Ron Paul's fundraising

No libertarian will be elected President. People only hate it when the government spends money on others; they have no problem taking the money themselves.

It's interesting how a joke campaign by a cross-dresser can suddenly turn into the real thing. Wonder if they can retrofit his "Supermodel (You Better Work)" hit into some kind of message to the people. Not that it already wasn't. Had NO idea he was Republican. Good luck to him.

He'll be raising more than funds on the campaign trail, I'll bet.

Let's talk about Kucinich's hot tongue-studded wife. Betcha that mouth ain't all vegan.

Seriously. Kucinich and Thompson need to keep their wives front and center on the campaign trail.

As long as you aren't too attached to the Civil Rights Act, knock yourself out.

Throwing his wife to the forefront is probably the best thing Grandpa Fred could do short of convincing her to bare her tits at a Young Republicans convention.

The collective screech of "WOW I'VE NEVER SEEN REAL BREASTS BEFORE" would be deafening, and they'd conveniently forget that Thompson can't seem to remember anything about anything, ever.

Not to get into a political flame war but I fail how to see this guy is a true libertarian if he wants to in effect remove us from all alliances and trade organizations and yet somehow wants to ban abortion. Oh yeah, that's a real progressive guy right there.

We can't have a young first lady. This country has a proud tradition of women that look like school marms, grandmother's, or deeply closeted butch lesbians. And by god, we will not have some hot, young ass take that away from us.

He's probably a "libertarian" in that he's one of the many idiots that jumped the neoconservative raft after last year's election and claimed to be a libertarian. If there were a dime a dozen for all of these backwards dolts that I've found during my travails in the political blogosphere, I'd have laundry change for a month. I don't trust the guy at all.

Ever read the Libertarian Party platform? It's something else. They propose abolishing all gun laws. Every single one. They want to sell off your national and state parks. And I don't think they've even considered the practical implications of abolishing the FCC.

This is from their preamble: "Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands."

They sound like they all spend their weekends in the woods, learning how to use sniper rifles in the name of protecting their families. They are mad.

Our creep prime minister made a hardcore libertarian his Minister of the Environment. She didn't do well. She was fired.

For me, Ron Paul's problem is that he does not believe in fed. assistance and welfare issues - in other words, he is a true old school fiscal conservative. But unlike the rest of the GOP candidates, he lives in the reality-based community when it comes to foreign policy issues. He's been the only one in the debates to actually call the war in Iraq what it is, and explain to people out there that 9/11 wasn't because anyone "hates our freedoms." If it came down to only a GOP candidate, I'd prefer him a million times more than any of the other nincompoops on the GOP ticket.

ps. Ron Paul's campaign is one of the strangest in recent memory. I see his grassroots supporters all the time - just people standing around handing out Ron Paul buttons and flyers, holding signs, etc. They're everywhere in LA.

I wouldn't vote for him. It might be interesting living next to a country run his way, though. As weird as the Bush Administration, but in a different way. Looking at his platform, he just seems bitter.

Like the man said, Republicans are the ones who believe government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it. That goes double for Libertarians.

I makes no sense to elect a Libertarian on a federal level. It's the same kind of insanity as appointing Bolton to the U.N. Take a man who doesn't believe in the efficacy or even legitimacy of the institution, and then put him in charge of it. Logical!

I don't rule out the possibility of a Libertarian society ever working--but you'd literally have to dismantle the entire existing structure, on a social as well as political level, and rebuild from the ground up. The U.S., like all western first-world nations, is too committed to the small-l liberal state at this point--call it he "welfare state" if you must--to handle a libertarian outlook. This is why the last few "small government" Republian administrations, the Reaganauts, have essentially wreaked havoc on the system every time they come to power. They can't work with what they've got, they have to clear the slate first. And clearing the slate means that a LOT of the fundamental processes of government get destroyed, which means people who rely on those processes suffer.

No matter how straight talkin' and intelligent the guy seems, and no matter how earnestly he believes in his principles, he's a recipe for disaster. And so are all Republican candidates until they drop this idiotic "down with big government" stance.

Which is all the more hilarious when you take into account that this administration has arguably seen the single largest expansion of government powers in the history of this nation.

Of course, that's all stuff to help. Ya know, like suspending habeas corpus and warrantless wiretapping and all that great stuff. Not that namby pamby junk like universal healthcare or an efficient and responsible disaster reponse department. Fuck that shit.

That's actually pretty standard issue Libertarian talk. It's straight constitutional interpretation. That's pretty much Paul's litmus test for voting.

You'll see a lot of Ron Paul signs in Eastern Washington. I suppose that comes from the sting of the 2004 state election. I find the grassroots support to be the most impressive thing about his campaign, but other than that I can't say I'm too fond of his ideas. His takes on racism, for instance, are mind-numbing to read (Junior's link is probably the tip of the iceberg).

It's also tiring to hear the "small government = great government" argument that gets repeated ad nauseum. I suppose, given all that Bush Jr.'s administration has done with the federal government, this sounds appealing to people; but I honestly wish there was more support from people on social programs (e.g. universal healthcare) that have the potential to help people who need it without caterwauling about the excesses of BIG government.

Paul's clearly an extreme extremist and I'm obviously completely horrified at the thought of gutting government. But the other Republican candidates are either compulsive liars or completely off their freaking nut. Have any of you watched the GOP debates?

Further, Ron Paul will NEVER get elected. And even if he did, unlike with Bush, he would have to fight everything he wanted past congress and would likely lose most of the time.

I just think it's REALLY interesting that the mainstream keeps shoving Thompson, Rudy or Romney on the GOP side and Hillary Clinton/Obama on the Dem side down our collective throats, but I hear much more about Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich just anecdotally. I think they have a lot more support on either side of the aisle than the mainstream will acknowledge.

Hey, I disagree with Paul on most of those issues, but at least those are real arguments. I'd like to be able to debate how active a role the government should take in the economy with social programs and taxes and regulations. That's a real argument. Instead, I feel like we spend all our time debating stupid shit with the Republicans that shouldn't even be up for debate (should people be denied civil rights based on their sexuality? Should science be taught in science classes? Is it a good idea to give teenagers information about birth control? Should the government be allowed to wiretap citizens without a warrant? Is torture an acceptable tactic for a democracy? Is the invasion of Iraq turning out well? Is pointing out that the invasion of Iraq didn't turn out well the same thing as insulting the troops?).

So yeah, I wish Ron Paul was a representative of the GOP, and I can see why a lot of people on their side feel the same way.

The only reason I think Ron Paul get's any respect, is he is willing to say what he means. That doesn't mean he isn't a nutbag, and shouldn't be allowed to run a 7-11 let alone a country. But he seems honest at the end of the day.

He got Letterman's endorsement...Back in the day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY5BZzOFtt4

No Republican will vote for him because he cant win.