Let's admit that the recent allegations coming out about the racist content of his old journals from the 90s, while not directly attributed to him but printed under his name have killed much of his chances.

No way! That's a bunch of crap! They have found nothing on Ron Paul to try and make him look bad, the racism thing is just the media reaching for something negative. Don't believe the hype!

I think people who are enthralled by Ron Paul are starting to fall into the trap of single voter issues specifically his foreign policy with regards to imperialism and war in foreign locales, there is a clear line that a Ron Paul presidency would entail a closure of US borders and stricter immigration procedures, the welfare state would be abolished and so will abortion rights on a federal level.

The notion that the newsletters that bore his name, which contain bigot racist remarks were printed for some 5 years (previous ones weren't) and he can't name the ghost writer, or didn't know of the content of something that had his name as a banner is ludicrous. I don't think he himself is a racist himself, the rhetoric between the newsletters is totally not what you see in person.

I find the whole thing rather disappointing, as it proves that back when it wasn't a presidency run Ron Paul did anything to raise money.

abortion right on a federal level....he has made it clear that he believes the abortion issue is up to the states individually to decide...where do you people get your facts...fox news no doubt?

I concede that mistake, he has said that abortion should be a states issue, however he does view it as being murder even as a obstetrician. Have a look at this article though - http://www.counterpunch.org/wolf12122007.html,
There some legitimate questions to consider.

My point is that Paul is still a politician whose stances should be well looked at, I admire him as well for his frankness, but unfortunately the torrent of things he would want to do away with, in fact even most of his stances will not see him getting elected. It's just reality.

Farhad, in your point about the racist comments, it isn't clear to me if you are suggesting that it makes no sense that he doesn't remember writing them, or if it doesn't make sense that he wrote them at all.

I haven't yet heard it suggested that the comments were published by someone named Ron Paul who is not the same person as the presidential candidate. A quick Facebook search finds nearly 300 people by that name, so I think it is fully believable that the racist remarks were not made by him.


That being said, I think he does a great service by bringing to light the problems that he wishes to address. I do think you're on to something about how the changes he calls for might be too much/too many for him to get elected, it would be difficult to implement them all. The campaign he is running is resulting in many people becoming more informed about the issues he is tabling, and for that he is still my favorite candidate.

Let me clarify, I believe that it was not Ron Paul who wrote the newsletter, but these newsletters were directly attributed to having come from his campaign and did carry his name. He himself stated that he just didn't hold a reign over what others wrote under his name. What doesn't make sense to me is how he could have let something like that go on for so long without doing anything about it... even now news is coming out that it was a close associate of his Lee Rockwell that wrote the newsletters, however the Ron Paul campaign hasn't done enough to distance themselves from it, specifically naming who exactly wrote these things that are being connected to Ron Paul.

Don't get me wrong, hes a great candidate none the less someone who doesn't seem to have been bought by big business or corporate interests, and one of the few who actually supports ending American involvement in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Korea. Hes presence at GOP debates adds a healthy dose of real world reality to what is usually a blowjob event of who can promise to kill more 'terrorists'. I like that even if his candidacy fails, alot of youth and grassroots will know that they can expect more substance from their candidates.

I agree he's not the perfect all around candidate, but which one is? I can't say I agree with any one of them on all the issues. But since Ron Paul seems to be the only one speaking the truth and addressing important issues that the others aren't even talking about, he seems to be the only choice. True, some of the things Paul wants to do are pretty radical, but there's no way he'd be able to put into action most of them in four years anyway. We do need some radical policy changes if we're going to stay above water and regain respect on the world stage as well as reorganize our priorities here at home, and Ron Paul would get the ball rolling in that respect.
I think what we really need is something to get people out of their comfort level. Ron Paul's ideas about more localized problem solving, giving power back to the states makes people uncomfortable and fearful because they wouldn't know what to expect. There'd be less cookie cutter answers to problems, it would force people to be more involved, more informed about issues, and force some creative problem solving. I think people don't like this idea because they are FEARFUL and lazy.
This is our country! We need to take back some of the responsibility for it. It seems we have willingly given up many rights because of complacency and fear.

Remember this...No country is going to come over here and take our "freedom" away. Our freedom is threatened by our own government. This is why I agree with Ron Paul in that we need LESS government. Whatever problems we run into figuring out how to deal with less government will be worth it in the long run. Nothing changes without a bit of a struggle.

Ironically, if half the people who have given up on Ron Paul because he "doesn't have a chance" voted for him he would be a shoe-in.

Who cares anymore? He's done. He doesn't have a chance. He never had a chance. And he never had enough followers to make him a significant candidate. If every Ron Paul supporter stood up and voted, he'd lose anyway. The internet loved him, the sift loved him, foreigners loved him, but thank God the American people don't. He's a disaster, and I'm pretty f-ing libertarian.
Small groups of people who are extraordinarily loud do not equal large groups of people who are not.
(I'm shooting for beating QM on comment downvotes on this one >.><.< ...aaaaaaaaand go)