NPR: Ron Paul Could Do Well in New Hampshire

Ron Paul Could Do Well in New Hampshire

It's all about the independents in New Hampshire. How well a candidate does in the Granite State's primary can often depend on how many of those independents he or she attracts. And Felice Belman, executive editor of the liberal Concord Monitor, and Joe McQuaid, publisher of the conservative New Hampshire Union Leader, say the candidate who might get a lot of support from independents this year is Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul.

"He doesn't show up much in the polls, but yes I do think he could do very well here," McQuaid told Melissa Block on All Things Considered. "I don't think he'll do well past here, but I think he'll surprise people."

Belman agreed

"His issues are so disparate that he'll pull from a lot of different groups ...fiscal conservatives ... anti-abortion people ... anti-war people. That's not a typical kind of primary voter. He'll take away from everybody."

While both journalists think that the voters of New Hampshire are watching Iowa closely, neither thinks that the state's voters are waiting to see the results before making up their minds about who to support.

"If there is a surprise in Iowa, that'll make people perhaps reconsider who that surprising person is," says Belman. "But I don't think they are waiting to see what is happening in Iowa."

9:15 AM ET | 12-28-2007 | permalink

Comments (Send a comment)

Dr. Paul's message is the most "radical" and thought provoking of any candidate.
His message has substance and people want to go back to following the Constitution.

I can not tell much difference between any Republican or Democrat candidate. None talk about balancing the budget.

It is just so refreshing to see an honest outspoken candidate speaking truth to power.

Sent by truthseeker | 10:09 AM ET | 12-28-2007

At this point in the pie-throwing slapstick comedy called the 08 election, I'm all for a third party making a run. The Libertarians can't do that much damage to the Democrats who months ago began practicing taking a dive.

I'd like to see a Ron Paul/billionaire Ross Perot ticket to make the vaudeville more complete. If we can get through this election without anyone getting pregnant, this election still promises to be the maquette for a future political sit-com on HBO.

Ironically there are two rather famous George Wallaces. One is George Wallace the former Governor of Alabama. The other is George Wallace the black comedian who said that African-Americans should not have to pay social security because their average lifespan was only 65 in America, and is toying with the idea of running for mayor of Las Vegas.

Back to the Alabama George Wallace, the white guy who ran the most successful presidential third party campaign in post-world war America. Wallace's 1968 American Independent Party carried five states (Nixon carried the election).

Wallace's wife, Lurleen Wallace, died during the presidential election. She died in office as Governor of Alabama, because George Wallace could not constitutionally run for governor again.

George Wallace was the last independent to win any electoral votes. If you could imagine an independent carrying five states in this day.....but, I doubt there is anyone with that kind of Libertarian clout.

But a Ron Paul/Ross Perot ticket would be the kind of fodder the comedian George Wallace would get a thrill playing with on stage.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:52 AM ET | 12-28-2007

I challange any body to find any discrepancy between what Dr. paul says & what he did. There is none
However the rest of the candidates spent their life flip flopping to get the nomination.

Sent by rafid kakel | 3:13 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Sent by rafid kakel: I challange any body to find any discrepancy between what Dr. paul says & what he did.

For one flipflop Ron Paul did, he changed parties to Libertarian, then back to GOP when the Libertarian thing didn't work for him.

Ron Paul also got the flipflop reputation and the nickname of 'Dr. No' because the bills he introduced, he'd vote against. Like he thought it was a joke.

Any other challenges you want to make, I'll be glad to take them on.

Oh, yeah. When he gets knocked out of the GOP race he will go back to the Libertarian party. Another flipflop.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 4:32 PM ET | 12-28-2007

The latest news of the weird concerning the Ron Paultard spammers....the job is outsourced.

Yes, it's not even American high school kids who are getting paid by the GOP to swamp the internet with 'Ron Paul is my Sweet Lord' spam. Kids in India have been taking away the Paultard jobs. Ron Paul is their 'Sweet Krishna Lord.'

Seems the GOP can hire a dozen outsourced kids for the price of one American kid.

So, American Paultards....it's back to flippin' burgers at McDonalds for ya until school starts once again.

This is getting to be an election that Salvador Dali would loved to have painted, and Andy Warhol would have made a heck of a movie out of this piece of Americana.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 8:23 PM ET | 12-28-2007

fred camorra call - Dr. No comes from his refusal to vote for anything not authorized by the constitution. But by your logic I'm sure he is called Dr. No because he eats babies.

Sent by b oco | 9:58 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Fox News, terrified at the growing support of Congressman Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign, has excluded him from their Jan. 6th Roundtable discussion which includes Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson

Sent by amy lynn | 9:59 PM ET | 12-28-2007

"For one flipflop Ron Paul did, he changed parties to Libertarian, then back to GOP when the Libertarian thing didn't work for him."

This is hardly a flip-flop. A principled politician has no allegiance to parties. Our supposed "democracy" requires that you be a member of one of two parties in order to have any chance at all.

"Ron Paul also got the flipflop reputation and the nickname of 'Dr. No' because the bills he introduced, he'd vote against."

He earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he voted against bills he found to be unconstitutional. Most bills go beyond what the federal government has jurisdiction over.

What specific bills did Ron Paul introduce and then vote against? I'm guessing that if there are any at all, they are bills which were later modified by other representatives to the point of being unconstitutional. I'd love to hear your specific examples, though.

Sent by Scott | 10:00 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Fred, no insult meant, but with what you just said about how Paul got his nickname...it's pretty much proof you have no clue who the hell Ron Paul is.

Sent by Randy | 10:06 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Fred Camorra,

Ron Paul has a reputation as a flip-flopper? You've just revealed how little you know about the man.

Visit here: www.ronpaullibrary.org

Sent by FZappa | 10:18 PM ET | 12-28-2007

I discovered Ron Paul several months after I discovered this web site:
www.letsroll911.org
Scroll down to the picture of the jet going into the WTC with the orange spot on the wall next to the jet. What is that going into the wall with the jet?

Sent by Terry Cox | 10:18 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Ron Paul has my vote! He's just what our country needs to get back on track. I think he has a real chance to get the GOP nomination.

Sent by Bret Rinehart | 10:20 PM ET | 12-28-2007

I think Ron Paul will surprise a lot of people in Iowa also. Particularly if the weather is nasty...RP supporters will be the most likely to do what's necessary to attend the event.

Sent by Gene in Raleigh | 10:25 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Fred Camorra: I apologize for any offense you take, but you show your ignorance and half understanding of the subject upon which your opinions are so strongly stated.
Dr. Paul has introduced bills that he later voted against and that others voted against. It isn???t a joke though and doing this isn't in itself contradictory.
Two examples:
1. Dr. Paul introduced a bill in committee to declare war on Iraq. He voted against this along with everyone else. However, it was completely consistent. He advises we adhere to the constitution. The constitution is very clear that only congress may declare war. If we were going he wanted to give those who wanted to go the chance to do it constitutionally. He followed the constitution in submitting the bill to declare war, he followed his principles of non-intervention in subsequently not supporting his own bil.
2. Paul introduced earmarks into a spending bill and then voted against the spending bill. Some claim this is inconsistent and assert that he does this so he can bring home the bacon AND say he voted against it. The truth is that those who say earmarks are pork and that his behavior is flip flop are Wrong and lack the understanding to comment, IMO. Pork is a spending item that is added as an amendment and contains entirely New spending. Earmarks apportion monies that have already been determined to be spent; earmarks state HOW the money is to be spent. Because first comes the appropriation. It is decided how much will be spent in each department. Then the reps "earmark" the money to be spent on specific projects. If the money is not earmarked the departments determine where to spend the money.
The govt. taxes us in the states and then doles out the money. His constituents deserve some of that money back and request it; so he earmarks money that has been determined previously to be in the department for the purposes his constituent???s request. Later, he is against the entire spending bill so he votes against it. This is consistent and entirely in line with his stated principles
I strongly support the message Dr. Paul is delivering. However, I have no problems with those who understand the message but disagree with it.
What annoys me are ignorant people who believe as fervently as any 13 year old that they know everything there is to know and make idiotic comments against the message of Liberty based on a misunderstanding of what that message is.
Example of idiocy:
Racists gave money to Ron Paul, therefore Ron Paul is a Racist. ??? I???m betting these are the people that have a hard time with the part of the IQ test that asks the true false questions like if all garkles are farkles , then all farkels are therefore garkles. The answer is False, btw.
Ron Paul voted against a gold medal for Rosa Parks! Ron Paul is a rascist. ??? while the previous example was just a flaw in logic, this argument is truly ignorant. What those who follow this line need to learn is that while he voted against the medal for Rosa Parks, (he also voted against a medal for Nancy Reagan among others) he did so because he believes it is IMMORRAL and unconstitutional for the congress to spend the citizenries tax money for it. He offered to donate $100 of his own money and asked everyone else to do the same to purchase a medal. He voted against using tax money for it. What is more principled? Wanting to make the gesture personal and out of the pocket of our representatives? Or making the grand gesture of spending someone else???s hard earned money on it?
There are innumerable other examples but since this comment will most likely be lost in the roar of supporters of Liberty, I will just end it here.
Rafid Kakel's challenge is still open and has not been met as of yet.

Liberty 08

Sent by j. delk | 10:25 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Fred:
Paul ran as a libertarian in 1988. The other 30 total years he has been involved in politics have been as a Republican. Barry Goldwater, Jr. (when you look up Republican in the dictionary there is a picture of this guy there) has endorsed Ron Paul. I would hardly classify Paul as a flip-flopper on the party issue.

