Excellent, splendid, wonderful post. I'm tempted to hand it out at GOP events.

Since they are going to try to shut him out of the Iowa debates (and other I'm sure) we need to start raising hell. They did it to other candidates in the past and we need to take care of this ASAP.

I view Ron Paul as this cycle's equivalent to the likes of Howard Dean, Ross Perot, and (maybe) Jerry Brown. Like them, he's a candidate with almost a cult following who puts forth messages that make a lot a sense but which, for one reason or another, are not embraced by the mainstream establishment.

If he gets enough traction to be commented upon regularly by the mainstream pundits, expect a steady drum beat of something like "he's insane."

Great analysis. You just gained a reader.

In Liberty,
Ben

But he is, alas, a fruitcake, despite your somewhat silly attempt to label Kevin Drum, of all people, as a snide name-caller. The gold standard stuff; wanting to pull the US out of the UN (while raving about the UN trying to take our guns); very seriously proposing to completely eliminate the income tax; mongering various "New World Order" sorts of conspiracy theories; proposing to completely eliminate public education... these are not the views of someone with any grip on the actual American political scene. Now, he _also_ says some very sane things that it is indeed a shame that other Republicans aren't saying. But part of why that's a shame is becuase _it's a shame that only the fruitcake is saying them_. His views go way, way, way beyond standard small-government conservatism, and takes us into the same sort of nuthouse that the Birchers & their ilk live in. And that's all evaluating him in terms of the views he expressly holds -- it's not just a smear based on the wackiness of a minority of his supporters.

This bit from Larison seems to me to get things completely backwards: "Of course, the war trumps everything and drives these potential supporters away..." Look, if it weren't for the anti-war GOP vote, Paul wouldn't even be a blip on the radar. It's the war & his opposition to it that is the _source_ of what support he has, not the obstacle to his having still more support.

Look, if it weren't for the anti-war GOP vote, Paul wouldn't even be a blip on the radar. It's the war & his opposition to it that is the _source_ of what support he has, not the obstacle to his having still more support.

Phil, I think you're both right and wrong here. Paul's support does come from the anti-war crowd. But his position on the war will also prevent him from getting the nomination, no matter how much money he raises. As Zach has been ably recording here, conservatism has been dumbed down by the GOP to being pro-war and whatever our strong, manly executive leader wants.

This explains PR's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani as well I think. Social conservatism, like limited government, doesn't matter anymore. Keeping the war going does.

Oh, I agree that his anti-war position makes him hopeless for the nomination, for exactly those reasons. But my point is that if he had a pro-war (or just a squishy-not-quite-any-particular-position like those of some major Dem candidates), he'd be _even more_ hopeless for it. Larison's quote sounded like he thought that Paul would be a better candidate if he didn't have the anti-war platform, and that's what I was objecting to.

Btw, I was just looking over Paul's website to make sure I hadn't misunderstood him, and I find things like this:
"NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system."
or this:
"In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less."
or this:
"Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations." (It's that "again" that gets me -- because, yeah, it's _the UN's fault_ that we invaded Iraq???)

Much serious fruitcakiness, right there in plain view.

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul isn't going to impress the vast majority of the voters out there. His calls for holding to the constitution are righteous, but too many of his other published positions are just plain wrong and would do far more damage to the US than putting the Hildebeast into the White House.

I know that the libertarian fringe of both parties has fallen in love with this guy because he's not afraid of being Candidate A, but he can do that because he has little chance of winning so he might as well say anything and see if people notice.

It will be interesting to watch him, but I expect that in the end he'll either strike out as a third party candidate (and get maybe 1.2% of the vote.) or he'll become a footnote in history as another man who failed to get his parties nomination.

Philosopher, generally, Ron Paul's positions are characterized as "crazy" but make perfect sense if you know what his principles are.

So why the "fruitcake" comments all the time? Ron Paul is very rational, he just has a different underlying assumption about government. He strongly distrusts big, distant government. The bigger and more distant, the less trustworthy.

Take, for example, his refusal (the only member of congress to do so) to give Rosa Parks the gold medal of freedom. This is used to make claims he's a racist. Yet he said today he thinks Rosa Parks is a "great hero." What he opposes is any feel-good bill by congress that spends taxpayer money so that the Congressmen can look good. That's what he saw this as. He supported giving his OWN money to buy Rosa Parks a medal, and offered to do so. He just refused to spend taxpayer money on it.

The problem is that to many Americans, there's really only two choices in government -- your side has control, and does all kinds of expensive stuff, or the other side has control, and does all kinds of expensive stuff. The idea that neither side should be in control -- that we should be free -- is just not an option.

These Americans can't even comprehend small-government principles, and can't imagine why Ron Paul would be against some of the things he is.

"NAFTA'?s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system."

What's so "fruitcaky" about this? Ron Paul doesn't like big, sprawling beaureacracy. There's no question that the EU, for example, has resulted in such.

You may like big government, but people who don't aren't "fruitcakes."

or this:
"In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply ? making each dollar in your pocket worth less."

Fruitcakey? Um . . . just look at the recent decisions to abandon the U.S. dollar as an investment because the fed is expected to cut interest rates again. You may disagree with him, but you can't deny that he has a point about the fed's meddling causing the dollar to droop.

or this:
"Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations." (It's that "again" that gets me -- because, yeah, it's _the UN's fault_ that we invaded Iraq???)

This one I'm not sure the meaning of, I'd have to see it in context. But his underlying point has always been that it's Congress, and not the President, or the U.N. that should vote on war. And the reason for his concern is perfectly understandible -- that once that power is in the hands of the president, or the U.N., getting it back is going to be really, really hard.

By the way, this is an interesting video showing how long Paul has been interested in the Federal Reserve issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hMeNnbSqkk

That he has principles that lead him to be a fruitcake makes him, however, no less a fruitcake. (Indeed, rigid adherence to unrealistic principles is in and of itself a fruitcakey form of mind.) The exact same things could be said of contemporary Marxists, after all, and I'm happy to lump them into the fruitcake pile as well.

As for the examples I adduced, well, I thought it was screamingly obvious what was fruitcakey about them, but here goes:

Regarding the first quote, the problem is IT'S A COMPLETE PARANOID DELUSION. I'm not in favor of such a North American super-state, and neither is anyone else. The "superhighway" in question is, in fact, an utter myth:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes

Regarding the second quote, the first half is simply false (in brief: the Fed is about monetary, not fiscal, policy, and you can rack up mondo deficits in a gold-standard economy, too), and the second half is way, way, way outside the economic mainstream.

Regarding the third quote: here's the context
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
Almost everything else on that page is wonderfully sane. But the bit I quoted, unfortunately, is fruitcakey as hell.

Great post! On another Christian topic that I hope make this thread, finally, a true scriptural Christian perspective on the “Gay Morality Debate.� A must read for any Christian needing to defend against the secular progressive attacks on Christians who stay true to their faith and the word of God. " target="_blank">Here is the link.

Some things about Ron Paul make no sense to me.

For example, regarding Washington, D.C. he has shared the following: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Or has he? He says that newsletters put out under his name often contained opinions that weren't really his but were instead written by staffers. Either way it isn't encouraging because he has only distanced himself from these views as he has sought the presidency.

Ron Paul has not, however, done much to distance himself from Storm Radio. While all candidates collect support from a variety of sources, if Democrats are to be criticized for Soros money, it would seem fair to call attention to the fact that Paul has attracted extremist supporters.

Paul opposes repealing "Don't ask, don't tell" and refuses to support gays serving openly in the military. He uses language in his answers on gays in the military that could be taken various ways, which leads me to believe that he is being deliberately evasive.

Although I don't think Paul is anti-Semitic generally, his seemingly unquestioned acceptance of support from anti-Semitic groups or alliances is troubling.

Nevertheless, if Paul were the Republican nominee on a platform of getting out of Iraq over and against a wavering Democrat, I might vote for Paul with a clothespin stuck firmly over my nose.

Ron Paul appeals to the white sheet night riders and the Flat Earth Society folks. It bothers me that there are so many of them.

Paul opposes repealing "Don't ask, don't tell" and refuses to support gays serving openly in the military.

Isn't that the position of all the Republican Presidential candidates--and for that matter, probably most of the Democrats, too? It was certainly Bill Clinton's position while in office.

As someone who's never worn a white sheet and who firmly believes the earth is round, I happen to support Paul.

Anyways, philosopher said Paul proposes completely eliminating public education. I have to say, I personally support this, but I've never seen anything to indicate Paul does. He supports eliminating the Department of Education, but if you think that's the same thing as eliminating public education then you're very misguided. Do you have any proof that Paul has ever supported actually eliminating public education?

Here:
http://www.schoolandstate.org/proclamation.htm

I consider myself a libertarian so naturally, I like Ron Paul a lot of his views. Getting rid of social security, as well as big government, getting out of Iraq, etc. Anything to stop making the taxpayers pay for unnecessary things is a good idea in my book.

However, as much as I like Ron Paul, I was a little discouraged in my support of him after watching a video online of him discussing homeschooling.

I was educated in public schools all my life and I feel as though the education I was provided at my school was far better than one I would have received through a religiously based home school program. Paul goes on and on about how much more intelligent and more grown up home schooled children are. Some of his comments I found very offensive to those of us who succeeded in a public school.

The majority of home schooled children in this nation are taught by extremely religious parents and their curriculum is just as radical as their parents. Sheltering your child from everyday life and brainwashing them to believe very radical Christian views is not what I consider a good education (watch Jesus Camp to see what I mean). Granted, there are families out there who educate their children at home for other reasons and the kids turn out to be perfectly normal.

I think it is ignorant to believe that every American family has the ability financially, emotionally, physically, etc. to home school their children. With the majority of American families having both parents have full time jobs, this is a completely unrealistic goal.

Ron Paul does have white-sheet supporters. But then, everybody has nutbags within their support constituencies.

Why does he resonate with these sorts? I went to Stormfront's site (find the link yourself), and read the first post in the Ron Paul comment thread, linked plain as day at the bottom of the home page. The author, Charles Coughlin (not to be confused with, but most apparently inspired by, this guy lifted certain quotes from the candidate's issues page:

-------------------

Debt and Taxes
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. (more…)

American Independence and Sovereignty
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. (more…)

War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. (more…)

Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan: (more…)

Privacy and Personal Liberty
The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters. (more…)

Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches. (more…)

-------------------

The common theme in these issues is a "leave us alone" attitude. Don't take our stuff, don't let the world meddle in our trade decisions, don't let foreigners criminally tresspass into the country, don't get us involved in wars irrelevant and/or harmful to national security. All of those sentiments are sane. Including the last one; I disagree with Paul's claim that Iraq is such an unnecessary and bad war.

Stormfront and its fellow travelers insert two additional attitudes that are not so healthy. First is xenophobia; white racialists seek a sort of cultural protectionism to insulate themselves from nonwhite groups. Second is whackball conspiracy theories that misplace the blame on real and perceived threats, and that misidentify the true intentions of various groups.

Good ideas can be used to serve bad causes, and the white-sheets find much that is useful in Ron Paul's political platform.

Eric,

The point is that Paul's position on "don't ask, don't tell" isn't a libertarian one and it is his libertarian leanings that he has emphasized most consistently over the years.

"Don't ask, don't tell" was the Clinton [now failed] position only after the Pentagon and Congress shot down Clinton's plan to end the discrimination outright.

Yes, "don't ask, don't tell" seems to be the position adopted by all the Republcan candidates. However, if that were a reason for Paul to maintain his stance, then why should he dissent from any position held by a majority of Republicans? "Don't ask, don't tell" has had no net impact on discharges so far, but has instead just continued a longstanding practice of discrimination, so what's the point of the policy?

Joel,

The way you wrote it, I thought that you were implying that Paul's support of "don't ask, don't tell" was something that put him out of the mainstream.

Kelli wrote:

The majority of home schooled children in this nation are taught by extremely religious parents and their curriculum is just as radical as their parents.

The idea that homeschoolers are mostly fundamentalist nut-jobs is an ignorant stereotype. Yes, they are on average more conservative than the average American parents, but no moreso than your typical member of an evangelical church. And what I've seen of homeschooling curricula is far from "radical." Which you'd expect, because the curricula have to be accepted by the colleges the kids apply to.

By all means, it's possible to get a first-class education in public schools. Aside from my 1st grade year, I attended all public schools. However, I've been extremely impressed by how well-read and intelligent some of the homeschooled kids I've met are. It's amazing how much kids can really learn when you cut the politically correct crap out of education.