GOP Chaos: McCain & Romney Win, Paul Places. Where's Rudy?

Ron Paul has now done something that Rudy Giuliani has never done.

The anti-war congressman from Texas, who famously tangled with Mr. 9/11 over foreign policy in the only interesting GOP debate, has finished in the top tier of a Republican caucus or primary contest.

Paul's second-place finish is Saturday's Nevada caucuses bagged him just 4 delegates. And his 14 percent of the vote could not compete with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's 51 percent.

But Paul finished ahead of not just Giuliani -- who finished in sixth place -- but of Arizona Senator John McCain, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.

The attention was not on Paul Saturday, nor even on Romney.

It was John McCain's night. To chants of "Mac is Back," the maverick who is rapidly becoming the choice of mainstream Republicans claimed first place in South Carolina's "first-in-the-south" primary.

But neither South Carolina nor Nevada did much to sort out a chaotic Republican race.

McCain will go on, a little stronger but not exactly looking like a powerhouse after finishing just three points ahead of Huckabee.

Huckabee fell short, but he was certainly enough of a contender to continue a campaign that can live off the land -- especially in the evangelical precincts of the south.

Romney finished a dismal fourth in South Carolina, but he got his "gold" in Nevada. So he's got a ticket to Florida's January 29 primary, which is looking more and more like an essential contest.

Thompson beat Romney in South Carolina. But his third-place finish was nothing to get excited about. He'll be huddling with his campaign team tonight and tomorrow. Watch for a withdrawal. (California Congressman Duncan Hunter, who has actually run worse than Thompson and Giuliani, finally called it quits Saturday.)

Paul has his second from Nevada -- or, as Romney would put it, "the silver" -- and a better finish in South Carolina than Giuliani. He's also got more money in the bank than most of the other candidates, a muscular fund-raising operation, enthusiastic young volunteers and a message that distinguishes him from the field. He's in the race for a good long time, and now he's actually winning delegates.

And what of Rudy Giuliani?

"America's mayor" either wins Florida -- where he has camped out as the other candidates have slogged through Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Michigan, Nevada and now south Carolina -- or there really is no way to make a case for carrying his bizarre campaign forward.

And the issues are not going Giuliani's way. The country's talking about a recession, not 9/11 or national security. And McCain, Romney and Huckabee all heading to Florida with better-thought and more effective economic messages. So, too, is Ron Paul -- the man who beat Giuliani in Nevada and South Carolina and Michigan and Iowa.

With those four delegates from Nevada, Ron Paul's claiming 6 delegates.

So far, Rudy Giuliani is claiming 2. That's one more than Duncan Hunter.

Comments (49)

1. The chaos isn't ENTIRELY on the Repub side, Mr Nichols.

   Note your own colleague Ari Melber's delegate count for Obama and Hillary coming out of Nevada. (Likely as not, Obama wins South Carolina, but Her Nibs carries the day on Super Tuesday and its over...but ya never know.)

   And if McCain and Romney don't KILL each other...they might just join forces. "Maverick John" is the one the poll say can take on She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed...and Romney is young enough to wait for 2016 as Veep. "Maverick & Mitt in '08"?

   Of course it means the Evangelicals bite the bullet and vote for two guys that they don't trust or, in Romney's case, loathe for his religion.

   Posted by Mask at 01/19/2008 @ 11:26pm

2. this is kinda like watching those numbered balls bounce around on one of those lottery shows.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 12:18am

3. Let's just read this again:

   "Paul has his second from Nevada -- or, as Romney would put it, "the silver" -- and a better finish in South Carolina than Giuliani. He's also got more money in the bank than most of the other candidates, a muscular fund-raising operation, enthusiastic young volunteers and a message that distinguishes him from the field. He's in the race for a good long time, and now he's actually winning delegates. "

   Ron Paul always viewed this as a long-haul race. We have been fighting against not just low name-recognition, but ignorance of his policies, and the MSM and his own GOP actively working against him. The grassroots supporters have been busy spreading the message, and this will continue. We are on track to be at the right number of voters November 4.

   If you're not already onboard the r3V0Lution for liberty, peace, and prosperity, please check him out. He really IS the last hope for this country. Let's just hope it's not too late.

   Posted by lastnymleft at 01/20/2008 @ 12:59am

4. Chaos? Confusing? It needn't be, not for either branch of the US Property Party. A modest proposal: Solve the caucus v. primary voting confusion nationwide in one go ... and save the taxpayers & parties $$$. Privatize the process. The parties each electoral cycle auction off the rights to corporate bidders. The winner or 2, say Disney & Philip Morris in 2012, then call a thousand or so scientifically selected voters who, in the comfort of their homes, register their candidate preferences, after a corporate & popularly financed billion $$$ TV ad & debate format campaign has informed us of the possible choices. Vox populi, why not, it's been done before. Call it "American Candidate" & lease the franchise to countries the US invades in its patriotic spread of freedom & democracy globally.

   Posted by Lit at 01/20/2008 @ 01:29am

5. Ron Paul is a racist. His newsletter was complete pander for the extreme right wing. Spewing racism he now claims he never read it? Bull. He at the very least knew who the target audience was, and the techniques utilize to garner them as readers. Look for him on youtube answering to these allegations of racism. He sounds like a little kid trying to come up with an excuse that'll get him off for his behavior. Racist!

