Ron Paul primarily the problem I have is with many of his policies all around, especially when he talks about the war. Whether he's been consistent or not Ive heard him blame this nation as much as Al Qaeda in regards to 9/11, stuff like that has caused me to turn my back on taking him seriously. Now some say his words are pulled out of context, but thats bull crap, it doesn't take long listening to him to understand what he believes about this war.



No, not to save face, but because I think the guy's a loo loo. Barrack Obama for example at least makes more sense than Ron Paul. Even Hillary makes more sense than him although to tell you the truth if it was between Hillary and Ron, I just wouldn't vote.




Your thoughts are fine, although I disagree with most of them in regards to Ron Paul.



barnaby2341


The ability of the mass media? You don't even know what channels I watch, what papers I read, what sites I go to, nothing. You just assume any critisism on Ron Paul is misplaced, well ok I'll talk to you in a few months when we all have a good idea where he stands "To the Republican party" the party he is running for president in. And when he loses, By A LANDSLIDE mind you, because most republicans did not want him as president we can have the same conversation. He will not be successful for one primary reason, most people see him speak, just like every other candidate speaks, and they dont like what they see and hear, its that simple, but blame it on the media if you want.



He reasons with people that reason with him, Bill Maher is as much against the war as Ron is. Thats like saying "HEY LOOK! John Edwards just went on the Daily show with John Steward and they loved him! Well what a freakin surprise there. I support the war, and military action against terrorist, and rouge nations that are responsible for great injustices against humanity, would he reason with that or find it amusing?

ConservPat



I wouldn't have cared, historically raising money does not go hand in hand with campaign success. Like I said you cant buy votes, so let him be a great example of that. Mike Huckabee may very well win in Iowa tonight for the Republicans, yet in comparison to Mitt Romney he has rased practically nothing, he shouldn't even be where he is, or so says countless millions. But he got where he is by his words and actions, not his money. They expect to see the race come within 2000 votes or less in Iowa between Romney and Huckabee. My candidate as of now is Huckabee, however I do like Mitt Romney as well, I just don't think he can win in the general election.

Question is, where the heck is Ron Paul I wonder? He's not in 1st 2nd or 3rd in Iowa or New Hampshire. He's a Ghost in these states, as he will probably be in most if not all other states. Now I see people blame the media, I see people blame even the voters, but the fault is his. Now I give him credit for trying, it doesn't hurt to try, but if he loses, which he will. It will be his fault, if anyones.

That wasn't the question, the question was would you have expected it?


Of course you can, it's called politics.

This will be the last time I say this.

I DO NOT AND HAVE NOT EVER EXPECTED RON PAUL TO WIN ANYTHING

And yes it is his 'fault' that he isn't winning. He doesn't hold the authoritarian, pro-government, paternalistic views that most Americans hold yet convince themselves they stand for freedom. Ron Paul never had a chance; he stands for the Constitution and true liberty; mere antiquities in todays America.

CP

In a way, I agree with you. He doesn't get the media coverage or the support because he has radically different positions than the rest of the crowd. If you take a good look at all the other candidates, they all kind of look the same, in fact they all pretty much look the same as all the previous candidates in previous elections. Because Paul takes a stand that is vastly different, but I think stands for what true conservatism should be about, or at least used to stand for, he is called a loon and is slammed by both sides of the aisle.

By the way, I was wrong in my prediction of Paul getting 15% of the vote, he is coming in fourth with 10%, and Giuliani got a whopping 4%. I think the fourth place (80% of pricincts reporting as I write this) is a win for Paul. Of course the media is avoiding this point altogether, just as the media has ignored him up to thos point.

If Ron Paul isn't expected to win anything then why is he running?

Why do Paul supporters make it seem as if they're the only ones blessed with vision while everyone else is blind? That's a terribly elitist point of view. It's not that America isn't ready for Ron Paul. Ron Paul isn't ready for America. If you're running as an "anti-politician" why should it be a surprise that much of Paul's appeal lies out of the mainstream of American politics? Paul has marginalized himself. He represents a fringe movement which endears him to those who despise the mainstream.




Errr...and why would you expect the media to pay much attention to a fourth place finish? I know it's the vogue thing for Ron Paul supporters to proclaim loud and long that their man is being shut out by the media, but I would have thought appearances on Meet the Press and in NEWSWEEK, The New York Times and other mainstream publications would have poked a hole in that balloon. Apparently that isn't the case.
The Washington Post has an entire section devoted to links to articles about Paul. Isn't it about time the Paulnatics gave this "The media is overlooking Dr. Paul. Boo-hoo." line a rest?

