booooooo!!!

keep your cold water to yourself! playing WhatIf is all some of us have, this week!

Que swarm of lunatic Paulites/Ronbots in 3... 2... 1...

a lot of republicans want out of iraq, no war with iran, and a return to the constitution. paul gets their support as no one else on the GOP side even pays such positions lip service.

and if you think paul is crazier than giuliani, you really haven't been paying attention.

But being infantile is fun!

and it's "Cue" not "Que." unless you were speaking spanish: ¡Que Swarm!"

and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Paul. (Not being a Republican, I most likely won't have the opportunity.)

Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing. They don't reflect either well or badly on him. They're meaningless

That's some strange argument you got there.

I'd maintain that:

1) uncompromising positions are not meaningless, and, in any case
2) meaningless positions do indeed reflect badly on the one taking them.

Ron Paul does not always sound as good as he does in his latest YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA), but I have to object to the characterization of Paul's consitutional objections to much of what our government does as being somehow childish or infantile. Call him unrealistic for hoping there is any chance that government will be reduced to match the apparent restrictions of the Constitution if you want, but either the Constitutional arguments are correct or they are not, and if they are right then we need, at minimum, to make some amendments to our founding document.

Greenwald put it well this morning -- adherence to the law and the Constitution is an important standard whether we're talking about FISA and the Geneva Convention or Federal spending and programs that have little to do with "regulating interstate commerce".

Kevin, it's a war protest vote, and notable for that.

as a famous ronbot put it:

There are, relatively speaking, very few people who agree with most of Paul's policy positions. In fact, a large portion of Americans -- perhaps most -- will find something in his litany of beliefs with which they not only disagree, but vehemently so. Paul has a coherent political world-view and states his positions clearly and unapologetically, without hedges, and that approach naturally ensures greater disagreement than the form of please-everyone obfuscation which drives most candidates.

Paul, of course, is not only in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but also emphatically opposes the crux of America's bipartisan foreign policy consensus. He reserves his greatest scorn for America's hegemonic rule of the world through superior military force, i.e., its acting as an empire in order to prop up its entangling alliances and enduring conflicts -- what George Washington lamented as "permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others."

Me, I don't see how a libertarian is so opposed to abortion rights, but there you go.

Kevin, so Ron Paul has "no actual chance" of winning the Republican nomination, huh? Why then does Intrade put that chance at 8.7%? If you want to tell me that's a negligible chance and means that Paul is a fringe candidate, go ahead. So long as you concede that Thompson and McCain (both at 7.1%) are even fringier (to say nothing of Gail Collins' heartthrob Huckabee). Or if you want to say Intrade is wrong, why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday.

Exactly how much is a buttload? Is it like tonnage where there are imperial and metric? Is the measurement situational? For example, I would think that a buttload for, say, Nell Carter would be different than a butt load for Kate Moss.

I am surprised by the amount of money. Children's allowances must be higher than they used to be.

Crust,

I read that as Ron Paul has a 91.3% chance of not winning the Republican nomination.

Of course party Republicans loathe Paul. Nothing like having a family member pointing out that the family is dysfunctional and raking in money while he is doing it.

Too bad the party doesn't get Paul and why he is drawing the money and the interest. If they did maybe they would not have the "choice" picks they have settled on.

I'd maintain that:

1) uncompromising positions are not meaningless, and, in any case
2) meaningless positions do indeed reflect badly on the one taking them. Posted by: Disputo

I think the point is as Ron Paul's campaign is meaningless (i.e. proverbial snowball's chance in Hell), anything and everything he says is meaningless in the greater scheme of the presidential election.

Ditto for his "record breaking" fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian.

I think the primary reason why Paul is getting so much money is because moonbats at Kos and Atrios are giving him lots of it in order to embarass the Republican Party. They want to make it look like he's popular when he's really just a Bush hating extremist out of touch of mainstream America. Of course, it's not working.

a lot of republicans want out of iraq, no war with iran, and a return to the constitution. paul gets their support as no one else on the GOP side even pays such positions lip service. Posted by: benjoya

I wish he was running a third party campaign so that he'd be around in the general to take votes away from whichever loser gets the Rethug nomination.

Uri:
I read that as Ron Paul has a 91.3% chance of not winning the Republican nomination.

If you want to ignore Paul as a fringe candidate on those grounds, fair enough. Just so long as you also ignore Thompson (92.9% chance of not winning) and McCain (also 92.9%).

Kev -

Most Americans don't have any idea what the gold standard is. However, if Paul suggests getting rid of the Fed, my guess is that he raises another $10 Mil overnight.

"and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian."

And "politically and socially" infantile, while we're at it.

But similar to above, a Ron Paul vote is kinda of a war protest vote - probably more of a isolationist, "America for Americans" vote, a la Buchanan a few years ago. The Paulies just think they're hipper.

They're still cranks. Kinda smart cranks with Asperger's. Don't know if that's an improvement over belligerent dumb-asses who normally vote Republican.

Me, I don't see how a libertarian is so opposed to abortion rights, but there you go.

Or opposed to the free exchange of labor...

Or in favor of gvmt distortion of certain currency and precious metals markets....

luci nails it.

If you want to ignore Paul as a fringe candidate on those grounds, fair enough. Just so long as you also ignore Thompson (92.9% chance of not winning) and McCain (also 92.9%).

