When George Will is not wasting his WaPo column singing praises for the latest long-shot GOP candidate in the media spotlight, he can lyrically voice the truth of a matter like few other pundits. His latest column is a pitch perfect observation on how President Obama’s State of the Union address betrays a longing for an “unfettered executive” branch by his administration and among his supporters:

“Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not “consumed with personal ambition,” they “work together” and “focus on the mission at hand” and do not “obsess over their differences.” Americans should emulate troops “marching into battle,” who “rise or fall as one unit.

Well. The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer — this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society…

To enact and execute federal laws under Madison’s institutional architecture requires three, and sometimes more, such majorities. There must be majorities in the House and Senate, each body having distinctive constituencies and electoral rhythms. The law must be affirmed by the president, who has a distinctive electoral base and election schedule. Supermajorities in both houses of Congress are required to override presidential vetoes. And a Supreme Court majority is required to sustain laws against constitutional challenges…

Like other progressive presidents fond of military metaphors, he rejects the patience of politics required by the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.”

Will’s column is not without false notes.  He implies by omission that the desire for an unfettered executive branch is unique to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  Not so. The executive privilege, unitary executive definition and war power assertions of the Bush/Cheney Presidency is still fresh in my mind, even if forgotten or minimized by Mr. Will. The single greatest disappointment of the Obama Presidency has been his willingness to use the Bush/Cheney Unitary Executive definition as a jumping off point to further expand the power of the presidency.

This appetite for expanded executive authority is also clearly evident in all of the current batch of Republican Presidential hopefuls save Ron Paul.  None more so than “Big Government Conservative” Newt Gingrich,  who would also like to remove any judicial constraints on both the executive and legislative branch. I am not sure which is more frightening…

New Gingrich claiming authority to disregard or dismantle the judicial branch:

“I decided that if you had judges that were so radically anti-American that they thought ‘one nation under God’ was wrong, they shouldn’t be on the court.”

- or –

President Obama dismissing the joint session of congress in his SOTU address:  with “You won’t act, so I am.”  

Both sentiments represent a depressing prospect for all but closet monarchists.

Today, the Republican House of Representatives, divided government, and the Supreme Court are the only meaningful constraints on the Democratic executive branch. This election cycle the GOP is likely to maintain their majority in the House and take majority control of the Senate. Senate control will add one more fetter to a Democratic president but, if recent history is a guide, will put no additional limitation on the power of a Republican president. This should give pause to George Will and anyone else who purports to care about Madisonian democracy and the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution.

There is a real risk that we will return to One Party Rule under the Republicans in 2013. If that still looks likely in the fall, I would hope that anyone as concerned about executive branch overreach as George Will would endorse the re-election of Barack Obama. At least this would prevent loosening the remaining tenuous legislative fetters still constraining the expanding executive branch beast.

While ever hopeful, I will not be holding my breath.

^{Cross-posted from “The Dividist Papers“}

NBC is already calling it with 17% reporting, and it would definitely be difficult for anybody to catch up in such a divided field. Too many candidates taking away votes from each other.

The numbers…

1. Mitt Romney – 35%
2. Ron Paul – 25%
3. Jon Huntsman – 17%
4. Newt Gingrich – 11%
5. Rick Santorum – 10%
6. Rick Perry – 1%

Here’s what the exit polling suggests about those who supported Mitt:

Romney won with a coalition of those who thought electability and the economy were most important, as well as wealthy voters. Just over a third of voters in today’s primary said a candidate’s ability to beat President Obama was the top issue in deciding their vote, according to exit poll data available at 8 p.m. ET. Of those voters, 59 percent went for Romney.

Voters who said they were concerned about the economy also sided with Romney, who also won self-described conservatives and even Tea Party voters – two blocs that had seemed disinclined to support Romney in last week’s Iowa caucus, in which Romney scraped by with an 8-vote win. Sixty-one percent of voters said the economy was their top issue. Of them, 42 percent went for Romney.

So…the lingering question…will it be enough?

Back in 2008, Mitt got 32% of the vote and McCain got 37%. So while this 35% is 10 points better (if it holds up) than Ron Paul’s take, it’s not as impressive as him blowing away the field.

Also, what’s more impressive? Romney getting 35% when he got 35% last time or Ron Paul getting 25% when he got 7% in 2008? That’s a massive jump and the same can be said for Paul’s run in Iowa, which went from 10% in 2008 to 21% in 2012. Romney didn’t even reach 26% in 2012 in Iowa, which was his 2008 total.

Regardless, New Hampshire is over and South Carolina is next. Look for a lot of these candidates to mount their last stand. Personally, I think Huntsman may bow out after this, and Rick Perry should…but he probably won’t. So you’ll have a lot of negative ads directed at Romney and his Bain years, with Gingrich being the biggest spender.

Interesting times ahead…

More as it develops…

From Public Policy Polling…

Mitt Romney continues to be headed for a comfortable win in New Hampshire. PPP’s final poll there finds him with 35% to 18% for Ron Paul, 16% for Jon Huntsman, 12% for Newt Gingrich, 11% for Rick Santorum, 3% for Buddy Roemer, and 1% for Rick Perry.

Romney’s support has been remarkably consistent over the course of PPP’s three Granite State tracking polls, never straying from 35-36%. He’s the most popular of the candidates in the state, with a 60/34 favorability rating. And he also has the most committed supporters…85% of them say they’re definitely going to vote for him and when you look at the race just among those whose minds are completely made up his lead over Paul expands to 40-19.

Still, could Mitt’s “fire” comment cost him some votes?

I think so, and that could make it a lot closer than Mitt may want.

Still, he’ll win. That’s my predict.

More as it develops…

Public Policy Polling is out with their final numbers and it’s a photo finish…

It looks like pretty much everybody has lost support in this except Santorum and Gingrich. And Santorum hasn’t had millions of dollars in negative ads lobbed his way.

Maybe that’s why his favorability numbers are so high…

Santorum’s net favorability of 60/30 makes him easily the most popular candidate in the field. No one else’s favorability exceeds 52%. He may also have more room to grow in the final 48 hours of the campaign than the other front runners: 14% of voters say he’s their second choice to 11% for Romney and only 8% for Paul. Santorum’s taken the lead with two key groups of Republican voters: with Tea Partiers he’s at 23% to 18% for Gingrich, 16% for Paul, 15% for Bachmann, and only 12% for Romney. And with Evangelicals he’s at 24% to 16% for Gingrich, and 15% for Paul and Romney.

A few weeks ago Gingrich was the talk of the town, but looks like he peaked too early. The only person left? Well, besides Huntsman…who doesn’t have a chance in hell. Yes, Santorum. Who is far more unelectable than Huntsman, but don’t tell the evangelicals that.

But let’s talk reality. Paul is still technically in the lead with these numbers. Does he have a shot at it? Yes, but only if non-traditional caucus-goers turn out.

For all that Paul still has a very decent chance at winning on Tuesday- it just depends on whether his unusual coalition of young voters and non-Republicans really comes out to caucus. Among actual Republican voters Paul is tied for 3rd place with Gingrich at 17%, behind Romney’s 21% and Santorum’s 19%. But with independents and Democrats who plan to vote, which we peg at 24% of the electorate, Paul leads with 30% to just 14% each for Santorum and Romney.

Newsflash for all you Paulites…remember 2008? When you thought there’d be this big surge and there wasn’t? That reminded me of 2004 when I went up to help organize for Howard Dean. Long story short…non-traditional caucus-goers don’t turn out. Especially if it’s a highly confusing system like the Iowa caucus system.

Here’s how Republicans do their caucuses in Iowa…

In the Republican caucuses, each voter officially casts his or her vote by secret ballot. Voters are presented blank sheets of paper with no candidate names on them. After listening to some campaigning for each candidate by caucus participants, they write their choices down and the Republican Party of Iowa tabulates the results at each precinct and transmits them to the media.

In 2008, some precincts used a show of hands or preprinted ballots. The non-binding results are tabulated and reported to the state party, which releases the results to the media. Delegates from the precinct caucuses go on to the county conventions, which choose delegates to the district conventions, which in turn selects delegates to the Iowa State Convention.

Thus, it is the Republican Iowa State Convention, not the precinct caucuses, which selects the ultimate delegates from Iowa to the Republican National Convention. All delegates are officially unbound from the results of the precinct caucus, although media organizations either estimate delegate numbers by estimating county convention results or simply divide them proportionally.

Got that? No? Well, don’t worry. Hardly anybody else does either.

Last, here’s a video from the Des Moines Register running down what’s going on up there…

More tomorrow!!!

Lots of talk recently about Ron Paul’s newsletters. But, as some of you may remember, we covered this ground a LONG time ago.

In fact, the first mention of it was back in August 2007 in a post I wrote called Being Realistic On Ron Paul, where I called upon his supporters to answer 7 questions about the congressman, one of which was about the newsletters.

At that time, a lot of his supporters had dug into the situation and had become convinced there was really nothing there because Ron Paul hadn’t written them.

I disagreed. Strongly.

Here are the posts I wrote back then…

1. Ron Paul Realism: Question 6 of 7: What about those racist writings in his newsletter?
2. Why All The Surprised Faces?
3. Ron Paul Talks About Racist Newsletters
4. Is The Ron Paul Movement Over?
5. Ron Paul’s Newsletters Authored By Lew Rockwell

That last story about Lew Rockwell…yeah, read that one. Because it’s the most telling of how the racist newsletter saga played out back in 2008 and should speak volumes about why it’s popping up again. In short, Ron Paul (or his campaign) was playing fast and loose with the truth.

Regardless…now it’s 2011…and guess what? The newsletters are baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

From The New Republic (who did the original reporting back in the day):

For years, Ron Paul published a series of newsletters that dispensed political news and investment advice, but also routinely indulged in bigotry. Here’s a selection of some especially inflammatory passages, with links to scanned images of the original documents in which they appeared.

Race

“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. … What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.

This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

A February 1991 newsletter attacks “The X-Rated Martin Luther King.”

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,”and “Lazyopolis ” would be better alternatives—and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

A May 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report cites Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance.

The January 1993 issue of the Survival Report worries about America’s “disappearing white majority.”

The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Report declares, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems,” and defends David Duke. The author of the newsletter—presumably Paul—writes, “My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school. He tells me there would be no way to persuade his fellow students of the case for economic liberty.”

A March 1993 Survival Report describes Bill Clinton’s supposedly “illegitimate children, black and white: ‘woods colts’ in backwoods slang.”

It’s all there and it’s all completely and utterly damaging. Ron Paul will never be President. Ever.

And so it goes…

Public Policy Polling is out today with some more numbers that bode well for Romney in the Granite state.

The scoop…

Mitt Romney has a significant lead in New Hampshire, getting 35% there to 19% for Ron Paul, 17% for Newt Gingrich, 13% for Jon Huntsman, 5% for Michele Bachmann, 3% for Rick Santorum, 2% for Rick Perry, and 1% for Gary Johnson.

Romney’s doing well with pretty much every key segment of the Republican electorate in the state. It’s a rare place where he’s winning Tea Party voters, 29-21 over Ron Paul. He’s getting a full 50% of the vote with seniors, who will be a significant part of the vote. Voters think he has run the strongest campaign in the state (by a 35-12 margin over Paul), that he has the best chance of defeating Barack Obama (by a 38-14 margin over Gingrich), and there’s also a certain feeling of inevitability about his victory in New Hampshire. 41% think he will win the state’s primary to 12% for Gingrich with no one else in double digits.

And PPP builds on the meme that Gingrich’s sudden decline is across the board…

Our New Hampshire poll reinforces our Iowa survey from last night showing Newt Gingrich’s support fading away. Only 42% of likely voters have a favorable opinion of him to 51% with a negative one. Gingrich is less popular in New Hampshire now than he was in the spring when he had a 45/36 favorability. And there’s increasingly a sense that he doesn’t have strong principles- only 34% think he does while 41% think he does not, numbers that pale in comparison to how Romney, Paul, and Huntsman come out on that question.

So with Newt fading fast…here’s the question…if Ron Paul wins in Iowa can Romney hold this lead?

More as it develops…

Public Policy Polling is out with their latest numbers and they bode well for the perennial dark horse from Texas.

First, let’s look at the numbers compared between the last poll and this one…

So why has Newt lost traction? A few reasons…

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there’s been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich’s image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has ‘strong principles,’ while 43% think he does not.

Who has been running ads against Gingrich? Ron Paul in particular and it looks like the strategy is working. That and Newt’s personality, which probably doesn’t play too well in Iowa.

But what about Mitt, who continues to just stick around?

Romney’s vote share is up 4 points from a week ago to 20% from it previous 16% standing. His favorability numbers have improved a little bit as well from 48/44 to 49/40. One thing Romney really has going for him is more room for growth than Paul. Among voters who say they’re not firmly committed to their current candidate choice, Romney is the second choice for 19% compared to 17% for Perry, 15% for Bachmann, and only 13% for Paul. It’s particularly worth noting that among Gingrich- who seems more likely to keep falling than turn it around- voters, he’s the second choice of 30% compared to only 11% for Paul.

Can Mitt just wait the entire field out? Looks like. But if Paul wins Iowa and can do well in the traditionally libertarian New Hampshire…this has the potential to be the most interesting GOP primary season since…well, I can’t remember when we’ve ever had an interesting GOP primary season since 1988 when Bob Dole and Pat Robertson gave the elder Bush major heartburn before he finally secured the nomination.

More as it develops…

Looks like the Dr. is stepping up to the plate and calling Newt out on his sketchy, flip-floppy record.

With Newt way up in Iowa (even though he just got an office in the state a week ago) and now leading the GOP contenders nationwide, expect all of the other candidates to aim their guns at the former Speaker. Because he’s given them plenty of ammo over the years.

Duck and cover Newt. It’s gonna get rough.

He’s in!

From National Journal:

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he’s going to try a third time.

Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race.

He will also unveil the campaign’s leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year.

And so, yet another GOP candidate is entering the field, but this isn’t an also ran. Ron Paul represents a very specific point of view with the GOP field and he carries with him a constituency that won’t vote for just anybody.

Let’s remember that he didn’t endorse McCain in 2008 and given his hardline stance about libertarian values, it’s unlikely he’ll endorse the GOP candidate in 2012.

And hey, good for him. Paul is an iconoclast who won’t play ball with the traditional GOP. This may make him can outcast, but at least he sticks to his guns.

More as it develops…and much more will develop no doubt!

Will it be 2008 all over again?

From Politico:

The Texas congressman raised $1 million through his federal PAC and $2 million through Campaign for Liberty, a 501C(4) which cannot transfer funds directly to political organizations. Paul’s fundraising documents, to be filed later Thursday with the FEC, will also show he has $1.7 million on hand in his congressional campaign account.

“Dr. Paul’s fundraising comes almost exclusively from individuals, not special interests,” LibertyPAC director Jesse Benton told POLITICO. “He received contributions from all 50 states, and his average gift this quarter was under $70, demonstrating his broad grassroots support.

“Dr. Paul’s grassroots fundraising prowess is unmatched, and any 2012 political endeavor on which he embarks will have the financial backing it takes to win,” Benton added.

Interestingly enough, Michelle Bachmann outraised Mitt Romney…

Michele Bachmann became the queen of 2011 fundraising this quarter, bringing in a combined $2.2 million for the quarter – bigger than the $1.9 million that frontrunner Mitt Romney reported bringing in, officials confirmed for POLITICO.

Bachmann raised $1.7 million for her congressional committee, and another $500,000 for her leadership PAC, Bachmann adviser Andy Parrish said.

Of course, Romney hasn’t said he’ll run for POTUS yet. We all know he will, but nothing has been announced yet.

But then again…neither has Paul.

More as it develops…

I usually wouldn’t embed a video of Rachel Maddow’s show, but the following is compelling enough to share.

Long story short…abandon the culture wars, embrace real fiscal conservatism and stop being war mongers.

Can Libertarianism save the Republican party or will it split it in two?

Also, can election laws be reformed to allow a viable 3rd party candidate?

(h/t: Below The Beltway)

Just found a comment left by the Transportation Security Administration in the post I wrote yesterday about that situation in St. Louis where a Ron Paul supporter was held and questioned because he had $4,700 in cash on him (which is roughly represented in the picture above).

From Evolution of Security:

At approximately 6:50 p.m. on March 29, 2009, a metal box alarmed the X-ray machine at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, triggering the need for additional screening. Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area. A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department can be heard on the audio recording. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action.

Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry.

A few things…

1. I applaud the TSA for reaching out like this and responding so quickly. And the fact that they said some of the employees were acting inappropriately is a MASSIVE shift from what we’ve seen the past several years.
2. I still would like to see what law requires passengers to answer questions about why they have cash on them. Because the officers on the tape never answered the question and this blog post doesn’t either.
3. Why would $4,700 in a metal box constitute criminal activity? I can understand if this guy was hiding it the lining of a suitcase or in his underwear, but from I’ve heard of the story, it was your basic lockbox.

So yes, there are still some questions to be answered and I still think the TSA needs to think about revising some of their policies, lest they receive an inordinate amount of backlash for incidents that never needed to happen in the first place.

A truly dumb move by St. Louis airport employees is recorded and shared here by Fox News…

Is Missouri’s militia/Ron Paul tie still in full effect?

One note, the commentator in the middle who tries to tie this to Obama’s economic policies at the very end was a truly hacky move. He didn’t need to go there, but there it is nonetheless.

Otherwise, a very good clip.

(h/t: Below The Beltway)

This was definitely troubling, so it’s good to see that some real action was taken after the report was revealed.

From McClatchy:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Missouri Highway Patrol this week retracted a controversial report on militia activity and will change how such reports are reviewed before being distributed to law enforcement agencies.

The Highway Patrol also will open an investigation into the origin of the report, which linked conservative groups with domestic terrorism and named former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

The Lt. Gov has also suggested that the Director of Public Safety be put on leave pending an investigation into how the report came about. I think that’s harsh, because there probably are some ties between 3rd party supporters and militia members, but the big thing here was the profiling based on bumper stickers. That was just a lazy move and the DoPS should have known better.

However, 3rd party supporters should take note at how quickly this was reversed once it was discovered. In other words, try not to fall into the trap of thinking this is part of a conspiracy. We’re still a nation of checks and balances, and this situation demonstrates that.

Still, I think somebody should keep an eye on the guy who put all those stickers on his car in the picture above. :-)

I’m just saying…

As expected, it’s the “gateway drug” theory v. reality of human existence.

Guess which one sounds more credible…

I do still love Ron Paul in many ways, and I wish he wouldn’t have been mixed up in that remarkably dumb newsletter operation he was. Because then he’d be a viable third party candidate.

Oh well.

“I think it’s pretty sad.”

That’s Paul’s response to the idea that Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican party.

So will Paul run for President again in 2012? He says he doesn’t think so, but it’s kind of a non-answer at this point.

We shall see…

(h/t: Below The Beltway)

You’d think that Ron Paul, CEO of Eagle Bank, would be thrilled to receive $38 million dollars in TARP funds. But, it turns out, he’s pretty frustrated.

This is Danielle Ivory from the American News Project.

As another $350 billion goes out the door, ANP looks at one small bailed-out bank. Eagle Bank is having trouble making loans. Its CEO, Ron Paul, says that the government has not taken fleeing depositors into account and, as a result, small banks and their surrounding communities will suffer.

Follow Danielle’s reporting on twitter.

http://americannewsproject.com/node/190

WATCH:

Looks like the Fox News contributor has had the last laugh…not that he’s relishing it given how bad things have gotten.

Is it any surprise that he was an economic advisor for Ron Paul during his 2008 presidential bid?

Yes…the Chuck Baldwin, candidate for the Constitution Party.

So why not the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr?

Well, it appears as if Paul didn’t like the fact that Barr didn’t show up to his press conference recently…

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

And yet, let’s not forget that Paul remains a Republican and draws a salary as a Republican…even though his views align almost exactly with the Libertarian party.

Folks, I know he got everybody excited, but at this point you have to admit that this will probably be the last chapter in the book of Paul. Oh, their may be some brief epilogue, but this guy so badly squandered all the love and support thrown his way over the course of this campaign season, and what’s left of it he has thrown to somebody who’s sympathetic to 9/11 truthers.

And scene.

As expected, Ron Paul’s big announcement at the National Press Club today turned out to be as anti-climatic as I anticipated:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas called on voters to back a third-party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his party’s nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.

Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination this year, told supporters at the National Press Club in Washington that he is not endorsing GOP nominee Sen. John McCain or Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama.

Instead, Paul will give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.

Paul said he’s supporting the third-party candidates because the two major parties and media had “colluded” to avoid discussing issues and falsely presenting the difference between McCain and Obama as real.

“I’ve come to the conclusion, after having spent many years in politics, is that our presidential elections turn out to be more of a charade than anything else, and I think that is true today. It is a charade,” he said.

Paul offered an open endorsement to the four candidates because each signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” an aide to the congressman said.

Paul said a strong showing by the third-party candidates would express the public’s frustration with the current system.

“I have no doubt that the majority is on our side,” Paul added, citing public opinion polls. “We represent the majority of the American people.”

The problem, of course, is that these four candidates – Barr, Baldwin, McKinney, and Nader – have nothing in common beyond the fact that they are running as third-party caniddates for President. Saying that a vote for any one of them is equal pretty much tosses into the trash can any of the principles that Paul’s campaign was supposedly built upon.

Interestingly enough, though, Paul did say that he received a last-minute plea for support from the McCain Campaign:

WASHINGTON — Rep. Ron Paul has given a “thanks but no thanks” response to a last-ditch effort by the McCain campaign to get the Lake Jackson lawmaker to endorse the Republican nominee for president.

On Tuesday, a day before Paul, a former GOP contender for president, had scheduled a news conference to announce he was urging supporters to back third-party candidates over GOP Sen. John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, he got a call from former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, a McCain ally and former McCain campaign co-chairman.

According to Paul, Gramm asked him back to McCain, arguing that the Republican was closer to his positions than Obama.

”The idea was that he would do less harm than the other candidate,” Paul said.

But Paul said he made it known that he would not endorse McCain, whom he has disagreed with on a whole host of issues, including the war in Iraq.

Furthermore, Paul said ” I don’t enjoy getting two to three million people angry at me.”

Paul said Gramm ended the conversation with, ”well if you change your mind, call me back.”

Yea, that’ll happen.

Meanwhile, there’s another interesting development coming out of the Ron Paul Press Conference. As Reason reported earlier today, Bob Barr backed out of the joint appearance at the last minute. Some reports said he didn’t want to be on the same stage with people like Cynthia McKinney, but it appears that the story is even weirder than that.

By the way, here’s the video of Paul’s announcement: