I'm pretty sure it's the fake eyebrows and over-sized suits holding back the movement.

Actually I'm sorry but I think your questions are kinda nuts. "Holding back the movement" is pretty lol - this movement formed around him. It's a broad coalition of everyone who wants Constitutional Government back as well as an assortment of other incredibly important issues - like avoiding future wars and getting out of the ones we are in, for instance.

But it's pretty clear the GOP will do anything in their power to not nominate him so this is likely the last election he will ever participate in. The movement will be looking for new leaders going forward but make no mistake, it only made it this far because of him.

What the future holds for the Libertarian movement nobody can say, but right now there is a (small l) libertarian polling competitively against the incumbent president and that is nothing short of a miracle, not only for libertarians, but for any one who is anti-war, anti-drug war, pro civil liberties, and so on - as he is the only politician bringing these issues into the national spotlight.

The truth is most are unable to handle the details or even understand deeply what Paul speaks. He knows history well. The term inflation tax, is really a term mostly said by Paul. There are a couple like Peter Schiff, Thomas Woods, and Gary Johnson that can keep up with Paul.

Even Nancy Pelosi calls Ron Paul the great gentleman. People like him, because unlike Gingrich, lets fire Bernanke. He says lets audit and end the fed.

But RP has a problem, he wants to pay everything including setting income taxes to zero, by closing bases overseas. It will never be enough and the tax cuts will be passed and the bases will still be there creating an even larger deficit.

I think he is about as good as anyone else as a spokesman because he has a very good understanding of the economic issues, a good understanding of history and a good understanding of current issues. Gary Johnson, for example, is not nearly as good a spokesman. While I agree with almost all of his policies, I don't think he is very good at articulating their reasoning and I don't think he has the knowledge of history, the constitution and current events to back them up.

Ron Paul is also unique as a long time member of congress who has been very consistent in his principle-based voting record.

As far as kooky views, that is a label given as a smear tactic used by his opponents in the media. It, is, however, an issue for him and any other libertarian. Once you awaken to the idea of liberty, you start to see how terribly wrong many aspects of our society are.

The great debate between Ron Paul supporters would probably be whether the problems in our society are caused by mass ignorance or by organized malicious intent. It seems hard to believe that so many intelligent, educated, accomplished people could be so blind to the clear peril of a debt and currency crisis looming on our horizon. The many libertarians who eventually decide that an organized destruction is more conceivable than a mass ignorance are completely dismissed by the mainstream. This is understandable because to someone who doesn't understand the extent of the problems in this country, the idea of an organized destruction sounds like pure lunacy.

He's also quite good at answering questions in a way that doesn't destroy him politically. The truth is that what is good economically is usually not good politically. It makes it incredibly difficult for a libertarian to do well in a debate while not selling out to populist ideas. Added to this is an inherent bias both in the questions themselves and the selection of questions that are asked. I think he does a decent job of explaining his points in the given circumstances.

His "understanding" of economic issues constitutes one his crazy views, by the way. On that (part and parcel with conspiracy theories, etc.) it's odd to hear someone praise Paul for not being populist.

Paul's answer on abortion made me cringe. "Change the morality of people"...yeah no just no.

That is not in line with freedom or liberty, sorry.

what do you Ron Paul supporters make of conservative radio host, author and constitutional expert Mark Levin? he talks tons about the constitution and he really seems to despise Ron Paul.

go to his site,

http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#

click the 17th January show and either skip to the 30:00min mark to listen through.

Mark talks for ages with a Ron Paul supporter and seems to outwit him when discussing legalizing drugs. he also says RP fans are vindictive and go after his books' ratings on amazon by mass rating them 1 star. anyway, it's a good call and the RP guy seems to get stumped.

Levin also says that RP fans use the term 'neo-con' as a synonym for 'jew'. partly true?

outwit isn't the word i would use. Levin has no logical reasoning chain, and his opponent was ill equipped. Overall a waste of time to listen to unfortuantely

I'm assuming you're pro-choice.
"Change the morality of the people" is by far the most acceptable pro-life stance. It is contrasted with "use violence to force change." (libertarians love to refer to all government actions as violence )
Paul is explicit about using non-violence and "persuasion" to achieve his goals. (his words)
This is perfectly aligned with the goals of freedom and liberty.

Please note that "change the morality of the people" is very similar to stance of many pro-choice politicians. Recall John Kerry's response to an abortion question in the Bush/Kerry debates - he said he "hated abortion," and claimed he wanted to reduce the number, but could not reduce the number by outlawing it.

