Pretty soon all the Ron Paul supporters get to spam the ballot boxes to. I've never had so much fun campaigning for a candidate. Thanks for the post Jon.

Ron Paul appears to be a sincere candidate.
However, he is lacking the real foreign policy sense.
We, including Ron Paul, often wrongfully expect other extreme regimes (communist, dictator states) to work with common logic toward peace and co-existence.

Our former President Ronald Reagan was the best president in terms of the American foreign policy was concerned.
He had earned the respect...... from both our friendly and enemy states in the globe.... by acting upon his promises.
Everyone was able to take his words to the bank without any hesitations because he had REAL POWER to display his commitment with STRENGTH!

Thank you, Jon, for posting a serious blog entry about Ron Paul.

CRA: No one, least of all Ron Paul, expects dictatorial regimes to "work with common logic toward peace and co-existence." But all nations do work toward their own self-interest, and there are some false assumptions we've made because we don't understand that. For example, Iran needs oil to flow out of the Persian Gulf just as much as the U.S. does -- there's a common point of interest that we could be working toward, rather than rattling our saber.

The beauty of Ron Paul's campaign is that he points out the elephant in the room that all the other candidates are pretending isn't there. We as a nation need to face some very harsh realities, and unless we do, we are doomed to destruction.

The first reality is that America is an empire. We may not think of ourselves as an empire -- because "empires" are bad -- but with 570,000 troops in 130 countries (some of them by force) and our navy patrolling every sea on earth and our air force patrolling the skies above or around every nation on earth, we are an empire. We enforce a Pax Americana, trying to shape the world into what we want and expect it to be.

The second reality is that all empires, whether malevolent or benevolent, are hated by the people whom they control. For example, the Romans brought sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health (to quote The Life of Brian) to the lands they occupied, and yet they were constantly having to put down insurrections by people who simply wanted self determination. The Romans believed their way of life and government was superior -- and in many ways it was -- but the people on which they pushed it didn't care: They just wanted to be left alone.

The third reality is that all empires have ended because they stretched themselves too thin, militarily and economically. When there is too much occupied land and not enough military to enforce the peace (and money to fund the military), every empire has been ripe for military conquest from without or economic disintegration from within (or both). And so the Assyrians were replaced by the Babylonians, who were replaced by the Greeks, who were replaced by the Romans, etc., etc. Napoleon lost because he overreached. Hitler lost because he tried to expand too far into Russia. Britain at one time held sway over a quarter the world's population, and only managed to survive by divesting herself of the countless territories that sought independence or cost too much to manage. The Soviet Union ended, not through mutual nuclear annihilation with the U.S., but by economic collapse.

All of this leads to the inevitable conclusion that the American empire will collapse, either because we are conquered from having spread ourselves too thin militarily, or by economic collapse from having to maintain a vast military force. Of these two possibilities, the latter is most likely in the near future: The dollar has fallen to record lows, and foreign nations (like China) who keep us going aren't going to keep buying dollars forever. The Federal Reserve has been printing money like mad to buy U.S. Treasury bonds to finance our staggering deficit --much of it paying for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our national debt stands at over $9 trillion, and our future obligations amount to around $60 trillion. We are on the brink of an economic recession...or worse. We are not retaining our military personnel, and are having to pay more to enlistees (signing bonuses are now at $20,000) and lower the standards for enlistment.

Regardless of how good our intentions are in Iraq, or how much will we have to persist, the day will come -- sooner, I believe, than later -- when our economy will collapse and we will have to bring our troops home. Intention and will are irrelevant -- we will not have the money to maintain the empire, no one will be willing to lend it to us any more, and just printing it (as we do now) will be impossible as we face massive inflation of the currency.

It is only a matter of time.

I support Ron Paul because he is the only candidate talking about these realities.

In the not-too-distant future, a collapsed America that didn't elect Ron Paul will look back and wonder why more people didn't listen to him.

MRWHIPPLE, I am glad Ron Paul is talking about defficult realities America is facing today.
Yes, we are heading for even more weaker dollar in near future due to incredibly high our trade deficit and we will have hard time spreading already scarce resources to maintain foreign military bases around the world.
Since you have mentioned China, perhaps you and I can agree that they are the next super power in line to greatly influence the very fabric of the international policy.
The communist China's own self interest is to become the next world power if the opportunity is given to them.
China wants to annex Taiwan and give Japan a military lesson as pay back for the bloody WW2 experience. China also wants to control neighboring states such as korea,vietnam and expand their influences to highly chinese populated areas around the world(ie. canada,usa).
China wants world dominance and become a Big Brother for everyone as they are transplanting the communist ideology.

Ron Paul has a lot of grassroots support from non-conventional republicans. The people who are putting up "Ron Paul Revolution" signs over freeway over-passes are not the type of individuals you see at Lincoln Club functions or Central Committee meetings. This kind of support should not be dismissed, ignored or bad mouthed by the party establishment. The chance of Ron Paul winning the nomination is slim. However it would be wise for the party to give him a "seat at the table" for the general election at that time when we need to court swing voters and independants.

JOKER, I agree with you. Certainly, Ron Paul can contribute to the republican party. I would prefer strong republicans with good vision rather than semi-republicans with lost vision.

CRA: "Semi-republicans with lost vision" certainly sums up the Bush administration and its neoconservative sycophants.

Ron Paul represents a return to the Republican Party of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan (the one who said "as government expands, liberty contracts").