It's Official: Ron Paul Matters

Vladimir Putin is Time magazine's Person of the Year, but the darkest Republican dark horse makes it on the list as a "Person Who Mattered," right up there with Britney Spears and Billiam the YouTube Snowman.

Booed by Republicans for his isolationist foreign policy views and anathema to Democrats for his anti-government philosophy, the Texas congressman was proudly out of step with both political parties. But marching to his own drummer, the grandfatherly libertarian found himself leading an online parade. Millions of dollars poured into his quixotic presidential campaign, raising an inevitable question: What's next for this free-thinking and strangely compelling grassroots crusader?

Paul's never been in higher demand than he's been this month. John Stossel's multi-part too-hot-for-TV interview continues here:

If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?

Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.

If China invaded Taiwan?

That's a border war, and they should deal with it.

If Canada invades Montana?

I think that might be a little bit different. Montana probably could take care of it, but we'd probably help them out from Washington if that happened.

That's a role for the federal government?

Oh, sure.

Montana could probably take care of it. Spoken like a guy who wants to take the Feb. 5 Montana primary.

UPDATE: Looking over the list again I see that Paul and new Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal are the only Republicans who made it. That sounds about right: None of the other GOP candidates have really "mattered." All but one of them will lose the primary, and that guy is odds-on favorite to lose the general election. And this really is the first time since... I don't know, 1856, that there hasn't been a GOP frontrunner by December. The race has been distinguished by the rise and implosion, at various points, of basically every candidate except Paul. Hawks are doubtless miffed that Erik Prince and Robert Gates got nods but St. Petraeus of Baghdad did not.

UPDATE II: Always click through! On the main page only the top two runners-up for POTY were listed: Al Gore and J.K. Rowling. David Petraeus was third, and he gets a little profile.

Comments

Russell | December 19, 2007, 9:02am | #

_Probably_?

Edward the second | December 19, 2007, 9:04am | #

Ron can just run up to the border and defend it with his fellow gun nuts and nazis.

Warren | December 19, 2007, 9:05am | #

Montana probably could take care of it
HA! Best campaign quote of 2007!

Andrew | December 19, 2007, 9:06am | #

Cue the Canadians to start crowing about 1812...

robc | December 19, 2007, 9:12am | #

Just the other day, on another forum, I made the comment that when (not if - the ice age is going to push them south) the Canadian hordes invade I will grab a rifle and drive to Minnesota or Montana or Pennsylvania to help. Im not going to New York, they are on their own, if they cant stop them, I will be waiting at the PA border.

But, I agree, Montana can handle it themselves.

robc | December 19, 2007, 9:13am | #

Cue the Canadians to start crowing about 1812...

Afghanistan:Pentagon::Canada:White House.

effin terrorists.

joe | December 19, 2007, 9:23am | #

I've watched more than a couple of Republican debates, and Paul gets more cheers than boos.

jkp | December 19, 2007, 9:25am | #

Canadians? Whatever. They didn't have the strength and smarts to mount a campaign to Washington. That was the British bailing them out.

Russ 2000 | December 19, 2007, 9:26am | #

If Canada invaded Montana, they'd probably be welcomed.

Mad for Ron Paul | December 19, 2007, 9:28am | #

This is a liberal media ruse. By giving our guy attention, they undercut any complaints that he was ingnored by the mainstream media to explain his defeat. Once again we'll be left holding the bag with an implausible conspiracy theory: We run a nut, they pretend to take the nut seriously, we lose, they go back to business as usual. Cui bono?

tim | December 19, 2007, 9:31am | #

Petraeus was a runner-up for the PotY, which seems to be above the PwM category in the all important Time Magazine pecking order of things. Or is Weigel understanding things differently to jab the hawks? Wouldn't want to miss a knee jerk opportunity, especially when Time's involved.

hale | December 19, 2007, 9:31am | #

But the last Person Of the Year was me. The nerve of Putin to snatch that away ... from me!

