While some of Paul's stances concerning the adherence to the constitution are laudable most of his other views are just too 'outside of the box' as evidenced by his 30 years in the House with virtually no legislative record.

I must admire his desire to spread his ideas compared to other candidates who've been labeled branders (in the race to sell books) but what a waste of time and resources.

It is a very telling sign when a once powerful political party has to rely on a political glass jaw known as Mitt Romney.

This swell of support for Ron Paul is simply the forerunner of a much larger tidal wave set to engulf the old political paradigm.

The internet is the gamebreaker.

As the technology-fed, social network-wed youth mature and make way for more of the same (probably even more tech-savvy) type of constituency, this massive shift will be seen by all for what it is; a movement in and of itself, totally independent and unattended by the old political model.

The GOP may try to accomodate and embrace it. But it will not, in its present shape or form, survive it.

I say this if one were to measure "survival" in terms of the GOP resembling what it has shown itself to be in the past 40 years.

Like any organism confronted with a changed environment, it either evolves or goes extinct.

@mmccrindle

"Criticizing Ron Paul for not passing bills in Congress is like criticizing a nun in a whore house for not turning tricks. He was there to stop the "whoring," not become one!" ~ Blake Buffington

Yes, mmccrindle, don't think outside the box. You might end unConstitutional wars, runaway debt and the shredding of your natural (and previously Constutitionally protected) rights.

Astounding, the fear and desparation in Charles' smear of our modern day Jefferson.

It is a shame, that we cannot have a candidate that combines the best of all the contenders. Paul is a strict advocate of returning government to its proper roll within the Constitution.

Likewise I do find it refreshing that he would like to cut down military bases around the world that are no longer necessary. Europa-stan comes to mind. However, his other views on foreign policy leaves me at best cold, at worse scared. As the author mentioned, they are a bit "whacky" I suppose Sen. Paul might however get us out of the UN. A position that many of us would agree.

Herein then lies my problem. Who do I dislike the least, as opposed to who do I like the best.

Every time I see Mitt Rommney on TV, I think of a plastic "Ken" doll parroting worn out phrases without content, and no clear or concise plan of action. Newt, has strayed so far from the right, that I find myself wondering what will come out of his mouth next and why is he playing this role? The others, so many pluses and minuses combined that space here does not allow me to comment.

Give Sen. Paul his due, at the very least he means what he says, and says what he means. To paraphrase Dr. Suess:

I said what I meant and I meant what I said, I'm a libertarian 100%

I feel an almost indescribable joy that finally, at last, the libertarian viewpoint is seeing the light of day.

True enough, the pure libertarian position is often too extreme, but it's as if we need someone way, way out there on the fringe to begin to bring some balance to the political landscape. For too long the choice between the Republican and Democratic candidate has boiled down to whether you want a really huge Federal government or a really, really huge Federal government, neither of which paid much attention to the Constitutionally mandated role established by the Founders. It's high time we dragged the field of debate back towards the orignial intentions as laid down in our Constitution.

I am happy to see Ron Paul have his time in the limelight. I hope his candidacy does lead to a permanent place on the political stage for those who truely believe in liberty and a return to a government as envisioned by our Founders those many years ago

Dr. Krauthammer has shown a refreshingly new side of the Ron Paul candidacy. It would be great if the GOP convention is much influenced by his Constitutional views. Imagine, a politician who actually believes the oath of office he takes to support the Constitution really means something!!

@ Luther-

I've seen enough "outside the box" crapola from Obama-Soetoro which does nothing but damage this Country.

Like I said, I admire his pro-constitutional stance but I still think Ron Paul is a wing-nut.

I suggest all those that call Ron Paul "out there" and "wacky" find and read what was in the documents our Founding Fathers wrote starting with the Declaration of Independence through the Constitution to their own Libraries. While you’re at it read Ron Paul’s own books, you will find that compared to Washington, Adams and Jefferson Paul is moderate. Our Founding Fathers were true Liberals when Liberal Libertarian and Libertine all meant Liberty.

@ Doktor, can nor agree that those bases are not necessary unless you feel isolationism is in our future. The ability of military to rapidly project and support military power is heavily dependent on forward deployed forces and their bases. Need to understand impact of cuts before you spend that money, because the future cost will definitely be impacted.

A reporter asks Ron Paul: "Do you see yourself in the White House?" Ron Paul replies: "No."

The good doctor has this one right, Ron Paul's ultimate goal here is not to be president, but to bring responsibility, accountability, and respect for the Constitution back into the realm of ruling. Who can argue with that? True, he has some "out-of-the-box" ideas about our role in the world as regards the military, but these ideas could never be implemented by a uncooperative Congress.

So, let's take the best of what Ron Paul has to offer, support him in returning "liberty" to our country, to returning an off-course Republican/Democrat liberalism to a real conservative government. If he goes to the convention in second, or even third place, he'll have the delegates to influence the party to return to some of our conservative ideals.

To this citizen, fear of Ron Paul is absurd when we have the likes of a Romney, a Gingrich, a Santorum, all seasoned politicians who will offer no change to the status quo. They've "been there, done that."

Dr. Krauthammer, your comparison of Ron Paul to the self-serving black, improperly ordained, sex fiend and racist radical Jesse Jackson is like my comparing you to Al Sharpton. Very distasteful. I would not do it.

Just imagine newsletters published under your name, with you listed as editor, and you knew nothing about them, and never read them, contradicting what you said in two interviews back in '95 and '96. And then the radical white supremacy group, "Stormfront" donates to your campaign and you accept the money, and other stalwart defenders of the American Way, such as David Duke, support you. Then you, as well as your son, say you wish Israel didn't exist, but you say you're neither racist nor anti-Semitic.

Dick Morris said there are three types of conservatives - economic, national defense and social conservatives. Ron Paul is an economic conservative, and God bless him for it. But he is an isolatist with absurd ideas on Iran and Israel, who would withdraw from a dangerous world. On social issues, he is a libertarian whose ideas on legalizing drugs are wacko, IMHO. One out of three is not very good.

Go with him on auditing the Fed, handcuffing the Fed, and a constitutional amendment to prohibit borrowing. Oppose him on defense and social issues.

@TJS

You do youself a great service by disabusing your mind of Dick Morris' myopic worldview. The acceptance of people like him and their continued existence in society is the litmus test for libertarianism.

@SJvet

And then imagine you're a propaganda shill for the oligarchy establishment in Washington and you selectively edit the facts to match your propaganda goals. Imagine.

@Chuck,

As a Retired Military Officer and Veteran of 4 wars, (Cold War, Gulf War I, Grenada and Gulf War II, plus 3 years in Iraq), I must disagree with your assessment. We have well over 100 bases, (closer to 150 actually) in countries that span the globe. Most are not necessary. We could accomplish forward basing and power projection with perhaps 20 or so. Why do we need 100 or 150? From a strategic standpoint the advantage isn't that much greater with 150 than 20 or 25. In fact I would argue the law of diminishing returns favors the smaller number. Don't make the mistake of confusing "presence" with actual value for dollars spent.

I'm in agreement with Ron Paul on the economic issues but I differ with him on some societal and foreign policy issues. Having said that, there is tremendous room for improvement in our foreign policy with respect to the number of bases we currently occupy around the world. While I don't agree with him that we should return all our troops from overseas assignments a dramatic reduction is long past due. We can't protect our southern border but we can maintain military bases in countries who no longer need us there and provide no definitive strategic value militarily?

Don't get me wrong here, I understand the point you made but I think you greatly overestimate the need. Just my thoughts, they're free!! Thanks.

W.

I don't get the Republican 'fear' of Ron Paul's ideas, as we rush to the precipice of financial ruin with the status quo in WaDC.

So will President Romney supply-side us out of this mess? More like a nice rearrangement of the Titanic's deck chairs...

The 'establishment' wants status quo: full steam ahead! We're the unsinkable America, right?!

Another brand of Republican elite media messaging. Okay, we can no longer ignore Ron Paul -- but he is still unelectable (because we the all powerful media and mobster elite declare him to be unelectable). I say NO MORE. Ron Paul is electable because I SAY HE IS ELECTABLE! Ron Paul is electable because thousands of lively, thoughtful, intelligent, talented and knowledgable people young and old SAY HE IS ELECTABLE.

He is electable IF WE ELECT HIM! I hope and pray he gets the financial support he needs to get his message spread to all the people before their primaries. HE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WE CAN TRUST TO DO EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS HE WILL DO.

He is the only one with honor, integrity and a workable plan in place. He is right on foreign policy for anyone who is willing to understand that he is simply saying obey the Constitution. Do not send our sons and daughters into war without a Congressional agreement authorizing the President to use our country's precious lives and resources to engage a country that refuses to abide with us peacefully.

There has been NO AUTHORITY for any of the last 60 years worth of wars. We have lost the lives of loved ones at the whim of NATO and rebellious or deceived Presidents compelled to war by ignorant mobs roused to an ignorant fervor by paid media messengers presenting messages prepared by the banks that own them and the politicians they pay to get elected. I SAY NO MORE.

NO MORE.

It is Ron Paul or Obama -- TAKE YOUR PICK.

"Criticizing Ron Paul for not passing bills in Congress is like criticizing a nun in a whore house for not turning tricks. He was there to stop the "whoring," not become one!" ~ Blake Buffington

Posted January 13, 2012 at 9:12:08 AM

gabriel, that was a beautiful thing.

This was a fair article about Congressman Paul. The link below is to a great editorial that was distributed today.

The true believer

by Patrick J. Buchanan01/13/2012

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48769

@ Usul & Gabriel-

I guess I'm a realist.

Ron Paul's been in there fighting to stop the whoring for 30 years. I'd say there's a whole lot more whoring nowadays.

I'll say it one more time- I do like his pro-constitutional stances and I hope to see conservatives adopt (once again) those ideals.

& @ Sherry - BUT - He doesn't have the backing in either voters or money to successfully challenge Obastard.

If he runs independent he'll only detract from the GOP candidate.

If you write in his name then that's like a vote for Obummer.

IMHO any vote for that creep Obama-Soetoro is an act of treason.

@mmccrindle

I'm very happy that you're a realist.

I am a realist as well. Being pragmatic, surely you must agree with us that there really isn't much of a difference in the way both major political parties run nowadays.

Obama and Romney have the same big business names listed as their major contributors. Realistically, this would only mean more of the same should either win. Not much hope there.

We need to draw the line here. We need accountability back in government. No more going along to get along. Especially when getting along means eating a sovereign debt crisis that will rip our society to pieces.

Paradoxically, the lack of contrast between Obama and Romney actually helps in making a choice. We may not have as much money as Obama and Romney. We may not have media showering us with soundbites of love. Yet we persist. We gain.

Because we've got the people willing to make a stand for change.

Our change is inevitable.

"@mmccrindle

"Criticizing Ron Paul for not passing bills in Congress is like criticizing a nun in a whore house for not turning tricks. He was there to stop the "whoring," not become one!" ~ Blake Buffington"

Superb, Gabriel!

Nobody seems to notice that these "huge, exciting primaries" had only as many voters as there were in a Montgomery County, Texas (a very small county) School Board election!! This is ludicrous! We are letting a tiny election determine the future of the United States of America, and acting like it's the "Last Word" in the political race this year. A pox on the news media! Shame on all of you!! And shame on Ron Paul. He was a doctor, before he was bitten by the political bug, and yet he doesn't believe in the right to life!! What kind of Liberty is that? And, if someone admits that the Republican Party has lost sight of the Conservative goals, then he's "Out of the race." Hey, have you noticed that the Republican Party is wearing the same clothes as the Demoncrats?? Nobody is conservative anymore!! Truly conservative!

@ Charles-

Ron Paul is very prolife! You can check out his stance on abortion at his website.

Paving the way for Rand? seriously? Wow. Well, I'd say Daddy has some work to do on him then.