Is US Rep Ron Paul (R) going to switch sides???

If you have been following Ron Paul for the past several months you would have noticed that he has been increasingly against most everything the republicans have been doing. From the war, the patriot act, even fellow republicans.

He gave a speech essentially saying he (and america) have been deceived by the republicans.

He has even personally attacked Bush, Chaney, et al.

It sounds to me like he is having early Jim Jeffords syndrom. (to coin a term)

The fact that he now feels betrayed by the republicans and disagrees with major repub policy makes me wonder - is he going to switch sides like Jeffords did?

so he's not going to switch anytime soon.

Ron Paul is a known Liberterian.

Hawkeye-X

...referees over the competing of interests of people who create wealth (indviduals, people who work) and people who want that wealth (eg, Haliburton, credit card companies, the health care industry...bascially all the interests the Republicans represent).

As far as I can see, the difference between Republicans and Libertarians is that Republicans want to use the federal government to facilitate the one-way transfer of wealth and power from wealth-creators (individuals) to wealth accumulators (big Republican donors), and Libetarians just want to get rid of the government and see what will happen (which will be the same thing the Republicans want).

it would not come out the same at all
the thugs need government enforcers to build their wealth
they can't get it any other way

When there's no law or government the people with the biggest guns and the most economic power determine the rules. Also, people resort to crimes and go unpunished in an effort to protec their economic interests.

With the government, uhm, "thugs", private thugs would take their place. Remember the Pinkertons? I'd rather have thugs who are subject to the constitution than private actors who aren't.

without the largess of tax dollars paid to the federal government
the west would still belong to native americans

When there was little effective government, people relied on self-help. When self-help rules, then might makes right. That's were libertarianism is headed, in my opinion.

What didn't you like aobut the Pinkerton example?

without the collective might of government to
back up the wealthy the masses might have a fighting chance
and as well you will notice that most of the looting goes
on under the guise of "legitimate government business"

As well, Ken Lay would have been tarred and feathered if it were not
for his friends in power.

and there will be fighting.

If there were no government, the rich, who'd win the battle, and they'd create a government to keep everyone controlled.

So, to me libertarianism would result in a cycle: get rid of all government, rich dominate, create a goverment, dominate the government, government is destroyed, rich win the battle, create government, etc.

The key is turning the government into a fair, powerful referee, fairly, and democratically representing the interests of everyone.

What would a football game be like with no referees and nobody keeping up the stadium? Who'd win?

and they can't organize a game without the government

and there is not one example where the government is "a fair, powerful referee, fairly, and democratically representing the interests of everyone"

it's never happened

…
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
5. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
6. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

…
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
…
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

that would give us one more vote towards a majority. What kind of district does he represent? is it one where his increasingly critical statements against the administration will hurt him or does he represent a marginal district with lots of independents and dems?

His district is actually extremely conservative. He wins because Ron Paul can do whatever the fuck he wants and still win. :-P

My gut says no. I don't see how Ron "Taxes are Theft" Paul is going to join the Communist Democrats.

It would be interesting, though, if he did leave the GOP. He actually seems to have principles to defend, however twisted, and might actually do it.

Ron Paul and the RLC (Republican Liberty Cacus) began to take control of the Republican Party until all the neopukes are thrown.

As for independent, I'm not so sure that would play as well in Texas as it does for both Jim Jeffords and Bernie Sanders in Vermont.

Picture a Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul third party ticket. Picture several different factions of the right, unable to support the Bush regime, flocking to this ticket.

Picture a Diebold-proof Democrat victory in 2004 :evilgrin:

He disagrees with almost everything put forth by any administration and votes against almost every bill.

He votes agaainst virtually any bill that spends money.

Has the most conservative voting record in congress. That being said , it is highly unlikely he would go Dem. He has come to the realization that the Gop has been hijacked,so in a weird quirk , we are fighting the same elites he is. Some of his recent speeches have labeled the neocons "Trotskyites" , and he has gone public saying it's a global conspiracy, and a great depression is right around the corner ...so buy gold.

his website is a great read

I think he is running again as a Rethuglican because his base is there and very supportive of his voting record, even when he becomes "ineffective" for the district. He votes his conscience, and is a Libertarian at heart, but couldn't get any votes as a Lib.

The drag queen?

He has never been on particularly good terms with the Republican leadership but switching to the Democrats is unlikely because, being a pediatrician, he is opposed to abortion.

He is a Libertarian.

Jeffords actually made a big difference by switching caucuses.

Rep. Paul wouldn't, and he'd be risking his seat to do so. With the pukes set to gain 7 seats through redistricting Texas, why wouldn't he stick around and see what kind of bennies he can get from his buddy majority leader Tom DeLay?

Anyway, it's helpful to have people who are at least slightly principled acting as gadflies within the GOP.