^exactly.

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM. Reason : 7]

7/18/2007 3:31:31 PM

Quote :

"on a side note, should I change my party affiliation from I to R, to assure myself of being able to vote in the R primaries?"

I hear you do have to register Republican to vote in the NC primaries.

Quote :

"so, say ron paul won the election and became president. would he then proceed to veto 90% of all the bills that come to his desk?"

I sure hope so.

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2007 3:34:54 PM

why?

i mean sure, some legislation is unnecessary, there's no denying that. but you can't govern through obstinacy. there have to be compromise. hell, using political power to broker deals over bills has been a major role for most good presidents. it just doesn't seem to me that this guy has many realistic ideas to bring to the table.

7/18/2007 4:33:56 PM

Quote :

"but you can't govern through obstinacy."

Is it obstinate to follow the Constitution?

Every time the gov't passes some bill, someone usually loses more income and/or freedom. Someone may gain but usually at the expense of someone else.

As long as a President Paul explained his vetoes to the people, his popularity would increase. The gov't doesn't have to always be doing something.

7/18/2007 4:52:14 PM

^^In line with what EarthDogg said, I usually don't like the government taking our money or telling us what we can't do.

7/18/2007 5:01:07 PM

Quote :

"As long as a President Paul explained his vetoes to the people, his popularity would increase. The gov't doesn't have to always be doing something."

then tell me why the current (and former) do-nothing governments were incredibly unpopular?

7/18/2007 5:05:24 PM

^ If a president was sucessful in legislating a platform that he was going to give each and every poor American $10,000 because the "man" owed it to them for keeping them down then surely this president would be popular. I hope we can agree this would be bad not only for the nation's budget but also for the poor. Why? Because they did not work for that money and time and time again we have observed that people who get money they do not work for generally blow it on unecessary junk.

For example, my neighbors BBQ for a bunch of people about the same time every month. They don't have money for doing if it were not for their foodstamps. If they budgeted their food stamps they could make through the month, but they never do.

Also, the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) is another time of the year they just buy stuff that is strictly speaking unecessary, they didn't work for that money either. If GWB was even the slightest bit of a communicator to the poor in this country they would love him more because his endorsement of the EITC amounts to a lump sum welfare check to many poor folks in the US. So I guess I should clarify my claim, giving people other folks money only buys you political capital if you run on the premise of class warfare. Bush has somehow found the stupidist position of all, keep liberal welfare programs at previous levels more or less and yet proclaim the virtues of free enterprise and independent social security plans etc... I just hope future "conservative" leaders can learn the lesson of the W which is that nice guys who don't Veto bills in order to avoid looking mean accomplish nothing. You don't get credit for it, Kennedy and his ilk are still going to villify you if you compromise, so don't compromise damn it. We didn't elect you to compromise, we elected you to fight the communist scum who want to be Robin hood with our tax dollars. Stand up and offend some people, they need to be offended and fight the media when they question the principles of freedom. It's hard to be free when your caught in the safty net.

mathman out.

7/18/2007 5:27:36 PM

Quote :

"A Choice, Not An Echo by Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com and is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard and Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement. Here is the text of a speech I just gave at a Ron Paul for President rally in Mountain View, California. It’s interesting how history is repeating itself, these days, but with a twist: a candidate emerges from the Republican grassroots, straight from the conservative base that has been the bedrock of the party’s support since the dark days of the New Deal. He faces a Republican Establishment that is dedicated to the three overriding principles of Washington politics, no matter which party we’re talking about: big money, big government, and big subsides for the biggest, most powerful interest groups. We have a candidate who offers a choice, not an echo, who calls conservatives – and independent Americans – back to the founding principles of this country: the concept of constitutionally limited government and a foreign policy based on peace and the wisdom of minding our own business. We have, in short, an authentic conservative, one who harkens back to such Republican stalwarts as Robert A. Taft and even Dwight David Eisenhower, whose prescient warning against the power of the military-industrial complex went unheeded by his fellow Republicans. And we have a “mainstream” media that is hopelessly biased against anyone who doesn’t fit into their predetermined categories, who is authentic, and lives by the principles he espouses – indeed, who is motivated by those principles and cares about little else. The last time such a candidate appeared on the Republican scene, he rose from relative obscurity to become a conservative hero and symbol, and snatched the nomination from Nelson Rockefeller and a gaggle of pale imitation “moderates,” and mounted a campaign that basically set the stage for the modern conservative movement and the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s. His name was Barry Goldwater. Almost half a century later, the Establishment is once again facing a challenge from a maverick, an upstart who dares to point to the party’s betrayal of its principles, and seeks to revive a movement that has turned into the exact opposite of what it used to be: a crusade for limited government that, somehow, got sidetracked into becoming an all-out assault on the Constitution and what is left of our civil liberties. Like Goldwater, he is a red-state Republican, a staunch conservative – perhaps the most conservative member of Congress. He has stood like a rock against the temper of the times, and swum against the current of his own party in upholding his deep skepticism of government “solutions,” and has justly earned the sobriquet “Dr. No” because he has no trouble voting against most of the nonsense that passes for legislation at the federal level. His name is Ron Paul. He is the rightful heir of Goldwater, of Taft, of a party that once stood for individual rights, and a peaceful, prudent foreign policy based on the pursuit of American interests. A party that has since lost its way. It’s sad, really, to see the decline of a once great party: a party that has presided over the biggest expansion of government since the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, the biggest explosion of federal spending in modern times, and the most serious assault on our constitutional liberties since the imposition of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Here is a party that once stood for decentralized government asserting the theory of presidential supremacy, in which the power of the executive is exaggerated and mystified until it becomes a monstrous growth of precisely the same sort feared by the Founders, who warned against the return of royalism to America – and wrote a Constitution in which the authority of the other two branches of government served as vital checks and balances against the tendency of the executive to usurp power and throw off restraints. How did this happen? How is it that the conservatives of today advocate precisely the opposite of what they advocated yesterday? How has the dream of a free America turned into the nightmare of the Homeland Security State, where government can search our homes, read our email, spy on our legal and constitutionally protected activities, all without a warrant or even a nod to anything remotely resembling a legal procedure? Ron Paul clearly sees the key to all this, and that is why he has staked out a position as the foremost opponent of militarism in the US Congress. Our interventionist foreign policy is the motor that drives the engine of Big Government, and its fuel is the sort of war hysteria that has permeated political life since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and led to our present predicament in Iraq. Ron Paul stands alone among the Republican candidates for president in opposing our immoral and horribly counterproductive invasion of Iraq. The idea that we can or should go into a foreign country, and “transform” it according to some grand design, to fit some preconceived made-in-Washington formula – to impose “democracy,” or what passes for it these days, at gunpoint on the people of the Middle East – is an idea that one might expect from a liberal Democrat, who, after all, has an abiding faith in the power of government to do … well, practically anything! One would think that Republicans, and especially those who fancy themselves conservative Republicans, would know better. Unfortunately, these days, one would be very wrong to assume any such thing. The Republican party has been hijacked, and transformed into its Bizarro World equivalent: the party of Barry Goldwater has become the party of Big Brother. In reminding Republicans of their lost heritage, in reviving the spirit of 1964, in offering a choice not an echo of the big government conservative cant that has dominated the party for the past eight years, Ron Paul is the conscience of the GOP. Will the party listen to its conscience, or will it continue to sin against its own traditions? Only time will tell. But I’ll tell you this: The pundits are saying that Ron Paul hasn’t got a chance. He’s an outsider, a maverick, a second-tier nobody – how could he possibly win the party’s nomination for the highest office in the land? Well, I don’t know the precise answer to that question, and I won’t pretend that I do, but I do know this: once before, the know-it-all columnists and the party kingmakers, decided that a representative of true conservatism couldn’t possibly get the nomination. In 1964, Rockefeller – and, yes, another Romney, by the name of George – were the frontrunners, deemed so by the mainstream media and the political mavens. Yet Goldwater came from behind, his support welling up from the grassroots: he inspired thousands of activists, who were brought into the freedom movement by his passionate rhetoric and obvious authenticity. Is history repeating itself? There are many indications that Ron Paul’s campaign has the potential to change the face of American politics – and this rally is one such indication. We have much work to do to bring Dr. Paul’s message to the American people: so let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work."

7/19/2007 12:25:25 AM

Quote :

"then tell me why the current (and former) do-nothing governments were incredibly unpopular?"

That's a pretty vague question, but I guess I'd say that I want a do-nothing government when it comes to the Gravina Island Bridge rather than Hurricane Katrina.

7/19/2007 12:26:14 AM

arguing about why Ron Paul should get the GOP nomination is about as productive as arguing why Al Sharpton should get the Dem nomination.

i mean, you Ron Paul people need to get over him, and work for an issue that might actually mean something, and get somewhere.

7/19/2007 12:32:05 AM

Quote :

"We didn't elect you to compromise, we elected you to fight the communist scum who want to be Robin hood with our tax dollars."

man you're a libertarian parrot

7/19/2007 12:48:32 AM

REMEMBER RUBY RIDGE!!!!1 FREE TIMOTHY MCVEIGH!!!1 THOMAS PAINE IS THE BESTEST AMERICAN STATESMAN EVAR!!!!1

7/19/2007 1:31:13 AM

Quote :

"work for an issue that might actually mean something, and get somewhere."

You don't support someone just because you think they're gonna win. You support someone to express your views.

Flowing along with conventional wisdom your whole life is sad. Keep in mind that at the beginning of every great shift and advance in human thought and knowledge...one person was right and everyone else was wrong.

Don't you think we Ron Paul supporters know it's a longshot and near impossible to achieve. You seem to relish that fact to no end. But history is full of nay-sayers who stood on the sidelines and tossed rocks. That's probably the easiest thing to do at this stage. But remember that there are no statues built for any critic.

7/19/2007 9:43:08 AM

Quote :

"...fight the communist scum..."

Please, spare me...

7/19/2007 11:14:03 AM

In 2nd quarter fundraising, Ron Paul got about half of all money from military personnel donated to the GOP candidates, and led all candidates regardless of party in money from military personnel.

Article: http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates

The Article's Raw Data Source: http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/

Surprising, and it's not a huge chunk of money, but good for him.

NAME: TOTAL [ARMY] [NAVY] [AIRFORCE] [VETERAN] [USMC**]

RON PAUL: 24,965 [6,975] [6,765] [4,650] [5,075] [1,500]
McCain: 17,475 [6,925] [6,305] [1,795] [800] [1,600]
Romney: 3,551 [2,051] [0] [1,500] [0]
Giuliani: 2,320 [1,450] [370] [250] [250]
Hunter: 1,000 [0] [1,000] [0]
Huckabee: 750 [250] [0] [500]
Tancredo: 350 [350] [0] [0]
Brownback: 71 [71] [0] [0]
Thompson: 0 [0] [0] [0]

49.5% Ron Paul
34.6% McCain
7.0% Romney
4.6% Giuliani
2.0% Hunter
2.3% Others

7/19/2007 1:43:17 PM

if he was an independent (or even a libertarian candidate), i'd already be campaigning for him...

7/22/2007 1:30:26 AM

Quote :

"It’s sad, really, to see the decline of a once great party: a party that has presided over the biggest expansion of government since the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, the biggest explosion of federal spending in modern times, and the most serious assault on our constitutional liberties since the imposition of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Here is a party that once stood for decentralized government asserting the theory of presidential supremacy, in which the power of the executive is exaggerated and mystified until it becomes a monstrous growth of precisely the same sort feared by the Founders, who warned against the return of royalism to America – and wrote a Constitution in which the authority of the other two branches of government served as vital checks and balances against the tendency of the executive to usurp power and throw off restraints."

that is my favorite excerpt

7/22/2007 4:30:10 PM

Quote :

