The New Goldwater?

As the GOP presidential field churns, Ron Paul remains Ron Paul.

The Republican presidential field is shifting, with one (reasonably) expected frontrunner, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and one (unreasonably hyped) frontrunner, reality TV star Donald Trump, both dropping out of the prospective race to bash their heads against President Barack Obama in 2012.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich—coming in at number three in a recent Gallup poll, though largely on name recognition—has managed to start and flameout spectacularly in one week. Said flameout doesn’t mean that the former chief of the Republicans' grand 1994 moment of triumph won’t have juice when the votes actually get cast—though we still must presume he can fund a realistic campaign machine between now and then.

The fundraising record of what The Wall Street Journal calls “Newt Inc.”—a set of political advocacy and consulting organizations Gingrich runs—“has amassed more than 1.7 million voter and donor contacts and raised $32 million between 2009 and 2010." As the Journal notes, that makes a Gingrich machine "seem quite possible.” At least it did a week ago. Huffington Post is now reporting that significant GOP players and financiers are abandoning Newt like he’s an ill first wife.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, despite his vulnerability on the GOP-important issue of bashing ObamaCare, is fundraising and polling like he's the frontrunner, in the grand GOP tradition of “it seems to be his turn.” Frontrunners from the last election Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani should be consulted on whether long-term moving plans are prudent based on media-anointed frontrunner status this many months before voting starts.

And while media-driven candidates such as Jon Huntsman (former ambassador to China and governor of Utah) are still bubbling up (and I’m not sure why even those poor bored bastards in the election horserace press who have to gin up something new to be excited about daily care about this fanless unknown), Republicans are said to be dreaming of someone, anyone else.

Yet an objectively real, experienced, close-second-tier candidate like Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul (campaigning in Nevada this week) is getting less attention from the media and party bigwigs than almost any of the above. And this is despite strong showings in various polls (including being the closest of any of the GOP field to beating Obama), and name recognition above 50 percent this early, even while lots of the media still flat-out pretends that he doesn’t exist. That disrespect for candidate Paul is hard to explain given that he has the most consistent set of beliefs and policies that actually could turn America in the direction ostensibly desired by Republican Party voters: smaller government, less spending, less taxes.

Even writers who seem to be crying out for a candidate who is Ron Paul in nearly every important belief manage to not endorse the actual Ron Paul. While Romney pretends you can right America’s debt problems without hitting the military, Paul understands why that is ridiculous. While both Romney and Gingrich are vulnerable on ObamaCare, Paul says, “As President, not only would I issue waivers from 'Obamacare' for all states, but I would issue mandate waivers for all individuals by instructing the IRS not to assess the penalties for non-compliance with the mandate law.”

Still, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is treated as the serious small-government candidate. Daniels may like libertarian books, but he isn’t too solid on libertarian principles about the proper limits of government power on issues such as the drug war. And the Cato Institute, in its grading of the governors’ tax and spend policies, has never given Daniels better than a B, and once gave him a D.

What candidate Daniels does have for the politicos to swoon over is that he is an experienced policy designer, and undoubtedly has more sophisticated-seeming and detailed answers to policy problems than any of the other candidates. Ron Paul, in contrast, is no wonk, no crafter of elaborate policy solutions. He’s more likely to undercut the assumptions underlying the idea that there should even be a government policy to address any perceived problem. While critiquing Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisc.) popular budget plan for not going far enough, Paul told me last month he doesn’t anticipate issuing his own detailed budget plan. He wants to stress the big picture of what government should or should not be doing. Paul thinks that only a radical readjustment of government’s mission back to its original constitutional limits can halt the damaging cycle of debt and currency inflation.

Paul has perception problems, to be sure, even beyond the received wisdom that of course he can’t win the nomination. Certain loudmouth traditionalist right-wing voices can’t stand his bold defense of drug freedom as analogous to religious freedom; certain loudmouth traditionalist voices on the progressive left can’t stand how much more progressive this libertarian constitutionalist can sound than they ever do. Paul loudly supports such hippie (or crunchy conservative—remember them?) causes as raw milk legalization, and while remaining the most radical voice for budget cuts he will still tell MSNBC that going after aid to the poor shouldn’t be the budget cutter’s highest priority.

Does this mean Paul is a hopeless cause? A candidate widely reviled as insanely extreme in the cause of shrinking government has risen to lead the Republican Party before—remember Barry Goldwater? Goldwater’s progress from 1960 to 1964, when he won the nomination, lost the election, and still defined the shape of his party for decades down the line, should deliver both hope and despair to Ron Paul's fan.

