Why do these people ignore this? Austin NAACP president: "Paul’s no racist."  There it is, a black man, longtime friend of Paul, has defended him against this baloney smear. I, too will stand strong and proud behind Paul. I’m too smart to fall for this mudslinging. When the going get tough, the tough get going. Donate to Paul on MLK day! And why do this author and Kirchick refer to the CFR one world government stuff as kooky? It is a conspiracy theory, but guess what, even the CFR hacks admit it’s true. It’s openly stated that they want a one world government. OPENLY STATED. Down with the sheeple, RP’08!!!

I would not call the movement dead yet.  I think even if Paul himself is dead,  I think the movement will live on.   I think people are fed up of the same old talking heads, promising the same old bull.  So my position is that Ron Paul not universally excepted explanation and all is better then rest of the field.   What matters is that the movement itself is not racist and nothing  racist  can be  found  about  his campaign  itself.   I think you should start  listening to other people, research their positions then just attach the adjectives loony, nut job, and the like.

The media killed Paul’s campaign long before these things were brought out.

It’s much easier to jump on the band wagon of shallow reporting than it is to face the issues Ron Paul is speaking to. The fact is that run away deficit spending has caused the national debt to almost double from five trillion to nine trillion in 8 years. The only difference between the democrats and the rest of the republicans is whether we should spend our oversized budget on bombs or universal health care. Either choice will bankrupt our country. Paul is willing to state that and face baseless "articles" like this. One more so called news source I put on ignore.

I’ll actually take a break from mocking Paulistas to note that I think some of the issues he talked about (runaway spending, problems with the dollar) were valid issues, even if Paul’s approach to them was wrong and even if his other baggage made him a horrible face to put on those issues.

If Paulistas can get away from vulgar hero-worship long enough to realize it, there may still be a chance to find a more credible person to put at the forefront of a "movement". Even better, it would help to make the focus be on the ISSUES and not the herd-like rote recitation of a person’s NAME as the "Ron Paul Movement" turned out to be.

But as long as their public face remains a dyspeptic crank like Paul, a willing, decade-long association with racists, or an association with foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorists, whatever valid issues may be involved will inevitably get lost.

Here’s a video that will tell you all about Ron Paul’s racism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX9UIgFcAuI

BTW – Jason Steck, you had your say, we’re not calling you names so why do you feel that you have to stoop so low when we simply want to communicate our opinions?

Oh wait, I keep forgetting that the magic labels "neocon" and "FoxNews" are the Paulista scarlet letters indicating the presence of a member of the grand anti-Paul conspiracy sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergers! ooooooooooo

Labeling anything you disagree with as conspiracy theory is hardly an argument. It’s not even possible to debate you on these "conspiracies" (which are not even representative of Ron Paul’s views) because you don’t even state your opinion on these organisations. Are you saying they don’t exist? For example, are you saying that the Neoconservative movement is not an ideological movement with an inequitable representation in Washington?

If you could get past the lazy labeling of opinions as "conspiracy theory" then maybe we could have some kind of meaningful discussion.

Jason said, "Paul is, in fact, a statist with rather authoritarian leanings — he just prefers that government coercion and infringements on individual liberties originate with the state governments whenever possible instead of the federal government."

The problem isn’t that he is a statist with authoritarian leanings but that 1) he’s statist on some issues as opposed to being a true libertarian and 2) while authoritarianism on a state level would be a likely consequence of his views, this isn’t his actual goal.

I’m sure that Paul would prefer that state governments respect freedom (except in those areas where he opposes freedom, such as on abortion). Unfortunately his views on states’ rights carry a high risk of the opposite happening, and we must look at the results of Paul being elected, not simply what he desires.

One problem is that, despite claiming to be a defender of the Constitution, his interpretation of the Constitution is quite different from what the framers intended, such as in denying separation of church and state.

Another problem is his view of states’ rights with relation to the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Originally Constitutional liberties applied only to the federal government, but following the 14th Amendment they have been applied to states as well. Paul denies this, and would allow state governments to violate these rights.

Ultimately the difference between Paul and libertarians is that libertarians, as well as many others, believe that individual have rights which should not be violated by any level of government. Paul’s view of states’ rights would violate this.  Of course most people have not bothered to read his writings and do not fully understand his views. In many ways these aspects of Paul’s writings are as disturbing as the racist writings in his newsletter.

I have also reviewed these points, with multiple links to further information in this post.

Ron,

I think that given Paul’s associations and the persistently intolerant and abusive behavior by the apparently overwhelming majority of Paul’s supporters, it is possible to adopt a much darker interpretation of what Paul’s own "true motives" might be.

Also, given his repressive positions on abortion and immigration, I think seeing Paul as an authoritarian is not outside the realm of the possible even if we leave aside his many authoritarian associations and supporters.

In short, I stand by my charge, though I thank you for being apparently the only one around who is capable of rational disagreement on the issue.

P.S. Now let’s get back to seeing what the “Paul-bots” are going to spew in their frothing rage!

SpareMe,

Of course I recognize that the Council on Foreign Relations exists. What I reject is the notion that a bunch of academics and policy wonks consitute a globe-spanning conspiracy that is trying to take over the world. I actually know people who are CFR members and the idea that they are either capable or willing to take over the world is laughable to the point of inspiring drunkenness.

I could get into other problems with other conspiracy theories (e.g [1] almost all conspiracy theories would require willing silence by thousands of people when we know in reality that any plan including more than 3 people has a secrecy life of about 5 seconds; and, [2] conspiracy theories of grand global proportions that posit the brutal willingness of the plotters to murder thousands in order to achieve their ends beg the question of why they allow the conspiracy theorists to survive…), but I should wait for you to specify exactly which of the dozens of conspiracy theories prominent among Paulistas tha you want to defend in detail.

Jason! How could you! A conspiracy theory I hear! "I think that given Paul?s associations and the persistently intolerant and abusive behavior by the apparently overwhelming majority of Paul?s supporters, it is possible to adopt a much darker interpretation of what Paul?s own "true motives" might be." You wouldn’t like it if I called you crazy now would you?

Brock,

I don’t think it is a "conspiracy" of Paul supporters. I just think that they agree on certain things, such as "states’ rights". Open agreement does not require a conspiracy.

Oddly. it is Paul’s own explanation of his racist associations that requires a conspiracy theory to hold up. He wants us to believe that for over a decade views were published using his name about which he was completely unaware and about which he was personally strongly opposed.

Um, yeah. I don’t buy it. I don’t think that anyone with a passing familiarity with libel law COULD buy it, rationally. Then again, the all-powerful conspiracy gets waved around to bridge gaping logical holes like this, right?

Also, now that the information has come out, many of Paul’s supporters appear to be claiming that the information is itself the result of nothing more than a conspiracy to sabotage the Great Man in a desperate attempt to stop him after his soaring…ok, climbing…ok, marching…ok, building….ok, ok, ok, downright pathetic performance in actual voting in Iowa and New Hampshire….

Yeah. Not buying that either.

Blah blah blah, DRH. I suppose Bush was unnacceptable to be President of the United States for getting multiple DUI’s and runnin an oil company into the ground as will as Slick Willy who did you know what in the White House. The Ron Paul Newsletter was printed while he was in congress. When he left congress to the medical practice he left someone in charge of his newsletter who was apparently a racist by your standards (although most of the information could be backed up with cold hard facts and nowhere did it state that he thought whites were supreme, so you’re stretching it a bit).

It could happen to anyone. If you can forgive the rest of these crooks for worse misdeeds, why can’t you forgive Paul? It is because you dislike Paul for positions you can’t effectively argue against so you fall back on the simplest argument against him.

