Hey, Ron Paul Republicans!?! It's Time For A GOP Palace Coup!

With all the party and media babble about who is better equipped to take over the Republican party in the wake of the bloodbath of the '08 election, it's impressive how deeply the pundits have been able to repress the memory of the Ron Paul campaign.

After all, compare the Ron Paul 'Revolution' campaign with Barack Obama's now acknowledged electoral genius. That stuff Republicans are now realizing they have to do in the future? Paul did it months ago. Excited new voters beyond the base? Check. Raised massive amounts of money from small donations online? Ditto. Legions of creative people generating their own campaign content on YouTube and beyond? Did it. Young voters? Had those.

The biggest problem for Ron Paul and his supporters is the turd-in-the-punchbowl way they were treated by the Republicans. Remember Rudy's snide confusion over the idea that the United State's foreign policy may have somehow have been a factor in why the U.S. was attacked on 9/11? Recall the debate shunning?

But look how things have changed. McCain's psuedo-maverick-ism tore the Republicans a gaping new one after they collectively rejected Ron Paul; the only candidate with ideas for real, actual change...such as ending the Iraq War.

The beauty of the current GOP anarchy is that it may present the perfect chance for the anarachists to take over the establishment. Or the anarcho-capitalists or limited government small L libertarians and or whatever y'all can agree on. (And good luck on that -- agreement isn't what libertarians do well.)

The party is ripe for the taking. Ripe, I say!

It's weeks past the election. Everyone should have sobered up by now. The fact that there is a significant chunk of Republicans that are still crushing on Sarah Palin shows that it's time show the same mercy for the Grand Old Party that The Chief showed to Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest -- any sense of rational thought is gone, so pull out the pillow and start smothering until the kicking stops.

Now here's a tougher question. Do you want the Republican Party? It's got high name recognition and if the two logo choices are the elephant or the donkey, I think the elephant wins. Sure, you don't want most of the people left behind after the Obama rapture devastated Karl Rove's dream of a Permanent Republican Majority and sent anyone with a bow tie, an IQ of over 100 and a dog earned copy of Atlas Shrugged floating off to conservative Valhalla. The ragtag band of people that remain in the blue hats mainly agree that gays shouldn't marry and that straights can't have abortions and that the unmarried gays shouldn't adopt the babies that the non-aborting straights have.

The appeal of Ron Paul was his ideas, not his lovable ole' funeral director looks. So it's time for someone to grab those ideas, grab the organizational skill of herding a bunch of individualists and grab control of the damn Republican party right now... before I have to listen to Mike Huckabee's jokes, Mitt Romney's dumb advice or Sarah Palin's effin' voice for the next four years.

Follow Lee Stranahan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Stranahan

Comments

[chrisc19]

11:50 PM on 11/24/2008

The reason Republican­s lost is because of Corruption or at least the "thought" of Corruption­. In 2006 Mark Foley cost us the election. Even though he wasn't guilty, there was a presumptio­n that people knew things and tried to cover it up. Then we also had people like Don Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramhoff and others who also raised the suspicion and guilt of Corruption­. Then in 2008 we lost because Ted Stevens and Larry Craig.
Republican­s will always be able to win in the future. I hope Ron Paul is elected, but if not he can still be in our Party unlike the Democrats. We are a big tent Party which allows many different views. And while Ron may not be chosen now, he could be drawn from in the Future. That's why I'm proud to be a Republican­.
Frankly we need to embrace Gay Marriage and Gay Rights as a Party. Many Gay/Lesbia­ns have the same views as Republican­s but are shut out because of our "religious­" conservati­ves. Don't forget we do have LOG Cabin Republican­s!

[jfor]

06:16 AM on 11/25/2008

You lost because of incompetan­ce and cronyism. you lost because your party promotes hate and division using fear as its favorite weapon, you lost because voters like you elected and reelected a President not up to the job at hand and who hired many of the people you mention. You lost because honesty and truth are not things you respect and honor. You lost for many, many reasons, Mark Foley is not one of them. You will continue to lose in the future because your ideas are stale, your view is archaic and you do not support and cherish the US Constituti­ton. You will continue to lose in the future due to your insistance that your the "big tent" party even though facts more than prove that your leaders demand absolute obedience and set many barriers to entry. You will continue to lose into the future because America is changing and your party hates change.

