Ron Paul Book Hits No. 1 On Amazon

Ron Paul's loyal supporters helped him set campaign fundraising records and capture more delegates during his presidential run than some of his high-profile Republican rivals. They even managed to briefly shut down Nevada's GOP convention earlier this month over a rules change controversy.

Now they've taken his latest book to the top of the Amazon.com bestseller list.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[loki]

Rue Paul has to do something with all the campaign money he has left over.

[WorkingClass]

There is always a lot of discussion about "libertarianism" on Ron Paul threads. The candidate is judged by the perceived merit of his ideology. Why is there never any discussion of Hillary's ideology? Does she have an ideology? Does it matter? What about Obama or McCain?

[Stirner]

Hillary's ideology is very simple: Hillary wants to be America's Evita. Both Obama and McCain have equally simple ideologies: Obama's ideology is unclear, but makes us all feel good. McCain's ideology is simply to bomb, curse, or hit anything or anybody who stands in his way to bomb, curse, or hit anything or anybody.

[huffnpuffn]

Having a #1 bestseller on Amazon is a pretty good achievement, but he'll know he's really arrived when some hack writes a Ron Paul version of "Unfit for Command."

[HeevenSteven]

I have to say I agree with Paul on a lot of things, i.e. the military industrial complex etc; but the strict everyone for himself socioeconomic thinking (ie on health-care and education) doesn't look so attractive, or effective. Any economists here to help me out with this thinking?

[Pyrum]

Drastically cutting the federal government eliminates the need for federal income tax, putting more wealth into the hands of the citizens. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and putting the dollar back on the gold standard slows inflation to almost zero, meaning people are once again wealthier as their dollars go further. Ending the war eliminates our need to borrow $12 billion a month from China, ending the constantly increasing budget deficit, and as we work our way back out of debt, the devalued dollar becomes stronger, also making everyone wealthier.

As people are more prosperous and can take care of themselves, they tend to want to share and take care of others, too. The need for government welfare programs goes down as more people are being served by the private sector. Free market health care would mean people would take care of their rountine visits out of pocket, which would lower the cost of those visits as the doctor's overhead would decrease drastically as they wouldn't have to file all those insurance claims. Insurance would still be used for major medical issues. Education is currently funded mainly by state, not federal funding, so getting rid of the Department of Education would give the states more say in how they run their schools, and parents would have more say as well because local governments are easier for citizens to influence than large, centralized ones. Hope this helps. Read the book!

[HeevenSteven]

Yeah, I can read what Ron says, I was hoping for a discussion from someone with a differing opinion.

I'm completely with him on the war and the M.I.C etc. I don't like the domestic spying or the elimination of Habeas Corpus. Buy guys like Paul who are all let's get the gov off our backs want the gov all over you back if you're doing something THEY don't like, abortion fer instance.

The states being responsible for education of it's citizens is not a bad idea, by the way, and the best educated countries in the world use THAT model. Getting rid of it won't help us IMO. Health care is better is most other industrialized countries as well.

Any examples of successful modern states who actually use this libertarian model??

[Pyrum]

Here is a list of the most libertarian countries in the world: http://www.freewebs.com/globalliberty/rankings.htm

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would be an another example of getting the federal government out of our lives by putting the abortion issue into the hands of state and local governments. I'm pro-choice, but I'm in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade. I'm not in favor of a constitutional amendment defining "life" as starting at conception, but I've never claimed to be 100% in agreement with everything Ron Paul says. Most people with a libertarian view have nothing against abortion, so Paul is unusual that way.

The way I understand it, Canadians tend to be very disatisfied with their medical system and are baffled we would want to emulate it. The British government is starting to deny medicines and surgeries for older people just like insurance companies do here in the states. I think whether or not someone wants "Universal Health Care" comes down to one basic question: do you trust the American government or not? I don't, so I would prefer attempting to go back to how things were set up in the 60s, when the American medical system was the envy of the world and doctors were practically worshipped like gods.

I really didn't post to get into a debate. I hope someone out there can post a differing opinion on Ron Paul's position on the ecomony for you. Obviously, I can't.

[bwither]

Economically speaking, Ron Paul is substantially further to the right than most republicans, even GWB, and borders on full-out neoliberalism. The difference between him and other republicans is in the level of authority that he believes the government should have, where Paul lines up much closer to most mainstream democrats.

I think this is why many Ron Paul supporters I know have made it pretty clear that they would support a democrat in November.

Like his positions or not, you've really gotta respect a man who wears his heart on his sleeve. Ron is a true political gadfly.

[Pyrum]

Paul lines up closer to mainstream democrats on the level of authority government should have? I don't think so. Ron Paul wants to completely get rid of dozens of federal government agencies, from Homeland Security to the Department of Education. I've never heard a democrat saying they want to do this. Paul is also strongly opposed to socialized medicine and in favor of free market medicine.

The reason former Ron Paul supporters tend to go to the democrats is because it's clear John McCain wants to continue the Iraq war indefinitely, and the democratic candidates are saying they want to end it someday. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate left running who would end the war immediately, and I will vote for him no matter what happens, even if it means I have to write his name in.

[bwither]

"Paul lines up closer to mainstream democrats on the level of authority government should have? I don't think so."

I base my rationale on this:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

I would imagine on this scale favoring free market medicine over single-payer healthcare is more a matter of economic philosophy than government control over your life. But as you can see:

1) On the economic (left to right) Ron Paul is the furthest to the right of all the candidates this cycle, slightly nudging out Tom Tancredo and Mike Gravel.

2) On the Authority scale (top to bottom) Ron Paul is quite close ideologically to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

[kevinabt]

Another deliberate piece of disinformation by our loyal media. The Nevada convention was shut down by the GOP when it became clear that Paul would be the winner. After a long bout of fighting and rule changes (by the neocons, not by Paul) that were unsuccessful the leaders finally just walked out of the convention.

[kipmartin]

he doesnt look so bad these days now, does he?

[Stirner]

Not at all, but I wonder if there is enough time before the convention to have enough Republicans break out of their neocon somnambulism and come to his rescue. I hope so. Its a damned shame that our nation might be handed over to such worn-out political hacks as Hillary or McCain/Lieberman.

[Pyrum]

Well, we are doing our best to elect national delegates from our Congressional and State Conventions to vote for Ron Paul at the National Convention, but we're up against a lot of resistance. I find this ironic. Not long ago many republicans were insisting Ron Paul supporters were nothing more than a few pimply faced kids who live in their parent's basements. Now they're consciously making efforts to block us from going to the National Convention. If Ron Paul really doesn't have any support, why would they have to do that?