New at Reason

June 15, 2007

Brian Doherty sizes up Ron Paul's appeal with Democratic voters.

Comments

stephen the goldberger|6.15.07 @ 9:50AM|#

As far as I can tell most of the appeal of Paul from partisan democrats comes from him being against the war, and the sense of enjoyment they have at him throwing a monkey wrench in the Republican debate machinery.

But for libertarian leaning democrats I sincerly hope they are able to see past the "R" next to his name and realize he has a lot to offer them, I just haven't met many of them.

|6.15.07 @ 9:59AM|#

I never knew of that Suicide Girls politica blog until today. Is that really the way "hipster progressives" think and talk? What a bunch of masturbatory losers.

|6.15.07 @ 10:09AM|#

I ask again: what about the reports of Ron Paul's swollen warchest? Or were those just unsubstantiated rumors?

bret|6.15.07 @ 10:12AM|#

Those reports have been partially confirmed... it is "in the millions" ... substantially better than all the other "second-tier" candidates. No official numbers yet, I'm sure they're waiting until the last moment to make an announcement because of the filing coming up on June 30.

I really would like to see some comparisons between the number of meetups and participation for Dean and what's currently going on with the Paul campaign. Perhaps a time-delimited graph, too, showing the rise and fall of support? To my (admittedly limited) recollection, I don't believe the Dean campaign was in full swing at this early stage in 2003. I could be wrong, though.

|6.15.07 @ 10:20AM|#

What about the Richardson/Paul vs. Clinton/Obama & Thompson?

Suzu|6.15.07 @ 10:23AM|#

The writer claims that Ron Paul has 8,763 meetup members as of June 15, but the actual number today is 12,285, and that Barack Obama has 6,589, when the actual number for Obama is 3,726. Is this flagrant misstatement of fact, along with the overall tone of the article, yet another effort to marginalize Dr. Paul's chances of winning the nomination? If so, why?

Adam|6.15.07 @ 10:23AM|#

I subscribe to SG; their political opinions can be easily taken with a grain of salt. Most of them are big-government shills anyway, who hate big REPUBLICAN-les government, but would bust a nut for a big DEMOCRATIC-led government. Free everything for everyone! (except the people who foot the bill.)

Dave W.|6.15.07 @ 10:24AM|#

It will be interesting to see how many Republican registrations Ron Paul causes.

If he causes enough new registrations, that may well give him enuf clout for some kind of Repub sinecure or another. I am flirting with the idea of registering myself.

ronfan|6.15.07 @ 10:29AM|#

I went to a meetup meeting in my city a few weeks ago, and it was awesome. Everyone stood up and said a sentence or two about why they were there, and it alternated between three types:
Libertarians: "I voted for Ron Paul in '88 and I'm Barry Goldwater's lovechild."
Disenchanted Dems: "I used to be a Democrat, but they all suck too, so now I'm going to register Republican to vote for somebody with principles."
Awakening Apathetics: "I never cared about voting/elections until I heard about Ron Paul, because there was never anybody to vote FOR."

It was super hopeful. I'm still riding high.

|6.15.07 @ 10:46AM|#

That suicide girls link is blocked by my IT staff. Can someone paste their reasons to not support Paul?

|6.15.07 @ 10:49AM|#

Bret -- thanks. I didn't realize the deadline was June 30.

|6.15.07 @ 10:53AM|#

I also subscribe to SG. That thread was disappointing, to say the least. The person who wrote that insists Ron Paul is using government to repress gays and minorities, among other absurd allegations.

As for the work IT blocking SG, try entering the suicidegirls URL into this proxy server. It usually works:

http://tools.rosinstrument.com/cgi-proxy.htm

Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus|6.15.07 @ 10:53AM|#

For years I've been querying friends and family w/ "does the body politic have a gag reflex?" as a rhetorical device.

Watching the early reaction to Dr Paul makes me think that, yes, the body politic could indeed have a gag reflex.

Let 2008 be known as the year The People saved The Republic.

I'm giddy.

Just Wondering|6.15.07 @ 10:58AM|#

I thought Paul was a ticking timebomb due to the racist newsletter(s).

|6.15.07 @ 10:59AM|#

Seeing as how all the democratic front runners are taking a hard stance on Iran and 70% of the public are sick of war on countries that pose no immediate threat to us. I'm suprised Paul isnt pulling even MORE democrats into the mix. I have a theory that many democrats are only democrats because they subscribe to liberal social issues, not because they want increased taxes and bigger government. Anyone can see that the government screws up everything it touches, if you want to help people charity is by far way more effective. Our country is broke, we borrow billons a day from china of all places, drastic changes will be coming. I'd like to push those changes toward individual liberty as outlined in the constitution. The country essentially runs on a credit card, federal reserve bank notes, are nothing more than units of credit. If you ran your personal finances the way the government is running the countries, you'd be in debtors prison by now. It cannot and will not continue.

dhex|6.15.07 @ 11:03AM|#

"...yet another effort to marginalize Dr. Paul's chances of winning the nomination?"

i was going to say "welcome to earth, enjoy your stay" but then i saw the website. it's your job to be like this.

don't get me wrong, despite his immoral stance on immigration i like ron paul quite a bit. he's fun to watch as his style is rather understated and he's only now showing signs of repeated coachings and rehersals. a little bit of improv goes a long way in the honesty gap. but this guy is no more going to get the republican nomination than i am.

|6.15.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Is this flagrant misstatement of fact, along with the overall tone of the article, yet another effort to marginalize Dr. Paul's chances of winning the nomination?

