Hear, hear. As cynical as we are about politics and candidates, it's refreshing to hear the phrase "there but for the grace of God go I" from a commentator on this often depressing realm.

This may be ok for Israel to do, and we have done it in the past. But we now have a "material support for terrorists" law here in the U.S.. If the MEK is getting paid (and I assume they are receiving some sort of compensation), our government could not condone this without looking like hypocrites. I've been waiting to see what some of the unintended consequences of the recently enacted law would be.

I know this site hates Paul, but here it goes. You can keep trying to depict the Republicans as a coalition of foreign policy hawks, evangelicals, and establishment types up against the Democrats as a coalition of socialist/communists and identity politic people, but there are quite a few of us who don't fit these descriptions. Paul already gets a lot of the capitalism on steroid types, and if Peter Schiff and others can continue to talk to and convince the OWS crowd that government and crony capitalism has a lot to do with our financial problems, then look out for a protest alliance between them and Paul supporters. The groups converge most acutely on the issue of civil liberties, no small matter these days.

What's the old saying attributed to Gandhi? "First they ignore you, then they laugh..." Guess with the Hannity interview Paul's up to the part where they "fight you." That's one step behind, "Then you win." If this is the best they have, it won't take long for him to get to that last step.

Support for Israel could be left intact under Paul. After all, the Congress still has a say, and many of Paul’s positions would require compromise on his part if he ever did become president. What is more disconcerting is the way the Republican party has disowned the Libertarians altogether. Paul’s supporters could be at about 15 to 20% strong, and many of them will not vote at all if he doesn’t get the nomination.

Then we have this from CBS this morning: 1 out of 2 Americans are at or near poverty level based on census stats and new poverty guidelines. Still the Republicans continue to boisterously defend tax cuts for the very rich while saying little about how they could/will help the middle class and poor. This is not true libertarianism; it’s corporatism. Yes, Obama is guilty of corporatism also, but a lot of the 50% at or near poverty level must be thinking something like, “well at least under the Democrats, I’ll get a little bone thrown at me.” And then there is the complete lack of discussion by any candidate, Democratic or Republican (except Paul), regarding civil liberties.

While most likely Paul will not get the nomination, the ideas he has brought to the discourse have resonated with a sizable percentage of the voters. The Republicans will have only themselves to blame for not harnessing this energy when Obama wins.

This is all so true. I also saw an article by Jen Rubin about crony capitalism in Wapo today that seems to be more "paleo/libertarian" conservative in its tone than neoconservative. Maybe the neocons are finally absorbing the Kirkean/Burkean brand of U.S. conservatism (save for foreign policy which Burke doesn't really touch on). Could be a potent alliance in the Republican race. Now they just need a candidate...

Well, they must be articulating something right because the national news just reported that 1 million people have closed their accounts at the big banks. Does wanting accountability and a preference for local control of your own money have to necessarily translate into a desire for socialism? Quite the opposite I think.

What does it take to be a capitalist?

I don't know about this argument. I sit exactly in the middle class based on my income, and I tend to sympathize with the protesters. I certainly have no love for the greedy bankers and imprudent borrowers who brought the value of my modest, affordable home down. But neither do I have much faith in the politicians. The collusion of the government and business is the problem as I see it, not capitalism itself or democratic institutions themselves. When corrupted, both systems lead us to where we are now. The "movement" may not solve the problem, but it draws attention to the failure of both systems. That being so, I believe that many Americans, unfortunately, have reached the point where they are no longer scared of violence when so many have lost so much and many others have nothing to lose.