"Exposing the True Isolationists by Ron Paul Last week, I wrote about the ideology of globalism and how it underlies certain government policies. Managed trade agreements, international military adventurism, and amnesty for illegal immigrants all emanate from this ideology. Yet globalism has a consequence that is, if we are to believe the rhetoric of its greatest proponents, entirely unintended. Globalists often label those of us who resist their schemes as “isolationist.” Yet it is, somewhat remarkably, the globalists themselves who promote policies that isolate our nation from the rest of the world. In terms of modern politics, isolationism is not so much an approach to American foreign policy as it is the result of the policies enacted by proponents of globalism. From offensive statements about “Old Europe” (as differentiated from “New Europe”), necessitated by the desire to justify a military presence in Iraq, to conflicts at the WTO, the flowery rhetoric of the neo-conservatives often takes vicious turns when unrealistic policies meet with reality. In their hopes to remake the world in their image, the globalist elite who run much of America’s policy-making apparatus simply further isolate our country from the rest of the world. By claiming a moral superiority that is so evidently absent when the effects of their policies are witnessed, neo-conservatives have made America seem hypocritical to many abroad. America is now held in low esteem in many nations, not because we follow our own interests, but because the elites make claims that are not reflected in reality. They have, for example, undertaken economic sanctions in an entirely new way in recent years. When they wanted to take aim at Iraq and Iran, they imposed sanctions against those countries, but also against countries doing business with those countries. This meant we were in no position to negotiate with our adversaries, and we also could not rely on support from our allies. Yet this globalism often bumps into itself, because of our second-party sanctions against Iran, our international commitments to the space station, for example, were put into jeopardy. Also consider the fiasco that happened as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death, causing (according to the 9/11 commission report) great resentment against America, yet some managed trade was allowed to continue, managed of course by the globalists in the UN oil for food program. This program resulted in yet another UN scandal. Despite the protestations of the neo-conservatives, this UN program is not the only example of personal enrichment that comes to the mind of those who doubt America’s authenticity due to these policies. Does anybody remember Richard Perle’s resignation from the defense policy board? To reset the debate in a way that reflects reality, it is important for us to reject the idea that the choice is between globalism and isolation. Instead we must stand firm for national sovereignty, constitutional republicanism and international cooperation. We should realize that America’s current isolation is simply a consequence of globalism gone awry. "

7/24/2007 8:21:52 PM

Quote :

"globalist elite "

OMFSalisburybot!

7/24/2007 9:15:23 PM

Did anybody catch the article on Ron Paul in last Sunday's N&O? It was positive, talking about a rally in Vegas.

7/25/2007 2:01:30 AM

^link?

7/25/2007 9:03:12 AM

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2007/jul/15/566680220.html?ron%20paul

apparently the article was stolen from the Sun, no big surprise there...

(this is N&O's version: http://www.newsobserver.com/689/story/645319.html)

7/25/2007 9:39:30 AM

The New York Times recently gave Paul a positive story....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

7/25/2007 9:48:14 AM

Quote :

"i mean, you Ron Paul people need to get over him, and work for an issue that might actually mean something, and get somewhere. "

So stop being small-government, become "progressives", and start supporting Hillary Clinton.

Or stop being small-government and support an authoritarian mayor whose sole reason for running was he was the mayor the day of a terrorist attack, and everyone HATED HIM the day before? Or a former Massachusetts liberal whose remarks are so slippery and has flipped his opinions so many times I have no idea what he stands for, such that I think he is Bill Clinton's and John Kerry's love child?

No thanks. Sometimes it's just best to cheer for NC State against North Carolina and Duke even if you realize State's going to lose, than to be a bandwagoner and choose between bad team #1 or bad team #2.

7/25/2007 10:38:48 AM

Quote :

"No thanks. Sometimes it's just best to cheer for NC State against North Carolina and Duke even if you realize State's going to lose"

FTW

7/25/2007 10:46:03 AM

Quote :

"By claiming a moral superiority that is so evidently absent when the effects of their policies are witnessed, neo-conservatives have made America seem hypocritical to many abroad."

Ron Paul - 1
Neo-cons - 0

7/26/2007 1:12:39 PM

^^the difference being: if state wins it's awesome. if ron paul were to actually win, none of his policies would be instituted because he doesn't have the support of any other branch and we'd probably be left off worse than we were before he got into office because of complete stagnation.

7/26/2007 1:53:32 PM

I disagree sarijoul. Ron Paul has frequently crossed party lines and has received support from both liberals and conservatives. Some people have even suggested Kucinich as his Vice President (not likely). I think he would work well with the democratic congress especially on civil liberties and withdrawal from Iraq. If the republicans retake congress (not likely) he could work on balancing the budget and other issues where they agree. In a Ron Paul presidency I would anticipate change over stagnation.

7/26/2007 8:40:14 PM

^
Very astute observation.

A libertarian president could work both sides of the political fence, where-as a Republican president would get very little of his agenda through a democrat congress and visa versa.

Libertarians take the most positive aspects of both parties--those things associated mainly with freedom and individual rights.

Whichever party controleld congress, a libertarian president would simply concentrate on common goals.

7/26/2007 11:29:00 PM

i just think he's far too idealistic to work out tenable solutions to problems. that is: solutions that would pass through both houses of congress.

7/27/2007 12:14:36 AM

I am curious to find out about his environmental policy but the link provided from the first post was not very forthcoming. If anyone hears or reads anything pertaining to that then please feel free to post it.

7/27/2007 12:27:12 AM

Quote :

"In 2nd quarter fundraising, Ron Paul got about half of all money from military personnel donated to the GOP candidates, and led all candidates regardless of party in money from military personnel."

doesn't surprise me at all, although it's impressive that he beat out McCain (a career military guy, combat aviator, certified bad motherfucker, still kinda-sorta cut from the old Goldwater-cloth)


the military, i've observed, has a pretty substantial libertarian streak.

Quote :

"he doesn't have the support of any other branch and we'd probably be left off worse than we were before he got into office because of complete stagnation."

that would be awesome.

not as awesome as him getting his way, but still pretty sweet.

Quote :

" Some people have even suggested Kucinich as his Vice President (not likely)."

That is absolutely RETARDED. That's like saying David Duke and Louis Farrakhan should be running mates.

but i don't disagree with the rest of your post.

7/27/2007 12:57:00 AM

Quote :

"Ron Paul: In for the Long Haul by Scott Sutton, July 27, 2007 First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Gandhi "The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize." ~ Saul Bellow About Ron Paul's Fundraising On July 15th, the Federal Election Commission announced the 2nd-quarter fundraising totals for each presidential candidate. In the Republican field, Ron Paul's $2.4 million placed him: 3rd in total receipts for the quarter 4th in total receipts to date 3rd in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney) Thus far, 47% of the contributions made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest percentage). This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for anyone, special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests buy him lunch." Among all candidates, Dr. Paul is now first in total donations from military personnel and veterans. While this may come as a surprise to some, Tom Engelhardt identified the primary reason when he asked rhetorically, "why should (military personnel) want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land?" (see Why the US Military Loves Ron Paul). Why, indeed – President Paul would bring them home now. The Ron Paul Buzz As anyone familiar with the Ron Paul campaign knows, official fundraising figures tell only a small part of the story. This campaign is a genuine grassroots movement, driven primarily by the independent efforts of Dr. Paul's enthusiastic supporters – a wide-ranging constituency that includes disenfranchised anti-war Democrats, traditional conservatives, Constitutionalists, anti-corporatists, free traders, libertarians, Christians, Hindus, atheists, druids, hobbits, wizards, and a host of others. Although a seemingly disparate group, these people share a genuine concern about America's ongoing slide toward authoritarianism, empire, and bankruptcy. This building wave of support takes many forms – from the proliferation of Ron Paul Web sites, blogs, and merchandise, to public "banner brigades" and pamphleteering, to private conversations and e-mail threads – and some estimates assess the economic value of these independent activities at more than $10 million per quarter. No candidacy has generated more buzz than Ron Paul's, and the following statistics prove the point: "Ron Paul" recently topped Technorati's search-term rankings for an unprecedented stretch – current rank #2 (Technorati is the leading authority on Internet media usage). RonPaul2008.com draws more traffic than any other candidate's Web site. On YouTube.com, the Internet's most popular video site, the Ron Paul channel has over 22,000 subscribers, which is 13,000 more than the second most popular candidate (Obama). And on Meetup.com, more than 25,000 people comprise 560 Ron Paul Meetup groups, which makes the Good Doctor the most popular Meetup source in the political category. The next candidate, Obama, is a distant second with 5300 members in 68 groups. Notes: All statistics reflect current numbers as of July 23, 2007. Also, for those who don't know, Meetup.com is the most popular Internet site for people with common interests who want to organize events and activities with one another – consequently, it's the most commonly used online resource for coordinating political activities. Some commentators say this interest and support is illusory, perhaps even the product of a centralized Internet effort led by the Ron Paul campaign. Yet, the Paul campaign has only spent $600,000 to date, while other candidates have already burned through tens of millions. Although Paul's campaign staff is growing, it doesn't even have the resources to provide timely responses to the flood of incoming e-mails (I speak from personal experience here), much less oversee such a sustained, widespread, technologically-sophisticated endeavor. The skeptics also ignore an obvious question – if it's so easy to jerry-rig Internet statistics, why haven't other, better-financed campaigns done the same? (Answer: It's not easy and, in many cases, it's simply impossible.) While I personally don't know of anyone who spends their time spamming online polls or repeatedly Googling their favorite candidate's name, I have no doubt such people exist in the ranks of most political movements. And given the evident enthusiasm of Ron Paul supporters, it's quite likely that a greater percentage of his backers might attempt to do such things. That said, I believe there are more plausible reasons for Ron Paul's "online success" – most importantly, the Internet is the primary source of information about Dr. Paul. As early as last fall – two full years before the election – the conventional media and major-party establishments had already anointed the top six Republican and Democratic candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Obama, & Edwards). Since then, countless opinion makers have informed Americans that these six politicians complete the list of "viable" Presidential options. In other words, no need to look further – we've done your thinking for you. How and why this happened exactly is a topic for another day. (Hint – Follow the money.) The important point here is that each of the Anointed Candidates has received regular, daily coverage since that time (and, in some cases, for several years now). Although Dr. Paul has benefited from a smattering of media attention since his "blowback" exchange with Giuliani in May, people who are curious about Paul's track record and platform must turn to the Internet. The conventional media is most unlikely to begin covering Dr. Paul on a regular basis, no matter how much traction he gains. Consequently, Ron Paul's supporters must assume the task of spreading the word. Fortunately, many of us are happy to do so, and when people first learn of Dr. Paul's track record, they typically want to know more. As regular readers of my blog know, Ron Paul challenges US foreign policy on a refreshingly honest and fundamental level – a level of inquiry wholly absent from most political forums. And Dr. Paul's forthrightness doesn't stop with foreign policy, as he applies the same intellectual rigor to issues involving civil liberties, health care, immigration, education, our fiat-money system, and so on. Reading Tea Leaves Now, I'm not a political analyst, and things could certainly change in a hurry – but given the current landscape, some future developments seem rather predictable: First, Ron Paul's Jeffersonian liberalism will give him a significant advantage over his pro-war, neoconservative competitors. While the other candidates vie for the support of the modern Republican base, Ron Paul provides the only real alternative for any traditional conservatives who remain in the party. Without Ron Paul, each GOP debate would be a brain-dead echo chamber. Perhaps more importantly, Dr. Paul will appeal to those Americans who long ago abandoned politics because the big-government statism of the two major parties was hostile to their values. With recent voter turnout in presidential elections hovering around 50%, this may be a surprisingly large block of potential voters. For Ron Paul supporters, the key will be finding these people and telling them about Dr. Paul – a simple, mass-marketing numbers game. Second, due to this ideological edge and campaign realities, we'll witness a steady whittling of the Republican field in coming months – a thinning that recently began with Jim Gilmore's exit from the race. With the exception of Ron Paul, the other candidates have spent their funds like drunken Congressmen, and the "second tier" has little to show for their binge. Most of these campaigns suffer from anemic fundraising, a moribund Internet presence, and lackluster crowds (certainly nothing approaching the numerous crowds gathering on Ron Paul's behalf, as documented here, here, here, here, here, and here). By next spring, the existing field of contenders will be reduced to a Final Four – Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul. Third, Ron Paul is in this race for the long haul – at least until next September's Republican convention. Thus far, the Paul campaign has run a frugal operation, relying primarily on the efforts of grassroots activists. These efforts are steadily snowballing support, as evidenced by Dr. Paul's three-month ascent from anonymity to 3% in national polls, and that figure will continue to rise at the rate people learn about our candidate. As Jennifer Haman pointed out, Ron Paul leads in the polls of those who have heard him speak. In the meantime, the campaign is shrewdly storing its dry powder – mounting millions to be meted out at judicious points throughout the campaign. Only time will tell what the future holds for Ron Paul's presidential bid – but for now, there's great cause for optimism."

7/27/2007 11:54:51 PM

apparently he got the loudest applause during sunday's debate...i watched some, he didnt get much time to talk (maybe that's why he seems to talk fast) and when he was making a good point on republican policies on iraq, romney tried to pull the "he's forgotten 9/11!" crap...as usual he dominated the internet polls after the debate, but i wonder how many he's pulling in iowa right now

8/7/2007 1:58:11 PM

Ron Paul 5th place (out of 11) in Iowa straw poll with 9.1%. He only spent about $200 per vote while the winner spent $2000+. New Hampshire should be even more receptive to his freedom message.

8/11/2007 10:14:06 PM

Cool picture. Passing on.

8/14/2007 9:16:19 PM

8/14/2007 9:23:44 PM

Pauls loudest applause came from the many many people they bused in from out of state...

But, I was surprised that he actually beat a few of the people at the bottom of the list of nominees.

But 5th really means 8th since guiliani, mccain, and thompson were not pushing for votes... still not super impressive.

If he had garnered closer to 20% from this empty field, I might start giving him a shot at it... but not yet.

8/15/2007 9:10:50 AM

"They" didn't bus anybody in from out of state. There is no "they." The Ron Paul campaign is still in the single-digits as far as staff members in Iowa. And Ron Paul is still as stingy with his donations as he is with tax dollars.

The hundreds of people who set up the tents, made the signs, and organized the rallies in and around the arena were all volunteers who came just because they believe in his message. They were loud because they love him.

The hundreds did come heavily from out-of-state, but all on their own expense and time.

Nobody got paid, except for the <10 campaign staff, and nobody was bused in. There was also little/no official coordination of anything at the straw poll, but simply volunteers who showed up early and left late, figuring things out for themselves.

I'm not voting for the man. But this is a level of passion that I don't think even Howard Dean had.

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 9:41 AM. Reason : a]

8/15/2007 9:39:31 AM

^^"but not yet"

no offense to the ron paul lovers, but "yet" needs to be changed to "ever"

8/15/2007 9:44:25 AM

"you never have to sacrifice one bit of liberty for security."

that is BULLSHIT.

8/15/2007 9:48:52 AM

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Man, he was a moron!

8/15/2007 9:57:53 AM

^^no, no its not.

8/15/2007 9:59:46 AM

to think that we don't have to give up ANY liberty for the sake of safety is extremely naive and blatantly untrue.

8/15/2007 10:01:01 AM

I'd rather be unsafe and free than safe and restricted.

8/15/2007 10:03:17 AM

and that's fine. but you can't have it both ways, which is what that quote says.

8/15/2007 10:04:37 AM

No, the quote says people that would give up their freedom for safety deserve neither safety or freedom. Basically he's saying if you give up your freedom you're a tool that deserves whatever bad things happen to you.

8/15/2007 10:10:18 AM

i understand what franklin said and think it's pretty true. it's the ron paul quote that i'm criticizing.

8/15/2007 10:12:19 AM

that picture is soo cool

8/15/2007 5:47:26 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=490448&page=1

8/16/2007 11:57:12 AM