A longshot emerges from the shadows

Ron Paul may be the political butterfly of the 2008 presidential campaign. An obscure congressman from Southeast Texas for most of his political career, Paul has metamorphosed into the favorite of those looking for a candidate outside the political mainstream.

Legions of die-hard fans formed across the country after Republican candidate debates and Internet blogs exposed his contrarian views.

Paul, 71, remains one of the longest of long shots for the GOP nomination, but that hasn’t deterred supporters from making cold calls to voters in early contest states, plastering the Internet with plaudits, and loudly challenging Paul’s White House rivals at campaign stops.

“I honestly believe that Congressman Ron Paul, as crazy as it might sound, I believe he is the father of the modern Republican Party,” said Jason Stoddard, 31, an Austin, Texas, entrepreneur who has no formal ties to Paul’s campaign but has made more than a thousand calls to Iowa voters urging their support.

The enthusiasm of admirers like Stoddard has boosted Paul’s national profile and helped his campaign raise $3 million over the past three months — a fraction of the double-digit millions chalked up by the top-tier candidates, but a respectable sum for an underdog.

That enthusiasm, however, hasn’t translated into widespread support in presidential polls for Paul, who was a Libertarian Party candidate for president two decades ago and is best known as a champion of small government, low taxes and minimal foreign intervention.

National opinion polls of Republican primary voters generally show his support at about 2 percent. And while he’s accumulated a cache of campaign dollars, Paul’s not spending most of it. He has spent just $650,000 this year, the third-least of all 2008 presidential candidates, according to federal campaign finance reports.

“Most of the oxygen is being taken up, especially on the Republican side, by those who look like they might have a prayer of winning in a Democratic year,” said University of Texas political scientist Bruce Buchanan.

An obstetrician-gynecologist and former Air Force flight surgeon, Paul stands out from the other Republican candidates on several scores, including his long-held opposition to the Iraq war. As a result, he might benefit from President Bush’s near-record unpopularity and the growing public discontent with the war, said Michael Tanner, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

But potential supporters may find some of the 10-term congressman’s other views more difficult to accept, including calls for a return to the gold standard and a radically smaller government with no Education Department, Energy Department or Internal Revenue Service.

Paul also is just as likely to turn off as many voters as he turns on with positions that straddle both liberal and conservative camps. He opposes the death penalty and votes against military appropriations. He also opposes abortion and gun control. He’s known on Capitol Hill as “Dr. No.”

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton acknowledged that Paul has formidable challenges to overcome before the first votes for the nomination are cast in about five months. The campaign just bought its first radio ads in Iowa and New Hampshire and has nearly tripled its staff to 25 in the past month.

“We realize the odds are still pretty long for Dr. Paul, but we think that Ron is a real legitimate player now that people are starting to pay attention,” Benton said.

As comedian Stephen Colbert put it when Paul appeared in June on his mock right-wing talk show, “You are an enigma wrapped in a riddle nestled in a sesame seed bun of mystery.”


On the Net:

Ron Paul for President: http://www.ronpaul2008.com


  1. Cailleach

    Ron Paul for president? The founder of the John Birch Society? I don’t think so. Smaller government? At last count there were some 700+ bridges out there like the one on Interstate 35 waiting to collapse. On interstates! Causing huge disruptions in interstate commerce. Doesn’t want to pay taxes? What are the corporations going to do without infrastructure? Oh, let the poor schlub middle and lower class taxpayers do it.Think twice before you’re taken in again by neocon nonsense.

  2. Pablo

    As to how I define the words “anti-foreign intervention (unless necessary),” in my post: This does not mean rescuing corporations. It means when the people of some other country are being invaded by and agressor and it is obvious that the problem is going to grow like a cancer if not stopped. WW II is a case in point. Surely some things could have been done to prevent that from ever happening, but once it was happening, I think we had a moral obligation to help Europe. I hate war and think 95% of it is unnecessary but I hate to admit that sometimes it is absolutely necessary. I think the two candidates I support, and it appears Ron Paul, would share that philosophy.

