But if he racks up a significant portion of the vote then he can change the other parties in the same way that the last great statesman in American politics did: William Jennings Bryan. Already the Democratic Party seems to be taking the decriminalization of marijuana more seriously. Perhaps as Bryan found a home for his populism in the Democratic party of the time, Paul can find a home for his within one of the parties (although, to continue the analogy, a SoS Paul would be a nightmare; can you imagine the speech he’d give at the UN as the US SoS?).

Regarding the controversial endorsements; they don’t bother me because Paul is a biggest-tent-imaginable-libertarian. But I think libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is more appealing on a State Level (especially here in GA where one party dominates politics & insists on meddling in both business & personal lives all the damn time); whereas on a Federal Level it would just result in a transfer of power to the state governments as each then decides their own abortion policies, gay rights policies, drug policies, etc. So a Federal Libertarian Government would be a decentralized government, but one that, for better or worse, allows the states to deny liberty to their constituents (be it Liberty over their own bodies, or equal treatment before the laws). This is how Paul can be, at the same time, Pro-Gay Rights, Pro-legalization-of-drugs, Anti-Abortion, Pro-individual-liberty, Isolationist, Pro-states-rights, and Democratically Populist all at the same time.

Do Libertarian politics have a place at the table? Sure. But is a completely hands-off Federal Government really what we want? Maybe for you; but I want a Federal Government who will intervene in the states when the state governments start violating clauses of the Constitution which have been incorporated to the states (a position which is anathema to Paul’s vision of a libertarian Federal Government). I certainly don’t think Paul’s version of Federalism would be popular. & his vision is not executable by a President acting alone; he would have to have a supportive Congress & a Supreme Court which agrees with his assertions (like overturning Roe v Wade or ending incorporation).

And finally, Mark, in building a case for your candidate I suggest stepping outside of the whinny: “Well Obama does…”. Yes Paul is different, but he scares a lot of people because he is so damned different. Stop pointing out the opponent’s flaws & Start articulating where & how Paul is an appealing candidate. He’s got great mass appeal, but you’d never know it with all the indignant whining coming out of his supporters. I want Paul to do well in the Primaries, but Paul supporters are the worst! I guess that’s why he can raise $6M in one day, but not win a nomination.

And Tim, in my defense, I do also confuse Charise & Chanel at my office, & I see them everyday! SO in an effort to prevent further confusion in my pathetic little mind, you shall henceforth be Timothy & Jim shall be Jimbo or Bubba ;-).

To Tim and Jim, do you support the Bush doctrine that it is in America’s best interest to strike first against an enemy? Do you believe that we should go to war with Iran ASAP? And if so why?

Then you are a real fool. The obvious explaination is that Ron Paul’s campaign, in its zeal to rack up endorsements, is very sloppy about checking out their endorsers.

Well, your priorities are straight (no pun intended). 20 year old newsletters which do not reflect Paul’s views and which he has apologized for disqualifies him for office. But Obama can order anyone thrown into prison idefinately without trial on his say so, drop bombs on foreign countries which kill and maim innocents, throw pwople into prison for victimless drug crimes and flush a trillion dollars down the military drain, and that does not disqualify him.

I do agree that Paul’s campaign (you can’t POSSIBLY believe he personally is looking over everything on his website.)is very sloppy about checking out some of their endorsers.

@Non-idiot – if you were trying to be persuasive you failed.

Paul’s libertarian philosophy has a funny way of making everyone think he’s going to be an advocate for their pet cause. Be they Rabidly Anti-gay Pastors as cited above or some gay friends of mine. But were Paul elected I have a suspicion both groups would be disappointed by his policies in action.

While I don’t believe Paul to be a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States; and while I agree with Tim that his newsletters disqualify him from holding major office; I still think supporting & voting for him in the primary could have good consequences for both the Republican Party and for the United States.

I am going to be voting for Ron Paul in the 2012 republican primary because:

1. My state has an open & proportional primary

2. I want the republican party to adopt more libertarian planks. (so that, someday, I can have the option of voting for a Republican Presidential Candidate who is not opposed to equality).

3. There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Ron Paul can win the nomination.

That being said, barring some sort of miracle in Tampa(Draft Olympia Snowe!!); I will voting for Obama in the G.E.

As an aside, isn’t it strange that every time a gay blogger posts anything critical of Ron Paul, it’s always a Ron Paul supporter who’s johnny-on-the-spot posting either the first or second response. Hmmmmmm…