Has Ron Paul Quit?

Lally Singh sends us to the inside-the-Beltway blog Wonkette for a quick take on a letter Ron Paul sent to his supporters. In this analysis, Dr. Paul has basically called it quits. "Late Friday night, Dr. Congressman Ron Paul posted a letter to his fans basically saying it's over, but he will continue talking about his message, and plus it would be completely embarrassing for him if he also lost his congressional seat."

Real summary.

[Romancer (19668)]

FTA:

"Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron"

Re:Real summary.

[log0n (18224)]

We still have Obama. Party doesn't really matter anymore.. the country is getting further and further fargone and needs real leadership. McCain (war hero or not - honestly, it's noble but doesn't impress me) and Clinton both represent entrenched politics and more of the same old. Sounds funny, if I can't have Ron Paul, I want Obama.

NOT the same old entrenched politics

[KingSkippus (799657)]

No matter who wins this race, it is NOT the same old entrenched politics.

My personal preference, in order of who I think would be best for the country, is Obama, Clinton, and McCain to win. Now, having said that, I have to admit, I don't see McCain winning as all that bad.

Yes, he will continue the war in Iraq. But you know what? Unlike George Bush, I think he has the competence to continue it in a manner in which we don't alienate the entire world and look like idiots to those who want us all dead. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against our troops fighting the war. In fact, I have an immense respect that I could never convey adequately. But when I think of how Bush has misused them... Well, being a Vietnam War prisoner, I don't think McCain will take our soldiers' lives so capriciously for the sake of building "political capital."

You know what I think is most exciting about John McCain? He hasn't kowtowed to the Jesus Crispies, and he's cleaning the clocks of people who do. If he can successfully show Republicans with brains (yes, contrary to popular belief, there are some) that you can be a conservative without being a sycophant to the religious nuts out there, that would represent anything BUT entrenched politics.

So yeah, I hope Obama wins. And barring that, I hope Clinton wins. But if neither of them do, unlike I've ever felt about George Bush, if John McCain wins, he'll have my support as President and Commander-in-Chief. Unlike the last two elections, I don't see this country as being a miserable failure at everything in the next four years no matter who wins.

Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics

[schon (31600)]

being a Vietnam War prisoner, I don't think McCain will take our soldiers' lives so capriciously for the sake of building "political capital."

Why not? He's done exactly that to get where he is now.

At one time, he vehemently opposed the US's torture of prisoners abroad. Then he had a meeting with Bush, and suddenly he's got no problem with it.

Either someone has something on him, or he sold his convictions for power. In any case, he's lost my respect.

Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics

[the_raptor (652941)]

Or he actually realised that the world isn't black and white, despite what most liberals seem to think. There are times when things like waterboarding (which is NOT TORTURE, you can spin it however you want but it's not) are necessary. It's amazing how many 'smart' people are really so stupid.

So would you voluntarily undergo water torture to prove this point? Would you be happy with other countries using it against your spies and soldiers?

I don't see how something that tricks a persons brain into thinking they are drowning could not be called torture. Torture is not equal to causing physical damage.

Re:Real summary.

[edwardpickman (965122)]

Stick Ron Paul's brain inside Obama's head and you'd have a super candidate. It's not insulting Obama's intelligence the man is extremely intelligent but I'm not hearing a lot of reform ideas come from him. They blew off Ron Paul as the funny old guy but if you had Obama saying the same things he'd be the young guy with new fresh ideas. Hillary is a left wing Bush with a brain and McCain wants to win Nam. We need fresh blood but we also need fresh ideas about how to fix this mess.

Re:Real summary.

[Zak3056 (69287)]

We still have Obama. Party doesn't really matter anymore.

I agree with you about party not mattering, but in what universe is Barak Obama a viable alternative to Ron Paul? Politically, they're pretty much polar opposites. You can talk about "leadership" all you want, but I'm not particularly willing to be led by someone who is going in the opposite direction of where I think we should be. "Different" does not always mean "better."

Re:Real summary.

[rewinn (647614)]

Obama and Paul are both serious scholars of our Constitution. Paul was largely self-taught, whereas Obama was actually a professor (adjunct IIRC) teaching Constitutional law.

