Ron Paul wins Maine, and I was there!

[Warren Dew]

Also, I'm wondering why a "libertarian" thinks that a government should be able to discriminate against homosexuals who wish to get married?

Ron Paul's full position on this is that the government shouldn't be concerned with marriage at all, treating everyone as individuals.

This one I actually agree with, unlike his earmarks position.

[Robert_S]

I don't usually get excited about watching the Republican National Convention, but when I do, it'll be be this August.

Just to clarify, I'm no fan of Ron Paul, but from what I hear, he and his supporters have the potential to make things interesting this time around.

[Warren Dew]

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. He's against growing federalism, but seeks federal tax dollars to help county- and state-level projects in Texas. He put many of those requests through in the form of earmarks attached to unrelated legislation, which he then voted against ... knowing fully well that his colleagues would approve the main thrust of the legislation, and he'd get both his earmark ... and the ability to crow about his principled stand against Federal spending.

I think his position here is that federal spending should be minimized, but that what there is of it should be specified - earmarked - by the house of representatives rather than left to the discretion of the president. I think his voting pattern is consistent with this: he votes against the overall spending bill because it's too large, but he puts his earmarks in when the bill is being prepared because he thinks that's how spending bills should be put together.

Personally I don't agree. I think earmarks lead to increases in the budget, and that it's okay to give the executive some spending discretion to minimize that effect. Most Republicans in congress seem to agree with me and have taken the anti-earmark pledge. Paul does not.

[Warren Dew]

I don't usually get excited about watching the Republican National Convention, but when I do, it'll be be this August.

Just to clarify, I'm no fan of Ron Paul, but from what I hear, he and his supporters have the potential to make things interesting this time around.

I think it will be really interesting to see whether things come down to a floor fight. Apparently Romney and Paul get along pretty well, so they might be able to coordinate in advance.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, I'm wondering why a "libertarian" thinks that a government should be able to discriminate against homosexuals who wish to get married?

Ron Paul's full position on this is that the government shouldn't be concerned with marriage at all, treating everyone as individuals.

This one I actually agree with, unlike his earmarks position.

If that is indeed his position, I'm fine with it. But from what I've read, at the federal level he opposes efforts to redefine marriage as being anything but one man, one woman, for the purposes of one state recognizing a marriage made in another. This has the effect denying the equal protection of the law which the 14th Amendment requires of the states. The narrowing of liberty is not consistent with the Libertarian principle of expanding the freedoms enjoyed by citizens. It is manifestly incorrect to assert that the federal government has no business insuring that Constitutional rights be enjoyed by all citizens. That is one of the three primary responsibilities of the government -- "securing the blessings of liberty."

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think his position here is that federal spending should be minimized, but that what there is of it should be specified - earmarked - by the house of representatives rather than left to the discretion of the president. I think his voting pattern is consistent with this: he votes against the overall spending bill because it's too large, but he puts his earmarks in when the bill is being prepared because he thinks that's how spending bills should be put together.

Personally I don't agree. I think earmarks lead to increases in the budget, and that it's okay to give the executive some spending discretion to minimize that effect. Most Republicans in congress seem to agree with me and have taken the anti-earmark pledge. Paul does not.

He made $157 million in Federal funding requests for stuff which ought to be handled at the state or local government level, including:

• $8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
• $2.5 million from taxpayers for "new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting."
• $2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an "Economically Disadvantaged" area.
• $2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a "Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center."
• $38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to "encourage parents to read aloud to their children."
• $18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
• $4 million from federal taxpayers for the "Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative."
• $11 million from federal taxpayers for a "Community-Based Job Training Program."
• $2 million from federal taxpayers for a "Clean Energy" pilot project.
• $5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
• $1.2 million for a "Low-income working families Day Care Program"
• $4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

[See also here.]

Of course, I'm sure that if he didn't bring those projects and funding to his district, he wouldn't last nearly so long in office, which gives me pause to think: he strikes me as a hell of a lot of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" -- playing the same game the others play.

Perhaps I'm cynical and wrong. But I don't trust him. I like his followers, though, and I like that he's awakened people to the idea of a smaller and less-intrusive Federal government. My skepticism lies in his ability, and perhaps willingness, to deliver it.

[Tyrannical]

With earmarks, Congress dictates how the money should be spent. This is the proper way.
Without earmarks, the President is basically free to spend money without oversight as most Federal departments fall under the executive branch.

Now Paul would rather just cut spending, and he almost always votes against the spending package. But if the Government insists on taxing and spending, he wants some of that spending directed back into his district.

[Thumpalumpacus]

With earmarks, Congress dictates how the money should be spent. This is the proper way.
Without earmarks, the President is basically free to spend money without oversight as most Federal departments fall under the executive branch.

Now Paul would rather just cut spending, and he almost always votes against the spending package. But if the Government insists on taxing and spending, he wants some of that spending directed back into his district.

I'd rather see him not behave so much like a run-of-the-mill politician. We have enough of those as it is.

I do like his stance on foreign involvements, though.

[Tyrannical]

Paul is the polar opposite of run of the mill politician. He has no problem allying with whomever on particular issues regardless of party.

But for an election that is supposed to be over with Romney as a winner, you'd never know it at the State convention floors. Record attendance with over 3,000 people and 2,200 voting delegates. Some Romney folks were being quite unethical, they kept calling points of order or did what ever they could to delay the vote and vote counting. They also circulated fake delegate nomination lists to try and split the vote forcing a dozen Paul supporters to rise and decline nominations.

The first two votes are for convention Chair and Secretary, and with over 2,200 votes cast Paul supporters won it by 30 and 4 votes. After that Paul voters knew they were in the majority, and Romney supporters slowly trickled out through the day. But they tried to stall the convention at every move,and we went hours behind schedule. The first day it took us almost five hours to conduct the scheduled first hour's business.

How do I know everything is a small minority of Romney supporters fault? Because Paul voters had them out numbered as proved by us winning every single vote.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Paul is the polar opposite of run of the mill politician. He has no problem allying with whomever on particular issues regardless of party.

That no more differentiates him from the run-of-the-mill politician than does his hypocrisy regarding federal handouts. When Democrat and Republican both agree on an issue, I get more skeptical, not less.

But for an election that is supposed to be over with Romney as a winner, you'd never know it at the State convention floors. Record attendance with over 3,000 people and 2,200 voting delegates. Some Romney folks were being quite unethical, they kept calling points of order or did what ever they could to delay the vote and vote counting. They also circulated fake delegate nomination lists to try and split the vote forcing a dozen Paul supporters to rise and decline nominations.

The first two votes are for convention Chair and Secretary, and with over 2,200 votes cast Paul supporters won it by 30 and 4 votes. After that Paul voters knew they were in the majority, and Romney supporters slowly trickled out through the day. But they tried to stall the convention at every move,and we went hours behind schedule. The first day it took us almost five hours to conduct the scheduled first hour's business.

How do I know everything is a small minority of Romney supporters fault? Because Paul voters had them out numbered as proved by us winning every single vote.

I'm glad that Paul's supporters are injecting their sense of small government into the matter, because my sense is that Romney is a GWB "Republican" ... mouthing the words of small government, while overseeing its expansion.