Get Happy, Be Happy, Stay Happy

Lana, Ron’s victory in Nevada is indeed second place. With 14% of the vote, barely edging McCain (who did not campaign or advertise) and a fair distance from Romney’s 51%.

I think his performance may influence some of the discussion in the nomination. I am more concerned that his supporters, should he not get nominated, will choose to sit out rather than realign with another candidate.

If we examine the total votes to date we see the following;

Name Total %
Romney 465,768 36.86%
McCain 367,187 29.06%
Huckabee 210,915 16.69%
Paul 90,631 7.17%
Thompson 54,443 4.31%
Giuliani 51,105 4.04%
Uncomitted 17,971 1.42%
Hunter 4,567 0.36%
Tancredo 531 0.04%
Brownback 354 0.03%

There is almost no mention of the bottom four candidates - with Guiliani and Thompson getting mentions only due to their prior star power.

Ron’s fantasy oriented position on economics is absolutely terrifying. His comments on his own site to the effect of;

Nevada, by the way, is known as the Silver State for a reason-its great mining industry produced the precious metal for the beautiful silver dollars minted at the fabled Carson City mint. These constitutional coins, include .775 ounces of silver, in accord with the Coinage Act of 1792. Today these coins, worth $1 in my father’s day, have about $14 in silver. That is, the dollar is worth 1/14th of what it was, thanks to the counterfeiting Federal Reserve.

The man has no understanding of monetary policy or modern economics. I appreciate his smaller, less intrusive government approach to life. However, we no longer live in the 17th century.

Fox posted a rather matter of fact article on Paul. Judging from the comments, it would seem that Fox has been mean to Paul from day one.

As a suggested reading, although Wikipedia is never my first choice, this post on monetary policy should provide some insight into modern economics.

What can I say, CD? Different strokes for different folks.

By the way, I don’t need to consult Wikipedia for insight into modern economics. Not sure what point you are making here.

Did you see this article by Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, an independent economics and investment-research firm?

http://tinyurl.com/2oxp3t

“Sometimes you feel like a nut
Sometimes you don’t.”

I read Luskins article, sorry for the Wiki link, I think monetary policy is not transparent and want to make sure people are aware of its origins and effects.

I thought Luskin glossed over too much of Ron’s specific policy. Luskin seems to think Ron will turn into a full free marketer, deregulating everything and dropping tarriffs across the board. That would lead to an outsourcing stampede which made the textile industry collapse seem like chump change.

PS - The CLub for Growth actually has a half-hearted endorsement of the Congressman.

I checked out The Club for Growth site. Very interesting summation of Ron Paul — I especially noted their idea of him being a purist and perfectionist (and how that works against him).

Maybe that’s another reason I’m drawn to him (Cover your eyes, CD — hey, I’m a Virgo!)

“When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.

But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.

Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.”

It is the bane of idealists everywhere - unwilling to compromise to make progress, they become mired in their own vision.

You are right — that often happens.

I don’t know at this point if Paul falls in that category, but I’ll be keeping the possibility in mind.