Yes, Suzu. Reason Magazine's libertarian-minded staff is desparately trying to sink the campaign of the one candidate remotely sympathetic to their ideology by saying Dr. Paul has only double the meetup.com supporters of Obama. Those shameless bastards.

c|6.15.07 @ 11:05AM|#

Let me also register my general concern about his stance on race. Regardless of the tone of the SG article (condescending, mostly ignorant, etc.), unless their quotations of his newsletter were fabricated, he's going to make things worse.

|6.15.07 @ 11:06AM|#

A fine article Brian. No doubt in my mind, if Ron Paul could be the GOP candidate, he'd take the general in a cake walk. Paul has broader appeal than any other candidate in the field. Even better, very few people would be motivated to vote against him. It would be a truly wonderful day, Ron Paul elected with over 90% of the lowest voter turn out in history... Oh uh sorry, went away there for a minute.

I think you entirely missed Ron's real handicap. Ron's small government platform alienates him from the money and resources which modern politics is run on. Ron Paul's support must come solely from the grass roots. That's no match against corporations, unions, celebrities, and lawyers.

Edward|6.15.07 @ 11:07AM|#

"Ron Paul may not be the next president of the United States..."

Talk about going out on a limb.

|6.15.07 @ 11:09AM|#

the "racist" comments in the news letter were not Dr. Pauls, they were published under his name but were not written by him, tho he did take responsibility for them. Dr. Paul is for Individual liberty for all. Please dont take some rant on a porn site as fact, take it for what it is, a rant. Look into Dr. pauls writings he is a man of prinicpal and integrity. He stands for EVERYONES rights as american citizens.

|6.15.07 @ 11:12AM|#

"Just Wondering" and "c" are pretty clearly the same person, as is, probably, "skeptic." All of these, I suspect, are likely sock puppets for Eric Dondero.

tsoldrin|6.15.07 @ 11:16AM|#

Here's another reason democratic voters may break Ron Paul's way: Democrat politicians are STUPID. Honestly. They could have swept 04 and 06 by simply promissing NO NEW TAXES. Why didn't they do it? They don't NEED anymore taxes. Bush has already grown government larger than any democrat could have, so all they'd have to do is re-orient the monster behemoth that Bush built to do good instead of evil and the democrat dream would be realized. It's foolish stratgey to stand for more taxes on an already overtaxed population and completely unneeded.

|6.15.07 @ 11:18AM|#

It seems to me that Ron Paul appeals to some democrats because he resembles G.W. Bush less than any other republican running for president. I admit, he does seem to be a kindly sort of man, but behind that grandfatherly facade beats the heart of republican anti-government corporate-hugger.

It's my perspective that government haters like Dr. Paul hate government because government is the only instrument (in a democracy) available to ordinary people to fight back against exploitation by greedly war mongers and money manipulators. The bottom line is, that if Ron Paul was really a good guy he wouldn't call himself a republican, nor would he affiliate himself in any way with the party of greed, war, corruption, and exploitation.

TJ|6.15.07 @ 11:21AM|#

Tsoldrin,

I'm not sure that's stupidity that keeps them from acting as you say, but fear--to reorient expenditures would be to annoy some constituency. Because our government is mostly a healthcare/pension program with an enormous military, expenditures on all of which will never be reduced in any meaningful way, the only way to buy new members' loyalty is to raise taxes, allowing for either new entitlements, or bigger slabs of pork.

|6.15.07 @ 11:22AM|#

Those comments were written by someone else for Ron Paul's newsletter. He didn't see them before the newsletter went out because he was busy campaigning.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

There's an article about his views on racism, that were written by him.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.


Pretty good, libertarian approach to racism.

|6.15.07 @ 11:23AM|#

It's my perspective that government haters like Dr. Paul hate government because government is the only instrument (in a democracy) available to ordinary people to fight back against exploitation by greedly war mongers and money manipulators.

Then your perspective is uninformed and/or dishonest.

|6.15.07 @ 11:31AM|#

And no matter how much evil they see in Bush, it is very hard for American liberals to let go of a dream of a powerful do-everything state that will do just what they want it to do, and no more.

Yes, the problem is largely that. "Progressives" (what a nice sounding term, isn't it?) wet themselves over the desired end result (everyone's healthy, well off, happy, educated (whatever value that has), accepted by everyone else, etc.), but are completely ignorant as to the "how" of getting to the end result. They consequently vote for the party that promises the easiest route to that end result: We'll simply make it a law, and it will be so!

For libertarians to have any chance at democrats.. i mean, "progressives"... they need to appeal to the end result, and talk about prosperity for the poor, better health through choice of providers, cheaper prices, etc, and they need to make the process sound equally easy. Unfortunately, the part about progressive policies having no negative side-effects on anyone who isn't rich is so deeply engrained, a more than just a this-election-cycle effort needs to be made.

|6.15.07 @ 11:34AM|#

The comical thing is that corporations owe their dominance of the business world to government assistance in the form of reduced liability and tax-advantages.

If we anti-government guys had our way, most of the massive corporations would be in serious trouble.

|6.15.07 @ 11:41AM|#

If we anti-government guys had our way, most of the massive corporations would be in serious trouble.

I commented on this before, but I don't think it got through then.

If "Government and regulation will stop the evil corporations, because giant-ass corporations don't want to be regulated" people were at all reasonable or logical, they could take the fact that corporations aren't donating money to Ron Paul's campaign as some evidence that this is not true.

uncle sam|6.15.07 @ 11:48AM|#

It's my perspective that government haters like Dr. Paul hate government because government is the only instrument (in a democracy) available to ordinary people to fight back against exploitation by greedly war mongers and money manipulators.

Why do you have that perspective?

Greedy war mongers and money manipulators give to Dem and Reps.

Your perspective is just one side of the "us v them" game that most politicians and elitists promote as a means to power over us.

|6.15.07 @ 11:48AM|#

It's my perspective that government haters like Dr. Paul hate government because government is the only instrument (in a democracy) available to ordinary people to fight back against exploitation by greedly war mongers and money manipulators.

I think I met Pragmatique once, while he was handing out that Socialist Worker rag on a streetcorner in Madison.

The comical thing is that corporations owe their dominance of the business world to government assistance in the form of reduced liability and tax-advantages.

What reduced liability? Corporations are just as liable as the next guy.

What tax advantages? From their owner's perspective, earnings are double-taxes (once at the corporate level, and once again as dividends).

|6.15.07 @ 11:52AM|#

"behind that grandfatherly facade beats the heart of republican anti-government corporate-hugger."

Pragmatique, perhaps you havn't heard very many of Ron Paul's speeches. He's opposed to government corporatism. He believes in laisez faire government.

"It's my perspective that government haters like Dr. Paul hate government because government is the only instrument (in a democracy) available to ordinary people to fight back against exploitation by greedly war mongers and money manipulators."

Wrong again! Dr. Paul hates the military industrial complex which big government props up and he's opposed to big bankers, the money manipulators which big government helps.

"nor would he affiliate himself in any way with the party of greed, war, corruption, and exploitation."

Dr. Paul is trying to bring the Republican Party back to its earlier principles such as is was during the time of Robert Taft, that is the conservative Republicans of that time. They were opposed to war and were smaller government. Should Dr. Paul associate with the Democrat Party, the party of big government?

biologist|6.15.07 @ 11:57AM|#

RC Dean: perhaps it's a reference to corporations' legal status as persons, so that the people who run them aren't personally accountable for certain types of misdeeds and debts (obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but I thought something along this line was an advantage, and therefore a reason to incorporation one's business

|6.15.07 @ 11:58AM|#

It's my perspective that government haters like Dr. Paul hate government because government is the only instrument (in a democracy) available to ordinary people to fight back against exploitation by greedly war mongers and money manipulators. The bottom line is, that if Ron Paul was really a good guy he wouldn't call himself a republican, nor would he affiliate himself in any way with the party of greed, war, corruption, and exploitation.

You might have an interesting point if "greedly [sic] war mongers and money manipulators" and "party of greed, war, corruption, and exploitation" weren't also apt descriptions of government itself.

To paraphrase: Ron Paul hates government because government is... government.

Which is still wrong, btw.

Fluffy|6.15.07 @ 11:59AM|#

Guys, there is more to that "money manipulators" tidbit than may meet your eye.

When a phrase of that kind comes from a goldbug like Paul, it means "someone who wants there to be a fiat currency so that control of that currency can be used to try to control or ameliorate the business cycle".

But when a progressive [and I assume pragmatique is a progressive] uses it, it means anyone who isn't a blue collar laborer. It means anyone who saves money and lends it at interest, or who invests it, or who uses it as the capital base to employ others, etc. All of these activities are inherently exploitative to a progressive, and it is these activities that "ordinary folks" need the government to help them fight back against.

It's just the conceptual continuation of the medieval bias against the speculator or tradesman as being somehow outside of the "real" economy, and existing on it as a parasite, taking away from "regular people".

|6.15.07 @ 12:08PM|#

Jake Boone - "Just Wondering" and "c" are pretty clearly the same person, as is, probably, "skeptic." All of these, I suspect, are likely sock puppets for Eric Dondero.


Jake is probably right, but then, there are probably only two or three people posting on her under how many names, and then they post using someone else's identity. One of the reasons this forum is weakened. Everyone is afraid (or too smart) to reveal their identities. Maybe someone is making a list, I don't know. Maybe this isn't knock knock, but Jake backing up himself, or maybe I'm Ron Paul. I'm no longer sure who I am myself, are you?

|6.15.07 @ 12:14PM|#

It's my perspective that government haters like Dr. Paul hate government because government is the only instrument (in a democracy) available to ordinary people to fight back against exploitation by greedly war mongers and money manipulators. The bottom line is, that if Ron Paul was really a good guy he wouldn't call himself a republican, nor would he affiliate himself in any way with the party of greed, war, corruption, and exploitation.

Agreed. Ron Paul would be running as an independent were he not an obvious phony. Any time a Republican talks about "smaller government" he really means "let's let my cronies get away with even more".

Then again, Ron Paul wants to build a giant wall to keep certain people out of the country (or, keep them in) yet people still call him "libertarian".

|6.15.07 @ 12:14PM|#

In regards to the amount of videos where Ron Paul versus Barack Obama, the numbers may be fairly close but when one does a search on each of those names and notices the amount of viewers, Ron Paul has 10 time more of them.

Sean|6.15.07 @ 12:16PM|#

09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Whoops!

|6.15.07 @ 12:16PM|#

Reading what they say at DailyKos about Paul, I can sum it up this way:

He's against the war and all that, fine.
But he's a Nazi, a homophobe and a racist.

Racist because they insist on believing he said those words back in 92 in that newsletter and for some other incoherent reasons.

A homophobe because of his explanation on "Don't Ask, Don't tell" at the debate...still try to figure out that one. Also he voted against a bill to allow gay adoption in DC.

And a Nazi, because, well, it's bad.

|6.15.07 @ 12:18PM|#

By the way, could somebody please tell me where these mistery polls are that show Ron Paul as having only a few percent? I have seen many polls and Ron kicks the crap out of all the others on all of them.

|6.15.07 @ 12:18PM|#

Fluffy: ...against the speculator or tradesman as being somehow outside of the "real" economy, and existing on it as a parasite, taking away from "regular people".


Yes, as in, I hate that bank for NOT lending me the money I need just because I don't have a job and can't pay it back now but I need the money because I don't have a job. It's the lender's fault that I don't have enough money to get to the next paycheck.
or
I hate that bank for giving me this credit card and look, now I can't pay off the money and they keep hounding me for payment, but hey, they shouldn't have given me credit anyway since I wasn't in good financial shape anyway. It's the lender's fault, not really mine.
The lender be damned.

|6.15.07 @ 12:19PM|#

"Ron Paul would be running as an independent were he not an obvious phony. Any time a Republican talks about "smaller government" he really means "let's let my cronies get away with even more".

Dan, what cronies is Ron Paul wanting to get away with more?

|6.15.07 @ 12:19PM|#

Good point Fluffy. I have relatives that are union card carrying, blue collar democrats. They precisely believe that the GOP is in cahoots with big corp (i.e. the "money manipulators"), and that the dems are fighting for them, to break up that relationship. It's a very winning strategy for the dems in that segment of the voting population. The way I see it, the dems fight that by pouring more govt on the problem in the form of price controls, legislation or social programs to help the little guy pay for the higher price tag - conversely, I think a better solution is to get govt out of the corporate sector as much as possible - i.e. cut the regulations and subsidies and let the market work. Most working class Americans don't seem to have too much trouble buying fancy gadgets and big screen tvs... but then Big Plasma TV doesn't have an easy tie in to a dramatic social cause that breeds a strong lobby, followed by all the messy stuff that leads to rising prices.

|6.15.07 @ 12:23PM|#

Dan, what cronies is Ron Paul wanting to get away with more?

The big business interests that control the Republican party.

|6.15.07 @ 12:26PM|#

Oh, yeah, my first point, why are we talking about a "republican's" appeal to progressive democrats during the republican primary?

What is Hillary's appeal to hard core conservatives and why aren't they voting for her in the primaries? Aren't they willing to change parties for the primary just for Ron Paul's sake?

I hope that DC judge gets his pants back. He's obviously been emasculated as a man. He's lost his pants. Now he wants to take the cleaners to the cleaners. That judge is probably a progressive democrat. Wonder what he thinks of Ron Paul?

|6.15.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Everyone is afraid (or too smart) to reveal their identities.

I guess I'm either not afraid enough or not smart enough to obfuscate my own identity. I post under my real name. I only change my handle for humor value.

Sock puppetry is for the weak.

|6.15.07 @ 12:28PM|#

"The big business interests that control the Republican party."

Ron Paul has nothing against businesses that make their money honestly. He is opposed to the government giving businesses special favors like subsidies and protective tariffs.

So what's wrong with that, or are you just opposed to businesses because their big?

|6.15.07 @ 12:30PM|#

Would the real Jake Boone please stand up?

|6.15.07 @ 12:32PM|#

Sock puppetry and handle spoofing are both for the weak, I should say.

|6.15.07 @ 12:38PM|#

If Paul had any big business chronies he wouldnt have to rely on donations from individuals. Hes got no corporate backing therefore hes not for big business. What is wrong with businesses anyway? have you ever worked for a poor guy?

|6.15.07 @ 12:38PM|#

I tend to vote Democrat and I like Paul. He's one of the more intellectually consistent candidates out there, and I think we could use one of those. Interestingly as usual for me, he will be buried by the campaign finance that libertarians so love and cherish. Ahh, the will of the people as expressed through corporate giving! Let Freedom Ring!

|6.15.07 @ 12:51PM|#

RC Dean: perhaps it's a reference to corporations' legal status as persons, so that the people who run them aren't personally accountable for certain types of misdeeds and debts (obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but I thought something along this line was an advantage, and therefore a reason to incorporation one's business

The people who run corporations are responsible for what they actually do as day-to-day operators of the business. The President of a corporation orders or knowingly tolerates fraud, he gets banged up for fraud.

Now, the people who own corporations aren't personally liable, because as owners they have no power to control what the corporation does day-to-day. Anyone who wants to do away with limited liability in this setting is arguing that people should be held personally responsible for activities they had no control over.

|6.15.07 @ 12:53PM|#

The sad part about the claims that "Ron Paul is a racist" is that besides being completely untrue; his policies that he advocates would single handedly do more for minorities than any other candidate in decades.

The Drug was is a race war, pure and simple. It is a tool used to imprison and keep the minorities down. A Ron Paul presidency would end the misguided war on drugs. And focus on prevention and rehabilitation.

Christy|6.15.07 @ 12:57PM|#

Also he voted against a bill to allow gay adoption in DC.

This is quite a shallow reason to jump to the conclusion that Ron Paul is a homophobe.

Ron Paul does not believe it is the government's responsibility to say who can and who cannot adopt. Additionally consider this, let's suppose I'm gay and that my girlfriend (or wife) and me want to adopt a child. Obviously the homophobes would be totally against the adoption so therefore because of one "collectivist" group's stance, my rights (liberty and the pursuit of hapiness) would be curtailed.

Conversely the hetero/homophobes rights would be deemed a superior "right" to prevent gay adoption.

In this scenario only hetero rights are protected and gay rights are trampled. (I won't even go into the rights of the child who is being adopted, we'd be here all day).

What I am trying to demonstrate is rights belong to individuals NOT to groups. If the government would step out of this whole process and allow each state to determine whether or not to approve or disapprove of "gay" adoptions, I think you would find there would be some states that allow it and some that do not. Either way, neither group's rights would trump the other group's rights.

So, by fighting for or against the right to something as if that right is extolled by government is to make cannon fodder of such a thing as "inalienable rights." It does not matter if you belive in God as the benefactor of those rights or if you simply believe society is best served when individual rights are protected. The bottom line is that any legislation that proposes allowing one group more rights than another group ignores the fact that government does not grant rights, we are born with rights!

Chris Lawton|6.15.07 @ 12:59PM|#

Go Ron Paul! Go Ron Paul! God Bless Ron Paul! Ron Paul for President 2008!

Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJKGfAWQUo

"In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" GEORGE ORWELL

c|6.15.07 @ 1:19PM|#

Dismissing people's contributions by accusing them of being "sockpuppets" is for the weak.

|6.15.07 @ 1:36PM|#

The bottom line is that the positive and emotional reception of Ron Paul's candidacy thus far has given me the most hope that I've ever had for bestowing a BETTER nation to our children than we ourselves inherited. I was starting to think I was alone out there (aside from those who comment on Reason articles..)

Please let's not dismiss Ron because he doesn't meet all our standards for what a true libertarian should be. I was educated in the classic monetarist school of thought with regard to currency and dismissed Ron's gold standard stance as "kooky". However, I had an open mind and checked out some of the material at the Misses Institute and found the arguments for gold compelling: the current worldwide asset bubble fits very nicely into the predictions of Misses and Rothbard with regard to excessive credit creation.

Ron Paul is a gift from Heaven for promoting ideas that for too long have lain dormant in this country. I'm not prepared to let this spark be extinguished without a fight.

|6.15.07 @ 1:37PM|#

Jesus Christ, let's have a little reality check here. Democrats currently "like" Ron Paul because they enjoy watching him fuck with the Republicans. They won't "support" him if it actually were to come to a choice between Paul and a Democrat, which it won't. The messiah/genius would quickly become a crazy/Nazi/Coporationy/racist/sexist/homophobe the minute they actually had to pull the lever.

Bradford C.|6.15.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Besides, practically Paul's policy stance is to make Gold and Silver legal tender, as opposed to turning our entire monetary policy on its head.

|6.15.07 @ 1:40PM|#

Ron Paul's tears cure cancer. But Ron Paul has never cried.

|6.15.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Besides the elderly, most people who benefit from government largess are too lazy to vote (I know many of whom I speak).

I think there are a lot more boomers who are depending on their own savings for retirement than ones who will require social security to stay off cat food. Since the boomers are incredibly selfish as a group, a fact demostrated over and over for the past 4 decases, I think they just might be willing for a cut taxes/cut government candidate.

|6.15.07 @ 1:52PM|#

Ron Paul on Tucker the other day talking about Middle East politics and how much govt services should be depended on.

|6.15.07 @ 1:53PM|#

"The sad part about the claims that "Ron Paul is a racist" is that besides being completely untrue; his policies that he advocates would single handedly do more for minorities than any other candidate in decades."

Also, welfare holds people back. Minimum wage laws have resulted in an increase in unemployment among young black males.

|6.15.07 @ 1:53PM|#

YouTube link for the above.

|6.15.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Dismissing people's contributions by accusing them of being "sockpuppets" is for the weak.

c -

I suppose it's possible that you're the first new, emailless, sincere commenter to come along with the "Ron Paul = Racist Writings!" idea, rather than yet another new, emailless sock puppet. If that's the case, I apologize, and direct you to Seer's comment at 11:22 by way of response.

goldenequity|6.15.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Democrats can wake up to this insanity as easily as Republicans....one at a time and simply say NEVERMORE!! (i.e. Don't Tread on Me!)

The sheer power of mainstream media and why the US has "blowback" is well documented in this 2003 film.
Ron Paul, regarding the motives behind the 911 attack, pointed out to Giuliani that in 1953, dubbed operation Ajax, the United States and British Petroleum, orchestrated the covert overthrow of Iran's popular and overwhelmingly elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosedec and installed the Shah. An intervention the people of Iran still resent to this day(blowback).That was the mistake of a long gone administration. We don't do that stuff anymore.
Do we?
Take one hour of your time and watch this 2003 Irish documentary film.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/TheRevolutionWillNotBeTelevised2003.wvx


Our Founder's point on NON-INTERVENTION was to not interfere with or endorse ANY other government but just be a model of governance to the people and leadership of other nations.

Our Founder's wanted to export our "Revolution"....make no mistake, these were radical and free thinking men. We do them an injustice by relegating them as "old fashioned" and uninformed to our "New" and "Modern" understanding.....Our "New" World Order.

Who IS Ron Paul? Do your OWN homework!!
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

www.ronpaulaudio.com

|6.15.07 @ 2:09PM|#

specsaregood-

You are aboslutely right, just by promising to end the drug war Ron Paul is promising to do more for blacks and latinos (not to mention the poor) than any new government program could ever do.

|6.15.07 @ 2:33PM|#

"Please let's not dismiss Ron because he doesn't meet all our standards for what a true libertarian should be. I was educated in the classic monetarist school of thought with regard to currency and dismissed Ron's gold standard stance as "kooky". However, I had an open mind and checked out some of the material at the Misses Institute and found the arguments for gold compelling: the current worldwide asset bubble fits very nicely into the predictions of Misses and Rothbard with regard to excessive credit creation."

David, great comment. I think that most people forget that Dr. Paul is a real bona fide intelligent person who was successful in the world, outside politics and has demonstrated he can win in politics 2X in a heavily contested race. Every time I have seen this man on TV he has handled himself with a grace, dignity and candor I find lacking in other presidential candidates.

I'll tell you something else, he is the first presidential candidate to have a sticker on my car and getting me to deface my car with a sticker is like pulling teeth.

|6.15.07 @ 2:44PM|#

"Every time I have seen this man on TV he has handled himself with a grace, dignity and candor I find lacking in other presidential candidates."

The other candidates try to show you how well they can lie without blinking an eye.

|6.15.07 @ 4:25PM|#

The growing discontent with the 2 party system is a call to action! We must stand up as citizens of this country and demand change. Since most politicians have made it clear they care not for what the citizenry want only special interests get the attention of Washington. We have only one recourse VOTE!
There is one candidate out there that has consistently voted for retaining our civil rights, preserving the constitution, against unbalanced budgets, against preemptive war, for limited government, against higher taxes, against the communist federal reserve and the IRS, and has voted against congressional pay raises and has never taken any paid junkets.
He has 20 years of unwaivering voting record to all of the above mentioned, and has garnered both strong support from congressmen that care and ambivalence from congressmen that care not for the constitution nor the oath they swear to when taking office.
We must support him in any way we can!
But don't take my word for it check out his you tube or myspace page of just Google him and just try to find something bad about this guy. He is truly a gift to America and whether or not he is elected Dr. Paul will definitely go down in history as one of Americas finest!

RSDavis|6.15.07 @ 4:32PM|#

I love the Suicide Girls. They are so hot and just my type. I never did get why punks are Republicans OR Democrats, tho. They should be anarchists, or at least libertarians...


- R

RSDavis|6.15.07 @ 4:41PM|#

Everyone is afraid (or too smart) to reveal their identities.

I'm neither afraid nor smart, thank you. :)

- R

|6.15.07 @ 4:47PM|#

Figures you'd have to go to a website full of self mutilating oversexed ink wells to find a blog disseminating lies about Dr. Ron Paul.
I also feel sorry for the self masturbatory bloggers that believe what they read on such a high brow website like SG.

Fluffy|6.15.07 @ 4:49PM|#

Over at dailypaul.com one of Paul's grandkids working on the campaign blogged that the real contribution figure is 2.2 million. I assume that's on top of the 500k he had on hand at the beginning of the reporting period.

So the 5 million figure was an exaggeration.

I know a lot of people were quoting that number on the basis of the freemarketnews.com report - including Reason - and I think a correction is probably called for.

I think the 2.2 mil number is still a really solid number, don't get me wrong. But we don't want to get into pulling numbers out of our asses and making ourselves look foolish.

dhex|6.15.07 @ 5:31PM|#

"Figures you'd have to go to a website full of self mutilating oversexed ink wells to find a blog disseminating lies about Dr. Ron Paul."

lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

i'm sorry what "self mutilating oversexed ink wells?

first of all it should read "...oversexed, self-mutilating inkwells" and secondly what the living fuck?

JB|6.15.07 @ 5:40PM|#

This is the absolute last year to expect Democrats to go for Ron Paul. Democrats are looking at a real possibility of taking the White House and (by a substantial margin) both houses of congress. They're riding a huge wave of momentum right now. They've waited a long time for this moment. That's not when people look across the aisle or to 3rd party candidates. Ron Paul will get nowhere with Dems this year. Republicans, on the other hand, are ripe for a fresh alternative.

|6.15.07 @ 7:07PM|#

It looks to me like the Government haters would find themselves perfectly at home in IRAQ! There's no government there and see how good it works when everybody is free?

The truth is that libertarians are just the "B" team of the republican party and no more than brainwashed lap dogs for corporations who've been insidiously spreading anti-government propaganda for the express purpose of dismantling any rules holding them back from exploiting ordinary working people and the enviornment. Corporations want NO RULES except the rules they make, and they want to destroy government power because IN A DEMOCRACY the people have the power and the war mongers and money mongers hate it when the people have any control.

|6.15.07 @ 7:23PM|#

Long live the Proletariat! Long live the downtrodden masses! Purge, kill, destroy...until we have eliminated the last of the evil Corporations that keep you under their thumb!

*cue The Internationale

|6.15.07 @ 10:27PM|#

"IN A DEMOCRACY the people have the power" to impose tyranny of the majority on the minority. glad we're not a democracy. Hitler brought democracy to germany. democracy=two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for lunch.

|6.15.07 @ 11:09PM|#

I agree with what JB's driving at. I don't see the incentive for Dems to support Ron Paul. There are only two reasons they would:
1. None of the Dems are anti-war enough (they have Gravel and Kucinich, so that's out)
2. They don't think a Dem will win (also not the case)

|6.15.07 @ 11:11PM|#

no1usestheirname said: "Jake is probably right, but then, there are probably only two or three people posting on her under how many names, and then they post using someone else's identity. One of the reasons this forum is weakened. Everyone is afraid (or too smart) to reveal their identities. Maybe someone is making a list, I don't know."

When I first started posting on these threads, I used my full name, but people replying kept calling me "jh", I presume for brevity, so I went with that.

I could care less if any goons are watching and taking names. Screw them if they are. What are they gonna do about it? Take half my income in taxes and micromanage my life with rules and regulations? Oh, wait, they're already doing that.

|6.15.07 @ 11:13PM|#

In case no one else has pointed this out yet - regarding the SG article alleging Ron Paul's racism, see an article Ron ACTUALLY wrote: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html. Its a beautiful homage to liberty that points out racism is the lowest form of collectivism. It eloquently refutes the "Ron Paul is a racist" smear.

BTW, the only thing wrong with Ron pointing out only 5% of DC blacks understood economics is that he should have applied that to all races and reduced the percentage.

|6.15.07 @ 11:28PM|#

Congratulations, Pragmatique! You've snatched the Whacko Socialist Troll award out of Dan T./joe's grubby little hands.

|6.16.07 @ 12:37AM|#

Ron Paul's tears cure cancer. But Ron Paul has never cried.


Someone put some cut onions under his eyes. I'd like to try them out on my astrocytoma brain tumor.

|6.16.07 @ 12:54AM|#

Hey Marlow,

we tried that real speech at Kos as well. They still insisted that it was veiled racism. I think I could post a picture of chocolate cup cake and twinky and they'd scream racist. Just because.

|6.16.07 @ 6:56AM|#

Ron Paul\'s tears cure cancer. But Ron Paul has never cried.

Ron Paul doesn\'t follow The Constitution. The Constitution follows him.

David McClain|6.16.07 @ 7:27AM|#

The MSM dismisses Ron's "Internet support", but today the Internet is EVERYBODY. Everyone I know is on the Internet, at home or at work, even my parents (in their sixties). Who are these pollsters reaching on a landline at noon on a weekday?! I've never received a call from a pollster. I don't believe those polls are so accurate anymore, and I don't think the MSM gets it. The Internet IS mainstream now.

|6.16.07 @ 9:50AM|#

Hey Marlow,

we tried that real speech at Kos as well. They still insisted that it was veiled racism. I think I could post a picture of chocolate cup cake and twinky and they'd scream racist. Just because.

I have just started looking at the Kos for the first time, and I am very disappointed with what I've seen. When I see Ron Paul stuff up there, there's always someone that pulls out the "this is a blog for Democrats of all ideologies, not Republicans". Can someone, please, tell me what the hell good does a strictly partisan blog do?

|6.16.07 @ 11:29AM|#

Good article, but make that "acclamation", not "acclimation".

Robert|6.16.07 @ 8:04PM|#

I don't see the incentive for Dems to support Ron Paul. There are only two reasons they would:
1. None of the Dems are anti-war enough (they have Gravel and Kucinich, so that's out)
2. They don't think a Dem will win (also not the case)

3. In a state where they can vote in either party's presidential primary, the Democratic presidential primary is meaningless (which it could well be by that time) but the GOP primary is a contest, and either:

(a) they like Ron Paul best; or
(b) they want to stick the Republicans with Ron Paul, whom they consider inferior.

Alan Augustson|6.16.07 @ 8:12PM|#

Ron Paul's brand of so-called libertarianism is more like institutionalized screw-your-neighbor policy. It'll appeal to Republicans who want to light up a joint or screw around with impunity, and to Democrats who secretly hate minorities and the poor. It's crap.

|6.17.07 @ 5:36PM|#

RON PAUL CAN WIN BUT THEY BETTER GET REAL BUSY REAL FAST IN THE DC NATIIONAL CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS. FOR ALL SAKES AND PURPOSE, THERE IS NO ORGANIZATION HEAR IN IOWA AND THE STAW VOTE IS JUST WEEKS AWAY??? APPARNTLY, AN IOWA COORDINATOR WAS APPOINTED THIS PAST WEEK BUT HE HASN'T CONTACTED AT LEAST THIS VOLUNTEER. I HAD ACTUALLY VOLUNTEERED TO BE THE STATE COORINATOR, PROVING DC WITH AN OUTLINE OF CAMPAIGN STRATGY BUT HAVEN'T EVEN BACK ON THAT? I KEEP GETTING TOLD THAT THEY ARE "OVERWHELMED" IN DC. IF THEY HAVE THE $4-$5 MILLION, THEY BETTER START PUMPING INTO IOWA.

|6.17.07 @ 8:05PM|#

I am a registered Democrat and I am changing party affiliation so that I can vote for Ron Paul in the coming primary election.

rpin2008|6.18.07 @ 1:32AM|#

Why doesn't Ron Paul show up better in the "scientific" polls? Could it just be a name recognition thing?

If they knew how funky Dr No really was, everyone would vote for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFEO7EPZpgE

William|6.18.07 @ 10:20PM|#

Ron Paul for President!!

Mark Bahner|6.19.07 @ 12:13PM|#

Hi,

Anybody in Ron Paul's campaign team reading this? ;-)

I would really like Ron Paul to challenge his fellow Republicans to make pledges they either
won't make, or won't keep. Or *will* make and keep, and will be insanely good for the country.

Here are some possible examples:

1) "If I am elected President, I pledge that I will never go to war without first obtaining an explicit Declaration of War from Congress against the country or countries in question. The Constitution requires this, and I will follow my presidential oath. I challenge my opponents to make this same pledge."

2) "If I am elected President, I will explain to the country how al Qaida is a criminal organization, and will explain why it is not possible for the U.S. government to be at war private organization of criminals. I challenge my opponents to acknowledge these facts."

3) "If I am elected President, I will honor state laws permitting the use of medical marijuana. The federal government does not have the authority to override state laws on medical marijuana. I challenge my opponents to make a similar pledge."

Rio|6.20.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Ron Paul wouldn't get my vote because:

1. He's anti-choice
2. He's against stem-cell research
3. He's against Free-trade agreements

That automatically makes him not a Libertarian. I like that Libertarian sticker that says 'Libertarian: Pro-choice on EVERYTHING'

He's not going to win. How about Bloomberg? Think he'll run as an independent?

Tim Peterson|6.28.07 @ 8:29AM|#

I find this article leaves me with a negative feeling. It is hard for me to describe. Maybe my expectations of Reason Magazine are too high. Maybe I'm still pissed off at how they slammed Harry Browne when he needed the support the most.

I think the best way for me to characterize it is that I find myself leaning away from Reason Magazine because it seems to often leave me feeling down. Rather than building up they seem to take delight in tearing down any hope of progress.

I'm sure you would champion their realism, but I like to remain an optimist. It gives me more joy in life. I would rather lift myself up with lofty goals and fail and reflect back on the good fight than to never try and simply give up. After all, if the Ron Paul campaign is not something a libertarian can champion, I'd like to know what is.

I think Doherty raises an interesting and salient point:

Paul has spoken of his affection for, and cooperation with, progressive Dem favorite Dennis Kucinich. Democratic voters need to decide, after eight years of Bush, if they can dedicate themselves mostly to stopping government from doing all the bad things they think Bush has done, from wars to Patriot Acts, or if it is more important to use government's power to do all the good things they insist must be done.

I suspect they will ultimately fall back on the latter, and not rush into every open primary state away from their own lame pack to push Paul forward in Republican primaries.

However, this is so negative (in my mind) in that it is a statement that is in direct contradiction to the entire focus of the Ron Paul campaign. He is campaigning on this point that folks now have a choice of voting for a government; constrained by the constitution, that is only authorized to safeguard rights, not take more of them away. It is the author's negativity that shows through in positing that this objective can not be accomplished. He might just as well wave a flag that says: "I'm a loser. I don't believe in a candidate's ability to lead."

Even if I think he won't win, I'll do all that I can reasonably do to promote Ron Paul's campaign. I will continue to dismiss those who look for the weaknesses and overlook the progress, particularly if they spread the worst (See the Suicide Girls softcore hipster porn web site for a list of reasons why most American progressives, the more they learn about Paul, might want to run away.) in their publications. In my mind this is a gratuitous slam by Reason Magazine, who, I might point out, claims to be "a refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity."

Naturally, I liked much of the material in the article that was about the progress in the campaign. It is an interesting take on Ron Paul for President.