Paul a surprising contender

The Kansas City Star had a good article:

The end has a good quote:
“I think people underestimate his political skills all the time,” Sklar said. “You can’t ever take Ron Paul for granted.”

Debate

Best part, Paul asks McCain if he would end a economic presidential group. McCain didn't know what he was talking about so he just talked about what great advisers he'd have and they'd tell him.

Second best moment was overhearing Romney's legions whispering 'he raised taxes' to help him understand a question, so he'd appear intelligent.

Update: Best part was the end when Paul asked why he and his supporters are being pushed out of the shrinking Republican party instead of being welcomed.

Headquarters

The new Stilwell Headquarters:

Passive

From the Fox debate we learned the Republicans are now passive towards Iran.
Bush says US, allies must confront Iran

It's the occupation, stupid.

I saw a protest sign on the news when Bush was in the Middle East, it said, "It's the occupation, stupid."
This video is good, but you can skip from 0:40 to about 3:50.

The Martin Luther King quote is the best:
Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America "you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name."

Looking Better

Looks like Paul outraised every Republican in the fourth quarter. And if you consider his total only is "primary election" dollars it looks like he'll even beat all Democrats for primary dollars.

How well does Paul need to preform in the Iowa Caucus? I'd say at least as well as Bill Clinton did in 1992.
February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)

Paul the Scientist

How dare a man with a Doctorate in a scientific field call the Theory of Evolution a "Theory."
Then say we "don't have absolute proof."

Anybody with a journalism degree knows a "theory" is just science jargon for "fact".

That's like saying Newton's theory of gravity is less than perfect. Everybody knows gravity is fact.

I'm being sarcastic of course, the gravitation theory wasn't perfect and was expanded on by Einstein. Einstein's peers early on thought all of Einstein's work was flawed because it contradicted many current theories, good thing Einstein didn't think that theories were facts.

There's levels of theories.
Gravitation is a working theory, it works for everything with a few exceptions that 99% will never encounter. Even the theory of relativity is being challenged lately with some new string theories.
The Theory of Evolution is lesser because there some evidence and some experiments but still pretty limited. Some experiments have actually failed/been falsified but I think it would be a stretch to say they've disproven the theory.
Global warming, doesn't even make it to the theory level, it's stuck at a hypothesis, you need more than power-point slides to make it to theory level.