职位: 美国得克萨斯14区国会议员(Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas’’s 14nd district)

年龄:75(Born August 20, 1935 )

学历:
盖茨堡大学生物学士(Gettysburg College (B.S.))
　　 杜克大学医学博士(Duke University School of Medicine (M.D.))
　　
　　从政经历:
　　 美国得克萨斯22 区国会议员(Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas’’s 14nd district)
　　 1976-1977(April 3, 1976 – January 3, 1977)
　　 1979-1985(January 3, 1979 – January 3, 1985)
　　 美国得克萨斯14区国会议员(Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas’’s 14nd district)
　　 1997-----(January 3, 1997)
　　
　　核心政见: 小政府,宪法至上,个人权利
　　 废除大部分政府机构,除了那些美国宪法产生时(1787年)就已存在的机构.这些要废除的机构包括:
　　 美联储(Federal Reserve)
　　 国税局(Internal Revenue Service)
　　 海外基地(700 Foreign Bases)
　　 教育部(Department of Education)
　　 食品药品管理局(FDA)
　　 反对一切扩大政府职能的法案,包括:
　　 爱国者法案(Patriot Act)
　　 医疗法案(Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)
　　 外交政策:
　　 反对轰炸南斯拉夫(Kosovo War)
　　 反对伊拉克战争
　　 反对谴责中国人权
　　 不赞成保护台湾
　　 对时局的看法:
　　 美元将崩溃(The dollar will collapse)
　　 美国经济将崩溃(The America Economy could not last for the government spending.)
　　
　　部分摘自: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

　　http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/politics/27paul.html
　　As Ron Paul Weighs Presidential Run, His Issues Are Already Being Debated
　　Ron Paul考虑总统竞选，而他提出的话题正在被热烈讨论
　　
　　
　　WASHINGTON — Representative Ron Paul of Texas announced Tuesday the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, saying he anticipated “a much, much more significant campaign” than he ran in 2008 should he decide to become an official candidate for the presidency in 2012.
　　
　　Speaking at an event in Des Moines, Mr. Paul, 75, said he would decide by the end of May whether to become a candidate and stressed the reasons that he believed he might wield more influence over the shape, direction and conversation of the Republican contest this time around.
　　
　　¶ “The country is already quite different,” Mr. Paul said. “There are literally millions of more people concerned about the very things I talked about four years ago. It is the excessive spending, the entitlement system, the foreign policy, as well as the monetary system.”
　　
　　¶ As a potential candidate, Mr. Paul, a 14-term congressman, has a larger national profile in 2011 than he did in 2007, when he ran for the Republican nomination as a largely unknown lawmaker. The issues he says are important — concern about federal debt, spending and the size of government — are front and center this year. And his passionate libertarian followers are, if anything, better organized as part of the Tea Party movement, which includes more mainstream Republicans.
　　
　　¶ “I think he’ll play a bigger role this time than he did four years ago,” said Trey Grayson, the director of the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School. “You can’t underestimate someone who has a passionate following who can raise money.”
　　
　　¶ Mr. Paul remains, by choice, at the fringes of the Republican Party’s ideology, issuing critiques of the Federal Reserve (he calls the central bankers “counterfeiters”) and voting against most legislation that in his view increases the size of the federal government.
　　
　　¶ He tends to pay little attention to standard political conventions. He is fiercely antiwar at a time when Republicans have typically expressed staunch support for the military efforts overseas. He calls for deep and painful sacrifices by important political constituencies.
　　
　　¶ Surveys suggest that Mr. Paul’s support remains low. In most recent polls, Mr. Paul receives just over 5 percent of the support from potential Republican voters. That is similar to the level of support he received in contests four years ago, when he served mostly as a foil for discussion during the debates.
　　
　　¶ Mr. Grayson, who lost a bid for the Republican Senate nomination in Kentucky to Mr. Paul’s son Rand, said he did not believe that Mr. Paul would win the nomination. But he said the Tea Party energy “is going to be very helpful, especially in a caucus state like Iowa, where it doesn’t take many votes” to win.
　　
　　¶ In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Paul’s message of fiscal discipline, harsh spending cuts and dire warnings about the deficit seemed out of sync with the relative affluence through most of 2007. Now, the debate consuming Washington is about the issues that Mr. Paul cares about: the debt, the deficit and the consequences of failing to shrink the size of government.
　　
　　¶ Drew Ivers, a member of the state central committee of Iowa’s Republican Party and the chairman of Mr. Paul’s Iowa leadership team, is convinced that this year could be different.
　　
　　¶ “Ron Paul finds himself right in the epicenter of the three or four or five of the most critical and controversial issues in our nation today. The spending. The war. The financial crisis,” Mr. Ivers said in an interview Tuesday. “That’s how snowballs develop, you know. They start small, and they get bigger as they roll downhill.”
　　
　　¶ During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Paul proved to be a better-than-expected fund-raiser, but he did it late in the game. In December 2007, just days before the Iowa caucus, Mr. Paul raised $6 million in a one-day “money bomb” that was timed to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. This year, Mr. Paul would most likely tap into his donor base much earlier, giving him the opportunity to advertise on television throughout the primary season.
　　
　　¶ He could also be helped by less competition for donor dollars than in 2007, when he was competing against a field of a dozen Republican candidates, including several with deep pockets or a proven ability to raise millions.
　　
　　¶ Mr. Paul also won’t have to spend so much time in this campaign explaining who he is and what he believes. When he started his bid for the Republican nomination in January 2007, he was a little-known member of Congress. A Washington Post poll in February 2007 put him at just 1 percent, if the vote were conducted then. Four years later, Mr. Paul’s poll numbers remain low, but his participation in the 2008 debates and his frequent appearances on television have kept him in the news.
　　

