While listening to the words of a man who set a new course of freedom for millions, I was reminded of a man who calls himself a "strict constitutionalist".  I began thinking, "how would Ron Paul have decided?"

Surely Mr. Paul would have chosen freedom for millions?  Or would he have insisted it's a state's right, because it wasn't explicitly claimed as a right of the federal government?

Yes, we have the Thirteenth Amendment, and Ron Paul won't enslave more people - it would be beyond his power.  But I would still like to know, is Ron Paul a racist?  Does he believe that his strict interpretation of the constitution would have allowed millions to remain enslaved, even in the "new territories"?  Surely he's not a Lincoln supporter, granting the Emancipation Proclamation would surely be unconstitutional.

Look, one of the main reasons that I am supporting Paul is because, for too long, we have been going in the wrong direction. Look what we have now - Bush has given us the largest increase in Medicare spending since Roosevelt; he has us involved in a war, while still maintaining bases in non-combat areas; he has, as have his predecessors, failed to rein in any government spending during his respective tenure.

All I want is for someone in the GOP LEADERSHIP to actually attempt to curtail spending. Why can't we abolish the Dept. of Education? Reagan promised it over 27 years ago - and it still hasn't happened. Why can't we, during a Republican's administration, begin to phase out the D of E, and forcing these idiots at the federally funded universities to actually start being accountable for the dollars they throw away? Loans make the prices (tuition) go up. Perhaps, if people had to find creative ways to fund their education, colleges would have to get competitive in their tuition rates. Wow! Imagine in a free market society actually having colleges participating in the free market?

I'll be honest with you - I would not support any President who "gets the job done" simply by signing Executive Orders. The next Prez could undo all of it. We need someone who would work for change - and there aren't that many up there that will.

Paul's greatest credentials, in my opinion, seem to be shared with most other Republicans - 2nd Amendment and Right to Life. Beyond that, we get into the military and domestic spending. This is where, I believe, Paul stands out from the rest. Sure, there might be someone, like Guiliani, who agrees with Paul on domestic spending (he claims to have the most conservative fiscal record); yet, he is pro-abortion, and pro-gun control.

Huckabee had low ratings as a governor from pro-small government groups. Guiliani and Romney have their own skeletons (abortion). McCain is libertarian enough on most issues, but I don't trust him on freedom of speech and spending (two very important). Thompson looks good in many ways to me, but I'm not sure that "folksy" is going to cut it in the general election.

I disagree with Paul on immigration. There are details of the other issues that I disagree with him on - but I count on the very thing that you begin discussing here (in the first few paragraphs - the middle paragraphs make you sound like a little boy whose toys are being taken away). The Presidency is NOT a dictatorship, and therefore, Congress should buffer any extreme positions. You said it yourself, in 20 years, he hasn't built a coalition...why do you expect him to destroy everything you hold sacred in big government?

C'mon John - you and I have both used some flaming rhetoric at times. We both think we were justified in doing so. But, it hasn't been productive, as this submission by you proves. What started out as an excellent blog entry, attempting to ask the tough questions, just turned into a rant filled with accusatory half-truths (typically called "straw men"). I'm serious here, you had me thinking until...

Instead of answering the question about Ron Paul, you deflect it onto me and Licoln.  If you'll re-read, you'll see I did not call him racist.  Your answer focuses on Lincoln, but there were other works at abolishing slavery before him, mentioned in his monologue at Coopers Union - which I would imagine Ron Paul would call "unconstitutional".

In your entire answer, the only phrase that comes close to answering part of a question I posed is:

he believes the civil war was not the best way to eliminate slavery

What I think is despicable is, instead of trying to answer questions and build support for Ron Paul, you take the opportunity to attack those asking for clarification.

Until you went over the edge. John, why can't you find it in yourself to have a spirited discussion about this topic? Why must you always go to the ridiculous? Is that the way you treat your wife when she says she might vote for Paul?

Yes, I treat my wife with a spirited debate.  How is that over the edge?  Seriously, you Ron Paul supporters talk on here about how he's the only candidate who will do:

Balance the budget
Reduce or eliminate the national debt
Eliminate federal agencies (he personally said "Department of Education")

So I wonder, "What's the fallout of doing this?"

What you claim is "over the edge", I claim are examples of the fallout of areas Ron Paul supporters claim he would act upon.

I'll be honest with you - I would not support any President who "gets the job done" simply by signing Executive Orders. The next Prez could undo all of it. We need someone who would work for change - and there aren't that many up there that will.

First, I'm trying to find the post where someone said, effectively "he would sign executive orders abolishing these areas!  He would veto any federal budget..."

But second, I agree with you - I would not support any Prez who does that either.  But I find it difficult to believe that Ron Paul could not use his position in Congress to effect any changes Ron Paul is spouting about.  How is he going to work with the same people, as President, to do it?

I disagree with Paul on immigration. There are details of the other issues that I disagree with him on - but I count on the very thing that you begin discussing here (in the first few paragraphs - the middle paragraphs make you sound like a little boy whose toys are being taken away). The Presidency is NOT a dictatorship, and therefore, Congress should buffer any extreme positions. You said it yourself, in 20 years, he hasn't built a coalition...

Ah yes, more insults.  That's your strong suit.  Attack the questioner, and never answer the question.  

He hasn't accomplished his goals in 20 years in Congress.  How is he going to make these changes in 4 or 8 years, working with the same people?

If he's to be effective, what would be the fallout?  Very simple question... but it'll take more than personal anecdotes of "I support Ron Paul because Rudy, Mitt, etc..." and personal attacks to answer it.

why do you expect him to destroy everything you hold sacred in big government?

Ah yes, the big insult.  I'm apparently a "big government" guy.  Same insults, but no answers.  See, I "expect him to destroy...big government" because his surrogates have said he would.

C'mon John - you and I have both used some flaming rhetoric at times. We both think we were justified in doing so. But, it hasn't been productive, as this submission by you proves.

What started out as an excellent blog entry, attempting to ask the tough questions, just turned into a rant filled with accusatory half-truths (typically called "straw men"). I'm serious here, you had me thinking until...

So answer the "tough questions" - you spend the same amount of space talking down to me and accusing me (sounding like a man who has to prove something of himself, rather than the facts being asked for).

Seriously.  You don't have to like the way it's asked.  You don't have to like the examples I've drawn (which are not straw men - I did not create them, to tear them down).  But it's the logical extension of what Ron Paul supporters have claimed.  They claim he's the ONLY ONE to do these things.  They claim he'll do whatever is constitutional to accomplish them.  

I ask, what are the consequences of all these promises?

And I fall back on the secondary question - after 20 years in Congress, he couldn't build a coalition for his ideas and beliefs.  How is he going to effect changes as President, where he has to work with the same people in the House, and 100 more personalities in the Senate, to send him bills to sign?

Slavery wasn't abolished, constitutionally, until after Lincoln's death.  But it was outlawed in the "Northwest Territory" in 1790.  Apparently it was Constitutional in the new territories, but not in the original states.

Nowhere in your response do you answer the question posed, but instead insist that "Christian lovers of liberty should be supporting" the dismantle of "Leviathan", and some babble about "Golden Calf".

Simply answering a question with another question is lame, and I'd expect better from such educated supporters.  Asking "England and Europe abolished slavery without war" misses the point - we have a unique Constitution that prevented the abolition of slavery, and the issue had been debated for literally decades before the war.  Whether Lincoln wanted to free the slaves or not is moot.  The war was predicated on the issue of slavery, and had been boiling because of different interpretations of federal and states rights.

And you take this weasle-out method of saying "I don't care about it".  You spend two posts responding to it, and you still didn't answer the question.  

For those who weren't paying attention, Ron Paul believes that the Civil War wasn't the "best way" to abolish slavery.  But I asked, "what would Ron Paul have done to end slavery?" since it boiled down to a constitutional battle between federal and states rights.

There is no baby and bathwater here.  The only thing being thrown out is your lack of an answer.  I ask a question, and expect an answer.  Yet you lambaste me about having a discussion on these things, and you lambaste me when I don't.  Go figure.

I ask, what are the consequences of all these promises?

Smaller government, less bureaucracy, lower taxes, a fairer tax code, a more American centered domestic policy, a government restrained by the Constitution (which, btw, allows for Amendments).

Come on, Ed.  This isn't an answer, it's blustery rhetoric.  Seriously.  What happens to the college system if we abolished the Dept of Education overnight?  You lambaste me for not having a spirited discussion about these things, and you chince out in your own answers.

And I fall back on the secondary question - after 20 years in Congress, he couldn't build a coalition for his ideas and beliefs.  How is he going to effect changes as President, where he has to work with the same people in the House, and 100 more personalities in the Senate, to send him bills to sign?

John, I am not certain where the confusion lies here - in Congress, he is one man amongst 435 (and an additional 100 in the Senate) that he has no direct control over. He has consistently voted against big government, corporatism, etc.

As President, he would have veto power. Whether you like it or not, that can be done with great finesse. Clinton did it on the opposite end of the spectrum, telling a Republican Congress that he would shut down government if he didn't get what he wanted. Granholm did the same right here in our beloved Michigan. Paul could do the same - "give us real spending cuts (not cuts in proposed spending), give us a more equitable tax system that results in taxpayers paying less to Leviathan, or I'll veto it."

