The Ron Paul Juggernaut.

I've been reading about him lately.

Now let me get this straight...you say in one breath:

Ron Paul is an honest person.

He does want what is best for all people, and does all things based on the U.S. Constitution.

In other words, he will not pass a law or do anything unless it is just and right.

But you also "start" your comment out by stating: Still, we don't seem to know that much about him.

Something is wrong with this picture....either he is all of the above or he is not...

Ron Paul is a true Conservative and not that of neocon scum.

He's raising the real issues that Congress , with very few exceptions, should have been doing for the past 6 years.

I have watched him on several different shows and I really like him.

Hi Donna.
He is a good man, and does a lot.
Many people still don't know that much about him.
I guess the best example is the man on the Cream of Wheat box.
We have seen his face for decades, but no one knew who he was.
Turns out is was a great Chef.
He just got his name on his grave, by the way.
He died MANY years ago.
Ron Paul however, is famous, but a lot of people do not know all that much about him.
They will.

Thanks for the heads up, I will research him and find out what he has to say.

i believe he was libertarian

This is interesting. I passed a Ron Paul 2008 sign in Portsmouth just the other day and honestly didn't know anything about him. I am inspired to see what I can learn. Thanks!

Lots of Libertarians jump ship to the Republican Party when they realize they'll never achieve their agenda items swimming upstream.

Reagan was heavily affected by Libertarian thinking. Where do you think he got the idea of LESS GOVERNMENT, and was able to bring it under the Republican tent, making it a staple-plank today.

I want to know how he intends to handle the issues, immigration, ending the war, securing ports and borders, outsourcing of jobs. What does he intend to do about these problems.

Better to have someone educated than the current crop of ignorance in the whitehouse.

How much money has Ron Paul received from AIPAC? Are there any other presidential candidates that haven't taken a dime from them?

America needs a President who will obey BOTH domestic and international law - the current government does whatever the hell it wants and that is turning what was once a beacon of hope around the world into the most hated pariah state in modern history.

Actually, the more I learn about him the more I like him. I was somewhat amused and surprised at finding his lovely flyer on my window. But the more I see...the more I want to hear.

If that is RON PAUL, presidential candidates should be aware.

But I think Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the destined president of an UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...(''I don't know if its religiously motivated'')

Its now a ''WOMAN'' and man thing really...(hehehe) Though I like the attitudes of Fred ThompsOn.

As for RON PAUL being a good guy... there will be another time to rise up the ladder. Its hard to defeat what is being written by destiny just like in my case.

I don't know anything about him, either.

Just being a good guy and a constitutionalist does not win elections.
Unfortunately, money does.

I wish it were not so. But the ones with the money can buy the most
air time for commercials, get their word out, and have the most chance
of winning the election.

Has any politician who ran for President in the modern day got elected
for President who didn't have a substantial war chest and thus the means
to get out their message?

We live in an oversaturated media society. Unfortunately, voters don't
always think a lot about who they are voting for. They might vote for
them because they are handsome or pretty. They might vote for them
because they promise to cut taxes (sound familiar?), or a hundred other
reasons that have nothing to do with if they can actually be a good
President.

I wish people were smarter about who they voted for. Unfortunately, they're not.

They might have liked the message of Ralph Nadar or Ross Perot.

The Ralph Nadars and Ross Perots of this world do not win elections.

No they don't they get republicons elected.

He caught a lot of positive attention out here when he was the only Republican candidate to suggest that maybe we should find out why the terrorists flew the planes into the WTC -- seems like a pretty fundamental question to me, if you want to seriously go after terrorism perhaps it would be wise to cure the disease not treat the symptoms.

"The Hillary's and the Romney's got most of the attention,....."

The scary part is that they also have most of the money........

I don't follow it, thanks for sharing..

Ron Paul is the best candidate by far. It's rare to have a candidate of his caliber. It's usually all about charisma...like a popularity contest or something. Ron Paul is a substantive candidate and a loyal adherent to the principles set forth by our' Founding Father's in the Constitution.

Check out: Ron Paul 2008: Hope for America
at: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Also, Ron's MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/congressmanronpaul

About Ron Paul:

"Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 17 grandchildren.

While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul's limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.

During that time, Congressman Paul served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve's inflationary measures. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

Congressman Paul's consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, "Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another colleague observed, "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few."

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/

Some other links on Ron Paul:

http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/veterans.html

http://www.ronpaul.org/

For his writings on the issues...his archives at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Finally, a quote from Ron Paul:

"The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state."

http://www.house.gov/paul/

I'm still trying to figure out what a "neo-con" is supposed to be, because as far as I can tell from those who I have seen labeled a "neo-con" are typical conservatives.
Ron Paul?, Heard his name, don't know anything about him. Hillary? THe last thing this nation needs is a Hillary presidency, it would be a farce.
I'm throwing my support behind Rudy, he is a no nonsense common sense guy.

Keith -- neo-conservatives, as their name suggests, frequently includes Democrats that went awry. The Neo-conservatives want to make sure that the American empire remains top dawg. They are fiscal liberals, except their spending is aimed at supporting the military/industrial/government triangle that Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address. They favor military intervention, the exportation of America's business and consumption culture overseas -- by gun point if need be. On Iraq they differ from the big oil Republicans because they never intended to leave Iraq which is why there was no exit strategy and they want to divert Iraq oil into feeding the American industrial complex -- they are against nationalization of Iraq oil because it cuts against their model of government by large American dominated corporations. Big oil favors nationalization because OPEC can be counted on to act in big oil's favor. The neo-conservatives give lip service to the religiou right, but in truth don't give a rip about their issues. They believe in stuff like Rumsfeld said that Europe's favorite sport is soccer, America's favorite sport is football -- and that statement pretty much says it all.

True conservatives mean what they say about legislating morality. They really believe in cutting spending. They really believe in small and preferrably small government. They are not out for world dominance, but rather they are interested in protecting the peace, safety and morality of the American people. As a result, they are scarcer than hen's teeth these days!

Thanks for sharing....I will have to take a look

very interesting! Thanks everyone for the information.

Well G.N. if keeping America as the top dawg is neo-con "crime" then I am guilty. The entire history of Mankind has had the opportunity to do what this country has done in less than 300 years. Never in the history of mankind has there been a people so ready willing and able to come to the rescue of even its enemies. If you have a problem with being the best of the best, that is your under achieving problem. All I see is typical misinformed self loathing blather . Gee how typical , it's "big Oil" it empirialism its this it s that

George you nailed it.

Rudy is the closest thing to a fascist to run for the presidency...he and the neocons should get on very well. Conservatives are not isolationist...they just don't go around lording it over everyone else and do not get entangled in unhealthy relationshipd with troublesome countries like Israel.

We need to look out for our' interest and Israel should look out for it's own interest.

The number one BENCHMARK in Iraq, incidently, is the OIL BILL. No it's not about the oil...and if you believe that I've some oceanfront land in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

Fascist? Please, Rudy did a great job of cleaning up NYC. The only complainers were the drug dealers and panhandlers. Mayor Dinkins, Rudy's predecessor pandered to every special interest group, every anti-social group you could possibly cow tow to and it resulted in a city out of control spiraling into a morass that nobody thought there could possibly be a return from. Rudy got it done. I love going into the city, I'll be there Saturday night and I'll be back Monday night to see Les Paul, in fact I'll be there tonight, albeit to pick up my oldest step daughter and her friends from JFK.
One other note, nice to see that you are such a racist Felix. I don't see how being a self righteous left of center individual gives you the right to denounce a free people like the Israeli's , you know, the denizens of the only functioning Democracy in the Middle East.

Quote: "Rudy, he is a no nonsense common sense guy."

I think Rudy's "closet" is going to drown him. People are just waiting to pull skeletons out of his closet. Things are quiet now. But, if he gets the nomination - then we'll hear the horror stories. They're already starting to trickle out.

I actually like Ron Paul as a candidate. I just wish he had a chance of actually winning.

There's room for another Republican candidate. I know nobody wants to hear that, since there's a boat load of them already. But, be honest. Don't you just want to start from scratch and pick a new batch.

Ron Paul would be the only one I would keep.

I sure like Mr. Paul as a candidate, and he is certainly the best I've seen out of the Republican party in a long while. I am rather doubtful of much of his platform, as it seems rather heavily based on slogans and good intentions. Until I can see him respond to tough questions about the "downside" of many of his proposals, I cannot "get on board", as it is far too easy to point out what is wrong with many things about how our system has evolved, without having to deal with the realities which led to the present order of things.

Deregulation is a particularly troublesome platitude I hear from his "camp", and it is of course quite simple to demonize something as vague as 'regulations', when one is not required to look carefully at the underlying actual circumstances and events which provoked legislators to go that route in many matters. There is this somewhat dreamy notion that businesses and corporations would behave themselves just fine if only they were free of all those silly regulations, but the truth is, most of those regulations were adopted in response to unethical or competition stifling practices which have already occurred. It turns out there really are folks that will do wicked things to make money, and wishful thinking will not prevent them from doing so.

Unfortunately, unless and until Mr. Paul is taken more seriously, he will not have much of a chance to get into the nitty gritty of what he would do to change things in a rational way, and I can understand perfectly why he stresses the flaws which can be seen in the current arrangements. THAT is what he is truly good for, whether he ever emerges into the harsh spotlight of deeper reasoning or not.

Functioning democracy...don't make me laugh...tell it to the Palestinians. I don't have a problem with Israel as long as its' problems don't become our's. South Africa was also a functioning democracy.

Giuliani is a fascist just like you and he's corrupt to boot...wait to see when all the baggage starts to come out. Racist? Tell to all the Jews I know. Rudy got crap done...he doctored the police data. Get out of the glitter of Manhattan and come to the outer boroughs.

This is all moot...Giuliani won't get the nomination. Conservatives won't vote for him...he's a closet liberal.

John,

The Republicans pretty much have a two-man race...and it's not McCain-Giuliani...but, rather...Thompson-Romney.

Hillary is pretty much a shoo-in. Only Gore could upset her if he decided to run.

That's my opinion.

I agree, Felix, and that is why I hope Mr. Gore does enter. To my way of thinking, he is a drastic improvement on Ms. Clinton, and the rest of the "pack" as well. The man has got some cajones, and some respect among the legitimate corporation crowd. Without those, I can't imagine how the "corpratocracy" trend can be stopped, and some semblance of rule by the people restored. It's hard to envision any chance of the Dems not winning the general, so the real question is; Who will they nominate?

John,

On the Republican side Ron Paul is a good candidate, but, as it stands now...not very viable. On the other hand, Al Gore, is very viable for the Democrats. In polls taken he edges Hillary. Al has done something quite rare in politics...after losing? an election he has gained stature and is today a stronger candidate than he was when he ran against the Supreme Court's President-of-Choice, also a rarity...in fact, a first.

Al got more popular votes against the Rovian' juggernaut. If he ran now he would sweep to victory. I would prefer a conservative to win, but, after Junior's lunatic tenure I'd welcome a real change. Al is strongly opposed to this war and he respects our Constitution. The Democrats should look to draft Gore...nudge him a bit.

Well, while we're at it, let's dream big; How's 'Gore/Paul' sound ?

With Mr, Gore's clout and Mr. Paul's feisty haranguing, we might just see some real change. They got that mixed party deal, or maybe even a real third party could be born; The 'Constitution' party.

Change is the need indeed.

excellent article and intriguing comments. I'll have to watch for more info on this guy. Even if i am a democrat!

Good point, George. Actually, I would like to know more about many of the candidates not in the so called "top tier". I like Hillary and Obama. But I want to know where everyone stands. I was disturbed by the conversation Hillary and Edwards had about trimming down the number of debaters. We need more debates, not smaller debates. Good article as always, George.

"Well, while we're at it, let's dream big; How's 'Gore/Paul' sound ?"

John, pssst, that's been a secret fantasy of mine. That would certainly be refreshing and exciting. It would also give a sense of the People's Choice and not the political machinery and it's PAC contributors.

How about Paul/Kucinich?

I'd go with Paul/Kucinich. Should get pretty interesting in the next few days/weeks....

I DO like Ron Paul.......non-controversial and low key!

It's funny to go back and read all the comments here.