While on many policy issues they probably come out differently, on basic Constitutional issues they would seem both to look to the Constitution, which would be an improvement over our current situation in which the President is basically Caesar and Congress' job is to fund the President's projects. A return to a Constitutional approach would return policy issues, such as war/peace or capitalism/socialism, to Congress where it belongs.

Re:Real summary.

[rolfwind (528248)]

WTF?

Obama is not change. He's heavily for the welfare state, won't cut spending, has said he could support Real ID but only voted against it because the states lacked federal funding to implement it, voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and continues to fund the war.

He is not a Ron Paul replacement by any measure. He's even #8 on this list:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007 [judicialwatch.org]

For what that is worth. I'm sorry, but he sounds a lot like Clinton '92. Vague on specifics, big on "Hope" and "Change" and some call him a "Washington Outsider" (just like the last two president when entering).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8 [youtube.com]

Re:Real summary.

[MillionthMonkey (240664)]

I would love to see what happens with slave Reparations if he wins.

If there's one thing that's been keeping me up at night for the past eight years, it's slave reparations.

Re:Real summary.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Come to the real South where you can't avoid blacks, and while there is certainly some racism remaining, there's a lot less of it and what's left is less vehement. The more you interact with another race, the less you are capable of claiming they are fundamentally different and less than you.

I'm ashamed to say so, but for me it's absolutely the opposite. I grew up in an all-white town and did not have a hint, not a hint of racism when I left for college. Then I got here, where there're tons of black people, and ever since --- but really only in the last year or two --- I've slowly gained racist tendencies and thoughts.

I don't believe I'm prejudiced against black people; I believe I evaluate each person on his own merits. But I'm an extreme victim of confirmation bias [wikipedia.org]; it really seems to me like a higher percentage of the black people I come into contact with on a daily basis are thugs, idiots, and/or jerks than the people of every other race.

Maybe it's just a culture thing; I'm not as accustomed to black culture's annoyances as I am to white culture's annoyances. Whatever it is, it scares me a little that I feel like I'm getting more racist with experience instead of less.

I'm highly ashamed to admit this, but I felt like a counterexample should speak up.

Re:Real summary.

[linzeal (197905)]

Yes, libertarianism for how to use a military and conduct some foreign policy and the domestic policy ala new deal. If we had taken the nearly 1 trillion dollars we have currently spent on the war and invested in this country's infrastructure we would not be in so many shit holes at once.

Re:Real summary.

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

I submit that the fundamental problem with the United States is excessively concentrated power.
This is played out in both domestic and foreign arenas.
If there are indeed infrastructure problems within a state, why is the state impotent incapable of fixing them, instead relying on federal handouts?
Federal handouts put more layers in between the taxpayer and the civil servants managing the projects.
Thus, the real place to begin the reform is to avoid giving the nearly 1 trillion dollars to the Fed.
This simple logic can then be applied to the vampiric parade of entitlements currently sucking your wallet, and your future, dry.
Or is pointing out the elephant in the room unforgivably unfashionable in these United States?

Re:Real summary.

[iamacat (583406)]

The problem is that Republican candidates advocate a limited government, but only when it comes to wealth redistribution. They are perfectly happy to expand domestic surveillance programs, pass laws imposing their moral standards on everyone else (why should marriage definition be a federal issue?), subsiding big corporations of lobbyist buddies and so on. Basically, they want a government good for old, rich white men. I would vote for any Democratic, Republican or independent candidate who would vow to de-escalate federal power in an issue-neutral manner. For starters, apply the famed "strict constructionist" viewpoint to the rule that the feds will only be responsible for foreign policy, enforcement of constitutional rights of citizens and regulating interstate commerce in the most literal and narrow interpretation of settling trade disputes. Let the states define their own criminal codes and extradition agreements and prosecute crimes in jurisdiction(s) where they have occurred. Let some states decline to criminalize prostitution, internet gambling or smoking pot and learn from their own experience if they are willing to live with the consequences. Let liberal-leaning locales create their own universal health care and living wage programs as long as the residents are willing to pay the taxes. Let South Dakota outlaw abortion and teach biology from the Bible and deal with the consequences of most young women and college graduates leaving the state for California.

Until that happens, I would rather have some of the federal budget used on social programs and education than to have all of it be channeled into corporate welfare, unnecessary wars and enforcing personal viewpoints of the politicians.

