Ron Paul represents what a real America should be. We claim that we are free, and then we turn around to check and make sure that the way we proclaim our freedom is legal. We know that Ron has a very, very, very slim chance of winning this election, but that doesn’t matter. He started a movement that will far outlast his life. When you find something that is worth fighting for, you have to work for it no matter what, even if it might fail.
Thanks-

Sad the Republicans are generally so misinformed– by our excuse for a news media, we could have had better nominees, and Ron could have had a more amenable immigration stance for Libertarians.

As someone who is still wrestling with what to do with my (purely symbolic) vote in the NC primary, and is wavering between Paul and Obama for the reasons articulated by you and others on this thread, I appreciate you sharing your decision and your reasoning behind it.

Even though I am currently leaning in the opposite direction myself.

May your chains rest lightly upon you, and all that….

I would probably vote for Obama against McCain in the general election, but then I’d vote for inanimate objects against McCain. The way I look at it, if Obama actually manages to get us out of Iraq, it might save us enough money to make up for at least some of the social programs that he’ll institute. With McCain, we’ll definitely get more war (which we can’t afford) and I’d wager we’ll get more social programs too.

In all reality, the republican party doesn’t stand a chance, and only after the coup de grace the democrats perform on our economy will any republican have a chance at winning the white house.

Radley, you are, by far, one of my personal heroes. This is the first thing I’ve read of yours that I’ve just wildly disagreed with. And ultimately it didn’t matter. But really, Paul was just terrible. :(

Paul’s message has always been more important than his candidacy; he was never going to win. And the message has gotten out as far as it’s going to, and thank goodness, the whole newsletter issue seems to have confined itself (mostly) to the libertarian crowd. I was upset at his involvement with it, but even more upset with his response. And I wrote the campaign, and got a pitiful, basically off-topic reply back from them. So for me, he lost his luster.

Obama, on the other hand – he’s way off on some issues, but I do believe he’s sincere. Yesterday I heard a radio interview where the interviewer asked if he was a “classic liberal,” and he heard “classical liberal.” I was impressed that he knew what meant. He said that he was with regard to civil liberties, but not as much (I’m paraphrasing) economically. Well, we knew that. But on the issues that matter most to me for where we are right now – civil liberties, Iraq – he’s the best of the bunch that could get elected. So I respect the folks who vote for Paul’s ideas, but to me his time has passed. I went, somewhat grudgingly, for the practical choice. Surprised myself.

If he fails, or changes his mind, then I’ll consider my vote wasted.

I’ll never understand people that believe that casting a vote can ever be a waste of a vote. The whole point of the process is to say “this is who i want” – not “this is who i guess is going to win”.

Throwing your vote away on Paul is worse than not voting. At least not voting is defensible. Rewarding a terrible advocate of libertarianism who has played to all the worst stereotypes of a libertarian with your vote really makes me disappointed in you.

Unlike Ron Paul, who can’t actually manage to string two sentences together, you’ve actually been an effective advocate of libertarianism through your journalism.

The whole idea of the Ron Paul Revolution – centered solely on the race for the presidency – really reminds me of the nine most terrifying words: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Live by your employer’s motto: free minds and free markets. Your work convincing people as to the merits of libertarianism does far more to further the cause of libertarianism than a man beholden to the closet racists at the Von Mises Institute.

And given the fact that Obama can use every vote in this race for delegates he can get against Hillary, throwing away your vote instead of voting for the one person you could live with really doesn’t strike me as making much sense.  I mean you say “with Ron Paul still available as an option,” but he’s clearly not.  It’s like going out to a restaurant for dinner, seeing a filet mignon you think looks appetizing on the menu, ordering it, and being told that they’re out, and then settling for, I dunno, a tuna steak.  Yeah, Ron Paul’s on the ballot, but you’re not going to get him.  If you’re not down with tuna, you’re free to leave the restaurant, but by your own admission it seems like you would have been comfortable with the tuna.  I’m sorry to hear that you’d rather go hungry.

And yes, the four thousand for service won’t help, but all things being equal, I’d rather set fire to the money than have it go to funding the Iraq War, which is why it is so important that Obama get the nomination, as he is most likely to win in November among those likely to stop the war.
But then again, I run http://www.libertariansforobama.org, so I might be biased.

Yes, that’s the situation where your vote creates an exact tie. That is, without your vote, there would be no tie, but with your vote, there is a tie. Yes, the same can be said of everyone else’s vote in that scenario.