Bipartisan War Declared on “Paultards”

Ron Paul himself might be a decent guy, but by now most bloggers have a pretty low opinion of his supporters, who undoubtedly do Paul more harm than good (except for the days on which they raise four million dollars, which is always helpful). The “Paultards” just don’t seem to understand basic “netiquette,” the difference between blogs and debating forums, and good manners in general. Many sites now outright ban Paul supporters. Others of us find it necessary to utilize heavy moderation to maintain the quality of our sites.

Rather than banning Paul supporters outright (and many have asked for this) I prefer to allow selective posts to provide some discussion and elaboration of the subjects of the post without allowing the comment section to degrade to total nonsense. Some posts are weeded out for duplication of matters already discussed, and far more are weeded out for their sheer idiocy. I doubt I will allow many more posts on the dangers of the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, or the Trilateral Commission. If you are really afraid that these groups are planning to take away your guns, get off the damn internet and barricade yourself in your house to protect your guns and your precious bodily fluids. I might allow further discussion of giant lizard conspiracy theories as this one was new to me, and is at least still of some comic value worthy of a Robert Anton Wilson novel.

Further racist and anti-Semitic posts are definitely not welcome. This includes those variations which claim that when Ron Paul wrote that blacks are prone to violence and are unable to come to sensible political opinions he was not being racist, but was just making a statement of fact. Those statements are racist, and at least Paul has tried to distance himself from his writings with such claims. If you believe that those statements were not racist and are a statement of fact, you are a racist–and that is a fact.

I’m also not terribly interested in comments which demonstrate how Paul’s record is better than Hillary Clinton’s or George Bush’s. These are two awfully low bars to surpass and doing so does not impress me.

Among the annoying comments which are invariably deleted are those which claim that a post was written on Ron Paul in order to bring in traffic from his supporters. I already have well over six thousand subscribers plus readers who come to the site, and many more who read posts which are picked up by several newspaper and television web sites. While this is well below the readership of Daily Kos, it is plenty and the handful of Paul supporters who come to spam are hardly needed. I’ve written on libertarianism even before hardly anybody heard of Ron Paul, and have posts on most of the candidates. The posts are written for intelligent, thinking people who are interested in serious consideration of the candidates and issues. That excludes most of the “Paultards.” Actually I was writing on politics, including libertarianism, even before Paul’s first presidential run, which was before the internet and back in the days when we had to use mimeograph and snail mail to distribute our work.

Perhaps most frustrating of all is seeing the manner in which libertarianism has deteriorated over the years if the “Paultards” are representative. In reality they are far closer to the social conservatives than libertarians, even if they do oppose the Iraq war and the drug war. They echo the same revisionist history denying separation of church and state as the religious right, and join them in imposing their religious views, such as on abortion, on others. That is not libertarianism as I used to know it. Many Paultards also justify Paul’s support for earmarks for his district, claiming this has no effect on increasing government spending. Von Mises, von Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman, and every other libertarian economist who has ever lived are rolling over in their graves, hoping that next month’s cover story on Reason announces: Ron Paul and the Paultards Are Not Libertarians–Do Not Confuse Our Work With Them. Ayn Rand is pretty pissed off too, but she didn’t like libertarians much even when she was alive, so that doesn’t count.

Many feel the “Paultards” must be stopped for the good of the blogosphere. I’d also add preserving the dignity of libertarianism as another reason for this. Recently RedState restricted posting by Paul supporters who had been members for under six months, while allowing anyone to continue to discuss libertarian positions. Wonkette has offered to make the war on “Paultards” a bipartisan effort and sent RedState this message:

Dear whoever runs things at Redstate.com:

We don’t care for your website. Just not our thing, ya know? But if Congress has taught us anything, it’s that Congress can’t teach us anything about working together. We may not like your internets, and you may not like ours, but we must work together to destroy a mutual enemy — illegal alien spambots, a.k.a. Paultards.

We were impressed with your recent banning of Paultards. We have one or two that we kind of like, but we try our best to ban the others. Nevertheless, these little CGI-based runts find their way to new cyber enclaves, from which they donate $4.3 million dollars to celebrate Guy Fawkes, as popularized by that sad excuse for a film, V for Vendetta.

This is a call for internet bipartisanship. We must bipartisan…ly declare war on the Paultards! We don’t know precisely what this war entails. This is where you come in, since you’re the Republicans. You guys know how to carry out wars, right? Strategy and the like? Well, you at least know how to start wars, which is fine with us. We welcome an insurgency. Bring it on, as your leader would say.

As we’ve both witnessed over the past few years, Congress hasn’t passed like, a single bill at all because of immature spats and dangerous political posturing. We will show them how to put aside our differences and work together for AMERICA, by ridding the internet of pompous Paultards. It will be like the U.S. and the Soviet Union teaming up to stop the Nazis. We get to be FDR though. Actually fuck it, we’ll be Stalin.

What say ye?

Bon chance,
Wonkette

RedState has responded:

Dear Wonkette,

Agreed.

Bombing starts in five minutes.

Sincerely,
RedState.com

PS – We’d prefer to be Churchill than that socialist FDR. OK? We vote Kaus for FDR.

[UPDATE:] Attn Paultards: We are taking the initiative in this and declaring Pejman the Jew our Field Marshall in the war. Fear us.

By the way, we’re not much into occupations these day. War is fine, we’re really good at that. Occupation is hell. I hear Field Marshall Yousefzadeh just wants to go with an annihilation strategy.

On with bipartisanship, and on with the war!

Update: Mona Charen drops a bomb on the “Paultards.”

Be Sociable, Share!

23 Comments

  1. 1
    PK says:

    I am a huge Ron Paul supporter and I will admit that sometimes some of his supporters can be a bit overzealous and annoying. But I can understand why this happens. It’s a frustrating thing being a Ron Paul supporter. It’s an uphill battle. Everyone treats us like we are insane and yet, we feel that his positions are perfectly logical and are the perfect solution to our current problems. So we try to spread this around. Where can we go but on the internet? The media treated us like we were lunatics and wouldn’t talk about Ron Paul. So the internet was where all of that frustration is vented. It may have gone too far at times, but it’s crazy to think that the supporters have done more harm than good. Ron Paul would be nowhere without the Paultards. Nobody would have talked about him and his support would have petered out long ago as happened in his previous run for president. His current success is a result of the passion of the Paultards. You can make fun of them. It’s easy to ridicule people that are passionate about something, but they’ve gotten impressive results.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    PK,

    There is a big difference between beneficial use of the internet and the spamming done by Paul supporters which is counterproductive.

    There is also a big difference between having people talk about the candidate and having the candidate seen as a joke. The internet allows candidates like Paul who would otherwise be ignored to get more attention. His position as an anti-war Republican is far more important than anything his on line supporters do in getting Paul attention.

    If Paul’s supporters understood how to conduct themselves in a civil manner and follow normal netequette they could enhance the coverage which Paul would receive with or without them. All too often their conduct reflects on Paul, lowering the ceiling of potential support for him.

  3. 3
    PK says:

    Spam refers to junk emails. I heard one report of that for RP supporters, but I think it is just as likely that this was sent out by an RP hater to make him look bad. The polls that he keeps winning are legit. They may not be scientific, but they do reflect large numbers of people voting. For example, you can only vote once on the text message polls. How can his voters spam that? That’s just enthusiasm, not spamming. The same goes for online polls. There may be some that people vote over and over again for, but he wins all the online polls, including the ones that you can only vote once. Again, it’s enthusiasm. That 4.2 million dollars of money that was spammed into the campaign was because of enthusiasm too.

    RP has been seen as a joke from day one. He didn’t need any help from his supporters for that. This is what always happens with the candidate who isn’t in lock step with the party. But when his poll numbers get high enough, all of a sudden people won’t think he’s so quirky anymore.

    His anti-war position is not his biggest draw in my opinion, it’s his fiscal conservatism and integrity. Finally, we have someone who is serious about reducing government. This inspires people to engage in grassroots efforts. Take a look at his meetup groups. He’s got over 70,000 members now (all Paultards). The Paultards got a story in the NYTimes before Paul was getting hardly any attention. A Paultard is taking out a full-page ad in USA Today next week at his own expense for over a hundred thousand dollars. The Paultards are the ones who donated to his campaign on Nov. 5. A Paultard came up with that idea. Paultards made the websites that spread news of the money bomb. Paultards are the ones who show up at rallys. Paultards are the ones who tirelessly spread the word about him. They are the secret to his success as he has said many times.