   Posted by Dethtol at 01/20/2008 @ 05:47am

6.         "The anti-war congressman from Texas, who famously tangled with Mr.
           9/11 over foreign policy in the only interesting GOP debate, has
           finished in the top tier of a Republican caucus or primary contest."
   

   Correction. Dr. Paul is not anti-war. He doesn't have a problem, at all, with Congress declaring war. He has a problem with Congress giving the President a resolution to do something they're not committed to doing themselves.

   If I may address Dethtol,'s comment -- Dehtol, you have every right to believe what you want. You also have a responsibility as a member of society to ensure you are well-informed when you decide to accuse a fellow member of society.

   I agree it appears damning before facts are known. But if you take Dr. Paul's explanation and you put together just a few facts yourself, you can come to the conclusion that what he says concerning this accusation is true and that it's being brought up solely due to the fact that it's the only thing controversial his opponents can seem to muster (after all he's been happily married for 50 years, has been true to his convictions in Congress, is not swayed by lobbyists, and, thus, is not your stereotypical politician)

   There are many, but please consider just 2 facts...

   1) Austin Texas NAACP Director, Nelson Linder, has been friends with Dr. Paul for the past 20 years. It's not likely Ron could be even slightly racist without Mr. Linder knowing so.

   2) Dr. Paul is a libertarian. Being a racist goes against a true libertarian's beliefs. Merely by definition, libertarians see people as individuals and not representatives of a race or racial 'minority'. For further info on libertarians, consult the party's web site -- lp.org and more specifically, their platform.

   Again, I respect your right to believe what you may and say what you want but keep in mind next time you state the Dr. Paul is a racist -- realize that he's actually not and that you have become a tool of his opponents by continuing spreading this lie.

   Peace.

   Posted by qwickset at 01/20/2008 @ 10:06am

7. The Democrats will unite the Republicans by nominating Hillary so Republicans don't need to be concerned about their temporary chaos.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 01/20/2008 @ 10:28am

8. This is a reply to DETHOL regarding Ron Paul being a racist. Ron Paul is NOT a racist. He did not write nor approve of the newsletters in question. He has publicly repudiated the statements of those newsletters on CNN. See this on you tube. [youtube.com] No one has been able to point to anything that Dr. Paul himself said or wrote that is racist. He is, in fact, anti-racist. As a Christian, he believes that individuals gain their rights from our creator and not because they are white or black or men or women. I encourage you to really look into what Ron Paul believes in, and I think you will find a man of unusual character and integrity. You will see a brave patriot who has stood up for America and the Constitution for over 30 years in the face of adversity. If you begin to understand why America's foreign policy, deficit spending and corrupted government is leading to the ruin of our great country, then I am confident that you will want to join the good doctor and help promote those policies that can restore America's greatness. God Bless America and God Bless Ron Paul.

   Posted by chuckster at 01/20/2008 @ 10:36am

9. Posted by QWICKSET 01/20/2008 @ 10:06am

   hey, how do you centre the paragraphs?

   thanks.

   ron paul seems great. but polar bears have no property rights. who are they going to sue?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 11:01am

10. Posted by DETHTOL 01/20/2008 @ 05:47am

    Care to comment on John "Gook" McCain and his support of the Confederate flag as a symbol of heritage? I find it fascinating that Ron Paul gets all kinds of flak, yet McCain get's none.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/20/2008 @ 11:34am

11. ...yet McCain get's none.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/20/2008 @ 11:34am

    Guess you don't pay attention to Rush, Hannity, David Broder, George Will, Nat'l Review, WSJ,....those fringe elements!

    It's clear, to me at least, the MSM wants McCain even while banking on his defeat in November!

    Posted by Happy at 01/20/2008 @ 11:40am

12. Frank-Hillary is both a divider and uniter.She divides independents and Democrats,but unites Republicans.They will turn out in large numbers to vote against her,but Democrats will not show up in large numbers to vote for her.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/20/2008 @ 12:25pm

13. "Gook"

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/20/2008 @ 11:34am

    srj?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 12:28pm

14. I'm getting the idea that the Democrats don't want to win anything.The ones in congress have let us know,in no uncertain terms, that voting for them was a waste of our time and is something that we should never do again and giving us Hillary,who will bring out multitudes of Republicans to vote against her,tells me that they don't want the White House,either.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/20/2008 @ 12:37pm

15. Frank-Hillary is the Republicans biggest nightmare.That's why they will show up in large numbers to vote against her.Of course,the Clinton machine is just as bad as the Bush/Rove machine and maybe she will do a Bush/Rove in order to win.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/20/2008 @ 2:18pm

16. Frank-Hillary doesn't destroy Republicans.She votes for Bush and GOP policies.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/20/2008 @ 2:36pm

17. I beg to differ. On what grounds people say Ron Paul cannot beat Hillary one on one? I think instead he stands a bloody good chance to win! With access to the media, Ron Paul wins easily. I managed to win the support of my uncle to Ron Paul! And He is more like those european socialists.

    Posted by Mordan at 01/20/2008 @ 2:38pm

18. Hillary on the other hand will get Obama's endorsement and Barack will campaign for her whether he's on the ticket or not.

    You are wrong about this one, FRANKGRITS. If Hillary manages to win, most of Obama's supporters will sit this one out, including myself.

