Under normal circumstances, an Iowa win for Ron Paul would have been a massive bonus. Unfortunately, due to Paul's unique situations he's going to have achieve a strong second in New Hampshire, too, to get the early state effect. Fortunately, recent polling numbers are showing that this could also become a reality. What next, nominations don't matter?

I'm voting and donating to ron paul.

I changed my party in AZ just so I could vote in the republican primary as did my wife and anyone else I could ask.

Great stuff mate!

That's the way to do it.

I change my policital party based on the preisdential incumbent election.

The only reason I'm not a registered democrat right now is that i was sick on voting day.

Not that it would of mattered.  It retrospect though, I think the economy is in a better place with Hillary as President.

Obama's main problem was his inability to corral the far left ending up with Nancy Pelosi highjacking he first couple years of his presidency and running it straight into the ground.

Granted "Obamacare" would of still happened.  Since it really is Hilary Clinton's plan, that Obama blasted in the primaries... obama being against the individual mandate back then.

Couple with more pro buisness growth strategies at the time though, and i think it goes through much better.

There is a lot of "pro buisness" stuff you can do that doesn't cost a time.

Great post. Ron Paul is too honest and has a good heart. There's not many such people in politics. He wouldn't get enough support from his fellow Republicans to achieve real change.

It's such a pitty that all politicians are intellectually corrupt in nature and more or less psychopaths.

I thought the CNN gloria berger interview was rather telling of how poorly the media treats Ron Paul. Not only did he answer the question regarding racists pamphlets sent out in his name two times, "I didn't read them, and I disavow them." but she continued to press the interview by not asking questions and just making random statements like "you earned 1 million dollars from the literature" and "these remarks are pretty inflamatory". I'm sorry Gloria was there a question in there? you are CNN's lead politics reporter try and atleast act like you weren't there for a hit job. Good for Ron to walk away, I would have punched her in the face.

I would argue it is better to be an isolationist than a warmongerer. As much as I would like him to be (I identify myself as an anarcho-capitalist) Ron Paul is not "against" government. Based on his writings, debates, and speeches he is clearly a minarchist (in favor of a small and restrained government). How can he be anti gov when every other sentence that comes out of the guy references the Constitution. Paul is radical by today's standards, but it is hyperbole to say he is in any way "against" government. Paul is against corpratism as well as government interference in economic matters, foreign affairs that do not directly involve the US, and restrictions on personal freedoms like drug use, abortion, and freedom of religion.

Like I said, I could only wish there was a politician that was truly "against" the things you mentioned because, despite your loyalty, all governments (not just US) do not exactly have a great track record for protecting individual rights, promoting economic activity (US only worked early on precisely because it was smaller than any other government previously established), or increasing overall quality of life (to pick on Civil RIghts Act and ect which you mentioned before, the economic disparity between whites and blacks in the US was decreasing prior to the establishment of this act as well as the Great Society programs which reveresed that trend).

You have to admit that even though you and I clearly have problems with Ron Paul (for very different reasons), he is easily the best and most sincere republican political candidate for the office of president of our time. At the very least, as a Republican he has the most potential to gain support from democratic voters. Libertarianism (of which I am a full supporter) is not nearly as polarizing as the dems or repubs precisely because it takes the best aspects of both sides (limited or no government from conservatives, and a high amount of personal freedom from liberals).

The media is now paying attention and his numbers will go down.

CNN is pushing the guy off their show - well, he walked out.    not good.   I thought CNN would like this guy more than other Republican candidates.

It will all depend on how independents respond to him (people that voted for Obama and now realize he isn't really that different than the other candidates).  If those people decide Paul is their guy now media won't be able to drive his numbers down (they just won't grow).  My biggest concern is how quickly the Neo-Cons are rallying to Romney, they maybe able to destroy any chance RP has of having a good New Hampshire showing (I think it's fair to Say Paul is going to win big in Iowa).  Pesonally I would enjoy a Romney vs Paul race for republicans because it will really show the differnce between a status quo Neo-Con and those of us in the Republican party who want our party to focus more on states rights and independent responsibility.

i saw when he did that...i think it will help him.  most people seem to think cnn was in the wrong from what ive seen of the reaction.