Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occaisions that he views liberty as the unifying principle that can pull our party together. Whatever you say about Dr. Paul, he certainly walks the talk on liberty. If a strong dedication to liberty is not sufficient for a majority of the GOP, I think that speaks more to the state of the GOP than it does to the electability of Dr. Paul.

No, sorry; Dean was a self-aggrandizer in it for the cult status. Ron has a natural, self-sustaining message capable of igniting with Promethean fire the apathetic hearts of American serfs.

Welcome to the party. I'm a former marxist, who, upon realizing that marxism was a great theoretical construct and not such a great practical model, opted for a constitutional position that kept the ambitions of the centralizing powers out of my life......

I voted for GWB in 2000 (a very tough break for this former marxist), and for Peroutka in 2004 (constitution party). I no longer want the government to dominate the masses to implement my vision of a perfect government - I just want it to let me live my life in a setting of freedom. Why should any man force his views (beyond objective right and wrong) on another?

Go Ron, Go.

Frum’s post is one of the odder things I’ve read in a while. In a short post he manges to compare Ron Paul to Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean, but draws a distinction between Paul and Ross Perot. Well, I guess I have to be happy with the ...

I'm a [hitherto] lifelong Democrat, who has spent as much of that same lifetime viscerally hating Republicans - which I perceived as elitist scum growing fat off the country's mechanisms while not even wanting to contribute back to support the same damn system they hide behind. Hypocritical on moral issues, self-defeating in foreign policy...my list of complaints went on. I've spat at their convention when they intruded on NYC, heckled their local candidates outside debates, and more of the same.

The morning of November 6th, when it became clear that Ron Paul was actually a viable candidate, I marched down to the county building and re-filed as Republican. Now most of my free time is dedicated to proselytizing my entire social setting.

Drawing off this personal experience, then, I wouldn't discount his pull. Nothing offends truth like hypocrisy, and no candidate in a long time has escaped this charge as wholeheartedly as Ron Paul.

Woowoo.
Dude, you seriously misunderestimate our powers of imagination.
Let your candidate break 5% in some poll, somewhere, then get back to us.

And JJ,
On what basis do you suspect that maybe a third-party Paul candidacy might draw in some Dems?
I suspect his appeal would be zero. Obviously his libertarianism on social issues is a potential appeal, but that doesnt distinguish him greatly from the Dem candidates. And there are lots of reasons why he wouldn't be appealing.

The other key difference is that the Democrats never showed such obvious scorn for Dean in his supporters, nor did they repeatedly try to publically humiliate. Even if Ron Paul bows out, they're going to have a very hard time convincing those voters to vote for the eventual Republican candidate.

If they're LUCKY those voters will just stay home. But I can personally say that if it ends up being Clinton vs. Guliani, I'm liable to cast my first ever vote for a Democrat president purely out of spite.

"Paul’s brand of libertarianism is relatively isolationist..."

In my, one man's, opinion, I am skeptical of any analysis/analyst that cannot define terms correctly and/or mislabels a candidates clearly stated position on an issue. It makes no difference whether the cause for such errors are ignorance, less than stellar intellect or a deliberate attempt at spin; the end result is "analysis" grounded in less than known reality. Would one be wise to take seriously the opinions expressed by a stockbroker that cannot/will not define the term "earnings per share" accurately or a car salesman that does not understand the difference between city and highway MPG?

The important, accepted, standard and well defined/understood terms relative to your quote above are interventionist, non-interventionist, isolationist. Ron Paul advocates a NON-INTERVENTIONIST foreign policy, period. Let's get that straight, once and for all, for anyone commenting on his candidacy that wishes to be taken seriously. Modifying the term Isolationist with words like "relatively" as a premise for discussing Ron Paul's (and the Founder's) foreign policy views is a false premise and therefore a hopelessly flawed analysis at the starting gate.

If Ron Paul's clearly stated position on an issue is "A" and some pundit states his position is "A-" or "B+" then makes a case against "A-" or "B+" that case against "A-" or "B+" may be relevant to something but it is irrelevant to Ron Paul.

On a related(strongly) note to the above is understanding the actual definition of the term "Straw Man" as regards logical falacies:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. [from wiki]

People utilizing straw man arguments, either intentionally or unintentionally, should be considered with a large dose of skepticism because it indicates either an insufficency of knowledge of an issue or betrays that the individual in question considers arguing the actual facts of an issue would not be persuasive for that individuals desired outcome.

Final Note: Straw Men and other logical falacies are used often, particularly in discussions of matters politcal/public policy. They are inherrently flawed and lead many to flawed conclussions, in many cases, they are designed specifically for that purpose. Flawed conclussions hurt us ALL and due to human failings and other matters beyond our control/knowledge happen often enough to cause great damage without the assistance of deliberate/ignorantly induced and avoidable flawed conclussions. Please take the time to become familiar with the various falacies of logic in order to avoid needlessly flawed conclussions, particularly in matters as weighty as the course of our great nation.

Like Kierkaard states;

When you label me, you negate me

You are witnessing a revolution which is bigger than anything you can imagine, hold on tight

He is no Howard Dean, and certanly not a warmongering racist like Podhoretz.

Dr. Paul is unique and so am I, it is individuality and individual rights, the ability to pursue my own happiness, and for the government to leave me the heck alone.

"Sorry, but I think that the ideal of small government and low taxes has been the objective of the Republican Party since FDR's New Deal. Even the name of the Republican Party emphasises the Republic, or Rule of Law and conservatives had always argued the constitution before George W. Bush kinda confused the ideas of what a conservative was."

This WAS the objective, at least at the Presidential level, of the Republican Party. That notion died in 1988 with the 'kinder and gentler' repudiation of Conservative principles. Killed in 1988 and the last seven years have been nothing more than pouring concrete over the grave.

As the dollar drops to new record lows everyday and inflation goes through the roof with no end in sight and an economy thats stagflating. Americans are going to become increasingly aware of the deminished purchasing power of the dollar.

What Ron Paul is doing is raising awareness of our foriegn policy where we are literally going into debt to give away money we do not have to other countries which in no way benefits Americans, and just like domestic welfare does not help the people who it was intended to help.

He's also bringing up interesting questions like "Why are we subsidizing European socialism by providing for their national defense, while most Europeans dispise us?" WW2 has been over for over 60 years, the Cold War has been over for nearly 20, why do we still have troops in Europe?

The Republicans were elected into office to reduce the size of the federal Government, but after we give them the government on a platter, they did not cut anything, and grew the government alot more than Clinton. In some ways, Clinton was a better Republican than Bush!

More and more we are becoming too much like the Soviet Empire that we Republicans destroyed. We have always been united despite our various ideologies to the idea opf liberty, and Ron Paul is the only guy who is running for Liberty and the Constitution, and if the Republican Party no longer believes in these things then I am no longer a Republican.