I could get into other problems with other conspiracy theories (e.g [1] almost all conspiracy theories would require willing silence by thousands of people when we know in reality that any plan including more than 3 people has a secrecy life of about 5 seconds; and, [2] conspiracy theories of grand global proportions that posit the brutal willingness of the plotters to murder thousands in order to achieve their ends beg the question of why they allow the conspiracy theorists to survive…), but I should wait for you to specify exactly which of the dozens of conspiracy theories prominent among Paulistas tha you want to defend in detail.

This is where you make your error of judgement. You’re assuming that a conspiracy requires the open cooperation of all members of an organisation but how does any large organisation operate? It is organised in a hierarchical manner whether it is a large corporation, a thinktank or a political movement. I don’t think anybody would assert that the CFR is comprised of thousands of members that are hellbent on dominating the world. The problem is that any organisation can influence the opinions and worldview of it’s members from the top of it’s hierarchy. A simple example would be this very blog assuming you were inclined to censor certain opinions in the comments section (I’m not making the assertion that you would do this, it’s just a thought experiment). Through censorship of ideas and biased reporting you can influence the ideas of many. That is the basis of a conspiracy and it doesn’t require the cooperation of all participants.

Now shouldn’t we be concerned when the vast majority of presidential candidates are members of this influential organisation that advocates military intervention in foreign affairs and has prominent Neoconservatives at it’s helm? The revered Dick Cheney was once director of the organisation.

Another example would be Fox News that claims itself to be "fair and balanced". Would you defend this claim? Have you seen Outfoxed?

How about the Bilderberg Group? It’s difficult to ascertain what kind of influence this group has on global affairs as they operate behind closed doors but doesn’t it concern you that such a group of extremely wealthy and powerful people meet each year under high security? Do you think it’s a completely benign organisation?

These "conspiracy theories" don’t have a lot to do with Ron Paul anyway. I don’t recall him ever mentioning the Bilderberg group and I’ve never heard him talk about conspiracies between powerful people conspiring to form a world government.

The only argument I recall him making is that there are those that believe in national sovereignty and those that believe in more consolidation of government. He prefers local government that can more readily respond to the needs of it’s constitutents rather than a large, inefficient bureaucracy that is far removed from the people. I don’t really understand how you can argue against that. Obviously, the Federal government has it’s place when it comes to the defense of this nation as a whole but shouldn’t we be concerned about an ever increasing government bureaucracy that continues to interfere with every aspect of our lives?

Jason,

"He wants us to believe that for over a decade views were published using his name about which he was completely unaware and about which he was personally strongly opposed."

It gets worse than that. As a recent article in Reason demonstrated (which I link to in the post I referred to above) Paul did have knowledge of the articles.  He is quoted in past news reports which make statements which suggest that he did write them and was aware of what they said.

I can certainly believe that he had a ghost writer doing the actual writing, but he defended the articles in the past. Many are believed to have been written by his long term friend, and former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell. It is possible that Rockwell was more racist than Paul when writing the newsletters but the fact remains that Paul was aware of his writings and allowed them to continue under his name.

Besides, it doesn’t really matter if Paul is personally a racist. There is a line in politics which separates racist and neo-Nazi beliefs as unacceptable. Paul’s legacy, instead of promoting liberty, is to try to blur this line and give attempt to give racists and neo-Nazis respectability. His enabling of these beliefs is bad enough, regardless of whether he is personally a racist.

sparemesarcasm..

that would be mistaking the fact that our political system is corrupt and open to influence, by groups such as the CFR, with a conspiracy where the american people are puppets. the american people always have the final say, the system is just corrupt. thats not a conspiracy.

There is nothing implausable about Ron Paul’s responses to the articles in the newsletters (as you suggest)  when you have decades of record of the Congressman’s own words, written and spoken, that repudiate the language in these articles. You have people that have known the man personally for years coming forward to stand up for his integrity and to stand against these allegations. We know he is not the author of these articles but he has still apologized time and again and taken moral responsibility for them ever being printed and he has referred to the language in them as small-minded and immoral. There is no other course but to release Ron Paul of the guilt-by-association of these articles. And stop giving James Kirchick credit for somekind of great journalistic research, he’s was sitting on this rehashment for an 11th hour release to do the most damage he could to Ron Paul in hopes of keeping his man Rudy Guilliani from losing to Paul in NH like he did in Iowa.

sparemethesarcasm,

i dont think theres anything that qualifies as a conspiracy though. when i say corruption, i just mean the system is broken

As a curious outsider (dutch) I really am surprised by the subjectiveness of the American media. I noticed when I watch the main television media which are available in Europe like Fox, CNN, MSNBC or ABC, these only seem to focus on a few candidates with no apparent basis then two state caucasus and polls. This article seems exemplary of the bias against certain candidates; despite the arguments that your piece is an opinion piece, you state make factual claims like recent events ‘finally broken the back of the ?movement?’. What is your source? It seems to me that on the internet Ron Paul’s movement is still popular; they supporters are even now organising a new money ‘bomb’ Second, his plee for individual liberty and upholding the American constitution, which he emphasises again and again, certainly would not allow that state goverments could enfringe on those rights. His dedication to these ideas would not allow even himself to push an ideological policy or racist inclinations, which he publicly distanced himself from so no ‘proud’ racist would ever back him, on your society. Especially when the power of goverment is diminished like he intends to creates. He also stated that he distances himself from conspiracy theories, like on the Fox debate about the 9/11-conspiracy , and I have not heard him express anything to that length that would support your statement. I think your, and others, distain to Ron Paul stems from your loyalty to the status quo of conservatism. Maybe a wrongfully assumed arrogance that Ron Paul and his supporters might express about how ‘broken’ America is right now. But I have never caught Ron Paul being disrespectfull to other people or candidates. Critical yes, but not never being degrading.

I care not about the petty flaws of man, for actions speak louder than words. For you to tie such bigotry to a man of such a movement is conspiring against a man who’s sole intention is to return control of our lives and freedom to ourselves. I refuse to dub the ideals of liberty and freedom archaic relics of the 18th and 19th centuries. I refuse to allow a man’s mistakes and shortcomings to stand in the way of his message that is sadly so rare in the 21st century. You say his message is not new, then why does it feel that way? Modern America is full of revisionist who brainwash our children into believing that America’s birth was nothing special and that the achievements of the Founding Fathers were slanted and self-centered. These revisionists only use these ideas to alter the intent of the Founders to suit their own gain. Of this we can be sure.

sparemethesarcasm,

these political groups aren’t necessarily different than any other political groups that "conspire" to get agendas done. they aren’t anymore ‘conspirative’ than libertarian caucuses. they have influence mainly i think because of how the political system works and is reliant on money thats favorable to their views.

i mean thats the real issue. to call it a conspiracy purposely confuses it with something thats normally secretive and unlawful. there’s nothing secretive happening, and unlawfulness depends on differing views on the nature of law.

calling it a conspiracy is just a diversion, when you can get your point across to most voters, by just saying politics is corrupt.

it may be semantics, but its not me who has an interest in defending it as a ‘conspiracy’, while there’s an alternative way of talking about it that people understand and agree with.

For you to tie such bigotry to a man of such a movement is conspiring against a man who’s sole intention is to return control of our lives and freedom to ourselves.

<cue insipid 80s music>"It’s a cult of per-son-alllll-ityyyyyy".
ROFL

Modern America is full of revisionist who brainwash our children into believing that America’s birth was nothing special and that the achievements of the Founding Fathers were slanted and self-centered. These revisionists only use these ideas to alter the intent of the Founders to suit their own gain. Of this we can be sure.

Of course! Because it’s a conspiracy!!!

admin: attacking the author = ban

redfish,

I think we are in agreement. I was simply arguing that the term "conspiracy theory" is a very vague term that is often used as a dismissive blanket term which serves no purpose in an argument. To call Ron Paul supporters "conspiracy theorists" is a cop out. Everyone believes in "conspiracy theories" which may span the weird (government coverups of aliens) to the obvious (Fox News bias).  

Brock,

The fact that Paulistas interpret any and all disagreement or criticism as an "attack" doesn’t make it so.

Disagreements plus the verbal attacks, Jason. Read your fricken article and tell me there weren’t verbal assaults in there. Better yet, just read your quote that I quoted. And don’t throw quotes over the word “attack,” I never called it an attack. You see, when the “unbiased” media is so harsh towards our candidate, it drives us to believe that something isn’t right. What we are most worried about is not our candidate, however, but the integrity of our democracy. When it seems that every pundit on the face of America is misrepresenting the views of Ron, we get angry like anyone should who is being misrepresented. That is not going to change.

God Jason! Ron Paul never claimed to be a Libertarian in this Republican Race. The media constantly say, "a Republican Maveric with a Libertarian tilt," and then you all go about ranting how he isn’t really a Libertarian and blaming him and his supporters for lying. I have seen this so often that it is becoming distressing.

Your article imposes your biases upon Ron Paul’s message. For example let’s take the following paragraph:

More interesting in the ensuring recriminations, however, is the fact that even many of Paul’s critics may have long overlooked the critical weakness in Paul’s and his supporters’ claims to be the vanguard of a new small-l libertarian “movement” — that Paul’s “states’ rights” focus is anathema to any reasonable conception of individual liberty anyway.  Paul is, in fact, a statist with rather authoritarian leanings — he just prefers that government coercion and infringements on individual liberties originate with the state governments whenever possible instead of the federal government.  Big difference.  Or not.

When did he say he prefers government "coercion" and "infringements" that originate with the state governments? This is a gross distortion that you and your supporters are using to try to belittle Dr. Paul, his ideas and his supporters.  I suggest that you stick with facts and figures and stop writing fiction.

Jason, our secret conspiracy for world domination is proceeding apace. I won’t tell anyone if you won’t.

Then by your standards anyone who leads is a cult of personality.

Wrong.  Here is what I think distinguishes a legitimate movement from a cult of personality:

A legitimate movement will be focused on specifying a defending a set of ideas.  Disagreement with those ideas may be seen as evidence of ignorance or error, but it is rarely given a moral character.

A cult of personality will be focused on lionizing and defending the glory of a person.  Any questioning or criticism of that person will be interpreted as an "attack" and deemed immoral and intolerable, necessitating an abusive response.

In all my interactions with Ron Paul supporters, I have noticed a distinct pattern that continued in your comment, Brock.  I have noticed that Paulistas seem incapable of even outlining specific ideas in any significant detail, let alone focusing on them.  In fact, many Paulistas have contradicted themselves and each other in the midst of their contortions to try to explain away some of Paul’s more bizarre or impractical suggestions.  At other times, they have just plain been ignorant about key elements of Paul’s past writings (like the newsletters).  Instead, we get a stream of comments about the supposedly glorious person of Ron Paul and the outright evil of anyone who questions or criticizes him in any way. 

Thus, the consistent and long-term behavior of the Paulistas provides evidence that what we are dealing with is a cult of personality, not a legitimate set of ideas.

"Don’t like it?  Tough.  I really don’t care."

Why would you write this article if you honestly didn’t care. Who is your intended audience?

Your whole argument, and I followed your links, is based upon Ron’s past quotes and beliefs, not to mention an absolutist view on abortion (that it is indefinitely a woman’s right). And yes, constitutionally, the states have the power to regulate what goes on in the bedroom, unfortunately. He isn’t ignoring the "privlages and immunities" clause because the 14th is subject to broad interpretation. You constrict the interpretation of this clause to again "prove" that Ron is a Statist. Ron was merely stating that the way the Constitution is worded, the states could constitutionally regulate, or coerce, social matters like sex. But read onward and he clearly claims such laws against gay sodomy  are "ridiculous." Just because we believe that certain freedoms exist does not mean that we do not have to amend the Constitution. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ron would support an Amendment outlawing such practices. He is a constitionalist as well. Don’t forget that. Just because we wanna do something nice does not mean we can discard our constitution.

Just thought I would say by the number of comments alone you can see the RP rev. is not ended, and RP is not a racist, as he said it is impossible to be a racist when you are looking at individual liberties and not the liberties of classes, the guy who published those in TNR did it to get people worked up and did not think RP is a racist.

You destroy Ron, you destroy the movement.

Sounds like a positive affirmation of the “cult of personality” thesis to me.

Aw, c’mon Jason, you just gotta believe!

redfish,

A good movement does need good leadership, which is kind of my point. The poor leadership example provided by Ron Paul (because of his baggage caused by his willing association with racists and the tin-foil-hat crowd) has ultimately undermined any possibility of an ideas-based movement. If the “Ron Paul movement” had actually been a legitimate movement, its adherents would have reacted differently to the revelations about Ron Paul’s unsuitability as a leader. Instead of trying desperately to accept his implausible politician’s spin and instead of blindly attacking everyone who criticized him, they would have calmly realized that he was a bad face to put on their ideas and they would have found a better one.

The fact that they continue to fixate on defending the person while ignoring the ideas proves that what we are dealing with is not a movement of ideas, but rather just another cult of personality.

Perhaps there is the possibility of a future movement that will be based on ideas instead of the personalized glorification of a person. If so, I’ll be interested in seeing a lot more substantive debate than has ever been possible with the ravenous Paulistas and their robotic talking points (many of which are found above).

"And at the point you see ignorance as a virtue and education as a vice, you doubly prove my point."

Well, you have become so educated that you are experiencing a disconnect with the real feelings of the American public. That is: government is lying to us; we are fighting a losing war; the economy is collapsing; our most important civil liberties are being taken away. Yeah, this is a real movement. Ron’s ideas are far from the mainstream, which is why we are willing to give those ideas a chance because the "mainstream" has placed us in the predicament we are in right now. But you also criticize him for not being mainstream enough. You want us to have a mainstream movement? Democracy in America during the constitutional convention was far from a mainstream idea.

You got me on the cult of personality thing, though. I shouldn’t have even said that. I won’t quit fighting for the movement, although others will just because Ron is gone. Good point. That was actually inspirational.

Jason,

I don’t Ron Paul’s movement lessening at all – he’s still raising lots of money and his poll numbers are holding (Zogby/CSPAN) has him at 9% in Michigan today and 8% in California.  Still drawing large crowds to his rallies and speeches, too.

By the way, who are you and why do you think your opinion matters?  Feh.

Brock, you make a lot of assumptions about my personal views on the war, the economy, the monetary system, etc.  You make these assumptions based on nothing more than the fact that I criticize Ron Paul.  You have, in fact, no actual information about what I believe on those issues.

That is the cost of embracing a cult of personality — it damages your ability to engage in any issues-based discussions because it gives you inaccurate indicators of what other people actually believe.

100% HIT PIECE.This was written by nothing more than a garbage can worm from the slums of Krakow.If you love "Israel" so much…GO LIVE THERE,AND STOP LIVING OFF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER.

admin: fine for a while, but a ban by the end

Michael,

I know some libertarians who supported Ron Paul for years, but are upset that Ron Pauls run may ruin the libertarian movement by associating libertarian ideas with a bunch of other stuff they don’t want it associated with. A lot of libertarians are also upset by Ron Paul’s position on the war. And I believe you can see most of Ron Paul’s supporters are not even real libertarians, but an assortment of other groups, including liberals, who are behind him just because he’s different.

Woah, Nick.  A little out of place? Nice of you to drop by but let’s try to keep this thing civil.

What was your point Jason. I want to hear it so I can fully understand how Nick proves it.

You might also remember the tactics of the classic FBI cointel program from the 60’s was based on infiltration of the peace movement. In this now well disclosed program they used agent provocateurs to discredit the movement and worked to attract the worst elements. This is likely responsible for some of this problem. History often is repeated and cointel is proven to work and has been refined a great deal since the 60’s.

michael,

just for balance, in the interest of being balanced, its also well documented that soviets worked on ways to infiltrate american politics with agitprop.

admin: death threats towards opponents definitely = ban!

admin: the reasons that some people have been banned are not up for discussion or debate
I think your mind was well made up before the Newsletters were brought out again on Ron Paul, but seeing you play with a few supporters of a rival candidate trivializes you and the PoliGazette. I have done my homework on this Ron Paul Newsletter subject which is why I might laugh at your article, but I’m also aware that everything you and others write may or talk about on or don’t don’t about on tv affects voters. I haven’t voted in 20 years, only to get back into it and see the presidential race is more of a game and more trivialized than ever, MSM is crooked in ways that seem illegal, and yet the majority still aren’t paying attention. Is this how you want to participate?

Fellow Paul supporters, it’s or duty to ignore writers who exhibit a slant such as this writer does.  We are just not interested in some random guy’s opinion.  Everybody has one, who cares about this guy’s? 

What we want to spend our time reading is honest and objective observations and analyses.  Writers who have a talent for observing the phenomenon of this movement and offering constructive criticism are welcomed.  Those who offer biased, subjecting ‘Spin’ need not be on our list of those we spend out time with.

This will be the last time I visit this particular writer’s site.

ED

The author makes a number of allegations, all of which are either patently untrue or based upon his own highly personal vision about how things should be or what rights others should have, yet obliquely fails to address REAL issues affecting us RIGHT NOW in favor of playing games of “what if.”  For example, if you care or respect liberty or freedom, then why not vote for the Candidate who opposed the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and a host of others.  By the way, that’s Ron Paul.  Why not decry the horrors of many recent Executive Orders or the Democrat Congress who voted out the Sunset provision to make the Patriot Act PERMANENT?  Next to real issues, your squawking is ridiculous.

The end of the "Ron Paul movement?"  Maybe.  But "[t]hat which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

admin: ban

ROFLMAO.

admin: accusing authors of being bought = ban

The media blackout is not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact. Wether you like Ron Paul or not, everybody should fight against a mainstream-media that influences an election in such a biased way.

Here are some examples.

The guy writing this doesn’t deserve to be given the importance that people have given him.  He simply knows that striking at something that people care about will give him attention.

It’s sad, there isn’t a thing that any of us can do to protect us from our own passions.  We can either let things slide, whereupon we are taken advantage of, or we can address the issue with all due concern and evidence our reason bestows upon us, which is the substance these parasites require to grow fat and powerful. 

I take but small solace in the likelihood that once the ones that use reason and natural rights for the good of all are silenced, the ranting and vain epithets like the one before us will be like so many impotent clouds; gray, dull, and forgotten amid the endlessly bleak horizon.

The first person to ever run who has a voting record to back up everything he says he wants to do and the media along with his rivals bash him…..that doesn’t seem weird at all. (Not)
The people who are writing about Dr. Paul were looking/hoping for something like this.
A person named Eric, working for him at the time, said that there was no way that he was a racist. He said that he worked very close to Dr. Paul and had never heard him talk like that. We guess what! This Eric guy turned against him after 9-11 because he thought we should be blowing everyone away who we think might one day down the road consider trying to blow a few of us up. 
At one of the debates, Dr. Paul said that we should stop the war in Iraq and the very next morning Eric started a smear campaign on Dr. Paul while announcing that he was going to run against Dr. Paul for his seat in TX. You can look into it yourself, but I will warn you this guy has like 5 differnt names. I am not saying that he wrote the letters or gave James the tip about the letters, but he did know about them. He worked on them himself. 
It was very strange, the timing of the newsletters coming out.  Then the media doesn’t even dig around to try to find a sound bite or video catching him in the act. They always do that.
Go look it up, and please, think about it.

 thescoundrel—
you still trust the voting results after all the court hearings and voter fraud that diebold is suspected of?
Look at the lead that Clinton took over Obama!
The funny thing is, I watched the results come in. Rudy was ahead of Paul by about 100 votes when they showed the first numbers. The numbers stayed pretty steady, unless Paul got the number that would put him on top of Rudy and wham……….Rudy would get the numbers that would keep him on top. I looked at the numbers in each town and at some point Paul should have been winning.
Plus we all know there were atleast 2 places where Paul’s votes were not even included. If the people had not been watching he would not have gotten those counted. How many more could there be, and why was it only Paul who didn’t have votes reported?

Snore… it goes to show that our media has become a gossip circle… this story was mas circulated a week ago. 

What, really, would cause someone to stay behind a politician that adamantely refuses to walk as far away from racist, anti-Semitic supporters as they can possibly get except a little sympathy?

The views that Paul expresses on foreign policy aren’t new. They’ve been around for quite a while here and nearly every single time they are, they’re accompanied by a little dash of anti-Semitism and some good, old-fashioned racism. If you scratch an isolationist, you’ll find both lurking not very far from the surface. 

On another subject, I still haven’t found a Paulite who can reasonably explain to me why it’s not hypocrisy for Paul to have brought home 400 million dollars or so worth of pork last year. He says it’s a "tax refund" but that explanation only makes me laugh because it’s so blatantly political. So how about it, guys? Why isn’t your guy an outright hypocrite for sending my tax money home to shrimp farmers. Please, show me the Constitutional section on shrimp farming.

I only want to say that this supposed "news" was broken before.  Moreover, the New York Times made this story back on July 22, 2007. What I find interesting is that this was also sitting on his Wiki page since 2005. What is even more interesting is that suddenly the news media and everyone’s brother can suddenly find this "news" as apparently they have nothing else to throw.  If this really was "news" that was so important to the voting people, I guess it wasn’t important enough for the people of Iowa and Wyoming who voted previously.   I find it hard pressed that not ONE person in the media new of this, oh wait, the New York Times already did.  But apparently it wasn’t big news at the time, so what changed?  I’ll leave that question to you.

admin: try again without the vulgar reference. Or don’t

Jason,
What’s with the Dr. stuff? Huh? I’ll give you the oldest joke in the book:
Q: "What do you call the last in his class at dental school?"
A: "Dr."

I understand your statement as refferring to doctorate degrees not being relavant credentials to a Presidential run, but I disagree entirely. A person’s occupation prior to their potential run seems awfully important, whether lawyer, lifelong politician, etc. I wouldn’t go as far as some Paulites and say he has a better view of abortion issues because of his past OBGYN experiences, but neither would I say Edwards knows the constitution any better with his tort law settlements. Can’t we call Dr.’s, Dr.’s?

I’ll try not to use the name or title of the person that this thread is surrounding in my closing (too much anyway…):

Quit poking the fire and get down to some substantial criticisms of Paul’s platform, if you have some. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel to find the radicals in any candidates back pocket.

I support Paul because he is the only candidate I have seen stand up to the Republican Party’s foolish continuation commitment of the Iraq war. I support aforementioned candidate because the war is causing economic difficulties domestically. These are the messages that make sense to me and I think the majority of the "revolution’s" base rational supporters.

Brad, your comment loses a lot without the benefit of a decent Sound-Track. I think Howard Shore could do it about right…it’d have lots of violins.

Funny, for belonging to a group of people who claim to revere the Constitution, you seem to think the republic is quite a fragile thing…so fragile that it could be destroyed by not voting for your favorite candidate.

I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul.

Gawd….cue the Whitney Houston music.

Teresa, is there a possibility of voter fraud? Of course there is always a chance for voter fraud. But in Ron Pauls case the amount of fraud necessary to make his campaign anything other than an image his followers have created out of allegiance and disbelief is not likely. The facts are there are nearly always accusations of fraud in every voting period. The odds are that a certain amount of the fraud is genuine but most of it is campaigns grasping for rationalizations.

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You gave me power in your god’s name
I’m every person you need to be
I’m the cult of personality…

Like others have already said, I don’t think a gentleman and a President from the NAACP would say Ron Paul wasn’t a racist unless he knew deep in his heart,  Ron Paul gives everyone equal rights, that what he stands for…..

‘NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist’