« Something To Give Thanks For | Main | More Bold Truthsaying »

Who's Afraid of Ron Paul?

21 Nov 2007 12:57 pm

"There's something weird going on," Jonah Goldberg writes, "when [Ron] Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party while [Mike] Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog. It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike."

I take Jonah's point, but I feel like there's a pretty big piece missing from the story he tells. It's true that Huckabee has risen in the polls by tapping into concerns that are probably more "mainstream" among GOP voters (and certainly among the electorate as a whole) than Ron Paul's angst about the decline of the American Republic. As NR's own (anti-Huckabee) editorial on his campaign noted, the former Arkansas governor "more than the other Republican candidates, understands that even in a time of economic growth Americans are worried about their health care, their wages, and their country’s future." But the reason the Huck isn't being vilified by conservatives the way Paul has been isn't because the GOP as a whole is suddenly going populist and statist; if anything, Huckabee's campaign has capitalized on the reverse phenomenon, the cautious small-government orthodoxy that the front-runners have adopted to cover over their heresies on other fronts. No, the reason Paul has been treated differently than Huckabee by the right-wing media is very, very simple, and it has nothing to do with size-of-government issues: Paul opposes the Iraq War (and war with Iran, waterboarding, and all the rest of what's increasingly defined as the right-wing foreign policy package) and Huckabee doesn't. Full stop, end of story.

Now I know that Paul is a less-than-ideal standard bearer for the "conservatives against the Iraq War" cause; for pragmatic reasons alone, I would prefer to have a realist candidate in the field making a Dick Cheney circa 1994 case that the invasion was a mistake, rather than someone so easily dismissed by his opponents as an oddball and a crank. But even allowing all that, I'd like to see Jonah - who's called the Iraq War a mistake (albeit a worthy one) himself on some occasions - take more seriously the possibility that the current right-wing foreign-policy lockstep, and the anti-Ron Paul hatefest it's summoned up, might be a more serious problem for conservatism going forward than the (very modest) love being shown to a compassionate conservative like Mike Huckabee.

Comments (89)

Huckabee has on MAJOR problem. A fatal flaw. I'll give you a hint: He shares this flaw with Wes Clarck. No guess?

Answer: He is pasty, creepy, little dude. Pasty, creepy, little dudes have a hard time getting elected president.

This, on both points, proves the Republican party has lost it's way. The mainstream is for preemptive war and for big spending. Please just split the party now to neorepublicans and old school republicans.

...He (Huckabee) is pasty, creepy, little dude. Pasty, creepy, little dudes have a hard time getting elected president.

You think? I disagree entirely. Saw his interview last night with Katty Kay on BBC America, and he came across as perfectly reasonable, highly personable, very gentlemanly and pleasant, and quite comfortable in his own skin. That said I don't see him winning the nomination, but I do like his odds for getting on the ticket.

But even allowing all that, I'd like to see Jonah - who's called the Iraq War a mistake (albeit a worthy one) himself on some occasions - take more seriously the possibility that the current right-wing foreign-policy lockstep, and the anti-Ron Paul hatefest it's summoned up, might be a more serious problem for conservatism going forward than the (very modest) love being shown to a compassionate conservative like Mike Huckabee.

Right, Ross. Earth to Jonah: voters in rich countries like government safety nets. We're never going back to 1932. Better for the GOP to get ahead of the curve -- and craft some market-friendly forms of government assistance -- than cede the subject to the Democrats. My problem with Huckabee isn't the compassion of his ideas, or his willingness to consider using government to make people's lives better. My problem with Huckabee is the insufficient creativity and boldness of his ideas.

Here's an interesting account of why Huckabee is bad from a guy in Arkansas.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/13/huckabee/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature

I personally dislike Huckabee due to his positions and what I felt was pandering on a religious grounds, but that article was the final nail in the coffin.

I like Huckabee as a person, he seems friendly and pleasant. I don't approve of his position on policy preferences though so no amount of nice personality will ever salvage his candidacy for me. Ron Paul is also quite nice, but what really sells his campaign is his position on the most important issues of our day; small Constitutional government, monetary policy, federalism concern, and separate branches concerns (i.e., no war without Congressional declaration).

The depression was caused by the Federal Reserve and those "safty nets" that Jasper is talking about are nothing but TRAPS. Ohhh we wrecked the ecomomy? Sorry have some more government. We will have to take all of your gold so we can print more "gold standard" money to get in to WW2. Ohh we are in recession beacause Nam went on longer than we thought.. hmm Lets take the country off the gold standard... Oh just forget about all that gold we took it is not worth anything any more... sick of the lies. sick of the fear.
Trust in God and yourself not Government.
Huckabee is a nice guy but he offers nothing new so we get what we always got. More spending, more war, more government. This is true with Dems and Leading Republicans alike. This is why Ron Paul must be elected in 08. To change the world in favor of freedom and to heal our nation.

You are right on. It's Paul's opposition to the war that creates the negative backlash in his direction. But it's also the only reason he's been noticed. Good points....

Huckabee's only redeeming quality is his speaking ability. Huck's views, however, are no different from the war-supporting neo-conservatives, hence the "statist" label some throw his way (or "Tax Hike Mike," depending on where you are).

Paul's views more than redeem any label one could ever throw at him. I don't really care if the next President comes off as an oddball or a crank, I just want to end the horrible chapter of Iraq and start shifting priorites in our foreign policy to protecting our own backyard as our first priority above all else, along with ending deficit spending and over-taxation.

Earth to Jasper: the US is no longer a rich country. We are trillions in debt to foreign governments. The dollar is losing value at an alarming rate. The failure of the levees in NO and the bridge in MN are the tip of our failing infrastructure. If we don't fix the economy we will be "going back to 1932" whether we want to or not.

