If Paul is to get on the ballot in all 50, assuming he did not win the Republican nomination, it likely would be thru a combination of third party endorsements and independent status efforts in some states.

It is logical for the Ron Paul campaign to consider Unity08 only if and when the Ron Paul campaign decides it cannot secure the Republican nomination; as it is logical for Ron Paul supporters to consider becoming active in Unity08, and to do so for the purpose of supporting Ron Paul to lead that ticket; of course, Ron Paul supporters would be doing so independently of the actual Ron Paul campaign.

It should be noted that there is absolutely no reason a person who supports Ron Paul for the Republican nomination cannot also support him for the Unity08 nod.

That all said, Unity08 has conceptual and legal problems which, at this point at least, make it a possible but not certain player in the 08 race.

Aside from the fact that it is not a party, it also has an unclear status in the eyes of the FEC (since its’ inception, Unity08 has been aware of these problems, and the FEC hasn’t resolved the questions.

Unity08 founders are political consultants (some D’s and some R’s) and any logical person can find reason to doubt that the Unity08 deck is not rigged…Indeed, it is rigged particularly against third party canddates.

Whether or not it was formed to support Bloomberg also is a logical question, which has dogged Unity08 since its’ formation.

On balance, Unity08 is creative thinking, and an interesting consideration…it is NOT a certain way to achieve 50 state ballot access for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul would be a great president because he would symbolize a change in direction that both the Republican and Democrats have led us down. The two parties are indeed two halves of the same coin. All they want is to be re-elected and to increase their power & wealth. Look what the Democratic Congress has (not) done. It’s time for a symbolic change to the powers that be.

I’m not sure why so many people are concerned with Ron Pauls stance on abortion. GW Bush is against all forms of abortion too. How come he hasn’t overturned Roe V. Wade? I’ll tell you why….Because he can’t!! It’s the supreme courts job to do that. And believe me, if Ron Paul were President he would be appointing Libertarian minded judges, not neo-conservative, right wing zealots.

Here is a link to Ron Paul’s stance on abortion. He is indeed opposed to it. When I read it, and saw him speak on the subject, he states that his personal opposition is predicated on his experience as an OB doctor.

Do you perhaps have a link to where he credits his rationale to Christianity?

I disagree with Dr. Paul about when a fetus should become a legal person. Perhaps you do too. But given his strict and consistent adherence to constitutional rule of law, I don’t find this difference a deal-breaker.

Abortion is one of those highly controversial issues where a candidate will never be able to please everyone. Given that the population is split nearly in half on the issue, how should we avoid a tyranny of the majority? This, of course, assumes the each reader could envision himself in the minority at some point. The constitutional answer is: Don’t handle it either way at the federal level. Handle it lower, if at all.

Would you have the president disregard the constitution and enforce a resolution at the federal level? If so, what else should he ignore in the constitution? And what if he chooses the opposing view to yours? I am not attempting to attack you; I’m simply curious as to what you’d support as an alterative.

One of the reasons I support Ron Paul is because his clearly-stated positions are consistently based on the constitution.

(apologies if this gets posted twice, I too ran afoul of the captcha)

Here is a link to Ron Paul’s stance on abortion. He is indeed opposed to it. When I read it, and saw him speak on the subject, he states that his personal opposition is predicated on his experience as an OB doctor.

Do you perhaps have a link to where he credits his rationale on Christianity?

Is it possible he simply defines a fetus as becoming a person with rights earlier than some others might?

I have a different definition of where a legal person should begin. Perhaps you do too. Given Ron Paul’s adherence to the constitution, I don’t find this difference of opinion to be a deal-breaker. I still agree with him on far more issues than any other candidate.

But you want to vote for Ron Paul, who wouldn’t intervene if the states violate individual rights, so long as they’re doing it for good Christian reasons. Do you see my problem with that?

Perhaps I was wrong to say I trust state politicians so much, because I don’t, but I’m even less trusting of federal politicians. I also believe that the states should have as much freedom to develop different ways of governing as possible, this way we have competition amongst the states. I think education is a good example here, if Michigan wants to reform they’re schools and implement a voucher system, and not administer standardized tests, they should be free to do so. If Oklahoma wants to increase standardized testing, and start teaching the intelligent design theory, they should also be free to do so. Now would I think (I don’t pretend to be an expert on education) that students from Michigan would be much more successful particularly in jobs in science, this would eventually put pressure on Oklahoma to reform its school’s so their students could compete with the Michigan ones. Or put simply we are forced to preform better when we compete.