　　我是支持Ron Paul的

　　
　　
　　作者：macos55555　回复日期：2011-04-28　08:52:29　
　　
　　回复
　　　　没钱在美国是选不上总统的，想当总统先得有5亿美元经费
　　～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～如果赔率1赔10，我会买100块

　　核心政见: 小政府,宪法至上,个人权利
　　　　　　 废除大部分政府机构,除了那些美国宪法产生时(1787年)就已存在的机构.这些要废除的机构包括:
　　　　　　 美联储(Federal Reserve)
　　　　　　 国税局(Internal Revenue Service)
　　　　　　 海外基地(700 Foreign Bases)
　　　　--------------------------------------------------
　　　　如果他真能成一点气候，那么他肯定会被美联储和谐掉，妥妥的。就是因为他现在没什么实力，所以人家才不鸟他。
　　~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~政治上的暗杀不是这么容易的，会有严重后果的

　　@_墓_中无人 2011-04-28　11:33:06
　　估计是摩门教徒...
　　-----------------------------
　　不是

　　%最近Donald Trump被抛出来帮助Obama连任;提供给美国媒体很多无聊的话题，来冲淡真正的议题。
　　
　　但美国真正的问题太多，Obama做得太少，Obama连任的机率大概只有60%

　　作者：@为学日益为道日损　回复日期：2011-04-28　12:24:03　
　　　　
　　　　回复
　　　　　　核心政见: 小政府,宪法至上,个人权利
　　　　　　　　　　 废除大部分政府机构,除了那些美国宪法产生时(1787年)就已存在的机构.这些要废除的机构包括:
　　　　　　　　　　 美联储(Federal Reserve)
　　　　　　　　　　 国税局(Internal Revenue Service)
　　　　　　　　　　 海外基地(700 Foreign Bases)
　　　　　　　　--------------------------------------------------
　　　　　　　　如果他真能成一点气候，那么他肯定会被美联储和谐掉，妥妥的。就是因为他现在没什么实力，所以人家才不鸟他。
　　　　　　~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~政治上的暗杀不是这么容易的，会有严重后果的
　　　　==================================================
　　　　肯尼迪等一干美国总统九泉之下表示鸭梨很大
　　-----------------------------------------------------------
　　说到肯尼迪，不只John被杀（1963），他的弟弟Robert也被杀了（1968，赢了民主党内初选后）
　　
　　如果Ron Paul被杀，要杀的人恐怕会更多。Ron Paul的二儿子Rand（1963年出生）之前没有从政经历，就在去年当选了Ky的参议员。不久前放出风声要参加党内初选，当然不是认真的，不过主流媒体的关注居然比他老爹还多。老Paul倒了，Rand基本上是可以继承他老爹的政治遗产的。还有Ron Paul的三儿子Robert（不知道年纪，但40岁总有了）也前不久试探要选参议员。如果他老哥Rand挂了，Robert也可以顶上。
　　
　　
　　
　　

