Courtesy of Orcinus.  

because the current GOP is off the map in terms of their principles. He's just a Goldwater conservative. And his braindead supporters thinks it's a "revolution."

He is radically anti-government.  He has an extremely limited view of federal jurisdiction.  He is a perfect candidate for the post-Reconstruction era of American politics.  Yet, he is raking in all this money.  What's up with that?  He gets the most military contributions of any candidate.  Google employees top his list of contributors.  Why is he attracting Google employees?  It's still mind boggling that he can collect so much money.

I can only conclude that it has to be the anti-war message.

message.  Paul appeals to a lot of people who are dissatisfied with the status quo and with traditional politicians, I think.    Besides that, I'm stumped.

Because he's a classic libertarian in that he basically wants to end government involvment (ie regulation) of anything---environment, economy, labor, etc.  He basically wants to go back to, as someone said, Reconstructionist notions of government's role in the nation, only further reduced.

Google employees?  Maybe because Google's had a lot of beefs with the government attempting to restrict or regulate their activities?

Military contributions?  Hey, they're not stupid--they know that Iraq was the biggest mistake in American history.

I'm not mind-boggled at all.  But I do know there's a very limited audience for the Ron Paul classic libertarianism.

And front page, I am flattered!  =)

Every Ron Paul supporter I've heard talks about the "secret plan" to eliminate our borders with Mexico and Canada and institute a new currency called the "amero".  Guests on C-Span who might be talking about things like immigration policy or border control get calls from Paul supporters demanding that they explain their position on the amero.  Most guests have no idea what they're talking about or end up trying to explain that the plan and the amero do not exist.

Democrats are raising way, way, way more money compared to Republicans (yes, including Ron Paul). Four years ago Howard Dean was drawing bigger crowds and raising more cash than any other Democrat, while Kerry was taking out another mortgage on one of his homes just so he could pay his staff. How'd that turn out?

Heck, what did money have to do with Mike Huckabee's recent rise to prominence? He and McCain haven't raised squat, and they've got the momentum on the GOP side.

And you want passion? Have you seen Lyndon LaRouche supporters? There's your passion.

Democrats are indeed raising more money, and that's wonderful!  But 6 million in one day is phenomenal!  It is record setting.  You are telling me that is just blah to you?  

I know this isn't your point, but the Howard Dean comparison brings up an interesting thought.  His views were not the ideological polar opposite of Ron Paul's.  In order for that, we would need to find a Marxist or at least a Socialist.  Maybe this says that only a reactionary capitalist can raise tons of money but an ideological opposite could not?

To your point, of course, money isn't the be all and end all of politics.  My point is not that his money translates into electoral success, but rather just awe that he can raise so much for a hopeless cause.  It would be like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel suddenly generating this huge Internet following that netted them $6 million in a day.  I am really trying to understand the phenomenon.

So since you also bring up Huckabee and McCain, can they win without money (on the order of Romney & Giuliani) and for Huckabee a national organization?  I guess with the super compressed primary schedule that could just make winning Iowa and/or New Hampshire that much more important.  Will people in the Super Tuesday states just fall in line behind the winners of those states?  What does that portend for the Democratic side?  Hillary loses Iowa + New Hampshire = no nomination?

Hillary loses Iowa + New Hampshire = no nomination?

Dear God, please let it be so!

...is that he recruits supporters at the local mental institutions.

I think this is a way some traditional Republicans are saying that they find the front running Republican candidates unappealing.

However, I know Democrats who are registering Republican to vote for him in the primary. That really stumps me.

Are they going to vote just for fun or are they really Ron Paul supporters?  

Our race is not exciting enough?

tell it as he sees it, no traingulating... people are responding to his message of disgust, get-offa-my-back, which is the total libertarian message.

Compared to all the other pomaded, coifed, carefully scripted other politicians (on both sides) he is regarded as a breath of fresh air. It is entirely possible that those at the end of their rope with Bush and the lies, and with the Democrats who promised change and have not delivered will indeed vote for the guy. A lot of businessmen may even think he'd de-regulate everything, turn the big bucks entrepreneurs loose, and the hell with it.  

He seems like Ross Perot without the fancy charts. Anybody that seems unorthodox and looks like an outsider can pick up disenchanted people.

They LOVE Ron Paul in the Lowcountry.

It was amazing.

Plus, I have never seen a presidential yard sign for anybody else other than Ron paul.

Good thing he has zero chance in the primaries!!!!!

Paul's anti-war, anti-foreign entanglements message resonates with people who are sick of the Bush admin's adventurism, but can't be bothered to look behind the curtain to find the real wizard.  

