Ron Paul, California Delegates, and Libertarian Doubts

Fox News on how California's new rules for apportioning delegates in its primary mean less-popular candidates such as Ron Paul can get big bang for the buck--for example, if he can get even a couple of thousand Republicans in the SF bay area to vote for him, it could mean three delegates at the convention.

Elsewhere in the impossibly large world of news and chatter re: Ron Paul, libertarian movement-rooted economist and New York Times columnist (and reason contributor) Tyler Cowen explains why he ain't panting for Paul. Comment thread also interesting, with musings on why some of the completely non-libertarian out there in the commentariat seem more mellow toward Paul than some ostensible libertarians.

I asked why some libertarians might be leery of Ron Paul back in July.

Comments

gorak | December 26, 2007, 6:54pm | #

People gotta stfu and get busy winning. Cowen needs to take a peak out of the ivory tower and think of what Libertarianism would look like if it actually challenged an election, and it would probably be something like the ultimately square white jesusy manner of Ron Paul.

Or we could throw the greatest chance for libertarians in decades by throwing it all away to maintain our purity.

Craig | December 26, 2007, 7:07pm | #

Less popular? Ron Paul has more actual supporters than any other candidate.

Anyone who's gone out campaigning for Ron Paul can confirm this -- most of the people you meet aren't backing anyone. Bumper stickers and signs for the other candidates are in short supply.

There's a reason Ron Paul wins all the online polls and is raising the most money this quarter -- he has the most actual supporters.

Jake Boone | December 26, 2007, 7:23pm | #

Don't worry about this thread, Edward, I'll take care of it for you.

Ron Paul supporters are all Nazis. And idiots. And also Nazis. Did I mention that already? Also some stuff about God and/or racism.

There you go, Edward. Now you can take the day off!

Middle Class Worker | December 26, 2007, 7:25pm | #

Ron Paul is just a paranoid nationalist with a hard-on for the Tenth Amendment.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 26, 2007, 7:28pm | #

I am always amazed at people who throw rocks at Ron Paul. He looks pretty fookin' good when you consider the libertarian (classical liberal) bona fides of any other candidate (except the LP, of course).

One has to wonder just exactly who will come along that will sufficiently inspire Mr Cowen.

Quick Answer seems to be: Nobody

Pig Mannix | December 26, 2007, 7:29pm | #

Well, this much I'll say - whatever his failings, I'm sure as *hell* glad that the defining archetype of the popular libertarian movement was a Ron Paul rather than a Tyler Cowen!

The Wine Commonsewer | December 26, 2007, 7:29pm | #

Jake, I think MCW = Edward = some Urkobold Minion having us on.

Brandybuck | December 26, 2007, 7:30pm | #

Driving to see relatives this Christmas, several hundred miles worth, and I saw several Ron Paul signs. I so no signs for any other candidate, not even a bumper sticker.

My conclusion is that the other candidates can't manage to get anyone enthused about them. If it were only up to excitement to win an election, Ron Paul will get the nomination by a landslide. Whether the wild eyed activists in the Paul campaign are the tip of a voter iceberg or not, we'll find out in the next couple of months. I greatly fear that the masses of mildy apathetics will once again vote for a tryptophan candidate like Thompson or Romney. Yaaawn.

Derrick | December 26, 2007, 7:33pm | #

Here is a new site which is designed to help dispel myths about who Ron Paul's supporters are. Add your photo at:

http://facesoftherevolution.com/

Vlad Drac | December 26, 2007, 7:33pm | #

No peaceful, honest person has anything to fear from a Ron Paul presidency.

Madeline Albright | December 26, 2007, 7:42pm | #

I say to Tyler Cowan.....

"What’s the point of having this superb Ron Paul Campaign you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?"

Edward | December 26, 2007, 7:50pm | #

How did an intelligent assessment of Ron Paul from a libertarian perspective creep in here? What a killjoy!

Big Nanny | December 26, 2007, 7:51pm | #

I was argueing with my family about politics over Christmas. At one point I mentioned that I didn't think we should have troops outside North America. They all stared and one of them said, "are you a Ron Paul supporter?" but the way he said it, he might as well have said, "Do you support the Devil?".

Big Dick Cheney | December 26, 2007, 7:52pm | #

You don't campaign with the Ron Paul you want, you campaign with the Ron Paul you have.

Edward | December 26, 2007, 7:55pm | #

Driving to see relatives this Christmas, several hundred miles worth, and I saw several Ron Paul signs. I so no signs for any other candidate, not even a bumper sticker.

Oh well, that's it then. Fuck scientific polling. The number of signs any one pereson can count on a long drive is the best predictor of political outcomes.

rah | December 26, 2007, 7:55pm | #

I'll be voting in the Libertarian presidential primary here in California (yes, there is one).

I'd rather chop off my arms than register Republican.

Edward | December 26, 2007, 7:58pm | #

Rah

You are a principled libertarian. The Republican party is the most anti-libertarian organization on the planet. Well, maybe the Catholic church...

The Wine Commonsewer | December 26, 2007, 8:00pm | #

Brandybuck, in the bad part of town around here people are spray painting cardboard with RP slogans and then tacking them up on telephone poles.

Ali | December 26, 2007, 8:02pm | #

It is my understanding that Cowen was an ex-Austrian, now mainstream economist. Heard him on EconTalk in a "debate" with Slate's "Ask Prudence". He seems to think of himself as a hip urban economist (you know the Manhattan type). I was totally unimpressed. I think he simply just does not get Austrianeconomics and is pretending to just disagree with it to hide under mainstream, collectivist, wall-street loving economics.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 26, 2007, 8:04pm | #

I'd rather chop off my arms than register Republican.

Isn't that a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Sincer Hospers, I've always voted for an LP candidate. I re-registered as a Republican so I can vote for RP in the Ca primary. It hardly matters that he's Republican. What matters is that he's real nand the message resonates with a lot of people.

Edward | December 26, 2007, 8:05pm | #

Doherty himself summed it up with this:

So, yes: Ron Paul is by no means the perfect candidate for most American libertarians. Some find his stance on trade obtuse, his stance on abortion tyrannical; the race-baiting, however disavowed, stupid, wrong, off-putting to most Americans, and dangerous for libertarians to be associated with; his position on earmarks sleazy politician logic-chopping. They envision a horrific Ron Paul's America in which abortion and immigration are banned, the federal drug war ended but a state-level one ongoing, and a financial system wrecked with reckless goldbuggery—and libertarianism tarnished forevermore.

Brandybuck | December 26, 2007, 8:06pm | #

I'd rather chop off my arms than register Republican.

I am so glad that Ron Paul is running as a Republican. I switched from Libertarian to Republican, but I just don't think I could work up the courage to re-register Democrat. I would feel so slimy I would think I had fallen into a tank of warm snot.

Republican can at least manage a few empty rhetorical sentences about small government. Most Democrats would rather drink yak vomit than utter the two words "tax cuts".

Edward | December 26, 2007, 8:07pm | #

Thank God, though, it will never happen no matter how many Ron Paul signs Brandybuck has spotted.

Ali | December 26, 2007, 8:08pm | #

More from Cowen:

I haven't followed Ron Paul closely, and while I like many of his libertarian ideas, I am discomforted by his overall anti-intellectual demeanor. He strikes me as the kind of person who has a natural attraction to conspiracy theories. However he is only allowed to believe the ones that coincide with his libertarian ideology. Which isn't so many (most of those theories are dreamt up by non-libertarians and thus have anti-libertarian elements), and that means he ends up sounding more somewhat sensible than he really is.

I don't doubt Paul's sincerity, but I would like to know his theory of why most economists -- even market-oriented ones -- don't agree with him on monetary policy. I suspect he thinks he knows some secret that others do not.

Whole thing here

He got smacked for the "lack of intellect" comment!

dpotts | December 26, 2007, 8:09pm | #

Jebus H. Christmas... I'm not a big fan of the state's rights/nationalist slant of RP's campaign either, but I'd like to know what other candidate out there has even mentioned civil liberties. And don't shove that LP garbage in my face, they nominated a REAL nutjob last time. On top of that, RP's the only one on either side who's opposed to the war for moral/philosophical reasons as opposed to purely pragmatic or political reasons.

Pig Mannix | December 26, 2007, 8:10pm | #

Another view of Paul....

spur | December 26, 2007, 8:11pm | #

Another Ivory Tower / Beltway libertarian making perfect the enemy of good? *gasp*

I'm an open borders welfare state or not Bay Area culturally leftist athiest libertarian that does yoga and drugs and I've still changed my registration to Republican and will vote for Paul with zero regret because despite my cultural orientation I still live in the real world unlike Tyler --

Would I prefer a libertarian candidate raising $20 million a quarter and getting major coverage and a national movement going be more like William Burroughs meets Emma Goldman? -- sure -- will it happen anytime soon -- no -- so vote for Paul.

Richard Wicks | December 26, 2007, 8:11pm | #

How ludicrous to call Ron Paul a "less popular" candidate.

Anybody that has bothered to go to any Republican functions in the last few months see he dominates every single function.

I know that it's frequently cited that the Internet is the only cause of this, but it's never cited that the 70% of Americans are ON the Internet.

Madeline Albright | December 26, 2007, 8:12pm | #

Brandybuck

"Targeted tax cuts for working families" is much more palatable than Yak vomit. As a former Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration I've tried them both.

Disaffected | December 26, 2007, 8:12pm | #

Tyler Cowen, Michael Moynihan, Michael Young...the new faces of Reason, and hence the decline.

Eric Dondero | December 26, 2007, 8:14pm | #

Ron Paul is down in the RCP running average this week to 4%, from a high of 5.1% a couple weeks ago.

A new Florida poll by Quinipiac also has him at 2% statewide.

alan | December 26, 2007, 8:19pm | #

Scientific polling got us the Rockefeller Republican nominee in 1964, and the G. H. Bush nominee in 1980, I've never seen empiricism show such a flexible display.

Interesting to see how the leopard has changed his spots, but I'm sure he'll be back to his old form in no time.

Middle Class Worker
Ron Paul is just a paranoid nationalist with a hard-on for the Tenth Amendment.

Brilliantly tongue in cheek there, less we forget those murderous Nationalist of the 19th century despised the limitations on power represented by the 10th amendment and attempted to bury everything that stood in the way of American Greatness, be it Confederate, Filipino, or Lakota.

Pig Mannix | December 26, 2007, 8:21pm | #

@Earache Dildero

You might have noticed that the most recent poll included in that RCP average was from the 19th. That average hasn't been updated since.

Oy!

Franklin Harris | December 26, 2007, 8:26pm | #

I have a great deal of respect for Tyler Cowen, but it's simply no good to complain that all of Ron Paul's supporters are simply warmed-over Ross Perot populists when so many libertarians (like Cowen) have taken themselves out of the mix. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not like I agree with Ron Paul on every issue, either, but as David Friedman once said, there may be two libertarians somewhere who agree with each other on everything, but I'm not one of them. Given the young, net-savvy crowd that's the base of Paul's support, it's simply a cop-out to claim Ron Paul is too rural or too paleo or too whatever to attract cosmopolitan-libertarian support.

Nash | December 26, 2007, 8:26pm | #

"I haven't followed Ron Paul closely, and while I like many of his libertarian ideas, I am discomforted by his overall anti-intellectual demeanor"

People don't vote for eggheads they vote for "people who understand". They also don't want specifics about policy they just want "change".

The reason Ron Paul is so successful is because his rhetoric is intentionally vague. Talking about specific numbers on how you're going to reform health care and get the government out entirely or actually describing how we're gonna fund our way of life without an income tax is a surefire way to lose an election.

Politicians do not win elections because of an "academic demeanor" they are elected because they sound good or have powerful rhetoric. Every candidate running is like that and fortunately Ron Paul is the same way, which means he actually has a chance, however small that may be.

Brandybuck | December 26, 2007, 8:35pm | #

It doesn't much matter if you like Ron Paul or not. If you want to vote for a candidate in one of the two major parties who talks about small government your only choice is Ron Paul. Not even the other candidates in Reagon's party are talking about downsizing government. The best anyone of them can manage is a <choke> national sales tax. Ron Paul is our only hope in this election to rolling back government. He may not be a 100% Rothbardian pure libertarian, but he's still more libertarian than "mainstream" or "reform" libertarian movements. Hell, he's the only one from either major party who even knows who Rothbard is.

Ali | December 26, 2007, 8:39pm | #

And even if Paul is so bad or wrong on so many things, what is the alternative? Not vote is probably the only other viable choice I guess.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 26, 2007, 8:41pm | #

"Hell, he's the only one from either major party who even knows who Rothbard is"

Amen

Edward | December 26, 2007, 8:50pm | #

And even if Paul is so bad or wrong on so many things, what is the alternative?

Don't vote for anybody. Why compromise libertarian principles to vote for an old coot who thinks God's all over the Constitution, has let staff write raicst stuff under his signature, and thinks we should be a "robust Christian nation"? Do libertarian educational work, so people don't think that libertarianism is about much of the shit Herr Dr. Paul spouts. Libertarianism is about more than electoral politics (good thing, since libertarians have never got as many votes as the socialists in their hayday); it's about educating people to understand what freedom and responsibility mean.

Jim Bob | December 26, 2007, 8:53pm | #

@Earache Dildero

He's a minister of death, praying for war.

Oh, and Pig Mannix: that there sobriquet (for DONDEROOOOOOOOO) is hilarious.

Edward | December 26, 2007, 8:53pm | #

The reason Ron Paul is so successful ...

How on earth are you defining "successful'? The loony old fart has never risen much above a 2% or 3% nationally. That's success?

Jim Bob | December 26, 2007, 8:54pm | #

Edtard, try go talking to people who will actually listen to you.

Jim Bob | December 26, 2007, 8:54pm | #

Because you're full of shit, Edtard.

Edward | December 26, 2007, 8:56pm | #

Jim Bob,

I'm sure the folks here are open minded and reasonable.

Jim Bob | December 26, 2007, 8:56pm | #

Like you, right, Edtard?

Edward | December 26, 2007, 8:57pm | #

Jim Bob,

You're nasty fascist fuck. Just what the good Dr. needs. Asshole.

Jim Bob | December 26, 2007, 8:57pm | #

I mean, it's not like most of your posts are the textual equivalent of Jim Carrey talking with his asscheeks in that stupid Ace Ventura movie or anything, Edtard.

Jim Bob | December 26, 2007, 8:58pm | #

Aww, Edtard, don't cry now.

Edward | December 26, 2007, 8:59pm | #

You're so witty, Jim Bob.

Jim Bob | December 26, 2007, 9:00pm | #

And you're a fuckwit, Edtard.

MATT | December 26, 2007, 9:03pm | #

GO RON PUAL.


Who are you going to vote for. Have an opinion at least. It looks like the only purpose is to badmouth a candidate. Go back to school and learn some real reporting!!!!

RON PAUL CURED MY APATHY.

Ken Hagler | December 26, 2007, 9:03pm | #

Nash wrote:

"...actually describing how we're gonna fund our way of life without an income tax is a surefire way to lose an election."

I can pretty much guarantee that my way of life would be much easier to fund if the government would stop stealing a third of my income.

Taktix® | December 26, 2007, 9:19pm | #

I'm sure the folks here are open minded and reasonable.

DRINK! (I think)

David | December 26, 2007, 9:39pm | #

I was at Ford Field in Detroit tonight campaigning for RP with about 10 other volunteers. It was easy to count the volunteers campaigning for the other republicans for Michigan's January 15 primary: ZERO. RP has by far the strongest organization in this state and the only one that seems to be having any impact at all. I think the mass media is in for a hell of a surprise when the votes are counted in Iowa and NH.

BakedPenguin | December 26, 2007, 9:42pm | #

Jake, I think MCW = Edward = some Urkobold Minion having us on.

TWC, no Edweirdo's not one of us, but we recently gained some insight into what makes him tick.

Ali | December 26, 2007, 9:50pm | #

David- Do you have people in Dearborn?

Nash | December 26, 2007, 10:03pm | #

"
"...actually describing how we're gonna fund our way of life without an income tax is a surefire way to lose an election."

I can pretty much guarantee that my way of life would be much easier to fund if the government would stop stealing a third of my income."

You know that and I know that but the majority of the electorate doesn't. Withdrawing 527,000 troops from abroad doesn't play well politically with the imperialists we have voting every election on either side of the aisle.

GPAYTONGRACE | December 26, 2007, 10:16pm | #

I WAS REGISTERED L.P. SINCE 1972. WILL VOTE
FOR RON PAUL IN '08. HARRY BROWNE WAS A
BETTER CANDIDATE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE MAJOR
PARTIES HAVE A VIRTUAL MONOPOLY ON ELECTIONS
CUZ THEY MAKE THE BALLOT ACCESS LAWS. I
PERSONALLY DON'T CARE WHO THE LIBERTARIAN
MESSENGER IS AS LONG AS WE GET TURNED IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. HOW FAR WE GO IS NOT AN
ISSUE JUST YET. WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?
POLITICS AS USUAL? NOT FOR ME. VOTE FOR PAUL.

Tess | December 26, 2007, 10:27pm | #

We are gearing up to get those votes for Ron Paul here in Southern and Central California, which will mean we will have the delegates.

Ron Paul and WE THE PEOPLE, will win this election for our Constitution and for every American citizen. The Revolution is growing stronger everyday.

Ron Paul cannot be thanked enough for doing such an outstanding job of spreading this message of Liberty and Freedom for the people of America. Too bad the old media has left him out of the press and tv, just imagine where he would be with just a little more coverage, but they are fearful, and should be.

Ron Paul has my vote and support.
http://RonPaul2008.com

shecky | December 26, 2007, 10:40pm | #

FWIW, Arnold Kling is similarly skeptical of the Paul campaign.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/12/ron_paul_my_two.html

I'm too skeptical to think well of any candidate. While I like much of RP's positions, he still sets off my crank radar. And I'm not even considering his odd coalition of followers. Maybe it's his association with the Lew Rockwell crowd.

Harpua | December 26, 2007, 10:40pm | #

I am always amazed at libertarians' ability to display a seemingly absolute standard of what constitutes a libertarian. It seems like everyone has their own idea of what libertarianism means and if someone doesn't match that standard, they're a heretic.

I've pretty much held the same philosophy all my adult life, but was only introduced to the LP in 1989. I've supported every LP candidate in both state and national elections since. Sometimes I "held my nose" while voting, but it never stopped me. I always voted for the candidate who most closely mirrored my beliefs.

I've read Paul's stuff. It's about as vague as most politician's campaign lit is. I'm not a big fan of the gold standard. I didn't know about any of the alleged racist comments. But he seems like the only presidential candidate talking about shrinking the size and scope of government. And for that, he'll get my vote in the primary.

I'm not a true believer and think that he'll dramatically change political society at large. But at least it's a conversation starter. I've heard a lot of pols say they had libertarian leanings (Gingrich, Kasich), but they have all been frauds. Paul may be a fraud too, but he's a damn sight closer than anyone else I've seen in 27+ years of voting. And I suspect a lot of d's and r's will be holding their noses while they vote. Part of being mature about it means that you'll accept half a loaf rather than hold out for a whole loaf you'll never get.

Jim Buckley | December 26, 2007, 10:42pm | #

I was with the LP from Ed Clark to Ron in '88 to Harry's runs, donated lots of bucks, spread the word, but I finally bailed when they picked Badnarik. He's a nice guy, but a party that would pass over two real choices to nominate someone like that just isn't serious. Pure enough or not, with Ron Paul we have the one and only chance any freedom-oriented person will have for the forseeable future, if ever, to nominate anyone even close to what we want. He has a spotless personal record, a hugely successful career in the real world and two decades in Congress. He's got the resume to be up there. Sure, I cringe at some of the things he says, cheer others, and I wish he'd use my arguments, like everyone does. And sure, it would be nice if he were 50, but he is what we have and remember, we only have him this once. And think for a moment how unlikely it is that he has managed to even get elected to ten terms on an essentially libertarian platform, how fortunate it is that he is even in this position. The excitement that he generates in people is because they are discovering liberty at the same time they find an honest politician - and he's running for President! It's an emotional overload and it's happening to more and more people every hour. This is our moment. More freedom is actually an option, now. An honest, principled, freedom-loving man in exactly the right place, at exactly the right time to pull us back from the edge? What can he be but a gift? A gift to the American people from fate that we will be eternally thankful for. We are going to be thankful because we are going to take advantage of this unique and wonderful opportunity that he has bought for us with twenty years of his life, and we are going to save our country. Join us. Might even be fun. Long live this American republic, friends. See you at the polls.

Guy Montag | December 26, 2007, 10:43pm | #

So, California came up with a scheme where the robo-flakes can get traction? Whodathunkit!

pdog | December 26, 2007, 11:02pm | #

We may not all agree on what is a 'true libertarian' but who cares? There are things that I do not agree with in Ron Paul, and I'm sure that is the case with everyone here.
We are small government conservatives, paleo-conservatives, nationalists, anti-war liberals, minarchists, anarchists, etc. But when we compare our views to all the canidates, the huge overlap occurs with Ron Paul, and we realize that this canidate represents us more than any other canidate that has existed in the last 50 years. And he has gotten more mainstream media coverage and political donations than any LPA canidate has.
This is a rare chance we have here to make a mark in the mainstream. Its a chance to get a foothold. Once the bar of what is considered 'mainstream' in our society is pushed up further towards the liberty quadrant, then we can bicker and debate about where to go from there.

F Frank | December 26, 2007, 11:19pm | #

It's called democracy and ain't it great. I have helped convert dozens in the SF Bay Area to change parties from Regan Democrats and Independents to register as Republican for the primary and vote for Ron Paul. We the People are taking back the Republican party from the NeoConmen and religious right fanatics, the the country. They'll just have to get their own party when we get done. I have met supporters for the other candidates and they are not enthusiastic about their candidate and only vote for the war mongers because they'll give up their freedoms and liberties to keep a democrat out of the white house. We reject the polls and will vote for peace, prosperity, and freedom in this election and elect Ron Paul.

Edward | December 26, 2007, 11:27pm | #

I can pretty much guarantee that my way of life would be much easier to fund if the government would stop stealing a third of my income.

No it wouldn't be, you stupid, fucking jackass, because you'd have to start paying fees for the things taxes pay for now.

Charlie | December 26, 2007, 11:33pm | #

"No it wouldn't be, you stupid, fucking jackass, because you'd have to start paying fees for the things taxes pay for now."

Roughly half of federal taxes go toward maintaing the American empire and feeding the military-industrial complex.

Is Blackwater going to be charging user fees now?

Chris | December 26, 2007, 11:41pm | #

"No it wouldn't be, you stupid, fucking jackass, because you'd have to start paying fees for the things taxes pay for now."

Being called stupid by someone so bereft of creative thought as to post this, well, it just boggles the mind...

I'm trying to work up a good head of hate for Edward, but I'm afraid that contempt and pity is all I can manage.

src | December 26, 2007, 11:54pm | #

It's kind of nice to see Paul tied with McCain at 7% in Iowa.
(Slate poll.)
I do hope his success will push mainstream politics "further towards the liberty quadrant." I have to share some people's skepticism, though: this country has just been through a war and an economic crisis, and some of Ron Paul's bright ideas seem like too much risk right now. Nobody can really predict what would happen if we switched to a gold standard, shut down the CIA, or closed our borders. Of course, no candidate's perfect, and I'm certainly excited about the campaign. This is the first time in decades anyone remotely libertarian has stood a chance. But that very novelty raises the question: what if not all his policy stuff works?

dpotts | December 27, 2007, 12:18am | #

what if not all his policy stuff works?

Checks and balances, checks and balances. It's unlikely that RP would get all of his policies implemented anyway, but with a Democratic congress, we could at least expect a roll-back on executive power (hopefully), restored civil liberties, and probably a massive draw down of our overseas forces, including a complete end to the war in Iraq.

bill | December 27, 2007, 12:33am | #

If he wants to bring home all US troops from every foreign country and end the WODs that's good enough for me.

Garrett Gebhardt | December 27, 2007, 12:44am | #

It's a funny thing when people say things like, "What if not all his policy stuff works," in regard to Ron Paul. What if it doesn't? Can you imagine things heading in a WORSE direction than they will go with any other candidate? I can't.

If any other candidate is elected, the Constitution will continue to be gutted. If any other candidate is elected, globalists and neoconservatives will continue to steal our national sovereignty. If any other candidate is elected, our economy will continue spiraling into the toilet.

Paul's policy ideas are not his first day plans in office. They take long term consideration and planning and you can be sure he would appoint skilled experts to implement his ideas- those which he believes it is within the Constitutional power of the President to enact. He won't just be inaugurated, shut down the Federal Reserve, tell the CIA and FBI to go on permanent vacation and announce that cocaine will now be available next to the Advil at Wal-Mart.

The very persons who think he would not carefully consider the effect of each policy decision he would make are the same persons who have not themselves considered the rational implications of his Presidency. The man spends his allocated time in front of Ben Bernanke chiding him about the effects his policies have on senior citizens! What he does not believe in is a dictatorial Executive branch of government and thus he would limit himself in how far he could go. However, he could place persons of ethical character in the key cabinet and intelligence positions, persons loyal to the oath they took to serve their country rather than to greed and corruption. The fact that he would dismantle the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the LoS Treaty among many other anti-American laws is but a small push in the right direction. It would take a radical change to right the ship of state. Ron Paul can be the agent of that change. Consider it.

alan | December 27, 2007, 12:55am | #

be careful Chris when you are dealing with Edward, he's the pyro-dude from Office Space:

"And fuck you, Urkobolds. Keep fucking with me and I'll crash your pathetic little website." - Edward

And only twice as impotent as he appears to be. You can tell he is dead serious by the constant chant of, 'fuck, fucking, fuck you.' It is the call of the Ubuntu.

alan | December 27, 2007, 1:01am | #

and it does no good to debate him. His ass has been destroyed so many times on this board you could drive a freight train through it. He would barely notice nor acknowledge it.

Pepe | December 27, 2007, 1:08am | #

Reading the comments of some of you in California that are switching your registration to vote for RP prompted me to do a little research. I was under the impression that CA still had some form of open primary, and I was sort of right.

After the supreme court overturned CA's open primary law in 2000, the state switched to a "modified open primary". A "decline to state" voter can request the primary ballot for a party at the polling place if the party has filed a statement with the State allowing it.

In '04 and '06 both the GOP and the Dems did so. This year, however, only the Dems did. My suspicion is that Ron Paul's candidacy had something to do with the GOPs decision.

Brandybuck | December 27, 2007, 1:17am | #

What if not all his policy stuff works

What if not all of Giuliani's policy stuff works? What if not all of Hillary's policy stuff works? What if not all of Hucakabee's, Romney's, Obama's and Thompson's policy stuff works?

Why is Ron Paul the only one who has to prove his policies? One side proposes policies of unending war, and the other a policy of cradle-to-grave medical care, and the pundits sing hosannas with no care in the world whether the policies will actual work or not.

Sam Grove | December 27, 2007, 1:31am | #

His ass has been destroyed so many times on this board you could drive a freight train through it. He would barely notice nor acknowledge it.

Ohmygod, he's Bender the robot!

Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 1:55am | #

Ron Paul is just a paranoid nationalist with a hard-on for the Tenth Amendment.

I suppose that's better than an unprincipled wannabe intellectual with no respect for the constitution.

Oh yeah, Edward, how did that form-letter response from Blogger turn out? I can still visit URKOBOLD, you know (not that he ever lets me even behold his visage or anything...it's for my own good).

Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 1:56am | #

He won't just be inaugurated, shut down the Federal Reserve, tell the CIA and FBI to go on permanent vacation and announce that cocaine will now be available next to the Advil at Wal-Mart.

Oh man, but if he did...imagine the lulz that would ensue.

TWC | December 27, 2007, 2:37am | #

The only reason Edward has the cajones to talk trash to my friends here is because he can hide behind that monitor. Easy to be bad ass when nobody can do anything about it. {turns and spits}

TWC | December 27, 2007, 2:38am | #

Baked, I take it back. Edward is just a dick.

TWC | December 27, 2007, 2:56am | #

So as I'm trying to sneak off to bed I hear the Boy holler: Dad! Why'd you turn the music off?

I'm back playing Greg Karukas--Girl in the Red Dress. Iffen you don't like jazz, you won't like it.

Danny! Bring me another glass of the red. Thanks.

Wind's howling, fire's still cracklin'...Not as late here as it is where you are, but I'm sleepy.

You should try 2 Up Shiraz, an Aussie wine that Mrs TWC calls 2 Up Chuck. She's kidding, of course. It's good, reasonable, and once you get past the screw cap, you can enjoy it. Decently priced too.

Kids out, in front of the fire, Mrs TWC calling.....

Night

Hugo Reynolds | December 27, 2007, 5:11am | #

Sheesh! There's no pleasing the purist libertarian ivory tower crowd. Just stay in your tower but stop preaching perfection to the rest of us. We who live on the ground would like a change in the status quo even if that means only 75% of the Libertarian agenda is sought. We have to begin somewhere and Ron Paul as president is an excellent start.

Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 6:14am | #

Pepe,

Do you have a timeline on when these decisions were made to back up that anti-Dr. Paul conspiracy theory?

Dr. Paul needs to get out there on the bird hunting circit if he is going to catch up with the Arkansan.

Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 6:46am | #

OT: Dr. Paul is to appear on "The Morning Joe" shortly, MSNBC on your cable dial.

Unfortunatly, Mr. Scarborough(sp?) is not present, so there is a panel of liberal dopes (including one Medal of Honor recipient).

A glimpse: David (forgot his last name) commenting on Gov. Huckabee's hunting trip focuses on the ornge safety gear (most probably State mandated, but a good idea anyway) and how silly it looks, wondering why he didn't wear something else for the hunting trip. Same guy was all giddy about the Washington Post noticing that new buildings in DC have a lot of glass. He has had on air fits over waterboarding before. I suspect he finds rock/paper/cissors to be torture too.

src | December 27, 2007, 7:33am | #

"Why is Ron Paul the only candidate who has to prove his policies?"

He isn't. But the burden of proof is always higher when you're proposing something radically new. The other candidates, for the most part, are not; health care springs to mind as an untried policy, but at least we can judge how well or badly similar things have worked (Medicare, Massachusetts, Canada's health system). But even thoughtful and honest observers can't predict what will happen if we, say, end the war on drugs; it sounds necessary in principle but it's simply never been done before.

Maybe checks & balances will smooth things out. The obvious stuff (civil liberties, ending the war) will get through first. President Paul and a Democratic Congress would certainly be interesting (and I've always thought we're safest with a divided government).

Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 7:36am | #

Ah, the David guy is attacking Dr. Paul for saying that Honest Abe started the Civil War to destroy the original intent of the Republic.

Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 7:41am | #

Leftie Jack Jacobs (COL, Ret.) just attacked Dr. Paul's choice of historians in a quite snarkie manner.

Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 7:45am | #

This David guy on MSNBC is nuttier than all of the H&R nuts lumped together. He is about to have another tantrum, oh no, they switched to the COL before David had a breakdown over Iran.

edna | December 27, 2007, 8:11am | #

aussie shiraz. jesus.

errrr.... anyway:

1. rp can't win. so who cares what his crankier views are?

2. rp *can* get enough votes and attention to cause other candidates to pander a bit in our direction (for a change). that's better than being left out of the conversation entirely.

vote rp. vote early. vote often.

Untermensch | December 27, 2007, 8:32am | #

it's simply no good to complain that all of Ron Paul's supporters are simply warmed-over Ross Perot populists

Agreed entirely. While there may be some overlap in individuals, the message is difference. Perot's message and his appeal was "I'll take care of you," the same as most other politician’s. Where he wanted to take care might differ from, say, Hillary, but the impulse was the same.

Paul's message is "Take care of yourself". HUGE difference there.

BakedPenguin | December 27, 2007, 8:51am | #

Baked, I take it back. Edward is just a dick.

No offense taken, TWC (on my part - you're probably wise to mollify Urkobold lest he taint your wine.)

It was good to find out some information on why Edwierdooooo is so obsessed by Paul...

Rattlesnake Jake | December 27, 2007, 8:59am | #

"It was good to find out some information on why Edwierdooooo is so obsessed by Paul..."

I missed that. Why is he so obsessed with Paul?

BakedPenguin | December 27, 2007, 9:03am | #

Rattlesnake Jake - hier.

Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 9:03am | #

RJ,

He is a fired/quit (depending on who is telling the story) ex-RP staffer.

BakedPenguin | December 27, 2007, 9:08am | #

Guy - you're thinking of Donderrooooo!

Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 9:11am | #

If you guys can catch the 0700 hour of "The Morning Joe" online from MSNBC, Dr. Paul was on from the bottom to the top of the hour.

It was entertaining to see the MSNBC staff have little hissyfits while talking to Dr. Paul and Mika was certainly the most grown up of the three. COL Jacobs coming in a close second and that Dave guy should stop wearing pants and get into a drag show with David Gregory.

No, I am still not a RP supporter and doubt that I ever will be. Those stupid Lefties could have made their attacks on substance rather than their big emotional tantrum over the Civil War being nothing but a crusade to free slaves. As much as they may want it to be that, it was not the only, nor the primary reason that the South went to war to seceed.

Good thing Dr. Paul did not bring up GEN Lee's letter to Jefferson Davis urging he abolish slavery before the end of the war (I think when Lee was thinking he was on the verge of victory) or exploding skulls on the set would have ruined a lot of good electronic equipment.

Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 9:13am | #

BP,

You are correct. I keep mixing up Eric and Edward.

So now I have the same query as RJ.

Sorry.

BakedPenguin | December 27, 2007, 9:20am | #

Guy - I included a link to an Urkobold thread on Edweirdo & Paul above. You can also click on my handle.

Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 9:36am | #

BP,

Yea, that was kinda cute but I was looking for something more serious, like he was an advisor on extarrestrials to Kucinich or something.

VM | December 27, 2007, 10:11am | #

"I think he simply just does not get Austrianeconomics and is pretending to just disagree with it to hide under mainstream, collectivist, wall-street loving economics."

um, Ali - what do you think that means? It's actually quite silly...

Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:15am | #

Is anyone on the thread from New Hampshire, SC or Iowa? I ask because Paul has made some fundraising news and I'm curious as to what his ad strategy has been. It's obvious that a small but signficant amount of people are VERY excited about the Paul campaign. I personally have seen more Paul stickers and signs around here than any other candidate. He's got a dedicated organization, and I'm guessing some money, and now some media coverage (though at times hostile). Where I get my polls from though he seems to not be translating that into significant gains. Any thoughts?

jimmydageek | December 27, 2007, 10:24am | #

Lakeland, FL has quite a few RP signs scattered about its downtown area...for what it's worth.

Tom Walls | December 27, 2007, 11:29am | #

Lakeland, where???

Florida is Fla.

ed | December 27, 2007, 12:11pm | #

Spell out the names of the 50 states when they stand alone in textual material. Any state name may be condensed, however, to fit typographical requirements for tabular material. Use the state abbreviations below in datelines and in text when used with the city.

Ala. Kan. Nev. S.C.
Ariz. Ky. N.H. S.D.
Ark. La. N.J. Tenn.
Calif. Md. N.M. Vt.
Colo. Mass. N.Y. Va.
Conn. Mich. N.C. Wash.
Del. Minn. N.D. W.Va.
Fla. Miss. Okla. Wis.
Ga. Mo. Ore. Wyo.
Ill. Mont. Pa.
Ind. Neb. R.I.

Eight states are never abbreviated: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, Texas, Utah.

FL is used for postal addresses.

robc | December 27, 2007, 12:20pm | #

Tom Walls,

Whether for good or evil, most of us have accepted postal abbreviations.

robc | December 27, 2007, 12:23pm | #

But even thoughtful and honest observers can't predict what will happen if we, say, end the war on drugs; it sounds necessary in principle but it's simply never been done before.

Except, of course, before it started. I would guess the result would be exactly like that.

Its amazing how many of RP's "radically new" ideas have already been tried. Successfully.

jimmydageek | December 27, 2007, 12:24pm | #

Yes, I fill out all my forms with the abbreviation "FL". Funny, they never get returned either. God forbid I ever send one to Tom Walls.

Brandybuck | December 27, 2007, 1:01pm | #

Ending the War on Drugs: Tried before when we ended prohibition.

Eliminating the IRS: Tried before in minor ways with tax cuts, CA's (Calif's) Prop 13, etc. Many states don't have income taxes. Feds didn't have one before 16th amendment, and nowhere near to current level until middle of great depression.

Gold Standard: Ron Paul is NOT advocating a gold standard! Next...

Monetary policies: Tried low inflationary policies before, resulted in low inflation. We even tried decentralized banking before, to great success.

tim | December 29, 2007, 2:27am | #

>> ((( Circle the War Wagons >>> The Neo-Criminal Convicts are at it for Real!!! )))


The New Hampshire Republi-Cant Party is really trying to exclude Americas Hero and
Defender of the Constitution DR. Ron Paul from the New Hampshire Debates......

HERE IS THE OFFICIAL WORD FROM NATIONAL:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/94/has-fox-news-excluded-ron-paul

Press Releases › Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul?

December 28, 2007 10:39 pm EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an
Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron
Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be
broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.

“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising
success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008
campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New
Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”

Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make
inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this
event.”

IMPORTANT CONTACTS:

(Be nice, at first...)
http://www.nhgop.org/contact-us/

SLAM THESE BASTARDS!!!!

Fox News:
[phone]
1-888-369-4762
Email: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

# Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly Factor Host : Phone: [phone]; Email:
[e-mail]
# Brian Knoblock, International Editor : Phone: [phone]; Email:
[e-mail]
# Brit Hume, Managing Editor : Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
# David Asman, Fox News Host : Phone: [phone]; Email:
[e-mail]
# Ian Rae, Exec. VP News : Phone: [phone]; Email: [e-mail]
# Jane Skinner, News Anchor : Phone: [phone]; Email:
[e-mail]
# John Moody, Sen VP News : Phone: [phone]; Email: [e-mail]
# Justin Schmidt, Chicago Bureau Chief : Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
# Kathy Ardleigh, Sen. Politics Producer : Phone: [phone]; Email:
[e-mail]
# Ken LaCorte, Los Angeles Bureau Chief : Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
# Kim Schiller Hume, Wash DC Bureau Chief : Phone: [phone]; Fax:
202-824-6426
# Shepard Smith, Fox Report Host : Phone: [phone]; Email:
[e-mail]
# Thom Bird, Fox News Sen. Producer : Phone: [phone]; Email:
[e-mail]
# Todd Ciganek, National News Editor : Phone: [phone]; Email:
[e-mail]

Support Ron Paul, for LIBERTY, PEACE AND PROSPERITY!
What have YOU done for Ron Paul today?

Charles | January 6, 2008, 1:17pm | #

If you've got the guts, click the URL and test your candidate against ours. Dr. Ron Paul isn't a lawyer or actor. Dare to compare. I just hope there are enough citizens left to realize that the Constitution is America.

Tiffany | January 6, 2008, 1:22pm | #

Make sure that you're telling local editors about Dr. Ron Paul's message. Mothers like me want our husbands home by this time next year! And Ron Paul's the man to help us change this!