(sigh)…….you know, PW, I generally dig your posts…but this one isn’t particularly well thought out. You’ve left out a very important aspect of Paul’s life-long governmental philosophy, that being the fact that he has *always* regarded the Executive Branch to be subservient to the Legislative Branch! If he were somehow elected President (not too likely, right?) he’d have a *very* difficult time attempting to push through his agenda, particularly in light of the likely big Democratic gains in the coming election. Truth be told, if we could get enough left-leaning Dems elected to Congress, we’d probably have a better chance of actually passing liberal reforms under Paul than we would under a Clinton presidency (given the pressure she’d be under from the corporate press).

As it so happens, I’m actually going to register as a Republican so that I can vote for him in my state’s primary (anyone whose state has an “open” primary can simply vote for him without this trouble). Why would I vote for a libertarian conservative Republican when I’m a far-Lefty? Because he’s the best of the GOP pack, because he’s anti-war and pro-Constitution, and most of all, because he would radically change the timbre of the Democratic challenger’s rhetoric!

I am SICK TO DEATH of hearing Hillary pushing for war with Iran and am shattered by her unwillingness to get our troops out of Iraq. If Paul was her opponent, she’d be forced (ironically, by his antiwar stance) to actually become antiwar, which would be a nice change, I think we can both agree.

In addition to what he would do to the Democrats, he would also splinter the GOP. Think about it: What would happen to all of these Republicans that insist that we need a lifetime of war? There is no third party for them to go to and it takes years to form the organization to field a candidate, so…..they’d be up the proverbial shit creek! The ones who vote GOP no matter what would be forced to adopt and defend Paul’s antiwar, pro-Constitution stance (ah, what a beautiful sight it would be to behold!). The GOP would be in bits and pieces for years, with myriad squabbling groups unable to find a center.

No matter how you look at it, Dems voting for Paul is a GOOD thing that *you should encourage* rather than trying to bash him. Look, I understand that some “Democrats” see him as some weird savior (the same ones who were stupidly charmed by McCain, the last time around), but that’s a *very* small group that you don’t need to worry about. Your real concern should be derailing anti-Constitution fascists like Rudy- which doesn’t just mean voting for the Democratic candidate, it means gaming the Republican voting process.

The GOP (at least, at the moment) controls our voting machines and they use that control on Election Day. Do they do the same thing during the primaries? Well, look what happened to Lieberman. He lost the primary and then somehow (through the magic of vote hacking?) ends up winning the general election! If this shit were to go on again, I’d rather that Ron Paul was the default rather than Rudy or any of the other Thugs.

Think of this as a chess game that will require some bizarre, completely out-of-left-field move that will throw off the opponent’s strategy to the extent that it destroys their game. Paul’s two main political attributes (anti-war, pro-Constitution) completely overshadows his negatives and that in combination with his “weak Executive” philosophy would make him the VERY BEST person for our candidate to run against, or in the case of GOP vote tampering, to lose against.

For the record, Ron Paul’s 36,672 supporters raised $4.2 million overnight, the average contribution was $103. We take no corporate money or accept Government matching funds. We get more contributions from the troops in Iraq than any other candidate from either party.

The response to this event by at least one Democrat candidate, Edwards, has been encouraging… He used the n-word, neocon at least eight times in an anti-war speech. Thanks to men like Buchanan and Paul, the left is growing a spine and beginning to ID the real enemy – the Israel Lobby and their “Christian Zionist” enablers.

The issue of War vs. Peace should trump all other parochial considerations. By wrongfully attacking a true antiwar candidate serves on other purpose than supporting the War Party.

Shame on you.

For the record, Ron Paul’s 36,672 supporters raised $4.2 million overnight, the average contribution was $103. We take no corporate money or accept Government matching funds. We get more contributions from the troops in Iraq than any other candidate from either party.

The response to this event by at least one Democrat candidate, Edwards, has been encouraging… He used the n-word, neocon at least eight times in an anti-war speech. Thanks to men like Buchanan and Paul, the left is growing a spine and beginning to ID the real enemy – the Israel Lobby and their “Christian Zionist” enablers.

The issue of War vs. Peace should trump all other parochial considerations. Wrongfully attacking a true antiwar candidate serves on other purpose than supporting the War Party.

Shame on you.

It’s a moot point, obviously, since he will never get there, but still, his straighforward rhetoric about the Constitution is striking a nerve because none of the frontrunners are bothering. There is a line from a movie (the sequel to Chinatown, maybe?) about being “the leper with the most fingers,” and that disgusting metaphor is pretty apt right now with regard to our presidential candidates. Hillary is 100% on the abortion issue, I believe, and that’s super, but if she continues the imperial executive, and the Empire, period (i.e., stays in Iraq and bombs Iran), what kind of trade is that?

I sent money to Dodd when he got solid on FISA issues and telecom immunity. I sent money to Paul because he is making noise about the Constitution and it fucks with the Republican primaries to have him remain in the race. I don’t expect either man to get within sniffing distance of the White House, but they are both carrying important messages, imperfect messengers though they may be. I would not assume people who support Paul are racists, or ignorant of his loonier views. They may just be terribly desperate for signs of life for a Constitutional government, like many of us are. Paul is crazy? Dodd doesn’t have a prayer? So what?

There are lots of things to dislike about Pat Buchanan, but that’s not one of them. Did you read the article you linked to?

“But even as Moran was committing his political gaffe, the March 24 issue of “The American Conservative” was carrying a little noticed Buchanan diatribe entitled “Whose War?” The article charged that American foreign policy has been hijacked by a “cabal” of “neoconservatives,” clearly Buchanan’s code word for high-ranking Jews in the Bush Administration. These neocons, he says, are “deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian peoples’ right to a homeland of their own.” They “harbor a ‘passionate attachment’ to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on the assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.” In other words, it’s “their war,” not ours.”

Maybe Buchanan is an “anti-semite” and maybe he is not. But that has nothing to do with the argument he presents. A charge such as “anti-semitism” is a diversionary tactic used to avoid discussion of a particular subject.

Almost everyone, including Jimmy Carter, has been called an “anti-semite”. The word means nothing nowadays because of wide overuse and abuse.

Here is the Shah of Iran back in 1976.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQgZ3oLp_WY

Was the Shah an “anti-semite”?

Perhaps Hillary will make a good president.

Droll humor. Good one.

the continuing murder of iraqis? the invasion of iran? the preservation of the lies concerning the events of 11/09/01? the perpetuation of the dual passporters and their control of the usa[chertoff et alia]?

other than ron paul, all the other candidates want to continue being george walker bush.

i listen to what so many say about ron paul. it reminds me of what i heard about gene mccarthy and george mcgovern. decades ago.

let’s talk about abortion for a moment. the killing of a potential human being. some of the candidates oppose that, but are more than comfortable with killing a living child. figure that one out.

to the best of my knowledge,ron paul is the only candidate that opposes killing. from the womb to the middle east.

and he is the only candidate that wants us to extricate us forces from iraq/afghanistan asap.

what do you want? for us forces to occupy those countries indefinitely?

geoplitically, i can understand that. but are you prepared for conducting that perpetual war, implementing a draft, and imposing major sacrifices on the public? all for a fraud?

here is the way it really is…the reptillians/demtillians have bankrupted the usa.

all of the world knows it. we can become more bankrupted, or we can staunch the financial hemorrhaging. to the best of my knowledge, only ron paul discusses this issue.

his proposition is that we return to the gold standard. in other words, repudiate nixon and conally who told the world to go f*ck themselves and deal with a completely debased reserve currency.

why is this proposition a non-starter? we ain’t got no gold to bulwark the paper. where did the gold go? into the accounts of those who have been running the usa since the outfit finessed the election of ronnie raygun.

so, i must say that if ron paul thinks that a return to the gold standard is possible, he hasn’t a clue. the us vaults are empty.

the gold has all been stolen by the pols. the bankers. and the usarmy general staff. long ago.