Ron Paul for President

I just finished reading a great piece on the Media Elite’s attempts to keep Ron Paul hidden from Americans, and how ABC dismissed Ron Paul and censored comments about them, until the point they finally added Ron Paul to their list of candidates, but in a dismissive way. (Yahoo, after much time finally added Ron Paul to their list of candidates, earlier they had other less likely candidates listed.) Talking about ABC’s response to having to add Ron Paul, Jim Capo, author of the article points out:

There is one glaring fallacy of logic in the current ABC argument. There were almost 80,000 votes cast in the MSNBC poll just BEFORE the first televised debate. In that polling, the results came out just as the MSM media told us they should. McCain, Romney and Gulliani the leaders, Paul, Tancredo, Hunter and others just blips.
What ABC is trying to say now, however, is that those who cast these 80,000 votes suddenly evaporated and were mysteriously replaced by those coaxed on by a handful of Paul supporters and Internet savvy bloggers. (It is no shock that with this kind of reasoning a Digg post two days ago on the ABC news story already has 4,000 “diggs.”)
Let me offer a totally different made-up explanation for ABC that could have sold better. Most McCain, Romney and Giuliani supporters don’t pay attention to MSNBC and ABC. They are all over at Fox News being marketed information they already agree with. The MSNBC and ABC polls were driven by Democratic and unaffiliated voting types who simply discovered that Paul was the GOP candidate most like them. And, it certainly didn’t hurt that the questions and commentary in the MSNBC debate were moderated by a “liberal.”

Be sure to check out the full article for more details.
It’s not just those who want a constitutional government, but some on the left have also noticed the media blackout of Ron Paul. Need further proof, Ron Paul is a second-tier candidate, who if it wasn’t for the media blackout, would probably be a top tier candidate, yet the Associated Press ignores him in their article on second-tier candidates.

Here is a great interview of Ron Paul, taken it looks like, right before the debate the other day. Ron Paul is given a chance to really point out lots of great facts.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lye4VjMMQE[/youtube]

It should come as no surprise, but the Presidential Candidate Selector scores Ron Paul as my top choice with a score of 100%. It will ask your thoughts on certain issues and then tells you which candidate, from the two main parties only, most closely matches your views on the subjects presented.

I was perusing the Ron Paul related blogs, and came across the following two from the Ron Paul For President 08 blog:
A Dark Horse Shines from Common Sense, about how Pajamas Media removed Ron Paul because they thought there was spam voting going on, though they didn't remove other candidates or their votes, who had the same thing. Also how Ron Paul is basically an outsider to the Republican party and is largely ignored by them, the media, conservative and otherwise, and so forth.
Granny Warriors are set to have their RV professionally painted in support of Ron Paul. Check out their letter at the blog for details on their support of Ron and their plans.

The title is a quote from the end of the article that I quote in part below:

Allow me to tell you about a worthwhile man for the Presidency of the United States. He's an experienced Congressman from Texas, an important member of a major Congressional committee, and a gynecologist by trade. He has voted consistently against every single war supporting initiative, all the way back to Bill Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act" that Bush has used to justify invading Iraq. He was a fierce opponent of the Bush Administration, even in the days after September 11th when so many other politicians kowtowed before the Almighty Executive. He has introduced legislation that calls for the decriminalization of non-drug hemp farming and other acts that cut funding for a plethora of government programs. He voted against all forms of the PATRIOT Act and has gone against his party so often that they can never rely on him for a vote unless the legislation in question is strictly Constitutional and ethical (which is rare, considering the party). This man has even stood his ground against the wave of "Support Our Troops!" propaganda, voting against every war bill even while being attacked for not "providing armor" to G.I.'s in Iraq and other such nonsense, becoming one of only four members in Congress to have voted against every war funding bill since the invasion of Iraq.
Who is this man? Is it Barak Obama, who has no experience as a statesman and wouldn't know Constitutional legislation if it slapped him? Is it Hillary Clinton, who suffers similar inabilities at obeying Federal Law and voted to invade Iraq? Perhaps it's Biden, Dodd, or one of the other no-name candidates that have filed to run as a Democrat in 2008 and have also proved themselves to be sheep in the face of a warmongering President? One way or another, such an anti-war candidate must surely be a Democrat, right?
Wrong.
The only person that is considering running in 2008 that has consistently been against the war and all unConstitutional Federal spending or actions is Representative Ron Paul, from Texas. Dr. Paul is, unfortunately for some, a Republican.

Read the rest of the article at the West Georgian.

There is a good article on Libertarians... not the party so much , but those of us who believe in personal freedom and capitalism. The article points out how progressives (Democrats and others on the left) resist capitalism, despite the fact it is responsible for laying the ground work that made minority rights and feminism come to be.
The main focus of the article however is the ever widening gap between Libertarians and their former allies in the Republican party. As the Republicans move further and further to the right, the article wonders if the Libertarians are better allies with the Liberals (much like the old Cato Unbound issue Should Libertarians Vote Democrat, which this article references). I would argue that the Democrats are too Fascist with economic and policy reforms to trust too much. While I have very little problem with his proposed compromises, I doubt those on the left would be willing to move in that direction. Seriously, it would be great if Obama was willing to move in the directions that Brink Lindsey talks about in this article, if he fully did, and supported gun rights (which he does not and his stance makes him unvotable for me), drug law reform or better yet, repeal, and a few other key issues then he would have to be considered. The article is correct in that entitlement reform would be the hardest to get the left to compromise on, and correct it is very sorely needed.
Speaking of Obama, I have to say that he is probably the Democrats best choice, despite his horrid stance on gun control. Hillary is too polarizing. Biden is probably the only electable candidate they have beyond Obama, I don't think the public would go for most of the others unless they were a running mate. The question is who as a running mate? Clinton on the ticket might just polarize it too much, but then again, it might help, hard to tell. I would think the likely direction, if the one didn't pick the other, is Dodd or Edwards, I don't think any of the others could help enough, and some would hurt the ticket.
On the Republican side, Ron Paul would be my favorite choice, but doesn't have the name recognition to win, which is really sad, as he is probably the best choice of any candidate out there in any of the parties. We have to pray it isn't McCain. I don't think it'll be Brownback, but will be Rudy Giuliani who has the name recognition and most of what else is needed to win. None of the candidates will win on their own, but will need a strong running mate. Giuliani's record on free speech, opposing drug reform and support for strong gun control make him a bad choice (though the Conservatives tend not to support drug reform anyhow, so I doubt that issue would be problem for them) and the media will have a field day with his winning the Muzzle Award for life. My guess is that it will be McCain or Giuliani with the other as the running mate. Again their best choice is Ron Paul with a big name as a running mate (though I would take one of the big names with Ron Paul as a running mate)... actually Ron Paul as a running mate would draw in the Libertarian vote, even more so if he was the Presidential candidate so long as they big name running mate wasn't to far off.