Ron Paul: In Your Straw Heart, You Know He's Right

The CPAC straw poll is in, and the winner is Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the doctor of the rEVOLution (he's got the cure you're thinkin' of!).

From the Wash Post's coverage:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul won the 2010 CPAC straw poll tonight, a victory that will further energize his already enthusiastic supporters but will have little effect on the coming presidential contest.

Paul, who ran for president in 2008, took 31 percent of the vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had won the past three CPAC straw polls but placed second this time with 22 percent. Romney is considered the current frontrunner for the 2012 nod.

No other candidate scored in double digits. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who did not speak at CPAC, took third place with seven percent...

Be careful not to read too much -- or much at all -- into these results. Paul's supporters are loyal and loud but not, ultimately, that large a group as proven by the fact that he did not win a single primary or caucus in 2008.

2010 CPAC Straw Poll Results
Ron Paul 31%
Mitt Romney 22%
Sarah Palin 7%
Tim Pawlenty 6%
Mike Pence 5%
Newt Gingrich 4%
Mike Huckabee 4%
Mitch Daniels 2%
John Thune 2%
Rick Santorum 2%
Haley Barbour 1%

More here.

And let us be clear: Any poll that shows any number of votes for Haley Barbour, Rick Santorum, or John Thune for el presidente or le gant de baseball de chien (full disclosure: that's Babel Fish's translation of "dog catcher" compounded with my Jethro Clampett level of French) is not to be taken seriously.

Still, if the GOP is interested in actually doing something more glorious than its multi-year FUBAR when George W. Bush and the Republicans were fully in charge of the federal government, they'd do well to listen very closely to Dr. No. However rotten Obama and the Dems poll, the GOP should never think anyone believes them when they say they are the party of small government and, for god's sake, we're well past the sad-sack culture-war days of various Republican geniuses like Newt Gingrich (4 percent!) talk up flag-burning amendments (the First Amendment is not a suicide pact with square pieces of cloth made in China!)and English-only rules (because, seriously, how can you be a real American if you don't speak the mother tongue of Great Britain?). Ron Paul pulled well in the Republicans primaries and among the youth of America precisely because he offered something distinct from the sad sacks he was running against.

Reason's voluminous coverage of Ron Paul.

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.

  • ||

    will have little effect on the coming presidential contest.

    WHUUUUUUUT?

  • Publilius||

    Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who did not speak at CPAC, took third place with seven percent.

    I know most people are pretty dumb, but for cryin' out loud, Palin's a fucking airhead! How can anyone believe she's the best qualified person to be President of the United States??

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The best person qualified to be President of the United States will never run for President of the United States.

  • ||

    and that was why we were supposed to have an electoral college.

  • Some Guy||

    But imagine what that would be like in practice. Sure, there'd be less chance of a G. W. Bush getting in because he seems like a guy you'd want to have a beer with, but it would do nothing to prevent an Obama from getting in, and would probably greatly enhance the possibility of someone like a Hillary being in charge.

    The basic problem is that we've already reached the point where people realized they can vote themselves money from the public treasure...

  • ||

    The best person for president is one who really would not want to be president. They would do things far more important than what should be a figurehead role.

  • Go Team Red !!!||

    She's no dumber than our current POTUS.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Much smarter than current VPOTUS.

  • Steve Chaos||

    That's a rather low bar you've set, there.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    heightist

  • PEZ||

    LOL!

  • John Thumberly||

    We can no longer be the party of "NO". The American people are watching us now.
    Surely we can get behind a bill that does the following for the American people:
    Reduce cost, ensure more people, eleminate discrimination of patients with pre-existing conditions, etc...

    Reach out and call your local senators. Now is the time to pass meaningful healthcare.

  • ||

    When did we become the party of No? Was it when the MSM didn't report on the several Republican alternatives to Obum-a-Care? Perhaps it was when the Democrats said No to every reform that doesn't give political hacks effective control of health care, surely you heard about that? If not, it's time to turn off the TV and learn about the market based alternatives for health care reform already proposed that will reduce costs and increase coverage like the Patients Choice Act -- http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/

  • ||

    We want to be the party of NO when it comes to government run healthcare....this is a good sign and means our representatives are representing us well!!!!

  • ||

    The PCA is BS. Here is why:
    1. Studies show that if you leave the decisions completely up to the doctor- health care cost increase b/c they tend to run unnecessary tests. Working with providers actually does help reduce costs.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....04285.html

    2. To prematurely rebut the "well they do those tests to make sure they aren't sued; that is why we need tort reform." Tort reform infringes on patient rights (more govt control) and is not necessary. Over 75% of malpractice law suits are created by 10-20% of the Dr's. Majority of cases are made by repeat offenders. So all we need to do is have the AMA do its job and kick out bad doctors. If the AMA would police themselves medical liability insurance rates would naturally reduce- no legislation required.

    3. The PCA is for the "market" to establish prices, but is not for opening the US borders and creating a real market where US drug prices are almost guaranteed to be reduced.

    Fact is both parties are headed in the wrong direction. The Dem's plan is a BJ for big pharma; and the Repubs plan screws patients. Everyone should be irate at what is coming out of DC from both sides. Call your Congressman, and vote for moderates in 2010.

  • josey||

    We?

    Speak for yourself. This is not a GO-f'n-P website you're posting on.

    Besides, your post said absolutely NOTHING substantive. Is that how your brain actually works, or is it just the style in which you express yourself?

  • ||

    Wrong party, Thumberly.

  • Michael||

    I shouldn't find it funny (because in reality it's sad and disturbing), yet each time I see some Republican that is strangely convinced that they're steering the ship of limited government and we libertarians are just along for the ride emit a muted chuckle. Don't let your journey across the Rubicon make you sea sick!

  • ||

    I couldn't agree more Ron Paul is a libertarian and the only reason hes in the party in the first place is that you can't win being a third party. Republicans want to jump on board the Ron Paul parade and only pick and choose the liberty's, and freedoms that they want.

  • ||

    We can no longer be the party of "NO". The American people are watching us now.

    What you mean "we," kemosabe? If you Republicans want to do anything meaningful for the country (as opposed to just getting re-elected to continue doing nothing but getting re-elected) than you need to be the Party of No.

    And the quotes go outside the period in American English. Idiot.

    Surely we can get behind a bill that does the following for the American people:
    Reduce cost, ensure more people, eleminate discrimination of patients with pre-existing conditions, etc...

    Hey, scooter, those are mutually exclusive goals. Certainly for any kind of top-down government program, and even a free-market program would take a few years to get even two of those goals in place. Give up the fantasy of "insuring" people with pre-existing conditions; you can't "insure" against something that's certain to happen. If you want to cover pre-existing conditions, call it "prepayment" or something like that. Let's drop this pretense of "insurance" once and for all, and let companies focus on doing what we actually ask them to do rather than pretending to do something they've not done for years.

    And what, do you support a bill that encourages people to have children? Or do you mean insure more people?

    Reach out and call your local senators. Now is the time to pass meaningful healthcare.

    Again, do you mean healthcare reform? I don't think that Congress can pass "healthcare."

    If you want meaningful reform, make a road plan for getting rid of this ridiculous package of benefits we call "insurance." Let people pay for everyday medical expenses out of pocket, with catastrophic coverage for unforeseen emergencies. But of course, this isn't the GOP handing out goodies out of their magic bag, so no one wants to get behind meaningful reform; it might mean they don't get re-elected, and Team Blue might win. Couldn't have that, now.

  • bwsr||

    I stopped reading your post when you called the poster an idiot for a minor punctuation error.

  • ||

    Not only that, but I typoed "than" for "then" in the post in which I corrected him. Planks and eyes, for sure.

    If it had been isolated, then no problem. In a post riddled with mistakes both grammatical and logical, though, it's just another signal that the poster is a moron.

  • ed||

    Only the unqualified to vote believe she is qualified to lead.

  • Rev||

    And only a drone such as yourself believes everything the media tells you, or lets you know. She had more executive experience then Obama ever had. You were lulled into thinking he was qualified because he 'spoke well', which means you would have been goose-stepping down the street in your brown shirt if this had been 1930's Germany....

  • mark||

    Yeah but he has a point.

  • ||

    Executive experience? She couldn't even finish The first term as Governor. She completely ignored us when she went on her "Joy Ride" with McCain. Then she said she was leaving office for a HIGHER CALLING (Large $ book deal, Worldwide $ speaking engagements, Fox News $ Job). Anybody up here would tell you same thing.

  • ||

    Give me a freaking break. Tell us why you think she should have bankrupt her family defending herself from frivolous charges from the insane side of the democratic party in Alaska? As you probably know, THAT is the reason she didn't finish her term. And if you voted for Obama, you cede the experience argument.

  • ||

    experience?

    having Sarah Palin run anything in this country is equivalent to giving that same power to a 12 year old high school girl.

  • ||

    That can't be true. I think a 12 year old (who would be in middle school in my town) would be an improvement. I can't say the same about Sarah.

  • John Thumberly||

    We can no longer be the party of "NO". The American people are watching us now.
    Surely we can get behind a bill that does the following for the American people:
    Reduce cost, ensure more people, eleminate discrimination of patients with pre-existing conditions, etc...

    Reach out and call your local senators. Now is the time to pass meaningful healthcare.

  • ed||

    ensure more people

    Nice. Is this satire?

  • ||

    Anyone who has to use the "F" word to communicate is not to be considered very bright.

  • ||

    No, anyone who defends Sarah Palin is not to be considered very bright. In fact, that person is probably retarded.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Fuck that.

  • K-Y||

    It isn't a requirement. It is a choice. Fuck you.

  • ||

    Hey, dumbass, I can run rings around any "communication" you choose to attempt. Sometimes contempt for the pathetic pandering the GOP displays on a daily basis is best expressed with a good "fuck." If you don't want people to use the word "fuck" in connection with your candidates, put forward better candidates.

    And you're probably right, that someone who has to use the word "fuck" isn't very bright. Does that mean that you can never choose to? Nope. That's like saying that someone who has to use a hammer isn't very bright. Yeah, if you use a hammer to try to turn a screw, you're an idiot. But not using a hammer on a nail is idiocy. Sometimes "fuck" is the correct choice, and when it is shying away from using it is idiocy. It's just a word; there's nothing magical about it.

  • Robert||

    Did the poll ask who was best qualified, or was it just labeled as a straw poll, use whatever judgement you want? If you don't get to deliberate, then it makes sense to vote in large part based on how you think other people will vote, so as not to scatter votes ineffectually, as for instance when everyone votes for hirself as candidate. So name recognition matters. Palin was in the running because, as the most recent GOP nominee for VPOTUS, there was a good chance she'd draw some votes.

    Indeed, this is how elections work in general. The field has to be quickly whittled down based on whatever means are at one's disposal, which usually means recognition by others, in a positive feedback loop that results in a minimal number of clusterings.

    It's the same for Ron Paul. I doubt he'd've polled well at CPAC in anticipation of the 2004 election, for instance.

  • ||

    Do you have any idea how crude and ineffective your remarks about people being dumb and Palin being a "f...... airhead" come across to the average American? Take a deep breath and try to be thoughtful. Someone correctly said that "rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."

  • zoltan||

    You new here?

  • kinnath||

    When the Republican leaders where running as warlords and the Democratic party was pledging to get out of Iraq, Ron Paul sounded like a fringe candidate to mainstream Republicans.

    So now, Obama has doubled down on Iraq and Afghanistan and broken every campaign pledge to the lunatic left.

    Perhaps, Ron's message will carry a little more weight this time with both Republicans and Democrats.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    How did he "double down" on Iraq? He followed the Bush plan to withdraw and troop strength is going down.

  • kinnath||

    He promised to withdraw all combat troops by the end of 2009. Still waiting on that one.

    I don't think that "double down" is an exageration of "follow the Bush plan on Iraq" and "increase troops in Afghanistan".

    YMMV

  • ||

    It's beyond exageration.

    There are less troops in Iraq now than when Obama took office. Yeah, he couldn't meet his overly optimistic goal of withdrawing in 12 months.

    Increasing efforts in Afghanistan was one of his campaign promises, it not Obama's fault some of the left wasn't paying attention.

  • Apostate Jew||

    The Bush plan?

    The Bush plan was to remain in Iraq for a long time under a SOFA that would allow the Americans to do just about anything they wanted. Maliki told him to get bent and the SOFA became an eviction notice.

  • Mike M.||

    Agreed. Also, two years ago most Americans naively believed that the state of the nation was more or less OK; now most of us can see the edge of the abyss up ahead in the distance.

    Guys who truly believe in limited government and can back up that up with a record will only continue to do better and better as the abyss approaches. I'm not sure how Paul was straw polling at events like this in early '08, but I take this as a pretty encouraging sign.

  • wackyjack||

    His first appearance on the straw poll was '08, with 12% then '09 with 13%.

    Personally, I think this was a big fuck off to the GOP and not a specific endorsement of Paul.

  • Mike M.||

    You may be right. It would probably be a mistake to overstate this jump, but I don't think it can be completely dismissed either. Unfortunately I think Romney still has to be considered the clear favorite right now as the establishment guy. It's a shame that Paul isn't ten or twenty years younger, because otherwise I think he would have a puncher's chance in 2012, but he's starting to get old.

    And Palin's weak showing confirms my belief that she simply isn't electable at the national level now, and I say this as someone who doesn't despise her the way so many people do.

  • wackyjack||

    If you ask me, a lot of people are still pissed that McCain was the nominee in '08.

    The GOP workers I know were less than thrilled with campaigning for him, and my own alma mater's Republican club actually lost membership from the '04 election.

    As for Palin, she doesn't have a chance. The only people who are taking her seriously are those who seem terrified of her. Sure, she can motivate and rally people. But just because people like her doesn't mean they will vote for her.

  • ||

    good call man. Tell me one person who was so overly enthusiastically happy that McCain was the (R) nominee?

    When it was announced it was a big sigh, "well i guess ill have to vote for McCain...."

  • prolefeed||

    It's a small poll, highly unrepresentative of the general populace or even of the GOP.

    Anyone who believes that if a Republican primary vote were held today, that Ron Paul would beat Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, please speak up.

    I don't, much as I would love to see that happen.

    You can't write off Palin because a miniscule fraction of total potential GOP voters at a thinly attended meeting gave the nod to Ron Paul in a straw poll. That's just not reality-based.

  • zoltan||

    What's funny is if you compared the straw poll from CPAC to a potential straw poll from a Tea Party convention.

  • ||

    Actually, if you called as primary for today, Dr. Paul would win handily, because we would mobilize & show up in numbers nobody else could match in a few hours.

  • Ralph Fucetola JD||

    Right, we all wish Dr Paul were younger (he's still quite energetic) but he does have more doctor sons running for public office than the Bush's have politico sons running...

    Watch Rand Paul; well-spoken and strongly constitutionalist. He has rather more experience with govt (as a tax movement leader) than BHO had.

    While the GOP establishment will tout RINOs like Scott Brown, the real surprise will be Rand Paul and Peter Schiff in the Senate together...

  • ||

    Dude what about GARY JOHNSON? I believe all PAULites need to band together, and the whole libertarian sphere needs to unite and push MASSIVELY behind Johnson, his philosophy is mostly Ron Paulian (except immigration), and he wa a proven limited-government Governor, so he has CONCRETE actions behind his words, unlike the other GOP blowhards.

  • iamse7en||

    Look, Gary Johnson looks okay so far, but why should Paulites abandon the leader of liberty for this new guy?

    Ron Paul has a greater chance of winning than Gary Johnson, and we've known for a long time, that Ron Paul is dedicated to the cause of liberty.

    The revolution is possible in 2012. We just need to get his message out.

  • ||

    Paul/Johnson 2012.

  • ||

    The one place where this will make a huge difference: I think this is really good news for Debra Medina.

  • ||

    Did you not get the news that Debra shot here own foot off by joining ranks with the Truthers?

  • anarch, RP supporter||

    from the sad sacks he was running against

    Fleets, don't flail me now!

  • John Tagliaferro||

    From the Wash Post's coverage

    Dave Weigel couldn't be pulled away from his busy new gig to provide direct, unbiased, coverage for Reason.

  • Go Team Red !!!||

    Weigel is on the right wing eKKKstremist beat at CPAC

  • Brett||

    My wife was at CPAC, she said the younger demographic showed up in force this year, and that skewed the vote. So I agree it probably won't mean much in 2012 (my wife said there were many boos when the straw pole results were announced), but hopefully things are at least tilting in the right direction. I've given up on the older generation(s) of "conservatives".

  • Brett||

    Straw POLL. No word yet on who won the straw pole.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Brett,

    Walesa always wins those.

  • Straw Man||

    Palin wins my pole every year.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Most mornings in my tent.

  • Jimbo||

    Festivus for the rest of us!

  • dance away||

    You would need really good workmans comp to work with a straw pole.;-)

  • Sam Grove||

    Does a straw man have a straw pole?

  • John Tagliaferro||

  • microwave oven||

    If you look at past straw polls that just isn't true. The under 25 set has declined each year. In past years it was as high as 80%. I know that straw poll announcement guy said that the figure was more or less the same, but he was lying.

  • Should||

    I leave my popcorn in for more than 3 minutes? I always have a ton of leftover kernels.

  • microwave oven||

    20 second increments until popping stops

  • ||

    They pop faster if you wrap the bag in aluminum foil when you put it in.

  • Should||

    I also take a bath with a plugged in radio teetering on the edge of the tub too?

  • Ice||

    It's funny reading some of the conservative blogs about how much they are downplaying this and saying this is the end of CPAC. Admitadely, it does not mean much, but its a good slap to the face to the NeoCons at CPAC and people like Mitt Romney.

  • TP||

    Here's a link to video. All of those boos make me want to puke. It also makes it very clear that RP will never get a GOP nomination.

    From what I've seen across the blogosphere (if there really is such a place), is that hard right republicans despise the idea of trying suspected terrorists in civilian court, and the fact that the government does not deny suspected terrorists Constitutional rights such as due process. As far as many of them are concerned, from what I read, is that RP isn't much more than a peace loving hippie.

    But, the dirty fucking hippies, were right. Sort of.

  • TP||

  • ||

    The poll was announced just before Beck was to speak. YAL was mad at Beck for his sandbagging of Medina. They were at a C4L event right before his speech and in no mood to go in person. Most of them were in overflow rooms, since the main room sat 1100 and there were 10,000 coming and going at the conference. The more honest blogs did point out the cheering in the overflow rooms and bursting out into the halls did not have the booing that was in the main ballroom.

  • TP||

    If you say so. I wasn't there. But it sounds like more excuses to me. RP will never carry any of the Cristian Conservatives that make up the republican base, therefore, will never receive the GOP nomination.

    Don't get me wrong, I love RP. But real libertarians need to concede this point and do it on their own.

  • Conservative Christian||

    Not so. I think RP could carry a majority of conservatives who happen to be Christian if he would simply stay on message. No matter what people believe, everyone understands money talks, moves, and makes "things" happen. When your country is on trajectory to reach 200% debt to GDP by 2035 WTF difference is there between any of us? There are simply those who want the country to fail and those who don't.

  • Poppin' Caps lock||

    "RP will never carry of the Christian Conservatives that make up the republican base..."

    That's basically my view of Gary Johnson, too. Unfortunately.

  • TP||

    Not only that, but I can probably count on one hand, the number of republican politicians that actually support shutting down the Fed and returning to a stable currency. If someone were to be elected on the republican dime, that person would be beholden to the republican branch of the Big Government Party.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But, the dirty fucking hippies, were right.

    Your revolution is over, Mister TP. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is do what your parents did. Get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, TP? THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS LOSE!

  • JOhnny MAckson||

    This aggression will not stand, man. LOL

    Jess
    www.anonymous-tools.se.tc

  • The Dude||

    There's a beverage here man!

  • Good Old World||

    Pimping serfdom as the only way. It's come to this? Sad...

  • TP||

    Get a job? Fuck that! I want to live on a commune. Somewhere up around Ukiah, maybe.

    Seriously, it was a joke. And you shouldn't ASSUME anything. I would love a job, beings as the construction business is practically dead. Yes, I own a business. Yes, I'm unemployed, sort of. But I will never, ever, get a "payroll" type job again. I will kill myself, first. You can work for someone else, if you like. I, however, will go out and find my own work, and provide that work, for clients, on a contractual, job to job basis. You can suck corporate cock all you want, I will negotiate a mutually beneficial ass fucking.

    And yes, the hippies were right about their "analysis" of the war, and the bankers. The problem, was in their solution. Creative destruction can only happen through Anarcho-Capitalism, not through government regulations.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Sure. 'Fuck that!' That's your answer. Tattoo it on your forehead. Your answer to everything!


    (Get to googling.)

  • TP||

    Actually, I tattooed "fuck" on my left nut, and "that" on my right nut.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Seriously though man... The dirty fucking hippies weren't right. Nearly all the stuff in that video that's happened in ways that some of the hippy crowd said would happen happened largely as a result of the actions of the dirty fucking hippy crowd when they grew up and elected themselves into political office.

  • TP||

    Yeah, growing up sucks.

  • ||

    I'm not a hard right Republican and I don't want terrorists, suspected or otherwise, tried in civilian court. I mean the war on terror is basically one organized crime gang versus another. I could give a shit if one gang of Mexican drug cartel guys tortures another gang of drug dealers and doesn't take them to civilian court (which is the logical place for drug disputes, since they usually deal with access to markets). Likewise, if the US military wants to flush some Taliban douchebag's head in a dirty toilet, I'm not losing any sleep over it. That I have to pay "protection" money to the US military doesn't really make a difference, anymore than people in Scillian neighborhoods having a moral objection to how the mafia used their protection money.

    Yeah, if I had a say, I'd say lets not get involved in international gang wars. But in gang wars, it is gang rules. If that means some Iraqi gets his balls electrocuted by an under educated redneck private, well tough titties. You can worry about how your protection money gets spent. Me, I'm going to worry about how to get out of paying protection money to the criminal enterprise of government.

    I mean isn't kind of pointless to cry about the morality of the uses of stolen money? The first act of violence was when you were compelled to turn over your money to the government in the first place. Once you've accepted the premise that a thug has a right to steal your money, well, you've already conceded violence is acceptable. You can't complain when the thug hurts someone else when you have already told that thug violence is an acceptable form of behavior. And seriously, I'd much rather have the government dunk my head in water than rape me with taxes. Those terrorists get off easy. They should at least have to pay taxes on that opium trade...

  • TP||

    You have a point. Except for the fact that when the government denies rights to a certain group of individuals, it won't be long before they deny those same rights to everyone else. They are already using the Patriot Act in drug raids and other criminal investigations. But I guess if you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about, right?

  • Conservative Christian||

    It amazes me to hear people talk of trying terrorists in civilian court. They seem to confuse constitutional rights afforded "citizens" and human rights per Geneva convention. I for one think neither should apply to scum. In Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic state, you as a non-muslim are considered najice - a word meaning filth ascribed to urine and dogs. These vermin are treated far better in military tribunals than the regular courts of their backwards nations. Why give them a platform to grandstand? Get real.

