The American Spectator

Spicy Joker| 2.21.10 @ 3:19PM

Yes, the Ron Paul straw vote means something. It means that the GOP is being hijacked by liberaltarians and Paultards - the same imbeciles who supported Lyndon LaDouche, Pat Pukecannon, and Ross Perot.

Nick| 2.21.10 @ 4:00PM

Highjacked?

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

How many delegates did 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.

So, how has Mr. Paul highjacked the GOP?

William R| 2.21.10 @ 6:12PM

Invasion of the Party Snatchers

http://original.antiwar.com/do.....snatchers/

Grant| 2.22.10 @ 12:55PM

It means the Zionists and Jews on Wall Street won't forever control America and its policies.

wwwexler| 2.22.10 @ 3:36PM

Bigots and anti-Semites are alive and well.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 4:46PM

Bigots against Palestinians maybe.

wwwexler| 2.22.10 @ 9:24PM

Just anti-Semitic bigots like you.

JohnD| 2.21.10 @ 3:35PM

I think the lesson is that ideological purity and philosophical coherence and consistency is what will win the day for Republicans in 2012. RINOs, me-too'ers, moderates, Country-Club/Rockefeller Republicans and business as usual RNC insiders need not apply.

I am not a Ron Paul supporter by any means, but if you listen to his views on the economy, the fed, and economic policy he makes sense and has a philosophy based on solid principles. The Republican party needs someone along his lines to step up and become a credible candidate for the 2012 nomination.

My college age nephew is a Ron Paul supporter and many of his friends are as well. The reason is that they want to hear someone with the message that we need to fundamentally change the spending and borrowing ways that will leave their generation either holding the bag or dealing with the collapse of Western Civilization.

atticus| 2.21.10 @ 3:59PM

@spicyjoker-ha, aren't you so clever. why don't you step out of the way so us young Liberty- loving folks can get our man, Ron Paul elected for Prez. Have a cup of tea and watch O'reilly whilst the real revolution takes place.
@JohnD, there is a credible candidate for 2012, his name is Ron Paul. Sounds like your nephew and his friends could teach you something.

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 12:22AM

Ain't happenin', atticus; but dream all you want, Paultard.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:45AM

I actually agree with you. I don't think Paul will win. There are just to many foolish people in this country in need of enlightenment.

Jolie| 2.22.10 @ 2:59PM

There are always 'Bens' out there who want to enlighten us; arrogant much?

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 4:37PM

Not arrogant just well-informed. Your slander towards Paul reeks of arrogance.

Jolie| 2.22.10 @ 9:28PM

MY slander toward Paul? Must be those voices in your head again, Ben. Better get that checked.

deal with it| 2.21.10 @ 4:07PM

@Spicy joker the GOP isnt being hijacked by libertarians. Your neo con/theocratic ideology and progressive spending is being rejected and abandoned.

The guys you want in charge of the party are the same ones that got us into this mess. remember TARP? Every conservative you support voted for the bailouts (or would have). Then they went all tea party when it was politically expedient. How can you run against the progressive liberal spending when you're doing the same thing? Hypocrite.

no principles.

at least Ron Paul has a consistent conservative voting record that goes back 30 years. He means what he says more than i can say about your finger in the wind guys.

conservatives no longer trust you.

proud libertarian| 2.21.10 @ 8:46PM

PREACH IT BROTHER!

Spicy Joker - have you criticized Rahm for the "retard" remark, or Rush for that matter? Because if you have, you are a typical neo-con hypocrite. If not, cheers to you and we'll see you at the primaries.

Spicy Joker| 2.21.10 @ 11:30PM

You don't even know what I stand for, doofus, so don't put words in my mouth.

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 12:24AM

Spicy, LOL! Watch out for the Paultards--they're crazy.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:44AM

Explain why we are crazy.

Jolie| 2.22.10 @ 3:00PM

It's self-explanatory, Ben--you people are tilting at windmills.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 4:38PM

Still didn't explain why we are crazy. Need a little more from you guys.

Jolie| 2.22.10 @ 9:22PM

You're thin-skinned fanatics--just look at the defensive posts of the pro-Paul people on this thread.

Grow up.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 10:26PM

"thin-skinned"

We aren't the ones leading with childish name calling. Your side is.

Jeremiah| 2.23.10 @ 2:18PM

What side, idiot? There aren't enough of you Paultards to comprise a 'side'. You're fringers at best.

clayusmcret| 2.21.10 @ 4:11PM

Look for the MSM as well as the liberal and progressive sides of the blogosphere to make a big deal about this. If they can make it look like RP is taking the lead, they'll make him the standard bearer to beat like they did with McCain. RP has a couple neat ideas but he is, overall, a whacko. He's the perfect "Don't vote for the crazy guy with the crazy followers" to pit against Soetoro to make Soetoro the natural "sane" vote for independents. Bottom line: We need a conservative, not someone rabid like RP.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:43AM

Please elaborate on why he is a whacko so we can show you where you are mistaken.

C Bowen| 2.21.10 @ 4:20PM

Maybe CPAC activists are tired of the Treason Party of the Cheney-Bush era? Invade the world, invite the world--good luck with that Country Clubbers. I mean, these people were scared of Saddam based on the nuttiest conspiracy theories I ever read-literally, hiding under their beds.

Cheney and Olsen is pro-gay marriage; Romney is pro-socialist medicine--how much more Left can they get?

I hope Paul doesn't run for the Republican nomination, and rather runs a series of shadow events to highlight the hippies in coat and ties that Mr. Tyrell has become, hating then becoming that which he hates the most.

DrewJ| 2.21.10 @ 4:26PM

I think it's time to retire the phrases "scientific poll" and "unscientific" poll.

It seems like every time a non-establishment candidate wins a poll the media instantly points out that it's "unscientific."

Anyone who knows polling knows it's a dirty business and that Frank Luntz and pals can get any result they want and bury the polls their clients wouldn't like. Luntz even brags about it on YouTube.

Ron Paul won a poll. Doesn't mean he's won the nomination, but it sure isn't "meaningless." Say congratulations and move on, save the spin.

Brian Defferding| 2.21.10 @ 4:33PM

Ron Paul is the lone voice of reason in Congress, and he's finally being heard. It's too bad that it's happening now instead of much earlier, because otherwise we would not have had an Iraq war or a housing bubble, and our economy today would be thriving and growing everyday. I wrote in Ron Paul once and I would be happy to vote for him again. He's the conservative from an old time of preserving and protecting the Constitution, where principle was greater than lobbyists and corrupted moderates.

Chris| 2.21.10 @ 4:39PM

clayusmcret: How is Ron Paul a whacko? Because he predicted the economic collapse while the other republicans were laughing him out?
Explain yourself. Better yet educate yourself.
Ron Paul has a M.D. -YOU DON'T!

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:42AM

Yes being prescient equates to wackiness. Gotta luv it!

FTW| 2.21.10 @ 4:46PM

It means that Ron Paul is becoming more well known, more so than he was in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

Now, as a result, he should naturally receive more coverage than before. And, the sort of coverage that he'll receive, whether it comes as positive coverage or negative coverage -- this will depend on people like you, W. James Antle, III.

I wish you to be positive.

Reaganite Republican| 2.21.10 @ 4:55PM

Paul is foolish on defense to the extreme, and not a serious candidate at all- his diplays of support are little more than a flash mob.

Nobody will consider a clown like this once Obama's international strategic errors mount- they'll be too scared, this isolationism is not how the world works, to me really quite naive in the face of China, Russia, Iran, and other no-good regimes waiting to fill the vacuum- you can kiss American power and wealth goodbye after that.

Maybe something more like Palin-Patraeus would work... not Paul, NO way

William R| 2.21.10 @ 6:14PM

You're no Reagan Republican. Just another Neocon blowhard. FYI Reagan thought United States policy in the Middle East should be neutrality!

Nick| 2.21.10 @ 6:20PM

William,

President Reagan was neutral in Beirut?

William R| 2.21.10 @ 6:25PM

Here's what he wrote in his memoirs.

" Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."

Nick| 2.21.10 @ 7:03PM

William,

You didn't write that President Reagan, UPON REFLEXTION, thought we should have been neutral.

You implied that this was his policy. At least that's the way I took it.

And, our policy against Middle Eastern terrorism has been wrong for 30 years. President Reagan should have started hunting them down back in the 1980's.

Tragically, it took the attacks of September the 11th to rectify that mistake.

William R| 2.21.10 @ 7:32PM

Okay I didn't. But he called it his biggest mistake of his Presidency. So you're just another Neocon Endless war in the Middle East. As Reagan wrote"problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have. "

We should act as honest brokers for peace and that's it. Doesn't mean we throw Israel under the bus, but our foreign policy should always be in the interest of the United States. Our one sided support for Israel creates problems for the United States.

Nick| 2.21.10 @ 7:39PM

William,

I'm no neocon. For one thing, I'm not Jewish.

And there will be no peace in the Middle East as long as there is a Jerusalem.

William R| 2.21.10 @ 7:59PM

You don't have to be Jewish to be a NeoCon. Aggressive bellicose foreign policy especially in the Middle East is the best description of a NeoCon. They don't believe in limited government at home or abroad.

Nick| 2.21.10 @ 9:52PM

William,

This is the problem with this term, everybody has their own definition.

Unfortunately, for some, it has come to mean Jewish hawks.

The first definition of neo-con I heard was of former anti-communist liberals who didn't like what was happening to the democrat party in the 60's, and so joined the Republican party.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:40AM

Or the fact that the IDF is forcibly removing Palestinians in east Jerusalem for a little ethnic cleansing of the area.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 3:01PM

Anti-Semite!

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 4:38PM

Anti-Palestinian!!

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 8:26PM

Proof?

You're the one who mentioned ethnic cleansing.You deserved it.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:41AM

"you can kiss American power and wealth goodbye after that. "

Last I checked it was pretty much gone.

CaptC| 2.21.10 @ 4:56PM

Ron Paul will be to the GOP what Goldwater was to Reagan.

The question who will fill the role of "Reagan." in 2012.

zombyboy| 2.21.10 @ 9:33PM

I think you're probably right, but I wonder who can fill the role of Reagan.

He was not only charismatic, but a good executive capable of communicating and driving people toward his vision. On top of that, he was far more intellectually curious than many give him credit for and had a well-developed understanding of the issues that mattered most to him.

Who is it that plays that part in the current GOP lineup? Not Romney, not Palin, and certainly not McCain (although, full disclosure, I ended up voting for the man because I had hoped he might help bring a few years of gridlock to DC).

spinnikerca| 2.21.10 @ 5:23PM

Oh, come on, be fair. MANY were trying hard to will, Pawlenty and Romney most obviously. Romney brought his organization to bear with about the same number of votes he had last time when he won it, but this time with the greater attendance, it was Ron Paul who won. Ron Paul's supporters wanted to win last year, too, but last year he came in third. OBVIOUSLY the person with more supporters voting wins, that is how all elections work.

However you want to look at it, something was different this year from the last two years when his supporters were equally supportive -- but fewer in number.

Does it means he'll get the nomination? Of course not, no more than it would have meant Mitt would had he won. But HAD Mitt won, people would at least have been speaking of the organization of his followers, and his ability to maintain support between elections. Why no such comments re: Ron Paul?

PCC| 2.21.10 @ 5:46PM

My impression of Ron Paul is that he is Ross Perot with a better haircut.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 12:27AM

True. Both men have horses' asses for faces.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:39AM

It is important to go for substance instead of speaking ability or looks.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 3:02PM

Tell that to Richard Nixon.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 4:46PM

There is no talking to the guy. He is dead.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 8:23PM

You're obviously ignorant of the historical significance of my post. Try googling JFK/Nixon debates.

Maybe you'll learn something.

Braadwijk| 2.21.10 @ 6:12PM

To the Reaganite Republican:

As I posted on an earlier thread, why are Americans so unbelievably paranoid about the outside world? Russia and China (and soon India) will be at each other when push comes to shove, and when China makes its grab at world power it will only be following our *atrocious* example. Why so worried about Iran? They have no means to attack us; they barely have a military at all. Their aggressive stance is a direct response to our involvement in their affairs. Once it becomes a problem, it will be a problem for Israel and the European Union. I can assure you our government will want no part of it once our meddling in the region breaks down epically.

A strong national defense has nothing at all to do with extended occupations, preemptive wars, deposing/installing leaders at our whim, and a careless disregard for the lives and futures of non-American citizens. You can have a massive government with a military around the world or you can have a smaller government that is strong on securing our own borders and seeking friendship with other nations above all else. You cannot have both.

Your idea of a good foreign policy will end rather suddenly when we pick a fight with the wrong nation or a group of them decides they've had enough of us. It's either that or our treasury will run dry, and it already has.

rob| 2.21.10 @ 6:14PM

Ron Paul operatives hijacked a straw poll barely anyone participated in order to get a headline.
People here are taking this crap seriously.
Good Old Phony Ron got himself PLENTY OF EARMARKS in the Stimulas Bill and this genius thinks Iran getting the bomb is none of our business. The old stick your head in the sand strategy has really worked out real well in world history.
I have seen the Ron Paul crowd ion action which is mostly made up of College Dem party operatives trying to screw up the GOP by using this old fool.
Did you hear this clown during the GOP debates ?
He a dangerous old fool being used by radical college lefties to screw up the GOP primary process.

C Bowen| 2.21.10 @ 6:29PM

The pro-gay marriage, pro-socialized medicine, Saddam conspiracy wing is finished. Good luck with your pinko candidates, 'roberta'.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:38AM

34 year old registered republican that supports Ron Paul fully.

Again earmarks are fully transparent tax deductions. The inefficient government takes your money by force so you try to get as much back. You of course knew this I am sure.

rob| 2.21.10 @ 7:14PM

C Bowen,The crazy rants and name calling are a Joke or do you really think your comments make any sense ?But maybe in the Ron Paul nutter world, I guess your rants make sense to someone?

C Bowen| 2.21.10 @ 8:00PM

I am confused, Roberta. Cheney with his sexually confused wife (see her book Sisters) and his sick daughter, the VP for an administration that socialized medicine and fought for amnesty, is on the outs. I know this hurts your weird contingent.

Romney, a liberal governor from a liberal state, is considered a what, conservative? Is that a joke from the pinko contingent?

Defend your guys, soccer ma.

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 3:13AM

George W. socialized medicine? You mean the prescription bill? I think you're exaggerating just a tad, Bowen. If we already have socialized medicine, why the bloody battle for ObamaCare?

C Bowen| 2.22.10 @ 7:39AM

Why the bloody battle? According to the Republicans, it's because socialized medicine for one group in Medicaid might get cut. To socialist parties fighting for scraps.

Any you are right--Bush just cynically paid off the Big Pharma companies--Obama seems to be a true believer in universal redistribution.

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 3:05PM

Nah, the two parties aren't the same regardless of what you say. You're too simplistic.

C Bowen| 2.22.10 @ 6:27PM

I am too simplistic? CPAC was trying to sell Mitt Romney as a conservative for goodness sake.

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 8:28PM

The Republican party has more than RINOS in it--yeah, you're too simplistic.

McKay| 2.21.10 @ 8:39PM

Reaganite Republican and other Paul haters.
You are all just ignorant. I didn't say stupid so don't get your panties in a wad. I said ignorant because you don't have the facts. You make a sport of parroting popular views spewed by NeoCons. Get an education and then tell us all how Ron is an "Isolationist" That word was used by spin artist after he said he wanted to abide by the GOP platform and pursue a HUMBLE Foreign policy. Ron wants to have a STRONG Military and provide good health care for Veterans as well. He cares more about this country than the rest of them combined. He has been a consistant champion for the CONSTITUTION and is being followed by TeaParty and 912 groups. I've heard from many insiders say that "Had they listened to Ron and voted for him during the primary, we would have a Republican president. Y'all can keep up the negative mudslinging so that you can be popular or you can get off the spinwagon and get educated. Open up your heart and mind when you listen to this man speak. Do the research before you Hate on him and his followers.

Cris Worth| 2.21.10 @ 9:06PM

Paul's victory over Romney has huge implications for the GOP. The Tea Party movement has the Conservative/Libertarian bent just like Paul. And now an all out fight will ensue between Tea Partiers and the liberal Republican establishment led by Romney just like the 1960's when Goldwater/Reagan wing of the party took on Rockefeller and ironically enough Willard's father George Romney. Reading these other comments proves my point.

proud libertarian| 2.21.10 @ 9:15PM

Dear Rob,

I am typing this very slowly because it is evident that you can't read very fast. I'll explain earmarks AGAIN because apparently it is evident that people still exist who have no idea how the earmarking system works (i.e. John McCain).

When you learn about government and federal legislation, you learn that the monetary amount for appropriations bills is determined BEFORE any representatives' earmarks are submitted. Think of it as a big pie. The pie is already baked. THEN, the determination is made as to who gets what slices, and how big they are. MONEY IS NOT ADDED to the bill. If you don't claim it for your district, someone else gets it. That could be Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank. Therefore, it is your OBLIGATION as a Congressman to get money BACK for your district. The system stinks, but you are a DUMBASS (i.e. McCain) if you refuse money for your district. It does not "magically" go back to the people if you refuse it. It actually most likely goes to fund things the EXECUTIVE branch (that's Obama, you know?) deem necessary.

Is there STILL any part of this that you or any other neo-con here can't comprehend? It really is very easy to understand if you DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND FIND OUT WHAT REALLY GOES ON in government.

This nation should be so lucky as to have a President Paul. Reading some of these comments supporting big-government Republicans makes me wonder sometimes if we deserve it.

rob | 2.22.10 @ 12:39AM

C Bown and Proud Libertarian or the same person.

This is who you radical leftists really are.
Move your phony Left Wing side show elsewhere.

http://original.antiwar.com/do.....snatchers/

C Bowen| 2.22.10 @ 6:29PM

Rib;

You do know that Doug Bandow writes for this magazine and contributes to the blog, right?

What--you aren't even a subscriber? LOL, Good luck with your Red Brigades.

Dave| 2.21.10 @ 10:08PM

Yeah, it means something. It means Obama will win 2012 because all the "conservatives" who call out RINOs but detest Ron Paul are hypocrites.

They claim they want to get back to smaller government but they want that government to meddle in other countries affairs. They say they want lower taxes, but they're willing to bankrupt the country by volunteering to be the world's police.

They say they are for liberty and freedom but only if you are heterosexual or enjoy drinking alcohol only.

They say they want to get back to the Constitution and it's not a living breathing document but they boo a man who has a flawless past of voting and voicing his views that mirror the Constitution.

Yeah, Ron Paul winning the straw poll and getting booed for it does mean something. It means the GOP is full of hypocrites.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:35AM

Yep, the GOP is full of old baby boomers who have bankrupted us. The young people rally around Paul because they know they have gotten screwed monetary-wise and then there is the fact that the young fight wars.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 3:13PM

Yeah, blame everything bad in the history of the world on the Boomers (not original there) and the young fight wars. Young Boomers never fought any wars, right? Not only did the Boomers fight wars--they were forced to--unlike you, Ben.

You're just a wealth of new, original ideas aren't you? Stop whining and grow up and maybe you'll influence others in a positive way, punk.

Until then, please shut up.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 4:41PM

Who you calling a punk, fool?

The boomers have bankrupted us with their excesses. Get with the program bud. Boomers did fight wars and they protested them in their youth too. The main difference, and this should be a concern to your small mind, is that now we have no money to waste.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 8:54PM

What program, nitwit? It's your small mind that automatically blames everything on the Boomers.

Big liberal spenders, FDR and LBJ weren't elected by Baby Boomers, but tax cutter Ronald Reagan was--so, how is it fair to blame ALL of our financial problems on Boomers?

There are plenty of liberal dirtbags in your generation who elected Obama, too, and many of you are hogs at the trough. Get off your high horse--all of us are responsible for the mess we're in.

Over 56,000 young American men died in the Vietnam War; many were Boomers who weren't given a choice in the matter but still fought bravely for our country.

Watch your fat mouth when you talk about young men fighting, punk; you'll NEVER be able to touch a lot of those young Boomers.

rob| 2.22.10 @ 12:31AM

You sad pathetic radical Left wing nutter using using numerous aliases
to post yiour hate here. And that old fool Ron Paul being used as a Ruse to screw up CPAC /GOP events .What a shock. the leftists/ radicals are using the same play book you implemented to take over the Dem party state caucus voting for Obama .
I think we are aware of who you lousy leftistsare and the games you play.
Ron Paul is a fool and a fraud.
Old Ronny loves his million dollar earmarks while lecturing everyone about spending . Please spare us.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:33AM

If the government takes your money by force, you try to get what you can back. Earmarks are 1% of government spending and are fully transparent. How about telling me where all the intelligence money goes, etc. Please elaborate on the earmarks so we can have an intelligent debate.

Nick| 2.22.10 @ 11:46AM

" [... you try to get what you can back."

Yeah, and waste it on $300,000 out-houses or to refurbish a statue of Vulcan.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 3:15PM

Ben's a whining punk. Grow up, kid.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 4:42PM

So are Jeremiah and Nick, Hah. Got to love the discourse from you guys.

Nick| 2.23.10 @ 12:33PM

Is that supposed to be an argument.

Why don't you try to refute something I've written.

Like, the fact that Ron Paul has no popular support. Or, that earmarks are a huge waste of taxpayer's money.

Jeremiah| 2.23.10 @ 4:18PM

Ben's gone--probably watching the Jersey Shore. Loser.

Estragon| 2.22.10 @ 3:48AM

Some man of principle Ron Paul is - loading up his earmarks, then voting AGAINST the spending bill once its passage is assured so he claim to be against spending!

If his foreign policy had been in place following WWII, the Soviets would have taken over Europe and Japan, then the rest of the world as we watched it happen.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:24AM

The earmarks represent a fully transparent means of getting your money back from the government. In a sense, they are like a tax deduction. If Ron doesn't earmark, then his constituents get ripped off. Of course you knew this, but you chose to knock the honorable congressman. So shameful.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:26AM

Hello, the Soviets might have taken them over, but they would have never held them. They couldn't even take Afghanistan and the countries they did hold revolted and the whole thing came down in 1989. They went bankrupt. Sound familiar? Stop spreading you neocon nonsense. Ron is the man, and you know it.

Braadwijk| 2.22.10 @ 6:49AM

Actually, Estragon, it's far more likely the Soviet Union would have burned out much quicker and had a direct confrontation with China over its encroachment on their turf. If anything, our policies of contradictory belligerence/appeasement towards the USSR and meddling with Middle Eastern governments to suit our own convenience not only helped turned hearts and minds to the Soviets, it made it very difficult to control their influences in South America and Africa.

Pete2| 2.22.10 @ 8:35AM

Ron Paul may win a straw poll among a gathering of conservatives but he will not win among the common people. His policies are just as radical as the lefts when you come right down to it and not conservative in the least. Isolationism and his "dismantling" of government is a no brainer to say the least. It's a far different world than in 1791 and The US cannot afford a Ron Paul presidency anymore than we can afford a leftist Obama one.Neither extreme will work and that is something Reagan understood better than anyone on here . I suggest some read just what defines real conservatism and classical liberalism. You'll find them to be close together.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:28AM

What we need is extreme cutting of government programs. What we need is a sensible foreign policy. What we need is honorable leaders not beholden to special interests. I guess Ron Paul is the only one that adheres to those things.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 2:15PM

"and not conservative in the least."

Wanting to follow the Constitution as originally intended isn't conservative? Then what is it then? Who talks about original intent if not conservatives?

"It's a far different world than in 1791"

Spoken like a true progressive.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 3:19PM

Leave it to you to throw 'progressive' around, Red. It's cheap--kinda like me calling you an anti-Semite.

Pete2 is not a liberal; he just doesn't agree with your knee-jerk isolationist point of view.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 4:43PM

Don't bother Jeremiah is anti-Palestinian.

Pete2| 2.22.10 @ 5:04PM

You really don't have a clue what a conservative or a progressive is, for I am a conservative thru and thru. I am not a radical right wing nutjob like some of you on here. Ron Paul is a radical right winger, along the line of the Birchers and the birthers. You people really haven't a clue about the constitution, which is really a classical liberal document. It believed that rights came from a Creator rather than a government, that government was ordained of the people not a King, etc. You flakes really are disgusting little trolls. It's impossible to hold an intelligent discussion among the likes of you because you are so myopic. Some day, you Dumd a***es just might smarten up and really think like a Reagan.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 9:02PM

Smart ass fringers like Red and Ben are the real reasons why I'll NEVER vote for Paul.

A viable, electable candidate wouldn't attract so many obnoxious, fanatical followers.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 10:19PM

Jeremiah, do you think calling someone a "fringer" is an insult? Is there inherent virtue in centrism? If wanting to follow the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders makes me "fringe" then so be it. But I think that is a sad indictment that you think that is a fringe position.

Jeremiah| 2.23.10 @ 2:36AM

You're a fringer because your candidate will never be our POTUS; regardless of your belief in the man.

Sad? Maybe, but you need to get over it and move on with your life.

Sorry.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 10:21PM

Pete2, I'll put my political philosophy knowledge up next to yours any day of the week. Try me.

blounttruth| 2.22.10 @ 9:03AM

Paultards are insane! They want balanced budgets, wars that take our youth for the benefit of a small few, they are against the bailouts of "insider banks", they are against a world government, they do not like taxes, and stand for individual liberty. What a group of idiots!
What we need is Romney in the White House. He spoke at length at CPAC in defense of the Bush administration policies. What we need is a minimum of 4 more years of neo-conservatism to help build the economy like Bush did, perhaps WWIII with Iran is what we need to finish off the constitution once and for all and give 535 people the supreme power over the citizen, which is exactly what we need. Ron Paul, what a hoot.

The smart money is with the status quo that has put the nation in the position it is in presently. We see that even after near collapse that no polices against those that did our nation great harm has not changed and they are doing business as usual. Bravo! This is the kind of forward thinking we need, when we are on a path to disaster do not change a thing, put liberal Romney in and let him rub elbows with the elitists and watch the middle class dissolve, for that matter bring McCain back as he and Romney see eye to eye. Many of the neoconservative supporting citizens are suffering from Stockholm syndrome, and are begging for more abuse from their handlers, but it would appear that their children are much smarter than they are, and realize that hitting yourself with a hammer hurts, so they decide not to hit themselves while the neo-cons are still beating themselves to death.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:29AM

I agree. We need to kill all Muslims. How dare they steal our oil and put it under their sand. I mean really. Besides war is fun. PTSD no problem.

J. F. Wind| 2.22.10 @ 10:47AM

Ron Paul espouses Libertarian policies, but I believe that he has spent over 75% of his adult life suckling on the teat of the state.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 11:31AM

Do elaborate. Remember Ron Paul has turned the congressional pension down. He is probably the only one to do so. He also is the congressman who year after year votes for no pay raise while his colleagues of course do. This means that Ron Paul is honorable. You really need to do research before you slander.

Liam| 2.22.10 @ 3:21PM

It's not slander if it's true. Why no term-limits for Ron Paul?

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 4:44PM

I am all for term limits. It would be a shame to loose Paul given his fiscally-conservative voting record. But people really start to stink once they have been there too long, with the exception of Paul of course.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 9:04PM

That's 'LOSE" smart ass--as in 'you're a loser'.

martin j smith| 2.22.10 @ 1:21PM

I do not support Ron Paul largely because of his isolationist tendencies. But beyond that he seems to me to be a kind of "cult of personality" type based to some extent on the behavior of supporters--who sound like some of the Obamaniacs. But the main issue is this: If anyone on the right or any other part of the spectrum is not highly motivated to defeat the Left Democrat Party as the primary objective and support the candidate who has the best chance of doing so then they are on the wrong side. If Paul wants to take his chances and put his hat in the ring to see how far he gets as a candidate as a Republican, that is fine. But if he and his supporters go their own way and in the end this leads to four more years of Obama--then I would have serious questions of what his motives are and would actively work to treating him no better than a Left Democrat. The reason: He is enabling Obama to win. This not a conservative and in fact I do not know what he is.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 2:08PM

"Paultards" "whacko" "clown" "fool" "horse's ass face" etc., etc., etc.,

What is it about Ron Paul that brings out this sort of childish name calling among presumably intelligent and level headed people? Could you at least attempt to make an argument, instead of just immediately resorting to play ground name calling?

There are some people who don't like Ron Paul because they are moderate pragmatists who don't think dogmatic constitutionalism will sell. But most of this vitriol comes from the interventionist crowd who might be somewhat attracked to constitutionalism but can't stand Paul's non-interventionism (which flows from his constitutionalism).

Sorry fellows, but non-interventionism is on the rise and your hysteria indicates that you know it. If you thought it was just the isolated position of one man, you wouldn't get so worked up about it. But you know non-interventionism is on the rise and is here to stay.

Look at the poll results from CPAC. The number of people who rank terrorism and Iraq as their primary concerns keeps dropping.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 3:30PM

Red, you've been repeating your "non-interventionism is on the rise and your hysteria indicates that you know it" mantra for over a year now. Hysteria?

Care to offer a little proof with your over-blown whine?

You're a one-trick pony and you're also a tedious bore. Ron Paul will never be our candidate for president. Get used to it.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 4:49PM

If you weren't hysterical you would react reasonably when Ron Paul is brought up instead of immediately resorting to name calling.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 9:07PM

The only one who is hysterical here is you, Red--unhinged, really. Ben's just a no-nothing punk.

You Paul people are too thin-skinned. Grow up and grow a pair, boys.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 10:11PM

Nothing hysterical or unhinged here. Just a simple call to follow the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders. What is your problem with the Constitution? What do you have against the doctrine of original intent.

Jeremiah| 2.23.10 @ 2:43AM

Who says I have a problem with the Constitution?

I have a problem with you smart-assed Paul people, Red; snarky superiority is no substitute for debate. You ARE NOT the Constitution--stop hiding behind it, you look weak.

In your case, and so many Paul followers like you, I detest the messenger not the message. Get it?

Red Phillips| 2.23.10 @ 9:16AM

So tell me where Paul is wrong about the Constitution? Does the Constitution not not authorize the Fed for example?

Nick| 2.23.10 @ 11:45AM

Mr. Phillips,

The Federal Reserve banks are private corporations, with very little regulation.

Look at the dollar bill in your pocket. It has written on it, right at the top, "Federal Reserve Note", not "Treasury Note."

So, the Constitution doesn't enter into it.

Now, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is a public entity that make the rules for the banks. Like the FCC makes rules for broadcasters.

The constitutionality of these type of boards and commissions is arguable, I will grant you that.

Red Phillips| 2.23.10 @ 5:37PM

Nick, "coining" the nations money is one of the very few things the Federal government is actually supposed to do and it isn't doing it. Mandating the acceptance of "private" Federal Reserve Notes couldn't be any more constitutionally backwards if it tried.

Jeremiah| 2.23.10 @ 2:25PM

I don't give Paul the time of day because of fanatical fringers like YOU, Red.

With freaks like you as friends, Paul doesn't need enemies. Trust me.

Red Phillips| 2.23.10 @ 5:40PM

Wow Jeremiah. Thanks for making my point. You are all invective but no actual argument.

Jeremiah| 2.23.10 @ 6:05PM

YOU ARE THE POINT! You Paultards turned Conservatives off a long time ago and you shall remain fringers as a result.

Reap what you've sown.

martin j smith| 2.22.10 @ 3:20PM

Red Phillips when you start with words of"...childish name calling" you avoid the key point. But first,, I have to say you sound just like the Democrat Left trolls that insinuate insults in your response. Insults to me show that you have little to offer to start.
But beyond that, I wonder if you can be honest enough regarding your political position. For example, do you support Obama--that would a yes or no and why. Here is the deal if you support Obama or his policies are of no great importance to you as a issue of political urgency to defeat, then I really have to wonder about who you really are. If you do not support Obama and see him as the major threat to this country's future then you are on the wrong track from my stand point
because not only is his economic policies dangerous , so too are his foreign and national defense polices .

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 4:47PM

"For example, do you support Obama"

Martin, I voted for Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, because I thought McCain was too liberal. Do you really think I support Obama? I am ranting about following the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders. Does that sound like an Obama supporter?

icr | 2.22.10 @ 3:53PM

You really can't argue with loons who are intoxicated by War and Empire.
http://original.antiwar.com/ju...../ron-paul/
(...)
Neocons hate people who talk about the elites in less than reverent tones, because they think you’re talking about them – which is often the case. They hate any sort of populism, whether of the right or the left, because they see in it the seeds of revolution, and, of course, anti-Semitism. Most of all they hate Ron Paul, because he and his followers embody the Jeffersonian values and culture of the American heartland, the old America of Bob Taft, America First, and a Republican party that was skeptical of overseas adventurism. They are the "real Americans" Rabinowitz hates and fears, and, this year, they came to CPAC in droves.
(...)
Rabinowitz & Co. have their work cut out for them if they’re going to try and convince conservatives that the Paul movement is "leftist." Good luck with that one. The neocon method, however, is simple repetition: if you tell a lie long enough, and persistently enough, maybe, just maybe people will come to accept it.

"Conspiracy theorist," "zealot," "deranged," "truther" – rinse, and repeat. There is something oddly childish about the taunting polemical style of the neocons: what it boils down to is simple name-calling. Rather than engage Paul’s actual views, the idea is to drive him out of the public square by means of pure epithets.
(...)

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 9:17PM

Yes, we're not big fans of Ron Paul so of course we must be "loons intoxicated by War and Empire."

We're bloodthirsty NeoCon babykillers, too. No ad hominen attack there, Paul freaks.

You people really are a joke--and so is your candidate.

Nilsson| 2.23.10 @ 3:31PM

RINOs, neocon defectors from the Dems (with Trotskyite parents), country club Republicans of the Nelson Rockefeller kind and shills for the military industrial complex... the guys Ike warned us about... all hate the Ron Paul Revolution.

My guess is that the last real conservative president, Ronald Reagan, would disagree-- if only because Dr Paul was one of the first handful of Congressmen to back the Gipper's run.

How bitterly the bought-and-paid-for media, too, dislike Paul and his young, new-media-savvy supporters. How eagerly Rupert Murdoch, the Australian neocon coatholder, and a bunch of chattering attack dogs of columnists try to smear a man of rock-ribbed principle and loyalty to the original intent of the Constitution, who has been right about the rake's progress to national decline which the chickenhawks cheered.

Luckily the Boomers are beginning to drop dead of their own excesses. Youthful voters who will have to pick up the pieces need a few wise old heads who've walked the walk to advise them. The fight back for America has begun: the profiteers, globhalists and other traitors can start packing their bags.

Jeremiah| 2.23.10 @ 4:16PM

Sorry, Nilsson; like your smart-assed brethren above, you're wrong. You've managed to alienate many conservatives who would be your natural allies with your mindless, simplistic assertions and snotty rhetoric.

Go ahead, demonize ALL Baby Boomers, many of whom would be open to Ron Paul but aren't because of inflammatory accusations like yours.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm not impressed by you MTV obsessed post-Boomer
generations; you're not exactly the moral paragons you pretend to be.

Jersey Shore? Exactly my point; you dirtbags have nothing to brag about. You'll drop dead of YOUR unwarranted and excessive conceit if we're lucky.

Robert| 2.24.10 @ 11:17AM

Sorry Nilson but Reagan would certainly have not supported Ron Paul's isolationist/appeasement foreign policy. Reagan built up the military, he didn't destroy it as Paul has alluded that he would do.

Robert| 2.24.10 @ 11:13AM

Ron Paul's foreign policy is best described as "Neville Chamberlain-esque." He is the only Republican running that is to the left of Obama on national defense. He sure isn't going to confront Israel or stand with our allies abroad.

As for the poll, I was a CPAC attendee. Less than 2400 out of the 10000 attendees bothered to cast a vote. Paul's victory was actually greeted by a large chorus of boos.

Robert| 2.24.10 @ 11:15AM

CORRECTION: I meant to say that Paul will not confront "Iran" not "Israel." Paul certainly won't stand with Israel as he should.

Cowboy| 2.25.10 @ 12:09AM

The Math Behind Ron Paul's CPAC Poll Victory

http://www.flemingandhayes.com.....ll-victory

Indigo| 3.14.10 @ 4:14AM

In 1976 Dr Paul was 1 of FOUR in Congress to back The Gipper in his first run for president. If the neocons knew what Reagan said back in 1964 at the GOP Convention, they would attack him. Who here is aware of the Christian Just War Doctrine? That is an important plank of a nonnterventionist foreign policy. I do believe W ran on that and would have followed it if not for 9/11. Thomas Jefferson often supported a noninterventionist foreign policy.