Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Ron Paul's Heirs or Will the Revolution Be Televised in 2010?



Texas Rep. Ron Paul's fundraising success in 2008 has spawned copycats in 2010. Photo by J. Scott Applewhite of the AP

The 2008 campaign may be over but the lasting "revolution" spawned by Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) candidacy continues to echo through the political world.

Paul, capitalizing on a healthy distrust of government and his strident opposition to the war in Iraq, became an Internet phenomenon -- using the web to raise an astounding $35 million for his longshot candidacy.

The financial network built by Paul during his presidential race has, somewhat amazingly, continued to produce for two men seeking to serve as the Congressman's political heirs.

Rand Paul, who is running for the Senate in Kentucky and is the son of the Congressman, has already raked in $822,000 despite the fact that nearly the entire GOP establishment in the Bluegrass State has lined up behind Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

Peter Schiff, an economic adviser to Paul's presidential campaign and a likely candidate for Senate in Connecticut, has raised $998,000 for his bid -- despite the fact he has yet to officially declare.

Both men have employed the "money bomb" approach (encourage donors to all give on a certain day to post large 24 hour totals) to fundraising that Paul pioneered in 2008.

Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul during the campaign, said that he was not all surprised by the amounts of money both Rand Paul and Schiff had been able to raise to date.

He called the Paul movement "legitimate" and "real", noting that the Campaign for Liberty -- an organization formed in the aftermath of the campaign and on which Paul serves as honorary chairman -- had raised $4 million since its founding in February.

"These are people who want to return to our traditional values of self reliance and liberty," added Benton.

It remains to be seen whether either Rand Paul or Peter Schiff can crack the code to turn fundraising capacity into actual votes.

While Ron Paul raised vast sums of cash and had -- without question -- the most vocal and energized group of supporters on the Republican side, he was never a real factor in any state.

Paul won 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses -- good for fourth place -- and crested 20 percent in a handful of primaries and caucuses including North Dakota (21 percent), Montana (25 percent) and Idaho (24 percent). But, overall, he remained a bit player in the race for the Republican nomination.

Polling conducted in Kentucky suggests his son is a more legitimate threat to the party establishment. Grayson led Paul 40 percent to 25 percent in a primary matchup conducted by Research 2000 for the liberal Daily Kos blog.

Schiff has fared far less well in polling on the Connecticut race. In a late July Quinnipiac survey, Schiff didn't even receive one percent of the vote. (Ouch!) Of Schiff's candidacy, political analyst Stu Rothenberg wrote: "A majority of Connecticut Republicans are not ready for the second coming of Ron Paul."

We tend to agree with Rothenberg that while the Paul message is VERY appealing to a small group of voters, it doesn't sell well when presented to the broader electorate. (Otherwise, we would have been listening to President Paul address a joint session of Congress last night.)

Still, the sums of money that Paul-ites have donated to Senate candidates in Connecticut and Kentucky are impressive and suggest that the Ron Paul Revolution -- such as it is -- may not be over just yet.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 10, 2009; 1:05 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Most Important Number in Politics Today
Next: Assessing the Wilson Fallout: A Re-Energized Democratic Base

Comments

Paul was absolutely right about the economy, the only one who was right. All the others looked like idiots next to him in hindsight.

To those that don't know there was another pole showing Paul ahead of all others among the under 40 crowd by as much as 30%. Kentucky's younger crowd is very receptive to his message, and that is a sign of things to come within the party. Paul's people are now the most active and will likely be here to stay.

We are looking forward to this, as Trey Grayson has been running for this office for 8 years now, yet Paul is unknown here, and has instantly come within 15 points so early in the race. This is also good news knowing about the huge undecided vote, and the fact he is really a Democrat.

Posted by: lanty | September 11, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who spends much time in 2009 worrying about Communists should just go back to sleep for another sixty years.

It's like expressing deep concern about resurgent Monarchy.

Posted by: nodebris | September 11, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Chris should give credit to "The Last Poets" for his headline. After all, it was their recording titled "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised", that gave birth to use of the phraseology in the marketplace of ideas

Posted by: orlkon | September 11, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Out with the current Republican dogma and in with something NEW... that's exactly what these candidates represent.

The GOP is dying. Fresh ideas are the only thing that will keep this nation from becoming a one party system.

No to wars and overbearing government programs? This sounds fine to me, and that's why I will look into "fringe candidates" with something legitimate to bring to the table.

Thanks for the article and for opening my eyes to new possibilities!

If you hear of anyone else with interesting ideas and non-political backgrounds please write it up; we certainly need fewer politicians and more thinkers and leaders!

Posted by: wu_tau | September 11, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
While I appreciate your coverage of Ron Paul now, I cannot forget that you (along with the rest of the MSM) were very unfair to him during the actual campaign. I seem to recall an MTV/Myspace debate you moderated in which you gave Congressman Paul the short shrift compared in favor of the establishment hack candidates. As I recall you also let Obama get away with being ambiguous on Iraq and Afghanistan withdrawal commitments. Now look where we are - we have more troops than ever in both countries.

If Ron Paul had been elected, we'd already be half-way out of those quagmires.

Posted by: zf123 | September 11, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite,
You expose your true colors by calling Ron Paul a racist and pointing to the New Republic hit piece/smear used by the MSM to discredit Ron Paul during the primaries.

Racism is a collectivist concept that contradicts Ron Paul's strongly individualist viewpoint. I know for a fact that Ron Paul's campaign manager for the 08 election was gay, and that Ron Paul had the highest proportion of minority supporters of the GOP candidates. Furthermore, his stance on ending the Drug War would have a disproportionately positive impact on minority communities.

Oh, but none of that matters - he's racist and here's the proof! http://dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/pic1.jpg

Posted by: zf123 | September 11, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

You simply pointed out that you own property in a Communist nation. Does that not sound risky? Hardline Communists tend to live in Communist countries, and they do not like landowners.

==

So do your deep insights on the nature of Communism come from those libertarian comic books?

Or are you a serious scholar and you've seen "Dr. Zhivago?"

Sheesh. This isn't 1980. Ho Chi Minh is dead and Việt Nam has a vibrant capitalist economy and a stronger middle class than ours. Ours is shrinking, theirs is growing.

"Communists don't like landowners."

How one-dimensional.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 11, 2009 3:13 AM | Report abuse

here are those who take their clues from the media's false picture of Paul and his supporters. They consider Paul a radical with crazy ideas. The funny part is most of these same people would call Thomas Jefferson a great American hero and a brilliant political thinker, there by proving that they must either be ignorant of Jefferson, or ignorant of Ron Paul. There is very little difference in political philosophy.

==

Note the arrogant presumption that anyone who really knows what Ron Paul stands for would be on board. Of all the bloody cheek ..! As though everyone thinks exactly alike. Don't have to wonder much what kind of people YOU hang with.

Better sit down and work on getting candid with the possibility that a lot of people who know exactly what your cult figure stands for still think he's full of beans.

As long as I've been doing politics you libertarian ninnies have been trying to claim authenticity by insisting that you views are in line with the Founders'. That's even more arrogant than your opener up there.

You really think Thomas Jefferson would have been on board with corporate personhood? Grow one, would you?

Ron Paul has a lot of seriously nutty ideas about the role of government, and his basing those ideas in the Constitution is flimsy as butterfly wings emerging from the pupae. You guys seek authenticity in the distant past because you sure aren't getting any in the present, and it ISN'T because the press or the GOP or anyone is out to get Ron Paul. That is some seriously megalomania there.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 11, 2009 2:52 AM | Report abuse

The article states:
"We tend to agree with Rothenberg that while the Paul message is VERY appealing to a small group of voters, it doesn't sell well when presented to the broader electorate."

Perhaps it should read:
"WE tend to think that the Paul message is very appealing to those who actually take the time to know and understand it."

Sorry to sound so smug, but this has been my experience as a Ron Paul supporter. Opposition seldom comes from those who have a real ax to grind with a policy position by Dr. Paul. Instead, those who I have spoke with fit into any number of catagories, all of which are based on nonsense of one sort or another.
- There are the false 'old school' Republicans (neo-con for short) who think conservatism is a movement of people who think and act like Sean Hannity. These people are clueless about the true roots of the Republican Party. If Robert Taft could come back from the dead and meet these neo-cons, he'd probably have a heart attack and die on the spot all over again.
- There are those who take their clues from the media's false picture of Paul and his supporters. They consider Paul a radical with crazy ideas. The funny part is most of these same people would call Thomas Jefferson a great American hero and a brilliant political thinker, there by proving that they must either be ignorant of Jefferson, or ignorant of Ron Paul. There is very little difference in political philosophy.
- Or there or those who simply can't be troubled to overcome their knee-jerk political party support and actually vote for the candidate with the wisest approach and record. They vote for whoever the party establishement supports.

There are other catagories, but the point here is that all though Paul only pulled in 10% of the vote, those were the thinking and informed Republican voters. The others are ignorant either through apathy or through being duped.

Posted by: RHill1 | September 10, 2009 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Can someone explain where/how Ron Paul spent $35 million?? That's a lot of money with nothing to show for it. Did he even run television ads. He should be prosecuted for fraud.

Posted by: HHG1 | September 10, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." --Benjamin Franklin

GoldAndTanzanite,

How many hours of overtime are you putting in GoldAndTanzanite to remain ignorantly stupid?

Posted by: C4LFL | September 10, 2009 11:07 PM | Report abuse

"Do Communists believe in property rights?

==

No they behead their own children to celebrate holidays.

Stop reading your libertarian comic books and get a life."

GoldAndTanzanite,

You simply pointed out that you own property in a Communist nation. Does that not sound risky? Hardline Communists tend to live in Communist countries, and they do not like landowners.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 10:58 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite,

ACORN is not a job!


Posted by: C4LFL | September 10, 2009 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey GoldAndTanzanite

Either you have absolutely no life or are part of some leftist political action committee and have no life. I just scrolled down the list and it appears that you've been commenting on this article nonstop since 1:08 this afternoon. How bout you get a life and find another column to whine on.

Posted by: reasonisstupid | September 10, 2009 10:30 PM | Report abuse

"Goldie".

Did Ron Paul pick on you at grammar school or what?

Posted by: AAAANDRE | September 10, 2009 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Nobody spends his career years delivering babies in a poor rural town because he's seeking power, fame, and fortune.

==

Read the TNR article I linked.

I don't think Paul seeking power or fortune, I think he's seeking attention, attention, attention.

He's a racist jerk and his stated public policy beliefs are just plain irresponsible.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Do Communists believe in property rights?

==

No they behead their own children to celebrate holidays.

Stop reading your libertarian comic books and get a life.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Patrick:

Brazil? The big oil find a couple years back... had me thinking their power/oil/gas companies would be black with cash for the next 20 years... any thoughts?

Actually have small holding with their big state oil company... petroloeo brazilia, or something...

?

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 10:12 PM | Report abuse

"God you are so full of yourself"

I am full of nothing but love for my fellow human beings. My soapbox rants may fail to persuade most people, but I rant because I care. Ron Paul does too. Nobody spends his career years delivering babies in a poor rural town because he's seeking power, fame, and fortune.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 10:08 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite,

You "own property" in a poor Communist country?

That sounds far from safe or sustainable, my friend. Do Communists believe in property rights?

"Nobody owns guns" in Vietnam? I think you are forgetting about the government.

I say your move is as risky as anything I've heard in a long time, just to escape from the corporatist state we call America.

Best of luck - no joke.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

As soon as we hit a dollar slide, be wary of whatever demonizing Obama has prepared for people like us who just want to escape the political-money yoke.

==

God you are so full of yourself

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

docwhocuts - That is a tough question, thanks in part to the grand mysteries of our friendly neighborhood global central banks.

I do business with Peter Schiff's company, actually. They like the Perth Mint right now, for obvious reasons. They also can put you into Jim Rogers' commodities fund, which is one of the best places for dollars right now.

Foreign currency markets are hopelessly baffling, but some common sense will still rule the day. The Swiss franc, the yen and the yuan are strong for obvious reasons, though the franc is on slightly shakier ground since they bailed out their bank.

Frankly, you probably know at least as well as I do. I study the theory and have what I think are very safe investments, though not the most dynamic. I would say your overall strategy is the one that will beat the Depression: Diversity is key, and having non-dollar-denominated assets will be important. Whenever affordable to buy in, I go for foreign shares in commodities. Commodities will be the safest place for anyone in the near term, and earning dividends in foreign currencies will beat the dollar panic.

Of course, just wait for the other shoe to drop: As soon as we hit a dollar slide, be wary of whatever demonizing Obama has prepared for people like us who just want to escape the political-money yoke. It will be an endless tirade in corporate media... "Gold buyers are wrecking the dollar!" "Investors in foreign countries are traitors!" We need to be prepared to explain to our neighbors exactly how we saw this coming, and how we are not the cause of their suffering.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 9:47 PM | Report abuse

And oh, if anyone has any more idiot remarks about regulation and that inversionist BS, here's a factoid for you.

I own property in Việt Nam. I'm actively learning the language and can be understơod now in both the northern and southern dialects. Tôi có thể nói cả hai tiếng Bắc và tiếng Nam được.

Two days ago it was 9/9/9 over there, a numerologically felicitous date in a country where numerology is taken very seriously, and we broke ground on my future house. It will be a bloody palace, in the city of Cần Thơ.

You guys can stay here and pick each others' pockets and invest in investments that invest in investments. I'll be living in a Communist country where nobody owns guns and capitalism is very very regulated, and I will love it.

Enjoy your free-market sh*thole.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is the real deal, all the other Republicans are liars and cheats. Ron Paul has something most Republicans lack, integrity and for that they hate him.

==

Ron Paul is a racist swine.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse

patrick

a ? Where do you have your money? I am about 50. Have about 30% in foreign currency. another 30 in foreign markets. 20% in municipals, 20% in NYSE... roughly.

What would you do with a seriously decent amount of liquid cash (the 30% in foreign duckets)?

I am slowly trying to bleed the NYSE holdings, but it has done so unpredictably well this summer... not sure what to do

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

"I've been hearing this inversionism for forty years. You're talking idiot nonsense. Incomplete regulation is worse than none, and in its absence we will all be serfs within a generation.

Don't bother responding, I already know everything you'll say. Black is white, up is down, woo hoo."

Look around. We are closer to a dollar panic than you realize. Washington is broke, and both parties have run up immense debts and costs for over 40 years. What has regulation prevented so far? You seem to suggest that without an SEC, EPA or a Dept of Energy, we'd all be chained to a rock with Nike and Disney suits whipping us into hard labor?

Give me a break. All evidence in plain sight screams to me, "regulation lets the bastards in."

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Most Republicans don't like Ron Paul because he actually believes and abides by what he says. Republicans claim to be for small government, less foreign involvement, less spending, less government intrusion amd more personal rights but when they get in power they do just the opposite while Ron Paul stands up to them. Ron Paul is the real deal, all the other Republicans are liars and cheats. Ron Paul has something most Republicans lack, integrity and for that they hate him.

Posted by: info4 | September 10, 2009 9:10 PM | Report abuse

See, the game of Politics has no conscious. Republicans wasted 600 million dollars running for the Whitehouse with McCain and Palin. The game itself does not care if that money was wasted. How many starving people could have been fed instead with 600 Million dollars ?

Posted by: truthhurts | September 10, 2009 9:02 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite - did you vote for Obama? How's the Hope and Change coming?

Look at Obama's Washington. Same old, same old. Establishment Dems mingling with Establishment GOPers. Wall Street making the new rules for Wall Street. The banker at the head of the Treasury bailing out his friends, the bankers.

Hope! Change!

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 8:58 PM | Report abuse

The poorest demographic in the 80s and today was/is the most overweight.

Guess all that worrying paid off.

They die diseases of kings.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite,

"Incomplete regulation is worse than none."

Buddy, look around you. Who are the winners? You honestly think that the rich would someone be even more powerful without an SEC or the EPA around?

Give me a break. Let me try to put this a slightly different way: With regulation, we give Wall Street authority over Wall Street. We give corporate America a buddy in the Cabinet who can influence the EPA.

Regulation is absolutely a corrosive power, and it is obvious what damage it has done. It could not be much worse, and only more regulation would take us there.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

If you say that, you'll have to forgive me for assuming everything else you say is a lie.

==

If you presume everything coming from a right-winger to be a lie you will have very few occasions to regret.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

The growth of regulation in Washington has been accompanied by the greatest concentration of corporate-derived wealth we've ever seen.

==

I've been hearing this inversionism for forty years. You're talking idiot nonsense. Incomplete regulation is worse than none, and in its absence we will all be serfs within a generation.

Don't bother responding, I already know everything you'll say. Black is white, up is down, woo hoo.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

I hear liberals crying foul when the concept of de-regulating comes up, and yet I am astounded at the lack of awareness of just how badly our regulatory system fails us.

Liberals, if you have a problem with unchecked Wall Street "greed", then next time vote for someone who won't put Wall Street in charge. If you don't like pollution, put someone in charge who doesn't cave in to the cap-and-trade joke we call environmental policy.

Liberals, if you want to make a better country for the next generation, stop borrowing money. Tell your leaders to stop inflating the dollar and shuffling debt to the next generation. My daughter will see none of your wonderful "reforms" and entitlements, because you - and most on the right as well - don't know the first thing about our money system.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 8:49 PM | Report abuse

"Hahahaha, when I did residency in NYC, guess where I was?

I can go all day. You disgust me. I was at columbia in harlem in late 80s... I know the hood better than you ever will.

Sorry, thought you might be worth a moment of time, my bad.

Posted by: docwhocuts"

You say people living in the inner city didn't worry about food.

If you say that, you'll have to forgive me for assuming everything else you say is a lie.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 10, 2009 8:49 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite, you said:

"In real life, the absence of regulation leads perforce to the accumulation of wealth and power in a few entities, and if you think they don't use that power to make sure they keep it, you need to get your head examined."

That is absolutely incorrect. The growth of regulation in Washington has been accompanied by the greatest concentration of corporate-derived wealth we've ever seen.

Who do we task to regulate Wall Street? Wall Street. Who do we put in charge of the Treasury? Bankers. Liberals will argue that this is because these are the "experts" who would know how to regulate things. Again - you are letting business regulate itself, not government watchdogs. Liberals also think things would be much better if we just keep the GOP out and put the "right" people in charge. I agree that the GOP is terrible. But any so-called "system" that can only work properly with the rare "right" person in charge is a system that needs to go away.

Our federal regulatory system allows pollution, inflation, bribery... corruption.

Things become far worse with regulation. The wealthy are winning with regulation. They always do.... you vote for their buddies for crying out loud.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse


Ron Paul? Who the hell is he? Is is less than an atom in the universe. He is like a religion to his followers, a false god, just like the rest of them.


Posted by: mortified469 | September 10, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

hyroller56 - Do you think our current un-backed currency is the way to go? Really?

The gold standard is notoriously imperfect. No argument there. It is also far, far better than than our current system.

Our current system allows the ocean of dollars to expand with no limits. There is no commodity to value the dollar with right now... and we are not concerned about this?

Trust me, you will be concerned very soon. 12 months tops from now, price inflation will finally start to catch up - and who is going to raise your pay to compensate for a double-digit inflation of prices? When you realize just how badly you've been suckered by the corporate robber barons of the world, you might do yourself a favor and look Ron Paul up again. He is one of the very few people in Washington who actually cares about preserving what little buying power our working classes have left.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Hahahaha, when I did residency in NYC, guess where I was?

I can go all day. You disgust me. I was at columbia in harlem in late 80s... I know the hood better than you ever will.

Sorry, thought you might be worth a moment of time, my bad.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

If Ron Paul didnt exist whould it be nessessary for the oligachy to conjure someone like him up ? Perhaps.His idea of returning to the gold standard is laughable.

Posted by: hyroller56 | September 10, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"Lived in the inner city during the 80s. Yep on the "wrong" side of MLK in baltimore, yes the west side.

They were worried about drugs not food."

Bull. You're lying.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 10, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"Progressives often have great ideas, but they do not scale to the national level without relying upon borrowing and shady finance markets."

Actually, we want to increase taxes, but apparently having a government that can pay for what it spends angers Free Market, so politicians have to borrow which only angers Free Market a lot less.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 10, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Lived in the inner city during the 80s. Yep on the "wrong" side of MLK in baltimore, yes the west side.

They were worried about drugs not food. They were worried about their schools, not whether they had one. They worried about guns, not whether they could afford them.

Compared to the rest of the world, they were rich as hell. They died of diseases of Kings, I took care of them as they did.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

"Free markets are a myth."

What do you call the illegal drug market in the USA? The illegal Levi's market that persisted in the USSR prior to its collapse?

Free markets are all you have left after governments collapse. This is both good and bad, like life itself. Free markets demand winners and losers. Liberals blanch at the idea of anyone "losing", but they also assume that people like me ignore hurt or starving people in the street. You would be wrong there. I've taken in more homeless and destitute people than the entire liberal population on this board tonight.

Progressives often have great ideas, but they do not scale to the national level without relying upon borrowing and shady finance markets.

All the Dreams of progressives rely upon the same shady finance markets these same people denounce. Why can't you see the relationship between the rise of corporatism and the slow spread of "only the government can help you now"?

Don't give me any more Hope or Change until you can show me some financial sustainability, without relying on interest rates and T-bills.

Pass health care if you must, but our children won't get any of it - guaranteed. Same goes for Medicare/SS/Rx, student loans, home loans... all these wonderful things are built on the premise that there is always more money to borrow. Ridiculous.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Check obamas own words. A last minute change to his speech... 30 million uninsured (garbage number also)... because the rest in your stupid number are illegals.

This was even covered by the post. They almost forgot to update the number... that was the story...

So, let the lies talk lay with yourself and your own delusions.

Please, I know your response... oh wait... 30million.. blah blah... also an inflated number.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

"-I would prefer our curve was such that our poorest poor were rich compared to the rest of the world, even if they were poor as snot compared to the rich in our country... a goal we attained in the late 80s."

Dude, how old are you. Have you ever seen an inner city in the late 80s??

Posted by: DDAWD | September 10, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

-I would prefer our curve was such that our poorest poor were rich compared to the rest of the world, even if they were poor as snot compared to the rich in our country... a goal we attained in the late 80s.

==

Well gee why then even in the absence of new regulation, and instead with more deregulation happening all the while, do we have 45 million people who don't even have HEALTH INSURANCE?!?

Don't bother answering. I know your drill, all lies.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

THAT is why you need to pay some respect to the simple country doctor guy who doesn't sound slick when he talks.

==

Oh, he doesn't sound slick, that's for sure.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Let's get this clear then.
-a nation with a vertical bell curve of wealth is our "goal"?
-zero wealth disparity is inherently good for the country?
-it is a goal in and of itself, even if the entire curve could be shifted towards more wealthy...?
-we want equality cause it sounds nice or because it will make us more wealthy?
-I would prefer our curve was such that our poorest poor were rich compared to the rest of the world, even if they were poor as snot compared to the rich in our country... a goal we attained in the late 80s.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Yeah let's trade 35 tons of gold for an old corpse.

Free markets at work.

Makes you wonder how these people manage to walk, let's see, my left foot is in front, which one should I move next?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

txpenguin wrote:
"Raise the paltry $25 million bounty on Mr. bin Laden to $1 billion in gold. I guess that would be too simple and effective for most mainstream Republicans and Democrats."

Let's see. Gold is currently trading at $977/oz. So $1 billion would be a little over a million ounces. At 29,167 troy ounces to the ton, that's 35 tons of gold.

Not exactly what you'd call portable.

Posted by: presto668 | September 10, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

The time frame is tough to call because we don't get the most important dollar information from our central bank.

Who knows what the M3 statistic is or why it is important? I got on board with Ron Paul when I saw that he alone on the Banking Committee was concerned about the Fed's removal of the M3. Put simply, the M3 showed us the amount of dollars created in the securities markets. In 2006, when the Fed took the M3 away, you can see the curve steep sharply upward - headed well past $100 TRILLION in unpaid contracts. This is practically an announcement of "Ooops! We let the dollar get away from us!" We can only wait and see what happens.

There is room for healthy debate regarding centralized social services versus privatization, etc., but on monetary policy, Ron Paul is inarguably correct: We, the people, the majority of citizens, could pay dearly for the shenanigans of a wealthy few. And the Obamas and Bushes of the world are not talking about this at all. THAT is why you need to pay some respect to the simple country doctor guy who doesn't sound slick when he talks.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"Hope you understood this, and were just being objectionable for the sake thereof."

Of course I am. If someone says something inane like "free markets will prevail," sarcastic azzholes like me are going to jump on it.

Economics is an abstract creation. Quit trying to personify it. The USSR didn't fall because of its economics. It fell because of its corrupt politics. When you have total free markets, you have an accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few people. Go back in history and tell me how well those societies prospered. This doesn't happen in the US because there is at least a modicum of regulation that allows maintenance of a middle class. We're talking about things like anti-trust, wealth redistribution through taxes. (yes, it's redistribution and I'm no politician so I can say it's a good thing), and so forth.

Look, if you want to save a few dollars in taxes and the expense of all else, then go ahead and say so. Just don't pretend that it's good for the country.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 10, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

The russians spent less than we did... on their military.

And they had somewhere in the area of 40% poverty (by US standards at the time). Yet they still crumbled.

esplain that goldie.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

The entire point was that despite EVERY effort of the USSR to fight the market, they lost.

==

You moron, the SU fell because of military spending

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

So is this your time frame for Free Markets to bring down the US as well?

==

OK, free markets are a myth. There is no such thing. It's just the latest attempt to sell turning over control to the rich and justifying it in supernatural terms, the idea that there is some "spirit" in "the marketplace" that will always infallibly lead to perfect outcomes .. and blaming every imperfect on on "market distortion."

Change a few works and you have a fable that would have most five-year-olds annoyed with you for insulting their intelligence, but there remains a certain kind of zombie that eats this crap up.

In real life, the absence of regulation leads perforce to the accumulation of wealth and power in a few entities, and if you think they don't use that power to make sure they keep it, you need to get your head examined.

I find the "ghost in the machine" supernaturalism to be abhorrently stupid.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

are you really missing patrick's point?!? Or are you just playing games?

The entire point was that despite EVERY effort of the USSR to fight the market, they lost.

Even with COMPLETE control (who works where, when, for how long...) they couldn't come close to making it work.

Hope you understood this, and were just being objectionable for the sake thereof.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

A quick review of our economic plight

FDR creates SS, which is bankrupting us
LBJ creates medicare, which is bankrupting us, and is the MODEL used to promote govt takeover.
Medicaid is essentially bankrupt right now, another giant govt handout program

Look what happens when you let rich people spend other people's money.

If you think this "new" govt is any different, sad for you.

Let's put it in perspective, SS and medicare account for more than the sum total of what the govt spends money on. The next biggest payout?!?!? anyone got an idea? waiting for a guess. Bet patrick knows.

If you don't know, by memory, by heart, then you shouldn't be talking here, you should be listening.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD,

70 years is a long time - about as long as it took for free markets to bring down the Soviet Union in fact.

Posted by: patrick4"

So is this your time frame for Free Markets to bring down the US as well?

Posted by: DDAWD | September 10, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Someone mentioned the gold standard earlier...

The gold standard is fraught with issues. There was a constant need to assess values, ratios with silver, production, and of course hoarding and toying with the markets.

And yet, this would in fact be a safer monetary system than our current one. People have no idea how close the dollar is to hyper-inflation right now. Most of us could not even imagine what a dollar panic would look like, and if told there could be one, would probably laugh.

How many people think currency panic could not happen here? We think health care is a serious issue? The auto industry? Imagine what would happen if Asian nations decided to spend all their dollar hoards here over a short period of time. Our money would become worthless overnight. How will you eat? How will you heat your home? How do Americans go on thinking that their money has value when most of us are in the business of servicing each other? Services do not grow food or bring desirable products to market.

This is not a partisan issue. Both parties enjoy the same monetary policy: It is evergreen in Washington to expect unlimited credit. Politicians reel us in with this "We can do it!" crap, and then borrow heavily to pay for the programs. Remittance always happens, even after 70 years of buildup.

Both parties are at fault. Clinton may have balanced the operating budget, but he also allowed the credit default swap, which overnight erased any fiscal prudence from my perception of him. Every President leaves our entitlement programs deeper in debt upon leaving office. Every President allows unlimited inflation of the dollar. This cannot go on forever.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

70 years is a long time - about as long as it took for free markets to bring down the Soviet Union in fact.

==

oh jesus

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

70 years is a long time - about as long as it took for free markets to bring down the Soviet Union in fact.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Free market had worked wonders for the US.

==

clown

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

70 years of NOT prevailing?!? ha, sounds like one of the most uneducated claims of the day. Free market had worked wonders for the US. We once owned the world, and only govt intervention was able to mess it up.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Nodebris speaks with such clarity and insight! Let's send all the free market types to Somalia so they can enjoy the fruits of a free market!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 10, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

As long as we keep giving power to Washington to "protect" us from robber barons and the wealthy elite, we will see the robber barons and wealthy elite do better and better.

==

Wow, since that's completely backwards, it must be right!

(pause)

go back to sleep

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Patrick makes good points.

Obama has made millions off you sheeple. Van Jones, the "brilliant environmentalist" who never took a science course in his life, made millions off you sheeple.

GOP generally, bush jr aside, tries to limit govt so that you might get rich.

Dems work to ensure mediocrity so that you will vote for their handouts time and time again.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"None of you understand what a free market is supposed to be, either. We haven't had anything close to a free market in this country for 70+ years.

Free markets always prevail."

Well, after 70+ years of not prevailing, you'd think they'd get moving on their triumphant return. Is this like another Jesus thing? Where we have to wait for thousands of years before Free Market finally returns to earth on a trusty white stallion?

Posted by: DDAWD | September 10, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

He was the ONLY one pushing honest to goodness change.

Not obamas version of govt takeover of everything is change.

Oh, well, really isn't the public's fault. MSM didn't do their job.

I emailed the candidates about this time two years ago. I got an actual response from Paul... as it was doctor to doctor, I suspect.

Everything he said was more or less textbook economics (am an econ major). Bright man, guess he never had a chance.

Posted by: docwhocuts | September 10, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

-----------------------

"Free market" is just the latest repackaging of "let the wealthy control everything."

Your economic determinism is BS. You probably run around chanting "supply an' demand" all day.
-----------------------


I think regulation is the latest repackaging of "let the wealthy control everything." After all, the wealthy are running Washington, right? Ever met a U.S. Senator who wasn't a millionaire, or who didn't have buddies in the corporate world.

As long as we keep giving power to Washington to "protect" us from robber barons and the wealthy elite, we will see the robber barons and wealthy elite do better and better.

Washington protects the wealthy from competition. Always have, always will. I await any semblance of a sane argument to the contrary.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

You sound like an investment banker to me

==

Barn's over there.

I would rather live in a moldy Maytag box under and overpass than have ANYTHING to do win finance.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

It's actually great that the hard left radicals and hard rights have barred Ron Paul from the limelight and the presidency he would have won

===

hahahahahahahaha stop please my ribs ache ...

And why exactly would Ron Paul have won more than a few votes? What is so compelling in his message?

Nothing. He's a fool.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite,

The only people who would suffer for a more libertarian approach in D.C. would be investment bankers. You sound like an investment banker to me. People who depend on various paper trading scams to get rich quickly. I suspect you are part of the problem.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

None of you understand what a free market is supposed to be, either. We haven't had anything close to a free market in this country for 70+ years.

Free markets always prevail. Ignore this at your own peril.

==

Crap.

"Free market" is just the latest repackaging of "let the wealthy control everything."

Your economic determinism is BS. You probably run around chanting "supply an' demand" all day.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"Free markets always prevail."

We'd all better watch out for Somalia, then. They definitely have the freest market. No government = no government interference.

Funny, though, it looks like the most profitable job in a totally free market is Pirate.

Posted by: nodebris | September 10, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza is delusional.. no, just pompous. He does not mention and I am sure would not admit to media censorship of Ron Paul's successes all during the election. Pravda has sisters right here in the USA. It's actually great that the hard left radicals and hard rights have barred Ron Paul from the limelight and the presidency he would have won had the public been informed by our "unbiased media". It's supercharged those of us who weren't giving these "bi-partisan whackos" enough credit for being able to destroy our country. Thank God for Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Andrew Napolitano, John Stossel, and so many more who have the VOICE we don't have, and for their courage and conviction in exposing the truths we don't get in this newspaper or on mainstream media. Times they are a-changing, and soon we will have new political power in America. These opinions sold to us as "news" are nothing more than editorials disguised as fact. Thanks for pissing us off, we needed it... (-: Cpasibo, comrade..

Posted by: wabeki54 | September 10, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"Paul is an isolationist. The hermit king."

There is a difference between an isolationist and non-intervention. RP has stated many times that we should talk and trade with all nations. That isn't even close to being an isolationist.

Posted by: Freeeeeeeeeedom | September 10, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

The complete lack of understanding here is appalling. None of the flamers posting here today have demonstrated any knowledge of Paul's platform or campaign.

None of you understand what a free market is supposed to be, either. We haven't had anything close to a free market in this country for 70+ years.

Free markets always prevail. Ignore this at your own peril.

Posted by: patrick4 | September 10, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Gold bugs love him because he probably drives up the price of their stash.

==

I have lots of gold but I'm content to let its value inch up on its own. Supporting a nutjob like Paul would be irresponsible citizenship.

I wonder if Paul has any idea how much gold there actually is in the whole world? Probably not.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Rs and Ds = more of the same. Paul is something different.

==

And considerably worse, his positions based on a libertarian reading of the Constitution and without reference to anything contemporary and real.

Staying out of needless wars? Great idea. That's one good one mixed in with a mountain of bad ones. Like massive deregulation. Yeah, that should really help.

Like I keep saying, just listen to the guy. Never mind his alleged ideas, listen to his voice:

"job" becomes "JAAAAAH - uhhhhh -OOOOOB"

THEN listen to his words. On government regulators:

"These little men filled with envy are capable of producing nothing and are motivated by their own inadequacies and desires to wield authority against men of talent."

"Men of talent" like Ken Lay.

The man is an idiot.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Paul is an isolationist. The hermit king.

His foreign policy is just out of bounds completely, and his demonization of the fed in support of the gold standard is a pipe dream.

Gold bugs love him because he probably drives up the price of their stash.

Posted by: thecomedian | September 10, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Agree or not with Paul, at least he's different than the Democratic-Republican establishment. For so many of each parties candidates, they are strikingly similar. How is Obama's foreign policy different than Bush's? We're sending more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rs and Ds = more of the same. Paul is something different. And for all those saying it's idiotic to look back 200 years, I say the beliefs of the Founding Farmers will never be obsolete.

Posted by: dnara | September 10, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Hell no!
We're not going anywhere.
We're here to stay!!!!

Posted by: adam1mc | September 10, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

the sheeple are out in force tonight

Posted by: loudountaxrevolt | September 10, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul hasn't planted any "seeds." He's a libertarian sociopath and an attention-wh0re, and that is the alpha and the omega of Ron Paul. His candidacy is flypaper for half-educated rednecks.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Paul is NOT running for President so stop the Dem spinning! The truth is, the article is about the things he's done at least to have something grow from the seeds he's planted.

You can b all day about Paul and miss the point. I guess that won't matter to someone that doesn't know how to read.

Posted by: ByRon12 | September 10, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

There is no Ron Paul revolution. He is a free-market extremist

==

Even worse, he thinks that going back to 18th century styles of governance will work in the 21st century.

Just listen to him speak, he's a god damn drooling idiot.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"Great idea, moving backward. Maybe we could bring back slavery too"

What an asinine thing to say.

==

Nowhere near as asinine as the idea that "going back to our roots" represents anything more than nostalgia. A snide throwaway comment about slavery was actually more than such a drivelous idea deserved.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

There is no Ron Paul revolution. He is a free-market extremist just like the players in the criminal Bush regime. He attracted people with his deceptive posturing against the illegal war and support for changing the insane marijuana laws. He was quieter about his stands that the 'free-market' was the answer for health care and global warming, as well as his anti-choice stand. Ron Paul is a Reagan or a W. Bush but in a nicer suit. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

Posted by: revbookburn | September 10, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA Loves A.C.O.R.N.!?!?!?! Gave ACORN Billions of Dollars, wants ACORN to be apart of the 2010 U.S. Census?!?! WATCH THESE VIDEOS!!! PART I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTnizEnC1U PART II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNYU9PamIZk

Posted by: Suffer | September 10, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

2010 should be an exciting time, especially over the next 3 years I believe. Hopefully we will be able to have a great debating season and everyone can have less to worry about instead of having a crisis voting season. I always like it better when conditions are good because than the cream rises to the top and everyone relies on their preparation and knowledge of the issues. It truly should be a precursor to 2012. Good luck Ron.

Posted by: jakesfriend1 | September 10, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

scrivener50:

Maybe because it's too long for the software filter. Did you try breaking it up into several posts?

Posted by: JakeD | September 10, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

WHY WON'T MY 9-11 RELATED POST GO THROUGH? IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IMPOSING CENSORSHIP ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE?


Scroll to the bottom of this ACLU "Freedom Blog" thread to read the timely comment that some powerful entity apparently does not want you to read:

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-government-mandate

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 10, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"Great idea, moving backward. Maybe we could bring back slavery too"

What an asinine thing to say. Our current public education system is a disaster. What exactly does the Department of Education do to improve the system. Throw money at it. Funding has gone up for years, yet achievement has remained flat since the 70s.

This is from the Education Dept. website:

Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

Notice what's missing -- actually educating students.

And how about student loans for college? Would this source of income for universities and college possibly be the reason their prices are so high? -- why should they control costs when they know students can take on federally subsidized debt.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | September 10, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

blert:

Good to see you back. Hope the rantings of the wacky few don't chase you away again.

I agree with your characterization of Paul being the "heir" to the Perot mantle. And to your list of solutions, I'd add Paul wanting to dismantle the Federal Reserve and return to a quasi-"gold standard" as a means of controlling inflation. Not my cup of tea, as it were, but solutions nonetheless.

Posted by: mnteng | September 10, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"BTW, if you read his book, which is obvious many of you haven't, Paul does not say that people don't deserve some charity, he just says it's not the place of government to dole out. That's the way it used to be done. He is only advocating going back to our roots. Our roots are what made us a 'great' nation. People that follow Ron Paul, recognize that our status as 'great' is falling and falling fast.

Posted by: jspin77 | September 10, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse"

Turning back the clock only works with daylight savings time.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 10, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

If you get him real mad, though, he will curse you out and scream "Go to hell, racist swine!".

Posted by: JakeD | September 10, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"Bring back slavery too" -- as you can all see, he's got nothing more than strawman arguments.

Posted by: JakeD | September 10, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Sense you are so good at predicting the future. Would you be so kind as to give me the Power Ball numbers? I would like to retire soon.

==

That means you're done, right?

You should never have started.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"Still, the sums of money that Paul-ites have donated to Senate candidates in Connecticut and Kentucky are impressive and suggest that the Ron Paul Revolution - such as it is -- may not be over just yet"

Indeed. And when the magnitude of the failure in Afghanistan becomes apparent to all, the Revolution may well kick into high gear. Whether it does or not, it is slowly beginning to dawn on Americans that we have been snookered into yet another immoral, unconstitutional war like those in Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea. Why is it that when it counts, so many Congressmen and Senators cannot stand up like Ron Paul did and vote against these no-win wars before they are started. What is wrong with Paul's constitutional solution to the bin Laden problem? Instead of squandering American lives and untold billions of dollars in an undeclared sinkhole of a war, have Congress issue letters of marque and reprisal. Stop the nonsense with these overseas military adventures. Raise the paltry $25 million bounty on Mr. bin Laden to $1 billion in gold. I guess that would be too simple and effective for most mainstream Republicans and Democrats.

Posted by: txpenguin | September 10, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Oh, there'll be "schools" but they'll only be in the business of teaching brand loyalty.
-------------------------------------------

Sense you are so good at predicting the future. Would you be so kind as to give me the Power Ball numbers? I would like to retire soon.

Posted by: nunya1 | September 10, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Paul does not say that people don't deserve some charity, he just says it's not the place of government to dole out. That's the way it used to be done. He is only advocating going back to our roots.

==

Great idea, moving backward. Maybe we could bring back slavery too.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Living at home with my parents... nope.

I am a professional, married, with three kids, I have a mortgage on my house, but no other debt. My wife still wants dining room furniture but guess what we are doing... saving money for it. Not assuming debt for it. I don't know how you would measure 'much of a life' but we go everywhere and do everything we can.

The problem with the Dept of Ed is a complete lack of results. BTW, before you start, my wife is a teacher. Ron Paul points out the glaring inverse relationship between funding for the Dept of Ed and our level of education. What response do we have for that?

No one is shutting down the education system!? I am not even sure where that came from? He says that US government should have little to no role in it. And guess what? it used to work great. Its the responsibility of the state and local government.

We keep helping everyone in our country but we aren't doing so responsibly! It's like donating $1,000 to the March of Dimes with your credit card while you are in foreclosure on your house.

BTW, if you read his book, which is obvious many of you haven't, Paul does not say that people don't deserve some charity, he just says it's not the place of government to dole out. That's the way it used to be done. He is only advocating going back to our roots. Our roots are what made us a 'great' nation. People that follow Ron Paul, recognize that our status as 'great' is falling and falling fast.

Posted by: jspin77 | September 10, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Our History Lesson for Today is:

For each Dreamer of becoming President,

an inspired person who listened to them, follows that dream. You can go back to the days of the dreamers before Lincoln, that pushed John Brown before his stand and death to advocacy of being an abolishenist.

You can sight the soldier that spoke and his words carried on Ulysses S. Grant's ears and followed that wave. How Grant saw two sides of the coin, regalvenizing the south eventually and the industrial revolution. His love of inventions and cloak and dagger spurned branches of government still vital today.

You saw efforts from men who once doubted themselves after a war, for second at least and listened to dreamers like their mothers in Harry S. Truman and yes, even Barak Obama.

The biggest catchs from Truman to Obama, were John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. All somehow made the two isles at least closer in approaching huge issues, even though the polarity was incredibally strong. Each had a dreamer in the party that failed to reach the ultimate podium, but had the message carried out eventually.

Of Course Ron Paul won't get much in history for his galant, courageous effort to run for the Presidency, as much as the more historically valued losers, close callers and unusuals, but in his quiet way now, it is an echo.

Even Obama is leaning more and more on innovation to reach a base. Let's be more forgiving to Ron Paul.

The door he opened is going to put some of you in office someday.

Posted by: ByRon12 | September 10, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

So if we get rid of the dept of education you think there will be no schools?

==

Oh, there'll be "schools" but they'll only be in the business of teaching brand loyalty.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Shutting down the educational system over some disputable constitutional quibble? What the hell does that have to do with being a nation of laws?
-------------------------------------------
fool huh

So if we get rid of the dept of education you think there will be no schools?

Before the dept. of edu. we had schools. What makes you think we would have a bunch of kids running around speeking pidgin.

The Constitution IS the law you fool!

Posted by: nunya1 | September 10, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

You actually believe that would happen if the government wasn’t involved?

==

Yes.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

No one is advocating your strawman "Shutting down the educational system ..."

Posted by: JakeD | September 10, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Talk about "false caricature":

Posted by: JakeD | September 10, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Getting rid of the FEDERAL Department of Education still leaves every State's education scheme and every local school district intact (and free from constraints imposed by libs and the National Education Assocation).

Posted by: JakeD | September 10, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

So seeing people dying of treatable diseases, starving to death, and having children growing up speaking pidgin
-------------------------------------------

You actually believe that would happen if the government wasn’t involved?

Posted by: nunya1 | September 10, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Ron is the only one that advocates responsibility! Self responsibility! To rely upon government for everything is ridiculous and unsustainable.

==

Nobody is advocating "relying on government for everything." If you argument *begins with* and is *predicated upon* a false caricature, maybe you don't have an argument at all, and that's how it appears to me.

As for personal responsibility, that's all well and good, but anyone who thinks it's reasonable to expect everyone everywhere of all ages to be perfectly sober, responsible, and reasonable at all times has probably not lived much of a life.

Still living with your folks, I bet.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

As this is a nation of laws, following those laws makes one "nutty and irresponsible"?

I guess that shows how bright you are.

==

Shutting down the educational system over some disputable constitutional quibble? What the hell does that have to do with being a nation of laws?

Go lick the chrome off your bumper so your Ron Paul for President sticker will adhere. Fool.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

You know when reading his book I often started thinking that his solutions were nutty, until I read the rest of the chapter.

Ron Paul makes very sound arguments in my mind. The problem lies in just how far we are away from his vision. But he even addresses that issue.

IRRESPONSIBLE?! Now -that- is crazy. Ron is the only one that advocates responsibility! Self responsibility! To rely upon government for everything is ridiculous and unsustainable.

Posted by: jspin77 | September 10, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite poasted:
Maybe you didn't like his solutions, but Paul was full of solutions.

==

Nutty, irresponsible solutions.
-------------------------------------------

As this is a nation of laws, following those laws makes one "nutty and irresponsible"?

I guess that shows how bright you are.

Posted by: nunya1 | September 10, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul was in "Bruno."

Enough said.

Posted by: bs2004 | September 10, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

One who advocates [] free markets, [] is a fool.

==

Well we agree on THAT

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

One who promotes, defends the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government is a fool.
One who advocates sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy is a fool.
One who wants to uphold and preserve the US Constitution law of the land is also a fool.

Dr. Paul, you are a fool! we are so f%$#ed, because we have a majority of the house and more than ¾ of Americans agreeing with you. You must be stopped, arrested and trialed for your "crime of humanity" for an attempt ...?

No fools in the Divided States of America. WAKE UP YOU FOOL!
It’s in the air…

Posted by: josephle2k | September 10, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

We'd see the Department of Education slashed, Health and Human Services cut to bits, etc., etc

==

So seeing people dying of treatable diseases, starving to death, and having children growing up speaking pidgin, you're cool with all these because you have some idea that they're not in "the Constitution."

I think we're safe ignoring you.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Nonetheless, mtcooley wrote: "I respect anyone that looks at a problem and tries to devise a solution."

Posted by: JakeD | September 10, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you didn't like his solutions, but Paul was full of solutions.

==

Nutty, irresponsible solutions.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

mtcooley wrote:

Distrusting government does nothing. You sit there decrying it without really thinking of why it hasn't worked and how we could fix it. Since such things are fluid. I respect anyone that looks at a problem and tries to devise a solution. What I can't respect are people that will look at a problem and use it as an excuse to moan about everything being that way and how it's /x/ party's fault.

------------------

Odd comment because if you had actually listened to Paul's speeches and answers in town halls, he was very specific about what he would do with the federal government, about what he would do with foreign policy, etc. In fact, Paul was probably a little too specific, which is why a small band of people really liked him and everyone else was afraid of him. I mean, Paul indicated that he would close down branches of the government not constitutionally mandated. We'd see the Department of Education slashed, Health and Human Services cut to bits, etc., etc. Paul was very specific about what he would do to create a smaller federal government with fewer commitments and troop involvements overseas...and it scared a lot of people to the point that Republican party bosses were trying to exclude Paul votes at conventions and prevent his supporters from speaking. Maybe you didn't like his solutions, but Paul was full of solutions.

Posted by: blert | September 10, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"FWIW, Alan Keyes got more votes for President than Ron Paul did."

How asinine. Keyes was running for President in the general in 2008, Paul wasn't. Paul crushed Keyes in the primary in money and votes.

Also: who has won elected office, including three times as a non-incumbent, and who has never won squat?

Posted by: DannyA1 | September 10, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"While Ron Paul raised vast sums of cash and had -- without question -- the most vocal and energized group of supporters on the Republican side, he was never a real factor in any state."

Maybe you should do some research on the Nevada State convention where Ron Paul won the majority of the delegates so the committee chair and leadership shut the convention down, turned off all the lights and gave McCain all the delegates behind closed doors.

Posted by: Gmartine | September 10, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I have to wonder, too, how much the Tea Party movement owes its momentum to Paul's candidacy. Paul's fiscal messages seem to carry directly over into a lot of the complaints that were voiced at these rallies.

Of course, it's hard to give Paul the credit for this kind of fiscal message given that Ross Perot had already engineered that platform in the early 1990s. Paul's candidacy was, in many respects, heir to Perot's run, and the people throwing tantrums about the bailout, stimulus, and health care proposals seem to be tapping into a similar fiscal outlook regarding deficits, the national debt, and entitlements.

Posted by: blert | September 10, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Well seeing as you post more than most of us here you're a pathetic regular too? Maybe just pathetic since you're being insulting and condescending when you've yet to show you're capable of independent thought not stolen from other people.

That said, I'd be more for viable third party if it was actually a third option. It's either extremist left/right ideals or Republican/Democrat lite. That's not really a third party in my book.

However I don't think Paul should be praised for playing up the fears of the ignorant. Distrusting government does nothing. You sit there decrying it without really thinking of why it hasn't worked and how we could fix it. Since such things are fluid. I respect anyone that looks at a problem and tries to devise a solution. What I can't respect are people that will look at a problem and use it as an excuse to moan about everything being that way and how it's /x/ party's fault.

Posted by: mtcooley | September 10, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Just like the disciples of Jim Jones, liberals, too, will swallow any swill. They will believe, for example, that Al Gore is a science maven. They will parrot his absurd prognostications even when he goes from yakking incessantly about “global warming” to “climate change” without missing a beat, even though changing from one to the other is tantamount to warning people of a locust invasion one second and sounding the alert about an incoming comet the next.

But no self-respecting liberal would ever think to ask the man if by climate change, he meant that we were now facing the danger of global-cooling, and that we had better watch out for expanding icebergs and those marauding gangs of polar bears.

Posted by: snowbama | September 10, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

How sad for you CC. Take a look a the "regulars" on your blog. These are your people. Remarkable.

It seems you wish you were the main attraction, like the bearded lady or the siamese twins at the carnival freak show, but your journalistic talents have instead relegated you to a sideshow or worse, the snow cone stand.

Posted by: snowbama | September 10, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Whether Ron (or Rand) Paul is the one or not, I've long felt that a VIABLE third party is needed in this country to prevent the eternal tug of war we see between the D.s & R.s.

They yank the country in polar opposite directions, depending on which party is in power, and it's bad for the country (to say nothing of poisoning the political atmosphere).

The R.s DETEST Pres. Obama, partly on residual race issues, but mainly because it's apparent that they feel he has usurped the presidency which, apparently, is theirs by divine right.

The same was true (in slightly less violent form) of the D.s during the Bush years. The fact that in time G.W. Bush proved to be a distracted, autocratic, incompetent president only confirmed/'justified' their hatred.

I think the only way forward is a viable 3rd party to separate the squabbling children, even if it isn't a majority party. THAT'S REAL CHOICE, not just the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | September 10, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Like I said, the Republican Rising! meme is a pheromone and we are bugs. This blog is a wasp trap. He probably plots out his pieces in such a way as to make a commenting irresistible.

Rush on the other hand, is only about sycophants. His appeal is to people who are angry and don't want to think for themselves. Chris writes for know it all types, people who fancy themselves critics.

Posted by: shrink2 | September 10, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I would urge anyone who thinks Ron Paul has anything to offer our political discourse to listen to the man talk. His "ideas" are a collection of eclectic non-sequiturs designed to get attention, there are so many whacko ones that the inclusion of a few good ones ends up being the stopped clock telling the correct time.

And someone needs to pull him aside and whisper that "job" is not a three-syllable word.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

You think that Kentucky is a good place to start a libertarian revolution? That state is probably one of the more anti-libertarian places there is. They are typically in favor of government involvement on both economic and social issues. Paul advocates the opposite on both.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 10, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Paul and Palin for 2012. Pray for it, Dems!

Jeezus, Chris. With all your rightwing cheerleading [aren't your arms tired yet] you could at least get your history straight and noted that the phenomenom of Internet fundraising was started by a Doctor Howard Dean.

Posted by: drindl | September 10, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

FWIW, Alan Keyes got more votes for President than Ron Paul did.

Posted by: JakeD | September 10, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is a preening narcissistic fool.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 10, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company