Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Understanding Paul's Haul

Just in case you were under a rock yesterday, the big news from the presidential campaign trail was the more than $4 million that Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) raised on line.

Yep. That Ron Paul. And, to be exact it was $4.2 million. The massive online fundraising haul was organized by Paul supporters around the country to commemorate the attempted assassination of King James I by a group of men that included Guy Fawkes in 1605. (Fawkes has become a legendary figure in British history and was featured in the film "V is for Vendetta" -- a Fix favorite.)

Putting aside the semi-creepiness of choosing Guy Fawkes Day to make an online fundraising statement, it's worth looking closely at what Paul's haul means in the broader context of the race.

First and foremost, it's a stunning achievement. Paul was widely seen as a political gadlfy when he entered the race, but through skill, luck or a little of both he has built himself into an Internet phenomenon. Paul raised $5.3 million between July 1 and Sept. 30 -- nearly as much as Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and nearly five times as much as former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.) -- and his one-day take eclipsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's one-day haul of $3.1 million (although Romney received commitments of $6.5 million).

The practical impact of Paul's surprising fundraising strength is that he will have the money to be on television in early states in a major way from here on out. Paul is already up with two television ads in New Hampshire (watch them here and here). While the ads are somewhat amateurish -- they lack the fancy production values of commercials produced by Romney, for example -- they get across Paul's central message: we need to get out of Iraq and we need to return to the basic governing principles laid out in the Constitution.

For a state whose motto and mantra is "Live Free or Die," that sort of message could have real resonance -- especially given that Paul now has the financial means to ensure that voters hear his message many times between now and early January. Right now Paul remains a minor figure in New Hampshire; pollster.com shows him receiving an average of 3.7 percent of the vote in the state.

All of that said, be careful not to get caught up in too much Ron Paul hysteria just yet.

Why not? Here's a few reasons:

* It's not yet clear that Paul's online national community can deliver actual votes for him. At the Ames Straw poll in August, the Paul contingent was by far the loudest (and among the largest) of all the candidates. Simply walking through the crowd gathered at Ames, you would have guessed Paul would surely have finished in the top three. He wound up finishing fifth, a showing due at least in part to the fact that many of his supporters at the straw poll were not native Iowans and therefore could not vote in Ames. While Paul is at the center of a national movement, it won't help him in Iowa or New Hampshire if thousands of people from California or Illinois are backing him.

* There has always been a pot of money that exists for unconventional candidates who believe the system is fundamentally broken and are only tangentially affiliated with a party. Lyndon LaRouche, whose supporters regularly harangue the Fix at Metro stations around Washington, had raised $5.4 million at this point in 2003 for his perennial bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. To be clear: We are not equating Paul to Larouche. Paul has served several stints in Congress and is a credible -- if quirky -- candidate. Our point is simply that there is a segment of donors out in the country who are willing to give to a candidate who promises not just a shakeup but a blowup of the status quo. Paul appears to be that candidate this cycle.

So, in the final analysis what can we conclude about Ron Paul?

That his money and his message make him a factor in New Hampshire. That he remains a decided longshot. And that all the excitement and attention he is drawing would seem to be a perfect lead up to a third party candidacy if and when he loses the Republican nomination.

Remember that Paul is no stranger to running as a third-party candidate for president. In 1988 he was the Libertarian party's nominee, winning 432,000 votes (good for .47 percent of the the total vote). It's not clear whether Paul wants to reprise that role in 2008 but his avid supporters are sure to push that option should he come up short in the primaries next year.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 6, 2007; 12:30 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The 2008 Primaries: A Long, Hard Slog?
Next: Ladies First: Republican Strategists Stand By Their Man

Comments

I don't like everything about Paul. I live in Taiwan, which he thinks is a part of China (I'm rabidly oppossed to this position). I'm pro-choice and I don't want to dismantle the Federal Reserve.

But for me, the most important issues in this campaign are:

1) rolling back the Executive authority Bush has claimed, and ending the indefinite detention of citizens / domestic spying / secret CIA prisons / military tribunals / shipping people to be tortured in allied countries, not to mention restoring habeas corpus.

2) having a rational foreign policy that does not involve spending a trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire that only hurts our national interests.

And for me, a leftist, Paul is the only guy who cares about or talks about those two issues, so I feel I must support him.

And when polls indicate 70% of Republican primary voters haven't heard enough about Paul to decide if they like him or not, is the problem really his platform or the lack of exposure?

Thanks,

--
Jason
Houston, TX
(living in Taiwan)

Posted by: spambox1832 | November 9, 2007 7:37 AM | Report abuse

RP FTW 2008. RP = next POTUS

Posted by: mickrussom | November 8, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The election is in the Bag, Ron Paul, the next POTUS.

People are screaming FRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM!

They will have to kill this guy like they did JFK and RK to stop him.

Posted by: mickrussom | November 8, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

For those you say Guy Fawkes Day is creepy, may I remind you that England annually celebrates Guy Fawkes day. It is the Brit's 4th of July. So are you saying that all English people are creepy? They might disagree with you wholeheartedly!

Posted by: Colorado872 | November 8, 2007 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Happy/Unhappy and Satisfied/Unsatisfied are psychological/physical states of being. It is totally inappropriate to dismiss American voters by putting them in some stereotypic bucket and dismissing them in a slap hand manner. Sounds good on paper, but the truth of the matter is that American voters are educated and cognizant indepth of Policy issues, and therefore are questioning current Policy directions. Candidates who do not get onboard and lay their political philosophy and direction on the table for discussion and dissection before the American people will not get the votes. Mainstream Americans aren't going to vote for candidates who aren't aware of the problems America is facing, and certainly not those candidates who want to ignore the reality.

Posted by: Colorado872 | November 8, 2007 7:45 AM | Report abuse

" ---
Forget this, let's just go back to the days of our founding fathers and the Constitution of 1787. Back when women and blacks and poor non-landowners couldn't vote, education and health care were luxuries of the elites, economic depressions meant you got kicked out on the street, and white and black people couldn't swim in the same pools... You know, the good old days.

Posted by: thetraytiger | November 7, 2007 03:29 PM
--- "

...and people had to use outhouses, and died of smallpox! Oh my!

The above argument is a example of a Straw Man Fallacy (see: http://www.fallacies.info/strawman.html).

Ron Paul does not propose to time travel to 1787. He proposes to obey the current Constitution of the United States.

Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Amendment 15 of the U.S. Constitution: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Removing the Department of Education (established in 1980) would only remove federal regulation of education, not education itself. That's a state issue (more constitutional quotes apply, but you get the idea).

But yes, in a non-socialist, non-communist system, people with different incomes do indeed have different options for health insurance, car insurance, home insurance, food, clothing, and housing. People with still get kicked out in the street if their resources fall to zero during an economic depression.

The sky is not falling, ad Ron Paul won't be able to make it fall.

Posted by: Akston | November 7, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: archtor | November 7, 2007 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Forget this, let's just go back to the days of our founding fathers and the Constitution of 1787. Back when women and blacks and poor non-landowners couldn't vote, education and health care were luxuries of the elites, economic depressions meant you got kicked out on the street, and white and black people couldn't swim in the same pools... You know, the good old days.

Posted by: thetraytiger | November 7, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

By reading your article or listening to the radio or TV commentators you are all assuming we are all creepy Internet users. I discovered Ron Paul 3 years ago on an interview on C-span. I loved his ideas. He voted against the patriot act, voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, is against torture and the suppression of habeas corpus and he loves Ludwig Von Mises who was a free market economist. By the way, Governor Schwarzenegger loves Von Misses too.
How can these evangelists preach love and anti-abortion and back G.O.P politicians who are for torture of prisoners of war and are denied habeas corpus.? Or stand by these candidates who are still in favor of a war that was illegal and unconstitutional from the beginning. Over 654.000 Iraqis have died. That is creepy!!!!
I am a mother of two wonderful boys and my husband is the typical American who works in an big corporation. We are not Internet creepy fanatics, but because the main stream media barely mentions Ron Paul, I get all the news I want from this incredible man through the Internet. Example I read your article through the daily e-mails the Washington Post sends me. After all Drudge Report said that 80 % of Americans are Internet users.
He is not getting attention because of skill or luck, he is admired because he is a man of principle and ethics. If you look at his record in congress, he practices what he preaches, unlike all of the other candidates of both parties. But the special interest groups are in despair if this man wins so they are doing all they can to discredit him and make him look like a lunatic. Including the N.R.A.
Elizabeth

Posted by: luchi1 | November 7, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

By reading your article or listening to the radio or TV commentators you are all assuming we are all creepy Internet users. I discovered Ron Paul 3 years ago on an interview on C-span. I loved his ideas. He voted against the patriot act, voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, is against torture and the suppression of habeas corpus and he loves Ludwig Von Mises who was a free market economist. By the way, Governor Schwarzenegger loves Von Misses too.
How can these evangelists preach love and anti-abortion and back G.O.P politicians who are for torture of prisoners of war and are denied habeas corpus.? Or stand by these candidates who are still in favor of a war that was illegal and unconstitutional from the beginning. Over 654.000 Iraqis have died. That is creepy!!!!
I am a mother of two wonderful boys and my husband is the typical American who works in an big corporation. We are not Internet creepy fanatics, but because the main stream media barely mentions Ron Paul, I get all the news I want from this incredible man through the Internet. Example I read your artilcle through the daily e-mails the Washington Post sends me. After all Drudge Report said that 80 % of Americans are Internet users.
He is not getting attention because of skill or luck, he is admired because he is a man of principle and ethics. If you look at his record in congress, he practices what he preaches, unlike all of the other candidates of both parties. But the special interest groups are in despair if this man wins so they are doing all they can to discredit him and make him look like a lunatic. Including the N.R.A.
Elizabeth

Posted by: luchi1 | November 7, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

In Houston when we were allowed to carry concealed weapons the crime rate dropped over 30%. Enough said. Gun Control increases crime, citizens with guns reduces it.

RON PAUL CAN WIN AND THE POLLS ARE BS.
Bush won the 2004 nomination with no competition.

As incumbent wartime president he was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

The only reason to vote in the 2004 primary was to show support for Bush and the Iraq War. IF the Republicans were so gung-ho about Bush and the war in 2004, they would have flocked to the primaries and support him.

But, they did NOT. The 2004 Republican turnout was the lowest in history. Those who voted in it are staunch Bush supporters and war Hawks.

All the "Scientific Polls" are ONLY contacting that very low percentage of Die hard Bush supporters and war hawks.

They are a fring element and do not represent the Republican party as a whole. These polls are not "scientific" and in fact are SERIOUSLY FLAWED because they represent a very small group of hawkish staunch bush supporters and not the average Joe Republican, not to mention the droves of moderate democrats and independents who have registered to vote for Ron PAul in the Primaries.

RON PAUL CAN WIN THE NOMINATION!!

Ron Paul has won 17 straw polls and every single online poll!!!

Early Primary victories will prove Ron Paul can win!!

RON PAUL CAN WIN THE NOMINATION!!

Posted by: 23zzd45 | November 7, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

To original poster -- I'm a gambling man and your bet about guns vs. RP supporters -- well you lose. Please send all proceeds to PokerStars.com where I shall parley them into huge winnings for Dr. Paul...

Posted by: ahornet007 | November 7, 2007 8:20 AM | Report abuse

If you think there's something "semi-creepy" about commemorating Guy Fawkes Day with a Ron Paul fund raiser, maybe you should take a look at how Roman Catholics were treated 16th and 17th century England. They were often imprisoned and tortured for refusing to renounce their faith. The Jesuit John Gerard, a contemporary of Guy Fawkes, contended that Fawkes was set up in order prevent James I from implementing more tolerant policies towards Catholics.

Posted by: wgaryjohnson | November 7, 2007 8:13 AM | Report abuse

I think many people miss Ron Paul's support. He is drawing from a wide range of very unhappy voters and it would be a mistake to ignore them. The same conservatives that elected Bush to the White House and republicans to majorities in the house and senate felt betrayed when, instead of pursuing a conservative agenda, those republicans instead chose to chase support among liberals. They didn't find that support and lost ours. Taxpayers who are tired of seeing billions in US dollars sent overseas. Veterans and active duty military (Paul gets more of their donations than any other candidate) who are tired of being placed in harms way as a police force. The military breaks things. Period. Just about ANYONE who feels that they are better qualified to spend their money, save for their future, educate their children, decide what to do with their own property, choose the course of their own healthcare, etc. Can anyone point to any of these things that the government does well, without a system rife with waste and fraud that WE pay for? The tax code is so complex that tax professionals can't get it right, lawmakers pass legislation they don't even read, Medicare and Social Security are operating disasters. In the midst of all of this people feel they have no control over the government in Washington and that legislators don't listen to them. People want the border CLOSED and no one in Washington seems to be listening. Liberals claim that THEY are the moderate view of the country and that the "majority" of people agree with their views. If the ballot box doesn't show that it's a failure of the process. Conservatives feel that most people agree with them and that the liberals are the extreme fringe, out of touch. Ron Paul draws from all of this. His message is not that the system is broken, but that we have stopped following the system. The biggest thing that is keeping his numbers low right now is that people continue to believe that no matter how much they personally like what he has to say, he "just can't win". If something happens at just the wrong time and people get frustrated enough with the status quo candidates right before election time, or if Ron Paul does well enough in the first few primaries to be perceived as having a real shot, look out...

Posted by: onebigelf | November 7, 2007 7:28 AM | Report abuse

The Constitution is very easy to understand, with or without a law degree. The "complications" are the thousands (maybe millions) of laws and court cases twist and subvert the Rule of Law to suit a special interest group or individual's desire for money or power.

What Congressman Paul has been doing for the last 3 decades is going straight to the Constitution and testing the government's action against it, instead of looking to legislation as a means of getting money from special interest groups for his next election cycle.

Posted by: EileenMac | November 7, 2007 5:28 AM | Report abuse

Wiz,

His desire to eventually eliminate those departments actually stems from his desire to follow the constitution. If you review Article 1, Section 8, then Amendment 10, you'll see that there is a specific, limited list of the areas assigned to the Federal legislature. Anything not expressly mentioned there is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Federally regulating education or energy (or any social issues) is not constitutionally allowed at the federal level.

He does want to eliminate the redundancy and civil rights encroachment by the Dept. of Homeland Security. I looked around and could not find paper or speech where he advocates "abolishing the CIA". There may be one, but I couldn't find it. Based on his other stances, my guess is it would be more accurate to say he'd advocate limiting the CIA to intelligence gathering, as opposed to covert operations and regime change.