Right on, Pam.

And since when, Jasper, is the purpose of conservatism to efficiently implement the policies of liberalism?

There's a new breed (or is it "old breed") of Republican in town.

I voted straight Democrat in the previous two presidential elections. I'm currently regitered Republican and plan on voting in my state's primary, among other things.

If Ron Paul doens't make the Nomination, I'll vote straight Democrat ... again.

The GOP will lose the White House if it fails to recognize this rapid, rampant movement that Ron Paul has sparked.

The system needs a change. The American people want this change. We WILL vote for change. I see no change in the "main-stream", "top-tier" candidates such as Guiliani, Romney or Huckabee other than the flip-flopping from debate to debate, depending on what's popular at that time.

Ron Paul speaks of integrity and honesty. This is a radical idea in modern politics. Thus, the media treats Ron Paul as a "radical" candidate.

Joe: Since the people voted in the New Deal, and stuck to the presence of social safety nets every since.

This talk of Huckabee as a viable candidate because he simply seems like a "nice guy" that comes across as reasonable and sweet blows my mind 3 ways but south. Since when did people drop all sense of political philosophy and moral reasoning? It's not a real profound idea for me to tell you that Hitler was probably a really level headed and reasonably sounding guy to his people too. I'm not saying Huckabee is a Hitler in his political ideals. But, I am simply illustrating an important point. People need to educate themselves on deep rooted political philosophies and ideas then make educated decisions about candidates. It's not about how big their smile is or how nice the words that they use are. All con men can do this well. It's time to look for principles and solid record. Vote Ron Paul in 2008!

What's your evidence that polemical critiques leveled at Paul derives specifically from his opposition specifically to the war in Iraq? Any data? Links?

Goldberg may have got Huckabee right, but he did so while doing uncalled-for smears on both Hucakbee and Dr. Paul. He was a jackass, plain and simple.

But Huckabee is simply not electable and his support is media overhype. Did you know he had his own "HuckaBomb" yesterday, 3 weeks in planning? Did you know that Dr. Paul's supporters got wind of it several hours into it and promptly did their own spur-of-the-moment mini-bomb and blew by Huckaee's donation levels in mere hours? No? Wonder why? Because the Old Media didn't report on it, that's why! They don't want to point out that Huckabee is just like McCain: broke candidate with a lot of media hype and little substance or support beyond that. If they had the support they'd have the money and the people on the ground, and they really have neither. That's why the real story is the rise agaisnt all odds of Dr. Paul, and how the media won't report it.

There is no such thing as "market-friendly forms of government assistance." Government is the negation of the market. All forms of government spending are Socialist in nature. Huckabee compares the responsibility of murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the interests of global petrodollar hegemony with dropping a glass bowl in a store and being forced to pay for it.

I hope we don't go back to 1932. I hope we go back to 1776 and remember what American liberty is all about. Ron Paul 2008.

I completely agree with writer's analysis on media attention in favoring candidates that support more war. If one is reads between the lines, the American people should realize that mainstream media IS the military industrial complex. Funded by the banking cartels that owns the oil cartels, the military industrial complex is a very powerful, multi-faceted, operation; one of which is to influence the peoples' minds via the media. In other words, corrupt monopolies have hijacked American government. The sad thing is, most Americans don't know about! That's where we need the Champion of Constitution Ron Paul to restore the republic. Thank God we have Ron Paul.

Jasper, why is it up to the federal government to create market-friendly forms of government assistance (socialism)? Why can't it be done by the states, who coincidentally, must work to keep their programs solvent because they cannot print money to make up the deficit? Leaving it to the states has the added bonus of being indisputably Constitutional, so no activist judiciary is needed to prop up the programs.

"He is pasty, creepy, little dude. Pasty, creepy, little dudes have a hard time getting elected president."

We have a pasty, creepy, little dude as president now. And while he did have a little bit of a problem pulling it off, he did manage to get himself into office, not once, but twice. So I'm not sure that the Huck's creepiness will necessarily be a handicap.

Well, connect the dots. Warmongering spending, inflation, rising oil prices (shortly following is the rise of food and other consumer products), then companies need to raise prices to adapt to these causes. So then they will increase minimum wage again and fiddle with interest rates (the supposed inflation fixer). Flip to all the news channels and internet do the research. But remember it all boils down to three things.
1. Not following the constitution
2. Foriegn policy
3. Monetary policy

Can you connect the dots?
Or are you willing to endure 10$ per gallon of gas matched with the same on a gallon of milk.
THe constitution is not a bad idea!
Read it, live it, love it :)

It seems radical because it is a drastic change -
Hence the revolution of our time has come.
Ron paul 2008!

Why do I fear washington more than Iran? or al-qu.?

According to Mike Huckabee, when the country makes a mistake we must stay united and make it together, aka, shut your mouth, do as your told, and never question the wisdom of your benevolent leaders.

Long love mindless conformity! Long live Huckabee!

huff huff huff, words words words. Amazing. What an awesome display of brain power.

Hey. If Ron Paul wins, you're going to see the ship of fools rock as they all run over to his side. He isnt safe to endorse yet. One lone dude trying to tell it like it is, and all this commotion. Folks sure like to complicate things.

I heard Huckabee offered some office space for illegal immigrants in Arkansas...Im gonna go google that Are the Neocons that blind? maybe the truth should come out...oh no that wouldn't be right!

Islamic rule is something we should all fear and dread, but to give the seat in our Oval Office to a right-wing Christian fanatic isn't much better, in my opinion, and that's what I see both Huckabee and Romney as being. I support Rep. Paul for President, not because of any single issue but because he has in all his years in the House consistently done as I would have if I'd had his seat. It's time to take our country back from the crooks and liars, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who will even try.

