The American Spectator

William R| 2.20.10 @ 5:48PM

It was priceless watching the Fox News commentators announce the results. They were in shock!!

Cris Worth| 2.21.10 @ 12:15PM

Kudos to Ron Paul for shocking the political establishment in the mode of Kefauver (1952) and McCarthy (1968). Neither Kefauver and McCarthy won their nominations but did a great service to their country driving out Truman and LBJ respectively. Paul won't win the 2012 nomination but let us hope history has repeated itself and his victory has done the same to favorite/frontrunner Romney.

ECM| 2.20.10 @ 5:52PM

Uh, I'm in shock, too.

William R| 2.20.10 @ 5:58PM

Not me! He's the only old school conservative out there these days in the age Limbaugh and endless war in the Middle East.

John - TMF| 2.20.10 @ 6:28PM

Ronpaul is an isolationist, gold bug, with the faint waft of anti-Semitic fumes in the air when he speaks of foreign policy. His answers generally tend toward 1850's Know Nothingism...

Ronpaul has about as much chance of winning a presidential election as Algore has of being right about glueball worming.

The danger to the "Conservative Movement" is that the unhinged are too often controlling the momentum.

The elites are waiting on the sidelines watching the movement once again prove that it is leaderless, fractious, and unable to project a message of more than "NO".

The statement that should have come from the podium is:

"Are you people crazy? We are trying to rescue this nation from the edge of the abyss and you are indulging in Libertarian Utopian Fantasy..."

No one is going to beat Obambi and the Democrats with unserious stunts like this.

:-/ Time to go to church and pray for this nation. We really need it.

The Mighty Fahvaag

Mike| 2.21.10 @ 9:14AM

"Are you people crazy? We are trying to rescue this nation from the edge of the abyss and you are indulging in Libertarian Utopian Fantasy..."

John, I am in agreement with this assessment, but I would go further. The extremes of both the right and the left are arrogant enough to believe that they, alone, have the wisdom and the ability to keep the nation from falling into the abyss. They don't. It is very simple to explain why. The right is addicted to lowering taxes. The left is addicted to spending. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (bi-partisan) demonstrates, only a long term plan that both cuts spending and raises revenue i.e. taxes is going to save us two other undesirable options: doing nothing until our banker (China) takes the credit card away and forces us to act or the Fed monetizes the debt which will cause hyperinflation down the road.

John - TMF| 2.21.10 @ 11:31AM

The irony with Ronpaul and the Paulistas is that the basic idea of low taxes and very limited government is not only good but the only way this nation will ever survive.

The problem is that with any truth run to the extreme there seems to continually come a vein of poison. Paul operates on a kernel of truth where much of the rest of his philosophy is wrapped in self-justified ideology.

As to the rest:

1. Low taxes increase by massive proportions, the flow of revenues to the government. Arthur Laffer and the Supply-siders were exactly correct. When taxes are low, reasonable, and stable, individuals have disposable income to pay for things. Not only that, but the cost of compliance with a simplified tax code plummets. The final cookie is that when tax rates are low and reasonable, wealthy people who can shield their incomes from taxation, tend not to feel compelled to hide. They pay their taxes.

Reagan's Tax cuts doubled revenues to the Treasury and re-ignited the economy.

2. The problem is that when government is run by elites who know better, and want to buy votes and meddle with people's lives for whatever reason refuse to actually cut spending on non-required government functions. One need only look at the immediate and visceral reaction against Christie's and McDonnell's proposed budget moves to see that very often the electorate does not really "mean it".

Until Americans quit the infantile notion that they can get something for nothing we will continue on this cherry bumping teeter totter as the room fills with the sewage of debt.

Paul offers nothing in the way of real reforms, or substantive operable changes. To do what he proposes the entire government and democratic impulse would have to be shut down. In truth, if a Paulite method would be attempted, within the next election cycle the congress would be replaced with representatives bearing goodies and programs. He or she would be as much of a one term President as The Bamster looks to be, and a speed bump footnote on the way to debt hell.

3. Americans are falling for something that de Tocqueville warned about in his essays. We have discovered that we can elect representatives that will raid the treasury to provide us with goodies. We succumb to the worst of the cardinal sins. Envy has eaten at the "peasantry" since the dawn of civilization. It is the princple warning in the parable of Cain and Able. Envy leads to all of the other deadly sins. It is a door to self-destruction.

Whether or not one is a Jew or Christian, a critical commandment in the Decalogue is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods." This warning is consistently ignored at civilization's peril.

Ronpaul has "all the answers". It's easy. Just put Ronpaul in charge, withdraw from the world stage, and shut down most of the government. Then the world will leave us alone to tend to our own business, and we will govern ourselves in grand style - everyone working for the common good without any government coercion. Frolicking in clover perhaps? Everyone a member of the happy bourgeoisie , maybe?

Utopian dreams are dangerous. Pacifists, Marxists, Fabians, and Libertarians all live on a path to a hallucination. They all want the impossible; and they are determined to take everyone who does not agree with them down to get it.

Conservatism is:

- Ordered Liberty where life is cherished
- Free Market Capitalism where enterprise is respected
- Low taxation where property is honored
- Engagement with the world in both trade and diplomacy where the nation prospers and leads
- Stout defense of sovereignty that ensures all of the good things that this nation represents
- All this with a commitment to the firm application of the rule of law.

Ronpaul does not represent all of those things, just some of them. (and I fully expect the Paulbots to warp the meanings of those principles to suit their prejudices in his defense ) They will be wrong but the will not listen. They cannot and will not hear the truth, no Utopian can.

r/The Mighty Fahvaag

Mike| 2.21.10 @ 2:25PM

"1. Low taxes increase by massive proportions, the flow of revenues to the government. Arthur Laffer and the Supply-siders were exactly correct."

This has been effectively challenged by economists across the political spectrum. It is appealing and I wish it were true. Who would wish otherwise? Unfortunately, the theory exceeds the reality.

"2. The problem is that when government is run by elites who know better, and want to buy votes and meddle with people's lives for whatever reason refuse to actually cut spending on non-required government functions."

This sounds as if nefarious elites somehow got into office without the consent of the American people and are forcing us to accept government programs that nobody wants. Untrue. If the American people truly did not want the programs represented by government spending, politicians, ever wanting to be reelected , would respond immediately by cutting them. Behind every bit of government spending is a group of citizens demanding that the program be continued if not expanded. Your essential government program is, in all likelihood, my prima facie evidence of government waste.

John - TMF| 2.21.10 @ 5:32PM

Your experts are Liberal Democrats. They have a stake in high taxation we are poorly served to listen to them.

The elites in this case have raised their heads and been identified. Most voted for Obambi. In the GOP they were derided as the "Tax collectors for the welfare state". Their school of economics is managing the Keyensian welfare state, and the facts on the ground impress them not one inch. Revenues to the Treasury during the Reagan era slightly more than doubled, and inflation was reduced to the mid to low single digits. Those are the facts.

Elites win elections because of the envy that they sew amongst those who have less. They win via Patronage. It is the weakness of any republican form of government. They buy votes with other people's money. And generally perpetrate a fraud on those who vote for them (the elites) through that patronizing fraud.

No, Mike, you propose a continued choking death by a Leviathan out of control and unaccountable. Hayek hasn't spoken to you, yet, I suspect.

r/TMF

Mike| 2.21.10 @ 5:53PM

John,
My experts actually hail from across the political spectrum save for the most doctrinaire.

Keynes' goal was not to create a welfare state. He recognized that it could take a generation or more for the market to solve the Great Depression and he, along with others, were not convinced they had a generation. You may recall from your history courses the strident voices on the right and on the left calling for revolution, fascism on the one hand; communism on the other. How I wish those terms still had any real meaning today. Alas, they don't. Without Keynsian prescriptions I suspect this nation would have gone in a direction neither of us would enjoy being heir to.

Nick| 2.21.10 @ 11:10PM

Mike,

You're the one in need of a history lesson.

Fascism is an ideology of the left, not of the right.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 10:53AM

Hahaha.

Nick| 2.22.10 @ 12:10PM

Yes, this amounts to the sum of the substance of your argument.

hambone1982| 2.22.10 @ 2:50AM

You guys need to study economics. You really have no idea what you are talking about. Paul's ideas are based in very sound economics.
Read up: Von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 2:32PM

I don't disagree that Ron Paul is philosophically a libertarian, although he is a paleolibertarian. But his political program is strict constitutionalism. If you have a problem with Ron Paul's actual politics, then you have a problem with following the Constitution as originally intended.

Jor-El| 2.21.10 @ 11:10PM

That's what you RINOS have been sayng about Ron Paul, the only REAL conservative in the whole bunch of CPAC CFR posers at this meeting have been claiming for years, and your side keeps diminishing and our side keeps increasing.

What Dr. Paul really is, is Americas RE-FOUNDING FATHER, righting the ship of state to her original glory, and crushing the filthy Empire built by the elitist globalist political class, which rules both parties and has subjugated much of the world, on the backs and with the blood of our brave military, for their personal benefit only.

It is people like you who are responsible for Obama, only Ron Paul has the appeal among Independents and Democrats, of all the 2008 crowd, to have beaten Obama, and you pukes black-balled.

This is our party now.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 2:26PM

"gold bug"

So sound money isn't the conservative position? That's interesting. So it was conservatives complaining about that old "cross of gold" back in the day I guess?

"the faint waft of anti-Semitic fumes in the air when he speaks of foreign policy"

Wow. You couldn't even wait a couple of posts before you played the anti-Semitic card? Actually, the fait waft in the air is the smell of desperation of the anti-Paul jihadists. Don't even make a couple of arguments first. Just go straight to the PC card like a liberal.

Cortney Goode| 3.3.10 @ 2:01AM

It is this very idea that is preventing our country from any sort of positive change. To call the outcome of the CPAC straw poll an "unserious stunt" seems awfully counterproductive to the needs of American citizens. The people spoke and they praised Paul. When the voice of American citizens is considered an "unserious stunt" we should all go running for the border. You are also claiming that the ideals of the Constitution are "utopian" and that is also very scary. My response to you, READ the constitution and learn economics. You may start to realize the purity and reality of what Dr. Paul is saying. Open up to new ideas, that are in all reality the "old" ideas that have granted you the civil liberties you most likey take for granted.

Floyd Looney| 2.20.10 @ 6:34PM

75% of them didn't even vote.

After they allowed the gays to boo down a speaker this has finished them off. I think CPAC has lost all credibility and all relevance.

William R| 2.20.10 @ 6:34PM

Ron Paul is no isolationist and now that you bring up Gold bugs so was Ronald Reagan. As for the anti-semitic charge I won't even bother to reply because it is baseless

Cortney Goode| 3.3.10 @ 2:03AM

Well said!

Sean| 2.20.10 @ 6:37PM

A true conservative finally wins.

Margie| 2.20.10 @ 7:08PM

A true conservative doesn't blame America first, call Her an Aggressor, despise Israel, and pretend to be something he's not!

William R| 2.20.10 @ 9:10PM

Ron Paul doesn't despise Israel. He just doesn't think it's the 51st state like many so called conservatives go. And we are an aggressor nation. We launched a war against a country that hadn't attacked the United States.

Margie| 2.20.10 @ 10:30PM

Aren't you the same William R. who agrees with the Hammas accord?

William R| 2.21.10 @ 2:14PM

No little girl, I'm not.

Margie| 2.21.10 @ 3:32PM

Well little man, you have made your anti-Israel beliefs very clear on previous threads, and you aren't fooling those of us who regularly post here.

hambone1982| 2.22.10 @ 2:57AM

Why should America sacrifice a single dime for Israel? Ever? Not to mention the blood of our youth in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. What interest is it of the US to kill people over there? How is it making us safer?

Margie| 2.21.10 @ 1:42PM

A simple yes or no would do, WilliamR.

MattSwartz| 2.20.10 @ 9:12PM

A true Conservative knows the meaning of words. "Agressor", from the latin ad gressus (to attack against) is a term used to describe the instigator of a quarrel. The US invaded Iraq, making us the aggressor there, and don't try and make it about 9/11, since everyone acknowledges that Iraq had nothing to do with that.

Ron Paul is a patriot in the truest sense of the word, and kids, who are not emotionally attached to confirmed liars the way their parents are, take notice of this fact.

Margie| 2.20.10 @ 11:06PM

Do you also believe like Ron Paul does, that "The terrorists are terrorists because of the United States?"
Are so emotionally attached to him that you are beyond all hope of reason and influence?

MattSwartz| 2.21.10 @ 1:16AM

Is your view of causation actually this one-dimensional?

Read a book.

Patric| 2.21.10 @ 5:53AM

Finally-an intelligent blogger. This is a War on Reason, not Terror. The fate of the free world literally hinges on the survival of a few fundamental ideas. Keep it up, Matt.

Margie| 2.21.10 @ 11:40AM

Little twerp is back. That's right lowlife. Anyone who blames the United States of America for terrorism is an enemy of the country.
Obviously you must have no loyalty to this country.

MattSwartz| 2.21.10 @ 9:32PM

(citation needed)

Margie| 2.21.10 @ 10:38PM

Approx. 7 minutes into this Ron Paul the whacko says "They're terrorists because we're Occupiers!"
This man is sick, and a liar. Anyone who defends him renders themselves enemies of America in my opinion, and just as despicable. If you can KNOW what he believes~consciously~and still defend him.
http://www.in.com/videos/watch.....45389.html

jrs| 2.22.10 @ 1:14AM

Margie,
You'd have to be idiotic (is that the PC term for retarded) to think that the us doesn't have some role in the formation of terrorists. Take Iraq for example. Even the most conservative estimates put civilian deaths in the tens of thousands. Now, are any of these due to Americans purposely killing civilians. Most likely no (although I'm sure you could find a few isolated examples). Now, take this fact and distort it, and show it to a group of undereducated, impoverished, individuals who lack access to alternative forms of information. The result is that at least of few of these people become terrorists. Even if our presence in Iraq or other places was justified (it wasn't), it doesn't matter to these individuals. Is this kind of terrorism unavoidable? Most likely no, but our presence in these parts of the world make it that much easier.
A big reason many of these people are terrorist stems from the lack of economic opportunities. Bad economic conditions in post WWI Germany allowed for millions of normal individuals to condone the execution of millions of innocent jews. The best way to prevent terrorism is not to create endless costly wars (which provide perfect promotional materials for would be terrorists), but to look at removing the conditions where terrorism thrives. We could have spent a lot less money by parachuting in xboxes and nudie magazines to the young teenage boys of the middle east. THINK IM CRAZY. Look at Dubai. Many of these people arrive brainwashed with these extreme ideas but quickly realize a semi western way of life isn't that bad after all.
Finally, to get at the remaining bad guys, once again use simple free market economics everyone thinks they worship (based on how bad many of your understanding of socialism is, I doubt your free markets understanding is much better) and put some real money in terrorism bounties. Put a billion dollars on Bin Laden's head and I guarantee we'd already have it by now, courtesy of an insulated fed ex package.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 2:36PM

Margie, what on earth does Israel have to do with whether or not someone is a conservative in America?

CoolCzech| 2.20.10 @ 7:11PM

Ron Paul is a Truther. In other words, a whackjob and political poison (not to mention anti-American dirt).

All you need to know, a Q&A with Paul on the subject of "Trutherism":

Question: OK and one more thing. Why don’t you come out about the truth about 9/11?

Paul: Because I can’t handle the controversy. I have the IIF, the Federal Reserve to deal with, and the IRS to deal with. Because, no I just have work— too many things on my plate. Because I just have too much to do.

http://www.gop12.com/2009/07/i.....8021126834

Also, check out allahpundits comments at:

http://hotair.com/archives/200.....a-truther/

Sorry, but Ron Paul is a headcase and a danger to the Republican Party & American Conservatism. The fact he won the strawpoll at CPAC makes me wonder what the hell is going on there these days.

Sorry, but

William R| 2.21.10 @ 3:24AM

Sorry, but Allah Pundit is the biggest phony on the internet. Smearing people anonymously behind a semi big name like Malkin. What fugging fraud.

Pasadena Phil| 2.20.10 @ 7:20PM

I looked at the list of candidates on the ballot and was dismayed that it was chock full of the usual establishment Republicans.... except for Ron Paul! I don't believe for one second that Ron Paul will be the GOP candidate in 2012 but it just goes to show how lost the GOP establishment finds itself these days. The party is paving the way for either Pawlenty or Perry, two completely unacceptable candidates for conservatives, but how did they do?

It's a great time to be a Tea Party voter. We are just getting started yet we already have the elites of both parties in a dead panic!

Pasadena Phil| 2.20.10 @ 7:26PM

You guys who are posting comments claiming Ron Paul is a loony don't know what you are talking about. He has been dead on right about the Fed and fiat currency for decades and is only now being proven correct.

That he won this straw poll is not so much an endorsement of Paul but a complete rejection of the rest of the bland establishment choices. Who was everyone expecting would win? Romney? Pawlenty? Gingrich? It was a very bad slate of choices and since the voters were awash with Tea Party sentiment, they voted for the only non-establishment non-polymorphic choice.

Pasadena Phil| 2.20.10 @ 7:36PM

Final note. Paul won with 31% of the vote but most significant is Sarah Palin garnering a paltry 7%. Endorsing McCain and Perry then urging CPAC attendees to rally behind the Republican Party doesn't seem to be working out for this not-ready-for-prime-time country bumpkin. Talk about a clueless flash-in-the-pan.

Robert Pinkerton| 2.21.10 @ 12:48AM

The only reason why I voted for Nader in 2008 (I could not stomach McCain.) is that Ron Paul was not on the ballot in Ohio.

As to Mrs. Palin, she reminds me of a lower-middle-class person who has suddenly come into serious money. She did this country a service -- straight from the shoulder no irony express nor implied -- by showing in cold and blatant relief the class-bigotry that animates the Left. (Did not someone say that servants of the wealthy tend to be more sharply class-conscious than their employers? On the other hand, my father taught me, when I was a child, that failure to thank them who serve you, is a clear and distinct mark of trash.)

Cris Worth| 2.21.10 @ 12:11PM

On the contrary Sarah was the big winner this week at CPAC and she didn't even attend.
She outpolled two party heavyweights on the 2012 short list (Pawlenty & Gingrich) and
unelectable Paul humiliated the annointed LDS front runner.

Scott D| 2.20.10 @ 8:58PM

Straw Polls are about as reliable as any Democrat State caucus. Easy to rig ending in deceiving results.

10,000 Attendees at CPAC 2010 where they claim 45% are college students and 22,000 votes cast in this specific straw poll. The other filter is some 50%+ of the adult attendees claim they didn't vote.

Bottom line is ROMNEY is the front runner by a huge margin for 2012.

MattSwartz| 2.21.10 @ 6:15AM

Wow, this is such wise analysis. In a similar vein, I'm sure none of the other candidates were even trying to win the thing, what with it being so rigged and discredited, right?

It's always easiest to win when you have the most motivated people, I've heard, but your explanation is far superior to that old line...

Cris Worth| 2.21.10 @ 12:19PM

I wonder if Romney's stewardship over Bane...pardon my typo Bain Capital will impact the voters in 2012.

Ruy Diaz| 2.20.10 @ 9:28PM

The Paultards have been pursuing a stealth strategy since the loss last year. They've been running low-level candidates who hide their views, and staffing low-level positions in the Republican party. Not only are they kooks, but sneaky cooks. This thing is going to seriously hurt the conservative movement.

Margie| 2.20.10 @ 9:42PM

You speak the truth. That is EXACTLY what they are doing. Fortunately there are way more of us than there are of them.. and exposing them to the light is the thing we need to constantly do. For example~~ Rand Paul.. he talks just like his Father. You can go to his website and view his video Re: Defense. He talks about "The Military Indusrtrial Complex" & "Haliburton." The same paranoid lies.

soy| 2.20.10 @ 9:52PM

Yeah but we have more years ahead of us since we're mostly not over the age of 60. If you're still around in 20 years, ask yourself then if it's true that there are more of you than us.

Sean| 2.20.10 @ 9:44PM

As opposed to the "conservatives" that believe in global warming, huge increases in government, Romneycare, illegal immigration, ect. No Thanks I will take Ron Paul every day over them.

Margie| 2.20.10 @ 10:53PM

To soy & Sean,
Do you two believe that 9/11 was an "inside" job?

soy| 2.21.10 @ 12:18AM

No. I, like Ron Paul, do not believe that the US government was responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

Margie| 2.21.10 @ 10:55PM

So you agree with this anti-American who actually proclaims that it is America's fault that the terrorists are terrorists. How sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

Winston| 2.20.10 @ 9:41PM

Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther and a crazy person. I think it is time for him to retire

Pasadena Phl| 2.20.10 @ 10:01PM

Ron Paul wins with 31% and somehow this is a conspiracy by the paulbots? Does not compute. Why couldn't the Palinistas come up with more than 7%? She's a superstar! The "clear front runner" is Romney? Yeah, just like in 2008.

Some of you are right back in the same "nose-holding" mode that delivered McCain as the GOP candidate in 2008. This is 2010, not 2012. Let's focus on ridding the GOP of the one-world-without-borders-post-partisan- big-government-globalists and see how the landscape looks after November.

Ron Paul will not be the GOP candidate. Bet on it. But if Romney, Perry, Pawlenty or other squishy establishment country club Republican wins the nomination, Obama will be re-elected. Let's take care of 2010 first. Clean house within the GOP.

Margie| 2.20.10 @ 10:08PM

Oops. Sorry~You must've missed it. We have already BEEN cleaning house! Conservative Republicans have been winning! In Virginia, Massachusetts, NJ, and soon to be Florida, as well as other states! Lo and Behold~ it's GOOD NEWS!
It just isn't the Party you prefer.

MattSwartz| 2.20.10 @ 10:18PM

It isn't the party I prefer. Brown's (R-MA) record is to the left even of Romney's.

The Paul-aligned conservative/libertarian types are just about the only young people in the party who aren't transparent opportunists. Learn to embrace them unless you want Joe Lieberman at the center of your party.

Nick| 2.20.10 @ 11:26PM

Scott Brown is the equivalent of Jesse Helms in Massachusets.

Pasadena Phil| 2.21.10 @ 11:04AM

I don't know who you mean by "we" but Scot Brown is not a conservative and Rubio, who I support, is not exactly a model conservative candidate either. These are tactical victories demonstrating that the Tea Party can take on the RNC and win and little more. The Brown victory sent shudders up the spines of the entire establishment, Dem and Rep.

You may want to believe that the GOP is cured but they are already discrediting CPAC as being "infiltrated" and "compromised" while labeling all of their opponents as being "nuts". That is the problem with fighting a post-partisan establishment. You seem to be falling into their trap of party loyalty. There are only two parties right now: the Democratic Party and the Assistant Democratic Party. Which one are you in? I'm in neither.

F Secret| 2.20.10 @ 10:21PM

Ron Paul appeared on the Alex Jones radio show at least 7 times in the run up to the 2008 elections. Such an association alone should forever disqualify an individual from garnering the support of "31%" of any SANE group or movement. He has referred to the attacks on 9-11 as the actions of "19 thugs...representing no country", in an attempt to discredit our response in Afhganistan and Iraq. His ineptitude regarding state-financing/harboring/training of al-qaeda and other terrorist organizations is mind-boggling. When he speaks of the "Israeli lobby", he sounds indistinguishable from any two-bit islamist nut that spouts off such nonsense on a daily basis. And his comprehension of macro-economics begins and ends with the gold-standard. He is a stupid man, and a menace. Not because he can win a nation-wide election, but because he WILL be the next Ross Perot, and he WILL ensure a second term for Barack Obama.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 2:46PM

"He is a stupid man"

He graduated from Duke Medical School. Do they let stupid people in there?

"He has referred to the attacks on 9-11 as the actions of "19 thugs...representing no country""

This is an undeniably true statement of fact. They were stateless terrorists. Are you suggesting they did represent a country? Which one? Sources please?

Margie| 2.20.10 @ 10:24PM

"Learn to embrace them." LOL!
Sure. As soon as you can the right to vote against them from me.
I'd rather be stabbed through the heart than vote for an America bashing, Israel hating liar.
Ron Paul is a Leftist in Conservative's clothing.
You're only fooling yourself.

Patric| 2.21.10 @ 6:01AM

Ron Paul a Leftist??!?!?!!?!? That is by far the most ridiculous thing I've read on this page yet--you've lost your credibility for any further discussion--run along now.

Margie| 2.21.10 @ 1:15PM

Leftists:
Blame America First.
Blame America for Terrorism.
Believe in Fortress America.
Ron Paul fits the bill. He is NO conservative.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 2:48PM

Leftists believe in "Fortress America?"

Name me one please.

F Secret| 2.20.10 @ 10:29PM

Ron Paul, member of the Sunshine Cabinet...

"An interim Sunshine Cabinet--including Cynthia McKinney (2008- Green Party candidate for President), Congressman Ron Paul, Grover Norquist, Liberty Coalition co-founder Michael Ostrolenk, Barbara Marx Hubbard, humorist Steve Bhaerman and Committee for a Unified Independent Party director Jackie Salit--spoke about their top priorities. They included transparency, dismantling the national security state, a non-interventionist foreign policy, peace, justice, dignity, promoting liberty, following the Constitution, creating a Peace Room, and addressing the collapse of the economic system by creating a local/global sustainable economy that values solar energy, food, human invention and love."

Read on...Scroll down for the "Sunshine Cabinet" piece.

http://screwloosechange.blogsp.....q=ron+paul

bluecollarbytes| 2.21.10 @ 11:47AM

Paul is a rabble-rouser, so just about anything wacky serves that purpose. Perot did much the same thing (and defeating a Bush may have been his main goal anyway).

It would be better if Paul seeks other ways to sell his Brand, rather than muck up a political process that will determine whether we get Obama again.

iamse7en| 2.20.10 @ 10:29PM

This is great for any lover of liberty. I admire Ron Paul, and he's a lot more committed to conservative principles than most of the other big-government conservatives out there.

F Secret| 2.20.10 @ 10:33PM

Then you admire an evil little dolt.

F Secret| 2.20.10 @ 10:40PM

Granted, the first link is an older TNR piece detailing Pauls racist past, but its well done, and Paul's response is pathetic.
The second link detailing the Neo-Nazi ties to Pauls 2008 campaign was found in the American Spectator. Its quite damning.

http://www.tnr.com/article/pol.....32a7da84ca

http://www.americanthinker.com.....d_its.html

F Secret| 2.20.10 @ 10:43PM

Sorry. The second link was found in the "American Thinker", not the Spectator. Probably quite obvious, but I felt that I should point the error out considering the forum's home site!

MattSwartz| 2.21.10 @ 1:20AM

The New Republic is a cesspool of bias and overt falsehoods, as any literate person ought to know.

They smear every conservative in just that same manner, and crowing loudly when they do it to someone you happen to have beef with is a short-sighted strategy at best.

Spicy Joker| 2.21.10 @ 1:35AM

I'm sure this will warm the Paultards' hearts. What a schlubb Ron Paul is.

RogerCfromSD| 2.21.10 @ 1:39AM

Ron Paul has no chance of being elected President. I know the Ronbots are legion on the Internet, invading forums and posting endlessly about what an epic genius and true Conservative he is.

But, the man has no mass appeal, comes off as a bit of a loon, has questionable views regarding America's obligation toward liberty abroad, and his followers are an annoying lot.

Anyone who thinks that calling others "sheep" is a good way to convince them to listen to their views is rather daft.

Mel| 2.21.10 @ 1:44AM

Ron Paul 2012!!!

Please run again!

ml| 2.21.10 @ 4:27AM

If Ron Paul does run again and become a nominee for President in 2012, we will (the Republican Party) lose the election. Dr. Paul is not a conservative. I would like to see Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana or Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota run in 2012.

Patric| 2.21.10 @ 6:10AM

................Yes, he is a conservative. I can't believe how many people are trying to say that he isn't a conservative on this page. The fact that so many republicans think that he's not conservative is indicative of how schewed the party's view of 'conservatism' really is.

Cliff| 2.21.10 @ 10:07PM

Either that, or how warped YOUR version of conservatism is.

If conservatism is Ron Paul...I'm not that. And neither is 98% of the country.

If Ron Paul's isolationism, conspiracy theory mongering, goldbugging, anti-Americanism is conservative...call me a liberal.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 2:58PM

"goldbugging"

So Cliff, sound money is NOT the conservative position? Interesting. Please elaborate.

Calling for a return to the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders is inherently conservative. Pseudocons talk about following the Constitution but recoil in horror when faced with what it would mean to actually do so. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist who means it. And that scares the squishycons to death.

Sean| 2.21.10 @ 9:57AM

So you want someone who believes in global warming nonsense.

Braadwijk| 2.21.10 @ 4:37AM

I find it hard to believe that the people here decrying Ron Paul's ideas have ever read any of his books or really ever listened to his arguments. He makes more sense to me now that I've moved back to Germany and have had the chance to talk politics with people literally all over the world. His foreign policy and economic policy are more than sensible, and he's remarkably consistent in his beliefs as well. You would be hard pressed to find that among the neoconservative Hannity's and the Rush's today. He stands behind a small government and personal freedom, not only when it's convenient.

Furthermore, where in the Constitution does it say that we have an obligation to liberty around the world and to particular nations? The "making the world safe for democracy" mentality sounds far more utopian to me than most libertarian ideas I've ever heard.

Speaking of that, now that I think of it my earliest memories of watching the tv news involve watching what happened to an empire that went around the world bullying nations into submitting to its ideals. When myself and others my age have no hope to enjoy our parents' standards of living, no hope of owning a nice home, or retiring early, and when we're always struggling to make ends meet, just know that it was your ideals just as much as the Democrats' Nanny Statism that did it to us.

MattSwartz| 2.21.10 @ 6:03AM

I find it hard to believe that the people here decrying Ron Paul's ideas have ever read any of his books or really ever listened to his arguments.

Sadly, they have not and will not. Dismissing people who are outside of the mainstream is easier than reconsidering one's own beliefs. There is (and always has been) a difference between consensus and reality, and the former always gives way to the latter. Aggressive foreign interventions and debt-based currency have the support of a certain (lazy) consensus, but both are unrealistic, and, for that reason, doomed. May your time in Germany be spent among cooler heads...

artin j smith| 2.21.10 @ 7:44AM

I gather Ron Paul is good on economics, but hsi concept of foreign policy is not mine. I would not vote for him in a "straw poll". I believe Ron Paul because of his isolationist views would not make it as a presidential candidate because of his isolationism. I have heard some of his supporters call in on talk radio and they sound very much like Obamamaniacs on some level. I hope a combination of forces that want to bring back this nation to sanity find someone else who is better meaning equally good sense on domestic and foreign policy.

martin j smith| 2.21.10 @ 8:18AM

I was inspired to add one more point about Ron Paul and this "straw poll". First recalling that I said there was something weirdly similar betwen Obamamaniacs and Ron Paulers who call on talk Radion. Sometimes I cannot tell the difference in what they say and their tone which is often hostile and condescending . So let me add that I would be very skeptical about how valid this so called straw poll would reflect the reality if a "real vote" were held for President, for example. My opinion is this: Ron Paul is a "foil" candidate. By this mean he is deflecting support from someone who could have a chance to defeat Obama. I believe in this theory about him--for he has no chance of getting the support of independents,of conservative democrat voters and others would are looking for serious leadership in a dangerous world. So why the push? I theorize that a run would benefit himself, and Obama together. So, is it possible that some extra support was used to help him get the vote--? I am no fly on the wall-but--it would not shock me to learn of this.
I do not yet know who would the best candidate-- but for me--it is not Ron Paul!!!!!

Warren Bineesteel| 2.21.10 @ 8:27AM

Some 95 seats in the House are in play, and the Senate is now within reach of the Republicans.

Bt 2011, someone like Ron Paul will look pretty good when the Republicans disappoint the base ala 2004 and 2006.

oto, neither of the two major parties gives a rip about The Constitution. The Republican base, like their Democrat counterparts, conflate policies and party planks (positive freedom) with The Constitution, which offers the benefit of negative freedoms. Both major parties talk a good fight, but both indulge in political realism, which has little or nothing to do with Constitutional ideals and principles.

In words, the right claims that The Constitution isn't a living document, but in practice, and in policy and party planks, they treat it as if it were. At least in this, the left is a bit more intellectually honest about it.

Additionally, both left and right often complain about government deficits, not thinking about their own credit-driven consumerist lifestyles, which leaves them owning nothing but debt and paper. (mortgages, credit cards, car payments, school loans, even the toys in their driveways and backyards aren't paid for, along with things like furniture, wardrobes and even vacations being purchased through credit.) iow, most Americans own nothing but debt, themselves, while complaining about unsustainable government spending and deficits.

Neal| 2.21.10 @ 8:45AM

Ron Paul is NO conservative!!! He is a libertarian nutjob. When asked what conservatives and libertarians had in common, the late Russel Kirk quickly rplied, "Absolutely nothing at all!" I would actually vote for a second Obama term before voting for Paul or someone else representatives of the views found on LewRockSMELL.com .

Cliff| 2.21.10 @ 10:09PM

Paul, luckily, isn't quite as nutty as his former Chief of Staff, Rockwell. At least not in public or in his record, well, other then the fact that he use to employ Rockwell, although admittdly it's been more then 25 years since he's done so.

But Rockwell is just about everything bad you can say about him. He's racist, conspiracy theory mongering, anti-semetic and personally unstable.

Chris| 2.21.10 @ 11:15PM

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

- Ronald Reagan, Reason Magazine interview, 1975.

As the kids say these days: PWND.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 3:04PM

Libertarianism and conservatism are not the same thing, but Ron Paul's paleolibertarianism as politically expressed as dogmatic constitutionalism is entirely conservative in effect. Please tell me what is not conservative about wanting to follow the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders. In fact, it is inherently conservative.

Mike| 2.21.10 @ 9:18AM

In an earlier post, John writes:
"Are you people crazy? We are trying to rescue this nation from the edge of the abyss and you are indulging in Libertarian Utopian Fantasy..."

John, I am in agreement with this assessment, but I would go further. The extremes of both the right and the left are arrogant enough to believe that they, alone, have the wisdom and the ability to keep the nation from falling into the abyss. They don't. It is very simple to explain why. The right is addicted to lowering taxes. The left is addicted to spending. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (bi-partisan) demonstrates, only a long term plan that both cuts spending and raises revenue (i.e. taxes) is going to save us two other undesirable options: doing nothing until our banker (China) takes the credit card away and forces us to act or the Fed monetizes the debt which will cause hyperinflation down the road.

Cris Worth| 2.21.10 @ 9:39AM

Bad news week for annoited front runner Willard (The Rat) /Milton (The Monster) /Romney...rapped by Sky Blu and outpolled by Paul. Just not enough Osmonds around to stuff the straw poll ballot box.

Matt Morehouse| 2.21.10 @ 9:49AM

Have you Pualtroons taken complete leave of your senses?
RP has less chance of becoming President than I do, yet he has the power to assure BHO another term. Remember that other whack job Ross Perot?
Now if you really want to bury what remains of the Conservative movement support RP for President with Perky for VP.

Sean| 2.21.10 @ 10:01AM

I remember that liberal Bush and his son. I guess you would like someone like that.

Matt Morehouse| 2.21.10 @ 10:50AM

I sure would, certainly over BHO or RP.

martin j smith| 2.21.10 @ 10:19AM

I think that the Tea Party Movement will have a great deal of influence so that we avoid the appointment of another John MaC type candidate--I would include the GWBzzzzz in that category. The reason is that a key feature is the desire for responsible fiscal polcies-and these two types do not fit that bill.
Now here is a question ( admittedly a trick one ) for those that support Ron Paul.
It is the eve of the 2012 elections. Obama and his primary opponent have about 45% of the vote each. Ron Paul has between 5-10%.

Question # 1-Who are your concerned about --Beating Obama and the Democrat Left agenda or voting for Ron Paul even if it gives Obama the presidency ?
Questiom # 2- If you voted for the second option:
Does this mean that regardless of Obama winning you would still vote for Ron Paul because A) You believe in him no matter what,b) you think Obama is ok and better that Paul's opposition on the right c)because you dislake those that dislike Ron Paul d) because you are nuts ?

Matt morehouse| 2.21.10 @ 10:59AM

That is no trick question, that is reality. No one favors RP more than BHO.
To nominate RP or Perky is to consign the Conservative Movement to the garbage disposal of history.

JP| 2.21.10 @ 10:24AM

Ron Paul could no more win the GOP nomination than could Sarah Palin. And if either one did, Obama would win in a landslide (albeit with no coat-tails).

Oldefarte| 2.21.10 @ 11:11AM

I think that the Ron Paul vote was probably some kind of a protest message that the CPAC'ers wanted to sent to Obama/Democrats-----2012 is a long way away, folks, so chill [there will be plenty of credible conservative Republicans to choose from]!!!!!

Cris Worth| 2.21.10 @ 12:31PM

Ron Paul won't receive the nomination but he connects with everyday folks especially young people and his message resonates across the country. It was a protest vote not against the donkeys but incestuous statist Republicanism led by none other than straw poll silver medalist Willard Milton Romney.

Margie| 2.21.10 @ 1:40PM

Young people are fooled by Ron Paul. And their warped elders who unfortunately back him, are no help. Not to mention their schooling in the public school system which teaches them that the Founders were a bunch of white racists, Darwin is to be believed in place of God, immorality is ok, and hands out condoms, homosexuality is promoted, and what else am I missing?
May God spare us from the Ron Paul ilk, and may all young people be willing and open minded enough to truly learn about the greatness and EXCEPTIONALISM (a word hated by the Left) of this country.
They need to dig deeper into EVERYTHING that Ron Paul believes, not just his surface appearance. If they care to, they will.

Cris Worth| 2.21.10 @ 9:25PM

Ron Paul's comments on foreign policy are simple and refreshing in the mode of Washington's warning to stay out of foreign entanglements and if war is truly necessary fight the war on constitutional grounds...declare then go all out and win the war. What a novel thought. What is Willard Romney's foreign policy? I wonder when asked and he will be if history will repeat itself...daddy George Romney's bewidering and confusing comments over the Vietnam War derailed his 1968 Presidential aspirations. We can only hope.

EdieL| 2.21.10 @ 11:28AM

Never fails. The mere mention of Ron Paul brings his whackjob fans out of the woodwork in droves. My dog has a better chance that Ron Paul of getting the GOP nod for POTUS.

Cliff| 2.21.10 @ 10:11PM

LOL!!! So true.

bluecollarbytes| 2.21.10 @ 11:40AM

Paulists can insist all they want that Ron Paul is our salvation. They can also help insure Obamagenda 2.0 in 2012 if they insist on sticking with a guy that can't possibly win a national election.

There is middle ground between isolationism and being the world police.

As for Israel, the day we abandon it is the day we become France or Britain, or worse- at one with our radical Islamist bros

Braadwijk| 2.21.10 @ 12:34PM

Again, the people here haven't mentioned anything at all about what Ron Paul actually advocates. You're starting to sound like Democrats with all the name-calling.

Nobody here has yet to point out what is so wrong with Ron Paul's foreign policy, let alone calling it Isolationism. I don't understand why Americans are so afraid of the outside world, bordering on a near paranoia of what's outside our borders. Contrary to what the Rush's and Sean Hannity's are telling you, the rest of the world doesn't hate us for our freedom and prosperity, and they're certainly not all out to get us. The people here advocating against him also have yet to point out the striking contradiction between a small government founded on our constitutional principles and one which is out there "making the world safe for democracy".

I also fail to understand the weird American fascination with Israel. They are more than capable of defending themselves without us, and they also resent much of our foreign meddling in the region, just as much as the Iranians do and Arabs do. If you're so worried about Iran going nuclear, then blame yourselves for meddling in their affairs since the 1950's (they never forgot it like we did) and then giving them the technology they needed to do produce atomic energy and weaponry.

At the risk of making this entirely too long, let me say one last thing about comparing us to Europe. We are only like them in that we are repeating their mistakes 50-100 years ago, and you shouldn't be smug regarding them. If you think my generation here is as indifferent to Islam's presence as their parents are, you know nothing about this continent or its own fight for survival.

Nick| 2.21.10 @ 4:18PM

Here are some facts about Ron Paul-

What percentage of votes did Ron Paul get in the 2008 primaries? 10%, maybe?

How many delegates did he win? Answer - 40.

How many states did he win? Answer - Zero!

How many people voted for him in the presidential election? Answer - less than 42,000.

I like his Pro-Life stance and fiscal conservatism, but he is not a force to be reckoned with.

aware| 2.21.10 @ 4:57PM

Just mention Paul's name and you can instantly tell who's for the Republic and who's for the Empire can't you.
Notice it's the anti Paul neocons using that favorite debating tool of the Progressives, name calling and emotionalism. AND calling Paul a leftist(???) at the same time! I have not supported Paul up to now, but....a LEFTIST???? HUH?!(I prefer to give you credit for not knowing what that is rather than believe you are slandering)

Come on and admit it you neocons in the Drum and Fife corps, you don't REALLY want small government do you? Or constitutional limits?

Cause you sure can't have either with huge armies and the huge obligations that go with them. And at this late moment I wouldn't be so quick to go on record as a supporter of fiat paper currency over that nutty gold standard. That "experiment" is approaching the final verdict and the gallows awaits.

The neocons are the right wing of the Progressives, just as interventionist and just as supportive of big government as the left wing
of the movement. They just prefer to interfere in the lives of non Americans with soldiers, while the left prefers to pettifog and paw at Americans with bureaucrats. For both, big and expensive government is the weapon of choice. Big, BIG government!

Both are doing their part exterminating individual liberty and bankrupting us all through "government".

martin j smith| 2.21.10 @ 5:12PM

I have notseen one answer to my question. Which is--is it more important to beat Obama or to vote for Ron Paul regardless of the consequences on the election. A simple yes or not--a straight up or down vote --How about some honesty.

Sean| 2.21.10 @ 8:45PM

Your question doesn't make sense. Ron Paul ran for president as a Republican, lost in the primaries, and didn't run in the general election. What happens if he wins the nomination. Are you going to vote for him? Why do you assume he would lose against Obama?

Personally I will vote for someone who honors the Constitution, is smart enough not to fall for the global warming hoax, is fiscally conservative, and protects our liberties. Do you have a Republican candidate in mind that can meet those standards besides Ron Paul?

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 3:12PM

Are you presuming a third party run for Paul if he loses the primary? I will support and vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary, and if he isn't the nominee then I will almost certainly vote for thr Constitution Party nominee as I have since 1996. I always vote for the most conservative alternative available to me.

Braadwijk| 2.21.10 @ 5:51PM

I would rather vote my conscience and deal with the consequences (yes, a vote for Ron Paul or any other candidate who advocates for sensible principles) and see Obama spend another four years in the White House than simply be told my candidate with the expectation I'll vote for him. A vote that's cast is never wasted. It is never more important to compromise your identity in a gamble to beat another candidate, even if he is doing great harm to the nation. The people who submitted to the GOP when they forced John McCain on the electorate should do well to remember that.

Nick| 2.21.10 @ 6:10PM

But, remember, McLame won because of the broken primary system which let members of the democrat party and independents vote in the Republican party primary.

In 2012, democrats won't have their own presidential primary to vote in. This must be fixed.

=FREEDOM=| 2.22.10 @ 5:58AM

The Champion of the Constitution, Ron Paul!

A man who the Founding Fathers would endorse! He has such refreshing ideals of freedom and liberty which brings everyone from such a broad political spectrum together! Who's heroes are Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and many other great civic leaders and economists! The predictor of the Housing Bubble along with his former Economic Advisor Peter Schiff, a great friend of Ron Paul's. The one who raised more money from individual military personnel then all the other presidential competitors combined during the last election. The Doctor turn Statesman who John McCain said of him, "Ron Paul is the most honest man in politics".

The National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan citizens organization, released its annual rating of fiscal policy votes for the year 2000. Congressman Paul was #1, voting consistently to reduce taxes, spending, debt, and regulation.

"Congressman Paul's pro-taxpayer score was the best in the entire House and Senate," stated NTU President John Berthoud.

Don't forget his most popular and morally courageous work on HR1207 which got an overwhelming 317 Co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle; a special mention to Alan Grayson for his efforts in grilling Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke!

Liberals and Conservatives should stand together! Not in terms of bi-partisanship, but together as Americans, willing to End the War, End the Fed, and also end a government war against its own people, the War on Drugs. Ideologically, freedom is what brings us together! Not a cradle-to-grave Nanny State of Endless Wars!

Americans can take care of themselves! Do your job government and protect our liberties by obeying your oaths to the Constitution and actually enforcing regulations against fraud. Stop constantly paying lip-service to us; if nobody is willing to make Wall Street (or any crook) stop their fraudulent shenanigans, then let's starting voting for people who actually will!

Martin j smith| 2.22.10 @ 8:28AM

Myreaction to those of you who would vote for RP instead of defeating BHO is this: In my view it is a pity. But, having said that and knowing the kind of folks who post on this site, I would also encourage the Tea Party Movement to get more people out as possible to overcome both You and Obam voters. I strongly suspect that a coalition of Conservatives Republican and Democrats ( Reagen Democrats to some ) and independents plus non Rino Republicans can win the day. But with RP voters ( real or fictional ) it will be more difficult. By the way, for those of you who really would vote for RP, I think you are very destructive. Because for all his conservative views, BHO would totally dismantle our basic economic and political structure. Thus I wonder where RP and his followers are really coming from because conservative views would be irrelevant by that time. I mean it would be too late to change things around. Now is the time.

Now as for the question making sense--I beg to differ--it is very straight forward and a few have answered. Too bad for their answer but it is there.

Finally, Nope I do not believe RP will nominated because he will not represent a broad enough crowd of voters necessary to defeat BHO and the Democrat Left. One has to think strategically to change things around. First get rid of the enemy then you can fight among ourselves as to have to proceed next. Sort of a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. ( and I do not mean GWB ).

Last thought on RP--I do not trust him or his followers because I do not beleive they recognize the dangers ahead with a BHO agenda or they do not care. Either way--you are not my cup of tea. I do not trust you at all--any more than I trust BHO

martin j smith| 2.22.10 @ 10:25AM

But, in the unlikely even that Rp was actually nominated at the Republican convention I would,inspite of my many misgivings, vote for him because it is imperative to vote against OBama. If Rp by some miracle won but behaved badly--i.e. no better than BHO or someother inept leader, I would then support his opponenet.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 3:19PM

Do Paul supporters call Romney bad names and question his sanity? They might call him a Massachusetts liberal, or a flip-flopper, or a phony, but seldom if ever do I see them call him crazy. Why then do Paul haters so quickly resort to name calling and slurs? You do realize this is straight out of the Leftist playbook? Look at how they describe rank-and-file Tea Partiers. Grow up. You are not on the play ground anymore. Make a rational argument and leave the name calling to children and leftists. If you are incapable of doing so then just stay quite.

Kate| 2.22.10 @ 6:19PM

Red, thanks for being a voice of reason in this mob of insanity.

Jeremiah| 2.23.10 @ 6:00PM

Reason is not a word I'd use to describe Paultards. lol

Paul Freedman| 2.22.10 @ 7:53PM

Let's be, uh, "rational"--Ron Paul appears on conspiracy black-helicopter "truther" radio programs and has given tacit support to the belief that the American government, working to suppport Zionist imperialism, blew up the Pentagon and the World Trade towers. That is a fact. Fact, his personal newsletter published hateful ravings about African Americans and immigrants. Fact. He supported the Constitutional right of slavery and believes that the Civil War was an unjust war. Fact. Despite various domestic factors for President Wilson's entry into WWI, his supporters post blog denunciations of "foreign parties" and "interested parties" for hijacking American foreign policy for another unjust war--meaning English and the Jews. These are all facts. This is is mindset. Nativist. Racist. Stuck in an imaginary past.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 8:34PM

"believes that the Civil War was an unjust war"

Because it was. States have a right to secede and Lincoln had no right to invade us to keep us from doing so. All authentic American conservatives understand this.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 8:34PM

"believes that the Civil War was an unjust war"

Because it was. States have a right to secede and Lincoln had no right to invade us to keep us from doing so. All authentic American conservatives understand this.

Nick| 2.23.10 @ 12:50AM

Mr. Phillips,

You wrote above that Mr. Paul's "[...] program is strict constitutionalism."

Shouldn't he be more well informed on the provisions of the Constitution, then?

Like the part about declaring war?

Mr. Paul thinks anytime the U.S. uses force, it has to "declare war", or it's unconstitutional.