amen. I'm totally voting for Ron Paul, he's the only politician that makes sense!

I agree with you Jace. Dr. Paul reminds them that there are people in this country who are not looking for a government handout. People who believe in economic liberty. People who believe they know better how to spend their hard-earned money than the government does.

The Republicans can't acknowledge these people because all they've done is alienate them for the past 7 years.

The Republicans consistently spoke the language of liberty, limited government, and the free market only since Goldwater's run in 1964. Republicans have used the conservative/libertarian movement to achieve power. But, like Democrats, once they get into power, they want to use government to accomplish their "goals," which have nothing to do with small government, free markets, or liberty. Paul scares them as Goldwater and Reagan in the early 1970s did -- he firmly believes in cutting government, not using it for Republican ends. Republicans need true libertarians and conservatives to vote for them in order to do well against the Dems. Once this constituency sees through the Republican charade, the Republicans are done.

What scares Republicans even more is that the Religious Right -- especially the evangelicals like Dobson -- are talking about a third party and are refusing to endorse Rudy.

Dr. Dobson just scares me. If you ask me, he's the embodiment of evil.

once they get into power, they want to use government to accomplish their "goals," which have nothing to do with small government, free markets, or liberty.

Amen! By whatever name we call the individuals who use the right words, and then betray the voters, they are similarly evident at city, county and state levels as well.

There are many good points with Ron Paul, but, again, he doesn't make it easy for himself to garner full-spectrum support because of his views on certain issues.

For starters, he is for the free market and against gun control — conventional right-wing positions — but he is also in favor of drug legalization and nonintervention in foreign affairs — more commonly left-wing positions. It's like Andrew Sullivan recently stated, "He's a pro-life libertarian who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He's for legalizing marijuana. And he got 60 percent of the vote in Texas."

Clearly Paul has tapped into something, but how do you get a pro-lifer to vote for an individual who believes in legalizing marijuana?

"but how do you get a pro-lifer to vote for an individual who believes in legalizing marijuana?"

The question should be ...
How can someone who is pro-life keep supporting policies that get innocent people killed/imprisoned. This country has much bigger problems than someone smoking a joint. Once we can realize this maybe we'll get on the right track.

There are many good points with Ron Paul, but, again, he doesn't make it easy for himself to garner full-spectrum support because of his views on certain issues.

I agree. Moreover, whether he likes it not, by not condemning these 9/11 "Truth" guys and the Alex Jones types, he is suffering from a severe case of guilt by association.

Non-interventionalism in foreign affairs is the original conservative position. Interventionalism was the policy of former liberals like William Kristol turned Republican and now known as "neo-con". Neo-cons are typically more hawkish on matters pertaining to the use of force and military presence in foreign affairs. This policy, however, is not the "traditional" conservative policy...although one could argue that it has become the defacto conservative policy.

He's an idiot and he looked like one during the debate when he apparently forgot about 9/11 being an attack on the U.S.
He doesn't scare me because I don't believe he ever had a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated.

Unfortunately for you, Tyler, your horse in this race (whoever it is) has absolutely no chance of winning either unless you and your type stop alienating Ron Paul and his supporters and start embracing them.

I (we) don't have to alienate him, he's doing just fine on his own.

MATTHEWS: The same question down the line, gentlemen. It's so important.

Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?

PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.

Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen in 220 years.

PAUL: The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way. This is just...

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: This is -- this is just war propaganda, continued war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only in Iraq, but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It's a road to our financial disaster if we don't read the Constitution once in a while.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/NEWS02/71009073/1118/RSS

Tyler,

Since you did not watch the debate, why not read the transcript. Ron Paul's words were clear. Apparently you seem to think that reading the Constitution makes somebody an idiot. Well, then I guess I am an idiot.

If this is all you got out of that debate (which I watched twice) then yes, You are!
I noticed you left out the part where Barney, I mean Ron made the statement I cited. Why stop short?
He also apparently doesn't know the difference in strategic military strikes and a declaration of war.

Nevermind, I see it:

Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen in 220 years.

Yeah, You're right--He's Brilliant!

I think the fact that he would pull all of the troops out of Iraq A.S.A.P. would be a disaster.
Maybe he could just wrap himself up in the Constitution and hope that it will ward off any future terrorist attacks against us.

For what it's worth, Dr. Paul was talking about specific countries. al-Qaeda is not a country.

Also, for what it is worth, I specifically do not agree with Paul on Iraq, and will probably not vote for him for that reason alone. However, he is right. By the Constitution, Congress declares wars. Every other answer to the question was crap.

The war powers given to the President violate the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives only Congress the authority to declare war. You are exactly right, Joe.

"The war powers given to the President violate the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives only Congress the authority to declare war."

This has been an issue even as far back as our third president. Jefferson was able to get around this during the attacks against Tripoli by not informing Congress of his authorization of a mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.

Clearly, the side-stepping of Congress by a President has been a tradition in our country almost as long as the Constitution has existed. Presidents, whether Jefferson or Bush, will always find a way to deal with an opposing threat.

I believe too, that the incident with the Barbary pirates gave us a glimpse of the fact that the US will always be involved in global affairs.

I hate to admit it but no one really dazzled me during this debate. I guess I expected Thompson to come out with a reagan-esque halo around him and have all the answers to everything. I don't think he hurt or helped himself, just stayed afloat.