Secondly, not even his most ardent supporters expect Paul to win the nomination, so the willingness to give in larger numbers underlines their commitment to him and his platform.

What? Of course we expect to win.

Follow the curve; it's an inevitability.
========================================

So, bD, what about the war and what about governing fantasies?
===========================

Just like many internet polls concerning Paul are suspect, I'd need to see a breakdown of his contributers.

When Ron Paul took shots at Bush & the Iraq War he was seen as speaking truth to power and ticked off many of the Leftie talking points such as blowback, the Left fell in love with him.

I wonder if he has some HSUpport of the Left to be a thorn in the Republican Candidates side and to groom him as a Ross Perot type spoiler.

jpm, it's a deliberate attempt to splinter a predictably small portion of the vote. It also has rare internet charisma. bryanD is a Paulite.

We shall see. Tres amusant.
=================================

Paul is a very cute tool, unless he's the guiding genius. So far, I can't tell. I probably prefer not to know.
================================

Yes, Jpm that's one thing I'm wondering (and worrying) about Paul.

Of course he's not going to get the Republican nomination, not by a long shot, but what if he makes an independent run? Will he take votes from Bill's wife or the Republican nominee?

Ron is firmly pro-Al Qaeda/Islamofascism and Bill's wife is squishily pro-Al Qaeda/Islamofascism, while the Republican will definiely be anti-Al Qaeda/Islamofascim, but Ron is very anti-government while Bill's wife is pro-big government fascism and the Republican will be in middle, closer to Paul than Bill's wife.

I could definitely see Paul pulling more votes from the Republican than from Bill's wife which could be '92 all over again and a disingenuous fascist socialist may win the Whitehouse with considerably less than half the popular vote.

I would be shocked to see Paul run third-party (presumably LP, since it is already on the ballot in many places) in the fall. He would have to give up his House seat, which would be nearly impossible to win back later.

Also, it's one thing to support a fringe candidate "on principle" in the primaries, especially if none of the main choices appeal. However, in the general election, only two will have a chance of winning and the winner will be President. Most people hold their nose and make a choice.

The only Libertarian Party candidate to win as much as 1% of the vote was Ed Clark in 1980. None have managed as much as one-half of one percent since (including Paul in '88: if you see it listed as "0.5%," it's because they rounded up).

That's true Jim, but Paul supporters don't really seem to have a firm grasp on reality and I don't really think Paul does either, so anything can happen between now and Nov '08.

But I really, really hope you're right, and you seem to have a pretty good track record about these things so that makes me worry a little less. (At least about the particular senario I posted above.)

LP voters tend to be true believers, and there aren't many of them. The great majority of those initially attracted to Libertarian candidates have no idea just what the LP is all about. When they find out, they vote otherwise.

Your faith in my track record may be misplaced. I was an early supporter of Connally in 1980, of Kemp in 1988, and of Gramm in 1996, etc., so . . . but I appreciate the vote of confidence nonetheless.

"Ron Paul collects $5 million in 3rd Quarter"

He also got pledges of $7.5 million during a 7 day internet fundraiser at the end of Sept.

"Just like many internet polls concerning Paul are suspect, I'd need to see a breakdown of his contributers.-jpm100"

The post-debate flash polls and many newspaper polls allow only one vote per phone/isp address. (sheesh! noobz!)
There are demonstrations on Youtube of attempted multiple votes. Cookie-cleaning, etc. Hell, even Wizbang's presidential poll would allow but one vote per.

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

"Paul is a very cute tool, unless he's the guiding genius.=kim"

He's obviously not a tool because he doesn't pander nearly good enough! Check out at least the first few moments of his Iowa straw poll speech. Very hard core.

He practically dares the "hippies" to go elsewhere. ("Peace" followed by overturning Roe v Wade, etc)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI

"He would have to give up his House seat, which would be nearly impossible to win back later.-ja"

RP dips in and out at will and wins at will.
1 term in the 70s, a few terms in the 80s, and a return in 1996 to present.
His congressional election record is 100%.

I did vote for him 88, too! Good times though too soon!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

Interesting video bD. I didn't know he was against abortion, but I admire that. It's a shame that he's pro Al Qaeda, 'cause actually I like a lot of what he has to say. (I didn't see all of it yet, but I will later-- my wife's playin WOW and I was laggin her out.)

I love the libertarian party's core principles and I often call myself a libertarian--mainly because I'd love to see them grow into a viable national party. In my opinion they are the best of any alternative party in the US.

(If I started an alternative party, I'd call it the "Third Party", because after all that's what the press would call us in an attempt to minimize our significance e.g. Third Party candidate Paul Bunyan said today that John Kerry appeared to be Satan's apprentice, but Bill's wife appears to be his master...

But I digress.

It's when the Libertarians get to the technicalities that they loose me. Someone on this blog posted that Paul was pro-abortion and I believed whoever that was (I don't remember- it was a while ago) because I understand that to be the common Libertarian stance (even though it violates their core principles).

And Jim, supporting a candidate is a lot different than prediciting what will happen. Never once in my life has a candidate I voted for in primaries ever won the nomination. Not that that tidbit is worth much as I'm not that good at predicting what will happen either - I'm a hopeless optimist...

"Hell, even Wizbang's presidential poll would allow but one vote per"

If you have a certain type of internet connection, it is impossible for them to do that.

And even if it was it's still not hard to skew a poll. How many phones are in the average household these days?

It'll be interesting to watch the videos after Ms. Bunyan hits the sack, but I have to say, what I've seen of him in the debates, he appears at times to not have both oars in the water.

O.k. I watched the video. I strongly like a good portion of what Paul says. I kinda like other things, but there are things with which I strongly disagree.

Maybe if Paul named someone else to be complelely in charge of foreign & military policy and he agreed to have nothing to do with it, I'd vote for him (depending of course on the person he named's worldview.)

He doesn't seem so crazy when he's giving a speech like that, but now I understand why he seems nuts at times in the debates-- he has no sane answers for the tough questions.

"If you have a certain type of internet connection, it is impossible for them to do that.-paul bunyan"

Proxies? I'm familiar with it. But with cable it's a hassle and mobile phones??? Over my pay grade there. And if it was that easy Sanjaya would be the American Idol. And the support base is obvious through donations, home page views, ad hoc videos and promotions. Let's allow plus/minus 7% geek factor.

"It's a shame that he's pro Al Qaeda..."

Ugh! If RP had Al Qaeda in custudy, he would try them and, if found guilty of terrorism or found to be covert or out-of-uniform (extramilitary) agents, would have them hanged in a swift and judicious manner. And my GUESS would be publicly. Instead, W equates (and thus compromises) OUR rights to comport with his idea of Revenge on Them. The Habeas Corpus bit. With Lincoln it was temporary (1861-1863). Bush is establishing its permanence. I hope Bush gets cancer. In his butt and in his bladder.

"Someone on this blog posted that Paul was pro-abortion and I believed whoever that was.."

I assume you mean Wiz Classic. Been there, banned there. It's all Talking Points or Change The Subject. 90% mental midgets. The board is terminal. All nodding and a few polite "trolls" for contrast.

BTW, the authors still hold that the hirsute Cheryl Crowe was NOT kidding when she wrote of a 1 square of toilet paper per BM rule! I corrected them on Day 1 to no effect because they're RETARDS! Satire is rocket science or alchemy, I guess! They need more experience with human women. Uncleanliness? feh!!!!

"Maybe if Paul named someone else to be complelely in charge of foreign & military policy"

Like the people who invaded a secular Iraq in the name of anti-Islamism????

You do realize that there WAS freedom of conscience and of worship in Saddaam's Iraq, and that women were able to hold jobs, and that SINCE we've upset the order, Islamist (Shiite and Wahabbi) extremists are our PARTNERS!

And that the ancient Assyrian Christian community has been wiped out? And the Jewish community? There were thousands of each. Now gone or dead.

Butt, bladder, cancer, Bush.

bryan,

I'm not gonna let you in on the internet "secret" even though it's remarkably simple, because I don't like when people use it (and yes I'm kinda a hypocrite here because I have used it against them) and the less who know about it the better.

Second, put Al Qaeda on trail? That is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.

For every dollar we are spending in Iraq and Afganistan now, it would probably cost $100 or more. So many of you "let Al Qaeda win" types complain about the cost of the war and deficit spending so your "solution" is to spend many trillions of dollars instead of a few billion?

And of course we know how fair and reliable our leftist legal system is too, don't we. Can you say "O.J."?

Enough about that. I don't need to piss myself off on a Friday morning thinking about one of the great evils in our society...

Like or not, we are in large part, "the world's police". No, we don't right every wrong in the world (but then no police force has ever righted every wrong anywhere) we pick our battles and only address the most pressing and most important to us. The US is only entity in the world that has keep things as peaceful as they have been since WWII.

You are clueless when you talk about "peace". The blacks in the anti-bellum south lived in peace. It was a disruption of that peace, by the newly born Republican Party, that gave them liberty and freedom.

Isolationists like you, Paul, and Buchannan are willing to give up freedom and liberty in the name of "peace". I'd rather not live in your type of peace, thank you very much.

If we do not address the problems of the world in their infancy, if we let them grow and fester as you isolationists wish, we will eventually either have to address them at a time when it will be many orders of magnitude more costly in blood and resources or we will have to give up our freedom and liberty. (World War II is a perfect example of this.)

Ron Paul is a remarkably honest man, even more remarkable since he's a politician. (That's why he seems nuts when he trys to answer a difficult question- he can't lie his way out of it like Clinton did or Clinton's wife does now.) And he was being totally honest in that speech when he said he doesn't know how to be the world's police. And it is mostly for that reason that will not vote for him. (The other problems I have with him I could overlook.)

And lastly, wishing the President would get cancer and die is pure evil, not to mention unpatriotic. I had a lot of problems with Clinton, but I never wished him harmed or dead. I even thought impeaching him for lying under oath was a stupid waste of time. (Not to mention it was equivalent to when they went after Al Capone for tax evasion. In both cases it was the very least of their crimes.) Very few people who voted for him didn't know that he was a polished, practiced, straight faced lair and they voted for him anyway. True if we had a fair, honest, and unbiased press in this country he would never have been elected, but wishing harm on him is still evil.

And I see you're a Micheal Moore fan...

Son, it was a good we done in Iraq.
===================================

So what then, my little cursor?
================================

"Son, it was a good we done in Iraq."

Amen!

Follow with me
Under the sea
Fat forceful fright she
Took the voicebox of he
Now fool liberty
Only fools you and me.
================================