It's funny how the Right tends to describe the media as "liberal", when in fact, they're seriously right-leaning.

Ron Paul's campaign never got any traction because the Republican-controlled media couldn't bring themselves to print or utter his name.

Kind of ironic, given that he was the only actual conservative among Republican candidates.

what happened to the money he raised?

He sure didn't spend too much.

At Burning Man this year.

Another media casualty. I didn't agree with him on a single issue except the war - in fact, I found him rather scary - but it's not the media's job to decide which candidates are valid.

But mostly, poor everyone. Now that Paul has been defeated, there is no other option than to work outside the system to advance the libertarian cause. And do this we will.

Paul's campaign was just round 1 of what will be a long, nasty, scary fight. If people were surprised by the response to Paul, they're really going to be alarmed at what will happen next.

I hope that others are ready.

I think Ron Paul was a taint for the most part, but he was the only one to talk serious issues and strategy. He was invaluable in the debates.

I wish there would be 20+ candidates and the first national election would narrow it to two. The we could all vote for our lessor of two evils.

I think run-off elections with a none-of-the-above option would really reshape politics in this country. The problem is that the only politicians supporting this would be the ones who would benefit from it, and the ones who would benefit from it can't get elected until it's this way.

And I know, it would be expensive. But c'mon! What's democracy worth?

Now its back to your regularly scheduled propaganda, at least until April 30th when his new book comes out, which you can preorder on teh Internets ;) and you should, you really really should...

"Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" -Ron Paul.

McCain should send his Dear Friend Dr. Paul a present for tainting Scoop and Dump and Romney right out of the race.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/ron-paul-forces.html

That's totally the wrong move. NOW is the time he should DIVE BACK IN! Can you imagine if he was to get thousands of protest votes? Everyone else is out. Now the press will HAVE to cover him! What if he went into the convention with a few hundred delegates? They would have to let him speak. He should campaign and then have a great speech at the RNC..

That should be "tens of thousands of protest votes".

He already destroyed the party. If McCain loses it was because of Paul.

Oh Dear Wes, I almost hate to ask, but this is so off the wall (even for you) that I have to.

How exactly did Ron Paul destroy the GOP? I mean, I hope he did. I'd send more money as a tip for a job well done, but c'mon.

The GOP has been a fragile coalition for decades now that exists only because the constituent parts have trained themselves to hold multiple mutually contradictory ideas in their heads simultaneously. Fiscal conservatism and ballooning deficits. Individual liberty and the surveillance state and the destruction of the constitution to suit a religious minority. Minimal government and the surveillance state, the criminalization of consensual adult activity, etc.

Ron Paul didn't do this. Atwater and Rove and their ilk did.

or a rapid decrease? My Loononmeter is slowly inching back into the orange zone.

Even those of us on the other side of the fence should mourn the demise of Ron Paul's candidacy. The fact that so few Republicans would actually vote for him just proves what liberals have thought all along: the current generation of Republicans are anything but conservative. They're proto-fascist, right-wing authoritarians. They don't believe in individual liberty (except for themselves, of course), and they're contemptuous of the rights of the people as expressed in the U.S. Constitution.

For that matter, I'm not terribly convinced that either Obama or Hillary believes in those ideals, as evidenced by their lukewarm opposition to warrantless wiretapping. I guess at this point in American politics, we have to choose between some rights or none at all.

"On Tuesday night, however, he was able to survive a primary challenge and hold on to the Republican nomination for re-election to his Congressional seat."

"Managed to hold on" by 70% to 30%... i.e., he crushed his opponent, a former supporter.

"Finally ready to drop out".... check out the sequence of videos and see for yourself.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019847.html

You write: [Ron Paul] "was able to survive a primary challenge and hold on to the Republican nomination for re-election to his Congressional seat."

To read your writing nobody would guess Paul won by the convincing majority of 70% of the voters who know him best. Winning by this amount hardly constitutes the insinuation that Paul barely survived the challenge to his Congressional seat and was able to "hold on" and win.

Please keep personal bias out of your reporting.

Although I probably would not have voted for Ron Paul, I must say that he was a refreshing voice in a sonorous din of verisimilitudinous Republicans. He brought honesty to a rather disgusting group.

I hope we haven't heard the last of him...

Oh, Paul will probably get a ton of write-in votes. If we're very lucky he'll go for an independent run. I know there are people that would support that, certainly brightstar65 would. And if Paul can get on the ballot, it'll prevent brightstar65 from smearing blood all over his ballot or the touchscreen in the November election.

Ron Paul is dropping out and that's a good thing. Ron Paul's platform is incredibly dangerous for this country. His plan to let individual states decide almost everything would do nothing but divide this country even further.

What this country needs is a leader to bring everyone together, not push people further apart.