Anyone who wants to know about the makeup of Ron Paul supporters should spend a few days listening to C-Span's Washington Journal.  I doubt very much that most of them have any clue that he wants to eliminate their social security, medicare benefits, etc., etc.  Last week I heard a woman tearfully try to refute a guest's assertion that Paul is a libertarian.  The guest had to describe Paul's background and own statements in detail to illustrate his point.  

Wonkette refers to Ron Paul supporters as Paultards.  It's unkind, but given the brain-dead boosterism one sees from some of his more ardent fans you can see their point.  

Paul wants to take the $1,000,000,000,000 a year we spend on our empire to provide a source of income to pay benefits to those who have become dependent on them.

Paul also supports letting young people opt out of these Ponzi Schemes to cause their eventual (50+years) end.

Unlike most of the other candidates, Paul has never voted to spend a penny of the Social Security Surplus.  Other candidates plan to either raise taxes or cut benefits in vain attempts to restore solvency.  Year after year, these looming problems get worse because Washington won't take them on.

Paul's message of Peace, Freedom and Prosperity combined with his integrity and honesty is resonating with people across the country and across the world.

Steve

Social security is a Democratic jewel.  There is nothing wrong with it and it will be there for you when you retire, unless you let Replublicans con you into thinking its broken.  Those of us old enough to remember will recall that we already "fixed" social security in the 1980s and it was really just a massive middle class tax hike.  Social security isn't a ponzi scheme any more than your car insurance.  

Everyone here is pondering why people are Ron Paul supporters.  This poster just told you.  Whether or not you agree with his suppositions is immaterial.

Ron Paul supporters do not see the world in the same way we do.  This should not be a surprise.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

Humanfont,

I was trying to correct the previous posters misstatements about Paul's position on Social Security and Medicare. Not take on a Democratic Jewel.

The earlier poster implied Paul wants to leave those currently receiving benefits high and dry, when it reality, the opposite is true.

FYI, discussion of Paul has been banned from RedState.

Thanks,
Steve

Well, there are a lot of people with interesting perspectives who call into Washington Journal.  And they are not all Ron Paul supporters.  Do all of those individuals constitute 4% of the electorate?  

When you look at Youtube, his supporters seem to be in the college crowd.  Is that all people not looking beyond the anti-war message?

And on the anti-war message, if this is what the draw is, then this has to be great news for Democrats.  If Republicans are so constrained by their base that they cannot speak out against the occupation, then that leaves Democrats as the only alternative.  Unless Ron Paul runs as a third pary candidate.  But even if he does, that would just strip away normally Republican voters, right?

who've been reading Ayn Rand and have bought into the all government is bad scenario.  When you're 20 years old you can afford to be idealistic, to think that you may never need the government's assistance, and to believe that all you need for a prosperous society is no government interference in your pursuit of the almighty dollar.  Twenty year olds don't think about things like the falling value of wages to the cost of living, how they're going to pay for outrageous medical insurance premiums, how they can achieve the goal of a cleaner environment without government regulation.  I remember this libertarian stuff sweeping the campuses back when I was in college in the mid-70s.  The whole mentality is one of "I've got mine, leave me alone", and "don't bother me with your poor, downtrodden, huddled masses".  It's an extremely unrealistic, idealistic, and ultimately very selfish philosophy, which makes it perfect for college students, but in the real world - not so much.  College students like being able to drive to campus on our federally funded highways and to go out and party under the watchful eye of our (partially) federally funded law enforcement, and to rely on our (partially) federally funded state of the art fire departments when the party gets out of hand and someone's apartment catches fire.  They like being able to eat untainted food and to enjoy safe consumer products, but it's such a part of their landscape that they give no consideration to how all of these hallmarks of social stability came about.  

being in college that they would study history.  There was that period from the end of the Civil War though the 1930s when government was pretty much hands off.  And the economy cycled through boom and then bust, boom and then bust, until one giant worldwide bust changed the thinking on government's role in the economy.  Does this not come up much?  Isn't US History a core requirement?  Or English Literature?

And all of the things you point out, why is that not obvious?  Why do people believe that left alone the free market will just magically solve all problems?

And the way that populations correct in nature is through death. Efficient, but unpleasant.

That seems to escape free-market fundamentalist. They assume that everything will work in our favor in a nice, positive way.

And they also seem to forget how the poorly restrained market ends: with a few huge players that will attack new competition. And when the few players arrive, they set the prices because it is in their main interest to do so, and they can do it.

Maybe modern kids, and  the bulk of Americans, have forgotten how destructive it is when the economy corrects itself naturally. The potential of a whole generation is wasted for years, sometimes decades. I really hope that we won't have to live through something like the Great Depression to remember.

Your comments are accurate. I, too, hope we do not have to go through another Great Depression, but it does seem as though all the same old markers are falling into place.

I would point out, however, that there really are no free markets as such, at least never for any length of time, even now, when the free market theorists are supposedly in charge---- after all, the price of credit has indirectly been set by the Federal Reserve and other central banks, all of which supposedly use their power to provide steady inflation of the money supply and smooth out any hiccups in the economy. That's not free markets.

It would seem that Mr. Greenspan's chickens are coming home to roost, and market forces are blowing through the puny efforts of central banks and sovereign funds to forestall a serious "adjustment" by pumping ever more liquidity into the world economy, on the theory that more of the same thing which caused the problem will solve it, otherwise called Hair of the Dog Theory.

and some large sum donations from private equity managers (who love his small government approach) add up.  Also given the current GOP crop -- and even amongst Democrats -- there really isn't anyone competing for his market niche (small "g" conservatives, libertarians).

I would be willing to bet that a very large percentage of those supporters pushing Paul's candidacy are giving money -- e.g. roughly about 2 to 3 million people (if we guesstimate about a pool of 70,000,000 voters and 4% of that group).  

Why do people go to casino's when they know they are still likely to lose?  What is $100 or $500 if the payoff seems like it could be very substantial?  For a lot of folks it's a relatively low wager, but one that they obviously believe is worth the long-shot odds.

Dean and Clark's candidacies certainly ginned up quite a bit of enthusiasm -- as did the funding for numerous Netroots candidates in 2006.  What makes the Paul candidacy an even longer shot than Dean's and Clark's is that his organization is completely ad hoc -- there isn't much central organization and his base of support is divided too thinly across too many states.  Will he even break double digits in any primary state?  Probably not.

I think an even bigger long-term question is: Can the GOP channel the enthusiasm for Paul into something constructive for the national party long-term?  In 2004, the Democrats went so far as to turn over the keys to the DNC to Dean.  The congressional committees also threw support behind quite a few grass roots candidacies.  There has actually been some give and take between the Washington insiders and the grassroots volunteers who follow politics as an avocation.

Somehow I don't see the GOP doing for Paul what the DNC did for Dean anytime soon.  With Dean the marriage to the national party has been rocky -- but the differences have had more to do with strategy and tactics than with core values.  In Paul's case the differences seem to cut even deeper.  

religious types would never allow it.  One thing Paul makes clear is his secular approach, and I do have to say it was refreshing to hear him say he believes in radical concepts like evolution (rolls eyes).  

Their base is very supportive of the occupation.  If the draw is anti-war and anti-foreign-adventures, that doesn't seem to match the Republican Party.  Back in the 90s, they were all against "nation building" and Clinton's moves against Serbia to stop the genocide in Bosnia.  This, of course, was all pre-9/11 thinking and now they are all for the crusades.

They used to pump out the Barry Goldwater talking points, but now its all terrorism, immigration and the culture wars (not that the last two are new items for them).  This makes them a party of big government too, just different bureaucracies that they support: DOD and Homeland Security.  Hard to see how they get back to their original movement message and still make this marriage to the religious right work.

It is a little too early in their minority party years for them to be doing anything radical like making Ron Paul their party chair.  They haven't recognized anything they have done as wrong and they are under the impression that the Democratic wins are short lived.  So, they don't see a need to change.

Here in northern New Hampshire Paul is the anti-war candidate. Signs are everywhere. The message RE Iraq is about almost identical of that which you might have heard from George McGovern in anti-war Vermont in the Sixties (and we are kind of twins that way in Vermont and NH), but this anti-war movement is NH based and mostly NH red necks on Harleys and Veitnam veterans - which is a good portion of my neighbors here in the White Mountains. One Ron Paul blogger who reads my column writes that from her point of view it is "legalize marijuana, end the war and Hillary is a commie." I think the Paul phenomenon is the most important thing to rise in this election cycle. He has enkindle a Jeffersonian perspective again and Dems will have to go back to NC's great historian Frank Owsley ("The Irrepresible Conflict") and the Vanderbilt Fugitive literary movement to try to remember what Jefferson meant again. Yanks are catching on both here and in Vermont because New England was originally Jeffersonian.

Well, many of the brightest historians and authors who have studied Jefferson would probably strongly disagree with you.  Jefferson oft defended the notion that government should not interfere with man's activities (commerce, religion, speech, etc.), but it was nearly always tempered by the idea that man's evil nature also needed to be controlled and kept in check (ie government correction of markets, regulation where necessary, and law enforcement protection of the weak and scapegoated in society).

.....George Allen liked to refer to himself as a "Jeffersonian conservative" despite being anything but....

There is a lot of confusion out there about what Jefferson's values were, and what they might mean in today's political environment.

Jefferson was a stubborn and persistent old radical in his day.

Once Objectivists have already bought the complete works of Ayn Rand, what else are they going to spend their money on?   Donations to Ron Paul, naturally.  How many copies of The Fountainhead can one 21-year-old guy own?

Supporting Ron Paul is effectively saying you dislike or are disappointed with the choices offered by either party.  It is a protest vote.  When push comes to shove, will these people even vote in the general election?  

I think previous poster has a point in that it is largely a protest vote for people fed up with the government.

Though with that said everyone should read the latest Nation article on Ron Paul.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...

The article goes on to describe how Ron Paul does not belong to the strain of libertarism that is espoused by the CATO institute, instead he is more of the west-Texas type of Libertarian (yes I know Ron Paul is not from West Texas but instead from south of Houston along the coast) I mean Ron Paul is Pro-Life and against Roe v. Wade

Because America has a revolutionary heritage, we are always attracted to those who talk the talk or adopt the style of revolutionaries.  If you don't believe me, go to your local Blockbuster and see how many movies you can find about rebels and misfits and gangsters and Rambos fighting heroically against the system.  

Our commercials tell us that we can be outlaws just for buying the right SUV or smoking the right cigarette.  Of course, it's all just a pose -- a nice fantasy to indulge in while you're driving to the local CVS to pick up your Pepto Bismol.

Libertarianism feeds on exactly the same "Marlboro Man" dynamic -- which is why it really is so popular, in a kind of underground, cultish sense.  For me, the libertarian is someone who never got over the gross indignity that when he was a teenager, Mom ordered him to clean up his room.

One of his sons is named Rand Paul, named after Ayn Rand.

He's an anti-war voice surrounded by warmongers like Giuliani, Romney, McCain, etc. People see him speaking out against the war and getting booed by these right-wing crowds and they think he's a rare politician with a conscience. Simple fact is, he's a Libertarian on a big stage. If he were an independent candidate running on the Libertarian ticket, he'd never get these large audiences. Let's face it, he's not a Republican. But he knows that a small seat at a large table is better than a large seat at a small table in our current political system.

With great amusement I've read these self rightous, even arrogant "democratic' rants about Ron Paul and Libertarians in general.

I would like to remind this RK crowd that Markos Moulitsas Zúniga aka Daily Kos actually inteviewed (podcast) with the CATO Institute and talked at length about the "Democratic Libertarian".  Ron Paul is not far off the mark with the only notable difference being the doctor turn congressman is against abortion.

Tell me .... is there anyone here that is really FOR ABORTION?

Other than that Ron Paul has lived by his principals for the most part and that appeals to many people who are dead sick of the bullshit most every Prez-candidate is guilty of. I find it amazing and refreshing that this candidate has created such a Buzz. You see it on most every highway now .... a Ron Paul for President sign ... he is not a fluke.

And he is not Ross Perot who correctly pegged Clinton and Bush at the time with his famous Chicken and Chips briefing. NAFTA anyone??

If the Democrats expect to win the Presidency in the Fall.... they had better start appealing to the independents and libertarians who are backing Ron Paul with money, time and energy .... you know the same things and some of the same people who got Jim Webb's campaign off the ground in the first place.

Happy Holidays Democrats.

I certainly am not for   the folks who bought us
1. katrina
2. Declining life expectency
3. canadian dollar worth us$1.05
4. loss of habeas corpus, only 800 years  a right
5. anthrax
6.How shall I put it? The Ja ne que pas of total disrepect for the rule of law, equal protection, et cetera.

In 2000 they stole an election. Things NEVER go right after a stolen election.

Ron Paul  , who thinks hes "Libetarian"  is just a sad clone.

So, what's up?  And do you too find this amazing?  And is there something that Democrats could be replicating to stir up this much passion?

1. Don't nominate Hillary

2. Compare the interest among younger voters like myself among the top 3 candidates- If the election was decided on either Facebook or Myspace, we would have an Obama / Stephn Colbert ticket.

3. In terms of what could be done, if the Democrats took a strong stand and achieved results on reducing obsticles to voting- perhaps by coping parts of the UK system in which voters are automatically registered, allowing same day registration, open primaries, etc- I think more young people would take an interest!