Ron Paul=protest vote?

Andrew Sullivan views a vote for Ron Paul as a protest against everything the Republican Party has become. Bryan Caplan says that even if he were elected, he couldn't enact the crazier parts of his agenda.

That's fair, but if I'm going to cast a protest vote, I need to know: what elements of Ron Paul's agenda am I going to empower? The problem with expressive voting is that politicians may not actually get the message you're trying to send.

If I vote for Ron Paul, am I ratifying his views on foreign policy, only a small part of which I agree with? Or am I telling Republicans that they should tack to the right on immigration and abortion? And if, in some alternate universe, Dr. Paul got elected, it is true that he would not be able to put the country on the gold standard--but what parts of his agenda might he enact? And who would he appoint to key jobs? One doesn't like to imagine who his nominee for the position of Chairman of the Federal Reserve might be.

Comments

If you don't agree with Paul on foreign policy, then I assume you just love Bush's foreign policy to bits, so why would you contemplate a protest vote of any kind?

Isn't it a moot sort of question when you already have endless preemptive war, international abduction, torture, etc. in your stocking this year?

Just write in Bush for a 3rd term and make that your protest vote. Protest how much you love the chimp, and protest against all the anti-Bush meanness out there.

Posted by Fluffy | December 24, 2007 2:08 PM

Ron Paul proposes a return to traditional American values. Americans enjoy his honest assessment of the government mess. We voted Republicans out, and the Democrats made no effort to bring our Army home to defend our cities and remove the thirty million illegal immigrants. Defending the border is a Constitional mandade. Foreign wars of aggression are not. We want small government. We want the president to honor his oath of office to obey the Constitutional prohibition on unreasonable search and siezure. We're not happy living in a police state. We think torturing POW's is a crime. We think habeas corpus is a fundamental Constitutional right. We deserve a sound currency, and that is another constitutional obligation. We notice the other candidates of both parties avoid all these issues.

Posted by kgb | December 24, 2007 2:16 PM

It's a good question to bring up. I don't agree with almost half of what Ron Paul's policy is made up of, but i will still be voting for him. It is part protest vote (because the republican party is nothing like it used to be), but even more - a vote supporting honest politics. There is one thing we can all agree on with Ron Paul - He does not lie, and he says what's on his mind. I know exactly how my vote will be treated under a Paul administration.

Under Paul presidency - The People Rule
Under Other - Politics Rule

Posted by Lorenz | December 24, 2007 2:17 PM

I will not try to win the author over because the comments are pretty clear about her position on Ron Paul which is apparently is not fact based nor investigated. I sometimes wonder why authors such as this one bother to write these opinions. As a Republican, single father, boy scout leader and a person who donates 25% of his income to non profits each year, I think of myself as having to struggle to help people pick themselves up and get ahead in life. What I find is that individuals like this author who stand on the sidelines throwing irresponsible pot shots at poeple who are earnestly trying to do the same a little disconcerting. If this author would make specific pointed comments about policy or what exactly would not work than I think we could hold her opinion as a little more weighted or substantiated. However, again the author makes no attempt to do this but resorts to trying to label his vote as a protest vote and other veiled hostilities. I feel pretty researched in economic theory and indicators, trade agreements, legal attacks of civil liberties and so on. If the author would like to write SOMETHING specific in this area instead of a bunch of generalities about a Paul presidency then I would respond with more pointed answers. Until, then I just would like to voice my opinion about how the author's disposition being, to put it mildly, not constructive.

Posted by bgodley | December 24, 2007 2:29 PM

For those who are upset with the Republicans on spending, I suggest voting for McCain. He has certainly made a good effort in the Senate to resist pork projects. He even went to Iowa and criticized ethanol subsidies--if that isn't political courage, I don't know what is.

For those who want a return to old-fashioned Republican isolationism, though, maybe Paul is the best choice. I myself have very different foreign policy views, so I'm probably not the best person to advise them. After all, isolationism was not a stunning success when it was tried between WWI and WWII. It seems clear now that it would have been better for us and for the world had we remained actively engaged in world affairs rather than retreating into a self-defeating solipsism.

Posted by rwe | December 24, 2007 2:29 PM

I think it's a protest vote not by voting Paul per se, but by voting libertarian in general.

Posted by anon | December 24, 2007 2:30 PM

"In fact, Ron Paul has received more campaign contributions from active-duty military personnel than any other Presidential candidate from either party."

Who Are These Kooks?
by Chuck Baldwin
December 18, 2007

Posted by Bob Fanning | December 24, 2007 2:36 PM

I wonder what is considered the crazier parts of his agenda. Would it be returning to the Constitution? Would it be the adherence to the advice of our founding fathers? Would it be taking troops out of Korea after 50 years of occupation? Is the crazy part the idea of stopping the Fed from printing money non-stop out of thin air? Maybe the crazy part is the idea of letting states keep their own tax money for things like schools instead of sending it to Washington DC.

Since all of these current policies have not worked out well for us, I support the idea of making these changes because the real crazy idea is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Posted by Cleaner44 | December 24, 2007 2:36 PM

Ah yes.... Megn McArdle....

Good to see The Atlantic is doing the right thing and allowing the mentally dim to have a soapbox too.

I'll give her one thing though.... she's not so infirmed as to miss that throwing Dr. Paul's name into every article is good for traffic. Unfortunately for her, it just clues in a mass of people to the mental shorthand that can pass for original thought at times on the internet.

In that way, Miss McArdle performs a societal good. What would be interesting would be to see an actual attempt to refute the paleo-libertarian position as opposed to misstating Dr. Paul's positions so that she can get her little mind around them.

Hugs and kisses, baby.

Posted by Micah | December 24, 2007 2:37 PM

It really is amazing that some of Dr. Paul's supporters cannot grasp that it is possible to abhor the Bush approach to foreign policy and still not think the Dr. Paul's foreign policy would be wonderful. In fact (oh the shock!) it is possible to believe that Bush should be tried and convicted for war crimes, and still think that Dr. Paul would be bad for American foreign relations and bad for achieving good in the world. Too bad that it isn't possible to hold fruitful discussions with true-believers.