    I will either vote for the Greens or not vote, and I know I am not alone.

    I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANOTHER ELECTION IS WHICH I AM VOTING AGAINST SOMEONE RATHER THAN VOTING FOR SOMEONE.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/20/2008 @ 2:55pm

19. Sorry for the typo! It should have read:

    I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANOTHER ELECTION [IN] WHICH I AM VOTING AGAINST SOMEONE RATHER THAN VOTING FOR SOMEONE!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/20/2008 @ 2:59pm

20. "I wonder how Limbaugh will explain the fact that in family photos, McCain's two sons wear military uniforms while Romney's FIVE sons were civies." Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/20/2008 @ 11:49am

    No problemo, amigo. Willard Mitt Romney has already explained for us -- really, how often must he explain? -- that he & his 5 rich strapping sons are serving their country best by Willard's running for president. (BTW: why did Willard himself never serve?) No matter, they fully support the Iraq invasion & occupation & would like to double the size of Gitmo. Git it, folks? Hmm, and why hasn't Chelsea volunteered to serve her country in wars her parents approved (their current denials notwithstanding)? She's serving her country by working for McKinsey, pulling down $300K+ p.a., with just a bachelor's degree & no business experience. But all those years living in the WH, surely that's more than enough experience, ain't it?

    Posted by Lit at 01/20/2008 @ 3:15pm

21. Well, I agree with the good that was said in the comments thus far about Ron Paul. Concerning the racism charges, I believe a couple of commentators blew that 'lead balloon' out of the sky marvelously.

    As the author of 'White Man in a Black Man's World' and the former first-ever Caucasian associate pastor at a particular 4,000-member black church, I can say that I am VERY satisfied that Ron Paul is no bigot. I've met more than a few bona fide bigots, and he certainly cannot qualify. The NAACP comment above was right on.

    For more on this topic, you can review my own article post "Ron Paul Camp Marches On" at http://www.RichVermillion.com

    By the way, the next 'money-bomb' for the campaign is Monday Jan 21, the same day we honor Dr. King's birthday.

    Posted by RevRich at 01/20/2008 @ 4:02pm

22. Ron Paul has never voted for the Iraq Invasion or for it's funding. Hillary did, Edwards did, and McCain did. Osama will not pull our troops out quickly, Ron Paul will. This is why I will vote for Ron Paul on Feb 5th. When he states his opposition to the war, he backs it up with his past actions, not hot air.

    Posted by jrbrown1989 at 01/20/2008 @ 4:31pm

23. Who care's if Ron Paul is a racist? Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson have some pretty plausible ties to racism as well. For some strange reason, its only considered bad when a White person prefers his own people, yet in reality, nearly everyone does. Its funny, leftists love to claim that all people (or at least all White people) are racist, and then go into a perfect tizzy when someone agrees with them....

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 01/20/2008 @ 4:33pm

24. And is it just me, or does it kinda seem like maybe John Edwards was counting on Southern voters to prefer him to Barack Obama, for, um, gosh, some reason or another?

    Racism-shmaycism.

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 01/20/2008 @ 4:35pm

25. When will America wake up from her slumber? We have only the illusion of a democracy; and this election will only be stolen like the ones of '00 and '04.

    The evidence is hiding in plain sight. Why did you give away your right to think for yourself?

    But then, why still does it matter? The corrupted MSM-anointed candidates are corporatist or socialist - one or the other - and, thus, it makes no difference. We're all just being led around by our proverbial noses.

    And if Ron Paul is not elected to office... we're sunk. End of story.

    We'll be entering headlong into a predestined 21st century Orwellian madhouse... of our own design and choosing... and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.

    So, pull out of it, Nation readers! It's YOUR economy that matters, stupid! And our money is counterfeit, plain and simple.

    Don't you think our counterfeiters are hysterically laughing at us... almost daily? Your Democrats and Republicans are the problem - not the solution... for anything to change... one iota!

    Only Ron Paul is educated and brave enough to offer you the truth - if only you weren't so blind to the truth, then surely you would see it more clearly.

    Conditions are bad. Very bad. Please wake up... once and for all... before all is lost.

    Posted by bejeezus at 01/20/2008 @ 4:52pm

26. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/20/2008 @ 11:42am

    The very fact that it is not well known that McCain, up until 2000, frequently used the word "gook", is my point. After a lot of pressure for the Asian-American community in 2000, he recanted and tried to explain that he used the word "gook" was only in reference to his Vietnamese captors.

    Now, you point out a key detail. "You may or may not know that the term 'Gook' is a term that our troops used during the war to refer to our enemy in Vietnam." I think McCain was using it in the more general, racist sense.

    Yet, he's the Republican front-runner and I'm explaining it to you as if it is the first time you heard about it - and even funnier, you are indignant that I point it out and jump to conclusions. John "Gook" McCain was pointing to the fact he has used the term, and it's terribly ironic that people get bent out of shape when it is applied to him, but care less when he applies it to others. Curious, don't you think?

    But we regularly see people talking about Ron Paul's racism. I have no where come across anyone who has Ron Paul calling anyone a racial slur, and he has plausible deniability in the case that people point to...so, my question, why is there a different standard in play for McCain? Why no discussion about his support for flying the confederate flag in South Carolina in 2000, when Huckabee did it this time around? Why is everyone quiet on the topic of McCain's obvious racism?

