Former Ambassador Alan Keyes, who announced his current bid for the Republican nomination three months ago, is tied with Ron Paul in distant sixth place.

Yes, but if National Polls actually meant anything, Al Gore and John Kerry would have won elections.

The only thing that matters are the local polls and the momentum that candidates create by winning them.

For instance, the latest Iowa Poll has Ron Paul tied with John McCain for 5th, within the margin of error for 3rd and 4th:

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/pdfs/071214_iowa_caucus_poll.pdf

The latest New Hampshire Poll has Ron Paul 5th, 6 points ahead of Fred Thompson and within the margin of error for 4th:

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/pdfs/FOX_NH-2_DEC_RELEASE_WEB.pdf

The only local poll of the three major primaries (NH, Iowa, SC) that Paul is "distant" in is the most recent South Carolina Poll, where he is 6th place alone, and outside the margin of error:

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/south-carolina.html

Publius V.,
The goal of Ron Paul and his supporters is not to DO any good by actually winning a national election; the goal for them is to FEEL good about themselves.

I'll admit Robbie, it does help me sleep better at night knowing that I'm not part of the problem.

Voting for any of the big-government candidates (in both parties) is tantamount to voting for four more years of big spending, more national debt, more entitlement programs, a bigger federal government, and higher taxes.

I'm curious as to what "good" you think you're doing by voting for someone other than Paul...

It is a conspiracy. Two people on Jasonpye.com who are not supporters of Ron Paul.

FREEDOM!!!

Hickabee just picked up another key conservative endorsement:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071216/NEWS01/712160366

Robbie,
You may be right about Paul and his supporters... but have to give it to Jason, he is dead right on Huckabee.

You may be right about Paul and his supporters[...]

Care to elaborate?

Not really... it was Robbie who said, "The goal of Ron Paul and his supporters is not to DO any good by actually winning a national election; the goal for them is to FEEL good about themselves."

He MAY be right. I just think Jason has IT right on the Huck man.

Nice write-up Jace.

Although I do not support Paul, I do believe he is correct in his assessment of the 'Religious Right'.

"But regardless of what meritless attacks they launch, the great irony is that this is the same Ron Paul who believes in religious freedom and even defended the establishment candidate, Mitt Romney, against attacks on Mormonism from Mike Huckabee."

Paul was correct in doing this. My support for Romney weakened after his 'religion' speech because of his ill-worded declaration that 'Freedom requires religion' (can you say Sweden & Saudi Arabia?). He has since softened that statement in the newest Newsweek (w/ Huck on the cover) and recognizes the non-religious by stating that, "...our religious liberty includes the ability to believe or not to believe."

It was good to get his permission.

Just watch the clip of Ron Paul on Fox News that Jason links above. You may dislike Huckabee, but to bring up fascism when talking about the latest Huckabee will certainly turn most voters off. I could be wrong, but I just don't think most Americans, particularly those that take the time to vote, see things as pessimistically as Ron Paul does. Americans generally like their lives, so why would they vote for someone who is telling them (despite the evidence) that we're going to hell in a handbasket?

Winning elections and political maneuvering are how you get things accomplished. If you're going to be President, you can't just blame everybody else when you fail (i.e. Ron Paul & his supporters blaming the Religious Right for the fact that he won't win the Republican nomination). Even if you hate George W. Bush, you must admit that he is a brilliant politician. He can get Congress to do what he wants them to do, even when what he wants is unpopular with the American people and the Congress itself (i.e. tax cuts in 2001 and the troop surge in 2006). Bush actually helped improve things (in the economy and in Iraq) after it seemed he had been weakened politically. When Bush was weak, he didn't blame the "mindless drones" who voted for Democrats. He went to work to try and get what he could accomplished. Love him or hate him, Bush is a winner. Ron Paul is a loser who wants to blame his lack of success on all other Republicans.

It was good to get his permission.

LOL. You should send him a "Thank You" card. Just kidding.

Robbie, I think you have a very narrow view of success. Hitler was a brilliant politician and got things accomplished too, but I wouldn’t call him a winner.

I don’t agree with everything Paul says, but he is the only small-government candidate running. Every other candidate is going to continue throwing away money with both hands…which means we’re going to have either higher taxes (pay me now) or more debt (pay me later).

According to dictionary.com, success is "the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors." George W. Bush favorably terminates a lot of his endeavors, like tax cuts after the 2000 election--which may have helped the economy; they certainly haven't hurt the economy (see the link to George Freidman's blog I posted above)--and the troop surge in Iraq after the 2006 mid-term elections, which has improved things in Iraq. Hitler was successful at getting people to follow him. But he doomed Germany by provoking the Allies against him, so ultimately he was unsuccessful, a loser.

"Every other candidate is going to continue throwing away money with both hands…which means we’re going to have either higher taxes (pay me now) or more debt (pay me later)."

I think you present a false dilemma. It's not exactly "pay me now" or "pay me later." To see why, click here.

And the jury is still out on Bush. He's mortgaged the future of this country by increasing debt and to my knowledge, has no plan to pay it off. Thousands have died in Iraq and to my knowledge, he has no plan to bring that situation to a close. Both of those things are going to be passed onto the next administration for resolution, because Bush & Co. weren't up to the tasks.

Bush's tax cuts were/are the plan to "pay off" the debt. The tax cuts are an investment in citizens, who will grow the economy, thereby creating the wealth that will continually give the government the money it needs to operate. Sure, the government--including the Republicans in government--spends too much on stupid things. But to say that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats is just not true. As long as the economy grows, we do not--and will never ever--have to worry about the national debt.
As for Iraq, it seems that Bush is doing what he can to defuse the situation before he leaves office.
See here and here and here and here.