Posted by wj | December 24, 2007 2:37 PM

As Dr. Ron Paul has correctly and truthfully stated on numerous occasions, it is the Republican party that has veered away from its traditional values and conservative tradition. The counterfeit conservatives known as the NEO-CONS are the actual "imposters" who represent everything the Republican Party is supposed to be about: non-interventionism, small government, protection of individual rights, etc. This is why so many good Americans like Ted Gunderson, an internationally renown, former FBI Division Chief [credentials: tedgunderson.com & 1-free-dvd.com], endorses Dr. Ron Paul for President and will vote for him from Nebraska. Senior FBI Special Agent in Charge (ret.) Gunderson is giving away FREE DVDs about Ron Paul to the public to help educate people about the GOP candidate he believes will rescue America from rampant crime and corruption in government and big business corporations. Gunderson is fervently encouraging all his supporters and law enforcment contacts to vote for Dr. Paul.

Posted by JusticeRanger | December 24, 2007 2:38 PM

I am in line with Mr Sullivan. and am supporting Ron Paul as PROTEST against the Republican Party. The Bush Administration policies and activities had led me to a sense of physical nausea every time I stopped to recall that I was a registered Republican. So I downloaded a voter registration form to become a Democrat. At that time, a friend suggested that I google Ron Paul. Today, I am still a registered Republican, which I have been throughout my entire life. Why should I be driven to change party affiliation just because the Republican Party has suffered amnesia? I am glad Ron Paul is the conscience of the Republican Party, and am proud to support him.

Posted by Pauline | December 24, 2007 2:43 PM

I would say voting for anyone other than Ron Paul is a vote against the Republican Party. All the Republican candidates other than Ron Paul do not represent what the Republican Party is supposed to represent; small federal government, low taxes, fiscally conservative, anti-abortion, pro 2nd amendment, state rights, individual rights.

My vote for Ron Paul will be a vote for hope that we can take back the Republican Party from the big government, big spenders, corporate owned bureaucrats that have hijacked the party.

Posted by Michael | December 24, 2007 2:45 PM

Don't pretend that your vote is more significant than it is. You do realize it is "expressive" because no one is actually going to get the message? Merry Christmas!

Posted by John | December 24, 2007 2:48 PM

If I vote for Ron Paul, am I ratifying his views on foreign policy, only a small part of which I agree with? Or am I telling Republicans that they should tack to the right on immigration and abortion?

This seems pretty self-evident to me; one needs only ask in which ways Paul is different than the other stumping Republicans? Are they generally pro-choice, or open-border friendly?

I'm not an RP guy, but it seems pretty clear that where he veers dramatically from his competition is in foreign military involvement, and on issues such as habeus corpus. Here he holds positions that are different in kind, rather than different in degree.

A protest vote isn't meant to be interpreted by the candidate receiving it, so much as by the establishment that is holding a position antithetical to one's beliefs. If you really are concerned that a vote for RP would more likely be construed as pro-gold-standard than anti-Iraq, I think you are simply making a misjudgment.

Posted by Brad L | December 24, 2007 2:50 PM

Megan, we really don't expect an English lit grad from the Upper West Side of Manhattan to get RP's message. It's not the privileged who die in needless wars and who benefit most from the freedoms that Ron defends, it is we, the unwashed hoi polloi.

Posted by Nicolas Martin | December 24, 2007 2:57 PM

Mr. Micah,
your quote "It really is amazing that some of Dr. Paul's supporters cannot grasp that it is possible to abhor the Bush approach to foreign policy and still not think the Dr. Paul's foreign policy would be wonderful."

With all due respect as a fellow American, I think the point to be made to you is where is the "debate" in this article or your (or any) posts??????????????????? Article after article like this with slanderous ad hominen or strawman attacks fail to debate the policies of Dr Paul(like Mr. Russert's failed logic of the "constituionalist" which made him look like an ass in the world of logic) . The press is owned by a handful and I would recommend a video on google.com entitled "Manufacturing Consent" The press unity and slandering of Ron Paul is becoming so apparent that my wife working last night at her hospital - you know what the break discussion was? The discussion of excitement for Ron Paul, the truth, the integrity, the end of our empire spending its way into bankruptcy - the people taking back their country from the Federal reserve and the "soft" facism that is closing the freedoms of this country.

Please bring forward your "fruitful discussions". I agree completely with you premise but look for content. Why do we spend 10 x the next country in military industrial complex (when we are 10T in debt)?

World Wide Military Expenditures
http://www.globalsecurity.org
Military expenditures by country: Notice that the US is spending 10 times more than China, the next largest spender. The US military budget is more than twice the size of ALL other countries combined.
1. United States $623 billion
2. China $65.0 billion
3. Russia $50.0 billion
4. France $45.0 billion
5. United Kingdom $42.8 billion
6. Japan $41.75 billion
7. Germany $35.1 billion
8. Italy $28.2 billion
9. South Korea $21.1 billion
10. India $19.0 billion
11. Saudi Arabia $18.0 billion
Wake up America!
Vote for Peace...
Someone write an article and debate this please.

I have seen minimal within posts on the internet and none in this article or posts (from anti-Paulers). Do you understand the Federal Reserve and how it is a secret banking cabal creating inflation and robbing our wealth (wince 1913?). If you have kids do you understand how this has debased our currency and propogated unlimited spending? If you understand this how can you supoort the Federal Reserve?
We Dr Paul supporters welcome them and we surely do not think we know everything - we should be afforded real debate though instead of hack pieces like this......

Posted by sacman41 | December 24, 2007 2:58 PM

Sorry micah - I misread - please reply wj - we look forward to the debate for the good of America.

Posted by sacman41 | December 24, 2007 3:01 PM

Wow...18 comments, and not one by any of the regular readers of this blog. Do Paul's supporters constantly scan the web, looking for his name to pop up in a blog so they can deluge it with comments about how great he is? And do they really think will help Paul win votes, rather than put people off?

Posted by RMc | December 24, 2007 3:07 PM

Ron Paul represents what our government has lost.
We have lost our Liberty, and our Freedom. We have become a nation that has been thrown into financial chaos, with big spending and debt. Someone has to put a stop to all this, and Ron Paul is the only candidate that will accomplish this. We have to bring our troops home, secure our borders, cut spending, stop foreign aid to other countries, and basically start over. A lot of people are thinking, we can't do that, my response will be we do not have a choice, unless we want to be taken over by China or some other country we owe billions of dollars to. I sure hope America wakes up, and really sees that our poor country is broke, our system is broken, and we have to reform our government and use our Constitution. It is going to take a lot of work from some, but I would rather have Freedom than be a slave to the government we have now. Ron Paul is giving us the opportunity to get our America back and keep it.

Posted by Tess | December 24, 2007 3:08 PM

... One doesn't like to imagine who his nominee for the position of Chairman of the Federal Reserve might be....

Actually, it should be Alan Greenspan, who has supported Ron Paul's position on "hard money" and a gold-backed currency in his own writings:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b49596420e0.htm

Just let Greenspan be Greenspan.

Posted by Westmiller | December 24, 2007 3:08 PM

my, my, Megan,

Aren't we hard to please!?! If that's your deliberately nihilistic conundrum, then what message are we sending by voting for ANYONE???

My goodness! Total paralysis! You can't vote for any Dems because they have MAJOR policy positions in economic issues that you certainly disagree with. You can't vote for any Republicans because that will be taken that you agree with many social and foreign policy stances that THEY agree with!

What ever are you going to do??

Well, considering that Ron Paul is making the most noise as the old-right, anti-republican quasi conservative/libertarian candidate that is against foreign adventurism and big authoritarian government, I think that will probably be the signal it sends. If it's just abortion or cultural conservatism, they can vote for Huckabee or any number of others.

What makes Paul stick out is foreign policy and a quasi-minarchist government philosophy.

And here's the thing Megan:

YOU KNOW ALL THIS ALREADY!!

Please dispense with all the contrived apprehension.

Yeah, like Bryan Caplan said is that great little bit common sense you referenced:

"Bottom line: Even if, like Megan McArdle, you think that Paul is "utterly insane," anyone with moderate libertaran sympathies (and no desire to crusade against "Islamo-Fascism") would probably be pleased by the policy consequences of Paul's presidency. In fact, it would take a radical like Paul to get moderate libertarian change."

I think our fellow traveler Caplan has it right. So just relax and realize that a vote for Paul is vote for a more sane and libertarian world...not a lala land with extreme, "all-at-once" sweeping changes that you want and don't want. What Paul has the most control over as prez is foreign policy. The rest is checked and balanced heavily.

But remember the one things Caplan said. Paul will not get rid of much by himself, but he will temper Congress into passing veto-proof bills and that means toning it down...A LOT and that's a good thing and I'm sure you'd agree. You need to push really hard to get things to nudge a little bit.

Posted by John V | December 24, 2007 3:11 PM

Ron Paul is gaining ground, despite a concerted effort to smear and discredit him by the mainstream media. The reason: People are sick-and-tired of the same-old song-and-dance by the politicians. They want fresh ideas, honesty, and integrity.

There's a new music video on YouTube that's a great satire on the president, the mainstream media, and the war on terror. It's from the international award-winning zombie musical feature film, "Song of the Dead," and features horror movie veteran Reggie Bannister (Bubba Ho-tep, Wishmaster) as the president of the U.S. The filmmaker, Chip Gubera, is giving a share of his profits from the sale of DVDs to the Ron Paul campaign. To see it, go to:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw

Posted by mketcher | December 24, 2007 3:13 PM

Why does everyone think he wants to back the US Dollar with gold? He wants to allow competition by allowing gold-backed currency to compete directly with the US Dollar.

But ya...

Posted by Brent | December 24, 2007 3:16 PM

When I consider a Ron Paul presidency as seen through the lens of real politics I pretty much see the following:

Top ranking Austrian Economist chairing the Fed, while dismantling it's duties and abilities.

Some upper deck Talleyrand-Perigot- style diplomat for Secretary of Defense.

I'd forsee a taskforce of diplomats and infrastructure specialists of help extract us from Iraq and seal the wounds as the government grows to fill its roll. (I do not believe that the plan of action for our withdrawl would be: Leave. That leaves far too much furtile ground to sow the seeds of terrorism.)

Given that there are a number of Federal agencies the Dr. Paul would disband, their secretarial positions would be filled by experts directed to transference of power down the governmental ladder to the states (It seems stunning to think that some people would actually believe that a physician and 10 term congressman would simple 'blink them away'.)

When Dr. Paul states his positions, he rarely is given opportunity to elaborate on the groundwork. But he clearly understands the correct goals. We can't easily and painlessly get out of these positions we are in as Americans, but we must begin to do the right thing!

Posted by Fulton Fortner | December 24, 2007 3:23 PM

PLEASE UNDERSTAND RON PAUL'S POSITION ON THE GOLD STANDARD!

He has not said that he immediately wants to to hitch the dollar to the value of gold! Instead, he would legalize competing currencies. There are already several competing currencies that Americans deal with every day; you may have heard of them: the Euro, the English pound, etc. Currently it is illegal in the U.S. to issue gold or silver coins and paper notes backed by precious metals. Why should this be? Shouldn't Americans be allowed to trade in a currency that does not erode in value like the dollar over a short span of years?

Posted by Kiel Pratt | December 24, 2007 3:24 PM

First of all, he wants to legalize currencies not based on debt. He doesn't want to immediately get rid of the Reserve. That way, us informed people will not be screwed when the dollar crashes.

Secondly, what would be so horrible about his appointment to Chairman of the Reserve be? Economic types love him: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements (I'm talking about intellectuals, not corrupt bankers who want to steal all your money)

Posted by Nathaniel Tucker | December 24, 2007 3:26 PM

PLEASE UNDERSTAND RON PAUL'S POSITION ON THE GOLD STANDARD!

Why? Insofar as someone might consider a protest vote for RP (remember, that was the point of this post) and, assuming as one might that he has a snowball's chance in hell of securing a nomination, why bother doing the deep diving on the policy ramifications of this particular view? I mean, do you really think this is the issue that is gaining him money/popularity?

He's the Republican outlier on much more salient issues, which is the engine of his early success. Why not just ride that as far as it will take you?

Posted by Brad L | December 24, 2007 3:32 PM

Vote for Ron Paul to end the War in Iraq immediately. Need I say more?

Posted by Koh Choon Lin | December 24, 2007 3:39 PM

I just want to thank all of you who are supporting Dr. Paul. I think its great that anytime anyone tries to smear him they are quickly and intelligently dealt a verbal ass kicking. Its hard to argue with the truth. Go Ron Paul!

Posted by Jason | December 24, 2007 3:46 PM

We have started to create Constitution watchdog groups. RP supporters will now pay close attention to elected officials who disregard the Constitution. We will broadcast their act of treason (that word is accurate) and they will not get re-elected. The Revolution is taking back this country. It's no longer owned by bankers. It was stolen. We found it, again. Game over.

Posted by Dave | December 24, 2007 3:47 PM

Megan McArdle Aysemmetrical Information? Thats a great description for this one Megan! This is as lopsided as I expected it to be.

Posted by Jason K | December 24, 2007 3:50 PM

"For those who are upset with the Republicans on spending, I suggest voting for McCain. He has certainly made a good effort in the Senate to resist pork projects. He even went to Iowa and criticized ethanol subsidies--if that isn't political courage, I don't know what is."

Is this the same McCain that favors heavy restrictions on the 1st Amendment by regulating campaigns heavily? Is this the same McCain that wants the federal government regulating and poking its nose into every facet of America? I respect him on some things but he seems to show very little regard for Constitutional limits placed on the government so I can't vote for him.

For those of you reluctant to vote for Ron Paul because of foreign policy let me assure you of one thing. Ron Paul does not believe that foreign policy is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and would thus seek authorization from Congress for many things dealing with foreign policy. In that respect, he would be more measured and less "radical" than any other candidate running.

What I really would look forward to in a Ron Paul presidency, would be veto after veto of stupid unconstitutional legislation forcing Congress to try and override his veto for many things. If Congress can override his veto, then the bill probably isn't all too bad (in most cases). He sure would stop stuff like the federal government banning certain types of lightbulbs, that I can guarantee.

Posted by Victor | December 24, 2007 4:06 PM

Ron Paul does not want the gold standard in terms specifically of a gold backed dollar. He wants gold and silver to become legal tender again, which you would pay no taxes on, and most importantly, currency competition within the country.

Posted by mike | December 24, 2007 4:09 PM

I just want to scream in your face! What is crazy about the foundation of our Country and the one thing that has united Americans? I am talking about the Constitution. ARRRRGGGH, good grief. I'll tell you what's crazy the presidential candidates, the Clones. Pick your poison because they are all almost indistinguishable and all they stand for, the one thing they have in common is this MORE OF THE SAME. Crazy, isn't it, more inflation, more taxes, more war, and less liberty! None address the monetary policy that causes inflation. NONE, except for Dr. Paul, the zany radical. Just like Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington Dr. Ron Paul is guilty of being crazy, and "zany". I just want to scream!

Posted by Ralph | December 24, 2007 4:11 PM

Wow...18 comments, and not one by any of the regular readers of this blog. Do Paul's supporters constantly scan the web, looking for his name to pop up in a blog so they can deluge it with comments about how great he is?

Yes.

It's fairly obvious that they're doing this. Take a look at this thread or any other Atlantic blog post that mentions Ron Paul even tangentially.

I think they use Google News or Google Blog Search, then trumpet out a call to the ramparts on whatever forums they use to organize this stuff.

Megan should have the Atlantic IT guys take a look at the referer logs and tell us where exactly these jokers come from.

Posted by smarter monkeys, please | December 24, 2007 4:23 PM

If I read one more comment about "isolationism" I think my brain will explode. I still fail to see how using diplomacy and trade rather than bombings, assassination attempts, and war are "isolationist."

Posted by Dr. Jared Butler | December 24, 2007 4:34 PM

"smarter monkeys, please" made a great comment. This site should ban every one who doesn't agree with it from looking at it. That will increase it's usefulness.

Posted by RonJon | December 24, 2007 4:36 PM

Don't forget there are many Democrats who view Ron Paul as a protest vote against their own party as well. I'm one of those and I can immediately think of 3 other active members of my meetup group (by active I mean "goes to meetups", not just signs up) in the same group of 10-12 active members. That's at least a third. We also have gold-bugs and such.

Why does RP have such bipartisan support? Because many of his core beliefs, e.g., "do unto others ...", appeal across party lines. I'm an atheist BTW, who happens to understand that people react negatively to bad behavior, something well summed up in the biblical "golden rule". He has actual explanations for his positions, and while one may not agree with all he believes, he has at least put in some intellectual analysis to arrive at his positions. That gets respect much more than choosing based on polling data.

Anyway this primary will be the first time in 20 years of voting I'll vote for a Republican. Don't think of Ron Paul as merely a Republican "protest vote" -- he's much more than that. He has the ability to actually unite the public rather than divide it.

Posted by Max in WA | December 24, 2007 4:49 PM

Belle Starr: Coleman Younger! Seems like you folks are havin' a real nice party in there. Why didn't you invite me?

Cole Younger: 'Cause you're a whore, Belle.

Belle Starr: I might be; but at least I ain't a cheap one.

Posted by Poirot | December 24, 2007 4:51 PM

One good point that this article brings up that I always use when discusing with people trying to pick a candidate is this: What's the biggest issue for you and where do you stand?, and what can the candidate do to bring about your desired change? For me it's simlple, and Ron Paul answered it correctly when I tuned in to a debate. He said that as Commander-in-Chief he would bring the troops home, not overnight of course, but certainly within 3 to 4 months. Recently he said he would pull back the ships off of Iran"s coast. These things would ignite immediate change for us and around the world. And these are things that the majority of Americans now want and I'm hoping and betting that we will see this when the primary votes start rolling in.

Posted by Scott M. | December 24, 2007 4:56 PM

It's pretty fucking simple, either Ron Paul's policies are enacted, or America will collapse financially due to too much spending:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8

Ignorant pundits like Megan McArdle will guide the collective conversation away from the facts and will lead America into bankruptcy.

Posted by Mike | December 24, 2007 5:06 PM

Isn't any vote that's not for the incumbent a protest vote? Since the incumbent isn't running for reelection, does that mean everyone is just casting a protest vote? Every vote is just as legiminate as the other, protest or not.

Posted by Randolph Joseph Miller | December 24, 2007 5:15 PM

It just cracks me up with anti-Paul bloggers doing everything in their power to support the status quo. Why? Because the country is already bankrupt and headed for an economic crash that will make 1929 look like a cakewalk. Don't you neo-con warmongers get it? It's all coming to and end whether we like it or not. We can do it the hard way or we can soften the blow with Dr. Paul's ideas. Do you or anyone else think for a minute that any of the other CFR blessed candidates are going to do anything but complete the destruction of America? Ron Paul is absolutely the ONLY candidate that is NOT owned by the CFR, corporations, Israel, special interests and the industrialized military complex. Dr. paul simply CANNOT be bought (untouchable). What does that tell you?

Posted by Don | December 24, 2007 5:20 PM

How do you know what you are getting if you cast a non-protest vote for a Presidential Front-Runner Candidate?

Obama- a mere 4 years as a US Senator. A couple of dozen years of cheap talk before that.

Romney- only 4 years as governor of Massachusetts and a pro-choice flip-flop.

Rev Huckabee- 10 years as governor of Arkansas, but a pandering platform so loaded with pork, any reasonable voter knows he can't deliver all of the promises.

Hair Cut John- 6 undistinguished years as a Senator and 6 years as a Presidential candidate and the same problem that Rev. Huckabee has.

Hillary- Hillspeak is discounted by everyone who knows she is saying some things just to get nominated. No one though has been able to supply us with the correct discount rate.

Posted by Michael Fernwood | December 24, 2007 5:32 PM

Mike: Well put. As a finance major among peers in the same field, I can say with more emphasis than I have ever felt on a political issue, that trouble (big trouble) is facing the nation and its economic policies, and unless something very similar to Paul's views are enacted, it may be well within our lifetimes.

As to a Paul vote being a protest vote:
It doesnt matter what anyone calls my vote, I will entreat anyone I speak with to support Paul , not to protest anyone or anything other than the ruin of America, but for the good of our nation's future. Voting on principle is not something the two-party system fosters, and it will be hard for most voters to get the idea from their heads that if we voted for who should be there, we wouldnt be stuck choosing between the lesser of evils

Posted by ben | December 24, 2007 5:33 PM

Someone wrote: "If you don't agree with Paul on foreign policy, then I assume you just love Bush's foreign policy to bits, so why would you contemplate a protest vote of any kind?"
That was the first thought that crossed my mind when I read this obvious Ron Paul smear with a nice sounding headline to get somebody to read it!
Dr. Ron Paul!! The Doctor will free you now!

Posted by Mike Gortney | December 24, 2007 5:52 PM

President Paul would have a sworn Constitutional obligation to reduce the size of the federal government and revolk the income tax.

"All powers not specifically enumerated are reserved for the states and the People."

President Paul's first hundred days will be most gratifying to me, personally. The words I wrote are succinct and incontroversial.

Congress may pass as many unconstitutional laws as they please. The President swears an oath to faithfully unwind all unconstitutional federal programs, agencies, and taxes. He may not enforce an unconstitutional law.

Posted by Benjamin Franklin | December 24, 2007 6:15 PM

I'm voting for Ron Paul to protest the fact that there are too many qualified candidates with common sense and decent decision-making skills this year.

Posted by Dan | December 24, 2007 6:23 PM

You guys need to view this blog..

http://forpresidentronpaul.blogspot.com/

Posted by Roger | December 24, 2007 6:26 PM

Dear sacman41,

Well, I'll give it a shot.

As you are likely aware, the United States has a long history of deciding that the rest of the world is irrelevant, and disarming. Then the rest of the world's battles start impacting us, sometimes economically, sometimes to the point of actually attacking our citizens. Then we spend a lot of money (and lives) getting our military rebuilt so we can force them to stop. Then we declare a "peace dividend" and repeat the cycle.

It may well be that our military spending is mis-allocated. It may be that some of it is being wasted -- indeed, I would be astounded if it were not. But that is not the same as saying that we can safely, and therefore should, drastically reduce our military spending. Unless there is some (secret, at least from me) plan which will result in other altruistic nations (the EU perhaps?) picking up more of the burden of protecting some modicum of peaceful trade and travel around the world. (And may I say that I cannot see China or Russia, and probably not Saudi Arabia, in such a group any time soon.)

As for the Federal Reserve and the economy, perhaps a little study of the economic cycles during the 1800s, compared with the business cycle since the Federal Reserve was established, would be enlightening. Certainly the Fed has been far from perfect. But compared to what went before? And inflation, at least over the past half century, has occurred primarily in response to two factors: 1) increases in the costs of imports (primarily oil -- and the Fed does not control OPEC), 2) excess spending by the Federal Government. If anything, the Fed has been surprisingly successful in holding down inflation -- in the face of feckless spending by the government.

Now I agree with you entirely that the Federal Government must stop spending beyond its income. But maintaining or abolishing the Federal Reserve will have no effect on that. The only way to change it is to rein in the Congress, which mandates how the money gets spent (and what the tax levels are).

For the purposes of controlling inflation, it doesn't actually matter what combination of reduced spending and increased taxes is used to balance the budget. All that matters is that it gets back into balance. People can fight over what should be taxed and how much. The can fight over where the money should be spent, and how much. But increase taxes, cut spending, or some combination -- those are the only choices to get the budget balanced.

Regards,
wj

Posted by wj | December 24, 2007 6:31 PM

Here is a shocker Ms. McArdle: The president is not a dictator.
So the answer to the question of what portion of Ron Paul's platform you will empower is the portion that congress agrees to. In other words very little.

