Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

B. K. — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:03:13 GMT

Ron Paul says he will not run, other than as a Republican.

He says he is running now to get his ideas out there -- get out of Iraq and a lot of other countries, lower taxes, smaller government.

That is why I am supporting him. I want pepole to know that there is a candidate who is really against the war in Iraq, and never voted for it. And, he is a Republican, so Republicans are not all bad.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Indiana — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:10:19 GMT

Please tell me this is an opinion piece. All I see are reasons why someone wouldn't want to vote for Dr. Paul at the expense of all his ideas that almost everyone supports.

Ron has already said he will not run as a third party candidate. Can you think of a time in the last 30 years Dr. Paul has gone back on his word or lied? No. In fact, no one can, which is why the other candidates are scared, which is why he has so much support, which is why it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest he might run as a third party candidate.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

bwh22 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:53:35 GMT

I am a loyal Paul supporter. i do see him running 3rd party as a slight possibility. He has never said he won't run 3rd party, just that it isn't likely. If he said he would, he would be all but admitting defeat. I do believe he has a very good chance to win the nomination. Polls are skewed to not mention Paul. He has a whole lot more support than the media gives him credit for. I will vote for him in the general election, even if it's 3rd party or I have to write him in. No other candidate wants to end the war, actually lower taxes, protect our rights (esp 2nd amendment) and work on peaceful relationships with other countries of the world.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

sratiug — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:59:12 GMT

Following your logic, everyone should vote for Ron Paul to get his message out and insure a Republican victory in the general election. Bring back the ideals of Jefferson, get rid of this National Bank so the government can quit stealing from the people. Jefferson warned against and fought victoriously against the National Bank and it's our duty as patriotic Americans to elect Ron Paul, who has won a majority of the straw polls and after debate polls which makes him the leading candidate.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

BubbaDownSouth — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:18:40 GMT

Ron Paul would get his share of Republican votes due to his belief in a balanced budget and smaller government and the fact that not every republican is for the Iraq war. Every Republican is for smaller government, balanced budgets and prosperity.

We can do without the Departments of Energy, Education and Transportation. The Energy Department has not increased production of oil, gas, coal or nuclear energy. The local school boards should keep all the money locally for use in education, rather than have any go to Washington. The States would be better off having the 18.4 cents per gallon of Federal excise tax stay in their own state, rather than send it to Washington and only get part of it back. We sure do not need the Transportation Department giving a 50 cent per gallon subsidy to ethanol producers and taxing foreign producers by the same amount. We can make cane ethanol as easily and efficiently as the Brasilians.

Americans just want solutions that are good for Americans.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

RON_PAUL_WINS_IOWA — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:47:44 GMT

First off let me say that I do appreciate the coverage. Second, however this article does contain the same [getting] old[er and older] fascist/empire slant, that among other things "The State" (or "Gov") [shall] reign(s) supreme over the individual. I am convinced however that it is not the writer(s) or reporter(s) fault(s). This is a (supremacy) disease in thinking that is epidemic in America. It has been promoted by a 'controlling' faction of our country that has continued to consider themselves alone above any 'law'(by control I mean they have and have had control of all the resources media 'law' enforcement 'military' and wealth for some time). The same way Germany's consciousness became polluted during Hitler such has happened here. FEAR the devil himself has taken us for a ride.

Freedom is such that it is intimately intertwined with freedom. The founders knew this. The bible speaks of this. The two are inseparable. Attack freedom and sacrifice humanity itself. Look at what these people have done. Paul and all of us who have awaken to the truth of the matter help those in fear to see the light. I myself have always maintained my faith in the individual, individual responsibilty and therefore humanity.

Pauls message is an imperative because the path we've been on has been tearing the very fabric of humanity and our planet.

Have faith, believe in and allow the change for a necessary rEVOLution.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

RON_PAUL_WINS_IOWA — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:53:25 GMT

Freedom is such that it is intimately intertwined with freedom. The founders knew this. The bible speaks of this. The two are inseparable. Attack freedom and sacrifice humanity itself. Look at what these people have done (TORTURE KILLING INNOCENTS). Paul and all of us who have awakenED to the truth of the matter help those in UNECESSARY FEAR to see the LIGHT. I myself have always maintained my faith in the individual, individual responsibility, democracy and, therefore, humanity and FREEDOM not kingdom, not serfdom, not neoslavery. LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE FREE PURSUITS OF HAPPINESS. The tighter this "empire" tries to control and squeeze (repress) the individual the more we will like hamburger slip out between it's talons. Freedom is and will always be OMNIPOTENT (all powerful) and OMNIPRESENT (always there here and everywhere). We don't need to police the world to promote this. Policing is in conflict to this. It is inherent.

Pauls message is an imperative because the path we've been on other than being an utter hoax, fraud and a farce, like the war on drugs, has been tearing the very fabric of humanity, from such a hypocritical corner as "standing for freedom."

Have faith, believe in and allow the change for a necessary for this all important rEVOLution. The stealth empire must give way to the individual (the benevolence of the individual) and democracy. Don't believe the evil focus that comes from your mindbox (TV). Believe what you know in your heart to be true.

"We The People" and Ron Paul love, faith, peace, goodness and prosperity wins in 2008!

Sincerely,

In Peace & Freedom

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

bfeheley — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:31:41 GMT

Ron Paul is warning us of dangers that are real. If you want to prove this to yourself, you have the internet. Read what our own economists say about the consequences of the falling US dollar. Read history and compare our situation to other empires who were on the brink of collapse, and see how it ended. I will vote for him one way or the other (write-in if I have to) because it's not about which party wins, it's about finally having someONE to support wholeheartedly. And if the truth is realized too slowly by the people, I will still be able to say that I did my part in trying to save what is left of America. Read the Constitution. Go on, read it. Then talk about Ron Paul.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

dmc4rp — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:52:15 GMT

C-3PO: "Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately three thousand seven hundred and twenty to one!"

Han Solo: "Never tell me the odds!"

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Procleus — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:27:11 GMT

Ron Paul has some really strong conservative credentials, but has this infectious view on liberty, and really strong economic insight.

I would discount the third party concept, in favour of him being the best Republican prospect, when voters get to know him and his idea's. His strategy should be one of victory. First the Republican nomination and perhaps the Democrats should be concerned more about that. I don't think the best of their candidates can match him.

If he loses the Republican primary, the idea's he represents, and has re-ignited, will not go away, but will influence all the parties in the future. Liberty, hope, a ( fiscally responsible ) path to prosperity and freedom are getting a huge jump start.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

monroe doctrine — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:43:48 GMT

Republicans should fear Paul on the remote chance he'll run a 3rd party candidacy. Here are the match-ups and why Romano is wrong.

Paul (I) versus Huckabee (R) – Paul will draw more votes from Huckabee than the (D) nominee because fiscal/social conservatives that don’t believe literally in the bible far out number those that do.

Paul (I) versus Giulani (R) – Paul will draw more votes from Giulani than the (D) nominee because pro-life voters will have no where else to go.

Paul (I) versus Romney (R) – Paul will draw more votes from Romney than the (D) nominee (thought this is the closest call) because Romney will have been brutalized in the primary process by Giulani and McCain, and looks like a phony in general, and particularly on the abortion issue.

Paul (I) versus McCain (R) - Paul will draw more votes from McCain than the (D) nominee because McCain, in spite of his trying, is not credible to social conservatives.

Paul (I) versus Thompson (R) - Thompson has no chance at being the nominee so not worth discussing. I would love to see a head-to-head poll of Paul versus Thompson. I imagine Paul would destroy Thompson.

There is no arguing his current appeal to young voters now, which tend to run Democratic. However, Paul’s pro-life stance isn’t generally known to those supporters. Can you imagine that in 11 months that will still be a secret?

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

milana4 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:58:37 GMT

Ron Paul will not win pro-choice women and men. I find it amazing that no one comments on Paul's hypocritical stance of "medical freedom" and "privacy rights" but is staunchly anti-choice. I guess privacy is fine for everyone but child-bearing women.

The man is a loon. Anyone who thinks states would do a better job at education should remember it was the federal government that finally killed school segregation. Or does segregation appeal to Dr. Ron supporters as well?

If anything, democrats are feeling that after all the graft of this present administration, a STRONGER Federal government with oversight is necessary. People with Liberal beliefs and values such as good schools, stronger protection for the environment, helping the poor and disabled are not going to vote for Ron Paul.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

ShowMeLiberty — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:47:59 GMT

@ milana4

I'm a pro-choice woman and I'm supporting Ron Paul. I find it amazing that you can be so disingenuous about Dr. Paul's stated opinion on abortion. Yes, personally he is pro-life but politically (where it really matters) he is in favor of letting each state set its own abortion laws.

You are being disingenuous again concerning the Federal Dept. of Education. Public school desegregation started long before the Federal Dept. of Education which did not even begin operating until 1980. It it not necessary, it is an enormous waste of tax dollars and it forces schools to focus on standardized test scores instead of engaging the children in real learning.

If anything, Democrats are feeling that their party has betrayed them by doing as much to erode freedom and peace as neocon Republicans have. I personally know several lifelong Democrats who will be voting for Ron Paul in the Primaries.

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

- Thomas Jefferson

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

rlgndstryshmnty — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:31:34 GMT

I have to say that you are absolutely high(which by the way wouldn't be illegal if Ron Paul becomes President). Let's look at two important issues that motivate Republicans, taxes and abortion. He'll get the republicans that care about low taxes(which is a huge number), and he'll get the evangelicals who only care about the illegality of abortion as he will surely appoint a strict constitutionalist , especially if the republican nominee is Giuliani. Even if the Republican nominee is Romney I do believe the evangelicals will have a hard time voting for a Mormon and again they will vote Ron Paul.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

JNugent74 — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:11:49 GMT

Ron Paul is not just running 'to get his ideas out there'. He is running to win. It's Tancredo and Hunter who are running for ideological reasons. Getting the Republican nomination is tough for a guy like Ron Paul. But I don't think it's impossible. I have, however, entertained speculation of an independent bid. We Paulites will push him to run independent if his Republican bid doesn't pan out. And if that happens, it will be the strongest independent run ever, I guarantee you. And I believe he can pull it off. You know, actually WIN. Just my thoughts, though. They are anathema amongst many RP supporters who believe any talk of this now is way premature. He will do well in the Republican primaries, I'm sure.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

wreakon — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:25:36 GMT

Ron says he won't run as Independent because it seems there are laws which make it very difficult to do so. This is unfortunate, because his views transend the democratic or republican stances. I've always perceived America to be confused with the dual-parties simply as an instrument of creating useless debate; since both really did the same things. In our capitalistic system in principle (and as we've seen in history) the republican politics values bode well laisez-faire economics.

Our founders argued that Republic means that "citizens are owned by a society," however as the revolution progressed they realized that citizens are more self-interested than they liked to think. Therefore a Constitutional Repbublic was created.

Another example is the failure of federal government on several key programs, such as No Child Left Behind, Medicare and Social Security.

And of course, who can forget the fall of Socialism. While I cannot completely say that socialistic view is defeated, we have ample examples of this, "self-interest" realized through free-market competition.

As some people have mentioned, I firmly believe we need to get Ron Paul into office, we need to do everything possible to get his nomination in the GOP. It is NOT enough JUST to get his views spread across America. Either we will get Ron Paul elected and pursue his tradition; or America will be subdued by economic crises, may never be America we know again.

If Ron Paul does not get elected, mass migration OUT of America will occur; no-one will want to pay the debt of this government for the unconstitutional wars, and federal programs that have failed.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

wetreverb — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:46:05 GMT

I am delighted that Ron Paul is running such an aggressive and CLEAN campaign. His is a sterling example that should shame the Hell out of hacks like Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Clinton, etc, etc.

Even in the face of unforgivably RUDE and HOOLIGANISH treatment from neo-Contemptible media commetators such as Pinhead O'Reilly and Scum Hannity, Paul maintains complete control of himself, and has stayed a gentleman throughout. He has demonstrated far more patience and "HEART" than any of the other candidates.

On the issues, he may well be the last hope we Americans have of holding onto at least some of this country's greatness. God knows, between the policies of the Republicrat and Democrican Administrations and Congresses of the last 40 years, our "leaders" have managed to sell out most of our best jobs and careers to foreign countries, and have succeeded in bringing the remnants of American industry to its knees.

Bureau of Labor statistics show that in just 20 years, the American Standard of Living has fallen, via shifts in aggregate employment numbers. In 1986 General Motors was the single largest Private Sector employer. In 2006, it was WAL-MART. Seriously folks, where do you think the paychecks and benefits were better? It's a complete No-Brainer ISN'T IT?

People like Ron Paul, actually GET IT, even as the more mainstream candidates continue to obfuscate and play games with words, to confuse and continue to mislead us as to what the important issues really are. Restoring what Reagan, the Clintons, and the Bush family have sought to take away from us, namely, our Bill of Rights, IS DAMNED IMPORTANT AND URGENT BUSINESS.

Restoring sanity and rationality to our Credit and Money Supply will be absolutely essential to maintaining our freedom, independence and sovereignty as a nation.

Removing the corrupt, anti-American Federal Reserve System is something that should have been done decades ago. Even the man who signed the Federal Reserve Act, Woodrow Wilson, expressed deep regrets about that action, shortly before his death in 1924, stating that unwittingly, he had allowed this group of private multi-national bankers, to hoodwink him into surrendering America's financial and political independence to the bankers.

IF EVEN THE PRESIDENT WHO HELPED CREATE THE FED, FELT SO NEGATIVELY ABOUT IT, SAYING THAT IT WAS RUINING OUR COUNTRY, does it not make sense to support the ONE candidate who has promised to abolish the Fed?

Further, the IRS own annual reports bear out the fact that out of every year's collection, Personal 1040 Income Tax Collections are turned virtually 100% right over to the FED, to pay its outrageous annual interest charges for running our money and credit supply! That is the primary reason why, without the FED, Ron Paul promises to also abolish the IRS and ELIMINATE personal Income Taxes in America!

This man should be held up as a national hero, and he deserves all of our support, and efforts, to help him win both the nomination and the General Election in 2008.

GO RON GO!!!!!!!!

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

tcantrellews — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:12:12 GMT

Andrew Romano, your mom is calling. Time for you diaper change.

WTF is up with this 20 something idiot who seems to think that pushing off debt now for your grandkids to pay is not a threat to the country? Wake up stupid! You ARE that guy that will have to pay for all this! Respect the fact that some of your elders are trying to put a stop to the endless waste and spending that the Republicans and Democrats have perpetuated for so long. We do NOTY need military bases in every country in the world. We do NOT need to police other countries. We need to fix our own country first. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. SPENDING ALL THIS MONEY ON MILITARY BASES HAS NOT PROTECT US. WE, AS A COUNTRY, ARE BROKE.

And who cares if he is dedicated to 'the party' or not? What is this? Nazi Germany? Communist Russia?

Sorry, but when some little chump reporter, who can't be bothered to show up to a meeting on time (I walked in about five minutes late, fumbling with my notepad and tape recorder), I get a little irritated. Learn to show up to work on time sonny before you decide you are important enough to shoot off your mouth. I ask you, America, is this the voice of reason? Or is it just another child trying to act all grown up by spouting a bunch of crap.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

W Gary Johnson — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:23:17 GMT

The small government, sound money, non-interventionist wing of the Republican Party that Ron Paul represents has been around for a long time. Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr. opposed the Federal Reserve.Senator William E. Borah opposed US entry into WWI (the first of what Bob Dole referred to as "Democrat wars"). Others have included Congressman Howard Buffet and Senator Robert A. Taft. Ron Paul was one of the first people in Congress to endorse Ronald Reagan - back when Reagan was considered "unelectable" and Giuliani wasl a Democrat. For Giuliani, registering Republican was a career move that came after Reagan was elected President.

I agree with you that Ron Paul can hurt the Democrats in the general election. But I don't think he should run as a third party because if he doesn't win, he will be blamed for the outcome, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

If Ron Paul doesn't become President, he will return to his seat in the House as the most popular member of Congress since Davy Crockett; and the "Ron Paul Revolution" can continue to grow and make itself heard.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

DeeLo — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:02:33 GMT

As a progressive Democrat, I'll be voting Kucinich.

My in-laws - all Republicans in the most traditional sense of the term (small government, state rights, etc) and who have voted Republican in every election despite their frustration with the new Big Government Republican Party are thrilled with Ron Paul's platform and will be voting for him in the primaries.

I disagree with Ron Paul on a variety of issues, but I'd rather see him in the office (knowing that he seems to be the only Republican candidate who actually supports the constitution and hasn't been bought and paid for by a variety of corporate backers) than I would a Guiliani, Romney, or Clinton.

Would I vote for him as a 3rd party candidate? Probably not - if I'm going to throw my weight to a 3rd party, I'd be sure it was to a candidate who represented more of my progressive ideas (a Green vote.)

Would I vote for Ron Paul if he was the Republican candidate running against Clinton? Absolutely.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Independent in MD — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:48:13 GMT

I believe Ron Paul did state that he would not run as an independent when asked that question on the youtube debate by a registered independent. In any case, as an independent who can not vote in either of the primaries, I have decided that since Ron Paul probably won't run under a third party ticket the only alternative is to change my registration to Republican so that I can be sure that I can vote for him in the primaries. That is the only way I can make sure that I have done my part to have him nominated as the Republican candidate.

If you look at the history of past Presidential elections, when there was a third party running, although the third party did get votes, it was not enough to win the election. Since the key here is to not only have him run for President but, hopefully win, I don't see that there is any other way other than for him to take the Republican nomination.

If the object is to have him be President then it seems that the simple solution is to make sure you can vote in the Republican primary and if that means you have to change your voter registration to do it then, that seems to be a small price to pay to get this man elected.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Clif25 — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:54:46 GMT

Well Ron Paul has a much better record in supporting less government than any other Republican candidate. Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas more than Bill Clinton did. Plus none of these pro-war candidates are going to be able to cut spending as much as Ron Paul will be able to. None of them are going to be as responsible enough of spenders as Ron Paul would be. I would think all the Republicans who want smaller government would love Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been right about Iraq and Iran. Rudy Giuliani is not some terrorism expert. That has been proven. Mitt Romney is not either, and he further does not know the Constitution. Huckabee, even with the "fair tax" would not really be able to cut taxes. McCain promises he will cut spending, but ask him ten more questions and I bet he will suggest the federal government should spend more money on those issues.

Why shouldn't a Republican voter not vote for Ron Paul? Ron Paul is the only candidate worth voting for. His judgment on foreign affairs has been impeccable. He's much more knowledgeable about these issues than journalists like yourself give him credit for. His budgeting policies are far better than any other candidates' ideas as well. It's Ron Paul or bust in 2008.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Anadorn — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:06:55 GMT

I LEFT the US for Grad school overseas (the only way I could AFFORD to GET OUT of the country) after the debacle that our current administration has created (unlike so-called 'celebrities' who SAID they would leave the country - I actually DID). I HEAR what the international academic community thinks of us, and frankly, I am appalled.

If Ron Paul is not elected President, I doubt that I will ever return to what is fast becoming the "United States of IDIOTS" as seen by the rest of the world. He is the only candidate running who has a clue and is obviously not one of the two sides of the same old tired coin we have been getting for the last 40 odd years.

We need to get out of the rest of the world and focus on regaining our strength as a nation. That will only happen if we look to the CON STITUTION and force OUR government to follow the guidelines therein.

The US used to mean something to me. It means something to the rest of the world community also - let us not let that something be an ugly, angry oligarchy that few can respect or relate to in the present climate. If we take care of our own first and regain the respect we deserve as the ONLY nation to ever defeat the British Empire in a war - then we need to get our heads out of rear-ends and vote for Mr. Paul.

He is the only candidate who has the GUTS to tell the truth and for that I worry for him.

Look what the Bushes did to Kennedy if you think I am nuts...

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Kortlan — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:50:59 GMT

If Paul ran as an Independent or Liberterian, he would easily get the popular vote. The problem with that is he would not get any electoral college votes, which one must have to become president. The only hope he has of becoming president is if he wins the Republican nomination, and the only way he can do that is if everyone of his supporters goes out and votes for him in their primaries, inform more people about him, and help the cause. Less then 25% of the population votes in the primaries. If every one of the millions of Paul supporters go out and vote for him, he will easily win. Paul has started the revolution and done as much as he can. We, the American citizens, have to keep it going. Vote Ron Paul 2008.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

aminorex — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:42:57 GMT

I voted for Bush, and I would never vote for any Democrat who would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would twist and pervert the law to conform to the winds of political correctness. I'm voting for Paul, regardless, because he's the only man in the race who has any respect for the rule of law, the only man who is honest and works on the behalf of the American people instead of special interests. That counts for a lot more than partisanship. If the Republican party is so obsessed with murder and warmongering that it wants to endorse a cross-dressing fascist instead, or Mr. Magic Underwear, they'll have to do it without me.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

hbar — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:30:24 GMT

I don't know why the media has missed a world wide ground swell, people waking up, a mind shift into the right brain that has apparently evolved while we were sleeping. With science and every discipline bursting wide open with new discoveries and new information doubling every three and a half years with months expected in our lifetime, we really need to keep up. Genius is a technique away. Our children need this and so do the candidates and the electorate. It's not just a Ron Paul lovelution but a chance for America to take the lead again for freedom in the world and now we have the know how to pull it off. Is P.T. Barnum right and the people are too ignorant to ever do the right thing? If they are awake they will see what is really going on and vote their conscience, but it is germain as to how Ron Paul will affect the election. John F. Kennedy got in from third place going into the Democratic National Convention. I believe Ron Paul wants to go the whole way and bet the future of America on the awakening spirit of the American people. I keep betting on them and I'm bound to be right sooner or later.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Pro-Constitution Whiz Kid — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:25:26 GMT

Some of the comments posted here are giving me hope that America is finally becoming informed about the real political and financial situation in America. Some of my favorite comments came from wet reverb about Woodrow Wilson's regrets concerning the Federal Reserve Board, and about Ron Paul's plan to abolish the IRS, the greedy robbers who thought it was okay to lie to our grandfathers and tell them that income tax was a temporary measure necessary to finance World War I. Despite the fact that there was never a law passed requiring the tax, which would not have been in keeping with the Constitution anyhow, they still arrest people who do not fork over a ridiculous portion of their wages, or who simply say "Show me the law", as Ed and Elaine Brown did.

As for the national debt to which they apply our tax payments, the interest that has built up is ridiculous. A few years ago I heard a speech by one incredibly honest politician who said that England is still paying back money they borrowed to fight against Napoleon!

The silly thing about it all is that the world debt situation is that it would not exist if the United States and other countries would shake off the greedy banking cartels and base their economic policies on God's law.

Nehemiah 10:31 states: And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day: and that we would leave the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.

If we cancelled every debt that could not be repaid in seven years, every country on this planet would be prosperous. There would be no Third World with kids starving to death! If Ron Paul is elected, and the IRS and the Federal Reserve are abolished, this dream would be on its way to reality.

As for our two-party system of Democrats and Republicans, that has become a joke. They say different things, but all except for Ron Paul are working behind the scenes to bring about the New World Order predicted in Revelation 13. The picture is not very pretty. Those of us who support Ron Paul do so because we love America and want to save it. As tcantrellews said above, And who cares if he is dedicated to 'the party' or not? What is this? Nazi Germany? Communist Russia?

God bless America! Let's elect Ron Paul, and once again give meaning to the immortal words of Francis Scott Key "Land of the free, and the home of the brave."

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Pro-Constitution Whiz Kid — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:15 GMT

Hbar, you asked why the media missed the groundswell in favor of Ron Paul. It seems that the media has developed a talent over the years for missing the things it wants to miss, the things that don't fit in with the agenda it wants to promote. Don't forget that Ron Paul stands for a sovereign America, while Bush and many other politicians are out to destroy that via the North American Union of Canada, the USA, and Mexico.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Nanoutshka — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:36:19 GMT

So now we have to be 'dovish' to condemn an extremely violent and ILLEGAL war?? What a condemnation of humanity - did you really read over what you wrote at the end of your article??

This president started a war without our consent, without provocation and without any reason except a blatantly false lie of WMD. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died, many more wounded and more still displaced and destroyed at heart. And you call people 'dovish' for wanting to end the war.

Just what planet do you live on? Are we "Dovish" - no. "Outraged and Horrified" - YES.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

TheAUricle — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:55:15 GMT

I have never seen such a preoccupation, primarily by the media, with the need to 'LABEL' a candidate. Is that WHY or WHAT we vote for??

I refuse to be 'herded' this way, by anyone.

Ron Paul is an AMERICAN of undisputable character and statesmanship. He is THE 'anti-politician',

whose policies will free ALL, if just given a chance. You have to ask yourself, "What is the 'establishment and mainstream media afraid of? Constitutional, principled governance?

Why are straw polls cancelled, when the voting shows Ron Paul the WINNER, and some (as in Florida) have people casting 20-30 votes PER PERSON for opposition candidates in order to make him "lose'??

He's being labeled as 'fringe' AND much worse, and so are his supporters, because he votes in accordance with OUR CONSTITUTION??? EGADS, WHAT A MONSTER!!

My American brothers and sisters, it is TIME to take of the blinders.

STOP being "good" Republicans.

STOP being "good" Democrats

START being "good" AMERICANS!

Nominate and ELECT Dr. Ron Paul as OUR next President in 2008!

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

douglassoileau — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:45:36 GMT

Ron Paul is th only candidate that views American problems and issues though reality. Other Candidates are worried and talking about other people's , "religion", color, charachter, criminal activities and "do nothing', status. Ron Paul has the issues correct and the unction and ability to get them out

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

tmitch — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:03:12 GMT

I can only hope that Ron Paul would run as an independent. I agree with a lot of what he is saying and it is my only hope that someone who the media has not already ordain will be able to run. I am so tired of the Dems/ Reps doing nothing to solve this country's problems but keeping busy blaming the other. Lower taxes, less government, he is the only I think really believes in it, the rest are just mouthing sound bits. Would love to have a third choice that is not so nutcase

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

ibbarry — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:31:42 GMT

I like Ron Paul's positions on the issues. The idea of a smaller, less intrusive government used to be a part of the Republican philosophy. But the truth is, I couldn't care less what party he is with, I'm voting for Ron Paul if I have to write his name in. He's the only candidate that speaks intelligently and truthfully about the important issues. And by the way, I don't give a rat's tail about the religious beliefs of any of the candidates either. I care about their actions. If Ron Paul was an atheist, I'd still vote for him. The pack of political porkers feeding for too long at the public trough, requires that we have a governmental sea change in Washington DC. Ron Paul is the only chance we have to bring that about. Go Ron Paul!

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

TroyD — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:51:03 GMT

Dear Stumper,

Unlike all of the other candidates, Ron Paul uses the Constitution of the United States as his barometer. Somehow, the United States got off track and stopped applying the framework, checks and balances established by that Document. A sad day for the majority of us.

I, for one, do not want another lawyer to be our President (we have engough lawyers as it is), nor do I want a preacher (separation of church and state),,,but, I will take a medical doctor.

It's curious to me how many people do not know anything about the Federal Reserve Bank or the IRS...in fact, no one I've spoken to knew anything about their histories...we never were taught about them in school or college. Sounds like a bit of censorshop and brainwashing on the part of these two, all-powerful, orginizations. Money is the root of all evil and if you follow the money, you will find the truth. Dr. Paul recognizes that ending the FED regime will cut the head off the snake and put the US back on the road to being the greatest nation on earth.

I wish a few more people would take the time to read a little, think a little and stop following the "Pied Piper". It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. GO RON PAUL!

TroyD

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

The Last Patriot Standing — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:10:29 GMT

Ron Paul is winning the hearts of the people. He will be the next President of the United States. Your ignoring his populatity and his winning every internet poll is just another way of telling many that you do not realize that the "main stream media" is fast losing its grip on controlling the news you all want to keep feeding the public as if we are all sheep. A change in the guard is coming and the way America gets their news from the controlled media will soon go the way of the pre-historic creatures.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

wazzamattaU — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:40:42 GMT

I am interested in the Libertarian point of view (formerly Republican) and will vote for whoever answers the most important question of our time: 'What are you going to do as President to SECURE THE BORDER, and end this Hispanic invasion of the USA permanently'?

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

jim158 — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:33:08 GMT

I'm a registerd Democrate in Florida, I will no longer support a party that boycots my state because we want the same right for early voting as any other state. Stop playing favorites it is not a quality people look for in a President. I am switching parties so I can vote for Ron Paul!

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

What would Nietzsche do? — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:43:20 GMT

Does anybody else believe the war on drugs is unconstitutional? To think the government has the right to decide/control what you imbibe or inject or smoke unto yourself is complete bosh. If you think this, you must be either an idiot or an *** or both! The war on drugs came into being undemocratically, with the American people afforded no option in the matter. It was done by the Nixon administration as a desperate attempt to have an excuse for prosecuting counter-culture radicals. There was a perceived link between recreational drug use and radical thinking. Turns out, in reality, the relationship was not one of cause and effect, but rather coinciding and complimentary life perspectives: The kind of courageous individuals willing to use drugs to feel good and have fun are the same type that would be least likely to posses the abundance of cowardice and ignominy and pusillanimity necessary to advocate socially conservative collectivist agendas which use the authority of democratic government to dictate to citizens what they may and may not do. No other candidate besides Ron Paul even brings this up. It is almost accepted as fact in mainstream politics, as a matter of course, that drug use is inherently immoral and dangerous and wrong...But who gets to decide what is and is not "moral"? Not me, not you, not our government. Preachers think they do, but they're wrong too. The reason Ron Paul does not appeal to the majority of Republican voters is because he isn't a social conservative. He advocates a policy that would render impotent the desires of 'moral America' to dragoon the rest of us into swallowing their puerile lies and rococo asceticism. That is what Republicans want. They want to control how you live, how you think, and most of all what you believe. The Republican party has become the populist party, dedicated to harnessing the fears of idiots and cowards in order to wage war against intellectuals whose capacity for reason and truth threatens the very foundation of the values these morons base their entire lives upon. They don't want a free America where you and I may choose what we want to believe, what we want to do, and how we want to do it. They want to increase the power of the central government in order to institutionalize authority and control our lives. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats seem willing to use the same governmental apparatus to advance a socially liberal agenda and a stronger central state capable of taxing us at will and enforcing unrealistic parameters of equality. So as voters, we are presented with two options for our future:

1. Government enforcing socially conservative agendas

2. Government enforcing socially liberal agendas.

Notice how both options, though disagreeing with the ends, agree with the means for arriving at those ends. It is anathema in the more recent American political doctrine to suggest that the government NOT try to control everyone. So in reality, we have a system that discerns the will of the majority, and enforces that will categorically, exclusively oppressing the dissenting minority. So no matter what, a significantly large minority (and usually the one with the most sound ability to reason) is practically oppressed. It isn't left versus right; it's the government versus YOU. Under a smaller government that refused to interfere in private life, EVERYONE would benefit because EVERYONE would be free to be themselves. The drug users could use their drugs and go about their lives unmolested and prosper (because drug laws prevent drug users from succeeding in life, NOT drugs). The social conservatives (Jesus freaks, etc.) could practice their variety of bullshit in the galvanized iron tabernacles they erect on suburban dumps and nobody would bother them. Imagine an America where people are judged based on their abilities and intelligence and not based on which substances are in their bloodstream. Sorry I wrote so much, but my point is so sound it hurts.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

What would Nietzsche do? — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:22:52 GMT

Suppose we ended the war on drugs today. What would we lose to offset our gains? Nothing. It is a win/win situation even in a worst case scenario. The thugs and crooks and cartels who use violence to control their markets would disappear into the prisons that they belong in while the non-violent drug users and peaceful vendors are set free since they threaten no one. Since more people are incarcerated for non-violent drug crimes than violent ones, there would be more people leaving prison than going in. The people going in would deserve to be there, and the people who want to sell drugs peacefully to informed and willing adult consumers will be able to pay their bills and taxes and start families like any other businessmen. The countries whose crops we destroy would cease to resent us so fiercely and for such good reasons. The government is the number one reason poor people remain poor. I personally could think of thousands of inner-city families in poverty across America right now who could pull themselves out by their own bootstraps if they were free to sell the enormous quantities of drugs they always have on hand without fear of arrest. And if it were legal to do so, the government would regulate the quality of the product, ensuring consumer satisfaction and eliminating dangerous adulterants made prevalent by the illegal status of drug trade. Why is it Americans are not free to pick their medicine and self-medicate with whatever works for them? Why do you need what is ostensibly a permission slip from a doctor to feel good in this country? And why are the doctors always pushing certain medications that are entirely synthetic, barely tested, and not wholly safe? The reason is pharmaceutical companies lobbying politicians and politicians taking their money. I don't know much in this world, but I can declare with absolute certainty that "freedom" in this country is nothing more than a marketing term. How can citizens be free when they're told they can't do things which they absolutely can? How can one be free when one is in a cage? There are two kinds of evil in this world: those who tell people what to do and those who do what they're told. Don't let anybody tell you what to do. I want Ron Paul in 2008

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

tech13 — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:35:58 GMT

Ron Paul has been a registered Republican since 1976. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul)

Why is MSNBC so intent with labeling him as Libertarian? Yes, he ran as a Libertarian in1988, um almost 20 years ago, "while remaining a Registered Republican." They do it in the other articles too. I had heard about the biased information that the media puts out, but had never put much stock in it, until finally becoming excited about a candidate who does not spout the same old rhetoric and take on the same old posturing that these other candidates and the many before them have done for generations. I now see, and realize how naive I have been. I can no longer believe that the media is NOT making a conscious effort to destabilize this candidate while feeding us their own versions of truth. What else have you been telling us?

I am shocked.

I am dismayed.

I am disheartened to realize that the very people who I look to for giving me the news about the world we live in, are in fact, lying to me and giving me half truths.

I WILL be voting for Ron Paul, win or lose.

And Andrew Ramano, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself. You sir, are not a reporter. You are a TOOL. And one being used to do wrong.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

xtrabiggg — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:13:48 GMT

Why is the Republican race 'Wide Open' except for Ron Paul? And why do the reporters line up like lemmings and ask that same stupid question: 'What about a third-Party Run?'. B-O-O-O-O-RING!!! You'll just get the same answer the last 342 reporters got. How about asking the SAME questions you ask the OTHER front runners? Oh, you don't consider Dr. Paul a front runner? I guess leading the pack in money, supporters, straw poll wins, enthusiasm, new supporters and campaign DONORS (New and total #) suddenly doesn't apply to one and ONLY one candidate?

THe measuring sticks used in every other campaign (as well as this one) to determine a so-called 'top-tier' candidate would put Ron Paul squarely in the lead right now, let alone among the top-tier. But aaaahhhh...those pesky 'scientific polls'. You mean the ones that don't even MENTION Ron Paul to those being polled? Or the ones only polling people who voted for BUsh in thelast primary- I mean 'likely Republican Primary Voters'- same thing. Or maybe the one that when you reply 'other' since ROn Paul isn't listed, you get hung up on (I got one of THOSE!) So much for being 'scientific'.

Look at the latest CNN Poll in South Carolina: Dr. Paul polled at an 11% approval rating. So what? You say. Well, he also polled at a RECOGNITION rate of only 25%! That means that out of the people who had ever even HEARD of him, Ron Paul polled support of almost HALF of the voters! Imagine the numbers when the media embargo on REAL reporting about the campaign is lifted, and people actually get to hear the man himself and what he stands for- not just a bunch of bloviating, insular pudits calling him 'longshot' and 'kooky'.

It's time to start covering the Ron Paul Campaign fairly- just like you would cover every other campaign. No qualifiers, no name-calling, no burying the stories and not even reporting what happened- just straightforward facts and at a level of coverage he has EARNED. Show some cajones and break with the pack of lemmings. Be the lead dog, and you'll be amazed at the respect and support you'll be shown- if only oyu show the same respect to Dr. Paul and his campaign.

xtrabiggg

+++++++++++++++++++++++++=

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

freedomjunkie — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:06:21 GMT

You are probably right on most counts IF you are right that Dr. Paul only gets single digit response in the primary. Don't count out the millions of supporters Dr. Paul has. I am convinced that if the votes are counted correctly, Dr. Paul will be in the top two or three in Iowa and New Hampshire. Don't be too surprised if he wins New Hampshire outright. I vote for him if he were running as a Republican, Democrat, Independent or a Weedeater.

Randy Lowe

Cottonwood, Arizona

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

freedomjunkie — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:20:35 GMT

Dr. Paul will win Iowa. The best thing about small-state caucuses is that the votes cannont be manipulated or miscounted. These votes are taken in public view. The Ron Paul supporters in Iowa are loyal and will show up to caucus no matter the weather or what lie they're being told about his support being in single digits because some poll has him in single digits. Untimately the ONLY poll that counts is the one taken on January 3 in Iowa and on January 8th in New Hampshire.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

patriot123 — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:41:53 GMT

Hi,

Here is an excerpt from an email I sent to a friend ealier today, please forgive my grammar and puntuation.

As to Ron Paul you really need to visit his website, www.RonPaul2008.com . I could spend all day writing you about what is happening in our country (all bad), but will just point out a couple of easy ones. Ron Paul is the only candidate that will address these issues; he is the only one that will talk about them. Lets start with Iraq...so we are over there to create a Democracy, right?! A democracy in a country that has a majority of Shiite Muslims that hate our guts (that oughta be good!). Lets remember that we do not have a Democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic (or at least we did before George Bush). This war is about big oil, corporate profits, one world government run by corporations and never ending war (that makes money for the corporations). Get out a world map at this time... First we invaded Afghanistan to the west of Iran, while we were doing that we improved our relations with dictators ( internationally condemned for severe human rights violations) in several countries to the north of Iran and started building some of the biggest military bases in the world (see Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan). We put two fleets in the Persian Gulf to the south of Iran, and then invaded Iraq to the west of Iran. After World War One an English oil company that was an extension of the English Government controlled Iran (military dictatorship), after World War Two Iran got a democratically elected government. That government nationalized the oil fields and infrastructure and threw the British out (our buddies). Well that wouldn't stand so the CIA overthrew the freely elected government and installed the "Shah of Iran" (military dictator) and helped him torture and kill all of his political opponents. People in Iran where not happy about this and staged a revolt installing the current government then under the leadership of the Ayatollah Khomeini. This made the big oil corporations very mad so we had our good buddy Saddam Hussein (Iraq) invade Iran in a war that cost the lives of millions on both sides. When the war started going badly for Saddam we supplied him with "weapons of mass destruction", biological and chemical which he used on Iran with our blessing. Saddams payment for this service? Kuwait. But he didn't get the job done so he didn't get to have Kuwait...he tried to take it anyway...bad move, look where he is now. We used the weapons of mass destruction excuse to invade Iraq so that we could position ourselves to attack Iran. The war is being staffed by mercenaries...look into this ( I recommend the book Blackwater, Rise Of The Worlds Most Powerful Mercenary Army). At this time approximately half of all forces in Iraq are mercenaries...150,000 plus. They make their money off of war (tens and hundreds of billions). What possible incentive would people who make their money from war ever have for ending it? The decisions made by the Bush administration and their man in Iraq L. Paul Bremmer that through the country into a state of chaos was not an accident. The head/ owner of BlackWater, Erik Prince, is a major contributor to the Republican party and George Bush, Halliburton is making more money on this war than any company...their ex CEO, Dick Cheney! It goes on and on. These same people are the people that passed the Patriot Acts. Familiar with these? You need to be! The Patriot Acts eliminated your Constitutional Rights. They said that they wouldn't use these new spying and internment laws against Americans...well look into Jose Pedia, the supposed Chicago dirty bomber. An American citizen "taken, not arrested" on American soil. He is still in detention after four or five years without ever being in a court room. The only way that people found out that the government had seized him (about two years after he was taken) was a leak from a decent government employee that cares about our country. No evidence against the man has ever been presented, no charges ever formally made. How many people (American Citizens) has the government "taken" that we don't know about? We will never know under the current regime in this country. These same people and corporations that are running the show are all "Free trade" supporters/ pushers. They are destroying our nation by trading with Communist China...sending our jobs to a country that does not share our ideals of freedom and will destroy our way of life. They are the ones that pushed things like NAFTA, membership in the WTO, etc. Look into the North American Union! That is the next step in their plan of Socialist One World Government (run by them). The NAU gets implemented in 2010...we do not get to vote on it, our Senators and Congressman do not get to vote on it! The NAU will effectively turn the US, Canada, and Mexico into one country. One border, one army, etc. Our government will be made obsolete as decisions are made at the higher level by unelected officials of the NAU. The dollar is going to be replaced by something called the Amero...this is why the value of the dollar is being made to tumble. They intend to create a financial crisis that will make people accept the Amero as the solution. Like I said I could write all day...and then some. Get informed and then tell your friends. There are many horrible things happening in and to this country right now; and being done by this country to other nations. There is only one candidate that would put a stop to these evil doings. Hillary, Rudi, and Mitt are all Socialist Globalists, Hukabee is supported by the same group of religious zealots that support Bush, Barak is a puppy that just wants power...if elected he will do what he is told. Please, as a favor to me go to Google and watch the movie ZEITGEIST. Hang in there through the first part about religion. I think it is just trying to make a point about controlling people. Then spend two or three hours reading Ron Paul's policy papers on his website. Yes, I really am asking you to take four hours out of your life for me. Our nation will cease to exist in two years if we don't act now. I know this sounds crazy but its really happening. Also Real ID has already been implemented in two states. You will know what I am talking about when you watch the movie. A lot of people are not politcal...don't vote...and don't care. This is exactly what the maniacs in control are counting on. Four hours its really not much...international aid organizations and human rights groups put the civilian deaths (caused by war) in Iraq since the invasion started at over 1 million.

Your Friend,

Dave

P.S. you asked, I hope you really want to know.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

american son — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:23:29 GMT

It never ceases to amaze me that individuals such as yourself, get jobs writing when you obviously have never had an original thought in your head in your adult life. Now whether that was your parents fault or the communist educational system we are being forced to pay for remains open, but I am voting for Ron Paul. Every friend I have is voting for Ron Paul. My best calculation tells me 3 out of 4 of my family members are going to vote for Ron Paul. Roughly 75% of my co-workers are voting fro Ron Paul. My family has been in this country over 170 years and according to you and the rest of the mass media we are on the fringe. Since when does faith in adherence to the Constitution become fringe? Freedom, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not old ideals whose time has come and gone, it's time we brought them back to this country. Your handlers are scared and their fear can be seen in their reactions to the swelling of these ideas in the hearts of true Americans. You have kicked the sleeping giant and it will come and it will devour all who sold him out for fools gold that you so desperately desire. America is waking from it's slumber, and we can thank fools like you.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Mundo — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:55:26 GMT

I don't think Ron Paul wil get the nomination as his platform goes against the "big money" supporters/leaches. It will be quite refreshing if he did because then I could vote for my party, GOP.

The way global and DOMESTIC socio/economical things are right now, this beloved Nation needs a positive change, a strong and honest hand to steady this GREAT SHIP- The USA nation. We are fed up with hipocrisy, half-thuths and stupidity!!!! I will vote for him anytime!

EDJ

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

bcdkimble — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:18:45 GMT

WOW, I am amazed by the support that Ron Paul seems to be getting. I went to his website & hit the contact button to ask a few questions that I want answers for, before I commit to a candidate. It seems that Ron Paul's campaign deemed my questions not worth answering. I got no reply at all from his campaign. I guess you have to pay for answers LOL. Beause of that I am inclined not to vote for Ron Paul. If I were a candidate, I would prefer votes over cash. Votes can win an election, while cash only buys ads, which may or may not work.I definately will NOT vote for a democrat. I also do not see a republican worth a dime either. Ron Paul looked good until I had questions. I do not have any money to give to a political campaign. All I have to give is my vote. My wife will vote for whomever I vote for because she trusts my judgement. I have friends that value my opinuion. My message to the republicans on election day will be to try again. Unless a candidate steps out with some grerat plans & has a campaign that will answer questions for voters that do not just throw away their vote, My wife & I will stay home on election day. My vote is not like candy on halloween. I do not just toss it in a bag to just whomever shows up. My vote is earned. Ron Paul supporters should not waste time replying to my post here. It is very rare that I return to read replies to any posts that I made. Talk is ever so cheap. I love to see action. Well, I am off to pose my questions to another candidate. The former NY mayor is definately NOT on the list. I will consider Romney or Huckabee. They are electable. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!!!

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

dragonvamp13 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:24:34 GMT

If Ron Paul does not win for President. That's the end of life as we know it.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

RichardSC — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:30:08 GMT

It is my opinion that our Republic has cosiderable need for change. For years so much the liberal news media has been wrong, and their support of politicians that they spread their abilities as if they can walk on water. We need a huge change in Washington DC, and also throughout the Republic. We have not had a president of any value since Regan, and we see the very worst of the worst attempting a third term, and don't kid youself that slime-covered Bill Clinton will not be pulling all the strings if Hillary is elected. Obama is a joke and a person that cannot find within himslef to give honor to our flag, and most surely not to our Nation. We cannot continue with the same old gang of politicians, and at least Ron Paul has common sense and the love of Nation. I've have known Ron Paul for many years, and he also as the doctor having brough our youngest son into this world. I know him as a very honest and caring person, and for many years he has been fighting the so called "good old boys," that we have been straddled with for too many years. I will without the slightest hesitation support and vote for Ron Paul, and mostly because he has and practices the qualities of honesty and conerns for our Republic and our People.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Dwefel — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:11:20 GMT

If the voters want to continue rule by two families then vote for Hillary, if they want inexperience and race-based backing vote for Obama, and if they want action and campaign promises kept, vote for Ron Paul. The neo-cons are not fiscal conservative and have let down their constituency, many in the Religious Right believe the end of the world will happen in their lifetime; do you want them guiding us into the future (armageddon)? The War Hawks are what their name inteads: war hawks. Don't let your vote be clouded with fear on one side and promises of bogged down government programs that will cost more than they are worth on the other. Vote for freedom, vote for Ron Paul!!!

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

BlueMoonBay — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:17:35 GMT

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. -Sinclair Lewis

Dingo rolls onto his back, his legs stretched idiotically high into the air. The words “Jesus and Satan are brothers” draw my attention to the image on the TV. According to Mike Huckabee, this is a Mormon belief.

Dingo yawns lazily. A Google search reveals that Pastor Mike freed convicted rapist Wayne DuMond, who later raped and murdered Carol Sue Shields. The image on the TV is now discussing Rudy Giuliani’s divorce from second wife Donna Hanover; moving to an apartment belonging to two gay friends, his estrangement from son Andrew and daughter Caroline and his buddy Bernard Kerik. Dingo has had enough, and when Fred Thompson’s face flashes onto the screen he moves to the back of the house.

I follow Dingo and consider a first woman President, a first black First Lady and a First Husband. Michael Vick is now serving time for his egregious behavior. More troublesome for me are the comments by many black leaders that "they were only dogs”. On the eve of possibly electing a first black President, I wonder if Obama thinks the same?

Ron Paul is like all the other Republicans, trying to get elected. Nothing more.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

mgayetsky — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:00:48 GMT

I’ve heard the “Ron Paul hurts the Dems” theory in various places, and I don’t think this passes the sanity test. I think it is a safe premise to believe that these disaffected doves tend to be on the more liberal side of the party – and these are the supporters who want to see things like universal health coverage, governmental reforms of the public school system, something called “welfare,” government-run social security, etc. Bracketing the issue of whether or not these beliefs are good or bad, the democratic doves like these policies. What Romano and others who make this claim need to prove to me is why these disaffected voters will jump ship on every important issue just to vote for a more credible anti-war candidate.

Secondly, are these dem’s the same people who think that it was a tragedy that we didn’t intervene in places like Rwanda and are still critical of our foreign policy towards Darfur? It’s rhetorically powerful to argue that we should have a non-interventionist foreign policy, but would the anti-war dems want the US to pull out of the DMZ in Korea, and would be okay if the US didn’t intervene when Kim Jong Il rolls south? The majority of the anti-war dems are not pacifists, but they are indeed concerned about the Bush Doctrine style of foreign policy. While Paul rejects the Bush Doctrine, the result would not be what the dems would want. As such, it seems far more likely that Paul would woo disaffected fiscal conservatives, and only fractions of a percent of democratic voters.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Loke — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:38:05 GMT

Listening to Ron Paul makes me feel patriotic. He is the only candidate that can relate to the average American citizen.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Hartvig — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:37:15 GMT

I'm an Iowan and I intend to show up at the caucus on Jan 3rd in support of Dr. Paul. The only other person I have considered supporting is John McCain. I'm more in tune with McCain's stand on Iraq, at least in the sense that now that we're in this mess we need to see it thru to a successful conclusion but I am totally in line with most of Dr. Paul's libertarian views.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

MockingBirdBrain — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:37:54 GMT

I hope I know half as much as you when I get to be your age.But you will get some hits,won't you?Another lame Newzweak article.This is "STALE" BS.Reruns,just like the movies and idiot box.The problem you see is that when you atempt to attack the HONORABLE Dr.Ron Paul,you will always fall on your face and fail.Reason,he doesn't have to lie...or lie to cover up a lie.He is not perfect,are any of us?But it is so much easier to remember the truth!Dr.Ron Paul is so far above the others it warms my heart to know there is at least ONE person in Washington D.C. who truly cares about ALL the people.And he is braver than ALL the "suits" in corpgov. COMBINED!-So just keep trying,keep on repeating to us"longshot.run as Independant,isolationalist"and the other games you're told to play,it shows who you really are.Who you really serve...Meanwhile I'll vote Ron Paul 2008-the"sane" one

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

torpedoman — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:16:48 GMT

Posted By: milana4 (December 5, 2007 at 6:58 PM)

Are you that STUPID the scool system is cranking out students that cant read or do math cant find their home state on a u.s. map> The cure is a test that they must pass, or we'll let them try again, or we''ll dumb down the test and let them try again. our school system is broken our students are being beat in tests by third world countries. The only solution the school system has is "give us more money and we'll do better" If i had an employ that told me they could do better work if he got a raise i'd fire them on the spot.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

turiddhu — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:51:22 GMT

the situation is continuosly evolving, ron paul is a politician, if at a certain point the polls say ron paul stands a chance of being elected president of the unitred states running as a third party candidate ,take my word for it ,he will run!

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Buffalo Hunter — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:26:13 GMT

The argument against the war would have to be very compelling for Democrats to vote for Ron Paul. But I invite every American to support the Ron Paul campaign. Since Libertarians support freedom from government intervention, special interest groups usually support the Republicans and Democrats that rob Peter to pay Paul.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Richard Owl Mirror — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:47:58 GMT

Michigan ~ Jan. 15 Democratic Presidential Primary

Jan. 15 primary is a go

Mich. high court ruling restores early presidential primary

Unfortunately, the names of Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden will not appear on the Democratic primary ballot. Only Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Denise Kucinich and Mike Gravel will be available for selection as Democratic candidates.

According to the Voter Guide On The January 15, 2008 Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary ,

The Democratic ballot will have 6 choices:

Hillary Clinton

Christopher Dodd

Mike Gravel

Dennis Kucinich

Uncommitted

Write-in

A vote for "uncommitted" is a vote to send delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are not committed or pledged to any candidate. Those delegates can vote for any candidate they choose at the Convention.

Supporters of Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson are urged to vote "uncommitted" instead of writing in their candidates' names because write-in votes for those candidates will not be counted under state law.

I have another suggestion !

Now, while I may be unaware of a law which I have not discovered I am of the belief that although in Michigan each voter must select either a Republican Ballot or a Democratic Ballot to vote in the primary. I see no rule against any Democrat voting on a Republican ballot during the Primary and a Democratic ballot for the Presidential election. Therefore I suggest any voter who would if they could, vote for Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama or Bill Richardson, rather than casting your vote for "uncommitted" or writing in their candidates' names vote via the Republican ballot for Rep Ron Paul instead.

I feel as long as your vote will not actually be useful, we as citizens should utilize whatever means we have at our disposal to make our vote count for something. Here are some relevant web pages which you may wish to research on this tactic.

116-1954-XXIV-CONDUCT-OF-PRIMARY-ELECTIONS

168.575 Primary elections; furnishing ballots to electors.

MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW Act 116 of 1954

I haven't found anything that stipulates that if you vote Republican during the primary you also must vote Republican in the Presidential election.

I live in Michigan and will only cast my vote for Senator Joe Biden, since I am unable to vote for my candidate of choice I believe my next best option is to vote for a candidate listed on a ballot whom I could support, that being Rep Ron Paul.

If you agree with my suggestion and live in Michigan, please cast a vote that will count for something and perhaps you may wish to contact the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee, [ 606 Townsend, Lansing, MI 48933, 517-371-5410 ] letting them know of your intent.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

KirneyB — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:18:01 GMT

I wonder how many Democrats are like myself..looking for someone to vote for if Hillary gets the nomination. Ron Paul fits that bill. The only way I wouldn't vote for, write in if necessary, is if Edwards manages to get the nomination!

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

poet1951 — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:21:58 GMT

What really gets me about third party candidates is the votes and money that is wasted on their support. People actually believe they are making a difference voting for someone who has no chance of being elected, when the difference can only be made by the total talley of the votes at the end of the election. Ron Paul has no more chance to win the election than Ralph Nader...wasted vote...wasted money. I have a question. Where does the money go that is wasted on the third party candidate. I realize to other parties encourage third party candidates to weaken the voting power of their opponents...don't the people falling for this ploy recognize it would be cheaper not to vote at all...just donate the money to a good cause, if you can't find a "best of the worse" candidate...poet1951

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

BlueMoonBay — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:28:30 GMT

I have not made a choice yet. But, I have started taking a hard look <i emphasize hard, i am not one of his groupies> at Mr. Paul and what I observe has sent me lookng further. Yes he is against the war in Iraq. But, I uncovered some things about him that leave me scratching my head and looking for another cup of coffee.

Now that he is running for president, he wants to reduce government to a size mandated by the constitution < as he reads the constitution, and reading the constitution is like reading the bible, everyone has a different slant>.

But I take issue with him on ear marks, PORK! Unecessary spending, which he says he is against! He has spent almost $400 million in his district in 2007 that is not necessary spending, WASTE!

Now, he says that if he did not spend it, someone else would, just returning to the people what is theirs. This is the rationale for much of the unnessary spending that comes out of washington. The same rationale for building a $30 million bridge to no where in Alaska. He places the ear mark in the legislation and then votes against the legislation or does not vote at all. My question, is why place the PORK in the legislation to begin with? Why not explain to his constituents that ear marked pork is not good for the country, and set an example. He has been in congress for 18 years. How much WASTE has this man been responsible for?

He comes across to me as being hypocritical, disingenuous, and phony.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

jensen_william — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:14:59 GMT

From what I have seen so far, Ron Paul represents getting back to our roots and the Constitution. I plan to vote for him in whatever capacity he runs. Haven't the "frontrunners" seen history of the past couple decades and see socialism dying?

In response to a comment by TroyD back on Dec 12, I'd like you or anyone else to tell me where in the Constitution, there is a "Separation of Church and State?" In all actuallity, every law that limits the free exercise of religion is AGAINST the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of AMERICA. Read it for yourself! "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Tell me where in that statement, you read "Separation of Church and State." To me, it says there will be no NATIONAL church, like the Church of England. It also tells me I can read my Bible, Koran, Torah, whatever, and pray to whatever god (God) I choose, in whatever location I want to, without the government telling me I can't.

Do you want to know whose Constitution had "Separation of Church and State?" It was in the Constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republic! That's right, Communist Russia, not the USA!

Bill J., Colorado

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

wordwyvern — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:52:17 GMT

That NewSpeak Magazine, MSNBC and Meet the Press has deigned to publish on Dr. Paul is indicative of his popularity. That they proceed to trash his candidacy is indicative that he is a real threat to the plans of the corporatocracy for world domination.

Dr. Paul is a libertarian Republican by virtue of his philosophy and platform. Republican libitarianism is the philosophy that has given us the un-regulated de-regulated financial system. That system is what has given us the sub-prime loan crisis, and that crisis pales next to the impending credit-card default crisis.

Nevertheless, Dr. Paul is far and away our best hope to liberate ourselves from the corporatocracy which is currently sacrificing our soldier's lives to Mammon, eroding our liberty and rapidly conducting the wealth of the nation from the many to the very few.

The reason I will support Dr. Paul is that I believe that he will provide a balance between the Dimocrap and Repugnicunt parties. If the Repugnicunts win the presidency the current disasterous policies will continue in effect. If the Dimocraps win then the pendulum will swing to the other extreme and they will continue their time-honored tradition of buying votes from the undeserving indigent and self-serving social safety-net parasites - not to mention the votes of the illegal immigrants whom they'll promptly reward for their illegal entry with citizenship.

The past forty-odd years have seen the country's interest subordinated to the interest of the Repugnicunt and Dimocrap parties. Their competition has changed the tradition of congress from the sober and mature consideration of law in our national interest to something ore closely resembling the World Wrestling Tag-Team Championship competition. I believe that the inevitibly Dimocrap majority in congress and Dr. Paul's veto power wielded to support his quasi-libertarian, quasi-Repugnicunt programs will force real discussion and real consideration of policy in the interest of the country rather than one or the other party.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

parabol46 — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:29:35 GMT

To Anadorn: WOW! The reason America is people gave up like the little wussies that they really are. Instead of fighting you ran away, what a hero you are? If you ever truly cared about America the way you said you once did, you would be here at all of the Ron Paul marches and events actually fixing it instead of running away. Grow up, seriously, grow up! Ron Paul will win and then maybe you can come home again to be complacent and weak once again. Also, to the other people who left a comment saying "Ron Paul is running to win, not to spread ideas." You are incorrect my friend, you can have both ways. He is in it to win but, he himself has said he is glad that he can wake people up and he is so proud to be a symbol of the good old fashioned idea/dream of liberty. Think about all the people he has awakened, given hope to and started a revolution out of. Even if he loses, he will have made a nice job of awareness to a lot of Americans.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

parabol46 — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:32:31 GMT

BlueMoonBay you read one article and made up your mind, huh? I guess you actually trust the media? Shame, shame

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Artemis862 — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:48:53 GMT

I won't deny that Ron Paul and his ideas of economic liberty are appealing, but they just don't work! Libertarianism is like communism, it's a nice idea, but it doesn't work in practice. The validity of State's Rights was disproved in the Civil War. Since that period, we have said "the United States is", not "the United States are". We need a strong federal government to ensure that the rights of all citizens, indeed all people are honored. Yes, there is corruption and yes, our spending policies need to change. But, we CANNOT disband such agencies as the Department of Education and Energy. Reform is necessary, but do we honestly think that the states will be able to better manage these issues? National policies are best, for they ensure that such things as the education needs of all children are met. If the states had their own policies, Alabama would probably still be segregated. Furthermore, the way to lower taxes is not to abolish them, but rather to reform our spending policies. Look at Clinton, our economy was the strongest it has ever been under his presidency, and we were still taxed. The issue here is that we have become so frustrated with the corruption of this administration that we are questioning the very foundation of our federal government. Don't abolish the income tax. Instead, stop giving major tax breaks and government handouts to the millionaires. Stop taxing the poor, start actually taxing the rich. This is the issue, and this is why our nation is failing and our economy falling. Additionally, nonintervention doesn't work. We saw this in WWII. Isolationism is a relic of the past. Our world is globalizing, and we cannot afford to be left behind. Am I for the war? NO!!! Of course not. It was a vicious bid for oil and power that destabilized an entire region. But, does this mean that we should remove ourselves from global politics? NO! The U.N. is a vital international negotiating body whose importance will only grow as our world shrinks and resources become increasingly limited. Also, eliminating aid to foreign nations will only hurt us and them in the long run. As the wealthy nations continues to exercise their policies of exploitation in the poor nations, they take resources and capital from the poverty-stricken nations, further driving them and their people into destitution. This practice breeds the extremism that everyone is so worried about, as the world degenerates into the age-old conflict between the haves and the have-nots. These are only a few of the reasons why Ron Paul and his policies, while nice ideas, are incompatible with today's world. It saddens me to see so many people who I believe to be intelligent become blinded by their disillusionment with the current administration. Yes, both parties are corrupted, yes, there is much need for reform, but we cannot abandon the values that I consider to be intrinsic to America. We cannot let ourselves become divided, which is what will happen if we are plunged into the all for one atmosphere generated by economic liberty. United we stand, divided we fall.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

J.P. New Jersey — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:47:27 GMT

I am and have always been a registered republican. I also have to admit that I have primarily voted along party lines, however, at this time in light of the current situation in the states as well as abroad and after carefully considering all of the candidates Ron Paul is the only candidate that I can identify with. His visions of America seem to ring true with what I think most people see as the only viable course if we are to survive as a nation, regardless of their political alignment. There were other third party candidates that I would have liked to have voted for in the past, but couldn't bring myself to "buck the status quo for". I always felt that a vote for the independent candidate amounted to nothing less than a "wasted vote" or a vote for the other party. I will be voting for Ron Paul this upcoming election regardless of political affiliation, even if I have to write him in. I think It's time that America votes for whats best for America Republicans and Democrats alike, and stop worrying about party affiliation. If others would follow this lead we might be able to actually acomplish somthing positive for a change.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

ENGLASSE — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:17:23 GMT

Such drivel. Another in a long line of 'entertainment media'. All space, no content. " You get paid by the word don'cha? What a waste of money...and words.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

DCUPtoejuice — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:29:23 GMT

The democrats should be more worried because they are the ones who actually have a chance to win the Presidency in 2008. If Paul can link himself up with a centrist V.P., make some compromises on a few positions (foreign policy excluded), and the candidates are Hillary and Romney, he is almost a shoe in for President.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

DCUPtoejuice — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:34:39 GMT

Artemis862 has the very mindset the Paul supporters abhore. His thesis: freedom doesn't work. If that doesn't say it all about where we are headed, I don't know what does.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

joel49 — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:36:10 GMT

Look, everyone wants CHANGE. Ron Paul is it! Americans need to take the plunge for what they say they want. I beleive too many are afraid to take the stand.

McCain will be another Bush.

Obama and Clinton have their own agendas regardless of what they say,

Bush lost the best opportunity in our nations history during 9/11.

It was perfect time to get all our troops home with a "Look world we 've got to take care of ourselves now." No more foreign aid. Military come home, protect USA borders.

Rebuild our economy from within.

Paul is our only chance for economic , military and safe survival.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Wolfpack57 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:21:23 GMT

Ron Paul Appears to be the only real choice here. The democrates and the republican canidiates are too buzy fighting amount themselves and pointing fingers at reach other to get the real issues out there. If you notice during the debates Dr Paul is hardly questioned. Are they that afraid to talk the talk , maybe they are afraid of having to walk the walk.

Ron Paul gives America back to the people. The preamble of our constitution clearly states in bold lettering...WE THE PEOPLE. Our voices are not being heard... Our policiticans promise to listen and vote the way we their constiuants asked for... but if they personally disagree with what their voters wanted or elected them for they just refuse to vote, refuse to show up or cast a vote for their views anyway. I have watched Ron Paul over the years and he is consistant and holds on to what he has said all along. Washington is broke and it is now the time to fix it.

We need to downsize and eliminate waste. We need to protect what is ours ... our property, our family, our land, our freedom, our liberty, our lives and our pursuits of happiness. I want the government out of my house, my family and my way of life. We need to step back and really look at what our Decalration of Indpendence cried out for... that is what we separted from England for. They taxed us for supplies and food, they regulated us to the bitter end, they told us who could and could not do what. Give me liberty or give me death was the words spoken once by one of our first American Heros. How did we forget that?

Ron Paul did not forget... he will make a stand. He will do everything he can to make change. Can he get it done with all the odds against him ... I don't know. But I am willing to give it a try. What could it hurt to put someone in office with a conscience not an agenda.

With every vote we cast against the main stream, maybe the hint could get carried out and taken back to Washington. So don't think out it as a wasted vote... think of it as a memo to your current leaders. We want change, we need change, and most of all we need you to let us... be free.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

travelingDeb — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:02:28 GMT

I used to be a Republican, but found myself abandoned when the Reagan invited the Religious Right into the party. Since that time I find American politicians to be disgusting prostitutes chasing the lobbyists dollars and foresaking their constituents. Look at McCain, who represents AZ that voted to deny benefits to illegals, yet he is the one courting the Hispanic vote by promoting amnesty. That being said, I don't trust any career politician to represent our wishes. America is broken, and I'd like to see some time and money spent focused on important things such as the growing underclass, the reduction of the middleclass, the affordability and quality of education in America, the dilemma of inadequate, affordable healthcare for Americans, the state of the American dollar, and how the rest of the world views America. Other countries are sick of us, with reason. Bush says we are in Iraq to "fight the war there, not here" and that we are promoting democracy in the Middle East, yet our dollars have been squandered in a region that ELECTS a political body that is run by Islamic Law, thereby denying equality for women. (Thanks politicians, you make me proud -- not!) Additionally the US is building a behemoth of a consulate in Iraq. How does that make us look? It justifies to foreigners that we are stealing Iraq's oil as opposed to any altruistic justification. I am ashamed to be an American, and we need time to reflect on what our mission is, and where our place in the world is. WE NEED CHANGE! Ron Paul is the only one of the candidates that may do this without pumping his ego. I don't think Clinton, McCain or Obama will do any of this. He is also the only candidate, other than Romney, who is against amnesty for the illegals who are in this country.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

ssetgurl — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:27:46 GMT

I voted as a Democrat last election and supprt Democratic ideals and positions as they have been practiced under several of the great Democratic presidents that we have had in the past. However, we as a country need to evaluate our priorities, not support corporate greed, and hire workers domestically with FAIR wages! I am only 26 years old and know that my generation is sick of all the BS in our government, their broken promises, and huge egos. Sure Obama is a great guy and is well intentioned, however, not experienced enough in economic work to support one of his biggest platforms "somewhat universal healthcare."

As a whole, I support Paul due the fact that he has sincerity, practices what he preaches, and offers real solutions to start digging our country out of the hole we are in. I am not some paranoid recluse by any means but rather an educated person that is well aware of the possible furthur calamities to our constitutional rights.

Research the Patriot Act and its danger to our Constitutional rights as Americans and Paul is the only one that is seeing this as a huge concern . The Internet is currently the only method of communication that we have left that cannot be legally traced, tapped, or monitered by the federal government (although there have been several cases in the last two years that are still in court where Americans trying to encourage a "revolution" are being prosecuted for treason...one that I know of is a student who expreesed contempt for the government through a college rally..WAKE UP CALL! )

I encourage people of all ages to evaluate what it is that they truly want and feel entitled to as Americans.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

ssetgurl — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:27:49 GMT

I encourage people of all ages to evaluate what it is that they truly want and feel entitled to as Americans.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Cooltruth — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:55:52 GMT

I feel like I've finally got a canidate to vote for instead of "yellow dogging" some lesser of two evils candidate. Ron Paul will be getting my vote (& seriously thinking about writing him in if he doesn't get the Republican nomination!) Clearly has the best platform & solutions of anyone in the group of candidates running for President. The only one who won't spend the country broke if elected too.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

Idahorokon — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:06:02 GMT

After Super Tuesday we will still have 13 state primaries left to go all the way up to the first Tuesday in June. There will be 612 delegates up for grabs. It is my hope and prayers that Congressman Paul will campaign up until that point. I want to see a brokered convention.

As a last resort The National Constitution Party may nominate Dr. Paul as its 50 state party candidate.

Nevertheless I urge you to vote for him. This campaign sends a signal to both parties that a significant number of Americans value their country’s great Constitution, that many conservatives reject wiretaps, waterboarding, and senseless wars. There is far more realism in Paul’s analysis than can be found in those Republicans who believe that Washington’s policy of borrowing billions from China to pay for the occupation of a growing number of countries is desirable, much less sustainable.

Ron Paul has been a breath of fresh air in an otherwise desultory Republican campaign. Long may he run.

Rick Martin, Buhl Idaho

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

berningb — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:44:15 GMT

It is obvious that Ron Paul can not win, but he has a chance to get his message out, like he has never had before. I believe that he should continue, even if he has to continue as a third party candidate! I don't believe in everything Ron Paul stands for but I agree with more of his ideas than those of any other candidate. I also believe in his honesty, as he has said the same things for his whole life, not blowing in in wind to get political favor.

Support him and maybe we will see some good changes in America. Third party candidates have been able to bring about good changes in America, maybe not in their lifetimes, but their ideas have been adopted by other candidates in future elections.

re: Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)

craig zoom — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:41:56 GMT

Dr. Ron Paul could be the american hero. He says it like it is. I am not an american I am legal in this country and I dont rip off the tax payers. I have heard the truth of what america has become and is and where it is heading. I believed america was the land of freedom and opportunity a place where their is stability a place where dreams come through but I am afraid of the future not only for all americans but for thr entire world because if america does not stand for what it is then you can imagine what kind of future their is for the children of tommarrow. We need another Thomas Jefferson, we need apresident that stands for the americans and not for those who are occuping it.