Ron Paul, Still Rising
As increasing awareness of the inherently low quality of the rest of the prospective GOP presidential field seeps across the minds of the populace, Ron Paul continues to get strange new respect and even stranger refusals to acknowledge his existence.
A survey of some of the latest:
* The Nation's John Nichols gives Paul some love from the left:
the Texas congressman and maverick GOP presidential contender brings to the 2012 race a record far more worthy of commendation than those of his competitors for the Republican nomination.
Paul voted against the Patriot Act.
Paul voted against launching the Iraq War.
Paul has consistently supported moves to bring the troops home from Iraq, from Afghanistan and from just about everywhere else they are garrisoned.
Paul has worked with Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank on a campaign to cut the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion..
Paul has worked with Frank to decriminalize marijuana and to dial back the worst excesses of the drug war….
And , now, he has done something truly worthy of admiration. He has chosen not to be ridiculous.
Confronted with the prospect of a participating in a debate hosted by the second most absurd figure in American public life, Donald Trump, Paul simply said "no."
* NPR gives Paul a cutesy softball "five things you may not know about Ron Paul" piece, including that he's a good ball player and was a member of a fraternity. (It gets a little off by conflating Paul's federalism on vice issues with approval of bad prohibitions by states and localities that as a federal office holder he would merely allow, though admittedly Paul isn't quick to say the words "I don't think drugs should be prohibited under any circumstances."
* National Review has some on-the-ground reporting from Iowa, talking to many Paul campaign workers there, and concluding that "with January fast approaching, his team is ready to surprise the political world and sweep the Iowa caucuses." Paul is indeed second this week in a Des Moines Register poll.
* In the game of refusing to acknowledge Paul's existence, something that lots of GOP higher-ups are pobably nostalgic for now as Paul refuses to go away and gets stronger and stronger in a weak field, see this bizarre "Talking Points Memo" piece on libertarian dissatisfaction with Newt Gingrich that never once mentions the name Ron Paul, the most radically libertarian on domestic and foreign policy candidate we've seen in our lifetime.
* See, on Paul's libertrian radicalism, this nearly anarcho-capitalist take on the Elizabeth Warren "you get to keep some of your money because the government forces you to take what it chooses to give" meme, where Paul tells ABC News that "by the use of force government comes with a gun…the money had to come from productive effort…government created nothing, the only thing they can do is steal and rob people with a gun and forcibly transfer wealth":
* The Historical Ron Paul, predicting terror blowback against us for our interventionist policies, many examples pre-9/11:
* A bit of a reach, yes, but Obama's much-ballyhooed Kansas speech today seems almost designed to run against Ron Paul, with a desperate repetition of the standard "market-failure" line about what Paul would argue was a monetary policy and regulation-caused crash, and a frontal attack on not the actual policies of the Republican Party but on legal conditions before Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive era, you know, that 19th century that Paul's foes accuse him of living in.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If only his son were running instead.
He really might've won.
It's still somewhat improbable, but really, does Gingrich seem any more reasonable than Paul? Or Romney?
The Paul snubs may help him, as I think there's a vague discontent with the media trying to game the election. . .in large part due to the non-vetting of Obama.
"the media trying to game the election." Right.
They are trying & they are failing.
The harder they try to game the election the greater their follies.
In 2008 the MSM lament was "The more we ignore him the more popular he becomes". After Iowa it will be impossible to ignore Ron Paul, he is going to win big & others will collapse.
Ron Paul is on his way to the White House & the World is going to love him.
"Ron Paul is good" @ Bible Code !
"Ron Paul carries significant racist baggage."
I never got the appeal of carrying significant racist baggage.
I would call his racist baggage "lightweight yet surprisingly durable." He also, in my opinion, had the baggage handed to him at the last minute on the tarmac. I mean, it's not even his own racist baggage. He didn't pick it out or buy it. He didn't even fill out the name tag himself.
I would like to think the race card has been played to death in the last three years. I'm sure I will be disappoint.
Ron Paul will never be elected due to The Newsletters. A old white Republican running against the first black President. Old white Republican has "racist" newsletters penned in his name. Game Over. End of Story. It will be over the morning after Ron Paul wins the primary. NPR will halt all usual broadcasting in favor of having Terry Gross read the incriminating newsletters in a 24/7 loop, interspersed with commentary on Paul's repudiation of the Civil Rights Act and how he hates black children. New York Times will have just one story that fills the entire paper- "Ron Paul Will Institute Slavery If Elected." Think about it.
