but then when you point this out, you’re suddenly just another obsessed RP fan. so it’s pretty much like you cant even do anything about it.

Imagine a President that vetoed every piece of legislation that was unconstitutional nonsense! A President that didn’t let politics make spending decisions and a President that didn’t impose tariffs just because they were politically popular.
I don’t think his Court nominees would be off the wall to us, but they would be real (as opposed to the phony ones Bush has nominated) strict constructionists of the Constitution.

…many of them seem to believe that Ron Paul would have dictatorial and almost messianic powers…

Ron Paul’s grassroots support should probably hedge their bets by working on getting more libertarian leaning congressmen elected. I wonder if the chances of getting a single Paul-esque congressman elected from each state is better than Paul getting elected president.

I’d be okay with nothing getting done. Frankly, the thing that would make me happiest is to see a President who wields the veto pen more often, which Paul could certainly do, or who doesn’t have the Commerce Dept impose tariffs (which Ron Paul wouldn’t do), or who isn’t interested in just gouging the system to try to pad their percentages in key districts. And I don’t think that Ron Paul’s SC nominees would be that off-the-wall…probably they’d be very palatable to conservatives and, because they wouldn’t be fascists, the Democrats might not have as much of a problem with them as we might think.

It’s also interesting how many of them seem to believe that Ron Paul would have dictatorial and almost messianic powers to accomplish anything he wants if he did win the White House, despite the fact that there are limits to what the President can do, especially if he’s got a hostile Congress (which he would, and who will likely oppose a lot of his ideas). A lot of the people who take issue with Doug don’t seem to have any clue how government actually works, or how it’s supposed to work, or what can realistically be accomplished. That seems to be why their only argument is to whine at Doug.

If you’re looking for a messiah, stick with religion. Politicians tend to make piss-poor saviors…and Ron Paul is likely no exception.

Heh, heh…”magic” :)

Umm, well, that’s cause he’s not gonna win.

You’re right about the vocal fundamentalists often being the blowhards. Lots of people hate lots of things about America. The thing that separates those who are a threat from those who are not are the capability and the will to act on their hatred. Most of the “Islamofascists” (stupidest term ever) don’t have the capability, logistical or mental, to attack us so their actions rarely go beyond rhetoric. And the less we intervene in other countries’ foreign affairs, the less we add to their will to attack us.

There will always, of course, be those like al-Qaeda who will carry out successful attacks against us from time to time. That’s inevitable given that the very nature of terrorism always gives the terrorist the initiative. But as long as we’re not stupidly overreacting in a way that actually adds to our list of enemies (like we’re doing in Iraq), the more easily we’ll be able to use measured, lethal and effective force against those who are real threats to us.

You do seem to have a compulsive need to mention that you think Ron Paul has no chance. I know that you’re just being honest, most people with half a brain know you don’t actually hate Ron Paul, and you’re probably right about his chances(although I’m still voting for Paul) but I can see why it can annoy some people…it can kind of reek of “told-you-so-itis”.

Buckwheat,

Yes, we know you’ve got a problem with Doug. Anyone who’s ever read this blog knows you’ve got a problem with Doug…that fact has been noted repeatedly. And everyone who’s ever read this blog knows you have almost nothing to say about any topic besides Ron Paul and that your sole tactic for promoting Ron Paul is to gripe about Doug and make stupid accusations that have little or no basis in fact. You’re boring, Buckwheat, and you do a crap job of selling your candidate. Why don’t you either change your approach or stop acting like a broken record on the subject of Ron Paul and your problems with Doug? There are a dozen other topics on this site at any given time and it’s not that hard to find one written about a subject other than Ron Paul that’s worth discussing. Or if you can’t get off that topic how about discussing the merits or flaws of the issues in Ron Paul’s platform without continually referring back to what you think Doug Mataconis thinks? One of the least important parts of any of the articles written on this site is who the author is.

…he should suggest a role for the government to play in security and law enforcement to counter terrorism.

He has suggested bringing the troops home to protect our borders. Or, as Smedley Butler put it:

I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

You can talk about blowback all you want, but there are some total crazy fundamentalists out there who hate America for its movies and culture as much as its foreign policy.

But, are those the ones carrying out the attacks? Or are those just the local blowhards?

I think Buckwheat was referring to your constant need to mention that Paul is unlikely to win. You couldn’t even say something as simple as “Yes, I’m voting for Ron Paul.”

We all know that write-ins don’t even get counted unless it’s a very tight race, so I think we are all capable of assuming that you wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul if he wasn’t on your ballot. Besides, he will be on your ballot, even if he isn’t doing well. He has said time and tme again that he will stay in until the bitter end.

“Assuming he’s still on the ballot when Virginia’s primary rolls around”

You’re good. I almost missed this on the first read-through.

Missed what ?

If Ron’s on the ballot when Primary Day comes to the Old Dominion, I will be voting for Ron Paul.

If he’s not on the ballot, I won’t be voting at all.

I found one grudging post-debate acknowledgment that Ron Paul is the only Republican running you could vote for.

So why all the negative anti-Paul spin? I just relived it reading your 36 posts, so please don’t make me cut and paste. If you’re against the Iraq War (which I couldn’t verify as it doesn’t appear you were blogging in ’02-03), and you’re libertarian in temperament, then what exactly is your major malfunction with Ron Paul?

I really don’t get it. Please enlighten.

You’re good. I almost missed this on the first read-through.