Do you really think Ron Paul will follow through and do this?

Cheryl, I think at least in part, you have to look at what someone has done to guess what they might do in the future.

I've seen what he's done through the years here and in D.C. as a supposed representative of Texans. I'm not articulate enough, and Molly's gone, though we have what she wrote about Ron Paul through the years. (Upon reading this before posting, I realized I mention Molly Ivins as often as Ron Paul. Well, that's because to many, she was THE astute observer of politics, both Texan and national. More often than not, to her sorrow and ours, history proved her right.)

Sara Robinson, a self-described "libertarian leftist," speaks now as I wish I could about Ron Paul's history here: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html.

The article begins, "Molly Ivins, God bless her big heart, warned us about Ron Paul over a decade ago ..." and picks up later with "Molly, with her usual insight, laid out the essential struggle we're having with Paul. As a libertarian leftist, I understand viscerally the charm of Paul's message. Who wouldn't be charmed? He's anti-war, anti-torture, anti-drug war, and anti-corporation -- a real progressive dream date. Until you reflect on the fact that he's also anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-sane immigration policy, and apparently, anti-separation of church and state as well ..."

There are lot of substantive facts cited there, it's not just an opinion piece. And maybe just as interesting as the original article is the "Comments" thread you find at the end of the article. Some comments are pro-Paul, some are con. One reader quotes Molly (in re. Shrub but still applicable to Ron Paul, given her published views):

"The next time I tell you not to vote for a candidate from Texas, will you please listen?" I can just see the grin and the twinkle in her eyes after she said that.

I don't think he single-handedly do this, and of course he can't alone. But, his statement over and over again show his interest in doing just that: restore the balance of power to the branches of government as set out in the constitution, protect the people from the government, as well as the principles of government from those who would profit by it's dissolution.

All the other candidates running seem to believe that their policies would benefit us. Dr. Paul doesn't seem to rely of his ideas so much, at least he's not pushing them in the same way. He seems to be saying that they are secondary to the constitution. The only arguments he'll get from me is in where and when these issues are not addressed directly in the work of the founding fathers. That's why the constitution itself changes from time to time. We need to be there to make sure that when it does change our voices are heard, and those of special interest groups or multi-national corporations are heard without the megaphones that money and power imply.

I don't know much about this guy.....yet. You guys have got me wanting to learn more now. I'm not too big on lables, but can a libertarian that cares not to recognize rights of certain groups of people really call himself a libertarian?

Remember the old sayings “Live and Let Live” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Not exactly Libertarian slogans but part of an American way of life. Now they seem about as quaint as an old Jimmy Stewart movie. And, to a large extent, our culture was about reverence and respect for the individual and suspicion of institutional authority, whether church or state. The old liberal and convervative labels no longer apply. Seems to me that it's more about Authoritarian vs. Libertarian.

“Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” Seems to me that the founding fathers understood this much better than we do today.

Larry

This all makes perfect sense, however the last sentence presents the biggest challenge. Overregulation is government abuse of the population in some measure ,and underregulation will often lead to certain segments of the population abusing other segments. Balance is the key and the goal one would assume, and balance relies on judgement. The trouble is we are trusting the judgement of elected officials who are swayed by special intrests, battle lines drawn by political party bigwigs ,and other factors often more than they are swayed by the people that elected them.
Of course the ultimate power of change is in the hands of the people, but nowadays, most people don't care to attempt to use it. Those that do often find themselves in a minority regarding trying to steer the great ship of state the way one might try to steer a battleship by sticking an oar in the water.
While I agree that the "less is more" concept regarding government is desireable, and the back to the basics of the constituiton is as well, government bureaucracy is a self sustaining black hole of a vortex that will over time suck in everything we as a nation allow it to.
This is not suggesting that we give up of course, only that it's gunna be tough. Am I off an a tangent here? Somebody stop me! I gotta learn more about this Ron Paul guy. I think we are having fish sticks tonight, so that's a start...maybe?

Personally, I don't know care what party some one is in. I'm a registered Democrat but I have, in the past, voted for candidates from several different parties. Back in the '70s I signed a petition to put the Communist party on the ballot because in a Democracy, in my mind, anyone who wants to run should be able to run.

I don't know anything about this guy either. Maybe this section of the forums (Topical Tropical) would be a good place to post/discuss the pros and cons of all of the candidates (unless Dave the Wiz can add a political forum).

We can do it here Zap...... it's kinda what it's for.
I'm with ya on that one. A party means less than the person and the ideas, and they can create too much of the "us and them" thing as opposed to the "us" thing. I've seen people put party ahead of country with blind loyalty just as I've seen people put country ahead of humanity. Both wrong things to do in my eyes.

I'm with you on those, too Larry.

If Ron Paul is not who he appears to me to be, I'm gonna have to straighten him out myself. And I'm willing to do that

However, as much as I enjoy a lively chat with fellow blunderers, I think it's all a moot point. Unless something crazy happens, Ron Paul and a few other good guys from the Dems side of things will not make it to the final chapter of this particular book.

In all likelihood, we will once again as usual find ourselves voting for the lesser of evils, and that is what the process is all about. I'm very excited about the possibility of getting almost anyone into oval office who isn't clinically insane. And there are more than a few running who would serve well. Let's hope for the best possible outcome for the most people - whoever that is.

PS. I read the info from the link posted above, and there was very little in it about Ron Paul. Most of the info seems to suggest that we should judge him by the "company he keeps..." There was nothing about separation of church and state, except Paul's opinion that the separation we enjoy was not part of the constitution - he's right, it's not. There was nothing to indicate he would abolish taxes, but that he had supporters who evade taxes. In fact what he says is, that the IRS should be abolished. I agree. Does that make me a nazi lunatic? He is critized for defending cross burners, when he is actually talking about free speech. I may support your right to call me an idiot, but does that mean I have to agree? There was nothing at all about gay rights, etc.

To me, these are cheap shots. If you want to know about the guy and his views, go to HIS website. I'm not suggesting that anyone support his campaign, but I think he's a candidate whose opinions and arguments are interesting and healthy during these times.

Thanks for your input Arlo. We are here live from Jerry Falwells neighbors house in Lynchburg, VA. They are katy cornered to his house. They love Arlo too. Yeah blunderites are everywhere. They just showed me their dvd of the Alices movie. Very interesting story of how we met them. She was on some of the Starsky & Hutch e-mail lists I am on & we met thru that & then met in person whenw e came thru Lynchburg. We are having fun so far. Lee says Hi to Arlo! I liked Starsky & Hutch when it came on in the 70's & watched it back then & liked it but it took the dvds of it being released a few yrs ago to get me going gaga for them. Anyway Ron Paul sounds interesting. I wonder if he is any kin to Andy Paul the preacher. Andy likes Arlo too. I think Arlo could do better as prez than any of these politicians. Go Arlo!

That's kinda what I was saying, or at least hinting at. BUT, whatever or whoever contributes to the process is a good thing if it opens minds, eyes, ears and hearts.

How ya gunna do that to him if you ain't straitened all us blunderfolk out yet?

( I was getting to serious and my inner smartass wuz just screaming to be released)

Ok zap. Wanna run as a ticket?

Only if I can be Secretary of Mead or Secretary of (Altered) State. In either office I will have control of The Cabinet (liquor or otherwise).