The obstetrician, numismatist and hater of the Fed and the UN who just might win in Iowa

I didn't think the economist (which i've had a subscription to for years) would be so shamelessly and negatively partisan as to follow Fox news and CBS in repeating that he'll never be president. People are attracted to him not because he's perfect or because they feel comfortable with all his ideas, but because he's the only candidate speaking truth to power. None of the others challenge militarism and the outrageous bailing out of big finance with taxpayer money. In case you didn't get the memo, democracy means that any candidate with enough votes can officially win. It is not for the pompous, arrogant, and intellectually mediocre editors of the main stream media to decide the outcome by questioning the feasability of a candidate who's about to win iowa.
As far as "In the end, Mr Paul’s obsession with the Fed is an anti-government conspiracy theory", i had no idea that the supposedly free market economist is in favour of socialism for the rich as well as free financial insurance and bailouts for wallstreet. A pathetic article by a weekly newspaper that has truly taken over from the times of london in it's ability to deliver out-of-touch, establishment drivel with the veneer of sophistication and wisdom.

The article misses Ron Paul's appeal. No one really wants him to be president so saying the many good reasons why he shouldn't become the president is pointless.

People like him because he's the only one on the national stage who points out the elephants in the room.

Ron Paul is not the guy to deal with a ludicrously oversized defence budget, or massive budget deficits or reforming the tax code, but his presence forces the other candidates to acknowledge the problems.

The higher Ron Paul's national profile gets, the more people start thinking about whether America needs half of the Earth's defense spending, for instance. He takes America's sacred cows, (our huge defense budget, our unconditional alliance with Israel, our suspension of civil liberties, ) out to the woodshed and cuts off their heads.

He'd be a disaster in office, but he's amazing as a catalyst for honest debate.

I can't understand how journalists brand Ron Paul as "wacky", without exposing themselves as being gone-case nutters themselves, a reflection of the distorted media world. Being anti-war as the US's main foreign policy instrument, fiscally responsible, zealously against infringements on fundamental human rights, championing rule of law, treating all individuals domestically and all nations abroad equally in principle, seems sane, decent, and full of wisdom to me.
Being anti-Fed is not anti-government conspiracy theory but a legitimate concern about how an organisation that has little scrutiny can misuse its formidable power, a power that has indeed been misused in the multi-trillion dollar bank bailout (taxpayer robbery). The Fed shouldn't be treated as a holy cow, but an organisation that can be questioned in terms of its utility, transparency, and performance versus alternatives.

Not being white, or Christian- I must have missed the memo about the exclusive "white Christian nation" us Ron Paul supporters are working towards. More likely this goal only exists in the conspiracy theories of those who haven't actually listened to Dr. Paul's message, which is based on freedom, equality and self-determination of all individuals.

Enough with the "un-electable" articles. All of these mainstream articles are delusional from head to toe. What I mean is that they preach a false message (e.g. "Ron Paul won't win the GOP nomination") with the utmost certainty. But it is based on flawed, or nonexistent, evidence. This is the equivalent of saying "Nobody will win the lottery this week," and basing it on probability. There is absolutely NO reason for journalists to predict the future so that people change their minds about the present. It is very much like Stockholm Syndrome - when you hear something over and over again, even knowing that it is wrong, you begin to believe it. If this hack want to predict the future, he can waste people's time in other ways like gypsies.

"He has a support ceiling of 5%"
"He has a support ceiling of 10%"
"Okay, his support ceiling is 15%"
"He'll never win even a single state."

His "ceiling" is like the roof of an elevator. It's always the same distance above him, but it keeps moving with him. It's been raised more times than the US debt ceiling FFS.

I guess the economist is just another status-quo news source. We're not going to let you tell us who to vote for.

I was a print subscriber to the Economist until I read this. As long as the way the media presents Ron Paul in a way that is contradictory to my understanding of his policies I will fight for his ideas. Either they are ignorant or they are scared that Paul would cause them to lose power. If you ahve not heard the positions of Ron Paul for yourself out of his mouth you are not getting the complete story. Do some research and make your own decisions. This is a very critical time for our country and the status quo is not acceptable.

"worldview so wacky and a programme so radical that he was recently discounted as a no-hoper"

Man I feel so dirty reading this article. I think I am going to take a shower after I post this. This hit job on Dr. Ron Paul is cleary not working, just look at the latest poll numbers up +1 to 24%.

