Libertarian History/Philosophy

Ron Paul Rising


NPR takes seriously the notion that, while Mitt Romney has consistently seemed to have a lock on victory in New Hampshire, Ron Paul is now a likely second place:

"I could very well see Ron Paul coming in second place," said longtime pollster Andy Smith, who runs the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

Smith's numbers last week show Paul in third with 12 percent, up from just a month ago. Other alternatives to Romney have risen to double digits only to fall back again, but Smith says Paul has some key advantages.

"He's got more money than other candidates, and he seems to have a more committed young following," he said. "Those young voters [are] always important on the campaign trail because they essentially will work for free and they're very enthusiastic about Paul."

In other Paul observations, The Christian Science Monitor notes that Paul's electoral magic will need to come from reaching outside Republican Party voters, noting he is currently beating Obama in a one-on-one among independent voters. Paul fans have a concerted effort dubbed "Blue Republican," encouraging those not currently GOP voters to do what needs to be done in their respective states to vote for Paul in the primaries.

Paul continues to crush all comers in the Conservative HQ straw poll, at 56 percent and rising. (Yes, it's easier to win an Internet straw poll than an election.)

Gail Collins at the New York Times, reportedly a prominent news source, while trying to make fun of Paul sums up why his fans love him:

He also doesn't believe in, well, let's see: gun control, the death penalty, the C.I.A., the Civil Rights Act, prosecuting flag-burners, hate crime legislation, foreign aid, the military draft under any circumstances, campaign finance reform, the war on drugs, the war on terror and the war on porn. Also the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Taxes are theft. While his fellow Republican candidates fume about gay marriage, Paul thinks the government should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses entirely. ("In a free society, something that we do not truly enjoy, all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.")

Although Steven Greenhut earlier today on Reason Online takes seriously claims that Paul's campaign "might not have a good ground game going," that belief seems unfounded: how can the campaign which the largest percentage of likely caucus voters in Iowa have heard from, and who came within a percentage point of winning the Ames Straw Poll in August (which involved getting over 4,600 in-state voters to actually show up for an all-day event) without a free Randy Travis concert, be said to lack ground game in Iowa?

NEXT: Why France Favors Bailing Out Greece. And Why Germany Doesn't.

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. The thing is, Romney seems to be holding back on spending, and no one else has any money, so Paul is getting to dominate both the airwaves and the ground game in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

    1. The thing is, Romney seems to be holding back on spending, and no one else has any money

      Probably was saving for the main election. Can arrogance be his downfall?

      My main concern is Paul can ramble and lose people, especially when challenged in the debates. He needs a hardcore speech and debate coacha and something to take the edge of him.

      I think he’s got the right ideas and the right path, but god help me he’s still not a polished candidate (world’s ahead of his 2008 run however).

      1. Romney would love for Paul to become the front-runner. The MSM attack machine will go into over-drive on Paul, letting Mitt lurk in the background as the “sensible” alternative.

        1. You are way off base on this, it is completely the opposite. This is why he media wont touch him, he has got 2% of media mainstream attention least amoung republicans. They ignore all polls he does well in. write him off as having no chance.

          Ron Paul has zero skeletons in the closet, the more the media covers him the more people are awaken to the truth. If given equal treatment Paul will destroy Romney or Obama on the debate stage. This was seen in the last CNN debate.

          1. Paul has some very nasty skeletons in his closet. They helped demolish his campaign in 08 (see newslettergate). He’s put them back in the box, but they’ll undead again should Paul become a front runner.

            1. Warren,

              I think you’re a bit too optimistic if you think the newsletters demolished his candidacy. Mostly, the newsletters resulted in alot of infighting amongst supporters and the general populace took little notice (of the newsletters and of his candidacy). He was a crazy peace loving gold bug then. Now, he’s a budget hawk (or atleast thats how some war loving supporters justify supporting him). Paul just better have a better answer this time than before if he gets in the spotlight.

            2. I would hardly call them “very nasty skeletons”. They are just an excuse for the left to call him a racist. Which they would have done anyway.

              The 08 primary was about Iraq and terrorists, which is why McCain won it and Paul had no chance. Now it’s a different story as the other poster notes.

            3. Re: Warren,

              Paul has some very nasty skeletons in his closet.


              They helped demolish his campaign in 08 (see newslettergate).

              It didn’t make a single dent on his campaign. It was clear he was against greater forces and less name recognition than today. The newsletter issue is a non-issue.


              January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

              ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA ? In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

              “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

              “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

              “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

              “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

      2. What we DO need is a citizenry who can deal with more subtance than a soundbyte.

        1. Never. Going. To. Happen.


      Paul, of course, is one of the only presidential candidates in contemporary American history in either party to overtly question our nation’s invade-bomb-and-occupy first, ask-questions later doctrine and to admit what the Central Intelligence Agency acknowledges: namely, that our military actions can result in anti-Americanism fervor and terrorist blowback.

      Predictably, Paul’s foreign-policy honesty has generated Washington media scorn (most recently and explicitly, as Glenn Greenwald points out, from CBS News’ Bob Schieffer). No doubt, that scorn has much to do with that media being disproportionately older, more establishment-worshipping and more hyper-militaristic than the general population. But far away from D.C. green rooms in Real America ? and especially among younger voters ? Paul’s foreign policy positions are generating the opposite of scorn. Indeed, as a new Pew Research Center report suggests, these positions are almost certainly a driving force behind the support for his candidacy.

      As usual, the comments are fascinating/revolting.

      1. No doubt, that scorn has much to do with that media being disproportionately older, more establishment-worshipping and more hyper-militaristic than the general population.

        Was this guy alive back in 2006? All the sunday morning hosts were ripping the war back then.

        1. The liberals (sunday morning hosts) in 2006 were ripping the war until 2008 when their own war-monger became commander in chief. Now they are all about making excuses and talking about how Obomber is a war hero. The Republicans in 2006 were all gung-ho about the war, except for Ron Paul, who like always was against this military comlex disease.

  2. I am not a Ron Paul fan. But everyone but Paul, Romney and Gingrich has flamed out. The logic follows that people are going to look for anyone but Romney. Then they are going to look at Gingrich and start to remember what a creepy nut he is. That leaves Paul.

    1. Wait, if you’re not a Paul fan, who are you voting for in the primaries? If everyone else has flamed out, Newt is a creepy nut, and you’re a member of the ABR club, what does that leave for you?

      1. I don’t get to vote in the primaries, but if I did, I would vote for Paul. I don’t see any alternative.

        1. Beltway Brat!

        2. I am stunned. I would not have expected someone like John to vote for Paul under any circumstances.

          Maybe Paul as the only viable non-Mitt candidate can actually win the primary …

          1. We might all be surprised yet… lots of people are goddamn sick of sabre rattling towards teh moooslims; lots of people are sick of politicians having a tantrum everytime baseline budgetting is threatened to be reduced, let alone actually cut; and lots of people know its time to end the fuckin drug war and will not vote for a politician who supports it even if they generally agree otherwise with the dumbshit (saw this phenomenon on hotair, re:gingrich).

    2. Paul is the only candidate running who would actually make a significant dent in government spending. But he would also kill fewer brown people. His lack of popularity among conservatives tells me where their true priorities lie.

    3. Santorum hasn’t had a chance to shine yet.

    4. You’ve left the Cain train, eh?

  3. he seems to have a more committed young following

    Boy don’t we know it. I hope Paul gets all the publicity in the world, but “committed” is understating the fervor.

    1. not much worse than the Tea Party as some maintstream republicans are starting to dilute to the group.

      Still, there are some crazy conspiracy theorists on board.

      1. Who told you that?? What, exactly, did he say?

  4. Just got back from vacation. What’s happening in the world? Any new wars? Is Tebow officially being worshiped yet? Did we slash government spending?

    1. After the last four weeks, there is no doubt Jesus does love Tebow more than the rest of us.

      1. and Jesus hates the Texans.

        1. I think Jesus did them a favor when He struck Leinart down.

          1. Is Tim Tebow as good a running qb as Bobby Douglas was all those years ago with da bears?

            1. Before my time.

            2. More importantly, is he as good a rushing QB as Steve McNair or Randall Cunningham were, because those guys at least played in nearly the same era as Tebow.

              1. More importantly, can he punt as well as Cunningham?

                  1. Did he punt the ball more than 91 yards?

                    1. D’oh! I forgot about that one.

                  2. .. is not Tupa, but Sammy Baugh.

            3. Hard to compare Tebow with Douglass considering Douglass could make the triple option reads while I’ve never seen Tebow do them. Douglass had a rifle arm which unfortunately he continued to use as a rifle when receivers were at close range. However, after Abe Gibron went away, the Bears replaced Douglass with a succession of even worse QBs and tended to keep the most proven QBs they had on the bench in favor of speculative ones they committed to trying to develop, like Bob Avellini.

              1. Bob Avellini wore No. 7, iirc. Yes, he was never headed to Canton. He was there when Sweetnes first arrived on the scene.

                Abe Gibron? Next to him, Rex Ryan looks like a white Jimmie Walker.

    2. “Super” Committee > Tebow

      1. Now that’s definitely wrong. Maybe Tebow should be given the responsibility for reducing spending.

        1. Tim Tebow: 5-1
          Super Committee: 0-3

          1. Exactly.

            Congratulations on getting Meyer. I think he’s going to have his work cut out for him, but he’s a good coach. Wonder if he’ll stick with the spread?

            1. But the point is that the SC’s influence and reach are MUCH greater than the Timster’s. All for ill, of course, but nonetheless. Therefore, I maintain:

              “Super” Committee > Tebow

              1. But the point is that the SC’s influence and reach are MUCH greater than the Timster’s.

                Um, until the SC can heal the sick and resurrect the dead, the Tebow’s powers are greater than theirs.

            2. He’ll have to if Miller is gonna be his QB. The kid has poor mechanics and is as accurate with his passes as Michael J Fox.

              Still, they had 10 new starters on D this year, 8 new starters on O, not to mention a lethargic coach that didn’t inspire any confidence.

              They will win 9-10 games next year and will be in the BigTen Championship Game. Those fucks from scUM will be back in their place in another 363 days.

            3. Cam Newton needs two more rushing TDs to match the single season record for quarterback rushing touchdowns.

              The record is 12 and was set in 1976 – the second to last season of 14 games.

              The record holder? Steve Groagan.

              Its a good trivia question for those who think they know more about NFL history than they actually do.

              1. Grogan? I did not know that. Was that when he was with the…I wanna say Patriots?

                Nice trivia!

                1. Yes. The 11-3 1976 Patriots, arguably the best team in football that year as they were the only team to beat the super bowl winning Raiders, 48-17 on October 3, 1976. Yes, the Pats were bested by the Raiders on the scoreboard, 24-21 in the playoffs; as for what actually took place on the field, well, let’s just say that the tuck rule was revenge.

                  1. I’m not making fun, it’s just humorous that the conversation about Ron Paul digressed into a Tim Tebow/Football discussion.

                    1. stick around and you’ll see that all conversations end up in either Tebow comparisons or gamboling.

                    2. Tim Tebow is the reason no one takes libertarians seriously.

                    3. Tebow is free to gambol about the field.

                    4. Referee, am I free to gambol through backfield and endzone?


    When looking at the real economic numbers and the cost effect results of our foreign policy closely, one can only conclude that we have become a welfare/warfare state that has already entered into a Depression, while heading towards ever more endless wars, complete bankruptcy, and the collapse of an America which we have known for more than two centuries.

    There are far more of us than those who represent the special interest group financed establishment which continues to benefit from all of the above at the expense of average Americans. Most of us can at least sense that something is drastically wrong yet we remain on our path to self-destruction if we allow status quo politicians with status quo policies to continue on.

    Whether you are a member of the Tea Party, OWS, any other group, or simply a disenfranchised individual who sees little hope, please look up, learn about, and help Ron Paul become president anyway you can. The only way we lose is if we continue to remain divided.

    Had we voted Ron Paul into office in 2008 we would at this time be well on our way to recovering the American dream. Fortunately it looks like we have one more chance to get it right. It’s probably our last chance, however, because within four years of continued status quo leadership and policies we will find ourselves in the midst of a full scale Depression and all the turmoil that it brings.

    Even if you disagree with Ron Paul on a position or two please don’t let that stop you from supporting him. Even in such a situation consider if Ron Paul won’t get you 80% of what you want while getting the country back on track to recovery. At such time it will be easier to argue about the 20% that is missing than under present status quo leadership. If we were to all wait for a candidate that gives us 100% of what we want then we will remain divided and there will be no hope.

    During this critical time in history let’s come together as a country to show that we as a people can overcome the special interest group financed status quo candidates to support and vote Ron Paul into office in 2012 so that we and our children have a better future. Please pass this on to everyone you know.

    From a concerned citizen

    1. I find it amusing that people are posting their cut-and-paste boilerplate here of all places.

      1. The bot must have spotted the words “Ron Paul”.

        1. We have to respond. We all know the media/tv won’t

      2. Leave no rock unturned!

    2. you must not be familiar with Reasons’ readership.


      1. Well, now you’ve piqued my interest. I’m not familiar with Reason’s readership. To which upper crust, political elitists do we owe our gratitude for their audience on this board?

        1. the Koch’s obviously

    3. For a Citizen called “Concerned”….

  6. The Caucses are tricky. The party leaders will usually go with whoever the establishment/media is telling them to support. Since Romney doesn’t have a lot of establishment support they will look to Gingrich and then they will see how he is too much part of the establishment for the public to support. Then there will be the consistent Ron Paul supporters who they realize will provide the energy and labor to defeat Obama in the General election. Ron Paul’s story in this election will be one for the ages.

    1. The Caucasus can indeed be tricky. Especially Mount Elbrus.

  7. Paul needs to win or come within ten points of the winner in IOWA, and he needs to win NH outright. Assuming he pulls that off, then the MSM and GOP leadership will need to start treating him as a serious candidate for him to win the nomination. I don’t see that happening even if it were revealed that Ron Paul was the second coming of Christ. Even so, strong showings in IA and NH will keep Paul in the race taking double digits in most primaries through Super Tuesday, and the establishment will have to contend with him.

    1. I don’t think there’s any chance in hell Paul can win New Hampshire. Romney has that one locked up, barring a crazy scandal in the near future.

      1. Some Fox News hottie should accuse Romney of whatever. I mean who isn’t going to believe that he tried to grope Megyn Kelly in an elevator?

        1. Problem with that is that Romney is too chicken shit to go on Fox

        2. The easiest way to attack him is to get a few women to admit to being part of his polygamous marriage.

      2. Romney does indeed have a lock on NH — such a lock that people will pay more att’n to 2nd place there than 1st. OTOH, the results in IA aren’t going to be given much credence one way or another. SC’s going to be more interesting.

      3. Spread the rumor that Romney likes to show his Morman to little boys.

    2. The accuracy of your statement bothers me. We had to take Perry seriously before he announced. We had to take Cain seriously early on in the debate season. Hell, we had to take Christie and Palin seriously as they continuously stated that they would not run.

      But when it comes to Paul, he doesn’t need to be taken seriously until after the first two states come back? WTF?

      1. What I’m saying is that the establishment needs to take him seriously for him to win the nomination, which thus far it has steadfastly refused to do. The reasons cited for doing so are crumbling. He raised millions of dollars, he polls well, he has campaign infrastructure. The only thing left standing is actual strength in state primaries. If he achieves that, I don’t see any pretext left to hide their bias behind. I don’t think they’ll abandon their opposition, but they’ll have to expose their agenda.

        1. Oh, I know what you’re saying, Warren. And you are right on the mark.

          I was just lamenting the accuracy in your statement and my anger bemusement at it.

        2. I don’t think they’ll abandon their opposition, but they’ll have to expose their agenda.


        3. If the economy alone is the reason to vote for anyone in 2012, he’d probably win, but he doesn’t pump the well for the other issues conservatives have. He’s not enough of a flag waver or bible thumper despite his background as a military vet and someone who once thought about becoming a minister. He doesn’t toot his own horn enough about those things. Voters are stupid.

          1. Why anyone would vote for anything other than the economy right now is beyond me. It might be a different situation if we were facing down a major external threat. But, claims to the contrary, we aren’t. Last time we were was during the Cold War.

            If we don’t fix our economy, we’re not going to be able to afford to continue our military intervention and world policing. What happens then?

            1. Oh, I agree completely. But conservatives need protecting dontcha know, despite the claims that Heaven is where they want to be, save them ProL, save them from themselves…for teh childrehehen!!!1!111

              1. What Paul needs is the Tebow endorsement. Then all will be as it should be.

            2. “Why anyone would vote for anything other than the economy right now is beyond me. ”

              I would vote for ANY candidate, even Maxine Fucking Waters, if they made serious, believable promises to end the drug war. But lucky for me, only Ron Paul is doing that and I also happen to like the rest of his platform (except immigration)

        4. The MSM would have to admit that they have no clue what mainstreet America is like if they acknowledge Paul stands a chance. The sheer of sacred cow breakage that would happen would put Katie Couric in the nuthouse.

  8. I couldn’t in good conscience vote for anyone, but Ron Paul. If I must, I’ll vote for Ron as a write-in candidate in the General Election. I’m not voting for another Rupublicrat! I’m no longer going to vote the status quo!

  9. I still wonder what will happen if Paul is rude enough to win some primaries and threaten Mitt “Ken Doll” Romney’s pending coronation. Airplane crash? Federal agents “find” kiddie porn on his PC?

    1. We’re working it, don’t you worry.

    2. Sexual harassment claim. You need neither a live person or any details for it to stick. You just need a few hundred stories about the “allegation”

      1. Good point. The fact that he is a doctor (obstetrician, I think?) will make it seem more “plausible”. And no amount of denial or lack of evidence will ever clear his name.

      2. And failing that, they can always fall back to racism. Doesn’t require that a crime has been committed – only allegations of thought crime. And any contravening evidence can be dismissed in favor of juicier race-baiting.

  10. Paul has not problem with most of the Civil Rights Act. He’s only opposed to a section of it pertaining to employment. Paul doesn’t think employers should be forced to take race, gender, etc. into consideration when hiring.

    If a business chooses to discriminate (some already do, he thinks that the way to handle that is through boycotts and social ostracization.

    If an asian only wants to hire asians, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?

    If a gay person only wants to hire gay people, why shouldn’t she be allowed to?

    If a person only wants to hire women, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?

    If a black person only wants to hire a certain group, isn’t it his business?

    The same goes for everyone else. If you don’t like it, don’t trade with that person.

    The right to be free entails the right to make decisions on one’s own property. Once you allow the group/the state to dictate who one can trade with it, it opens Pandora’s box. Then they start telling you what you can sell. See the drug war.

    1. You could have just said, “I agree with you guys” and saved us all a bunch of time.

      I keed. I keed.

    2. Everything in that list is already acceptable in our society today. Most people probably don’t even know they’re supposed to be illegal. Only certain combinations matter, of course.

      People don’t care about principle, they care about anecdotes. The media is there to “help” the public avoid getting too caught up in such dangerous principled thinking.

  11. OT, but GM is giving loaner cars to worried Volt owners. All 167 of them, apparently, have the option of driving beyond 35 miles before their battery dies/car bursts into flames.

    1. LOL, I heard about that. Another triumph for Government Motors! Everyone take a slug of Victory Gin!

      1. Uh, just don’t do it within the vicinity of your Volt.

    2. GM is in the business of creative destruction. They’ve found a way to destroy their cars much faster now. It took at least a couple years for a Chevy Vega to rust apart.

  12. Dr. Ron Paul risin’, Dr. Ron Paul risin’
    Dr. Ron Paul risin’, Dr. Ron Paul risin’
    Got to keep on risin’
    Dr. Ron Paul risin’, Dr. Ron Paul risin’
    Ron Paul risin’, gotta Ron Paul risin’
    Dr. Ron Paul risin’, gotta keep on risin’
    Risin’, risin’
    Gone risin’, risin’
    I’m gone risin’, risin’
    I gotta risin’, risin’
    Well, risin’, risin’
    I gotta, wooo, yeah, risin’
    Woah, ohh yeah

    1. Surely you’re aware of the new internet protections of copyrighted materials…there will be NO further Doors references without the appropriate permissions given…:p

      1. It’s OK by me – go ProL!

      2. Ron Paul rising.
        Ron Paul rising.
        Ron Paul rising.

      3. Did that get enacted?

        1. Don’t ask me – I just got into town about an hour ago.

    2. Took a little poll about an hour ago!
      Finger in the wind and see which way the wind blow.
      Ron Paul gettin’ votes like a mainstream pol, you know…
      He could be winning big time with the Children of Corn!
      Just another lost Anglo….Iowa first….
      …New Hampshire next…
      …city of night…..

      1. [furiously wiggles fingers]

        1. Me and my buddy (AKA “Steinjew”) in college used to listen to LA Woman EVERY DAY before lunch. EVERY DAY….FUCK it was a good way to get pumped up for….lunch!

          1. This is the end,
            Beautiful friend.
            This is the end,
            My only friend, the end.

            Of our crazy spending plans, the end.
            Of economies planned, the end.
            No safety in compromise, the end.
            I’ll never buy into your lies. . .again.

          2. And by “lunch” you mean buttsex?

            1. I didn’t say “HOT lunch”…

              Riders on the storm
              Riders on the storm
              Into this debt we’re born
              This debt is now the norm
              The bank it owns my home
              Cause they hold all of my loans
              Riders on the storm…

        2. Come on, come on, come on
          Come on now cut the debt
          Can’t you see the recession it has made?
          When will it ever be repaid?
          Why don’t we just end entitlemenst?
          Why not end the FED?

          Now, I’m gonna cut spending
          Till the budget it is ballanced
          I’m gonna cut it
          Till the debt falls from the sky for you and I…

          and our children, and our children’s children and..

  13. Barney the Frank’s presser in 30 minutes. He’s gonna claim redistricting, but I sense a cover-up. As all his signature bullshit gets torn to shreds, he’s gonna bail out?

    I smell “Hot Bottom Part II.”

    1. Please disregard that last sentence.

      1. PLS, after reading that last sentence there is no way to unread it. I have to admit, you have a nose for news.

  14. The NYT piece is amazingly condescending. Granted I have my RP dog in the fight, but I was outraged at the ‘reporting,’ which was in fact about 15 paragraphs of snickering derision, overtly questioning the sanity of anyone who could possibly support these occultish libertarian policies.

    Fucking christ.

    1. No way!


    2. If someone outside NYC reads that piece, it might backfire for Collins — they might go, hey, he actually makes sense and isn’t pandering.

  15. NPR takes seriously the notion that…

    But will people take NPR seriously?

    Srsly? No, seriously…

  16. Is he not in?
    He is Ron Paul
    That is his name

    Is he not in?
    He is Ron Paul
    that is his name

    1. I’d like to de-evolve the government.

  17. I hope so, but I’m wondering if the Union-Leader endorsement of Gingrich is going to put him further ahead. Third place for Paul would be a disappointment, below that a disaster.

  18. Uh
    Keep yo eye on the polls
    Yore hand upon the le[e]ver

    Keep yo eye on the polls
    Yore hand upon the le[e]ver

    You get to vote for Ron
    Paul once or twice a ye-ar

    So let’s vooooote baby vote
    So let’s vooooote baby vote
    So ket’s vooooote baby vote
    Let us vooote
    All night long…

  19. He also doesn’t believe in, well, let’s see: gun control, the death penalty, the C.I.A., the Civil Rights Act, prosecuting flag-burners, hate crime legislation, foreign aid, the military draft under any circumstances, campaign finance reform, the war on drugs, the war on terror and the war on porn. Also the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Taxes are theft. While his fellow Republican candidates fume about gay marriage, Paul thinks the government should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses entirely. (“In a free society, something that we do not truly enjoy, all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.”)

    Wow! I’m in love with him!

    Wait… Was the above supposed to convince me to hate him?

    Maybe the subtlety was lost somewhere…

  20. I saw a news report on Canada’s economic situation. They were in bad shape 5 years ago, so they slashed their national budget, including letting go of many federal employees. What was the result? They have had a budget surplus for the last few years and employment has gone up. The Canadian dollar’s value has gone way up as well and is now worth more than the US dollar.

    Hmm, which GOP candidate has been talking about these ideas for 30 years or so?

    1. I for one welcome our new hockey overlords.

      1. Wayne Gretsky? on steroids?

  21. Jefferson had actions of others blamed on him as well. Sheould we have written him off? What happened to supporting the good for the sake of being the good?

  22. Goddamnit, Reason readers/Cato Supporters/The AEI people who don’t totally suck (half, maybe?)/other members of the libertarian “movement”:

    This constant nitpicking and lack of support for Paul is pissing me off!


    Recognize this fact, and please quit complaining about every little pet peeve you have (e.g., “some of his supporters are weird, he won’t win, he’s not sexy enough of a candidate, whatever other non-substantive complaints you can think of) regarding Paul and show him some love. If you are serious at all about reducing the size of government in a meaningful way, this is an easy decision. Dr. Paul is your choice.

    I’m a former Reason intern with IHS ties – so I guess I’m a “comsotarian” or whatever the Reason/Cato “wing” of the libertarian movement is called. I even had the pleasure of attending dinner following a Federalist Society event with a constitutional fellow at Cato recently, and I must say, he was entirely dismissive, rude, and insulting toward Paul and his supporters.

    It seems to me like libertarians are our own worst enemies. We want to be academic and live in an ivory tower in our think tanks.

    Let’s get off our asses and actually support the best candidate we’ve had (with any shot – sorry Gary Johnson, who is a badass) probably since Barry Goldwater.

    Vote for Paul, for the love of God.

    My rant is over. Thank you. Let us please end this bullshit “comsotarian” bullshit infighting.

    Getting libertarians to do anything is nearly impossible. Collective action problem.

    1. Anyone who asks I tell them Paul is the best candidate. But Paul fans are sometimes their own worst enemy at pumping him like the best thing since sliced bread. No, he’s alot better sliced bread and palatable (unlike the moldy dishwater soaked wonderbreads he faces), but he’s not perfect and theres many tings I disagree with him on. And he may not accomplish anything in office even if he wins (bureaucracies are resiliant if nothing else and congress is hostile to any change that makes them have to think).

      But I’ll still vote for Paul and hope enough of the nation does to send a message that the path we’re on has to change.

      1. I’ve got reservations about Paul, but I’m voting for him, and I’ve sent him money.

      2. tings??


    2. Macy — you forgot to add “CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION!”
      If you don’t, no one here will take you seriously.

  23. I contend one of the strengths Ron Paul supporters have in this election is they now understand the process. Tea party and Paul supports got whitewashed in the last primaries simply because they did not understand the caucus system(Rob’s rules of order and such) last time around.

  24. After “NPR takes seriously…” the rest of the screen goes blank.

  25. If one wants to be serious, he must think beyond GOP nominee race.
    He must understand broader picture.
    That picture is a presidential race.
    If you take three most serious GOP candidates, Paul, Romney and Gingrich, and put each of them against Obama, who do you think has biggest chance to overrun him?
    Mitt Romney with his flip flopping and very unclear monetary policy? No way. Obama will blow him away with his smooth “yes, we can” talk. Plus he is very unlikely to win over independent and disappointed democrat votes.
    Newt Gingrich with his amnesty policy and suspicious money donations for his presidential campaign? No way. Though he could take some independent votes, disappointed democrats will never give him their votes.
    And above all, those two could not overrun Obama, cause both of them represent status quo.

    Only one who can overrun Obama is Ron Paul, cause Obama doesn’t have a clue how to deal with Ron Paul’s view on crucial things such as budget deficit, foreign wars, big government spendings and war on drugs. Plus Ron Paul is the only one who can attracts both independent and disappointed democrat votes.
    That is the big picture we must see.
    So, think big! Vote Ron Paul for president!

  26. Mr Mojo …… Risin’
    got to keep on risin’
    I’m gone risin’ risin’
    I gotta risin’ risin’
    well risin’ risin’

  27. Ron Paul, unlike the other candidates, is pro-peace, pro-freedom, anti-bailouts. The others are neocon war-mongers that are too eager to send others to unjust wars while they pontificate. That is neither moral nor honorable.

  28. Dr. Paul did not host a Randy Travis concert at the Iowa Straw Poll to win votes…. That Michele Bachman.

  29. Dr. Paul did not host a Randy Travis concert at the Iowa Straw Poll to win votes…. That Michele Bachman.

  30. Ron Paul is clear and consistent. He’s going to win Iowa and that will really shake things up!

  31. Do people suffer from Amnesia?
    Here is an ingenious AD appropriately called “flip/flops”, reminding people that Romney / Newt , will say anything to get elected. I can’t recommend it enough ? it will make everyone’s day.…..1RKPfMqGOg

    1. Actually, you are a fool because all you have to do is read his platform to see that immigration policy is one of the major hang-ups amongst libertarians. He would actually get tougher on illegal immigration than most, as he wants to end birthright citizenship. He just isn’t going all crazy and talking about a giant wall with machine guns.

      1. my bad, meant to reply to the post below

  32. I like many or even most of Ron Paul’s positions. But RP’s insane/treasonous positions on immigration kill the deal. Ron Paul has earned an immigration grade of F from Numbersusa – RP has stuck with Libertarian true believer cult supporting virtual open borders immigration from anyplace in the entire world, including the Islamic 3rd world. Check out this video of Ron Paul running for President in 1988 where RP shows that he’s well – clueless about immigration.

  33. IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT ANYONE BOTHERED BY THE RON PAUL NEWSLETTERS READ JUSTIN RAIMONDO’S ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT AT TAKI’S MAG. IT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT PAUL’S “RACISM”. have you read the objectionable sentences in their original context? once you have, you will immediately recognize them as adamantly anti-racist and strictly libertarian. even the David Duke quote, where it seems like Duke is mentioned approvingly, has the precise opposite meaning when the surrounding sentences are included. unfortunately, reading them in context also makes it obvious that the quotes were intentionally misrepresented by Reason writers; after reading Raimondo’s piece, you’ll feel ashamed FOR them. its called “Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul”. Thank Hayzeus there are real journalists in the libertarian movement (not you, Doherty. you’re cool. the other guys suck tho.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.