Third Third Third, Third is the Word

Ron Paul has said time and again that he won't run as an independent this year: He'll follow the GOP nomination process and that'll be that. But he refused to say he'd endorse a non-Ron Paul GOP nominee, so the speculation machine creaks again. Here's Bob Novak, and here, more speculatively, is Matt Continetti, who wonders about James Dobson's rumbling about a pro-life third party…

Would Dobson support Paul or Tancredo? It's unlikely. Which suggests that, if certain improbable but possible events occur—such as this man winning the GOP nomination—we may have not only a third party candidate, but perhaps even a fourth-party candidate running in a general election.

Why wouldn't Dobson support Paul or Tancredo? Both men are pro-life, and both are rock-solid against gay marriage. (I've heard Paul mock "gay marriage" as an oxymoron invented by liberal judicial activists.) Dobson has made it very clear that he cares about these issues, and about general obediance to the evangelical movement, more than anything else. In 2005 he threatened to come out against Bush's Social Security reforms if the White House didn't mount another surge for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

I'd bet a lot of money against a Paul independent run. The man remembers how thankless and momentum-free his 1988 Libertarian run was: He's tripled the budget he had that year in a mere nine months of campaigning as a Republican. But if he did want to run he might be malleable enough to run as a strict Constructionist, Christian, Dobsonite candidate. It'd be a hammer blow to libertarians, but it's imaginable.

Anyway, the leap from "Paul won't endorse GOP" to "Paul will bolt party!" is muy premature: Angry mavericks go against their party all the time. Pennsvylvania Gov. Bob Casey, Sr. didn't endorse Bill Clinton; neither, the same year, did Maryland Gov. Will Don Schaefer. In 2004 Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) publicly un-endorsed Bush.

Meanwhile, Cynthia McKinney is going to win the Green Party nomination with a lot of Darren Aronofsky-helmed campaign videos:

Comments

[John]

Pat Buchanan ran as a third party guy and is nothing now. Ralph Nader did the same and is in the same position as Buchanan. Howard Dean hung in there and is now the chairman of the Democratic Party. Paul because he is against gay marriage and is pro-life has the mojo to talk to evangelicals. He also has the uncanny ability to get people to ignore the fact that he holds views that they would normally object to. The fact that a guy who kicks around gay marriage and is pro life could be Reason's favorite candidate is pretty remarkable. Once the war in Iraq winds to a close in 2009 or so, the only people in the Republican Party who are going to have a problem with Paul are going to be the establishment crooks in Congress who are terrified at the prospect of having to work for a living. Considering that they are the ones responsible for losing Congress and completely destroying the party's reputation for fiscal restraint and belief in small government, I don't think many people are going to want to listen to them. Ron Paul needs to hang in there and have some patience and be a team player. He has a real chance to do something in the coming years.

[Warren]

Meanwhile, Cynthia McKinney is going to win the Green Party nomination

Hahahaha Seriously? That's great news. She'll add much needed entertainment value to the election. And more importantly, make the major party candidates look more sane and less tyrannical.

[Fluffy]

Paul doesn't have a Dean-like future as a party power broker in the cards for a pretty simple reason: his age. This is the last waltz for Paul. Hopefully he goes out with a bang.

I'd support Paul if he ran as a third party candidate. But only if Dobson's not on board. I would sooner eat tacks than support any Dobson-blessed activity. And it would never happen anyway - Dobson's full agenda is also anti-free-speech, and I would also assume he views the drug war as a "defense of the family", so Dobson will never endorse Paul. Thankfully.

[Speculated campaign strategy]

Its the nomination or nuthin', so any would-be volunteers/contributers better not sit on their duffs waiting for round two.

[Underzog]

The David Duke website refers to Ron Paul as our KING who will take care of the neocons; i.e., dirty jooos.

This appeasing creature will not be President and he will not get my vote.

Smoke a bong as he loses as it will make you clowns feel better.

"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here."

[Warren]

The fact that a guy who kicks around gay marriage and is pro life could be Reason's favorite candidate is pretty remarkable.

Yes it is. And the reason I'm throwing more support behind Paul than I have for anyone else, is because he doesn't allow his personal beliefs to interfere with his interpretation of the Constitution.

He finds no contitutional authority for federal government involvement in either abortion or gay marriage.

[Jay D]

"But if he did want to run he might be malleable enough to run as a strict Constructionist, Christian, Dobsonite candidate. It'd be a hammer blow to libertarians, but it's imaginable."

