I've heard every Democrat call for change, so I'm hoping that means they're interested in following the law and Constitution. Would be so nice of them.

Unfortunately, Romney, Rudy, Fred, Huckster, and McCain are offering nothing that resembles change, so don't expect too many crossover votes from Democrats or left-leaning independents for any of these men.

Being against aggressive war-making, false fiscal establishments, and unbalanced budgets--with a 20-year history of those positions--and a strong foundation of Constitutional law probably makes Rep. Ron Paul the only true candidate of change. Everyone else is merely sugar-coating Bush policies or content to continue them.

Perhaps the GOP ought to think about winning in November, which requires crossover voters. But FOXOpinion and the elitist east-coasters like the way things are, so critical thinking Republicans are marginalized.

Good luck with that election thing...

I'm strictly looking at the issue of change. A strong constitutionalist focused on domestic policy and economic issues has a better chance beating Obama, Edwards, or Clinton than any re-hash of the Bush-era policies supported by the 'leading' GOP contenders.

Though I must admit, I'm not up-to-date on your baseball skills, Tom.

Probably right, on the foreign policy issue, and perhaps a few more, uh?

From my perspective, should the economy collapse (as it's threatening to do due to inflation, the sinking dollar value [inflation], and extreme trade imbalance), foreign policy will be the least of our worries. As the Depression of 1929 displayed rather starkly, the Federal govt only knows how to interfere with the economy, not fix it. The population becomes more focused on local issues like work and shelter. What happens overseas has far less impact as Americans take care of their own. Of course, in a free market economy, these issues would've been tempered before reaching this point.

When our economy collapses, I'd bet that a few other countries might experience the same thing due to the global market. So what events can you dream up with western European, Japanese, Saudi, and Brazilian economies in the tank? Revolutions? insurrections? civil wars? religious/ethnic wars? Probably even worse. I know I can. That's why changing the status quo of the economy is critical for not only the US but the world as well.

As I've reviewed the calls for change, and looked over their economic position notes (not a one [outside of Dr. Paul [http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/#art2] has enough depth to reach the status of 'paper') of both Dems and Republicans--no one matches Dr. Paul's knowledge and solutions for the economy and Federal budget.

I just don't buy the nonsense that a rabble rouser from a third world country has the wherewith all to destroy a free nation. But my faith presupposes that we (the USA) are a free nation. As my daughter says, "not so much." So, for a totalitarian state, yes the Islamic militants are threatening--for destroying the central power structure would destroy the nation.

That's why I find Dr. Paul's economic, monetary, and domestic spending changes to be real and not rhetoric. They are inter-related to each other and he shows how we can avoid the coming collapse. Dr. Paul is not a BS'er or equivocator like his challengers.

Quite possibly, we might align on many subjects as I, too, have voted Lib candidates since 1984 (Reagan's two-faced, soft fascism didn't appeal).

Concerning your perspective of the economy I guess it depends on your location. What part of the country do you live in? Here in Colorado, the foreclosure rate is depressing the housing market (just as I near retiring), unemployment is on the rise here in the Denver-metro area (it took me 5 years to find a comparable job in the tech industry after the bubble burst in 2001), inflation has turned my dollar bill into a quarter (as prices keep climbing), and the govt-run services of Colorado have declined beyond their previous lows...but now that socialized health care is on the table, I'm sure we'll collapse quicker than most.

Concerning the 'terrorist' threat, how easy is it to build, train, transport, place, and explode an ABC weapon? I figure since the majority of second- and third-world countries can't do it in secret, neither can a corrupt group of thugs. But that's just my opinion.

The previous terror attack on the USA, 9/11, took a multi-year lead time, extensive funds, dedicated thugs, and a blind eye on the part of our 'intel' services. Do I think another attack is possible? yes. Probable? maybe 1 in 25, though no credible (or even incredible) organization has managed to duplicate the feat. And with the collapse of much of Al-Q's network and resources over the last two years, it would probably require the aid of a nation state (which is never secret for long).

Do I discount the threat completely? no, because anything can, and usually does, happen. But I see a reduced US military presence in the Middle East and Europe and a strengthening of military capability on our shores as a solid step in that direction.

But back to the issue, change. Without a comprehensive policy that acknowledges that domestic and foreign affairs at the Federal level are failing (and from the perspective of the Federal War on Poverty, Some Drug Users, and Terror, they are failing), fixing one component of the mess created over the last 40 years while others go unchecked is a recipe for disaster.