Rand Paul

Ron Paul Explores, World Reacts

|

A roundup of reactions, some sensible and some silly, to Rep. Ron Paul's official announcement scheduled for today in Iowa of the launch of a Presidential Exploratory Committee for 2012:

*He laid down advanced word last night on Sean Hannity on Fox; Hannity somehow brings it around to the threat of Sharia law from radical Islam; Ron Paul tries to calm him down by reminding him that their threat to us is a result of our intervention over there. The video:

*Public Policy Polling has Paul's net favorability in the important early states of Iowa and New Hampshire as number two among the likely GOP field–behind Huckabee in Iowa and Romney in New Hampshire

*Business Insider notes Paul has moved way closer to the center of the debate since 2008:

In 2008, Paul ran a cult campaign as a libertarian, anti-Fed, anti-war Republican.

At the time, nobody in the GOP really cared about the Fed, and for the most part, Bush's wars enjoyed broad support.

Today they're Obama's wars, and the Fed is one of the most disliked institutions around, taking daily abuse even from mainstream outlets like CNBC.

It's inconceivable to think that in the GOP primary, candidates won't be asked for their position on Bernanke, quantitative easing, the role of the dollar, and of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has made a career on all these issues.

*Alex Moore at Death and Taxes gets it right that Ron Paul has a mix of ideas that should appeal to (and repel) both the standard right and left; he gets it wrong that this makes the fervently ideologically consistent and freedom-loving Paul analogous in a meaningful way to a waffling and weak Obama. That neither have dictatorial powers to achieve their goals over a truculent Congress or judiciary is true, but not really news.

*Christian Science Monitor suspects Paul's mostly in it for the bully pulpit of national candidacy to help grow the movement around his ideas.

*Time notes that, despite how many spin it as just one more outsider failure, Paul's dark horse campaign in 2008 was far more successful than anyone thought it would be:

In 2008, Paul was a phenomenal success, raising more than $34 million, founding a non-profit activist group, the Campaign for Liberty, and setting the stage for the grassroots revolts that greeted Obama when he came into office. This time around, [Paul campaign associate Jesse] Benton says the Paul team is looking at actually winning more votes in the early primary states, should Paul decide to pull the trigger on another campaign. The first step, he says, is a focus on early fundraising. "It was great that we raised so much money last time, but so much came in too late to effectively spend it," Benton explained.

On Dec. 16, 2007, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Paul raised $6 million in an online fund raising effort. But with only a couple of weeks left until the Iowa caucuses, there was no way to spend the money fast enough. As a result, Paul ended up buying ad time in states like Idaho, which were irrelevant to the nomination fight. (Paul did win nearly 30,000 votes in Idaho, or 24%.) "Partly because of Ron's desire, and partly spontaneously, it did become a 50-state campaign," says Benton.

*Politico gathers a huge roundtable of establishment political watchers to mostly gawp in amazement or damn with faint praise this bizarre image of a consistent and brave politician who stands for limited government who by definition apparently can't do well. A quick sample of quips:

*State Rep. Renee Schulte, an Iowa Republican: "In many ways, Ron Paul can be viewed as the envy of the second tier of candidates for the Republican nomination. He has what most candidates aiming for the first tier covet. A committed base of followers that will keep him registering in the polls? Check. A small-donor army that can finance his campaign throughout a protracted battle for the nomination? Check. A few hot-button issues (bury the Fed, bring home the troops) to keep him in the news? Check. Surely, Tim Pawlenty would likely trade several of his high-profile consultants for some of these advantages.

So with those advantages, what is Ron Paul missing? Growth potential."

*Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform: "Political leaders who bring new activists into the party are a great asset. Pat Robertson lost the 1998 Republican primary but brought 2 million activists into the Republican Party and created the Christian Coalition that greatly strengthened the conservative movement. Goldwater lost the general election in 1964 and rebuilt the Republican Party and put in on a course to be both a conservative and majority party.

Ron Paul is not an enthusiast for continuing the occupation of Afghanistan. But this is not Bush's war anymore. It is Obama's Wilsonian effort. Polling shows conservatives and tea party activists are open to a different approach. A conversation on how America can best defend itself is a useful and important conversation to have within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. If you like how things are going with Obama's approach—vote for him."

*Garry South, Democratic consultant [with the standard-issue insults that I think are losing power against Paul]: "Let's start by stating the obvious: Ron Paul has no chance of ever winning the Republican nomination or the presidency. It's not just his quirky, out-of-the-mainstream views, he also neither looks nor sounds like a president of the United States, and stature and gravitas play an important role in this process. Is it just me, or does Paul bear an eery resemblance to that guy who played "My Favorite Martian"? And many of his positions are from outer space, too."

*John Anzalone, Democratic consultant: "Ron Paul is a fundraiser not a vote-getter. He can raise impressive amounts of money and has absolutely no ability to turn that into votes."

*Steve Steckler of Infrastructure Management Group: "Ron Paul won't be president, and probably shouldn't be, but it would be worthwhile for every voting American, right or left, to spend some time trying to understand his libertarian take on contemporary issues. If life and liberty are essential conditions for the pursuit of happiness, then that leaves us only to debate whether they are sufficient."

*Michael Ostrolenk, national security consultant: "For those who think both constitutionally as Dr. Paul does and systemically, it's impossible to distinguish between our national debt and our foreign policy. Dr. Paul is one of the few candidates who offers an integrated and systemic way of understanding the difficulties we face as a country and the means to restore our Republic. The systemic understanding looks at the collusion between big business and big government, the central bank and the political elite."

*Ken Feltman, political consultant: "In my company's research, independent voters show almost no interest in Paul. They label him "humorless" and "crotchety." They do, however, express interest in some of his campaign issues. These voters also have a more positive impression of Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Maybe the messenger has overstayed his welcome."

*Christopher Hahn, Democratic consultant: "The GOP presidential contenders are weak and all have showed recent shifts in positions adjusting to the current right wing extremism that has taken hold of the party. This presents an opportunity for Ron Paul who's views on debt, foreign and domestic policy have been consistent.  Paul is the original tea partier.

Paul held up well and with good humor against Steven Colbert last night as well. See the video here.

My February 2008 Reason feature at the birth of the modern Ron Paul movement. And my January 2007 interview with him as his 2008 exploratory committee launched.

NEXT: Reason.tv: Moral Markets - Paul Zak discusses Oxytocin, Trade, and Human Nature

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.

  1. but…. but…. but….

    TEH MOOSLEMZ!!1!1!!!11!!!elevnty!!!1

    1. Bush OK Bush OK, Everything Bush did was okay. Obama not OK even when he acts like Bush.

      1. Bush bad! Bush evil! Everything Bush did was evil! Hussein angelic even when he does anything Bush did.

  2. TEH NOOZLETTERZ!!!1!!1one!!!

    1. I like the cut of your jib.

      1. In Soviet Russia, jib cut YOU!

        1. I’ve got one word for you, you Russian Pinko Obama-lover:

          Star Wars.

          1. He laid down advanced word last night on Sean Hannity on Fox; Hannity somehow brings it around to the threat of Sharia law from radical Islam; Ron Paul tries to calm him down by spewing the thoroughly treasonous and disingenuous canard that their threat to us is somehow a result of our more recent interventions in their murderous rogue regimes rather than a mere continuation of their centuries-old hatred of all non-Islamic countries and openly stated intent to establish a global Caliphate on our graves.

            1. And this vague and un-nuanced statement is all the justification we need for unlimited military spending and perpetual war. Thanks, neoconservative wiener.

              1. rofl|4.26.11 @ 7:44PM|#

                And this statement that obviously hit home is all the justification I need to go off on a thoroughly irrelevant strawman tangent that ignores what a liar/nutjob/fool my blame-America-first Messiah is. Thanks, guy who’s obviously way smarter than I am.

      2. Ain’t NO fuckin’ jibs gettin’ cut ‘less WE say they get cut.

    2. I could SO suck your cock right now, sage.

  3. Paul’s incorrect in that the jihadist threat exists despite our intervention on behalf on muslims in bosnia, valid attempts at settlement on behalf of palistinians, & now preventing a slaughter of muslims in bengazi.

    1. True as they are, those things mean little to the Arab in the street. As long as the US supports Israel and Arab dictators, we can do no right. Extrapolating on that, everything is a Crusader conspiracy to keep the Muslim world down. Consider the post-disaster relief to Pakistan. Was it appreciated? By some, I’m sure. But not many.

    2. Re: OO,

      Paul’s incorrect in that the jihadist threat exists despite our intervention on behalf on muslims in bosnia, valid attempts at settlement on behalf of palistinians, & now preventing a slaughter of muslims in bengazi.

      Because no good deed goes unrewarded, right OO???

      Jesus, are you a moron.

  4. Let me make this perfectly clear: Sean Hannity is a right-wing, bloviating idiot.

    I do sometimes listen to his radio show in the evenings, when I’m either driving home or out in my workshop, mostly because there really isn’t much else to listen to, and at least he’s sometimes interesting. But he strikes me as not a very bright guy, actually. He likes to oversimplify things and see the world as very black-and-white. Add to that the fact that he’s a bible-thumping, hawkish neocon and you’ve got a real peachy combination.

    I find him more annoying than either Rush or Beck.

    1. He’s too shilly. I’ve listened to him on occasion on the way home, particularly when he’s got something to criticize the left on, but the guy is full of crap. He’s all about limited government rhetoric, but he throws it all out when the GOP is in charge or when political points are at stake. Annoying fellow.

    2. I can’t listen to him. His entire schtick seems to consist of barking out whatever GOP talking points came over the fax that morning.

      Its a source of irritation to me that guy with a room temperature IQ is pulling down seven figures a year.

      1. Why do you care about someone making seven figures of worthless fiat currency FED Notes?

      2. Its a source of irritation to me that guy with a room temperature IQ is pulling down seven figures a year.

        As George Will once said, envy is the only of the seven deadly sins from which the sinner derives no pleasure.

        But yes, I agree. Sadly, as much as we libertarians believe in markets, TEH STOOPID is so thick with the general population that sometimes the people who make a killing in the market are the most vile of individuals. Fortunately, I long ago decided that mere material success is not a sufficient measure of a man.

    3. Agreed. I can’t listen to him either. Hannity makes everything a rant of lists. His modus operandi is to overwhelm the listener by spouting off lists of “supporting arguments”. He’ll be on one subject and be listing away all his material, then move to another subject and list away on that… it makes for very boring, irritating listening.

      Say what you want about Rush Limbaugh, but the man knows how to make his radio show interesting. He’s also naturally funnier than Hannity (although he’s at his funniest with impromptu quick references…he falls flat when he trys to inject humor).

      1. My USMC spidey-senses tingle with suspicion Hannity has same fatal defect as fellow war-cheerleader Bill Kristol:

        In a firefight, they’d be the first to crack. Or cry at the goo. Wet their little undies.

        There is something about that (dis) quality which makes such characters very repellent to me. Again, don’t know if he’s like that but he strikes me as such.

        Nothing is more disgusting in the right-winger ecosystem than a chicken-hawk.

      2. One thing that Hannity does that bugs me is his overuse and misuse of the word “literally.”

        Listen to his radio show and count the number of times he uses the word “literally” – and he almost never actually means “literally.” It’s like a verbal tic.

        1. Sounds like the beginnings of a drinking game, literally.

      3. I can’t listen to him either. Hannity makes everything a rant of lists. His modus operandi is to overwhelm the listener by spouting off lists of “supporting arguments”. He’ll be on one subject and be listing away all his material, then move to another subject and list away on that… it makes for very boring, irritating listening.

        Not to mention, during said rants, his voice goes up slightly as if he’s asking a question.

    4. Hannity is pure GOP Establishment shill, and he has the worst taste in Country Music of anyone on the planet.

    5. Can’t stand Hannity, but sometimes shit IS black-and-white. The Teams like to make shit too complicated… thus, our impending fuckedness.

  5. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD!!!!

    1. Federal Reserve Nooooooootes!

    2. Just so you know, I would vote for Yukon Cornelius for president. But not if that fucking elf was his veep.

      1. Don’t make me pull your teeth out, darling.

  6. What I have to think about is who to vote for in the primaries–Paul or Johnson? I believe Florida is moving to an early position, so I may not have that much time to decide, once the elections get started.

    1. Vote for GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD!

      1. Maybe. I voted for Paul in 2008.

        1. Be tactical. Throw your weight behind the most successfully polling candidate in your state at the election time.

          Either Paul or Johnson would be the best POTUS candidate in our lifetimes, and although neither would be perfect or ideal, you don’t have to hold your nose voting for either guy.

          1. Unless one of them pulls off a mask and reveals a statist, I’ll vote for whomever looks to have the best shot at the White House.

            1. Unless one of them pulls off a mask and reveals a statis

              I think they’re onto me…

    2. I may have to re-register as a Republican. Crap. I hoped those days were behind me like my college film career. I am definitely voting against Romney if I do re-up.

      1. Yeah, I think if Romney or Huckabee wins, it will depress a great deal of the GOP turnout. The entire tea party may vote third party which will guarantee an Obama win.

      2. my college film career

        On a semi-related note, a friend informed me the other day that if he ever did gay porn, his stage name would be “Boners Ahoy”.

    3. I love Paul, but I’m voting for Johnson. Either would be great, but I think Johnson has a better chance at winning over more voters.

      1. The concern about Johnson, in both the primaries and the general, is the worry about social cons staying home. Legalize weed? Abortion on demand? The bible bunch will be soiling their granny panties. They have little love for the economic issues of the GOP, and if anything lean towards a more redistributive populist SoCon in the mold of a Schmuckabee. If Johnson gets the GOP nomination, the only hope is that the granny panties sect is racist enough to inspire them to vote against Obama, and I have mixed feelings of happiness and sorrow that I don’t think are.

        1. They have little love for the economic issues of the GOP,

          They have little love for the occassionally free market rhetoric (and even rarer free market practice) of the GOP.

          I had to correct myself there. The GOP, outside a few decent eggs, doesn’t respect markets to any meaningful degree.

        2. You’re absolutely right. The thing that Johnson has going for him is that he hasn’t been labeled a kook. I know Ron Paul is right about almost everything, but the public’s perception of him is a very high hurdle for him to overcome. I think it will be easier for Johnson to get past his beliefs that social cons don’t like. I believe he’s said he’ll appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS, code for overturning Roe v. Wade. Plus, I think weed legalization has grown a lot more popular, or at least tolerable, than some people think. I think the Republican base will fall in line.

          1. The thing that Johnson has going for him is that he hasn’t been labeled a kook.

            “Advantage” gone by the first debate if not much sooner.
            Johnson can’t hope to win the Republican nomination with his position on abortion. Now would be a good time to rerun the retracted Reason post on what a shitty politician/communicator he is too. Is there still a cache of that anywhere?

            1. I don’t know. Johnson doesn’t come across as a kook. Ron Paul does. Apologies to Ron Paul fans, but his reputation is not entirely unearned.

          2. Ron Paul’s problem is he doesn’t address policy specifics but rather just drops blanket statements over everything. He’s correct philosophically but that simply doesn’t resonate when it comes to actually convincing people you can govern. If Johnson wants to look like serious version of Ron Paul he’ll have to do that.

            1. “…but that simply doesn’t resonate when it comes to actually convincing people you can govern.”

              You give the voting public way too much credit.

              1. The blanket stuff works, but only when it’s a nice, warm, snuggly feel-good blanket.

                Cold hard truth blankets are unwelcome.

        3. I get the abortion issue but where is the same religous outrage when their tax dollars are killing women and children in other countries. I like Paul, I voted for him in 2008 and would vote for him again. He may not be the best in communicating his message but after reading him for many years I understand his views. I may not agree with him 100% but bringing the troops home is a good idea. We bombed Iraq from Louisana and with the capabilities of the US Military no place is out of range. I like Gary Johnson and think he would make an excellent running mate for Ron Paul. It will take more than 8 yrs to fix the national debt issue and Gary would be good to continue the work of getting rid of the debt. Pushing the debt on to our children is like going out and buying a HumVee and telling the kids they will have to pay the rest of their lives for the comfort we take today.

  7. He wants another 50 bucks of mine to duck out of the race and have me continually spammed by “Campaign for Liberty.” He’s the only libertarian where politics is the family business.

    1. Why should I want worthless FED reserve notes?

      No, this time I will ask for donations only in the form of GOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD coins!

      1. Well, they are worth almost twice as many dollars as when you last ran Ron.

      2. “Never mind the Panics of 1819, 39, 73, 93 and last but not least 1907. Gold is THE ANSWER!”

        1. Man, looks like the “panics” didn’t happen nearly as often as the economic pain in the 30s, late 40s, pretty much all through the 70s – early 80s, early 00s, and now the current one. And the recoveries were a lot faster. Thanks for setting me straight about the value of gold!

        2. Strangely, the US economy rebounded sharply from each of those Panics.

          The rebounds from the two major dislocations of the Federal Reserve era have not really been that great.

          Considering the fact that the whole Fed / fiat currency infrastructure was sold to us as a way to eliminate the business cycle, you would think its shitty record at bringing us back from recession or depression in a timely way would allow us to question the wisdom of the overall program. But nooooooooooo – that’s crazy talk.

          1. And let’s not forget that we were hardly on a pure gold standard throughout the 19th century. You had various attempts at creating central banks. We were at times on a bimetallic standard, with all the Gresham’s law goodness that entails. You had government-mandated suspensions of specie redemption. You had all of the greenbacks that were printed during the civil war.

            In short, to say that we were on a gold standard during the entire 19th century is a gross simplification. Nonetheless, the periods of monetary stability were the periods of strong economic growth in the 19th century, just as they were in the 20th century.

        3. I know you think you’re being clever, but the fact is that those panics weren’t caused by the gold standard, but by banks fraudulently issuing more paper money than they could redeem. Anyone who kept their gold and silver coin was protected from the bank’s fraud.

          -jcr

    2. He stayed in the race pretty long last time, dude.

      He didn’t run as an independent, sure, but he always denied he would do that, right from the start.

      1. That was the only $ I have ever donated to a political campaign. Taught me a lesson. I will be curious to see the size of his next “Money bomb.” As a spectator of course….

        1. Have you considered throwing a dubsack Gary Johnson’s way? Paul will be able to get a pretty substantial contingent of his old donors anyway, and I think the C4L warchest has plenty of reserves to fund him this time around too. Gary Johnson will need some early money in order to raise his notoriety, but I do believe if he gets a critical mass, he will be a legitimate candidate.

        2. It doesn’t have to be Ron Paul or bust here. Donating still helps spread the message. I’ll be giving Paul and Johnson both money this time around because I like what they are saying and want them to be funded well enough to keep saying it as long as possible.

      2. He stayed in the race pretty long last time, dude.

        His name was on ballots for a long time, yes. He stopped spending money after Super Tuesday, though (and wasn’t spending much beforehand).

    3. I gave him $2000. Sigh.

      1. Spending my money on Campaign for Liberty doesn’t bother me, **NOT** spending my money on the presidential campaign I contributed to bothers me very much. He won’t be getting any more of my money until he starts campaigning to win.

        1. He won’t be doing that ever. Maybe CFL will be someday. If you want to back a winning horse then maybe Mitch Daniels is your guy.

    4. Re: not fooled again,

      He wants another 50 bucks of mine to duck out of the race and have me continually spammed by “Campaign for Liberty.” He’s the only libertarian where politics is the family business.

      You’re free to do what you want with your money…

      …. Ha ha ha! Who are we kidding? Your money ain’t yours, it’s the government’s!

  8. Congressman Paul ducked the Snowballgate question!

    1. He did ask Hannity if he was hurt during the snowball firefight…

      1. Hannity’s the pussy who said he’d volunteer to be waterboarded, right? And he’s whining about snowballs?

        -jcr

  9. Now that Dr. Paul is in the running, please help us support his historic bid to become President. Please visit http://www.campaignforliberty.com and make your voice heard!

  10. What time is the official announcement scheduled for?

  11. I would vote for Paul [either one] / Palin 2012.

    Even after everything I have said about Palin.

    1. The benefit of another Palin candidacy would be to watch the complete shrieking frothing meltdown from certain quarters.

    2. I’d love to see that ticket. I can’t imagine anything more “anti-establishment” with a shot at success.

    3. If unborn babies could vote Paul/Palin would win in a landslide!

    4. Anti-war/War work out?

  12. Over the weekend an awful lot of Ron Paul supporters have had their knives out for Gary Johnson. It’s absolutely crazy. The idea that there can be only one libertarian is so fucking stupid it boggles my mind.

    I do hope that Ron Paul chooses to run, so that there will be TWO libertarians in the GOP camp. Hell, I would be ecstatic if there were three, or four, or a dozen! I would be peeing my pants for joy if EVERY Republican candidate was a libertarian. But instead I’ve had to read stupid fucktards shitting all over my facebook about how Gary Johnson is not a real libertarian, about how he is “stealing” votes from Ron Paul.

    It is no mystery to me why there are not more libertarians: because they eat their own to keep the population under 0.5%.

    1. Cluestick: you can support BOTH Paul and Johnson!

      1. And an ideal world would involve a Paul/Johnson or Johnson/Paul dream ticket.

        And I would show up to vote with a tophat and monocle, a subtle means of breaking the no political adverts within 500 ft of a polling place law.

        1. ^ Excellent idea

      2. For the love of God. Please, please, please, no internecine struggles. There are plenty of other candidates to trash. If Paul and Johnson are both left standing after the early states, that’s great news.

        1. Not only are there so many other candidates to trash, its so friggin easy.

          Haley Barbour was up until yesterday, the hardest non-libertarian in the GOP race to trash…. that should tell you something.

          Romneycare
          Huckabee’s Pardongate
          Trump’s birtherism
          Palin’s being Palin
          And TPaw and Daniels are less exciting that Al Gore circa 1992.

          Jesus, if this isn’t the year for a bonafide libertarian-esque candidate in the GOP, than I will have lost all hope.

          1. Trump is so amusing though. I can’t think of a more entertaining GOP debate than “you’re fired” being shouted every 20 minutes.

          2. John McCain was easy to trash in 2008 too.

            Fucking open primaries.

        2. I don’t get why they do exclusive votes in primaries anyway. That’s awesome in the general election, if it results in a split in opposition voters. But in the primary, you want the candidate that has the best shot at winning — and if there are three or four similar but popular candidates that split the vote among them, it might let someone win that would have a much smaller base of support in the general election.

          It makes more sense to just let people give each candidate a thumbs up or thumbs down, and then see who is rated best. At the national level, do something similar — take the average approval for each state primary, weighted by the total number of delegates that would come from that state.

    2. The idea that there can be only one libertarian is so fucking stupid it boggles my mind.

      Are there even two true libertarians out there?

      1. Once again, I feel compelled to quote:

        “There are slightly more versions of libertarianism than there are libertarians.”

        So, no, there really aren’t 2 true libertarians. Each “true libertarian” defines the term slightly differently. It’s why the No True Scotsman arguments around here are ceaseless and so very entertaining.

      2. If you read Raimondo or Rockwell, you would swear Johnson was a neocon submarine candidate out to steal votes away from the Messiah. Johnson is trashed for being imperfect, while the anarchists at LRC studiously avoid mentioning Paul’s strong-border stances.

        It’s nucking futs.

        1. They don’t even acknowledges that Rand Paul exists either. Go figure.

      3. There can be only one.

    3. I agree, it would be great to have more than one candidate arguing for small government (for real) than just the one. Think in terms of growing the number of votes and don’t assume a fixed pie of votes. Growth is better than stagnation.

    4. I’m for Paul much more than Johnson for a variety of reasons but I think it’s great the former governor of NM is in the race.

      1. SIV,

        If I’m not mistaken, Johnson vetoed the cockfighting ban in NM. Twice.

        So, there ya go!

        … Hobbit

    5. Libertarians can’t allow too many people in their boutique ideology. Then it wouldn’t be cool any more.

  13. I was going to mention this in another thread, but here seems more apropos. Can we all remember this cycle that any online poll featuring candidate Paul is essentially worthless? The Ronulans are the masters at swarming online polls and getting Ron Paul up to ridiculous approval percentages. The 97% online poll numbers then get reversed at the polls.

    1. Can we all remember this cycle that any online poll featuring candidate Paul is essentially worthless?

      FTFY.

    2. Case in point:

      This morning I mentioned a NR survey that asked whether Ron Paul was a healthy addition to the GOP field or a joke.

      The early morning crowd on NR had it at 51/49 healthy.

      20 minutes later it was 94/6.

      If only they could stuff ballot boxes as well as they do internet polls.

  14. Forget about Rand Paul, he’s too old and America no longer likes old people unless they happen to be like Ronald Reagan.

    You have to focus on his son, Rand Paul, or maybe even Paul Ryan.

    BIKERS: THE ULTIMATE FREELOADERS.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl…..aders.html

      1. Grego, I petition you, from the bottom of my harmonica pocket. Please consider Gary Johnson. I know you’re a bit more into that whole military adventurism abroad, but I know that you really do want to cut spending.

        Do you sincerely trust Romney/Schmuckabee/Trump to do that in any meaningful degree? I don’t. Those guys are all empty suits seeking the vanity of power.

        1. Who is Gary Johnson? As for the other three, I don’t like them. Huckabee is a christian socialist, Romney passed Rommneycare in Taxachussetts, Trump doesn’t like assault weapons, praised Obama in the past and donated to the DNC.

          So far I like Dean Cain, and Paul Ryan.

          1. Former governor of New Mexico.

            1. He was a great governor too. He vetoed everything the democratic legislature threw at him for 8 years and left office in 2002 with a big surplus in the state treasury (…then Bill Richardson took over and put us deep in the red.)

              Of the two, I have a hard time choosing who I like better. Johnson has the advantages of being younger and “hipper” (he’s a self-made millionaire who has competed in Iron Man competitions and has scaled Mt. Everest) and has less baggage (i.e. the whole newsletter “scandal” of Paul), but Paul has the advantage of having better name recognition.

          2. Re: Gregory Smith,

            So far I like Dean Cain, and Paul Ryan.

            You like the guy who played Superman?

            1. Sorry, I meant Herman Cain.

              Look, I’m using a link from someone else!
              http://www.politicsdaily.com/2…..l-candida/

          3. B-

            Troll baits with “Ryan” support.

          4. Look him up on Wikipedia. I think you’ll be impressed with his resume.

    1. Forget about Rand Paul, he’s too old and America no longer likes old people unless they happen to be like Ronald Reagan.

      Dead?

  15. H&R to rehash (yet again, and on cue with the New Republic) Ye olde newsletter smear campaign against Paul in 3… 2… 1…

    1. It’s not a smear if it’s true.

  16. So I, like, hear that Ron Paul is, like, all racist and shit.

    1. Something, something newsletter…

    2. Dude, didn’t you hear? Ron Paul wants to get rid of money altogether and go back to bartering gold.

      1. Gold is money. Nothing else is. Didn’t you listen the first time I said it?

    3. something, something, newsletter… I think.

    4. The nice thing about Gary Johnson — he’s as fleet-footed as some of those black teen-aged males.

    5. Ratfuckers For Obama!

  17. Has anyone ever started an exploratory committee and not run?

    1. Well, I wouldn’t count the Donald out on that. I think he misunderstood what exploratory committee was. He hired a bunch of people to explore the birth records of Kenya in the early 60’s.

  18. I like that there are two libertarians in the race (Johnson and Paul), but they’re definitely going to split the libertarian-leaning GOP voters. Hopefully, if one of them pulls out in front early, the other will drop out and throw support to the other.

    Realistically speaking, it’s a long shot that either will make it to the general election, but it’s good to see that the small-government mindset is gaining traction.

    1. Realistically speaking, it’s a long shot that either will make it to the general election, but it’s good to see that the small-government mindset is gaining traction.

      Although I understand what you’re saying and the skepticism, it just seems like the rest of the field is so undeniably weak that it is possible that one, or even both, could emerge as front runners.

      I think Ron Paul especially has emerged over the past few years as a much more credible voice than ever before. Outside of the neocons, I think a lot of rank and file ‘pubs are coming around to his message and also have faith in the genuine nature of his convictions. Romney is seen as an empty suit; Huckabee as a populist idiot; Trump as an EastCoast a douchebag. I really think Ron Paul could capture a significant portion of the base in this election cycle (I’m less optimistic about Johnson’s chances in the primaries, or even the general, due to his telegenic style).

      1. I am cautiously hopeful that you are right.

    2. If there’s only one libertarian in the race, then he can be painted as a fringe nut. But you can’t do it if there are two.

      1. Excellent point. Thanks.

        … Hobbit

      2. Not just that, but every libertarian in the race dilutes the impact of the non- and anti-libertarians in the race. More chances to knock Huckabee down, etc. The Republican who emerges with the nomination may not be among those we most want, but is therefore less likely to be among those we least want. Gotta look at limiting the down side as well as enhancing the up side.

  19. Could we all, maybe, pull together this time instead of doing our best to fracture any momentum that might develop? I realize this is a lot to ask of libertarians and I also realize that Dr. Paul is not a dream candidate for some of you. He will be, however, the ONLY significant candidate who represents the libertarians perspective. It might be nice, just for the hell of it, that we not do our best to sabotage again our best and likely only opportunity to further the libertarian cause. I happen to really like and admire Ron Paul, but even if I found him personally repellent I would support him full bore in as much as he is the only national political figure who’s central guiding principle is the promotion of liberty.

    Furthermore, you well know that the main stream media will do everything it can to discredit and belittle the views Dr. Paul represents. What we don’t need is “libertarians” helping them out. Make no mistake – the values Dr. Paul represents are detested by the powers that be and their lab dog media and if it ever appears that Dr. Paul is in any danger of winning the nomination they will come out with all their guns blazing in order to derail the movement.

    Last time around other “libertarians” did as much to marginalize Ron Paul as did Fox News. If you’re not with us, just don’t fight against us. Given a fair hearing libertarian views will resonate with Joe American and could result in a transformation of our society for the better – for liberty. If it really is liberty you care about, then lets not shoot ourselves in the foot over petty disagreement over trivial issues.

    1. Unfortunately the litmus test results on open borders / abortion / minarchy v. anarchy just came back, and it states…fail.

    2. Ron Paul didn’t need anyone to marginalize him last time around, it came naturally. The newsletter scandal didn’t really affect him much; most GOP voters knew nothing about it as neither the MSM nor the conservative media covered it at all.

      And this time around Gary Johnson presents something of an alternative.

  20. On Dec. 16, 2007, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Paul raised $6 million in an online fund raising effort. But with only a couple of weeks left until the Iowa caucuses, there was no way to spend the money fast enough.

    The first moneybomb was on November 5, 2007, (remember the V for Vendetta references) and he raised $5M on that date. He also raised about $5M during the quarter ending in June 2007. They didn’t spend the money because they wanted to save it for the C4L, which is borderline fraudulent to do with campaign contributions. When I donated my $500 I wasn’t intending it for a full employment guarantee for the Paul family.

    So, Dr Paul’s son-in-law Jesse Benton is full of shit as usual. Good to see that Dr Paul is employing family members in key positions again, by the way.

    1. Disturbing…but this is the guy who loves both the constitution and pork-barreling his riding to the hilt.

  21. their threat to us is a result of our intervention over there

    Complete bullshit and this is why RP can’t be president. France has dicked around North Africa and even in the ME a bit and nobody gives a shit. Denmark puts a few cartoons out and that is what gets ’em angry. They do hate us because of our freedoms.

    1. I agree and for reason of his naivety a Ron Paul presidency would be scary. Fortunately he won’t be elected and in the meantime he’s going to improve the issues climate.

      1. I should note I still have a lot of respect for both Pauls. At least I can take them seriously which is better than Palin or Donald Fucking Trump.

  22. The bit where Ron Paul asked if Hannity was hurt in the snowball incident was priceless. Hannity’s such a pansy and he’s so invested in his toughguy demeanor.

    1. Seriously!?! I’m going to watch it just for that!

  23. Maybe, knowing he probably can’t win, Ron is running again to continue paving the way for Rand in 2016. Keep that libertarian message front and center and it could eventually pay off.

  24. Mortgage refinancing means re-funding the mortgage loan with better terms as well as conditions, most likely from a different lender. It is one way to save money. Search online for “Mortgage Refinance 123” they found me 3.1% refinance rate and also gave free analysis of my mortgage. You got to learn the secrets.

  25. Hannity somehow brings it around to the threat of Sharia law from radical Islam; Ron Paul tries to calm him down by reminding him that their threat to us is a result of our intervention over there.

    Sure. That’s the ticket.

    And “our” intervention is why Terry Jones was arrested – by radical Islamists, of course – and that’s why Reason doesn’t find his free-speech arrest worth mentioning.

  26. Your post is really good providing good information. Garlic health benefits I liked it and enjoyed reading it.Keep sharing such important posts.Sinus headache

  27. There is also one tool that could get one a free seo analysis for any domain of interest http://domof.com or report back the number of indexed pages and backlinks. Could be also used to spy on one’s competitors traffic and make a comparison with own site.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.