http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/theronpaulrevolution

Hey, I don't dislike him. He's refreshing like McCain was in 2000. He says something besides God, America and family. That's refreshing coming from the right.

Ron Paul is refreshing. I love his candor. But, I could still never vote for the guy - too Libertarian for me. I still believe in public education and apparently, Paul doesn't.

Andrew

He seems very much a grassroots canidate to me. His political signs look like they are homemade yet everyone I see is virtually identical.

Our system is broke in a major way and I want serious changes made to our system for the security of our and our countries future.

In fact our system is so broke I am willing to listen and take a look at all proposals on the table. The fact that Paul is a person with Libertarian values helps if not a bit radical for some.

I am not anti republican all the way as I have no qualms about supporting local state republicans but when it comes to the national and international scenes I just can't bring myself to it.

My canidate of choice at this point is still Barack Obama.

If your a Democrat just vote for Hillary, it's your only chance. Me myself keep hoping for that house to fall on her.

What are you afraid of?

If it does I have a feeling Merkin will want the Red Sparkly shoes!

Everybody sing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXr4BuL6bzo

I still think that Ron Paul reminds the kids of Martin Crane -- the Dad on Frazier. Too much Mountain Dew and Wii makes young minds soft and impressionable. John Mahoney for President!

On the other hand, after a lifetime of watching monkeys throw dung at the wall to see if it sticks, an honest old cranky guy might be very attractive to the whippersnappers.

Are you kidding, DT?

Shoes? No.
But I'd kill for Glinda's crown and wand!

(Unfortunately, I look more like the WWW than Glinda)

So, that is you flying behind me in the fantasy football league then.

No, it's one of my monkeys! Just waiting to drag you up to my castle.

On second thought, I DO want those shoes. And your little QB, too, girly!

I'm tellin ya - it's going to be hard to not vote for Paul. Mostly in a literal sense as I do not expect him to become the nominee. However, I just cannot ignore my desire to see some radical changes. I feel that I could trust him to be smart. That goes a LONG way these days. I also feel I can trust him to do what is right ( as defined by me and new ideas that aren't mine ) for The United States citizenship.

So what if there are things I disagree with him on? I can say that about elected officials in my own party currently serving.

The fact that I keep coming back to voting for Paul shouldn't be ignored.

Fortunately, we've got another full year to decide.

WHEE!

Well, if you live in Oregon your primary vote probably won't mean much anyway, unless by chance the nominations isn't all sown up by May 2008. And you of course would need to be a registered Republican to vote for Paul in Oregon if he's on the Republican ballot.

For me it's not just a matter of disagreeing with him on a few minor issues. Ron Paul opposes PUBLIC EDUCATION. I like what the guy has to say on many issues, but certain issues are too big to ignore.

Anyway, Paul has little chance of winning the nomination. By nature, politicians who are direct and specific will rally a small number of people but manage to alienate the rest. While we may hate the fact that some politicians (named Clinton recently) seem to be saying what everyone wants to hear just to get elected, that's really just the nature of our political system. You need to build a consensus of enough voters to govern; if you piss off too many of them with a razor-sharp position on a couple of issues, voters will support someone else.

Andrew

"Ron Paul opposes PUBLIC EDUCATION."

Really? Is that a paraphrase from his desire to do away with the Department of Education? Or does he offer an alternative education source?

I graduated from and worked for the Portland Public Schools. I completely agree that public education is very important and ought to continue in America. However, I am realistic enough to know that his steadfast stand on some issues will not effect the status quo. This "President Ronnie" would do far less damage to education than the last one.

I predict that our school system will be every bit as troubled regardless of the figurehead. Great teachers in a great city is what we have this moment. The curriculum does not include many pursuits I took for granted -- journalism, art, music, television production, etc. -- but it does have room to grow. Local schools are all we can control or nurture, so we ought to focus our energy -- IMHO.

He would have more fuss getting rid of the IRS than almost anything else. Even with huge public support for his ideas, it is still gonna be a long rough road. This promised "first item" task may not ever be completed, but he is brave to propose it.

If Paul is elected in 2008, I believe that his best fight would be to restore the rights of all Americans under our Constitution. This is going to be a monumental task. He is going to have to dismantle entire agencies that were created for the sole purpose of profiting cronies. Terror is big business now, and the many tentacles have made criminal amounts of money for wise investors.

A President Ron Paul would end the corruption. Perhaps, he would launch the first criminal investigation and trial of a plurality of leaders from a previous administration. Wouldn't it be a day to rejoice for all Americans, regardless of party, if these men and women were held accountable by anyone for this young and ugly century?

Obviously, he would also have the Middle East on his plate. Two long wars -- and perhaps a new third one -- will pass to a new administration. The most frightening prospect is that the painful pageant of profit will then be headquartered in Dubai. The entire confederacy of dunces will be out of the reach of law, and will continue to flirt with the apocalypse for a tidy sum.

All of this is moot. Paul has been shut out of media. Ballots and lottery tickets are both placebos of hope provided by our benevolent leaders. If his numbers are strong and solid next spring, expect him to win a trip to heaven on Wellstone Airlines. As ever, the fix is in, but heck, the possibilities are fun to bat around.

Anybody else wanna rant on the soapbox? :0)

Well...some things Paul has said must resonate with you. Statements about Iraq and Iran? What's to say that under a president Ron Paul the "status quo" wouldn't prevail with those issues, too? If what the guy says doesn't really matter - because status quo is likely to prevail based on popular opinion - what's the point in supporting him?

It would be impossible for ANY president to "end corruption" tomorrow. The root problems are in our campaign finance system that allows money to influence elections and politicians. It may well take a constitutional amendment to fix this problem. A president can't do that himself/herself.

Andrew

(deep breath)

Thanks for calling me out Andrew, but I believe you misunderstood me. I suppose I should have defined "status quo" in the context of my argument. The Interstate System is not something we could pull up out of the ground. The Postal Service is a daily part of our lives. The school system is not easily dismantled, and public education should not and would not disappear.

If Paul is for local control, you will see more money available for our schools in Oregon. Will the poorer states still be in crisis? Perhaps, but I will no longer be burdened with the mismanagement of all 50 states, only the troubles and triumphs of my own.

From what I have found, since 1859, not once in the history of this great nation has Oregon received as many dollars as we have expended on the Federal government. Earn it here, invest it here and see our future leaders emerge with a solid base. Earn it here and watch it evaporate -- to pay off debt to China and the Saudis, pay for Bat Mizvahs and vacation cruises, and pay for all the other mistakes of D.C. -- and you will see much of the same: More jails, less schools and a whole lot of profiteering.

Systemic corruption is everywhere. Since most agencies operate with little oversight anymore, their policies and our resources are for sale. The FCC, the FDA, the USDA, the DoI, the DoD, FEMA and the DHS -- to name a few -- are all corrupt money funnels to the point of it being comical.

Changing corrupt politicians is far more daunting than creating a new streamlined government. Our agencies must be run without dirty hands. They must also have a well defined mission and follow it to the letter. No more bad decisions backed by bad policies. No more corporate shills in the beltway. The Congress might still be full of fat white men with bulging accounts in Switzerland and the Bahamas, and our Presidents may still fancy themselves King, but without staggering infrastructure to manipulate, they will have fewer opportunities to destroy our country.

What resonates with me about Paul is that he pulls no punches. I can be utterly at odds with someone politically, but if they are Constitutionalists -- and have integrity, purpose and transparency -- I can sleep at night. No politician has ever represented me individually, but many have weighed the benefits for we the people and found common ground on which to build. Despite some fundamental differences, I see that kind of leader in Dr. Ron Paul.

Yes, the things Paul has said about Iraq and Iran do strike a chord with me. No, he will not be able to do it alone. This current mess took an international team of con men, contributors and contractors to put together.

Of course, having said all that, I am still leaning pretty hard toward John Edwards. :0)

The title of this thread is almost humorous considering the current state of the GOP.

"Moth's to the Flame....Moth's to the Flame."

"Carol Anne, don't go into the light, stay away from the light!"

Someone's listening to Ron Paul, and a whole lot of someones with some clout:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_po/paul_fundraising

I'm starting to get real intrigued here.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQLduiFMFTNmeUdgpf5cMvLi6awD8SNV5Q02

"Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours. . . .

. . . Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans, but he stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. He also has opposed Bush administration security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties."

It goes to show that there are a lot more of us traditionally aligned with the GOP that are sick and tired of the direction of the Party than SOME in here give credit for.

Aw, leave Deacon HerbB alone. He and his Ministry of Fear are just worried that there might be the wife of a cheating ex-president in the White House in 2009. Just remember that if you fart in your church you'll wind up sitting in your own pew.

Andrew said - "Ron Paul opposes PUBLIC EDUCATION."

Then Chickenjuggler asked - Really? Is that a paraphrase from his desire to do away with the Department of Education? Or does he offer an alternative education source?

I would really like to get tot he bottom of this. It is important to me too. Andrew, could you elaborate on "Ron Paul opposes PUBLIC EDUCATION."

Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.
Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.

Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC2 on Dec 8, 2000

^ Works for me!

I guess I need to read up more about him.

Chickenjuggler, I don't recall the reference to Paul and education, only that I looked it up a few months ago in response to another thread here. If you google you can find out Paul's historic positions on issues.

Andrew

Good suggestion Andrew. Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. This is a good starting point, IMHO. Comparing his platform -- and voting record -- almost 20 years later shows a fairly solid consistency of values and ideas.

I do not agree with him down the line, but I do like his dept of character. Of course, he is not perfect. For example, you will see that -- like any member of Congress -- some smart politicking brought money to his district.

Right. As I said before, the question isn't whether you agree with a candidate on everything, the question is whether you agree with him/her on the issues most important to you. Would you support a candidate who agreed with you on abortion, gun rights, the war on drugs, public education, and civil liberties...but favored bombing Iran as soon as possible? Some issues are deal breakers - which ones are depends on you and your personal views.

Andrew

"The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.
Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children."

That doesn't mean, to me anyways, that he OPPOSES public education. He simply opposes FEDERAL control of public education.

What's ironic is, the Department of Education was founded in 1980. Prior to that, testing and achievement scores for US students ranked MUCH higher in the pecking order of industrialized nations than they do now, and the fall has been consistent and dramatic. Bush propping up the DOE with his "No Child Left Behind" act has been a failure ... and federal mandates of how each kid should be instructed are setting up everyone for failure. I'm sorry, but is some DOE pencil-pusher in Washington D.C. going to have any clue on the challenges of my daughter, who is in seventh grade? How about the high school sophomore at a school that isn't making the grade in the "no child left behind" game, say Jefferson? To that bureaucrat, the social and economic difference between my daughter, from a middle-class family in a middle-class neighborhood in a district that is financially OK and a high school sophomore from a lower-class family in a lower-class neighborhood in a district that is struggling financially means absolutely nothing.

I'm sorry, but the state and local level knows MUCH better the educational needs of my children than the Department of Education does in Washington, D.C. If that makes me anti-public education, so be it.

Brain, VERY well put!

Hey Skybill - will I see you in the morning?

"Bush propping up the DOE with his "No Child Left Behind" act has been a failure ... and federal mandates of how each kid should be instructed are setting up everyone for failure."

This has been done on purpose with the sole goal of dismantling public education.

Brian, Yep. Flight is at 12:15 and I plan on getting to PDX between 10:00 and 10:30.

See you then!

OK. So saying " Ron Paul opposes Public Education." is just plain wrong.

Thanks.

Does that change your mind at all Andrew?

As I read his pledge, I interpret his position as opposing public education.

Chickenjuggler writes:
OK. So saying " Ron Paul opposes Public Education." is just plain wrong.

No, that's just Brian's point of view. Paul is libertarian, and by nature they oppose public education. As one website put it, "Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution....He has introduced bills calling for, among other things, ending gun control, getting the U.S. out of the United Nations, and abolishing the income tax. "

(source: http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/ron-paul.html )

Paul opposes mandatory testing of students in public schools, supports school choice, and supports grants for private and parochial schools. All of these harm public education. He also supports "Present[ing] scientific facts that support creationism" and "Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education."

(source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm )

Other facts about Ron Paul
- opposes allowing embryonic stem cell research
- supports eliminating the inheritance tax and capital gains taxes
- voted to make Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy permanent
- voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.
- supports abolishiong federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states.
- supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
- Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

Sorry, while I agree with Paul on a number of other things, he's just not my guy.

Andrew

It is interesting that this thread was started to note Dr. Paul's resonance with young people, and has evolved into a debate of his education policy. I think that the two things might be related.

Young people are disgusted with education as it exists. I noticed the decline back in the 80s, and I can only imagine how it is now. Ron Paul resonates with younger voters for other reasons too:

"The first-ever interview with a Presidential candidate held in a college dorm room! This happened on April 26, 2007."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQi7PaYKqTU

To give a bit more insight into his views on education, here is a piece of legislation he sponsored six years ago:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr013101b.htm

Like Andrew and others, I do have fundamental differences with Dr. Paul. Still, I would not count out supporting him if the Democratic Party nominates a corporate patsy.

Other facts about Ron Paul
- opposes allowing embryonic stem cell research
- supports eliminating the inheritance tax and capital gains taxes
- voted to make Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy permanent
- voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.
- supports abolishiong federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states.
- supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
- Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

or

the Democratic Party nominates a corporate patsy.


Given these choices, I'd go with the corporate patsy.

Andrew and Vitalogy, you're right. I was mistaken on my take. Sorry about that. I misread and gave too much weight to some of his statements ( actually, I parsed it. Which will always get me into trouble. My bad. ) that took it out of context and kind of warped it incorrectly by me.

I'd still be willing to give it a try though. With Paul, not everything would work. We know that to be true about every candidate. And while the specifics are, yes, very important, perhaps even deal breakers - I'd be willing to give many if not all of them a shot. Some of the ideas seem radical. But I'm ok with that this time around. Paul has something that I respond to these days; Vision and intelligence. Now admittedly, if his ideas failed, he seems intelligent enough to make the corrections necessary to improve on them. He doen't come across to me as stubborn or unwilling to change. I think that if he were in office, he may break the mindset open far enough to make us realize that some ideas are worth a shot. Everything doesn't have to be perfect, we just want tangible,measured improvement. He offers relatively healthy compromises that I am willing to make. His ideas are big. Not subtle ones that often, not always - but often, get bogged down in the minutiae. I also like his general World View. He gives us a framework with which we can truly change directions in some areas that are important to me.

We'll see.

My personal opinion on why Paul is resonating with younger voters is that the younger voters are ignorant on his positions. I admire Paul's stances on a few things, but he's off his rocker on many other stances. He would be a disaster for our country if elected.

HerrB probably just became his biggest supporter and wrote a big check. He's everything HerrB loves in a politician.

I sure hope so, Mrs. Merkin. That is exactly why I brought him up to ol' Herb as a GOP candidate back in February. He remains the best the Republicans can possibly offer.

"He remains the best the Republicans can possibly offer."

What does that say about the Republican Party right now?

Ohhh boy.