By ignoring the elephant in the room, you completely miss the point of Paul’s appeal.

By far the most pressing issues of our time are foreign policy and government accountability. When 70% of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war, why are you surprised then that anti-war candidates would attract attention? Of the all the Republican and Democratic candidates, Paul and Gravel are the only two that have ruled out a nuclear strike against Iran. What would otherwise be considered an extreme position has become accepted by the mainstream of politics, so in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of evidence of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, anyone that challenges this strategy has been marginalized as extreme.

Secondly, Sara’s arguments regarding Barbara Jordan have been debunked, and along with the attack in the Daily Kos, are most laughable of all, both are demanding that Paul be held to standards that would make a destroy any of the presidential candidates running for 2008.

Thirdly, whatever you think of Paul’s domestic policies, what appeals to the right and the left is his stance of limited government and personal freedoms. He has stated that decision regarding domestic policies are to be made at the local level of government, as opposed to being enforced by Washington.

Finally, the public is sick to the stomach over the influence that lobbyists are having on the country’s policies. Whatever you think of Gravel and Paul, they are the only candidates that have not sold out to the Lockheed Martins and A*PAC’s of this world.

His association with rightwing extremist groups tells you everything about the man AND his ideas.

like take your Fiat vs gold point

You point to someone who is very radical and then associated a commodity based currency with radicals, when you ignore the history of Austrian economists who have always warned about the danger of a fiat currency.

There is a who branch of economics devoted to commodity based currencies but thats ignored.

then you try the racist slur again by association

then multi culturism , without reflecting on the limitations and pressures it places on society, yes every culture deserves to be respected but that includes the American culture.

Just because Paul has nut case supporters does not mean that he must answer for all of their opinions, Soros supports Wes Clark, now I like some of Soros’s views and I dont like others, it doesn’t mean that Wes Clark needs to answer them.

We all agree that we need to maintain cultural and social integrity, we might disagree on how to do that and the systematic appraoch that is required, but lets respect the diversity of views and lets stop trying to destroy anyone that holds a different view by any means.

You article smacks of using any means to achieve you ends, you obviously disagree with many of his ideas, thats ok you might be right on many issues, he might also be right on many as well.

Its about respect and integrity, attack the idea not the man.

Paul has more than enough policies where you can mount a strong contrary opinion. Health Care, Abortion, Drugs, United Nations, Border Security etc

Have the confidence to just attack the policy, do not through fear that you might not win try and slur him. Yes he represents a threat to many hard own policies , the only way to defend these policies is through advocacy of those ideas.

You whole line seems to be elitist in that you seem to reflect and underlying fear that he will become popular, the sub text being that the people might be dumb enough to adopt those policies and that we need to protect the people because they might believe his ideas, the premise is that the people cant work what they think for themselves, they may make the wrong decisions in your mind

He is also a House member.

ONE, count ‘em, ONE House member in US history became President, and that after 36 ballots at the convention.

So, James, THE QUESTION REALLY IS, who are you going to vote for in November 08, after Rep. Ron Paul loses the primary?

Huckabee? Giuliani? Thompson?

Your vote for ANY Republican would show that the ’sea of corruption’ doesn’t, after all, bother you as much as you say.

On the other hand, the Democrats, who are clearly less corrupt than Republicans. But then you would have to ADMIT that your vote isn’t about corruption — it’s IDEOLOGY masquerading as honesty.

Which is Ron Paul all the way.