The article makes some fair points.

I think I could make an argument that it oversimplies Paul’s positions. This may be a symptom of “sound byte” politics.

I can say one good thing about making Paul the Prez: it would be the exact opposite of staying the course.

oversimplies=oversimplifies

I must have missed the part where Congress *told* Bush to start the war (as opposed to “authorizing” him to do so)

FYI to MSM a point of clarification … In the United States, non-interventionism has often been confused with Isolationism. Critics of non-interventionism frequently add to this confusion by smearing prominent non-interventionist as isolationists. However, true isolationism combines a non-interventionist foreign policy with protectionism (economic nationalism) and strict border controls to prevent international travel and cultural exchange. The majority non-interventionists in the United States reject protectionism in favor of free trade, international travel, and cultural exchange. YES, Ron Paul is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST! Please for God Sake learn the difference, unless you’re intentially misleading or smearing Ron Paul. Also, while I’m on a roll - The term “Long Shot” for Ron Paul can gracefully be discarded into the compost pile of media bias and propaganda

[…] Foreign Policy blog says that Ron Paul’s fifteen minutes of fame are up. Katherine Coble and the Blue Collar Muse discuss. Ron Paul’s candidacy was fun. I get as much of a kick out […]

Reply from Justin Mundie in 3…2…

The statements made above about Ron Paul not being able to run the military because he believes congress needs to is absolutely incorrect and simple-minded. Ron Paul is correct in saying that only CONGRESS can make DECLARATIONS OF WAR which is the LEGAL standard before engaging in wars. AFTER the CONGRESS DECLARES WAR it the COMMANDER IN CHIEFS responsibility to DIRECT THE ARMED FORCES. Do not fall for this persons intentionally confusing and misleading jargon.

Paul does not claim the Congress has exclusive war powers. The Constitution states the president is “commander-in-chief”, which in the vocabulary of the time could be translated to something like field marshal. As the commander of the troops he has every right to order then to evacuate their positions in the Republic of Iraq and conduct a transport operation back to the United States.

That said, Paul does not believe that the commander in chief has the power to make war initially on his own, as the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and grant letters of marque.

I have a Ron Paul question, which is why he garners so many endorsements from conspiracy theorists of one sort or another (the 9/11 “truthers”, Hutton Gibson, etc.). He doesn’t seem to be a conspiracy theorist himself, so I’m kind of at a loss to understand it. Can any of his supporters explain?

Oooh! Oooh! Me! Let me!

I think it’s the same reason that the Libertarian Party draws these types of folks.

I am not a governmental communitarian, but I don’t eschew community on a voluntary basis.

Many of the people who are drawn to libertarianism are rabidly anti communitarian on ALL levels. This often goes one step further, as they start to believe that ALL communities are evil and use the strength of community to conspire against the outgroup.

Since Paul self-identifies as libertarian, the anarcholibertarians (yes, blackflag, I’ll fight with you about it later) many of whom are de facto conspiracy nuts are drawn to him.

Since one of the core tenets of libertarianism is “live and let live” Paul doesn’t excoriate those CTs who follow him, and therefore draws even the outliers who don’t self-identify as libertarian.

Critics of Dr. Paul are very correct in pointing out the policies he advocates are not conducive to continued growth of the United States as we know it today. It isn’t at all surprising to see political scientists and fans of the status quo (and by status quo, I am not just talking about Bush supporters, but also those who think that simply putting Democrats in power will solve most of our problems) criticizing Dr. Paul and his supporters.

Dr. Paul doesn’t speak the rhetoric of the mainstream, and I think that is why he appeals to people on the “fringes” — paranoid conspiracy theorists, minarchists and other anti-establishment types.

I would love to see Dr. Paul get elected for the very reasons all the political scientists and economists think he shouldn’t be seriously considered. I don’t think it is going to happen, and I don’t want to see it happen enough to compromise my principles against participating in the charade that is the electoral process in this country. In the end, we will probably be better off to let the beast continue consuming itself until it dies of its own hubris, hegemony and gluttony.

Foreign Policy blog/mag ? These people Are the problem. They don’t like Ron Paul because Paul is exposing these International organizations for what they are, one worlders.

I would love to see Dr. Paul get elected for the very reasons all the political scientists and economists think he shouldn’t be seriously considered. I don’t think it is going to happen, and I don’t want to see it happen enough to compromise my principles against participating in the charade that is the electoral process in this country. In the end, we will probably be better off to let the beast continue consuming itself until it dies of its own hubris, hegemony and gluttony.

Am I missing something? This seems self-contradicting.

Haven’t we learned that nonintervention is as bad as intervention at this point and no matter what the US does or doesn’t do, it will always be called in when there’s Real Trouble somewhere in the world?

The Ron Paul phenomenon I’ve been following for a time, since his stunning anti-war statement before congress in April ‘05.

The man is obviously an intellectual who, unlike many in congress, appears to be ‘his own man’ and not affected by the pervasive GOP culture of corruption.

Unfortunately, he appears to be a pro-life christian but since I’m not a one issue voter (like Ned), I might just be able to chalk it up to his view of states rights. I have enjoyed immensely his performance in the debates where he reminds his fellow GOPers (that have gone the way of power lust neocons) that there is this thing called ‘the US Constitution’ that stands in their way of total authoritarian power. The power they think they have to bomb Iran and further isolate the US.

This national nightmare of the corrupt and incompetent generation of neocon Republicans has resulted in abject failure, and because of this, no Republican has a chance to become president, including Dr. Paul. Thank you “Dumbya.” The coming decades will see a reaction to this dark period in American history with the election of a Democratic president and widening Democratic majority in congress. A dynasty of sorts that will be a considerable improvement, but that I can admit, not wholly healthy for America, because as we know … absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter what their flavor, politicans are politicians.

Ron Paul rains on the propaganda parade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrWm0sWbdg0