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/20/2008 @ 5:08pm

27. Posted by BEJEEZUS 01/20/2008 @ 4:52pm

    The money may well be counterfeit but the food we eat has never tasted better and we have never had more variety; the houses we live in more comfortable or the cars we drive more economical etc so who gives a stuff what sort of "money" we have as long as it is not "gold".

    The world could not work as efficiently and as evenly (boom and bust) as it does today if it were still on the gold standard.

    As far as the corporatists and socialists are concerned we need both, to steer a semi regulated middle path between the two extremes, as long as neither absolutely controls the economy.

    Paul probably has something going for him with a value added tax to replace a tax on earnings but as they say pigs may fly.

    In short Paul is a crazy whose only usefulness is as a voice in the broad mix of ideas from which a better synthesis may gradually arise. Gradual is the operative word and to put radicals like him or Kucinich in the WH would be sheer madness. The electorate must be given some credit for at least subconsciously realising that both are not what are required in that important office.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/20/2008 @ 5:25pm

28. Posted by HAPPY 01/20/2008 @ 11:40am

    Do you honestly believe I spend any time listening to conservative talk shows? Or reading conservative political editorials by Pulitzer prize winning idiots or political rags like The National Review that are offering apologies why "conservativism" isn't the same as fascism? If I want to know about conservativism, I'll read Edmund Burke, Murray Rothbard or whatever.

    I know McCain doesn't appeal to hard right conservatives. That's a given. What I don't understand is how McCain gets a free pass here.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/20/2008 @ 5:34pm

29. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/20/2008 @ 5:11pm

    He's earned the right to be a racist? Mighty white of you to think so Frank Grits. And putting "Gook" in the middle of his name to emphasize his use of the word is wrong in what way?

    If telling the truth and associating people with the terminology they use is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/20/2008 @ 5:42pm

30. Mr. "BEJEEZUS", you really need to do some studying on the topic of the gold standard. You obviously do not see the big picture, nor understand the 6,000 year history of its stability as a guarantee of value, verses the relatively NEW creation of paper "fiat" currencies which have about 250 years of failure in their history worldwide.

    Here is a quote from ol' Alan Greenspan himself on the subject, back from 1967 when he was a crusader for the gold standard (before he became a traitor to his own cause, and magnified the global problems via the FED):

    "...In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

    This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."

    You can read more of the above article, and study this topic in more detail, at either:

    USAGold.com

    DollarCollapse.com [dollarcollapse.com]

    There are other places on the web as well.

    Ron Paul is world-renowned for his knowledge of economics and currencies. You should really take the time to get up to speed on these topics and Dr. Paul's proposals before jumping out on the web with a condemnation.

    Regards,

    -Rich

    Posted by RevRich at 01/20/2008 @ 7:08pm

31. The Clintons destroy republicans.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/20/2008 @ 2:04pm

    Yeah...ol' Bill wiped the floor with them in the 1994 Midterms, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 01/20/2008 @ 7:18pm

32. Here are the only facts that matter regarding Ron Paul's racism, and yes I watch the youtube CNN clip of him supposedly putting these allegations to rest. First, the newsletter was in his name and he didn't deny in the CNN clip that it belonged to him. Also, it was clear from that clip that the newsletter was in circulation, meaning that it kept being printed for years. Another thing that anyone could gather from just that CNN youtube clip is that the newsletter catered to the reactionary right, the ruby ridgers, Wacko, Texas Republic types. I realize that at the time it was probably politically advantageous for him to put those kinds of theme and thoughts out there, but now it's part of his legacy and he has to live with it. This isn't like having a one time slip of the tongue. This racially divisive was put out there for years. Up until now my argument has been under the assumption that he didn't personally have anything to do with what was written. However, that idea to me is a ridiculous assumption. You don't start a magazine, or get into any kind of media broadcasting without having at least a basic notion about the target audience. And clearly the target audience here was the hunker down, we're losing the country white men. I think he knew exactly what kind of materials the newsletter was putting out there, and like I said, it was politically advantageous for him at the time. That it. That's my argument. 1) Did the newsletter belong to him? Yes. 2) Was it a one time slip of the tongue? NO. 3) Was it in print for years? YES. 4) Was he at the very least aware of the target audience and the issues, themes, concerns, and desires of that target audience? YES. 5)Is that target audience inclusive or exclusive to all Americans? Exclusive. Conclusion: Racist. Who's a tool?

    Posted by Dethtol at 01/20/2008 @ 7:34pm

33. Ron Paul's message is gradually getting out, despite the best attempts of the mainstream media to muzzle him. He even thwarted the Republican establishment's futile attempt to stop him in Nevada, by mailing out false information on caucus locations -- a story that was ignored -- or relegated to a back-page item -- by most of the mainstream media.

    For a great satire on the president, the mainstream media, and the war on terror, see this YouTube music video from the international award-winning zombie musical feature film, "Song of the Dead." It' stars horror movie veteran Reggie Bannister (Phantasm, Wishmaster, Bubba Ho-tep) as the president of the U.S. The filmmaker, Chip Gubera, is giving a share of his profits from DVD sales to the Ron Paul campaign. Go to: youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw

    Posted by mketcher at 01/20/2008 @ 7:54pm

34. And another thing, saying Libertarianism is incapable of being racist isn't a tenable argument. That's just another word. I can't believe the lack of reasoning and argument skill that you all display here. This from a group that has the magazine "Reason" as its cornerstone. And saying that the head of the NAACP agrees that he is not a racist is also an appeal to false authority.

    Posted by Dethtol at 01/20/2008 @ 8:42pm

35. Do these Ron Paulines REALLY think Paul is going to get the nomination? Or even parley it into a viable independent run?

    Posted by Mask at 01/20/2008 @ 8:48pm

36. Posted by REVRICH 01/20/2008 @ 7:08pm

    Here is why those who think a return to the gold standard, is the answer to the needs of a soon to be 9 billion world population, have rocks in their heads.

    PERFORMANCE OF THE GOLD STANDARD

    As mentioned, the great virtue of the gold standard was that it assured long-term price stability. Compare the aforementioned average annual inflation rate of 0.1 percent between 1880 and 1914 with the average of 4.2 percent between 1946 and 1990. (The reason for excluding the period from 1914 to 1946 is that it was neither a period of the classical gold standard nor a period during which governments understood how to manage monetary policy.)

    But because economies under the gold standard were so vulnerable to real and monetary shocks, prices were highly unstable in the short run. A measure of short-term price instability is the coefficient of variation, which is the ratio of the standard deviation of annual percentage changes in the price level to the average annual percentage change. The higher the coefficient of variation, the greater the short-term instability. For the United States between 1879 and 1913, the coefficient was 17.0, which is quite high. Between 1946 and 1990 it was only 0.8.

    Moreover, because the gold standard gives government very little discretion to use monetary policy, economies on the gold standard are less able to avoid or offset either monetary or real shocks. Real output, therefore, is more variable under the gold standard. The coefficient of variation for real output was 3.5 between 1879 and 1913, and only 1.5 between 1946 and 1990. Not coincidentally, since the government could not have discretion over monetary policy, unemployment was higher during the gold standard. It averaged 6.8 percent in the United States between 1879 and 1913 versus 5.6 percent between 1946 and 1990.

    Finally, any consideration of the pros and cons of the gold standard must include a very large negative: the resource cost of producing gold. Milton Friedman estimated the cost of maintaining a full gold coin standard for the United States in 1960 to be more than 2.5 percent of GNP. In 1990 this cost would have been $137 billion.

    CONCLUSION

    Although the last vestiges of the gold standard disappeared in 1971, its appeal is still strong. Those who oppose giving discretionary powers to the central bank are attracted by the simplicity of its basic rule. Others view it as an effective anchor for the world price level. Still others look back longingly to the fixity of exchange rates. However, despite its appeal, many of the conditions which made the gold standard so successful vanished in 1914. In particular, the importance that governments attach to full employment means that they are unlikely to make maintaining the gold standard link and its corollary, long-run price stability, the primary goal of economic policy.

    About the Author Michael D. Bordo is a professor of economics at Rutgers University. From 1981 to 1982, he directed the research staff of the executive director of the U.S. Congressional Gold Commission.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/20/2008 @ 8:48pm

37. in response to Mask ---

    Regardless if Ron Paul gets the nomination or not , he has started a movement in politics .. I am actually quite surprised that the general public has not been more receptive to his message , and that's the scary part . He pretty much has this screw job that washington does to the people wrapped up in a nutshell , but still people want the likes of mccain and hitlery .. WTF???

    We all know how messed up that Washington D.C. is but yet still keep allowing these clowns a chance to carry on .

    The way democracy is set up WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THEIR BOSSES ! not the other way around , and somewhere in the course of history people have allowed themselves to be roped into their con game .

    3% THREE M*TH*R F*CK*NG PERCENT control the other 97% of Americans !!! if you lent someone a dollar and they only gave you 3 cents back you'd be upset wouldn't you ???

    We the people have to get this country back on course because the current people in washington are not ... and Hillary , McCain , Obama , Romney , or even Huckabee are not going to get it done either ... Mark My Words .... Same Names , Same Games people .

    Ron Paul Needs a better shot from everyone - He will have my vote .

    Donate to the campaign , on our next big money bomb ... Martin luther king day January 21st .... freeatlast2008.com or ronpaul2008.com

    Posted by T Heins at 01/20/2008 @ 9:23pm

38. I don't care if he does have the magic potion. The guy has shown himself to be a racist, and that's enough for me and the majority of the American people not to vote for him. I'm sure Hitler thought he was Germany's savior as well.

    Posted by Dethtol at 01/20/2008 @ 10:59pm

39. And for the record, I disagree with all of you who paint the current American Political and economic situation as dire. Things aren't great, but the sky isn't falling either. This might be as a result of too many of you watching the pundits all day. Relax. Have a cup of coffee and take a look around. Things aren't that bad.

    Posted by Dethtol at 01/20/2008 @ 11:13pm

40. The GOP is deliberately controlling the 2008 election through voter fraud, on both sides of the aisle. They NEED Hillary to be the Dem candidate, because otherwise most Republicans will just stay home, since they don't like the Republican contenders. This article proves Nevada caucus voter fraud using real-time exit polling data that was then "adjusted" by the media. But the evidence was saved and the "lost" votes found. http://www.nolanchart.com/authors/articles/article.php?ArticleID=1318

    Posted by natschultz at 01/20/2008 @ 11:56pm

41. Harvey 79,

    In rebuttal regarding the gold standard, I would recommend the book Gold Wars by the late Ferdinand Lips (a Swiss banker). It details the literal "war" on the gold standard by those who would manipulate markets, and the effect thereof. He gives the "meat" (and history) of what my previous quote by Alan Greenspan said only in "summary."

    Regarding the 9-billion issue: The total amount of gold above ground (mined) has averaged about 1oz per person on the planet throughout all of recorded history. Thus, there has been a historic stability to using gold as a standard for monetary measurement regardless of population, because it always corresponds with the population.

    Only within the last couple of decades has this ratio slipped a bit. According to GATA.org, the afore mentioned book, and many other resources, this has been mostly due to the PROVEN manipulation of the gold markets by central banks endeavoring to prop the dollar up. The artificially lower price in gold has abated mining operations somewhat--but what is suppressed eventually finds its equilibrium. What a boom this will create for gold investors soon! Hovering around $900/oz now, this is only the beginning.

    Lastly, 5,000 years of monetary history has proven gold to be a solid standard. Take ANY topic regarding humanity, and you'll always find academics willing to argue against sound reason and historical data (by omitting a considerable amount of both in their fine-sounding arguments). I could not care less, personally, about this man's credentials. In the light of both long-term history and even recent history (200 years or so), he is wrong. Anybody looking at the real data concerning our US economy has to admit something is wrong...and economist in the same mold as the man you quoted are largely to blame.

    The United States has been off the gold standard only since 1971, and the artificial manipulations of our economy since then has created the "bubbles" in the debt, real estate, stock, and commodities markets (and others) that will soon reveal the true eventual result of all fiat currencies over their about 250 year history: They collapse.

    Posted by RevRich at 01/20/2008 @ 11:57pm

42. Posted by REVRICH 01/20/2008 @ 11:57pm

    perhaps a "bundle" of commodities would serve the 21st century better than just gold.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2008 @ 12:07am

43. Harvey79... The core deception began with the enactment of the 16th Amendment and the creation of the IRS in 1913. Out of office, even Woodrow Wilson - as written later in his memoirs - lamented this great fraud perpetrated on the American citizenry... and in which he had played the part of a useful idiot.

    Corporatism and socialism's dramatic growth... arose AROUND this monopoly cartel of private bankers... of the American Fed... and their collusive partners in other central banks in Europe... and now, around the world.

    As private financial institutions - controlled by the wealthiest people in America and Europe - they were NOT then, nor are they now, accountable any longer to the citizenry of their own respective countries... or to their representatives in those governments.

    No-one in government or in the private sector can even audit these criminals... to this day - yet all of us are coerced and controlled by these fine upstanding people.

    Modern wars, aka state-sanctioned misadventures of mass murder and theft, have been fought ever since... as a means to force compliance... to their grand schemes... of totalitarian rule.

    Their greatest fear is that the American people will rise up against them - and expose them - for who... and what... they really are!

    What's even crazier, my friend, is the duo citizenship held by some of the most credentialed, strategically-placed officials in our government today. Can you guess what other nation-state "they" might represent? Have you looked into who the "advisors" and sources of money are to the media-anointed top-tier presidential candidates? Have you checked out who owns the Big Media... the AMA, Big Pharma, Big Oil, old King Coal... THE MONEY VAULT... THE COOKED BOOKS... and most of the other giant monopolies and barely regulated industries...raking in the most obscene profits... in this country?

    Do you know exactly what America's biggest exports are, pray tell? Weapons of mass destruction, genetically-modified food commodities and highly-processed foodstuffs, pharmaceutical drugs, FEAR, LIES, and counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes, that's what - and all of it... is pure poison... TO THE PEOPLE and THE PLANET.

    Are you also aware our constitutional law is being consciously undermined and superseded by... our own American lawyers, congressional representatives, bureaucrats, and executive appointees... by and for communitarian law? (Look it up... the Hegelian dialectic... was invented by a contemporary of Marx. Etzioni is an Israeli-American... and the most prominent living exponent of this diabolical collectivist thinking.) Do you know that American public education AND medicine - just as a for instance - were funded largely by Carnegie, Rockefeller and Morgan (Rothschild) money through their NGOs and think tanks and foundations?

    Then the churches - and, of course, the taxpayers - took care of the rest.

    The American Bar Association is but A FRANCHISE of the Lawyer's Guild in the City of London. The American Medical Association has actually been culpable in SUPPRESSING CURES for disease. The media corporations can LEGALLY LIE because they have "personhood", a state license to steal - and, don't forget, their precious property rights... to the willful "shading and bending of the truth"... as they see fit.

    But the scams and rip-offs are really... just never-ending... aren't they? We're paying TRIBUTE to these thought leaders and counselors so our DICTATORS can keep us all in perpetual servitude!

    These people - the "richest" and "smartest" of them - are the so-called elitists. They consider themselves to be our "betters" - and they "justifiably" feed upon us... the "mother's milk"... of their own exalted existence.

    As capitalism trends towards monopoly, empires trend towards totalitarianism. The New World Order, they like to call it – whatever that means. Yea, right!

