Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Abrogation of Markets in British Columbia | Main | Real Heroes »

Friday, October 05, 2007

What Ron Paul is (and what he isn't)

I think Yoshi is overreacting to the Ron Paul boomlet.

I can understand why: Paul is the lone antiwar Republican in the race, and thus it's assumed he's pulling all of his support from antiwar lefties looking to mess up the GOP.  That just isn't so.

Ron Paul has a reputation of being the most virulent anti-government politician in recent memory.  He's known as "Dr. No," for his supposed insistence on voting against any government action (including innocuous, non-binding resolutions) that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  As such, a large chunk of his support comes not from mischievous Democrats, but from genuine Republicans angry about President Bush's overspending (it's made Paul Martin look like Preston Manning) and, yes, the war in Iraq.

So Paul's Republicanism is genuine, if a little odd.  That does not mean, however, that Paul will have staying power, delegates at the Republican convention, or the ability to do damage to the GOP nominee in 2008 for several reasons:

Delegate selection rules: In most states, Republican primaries and caucuses (and not, this is only for Republicans) is "winner-take-all" (what we call first-past-the-post).  From second place on down, the candidates get zero delegates.  Furthermore (and I'll admit I'm guessing on this), the states that aren't winner-take-all statewide are still winner-take-all at the Congressional district level.  Thus, Paul would actually have to win a Congressional district in a primary to get any delegates.  He may carry his own district (stress may) but that's about it.  Personally, I project Paul's delegate count to be zero.

His record: Ron Paul may not quite be the libertarian everyone down here thinks he is.  I already caught him deviating from his constitutionalism just this year.  Those who support Paul for his limited government stance may want to take another look at him.

Any lefty-blog attempt to prop him up will be too transparent to have an effect: The left tried something similar in Connecticut, when Joe Lieberman had to run as an independent because the Democrats wouldn't nominate him.  All of a sudden, the lefties were singing the praises of the Republican candidate, who proceeded to go down in the polls as a result of his new friends.

His antiwar voters would never support the Republican nominee anyway: As for the anti-war folks propping Paul up, these are not folks upon whom we can count for support in 2008.  In fact, Paul is actually to the left of the likely Democrats nominate (Hillary Clinton) on Iraq.  If Paul were to run on a third-party ticket (and one would be available), he could end up taking away more Democrats frustrated over the war than Republicans.

This could especially be true if the GOP nominates Rudy Giuliani, whose social liberalism would make a Clinton victory far less necessary to antiwar lefties on the dmoestic front.  Granted, Paul may also pick up pro-life voters from the right upset over Rudy's nomination, but that would simply give those voters a place to go (rather than stay home), and in such a dynamic, Paul to wreak havoc on Democratic plans in the northeast and the Midwest (the Dems' base areas).

Now, we're still over a year away from the elections, and darn near anything could happen.  Yoshi might be right; Paul could catch fire somewhere.  I just doubt it, and I further question the conventional wisdom that it's the Republicans who will get burned.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on October 5, 2007 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Ron Paul is (and what he isn't):


Quite frankly who gives a rats ass about Ron Paul.

It is obvious he has attracted the anti-war, anti-American far left crowd who border on insanity.

They would vote for Osama Bin Laden himself if he were running and promised to end the war.

There are already two threads of shrieking insanity over this moron, why do we need another?

If we are going to debate candidates why don't we debate about the ones who have at least a grasp on their sanity, who offer real solutions, and who have a least a snow balls chance in hell of being elected.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-10-05 7:16:14 AM

deepblue: You do realize that you have offered nothing in the way of practical discourse on this topic and instead have resorted only to ad-hominem attacks?

I would urge you to re-evaluate your stance if this is the extent of your knowledge of the candidate.

Posted by: litcigar | 2007-10-05 7:35:07 AM

"If we are going to debate candidates why don't we debate about the ones who have at least a grasp on their sanity, who offer real solutions, and who have a least a snow balls chance in hell of being elected."

Paul not only has a grasp on his sanity he understands that only sane people will realize this. His solution is to utilize free markets and get government out of the way except where the protection of rights are concerned. You can choose to have the Canadian way where the government takes money from Ontario and recently Alberta to redistributes to other provinces. Take away those transfer payments and provinces would have to make some very different choices.

Paul odds of winning are now better than Mitt Rommney. So he is doing far better than the snowball.

Posted by: sms | 2007-10-05 7:37:20 AM

"If we are going to debate candidates why don't we debate about the ones who have at least a grasp on their sanity, who offer real solutions, and who have a least a snow balls chance in hell of being elected."

Paul not only has a grasp on his sanity he understands that only sane people will realize this. His solution is to utilize free markets and get government out of the way except where the protection of rights are concerned. You can choose to have the Canadian way where the government takes money from Ontario and recently Alberta to redistributes to other provinces. Take away those transfer payments and provinces would have to make some very different choices.

Paul odds of winning are now better than Mitt Rommney. So he is doing far better than the snowball.

Posted by: sms | 2007-10-05 7:38:47 AM

"If we are going to debate candidates why don't we debate about the ones who have at least a grasp on their sanity, who offer real solutions, and who have a least a snow balls chance in hell of being elected."

Paul not only has a grasp on his sanity he understands that only sane people will realize this. His solution is to utilize free markets and get government out of the way except where the protection of rights are concerned. You can choose to have the Canadian way where the government takes money from Ontario and recently Alberta to redistributes to other provinces. Take away those transfer payments and provinces would have to make some very different choices.

Paul odds of winning are now better than Mitt Rommney. So he is doing far better than the snowball.

Posted by: sms | 2007-10-05 7:39:43 AM

Paul is the most conservative member of Congress. And there is nothing Anti-American about the belief that we should not be policing the world. It wasn't anti-American when Bush ran on it in 2000 and it isn't anti-American now. And it certainly isn't liberal to suggest that the federal government should be obeying the constitution rather than constantly usurping powers that the constitution does not give it. 50% of ALL (GOP & Dem) campaign contributions from soldiers and veterans goes to Ron Paul. Are they anti-American?

As for the deviation from constitutionalism, actually read up on the bill, which is saying the federal government, which is already buying medicine, ought to actually negotiate a better rice than accept whatever price the drug companies want to exact from the taxpayers.

70% of the country is against the war and blames it on the GOP. No pro-war GOP candidate stands a snowballs chance in Hell.

Posted by: American | 2007-10-05 7:41:00 AM

"It is obvious he has attracted the anti-war, anti-American far left crowd who border on insanity."

You forget that there is a substantial libertarian leaning piece in the republican party that is not happy about Bush's overspending, not happy about the New Right's embrace of Big Brother government, not happy with the ceo repubs shipping jobs away and pissing on the american working, not happy about nation building.

Neocons are straussian leftists in disguise and you an only take the small-gov conservatives so farbefore they bite back.

To me it is obvious he has attracted the anti-socialist, anti-big brother, anti-big government spending, anti-gun control, anti-abortion, anti-NAFTA independent/far left/libertarian crowd who embrace sanity over rhetoric.

The New Right(read Old Left) arrogance is astounding to me and you are a prime example.

You sound like a Soviet Party member, you weak minded tool.

Posted by: Shane | 2007-10-05 7:44:32 AM

What does it mean to be to left on Iraq? Are you suggesting the more conservative you are, the more pro-war you are? I don't remember conservatives supporting the war in Kosovo?
Each side supports the wars they start, and condemn the others. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, please state it here. If one side is truely more pro war than the other, let me know and I'll support the opposite.

Posted by: RONPAULMAKESSENSETOME | 2007-10-05 7:51:22 AM

His record: Ron Paul may not quite be the libertarian everyone down here thinks he is. I already caught him deviating from his constitutionalism just this year. Those who support Paul for his limited government stance may want to take another look at him.


I think you should probably review his comments on the issue before making statements like this. He basically landblasts people that supported HR4 PartD who are now presenting themselves as pro-Free Market. Basically he said if you're pro-FreeMarket you should have voted against this from the beginning. He's just trying to save those that have to pay for the entitlements some money now.

Posted by: Jake | 2007-10-05 8:00:05 AM

who do you want in the white house, and which GOP candidate does stand a chance of winning?

Huckabee(cant even raise 2mill)

Thompson(about as exciting a a wet towel, as much of an "insider" as there is)

Giuliani(the other hillary clinton)

Romney(has to keep injecting his own millions into the race to keep ahead)

McCain(treading water)

An anit-war, pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, small-gov conservative has the best shot.

Posted by: Shane | 2007-10-05 8:03:34 AM

Maybe if you put your hate aside and respected the right of middle easterners to live and breath, you would support a Constitutionalist and help bring America back on track.

Posted by: Mike | 2007-10-05 8:07:20 AM

Ron Paul Supporters:

In an attempt to keep out Liberitarian & Independent voters, who we all know will be voting for Ron Paul, Iowa and New Hampshire have closed their primaries and set a registration dealine of October 12th!

That is only a few days away! They know you don't want to change your party affiliation and are hoping that the thought of doing so is a big enough deterent to keep you from voting.

Don't be defeated. Just for now, change your affiliation to Republican. Please hurry. We need to do this now our Ron will not win New Hampshire or Iowa and will not be nominated.

: Register Republican Today (even in open states) who knows who else will pull this trick. Next vote for Ron Paul and reclaim your liberties.

Posted by: Travis | 2007-10-05 8:13:46 AM

Personally, I'm getting tired of people saying that Ron Paul can't win. Do you have some sort of crystal ball that lets you see into the future.
Consider a few facts. First, Ron Paul's campaign grows every day. His fundraising doubles each quarter. He is WAY ahead of all the other GOP candidates in the straw polls, sometimes winning them by percentages as high as 82%. He has beaten "front runner" Giuliani in 26 of the 29 straw polls so far. These are real people taking the time to get off the couch and go out to vote, not internet spammers.
When average citizens hear him speak for anything over 5 minutes, they respond by checking him out and then they become supporters. There are only two types of people who DON'T support Ron Paul: those who have yet to hear about him, and those who support the New World Order.
So...since you have obviously heard of Ron Paul and don't support him enthusiastically, I must assume that you are part and parcel of the globalist, neocon, empire building, big government cabal that has all but destroyed this once great country. In other words, you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Posted by: Michael Wagner | 2007-10-05 8:14:09 AM

See also:

Ron Paul web traffic explodes off the charts following campaign raising over $5 million in latest quarter

Ron Paul Community Website (Ron Paul Video, News, Friends, Blogs, Wiki, RSS Feeds, etc.)

Posted by: Alex Hammer | 2007-10-05 8:29:27 AM

As for the wacko Ron Paul, what a loser man, why don't we nuke the mideast and just get it the fuck over with so we don't have to listen to this blind as a bat crackpot and his legions of queer dopehead pansies. I just wanta see all the kikes and sandniggers glow-in-the-dark barbecued so we just don;t have to listen to this shit anymore.
These weirdo's need to be locked away, why can't we just build a few more prisons and just lock up all those kooks anyway? Life would just be so much better it we could do that.

George Bush was the man, and Giuliani is the man to come.

Posted by: Patriot Missile | 2007-10-05 8:36:00 AM

that's right Patriot Missle, the guys who don't want a nuke war along with racial genocide are the kooks and weirdos, sure.

i hope you are being sarcastic, but after watching the "top-tiers" promote the use of nukes in the GOP debates i'm not so sure anymore...

Posted by: Shane | 2007-10-05 8:48:42 AM

DJ says,

"I already caught him deviating from his constitutionalism just this year"

Good job! I wholeheartedly endorse your call for people to do more research. Here are Dr. Paul's own words on this bill. I encourage anyone who has misgvings about Dr. Paul's stance on price controls to read what he says.


Posted by: Kevin Houston | 2007-10-05 9:00:48 AM

Rep. Ron Paul[R-TX]: Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to engage in direct negotiations with pharmaceutical companies regarding the prices the companies will charge Medicare when the companies provide drugs through the Part D program. Contrary to the claims of its opponents, this bill does not interfere with a free market by giving the government new power to impose price controls. Before condemning this bill for creating "price controls" or moving toward

Members concerned about preserving a free market in pharmaceuticals should have opposed the legislation creating Part D in 2003. It is odd to hear champions of the largest, and most expensive, federal entitlement program since the Great Society pose as defenders of the free market.