Always with the "he's unelectable" and "he can't win", but Americans are waking up and translating those statements as "we don't WANT him to be elected" and "we don't WANT him to win".

The cartoon paints Paul as a silly, quixotic figure, but Americans are seeing how the Fed has caused tremendous devaluation of the dollar and, unlike the author who appears to be looking through rose-colored glasses, they are seeing RED.

Paul is the ONLY candidate who not only sees what the problems are but also has the WILL to tackle them with serious solutions. The establishment recognizes this fact and it is running scared. The rest of the field merely wants to engage in musical funds while the country goes down in flames, fleecing the middle class and laughing all the way to the bank.

The really inspiring thing about Dr. Paul is that not only is he serious about making much-needed reforms, but he also shows a tremendous amount of wisdom and understanding in the approaches he proposes for making the changes. In each case, he is showing compassion and awareness of contracts that our government has made with the citizens and would proceed along a path that would allow businesses to feel secure about regulatory stability, those reliant upon Social Security to continue to best see that promise fulfilled, and every change enacted with similar thoughtfulness.

This is the sort of change that inspires HOPE and CONFIDENCE in a future based on LIBERTY, SOUND CURRENCY, and a STRONG national DEFENSE, according the Constitution. This is the sort of change that is GOOD and NEEDED. This is the sort of change that every thinking regular American can truly believe in and support.

Ron Paul has a serious chance in becoming President because he has the support of many independents and even some democrats. In a hypothetical match-up, polls have shown he has the most chance in beating Barack Obama among republicans in the general election...

Mainly because most of his ideas are not whacky at all, rather they represent the ideas enshrined in the US constitution. For one the FED did not exist until the 20th century and before its existence the USA managed to become an economic superpower. Clearly this history is evidence enough that the FED is NOT indispensible.

I really want Ron Paul to be President. I don't trust any of the other candidates to have the will and determination needed to get federal spending under control.

This article states multiple times with unwavering certitude that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. There are two reasons why this might be the case: either the author has knowledge that allows him to know the result of the primary process with certitude or instead he is saying it in order to desuade people from voting for him precisely because he is worried that Paul can and will win.

If it's the former let me recommend to you intrade.com. Currently the intraders are giving Paul about a 1 in 12 chance of winning the nomination; about the same odds of rolling a sum of 4 on two dice. I've rolled dice before and I can tell you the odds of rolling a 4 are not zero. If you are so certain, Intrade will allow you to make as much money as you like; please let us know once you have placed your trade.

If its the latter, than your are lying to us; passing off advocacy as news and you are a part of the corruption that has enslaved us. And in that case, I'm really not interested in what you "think".

This is not nice. I would expect and appreciate the economist to provide an intellectual discussion or argument on pauls ideas. I do not come to the economist to read that pauls worldviews are wacky and that his dislike for the fed is ultimately a conspiracy theory without any explanation. Is there a the economist article that does an actual discussion onpauls views? If there are i would bemuch obligedif anyone could direct me to it. In general i like this magazine for its informational articles, but this one is void of information.

Lexington has done profiles on Bachmann, Cain, Pawlenty, Trump (really?), Perry and Gingrich, yet Ron Paul is the only candidate so 'unelectable' it must be mentioned 4 times.

One of Paul's main appeal is due to his opposition of the industrial military complex (one of the few politicians today). I hope future candidates with this position aren't also considered 'unelectable'

I completely agree. There should be no such sentence as "He won't win the GOP nomination". Not only does it sound like forcing the readers to believe in it, the evidence for this conclusion is also weak. Simply said, the argument is invalid.

I am astonished and appalled at the level of ignorance displayed by this writer. I expect much more from The Economist. Ordinary people may be excused for calling Ron Paul's policies 'wacky'- but The Economist, bastion of liberal economics?

Ron Paul is 100% right in almost all his policies. America maintaining military bases abroad is arrogant, expensive, provocative of other countries and anachronistic. Never mind unnecessary. Would America tolerate foreign soldiers on its own soil? In the same vein, a foreign policy built on military adventurism is not only creating insecurity (by riling up so-called terrorists), it is something America cannot afford anymore.

On abolishing the Federal Reserve, you call this conspiracy theory? I would expect that The Economist of all institutions would know that no less than Milton Friedman himself also advocated the abolishing of the Fed. The Fed's low interest rates were what inflated the housing bubble that caused the current global economic crises. The bankers (who are being blamed) were only lending out the expanded money supply that Alan Greenspan irresponsibly created. Ron Paul was right- who does the Fed report to?