You can blame a lot of factors to Paul's lack of popularity, but lack of media attention isn't one of them. Ever stop to wonder that maybe it's Ron Paul's positions that turn off a lot of people?

I get it that his supporters like the fact that Paul is a man of convictions who doesn't shape his opinions according to polls, advisers, conventional wisdom or party loyalty. But there's a difference between being ideologically pure and being unable to change your opinion even when it may be the wrong one. We've already gone through eight years of a guy who refuses to change his mind even when the facts are against him. I'm not eager to go down that path again.

At some point the Paulnatics are going to have to surrender to the reality that he is not going to be the Republican nominee for POTUS. He has zero chance of that happening. Ron Paul would be best served to run as an independent and be done with it. That will happen sooner rather than later.

I could be wrong [and nobody can know for sure] but aside from the die-hards, I don't think there are too many people who labor under the belief that Paul will win the Republican nomination. I believe that most supporters believe as I do, that we wish for the party to move to [or back to] true conservative values.
I think most of us are willing to sacrifice 2008 for that long term goal. We are willing to see Democrats take the White House [which I find likely anyway], and willing to see the Republican Party lose membership and take enough of a hit for them to realize that the party has lost it's way.

Paul is by no means the perfect candidate. I wish he had some Goldwater, some Kemp and some Dobbs in his DNA. Some of his ideas are unattainable and unreasonable. But his core message is clear and indisputable: we as a nation have moved away from the constitution, liberty and individual freedom. With the current state of over-regulation, over-taxation and over-sight, we barely have the right to pursue happiness anymore........

It's going to take more than a obstetrician from Texas for the Republican Party to find its soul again, DTOM. Ron Paul is just a first step in what may be a long journey for true conservatives to find a political home. I don't think Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan would recognize today's Republican Party. It's funny that so many of the GOP candidates invoke Reagan's name while they seem totally adverse to following his principals.

I totally understand why people cast their lot with a candidate who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. That's why I voted for John Anderson over Jimmy Carter. I knew Anderson couldn't win, but I couldn't play that "lesser of two evils" game again. It's not as important that Ron Paul wins as it is sometimes to "send 'em a message" that you don't want another "business as usual" candidate pre-selected, programmed and packaged as The Next Big Thing. Willard M. Romney looks like he came out of central casting as a President. He makes Ron Paul look like Deuce Bigalow.

If you want the candidate who looks like the high school championship quarterback, vote for Romney. If you want the candidate who looks like the geek on the chess team, you'll go for Paul.

Problem is Romney is as empty and soulless a candidate as ever come down the pike. The man stands for nothing and believes in nothing. I'm far from being a Paul fan, but at least I know where he stands on the issues and he's not about to tell me what I want to hear to win my support. When Mitt started telling bald-faced lies about his dad and Martin Luther King, that's when he became dead to me.

The Republican Establishment likes pretty boys like Mitt because they can bend them, shape them and mold them into whatever shape happens to be selling that year. The Ron Pauls of the world give them headaches because they can't buy them off and can't shut them up.

Why do third party candidates run? Why does Alan Keyes run every year? First, because this is America and he has every God given right to do so. Second, he has a message, and it appears that more people are paying attention to him than those of you that just want to call him names will give credit to. National polls have him at 4%. Last night he more than doubled that. When Thompson came in third, the media reported that as a surprising finish for him. They didn't expect him to finish so high, but didn't even mention Paul's name. No one will admit that they are surprised that Paul finished in the double digits. No one will admit that Paul getting 10% while Giuliani got 3% is far and above what was expected. No one will talk about Paul.



Wow, he is mentioned in a handful of stories, compared to all of the other candidates. He is excluded from debates, unlike the other candidates. No one is Boo-Hooing anything, just pointing out the fact that because Paul actually wants to bring the Republican party back to it's conservative roots instead of being another Republicrat, the media all but ignores him and his message, even when get came two percentage points behind Thompson and McCain. Not that much of a margin, if you ask me.


Maybe it is those that do take a few seconds out of their show to talk about his positions spin them and try to bash his positions instead of understanding that his positions are the conservative positions, the rest are a bunch of Republicrats. People fear change, and they bash what they fear.


