Captain's Quarters -

The Howard Dean of '08? Extreme positions relating well to Internet denizens willing to part with a little cash. I don't expect a Deanesque meltdown but something will burst the bubble.

Can we see his donor list? I have a hard time believing his support is deep. I've seen too many remarks today where the poster claims he/she has never donated to a republicrat until Paul.

I've often said I'd crawl over broken glass to vote against a Democrat.

But Paul is broken glass, rusty nails and toxic waste. He is unwatchable.

If Paul gets the nomination and the matchup is Paul-Clinton, I might just get drunk and stay drunk on November 4th.

In a locked room, with the shades drawn.

I think Ron Paul is wrong on a lot of issues, but I understand his appeal. He actually seems to believe the things that he says.

"He actually seems to believe the things that he says."

Insane people generally do.

The only dopey Democrats elected since Nixon carter, an dclinotn, managed to do so only when they managed to geta numbnuts Republican to run and divide the vote.

What ever happened to John Anderson and Ross Perot?

Did the sudden new cash come from the Dirty Tricks campaigns of Hillary or a Soros front ?

I'm sure it helps them as a result; the money trail will have been well hidden, so although plausible, we'll never know. But crazy conspiracy hteories like this will certainly appeal to the loopy Left.

If Ron Paul were to run a third party campaign, he would like to pull from the Democrat's total. He votes with them on most issues anyway. Do not engage in discussions with a Paulite. Its worse than having a Jehova Witness standing on your doorstep, they will not go away and the spouting of stuff as if fact will be nonstop.

His support is pretty deep...It's not like the GOP hasn't been a sinking ship for a number of years. Runaway spending and entitlements, big brother government invasions of privacy on its own citizens. A lack of outrage over the loss of private property rights (that Kehlo case really burns me). The list goes on.

Who's left in the GOP if you are a conservative anti-abortion, freedom loving, non-interventionist, small government voter? No one on the Dems side, and no one except Ron Paul on the GOP side.

In fact, Ron Paul probably has a better chance of winning a general election against Hillary because of his anti-iraq war stance.

Narcissism. Same classic behaviors from Ralph Nader. Except Nader's been around the block two often. So his sizzle's gone.

Also, one of Ron Paul's skills is to have computer savvy followers; perhaps a few hundred of them? Who are into the Internet. And, who work at it, the way Howard Stern has dorks that call into talk-radio shows.

Please don't convert this to popularity. It falls short.

On the other hand, we are with an elite media, at the ends of their rope. Dying, because affirmative action hasn't produced any leadership worth following.

So they're following "fads.'

Like at Woodstock, there were thousands of people who "followed" those who had the "brown acid."

You want to reach these people from the pulpit? Can't.

Want to reach these people by the "usual methods?" Can't.

Though they do manage to find each other. And, they thrive on the controversy they are stirring up.

SMALL POTATOES.

Once you shrug. Realize we're a huge country. And, even today, there are people crazy enough to think they're passing for Napoleon; or Jesus Christ. You get others who want to "be important." And, backing a loon like Ron Paul gives them this chance.

What's more amazing to me, is that the punit class has nothing to offer into the debates that you're unaware of. Given how much you now know of George Soros, and HildaBeast. What exactly can they do?

So, where there's nothing much exciting to report anyway, this is like a Saturday Nite skit. Sure. "Let's discuss."

No matter how much discussing you can do, though, it won't add much steam to what you already know.

The "shakeout" doesn't occur till February. When the primaries begin.

Meanwhile? Interestingly enough, money abounds.

Reminds me of the March of Dimes. (Who never gave any of their wealth to either Sabin or Salk. And, who got shocked that a vaccine to prevent polio was found.)

People still toss money (stuff they consider "small change") into the stream. While if you were in Italy? You'd toss good money into fountains; as if that would fund your next trip.

The money is there "because it is."

I can remember, when I was working as a secretary, at Ted Bates; we were "volunteered" to sell poppy's. For Veteran's Day. I went downstairs, and stood outside on 5th Avenue. When I went back up, I had collected $75. Just asking people to "donate." (It was back in the 1960's. I was surprised at how easy it was to collect that much money. And, lots of people gave me quarters! Heck, if you saw me give a nickel or a dime, I'd have thought I was being generous.)

We think of politics as "free." But nobody's doing it because it's a worthy cause.

Hint. Hint. For some? It pays better than selling merchandise on commission.

Well? That's why it attracts GRIFTERS. Anyway, the way you "count votes" ... is to figure which one's any particular candidate holds as "very secure."

Do 90% of all Black votes cast go to Bonkeys?

What about women? When did soccer-moms become a sub-group?

What did it mean to Jimmy Carter, in 1980, to see "blue collar democrats" voting for Reagan? (Sure. He got surprised.)

We grow old. That surprises us, too.

Meanwhile, the BIG ISSUE, the War in Irak. Happens to be turning out successfully. With such a small amount of manpower; it's absolutely amazing! Not even 200,000 military; in a country of 60-million.

Ya know? I don't think Harry Reid has made his sale. But time will tell.

Ron Paul's campaign is like a six pack with the war issue being the plastic thingy. Since Democrats are racing to get the war in Iraq off the table for the 08 race (see also NBC Dartmouth debate). All three Dem leaders are ALREADY willing to keep the war going until 2013(!!!!). Pelosi was on The View yesterday and was faced with the question, "Democrats ran in 2006 with the promise to end the war in Iraq...what happened?"-Bawbwa Wahwah. The Presidential candidates want it off the table so they can run in a general. Congressional candidates want it off the table so they're not asked what Pelosi was yesterday 12 months from now, and besides, troop drawdowns are already scheduled, with more to be probably announced in the summer. Add to that the TREND of dropping civilian and military casualties over there, and by the time the next election comes around...

Kucinich will be gone
Paul's six pack will be left without it's plastic thingy

The real question is-without the war as a crux draw issue, upon what do Dems rally? Meanwhile, Republicans in general are waiting for a candidate, then the moola's gonna flow fast and furious towards a general election campaign rather than in the primaries (where Republicans only care about 1 issue: beating Hillary, and almost any R can do that-even Paul).

Ron Paul has a better chance of winning a Olympic high jumping contest than he does of winning any election for President. In any of the online questionnaire set up to match your views with the candidates, Paul always come in a hair better than the Democrats and way below any of Republicans for this conservative voter. That is understandable since Paul votes with the Democrat on a whole host of issues. But whoever gave Paul their hand earned pay could have made better use of it by rolling it up and using it to light the fire in their fireplace. He polls at 1% in most Republican polls not susceptible to being slammed by his manic supporters. High water mark in any of them is about 3%. An asterisk.

Sue Wrote:
Can we see his donor list? I have a hard time believing his support is deep.

I've seen reports that Ron Paul had 125,000 donors, versus Hillary's 70,000 donors.

That sounds pretty deep to me!

I have no problem believing that he has 125,000 supporters since he's taking and logging donations of just a few bucks here and there. His supporters seem to be vestiges of the Deaniacs with a web-heavy campaign. I'd swear they own YouTube, and don't even get me started on how wigged out they get over at Flopping Aces sometimes. WOW

"Republicans in general are waiting for a candidate"

Exactly. My main issue is defeating Hillary, everything else is secondary.

I'm not donating now, so the losing candidate can throw a nice going away party for his staff.

This is a bit worrisome in that I can see Paul at some point splitting off and trying a run for President as an Independent or a Libertarian candidate and at the same time, there are already rumors of the far right considering a third party candidate if Rudy or Mitt are nominated. That all adds up to bad news and of course a division of the conservative vote.

So, I have a question that I'd love to get some feedback on from all of the gifted CQ commenters (yes, that even includes you filistro and theresa). Here's my question:

If there appears to be a real potential for a division of the Republican/Conservative vote in 2008, why is there not a similar division in the Democrat movement?

I would have to say that when you compare platforms of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson, you will see some serious separation there. Compare the views of Dkos and CodePink with those of conservative dems. Or, is it simply that the Democrats will rally around one candidate as long as the overall goal of converting the country into the United Socialist States of America is accomplished?

I'm far less worried about Ron Paul splitting off and running as an independent than I am that John McCain would do the same. Paul will strip off as much support from the Democrats as Republicans because of his position on the war. It's no coincidence far-left sites like Digg are filled with Paul supporters.

If he were actually to win the Republican nommination it would be a blow from which the party wouldn't recover for a long, long time. The guy is an old Bircher crank, the kind that kept the party in the wilderness for forty years. He's making a return to the gold standard a centerpiece of his campaign, for Pete's sake!

First up, as a Texan I'd like to apologize for Ron Paul and his odiousness.

That being said - I've returned to college (after having left it twelve years ago) and I can swear to Ron Paul's support on my college campus. The college kids see Paul as some sort of rogue maverick whose leftist nuttiness on the war make him appealing. When I try to engage any of them in debating Paul's platforms all they know is he hates the war and little else.

I think they see throwing their support behind Paul as making them 'independent.' And for many college kids that's the social goal - feeling different, being unique, standing out.

Paul won't win either primary he is running in the one for President or the one for TX14 House District.

Cynthia Sinatra got 35% of the vote against Paul in the 2006 primary. This year he has Chris Peden, a true fiscal conservative, and not a Copperhead Republican, challenging him.

For those in TX 14 Peden's website is:

http://www.chrispeden.org/

I'll join George Berryman in issuing an apology for Ron Paul, since I am from and live in Texas. Just because we are a red state doesn't mean we don't have our share of nutty people. Austin, San Antonio, and the Rio Grande Valley are full of liberal Democrats, and idiots who think if you are against the war, you are golden.
I've listened to Paul when he debated, and read some of his stuff. He says just enough stuff to sound almost sane, but the longer he goes on, the more you start to realize he is full of crap. Sort of like seeing a dog coming down the street toward you, in the distance he looks o.k., but as you get closer, you start looking for a tree to climb.
Read this and weep, Ron Paul supporters:
HE. HAS. NO. CHANCE.

Paul's support is heavy with college students. College students tend to shout, spend Dad's money and protest, but they don't vote. End of story.

Oh, and to Carol: The population of Iraq is about 27 million, not 60 million, just FYI. The accomplishment you note is not diminished by that fact.

Captain Ed says:
"Paul Campaign Looks A Little More Serious"

Eric says:
No. It does not.

Two Erics now. I'm Eric Classic from this point on so that nobody is confussed.

If you look up the definition of "fringe" there will be a picture of Ron Paul there.

Even the fringe has some money, and now Ron Paul has their money. I bet is that if you lookup those who donated to Ron Paul, you will find a mixture of folks of all the wierd stripes, all of which you would not invite to your Thanksgiving dinner.

Okay, now I'm Eric Classic.

Some of us remember when Pat Paulson, a comic who was a regular on Laugh-In made a run for the White House back in the 70's. Actually made it on a number of ballots in quite a few states.

Did that make him a serious candidate for the Presidency?

Seems that those who are tossing their money at Ron Paul are merely trying to look at the transitory celebrity of the man, or offer a protest vote, not at his actual ability to win the nomination or, heaven forbid, win the White House.

So, the way to select a president is on how much money he/she raises from the huddled masses? A sad state of affairs for this Nation.

He has major support from college campuses? Thank goodness, college students are the largest block of voters who normally do not vote. Given the state of post-secondary education in this country, thank goodness as well for their not voting.

With all seriousness, my only fear is that this a-hole Ron Paul will run as an Independent like Ross Perot in 92. I think that it’s well understood today that Ross Perot ran to act as a spoiler for the Republicans. I’m thinking Ron Paul will do the same. This is a play straight out of the Clinton playbook that got Bill elected.

I’m thinking that the money is actually from Democrats, not Republicans.

Please note: On October 3, 2007, Eric Classic (formerly “Eric”,) predicted that Ron Paul will loose the Republican nomination by a gigantic margin, but will run as an Independent in the 2008 election.

So let’s see: Ron Paul has the meetup groups (50K real live activist people), the crowds and signs in the streets, the overwhelming online support, and now he has the money. And we’re supposed to believe that he’s only at 2 or 3% in the “scientific” polls?

Nope — they’re rigged:

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rasmussen_Polls_Rigged_against_Ron_Paul_unbelievable

If anyone from Texas has apologize, it should be for offering your adopted native son George W. Bush for president.

I will vote for Ron Paul in my state's GOP primary. Then I will register as an independent (after 30 years in the GOP). I hope he runs as a 3rd party candidate. He will destroy the GOP. This in turn will destroy the Democratic party as they each need the fear of the other to sustain themselves.

And those of you that fear Hillary: You should have thought about the possibility before giving all those powers to the president.

skeptic says:

If anyone from Texas has apologize, it should be for offering your adopted native son George W. Bush for president.

I will vote for Ron Paul in my state's GOP primary. Then I will register as an independent (after 30 years in the GOP). I hope he runs as a 3rd party candidate. He will destroy the GOP. This in turn will destroy the Democratic party as they each need the fear of the other to sustain themselves.

And those of you that fear Hillary: You should have thought about the possibility before giving all those powers to the president.

Eric says:
Hillary Internet media confirms my post made 5 minutes ago concerning Ron Paul as an Independent.

"He will destroy the GOP."

All by his little self?

Then again, he is a towering, impressive figure.

When he ceases stammering, drooling and when his eyes stop rolling around, that is. When that happens, Ron Paul almost seems, well, slightly sane.

PT Barnum was right. First people fund Lyndon Laroche, now Ron Paul.

Have Ron Paul supporters been collecting funds by standing on traffic medians and pestering motorists? Because that's a really effective tactic of persuasion. Ask the Larochies.

If Ron Paul runs as an independent or 3rd party candidate, he will draw enough votes from the GOP to guarantee their loss. It is even possible that the GOP could come in 3rd place. Face it, the GOP has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. The social conservatives distrust them. The border hawks distrust them. The Reagan Democrats have seen their jobs move to Mexico or China. The fiscal conservatives distrust them. The War Street Journal had an article the other day about how corporate donors are deserting the GOP. The only ones left are the neocons. And the neocons, being the power seekers that they are, will try to swim back to the Democrats that they left in the 60's. After all, what good is having all these brilliant ideas if you are not near the levers of power to put them into practice?

Ron won't do it all by his "little bitty self." He'll have plenty of help from the GOP themselves. Go ahead, vote for Fraud Thompson who's idea of Frederalism is to convert Department of Education spending to block grants.

Sue wrote-
Can we see his donor list? I have a hard time believing his support is deep. I've seen too many remarks today where the poster claims he/she has never donated to a republicrat until Paul.

I am a life long Republican and have never voted for a Democrat.

I support Ron Paul and for the first time in my life, I am working on a presidential campaign, not because my party asked me, but because I want to.

[edited at commenter request -- Ed.]

I can be reached at TheBlueAngelUSA@yahoo.com

Believe it.

I'd just like to point out that skeptic isn't me, and I think the only thing you Republicans have to fear from Ron Paul is that he's siphoning money off whatever candidate you think is conservative (a tough call from the top Republican contenders).

Who is conservative among the Republican contenders (and who among posters here)?

I think the kids probably like that Ron Paul thinks the government shouldn't be regulating drugs, either, and I can't imagine Republicans rejecting a libertarian's approach to taxes.

He's been on the fringe forever, but it's the conservative, Republican fringe. Being against continued spending on the war may be a lefty liberal thing, but it's also a conservative thing, as George F. Will and William F. Buckley explain now that we're seemingly inextricably enmeshed. Same with liberals and libertarians on dope. Same with conservatives who think the government shouldn't be deciding what a woman and her doctor decides with her pregnancy.

I think of him as your Kucinich. Embarrassing, I guess, but he reminds you of at least what some of conservative means.

College students don't vote, either because it interrupts the party, or because they feel ignorant of the issues and candidates, and encouraging schools to keep politics and values out of the classrooms and focus on skills is why they are ignorant. Would that all who are ignorant left the voting to the informed. But it's a right, I suppose, and one that I defend no matter how whacked out the voter is politically. Ron Paul won't be a spoiler, John McCain won't be a spoiler.

You deserve your candidates the way the Dems deserve Hillary. They didn't work on bringing up anyone better. Hillary won't need a spoiler to win. Rudy's flip-flopping, foul mouth, and screwed up personal life will leave enough people in doubt of his leadership skills (along with his mediocre record in New York City, his poor Second Amendment bona fides, and his lousy first amendment ones). The emptiness of Team Mitt will convince people that he's as ambitious as Hillary, but without any real convictions, either.

Whoever thinks McCain will break with his party for his vanity hasn't been watching him bend over backwards for eight years to support the man who called his wife a "weirdo" and accused him of fathering a the "black" child he and his wife adopted, etc., etc. He's carried more water for this bankrupt, corrupt, and incompetent administration than anyone in Congress (even if you don't like his complaints while he's doing it).

Who would you vote for? Who should have run and brought the party back together? Who could win over the independents, like skeptic, and the Reagan Democrats?

You'll see Hillary Republicans before this is over, and I suspect some of you will choke on it when you do.

So far, I haven't even put up a sign for my local alderman, yet.

I’m a big fan of statistical data.

Here are some facts followed by my speculation later:

1) Hillary will be the Democratic Nominee.
2) Rudy does better against Hillary than any other Republican Candidate at this point (via Hot Air via the Politico: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_071002_gopvhrc_maps.html .)
3) From the same data in the link, you will find that only one Republican adds to a Rudy ticket. That person is John McCain. Rudy carries Red states and turns the rest of the country purple. He calls Ohio, a swing state, and New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois and California, important blue states, into question. All of the other candidates carry red states, but turn the rest of the map blue, resulting in a loss for Republicans.
4) Hillary can not, and I mean can not under any circumstance, take any of the red states. It’s a fact, not my speculation.
5) John McCain (and only John McCain of the Republican field) can bring to the table, the two blue states of Arizona and Colorado. Not enough to win with a Rudy/ John 08 ticket.
6) With Rudy, California turns purple, but with McCain, California turns Blue. The question is, can Rudy/ John turn California Red. McCain jeopardizes Florida as well.
7) Thomson and Romney turn Pennsylvania and Illinois blue, making our chances worse.

Here is my speculation:

If Rudy is the Republican (and I think that’s a forgone conclusion,) will he be able to leverage Ohio, New York and California. I think that New York is his to take. I think Ohio is his if stops answering cell phones during speeches. California has a Republican Governor (Rudy/ Arnold 08? – I’m joking, I know it’s illegal.) But can Arnold help Rudy take California. With California, Rudy only needs either Ohio or New York, not both. If he can get Ohio and New York, but not California, he could still win by taking any one of the following: Illinois, Michigan or Pennsylvania. I think he can do this.

In fact, based on this data, 2008 could be the largest Republican win since Reagan’s second term. It has a lot to do with the VP. It has a lot to do with a spoiler being added to the election (and if I know this, you can bet both the Democrats and Republicans know it as well.)

Here are some questions that we should be asking ourselves as Republicans:

1) Who will be the VP to Rudy? It most likely can not be any of the other majors. It has to be someone who helps in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Michigan or Illinois.
2) Who can we prop as a Democratic spoiler to counter Ron Paul as an Independent (a forth candidate.) Could it be Denise Koucinach? Would Obama run if sufficiently funded?
3) Would Leiberman consider running as a Republican VP?

Esther, you Blue Angel, you, tell us the appeal. Why are you motivated to give of yourself, voluntarily, to this man? Is it the war? Drugs? Taxes? Shrink government to only worry about our national boarders and not our strategic interests around the world?

We'd love to know.

Jesse Ventura. How'd that work out?

Badly. Very, very badly.

[sigh]

Did I mention badly?

Skeptical,

I'm not an independent - yet. I have been in the GOP since I first registered to vote 30 years ago. I have always voted GOP or abstained when their was no real choice. My parents and grandparent were staunch Republicans. I remember my mom slamming the front door in the face of an LBJ campaigner when I was a kid. I remember going to Nixon HQ in my town and getting a huge campaign banner which I put up in our house.

For years, I have been voting for the lesser of two evils. It is now so bad that the difference between the two evils is indistinguishable relative to the distance both are from what is right. If we are going to have socialist policies (or fascist) let the socialist/fascist take the blame. Bush is to limited government conservatism what Herbert Hoover was to free market economics.

Esther,

I appreciate that you're willing to expose yourself in this way for your cause, but I would caution you on the dangers associated with your above actions. You have exposed yourself to Identity theft for years to come.

E-mail the Captain and ask him to edit your post removing your critical data.

Your point is made and you don’t want this info on the internet associated with your coded name of “blue angle.” You would be surprised by what some people can do with this type of information.

There are bad people who read these BLOGS as well as the rest of us (who are all good.)

skeptical:

It's many things, I hope I can explain it succinctly and clearly for you.

He is a principled man.

Do I truly think that even if elected, Ron Paul could do away with the IRS? Probably not, however I do think that with him at the helm, it will drive the government in a direction of fiscal conservancy, something we haven't seen by the GOP in a long time.

Sending our troops to the Middle East to fight terrorism, while our borders remain open tells me there is a disconnect in policy. When our president agrees to admit 40,000 students from Saudia Arabia while we live in an indefinite code orange tells me something is very wrong.

Do I believe the other GOP candidates would be any different than what we already have in office? I don't.

When Republicans support an amnesty due to their failure to do their job over the years, I say no to them.

I want my party back and will do all I can to take it back.

I am not a young, tech savvy student, I am 47 years old, born and raised in the heart of Manhattan.

If Ron Paul wants respect, just because he has money, then he has to act more sane than say, George Soros, or Algore, or Hanoi John.

I promise to always respect him AT LEAST as much as I do Ralph Nader.

Personally speaking, I can't buy the "Ron Paul machine" like his bots ramble on about. Paul, if he splits off to be an Indie or a Libertarian candidate, won't do the damage that people are fearing. Remember, he ran in 1988 as a Libertarian candidate, and mustered a whopping 431,750 votes (which was about 0.47%). That was with Mr. anti-military Michael Dukakis, and moderate/conservative George H. W. Bush.

If we look at the campaign as it is shaping up right now, few believe that Hillary won't be the nominee, and the majority are sure she will be. (Given Obama and Edwards, this is a veritable no brainer.) On the GOP side, we have a choice of at least two, and possibly three candidates: Rudy, Mitt, and Fred. (Given the lackluster announcement and campaiging by Fred thus far, we're underwhelmed by him, but that could change.) Mitt seems to have the funds, and a decent campaign, but he's lacking serious consideration/support. Rudy seems to have the wind in his sails to ride to the nomination.

All three of these men have the one thing that Paul lacks (besides sanity) and that's solid, grass-roots support. Say what you will about them, but they have a vision that is in direct contrast to Hillary on virtually every level. Paul can claim he is opposite her on a lot, save two issues.

First, he's a porker in Congress. AP broke the news about his earmark requests a couple months ago (I believe he had asked for close to $30 million in earmarks), and that doesn't josh with his "fiscally conservative" image that his bots like to paint.

Second, he's against the war, and grossly misinterprets the 2006 election results that America is also against this war. Um, memo to Paul and his bots -- America wasn't upset with the GOP over the war nearly as much as their attempts to morph conservatism into some sort of big-government, overspending ideology. THAT is why several GOPers were bounced in 2006.

I'd also like to add that while he does have some fairly decent ideas about reducing the size of government, his ideas regarding what should be cut from the federal budget are nuts. Cut the FBI? Cut the CIA? While both have had hit-and-kmiss existences, they are the primary intelligence agencies for America. Killing them would leave us far more bli9nd ajnd deaf than we are right now to our enemy's movements, tactics, and plans.

Furthermore, if one listens to his idea, you can see a similarity in American history that has been tried and failed miserably. Wilsonian isolationism is NOT the route to go for our future. We're already too heavily invested in a global economy, and pulling out of that right now would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. That sort of an idea would "murdelize" our economy. (To use a Looney Tunes phrase as I'm discussing a guy who's clearly looney tunes.)

People can look at his money totals, and can even look at the bot support of his candidacy, but we sincerely doubt that if he breaks off for a third party candidacy that he'll generate much of a dent in the 2008 election, and would more than likely have results that mirror his '88 campaign.

Hillary is despised by at least half of the voters polled. Her unfavorables are hovering right around 49%. None of the GOP top-tier has unfavorables as bad as hers. A Paul/Hillary matchup will sweep her right into the White House, and this nation will get four years (if not eight when all is said and done) of socialist, PC, feel-good BS that will wreck the economy, hinder our efforts to stop global Islamofascism, and "humble" the United States in ways that only the Left will trumpet and celebrate.

Thomas

Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 4:14 PM

"He actually seems to believe the things that he says."

Insane people generally do.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Remember all those insane folks in the insane asylums of the 1950's who dressed up and acted like Teddy Roosevelt or Napoleon Bonaparte?

They are good company for Ron Paul, to me.

Eric Classic:

Yes, you're right.

I just wanted people to understand that Ron Paul supporters are real. We feel passionate and some of us are in pain thinking about the direction our country is heading in.

I will send him an email, thank you for the advice.

Presidential politics, as fantasy baseball, just doesn't work for me.

And, the contest's still young.

Yes. People have begun to pay attention.

That Ron Paul raises money? Ralph Nader raises money.

And, the GRIFTERS really, really raise money!

Of course, most people don't see politics as dependent on money raising. And, for all we know? Some candidates turn the sloppy job over to others?

You think the candidate, himself, has to wring the check out of your wet hands? Why?

The other thing? Until someone mentions a candidates name, I doubt if you were giving that person all that much thought?

What comes, will come.

We won't get anything close to a 100% turnout.

And, when it's over? The fifty states are run by 50 separate entities. And, each party has their strengths and their weaknesses.

Now, since "fantasy politics" allows you to move tickets together; I'd guess that Guiliani won't go for McCain. For lots of reasons. High among them is the fact that McCain would be better off with someone NOT from the senate! Heck, he could pick Petraeus! Nobody says he has to pick from the list of nominees.

Harder to see Hillary actually toodling into the White House, though.

And, I say this because ... way back in the 1950's sociologists began predicting that with the right advertisements you could sell anything!

The book? It was called THE HIDDEN PERSUADERS.

And, it sure did Persuade LBJ, and MacNamarra.

Unfortunately, you just can't sell some of the stuff you've set about thinking AMericans would swallow.

A car with a front grill that looks like a toilet seat, comes to mind. It just didn't work. And, not because people veered away from wanting "class." It was just that the Edsel was overpriced. ANd, not worth it.

So, you can go ahead and believe what you like.

Elections are very complex systems.

And, for that reason they're harder to call than horse races.

Oh. And, until you see the results IN from the early primary elections? Again. No guaranteed accuracy to your calls.

The belief that there's money for candidates? Whatever you raise, you're still going to need more than you get. Unless you can keep your treasure chest, and decide NOT to run. Then? Well, what happens to the money? Once taken, there are NO REFUNDS.

By the way, I thought Mitt Romney was the press darling's front runner? What happened to the guy from massa2shits?

Rose said:

If Ron Paul wants respect, just because he has money, then he has to act more sane than say, George Soros, or Algore, or Hanoi John.

I promise to always respect him AT LEAST as much as I do Ralph Nader.

Eric Classic says:
Good point Rose. But let's not forget that Bush won in 2000 because of the 1000 or so votes that Nader took in Florida. That's right, 1000 votes in one state, and Bush became President.

It will happen again if we don't line up another Independent to counter Paul. He will take 1000 votes in any state and he will act as a spoiler. My fear is that he is being funded by a Soros or Perot and he takes a grand vote of 10%.

Ron Paul is a Howard Dean figure. With Paul's extremist libertarian views shaking out the libertarian nuts, while Dean was shaking out the hard core lefty nutz.
Both are niche boutique candidates.
What the dhimmies have become by buying into Dean's vision, instead of keeping it in the niche where it belongs, makes them feel good today. But it will not do them any good in the long run.
But Dean at least new how to cooperate with his party. Paul is too selfish, too self-absorbed, to confused by his naive shallow reactionary lazy view of the Constitution to actually help anyone do anything on a large scale.

Lets address this "porker" or "earmarks" thing right now. Ron Paul is constantly criticized because he "accepts" funding for things such as studies for shrimp farmers.

First, by being in congress, I guess you could say he is already compromised. But what other peaceful, legal way is there to oppose government growth?

Second, he makes sure that his district gets what it gives in federal wealth transfers. Having done that, he votes against the bill. I think its about the most moral and practical response given the catch-22 situation.

Third he agrees the spending is wrong. Our fiat money system makes it possible.

Fourth, the earmark process is more transparent as the sponsors are now required to be identified.

Fifth, the spending is going to happen for the foreseeable future. The alternative is to have bureaucrats allocate the money. They have no names.

Has Rudy, Mitt or McCain (Keating-5) ever benefited from government pork? Fred Thompson has lobbied for Haiti, foreign aid for birth control and Libya. And this is is a conservative?

If Ron Paul is such a porker, he should have lobbyist money coming out the ears. Where is it? The man hasn't even taken a lobbyist financed junket as the more "respectable" candidates have.

Well. It all sounds like what Gore said about Nader to me. And here we are, eight Republican years later having won on the slimmest of margins and having Nader to thank ultimately.

Don't get cocky folks. Get smart.

Fantasy football politics? No. Statistical averaging and forecasting. It's how Bush won Ohio in 2004 and ultimately the election in 2004. He won it through surgical campaigning allowed by computers and data mining capabilities that exceeded the Democrats ability. He won the election in the small towns of Ohio who had never been visited by a President before. Towns like Newark, Zanesville, Coshocton, and Millersburg. He never stepped foot in Cleveland, Columbus or Cincinnati. He never visited Pennsylvania at all.

The Democrats have surely caught up. After all, they are not Russians, they are Americans and they have real know-how. Never bet against an American adversary.

Carol, I get what you’re saying. I have an advanced degree in Advertising and Marketing Statistics. I’m employed as a salesman. Politics is sales. Plane and simple.

Thanks, Steve-O (at 6:30 PM)... You are right.

I Googled it. And, the population rounds up to 27,000,000. Still, our military has been amazing! And, not just in Irak. But think about the states surrounding Irak! We train 'em, right.

Which brings us to the "politics." As they've been playing out in this country. It seems there have been "assumptions made." About the American People. And, Harry Reid, bet wrong. It'll come home to roost.

As to "college kids" being FOR Ron Paul; most aren't all that political. Many kids are away from home. And, for this reason, alone, don't tend to register to vote. (That's all they need! To be turned into jurors!) Which is one of the ways voting records get used in this country.

As to "Ron Paul" being popular? How can you tell? Most kids in college are either studying or sleeping. I don't think they imbibe the academic hooey.

And, we're way too early to even see bumper stickers just yet.

By the way, college campuses come in all sorts of sizes. And, this, too, will provide regional differences, as well.

We got to be "early" because there had been so much negative press against Bush, that there was this "need" to be out there; defining positions.

But Bush has recovered.

Petraeus built a great case.

And, what's congress doing now? Biden wants to form 3 countries. And, Waxman wants to stick his nostrils on Black-Water.

Again, the left is very annoying. But have they accomplished all that much? Really?

Carol asked:
Again, the left is very annoying. But have they accomplished all that much? Really?

Eric Classic (formerly Eric) answered:
No. Unless you consider making enemies of their electorate base an accomplishment.

Eric Classic, before the degree came along, marketing was things folks did to sell stuff.

As to "adversarial," we've had 43 presidential contests so far,and in all cases, there were American LOSERS.

The nature of competition, NOT necessarily the marketplace; but in things like TUG-O-WAR; you're either gonna pull your oponents over the line. Or you lose.

Also, sometimes something's "hot." Like Jesse Ventura. He really go Minnesotans HOT. But they cooled off pretty quickly when he looked like a better wrestler, than governor.

Happens all the time.

Disappointments set it. (Not just in marriages. But in lots of stuff where you get to have "buyer's remorse.")

The miracle of 2004 is that after suffering the slings and arrows of the Bonkeys for 4 years; Bush pulled out the victory that couldn't be disputed.

It did destroy Dan Rather, though. And, C-BS hasn't been the same, either.

Eric, Eric Classic, how do you "market" affirmative action, when, by the time you arrive, it's dying on the vine?

Sometimes, in American history, we are participating in pivotal events.

Bush, in using the military he HAS, has created this situation. And, it looks like it's not just successful in Irak. But as promised; had the terrorists fighting over there. Rather than giving them free access to us.

Same sorts of lessons, ahead. As the Internet becomes much more interactive than what you had when you bought the local papers, and schmoozed politics at the local barber shops.

I think whatever else the marketeers do, they have to update their planning books.

And, they have to consider that Hillary may not be ideal in any which way ... but there will be people out there trying to "sell" her in 20-second slots.

While others? They'll raise money fighting her, the way America once gave money to fight polio. (Okay. I'm running out of metaphors.) Because I can't believe Hillary's even considered viable!

Nope. You couldn't bring me to one of her sales meetings. I'd come in carrying a butterfly net.

Carol,

It may well have been a miracle in 2004 (I would never argue that point,) but my thought is that it was advanced politicking, or advanced sales, or advanced marketing -- based on enormous statistical data mining.

It was not an effort conducted by amateurs. But you may be right; they may have done it without any degreed personnel. Degreed does not mean smart.

"But as promised; had the terrorists fighting over there. Rather than giving them free access to us."

I can't believe any adult still believes this nonsense. Do you really believe that al Qaeda can't spare another 20 terrorists to strike us because all operators are busy in Iraq? Especially given our porous borders and the ex-welfare moms that staff the airport security screeners. With our Border Patrol agents being sent to Iraq to teach them how to duplicate the stunning success we have had on our southern border?

By the way, who ever heard of Muqtadr al Sadr before we went into Iraq? Now he is yet another enemy we face.

And they say Ron Paul is the lunatic?

Skeptic asked:
Do you really believe that al Qaeda can't spare another 20 terrorists to strike us because all operators are busy in Iraq?

Eric Classic ask of skeptic:
Well, then why havn't they? Why havn't they struck us?

Carol,
All politicians are salesmen. All salesmen have styles. I pride myself on my own style of honesty and integrity.

That has not been the case with most politicians in my opinion. Bill sold himself, but he was not an honest salesman. Hillary will do an okay job of selling as well, but I fear, not with honesty.

I see people being played for suckers all day long. It makes me really sad to see people swindled by salesmen. Sometimes I loose sales because I won’t lie and the other salesman will. It happens. In politics, the salesman is not really looking for repeat business. He (she) just wants the initial order. Satisfaction is not guaranteed.

With this being said, it’s easy to tell when a public figure is lying because they have history. With Bill, his “tell” is a seething anger (envision, “I did not have sex with that woman….Monica “,) and if you look at all of his major lies, you will see an angry Bill Clinton. For him, he gets mad when people don’t believe him, or when people force him to lie. The larger the lie, the more angry he becomes and it is the only time you will see a break in his composure.

With Hillary, she has a “tell” as well. She becomes either whimsical, or dismissive, depending on the scale of the lie. If it’s a small lie, she becomes whimsical, laughing it off. If it’s a major lie, she becomes dismissive, trying to embarrass or shame the person that forces the lie.

Rudy will have problems because he’s like me – honest despite his failures. In the long run, it will likely propel him to the top.

Eric Classic ask of skeptic:
Well, then why havn't they? Why havn't they struck us?

I think they've tried but were caught before any damage was done.

Then of course, there were the lone wolf jihadists that have carried on their mission a bit more, like the jewish organization (Chicago?) where the woman was shot and the student that used his car as a weapon on a campus.

It's a matter of time before a big attack strikes. We need to focus on cleaning up our own backyard.

I saved this from the other day:

Posted by TokyoTom | September 24, 2007 9:24 PM
Dawn, are you aware of Ron Paul's argument, using Vietnam as an example, that in many situations free trade can do much more for our security than our military?

Can anyone here elaborate on this?

Dawn,

I would comment that it's a statement that contains components of truth, but is in its entirety, false.

Free trade makes the US stronger. That’s true.

Free trade has not been an effective weapon against historical hostile nations such as the former USSR. I believe that Ron Paul is saying that we can control them by trading with them and becoming economically important to them. We have a huge amount of trade with South America, but they are often hostile towards us. Venezuela is a great example. We have very little trade with Armenia, or Poland, yet they are hugely pro-American.

Our Military is what keeps us from constant war and constant battle. Ultimately, only our superb military prevents chaos throughout the world. It also allows for our superior level of free trade. Ron Paul is partially right, but largely wrong on most everything he says.

I’m sorry. It is what it is.

The Iraq war is the issue which will determine who wins the next election.

If the situation is worse, the same, or only slightly improved the Democrats will win.

If the situation is markedly better (as seems highly likely IMHBIO) the Republicans will win and win big -unless their nominee is a pacifist who oppposed the mission throughout.

People who supported the war despite its unpopularity won't support someone who opposed and undermined the mission throughout.

Ron Paul is an unappealing candidate who hasn't a prayer of winning the Republican nomination. His candidacy undermines the Republican Parrty because it lends legitimacy to the notion that
the Iraq war was a mistake-even if it is won.

People who believe the Iraq war was a mistake will overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Democrats must find the mere fact of Paul's campaign encouraging: "well if it was so obvious Saddam would have developed nuclear weapons if we had not invaded how come Republicans like Ron Paul don't believe it"?

If America were attacked Rodham Clinton would retaliate. Whether it would be appropriate and against the right entity is an open question. But Ron Paul gives the impression he would likely change his underwear and reach for a burka.

With regard to all that money contributed to the Paul campaign I suspect a pallindromic conspiracy.

As near as I can tell, we have not seen a Republican in the White House that resembles Ron Paul’s philosophy since Herbert Hoover.

Ron is a Libertarian, not a Republican. It’s true that Libertarians usually vote Republican, but only because it’s a lesser of evils for them. The Libertarians vote Republican for the same reason that the Communist and Socialist vote Democrat – it’s a lesser of evils for them.

Ron’s logic is wrong even by Libertarian standards. He is arguing for the abolition of the CIA and the FBI. A true Libertarian would argue that the Postal Service and Road Building should be privatized and that other functions that can only be performed by the Government remain public. Now, I can see that we might be able to privatize some offices within the Government, but certainly not the FBI or the CIA. I want those departments to remain public offices with Congressional oversight.

If Ron Paul had been President in the 1930’s, we would not have a Hoover Dam, or many of our highways, or Social Security.

If Ron Paul had been President in the 1940’s, we would not have fought WWII and we would certainly not exist as a nation today.

If Ron Paul had been President in the 1950’s, we would not have rebuilt Germany and Japan. The whole of Korea would be part of the Chinese Empire. We would not have interstate highways.

If Ron Paul had been President in the 1960’s, we would not yet have put a man on the moon. Computers would not exist as we know them today. The Internet would not exist and this post would not be published.

If Ron Paul had been President in the 1970’s, we would have surely lost the cold war. All of Southeast Asia would be Soviet. Catalytic converters would not be in use. Cars would use leaded fuel. The EPA superfund sites would not have been cleaned up.

If Ron Paul had been President in the 1980’s, the space shuttle would not have been built. The B-1 bomber, the stealth fighter, and the stealth bomber would not have been built.

If Ron Paul had been President in the 1990’s, we would not have faced a battle in Kosovo and an entire ethnic group would be dead. The US would not have become the world’s only superpower.

And all of this is just off the top of my head. The fact is that as much as I say I want smaller government, what I really mean as a Republican, is that I want better, more efficient government. I recognize that our government does a lot of good things. I just want lower taxes and as much freedom as I can have without sacrificing security. Libertarians want ultimate freedom regardless of the consequences.

Ron Paul: the Troofer/Bircher isolationist environmental candidate representing the extreme right and the extreme left who hate Bush's war, the CIA, income tax, mercury in the fish, and those pesky Zionist running the White House.

The man who puts the puts the extreme in the Suprematists.

Abd with a fan base unmatched even by by Al Goracle's.

Eric-

We do a lot of trade with China, in fact so much so that it has almost gotten to the point where we need them more than they need us. They have been a historically hostile nation to us. We even sided against them during the Korean War. At the very least, we have cordial relations with them now. A lot of that has to do with the amount of trade we have with them.

Randolphus,
We don't "need" China. They need us-that may change. If China doesn't want to trade with us, then I guess it's boom time for Africa, or Mexico, or Iraq, or Afganistan, ect.

That being said, our relationship with China is good, and trade should continue. We have peace with China because we offered them peace and they accepted. Trade followed.

Blue Angel says "Sending our troops to the Middle East to fight terrorism, while our borders remain open tells me there is a disconnect in policy. When our president agrees to admit 40,000 students from Saudia Arabia while we live in an indefinite code orange tells me something is very wrong."

Any serious presidential candidate must realize Iraq is the Superbowl for Jihad.

Even the looney followers of Bin Laden have figured that out.The Opthamalogist in Syria and the Mini Me Hitler in Iran are watching closely. NOT the time to go wobbly!

Seems Hillary and Co. are on board as well.

The U.S. is strong enough to get the job done in Iraq AND take care of the borders.

"Our Military is what keeps us from constant war and constant battle. Ultimately, only our superb military prevents chaos throughout the world. It also allows for our superior level of free trade."

Aren't we in constant battle right now? We had troops deployed in over 100 nations on 9/11. It did us absolutely no good that day. In fact, it is (in part) what led to the attacks in the first place. Following the attacks, we had to rely on NATO to patrol our eastern air space.

As to why haven't we been attacked, there are two alternatives. One, we have been and the attacks have been successfully stopped. But given how porous our borders are (20 million Mexicans waltzed right through it) and the fact that the so-called attempts that have been announced are pathetic. The guys that needed shoes or the guy that wanted to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch. Or the Bosnian Pizza gang. You could be sure that any serious attempt would have been publicized for all the political propaganda it would be worth just as these Keystone Kops plots have been.

The other alternative is that there have been no serious attempts, period.

I doubt that all the data that the enhanced NSA surveillance laws allow to be collected can be processed in real-time. It might have made things worse by clogging the pipelines. We don't even have enough linguists to translate/interpret the intercepts. This assumes that these laws are directed against the terrorists and not us.

Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 would have been detected had intercept data been processed in real time.

Eric "Classic" - your post that likened Ron Paul to Herbert Hoover has so many misconceptions that its hard to tell whether you are deliberately deceptive or just truly ignorant of history.

For your information, Herbert Hoover was actually the first "New Dealer." Rexford Tugwell, one of FDR's "Brain Trust" actually said that FDR just expanded upon Hoover's programs (until they were found unconstitutional).

Eric. Step away from the keyboard and read the book "Legacy of Ashes". Thats the term Ike used to describe the good that the CIA had done for national security. He was being charitable.

If China wanted to dump the dollar holdings that they have and force us to pay for our goods in a commodity like oil or gold, or some other reserve currency like the euro. I gaurantee you it would hurt us more than it would hurt them.

Thanks Eric Classic

The last time I listened to Ron Paul was at a recent debate. His comments reminded me of that idiot Gerardo Sandoval (San Francisco Supervisor) who said something about getting rid of the military all together. (It was on Hannity & Colmes)

In the course of daily life I have met 2 Ron Paul supporters, both of whom talked about thermite explosives in the World Trade Center. Who is going to be his running mate? Ward Churchill?

I find it funny that some of you would denigrate Paul as some kind of anti-military nut. His stance on Iraq is inline with his non-interventionist policy, not with an anti-military one. He supported the Afghanistan action, for example, because it was an attack in self-defense.

And unlike just about every other candidate on either side, he actually served in the military. That's what I like about Paul, his life backs up his words. Hell, he can say what he wants about limited government regulation with health care because he was a rural doctor who knows what it's like to deal with poor paitents. What life experience do these other candidates have besides playing politics? Paul has about zero chance of going anywhere and Newt is out...with a Democratic controlled Congress and a host of retards running for President, I don't see this nation having a good upcoming four years.

Clink wrote-
Any serious presidential candidate must realize Iraq is the Superbowl for Jihad.

...

The U.S. is strong enough to get the job done in Iraq AND take care of the borders.

Any serious candidate would stop allowing them in to our country. Why let the fifth column in through both the back and front door?

The US hasn't been strong enough on border issue up until now, why should I believe that things will change by voting in more of the same.

Fifteen of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.

40,000 more Saudi students coming to a university near you. It is indeed the time to get serious about immigration issues and with the exception of Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, none of the candidates have shown strong leadership on this issue.

Zach wrote-
I find it funny that some of you would denigrate Paul as some kind of anti-military nut. His stance on Iraq is inline with his non-interventionist policy, not with an anti-military one. He supported the Afghanistan action, for example, because it was an attack in self-defense.

Just to add..
Ron Paul received the most in political contributions than any other Republican candidate.

Ron Paul will give people something to write about with his impressive fundraising, but it will dry up by February. Paul is the Mike Gravel of the G.O.P., making it amusing, but both parties have learned the lessons of Anderson, Perot, and Nader - Paul won't make the same mistake.

Any chance a bunch of Paul's funding comes from Soros-backed fronts?

• Consider the recent history of Hsu and Democrat contribution bundling via people with questionable means.
• Consider that Hillary helped create Media Matters.
• Consider Brock (Friend/Agent of Hillary) and Soros and their desire to get any Democrat, preferably Hillary, into the presidency (Obama can wait in the wings as VP while getting seasoned.)
• Consider the Clinton expertise of political triangulation.
• Consider the tangible negatives Hillary brings to the table.

Now, what does Clinton need to tip the scales in her favor? A third-party candidate that will siphon more conservatives/Right moderates from the GOP than liberals/Left moderates from the Donks. Anyone and everyone recall Bill's triumph over Bush and the impact Perot had on a disgruntled and predominantly conservative electorate in '92?

We are rebuilding that perfect storm again and Paul probably wouldn't need Perot-like numbers to bump Hillary into office. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised knowing that money and virtual politicking wasn't being funneled to the Paul campaign for just such a hedge. It makes for savvy politics and a Soros-like sugardaddy would need but petty cash to be pulling some serious strings. The question remains, how many supporters of Paul are really supporters of Paul? Also, can the support survive the primaries enough to consider him relevant to enough draw "conservatives," and, if not, will Paul try an Independent run?

For all the smearing many of you do about the fact that some truthers like Paul (note: I am not a truther), you sure like to throw around the Soros-funding-Paul conspiracy theories. Irony knows no bounds.

I especially like the allusion to Paul being another Woodrow Wilson (father of "spreading democracy", the Federal Reserve, and intervening in WWI) or Herbert Hoover (father of the Great Depression, government-managed economy, and the 63% income tax). Whatever you do, just pretend Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft never existed.

And Eric, this bit about "He's making a return to the gold standard a centerpiece of his campaign, for Pete's sake!"... hilarious. Bad enough that Paul doesn't want to put the USD back on the gold standard, you've declared it the "centerpiece". I'm still laughing.

RE: Alex (October 4, 2007 4:45 AM)

"For all the smearing many of you do about the fact that some truthers like Paul (note: I am not a truther), you sure like to throw around the Soros-funding-Paul conspiracy theories. Irony knows no bounds."

Are there any Truthers that don't like Paul?

Sure it's a hypothesis. It makes good strategic political sense particularly considering what we know of Clinton history (and I understand cattle futures aren't hot right now to pad the piggy bank), has the right actors, and is entirely doable. That doesn't necessarily mean that Paul is part of any "conspiracy" however constructed. It just means that he or his staff could be accepting money, just like any candidate would do, from a source which they might not recognize as illegitimate. It's pretty clear that when campaign money flows, the tendency to ask probing questions is not high on the list of things for collectors to do.

Plus, under the hypothesis as described, can you envision any other Republican candidate that would potentially splinter off the "conservative" reservation once the primaries have concluded? I can't. The only one with enough of a Libertarian streak to further his cause after the primaries on the Right conclude is Paul. Why would a sugar daddy and his resources get funneled to anyone but Paul in the hopes of splintering off such a useful portion of the electorate? Clinton will win the Democrat nomination and the rest of the Left will coalesce around her - the most liberal remaining nominee. The same coalescence will occur on the Right except that the field is, IMO, at this point more disparate and destabilized. It's smart politics to exploit that divide and Paul is probably the only one who'd take the opening to further the anti-war position. The thing is, liberals wouldn't vote for Paul during the election... only disenchanted Republicans would. That's the Clinton/Soros/Media Matters hedge.

Alex wrote-
For all the smearing many of you do about the fact that some truthers like Paul...

Why would you call Ron Paul a truther?

He has in no uncertain terms that the attack was designed and executed by Bin Laden and terrorists and voted in favor of going to Afghanistan.

Your statement is not only ridiculous, it's false.

Are we Hsure where the money is coming from?

Any serious presidential candidate must realize Iraq is the Superbowl for Jihad.

Any serious observer of the war to liberate and pacify Iraq does realiize that the above statement is completely wrong.

As a result of their insane tactics of attempting to drive America out of Iraq by killing innocent Muslims, al Qaeda has destoyed its reputation among Muslims, not only in Iraq, where Sunnis and Shias have united against them, but throughout Arabia.

al Qaeda's leadership in Iraq is being decimated on a daily basis. American forces recently captured one of their computers with the names of 500 potential recruits and who is financing them. The number of recruits is drying up as it becomes more and more obvious it's not all that attractive to go to Iraq and get killed for a lost cause.

Iraq is al Qaeda's graveyard. They had no idea what they were in for when they took on American forces.

I am a 30 yr conservative republican and I also am a constituent of the honorable Ron Paul of Tx. I donate on the internet to the Ron Paul campaign due to the fact that it is easier than using snail mail. Remember good folks, there is a reason that we continue to vote our congressman back into office and it is all due to the fact that he tells the truth to the people. He is respected and appreciated for his integrity and courage to not just tell people what they want to hear. Ron Paul is the peoples candidate and no amount of spittle that people can "spew" against him can stop him from winning in 2008. Now go to www.ronpaul2008.com and read his constitutionally sound positions. Just wanted to let you know that Ron Paul supporters are not only young college age students, but are 48 yr old females that are very active in communities getting this humble mans message out to the people.

"It may be time to stop laughing at Paul"

No

Terry says "Any serious observer of the war to liberate and pacify Iraq does realiize that the above statement is completely wrong."

What I meant by that is,in the terrorist's pea sized brains, this the location of the big struggle. This IS where they go for their 72 virgins.

So any presidential candidate that recommends pulling troops out until the the job is done ( bury the last of the jihadists ) they are not serious.

I agree with your post on the success of the U.S. forces.

Clink

I re-read your post and clearly I took your statement out of context. How embarrassing. I humbly apologize. Thank you for correcting my error.

Your statement, upon which I commented, gave me a chance to point out a very positive development that is clearly being ignored by the MSM, namely that not only is al Qaeda being decimated in Iraq but also their reputation is being destroyed, and I obviously skimmed over the rest of your very good post after taking your statement out of context.

I suspect what will happen is that at the next debate, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson will more or less band together on foreign policy questions to gang up on Paul.

His 5 million shows, I think, just how easy it really is to raise money. This is a country of 300 million people, and donations aren't limited to American citizens, are they? If you can't raise at least 5 million dollars in three months then I think you're just pretty damn inept.

Karla, if you didn't sound exactly like every other Ron Paul troll - to the point of either plagiarism or organization - well, I still wouldn't go vote for Ron Paul. The man is insane. He deliberately ignores information regarding al-Qaeda's motivations for personal political gain. He ignores how China is using what he would call "foreign entanglements" to quietly buy up influence in Africa and elsewhere, or how such "foreign entanglements" with Russia and China have allowed Iran to defy the United Nations without apparent fear of real punishment for five years. In a world where nations act based on their perceived best self-interest, and at that moment the hottest thing in town is soft interventionism and geopolitical populist rhetoric, going isolationist because you have a hard-on for Rothbard and Mises isn't going to cut it.

"..Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson will more or less band together on foreign policy questions to gang up on Paul."

I hope your right. If Rudy hadn't responded to Ron Paul's statement regarding the reasons for the 9/11 attacks he might have remained an unknown. When Paul pointed out that the 9/11 Commission Report supported his statement in the debate, the media coverage was priceless. You would think Rudy would have read the 9/11 Commission Report - after all he testified before it and don't all actors like to read the reviews of their work?

Rassmussen reports that 27% of GOP voters will vote for a social conservative 3rd party candidate if Rudy is the nominee. The GOP could not win under those circumstances. On the other hand, Fraud Thompson has to go begging for applause when he wakes up his audiences when he's done speaking.

How many Romney, McCain, Ghouliani or Thompson supporters still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks? Or that the Russians smuggled Iraqs WMDs into Syria?

Another myth needs to be put to rest. That is the Ron Paul candidacy is a front for the Dems to split the GOP vote. I lurk on Democratic web sites. Periodically, someone will lament (correctly) how the Dems antiwar stance is more talk than action. They will admit that they find Ron Paul the only credible antiwar candidate, but despise his other positions. Almost immediately, this person will be shouted down by other posters and most certainly the gatekeepers that run the sites. There is almost no mention of the Paul campaign on these sites.

Ron Paul's average donation is under $50 per donor. There are no large corporate donors. No Soros affiliated PACs. I doubt that the Democrats would fund Paul via thousands of small donations. His donations come from those who realize that both parties are taking us over a cliff.

"...going isolationist because you have a hard-on for Rothbard and Mises isn't going to cut it."

Chaos, it might behoove you to give more consideration to Mises and Rothbard. You might gain an understanding of and appreciation for the idea of living in a free society and why Ron Paul has done so much to fire up people about that idea. The world is only the coercive, state-dominated place you make it out to be because people like you keeping repeating those mantras. It doesn't have to be this way. We could be simultaneously free, prosperous, and at peace.

RE: skeptic (October 4, 2007 11:47 AM)

"Another myth needs to be put to rest. That is the Ron Paul candidacy is a front for the Dems to split the GOP vote."

I think this is a bit of a misconception, or it's a myth I've never read or considered. Paul is an independent candidate acting in his own interest and not offering himself up as a front to the Left. The fronting would come from Soros and his band of merry men exploiting the political dynamics to lend support to a hoped-for third party splinter from the right. It wouldn't be too hard to envision a collection of paid (or unpaid) activists who would give both to their favorite on the Left while tossing some hedge money to the right Righty. Since Hillary is loaded with money and recognizing it wouldn't take that much to have Paul create significant noise, it would be smart to make one of these small contributions to Paul.

None of this would charge Paul with being in on any conspiracy of any sort. Any conspiring, and actually it would just be political playing of the field rather than an illegal endeavor, would be at the behest of wizards (ahem, Soros) on the Left. We've seen what the Clinton machine and the Soros one can do and have done.

Much wrong in facts is being said, against, Dr. Paul.

I will limit myself to the issue of who supports Dr. Paul.

Until "W" ran for POTUS I had only voted Republican and was once a Texas GOP State Delegate. I voted for Buchannan in the GOP primary but not when he ran in that 3rd party.

Now I am returning to vote for Ron Paul.

And I am from Houston, Texas.

The only reason Texas need to apologize for resides in the White House.

All of the snide, condescending posts about Ron Paul are, in fact, direct assaults on the Constitution itself. "Conservatives" posting here are either poorly educated or easily led So-Con robots parroting the Fox News agenda.

FACT: Ron Paul has far more in common with the traditional conservative platform than any other '08 GOP candidate.

Republicans need to turn off the TV and do some serious reading... start with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Then try any/all words penned by Barry Goldwater. And last - but not least - re-visit Ronald Reagan. After this crash course in real conservatism, it is impossible to support the likes of Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Huckabee... each of whom has more in common with Hillary Clinton than true conservative principles.

Shrink federal government.
Avoid foreign entanglements.
Facilitate free trade and markets.
Protect individual liberty and property rights above all else.

Today's GOP openly betrays these principles. If Ron Paul bothers you, then you are not a true conservative, period. If your vote depends on abortion/prayer/war/gay-rights, then you need to be in church or the military, not politics.

Restore the Constitution. Nothing else matters.

What a bunch of horse shit.

Darren, I know more about Rothbard and Mises than you do. For example, that Rothbard was a fanatical anti-American who jumped and down applauding Kruschev when the General Secretary visited New York right after killing 20,000 Hungarians in 1956.

Skeptic, your disconnect with reality is hilarious. Talk shit about your fringe candidate when he can get above 5% in the polls. Huckabee is fundraising at 20% of Ron Paul's numbers but is getting at least twice the support in polls. No one cares that all the far right anti-American John Birch fanatics are coming out of the woodwork and sending the money they've hidden in tin cans on their backwoods compounds for the last 30 years to Ron Paul, sorry.

FACT, mpower: sorry, no. I'm tired of Ron Paul supporters claiming the mantle of being the only true believers in the Constitution and liberty. You can go to hell. I'm not less patriotic than you because I don't support your candidate.

If you think that ad hominem (Fraud Thompson, Ghouliani) is better than real discussion, Ron Paul is your candidate.

If you think that others are less patriotic than you simply because their ideology, held in good faith, disagrees with yours, Ron Paul is your candidate.

If you think that automatically assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or malicious and needs condescended to like a six year old because this is the internet and you can get away with talking to people in such an immature manner, Ron Paul is your candidate.

If you want a candidate for grown-ups, that candidate isn't Ron Paul.

It should also be pointed out again that the pro-Ron Paul people are speaking in lockstep, almost as if they are being told what to say.

It's always the same with Ron Paul: you're ignorant because you don't support Ron Paul, you don't really believe in the Constitution or liberty if you don't support Ron Paul, Ron Paul is the only candidate who really believes in the Constitution, Ron Paul is the nation's only chance to be saved from disaster, if you don't support Ron Paul you're a tool of the neo-con Faux News warmongers, Ron Paul is Jesus Christ in disguise and a doctor to boot!

Give it a goddamned rest already.

Ron Paul wants to withdraw from a war that is clearly being won and which, while not creating a Jeffersonian democracy overnight, will be a vast improvement over how politics is done in Arab states.

Ron Paul and his supporters are oblivious to the following facts.

1. The consequences of premature withdrawal, including but not limited to:
a) a resurgence of al Qaeda in Iraq (whose days in Iraq are now numbered)
b) the likely outbreak of civil war- and The United States will be blamed for the carnage;
c) Iran occupying southern Iraq (filling the vacuum, as they've promised to do)

2. The consequences of staying in Iraq until the country is pacified and can defend itself:
a) none of the above happens;
b) the destruction of al Qaeda and AQI continues;
c) The new Iraq will not be a terrorist supporting state;
d) based on the pace of current progress in Iraq-the Democrats won't win the next election against a pro-liberation Republican.

Ron Paul's suporters love to debate whether we should have gone into Iraq. They are wrong and shortsighted on that issue but whether we should have gone in is irrelevant to the issue of under what circumstances we should leave.

Do you know why college students support Ron Paul? Not to be different or special, but because they believe Ron Paul is the answer for the future. No war, federal identification card, war on drugs, IRS, or Patriot Act. And hey, I actually plan to vote in the primary.

Chaos,

I was not the first with ad hominem attacks. That would be those agains Ron Paul.

If his supporters seem to you to be speaking in lock-step, its because he has had a consistent, clearly stated position on the issues (and the votes to back them up) for years. Can you say that about the so-called top-tier candidates?

Sorry if your tired of hearing from Ron Paul supporters. You haven't heard anything yet.

Terry,

The surge was a means to an end. The objective was to provide breathing room for Iraqi reconciliation to form a stable government. Let us assume for a moment that the surge has been successful. Where is this stable Iraqi government we have been hearing about?

Anyone who didn't recognize that the Shia were the dominant sect in Iraq, that they sought refuge in Iran while we provided aid to Saddam Hussein and didn't realize that the downfall of Hussein would be a godsend to Iran must have spent too much time at the American Enterprise Institute (cough, Fred Thompson, cough).

Just to remind you. Ahmed Chalabi was our boy in the Iraqi National Congress. He divulged to the Iranians that US intelligence had broken their codes. Despite this, Chalabi was allowed into the US to speak at the AEI, hosted by our very own Michael Ledeen of Iran-Contra fame. So I regard any concern about Iranian influence in Iraq as disingenuous.

Terry,

We don't even have a Jeffersonian democracy at home! Our civil liberties are being infringed upon to such a degree. And also, there is no military answer in Iraq. We are not winning the war, only saving face. 70% of Americans are against the war and we must wake up to that fact. Only a anti-war candidate can win in 2008 period.

Dr. Ron Paul has a 20% chance of winning the republican nomination. The Las Vegas odds are 4 to 1:

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php?st=203

Ron Paul has $5.3 million NET cash on hand.

McCain only has $3.6 million.

Romney has negative $8 million.

Funny how the polls say Ron Paul is at 4% or 1% or whatever. Well, in the only actual elections we've had of registered republican primary voters, actually 29 of them, Ron Paul is polling at 30%.

That's right, Ron Paul is polling at an average of 30% in 29 straw polls:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Ron Paul's poll numbers are low because of rigged polls. Here is how Rasmussen does it:

Paraphrase of Rasmussen's tele-polling script:

"For Rudy Giuliani Press 1
For Fred Thompson Press 2
For Mitt Romney, Press 3
For John McCain, Press 4
For Mike Huckabee, Press 5
For a list of other candidates, Press 6"

Nice and "scientific".

Ron Paul may be able to garner the religious right vote because of his stance against Roe vs Wade:

Christian Conservatives Threaten Third Party If Giuliani Wins GOP Nomination
http://www.jbs. org/node/ 5809

Finally, in a general election, nobody has a chance to beat Hillary Clinton, but Ron Paul, because of the war issue.

Poll: Most Want Cut in War Funding
http://www.freemark etnews.com/ WorldNews. asp?nid=49734

General Election Analysis
Hillary v. Ron Paul
http://gordonunleas hed.com/blog/ 2007/09/13/ hillary-v- ron-paul/

Ghouliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain are all unelectable.

To boot, Ron Paul is fiscally conservative and the best defender of the 2nd amendment.

To go tell this blogger to go f himself!

Maybe there are a lot of Republicans out there who hate the Drug War.

There are certainly some policemen against it

Dr. Paul believes that once you compromise your principles, they are no longer your principles. It's time to get people away from their brainwashing and try to understand where Dr. Paul is coming from. Government should not be a legalized extorter and should do nothing but make sure your civil liberties are not infringed upon. Thinking like this would have kept us out of many mistakes. Too bad people can't accept this philosophy.

"time to start thinking about where his support originates"....I'll tell you where some of it originates - from people like me who almost always vote Democratic, not because I particularly like the Democrats but because I dislike the Republican right wingers more. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate I will even consider casting a vote for in this election. Small government, stay out of people's business (other countries' and US citizens') and sound money are what the Founding Fathers intended. We have gone seriously astray.

"I was not the first with ad hominem attacks. That would be those agains Ron Paul."

I don't care, you have the mentality of a five year old and you just showed it.

"If his supporters seem to you to be speaking in lock-step, its because he has had a consistent, clearly stated position on the issues (and the votes to back them up) for years. Can you say that about the so-called top-tier candidates?"

It's because you're all trolls like any Ron Paul supporter.

I find it hilarious that "consistency" is now considered to be the end-all and be-all of politics. It's the sign of the anti-intellectual nature of our times, that a politician cannot say "I changed my mind" without being jumped on for being "inconsistent." Ron Paul has been consistent. Consistently wrong. Good for him, I'm glad he has his head up his ass and has for 30 years. Bravo!

"Sorry if your tired of hearing from Ron Paul supporters. You haven't heard anything yet."

Your laughable candidate and his laughable ideology will go down in flames just like he has any time he's tried to get above his cozy little House district. I hope he runs as an independent after he gets crushed in the GOP primaries; splitting the anti-war vote off from Hillary will ensure a GOP presidential victory.

"It's time to get people away from their brainwashing and try to understand where Dr. Paul is coming from."

Brainwashed huh? Typical idiotic pap from a typical idiotic Ron Paul supporter. Supporting Ron Paul is some kind of degenerative mental condition similar to 9/11 Truthism, ever notice how people who subscribe to one or the other behave exactly the same way when met with dissent?

I put up a post which sets out a few of the likely consequences of withdrawing from Iraq or completing the mission.

Ron Paul's supporters avoid responding to the substance of my post but instead fantasize that in addition to avoiding wars Ron Paul is going to abolish the IRS. (And we'll have Christmas every month etc....)

(Every sane person wants to avoid war but some wars must be fought and won. The way to avoid big wars is to fight the small wars you have to. When you have a Muslim country fighting foreign terrorists recruited by al Qaeda and fighting Iranian terrorists who are trying to destabilize a fledling Muslim democracy that is a war (police action) you should fight. If you don't you are going to end up fighting a bigger war.)

Ron Paul supporters are more polite than koskids but no less annoying because they claim to be Republican. When he loses the GOP nomination will Ron Paul run as an independent?

One Clinton got elected with less than 50% of the vote. Will the Clintons get lucky again?

Chaos

I love your last post but I don't know whether a Paul candidacy would hurt the GOP more than the Harridan. I think he is stupid enough to try. I think his brain dead pacificism does some damage to the coherency of the GOP message on defense.

I think that ultimately the situation in Iraq will be so improved in one year- and given the progress of the last 3 months it will- it may not make any difference except that his campaign will give some cover to the Democratic candidate as the media will point out ad nauseum that even a Republican candidate thought that the war was lost (or wasn't worth fighting).

Terry Gain:

No problem, we're both on the same wavelength, sometimes I'm too lazy at the keyboard to write more clearly!

By our best estimates, al Qaeda in Iraq constitutes less than 10% of the insurgents in Iraq. The overwhelming majority is a sectarian/civil war that we set loose when we supposedly liberated Iraq. Since this is a war based upon religious differences there is really no way to reach a peaceful solution. We would have to be policemen for eternity or until some strongman is put into power. Which would put us right back where we were when we went in only half a trillion dollars poorer.

Anyone that supported this war with its illusory dangers to uphold UN resolutions ought to be ashamed of themselves.

"Darren, I know more about Rothbard and Mises than you do. For example, that Rothbard was a fanatical anti-American who jumped and down applauding Kruschev when the General Secretary visited New York right after killing 20,000 Hungarians in 1956."

Sorry, Chaos, I can't let you get away with that one. Rothbard was perhaps the staunchest defender of freedom this country has ever seen. The Krushchev story was apparently concocted out of anger by William F. Buckley because he didn't like Rothbard's opposition to a massive expansion of the government. You see, Buckley long ago gave in to the temptation to trade freedom for security and thought that we needed a supremely powerful military state in order to counter the Soviet threat. Rothbard correctly saw this as illogical and the worst thing you could do in a free country. I admit it is possible that Rothbard at some point may have engaged in some positive reinforcement toward Krushchev in the hope that Krushchev would continue to denounce Stalin and reform the Soviet system (in which case he would simply have been guilty of an error in judgment in over-optimistically thinking that Krushchev might actually be the one to dismantle the USSR).

Here's a newsflash for all you folks who can't understand why Ron Paul has such a huge following from the college and high school crowd:

Young people have been going through 4 years of middle school, 4 years of high school, and 4 years of college. And what is it that they are taught in every set of those 4 years, particularly in middle and high school where they don't have a choice on the matter?

They are taught the values of the Constitution of the United States. They are taught that the Founding Fathers were smart men who knew what was best for our country. They are taught that we are a nation who follows the Rule of Law and that law is derived specifically from the Constitution.

Then, these kids see our government do the exact opposite of what they've been taught. They see our government completely disregard what the Constitution says.

They see our government vote to give the President authority to wage war (violation of Article I Section 8). They see our government conduct domestic spying without support of Oath or affirmation (violation of Amendment IV). They see our government continue to allow a private entity to control our money-system (violation of Article I Section 8).

They even see our government attempt to use the Constitution against itself by threatening new amendments that are in direct violation of amendments which already exist, with no talk of ratification, such as an amendment against flag burning (violation of Amendment I) or an amendment against gay marriage (violation of Amendment IX).

Powers not delegated to the United States are also failing to be reserved to the states or the people, with such issues as affirmative action and health care (violation of Amendment X), among many others.

Those are only a few examples. The list of blatant disregard for the Constitution goes on.

Young people are the most familiar with the Constitution, since they are in the midst of learning about it and they not only see our government tossing it out the window, but they even see a president who says that "It's just a goddamned piece paper,". They also see a group of 2008 presidential candidates (some of whom have been responsible for what I mentioned above) whose policies do not reflect the Constitution, with the exception of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who stands out as a candidate who bases all of his decisions on the Constitution and his over-a-decade-long voting record proves it.

When the younger generation sees Ron Paul cut short by the mainstream media and ridiculed by a large portion of older voters as being "nuts" or "loony" or "wacko", they wonder when it became "nuts" or "loony" or "wacko" to follow the Constitution, especially after they have been taught that respecting the Constitution is the thing to do.

We expect our kids to learn the Constitution, to value it, and to follow it, then we we wonder why so many of them strongly support Ron Paul, the only candidate who actually follows the Constitution.

Those of us who are older would do well to remember that we should practice what we preach.