Reading about Goldwater’s status and fans during that era brings to mind Paul’s situation far more than it does that of any other candidate today. Life magazine wrote in 1963 of “Goldwater zealots” who “lauded their man as Meccans must have lauded Mohammed,” emulating many comments I’ve heard about the near-religious dedication of Paul’s fans. And the position of the Goldwater movement before he won the nomination in the minds of the “serious” was no stronger than Ron Paul’s is now. As political scientist Matthew Dallek rightly summed up in a review of Mary C. Brennan’s 1995 book Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP:

In the late 1950s and early 1960s conservatives were widely dismissed as "kooks" and "crackpots" with no hope of winning political power.

Journalists were equally contemptuous. In 1962 a writer in the The Nation suggested that conservatives were more interested in thinking up "frivolous and simple-minded" slogans than in developing intelligent proposals to meet the complexities of post-Second World War America. The Washington Post described members of one conservative group as people who liked to "complain about the twentieth century."...

Expressing the sense of rebellion that Goldwater's book helped inspire, one student conservative explained the phenomenon: "You walk around with your Goldwater button, and you feel that thrill of treason."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Contemplationist||

    RP is great. However, the principles always need to be supplemented with actual history and facts when campaigning or talking to lay people. Simply asserting foreign non-intervention may have been popular in 1928 but it's weird in 2011, therefore RP needs to talk more facts of history and less principle on this front.

  • ||

    Talk about true stories that illustrate your principles. Simply stating the principles doesn't persuade.

  • yonemoto||

    Great. So if he's a new goldwater, then we will have a new reagan in 10 years? Pardon me if I'm not holding my breath for the libertopian renaissance.

  • Old Man With Candy||

    Or a new Nixon in 4 years. Jesus.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    1980 - 1964 = 16 years.

  • ||

    Ron Paul (and Rand, too) are great spokesmen for liberty until they open their mouths: sort of the Joe Bidens of the libertarian movement.

    Either or both ought to consider becoming Gary Johnson's running mate.

  • Matt Squelch||

    I'd support that.

  • affenkopf||

    Either or both ought to consider becoming Gary Johnson's running mate.

    Paul has much better poll numbers than Johnson. Johnson should become Paul's running mate.

  • ||

    They should kill each other with swords. Only that would make all libertarians happy.

  • ||

    While I actually like all three of them, a sword duel to the death would be pretty fucking metal.

  • ||

    Here's why libertarians would be happy: The libertarian-splitting opponents to their favorite libertarian will be eliminated, and, whatever pain they suffer from their candidate also being eliminated will be offset by the coolness of the epic sword battle.

  • ||

    Also, if your favored candidate lost the battle, the parting would only be temporary as you would see him again in Valhalla.

  • ||

    Little known fact: All libertarians are Vikings. What's odd is that most libertarians aren't aware of this common thread or why they secretly want to rape and pillage others.

  • ||

    or why they secretly want to rape and pillage others.

    Or move to Greenland...

  • mgd||

    or why they secretly want to rape and pillage others.

    Or move to Greenland...

    Or eat lutefisk...

  • Joe M||

    My favorite football team is the Vikings. Now I know why.

  • ||

    Nobody's more free than Vikings.

  • ||

    Inventors of the first parliamentary system.

  • ||

    If I'm a Packers fan, does that mean I'm not libertarian enough?

  • ||

    What's odd is that most libertarians aren't aware of this common thread or why they secretly want to rape and pillage others.

    Secretly?

  • CE||

    I just want to get in a square-sailed boat, cross the Arctic Ocean, discover a frozen wasteland, and market it to people as a vacation destination.

  • ||

    as PJ Orourke aptly points out in Eat the Rich, the Vikings - while badasses, were also collectivists.

    Cue his Sven rape joke

  • mad libertarian guy||

    No. I'm Anglo-Saxon. All I want is to AVOID being raped ad pillaged by the marauders in DC.

  • ||

    The guy who turned me on to libertarian thought in college was a physically massive viking.

    I'm guessing the viking-libertarian connection has to do with the caricature of vikings as the noble savage, which seems so much freer than our restrained and anal retentive modern civilization.

  • ||

    Or we're all genetically Vikings.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I would refute that, but I can't. All the libertrians I know are Northern European white guys.

    Though John Stossel is Jewish, so presumable not that much Viking ancestry (not being racist, just noting a fact).

  • Joe M||

    Don't bother trying to deny your racism. It won't work here.

  • Auntie Semitic||

    Though John Stossel is Jewish,...

    Say it isn't so!

  • ||

    Actually, I wouldn't assume anything like that. The Vikings raped in the UK, they raped in France, they raped in Scandinavia, they raped in Spain, they raped in Russia. . .pretty much, they raped everywhere. I'm sure during their raping travels they managed to rape a good number of Jews.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I thought about this, too. Stupid Vikings messing with the gene pool--makes my brain hurt.

  • affenkopf||

    Some of the greatest libertarians are/were Jewish: Mises/Rothbard/Friedman/etc.

  • The Dauphin||

    You bastard Normans, Norman bastards!

  • Thorbie||

    I disagree regarding Rand Paul. I'll admit I'm not a big Ron Paul fan, but Rand Paul is simply terrific. Gary's got my support this race, but he could seriously use a huge boost in charisma. I think Rand Paul is actually the most articulate promoter of liberty in politics right now. He went on Letterman and completely held his own regarding policy and humor, arguably outshining Letterman himself. I'd love to see a Gary Johnson/Rand Paul ticket.

    Either way, I see Rand Paul as a serious presidential candidate in 2016 or later.

  • Sniktpool||

    To be fair, Letterman is no intellectual heavyweight. OTOH, all the better to make Rand look better.

  • ||

    Screw Letterman - it's the TV audience that's important.

  • Mike E||

    I would be happy if the only reason Obama got reelected was because of Ron Paul getting nominated.

  • ||

    If Ron Paul gets nominated he will win the election.

    Of course if a 30 day old bologna sandwich get the nomination it will win the election.

  • Mike E||

    The media would destroy him if he got the nomination. It would be like seeing Max on the TV 24/7.

    I voted for Paul in the last round of primaries and will again (no other reason I would be a registered Republican). I think he will do even better this time around, but he can't be president.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The media would destroy him if he got the nomination. It would be like seeing Max on the TV 24/7.

    Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner. The media shat on alleged war hero John McCain in favor of the boy wonder. Imagine what they would do to Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    WWAYSISD!!!!!!!!!

    And he wants to kill the poor and puppies!

    Is that about as detailed as it would get?

  • ||

    Imagine what they would do to Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

    They would do the same thing they did to Rand Paul....and just like that election it will not work.

    You guys are putting way to much faith in "teh MEDIA!!!!" and not enough insight into how a shitty economy effects elections.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I want some 1s in there.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    You guys are putting way to much faith in "teh MEDIA!!!!" and not enough insight into how a shitty economy effects elections.

    The Old Guard is weakened, but not yet destroyed. And given that FNC and MSNBC can come together for nothing else but to attack RP, if he were to get the nomination, they would launch the corporate media equivalent of a blitzkrieg on him. And enough people still take their marching orders from ABC, CBS and NBC, along with the stepsisters (FOX, CNN, MSNBC) that Paul would probably have trouble getting his message out and treated fairly.

  • Nutjob Stoner||

    Um, no. I'm just putting too much stock in the fact that a) RP is simply unable to articulate anything that sounds like a rational foreign policy in today's world, and b) RP doesn't know how to use rhetoric in general.

    The media won't need to try and kill Ron Paul. He can shoot his own legs out from under himself just fine, thank you.

    Ron Paul is not Rand Paul. Rand, with a little more seasoning, has far greater odds of making it to the White House.

  • The Hamilton||

    "...but he can't be president."

    Why?

  • ||

    Sure, the media would viciously attack him. However, this would also mean that for a few months Paul's ideas and views would be the focus of national conversation.

  • Realist||

    Not!

  • ||

    Aren't you the same guy who got us into a war with Libya?

    Ron Paul is just as weird as Ross Perot and if he gots the nomination then he gots the independents just as Perot did and he gots the republican vote because who the fuck else are they going to vote for.

    If Paul gets the nomination he wins by a landslide.

    It is only a squishy moderate republican that can lose against Obama.

    In 2012 it is the radical outsider with independent street cred that has the advantage.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    It'd be nice if I could share your optimism. Unfortunately, I think people will cling to disproven ideologies, without any regard for facts.

  • ||

    Again I point to the 2010 election and the huge change not only in the house but in state capitals across the county.

    There may be a possibility that by 2012 the voting public may experience "change" fatigue or perhaps the economy will improve and everyone grows complicit but that is not the same thing as clinging to disproven ideologies.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I'm willing to stretch the definition of ideology a good deal here.

  • ||

    Disaffected liberals would vote en masse for Paul. No other GOP candidate registering in the polls can achieve that.

  • JoshINHB||

    In 2012 it is the radical outsider with independent street cred that has the advantage.

    President Sarah Palin will prove it.

  • JoshINHB||

    In 2012 it is the radical outsider with independent street cred that has the advantage.

    President Sarah Palin will prove it.

  • CE||

    Of course if a 30 day old bologna sandwich get the nomination it will win the election.

    Really? Wouldn't it be a several-months-old bologna sandwich by then?

  • Sudden||

    RP may be the next Goldwater.

    But who is going to be the true American hero, the American version of Mohamed Farrah Aidid?

  • SIV||

    lol

  • ||

    Google Ron Paul Flix

  • Spencer||

    Ron Paul or GJ, I'm cool with either.

  • Platypus||

    *summons Max*

  • Matt Squelch||

    It's not very effective...

  • Max||

    Hey Ron Paul! The jerkstore called and said they're running out of you!

  • Ska||

    That's alright Max, you're the best selling model!!

    Who could resist that?!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Ideas aside, Ron Paul has the charisma and gravitas of a John McCain, which is unfortunate. But if McCain could win the nomination, the mood of the Republican primary voter might be right for Paul to win it (even though it's not his turn).

    Middle of the road voters are going to be looking for a reason to vote against Obama in next year's general election. (I think) I wish Paul could be that reason, but I doubt it. On that stage they don't look at your policies, just your promises.

  • ||

    McCain's also pretty likable. And funny (his SNL stuff is really good).

    Ron Paul was pretty good in Borat though.

  • ||

    Recruit Mark Cuban - the LP needs an image makeover.

  • ||

    Mark Cuban of the Crony Capitalist school? I guess he wouldn't be any worse than Root.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Slightly off topic, but Gary Johnson should do a work-out video. It would boost his public awareness and to some extent his popularity. It also shows an alternative to ObamaCare: personal responsibility.

  • ||

    What's interesting is going to conservative sites and contrasting RP with others such as Palin, West, Bachmann, Cain and seeing the responses. I note RP's fidelity to the US constitution and show where others have violated it and people go loony. I had one guy call me a communist troll! Wowzers.

    The problem is there is a certain narrative within which conservatives or moderate(?) republicans are limited, which in addition to their passed on misconstructions of such things as the CINC being able to direct the military whither he pleases make it difficult for them to understand they really aren't the constitutional faithful they claim to be. Then try explaining something a little more complex like the FED, and they retreat to a safe world of simple slogans, like "limited government and capitalism", nice vague things those are.

  • E. A. Blair||

    Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously [the lie and the truth], and accepting both of them [Insanity]... with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth... Those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is; in general the greater the understanding the greater the delusion; the more intelligent the less sane... If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality... If human equality is to be forever averted; if the "high," as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently; then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity.

  • Max||

    Give me a break. Goldwater wasn't a comspiracy wingnut with a history of publishing racist diatribes. Is Ron Paul a hopless cause? Yes, you fucking idiot. Only a libertoid asshole who has lost touch with reality could belive otherwise.

  • ||

    Goldwater wasn't a comspiracy wingnut

    ummm perhaps you should look into how he thought the government was hiding space aliens from the public.

  • CE||

    ...perhaps you should look into how he thought the government was hiding space aliens from the public.

    And you think they're not?

  • ||

    space aliens were responsible for giving us authoritarian dog shooting thugs the Taser!

  • From an earlier thread||

    PIRS|5.18.11 @ 3:31PM|#
    Max,

    We all know your life would be empty and meaningless without Reason's Hit & Run. This is why you keep comming [or given the content of your last post perhaps I should say cumming] back here even though you claim to hate it. Perhaps you are a masochist and are into BDSM?

    reply to this
    Max|5.18.11 @ 3:39PM|#
    Fuck that! I'm done posting here you libertardian losers.

  • yonemoto||

    He opposed the CRA of 1964, therefore that jew must have been racist.

  • Max||

    I'm done posting here!

  • Max||

    Stop spoofing me!

  • From an earlier thread||

    PIRS|5.18.11 @ 3:31PM|#
    Max,

    We all know your life would be empty and meaningless without Reason's Hit & Run. This is why you keep comming [or given the content of your last post perhaps I should say cumming] back here even though you claim to hate it. Perhaps you are a masochist and are into BDSM?

    reply to this
    Max|5.18.11 @ 3:39PM|#
    Fuck that! I'm done posting here you libertardian losers.

  • ||

    As far as internet denizens go, people who post "I'm leaving the community" posts or threads are about 2 rungs above youtube commenters.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Just two?

  • ||

    You think placing Max 2 rungs above youtube commenter is too harsh? I bet in a double blind sample Max comments versus the average youtube honda shit talker/fanboy would be indistinguishable.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Intended as a criticism of Youtubers, not support of Max. I follow neither.

  • Max||

    No you!

  • Max has made his last post||

    Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

    Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

  • ||

    And there was much rejoicing.....Yaaaaaaaayyy

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Except that fucker keeps coming back!

  • ||

    Was it Jacob or Doherty who was telling us that Rand Paul winning his senate seat was the worse thing for libertarians since Pinochete?

  • ||

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/11.....doherty-on

    Yup it was Brian.

    Why are you so down on libertarians actually winning elections Brian?

    Is it one of those "I was into Nirvana when their bleach album came out...before it was cool." things?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Hipster libertarians: now I'm scared.

  • Sacre Bleu!||

    Why do you people not see the benefits of government? Previously, JOHN came back with:
    And if you mean to imply that Mamet needs a "state" of some size that does things like enforces laws and ensures domestic stability, then you are saying nothing since no one here is an anarchist.

    I'm not saying there weren't successful & talented playwrights before what we'd consider the modern welfare state arrived on the scene. But the kind of audience Mamet's plays attract tends to be educated, fairly well-off and with the leisure time to enjoy a play like Glengarry Glen Ross. In other words, the middle & upper classes. These classes were present long before the 20th century, but in very small numbers. Their ranks swelled as the foundations of the welfare state were laid down.

    This audience was educated thanks to public schools, museums, galleries & libraries. They were well-off and had time to enjoy the arts because the infrastructure provided by government (legal system, labour laws, public health, streets, transit, water systems) provided them with the opportunity to succeed if they work for it and the leisure time to do what they wanted. And then there's the direct government support for the arts, which not only helps artists directly (through grants) but also helps to build & maintain an audience for their work.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    The slightly more articulate Hercule Triathalon Savinien.

    You seriously need to look into what libertarians think about: just about everything. And some history.

  • Sacre Bleu!||

    Libertarians rail against the state while failing to notice the above mentioned benefits derived therefrom

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    We notice the benefits. We also notice the consequences, and how those benefits could come without those consequences if supplied privately.

  • ||

    Education and other things run by the state could be done much, much better. That's not even a controversial opinion. Since government can't do it even remotely well, why not the private sector?

  • Sacre Bleu!||

    In your country, maybe. There are many other countries in which the public education system is excellent.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    And no countries without a public education system. So nothing to compare them too. Maybe the system of which you speak will appear that they belong in a toilet compared to fully private systems. A reasonable person would advocate a full, unhampered trial to see.

  • Sacre Bleu!||

    before public education only the well off could afford to go to school, not only for financial reasons but also because they were needed at home. this is still the case in many developing nations.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    That was the case because there was a large amount of residual poverty from even less free systems, and because the market was not open. And no one thought of it, really.

    With the door thrown open, the potential exists for very high quality private education...for everyone. If affordability is an issue, the government could give each student $X each year, and they have to find the school for themselves (by which I mean the parents).

  • ||

    That's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Education improved for a larger number of people as economic conditions changed. Didn't need lots of formal education to work a farm.

    Also, of course, the need for education increased in large part because of the increasing need for educated people in the sciences and in technology.

    Try as some might, there's no escaping market forces.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    "Try as some might, there's no escaping market forces."

    Why would you want to?

  • ||

    No idea, but some do.

  • Sacre Bleu!||

    There all ready is an unhampered trial ongoing - it's called the private school system. From pre-K to 12 and on to university you can participate all you want. As long as you can pay for it of course.

  • ||

    But you pay for public shool whether you use it or not.

  • Sacre Bleu!||

    and private schools cost upwards of $13k a year. some of them are religious!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Spoof? You decide.

