By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press
Thu Nov 15, 4:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON – Those who dismissed Rep. Ron Paul as a joke in the Republican presidential primary campaign aren’t laughing so hard these days.

The Texas libertarian’s rise in the polls and in fundraising proves that a small but passionate number of Americans can be drawn to an advocate of unorthodox proposals such as returning to the gold standard and abolishing the income tax, CIA and Federal Reserve.

Paul, 72, recently set a one-day, online GOP presidential fundraising record, and pulled slightly ahead of Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee in a New Hampshire poll, where he had 8 percent of the Republicans’ support. In Iowa, he tied John McCain for fifth place, with 4 percent each.

Paul remains a very long shot for the nomination. But as the only Republican candidate backing a prompt troop withdrawal from Iraq — and an airing of possible impeachment charges against Vice President Dick Cheney — he appeals to a mix of liberals and conservatives who feel alienated and deeply distrustful of the government.

“Where the extreme left and the extreme right meet, you’ll find Ron Paul,” said Merle Black, an Emory University political scientist and co-author of the book “Divided America.”

“He strikes a chord with some segments of the population,” especially with his quixotic, uncompromising style, Black said. “But there’s a pretty low ceiling in terms of his actual vote.”

Paul, who earned a medical degree from Duke University and embraces the nickname “Dr. No,” often casts the only House vote against proposals he sees as too meddlesome or unworthy of taxpayers’ money.

In recent months he was the only House member to oppose an expression of support for Northern Ireland’s new power-sharing government, a condemnation of “the persecution of labor rights advocates in Iran” and a statement citing the importance of “providing a voice” for relatives of Americans who have vanished.

He was one of two Republicans to vote against funding the Defense Department in 2008, and against urging the release of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Paul is Congress’ most prominent advocate of returning to the gold standard, which the country abandoned in the 1930s. In its purest form it would mean that all paper currency in circulation could be redeemed for gold.

Supporters say the gold standard would curb inflation and boost confidence in the economy. But others say it would trigger severe recessions because the Federal Reserve could no longer manage the money supply in times of economic weakness.

——————————

I have to say something here. This is a classic example of people having their heads where the sun does not shine.

1. Of course a gold standard would curb inflation. By definition, inflation is adding more currency to the available supply of money. Most ignorant Americans (including me, as I only learned the true definition of inflation earlier this year) think inflation is prices rising. This is a total fallacy. Prices rising are a SYMPTOM of inflation, not inflation itself.

Let me explain: Anytime you have MORE of something, it is worth less. Anytime you have LESS of something, it is worth more. This is BASIC SUPPLY AND DEMAND its not rocket science.

So why would a gold standard reduce inflation? Well, by taking the USA off the gold standard, it was kind of like disconnecting the thermostat in your car, your car could be going hyper critial in terms of heat, but you would never know.

By being forced to redeem paper for gold if asked, the government is forced to ‘play fair’ and only print what money it could back in real gold. If the government has no requirement to redeem those paper notes floating around, they can make as much as they want. AND THEY DO. Why do you think the cost of everything has doubled every ten years since 1971 when we severed all ties to gold? Its because they keep doubling the money supply every ten years! DUH!

2. Trigger recession? Manage the money supply in times of weakness? Do people not realize that the Fed being able to ‘manage the money supply’, in other words pump trillions of extra dollars into existence with the stroke of a pen and a computer entry is the REASON we have the probems in the economy we do? This is again, utter ignorance of how the economy truly works in living color. In a TRUE MARKET ECONOMY the MARKET determines strong or weak demand, and by screwing with that equation we are messing with Universal Laws that WILL CORRECT ITSELF REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO TO ‘MANAGE’ IT.

What I personaly like about RP is that he is the only presidential candidate that has enough brain cells to rub together to realize that these issues are the greatest threat to our nation.

—————————————-

For that matter, Paul would eliminate the Fed altogether as an impediment to free markets.

Paul breezily talks of eliminating the personal income tax, saying it provides about 40 percent of federal revenues, which spending cuts could absorb. The government’s funding level would approximate that of 2000, he says, although government statistics put the figure closer to 1995.

In a phone interview Wednesday, Paul said he is inching up in the polls “because more people have heard the message.”

He said he was stunned when supporters raised $4.2 million for him on Nov. 5, mostly through the Internet. It broke Mitt Romney’s one-day fundraising record, $3.1 million, for Republican presidential candidates.

“Something is going on,” Paul said. “It’s all spontaneous,” he said, and reflects a hunger for smaller government, greater adherence to the Constitution and “a pro-American foreign policy.”

Paul said the United States should leave the United Nations. “I don’t like giving up our national sovereignty,” he said.

The government should gather intelligence, he said, but dismantle the CIA, which he accused of blunders and abuses of power.

Democratic-drafted charges that could lead to a House impeachment vote against Cheney, Paul said, deserve careful deliberations by congressional committees.

Presidential debate moderators typically pay scant attention to Paul and two other House members seen as fringe candidates. But he has triggered some crackling exchanges on the Iraq war, unusual for primary campaign debates in which most candidates hold similar views.

At a mid-May debate in South Carolina, Paul infuriated Rudy Giuliani and others by saying U.S. troops’ presence in Saudi Arabia contributed to al-Qaida’s decision to attack the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

“If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem,” Paul said. “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there.”

Many Republicans condemned the remarks. But Paul’s supporters rhapsodize about his candor and integrity on Web sites and at “meet ups.”

“We didn’t really believe we could find an honest politician,” said Cecelia Poole of Elkton, Md., describing how she and her husband intensely researched Paul’s record. First drawn to Paul’s hardline stance against illegal immigration, Poole said she found herself agreeing with him on monetary policy, the war and other issues.

“He would turn this country around in the way that it needs to go,” said Poole, a semiretired mortgage broker. She and her husband now travel to several states, she said, “promoting him everywhere we go.”

Diversify Your Income

– FREE Report “10 Reasons Gold Has Farther to Run”

This entry was posted on Friday, November 16th, 2007 at 11:41 am and is filed under Archived. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.