1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/7318/anatomy-of-the-ron-paul-nation/

Anatomy of the Ron Paul Nation

October 18, 2007 by

Cyd Malone provides a close look at a phenom:

I have never had much enthusiasm for following politics; I found that a blanket condemnation of the whole subspecies Officeseeker stood me in good stead and saved me time to focus on more useful things, such as Lindsey Lohan’s current status. I have never willingly given money to any politician, never pitched a chirpy phone call to a fellow citizen reminding them that today is election day, never joined any political party whatsoever, feeling that those who do missed the whole point of the Federalist Papers.

Admittedly, every four years I’d do my civic duty and throw my vote down the Libertarian Party’s maw. That’s as far as my active support for the libertarian crowd went until last Friday night, when I wrote a relatively large check in support of Ron Paul, allowing me entrée into a private reception held at a fabulously gorgeous penthouse in New York City.

I drank the red, surrounded by fifty or so other donors.

Naturally I had a nice time hanging with the Four Figure Donor Crowd, which like any such event gets you a handshake, a few words, and a picture with the candidate. Nice speech, nice time, nice man. Ron Paul holds the distinction of being, in my opinion, probably the only member of Congress our Founders would not find cause to shun.

His ideological outlook towards power is frozen in 1776, leading to a remarkable consistency in his actions and words despite a 30-year public life. My little brother Tommy — yet another 20-something newly minted fan — is reading Mr. Paul’s A Foreign Policy of Freedom. His admiring review: “He’s been giving the same speech since 1976.” FULL ARTICLE

{ 50 comments }

Darryl Schmitz October 18, 2007 at 7:24 am

Thank you for your generous donation, Cyd! The money will doubtlessly be well-spent. Ron Paul is allocating his campaign money as frugally and carefully as he would allow our federal tax dollars to be spent. I like that. :)
Our Constitution doesn’t cater to any one group of us. It represents all of us. We need to get away from the mindset that has become so pervasive saying election time should be a winner-takes-all event. We should rather elect someone who respects the rule of law and is mature enough to realize that our Constitution is more than a “quaint document”.
One of the Republican candidates claims to be from the “Republican wing of the Republican Party”. I’d rather vote for someone who’s from the wing of the Republican Party that respects the Constitution. This from a middle-aged, blue-collar guy. :)

Darryl Schmitz
St. Johns, MI

Mike Houghton October 18, 2007 at 8:09 am

Other then the 4 digit donation, this is me to a “T” and while I have donated double digit numbers to Dr. Paul’s campaign, I suspect thousands and thousands of others throughout the country are just like us. You wrote what we feel and I will share this with everyone that I know.
Thank you.
Mike Houghton
Reading, Pa

Ken Heil October 18, 2007 at 8:17 am

In April of this year , I was telling politically savvy people at work that Ron Paul would be the “Berlin Wall” story of 2007. The similarity being this – six months prior to the Berlin Wall coming down , no one would have thought it possible. We are seeing the same phenomenom happen right before our eyes with regards to Ron Paul. The groundswell is underway on a regional basis growing daily by leaps and bounds. The tidal wave is coming to the national scene. We are truly in historic times. The “Berlin Wall” analogy is a great story. It would be a good political theme them for his campaign.

Press on Ron Paul !!!

Ken Heil
Union,Ky.

William Schultz October 18, 2007 at 8:53 am

Dr. Paul continues to confuse the “experts” who try to pin down his support in the traditional manner. But to those willing to look beyond politics as usual, the picture is clear. Americans in larger numbers are tired of having their liberty infringed, of being lied to, of being taxed into near-poverty and sending their children to fight and die in illegal wars. Dr. Paul articulates what I believe most Americans feel, even though many cannot express it themselves.
This election could very well be a turning point in American history.
I, too, have never actively campaigned for any candidate. Until now. I think we can win. It’s time to resurrect the Republic.

Steve October 18, 2007 at 9:18 am

I believe that most of our nation is fed up with the lies we are fed on a daily basis, the politics of big business and the career building people that really do not have the american people in thier best interest.

It is time america that the people take back the country that our founders and many others died to give to all of us and this should never be forgotten although for some reason it has until recently.

Ron Paul is a true patriot and you can tell when he speaks that he is telling the truth and that is rare in this day and age.

When i Listen to Rudy or Mitt speak you can just tell they are scripted full of lies.

When the people fear the goverment there is TYRANNY; When the goverment fears the people there is LIBERTY!
Thomas Jefferson

This quote sums up ron paul in my opinion

One brave man makes a majority!
Thomas Jefferson

Please vote in the primary so we may take our country back

Dr. Steve Parent

Paul Weber October 18, 2007 at 9:24 am

I too had no faith in politicians. I always figured anybody who wanted to be a politician had an unreasonable lust for power and should be disqualified for that reason.

Ron Paul is the closest I have seen in my life to a true statesman, a caring, unselfish and respectful attitude that is surprising in this day and age.

I know why Ron Paul! October 18, 2007 at 9:28 am

Why Ron Paul:
1. Iraq War
2. Interventionist Foreign Policy-Team America World Police-USGOV World Humanitarian
3. Social InSecurity-MediNONcare-MediNOAID totalling over 75 TRILLION in LIABILITIES.
4. Patroit Act/Canrivore
5. UN/WTO/WHO/NAFTA-All designed to steal wealth from US Citizens. All evil and all unnecessary.

Basically it is simply about:
Constitution, Article 1 Section 8
Constitution Ammendments 1-10 and 14. Especially 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10!!!!!!

or simply put:

Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness

Michael October 18, 2007 at 11:46 am

Thanks Cyd, good article. Seeing how Dr. Paul runs his congressional office and how he is running this campaign speaks volumes about how this rare man will very effectively run this country. The revolution cannot stop at the presidency, it must take hold for every public office across this land.

FT Rouse October 18, 2007 at 12:16 pm

It’s entirely possible that I’ve lived in this land of the free and home of the brave longer than I should have. I find I’ve become a devout pessimist concerning national politics, those who run for office, and those who install others in those offices.
The bottom line here is, I do not believe that Ron Paul, no matter what his qualifications or what he could bring to the office of president, has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected.
This brings me to the question I have struggled with most of my too long life. What course do you follow after the balloon has burst and you find that all is as it was and, apparently, will be?
Is it time for states to secede from this national union? Time for citizens to forcefully remove the tyrant of 20 century U.S. democracy? Is it time to go back to sleep for another decade?

J.P. October 18, 2007 at 12:52 pm

I am a career Naval officer who has always been politically neutral–but this is about voting for America!

I am now supporting Dr. Ron Paul with my heart and my wallet. Together we can turn the clock back to 1776–to a nation of freedom!

Go Ron go, Save America!

J.P.

FDR October 18, 2007 at 12:55 pm

FT Rouse,
Apparently you’re so old, you still think it’s the 20th century. Indeed, Ron Paul only has a 3% chance of becoming the next President, but even if he is not elected, his message might begin to reach the masses.

mikey October 18, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Try this simple experiment, I did it yesterday.
Google “Ron Paul” taking note of the number of hits. Then try the same for all the other heavyweight candidates.I was pleasantly surprised.

seapilot October 18, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Ron Paul is the first president that I have ever donated to. Its uncertain times like these that people return to liberty as some have taken it for granted for far too long. No matter the outcome of this election, Dr Paul has impacted thousands with the message of liberty that the founders of the USA passionately fought and died for. They didnt fight and die for entitlement programs or conquest they fought for thier freedoms and liberty. A donation to Dr. Paul is a small gesture one can give to make louder the message of liberty and freedom for the people of the USA.

Matthew October 18, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Here’s a laugher from the mainstream media:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

Ryan October 18, 2007 at 2:05 pm

My name is Ryan, not Brian.

IMHO October 18, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I once had a friend who very sadly felt that America was all washed up. I told him that we need to reintroduce the principles of liberty to a nation that had gone to sleep. He said that the best thing would be to keep a low profile and wait ’til the government collapsed. I said that if we spread the word, it might not come to that.

And then Ron Paul happened…the nation is waking up…the message is spreading…people are speaking of liberty. Ron Paul will in all likelihood not win, but the message will remain.

Nelson October 18, 2007 at 2:38 pm

My main problem with him is his anti-immigration stance:
“How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.[...]Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.” – from The Immigration Question

I just don’t feel safe electing a bigot. Hitler got his start in politcs by blaming the Jews. Many of today’s Republicans are trying to gain political fortune by blaming our problems on Mexicans. It’s revolting.

Tom Woods October 18, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Nelson, if Mexicans said exactly the same things about Americans moving to Mexico, I wouldn’t call them “bigots.” I’m rather thicker-skinned than that, thankfully.

You read that obviously mild statement by Ron Paul as evidence of “bigotry”? I can’t believe that someone independent-minded enough to read this blog would get caught up in discussion-stopping p.c. lingo on such flimsy grounds. Maybe I’m misreading you.

Japan has next to no immigration — are you really comfortable calling the Japanese “bigots”?

Reformed Republican October 18, 2007 at 2:59 pm

When a well-organized and committed “few” can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of “the many,” I get a little worried.

I think some people would consider that an accurate description of American politics.

IMHO October 18, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Nelson,

I think most people want LEGAL immigration. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to tell someone that in order to gain entrance to this country, you have to wait your turn.

As for assimilation, how many millions of our tax dollars are being spent to accommodate people who want to live in this country, yet won’t speak the language.

Finally, the idea that we can forever keep the borders open to absorb limitless numbers of people is, IMHO, unrealistic.

Nelson October 18, 2007 at 3:36 pm

You read that obviously mild statement by Ron Paul as evidence of “bigotry”? I can’t believe that someone independent-minded enough to read this blog would get caught up in discussion-stopping p.c. lingo on such flimsy grounds. Maybe I’m misreading you.

It’s not just R.P. and his statements. It’s the general meme among many Republicans and Nativist leaning pundits that Mexicans (or whoever) are different from us… they’re not like us… they don’t speak our language… they’re the source of violence… they’re the reason our schools don’t have enough money… they’re destroying our way of life… etc… It may seem mild enough at first, but left alone it can grow into something truely hateful. We’ve had enough History of politicians turning cultural fears into hatreds and populations enthusiastically going along with them. I’d rather stand up against it now while we still have the ability to do so peacefully.

G October 18, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Nelson,

Paul has stated many times on national television that immigrants are being unfairly scapegoated, just like you are saying. He’s also stated that if we had a healthy, free, economy, open boarders would be fine and its not likely many people would complain. He doesn’t think open immigration is compatible with a welfare system, and the GAO’s reports on the costs of new immigrants supports this.

He’s against illegal immigration, not immigration itself.

DickF October 18, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Nelson,

I actually sympathize with you but my sympathy is because I am a libertarian. One of the things that has made the US great is that we have been more open to immigrants than any other country in the world.

Today in the US, immigration policy is much like the IRS code, a mountain of paper actually saying nothing and causing more problems than it solves.

The most effective immigration program we have had with Mexico was the Bracero program that ran from 1942-1964. It was a guest worker program that allowed Mexican workers to temporarily enter the US to work primarily in agriculture. The program was killed by the labor unions under the theory that temporary workers were taking jobs from union workers even though none of the temporary worker jobs were union jobs. So now rather than an orderly program of immigration we have disorder.

As economists we must recognize that there is a demand that is so great that immigrants will risk their lives to come to our country. Saying we need to enforce the laws is never going to solve the problem. We will never stop immigration and if we attempt to reduce it too much our efforts will fail as they have in the past actually creating the illegal immigation problem. We need systems to control immigration, but it is doubtful that our political class has the will to deal with it properly.

Trek October 18, 2007 at 5:00 pm

I’m excited about the possibility that the people of the U.S. have to elect a man like Dr. Paul to the Presidency. So far, I’ve donated $200 … and the campaign noted that only 3% of supporters have given the maximum amount ($2300). I’m feeling a conviction over the need to give more …and I’m hoping that all of us give whatever we can — can you imagine what would happen if 25,000 – 30,000 of us gave 1k – 2k??? I’ve never, ever, donated to a presidential campaign before because there hasn’t been a candidate that I believed had enough integrity. Not so with Dr. Paul. Let’s give more so that we can allow him to compete in advertising with the other top guys! :-)

Richard in Austin October 18, 2007 at 5:29 pm

There are groups of Mexicans in this country (Aztlan) trying to retake the Southwest for Mexico. http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html

Does it not strike you as arrogant that someone would enter a foreign country and refuse to assimilate?

Tannim October 18, 2007 at 7:17 pm

Nelson, find a naturalization swearing-in ceremony at a federal courthouse near you and go see it, if you can get a seat in the place (they tend to be close to SRO). You will find what I found when I went to one to see my classmate’s father (and later my soccer coach) get sworn in on his citizenship from Italy. I saw a room full of joyous and happy families, people proud of their accomplishment. The oath was taken en masse and each person said it loudly and clearly. No mumbling here. Then the judge who swore them in gave them a “Congratulations and welcome!” and the room erupted in what could best be underdescribed as massive cheers. How the roof stayed on I have no idea, it was that electric in there.

Illegal immigrants don’t get that. They don’t understand that. They don’t know what it means to travel that path to naturalization, to assimilate into American culture, to truly belong. And they are missing out because of it. That’s the true tragedy of illegal immigration. The socio-economic and political issues are important, but they take a back seat to what it really means: citizenship or not, a sense of belonging or not. It was a unique experience I have never forgotten, even 25 years later. It was an experience that many never see or have.

Let them earn their way in. It may be harder, but well worth the effort.

Good fences make good neighbors.

Nelson October 18, 2007 at 7:34 pm

I see what you’re saying Tannim but R.P. stated “Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.” He didn’t limit his statement to illegal immigration.

Jeff October 18, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Vanmind October 18, 2007 at 11:21 pm

As far as I’m concerned, “legal immigration” means “having the means to get to wherever you want to live.”

Vince Daliessio October 18, 2007 at 11:59 pm

Nwlson,

Ron has been very clear on the point – he believes an open border and a welfare state are incompatible. You need to pick one or the other, he is saying that until the welfare state is well on its way to oblivion, he favors tighter controls on immigration. You (and many other libertarians) disagree with him, but that does not equate to racism (you need to see the self-hating Latin Tancredo for some real bigotry)

TokyoTom October 19, 2007 at 1:22 am

Vince, nice to see you on the Grist thread on Ron Paul’s environmental/energy views, which I have linked to an excerpted here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/18/ron-paul-on-energy-and-the-environment.aspx

I have not commented on immigration previously, but I would add to your point that I do not believe it is inconsistent with an Austrian view to accept the notion that a voluntarily established community has the right to determine who its members will be.

TT

Michael Bass October 19, 2007 at 1:24 am

Amen, I’ve had the same experience. Been very frustrated with politics and was planning on throwing my vote down for Libertarian as well.

Robert M. October 19, 2007 at 7:01 am

You should see the Mexican-supremesist groups in south Texas. One of them has a red flag with a black vulture or some bird on it. Looks very similar to the nazi flag. They don’t recognize American ownership of Texas, or most of the SW for that matter. Their 2nd major goal is to intimidate other races, esp white and black. I can’t blame anyone in south Texas, including Ron Paul, for wanting to limit illegal immigration so the Mexican government can’t keep sending these people over.

Cyd Malone October 19, 2007 at 8:58 am

To All:

Thank you for all your comments and e-mails, of both the pro and con variety.

I do not agree with Mr. Paul on every issue, I only agree with myself on every issue. Mr Paul’s take on immigration, I believe, is unkind and does not follow logically from his support of free trade. If goods should be allowed to freely flow across borders, unmolested by the political class, why not people?

Borders on a map, citizenship itself, is a political concept that the workers would do well to throw into the dustbin of history.

Be that as it may, Mr. Paul is quite the Jeffersonian, and I admire him enough to give him my time and money. I hope many more do the same.

Nelson October 19, 2007 at 9:41 am

You should see the Mexican-supremesist groups in south Texas.

The only Mexican’s I’ve seen in the US were either fairly well off tourists (presumably legal) or were people who worked hard so they could send some money home to their families (presumably illegal). Neither group seemed interested in revolution or overthrow of the government. My guess is these supremacist groups in the US are composed mostly of US Citizens.

Joshua Katz October 19, 2007 at 9:49 am

I do disagree with Dr. Paul on one topic – that of immigration. The problem with illegal immigration is benefits, like welfare and medicare and public school – so let’s get rid of those. Let’s not take it out on Mexicans that our government has all these socialist policies – a socialist economy doesn’t magically grant a legitimate power to restrict movement. As for not recognizing American ownership of Texas, I wasn’t aware that the federal government did own Texas, I thought individuals owned their own property within the state. Little did I know.

However, my larger question is this – when Ron Paul does loose, where do all these youth go? They’re grooving about rights and freedoms, but how many of them are libertarians in any real sense? What they are is semi-socialists, in a lot of cases, who are now closer to libertarianism than they ever have been before. We owe it to them to bring them the libertarian message, full strength, not watered down, and let them know what libertarianism is all about. It’s not good enough to tell them “well, if you like rights and want to end the war, that’s good enough” – of course, we still appreciate their support for Ron Paul, but we should also be trying to explain to them why Paul holds the positions he does – why it’s not peaceful and loving, for example, to ban guns, or protect the environment.

Andrew October 19, 2007 at 10:36 am

Dr. Paul’s position on immigration does seem rather statist, as opposed to pretty much everything else he stands for. How does he plan on stemming the tide of illegal immigrants, with additional border patrols, checkpoints, walls? He does know how the war on drugs is going, doesn’t he? I hope his plan for immigration is confined to ending the welfare state. After all, it is all the socialized services like public education, medicare, welfare, etc. that have problems with the immigrants and where the discontent with immigration lies. Private employers seem to be able to handle the influx just fine, including getting immigrants to assimilate within the community.

H. P. October 19, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Ron Paul is my sunshine.
My only sunshine.
He makes me happy, when there’s no hope
You will never know dear
How much I don’t want to invade Iran.

You can have my social
-my social services.
They are not that useful. I would say.
I will rely on my nearby neighbors
I’m stuck with them anyway.

About immigration…
well, i don’t know
If you put our troops on the border
and invite trade with Mexico
there will be more soldiers in bars there
but at least they’ll be out of Iraq.

[yes, the rhyming's weak, just keep hummming]

Kevin B October 19, 2007 at 1:53 pm

TT: “…I do not believe it is inconsistent with an Austrian view to accept the notion that a voluntarily established community has the right to determine who its members will be.”

Agreed. I think that the public roads, etc. are the primary source of the immigration issue. Otherwise it would simply be or not be trespassing.

Larry N. Martin October 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm

There are groups of Mexicans in this country (Aztlan) trying to retake the Southwest for Mexico.
And the police and military are unable to stop them? Are you really saying that our government is unable to protect us from foreign invaders? What do you propose? Anarchy? Or a police state?

Robert M. October 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Larry, I do believe he’s saying that, as bad as our system is, it’s tremendously better than Mexico’s system that they are trying to force on us. They are trying to force their will on us. A true libertarian would oppose that.

Robert M. October 19, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Private employers seem to be able to handle the influx just fine, including getting immigrants to assimilate within the community.

Are you joking about that last part?

If you truly think that they assimilate then I’d have to assume that you live somewhere very far north. In south texas, you’d have an extremely hard time finding an illegal immigrant who speaks english, knows what the Constitution is, or knows anything about the culture. Most just know about the law that coerces hospitals into treating them for free and the law that coerces taxpayers to provide “educating” their kids.

But that’s just my experience.

Richard in Austin October 19, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Illegal aliens are a major cause of identity theft.

A lot of them “assimilate” by using someone else’s Social Security number. How would you like it if your credit rating, security clearance, or job prospects were ruined by someone else messing up your SSN records?

Nelson October 19, 2007 at 6:24 pm

A lot of them “assimilate” by using someone else’s Social Security number. How would you like it if your credit rating, security clearance, or job prospects were ruined by someone else messing up your SSN records?

Blame regulations, not immigrants:

A) Prohibit someone from obtaining an ID legally.
B) Make an ID mandatory for getting a job.

Of course this is going to lead to people getting an ID illegally. You can change one or preferabbly both of these rules and the “major cause of identity theft” would disappear.

Larry N. Martin October 19, 2007 at 6:42 pm

There Richard goes again. Once again, he’s saying that the law enforcement officials are unable to protect us from identity theft by illegal aliens. Now, if the authorities can’t protect us from identity theft by illegals, does anybody really think they can protect us from identity theft by any one else, including criminal American citizens? But that’s nothing but law enforcement–let’s look at his earlier statement again.
There are groups of Mexicans in this country (Aztlan) trying to retake the Southwest for Mexico.
Much depends upon what he means and intends, but taken literally, he’s saying we’re being invaded by armed people who are conquering the Southwest by force. Clearly, if this is the case, the police and the military are failing in their duty to protect us. However, since there’s nothing to indicate that a literal invasion is going on, we may presume he means that a figurative invasion is going on. This can only happen if the current laws are not being properly enforced, or if our political system is too fragile to resist the influences of mostly poor noncitizens in our country. Does that make any kind of sense as an argument? Any other option means that it’s not being done forcefully, but with the full cooperation and support of at least some citizens, and thus cannot be even a figurative invasion.
If Richard is like most anti-immigrants, he simply wants to have some tougher anti-immigrant laws passed. This would be futile because there’s no guarantee that new laws would be any better enforced than current laws. It also overlooks the fact that in the current system, it’s in the interests of politicians to have a patchwork immigration law that can be easily modified to accommodate various special interest groups. Neither open immigration or rigidly controlled or closed immigration would suit their purposes.
Furthermore, if there’s a problem with the fragility of our current political system, new anti-immigration laws would utterly fail to address the problem. I mentioned anarchy or police state, though admittedly those are both extremes, but I have yet to see any anti-immigrant people who suggest any major changes to our constitutional republic cum liberal democracy or discuss the failings of our current political system. Most seem happy with most of our current government, they just want tougher anti-immigration laws, which as I’ve just pointed out, won’t solve anything.

Lance Spielman October 19, 2007 at 9:57 pm

Cyd: In your summary, you introduce a line of thinking that is being used to discredit a great many of Dr. Paul’s supporters. You write (in re: the crowd at the Ron Paul event):

“Most of them seem to be web savvy, with the ability, at minimum, to hack into any news studio’s voting system, be it text or Internet based.”

Time and time again we have had to discredit this piece of shoddy reporting. Dr. Paul’s supporters are _not_ gaming any polls, flooding any vote counts, or hacking any news organizations computers. This canard seems to be the only response that intelligence-limited journalists employ to discredit the overwhelming support that Dr. Paul receives in these online polls.

Let’s face facts: the internet revolution is well underway. People of all ages and of all political persuasions now have the ability to get online, read the news, and respond swiftly to online solicitations of their opinion.

This ‘mythic’ ability is not restricted to some specially-gifted technologists who happen to support Dr. Paul.

When news organizations seek to find out the opinion of Internet-connected citizens, they find that a great many of them like Dr. Paul. If these organizations are honest, they admit this to their readership.

If they are dishonest, they claim (as you have) that Dr. Paul’s supporters have corrupted the vote through nefarious technical black magic. This is nonsense, plain and simple.

Please correct your article if you intended this comment as jest. Please correct your thinking if you intended otherwise.

(I am not a Dr. Paul supporter, intending to support Barack Obama. But I find it distasteful in the extreme to hear this whisper campaign gain traction by innuendo.)

greg October 22, 2007 at 11:52 am

In south texas, you’d have an extremely hard time finding an illegal immigrant who speaks english, knows what the Constitution is, or knows anything about the culture.

I have been having a lot of difficulty finding native US citizens that know anything about the constitution, or the culture that created it. And that helps explain why Ron Paul is often viewed as “crazy” by many voters and the media.

Phoo Baar October 24, 2007 at 2:18 am

An excellent post. Frankly, I am horrified that the entire nation is not gleefully supporting Ron Paul. When viewing the field of candidates, the choice seems clear to me. So why do people balk at Dr. No?

I wonder if perhaps it really is naive to think that we can go back to 1776 and stay there. My instincts tell me that we can and we should, but maybe the communists and neo-cons are onto something; maybe a One World Government really is the destiny of man. If it is, surely it will happen eventually, whether or not we let Ron Paul play in the sandbox for 4 or 8 years.

So why aren’t people willing to give 1776 one last chance?

IMHO October 25, 2007 at 9:58 am

There is something about Ron Paul’s campaign that is giving me cause for concern.

There are those who support Ron Paul’s position on the war in Iraq, but that seems to be as far as it goes. They still want entitlements, nationalized health care, the redeployment of troops to situations like Darfur, gun control, etc. It’s almost as if they can’t wait to spend the tax dollars that they feel would become available with the end of the war.

I guess my main concern is that they will use Ron Paul to fit their agenda…take what they want and leave the rest.

David Sanchez December 10, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Without trying to insult anyone, Ron Paul’s supporters are like gay people. They come from every walk of life; from every religion, skin color and financial scope. But, when ever there’s a gay pride event, the media focus’s not on the boring multitude of normal looking gay men and women but on those who stand out the most. For gays, it’s the make-up clad cross-dressers or leather/whips crowd. For Ron Paul’s supporters, it’s the conspiracy theorists and others right of center. In both instances, the “normal” peace-loving and freedom-loving American citizens are ignored. The Main-Stream-Media doesn’t want Ron Paul but as his legion of followers grows, the numbers of normal supporters alone will be too hard to ignore!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: