Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, September 25, 2016

A new Public Policy Polling survey has Rep. Ron Paul leading the race for the Iowa caucus with the support of 23 percent of respondents. Mitt Romney is in second with 20 percent, followed by Newt Gingrich at 14 percent, and Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry at 10 percent.

The rise of the libertarian, anti-government Paul — who wants to get rid of the federal reserve and hitch the American economy to the gold standard — underscores the fact that, as a result of his robust campaign and aggressive fundraising, he has gone from fringe candidate in 2008 to serious contender in the 2012 race. Paul is the sixth different candidate to lead in an Iowa poll, but with 73 percent of his supporters “firmly committed” to Paul and just two weeks until voting, it seems very possible that an anti-war, anti-marriage politician who was nearly cast out by the Republican Party in 2008 could be the last.

  • SyedMahdi

    WWhy not? In the closed Republican echo chamber he is the lone voice which is not an echo.

  • dpriver

    Couldn’t agree more with Paul about shutting down our beligerent military and legalizing drugs. That’s small government in spades. So, how in the world does he justify being anti-choice? Can there be any more intrusive form of big government than one which interferes with a woman’s privacy. Sorry, but in the final analysis, he’s just another slimy, dishonest politician who will say what needs to be said to pacify those who pay the bills.

  • juliab

    You are totally wrong. He wants to leave it up to the States to decide. People who are anti-choice are forced to pay taxes for abortions. Why should the federal goverment decide for the entire nation. The Federal Government needs to stay out of it and let the people of an individual state decide. Neither is perfect but at a local level it would be a lot more fair.

  • indyfan2

    I am against the death penalty. My state forces me to pay taxes to kill people. Why should the state force me to pay for something I do not agree with? True Libertarianism.

  • joekus

    Ron Paul is old enough to remember when the only ‘choice’ a women would have in some states was some back alley hack who likely could permanently injure or kill her. He is a doctor and has to know better. Just as people will use marijuana, irrespective of the law, women will get abortions irrespective of the law. Do we treat them civilly or like criminals? Ron Paul has a different answer for these two cases. I would not call that so much hypocrisy as inconsistency. Inconsistent people yield (often) unpredictable results. Given the rest of the republican field, I might prefer some inconsistency to consistent war-mongering, budget deficit reduction (except when $$ needed for war mongering) on the backs of the poor and middle class, and cow towing to the moneyed classes.

  • dfrosenzweig

    The republican party is not known for candor when it speaks its voice on issues, just for speaking in a bold tone of voice with harsh words. Paul is quite candid and more honest than other politicians of both parties because of his candor. He is also too liberal for a Republican, the conservative party, to ever earn their nomination for the presidency. That would be like having two Democrats run for President. Republicans in the house and senate would hate that!

  • John St. Clair

    Ron Paul is more libertarian than he is either Republican or Democrat, and he is certainly more conservative than liberal. He should run as a third party candidate.