Ron Paul is the only honest, true conservative running (as defined by original philosophy, not the phony Republican neo-con establishment.) But the media won't take him seriously, marginalizing people like him as "weirdos" etc. That I can understand, but that the talk-radio and other so-called conservative leaders won't back him, is not excusable

i bet he wins.

Ron Paul is indeel the only real conservative. That makes all the sadder, his inability to put his dieas into action. And the constant chorus by his supporters, blaming everybody else except Ron Paul himself for this lack, is getting very old.

Nobody is going to help you win, maybe unless you're a Democrat. Quit whining, Paul supporters. Other conservatives have won, though they weren't as conservative as Paul (see Reagan). Why can't you?

I don't just want a conservative candidate. I want a conservative VICTORY, followed by large changes in the law that will establish this country's conservative roots. From Paul and his supporters, I hear nothing but good ideas and a lot of whining because other people aren't treating him the way they want.

Either get in the game, or get out of the game. If you folks can't find a way to get a genuine conservative to WIN and IMPLEMENT HIS IDEAS, then get out of the way and let someone else try.

I'm not a conservative, and yet I support Ron Paul's message. Half of my family is Democrat, and half Progressive, and they support his message (vocally, and financially).

Ron Paul is not just the only hope for conservatives, but he's basically the only hope for all, young and old.

Paul wants to protect the fixed incomes of the retired by stopping the devaluation of the dollar -- which both parties support and have supported for almost a century.

Paul wants to protect the future incomes of the young by providing for a real way to get out of the Federal monstrosities, while still providing for the promises made to the eldery.

Paul wants to protect the military troops by extricating them from the 120+ countries they're actively stationed in.

Paul wants to protect the religious by ending the IRS, so people can donate more to their churches, while still protecting the rights of the atheists as they can donate to the charities of their wishes -- charities who do far more for the poor and the disabled than any government branch has ever done.

Paul wants to protect the liberties of the citizens by working to end the rampantly abused Police state, which has targetted innocents over criminals.

Paul wants to defend the minorities by ending unconstitutional drug crimes and dismantling welfare that keeps poor areas poor. Too many people are in jail for never hurting anyone else, and too many people are kept on a government dole preventing them from getting jobs to make their lives better.

It isn't a conservative platform, it is an American platform that has been long forgotten. I can't think of anyone -- save government employees -- who should be fearful of supporting the message that Paul does.

Just to clarify, I believe the record for the most funds raised in a single day is 2.3 million. If Paul can get that, you rest assured that in fact, he IS winning.

Best,

James

$2.3 million in a primary race.

Isolationism is a deathwish policy, however I'd vote for Paul before I'd vote for a "do nothing" like Romey or Rudy. What's more interesting to me is the fact that by pushing canidates the party cores hate (Hillary and Rudy) people are becoming more vocal about what they do want - happened here locally last election where none of the party "chosen" canidates won - a very positive sign.

Once again, he is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist!

A.B.Dada, yes, Ron Paul wants to do all those things.

Don't we all.

But has he the slightest clue on how to get Congress to pass such laws? They have to do it too, you know. Like the Constitution says.

Paul seems to have the notion that if he simply comes up with a bunch of good ideas (as he has), the rest of the world will stop, drop what they're doing, and fall in line for him. Did he learn nothing from the Harry Browne campaign?

Why do libertarians keep making the same mistake, over and over?

"But has he the slightest clue on how to get Congress to pass such laws? They have to do it too, you know. Like the Constitution says."

Many of us are working on getting "Ron Paul members of Congress" elected at a local level to pass those reforms. In addition, Paul has often said that many members come up to him and tell him they agree with him (he is just going by the Constitution, after all!) and wish they could vote the way he does, but they're afraid they won't be re-elected.

I saw him at a speech in Columbia, South Carolina last week and he said that now, his colleagues come up to him and ask how he raised so much money... If they can raise money and get elected saying the same things Ron Paul does, believe me, they'll do it. It's sad, but almost every politician except Paul seems to only care about getting elected (and getting power). Hopefully that can change with these positive gains.

Dr. Ron Paul doesn't need to have any more of an "understanding" of how to implement his sweeping policy changes shoud he win the presidency than he already does. Being a Constitutionalist gives him all the understanding he needs. And by his following of the Constitution he knows inately that the founders of this nation had a template for change already in place. Dr. Paul has defended his "crazy" ideas over and over again by saying that the protocol for change will be followed to the letter. The president does not have the authority to enact legislation (or to declare war, BTW).

I would suggest doing a little research into Dr. Paul's ideas and how he plans to implement these ideas. You may find them to be firmly based on the same logic our founding fathers envisioned.

"Dr. Ron Paul doesn't need to have any more of an "understanding" of how to implement his sweeping policy changes shoud he win the presidency than he already does. Being a Constitutionalist gives him all the understanding he needs."

This is the standard line I get from peopel who have no idea how Ron Paul will actually enact his ideas. So sad. Such a waste. He has the best ideas of any candidate by far, and will completely flop in their implementation.

"And by his following of the Constitution he knows inately that the founders of this nation had a template for change already in place."

We have changed. Away from the Constitution. Incrementally, methodically, for the last 80+ years, until we have a socialistic country the Framers wouldn't even recognize.

Again, how does Ron Paul intend to get us back to where we belong?

I'm not asking where he wants us to go. He makes that clear, and I support his ideas 100%. My question is, what will he do to defeat the people moving us to the left, start weaning us off the government dependency those others foster, and reducing the size of government in the face of a population that has grown used to government largesse?

"Dr. Paul has defended his "crazy" ideas over and over again by saying that the protocol for change will be followed to the letter."

That's nice to hear. And that protocol for change, is what?

"I would suggest doing a little research into Dr. Paul's ideas..."

Why? I already agree with them, as many others do also.

"...and how he plans to implement these ideas."

You are apparently aware of how he plans to do this. How about giving us a little hint or two?

"You may find them to be firmly based on the same logic our founding fathers envisioned."

Our Founding Fathers had a population tired of government tyranny, most of whom had come to the New World for the express purpose of getting out from under one repressive government or another. Ron Paul in 2008 has a population with no such background or desires, except for a few.

Once again, how does Ron Paul intend to get THIS population pressuring ITS congress to start moving to the right, where the country belongs... for the first time in anyone's living memory? In the face of a huge, established machine including a large, no-holds-barred political party (or two) dedicated to preventing exactly that, and a press that will back them, and opppose him, to the hilt?

Until that question is ADEQUATELY answered, there is no point in voting for Ron Paul, no matter how good his ideas are (and they are very good).

DavidA Has simply lost hope in America. We can't blame him we all were there at one point. But this is it we have hope for America. He knows it deep down he even admits knowing and agreeing with us. If you Agree with Ron Paul 100% I sugjest you vote for him in the Primaries. If he doesn't win your free to vote as you see fit.

Ron Paul is what America needs, someone with the courage, honesty, and ideas to raise our country up from the sinkhole into which it's been dropped. I think we're more than ready for someone new, someone real, someone intelligent. Let's hope the slanted, biased news media can get past paying homage to the 'good 'ol boys' group long enough to pay attention. The fact is that Americans finally are finding someone to get behind. That would be Ron Paul!

Harry Browne had the same message, the same good ideas, the same honesty, the same conservatism as Ron Paul. Browne flopped with less than 1% of the vote.

What will Paul do differently from Browne, to actually get his ideas enacted where Browne could not?

So Ron Paul just based a fundraiser on celebrating a terrorist who wanted to blow up the British Parliament the King, and take over.

Tasteful.

Ron Paul is a tinfoil hat-wearing, paranoid, conspiracy-theory nutcase--supported heavily by 9-11 Truther nutcases. Ron Paul's naive 18th century isolationism would guarantee a Middle East dominated by a nuke-toting, terror-financing, Israel-targeting Iran battling a Wahhabi-spewing Saudi Arabia. Free peoples around the world would be in the cross-hairs of oil-funded Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc. if we withdraw inside "Fortress America." Even after 9-11, Ron Paul believes that Islamic extremist terrorists, who film beheadings, cannot strike the US. All but 2% of GOP voters will reject this goofball in the primaries.

"What will Paul do differently from Browne, to actually get his ideas enacted where Browne could not?"

We had a president Browne?