Ron Paul, Gearing Up


No official announcement–yet–but Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) is doing presidential candidate-like things, like speaking yesterday in New Hampshire, before 500 or so people at the University of New Hampshire. From a Union-Leader report:

[Paul's] ideas appeared to resonate as much yesterday as they did during his 2008 presidential run….

Paul said he thinks "people are starting to wake up" to his ideas. That could be a result of the powerful Tea Party movement, which pushes views on cutting government and spending that are similar to what he has said for some time.

Paul's views of reduced spending may gain more traction with budget crises looming nationwide, and he got cheers of support as he spoke of how spending has run amok in Washington.

He also blasted Republicans who said they cut funding to National Public Radio to save money while approving billions in spending for the conflict in Afghanistan.

"It just strikes me as totally inconsistent and not addressing the subject," he said.

Thursday's crowd at UNH's Memorial Union Building included a cross-section of young and old. There were devotees, with their "Don't Tread on Me" signs and T-shirts, as well plenty of students, some clearly in support and others more curious.

Stephen Cote, a 25-year-old freshman from Chichester, said he came to find out what Paul was all about, and he liked what he saw. He particularly liked Paul's idea that American troops should be brought back from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Cote has a unique perspective on that issue. He served as a Marine in Iraq before attending UNH.

National Journal yesterday quoted Paul insider Jesse Benton extensively on the possibilities that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul may run, but only if his father Ron does not. I blogged the other day on why I think 2012 should still be Ron's year to run.

NEXT: ObamaCare's Worst Feature?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What a joke.

    1. Agreed. The man is a disgrace, to call for a humiliating retreat from a just war with islamo-fascists just to save a few pennies. Fiscal restraint is important in the domestic sphere, but must never be a consideration which limits American hegemony.

      I am sorely disappointed with the lack of National Greatness-style Republicans putting out presidential feelers right now. Men like Ronald Reagan, who understood the value of social conservatism, and of not being afraid to run deficits when they are needed (for the military, not for black crack-whore welfare queens).

      1. Re: 1980 Redux,

        The man is a disgrace, to call for a humiliating retreat from a just war with islamo-fascists just to save a few pennies.

        Hey! Those are MY pennies and I want them saved! Fuck you!

        1. See, I read that as having a thick layer of sarcasm. Maybe it’s just me.

      2. Re: 1980 Redux,

        I am sorely disappointed

        There’s a lot to feel disappointed about, like for instance: your total lack of humor, wit, character, worth…

        1. I’m curious how you can tell that I lack wit or humor. Am I supposed to make a joke in each post?

          And as for my character and worth, if you are willing to see brave servicemen die in vain, and allow a global islamic caliphate to organize, and commit terrorist atrocities against us, then you sir are no true Patriot (which is a stain on your character and worth far darker than anything you can conjure for mine).

          1. America! Fuck yeah!

          2. Die in vain? How about dying for a cause unrelated to the defense of the U.S., is that vain enough for you?

            1. I think you guys are getting trolled. Hard.

              1. I also do. But I’m nowhere near positive. Let’s put in this way — my eyebrow arches over Redux’s posts.

                1. Successful troll is successful.

  2. As a frustrated ’08 contributer, is the Paul campaign going to have adult supervision this time? Also, love his views, and would love to see him as Secretary of the Treasury—with say, Napolitano as AG—but dude is 75 years old. Reagan wasn’t even 70 when he took office.

    1. I don’t give a shit. I just want the FedRes gone, and their bought-for sycophants and enablers tarred and feathered.

      1. I want it gone too, but ending the Fed is NOT going to happen in this election cycle, or the next or the one after that.

    2. Yeah the age thing would doom Paul. But honestly, is there any chance that he would win the primary even if he was 50? But I’m glad he’s around and I think that Rand would be wise to wait until next time. I think that the observation that electing someone who has served only part of one senate term is unwise is a correct one.