Re:Real summary.

[LilGuy (150110)]

I agree whole heartedly. I would also like to point out a major issue being that this is probably the first time people have directly picked a candidate to run for president with no corporate backing, as far as I'm aware. A very large problem with politics in this country is that you cannot make demands upon the person who is elected to office, regardless of whether you voted for them or not. Sure you can demand their impeachment if they do things you disagree with, and we all know how well that goes over, but you really can't make any demands on what they MUST do in order to continue to represent you. I thought that was the purpose of government first and foremost, but I was sadly mistaken.

Re:Real summary.

[alan_dershowitz (586542)]

The Republican party is large and diverse, and not all Republicans are for small government. This includes the current President. Having come of political age in the early 1990's, most of the Republicans I know are for small government and are very much against domestic surveillance and entanglement in foreign wars. I am a young guy, but I have watched for years and years as pro-business lackeys have been propped up into power in the party while the small-government pro-freedom Republicans have been railroaded out the back door. The unfortunate truth is that a great deal of the pro-freedom, small-government crowd ARE a little wacky (see: reinstitute the gold standard, abolish central bank, sorry if I'm offending anyone but those are crazy) and many I have met (I doubt most though) are at least latently racist. I have been a sorry witness to racist asides and outbursts from some of these people that have made me question my party affiliation. This is makes them unpalatable to many in the party, who believe it or not are not racist and do not hate blacks and Jews and are embarrassed by the association with some of these people. Then there are the evangelicals in the Republican party, who often ally with the pro-business crowd and have gelled where pro-business party members use the evangelicals for vote consolidation and many evangelicals have been brainwashed into believing pro-business politics even where it hurts people.

Re:Real summary.

[timster (32400)]

NO! We have a decent economy and a great nation because we don't subscribe to any one idiot's "master plan"! We absolutely need a society where everyone has a say. The Soviet Union, communist China, Nazi Germany -- pure systems, all which were doomed to failure from the start. Communism, in particular, cannot work and never will, no matter how nice and wholesome people are, because it's a horribly broken system that throws away all the important resource-allocation information. America's strength has always been that we are suspicious of anyone who thinks they have all the answers.

I know it's popular to go on about how America is going down the tubes, but there just isn't much truth to it. So we're having a recession? Big deal. No economist seriously believes that it's possible to have an economy that doesn't go through recessions. I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong -- we need a proper national dialogue among people with different views, and the problems we face today will all be solved in their own different ways (some with government programs, some with the free market, some with a hybrid of the two).

Since this is Slashdot, it's time for a systems design analogy: it's a huge mistake to believe that a system should be completely centralized on one giant mainframe, just as much as it's a mistake to think that it should be completely distributed to individual PCs. Both systems seem to have a kind of elegant beauty, and both systems are completely unworkable.

Re:Real summary.

[Kalriath (849904)]

This isn't insightful in the slightest. It's just another rich get richer, poor get poorer argument. Without those "social programs", poor people have exactly zero chance of ever getting back on their feet, and rich people get more money. And education? Well, we can see how affordable that is when left to the private sector. No, leaving everything to the private sector is a very bad idea.

Re:Real summary.

[grahamd0 (1129971)]

You're assuming that all corporations are equal. They may all be equally greedy. They may all be equally unethical. However, the GP is talking about channeling money to corporations that educate people as opposed to channeling money to corporations that kill people. Do you truly believe that both are equally offensive?

I agree that the government *should* have as little money as possible, but I'd be much more comfortable living in a country that pissed away my money inefficiently trying to help people rather than pissing my money away efficiently killing people and reducing my civil liberties.

Re:Real summary.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424)]

It's not entitlements that's killing us, it's INCOMPETENCE. When you're not doing billions in hand outs to your buddies and giving high offices to political hacks, things actually get done.

It's not enough that you cut taxes, it's that you cut spending as well. The opposite is true too. I don't mind being taxed if my ride to work is smoother and traffic is better managed.

Re:Real summary.

[HangingChad (677530)]

It's not entitlements that's killing us

Sure they are. Only the entitlements are going to Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, AT$T, CACI and other companies cooperating in the looting of our treasury and trashing our liberty. The new entitlements are for agencies like DHS that consume more and more resources, inconvenience millions of innocent people, yet don't make us any safer. Conservatives supposedly supported Bush because he believed in small government, but he created a massive and invasive new federal bureaucracy on the fringe of functionality.

We've replaced welfare for the poor with welfare for rich and powerful. We owe those companies billions, we waste billions more on a false sense of security. Where did you think the money was going to come from? You want unlimited government spending but no new taxes. How's that working so far?

Re:Real summary.

[hairyfeet (841228)]

The problem with that is this---I live in AR,where our roads and bridges are falling apart.If you have to pass through our state,the lives of you and your family are dependent on 50+ year old bridges.Do you really want to bet yours and your families lives on those bridges? Broadband Internet is what allows our nation to compete on the global market.It is the lifeblood of the 21st century commerce---do you really want to trust our ability to compete globally on states like mine? Some things by the sheer size and scope need a centrally managed approach.While I believe in more rights to the state,our "get yours and get out" mentality just doesn't work for long term infrastructure.

Re:Real summary.

[Mr. Slippery (47854)]

I submit that the fundamental problem with the United States is excessively concentrated power.

Agreed. But that concentration isn't just the federal government; it's the control of the majority of the nation's wealth into the hands of a few.

This concentration isn't something that just happens, it occurs because of government action and policy - it's governments that issue corporate charters, land deeds, and the like.

If there are indeed infrastructure problems within a state, why is the state impotent incapable of fixing them, instead relying on federal handouts?

States vary enormously in their wealth. New Jersey's median household income is $64,169; Mississippi's is $35,261. [census.gov] If all states are part of one nation, if companies in New Jersey want to ship their goods to Mississippi, it's not unreasonable to share that wealth around so that everybody has decent infrastructure.

Thus, the real place to begin the reform is to avoid giving the nearly 1 trillion dollars to the Fed. This simple logic can then be applied to the vampiric parade of entitlements currently sucking your wallet, and your future, dry.

The big problem with entitlements is medical care. What drives the rising costs? The for-profit medical "care" model.

Like an Ostrich with its head in the Sand

[Ex-MislTech (557759)]

Well in the current United States, largely apathy is king.

Ppl want to be entertained, bread and circuses and all, much like ...Rome...

So when ppl mention that the Federal Reserve really isn't federal, they
think your a nut job by default and don't bother to even read about it.

http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/federal-reserve/ [libertydollar.org]

It is all verifiable.

It is all true.

But they dismiss it with a wave, so they can get back to the Computer, TV,
and watch their sports, boink their significant other, or read a book
about some made up shit that does not even exist.

In the meantime, the Fed loans the government its own money at 'interest'.

It is boring though, doesn't really entertain ppl, so it doesn't get much brain time.

My grandfather when I was a small child decades ago warned us about how bad
this would get, and I didn't really understand him then.

After many years, and a fair bit of reading and discussing with very intelligent
ppl in and out of the united states, I now see the shell game for what it is.

Some of the ppl that backed Ron Paul felt much like those ppl in V for vendetta
and are sick of blood sucking bastards that are ruining our country, and
charging us interest to do it to boot !

When the collapsing dollar dies, and the Amero is brought in to replace it,
the NAU is formed, the RealID and DNA database, and it suddenly dawns on you
that all of this was mentioned, you were warned and it was all in writing
by government officials in plain sight.

Lou dobbs covered the NAU forming, and the fact that there was no vote.

The Trans Texas Corridor was to be paid for by US tax dollars, but sold
to a Spanish billionaire who would run it as a for profit toll road
that we paid to build.

Fortunately the good ppl of Texas caught this and killed it, but it will
be back, and Rick Perry governor of Texas is in on it with them.

If you get a chance watch 911 press for truth to get a good Idea just how
bad things are getting, for the non religious folks also watch Zeitgeist the movie.

Also money as debt is a good primer for the Federal Reserve banking system.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279 [google.com]

Most ppl will ignore this and plod on, just another brick in the wall.

Ex-MislTech

Re:Real summary.

[uhlume (597871)]

You do realize that Paul (like most big-L Libertarians, though perhaps even more extremely than most) is firmly and explicitly opposed [ronpaul2008.com] to any such "New Deal" domestic policy, right? (We are, after all, talking about a man who would seek to completely eliminate the Department of Education [ronpaul2008.com] and defund education spending at a federal level.)

If an end to expensive and counter-productive military adventurism [barackobama.com] and a re-commitment to New Deal-style [barackobama.com] domestic programs is something you feel strongly about, you might find yourself better served by a candidate like Barack Obama [barackobama.com].

Re:Real summary.

[cetialphav (246516)]

The Department of Education uses 2% of the federal budget. Their total budget is less than $60 billion dollars. Most of the money goes right back to the taxpayers in the form of Pell Grants ($13 billion) and various grants to the states ($24 billion). Those things do not sound like useless waste to me. Since this money goes into helping people go to college and improving schools in less affluent areas, I feel this is a good investment. A more educated workforce is great for the economy, and therefore good for me. Dollar for dollar, I think we get a better return on Pell Grants than we do on a new aircraft carrier ($13 billion).

Now, I think the debating the merits of Federalism vs state control and the proper role of the federal government of in education is a worthwhile debate. I enjoy hearing different ideas on the best way to fund and run the education system. But I can never take seriously any politician who just says that we should close down the Department of Education. That just ignores the important role that it plays today.

Re:Real summary.

[schnikies79 (788746)]

If we hadn't spent that 1 trillion dollars on anything, we wouldn't be in debt as badly as we are.

We shouldn't spend money we don't have. Not for infrastructure, not for social programs, not for anything. Any money left over by a budget surplus should go directly to paying down the national debt.

The value of the dollar is almost directly related to the amount of debt we have, so the priority should be lowering said debt, not spending more.

Not true at all.

[everphilski (877346)]

We shouldn't spend money we don't have. Not for infrastructure, not for social programs, not for anything. Any money left over by a budget surplus should go directly to paying down the national debt.

There is nothing wrong with a limited amount of debt. I will leave the Slashdot "philosopher-kings" to sort that one out.

Consider the following example, which basically is my world right now: You owe about $150,000 in a 30-year mortgage at a rate between 6%. Do you pay off the mortgage, or do you invest the money?

If you said pay off the mortgage, you fail.

If you can find an investment that pays more than 6% on average (nothing is guaranteed) you put your extra dollars above and beyond the mortgage payments into that investment. Why?

1) liquidity. Investments are liquid, easy to cash out on a moments' notice the value of your house is not (the sale price and sale time of your house is tied to the market). Plus if you sell your house, you have to spend some of that money for future housing. In the same way, there are certain things the government can spend money on that have a higher return-on-investment than paying off debt.

2) time value of money. If you sock away even a little bit of money each month, over 30 years you have a whole lot of money. If you pay down your house in 15 years and then spend the next 15 years saving, you would have to invest a lot more of you own money to match what you could have had, if you were just investing a little bit since day 1 and paying the default amount on your loan. In the same way, the government setting up infrastructure now is often cheaper and more cost-effective in the long run than waiting to pay off debt.

3) the value of debt. Some loans are cheaper than others. In your mortgage's case, you can use it as a tax writeoff, which effectively lowers the interest rate an additional few percent. There are similar 'features' to the national debt. The value of the dollar is almost directly related to the amount of debt we have

The dollar has only started to drop in very recent history, and we have held a high amount of debt for a long time. It has much more international implications than just the national debt.

What about the CONTRIBUTIONS?

[Random Q. Hacker (137687)]

I cannot believe no one has mentioned the contributions yet! Is Ron Paul going to keep the tens of millions in contributions that he barely spent? Is this going to disillusion a whole generation of politically active geeks?

Ron Paul should donate a large portion of that money to the EFF, ACLU, and anyone else staying in the fight for our civil liberties! We did not contribute for his reelection to congress!

Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS?

[Maxo-Texas (864189)]

Your post just shows how well the propoganda swinging this country into a corporate fascism dominated by what is essentially nobility while the rest of us are forced to work as wages slaves.

Ron Paul is not a wackjob- he is a man of principles- some of which would be very good for the long term health of our country.

We are currently riding down to national collapse and at this point, everyone has given up trying to save the country and is just looting it as best as they can for their personal benefit.

Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS?

[Shining Celebi (853093)]

Your post just shows how well the propoganda swinging this country into a corporate fascism dominated by what is essentially nobility while the rest of us are forced to work as wages slaves.

Wait a minute, you're worried about corporate fascism and wage slaves, but you're supporting the guy who has sponsored bills to remove all regulation from corporations? Everything from the minimum wage to worker safety laws to anti-trust law? Explain to me how that makes sense. I don't get it.

Re:Real summary.

[fyngyrz (762201)]

Weaker than... what? Vulnerable to... what? Do you think for even one second that if we take our bases out of Germany, Russia will attack us? If we take our bases out of Saudi, you think Iran will build a fleet of transports and invade? If we take our bases out of South Korea, you think North Korea will nuke us? What are you smoking?

Personally, I don't think you know what "weak" and "vulnerable" even mean. Weak means our currency is no longer a world benchmark, vulnerable means we have to borrow to keep our economy from tanking on a regular basis. We are not the world's mommy, and we should stop pretending we are. We can't afford it, and they sure as heck aren't paying us enough to perform the service. You want to keep a forward base in another country? Fine. We can do that. Let me know when they're ready to foot the bill, plus set-up costs up front, and take-down costs in escrow.

In the meantime, we need to be working on achieving a balance of self-reliance and equitable trade.

Let's face it, it's done

[daddyrief (910385)]

I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter, and voted for him in the primaries. That said, reality cannot be ignored or distorted, McCain will be the nominee. Focus should now be reshifted to helping Dr. Paul keep his seat in the House.

Let's learn from our lessons this time around. (Money bombs -can- work, Internet support doesn't necessarily translate to high election numbers, the power of the MSM to shape opinion, etc..) Next time around, if we have another candidate who supports liberty, with a voting record to back it up, we can try again. I may be an old man by then...

Re:Let's face it, it's done

[alan_dershowitz (586542)]

I will tell you why I gave Ron Paul some financial support. I don't agree with all his politics, but I am a conservative who is against torture, is against the police state, is against the surveillance state and is against this war. I supported Ron Paul because every debate he shows up at he fucks up the unstated agreement among ALL other Republican candidates to not talk about any of that shit. He disrupts their big snow-job on the American public about the sins of the Republican party for the last eight years, and I love every minute of it.

Misleading title and summary

[The One and Only (691315)]

Having read the Ron Paul letter, he's not dropping out: he's just admitting that his Presidential campaign is simply going to be a platform for his ideas, and that the real focus will be on his re-election to Congress. Here are some important bits:

But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

He didn't quit! Can't you people read?

[Scrameustache (459504)]

With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter.

What part of "fight on in every primary and caucus remaining and at the convention" did you people parse as "I quit"?

The "fight on" or the "every primary and caucus and at the convention" part?

Last consolation prize possible

[michaelmalak (91262)]

I've donated $600, knowing that Ron Paul would not win due to electronic voting and biased media, for two reasons: for Ron Paul to spread the message of freedom and to build the freedom movement for next time. Compared to the paltry showings of the Constitution Party that I've been supporting since 2000, compared to my own past efforts at underreported.com, and even compared to Ron Paul's own 1988 presidential run, it was money well spent. The message has spread further than anyone dreamed of even a year ago.

I was elected to be a delegate on Feb. 5 for my precinct in Colorado, and I plan to go through with representing Ron Paul to the county level March 2 (and then possibly also to the state level on May 31) so that he does not lose any of the projected 42 delegates nationwide he is counting on.

There is one last additional hope to further spread the message this cycle, and that is if Ron Paul can get first place in four states (he has no first place finishes so far, at least according to official tallies), then he will be allowed to speak at the Republican National Convention. And perhaps if that happens, some of the "limited government" planks of pre-2000 Republican party platforms [slashdot.org] can be reinserted. Not that a Republican president elected in 2008 would honor that, but it would ensure that in the 2012 debates that a small-government candidate can score points by quoting the platform and criticizing the neocons.

Re:Thank goodness

[Icarus1919 (802533)]

That's good. Now, if only we can get Reaganomics recognized as the science that it is.

Re:Thank goodness

[fyngyrz (762201)]

Considering the economic wreckage that "science and empiricism" have delivered to the door, I wouldn't be too proud of traditional economic schools of thought right now. Measuring economic progress by the state of the stock market is a complete bust. The middle class and below are in pretty severe trouble right now. and have been for some time. A doctor's visit that cost $5 when I was a kid (the 60's) is now $90 (18x); fuel is up from 30 cents to three bucks (10x), cars from a few thousand to tens of thousands (10x to 20x and more), houses... houses are insane. In the face of all of this, minimum wage has risen from $1.25 in 1965 to $5.85, an increase of 4.7x altogether.

Maybe it is time for money to be backed by something tangible and valuable, instead of the federal nothing-in-reserve notes we have now, backed only by the printing of nothing-in-reserve notes on the one hand, and the incineration of nothing-in-reserve notes on the other. Maybe it is time for infinitely corrosive tax schemes like the income tax to go away. Maybe it is time we stopped trying to be the world's police presence, and shut down all those foreign bases. Maybe it is time for us to stop borrowing money, pay back our debts, and begin to spend only those monies that we can afford to spend.

Not that anything like this will happen. The US is going to find out what continuing these policies far past where they even appear to be doing any good takes us, because very few people are willing to disturb the status quo.

Re:Thank goodness

[KDR_11k (778916)]

Backed by something? Other currencies aren't backed by anything tangible either. That's not the reason the US dollar is crapping out.

Re:Thank goodness

[Kelbear (870538)]

Gold is tangible, gold is scarce, but valuable? The high value of gold is built on intangible desires just like the value of paper and ink that we place on money. It's metal. I don't have gold, I don't have any use for it, and I don't want the metal. I want the cash value of gold though.

A gold standard is just changing one object for another as a unit of exchange. You can use deer skins, rocks with holes in them, it's still money. If you want serious value behind the unit of exchange, exchange a valuable unit like a car or piece of machinery. Except those don't fit so well into a pocket. So you exchange cash. But cash makes your pocket fat, so we carry credit cards.

The real goal of a gold standard is to combat uncontrolled money expansion. There are a number of ways to accomplish that without arbitrarily pivoting on some random and irrelevant metal.

Ron Paul has some good ideas I'd support, but the gold standard isn't one of them.

Re:Minimum wage?

[fyngyrz (762201)]

What has minimum wage got to do with anything?

That you even ask the question is surprising to me. Minimum wage sets the floor at which jobs create an earner's ability to interact with the economy. Minimum wage also sets the base cost of anything that requires workers to create, be it product or service. From there, costs and wages go up as skills become scarcer. So minimum wage is a critical issue for both earners and job providers. Furthermore, minimum wage, by setting the earning level for the very lowest earning class of people who actually work within the system, places a hard line that cannot be crossed with regard to what such a worker can obtain within the system. You can't get below it, because you can't be paid less. An hour of labor gets you a minimum of $5.85, period. No less. About ten hours of work gets you one very short, very cursory doctor's appointment. An hour of work gets you about two gallons of gas. And so on. Earlier, you would have gotten more product or service, for less work on your part. This is a direct and concrete measure of economic conditions for the lowest class of earner, which is what I was talking about above.

What if there wasn't one

This is irrelevant; there *is* one and there has been for some time, so we can use it to measure available standards of living at the lowest participating tier at any point during the period which it has been enforced. You want to argue economic issues based on a situation that does not exist. I am simply pointing out the situation that actually *does* exist. My observation is that given the demonstrated effect on earning and buying power that our current economic system has had at the base level, we are going backwards. What one would hope for is that purchasing power would increase, not decrease. It has, however, decreased in real terms, and because of that, I think change is called for.

You're going to have to come up with some numbers involving actual wages paid to compare to your numbers on inflation.

Minimum wage *is* the actual wage paid for the lowest levels of people participating in the system. It has been since the 1930's or thereabouts. This gives you a direct lever, at the bottom, to relate an hour's work to the purchase of various goods and services. That's what I'm telling you: At the lowest economic level, it took less work to see the doctor in 1965 than it does today. That's going backwards. It took less work in 1965 to buy a house. That's going backwards. It took less hours of work in 1965 to buy a car. That's going backwards. It took less hours of work to buy a gallon of fuel. That's going backwards. It took less hours of work to put your kid through college or trade school. That's going backwards. It took less hours of work to buy heat for your home. That's going backwards. Life is getting more difficult for these people, not less difficult. That's going backwards. It is as plain as the nose on your face if you'll just stop and think about it for a minute.

There are areas in the economy where people get more for their hour of work (electronics is one such instance) but in general, and especially for the basic requirements of day to day life, the ratio of hours worked to products and services obtainable are all going the wrong way.

Proceeding in a course of action(s) that continues to make life more difficult for the lowest levels will eventually result in a situation where life within the systems is perceived as too difficult and people will turn to alternative means of making money; this is where black markets, under-the-counter wages, illegal products and services all gain a foothold in the economy. When working within the system fails to provide people with a tolerable lifestyle, they will look outside the system for relief. And furthermore, they will inevitably find such relief in a society that encourages out of bounds earnings mechanisms with laws that insist upon characterizing all manner of consensual acts as crimes.

Re:Minimum wage?

[BeanThere (28381)]

You are really missing his point entirely. Stop, stop, stop. Let me try give you a concrete example: I do similar work to my dad. At my age my dad was able to support a family of several kids and buy a reasonable sized house. I live on my own and can only afford a much smaller place.

Look around in the real world - this is a common pattern for just about EVERYONE. THINGS ARE GETTING HARDER. I can see this with my very own eyes, or are you trying to convince me that somehow I indeed have it 'better' than my folks? You have to work much harder/longer to be able to afford the same amount of 'stuff'. Also in the older days usually only the male worked, now it takes two working professionals as a couple to be able to get a similar amount of household wealth. We get less "wealth" for the same amount of work, when intuitively it should be the opposite due to leaps in technology.

3rd world countries are complete irrelevant to this, unless you're suggesting that somehow that is where my wealth is going now.

Re:Thank goodness

[Uart (29577)]

Lew Rockwell is not the founder of the Austrian School. He is the founder of a think-tank that advocates that particular school of thought.

The Austrian School was founded by Ludwig von Mises and (Nobel Prize Winner) F.A. Hayek, among others.

Re:Thank goodness

[techno-vampire (666512)]

I've always thought the Soviet Union failed because it expected human nature to change. While it was saying, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need," the people were saying, "As long as they pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work." Guess which slogan had more power.

Re:Thank goodness

[gambolt (1146363)]

It failed because they overspent on their imperialist boondoggle in Afghanistan, just like we're doing in Iraq.

Re:Big deal

[ushering05401 (1086795)]

I am not in the cult, but I am very happy Ron Paul is running.

I saw my father change his political affiliation for the first time since he originally registered at the age of eighteen because of Ron Paul's message. That in itself is worth a lot.

I wouldn't necessarily have voted Paul, but I am glad my dad found a message to break through his increasingly jaded and hopeless view of American politicians.

Re:why?

[Master of Transhuman (597628)]

The reason is that tech people and libertarians tend to overlap as demographics. There are more of the former than the latter, but if you know what a Venn diagram is, you won't have problems understanding that.

For the record, Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN with some libertarian ideas - NOT a "libertarian", even though he ran once or twice on the Libertarian Party ticket. He's more of what they call a "paleoconservative" than a "libertarian". There is a wide variety of "libertarians", both left and right. The ones that end up in the Libertarian Party tend to be, as Bob Black once said, "Republicans who smoke dope."

And his support didn't come from "white supremacists" - that was bullshit media spin based on a couple donations.

I'm an anarchist myself, so I couldn't care less, but it was fun to see him skewer the other Republican candidates with their militarism and economic stupidity.

If McCain becomes President, we'll be at war with Iran AND Pakistan within six months - and the US economy will completely collapse as China dumps the dollar because they were cut off from Iranian oil and gas. Electing that senile old fool is a vote for the destruction of the United States.

Unfortunately, electing either Obama or Clinton will end up in the same place - it will just take a little longer as they screw around with "diplomacy" before starting their wars. Neither of them, let alone McCain, have any clue about US foreign policy.

Re:why?

[espergreen (849246)]

While I am sure you are right, if "empathy" in politics lead to censorship, war, torture, and injustice -- I think I will stick to Dr. Paul's libertarianism.

Re:why?

[Mspangler (770054)]

One small adjustment...

Sufficient time spent studying causes them to realize the world is not such a scary place after all, and that they are capable of running their own lives without incessant nannying from the State, making an ideology like Libertarianism very appealing.

There, much better.