I'm sorry, have we not been ignoring Fred and John enough for you?

Here's your homework assignment: go back over the last 6 months and count Kev's posts on McCain, Thompson and RonPaul.

How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Whacky Followers.

Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
By word gaming. As Lenin advised, “First, confuse the vocabulary.”
By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult.
By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don’t report his reasoning.
By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.

But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.

- Moderno Machiavelli

"Why then does Intrade put that chance at 8.7%?"

Bet dollars to doughnuts that the demographic of intratrade traders is heavily libertarian -- and they're not putting their money where their mouth is.

I met RP when he was Libertarian candidate in 1998. He had no answer to the environmental problems cause along the lines of Tragedy of the Commons.

Paul is getting so much money [because] moonbats at Kos and Atrios are giving him lots of it in order to embarass the Republican Party

!!!!!!! [speechless]

Libertarian rule is good when we are all equal. It really really sucks when there is inequality, or when corporations are filled with greedy pigs who sell adulterated meat and bad drugs.

We are not all equal. Corporations are venal and corrupt. Liberatarians are idiots.

PS -- I really don't understand why the gold standard is utterly laughable. The US did pretty well on it for a long time.

I'll have the last laugh yet.

Fruitcakes everywhere are insulted by the comparison.

'Everyone on Wall Street loves Bernanke. He brings them candy and sweets and lets the American worker pay the bill.' - Mike Whitney

I think Kevin ought to do a post on the gold standard, pros and cons, to see if he really understands the issue. Judging by the reference to "free coinage of silver" he has no idea what the gold standard is, or how it would work.

Uh, Crust, no one thinks McCain or Thompson will get the Republican nomination.

He had no answer to the environmental problems cause along the lines of Tragedy of the Commons.

That's because there is no libertarian answer to such problems. Eg, the libertarian answer to global warming is to deny that it exists.

PS -- I really don't understand why the gold standard is utterly laughable. The US did pretty well on it for a long time. Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08

True. But then in the immediate post-WWII world economy there was the U.S., ah, the U.S. and I think the U.S. as major players. Floating currencies based on something considerably more sophisticated than a "precious" metal with very little practical use ("It's pretty" - imagine Patrick or Homer drooling this) didn't much matter.

As a current example of an artificially pegged/fixed currency I offer China's yuan as Exhibit A. Our trade deficit with and China's remarkable growth would both be a lot less significant if the yuan was freely traded.

Foreign currency reserves make a lot more sense than pushing pallets of gold bricks around the vault at Fort Knox. Furthermore, it is the very existence of these gold bricks that help artificially inflate it's "value." Think DeBeers and diamonds.

"Judging by the reference to "free coinage of silver" he has no idea what the gold standard is, or how it would work."

Yes. he does: it's a barbarous relic, and you need to bone up on the bimetallic standard.

In previous years, I have repeatedly warned my friends and colleagues in the Republican Party about the likes of Rep. Paul and his ilk. They do not bode well for the future health of the party that I care so dearly about.

What we need to do is make people think Paul is a Democrat. Perhaps sending out identifying literature that clearly labels him a Democrat from Missouri as opposed to a Republican from Texas. Perhaps I will call into the C-SPAN programs and repeatedly say, "I have a question about Democrat Ron Paul" or "isn't it true that Ron Paul, the Democrat is saying that" and I will pretend not to hear when the host corrects me, if he or she is quick enough to catch the error. If you do that often enough, once in a while, you can get one or two to slip through.

In any even, Ron Paul has a seat at the table that wasn't reserved for him. He is nuttier than a fruitcake and he is not a part of my beloved party.

We are not all equal. Corporations are venal and corrupt. Libertarians are idiots.

Posted by: POed Lib on November 6, 2007 at 3:18 PM

That may be true. But since you are mostly likely to have a choice of differing corporations do business with as a consumer for goods and services, they do have some self interest in being able to attract customers better than their competitors or they will cease to exist. No such choice is available when dealing with a venial and corrupt government, which is why it should be kept as small and be given as few tasks as possible.

bet you he raised more money yesterday than you have made in your entire life blogging. Te - He!

One of the reasons I admire Jackson's presidency is because he helped to disolve the Second Bank of the US (National Bank.) The National Bank did not have the same reason for existence as the Federal Reserve, but the Federal Reserve has devolved to exist for the same reasons the National Bank did - protect the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the economy. Perhaps the Federal Reserve should be replaced with something better, but not if Paul becomes president. We need lots of financial institution regulation, and that is not a job for a Hobbesian.

Homer's insistence that Kev is ignorant of the "gold standard" and needs to post on it is pretty hilarious given that RonPaul has as yet to articulate anything in the way of specifics as to what his "gold standard" would look like except to insist that he would avoid all the problems that led to us jettisoning it in the first place.

Arguing against Ron Paul's "gold standard" is a suckers game precisely because there isn't any coherent policy to argue against.

"The US did pretty well on it [the Gold Standard] for a long time."

Apart from, umm, the Great Depression and stuff, and the wrenching recessions in the late nineteenth century.

Fiat money and automatic economic stabilizers like unemployment benefit and progressive taxes - as great a contribution to human welfare as the invention of penicillin.

You just called a grown man a "fruitcake", as some child would.

Who are you asking to "grow up" again?

And we've sent Paul another $250,000 today (it's about 3:45 PM EST, so still a lot of time).

And we have another million-dollar money bomb set for Sunday.

Does it matter what Kevin Drum says? Not to me.

bet you he raised more money yesterday than you have made in your entire life blogging. Te - He!

In 1993, I made 26 million dollars.

Top that, freak show.

You just called a grown man a "fruitcake", as some child would.

You're right. He's a blithering idiot.

Is that better, nutjob?

I find it ironic that someone would conclude an article by stating that we should all "grow up" when he has started the same article with juvenile name-calling the man a "fruitcake".

I suggest that the author "grow up" and stop name-calling and ad hominem attacks before hypocritically asking others to do so.

And Kevin -- Ron Paul's polling nationally at 5% in the latest USA Today/Gallup and the latest CNN.

And he's just now starting to run ads.

Stand aside, kids! This Revolution will not be stopped.

Likewise, it is thoroughly infantile and childish to argue that most of the Federal Government is unconstitutional. That's ridiculous & not worth responding to. The commerce clause clearly permits the Federal government's regulatory activities. You have to be an insincere hack & idiot, like Clarence Thomas, to think otherwise. Thomas, hilariously, maintains that there is a valid distinction between regulating "manufacturing" and regulating "commerce." Thomas, like Paul, is a lunatic & an embarrassment to our country. And while we have to pay *some* attention to Thomas b/c of his lifetime gig turning out idiotic opinions, we do *not* have to give Paul's moronic ramblings any attention.

Wow, you made $26 million? Can I have some? I need to buy the ingredients so I can toss a Ron Paul salad.

I suggest that the author "grow up" and stop name-calling and ad hominem attacks before hypocritically asking others to do so. Posted by: Steve

Steve's a big poopy head, and his candidate is a fruitcake!

Those who say Paul has not articulated any "coherent" policy in favor of the gold standard (something I am convinced few of you even understand), Paul has been arguing for a transition back to gold for roughly thirty years and has written extensively on the issue:

http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Peace-Prosperity-Ron-Paul/dp/B000XG6SAM/ref=sr_1_2/105-1412064-9123649?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194381798&sr=1-2

His position for a transition to a gold-backed standard involves removing legal tender laws that penalize competing currencies, and to put a stop to the rabid spending that is made possible through inflationary Federal Reserve policy. Allowing the free exhange of gold-backed currency will allow Americans to protect their savings.

Kevin Drum I look in the dictionary under Hack and you name is right there.

Neocons and you ilk are pathetic and treasonous. If you support the wars and destruction of our dollar so much please go enlist at the local recruiting office so that you may be sent to the IRAQ quagmire.

It amazes how duped base Republicans are. You will learn one way or another that you you wrong and Ron Paul will shine through the heaps of manure your types spew incoherently.

http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/

"Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?"

A long, hard economic depression might help.

America is a spoiled rotten brat.

I tell you want, if Ron Paul is against Waterboarding than he's got my vote.

I saw him stand up against Mike Wallace's stupid questions Fax news BS in a the way Dems fear too.

And I sit here and watch two Democrats embrace torture and make it their own, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles E. Schumer of New York. Bush saw nothing wrong in violating his oath of office, Senator's Feinstein, and Schumer saw nothing wrong and helping Bush do it, and violating their own oath of office to support his act of waterboarding.

I don't think I ever want heard Kevin talk about torture again since it was no big deal that Sen. Feinstein did this, because it didn't bother those at the Political Animal, it didn't bother Josh Marshall over at TMP, it didn't bothter Duncan over at Atrios enough to make any serious comment about it? How partisan can the blogs be, Bush does it, bad, Dems do it, it's fine, not even worth an short entry.

Two Dem senators just signed onto torture. If Ron Paul puts back this vital Piece of US Constitution than I will certainly vote for Ron Paul. Dems don't just make voters mad, they make the country sick at heart.

I’m sick and tired of watching Dems do this time again. And these supposedly left wings bloggers pretending it’s no big deal that Feinstein and Schumer have gone and okay for Bush to torture.

There has to be some accountablity, and if Dems can't and simply will not hold Bush accountable, then I see no reason to vote for them at all.

"Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?"

I don't know Mr. Drum, can you grow up? If so, please do.

Hmmm.... it appears that the level of coherency of the RonLocusts has decreased drastically since the last swarmstorm we had here.

Doesn't bode well for his candidacy.

Neocons and you ilk are pathetic and treasonous. If you support the wars and destruction of our dollar so much please go enlist at the local recruiting office so that you may be sent to the IRAQ quagmire. Posted by: Karl

Karl, you must be new here, as none of us (except the trolls) support the war in Iraq or the Bush administration's disastrous economic policies that have led to the dollar's decline. We also aren't going to support your idiot candidate.

Now go away and learn something.

Norman Rogders commenting on Ron Paul.

The nexus of lunacy is accomplished.

Uh shortstop, Disputo: You seem to be under the impression you're disagreeing with me. But like I said twice already, if you don't think Thompson and McCain are serious candidates I'm fine with you also not taking Paul seriously. My point is just if people like JeffII really think Paul has a "snowball's chance in hell", they should sell him on Intrade.