      Ron Paul was on the NH public radio call in show this morning. I didn’t hear all of it, but I intend to this evening. I find the show to be very good at not taking a political point of view and their candidate shows can be very good. Probably worth listening to if you are interested in what he is up to in NH and what he is thinking about the election.

      1. All he needs to do is move the Republican candidates’ center of gravity on spending and his campaign will be a success.

    3. He’s not a serious candidate. If you expect him to actually win then you’re going to be disappointed. He’s running for educational reasons only.

    4. “adult supervision”

      As long as Jesse Benton is around, NO.

  3. That could be a result of the powerful Tea Party movement

    I don’t think that is historically accurate.

    Ron Paul’s campaign and money bombs predated Tea Party entering the national stage.

    If anything the Tea party is a result of Ron Paul, not the other way around.

    1. I’d say that the Tea Party is the result of GWB/BO, but Ron Paul was the one that sent out the evites.

      Either way, as much as I like Ron, I rather cringe a bit at the thought that he will run this year. He could end up splitting the libertarian wing vote and preventing a guy like a Gary Johnson from getting sufficient momentum and thereby enable some petty tyrant like huckabee or mitt. And make no mistake, Ron Paul will run.

    2. ^^This^^ although I doubt Bachman, Palin or any of the others that have co-opted the Tea Party for their own selfish gains would admit it.

  4. I know Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance of winning the Presidency, but at least he provides a platform for libertarian ideas to reach a mainstream audience. He can hopefully help push the Republican party away from the socon/pro-military types.

  5. He can’t win the nomination, but he can perform the useful function of being around to call various GOP figures bullshit artists when they talk about spending and small government.

  6. He’ll definitely run, to keep the brand going and the donor list fresh for Rand in 2016.

    1. You’re assuming the GOP loses in 2012?

      1. It’ll depend on whether enough SWPLs feel embarrassed enough for voting for Obama, just because he had the “correct” skin color and a sonorous voice. If he can keep a large enough percentage of the Baby Boomers and idiot college students that voted for him to pull the lever again, then the GOP candidate won’t be able to win.

        1. At the moment, independents loathe Obama, so it’s certainly not looking good for him if the GOP produces a marginally decent candidate. It’s extremely unlikely that we’ll see the 18-20 push for the Dems in 2012 anyway — the dynamic simply isn’t there anymore.

          Of course, I’m putting 50-50 odds on Obama not running in 2012. There’s a good chance he drops that bombshell in, say, November, and only Hillary will be prepared to mount a campaign at that point on the D side.

          Hillary will be much tougher to defeat than Obama, of course.

          1. I will bet you any amount of money (even odds) that Barack Obama seeks the Democratic nomination for President in The Year of Our Lord 2012.

            1. I’ll double down on Obama winning 2012.

            2. Sorry, I only gamble when I order Domino’s.

              1. That’s not gambling. See, with gambling, there’s at least an outside chance you can win.

                1. Maybe I’ll get mentioned in their next ad campaign when I send them a picture of my pizza with a dead mouse sitting in the middle.

                2. There sandwiches are surprisingly good.

  7. You know, maybe having a couple or even a few libertarian candidates running for the GOP nomination would be worth something in itself. If, say, Gary Johnson is electable, then he’ll do well enough to show that early on. Paul might withdraw then. And vice versa.

    1. Fair enough. I redact my earlier comment.

      1. I assume you mean retract, though it would be awesome if we could put little black boxes over parts of our comments.

        1. We probably could, once.

    2. I’d love to see as many libertarian candidates as possible show up in the first couple of debates, so that we don’t have a re-run of “Ron Paul and the cast of reprobates” that we did when Giuliani made an ass of himself last time.

      Just imagine a Republican candidates’ debate with Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, Gary Johnson and Peter Schiff all up there to shred the neocons.


      1. It’s very unlikely that more than two blatantly libertarian candidates will break the poll barrier necessary to get in some debates.

  8. Look at all you defeatists! Are you Americans or are you American’ts? Let’s get out there and spread the message and win the White House back for liberty, for accountability, for

    Aw, fuck it.

