Random Guy writes, "Well to me, a guy who cares nothing for the responsibility of a Republic to its citizens (merely for the states rights)..."

You don't have the first clue to what Ron Paul stands for, Random Guy.

Ron Paul stands for limiting the power of the federal government to what is called for in the Constitution.

You then call him "a fool." Well, if Ron Paul is a fool, then so were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington and the other Founding Fathers. Ron Paul's idea of what the federal government should be doing is closer to the Founding Fathers' ideas than any candidate, Republican or Democrat. It's not even close.

The fact that journalist chose to ignore Ron Paul and his performance in the debate is nonsensicle. It relegates this article to the realm of campaign propoganda and reduces the writer to the role of political lawn jockey.

The fourth estate has lost all credibility.

I'm a republican and my whole family will vote for him Latinos for Rudy G. He is the only one who can beat Hillary. If republicans elect other than him the game is over. Has common sense please. The democrats wants to sink Rudy.

Random Guy, you make a good point. We do need someone in the executive who cares about the responsibilities of the Republic for its citizens. And the truth is that not one of the other candidates does. Lowering taxes does not do it unless you also reduce spending. But the current crop of candidates are the very ones who have chosen to run the second-most-expensive war in US history by borrowing. This is totally irresponsible. Take the time to understand the solid basis on which Ron Paul stands, namely the true strength of the Constitution as a document of limited government, and the Austrian School of economics (basis for libertarian thought) that has been proven correct repeatedly throughout the last one hundred years.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml

The US Comptroller, David Walker (The US's top accountant, responsible for reporting on the fiscal integrity of the nation) has been warning Congress that without fast and severe cuts to government (he states 60% reduction or doubling taxes) the US will be insolvent soon. Washington has ignored his warning - and the citizenry is ignorant to the coming financial crisis as well. We are headed for a depression that will make the 1930's look like a minor hiccup.

What is the biggest problem we face as a nation? Terrorism? Global Warming? Not even close. It's time to quite living in fantasy land. We've all lived high on the hog - but all Empires fall. Most under the weight of their bloated government. How do you think we fun the war? Prescription Drug benefit? Medicare? Social Security? By paying for it? Certainly not. We just print more money and go into further debt. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate on either side that is aware of the mess this country is in and understand what to do about it.

So, get smart and recognize that there are no free lunches. Or, pass the buck and let your children suffer the consequence. Actually, unless you are 60, you will be around for the fall.

I accept your characterization. Ron Paul does "scare me".

He scares me because he's getting such labels as the "real deal", to me because he just sounds different from the automatons on stage. That's fine. With BushCo. in power, the lack of executive leadership in the White House leaves the citizens to wander through the proverbial desert of ridicule/ignominy on the world stage. And as a citizenry we are so starved and our thirst so great for leadership, that I think we are assuming that any old "change" from politicians-as-usual will quench us.

Well to me, a guy who cares nothing for the responsibility of a Republic to its citizens (merely for the states rights) will not slake my thirst to respect my country's foreign policy again. And somebody who's idea of social leadership is to just BLINDLY ASSERT that we should all act as equals and therefore assume that the greatest of us will respect the least of us as equals...is but a fool. A hopeful fool to be sure. But no less a fool.

And so I fear Ron Paul. Good people are desperate for change. I fear that he will be a change for the worse.

The very fact that Ron Paul wasn't mentioned in this article is yet more proof of the obvious MSM's anti-American agenda. This article is just one more example of a sorry excuse for a journalist. These people are NOT journalists, they are ministers of PROPAGANDA and nothing more. If they were actually journalists they would report information as it happened, not the made up story of what they would have liked to have seen happen. Chris Cilliza has shown himself to be just another MSM hack not worth listening to.

>>>And I found the "Bosso" guy funny above who posted all the anti-Clinton posts but did not site the source. How do we know the source is credible? May as well have been Ann Coulter...<<<

I'm not the encyclopedia for the lazy, RG. I appreciate that you find secret Federal programs like Project Eschelon 'funny', but I suggest using half the diligence in searching facts that you use in scouring obscurity to attempt to smear Ron Paul.

Or, was it the date that the Brady Bill passed or the fact that Hillary's socialized health care rants actually happened that you needed verification of?

Feel free to post something of substance to counter my posts besides that you find them humorous.

ABC News left Ron Paul's name off of their post debate poll. To repeat, ABC News left Ron Paul's name off of their post-debate poll.

They were flooded with many thousands of phone calls and e-mails to their various department heads until they agreed to re-post the poll...including Ron Paul as a choice, after which he completely dominated the poll...as expected.

If your theory is correct, that it was only half of the callers and e-mail writers, each calling/writing twice, my hat is still off to them for proactive response to right a glaring wrong by one of the major news outlets in this country.

Of course, we all know that ABC News is a credible source, eh?

I have to wonder who this "Random Guy" is that keeps arguing relentlessly against Ron Paul here.

Why does Ron Paul scare you so much "Random Guy"?

I haven't seen you argue against any of Ron Paul's actual POSITIONS on things that actually matter - just citing "one source" that claims he made such-and-such statement some years ago.

Personally, I don't care even if he did say anything like that, (which I don't believe at all - there's no proof of it), at least his positions on WHAT REALLY MATTERS for turning this screwed-up Federal Gov't around are 100% correct. That's what really matters when electing a U.S. President. (After all, we're not selecting a chairman of Rainbow/PUSH here.)

And, as your last post shows, you have no idea what "States Rights" and the U.S. Constitution really mean. Go ahead and rant all you like, but I post this for the benefit of all others who might stumble upon your posts, who need to realize that you are at best, ignorant of the facts - or at worse, a subversive that just wants to keep a real reformer like Ron Paul out of the white House.

P.S. - You lost your bet. The reason there are so many positive Ron Paul supporters here is that people who use the Internet to research news and politics are by far more likely to support Ron Paul than the mass-media brainwashed majority.

Brad, thank you for one of the best lines in this discussion, that we are not a democracy but a mediocracy. Wonderful double meaning here! Not only are the media trying to run the show, but the politicians at every level of government are nothing if not mediocre, with the exception of a certain congressman from Texas who shall remain nameless.

I would bet money that roughly half these "Ron Paul is the man" comments were created by the same person. Read them all at the same time. The writing is the same....

I find it ridiculous that the Ron Paul people are advocating for a President that believes the states should have all the power. That seems ludicrous to me. You want to put your guy in there so he can just ignore the country and foist all responsibility onto the states? You simply want a guy in there who will divide the tax revenue 50 ways and hand it out? What's the point?

And I found the "Bosso" guy funny above who posted all the anti-Clinton posts but did not site the source. How do we know the source is credible? May as well have been Ann Coulter...

And by the way, I did not call Ron Paul a racist. I called him a bigot. I don't mean to say he hates minorities, just that he has no regard/compassion/respect for the differences between his personal situation and the predicament of minorities.

I guarantee you that if he gets further in the Presidential process, his comments on race will become part of a larger national dialogue. That may actually be GOOD for this country.

Ron Paul is clearly the candidate of distinction, but is apparently invisible to the press. Or is at best translucent.

I can't believe the lack of mention of him in every article I read.

I wonder what it will take for the press to treat all of the candidates equally?

It is obvious that Ron Paul has created some waves in the Neoconservative propaganda machine. When they start doing the personal attack and smear campaigns on a gentleman like him that tells me he is onto something. I solute you Mr. Paul for standing on your convections and telling it like it is. You will have my vote all the way.

It is so refreshing to see that we could have a choice other that the CFR, Tri-Lat, and Bilderberg representatives.