On the question of voting down bills, Paul has explained that quite clearly in recent news articles. Go do your homework and get back to us with a more substantive display of Paul's flip-flopping. Perhaps we'll all take you more seriously at that point.

Sent by Aaron Walker | 10:27 PM ET | 12-28-2007

fred camorra,

First, changing parties when nominated by one does not indicate flip-flopping on any issue. Voting against unconstitutional bills also does not indicate flip-flopping. Ron Paul is the most ethical and consistent person in congress and has always been pro-life, pro-limited-government, and pro-2nd-ammendment. Do a little research before you run off at the mouth (or keyboard in this instance). Lastly, Ron Paul will not run on the libertarian ticket this time as he is going to the end with the GOP. It's either win or lose and he's been gaining ground in some key states. Polls don't mean jack. Ron Paul will surprise by placing third or better in Iowa and third or better in New Hampshire. Afterwards, it's on to campaign in the rest of the states for the WIN.

Sent by Robert Johnson | 10:30 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Now that's funny. The name Dr. No refers exactly to his ultra-consistent voting record. To imply that means he is a "flip-flopper" is the height of ignorance. But yet again, rediculous arguements like that are, I guess, the best they can come up with. Face it, if you want to attack Ron Paul, you will simply have to stick to the issues, and unfortunately for every other candidate, Ron Paul makes more sense than any of them.

Sent by CommonSense | 10:31 PM ET | 12-28-2007

I'm a Utah Republican (four terms on the Utah GOP State Central Committee) who worked for Ron Paul's campaign in 1988. Twenty years have gone by and his positions are virtually unchanged. Pro-life Republican-Libertarian. Pro-life Libertarian-Republican. Where's the flip?

Sent by Mike | 10:31 PM ET | 12-28-2007

@fred c c:
I wouldn't consider changing parties a flipflop; reread the challenge: says v. does.
There's no f/f as far the the bills. Dr Paul votes no against unconstitutional bills, period. He asks for district projects (=his duty to his constituents), but if unC10Nal votes No. He doesn't vote no against his own bills.

So please try again!

Sent by A Kantor | 10:32 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Ron Paul will come in third in Iowa and win N.H. Before Super Tuesday he will win Nevada and Wyoming and come in top 4 in Michigan and S.C. Florida will be tough, but he will have huge momentum going into Super Tuesady and if America decides it has had enough with the bought and paid for establishment that could care less about the citizens of this Republic - watch out for Ron paul.

Sent by J.C. | 10:32 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Fred camorra - I changed shirts yesterday - does that make me a flipflopper??? Where are his changes on policy, where are the substantive flip flops? Good luck finding them - good luck arguing nuance about this or that when gooliani persists with taking us further down the road W has taken us and we find ourselves in a fascist state.

Sent by Paul | 10:33 PM ET | 12-28-2007

I would be surprised if Congressman Paul didn't make 3rd place in the New Hampshire or Iowa caucuses. All the candidate needs is a little steam in the polls and his campaign would likely continue its forward momentum on its own through grassroots. If things really do shape up for him, he may need to consider organizing his campaign, but for all practical purposes, he may do just as well through independent grassroots.

Sent by Justin | 10:34 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Actually Fred, Ron Paul went from Republican to Libertarian for (1) year and back to Republican once he realized that the deck is stacked against third parties in America.

So if Ron Paul thought it was a joke to vote no against all those tax and spend measures, then the real people laughing were those that voted yes and were laughing at the American people for being so stupid to elect them. Sure I will make a challenge to you Fred - who is your candidate, obviously your too scared to mention - because we would tear him/her up.

Ron Paul will win New Hampshire - he has won more straw polls in that state than any other candidate

Sent by Joe Lawson | 10:35 PM ET | 12-28-2007

I expect Ron Paul will place no worse than third in the first two contests due to the fervor of his supporters. They will have a higher turnout than those of any other candidate.

Sent by Jim McClarin | 10:37 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Fred - You and the truth don't come together very often, do you?

It is not flip flopping to run as a third party candidate. Flip flopping is when you change your positions on issues such as abortion or driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Please post for us, since you are so wise, any bill sponsered by Dr. Paul where he voted against it. I'll save you some time by letting you know you will not find any.

He is known as Dr. No because he votes no for any bill that is not framed within the powers of Congress as stated by the Constitution.

Please, educate us. If you don't mind this time stick to facts and the truth.

Sent by Darren D. | 10:37 PM ET | 12-28-2007

1.Changing to from Libertarian to Republican is NOT a discrepancy between what he says and what he does. Under your reasoning, even Reagan is a flip-flopper.

2. The reason he votes against the bills is because after he introduces them, people try to amend them with funny legislation which defeat the original intent of his bill. So he HAS to vote against them once they've been mutilated, or else he wouldn't be supporting the Constitution.

3. Is that the best smear you've got?

4. Rafid: Don't challenge people to act like trolls.

5. GO RON PAUL!

Sent by K Leister | 10:46 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Dr Paul's Foreign Policy of Freedom is something that NPR should be shouting about. It is brilliant!
Read this article

http://www.chessmaniac.com/2007/12/ron-paul-plays-chess-with-neocons.php

Sent by Dennis Steele | 10:47 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Fred Camorra: Flip-Flop is not the same as change. At least not in the sense that it is used for politicians. He's not a Flip-Flopper because he votes no on bills because of principle. Heres a challenge: Find another REP. Candidate that Flip-Flops less. You can't!

Sent by Wayne | 10:50 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Ron Paul is the voice of the middle class American yearning for reform of our government. We need to go back to our roots whether you call that Republican or Libertarian it is common sense; at least Thomas Paine thought so

Sent by James Pflueger | 10:50 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Dr. Paul will go all the way to the White House

Sent by Talcott | 10:51 PM ET | 12-28-2007

One thing that differentiates Ron Paul from the rest of the "herd" is that he makes people think. I don't believe anyone who supports him agrees with 100% of what he says, but at least you know it's heart-felt and genuine. His pragmatic view of history and politics makes you turn off the political correctness mindset and actually think about the issues. He is telling the truth that the others will not tell and are afraid to tell. He is an inspiration. I hope he wins.

Sent by G Powell | 10:52 PM ET | 12-28-2007

How ignorant some people are! The founding fathers were Libertarians. You can be both a Libertarian and a Republican..As a matter of fact, a true Republican is meant to be a Libertarian. Therefore, RP did not flipflop "back to the GOP when the Libertarian thing dind't work for him" I suggest reading a little bit more. I also like that about RP: he inspires people to read more.

Sent by Mary | 10:55 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Get your facts straight. He voted against bills he placed "earmarks" in. He did not vote against bills he himself introduced.

Sent by Mike | 10:58 PM ET | 12-28-2007

I can personally tell you Ron Paul has a huge following here in California, Nevada, and Utah. I drive between California and Utah, via Nevada once a month and the only signs I am seeing are RON PAUL'S. I am so excited to be part of this message of Freedom and Liberty for our Country. Last week driving back from Utah to California I saw so many signs for Ron Paul I lost count, when I was heading towards Central California there was a Big pickup truck with a trailer that had one of the biggest Ron Paul's signs plastered from one end to the other, I then realized I was home. Ron Paul has brought out the Patriot in me that I thought I had lost back when I was active duty military. Ron Paul will bring our Country back together, and WE THE PEOPLE will prevail once again. God bless RON PAUL and all the true Americans left in this Country. Ron Paul has my vote and monetary support. Let the Revolution of our Country for Freedom begin, Iowa will be our first to show support.

Sent by Tess, California | 10:59 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Changing party affiliation is not flip flopping. The two party system is very biased against outsiders. Dr. Paul has not changed his position on the issues, which is what really matters (not the label under which he chooses to run). The NeoCons have hijacked the Republican Party, Ron Paul is trying to return it to its roots.

As far as voting against bills he sponsors or co-sponsors, I'm not sure that he's done that, but if he has, I would say that it is the only way he can represent his constituents in a broken system. He has a consistent voting record and is the only candidate who talks about the real issues facing this country.

Sent by Marcello Donato | 11:06 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Actually, he got the name 'Dr No' because he never votes for anything unconstitutional. Nice try, but you got your "facts" a little mixed up there.

He doesn't introduce bills then vote against them. He put in "earmarks" for money for his district but then votes against the entire bill if it's unbalanced. The earmarks do not add any money to the bill - they EARMARK money already appropriated. His reasoning for adding them is that the people he represents paid their taxes like everyone else, and IF the bill passes they should get some of their money back. There's nothing inconsistent about that.

As for your remark about the Libertarian party - do you know who else was a libertarian? Reagan. Most Republicans are probably libertarians and just don't know it. If they actually looked at what "libertarian" meant. It means you're for liberty and you follow the Constitution. Real radical, huh?

Sent by J Hall | 11:06 PM ET | 12-28-2007

fred

Personally I view my philosophy as holding a greater significance to me than whatever organization that I may be affiliated with at the moment. Given the choice between a candidate who held the same philosophical values but changed parties and a candidate who constantly changes his/her philosophy to pander to current trends but has remained mindlessly loyal to a political party, I would have to say I would choose the first.