  • Comrade Zero||

    Let them show the world what lunatics they really are. There is nothing to fear from what they have to say. Let them call us evil while we are visibly showing them how decent nations operate and see if they're taken seriously afterward. Terrorism is politics not war.

  • zoltan||

    It would have been so much better if your screenname was Jesus instead of Conservative Christian.

  • Mad Max||

    ‘will have little effect on the coming presidential contest. . . . Be careful not to read too much -- or much at all -- into these results.’

    Translation [in Irish cop accent] 'All right, move along, nothin' to see here.'

    'It's funny reading some of the conservative blogs about how much they are downplaying this and saying this is the end of CPAC.'

    Apparently, CPAC didn't 'end' back when its straw poll endorsed Romney - that notable conservative champion who got the Massachusetts government deeper into health care and wrote off the prolifers. No, back then CPAC was a reliably conservative organization.

    It's only when a prolife supporter of limited government and the U.S. Constitution won the CPAC straw poll that CPAC committed suicide and abandoned conservatism.

    That makes complete sense. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, and Wilsonian liberalism is authentic conservatism.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Obi-Wan had the worst Irish accent ever.

  • PLEASE REMAIN CALM||

    Seems like people here just can't handle ron paul doing well in the republican party. I guess that's what happens when your whole identity is wrapped up in being the outsider. I'm sure you can find some issue to reject ron paul and call him a sellout to the cause over, if you really try.

  • robc||

    What blog are you reading? People here are fine with RP doing well in the GOP. Its the Gopers that cant deal with it.

  • Brett||

    New here? Most (not all) posters here would love to see RP do well in the GOP.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Maybe he isn't talking about the commentors.

  • robc||

    The people "here" are the commenters.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Staff. They have staff here too. Some of the long time regulars mention the Reason staff being unkind to Dr. Paul.

  • robc||

    The staff arent here.

    Or rarely. I wish Balko would participate in the threads, for example.

  • robc||

    If you dont participate in the community, you aint a part of it.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Tim is on the same thread we are on right now. Does it all the time.

  • robc||

    hence the word "rarely". How often does the jacket join in?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    The jacket has shit to do man...

  • ||

    Cross linked articles with trigger words bring all the crazies to the yard faster than any agitated dairy based frozen confection.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    +1

  • ||

    Damn right, it's better than yours

  • ||

    Paul is great to have as an influence in maters of economic policy and adherence to the Constitution, but he will never be The Candidate. Those newsletters from his past are absolutely lethal to a presidential nominee. It minimum, he allowed things to be published in his name that will make for endless commercials saying "Do you really want to vote for a crazy racist crank like this?".
    He also shares the same delusional foreign policy basis as a lot of leftists; mainly the idea that everything that happens in the world is merely a reaction to us, as if no one else had their own agendas, and that if we somehow withdrew from everything than no one would have a problem with us. It's especially wrong when you consider the ideology of the Islamists is to conquer the world, period. Not "conquer the non-believers unless they [and here us the point where you project your own political leanings]". I understand why this viewpoint is attractive to some libertarians, but it is not reality-based.* However, in matters of the Fed, Fannie Mae, etc. Paul deserves to be viewed as a sage and lone voice who should have been heeded long ago.

    *This statement is not necessarily an endorsement of someone else's foreign policy in whole or part, so please let's not go down that road.

  • robc||

    I think RP would have supported the declaration of war against Germany/Japan/Italy after Pearl Harbor.

    Not "conquer the non-believers unless they [and here us the point where you project your own political leanings]"

    Actually, [convert] works pretty well. so you are wrong.

  • ||

    I don't find "convert" to be an acceptable answer either. And that's still not an example of us being left alone if we stay out of everything.

  • robc||

    I didnt say we would be left alone if we stayed out of everything. I said we wait for Pearl Harbor before we get involved (and 9/11 counts, which is why RP introduced a declaration of War against Afghanistan).

    And yes, convert is acceptable. Bosnia wont be attacked. Well, no more so that Iran attacking Iraq and vice versa.

  • ||

    What if Pearl Harbor is nuclear?

    If you consider conversion at gunpoint to be acceptable, I take it you in no way consider yourself a libertarian.

  • Warty||

    LOL WHUT

  • ||

    Religious conversion under death threat is acceptable to a libertarian?

  • Warty||

    I'll let you know next time a scary Mooslim tries to convert me, dude. They're always running around my neighborhood, with their bombs and their schwarma, converting people and beheading the stray cats. I fuckin' hate those guys.

  • ||

    But I love shawarma! So conflicted.

  • ||

    Oh Jeebus, the "Islamists want to conquer the world" shit again.

    Dude, if you're going to shit your pants in fear, do it at LGF or something. The capability of any Muslim who actually wants to "conquer the word" is so insignificant as to be laughable, so fuck you and fuck all your fellow pussy travelers who want to give tons of power to the government to "protect" us from your personal boogeyman. Jesus Christ monkeyballs, you people are fucking pathetic.

  • ||

    That's right, it's all a big joke. Militant Islam- nothing to see here.

  • robc||

    Jesus, people cant you read? "Acceptable" to fulfill the statement, not an acceptable way to act. Fuck, some of you are idiots.

  • Craig||

    The newsletters are old news and easily dismissed. What will keep Ron Paul from winning is the mistaken belief among conservative voters that maintaining a military empire and abandoning the Constitution are wise and conservative policies.

  • ||

    This is mere noise. When no one knew RP people could slur him with offhand comments that made no sense, pointing to newsletters CLEARLY (from basic linguistics if nothing else) not written by Ron Paul. However, anyone who has heard him speak more than a couple of times, and EVERYONE who has looked at his 30 year record knows they do not reflect his views.

    If people are so desperate they have only that to grasp at to refute a near perfect legislative record, it isn't even worth worrying about.

  • Who's Sean Hannity||

    But can i be a candidate if i join the Klan for awhile?

  • Mikey||

    It worked for Robert Byrd.

  • Robert||

    he allowed things to be published in his name that will make for endless commercials saying "Do you really want to vote for a crazy racist crank like this?".


    That wouldn't hurt him, because so many voters will think, "I gave the nigger a chance to be prez last time and that didn't work out, now for a vote for the other side."

  • RichN||

    "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?... It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of
    the foreign world." -George Washington

  • Brian||

    "It's especially wrong when you consider the ideology of the Islamists is to conquer the world, period. Not "conquer the non-believers unless they [and here us the point where you project your own political leanings]"."

    While there are a number of Muslims that claim jihad in the name of Islam, most of the violence is due to US foreign policy, not religion. This foreign policy is also used as a tool to recruit. Continuing to promulgate the myth that Islam is bent on world domination is just ignorant. If we radically changed our foreign policy and left the ME to itself you WOULD see a decrease in ill will toward us.

    "He also shares the same delusional foreign policy basis as a lot of leftists; mainly the idea that everything that happens in the world is merely a reaction to us, as if no one else had their own agendas, and that if we somehow withdrew from everything than no one would have a problem with us."

    Wrong - RP is just pointing out that our foreign policy ADDS to the problem and if we left certain parts of the world to themselves they would leave us alone.

    There are many 'evil doers" out there that need to be dealt with but Conservatives push the notion that if you "oppose America you are a fucking terrorist" and never, never acknowledge that perhaps if the US didn't treat others like shit, there wouldn't be so many "evil-doers".
    The ME is just as "Islamic" as it was 50 years ago but it wasn't "anti-American" until we fucked up and had the Shah installed in Iran. Since then we have supported every two-bit human rights abusing government in the ME just because they play well with us. The Saudi monarchy may very well be pro-American but the populace is not. Same with Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, etc.

  • ||

    I would just like to say Donna Brazile is living in a fantasy world. Just like the President whom she idolizes.

  • Kolohe||

    and English-only rules (because, seriously, how can you be a real American if you don't speak the mother tongue of Great Britain?). Ron Paul pulled well in the Republicans primaries and among the youth of America precisely because he offered something distinct from the sad sacks he was running against. (em added)

    Ron Paul's last paid TV political advertisment just before the NH primary was an anti-immigration piece that would have been equally at home in Tancredo's campaign.

  • Glenn Beck||

    What are we, a hospital?!?!

  • ||

    I was disgusted by that ad too. I can't understand this "libertarian" obsession with nativism. Shit, even some so-called anarchists (drink) like Rockwell are anti-immigration. Just yesterday I saw a libertarian "take back the tea parties" site that had a picture of people dumping IRS, spending, and other tea crates overboard, including "open borders". In what messed up delusion world does stationing troops along a barbed wire fence equate with liberty? How in hell can arresting people for being employed without government issued papers be considered libertarian?

    On this issue Ron Paul is wrong, and his "but we have welfare" excuse is stupid.

  • Robert||

    I never got it either, but it's been a prominent strain in the libertarian movement for decades. The chance of a radical libertarian's also being an immigration restrictionist, providing s/he's in the USA (I don't know if it's prominent at all among radical libertarians in other countries), is increased greatly if s/he's:

    a biker,
    a Constitutionalist/patriot/sovereign/pro se litigant type, and/or
    a radio talk show host.

  • .||

    In what messed up delusion world does stationing troops along a barbed wire fence equate with liberty?

    Uh, how about the real world? Show us a country that ever became more free as a result of massive third world immigration. The only countries I know of that are still halfway libertarian, like Switzerland, are the ones that are most careful about who they let in the door.

  • ||

    I would have to put down the USA as an answer. European presence on the continent started as statist colonies. But then various groups started immigrating to the New World to escape various tyrannies and discriminations in the old world. It was this immigration that led to a political landscape that was willing to revolt against England.

    True, the early immigrants weren't from third world countries, but so what?

  • .||

    I would have to put down the USA as an answer.

    If you had, you'd be an obvious idiot.

    But then various groups started immigrating to the New World to escape various tyrannies and discriminations in the old world.

    If by "various" you mean "overwhelmingly British", yes. And they established a government modeled largely upon - wait now! - British institutions.

    True, the early immigrants weren't from third world countries, but so what?

    How about, so everything?

    Where are the examples of non-European cultures that have been able to develop and/or sustain European institutions?

    You're presumption of the equality of all populations is exactly that, a presumption, without any evidence to support it. In fact, all the evidence available indicates otherwise. It certainly wasn't a proposition shared by our founders, who clearly didn't buy the proposition "all men are created equal" necessitated the equal standing of Indians and blacks in American society. I submit that anyone who believes that our founders would have had any problem with putting troops and barbed-wire on the borders if they had found immigration to be a nuisance is clearly hallucinating.

  • Kolohe||

    Where are the examples of non-European cultures that have been able to develop and/or sustain European institutions?

    Japan?

  • ||

    Where are the examples of non-European cultures that have been able to develop and/or sustain European institutions?

    Let's see, Mexico was colonized by Spain and has predominantly European institutions. Yet it lags significantly behind the nations north of it.

    On the other hand, most of our problems have been imported from ... wait for it ... Europe. You know, stuff like the welfare state and social security (from Der Kaiser), central banking and the nanny state (England), walls on borders (Soviet Union), etc.

  • ||

    I don't think you are characterizing either Ron Paul's or Lew Rockwell's positions either accurately or fairly.

  • ||

    Nick, read the article you linked to. Gingrich explicitly argues "English first," not "English only."

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    le gant de baseball de chien (full disclosure: that's Babel Fish's translation of "dog catcher" compounded with my Jethro Clampett level of French)

    So the term for "catcher" is "glove of baseball." That, mes amis, is why the French language is the summit of human civilization.

    But actually I think that should be rattrappeur.

    And tarnation, it's Jethro Bodine.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Maybe he was going for Jedd Clampett, the original Jeddi.

  • JOhnny MAckson||

    Bon jour, fromage? I mean really. Who says that? LOL

    Jess
    www.anonymous-tools.se.tc

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Obama?

  • Ernie the Bear||

    But he says it in "Austrian".

  • ||

    RP is a step in the right direction. He isn't the answer.

    just my $.02

  • Daigo Yagyu||

    Ron Paul!!?? Seriously, how is that possible? If republicans want to clean up their image, I don't suggest they do it with someone as ill-liked on a national scale and possibly bigoted as Ron Paul.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Agreed. The GOP should let the nation kick the tires on a John McCain ticket again for 2012.

  • Inkblots||

    As was pointed out upthread, anyone remotely familiar with Ron Paul's philosophical positions knows he doesn't believe in group rights or attributes, and only cares about INDIVIDUALS. That's literally the opposite of racism and bigotry.

    For heaven's sake, he has apologized for not keeping editorial control over a few newsletters from 20 years ago, and correctly pointed out why he can't be a racist. Or are you suggesting that Ron Paul's 30 year voting record is all an elaborate scam to ride the MASSIVE liberty vote into office so he can finally get those dern blerks 'n' joos?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Suck a dick.

  • Comrade Zero||

    How about Romney then - sure he holds no convictions but he kinda looks like Reagan, so he MUST be qualified.

  • Mike||

    The old timer Republicans just can't fathom a world where America is isolationist and not bragging about its kickass military.

  • robc||

    RP isnt isolationist. Isolationism is determined SOLELY by trade policy. Yes, I mean that solely.

    You can be isolationist and at war with the world. You cant be isolationist and a free trader.

  • Mike||

    Well my textbooks always called the guys who were against the Treaty of Versailles "isolationists" so blame them.

  • TP||

    I think you may be confusing isolationism with non-interventionism.

  • John Faber||

    And I think you may be confusing non-interventionism with isolationism.

  • apaulled||

    reason sucks

  • John Tagliaferro||

    I don't start drinking until 3:00 today. Nice try.

  • juris imprudent||

    Perhaps that was a Kantian metaphysical statement.

  • apaulled||

    We've been down this road before. The cosmos at Reason tried to hitch their train to a new rising star in the libertarian nation, then assisted their cocktail party friends in tearing him down when it became clear that he wasn't "hip" enough for the Dupont Circle crowd. We found our friends at that point, and you are not among them.

    I would say that Reason is a filthy rag, but at least a filthy rag soaks up some moisture. Reason is like a soiled plastic diaper that just smears.

  • x,y||

    Brilliant satire or earnest comment? I'm going with the former.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    They say their name is Apaulled, not Earnest.

  • Inkblots||

    ... but 'Earnest' is Ron Paul's middle name!

  • Jimbo||

    A-paul-led USA can't be any worse than the current A-obama-led USA.

  • Reason donor drive||

    apaulled, how much to we put you down for?

  • ||

    ...the mother tongue of Great Britain?

    I think the Scots, Irish and welsh might dispute that in theur own mother tongues.

    English is the mother tongue of England.

  • d||

    Agreed (see my post below), but Ireland isn't part of Great Britain, FYI.

  • d||

    Not even Norther Ireland, which is part of the *U.K.*, but that's a different unholy alliance, not G.B.

  • ||

    Point taken, you are, of course, correct.

  • Draco||

    When Reason and libertarians take shots at pols like Santorum and Romney, I really wonder what universe they inhabit. If either of these men were elected POTUS, libertarians should get down on their knees and thank what god or gods they worship. Santorum is a Constitution-respecting, small government pro-Capitalist conservative, and Romney as well. Either would be far, far better than John McCain, the progressive Teddy Roosevelt wannabe. And it goes without saying that even their empty suits would be better than Hopey McChange.

    Politics is the art of the possible. Never forget that.

  • robc||

    Romneycare says Hi.

  • Draco||

    States are the laboratories of democracy. You don't like Romneycare (and I sure as hell don't), move to another state. Doing something like that at the Federal level is a violation of the Constitution, and I don't think the Romney of 2010 would support it.

  • ||

    A guy who flip-flops over to your side when it's convenient -- as it is glaringly obvious Romney did circa 2007 on several issues -- what makes you think he won't flip-flop back when that's convenient in the future?

  • Robert||

    I'd rather have someone who flip-flops easily than someone who's stuck to the bad side.

  • robc||

    Romneycare may be constitutional of the state level (I havent read the MASS constitution and might argue that the 14th amendment extention of the bill of rights makes it unconstitutional at the federal level too by incorporating the 9th) but it isnt libertarian even if constitutional.

  • ||

    Santorum is a Constitution-respecting, small government pro-Capitalist conservative

    Really? He's renounced his support of the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, the Iraq War, the Medicare prescription program, etc.?

  • Draco||

    You need to reread the part about politics being the art of the possible. You are not going to get your fantasy candidate, or your fantasy platform, in 2012. Probably not even in 2112.

    FWIW, I'm for my own liberty and rights to property, and if that means going to war against others to secure my liberty and my property, that's okay with me, and I don't see the slightest contradiction. We can argue about which wars are effective, but that doesn't change the principle that you and I should be happy to bomb nations who threaten our liberty or property to smithereens.

    I'm not a "peacenik libertarian."

  • ||

    You don't understand Daco, to be a libertarian is to abandon the world of the possible and live in the world of fantasy and to spend all of your time purging your own side and none of your time attacking the other.

  • ||

    John, that's bullshit. You know I attack Obama plenty.

    If it came down to it, I might even hold my nose and vote for Santorum over Obama. But I'll be damned if I pretend he gives a shit about the constitution or limited government, and I'll do everything in my ability to prevent him from getting the GOP nomination.

  • ||

    C'mon Tulpster you're here enough to know the script/shtick.

    "You libertarians need to grow up and play with the adults...what you want is never going to happen...you should vote(insert r/d statist here)'cause it's as close as you're going to get"

    Santorum, seriously? He sleeps with dead babies and thinks Americans have too many civil liberties.

  • Draco||

    (slaps forehead)

    Duh! Thanks, John, for reminding me of what this "movement" is all about!

  • dennis||

    Is that Dondero?

  • Inkblots||

    DOONDEEEROOOOOOOOOO!

  • ||

    Please explain how the Iraq War was/is securing your liberty and property. I do agree that war is sometimes necessary, though I don't have the gusto for population warfare you apparently do, but a person who considered Saddam Hussein to be a plausible threat to our national security in 2003, has exhibited terrible judgement and should be nowhere near making a decision to go to war anytime in the future.

  • ||

    Ah, Draco, you do not seem to have internalized that every single war in human history has been defensive.

    Even the '39 German invasion of Poland was to protect German citizens who were being bedeviled by those vile, mean Polish folks.

  • ||

    If YOU personally go to war, you will have no liberty until you enlistment is over.

  • ||

    We would be falling down on our knees to worhip the God these men pray to everyday. Neither one of them believes in the separation of church and state.

  • zoltan||

    Proof, please.

  • ||

    I don't understand why anyone has any enthusiasm for Mitt Romney. He was behind his own state version of Obamacare. He has never shown any commitment to small government or being anything but a me to we will do no more than stop the growth of socialism Republican. I just don't get it. Romneycare alone ought to disqualify him from any consideration for higher office.

  • alan||

    I've wondered the very same. Those that game these things think he has a lock on the nomination. Those that game these things this early have rarely ever been right.

    If Obama and Romney are the nominees in 2012, and the current trends continue, and there is no reason to believe Obama has the acumen to see the writing on the wall or the political acrobatic skills to pull a Clinton, than my only question is, how old with Ralph Nader be then?

  • Mike M.||

    Yeah, it's unfortunate that Romney is probably the next nominee, because to me he has "Bush Clone" written all over him far more than John McCain ever did.

    I'm still holding out hope for some unknown to rise up of the woodwork from somewhere.

  • ||

    I don't think so. I think people are really pissed off. The Republican base is very pissed off. The establishment got McCain last time and we say how that worked out. The Republican establishment is kidding itself if it thinks it can put Mitt Romney up as a way to satisfy the rank and file.

    People on here like to make fun of Glenn Beck. But what he said at CPAC last night was exactly right. You can't win by just sucking less than your opponents. And that is what Romney is; a Republican whose only virtue is that he sucks less than the Democrats. The rank and file are not going to go for it. If the Republican establishment doesn't get their heads out of their asses and get in front of the wave, there will be a third party and they will be done.

  • ||

    McCain was nominated by Democrats and Independents crossing over to vote in the GOP primary in open primary states. That's not even questionable.

  • ||

    But McCain was also like Bob Dole. A long time Senator that was nominated in no small part because it was "his turn" and because the party aparachniks were convinced the way to win was to be like the Democrats.

  • ||

    Bob Dole was never seriously challenged on his way to getting the nomination. McCain, as I stated below, was assumed to be on his way out of the race as of mid-2007.

  • ||

    McCain was nominated because he was expendable. The Powers that Be in the party knew full well that whoever they nominated after the Bush debacle was going to end up on a milk carton next to Fritz Mondale. That's why Romney and Huck bowed out early.

    -jcr

  • Robert||

    They bowed out when it became un-obvious that they would wind up running against Clinton. As long as Clinton got the nomination, the Republican would have a chance to win via the "anti-" vote. A great many voters didn't want to see the country go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton again.

  • Comrade Zero||

    "...was going to end up on a milk carton next to Fritz Mondale"

    +1

  • ||

    At the moment Mitch Daniels is my favorite dark horse. I don't know his positions on foreign policy or cultural issues, but the guy seems to know how to get a state budget under control.

  • zoltan||

    Gary Johnson is better.

  • ||

    In February of 2006, everyone was sure it was going to be Rudy vs. Hillary in the general in 2008.

    Heck, Romney was the frontrunner in Jan 2008 and couldn't sew it up even from there.

  • ||

    And McCain was left for dead in June of 2007 when he fired a bunch of his campaign staff; he didn't come back on the radar until he won in NH in February.

  • Robert||

    Never bet against Lloyd Braun. I wasn't taking note of him in early 2007 when he donated in multiples of $23 to the Obama committee, except for one donation of $1,000 to Friends of Rahm Emanuel, and donated to no other candidates.

    Forget CPAC, find out how Lloyd Braun's handicapping this one. He's got to be in the Illuminati.

  • ||

    Republicans are not against health care. They are against whatever the dems put forth. They use Obamacare as a target of partisan politics while they wait their turn for nextrepublicanprezcare.

  • ||

    I think it's certainly true that the Repubs would have opposed any healthcare plan, of any kind, that was proposed by Obama just to score points. It's also true however, that if they had any interest in advancing the issue they could have done so during 00-06 when they ran washington. They have nothing to offer in the debate over how to reform healthcare; a lot of interests (other than the public that is) are working the angles to line their pockets.

  • ||

    His position on guns also shows him to be a flip-flopping opportunist of the highest order. Not to mention the fact that he wants to re-make society according to the mold of the Mormon church.

  • ||

    I agree and along with the election of Scott Brown who supported Mass. Universal Health Care. The people I know who got excited for Romney or Brown were my W. loving republican friends where anything with an (R) is ok to them.

    Gotta research these candidates...

  • prolefeed||

    Romney isn't as bad as McCain, Romneycare notwithstanding. I don't recall Romney ever endorsing the fucking bailouts like McCain and Palin did.

    Romney is the lesser of most of the possible two evils he might be up against. Still not voting for him, but let's be real ...

  • George||

    Actually, Romney did endorse TARP. He was quite clear about it.

  • prolefeed||

    Googled it. He endorsed it, then flip-flopped and said it is a slush fund.

    Which STILL makes him the less worse of most two evils, compared to most political rivals who to this day still defend the original TARP.

    Doing something stupid, then flipping when the public kicks your ass for it, is better than doing something stupid and refusing to back down and admit it was a bad idea.

