This would be closer to sanity than Paul has ever actually come.

But an excellent article nonetheless. Ron Paul is as much a threat to conservatism as Obama. At least Obama admits that he’s a liberal.

Ron Paul is like a crazy relative. 99% of what he says is completely loony. Every once in a blue moon he says something that makes you go, “What? That actually made sense!” And then he goes straight back to loons-ville.

Love that bad lip reading soundbite.

Would I hate what they “stand for” too?
Maybe.

When I hear Mr. Paul speak on some topics – I get the feeling I am glimpsing how the Libs see my TEA Party. Heaven help us! It appears he and his supporters share the same convictions and fire, but (much like the Left) want to make policies that work in a vacuum, but not complicated National and international Environment.

Paul has the backing of his cousins on the hard Progressive Left for good reason.

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/ron-paul-says-accused-traitor-is-a-patriot/

Everyone tweet this story to major Media.

Paul not only hates Republicans, he hates America and actually defending her. Just like his friends on the hard Progressive Left.

it is frustrating that Ron Paul is the candidate chosen to ostensibly articulate our position. Gary Johnson was a highly successful and very popular governor, and his views are far more in the libertarian republican mainstream, whereas Paul is more of an outlier. I do, at times, find myself appreciating Paul’s unapologetic defense of free markets, but others have my head in my hands as he descends into conspiracy quackery or unrealistic foreign policy paradigms.

As a traditional foreign policy realist I have my own qualms about current GOP foreign policy stratagems, which in my opinion place too great an emphasis on ideology at the expense of national interest. However, I find Paul’s disengagment strategy equally dangerous and unrealistic.

I don’t expect any candidate to conform to my philosophy on every issue, and I have long taken the position of voting GOP as the lesser government alternative. I think the reason many of us are frustrtated this primary season is as of yet none of the candidates have attempted to unite the various factions of the party as Reagan did in 1980. Cain was perhaps doing the best job of this before he was railroaded and his campaign derailed. Perry is also capable of uniting such a coalition I believe, but previous poor debate performances have necessitated that his campaign go into defensive mode. Huntsman could have been the guy, but as Erickson has delineated in detail, his staff has buried his chances with a fundamentally flawed primary strategy.

It is my hope Perry can recover and unite the party, as the rest of the field seems either unwilling or incapable of doing so.

Libertarian Republicans, Paleos, Neos, Social, and National security conservatives may not agree on every issue, but the importance of our unity in opposition to the clear and present danger of the Obama presidency is paramount.

I agree that Paul is not perfect. That said — even he — would be an improvement over Obama.

I don’t find your argument persuasive.

Before I explain, I should mention that I support Rick Perry. Perry is clearly the best candidate in the field and it is a shame that so many conservative voters are being so easily herded by the pundit class from one sham candidate (Cain) to another (Gingrich). The aversion to Romney is healthy, but the inability to appreciate what Perry offers reveals that we conservative voters are blind. Fear of Obama is motivating conservative voters to act irrationally.

That said, Ron Paul is not a loon. He is not crazy. That is silly propaganda. Ron Paul is being taken seriously because of the failure of the Republican party to represent conservative values. Republicans and “conservative” media are pulling out all of the stops to hand Romney the nomination against the wishes of nearly 75% of the conservative electorate. The Republican Party is not just ignoring conservatives, it is actively fighting against them. The Republican Party is now comprised of entrenched politicians who have no problem maintaining and growing the State.

Ron Paul hates what the Republican Party has become. I’m sure he hates that neoconservatism has so weakened conservative principle. I respect his challenge to the statist views of established Republicans, of whom John McCain is one.

Again the opposition to Ron Paul seems to be fueled by fear. His views are a clear threat to established power on both sides of the political aisle. It is perfectly consistent with Paul’s views for him not to support a statist like John McCain. And you admitted that Paul’s basis for supporting those other candidates was the other candidate’s agreed to balance budgets, bring troops home, protect personal liberties, and investigate the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul has talked about these four issues for nearly his entire political career. His support of a candidate like Cynthia McKinney was based on her agreement on the importance of the issues that Ron Paul considers important, not her socialism.

And any suggestion that Ron Paul is racist should be examined in light of his many pronouncements of the unfairness of our criminal justice system in that minorities seem to be over-represented in correctional facilities. Also, Cynthia McKinney is black. If Paul was the rabid racist that many try to paint him as, then why would he support her.

Again, I am supporting Perry and I hope conservative voters wake up in time. (Hello, Evangelicals — Way to go supporting Santorum! /s Ridiculous.) But Ron Paul deserves much more respect than he is given. And people are turning to him because they perceive that the Republican party is rejecting their concerns.

but would you be willing to send your kids out on a camping trip with the “crazy grampy” knowing that the 5% might just occur while he has a hatchet in his hand?

Paul would have been marginalized beyond the point of ever being able to hold office again if the MSM media didn’t so relish his foolishness and ability to maintain such a large herd of tunnel-visionists.

Hi Neil,

I used to do just that. In fact, the hours I dedicated to the GOP in the late 80′s and through the 90′s – were some of the best. That we let Hillary claim that Senate seat still bugs me.
It was tough watching things start to change, and then when I moved my family to a new State, I just didn’t get back into it. Now I look at my representation (MI) and am very disappointed. Who is rallying to defeat Stabinow – the TEA Party (though I’m not thrilled with this “unify behind a candidate” effort), and who did Boehner appoint as negotiators for this payroll tax/unemployment insurance/doc fix debacle? Upton and Camp; both from the Super Committee , both with failed ideas.(neither supported the Senate bill, but Upto especially is highly suspect)
The GOP in my area just is not very active!

It only takes 5 seconds of listening to Ron “Who stole my medication” Paul to figure out he is a certified lunatic. There’s no way he would ever get elected. Wait a minute, Obama in got elected in 2008.

Sorry for the interruption. Please return to your regularly scheduled episode of “Dancing with the Stars” .

1. “Turkey”-man can’t shroud his prejudices in a “I like Perry” shroud; he is a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing.

2. Sabato on PMSNBC said Paul could win Iowa…and then NH…and then everything; does not this serve as a disqualifier for any further punditry from him?

3. Sabato on PMSNBC said only one of these three [PerrySantorum/Bachmann] will “get a ticket out of Iowa.” Knowing that Perry has $ [a slide had just been shown that depicted the millions spent on negative-ads], and that one of the other two could break 10%, does not this serve as a disqualifier for any further punditry from him?

4. A description of the caucus-system revealed how very public it is; presumably, enough people [like, at least 99, one for each county-caucus] will be available to educate the voters BEFORE they announce their postures [in front of friends/family/neighbors/pastors].

Perry will flip-back to his 10%-tithe, Mitt may do reasonably well by default [as The Newt continues to slide] and Perry will surprise the pundits.

How anyone can speak favorably of Bab Barr and Cynthia Mickinney in the same breath and still claim to have principles is beyond me. And so it is bothersome that Paul is put up as the pinnacle of purity and principle by so many.

But it leads to something that has always bothered me about libertarians in general. Why do we get disillusioned with republicans? Some are incompetent and some compromise away conservative principles. It is very frustrating. However, what makes libertarians think that the exact same thing wouldn’t happen if libertarians were elected in large numbers in congress?

The unanticipated rise of Ron Paul, while disturbing, is entirely the product of a broken party which has delivered nothing but empty promises, spiraling deficits, and a moribund foreign policy for 14 years. Ron Paul is crazy, but he is rising for the same reason that Christine O’Donnell in DE rose: he represents a departure from the status quo. That’s basically it in a nutshell: conservatives have soured on “nation-building”, tax cuts without spending cuts, democracy’s prospects in Middle Eastern countries, and much of the agenda of supposed “conservatives” from ’98 onwards. Even those who agree with some of that agenda (i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan) are disillusioned with the way that it was carried forth. This is why a candidate who proudly touts ignorance on foreign policy (Cain) looked so good to primary voters. This is why there is so much primary voter unrest and rancor. (IMO, it also has something to do with why Rick Perry is not doing all that well, but that’s neither here nor there.)

Fix the party, and Ron Paul goes back to being a blathering, but harmless, idiot. Keep putting people like Boehner in power, and pursuing the same strategies that were pursued in the ’00s, and you can be sure that a whole bumper crop of candidates (both of the nutty and non-nutty variety) will be there to take Ron Paul’s place on the debate stage when he departs.

Paul supported her in 2010 for gov, although he did fall shy of endorsing her, he wrote letters on her behalf.

Ron Paul calls Debra Medina “a role model for Texans”

The lesson here is that if somebody like Ron Paul wants to run as a Republican ever again they should be denied the privilege.

Mc Cain (while I did vote for him begrudgingly) and Newt are both progressives both very big on NWO, US being the world police and and that is just plain wrong. While Dr. Paul may not get elected a second term , he will get us turned around and start shrinking our government. Paul will stop or try to stop several things Obamacare, patriot act, the added sections in the NDAA and what was that new bill that already changes the meaning of terrorist combatant to any one who can be linked to the drug cartels? Oh yes lets not forget the FEMA prisons that are popping up everywhere!!! they would be closed down and so would the FED! DR. Paul just wants us to get back to our constitution. and back off the world stage.
Woof the only hatred that I have seen is in your writing!!! It’s obvious that your establishment and want to keep things pro quo..(My god who would pay you if it didn’t?). .

Your confused or deliberately trying to mislead.
In 2008 candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agreed with Ron Paul on four key principles:

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

It was an agreement of four principles, not an endorsement.

Ron Paul did go on to endorse one candidate, Dr. Chuck Baldwin.

BTW.. Bob Barr originally agreed to the four principles, but, later reneged on the agreement and didn’t bother to show up.

Ron Paul on “The Principles” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZEdyiSTmjI

The Republican Party, unfortunately, has been a big government tax and spend party, distressingly similar to the Democrat Party.

If Ron Paul could change this, it would be a good thing.

I would prefer to have Ron Paul in the White House to its present occupant.

he’s a devote admitted socialist who in 2008 said Obama is a Plutocrat who would ruin the USA. Just someone I met at a party,, weird and talkative. Never knew RP backed her, that makes him as scary as 4 more years of Obama.

If you don’t want him to split the vote like Perot and get another 4 years of oBUSHma than the answer is simple, Nominate him and he won’t run 3rd party.
Your confused or deliberately trying to mislead.
In 2008 candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agreed with Ron Paul on four key principles: National Debt, Privacy, Foreign Policy and the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul only endorsed one person, Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

I love how people claim Paul is a conservative, perhaps fiscally but that’s where it ends. And he’s definitely not a Republican.

That said,
love that video. Ha! Pretty much sums him up.