[rob777]

I find the comparison to Pat Robertson's campaign interesting. That campaign was responsible for bringing a lot of politically active Christians into the GOP. Will Ron's campaign do the same for limited government conservatives? While I do not support his campaign this election cycle, the long term political impact of the movenevt he has inspired is of intense interest to me.

[Havisham]

To my horror, I find the traditional catholic newspapers have gone over for Ron Paul. I can only assume they want to punish the GOP frontrunners. Paul is not pro-life and they no he can’t win. Awful.

[incindiary]

From the article

"if he continues to blame America for 9/11..."

Stating that an interventionist foreign policy has blowback is not "blaming America" it is disagreeing with a particular foreign policy and pointing out that it has consequences.

It is absolutely retarded to think that disagreeing with a particular foreign policy is anti-American, because that implies that ANY foreign policy we have has to be right.

That is illogical. It's basically saying that America = any foreign policy. But is that true? Hypothetical scenario: What if our government adopted a foreign policy that completely went against our constitution, and went against our long-held values and principles, and also went against what the majority of American want. Would disagreeing with that foreign policy be "Anti-American" or "blaming America" - or would it be the other way around? In that example, the foreign policy itself went against the constitution and the American people, and it would be the foreign policy that is unAmerican, not the person disagreeing with it.

Everytime I hear someone repeat that idiotic, illogical claim that disagreeing with a foreign policy or pointing out that it has consequences is "blaming America" or anti-American, it's like hearing nails on a chalkboard.

It is logically akin to saying that someone who disagrees with an unbiblical church policy and who says that it can have negative consequences, is "blaming Christianity" or "anti-Christian."

[DugwayDuke]

How appropriate. Ron Paul can declare victory and retreat to his home district in Texas. Very much like his strategy for defeating terrorism.

That said, I appreciate the article as it makes some good points that the libertarians should take to heart.

[2CAVTrooper]

“I find the comparison to Pat Robertson’s campaign interesting. That campaign was responsible for bringing a lot of politically active Christians into the GOP. Will Ron’s campaign do the same for limited government conservatives? While I do not support his campaign this election cycle, the long term political impact of the movenevt he has inspired is of intense interest to me.”

The problem with ron paul is he already stated that he’s going to refuse to endorse whoever wins the nomination, and the majority of his “supporters” are democrat crossovers hoping to skew our nomination process and have no intention of supporting him or the GOP in the general election.

[Captain Kirk]

The article lost credibility when it falsely claimed that Paul thinks that Americans are to blame for 911.

[AuntB]

As someone who routinely called myself a libertarian prior to 9/11, here’s how I would square the circle: Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens; eternal vigilance and (when necessary) ruthlessness abroad. For libertarian ideals to survive, they must be relentlessly defended against the likes of Islamic extremists. Take a look at Andrew Sullivan’s writing right after 9/11 to see this ideal in its purest form; far from a religious crusade, ours was a war for secularism, tolerance, and free societies where gays don’t get stoned to death.

That sums up what I've been trying to say. And Ron Paul isn't there yet. The republicans need to learn a few things and so do the libertarians.

Some campaigns can win big without ever coming close to winning an actual contest. Pat Robertson’s 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues.

And that is not entirely a bad thing, either. Competition of ideas can't hurt the process.

My problem with Paul is his small government promise isn't supported by the facts. How does the 'small gov't' candidate (rated average related to his piers) co sponsor 1000 more bills in the same time period as Duncan Hunter did? How does Pauls career in congress back up that talking point? His supporters cheer about his 'accomplishments'. What? He's never gotten a piece of his legislation off the ground. But they're convinced he can do as president what he couldn't do as a legislator about problems that can only be handled by congress in the first place or at least with it's cooperation. He couldn't find any except Kucinich in 20 years, but suddenly he will? Hello?

Mark Twain must have been looking into the future thinking of the more rabid Paul supporters when he said, "They don't think, they think they think." And some are simply so traumatized by the heavy handed GOP elitist crowd that they go off the deep end about it forgetting that sometimes swinging that pendulum too far the other way too quickly leads to catastrophe.

There's a time and a place for everything, and this isn't Ron Paul's time and he's not a wartime candidate. I would have rather had Paul in 1992 than Bill Clinton. You have to admit it would have been an interesting administration even without the blue dress and the rest of the nonsense we got with it.

[roses of sharon]

It could be a good start to more Libertarians running and winning in our State Houses, which is exactly where to begin.

Campaigning, informing, teaching and swaying the grassroots to smaller government is the key to national elections, imo.

[yield 2 the right]

At least he not as bad as Fred Thompson would as POTUS!
***Hides away***