　　
　　为什么要杀人？因为选举失去了金钱的控制，所以要用杀人这样的方式来解决。
　　
　　

　　为什么要不断地杀人？
　　
　　人民虽然愚昧到经常被所谓的民主、人权、个人魅力，种族，宗教这样那样的口号或外表所欺骗和迷惑;但是当储蓄不断缩水（零利率，通胀），托付于他人的投资更是被吞没，总是要反抗和挣扎一下的。
　　
　　Obama的上台也在于他那些摆脱金钱对美国控制的许诺，比如反战，反游说，严惩Wall Street。民主党08年赢得两院的控制权也是如此。但是Obama和民主党仍不过是金钱手中的木偶，所以共和党在去年夺回了众议院;参院由于只有三分之一的改选，还在民主党手中;草根的Tea Party运动，也让一些更不易控制的新人进入了国会。
　　
　　如果Ron Paul这样不受操控的人能有机会成为总统，说明人民的反抗已经摆脱了金钱的制约，资本家必须要杀人了。但是当人民看到有一个明显的继承人，就会集中支持继续下去，资本家要继续杀人。但是当台面上都是木偶的时候，就不需要杀人了。所以必须是兄弟，父子，这样一直杀下去。
　　
　　

　　有没有可能杀人搞不定，从而实现变革，而使立法，行政摆脱资本？有
　　
　　因为网络的出现，对舆论的控制力大为减弱，网络的言论已经可以和传统的电视，报刊相抗衡。比如911，所谓的主流媒体，包括中国，还是说基地所为;但是Youtube或土豆，基本上都是阴谋论的天下了，各种评论也以阴谋论占多数。所以人民摆脱少数人对信息的控制，还是很有可能的。
　　
　　
　　用杀人这样的手段，又无法隐瞒真相，将会极大的激化社会矛盾，必将后患无穷。
　　
　　---------------------------完-------------------------------------

　　立贴为证,Ron Paul将是下届美国总统

　　http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-reelection-20110712,0,4310569.story
　　
　　Ron Paul wont run for reelection, will focus on presidential race
　　
　　Ron Paul将不会竞选连任众议员,全力竟选总统

　　@自费反犹反回　回复日期：2011-07-13　02:23:22　
　　
　　 回复
　　　　　很有可能像Louis McFadden那样死于非命，美国总统都可以雇神经病随便杀，还包保释，何况几百个议员里的谁，
　　-----------------------------
　　杀人不是那么简单的,前面解释过了.....
　　
　　

　　http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/default-now-or-suffer-a-more-expensive-crisis-later-ron-paul.html
　　
　　Ron Paul:现在违约,否则将会更惨
　　
　　文章大意:
　　美国债务违约的后果不像Obama等人声称的那样严重.违约这种事,美国政府至少做过三次了.
　　
　　第一次,1934年.美国政府禁止人民拥有黄金,禁止使用黄金券兑换黄金.收回了人民手中的现金后,又把黄金的兑换比率从$20.67/盎司,提到了$35/盎司,一下子就把人民手中的美元贬值40%.
　　
　　第二次,1934-1968年.美国政府不断地发行并更改银元券的兑换比值.银元券是法定货币,并且可以兑换真正的银币或银条.1968年中止了这种兑换.
　　
　　第三次,1934-1971年.外国政府可以通过黄金窗口用美元兑换美国政府的黄金(美国人民不行噢).1971年,尼克松政府关闭了黄金窗口.
　　