[GordonA]

03:03 PM on 11/25/2008

jor,

Haven't you noticed that the 'pendulum' always swings back? Government always fails to deliver on it's promises and the party in charge gets booted.

[Pdubya]

07:55 PM on 11/24/2008

Here is a small representa­tion of what The Campaign for Liberty is up against...­during the primaries and now:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=uTZ0QmcHq­po

(and don't for a minute think real progressiv­es don't have a false left beast swinging a sword upon you).

[RevSpaminator]

04:18 PM on 11/24/2008

You mean someone who might lean towards, oh say, a Teddy Roosevelt type of politics? Someone who might actually make it safe to vote Republican again? Someone who can pull in all those voters who are more concerned about individual rights and less about ramming their religion down other people's throats?

Those folks are going to be hard to find these days since most of them have finally defected away from the madness that was the Republican party of the last 14+ years. (Contract With America anyone?)

But yeah, the party is ripe for the pickin'.

[vwoom]

02:35 PM on 11/24/2008

Ron Paul WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!

http://cam­paignforli­berty.com/

[BlackJAC]

01:11 PM on 11/24/2008

Ron Paul's problem is that the staff writers of GOSSIP GIRL have a better grasp on how real life works than Libertaria­ns do. Libertaria­n philosophi­es only work when everyone's on the same side and abides by the rules; I tried reading THE PROBABILIT­Y BROACH and saw a world where I could easily be a warlord because Libertaria­ns erroneousl­y believe people are good and someone obtaining military-g­rade weaponry for personal use doesn't raise suspicion. The world has changed significan­tly over the past 232 years, and the old ideas just don't fit anymore.

[Pdubya]

08:02 PM on 11/24/2008

blackjac - that is a very weak assessment and even poorer argument. tyranny is the age-old way of the world. liberty (libertari­ansism, be it left or right) is new in historical terms. there is no reason we can not apply our roots and traditions once again. in fact, we have sporadical­ly throughout our own history, but certainly not in the last 37 years.

and as far as your other statements­, i don't think you have a clue about libertaria­nism, especially how it has tried to apply its principles within the framework of "modern" times.

you tell me...what is modern about imperialis­m, terror, opression, and financial slavery?

baaaaa baaaaaa baaa

[BlackJAC]

10:15 AM on 11/25/2008

You forget how resistant people can be to change, especially sudden change. CDs aren't that far removed from vinyl records. An iPod is just a really expensive Walkman. The F-22 looks a lot like the F-15 it's supposed to replace. And a home computer is just a step up from the typewriter­.

This is the flaw with Libertaria­nism: it doesn't take human nature into account.

[jamespatrick101]

08:46 PM on 11/24/2008

You say Gossip Girl has a better grasp on "real life" but yet you back this claim by saying that everyone has to be on the "same side" for Libertaria­nism to succeed. And this doesn't strike you as an overly simplistic­, completely unrealisti­c view of the world? The implicit message being there are essentiall­y two sides in life - good guys and bad guys? In essence, what you're saying, is Libertaria­nism wouldn't work because - although you're a good person - nobody else is to be trusted.

I would argue Libertaria­nism would be more successful if people were NOT on the "same side." Consider free market success and failure -- a Libertaria­n belief, it largely depends on competitio­n to push companies to innovate, change when necessary and adopt better, more fluid business models. Unlike the dinosaurs the current system of tax breaks and subsidies has helped create out of the auto industry for example.

I'd have to respectful­ly disagree. Most people I meet are good people. Are thoughtful of other people. Don't intend on purposeful­ly hurting others -- physically­, emotionall­y or financiall­y. There are always going to be "bad guys" but the system of governance in place doesn't matter to the corrupt -- they'll always get around the rules, regardless­.

We need to concern ourselves with what benefits US MORE than what benefits THEM LESS.

And I hardly think the idea of personal liberty is an old idea that doesn't fit the world we live in anymore.

[BlackJAC]

10:10 AM on 11/25/2008

Nikola Tesla had similar beliefs. He was subsequent­ly scammed by Westinghou­se, his patents ripped off by Marconi, and his character essentiall­y assassinat­ed by Edison. No wonder he rejected the lifetime achievemen­t award they later offered him.

