redblueamerica.com

A recent Associated Press headline reads - "Paul Keeps White Supremacist Donation" - This is a blatant slur designed to scare off undecided voters from researching further into what the Congressman actually stands for.

I'm sure the media could dig up all kinds of monsters who have given hefty sums to Romney and Giuliani and then tar them with the same bullsh*t but you'll never see it happen, because as Salon writer Glenn Greenwald points out, the establishment have launched a vicious assault on Ron Paul.

How about the Neo-Cons who advocate ethnically cleansing the middle east and making Bush dictator of the world? Who have they donated to? "Romney Keeps Donation From Fascist Ethnic Cleansing Advocate" will AP carry that story?

How about Stu Bykovsky, the Philadelphia Inquirer writer who called for a new 9/11 to reinvigorate support for Republicans - who did he donate to and why isn't the media interested in finding out? "Giuliani Keeps Donation From Writer Who Yearned For New 9/11" is a headline we'll never see.

How about talking to those putrid Neo-Cons who went on the National Review's annual cruise this past summer - you know, the people who like to share their belief that anyone who protests against Bush be executed in gas chambers - who did they donate to? McCain? Huckabee?

The media won't find out and they won't be issuing any ad hominem smear headlines against any of the establishment candidates because they know on which side their bread is buttered.

I might be inclined to believe that Paul's denial of any knowledge about the racist writings in his newsletters, if it wasn't for the sheer volume of them. I cannot believe that he had no clue this was going on. And assuming he really was clueless about it all -- if he was not smart enough to keep closer track of publications named after him about which he admits to being aware, well that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his abilities.

Your third-party arguments sound good on the surface, but as a recovering Naderite (believe me -- I've heard all the arguments about the evils of the two-party system), they just don't work in reality. As dots noted, we don't have the luxury of starting over, so we work with what we have. And yes, that means sometimes having to hold your nose when you vote. And I'm OK with that if it means avoiding another Bush.

He is getting alternately smeared/ignored because of both the ideas of his campaign and his capacity as a wild card. However, the system is so locked into the two party mode that there is little expectation that even a 3rd party candidate can do anything. And the reason no one thinks Ron Paul will win is because he as yet to reach his tipping point. I believe that there are a ton of closet Ron Paul supporters all over the internet and mainstream media, such as Michelle Malkin - see her latest post about needing a man. They are all afraid to step out and support him vocally yet simply because they are afraid of being labeled nuts as well. Once his support gets over a certain level, then you might see a number of influential people start to endorse him. Too bad most people back media selected "winners" instead of voting their conscience.

Chris Future
http://thinkfuture.com

"We should get out of the lives of all these nations.
That is not isolationism."

I may post this in my office. Permission?

Uriah, there is certainly some merit to many of RP's arguments. The basic reason his policies won't work is that he will never get elected.

Having said that, and while I - in the dark of night while nobody is looking - share many of RP's views, the fact (read FACT) is that we can not start the entire country over from scratch. You have to go to these elections with the government you have, not the government you want.

I'd say the jury's out. But his newsletters? Racist.

That said, I don't object to "liberty and freedom, both social and economic" for anybody, including Americans. But I don't think Paul's brand of libertarianism and isolationism would actually work.

Dots: I'm with you. I don't want to spend too much energy on horse race matters in this election campaign. But sometimes they're important.

Ron Paul hasn't ruled out running as a third-party candidate, after all, and he's certainly raised a nice little wad of cash. Combine that with the fact that he has a constituency -- or, at least, there's constituencies that claim him -- his candidacy becomes a factor. If not a "kingmaker" then perhaps he's a king (or queen) killer. The last 20 years have shown that stuff makes a difference in who ends up as president, and what kind of policies we'll live under.