    1. It was a nice effort Sheldon.

  9. Well why not? Two libertarians (i.e Johnson) running are better than one and I don’t see why either side couldn’t join forces once it’s clear which one has a better shot at the nomination.

    1. If they split in the polls, it could keep both of them out of the debates.

  10. The apparent belief that GJ is somehow obviously a better candidate than RP seems to be based on pure fantasy, not any evidence. RP’s success in earning fans and raising bucks and winning respect and attention is manifest; GJ’s, not. (Bearing in mind that a victory in the 2012 GOP race for any libt-leaner is highly unlikely.)

    1. 2012 is looking more favorable to a libertarian candidate than in any year for quite some time. I think Johnson has an outside shot at the nomination, as does Paul. I tend to think Johnson has a better chance, but there’s no denying what Paul has accomplished in the last few years.

      Could be interesting. And a good libertarian showing in 2012 could pay dividends in 2016 (or even in Congress before then).

      We’re likely totally screwed, as usual, but there’s a little possibility in the air.

      1. I’d say GJ DEFINITELY has a better chance. He’s young(ish), and doesn’t have a media-made reputation of being a “crackpot” of sorts.

        1. As much as I love those guys as long as he stays away from Alex Jones and Coast to Coast he should be okay.

        2. Sometimes reputations are justified.

        3. A “pro-choice” candidate has no chance in the GOP. Particularly with the minarchist wing of the Party. Ron Paul is a SoCon which is the only kind of libertarian who stands a chance of securing the nomination.

          1. Neither of them has a chance.

      2. “Libertarians cannot even agree on what the term “libertarian” means. Within the “libertarian” universe we have Ron Paul (a strong anti-abortionist) vs. Wendy McElroy (a pro-choice feminist) vs. Russell Means (a Indian activist and former L. P. promenenti, with a penchant for shooting at the police) vs. the late libertarian Robert LeFevre (a pacifist who believed that theft transferred property rights to the thief, and that any retaliation or forcible self-defense violated the thief’s “rights!”). We have had Ludwig von Mises, a utilitarian who endorsed both taxation and conscription, and Murray Rothbard, who denounces both. I have free-market friends who champion “animal rights,” and others who champion environmentalism, while I’ve taken the opposite side in both cases.

        And what would a “free” society look like? Polls of Libertarian Party members, of ISIL members, and of the readers of libertarian magazines show profound splits among “libertarians” over a wide range of issues, from abortion to immigration to drugs to foreign policy. For instance: Should kids be allowed free access and use of drugs? Should sex between adults and young children be allowed? Should kids be freed from the control of their parents, and should they be permitted to walk out at whim? If yes in each case, should parents who interfere be stopped — by deadly force, if necessary?

        And if we brilliant, free-market luminaries can’t agree on the philosophical source and interpretation of such basic concepts as “aggression” and “self-defense,” then what about mere ordinary mortals? If even “we” can’t agree on who’s the aggressor and who’s the victim, how can we expect the millions of Unwashed (who lack our clever intellectual insights and peerless moral integrity) to figure it all out?

        Granted: there are many, many problems involved in limiting government to its proper role of being a protector rather than violator of individual rights. There are big problems in staffing and funding such an institution in ways that don’t contradict its end. These problems arise largely because there is no social consensus over the philosophy to underpin government.

        Yes, creating and maintaining a truly limited government is a huge problem. But that problem is not solved by simply throwing all definitions and uses of force in society onto a free-market auction block.”…..chism.html

        1. You’re right across the board, but this is why everyone absolutely does need to come together on the basics.

          There’s way too much division among libertarians over the comparatively “little” things when we should all really come together over the big stuff. Part of the reason that the libertarian contingent in America seems as small as it is is precisely because nonsensical infighting.

          Once we’ve achieved a government that stays at least within its Constitutional limits, then we can start pushing for all the other stuff.

          1. It has to start with a coherent, consistent philosophy. “Libertarianism” does not have one.

            1. Compared to liberalism and conservatism it’s a seamless garment.

              The relatively minor disagreements among libertarians are not really over the core principle of non-initiation of force, but over how that principle is to be applied. ie, is the unborn a human being with rights or not? Once you answer that question you know whether the libertarian in question supports abortion being legal or not. That doesn’t happen among the dominant political stripes.

              Meanwhile, liberals and conservatives could not articulate a guiding principle or even a small set of them, that are not blatantly contradicted by their end of the spectrum’s actual position on some issue. And “moderates” are even less coherent.

              1. Compared to liberalism and conservatism it’s a seamless garment

                Compared to sulfuric acid it’s curdled milk. Both are unpalatable.

            2. The Non-Aggression Principle is as close to a universal underlying core philosophy as anybody gets, and that’s pretty damn consistent.

              1. The branches of philosophy are Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Esthetics. Most “libertarians” focus only on politics, and very narrowly at that. Citing the “Non-Aggression Principle” as a “universal underlying core philosophy” is comically shallow. Pacifists believe in non-aggression too. Does that make them “pretty damn consistent” libertarians?

    2. Gary Johnson may not be much of a Republican candidate, but he would make a damned respectable LP candidate. One that would be far better suited than Bob Barr to take advantage of Paul’s disillusioned constituency in the event of Paul’s ultimate (inevitable?) loss to whichever Romnoid Sleazebag survives the primary.

      1. Bingo.

        For whatever sick reason, Ron Paul wants to stay Repuglican, so let him run in their primaries. Gary Johnson has been out of office forever, tho, so he has nothing to lose by running as the Libertarian candidate. Besides, when Paul bombs and the conventions are past, Gary Johnson will still be there all the way to November as the LP candidate.

        1. >For whatever sick reason, Ron Paul wants to stay Repuglican

          The reason is pretty obvious, and he’s said it many times. The Ruling Party has put a hell of a lot of work into stacking the deck against new parties. So much so, that if we’re ever going to restore our Republic to the rule of law, we’re going to have to fix at least one of the halves of the Ruling Party in the process.


      2. Until the LP can be something other than a futile exercise in cat herding, there’s nothing in it for a decent candidate to join them. Everyone wants Libertopia, nobody has a map from getting from here and now to there and then.

    3. RP’s success in earning fans and raising bucks and winning respect and attention is manifest

      Are you high?

      RP didn’t raise shit. The moneybombs were not coordinated by him or his campaign but external supporters… and then he (a) used some of it to provide handsome employment for several family members, and (b) hoarded most of the money that had been donated for the campaign and used it to fund the Campaign for Liberty, which has been a complete cipher.

      And the two least applicable words I would use for what Ron Paul got in 2008 are “respect” and “attention”. Well, I guess you could characterize the other candidates using him as a conveniently placed rhetorical punching bag in the debates as “attention”, but it’s not the kind you want.

      And then you add in RP’s constant support for earmarks for his own district, his complete inability to prepare for talk show appearances and not come off as a blithering gaffe machine, and the newsletter issue of course (which demonstrates incredibly poor judgement even assuming RP’s story is true).

      1. The fundraising successes of Ron Paul’s campaign and CFL are a matter of public record, Tulpa; look it up. (Highest total of ALL candidates in 4th quarter 2007 for one; $700 K last month with NO CAMPAIGN even announced). That his campaign didn’t coordinate it proves my point, it does not contradict it. If you haven’t noticed the difference in his public profile, committee assignments, attention, and respect since 2007, well, you certainly haven’t been reading Reason. I await a list of objectively real reasons GJ is a hot candidate, beyond that a lot of people seem to think he looks more “candidate-y” or something.

        1. CE below is also good on this point. I mean, I can get just not digging Paul for some reason or another; to deny he is clearly the hottest thing in the public eye in libertarianoid politician terms just seems willfully blind.

