Ron Paul and the Pro-Life Vote

David Frum:

from a pragmatic political point of view, it's also true that the Paul candidacy helps rather than hurts my party and my preferred nominee, Rudy Giuliani. Rudy is in no danger of losing Republican primary voters to Ron Paul. And if (as I have speculated) Paul mounts an independent candidacy in the general election, he will draw votes from disaffected Democrats, disappointed in Hillary Clinton's failure to articulate a more radical antiwar message. As third-party candidates go, Ron Paul is Nader, not Perot.

To which Ramesh responds:

I keep reading posts about how Ron Paul will, in a general election, primarily appeal to the antiwar Left and thus help Republicans. But don't forget that Rep. Paul is a pro-lifer, and single-issue pro-life voters might not have anywhere else to go next fall.

Ramesh is right: If Giuliani is the GOP nominee and Paul mounts an independent bid, the impact of Paul's pro-life stand could end up determining which party he takes more votes from. I could see it being negligible, with most pro-life voters not even being aware that Paul opposes abortion (it isn't exactly front and center in his campaign at the moment). But I could also see it being the straw that, in a close election, breaks Giuliani's back.

Comments

Good analysis, Ross. Ron paul is more pro-life than Rudy G, and his OB/GYN history will resonate with pro-life voters, but it hasn't been "front-and-center." It will be interesting to see how much he cuts into the support of (say) Rudy if he does miss the R nomination and run as a 3d party candidate.

Do you think the VP choices would have an effect here? In other words, Rudy would almost certainly choose a strong pro-life VP candidate (maybe Huckabee). Do you think that would mollify the Christian base? Somehow, I don't think that would help Rudy too much here. If anything, Ron Paul might benefit more from choosing a rabid pro-lifer as VP candidate, just becuase he may be seen as "pro-life, but not enthusiastic enough" right now.

Posted by DC | November 6, 2007 1:57 PM

Well, Dr. Paul believes the abortion issue belongs at the states. It's called federalism, and it hasn't been seriously discussed in a presidential campaign since I could vote. If RP were candidate, the terms of debate on abortion would change completely. It's possible that he could sell some pro-choicers on the wisdom of federalism. After all, a good chunk of like-minded gay marriage supporters are starting to catch on likewise.

Posted by Tingy Wah | November 6, 2007 2:22 PM

". . . with most pro-life voters not even being aware that Paul opposes abortion."

Is it clear that he opposes abortion? He finds it difficult to reconcile with libertarian non-aggression, sure; but he's content to let the states make up their mind.

Posted by Klutometis | November 6, 2007 2:24 PM

David Frum doesn't have the fortitude to take comments from anyone, so I'll reply to his idiotic post here: actually, the majority of Republicans I've seen who have switched their vote to Paul switched from Giuliani. Why? Because no one is really voting for Romney or Thompson in the first place, and they realized that Giuliani is actually a Democrat in Republican clothing.

Ron Paul doesn't agree with Michael Moore on anything except opposition to the Iraq War, and they're both right. Please don't quote from that idiot any further.

Frum's favorite candidate Giuliani agrees with Michael Moore on more things than Ron Paul does (here's a partial list: gun control, pro-choice, illegal immigration, and tax hikes for certain things, such as stadiums or commuters into a city; they also have a very similar confrontational attitude.)

Ron Paul is taking many voters away from Giuliani-- I can list people I know myself in New Jersey, and they're not the only ones. They also bring in $$$$.

If Giuliani is running against Hillary, he doesn't have a chance. If Giuliani is running against Ron Paul, Giuliani doesn't have a chance. He has no character or class, and his kids don't even talk to him, while Ron Paul has 5 kids and 18 grandchildren out on the stump for him.

Posted by Gloria | November 6, 2007 2:26 PM

Ron Paul is not so anti-abortion. He has lost much of his support from pro-life groups because of these positions:

-- He favors legalization of RU-486.
-- He opposes the Right to Life Amendment to the Constitution. He favors letting states decide the issue.
-- He opposes laws prohibiting assisting minors who cross state lines to obtain abortions.

Libertarian Party members found his moderate position acceptable when he was the LP candidate for President in 1988.

Ron Paul's real appeal is on issues of war and peace, and the size and scope of government.

Posted by Eric Garris | November 6, 2007 2:27 PM

You people are out of your ever loving minds think Rudy Giuliani will ever be president of the US. The reasons are too many to name here. Lets just say that his favorite pasttime is pulling on one of Donnas old dresses...pleeeaasseee!!!!
People go with decency, integrity and honesty
Vote Ron Paul...jeez!

Posted by Keith | November 6, 2007 2:27 PM

The fact that Podheretz and Frum are ridiculously trying to claim that Ron Paul will hurt Dems more than Reps is all the proof you need that the GOP is soiling itself over the guy.

Maybe it's a classic case of "say something enough times and maybe it'll come to pass" -- they think that if they drop this line in the water often enough, Dems will finally bite and somehow help them beat back the Paul wave. Maybe they're just delusional, or in denial. Maybe all of the above.

Posted by Woody Bombay | November 6, 2007 2:29 PM

Good point Kluto- If states were allowed to decide on the issue for themselves, people could choose to live in a state that allows abortion or does not. I think somehow this could be spun to appeal to everyone...

Posted by Adam | November 6, 2007 2:31 PM

"My professor was permitting abortions to defy the law, I accidently walked into the room where they were doing an abortion and they delivered a 2 lb infant that was breathing and crying, and they put the baby in a basket in the corner and pretended they didn’t hear it cry and let it die."
-- Ron Paul and why he's against abortion.

How's that going to sound in Ron Paul's voice on the radio and on television when he starts to spend some of that $4.2 million?

Posted by William | November 6, 2007 2:33 PM

Ron Paul's position on abortion gives something to both sides. He wants the federal government out of the picture, either for or against. He does not want the government to prohibit abortion or to strike down state laws. To him legislation regarding abortion is something the states decide.

The pro life camp should like him ending federal courts striking down abortion legislation. The pro choice camp should like the idea that states decide because that allows for the decision to more reflect the values of those within the state. Under President Paul the end result would be some states where abortion is legal and some where it is illegal, without any federal intervention or involvement.

Freedom takes away the one law forces all approach.