Also the reason that Ron Paul introduced legislation that he would eventually vote against is that Congress was on numerous occasions preparing to take actions that would violate the Constitution. Dr. Paul was simply insisting that if an action was to be taken that it would be taken through the proper and Constitutionally correct channels. This is why he initiated legislation to declare war on Iraq even though he did not want a war with Iraq. Without a declaration of war the Iraq war is unconstitutional.

Most attacks that are commonly made against Dr. Paul are easily rebutted with a small amount of research. His stances on issues however do not fit neatly into three word sound bytes such as ???Cut and Run??? or any other Orwellian mantras.

Thanks,

Sent by Jim Cunningham | 11:09 PM ET | 12-28-2007

The dollar slid across the board on Friday as data showing a 9 percent decline in sales of new U.S. homes last month heightened concern about the economy, putting the greenback on track for its worst week in more than a year.
The housing report, which was weaker than economists had expected, also bolstered the case for more Federal Reserve interest rate cuts in 2008. Earlier this week, the S&P/Case-Shiller index showed a record decline in U.S. home prices in October.

This is what's happening to YOUR house. All the 'money' and 'equity' you though you had saved - eliminated! The equtiy through falling house prices - and the money because we are DEBASING OUR CURRENCY. That low fed rate you're reading about gets created by printing money and lending it to people. With more money, the money YOU have is worth LESS. So your money is worth less and your property is worth less - where can you turn to keep ahead of inflation? I think you BETTER turn to Dr. Paul. He's the ONLY one running that has a HOPE of being able to deal with this.

P.S. The party flip flopped on HIM.

Sent by Louis Nardozi | 11:12 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Actually, Fred, those bills that Dr. Paul voted against weren't proposed by him. Dr. Paul added earmarks to bills being proposed by other representatives. I think many people misunderstood that.
But also, keep in mind that Ron Paul acts in Congress with the Constitution in mind, and he swore to uphold the Constitution while representing his constituency. Adding an earmark to a spending bill is common practice amongst congressman to have special spending appropriated to their congressional districts. However, the reason he votes against the bills he adds earmarks to is that there are certain things about the bill which are unconstitutional. He knows they'll get passed anyway, but he did his job, and fulfilled his responsiblity.
You can't blame him for taking advantage of a screwed up system if he is neither being hypocritical or violating the constitution.

Sent by Prem | 11:13 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Changing parties, while maintaining all of the same positions, is not a flip flop. His moniker came from his lonely no votes for legislation that he considered unconstitutional. I think also that characterizing the good Dr. acting on any legislation "like he thought it was a joke" is completely without merit. And he has indicated he has no intention of a third party run.

Sent by bobnray | 11:14 PM ET | 12-28-2007

I don't think any rational person would argue that Ron Paul flip-flopped by running as a Libertarian candidate when he was just doing what he could to get into the election. Flip flopping is changing what you believe in and Ron Paul has never wavered on believing in the constitution. Also, they gave him the nickname Dr. No because whenever Congress votes for a tax hike on anything, he always votes "No." Anything else?

Sent by Ben C. | 11:17 PM ET | 12-28-2007

How can he not show up much in the polls but could do well in New Hampshire.

Are you telling me the polls significanly wrong, even much greater than this margin of error?

So are all of the polls as wrong as NH's are?

Sent by Will Pitts | 11:17 PM ET | 12-28-2007

fred camorra call,

I would agree to say that RP switched from Lib to GOP b/c the Lib ticket didn't work for him. The system is very well setup to deter any prospect or candidate to consider any 3rd party ticket. However, to use that as evidence to substantiate that he is a flip-flopper is kind of wishy-washy if you ask me.

So, let's say all that's true. Then, you bring up the fact that RP introduces legislation (as if "...it was a joke.") then votes against it. Would you care to back that up with any concrete evidence? I will admint that he did do this exact thing in only ONE instance. In the beginning of October 2002, RP introduced legislation to attempt to force a debate on the House International Relations Committee to have Congrees declare war on Iraq (according to Art.I, Sec.8 of U.S. Constitution) He did so b/c the current rhetoric going around D.C. at the time was all about "regime-change" and "stabilization of the region" and "hiding W.M.D.s" which was a blatant attempt by the Exec. branch to push this country into aggression against Iraq. In order to avoid another Vietnam, RP attempted to do things Constitutionally by having Congress declare war with specific objectives and appropriate funding clearly stated in the legislation. By doing this, he forced the politicians on capitol hill to swallow all the shit they had been feeding America for nearly a year. Then, of course, he voted against the legislation he brought forth because he was listening to someone from the intelligence community by the name of Scott Ritter, a widely respected expert on the Iraqi region and harsh critic of Saddam Hussein. He said that Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States.

So, aside from RP voting against the Iraq War, even though he introduced it, can you bring up any other time he did this?

(and don't try to pull in the bullshit about earmarks, because that is not additional spending. that is appropriating federal money for the people, money that is already spent and RP has already explained how he is working the system and getting money for his consituents, which is exactly what a House Representative is supposed to do. Read Art.I, Sec.7, Para.1)

Sent by Zac Singleton | 11:18 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Changing from LP to RP is simply a change of venue, not a change in principle. What's important is that he believed and said then almost exactly what he believes now, with the exception of immigration, which he switched on in the 90's for some pretty good reasons.

He will not get the nomination because he'll never get majority support in the party, but he'll have some delegates won in those states with new allocation rules for 2008. What's intriquing is that even if he doesn't actively seek the LP ballot he may well be drafted by the LP at their convention in May, and possibly by the Constitution party, as well. That could put him on 40+ state ballots going into the Republican convention, in addition to his delegates and a nationwide following. In a possibly brokered convention, that's a pretty good position to be in, even if you can't win it all. There could be legal challenges, conflicts and protests if the party tries to expel him, silence him or deny him his delegates. It could end up a disaster for them, and I don't think the Republicans have even considered this problem yet, nor have they considered the implications, because for some reason they still think he'll go away somehow. He won't. Whoever the Republican nominee is, he'll have to deal with Dr. Paul and his people at some point in order to have any chance to win the general election.

Sent by Jim Buckley | 11:28 PM ET | 12-28-2007

We need a massive rally in New hampsire on the January 6th Fox News is excluding Ron from there forum. It's bull and we need to do something.

Sent by Brad | 11:32 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Really leaving the republican party is what you have. That is a pretty harmless charge on account of the GOP leaving Ron Paul and conservative principles rather than Ron Paul leaving the GOP.

Ron Paul doesn't think introducing bills to vote against them is a joke. Try for a second to understand that the allocation of federal dollars is seriously flawed as a representative of his district and as a federal lawmaker Ron Paul has two different sets of demands on him.

His constituents want some money back from the federal government so he makes the request. However once the vote rolls around Ron Paul knows that he needs to act in the best interest of the country so in his role as a federal law maker he votes against the same earmarks.

Really your two objections can be dispelled by current events 101 and Congress 101.

Sent by Luke | 11:35 PM ET | 12-28-2007

The relevance of Iowa to New Hampshire can be seen in these Google Trends graphs:

http://tinyurl.com/2z2rpj

Notice the match between increasing "news" coverage of Huckabee and increasing Google searches for Huckabee. However, even without increasing news coverage, Ron Paul's Google searches have been surging.

Now imagine what would happen if there was a surge of news coverage of Ron Paul comparable to the news surge Huckabee benefitted from!

Sent by James Bowery | 11:37 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Hey Fred,

1. The libertarian party isn't like the Reps or the Dems. You can be a member of either of them, and a libertarian at the same time. Ron Paul did just that in 1988. He has always been a Republican, and his congressional position has always been as a republican.

2. He did not vote against the bills he introduced. He voted against bills introduced by others in which he placed earmarks for his districts. Bills which he never supported in the first place because they didn't support his strict constitutional interpretation. It's called Irony. You should appreciate a man who mocks the system that way.

Sent by Jack | 11:39 PM ET | 12-28-2007

fred camorra call:

Respectfully I must disagree

1. While Ron Paul ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian he remained a registered Republican

2. As a representative of his district Dr. Paul has a responsibility to communicate his districts requests to Congress. This is best accomplished by requests tied into bills known as "earmarks". While Dr. Paul relays the requests of his districts, he has not voted for a bill full of such earmarks when the bills come to the floor for a vote.

If you examine his record you will find one of consistency based on principles. America needs Ron Paul.

Sincerely,
Logan Davis

Sent by Logan Davis | 11:42 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Nice one fred.

Knocked out of the GOP race. Youre silly.

Sent by Parke | 11:51 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Changing political parties is not flip-flopping; changing positions on *issues* is flip-flopping. His party affiliation is merely about who he's asking to embrace him at the moment. He didn't change his positions to run as a Libertarian, and he hasn't changed them now to run as a Republican.

On the bills, I'm guessing he ended up voting against them because they were altered or added onto in ways that made them unconstitutional, something that is outside his control once they are introduced. That's just a guess, but if you aren't giving specifics then I obviously can't either.

Look, it's crazy to think that Paul is a hypocrite. Why put himself through so much hassle and go against the grain in the name of principle just to throw it all away on a handful of items? His track record is strong enough that even if I don't understand an occasional action of his (and I haven't come across one yet), I can safely trust that he is not knowingly violating his stated principles. He doesn't have all the facts I have, I don't have all the facts he has, and neither of us would interpret them the same way if we did. I'm not going to agree with every decision the man makes just because our principles are aligned.