Reinmoose | December 19, 2007, 9:32am | #

I saw him on Glen Beck last night (I only watched it because Paul was on, so relax). He did a pretty good job but Beck was a douche, as usual, even though he treated Paul pretty well.

Also, I was under the impression that Montana was already kinda like Canada. So wouldn't the Canadians invading Montana be redundant?

Mad for Ron Paul | December 19, 2007, 9:37am | #

Glen Beck having Ron Paul on for the full hour is part of the liberal media game plan. Look at all the mainstream media coverage your guy got, they'll say. I would be surprised if there were some sort of subliminal message linking Ron Paul to the Great Beast in Revelations.

Why would they want it? | December 19, 2007, 9:44am | #

Not to be Politically Incorrect or insensitive, but the health care costs generated by Montana's First Peoples/Native Americans would overwhelm Canada's National Health Service budget.

And the costs generated by Montana's white meth heads sure wouldn't help, either.

joe | December 19, 2007, 9:45am | #

So even positive attention from the media is part of the media's campaign to squash Ron Paul.

That just shows how deep this thing goes, man.

sage | December 19, 2007, 9:50am | #

I love how the ignorant keep using the word "isolationist." Someone that keeps pimping free trade and diplomacy, even with countries such as Cuba and Iran, is an isolationist I could live with running my country.

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 9:54am | #

Wait. Somebody gives a fuck who Times names as "Person of the Year" or "Who Mattered"? Really? Maybe Time should just list themselves as a "Person Who Mattered" and create a self-reinforcing feedback loop of irrelevancy.

truthseeker | December 19, 2007, 9:54am | #

Of course Ron Paul matters. He would slice and dice any of the Democrats on the war issue alone.

Read his speeches leading up the Iraq war-he saw it all for what it was - misleading the American public into supporting a "war" falsely represented to us by the neocons.

That is a fact-
Ron Paul is the most fiscally conservative politician running in this election - and that is what we need- no more wars we can not afford
with runaway spending.
Vote for Ron Paul and make a difference

It MATTERS.

Andrew | December 19, 2007, 9:57am | #

Wait. Somebody gives a fuck who Times names as "Person of the Year" or "Who Mattered"? Really? Maybe Time should just list themselves as a "Person Who Mattered" and create a self-reinforcing feedback loop of irrelevancy.

I agree that Time is mostly absurd and irrelevant, but there are many people (esp. Boomers) who still read it. If it helps get Ron Paul's name familiar with those people, then great.

Immigrant | December 19, 2007, 10:05am | #

I actually saw Giuliani,Romney and McCain booed on different occasions. My guess is because they are not actual repblicans or conservatives for that matter. It sucks that Time did not do their research to figure out the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.

"Ron can just run up to the border and defend it with his fellow gun nuts and nazis"

huh? Considering that Paul gets the most support from the active military, you're saying the military are Nazi's? he the most popular republican among blacks also...they're nazis too?

Why didn't you mention the democrats getting support from Latino supremacy groups like La Rasa? or the support they get from environmental fascists?

Ron Paul is the only way to fix the mess called America, that is obvious and I don't even agree with him on everything.

Cleaner44 | December 19, 2007, 10:06am | #

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that matters simply because the Democrats will roll over Rudy, Mitt, or Huckabee. Out of these top 4 GOP candidates only Ron Paul brings an approach that is different from the failed policies of George Bush. The nation has realized long ago that Bush is an incompetent President and we are in no mood for more of the same. As the only hope for the GOP in this election, Ron Paul matters.

Andy | December 19, 2007, 10:07am | #

No need to bash General Petraeus. He is doing a magnificant job for the mission given to him by the civilian authorities. I wouldn't be surprised of the General supports Dr. Paul. I am a vet. I do.