    But yeah, now I'm REALLY not going to vote for Romney.

  • ||

    I thought reason didn't like RP

  • dennis||

    There might be a couple of writers who don't but in general it's a pro-Paul mag. To many in the RP movement, any criticism is equivalent to burning down their house and pouring sugar in their gas tanks.

  • Mikey||

    It's for my morning coffee.

  • alan||

    I see some righteous fury thrown at Ron Paul from some of a rightward bent here.

    I have to ask, what was your favorite Conservative mag saying in the aftermath of the LA Riots? Care to open up that dusty old copy of American Spectator and share it with us? You still pay a subscription for National Review that magazine started up by the segregationist, WFB? Hmmm . . . Me thinks your protest are a bit much.

  • alan||

    For the record, the common reaction in conservative circles to the L A Riots though ugly was not half as bad as the decadent appeasement of mainstream Washington and liberal media.

  • Jim||

    Look at that shiny object over there!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    what...an idiot.
    As for Draco, it'd be worth a second Obama term to see Paul run as an L and finally blow the corrupt, hypocritical, xenophobic Republican Party to smithereens.

  • ||

    Yeah. Lets let the Dems have four more years of power without any adult supervision. Lets start a third party and split the vote so that the Demcorats can have absolute power with 40% of the vote. Yeah that is a great fucking idea.

  • ||

    Unless some economic green starts shooting but quick, the Dems are not going to control the House past 2010. If Obama doesn't change his attitude, they're not going to have the Senate past 2012 either.

  • ||

    I think they are going to lose both the House and the Senate in the fall. I am not kidding. If they pass Obamacare with reconciliation, there won't be an incumbant Dem Senator who will win in November. And there will not be an incumbant House member who wins who is not from the Demist of Dem district.

  • ||

    The GOP taking back the Senate would require an electoral landslide far more pronounced than that which the Dems received in 2006 and 2008. And both of those were huge by historical standards.

    It *might* happen if they pass health care via reconciliation (and even then, some Dem incumbents are extremely safe). But I don't think there are enough Dems in the Senate who are willing to cut their own throats for the team to make that a viable option. The talk about reconciliation as a possibility is just trying to keep the base from revolting.

    The Dems had the chance to ram the health care bill through the Senate by stalling Brown's installment -- a much easier parliamentary maneuver than reconciliation would be -- and Jim Webb, among others, said they would not let that happen.

  • ||

    Even if Senate bends the rules enough to pass health care via reconciliation, it would never get past the House. Pelosi only got it through by a few votes the last time, and every one of those Congresscritters is up for reelection in about eight months.

    (Or maybe I'm missing something: if the Senate passes this by reconciliation, doesn't the House have to vote on it again?)

  • ||

    If the Senate were to pass the House version of the bill via reconciliation, it goes straight to the White House.

    If they pass the conference committee bill, the House has to pass it too. But remember, the House passed it by 8 votes only because Pelosi gave members in non-safe districts permission to vote "no".

  • Citizen Nothing||

    It is a great fuckin' idea, John. And if you Rs don't like it, why then, you're very welcome to vote L.

  • ||

    That is exactly how lunatics take control of a country. The Nazis were never amajority in Germany. The Bolsevics were never the largest party in Russia. But they both took over becasue they were ruthless and single minded while the other parties were filled with ignorant jackasses who would cutt off their nose to spite their face. There is nothing to say that we won't get something really bad in this country just because the majority don't want real no shit UK soft totalitarian socialism. We absolutely could get that or worse if people decide to act like you and worry more about scoring points against your own side than actually accomplishing something.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    My own side? You can't be that dumb. I've been voting for 30 years and not once, not a single fucking time, have the Rs ever shown themselves to actually care more about liberty than the Ds. I consider the complete and total destruction of the Republican Party to be a very nice short-term goal.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Of course , if the Rs would nominate somebody like Paul or Gary Johnson I might change my mind. But good luck with that.

  • ||

    We don't need them to care about liberty. We need them to get in the way of the Dems' destruction of liberty (and the Dems to get in the GOP's way as well).

  • Citizen Nothing||

    So the crank keeps turning forever, but more slowly? Perhaps that IS the best we can hope for.

  • ||

    I've been voting for 30 years

    Well, there's your problem right there.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You might have a point. At least I've never voted for a winner. (How could I, being one of a tiny group of nuts?)

  • ||

    CN, why do you hate winning? Is it because a winner raped you at band camp? Or was it Space Camp? Holy shit, you're Joaquin Phoenix. Now I understand why I hate you so much.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    How would I know if I hate winning, Epi, when I've never won? I mean, I suspect, but I would like some certainty.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather be Joaquin than River.

  • ||

    I guess being born with a harelip is a permanent lose-lose situation, and then to top that, your vastly superior brother couldn't figure out how to do a speedball correctly and killed himself. Man, you really do suck. I'm so glad Russel Crowe killed you in the Colosseum.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    A good opening for a "kissing your sister" joke, but I got nothing.

  • ||

    Tone down the glibness, Epi. You're giving me a headache.

    It's like we're in a paddleboat going over a waterfall, and I can't get a decent shot at lassoing my rope around a tree on the shore because the people around me are guffawing over a dead baby joke.

  • ||

    Dude, I am on several narcotics right now, and I (hopefully) actually don't have to work today, so I am going to glib you silly. And you're going to like it. You like it when I pull your hair and slap you, right?

  • prolefeed||

    You like it when I pull your hair and slap you, right?

    Some women with low self-esteem like that, Epi. I doubt Tulpa would be as obliging.

  • ||

    Well, there's your problem. If you'd been paying attention since, oh, the early 80's, you'd know that you always use a bullwhip to latch onto a tree limb and pull the boat to safety.
    Ropes are so 19th century.

  • ||

    Godwin!

  • RichN||

    "To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying." – Richard Henry Lee

  • robc||

    There are more than 3 parties already. Can you not fucking count?

  • Inkblots||

    I, for one, intend to vote UKIP.

    We need to get a Nigel Farage write-in campaign going.

  • Go Team Red !!!||

    Reason commenters should have attended CPAC and told the wingnuts there is nothing conservative or "right wing" about libertarianism and vice-a-versa.

  • Reason Commenter||

    First those conservatives fucked up the Tea Parties, now they're targeting libertarianism!

    That does it, I'm off to the Whole Foods in my Prius to get a 6pack of semen-infused craft beer.

  • alan||

    That does it, I'm off to the Whole Foods in my Prius to get a 6pack of semen-infused craft beer.

    You just had to take it one step too far. Yaks milk, not semen.

    I'm brewing my first batch of honey mead. Four big mason jars, and I'm going to distill them down further by freezing out the non-alcohol contaminant. The kicker is I brewed four teabags of Chi tea into the mixture before sealing!

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Yaks milk, not semen.

    Just what they wish you to think, matey.

  • alan||

    Shhh, don't tell anyone, I knew all along.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Missed that you were a teabagger. Carry on.

  • alan||

    Whaat?!?!?!

    No. I'm a real PaleoCosmo. I don't do en masse.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    I quoteth you: "I brewed four teabags of Chi tea"

    Chi teanagger is this year's cosmoterian.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    um, Chi teaBagger=Chi teanagger

  • alan||

    I caught the trend twenty years ago and never gave it up so if I'm in style again it is just one of those clocks being right twice a day kind of things.

  • ||

    All mead is honey mead. Unlike beer, which can be made out of wheat, or wine, which can be made out of any non-grape fruit, mead can only be made with honey.

  • alan||

    Yesterday, I was telling someone about my brew, and he asked, 'Mead? Isn't that some kind of beer, like ale.' So, it helps to clarify for those who are unfamiliar with mead to add the word 'honey'. For many, it is some exotic concoction out of Tolkien stories, Norse myths, or on the menu at the bar in World of Warcraft. Otherwise, I would not have bothered with the redundancy.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    "For many all, it is some exotic concoction out of Tolkien stories, Norse myths..."

    Doesn't make it not awesome though.

  • Warty||

    Neil! You're back!

  • ||

    If only, Warty. If only.

  • Warty||

    YOU LET ME HAVE MY DREAMS

  • alan||

    Ah, Neil would weigh in with a short, barely related post every fifteen minutes or so, and joe and some others would write voluminous essay length responses telling him what an idiot he was. He likely put no more than ten minutes a day into his act, and those responding would use up several man hours just trying to catch up. It would go on for entire afternoons. Ah, I miss Neil too.

  • ||

    I miss my discussions with Neil of which Duran Duran songs were the best. "The Reflex", of course.

    (sighs)

  • alan||

    Girls on Film. The unedited video really was my first porn.

  • ||

    There really are just too many best Duran Duran songs. Damn you, Simon Le Bon!

  • alan||

    I just realize my good buddy Ben who copied that bootleg from laserdisc to betamax so I could enjoy that video at home was Jewish. Never occurred to me, but then I didn't know what the signs were. Perhaps, that fountain pouring with the blood of Christian children in his backyard should have tipped me off.

  • ||

    "Danzig, motherfucker! I got a question: can you make the blood flow up the walls?"

  • robc||

    Isnt it about time for Duran Duran to play the super bowl halftime show?

  • alan||

    Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young's turn next. God, I hope I'm wrong about that.

    Or, Bob Dylan with nothing more than an acoustic guitar and harmonica. Fuck, that is frightening.

  • Next Year's Halftime||

    Dylan starts up with HiWay 61:

    'God says to Abraham, kill me a son . . .'

    Superbowl Crowd goes "Whaat!"

    Dylan responds, 'Oh man, do any of you fucking people actually read the Bible?"

    Headlines the next morning,

    Worse Than Nipplegate!

    Consequences and reverberations occur many years down the road.

    Tool is booked in 2022. The NFL standards guy goes through their play list:

    'Sober, God know. Opiate, don't even think about it. Schism, not profane but not really for our kind of crowd. Stinkfist, ah jeez.'

    They eventually decided on a cover of Andy Kim's Rock Me Gently to be played through twice, and a sing along tribute to Neil Diamond for the remainder of the show.

  • Whoa Pony ||

    Porn? It makes me want to go horseback riding.

  • Draco||

    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but in case not, here's a little lesson in reality for you: the real world (places outside this blog) sees "libertarian" as a somewhat nutty offshoot or variety of right-wingism or conservatism. Get used to it.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Then don't worry about us nuts, Draco. What possible harm could a tiny group of libtards do to your precious Rs?
    Bwahahahaha!

  • alan||

    Oh, please tell us more about this real world you live in.

    Is the Great Patriotic War going super spiffy?

    Are those National Programs of Real Americans Reviving Our Great Economy kicking ass?

    What is the catch phrase amongst your well connected set? 24% of GDP and Soon 5% more!

    Tip the Wen and then comes the Yen!

  • ||

    Draco is right, though. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, libertarians are pretty much "right wingers", or some variation of it. That Ron Paul oppose all wars by default and support gay marriage (he does, right?) doesn't lend him street cred as a progressive. Against illegal immigration and nationalized healthcare? Yep, right winger.

    Libertarians are as dogmatic in their ideological purity as the two major parties. Most commentators here would faithfully reject all major candidates from both sides, while throwing mad love to Ron Paul, who enjoys mild support from the right and independents, but universally opposed elsewhere.

    If you don't want to win, then that's fine. If you actually want to win elections, then you can't alienate the center right by bashing every right leaning populist candidate that's not 100% libertarian, or alienating the tea party movement by ridiculing them.

  • alan||

    Explain to me how a President Romney is winning for anyone whose name is not Romney?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Hey, Paul is by no measure 100 percent libertarian, but I'd vote for him. See, pragmatism!