    Addressing the issue though: if private schools had to compete for your money, then they might lower prices as an incentive. In addition, the prices would be more affordable with an overall lower tax burden (due to large discressionary(probably misspelled), entitlement, and defense cuts).

  • 0x90||

    Say that all operating systems but one (pick whichever one you like the least) were federally banned from being used in any public school.

    Would you call that an 'unhampered trial' of the software in question?

  • Sacre Bleu!||

    the cirriculum standards would be laughable if they weren't enforced by a government agency.

  • Chupacabra||

    The public school curriculum is far more laughable.

  • ||

    The American middle class formed well before it had any sort of government sponsored safety net and long before there were labor laws.

    also literacy rates comparable to ours were achieved decades before there ever was a department of education.

    You are making a bland point that we need government to keep us from killing each other and from keeping invaders out. So what?

  • Realist||

    Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee.

  • Realist, one year ago||

    Arab dictators will not abdicate just because a few young people get together on Twitter and protest in the streets.

  • Realist, two years ago||

    The republican party is dead.

  • Realist, one day from now||

    Thank Satan, the world is ending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • ChrisO||

    Goldwater's '64 campaign was so influential, that it led to...Richard Nixon, who did exactly the opposite of almost everything Goldwater espoused.

    Even if you credit Goldwater with creating the movement that ultimately elected Reagan a generation later, the reality is that Ron Paul is much further from the centerpoint of the GOP than Goldwater was. There will have to be much more intra-party bloodletting for Paul to assume control than there was in '64. And I just don't see that happening prior to a complete fiscal collapse.

  • ||

    So, it could happen before the next election...

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I don't know whether to hope for or against that...

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It depends on how much god and silver you have in your portfolio.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    You can invest in God? Cool.

  • George V||

    "Goldwater's '64 campaign was so influential, that it led to...Richard Nixon"

    Actually it was LBJ (and perhaps, Sirhan Sirhan) that lef to Richard Nixon.

  • ||

    Talk about owing a debt of gratitude.

  • George V||

    Who knows? It led to Carter.

  • KPres||

    That disrespect for candidate Paul is hard to explain given that he has the most consistent set of beliefs and policies that actually could turn America in the direction ostensibly desired by Republican Party voters: smaller government, less spending, less taxes.

    Hard to explain? Ummm, I'm pretty sure you just explained it. Socialist media buries the only real threat to the monopoly of state control. What's to explain?

  • ||

    Socialist media buries the only real threat to the monopoly of state control. What's to explain?

    No Rush is completely silent on Ron Paul and there is one single reason: Ron Paul is against the Bush wars.

    It is not just the left wing media that is ignoring him. The warmonger right is as well.

  • CE||

    The media haven't really ignored him. They just try to convince people he's kooky and has no chance to win, while glossing over the fact that he has the best record of any candidate on the biggest issue in the election.

  • Tony||

    Blaming the media is the last refuge of the pathetic. RP is a kook. Listen to what he says.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Where's barfman when you need him?

  • stephendedalus82||

    Barf.

  • ||

    But you pay for public shool whether you use it or not.

  • sevo||

    Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#
    "Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post."

    How can we miss him if he won't go away?

  • El Duderino||

    And what does he think announcing his departure will mean to anyone here? Only losers quit. He couldn't stand the heat so he left the kitchen.

  • squishua||

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who has inspired me to register to vote for him - and I haven't cared enough to vote since 1992 (Clinton). The only bad thing is I'll have to register as a republican.

  • El Duderino||

    The press only give coverage to the republican candidate they think has the most potential to self immolate on the campaign trail. Ron Paul, while unconventional to many in the press is also too stable.

  • Nutjob Stoner||

    No, I'm afraid not. Wait until Ron Paul gets his first chance to be on the national stage and immediately goes into a gold dust lecture. Somehow he'll manage to glaze everyone's eyes over.

    The MSM knows that RP is entirely capable of self-destructing once he gets the camera. But at this point even they probably don't believe he could win the Republican nomination.

    I don't either. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'll believe he can when it actually happens.

  • ||

    It isn't 1964! Ron Paul's radicalism is not the warmongering fascism of Barry Goldwater's, and the people of our country, indeed of the world, are facing vastly more complex challenges, more like those of 1789 than of 1964, certainly ones which transcend the simple-witted "better dead then red" conservative sloganeering of the Goldwater campaign!