Ron actually has altered his position on a few issues, but only over many years and for fairly obvious reasons. He used to be against any restrictions on immigration, but at the time it was not, in his opinion, causing any problems. He believes that today it does cause problems. Changes in the world and the facts can cause changes in a person's opinions - in fact they ought to! And people can simply grow and change their minds over time. That is not what we condemn when we attack political flip-flopping.

Sent by Ethan | 11:53 PM ET | 12-28-2007

Fred: Get your facts straight. There is due diligence behind Ron Paul's motives on the pork spending bills. He has been very open about that. Seriously, that is all you can come up with? (And switching parties because you disagree with the other two parties? I don't think that is called flip-flopping, its called giving the American people some options!)

If you want to debate, please get the facts straight. The "cool" factor about Ron Paul supporters, is that they know their candidate well and can see through the BS smears.

Sent by Ryan | 11:53 PM ET | 12-28-2007

It's odd; I've noticed that about 1 person in 10 critical of Dr. Paul actually have a competitive platform, or even competitive views on the issues, much less a better choice for the highest office in the land. Are these the none voters who will obey the ponderous whims of status quo? Come back when you have an idea and not just a complaint.

Sent by Fulton Fortner | 12:01 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Uh Fred, running for one party or the other doesn't make you a flipflopper if you don't change your position on the issues. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL. I don't think you know what you're talking about when you bring up bills he introduced and then voted against. How about some facts?

Sent by Scott | 12:06 AM ET | 12-29-2007

It makes you wonder how they finally agreed to recognize Liberia. I mean, it's 1862, the Confederacy's at war with the US, and some bureaucrat's still sweating over the decision: "Well, Mr. Lincoln, our focus groups show there might be a negative reaction in some of the border districts:"

Sent by Brent Allen Collins | 12:09 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Ron Paul is the most genuine candidate in the race. Trying to characterize his runs as a Libertarian and as a Republican as some sort of inconsistency really misses the boat. He is a reluctant politician. It is our system that is broke. It is perfectly natural that an honest guy wouldn't fit neatly into a corrupt system. Vote Ron Paul. It is the only vote that counts. Everybody else (Democrat or Rebuplican) is more of the same big government, interventionist, nonsense.

Sent by Steve, San Francisco | 12:15 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Dr. Paul's message is refreshing due to the fact everyone knows he does what he says and says what he does. Not a politician.... but a statesman. Thanks.

Sent by Steve Johnson | 12:15 AM ET | 12-29-2007

[re: RP flip flops]

Fred, those are cheap shots and I suspect you know it. Philosophically, Ron is consistent as the day is long -- I'll take that any day over party allegiance. Furthermore, when Ron introduces a bill he intends to vote against, he does so to make a philosophical and legal point: for instance that it is the express duty of Congress to declare war. There is no flip flopping here. None. At. All.

Joking? Not hardly.

Looking forward to primary day. Go Ron!!

Sent by Evan | 12:18 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Since many Americans are busy eating potato chips and watching football, many of these same people are watching and waiting to see who the media says will win so they'll know who to vote for.

Sent by Tim | 12:18 AM ET | 12-29-2007

The Republican Party left Ron Paul, not the other way around. The only instance which I'm aware of Ron Paul voting against his own proposal is when he asked for a House committee vote on a declaration of war in an attempt to force the House into following the Constitution and not ceding its proper authority to the Executive Branch.

Sent by Mark Smith | 12:20 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Gee Fred, is that the best you can do? If you apply your criteria to any other candidate, you will have a very long list indeed.

Sent by David | 12:24 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Fred,

"Flip-flopping" as the term is being used in this election cycle is used for when someone is changing their political, economic, or social philosophies/ideas.

Ron Paul hasn't changed his beliefs to pander to any special interests. He is what he is, take or leave it.

We all know that he changed parties to run for President back in '88. That hardly constitutes flip-flopping. Did he change ideologically? No... case closed.

About the the legislation bit, Ron Paul earned the Dr. No moniker for voting against bills that in his mind were un-Constitutional. Can you provide specific examples about Ron Paul voting no against bills he introduced.

Btw. introduced bills are very often modified in committees (if they ever get out), way before they reach a House vote. This means that an introduced bill may become so bastardized that it hardly resembles the one eventually being voted on. Keep that in mind while researching Ron Paul's bill legislation.

Are you still up to the challenge?

Sent by Aaron Hudson | 12:25 AM ET | 12-29-2007

By introducing bills to restrict government power (hence his no vote against them) he's certainly not flip-flopping, you just need to look into it more.

As for his run in the Libertarian party, that's a non-issue as he's been a Republican Congressman for 10 terms... that's quite a solid position, don't you think?

As for Ron Paul's 1988 presidential bid, he did that because he disagreed with the path the Republican party was following.

He's since realised that a 3rd party run for president is not possible in your corrupt political system, so he's taking them head on this time, which is now possible unlike at any time in the past.

I would vote for Ron Paul if I were an American... but I'm an Aussie! (we have our own problems to deal with :P )

- Stephen

Sent by Stephen | 12:25 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Uniquely, Ron Paul does not cater to special interests. He wants to reduce the size of government and make America strong. Inextricably tied to America???s strength as a nation, is the value of our currency and the strength of our economy. Ron Paul is the only candidate that can speak to these issues with authority. These things I am saying can be verified by searching youtube for Ron Paul. Listen and form your own opinion. The main stream media has a large portion of the population completely brainwashed into believing they report the news. The fact is they attempt to shape the news. Please find out for yourself.

Sent by Keith | 12:27 AM ET | 12-29-2007

The party name changes, Ron Paul doesn't.

Sent by Trevor | 12:28 AM ET | 12-29-2007

You can't show in the polls if they don't list your name. And if you don't show a high enough percent the rats can then use it to discredit you.
How's this for disparity? Huck can't raise $100K in one day but supposedly is up high in the percents in Iowa, while Paul raises $20 MILLION in the quarter, 6 of it in ONE DAY, and is at 10%?

Disparity INDEED.
The polls are fixed...

Sent by NH | 12:32 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Oh yeah Fred - that's some real flip-floppin there - well you can keep your dictator-in-chief if you want - the rest of us will take a candidate who can read and understand the constitution.

Sent by Hunter S. | 12:34 AM ET | 12-29-2007

@Fred: You forgot about his stance on the death penalty.

As for changing parties, he's still a member of both =)

As for introducing bills and voting against them: he has introduced bills that are a constitutional way of doing another popular bill he opposes, kind of like saying, "If you want to do this, vote for this resolution, at least its constitutional," such as when he introduced a declaration of war against Iraq in 2002.

Any other challenges YOU want to make? I'll take them all on.

Sent by Jason | 12:34 AM ET | 12-29-2007

sorry ron paul and perot cannot be on a ticket together, they are both from texas.

Sent by yonemoto | 12:39 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Well I'm voting for the good doctor. He certainly is a human being that makes mistakes and I don't I agree with him totally. But I can not in good conscience vote for Bush/clinton neo-cons. American foreign policy of interventionism is a DISASTER.

Sent by John Soppes | 12:42 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Both parties have played out the playbook, they have lost we have lost. Our dollar is in the toliet, We are 8 years into the current round of death in the middle east. Thank GOP and Dems for this mess. WE ARE BROKE TOO. Time for a real shake up of the old game in DC, It is time for RON PAUL

Sent by Paul | 12:43 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Fred

It doesn't take a genius to make a distinction between changing a meaningless party affiliation and making an about face on a matter of principle or a substantive policy position. He didn't compromise any principles in switching parties. You act as if a person must be wedded to a party for life, and loyal to the party over striving for good and moral government.

As for your errant characterization of Dr. Paul introducing legislation he intends to vote against..... let's use an example.....

When the bloodlust was running hot to invade Iraq, he introduced a bill to declare war against Iraq - a bill that he intended to vote against. He introduced the bill in an attempt to illustrate the unlawful nature of his peers, like Pontius Pilate washing their hands of responsibility, abdicating the critical role with which the Constitution charges them. By handing over the authority to wage war with no declaration, they made a mockery of the Constitution. His objections to the war in Iraq didn't necessitate that he watch idly while the Constitution - the highest law in the land - is flippantly disregarded. He introduced the bill to give them the opportunity to do what he saw as the wrong policy - going to invading the sovereign nation of Iraq - in the proper and constitutional manner.

As for the little nugget "When he gets knocked out of the GOP race he will go back to the Libertarian party" - we'll see about that. He's in a great cash position (and can tap more at any sign he needs it), and a good showing in Iowa/New Hampshire could see him ascend nationally and in a hurry.

And if not, I don't care what party label he wears, so long as he continues to be the only voice for liberty in the race. Of course, you'd apparently have a mealy-mouth reprobate who wouldn't ever leave the club. Party loyalty may trump principle for you, but some of us have a different view of what qualifies a person to be our nation's leader.

Sent by Micah | 12:45 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Camorra Call do you understand what flip flopping is? Changing your party affiliation because you are being treated like the black plague and then having to return because of our corrupt two party system, has nothing to do with "flip flopping."

Sent by Brandon | 12:53 AM ET | 12-29-2007

fred camorra call said

(For one flipflop Ron Paul did, he changed parties to Libertarian, then back to GOP when the Libertarian thing didn't work for him.)

Actually he was republican then libratarian then back to republican ..Reagan was a democrat then a republican ...why would that be an issue.

(Ron Paul also got the flipflop reputation and the nickname of 'Dr. No' because the bills he introduced, he'd vote against. Like he thought it was a joke.)

