Huckabee was establishment in his policy, principals, and most of all " Faith. " He ran on the Christian Ticket, and especially these days, the Evangelicals love themselves a good Christian Candidate. They also have a hand in politics & Media as much as the Zionist controlled Media do.

Set aside the voting ( which u can look up on YouTube about Votes that went unaccounted for on Ron Paul supporters ) Compare Huckabee's and Paul's coverage, more military members donated to Paul than All of the Main line candidates put together. How many times did you see the coverage on that? How many times did you see the MSM cover the fact that he raised the most money in a single day than any candidate in history? Pure Grassroots, Not Corporate.

UNICEF was never said, thats the UN's prerogative, he just wants us out the U.N., they can still exist just not with the U.S. as a member.

The fact that you look at him as " Crazy " is what is really sad, it's not your fault personally but it's how we've been trained to think things should be. With the organizations we have, the income tax ( Illegal by the way ) and many other subsidies we are complacent about ( which are illegal by definition )

Since you researched Paul ( which I think you haven't done in detail honestly because ) you'd see that his voting record, speeches, etc. are strictly according to the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing different from what he says than what Thomas Jefferson said in their days.

The Idea may come off as " radical " or " extreme " but in days like today, an extreme change does need to take place to restore this country to the " Constitutional Republic " it is suppose to be, not the " Social Democracy/Federalist " State it has become.

We are breaking into a 100 Trillion Dollar Deficit that won't be recovered, the dollar is sinking and people are loosing their homes by what you look at as " Normal "

The " Crazy " ( as u put it ) stance of Ron Paul's is the only sensible way to restore things to prevent a future crash, bankruptcy and complete depression of the country in it's entirety.

Bravo Stryder! I think the website critic is an adolescent myself. The fact remains that the status quo is NOT doing it. The country continues to sink into a form of fascism that is frightening to say the least. When Ron Paul addressed the House in 2002 he hit the head right on the nail as he stated the country is a police state that is moving toward a military one. The ONLY way to prevent this progression is to return to a country that follows the constitution as the founders meant it to be not as the activist judges of the Supreme Court interpret it to be.

It isn't radical to desire a return to the Constitution. It is radical when people vote for leaders who continue to stray further and further from the document by preserving power for those elected officials. When the power of the officials is such that we are expected to give up our freedoms granted by the constitution in exchange for a false sense of security we make ourselves the victims of a far more insidious radicalism.

Thanks for your comments and setting the author of this poorly researched site right.

All the best,
M.R.

True: deregulation of the main stream media allowed for a few organizations to decide on who gets airtime, and that deals a serious blow to dark-horse candidates who could've at least had more of an effect on the public discourse. Ron Paul's libertarian message of massive rollback of federal government power quickly developed a fiercely loyal and hard working fan base. But a majority of Americans, left and right, prefer a centralized government to run certain things rather than risk their privatization, which has had disastrous results here and abroad in a wide range of industries. Ayn Randian Anarcho-Capitalism would be an awesome experiment, but many fear it would quickly end with a repeat of the 1920s.

Still, the position is very interesting, so Ron Paul's platform DOES makes for intriguing reading. And not being well known makes it all the more rewarding to look the candidate up to satisfy curiosity. Which brings me to the main argument in the above video: B following A does not mean it was caused by A. I think it is probable that a spike in Google searches for a person indicates curiosity more than popularity. Given that the media unfairly gave less attention to Dr. Paul and he was obviously asked way fewer questions at debates, it makes sense that curiosity was piqued and left un-sated by the main stream media, so Google hits surged. The number of videos about Ron also does not indicate popularity as a whole but within a specific video-blogging demographic; even if every one of those videos were in support of the good doctor, I could just as easily derive from the data that Ron is popular only with people who have video cameras. That is not a strong indicator and does not indicate a chilling media conspiracy.