    One suspects, from the 14 TRILLION $$$ deficit to the aftereffects of several decades of "war-on-drugs", from a dollar that has lost over 97% of its original value to a Federal Reserve run amok, from a war-on-terror" attack on civil liberties that would probably put Hitler or Stalin to shame, and the ongoing attack on civil liberties and human rights instigated so brutally by the war-on-drugs, along with the fact that the USSA has more people incarcerated or subject to Federal or State "corrections" system than any other country, including such beacons of liberty and private property as Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Kazakhstan!

    The fact that there is a consistant pattern of racial victimization of Americans imprisoned for nonviolent "crimes", especially as a result of war-on-drugs--and now "war-on-terror" fanaticism--certainly doesn't help us in any way!

    I could go on, but I think that if Ron Paul, his supporters, and our times are to be compared with anyone's, he might be more aptly compared with the Founders of our Republic, such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason, or James Madison. Don't give me a bad time about their slaveholding--Ron Paul doesn't own any slaves!

    PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
    David K. Meller

  • Tony||

    Except RP is an idiot.

  • ||

    No Tony, he's not like you at all. He's a highly educated, thoughtful and compassionate man.

    -jcr

  • jacob||

    RP is an idiot... compared to Obama? Biden? Harry Reid?

  • stephendedalus82||

    Fascinating analysis Tony. Your exceptional wisdom and education have done you well.

  • ||

    Please Sir;

    Now is not the time for name calling. Is there any reason specifically that makes You angry?

    If I may, please;

    America I beg of You. Look into Ron Paul's issues. This guys is as genuine as they come. Mr. Ron Paul is the American system working, literally handing us the "right guy."
    He puts his nation/Constitution first before himself as his 22 year track record indicates.

    Please, Mr. Ron Paul for Republican Nomination and then President 2012.

    Thank You

  • sevo||

    Tony|5.19.11 @ 9:26PM|#
    Except RP is an idiot."

    And Tony's ignorant opinion is worth, well, just about nothing.
    How's the Soviet Union doing these days, Tony?

  • Max||

    Let me go out on a limb and predict that the racist, homophobic old fuck Ron Paul will sadly not get the GOP presidential nomination. Remember, you heard it here first.

  • ||

    Please Sir, now is not the time to argue. Please support your argument with facts and points. Mr. Paul is not racists. Mr. Paul is not homophobic and the fact clearly support this.

    The important thing for everyone to remember is the difference between Natural Rights (aka. God given Unalienabl¬e Rights) and Civil Rights. The former, no man has the lawful right to transgress¬. That which your creator gave you only he can take away. Civil Rights on the other hand, are given by government¬s, by men, and that which man can grant to another man he can take away. Civil Rights also imply that some posses the right to grant rights, while others do not. What does this suggest about the condition of those who are only granted rights by other men? That they are subordinat¬es, proverbial slaves to those who grant them Civil Rights.

    The question must be asked: If human beings have Unalienabl¬e God given rights why do they need Civil Rights, considerin¬g that Unalienabl¬e Rights, by there very nature, supersede all others?

    So I suspect that it's all about control. "Let us deny people their Unalienabl¬e Rights so that we can substitute Civil Rights for them instead. For Civil Rights are ours to grant and revoke as we see fit, control those who would speak or act not as we desire, but Unalienabl¬e Rights are only the province of our Creator and make other men our equal in freedom and liberty."

    Homophobic? Mr. Paul is for States to regulate the gay marriage issue. It is up to the States to decide while the Federal Government should protect the States Right to chose for their own people.

    These are not difficult concepts to digest but please, do not simply slander the man who has worked so hard to litterally protect the very ideals we love, celebrate on the 4th, every public servant to this day still takes, etc.

    You wonder why the world seems outta order?


    America I beg of You. Look into Ron Paul's issues. This guys is as genuine as they come. Mr. Ron Paul is the American system working, literally handing us the "right guy."
    He puts his nation/Constitution first before himself as his 22 year track record indicates.

    Please, Mr. Ron Paul for Republican Nomination and then President 2012.

    Thank You

  • V-Yeah watches for her||

    it's worth.

  • jandy25||

    It is a highly logical article. The author may be an expert. Hogan prezzi
    hogan prezzi

  • Res Publica Americana||

    Ron Paul for President!

  • Res Publica Americana||

    Also, Texas secession. Now. Lololol.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure these two courses are mutually exclusive actions.