The result of subsidizing the demand for prescription drugs through Part D was to raise prices above what they would be in a free market. This was easily foreseeable to anyone who understands basic economics. Direct negotiation is a means of ensuring that the increase in demand does not unduly burden taxpayers and that, pharmaceutical companies, while adequately compensated, they do not obtain an excessive amount of Medicare funds.

The argument that direct negotiations will restrict Medicare beneficiaries' access to the prescription drugs of their choice assumes that the current Part D system gives seniors control over what pharmaceuticals they can use. However, under Part D, seniors must enroll in HMO-like entities that decide for them what drugs they can and cannot obtain. My district office staff has heard from numerous seniors who are unable to obtain their drugs of choice from their Part D providers. Mr. Speaker, I favor reforming Medicare to give seniors more control and choice in their health care, and, if H.R. 4 were a threat to this objective, I would oppose it.

Federal spending on Part D is expected to grow by $100 billion in 2007. It would be fiscally irresponsible for this Congress not to act to address those costs. I recognize that giving the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to engage in direct negotiations neither fixes the long-term problems with Medicare nor does empowers senior to control their own health care. However, we are not being given the opportunity to vote for a true pro-freedom, pro-senior alternative today. Instead, we are asked to choose between two flawed proposals--keeping Part D as it is or allowing the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug prices for the Part D program. Since I believe that direct negotiations will benefit taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries by reducing the costs of prescription drugs, I intend to vote for this bill.

Posted by: Shane | 2007-10-05 9:15:20 AM

Nice Try D.J. but we know better. educate yourself a bit. Ron's still a contitutionalist.

Posted by: Shane | 2007-10-05 9:16:09 AM

You know what ... after some reflection and other than the fighting our islamic enemies I tend to agree with Ron Paul.

I guess I come by that since I am more of an Objectivist than a conservative.

What Paul seems to want is a hell of a lot of freedom from government and I like that. However, at this moment in history we are up to our assess in muslims who need to be killed in larger numbers and lot faster.

If we get rid of those arabic pit bulls once and for all, then we can talk about no more wars at least until the next America hating regime decides to call us out. Look far to the south for that or perhaps to China.

Paul has a dream and for the freedom front it's a nice one, but the reality is that we are in a jungle and there are many beasts who will always be there and always want to kill us.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-05 9:21:13 AM

"Other than fighting our Islamiic enemies,he's ok" - ?

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2007-10-05 9:26:49 AM

Romney is a flip flopper, the republican base wont go for him. Rudy is a socialist and liberal republican, into gay unions, staunchly anti-gun, McCain is for the war, Thompson has no experience. Those repubs can't beat Hillary or Obama.

Hillary-Edwards and Obama will further destroy this country into a downward socialistic spiral.

As for the Ron Paul attracting the anti-war crowd, WTF do you know about war, I have more combat time in SWA then you have in a T-shirt son.

We are playing into their hands. 9-11 wasn't about killing Americans, that was a secondary by-product. It was about showing we weren't impervious to attack, it was done in order to weaken our economy. Now we are spending 900 billion dollars of money we don't have. And we are paying more than that, thats only what congress allocates for the war and title 22 money. What about all the death benefits we pay out, rehab, and disability. Now add 20 million illegals to this who will get free health care and burden our society, (btw NY will start handing out drivers licenses to illegals starting in Dec 08 go figure)

The big war is the war unseen folks. The big war has no casualties that can be seen till its to late. Theres a huge international economic war going on that isn't reported. China doesn't need troops, they have industry and consumption, and thanks to Nixon they are capitalist and good at it.

Ron Paul is the only TRUE Conservatives choice when you logically investigate and compare him to the other candidates. He'll work against taxes, he stomp illegal immigration, he'll restructure all the unfair trade policies, he'll pull troops out of SWA so we can quit pouring money into a bottomless pit of Iraqi and Afghani corruption from the top on down (BEEN THERE I KNOW) I can't believe for a moment that more citizens dont gravitate toward Ron Paul. I don't care I voted for Bush as he was the lesser of two evils last time. I am voting my conscience this time! I really wish more AMERICANS would.

The media is swaying the vast majority of Americans, most are sheep and can't make an informed decision themselves.

I am making the right choice I am voting for Ron Paul even if I have to write him in.

Posted by: MSG US ARMY | 2007-10-05 9:38:13 AM

Our islamic enemies?

a handful of fanatics. criminals.

we've always had enemies. red coats, empires, commies.

the "muslim menace" is not the terror you want to belive it is. the mafia and the narco kings were more of a danger then these idiots. all you are doing is giving more credence to their cause. and the neocon solution to the "muslim menace"? occupy their countries and kill any who oppose. Iran will make 3. Of course Bin Laden wants to destroy our country and because of neocons and the other libs rising to the bait he's winning. they get an endless war to justify their top heavy and anti-freedom policies and Bin Laden gets his protracted Soveit-in-Afgahn style international Islamis revolution. They were contained in 2-3 countrries and a criminal netwrok elsewhere, now they are a growing and vibrant international movement. YOUR NEOCON ACTIONS HAVE HELPED THE "ENEMY". the smart thing to do would be to discredit and marginalize their movement and desires, not throw gasoline onto the little flame.

Posted by: Shane | 2007-10-05 9:43:08 AM

Anytime a person courageously speaks out against the status-pro-quo there's always someone saying he's crazy. Here's what’s crazy: America entered a war under false pretenses. We illegally invaded a country (Iraq) and destroyed a regimen that was a direct enemy of Al Qaeda. Now we are stuck in this mess because the current administration - and the GOP - is too proud to admit it was a mistake. So now they lie to the American people and tell us things like - "we broke it so we bought it" or "if we leave now then Al Qaeda will really take over that country." Both are lies so don't believe it for one second. Some say we did it to secure our oil reserves and what happened? Oil is now four times the price it was prior to the war.

Are Americans sick of it? You bet we are! Is any politician offering us a wasy out other than Ron Paul? Not one!

My fellow Americans, there's only one answer to our foreign policy problem as well as our problems right here at home; his name is Ron Paul.

If you want change, join us. We need your support to let the world know we aren't warmongers and imperialistic nation builders. We need you to stand with us so we can show the rest of the world how great America really is. Help us show them that we understand we were lied to but will respond by correcting the mistake.

Ron Paul 2008!!!


Posted by: Robert Johnson | 2007-10-05 9:46:55 AM

Hey Patriot Missile

The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming! Quick, throw some kids in the way.

What a bunch of stinking cowards.

Why don't you and Bush and Guiliani get a room where you can jack-off to your Abu-Graib porn in private so the rest of us don't have to watch.

Do you really think you can provoke Jesus into slapping you down? Jesus took the worst of power mad, swaggering, lying, stealing, murdering, AWOL, crackhead bigots and never said a word. You better hope he doesn't get the last word.

Posted by: liberal pussy | 2007-10-05 10:00:24 AM

The comments here are reminiscent of those that were made during the Viet Nam war era. It appears nothing has changed other than the arena.

Posted by: atric | 2007-10-05 10:06:46 AM

What is true DEEP BLUE is that Dr. Paul is the only consistent candidate and your little diatribe had absolutely no rlelevant input into the debate. Typical of being very uninformed about the issues. Dr. Paul is nothing like anyone else running and has voted in line with constitutional limitations put on government by the founders. Who else has? He is the ONLY candidate who can see that the monetary system in this country is collapsing and that the federal reserve is both unconstitutional and illegal and destroys a free market economy as it did in 1919, 1929, 1975, and today. The war is designed to make the elitists huge profits while spendthrift politicians borrow more and more from these same bankers who continuously create this money from nothing and then bilk the American taxpayers into paying nothing but the interest on a debt that is unbelievable with long term obligations nearing 100 trillion dollars?! America, especially young America needs to wake up now! No one from either party suggests doing what Ron Paul has suggested. Because he is out of line the Media hit pieces call him a quack and his supportrs kooks, but he walks the walk and talks the talk. It's honesty pure and simple and it's love for the country and not lust for power. He thanks the revolution for bringing him along. He is also one of the few who is not a member of the world dominating group the CFR (council on foreign relations)who admittedly have long planned to usher in the NWO. Every one of the so-called front runners are members, which of course explains why they have so much money from the special intest groups. Pauls money is from real people like me who spends at least a few hours a week trying to inform the public about what the media will not. This may be the last chance for America for peaceful reform back to where we are supposed to be. There will be an economic crash regardless, but the others don't even discuss it. This is perhaps the most important election in US history and there is still some hope for America, be part of it.

Posted by: Ray | 2007-10-05 10:10:53 AM

I agree with deepblue. Enough already about Ron Paul. He's a pimple on the political scene that will pop long before he has any relevance to the outcome.

Give Hunter and Tancredo some of the time put into Ron Paul and find a lot more quality people!

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-10-05 10:30:41 AM

I am a Republican. If Paul doesn't get the nomination I will withdraw my support of the GOP. I am not alone, not by a longshot.

Posted by: David M | 2007-10-05 10:54:25 AM

Well, as long as we are bring up records here.. If you want to take the stance that Ron Paul is not a consitutionalist, a "leftist"; etc. Lets look at the other canidets shall we? After, all one vote, lets see the disparigies among his rivals.

Rudy: Argued that people should not have the right to bare semi-automatic rifles(when he was mayor of New York). As of today when he spoke to NRA members his pandorig banter represented a differnt approch. Rudy, now states he wants illegals to have tamper proof ID cards, learn to speak english(as a requirment of citizenship); build a fence. From " http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/08/14/2007-08-14_tougher_rudy_to_hit_back_on_immigration.html "
I'll pull a quote he stated back in 1994.
"("Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens," Giuliani said in 1994. "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city.")". "("Two years later, when asked his view of a Suffolk County bill to make English the official language, he responded, "There's no reason to pass a bill like this, except maybe to exclude people, insult people or offend people.")

Now, I will breifly mention without citation (I'm at work and getting ready to get off lunch)
McCain wants to give them what congress, and pundits felt as (sic)"Amnisty".

Romney, loves pro-choice(through voting as Governer, as well through voting for Rudy) They both are now claiming to be agenst it.

Hell, we can keep going but, I'm out of time... So, while you can point to one vote, I can point to the other canidents & show even more disparites among them.. Hell, just look at their records!

Posted by: adam | 2007-10-05 10:59:36 AM

Every time I read a comments thread about Ron Paul, I have this sudden urge to take a shower.
Don't know much about the man or his politics but his supporters comments have really got my bullshit meter humming.
I am not a student of American politics but what I glean from this is that he wants to take the US back to isolationism, similar to what existed prior to WW11.

Posted by: atric | 2007-10-05 11:04:27 AM

Ron Paul is a senile old man. I a saw a video of him at a rally and there were people waving signs around saying, "Who is Ron Paul?" Apparently he was at the wrong rally because these people didn't even know who the hell he was and yet he was trying to claim that they were his supporters! Do you really want some great grandpa with Alzheimers to be President?

Rudy Giuliani is where it's at. His dad was a mobster and you can tell that Rudy has that same kind of hardcore genes in him too. That's what America needs and wants - Tony Soprano for Prez. And Rudy is as close to that mold as they come. He won't eff around. He's the kind of guy that would take someone like Ron Paul and lock him up at Guantanomo as an enemy combatant for the rest of his life just because he dared to look at him wrong.

Posted by: Eric the Red | 2007-10-05 11:05:58 AM

"I am a Republican. If Paul doesn't get the nomination I will withdraw my support of the GOP. I am not alone, not by a longshot."

I question your loyalty to the republican party, and to your country.

Only a complete idiot can not see the danger and predictable results of splitting the right vote.

It will be Hillary straight to the top with only short sighted people like you to blame. And you know what that will mean.