If the guy who wrote this article reads these (Chris Cilliza), shame on you for being a company man shill and ignoring the only candidate who had anything worthwhile to say.

Do you hate the truth, Mr. Cilliza?

According to the MSNBC Poll, Ron Paul was the clear winner, yet even the MSNBC
commentators are ignoring their own poll, and other evaluations of the debate, including the Washington Post, don't even mention him.

As I look at the poll now with over 70,000 votes, he has 36% in the positive rating, compared to just 25% for Giuliani and 20% for McCain.

Some pundits tried to discredit this saying that the Ron Paul people must be
out in force, which is bs. Not only are all candidate's people out in force, but if you look at the pre-debate poll, Ron Paul has only 9% positive rating--it's after watching the debate and finding out who he is that people give him their vote.

The news media is trying to control the election--let's not let them get away with it.

Ruth,
I too supported Fred Thompson until I discovered that he: 1) is a member of The Council on Foreign Relations (a major force behind the push for a North-American Union); 2) voted for McCain-Feingold; 3) voted to expand NAFTA.
I believe in US sovereignty and cannot support a candidate with a globalist leaning, or one who would vote to infringe on rights protected by the Constitution.
Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the current field of 10, or of the other 2 prospectives.
God Bless our Republic.

Yeah, let's see...we had the Brady Bill passed under Clinton.

Clinton fought to close the gun show 'loophole'.

We had Project Eschelon.

Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity"

'If you made a phone call today or sent an e--mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency.'

"President Clinton has actually weakened a number of fundamental guarantees, including those of free speech and the right to trial by jury and that against double jeopardy. He has also supported retroactive taxes, gun control, and warrantless searches and seizures."

"The Clinton White House has, for example, supported the federalization of health care, crime fighting, environmental protection, and education."

"If constitutional report cards were handed out to presidents, he would receive an F."

Jason, do some homework before you become indignant. We support Ron Paul because we're aware of these things, they are accelerating and must be stopped NOW.

Ron's the only guy running, on either side of the fence, wh we can be sure will dismantle Big Brother.

Waco?

Brad, I strongly dispute your suggestion that former President Clinton "did it, too". Show me evidence of him taking away your gun or your right to be secure in your person or the right to talk on the phone without the government listening. Don't just throw out accusations without factual evidence to back it up.

For the posters who are in love with Ron Paul: Think about how bad the government response to Hurricane Katrina was under the current Republican President. It would be WORSE if Ron Paul was President! Also, think of the food supply for humans and pets. Would you feel safe with a Libertarian like Ron Paul as President? I don't think so. I for one believe that government has a role to help make society better and deal with any problems that may occur without infringing on people's personal values. This is why I'm a proud to be a lifelong Democrat who would not vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul may be an honest candidate, but that doesn't mean he would make a competent President.

Posted by: Jason from CA | May 5, 2007 02:57 AM

-----------------------------

What's your reasoning on that? I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

First of all, each state should be independent and sovereign in that they should have the ability to say to the Federal government "we don't want your help". This is constitution 101.

Secondly, they should have to ability to petition the government for help when it is an issue pertaining to national security or a national crisis, which obviously Katrina was.

Thirdly, Ron Paul, if you actually listen to what the man's saying, is talking about discontinuing the unconstitutional policies of preemptive war and nation building which bind not only states by sending their National Guard troops to foreign wars, but also bleed the common people dry of their wealth through fractional reserve banking and the fiat monetary system.

See if you can comprehend this...He is talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve System! Do you understand what that means? Do you understand what the Federal Reserve is and why it's so important we get rid of it if we want to cut the evil out by the root? (I use "evil" as a euphemistic term as I am not an ideologue.)

I'll let Ron Paul tell you about it himself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8

It would do you well to listen.

And anybody who is still like I was at first when Katrina happened asking "Why the [expletive] haven't they gone in there!?!?" need to consider the following:

The first thing the Federal Government did when they got to New Orleans was take the guns away from the private citizens who had LEGALLY registered firearms, leaving them defenseless. When are people going to learn that the government cannot and WILL not protect you in a time of crisis?

I guarantee you one thing, Ron Paul being our president would make me feel safer in EVERY WAY. At least then I wouldn't lie awake at night wondering if our president was going to get us into another unjustified and unconstitutional conflict to secure oil reserves while lying to me about the reasons, or sending cruise missiles into Baghdad, or allowing United Nations troops to train and operate on my own soil, or take away my right to bear arms, or my right to be secure in my person, or my right to talk on my friggin' telephone without worrying that Steve from the Department of Homeland Security is listening in to everything I say without a warrant.

And those of you, particularly democrats, who might say, "yes but that's Bush doing all that"...need to wake up. Clinton did it too. In fact, it's been going on for a long long time now.

Jason from CA

When Galviston Texas go hit and destroyed by a hurricain fifty years ago it got rebuilt and was handled very effectivly by the local government without the help from any idiots from FEMA (they didn't exist) And from what I can see the local effort worked out pretty well. That's what happens when you give more power to the states.

I got by Mark Levin's screaner to make the case for Ron Paul winning the debate last night. It was censored of course (never made it on air), and all the "Great One" could do is attack me, call me names, and tell me Paul has no chance.

Actually, "Great One", Ron Paul does indeed have a chance. He was the "Cinderella" story of the first GOP prez debate, and he will change the Republican party, even if Hiltery wins. Sorry!

I watched about half of the debate. That was enough to know what is important to me
and that is what this country is up against if a Republican wins in 2008.
The only candidate I would have any confidence is Fred Thompson and he wasn't even in the debate and he may or may not run.
Ruth Beazer

Posted by: Ruth Beazer | May 4, 2007 12:50 PM

-----------

You must have been taking a bathroom break during Ron Paul's turn to speak then. But its just as likely you simply blinked and missed him seeing as how the debate was severely stacked in favor of the so-called "top 3". That concept is irresponsible at best, fraudulent and yellow journalism at worst.

MSNBC should be ashamed of the way they conducted the debate. Giving Ron Paul 4 questions while giving McCain and Giuliani about 10 is just blatant favoritism.

Wanna know why MSNBC didn't want to show Paul? Because he could actually WHIP THE PANTS OFF of any democratic runner and ask for seconds. The man is indestructible.

He's getting my vote. And smart people, democrats and republicans alike should recognize that Paul is the kind of man who would make a great president.

Don't take my word for it. Do as others have suggested and do a youtube search for his name.

For the posters who are in love with Ron Paul: Think about how bad the government response to Hurricane Katrina was under the current Republican President. It would be WORSE if Ron Paul was President! Also, think of the food supply for humans and pets. Would you feel safe with a Libertarian like Ron Paul as President? I don't think so. I for one believe that government has a role to help make society better and deal with any problems that may occur without infringing on people's personal values. This is why I'm a proud to be a lifelong Democrat who would not vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul may be an honest candidate, but that doesn't mean he would make a competent President.

Concerning those whose analysis of politics contains the phrases "he looked the most presidential" or "he's not electable" need to pull your head out. You sound like a paid pundit who doesn't know his bum from a hole in the ground.

STOP LISTENING TO WHAT THE MEDIA TELLS YOU TO DO!

Ron Paul all the freakin' way.

I will be changing my party affiliation from Independent to vote for Paul in the primary. I'm also gonna drop him some money. Never done it in my life, but this is how sick I am of what's become of an America where people would rather see a plastic talking head as their president because he "looks more presidential".

God bless America!

Please, please, pay attention to Dr. Paul. Look at the comments on this blog. Everyone loves this guy.

You are doing no one a favor by ignoring the best thing to happen to American politics since Abe came from Illinois.