　　@为学日益为道日损　
　　　　75岁了，还能蹦跶多久
　　　　人家给你一个车祸，你能咋的，老年人骨头脆经不起折腾，挨下撞就行动不便了，巴顿都能做掉，更何况75的老头。
　　　　
　　　　你去看看McFadden是如何一次次险象环生就知道了
　　　　美国总统权势不大的，否则肯定是幕后人忠实的代理了
　　---------------------------------------------------------------------
　　我同意说有可能,但可能性不大.如果发生了,美国会出现很大的混乱.
　　不必再争论,继续观察,一年半后就知道结果.

　　@自费反犹反回

　　
　　
　　@macos55555　回复日期：2011-07-25　20:34:52　
　　
　　 回复
　　　　@giga_fans 2011-07-24　16:38:11
　　　　　　@macos55555 2011-04-28　08:52:29
　　　　　　　　没钱在美国是选不上总统的，想当总统先得有5亿美元经费
　　　　　　----------------------------
　　-----------------------------
　　　　每年都有人这么干，别说5亿了，5万美元都募不到，别天真了，还200万人，每人250美元，我晕！！！
　　---------------------------------------------
　　Ron Paul第二季度募集到$450万;观海是$8600万,至少1/3可以确定来自华尔街
　　
　　主要通过"金钱炸弹"(Money Bomb)来进行募款
　　就是告诉支持者某天是捐款日,大家到一个网站用信用卡进行捐款
　　就我所知,今年至少有4次这样的活动,募集到至少$350万
　　
　　2007年,曾经一天募集到创纪录的$430万;2008年总统选举期间总共募集到$2700万
　　当然,观海2008年募集到$5.3亿
　　

　　http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/07/25/paul-says-moodys-standard-poors-have-no-credibility-audio/
　　
　　针对穆迪和标准普尔准备将美国国债降级,会导致严重后果
　　Ron Paul认为:穆迪和标准普尔这样的评级机构根本不可信
　　主要论点
　　1.未能预测两房危机
　　2.这两个机构尽管技术上来说不是政府部门,但是十分深入地卷入了美国政坛以及用子虚乌有(innuendos)来威胁美国人民.

　　Ron Paul说伊朗伊朗对美国和世界不构成威胁
　　
　　在昨天的美国总统初选辩论中,Ron Paul为自己当初反对制裁辩护,说即使拥有核武器伊朗也对美国和世界不构成威胁.
　　
　　1.伊朗是一个连石油都无法自给的国家
　　
　　2.连cia都承认伊朗没有核武
　　
　　3.伊朗被核大国中国,美国,以色列,巴基斯坦,印度包围.
　　
　　4.那些鼓吹伊朗威胁论的人和当初鼓吹WMD的人一样无知和无耻
　　
　　5.不应该制裁,应该谈判.制裁一个国家,把他推向敌对,最后把美国卷入战争;要谈判解决.就象当初对待拥有3000枚核弹的苏联及核大国中国一样.
　　
　　http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/08/ron-paul-gop-debate-republican-debate-ames-straw-poll.html
　　
　　

　　在昨天的美国总统初选辩论中,Ron Paul为自己当初反对制裁辩护,说即使拥有核武器伊朗也对美国和世界不构成威胁.
　　--------------------------------------------------
　　在昨天的美国总统初选辩论中,Ron Paul为自己当初反对制裁伊朗辩护,说即使拥有核武器伊朗也对美国和世界不构成威胁.

　　共和党在艾奥瓦州举行测验性党团选举(Iowa straw poll)中Ron Paul输了巴克曼Michele Bachmann)172票(4823对4671)
　　
　　我原以为Ron Paul会赢,错了...

　　最近对Ron Paul的报道,充分体现了包括Fox, CNN, MSNBC等美国媒体的团结一致
　　
　　http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEsZYMop9CQ
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　

　　@macos55555　　@giga_fans
　　-----------------------
　　关于竞选经费,昨天一天在网上募集到$1359796.50
　　https:/secrure.onpaul2012.com/?sr=rpf1

　　@石头城里一石头　回复日期：2011-08-21　11:01:43　
　　回复
　　　　@soul_fly 2011-08-21　10:45:23
　　　　　　PAUL 是个宪法狂，自称是宪法骑士
　　　　　　
　　　　　　不过我觉得比其它几个热门靠谱点。像佩里跟巴克曼2个人居然都不承认进化论，有比这更荒唐的么
　　　　-----------------------------
　　　　进化论就一定是正确的？
　　------------------------------------------------------
　　不一定,但是是目前所知的理论之中最靠谱的,因为其他的理论都是什么女娲造人,上帝造人之类
　　

　　作者：为学日益为道日损　回复日期：2011-08-17　05:33:38　
　　
　　　　最近对Ron Paul的报道,充分体现了包括Fox, CNN, MSNBC等美国媒体的团结一致
　　　　
　　　　http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEsZYMop9CQ
　　---------------------
　　美国的主流媒体要么报道总统竞选新闻的时候要么当Ron Paul不存在,要么在提到Ron Paul的时候以"无法当选"或"十分极端"一笔带过,很少讨论其政策.
　　
　　Ron Paul最近的Money Bomb募集到$160万,没有主流媒体报道,除了洛杉矶时报(LA TImes)半篇报道,这篇报道的另一半是分析为什么Rick Perry的机会比Ron Paul大得多.

　　http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110825006445/en/Ron-Paul-Issues-Statement-Libya
　　
　　Ron Paul就利比亚局势发出声明:
　　
　　目前的局势只是帝国的短暂胜利,却是我们美国民众的一个损失.而且,我担心会是对利比亚人民的巨大损害.
　　
　　毫无疑问卡扎菲是坏人,他给利比亚人民带来巨大的伤害和不幸.但是我国对他国内战的干涉花费巨大同时也违反了美国宪法.
　　
　　我们已经在利比亚战争中花了$10,但是这届美国政府不寻求国会的同意,反而以联合国决议为借口.
　　
　　对任何一个美国总统来说,将美国卷入一场战争是一件很严肃的事情.因为美国宪法要求战争---通过国会---得到美国人民的赞成,除非美国面临来自他国迫切的威胁.而利比亚是限于其国界内的内战,对美国不构成迫切的威胁.
　　
　　总之,我们的政府在我们面临债务危机的时候,依旧不停地在海外万亿美元万亿美元地用兵,极有可能由此导致美元危机.同时让美国宪法变得毫无意义.如果我们不悬崖勒马,这些行动资质导致美国的沉没.
　　
　　与此同时,任何声称"已经胜利完成任务"的话,都是胡说八道.利比亚的冲突远未结束,而且利比亚将来可能会长时间陷于战争之中.
　　
　　我希并且祈祷那里的人民结束敌对,找到和平.但是,我担心这只是我的一厢情愿.我们面对的局面是,我们支助的反对派中的不少人是极端的伊斯兰圣战者,由于我们对利比亚的破坏行为,他们将在新政府中取得相当的权力.
　　
　　更糟糕的是,卡扎菲之后在利比亚掌权的这些人,可能和卡扎菲一样坏,甚至更加坏. 或者,利比亚和索马里一样在推翻独裁者西亚德 巴雷(Siad Barre)之后陷入无政府的混乱之中.和我们推翻萨达姆--另一个坏蛋--的情形十分类似,最有可能的情况不是和平转变为民/\主政权,而是或者被另一个残暴的独裁者取代,或者部落间不断的暴力冲突以及长期的叛乱.
　　
　　有着这许多的问题和可以预见的必然出现的混乱,我们不禁要问:这届政府为什么如此急迫地以人道主义和名义发起利比亚行动?今年的巴林和也门政府也使用了武力镇/\压民/\主的抗议行动.沙特政权,使用伊斯兰律法,同样地压迫人民.我们对这些国家没有采取任何行动.区别是这些国家继续向我们出售石油,而利比亚开始把它的出口转向俄国,中国,印度和巴西.难道这场战争主要是为了保护我们的石油供应,而不惜置宪法于不顾?
　　
　　这出闹剧并不罕见.我们已经陷于两场战争之中,这两场战争拖了几年了===远远超出了那些使我们卷入战争的人最初的估计.我们已经无法从财政和人员两方面负担世界警察的任务.如果我们不停止这些行动,我们必然会毁了自己.是时候在美国领土上建立强大的国防了,是时候把焦点用在贸易和商业上--而不是帝国主义--和世界打交道了.
　　
　　--------------------------------------------
　　唯一不太赞成的一句话
　　
　　"区别是这些国家继续向我们出售石油,而利比亚开始把它的出口转向俄国,中国,印度和巴西."
　　