Happens all the time in congress you sponsor a bill and then things are added or omitted by other people you might not agree with and so you reject it.

Sent by Jack Smirnoff | 12:54 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Changing principles is a flipflop; changing political parties is not. The Repubs try to be a big tent, all things for all people..... what is their purpose?

Sent by Bill | 12:56 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Actually, the first Libertarian Party presidential ticket, John Hospers and Toni Nathan, in 1972, received an electoral college vote when a Republican elector from Virginia, Roger McBride (if I remember correctly), voted for them instead of Nixon. They didn't "win" the vote, but they got it. Toni Nathan became the first woman to receive an electroal college vote. Dr. Hospers was the head of the philosophy department at USC at that time. He is still kicking at age 89 or so. McBride became the LP presidential candidate in 1976. It was hardly what is normally refered to as a "flipflop" for Ron Paul to run on the LP ticket in 1988. He was running on a platform that matched his political philosophy. Since when is one married to a particular political party? The philosophy of the LP is not terribly different from that of many members of the Republican Party during the first 50 years of the 20th century. People such as Robert Taft, Nock, Garrett, etc. Though Paul does match up closer to Jefferson and Madison, but he has a more modern and better economic theory with the Austrian School than our Founders had.

Sent by SteveF | 12:56 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Most of the candidates are flip-flopping when it comes to issues. Often people change after they are elected to the office, like the present president. The consistency of Dr Paul over 10 congressional terms is what attracted so many people.

Sent by Nilesh | 12:57 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Dr. Paul's foregin policy is the only one that makes sense.
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, believes that Dr. Paul's foreign policy is the only one that makes sense in this dangerous world. Those who disagree like faux news, Bill O Reallydumb or other "journalists" disagree, then perhaps they know more about geopolitics and terrorism than the former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit does.

Sent by Chris | 1:00 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Dr. Paul's foreign policy is correct.
From Parade magazine interview the reporter asks Bhutto, "What would you like to tell President Bush?" I ask this riddle of a woman.
She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf???s government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. ???I would say, ???Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.??? I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.???

Sent by Chris | 1:01 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Newsflash: Our current system IS a joke and Dr. Paul is courageously attemptimg to untagle the mess we have created. FlipFlop? Um, no. Since he is a Constitutionalist, that makes him a Libertarian, and that makes him a TRUE Republican - not the far left bastardization of the word the common sheep believe to be true. If you bother to understand the definitions of these terms you would see they are all of the same goal= small government, big freedom. And he learned the hard way that to carry the "libertarian" label means exclusion from the debates due to this undemocratic system we have created. Therefore, he is using the label "republican" which he has been all his life.
He voted against bills he introduced because the system is corrupt: If he supported the bills, he would be condoning the illegal taxation of income, but since the income has already been taxed - he has a duty to get the money back to his constituents. This very predicament illustrates how this corrupt system fails the citizens. This is why Dr.Paul is fighting to end this illegal income tax. We earn it, we spend it. This is what everybody wants and needs to better their lives. ONLY Ron Paul is going to make this happen.
He is the ONLY candidate even mentioning this and demanding a sound currency. It's time to admit that the CFR candidates/FED Bank routine is killing our once grand country.

Sent by HumanWithBrain | 1:03 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Ron Paul has always stood firm on his positions. And he has done decades of work doing the right thing in a corrupt system. He's raising the most money this quarter. And somehow you're also a communist Nazi neocon for not supporting Ron Paul, I don't know how but that is just how things work I guess.

Sent by RonPaul2008 | 1:06 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Sent by RonPaul2008 | 1:07 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Fred, now that you have listed Ron Paul's supposed flip flops, would you care to list the other candidate's flip flops?

Sent by bruno | 1:07 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Hi,
Levity is good. Levity in the face of threat and danger can be courageous. Politics have generally been maligned and the thought control that has led to this parrots the theme that all politicians are corrupt, liars and greedy. In some cases, perhaps many, it has been self fulfilling.

Unfortunately, most men and women actually believe that because some law is passed by a group of men and women in D.C. or some executive order (where did this come from and how does it apply to anyone other than government employees?) refers to you and you. Unfortunate and foolish - a bad law that is unjust and based on false data is a bad law and should be ignored.

Ron Paul is generally consistent. His position has always been about the constitution not about parties. This is the mark of a man who has held to his base values not the shifting sand of political and media shills.

Government is fiction and useful when it is fair and even handed at the basest level. This governing rubbish out of D.C. is bad fiction. It is time to change it to a better fiction so the men and women of this land can live conflict free and not be damaging strangers in distant places. Despite their beliefs, the keepers of the world are not owed anything further by the men and women of America.

When you listen to Ron Paul you do not hear a manipulator, you do not hear the same old same old. It may be the time for men and women to take care of their own lives and make this land a place where tyrants and thugs cannot survive even if they are in uniform or wear robes. Time to be an example and stop being tricked into foreign games that cost so dearly to all concerned.

Sent by JohnJ | 1:18 AM ET | 12-29-2007

fred camorra call,

1. ron paul's party designation as "libertarian" or "republican" has nothing to do with his policies or actions.

2. he does not vote against bills that he introduces.

here is the misconception:
In bills that are going to appropriate federal tax money to something, he may add an "earmark" to designate some of that money to go back to his district (those people are paying federal income taxes, after all). He votes against the bill on principle because he would rather those people keep their money in the first place, but if their money is going to be taken by the feds he would prefer for some of it to go back into his district. Its only fair.

This is the only logical thing for him to do. If he didn't do this, all of that federal tax money that is being taken from his district would go to other people and none of it would return.

Sent by wdb | 1:18 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Exactly what bill did Ron Paul introduce and vote no on? I know he wanted to put the declaration for war up before the house so it would be put to an actual vote, but that is not a bill.

Sent by Huey55 | 1:19 AM ET | 12-29-2007

In response to Fred Camorra

Ron Paul is trying to get the federal government to stop taxing people for local issues. So he votes against any federal bill that funds local or state projects. However, until he is able to stop the federal government from taxing people to fund local projects that should have been funded by state tax dollars, Ron Paul tries to get some of his constituent???s federal tax money back. He does that by including federal projects that help his own district.

Ron Paul does his job while fighting to change the system.

RonPaul2008 dot com

Sent by James | 1:23 AM ET | 12-29-2007

fred camorra call you didnt show any flip flops... looks like you lost the rafid kakel challenge... I suggest you look closer into why Ron Paul voted against his own bills... a smart person would... and that smart person would learn something...

Sent by Gerald Gibson | 1:24 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Ron Paul introducing earmarks and voting against them isn't flip flopping. Representatives have a responsibility to make their district's wants and needs known to the Congress. They also have a responsibility to vote their conscience.

Ron Paul is going to win the nomination, wait and see.

Sent by Cameron Davis | 1:26 AM ET | 12-29-2007

If young people know that they are getting ripped off with Social Security payments that they will never see when old, that alone should have them galloping to vote for Ron Paul

Sent by Sully | 1:31 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Mr. Kakel- you're making a spurious claim against Dr. Paul. Why not show us exactly which bills he introduced and voted against. Surely you aren't referring to bills he earmarked for his district and voted against. That's just sensible- if a bill is going to pass anyway- it might as well benefit the people of his district as anyone else.

There's no knock out coming. He's a top tier contender- has raised more money than any other republican candidate. He's consistently been a republican his entire ten terms in Congress. Just look at the number of Meet Up groups he has. Last count it was over 1400. Rudy Guiliani- the "republican frontrunner" has one. The closest candidate has less than 400. It's tough to be high in the polls when you're relegated to "other".

The completely controlled mainstream media is so worried- Fox news has not invited him to participate in a Jan. 6 debate. If he's so unelectable- why the heck not include him? Why the media black out and now occasional hatchet attempts? Because they know he can win and are very worried.

Sent by Take America Back! | 1:32 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Fred, you are soooooooo witty! And such brilliant political insight, too! Obviously Ron Paul is just another political whore. How DARE he change political parties? Just because he has never compromised his beliefs or stand on any substantive issue; what is that compared to partisan loyalty? Way to keep things real!

Sent by John Bowery | 1:33 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Children of Vietnam Veterans UNITE for FREEDOM and LIBERTY!
www.dovv.net
GO RON PAUL GO!

Sent by Laura | 1:33 AM ET | 12-29-2007

fred...

Ron Paul trying out the Libertarian party is not a flip-flop. Throughout his career he has stayed true to his ideals.

I have browsed through Ron Pauls proposed legislation and what he voted for. Can you mention what bills he introduced and then voted against?

On Meet the Press, there were some bills that he put earmarks in for his own district that he voted against. Is that what you're referring to?

Sent by Demian Neidetcher | 1:35 AM ET | 12-29-2007

A republican that's Anti-War? Who is this guy? And where have I been? Not to smash the republican party, but to see a candidate other that what I'm use to is quite unreal.

Sent by Tom | 1:35 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul?
According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.....
This is outrageous. Ron Paul's lawyers should file an APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why Fox News should not be enjoined from excluding Paul from the debates broadcasted by that station and its affiliates. His Presidential Campaign is a matter of national political and historical significance.

Sent by Joan | 1:40 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Please name a bill that Dr. Paul introduced that he voted against THAT REMAINED IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM. If Dr. Paul introduced bills which then became "poison pills" through additions or deletions, he was perfectly justified in voting against them.

Do produce some evidence rather than only allegations, Sir. Dr. Paul's platform has remained the same, regardless of party name.

If you do not support Dr. Paul's aims, which candidate do you support? I challenge you to answer. Your candidate will have endless lies and flip-flops compared with Dr. Paul, and you know it.

Sent by Casper Wysznski | 1:41 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Sent by fred camorra call: "one flipflop Ron Paul did, he changed parties to Libertarian, then back to GOP when the Libertarian thing didn't work for him. . . . Paul also got the flipflop reputation and the nickname of 'Dr. No' because the bills he introduced, he'd vote against. Like he thought it was a joke."

It's quite clear when he stepped down from the Republican party why he did, and it was for the same reasons he now criticizes them. And while running as Libertarian candidate, he identified himself as a "Libertarian Republican", just as he does now.

Regarding the bills he introduced, the only ones I am aware of were introduced simply to force people to go on record by supporting or rejecting, instead of merely fanning the flames of demagoguery in media soundbytes all the time; one notable example is the bill he introduced to ban flag burning.

No politician's record reads completely clean, but the more time goes on, the more I'm convinced Ron Paul has it right on just about everything.

He warned about our foreign policy for the last three decades and in 1999 prophetically forecasted 9/11 and the political aftermath. He has also warned for decades about the coming dollar crisis, which is a result of conflicting interests posed by the Fed.

In just the past month, he has been vindicated on issues from the threat posed by Iran to the mortgage / interest crisis, and now to our involvement in propping up yet another dictator in Pakistan.

Long story short: we need a president with FORESIGHT not HINDSIGHT, and Paul's the only one to back that up with a record.

Sent by Steve McCormack | 1:45 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Thank You NPR for the reporting on Ron Paul He is the real thing you know. He will make this country great again. GW screwed thing up. Hey Fred camoner thank you too for be u

Sent by G thanks you | 1:45 AM ET | 12-29-2007

wow Fred. Those are pretty serious charges.

He was elected ten times as a republican. He is more republican than any of those pretenders running on the ticket. Ron Paul has been saying the same thing for thirty yrs, whether it be as a republican or a libertarian for the one yr.

He has always been a libertarian by principle just as our founding fathers were libertarians by principle.

Ron Paul would bring up bills for vote to follow the constitution since no one else in congress has the balls to do. Like declaring war. You just don't understand the constitution now do you? Or principles for that matter since these two things seem to be lacking abundantly in your logic and feeble arguments.

Try harder.

Sent by kam | 1:46 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Apparently, Fred, you have no idea what a flip-flop is. A flip-flop is a change of personal view towards an issue. You are a very ignorant man, as evidenced by your comments.

First off, introducing a bill and voting against it are two very different things. For example, Paul disapproved of the Iraq War, but wanted Congress to be Constitutional and declare war. As a result, he wrote up the bill so that the Constitution would be followed, and then voted against his own bill to express his personal disgust with the uncalled for Iraq War.

Ron Paul became disenchanted with the Republican party in the 80s, and that is why he submitted his resignation. He attempted the 3rd-party ticket just to find out the hard way that the media doesn't give a shit about any candidate that isn't a Democrat or Republican. Perot was the exception because he had enough cash-on-hand to buy a presence, though he was slighted at every turn as well by the media.

The "Dr. No" reputation has never been tied into Paul being a flip-flop, until you just wrote it. He never thought it was a joke you half-wit, he was doing what was right the entire time and if Congress was following the Constitution as much as Dr. Paul, they would have voted No as well. He is attempting to lead by example.

You ought to work for FOX, they can use more idiots to attempt poor smears against Paul.

Sent by Dan | 1:47 AM ET | 12-29-2007

A flip flop is the act of one pandering to a group in order to gain power/influence/money. I think even you can concede that regardless of the L or R in front of Ron Paul's name, his positions don't change. So no, changing party isn't flip flopping. Nice try.

As for your veto claim, yes he did veto bills that he introduced but if you're too ignorant to perform your due diligence to see his motivation behind this action then it's pretty clear that neither facts nor reason is going to change your mind. A pity really but you're always welcome under the tent when you decide to pursue statesmen with both reason and integrity.

Sent by Mr. Tuttle | 1:52 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Ron Paul is going to do well in plenty of places, not just New Hampshire. He has thousands of volunteers here in California, and is one of the few candidates with enough money for a national campaign if it becomes a drawn-out fight for the nomination.

Sent by Doug D | 1:54 AM ET | 12-29-2007

>> ((( Circle the War Wagons >>> The Neo-Criminal Convicts are at it for Real!!! )))

The New Hampshire Republi-Cant Party is really trying to exclude Americas Hero and
Defender of the Constitution DR. Ron Paul from the New Hampshire Debates......

HERE IS THE OFFICIAL WORD FROM NATIONAL:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/94/has-fox-news-excluded-ron-paul

Press Releases -- Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul?

December 28, 2007 10:39 pm EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an
Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron
Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be
broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.

"Given Ron Paul?'s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising
success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded," said Ron Paul 2008
campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New
Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited."

Snyder continued, "Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make
inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this
event."

IMPORTANT CONTACTS:

http://www.nhgop.org/contact-us/

Fox News:
(212) 301-3000
1-888-369-4762
Email: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html
Email: yourcomments@foxnews.com
Email: comments@foxnews.com

# Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly Factor Host : Phone: 212-301-3320; Email:
bill.oreilly@foxnews.com
# Brian Knoblock, International Editor : Phone: 212-301-5486; Email:
brian.knoblock@foxnews.com
# Brit Hume, Managing Editor : Phone: 202-824-6470; Fax: 202-824-6426
# David Asman, Fox News Host : Phone: 212-301-3944; Email:
david.asman@foxnews.com
# Ian Rae, Exec. VP News : Phone: 212-301-8552; Email: ian.rae@foxnews.com
# Jane Skinner, News Anchor : Phone: 212-301-5023; Email:
jane.skinner@foxnews.com
# John Moody, Sen VP News : Phone: 212-301-8560; Email: john.moody@foxnews.com
# Justin Schmidt, Chicago Bureau Chief : Phone: 312-494-0428; Fax: 312-494-0445
# Kathy Ardleigh, Sen. Politics Producer : Phone: 212-301-3186; Email:
kathy.ardleigh@foxnews.com
# Ken LaCorte, Los Angeles Bureau Chief : Phone: 310-571-2000; Fax: 310-571-2009
# Kim Schiller Hume, Wash DC Bureau Chief : Phone: 202-824-6389; Fax:
202-824-6426
# Shepard Smith, Fox Report Host : Phone: 212-301-3711; Email:
shepard.smith@foxnews.com
# Thom Bird, Fox News Sen. Producer : Phone: 212-301-3250; Email:
thom.bird@foxnews.com
# Todd Ciganek, National News Editor : Phone: 212-301-3352; Email:
todd.ciganek@foxnews.com

Support Ron Paul, for LIBERTY, PEACE AND PROSPERITY!
What have YOU done for Ron Paul today?

Sent by tim | 2:04 AM ET | 12-29-2007

I'm 58, a retired hightech engineer from a well-known company in Massachusetts. Never voted till I did so against Bush in '04, again in '06. It mattered not who I was seemingly voting for, I was voting against. I'm re-registered now as a Republican. If Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, I will not vote, except as a write-in.

Unless he runs as an independent.

I'd advise people to stay away from electronic voting apparatus. Vote on paper. I know too well how easily electronics can be rigged, being from that industry, having seen the historically unprecedented discrepancies between the machines and the exit polls in '04. And watched how simply it could be done (quite easily on Diebold and others).

Sent by Scott A. Brown | 2:12 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Fred... First, Ron Paul does not have a reputation as a flip-flopper (quite the opposite actually), and he doesn't introduce bills as jokes. What you are referring to is Dr. Paul's attempts to force the Congress to follow the Constitution. The Iraq war is a good example. He tried to force the House to vote on a declaration of war (the Constitutional way of entering a war). He voted against it because he opposed the invasion. The other Congressmen voted against it because they don't give a damn about following the Constitution. They wanted to invade Iraq without a declaration of war.

Ron Paul is a man of principle. Referring to his principled stands as "jokes" and "flip-flops", you either don't understand his actions, or you're just another establishment robot trying to misinform people.

He earned the nickname "Dr. No" because of his propensity for voting "no" on every bill that tried to go outside the Constitutional authority of the Congress (lots and lots of bills).

BTW, Ronald Reagan said that libertarianism is "the very heart and soul of conservatism." - so running for president one year as a Libertarian is hardly a flip-flop - more like a badge of honor.

Sent by james S | 2:27 AM ET | 12-29-2007

>>fred camorra call

"because the bills he introduced, he'd vote against."

Example?

As far as I know, he votes against bills he earmarked, not those he introduced himself.

That's a pretty big difference, chief.

"When he gets knocked out of the GOP race he will go back to the Libertarian party."

Go back?

He was only in the Libertarian party for the '88 election. He's been elected as a Republican congressman for what... ten terms?

Sent by ustedesllenode??l | 2:27 AM ET | 12-29-2007

re: fred camorra call
Get your facts right. He was labeled "Dr. No." by lobbyists because he wouldn't sell his votes in exchange for campaign donations like so many others. He ran as Libertarian because it was the only way to get on the ballot. He has ALWAYS been a registered Republican, even though the party has abandoned the principles it should stand for. Commenters like you are the joke, do your homework, and get your facts right. We've seen you around the blogs. As it is you have nothing to add to the debate. Come back when you're more prepared.

Sent by David | 2:28 AM ET | 12-29-2007

It boggles the mind that Paul is the only candidate who is suggesting a sane post-Cold War foreign policy that sees us bring home tens of thousands of troops scattered across dozens of countries (to no purpose). Our treasury will be drained by stretching this republic into an empire. Yet for this common sense, its remarkable that Paul is considered "extremist". It confirms Orwell's point; that telling the truth in a time of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.

Sent by Chris Taylor | 2:44 AM ET | 12-29-2007

ignorance is a problem in our country. go dr. ron go.

Sent by johndoe | 2:45 AM ET | 12-29-2007

To Fred Camorra and anyone who may have formed an opinion on Ron Paul based on the mainstream media reporting:
Please aquaint yourself with Ron Paul @ ronpaul2008.com. Use the various pulldown tabs to discover his record and "radical" ideas about following our constitution! Ron Paul does not consider his "no" votes a joke. If you could please take a few hours to read about why he ran Libertarian in 1988 and later returned to the Republican Party you would begin to understand the substence of the man and his words, actions and plans wouldn't confuse you so. He will not be a sound-bite president. I was inclined to mirror the opinion you shared here, based on the MSM portrayal and the "Revolution" talk...until his comments during a debate regarding the suspension of Habeaus Corpus and shutting down the Fed spurred my curiousity. If you spend ANY time researching what he is talking about, then for example Google a speech or two from Washington or Jefferson or Franklin; or the memoirs of Woodrow Wilson or FDR; you will quickly discover why so many American citizens are so inspired to support this man. Please try harder... I know you can, and I pray that you will! Understand the origins of your cynacism... You were raised to think that way, and they are counting on the probability that you will react as anticipated... Challenge yourself to think and discover our nation's history. Our forefathers warned us what would happen if we lost our vigilence against enemies foreign AND domestic...

Sent by MLeclerc | 2:47 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Dear Fred Comarra,

Ron Paul's views are libertarian (small-l), which are represented by traditional Republicans (e.g. Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan partially, and even George W. Bush's rhetoric before he became a neo-con president), as well as by the Libertarian Party. So I don't see how switching between the two is flip-flopping in terms of Rafid's challenge (find any discrepancy between what Dr. Paul said and did).

As far as voting against bills that he introduced, can you name one? Or are you confused with his practice of adding an earmark to a bill, and then voting against the bill? He does this when he is against the spending bill overall, but, in case it does pass, he wants his constituents to get their fair share. Note that adding an earmark does not add one penny to the cost of the bill to taxpayers. Bush complains about the earmarks, but that doesn't keep him from vetoing the bills, which President Paul will do.

P.S. As I'm typing this I'm watching Anderson Cooper interview Hillary and Edwards who are talking about all the things the U.S. should do with respect to influencing Pakistani politics. Not a hint of staying out of it because it's none of our business, which is Ron Paul's position.

Serge

Sent by Serge Issakov | 2:48 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Dr. Paul is one of our era's finest statesmen. I have the greatest of respect for him and his Libertarian principled platform. Libertarian philosophy does not recognize 'parties'. It is objective in that only character, integrity and relentless loyalty to our Constitution matters, not how much money is raised(though it helps), or how popular he is in the media. He will get my vote. I was a supporter for Dennis Kucinich for many years. Though I still respect Kucinich, I must vote for Paul. What he talks about is absolutely the Rx for the dangerous mendacity that we and the world have been living with these many years. I believe we Paul supporters represent the pendulum swinging back to the original intention that created the idea of the United States in the first place - a country where the rights of the individual, his property, and his beliefs are protected from tyrants and monopolizers! If there is a revolution on the rise, it is out of 'hunger' for these original intentions! The spirit of the Founding Fathers are with us here!

Sent by Anisha Dunne | 2:49 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Ron Paul is America's only hope.

Sent by eric gregory alert bay b.c. | 2:57 AM ET | 12-29-2007

I think fred is reaching---- and grabbing at straws....

Try not to sound so scared--- its unbecoming of a well educated literary racontour such as yourself....

I can smell the fear of a RON PAUL Administration causing you to shit your pants right now.....

Dont worry..... RON will still help you regain your true freedom and liberty even though you were one of the misinformed....

SLAINTE

Sent by CHris | 3:07 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Fred,

Do you even understand why Paul introduced legislation which he voted against? Or would you prefer to remain ignorant to the purpose at hand, which was to demonstrate its call on the bluff many republicans and democrats alike have made - like the resolution to invade Iraq to institute democracy, whcih was soundly killed by the two party system. That was to show them, and us what it is they really meant.

He also fielded the marque and reprisal act of 2001, which would have targeted Bin Laden specifically, which the two party killed in favor of wholesale invation.

Paul has never voted against your Constitution or your liberty. What about that do you take issue with?

Sent by Dan Reale | 3:13 AM ET | 12-29-2007

What are you kidding me? Ron Paul is going to win flat out Iowa and New Hampshire. There is no other buzz for any candidate. Do you think are actions are fruitless? We are the largest Multi-level marketing group in the world, we work around the clock for Ron Paul, we are smart and committed and influence more people much more effectively than the so called Main Stream media. Do you see movies from the trailer or word of mouth or a combination of both? We the Paulestinians, provide real content with real research with eloquence and passion. IS Ron Paul going to win, you betcha the fix is in, haven't you heard yet.

Sent by Kevin Courtois | 3:16 AM ET | 12-29-2007

""He doesn't show up much in the polls"" because the polls are biased. Why don't you search youtube for actual calls from polsters who hangup or remove them from the list of anyone who supports ron paul. Its all rigged but this time its different. No one is listening to the media. This is a real revolution and were not stopping until we win. So it doesn't matter what you say. If we have to raise another 20 mil next quarter, WE WILL!!

Sent by Mark | 3:17 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Exactly what bill are you referring to that Dr. Paul flip flopped on? I think you might be stretching a little to find a negative. To my knowledge, and I have been following Paul for years, he has never voted for anything that is not covered by the Constitution. Perhaps if all the other congressmen in Washington had ever read the Constitution they would have done like wise and our country would not be in the horrific mess it is in today. Libertarian simply means one who practices LIBERTY. I believe that is the foundation of the CONSTITUTION and the aim of the men who wrote it. Ron Paul has served 10 terms as a Republican. I'd say that is stability.

Sent by Liza Chaplin | 3:26 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Hillery used to be a Republican.

Sent by Justin Case | 3:42 AM ET | 12-29-2007

You fail...

The challenge was to find "...any discrepancy between what Dr. paul says & what he did."

He introduced bills and voted against them because his colleagues are jokes. He was just trying to teach them how to write a bill. Then he was trying to teach them how to vote against spending.

Did you fail to receive the memo - lowest rated Congress ever.

Sent by rhys | 4:14 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Fred Camorra Call -

Changing parties is not a flip-flop if you don't change your views - it's not as if Ron dropped his libertarian views and became a neo-con[munist] when he re-joined the Republican Party. It's just a reflection of the fact that the US lacks a real democracy (since only two parties are allowed ballot access).

Introducing bills and voting against them is also not a "flip-flop" if you introduce them to vote against them. For example his bill to amend the constitution to ban flag-burning, and his bill to declare war on Iraq, were both introduced in the context that he would vote against them, but he was making the principled point that those were the only constitutional methods for accomplishing the objectives of other Congress members. See e.g. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html .

So try again.

Sage

Sent by Sage | 4:15 AM ET | 12-29-2007

"For one flipflop Ron Paul did, he changed parties to Libertarian, then back to GOP when the Libertarian thing didn't work for him."

His platform did not change, so that is not a flip-flop and you fail.

"Ron Paul also got the flipflop reputation and the nickname of 'Dr. No' because the bills he introduced, he'd vote against. Like he thought it was a joke."

Dr. No is because he says "NO" to lobbyists and special interests. When did he vote against his own bills? He voted against the big spending bills which included his earmarks, because he disagreed with the way it had to be done but had no other way of getting his constituents' money back to them. Paul would prefer not to have it taken in the first place.

Sent by mike k. | 4:19 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Actually, Fred...

You're wrong. First of all, let's use proper grammar and syntax, this is a public site, and bashing a candidate you obviously know nothing about with poor diction and silly banter is hardly apropos.

Now, Dr. Paul got his title of "Dr. No" due to his consistent, non "flip-flopping" throughout his voting record in the House. As he is an MD, and because he always votes against raising taxes, increasing government spending, or funding the American wars, he has this nickname. He has never voted against any bill he has introduced, such would be a Kerry-esque folly.

To address Dr. Paul's movement between parties, Dr. Paul is a Republican, and a member of the GOP. Many pundits and members of the poltically knowledgeable public realize the closeness between Dr. Paul's views and those of the Libertarian Party, or of a constitutionalist, however the fact remains that Dr. Paul is still a Republican. In the 1998 Presidential, he did run as the Libertarian candidate, but this was due to occupation of the Republican field by now former president George H. W. Bush. His actions are perfectly legal, ethical, and in point of fact rational in light of his past and present desire to reinstate the American republican democracy.

Actually, this sort of party migration, has been espoused by both sides of the aisle, and is of much greater concern in terms of incumbency elections, then in respectable political strategy.

