Why the HELL am I seeing THIS from Ron Paul and not from

one of OUR candidates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd1kLATVljY

My party is in need of new leadership.

How does a CONSERVATIVE run on a platform of CHANGE while so called liberals and progressives seem so thoroughly glued to the status quo? It doesn't make any sense.

I live in Detroit, a democratic town if ever there was one and I'm seeing freeway blogging for this Ron Paul guy almost once a week yet I've NEVER seen any for our candidates.

The whole V for Vendetta thing is the real kicker. How can a REPUBLICAN nut job Identify himself, not with the fascists but with the rebel and actually make it stick? It makes no sense.

Tell me you're kidding.

I saw the first one on I-94 the day of the republican debate. More on 75.

EVERYWHERE!!!

He's a LIBERTARIAN. He's of the "Fuck you, minorities, and let the rich get richer" attitude. In a nutshell.

Conservatives, at least the "classic" ones, used to believe that you don't spend money you don't have, you don't go overboard on social programs, you prefer that 'bootstraps' shit to government support, and you have a good sized military that is properly funded and ready, but not an 'Imperial' force.

The guy isn't running on a platform of "change"--unless turning the government from a bit hellish to total hell is change. Don't buy the soundbites, this guy is fucked up. http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Let's look at some highlights, extrapolated from the citation above. Please read these, this "change" guy everyone is buzzing about is a business as usual wingnut, an energy and environment PIG who hates women, minorities, the elderly and those pesky poor people:

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Immediately work to phase out the IRS. (May 2007)
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

Let's get down to brass tacks: if you want a candidate who opposes abortion, doesn't think that women and minorities count much, who wants to teach "family values" in the public schools, and who likes vouchers, who wants to PRIVATIZE social security, who wants to DECREASE taxation of the rich, well, Ron Paul is YOUR MAN.

He has two things going for him that people who think he's a cool leftie like: He wants out of Iraq (actually, he has said "Either declare war or get out") and he is pro-hemp. Not pro-pot, though he favors legalizing MEDICAL pot, but he's pro-hemp. So that somehow, to some, obviates his sucking up to the ultra rich, and his absolutely HIDEOUS environmental record, to say nothing of his Texas-based attitude towards oil and gas.

If you don't actually dig deep, you miss a lot. And what you miss is KEY. Don't buy the surface bullshit.

and I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from anything I wrote.

My question is of style and strategy. Where the hell are OUR mavericks this cycle? Kucinich? Gravel? That's it? That's all we get after nearly a decade of Republican dominance, a choice between devoutly STATUS QUO candidates most of whom voted for the war or unelectable fringe candidates?

In other words after 13 years of conservatives setting the agenda the status quo in the U.S. is to the right of Attila the Hun and we DEMS REFUSE to run a viable CHANGE candidate. I find this confusing and frustrating. Don't you on any level?

Edited to sum up my feelings by saying that I know Paul's record and stances I don't support him but I'm pissed that I'm hearing words like REVOLUTION and CHANGE coming out his campaign and not one of ours.

Our viable candidates are all, to some extent, going to run a bit right on certain issues. I am fairly confident that whoever wins the nom, if elected, will govern to the LEFT. I think people who worry about change should just worry about changing out that Caligula in the White House. Anyone on our ballot beats him, and beats anyone on their ballot.

The only reason Ron Paul isn't being dissed as much as the Democratic Party's 'change' candidate is because he has CHANGE. Spare change. LOTS of it. It adds up to dollars, lots of them. See, all his Texas Tea friends have given him a boatload of money, his campaign coffers are far fuller than his actual poll numbers would seem to support, you see. They don't expect him to win, but they expect him to be their 'concession extractor' from the assclown who DOES win.

And what does money buy him? The ability to travel, to campaign, to garner attention...even if you don't garner much in the way of votes. But don't be fooled--he's going nowhere. His ultimate job is to keep the eventual GOP candidate in line on Big Oil issues.

I am bothered by this perception that Ron Paul is a "Change" candidate, because he isn't. He is a business-as-usual, environmental PIG, and an asshole whose policies and goals are harmful to everyday people.