Okay, so he'll veto until he gets his way.  In the meantime, the federal government is shutdown.  While this idea appeals to me, what is the fallout of a shutdown government?  How long would Ron Paul hold Congress hostage until he got his way?  

But again, I don't know if I would trust a guy who would simply hold a nation hostage despite the chaos and consequences because he could not negotiate with 535 people in 2 caucuses and 2 houses.

The basic principle is great.  What of the consequences?  Oh, that's right.  Eventually we'll get:

Smaller government, less bureaucracy, lower taxes, a fairer tax code, a more American centered domestic policy, a government restrained by the Constitution (which, btw, allows for Amendments).

In reading through your ten-points, besides getting annoyed at mis-statements like "Bush chickened out", I keep asking myself...

In the big picture, we have noble Ron Paul who will veto the federal budget until he gets his way, closing down the federal government for months.

We still have Bin Laden out there somewhere, plotting against the US.  We have Russia growing more anti-American every day.  What stops either of them, or some other enemy from taking advantage of our crippled state?

And say nothing happens.  Now, after shutting down the federal government, and pissing off 535 members of Congress - we really expect he'll be able to get his judicial nominees approved?  I'm sure pissing off 535 members of congress will also make it harder for him to get legislation abolishing the Department of Education.

And finally, in logic there's a concept of "contrapositive".  If A then B, if Not B, then Not A.

You posit that "If Ron Paul gets elected, that most of the people support most of his positions."

But we know people enjoy their welfare and medicaid.  They enjoy their student loans and prescription coverage.  So the contrapositive would be something like "If most of the people don't support most of his positions, Ron Paul won't get elected."

Why is it that Ron Paul is the only one who is asked these kinds questions?  He is not the only one who believes in the concept of states' rights.  thought he is the most fervent defender.  oh well, I guess I should see this as a good thing.

This first part is irrelevant.  Why is it the sky is grey on chilly frosty days, and what is the price of tea in China?  

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

OK, so I guess you expect Ron Paul's supporters to answer questions for him that aren't directly relevant to the election or his presidency.

Hang on here, we've had six posts already about this.  So I'm not expecting anything.  But if you're going to respond, at least answer the question.

I guess it's fair to question his stance in hypothetical situations, and I happen to have at least a vague understanding of his take on that.  I tried explaining what his sentiments might be: he would not have approved of the aggressive actions and denial of civil liberties perpetrated by Lincoln.

Which is to say that he would have let the union split into two.  But it doesn't answer the question: Ron Paul believes the Civil War was not the best way to resolve slavery, but what does he believe would have been the best way?  

He explained on meet the press the other day that every other civilized nation had already abolished slavery, and done so by relatively peaceful means.

And yet every other civilized nation didn't have our experiment in "self government" and a Constitutional government, with tensions boiling between states rights and federalists.  So again, if the Civil War would have split the union in two (since states were seceeding from the union), what would Ron Paul have done?

I guess I felt more compelled to address your insinuation of Ron Paul as a racist rather than answer your insignificant question that you could easily find the answer to if you just did a little but if internet research.

I see, so you're more interested in lambasting and insulting someone for asking questions about Ron Paul rather than, as Ed Burley wants, engage in a discussion of the issue.

Like I said, six posts in now, it's so hard to get answers from Ron Paul supporters.  I'm apparently stupid for asking the question, but if I don't ask questions and engage in conversation then I'm some large government blustery strawman arguer.  In the meantime, I'm still unsure who to vote for and I have a bunch of Ron Paul supporters standing in my way of voting for him.

Ron Paul can't build a consensus in his own party, as a member of Congress, but he'll somehow build coalitions and not chicken out when he's got to work with the same group.  He can piss off 535 legislators with shutting down the federal government, but can build a concensus with these folks to kill the Dept. of Education and get his nominees approved?

Right, I didn't think so.

Because Reagan won the presidency and obviously could do EVERYTHING and even MOST of the things HE wanted to do.  The guy Ron Paul claims as an inspiration.

I didn't think so.

But you're telling me, Ron Paul would win the presidency, which means most of the people agree with most of his ideas and ideals.  And that just means he'll be able to accomplish what he wants to do.

You claim to be a realist.  I'm afraid this narrow understanding of government (and the people which elect it) is nothing more than wishful thinking.  Realism would look at the situation and find out how we got here, and work to reverse it.  Wishful thinking and pessimism says "burn it all down, everyone's wrong but me."  I don't see Ron Paul or his supporters trying to get along with anyone.  Everyone else is wrong, and you should change for us.