Even the most liberal of Michigan's sons ends up with a bit of a libertarian streak in them. We figured out a long time ago that the government will just screw you over, take your kids for wars, and then tell you that its fair trade when your job goes over to the very people you fought a few years back.

Ron Paul, for as much as I diasgree with him, stands as a real conservative. I can respect that....which is more then I can say for any other Republican candidate, or Democrat(except Kucinich...thats like hating the Keebler elves).

The only thing worse than having to utter the words "President Huckabee" would be having to utter "President Paul."

Seriously, why the hell does anyone take Ron Paul seriously? He is a nutjob. In case you've been asleep the past decade or so, the overwhelming majority of America's problems have been caused by greedy multinational corporations and their meddling in politics. In Ron Paul's world, the slim control the government has over these corrupt monstrosities would disappear and they would police themselves.

Come on. The free market assumption that the giant corporations will police themselves and do what's best for everyone has never been proven, demonstrated, supported, etc etc. Do you really want to take power out of the hands of elected officials and dispassionate bureaucrats and into the hands of the likes of Enron and Halliburton?

It is not that you are wrong in your critique of Paul's economic positions. You are right of course. However, Paul has been consistently opposed to the war. That he is outgunning Thompson and Giuliani tells me that the younger contingent who are generally Paulites are hanging tough in their opposition to the war. Personally I would like to see him pull ahead of Huckabee and neutralize him, but I suspect that won't happen.

McCain will probably be the Republican nominee. I can stand that, even though he will be tough to beat. At least, should he win, I will sleep better knowing the nation is not and never will be in the hands of Rudolf Giuliani, fascist, or Mitt Romney, blind authoritarian.

If Paul gets a significant chunk of the GOP vote and he keeps to his vow not to run as a third party candidate, then his many fans will have no choice but to turn to the Democratic candidate if they want to end the war.

Then all we have to worry about is that our Democratic nominee actually intends to end the war.

Just my amateur political analysis.

I will sleep better knowing the nation is not and never will be in the hands of Rudolf Giuliani, fascist, or Mitt Romney, blind authoritarian.

yeah, instead we'll have 100 years in Iraq bomb bomb bomb Iran John McCain, a "lesser of two evils" type of much better choice... Sleep well...

I could hope our Democratic nominee had someone weak to run against like Duncan Hunter, but that won't happen. Let us assume that our nominee is Senator Clinton, a wholly competent but not terribly charming and humorous woman running against Huckabee. I don't think he is a threat. I would like to think he cannot win and amend the constitution to match the Bible, but I don't want to take any chances. He might joke his way into the White House. Then he would dismantle a woman's right to choose as his highest priority and trash gay rights and, on top of it all, the jerk has no foreign policy experience.

On the other hand, should Hillary Clinton debate John McCain, I suspect she would do very well. Which person do you think is more likely to end the Iraq War, Senator Clinton or Senator McCain?

And educated, rational people know it:

http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2780

@ Rosenkavalier

"...the overwhelming majority of America's problems have been caused by greedy multinational corporations and their meddling in politics. In Ron Paul's world, the slim control the government has over these corrupt monstrosities would disappear and they would police themselves."

That meddling via lobbying is indeed a large part of the problem, and it's one that has existed for a long time. I think the second part of your statement misrepresents things as they exist. Burueas like the FDA have CREATED the corrupt monstrosities, rather than reigning them in.

I think your idea that they would be unable to police themselves is somewhat lacking. If these large corps didn't have the blessing of the lawmakers on their side to abuse individual rights and the rights of smaller businesses to compete with them, the smaller corporations could capture parts of the large corporation's business by offering better service, lower prices, a free flower with every purchase, etc. :)

"Do you really want to take power out of the hands of elected officials and dispassionate bureaucrats and into the hands of the likes of Enron and Halliburton?"

Do you really believe the elected officials didn't play a part in making Enron and Halliburton what they are? Do you really believe these bureaucrats are dispassionate?

Burueas like the FDA have CREATED the corrupt monstrosities, rather than reigning them in.

And so the answer is, having now created them, they should be set free to do as they please?

A great example of the big boys getting to do as they please is the current housing crisis / credit crunch. The Federal Reserve has been out of the way for the past few years, allowing interest rates to be low, and essentially exerting no control. The market expanded in an uncontrolled fashion, and credit was extended to folks unable to handle it because the market had to go SOMEWHERE. The result? Collapse, the extent of which is yet to been fully realized. Not only can the large corporations not be trusted to restrain themselves from screwing the little guy, they can't be trusted with the health of the market itself. (i.e. they don't act rationally in their own self interest.)

Those are the folks you want policing themselves?