          1. Charisma matters more than money, though, Brian.

            RP is a fine fundraiser, but as early as 2007, he was painted as a candidate who “could not win” under any circumstances. Most of the media refused to take him seriously, and as annoying as this is, that’s what other people tend to make their initial judgments on.

            I suspect that Gary Johnson could see more success than RP ever has at getting media on his side.

            It’s not very scientific, but I go with my gut on these kinds of things based largely on my sense of what the general public is going to respond to, and using the same set of tools, I predicted Obama’s election win in 2006…

            Not that I think Gary Johnson would “win” overall, but that he has some of the same traits that made Obama such a viable candidate: Physical attractiveness, speaking ability, connection to “youth” issues, etc… Now… Barack had some other extreme advantages in that department. Being perceived as a “post-racial” candidate, being a quasi-JFK seeming democrat, and of course… Will.I.Am made a big difference too.

            But on the scale of what fickle, non-intellectual voters tend to look for, I think Gary Johnson has more of it than Paul – and a hell of a lot less baggage.

            1. You can believe this or not, but if you look at the world and not just at your own personal opinions, there is not even a question in my mind: RP has far more charisma than GJ. I’ve watched both of them do their thing on numerous occasions, and I have no doubts about this whatever.

              1. But how great is his charisma when his audience is not libertarian? I’ve seen him speak several times, but always before libertarians or goldbugs who would give him a standing ovation for every sentence he uttered. But I’ve yet to hear him in front of an audience of average voters.

            2. And that it is not “conventional” in whatever cliched terms we’ve come to think of politicians charisma makes it no less real, in the only sense that matters: ability to win people’s attention, heart, and minds.

              1. “And that it is not “conventional” in whatever cliched terms we’ve come to think of politicians charisma makes it no less real, in the only sense that matters: ability to win people’s attention, heart, and minds.”

                That’s only half-true though… What matters in many cases is winning the right people’s attention, hearts & minds. Unfortunately.

                The point I’m trying to make is that broadly people on the left and the right in positions of influential authority (reporters, TV hosts, op-ed writers, entertainers, etc.) dismiss RP as a “crank”. Yes he gets strong showings in crowds of young people who are interested & paying attention…. But you can’t do much more damage than George Stephanopoulis saying “Well… You realize, you’ve got no chance at winning, right?” before the campaign really even started.

                Granted, it’s a different ball-game this year, and RP has more notoriety, but he’s also got a lot of weaknesses… But ultimately, I don’t know. There are a lot of possible options on the Republican side, and most of them are tremendously awful. Pawlenty, Barbour, Huckabee, Romney… Ugh.

                But those are the guys who will be taken “seriously” in the mainstream.

                Anyway – I think that if anybody in the quasi-libertarian camp will do the best, it’s more so Mitch Daniels/Chris Christie… So I guess we’ll see what happens.

          2. Brian,

            Important differences between Johnson and Paul:

            1) Not tied to fairly racist newsletters.

            2) Not 75 years old.

            3) Served as a state governor (IOW, actually had to get things done as an executive, rather than act as gadfly and vote No on everything)

            4) While I don’t know who will be on Johnson’s Prez campaign, I at least know it won’t be the same bumblers who ran Paul ’08.

            5) By “hot”, Paul certainly has better name recognition among those lib-leaning GOPers likely to run. Especially since it’s unlikely we’ll see Christie or Walker. If Daniels ever decided to wake up, perhaps that would change.

        2. Well Brian, I thought we were talking fundraising, not cashiering. The Paul campaign did a good job processing payments from people who were convinced by others to donate.

          By your logic, the cashier who takes your downpayment check at the auto dealership is a great salesperson.

          With Bush out of the picture, it’s unlikely that the Truthers and antiwar Dems giving money to the thorn in the GOP’s side are going to have as much effect. Without them there’s no way he raises significant amounts. That’s the difference between being a fundraiser and a cashier.

          And the chairmanship of the subcommittee was due to seniority rules that Boehner couldn’t find an end run around. To attribute that to some sort of increased respect is laughable.

    4. Gary Johnson has pretty hair.

      It’s too bad he can’t talk so good.

    5. The apparent belief that GJ is somehow obviously a better candidate than RP seems to be based on pure fantasy, not any evidence.

      Gary Johnson is a terrible candidate.

    6. Gary Johnson won the governorship in a heavily Democratic state, Ron Paul wins in a small Republican congressional district.

      Gary Johnson thumps the box on marijuana decriminalization which most Americans want, while Ron Paul thumps on the gold standard which most Americans do not want.

      Gary Johnson can convey his libertarian ideas in a thirty second spot, Ron Paul needs a full speech.

      Gary Johnson is running to win, Ron Paul is running to preach.

      Gary Johnson has a record of actually cutting spending and taxes, Ron Paul has a record of introducing bills that go nowhere.

      Yes, I am a heretic and an apostate. But dammitalltohell I am tired of libertarians losing elections. I dearly love Ron Paul, but he’s not going to be president in this reality. He has a different role to play in the movement. Gary Johnson’s chances of getting the nomination (or a VP slot) are slim to none, but they are still higher than Ron Paul’s.

      p.s. I also rather like the idea of being part of a libertarian campaign where I am not mistaken for a 9/11 Troofer.

  11. My dream would be that Mitch Daniels wins the nomination, and Gary Johnson makes a good enough showing to be a running mate. Daniels obviously isn’t perfect, but if he sends the SoCons and Neocons running for the bushes while cutting spending/debt, he’s good enough for me.

    1. This is a thoughtful comment.

    2. Mitch Daniels would be the perfect compromise candidate in my opinion. He’d be the most libertarian leaning GOP nominee in recent history, while still appealing to moderate and conservative Republicans. Johnson’s still my favorite though. I honestly think if he mentions the right things he should convince a lot of Republicans he’s the candidate for these troubled times. Vetoing more bills than all the governors in the country combined is exactly what we need right now.

      1. To be clear, Johnson’s my favorite as well. I’m just trying to keep my expectations realistic that he’s not very high profile and most people in the GOP won’t go for him, no matter how fiscally conservative his record.

        I think a Daniels/Johnson ticket would attract a hell of a lot of moderate Democrats as well. Due to the intelligent manner in which they explain the issues, those two guys aren’t polarizing to independents like most of the other candidates as they come off as plain spoken pragmatists that moderates would find palatable and not as mental cases and kooks.

        My bet from a distance is that unless Chris Christie changes his mind and jumps in, the nominee will be Pawlenty. Romney would have been logical if not for RomneyCare – Pawlenty doesn’t have that on his back, and as he gets his face out there he’s likely to be seen as the least bad option who can attract both the average conservative and the average independent moderate. Note McCain and Bush were also in this same exact range, and he’s the only one I see without any major negatives as a candidate (so far) besides being a bit boring. Wouldn’t vote for him though.

        1. RomneyCare would actually work to Romney’s advantage if he would stop pretending it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. He should be saying it was an experiment that only affected people in one state, and required no parliamentary tricks to make law. This would show voters in the general election that he’s not one of those Republicans who just say “no” to everything, he’s a person who tries to get things done.

          Now, Romney is not by any stretch of the imagination my favorite candidate, but he does have the best shot at beating Obama or Hillary.

          1. Oh, I thought it Romney’s magic underwear that has the best shot…

  12. Run, Ron, Run.

  13. lol, Ron Paul is an idiot that is jsut WAy too full of himself.

  14. Anon-bot ain’t here to make friends, apparently.

  15. Ron Paul is running to make money for himself and the Paul family. Maybe to help bring his son more exposure on the national stage.

    Did he ever even get 25% of any R primary last time around?

    He’s been around forever. (Christ! Even the movie Slackers references him) Everyone knows him. He’s not gonna catch fire electorally. It’s a big ego boost.

    1. Ron Paul introduced me to Liberty. Screw you. MS Teens don’t know about Liberty until they hop on the debate and hear somebody actually acknowledge Prince Bush = Obama.

