1% Effective

After reading your story, I get the feeling you would follow a leader who is effective and incorrect, rather than someone who is not as effective but correct.  I make this assumption without the purpose of saying Ron Paul is "correct" and others are not.

I must admit you have stated facts.  The problem is, your argument is based on numbers and percentages.  Now, I challenge you to find one bill that Ron Paul has passed/rejected or proposed that is unconstutional.  Also, please state how it is not in agreement with the Constitution.  This should be done without nearly as much attention paid to the total number of bills passed/rejected or proposed.  The same should apply for any candidate you research. 

Being a leader is lonely at times, and fighting the status quo is most likely the loneliest battle one can fight.  "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win" Mahatma Ghandi.  Ron Paul is in a fight now, so he must be considered a threat.  Win or lose, Ron Paul has started someting that will last for at least one generation and possibly more.  And that sir, is what I call a leader. 

Ron Paul's people have protested vehemently that he knew nothing about
the racist tripe being published in a newsletter several years ago.  Are they going to defend him by saying, "He was young and needed the money?"

My problem with their apologia is, if Ron Paul can't even keep his name from being sullied by racist and anti-Semitic garbage in a newsletter he lent only his name to, how good a President could he possibly be?

I would rather have Ron Paul who has been 100% effective in protecting his constituency from those who would trample the constitution than:

Huckabee: 100% effective in raising taxes in Arkansas (47% higher tax burden)

Romney:  100% effective in changing his political opinions to whatever potential voters want to hear.

McCain:  100% effective in war mongering and threatening Iran

Giuliani:  100% effective in making New York City a police state

Thompson:  100% effective in making sure he gets at least 2 naps per day.

I appreciate everyones opinions. Some good points were made, but realize that Ron Paul supporters are no more right or wrong in their opinions than anyone else.

I feel that Ron Paul and his supporters would do better for his campaign if they would not use childish attack tactics to punish anyone who disagrees with them. It is certainly not in the vein of what they are saying Dr. Paul is about, is it?. I quit writing anything political about Ron Paul other than my opinion. I have had my computer attacked and overrun with spam twice. It has gotten to the point where it is not worth fighting with such childish people. It is not right. I do not support Ron Paul, as is my constitutional right. I do not have a problem with anyone who does.

Jimmy Carter was a candidate with true convictions too. He also was not able to work with others to effect change. I fear Ron Paul would not be able to get anything done either, reflected in his own record. I agree with alot of what he has to say, some of it I do not agree with. Again, my opinion.

Think for yourself, don't take what ANY candidate says as fact. The important thing here is for everyone to vote.

I was telling my friend about this story.  His argument was this...

Why was Ron Paul then named one of the 50 Most Effective members of Congress by Congressional Quarterly?

By the standards of many, all of Ms. Jackson-Lee's bills were ineffective because they were most likely all unconstitutional, whereas Ron Paul's were not. The fact that Congress didn't pass his bills doesn't mean he's not effective, it means Congress isn't effective in following the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.