  • ||

    Explain to me how a President Romney is winning for anyone whose name is not Romney?

    Well, if I bet on the long shot and beat the spread, I stand to make a fair amount of money.

  • alan||

    I guess after the CPAC poll he is more of a long shot than he was going in. Just when I thought I kicked that vice to the curb, dammit, put me in for twenty.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't care if I alienate the fucking oxygen in the air and asphyxiate because it won't hang with me any more - I am not going to stop noting that Palin is a moron. I'm not going to pretend it's not true. Sorry.

  • d||

    Gillespie, just a correction: English is the mother tongue of a small sliver of *England*, not Great Britain (where, e.g., Gaelic or Scots was spoken in the north, Welsh in Wales, Cornish in Cornwall, etc.). My internal pedant says I can stop typing now.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Don't forget South Yorkshirian. Nobody has been able to translate that yet.

  • d||

    I get the sarcasm. But Cornish was spoken into the 19th century on a daily basis. It's being revived now -- seems a bit artificial, but it's a better situation than the language death that has happened and continues to happen in France.

  • Warty||

    The last native Cornish speaker died early in the 18th century, if I remember right. I call pedantry on the pedant!

  • d||

    [Inner Pedant]: Touche'! Off-by-one error. But almost correct: (via Wikipedia)

    The language continued to function as a community language in parts of Cornwall until the late 18th century

    [Non-Inner-Pedant] Man, I need some professional help.

  • d||

    [Inner Pedant] Emphasis on *late* 18th century.

    [Non-Inner-Pedant] Why won't you let me stop typing about this shit?!!!

  • Warty||

    So, wait, you were probably less wrong than me after all.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Game hens are what's for dinner, not a real language.

  • Robert||

    Do you mean the language death of standard French, or of the Langue d'Oc, Breton, etc.?

  • d||

    "Mother tongue", BTW, doesn't necessarily mean "native language", or we'd be back to square one for the English-only debate in this country (where it *is* the native language -- or the preferred native language -- of a vast majority of speakers).

  • Colin||

    Many wingnut blogs are going crazy over this.

    What's funny is that I read a number of prediction threads, and none even mentioned Paul.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Draco reminds us that politics is the art of the possible. In 2012 it might just be possible for the Libertarian Party to capitalize on the tea-party mood and fuck up the Rs but good, especially if the Rs nominate a Romney or his ilk.
    OK, then!

  • Brett||

    I ventured over to The Corner to see if they were panicking over the poll. There's not much there, but here's a short summary of the RP reaction:

    http://corner.nationalreview.c.....czNzllY2M=

  • ||

    Ron Paul is right about some stuff, and really wrong about other stuff. He's against a woman's right to choose, free immigration, and I believe he isn't a fan of judicial activism. Further, his foreign policy is to not have a foreign policy. Libertarians overrate him in the same way conservatives overrate Reagan.

  • Pro-Gay/Pro-Life/Libertarian||

    "He's against a woman's right to choose"

    Do you support the death penalty for accidental trespass? Just to be clear, by accidental trespass I mean that the trespasser did not intentionally or through any negligence on his own part committed a deliberate act of trespass. Is this worthy of the death penalty in your view?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Protoplasmic rights, now!!!

  • Pro-Gay/Pro-Life/Libertarian||

    Unlike an unborn child, protoplasm has no potential to become an independent and sentiant being.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Uh, OK.
    Every sperm is sacred!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Does that mean drinking semen-infused craft beer is mass murder?

  • alan||

    Depends on which brauhaus you are serving it up at.

  • Pro-Gay/Pro-Life/Libertarian||

    I am also a Monte Python fan. The differnce between sperm and an unborn child is that sperm, left to their own devices will die anyway. I am not Roman Catholic or even Christian. I support birth control because it will REDUCE abortions.

  • ||

    The "potential to become an independent and sentient being" is fucking meaningless. God, what stupid trope that is. Joe Eszterhas has the "potential" to write the greatest screenplay of all time, too.

  • Pro-Gay/Pro-Life/Libertarian||

    "The "potential to become an independent and sentient being" is fucking meaningless."

    Not in this case. There are, of course tragedies such as stillborns but in most cases an unborn child WILL be born unless actions are taken to prematurely kill the child.

  • ||

    Every sperm and ova have the same "potential" to be a human. Avril Levigne has the potential to be a human one day. Maybe.

    Your distinction is meaningless.

  • PIRS||

    "Every sperm and ova have the same "potential" to be a human. Avril Levigne has the potential to be a human one day."

    Perhaps you missed this part of science class but sperm and ova only have one half of the human chromosomes each.

    I am providing some links for your further education.

    http://www.genome.gov/11508982

    http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/howmanychromosomes

  • ||

    You know, you'd think that my degree in Biology would have clued me in to that. Except you're not getting me: the word "potential" means could come to pass. See how it's a meaningless term? A sperm could become a human if it meets an egg. Pinocchio could become a real boy if he can just escape from Geppetto's rape cellar. See what I'm saying?

  • PIRS||

    "See what I'm saying?"

    Yes, I do see what you are saying. You are saying you want to play around with semantics rather than deal with the philosophical questions raised by Pro-Gay/Pro-Life/Libertarian.

  • ||

    What philosophical questions? They engaged in a fallacy, which is that there is anything meaningful about saying "potential". It's exactly the same as saying "well, if I had been born into the Hilton family, I'd be rich". Well, you weren't (unless you're Paris Hilton--are you?). So it doesn't mean shit.

  • PIRS||

    How about the question regarding accidental trespass for starters?

  • ||

    Another fallacy. What does trespassing have to do with anything? You can't "trespass" in someone's body.

  • Pro-Gay/Pro-Life/Libertarian||

    "You can't "trespass" in someone's body."

    The reasoning behind those who defend child-murder is "It is my body and my choice" The unspoken assumption behind this is that one's body is one's own property. Fine. It is property. So is a home - thus the question regarding trespass.

  • Socrates||

    He who would debate with me must first define his terms.

  • Good Old World||

    Do you own stock in an abortion clinic?

    An already pregnant female is hot rails to having a child the vast majority of the time...unless someone (like an abusive male afraid of child support payments or an abortionist) engages in an action to do something about it.

    Jacking off into a toilet is not the same thing as having someone inflict physical damage on a fetus until the fetus is no more.

  • d||

    [Inner Pedant] "ova" => "ovum".

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Epi hates the unborn, but that's understandable since he was once raped by the unborn Joaquin Phoenix.

  • ||

    I had almost wiped it from my memory, and now you've brought it back, you shithead. Along with the ritual Satanic sexual abuse. Damn you.

  • Whoopi Goldberg||

    "Epi hates the unborn, but that's understandable since he was once raped by the unborn Joaquin Phoenix."

    I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. You see Joaquin Phoenix is involved in the film industry, like Roman Polanski. People in the film industry can do whatever they want. They should never be accused of crimes-crimes.

  • juris imprudent||

    Joe Eszterhas has the "potential" to write the greatest screenplay of all time, too.

    But will Michael Bay direct it?

  • ||

    Michael Bay does not have the potential to direct anything even close to "greatest", just like he does not have the potential to be human.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    A baby, left to its own devices, will die as well.

  • Inkblots||

    This is an important point. What measure is a human being? A fetus, unlike a sperm, an ovum, or puppy for that matter, is a genetically distinct instantiation of the mammal known as homo sapiens. If that's not a human being that enjoys human rights, then your argument must rely on some religious or quasi-religious notion of ensoulation that grants the spark of humanity, and with it, rights. When's that happen? When there's a heart beat? At the theoretical limit when medical science can keep a fetus alive outside the womb? When a baby can feed itself? When the brain is fully developed in the late teens? Is someone with down syndrome or profound mental retardation ever a human, by your lights?

    I'm genuinely curious about this.

  • Fluffy||

    It isn't the death penalty. It's simply the end of the trespass.

    If I find you hanging out in my house, and I make you leave, and you get hit by a truck walking down the street after you leave, that's really not my concern. In moral terms, at least.

    Besides, the placenta unambiguously belongs to the mother and is her property. If you did nothing to the fetus at all, but just removed the placenta, the fetus is all done. Would you consider that "applying the death penalty"? Controlling your own tissues?

  • Robert||

    The placenta is a fetal organ, not maternal.

  • Fluffy||

    According to whom?

    No child or adult is walking around with a placenta sticking off of them.

    And even if I conceded that, and I don't, how about the uterine wall? Oh wait I guess that's a fetal organ too. Whatever.

  • lawstudent||

    You know, the pro-choice libertarians who argue in terms of trespass and self-ownership never consider the nuances of the common law of property.

    There's a concept called adverse possession. The gist of it is that if you live in a place long enough, even if you were not invited in and the real owner didn't want you there, you acquire title to that place to the extent that you made use of it.

    So under the common law of property, at some point between conception and birth a fetus may acquire rights to stay in a given womb. By way of adverse possession, or "squatter's rights."

  • Fluffy||

    The entire concept of squatter's rights arises in the common law because the common law's respect for property has always been suspect.

    Except in cases of outright property abandonment, the concept of adverse possession is profoundly immoral.

    And if anyone ever claimed a "squatter's right" to hook themselves up to my arm and live off my blood, I'd beat them to death with a fucking hammer. Them, and anyone who walked up and said, "You know, because he managed to keep himself attached to you for a couple of days, he now has a squatter's right to your arm blood." BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG, cave your fucking face in with a hammer and then piss in the hole.

  • Pro-Gay/Pro-Life/Libertarian||

    "It isn't the death penalty. It's simply the end of the trespass."

    At some future point in history where artificial wombs exist and an early term unborn child could be transferred to this device and survive you may have a point. Until then it IS the death penalty. Now, a challenge to all you "pro-choice" people: Get to work on designing an artificial womb and the debate is over when it is completed and on the marketplace. Think about it.

  • ||

    Ron Paul is right about some stuff, and really wrong about other stuff. He's against a woman's right to choose


    No he's not, he's against abortion. Everyone is pretty much pro-choice. Everyone is pretty much pro-life. That's why each side uses those words. But the issue is "abortion," not "choice" or "life."

    I'm pretty much a strong supporter of abortion rights, but I'm strong opponent of using either side's code words in the argument. "Choice" and "life" are elements of the argument, not the argument itself.

  • ||

    Fair distinction. I am always amused by the Pro-Lifers who argue till they are blue in the face about the sanctity of human life (when talking about a fetus) and then shout "stick em' in the fry-daddy" when talking about some negro on death row.

  • josey||

    Why the race distinction? Death penalty types seem to be pretty much equal-opportunity; they're happy to fry people of any color.

  • ||

    The reason for the race reference is obvious: to make his strawman as flammable as possible. I'm surprised he didn't have the pro-lifer ranting against "fags and dikes" in his caricature as well.

  • ||

    Right -- because a convicted murderer and an innocent fetus are the same thing. Since you support imprisoning criminals, I guess that means you must support locking up children for decades for no reason too.

  • ||

    Actually, studies indicate that the death penalty has been applied very much along racial lines. Blacks make up a much larger percentage of those who are on death row than should be expected, statistically. The pro-life types I run into love to make their case based on "life is precious, a gift from God, it is not man's place to decide matters on life and death." This does not apply though to convicts, whose life is no longer valuable.

  • Craig||

    Yet if Romney had won the straw poll, we would be hearing about how it showed his great organizational strength and cemented his front-runner status....

    It's disingenuous at best to say Ron Paul will have no impact on the upcoming presidential election, and to point out that he didn't win any primaries last time out -- he was almost unknown nationally in 2007, yet he finished in the top 4 in the Republican race and topped double digits in numerous states.

    With the ongoing economic depression and his continuing media coverage, Ron Paul would certainly stand to do significantly better this time around, if he chooses to run. It's doubtful he could win the Republican nomination (given his foreign policy views), but he clearly has a strong organization and a growing level of support.

  • ||

    Pauls' best shot would be to make the Republican primary a two horse race between him and the other guy (Romney or whomever). Romney in particular would be so vulnerable to attacks on health care, that it wouldn't be hard for Paul to push the "I didn't leave conservatism, it left me" line of attack with conservatives.

  • Mike M.||

    If he were younger I think I'd give him a one in three shot to get the nomination, but realistically he's just too old now to be a viable contender for the presidency.

  • ||

    I had talked about that in the post, but deleted it as the post got too long. I agree, he'll be 85 in 2020. Torch passing has always been difficult too.

    I suppose if he and Flake could resolve what amount to fairly minor differences...

  • robc||

    His son will be a 2-year Senator in 2 years. Thats only slightly less time than Obama had in the Senate. Just sayin.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You go to hell for getting my hopes up, robc.

  • zoltan||

    Pfft, please, his son is white.

  • ||

    That's actually a great headline Nick.

  • PIRS||

    "because, seriously, how can you be a real American if you don't speak the mother tongue of Great Britain?"

    How about we have the whole world pick out a contructed language like Esperanto, Ido or Lojban and we can all just speak that from now on. It would solve a lot of problems.

  • ||

    As a bonus, we can all finally understand what Shatner is saying in Incubus.

  • PIRS||

    That is actually a good movie. In the series Red Dwarf Espearnto is an oficial language on the ship.

  • ||

    Yeah, Incubus is actually pretty good, with very nice cinematography. The same cannot be said for Impulse or The Devil's Rain.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And everyone speaks Esperanto in the Riverworld series.

  • ||

    Philip José Farmer? I didn't think my opinion of you could get any lower, but there you go. What next, high praise for The Wheel of Time?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    No. But I just LOVE the post-Frank Herbert Dune books! Wheeee!

  • robc||

    That is even trying. No one believes that anyone could say that.

  • ||

    Somebody is buying the books, rob. Someone evil and horrible and twiste...holy shit, it's Warty.

  • Warty||

    Fuck you, I ducked out after the second book which spent its entire text talking about that fucking bowl. FIX THE GODDAMN WEATHER ALREADY ASSHOLES

  • Fluffy||

    Come on, the first 100 pages of Riverworld are pretty cool. It's shlock, but it's FUN schlock.

  • ||

    eyebye uhbuh greebee

  • alan||

    It would be a huge problem for me. I don't know any of those languages, and even the mention of the word 'Esperanto' makes me giggle. It just sounds dirty.

    Though I'm just one person, creating problems for me just makes it worse on everyone else.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Bona ideo, kara amiko!

  • ||

    What really sucks is that Gary Johnson or Jeff Flake didn't even show up in the straw poll.

  • ||

    Im holding out for these two. Heck I wish Flake would take on McCain for the Senate here in AZ.

    Im wondering if possibly Ron Paul may give a green light to Gary Johnson for 2012?

  • ||

    I agree. Then find someone to take Kyl out next time.

    All in all though, I'd rather have Johnson as a Senator from NM. I think taking the Senate is better than the White House. I hate the Imperial Presidency thing

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I would vote for Ron Paul again. I would rather vote for someone else, though.

  • prolefeed||

  • ||

    Gary Johnson 2012! He's more telegenic than Ron Paul, has less baggage, and having been a governor, more qualified.

  • Who's Sean Hannity||

    Yeah, but where is he right now, besides a "blown kiss" from Reason once in a moon, i haven't heard much out of him.

  • ||

    Couldn't agree more with your point that the GOP best pay more attention to the principles expressed by Ron Paul. However, one of those, is an adherence to traditional moral values, such as opposition to abortion on demand and gay marriage. So, you are half-right.

  • John Faber||

    Ron Paul is a cartoon character who lives in a fantasy world he shares with his supporters and anybody else who takes him seriously. His nomination would be the one thing that would cause me to vote for Barack Obama- as a matter of national security.

  • John Faber||

    Oh- and BTW, anybody who equates the mechanical dismemberment of an unborn child with the execution of a serial killer has just forfeited any right to be taken seriously.

  • alan||

    So says the guy we are all laughing at.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Exactly. A serial killer is a sentient being.

  • alan||

    That little squatter knew what he was getting into.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Actually, the point is he doesn't "know" a damn thing.

  • alan||

    CN, of course, this is not really my issue. I don't opine on abortion, one of the many luxuries that I wholeheartedly claim for not baring a womb, but I just loooove how Mr. Faber comes in with an absolutist set of claimers as if he knows dick about how the world turns. Someone may have a few degrees related to the field, someone may have worked on the Hill at one time, and someone may have even been paid for research related to the first topic Faber mentions before he burned out of DC, and went back to the plow, but noooo, if they disagree with Faber on the extent and direction of foreign policy, why he is not going to take them seriously, and then just to show 'em, he is going to high tail it and vote for Obama!

  • alan||

    claim for not baring a womb,

    Damn. I always get the picture of the moon coming out of an exposed womb when I use the word 'womb'. Should have learned to correct that by now.

  • John Faber||

    Actually, I a do have a degree in a field involving ethics, unlike the Supremes. And enough sense to know both that the Constitution does not mention abortion, and that the national consensus on the subject even in 1973 was well to the right of Roe- and you.

  • John Faber||

    Yep. Even though his position on abortion contradicts his libertsrianism, it's the one subject this isolationist nut case is right.

  • alan||

    Once again, from the top, it is irrelevant to me what a politician votes on the matter of abortions. I'll never get pregnant and I have no interest in scraping out fetuses for either fun or profit, so whatever criminal penalties are involved don't concern me. Late abortions probably should be a matter of criminal statute but that is an argument for someone else to make.

    However, for your argument on foreign policy, surely by now you find the usual justifications for an expansionist foreign policy weak. Do you enjoy being subject to the blackmail of every other nations prerogatives? Is it not the slightest bit emasculating? Or ever make you feel like a mug to pretend Karzai is a statesman? That being just one of dozens of instances where expansionist policy makes our national interest a slave to being pulled by the nose by those who unlike our politicians know what they are doing?

  • Who's Sean Hannity||

    WOOT Ron Paul, someone who doesn't get a boner out of telling you what to do. WHat's not to love? Don't answer that.

    Wasn't expecting to pay attention to CPAC, but this caught me by surprise. It's much too soon for me to think about 2012, but it seems Mr. Paul is doing something right by sticking around. At least he will be in a position to make some noise, i would love to seem him in the field for 2012.

  • Thorbie||

    Wow, I'm ecstatically surprised. My hope is that Ron Paul's straw poll win in CPAC is the signal of the GOP finally embracing it's libertarian roots, which haven't been seen arguably since Reagan or maybe further back to Goldwater. Although I respect Ron Paul, I don't see him winning in 2012. I would rather see more libertarian republicans jump into the race after this level of support for the most vocal libertarian in the GOP. Maybe Gary Johnson or Paul Ryan will jump into the GOP primary. Maybe we'll see an influx of libertarian Republicans running and getting elected to Congress in November. I hope this pro-liberty anti-establishment attitude in libertarian and conservative ranks continues into the midterm elections.

  • ||

    i couldnt have said it any better

  • TP||

    Ronald Reagan libertarian? Fuck meeeeeeee. That mother fucker banned the Quaalude!!!!!!!

  • Thorbie||

    I didn't say Reagan was a libertarian. I just said this might be first time since Reagan that you see any kind of trace of libertarianism in the GOP. I even said it was arguable whether you'd even consider that Reagan has even that and I also mentioned Goldwater, which was even more libertarian. Reagan was far from perfect, but wouldn't you agree that having a president who gave his inaugural speech on how "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem" was pretty damn awesome?

  • zoltan||

    And then increased the size of the government.

    Words are pretty, whee!

  • TP||

    Seriously, fuck Reagan. The goal is to hinder the planners--whether they seek to control what the people demand, supply, or both.

  • ||

    ...the GOP finally embracing it's libertarian roots...

    The GOP's roots: a fusion of abolitionists and mercantilists. Some abolitionists were libertarian, but they tended to be the ones that stayed away from the Republican Party. The mercantilists, of course, were all for exorbitant tariffs and economic controls. Throw in some Yankee busybodyism from New England manufacturers, and you have the roots of the GOP.

    The only reason the GOP is thought to be a "small government" party is because the Democrats got taken over by the huge government progressives.

  • alan||

    Pretty good mini lesson in history. I recall in the biopic we watched in a class, Henry Ford playing Lincoln made a speech that was discordantly mercantilist to my ears even at a young age.

  • JRS||

    Actually, Nick, it's Jethro Bodine.

  • Hacha Cha||

    if the republicans somehow got Ron Paul the nomination in 2012 they might actually win. Obama vs. Paul, how many people are going to actually vote to keep the Obama trainwreck going any further?

  • ||

    You guys do know President Paul would be 77 at his inauguration, right? He would be the oldest person to be inaugurated as president in history.

  • alan||

    Yeap, I'm hoping he is still around, but essentially throws his weight behind a bonefide libertarian oriented candidate.

    Sort of our pater familias, if not ideal for a few reasons himself.

  • Thorbie||

    I agree. I don't see Ron Paul ever winning a presidential election, but I know that people like Gary Johnson, Jeff Flake, and even Bob Barr would have no chance in hell (well an even less of a chance) without what influence Ron Paul has.

  • Fluffy||

    I just checked out the thread on this at Free Republic so I could have some laughs at their whining and drink up some of their delicious tears, and the sheer amount of devotion to Palin there is absolutely comical.

    They really seem to love a braindead skank who has done nothing as a Republican except delight in Alaska's system of resource socialism, accept a nomination from that antiliberty scumbag and darling of the left for his "mavericky" centrist waysm John McCain, and endorse in its entirety the record and legacy of George Bush, which is supposedly what the Tea Party movement is supposed to be against.

  • Apostate Jew||

    Seconded.

  • zoltan||

    She's not a braindead skank. Everything else, pretty much yeah.

  • Walter Nowotny||

    Ron Paul(AKA Dr.No) is a physician(OB/GYN) who voted twice against tort reform (fact that was extensively used by trial lawyers propaganda).This guy is an ultimate hypocrite.He demands earmarks even for bills he opposes. He is for free trade but votes against any free trade bill.He is anti Israel and bordeline anti-semitic.This is a bitter old man who has nothing to offer but his moralistic rumbling.

  • alan||

    He is anti Israel and bordeline anti-semitic.

    There we go. What was that rant really about? One of the mst laughably mentally challenged aspects of the Neocon worldview, that being anyone who says they want to 'cut foreign aid' is really saying, 'throw the joos in the oven!'

  • walter nowotny||

    Instead name calling why don't you chek Paul's voting record.Any physician voting with trial lawyers against tort reform exemplifies what is wrong with Washington those days.

  • alan||

    Are you really going to complain about name calling after glibly throwing around an accusation of anti-semiticism?

    As for your point, tort reform is more of a Republican issue that a libertarian one. Standard minarchist libertarian theory, what you'll find in Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty, holds tort through the civil courts to be a proper means and regulatory bodies to be an illegitimate means to the ends of civil dispute. Last I looked, tort reform ideas tended to favor the later.

  • ||

    Ron Paul's a dolt who voted right down there with Sherrod Brown and Harry Reid and Chris Dodd against free trade - even for humble Peru. He says he's too principled to soil his hands with a mere free trade pact. But all he does is reveal his no-nothing ignorance. Free trade pacts level the playing field between countries so that investment can happen. NAFTA is a good example and for godsakes the economies of both countries quadrupled after that happened and tens of millions of jobs followed. But even with that staring in front of him, Mister Purity Paul refuses to vote yes on a critical free trade pact. He'd screw Colombia too if he could. Ron Paul is a kook and will never get my vote.

  • alan||

    If you take out the 'kook' and a few other descriptors since there really isn't anything nutty about Paul, he came to most of his positions through a sound reading of policy as opposed to going along with the Washington template which mask the insanity of a lot of the sociopaths there, I actually agree with what you said, as NAFTA, for one, is a much better policy than the previous status quo even if it doesn't live up to a full implementation of free trade. I get the feeling that with trade deals and immigration policy, Paul is hedging his views to be more compatible to the populist oriented voters in his district, and that is unfortunate.

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    He seems more concerned about loss of sovereignty and additional layers of bureaucracy that things like CAFTA bring. He seems to be fine, at least in the article I linked to, with reduction or elimination of our own tariffs unilaterally.

  • ||

    Mora,

    Have you ever traded anything with someone living in another country that has a so called "free trade agreement" between your government and their government?

    First try that and then tell use how "free" it is to trade.

  • iamse7en||

    I don't want to get my hopes up if it isn't plausible. Can Ron Paul really win in 2012?!

    I'm giddy at just the thought of it. I just don't think such a great thing could happen in this fascialist country.

  • ||

    Well.. Ron Paul's son Rand Paul is running for Senate in Kentucky. Polls show he is the front runner. He's running a slightly different campaign than Ron Paul with slightly different views. I think if Rand Paul wins there will be a better chance.

  • ||

    Ron Paul won't be nominated in 2012. I suspect the person who WILL be nominated may be someone new who emerges in November's elections.

    But it is heartening to see that a libertarian-leaning Republican can actually get the support of the conservatives of CPAC. I mean, they hate Obama enough to bite their tounge and vote for a libertarian. Whereas the libertarians probably don't hate Obama enough to vote for Romney.

  • ||

    I don't think the poll means much. I suspect that the Paulistas packed the house with students who voted like drones for Paul.

    Paul can't win the nomination. He's a cranky fellow known for anti-semite leanings and support from other leftist fringe groups.

  • ||

    How is Ron Paul an anti-semite? Is it because he doesn't want to "bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran"?

  • ||

    The GOP needs to avoid making the same mistake in catering too much to the far right that the Democrats have made in catering too much to the far left. Americans (most of us, anyway) are sick & tired of the extremes on both sides. We want rational people who can meet in the middle and come up with workable solutions, not rigid ideologues.

    I'm all for reducing spending, reducing the influence of government, and reducing the federal deficit. But people like Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh who reflexively shout "NO NEW TAXES!!!" at every turn poison the debate. The fact is that there are liberal Democrats on the other side who just as adamantly shout "NO SPENDING CUTS!!!" and their votes count just as much as anyone else's. If the budget gap is to be closed, it will take a combination of real spending cuts as well as new sources of revenue. That's the only politically workable solution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

  • ||

    Also, I'd add that the GOP's best candidate for 2012, far & away, is Mitt Romney. He's not a lawyer, for one thing. Rather, he's a very successful businessman who made his fortune turning around troubled companies into profitable ones and then selling them off. He's highly intelligent, very well-spoken, extremely well-organized, he understands economics and the financial markets, and most importantly, he's had extensive experience in making the tough choices necessary to turn around failing companies. This is precisely the skill set that's needed in the White House right now, because America right now is a VERY troubled situation!

  • zoltan||

    We need another smart businessman to give all our taxpayer dollars to the wealthy bankers!!!

  • ||

    But Mitt Romney is also a Socialist who tried to push Romneycare to the entire nation. When Romneycare almost bankrupted Massachusetts, he stopped pitching the idea. The House's version of the Health Care bill is modeled after Romneycare. So NO Romney is a sleezy used car salesman Socialist. Under any circumstances I will NOT vote Romney.

  • ||

    Absolutely false. But I like how you've so perfectly mirrored public perception. You forget that you're talking about the Republican governor of Massachusetts. He proposes health care reform and the overwhelmingly-Democratic State Legislature hijacks the process and pulls the political game forcing him to sign into law unhealthy reforms. Following Romney's departure Gov. Patrick drove the system into the ground, with no fault to Mitt.

  • Leading Edge Boomer||

    This column reminds me of the famous cartoon of a dog hiding behind an open clothes dryer with a sign that says "Cat Fud." A cat is looking at it, while the dog is thinking "O Please, O Please, O Please."

    Bring it, meat.

  • Leading Edge Boomer||

    In case that was too cryptic for you, the dog represents the Democrats, and the cat represents possibly self-destructive Republicans.

  • Leading Edge Boomer||

    This column reminds me of the famous cartoon of a dog hiding behind an open clothes dryer with a sign that says "Cat Fud." A cat is looking at it, while the dog is thinking "O Please, O Please, O Please."

    Bring it, meat.

  • ||

    Ron Paul has done more to harm the Libertarian cause than any politician I can think of. His paranoid ramblings and conspiracy theories would doom not only his candidacy but any party that supported him. His foreign policy positions are beyond asinine. He would have no chance in the general election.

    I see and read guys like Nick Gillespie and I am very impressed. They come off as reasonable and intelligent, especially on economic matters. But then the inevitable pushing of Ron Paul starts and I am reminded that Libertarians are basically like the Birchers, a bunch of cranks in the cellar of conservatism.

    Even forgetting the lunacy, Ron Paul brings home more pork than John McCain ever did, and that is coming from someone who can't stand McCain. The guy does not stand by his convictions.

  • Nash||

    That's ridiculous. Regardless of whether Paul is a serious candidate (he isn't) he's done more for educating the typical voter about libertarian concepts than any member of the media or 3rd party ever could.

    Most voters didn't even know what libertarianism was before 2008. Now it's a household name.

    Paul has already explained his earmarks before. The money is already getting spent. If he doesn't earmark then the executive branch will spend it instead.

    Ron Paul never intended to be President. His intent was to educate. He and his supporters, through their donations, did that in spades.

  • ||

    What conspiracy theory are you specifically talking about? And give me an example of the pork in Ron Paul's district.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Man... I don't really get all this claptrap about Ron Paul & pork... It makes perfect sense to me...

    His district is full of tax-paying citizens, yes?

    So why do all these people think that they don't deserve to see *their* money get used for something useful to them??

    Were I RP I'd be doing the same thing!

    1. Vote *NO* on every piece of unconstitutional, or economically illiterate idea that came across my desk.

    2. Prepare for the inevitability of my "NO" failing miserably and having contingency plans where my constituents aren't completely fucked in the process.

    You can do both, and I think under the circumstances, doing both is absolutely the right move... Does anyone here think Paul would get re-elected ever if he voted "No" to everything, and also failed to help out his own district?

    If you were a member of his constituency, would you be very happy with paying taxes in year after year and watching that money get transferred to people in other communities or even other states? I suspect not.

    It's not the government's money, for godsake... It's the people's who earned it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ken Royal,

    Ron Paul has done more to harm the Libertarian cause than any politician I can think of.

    "... and I can think very little."

    His paranoid ramblings and conspiracy theories would doom not only his candidacy but any party that supported him.

    "... I can't say which conspiracy theories nor give an example of his paranoid ramblings, being that I have not really listened to anything he has said but I *know* he's a conspiracy theorist and a paranoid who's out there to get me!"

    His foreign policy positions are beyond asinine. He would have no chance in the general election.

    "... just as the Founding Fathers were thus also asinine and lost all general elections."

    But then the inevitable pushing of Ron Paul starts and I am reminded that Libertarians are basically like the Birchers, a bunch of cranks in the cellar of conservatism.

    " . . . since I tend to equate anybody who's a strict constitutionalist with being a Bircher."

    Even forgetting the lunacy, Ron Paul brings home more pork than John McCain ever did, and that is coming from someone who can't stand McCain.

    Which is a great achievement since CONGRESSMAN Paul represents a little district whereas McCain is a SENATOR of a whole state.

  • ||

    Yeah it is really inspiring to hear Paul rambling about the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the North American Union among others. And although he denies it, he openly encourages the 9/11 truth movement which is despicable. He even hoped that the Democrats would do a "proper investigation" into the matter. What a dunce.

    His foreign policy position consists of total isolation, leaving an enormous power vacuum that would be filled by Russia and China. His assertion that radical Islamic attacks are somehow justified because of our supposed incursions into their lands are also ridiculous. They have been attacking us for 40 years no matter what we do.

    Here is a nice article on Ron Paul's pork:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....d_outlooks

  • Bradley||

    The focus on pork is a McCainite sideshow. It's a tiny fraction of the total federal budget. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and war spending are bankrupting the country, and you're harping about pork? God, even that whole bridge-to-nowhere fiasco was over a paltry $398 million. That number sounds positively fucking quaint these days.

  • ||

    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything.

  • ||

    He was elected 10 terms to his Congressional seat.. So your statement is already incorrect.

  • ||

    Are you kidding me? He is a wind bag, full of hot air and too full of himself.

    Jess
    www.online-anonymity.vze.com

  • chuck||

    who is ron paul and why did he endorse the free state project?

  • ||

    I would back anyone who will trully push to end payroll & corporate taxes, and setup a consumer based tax structure such as the fairtax.

  • John Faber||

    "The potential to a sentient being is meaningless."

    Just so. It is sufficient that one be a human being. Once the line is moved beyond that point, there is no subsequent line that will hold against those who find this or that human life to be inconvenient or distasteful.

    I will grant, btw, that a sentient abortionist has all the moral standing of any other sentient serial killer.

  • sm||

    Good new audio commentary on Ron Paul, Dick Cheney, and CPAC here:

    http://www.freespeechmonster.com/

  • ||

    Love the brownshirt talk. Most of you tools grew up in the suburbs watching to tv. Yr country is falling to hell, because you are lazy, worthless bunch of crybabies, f&%k all of you!

  • ||

    Just picking at nits, but it's Jethro Bodine, not Jethro Clampett.

  • ||

    Remember Rush Limbaugh's game "Operation Chaos"? If Obama goes unopposed, I bet a lot of Dems are gonna play that game in the primaries. Ron Paul will be the man for the Dems to vote for.

  • GEDDY FRIEDMAN||

    The sound of President Paul is music to my ears.

    This article is propaganda aimed to admit Ron Paul's pwning over every 2012 Republican potential in a completely dismissive manner. It claims because RP did not win any caucus back in 2008 that somehow he has no chance now.

    The sorry FACT is the establishment media was hell bent on cutting him down, demonizing him, or out right blacking him out from the press during the last presidential campaign even when he made enormous news. His message of personal liberty, small govt, a non-interventionist foreign policy, sound money and free markets was revolutionary given the common opposition against all of it at the time. But now, because of Ron Paul and his patriotic supporters, the Tea Party movement began a massive effort to take back the Republican party from the warmongering, liberty-renouncing, deficit-spending Neocons, which has been Ron Paul's message all along.

    So to end, Ron Paul has been exonerated from the malicious attacks of the establishment media and Neocons. He has been proven true time and again. And now We The People are demanding Ron Paul for President in 2012. If he chooses to run, watch him win every debate as usual, only this time the media with actually acknowledge it, congratulate him and support his bid to bring the country back to absolute freedom and the Constitution.

    Ron Paul makes too much sense for anyone to ignore anymore. The light shines down on what is good and pure just as it does on what is evil and corrupt. The choice is easy to see. You can't go wrong when you're the champion of the Constitution. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

  • givejonadollar||

    Thanks for giving Ron the props he deserves Nick!

  • sathi2000||

    If the "party of limited government" gives us another Mccain to vote for, I'll be proud to help him lose.
    http://destinationsoftwareinc.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement