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)?