  4. 4
    Kaligula says:

    Ron:

    We have this debate before on Freedom Democrats. I am a member of the Libertarian Party and a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But because I support Ron Paul I suppose now, according to you, I must be a SocialCon “Paultard.” And regarding Mises and Rothbard rolling in their grave over Paul, I would think Lew Rockwell is a more credible source than you are regarding the libertarianism of Ron Paul with respect to those two. Sorry. And it is fact that Milton Friedman was a friend and supporter of Ron Paul. Strike Three.

    Whether you like or not, LP Party members overwhelming support Ron Paul. Certainly not all, but the vast majority. And, of course, Paul was the LP nominee in the 1988. So, then,according to you, the Libertarians therefore aren’t really libertarians. That you were distributing mimeographs on politics and libertarianism via snail mail back in the 80s only establishes that you are old; it certainly doesn’t confer any special authority as an arbiter of libertarianism.

    Now, granted I’m not on the paleo side of the libertarian equation as is Dr. Paul, but I can support the spectrum that goes from the paleo to the left(geo) libertarian. And spare me another lecture on the federal partial birth abortion ban(which Paul has said repeatedly he would not have voted for if abortion was a state issue) and I’ll spare you a detailed lecture about writing positive articles about the courageous stands of Chris Dodd and Barack Obama in their criticisms of the telecommunications immunity bill when Chris Dodd voted for the Patriot Act and the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act and Obama voted for re-authorizing the Patriot Act.

  5. 5
    GC says:

    This is just an observation….I am a pro-choice Democrat in Galveston….
    This article addresses PAUL SUPPORTERS rather than Paul himself.
    WTF? You act as if ALL supporters are like this.
    You could not be more wrong.
    In Galveston Dr. Paul is a “TRUE UNITER”
    The only ones in this district that do not support him are party hacks who have no hope…(Rs and Ds)

    He has been reelected eveytime he has run.
    10 times!!
    Undefeated!!
    Over a thirty year span!
    Cmon, you may get annoyed, because the Paulites speak truth. They know their candidates position and AGREE with them.
    The progressives on here know that the candidate the media shuns and the one that is labeled a “fruitcake” is usually the one that deserves to hold the office.
    WE KNOW THIS FROM THE PAST..
    Until America wakes up and opens their eyes to the truth we will consider to live in darkness and terror.
    People do not know the truth when told. They dont know what to look for…
    Well I am here to tell you from one American to another, Ron Paul is the truth.
    The whole truth.
    He would never go against us and he would never lie to us…
    See he believes we are what gives him his power.
    We are in charge, and he is their to do our bidding.
    If the liberals can not realizer this, then there is no hope for this country.

    Lets see if you know the truth when confronted.
    You MUST consider these votes.

    MILITARY COMMISSIONS. RP NO…..HC YES
    PATRIOT ACT 1.. RP NO ……….HC YES
    PATRIOT ACT 2. .RP NO ……….HC YES.
    IRAQ WAR.. .RP NO………HC YES
    WAR WITH IRAN. .RP NO………HC YES.
    WIRETAPPING. .RP NO………HC YES
    INCREASED AID TO ISRAEL. RP NO…..HC. YES
    EMINENT DOMAIN..RP..NO………HC.. NV
    NAFTA………RP..NO………..HC..YES
    CAFTA………RP..NO………..HC..YES
    IMF………..RP..NO………..HC..YES
    WORLD BANK….RP..NO………..HC..YES
    WTO………..RP..NO………..HC..YES
    NORTH AMERICAN UNION..RP..NO…HC..?
    NATIONAL ID….RP..NO……….HC..YES
    IMMIGRANT DRIVERS LICENSE..RP..NO..HC..YES

  6. 6
    Wayne says:

    Ron,
    I am not a Ron Paul supporter, and I do agree with many of you complaints. However, you complain bitterly about the actions of Ron Paul supporters for their inability to “conduct themselves in a civil manner” yet you then refer to them as “paultards.” By refusing to act in a civil manner you basically lose much credibility in this area.

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    PK,

    “Spam refers to junk emails.”

    No, spam also refers to comment spam, which is why there are so many anti-spam plug-ins for blogs, and why the problem of spam by Paul supporters is such a common discussion among bloggers.

    It is interesting that you, and several other Paul supporters, make the claim that spam only refers to email and not comments. The lack of understanding of comment spam goes along with my comment in the post that many Paul supporters lack any understanding of netiquette.

    “I heard one report of that for RP supporters, but I think it is just as likely that this was sent out by an RP hater to make him look bad.”

    Doubtful that the spam email campaigns were done by opponents of Paul to make him look bad It’s far more likely this was done by more Paul supporters who have gone too far.

    “For example, you can only vote once on the text message polls. How can his voters spam that? ”

    Paul supporters spam such polls by conducting efforts to recruit supporters to vote in such polls. This makes the results of such polls unreliable.

    “The Paultards got a story in the NYTimes before Paul was getting hardly any attention. A Paultard is taking out a full-page ad in USA Today next week at his own expense for over a hundred thousand dollars. The Paultards are the ones who donated to his campaign on Nov. 5.”

    “Take a look at his meetup groups. He’s got over 70,000 members now (all Paultards).”

    My bet is that most of them (or at least a large percentage) that show up at meetups and rally s are not Paultards–that is the type who make Paul look bad by their conduct in spamming other sites.

    These efforts are distinct from the spamming. Paul supporters do both good and bad, as I note in the post. I wonder if those who are doing useful things like fund raising are even bothering to engage in the spam tactics which make Paul look bad.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    Kaligula,

    “But because I support Ron Paul I suppose now, according to you, I must be a SocialCon “Paultard.””

    Being a supporter of Paul does not make you a Paultard, but distorting what I have written might. Discussing Paul on libertarian blogs does not make you a Pautard, which refers to the Paul supporters who engage in spamming other blogs, often with rather idiotic posts in support of Paul which do him more harm than good.

    “And regarding Mises and Rothbard rolling in their grave over Paul, I would think Lew Rockwell is a more credible source than you are regarding the libertarianism of Ron Paul with respect to those two.”

    Again you sound like a Paultard in distorting what I wrote. I am referring to a specific argument made in previous posts here regarding earmarks. I doubt Lew Rockwell would agree with that argument so your comment on whether Lew Rockwell is a more credible source regarding libertarianism is bogus. Many of the Paul supporters have little knowledge of Austrian or Chicago economics or of libertarianism, which is why they make statements which would make von Mises and Rothbard roll over in their graves. Whether or not Milton Friedman was a friend of Ron Paul’s is irrelevant to whether the non-libertarian arguments made by many Paul supporters are valid.

    “That you were distributing mimeographs on politics and libertarianism via snail mail back in the 80s only establishes that you are old; it certainly doesn’t confer any special authority as an arbiter of libertarianism.”

    The fact that I followed libertarianism in the ’80’s and well before then that does mean I have a perspective on the libertarian movement in terms of seeing how it has changed and become more conservative and less libertarian by the standards of the past. Many of the members of the current Libertarian Party would not have even been considered libertarian back then.

    Many libertarians might have supported Paul as the lesser evil over the candidates of the major parties, but they would have realized that he is not a libertarian. This might be similar to their support of Barry Goldwater, however even Goldwater was a critic of the religious right and would not have gone along with many of Paul’s conservative statements.

    “And spare me another lecture on the federal partial birth abortion ban(which Paul has said repeatedly he would not have voted for if abortion was a state issue)”

    Just a rationalization as this does show that Paul’s social conservativism trumps his beliefs in both individual liberty and state’s rights.

    “Chris Dodd voted for the Patriot Act and the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act and Obama voted for re-authorizing the Patriot Act.”

    That is far more evidence of the weakness of the Democrats as an opposition party than a reflection of their views on civil liberties. While they might have been wrong in doing so, Democrats such as Dodd voted for the Patriot Act as part of a compromise in order to get the sunset provisions enacted, not because they supported its measures. While they have been pathetic as an opposition party, Paul’s approach isn’t necessarily any more effective. By always voting no he is not in a position to extract any compromises as the Democrats were able to on the Patriot Act.

    You’d also have a much stronger case in comparing Paul to Dodd and Obama if not for Paul’s lack of respect for separation of church and state and the extension of civil liberties to state governments. As so many of today’s issues come down to the cultural war which Paul is on the wrong side of, his views would lead to a reduction in individual liberty in the coming years. The assumption that Ron Paul supporters have a monopoly on supporting freedom, or even that they are necessarily the most consistent defenders of freedom, is one reason they are laughed at in much of the blogosphere. Most are far more concerned about the threat of the religious right than the threat of the Council on Foreign Relations. Abortion rights affects far more individuals than the question of whether we return to the gold standard or abolish the Federal Reserve.

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    GC,

    “This article addresses PAUL SUPPORTERS rather than Paul himself.”

    Yes, this is suggested in the first line of the post. This is definitely a post on the problems of Paul supporters and not Paul himself and was primrily to give perspective to the amusing exchange between Wonkette and RedState.

    “WTF? You act as if ALL supporters are like this.
    You could not be more wrong.”

    Not at all. I’m speaking specifically of the Paul supporters who spam blogs, not of all Paul supporters.

    As I said in the post, I’m not terribly impressed by having a better record than Hillary Clinton. That doesn’t take very much. Of course the comparison wouldn’t be so tilted towards Paul if other votes were considered where Paul imposes his social conservative views on others.

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:

    Wayne,

    “yet you then refer to them as “paultards.” By refusing to act in a civil manner you basically lose much credibility in this area.”

    Read the post rather than trying to be cute in distorting what I am saying. I am not the one calling them “Paultards.” The name was used in the posts I was quoting and I intentionally placed “Paultards” in quotes whenever I used the term in a post which is tagged as “Humor and Satire.”

    There is also a big difference between what someone writes on their own blog and in the spam attacks launched by some Paul supporters against other blogs.

  11. 11
    bill says:

    I suggest that Paultards is unnecessarily juvenile and perjorative. As an alternative, I propose RonPonents.

  12. 12
    Ron Chusid says:

    Bill,

    Other than in the context of a post such as this, which is partially tongue in cheek in quoting Wonkette and in waging a war, there really isn’t a need for any name.

    If we were to have names do we differentiate Paul supporters from the Paul spammers which this post is about. For example, in 2003 when we had similar problems, although not as severe, with Dean supporters, there was often a differentiation between the bulk of Dean supporters (Deaniacs) and the obnoxious ones (Deanies).  Of course one major difference back then was that even Joe Trippi and many Deaniacs recognized the harm that Deanies were causing and tried to dissuade them from continuing their tactics.

  13. 13
    Wayne says:

    Ron,
    I did read your post, multiple times. At first I thought the use of “paultards”, seeing that it is in quotes wasn’t direct from you. However, using it repeatedly does infer that you agree, to some extent, with the phrase. Also, claiming “I am just repeating what I heard” is kind of a Nuremberg defense.

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:

    Wayne,

    A word used in quotes in a post tagged as “Humor and Satire” is not the same as saying a word and it infers nothing about whether I agree with its use.

    The act of coming to other’s blogs and claiming they are saying something or believe something other than what they believe is common in the spam from Paul supporters, and is one of the reasons they are considered so annoying and often banned. That is hardly a good idea if the goal is to improve the impression of your candidate (although it often doesn’t seem like Paul supporters even realize that this should be the goal).

    Comparing quotation of a word with the crimes tried at Nuremberg is rather extreme, but the frequency of such absurdities from Paul supporters is yet another reason for the low opinion of them in the blogosphere.

  15. 15
    Wayne says:

    Ron,
    In response to “Comparing quotation of a word with the Nuremberg crimes is rather extreme, but the frequency of such absurdities from Paul supporters is yet another reason for the low opinion of them in the blogosphere.” If you are stating that I am a Paul supporter, clearly you should practice what you preach, ie “Read the post rather than trying to be cute.”

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:

    Wayne,

    Keeping track of all the individuals who post comments (and whether or not they are Paul supporters) is hardly the same as a commenter reading the post and responding to what is actually said. What is important is the fallacies in your argument, not whether you are a Paul supporter. Again your analogy and logic is faulty. Such faults are certainly not limited to Paul spammers.

    Considering that you have repeated the arguments of Paul supporters, including in comments following other posts, makes it easy to overlook your claim that you are not a Paul supporter in one comment.

  17. 17
    Kaligula says:

    Ron:

    “Again you sound like a Paultard in distorting what I wrote. I am referring to a specific argument made in previous posts here regarding earmarks.I doubt Lew Rockwell would agree with that argument so your comment on whether Lew Rockwell is a more credible source regarding libertarianism is bogus.”

    Nice Try…Now how about actually reading what Lew has to say on the matter.

    What Lew Rockwell wrote about Ron Paul and the Earmarks

    The fact that I followed libertarianism in the ’80’s and well before then that does mean I have a perspective on the libertarian movement in terms of seeing how it has changed and become more conservative and less libertarian by the standards of the past. Many of the members of the current Libertarian Party would not have even been considered libertarian back then.

    This is nonsense. The Ed Clark wing(low-tax liberalism) bitterly fueded with the Rothbard wing(paleo) 25 years ago. Heck, the LP has only been around since 1971. You’re creating a revisionist storyline here.

    While they might have been wrong in doing so, Democrats such as Dodd voted for the Patriot Act as part of a compromise in order to get the sunset provisions enacted, not because they supported its measures.

    Dodd voted to permanently re-authorize the Patriot Act which negates that justification.

  18. 18
    Ron Chusid says:

    “Nice Try…Now how about actually reading what Lew has to say on the matter.”

    Nice try yourself. Rockwell says nothing there which contradicts the argument I made and he does not support the argument I was criticizing.

    “Heck, the LP has only been around since 1971. You’re creating a revisionist storyline here.”

    Nonsense. I’m speaking of libertarians, not the Libertarian Party. Libertarians were around well before 1971 with many opposing the formation of the party partially out of fear it would take just the conservative course it has.

    “Dodd voted to permanently re-authorize the Patriot Act which negates that justification. ”

    We’re talking about two different votes and this does not negate the justification in the first vote. In the second case, right or wrong, it was still a matter of trying to achieve compromises.

  19. 19
    jimmy says:

    Smart move ROn, let the paultards comment and let them demonstrate your point about them. Now you can ban their nonsense from the rest of hte posts.

    “Most are far more concerned about the threat of the religious right than the threat of the Council on Foreign Relations. Abortion rights affects far more individuals than the question of whether we return to the gold standard or abolish the Federal Reserve.”
    Good point. Libertarians don’t understand why everybody doesn’t flock to their cause to defend liberty. This answers that quite well.

    Also interesting point about Paul voting no on everything. This does make him fairly useless. We need to see how a potential president will balance the needs of government versus the rights of the individual. Just voting no on everything and passing the decision to the state does not answer these questions and does little to show what a Ron Paul government would really be like considering the realities of the present government.

  20. 20
    Eric Dondero says:

    I think what we’re seeing here, is a bunch of liberal-leftists infiltrating the libertarian movement. They’ve latched onto the Ron Paul campaign, cause Paul mimics their hard left views in opposing the War and bashing Bush.

    (Terribly ironic, cause when he was running for election to Congress in the 1990s here in south Texas, he was basically a conservative, red, white and blue Bush Republican).

    Libertarians are generally polite folks. But with the addition of the leftists into the movement, many Libertarians have adopted harsh leftwing tactics. And that’s what we’re seeing today on the internet, with the white sheets emblazoned with “Ron Paul for President” on our nation’s highways, with the chants of “Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul” in the background of Geraldo or MSNBC live broadcasts. This is all straight out of the leftist playbook.

    Conservatives and Republicans don’t appreciate such tactics. So, the Paultards with their new Leftist friends, are falling flat on their faces. It’s a GOP primary after all, that Paul needs to win, not the election for school president at Berkely.

  21. 21
    Ron Chusid says:

    Eric,

    The problem isn’t liberal-leftists. There are plenty of nuts on both the far left and far right. While Paul has a small amount of leftist support for his position on the war, Paul’s campaign is far more a far right phenomenon than either leftist or libertarian.

    Regarding the change from the 1990’s my bet is that it isn’t Paul’s positions which have changed as much as the issues which are now prominent. Paul was probably always an isolationist but this wasn’t a major issue when in ran in the 1990’s. If the Iraq war hadn’t occurred and wasn’t now a major issue, Paul would not differ from most Republicans so greatly as he now does. If there was no war, I suspect you would still be working for Ron Paul as you wouldn’t have this major area of disagreement.

    You are right that, despite all the noise they make, they are falling flat on their faces. They will probably have some primaries where they get out enough vote to look somewhat impressive, but they will never win the Republican nomination. That’s simply a matter of where the Republican Party is. I’d probably rather have Ron Paul than the other people the Republicans are running, but it simply is not going to happen.

  22. 22
    Wayne says:

    I think that the current crop of presidential wanna-be’s, even more than in the past, makes we wish that “none of the above” would be on every ballot, and if “none of the above” gets the most votes, we start over with a new crop of candidates.

  23. 23
    Ron Chusid says:

    Wayne,

    It’s hard to believe that starting over with a new crop would result in anything other than an improvement. “None of the above” might do very well this year if on the ballot. That’s how I’d probably vote.

7 Trackbacks

Leave a comment