http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes: "To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending."
the public is not going to be aroused by three hour hypertechnical monetary policy droning in Special Orders on C-SPAN.
You are wrong if you think the people are unconcerned about the untold billions being given by the Fed to Wall Street. Ron Paul already has established himself as a respected authority on the Fed. All he needs to do now is say four words, "I told you so." but Paul is not the candidate anymore. He is a well-respected elder statesman whose support would enhance Palin's credibility among independents and small-L libertarians.
What Palin needs to do is to issue a manifesto to the effect that spineless paleopeacecreepism is not and never will be Republican policy. Then, having taken out the trash, she will be ready for prime time.
"The trash" are the corrupt plutocrats who use a "green" cover for preventing American oil independence to justify neverending mid-east entanglement and to set up mafia-style skimming of cap-n-tax corporate credits for Enron-style manipulation of trading markets. Ron Paul is not perfect but he has earned a reputation for integrity in a thoroughly corrupt environment and he does know how the system works.
I don't doubt for a moment that the American people are absolutely outraged by the special interest money gushing out of the federal reserve to the usual gang of ultra-materialist greedheads on Wall Street. What I doubt is that anyone is interested in wild-eyed conspiracy theories from Birchers, Objectivists or established lunatics like Ron Paul stuffing forty years of resentments and nutcase into the discussion. Like Gonzalez, Paul drones on for hours on end in Special Orders indulging his every fantasy in technical terms that make even the eyes of the outraged glass over.
If El Run is an "established authority" on anything, it is not the federal reserve. He is an "established authority" on thoroughly moonbat public policy, resisting the use of military force whenever that use is desirable in the interests of our nation, caving in to Al Qaeda and being its mouthpiece in American public life, and posing dishonestly for holy pictures to gull people who are actual conservatives. He claims to be pro-life while denying that the federal gummint has jurisdiction over the issue after more than three decades of having SCOTUS ram baby-killing down the collective American throat. When actual pro-lifers (activists and not wannabe philosopher kings notice his two-faced situation of supporting pro-life, while opposing legislation while saying it is the job of the states, Paulie files a federal pro-life bill. Of course, the fact that the Galveston moonbat filed the bill guarantees that it will not pass. To the pro-lifers, he is saying he is pro-life but to his soulless libertarian abortion supporters, it is wink, wink, don't worry, no one will slow the flow of abortions.
Okay, maybe he claims to be a "fiscal conservative." Now, fieldmarshaldj who I invite to repeat his arguments here, has a very good analysis of why there is no such thing as fiscal "conservative" while socially liberal. Suffice it to note that, again, paleoPaulie poses for holy pictures as one who resists public spending. What sort of massive spending cuts are represented by his stuffing of appropriations bills with Galveston earmarks. Shrimping subsidies??? Trolley subsidies??? Nursing scholarships for Galveston girls??? Ad infinitum, ad nauseam. MNehring has the fuller details on the porkbarreling habits of the paleosurrenderman. I invite him to give you a snootful of paleoPaulie's fiscal phoniness in the manner of earmarks of federal pork for Galveston. Oh, wait! PaleoPaulie voted against the appropriations bills that he stuffed with pork. Doesn't that count? No, because he stuffed the bill counting on his colleagues to pass the bills because they contained other critters' pork too. This is the paleoPaulie method of operation on issue after issue. It certainly does not reflect integrity.
If he is respected as an "elder statesman," we may concede that he is very old and that he has served in Congress. In that sense, William Conyers is also old and in Congress far too long. So was John Warner. So is Dick Lugar. So was Tip O'Neill. Not that any conservative would be caught alive or dead voting for such trash as treasonweasel Paul and the others.
Do you have a problem with our defense of Israel? What is your problem with continuing involvement in the Middle East? Should Chamberlain have walked away from Munich handing the Sudetenland to Hitler? Was it a good thing when the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall ostensibly fell? Is Ron Paul right not to give a da*n about human freedom in other nations, about the rise of tyrannies determined to destroy the USA? Should we sit still for Iran or North Korea having deployable nuclear weapons? Do we discharge our duties by saying Tsk, Tsk to Ahmanutjob after the nuclear annihilation of our ally Israel or should we use our strength to prevent that annihilation? What if Ahmanutjob starts to develop intercontinental ballistic missile poised at New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, DC and Detroit? Do we sit still until they are fired? Are we looking forward to fewer Demonratic voters with the destruction of our cities? Is the conservative movement to be defined by money uber alles?
An endorsement of Palin by the paleopeacecreep would be the destruction of Palin as a public figure unless she rejects such an endorsement.