    2. In 2007, very few people nationally had ever heard of Ron Paul. When the national media did cover him, it was to call him a quixotic long shot. He really didn’t have much of a campaign, then suddenly raised 30 million dollars in November and December, probably too late to overcome people’s perceptions.

      Fast forward to 2011, and he’s been on national TV non-stop since then, talking about the financial disaster he predicted four years ago. The supposedly anti-war Democratic president is still in Iraq and Afghansitan, and just bombed Libya. The TSA has been groping people and subjecting them to porno-scanners. And Ron Paul has the best voting record in Congress (maybe ever) on the biggest issue in the campaign — the size and scope of government.

      Ron Paul is a serious candidate this time. It may take the national media a while to realize it, but when he hits the ground running with a few five-million-dollar money bombs before the debates, runs national TV ads touting his record, and wins the Iowa straw poll, everyone will know.

      1. Fast forward to 2011, and he’s been on national TV non-stop since then, talking about the financial disaster he predicted four years ago.

        He’s been predicting financial disaster since Nixon was in office.

        1. We had a financial disaster while Nixon was in office. Didn’t you hear about him reneging on gold convertibility?


          1. That wasn’t a financial disaster from most people’s POV. Wasn’t it still illegal for Americans to possess gold bullion at that point anyway?

    3. He actually did get 25% in a few states after all the other candidates had dropped except for McCain. I believe he got 25% in Montana.

  16. Sorry: “Slacker” not Slackers.

  17. Surprise clinker here in NM is that our senior senator is retiring and I think that Gary Johnson would be much better in the Senate.

    He’d certainly be a better choice than any of the Usual Political Hacks ™ that are lining up for the seat.

    … Hobbit

    1. Perhaps the Paul campaign could direct some contributions/lists/fundraising expertise towards a Johnson Senate campaign… assuming that Paul doesn’t just take the money and not run again.

      Seriously, where the fuck did all that money go?

      1. I got the Paul Family Cookbook for Christmas. I think the campaign money paid for that.

  18. “Slackers” was a funny movie. Or rather, Jason Schwartzman plays a funny character, Cool Ethan.
    “I had a nickname for you, wanna know what it was? I’m not gonna tell you… Alright, it was Laser!”

    1. A hair doll?

  19. Can you think of any better way to say FU to the entire Washington establishment than to vote for Ron Paul for president?

    I don’t see him as having a great chance to win the Republican primary, but he has more actual supporters than any of the other candidates at present, and will start out this time with a lot more money a lot earlier.

    If he comes close in the primaries, he SHOULD run an independent campaign. People are ready for REAL change now.

  20. Fuck! Why doesn’t the tiresome old fart let his idiot son Rand run for Christ’s sake? It’s time for a new generation of nutbars to take the helm.

  21. My fellow Connecticut For Liebermann members may disagree with me on this, but Ron Paul is good for America in my opinion. He gives laughter to normal people and a harmless outlet for the seriously deranged, a political Mr. Bean of sorts.

  22. So if Paul does in fact run in ’12, is Reason going to bring back that piece of crap David Whygull to run his smear jobs once again?

  23. Ron Paul’s campaign is a fraud! And I mean fraud. Has anyone investigated his expenditures last time around. He spent money raising money and did travel. But no commercials, nothing that would eat up money in a campaign It was squirreled away for his use elsewhere. He will do this again. Raise millions, spend as little as possible, go nowhere and then pour the funds into his own non profit, which FEC regulations allow. He will fund his own retirement with his foundation pushing the same old conservative agenda he was pushing all along, while pretending to be a libertarian.

    1. He did run a commercial. It was an anti-immgiration scare piece about brown people swimming across the Rio Grande. Which if you talk to the anarchos at LRC is a perfectly valid libertarian stance so long as you are Ron Paul.

  24. Your post is really good providing good information. Food for fertility I liked it and enjoyed reading it.Keep sharing such important posts.Natural laxative foods

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.