　　作者：为学日益为道日损　回复日期：2011-08-26　08:22:19　
　　回复
　　　　http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110825006445/en/Ron-Paul-Issues-Statement-Libya
　　　　
　　　　Ron Paul就利比亚局势发出声明:
　　-----------------------
　　才知道索马里是前一个伊拉克...

　　http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html
　　
　　Ron Paul Can Win
　　
　　It's hard to tell if the idea that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012 is more ignorant, in its complete lack of historical sophistication, or more arrogant, in its claim to certainty amid all the complexity of 300 million lives and the myriad issues that affect them.
　　
　　Sometimes, perhaps once in a few generations, a nation can undergo what a mathematician or physicist would call a "phase change." The classic example of such a thing is a pile of sand. Every grain you add makes the pile slightly steeper and slightly higher without moving any of the other grains inside the pile, until eventually one grain is added that causes an avalanche of sand down the sides of the pile, moving thousand of grains and changing the shape of the pile.
　　
　　Such behavior can be exhibited by all complex systems, and a nation -- it should be obvious -- is much more complex than a pile of sand.
　　
　　The important point for those who would presume to make such grand predictions as "Dr. Paul cannot win" is that no examination of the pile of sand before the point of avalanche would tell you that, or when, the avalanche will eventually happen.
　　
　　But happen it does; indeed, happen it must.
　　
　　And there are numerous examples of abrupt and dramatic phase change in the politics of great nations.
　　
　　The U.K., the country of my birth, provides a compelling and closely relevant example. As every schoolboy knows, Churchill led Britain to victory in the Second World War. Indeed, he did as much as any man on Earth ever has to save civilization as we know it.
　　
　　Three months after the entire nation poured into the streets to cheer this great leader (the man a few years ago voted by Britons the greatest Briton of all time), Churchill went to the country in a general election to retain his position as prime minister. There was simply no way he could lose. The best slogan the Labour party, his opposition, could come up with was, "Cheer Churchill. Vote Labour."
　　
　　And amazingly, that is exactly what the nation did. Churchill was defeated. No one anywhere -- including the people of Britain who voted in the election -- had even thought about the possibility. No newspaper had considered it. After all, the election was a foregone conclusion in Churchill's favor. And yet an unseen, perhaps unconscious, will of the people caused a cultural and political phase-change in the British nation that they neither knew they wanted nor knew they had the power to cause.
　　
　　Many historians now say that the unseen sentiment that produced this result that shocked not just the British but the whole world was the idea that all the blood and treasure lost to maintain the freedom of the British empire and the Western world demanded something more than continuation of the old political settlement. After a huge crisis, the people wanted a whole new system. In 1945, the Labour Party, with its vision of state-delivered cradle-to-grave security of health and basic material well-being (welfare state), in some way met that national desire for a grand political change.
　　
　　Following what was in fact a landslide victory for the Labour party, the character of the nation changed massively, and more change rapidly followed in the British identity, as an empire was lost and the mantle of the world's greatest power was handed to the U.S.A.
　　
　　Those who have noted that one of Ron Paul's greatest qualities is his humility might also be interested to know that Churchill had put down Clement Attlee, who defeated him, with the words, "A modest little man, with much to be modest about."
　　
　　Perhaps a more fanciful comparison, but nonetheless indicative: no one in China was predicting that the Long March of Mao, which began in defeat and despair, would end in Beijing with victory and the proclamation of a whole new nation under a whole new political system.
　　
　　And which newspapers were pondering the possibility of the First World War just a month before it happened?
　　
　　We cannot see past a phase change. I don't know if the U.S.A. will have undergone one at the time of the 2012 election, but the necessary conditions for one are all in place, as far as I can tell.
　　
　　One has to reach back a good way in American history for a time of such rapidly rising sentiment that not only are our leaders unable even to think of real solutions to the problems of greatest concern (rather than just making expedient changes at the margin), but also that the prevailing political and economic system is structurally incapable of delivering any long-term solutions in its current form.
　　
　　The sheer range and interconnectedness of the problems that the nation faces are such that any permanent solution to any one of them will require profound systemic change that will necessarily upset many economic, political and cultural equilibria. And that is nothing more than a definition of a national phase change.
　　
　　The average American may not know what is to be done, but she can sense when the system has exhausted all its possibilities. At that point, not only does the phase change become reasonable; it becomes desirable -- even if what lies on the other side cannot be known.
　　
　　As anyone can find out just by talking to a broad cross-section of Ron Paul's supporters, his base is not uniform in its agreement on the standard issues of typical American party-political conflict. In fact, Paul supporters vary significantly even in their views of what in the old left-right paradigm were the "wedge-issues." Rather, they are united around concepts that could almost be called meta-political: whether left and right really exist, and, if they do, whether they are really opposed; whether centralized government should even be the main vehicle for political change, etc.; and whether there are some principles that should be held sacrosanct for long-term benefit, even when they will hurt in the short-run.
　　
　　For those with eyes to see, such realignments and re-prioritization may even be glimpses of America after its next phase change.
　　
　　If Ron Paul has committed support from 10 percent of the adult population, and most of that 10 percent support him precisely because they believe he represents a whole new political system, an entirely new political settlement, then we may be close to critical mass -- just a few grains of sand short of the avalanche.
　　
　　Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate) has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as "irrelevant" is invariably indicative that the neglected data are hugely important. If information doesn't really matter, why go to all the effort of ignoring it?
　　
　　Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.
　　
　　First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.
　　
　　To believe that Ron Paul's victory is a long shot in spite of all standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out all norms with which we follow our nation's politics -- and that is a huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find them.
　　
　　If it is true that the studied neglect of data to hold tight to a paradigm is the best evidence that the paradigm is about to collapse, then the massive and highly subjective neglect of all things Paulian is specific evidence that the country is moving in Paul's direction.
　　
　　Of course, none of this means that Paul will definitely win. But it does mean that a bet against him by a politician is foolhardy and by a journalist is dishonest.
　　
　　It is worth returning to Churchill's career for an even more delicious example: just days before he became the great wartime leader, his career had been written off as that of a kook, and he was being discussed as someone who had extreme ideas and whose thinking did not reflect the mood of the nation. The House of Commons was abuzz with his decline and imminent fall.
　　
　　And then, rather suddenly, something he had been saying for many years -- that there was something rotten in the state of Germany -- became so obvious that it could no longer be avoided. Once the nation saw that he had been right all along, he became the leader of the free world in very short order. His career changed. Britain changed. The world changed. No one had seen that coming, either. In fact, everyone thought they knew what was coming: the kook was about to disappear into political backwaters, if not the political wilderness.
　　
　　Do I even need to draw the parallel?
　　
　　If Paul wins, it won't be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business -- a new political and economic paradigm -- and then he'll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he'll be the only shot.