Ron Paul's Farewell Speech: And He's The Crazy One?

The content of Ron Paul's basic message is indeed substantial and with merit. Yet, somehow he's been depicted as a "loon" by the left (without much explanation), and scorned by the right for having the audacity to stick to his principles.

And what exactly is his message?

Look for yourself.

You point to me on foreign policy and his analysis of the economy where exactly he's wrong.

Judging by the comments, people are still hostile to the idea of restoring some semblance of individual liberty.

I keep hearing, even from some conservative commentators, pundits describe the notion of "individualism" as being somehow scary. A concept that scared away all the ethnics.

Ridiculous and insulting if you ask me.

I really don't understand this fetish for government. Heck, I wonder if government itself wonders if people ask to much of it. Wait. Scratch that. Clearly with leaders like Obama that's not the case.

Anyway. Rush Limbaugh has been talking about Paul and seems to be one of the view conservatives who finally gets it. Dennis Miller, on the other hand, is not letting go of the fact Paul may have contributed to the loss. The way he saw it, close ranks and get Obama out and then continue on with the libertarian platform.

Either way, one can't deny Paul did do some shaking.

Paul candidly wondered why the message of freedom failed.

Good question.

One problem is it's taken for granted that when confronted with the intoxicating offerings of the state and rhetoric about liberty, the people will choose the latter.

The power of "hand outs" is something to be reckoned with. More people depend on social assistance than any point in American history. In Quebec, there's also a social problem when it comes to controlling spending. With a bureaucracy bigger than California, Quebec too relies on hand outs to sustain its lavish welfare apparatus.

Where will the money come from if it dries up? And when it dries up, what happens to all the redundant civil service workers who have neither the work or language skills (the majority of them can't speak English), to enter the private sector where corporations could use the labor?

Big, big problems we face. When common sense becomes the voice of extremism, you know there's a malaise.

Not one politician has the balls to tell you that. And when they do, they're laughed out of the room like Ron Paul.

Was he the perfect messenger? Probably not. But not any worse than Obama as the voice of liberalism. Did he have baggage? Sure but not to the extent charged and certainly not as questionable as politicians who came from the two main parties. One has to simple hope his message resonates and some picks up the baton to pass on to young minds.

To me, in the end, Americans are losing a major voice in their body politic. Much like Ralph Nader, men like Paul represent a different side of the American conscience. In these times where leadership is but a superficial game, innovation stagnant and imagination lacking, there must be room for other voices.