Bingo | December 19, 2007, 10:08am | #

Extremely candid interview of Houston Chronicle interviewing Ron Paul. Really, you guys need to see this one

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

sage | December 19, 2007, 10:13am | #

Bingo, could I just point out that the Houston Chronicle is a newspaper? And their interview is on youtube. Jeez, will we even have newsprint in a year?

And I have to watch it when I get home - can't youtube at work.

dpotts | December 19, 2007, 10:19am | #

The race has been distinguished by the rise and implosion, at various points, of basically every candidate except Paul.

I'm not so sure Huck or Mitt have fully imploded yet, but it does seem that the only thing they can throw at RP is the "crazy" card, and yet his support keeps growing.

B | December 19, 2007, 10:19am | #

The entire Canadian military (including reserves) could fit in a decent-sized college football stadium. Yeah, Montana could take 'em.

Now mind you, I'm not saying that having such a small standing army is a bad thing...

joe | December 19, 2007, 10:22am | #

Immigrant,

Why didn't you mention the democrats getting support from Latino supremacy groups like La Rasa? or the support they get from environmental fascists?

Just some background - he isn't talking about people whose political opponents unfairly characterize them as nazis, the way you unfairly characterize La Raza and environmentalists.

He's talking about actual Stormfront-type neo-Nazis. For some odd reason, there has been a surge of support for Ron Paul, of all people, among white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Which doesn't make a whole lotta sense, but who knows why those people do anything?

tim | December 19, 2007, 10:25am | #

"December 18, 2007

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Canadians and their allies say they killed at least 41 insurgents and routed another 20 or 30 fighters as they swept into a cluster of villages known as Siah Choy over the weekend."

Looks like them Canadians might be trainin' up for the great Montana invasion of one-ought.

bustle | December 19, 2007, 10:27am | #

For another point-of-view, check out the neo-con New York Sun giving Ron Paul a hard time. The editorial is here.

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 10:27am | #

the way you unfairly characterize La Raza

Maybe he's thinking of MEChA.

Taktix® | December 19, 2007, 10:32am | #

Republicans for his isolationist foreign policy views

Fuck! How hard is it for the "post-9/11 world" to understand that "not wanting to attack other countries" is not "isolationist"?!?

Are they really that fucking hawkish/retarded?

Truth | December 19, 2007, 10:34am | #

I like the part where Ron Paul said:

"It's their revolution, it's our campaign."

Warren | December 19, 2007, 10:34am | #

I agree that Time is mostly absurd and irrelevant, but there are many people (esp. Boomers) who still read it. If it helps get Ron Paul's name familiar with those people, then great.

Well it would be great if it actually appeared in Time. Unfortunately, Ron is on a list of also rans that is Web Only. Paul's supporters are notoriously web active, that's probably why they put him on the list to begin with. But they wouldn't want to challenge the paradigms of their aging print subscribers.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 19, 2007, 10:39am | #

"All but one of them will lose the primary, and that guy is odds-on favorite to lose the general election."
I still don't see it. I think Bob Dole could beat Hillary or Obama.

"Glen Beck having Ron Paul on for the full hour is part of the liberal media game plan."
Glen Beck is part of the liberal media plan? Jesus, that's paranoid. I bet you don't fill out Census either...

I think Paul is a very interesting candidate. It's nice to see someone with the courage to take unorthodox positions and give people an actual choice (imagine you are a Democrat and had to choose between Obama and Edwards, what do you go on?). Having said that, is he all that much of a maverick in relation to his district? The points where he strays from doctrinaire libertarianism, abortion and immigration, are bound to play well in his district, and his fiscal conservatism keep the government away from our jobs and guns lines also plays well I'm sure. I'll readily grant though he speaks "truth to power" about the War (both in Iraq and on Drugs) which is bound to upset GOPers in his district...

joe | December 19, 2007, 10:43am | #

You all are missing the point - isolationist is the word they hit upon to avoid "anti-war," "pacifist," and "un-American" as a description of a foreign policy stance that rejects foreign adventurism. They are using that term to make the point that Paul's opposition to the war comes from the old-fashioned, pre-WW2 Republican platform, and not from leftism.

guy in the back row | December 19, 2007, 10:45am | #

We run a nut, they pretend to take the nut seriously, we lose, they go back to business as usual.

If I remember correctly, the point wasn't to win the nomination but to get some ideas into the national discussion.

I think Dr. Paul has already won by achieving his initial goal. Everything else is gravy.

Sam Grove | December 19, 2007, 10:51am | #

If Canada invaded Montana, the troops would probably go shopping for alcoholic beverages to take home.

dpotts | December 19, 2007, 11:01am | #

I think Dr. Paul has already won by achieving his initial goal. Everything else is gravy.

Exactly... pandora's box has been opened, and the libertarian perspective is getting more attention than it ever has.

What's really encouraging is the level of support from young people. It's unfortunate that some of the elitists (on the left and right) out there dismiss these enthusiastic first time voters as "Paultards" and whatnot, when they'd probably be mouthing off about voter apathy otherwise.

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 11:08am | #

It's unfortunate that some of the elitists (on the left and right) out there dismiss these enthusiastic first time voters as "Paultards" and whatnot, when they'd probably be mouthing off about voter apathy otherwise.

Youth voter apathy is only bad when the kids aren't voting for them.

robc | December 19, 2007, 11:25am | #

joe,

Doesnt non-interventionist avoid the leftist terms just as well?

It also has the benefit of being accurate.

Mad for Ron Paul | December 19, 2007, 11:25am | #

Can't ypu see? The mainstream media attention Ron Paul is getting will just make his defeat harder to expalin. They want us to look like legitimate losers. We should all cover our ears and hum loudly. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

joe | December 19, 2007, 11:27am | #

robc,

Non-interventionist doesn't avoid the leftist connotation. It can apply pretty much across the spectrum.

Whereas isolationist have a direct, Republican-right precursor.

jimmy | December 19, 2007, 11:32am | #

i wish there was a separate thread re RP on glenn beck. first time i've gotten to see him talk for a full hour (i don't waste my time watching youtube clips of campaign appearances, i really don't give a shit about the election).

gotta be totally objective: he was really good on some issues, rambled incoherently on others. still waiting to hear him say unequivocally he would abolish social security and other entitlements, instead of dancing around the issue. also wondering how he can be for free trade and also in favor of jacking up tariffs high enough to entirely fund the govt. many other inconsistencies. better by far than any other candidate out there, but wouldn't even make a decent college debate team.

robc | December 19, 2007, 11:41am | #

joe,

Im trying to think of a non-interventionist leftist. I cant do it, you are going to help me out here.

Skoal | December 19, 2007, 11:43am | #

Canada, America's hat.

Neu Mejican | December 19, 2007, 12:02pm | #

Exactly... pandora's box has been opened, and the libertarian perspective is getting more attention than it ever has.

Ronald Reagan? no?
Jesse Ventura? no?
Barry Goldwater? no?

What a canard.

joe | December 19, 2007, 12:04pm | #

robc,

Are you kidding me?

SDS. VVAW. Dennis Kucinich. American Friends Service Committee.

joe | December 19, 2007, 12:06pm | #

George McGovern.

Ralph Nader.

the $50 is the new $20 | December 19, 2007, 12:06pm | #

Why is it that the only sane and principled candidate for the GOP nomination is the one being called a kook?

surreal, that.

Neu Mejican | December 19, 2007, 12:08pm | #

Why is it that the only sane and principled candidate for the GOP nomination is the one being called a kook?

Might be his kookiness...perhaps.

robc | December 19, 2007, 12:12pm | #

joe,

Are all of those also pro-free-trade? Thats a requirement of non-interventionism. Otherwise, they are isolationists. :)

Neu Mejican | December 19, 2007, 12:12pm | #

kook (kōōk) n. Slang
A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.

Note that it is or crazy, not and crazy.

I think eccentric is a good description of Paul, no?

joe | December 19, 2007, 12:15pm | #

robc,

Being pro-free trade is not an requirement of non-interventionism. If it were, Dr. Paul, who wants to replace the income tax with tarrifs, would not qualify.

Non-interventionist is a term used to describe one's beliefs about military invervention.

I agree that "isolationist" = "non-interventionist" + "protectionist," but "non-interventionist" is neutral on free trade.

robc | December 19, 2007, 12:15pm | #

eccentric - a person who has an unusual, peculiar, or odd personality, set of beliefs, or behavior pattern.

I think thats the best definition. And my answer is NO, Paul isnt eccentric. I find nothing unusual, peculiar or odd about his personality, beliefs or behavior. Maybe unusual for a politician, but not unusual for a person.

Historian | December 19, 2007, 12:20pm | #

Ron Paul is very close to the America Firsters of the 1930s. Robust Christian (read White) nation. Seal the borders. No to birthright citizenship. States rights. It's all old hat.

robc | December 19, 2007, 12:21pm | #

joe,

He doesnt want to replace the income tax with tariffs, he wants to replace it with nothing. We currently have tariffs/excise taxes that raise more than enough money, we dont need to replace the income tax with anything.

It may depend on exact definitions, but I think a free-trade position can support minimal tariffs (especially for inspection purposes). For example, I believe free trade requires Rule of Law, which means you cant have free trade under anarchy. You just have trade at that point.

Non-interventionists are not neutral on free trade. Protectionist tariffs INTERVENE with the affairs of a foreign nation. Non-interventionists must oppose protectionist tariffs.

Bernd | December 19, 2007, 12:24pm | #

robc - that he feels bound by his principles even where straying would benefit him materially (college loans, medicare...) is pretty unusual for people, generally, as sad as that is.

Craig | December 19, 2007, 12:28pm | #

All of these mainstream media editors need to look up "quixotic" again and try to understand what it means.

When Ron Paul raises the most money in the fourth quarter of a primary race, and has more grassroots volunteers than all of the other candidates put together, his presidential bid is anything but "quixotic."

Who is running a "quixotic" campaign? I suppose the term could have been fairly applied to John Cox, a businessman who visited all 99 counties in Iowa, spent over a million dollars of his own money, and actually had paid staff in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Neu Mejican | December 19, 2007, 12:29pm | #

robc,

Ron Paul has many positions that are unusual in the general population.

two quick ones

Currency
North American Union

It is unusual to even hold positions on these issues...only eccentrics care.

Eccentric is not a negative term in my mind.

Craig | December 19, 2007, 12:32pm | #

...better by far than any other candidate out there, but wouldn't even make a decent college debate team.

But Ron Paul isn't trying to make a college debate team, he's trying to get elected President.

As a successful politician with ten victories in elections to federal office, he understands that there are some issues you have to dance around, no matter how libertarian you are.

robc | December 19, 2007, 12:34pm | #

New Mejican,

I agree on eccentric. Not a negative. I also agree on the NAU, but I figured its normal to have at least one weird position. So that alone doesnt make him eccentric.

As far as currency is concerned, yeah it is a bit unusual to actually have a position. But amongst those of us who do, his is fairly mainstream.

joe | December 19, 2007, 12:48pm | #

robc,

He doesnt want to replace the income tax with tariffs, he wants to replace it with nothing. We currently have tariffs/excise taxes that raise more than enough money, we dont need to replace the income tax with anything.

You're smooshing together two points here. 1. He wants to lower taxes. 2. He wants tarrifs to pay for the government. What matters here is that he's not proposing to eliminate tarrifs.

It may depend on exact definitions, but I think a free-trade position can support minimal tariffs (especially for inspection purposes). But he isn't proposing them for inspectional purposes, but to fund the government.

Non-interventionists are not neutral on free trade. Protectionist tariffs INTERVENE with the affairs of a foreign nation. Non-interventionists must oppose protectionist tariffs. You're just labelling one set of tarrifs "protectionist" and pretending some other set won't operate in exactly the same manner. Regardless, "non-interventionist," as the term is commonly understood, is not used to describe our own domestic policies, even if those policies have second-order effects on other nations.

J sub D | December 19, 2007, 12:52pm | #

I think eccentric is a good description of Paul, no?

Flattering no. Accurate yes.

Neu Mejican | December 19, 2007, 12:53pm | #

robc,

But amongst those of us who do, his is fairly mainstream.

So he is not eccentric among the eccentric.

Got it.

I find his desire to return the US to pre-1913 conditions eccentrically nostalgic.

joshua corning | December 19, 2007, 12:54pm | #

He doesnt want to replace the income tax with tariffs, he wants to replace it with nothing. We currently have tariffs/excise taxes that raise more than enough money, we don't need to replace the income tax with anything.

We would still have capital gains taxes and corporate taxes I think as well.

I remember Paul said something about a % of what income taxes brings in to total receipts and I remember it being like 40% of total receipts...cutting our bloated federal government by less then half does not seem like out of line or even close to out of the mainstream. Put in those terms I doubt even an average democrat would disagree that much.

robc | December 19, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Neu Mejican,

Considering that in 1913 the 2 most damaging amendments in US history passed (with possible exception of the 18th, but its damage was limited by the 21st), I would call his desire to return the US to pre-1913 conditions intelligently nostalgic (and possibly a bit eccentric).

joshua corning | December 19, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Being pro-free trade is not an requirement of non-interventionism. If it were, Dr. Paul, who wants to replace the income tax with tarrifs, would not qualify.

You're smooshing together two points here. 1. He wants to lower taxes. 2. He wants tarrifs to pay for the government. What matters here is that he's not proposing to eliminate tarrifs.

Umm joe looking at the above two quote any sane person would say it is you who are smooshing.

So by replacing income taxes with tariffs you mean he would remove the income tax without raising tariffs? How exactly is that a replacement?

Jamie Kelly | December 19, 2007, 1:33pm | #

Hey, I'm from Montana, and I can tell you for certain-like that if Canada so much as farted on us, we'd assemble a ragtag group of career alcoholics, bonded felons, Freemen and hemp farmers and
fuck their shit up.

zig zag man | December 19, 2007, 1:42pm | #

In the defense of liberty, eccentricity is a feature, not a bug.

Paul | December 19, 2007, 1:43pm | #

If Canada invades Montana?

I think that might be a little bit different. Montana probably could take care of it, but we'd probably help them out from Washington if that happened.

Whoa, snap! Take that, Canada!

What is that thing on your flag, anyway... a weed?

Jamie Kelly | December 19, 2007, 1:45pm | #

What is that thing on your flag, anyway... a weed?

It's a maple leaf, which makes it that much easier to burn.
/ducks

joe | December 19, 2007, 1:48pm | #

joshua,

I think my point is both incredibly easy to understand and clearly phrased.

Take another crack, but this time, don't make such an effort to pretend to be confused.

Kolohe | December 19, 2007, 1:55pm | #

Re: Montana vs Canada

A geo-political map courtesy of a link found recently in a H&R comments section, may help people place their appropriate trade-sports bet, (of course, only if legal in your country of origin)

Joe S. | December 19, 2007, 1:58pm | #

I actually like the income tax. It's the only tax that isn't regressive.

Social Security? Regressive.

Corporate taxes? Prices passed onto the consumer, regressive.

Deficit spending financed via the Federal Reserve in the form of expansion of the money supply and corresponding inflation of every dollar held by Americans too poor to keep a non-liquid asset portfolio? Regressive as hell.

Before we eliminate the income tax completely, how about we make a 'compromise' with the Left, and raise the standard deduction to $100,000, with $25,000 for each kid.

Bronwyn | December 19, 2007, 2:18pm | #

A gun-totin' Montanan friend of mine wholeheartedly agrees with Dr. Paul :)

joe | December 19, 2007, 2:24pm | #

The Really Rich Heir Tax isn't regressive, either.

It's also, as far as I can tell, the only tax that doesn't take money away from the person who earned it.

crimethink | December 19, 2007, 3:45pm | #

Afghanistan:Pentagon::Canada:White House.

Uh, I don't mean to blame America here, but we did burn Canada's capital city (York, now Toronto) to the ground before they burned Washington. This small detail tends to be forgotten by my fellow Americans when discussing the event...

Graphite | December 19, 2007, 3:54pm | #

It's also, as far as I can tell, the only tax that doesn't take money away from the person who earned it.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, aren't Social Security and other transfer payments taxed as income?

James Madison | December 19, 2007, 4:09pm | #

crimethink:

That's an extraordinary statement, to say that we invited the attack because we invaded Canada. I've heard a lot of crazy explanations over the years, but I've never heard that one. As someone who was there when they burned the White House, I don't ever want to see that again.

Lance Braga | December 19, 2007, 4:34pm | #

Are they really that fucking hawkish/retarded?

Yes.

robc | December 19, 2007, 4:55pm | #

Jimmy Mad,

I was just about to make a similar joke, but you beat me too it. So, you got any tips on picking up chicks half your age?

pdog | December 19, 2007, 5:30pm | #

You're smooshing together two points here. 1. He wants to lower taxes. 2. He wants tarrifs to pay for the government. What matters here is that he's not proposing to eliminate tarrifs.

I do not think tarrifs are necessarily anti-free trade. I think the intentions of them have a lot to do with protectionism vs. free trade.

For instance, back in 2002 the steel industry lobby went to washington to ask for a increase in steel tarrifs and Bush gave them a 30% increase on all steel imports to help them because they were not doing well economically.

If they came to Ron Paul to ask, he would tell them that the current rates are funding the basic functions of the government just fine and there was no need, goodbye.

Actually I do not honestly know if Ron Paul would do this or not. He was asked once if he was a protectionist and he said 'not really'. It seems like a soft point of this that he might give into. Dunno.

Guy Montag | December 19, 2007, 8:43pm | #

I like Ron Paul's Christmas ad best of them all. Have not examined it for Crosses, even Dt. Andrews crosses, but I am sure if you look hard enough you can find them.

R C Dean | December 20, 2007, 12:23am | #

I find his desire to return the US to pre-1913 conditions eccentrically nostalgic.

Returning the scope and purpose of the State to its pre-1913 condition is not the same as returning the entire country to its pre-1913 condition. Contrary to what many believe, the State is not synonymous with society.

john | December 20, 2007, 10:12am | #

Freedom matters. Liberty matters. The Constitution matters. Join the campaign for liberty by supporting Ron Paul.

It's your vote, your choice for less taxes, your choice for smaller federal government.

Nick | December 20, 2007, 2:23pm | #

"Im not going to New York, they are on their own, if they cant stop them, I will be waiting at the PA border." Hey where's the love? There are libertarians a plenty in Upstate NY! Although I have to admit, if Canada invades we might just let them roll down to the City if they leave the rest of us alone. Giuliani and Clinton live there so have at it, eh!

TrickyVic | December 21, 2007, 4:48pm | #

"""Freedom matters. Liberty matters. The Constitution matters. Join the campaign for liberty by supporting Ron Paul."""

Yeah, sounds like a slogan. That's what freedom, liberty and the Constitution has been reduced to these days.

Most of us here believes it matters, so what? We are a minority, sad to say.

TrickyVic | December 21, 2007, 4:51pm | #

The Clintons do not live in the city. They live north of Westchester. That's considered upstate by us city folk.