  3. Ardie

    Ron Paul is far, far away from the neoconservative agenda laid down by Irving Kristol. (Kristol was a Trotskyist in his youth admitting later on that he had no bad memories about being one.) In many ways, Ron Paul’s views are Jeffersonian. Right now we need a Jefferson.

  4. SEAL

    Carl Nemo says:
    Rest assured every act of military and political adventurism this country was involved in during the Reagan era had “Poppy” Bush’s fingerprints on the plot or scheme.

    I can’t elaborate, but I was there and you have no Idea how true your statement is. The parallel between Reagan/Bush and Bush/Cheney is almost identical other than the fact of less subtrafuge in the latter.

  5. Carl Nemo

    Yo Cailleach…

    I usually don’t rain on a poster’s parade, but Ron Paul did not found the John Birch Society. Possibly he’s been a member, but surely not the founder.

    The John Birch Society was established in Indianapolis, Indiana on December 9, 1958 by a group of twelve “patriotic and public-spirited” men led by Robert Welch, Jr., a retired candy manufacturer from Belmont, Massachusetts.


    Based on what’s happened to this once great nation, I’d say John Bircher’s were spot-on concerning the threats to this once great republic. It seems that the “bad guys” have won and “we the people” have been left holding the public “debt-bag”…!

    Carl Nemo **==

  6. SEAL

    I’m already tired of hearing about this guy. What is it that makes some people believe that any candidate with radical views is going to have any chance of being elected? It makes no difference if his views are good or bad, if they are radical, the mainstream will avoid them like the plague. That’s a fact of life. So, why bother with this.

  7. Ardie

    The only place where I disagree with Ron Paul is over the issue of abortions. Abortion began as a eugenics issue. The American Medical Association succeeded in criminalizing abortion during the late nineteenth century. In addition, there was a push to outlaw contraceptives. Again this all stemmed from the eugenics movement of that time which wanted to see white women stay home and have babies. There was a fear that the ‘white race’ was on the decline. Elements of the eugenics have carried over into the Republican Party. President T.R. Roosevelt was the standard-bearer of eugenics who was deeply concered about “race-suicide”. (An interesting read and my source is, Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom by Wendy Kline: University of California Press, 2001)

  8. graphictruth

    I’ve been supporting Ron Paul on Graphictruth.com for some time, even though I strongly disagree with some of his positions. Why?

    Because, with the liberal/progressive sweep of House and Senate seats that I anticipate, I think we need a “Dr. No” to veto the unconstitutional and guide the irresistible tide toward the restoration of a social safety net towards constitutional means.

    I believe firmly that we should have a lot less governing of our day to day lives – and a greater emphasis spent on informing our individual decisions, without bias toward whawt those decisions might be.

    I believe that if we recommit ourselves toward building a well-informed and involved electorate, actual individual self-governance can statistically replace big government. But we need mechanisms to allow that, and two things need to happen for that to occur. First, we need the regulatory hand of government to keep corporations from becoming governments themselves, and second, we need the government to restrain itself from taxing and regulating the means of the people to peaceably assemble.

    Hands off the internet, in other words.

    I support Ron Paul because he’s the least likely to invade my personal space, and on the issues where he might be tempted to do so, he’ll be countered by overwhelming force.

    Oh, btw, about the money thing. As unfastionable as it is to advocate genuine “hard” currency with intrinsic value, he’s correct about both money itself and some of the issues regarding the Federal Reserve.

    The issues that led to the foundation of the Fed in the first place – monetary panics and bank failures – were very real and must be addressed in any currency reform, but I think the discussion of a solidly-founded currency with a positive value, rather than a debt basis, is long past due.

    Operation Costs = ten bucks a month. Uniques = >200/day. Being on record as correct = Priceless.

  9. JoyfulC

    Speaking of Wikipedia, there’s a pretty good write up on him on there — might be a good place to start for more info about him.

    There were some things that impressed me — specifically that he supported his kids through college, and that he worked for $3/day in an ER. I was also impressed that he was named one of the “50 Most Effective Members of Congress” by Congressional Quarterly.

    He has a lot of ideas that are very different from the average R or D politician, and while I don’t agree with all of them, some are quite refreshing. BUT if he was elected, he’d have to work with Congress — could he? Or would they cut him off at the knees?

    Also — and something to consider for whoever becomes the next president (and the next after that, and the next after that, probably) is that the US is in need of a thorough housecleaning. Many industries, corporations, special interest groups and private citizens will put up a strong resistance — how would he handle that?

    We really do need to start asking tougher questions of our candidates and holding them to them. Right now, a candidate can get by simply by telling us what we want to hear. But that’s going to get old in a hurry, I predict!


  10. Carl Nemo

    Excellent commentary Pablo…!

    I’m thinking that Ron Paul as many others were taken in by Ronald Reagan’s “aw shucks”…”there you go again” type delivery. Reagan had crowd appeal due to the novelty that he was an actor, former California governor etc. He had a knack of telling “we the people” what they wanted to hear; ie., “comfort food” for the mind… :))

    Reagan was asked about having a running mate that might be associated with the CFR, Trilaterals, Skull and Bones etc., and he said he would have no one that was associated with secret societies or shadowy agendas, then up popped George H.W. Bush as his running mate; ie., Mr. Skull and Bones, CFR, Trilateral, Bilderberger etc. ad nauseam ad infinitum. The shadowy MIC/NWO controllers made sure they had Mr. CIA/NWO plugged into the vice presidency. Rest assured every act of military and political adventurism this country was involved in during the Reagan era had “Poppy” Bush’s fingerprints on the plot or scheme.

    Ronzo sat back munching on jelly beans and again simply performing as a “Howdy Doody” type puppet to the masses. There’s a good possibility he had onset dementia even during his first term. His administrations managed to slap several trillion bucks of Public debt on our shoulders fighting the “evil Empire”; ie., the Soviets that were crumbling under their systemic inefficiences. The intelligence attesting to the fact was there, but they chose to ignore it no different than dubya ignoring the valid intelligence product stating that Saddam was not a threat as proposed by the Wolfowitz-Feith-Cheney rogue intelligence pipeline. The rest is history and now costing the American people 12 billion per month of more “debt-money”…!

    People need to be seriously concerned about a candidates’ running mate in these times. As mentioned H.W. Bush although a V.P. was engaged in heavy-duty behind the scenes chicanery, so was Al Gore, who imagined himself as an intelligence buff, meddling with the intelligence product, and we all know what we’ve gotten with Dick Cheney in terms of a meddling V.P.

    Paul is 71 and if the Republicans plug in some younger, “jive turkey” with ties to Skull and Bones, Tri-laterals, CFR, Bilderberg, the MIC etc., then we could end up with another nightmarish round of the “python of tyranny” constricting the last breath of life from Lady Liberty; ie., what little she has left. So the electorate has to focus with laserlike attention on the VP candidate and their track record in these times because they are only a heartbeat away from the presidency. Paul’s running mate best have the same sentiments as he with a proven track record otherwise he’s a big fat “NO” vote for the presidency.

    America is in “harms way” with this continuing paradigm.

    Carl Nemo **==

  11. almandine



    Research him for yourselves. No other politician can stand up to this STATESMAN.


  12. KayInMaine

    Ron Paul is so deceiving…

    …right now on the surface he looks like he’s a far cry from George Bush, but on closer examination you find that he’s a reich winger on lots of issues.

    I don’t trust him nor would I vote for a republican at this point in the game either.


  13. history guy

    Seal, you are missing the point. Candidates like Ron Paul offer something the dems and repubs don’t. We talk about him for many reasons. So you can vote your disgust with the system as it stands. So you can vote for CHANGE! We need radical change or we will continue to have the same demo/repubs that just today went along with Bush’s demand for wiretaps with out judicial review for 6 months.

  14. bigsurjune


    You see, you and the disingenuous corporate media use words like “longest of long shots” or “alternative,” even some use “the odd man out.” These descriptions are just a clever means to his possible end. You write light-hearted, fun articles and paint the man as if he is a silly cute child trying to grab the media’s attention, or just trying to bring a bit of humor to a serious situation. How could anyone possibly rise above and be taken serious when we have reporters like you manipulating the facts and smothering the truths?

    Liz, no matter how you and the rest of the spin masters try to deceitfully dumb down Dr.Paul and his campaign, rest assure that there are a few of us Americans left who don’t subscribe to cable TV and it’s 100 channels of unreality programs, or that can more simply READ BETWEEN THE LINES!

    The thing that surprises me Liz, is that you obviously view your medium–the Internet–sub par to other mediums. In one breath you praise Dr.Paul as being the king of the Internet and then in another, more subtle way, bash this style as being inferior–are you dissatisfied with your career?

    In my humble opinion, being the king of the Internet is frankly the king of my world! I threw my TV out a long time ago because of the exact same reason that incited me to comment on this article.

    Don’t worry Liz, you’re doing a good job, you’ll be on TV soon enough with your chemically altered teeth and your disingenuous smile–keep up the good work!!!

  15. SEAL

    I didn’t miss any point and I have enough self discipline that I don’t have to throw my TV set away, I can determine what I want to view on it. The point is that when you vote for someone you are saying you want that person to be the president of the US. But you shouldn’t cast a vote in a presidential election for someone who has no chance of being elected. Don’t delude yourself that you are making some kind of statement. What you are doing is participating in the determination of who will be the president and should consider what effect your vote will have. Again, I point out those who elected Bush in the last election by voting for Ralph Nadar. The reality is that they did not vote for Nadar, they voted for Bush.

    I would never seek to deny any person of the right to their own ideology or the right to express it. I spent most of my life defending that right. But I would ask that people consider the reality of the effect of their actions. I would bet the farm that every one of those people who voted for Nadar would rather have Kerry for president than Bush and the same condition will be true in the next election. Unfortunately, we will given the choice of voting against the person we prefer the least. Lets try not to screw it up this time and wind up with another Nazi in the White House pulling the stings on a dimwitted delusional puppet with a forty foot nose. That is the point!

  16. CheckerboardStrangler

    “But potential supporters may find some of the 10-term congressman’s other views more difficult to accept, including calls for a return to the gold standard and a radically smaller government with no Education Department, Energy Department or Internal Revenue Service.”

    —Hmmm, I’ve always thought of myself as a dabbler in bullshit propaganda spin, but I must step aside and BOW TO THE MASTER!

    No Education Dept…let’s see, that would be the department responsible for “Why Johnny can’t read”

    No Energy Dept….would that be the Energy Dept that has licked Cheney’s butt for the last two terms?

    This is going to alienate me HOW??!
    ROFLMAO….Oh my God I can’t catch my breath!

  17. bony

    Having been a Democrat for almost 30 years this guy makes the most sense to me.
    America may have to write him in if the GOP machine has their way and stops a man who seems to understand what America is about, freedom and peace.
    I was thinking an Edwards/Obama ticket might make a difference, but I think I was wrong in my initial judgement of that idea.
    After watching Jennings testify before the Judiciary yesterday it seems we have a covert government operating in full view of the American people. At least Dean, Haldeman and Erlichman were amusing atthe Wtergate hearing. Let’s face those were the pioneers of ,”I cannot recall” and ” I do not recollect”.

    It seems we are country without laws, except when it pertains to the little guys. If the Bush administration can invoke Execytive Privledge, then it seems all American’s can say, “Citizen privledge”. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    My fear is that Paul is shill for some agenda. I hope not, as I think and feel that this country is at a precupice we cannot alter. I wish people would look back at all the rumbling after 9/11 and see that the only thing that really changed was we lost a lot of personal freedoms.

    Giving up our personal freedoms for safety did not work out very well after the Weimar Republic folded and it will not work out well for America.

    “The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union.”

    ~ Thomas Jefferson

    It is time for the people to get a chance to see this candidate and hopefully make up “our” own minds to the direction this country should move.

  18. JoyfulC

    He looks interesting and well worth looking into more thoroughly. Of course, anyone looks good by what their supporters say about them. He doesn’t appear to have come far enough to have anyone throwing out challenges he’d have to answer to … yet.

    But “the father of the modern Republican Party”??? Is that a good thing?? And some of his notions seem a bit extreme — sure, we’d all like to see a return to the gold standard and the eradication of or serious dieting by various ineffective and bloated government agencies, but is it realistic to expect that could happen? Or would this just be bait used to lure sucker voters in? I’d like to see what his ideas for what could *realistically* happen in a single term of administration. What would his actually plans for a first term be?

    It might also help to know a little about his record — how’s his balance between corporate and private interests? How respected is he in the international community? With respect to the things he’s against — such as abortion and gun control — how respectful is he of the fact that not all Americans feel the same way? Is he a uniter? Or a divider? In past elections, how dirty did he fight? What did he campaign on and how well did he deliver?

  19. gene

    Well I think just for the privilege of being the first to comment to the above article on (whats his name?) Oh, yeh..Ron Paul. Hmmmm, easy to remember, his name that is.

    Lets see this nation and many others have already gone to “hell in a hand basket” and we (this nation) are on our way back for a second dose…of hell. Politics is certainly entertaining us in kind of a “sick” way but it (politics) may be somewhat eclisped by another (monster if you will) and that is….(drum beat please!!)……MONEY.. and what happen to it, as in “I don’t have enough to pay for food, housing, utilities, transportaing, etc.”..one word can amply express this and it is (inflation). That happens when the Fed printing presses go wild and create tons and tons of this “stuff” called (you’ve got to be kidding) but their not….money.

    Oh well, enough said. Have a nice day, if possible.

  20. gene

    Oh and (LFTL) can I borrow some money, a few million will do nicely. I promise to pay you back…choke, cough, belch, (fart)…oops!! by the the year 2050….with interest, I might add.

  21. LurkingFromTheLeft

    Well, by then…

    …my 91 year old self would certainly appreciate that –

    …so, since the funds will be in my paypal account, I might just have to ‘git me’ some wine futures –


  22. Boudicca

    “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone; the people themselves are its only safe depositories.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    As an independent voter, I believe that both political parties are corrupt to the core. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in the toxic waste of politics and he has consistently voted against the Bush war and its funding.

    I support Ron Paul because he opposes the growth of the totalitarian state.

    There is no accountability in the public arena until more Ron Paul’s are elected to public office. Meanwhile, it’s the “same old, same old” in politics and Congress. Higher taxes, pork, endless wars, the outsourcing of our jobs and governance that is unprecedented in its dictatorial powers.

    Bill Clinton and the Dems gave us NAFTA which destroyed millions of jobs in the U.S. as well as wiping out millions of Mexican farmers. George Bush fed it steroids with CAFTA. Pelosi and gang just passed a whopper of a prok laden welfare bill for gazillionaire farmers and big agri-business. The Dems are colluding with Bush to expand electronic spying of citizens. The police state has arrived.

    Support Ron Paul by voting in the Republican primary.

  23. Elmo

    You’re better off with Paul as your Congressvarmint than your neighbors were with Tom DeLay. Paul won’t try to get Federal money to fix local problems any more than he will send it to build Ted Stevens’ bridge.

  24. footlite

    I have viewed the internet campaign for Mr. Paul with some amusement. I live in his district, unlike most online posters. Around here he is invisible. He’s not effective in Washington, either. Not only is he known as Dr. No, he’s also considered the least effective legislator ever. He doesn’t believe in government, which sounds great until bridges start falling. As appealing as getting rid of government may sound, you can’t run a complex society that way. We need to elect people who have an interest in making the blamed thing work as honestly and effectively as it can.

    What did he campaign on? Can’t recall. Don’t think he campaigns much. Down here you pretty much get the Republican vote if you’re anti-abortion. Being anti-government helps, too. Democrats keep their heads down around here, and others need not apply.

    He’s complex and entertains ideas that might be considered self-contradictory, but he’s not a hypocrite. He believes what he believes. What you see is what you get. Not much of a diplomat. Not good at persuasion or compromise.

    When he first ran for office he said he only wanted one term and wouldn’t run for re-election. When the time came, though, he put his name on the ballot. He lived across the street from a relative of mine at the time and told him the Washington experience was intoxicating (don’t quote me–it’s been a long time and I don’t remember the exact word) and hard to give up. The power. People fawning all over you. The perks. Still, I expect he was being his typical frank self and that he does make an effort to avoid being corrupted by it all.

    It’s interesting that his stances cross so many of the political dividing lines that have turned into battle lines, and maybe it’s a good sign for the future that people are interested in a politician who may hold some of their views but also espouses things they consider anathema. Unfortuntely there are no good signs for his ability to preside. Please, look elsewhere.


  25. Ken Hill

    Interesting comments footlite. Yes it is amazing how someone’s profile changes the closer one looks. And you have a very close look. So in your opinion Paul is not the savior some seem to long for? And what is that quote from the bible—a prophet is not respected in his own hometown—or something like that. It will be interesting to see how far Dr. Paul gets in this election. A good showing would shake things up a little.

  26. Carl Nemo

    Yo footlite…

    Excellent “down-home” commentary concerning Ron Paul. Although people seem to be enamoured by his rhetoric, I consider him to be a political anomaly.

    There’s no going back to the gold standard, maybe the uranium, plutonium,oil, or “fresh, potable water”, standard but not gold! If we turn the business of regulation and governance back to the states we’ll end up with a super-tanker load of governance predicated on state sponsored, bigoted, bible-thumping, retrograde inbred regulations and laws; ie., Freedom…not!

    Supposedly there’s 8100 metric tonnes of gold in Fort Knox. If you calculate 31.1. troy ounces against this stored measure of gold we’ll end up with gold having to be $38,600 per ounce based on the U.S. Treasury/Fed’s endless debt-money, printing press, counterfeiting scam which is ludicrous;ie., meaning gold is severely overpriced, the bottom line being that America is simply “overbought” (inflation) bigtime; i.e, “we the people and the world being bust” big-time…! 😐

    Paul talks the talk, but I question whether he has the ability nor the support to “walk the walk”…?!

    In these highly dangerous times I’m leaning towards a black man name Obama. “But”, if he ties up with “Billary” in the end as his V.P. candidate or vice versa then he has to be dumped like a pair of dirty underwear, meaning they are “one” and of the “body” like in the Star Trek episode concerning Landreiu, and as to being “of the body” or not concerning the electorate; i.e, the NWO/MIC/AIPAC paradigm!

    Carl Nemo **==

  27. Pablo

    Here’s from somebody with leanings much left of most Democrats: Based what I know about Ron Paul, he is the only Democratic candidate who I could respect. Angry Guliani nearly went bezerk when (in one of the debates) when Paul said that after the 911 attacks we should have asked ourselves why it is that so many Arabs hate us, and went on to say that they probably don’t like us putting military installations in their countries; I took it that he felt that wasn’t a good thing. Angry Rudy demanded an apology to the American people and I swear I saw smoke coming out of his ears when Paul didn’t answer his request. Our foreign policy is my fear #One for this country and Paul appears to want to change things for the better. However, his pamphlets show him proudly posing with Ronald Reagan, declaring to espouse original republican ideas. He helped ‘trickle-down economics’-‘betray-our-country by-trading-arms-for-hostages’-‘illegal-seller-of- weaponry’-‘fomenter-and-financier-of-foreign wars’-‘make-the-rich-richer’ Reagan get elected and is proud to be associated with him; I don’t think that is somebody I want heading my country. Scarey! And double scarey is the outlawing of abortion. Stevens is 87 now and we’d better take this election real serious or we will reap what we sow once again. The good news is we actually have two honest, sincere candidates. Of course they aren’t republicans. Kucinich and Gravel. These two are excellent candidates and I am perplexed as to why they don’t have more support. Maybe as a collective unit we have a hidden, psychological need to live lives of turmoil, because we are foolish not to support candidates who are truly anti-war, pro-human rights, anti-foreign intervention (unless necessary), pro-choice, pro-health care and pro-environment. These are the only two we can trust to actually do as they say, and what they say is wonderful!

  28. ekaton

    “anti-foreign intervention (unless necessary),”

    Please define what is meant by unless necessary. The way I see it the only time foreign intervention is necessary is if one’s own country has been attacked. Is foreign intervention necessary if an American corporation’s overseas infrastructure has been attacked? I would say not. They moved there in the first place to move American jobs to a cheaper labor market that in many cases pays slave wages. Capitalism is all about risking private capital versus potential return on investment. Taxpayers should NEVER have to bail out private enterprise. If a giant hedge fund is declared “too large to allow to fail” then figure out some way to save it besides tapping the taxpayer. Let the shareholders bear the cost when one of their overseas plants is burned to the ground, or when their hedge fund fails. You move your production facilities offshore you take your own chances; don’t expect American taxpayers and soldiers foot the bill in funds and blood after you have been screwing the taxpayer the whole time.

    Foreign intervention is NEVER necessary.

    War is NEVER necessary unless attacked.

    Probably 60,000 filthy wealthy individuals on a planet of 6 billion are making life miserable for the rest of us in their greedy pursuit of more more more. War, for example, is enormously profitable.

    How can the 6 billion allow this to continue?

    — Kent Shaw

  29. Richard Kanegis

    I am so excited that I almost registered Republican, which I haven’t been since working for a Prince Georges County Maryland Republican Peace canndidate in 1963.

    The peace movement likes politcal correctness. No racists, sexists, hetrosexists, or speciests need apply. Al least until Ron Paul came along.

    I think guns and crack are equally dangerous. If we need to leagalize crack to stop organized crime. What will happen in this cowboy country if guns were ever outlawed? Maybe gun owners could be forced to atttend yearly anti-violence similars.

    I also worry about the rights of the unborn. But stopping a woman from having an abortion without offering free food, medical care,and housing turns me off.

    I’d love to see someone begging a woman not to abort a deformed baby offering medical care and a lifetime of home care helpers.

    Prehaps Ron Paul and Kusinich could debate and people meet (or joint meetup) against the war with two chair people, one representing the Ron Paul camp and one the Kusinich camp.

    PS if the curancy collapes, we can’t eat gold. But I’d like to see Ron Paul stop bin Laden from backrupting our enonomy nevertheless.

    Richard Kanegis 215-563-2866RichardKanegi@aol.com22s22ndStApt305PhilaPA19103

  30. ekaton

    “Maybe gun owners could be forced to atttend yearly anti-violence similars.”

    Your premise seems to be that gun owners are prone to violence. I do not accept your premise. I am a gun owner. My last fight was in 7th grade and I am 57 years old. (It was not, by the way, a gun fight.)

    “PS if the curancy collapes, we can’t eat gold.”

    Nor can we eat currency. But we could trade gold for food when the currency has become worthless.

    — Kent Shaw