Ron Paul is excellent and I'm going to donate some of the little money I make to him to make it happen.

I invite everyone else to do the same. I believe in this man and I don't care what the Washington Post's writer says or doesn't say-- this is America and the people will make the decision, not the mainstream media.

"Ron Paul is the only and I mean ONLY chance the so called Republican party can win. By the way does any one know when the Republcan party changed? All I know is it isn't what it used to be."
-Quoted from above

--------------------------

Yes, the Republican party changed, in my opinion in the administration of William McKinley. The sinking of the U.S.S. Maine was used as propaganda and legitimacy for invading Cuba and starting the Spanish American War.

Firstly, anyone who is a student of the Constitution should already know that invading a sovereign nation without provocation is strictly prohibited. This is one of the earlier examples of government misinformation leading to unjustified and unconstitutional war.

Many also believe that because the U.S.S. Maine sinking was later determined to have been an accident, that the sinking was, in fact, initialized by our own government as a pretext for war. The battle cry "Remember the Maine" seems to echo the "9/11 Never Forget" mentality. Something to think about.

Wars are begun, not by armies, but by men in suits. Why we continute to put up with it is beyond me.

I'm responding to the comment of the person who liked the things Ron Paul said and wanted to hear more from him, but....he also felt Ron did not come across as friendly or as having public speaking ability.

For those who haven't already checked out the videos of news and other interviews of him on youtube, they are worth checking out. I believe he comes across as more friendly and well spoken one on one, and when he has more time to talk.

The easiest way to find them is to do a search on "Ron Paul".

What a bunch of namby-pamby white dudes in navy blue suits and red ties... a sad case, these robotic genuflectors to the altar of Reagan, who at least had the guts to say what he believed, no matter how bizarre. Weirdest moment of the evening: McCain, looking like he had been made up at a funeral home, promising to follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell, then belatedly remembering to smile... If the Dems can't beat this sad group, they totally deserve extinction.

It's great to see all of these positive comments about Ron Paul.

If he is unelectable, it will be because all of these folks who think he is great won't get up off their butts, pull out their wallets, and send him a check.

I did so, long before the debates. This was a first, as his is the first campaign I have ever considered worthy of my hard-earned fiat currency.

Be sure to put your money where your mouth is, folks.

No presence? Not "presidential?" I am sure you would be hard-pressed, sir or madam, to define either of those terms in a way that fits your proclamation. Your definition would have to be so incredibly friggin narrow, that scarcely .001% of the population would qualify. Even Martin Luther King Jr. would have to be a bad speaker according to your bogus non-standard.

I'm waiting. Let's see you define those assertions, though I'm surely just wasting my time. I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to form a coherent line of thought.

Ron Paul is the man.

I am glad there is a true republican left. I was starting to think that I was the only one. I can't believe that I live in a time when the most conservative president in my life time was Bill Clinton. Every republican from Regan to the Bushes have made the government bigger and bigger while depleting money and increasing the deficit. I know I am wasting my breath due to the fact that the corporations own America, and as long as General Electric, and Disney own the media we weill never hear anything good about a man like Ron Paul. Its all about money and being a part of the top 5% in wealth. I don't think I will ever be in that elite league so all I can do is pray that some how a true American and a canidate that both Dems and Reps can praise has very little chance. By the way Ron Paul is the only and I mean ONLY chance the so called Republican party can win. By the way does any one know when the Republcan party changed? All I know is it isn't what it used to be.

P.S. I did like Bill Clinton and I know most Dems do to, however, Hillary is NOT Bill. That woman is pure evil.

Although Congressman Paul was given little time to speak during the debate(?), he showed that he is sincere and principled. He did not try to talk around the issues, but addressed them head-on. I too am going to change my party affiliation, and will support Congressman Paul to the end.
God Bless our Republic.

Ron Paul is a clown. A carricature. He's not electable because he has no presence. He's not presidential. I would think he was weird even if he was a high school teacher.

I would sooner vote McCain, who I know to be disingenuous, taking whatever position is politically convenient at the moment and bowing to an administration that tried to destroy him during a previous presidential primary season.

Yes, I give Paul credit that he did not seem to be up there giving sound bites. Know what? If you or I were up there we wouldn't be giving sound bites either.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU OR I SHOULD BE PRESIDENT.

If the bar is that low, we may as well just elect David Letterman and get it over with.

Ron Paul most certainly is not "unelectable." It's attitudes like that which create a climate conducive to the fulfillment of disaster. He is by far the best candiate: the MSNBC poll shows him as the winner, and the intelligent listener casts him as the winner. Ron Paul must be elected. It is America's only hope. Here's our chance to save the country and possibly the entire friggin planet from catastrophie. We must resist the will to entropy, the will to destruct and destroy rather than to build and prosper. Do not give in to the dark part of the human psyche which wants to annihilate mankind: resist the dark spirit. Promote peace and prosperity. See to it that the media does NOT undercover Ron Paul and make him "unelectable." A candidate is only "unelectable" if the American people allow him to be.

Some guy above said

"ROMNEY is the ultimate winner. He did an excellent presentation in the debate. With charisma, poise, articulateness, no wonder,...he's definitely, the most presidential of them all!

This is true without any shadows of doubt!"

------------

I guess 20 million in campaign money buys a lot of internet comments. That's the only explanation for why someone would say that about anyone besides Ron Paul.

It's fitting the title of this post is "The Fix", because that's what this is...a fix.

People need to wake up. Listen to Ron Paul. And raise cane if they assassinate him like they've done all our other heros.

Look at all of us screaming for Ron Paul. I want everyone to understand something...the establishment doesn't want to talk about abolishing the Federal Reserve. They don't want to talk about abolishing the IRS. They don't want to talk about abolishing the CIA.

Why?

It would do us all well to hear Eisenhower's speech about the military industrial complex again. It's about the money, people. We are being railroaded and ushered like we're a bunch of sheep by the corporate media on BOTH sides. Neither side wants to address the constitutional issues Ron Paul raises because the people who PAY them will do anything they can to suppress him, including creating thousands of news articles that only mention the top 3 SHILLS they're trying to peddle to us.

Mobsters and puppets, the LOT of them! The only exception I can see on either side of the aisle...Ron Paul.

How can anyone doubt that Ron Paul is a viable candidate?

Is this still even a democracy? Perhaps it's a mediocracy, meaning the media controls the show. Funny I haven't heard much about Ron Paul's stellar performance that literally ran all over the opposition with a steamroller of truth.

Watch out for Ron Paul, people. Anyone who can make me change my party affiliation to vote in the primaries is a viable candidate.

Vote with your hearts. Don't do what the media suggests you SHOULD do. That's been our problem far too long.

I've been following Dr. Paul since before I moved to Texas, and after living here a while, I've come to know why his constituents respect and support him.

He could remain congressman for his district for as long as he wants the office.

If Americans thirst for anything today, it's integrity, and I'm not suprized at the outburst of enthusiasm for him all across the United States.

It pains me to read the national media who cannot bury this story any deeper than it has in the last 24 hours. (They wonder why paper don't sell any more.)

Go Ron!

I just want to chime in to say that I, too, thought Ron Paul was head and shoulders above the rest, both because of his message and the fact that he doesn't come across like a sleazy, used-car-selling android. I thought I was alone in my belief until I started reading message boards such as this one.

Ron Paul did great! I hope the media will give him the credit he deserves.

I swear. If Ron Paul was to be nominated, Holy cow! It would just be awsome.

People who love to suckle at the state's teet will hate him. Both the teachers and their ilk, and also the corporate welfare recievers. But if you can't support this man, I'm sorry you got to look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself what kind of human being you are. And at what point did you make your deal with the devil.

Ron Paul is human. I disagree with him on NASA - I think NASA is important.

Why should the public fund anything on the front end and then get taken to the cleaners when it goes into production?

Remember when the power company was a public utility. Remember when the cable company was a public utility? Remember when toll roads were a public utility?

The taxpayer pays for this stuff and then the government (I use the term lightly) gives it their corporate pimps, along with tax breaks - which they make up by stringing out us - the proletariot.

Look at the Washington Post Board of Directors - all hedge fund operators. All betting you and I will continue to be suckers.

Look at Chrissy Mathews (Mr. Cronkite in Waiting - Mr News-Speak Catch Phrase Miester). Let's be clear, Sissy Chrissy is a sales clerk for an Arms dealer, GE. Bill Gates wife sits on the board of directors at the Washington Post. Bill Gates (M$) is partnered with GE in MSNBC. Every US asset in Iraq and Afghanistan has a M$ CE license. M$ even owns 10% of a Naval Ship Yard.

They're all betting on continued war - if peace ever breaks out - their bets will be called - and we can't allow that - what restaurant would ever hire Chrissey Mthews as schrill tenor bus boy?

Chrissey's bosses are the same pimps that run 9 of the presidentutes on the debunked debate we were fed last night. Those guys all do knee time on K-street - imagine Romney in Joan Crawford bang-me-quick pumps saying, "Sock it t Me!".

Mc Cain was the one most like Reagan - he's got Alziemers for xhrist's sake!

Mc Cain needs alziemers - he was in the Gulf of Tonkin THE DAY the criminal fabrication to attack Viet Nam was cooked up. Then he got into his jet plane - with ordinance components contracted from his Daddy's aero-war company - and then helped murder 3.5 Million innocent Vietnamese Women - children - Grand Paws. Like I said - he needs the releif of Alziemers.

Come to think of it - so do I - I let all this stuff happen!

I remember - I remember
The 5th of November

Anybody know what the market bulk rate for tar and feathers is?

I sent the Ron Paul campaign $100 with 100 other people a week ago. It will be the only time I do that for any politician. Ron Paul is the founding fathers come back from the grave. All this talk of the founding fathers spinning in their grave really helped.

I've been looking over Ron Paul articles on google news, no mention of him except in the comments. And there are plenty as displayed above. I'm getting my family and friends to register as Republican. Whenever I can help, I will.

Everyone here must convince someone they know to register Republican and vote for Ron Paul. It feels like theres blood and Paul could capitalize on it.

I can't believe you get paid to do this... where we watching the same debate? I feel the exact opposite. The only person that had anything intelligent to say was Ron Paul and you know it. Take a look at most of the polls where the American people believe the same. No one wants more of the same...I can't believe that Ron is running under the Republican ticket but I must say for the first time this is not about being a good democrat or a good republican but about being A GOOD AMERICAN!!! Finally someone whom has the AMERICAN people interest at heart...the middle class, the poor, and even you reading this post.

God bless,

Giorgio

All I can say is if you don't get Ron Paul then you really don't get what being an American is all about!

How can anyone think McCain,Romney or the former mayor of NY even came close to Dr. Ron Paul.....I am amazed that someone could even think that at all.

Well I have news for everyone, Ron Paul is going to win this, because there are a lot of people like me that are sick and tired of lying politicians and this time we are going to make sure they don't win.

Just watch the power of the REAL AMERICANS!

Ron Paul has my vote, and I'm going to send him $100 once I get paid next week. Never have I sent politician money before, never really saw the point considering what they go and do with it. His idea of eliminating the IRS, income tax and Federal Reserve is a great idea. I watched one of his you tube clips from the house of reps and he said our $1 money is only worth 4 cents today, wow that's not very much. Every other politician has been bought by Wall Street and went to expensive Ivy League private schools and is related to someone who works at ABC news. Ron seems like the sort of guy who doesn't have that type of background. The best interest of the American people is at his heart I'm sure.

So many wild opinions. So few well grounded arguments. To be the President of the United States takes an understanding of the fundamental human concerns of Americans, and a principled desire to do what is right, regardless of the political consequences. It also takes several important well developed skills in order to be able to lead and communicate effectively. In my view, Romney and Giuliani clearly represent the best mix of principled conviction and skill not to mention records of effective leadership and problem solving. I will never agree with any candidate on every issue. Better to choose a candidate who can be very effective in the role of president, (e.g. initiative, leadership, character, integrity, intelligence, good judgement, vigor communication skills etc.), and with whom I generally agree on the fundamental issues of government. I think Mitt and Rudy come about the closest to meeting that high standard.

"As a Democrat, I was most impressed by Ron Paul."

"Ron Paul is the only honest man in politics."

" Not one of the candidates last night, save for the refreshing Rep. Ron Paul of TX"

"Ron Paul is the only candidate who seemed to stand apart from the rest, who all resemble white males who usher at church, if only to raise their public profiles."

"Paul's assertion that the privacy of the federal government has increased while the privacy of its citizens has declined was a point the rest of the field didn't want to touch."

"Ron Paul stole the show."

"Ron Paul is VERY MUCH electable!!"

"If Ron Paul can continue to get his message across he'll be a great contender come primary time."

"Ron Pual is the only candidate that understands and belives in our Constitution."

"WHY DID THIS COLUMNIST NOT WRITE ABOUT HIM?"

"Ron Paul was excellent."

"Ron Paul was the clear winner..."

"I'm encouraged listening to a true conservative like Ron Paul who believe is following the Constitutions regarding matters of war and actually reducing government intervention into personal American lives."

"Ron Paul articulated what it is to be a Republican better than anyone has in the last 30 years+"

"Ron Paul seemed crisp because he is a man of integrity who truly believes his message of peace and liberty and doesn't need to tiptoe around the truth like the others."

"Ron Paul DESTROYED everybody on that stage."

"Ron Paul is electable."

My favorite line of the debates came from Paul when the down-the-line question was "Would America be better off with the Cilntons back in the White House?", Paul answered: (paraphrased from memory)...

"Being known as one who has never filp-flopped...I voted to impeach him the first time around...what makes you think I'd say yes to this question?"

Thank everyone quoted for your astute observations. In the 2004 election, 100 million Americans did not vote. Here's hoping they hear that this time there's someone worth voting for.

Only one candidate showed an understanding and appreciation for the Constitution and liberty, Ron Paul. If we consider the fact that whomever we elect will need to take an oath to protect and defend that document and the principles espoused therein, our choice of who should be the GOP candidate is made for us; for, to choose anyone but Paul would be to knowingly choose someone bound to breach an oath if elected, to knowingly choose someone bound to violate that document and those principles we hold so sacred.

Friends, commit not this error--methinks 'tis more than mere error, even--and choose Paul for the GOP Presidential candidate. And, when the times comes, choose Paul for President of the United States.

Ron Paul -- the clear winner. No one else is acceptable. But, MSNBC won't admit he won in the ratings, ABC did not even include him in the list!

Do they think the public won't notice?
Ron is the only one that doesn't take marching orders from the same bunch -- as in, Bush is blamed for the war but Clinton is the one who signed the policy in '98

Wake up America! Ron is 2nd in fundraising in NH.
If you want a quasi conservative with a pretty face, vote for Mitt. But if you want a principled conservative who kowtows to no one, Paul is the one.

The mainstream media has proven itself irrelevant once again.
Matthews was an embarrassment with his combativeness and interference and biased and contentious questions.

This was about comparing REPUBLICAN values amongst the 10 not whether they like Clinton or not.
Using the right left paradigm is all the cons know how to do you see?

What a disgusting sight the GOP debate was: A bunch of arrogant white men who are out of sync with the fabric of this country, in a veiled manner trying to defend the USA's worst leader of all time & tell a diverse country how they should be the leader.
Except for Ron Paul, that's the largest group of unctuous and smarmy men on a single stage I have ever seen: all chanting Ronald Reagan's name in shibboleth as if he were some second "Jesus Christ". Worse than nauseating.

roo responded to my original post calling inconsistency in my support for both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, and made a passing stab at Mike Gravel's tax idea.

Well, I certainly wasn't suggesting that Ron Paul's platform is anything like Dennis Kucinich. I was merely stating my opinion that these are two guys who are intelligent and have their own ideas. Contrast this with most of the others including all of the front runners who got their 'ideas' from pollsters. When their election ideas come from pollsters, we can be sure that their elected office decisions will be gotten from pollsters and lobbyists, as opposed to any informed understanding of the world or principled commitment to do the right thing for the country.

While I much prefer Paul's platform to Kucinich' I think either one would do more to advance the state of our nation and people than the alternatives.

As for Gravel's tax idea, I actually love it--tax consumption not income. Living beyond our means (at both government and personal levels) is the downfall of the U.S. Gravel's fair tax would help enormously to wean us from that bad habit, and would help level the playing field with foreign producers--make them pay for our social programs just like our own producers have to. Notwithstanding, Gravel has too many other weird ideas and unstable temper for me to seriously consider him--he's like the Howard Dean of this election cycle.

One only needs to look at Ron Paul's voting record to see that he is founding father material. He may seem "fringe" to some, but that only shows how much we've drifted from the Constitutional principles upon which this nation was founded. Check out his voting on conservative issues at the following link. You'll have to download the pdfs from each hyperlink to see the voting for each quarter year.

http://www.jbs.org/taxonomy/term/210

Ron Paul 2008!!

Ron Paul may not be electable,and I sure wont vote for him, but at least hes INTERESTING. And what Republican can resist voting for someone who wants to abolish the IRS

ROMNEY WON THE DEBATE, BUT EVERYONE HAD SOME GREAT IDEAS, MAKING HIS WIN MARGINAL AT BEST.

THE FACTORS THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR VOTERS ARE THESE...IN THIS ORDER:

1. VOTERS VOTE WITH THEIR WALLETS - CAN THIS GUY LEAD THE COUNTRY TO HELP AMERICANS BECOME MORE PROSPEROUS?

2. GOOD LOOKS - IS THE CANDIDATE UGLY? (LOOK AT HISTORY - HISTORY BEARS THIS OUT - IF YOU ARE OLD AND UGLY, YOUR TENDENCY TO WIN HAS BEEN CUT IN HALF)

3. VOTERS IN RECENT HISTORICAL TRENDS HAVE AVOIDED MAKING SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES THE US PRESIDENT...OVER THE LAST DECADES, CAN YOU NAME THE LAST PRESIDENT WHO WAS A SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE? GOVERNORS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, STAND A FAR BETTER CHANCE OF SUCCESS.

4. AND MANY OTHERS OF COURSE

PLEASE EMAIL ME AND TELL ME THAT I AM WRONG :) breakthroughtek at gmail dot com

Here's the conclusion of Ron Paul's recent (April 2007) column about "Government and Racism:"

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

The whole column is available at his congressional web site: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm

Ron Paul is not a racist.

Isn't it strange how much people tend to buy into voting for someone they think can get elected, instead of the candidate they would like to see as president?

If the powers that be want to try to exclude one or more candidate from consideration, they don't have to attack that person's message. Instead, they try to avoid much mention of them in the media, and emphasize the concept that they don't have a chance.This only works if we buy into it.

Ron Paul would not have done as well as he did in the MSNBC polls, if his message did not resound with voters.

In one poll, respondents were asked to give each candidate a positive, negative, or neutral rating. Ron Paul had the highest positive and lowest negative rating.

One might say that was all of the Ron Paul fans calling to vote. And that was, I'm sure, part of it. But as the numbers grew, the percentage held, and varied by only a couple of %. The difference between the numbers after the debate and before the debate was huge.

Early today, I saw that the numbers had gone down some, from 45-48% positive last night down to 30% earlier today. But Romney's positive rating was only 31%, and the others were lower.

In the other MSNBC Poll, voters were asked to tell who rate who did the best in the debate in six different areas. Ron Paul placed second or third in most of them, and first as having had the "best one liner".

I'm not sure about the numbers on that today, as that poll is flawed. You can only see the numbers after you vote, so presumably you can only go back and check them by voting again. The fact that you could vote more than once would make the numbers meaningless on the second poll.

This morning, my dh had he had watched a program in which they were talking about the debate and candidates. Many of the people calling in were talking about Ron Paul (some hadn't heard of him or didn't know before that he was running), but the commentators were not talking about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has my support as long as he is in the race. Not only does he say the right things, but his record in the House is entirely consistent. What you hear is what you get.

i saw the whole thing i might be a young republican (16) but i thought it was ok. tommy thompson i believe should not of aid that if your GAY your employeer could fire you! also i would like macain to be president but i personally do not believe in evolution so i really do not know however i think that macain is the oldest but the smartest presedential nomination we mhave today.

Well I just donated for the first time ever to the tune of $199, and you guessed it.

RON PAUL ALL DAY IN EVERYWAY !!!!!!

GOD SAVE THIS COUNTRY FORM ITSELF

Rick--"Dwight, that is not the definition of evolution that is tought in our schools and was argued by Darwin."

You are mistaken. The theory of evolution does not address what was before and what caused the big bang so Dwight would be right to hold hope his hypothesis is correct. Those are issues that are not adequately addressed by current. I use Occam's Razor to determine that the existence of a supreme being is still not necessitated.

Evolution does not, in fact, even directly address the origin of mutation which it is entirely based on which falls under biochemistry. It is strictly an explanation of how random mutations have shaped the species to their current (and future) forms.

Instead of simply seeing each other as "fellow human beings" we seem obsessed with worrying about useless labels like "black," "white," "christian," "atheist," "mormon," "jew," "hispanic," "southerner," "yankee," etc. Dr. Paul understands that, and it's a lesson we could all benefit from

Posted by: Phillip Rhodes | May 4, 2007 03:19 PM

That's a wonderful dream if everybody is starting out on the same footing. But, we're not.

2 teams are playing a football game. In the first half you saddle one of the teams with unequal treatment from the refs and as a result they end up way behind at halftime.

Then to open the second half, you announce, "Everyone will now be treated equally!!!"

Is that enough? Shouldn't the team that's behind as a result of the first-half discrimination be upset? Are they now to be blamed? Are they now at fault because they highlight the mistreatment that they have received, and they band together to celebrate the few unique qualities that had not been treaded on?

If Ron Paul is (A) so out of touch as to not understand this (B) so callous as to not care then he's not right to hold elected office. His job would be to lead ALL of the people, not just those that have had the same societal experiences as him and his family.

Yeah, don't anyone comment on how Ron Paul WON the MSNBC poll with 43% of the vote!

COME ON PEOPLE!!! I think the only reason most people across the country say things like Ron Paul is "hopelessly unelectable" is because big media outlets TELL US THEY ARE. Yet all the while, if you bother to listen to your neighbors now and then, or if you seek out a news source that is not at the pinnacle of money making (which means they're more or less in the government's pocket), you'll find that opinions are a lot different among the actual PEOPLE than what any mainstream news outlet would have you believe.

THINK FOR YOURSELF, and if you can't do that, then you have no business voting!

Bush's lack of respect for Habeas Corpus means they can take any one of us and throw us in Guantanamo indefinitely without giving us access to a lawyer.

It's not just a staple of american law but a foundation of law for civilized countries for centuries.

The fact that our President disregards it and our citizens don't understand it indicates that we take our liberty and freedom for granted these days. Because, hey, the terrorists want to follow us home.

[quote]

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."
--Dr. Ron Paul, "Government and Racism"

Those 1996 quotations from his newsletter were not written by Dr. Paul. Investigate and be enlightened.
[/quote]

What's to investigate? What he said is very straightforward and understandable and it's all true. The token nods to "diversity" we keep embracing in this country do nothing but perpetuate our tendency to try to label and group things.

Instead of simply seeing each other as "fellow human beings" we seem obsessed with worrying about useless labels like "black," "white," "christian," "atheist," "mormon," "jew," "hispanic," "southerner," "yankee," etc. Dr. Paul understands that, and it's a lesson we could all benefit from

The Republican debate didn't make it clear who didn't believe in evolution. I believe about three hands were raised but their names didn't follow. It's unbelievable that republicans might select a candidate that doesn't believe in science. John McCain's tone was unusually non-friendly. John might have done better without that style.
However it didn't come across as non-presidential. Ron Paul's style didn't come across particularly well, nor friendly. I wish he was a better speaker. I'd like to hear more from him. His ideas are more of what true fiscal conservatives want from government. One of the early questions (3rd?) had an excellent reply but I didn't catch which little-known candidate gave the reply. The candidate recommending splitting up the Iraq oil revenue by thirds sounded excellent.
Havious corpus - what is that (and I'z gots a good edumication)? We're not all lawyers!
Strict constructionist judge comment - come on Rudy!

Are these the best and brightest of the GOP? Rejecting evolution. No to stem cell research. Reversing Roe v. Wade. Turning their past vetos into a pissing contest. Running away from Bush and the policies of the rubber-stamp republicans.

And the media is tone deaf to it all, focusing instead on who was "clear and crisp" and who was the "winner". There were no winners here. God help us!

I am constantly amazed at the sheer amount of people who will profess to vote for someone just because really seem to be genuine and honest. I think it shows the tremendous yearning for a straight-flying politician.

For example the person who was teetering between Dennis Kuchinich and Ron Paul. Boggles the mind. Those two are about as far apart as possible on most meaningful issues. For someone who is on the same lines as Dennis on policy, a Paul presidency would be devastating (and presumably vice versa.)

Or those who like Mike Gravel for his integrity but fail to appreciate the profound effect of his support of the (Anything But) FairTax.

I'm not surprised Ron Paul got counted out in the article, but I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised. Luckily, I'm a realist, so I expected the usual coverage of the usual suspects. Ron Paul was, nonetheless, the best candidate there last night.

Have to agree with the many, Ron Paul was by far the best. Mitt Romney is too slick and the biggest flip-flopper ever...
McCain was like a bad actor, he did the right lines but you knew he was acting. If he really wanted to chase bin laden to the gates of hell he would have said something when W sent the troops into Iraq instead of finding bin Laden. McCain and Romeny will say pretty much anything to get elected...
Rudy is Rudy. You get what you see, just like in every cop movie, he is the mayor that runs to the media to show his face and take credit...
Tommy Thompson, as Health Secretary he we ran out of flu vaccine. At a recent event he joked about Jews and money that would have got Imus fired. nough said....
Gov. Hucabee, do we really need another politician using his religion to pander to voters?

Ron Paul may be thin on charisma but he is big on ideas. He was the hands down winner. Paul is not afraid to be honest with his views. Honesty what a concept.

Ron Paul DESTROYED everybody on that stage. I wish he would have gotten to say more though.

Trying to tie Ron Paul to David Duke is just sad.

Paul upsets the usual commies and fascists.

This is the old smear story implying Osama is a Muslim terrorist. Sure, right. (Yawn)

Posted by: Gil Johnson | May 4, 2007 02:07 PM

Hmmm, I think I'll just go ahead and refute that if you don't mind. Perhaps not only the David Duke part, but the larger point as well. The comparison is ludicrous enough that it should only take me a minute.

Top 5 Differences between the Obama/madrasah smear and "Ron Paul is a bigot" assertion:

1) So called "liberal media" ran with the Obama smear. So far Dead Silence from the national media on Paul.
2) No available quotes from Obama saying anything hateful about Chrisitanity or Western Culture.
3) References to Ron Paul available on David Duke's website (not safe for work). No known madrasahs websites embracing Obama.
4) Context of larger right-wing campain to paint Obama as scary-unelectable-dark-skinned-foreigner-guy: For example, I'm sure you know what his middle name is and where his father is from. Has there been a similar left-wing campaign against Paul?
5) Other materials available to cast Paul's views on diversity into question, such as that published by "Scott" above. Can you pull a similar quote from Obama along the lines of "Hey, madrasahs ain't so bad"???

I'll wait here while you look....

Dwight, that is not the definition of evolution that is tought in our schools and was argued by Darwin. You may believe we evolved after creation, and as a matter of fact, so do I to a certain extent, but that is not the science that is being tought, and is believed by so many evolutionists. The theory that is science-based holds there is no room for creation and says we evolved from a small piece of matter. Look up the definition in the dictionary.

Please start using the correct terminology. One does not 'believe in' evolution any more than one believes in gravity. One accepts (or rejects) the theory of evolution.

For those unclear about the word 'theory', may I point out that gravity is also 'just a theory.'

The debate was interesting, though. Ron Paul was clearly the one with the most ideas (disagreeable as they may be) but he is not the Libertarian many like to make him out to be. He is the ultimate Federalist on the field right now.

I think it's ridiculous that this article didn't even mention Ron Paul, and the comments on it mention him over 100 TIMES!!! WHY IS IT NOT IN THE ARTICLE??? It makes no sense! Ron Paul is the best candidate, and people are talking about him as much or more than anyone! Why is he not getting a mention?

There is no conflict between creation and evolution. Creation is the belief that God, the Uncaused Cause, brought the universe into existence where before it did not exist. Evolution is a process that occurs post-creation, where things that already exist change according to the laws of the universe.

Ron Paul was excellent! He represents all that we want in a presidential candidate.

Roy, I'm a christian and I want to make sure I understand you correctly....

Are you saying evolution can't be proven, but the Bible has been fully "authenticated"?

That sounds backwards to me. I thought that was what "faith" was for.

I have never heard so much ignorance in one place in my life as are in these posts by liberals concering the Republican debates. Evolution is a theory. It has never been proven or even come close to being proven. The Bible on the other hand is the most authenticated historical document of antiquity in existence today. God inspired men who listened to Him to write His words. Christians embrace science that proves facts, not theories. Unproven scientific theories are only excuses not to accept the existence of God.

Why is Ron Paul unelectable? Because the system is rigged to require lots of money, and he can't be bought.

I did the numbers of the before and after on MSNBC's Rate The Candidates. Ron Paul was the only candidate that had a double digit negative decline as well as a double digit positive increase. The only other double digit changes were Guiliani with a 13% decline in his favorable rating and McCain with a 10% decline in his favorable rating. I think these numbers tell the true story.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pU0hCwzN6uBACW3fClkyBZQ

What is clear from the comments above is that Dr. Paul impressed a lot of people, and that the officialdom desperately wants to ignore him. It is tragic that this is likely to be the only major coverage he will receive. If enough of America actually was exposed to the man, he might make a difference. Of course, that is exactly why the media, at the behest of their corporate masters, will shunt him off to the sidetracks.

This was a Republican debate not a Democrat debate. Here is a lesson for those writing about evolution. People who believe in creation dont believe we evolved. The Republican party is saturated with christians, who believe in creation. Thus, the party that believes in creation is going to have candidates that dont believe in evolution. It is odd that some of you find it hard to believe that some republican candidates dont believe in evolution. Here is a fact, all but one president believed in creation and not evolution ... can you guess who that was.

Trying to tie Ron Paul to David Duke is just sad.

Paul upsets the usual commies and fascists.

This is the old smear story implying Osama is a Muslim terrorist. Sure, right. (Yawn)

I came in to see who I could see as President. Romney was an unknown, but may have my vote. I will watch him closely now--clearly stood out in presence and ability to paint a vision.

Why aren't all the candidates treated equally by the media? Why divide them into "big fish" and "little fish"?

Is it because some candidates raised more money than the rest? If so, this means in the American system candidates virtually buy office.

That can't be true. I agree some candidates distinguish themselves and leave their competition in the dust. But this should happen as a result of the debates (or other factors) - and NOT because the media has spiked the field beforehand.

The clear winner in the sorry line-up of Repubs is Ron Paul. If his message got out more, he would be electable. But the media defer to money, apparently - and so he is ruled "unelectable" by our punditocracy. Note that Cillizza mentioned only three of the debaters, in this, his first article. The "nobody-losers" (per the media) will go in article number 2, maybe.

What a shame. Imagine if we didn't have the filters imposed on us by our rulers. Then we could choose what we want. NOT what THEY want.

Oh, I get it now.

Based on your quote, "Dr. Paul" basically believes that the NAACP, Rainbow Coalition, the Urban League etc. are the actual Racists that the country should be worried about. Yeah, that's a much better notion.

Given what you cite as a quote, I have no trouble believing that the other quotes are true. I can't find the actual quote online because the Victoria Advocate's archives don't go back that far. But I can't find a denial from Paul either.

As I understand it, if Paul was misquoted, he was misquoted by his buddy David Duke.

Ron Paul doesnt need hundreds of millions of dollars to "spin" his views and to explain his flip-flops - he has no hypocrisy in his past record.

Posted by: Ana B | May 4, 2007 12:49 PM

Here's his record -- http://www.shanesklar.com/news_DETAILS.php?news_ID=49

The fact that so many of you are willing to landslide him in to office is absolutely repulsive.

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."
--Dr. Ron Paul, "Government and Racism"

Those 1996 quotations from his newsletter were not written by Dr. Paul. Investigate and be enlightened.

"Governor Romney, What do you least like about America today."

Actual Answer: Gee - I don't know. I love everything about America.

Would have got my vote if he answered: LIBERALS (now THAT would have been charismatic and funny)

Romney was the winner of the woman-less beauty pagent according to the media.

Ron Paul was the winner when it came to talking about the issues.

Didn't catch the whole debate and unfortunately didn't hear any of Ron Paul's comments (although I've seen many of his thoughts on youtube) but based on what I did see the Rs should be very concerned. Their 'front runner' candidates are pandering clowns whose depth of understanding on any critical issue needs at least a 'no diving' sign.

Of course the Dems have parallel problems too, with Kucinich the only apparently principled offering.

In this next round of elections the people need to focus first and foremost on electing honest people who are well-read and principled about at least trying to do the best thing for the country (as opposed to special interests or their own reelection chances).

Clinton sold the country to China and big agriculture, Bush to the oil, war and drug industries. Stop the thievery and elect either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. We can sort out their unique visions for America later, but at least we'll have a government we can trust to not sell us out.

Why is Ron Paul "unelectable"? Are we a free society where the American dream flourishes or are we not?
If the other candidates like Rudy Giuliani think they can be the "new Reagan", there couldn't be more arrogance. Reagan was a giant compared to them. The only one candidate who can match this benchmark is - guess who.

Ron Paul is electable. It's cool that people have anti-freedom beleifs but if a majority of Americans are accually pro-freedom for once then maybe Ron Paul will be elected rhis round.

Ron Paul seemed crisp because he is a man of integrity who truly believes his message of peace and liberty and doesn't need to tiptoe around the truth like the others.

I guess it doesn't surprise me though, that this article only mentions the three slugs that the media has already decided (for us) will be the front runners. it's sad really.

Why doesn't anyone in the media make a point about Guiliani's lack of experience when it comes to global politics? They have no problem pointing this out when it comes to Obama?

Ron Paul articulated what it is to be a Republican better than anyone has in the last 30 years+

After watching the GOP debate, I think Hillary Clinton won this one, too. The only folks who should vote for any of these 10 are the ones who like things exactly as they are right now because things will not change under their leadership.

It's an old saying: you get the government you deserve. The sad fact is, we are not good enough to deserve the likes of Ron Paul.

"At least 3 hands went up as not believing in evolution. The camera cut away too quickly to identify them. Such a response should disqualify anyone with aspirations to be president."
Amen to that (as it were).

What's even sadder is that they all had to look around at the other candidates to see how *they* were answering. I have a hard time believing that even the ones who sheepishly raised their hands don't believe in evolution... they are just trying to get that all-important Neoconservative evangelical vote. We all know they show up on election day... heck, the polling places are usually in their churches anyway!

Ron Paul definitely stole the show, as the only Republican willing to defend the core Republican ideas of small / limited federal government, states rights, personal responsibility and individual Liberty. None of the other candidates on the stage has any business even referring to himself as a Republican.

Or at least they wouldn't if the Republican party had stayed true to it's libertarian roots, instead of being co-opted by NeoCons and turned into a caricature of itself.

Ron Paul was the clear winner. He gave impassioned, logical, scholarly answers that show clear principles. He voted against the war and Patriot act and would lower taxes for everyone.

I found nothing inspiring about the debate besides the truly conservative alternative at the debate named Ron Paul. I am a life-long liberal. I want to see the government do good four our nation. But since all the Republicans can offer us is more war and more government interference with our personal lives, I'm encouraged listening to a true conservative like Ron Paul who believe is following the Constitutions regarding matters of war and actually reducing government intervention into personal American lives.

The Republicans don't get it, many Americans want a new direction, not more internationalism, war making and narrow-minded religious views in public life.

Ronald Reagan's big failure was that despite his rhetoric he was not a small government conservative. Most of these Republicans are Reagan-like because they want to spend money we don't have on the military and interfere with people's personal lives. That is the legacy of Reagan that lives on in America in 2007.

Regarding the candidates supporting evolution, it has nothing to do with religion. I've studied evolutionary biology extensively in a secular, collegiate setting, and came to the conclusion that more needed to be taught about evolution. Particularly the flaws that most folks refuse to acknowledge, or censor from the conversation. There are many, many academics who question the theory's validity. Sure, animals within a species can change to adapt to their environment, because they were endowed with a robust gene pool, but science has never observed one creature becoming another -- even in a lab with may flies who pass through a generation every few days, and that they intentionally tried to mutate...sure, you may get may flies with four wings... but they cannot fly, and they are STILL FLIES. Evolution in the sense that one species can become another, that we all evolved from lifeless matter is a theory that has much evidence against it and no fossil evidence. You may think the fossil evidence is there, but I challenge you to do the research, instead of swallowing every pill you're handed. Darwin thought the inside of a cell was just a clump of jelly-like material. We now know it is populated with micro-machines as advanced as the most complicated factories man can create, which, many credible scientists are indicating could in no way have "evolved" randomly. Most mainstream folks are afraid to read about this line of thinking though, or too easily throw around labels and insults to folks who actually do the extra research. And if science is your hot button, one of the foundational laws in science is that something CANNOT come from nothing. Yet, the Big Bang clearly indicates first there was nothing -- no matter, no time, nothing -- then a universe... then, somehow rocks spawned microbes, which spawned fish, then rats, then people who comment on political web-sites. All randomly. Sorry, I just don't have enough faith to believe that hog-wash. Mainstream folks once thought the earth was flat as well, and violently opposed those who disagreed... so times don't change.

I couldn't stand Romney. What a fluffer! Oh, I can't think of anything wrong with America... B.S. Listen, I love this country, but I'm not so blind I can't see there are things that need fixing. Romney was a smarmy, pandering fake.

Ron Paul was excellent.

A liitle afraid of Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, are you not?

I watched about half of the debate. That was enough to know what is important to me
and that is what this country is up against if a Republican wins in 2008.
The only candidate I would have any confidence is Fred Thompson and he wasn't even in the debate and he may or may not run.
Ruth Beazer

These men are not leaders - they are a bunch of cowardly crowd pleasers with political leanings entirely formed by PR analysts. The same could certainly be said about the dems too, which is a sad thing!

Ron Pual is the only candidate that understands and belives in our Constitution.
He is the first candidate I have ever heard that I can vote for out of genuine admiration, rather than voting against the worst evil.

And whay is he not electable? Because he has not raised hundreds of millions of dollars? Really, have Americans become so shallow that they need to be "sold" a candidate?

Ron Paul doesnt need hundreds of millions of dollars to "spin" his views and to explain his flip-flops - he has no hypocrisy in his past record.

Of course, given his enourmous approval on this board and on the msnbc poll immediately after the debate (he lead every approval category), I must ask:

WHY DID THIS COLUMNIST NOT WRITE ABOUT HIM?
This is irresponsible, lazy journalism at its worst.

Chris Cillizza - you should be ashamed of yourself.

Guiliani might have been a decent mayor, but he's not presidential material. Romney comes off as polished flip-flopper - don't trust him. McCain was McCain, he doesn't have a chance whatsoever. Ron Paul was the only candidate demonstrating conviction and I think he surprised most with this answers. If Ron Paul can continue to get his message across he'll be a great contender come primary time.

another media outlet trying to taint Ron Paul... God bless the internet though!

Ron Paul is VERY MUCH electable!! maybe not to the media -- who wants to destroy the Constitution -- but to We The People!!

It is our Duty to spread awareness of Ron Paul!

God bless America.

Winner: Romney
Loser: Giuliani

Giuliani did not look like a front runner. Romney looked the most presidential. McCain probably didn't help or hurt himself. Both Romney and McCain will get a boost from Giuliani dropping in the polls.

The only thing new I got out of this debate was, to a man, "A great day when Roe v Wade is overturned". Turn it over to each state to ok or not ok abortion. All the republican canidates seem to believe, same as for embronic stem cell research from left over and to be discarded embryos is murder, abortion is also murder. How do they justify murder by state but not federal. Sounds disingenious to me, and a cop out. Ok for states to allow "murder" in their minds. I believe an abortion or two 50 or 60 years ago would have raised the IQ level of available canidates on that stage.

A bunch of old nostalgic white guys, half of whom don't believe in evolution! Just what America needs to move forward into the 21st Century.

Eight years of Republicans in control (or is it out of control) is enough.

I think the most notable fact is that the Democrats refused to debate on a FOX NEWS -sponsored debate, saying that FOX was too conservative-leaning - yet the Republicans are perfectly willing to go on an MSNBC-sponsored debate, moderated by obvious Republican-hating Chris Matthews -- now which party wants to speak to the American people, and which party wants only to speak to "their own"?

I will register as a Republican just to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and then I will vote for Ron Paul in the election, no matter what party nominates him, or even if he runs as an independent.

There is not a single other presidential candidate worth voting for, except possibly Kucinich, but Ron Paul is better.

Ron Paul stole the show.

blarg, et al -I agree - it is inconceivable that anyone not accept evolution as a proven theory, (as much as theory can be proven). To me, and I'm sure many others, having faith in God and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I think Duncan Hunter stood out among the 2nd tiers candidates for that reason, and also for his hawkish stance which I loved. He would be my pcik for a VP.

More debate analysis
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Oh, sorry progressive, I didn't see that you already said which candidates don't believe in evolution.

Mike Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution.

Sam Brownback doesn't believe in evolution.

Tom Tancredo doesn't believe in evolution.

There is too much concern about kids learning their math and science for an anti-science candidate to get elected, even in the Republican primary. Look what is already happening in the school boards across the country.

Scientists debate on the details of exactly HOW evolution does what it does, but WHETHER it occurs or not is universally accepted by scientists.

Americans seem to be coming to grips with this fact, as evidenced by school board votes across America.

Anti-evolution is anti-science and anti-science is quite unpopular these years.

I give Rudy credit for his remarks on abortion, showing that he has a big pair, but he ain't getting the nomination, which means one of these other right-wing, clueless freaks will get it, which means the GOP can probably kiss off '08.

oh yeah, on topic: I didn't watch the debate, but don't really need to; I don't much care for any of the front-runners & don't see them changing my mind. I find Giuliani to be a sleazeball, McCain is now out of touch & Romney is another flip-floppin' Massachusetts politician of convenience. When the GOP returns to its small government, keep-the-gov-out-of-my-business roots, I'll start voting for them. As long as they're pandering to social conservatives, I'm not interested.

Mark in Austin asks
"If any of you who are split ticket voters and not totally predetermined to vote R or D have already given your opinions, but not id'd yourself as independent or still looking, would you please do so?"

I'm in that camp, but haven't voted for many repubs. The last one I voted for ended up joining the Independance Party - which is the one Jesse V was elected under, for gov of MN. Having said that i wanted McCain in 2000, but the GOP primary voters really fouled things up. In 2006 I voted for IP candidates in the elections where I could, plus a Green and a DFL (local Dems). In 2000 & 2004 I voted for the Libertarian Pres candidates. So call me the schizophrenic ticket.

proudtobeGOP: thanks for reminding us why your party is currently at the beginning of a very long losing streak.

I have not watched my tape yet and will not get to do so until Sunday.

If any of you who are split ticket voters and not totally predetermined to vote R or D have already given your opinions, but not id'd yourself as independent or still looking, would you please do so?

I discount the "Ron Paul effect" -
wherein he says something logical or actually libertarian. Unfortunately I am familiar with him over a 20+ year period - even a blind pig can turn up an acorn, now and then.

While I will draw my own conclusions, the observations of others who are not "pre-comitted"
may shed more light than heat for me. Thanks, in advance.

I saw both the democratic and republican debates and I was struck by how better the republicans performed in their answers and I think it had to do a lot with the questions they were given. The republican debate had questions that were much more specific (Cudos to Chris and his producers). Just contrast the questions on
irrelevant nonsense like the "hair cuts", who is your favorite supreme court judge to: what do we have to do to win in Iraq. Specific questions evoke specific answers and it sure made the candidates sound better. Off-the-wall questions lead to bizarre answers and desperate attempts to get their talking points accross which
explains why many of the democrats went over-time. Also the questions were more equally balanced with the republican candidates and didn't favor anyone in particular. I hope the next democratic presidential debate fixes that. FYI I am not a republican; I am a democrat who supports Bill Richardson.

To the dems on the board: After Ron Paul fails to get the Rep nomination but then runs as the Liberterian candidate, would you consider voting for him over a GENERIC dem candidate. If not what about over a SPECIFIC dem frontrunner/near frontrunner?