  • ||

    If I may, please;

    America I beg of You. Look into Ron Paul's issues. This guys is as genuine as they come. Mr. Ron Paul is the American system working, literally handing us the "right guy."
    He puts his nation/Constitution first before himself as his 22 year track record indicates.

    Please, Mr. Ron Paul for Republican Nomination and then President 2012.

    Thank You

  • ||

    How can he win (and I want him to) if he can't come up with some sort of budget plan to prove his theory is worthwhile? American's are sick of platitudes and will just see this as dreamy ideas until he promotes specifics.

  • ||

    "Ameican's"? ... sorry about that ... "Americans"

  • ||

    If I may, please;
    Mr. Ron Paul for 2012.
    America I beg of You. Look into Ron Paul's issues. This guys is as genuine as they come. Mr. Ron Paul is the American system working, literally handing us the "right guy."
    Regan said, “what to ask is am I better off now than 4 years ago. Is food cheaper now than 4 years ago? Are taxes lower now than 4 years ago? Is the job situation better than it was 4 years ago?”
    With Ron Paul’s 2012, it and they would be.
    Constitutionally, legislatively, and morally, Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself.
    Please research and find out for yourself. Listen to this guy talk.
    Watch Dr Paul question Ben Bernanke if you doubt Paul understands even subtle aspects of the economy. Imagine Palin or Romney doing that?
    Constitutionally, legislatively, and morally, Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself.
    Please help give America back Her Constitution.
    Ron Paul for Republican Nom and President in 2012
    Thank You

  • ||

    I'm hoping you are also posting this in places other than Reason. Not much point, here.

  • ||

    I don't have access to Nexis, but here's an informal look at a Google News search for "Candidate name" and "nut" and "nutty" restricted to the past month:

    Ron Paul 410 + 280 results
    Newt Gingrich 45 + 14
    Michelle Bachmann 41 + 9
    Mitch Daniels 30 + 7
    Tim Pawlenty 28 + 9

    My point is, I'm not sure how beneficial more media attention really is for Paul. It's obviously heavily biased in his case...and that's saying something.

    What sucks for Ron Paul is he has to take it from the right and the left. Nobody's going to win in our two-party "system" that way.

    I hear both sides use the term "nut/ty", but probably even more on the right as they try to distance themselves from libertarian principles. A candidate is also never going to win a presidential race when he can't get his own party's endorsement.

    /sad

  • Old Wily Guy||

    People were scared of WWIII in 1964 and nuclear holocaust. Goldwater was of the second school which said we had to be tough not saps. Kennedy, at the Bay of Pigs and in summits with Khruschev had had his head handed to him continually. Insiders knew it, but the public didn't, thanks to a fawning press. Consequently, while Goldwater was right, the paranoia surrounding his "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" understandably, if not foolishly, scared a lot of people.

    Our budget problems are at least as serious as the Cold War was then, perhaps worse because the real odds of a Russian attack were relatively low, while the real odds of the US going down the toilet economically are getting fairly high.

    But if you stand up in front of the US with all of the problems we are confronted with overseas - Iran, Israel and the rest of the mid-East, China, Russia, Pakistan and the drug war in Mexico, Central and So. America, and offer an ideological view of foreign policy that has something to do with Washington's farewell speech, you will make Obama look like a foreign policy genius.

    The key to Goldwater, and why people followed him, is that underlying the "ideology" was stark realism about what government can and cannot do, which is supposed to be the heart of being a Libertarian - or so I thought. One thing government cannot do is go weak on foreign policy. Nukes in the hands of terrorists in Iran and Pakistan and Korea are real. The question is, what happens if the only real solution is to destroy the means of production in Iran for example? Is that an overreach? If it is, then he's no better than Obama, who has done nothing.

  • Bradley||

    Nukes in the hands of terrorists in Iran and Pakistan and Korea are real.

    Why do you think this (a) is true, and (b) matters?

  • Wesley Mcgranor||

    What of the portion of the citizenry that requires such representtaion? Shall they fall to the tyranny of the majority--since the polls got them out-numbered?

  • Wesley Mcgranor||

    At the same time Mr. Paul's marginal popularity -- is due to drug enthusiasts -- of wich i do not support.

  • NadePaulKuciGravMcKi||

    President Obama has protected Neoconservatives for years.

    Will Obama protect Neoconservatives four more years?
    Was the 9 11 operation really good for Israel?

  • nike shoes||

    is good

  • ugg boots cheap||

    good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement