Your title should more accurately read “Dr. Paul? No. Change? No to that too. But let me pretend a while.”

When people are queried about their preferences for government, removed from the pejorative influence of a particular candidate (which the press never does, but always attaches some person's name to the question), what people SAY they want in government is far and away what Dr. Paul presents. Especially if you listen all the way through his statements. ALL of the other offer platitudes, or nonsensical detailed “solutions” disconnected from reality.

Dr. Paul actually presents reasoned and thoughtful context, history and rationale. And he is consistent, with personal integrity. But, as they say, “Americans usually don't go for that.”

I am struck by the apparent overwhelming preference for sound bites, vague mutterings and feel-good platitudes, as opposed to clearly stated positions that are thought out and with understanding of what is realistic and what is the philosophic underpinning and advantage of his position.

With vague platitudes ( from EVERY other candidate) it is so nice and easy to read whatever we want into their statements. Dr. Paul's positions require thought. And a self-confidence that seems to have been bred out of us. (don't get me started on the power elite) Again, “Americans don't usually go for that”. (Yes, quite a few do give thought- the 10% who voted for Dr. Paul, for example – but we're talking majority here.)

The other truly saddening aspect of this as it relates to human nature, is that we cannot seem to help but demand that all candidates defend their position as though they alone were to implement whatever position they are espousing, and do it immediately. Even though we decry dictatorial power in principle, we demand it in practice. And of course, we never think about what we are asking. So the candidates, with the exception of Dr. Paul, yammer on endlessly (even the nice ones that I kind of like) about what they will do to fix things for all of us, knowing that they cannot do much without Congress (Congress as enabler or co-conspirator? There's a thought), and knowing that one size does not fit all, even though, like addicts, we seem unable to stop asking for that kind of solution.

Again, human nature seems to demand that we cram our own pet solutions down the throats of our fellow citizens. The founders of the nation well understood the problems with unchecked “democracy”, and set up a republic to protect individuals. This allowed the fantastic outpouring of individual energy that is the backbone of our success and of all great nations. Yet, just as in history and in America today, even with the most “progressive” candidates, we seem hell bent on eroding that individual freedom. It appears we are not different than the Israelites 3,000+ years ago, when they demanded a king to protect them, giving up, out of fear of external boogeymen, their democratic/republic-like government, even though God warned them of the loss of their liberty. Or the Romans when they elected Caesar for life, setting in motion the change to Empire and the resultant demise of the civilization. Why should we be any different? History is pretty clear that the odds of America being different are nil.

I hold little hope that the essential problems of inflation, exploitation of most of us by an increasingly powerful and sophisticated power elite, economic downslide and loss of civil liberty will be checked. By either side of the “Republicrats” party of power and property. The 10% who seem to get it, simply are not enough.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who even talks about real issues. Who else talks about perpetual war, the falling dollar, inflation, ending the income tax (replacing it with nothing), sound money, restoring lost rights, the medical mafia, etc? Nobody. Voting for any candidate OTHER than Ron Paul will result in lots more of the status quo.

What most Americans are too ignorant to understand is that the system IS heading for a major crash no matter who is elected. That means that ALL government handout will come to an abrupt stop. All empires end in very unpleasant ways.

What is that old saying? Be careful what you wish for…? You just might get it it. So, continue to rail against the only candidate that speaks truth to power and who has real solutions to real problems. With the exception of Ron Paul, all of the candidates are like bobble-head sock puppets talking in an echo chamber. Enjoy your chains if he is not elected.

An interesting attempt to dismiss Ron Paul by “damning with faint praise” – you treat Dr. Paul as though he had a strong place in the original field (“flush with money”) and is simply failing miserably (say, as if Edwards was suddenly polling at 10% or as if he were a McCain-type candidate who had fallen on bad times).

Ron Paul has risen from *nothing*. He has indeed raised 20 million in the last quarter – when he started with almost nothing in the bank. Ron Paul has risen from a candidate who was polling in the 1% to 3% area to one polling in the 9% to 15% range. He has done this all with a genuine grass-roots movement that has entered the fray with eyes wide open (his “cult-like” supporters. Nice touch, a little buried invective.).

This is a success story, not a failure.

Dr. Paul is probably the articulate and persuasive proponent of our core values of individual liberty and freedom I have every heard. He at heart is a small-government, non-interventionist Republican fighting to have his message of freedom heard in a system where the other candidates have all embraced big-government solutions and who constantly beat the war-drums.

I'm proud of Dr. Paul. I came to Paul on own, after watching my party run up hundreds of billions of deficit spending and listening to my government seriously discussing invading and/or attacking 5 countries in the middle East and South Asia (and actually invading 2 of them).

Ron Paul has already been an agent of change. A branch of the Republican party along with allies from outside the party has stood up and let it be known that even if they are not the majority they will let it be known that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld troika turns out to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Spending and bankrupting future generations, hiddden taxes, torture, and empire are not the America that was envisioned in the constitution.

Do you support the principles Ron Paul espouses? Your dismissal of his supporters as cult-like suggests no. In that case it would suggest that you are hiding your dislike of his policy decisions behind a commentary on the horse-race aspects of the campaign. The very fact that Ron Paul can rise from nothing to being taken as a serious candidate tells me something already.

He's already succeeded.