Ron Paul: We Need To Reclaim The Legacy Of The Founders

I’ve been fairly hard on the Ron Paul campaign, or at least some of it’s stranger supporters, over the past several months, but when the Congressman is right, he’s right:

On the fourth day of July in 1776, a small group of men boldly told the most powerful nation on Earth they were free. They declared that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.

One then has to wonder how Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would react to our current state of affairs.

We have lost sight of the simple premise that guided the actions of our founding fathers. That premise? The government that governs least is the government that governs best.

In our early history, it was understood that a free society embraced both civil liberties and economic liberties. But our government has significantly changed from one of limited power to one of pervasive intervention.


We can reclaim our heritage of freedom, but it will require commitment, work and a willingness to stand firm for our beliefs, refusing to compromise with those who would continue to push for more taxes, more spending and more government solutions.

Just as devotion to freedom and self-determination brought forth our great nation, a renewed adherence to those principles can move us to new heights.

What’s astonishing to me is that someone who says things like this only gets 7% support in the polls.

We can all come up with our own reasons for why this is the case, but perhaps the most distressing of all is the reality that, by and large, the American people have become used to an interventionist state and, in some cases, like it.

  • sadcox

    I think most people don’t realize they are living in an interventionist state.

    When you are told every day in school that you are free, you start to believe it. Of course, who is running the school?

  • Darel99

    7%? Well, Doug have you taken the time to obtain the total number of people polled to represent the poll?

    I have seen so called national polls with only 650 polled yet they will call it a national poll. How can the figures be correct with only 650 polled?

    I think Paul ranks higher.

    A major whistleblower is set to annouce details of a major polling center after Dec 15th. It should be great news…. The story was offered to ABC but the editor in question never followed up even after presented with the details. This may imply the MSM prefers the same old thing or it may imply the editor didn’t have the guts to do the right thing!

  • UCrawford

    7% is a hell of a lot better than he was doing a few months ago, and he’s showing no signs of regressing in his support, unlike some other GOP candidates. Plus, the average voters are just starting to pay attention. I wouldn’t be surprised if he moves into double digits pretty soon.

  • Jeff Molby

    Indeed, UC. First it was still “he’s still under 2%…”, then “still inside the margin…”, now “still only at 7%…”

    It’s amazing how easy it is for people to dismiss relentless, exponential growth.

    It won’t be too long before everyone’s saying “he’s still not winning…” and then “he’s still within reach…” :-)

    P.S. Darel, the polls are imperfect, but they’re more or less accurate. Don’t believe me? Go out and talk to random people. Hardly anyone has heard of him. That’s ok, though. We have the money to fix that. :-)

  • keith

    Jeff is right. 7% is because most people are still not into the election stuff yet and have not taken the time to listen to what Congressman Paul has to say.

    Maybe we should be saying it is “as high as 7% and growing in spite of the major medias affort to ignore the campaign.”

  • Doug Mataconis

    Keith & Jeff,

    If you are correct, then how do you explain the fact that other candidates have built on their leads to an even greater extent ?

    The possibility exists that a libertarian agenda may not be what most voters are looking for today.

  • Doug Mataconis

    7% is a hell of a lot better than he was doing a few months ago, and he’s showing no signs of regressing in his support, unlike some other GOP candidates. Plus, the average voters are just starting to pay attention. I wouldn’t be surprised if he moves into double digits pretty soon.

    It’s better, but it needs to get even better quickly.

    As I note in a post that will publish here in about two hours, Paul is in 4th place in all the New Hampshire polls. That’s very good, but if this is going to have to turn into something much bigger very quickly.

  • UCrawford


    You may be right, people may not be going after a libertarian agenda mainly, I suspect, because they don’t really know what a libertarian agenda is. But I believe that limited government is an ideal that will survive this election no matter how it turns out…and if Hillary or Rudy are elected I have no doubt that the support for limited government will continue to grow simply because I believe either of those candidates will steer us towards disaster and clearly illustrate the problems with statism (in all its manifestations). That may not ever put Ron Paul in the White House, but then the individual freedom movement’s not about putting your faith in one individual to change everything, it’s about convincing society that our philosophy is one that can benefit all of them regardless of who our most visible candidates may be. Ron Paul’s really just the most visible messenger, not the creator or savior, of individual freedom, so even if he doesn’t win the election his campaign can still serve to advance our cause.

    Paul wasn’t the first pro-liberty candidate to run for office. I’m absolutely certain that he won’t be the last. And if Hillary wins in 2008, I suspect that a new, even more successful pro-freedom presidential candidate will be arriving sooner rather than later.

  • UCrawford

    “It’s better, but it needs to get even better quickly.”

    Patience, Doug. Winning New Hampshire is nice but it does not guarantee a presidential nomination, nor does a disappointing showing guarantee failure. Even though it doesn’t seem like it, it’s still a long campaign and a lot can happen in that time. Especially when you’ve got a candidate like Guiliani who’s all too fond of shooting himself in the foot by making stupid and irrational decisions or comments in the heat of the moment. If you want a front-runner with serious vulnerabilities and self-destructive tendencies, Guiliani’s definitely your man.

  • Darel99

    Mr. Molby,

    I noticed your reply and respect your thoughts but I disagree. The polls are not an accurate measure as it implies or less accurate as you suggest. For example if you traveled to he campus of Va. Tech almost every student has heard of Ron Paul due Ron Paul rallies. If you asked a random crowd in DC they would know his name. If you visited city called Bristol, VA the people know who Ron Paul is. Sure the polls are imperfect but the head of many polling sources skew the results to obtain an outcome. Keep in mind major media and other sources pay for the polling. I took a Zoogby poll the other day and during the poll I was asked what kind of rice I liked and even was asked details of my sexual position… I sent the details of this poll to an alternative news source and the details made it to digg’s home page. The problem with polls is that we see to much emphasis with national polls when most only include 600-2000 people. This by even polling standards is substandard when used with low numbers yet they are used to drive there own agenda.

    For sure Paul can begin to overcome some of the issues as you point out but we need to see paul2008 start shelling out for major media buys in not only states but a few national ads would be very important to see.

    I see a very strong change Paul will win NH and do very well in IA but I think it’s prudent that we realize they have started to downplay a NH win and focus more on IA. This election cycle we have seen them make up there own rules and for this reason we need to focus on all the states Paul is working on but super Tuesday has got to look good to which is 15-18 states.

    In the past the first few states carried the tone but I think they will not follow the same old path and they will force Paul to do well overall not just the first few states. At least this is how I see it.

  • Doug Mataconis


    The odds of Ron Paul actually coming in first in New Hampshire are slim to none, but he could do well enough to embarress who ever does win and get himself a lot of press attention, and give libertarian-oriented Republicans a reason to think that hope is not lost, even if Rudy or Mitt do end up being the nominee in `08 as seems likely.

    In order for that to happen, though, he has to make a big splash somewhere and New Hampshire is the most likely place for that to happen. Fourth place behind the big three (Romney, Giuliani, McCain), though, would not be a big splash at all.

  • Jeff Molby

    If you are correct, then how do you explain the fact that other candidates have built on their leads to an even greater extent ?

    Who are you referring to? Huckabee? He’s just a yes-man. It’s pretty easy for a preacher to gain support when he’s running around promising the world to everyone. That’s not sustainable growth. He’ll be in the pack, but he has just as many flaws as the rest of the bunch. His success is a good thing, really. I’d be thrilled to see a couple more statists jump in and divide the vote further.

    The others have been idling for months. Romney has some localized gains, but that’s just because he’s dominating the airwaves. Few are passionate about him, so those gains will likely change as the average voter starts to look beneath his pretty skin.

    It’s better, but it needs to get even better quickly.

    You’ve been saying that for months and it still isn’t true. The tortoise won the race, Doug.

    Unless Michigan does something crazy, we have 7 weeks until NH. Our support has been doubling every 8-10 weeks, so there’s no reason to think we can’t get into the low double digits by then. Factor in a couple more points for a well-organized, dedicated GOTV effort and we’re looking at a third-place finish.

    That would beget a good deal of national press and help us “catch up” in the states where we’re not spending much. It’d probably spur on a new fundraising drive as well.

    Then it’s just a matter of how much momentum we carry into Super Tuesday.

    Will it happen? I don’t know. You could be right; maybe America likes statism. You’re wrong, however, when you suggest Paul needs lightning to strike asap. He’s right where he needs to be.

  • TerryP

    Actually I think that lightning will strike twice for Dr. Paul on December 16th. This is reasonably close to the beginning of the election cycle and many people will be at least starting to pay attention at that time.

    I also believe that in New Hampshire, since it is an open primary to independents that Paul is likely polling higher than what the polls suggest. If lightning does strike twice and Huckabee cuts into some of the other candidates numbers it is a distinct possibily that he could finish second and maybe even push Romney for the win. This could very well give him the momentum to make huge gains in other states as well

  • Darel99

    ALERT ALERT i just reveiwed my news alerts today and noticed a zogby poll which paul wins hands down.

    I didn’t find this story anywhere else go take a look at this:

  • Vote for Hillary Online

    Ron Paul is a nice guy and all, but if you want a real candidate with real values, then you want Hillary Clinton. We need some change in America and we need it now.

    I like to think of America as a suffering patient, where Hillary is an experienced doctor. What we need here is some good medicine.

  • TerryP

    Um, the only experienced doctor in the field is Ron Paul, so if you really want some good medicine you ought to be voting for Paul instead of Hillary.