Eliminating the IRS would remove around 40% of federal revenue. The federal budget has increased by somewhere around that 40% just since the year 2000. If the federal government stepped back to 2000 spending levels, reduced those departments (eventually to non-existence), and stopped spending nearly $10 billion a month on a world empire, we would not need the IRS.

I appreciate your concern about us being at war, but exactly who are we at war with? When will that undeclared war end? Is there a national leadership that will surrender or be completely wiped out to signify when we can claim victory? If not, we'll *always* be at "war".

Perhaps we can simply go after the specific criminals who took responsibility for the mass murders on 9/11, increase our national security here at home by bringing the troops home, and stop breeding more terrorists by intervening in other regions' ancient internal conflicts. The terrorists will not stop right away, but the easy excuse for their actions will recede.

In the meantime, both rich and poor Americans can keep more of the money they earn. Keeping that money will mean even more if we have the option of a competing fixed-based currency over fiat paper.

Obviously, there will be significant opposition to some of these thoughts on this blog. But that is only what I glean from Ron Paul's position, and I agree with it. Of course the best way to know for sure is to actually read his position papers yourself. They are easy to find. Google: "Ron Paul" issue-name and look for sites like www.house.gov and www.lewrockwell.com where he writes many articles.

Posted by: Akston | November 7, 2007 3:37 AM | Report abuse

Here's another reason not to get too caught up in Ron Paul's followers' enthusiasm.

Rudy Giuliani is the national frontrunner for the Republican nomination by a wide margin; but polls show that the people who support him are unaware of many of his positions on domestic issues. A lot of these issues, like gun ownership, abortion, gay rights, and the role of government, are actually huge wedges with the people who "support" the former mayor's candidacy. In other words, if they really knew where he stood, they'd vote for someone else.

Ron Paul is not the political savior that his supporters believe he is. Yes, he's for bringing the troops home right away. Yes, he's for protecting the Constitution. Does anyone think that's all he stands for? He wants to shut down the Department of Education; the Department of Energy; the CIA; the FBI; Homeland Security; the IRS; etc. I know a lot of people want to get rid of the IRS, go to the so-called Fair Tax, but can we really survive an economic shake-up right now? Especially if half the federal government is turned off at the same time?

We're in the middle of a war right now. Whether the troops come home tomorrow or ten years from now, it's not a good time to blind ourselves by removing the Intelligence community from the picture. How does Ron Paul expect to anticipate, let alone prevent, further terrorist attacks without the FBI or the CIA? How does he expect to shut down the Federal Reserve and put this entire country on the gold standard without causing a recession? How can he put tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of federal employees out of work and expect us to avoid a jobs crisis?

As foreign policy goes, I couldn't agree more with his philosophy. If he wants a job in the State Department, there are few who would disagree on either side, I think. But his domestic policies are more frightening than when Tom Tancredo suggested we threaten to bomb Mecca. You can't run for president while promising to hobble America. Well, apparently, you can; but you can't expect me to support you.

Posted by: paperback_wizard | November 7, 2007 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Let me tell you why Ron Paul is an Internet phenomemon. I'm a 65 year old woman who bought a computer in order to play online bridge. During the first Republican debate, I became intrigued by what Dr. Paul was saying. I wanted to hear more. Well, the media wasn't giving him the time of day, so I googled him. And that is that. If the media had been giving him the same coverage as they do Hillary or Romney, I wouldn't have had to do that, Dr. Paul would by now have the name recognition, and he would be leading in the polls. Dr. Paul owes his Internet popularity to the blackout given him by the mainstream media! It's as simple as that!

Please do me a favor and send over one of those Internet techs. I need someone to show me how to download his videos onto a disc.

Posted by: rockyjc | November 7, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

In a country where runaway debt,a devalued dollar, and unprecedented Executive branch power-grabs are somehow becoming accepted as the norm, I'll gladly support Ron Paul in the primaries.

I disagree with the idea that he's entertaining any idea of running as a third party candidate. I think part of the foundation of his campaign is to bring the Republican party back to the idea of small government. I suspect Paul sees himself as actually being the Republican who is actually the most loyal to Republican principles.

The idea that the government that governs least, governs best is an old, respectable idea. It used to be a Republican idea.

It is a sad reflection of our times that there is really no other candidate that I've heard from who advocates less government.

It's even sadder that a "small government" candidate is automatically branded as eccentric or fringe. Paul isn't the sharpest campaigner in the world, but he has the most appealing message (to me).

Posted by: nicoleparish | November 6, 2007 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Political Nutshell: People who do not read, vote for Giuliani and Clinton. People who read, vote for Biden and Ron Paul.

Posted by: Colorado872 | November 6, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Freedom is Natural.

Freedom is Good.

How difficult is that to understand?

RON PAUL 2008

Posted by: tennymichele | November 6, 2007 8:49 PM | Report abuse

dave--"And on Nov 7, he told of the plot. By the 9th, his co-conspirators had been named. But the account I read must be fiction because everyone today knows that torture does not work."

I only said that torture is ineffective as a means of gathering new information. It works fantastically as a means to coerce a "confession."

In the case of Fawkes, miraculously the conspirators named were the exact persons that the king disliked and had already detained or killed.

I also said that if you consider torture to be a legitimate in any circumstance, you are a subhuman, an animal and just as bad as all the other terrorists who use pain as means to an end.

Posted by: roo_P | November 6, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"Ron Paul is a true American & Republican conservative. "

I agree and that is why I cannot support him. But let's be clear, he is a true American because he is a citizen, not because he is a Repub conservative.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | November 6, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is a true American & Republican conservative. He is the only candidate that values the Constitution. Current Republican candidates through their actions are closer aligned politically with either Communist our nazi ideals. Ron Paul is the saviour for American Democracy. If Ron Paul does not win. We will see the the creation of the fourth riche in America.

Posted by: sparty68 | November 6, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

matthew, it is your "patriotic duty" to own guns? What does gun ownership have to do with patriotism? While I support people's right to own certain firearms, I fail to see how it has anything to do with patriotism.

And I hate to break it to you but if the government wants to come after you and get you, your guns won't save you. You may avoid being taken alive (and if that's the case, then how are you protecting your family), but your guns aren't going to help you get away or scare them off.

A democracy can't survive, nor can it serve its people, if the people don't actively participate. Don't be so paranoid.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | November 6, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

The Abortion thing was a sticking point for me but if you let state's decide or the people yeah remeber us? as for gun rights, better to have one and not need it, than need one and not have one. Why can't people see him from an objective view, compare character, vote record, and Military record, some say Mcain and I say he blew it when he caved in to bush in 2000, now he is bomb bomb Iran Mcan't I could go on but why? He is the only credible man or Hillary running.

Posted by: RaferJanders | November 6, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

claudialong, I support Ron Paul 100%. I own several guns and believe it is my patriotic duty. I do not hunt. Civilian ownership of effective small arms is a fundamental human right and is an indispensable protection from oppressive government and foreign invaders. I believe it is my duty as a father to protect my family, my freedom, and my country in the event of an emergency. Good luck relying on friendly policemen, claudia.

http://www.a-human-right.com/
To all who love liberty:

Stay armed, and stay free.
Liberty or death!

Posted by: matthew.garrison | November 6, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Why is it SO surprising that the denizens of DC don't like Ron Paul? I guess he must be the candidate of all those unsophisticated hicks in flyover country.
Just think of the Utopia if the Imperial City folks just ran every aspect of our lives. Why they're just so much more sophisticated, you know!

Posted by: upat3am | November 6, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Maybe people would like to symbolicly blow up the current government which offers us only candidates that continue to promote war, marxism and world government.

I loved the Fawkes reference. And I love RP.

Posted by: JaneAitken | November 6, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

to Claudia Long - the 1st poster
you said
an interesting factoid -- gun ownership in this country is at record highs, while hunting is at record lows...
Well dearie, even Mike Huckabee has said that the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting! Nothing.
When Guiliani supporters declare their candidate to be "good", and Ron Paul supporters to be "bad" , and then resort to force and violence to impose their "goodness" on the "creeps".... that's where the 2nd Amendment comes in. Its called resistance to tyranny and a love of freedom.
And here's another little "factoid for you, Claudia, only a small % of Americans supported the Revolution, most preferred to let George make their decisions.

Posted by: upat3am | November 6, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

'proud wrote:

"mark - I like some of his libertarian ideas, too, but he's off the deep end on so many things."

We agree.'
And so do I.

Posted by: drindl | November 6, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

> fuzzewhze wrote:
> "You KNOW that a State government can go
> corrupt to the point you don't like it,
> can't stand it, hate it. You can leave
> that state though."
>
> Maybe *you* can leave your state, but
> not everybody can. Where on earth is a
> minimum-wage-earning fry cook going to
> get the resources to find a job and move
> halfway across the country when his
> state legislature decides to do
> something stupid?

When the Federal government goes corrupt, nobody will be able to leave.

Which is worse?

We have a nutjob in office marching us right into fascism. Just be glad that the Iraq war wasn't won cleanly and efficiently, because if it was, that march would have been accelerated.

There is no perfect system - I do realize that. My principle concern is that people place too much faith in a government they can no longer control - the Federal Government.

We just elected a bunch of Democrats to get us out of Iraq. ARE WE?

Why not? 70% of the population wants us out. There's been no declaration of war.

I know it's hard to accept, but the Federal Government doesn't care about what you think. You put Hillary Clinton or Obama in, and nothing will change. Both are in record supporting an attack against Iran. Iran poses NO THREAT to the United States AT ALL.

And even if they did, I'm not afraid of them and neither should you be afraid of them. If they attacked us, we have a nuclear arsenal. I don't think they are stupid enough to attack us. The USSR wasn't.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

> Hey Fuzzy, what if 99% of the people in
> Georgia in 1862 wanted slavery to be
> legal? Oh that's right, they did. Hmm,m
> good thing the federal govt. stepped in
> and put an end to that or I'd be out in
> a cotton field (or corn field) right now.

What if the Federal government decided they wanted slavery in 1862, even if NY had abolished it?

You just got lucky.

The Federal government has done some good things, but it does a lot of bad things.

Don't you know about the Tuskegee Trials?

I'm simply stating that our Federal government could be just as WONDERFUL or as HORRIBLE as any state government.

We should be a country of United STATES. When your government gets horrible, you can vote with your feet, and you should.

> The Constitution (and the federal govt.
> in its application of the Constitution)
> is there to protect the rights of the
> minority from the overreaching desires
> of the majority.

Agreed and if a state starts to violate those rights, it's the responsibilty of the Federal Government to step in.

The Federal government's ONLY role should be to protect the rights of individuals and to use military force to protect the states, nothing else.

The States Rights argument over segregation is crap. The states had no right to do that, they were in violation of the constitution. Seperate but equal would be fine, but it's wasn't equal so it wasn't.

The smartest man I know, incidentally, is an Ethiopian. People that wouldn't hire him because he's black cripple themselves.

I live in Silicon Valley. I'm white. I'm a minority. Most people I work with are Indian. My cubemate is black - he's an even smaller minority here than I am.

But so what? Race is nothing more than a tool of racists. There is no scientific concept of a race. We're human, and that's that. No government has a right to treat of differently based on our genetic makeup and that's spelled out pretty accurately in the constitution today.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

fuzzewhze wrote:
"You KNOW that a State government can go corrupt to the point you don't like it, can't stand it, hate it. You can leave that state though."

Maybe *you* can leave your state, but not everybody can. Where on earth is a minimum-wage-earning fry cook going to get the resources to find a job and move halfway across the country when his state legislature decides to do something stupid? You say that it's unfair to expect people to "vote with their feet" on a national level because moving from one country to another is too difficult and too expensive for some. By that same argument, it is also unfair to expect people to "vote with their feet" on a state level.

Posted by: tjmaness | November 6, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

cali - Your using Washington D.C. (WDC) as "proof" is interesting, simply becasue it so makes mockery of your argument. In 1960, the population of WDC was 763,956. It peaked at 809,000 in 1968. The number of murders in 1960 was 81; in 1968 it was 195. The overall violent crime rate in 1968 was 12,180. WDC was granted self governance by COngress in 1976 and passed a flat out ban on guns that year. The population had falllen to 702,000, there were 235 murders, and 10,399 violent crimes. Dutng subsequent years, the population of WDC shrank and the homicide and violent crime rates increased to a peak of 482 in 1991 (violent crimes: 14,671 and population 598,000). The homicide rate continued at around 400 per year or more and the violent crime rate at around 14,000 to 16,000 until 1998. Then, it abruptly began falling until last years 169...**after** the repeal of the firearm ban in Wasgington D.C. (the year before it was 195; it had fallen to under 200 in 2004 and stayed there ever since). The populatio, today, has shrank to 581,530 and the violent crime rate 8,772.

Now, all of this basically says that there is no relationship whatsoever between firearms, gun control laws, and crime. The D.C. gun ban, the Brady laws, none of these had any effect on violence and homicides. You might better argue that the 2004 presidential election correlates better with the drop in violent crime and homicides.

You can check my figures at two office sites:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_08_dc.html
and
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 6, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul has ideas that may be unconventional, but that to many people is the start of rehauling things that never made sense and never worked well. He's willing to take them on. Other Candidates just go with the flow and tell what you want to hear.

Who will Ron Paul replace to become a first tier Candidate?
----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=890

.

Posted by: PollM | November 6, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"Not necessarily very convincing. Remember DC once being labeled the "murder capitol of the world"? Since then DC had some of the most strict gun control laws and now it's a very safe city." -Cali

Now, I'm on the side of gun control but I reserve the right to cal BS on anything anyone says. Even if I agree with their main point.

Although DC does have stronger gun control laws than the national average, it's arguable that the laws contributed a smaller amount than the massive gentrification and economic renewal in NW DC.

People living below the poverty line and those in the various underground economies (drugs, guns, etc) are far more likely to commit violent crimes than your average young professional. Essentially, more money = less crime. When was the last time someone was murdered in Bethesda or Potomac? Compare that to the last time someone was killed in Baltimore city.

Now this isn't always true, of course. No generalization is. Mayor (now Governor) O'Malley turned Baltimore around by focusing on economic growth in the city. He made it as safe as it's been in the last couple of decades. Mayor Dixon shifted some key policies and things have gotten somewhat worse, but not like it used to be.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 6, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

It happened this weekend. I live in New York City. My wife and 3 years old daugther were walking on the street. All of a sudden a car started speeding from a parking lot and a guy jumped out from a pizza place and started shooting at the car. And all this was happening in front of my wife and my daughter at 1pm on a busy street. Now a question to gun lovers. What would have happened should everybody around had guns and started shooting? How many people would have killed each other? I considered buying a gun, legally of course. However, I gave up this idea for the following reasons. You should be able to correctly evaluate situation, you should know how to use a gun under stress when innocent people are around you, what if you miss and kill an innocent person. Police officers undergo special trainings and even they make mistakes. As somebody pointed out in a previous post, life in Montana is different from life in New York City. The point is to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals.

Posted by: tandt97 | November 6, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Sooooo, getting back to the topic at hand, I don't see how Ron Paul will garner any significant numbers in the Repub primary. He is an anti-establishment candidate and the way things are stacked these days, only the candidates who have the "blessing" of the party establishment get anywhere. And this goes for the Dem party as well, otherwise Dennis Kucinich would be doing much better.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | November 6, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"And then there's this gem: On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction."

proud: Paul is on the losing end of many votes along the lines of 428-1, because he believes Congress should not be issuing birthday greetings to 108-year-old people and other things like that.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 6, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey Fuzzy, what if 99% of the people in Georgia in 1862 wanted slavery to be legal? Oh that's right, they did. Hmm,m good thing the federal govt. stepped in and put an end to that or I'd be out in a cotton field (or corn field) right now.

The Constitution (and the federal govt. in its application of the Constitution) is there to protect the rights of the minority from the overreaching desires of the majority.

Now, in regards to Liberals imposing their will on others, I believe it is the Repubs who want to limit who has the right to get married. I believe it is the Repubs who want to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. I believe it is the Repubs who have decided that torturing is now OK.

If you are a libertarian, thats fine. But be so because you believe in what Libertarians believe in, not because you don't believe in what you incorrectly believe Liberals are about.

Posted by: PeixeGato | November 6, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

> What good is a federal government if it
> doesn't act to protect and help its own
> citizens. I trust my state government,
> but if I lived in other parts of the
> country (particularly during other
> periods in time), I would have
> absolutely NO trust in the state
> government's ability to protect me and
> my civil rights.
>
> Just because Bush and Co. have destroyed
> our federal government doesn't mean that
> the federal government is uncapable of
> functioning. If I believed that, then
> I'd never be able to trust ANY state or
> local government, particularly those in
> the southern part of the country.

Listen,

What if the FEDERAL government starts acting just like the STATE governments that you don't trust, particularly in the southern part of the country.

Where will you go then?

You KNOW that a State government can go corrupt to the point you don't like it, can't stand it, hate it. You can leave that state though.

What happens when instead of your state government doing this, your FEDERAL government does this. Can you leave it?

When you can vote with your feet and money, your government becomes more responsive. We cannot vote either with our feet NOR our money with it comes to the Federal government. We're captive to it. It was never meant to be this way but expect it to get worse.

Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are BOTH on record supporting an attack on Iran. Does the majority of Democrats want that? Try to stop them.

Republicans are against Nation Building, but here we are in Iraq, Nation Building.

Republicans are against large Federal government, and GWB has grown it by 30% in 6 years.

Republican are against wasteful spending, and the national debt has nearly doubled since Bush took over.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

proud wrote:

"mark - I like some of his libertarian ideas, too, but he's off the deep end on so many things."

We agree.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 6, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm watching the Situation Room and Wolf just led into break by talking about Paul's "one-day haul" and whether or not it will translate into additional media coverage. He then said they would talk more about that after the break.

Um, excuse me, but if you are covering it, then doesn't that mean he is getting additional media attention? What a moron (and this applies to most MSM as they are all doing the same thing).

Posted by: PeixeGato | November 6, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

> And, Congressman Paul introduced The
> Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, which
> would remove jurisdiction of the Supreme
> Court in cases involving abortion laws
> in individual States.
>
> Yes, the federal government ruling on
> abortion is extra-constitutional and it
> is a state/local issue. If you read the
> constitution, you'll only find 18
> enumerated powers and health rights
> isn't one of them...
>
> Do the liberals who rally behind Paul
> really understand all of his views?

Yes, I do.

I live in California. I'm not worried about abortion being outlawed here. I think my state will make the right decision.

And if Kansas outlaws it? What if 99% of the people of Kansas WANTS to outlaw it? Isn't it their decision, not your decision?

And if you live in Kansas, and they outlaw it, then what? You can move. I have lived in 5 states, and I moved when I didn't like the people and/or the government. Everybody should.

Why do you think Silicon Valley is filled with such diverse people? That's where I am. Nearly all of us left to come here. Lots of Libertarians here and notice we created Google, Yahoo, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Adobe, Netscape, Atari, Cisco....

Let people do what they want, right OR wrong. What is right for you may not be right for another person.

What could be more Liberal than letting people of like mind congregate and form their own communities?

This is why Republicans call Liberals fascists, they feel that Liberals are trying to impose their will - AND THEY ARE.

Republicans try to do the same thing on Liberals when they are in the Federal government.

Get rid of this ability, and let states decide what they want, and allow people to leave and enter the state at will. We'll be a better nation and we'll all be happier as individuals.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Dear PeixeGato,

You're right. If you believe that the Federal Government should control every aspect of your life from cradle to grave and should be given complete authority to take your money and spend (waste) it however they see fit; if you believe that the Federal Government can do a better job of taking care of us than we can ourselves, then you most certainly should not support Ron Paul.

All of the former Democrats whom I have met that have switched their party to vote for Ron Paul state that they have done so not only because of his position on the Iraq war, but also because they are worried about what the out-of-control government spending and Federal Reserve bank has done to the average citizen's ability to build wealth or support a family, or because they're worried about the erosion of our personal freedoms, or because they see voting for any other candidate out there, Republican or Democrat, as voting for more of the same. HRC, Barak Obama, Giuliani, Romney... they would all continue to propagate the warfare/welfare state that is bankrupting this country.

Posted by: marcus | November 6, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

What good is a federal government if it doesn't act to protect and help its own citizens. I trust my state government, but if I lived in other parts of the country (particularly during other periods in time), I would have absolutely NO trust in the state government's ability to protect me and my civil rights.

Just because Bush and Co. have destroyed our federal government doesn't mean that the federal government is uncapable of functioning. If I believed that, then I'd never be able to trust ANY state or local government, particularly those in the southern part of the country.

Now, getting back to the topic at hand, I believe that many people supporting him are doing so only because he is a Repub who opposes our occupation of Iraq. That was my point.

PG

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | November 6, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Colin, I think there's no point arguing. In my mind, there's no question that the Post, overall, is left of center. Most people I know, even most liberals (yes, I have many liberal friends...) agree with that. Sorry you don't.

Are they NY Times? Mother Jones? The Nation? No, they're not that obvious.

Again, their position against PWC's illegal immigration control efforts is absolutely undefendable. As is their opposition of the incumbents pushing that effort (or because they're an R, either way).

Posted by: JD | November 6, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

mark - I like some of his libertarian ideas, too, but he's off the deep end on so many things. It's the same old absurd notions his supporters cling to like "don't pay your taxes, the IRS has no authority to collect taxes".

None of the Paul worshipers has yet to explain his opposition to legislation that would target online child predators.

And then there's this gem: On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 6, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Cali, I think you missed the point of the post. The stats I presented compared Florida's crime rate with the general US rate - the main difference being Florida's expansion of gun owner rights in that year.

If you don't want to use private gun law changes as the proxy for the huge difference between Florida crime rates vs US crime rates, fine - but you need to come to the table with another reasonable cause, then.

Posted by: JD | November 6, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

proud, Congress has the explicit authority to regulate commerce among the states, lay taxes, and create post roads. Paul's arguments against Congress regulating commerce among the states, or laying taxes, or building and maintaining the Interstate and US Highway systems, or overseeing airport security all are simple policy arguments with no constitutional dimension.

But to the extent that he is a believer in personal liberty, I applaud his efforts.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 6, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

> Yes, Ron Paul is a "true" Repub in the
> ilk of Reagan and other "old school"
> Repubs. But this is exactly why I don't
> like him and could never vote for him.

I wouldn't vote for Paul at the state or local level, but he's exactly what we need at the Federal Level.

It's just that simple.

The Federal government is out of control with spending and abuse of power - the only remedy is to dramatically reduce it's power and spending.

States can pick up the slack. Don't you trust your state government? Don't like your state government? Vote with your feet and move to another state.

Just TRY to leave the country. You'll find out that's extremely difficult and very expensive.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh, my post was in response to the post put up by marcus a few posts up the list.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | November 6, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

> He[Paul] has no authority now to seek
> abandonment of the powers given to the
> federal govt.

What powers is Paul seeking to remove from the "federal govt" that the Federal government legally and constitutionally holds?

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I was just thinking the same thing about the basis of people's opinions of Ron Paul, only from a different perspective.

As a Democrat, I am amazed at how uninformed many fellow Dems are about this guy. I have talked to many of my fellow Dems who talk about how they would support Ron Paul over HRC, talking about him with dreamy eyes. What they fail to realize is that beyond his opposition to the occupation in Iraq, he is the antithesis to what many Dems are fighting for in this election. Just because he opposes the current administration's foreign policy doesn't make him anything close to a Democrat. And if people really understood where Ron Paul stood on most economic and social issues, he would not be so appealing to so many "independents" either.

We have become so accustomed to Repubs blindly following this administration and rubber stamping anything that it does that we think that any Repubs who oppose them on any issue must be Democrats in Republican clothing.

Yes, Ron Paul is a "true" Repub in the ilk of Reagan and other "old school" Repubs. But this is exactly why I don't like him and could never vote for him.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | November 6, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"If the powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution are ended by Ron Paul, the states should and will need better representation in the senate."

skefboomer, the problem with that explanation is that Congressman Paul attempted to pass this legislation in the Congress this year, while GWB is in office. By your assessment, he's putting the cart before the legislative horse at the very least, and committing a fraudulent act as an elected Congressman for his Texas constituents at worst. He has no authority now to seek abandonment of the powers given to the federal govt.

Nice try, but your explanation doesn't hold water, like many of the others here.

Now, what about that vote he cast against legislation to help catch online child predators? Don't you think the government has a duty to protect it's citizens agasinst the most heinous criminals?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 6, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

> fuzzy: just answer this one question: Do
> you believe the Pure Food and Drug Act
> to be unconstitutional?

I believe it to be useless.

I'm willing to break the constitution when it's in the interest of everybody but these are the same jerks that weren't showing up to import docks to check imported food that ended up being poisoned with malamine.

All the Federal government does today is say "don't worry, we've got it covered", as they blow off their job. It's just false security.

If the melamine was in human food, there would be a few thousand people dead instead. We just got lucky - nothing else.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing to me how uninformed many of you are posting comments in response to the news about Ron Paul's huge fundraising success - much like the MSM puppets who wrote them. If you are going to post criticisms of Ron Paul's ideas, at least do yourself the favor of reading up on them first. You might be surprised how much sense he makes! Please go to www.ronpaullibrary.com to read about his ACTUAL positions on things like The Department of Education, The War on Terror, and The Federal Reserve Bank.

It is likewise stunning to me that people continue to try to portray Ron Paul as a non-republican. Please go to the website below to listen to a speech by Ronald Reagan that sounds eerily similar to Ron Paul's current platform. If Ron Paul is not a true Republican, then neither was Ronald Reagan.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=74JF0Xf6hPY

Posted by: marcus | November 6, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

JD,

"Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996 ..."

Not necessarily very convincing. Remember DC once being labeled the "murder capitol of the world"? Since then DC had some of the most strict gun control laws and now it's a very safe city.

Also, 1987 I was in high school. I remember listening to someone on the radio predicting how abortion and the aging of those in the age bracket most likely to commit violent crime would mean a decline in violent crime during the following years.

I'm not saying these are definitely cause and effects, but my point is you shouldn't be convinced just based on you statistics.

Posted by: cali | November 6, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"Paul is against Federal officers doing security in airports."
Yes the TSA (did you know that these "federal officers" joke about that the TSA stands for Thousands Standing Around?) LOL that agency is a joke. They only check 10% of luggage and I accidentally carried on board my 4 inch pen knike through 4 airports. Noticed it in a pocket of my briefcase when I got home. But they took my toothpaste!! LOL smart bunch those TSA federal officers!

Posted by: BillinNY | November 6, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Responding to proudtobeGOP | November 6, 2007 02:31 PM

I wonder if any Paul devotees could explain this....

17th - If the powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution are ended by Ron Paul, the states should and will need better representation in the senate. This was the very reason that senators were appointed by state legislatures in our original constitution, ensuring that state representation was provided on a longer term basis than the congress (2 years). It was only to reduce state power that the popular election of senators was enacted.

And, Congressman Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, which would remove jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases involving abortion laws in individual States.

Yes, the federal government ruling on abortion is extra-constitutional and it is a state/local issue. If you read the constitution, you'll only find 18 enumerated powers and health rights isn't one of them...

Do the liberals who rally behind Paul really understand all of his views?

I don't know, I'm a constitution supporter, not a liberal...

Posted by: skefboomer | November 6, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

> As to security, someone here said that
> Paul is against Federal officers doing
> security in airports. That doesn't seem
> like a great idea. I'm also in favor of
> stronger gun control laws or at least
> keeping the ones we have. To allow
> individuals to have M16's with under
> slung grenade launchers seems dangerous.

Hey, I have a suggestion.

How about airlines do their own security?

If this were the case, we could have held airlines responsible for 9/11 since it was their mistake. Of course, some airlines would have their pilots armed - most pilots are ex military men after all. Some may not.

And if 9/11 happened anyhow? Well, it was the airline that let it happen. The victims would hold the airline to account.

Why should there be a corporate shield? If you ran the airline YOU made the policies, it's YOUR responsibility to keep it safe.

The problem is there is not accountability. With great reward comes great risk. Don't want to be held personally liable when a plane comes down? Better not run an airline then.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

fuzzy: just answer this one question: Do you believe the Pure Food and Drug Act to be unconstitutional?

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 6, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

> fuzzy's remarks remind me of the
> greatest sports quote ever, uttered by
> former Dallas Cowboy Blaine Nye about
> the performance of one-hit wonder Clint
> Longley in the famous 1974 Thanksgiving
> game against the Redskins:
>
> "The triumph of the uncluttered mind"

I take that as a swipe at me.

People are free to interpret the constitution as they see fit, but there are pretty clear limits to it.

Federal government doesn't have any right to wage a war on drugs.

Federal government doesn't have any right to dictate what your child is taught.

Federal government doesn't have any right to use military personel without a declaration of war.

Federal government doesn't have any right to create social security trust funds then steal from it.

Federal government doesn't have any right to impose a speed limit.

Federal government doesn't have any right to impose federal safety standards on anything.

Now STATE governments do.

It's really not at all complicated. I believe in competition. If state X makes a lot of bad decisions, their citizens will suffer, and they bright ones will move away to other states in search of a better life. If state Y makes good decisions people like, people will move there.

People will suddenly vote with their feet.

Oh, the horror of that! People deciding on their own what system they like or do not like. People allowed to make their own mistakes and own successes.

Hell, maybe I'm totally wrong. Well, I'm not expecting you to pay for my errors.

Maybe you're wrong - do not expect me to pay for your errors.

I don't need somebody saving my from myself, and I really don't need somebody asking me to save them. You are your own responsibility.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"I can see how maybe you prefer government regulation to protect your financial security, but how can Libertarian policies be any more "dangerous" to your personal security than the status quo which allowed 9/11 to happen?"

Posted by: BillinNY | November 6, 2007 04:25 PM

Glad we're more or less agreed on how the government protects my personal investments.

As to security, someone here said that Paul is against Federal officers doing security in airports. That doesn't seem like a great idea. I'm also in favor of stronger gun control laws or at least keeping the ones we have. To allow individuals to have M16's with under slung grenade launchers seems dangerous.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 6, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

fuzzy do you not understand what the Supreme Court has been doing these past 200 years or so? All those "cases" they hear? Most of them involve some part of the Constitution. Is it your contention that the Justices have been wasting their time, because it's all really clear?

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 6, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I will not repeat the bimetallic or asset standard debate we had here weeks ago. You may recall that Radical Patriot engaged seriously, but many simply flooded the thread with invective.

I will repeat that all must read and comprehend

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

A liberal constitutional scholar's unashamed defense of the Second Amendment as granting individual rights.

I threatened a quiz on it previously - now I withdraw the threat and respectfully request that all you wonks and wonkettes read it.

As a footnote, I represented Suzanna Gratia, D.C., before she was elected as Suzanna Hupp, but after she lost her parents to murder at Luby's. She was passionate, smart, and motivated.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 6, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

> 'The constitution isn't complicated'
>
> LOL. yeah right. that's why we've been
> debating what it means for hundreds of
> years.

For example.... ?

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

novamatt,
If you think that today's VA GOP is out of step with or shifted to the right of a George Allen or Jim Gilmore, you are whacked. The VA GOP has moved nowhere. What is going on? Larry Sabato would call it the arrogance of power - "headiness of power, and the fateful,
self-destructive arrogance that sooner or later comes from its full exercise." Basically, greater power leads to factionalism and internal strife. It happens to both parties, it's just the R's turn.

Posted by: dave | November 6, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

fuzzy's remarks remind me of the greatest sports quote ever, uttered by former Dallas Cowboy Blaine Nye about the performance of one-hit wonder Clint Longley in the famous 1974 Thanksgiving game against the Redskins:

"The triumph of the uncluttered mind"

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 6, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse


'I find Ron Paul's grasp of the actual document to be weak. I find his ability to use it as some sort of talisman to be remarkably strong.'

that is for damn sure...

'The constitution isn't complicated'

LOL. yeah right. that's why we've been debating what it means for hundreds of years.

Posted by: drindl | November 6, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

> But your point is well taken. The
> Constitution is something to be debated
> among people with years of post
> -bachelors education. The language is
> obtuse and the meanings have been
> interpreted by the courts so much you
> have to have a lot of information to
> have a good grasp on what's going on.
>
> I find Ron Paul's grasp of the actual
> document to be weak. I find his ability
> to use it as some sort of talisman to be
> remarkably strong.

Oh man!

This is why people hate lawyers.

The constitution isn't complicated it's just lawyers spend 8 years learning to not understand it.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

'I'd like to say that to HRC.' Oh, PLEASE do. and have an actual gun your hand at the time. It would make my day. I do so enjoy watching the Secret Service when they go batsh*t on somebody.

Jenn2, I really like your posts. I appreciate your taking the time to explain to fuzzy [who does make some good points] why Ron Paul is not the second coming.

What I see here is that Paul --becuase his actual positions are really complicated and difficult to comprehend -- becomes what fred thompson was before he dudded out -- some kind of a blank slate to project your personal vision utopian vision onto.

Posted by: drindl | November 6, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I should comment on this as well:

> [People] They're pragmatists. If, for an
> example that I am just making up out of
> the air, we find that people think
> federal protection of endangered species
> is very important and has been
> successful and a good use of taxpayer
> funds, then their opinion isn't going to
> be swayed much by a Constitutional
> argument on federalism.

Here, let me propose a CRAZY idea.

Let me buy land. If I don't develop it, put no structures on it, I don't pay any taxes on it. It's mine though.

This way, a charatible organization, or even an individual, could buy property to turn it into a natural reserve.

But the FEDERAL GOVERMENT won't allow this. Why not?

I got news for you, the Federal Government doesn't care about doing good things, they care about pretending to do go things so they can get money from you. PETA does this. PETA doesn't run a single shelter in all the world. HSUS is the same. The Humane Society of the US, HSUS - doesn't run a single shelter and they aren't affiliated with your local humane society.

The Red Cross is like this. 95% of all money sent to UNICEF goes to "administrative costs" - so basically a bunch of innocent little kids collecting dimes and nickels are doing it to make some immoral piece of dirty wealthy.

Your
Federal
Government
Is
No
Different.

Get it through your head. Al Capone did nice things too, it's PR and that's it.

You want to cut down on gasolene usage and stop global warming? Stop having wars in the Middle East to keep the price artificially low then all of a sudden, people will start driving these:

http://blog.scifi.com/tech/pics/aptera_2.jpg

It gets 200 MPG.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

JasonL this is a strange fear ..." I do believe that Libertarian policies would be dangerous to my personal and financial security"

I can see how maybe you prefer government regulation to protect your financial security, but how can Libertarian policies be any more "dangerous" to your personal security than the status quo which allowed 9/11 to happen?

Posted by: BillinNY | November 6, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"What do you think the percentage of Americans who even know what the Commerce Clause is, much less have an opinion about it, is? Take out those of us with a JD and it's probably less than one percent." -Jenn

Those of us with MPA's or MPP's have a bit of that goodness going for us, too.

But your point is well taken. The Constitution is something to be debated among people with years of post-bachelors education. The language is obtuse and the meanings have been interpreted by the courts so much you have to have a lot of information to have a good grasp on what's going on.

I find Ron Paul's grasp of the actual document to be weak. I find his ability to use it as some sort of talisman to be remarkably strong.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 6, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"

Well, since none of the resident Paulites have stepped forward to explain his legiwslative proposal to abolish the 17th Amendment, how about explaining this...

Paul voted against legislation to help catch online child predators, saying "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary."

If none of the Paul followers here has the cojones to defend this position from your candidate, then I would ask that you stop filling this thread with your useless campaign slogans from his website."

Bravo, proud. Taking the bushel basket off the entire Paul record and exposing it to the light is a good thing.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 6, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you might check RonPaulGraphs.com for reliable stats before speaking. First, support for New Hampshire comes from New Hampshire-- which is in fact the -highest- state per capita in donations to Ron Paul: 1 out of every 3200 Free Staters is a Ron Paul DONOR (donors.html). Second, Paul is not a "longshot", which is a betting term. Bettors at Intrade have ranked Paul in third place with 9%-10% odds, above Thompson and McCain for five days now (intrade_price_rep.html), and I believe sportsbook.com has him at 5-to-1 (17% odds). Please correct your article.

Posted by: john | November 6, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

> Paul's position is not about eliminating
> waste, fraud, overspending, no-bid
> contracts, etc. Those are all things
> people can get behind.

Bwhahaha!

Of course it is!

I've been a follower of Paul for quite some time. I suggest you look over his voting record.

* He's never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* I've seen him rip Bernake a new rectum.
* He votes against farm subsidies, because he believes they don't help the people they claim to help.

The list goes on and on. The guy won't even participate in the Congressional retirement plan for god sakes.

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/RonPaul_DontSteal.jpg

Boy, you guys just don't have a clue about Ron Paul do you? There's absolutely no excuse. In front of your is the most powerful communication device ever created by man.

Start using it and don't believe the rhetoric, check out voting records. Paul explains quite plainly why he supports or doesn't support a bill.

> Every candidate will have something to
> say about that that will have broad
> popular support. But Paul's position is
> for a dramatic restructuring of the
> areas in which the federal government
> legislates, REGARDLESS of whether or not
> that legislation has been effective or
> popular.

Hello?

The Federal government had a HORSE JUDGE in charge of the Federal EMERGENCY Management Agency.

They bankrupted Social Security.

This is what a 20 coin looked like in 1920:

http://www.confiscation-of-gold.com/coins_gold_20Dollar_1927%20copy.jpg

That's worth $800 today because of the inflation the Federal government caused.

A dime from 1963 is worth $1.00, a penny from 1963 would be equivalent to a dime today.

Social Security has run a surplus for almost it's entire existence, where has the surplus gone? Well, if you have read the Social Security Trust Fund Act, the government can't borrow from it - it's illegal, but the government did borrow from it, and owes trillions of dollars back to it, without interest of course.

I wouldn't trust the Federal government to clean my toilet.

What, precisely, has the Federal government done right?

> Good or bad, it all has to go because
> his interpretation of the Constitution
> says so.

"Good or bad" - bwhahahaha! It's all been bad?

What's good about it? Do tell me, because I'm sure eager to know what this incompetent government has done right!

I mean, Iraq was under sanctions for a DECADE and President Nutjob can't even finish the job there, and he wants to go to Iran next.

If you want me to consider the GOOD, you better spell out what GOOD this bunch of thieves and morons have done with the 3 TRILLION dollars they get a year.

What good?

You spell it out to me, because I'm really slow and cannot see it.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Fuzzy, I wasn't talking about the Fed. I was responding to a quote taken directly from Ron Pauls website saying that the Constitution would help prioritize our spending. It will not. I'm not impressed by noun, verb Constitution anymore than I am by Giuliani's variation on that.

It could be argued that he's trying to say something different, that he's attacking our monetary system, but he doesn't say that, he says noun, verb, Constitution. Please.

"Our Federal government really is being run by a bunch of criminals. That has to end, now. We're over in Iraq - where are the weapons of mass destruction? Who is being held accountable? Nobody. Why isn't our media calling for blood as they should be? There's over 500 billion spent, there's tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead over this. War was never declared, that's a constititutional requirement."
I'd argue that the Republican party has been and is being held responsible. They lost their Congressional majorities, stand to lose more seats and face an uphill battle in the Presidential race.
------
As to the return to the gold standard, that piece by Greenspan was written in the 60's, first off. Has anyone read his new book? Does he talk about the gold standard there? JD or another economist might be able to add more here, but my understanding is that it would cause untold chaos in our economy for a short term duration of a year or two. A little clarification from someone with more knowledge would be welcome.
----
"Whether you like it or not, gun ownership is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION." -Jaffy
This is debatable. The Constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You can take that to mean that everyone can own an arsenal, but I think of it as you have the right to a well regulated gun. Automatic weapons, anything that fires an explosive, these kinds of things you don't need. You do need a very secure gun case and probably a trigger lock. I think you can have a right to that.
-----
"I think we could use some Libertarian influence at the Fed level to pare things down a bit. Ideally some Greens would get there too, for a little balance on the other side. Of course such pipedreams include the fantasy that actual compromise would result, rather than gridlock."

Bsimon, I'm not sure what to say to that. I don't have a problem with Libertarians themselves but I do believe that Libertarian policies would be dangerous to my personal and financial security. That's not to say that they can't exist in government, but they need to be moderated as much as they might moderate those of other philosophies. The President, on the other hand, being a fairly singular entity with a lot of power, will hopefully stay with parties that are a little more grounded, by which I mean moderate R's and D's.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 6, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, I'm glad to know I scare you, USMC Mike"

That is digital intimidation and I don't have to take it. I'm telling the FBI.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 6, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

slandon -- funny. Actually, I'm glad to know I scare you, USMC Mike, becuase it proves what I've always found -- that the biggest bullies and chickenhawks and warmongers are always the most cowardly.

Posted by: drindl | November 6, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is difficult to figure out because he draws support from so many groups that do not appear to be natural allies. For example, gun lovers and antiwar protesters can find something to like in Ron Paul. Civil libertarians and pro-lifers can find something to like in Ron Paul. He has tapped into something very real. But where will it take him?

I wrote more about Ron Paul and where he draws his support here:

http://www.theseventen.com/2007/11/ron-paul-appeal.html

Posted by: theseventen | November 6, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Thanks othesrarnt for the clarification.

I just remember seeing her make that statement on TV, which sent chills up my spine (and I suspect many other viewers)

"No, Mr. Senator, I need my gun to protect myself from YOU" as she pointed straight at him. He wasn't expecting that.

I'd like to say that to HRC.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 6, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Well, since none of the resident Paulites have stepped forward to explain his legiwslative proposal to abolish the 17th Amendment, how about explaining this...

Paul voted against legislation to help catch online child predators, saying "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary."

If none of the Paul followers here has the cojones to defend this position from your candidate, then I would ask that you stop filling this thread with your useless campaign slogans from his website.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 6, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Because, fuzzy, we aren't a nation of conservative Constitutional Law professors. What do you think the percentage of Americans who even know what the Commerce Clause is, much less have an opinion about it, is? Take out those of us with a JD and it's probably less than one percent.

Paul's position is not about eliminating waste, fraud, overspending, no-bid contracts, etc. Those are all things people can get behind. Every candidate will have something to say about that that will have broad popular support. But Paul's position is for a dramatic restructuring of the areas in which the federal government legislates, REGARDLESS of whether or not that legislation has been effective or popular. Good or bad, it all has to go because his interpretation of the Constitution says so.

And again, I am not commenting on the merits of that interpretation. I am just saying that most people don't think like that. They're pragmatists. If, for an example that I am just making up out of the air, we find that people think federal protection of endangered species is very important and has been successful and a good use of taxpayer funds, then their opinion isn't going to be swayed much by a Constitutional argument on federalism.

Posted by: Jenn2 | November 6, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." -- Representative Suzanna Gratia Hupp

That's why Ron Paul gets my vote. That, and his unwavering record of upholding and defending the Constitution. None of the other candidates come close.

Posted by: spryrogue | November 6, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

USMCMike-

You were a little off-base about the Luby's incident.

It wasn't a young girl, it was Suzanna Hupp. She was in her 30's at the time. She wasn't armed. She left her firearm in the car, because at the time it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Texas.

Both her parents were shot by the man. The shooter wasn't a "thug" in the traditional sense of the word (youthful gang-type).

Suzanna did not shoot the man. He eventually committed suicide by shooting himself. She would have, though, had she been permitted to carry concealed. She later used this point to champion the Texas CCW bill, which is now in place.

Suzanna Hupp has been a representative in the Texas House off and on throughout the years. She's articulate, intelligent, passionate and knowledgeable of the issues. Most people would have gone back home to mourn their loss and lament the system. She changed the system. I know of a number of Texans since CCW permits were put in place who were able to defend themselves in public and prevent a crime from occurring. One was almost mugged by three guys at an ATM. Another was held up in their store. In both of these cases, all parties walked away (though some were in handcuffs). In the case of the guy at the ATM, it turned out that the 3 men who attempted to mug him were responsible for a murder two weeks prior. He very easily could have been the next victim to die -- and who knows how many would have followed.

More on Suzanna Hupp here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

More of the Luby's Massacre here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard

For more of the correlation between concealed carry and reduction in crime check out John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime. Lott expected to find that no such correlation existed, but his data proved him wrong. He writes about it here.

When you think about it, it's obvious: A criminal is going to be far less interested in targeting a victim if the victim could possibly be armed. If my friend had dialed 911 on his cell phone (even if he could have), he quite possibly would have been long gone in the 2-5 minutes it would take the police to arrive. During that time gap, all victims are on their own. How would you fend off an attacker for 2-5 minutes?

Posted by: othesrarnt | November 6, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza, thanks for a fair and balanced article for once. And thanks for the dose of reality to us Ron Paul supporters who know this country is a long way from understanding Ron's message.

claudialong: Gun rights are not about shooting animals, they are about individual freedoms not being stripped by an overbearing government.

Posted by: dcuptoejuice | November 6, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Pollsters are using the 6.6% turnout contact lists of the GW Bush primary of the last primary. Um. There aren't a lot of us (I am included) that switched from Bush to Paul. As I experienced in my own 2006 Michigan run for senate, the last couple of elections didn't produce great call lists for Republican activists.

To really guage Ron Paul, why don't you interview Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr., who endorses the congressman? Or Pat Buchanan, another supporter. How about Nolan Ryan?

By interviewing Paul's brother Pastor David Paul, of Trinity Lutheran Church in Grand Rapids, maybe you could get some family history of how Dr. Paul paid for his medical degree by delivering newspapers, cutting lawns and managing a coffee house.

Maybe you could look at his past congressional support, of which 99% of funds raised was from individual donors and that he had as many individual donors contributing as congressional leaders - no small feat for a "reclusive" congressman.

Finally, my top request for your assignment editor, is that you start researching and reporting on the legislation that Rep. Paul has introduced, like the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007. He has submitted more useful and substantive legislation than all of the Michigan legislators in my lifetime combined.

Please do your job Chris.

Posted by: petemackin | November 6, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Whether you like it or not, gun ownership is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. Ron Paul upholds the Constitution regardless of his personal beliefs. I don't own a gun, but you can't just ignore the constitution because you don't like something. Next time try using a cogent argument.

Posted by: jaffy87 | November 6, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"You're correct, fuzzy, it is the federal government. My point, however, is that dramatically restructuring the areas in which the federal government legislates in order to return to a very strict constructionist view is not a real selling point for liberals."

It isn't?

Why on Earth not?

the Federal government took the surplus from the Social Security tax and blew it all. Do you know what the surplus was?

It's 60 TRILLION dollars. All that money - spent. Gone in a puff of smoke.

Haliburton got some, a bunch of profiteers from the SDI star wars nutball "research" got it, it went to Korea, and Vietnam, a bunch of black ops, tons of senators and congressmen got stinking rich off from it, and of course their good buddies.

To pay the cost of Social Security and medicare, the US Federal government is has to pay out 60 trillion dollars over the next 30 years.

guess what the total tax revenue of the Federal government is per year?

$3 trillion.

So, (adjusting for inflation and there is going to be a LOT OF INFLATION), that's only 20 years of tax revenue dedicated entirely to SS and Medicare.

Now, I know the Liberals really meant well, but they handed over a bunch of money to a bunch of Enron mafia type thugs for safe keeping. That money is GONE. It's gone. Deal with it. The Liberals gave over a bunch of money to a group of thugs and criminals. The money isn't coming back, it's spent.

And that's basically why I'm not a Liberal. I have no problem with giving money over to a good cause, but I have a really large problem giving over money to a good cause only to have the money stolen.

You know, it's like giving Pat Robertson money to spread the word of God and do chartity work, only to find out that he used the money to make a nice masion for himself.

Your Federal government is no different. It's entirely corrupt.

Now, what are you going to do about it? Give them MORE money? The people who created the constitution weren't as stupid as you think. They were really well educated and had seen this sort of corruption before and they took very specific steps to put very real limits on the Federal government, because at the end of the day, government's can't be trusted.

The Federal government exists to protect the states and to protect people from state government's. States can't violate people's constitutional rights.

That's how it was purposely set up and that is what Paul is advocating. Nothing prevents the state governments from having a social security system of their own, or making drugs illegal, etc. etc - nothing but their voters and that's where the power should rest.

That's Paul's position, and that's my position. Do you really think this is so bad of an idea?

Our Federal government really is being run by a bunch of criminals. That has to end, now. We're over in Iraq - where are the weapons of mass destruction? Who is being held accountable? Nobody. Why isn't our media calling for blood as they should be? There's over 500 billion spent, there's tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead over this. War was never declared, that's a constititutional requirement.

The media is by and large silent. They talk enough to retain some credibility, but that's it.

Let me tell you some things the media is almost entirely silent on.

Gold is going to go up to probably $2000 an ounce by 2010 because of devaluation of the US dollar.

Silver is likely to easily reach $20 an ounce too. The dollar is going to crash.

Gas is going to reach $4 a gallon soon, probably by the end of 2008 or before

The Iraq war will continue until at least 2010 when it's time for mid-term elections.

Binladen will remain a boogey man to scare children.

The national debt will continue to balloon as corrupt politicians move out of the dollar with the intention of buying up everything for dimes on the dollar after the inevitable crash, just like in the USSR.

The media is a joke, and the Washington post is no different.

We are headed for very turbulent times. We're going through the 1970's again at the BEST, at worst, 1929.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we should let Alan Greenspan handle that one.

http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html

He advocated a return to the gold standard. I believe Ron Paul's position is to introduce hard money back into the system in the form of the last hard money removed in the early 1970's.

Posted by: john | November 6, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"What Paul has said is that the Federal Reserve, which is a private institution, not a branch of the Federal government, a PRIVATE institution made up of private people who you don't know, has no right to create money."


Where's Mark to raise the issue of Paul's support for returning to the Gold standard? Are any of his supporters prepared to argue in favor of that change to monetary policy?

Posted by: bsimon | November 6, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

JasonL writes
"I've never met a pure libertarian who could tell me that the country would be better with them in charge and make me believe it."

For me, that's not the point. Even if you have a Libertarian President, they're going to be somewhat limited in terms of how closely they can actually stick to Lib doctrine. I think we could use some Libertarian influence at the Fed level to pare things down a bit. Ideally some Greens would get there too, for a little balance on the other side. Of course such pipedreams include the fantasy that actual compromise would result, rather than gridlock.

Non-sequiter, during the Newt chat today (he's pushing a new book), he endorses the idea of using economic incentives to promote green tech - which is the kind of compromise between the left and right that I could support. Throw out the tired, generally inaccurate talking points of the Rs and Ds & bring in some fresh ideas.

Posted by: bsimon | November 6, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

> Fascinatingly enough, contrary to Paul's
> preferences, the Constitution does
> enable the Congress to borrow money.
> Neat!

Paul has never said the Federal government doesn't have a right to borrow money. That's Article 1, section 8.

What Paul has said is that the Federal Reserve, which is a private institution, not a branch of the Federal government, a PRIVATE institution made up of private people who you don't know, has no right to create money.

Only the Federal government has the right to create money.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

You're correct, fuzzy, it is the federal government. My point, however, is that dramatically restructuring the areas in which the federal government legislates in order to return to a very strict constructionist view is not a real selling point for liberals. I am not debating the merits of his Constitutional argument, just saying that it's not a mainstream view and particularly not a liberal view. Glenn Greenwald has a nice piece on Paul today in this same vein.

Posted by: Jenn2 | November 6, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps it was missed, but does anyone know why, "we" and "our" are used in a story that appears to be written by one person? Here's an example:

"Our point is simply that there is a segment of donors out in the country who are willing to give to a candidate who promises not just a shakeup but a blowup of the status quo."

Posted by: john | November 6, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

JD -- I'm fine with disagreeing, just wanted to make clear that I wasn't insulting you. Also, I didn't reference particular races and was intentionally painting with a broad brush. As a general rule, I believe that reasonable people can disagree on most issues.

Just b/c I can't let things go though, I still don't see how endorsement of a particular party establishes that the Post isn't Centrist. I suppose that means I vigorously reject the idea that most issues can be reduced to a "Democratic" and "Republican" perspective.

The Post is "liberal," for example, on immigration, in that GENERALLY democrats are more supportive of liberalized immigration policies. As are, I would add, big business and the wall street segment of the GOP. But the Post absolutely hailed GWB's immigration policy and criticized democrats - mainly from heavily union and blue color districts, incidentally -- who opposed that plan.

Likewise, on free trade issues the Post is highly critical of Democrats who are opposed to NAFTA, CAFTA, etc and recently bashed Clinton for reversing her previously strong support for free trade. It's been supportive of GWB's efforts to retain fast-track negotiating authority and pursue additional free trade pacts.

To me, that kind of editorial record -- once again -- seems quite centrist, irrespective of who the Post ultimately endorses. Also, I think historical statements abou the Post are pretty useless. The Post of Donald Graham is decidedly NOT the Post of Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee, leaving aside whether that's good or bad.

Posted by: _Colin | November 6, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Nice, novamatt, and well stated. I wonder if the movement to the right of the R party has fueled Paul's support, I can't help but think that it has. I hope that he can either run as a third party candidate or that when he is not nominated, his supporters don't defect to the R nominee. If there were ever a party in need of a wake up call, now is the time.

At my (red) state fair last month, I saw a LOT of Democratic stickers, I think the default slogan was "Had Enough? Vote Democratic." I saw one Republican sticker, which was "My God / My Country / My Republican Party". I think the fact that the R party thinks it has a monopoly on both the country and theology is a pretty good reason to have had enough.

Posted by: Jenn2 | November 6, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter,
Chichester is out of step with most GOP principles, not just the VA GOP. Potts has been a fringe candidate from the beginning. I don't think that Northern Virginia, regardless of what color you want to paint them, are typically up for a 3.9 Billion dollar tax increase (as couter to the Democratic Governor's 1.2 Billion dollar increase). That is not being out of touch with Northern Virginians, that is simply being out of touch.

Posted by: dave | November 6, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

JD, in the context of this years elections in VA, I have to agree with Colin. The Dem's are much closer to center as a whole then their opponents.

However, in the broader context of the Post itself, I would say that the paper is, in general, just a bit left of center. Not far left, not exactly center but close.I find it the best source of reasonable political commentary, especially with their good balance in the opinion section. The NYT has better financial news, though.

Paul has made a lot of money but he's quite definitely a loon. This is gonna get me flamed for the rest of the cycle, but I've never met a pure libertarian who could tell me that the country would be better with them in charge and make me believe it. I can get on board with some deregulation, but abolishing the Dept of Education? The Reserve Bank? Give me a break. Believe me, as an undergrad I met my fair share of Libertarians. Faced with the idea of rocket launchers in homes and heroin available at the 7-11, they couldn't tell me the US would be a better place. I know Paul doesn't go that far, but they're easy to understand analogies to the rather more complicated disruption caused by some of Paul's suggestions.

Some of my favorites:
1. He'd like to allow pilots to carry handguns. Anyone know what decompression is?
2."We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It's called the Constitution of the United States." I'm not sure the Constitution has any spending guidelines. By which I mean, THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPENDING GUIDELINES. Fascinatingly enough, contrary to Paul's preferences, the Constitution does enable the Congress to borrow money. Neat!

I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he's as unrealistic a candidate as can be expected from anywhere, ever. At least Ross Perot knew what the f*ck he was talking about. Even though he was crazy. REAL crazy.

Let the flaming begin!

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 6, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Coming soon to a Barnes and Noble near you...the Audacity of LOVE HOPE AND GUILT, by rufus1133. Am I the only one who can hardly wait?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 6, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"The truth can never be defeated with facts.
"

Lies, that is

Posted by: chriscizzilla | November 6, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Dear editor:

"As to liberal support for Ron Paul, I expect it's kind of ephemeral. I mean, the man thinks the government inspecting meat is in contravention of the Constitution. "

That's not true.

What Paul believes, correctly believes, is that the FEDERAL government has no business doing this.

STATE government has a right to do it, LOCAL government has a right to do it, but the Federal government has only 2 purposes:

Protect the states
Protect individual rights as defined in the constitution.

NOTHING else.

It's pretty clearly spelled out what the limitiations are of what the Federal government's role is in government.

If Alabama wants to put somebody away in prison for 40 years for smoking pot, that's Alabama's decision, and it's going to be their money that pays for it. If California wants to legalize, say, heroin, they will have to deal with the fallout from the decision.

The Federal government has no say in either decision of either state. It's not under Federal jurisdiction.

The Federal government has been a runaway spree of spending and over-reach of their powers for over 50 years. It's time to put an end to it.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Hi claudialong. I have maxed out my donations to Paul but guess what, I don't own a gun. ooooooooooo. I'm even creepier...

Posted by: bburns31 | November 6, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, I wish I could share your optomism. I am a progressive thinker also.. voted for Jon Anderson in '80. I really lost all hope in '04 when Bush won the second term, We knew then that the war was a mistake (at best). We knew then that he and Cheney were subverting the constitution. We knew then that his administration was using the same tactics (mostly fear) that Hitler used in the late '30s to gain and keep power. I was not the biggest Kerry fan, but the fact that Bush won when we knew all this about him and his gang distroyed my hope for an intelligent electorate. Do you think that much can change in 4 years?

I realize that the reich wing are not stupid, but they do try to influence young people who may be impressionable into believing that just because the media says it it is true.

Posted by: BillinNY | November 6, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

JD: "there is no legit reason why his unproven opponent should get the WaPo nod."

Perhaps Senator Jim Webb -- that known liberal -- is also way off-base in endorsing Pandak? How many county supervisor races has Webb weighed in on?

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 6, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

For what it's worth, the Post's "bias" has always been towards pragmatic moderates who can make deals with other pragmatic moderates. Hence their love of Morella and Davis and Wolf and John Warner (and Potts and Chichester and Connaughton, etc., for those who know a little about Virginia politics).

What's changed is that Republicans have moved so far to the right that they're no longer in favor of fiscal prudence, good governance, dignified leadership. The party of John Warner is becoming the party of Oliver North: bang the gays, bang the immigrants, cut taxes until we can't pay for mowing the stupid medians more than twice a year. The moderate space that Republicans have been vacating has been taken over by Democrats. The Post hasn't changed. The Republican Party has changed. What is meant by being a conservative has changed.

And, incidentally, the tectonic shifts that are propelling Post endorsements towards moderate Democrats are the same shifts propelling NoVa voters towards moderate and even liberal Democrats. When we wake up tomorrow and find out that the Democrats have taken over the VA State Senate and picked up seats in the House, don't blame the Post. Blame Grover Norquist. Blame the Club for Growth. Blame the ayatollahs in Va Beach and Lynchburg. Blame all the extremists who are pushing the Republican Party into the ditch. When the GOP grownups take their party back from the nutcases, the Post will be happy to go back to cooing over its beloved moderate Republicans.

Posted by: novamatt | November 6, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

No longer can Ron Paul be labeled as a "long shot" candidate. He clearly has surpassed John McCain and is now a "top tier" candidate.

I have created a website to support this statement.

Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.

Posted by: editor | November 6, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

On key factor in explaining Paul's appeal is worth noting: At a time when the Iraq experience means the electorate is searching for a new direction in U.S. foreign policy, Paul is, incredibly, the only candidate of either party to be offering a realist foreign policy platform. Realism provides an antidote for neoconservative overreach in a way that the liberal internationalism that dominates the foreign policy platforms of the Democratic candidates cannot match. In fact, what liberal internationalism and neoconservatism have in common -- an idealistic desire to spread U.S. values around the world -- is the very impulse that many believe is responsible for the United States' current foreign policy predicament.

More on a realist recipe for foreign policy here:

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/blog.aspx?id=1317

Posted by: hkstephens | November 6, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Dave -- You're certainly entitled to your view, but the reality is that folks like Potts and Chichester were, at one time, very comfortable in the republican party. A republican party, I might add, that didn't always think taxation was always bad.

Today, they're both scorned by the state party they belonged to for 30+ years. Puting aside whether that's good or bad (and it is after all YOUR party, so I wont' weigh in on that), that kind of transformation tends to prove my point. Also, I would note as something of a FN that to my knowledge neither of these two guys changed. Rather, it truly was a case of their party leaving them.

Posted by: _Colin | November 6, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

As to liberal support for Ron Paul, I expect it's kind of ephemeral. I mean, the man thinks the government inspecting meat is in contravention of the Constitution. He is one seriously hard-core strict constructionist, and the view that the Constitution is a living document is, I think, a fairly central tenet of liberalism.

I suspect that they do respect and admire him, though, as someone with consistency and principles, and we've always been kind of keen on iconoclasts and underdogs, not to mention an incredible erosion of what were once considered American principles.

Posted by: Jenn2 | November 6, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

.

Posted by: editor | November 6, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Colin and Loudoun, I still think the Post is way overboard (on your side) with the endorsements and their positions. Take a look at my 'home' race: Corey Stewart has pushed through the Illegal Immigration bill, wildly popular within PWC (unanimously passed, even by the Dems), but the Post railed against it in editorials, ran a bunch of critical 'news' stories implying we were racists, etc., and they're backing his rival. Corey has done an excellent job for us - there is no legit reason why his unproven opponent should get the WaPo nod. Describing Corey as one of the nutjobs or whackjobs or whatever you called him is ridiculous.

I could easily make the same argument for Glen Stirrup in Gainesville, where I used to live. He's a great supervisor, experienced, and not extreme by any means. However, he's an R.

The proof in the pudding will be in seeing who the Post endorses next year; wanna go $100 it'll be HRC? I'll lay you 10-1.

I have a long memory. The Post rarely endorses repubs. Again, that's fine - it's a free country, 1st amend, freedom of press, etc. But I don't like it when people say the Post isn't left-slanted (or the Wash Times isn't right-slanted); it's smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

You and I will disagree on this one forever I guess.

Posted by: JD | November 6, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

.

Posted by: editor | November 6, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I watched 3 mainstream media news broadcasts last night. I Googled and checked major media outlets online and the only site that had more than a couple lines on Ron Paul's November 5th 'money bomb' in progress was the AP and their information was old.

The 'money bomb' may have been in the forefront of the media's minds as they hemmed and hawed over whether to cover it but it was sure not headline news yesterday. I was not under a rock and could easily have missed it.

Ron Paul is a principled and consistent candidate and his message extends way beyond gun ownership. The groups that I personally have seen high levels of support for Ron Paul in:

-Health Freedom Advocates
-Constitutionalists
-Gun Owners
-Conservative Christians
-Libertarians who want someone who can get on the ballot
-Young People who see the freedom that is their birthright being sold off in the name of "Homeland Security", "Social Security Viability", "Foreign Policy", "Universal Health Care", "Boosting The Economy" and more.
-Middle aged people who are fed up with trying to raise a family while being taxed so heavily that they can hardly function. All this so the government can spend most of their money on administrative costs before regurgitating the leftovers into wasteful government programs.
-Retirees who have been around long enough to witness a few political cycles. They realize that the same 'promises' have been being made by politicians for years and we are worse off now than ever.

Posted by: mckarnin | November 6, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm done here mibrooks27. Screw them. they made a choice to allow zouk and proud a froum but silence me.I get attacked daily on almost every post here. do the peanut gallery get banned? No. Always the liberals. Why? Because thye feel they can without recourse. Sad day in america.

Thank you for your words. I'm done here. Watch for my book coming out. Help a player out, I got kids. I'm writing it in the memory of a real patriot and real true blooded american, Pat TIllman. I'm going to pen it as rufus1133 so it opens bloggers like us up to be free. free to say what we want without getting censured. Or wihtout o'reilly labeling us as traitors and sending his horde after us. So we will be fre to write without murder threats by fascists who hate their country and hate freedom.

Watch for it. Help a player out. I'm taking my country back. I'm taking my religon back. the book will be call.

LOVE HOPE AND GUILT.

By Rufus1133

What is that title you ask? God. God is in us. Gos is love. God is hope. God is Guilt. Watch for it. I'm taking this nonsense by storm. I'm going after the fascists. I'm going after o'reily and fox. I'm going after hannity and rush. Somebody's got to do it. Most americans are cowering in there basement. Not for long. I tried to vent and keep it contained on this blog. I can no longer do that. Now you are all onyour own. You are slaves to cc now, and those like him. Don't beleive them. Question everything. The truth can never be defeated with facts.

do you rthing Boy. do not fear the fascists. We have verything on our side. All they have is lies spin and propoganda (and guns). That's it. What is to fear? Who is on the side of right/God? do not fear these traiotrs. that time has pasted. Now is the time to take our coutnry back.

LAst post. Sorry. I've been trying to force cc to allow me back on to no avail. I thought I would inform you people what is happening to our country, today.

Now you know why no posts. America? Free speech?

god Bless people. don't forget me. What for the book. We're taking the country back. No one can stop US. That us, being the american people

Posted by: chriscizzilla | November 6, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

dave: "_Colin, When i think of John H. Chichester, I don't think of "Old School Republican". I think of traitorous lying sack of something or other. Chichester may be many things and he may have called himself many things but he is not a Republican. Republicans do not try to increase taxes by FOUR TIMES their Democrat opponents. Both Chichester and Potts are RINOs. It's hard to see how either are definitions of a moderate Republican."

I think the point stands whether you call them RINOs or moderates, they are out of step with the Virginia GOP of 2007, as represented by you, which is increasingly out of step with the Northern Virginia of 2007.

If Roemmelt beats Marshall you can really use a dark blue to color NoVa on your map.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 6, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

This line from the story is interesting.

"Our point is simply that there is a segment of donors out in the country who are willing to give to a candidate who promises not just a shakeup but a blowup of the status quo."

Why does it say "Our"? Is this article written by more than one person?

Posted by: john | November 6, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

As claudialong wrote:

> 'Putting aside the semi-creepiness of
> choosing Guy Fawkes Day to make an
> online fundraising statement, '
>
> you can't -- it is part and parcel of
> the character of his supporters. how
> much do you want to bet every one of
> them is a gun owner?

I'll take up that bet. I'll bet any amount that you'd like, since I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I know exactly what material posessions I own.

Incidentally, how typical that the very first post is a slander.

Posted by: fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

zouk, since you have previously given me a semi-endorsement as a Lib for some reason you liked or something, I salute your resolution, while noting in passing that perhaps the use of the term "moonbat" does diminish the effect of it somewhat.

Back on point, the Ron Paul thing is really something, isn't it? There are some really mobilized people out there, you'd think it was the second coming. His views are not very mainstream and I don't think his campaign will get a lot of traction, but I think the intensity is very interesting. I wonder if it has something to do with the purity of his vision, or maybe it's just that the more libertarian wing of the party has gotten so despondent about the direction the party has gone in that they really see this as their chance to re-stake their claim to what they see as the core principles of their party.

Not too long ago there was a poll where R's said Giuliani best represented the core principles of the Republican party. That kind of made me laugh, even conceding that mentioning 9/11 in every sentence does appear to be one of their core principles.

Posted by: Jenn2 | November 6, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - no. What name is he using?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 6, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

_Colin,
When i think of John H. Chichester, I don't think of "Old School Republican". I think of traitorous lying sack of something or other. Chichester may be many things and he may have called himself many things but he is not a Republican. Republicans do not try to increase taxes by FOUR TIMES their Democrat opponents. Both Chichester and Potts are RINOs. It's hard to see how either are definitions of a moderate Republican.

Posted by: dave | November 6, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I thought the topic was Ron Paul. His amazing vision of what our country could be like if we return to the morals, values, principals and laws that our country was founded on is the message here. Yes, it was a fantastic achievement that we were able to raise an astounding 4.2 million dollars for his campaign in 24 hours, but the point is, if the people that heard his message did not believe in him, no one would be donating to his cause. Let's try to keep to the topic here, there seems to be a lot of personal attacking in these posts and the real message of Dr. Paul is getting lost! It's hard enogh to get the media to report on about anything Ron Paul, so even if it has a bit of negitivity attached, at least his name is getting out there. The American people can judge for themselves once they are aware that he even exists! Thanks.

Posted by: sfields1 | November 6, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

mikeB - he is back, don't you see him?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 6, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Chris - I don't know what rufus said to get him banned, but I generally liked his posts. Sometimes we disagreed, sometimes we agreed, but he was always passionate and his posts had substance! Invite him back! Please.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 6, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Some detractors of Ron Paul love to label his supporters anarchists. Now an ingenious supporter was able to create a fund raising campaign around Guy Fawkes day. This is not creepy, this is brilliance.

Posted by: althusius | November 6, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The right are not as stupid as they appear BillinNY. It is a ploy. Facsism. I bet the same willful ignorance and cow stares accoumpanied germeny and japan in the 30's. They are not as dumb as they seem. They are not as ignorance as they seem. They know what time it is. They are fascists. I know this is a hard pill to swallow, but it is the truth.

Ever seen "They Live", with the magic sunglasses? The gop. It's a big joke. HAHAHA. Real funny. The joke used to be on us americans. Now the joke is on them. come 08 their evil fascist nazi cult is done. It's done for 30 years. Teh internet and information killed them. Come 08 we tkae our country back. OR, we play the ignorance game for four more years, nothing changes. In 12 the big boys take over and start doing the will of the people for a change. Imagine agovernment that was invested in teh sucess of their nation ,like all other countries in the world. It is possilbe, with the removal of gop sabotage. The only thing stopping us is fear of the future, fear of change. These old folk are dying out. I, and those like me (progressives) hold the key to the future of this country. it's just a waiting game. the time of recokoning is at hand. I just hope these fascists don't start killing people when they lose power, I wouldn't put it past them from blogging here. MAjority rule. All power back tot eh people.

The gop is about to reap what they have been sowing the last 50 years. I can't wait to see their faces.

Posted by: chriscizzilla | November 6, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Has there been a Presidential election in your lifetime where the fight was between keep it the same or it is time to change?

Either way the majority voted, the results were the same with the only change resulting up with our being worse off. The politicans use double-speak and will make grand promises that are in fact, the opposite of what they deliver.

There is only one candidate that has the courage, intelligence, and wisdom deserving of our attention. Each and every one of the rest are in bed with who ever buys them off.

Posted by: stockwellrd | November 6, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey Kingoffouz - please stop using the opinions of one or two people to describe the "priorities" of a political party or of a segment thereof. You propogate the myth that liberals want more Americans killed when simple logic and direct evidence proves the opposite. If you are against a war, that means you are FOR the troops. You actually care about their lives and don't want them to die. Any six year old understands this. Where did you and your ilk loose sight of this truth? Being for the war means you have accepted that Americans will die and you are quite ok with that. Now tell me, who is really FOR the troops?

Posted by: BillinNY | November 6, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if any Paul devotees could explain this....during a speech in New Hampshire in February of 2007 Paul called for a repeal of the 17th amendment, the same that allows for direct election of U.S. Senators. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures vote for congressional senators as they had done before 1914. Um, excuse me for a moment, but aren't there more pressing issues to be dealt with in the 21st Century than that?

And, Congressman Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, which would remove jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases involving abortion laws in individual States.

This would effectively freeze the current law established by Roe v. Wade, and would allow states to pass laws contrary to Roe v. Wade with little fear of them being overturned through the Federal court system. Do the liberals who rally behind Paul really understand all of his views? It seems as though at least some of his views are very objectionable to most voters at some point.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 6, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The interesting thing is that this amazing fund raising event wasn't even organized by the Paul Campaign. Paul's run for the presidency has taken on a "virtual" life of its own. Don't be fooled by thinking that all Paul supporters are crazy right-wingers or anti-war lefties--they come from all walks of life and their views span the political spectrum. What they seem to have in common is an intense dissatisfaction with the status quo and the powers that be; polls show that this dissatisfaction is actually quite common among the electorate.