Posted by Sid Davis | November 6, 2007 3:05 PM

Yes, 17-year-old girls in Mississippi are going to be lucky to have the 'freedom' to choose between a coat hanger and hitchhiking to New York.

Posted by Woody Bombay | November 6, 2007 3:13 PM

Interesting thoughts here, but... as just ordinary people go across this country, it seems to me that you have to look at the overall picture. This morning CNN reported 85 (88) percent of the country was dissatisfied with the direction the country is headed. That is not in a specific area ie Iraq war, Abortion, Immigration etc, that is generally speaking, the combined total being dissatisfied with one or more of these issues. I believe that you will see voter support going to candidates that do not represent the status quo which will reflect the dissatisfaction of the people. I would be interested to know, see, how many people will make their candidate choice based on Abortion issues vs some other hot button issues such as immigration, war, or the economy.

We all saw that the last election sent a clear message to Congress, the people wanted change. They have not gotten what they asked for and I believe you will see a loud message from the people in this country come Nov 4th next year.

As for Ron Paul and the abortion issue, he personally opposes abortion but, as I am sure you know he is for state management. This is a rather a non issue to me. I believe he is in rather a good spot, position wise, here. Most people can see why he is prolife as an OB-GYN, but the door is open also. He is moreso for people's rights. For Rudy G the barn door is closed.

I just have to add that I believe the abortion issue would be way down on the list of my reasons to vote for this candidate or that. We have issues that are far more perplexing and troublesome to contend with these days. In the end, with a country that is in the 70 plus percent disillusioned with the war, angry with Congress, and ready to make a change in the country's direction, it seems plausable to me that Ron Paul has a much better chance of pulling off the greatest surprise this country has ever seen. People are angry, that is something that must be taken into consideration. After years of anger building up, something is going to change. We saw that already. The next step is going to be a mass showing of just how dissatisfied this country really is.

I am an Independent voter. I do not vote because of some sense of belonging to a party. I vote for the individual that best represents what I feel is good for the country. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats. If we get a sense that one candidate is less than truthful, less than what exemplifies our ideals, then we are just nonthinking sheep. I hope more people will vote for the candidate that exemplifies their true ideals and not just a party, or because this guy looks and sounds electable.

All in all, I think the abortion issues will be troublesome to some candidates, but not as troublesome as other issues. Mr. G will have an issue with abortion, because he also has the issues of being a status quo candidate, as most of the candidates do.

Thank you,
Kate

Posted by Kate | November 6, 2007 3:23 PM

By far and away, Ron Paul supporters are comprised mostly of Old Rightists who hate neoconservatism and the Bush Administration. The next largest group are libertarians, who are very similar to the paleoconservatives anyway. In all my dealings with RP supporters, I have met few who I would call "liberal"; certainly none would support the Clintons, Pelosi, Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, or any of the Democratic candidates. Maybe you could find a few who would vote for Nader but that's it.

If Ron Paul goes down and doesn't win the Republican nomination, he will take any chance of a Republican presidential victory with him. RP's supporters will vote for the strongest independent candidate in that case, which will be a disaster for Giuliani or whoever the Republican nominee is.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat Hilary Clinton.

At this juncture of our country's history, voting for Ron Paul is the only moral choice we have in 2008. That is, not unless you give a damm about our American heritage, values, and traditions.

Posted by G2D2 | November 6, 2007 3:24 PM

Sorry Frum, as a doctor and a republican I couldn't disagree with you more. Does Giuliani honestly believe that we were attacked on 9/11 for minding our own business. If he does it goes to show either how clueless he is or how in bed he is with special interests. 70% of Americans want an end to this war now(very close to the Bush and congressional disapproval rating). C'mon 600 million to build an embassy in Iraq with a swimming pool, gym, movie theater, etc. with a projected cost of a billion dollars a year to run. We are all aware Giuliani is Fox's pony to win. but I and many other republicans(who are fed up with all politicians) are looking for a honest and principled politician and have found that man in Dr. Paul.

Posted by Dr. John Grassam | November 6, 2007 3:26 PM

DEAR BELOVE IN GOD SERVICE,

Greetings in the wonderful name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. I hope and pray that the hand of the Lord is upon you and your people this day to grant you protection against all your enemies, increased blessings and more anointing. May the blood of Jesus be your covering and your strength at this time
Am greatful to mail your Helpful organization,Hopeful
to be friendship,and partnership of what God is doing in your
midst,this
last and final hour of the Church dispensation,Where God is looking
for Men and women to work the earth,
May the joyful assurance of possessing This great salvation be yours,now and till He Comes In Jesus Name Amen

Posted by Rebecca Tucker | November 6, 2007 3:31 PM

DEAR BELOVE IN GOD SERVICE,

Greetings in the wonderful name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. I hope and pray that the hand of the Lord is upon you and your people this day to grant you protection against all your enemies, increased blessings and more anointing. May the blood of Jesus be your covering and your strength at this time
Am greatful to mail your Helpful organization,Hopeful
to be friendship,and partnership of what God is doing in your
midst,this
last and final hour of the Church dispensation,Where God is looking
for Men and women to work the earth,
May the joyful assurance of possessing This great salvation be yours,now and till He Comes In Jesus Name Amen

Posted by Rebecca Tucker | November 6, 2007 3:33 PM

DEAR BELOVE IN GOD SERVICE,

Greetings in the wonderful name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. I hope and pray that the hand of the Lord is upon you and your people this day to grant you protection against all your enemies, increased blessings and more anointing. May the blood of Jesus be your covering and your strength at this time
Am greatful to mail your Helpful organization,Hopeful
to be friendship,and partnership of what God is doing in your
midst,this
last and final hour of the Church dispensation,Where God is looking
for Men and women to work the earth,
May the joyful assurance of possessing This great salvation be yours,now and till He Comes In Jesus Name Amen

Posted by Rebecca Tucker | November 6, 2007 3:33 PM

DEAR BELOVE IN GOD SERVICE,

Greetings in the wonderful name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. I hope and pray that the hand of the Lord is upon you and your people this day to grant you protection against all your enemies, increased blessings and more anointing. May the blood of Jesus be your covering and your strength at this time
Am greatful to mail your Helpful organization,Hopeful
to be friendship,and partnership of what God is doing in your
midst,this
last and final hour of the Church dispensation,Where God is looking
for Men and women to work the earth,
May the joyful assurance of possessing This great salvation be yours,now and till He Comes In Jesus Name Amen

Posted by Rebecca Tucker | November 6, 2007 3:34 PM

To anyone who doubts the viability of Ron Paul's candidacy, I ask two questions:

1) Defend any other Republican candidate solely on their unequivocal stance on any issue. You can't. Because none of them have any. Complete this sentence: "(Insert non-Paul Republican candidate's name) is FOR ______."

2) Who beats the pants off of any Democratic candidate, especially Clinton, in a debate? Ron Paul would not only win, his issues would DEFINE the debate. For the first time in easily 30 years we would have a true philosophical choice between the parties.

Quit all yer belly-aching about polls and what people think and get on board.

Posted by Oscar DeGrouch | November 6, 2007 3:37 PM

Well I don't know. Rudy is not really a republican in the traditional sense. While I don't agree with Paul on some things, he still embodies more of the Reagan small government conservative than Rudy does. Plus Rudy has a lot of baggage that still has yet to make it into the mainstream. If Rudy keeps arguing the "They attack us because we're free", and his pro-choice stance, he will alienate himself from the older traditional conservatives who know history, because they have lived through so much. Many old school republicans supported Bush because he's, well, a Bush. Many older republicans remember George H W Bush, and hold him in high regards. Today, many older traditional republicans are dis-satisfied with Bush and to assume they'll support Rudy in the primary might be a stretch. I don't think Ron Paul - at this point - is going to win the nomination, but I bet he does far better than people are anticipating. So far he surpassed all the expectations already, except these "scientific polls" that often times don't poll newly registered republicans. Also, when people hear Paul, himself speak, a lot of them like what he says and believe in his integrity and honesty - like Reagan. I know Republicans who were anti-Paul until they heard him speak for himself. A lot disagree with the war, and a few other issues, but they all respect him and genuinely like him. I have heard some staunch Bush supporters proclaim their support for Paul, regardless of their differences, simply because the man has Reagan's small government philosophy and put America first attitude. But I think Rudy has some concerns. There are more old right traditional republicans out there than Rudy, and the others, realize I think. Personally I like Ron Paul. He brings some good subject matter to the debate, and I don't believe all his supporters are crazy. That's rediculous! Every candidate has wierdos that follow them. It will be interesting and I don't think we should write off Romney either. Huckabee and McCain will undoubtedly be VP potential. No can argue against McCain's patriotism and service, and Huckabee can help bring man of the dis-enchanted religious conservatives back the fold - especially those who have sworn they will not vote for Rudy. The republican party is in a mess right now, especially with religious conservatives and old school conservatives, and they are two demographics who go out and vote in droves. If Rudy can't harness them, he doesn't stand much of a chance.

Posted by John | November 6, 2007 3:37 PM

I think the bottom line is, the ever-widening gap between what Americans across the country think about their leaders and what the chattering classes in New York, LA, and DC expect them to think has been blown right out into the open by Paul's campaign.

The pundits are standing around scratching their heads and either ridiculing the masses for supporting him, or pretending that their support represents something other than a desire that Ron Paul be president of the United States.

It's okay, it doesn't really matter if the Frums of this world understand what's going on, because we're taking the power back.

Ron Paul for President in 2008!

Posted by Michael | November 6, 2007 3:42 PM

The evidence that Rudy Giuliani (in fact basically ANY Republican candidate other than Paul) will be completely DESTROYED by Hillary or Obama next year is way past the "writing is on the wall" stage at this point. Honestly just how naive do you have to be?

Bush has the worst approval ratings of any president in the past 3 decades LARGELY due to his foreign policy ideas...the Rudy McRompson candidates are marching toward their own slaughter with a smile on their face, plugging away at the same foreign policy plan and cementing the Republican party's new mascot as that of an ostrich with its head in the sand. Snap out of it folks, the people are not on board with this.

So come next november its looks like youre going to have to choose between Hillary and some Republican.
Giuliani voices the most UNpopular positions when it comes to the war, the Patriot act, abortion, immigration, and corporate welfare.
Ron Paul voices (and actually believes in) the most popular positions ON ALL FIVE, and his record proves it. He beats Hillary on the war, on gun control, on defense of civil liberties (being thats what his books are about, not simple self-aggrandizing memoirs from some hack who doesnt have and never had a real job in their life ie the Clintons), on reforming/ending the drug war, on taxes and smart monetary policy, and on allegiance to the PEOPLE over corporate thugs and special interests.
- Hillary: an anti-war candidate who really isnt, who is already planning to throw us into Iran, who wants to ramp up spending and govt. expansion to a quasi-socialist level as if we DONT have a $9 trillion dollar debt as it is, and who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations who will protect the status quo at all costs.
- Giuliani: pro-war candidate, gun-grabber, corporate welfare queen, "hero" of 911 and "america's mayor" who is mysteriously despised and loathed by the REAL heroes of that day and the two biggest civic departments of that city while he was mayor (FDNY, NYPD), cross-dresser who is pro-abortion and pro-gun control but is running as a Republican for whatever reason, and another member of the Council on Foreign Relations who will preserve the status quo at all costs.
- Ron Paul: anti-interventionist candidate who served as a flight surgeon in the air force unlike Clinton or Giuliani, has never voted for a tax increase, understands how silly it is to let the government print its own money and actually determine the value thereof (lol), against the Drug War and has a clue as to how valuable hemp farming will be if we embraced it for fuel, fiber, paper, food, medicine, etc., against the UN and WTO's frighteningly insane ideas like Law of the Seas treaty and Codex Alimentarius, voted AGAINST the Iraq war AND the PATRIOT act, wants to actually DO SOMETHING about our $9 trillion debt, has never voted for an unbalanced budget, worked as a medical doctor between terms as Congressman and delivered 4,000 babies, refuses a congressional pension and returns part of his budget to the treasury each year, and oh yeah...has sworn to, and his record proves that he WILL, DO HIS JOB AS IT IS DESCRIBED- you know, as in UPHOLDING AND DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE US SO HELP HIM GOD.

Paul is the only chance against someone like Hillary or Obama. Its beyond obvious at this point that anyone else is toast. If you dont think it is, try leaving your computer and taking a walk down the street.

Posted by Julian | November 6, 2007 3:51 PM

Can we have a source on the Ron Paul/RU486 claim? Probably Paul supports getting rid of the FDA entirely and therefore as long as abortion would be legal so would RU486, but that is not the same as believing RU486 ought to be legal in the abstract.

Posted by James Kabala | November 6, 2007 4:02 PM

To Eric,

It is clear that you do not understand federalism, the Constitution, or the reality of the current situation regarding abortion as a political issue.

1) Ron Paul has publicly stated that he is pro-life, and does so on the principle of human liberty.

2) Ron Paul has publicly stated that Roe v. Wade is bad federal jurisprudence that should never have been issued.

3) Ron Paul believes that the abortion issue will not move off its current log-jam because the all- or-nothing status of federal involvement makes any sort of rational persuasion very difficult to achieve.

4) Ron Paul opposes federal legislation regarding RU-486, assisting minors with/against abortions, etc. because he believes these are not constitutionally authorized activities for the Federal Government, they are state matters.

5) Many Liberatarians are pro-life as a part of their fundamental views on liberty, but they, like Paul, believe that such matters are best left to the states.

Would this cause short-term messy border/state situations? Of course, but with the threat of winner-take-all federal laws removed, real discussion, persuasion, and debate could occur on this emotional issue. I would love to discuss my pro-life believes with my pro-choice colleagues in the academy, but it cannot be done because of the unconstitutional usurpation of state powers by the Supreme Court in this matter. A Ron Paul presidency would bring about the much needed discussion that is currently absent in this debate.

Posted by Jay | November 6, 2007 4:17 PM

Ok, I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice. However, being on the fence as I am, I find the argument of "17-year olds in MS being lucky to choose a coat hanger or hitchhiking to New York" argument as one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated for gaining support on the pro-choice side. A big part of having a "choice" (or "freedom" as it is often called) is also being willing to accept responsibility for your actions. Abortion as a form of birth control perpetuates irresponsible actions which in turn begets other irresponsibility. I would distance myself quite far from this weak argument if I were campaigning on the pro-choice side.

Frankly, I am sad to see both pro-choice and pro-life advocates getting hung up in their usual tirades. Why? Well, consider this: what do you expect will happen when China calls us on our loans and cripples us to the point of non-resistance (economically, this is a very real possibility right now, think about it and be honest instead of defensive)?

Is the pro-life crowd prepared to face a government sponsored program of forced abortion under the guise of population control? Further are all men and women willing to accept having no reproductive rights at all, for or against a choice?

That, my friends, is far more frightening to me than being pro-choice or pro-life because it could mean I haven't a choice at all.

That is why I support Ron Paul. I think its about time everyone consider some of the possibilities we may face if we continue to spend ourselves into third world poverty. You might look around now and say, "nah, never gonna happen", but I'd be willing to bet the British never thought an American Revolution would ever happen either. Besides, have you seen how the world is catching on to our "dollar" problem or are you too busy worrying about the intricate details of pro-choice or pro-life?

I believe Ron Paul does offer something for both sides. He rightly recognizes that our differences, sometimes based on religious and sometimes based on idealogical beliefs are far less concerning today than what we are certain to face tomorrow. I think both sides should think about that before letting themselves being led down a one-issue voting path. Something along the line of not being able to see the forest for the trees comes to mind.

Posted by LibertyGal | November 6, 2007 4:24 PM

There are two reasons why Ron Paul is the obvious choice for Republican nominee.

1. After the failed Contract with America, failure to implement term-limits, failure to budge abortion, and failure to shrink government - the only Republican candidate that can distance himself far enough from the Republican Party to even stand a chance against the Democrats is Ron Paul.

2. Despite the reluctance of those in the Republican Party who love our foreign policy and what the Republican Party has done to the National Debt, they will still either vote for Paul as a lesser of two evils or will actively vote to disallow a Democrat/Socialist victory.

Either way, the only chance the Republicans have to maintain a semblence of power is to give the voters a REAL choice in the general Election, and no other candidate, besides Ron Paul is in a position to do this.

Posted by rhys | November 6, 2007 4:29 PM

Ron Paul is undoubtedly in the "top tier"...

http://www.truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm

Posted by Mike | November 6, 2007 4:58 PM

Bingo!

I am a pro-life homeschooling mom from WI. My number one issue is abortion. By a long shot. I would vote for a pro-life Green Party candidate before I would vote for a pro-abortion Republican.

That said, I believe Ron Paul is the complete package!

After abortion, my issues are: taxes/small government; privacy rights, property rights, and immigration reform.

I like Ron Paul because he believes that the basis for *all* of our government should be on the Constitution. I believe that he tries to make all of his votes and decisions starting at that point -- *not* whatever the current party line is ... not whatever benefits those who gave him campaign money. I think that is such a problem in modern politics -- that everyone involved is trying to pat each other on the back, stay in power, and keep "the other guys" out of power.

Posted by Heather in WI | November 6, 2007 5:30 PM

Ron Paul has a peculiar view that good Americans need to shrivel behind our ocean moats and pay scant attention to the politics and economics of the evil others across the seas. He really has no conception of the responsibility of a world power or understanding of vital American global financial and political interests. Most Americans knows this at the gut level and are paying scant attention to him. Ron who?

He lacks anything close to the wisdom of say Lincoln, T./ F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and possibly Bush II should the Iraq war succeed in the long run.

The savviest of all modern presidents was Eisenhower; none of the present crop of candidates comes close to his understanding of world realities along with the dangers of war. One finds it difficult to choose among the current crop, though, the least of them would be Paul on the right and Kucinich on the left.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | November 6, 2007 5:41 PM

If Rudy becomes the republican nominee, he will not even carry his home state.

Ask Al Gore how that worked for him in 2000.

Posted by JD | November 6, 2007 5:42 PM

I'm pro-life, but I'm not extremely anti-war nor am I a libertarian in the traditional sense, but I'd vote for Paul over Giuliani because of the abortion issue alone. From what I understand, I'm one among many who feel this way.

Posted by John (a different one than the one who posted earlier) | November 6, 2007 5:48 PM

"One finds it difficult to choose among the current crop, though, the least of them would be Paul on the right and Kucinich on the left. "

So you don't really stand for anything, you just know who you like the least. When you find the perfect candidate that agrees with everything you stand for, let me know.

I stand for Ron Paul and am proud to say so.

I'm just trying to figure out why Dr Paul is in the republican party at all.

He is for limited government
He is against nation building
He is for balanced budgets
He is pro life
He is for securing our borders
He is against income transfers and entitlements. (see prescritpions for seniors)
He is for free speech (mcCain Fiengold)
He believes the federal government should be out of education (NCLB)
He does not believe in creating more government agencies (Homeland Security)
He wants to elimnate government agencies (Education, Homeland Security)
He believes in states rights.
He believes in the constituion.

Dr Paul does not belong in todays republican party.

Posted by JD | November 6, 2007 5:49 PM

You know what?

I don't care about abortion or gay marriage. These are not Federal issues at all, they are state and local issues. The Federal government has no right to make rulings on them either way.

Posted by fuzzywzhe | November 6, 2007 7:22 PM

- "Ron Paul has a peculiar view that good Americans need to shrivel behind our ocean moats and pay scant attention to the politics and economics of the evil others across the seas. He really has no conception of the responsibility of a world power or understanding of vital American global financial and political interests."

This "peculiar view" is called minding your own business and having respect for the sovereignty of other nations unless they seriously threaten or attack you...but then SOVEREIGNTY itself is a concept that one of your "greatest presidents ever," Bush II COULDNT DEFINE WHEN ASKED.

You apparently have no conception of what the UN and WTO have been doing, since you seem to think our overextension into foreign matters that do not concern us and which ARE OF NO BENEFIT to the taxpayers who fund it is void of corruption or efforts to undermine our owns sovereignty and laws.

Check out the Law of the Seas Treaty and Codex Alimentarius....just for starters. Read up on what those are and maybe you'll reconsider whether a ten-term congressman and doctor who used to be a flight surgeon in the air force is supposedly so profoundly ignorant on foreign policy matters compared with yourself.

You also might want to note that Ron Paul's position is to actively encourage foreign trade, diplomacy, and friendship with other nations...not isolationism, which is the strawman youre currently tearing to shreds here.

- "Most Americans knows this at the gut level and are paying scant attention to him. Ron who?"

The average American will go blue in the face telling you why the violence seen on WWF is real. "Most Americans" are voting in opinion polls with results that support Paul's views. You seem to be advancing the argument that name recognition equals great policy ideas, character, and practicing what one preaches.

You also seem to leave out that a good deal of those who ask "Ron Paul who?"- when informed as to who he is and after familiarizing themselves with his positions- change their tunes to "Ron Paul 2008." You dont have to take my word for it- the success of his grassroots campaign so far despite being avoided at all costs by the media kind of speaks for itself...as do the signup rates for his campaign...as do his fundraising numbers...as do his straw polls wins.

- "He lacks anything close to the wisdom of say Lincoln, T./ F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and possibly Bush II should the Iraq war succeed in the long run.

The savviest of all modern presidents was Eisenhower"

- I doubt very strongly that you are familiar at all with the positions of those you just listed. The fact that you'd even put Teddy Roosevelt in the same breath (for almost any reason at all) as G.W. Bush says a lot about your understanding of both men and what they were doing in their respective presidencies.

More to the point...lets just assemble some quotes from those gentlemen and see whether they are closer to Bush's philosophies or Ron Paul's:

From Theodore Roosevelt -
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people."

"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft."

"Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country."

"Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe."

"The government is us; we are the government, you and I."

"The most important single ingredient in the formula of success is knowing how to get along with people."

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president...is morally treasonable to the American public."

From Abraham Lincoln-
"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

"You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

From Dwight D. Eisenhower-
"Controlled, universal disarmament is the imperative of our time. The demand for it by the hundreds of millions whose chief concern is the long future of themselves and their children will, I hope, become so universal and so insistent that no man, no government anywhere, can withstand it."

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

"I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center."

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

"I have only one yardstick by which I test every major problem - and that yardstick is: Is it good for America?"

"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."

"If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order."

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."

"In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?"

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

"Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war."

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

Funny...I've heard Ron Paul paraphrase several of these...AND live by them.

Posted by Julian | November 6, 2007 7:22 PM

Wow, are Paul supporters this disciplined across the entire blogosphere, or does The Atlantic get special attention? Or is it three guys in their basement?

Posted by Ann Non | November 6, 2007 7:32 PM

"Yes, 17-year-old girls in Mississippi are going to be lucky to have the 'freedom' to choose between a coat hanger and hitchhiking to New York."
Posted by Woody Bombay

They could also make the nonviolent choice where they don't kill their own child.

Posted by Man of Peace | November 6, 2007 7:34 PM

Wow, Ron Paul is really starting to get to you guys, huh? He's like that, you know. Once you hear his message, you fall in love with him. Right now only about 20% of the population know about him. Wait until 80% hear about him, our next president will be Ron Paul. You can quibble all you want about any issue but RP is the complete package. Go ahead, admit it..... you're going to vote for Ron, right?

Posted by Larry in SC | November 6, 2007 7:36 PM

Ron Paul is a racist Nazi scumbag.

Posted by bobbyusbombs | November 6, 2007 7:58 PM

Who'd have thought that a mainstream Republican with a classically conservative message could end up sounding so liberal that he is accused of being a radical, and by others as, "certifiably crazy"? I guess this illustrates just how far the neo-cons have dragged this country into the bottomless pit. After hearing Dr. Paul's views, several of which I do not agree with, I am now left with no other choice than to become a registered Republican so I can vote for him. As president, he will probably do a lot of things that piss me off, but at least I'll be pissed off in a free country.

Posted by Ken Boschert | November 6, 2007 7:59 PM

"Wow, are Paul supporters this disciplined across the entire blogosphere, or does The Atlantic get special attention? Or is it three guys in their basement?"

Posted by Ann Non | November 6, 2007 7:32 PM

No, there are just an awful lot of Paul supporters and growing daily. It's funny that just because one or two hundred Paul fans happen to google an article and respond some people think it's organized or something. News flash: it's spontaneous, it's self-propelled, and there are a million of us.

Posted by David | November 6, 2007 8:00 PM

I love reading these comments and I love Ron Paul. If you really think about it Ron Paul bases all his views and decisions in Congress on whether or not it is Constitutional. His voting record clearly shows that. Our country's Constitution is a great document that we should all read. We can restore the government to the people and for the people in 2008. We can do this by electing our modern day Founding Father, Ron Paul. God Bless America and God Bless Ron Paul!

Posted by Rod | November 6, 2007 8:22 PM

We're taking back America. I am a legal professional
who works up to 100 hours a week. Resist the IRS - resist Adolf Guiliani - vote Ron Paul 2008 please!!

Posted by Andrew Allen | November 6, 2007 8:33 PM

Two important facts missing from this essay:
1. Paul has said multiple times that he will NOT run an independent or third-party campaign. He did it once and realized the deck was stacked.
2. Paul is pro-life, but he is ANTI-federal-law on the issue. He's happy to have states deal with the issue as a criminal, civil, or totally legal matter.
It isn't difficult to find the facts before speculating.

Posted by Westmiller | November 6, 2007 8:34 PM

Neo-Nazi Support for Ron Paul
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/10/neo-nazi-support-for-ron-paul.html

Posted by Michael Pugliese | November 6, 2007 9:23 PM

I'm pro-choice.
Yet I'm also pro Ron Paul.
Is there a dichotomy there? Maybe.
What I do think is that the federal government needs to let us....the American people....govern ourselves as we were meant to.
And as for Giuliani?
I'm sorry. I just cannot understand the mentality of ANYONE who would support him as a possible leader of our country.

Posted by T. Gilmore | November 6, 2007 9:58 PM

I keep reading in comments that Ron Paul is pro-life, but when I listen to what he says he is for having each state decide the issue on its own. California will always be pro-choice and Alabama will always be pro-life and Americans can choose with their feet.

Posted by Mark | November 6, 2007 10:07 PM

Ron Paul's positions on awhole galaxy of issues are anathema to the Left. That he's antiwar can't overcome that. How many Leftists voted for Buchanan in 2000 because he was with them on rejecting NAFTA and free trade? Paul is Buchanan with better manners.

Posted by JonF | November 6, 2007 10:08 PM

The media and those using the Television News to say RP cant win the Nomination. You are wrong! Ron Paul Can Win!

Bush won the 2004 nomination with no competition.

As incumbent wartime president he was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

The only reason to vote in the 2004 primary was to show support for Bush and the Iraq War. IF the Republicans were so gung-ho about Bush and the war in 2004, they would have flocked to the primaries and support him.

But, they did NOT. The 2004 Republican turnout was the lowest in history. Those who voted in it are staunch Bush supporters and war Hawks.

All the "Scientific Polls" are ONLY contacting that very low percentage of Die hard Bush supporters and war hawks.

They are a fring element and do not represent the Republican party as a whole. These polls are not "scientific" and in fact are SERIOUSLY FLAWED because they represent a very small group of hawkish staunch bush supporters and not the average Joe Republican, not to mention the droves of moderate democrats and independents who have registered to vote for Ron PAul in the Primaries.

RON PAUL CAN WIN THE NOMINATION!!

Ron Paul has won 17 straw polls and every single online poll!!!

Early Primary victories will prove Ron Paul can win!!

RON PAUL CAN WIN THE NOMINATION!!

Posted by RonPaul Can Win | November 6, 2007 10:25 PM

When I was young and foolish, I voted for George McGovern.
(Not my fault, really; I was raised by socialists.)

When I was older and still foolish - despite having discovered the overwhelming value and importance of the U.S. Constitution - I voted for George Bush.
(My bad. But the idea of Al Gore as president was just too frightening.)

Now that Ron Paul is running, I have someone to vote for who I truly respect, and with whom I agree with on most issues.

(E.g. like Paul, I think Roe v. Wade was bad law, constitutionally, and believe that abortion law should be decided by the states. Unlike Paul, I believe that abortion should be legal, because I believe that although a fertilized egg is human, it is not a human being. And while I generally believe in open borders, I think that until we stop screwing around with the rest of the world, and in particular the middle east, that we probably need more secure borders.)

And, for the first time ever, on November 5, I have contributed money to a politiical campaign. Not because I believe in throwing my money away to make a point, but because I truly believe that Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination. And if he wins the nomination, it should be easier to win the election.

The thought Hillary as president, pushing for socialist policies such as national health care, or $5,000 bonds for babies, that will only do greater and greater damage to the U.S., is scary, to say the least. (And the other Dems are no better.)

But to me, the most frightening possibility of all in this election is for Giuliani to be elected president. Among other things, the man is either willfully ignorant of what's going on in the middle east, and the reasons why we were attacked on 9/11, or he is willing to ignore what he knows so that he can demagogue in the debates, and try to come off as a "patriot."

The possibility of Giuliani becoming president is so frightenting that, as scary as Hillary is, if Giuliani is the Republican nominee, then I would vote for Hillary.

So this is one vote that Giuilani won't get - and that Hillary could get, bog forbid - if Ron Paul doesn't get nominated.

Posted by Prof Bernardo de la Paz | November 6, 2007 10:47 PM

I support Ron Paul because he has integrity, and puts his vote where his mouth is, and so should you. Ron Paul caught my attention because he was one of only six Republicans who voted 'No' on going into Iraq. Additionally, he voted 'No' on both the first and second Patriot Acts (an obvious even to retards unconstitutional bill).

Ron Paul is no strutting peacock like Clinton, Giuliani, or Romney. But then again, mainstream Americans are tired of inflated egos, hype, nonsense, and posturing from its politicians, as well as bias from its mainstream media. At this rate, by the time the elections arrive 80% of American adults are going to be considered the political 'fringe'...

Posted by Pauline | November 6, 2007 10:51 PM

So the Neo-Nazis support Ron Paul. Big deal, it just goes to show that everyone likes the sound of freedom, even those who would take it away from others if given the chance; but they still want it for themselves don't they. Mr. Pugliese your post is a cheap shot at Dr. Paul. Is that the best you can offer?
Paul will win. The revolution is here, and we are taking back our country - with or without the Neo-Nazis help.
Let me say this: I have a great many 'black' friends, and many are voting for Ron Paul. Ron Paul supporters can't be pigeon holed as libertarians, dissatisfied republicans & democrats, Neo-Nazis, Blacks, Whites or any other group. We are from all walks of life; we are individuals and most of all we are the American people and we're taking back our country now. Get used to it.

Posted by M. Taylor | November 6, 2007 11:06 PM

You keep telling why Rudy can't win and I think you are correct . The part of the picture your not seeing is The Republican party bosses know that also Rudy has so much dirt and its not comming out till after he wins Repulican spot.
Then the media plays it up so much that we don't ever focus on Hillary's life of crime and she becomes the next President . Thats the plan we have a one party system not two.
Thats why Ron Paul is so feared by them he is not part of the program . Think about what I'm saying and you'll know its true

Posted by Bill | November 6, 2007 11:12 PM

Just beacuse some Neo-Nazis want to vote for Ron Paul does not mean he endorses them! He has said this many times. The racist smears come from an incident where a staffer who did not agree with Paul on foreign policy and was hired as a ghostwriter wrote a malicous letter to smear Paul. Ron apologized for the racist act and fired the staffer. The New York Times wrote an article in June or July this year about this I suggest you check out.
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Live free or die! I hope P.Diddy put that on his T-Shirt this year.

Posted by MJ | November 6, 2007 11:46 PM

I am a liberal democrat, so is my wife. I expect to vote for a democrat but would gladly cross over to vote for Ron Paul, but no other Republicans. If the country keeps going the direction it seems of both parties spending money like crazy on everything under the sun, I would rather vote for a democrat to provide me help with my kids college fund and decent health care rather than Republicans foreign wars, star wars, war on drugs, nifty bunker buster bombs, etc...

I think the issue is fairly simple...
If the Neo-Con Republicans get the white house, the Senate and Congress will only pass bills that benefit both Republicans and Democrats. - This is the best usual outcome, that the parties fight and nothing really gets done except impeachment.
If the Democrats win, they get ALL the big money bills fast tracked through without oversight, 2002 all over again, but this time ala Democrat.

Ron Paul is a wake up call. He is the only guy that can possibly put our country on the right fiscal and moral track. He uses the Constitution as his authority, not the church or even his own morals. This makes me trust him more than all the other candidates. I believe he is poised to say to Americans "Is the constitution relevant? Do we care what the founding fathers envisioned?"
"Does it apply today?"

I also believe people like the idea of states rights too. When explained properly, most people would rather fight out these tough battles locally than have the supreme court decide everthing for them.

Posted by Ken | November 7, 2007 1:09 AM

Has anyone noticed the striking differenece between the Pro-Paul comments and the anti-Paul comments in this blog? Pro-Paul commentors use well thought-out, well researched, and well reasoned arguments. While the anti-paul commentors resort to name-calling, fear-mongering, and worst yet unsubstantiated, uninformed arguments. It is clear to me that the real battle in this election cycle is between the well-educated, independent, open-minded free thinkers and the mis-educated, dependent, no-minded slave-thinkers. Open your eyes people or the Idiocracy will further enslave you, your children, and your children's children.

A Vote for Ron Paul is a vote for yourself, for your freedom, and for the removal of your shackles.

Posted by Earle Howard | November 7, 2007 1:54 AM

Ron Paul's personal feelings towards abortion make no differece to his supporters as he makes it clear that the Federal Government's bias will be removed from those decisions that were given to the states....

Take time to read the Constitution?

Get on board, folks...its about the Constitution!

Posted by Linda Inveninato | November 7, 2007 8:06 AM

"He [Ron Paul] finds it [the pro-life position] difficult to reconcile with libertarian non-aggression..."

There are libertarians of convenience and there are libertarians of conscience. Libertarians of convenience ignore personal responsibility and therefor feel they have a right to murder an inconvenient child. Libertarians of conscience understand that abortion is an act of aggression it is the initiation of violence against a life which should be considered human until proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty of being otherwise. Abortion stands diametrically opposed to the libertarian non-aggression principle. I agree that it isn't a Federal issue. There are far better ways to handle issues such as this at much smaller levels.

Posted by Bryan Morton | November 7, 2007 9:05 AM

You know Ron Paul says policing the world and nation building isn't working. America is broke.
War propaganda is being pumped out. He says stuff other leaders would never dream of saying.
As one radio announcer said when you first hear Ron Pauls idea's they sound crazy, but it's only because we drifted so far from the constitution, we don't know what those idea's sound like anymore. Thats why they sound crazy AT FIRST, then you think about them and realize it's so simple. The message makes sense.
Some people are scared "Peace" might break out if Ron Paul is elected, how scary is that. Not to us, but to those those billion dollar companies that feed the war machine.
Ron Paul has found the perfect answer to the abortion issue, let the states decide, since they already decide this in other life and death matters, the death penalty, this is an extension of that idea. I am hardcore pro-life and I know that this would cause countless deaths in some states, and none in others. These are battles that would then be faught at the local level.
So christians will never find a better answer to this issue from a now electable candidate. And Pro-choice people don't have to worry about Federal Judges banning all abortion at the supreme court level. Ron Paul gives something to people on both sides of this debate, despite his personal beliefs, no doubt influenced by delivering 4000 babies, he will not sacrifice people's liberty at the federal level even when he feels so strongly about this issue. I find this to be one of his most amazing qualities.

Posted by Steve | November 7, 2007 11:55 AM

Ron Paul:
1. He has never voted to raise taxes.

2. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

3. He voted against the Patriot Act.

4. He voted against the Iraq War.

5. He never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

6. He is campaigning to stop federal agencies and special interests from driving property owners from their homes.

7. He believes that imposing tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical.

8. He believes that it is unconstitutional to pay taxes on our income, that our forefathers never intended private citizens' income to be taxable, and seeks to completely eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

9. He has a six-point plan for border security and immigration reform, although he believes we make illegal immigrants the scapegoat through a system we've designed to be incoherent and unjust.

10. He acknowledges that "the biggest threat to our privacy is the government."

Suck on that Rudy!

Posted by Gil | November 7, 2007 12:54 PM

Ron Paul is a sponsor of the Sanctity of Life Act. This bill is not vague on the right to life for the unborn, so I do not understand the confusion.

Posted by Citizen1 | November 7, 2007 3:38 PM

"Ron Paul is not so anti-abortion."

Mr. Garris, you are incorrect. If you had watched any of the numerous interviews in which he was asked his stance on abortion you would know that he finds it personally repugnant. Where he fails in the eyes of many is that he does not believe that the federal government should have anything at all to do with it. As is his stance on many issues. As a woman who has had the experience of an abortion and is pro-choice I can say that I was hesitant at first to reconcile myself with this attitude. He has said that were it up to him he would overturn Roe v. Wade. But when I consider the position logically, I can see that he is correct. The federal government has no place in deciding what can and can't be done with respect to a woman's body and a viable fetus. The weight of this burden should lie with the state. It is only through smaller government that we can be assured that the tyranny of the majority does not crush the minority.

Posted by Patty Patriot | November 7, 2007 4:56 PM

Ron Paul's position is good for those of us that are neither all-cases pro-life, nor all-abortions-all-the-time pro-choice. The discussion as he presents it allows for persuasion, winning hearts and minds as they say.

Posit this. Unless a woman is raped she (and her partner) made a choice to have sex. Everyone of child-bearing age knows sex may make the woman pregnant, even if all measures of birth control are used. The choice to have sex is still made, so the risk that she may become pregnant is accepted. My hope is that the woman would consider this before aborting her child. Personal responsibility is important in a free society.

Now, if she is raped, that choice was never hers. The fetus carries the DNA of her attacker. Some woman cannot reconcile this and maintain a healthy mental state for carrying a child, or then caring for it once it is born, having to look at those eyes. Adoption is an option for the srong-willed woman who chooses to carry the life for whatever reason. My hope is that she not trade the life for peace of mind only for the reason that it cannot be blamed for the actions of it's parents. But, I can understand why she may choose otherwise.

Now some argue that abortion is an act of aggression against an innocent, but that fetus ceases to be innocent if the mother's life is endangered by it. Her life and liberty are at stake if she cannot maintain her own life or health by not having an abortion. This is a medical fact. The child will not survive without the mother to carry it to it's birth. No one should advocate ending her life and stealing her liberty. The fetus has become the aggressor if it is the reason she may die. This is why abortion should, at the very least, be legal for exceptions such as these.

After that, if it is defined as murder by a given state, that is a state decision. If it is not legislated at all in a given state, then it is the choice of the woman. The 10th Amendment honors both options (State or People), but grants no such authority to the federal government. The right to privacy is no where presented in the Constitution to supercede the right to life or liberty. Thus Roe v Wade is wrong. Birth control, or abortions or use of embryos for stem cells prior to the blood fusing with the fetus (around the 18th day) should not be argued on religious grounds as God said "the life is in the blood." Now, if you wish to argue that life begins at conception or before the blood-fusing with the fetus, please do not use the bible as your guide. That is a misrepresentation.

I urge anyone on the fence to witness an early ultrasound and tell me what you see. Please, let us stop using abortion as birth control, but for it's necessity only. Use birth control, by all means, but if it fails, please take responsibility. Thank you.

Posted by Nick | November 7, 2007 5:18 PM

There are different types of Republicans: Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, and Libertarian. Ron Paul is a libertarian Republican. Consequently, it is a misnomer to refer to Dr Paul as a Libertarian. Actually, all Americans ought to see themselves as libertarian, meaning 'pro-liberty', so maybe we don't even need to use the term... perhaps we can assume that all the major presidential candidates are libertarians, espousing individual freedoms and liberty for all. Correct?

Posted by Pauline | November 7, 2007 8:53 PM

In an comment Keith said, "You people are out of your ever loving minds think Rudy Giuliani will ever be president of the US. The reasons are too many to name here. Lets just say that his favorite pasttime is pulling on one of Donnas old dresses...pleeeaasseee!!!! People go with decency, integrity and honesty Vote Ron Paul...jeez!"

I'm rolling on the floor laughing, these Republicans that think Giuliani is electable really are delusional. Giuliani is Hillary's best hope of becoming president, look what happened the last time Giuliani ran against Hillary. He's a left wing shill shill candidate, look what news organizations are promoting him. I like my Representative Ron Paul, even voted for him. Usually vote for the best candidate, the Libertarian Party one. But, I'd consider crossing over and voting for Hillary (Bush-lite), the lesser of two evils, than voting for Giuliani (Bush-on-steroids). These Republicans are out of their minds if they believe what the media is telling them about Giuliani.

Liking Ron Paul, I might just have to spend election day outside the polling place with a life size picture of Giuliani in drag. That should be fun, lol. Of course the caption will read, "Vote For, Our first Madam President". That should put a proper image in minds voters as they fall off the fence in the election booth.

Giuliani is a shill candidate for Hillary

Posted by a Rocket Scientist | November 8, 2007 5:57 AM

The importance of Roe V Wade has nothing to do with abortion. The fact is, it is the only law in the United States which recognizes a Right of Privacy in the home. Overturn Roe v Wade, and there is no law in the land to protect our privacy in our homes. Of course, the abortion portion may be overturned without impacting the Right of Privacy language, but the ruling judge would be required to expressly reserve it. So those wish to overturn Roe v Wade, please wake up and advocate only changing the 'Abortion' sections in Roe v Wade, and NOT the 'Right to Privacy in the Home' sections of this major constitutional Supreme Court decision.

Posted by Pauline | November 8, 2007 8:03 AM

Pauline this is not quite correct. Griswold v. Connecticut started the idea of privacy in the home. Griswold was about contraception. As abortions usually don't happen at one's home Roe more expanded privacy to other places. Still I see no reason you can't expand Griswold without Roe.

Posted by Thomas R | November 10, 2007 12:59 AM

Thomas R:

Regarding the right to privacy, the US Supreme Court in a foot note in Griswald v Conn. states that privacy principles were laid down in an opinion by Lord Camden in Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029.

My point is this: if Roe v Wade is overruled, depending on the Court's Rationale and Analysis in such a decision, at one and the same time, the American people may also lose their Right to Privacy in their homes, or find it so restricted as to be essential nonexistant. In other words, by overturning Roe v Wade, a future US Supreme Court may also overturn Griswald's zone of privacy and penumbra language.

Thomas, am glad to see you are reading ...

Posted by Pauline | November 10, 2007 10:37 PM

I am pro-choice and proudly support Dr. Ron Paul for president.

Posted by Galileo Galilei | November 23, 2007 4:11 PM

Funny, I came here looking for a quote about preemptive strike and Hitler, that I saw from a Ron Paul supporter video, and I couldn't figure out who said the quote. then I see others commenting on Ron Paul, and I read the other quotes.
Ron Paul 2008!

Posted by Who Is Ron Paul | December 2, 2007 4:18 AM