More fundamentally, the Fed is a distortion of the market that is guaranteed to cause frequent imbalances. Interest rates are just the price of money, and like any price should be market-determined. By setting interest rates, the Fed is engaging in nothing less than price fixing for the market. What liberal economist supports this in any other context? When the Fed keeps interest rates too low you have bubbles, when they are too high it strangles the economy. With no Fed however, interest rates would be entirely market-determined, meaning the supply and demand for money would always be in equilibrium, eliminating dangerous bubbles and automatically dampening inflation in frothy times.

You can disagree or not with this argument (I agree 100%) but it is worthy of serious debate considering the facts. To dismiss calls for abolishing the Fed as the idea of a lunatic fringe is amazingly ignorant, and not something I would expect from anyone schooled in macroeconomic theory.

http://www.motmaitre.com/

As a registered independent who voted for Obama the last time round, the only Republicans I would even consider voting for come November are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, or the forgotten Gary Johnson. More significantly, only candidate I will actually give some money to is Ron Paul.

Paul is not unelectable - many like me agree with him on the need to trim the military, close foreign bases, reduce the size of the government, and wanting sound money. I am tired of seeing the Fed slowly but surely erode my life's savings by debasing the value of the dollar, while giving money to Wall Street banksters through all sorts of special sweetheart deals. I'm also tired of seeing young men and women sent off to wars against folks that did not attack us. We moderates are pretty p'd off with both the Democrats and the Republicans - and Paul might just be the one to tap into our anger. Go Ron Paul.

This is indeed a lousy piece of journalism.

Ron Paul may be wacky, but he's not warlord wacky or corruption wacky, so what's the worst he can do? He cuts a few agencies too many and the next guy puts them back, refocused, reformed and better functioning than before. Even if he ends the Fed, it wouldn't be something hadn't been done before, and the Fed is an improvement over the National Bank ended by Jackson.

I'll take an honest, transparant, individual freedom touting do-nothing President over the remaining crooks on either side any day. I hear what Romney and Newt tell me, and some makes sense, but I'd have to be completely daft to think they will do anything but what's on their own agenda. It's all lip service. A massive charade.

Do it Iowa. Grow a set. Elect Ron Paul.

Dear editorial,

I'm a seventeen year old boy from the Netherlands who's a libertarian and a supporter of Ron Paul. And I just want to share my view on Ron Paul and your statement on his campaign.

Although I support his austrian view of economics (which in some way, have to please you guys too because it is based on a laissez-faire point of view!), it is clearly not the mains reason why he is popular. Ron Paul is getting so much votes and support from 'the internet' and young people because he is consistent and he is, what I call, the agent of freedom.

People like me are growing up in a peaceful society, where our teachers are teaching us the value of non-violence. But the contrast with the real world couldn't be bigger, because America (and European countries as the Netherlands) are intervening in countries without any solid reason. We are tought that the Cold War was a dangerous threat to Modern World (with over 30.000 nuclear weapons) and that the world was on the point of collapsing in 1962, but that things went well when Kennedy and Chroesjtov decided to follow a policy of peaceful co-existence. We are being tought (every single day while the European debt crisis is going on!) that the European Union enriches us all (by providing free trade), while at the same point it is THE reason why we're living in a peaceful Europe and that nationalism is condemned.

So, if our parents and teachers (and even politicians) are learning us day in day out that violence is not an option, it is not a big surprise we support a man who actually stands for these beliefs.

The constitution is the other point where Ron Paul scores. The founding fathers were the guys who created America. They build a society upon liberal values. With Americans being tought that they should be proud of their country, it is not that much suprising that people vote for a man who actually honours the values of the founding fathers and who is following the constitution.

And last but not least, Ron Paul is popular on the issue of economics, because our current approach is not lifting us out of this mess. Actually, things are becoming worse. I think this is the reason why Ron Paul his message is being praised, it is a whole different approach (and a whole different point of view towards the economists in the media), a kind of risky and cheeky (and against the establishment), which suites the young generation.

Yes, few did read Hayek and Mises (I didn't too, but I did read other libertarian/austrian books), but the message of freedom and anti-government is suiting our generation and, as it seems, it inspires more and more people because we all enjoy freedom and it is value number ONE!