I don't know what "Dobsonite" means, but why would strict Constructionist and Christian necessarily contribute to a hammer blow for libertarians?

[tarran]

It's telling how philosophically emty politicians are that people ar completely ignoring what Ron Paul said when they claim falsely that he reduses to endorse the eventual Republican nominee.

Ron Paul has been consistent in his answer: Unless the Republican nominee adopts his policies on foreign policy and monetary policy he will not be endorsing him.

In other words, Ron Paul will endorse the Republican nominee if he announces an intention to work toward repealing Legal Tender laws, slashing spending, and in withdrawing U.S. forces from occupying Germany, Japan, Korea, Iraq et al.

This is not some guy throwing a temper tantrum because he wants to be president. Ron Paul, I think, would be quite content to allow someone else to get the glory, so long as rational fiscal and foregin policies are enacted.

[John]

"He finds no contitutional authority for federal government involvement in either abortion or gay marriage."

He is right about that. I think he is whacked when it comes to his views on the gold standard, but he is running for President not king. He could never reimpose the gold standard even if he won, so I am willing to give him a pass on that one.

[joe]

The War, the War, the War.

Where's Dobson on the Iraq War? That's the question.

We could be looking at a serious crack-up in the Republican Party. Between the anti-immigrat and Christian right people feeling stiffed by the national party, and the significant minority of the party faithful (maybe 1/4-1/3, which ain't peanuts) that have turned against the war, I don't see how any Republican nominee can hold the house together. And if a Democratic victory looks inevitable, there would be little reason for the mutually-hostile factions to hand together.

[Joshua Holmes]

Paul doesn't have a Dean-like future as a party power broker in the cards for a pretty simple reason: his age.

Actually, the simple reason is that Paul doesn't have mainstream Republican views. joe has hammered on Dean's performance as DNC chair - where Dean has done a fantastic job of getting do-nothing spineless coward Democrats elected - but Paul doesn't have that future. Dean is a mainstream Democrat. Paul is not a mainstream Republican. There is no power-brokering future for Paul.

[Christopher Thurow]

Warren said:

"...the reason I'm throwing more support behind Paul than I have for anyone else, is because he doesn't allow his personal beliefs to interfere with his interpretation of the Constitution"

THAT more than anything else is THE point!
Well said.

[John]

No one is leaving the Republican party over the war Joe. Dream on. Now, a better question is what will the moveon.org types do if it is 2012 and there are still 30 or so thousand troops in Iraq and are still at war in Afghanistan and Hillary Clinton is President, both of which are entirely possible.

[Randolph Carter]

I don't know if anyone else saw it, but last night on MSNBC Dan Abrams tried to pull a big "gotcha" on Paul with the question "would you accept President Bush's endorsement?" Paul just gave him a straight "no," and Abrams was shocked. Paul stands pretty much completely outside of the power structure of the Republican party.

[Jeff]

Dobson won't support Paul because interest groups have no traction with the man. Paul will do whatever he thinks is right according to his principles. Dobson likes politicians who will adapt their views under his leverage.

[Dan T.]

Warren writes regarding Ron Paul:

he doesn't allow his personal beliefs to interfere with his interpretation of the Constitution.

That's rather absurd. A person's interpretation of the Constitution depends entirely on their personal beliefs.

He finds no contitutional authority for federal government involvement in either abortion or gay marriage.

Well, the courts have found that women do have a right to abortion, and they're the ones whose interpretation Ron Paul should defer to.

[joe]

Joshua,

First, the spineless Democrats were already in office when Dean took over. The candidates he's gotten elected have proven to be considerably more ballsy than the previous generation.

Second, I never meant to suggest that Paul would follow Dean's path exactly. For one thing, he's done nothing to show that he has the organizational/management abilities to be a Party Chair. And, as you mention, his policy beliefs (and lack of interest in taking half a loaf) make him a poor fit for such a position.

But there are other paths. Elder Statesman a la Barry Goldwater, for example.

[tarran]

Dan that is what Paul is doing.

He says, the Constitution gives the U.S. government no power to regulate abortion.

That means it can't pass any laws on the subject. Which means, that the Federal government has no power to prevent a woman from getting an abortion.

See?

[Tom W]

I liked the Trashmen reference in the title.

Surfin' Third!

I don't think Ron should run as a third-party candidate. He should go back to the House again and inspire other libertarianish candidates to run for the House.

[joe]

No one is leaving the Republican party over the war Joe.

No, John. The Republican Party is leaving them.

You should consult sources other than your gut when you make statements about other people's political beliefs.

[Dan T.]

Dan that is what Paul is doing.

He says, the Constitution gives the U.S. government no power to regulate abortion.

That means it can't pass any laws on the subject. Which means, that the Federal government has no power to prevent a woman from getting an abortion.

See?

Okay. So he's happy with the way things are in that regard?

[Warren]

He wants to appoint judges that can read English to the supreme court.

[joe]

Now, a better question is what will the moveon.org types do if it is 2012 and there are still 30 or so thousand troops in Iraq and are still at war in Afghanistan and Hillary Clinton is President, both of which are entirely possible.

Afghanistan? Nothing. There isn't a meaningful chunk of the electorate anywhere that is opposed to the war against bin Laden and his followers.

Now, about 30,000 troops in Iraq - that will depend. Are we talking about troops keeping the Kurds from being overrun, or about troops refereeing the ongoing Sunni/Shiite civil war? Are we talking about 30,000 troops stationed in Kuwait, Diego Garcia, Qatar, and in the Gulf, or about troops actually in Iraq, patrolling the streets of Baghdad? (This last question has to be asked because, as their efforts to blur their collapsing position with the overwhelming preference of the American people, Republicans like John have been rhetorically conflating "in Iraq" with "in the region.")

[Jay D]

Okay. So he's happy with the way things are in that regard?

You are asking about his personal feelings of happiness, which, people are trying to say, is irrelavent to his governing style.

[Dan T.]

He wants to appoint judges that can read English to the supreme court.

It's understandable that a guy running for President would be interested in a judiciary that shared his personal philosophy on the law. But it's annoying that people assume that Ron Paul's interpretation is somehow the "true" or "correct" one when by definition an interpretation is subjective.

[tarran]

Okay. So he's happy with the way things are in that regard?

Nope, because the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the Federal Court system to meddle in the matter either.

The problem here is that the current scheme we labor under with the federal courts having veto power over state laws is not compatible with a literal reading of the Constitution. Of course, practically speaking, most government officials believe that the Federal courts were granted such a veto power in whichever federal amendment that required states to also respect the Bill of Rights. Thus, even though such a power is not explicitly granted in the U.S. constitution, it might as well be for the vast majority of people.

Incidentally, I, unlike Ron Paul, am not a big fan of the U.S. constitution. I was persuaded by Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard that it has no legitimate authority over anyone. I feel similarly about state governments. Thus while I respect Ron Paul's positions, I don't agree with him that the U.S. Constitution somehow guarantees freedom or has any legitimacy.

[Jay D]

But it's annoying that people assume that Ron Paul's interpretation is somehow the "true" or "correct" one when by definition an interpretation is subjective.

Bullcrap. It that were true, there would be no point in commiting pen to paper. They should have just appointed people to tell the rest of us what the law is.

All animals are created equal, but more animals are more equal than others.

[J sub D]

No one is leaving the Republican party over the war Joe.

No, they've already left. Didn't you notice the results of the '06 election?

[Warren]

Well it's true and correct in the sense that the Constitution is written in English and those English words are not subjective but have agreed upon definitions. This is incomputable with the "it means any damn thing we want it to mean" theory the court has been using ever since the New Deal.

[joe]

Ron Paul is getting more donations from people in the military, and their families, than any other candidate. By a longshot. That tells me that there are a lot of Democrat-haters out there who have HAD IT with this debacle.

What will they do? Well, vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary, for one. And if McCain or Rudy or some other candidate with a "I heart Chalabi 2003" tattoo gets the nomination, then what? Vote Dem? Don't vote? Third Party?

I don't know the answer to that question, and am skeptical of anyone who presumes to answer it with confidence at this point.

[VM]

Now, a better question is what will the moveon.org types do

hopefully sod off. with the christian coalition, since both are equally bad and dangerous and twaddlenockish.

and then they could populate Omicron V (the one where people evolved "VW-Beetle style", where the junk in the trunk is in the front! Incidentally, going to the ballet there is hilarious - if someone has to squeeze one out, they get the "front tent" effect)

[Syloson of Samos]

It is quite possible (probable?) that in 2012 we'll still have over one hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq.

[Syloson of Samos]

tarran,

The problem here is that the current scheme we labor under with the federal courts having veto power over state laws is not compatible with a literal reading of the Constitution.

What do you think this means?

Art. V:

...

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

...

[Syloson of Samos]

Er, Art. VI.

[joe]

I don't see how it is plausible that we would have 100,000 troops in the Iraq even as late as 2010, when such a large majority of the public is so angry about still having troops there now.

We're talking about professional politicians, whose top two priorities in life are 1) to hold power and 2) to be loved. It is possible that a president could get the public's grudging support for some kind of limited ongoing operations (comparable to the soft, shallow support Clinton got for the Kosovo operation), as long as the troop numbers, costs, and casualties were low, but a mission 3X as large as the one we're currently running in Afghanistan? That seems unlikely.

[JasonL]

"I don't know the answer to that question, and am skeptical of anyone who presumes to answer it with confidence at this point."

Tradition says "don't vote" is the right answer, given your premises.

[Warren]

Well, vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary, for one.

You better be careful joe. I think there's a clause in the contract where the devil takes possession of your soul should you ever vote for a Republican. I know it's just a primary but you don't want to go into court arguing technicalities against that guy.

[BakedPenguin]

Meanwhile, Cynthia McKinney is going to win the Green Party nomination with a lot of Darren Aronofsky-helmed campaign videos:

Ouch. I'm not a fan of Aronofsky, but that was a bit harsh.

Whoever did the video, he's still better than Uwe Boll.

[Dave Weigel]

Ouch. I'm not a fan of Aronofsky, but that was a bit harsh.

Perhaps, it's just that the fast cutting and flashbacks reminded me of Requiem for a Dream.

[John]

Listen to Warren Joe, the technicality defense will never work. The devil has all the best lawyers.

I would also reccomend reading this article. It is about the most fair and realistic assessment of what is happening in Iraq I have seen. The war is going to wind down and the next President is going to claim victory. If that is a Democrat, so be it.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9804

[R C Dean]

Article V refers to state courts being required to recognize the supremacy of federal law. It doesn't establish federal court jurisdiction over state law issues.

Check Article III of the Constitution. Of most interest to those who think federal courts have gotten out of line is the "exceptions" clause that allows Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Whether federal courts can strike down state law as a violation of the Constitution is not directly answered anywhere in the Constitution.

[Pro Libertate]

It's that 14th Amendment that confuses people. Federal courts can make state issues into federal ones through the "incorporation" of some of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment. Here's the key language:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[John]

Pro,

The courts have pretty much cherry picked what rights in the Bill of Rights constitutes "due process" and are applicable to the states. It is a legal fiction. The irony is that the 14th Amendment was passed to ensure the Southern States didn't treat freed blacks as second class citizens after the civil war, which of course is exactly what they did for a hundred years with Supreme Court Approval. The country got stuck with an overpowering federal government and it took nearly a century for the Court to actually enforce the original intent of the Amendment.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Whether federal courts can strike down state law as a violation of the Constitution is not directly answered anywhere in the Constitution."

What about the 14th Amendment? "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Some people claim this amendment only applies to freedmen, which in large part it does. But the author of the relevant clauses above, Congressman Bingham, stated that it was his intention to apply the Bill of Rights to the state level through this amendment.

[BakedPenguin]

...the fast cutting and flashbacks reminded me of Requiem for a Dream.

Fair enough. I was mainly referring to the quality rather than the style of the editing. It looks like it was cut by a high schooler on a free copy of Movie Maker. I was expecting star wipes.

But I repeat: still better than Uwe Boll.

[tarran]

It means that states are obligated to honor Federal treaties and Federal law.

For example. Congress signs a treaty with the Emir of Dubai permitting ships from Dubai to dock in U.S. ports. Massachusetts would be prohibited from refusing the ships entry.

Similarly, The Constitution prohibits Congressmen from being arrested on anything other than a felony while traveling to and from Congress. So Maryland could not enforce a law overriding that fact.

Remember, at the time the Constitution was signed, Massachusetts had an official state religion, with churches funded by the state, and a public school system to indoctrinate children into that religion. They could do this since the U.S. Constitution is focused solely on the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights simply did not apply to the states until the 14th amendment (I think). You could have a state religion, a policy of putting black people into bondage without trial etc.

The Federal Government was granted two forms of power over the states: 1) A power to compel every state to be a Republic, 2) A prohibition on states coining money.

The 14th amendment attempted to extend the freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. constitution to citizens of all states. It did not, however, limit the states to having only the powers that Congress had (although I could get behind a state government that was prevented from doing anything Congress couldn't do, and simultaneously prohibited from stepping on Congress' toes 🙂 )

However, this amendment was increasingly viewed by federal judges as granting them the power to limit State laws in ways not covered under the Bill of Rights, in fact in direct contravention of the 9th and 10th amendments.

My brother is a lawyer, and he has given me a textbook on the subject and we have debated this matter on several occasions. From his arguments (which are apparently pretty average for a lawyer), it is clear that there is a giant consensual hallucination that the Federal Government has final say on everything. As a result, for practical purposes, the Federal Govt has that power. To tackle one of Guy's overused unfunny "jokes", it does not matter if Ohio is properly a state or not, so long as enough people believe it is a state (Note, I have no opinion on the matter of Ohio's statehood; I just go with the flow, baby). Additionally, since I don't view the U.S. Constitution as being a legitimate binding legal document, my opinions are merely academic; If the U.S. government granted the federal government all the powers it exercises today, I wouldn't suddenly be praising centralized government as being fine and dandy.

[John]

). "Additionally, since I don't view the U.S. Constitution as being a legitimate binding legal document, "

I am curious why you think that.

[tarran]

John,

As I said earlier, Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard convinced me.

[Dan T.]

tarran thinks that because he's trying to out-libertarian everybody.

[tarran]

Dan, sweetie,

If I wanted to out-something everybody else, I would not pick libertarians as my target group - I would go after something guaranteeing more money or interactions with gorgeous women.

You are making another one of your famous Kerry-Howley-thinks-with-her-uterus insights

[VM]

ohshit.

[joe]

Warren,

Don't worry, I'm not talking about voting for Paul myself. As a Democrat, I've got lots of candidates who oppose the war to choose from.

[joe]

John,

Thanks for the article, but I already realized that war-supporting Republicans have seized on the "I meant to do that" strategy as a way to maintain their sanity.

It became pretty obvious when Bush and Patraeus set out to pretend that the long-scheduled redduction in troops was a decision they made based on the effects of the surge, when the manpower shortage that actually caused that reduction to come about.

You've all made it quite clear that you're going to declare victory and get out. Sure, I suppose the Democrat who wins in 2008 will adopt some of that language, in an effort to help our country save face. So much for "We've had troops in Germany for 50 years," eh?

[Pro Libertate]

joe,

Are you leaning towards Richardson? I had the impression you were before. He's the least offensive candidate after Paul in my book.

[joe]

Richardson, followed by Dodd and Obama.

I'm actually a shade to the right of Richardson on the pullout, but much closer to him than to the other plans I've heard.

[Pro Libertate]

I think Richardson is somewhat to the right of Richardson on the withdrawal. If he wins the nomination, we'll see.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Don't worry, I'm not talking about voting for Paul myself. As a Democrat, I've got lots of candidates who oppose the war to choose from."

Not to the extent that Paul does.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Richardson, followed by Dodd and Obama."

joe, what if Gore enters?

[John]

Paul has no incentive to run as specifically as a Libertarian, he's already bigger than they are and running under their party would only tie him down. It may be slightly easier to get on the ballot in some states with party backing, but Paul has enough volunteers that it wouldn't be an issue.

I don't think Dobson would get behind Paul independent run. Paul's supporters in the media are portrayed as young, anti-establishment, hippyish or even anarchist. Whether this is true or not, Dobson doesn't want to alienate his supporters in this way.

[Kaligula]

How in the fuck does one translate Ron Paul's view that marriage should be a private contract into anything remotely resembling James Dobson's belief in federal enforcement of the definition of the marriage?

Weigel get your head out of you azz...

[Underzog]

Neo Nazis heart Ron Paul

I've always said you guys are Ernst Rhome wannabes. Look who's on your side? Why am I not suprised /sarc

"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

[VM]

hier according to Kip Esquire, Kaligula...

I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] ... In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!
...
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act[.]
...
I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction.

If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

(from hier)

maybe that???

[joe]

Rattlesnake Jake,

First, is there a story behind that handle? It's the best I've seen since "Gimme Back My Dog," who doesn't seem to be around much.

Second, I would put Kucinich and Gravel up next to Paul, in terms of the absolutism of their withdrawal platforms. Although at this point, Paul is a more serious candidate than either of them.

Third, if Gore enters the race, he's got my vote, on the grounds that Richardson appears to be a bit of a fuck-up.

[Brandybuck]

Meanwhile, Cynthia McKinney is going to win the Green Party nomination

Man, I hope so! Then maybe she'll suck all those Truthers out of the Paul campaign over to her side.

[Seitz]

"He finds no contitutional authority for federal government involvement in either abortion or gay marriage."

Is that the same Constitution he finds "replete" with references to God? Because if it is, I'm not sure he's reading the right Constitution.

[Kaligula]

VM
Watch Video

I read that and it is entirely consistent with his view that opposes The State imposing a definition of marriage.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"is there a story behind that handle?"

I read a biography of Calamity Jane. Her neigbor was a horse thief named Rattlesnake Jake. Call me weird, but I like rattlesnakes and I thought the name was cool. Also, my dad's name was Jake.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Meanwhile, Cynthia McKinney is going to win the Green Party nomination"

"Man, I hope so! Then maybe she'll suck all those Truthers out of the Paul campaign over to her side."

No, Ron Paul needs all the votes he can get.

[Anonymo the Anonymous]

As I said earlier, Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard convinced me.

Hear, hear!

[johncjaxons the 3rd]

Ron Paul may be sufficiently opposed to gay Marriage for these nutjobs like Dobson. However, I don't think he sufficiently hates homosexuals.

I believe he has stated his experience as doctor gives him a different perspective to the whole "homosexuality as a sin" issue. He doesn't pander to the "hate homos" lobby.

He also goes with the whole federalism thing.

These nutjobs don't want federalism, they want theocracy. Ron Paul is too humane and rational and not kooky enough ( imagine that) to fit in with these people who only care about rabid hate of homosexuals.

I read an article the other day about this by Devvy Kidd. I had only heard of her in relation to the Tax Evasion movements. However, that surely was enlightening how "out there" these nutjobs really are.

Everything is about "soddomites" conspiracy of the homo agenda, invasions of brown people, baby killers,etc. These far-right Christian wackjobs make Ron Paul's positions look very mainstream by comparison.

Did I mention these people are fucking nuts?

[Jim Walsh]

Ron Paul, much as he has going for him, is clearly the lesser of evils for libertarians. And the lesser of evils is...well, evil. At the end of the proverbial day, Paul is only slightly more attractive than Tancredo...and Tancredo is revolting.

Just another reason why on Election Day I'll avoid the polls and find something contructive to do with my time.

[BetterBadNews]

Weigel wrote:

Meanwhile, Cynthia McKinney is going to
win the Green Party nomination with a lot of Darren Aronofsky-helmed campaign videos:

Huh?

Darren Aronofsky had nothing to do with the
Cynthia Mckinney video you posted on your site.

The video was produced by BetterBadNews

[Craig]

I'm doing everything I can to help Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, but if the major party nominees turn out to be Giuliani and Clinton, I think he will have a moral imperative to run as a third party candidate.

Ron Paul's grassroots campaign growth has been amazing. He has climbed from 0-1% everywhere in March to 3-4% nationally now, and 5-6% in New Hampshire and Iowa. It may not sound like much, but that's a LOT of people to come around to supporting a formerly no-name candidate with very little media coverage, who is generally dismissed as having no chance.

I believe he can contend for the Republican nomination, since turnout is so low in the primaries, his supporters are so well organized and motivated, and there are so many pro-war candidates on the ballot.

Just think where his grassroots campaign might be by next July, though. At the rate it is growing, he could be in the 15-20% range, enough to guarantee a seat in the debates and major media coverage.

Would it be so unlikely for Americans to choose a principled and consistent candidate who is with them on the big issues (against the war, against illegal immigration, for smaller government, against government spying on them) over two obvious power-mad hacks?

[Craig]

I was leaning toward Richardson as a backup plan, back when talked about bringing all the troops home from Iraq and using the savings to reduce the deficit.

Then he said he would use the savings to extend Medicare to people as young as 55. Yikes.

Now he says he would use the savings to funnel tens of billions more federal dollars into education. Double yikes.

[whip]

No one is going to leave the GOP over the war or over Ron Paul... maybe. The thing is, the GOP is literally dying anyway.

Newsflash: the GOP is old and no one is joining anymore. These guys are so finished that it's scary.