The States still have some freedoms to do govern how they like, but I personally would like to see them with more. Now of course I think the federal government should step in should the states start violating the constitution and or human rights, like the Jim Crow laws did. But I think that most problems should be solved at the State or Local level where the politicians are most in touch with the people are understand the area and the problems.

Can you reference the Bill that he voted for amnesty?

He never gives a clear answer as to what he will do about the southern border but the problem is spreading to more areas than the SW. Maybe Texas needs to become their own Republic again and take care of the problem as they did during the fight at the Alamo.

I don’t think having Ron Paul (a constitutionalist) in the White house will have any affect on the states roles. I think everyone needs to take a civics class and learn the Federal branches of government and their checks and balances. The State governments also has a “state constitution” that is put in place to mesh with the national constitution. However, the state’s constitution cannot infringe on the rights declared to them in the National Constitution.

M-

I don’t want a country that is together, I want a country that is free!

If I wanted a country that was together, I’d live in France. Oh wait, they’re not really together either.

BTW, show me the candidate who is going to better bring together the desires of people on the left to be free (ending the insane war on drugs, ending the insane war in Iraq) and the desires of people on the right to be free (no universal health care, lower taxes)?

Both the link and the quote you posted are indeed accurate. Ron Paul’s normal response to issues not explicitly covered in the constitution is to rely on the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To me, this amendment reiterates that the constitution describes limits on the federal government, not limits on the people. The constitution tells us what the government cannot do, not what the people can. Given that abortion and same-sex marriage are not mentioned in the constitution, if there is any mention of them in the law at all, it must be at the state or local level.

Whether addressed by state law or no law at all, Ron Paul’s position is that an enforced answer in either direction is certainly not appropriately handled at the federal level. Amendment 10 is pretty clear about that.

Since I don’t define either of these issues as a violation of life, liberty, or property, I would prefer no mention of them in the law at any level whatsoever. Other people will obviously define those issues differently.

Does this mean I won’t support Ron Paul for president? No. The fact that an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4000 babies might be rooting for state limits, and I might be rooting for none at all doesn’t change the constitutional aspect. Dr. Paul is consistent on his interpretation of the constitution for both these issues. That’s one of the reasons I support him.

Are you a member of any minority of any kind? You trust state politicians so much. Have you studied any American history at all? As I pointed out in my previous post the states had Jim Crow, anti-miscegenation laws, laws against homosexual activity between consenting adults, violation of the First Amendment in the name of controlling pornography (Indluding things as relatively innocuous as Playboy), and who knows what else. All in the name of public decency. Your trust of the states is hopelessly naive. Either that or you just don’t care if rights are suppressed by states as long as they’re not your rights that are limited. Because after all, Ron Paul doesn’t believe in those evil activist judges overriding anything that the legislatures approve of either, including saying that even minorities have rights.

Does anyone here support Ron Paul, but acknowledge the fact he cant win? I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries even though I disagree with him on several issues, even though I think that even if he won the presidency he still wouldn’t be a very effective leader (by this I mean he wants to change too much too fast and the senate the house and the people would never go for such a radical position). But if Ron Paul creates enough attention and votes, my hope is that it will sway the Republican Party and the people to see his views, (libertarian views that is) and accept them as credible. These things don’t happen all at once, but if Ron Paul creates enough attention maybe more libertarian minded Republicans (albeit more moderate ones) will start to win house and senate seats, which may create more attention and… well you get the idea.

What I think this country needs is leaders who respect people’s freedom and individual rights on both economic and social issues. Neither major party really fits the bill right now, but I think that moderate and libertarian minded Republicans come closest. So I plan to vote for Ron Paul for the same reason I plan to sign Pete Able’s letter, and that is to try to move the country in what I see as the best possible direction

Here is a link to Ron Paul’s article on protecting marriage on a well known right wing web site. Perhaps the most pertinent quote from it is this one

Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference.

Oooh, sounds like real liberty to me. So long as you toe the line completely when it comes to what the majority religion wants (or at least can get written into law) you’re “free”. At least in Ron Paul’s universe. And his supporters are so blinded that they are perfectly happy with it, I assume. Since I quoted Paul’s own words it will be interesting to hear what kind of excuses they come up with.

Question 1:
If he doesn’t win the nomination and doesn’t end up running as a 3rd party, I will write him in or not vote at all. I refuse to vote for the status quo.

Question 2: The Iowa straw poll is nothing but a dog and pony show. The votes are purchased plain and simple. Significant proof of this is the fact that Rudy, McCain & F. Thompson were on the ballot, yet received a minimal amount. Given their strong poll numbers in other polls it’s fair to say that if the votes were not purchased, they would have placed higher.

Question 3: Paul’s Presidency would be one of change and introspection. It would force the Senate and the Congress to debate and vote on things that are important to the people. There are serious inefficiencies in the government right now and it needs to investigated, debated and worked out. No more things such as the 2.3 Trillion dollars that went “missing” in 2001. Every department would be audited and their roles would have to be justified and the wasted would be eliminated as best as possible.

Question 4: I believe getting the Senate and Congress to seriously look at the issues that are facing the American People would bring people together. This would allow the people to know that “They” choose their politicians and the politicians need to be held responsible for their actions (or inactions). It would shake up the status quo that has stagnated for so long in Washington. It is time for a bit of a shake up!

Question 5: Howard Dean did make a few mistakes. I don’t think Ron Paul is the kind of guy to “Scream” as he rambles on in a speech. The key difference is so many people are passionate about Dr. Paul’s message of simplicity and honesty, they are literally taking to the streets in masses. Most people that I speak with always love his message, but are afraid to vote for him because they think it will put the person they ‘dislike’ into office. It’s a sad day in America when people vote for someone for the simple reason as to help prevent a Republican or Democrat into office.

Question 6: Well there is a difference between racist and racial remarks. I’ve read these writings and I’ve also researched the data in Washington D.C. in those years (not to mention I vacationed there the same years), it was the murder capitol of the country. It’s highly unfortunate that majority of the crime was committed by a specific race. I will say it was bad judgment on his part to write this (or allow his ghost writer to write this). However, I don’t feel it was a racist commentary. I think it will be a non issue.

Question 7: A 3rd party does make sense. What makes more sense is to dissolve the “Party” lines and let people vote based on their message and not via party lines. The words Republican and Democrat have become “foul” language for so many. The reality is they are two halves of the SAME coin.

2) I think this is largely in part to the Internet. Alot of people that believe in the spirit of the Internet and what it stands for (at least here in America, free and open), which is a big issue with Ron Paul (net neutrality). Plus I think Ron Paul is striking a chord with the younger generation just because of his straight-talk; no political double-speak.

3) I think America would become a lot less stifled by all the unnecessary laws on the books, and I think people would become more self-reliant in general. The government isn’t supposed to be our baby-sitters, yet every year our rights and freedoms become less and less.

4) I do, because his platform will take away money and power from the government and give it back to the people, where it belongs in the first place. Like I said in my previous response, if anything it would imagine it would just make us more self-reliant, and depend more on our friends, family and community when we need help.

5) I have not, I wasn’t interested in politics back then, not until Ron Paul made it abundantly clear that there was still hope in restoring America back to what made it so great to begin with.

6) From what I read, the “racist writings” were done by a campaign member without formal approval before it was released. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say for sure, but if the press started attacking Ron Paul as a racist, I would hope he would address it the same straight-talk that has made him shine more than the other candidates.

7) I absolutely think a third party not only makes sense, but I feel it is absolutely necessary. Two parties to represent a country as big as ours doesn’t stack up anymore. We are more connected and aware at a global level, so to say that there are only two parties that blankets the majorities’ interests is f’d to me.

2. He probably finished higher than 5th, but Diebold made sure to give a lot of his votes to someone else. I remember hearing about a 4500 vote recount. Those were probably his. Here’s a quick search: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=47335&fb=1

3. It would look like we finally had a president with principles instead of large corporations pulling the strings.

4. Yes. People would be relieved to have someone in office they can count on to bring sanity to the country.

5. No. I don’t know. Howard Dean was full of crap. Ron Paul is not.

6. Whatever he may have said that has been labeled racist was probably pretty funny because what I watched on Comedy Central last night was hilarious.

7. No, I haven’t. I voted third party last year, but I’d rather Ron Paul be on the ballot as a Republican. I’m going to vote for him no matter what.

Candidate, Illinois, Iowa, Average
Romney 40.4, 31.5, 35.95%
Paul 18.9, 9.1, 14%
[Fred] Thompson 20, 1.4, 10.7%
Huckabee 3, 18.1, 10.55%
Brownback 1.1, 15.3, 8.2%
Tancredo 0.3, 13.7, 7%
Giuliani 11.6, 1.3, 6.45%
McCain 4.1, less than 1%, less than 2.55%
Hunter 0.7, 1.2, 0.95%

I am also in Group C of your demographic poll. One of the reasons Ron Paul appeals to me is the acquired sense of history I’ve begun to experience.

Having lived most of my life during the Cold War, I appreciate Ron Paul’s opposition to the Welfare/Warfare model all the more. That model is exactly what killed the Soviet Union. It was less about anyone winning and more about the Soviet system losing. All we had to do was wait for their flawed system to implode.

I have a hard time hearing calls for socialized medicine and government-funded retirement schemes. I find it incredible that people still see these proposals as compelling after the spectacular worldwide failures of the USSR and similar models over the last 20 years.

To Wes,

He’d have the freedom to work for someone else. Or himself. He just wouldn’t have the freedom to demand anyone else’s productive effort without consent. And no one else would have the freedom to demand the fruits of his labor without consent.

To Justin,

The reason I reregistered as a republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primary is based on his political philosophy of constitutionally limited government, civil liberty, non-intervention, and free trade. No other candidate seems to base their platform on any consistent philosophy other than looking good and saying whatever the current crowd might consider inoffensive. I guess that still fools a lot of people.

The first boost in Ron Paul’s popularity was his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq. This opposition is philosophically based, and because it is, we can count on it. His philosophy also leads him to support a firmer adherence to the limits defined in the constitution. Those limits are not quaint and outdated. They were set up to protect us from the inevitable excesses of governmental power. When fear induces us to relax these limits, or discard them entirely, we become ruled by men, not laws. This trend has historically inevitable consequences. I feel compelled to repeat Franklin’s famous quote: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

I do not agree with all of Ron Paul’s conclusions. I am better described as “Pro-Choice” than “Pro-Life”, though both those terms are deceptively over-simplified. I just have a different view of when a fetus should legally become a person. Then again, I haven’t delivered 4000 babies. Still, handling the issue at the state level is constitutionally supportable. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution; therefore Amendment 10 tells us where we go from there.

So, the question becomes: Do I “throw away my vote” on a candidate that my good friends in the media constantly assure me will never win, or do I “throw away my vote” on an empty suit who will dismiss whatever pieces of the constitution he or she swore to defend whenever the winds of political opinion demand it?

I guess it just feels like a losing proposition (and maybe a bit cowardly) to vote for a candidate that endorses 10% of my convictions in order to defeat a candidate who endorses 2% of my convictions, when a candidate who endorses 90% of my convictions is an option. That would be throwing away my vote.

The New Deal fails only because of right wing economics. The same economics that hurt the middle class every day. If you did’nt spend a trillion dollars on an unnessecary war. You’d have money for Social Security.

The New Deal failed only because of right wing economics. The same economics that hurt the middle class every day. If you did’nt spend a trillion dollars on an unnessecary war. You’d have money for Social Security.

2. How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing?
I don’t think it was a good showing, but I don’t follow closely enough to know the details. Many have said that Paul is very thrifty, hadn’t spent much in Iowa, and still has relatively full coffer. I haven’t verified this, so I don’t know. All I know is that we’re gonna have to put in a little overtime to promote the message.

3. What would a Paul presidency look like?
“Dr. No’s” presidency will be a four-year parade of vetoes. It will be wonderful. Paul will sign into law only those pieces of legislation that tend toward limiting the government to its Constitutional role.

4. Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
The president’s job is not to “bring the country together.” The president’s job is to secure liberty and to abide by the Constitution.

5. Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
I have not, but thanks for the suggestion. (btw, try not to use the word “crazy” when describing Paul’s campaign in ANY context. I hope I speak for all Ron Paul supporters when I say I’m TIRED of seeing this word linked to Paul.)

6. What about those racist writings in his newsletter?
This is unfortunate, and I believe that this will ultimately kill his campaign. My opinion is that if the worst thing he has to say about black people is that they’re “fleet-footed,” well, then I don’t think we have too much to worry about. It might help to remind everyone that even if this did reflect his true personality, his limited government philosophy will not afford him the luxury of committing arbitrary and capricious acts of presidential racism. Concerned citizens should be encouraged to review his voting record.

7. Have you taken a look at Unity 08?
I have not, but thanks for the suggestion. Ultimately, Paul is the one we’ll have to convince about running.

I don’t fit into that catagory. I am 41, left the republican party in 2000 to be an independant, because i couldn’t stand the arrogance of either major party.

Ron Paul is the first candidate I have ever sent money to. I have boys that are 11 and 8 and the way this war on terror is headed I am afraid they might be forced into action.

I don’t want to see any more of our troops die in an offensive action.

Why don’t you do a poll of Ron Paul supporters:

A) 18 to 25 years old
B) 26 to 35 years old
C) 36 to 50 years old
D) 51 and older

I don’t think the majority will fall in group A.

Thanks for the press.

How was Ron Paul’s 5th place straw poll finish a good showing if Tom Tancredo has less money and is polling below Paul nationally, but he won 4th?
He did 5th in a week’s campaigning. He just came in 3rd in Illinois almost 2nd.

What would a Paul presidency look like given that Paul’s position is a rather simple one…meaning he doesn’t vote for anything that isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution?
He can only guide the direction, Congress and the Courts have power too.

Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
Somebody’s gotta do something about these trillion dollar bills or there will be no country left to bring together.

Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
Ron is a doctor he is dignified.

What about those racist writings in his newsletter?
Done by an associate. Not sure they are racist anyway.

Have you taken a look at Unity 08?
Makes sense.

Unworkable in the current political system!?!?

Our current Political system needs to go!!!!!! Every single dam thing about it!

From the wars, to the treason of giving all of our manufactiring base to Communist China, From Proaganda, To lobbyist to, Genocide- This Goverment SUCKS!!!!!!!

We sit crammed in Traffic for hours eveyday on bridges that are rotting away paying tolls and Unconsitutional/illegal Income Tax- The Dollar at all time lows, Homelessness on the rise and Our boys dieing everyday for the Rich! no one does NOTHING!

We need real true fundamental change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW!

DOWN! with the current political situation!

Make lobbying illegal! and arrest all Neo Cons!

People hit the streets harder!!!

PAUL REVERE II

Social Security is great until the grandchildren can’t pay for it (and the Babyboomer children get off scot free) The New Deal has failed. That is not right wing it is reality economics.

“Can he unite the country? No. Liberals and progressives will complain to no end about how he is destroying their beloved welfare state. Neoconservatives will complain to no end about he is destroying their beloved warfare state. Good riddance to both.”

Getting rid of Social Security sounds like a good idea until Grandma needs money for rent, groceries, and prescriptions. The New Deal was designed to care of these things. It’s a good thing, it’s not a wealthfare state. That’s rightwing Rush Limbaugh talking point nonsense.

Now to your questions:

1. I was leaning to Bill Richardson as a backup candidate, but then he proposed expanding Medicare to age 55! I guess George Phillies is the backup plan now.

2. 5th place in Iowa was a good thing. 9% was a good thing. Finishing behind Tancredo was not. The Paul campaign could have gambled big and tried to win or place 2nd, and maybe it would have gotten a lot more media attention. Instead they played it safe, still have a ton of cash, and have more coming in. Time will tell if the safe strategy pays off.

3. A Ron Paul presidency? Tons of vetoes, lots of press conferences explaining the Constitution to Americans, a less belligerent stance in the Middle East (aircraft carriers protecting our coasts, not threatening Iran), a rebirth of the freedom movement around the world (it’s already starting with his campaign.)

4. Can he unite the country? No. Liberals and progressives will complain to no end about how he is destroying their beloved welfare state. Neoconservatives will complain to no end about he is destroying their beloved warfare state. Good riddance to both. They will no doubt try to stop him at every turn, but the American people will start to see hope again, at last.

5. Howard Dean? I thought the Dems should have nominated him. He might have been able to beat Bush. After he screamed “We’re going to (Your state here)!!!!”, he should have really done it, instead of meekly dropping out.

6. Racist writings? The media has already brought them up, if you count the New York Times as major media. They dismissed them as totally out of character and style, and not Dr. Paul’s work, as we have.

7. Unity 08? I have looked into it. They are vastly overstating their organizational abilities and membership so far. Ron Paul’s Meetup.com groups could take over Unity 08 in about a week, which might not be such a bad backup plan.

Personally, I don’t want to see a Ron Paul third party or independent run, unless the worst case scenario unfolds and it is Hillary vs. Rudy. I think he could win in that matchup.

For now, I’m keeping the faith and doing everything in my power to help Ron Paul win the Republican nomination. I believe that can happen, if only because the Republican front-runners are so weak: the pro-choice, anti-Second Amendment Giuliani, the former lobbyist Thompson, the pro-surge, pro-amnesty McCain, and the Massachusetts flip-flopper Romney.

However, Paul has one gigantic advantage over Goldwater: he is a dove while Goldwater was a hawk. This gives Paul a chance to get votes from independents and even Democrats, despite being more radically conservative than Goldwater.

But this is just theoretical speculation. Proof must be garnered. I have some evidence by looking at the composition of my local Ron Paul meetup: only 20% or so are already registered Republicans; nearly as many are Democrats and the rest independents. More evidence comes from wearing my Ron Paul T-shirt at hippie venues and getting a positive reaction.

Meanwhile, the official polls look at “likely Republican voters” which makes Paul’s support base look smaller than it is.

To give Paul credibility, Paul’s outside support base must be documented, with evidence that it can be gotten to the polls at the right times. RepublicanTakeover.org is the very beginning of one such an effort. Whether it grows sufficiently to do this rather huge job is still TBD.

My mother was an American (from many generations back) and Ron Paul’s campaign is the first thing that has happened in my 57 years of life that has made me wish she had never left America and moved to Canada (to marry my English father who she met in India during WWII). It must be my American heritage that is calling to me when I hear Ron Paul talk about freedom, liberty and personal responsiblity. After enduring a lifetime of increasingly socialist policies in Canada I can emphatically state that socialism stinks. It turns people into takers and victims who feel incapable of looking after themselves without a handout from power-hungry and often, corrupt, politicians.

To my great regret, due to U.S. election laws, it is not possible for me to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign. Otherwise, like so many of his supporters, it would be a first for someone who has never before felt INSPIRED (an important word when speaking of Ron Paul’s candidacy) to donate to any politician or political party. Not only America, but the world, needs Dr. Paul in 2008. How lucky you are to have an opportunity to vote for such a special man.

ps. this captcha system is the worst I’ve seen yet. Two words? one box? WTF?

3. I imagine a Ron Paul presidency would be him spending a lot of time making speeches and explaining why he is vetoing just about everything the congress passes. Because it is all written by lobbyists! I truly believe that a good principled president is the biggest step the country can take toward cleaning up washington. We know that, realistically, he isn’t going to singlehandedly abolish the income tax or anything grand like that right away. But one thing he can do is stop the bad legislation from getting out the door. Or at least force the congress to read the bills and debate more before passing them. I think the whole country would take a much more active interest in politics with Ron Paul as president. Checks and balances would mean something again.

5. Howard Dean really didn’t make any huge mistakes. Except counting on liberals and democrats to break out of the mold the mainstream media has set them in! The media simply decided to destroy him. Because of the Dean scream? Gimme a break. That’s not it at all. I thought that was funny. Considering the turkey we have in the oval office right now…

I am not threatened at all by Paul’s abortion position. As a someone who is pro-choice, I take no comfort in Roe v. Wade which as Wikipedia explains had the “central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”

Technology is quickly rendering Roe v. Wade moot. It is a house built on sand precisely because it was bad Constitutional legal reasoning and simple bench legislation.

Paul’s personal view on abortion is well reasoned and likely the result of the fact that he has personally delivered so many babies and is familiar with the stages of fetal development more so than the rest of us. But it is his personal view.

He does not demagogue the issue and admits that it is a “tough question…to be decided on the local level.”

This is a refreshingly sober discussion of abortion for a presidential race.

Personally, I am sick of the abortion question getting us into wars, explosive budgets, and a loss of personal liberty. How long can we continue with this great distraction from what we should really be focusing on at the national level?