Next time, please refrain from slandering a candidate without being informed of the facts and background of the situation. It's just bad politics.

That being said, Ron Paul has a definite chance of placing within the top three in Iowa, and top two in New Hampshire. He will excel in the Super Tuesday votes, and all things considered, has a more than reasonable shot at winning the American Presidency. He has my vote.

Sent by Matt Gravatt | 4:30 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Dr. Paul introduced the bill to force Congress to declare war instead of just authorizing the President to go to war -- thereby following the Constitution.

Once he forced Congress to declare war, he would have voted against the war.

Where is there a flip-flop in introducing bills to vote against it?

Sent by Oliver | 4:45 AM ET | 12-29-2007

The internet is the media because one hundred million pair of voter eyeballs are glued to the internet. White people no longer watch TV, nor listen to the radio. So called media conglomerates are niche players.

Ron Paul owns the mass media. He wins every internet poll. The niche players promote their niche candidates: Clinton, Romney, Huckleberry, and Hussein Obama with falsified polls.

The so called free press degenerated into conglomerate of closely held franchises. Their agenda has nothing in common with American voters welfare.

Sent by kgb | 4:52 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Fred Camorra you have confused flip-flopping with being REALISTIC! Ron Paul switched parties because he knew that a third party candidate doesn't stand a chance in our corrupt electoral system.

RP's constituents paid into an unconstitutional federal system. RP simply wanted to get them back some of the money they paid in. It was no joke, he knew being a realist that dysfunctional congress would appropriate these funds back to his electorate. He stood by his principles and did not vote for these unconstitutional measures, but knew he must do something to reclaim some of the tax dollars paid in by his district.

There is no flip-flop or contradiction in his actions! The other candidates do have plenty of flip-flopping action. They change with the wind. Ron Paul does not.

Sent by erinzdad | 4:57 AM ET | 12-29-2007

He's "Dr. No" because he votes against bills he finds unconstitutional. I doubt he'd vote against a bill he introduced unless it was significantly altered in a way he didn't approve of.

Changing parties isn't flip-flopping because he didn't change his stance on any issues.

Sent by Joel Hayhurst | 5:06 AM ET | 12-29-2007

To Fred Camorra: flip-flopping is a term used to describe people who change their opinions repeatedly on a particular issue. Each opinion held contradicts the previous.
It is difficult to see how changing one's party affiliation could be considered thus. Thousands of democrats are changing their affiliation right now and would probably be annoyed at the label flip-flopper.
Could you name some important 'issues' that Ron Paul has changed his mind over such as abortion, war, fiscal responsibility etc. Please take some time to read up on his voting record and understand his positions. A good place to start is http://www.ronpaullibrary.org.
Good luck with your research. I suspect you will find it very rewarding.

Sent by Bob Kelly | 5:17 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Ron Paul got the nickname "Dr. No" due to his overwhelmingly voting "no" to the many unconstitutional bills introduced in Congress. He never voted against bills that he introduced. You could be referring to the no votes that he gave to additions to spending and appropriations bills, but that's not the same thing.

Sent by Dan Patrick | 5:31 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Have you noticed how Chris Mathews goes out of his way not to mention Ron Paul, and when one of his guests does he seems to get very nervous? Have you noticed how he goes out of his way not to show Ron Paul on poll charts?

Have you noticed how he had been promoting Huckabee constantly and now McCain (anyone but don't mention Ron Paul)

This is 3rd world journalism. Let's hope the people of Iowa and NH place "Ron Paul" on his show and bring back a democratic press to our country.

Sent by Adam | 5:46 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Fred:

As the Alabama George Wallace would say, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Republican and Democrat Parties. However, restoration of the Taft wing of the GOP would restore meaningful differentiation.

Since the positions of the Libertarian Party and the Taft wing of the GOP are mostly congruent, Ron Paul did not "flipflop" by running one time on the LP ticket. His positions have never changed. The political parties on the other hand largely exist as vehicles to elect candidates, not much more. Policies are far more important than party, the feeble-minded facade of a two party system notwithstanding.

Contrary to your poorly articulated nonsense, Ron Paul never had a "flipflop reputation" and became known as "Dr. No" because of his principled steadfast opposition to un-Constitutional legislation.

When Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination we won't need the comedian George Wallace to laugh at, since we'll have you.

Sent by Greg M, Hermitage, PA | 6:05 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Ron Paul has
never voted for a tax increase
never voted for an unbalanced budget
never voted to give himself a pay raise
refuses to participate in the congressional pension
never takes money from lobbyists

Sent by Joe Allen | 6:24 AM ET | 12-29-2007

The thing that attracts me to Ron Paul, is his consistent message, no "handlers", no variation to appease a particular group, just the same, consistent and true message. The thought of him winning, Wow, no more pork, no more corruption, American money spent on Americans, just think of the possibilities!

Sent by Ron H. | 6:33 AM ET | 12-29-2007

Doesn't raise hand when asked if does not believe in evolution , later says does not believe in evolution....
Has racist newsletter which spokesman defends quote and years later denies it was his words , either a liar or incompetent . Says he is for the constitution but chooses which bits , ie , A.14 as well as going against separation of church and state (his religion seems to drive some of his policy ). Says he is for liberty , but is anti-gay , anti- abortion . Seeks special funding for Texas then votes against it (?????) . Tip of the iceberg never mind his loony tune right wing economics that will reward the rich (laissez faire free trade but no dirty foreigners??)plus his in effect isolationism ( regardless of his sophistry and manipulation of words and non appropriate answers) . And why are all the racists attracted to him? Please do not try and argue that a tenet of fascism is small fiscal government , they do not chant this on their rallies.

Sent by Paul | 6:47 AM ET | 12-29-2007

@fred camorra: He may have joined the libertarian party, but he's always been against abortion, so technically he's not a "libertarian" anyway. The system is so biased against third parties anyways, I could see why he would want to go back to the GOP. He's basically always been a Republican though.

As for the bills he introduced, I assume you're talking about the earmarks. He's against big government spending, which is why he votes against them, but if the bills are going to pass, why shouldnt his constituency reap some of the benefits of it? Everyone else does..

Sent by Jeremy Wooldridge | 7:01 AM ET | 12-29-2007

If I had to guess, I'd say Fred Camorra works for either the Department of Defense, Big Oil, or the Big Banks, and he is scared to death of his job security. He'll be pumping gas instead of bribing politicians. So what Ron Paul flip flopped to Libertarian 20 years ago? Libiertarian is adjacent to Republican. How about the flip flopping "New Conservatives" who admit that they no longer Conserve (resources, meaning they are Liberal). Face it Fred, if you don't like the US Constitution, this angry mob of Patriots is going to k*ck your *ss out of the US.

Sent by Neil McLaughlin | 7:09 AM ET | 12-29-2007

I like Dr. Paul. He is the only candidate I have ever seen I truly like.

Hey Fred Camorra, name one of the bills he introduced and then voted against. Give the bill number and date introduced.

Sent by Kirby Foster | 7:22 AM ET | 12-29-2007

How is changing parties a "flipflop"? Given the utter lack of core principles in the two main parties, that's about as relevant as changing his socks. We're talking about principles and positions on issues, Mr. Camorra, whether a candidate says what he means and means what he says, or whether he repeats what his handlers say, triangulating on the latest polls.

Sent by Steve Cobb | 7:47 AM ET | 12-29-2007

He is a 10-term republican, that ran for president in 1988 as a libertarian, how is that a flipflop? He didn't get the GOP nomination so he ran as a 3rd party. Now if he ran as a democrat I would call that a flipflop like Lieberman who is democrat and supports a republican candidate, in the primaries?!

He introduced bills the people he represented wanted him to introduce, that is his job, even if he didn't agree with it, which is why he voted against it. No flipflopping there. Alot of people have a job where they do stuff they don't want to do, I hope that police don't like shooting black people, because it seems to happen a whole lot. Would you call them flip floppers if they stated they didn't like it?

Sent by make sense | 8:01 AM ET | 12-29-2007

fred camorra:
I guess you need to be schooled on Ron Paul, or go to his website and learn:

http://RonPaul2008.com

Ron Paul has always had libertarian leanings. By that I mean he has always been very conservative, and his decision making is always based on our Constitution. He believes in small government. As McCain has said in the past "Ron Paul is the most HONEST man in Congress". He has been a Republican Congressman for about 20 years, did you know that? The fact that he ran as a Libertarian for President in 1988 does not make him a flip flopper, both parties are for small government, did you know that? Unfortunately, running as a Libertarian does not get a candidate in any Presidential debates. Ron Paul has made a great choice for the American people, our Country, and our Constitution by running as a Republican, and rightfully so. His conservative views and principles have never changed, he has the most conservative and consistent Republican voting record in Congress, did you know that? No flip flopping there at all.

People need to get out of the old way of thinking as far as party affiliation is concerned, and start voting for the candidate that best represents their views. I changed over from Dem to Repub in order to vote for Ron Paul but I am not a flip flopper, I voted for Reagan back in the day. I am an American citizen, former military, and I have the right to choose, but if we get another Bush/hillary neocon warmaker in office we may not have a choice in the future, these people have butchered our Constitution. I am voting for the message, not the party affiliation, and so are a lot of other people. Ron Paul has my vote and support. My vote is for our Constitution, Liberty, and Freedom. I can't wait to cast my vote for Ron Paul. If people continue to let media sway them, they will continue to get the same junk we have had from our governme