Why are his positions wrong? Who stepped up and became the ruler of that decision? His positions come straight from the Constitution of the United States. I hear a lot of people saying some of the things that Paul has said, but when it comes down to it, they don't have the conviction to stand by their position. People fear change and when they get the chance to change something, they go with what is comfortable. Same candidates, different election.


It makes you feel good inside calling Paul supporters Paul supporters made up names, doesn't it? When are you going to surrender to the fact that there are people that are going to vote their conscious instead of voting for "the guy that will win". I support Paul because he is the only candidate, from either side, that is for limited government, fair and equal taxes, ensuring a sovereign nation, and more power to the states. You don't support him because you think he is a loon for having the positions he does, wanting to change the way the government works. You simply want to ensure our federal government retains the high level of power over our lives as it does, and possibly wants to increase that power. Our Constitution specifically limits those powers, and I simply want it to go back towards what the intent of a Federalist form of government was meant to be. I don't know anyone that beleives that he is going to be the nominee, but those that voted for him or will vote for him are doing this country much more of a favor than those that vote for "the guy that can win". With that mindset, all we are is continuing the same trash politics we have endured for decades. So make your jokes, call people names and vote for the same old tired political hogwash we have seen for the last 50-60 years. Some of us are trying to make a point by voting for who we think will put this country on back in the direction it was founded on. We might be a small voice, but none-the-less, we are a voice, and eventually will be heard. I have no regrets casting a ballot for Ron Paul, it is about time we have a candidate that actually believes in the Constitution and a Federalist form of government.

Can you back that up with a source?



Most people embrace a little change. Not many candidates run on the platform of "No changes when I'm President." (Especially not in 2008.) But some of the changes Paul is suggesting are potentially catastrophic, financially. Study up on the gold standard and national sales taxes. Think about completely abolishing the Department of Education and the EPA, and what might happen if things don't go exactly the way Paul predicts. And after considering all of that, tell your wife and kids that you are willing to gamble that your tight budget - that includes a mortgage and everything else your family needs to survive - will not be adversely affected by a completely different tax structure, or moving the world's largest economy back onto the same gold standard abandoned by every major country that ever tried it.

Like I said before, the guy is a welcome addition to the debate, but if he ever gets close to winning, look out below. He merely represents radical change from the Republican norm, and as such he is appealing to a lot of angry young college types who don't yet have any of the real-life concerns that I mentioned above. Vote for him in the primaries, but if you want to do the Republican party some good in the long run, just make sure the Republicans lose this election (i.e. don't waste your vote a la Nader). DTOM is absolutely correct when he says the party needs a correction, and that will never happen if they manage to get another living manican like Romney elected.

Ok, sorry I used the word 'God' to offend 10% of the nation, but they do have the right to run for president, and if you disagree, back that up.


First, what real changes are any of the republican canddiates running on? I don't see anything different from those candidates than the ones that ran for the 2000 nominiation.

Second, don't try to tell me that a national sales tax wouldn't work, I would like to see your reasons why it wouldn't work. Then we can discuss the issues. I have the Fair Tax Act printed off, I will point you in the right direction to counter the talking points of the pundents that think this will not work, then I will point you in the direction of the research that put this together.

Like anyone that is supporting a candidate, I don't support every position of Paul's. I agree with the philosophy of his positions. I also understand that the president isn't king, and much of what he wants to accomplish would not get done, just like every other candidate. You and the other's here at that oppose Paul because of specific positions are assuming that he is going to get all of the things he wants done as if he were going to be king or something. Do you honestly think that all of the changes that your horse is wanting will get done? Do you honestly support each and every position of your candidate to the letter? I support Pauls positions on many topics to include immigration, taxes, size and scope of government. I also agree that the Department of Education is nothing more than a money pit. Those departments, programs and offices that he has proposed to eliminate from the Federal Government won't just go away, they will become the responsibility of the States, as the Constitution intended. Same goes for the other programs. Now to get rid of the FBI is not one thing that I support, but it is close to my position on the federal law enforcement issue. We have at least 5 different federal law enforcement agencies. That is five different bureaucracies that don't communicate or work well together. I would rather see only one law enforcement agency working together. All that has to happen is to eliminate the upper echelon bureaucrats and bring the rest of the agencies together under one uniform. But that is just my opinion.

I am in full agreement with you there. The mainstream Republicans don't want to change a thing, and hopefully, that will keep them from getting elected. They aren't even seriously talking about fiscal responsibility, which used to be their whole game plan. The best realistic change we can hope for is a health care plan that would cover the 43 million uninsured, and that would come from a Democrat.



A national sales tax might work, in that it could certainly be designed to raise the same amount of revenue we operate on now. I've read all about it already. But, like a flat tax, sales taxes are, by their very nature, regressive, and they cannot be completely fixed to be progressive (what most people consider "fair") without adding a bunch of rebates and gimmicks, the very complications that make people so upset with our present tax code.

If you want to talk about the National Sales Tax in detail, I'm sure that would make for a busy thread. To me, progressive taxation is simply a math problem more easily solved by the tax system we have now (but greatly slimmed down).



Yes, it is only your opinion, along with Paul, Scalia, and a handful of others, that the Constitution was intended to be interpreted that way. That's fine to hold that theory, but any government built on that thinking would be radically different than what you are used to, and the transition would not be smooth. So you have to know when to walk away from those ideas. I'm sure that you would like to see Paul actually get the Republican nomination, right? Would you go that far? And if he did, you'd probably vote for him, right? Especially if Hillary was running against him? Of course you would. Crazier things have happened (like in 2000 and 2004, if you ask me). A president comes into office with a fair amount of momentum behind him, obviously. I imagine that he would be able to put one of his (crazy) plans into action on election momentum alone, and that's too much for me. Like I said, many us out there are delicately balanced financially, and Paul's kind of change could put a lot of people right out of their homes. Radical tax reform will not fall evenly upon the nation - some will win, and some will lose. Paul is both a Republican and a bootstrapper who has demonstrated zero concern for the poor, so I'm guessing that, once again, the rich will come out way ahead.

Again, he is running to get his message out to an American public that is woefully ignorant of libertarianism.

Please. It's no more elitist than the Obama camp running on the undefined word 'change' as if they are the only ones capable of bringing it; nor is it any more elitist than the Clinton camp running on experience as if she is the only one with it; nor is it any more elitist than the Giuliani camp running a campaign of fear, as if he is the only one that will make us safe. Every campaign has a certain degree of elitism to it, Nighttimer, in order to believe that your candidate should run the United States of America, you have to believe he/she is the best person for the job.

It is not very surprising. There are two aspects of it that are surprising. The first is that every year, but this year in particular, Americans lie to themselves and claim that they are sick of politics as usual, thus indicating that an 'anti-politician' is exactly what they want...Problem is they never actually elect these people and therefore get more of the same, which they promptly complain about...Rinse and repeat. Second, it is strange that the ideology that was the basis for the foundation of this country [classical liberalism or libertarianism] is outside the 'mainstream'. That is very telling and might just have something to do with so many of our problems.

CP

Ron Paul is the only candidate who represents the idea that government should be limited, as intented in the constitution. All the rest represent variations of the idea that government needs to be centralized and not so limited.

I wish we had a plethora of candidates with Ron Paul's philosophy. I do not agree with all issues but he has the main one correct. It would be a waste of my vote to support any other candidate in the primaries as all the rest do not see the role of government the same as I do.

The name calling of 'loon' or 'nuts' or 'not realistic' is just that. Name calling. It is not good debate.

The media presentation of the presidential race is 95% peer pressure. To paraphrase: "Everyone else is supporting just these 2 or 3 people so you should too." It is endless. Little is said about issues. Equal time to all candidates is unheard of. Why does the media think their job is to get everyone on the same bandwagon? Why do voters support media which is doing so?

It is possible that fascism is affecting information voters are getting. The big money special interest do not want the message out that the way we are running this country is against the best interest of most people. So, media purposely limits how much exposure is given to people against the current structure.

Ron Paul is a challenge to the status quo. There is no way to gradually change how each voter thinks government should operate. You have to decide to go with the flow of big money or you have to decide you think individuals, no matter what their financial status or political status, are equal. If you like the status quo, if you like change as long as it is not really change, you have to go with who the media is supporting.

If you want freedom but not too much freedom, go with the status quo. If you want government making the tough decisions in your own life for you, go with the status quo. If you want the United States to have its own bit of royalty in the form of corporate fat cats, go with the status quo. If you want us governing the world, go with the status quo. If you want to stick your morality onto others, go with the status quo. If you really just can not be bothered to pay attention, go with the status quo. If all you know is your religion and do not understand the issues, go with the status quo.

At this point in time, what is left is about 10% of the voters. With time and education and new generations, I have hope that more voters will see that the current governance is not ideal and potentially not sustainable. Currently, so many people think the system is working for them. They are the owned by big business, big government, and their own self interest.

Ok, if you come and bring specific points of the Fair Tax Act that substantiate your claims of regression and the rich benefitting more than the poor, I will open a Fair Tax Act thread. I haven't done so yet simply because I assumed it had been done before and hashed out at . It appears that it hasn't and if it had, it is time to revisit the issue. I would love to discuss the Fair Tax Act with anyone here.


Can I get an Amen!

I think the ONLY reason Ron Paul "can't win" is because of two reasons-

1) A corporate effort to keep him out of the debates- I do think we need to start removing licenses from folks like Fox over this- they should have no right to determine who is in a debate- at all. I believe the MSM has too much leeway in these decisions, especially since they are using a publically owned entity, a finite resource- the airways.

2) Defeatism, pure and simple. many who believes in his ideals say "he can't win"- it is known as a self fulfilling prophecy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports NH primary poll:

McCain 31%
Romney 26%
Ron Paul 14%
Huckabee 11%
Giuliani 8%
Thompson 5%

Are we seeing a late surge? The real question of NH in regards to Ron Paul is where the Independents and young people go? Will the Independents come out for him or McCain? Will the young people come out for him or Obama? Fourteen percent among likely Republican voters leaves me optimistic about his chances.

If Ron Paul stays in third, or even bests the others in NH- look for a surge on the Ron Paul bandwagon from then on- I have not been the one to keep saying "no hope" - there are enough dissaffected republicans out there to make this happen, and if they see him get this kind of mo- he could very well pull off the whole nomination- remember, there is no real criticism of him except "he can't win"- when that caveat is removed, he is VERY electable.

Ron Paul seems to appeal more to people who have a rather theoretical pureness as opposed to pragmatism. He will not be president of the United States, but may take on the trappings of a cult hero.

He has raised a lot of money, but so did Howard Dean in 2004, who seems to fit the same mold.

I hear you my older ( and perhaps wiser) brutha- however, he does have a very pragmatic streak as well, obviously. He has nuance, and is not guided by idealism alone- he has tested this in his career as a politician, and an officer in the military. He knows the system as well or better than you or I- he has had over a decade to live this reality. He has been able to compromise when neccesary, without compromising his core beliefs.

He is only getting this status of "cult hero" or "not electibility" or "fringe politician" simply because the MSM has deemed it so. Aren't you a bit tired of the MSM deciding who the "front runners" will be? Who died and made them the arbiter of democracy?

It is the waning power of the MSM vs the mass communication of the internet, and it is the free flow of information that is challenging the "kingmakers" of the last many years that has determined our leaders by proxy, and quite frankly, the MSM sucks at picking leaders, obviously.

It will only take one state- NH, to really blow away the power of the MSM to determine our leaders, and return the power back to the poeple, and the MSM will have to cede thier power back to the poeple, that can then determine for themselves who the "best candidate" is and who is "electable"

We have been voted for who we 'hated the least" vs "who is the best" for some time. It has not been in my lifetime that we have had a president I could even RESPECT, much less feel clean about pulling the lever for him/her.

One thing I vowed after the GW fiasco, was to never think I was "throwing my vote away" by voting for the BEST candidate, vs voting for the one I hated the least, as deemed by the mainstream media and thier minions.

Paul's sucess will be determined by his ability to persevere. Ron Paul is the only candidate that can continue down the campaign trail without a victory. His money is coming from the people. The other candidates are being invested in. If those investors do not see a return, they will stop investing in their candidate.

Paul's candidacy is a crescendo, a receding tide before a tsunami. Thompson will realize he doesn't really want to be in the race and he'll disappear. Huckabee will run out of Jesus juice. Giuliani's gamble that the Jew-lianis are going to save him in Florida will backfire. The race is going to get very interesting in the coming month and I cannot wait.

The best thing that could happen for Paul is a resounding victory for Romney and Obama. If Romney solidifies himself in the top spot for the Republican nomination, Paul will take his feet out from under him.

Don't you think there are a few Ralph Nader voters out there who regret not backing Gore? Especially knowing now that they would certainly have tipped the balance away from Bush?