I will still vote for him, nonetheless. I will probably have to write his name in again.
Not this time. Ron Paul's name will be on the ballot for sure & I want a front row seat for all the Obama/Paul debates.
When the MSM can no longer hide Ron Paul from America, America is going to discover & fall in love with Ron Paul.
Its going to be a landslide!!!
"Ron Paul is good" = Bible Code.
I was assured several years ago that America no longer had a race problem, as some sort of savior had come and ended it all. Not sure who that was, unless it was a reference to Tim Tebow, who will throw or hand off the ball to any teammate, regardless of race, religion, color, or creed.
Obama doesn't really count. His skin color is much too light and therefore can be considered "sort of white, don't you think?" and so his Presidency doesn't really mean anything when it comes to racism, and totally doesn't prove that anyone in this country can become the President of the United States.
Come on. We've had two black presidents in my lifetime--Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Everything's groovy now.
But I don't want it to be groovy. I miss the days when my life was perfect because of my flawless, porcelain skin. If things become groovy, I'll have to start actually filling out job applications instead of being hired on the spot because of my skin color.
I think if he wins the GOP nomination and picks a strong black figure as a VP runningmate, Walter Williams for example, he couldn't me called a racist. Plus with a strong VP candidate to debate Biden would be great.
A black VP wouldn't count, either. All black Republicans are dismissed by liberal voters as "Uncle Toms," and therefore not "real" blacks who represent "the community."
Walter Williams for VP would be fantastic. I'd even be willing to put up Gary Johnson (HUD head, maybe?) in favor of the image boost.
Ron Paul's perfect running mate would be Jessie Ventura. A respected Navy Seal & Statesman.
Think about that tag team!
Yikes. Paul already has some fringe-y baggage. Ventura as VP would deep six his campaign. Don't get me wrong, Ventura is entertaining and right on a number of things, but the conspiracy stuff is too extreme for a mainstream candidacy... he could still go LP though.
Walter Williams!!!! What a fantastic duo that would be. Someone asked me about a Ron VP the other day and that one passed me by. That would be a real mind blowing ticket.
For the tips, dude, the tips!
"You don' hav to tote dat grip boss, I do it cheap"
Ron Paul is a racist. Why? Because FUCK YOU, that's why.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KD3K.....-s-why.jpg
Those Newsletters were the highlight of his 30+ years as the leader of dignified libertarianism. We need to support good libertarians, not freaks and deviants.
You may want to read this before continuing your smear
http://takimag.com/article/why.....z1ffLZxUiV
Go, baby, go!
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
"I gotta, wooo, yeah, risin'"
I gotta, wooo, yeah, risin'
& "Ron Paul is good"! > Bible Code.
If Ron Paul is serious he needs to run third party as LP - the GOP despises him.
It would be his greatest contribution to the Mericun body politik.
Or he can be responsible for the single greatest political realignment in 30 years by becoming the Republican standard bearer. The beauty of it is that his son has already had success and is in position to contiune his father's work.
Was there a significant political realignment in the early 80s? I would think a more significant realignment occurred when the Dixiecrats became Republicans in the 1960s.
Lots of then-Democrats started voting GOP for President then, and many even switched parties. My parents did, who were politically conservative to begin with. Part of what's gone wrong with the Democrats is that they lost a large percentage of their conservative population.
I'm voting for RP in Georgia's March open primary.
I hate Newt Gingrich more than I do any living human on this planet.
Even Christ-fags?? My, you've changed.
Please - the old shrike is remorseful for his fiery rhetoric. Let's let bygones be bygones.
Sp00f!
"Let's let bygones be bygones."
No thanks, you can die in a grease fire.
Don't apologize for "Christfag". I have used that word in my own household to great effect! It is one of my favorites, along with, "Go suck Ron Paul's cock!!!".
Newt is human?
Rand Paul's political stand is not as firm as his father's, but I do see a future there for sure.
He's running by far the best campaign. His recent salvo of ads that tell the truth about Gingrich combined with his enthusaistic grassroots support may very well catapult him to the top of the polls by the end of the month.
I'm hoping Mitt and Gingrich make complete assholes of themselves at the Trump debate and it finally sinks through to voters how godawful they both are.
Romney said he won't participate. So far, the only two candidates to agree to the "debate" are Gingrich and Santorum. Whoopty doo.
I thought Bachman agreed too. But with her poll numbers she would be better of fellating another corn dog.
Heh, she's still on the fence, and Perry's campaign hasn't said anything at all about it. I'm guessing he wouldn't participate; considering what a disaster his other debate performances have been, why go to what is clearly becoming an optional event?
Who's "Perry?"
You know, that dude who used to sing for Journey who is now governor of Texas.
Oh, yeah. I thought he had died in a plane crash last week or something.
That's Bob Denver, the guy who sang that song about mountains.
I loved that guy on The Muppet Show. Or was it Dobie Gillis?
Was he the one who later became a cop and a porn star?
No, you're thinking of Peter Coyote.
I thought Peter Coyote was the guy who routinely got crushed by giant Acme Corp. anvils?
No, that's Foghorn Leghorn.
Her single most effective moment in her campaign.
I missed corn dog fellatio!
If Michelle Bachmann wants to win the nomination, she definitely needs to put out a porno. It could be a Christian porno with Jesus as her partner. I say go for broke and hope you win over enough male voters to get a plurality - otherwise I don't know why she's wasting her time.
At her age, she needs to do DVDA or go home. Nobody wants to see an old bitch take only one 10 inch dick.
This photoshop of Perry's corndog picture is truly hilarious.
SFed the link.
bahahahahaha, so two frontrunners aren't coming and the dark horses (not racist anymore) are still on the fence. Gingrich debating Santorum would just be sad. Once they were done fellating each other, they'd just snuggle up and spoon, Trump in the middle.
Is that Obama Kansas speech where he thought he was in one of the other 56 states?
He's going to show you by making his gaffe true. His plans to incorporate Iraq and Afghanistan into the U.S. are in the works--Iraq as three new states, Afghanistan as two. With any luck, Iran will join in as two additional states before the general election.
Hey its like he's already started to annex Mexico.
I could be mistaken about which countries get annexed, though I'm pretty sure about them being admitted as seven states.
Paul is going to win Iowa. I will put money on it. Depending on how much momo he gets from that, he'll come in 3rd or 2nd in NH. The rank and file Republicans just need to realize he can kick Obama's ass in the general by coming at him from the left on civil liberties and draining tons of support on those issues.
I'm not sure Paul will get momentum in the usual way that winning IA, NH give. If he would win (or even do well), that would spur the big donors to double down on Gingrich or Romney (as opposed to shifting to Paul).
I say this hoping Paul does as well as possible and would love to see a shocking upset where Paul takes IA, NH, SC and FL.
They'd suspend elections if that happened.
Martial Law1!1!111!
Suspending the elections would be the only way to stop him after a win streak like that!
Judging by what Real Clear Politics is saying, Paul has no chance of better than 3rd in SC. Any better and separating church and state won't matter anymore because we'll have conclusive proof.
That will change after Iowa.
You gotta love how those Bible-thumpers follow Jesus's most famous teaching (from the George W. Bush version of the Bible) where he said "The US is the best, kill brown people, plants crave electrolytes and brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Fuck you, I'm eating."
Except rank and file Republicans aren't social liberals. And they aren't anywhere near as economically conservative as Dr. Paul.
And rank and file Republicans are horrified that Ron Paul Wants The Terrorists to Win and Doesn't Support Our Troops.
Even though the troops support Paul.
And he supports them more than any of the other candidates.
Doesn't matter. Knocking the US "Imperialism Lite" foreign policy cow is the most blasphemous thing you can do in GOPville. It's all they have. In fact, your comment shows just how much YOU want the Terrorists To Win. You probably hate baseball and Mother's Day, too.
Wait until Tebow endorses Paul. Then all hell will break lose.
Military Industrial Complex > tebow
Which is why they'll have to suspend elections!
You probably hate baseball and Mother's Day, too.
Hate 'em both. But I do like apple pie. Of course, the French surrender monkey in me prefers it a la mode.
boojwah dog!
The troops support Ron Paul by donating more money to him that to Obama.
Fallow the money & Ron Paul has the ability to raise what it is going to take to win!
If Ron Paul continues to rise after four news cycles, consult a physician.
Dr. Paul is benefiting greatly from a severely lackluster field of Republican statists. In the primaries, even many in the state-loving media are recognizing voters saying DO NOT WANT to so many of the candidates' histories and covering the obvious.
Trumps first question to Newt:
If my wife and I were trapped in a Chinese hotel room with you and Calista and the bed would only hold three people, why would you be the one sleeping on the floor?
YOU FOOL! THAT IS NOT TRUMP'S FIRST QUESTION. THE URKOBOLD HAS INSIDE INFORMATION. HERE IS TRUMP'S FIRST QUESTION: "YOU WANT TO FUCK MY DAUGHTER, DON'T YOU? I SAW THE WAY YOU WERE LOOKING AT HER, YOU FUCKING TUB OF LARD. I'M GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU, FAT FUCK!" THEN HE LEAPS FROM THE PODIUM, HAIR FLYING EVERYWHERE, AND INITIATES FISTICUFFS WITH GINGRICH.
Wrong! No one in history has ever dropped an f-bomb before initiating fisticuffs.
YOU ARE IN ERROR, TAINT-ENDANGERED FOOL. THE URKOBOLD HAS PERSONALLY WITNESSED THIS MANY TIMES IN MANY DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. THE URKOBOLD'S GOOD FRIEND, ARISTOTLE, SAID, JUST BEFORE ENGAGING IN FISTICUFFS WITH HIS TEACHER (SOME GUY NAMED "BIG SHOULDERS"), "EAT THE FUCKING FORM OF MY FIST, ASSHOLE!"
HE SAID ALL OF THAT IN ATTIC GREEK, OF COURSE, BUT THE URKOBOLD IS SURE THAT THEY HAD A WORD THAT TRANSLATED DIRECTLY TO THE ENGLISH "FUCK." HE IS LESS SURE ABOUT "ASSHOLE," WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN A COMPLIMENT IN CLASSICAL ATHENS.
Brian Doherty
Ron Paul, Still Rising
SHOOTING STAR out of KC
this could be your LAST CHANCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nv5XOi5KZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlyG-BgUduE
Ron Paul predicting housing crash in 2003: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLm7Sw402xE
Paul's economic adviser predicting economic crisis in 2006-07 and being mocked by "luminaries" like Arthur Laffer, Ben Stein. 2 million+ views later who's laughing now? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
APPEAL TO ALL AMERICANS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RON PAUL'S FOREIGN POLICY
If you don't support Ron Paul because of his foreign policy I can understand because I was a traditional neoconservative type for much of my life. Upon digging into the facts, however, I now recognize that Ron Paul is on the right side of this issue.
The history of the Middle East and world in general, virtually all major surveys taken in Muslim streets, speeches delivered by Muslim leaders, and human nature confirm that meddling in the affairs of other countries and regions is the root cause of resistance, hatred, revenge, and terrorism.
Our meddling in the Middle East for more than 60 years by overthrowing governments (including democratic ones), invasions, occupations, setting up puppet governments and military bases came long before terrorism emerged as a reaction. There is no supporting evidence that organized radical Muslim terrorism results from hating us by nature, because of our religion, or lifestyle.
A universal characteristic of human nature is to be focused on creating a better life for ourselves and our children. Hatred, terrorism, and focus on what goes on in other countries come into play when our own way of life is violated or threatened by them. Until our heavy handed meddling in the Middle East we were rather liked and very much respected in the Middle East.
If a Muslim superpower meddled in our region for 60 years, invaded and occupied countries in North America, set up pro-Muslim puppet governments and military bases there would also be resistance, hatred, and no doubt some of us would also consider it justified to respond with the use of terrorism (even though terrorism should never be justified). Why, therefore, are we surprised that blowback emerges in reaction to our constant and consistent meddling in the Middle East during the course of 60 years?
We kept escalating the war in Vietnam to no avail but since leaving that country we now get along well. When under Soviet occupation the people of Eastern Europe despised and resisted the Russians on a daily basis. Now that the Soviets are out they are hardly given a 2nd thought in the people's daily lives. Afghanistan practiced resistance and terrorism during the Soviet occupation of that country. Since Soviet departure and American entrance in that arena the hatred and terrorism has shifted to us. There is terrorism being committed by Muslims of Chechnya in an effort to free that country of Russian occupation.
Why then do we violate our Christian, national, and individual values to aggressively meddle in the affairs of others only to create more hatred and terrorism directed against us, while the vast majority of people around the world, and friendly leaders of other countries, warn against this course of action? Do not two of the most important commandments left by Jesus Christ not state "Love thy brother as you love yourself" and "Thou shell not kill?" Does not our Constitution, and did not our forefathers, warn against foreign entanglements and to respect the self-determination of all people whether we agree with them or not? Have we not been taught from early childhood to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves?
History has proven over and over again that empires usually fall not from the strength of enemies but from their own over expansion. Many empires have tried to create a world in their own image by force and to date have all ultimately failed on each occasion.
If you can't accept supporting Ron Paul's foreign policy based on true Christian, national, and individual values that maintained the world's respect for so many decades, then consider the fact that we simply cannot afford our current self-defeating warfare policy. Even if our meddling in the Middle East could create utopia for 30 million people in Afghanistan and 30 million people in Iraq, is it worth leading 312 million Americans into bankruptcy and full scale Depression during this process?
All evidence available thus far shows that our claims against Iran are basically as bogus as those used to justify the war in Iraq, except that the bombing of Iran would have far more serious negative consequences. Iran poses absolutely no threat to the United States. Even if Iran developed nuclear weapons it is unreasonable to believe that they would initiate a nuclear war against Israel as Iran would be toast within 24 hours. Contrary to the claims of so many Ahmadinejad never threatened to nuke Israel. And Iran has not started a war of aggression during its entire modern history, while we have started several, which included 3 acts of war committed against Iran alone.
This is not to say that Ahmadinejad does not represent a despicable dictatorship but we must consider how to deal with the situation with our own best interests and those of our children first. This also does not mean that Ron Paul does not believe in maintaining very strong defense. He absolutely does but that has little to do with constantly, and aggressively, meddling in the affairs of other nations.
Even after reading hundreds of documents that are readily available on the Internet, including those of our own government, which confirm all of the above, it took me a few years to accept the truth. Unfortunately, we don't have a few more years to resolve these issues any longer thus I hope and pray that all Americans will take the time to examine the facts and accept the truth much more quickly than I did. This election will determine if we continue on the path to endless wars of self-destruction, bankruptcy, and full scale Depression within the next few years, or if we start the process of recovery under President Ron Paul.
Please feel free to pass on this appeal anywhere and everywhere possible in the interest of America's future during this critical time in our history.
I hope it works out for you. I typed till my fingers turned blue in 2007-2008, trying to convince Team Red members that our foreign policy was sorta wrong and that their view of our foreign policy was based on nothing more than political rhetoric and a deep, personal ignorance.
I should have spent my time playing Metroid and drinking sherry.
I'd rather play Sherry and drink 4Loco.
Barbarian.
tl;dr
Rank and file Republicans, in my experience, hate RINOs who vote for corporate welfare programs. They'll vote for Romney and Gingrich only with great reluctance.
Paul's only problem, in my estimation, is his foreign policy - which I agree with 100% - but the rank-and-file are uncertain, and many of the opinion leaders are still promoting that "bomb brown people" idea.
He needs to emphasize like in that one clip Brian linked to, that he was accurate before those events happened. It preempts the 'Paul blames America' crowd, as well as the pragmatic fact people prefer to put their money behind those who were right, usually.
In my experience, rank file Republicans vote for whoever they think will "win." The object of the game here is stopping The Other Team. Republicans would vote for a Labrador Retriever if they thought it had a chance of winning the White House. Well, as long as the dog loves Jesus that is. There are priorities.
The Democrats are the same.
American politics is like a Spy Vs. Spy cartoon.
"American politics is like a Spy Vs. Spy cartoon."
Unfortunately we're the ones that get fucked in the end panel, not them.
Thaaaat's who Phineas reminds me of.
The troops have shown their support for Ron Paul with their donations. He gets more troop $$$'s than Obama does. That says something about the acceptance of Ron Paul's foreign policy by the real people that support the troops.
Warren actually said 'part of that social contract is you give a hunk of that wealth for the next kid who comes along?' That must have been too nonsensical for me to have even noticed at the time. For the next kid who comes along? Who the fuck do you think you are robbing with the astronomical spending, ya dingbat? Who do the think the retired septuagenarians are taking from today? Me, for one, as the next kid who came along. Christ. There is not enough wealth in existence to pay for the overhead of your socialist demands even if you did manage to rob the rich at one hundred percent of their income. How else are you going to get it except through intergenerational slavery? You suck, Warren. You fucking suck, you sick fuck.
If the U.S. pulls out of the middle east, thy will be so busy trying to defend themselves from one anothers attacks that they will forget about the good ole USA. And, don't woryy about Israel. They have one of the fierces Armies in the world and the military equipment so support them. Let them sort out their own problems. We can get our oil from Canada and the U.S. We have plenty of it.
I just don't understand some you. Ron doesn't have a racist bone in his body. A lot of people were involved with Paul and I am sure that if Ron saw those comments, he would have stop them. Besides those comments, aren't the most egregious. More like using stereotypes than anything else. The press would have to drastically embellish and distort the content to smear Paul. Get over it. Ron's the man. All libertarians would do themselves a favor and vote for him. He's the closest they will get to a viable Lib. candidate EVER.
Who said Ron Paul is racist?
Fucking Lazy Dangerous Morons.
ballonjuice\redstate is that a way dude
Here's something odd. RonPaulProducts lets you send brochures to voters by precinct. Cool idea, actually. Reportedly, many tens of thousands are being mailed in Iowa. Yet when I search online under "news" for "Ron Paul brochure" and variants thereof, I get virtually zip. What's up with that? You'd think there'd be at least a couple news stories, at least local, that mention these things, no?
I would be very surprised to see a news story which has as its hook a piece of junk mail (not casting aspersions, but bulk campaign mailings definitely fall in that category).
a successful general does not scream his plans to his enemies.
the most radically libertarian on domestic and foreign policy candidate we've seen in our lifetime.
...
Ok i guess i will let it pass as Goldwater was pretty much done by the time I entered the scene.
Paul is much more radical on both domestic and foreign policy. He has a picture of Rothbard in his office.
I made a donation to RP today.
Thanks for caring anan !
Sorry, that should be anon.
The media keeps rotating our Presidental frontrunners. Well, Gingrich should not be anyones choice. The media constantly mentions that he has baggage. If you are an informed voter, you would investigate this before you use your valuable vote on him. And, if you look at Ron Paul's website, the internet, and some of the journalists research the truth about Newt is being exposed. Determining your choice for the nominee solely on his debate performance will lead us down the path of Obama. He is a great speaker who has destroyed our economy and he continued the endless undeclared wars.
Ron Paul is the only consistent candidate for over 30 years and he is the only person that deserves our vote.
I agree with you 100% !
Where's his identification of the housing bubble and prediction of its bursting in 2001!? Not to mention $2000 gold? This is when it was about $300.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFd8YluIVG4
Know one can know what will happen in Iowa. We have seen a lot happen before in 20 days or so. Of one thing I am absolutely sure: If anyone but Ron Paul is the candidate running against the President, they will lose.
There is no "fire" behind Romney.
There is no "character" behind Newt.
We will be treated again to them ranting about more torture and more wars. Bomb them, de-stabilize that one (but keep it deniable). We will have had a belly full of killing in the Middle East by the time the election rolls around. Nope, these guys can't get it. The majority will want the troops home.
Especially Newt who will gain a smaller proportion of the Independent vote. The all important indepent vote. If Ron Paul gets lucky, the word gets out about Newt before the cuacuses and skims some of his votes. So Paul gets a portion of the tea party folks, say 1/3rd of all, part of that being Cain supporters - although many will go with Newt. But, he gets a big bump from Independents and Blue Republicans that are tired of the status quo and willing to vote in the Republican Primary or Caucus for Ron Paul. He only needs to get a decent showing. They are willing to deal with the domestic issues later, but want the killing to stop now, and the continued squandering of money on foreign folly. It will be easy to point out that the law of unexpected consequences will trip up the politicians and the generals almost every time.
In a general election, unless the economy is back and bouncy, Ron Paul will pull the "anyone but Obama" right. He will pull in his converts. He will pull in enough independents and disaffected Democrats to take the election. No other Republican can pull in as many Independents and center leaning Democrats. That should be obvious by now.
But only luck and timing will tell when it comes to Iowa.
gave decent sum of money to him and voted Paul in 2008. (ended up holding nose for Barr/LP in general).
donating no money this time, still displeased with lousy 2008 campaign + endorsement of Chuck Baldwin... but will regardless happily vote RP in 2012 primary again (cosmotarian disclaimer: would have preferred Gary Johnson but he'll be long gone by the time my state votes...)
IMO "The Newsletters" are a ticking time bomb and will undo whatever momentum RP has unless he does a hell of a lot better responding to it this time around (if the campaign is not already 100% prepared for this, they should all be fired.)
I am certain an unlikely Paul/Obama matchup in the general will be Goldwater/LBJ all over again, but what a crazy fun wild ride it would be...
thanks