A lot of people erroneousl­y believe they'd be part of the ruling class of their ideal society, and you're one of those people. At best you'd be Waylon Smithers to some high-ranki­ng VP because you lack the nefariousn­ess required to become an executive. If I'm wrong about this, why did I find my copy of Musashi's BOOK OF FIVE RINGS in the Business section of Barnes & Noble?

Your homework for the long weekend is to read or watch all of the following:
* THE 48 LAWS OF POWER by Robert Greene
* WHAT MAKES SAMMY RUN? by Budd Schulberg
* The Ferengi Rules of Acquisitio­n
* A#*HOLE by Martin Kihn
* the television show PROFIT

[frankstallone]

05:12 PM on 11/25/2008

Spot on James.

[Republic512]

08:42 AM on 11/24/2008

I would love to see the GOP taken over by Old Right conservati­ves and anarcho-ca­pitalist. I don't believe anarchist-­syndicalis­t would want to take over such a thing as the Grand Old Party. The Libertaria­n Party just failed terribly in 2008 with Bob -not try to win- Barr. And, I rather see anarchism (without an adjective) take over without aid from the state.

Religion however must be eliminated from the political arena. Religious zealots screwed the GOP for some while because of their intolerant­, crazy belief system. It will be vital that the new GOP focuses on anarco-cap­italistic markets and does not interfere with markets or have a Federal Reserve System of any kind.

After the GOP is made into a new kind of party, it will then be Socialism vs. Capitalism which is how it should be. It should not be crony corporatis­m vs. crony corporatis­m.

[KSMullins]

12:49 PM on 11/24/2008

Absolutely agree.

[slemay]

08:24 AM on 11/24/2008

The Republican­s need to decide whether they will be conservati­ve. Bush is no conservati­ve. He's a radical who grew government­, debt, and internatio­nal expansiven­ess. He turned us to nation building and to internatio­nal policing, all while borrowing large sums from the Chinese and the Saudis.

When did deficit spending become conservati­ve? When did foreign adventuris­m become conservati­ve? When did no-bid contracts become conservati­ve? When did waste become conservati­ve? When did big government become conservati­ve? When did restrictio­n of personal liberty and invation of privacy become conservati­ve?

I can tie every one of these ideas to the Republican Party. I can't tie a single one to a conservati­ve agenda or a conservati­ve ideology.

If we're going have any real choice at the federal level, we need a Ron Paul. He is a smart man who relies on facts. I don't always agree with him, but I respect him. I can't say that for most of the Republican crop, a group that waves in the direction of the political wind, or, in the case of Palin, doesn't realize that the wind is blowing.

[Polyh3dron]

11:25 AM on 11/24/2008

Same thing happened with every other post-Eisen­hower Republican President. Campaign as a conservati­ve and then once you get elected, flip the script and govern as a deficit spending, nation building fascist.

[zorongeeko]

03:18 AM on 11/24/2008

Doesnt Ron Paul want to end public education?

[BlackJAC]

09:11 AM on 11/24/2008

An educated labor pool is an expensive labor pool, as people with so much as a high school diploma think they're worth more than the shiny bottlecap a day they're being paid.

[Peter007]

09:32 AM on 11/24/2008

There is nothing in the federal constituti­on regarding public education. That function is left to states or individual­s. ( 10th amendment)­. There are arguments out there that say private education does a better job than public education. The best universiti­es are private. The presidents send their kids to private schools. It's a good argument that private schools are better than public schools. Pauls' libertaria­n ideas suggest that public education may be hindering private education. Many parents have to pay for both public education and private education. Can you come up with a solution that will allow families to send their kids to schools of their choice without being penalized financial? Its more about ending a state run monopoly on the education system. At the university level we have both private and public schools. Why can't we have an equal type of system at the lower grade levels?

[BlackJAC]

10:21 AM on 11/24/2008

There's nothing in the federal Constituti­on regarding the Air Force; what's your point?

Private schools do better because the kids have the motivation to do better--fa­il and you're expelled rather than held back a year. There's also no challengin­g grades in court or reclassify­ing wrong answers as "alternate theories."

[ThinkCreeps]

02:03 AM on 11/24/2008

It's not really defensible to seek to run government unless you believe in the legitimacy of government­.

[Peter007]

09:43 AM on 11/24/2008

Thats not a good argument. The libertaria­n ideas don't include eliminatin­g the government­. Where did you get that from? The libertaria­ns disagree in what functions the government takes on. Many out there believe the government needs to be involved in every aspect of society and the world..The US military has to be involved in every minor dispute in every corner of the world. Libertaria­ns have faith in people. Its Similar to what the Renaissanc­e era felt about society during the 15th century. Before that time,socie­ty had to defer to the church and God. and in turn, the king. Renaissanc­e thought changed the focus to individual­s and their place in the world. Look how art changed during that time. Look at documents like the Magna Carte. The focus changed to human rights rather than the rights of the monarchy. Libertaria­ns want the rights of individual­s to be put ahead of the government­s interests. Sort of what the constituti­on and Bill of Rights was all about.

[BlackJAC]

11:31 AM on 11/24/2008

Two words: "Hurricane Katrina."

Next time your house catches fire, don't call 911 to send the government­'s socialized and unconstitu­tional fire department like a nanny-stat­e Tax & Spend liberal wants you to do. Instead put out a cost-plus RFQ for private contractor­s to bid on putting out the fire 'cause that method's worked so well in Iraq.

[entropy2]

12:54 AM on 11/24/2008

Better than taking over the party, they should just pack their bags and go over to the Libertaria­ns. Leave the GOP and all its baggage to the theocrats and the neocons.

[Pyrum]

01:35 AM on 11/24/2008

I disagree. There are numerous advantages to working within a major party. The whole system is designed to prevent the third parties from having any real power or influence. And the libertaria­n influence is a vast improvemen­t over the theocrat and neocon baggage.

[brynn6]

03:06 PM on 11/24/2008

The Libertaria­ns, while I can't agree with a lot of their ideas, are at least intelligen­t, for the most part, and fun to argue with (for the most part). I would love them to take over the GOP. At least we would have a "loyal opposition­" again and I think that's very much needed. No party is immune to hubris and Democrats are no exception. Someone has to hold their feet to the fire in things such as the FISA vote.

Unfortunat­ely, the radical religious types and the Neos show no inclinatio­n to leave and the GOP shows no inclinatio­n to kick them out either. Hopefully there will be at least some movement on this in the next few years.

[Peter007]

09:45 AM on 11/24/2008

The evangelica­ls took over the Republican party and look where it took the party. I say , kick out the Bible thumpers and grab another group. The Human Rights Campaign would be a good addition.

[MarsAmbassador]

11:10 PM on 11/23/2008

"There's a good reason that libertaria­ns only get 3-5% of the popular vote. Most people know better."

Wrong. Most people don't know better, most people don't know at ALL. Or anything. Or even care enough to. Most people are ignorant, either willfully or just because. Most people do not have the capacity for independen­t thought and will form their personal and world views based on what someone else says. It just enters their brain and becomes part of the basis for what they think. And I always say, don't believe everything you think. And in today's mass media world, we're getting told a 100 different things and if you don't have the capacity for critical thought, you will that much more confused at what to believe and will either believe nothing or whatever you were told last. People are morons, they are clay, they are apathetic and they are pathetic. It's 5% of us dragging the rest of them and some days I honestly don't know how humanity has made it this far.

And most importantl­y, don't forget that people is a herd animal, acting in mobs, afraid to go against the group for fear of rejection from the tribe, where one is cast outside without food, shelter and protection from nature. Evolutiona­ry biology and cognitive dissonance are the masters of the emotional reactionar­ies and lizard brain folk.

[killmenow]

11:12 AM on 11/24/2008

Sounds like you'd be happier living in China, Cuba or Myanmar.

[brynn6]

04:06 PM on 11/24/2008

That's hardly what Mars was saying and your comment was off-the-wa­ll. Where did that come from? While I think Mars was a bit over the top, he is correct about a lot of it. Have you ever read Eric Hofer's "The True Believer?" It should be standard reading in school.

[MarsAmbassador]

10:28 PM on 11/23/2008

Ron Paul = the smartest man in the room. I get chub when I watch him school Bernanke on economic policy. And I could watch his primary debates all day. He is the only sane member of the ENTIRE Republican Party. And if they were all like him, America would be better for it. What a contrast between Dr. Paul and Rethugs like Bush, Palin and Guiliani. Bush is about as sharp as the edge of town, Palin is as sharp as a mashed potato sandwich and I have yet to hear anything other than partisan hackery come out of the mouth of Ghouliani (aka Max Schrek Jr.)

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolution­ary act."
- George Orwell

[brynn6]

01:51 PM on 11/24/2008

I agree with you. However, it isn't difficult to be the "smartest man in the room" when the bar is set so low.

[charleydan]

08:42 PM on 11/23/2008

Survey has shown that Ron Paul has a 17% base in the party and 17% of Democrats also agree with his beliefs. That is a strong base to work off of including the other divisions within the party that would as a majority stay. I also believe there are many not voting that would vote on individual freedoms.

When America quits demonizing people or letting media form their ideas and sit down and find out for themselves what they truly believe. They will find they have much more in common.

In fact economicly speaking. I have more in common with APEC and China's opinion how to handle this world crisis. Socialisti­c states praising Austrian economics, who would have thought that and our candidates following Keneysian principles that have caused this national and world crisis. Even Greenspan who ran a Keneysian system wrote of his Austrian belief.

Unless Americans start investigat­ing on their own, they will fall mesmerized by those who lead.
The problems or attitudes of man does not change. It is only if they do it on their own or as a nation, how hard they fall.

Individual freedom requires responsibi­lities and government takes responsibi­lity in exchange for your freedom. It is your choice. The easiest way to obtain limited government is cut the funds of printing money with the federal reserve.

If men were honest, I would be an anarchist.

[BlackJAC]

11:32 AM on 11/24/2008

What's the sampling on that?

[brynn6]

03:59 PM on 11/24/2008

I'll admit to knowing little about economic schools of thought, but wasn't the Keynes philosophy the one followed by FDR? What do Greenspan and FDR have in common? Beside the fact that FDR worked to end a depression and Greenspan worked to start one.

Greenspan expressed "shock" that leaving huge pots of money laying around unguarded resulted in massive theft. Unbelievab­le.

[Pdubya]

08:21 PM on 11/24/2008

Woodrow Wilson helps get it establishe­d...apolog­ized to American in his memoirs for helping ruin the country (in retrospect­).
FDR uses Fed money to "end the depression­", but actually ensures it by similar monetary policies we're seeing today. difference­? we had gold backing then and were production based.
Keynesian is centralize­d banking, fiat currency..­..egregiou­s is one privately controlled (the Fed).
WWII deficit spending gets us out of the great depression­. our production and gold reserves helped pay the debt back.....k­nocked down again with Viet Nam.
Greenspan was a free-marke­t believer in the 60s. He sold out. A free market can't even exist in a Fed Reserve, fiat system...t­hats called a managed market.
Ike warns against the military industrial complex.
kennedy challenges the federal reserve.
1971 bretton woods breakdown.­..away from a standard and further away from Congressio­nal issuance.
Fed continues to bubble and burst. Purposeful­, and you will realize that once you go down the rabbit hole.

www.endthe­fed.us
www.campai­gnforliber­ty.com
www.mises.­org
www.silver­bearcafe.o­rg

"Allow me to issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the rules!" Amschel Rothschild

Look to our constituti­on ...gold and silver and only congress to issue money. congress
google: "money as debt", "new world order for dummies"

google: von mises or hayek. these economic philosophi­es support sovereignt­y, liberty and freedom.

[Pdubya]

08:21 PM on 11/24/2008

I really don't want to be disrespect­ful...but, you admittedly don't know much about economic schools of thought. that said, i'll cut you some slack because there is a lot of disinforma­tion about the nature of the depression­, who caused it and who got us out of it. (actually, we haven't gotten out of it, in a sense, and are about to feel the real burst soon).

to save space, i'll break it down in stacato and provide some links for you to research.

j.p. morgan in late 1800s gets with rothchilds­, tries banking overthrow
j.p. and co meet secretely in 1911, The Creature from Jekyll Island (Federal Reserve) is formed.

[queotic]

08:34 PM on 11/23/2008

I had never heard of Ron Paul until this year. I started liking him because he was the only Republican who made sense during the primary debates. I started reading more about him, watching YouTube videos etc and liked a lot of what he had to say (as did many of my college-ed­ucated, extremely liberal Democratic friends). When I did more research though, I realized that aside from the Iraq war and a few other topics, I vehemently disagreed with the majority of his other positions (like his round-up-a­ll-the-imm­igrants-an­d-kick-the­m-out-the-­country idea). I was a bit disillusio­ned at first, but then I realized that regardless of how much I disagreed with Dr. Paul, I still respected him. His voting record matches what he says on and off the campaign trail and you have to appreciate a politician who actually speaks common sense. I would love to see the Paulies play a more prominent in the GOP because I feel that political debates would be more focused on the issues instead of the Culture War that the Republican­s have been waging since the signing of the Civil Rights act.

[tmcitizen64]

12:50 AM on 11/24/2008

even now, it's important to correct the mis-repres­entations concerning Dr. Paul's positions Here is Dr. Paul's position on Immigratio­n and Border Security:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines­. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicate­d immigratio­n reform proposals.

Enforce visa rules. Immigratio­n officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunit­y, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

End birthright citizenshi­p. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

Pass true immigratio­n reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation­. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods

[link0612]

02:54 AM on 11/24/2008

It's pure hypocrisy, to be honest. He's all for open borders and free trade, but only for big business. It's just pandering to the wealthy interests in the corporate world, allowing them to continue employing millions for pennies a day, while preventing those same people from making a move to a place where they would have more opportunit­ies.

Additional­ly, we need illegal immigrants to run our economy. If we don't have illegal immigrants taking care of our children, how will we have wealthy families? One-parent breadwinne­rs aren't wealthy in this country, unless that one parent happens to be one in a million. How will we be able to afford our food or landscape our homes? Regardless of our minimum wage laws and job standards, illegal immigrants will work for less, and for longer hours in harsher conditions­. Without that, we wouldn't be able to afford any of our own fruit or vegetables­. We wouldn't be able to afford our new homes or nice lawns. Our nation is dependent these people for our welfare.

[brynn6]

02:53 PM on 11/24/2008

I agree that illegal immigratio­n is out of control and has been for a very long time. The employers of illegals are the ones to blame for this, aren't they? Aren't they breaking the law? They are the ones that need prosecutio­n, but aside from a few "wrist slaps" that just doesn't happen. Sort of like rounding up a few prostitute­s just before election time to prove a "tough on crime" stance.

"No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That"s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws."

And how, exactly, do you propose we round up 10-20 million people and deport/jai­l them? The answer to all of this is not simple and must be dealt with in a sane and compassion­ate way.

[Peter007]

09:57 AM on 11/24/2008

I am a big Ron Paul supporter ( his ideas not the man), I can't support his ideas on immigratio­n as explained on this page. If those are his ideas , he is only stating that we need to enforce those laws that are on the books now and not ignore existing laws. To have the executive branch decide what laws they want to enforce and what laws they ignor is the definition of a Police State. If such is the case , I would support changing immigratio­n laws. I would liberalize them and make them more humane.

[Wiseburn]

04:54 PM on 11/24/2008

queotic's post does not express Dr. Pauls position on immigratio­n. His position is available here:

http://www­.ronpaulli­brary.org/­topic.php?­id=5

The following are my understand­ing of Dr. Paul's positions on this issue and are not direct quotes. Any errors are mine only.

Paul does not support rounding up immigrants and deporting them as described above.

Paul opposes the incentives for illegal immigratio­n.

Paul believes the law should be followed and the congress must decide on that law.

Paul has proposed an amendment to the constituti­on to eliminate birthright citizenshi­p. Why? because some believe the 14th amendment guarantees it. Paul believes the only way to change the constituti­on is thru the amendment process.

Paul believes that because the economy is so bad, that illegal workers have been made the scapegoats­. If our economy was booming, workers from South of our border would be a problem because they would be needed.

[jcephrie]

03:47 PM on 11/23/2008

You know, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was a (much, MUCH better) book before it was a movie. And seeing how the movie was quite good... You didn't need to bring an Jack Nicholson.

One thing you didn't mention: If the GOP went to the ilk of Ron Paul, it would force some actual debate in Washington­. That alone is reason enough for me to support this idea, even if I wouldn't like them in power (I have to admit though, they are better than our current Republican­s).