    And it's a fact: The American people are being systematically looted and spoon-fed pure crapola on a daily basis. We have become a nation of docile, brain-dead sheep - mere vassals and warmongers for their "great crusade." And no wonder! We were poorly educated in the first place (indoctrinated really), ill-fed a bunch of fairy tales, ill-housed as feudal serfs, ill-clothed according to their arbiters of taste, and ill-cared-for by all those expert "benevolent benefactors"... those "oh-so-wise"... despicable pirates... since birth!

    Yet you think you're living in grand style, don't you? "Good food" and "fine accommodations" - notwithstanding what they've got cooked-up for you next!

    Are you truly very sure about all that? What would you call... all this... a free market economy and a free country – or simply a free-for-all, thieves and liars first? Are you even free at all anymore - even by YOUR definitions?

    Next their complicit media brainwashes us into believing whatever it is they want us to believe. The Nation is awarded or bestowed grant money - and it's but one of many ways their "funny money" keeps them, like the rest of us... in line with their grandiose agenda.

    Our great benefactors consider a steady diet of confusion and fear keeps us all divided... off-guard, off-balance, and at odds with one other... what top-down groupthinkers at the CIA and CFR like to call a "strategy of tensions"... so, for them, it's all good... especially for their bloated bottom lines.

    Why shouldn't our corporatist government and the biggest beneficiaries of their favoritism and largesse... throw them a bone or two once in awhile... if they serve a useful purpose?

    After all, it's only money!

    But OUR nation, yours and mine - a once-proud constitutional republic, the once-free USA of fable, song, and story - was founded on principles of freedom... under a rule of law... which was meant to constrain the power of government, not of "we, the people!"

    So then, what do you think the hell happened?

    The Nation magazine and its editorial board recently endorsed Mr. Kucinich - an admirable but misguided man who would only perpetuate this gigantic fraud. Thankfully, he and Dr. Paul - as I understand it - are chummy together, so maybe some of his supporters here may want to latch on to whoever is left... and viable... to get the message of hope and freedom out... from the bully pulpit of the White House. His candidacy calls for REAL change... like monetary reform... and believe you me, this is definitely needed... wouldn't you think?

    After all, our original Constitution called for money to be "coined" by we, the people's government - not outsourced to outlaws living outside OUR rules of law and oversight!

    So, you tell me: Who's the "crazy" in this scenario? The American people desperately need to stop outsourcing their thinking and reclaim their damned sovereignty before it's too late. In America today... an individualist... a harmless freed person... wishing nobody harm... can't do anything without permission. This is tyranny and oppression - our "unalienable rights" and liberties... we've long taken for granted... have been usurped by those nameless few who would have us believe our freedoms are to be obtained as "benefits" or "privileges"... granted by them... instead!

    Now please wake up, sir. Think for yourself. And deal with... only the facts. You're smart and you read The Nation, for goodness' sake. How much power and control could you and all your friends and family members have amassed in the last... say, almost 100 years... if you were able to print fake money... LEGALLY... and practically at will? Just how long would it take you to set up your own gigantic international crime family... to protect you and your profits... from the great unwashed?

    After awhile, you alone would be THE LAW, and everybody else would be your boot-lick.

    We need all free men of good will - you, me, The Nation and its readers, Senator Kucinich... but small "r" republican... Congressman Paul too - if we're ever to rise up against this monstrous evil amongst us.

    Let's hope it's not too late.

    Posted by bejeezus at 01/21/2008 @ 03:16am

44. Posted by REVRICH 01/20/2008 @ 11:57pm

    Interesting and will get back later however you should note that when the gold standard was operating its value was also set by "fiat" i.e. the government authority fixed the dollar or pound value of gold, so the point you make about the price of gold today is not really relevant to the "gold standard" argument. From memory gold has appreciated from about $250 to $900 today over a period of about 5 years.

    That is a factor of about 3.6. In that period other metals such as nickel and cobalt have appreciated by about twice that amount.

    Or to put it another way if you bought a residential property in say 1960 and an ounce of gold at its 1960 fixed price of $37 it would have been worth $841 in 1980: $424 in 1990; $272 in 2000 and up to about $900 now. So in an unregulated market gold does not maintain its value and would have been a very bad investment if bought in 1980 or 1990 and sold in 2000. For comparison purposes with a house its increase over the 48 years is about 24 times in nominal dollar terms*.

    On the other hand that house bought for say $6000 in 1960 would have sold for anything from $350,000 to $500,000 today. That is a gain in the same dollars (*comparing 1960 dollars and 2008 in each case) of 58 to 83 times.

    Though this is not relevant to the broader issue of the usefulness of the gold standard it does show that gold is not the best long term (48 years) or short term investment. You would have done much better in the short term (last 5 years) with trading something like nickel or cobalt and buying a house or two in 1960 than putting the money into gold

    I'll get back and attempt to show you that the gold standard has too many drawbacks to be useful in an increasingly integrated world economy in which, like it or hate it, we now belong.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/21/2008 @ 04:45am

45. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/20/2008 @ 11:38pm

    Unfortunately, it is YOU who is way off base. While I understand why the enemy is dehumanized as part of combat operations, I don't want a guy that thinks of Vietnamese, and probably other Asians, as "gooks" to be the point person dealing with problems in places like North Korea. It's a character flaw.

    Further, McCain supported the Confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage". I notice your explanation failed to account for this - or is it alright to support the racist cause in this country, because he was a tortured POW prisoner in Vietnam?

    I'm afraid you a little too permissive and offer excuses for racism that are part of the reason it continues to exist.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/21/2008 @ 10:29am

46. John McCain is going to get destroyed by the Dems if he's nominated. He's got a very murky past. It's not just the fact that he dumped his physically lame wife for a youthful arm candy wife, but apparently he successfully blocked the release of classified POW/MIA documents that would uncover what really happened while he was in S.E. Asia. Here's a snippet of an award-winning documentary "Missing Presumed Dead" which exposes the scandal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBiti-ZbeO0

    Posted by Elle Anee at 01/21/2008 @ 12:53pm

47. Dethtol, I'm probably spinning wheels here, but some of the things you say are not factual, and I ask that you consider what I am about to say.

    You said the newsletters went on "for years". Literally the offensive content went from late 1989 to 1993 (correct me if I'm wrong.) Literally, yeah you could say 'years', but in the context of the life of the newsletters in total, spanning over a decade, to say it "went on for years" is misleading. Ron Paul has NO history of racist statements or attitudes. This has been publicly acknowledged by many who know him, both well and casually, one of whom is a Texas NAACP President.

    The offensive writings were sporadic; they were not the central theme or purpose of the newsletter ever--not even in the issues in which they occur. But no one who knows Ron Paul has seen any evidence of racism, and these facts should indicate to you that the writing was not the opinion of Ron Paul. You can criticise him for entrusting a newsletter with his name on it to other writers. Go ahead and say this was not a presidential thing to do. That is a reasonable debate. But stop saying "he's shown himself to be a racist". He has NEVER shown himself to be a racist. Those that know him, or have crossed paths with him, all say he is in no way a racist.

    Research everything he's ever spoken or written; the Congressional Record is one obvious source. Peruse 'ronpaullibrary.org', which mostly links with the the House of Representatives website. Go study the writings of Mises, Rothbard and Rockwell (and others) at mises.org. You can disagree all you want with the economic ideas there, but you won't find any racism.

    Posted by beeb55 at 01/21/2008 @ 1:55pm

48. Posted by REVRICH 01/20/2008 @ 11:57pm

    I notice you are not enamoured with the opinions of those economists who don't agree with or support your position wrt the gold standard so rather than point to expert opinion from the anti gold standard camp, I simply point you to the historical reality that the gold (silver) standard which we were on de facto from about 1870 (1900 de jure) was scrapped, not because of robber baron manipulators but simply because it did not work in our country or anywhere else in a changing world.

    It did not prevent things like the great depression and was a hindrance to the sort of even economic growth that was required in the context of the world population explosion, the birth and growth of democracy and the growth of the trade union movement in Europe, other parts of the world as well as here at home.

    Your 6000 years was mostly under feudal systems and in the end the greatest world empire yet known. We live in a very different world. That is why Paul and others are merely in the game of nostalgia for a bygone era that had different governance, social and economic parameters and hence seem to be unaware that the parameters have changed radically enough to make the GS obsolete.

    The gold standard is all about trade between nations and currency relationships and it was in that context that the GS was found wanting, not by the rich manipulators who may have benefited from it, but by elected government officials.

    One less attractive side effect of course has been inflationary speculation not only on commodities but also on currencies. That is not the most desirable outcome from dropping the GS but all of us have benefited from that through such things as direct or indirect superannuation funds and the "democratisation" of the markets so that we may all be players.

    All one needs to do in this "new" world (WRT your 6000 year history) is invest in things like houses and commodities that are "naturally" less prone to the market fluctuations of say deregulated gold. And we of course enjoy a standard of living the middle class on the GS could only have dreamed about. This has been brought about by new technologies in every area of life and the present economic trading system. Free markets have been and are the means by which these technologies and hence better living standards are transferred to developing countries.

    In the end gold as a metal has no more intrinsic value to feed, clothe, house and provide transport for us than a government promise backed by paper.

    (Hybrid cars use about 6 lbs of cobalt in the batteries. It is mined as a by-product of Cu and Ni and the resource is estimated at about 65 million tons (pretty rare resource) thus if AGW turns out to be the real deal cobalt (Co) may be the new way for gold bugs to go, when gold drops down to say $250 again).

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/21/2008 @ 5:41pm

49. For anyone who wants to get beyond the usual campaign-season smearfrenzy, the definitive article about Ron Paul's newsletter is here: http://tinyurl.com/2b67l4

    As to McCain being the only R who can beat Hillary, that is a laugh. What happened in 2006? The R's got handed their heads. Why? Because voters are tired of an endless war based on lies, big government conservatism, and trashing of civil liberties. What are all R's but Ron Paul offering voters in 2008? More of the same!

    In a Paul/Hillary matchup, Paul outflanks Hillary on the left, becoming the anti-war candidate and anti-drug war candidate and also not taking all those military-industrial complex contributions that Hillary has. He'd wipe her out. While with a McCain/Hillary matchup, Hillary (compared to John "Hundred Years In Iraq" McCain) becomes the best choice - although a poor one - for antiwar voters. McCain would surely lose.

    If R's want to win (it's not clear they do), they will offer something different than they did in 2006.

    Posted by Paul X at 01/23/2008 @ 12:57am