This recurring drumbeat and enthusiasm for him that I see to a rather distressing level here (and I am not suggesting you are his cheerleader, mind you) is borne of utter ignorance of his platform--he sure "sounds" good in thirty second bites, ergo, he "must be" good. He isn't--he's a piece of fetid crap, a loose turd, wrapped up in shiny paper with a pretty bow on it. Draw closer, and you cannot help but notice the smell.

That's why I post in such detail when I see his name pop up--he's a wolf in sheep's clothing, and folks need to realize this.

a little faith based to me. They look status quo, they smell status quo, none of them offer substantive ideas for reform (have I missed that part of anyone's position?).

I suppose I am naive but I think back to the early days of 2004 when Dean talked the talk and looked, for a while anyhow, like he could walk the walk. Where is there a Howard Dean this time around?

I turned on my tee vee this morning and caught about ten minutes of that Morning Joe program with that asshole Scarborough. He, Leonid's daughter, and that asswipe sidekick of his all predicted that a year from now, we'd be saying...PRESIDENT ELECT GIULIANI. He also pointed to the fact that Oregon voted down a cigarette tax to help sick kids as "evidence" that the country still "embraces Republican values." Never mind the millions the tobacco companies poured into defeating the measure. He then launched into a diatribe about how the "Dim-o-crats" (the fuckhead says it so innocently, as though it's an 'accent' issue) will be perceived as soft on terra, and Americans want a "strong" President.

At that point, I voted with my remote. If we do end up with "President and Princess Giuliani" well, I'll have given up on the process entirely. But it sure looks like some elements of the GE-Universal family have given out their marching orders, doesn't it? The last time they pulled that shit, we ended up with Bush. GE isn't just tee vee, it's a top ten Pentagon contractor, and benefits from War Without End, Amen...

Dennis Kucinich WILL make a difference with his drastic changes.

Kucinich is rejected as being too "radical" by the modern dem leadership, and Paul has always been an outcast in the GOP for the same reasons. The RNC actually actually funded Paul's opponent in the last election cycle, and are probably going to to it again next year just to get rid of him. They can't have anyone in the party questioning Bush's foreign policy...no sir.

But the American people are with Paul on getting out of Iraq, and I'm hopeful we will see a similar effort on behalf of Kucinich once he gets his message out. I think the vast majority of Americans will agree with it.

who wants the rich to get richer, who has a hideous environmental record, who loves oil and gas subsidies, who thinks campaign finance reform is a nonstarter, and who has libertarian tendencies when it comes to helping people through government--in other words, he HATES that shit. Poor? Elderly? Immigrant? His attitude is the Cheneyesque "Go fuck yourself!" If you're rich, though, his attitude is that you should be permitted to get richer and be taxed at a LOWER rate than regular folks.

About the only thing he and Kucinich have in common are hemp and the war. Other than that, they're from different planets.

could be the ones who are afraid a conservative Dem ticket won't win are hedging their bets by backing Paul.

Not likely this is money from the grassroots, it has to be organized from wealthy conservative donors.

But it isn't the money that has me in a tizzy. It's the fact that a confirmed wing nut is getting ahead on a strategy of change that none of our front runners would touch with a ten foot pole even though it would seem to be tailor made position of liberals. Get out of Iraq NOW. The only Dem candidates saying this don't have a chance of winning.
It's frustrating.

The thing is that Paul is doing it in a unique way, Dems should take notes. Instead of using this ultra-tolerant faux-gandhism as the spirit of the anti-war movement, Paul is making it a revolutionary, 1776 kind of thing...Its really quite anarachistic and it has a lot of appeall. Paul is combining "fuck Bush" with a militant spirit, and that's where a lot of people are at right now.

He and Bush have WAY more in common than you seem to realize. About the only place where they differ is the war and hemp. But on oil, gas, exploring federal lands, subsidizing those Texas Tea pigs, crapping on women, minorities, the elderly, privitizing social security, reducing taxes on the wealthy, he and BushCo are all on the same page.

Don't be conned.

and he has far too many differences for me in how I would like this country to be run.