The GOP front runners had better pay attention:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/11/06/the-ron-paul-juggernaut/

terry, Paul's political philosophy beyond Iraq is by far the worst of any presidential candidate of my lifetime. Even on Iraq, I don't suspect that his position is based on principles I agree with.

Ron Paul raised money becuase Rondog Reagan was correct about one thing . . . Squelch public education and the semi-literate will vote with the vain hope inspired by unenlightened self interest.

Ron Paul's brand of polictical insight would wipe out trashman from our streets . . . Hell it would wipe out the streets.

Ron Paul's brand of polictical insight would wipe out higher eduction by eliminating grants and school systems.

Ron Paul's brand of polictical insight would wipe out healthcare.

Ron Paul wants us outta Iran and Iraq for the same reason Hoover let the world's ecomony crash . . . protectionalism. Ask your mother's mother about how that worked out for her . . .Their is no compassion there.

Paul and other Libertarians feel that there is no We the People. For them, there is only a mass of ones. Precisely the opposite of the American way.

Tancredo is the only person more deserving of the Republican nomination.

Their

I have got to stop posting from my Treo.

I have got to stop posting from my Treo.

Funny how the right's "looney", Ron Paul can raise $4mil in one day and the left's "looney", Dennis Kucinich can't buy publicity (assuming he had money to begin with).

As others have noted, this is pure reflection of the will of many voters. They don't think they feel. And, again as others have pointed out, this is wonderful example of someone taking a popular stand whereas most others are too weak willing to do so (anti-Iraq war).

And I don't think Kucinich is a looney, it's just shorthand for someone with no chance at all. Sad but true.

I'm guessing that represents about $5 for every Ayn Rand book in high school libraries throughout the country.

Books ARE dangerous.

The difference between whether you support or ridicule Ron Paul depends on how big a problem you think the military industrial complex is.

Hillary Clinton says all the right things about social programs. But she also says we'll probably be in Iraq until 2013 at least. That means she's committing to another 500 BILLION to 1 TRILLION in war funding -- about 50 PERCENT of which goes right into the pockets of companies like Halliburton. The fact that that doesn't seem to bother her supporters, who have given her 10 times more than Ron Paul has, is a bit perplexing.

Where will Hillary get the money to pay for all these social programs on top of the war? More debt? Raising taxes? Wrong. The answer is that she won't pay for them. She'll be another baby boomer president content to hand gigantic, crushing debt off to my generation to deal with. She will be part of the problem.

Yes, Ron Paul has many drastic positions. But what this country desperately needs is a leader who cares about fiscal discipline over polls. We've been able to get away without fiscal discipline for two decades, but if you understand macro-economics at all, you know that the party is over. None of the other candidates are talking about this in the slightest.

Secondly, we need a leader who is comitted to civil liberties, because we've swung way too far in the other direction.

The third plus about Ron Paul is that he so obviously stands outside the Washington machine. Spend ten minutes listening to the guy and you'll realize he doesn't give a flying bunch of beans what the DNC or RNC thinks of him.

Finally -- on THE single biggest congressional vote of the last decade for our country, the Iraq War resolution, Hillary votes yes, John Edwards voted yes, Joe Biden voted yes, every other Republican is STILL voting yes -- and Ron Paul voted no.

Who's the loony?

By the way, I'm a regular reader of this site, and I'm an anti-gun, pro-choice democrat who's never voted Republican in my life.

Before you go along with the Ron Paul bashing, just stop and think about it a little bit.

Whether he never polls above 10 percent, or gets the Republican nomination, he can force the other candidates to at least shade farther left on the war. How can that be a bad thing??!?!?

I believe the reason they chose Guy Fawkes Day was that movie "V for Vendetta" with Natalie Portman where the masked "hero" made his move on the totalitarian government on Guy Fawkes Day. I doubt it had anything to do with being Catholic. It would be a very attractive way to communicate with many who support Ron Paul because of his quirky Republican/Liberterian agenda.

Here's a brief summary from IMDB:

"Adapted from David Lloyd's graphic novel of the same name, "V for Vendetta" tells the story of Evey Hammond and her unlikely but instrumental part in bringing down the fascist government that has taken control of a futuristic Great Britain. Saved from a life-and-death situation by a man in a Guy Fawkes mask who calls himself V, she learns a general summary of V's past and, after a time, decides to help him bring down those who committed the atrocities that led to Britain being in the shape that it is in."

Look, I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul. But if I were ever to vote for a Republican presidential candidate, it would probably be someone like him: a true libertarian. Not just a "no tax" kind of libertarian, but the "mind your own business" kind. Quite frankly, there is a lot of common ground between progressives and true libertarians, and I think this is the appeal of Paul. Sure, long-term rule under this kind of philosophy may have the negative societal effects that Adlof mentions. But taken in doses, true libertarianism can create a strong corrective measure against the kind of governmental excesses we've seen in the last thirty years, and in particular, the last eight. Besides, a president (especially a libertarian one) is not a dictator, and with his "hands off" values Paul could be more of a guiding force for Congress, calling for more restraint, less spending, and less interference in citizens' lives.

Like I say, I'm not voting for him. But I'm also not knocking him. His is the most coherent, and most respectable, ideological stance of all the Republican candidates (maybe, just maybe, of all the candidates).