Ron Paul Launches Presidential Bid

Well, now it’s official.

Ron Paul is running for President as a Republican in 2008. He will launch his bid Monday while appearing as a guest on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” call-in program.

The Dallas Morning News has the story. Props to Joey Dauben for sharing the link.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a strict constitutionalist and fierce anti-war critic, will formally declare his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination Monday when he appears as a guest on a C-SPAN call-in program.

Paul, R-Texas, created a presidential exploratory committee in January, allowing him to begin collecting money on behalf of his bid. Kent Snyder, the chairman of that committee, said Saturday that Paul would make his candidacy official on Monday.

This will be Paul’s second try for the White House. He was the Libertarian nominee for president in 1988.

Snyder said Paul is scheduled to be a guest on “Washington Journal” Monday morning and will make his announcement then.

Paul, a nine-term congressman who represents a district just south of Houston that includes Galveston and stretches along the Gulf Coast nearly to Corpus Christi, describes himself as a lifelong Libertarian running as a Republican.

Paul has spent most of his career outside the GOPs traditional circles. He limits his view of the role of the federal government to those specifically laid out in the U.S. Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes that appear at odds with his constituents and other Republicans.

Paul, for example, was the only Republican congressman to vote against Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2007, which he opposed because of the war in Iraq - a war he says is “not necessary for our actual security.”

He once described President Bush as “not a constitutional president” and voted against a resolution declaring that the United States would win the war on terror.

He acknowledges that the national Republican Party has largely shunned him despite his nine terms in office under its banner. He gets little money from the GOP’s large traditional donors, but benefits from individual conservative and Libertarian donors outside Texas.

Paul bills himself as “The Taxpayers’ Best Friend,” and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House of Representatives by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.

118 Responses to “Ron Paul Launches Presidential Bid”

  1. disinter Says:

    Cool beans.

  2. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Thanks for posting this story. Austin. Unfortunately, this is really, really poor timing on Congressman Paul’s part. Chuck Hagel’s announcement at the University of Nebraska-Omaha tomorrow—- whatever it turns out to be—- will almost surely soak up all of the national media coverage that might otherwise have gone to Paul.

  3. Robert Milnes Says:

    I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again. If RP had joined us in the libertarian contest & showed some interest in pursuing the progressive alliance strategy instead of CP-LP(GOP) mutual support, I would have considered withdrawing & endorsing him as “more electable”. But he’s taking resources from the libertarians in support of the gop. I cannot support that.

  4. Ornerycat Says:

    Anyone know where I can get a “Ron Paul for President” banner for my website?

  5. matt Says:

    Add it up, Robert, CP-LP-GOP wins the electoral college. Crossover anti-war votes from the left will be gravy.

    Don’t get me wrong, Ron Paul faces a HUGE uphill battle to win the GOP nod. Some folks even say it’s impossible, but if he would, it would be the best thing to happen to the libertarian movement since Ayn Rand learned english.

  6. KenH Says:

    I don’t see Ron Paul taking libertarian resources to the GOP. We libertarians are supporting Ron Paul’s campaign, not the GOP. If Ron Paul does not win the GOP presidential nomination, then I won’t be voting for the GOP presidential candidate in the November 2008 election.

  7. KenH Says:

    I don’t see a problem witht the timing. It’s not like there is a huge audience watching C-SPAN at 6:30 a.m. CDT - or any other time for that matter. It’s a niche audience.

  8. Brandon H. Says:


    Feel free to copy this one (which I got from someone on )

    Also, I remember seeing one on Michael Badnarik’s website.

  9. Robert Milnes Says:

    Matt, & who is fighting this uphill-doomed-battle & with what? Libertarians & CP & a few gop & leftists. With their limited resources. Then the greens nominate their own anti-war candidate-you don’t think that will be RP, do you? Then RP loses the gop nomination. Actually both dem & rep nom. will be decided early in 08. What will RP say then, “I’ll take my lp nomination now, thank you.”? Adds up to another loser to me.

  10. matt Says:

    If he does, he will get the biggest vote total in recent LP history.

  11. Devious David Says:

    700,000 votes?

  12. Trent Hill Says:

    Devious, that’d be twice as good as Badnarik now wouldnt it?

    Robert, no ones cares if you drop out of the race and “endorse” RP. He doesn’t NEED your endorsement. He has served nine terms in Congress, you can’t find ONE supporter on TPW. He has a long history of constitutionalism. You have a long history of mental problems.
    If Ron Paul ran for the LP nomination,he could catch a million votes without trying. If the LP REALLY gave him a good run, and all the hardcore GOPers who already support him, and the CPers who love him gave him their support. Then we might be able to cross the 5% threshold that gives Federal Matching Funds.

    As for a crossover with the Greens…its nonsense.

  13. Joey Dauben Says:

    Darcy, don’t take this the wrong way, but there would have been no national media attention for Paul even if Hagel didn’t announce.

    And special thanks to me for sending Austin the DMN link.

    You’re all welcome.

  14. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Meant to include that, sorry. It’s up there now. :)

  15. Anthony Distler Says:

    “As for a crossover with the Greens…its nonsense.”

    Just like Robert Milnes….

  16. disinter Says:

    Ornerycat - go here:

  17. Robert Milnes Says:

    Anthony, on your website you have published your article against mandatory HPV vaccination. I just read the relevent cdc document. Your article is nonsense. Even the most stubborn libertarian hopefully will recognize that viruses tend to not recognize individual rights.

  18. Robert Milnes Says:

    PS. It is spelled Merck.

  19. disinter Says:

    Milnes - what about the individual right not to have a foreign substance forcefully injected into you?

  20. Robert Milnes Says:

    Disinter, there is an opt out provision for paranoid or moronic parents, despite the fact that to opt out generally decreases the overall effectiveness of the vaccine in large populations. & there is always the right of a child to thank a parent for a prudent decision.

  21. Robert Milnes Says:

    Disinter, that’s Mr. Milnes, if you don’t mind. Or Robert. Or Bob.

  22. disinter Says:

    Milnes - You are running for office as a Libertarian and are for the forcible injection of a foreign substance into people… hmmm…. are you related to Dondero by chance?

  23. Robert Milnes Says:

    Disinter, Mr. Milnes, if you don’t mind. Anyone who is against vaccinations is a moron, libertarian or not.

  24. Robert Milnes Says:

    No mention of Ron Paul on Today Show this morning. It was all Chuck Hegel and Fred Thompson.

  25. Robert Milnes Says:

    Oops, that’s Chuck Hagel.

  26. timothy west Says:

    saving children from preventable third world diseases by “forcible” injections might be better than ‘forcing’ them to contract said diseases such as polio.

    In 1952, the polio epidemic peaked, counting nearly 60,000 cases with over 3,000 deaths in the United States (Nemours Foundation, 2000). During the latter part of the twentieth century, polio was practically eliminated from the Western hemisphere.

    the level of force involved in saving life is almost always less than the level of force in taking it. There are still about 10 to 15 cases of polio in the US every year, with all of them contracted by children whose parents object to vaccinations for whatever reason.

    The non force “principle” is like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end. There is no clean end, and it’s all shit.

  27. rj Says:

    Completely random thought.

    New Hampshire is the Libertarian Party’s selected Free State Project.

    Some libertarians have moved there, some are planning to, and you have the libertarians that already live there. (as shown by being selected as the FSP state)

    New Hampshire is the first primary state.

    How much of a vote is there for Libertarians in New Hampshire? These people could all vote for Paul in the primary come next January if they went to vote in the primary for example as there’s no such thing as a Libertarian primary there. Paul, being the most libertarian member of the P2008 Republican hopefuls, could receive all these votes and provide himself a nice springboard.

  28. Trent Hill Says:

    RJ, we’ve mused over this.

    We hope it would end up the way your surmise, but its doubtable. The main reason being that despite the fact that there are alot of libertarians in New Hampshire, alot of them are Republicans who will not want to “throw their vote away” (sound familiar?) on a lesser choice rather than getting to choose from one of the top three and REALLY impact the race.

  29. Kurtis Oliverson Says:

    I think that the CP should approach Ron Paul with a plan that goes something like this:

    (1) CP throws all of its weight behind getting Ron Paul through the Republican primary.

    (2) If he makes it through the primary, CP continues to throw all of its weight behind his Republican candidacy and agrees with him to not run another presidential candidate against him.

    (3) If he doesn’t make it through the Republican primary, he’s automatically accepted as the CP’s presidential candidate.

    What better way of showing the CP’s ability, more than any other party, to put principle over politics? We need Ron Paul in there, no matter what party ticket he’s on. Imagine the pile of executive orders that would show up in the whitehouse dumpster on his first day in office!

  30. Sean Scallon Says:

    Libertarians really want to make a difference they should spend this year and early next providing muscle and troops on the ground for Paul’s campaign across the country. If things don’t work out they can always go back to the LP in the fall of 2008. But right now, if they join with Paul, they have a chance help Paul win the GOP nomination. Paul is going to need their help and this country needs Ron Paul. Instead of staying our enclaves, let’s break out.

  31. Anthony Distler Says:

    HPV is not polio. It’s not measels. It’s none of those diseases. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. Which means it’s not something that you can just get walking into school.

    These shots are $120 a shot, and yet they are supposed to be REQUIRED before entering public school? Why? Are we that obsessed over the fact that kids may be having sex?

    Requiring parents to vaccinate their children against a sexually transmitted disease steps upon their invidivual rights. I refuse to get behind a dumb principle.

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    Seconded Distler.

  33. Tom Bryant Says:

    It doesn’t matter whether a disease is sexually transmitted or airbourne - the principles involved remain the same.

    Parents who do not get their children vaccinated are morons. That being said, parents should (and do) have the right to opt out of the vaccinations on various grounds.

    Public schools are owned and operated by the government officials that the population elects. They establish the rules for attending their schools. Public school is not the only option for education, and libertarians should be the last who need to be reminded of this.

  34. timothy west Says:

    they can opt out, but then they have to sign a waiver removing all their legal rights to sue for recourse any part of the medical or school system and agree to pay for 100% medical care needed if their little precious darling gets some backwater disease that could have been prevented by a 35 dollar shot. No government aid, no insurance premium increase to me caused by little precious darling becoming typhoid Mary because her parents are ditzs. They should also have to pay the medical bills of anyone their child infects in the system.

    YOU CANT HAVE RIGHTS WITHOUT ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY for the actions exercised. if they do that, then by all means, hello scarlet fever.

    Too bad you guys just cant seem to pick up that no force turd without getting your hands dirty.

  35. Roscoe Says:

    Off topic, but whatever happened to HammerofTruth? Website still has a 12/14/06 notice posted about great things to come.

  36. Robert Milnes Says:

    rj, I’ve already suggested that libertarians adopt Sundwall’s idea of conducting straw polls at the time the dems & reps are conducting their primaries. That puts RP in with the republicans. The CP & reps can have him as far as I’m concerned. I’m in with the real libertarian candidates. We have by-laws, you know. Timothy, agreed, the non force principle is problematic. I would suggest also that the waiver parents sign provides for notification of children upon turn 18 about this decision & recommend the vaccination on the better late than never principle. Anthony, yes, HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. The recommended vacination regimen has nothing to do with an obsession with the child’s sex life. It is the best application-vaccinate before exposure. Sure, a lot of those girls might not be sexually active-ever. But what about the molested/raped ones? The rest of the people on the planet are relying on each other to not give each other diseases & it is finally after hundreds of thousands of years being significantly addressed. I remember the sugar cubes. Thank you my parents & Dr. Salk & the school system.

  37. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    Roscoe, I wonder that myself.
    At this point, I don’t care about the new plans anymore, but I really miss all the links he had on the side to other libertarian sites.
    The least Stephen could do is put up a copy of his last website with all the links with a warning about possible dead ones…

    And I intend to support Ron Paul as strongly as possible for the next year and a half. He really is the best hope libertarians have to get the message of REAL freedom and REAL smaller government out to the general public.

  38. disinter Says:

    Milnes - perhaps you can’t read. There is a huge difference between vaccinations and forced vaccinations.

    News flash - you are no libertarian.

  39. Anthony Distler Says:

    I echo disinter’s statement. I do not slam the vaccination, but forcing it upon people and making them pay for it is wrong. If the state paid for it, then we could talk.

  40. Jay Matthews Says:

    To the individual(s) here who are taking the “you are an idiot if you don’t vaccinate” mantra, you obviously know ZERO about vaccines, what goes into them, how they are produced, their risks, history of failure, etc.

    Get a clue and become educated on the topic before you make statements like that. You are embarrassing yourselves. Anyone truly familiar with this issue wouldn’t take such a stance.

    A decision to or not to vaccinate should be an informed one, not a blind one. And an informed decision is not likely to be found from a pediatrician.

  41. General Lee Says:


    A lot of the Hummer of Truth crowd is over at

    They have a thread about Ron Paul that’s pretty active right now, and some others. Check it out!

  42. timothy west Says:


    I’m very familiar with the subject. Their risks ( which are real and do exist ) are 99% greatly outweighed by their benefits- and you apply more force by no vaccinations. As a result, there will be children catching banana republic germs and forcing sickness upon non-consenting others as a result.

    Sure, they can opt out. They can then divest themselves of ALL legal rights and problems that may result as a result of their decision. They cant sue the school system claiming they were not informed of the risks. They cant sue their health insurance provider when they refuse to pay for their child’s condition caused by the decision of the parents. And if their little love germ makes anyone else sick, they will be 100% responsible for their medical bills. Then, and only then, can the parents not apply force on others as a result of their decisions.

    No rights without responsibilities. You’d make thousands subseptable to easily prevented sickness by force to claim that you dont force anyone to do anything.

    great way to uphold that pledge.

    I think the pledge is a big steaming pile of shit. It’s a big reason why the LP is the way it is ( small, poor, and full of robotic think-like clones. )

  43. Anthony Distler Says:

    Little love germ makes everyone else sick? You think these kids are going to walk into middle school and have sex with…EVERYONE?! I want to know, Mr. West…how do you think you catch HPV?

  44. Jay Matthews Says:


    Please defend this statement:

    “I’m very familiar with the subject. Their risks ( which are real and do exist ) are 99% greatly outweighed by their benefits”

    It’s interesting you state “no rights without responsibilities” because when a child suffers an adverse effect from a vaccine both the manufacturer and the physician who administered it have no responsibility. It’s a no-fault system, which means the doctor and manufacturer are off the hook and the parents’ only recourse is with the NVICP. It can take up to seven years to collect, of course the child has been damaged for life unnecessarily.

  45. Trent Hill Says:

    Furthermore Tim,

    Most vaccines are simply weaker forms of another virus. This means that alot of kids who have as-of-yet-undiscovered Immune problems can react badly. It is not the “one kid” that opts out thats the problem.

  46. timothy west Says:

    Polio virus causes acute paralysis that can lead to permanent physical disability and even death. Before polio vaccine was available, 13,000 to 20,000 cases of paralytic polio were reported each year in the United States. These annual epidemics of polio often left thousands of victims—mostly children—in braces, crutches, wheelchairs, and iron lungs. The effects were life-long.

    Development of polio vaccines and implementation of polio immunization programs have eliminated paralytic polio caused by wild polio viruses in the U.S. and the entire Western hemisphere.

    Before measles immunization was available, nearly everyone in the U.S. got measles. An average of 450 measles-associated deaths were reported each year between 1953 and 1963.

    In the U.S., up to 20 percent of persons with measles are hospitalized.

    Since the early 1980s, reported pertussis cases have been increasing, with peaks every 3-4 years; however, the number of reported cases remains much lower than levels seen in the pre-vaccine era. Compared with pertussis cases in other age groups, infants who are 6 months old or younger with pertussis experience the highest rate of hospitalization, pneumonia, seizures, Encephalopathy (a degenerative disease of the brain) and death. From 1990 to 1996, 57 persons died from pertussis; 49 of these were less than six months old.

    Before pertussis immunizations were available, nearly all children developed whooping cough. In the U.S., prior to pertussis immunization, between 150,000 and 260,000 cases of pertussis were reported each year, with up to 9,000 pertussis-related deaths.

    Before Hib vaccine became available, Hib was the most common cause of bacterial meningitis in U.S. infants and children. Before the vaccine was developed, there were approximately 20,000 invasive Hib cases annually. Approximately two-thirds of the 20,000 cases were meningitis, and one-third were other life-threatening invasive Hib diseases such as bacteria in the blood, pneumonia, or inflammation of the epiglottis. About one of every 200 U.S. children under 5 years of age got an invasive Hib disease. Hib meningitis once killed 600 children each year and left many survivors with deafness, seizures, or mental retardation.

    Since introduction of conjugate Hib vaccine in December 1987, the incidence of Hib has declined by 98 percent. From 1994-1998, fewer than 10 fatal cases of invasive Hib disease were reported each year.

    This preventable disease was a common, devastating illness as recently as 1990; now, most pediatricians just finishing training have never seen a case. If we were to stop immunization, we would likely soon return to the pre-vaccine numbers of invasive Hib disease cases and deaths.

    I’ll continue tomorrow. I would like to find a vaccine that prevents conspiracy nuttiness from infecting the LP with issues such as this.

  47. Jay Matthews Says:


    Respectfully you sound like a shill for big pharma and the gov’t. You speak in very broad and general terms. If you’re going to make such statements back them up with something to justify them.

    Pertussis Tim? Really, tell me your joking. Go check out the CDC stats for the rate of recovery from pertussis.

    And the polio you speak of hasn’t existed in over 50 years. Therefore how is it a sound decision to gamble with a child’s health?

    Also check out the CDC stats on the number of annual polio cases caused by the vaccine.

    Tell us, do you think the Hep-B vaccine is a good idea too?

  48. disinter Says:

    Respectfully you sound like a shill for big pharma and the gov’t.

    Welcome to the retard caucus.

  49. timothy west Says:

    oh yeah, I’m getting paid a million dollars a year by big pharma to sit here to “debate” vaccines. What shill I am. Yes, I think all proven vaccines with a proven track record of saving many more children from disease than the vaccine puts at risk by taking the vaccine are great ideas.

    And the polio you speak of hasn’t existed in over 50 years.

    becuase of the polio vaccine, I’m guessing?

    I’m not sold on the HPV vaccine just yet, I don’t think it’s been tested long enough.

    No, I just find theres nothing much more removed from the minds of voters than the subject of children’s vaccines, and nothing more annoying than the subset of so called libertarians that deny their obvious risk reward factor. They’re like any other cult. No different than the 9/11 was a inside job people, and no different than any other conspiracy cults within the LP, of which there are several.

    It’s also the pet ‘issue’ of the person most co-responsible for destroying the West Virginia state LP, so I like to rub it in. Unlike that person, I’m actually sick, you see. ‘Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’ my ass. Let’s try some high grade brain cancer.

  50. timothy west Says:

    While rubella is usually mild in children and adults, up to 90 percent of infants born to mothers infected with rubella during the first trimester of pregnancy will develop congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), resulting in heart defects, cataracts, mental retardation, and deafness.

    In 1964-1965, before rubella immunization was used routinely in the U.S., there was an epidemic of rubella that resulted in an estimated 20,000 infants born with CRS, with 2,100 neonatal deaths and 11,250 miscarriages. Of the 20,000 infants born with CRS, 11,600 were deaf, 3,580 were blind, and 1,800 were mentally retarded.

    Due to the widespread use of rubella vaccine, only six CRS cases were provisionally reported in the U.S. in 2000. Because many developing countries do not include rubella in the childhood immunization schedule, many of these cases occurred in foreign-born adults. Since 1996, greater than 50 percent of the reported rubella cases have been among adults. Since 1999, there have been 40 pregnant women infected with rubella.

    If we stopped rubella immunization, immunity to rubella would decline and rubella would once again return, resulting in pregnant women becoming infected with rubella and then giving birth to infants with CRS.

    Hepatitis B

    More than 2 billion persons worldwide have been infected with the hepatitis B virus at some time in their lives. Of these, 350 million are life-long carriers of the disease and can transmit the virus to others. One million of these people die each year from liver disease and liver cancer.

    National studies have shown that about 12.5 million Americans have been infected with hepatitis B virus at some point in their lifetime. One and one quarter million Americans are estimated to have chronic (long-lasting) infection, of whom 20 percent to 30 percent acquired their infection in childhood. Chronic hepatitis B virus infection increases a person’s risk for chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and liver cancer. About 5,000 persons will die each year from hepatitis B-related liver disease resulting in over $700 million medical and work loss costs.

    The number of new infections per year has declined from an average of 450,000 in the 1980s to about 80,000 in 1999. The greatest decline has occurred among children and adolescents due to routine hepatitis B vaccination.

    Infants and children who become infected with hepatitis B virus are at highest risk of developing lifelong infection, which often leads to death from liver disease (cirrhosis) and liver cancer. Approximately 25 percent of children who become infected with life-long hepatitis B virus would be expected to die of related liver disease as adults.

    CDC estimates that one-third of the life-long hepatitis B virus infections in the United States resulted from infections occurring in infants and young children. About 16,000 - 20,000 hepatitis B antigen infected women give birth each year in the United States. It is estimated that 12,000 children born to hepatitis B virus infected mothers were infected each year before implementation of infant immunization programs. In addition, approximately 33,000 children (10 years of age and younger) of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B virus were infected each year before routine recommendation of childhood hepatitis B vaccination.

    Diptheria 206,939 [1921] 0
    Measles 894,134 [1941] 285
    Mumps 152,209 [1968] 764
    Pertussis 265,209 [1934] 3,882
    Polio (paralytic) 21,269 [1952] 0
    Rubella 57,686 [1969] 151
    Tetanus 1,560 [1923] 31

    before vaccine, after vaccine. Quite a difference, no?

    wasted enough time with you on a OT subject. Class dismissed.

  51. Jay Matthews Says:

    For anyone looking for some more objective and referenced information on vaccines (rather than broad generalizations) see the following: (Type “vaccines” in the site’s search engine)

    Also go to a search engine, type “Dispelling Vaccination Myths”, and read the report.

    For anyone who knows how Hep-B is transmitted it’s a sick joke to vaccinate children.

    Tim, just because “A” occurred around the time of “B” doesn’t mean “A” caused “B”.

    We can agree to disagree. But I will agree with you this topic isn’t (and probably shouldn’t be) at the top of voters’ minds right now.

  52. disinter Says:

    Full 30 minute C-SPAN interview found here:

  53. John Chance Says:

    Vaccinations are full of harmful chemicals-some with 4x amount of Mercury, but hey, scare tactics are funner—-as are increased numbers of retarded children-born fully normal-but after a series of shots, they become MR.

    I know, ALex Jones is a nut and it is all in our imaginations, including the stats and research.

    How can anyone claim to be a Libertarian and agree to forcing people to in innoculated?? Answer-a Dondero/Boortx ‘Libertarian”

    I will wait to see who CP nominates. Then again, Paul’s campaign will largely take out any wind in that sail…so, why bother at all. By Bye USA permantly in ‘08.

    I should starta fundraiser on my site-send John Chance out of country. Might even get some NeoCon think tank $$$ for me to leave.

  54. Winston Smith Says:

    Mr. Bryant apparently believes in the school systems and actually thinks they are responsive to us and do respond.

    Oopss…sorry, thought I saw a UFO suck up my cow, it was just a time portal

  55. Sean Scallon Says:

    Here’s the link to Ron Paul’s appearance on CSPAN:

  56. Trent Hill Says:

    Ron Paul has already picked up endorsements from two Congressmen
    Walter Jones - NC
    And John Duncan - TN

  57. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Trent… are those endorsements or just nice comments? I didn’t see, in either statement, the Congressmen say that they support or would vote for Ron Paul for President. Rather, they made vague statements about what a great guy he is… it’s nice he’s running… bringing issues into the debate, etc.

  58. Trent Hill Says:

    I suppose you’re right Austin.
    Walter Jones is expected to speak at the CP Meeting in Boise, I will ask him directly if he has endorsed Paul. I am also going to email John Duncan (and Rohrabacher and Flake also).

  59. disinter Says:

    Merck wants to make its new HPV vaccine mandatory for young girls, but the immunization’s safety and long-term effects are unknown.

  60. Matt Sterba Says:

    30 Minute Video of Ron Paul on C-Span. (3-12)

  61. Jeremy Says:

    I have an open question on the topic:

    Dr. Paul said in the interview that he has raised over $500K so far. Should this be considered a good start? a disapointing one? Irrelevent?

  62. Eric Dondero Says:

    Rudy Giuliani picked up the surprise endorsement of super Constitutionalist Conservative US Senator David Vitter of Louisiana yesterday. Vitter said that Giuliani had the leadership skills that are badly needed since we are at War.

    Latest poll numbers have Giuliani at anywhere from 47% to 65%.

    Latest poll numbers have Cong. Ron Paul at anywhere from 0% to 2%.

    Libertarians for Giuliani at

  63. Eric Donfascist Says:

    Rudy Giuliani picked up the surprise endorsement of super Constitutionalist Conservative US Senator David Duke of Louisiana yesterday. Duke said that Giuliani had the leadership skills that are badly needed since we are at War with a bunch of dirty Semites.

    “Look, the last time that happened we had a very effective alliance between an Austrian immigrant and an Italian leader and I see no reason why we can’t just do the same thing again. Why fuck around with a formula that works?” said Duke.

    Latest poll numbers have Giuliani at anywhere from 47% to 65%. Duke was quick to point out that Mussolini’s poll numbers were in the same range right before the March on Rome.

    Latest poll numbers have Cong. Ron Paul at anywhere from 0% to 2%.
    That dirty anti-fascist bum! Unpopular people like him should be beaten with bundles of sticks.

    Giuliani toilet paper at

  64. Trent Hill Says:

    Dondero…..your an idiot.
    “Rudy Giuliani picked up the surprise endorsement of super Constitutionalist Conservative US Senator David Vitter of Louisiana yesterday. Vitter said that Giuliani had the leadership skills that are badly needed since we are at War.

    Latest poll numbers have Giuliani at anywhere from 47% to 65%.

    Latest poll numbers have Cong. Ron Paul at anywhere from 0% to 2%.

    Libertarians for Giuliani at”

    First off, all your doing is putting us in a mood to throw rocks at you. Your reminding us of how stupid the populace (and indeed you yourself) are. And it pisses us off.
    Ron Paul is a FAR greater candidate, we all agree on that. So shut up about Rudy “Gun grabber” Mussolini.
    As far as Vitter goes…he is not a Constitutionalist. He is, however, considered pretty Conservative for a Republican. Unfortunately, he endorsed Guliani…proving himself worthless.

  65. disinter Says:

    Jeremy - considering that money was raised in less than a month with Ron Paul and his committee doing next to nothing to raise the money… I would say it was quite impressive.

  66. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    I agree entirely with Disinter. He’s a pretty smart and insightful guy. The $500,000 raised by Ron Paul in only a few weeks time is very impressive, especially when one considers that a high-profile candidate such as John McCain raised only $650,000 from individual contributors in the last quarter of 2006, a period when the Arizona lawmaker was always in the news and was widely regarded as a front-runner for the GOP nomination.

    I have tremendous respect for Disinter, but I know he’ll probably disagree with me when I suggest that big “L” Libertarians should also consider financially supporting those seeking their own party’s presidential nomination, especially the campaigns of Steve Kubby and George Phillies. Realistically, one of those financially-strapped contenders—- or whoever captures the Libertarian Party nomination — will probably be the only candidate in November 2008 who is actually espousing a libertarian perspective.

  67. Trent Hill Says:

    Disinter is not a bad guy. Nor are you. Both strategies are sound.
    Iv already sent money to Ron Paul,should he fail…I will send money to the CP.

  68. Winston Smith Says:

    Trent Hill Says:

    March 14th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
    Disinter is not a bad guy. Nor are you. Both strategies are sound.
    Iv already sent money to Ron Paul,should he fail…I will send money to the CP.

    ....that’s what I fear, he will draw away more support, $$ and time then would be worth his inevitable defeat and lack of support for CP

  69. DP Says:

    Brandon, could not reach you via you site, will talk to you on my sites forum when you get a chance.

  70. Chris Campbell Says:


    last I heard, Walter Jones was a no-go in Boise. Lets hope that changes.

  71. DP Says:



  72. Timm Knibbs Says:

    Your suggested strategy is pretty much what the CP intends to do. We will support Ron Paul as a Republican. It will require a convention vote to continue to support him and not run our own candidate but this would be likely. Also, he would not be officially guaranteed the nomination of the CP he would most likely be the front runner whose only competition could come from Alan Keyes if the chose to seek the nomination.

  73. Eric Dondero Says:

    Ummm Trent, not wanting to pull out my English as a Second Language Certification credentials. But, in your case I feel I must.

    You should be using “you’re” not the possessive “your”. As in “you’re an idiot,” not “your an idiot.”

    Maybe we should be re-thinking which one of us most aptly fits that label?

  74. Eric Dondero Says:

    Jeremy brags that Ron Paul has “raised over $500 K so far.” Wow! That’s great. If YOU’RE RUNNING FOR HOUSTON CITY COUNCIL, TEXAS STATE SENATE OR IN A GOP PRIMARY FOR CONGRESS. But for the United States Presidency that SUCKS!!

    Dick Morris has said continually on Hannity & Colmes, that any serious candidate for President needs to have $100 million in the bank by September of this year.

    Take a pause everyone…

    Now think about that for a second.

    Today is March 14. Tomorrow will be the mid-point for the month of March.

    Ron Paul has raised $500,000 in 3 months. Let’s assume that he doubles that performance for the coming months. Or for the sake of argument, let’s say he triples that.

    That would still leave him about $95 million short.

    Reality. I know. It’s a touch concept to handle sometimes.

  75. Trent Hill Says:

    Hmmm, okay Dondero. Let’s play semantics.
    I used the incorrect version of a word intentionally used to flame you. I did this ONLINE.
    Now, let’s take all your supposedly “Libertarian” views and place them beside mine. Let’s take your views on who should be President and place them beside mine. Let’s take just your general wisdom and place them beside mine.
    Shameful isn’t it?
    Then throw in the fact that i’m 18. My grammar doesn’t look all that important now does it? Because you can’t even honestly discern how the word “Libertarian” is defined. Maybe you could blame Democrats? Meanwhile your “Libertarians for Mussolini” PAC is REALLY gaining ground on your “Libertarians for Bush” PAC. It’s like a race of the oxy-moronic.

    You’re an idiot. Does that spelling suit you better?

    As for Ron Paul, he has not even attempted to raise money yet. And he raised $500,000. Paul certainly doesn’t have the name recognition or media exposure that your buddy Guliani has. However, he has a far better track record as far as Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Constitutionalism go. While your buddy Bush was pushing REAL ID and the North American Union, Paul was/is standing up for what is right.
    Furthermore, the fact that Paul raised a half a million without trying is quite significant. Wether you accept that or not is not important. He probably won’t win the Republican nomination…why you ask?
    Because he isn’t a globalist, liberal, gun grabbing, open borders advocate.

    Smell that? It’s the stench of defeat.

  76. Devious David Says:

    Dondero is just sour grapes because he has a personal V for Vendetta against Ron Paul. That’s all. Just like a 13 year old school girl.

    If everything is slam dunk Giuliani, then Rudy McRomney doesn’t need our help anyway. And he certainly isn’t WORTHY either. And now, Dick Morris is the arbiter of electoral success, because it’s only about the money. So give up and help Rudy, because he’s going to win with or without you. LOL

    On another note, I heard that there was a recent Gwinnett County GOP meeting that Phil Gingrey spoke at. There was a mention of Ron Paul running for Pres., at which point the entire roomfull of people erupted into applause.

    I also spoke with a clergyman today who wasn’t happy with the leading contenders and was very interested in Ron Paul, though he hasn’t heard of him. Reaching opinion makers like him is key. It was funny when he asked me to get involved in the local GOP. I took it as a compliment! I might see about getting a meeting with them to present the idea - or fact, rather, that Paul is the only Republican capable of winning and winning the GOP primary will be a bigger task than the Presidency.

    All the evidence that I see on my end says that the Paul campaign just needs enough dough to create the expose to build critical mass. Then it could very well runaway. The only question is… how sound is the strategy and just how much money would it take? Traditional media musn’t be foregone completely.

    As for “sucking the wind” out of the 3rd party campaigns… so? What wind are you talking about? The almost nonexistent one that is equal to a butterfly flapping it’s wings in an effort to stop a category 5 hurricane? I just don’t see any idealistic OR practical reason not to get behind Ron Paul 100%. He’s even personally earned and deserves it for all the hard work he puts in for the movement.

  77. Jay Matthews Says:

    “I just don’t see any idealistic OR practical reason not to get behind Ron Paul 100%. ”

    Well put DD, and amount of money raised is not a reason to or not to support someone. (Especially this ridiculously early.)

    Does anyone familiar with Ron Paul really believe Giuliani will be a better defender of the constitution than Paul? The man isn’t known as “Dr. No” for nothing.

    And not for anything Eric, but I’m pretty sure that 500K was raised in two months, not three, and with little effort on his part.

  78. wnw3 Says:

    Endorsement from David Duke. Isn’t he the former Grand Wizard of the KKK? Is his endorsement really a “good” thing?

  79. undercover_anarchist Says:

    “Because he isn’t a globalist, liberal, gun grabbing, open borders advocate.”

    Strike the gun-grabbing aspect and you have shown exactly why Giuliani IS every bit as libertarian as the anticapitalist Paul. Neither is libertarian. At least Giuliani doesn’t want to regulate my rectum or murder my portfolio.

    The only thing sadder than Dondero’s constant proclamations of Giuliani’s “libertarianness” is the insistance that Ron Paul is infinitely more libertarian.

    “Globalist, liberal, gun grabbing, open borders advocate?”

    How about a mercantalist, racist, homophobic, border Nazi? That’s how I’d dub Paul.

  80. Devious David Says:

    Lay down the crackpipe and step away. There are multipoint programs for this, man.

  81. Andy Says:

    “Strike the gun-grabbing aspect and you have shown exactly why Giuliani IS every bit as libertarian as the anticapitalist Paul. Neither is libertarian. At least Giuliani doesn’t want to regulate my rectum or murder my portfolio.”

    This is laughable. Ron Paul is FAR more libertarian than Guiliani (who is not even remotely close to being a libertarian). Even if you disagree with Ron Paul on abortion (although it needs to be mentioned that he wants to leave abortion to the states) and immigration he still comes out WAY ahead of Guiliani on any libertarian test. Anyone who can’t see this is an idiot.

  82. Andy Says:

    “How about a mercantalist, racist, homophobic, border Nazi? That’s how I’d dub Paul.”

    Ron Paul is NOT a mercantilist you IDIOT. If anyone is a mercantilist it is Giuliani. Ron Paul is for REAL free trade. If you do not understand the difference between that and government managed for the benifit of politically connected corporations trade (as in NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, FTAA, etc..) you don’t know what in the hell you are talking about.

    Your other allegations against Ron Paul are absurd as well but that one probably takes the cake.

  83. Andy Says:

    CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade

    By Ron Paul
    June 6, 2005

    The Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, will be the source of intense political debate in Washington this summer. The House of Representatives will vote on CAFTA ratification in June, while the Senate likely will vote in July.

    I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

    We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

    It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.

    The tax bill in question is just the tip of the iceberg. The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future. Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization’s manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business. I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free.

    CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system. Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.

    CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade.

  84. Andy Says:

    CAFTA and Dietary Supplements

    By Ron Paul
    July 18, 2005

    The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the next two weeks, and one little-known provision of the agreement desperately needs to be exposed to public view. CAFTA, like the World Trade Organization, may serve as a forum for restricting or even banning dietary supplements in the U.S.

    The Codex Alimentarius Commission, organized by the United Nations in the 1960s, is charged with “harmonizing” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals require a doctor’s prescription. The European Union already has adopted Codex-type regulations, regulations that will be in effect across Europe later this year. This raises concerns that the Europeans will challenge our relatively open market for health supplements in a WTO forum. This is hardly far-fetched, as Congress already has cravenly changed our tax laws to comply with a WTO order.

    Like WTO, CAFTA increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public. Section 6 of CAFTA discusses Codex as a regulatory standard for nations that join the agreement. If CAFTA has nothing to do with dietary supplements, as CAFTA supporters claim, why in the world does it specifically mention Codex?

    Unquestionably there has been a slow but sustained effort to regulate dietary supplements on an international level. WTO and CAFTA are part of this effort. Passage of CAFTA does not mean your supplements will be outlawed immediately, but it will mean that another international trade body will have a say over whether American supplement regulations meet international standards. And make no mistake about it, those international standards are moving steadily toward the Codex regime and its draconian restrictions on health freedom. So the question is this: Does CAFTA, with its link to Codex, make it more likely or less likely that someday you will need a doctor’s prescription to buy even simple supplements like Vitamin C? The answer is clear. CAFTA means less freedom for you, and more control for bureaucrats who do not answer to American voters.

    Pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars trying to get Washington to regulate your dietary supplements like European governments do. So far, that effort has failed in America, in part because of a 1994 law called the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Big Pharma and the medical establishment hate this Act, because it allows consumers some measure of freedom to buy the supplements they want. Americans like this freedom, however—especially the health conscious Baby Boomers.

    This is why the drug companies support WTO and CAFTA. They see international trade agreements as a way to do an end run around American law and restrict supplements through international regulations.

    The largely government-run health care establishment, including the nominally private pharmaceutical companies, want government to control the dietary supplement industry—so that only they can manufacture and distribute supplements. If that happens, as it already is happening in Europe, the supplements you now take will be available only by prescription and at a much higher cost—if they are available at all. This alone is sufficient reason for Congress to oppose the unconstitutional, sovereignty-destroying CAFTA bill.

  85. Andy Says:

    Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers

    By Ron Paul
    March 18, 2002

    The administration’s recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel imports was disappointing to free trade advocates. This measure will hurt far more Americans than it will help, and it takes a step backwards toward the protectionist thinking that dominated Washington in decades past. These steel tariffs also make it quite clear that the rhetoric about free trade in Washington is abandoned and replaced with talk of “fair trade” when special interests make demands. What most Washington politicians really believe in is government-managed trade, not free trade. Government-managed trade means government, rather than competence in the marketplace, determines what industries and companies succeed or fail.

    It’s easy for some lawmakers to make emotional arguments that tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent. Tariffs are taxes, and imposing new tariffs means raising taxes. Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt’s classic economics text, Economics in one Lesson. Professor Hazlitt’s fundamental lesson was simple: We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups. The administration instead chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. This has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with political favors. The free market is fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies.

    We should recognize that the cost of these tariffs will be borne by nearly all Americans, because steel is widely used in the cars we drive and the buildings in which we live and work. The tariffs will especially affect Texas, where building trades use large amounts of imported steel. We will all pay, but the cost will be spread out and hidden, so no one complains. The domestic steel industry, however, has complained- and it has the corporate and union power that scares politicians in Washington. We hear a great deal of criticism of special interests and their stranglehold on Washington, but somehow when we prop up an entire industry that has failed to stay competitive, we’re “protecting American workers.” What we’re really doing is taxing all Americans to keep some politically-favored corporations afloat.

    If we’re going to protect the steel industry with tariffs, why not other industries? Does every industry that competes with imported goods have the same claim for protection? We’ve propped up the auto industry in the past, now we’re doing it for steel, so who should be next in line? Virtually every American industry competes with at least some imports.

    What happened to the wonderful harmony that the World Trade Organization was supposed to bring to global trade? The European Union and other steel-producing nations are preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect their own steel industries, setting the stage for a potential global trade war. Wasn’t the WTO supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we’re seeing instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all of this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!

    It’s always amazing to me that Washington gives so much lip service to free trade while never adhering to true free trade principles. Free trade really means freedom- the freedom to buy and sell goods and services free from government interference. Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don’t work. I sincerely hope that the administration’s position on steel does not signal a willingness to resort to protectionism whenever special interests make demands in the future.

  86. Andy Says:

    Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
    “Fair,” protected and subsidized trade harms consumer, economy

    By Ron Paul
    March 22, 1999

    Forces of protectionism won a victory recently; a victory over the American consumer and the principle of free trade. Of course, as with so many issues in Washington, DC, it is almost impossible to understand who are the free-traders, fair-traders and protectionists without a scorecard; and even then, of course, none of those words actually mean anything in debates on the House floor.

    Claiming to be watching out for the interests of everyone, Congress passed legislation that reduces the ability of Americans to purchase steel from foreign producers. The only interests being served, though, are the labor unions.

    Proponents of the legislation claimed foreign companies were “dumping” steel on our market. The word “dumping” is used to conjure up images of foreigners sneaking across the border under cover of darkness and selling low-quality steel in back alleys. Reality is far different from rhetoric; Americans are buying the foreign steel because it is a better value.

    So rather than re-examine the market (which is unwilling to pay the high-prices brought on by government regulations and union-imposed wages), the advocates of big government and forced unionism demand that Congress close down what remains of the free market.

    The true free market is a threat to entrenched interests and lazy minds. The free market rewards those who are willing to work hard, produce that which people demand, and at a price they are willing to pay.

    It is no longer politically fashionable to ask for “protection” from foreign competition. Instead, they demand that supreme “virtue” of American politics: fairness.

    “Fair trade!” has become the rallying cry. Sadly, though, there is little “fair” about these policies, and even less about their outcome. This “fairness” means gouging consumers for higher prices using the force of government to protect the rackets of organizations unwilling to work within the system of voluntary exchange.

    This “fairness” extends to other arenas. Take, for example, the situation with Cuba. For three decades national policy has forbade trade with Cuba, on the grounds that we are trying to force Castro from power. To date, that policy has not only been unsuccessful, it has backfired. But, in the name of “fairness” and “security,” Cuba’s poor do not have access to American inexpensive food and medicine.

    I have introduced HR1181, which will allow Americans to enter the Cuban market, but prevents federal tax dollars from being used to subsidize the Castro regime.

    For while many in Washington call themselves “free-traders,” but there is nothing free about their agendas. The so-called “free-trader” in Congress is often one who believes in subsidizing trade; that is, using taxpayer dollars to prop-up foreign governments on the condition that those governments then use the money to purchase goods from certain American companies (which in turn lobby for “protections,” creating a vicious cycle).

    The others who misuse the “free-trade” label are the managed trade proponents. These are the ones responsible for empowering the international regulatory bureaucracies of NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization, all of which have as much in common with free trade as protectionism does.

    In the end, it is the American taxpayer that foots the bill. The cost comes in higher prices, higher taxes, or both.

    True free trade involves neither protectionism nor subsidization. Free trade recognizes that market forces, not government regulations or spending packages, will best allocate resources; even across political borders.

  87. Andy Says:

    Free trade makes sense
    Congress must resist raising taxes, limiting freedom

    By Ron Paul
    June 7, 1999

    Once again the contentious debate over trade with China is before the Congress, but this time with the added twist of allegations of spying.

    And, once again, those opposed to free trade will join forces with those favoring taxpayer subsidization of foreign countries to mangle the English language and thoroughly confuse the issue.

    In the parlance of Washington bureaucrats and politicians, as well as most special interest groups, words used in debate take on a quality similar to Orwellian double-speak. As in his classic “1984,” the “Ministry of Love” was actually the department of war, today’s debates use words and phrases in ways diametrically opposed to reality.

    For instance, if someone says they are for “free trade,” one must look carefully what they really mean, for the classic (and common sense) definition does not apply.

    All to often in Washington, free trade is used when one really means “subsidized trade,” or, tax dollars being funneled to foreign governments to buy American products. Similarly, the phrase can mean to use tax dollars to bail-out American firms for risky overseas ventures, or managed trade by the World Trade Organization to serve powerful special interests.

    On the other hand, those of us who oppose using the taxes of American citizens to prop-up foreign governments or American corporations are derisively called “isolationists.” There are indeed some people who are isolationists. They call themselves “fair traders,” though. Exactly what this means is open to debate. All too often it involves letting the government determine what is and is not “fair” in the private trading between individuals who live in different countries.

    Sadly, these definitions all hinge on the assumption that there are essentially only two options: tax dollars being used to subsidize corporations/foreign governments, or no trade whatsoever without the rubber stamp of government bureaucrats and special interest groups.

    The bottom-line of both options, of course, is higher taxes for Americans. Higher taxes to finance the subsidies, or higher taxes on incoming products (and make no mistake, a tariff is a tax, paid by the American consumer).

    There is another way. Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few in Washington want: less government intervention.

    It is indisputable that individuals know better how to provide for their families than government. It is also indisputable that a company is better equipped to know what its market will tolerate than a bureaucrat in Washington. In this way, a person is able to determine what goods best meet their individual needs, weighing numerous factors in their decision. But when government intervenes, it no longer becomes possible for an individual to provide for their family and business in the most expedient fashion. This is the antithesis of liberty.

    Both the “fair traders” and the “subsidizers” now have a fantastic phantom upon which to justify their higher taxes and greater regulations: the Chinese spy scandal. This is a phantom for there is simply no connection between the spying and true free trade. In fact, it was the policy of subsidization and trade regulation, as well as generally lax security, which allowed the illegal transfers of technology. But to blame free trade, and then penalize average Americans, for the spying is the height of dishonesty.

    If we are to end trade with all nations which spy on us, or upon whom we spy, then we will quickly find far fewer products available at the supermarket, and much higher prices on everything.

    The correct solution to this seeming quagmire is one which few in (or for that matter, outside) Washington will promote. The US government should immediately end all taxpayer subsidization of China, including funds funneled through the Export-Import Bank and the World Bank. Congress should immediately require that when the government enters into contracts with companies to develop and manufacture goods critical to our national security, those companies agree to do no business with China.

    Never, though, should Congress raise taxes or limit the ability of individual Americans to engage in honest trade with foreign manufacturers. While the market may demand - through boycotts and similar activities - that trade cease, that should be left entirely to the market, not bureaucrats in Washington.

    Free trade, not isolationism or subsidization, is the most moral of instruments between men. Engagement, not irrational fear or political paybacks, is the best force for bringing change to China and our relations with its people.

  88. disinter Says:

    Ron Paul is NOT a mercantilist you IDIOT.

    UA is not an idiot, he is a Democrat. Much worse.

  89. Winston Smith Says:

    Dondero the closet Neocon strikes again. Yup, its all about the numbers Dondero. Glad you did not bet on those 11 rag-tag men in the Upper Room and the women.

    Dondero-practice thrusting your arm out and Seig Heil

  90. DP Says:

    Free trade is never free in the end. Even Peroutka did a great job on this. Only the few then get rich, whilst exporting jobs to some 3rd world country. In turn, this will necessitate the need of America’s interference in said countries to defend American corporatist interests.

    Check out Smedley Butler if thou doubt me.

  91. Sean Scallon Says:

    I’m not as libertarian as Paul is. I don’t agree with him on every issue, especially free trade. But to me the war is the most imporant issue in this election and on that score Ron Paul’s views are the same as mine and That’s why I am supporting him.

    Eric “ledgend in my own mind” Dondero, you are welcome to support Rudy Guliani if you think you’re little phone booth group will impress Guliani enough to get you named to the Intestate Commerce Commission. The rest of us are not buying the “Rudy’s a libertarian argument,” and don’t care how much money he has or how much Paul has. Most of us are supporting Paul or the LP or CP candidates next year. And the reason for this is that we unlike you, we’re too proud to beg for table scraps from the major parties.

    We’re men, not jellyfish like you.

  92. Jeremy Says:

    First of all, thanks to everyone who took the time to answer my question.

    I do have a small complaint about how Mr. Dondero framed his response: I did not “brag” about how much money Dr. Paul has raised, I simply reported what Dr. Paul claimed in an interview, and asked for opinions on it. Maybe this is a dumb thing to get irritated at, but it just really bugs me when something I say gets misconstrued.

  93. undercover_anarchist Says:

    1. I’m not a Democrat. I just recognize that, of the two parties, Democrats (a) pose less threats to my civil liberties, (b) are less interested in infringing upon the rights of other Americans (i.e. gays), and© when Democrats are in office, the government grows more slowly and the economy performs better. That’s it.

    2. Ron Paul is a mercantilist. Not only is he anti-free-trade, anti-immigration, with a Marxist’s view on wealth creation ala the moron DP above me, but he also demonstrates his 18th century moronitude with his cherishment of the “barbaric relic” of a specie-backed currency. This level of economic retardation is light years beyond the less moronic views of “liberal” Democrats or even the inflationary supply-side idiots in the GOP.

    3. Is Ron Paul more or less libertarian than Giuliani? Well, let’s see. Ron Paul wants to regulate my asshole and my wife’s womb. Giuliani doesn’t. Ron Paul wants to end free trade and immigration, Giuliani doesn’t. Ron Paul, if he had his way, would purposely wreck the economy and send us into agrarian-fuedalism. Giuliani wouldn’t. RON PAUL IS NOT A GROWN-UP, PERIOD, AND NEITHER ARE THE CHILDISH LOSERS WHO SUPPORT HIM.

    The only real libertarian I see in this race is Steve Kubby. Unlike Dondero, I’m not making the claim that Giluiani is a “libertarian” - and I would NEVER vote for Giuliani or any Republican. But calling Ron Paul a libertarian is just as absurd.

  94. Trent Hill Says:

    Ron Paul wants to end NAFTA and CAFTA. That is not ending free trade.

  95. Jay Matthews Says:


    A vote for Paul is just that, a vote for Paul. Not the entire GOP.

    Paul voted against the “Patriot” Act both times and the MCA. Yes, he’s a real company man and a real threat to civil liberties.

    “Ron Paul wants to end immigration.” “Ron Paul is a racist.” Please back both up with something of substance.

    “Ron Paul wants to regulate my wife’s womb.” He’s repeatedly stated while being personally pro-life it should be a state issue.

    “I would never vote for any Republican.”

    I see, so Paul is like the rest of the GOP. Gotcha. I guess all those “no” votes on bills not provided for by the constitution are just an aberration.

    A question for those who have followed Ron Paul over the last 20 years, when he changed his party affiliation did his platform change at all? To my knowledge it hasn’t. Assuming it didn’t why would it matter to anyone what his party affiliation is if you see eye-to-eye with most of his platform?

  96. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    Okay I have to chime in again.
    Jeremy, I do agree that raising that amount with little effort is pretty good.
    I hope it can be sustained and exceeded over the next year and a half.

    Ron Paul seems, to me, to be a great example of the saying “The perfect is the enemy of the good”. (Dr. Paul being the good). I share with some others on this forum the feeling that his being in the Republican party race is an opportunity that may not come again for a VERY long time.

    I am not saying “don’t bother supporting any Libertarian.” I am saying, that if you dismiss Ron Paul because he is not quite 100% perfect you are being spiteful. He is SO much closer to our views than any other Republican. All those statements about how harmful he would be just seem to be “I already decided not to support Ron, now lets figure out how to justify it”.

    I have enough trouble among my friends trying to explain why Ron is not like ANY of the other Republicans. I didn’t expect to see so much animosity from Libertarians. It’s kind of sad.
    I will do what I can to help support Steven Kubby, the person who I think is the best Libertarian Party nominee. But I learned about Libertarians in 1984 from David Bergland, who spoke at my community college. I voted for him, then for Ron Paul in 1988. I have followed Ron’s career for years.
    Ron is the real deal, and he needs as much support as the Libertarians do.
    Not less.

  97. Jay Matthews Says:

    Well put Tom. Not supporting Ron Paul just because of the “R” after his name is plain ignorant. If you’re not going to support a candidate let it be because you find another candidate’s platform more appealing.

    It seems people forget the Libertarian party is what the Republican party used to be a LONG time ago. Paul is simply a very old-school Republican.

  98. Eric Dondero Says:

    Here’s a bit of breaking news…

    “Sex Goddess” Karen of “Karen K” popular Host at and prominent Ohio Libertarian Party member reported on her program last night that the local LP endorsed Ron Paul for President. This is the Cincinnati area Libertarian Party. There was some debate over the fact that Paul was a Republican. But in the end they near unanimously supported him. Funny, the only dissenting votes were from LPers, including Karen, who wanted the LP to endorse Giuliani.

  99. Eric Dondero Says:

    Answer to Jay on whether Ron Paul changed his views when he switched from LP to GOP.

    Most certainly Yes. I was his Campaign Coordinator in his first race back as a Republican in 1996. Ron campaigned as a staunch Conservative, and quite Strong on the Military. He retained that position all throughout the late 1990s.

    Suddenly, his views shifted dramatically, literally the days after 9/11. He went from a Pro-Defense Conservative on foreign policy to a total Non-interventionist foreign policy Leftist.

    Many of us staffers were horrified. We literally had to beg and plead with him to vote in favor of the War in Afghanistan. The staff in very, very, very Conservative Victoria at the time, were particularly distressed by Ron Paul’s shift.

  100. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Sean, don’t take my word for it, that Rudy is a libertarian. Take the word of the following media all of whom have identified Rudy Giuliani as either a “libertarian” or a “libertarian conservative” in the last few weeks:

    London Times-Herald
    NY Sun
    LA Times
    Chicago Tribune
    Washington Post
    Washington Times
    Insight Magazine
    National Review Magazine
    American Spectator

    Now, do a Google Search over at Blogs for “Rudy Giuliani libertarian.” You’ll see scores and scores of mailine Bloggers also referring to Giuliani as a “libertarian.”

    Are you saying that all those media outlets and blogs are wrong?

  101. Jay Matthews Says:


    Thanks but technically I asked if his platform changed.

    Not to speak for him but I’d imagine his rationale on Afghanistan was since the attack had nothing to do with Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) sending military there was unconstitutional. He likely also wanted Congress to formally declare war.

    I’d also imagine most pro-defense conservatives have non-interventionist views. In other words, defend yourself against those who attack you. (Again, that’s in line with the constitution.) Otherwise you’re “pro-offense.”

  102. Lex Says:

    Giuliani may be a socially liberal Republican (a record he is running away from), but that doesn’t make him a libertarian.

    Libertarians overwhelmingly oppose unconstitutional wars of aggression, but Giuliani has backed Bush all the way, up to and including the Iraq surge and taking an aggressive posture toward Iran.

    Libertarians overwhelmingly support the Constitution, civil liberties, and the rule of law, but Giuliani’s record as mayor of NYC, and his statements since, also line him up with Bush on seizing power to the executive and denying due process to suspected terrorists—as if the government is never wrong, and as if America wasn’t founded in opposition to unchecked government power.

  103. Lex Says:

    Can Ron Paul win? Many of his potentially biggest supporters seem to give up without a fight, because he is down in the polls now and trailing in mainstream media coverage.

    So what! The supposed front runners with the big-money campaigns are all deeply flawed—the core of the Republican party is in no way happy with Giuliani, McCain, and Romney as the top tier of candidates. All are deeply flawed and likely to be passed by whichever second-tier candidate rallies the conservative base.

    Could that be Ron Paul? Why the heck not? Giuliani has peaked, McCain is finished, and Romney will never top 10%. No one in the second tier has consistently polled above 2%. Ron Paul could pass Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Gilmore, etc. with just a little positive thinking, activism (Internet and real world—bumper stickers, billboards, yard signs, newspaper ads), and donations.

    If just two million small-government, anti-war constitutionalists sent the man $20, Ron Paul would GET the media coverage, and be able to reach out to the base that is searching for a decent candidate.

  104. Andy Says:

    “Ron Paul wants to end immigration.” “Ron Paul is a racist.”

    Ron Paul does NOT want to end immigration, nor is he a racist. Those are both distortions of reality.

    It is true that Ron wants to make it so anyone can’t just waltz in and get on welfare, and yes it is true that Ron wants to keep out people who’ve got violent criminal records, but that is NOT the same thing as keeping out all immigrants.

  105. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    March 15th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
    Hey Sean, don’t take my word for it, that Rudy is a libertarian. Take the word of the following media all of whom have identified Rudy Giuliani as either a “libertarian” or a “libertarian conservative” in the last few weeks:

    London Times-Herald
    NY Sun
    LA Times
    Chicago Tribune
    Washington Post
    Washington Times
    Insight Magazine
    National Review Magazine
    American Spectator

    Now, do a Google Search over at Blogs for “Rudy Giuliani libertarian.” You’ll see scores and scores of mailine Bloggers also referring to Giuliani as a “libertarian.”

    Are you saying that all those media outlets and blogs are wrong?”

    Yes, I am saying that all of these in the controlled mainstream press that are calling Giuliani a libertarian are wrong. They either don’t know what a libertarian is or they are flat out lying.

    Giuliani is for gun control. Giuliani is for censorship (one example of this was when he banned Mixed Martial Arts events from New York City). Giuliani is in favor of the War on Drugs. These are just a few examples of how Giuliani is NOT a libertarian.

  106. Andy Says:

    “Lex Says:

    March 16th, 2007 at 12:31 am
    Giuliani may be a socially liberal Republican (a record he is running away from), but that doesn’t make him a libertarian.”

    Giuliani supports the Drug War. Is that socially liberal? Giuliani is for censorship. Is that socially liberal?

  107. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Ron Paul is generally right on war policy, so that makes him better than most GOPers. But he is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-capitalist. If I were forced to vote in the GOP primary, I would rank him 2nd to Giuliani. Neither is Libertarian.

    There isn’t even a Libertarian who’s actually libertarian, except Kubby.

    The best candidate with even a minute chance of winning is Governor Bill Richardson. Libertarian? No. But closer than anyone else in the big parties.

  108. Jay Matthews Says:

    Really, how familiar is the mainstream media with the LP’s platform? If you agree they’re not very familiar with it them calling anyone a libertarian should be scrutinized. Paul’s been a longtime defender of the constitution. He’s no johnny-come-lately. Just saying someone is a libertarian doesn’t make him/her one. Action’s speak louder than words.

    I like his show but Bill Mahr calls himself a libertarian yet by his own admission he doesn’t vote that way. (At least not in the last 3-4 elections.)

  109. Andy Says:

    “But he is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-capitalist. If I were forced to vote in the GOP primary, I would rank him 2nd to Giuliani.”

    Ron Paul is not any of those things and for you to keep repeating these allegation even after you are proven WRONG makes you a LIAR. Anyone who who would rate Giuliani over Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian.

  110. Andy Says:

    “2. Ron Paul is a mercantilist. Not only is he anti-free-trade”

    Ron Paul is NOT anti-free trade. Did you not read the articles that I just posted above that PROVE this? YOU ARE A LYING SACK OF SHIT!

  111. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Hey, who you calling a sack?

  112. Andy Says:

    “undercover_anarchist Says:

    March 16th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
    Hey, who you calling a sack?”

    Wow, that was an intelligent response….NOT!

  113. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Good job, Borat. You took that class in Modern American Humor, I see.

  114. matt Says:

    I’d say that Bill Richardson is the second most libertarian candidate in the big 2 primaries. Ron Paul would certainly be first. He is also the most Constitution-friendly.

    UA, while Bill Richardson has been running his state along more libertarian principles than any other of the candidates who have been governor, no candidate has articulated a libertarian philosophy for federal government on a national stage as has Ron Paul.

    Furthermore, Richardson has just lately embraced medical MJ as an issue, and seems to be doing it because the people want it rather than because of any guiding principle on the issue.

    That being said, Richardson is the most fiscally responsible Dem and would probably do less damage than any of his partymates.

    If the CP and the LP run complete bigots or utter fools, if Ron Paul fails to make it on the ballot in any form, if another GOP warmonger gets the nod, and if Bill Richardson wins the nomination, I might consider voting for him.

  115. Andy Says:

    “undercover_anarchist Says:

    March 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
    Good job, Borat. You took that class in Modern American Humor, I see.”

    You can’t come up with an intelligent response so you resort to this bullshit.

    The bottom line here is that you’ve made a bunch of allegations against Ron Paul which I have PROVEN to be false and you continue to repeat them. Perhaps your most ridiculous comment about Ron Paul is that he’s a mercantilist and is anti-free trade and anti-capitalism. I posted several articles above that PROVE that you are WRONG about this yet you ignore this and continue to repeat your drivel. This exposes you as a LIAR.

  116. Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo Making Run for Presidency « Constitutionalogistix Says:

    [...] Sunday, March 18th, 2007 in Uncategorized Austin Cassidy’s Third Party Watch includes a thorough article about Ron Paul’s run for president. You can look at what Rep. Paul stands for at his Exploratory Committee website. [...]

  117. George Phillies Says:

    At the LP STate Chairs conference (LSLA) in Florida, Mr. Viguerrie, co-founder of the “New Right” movement, gave a speech explaining how it was done. It was a great talk. He also discussed Ron Paul, explaining that in his opinion Ron Paul did not pass two key tests with his region of the conservative movement. Your mileage will vary.

  118. Merlo Says:

    Good luck Ron Paul, i hope the you get the media coverage you have deserve and have earned for not selling your soul to special interest groups.

Leave a Reply