Look for a surprise showing for Paul in the New Hampshire Primary. Surprises are almost a tradition here and the bulk of the voters are independents or "undeclareds" who can vote in either party's primary; polls often don't count the sentiments of this sizable group until election day.

Posted by: nhplanner | November 6, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

JD -- my remark was aimed at THIS YEAR's Virginia elections and nothing else. I certainly was not referring to republicans candidates generally, let alone republican voters, as wingnuts. I thought that was clear, but if it wasn't I do apologize.

The context I'm referring to, which you're certainly free to disagree with, has seen the retirement/purging of the more moderate wing of the Virginia Republican party. For example, moderate GOP state senators John H. Chichester and Russ Potts, both lifelong old school republicans, have endorsed a number of Democrats for the upcoming election. In contrast, the state democratic party has generally wised up and realized that liberal democrats are NOT a good fit for the state. As a general though not uniform rule, most of the 'D's running this go-round qualify as moderate democrats.

Anyway, THAT is the point I was trying to make. Certainly not that republican voters are crazy and democrats are fantastic. I thought this had come through by now, but that's really not how I think about politics.

Posted by: _Colin | November 6, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Accepting "The Lesser of Two Evils" has delivered to our Country just that. Ron Paul upholds the United States Constitution and our Republic... is the only politician I am aware of that does so. Those who tear him down for representing the best America has ever been, based upon the very backbone of what provided this possibility shows one to be in fact, anti-American.

Each and every person alive has his or her own thoughts with the majority living in such fear that they do not dare expose anything that sets them aside from the majority... who are all also cowards. This has in fact allowed our country to be hijacked by the very peoples our forefathers sought to protect this last frontier for mankind. This country has became exactly what our ancestors fled from.

Vote Ron Paul to give our nation one last chance before the hijackers finish off the job of handing our government by the people into the hands of the ones dominating the rest of the world.

Posted by: stockwellrd | November 6, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

If rufas has posted something intelligent on occasion, regardless of whether anyone agrees, I would be more sympathetic.
"

I feel the same way about coulter o'reilly rush hannity malkin kristol and so on. do I get to censure them? At what point DO I get to censure these people? Or not at all? Please elorborate gop doublethink and so all independant thinkers that you are fascists and how crazy you people really are.

Posted by: chriscizzilla | November 6, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cizzilla,

Of all the columns written about Dr. Paul, yours seems like one of the better researched.

Thanks for talking about the practical strategies the influx of donations allows and providing some historical context.

A strong showing in New Hampshire could really open the tent to many more supporters across the country.

Posted by: ngallagher21 | November 6, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

JD: As a knowledgeable Virginian, you really shouldn't be surprised at the Post's endorsements. The GOP's nominees have trended to the right throughout Virginia this year, with several longtime GOP incumbent moderates being defeated in primaries, while NoVa is generally moving to the left.

The GOP candidates the Post did endorse are for the most part moderates. Once exception is Jill Holtzman Vogel, who the Post called moderate but hardly fits that description. I suspect her campaign got a good chuckle out of that.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 6, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"bullies are always the biggest bedwetting cowards."

This is almost certainly false. By god I hate pop-Freudianism.

Posted by: jglassman | November 6, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

It seems that Ron Paul is the media Howard Dean of this election cycle. Not surprising since he doesn't even get respect from his own party. It seems Paul generates a lot of sparks, but not much heat.

Guns and gun owners.... at a gun show in Des Moines this weekend two campaigns had set up tables with literature, etc.... Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | November 6, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"First and foremost, it's a stunning achievement."

Damn right; Ron Paul is going to do this without the degenerate big media.

Posted by: washingtonpost | November 6, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

JD: "But when people talk about the country getting more partisan over the yeras, that's pretty much the reason; there's a D side and an R side to most issues, at least the ones hotly debated these days."

JD, Secretary Gates used to be the President of Texas A&M, my alma mater. He was there this week accepting an award from Papa Bush.

One of the students asked him, what has changed in Washington in between you leaving and your return?

His answer: Everything is polarized. He has worked for 7 administrations. He has seen nothing like what he sees now. Before, congressmen could golf together, and people from both sides of the isle would eat dinner and were friendlier.

You don't see that now. The lines are clearly drawn.

This isn't necessarly just directed at you, but your comment brought it to mind.

Does anyone actually think that HRC is going to cause Washington to become LESS polarized?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 6, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey Marine, check out

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

for some stats on gun ownership rights, and how they correlate with reduced crime. it's a website that has cherry picked some stats from the NRA, but unless someone can prove that the stats are untrue, it makes a good argument for second amend rights = a safer society.

You need to remember that the 2nd amend wasn't put in place to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it is also to reduce the need for a huge police presence - the society that can protect itself has less to worry about from the smothering presence of police.

Evidently, less to worry about from criminals as well.

Posted by: JD | November 6, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse


Moreover, the violent crime rate in the U.K., throughout all of Europe, is more than THREE TIMES higher than the U.S.

Moreover, this data - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_04.html - clearly shows that overall crime, and vient crime in particular, is lower in the West and in those states with few or no firearm restrictions.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 6, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

drindl, for someone who is regularly offensive, I find you incredibly thin-skinned.

I wondered what happened to rufas. this is a private blog and the censorship is according to the owner of the blog. If rufas has posted something intelligent on occasion, regardless of whether anyone agrees, I would be more sympathetic.

There is no "right" to be free from offense, quite the contrary. but there is a sad lack of manners in modern society. Anon blogs only promote further degradation of civility.

since last week was the Zoukian new year, (we are on the wickan calendar) I hereby pledge to attain a new level of respect and admiration for my Lib brothers and sisters. I don't expect you moonbats to join me, so I will simply ignore the malfeasance and rise above.

this pledge does not include candidates and other public figures who deserve scrutiny.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 6, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Firearm related crime has fallen each year since 1994, *prior* to the Brady Laws effect. The overall crime rate and the firearm related crime rate is about half of what it was in 1990. Secondly, the 2005 uptick was a statistical anomoly that amounted to an increase of .01 percent (1 victim per 1000 population) that disappeared in preliminary 2006 statistics. Third, the vast majority of violent crime and firearm related crime takes place in precisely those places with the most restrictive gun control laws....large Eastern and Midwest cities.

Also, the actual rate of violent crime involving a firearm is 2 per 1,000 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.htm) which is comparable to that of the U.K. - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060038_en.pdf

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 6, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

To Claudia: I've contributed to Ron Paul twice and I do not own a gun. I don't personally know any fellow Paul supporters who own guns either(though I know that some do). Paul is the Champion of the Constitution. He supports all of it because it is the supreme law of the land. Obviously you don't. Instead of trying to vilify those who support the Constitution, you should try to change the parts of it you don't agree with. I hope you do this instead of voting for someone(in other words, any candidate except for Paul) who will choose to ignore it at his/her own convenience. The reason so many support Paul is that we know he won't ignore the law. This alone makes him uniquely electable.

Posted by: smdahl | November 6, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Off topic but...the amount of mis/dis-information with regards to firearms and crime being posted here is amazing and needs correcting. First off, the citations for statistical data are bogus. The Department Of Justice publishes crime statistics for the U.S. on their web site here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 6, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Colin, you gotta be kidding me. You say that, generally, Dems are moderates and Repubs are wingnuts. But I'm the one who's insulting? Please....

As for the debate of whether the Post slants left or right, and the applicability to my cite; political endorsements are a convenient shorthand for that calculation. No, it's not comprehensive - a Conn newspaper endorsing, say, Lieberman isn't necessarily also liberal, even though Joe's a D.

For the most part, the R party is identified with one side of the issues, and the D party with the other. No, it's not universal, I get that. But when people talk about the country getting more partisan over the yeras, that's pretty much the reason; there's a D side and an R side to most issues, at least the ones hotly debated these days.

You need to admit that to yourself. And if you cannot retract your offhand, gratuitious barb, a generality I'm pretty sure no moderates on this board would agree with, I guess we're done.

Posted by: JD | November 6, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

aLRIGHT mr tim mcveigh. Admit you hate your country and would gladly go after your own countrymen

Posted by: chriscizzilla | November 6, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

bsimon -- if you think a 57 year old mother can't be a truly terrifying thing, you should have met my Mother.

Just curious, on what basis do you judge someone to be "much of a Marine"?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 6, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"The Iraq War, however, has disabused me of the notion that a military can become so powerful that an insurgency limited to small arms and improvised explosives has no chance against it."

That was a pretty insightful statement.

We studied the Phillipines in the 1899-1902 era as a case study for countering insurgency. Could have taken a few lessons from back then to today.

I like your point.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 6, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Thank you so much for telling me how to think about Ron Paul.

For a minute I was worried his message of a return to limited constitutional government with freedom, peace and prosperity was catching on.

Posted by: KMoore1223 | November 6, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

People are trying to send a message, in the only substantial way they can right now; with their dollars. In a few months they will have the opportunity to send that message in another form, but for now this is the mechanism available to them.

Make what assumptions and derogations you will about them and their motivations, there is a central tenant to that message. They are tired of what is occurring in this nation, and they want change. Real change.

Last election cycle, people sent that message by voting out the Republican majority. Yet, they didn't get the change they wanted. Evidenced by the polls showing the lowest approval ratings for the congressional branch in history.

Take it for what it is; simply another facet of the public's dissatisfaction. Until that dissatisfaction is resolved, the manifestations will continue to grow in name and number and in more vociferous and radical forms.

Posted by: wizkey | November 6, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and USMC_Mike, I too would at one time said that it was quaint that libertarians believed that the right to own small arms was still somehow a potential check on abusive government in the modern era.

The Iraq War, however, has disabused me of the notion that a military can become so powerful that an insurgency limited to small arms and improvised explosives has no chance against it.

Posted by: fgc4 | November 6, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Just so we're clear:

Guy Fawkes was in the right. He was a Catholic facing state oppression by a thug who called himself the King and by a gang of oligarchs who called themselves a Parliament. He wasn't a terrorist, per se, because a King and a Parliament aren't civilians, by any stretch of the imagination - they are a state target. It can be argued that the people behind the Fawkes plot would have instituted an oppressive state of their own if they had succeeded, sure - but that is incidental. The only thing that's important relative to Fawkes' actions on November 5th is that they were taken against a government that was completely illegitimate by any reasonable standard, and this means that Fawkes' violence [or attempted violence] was 100% morally justified.

So stick the "creepy" characterization in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: fgc4 | November 6, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

You people say there should be free speech USMC_Mike. Great ideals. Just like america SHOULD be a free nation. We can all hope for utopeia and that everyone abids by the rules. But they don't do they?

Who on the right has been attacked or silenced by the left? I can list 20 famous people attacked for their poltical point of view, or even silenced. Bruce springstein, the dixie chicks, rosie o'donnel ward churchhill and rufus1133 come to mind. So the right silences the left on a whime. Can you make the same claim USMC_Mike? No you can't.

But I agree with your statement. If I wasn't in a rush because cc is about to block me again for me point of veiw, I might elaborate.

So you must pratice what you prech. you cannot hide behind free speech, while silencing everything you disagree with. CAn you? the party of hyoprites and doublethinekrs. The gop is done for a generation.

I'm going back underground. I had thought Keith Olberman speaking truths opened up others to do the same. I was wrong. Only the gop has free speech in this country. The rest of us have to pay for what we say, in some form. But the clones are only free to be parrots/slaves. That is not freedom. So they are pushing fascism on us. Are we smart enough to see this as a nation? I think so. We will fin dout soon enough.

I'm going back uderground. Look for my book. I'm authoring it as RUFUS1133. This will encourage more bloggers to speak their mind and speak truth without fear of death. to keep it anonymous gets out the truth but protects innocent americans from being murdered or attacked by people like USMC_Mike and Bill O'reilly's horde. Is that america? Is that free speech?

Peace.

Posted by: chriscizzilla | November 6, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"I'm actually 57"

My point stands. :)

If a marine, ex or not, needs a gun to protect himself from an aging hippy, he's not much of a marine.

Posted by: bsimon | November 6, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally, this whole gun conversation reminds me of something JD posted last week that I thought was funny [paraphrased]:

Conservatives believe that they need their handguns in case they have to defend themselves from the United States Military,

while

Liberals believe the last people who should own a gun are law-abiding citizens.

I generally don't think "centrism" or "independents" are something to be valued, but in this issue, both sides seem a little rediculous.

I have seen, however, overwhelming evidence that shows increased private guns is negatively correlated with violent crimes. But it could be lead paint as well, who knows.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 6, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred..."

MN passed a concealed-carry law during the Ventura administration; as far as I know, we have not experienced a similar change in gun crime rates. Could there be other events in FL that impacted those numbers? In short, while just looking at those numbers "Seems pretty convincing," that is likely what those numbers are meant to do; within the bigger picture is it as convincing, or did someone build that data set precisely to convince you of something you already want to believe?

Posted by: bsimon | November 6, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

JD, are you saying that those numbers were compared to the rest of the country? I don't understand what the two numbers mean.

Either way, looking at one set of numbers over time without understanding all the contributing factors leads to false interpretation either way.

Posted by: slandon | November 6, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"Putting aside the semi-creepiness of choosing Guy Fawkes Day to make an online fundraising statement..." I don't know about gun ownership and Guy. What I believe that I read was that he was caught trying to blow up Parliament. Upon being caught, he was interrogated on Nov 5th and told King James nothing. Then, on Nov 6, he was tortured under direction of King James ["The gentler tortours are to be first used unto him, et sic per gradus ad mia tenditur [and so by degrees proceeding to the worst], and so God speed your goode worke"]. And on Nov 7, he told of the plot. By the 9th, his co-conspirators had been named. But the account I read must be fiction because everyone today knows that torture does not work.

Posted by: dave | November 6, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

The beauty of this country is that people who are "offensive" and un-"ammusing" have the right to be "offensive" or un-"ammusing".

I don't think they should block Rufus, even though he's never written anything I agree with. I don't have to read his posts, just like I don't have to try to "ammuse" you claudialong.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 6, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

JD -- Not sure what your last comment means. You and I previously discussed the Post's bias in terms of issues. You've now shifted the debate to which party the post tends to support, which in my view is a different question.

OBVIOUSLY the Post's endorsements are overwhelmingly Democratic. My argument, which I gather you are now insulting, is that that is not necessarily indicative of a an issue bias. Stated otherwise, I think the Virginia Democrat party does a much better job of representing the "center" than the Virginia republican party, such that it's not surprising that the Centrist Post's endrosements are generally towards the Democratic candidates. To the extent you disagree, and have reasons to support your position, I remain interested in your views.

I've gotta say though, I found your last post more than a bit offensive. I thought our previous exchange was both interesting and cordial.

Posted by: _Colin | November 6, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

claudialong, I am going to paraphrase your statement towards USMC_Mike. (its not an attack at you, just a way of showing how changing the context makes sense of some things)

Iran: I need my nukes to protect myself from possible US invasion.

U.S.A: I consider that a direct threat and have reported it to the UN. It's not funny and if you do it again I will support sanctions. Threats like this are why we cannot take preemptive nuclear strike off the table.

Posted by: slandon | November 6, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Sean4: "If the "money primary" is supposed to determine how a serious a candidate is supposed to be taken (and it's a good measure, along with his or her's ideas and breadth of support) then Ron Paul deserves as much coverage as your giving Mike Huckabee, who can only dream about raising the kind of dough Paul has."

Interestingly enough, most of the Ron Paul supporters I've spoken with will then turn and say that Huckabee's the only other Republican candidate they feel they could actually support.

Just curious -- from your perspective, do you see that as a common sentiment ('if we can't get Paul, then we'll take Huckabee') or have I talked to a hugely skewed sampling?

Posted by: Skip_Lively | November 6, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

zmeunier, I fail to see how the article you mentioned has anything to do with the assault weapons ban sun-setting beyond the historical timeframe which isn't even mentioned in the article.

Second, an increase in violent crime that happens to coincide with the assault weapons ban is meaningless unless the crimes that is committed is done using the very same weapons that were previously banned. I don't see any evidence of that. (cite it, and I will look into it.)

Just having assault weapons legal doesn't make it more likely that people will mug people with knives or pistols.

Posted by: slandon | November 6, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"I need my gun to protect myself from you, Mr. Senator".

I'm sorry if that was lost on a 60 year old hippy.'

I still don't find it amusing. I would prefer if you address no further posts to me-- you are offensive.

Posted by: drindl | November 6, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

If I overreactd, I apologize. But I used to do a political blog and got plenty of the real thing -- with particularly colorful se*ual threats toward my child. You really can't appreciate the depths of depravity of the radical wingers in this country until you've experienced it firsthand.

Posted by: drindl | November 6, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, some thoughts about the concealed carry laws:

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Florida US

homicide rate -36% -0.4%

firearm homicide rate -37% +15%

handgun homicide rate -41% +24%


Seems pretty convincing.

(doing tables in WaPo is impossible, please use your imagination on the spacing here)

Posted by: JD | November 6, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I was going to point out Chris that you were that fellow under the rock yesterday but thanks for a fair assesment of Paul's chances. There might some RP supporters who will want to keep this going if Paul is out of it after Feb. 5 but there are a lot of non-major party persons like myself who understand how useless such a bid is in the long run. In fact Ron Paul knows all too well how useless it is.

Political change comes through the major two party system like it or not, but the non-majors are finding ways to game the system and Ron Paul is a perfect way to do it. Libertarian and Constitutionalist arguments are a part of Paul's lexicon and now he has a major platform to say them running in the GOP presidential primaries through the cash and the work such non-major party activists have given him.

McCarthy didn't win his party's nomination but helped changed politics. Reagan didn't win his party's nomination in 1968 or '76 but moved the GOP in his direction by 1980. Maybe Paul doesn't win in '08, but movement will live on to take over a weak, old and decaying Republican Party infrastructure, especially if the Dems win in a landslide. Maybe Paul isn't the best candidate for this movement, but more articulate and smoother politicans out there are just waiting to head such a movement.

For right now Paul is the man who's put himself at the forefront of something bigger than himself and he's the horse we'll ride. Sure it's a long shot but one worth taking and one that now a better chance with all the money he's raking in. If the "money primary" is supposed to determine how a serious a candidate is supposed to be taken (and it's a good measure, along with his or her's ideas and breadth of support) then Ron Paul deserves as much coverage as your giving Mike Huckabee, who can only dream about raising the kind of dough Paul has. And if you give him that coverage then his poll numbers will rise just as Huckabee's has done after Ames.

Posted by: sean4 | November 6, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

It's not a threat.

Remember years back when there was that massacre in a Luby's restaurant? A young girl's parents were killed by an armed thug.

She also happened to be armed, and she killed the murderer.

In a senate hearing, when asked by an anti-gun Democrat, why she needed her gun, she looked straight at him and said

"I need my gun to protect myself from you, Mr. Senator".

I'm sorry if that was lost on a 60 year old hippy.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 6, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm actually 57, bsimon and i do own a gun and have practiced target shooting since i was a kid. However, as you mention, I am not prone to violence. But you know, bullies are always the biggest bedwetting cowards.

Posted by: drindl | November 6, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

For goodness sake, claudia. It may have been rude and even innappropriate, but it was hardly a death threat.

Posted by: Skip_Lively | November 6, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

claudia, while some jokes aren't funny, my reaction to his post was "if he needs a gun to protect himself from a 60-something hippy, he couldn't be much of a marine".

Posted by: bsimon | November 6, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

'I need my guns to protect myself from claudialong.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | '

I consider that a direct threat and have reported it to CC. It's not funny and if you do it again I will contact the FBI. Death threats online are illegal.

Posted by: drindl | November 6, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Colin said, "If the Dems running are moderates, and they generally are, and the GOP candidates are wingnuts, which they generally are, I utterly fail to see how the post endorsing the democrats proves bias. If anything, that simply proves my point."

Wow. I completely misread you.

Wow.

Posted by: JD | November 6, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"Because that is where people get Shot on a regular basis. Gun control isn't needed as much in Montana as it is NY."

Exactly. I have no idea how Ron Paul led to a gun control discussion, but this is a solid point, AndyR, and I felt like quoting it.

Posted by: Skip_Lively | November 6, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"Good luck. Your all on your own now. I and those like me, those making a living misleading the american people for profit , would never lie to you.

We should all speak on that which has no bearing. Where else can you hide from real political dialogue on a politiacl blog? No where. The fix is unique that way.
"

Speaking as cc. So you old folk don't get confused.

I'm done. Proceed talking aobut tom trancredo, or what ever else you fascists are talking aobut from safe in you rcaves of willful ignorance.

Posted by: chriscizzilla | November 6, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"Gun control nuts live in big cities like Chicago and New York, or the Northeast"

Because that is where people get Shot on a regular basis. Gun control isn't needed as much in Montana as it is NY. Massachussetts has some of the strictist gun laws there are and also has one of the LOWEST rates of gun related violence in the country.
And by the way I do not support taking guns from anyone, but people should have to register guns and I don't see a problem with requiring a waiting periods so that we can check and make sure that someone isn't say mentally unbalanced or a felon. That is why it is called gun CONTROL not gun restrictions.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 6, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus1133, rufus, and JKrish, have all been blocked"

Are you the same rufus that asked The Newt about carbon taxes? He did not take my admittedly provocative question about whether he's positioning himself to rebuild the GOP following the 2008 race.

Posted by: bsimon | November 6, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"I emailed the fxx about inciting violence against americans."

I emailed the fcc that is

Posted by: chriscizzilla | November 6, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

For those that care. Rufus1133, rufus, and JKrish, have all been blocked and censured due to his liberal slate and non gop talking points, posts.

Good luck. Your all on your own now. I and those like me, those making a living misleading the american people for profit , would never lie to you.

We should all speak on that which has no bearing. Where else can you hide from real political dialogue on a politiacl blog? No where. The fix is unique that way.

I suggest you speak on the issues of importance.

God Bless. Good luck all. I'm done. O"reilly threathening the lives of american liberals with immunity is the last straw. I emailed the fxx about inciting violence against americans. The next day he is back inciting voilence, and worse.

I'm done. Put your faith in people like CC to your own detrement. People like him are misleading you for personal gain.

We were a self government. In a self government we need all the real info and none of the lies and propoganda.

Remember this. Remember Pat TIllman and what he represented.

Peace and God BLess all. i have been censured for my political opion. What country are we living in, where truth is censured and lies and propoganda are blasted out to all as "news"? WHat country are we living in.

May GOd shine his wisdom on all of you for eternity.

Keep up the great worl drindl. God see's you, if no one else.

Posted by: chriscizzilla | November 6, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
" if gun ownership is at an all time high, and violent crime at a 30 yr low, isn't that a good thing?"

The latter is certainly a good thing. It is unclear whether or not it is related to the former. The Freakonomics dude claims a relationship between legalized abortion and the crime rate, while an article I read this morning claims the change is related to banning lead as a paint and fuel additive.

So lets celebrate a low crime rate - but not by leaping to conclusions.

Posted by: bsimon | November 6, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Two off topic items:

Anyone who denies the editorial board leans left is kidding themselves. However, the editorial board and newsroom are not the same thing.

As for guns, I'll take a line from Robin Williams. People have the right to bear arms, not arsenals. As for violent crime stats, here's a link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102360.html

Long story short, violent crime has jumped in the last two years (i.e. since the Assault Weapons Ban sunsetted)

Posted by: zmeunier | November 6, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is a fine politician who has a message. Its just his message is JACKED. Look he was right about the war I will give him that. But he wants to get rid of the Department of Education, Medicare, Social Security, and federally mandated airport security. Not to mention the fact that he wants to get rid of the federal reserve bank. The dude is in left field, of a field on friggin Mars. He will NEVER get over 10% of any state, even NH.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 6, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

'violent crime at a 30 yr low, isn't that a good thing?'

please give links for this. a litle tidbit i found:

'That hippie guy Dean must have done something right with health care policy when he was governing Vermont - its people are now the healthiest in the U.S.! Guess which states are on the bottom? "Texas came in 37th place. Mississippi and Louisiana are No. 49 and 50. Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee round out the bottom five." How's that faith-based public health policy working out for y'all?'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308182,00.html

Posted by: drindl | November 6, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

JD -- my contention is that the Post is a centrist paper. If the Dems running are moderates, and they generally are, and the GOP candidates are wingnuts, which they generally are, I utterly fail to see how the post endorsing the democrats proves bias. If anything, that simply proves my point.

Don't worry, I still don't expect to convince you of anything. Most people think everyone but them are biased AND wrong. In some ways, that's just part of the human condition.

Posted by: _Colin | November 6, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I need my guns to protect myself from claudialong.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 6, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

V for Vendetta. No "is." Just sayin'

Posted by: riff_raff17 | November 6, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

claudialong - I am a gun owner and I don't hunt much. I *do* target shoot....a lot. As for gun ownership and the relationship between them and candidates, you bet it matters. But, and this is very key, the DNC and every Democratic candidate for national office is well aware of the fact that 30% of Democratic voters are gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment as guarranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. Come out for gun control and you can pretty much write off votes from Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, almost all of the West but California (and large parts of that state, too), the whole Midwest, and the South. Liberal Oregon is so pro-gun ownership that we passed a constiutionqal amendment explicitly guarranteeing the right to private gun ownership and the right of all citizens to even carry guns. It passed overwhelmingly, everywhere in the state. Gun control nuts live in big cities like Chicago and New York, or the Northeast. They are a distinct minority.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 6, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey Claudia, if gun ownership is at an all time high, and violent crime at a 30 yr low, isn't that a good thing?

Posted by: JD | November 6, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

The Deranged Left, Part CCLIXII
Rick Moran
Over the last two days, there have been two jaw dropping examples of how truly deranged the left has become.

First, this piece appeared on the front page of Daily Kos. It is self-explanatory:


As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have begun to quietly panic in recent days over this question: "Could George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan have possibly been right about the surge?"
The fact that Democrats and the left would "panic" over winning the war tells you all you need to know about the shockingly cockeyed priorities the left holds regarding America. They would rather see us lose in Iraq than shown to be wrong.

Not to be outdone, the original "moonbat" - George Monbiot - pens a piece for Alternet in which he dearly hopes that we go into a deep recession:
I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes. I do not dismiss these impacts or the harm they inflict, though I would argue that they are the avoidable results of an economy designed to maximise growth rather than welfare.

What I would like you to recognise is something much less discussed: that, beyond a certain point, hardship is also caused by economic growth.
Hardship caused by economic growth? Apparently, poor Mother Earth can't take all this economic success:
On Sunday I visited the only UN biosphere reserve in Wales: the Dyfi estuary. As is usual at weekends, several hundred people had come to enjoy its beauty and tranquillity and, as is usual, two or three people on jet skis were spoiling it for everyone else.

Most economists will tell us that human welfare is best served by multiplying the number of jet skis. If there are two in the estuary today, there should be four there by this time next year and eight the year after. Because the estuary's beauty and tranquillity don't figure in the national accounts (no one pays to watch the sunset) and because the sale and use of jet skis does, this is deemed an improvement in human welfare.
Perhaps they could ban jet skis. So what's the solution?
The massive improvements in human welfare -- better housing, better nutrition, better sanitation and better medicine -- over the past 200 years are the result of economic growth and the learning, spending, innovation and political empowerment it has permitted. But at what point should it stop? In other words, at what point do governments decide that the marginal costs of further growth exceed the marginal benefits? Most of them have no answer to this question. Growth must continue, for good or ill. It seems to me that in the rich nations we have already reached the logical place to stop.
You read that last part correctly. Mr. Moonbat wants economic growth to "stop." Of course, the consequences would be predictable:
But because political discourse is controlled by people who put the accumulation of money above all other ends, this policy appears to be impossible. Unpleasant as it will be, it is hard to see what except an accidental recession could prevent economic growth from blowing us through Canaan and into the desert on the other side.
That's the ticket. Let's stop economic growth, dive into a ruinous depression, and have everyone live off the government dole as God intended.

It is impossible to make this kind of idiocy up. It just goes to show that just when you think they can't get any loonier, the left offers up a wealth of surprises.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/the_deranged_left_part_cclixii.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 6, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey Colin, remember when we were discussing whether the Post slants left or right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110501679_pf.html

Today's endorsements for Virginia (aka, God's Country) elections. 37 to 9, Dems. Not exactly unbaised, eh?

Posted by: JD | November 6, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

'Putting aside the semi-creepiness of choosing Guy Fawkes Day to make an online fundraising statement, '

you can't -- it is part and parcel of the character of his supporters. how much do you want to bet every one of them is a gun owner?

an interesting factoid -- gun ownership in this country is at record highs, while hunting is at record lows...

Posted by: drindl | November 6, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company