And, no, I would never vote for Ron Paul. I just don't understand why the MSM (and MSB apparently) are so anxious to ignore him. Yes, some of his policies are batty. Same is true for the rest of the right field (e.g. their continuing support for the Iraq War already projecting by the CBO to cost trillions).

How can you write an infantile article, full of misinformation and baseless insults, and then tell us to grow up at the same time? This person is crazy.

JeffII wins this thread!

"But I will say this: if Ron Paul really is suddenly a "serious" candidate, then I expect him to start getting some pointed questions at the next debate."

Frankly, I would love it Paul got some opportunities to answer such questions...it would get more people on board and get the naysayers off his back.

Of course that would mean they would have to give more time to Paul during the debates, and we can't have THAT!

Hey, gang -- I hat to interrupt, but I want to turn people on to a truly amazing event that's currently taking place on the floor of the U.S. House, even as we speak. Check out C-SPAN right now.

This afternoon, Dennis Kucinich introduced HR 333, calling for the impeachment of vice President Cheney. As expected, Democratic Majority Leader made a motion to table (i.e., "kill") the measure.

What Hoyer, et al., were not expecting is an overwhelming majority of Republicans crossing the aisle and supporting Kucinich's effort to keep his resolution alive.

What was supposed to be a 15-minute vote on the motion has now stretched over an hour, with the current tally being 172 Ayes, and 242 Nays - meaning that as it stands, Steney Hoyer just got his political head slapped, and Dennis Kucinich's impeachment measure goes forward.

As it stands, the public's outcry against the rush to war with Iran is apparently being heard, loud and clear.

Yes, that is right. Ron Paul’s message appeals to a very wide audience. Get over it. It is not Ron Paul’s fault that the hateful, war-mongering Neocon message is about as desirable as being served a big turd for breakfast.

Ben Schroeder, have you even bothered to read that? It's all a bunch of handwaving.

Now, your homework assignment is to provide us with a link to a Ron Paul "gold standard" whitepaper, preferably one more recent than 1981, that actually explains the details of what his policy prescription is.

NOTE TO RON PAUL: Get off Kevin Drum's lawn right now you punk kid!

Free coinage of silver, hell. What about 16:1 free printing of yuans?

Regardless of what some polls or prognistications say, the fact is that McCain and Thompson have a credible chance at the nomination if the front runners implode. Paul does not. If we were to threaten enough that his wackiness became general knowledge, the Republican establishment and their media allies would put him down pronto.

Yes, that is right. Ron Paul�s message appeals to a very wide audience. Get over it. It is not Ron Paul�s fault that the hateful, war-mongering Neocon message is about as desirable as being served a big turd for breakfast. Posted by: disinter

Christ almighty! If you drive-bys represent Paul's net roots, his candidacy is even less meaningful than previously thought.

Greenwald's take is, as usual, well worth reading. Unsurprisingly, WaPo didn't think Ron Paul's raising $4 million in a day worthy of reporting, the media's usual obsession with fund raising numbers notwithstanding.

Incidentally, Kevin -- if you think getting rid of the Fed and getting off fiat money are crazy ideas, check out Alan Greenspan lauding both of them on Fox Business Channel a few weeks ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caIgP3Mnb6g

The vote has concluded, Kucinich's resolution stays alive because Hoyer's motion to table has failed. The House has now begun to vote as to whether or not to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee for its due consideration.

Name-calling is all that's left when you have no rational arguments. How childish.

Incidentally, Kevin -- if you think getting rid of the Fed and getting off fiat money are crazy ideas, check out Alan Greenspan lauding both of them on Fox Business Channel a few weeks ago: Posted by: FZappa

Next are you guys going to bring in OJ to tell us who the killer really is?

Uh, Crust, no one thinks McCain or Thompson will get the Republican nomination.

Why just this morning I saw my first "Fred '08" sticker. 'Course, I was thinking Flintstone.

And just who the hell do you think you are? What gives you or anyone the right to say who has a chance and who doesn't. That's the problem with mainstream media and political snobs. You think you know so much but you're absolutely detached from the realities of the world around you. You've been in bed with the government for so long it's like your locked in some pornographic bedroom, broadcasting just how much you in the media and those in the government need each other.

Why don't you grow up?

Yea! Ron Paul is a poopy-head too!!

Anyone that doesn't think so should grow up!!

JeffII -- yes, I understand the benefits of floating a currency, but I don't see that the gold standards is *totally laughable* such that it disqualifies any candidate who endorses it. China does pretty well w/o floating -- not so bad that it is absurd...

The first person who needs to grow up is you Kevin.

"Quit talking about Ron Paul WAAYHHHHHH!"
"Quit talking about Ron Paul WAHYYYHHHHH!"

Instead of whining like three-year old, ask yourself why 2,500 college students at University of Michigan would turn out to listen to a man talk about the gold standard and abolishing the Fed? Are they all crazy? Ask yourself why other candidates cannot generate the kind of fundraising on the internet nor the amount of grassroots support he has? Ask yourself what would be the political impact of significant antiwar wing of the GOP on Iraq and foreign policy in general?

Of course you wanty to do so after the time out in the corner I would assume.

He is nuttier than a fruitcake and he is not a part of my beloved party.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Pot, meet kettle.

LOL -- yeah, let's scoff Ron Paul out of the race, cuz the last thing America needs the Republican Party to have is a principled candidate who says what he means hanging around until people cast actual votes.

I'd never vote for him (I remember him from the early 1980s when there was an actual commission that examined the Gold Standard), but I like Ron Paul -- and more than that, I like the IDEA of Ron Paul.

Political campaigns, especially Presidential campaigns, ought to have a loooong phase where folks who are even marginally qualified with barely possible shots at winning, get taken seriously DESPITE having ideas of which Wise People disapprove.

Besides, how can you dis a guy who has delivered thousands of babies running for President?

"You think you know so much but you're absolutely detached from the realities of the world around you."

LOL... I love this comment, particularly when "the realities of the world around [me]" clearly show that Ron Paul will never get the Republican nomination, much less the Presidency, not to mention that Ron Paul is an incoherent nutcase, many of whose policies are simply nonsensical. That's reality; deal with it.

Wow. Kevin Drum is calling Glenn Greenwald childish and a big baby.

It's on now!

Kevin Drum, I wonder how many $100 dollar bills Rockefeller shoved up your ... to be such a child, and for you to be so rude and stupid, but really Mr Drum, or should I say Mr Dumb, you see, you just prove some more that you people are biased and you help the Ron Paul campaign with your bias, we have woken up thousands, and now many more will wake up, all thanks to you.

What was supposed to be a 15-minute vote on the motion has now stretched over an hour, with the current tally being 172 Ayes, and 242 Nays - meaning that as it stands, Steney Hoyer just got his political head slapped, and Dennis Kucinich's impeachment measure goes forward.

As it stands, the public's outcry against the rush to war with Iran is apparently being heard, loud and clear.

While it would be great to think that the GOP has woken up to the will of the American people and the sheer insanity of attacking Iran, it would appear that the GOP caucus' motive was forcing immediate debate in order to embarrass the Democrats. Let's see if the Democratic caucus is up to it.

Adults need to grow up because their thinking outside of the box? Wishing the federal reserve was ridden of has gone from being a controversial issue in America, to being brushed off and the supporters of its annihilation are told to grow up. If grown up means conforming to what some journalist who will never make it anywhere in life has said, then I think i'd be one of many proud Americans to say that as an adult, I'm not yet 'grown up'.

Are Paul's policy ideas wackier or more cynical than other politicians?

The GOP hopefuls have a fair bit of wackiness and cynicism.

New Hampshire should be friendly territory for Ron Paul. If he places top three in Iowa, it's certainly possible Paul could win NH.

And then the GOP would really freak out.

BTW, how far can Paul go in the GOP primary and switch to running as an independent or minor party candidate in the general?

I think most states have laws that prevent candidates from running in the primaries and then switching party affiliation.

John Anderson did this in 1980 and I expect both Dems and Republicans agreed that allowing this is bad for the two-party system.

Besides, how can you dis a guy who has delivered thousands of babies running for President?

Who are these thousands of Paul-delivered babies all running for prez, and why weren't they at the last debate? Oh, prolly there weren't enough podiums.

. . . but I like Ron Paul -- and more than that, I like the IDEA of Ron Paul. Posted by: theAmericanist

Why doesn't this surprise me?

I'm a long way from being a Ron Paul supporter, but Kevin Drum is not the man who should be telling anyone to "grow up."

It isn't Ron Paul's supporters who believe that the essential qualification of the next Democratic President is that she be married to the last one. Ron Paul's supporters aren't out there arguing that two years of being a part-time Senator and writing books about oneself is fine preparation for being the leader of the Free World, nor are they touting a lifetime of ambulance-chasing as it if were some kind of holy calling.

And it isn't Ron Paul's fans who write off candidates who've spent more time thinking about being President than they have running for President as "not serious." I give Rep. Paul credit for believing what he says, and if not everything he says seems to make sense we still ought to ask, compared to what?

Disputo-

Interesting...nothing short of a whitepaper will satisfy your curiosity about repealing legal tender laws and ending taxes on gold/silver transactions? Does he have to write a treatise about ending torture, too?

It sounds like you are uninformed and want Ron Paul to educate you. If you truly understood the arguments against a fiat currency (which, although digestable to the average person, are too involved to explain in a 1-2 time allotment), then there would be no need for a whitepaper.

Why not educate yourself with the same economic principles that have guided Ron Paul? Then you can tell all your friends precisely why his position is wrong instead of resorting to ad homonims like "nutty" or "fruitcake." Your arguments might be more persuasive.

http://www.mises.org/books/Theory_Money_Credit/Contents.aspx

New Hampshire should be friendly territory for Ron Paul.

Depends on how well the Free State Project is going....

Ron Paul's campaign is not meaningless because it adds new dimensions to the political debate. He has gotten attention for viewpoints which would otherwise not otherwise be heard, which last time I heard was one of the raison d'etre's of democracy.

Although he has no shot at winning the Republican nomination, I fully expect that he will run in the general election either as a Libertarian or on the Unity08 ticket. This will greatly change the dynamic of the general election, much as Perot did in 1992 even though he had no shot at winning either.

Virginia:
[T]he fact is that McCain and Thompson have a credible chance at the nomination if the front runners implode. Paul does not.

You offered your opinion as pretty much pure assertion, unsullied by supporting argument. Why should anyone care what your opinion is? If you really believe this why don't you sell Paul on Intrade. The market there reflects a consensus of people willing to put their money where their mouth is.

In fairness, you did have a hint of supporting argument, that wacky stuff would eventually come out about Paul. I agree that some of Paul's positions are wacky -- e.g. going on the gold standard would remove our ability to smooth the business cycle for no good reason IMHO. But there's plenty of stuff about the other candidates that have gotten little play, e.g. Thompson's lobbying for the deregulation that -- predictably -- caused the S&L crisis or his bizarro-world views on global warming (see his piece in NRO in which he literally compared himself to Galileo).

You don't speak for those of us who have served, chief... Since when does a Presidential candidate who has been re-elected ten times deserve the lip service you offer as journalism ? Go back to your
rate-quotes and low fat yogurt and worming watch sonny..and leave the driving to us.

So you see the President as a maker of financial fortunes. Perhaps you should have doubled up on the political science courses..and laid off the roofies.
Since the grand ol days, I have buried countless
lost friends who fought the last meaningless war fot politics..unless you're willing to go get some mud on you, stay out of the discussion.

Let the wingnuts fight.

I'm tired of watching the Dems defeat themselves.

When's the show gonna start?

Zathras: "It isn't Ron Paul's supporters who believe that the essential qualification of the next Democratic President is that she be married to the last one. Ron Paul's supporters aren't out there arguing that two years of being a part-time Senator and writing books about oneself is fine preparation for being the leader of the Free World, nor are they touting a lifetime of ambulance-chasing as it if were some kind of holy calling."

What a coincidence! Neither are any Democrats. So see, perhaps we DO have some common ground, after all.

Gore/Edwards 08: I understand the benefits of floating a currency, but I don't see that the gold standards is *totally laughable* such that it disqualifies any candidate who endorses it. China does pretty well w/o floating -- not so bad that it is absurd...

China doesn't float its currency, but they don't have a gold standard either. It's not an either/or situation. Having a gold standard means not floating your currency, but not having a gold standard doesn't necessarily mean floating your currency.

There are, in fact, many arguments against freely floating currencies, but they're not arguments for a gold standard.

I just donated another 200 bucks to Ron Paul for you Kevin..next week I start on the neighbors..

Ron Paul will shine through the heaps of manure your types spew incoherently.

Posted by: Karl

Now, that's a bumper sticker!

*swarms*

"this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didn't understand"

I like how you admit to not understanding things, Kevin. unless you're somehow not part of the audience?

Yes, we all get called fruitcakes for advocating that we follow the constitution. Try using the word 'radical' too, because I didn't see it in your post.

Maybe you shold grow up and understand that we don't want a government that will pamper us like children and take care of us from cradle to grave? I want to run my own life, and I belive I can make a lot better decisions about my life than the government can. In your case, I will concede you need some sort of help to be taken care of, but it doesn't apply to the majority.

I think the great lengths people go to marginalize Ron Paul to be indicative of the fact that he's hit a nerve.

The popular thing is to point out that his policies don't matter because he can't win, instead of pointing out that his policies are drawing some serious support. Of course technophiles are disproportionately libertarian, which is of course why all libertarian candidates for president break records for online fundraising... oh wait they don't.

I personally find this kind of smarmy attack without any real merit to be disgusting. I mean lets face it, I think Kevin is completely aware that Ron Paul is the most searched for candidate on the web, and that if he berates him he will get more hits, which means more money through ads.

Bravo Kevin.

The whole Paul is wacky and therefore doesn't stand a chance in the Republican primary is just silly, IMHO. The current Republican frontrunner is wacky. The whole idea that the Iraq War could be justified based on a connection to 9/11 is wacky. Current prominent Republicans are wacky. Period.

Its going to be sad when the primary is over, and we can't tease the Paultards anymore.

PS. Do any of you flat earthers even know if there is enough gold in the world to back the US Currency?

Truly pathetic. I am not a bot, I am an educated member of a society with marginalizes its own constitution and I refuse to let that happen without a fight.

Ya see, Ben every time I ask one of you RonBots a simple question, like, for example, what would Paul's "gold standard" policy be, I always get the same ridiculous non-response:

It sounds like you are uninformed and want Ron Paul to educate you. If you truly understood the arguments against a fiat currency ... then there would be no need for a whitepaper.

Every. Fucking. Time.

Every. Fucking. Time.

Look, dumbass, I don't need a tutorial. I already understand the issues. What I want is to know, What does Ron Paul plan on doing? It's a very simple question. What does Ron Paul plan on doing? One that should be very simple for someone who actually knows what he is going to do to answer. What does Ron Paul plan on doing?

But all you f-ing RonBots act like it is some kind of received wisdom that you'll only gain once you sufficiently believe that RonPaul is the second coming.

You'll have to excuse us sane people when we treat you nutballs as belonging to an ignorance cult.

odd, isn't it, that the Paulites keep insisting that people should break US law to make a political statement? I assume they are aware that intrade is an offshore (in this case Ireland) gambling site, and it is therefore a violation of US Federal Law to place money on the site from the United States? oh, and if it were, in fact, legal, I would place everything I own selling Paul as the GOP nominee.

go ahead, try and use a US-billed credit card to place a deposit.

odd, isn't it, that the Paulites keep insisting that people should break US law to make a political statement? I assume they are aware that intrade is an offshore (in this case Ireland) gambling site, and it is therefore a violation of US Federal Law to place money on the site from the United States? oh, and if it were, in fact, legal, I would place everything I own selling Paul as the GOP nominee.

go ahead, try and use a US-billed credit card to place a deposit.

Oddly, now that I think of it, I like Ron Paul; I just dont like people who like him.

Maybe you shold grow up and understand that we don't want a government that will pamper us like children and take care of us from cradle to grave? I want to run my own life, and I belive I can make a lot better decisions about my life than the government can. In your case, I will concede you need some sort of help to be taken care of, but it doesn't apply to the majority. Posted by: Daniel

Boy oh boy did you just give the corpse of Ayn Rand a clitoral boner or what? That's got to be one of the most impassioned out-of-the-bunker speeches I've read (in the last eleven minutes).

To the barricades, fellow egoists! Down with the average, the sentimental. Down with humanity and civilization!

jimmy-

When the term "gold standard" is applied in libertarian/economic circles is does not necessarily mean that we must back all paper currency with gold at a fixed rate. It means a return to commodity-based, market valuated currency. In the absence of legal tender laws, Federal reserve money printing, anc confiscatory taxation on gold and silver transactions, consumers will naturally gravitate towards a currency with a stable value. History demonstrates that this will most likely be gold and silver.

"Gold standard" is a term that has been applied generically to commodity-based market money, and doesn't necessarily mean a return to a fixed paper/gold ratio.

Why just this morning I saw my first "Fred '08" sticker. 'Course, I was thinking Flintstone.
Posted by: ckelly '

Priceless.

'For some time now, the U.S. economy has been hopelessly finance-driven, and the greater and more protracted the Credit excesses the greater the "transformation" of the economic structure. And it is the underlying real economy that today cannot "pay its bills" and is therefore hooked on ever increasing Credit inflation. This should by now be recognized as the Road to Ruin. Contemporary finance and its operators should be held accountable. ' -
Road to ruin By Doug Noland
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/
IK06Dj01.html

Ron Paul is the only clearly anti-war candidate. Not just anti-war, but anti-machine politics candidate.

You are correct that it is a luxury of those with little chance of success to be able to speak truth clearly. However, I would look at two important notions...

- The public is craving clear opposition to the policies of this current administration.

- The Democratic party is not and has not provided meaningful opposition to the behavior of the administration, in fact, one must call them complicit.

If Democrats took seriously that congress' popularity is in the dumps and responded with real opposition; I feel they could tap in to Paul's popularity. I wish they would, though I'm not confident.

When Krugman says:
"I sometimes hear people say that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans; that’s foolish." (yesterday's column in the nyt)

Foolish or no, that people cannot clearly differentiate between parties during tenure of the most far-right GOP administration does not speak well of Democrats ability to voice opposition. It's not clear from Democrats' behavior that they actually are in opposition to the administration.

And so, one finds a protest voice in the voice of protest: unfortunately, at this point that's only Ron Paul.

I hope, rather than prompting ridicule, his appeal prompts clear speech and clear action from Democrats. The country needs it.

Disputo-

I'll quote my original post since you apparently missed it in your outrage:

"repealing legal tender laws and ending taxes on gold/silver transactions?"

How long should the whitepaper be in order to explain this?

Maybe you shold grow up and understand that we don't want a government that will pamper us like children and take care of us from cradle to grave? I want to run my own life, and I belive I can make a lot better decisions about my life than the government can. In your case, I will concede you need some sort of help to be taken care of, but it doesn't apply to the majority. Posted by: Daniel

Hey chump. If our government is too oppressive for you, why aren't you living in Mogadishu, or Darfur, or say, Baghdad? very little government to stand in the way of your decision making ability there, kiddo! or is it that you are making the decision to live in a place where the government does, in fact, do something?

In any even, Ron Paul has a seat at the table that wasn't reserved for him. He is nuttier than a fruitcake and he is not a part of my beloved party.

In that case, he's got my vote!

shortstop: "... it would appear that the GOP caucus' motive was forcing immediate debate in order to embarrass the Democrats. Let's see if the Democratic caucus is up to it."

That's exactly what a spokesmen for Minority Leader John Boehner said. Unfortunately for them, the Republican machinations merely helped Kucinich's genie to excape from Steney Hoyer's bottle, thanks in no small part to their own House GOP Leadership's rank stupidity, or inexplicable inability to understand Mason's rules regarding parliamentary procedure. The measure was instead referred to House Judiciary Committee -- specifically to its Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, chaired by Congressman Jerrold Nadler.
-- over the objections of those very same Republicans.

Concerned Americans now need to call Chairman John Conyers, Rep. Nadler and members of the Judiciary Committee, and urge them to take up the debate on H.Res. 333 ASAP.

The bots must have money to have raised 4 million dollars.

I think, Mr. Drum, that Ron Paul scares the hell out of you. He scares the hell out of anyone who is in the established system because he represents a direct threat to the satus quo. And what scares you even more is that thousands of people are starting to back him even with the mainstream media practiacally ignoring him. He argues a position which dates back to the start of our country based on the ideals and principals that our country was founded on. And people can recognize truth when they hear it.

Unlike most of the candidates on either side of the aisle, he is not spouting off a string of party lines regurgitated time and time again. He speaks from his heart, directly. Almost unheard of in politics these days.

You can't argue with him, so you call him names.

You can't understand what happened yesterday, so you dismiss it.

Wake up Mr. Drum or you might be left behind by a movement which has been building in this country for many many years now. Bringing together people from all sides of the political spectrum. We are fed up with our government! We want change, god damn it! And we want it Now! If it's not Ron Paul, then it will be someone else. This movement can not be stopped.

Sorry Kevin - exactly WHAT is wrong with a return to the Gold Standard and fiscal responsibility? What's that? It doesn't allow for rabid consumerism, which leads to the manufacture of cheap plastic crap, export of American jobs, increased use of natural resources and pollution world-wide? What's that? It doesn't lead to stagflation, banks hiding sub-prime mortgage losses behind the black curtain? The Fed is a fraud - plain and simple. It is there to protect the profits of the mega-rich. Nothing else. Oh, and it's completely illegal - fyi. I suggest you do a little research before spewing your "boo-hoo" rhetoric about how we should all just TOE THE CORPORATE CANDIDATE LINE and accept business as usual. Tis you who is the fool, fool.

I think most states have laws that prevent candidates from running in the primaries and then switching party affiliation.

I guess Connecticut isn't one of them...

Foolish or no, that people cannot clearly differentiate between parties during tenure of the most far-right GOP administration does not speak well of Democrats ability to voice opposition. It's not clear from Democrats' behavior that they actually are in opposition to the administration.

Point well-taken, and I don't think you'd get any argument from most of the faithful who post here. However, how does this open the door for someone as disconnected from reality as Ron Paul, if that's what you are suggesting?

I hope, rather than prompting ridicule, his appeal prompts clear speech and clear action from Democrats. The country needs it. Posted by: Jackifus

However, Ron Paul is no John Anderson. I'm not sure he's even Ross Perot.

As far as flat earthers and gold standard and the like. I don't see why a standard where the currency is backed by a commodity is so far fetched. It could be very simple as it has been in the fast by turning paper currency into certificates that entitle you to a given amount of a commodity.

This is something that I think alot less about, it matters less to me since we have traded constant inflation for never having deflation. Which has its advantages and disadvantages but ultimately as I am not a PhD economist i have little thought on other than I don't like the rate at which my money becomes devalued.

Its easy to just dismiss an idea as stupid without providing an argument as to why its stupid. I think both sides RonBots and Haters do themselves injustice by a) not understanding the issue and b) dismissing the issue immediately because they can.

I personally find this kind of smarmy attack without any real merit to be disgusting. I mean lets face it, I think Kevin is completely aware that Ron Paul is the most searched for candidate on the web, and that if he berates him he will get more hits, which means more money through ads.

The downside is the site becomes infested with Paulines, and they aren't interested in any advertisers who don't sell role playing games, anime porn or Leonard Peikoff-shaped marital aids. They're LaRouchites with computers.

"repealing legal tender laws and ending taxes on gold/silver transactions?" How long should the whitepaper be in order to explain this?

Well, if you think that that is sufficient detail to explain Paul's proposed "gold standard" policy, then you really have no idea what you are talking about. I doubt that you even understand what the quoted text means.

Sorry, buddy. When you admitted that you hadn't even read the monograph you originally referred me to, I should have realized that you are an idiot trolling way out of your depth and not worth bothering with.

Still, if any sane RonBot out there can answer my question, I'm all ears/eyes.

Ben,

Why would I care about confiscatory taxation on gold and silver transactions? I dont have any silver or gold, nor do I trade with them. More to the point, perhaps, does any country in the whole world have a commodity-based, market valuated currency? I mean, all these countries, if it is such a good idea, one of them must have adopted it?

Doesnt it seem like we have progress passed beyond the principles of barter? The bank doesnt have the money you lend it, the government doesnt have the gold or silver or magnesium to exchange for dollars.

Might as have a candidate who wants to return to the Telegraph.

I know it seems unfair, Ron Paul is a good man, (and who knows he might make a good President?) but crazy beliefs disqualify you from becoming president.

What wonderful benefits will the Gold Standard bring us? Fairy dust on everyone? As near as I can tell, it's supposed to stop inflation, but I think that would probably be worse than allowing a little more inflation. Right now America is a nation of debtors, and a little bit of inflation would be great for them.

This movement can not be stopped.
Posted by: Sinclair Lewis

That's not an earthquake. That's Sinclair Lewis making like a dynamo from his grave.

How fuckin' dare you?

Pathetic.

Ben Schroeder: When the term "gold standard" is applied in libertarian/economic circles is does not necessarily mean that we must back all paper currency with gold at a fixed rate. It means a return to commodity-based, market valuated currency.

Oh, I get it. Silly me - I thought the word "gold" meant "gold". So when the William Jennings Bryan and the populists advocated a bi-metal standard, they really meant a gold standard (except not).

And his opponent advocated a gold standard too. In fact there was no difference in their positions. What a shame you weren't around to explain that to them.

It's a good thing that Ron Pau