Ron Paul is a hard-nosed Constitutionist, sound-money guy.

Mike Huckleberry is the little boy who crys to Mrs. Crabtree when Billy the Playground Bully kicks sand in his face at recess. He's a womans' minister, a wimp who would send your sons to die in a war that he would personally piss himself over.

Huckabee brings up the rear of the Republican field in terms of electability as measured by the prediction markets like intrade.com. Ron Paul has a healthy lead over the rest of the GOP field, not only in the prediction markets but in the Zogby poll of the general electorate, the only scientific "blind poll" yet conducted in this primary.

In short, either the RNC is incapable of advancing candidates for the nomination that can actually win for the Republicans, or "the fix is in" for Hillary Clinton, and the RNC is simply a "useful idiot".

Huckabee is a political opportunist. He plays the religious card, hoping he'll be able to garner enough support among Baptists to give him bargaining power when it comes to selecting a running mate for Julie-Annie.

Only Ron Paul is running an authentic campaign devoid of self-interest. He is truly the people's candidate. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to elect a once-in-a-lifetime candidate.

It's pretty easy to see that the establishment is raising Huckleberry up in a hope to displace Ron Paul from the top-tier.

Everyone!

www.thecaseforronpaul.com

Amazing collection of researched material.

Simple and thorough.

Use it! Ron Paul 08!

Sar

The Huckster wants to impose his morality on others against the rule of law. Hitler also banned smoking like mike wants to and the NAZI slogan was "God is on our side". The Moral Argument ~ We are right and you are therefore evil. This is religous FACISM ~ The Huckster is a Facist Neo-Con.

It seems to me that a "Christians" highest duty would be to keep their word (OATH OF OFFICE). Yet all I hear is reasons why in this or that case they should ignore the solem oath to follow the constitution.

On Abortion ~ Ron Paul has a plan to end Roe V Wade with legislation by removing jurisdiction from the court (they don't have it anyway constituionally) Mike is using the Moral Argument that it is not a states issue and therefore the constitution is irrelevant.

So Mikes policy will leave Roe V Wade in the hopes of judges someday overturning. And stupid evangelicals fall for this. So how many millions of babies will be aborted with Mike vs those that won't with Paul??

Wouldn't those evangelicals somehow be responsible for those deaths (if they believe it is murder) if they don't vote for Ron Paul in the republican primary?

Mike has missing hard drive scandals and other scandals just like Hillory stealing the china from the white house.

Wow, Jasper hit it right on the head "Right, Ross. Earth to Jonah: voters in rich countries like government safety nets."

So, in other words, we are going to have to go totally broke before we're willing to concede the safety nets. Great. Wonderful. So we're headed for a long dark night before we next see the light.

Of course, Jasper's time spent in spot light of getting it right was short lived his next statement was, "We're never going back to 1932."

Sorry buddy it's coming faster then you think. If you haven't noticed all of the blood on the floor our economy's hemorrhaging, and if somebody doesn't stop the bleeding soon, it's going to be to late.

I prefer Paul over huck becuase Huck supports the worlds elite whereas paul supports the commmon man.

Huck raised taxes

Huck supported Pro-abortion canidates in his own state

Huck does not see anything wrong with the real id act whereas Paul does and so do I.

Huck wasn't able to provide stated position on why the IMF has called for a 20% decline with our dollar.

Huck will not follow the rule of law


For all the reasons listed above you should not support Huck either.

The last sentence in this article should be submitted to next year's "Worst Sentence Contest 2008."

Finally we have a guy (Ron Paul) who respects "The People" like the men who founded this country. I love the fact that Paul wants to secure our borders. I think that would be much cheaper than fighting terrorists abroad, and it makes sense to have security right here where Americans live! He's got a sound monetary policy and his heroes are econimists. The doctor has a healthy respect for life and liberty and I'm really banking our countries future on Pual getting elected. Anyone else would be a major disapointment.

I'm glad to see that Sean knows what time it is. At the end of the third quarter Huckabee was toast while Ron Paul had raised more than 5 million with the last 1.2 coming in in the final week. Then with Fred coming out lackluster and Giuliani not even a sellable item, the media had to grab the hopeless little pasty dude and use him to run as interference on Ron Paul. It's a pretty weak charade for anyone paying attention. The sad part, Huckabee and his partial baptist constituency don't even see it.

Gee, Huckabee is getting few donations as compared to Ron Paul, but he's supposedly doing better in the polls... yeahh.. suuure... okayyy.

Could it be that Huckabee has been rubber-stamped by David Rockefeller's private pro-war and pro-North American Union thinktank, the Council on Foreign Relations?

Could it be that a ton of money is being poured into marketing Huckabee to the public, to make it look like somebody likes the guy?

Could it be somebody out there is starved for more power because they are a little wimpy jerk that cannot live without controlling everything around them?

Hmmmm....

*munch munch munch* (eating popcorn)

(watches more back-and-forth between the Paulites and the Huckabeeites. Laughs ass off.)

Isn't Huckabee one of the candidates who doesn't believe in evolution?

And doesn't Ron Paul want to get rid of the IRS, the FDA, and go back on the gold standard?

Yeah, I see how either of those positions are going to go over really great with the average Main Street republican....

mike huckabee thinks the Canadian Parliament is a giant igloo. (google: video-Talking to Americans with rick mercer, at the 9 minute mark) Furthermore, isn't he being sued for destroying public records while he was Governor?

God help Mike.

But Huckabee is simply not electable and his support is media overhype.

Again, as I stated previously, I don't see Huckabeee getting the nomination, but it's just wrong to say Huckabee isn't electable. His positions place him within the mainstream of socially conservative Republicans -- in other words, he's fairly close in his positions to the guy that won the last two presidential elections. And he's wisely distancing himself from the president on Iraq. Polls now show him vying with Romney for the lead in Iowa. That's probably because politically active evangelical Christians outnumber libertarians by, um, about ten to one.

I see this as a four person race: Rudy, Romney, Huck and McCain. Ron Paul, not sure if you heard, isn't getting anywhere near the ticket, much less the White House. Doesn't really matter much to me. As a lover of big, robust government, I'll be voting for whomever the Democrats put up. In fact, I'd kinda like it if somehow the GOP nominated Paul, because my guys would win 48 states. I'd also kinda like to buy a winning lottery ticket tonight.

Could it be that Huckabee has been rubber-stamped by David Rockefeller's private pro-war and pro-North American Union thinktank, the Council on Foreign Relations?

Yes. That's it. Exactly. And if you look out your window right now you'll see a pair of black helicopters hovering over your house scanning your residence with x-rays.

Ross, buddy, I always knew you were a traffic whore, but this is really low even by your so-called standards. (-:

What I find weird is the degree of opprobrium leveled at Huckabee as if he were the reincarnation of Euegne Debs, if not of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The guy is not some big government statist liberal. He's no farther on that path (if at all) than George W Bush or even Ronald Reagan was, albeit a bit updated for current circumstances. That someone who is a solid but not wingnut conservative is bashed and trashed as a wild eyed liberal is proof that the GOP has been taken over by true wingnuts. The party needs to dump these extremists the way they once dumped Ayn Rand and the John Birchers. Else they are on the road to extinction.

Huckabee used $30,000 of state emergency funds to have 80+ computers destroyed before he left office. Visit http://www.taxhikemike.org/ for more on this worm.

Populist/"statist" elements have been in the Republican Party since Teddy Roosevelt. In 1996 Pat Buchanan largely ran as a social-conservative who favored the working-class. This is not particularly unusual, nor is one doing well particularly unusual. The Republican Party has included non-minarchist conservatives for a good long time. The National Review itself had people like Russell Kirk at a very early point. Although he likely preferred a smaller government than Huckabee's.

Paul is seen as fringe not just because he opposes the Iraq war, although that is a big part of it. A related reason is he favors withdrawing from most international alliances including the UN and I believe NATO. He has always been virtually alone in that in the Republican party. He also essentially favors overturning the 16th Amendment, which dates back to 1913. He is a mainstream Republican circa 1927, but unfortunately for him that's fringe now.

Ryan: You "hope we go back to 1776"? You mean before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

After reading ALL these comments...No doubt in my mind...Ron Paul will be our next President. he's got my vote..and the other 11 votes of the voting age members of my family. End the Iraq War...End the pervasive US military footprint. Peace...

By the way, anybody familiar with the following website? Since when are nuclear, biologic, and chemical "defensive" weapons?

http://www.nbcindustrygroup.com/

Ron Paul, being "vilified"? By conservatives? I don't think so.

Only fascists reject the Constitution.

Huckabee? Are you serious. That's funny.

DAWN OF THE AMERICAN REFORMATION, AND END OF THE ERA OF THE UGLY AMERICAN
This Ron Paul Libertarian rebellion is an escalation and re-orientation of the American Cultural War, by the American People, against the rising governmental tyranny by Neoconservative Republicans and Leftist Democrats.
It is sweeping across America like a wildfire - ignited by the illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq. It raises many crucial questions, such as:
Where does the American Constitution give my government the right to sacrifice precious American wealth and blood, in interests of domestic and foreign lobbies?
Where does the American Constitution give my government the right to allow my nation to be invaded and permanently occupied by illegal aliens?
Where does the American Constitution give my government the right to support the sacrificial killing of children, by their own mothers?
Where does the American Constitution give my government the right to discriminate against traditional religious practices in public schools, universities, marriage institutions, armed forces, and governmental offices?
This creeping governmental tyranny, driven by perverse special interests, has now been going on for so many decades, like the illegal alien invasion, that the impending American Reformation is regarded with fear and loathing, by those who are to lose their illicit gains.
Like Gandhi, Ron Paul is drawing his intrepid volunteers from the full spectrum of humanity; and World is cheering him on to victory.

I would prefer to have a realist candidate in the field making a Dick Cheney circa 1994 case that the invasion was a mistake...

Right. This is exactly the sort of cynicism and pragmatism the American people are sick of. They so desperately want to see one candidate that honestly believes in something -- anything -- that they find Ron Paul refreshing and inspiring, even if they don't agree with all of his ideas. He is the only honest man in a field of 20 slick salespeople.

While Huckabee does not jolt me like the anointed front-runners (the glob), I see him as more of the same with a twist or two. However, his vacuous defense of staying in Iraq because "we broke it," and his insistence on even more meddling from the Federal level, even if for a "good cause," were enough for me. I mean, how much more meddling from the Federal level can we take? It isn't working; bureaucracy, inefficiency, non-competitiveness, overlegislation, and so forth are crushing this country--and many of the "so-called" advanced nations.

This country has to meet the 21st century, not the Dark Ages. Funny thing that Paul is criticized for being some kind of paleoconservative when he is one of the very few who is capitalizaling on the spirit of individualized action, grass-roots can-do attitiudes, and technology. The centralized campaign planners from other candidates are struggling, in varying degrees, even with all the free media attention and hype.

And yes, obviously, Huckabee isn't being gored in the mainstream like the "not-so-old-fashioned" Paul because he is big state, pro-war.

You are partly correct that Mr. Paul is being ridiculed (not ignored so much any more, we've moved from "ignored" to "laughed at") by the media because he opposes the War. However, its deeper than that.

It's based on the fact that Mr. Paul is a symbol of the demise of the "Establishment".

He is the Internet, and that is killing the Old Press.

He is against the Federal Regulatory and Tax System, which (being written by the lawyers of multinationals) are used to maintain the status quo, to secure members of the "nobility" in their positions.

His opposition to the War is perhaps the ultimate anti-establishment position. Using Wars to gain power and money is nothing new. Julius Caesar used the conquest of Gaul to build his influence and wealth, and that of his friends in the First Century B.C. And he was just following the lead of dozens of Romans before him. "War is the health of the state" may seem like a crazy statement, but it is supported almost invariably by history.

His opposition to Welfare (including Social Security, Medicare, Student Loans, Farm Subsidies, Foreign Aid, etc.) is similar. Welfare payments have always been used by the "patrician" class to gain the support of the populace and other nations in their effort to expand their power, and in their attempts to maintain it. Caesar did it. Augustus did it. They all do it. Any time the aristocratic class needs popular support to maintain power, they turn first to providing welfare (which is invariably money taken from those that threaten to themselves become competing members of the aristocracy, i.e. the "rich". ).

I could go on.

Put simply, we should expect to observe that the entities threatened by Mr. Paul will do everything they can to discredit and ultimately remove his relevance (welfare recipients of all kinds, government employees, members of the Old Press, multinational corporations, the military industrial complex especially).

Conversely, we should expect to observe those that would benefit from Mr. Paul's platform (i.e. everyone else) supporting him, assuming the political rhetoric coming from the Establishment can be effectively countered.

As far as I can tell, that's exactly what is happening. As the signal breaks through the Old Media static, people hear it, and convert to the Paul cause.

Historically, the Establishment propaganda apparatus, along with its control of the police and military, had no real counterbalance. Today it does: The Internet. (Aside: Historically, no Establishment class has tolerated threats to its dominance. One wonders if today's Establishment will be the first to do so. If they don't, we would expect to see them endeavor to regulate the Internet, and do something to try and break up the anti-Establishment citizen organizations that have already arisen.)

I think it's very likely that the Paul movement will continue growing beyond this election, though it may abandon Mr. Paul if he does not win (and make no mistake, he very well could win).

I think what may be considered historically most noteworthy about the Paul candidacy is that it may be the first instance of the people, via the Internet, "nominating" and advancing their chosen leader in a grassroots fashion, rather than the establishment choosing the leader it wants in a "top down" fashion. It's interesting and somewhat disturbing that the candidate chosen by the people is so repulsive to the Establishment.

I see the best point in this article as by accident and slightly frueudian when you said,"I would prefer to have a realist candidate...rather than someone so easily dismissed by his opponents as an oddball and a crank." Socrates was forced to take poison because others viewed him as an oddball. Dr. Paul is not Socrates I know but the lesson is clear. I think this is one reason people votes for winners not ideals. Do not forget the populist movement of the late 19th century in america and it's effect on issue's of the day. I would urge you to no give in so easily to the mob, you seem smarter than that.

You want a joke? Mike Huckabee's tax plan. Now that's funny, unless you're working middle class people.
Under Mr. Hucakbee's plan we would pay a flat tax on purchased items similar to sales tax.
Under his tax plan the poor would pay no tax. This is similar to what we have now.
Under his plan, the wealthy who save and invest the majority of their income would pay very low taxes. As they would pay no tax on the income they did not spend or on the proceeds of investments, their contribution to the tax structure would be extremely limited.
The burden of the taxes under Mr. Huckabee's plan would fall to working class people who are using the greatest majority of their incomes to purchase items to survive.
What we should do instead is dramatically reduce our overseas presence and take care of our needs at home with the billions of dollars that are otherwise spent on this country's failed foreign policy. The same policy that Mr. Hucakbee supports.
A joke yes, funny....NO

I was born into a Republican family, and have been a Republican all my life. The current administration's position on War, Torture, habeas Corpus, and other American Civil Liberties brought me to the point of physical nausea, so I went and got a Voter's Registration form ...then was just about to become a Democrat when I heard about Ron Paul. Ironically, I am a moderate Republican ... just one who thinks Washington needs a wake up call ...

Huckabee is personally conservative and would strive to impose his personal views on all of us by promoting an authoritarian/fascist government.

Ron Paul is personally libertarian and would encourage freedom and liberty for all Americans by promoting a conservative/constitutional government.

Hmmm, which would you rather have?

Paul and Huck both have characters that are beyond reproach. This will distinguish them from the rest of the field of flip flopper's with character flaws. Truth and common sense of Ron Paul will then, I believe, propel him past Huck. Whichever Democrat he will face for the presidency will be then smacked down and an education about the CONSTITUTION that will make his or her head spin so fast. Can you smell what the Paul is cooking? (I digress) I really feel a huge awakening is happening and Ron Paul is only the beginning. He embodies American values of Liberty that I feel we as people have forgotten. He is the Custodian of the Constitution that is in fact within us all. We the People...

Thom1776: Nice juxtaposition, only I would extend it further... Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate I would trust NOT to impose his personal bias and views on all of us. If anyone thinks that any of the Demo GOP Candidates are going to hand back to the American people what the Bush/Cheney Administration has already taken away from them, they are living in La-La Land. The good news is that Ron Paul will return this country to its founding roots of liberty, peace, and freedom...

Nice score, Addison! Sometimes, I wish Paul would characterize his arguments in this vein, but I'm no politically wise person.

There is a great inter-generational and philosophical disconnect going on now. The "right-labeled" establishment sloths (the "non-progressive, old-world-order retrogrades) are selling the "war on terror" to the TV-heads, some older "traditional" folks, and others who are easily "cued" to symbolism; while, at the same time, the "left-labeled" establishment sloths (many of whom support the "war on terror") are producing a "war of fear" about health care, global warming, and so forth.

In both the "lefty" and "righty" camps, the goal is to produce more "statism," more dependence on the Fed, and a sense of subservience. Really, though, the "war on terror" is a "war against technology" and the empowerment that it can offer. It is no blind coincidence that a vast array of Internet-probing technologies and restrictive legislative acts surfaced, with the sanction of both parties, not long after 9/11. And, these were exported to foreign "allies" at the same time. How convenient.

It's amazing when anyone takes seriously anything Jonah Goldberg has to say. It's also amazing when hacks are forced to take Ron Paul seriously.

The power elite (excuse me, "mainstream conservatives") have found a chink in their armor and are fishing for explanations right now. These dunderheads that only understand wealth and authority cannot understand how a "republican" can attract diverse opinions. This is an example of how lame our political discourse has become.

Their only concern is how to get rid of him.

You're absolutely right. It is his pro-Iraq war stance that makes Huckabee tolerable to the power elite like Rupert Murdoch who basically control the GOP.

"Hmmm, which would you rather have?"

Do I need to have either? Can't a person be uninterested in both Paul and Huckabee?

Still of the two Huckabee is more plausible. Huckabee I don't think is quite so unrealistic that he thinks he can roll-back or end Constitutional Amendments from 90 years ago or return the US to the good-old-days before FDR.

When Dr. Paul wins the presidential election(stay possitive kids), it isn't going to be an immediate transition to all of his federal goals. It's going to be an uphill battle to convince everyone to make the climb. He'll do it if he can keep from being assassinated. If you don't think thats likely, remember that he would be turning off the cash flow for the parasitic bankers who have been sucking this country dry of untold trillions since 1913. That's just one of the many motives that very powerful people only need to rid themselves of their biggest threat since JFK.

It's funny, because Ron Paul *and his supporters* don't cower in fear when we hear the word terrorism, we're crazy/kooky/wingnuts/moonbats...and the list goes on. Sorry to disappoint the "mainstream" conservatives, but some of us still have a pair. But Mike Huckabee is dangerous because he takes "the war against Islamofacism" a step farther than all of the other warmongerers. I personally think that the term Islamofacism is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense, but however, if you want to use that term, then I guess you could call Mike a "Christofacist". He's trying to make people beleive that Islam is evil and terrible and all good christians should fight the muslim religion because "we have god on our side". And of course, Christians being some of the most gullible people (as I once was) believe him. But if you notice, that only works with Muslims though. Muslims are different, not only in religion but in skin color. This idea would never work if we were fighting "Judeofacism". So it's ok, we don't even need to understand them, because that would be emboldening our enemy. How many christians have actually read the Quaran? I haven't, but I'm just saying, unless you have, don't try to quote this "they hate us because their religion dictates it" crap. Show me specifically in the Quaran where it says this? I garauntee I can find you a passage in the bible that can be taken out of context just as much as the quote *if you can find one* that you give me. Don't forget, terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, and ANYONE can use this tactic. The KKK, Eric Rudolph, Cho Seung Hui, all terrorists, none of them muslim, so why didn't we declare war on them too? Not sure who used this quote first, but "Fighting a "war on terrorism" makes about as much sense as fighting a "war on sadness"."

Actually when you listen to Ron Paul, he is not at all unrealistic. Unlike his detractors, Dr Paul does not confuse his political philosophy with the current political realities: Dr Paul does not think "he can roll-back or end Constitutional Amendments from 90 years ago or return the US to the good-old-days before FDR." All that Dr Paul is saying is that we need to begin consensus building and start moving our country in the right direction: yes to small government, no to nation building, yes to balanced budget, no to government infringement on personal liberties, yes to free trade, and no to terror, to name only a few. Ron Paul supporters understand that when Ron Paul becomes President he will follow the constitution and its directives, and that means 'Evolution', which is a slow movement of change across time. Perhaps some of his supporters might be disappointed by the slowness of change under his administration, but at least we will be moving in the 'right' direction.

I hope the history books look back on us with pride.

This election is making it clear that the Republican party belongs to the big-government neo-cons. Now, hopefully, we can end the Republican Party's marketing of libertarian principles, and the roughly 1/3 of the Republican Party that considers itself libertarian will just walk out the door.

"don't cower in fear when we hear the word terrorism, we're crazy/kooky/wingnuts/moonbats."

Well I've seen several Paul supporters here who fear the "parasitic bankers" or "the military-industrial complex" assassinating a guy who at best could get 5% of the vote.

So anyway no the reason Paulistas seem like crazy/kooky/wingnuts/moonbats is they hold positions that are out of synch with the Post-WWII US. Like rejecting birthright citizenship, which comes from the 14th Amendment.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

Ending NAFTA and withdrawing from the UN

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/

Replacing the income tax with tariffs and eliminating many programs started by Abraham Lincoln. (The Federal Reserve is a descendant of a Lincoln program)

For most Americans the Constitution includes the 14th and 16th Amendments, for Paul not so much it seems.

"But Mike Huckabee is dangerous because he takes "the war against Islamofacism" a step farther than all of the other warmongerers."

Not the phrasing I'd use, but I do have concerns like this. I really don't think a Southern Baptist minister, they say "former" but I don't think he was fired from it or anything, should ever be President. Or a Lutheran minister or a Rabbi or Catholic priest. Although admittedly I have slightly more concern with a Southern Baptist minister than I would with say an Episcopalian priest because they are much less ecumenical or inter-faith in my experience. Huckabee believes the Bible, the Protestant one I assume, is inerrant. By definition that means my Bible would be suspect as it's got things like the Book of Sirach in it while the peoples who got no Bibles would be way beyond the pale. My Dad's family is largely Southern Baptists from Arkansas so I don't think I'm being unfair.

I've leaned more toward McCain or Thompson because neither is too religious nor anti-religion and I think they'd be willing to support or be beholden to the issues I care about. I know there's also Romney, but I just don't trust him. I think he's beholden to whatever best benefits Romney in a given situation.

I was just perusing the financial data for the Republican candidates from Q3: Mitt Romney has TWICE the amount of debt as he has cash on hand--would you want him running this countries finances? Rudy comes in first with about 16 mill on hand, minus debt. Then Fred Thompson with about 6.5 mill on hand, minus debt. Then Ron Paul with about 5.5 mill on hand, NO DEBT.

And none of these figures have RP's "money bomb" Q4 figures. Who's the most fiscally responsible? Pretty great figures for a "dark horse."

A pet peeve of mine I will mention here: the use of "Dr" as a title in political matters (ditto for "Rev.") When discussing political figures they should simply be titled "Mr."/"Ms." (or "Mrs." is that is preferred) or, for thsoe who hold office, the title of their office can be used: "Sen." or "Gov." for example. In political terms doctorates, including MDs, are nothing more than the equivalent of titles of nobility, completely meaningless except to bestow an ersatz aristocracy on the holder. Ron Paul should be "Mr. Paul" or "Congressman Paul" here.

Good observation, JonF.
I've been guilty of that myself. I'll try to cut back on it, but in our defense you do see "Dr. Martin Luther King" more often than "Rev. Martin Luther King".

I like a candidate who wants to abolish income tax slavery in America, and who wants to return the country to a reality-based money system, and who wants to get government out of education.

But I am not into sticking my head in the sand and hoping: "Sure he is a Marxist dictator who is dedicated to supporting terror attacks against us, but if we are nice to him maybe he will change his philosophy and agenda."

Huckabee lacks intellectual political strength. His forte is his humor, but like the class clown there is only so far it can take you. The " One people, one empire, one leader" (Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer)remarks that launched Huckabee's campaign was an attempt to get a Rudy South Carolina response. The irony is like the Rudy attack, the Huckabee comments boosted Paul's support by thinking Americans. In my opinion the economy will be the issue in the election and the war will slip down the list. Paul's biggest problem is he is a free market believer in Austrian economics and all the other candidates are Keyenisan socialist. The mainstream press will push the issues as Libertarian (cranky,nutty) and never mention Statist(RNC,DNC,socialist,big government,Nazi,corporatism special interest). You have Paul and you have the crowd that believes that financial resources only a government (or quasi-governmental entity) can muster must rule.. The people that love the country support some change but only Paul is questioning the Leviathan of corporate control of big government. What is interesting is the hatchet job of Chris Wallace on Huckabee. The only physical conservative is Paul. The 4th estate (FOX WSJ Barons Newscorp,GE NBC,CNBC, CBS MTV Viacom, ABC Disney, CNN Time Warner) has succeeded in dummying down of America. They are pushing Clinton and Rudy. With this weeks Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac problems people are just starting to realize that all housing is in trouble. Major players in the mess are the FED and particularly Clinton's and the Republican tax exemption on home sales and Bush's artificial low rates and war spending.. I don't think anything weird is going on it is just basic economics and the collapses of paper debt instruments and the dollar..Paul is the only one talking about these issues.. The anti-solution status quo is just marketing tin foil hats on these guys.. My Hope is on the Dr. Know.. Ideas are nice but execution is much better.. How about a Paul/Romney ticket or a Paul/Lieberman ticket?

The divide and conquer tactic has worked beautifully. The people are divided focused on a few hot button issues while the real issues dont get addressed.

In a Zogby national poll when given the issues they are most concerned with Ron Paul wins over everyone, of course it was an issue based poll, not a name poll. It wasn't a close poll, it was n overwhelming win for Ron Paul.

Whether or not America will cease to exist if Ron Paul isn't elected remains to be seen, and I do have a hard time buying into that myself. I do now that if the GOP doesn't grab onto its roots and vote like Republicans then the only choice coming in the future are both Big Govt ideologies. Which means more taxes, more war, more Govt, less civil liberties.

The Neo Conservatives are not Republicans, or even remotely conservative. The choice we still have is now and it is with Ron Paul. The values that made this party a real contender in the political arena was the opposition to the Democrats crazy idea of socialism, but now we have the Neo Cons who mostly like like fascists. If the Neo Cons get there way in this election then the future choices we will have stripped of the names will remarkably look very similar.

Is it just me or does Huckabee have a googaly eye? He's always facing kind of to his right ever so slightly so his eye looks straight ahead. That is why he doesn't have a shot. When he starts moving around facing different directions in debates and stuff, it'll come out. Anyway... maybe it's just me.

The dividing line is not just the Iraq War; it is Foreign Policy as a whole. Which, coincidentaly, is Neocons' 1st priority.

There's something very, very weird going on, when Neoconservative Mona Charen (staunch pro-life advocate) looks at Rudy Giuliani as more conservative than Thompson and Romney:

"In fact, in many ways Giuliani is the most conservative of the top three candidates for the Republican nomination.

[---PAUSE---]

There is no question that Giuliani's position on abortion and gun control will offend many Republicans. But let's be clear, he is no liberal. His conservatism has been tempered in New York City — so it is steely indeed."
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen020907.php3


Is she completely out of her mind? Sort of, she is Mrs. Neocon. How in the world can she get away with psychobabble such as that? Easy: 1st in her list, Foreign Policy. The magic wand that will convert anyone into anything.

I recall the telling exchange between Huckabee and Ron Paul during one of the debates. Huckabee thinks it is OK to keep seeing Americans die in a futile war in order to maintain our "honor." Paul is having none of it. His point, when a mistake is make, you admit it and change direction. Lives will be saved. To hell with honor when our sons and daughters are dying for Imperialism.

"The 'One people, one empire, one leader' (Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer)remarks that launched Huckabee's campaign was an attempt to get a Rudy South Carolina response."

I think it's unfair to use Nazi analogies and I think it's clear that's what you're doing.

I want to be fair, but you people have so many unrealistic expectations and hostilities. I guess what I'd suggest is get off the Internet for a few days and talk to actual people. If you still feel great about his chances great. However I think you'll find Paul is essentially the same as "Snakes in a Plane." Lots of Internet buzz, but on opening day a disappointing return.

Re: I'll try to cut back on it, but in our defense you do see "Dr. Martin Luther King" more often than "Rev. Martin Luther King".

Yes, "Dr." King is found everywhere (Yes, I know he did have a doctorate). To the extent he was a religious leader "Reverend" is more appropriate, and it's a less arrogant title at least. Of course MLK, though much involved in politics, was never a candidate for political office so I am willing to tolerate his "Rev" title. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton though have been candidates are so need to drop the "Rev" too.

Re: The 'One people, one empire, one leader' (Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer)remarks...

A bit of a very minor quibble, but "Reich" really isn't "Empire". It does not translate well into English (and too bad that we lost its Anglo-Saxon cognate, "ric", except in "bishopric"). It simply means "land under a ruler", which could mean a vast empire, but can also mean a nation-state (like the Second Reich, which was just Germany) or even something smaller like, well, a bishop's diocese.

Jonah is right. There IS something wrong when the person who supports and applies the Constitution is considered an extremist.

The question should not be, "What do I think we should do in this country?" or "Do I like what this candidate's ideas?"
The question should always be: "What did the Founding Fathers want for this country? Which candidate upholds our foundational documents?"

The obvious answer is Ron Paul.
He gets my vote!

Ron Paul is literally the elephant in the room that isn't given his due attention on the media. I am not making excuses, but I have studied US and Australia media enough to know when and how they behave in a misleading fashion.

If they thought he would have garnered as much attention as he has, they would have built him up earlier only to crash him down. He is more of a threat than many thought. Hit pieces are reprinted and he will either be a footnote or a hero.

There is a lot to gain and lose by electing Ron Paul. The people gain, who loses??

The mainstream is a bunch of t.v. heads that don't educate themselves outside of sitting their fat ass down and watching t.v.

People for Ron Paul are educated and smart to the criminals ways and want change.

Boycott the mainstream media for spreading false ideas in Bush's name.

Boycott and exercise your dollar america it does make a difference and does impact Mr. Mob President Capone.

Happy 420!

There is a lot to gain and lose by electing Ron Paul. The people gain, who loses??

Um, Social Security recipients. Poor people. Medicare patients. Subway riders.

Re: The question should always be: "What did the Founding Fathers want for this country?

Um, they've been dead for quite a while. Perhaps we should set up an addled old woman on a tripod over a gassy crack in the ground so she can channel their spirits and tell us what they want us to do?
Sorry, but in matters religious I am willing to let the dead have their say. In politics it's the present and the future that matter.

There is a lot to gain and lose by electing Ron Paul. The people gain, who loses??

Um, Social Security recipients. Poor people. Medicare patients. Subway riders.

This statement is typical of the fears some people have about a Ron Paul presidency. If individuals would simply read what the man has said on the subject, or view video interviews where he actually discusses this, you would know that he believes that simply getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid, and many other Federal welfare programs would not work. He knows that is not realistic, and would be very harmful to the poor. Also, he knows that any changes to these programs could not occur without public support through the peoples elected representatives.

His stance is that money needs to be freed up (in his view, by changing our foreign policy) to secure these programs and the people who depend on them, and then allow the younger generations who are not yet dependent on these programs to opt out if they desire.

He is far more critical of corporate welfare then he is of public welfare programs, though he believes that the majority are un-constitutional.

And just curious... what does the Federal Government have to do with Subway drivers? Last time I checked, that should be a local issue that has nothing to do with the Federal Government.

Josh writes: "And just curious... what does the Federal Government have to do with Subway drivers? Last time I checked, that should be a local issue that has nothing to do with the Federal Government."

So how do you feel about the federal highway system?

There's high comedy indeed in the ideas of originalists who think this incredibly wealthy and powerful country can return to a form of government that hasn't been seen here in 200 years. It is, in its way, as bizarre a fantasy as anything the "Left Behind" novels offer. I can actually see a way to get back to that old government, but most people wouldn't think a massive worldwide depression and wars killing off 3-4 billion Earthlings are something to hope for.

The original comment mentioned subway riders, not drivers, by the way. I took it as meaning that federal money is key in the development of most public transit systems.

Washington,Jefferson,Lincoln,TRoosevelt,Paul

"Washington,Jefferson,Lincoln,TRoosevelt,Paul"

Is this that game of "one of these things are not like the other."

More seriously the political positions of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and TRoosevelt were themselves quite varied from each other. Washington and Jefferson had fairly elite backgrounds. Jefferson leaned more anti-clerical, but unlike Washington he didn't manumit his slaves. Lincoln is known for abolition and expanded the power of the state a good deal. Many things Paul wants would involve rolling-back or undoing some agencies started by Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt was different than all three of these. I'm not sure any of them were like Paul.

If TR had become president in 1912 instead of Wilson, most of the "progressive" policies that Wilson launched would have been his. TR's Bull Moose Party was also for a federal reserve and an income tax.