Do you people not remember the Ross Perot debacle? The independents and many on the right split their vote and BJ Clinton waltzed into the Whitehouse with disastrous consequences.

Get a grip or lose your country. Its your choice.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-10-05 11:14:55 AM


He doesn't have a hope, but I agree with you.

I thought political stupidity and the mainstreaming of "moonbattery" was a Canadian, and in particular a Central Canadian thing, but I see from these Paul threads I was sorely mistaken.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-10-05 11:20:55 AM

I'm glad I found your blog. Reading your post made me realize that there are people who not only do not know about Ron Paul, but are actively spreading lies about him. I was so pissed I joined my local RP Meetup group and plan to campaign for him this weekend at the Chicago marathon.


Posted by: Steve Hotchkin | 2007-10-05 11:20:58 AM

RON PAUL is the only candidate the GOP can rally around and win with in the general election.

Let's review the other choices.

Rudy Guiliani is pro gun control, pro gay rights and pro abortion. The Social Conversatives have already indicated that they will not support him as the Party's nominee.

Mitt Romney put forward a health care mandate similar to what Hillary Clinton wants.

Fred Thompson claims to stand for small government but doesn't have the track record in Senate. He's also not very good on the stump.

John McCain wants to stay the course in Iraq, and the American people won't support any Republican with those views in the general election.

That leaves Ron Paul who can unite all the factions in the GOP.

One last thought.. the Democrats are likely to win the House and Senate in 2008, I'd rather have Ron Paul -- aka DR. NO - in the White House using his veto power to stop runaway spending.

Posted by: JCooke | 2007-10-05 11:23:28 AM

I have two things to say.

The first one is that people need to stop and consider whether they'd rather have a Hillary Clinton presidency or a Ron Paul presidency. None of the Republican annointed seem at this juncture capable of waging an actual presidential campaign.
I shall address them individually.
Rudy Guiliani is far left.
Thompson is subdued and uncharismatic.
Mitt Romney does not have policy positions.
John McCain's campaign is starved for funds.

The second thing I have to say is that the entire idea of a civilizational clash with Islamic extremists is pathetic. Being afraid of Islam is, frankly, 'wussy'. Islamic terrorists are neither more nor less than organized crime. As criminal networks go we have more to fear from, and suffer far more casualties at the hands of, Columbian drug lords.

Posted by: Nathan Pannbacker | 2007-10-05 11:33:16 AM

Sadly, people like DeepBlue continue to shoot off the same old, pre-packaged attacks.

Posted by: Brian | 2007-10-05 11:34:32 AM

"Disastrous consequences" ?
...like getting blowjobs ?!?

No other American Presidents will ever come close to George W. Bush, speaking of "disastrous consequences".

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-05 11:39:26 AM


Yeah and they never seem to be able to back it up with anything other than "electability", which generally means whatever they decide it does.

The "top-teirs" are not conservative and the are not connected to the will of the american people.

They are simply betting that conservatives will forget all about their principals on abortion, gun control, fiscal responsibility and the like just to make keep clinton out of office. the lesser of 2 evils arguement again(as if that's ever worked before).

The Republican party presents itself as a conservative party, if it's nominee is shares the oppositions view on 9/10 issues what the hell does the party stand for anymore?

rich elitist socialist bullies running against rich elitist socialist bullies.

where is the conservatism? what is the difference between clinton and guiliani? hell, what is the difference between romney and kennedy??!!?

Posted by: Shane | 2007-10-05 11:56:53 AM

deepblue -

I clicked this topic, read your post and agreed with you 100% (no surprise there).

Then I read down the page. YIKES!

The posts seem orchestrated and contrived, but I've not read the two (or three?) other threads which touch on this very definitely Libertarian Candidate.

I may have ranted (here) before about how I dislike and distruct the Libertarians, although I've appreciated anyone who advocated reducing government at any level.

I'm glad that you returned to this thread and posted a reply to a couple of the very phony posters above.

I did learn one thing from my investment of time, I'll not waste another second reading Ron Paul related threads.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-10-05 12:00:02 PM

Deepblue-I have to agree with you 100%. It appears that it has morphed into a worldwide phenomenon.As one who absolutely admires the US, their people and their nearly perfect form of government, I am saddened and shocked at some of the comments posted here. A few years living here
would cure them of their disdain for the present democratic process.

Posted by: atric | 2007-10-05 12:04:58 PM

Yep, this is a complete joke...most of these pro Paul types are most likely liberals anyway, and god know they will vote for the candidate that will control us the most (Clinton). The case in point is the swell of lefties all over the net asking their fellow snakes to change colors temporarily so that Paul can get the nomination then just switch back to their natural red color and vote Dem anyway...its all a ploy.
On an up-note, its been along time since we had this kind of debate and interest in a blog like this!

Posted by: Sean Whelan | 2007-10-05 12:42:13 PM

Eric the Red -

HAHA that is the funniest thing I have heard yet. Obviously you have NO CLUE. "Who is Ron Paul?" is a campaign slogan that was created by volunteer supporters. The question "Who is Ron Paul?" provokes people to search for him on google. Obviously it has been working like a charm. Please do some research on the man and his campaign before making such silly accusations.

Posted by: Joe D | 2007-10-05 12:50:19 PM

Like I said in the other blog about Paul, I like some of his less government ideas and I would assume that his libertarian views would strike a cord with many of the bloggers here. Sadly I dont like allot of his isolationist views and in a world economic reality, I think he is a little behind the times considering the situations facing him.
Long and short - Paul is a DEM's wet dream. They know that the DEM base of support will vote DEM and Paul will split the right vote. Perfect DEM campaign.
I really think that the only way the REP will win in the next election is if Clinton gets the DEM nod. She alone will win it for the REP's. She will split the DEM vote and give the REP a honest chance of winning.

Posted by: Sean Whelan | 2007-10-05 12:59:32 PM

Ron Paul is not an isolationist-

"Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

Posted by: D'Cali | 2007-10-05 1:40:22 PM

Come on, are you serious?

Give me a break Sean, you and i both know that that running with Romney or Guiliani is not going to win you the election because they are too much like the dems they are opposing. The NRA isn't going to support Guiliani. The Evangicals sure are not and it's doubtful they'll show up in droves to vote for a mormon either. Being anti-clinton is not going to be enough this time around, being anti-bill worked in 2000, staying the course worked in 2004, but now the country has moved on. they don't like the war and they want a true conservative that they can feel proud about. the winning formula is not hillary lite, a poor uncharismatic reagan wannabe, or flip-flopping non-christian new englander. huckabee and paul are the true conservatives and out of the two i prefer the latter.

pro-2nd amendment? check!
pro-life? check(he's an OBGYN)!
small government? check(libertarian/paleocon/constitutionalist republican)!
pro-DOMA? check!
Christian values and principals? check(supports prayer in school and the ten commandments)!
Fically conservative? check(just look at the way he's running his campaign for cryin out loud)!

the only reason you all hate Paul is 1)the passion of his supporters, the same passion that the other candidates can't get with money and 2) he's anti-war(along with the majority of the country which is why the DEMS are giving you a run for your money!

Think this through, you will not Win the race with the current frontrunners!

Posted by: Shane | 2007-10-05 1:51:27 PM

Think this through, you will not Win the race with the current frontrunners!

who are not even real conservatives to begin with and are not even trying to pretend that they are!

if you want to win you have to excite the base and draw in some independents. that means being honest about the occupation(war is fought between to nations not 1 foreign power and locally grown militias) to draw the independents and staying true to your principals to get your base to show up.

any other way is a disaster.

Posted by: Shane | 2007-10-05 1:55:47 PM

I've called 3 of you out so far and none of you challenge the issues. enough rhetoric, back up your positions with some f-ing intelligence!

Posted by: Shane | 2007-10-05 1:58:48 PM

Ron Paul is America's last best hope. For those few who claim there is no conspiracy to bring down the last vestiges of liberty in America I challenge you to watch this short video: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/164.html

Posted by: ClayT2 | 2007-10-05 1:59:05 PM

1 2 3 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.