It is this type of voting that I think will continue the business as usual type of candidates that we have seen over the past several decades. I haven't seen much of a difference in the leading candidates, have you? If people like Nader, Perot, and Paul got more support, they may not get nominated or elected, but as these people get more support, the other candidates are forced to take a look at the positions of those other candidates. If they are getting support, that means some of the nation's voters are saying that their positions are valid.

At my caucus, we ran out of registration forms. Those that were filling them out fell into three categories. First, they could have been registering for the first time. Second, they could have been new to the district and needed to register. Third, they were changing parties enabling them to caucus as a republican. I bring this up because Paul got 16% of the vote in my precinct. Though I can't back it up, I have to believe that many of those that were filling out the registration form, did so to cast a ballot for Paul. Why, because they believe in what he stands for. If Paul ends up in the double digits again in New Hampshire, the other candidates might have to take a look as to why he continues to get the support he does, and maybe even adopt some of the philosophy of his platform.

By not voting for who you think is the best candidate and voting for the lesser of two evils among the leading candidates, you don't force this to happen and we will continue to get the same talking heads we have gotten for as long as I can remember.

I don't regret it one bit, instead, I turn it around- those that held thier nose and voted Gore are to blame for GWs tenure in office (and of course, the obvious rigged election results in 2000 ) - I don't think voting for the candidate that galvinizes you into voting is wrong, EVER. I think this was highlighted even more in the 2004 election- holding the nose and voting gave GW a victory then.

It is time to stop doing that, and also, becoming more informed as voters, would, you know, help a bit. Should have seen this dyed in the wool right winger watching the debate last night. She had all these republican talking points DOWN. But she didn't know Guiliani was Republican, and could only pick McCain visually out of the line up. Interesting, she knew she didn't like Romney though. I found that very interesting, considering her total ignorance about the candidates.

That all sounds good in theory, but the sad reality is that sometimes those 3rd party guys take away votes from the better candidate, allowing an unmitigated disaster like Bush to get elected. Looking back on 2000, I can't imagine that most people wouldn't rate the candidates: Gore first, Nader a distant second, and Bush a very distant third. Nader ran for the Green Party, while Gore won a Nobel for his environmental efforts - I'll bet the Greens would like that vote to do over. Gore might have looked like the same old thing back then, but he would have been a good president.

It really hasn't been decades - I remember when Reagan and Bush 1 were elected, and it wasn't so much about the party then. I blame Gingrich and DeLay and that crowd for building the machine and making things insanely partisan. Limbaugh hasn't helped things. Clinton was a good president by most standards, but the level of partisan hatred went up exponentially during his terms, and that didn't come from the voters.

But for now, it's a standoff - there are still a bunch of voters (and even AD is frighteningly full of them) who wouldn't vote for a Democrat no matter how qualified he or she happened to be. That partisan crap is still everywhere, and it's way stronger on the Republican side. Watch and see - some goof like Romney is going to get about 48% of the vote in this country, no matter what. When those die-hard Republicans stand down, I'll stand down. Until that time, it's just not safe for a Democrat to vote for a third option like Paul.

I know all of this may sound like the same kind of partisanship I am decrying, but it's not. I don't mind the old-fashioned Republicans. I'd vote for one if he was the better choice - but not in 2008. As I have said before, if another Republican manages to get elected in 2008, that party will never change its way of doing business.

This is my point exactly. Who determins the "better candidate"? If I think Paul is the better candidate, don't you think that my vote for him is a vote for the better candidate, or do I have to get approval from someone that a certain candidate is better than another?

Again, you are the determining factor in who would have been a better president? Seriously, you make claims of opinion as if they are fact. You don't know how Gore would have handled the various events that came up. We can ask him for his Monday morning quarterbacking answer as to what he would have done, but put someone in the shoes of someone needing to make decisions without the pleasure of the 20/20 hindsight, and the answers might be much different.


NO! You blame republicans for something!?!? Say it isn't true! Who would have thought that you would blame republicans for todays ills?


First, I doubt you would fall into the category that you describe, right? You then go on to say that it is stronger on the republican side. Really? You can prove this? I would like to see that. You claim that the problem is the partisan hatred, but have you actually gone back and read what you write? You claim that it is all the republicans fault, that if those damned republicans would just back down and follow everything you think is right, that all the world would be at peace.

I will come to your defense here scubatim. An honest vote cast for a candidate is always a valid expression.

Being from Iowa, it is probable that you have already