But you can be sure Ron Paul will be the only candidate willing to try to balance the budget or have a nervous breakdown trying!

Posted by Mark D | December 24, 2007 6:38 PM

we'll all be lucky if the American economy makes it to the primaries much less the general election

Posted by Mike | December 24, 2007 7:11 PM

It's become all to clear that we as a nation are all doomed. American will cease to exist within 10 years. You are for the most part, all stupid, brain-washed tools of the establishment and you will all get what you deserve. Keep watching those clever little TV sets, slave your way back and forth to work each day of your pathetic boring lives and I in the mean time will prepare for the horrors that lay ahead. Good luck everyone!

Posted by Orwig | December 24, 2007 7:14 PM

I don't see anybody else to vote for but Ron Paul. he is the only one wanting to reverse the one world government. To me that is the most important issue of them all. An international tax on carbon dioxide has allready been voted. Soon it will be a tax on on the pollution from people smoking cigars. then on the trees that people cut in their back yard because you are removing oxygen and on it will go. It is always done on a gradient so that people accept it without causing a revolt. It is always presented in a covert way so that it looks like it is benefiting the people. The bars around our country and planet are adding up. If Ron paul ever gets elected, he has to surround himself( I would even say before he gets elected) with a lot of able helpers who will support his views and who are aware of the fact that Ron paul will be in great danger. He will have to expose and bring to justice right away the the ones behind the IRS, the federal reserves, etc.....basically the ones that are causing great harm to the country. The danger will mount as he gets more votes. There will be a huge amount of vested interest that will want him dead. It is everybody that benefits from the status quo regime including the pharmaceutical companies

Posted by patricia | December 24, 2007 7:26 PM

Hi RMc
"Wow...18 comments, and not one by any of the regular readers of this blog. Do Paul's supporters constantly scan the web, looking for his name to pop up in a blog so they can deluge it with comments about how great he is? And do they really think will help Paul win votes, rather than put people off?"

To reply yes RPers can be over-zealuos. I think it goes back to my point (relating to your post and others). Imagine your candidate was constantly being hacked like this article (not constructive arguments but comments like "with your ONLY recourse being responding in blogs to reach the general public. Then the more you learn about Dr Paul and the more you see the media the more you see how transparent the media is (controlled by a very few). Hack pieces and slanderous articles like this do nothing for our democratic republic. Please bring forward you arguments on any of the postions of Dr. Paul. I RARELY see ANY debate - the transparency is so obvious it would be funny if there wasn't so much at stake (like soldiers loves in an unjust wart (as I am a veteran). See therealmcain.com for an example of how our soldiers are offered up by lying politicians.

Posted by sacman41 | December 24, 2007 7:43 PM

Megan, you're raising reasonable point. Paul's actual mix of policies, let alone (unlikely) outcomes, are very hard to predict.
It is reasonable to expect as a low-hanging fruit that he may reverse by some of the executive excesses of recent decades. From the economic perspective, there's a good change of balanced budget.
However his most likely contribution through this campaign would be legitimation of some of now-outlandish views.

Posted by Jack178 | December 24, 2007 8:32 PM

A "protest vote?"

What makes you so sure Dr. Paul isn't going to win the nomination? Either way, we'll all soon find out if the elitist establishment of the warfare/welfare state is about to come tumbling down.

Posted by Alan | December 24, 2007 8:40 PM

Interesting article. But I think what it misses is the fact that _all_ votes (not just "protest votes") send a message about what it is you're supporting; and that message can always be misinterpreted. The same argument could be made about voting for any candidate who you aren't in lock-step agreement with on every issue.

Posted by sh(A)ne | December 24, 2007 9:00 PM

>>I think they use Google News or Google Blog Search, then trumpet out a call to the ramparts on whatever forums they use to organize this stuff.

Posted by sh(A)ne | December 24, 2007 9:12 PM

I greet anything Andrew Sullivan writes with extreme skepticism. He's been monothematic for years.

That last protest vote I cast, the one against the lying Bush I, didn't turn out too well. It got me different, not better. Actually, not even as good.

I'll cast my vote, again, for the least bad of the two alternatives. Anything else is a vote for the worst of all alternatives.

Posted by MarkD | December 24, 2007 9:18 PM

I was one of the 25,000 first time contributors to the Ron Paul presidential campaign on Dec. 16th. I really like Dr. Paul’s adhesion to some of the philosophies of our founding fathers. I especially like the “no entanglements” part.

So many of Dr. Paul’s young supporters are written off as freaks, flakes or worse. What I have come to understand is that many of them are the families and friends of all these young people coming back from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our government has admitted that almost 4,000 of our children have been killed so far. Tens of thousands have been horribly maimed and burned. A literal army of teenagers and twenty-somethings in their wheelchairs. They have been permanently disfigured and they will forever suffer from this insane war for Israel.

I am almost fifty years old and I have always voted. I have already changed my party to Republican for the primary in my state.

For the first time in my life, I sent $50 to a politician.

Posted by WD | December 24, 2007 10:16 PM

Yeah I'm pleasantly surprised how well Paul has done. I voted for him in '88. A lot of his support seems to be coming from people who blew off politics as irrelevant until they heard his message. It's the message, not him personally--except, it takes a lot of courage, dignity, and intelligence to stand up successfully for a point of view that goes so far against the political mainstream and status quo.

A lot of people have drawn the wrong conclusions from the experience of the years between WWI and WWII. You know, the story goes, the US withdrew from the world and let fascism gain strength until we had to re-arm and defeat it. But it was American intervention in WWI that made it possible for England and France to impose the awful Versailles Treaty on Germany, and that's what led to Hitler. In any event, unlike Hitler's Germany, the Islamic countries altogether are very weak--and they'll stay that way until they get market economies and freedom. But then they won't be a threat either.

Posted by Doc W | December 24, 2007 10:37 PM

Imagine your candidate was constantly being hacked

I'd assume everybody is in on a conspiracy to trash him, just because they're a bunch of meanies. Or that I need to find another candidate.

Our government has admitted that almost 4,000 of our children have been killed so far.

Soldiers are not children. Don't be an idiot.

Posted by RMc | December 24, 2007 11:01 PM

I'm voting for Dr. No. He makes the other Republicans look like shams with his record of voting against federal spending. He wants to get rid of the IRS. Can he pull it off in one term? No. Can he veto enough bills and cut spending so that it would actually be possible 7 years from now? I think so. The current "Republicans" have managed to increase spending, and despite passing a more sensible tax system, have not been able to decrease the size of government. Am I voting in protest? No. I am voting for the only Republican who has the balls to make the necessary reduction in government to get the job done. A vote for anyone else is a vote for the IRS. Ask yourself, is heavy taxation a "Republican" ideal?

Posted by Paul Boudreaux | December 24, 2007 11:03 PM

You probably don't agree with Paul's foreign policy because you don't understand our actual foreign policy.

Do you know what Operation Ajax is, and how it led to Al Qaeda?

Do you know we keep the Sa'ud Family in power, despite the fact that the vast majority of Saudi Arabians want them OUT?

Do you know we PROBABLY helped place Saddam Hussein in power?

Do you know that we abandoned the Democracy movement in Afghanistan right after the USSR gave up it's conquest, and funded the Taliban?

How about this - Paul has said that Israel is pushing us to attack Israel, sound crazy?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/927879.html

"Israeli officials said in closed meetings that it would be best if the United States attacked Iran - and not Israel alone."

Not according to ISRAELI news. That's precisely what Israel is trying to do, and every Israeli knows it, it's just politically incorrect for an American to acknowledge that - in fact, if you do, you're often labeled "anti-Semitic".

I think what you might be bothered by, is that Paul doesn't lie - about anything, even when it's much more convenient to simply ignore the truth or deny is, like every other stinking politician does.

Posted by Richard Wicks | December 24, 2007 11:05 PM

The problem with Ron Paul is that his isolationism is annoyingly consistent in that it applies to immigration as well. A standard liberal thinks "Yankees go home" is a legitimate slogan and "Mexicans go home" is bigotry. A standard conservative thinks the opposite. Ron Paul apparently thinks everybody can go home.

On the other hand, what if your ancestry is partly from one area and partly from another and you'll have to be dismembered to go home? That might explain the support Ron Paul has gotten from opponents of "race mixing."

Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger | December 24, 2007 11:17 PM

When do we stop listening to lies:
Lieberman-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVcL8KFDetU
McCain-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
Romney-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Xc-X8LckQ
Huckabee-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi2HCUM0pro&feature=related

Save the Republic and vote for Ron Paul!

Posted by sean | December 24, 2007 11:17 PM

"Don't pretend that your vote is more significant than it is. You do realize it is "expressive" because no one is actually going to get the message?"

Going into '08, the economic pic is bleak enough that I think we'll be electing a scapegoat in any case. This is the only explanation I can figure for what is diplomatically called "a wide open race". Re Paul, I don't see libertarianism as the Great Salvation...but I'll vote for the guy who is communicating his platform at a triple digit IQ level. If the ppl can't find water, the saying goes, they'll drink sand. That's the kind of hopelessness that turns nations to despots in bad times, and at least Paul does not appear to be a wannabee despot. Or completely nuts, like Perot.

However, I completely reserve the right to drop Paul like a hot potato for a better candidate. Preferably a social moderate (hated by the far left and right alike), anti corporate/military machine type who is strong anti-inflation (on the argument that the least we can do is keep basic food/shelter affordable to seniors and others on fixed incomes), and who supports the notion that a country that has to import indentured servants to do jobs that Americans "won't" do (for crap wages), consents to that kind of status quo at its peril. Who in their right mind could objectively opine that we can all become doctors and lawyers and RE agents, or else learn to live on minimum wage - with little in between - and that's a *good* thing for a nation? Forget H1-Bs and indentured "guest" servants - if we need to import workers that badly, companies can bloody well sponsor and pay health/unemployment for them - no need to have guns on the borders, that would be more usefully trained (metaphorically!) on the bottom line, as viewed by CEOs and CFOs.

What we actually need an American worker party. Conservatives will scream "Reds! Socialists!" and lib'rals, "Elitists! Protectionists!"...but it won't be worth a damn if it isn't anathema to BOTH parties.

Posted by LB | December 24, 2007 11:27 PM

RWE> "After all, isolationism was not a stunning success when it was tried between WWI and WWII. It seems clear now that it would have been better for us and for the world had we remained actively engaged in world affairs rather than retreating into a self-defeating solipsism."

RWE it is obvious you have not researched the Candidates on the issues. Dr.Paul is by no means advocating isolationism. He is advocating nonintervention per our Constitution.

If any country came on our shores and penetrated say Texas and took control and fought us over the mineral,oil and gas rights then dictated to us how to live and run our Government, build permanent bases staffed with 40K soldiers and military brass. I fathom to imagine that we would just allow that fiasco to happen, much less allow meddling in our affairs in our country for over 50 years... Actually I'm surprised it took them so long to do the cole, wtc, etc... I think we would have reacted much sooner if the shoe were on the other foot...
I think free trade is a good thing, unfortunately thanks to the WTO, free trade applies to everyone but us. That is one of the main reasons for the industry/manufacturing exodus overseas. It is far more profitable export to US than than from. That needs a big fix! Law of the sea treaty LOST, another UN empowerment at the expense of our sovereignty.

I'm quite pleased I finally have someone I can proudly say I support.In my 50 years I finally get the second opportunity for actually vote for someone not against someone! LOL
Someone that will reclaim the core philosophy of the republican party. Someone that will unite our Citizens and stop this he said she said they said two horse political party sham! The extremists have had control for several decades it is time to rebuild and stir our melding pots at home..A time to heal and once again thrive... BTW per an earlier poster, monkey something I'm from SWFL and its a beautiful balmy full moon Christmas eve. Merry Christmas! http://ronpaullibrary.org/

Posted by ladiliberty | December 24, 2007 11:35 PM

You are a damned skippy that it is a protest vote! And Thank god it is. A Protest vote is a heck of a lot better than a protest civil war which what we are heading towards with this screwed up government.

US Army Vet for Ron Paul for President!

Posted by True American | December 24, 2007 11:38 PM

I would be interested to see the ip logs for these replies too.

I am a Paul supporter and I am hoping he does have broad based support. We need him or someone like him ready to dismantle the current debacle built by special interests.

Posted by charles | December 25, 2007 12:02 AM

Well, Ronald Reagan pioneered the technique of appointing agency heads who opposed the existence or mission of the agency they were heading. It would certainly be interesting to see that technique applied to the Federal Reserve.

But as I recall, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve serves a 14-year-term, so I don't think there's a scenario apart from assassination in which Paul gets to appoint a new one.

I really liked this comment, from sacman41:

The press is owned by a handful and I would recommend a video on google.com entitled "Manufacturing Consent"

How many of Ron Paul's supporters are also Noam Chomsky fans? How many might have voted for Nader in 2000? Interesting.

Posted by brooksfoe | December 25, 2007 12:11 AM

If you want to protest, join a picket line somewhere. If you want small government, not-interventionist foreign policy, freedom, no income tax, personal liberty and prosperity... then vote for Ron Paul. A Vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul and what he stands for. What the heck, we take your protest vote also, but you should vote for something not against something else. If that's how you feel, why show up and vote in the first place?

Posted by WebBot346 | December 25, 2007 12:23 AM

As far as to whom Dr. Paul may put up for positions on the economy, I see him putting lots of hard money people in place that understand economic policy. Even if they weren't hard money people they would still be a changing of the gaurd to have somebody who knows something about the ecomony. In other words in wouldn't be Ben and that wold be good for America.

P.S. Is anyone even listening to Greenspan anymore? I would argue not because he also shares the concern of inflation and the value of the dollar. Unless I missed something, Dr. Paul is the only one talking about it directly. Few candidate's will even admit prices are going up much less say the word inflation.

Posted by David Monk | December 25, 2007 12:31 AM

On your comment regarding..."One doesn't like to imagine who his nominee for the position of Chairman of the Federal Reserve might be." If you were aware of the complete process, you would understand that THE PRESIDENT can only 'nominate' from a list of pre-screened, hand picked individuals that is presented to him by the "more powerful" Federal Reserve.

The use of Chairman is misleading just as the name Federal is in "Federal Reserve". Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express! The Chairman is not the head of the Fed but only the 'spokesperson liaison between the Fed and the Government. He is one of seven board members all with equal voting power.

I for one would love to see the Fed kicked out of our country and the economic power put back into the hands of Congress where it belongs.

Do you see the words "Federal Reserve" written in the Constitution?

Posted by Myles | December 25, 2007 12:51 AM

Boy, this Ron Paul is very interesting. For one thing I have to defend Jane, er, Megan, she has given specific criticism of Paul.

But mainly I have to comment on how interesting it is, at least til it gets boring, on what automatons the Paul supporters seem to be.

I have a theory. These are the people who have spent years listening to right wing radio with very little other source of information. They go on dogmatically along a particular train of thought, ignoring any information that might make their convictions a little shakier, while at the same time attacking personally someone they have hardly read and can hardly know much about except that they didn't like that she doesn't agree with them.

It's right wing talk radio right here on the net. And it isn't pretty.

Posted by napablogger | December 25, 2007 2:25 AM

You're right when you say that you don't have to agree with all Ron Paul's issues but you're still voting for him. I personally find that some of the issues, though I'd like to see enacted, are not clearly layed out as to how these will get done. However I'm a pundid advocate of the constitution and Ron Paul is a god-send from my viewpoint. Ron Paul is probably the only honest politician of all running candidates today and this means a lot to me.
BTW below is what I consider an acurate analysis on who's going to take the elections.
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=207908

Posted by Trans-Mutant | December 25, 2007 2:34 AM

Ron Paul is a protest candidate:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/lopez1.html

Posted by Ed L | December 25, 2007 3:04 AM

>>Wow...18 comments, and not one by any of the regular readers of this blog. Do Paul's supporters constantly scan the web, looking for his name to pop up in a blog so they can deluge it with comments about how great he is? And do they really think will help Paul win votes, rather than put people off?

To answer your question: I do a Google scan about three times a day to see what new articles roll in on Ron Paul. Not because I'm looking to "spam" blogs about him, but because I am genuinely interested in seeing Dr. Paul go all the way and I want to participate in the national discussion. I understand that this is probably frustrating for people who think that intervening in the foriegn affairs of other nations is important but have a weak crop of candidates from which to choose from or even get excited about. But I'm not afraid of putting people like that off. They're already put off by Dr. Paul, so why should I worry about it?

For my part, I'm going to continue to scan Google, and participate in discussions, along with those who share my enthusiasm. I can't wait to get out and vote for Dr. Paul... And more than that, I can't wait until he's president and directing our energy to vote for candidates who are running for congress that he endorses. Just thinking about that gives me a real charge!

Posted by Ed L | December 25, 2007 3:19 AM

Ron Paul Wand of Vote-Fixation +3

Casting time: 1turn
Range: Country wide
Save: Intelligence
Effect:

Creates a magical barrier which prevents all straw polls in range to only accept votes for Ron Paul. Also known to create meetup groups at a 1:1000 ratio versus other candidates, create a rigged donation website, distribute banners and bumper stickers for free, and levitates a blimp. May even cause campaign scandals from Chinese Communists.

Ron Paul... you're either part of the r3VOLution or cursing the dungeon master for being mean...

Don't curse the DM, he always wins in the end.

Posted by Ken A | December 25, 2007 3:28 AM

"It really is amazing that some of Dr. Paul's supporters cannot grasp that it is possible to abhor the Bush approach to foreign policy and still not think the Dr. Paul's foreign policy would be wonderful."

Exactly. Paul believes in withdrawing from the UN and ending all foreign aid. I believe he also favors withdraw from NATO and not defending our allies. I think you can reject Bush and that with ease.

And it's hard to imagine a modern person truly wanting us to return to the "non-interventionism of the Founders." Does