Regardless of Paul's policy views on abortion (which I assume you vigorously disagree with), his answer in the Jan/19th debate should be acceptable to pro-choice voters.

The crowd's booing was incredibly good for Paul.
He was almost excluded from a 10-minute+ discussion on medicine / medical ethics (for the second time in the same debate!), despite having spent 30+ years as an Ob/Gyn. The crowd let him capitalize on not getting enough air time without looking like a whiner.

Furthermore, bringing up Iran in front of an SC audience would be dangerous, especially considering how little time he would get to discuss it. (almost all of the debate was dedicated to domestic policy). Explaining that you want to end the covert war against Iran would be very bad 35 hours prior to the vote! It'd be much better to do so prior to primaries in friendlier states (e.g., Washington), and have enough time to let the liberal media (Bill Maher / John Stewart etc) to mock the bellicosity of the establishment.

Interestingly, he will likely have to publicly address his stance towards Cuba after SC. (Florida is next)

best? probably not.

you go to war with the army that you have.

You know if Paul was an 100% honest politician who never pandered to the base he could never get elected right? Give him props for trying to say what people want to hear, thats how you get nominated.

Can you elaborate on what you consider "kooky"?

Dude's been fighting the fight for his entire life. He's not the best debater/speaker when he has limited time to convey his argument but seeing him speak in person, without any time constraint, he is a much better orator than he comes across as in these debates. Could somebody possibly come along that is maybe more well spoken? sure. But Dr. Paul has been consistently voting in Congress twice as long as I've been alive. He means what he says and says what he means and follows through and I think that resonates with people when most of Washington is filled with sociopaths absorbed in their own self-interests, voting in ways that they think will get them reelected or voting how their party tells them to. Take SOPA for example. After blackout day and the backlash, a bunch of politicians amazingly switched their stance on the bill. Of course, Dr. Paul, along with a bunch of democrats, opposed SOPA.

Stewart did mock the Fox debate crowd for booing Paul's suggestion that we follow the golden rule.

This is wrong. He didn't say forcefully. I'm about 99% sure he meant through conviction. Freedom and Liberty doesn't mean stubbornness. It means freedom of speech and open debate. People change their position and mind on issues (see Mitt Romney) and he thinks people's position(s) on abortion can be shifted or changed through argument.

Ron Paul desires to lessen the individual liberty of women relative to what they currently have.

So, in your opinion, at what point should the life of the child be protected?

At what point should it be a double homicide if someone kills a pregnant woman? Should abortion still be legal at that point in the pregnancy?

abortion to me, is the policy with the most grey area simply because it is all subjective as to when life officially starts.

I disagree. I talk to a lot of Republicans who consistenty say they like Ron Paul on "everything but foreign policy." If there is another major topic where they disagree, it's on morality laws. I think most Republicans agree with him on government spending, regulations, and even auditing the Fed.

It's interesting that, at least thus far, nobody seems to be raising an eyebrow over the fact that Paul has no intention of releasing his tax returns while at the same time everyone demands to see Mittens' 1040.

Levin is a traditional republican like talk radio hosts Hannity and Levin. They say they believe in the constitution and in limited government, when all they do is push for traditional republicans like Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Romney, Gingrich.These people advocate for an even larger and expanding military, growth of government domestically, a growing police state, destruction of the bill of rights, etc.

No, neocons doesn't refer to jews. Amazing how you think it could be partly true. Neoconservatism is in wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Here's some good info to refute Levin.

Tom Woods vs. Mark Levin
Mark Levin, Ron Paul Hater, Put in His Place

that's because mitt romney is worth $250 mil. ron paul, not so much. c'mon man, ron paul only flies first class when he has enough frequent flyer miles to upgrade. you probably didn't watch the debate last night, but ron paul replied by saying he has no intentions of releasing his tax returns to save him from embarrassment for lack of income compared to other candidates...

RP made it seem like a nonissue, mittens seemed like he was hiding something

iirc current U.S. law allows for women to have an abortion up to the point of viability which generally means they have control of their bodies through the first 6 months with some restrictions. That is fine to me. Defining life at conception and wholly outlawing abortion is not OK to me.

In the past I have read what I presume to be atheist libertarians talk about a just-formed fetus as almost a parasite dependent on the host and that a woman has a right to regulate such a thing at least early on. That is more what I think of as the libertarian position on abortion than Ron Paul wanting it banned completely.

hypocrite?

Ron Paul on Charleston’s 94.3 WSC with Kelly Golden – Jan 20 2012

Ron Paul Speech Southern Republican Leadership Conference – Jan 20 2012

I have no interest in seeing tax returns of any candidate. No idea why people care.