I don’t see any other Republican candidate as a viable option, they all approve of the war in Iraq, despite 70% disapproval from the American public.

If Ron Paul doesn’t win the Republican nomination, our next president will definitely be a Democrat.

They can not defeat his logic or reasoning nor can they directly confront his effort to reestablish the Republic and restore the Constitution so instead they label his supporters as kooks and fringe and him as radical and isolationist which he is in truth neither and neither are we.

Isolationist is not the same as non-interventionist and you know it. To use the terms as interchangeable demonstrates a certain clear bias. Dr. Paul has worked in Congress for longer than some voters who support him have been alive. He is well aware of the limitations of his ability to deliver on the words he has spoken and written but I as do many others trust him to make the right decisions for this nation.

I actually feel very hopeful about Ron Paul’s chances, but there’s no reason to think it’s gonna be easy! If Doug isn’t correct that he’s a major longshot, then why are we trying so friggin’ hard? If he wasn’t a long shot, we could just sit back and watch.

Anyway, I’m guessing Doug would agree that if Dr. Paul ends up getting the kind of coverage that the anointed candidates get, he perhaps wouldn’t be so much of a longshot.

I’m still hoping to see that happen. With enough pressure from people like us politely demanding coverage on Ron Paul, the media really might come around…

Only time and a lot of sweat will tell…

AGAIN THANKS FOR A NICE ARTICLE!! I disagree that he has no chance, but of course it’s gonna be tough!

-Chad

True, FDR was forbidden by Congress from supplying weapons to either side in a war. However, FDR so easily found loopholes in the neutrality acts (plural) that Congress had to keep passing new ones each year of FDR’s presidency. He never recognized war between Japan and China and thus was able to “legally” provide military aid to China right up until the attack on Pearl Harbor.

And I’m sure I could find political propaganda from current Congressmen and members of Bush’s cabinet claiming that current US policy toward Iran is too “isolationist” for their taste. That someone in power claims X to be true doesn’t make X true.

And of course leaders across the Atlantic were complaining that the US wasn’t doing enough to help Europe–they were being taken over by Hitler, so who could blame them? And who could blame China for wanting more help from the US than it was getting?

But the FDR administration was definitely aiding China and doing all it could, short of a declaration of war, to cripple Japan’s imperial expansion. Yes, the FDR administration railed against Congress for its “isolationism” (failure to declare war), but FDR himself had determined all foreign policy, short of war, for the last 8 years and that policy was decidedly interventionist. He was desperate for the US to get a chance at a starring role on the world stage so he could fulfill his dream of making the world safe for democracy, and he got it. The only debatable matter is how deliberately he provoked war with Japan and to what extent he saw the Japanese attack coming.

If you define historical fact by what “leaders of the time” say, then try this:

Japan’s Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda, July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

Caveat: I haven’t confirmed this quotation (or that the US intercepted this message) with any other sources. Also, note that this quotation is from *before* FDR had taken his most drastic economic measures against Japan (freezing of assets, banning trade etc).

Oh wait.

Gore/Lieberman lost didn’t they ?”

I guess that depends on how you quantify the word “Lost” doesn’t it? The 2000 election was hardly normal.

BTW. It’s common for politicians who are able to run two races for office to do so. It all depends on what state law allows.

Finally, Lieberman lost his primary bid in 2006 for re-election to the Senate but still managed to come back as an independent and win. Not saying Paul will win as an independent, but politics is never predictable. It just depends on how mad the electorate is with the current choices. I’d say they’re pretty mad with what they’ve got in mainstream candidates today.