RSDavis
01-28-2008, 02:32 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (01-28-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=352387689&Mytoken=9A6C593B-04D5-48CC-9C33CCD875BFFE1619607884)
Hello Freedomphiles! Let's jump right in. Jim Davidson wrote (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle453-20080127-05.html) a piece for The Libertarian Enterprise about the Louisiana caucus:
It is now clear that Ron Paul took first or second in the recent Lousiana caucuses, beating out every other presidential candidate except, possibly John McCain, who happens to be favored by the Louisiana GOP leadership. In order to make the process more difficult and, in the great Louisiana tradition of scum politicians, more corrupt, the Louisiana GOP deliberately brought out of date registration lists to the caucuses.
The registration deadline for registering to vote as a Republican in the caucuses was the 30th of November, so the Louisiana GOP should have brought lists as of the 1st of December. Instead, they deliberately, and with malice, brought lists dated the 1st of November. In all, this evil bit of cruelty caused 650 registered Republicans to cast provisional ballots.
We'll see how many of these ballots are arbitrarily discarded by the evil, corrupt, and hateful Louisiana GOP apparatus. Of course the political parties are evil, corrupt, and hateful. If they were not, we would not be in the current situation with regard to individual liberty. This sort of behavior by party apparatus nomenklatura ought to convince people who believe they can change anything by voting that they may have to replace—through criminal proceedings, through party activism, or perhaps by more direct means—those who behave in evil, corrupt, and hateful ways...
...The Ron Paul campaign is paying $5,000 for the voter registration lists from the Secretary of State, and the individual voters from Orleans parish are getting their proof of registration together—since the parish does agree that the voter gets documentation. It is a very interesting situation, still developing.
Personally, given how totally anal retentive these people behave in their meetups and events, I think the Ron Paul supporters are going to be able to prove a victory, but it won't be timely...
...Ron Paul won, in my opinion, Louisiana. He may pick up 35 or so delegates if that proves out. He placed second in both Nevada and Wyoming. Obviously, he has a Western audience, which you can tell just by looking at the maps at ronpaulgraphs.com. He came in fourth in Michigan, and fifth in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Until the results from Louisiana are determined, and I gather a state convention is involved, as well, the scoreboard shows six delegates pledged to his candidacy. Excluding Wyoming, for which I cannot get any idea of how many votes were actually cast for Dr. Paul, over 105,000 votes have been cast in the early primary states, already. I suspect that Dr. Paul is going to be one of the top vote getters of any candidate for any office espousing libertarian ideals.
The Daily Revielle has a story (http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2008/01/28/News/Caucus.Results.Upset.State.Paul.Supporters-3171057.shtml) that goes into a little more detail:
Morgan Wright, from District 6 in Baton Rouge, was a Ron Paul delegate in the state Republican caucus. But when he arrived at the caucus on Jan. 22, his name was not on the roll of registered Republicans.
At closed caucuses, registered voters from a party from select delegates to vote at the state convention for that party. Most delegate candidates advertise their support for a particular platform or presidential candidate. The party chooses which candidate to endorse based on the delegates' votes.
Wright said he went to vote an hour and a half into the caucus. He said all votes for him up to that point were considered invalid because he was not on the roll.
Voting at the caucus consisted of selecting 15 delegates from a list. Wright said any ballots that contained a vote for him were considered incomplete because they were filled out for only 14 registered delegates. Wright said these ballots were thrown away until he proved he was registered.
Wright, outraged at the system, said after showing his registration card that listed him as a Republican since Nov. 29, one day before the deadline, the ballot counters started tallying his votes.
"I have a lot of faith in our voting system and our diplomatic system. And when I see people doing things that undermine the system we have within our country, I'm absolutely appalled by it," he said.
Kemp Moyer writes (http://www.ponderthis.net/2008/01/26/the-greatest-grassroots-campaign-in-political-history-ignored-by-big-media/) on Ponder This... that the Ron Paul rEVOLution is the most successful grassroots campaign in the history of American politics:
Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign has seen a tremendous groundswell of independent support form many hundreds of thousands of very passionate, intelligent and caring supporters across the country. Lovers of America, patriots of this great country, individuals dedicated to the Constitution, restrained government, and who care about our natural unalienable rights as independent human beings. This amazing groundswell has been shunned and pushed to the side by the large traditional media. Supporters have been told "he can't win" and he has been kept out of the big media "winner's circle". It is a sham and a travesty.
I am here today to tell you that the Ron Paul 2008 campaign has witnessed the greatest grassroots support in the history of American politics. I am also here to tell you that the large media has ignored and battled against this campaign.
These two facts should tell you something. If you care about your unalienable rights as a free citizen, you should seriously consider supporting Ron Paul. If you care about these rights as well as the government protecting them rather than stripping them away, you should be very annoyed and upset with the old media. I know I am amazed and pretty pissed. From what I have observed, the media do not care about your rights and they do not care about you. If you care about America, you will think about finding an alternative or demanding a change.
The future of freedom and limited government rest in your hands. So far, the media have shown what side they are on.
Speaking of the grassroots, The Gainsville Times is writing (http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/article/2963/) about the dedication of Ron Paul supporters:
What gets supporters of a dark horse presidential candidate to stand on curbs of a busy street and wave campaign signs in 35-degree weather?
Dedication.
About a dozen Ron Paul supporters from Hall County gathered Saturday morning near the Publix shopping center on Spout Springs Road to wave signs, hand out brochures and try to build some name recognition for the GOP candidate who has run fourth or fifth in most primary balloting so far.
"We're pretty dedicated," said Travis Jones, a 30-year-old network administrator from Buford. "He's our candidate and we're trying to get the word out, because unfortunately, a lot of people still don't know the name Ron Paul."
While Paul gets little air time in debates and polls between 4 and 6 percent among Republican voters nationally, the U.S. congressman from Texas is bolstered by a campaign that relies heavily on youth and technology.
Point-spreads.com is reporting (http://www.point-spreads.com/politics/012808-ron-paul-presidential-betting-odds-slashed.html) on Ron Paul's odds:
...on the eve of the Florida Primary, betting odds on Ron Paul winning the Republican Nomination have been slashed from 25 to 1 down to 10 to 1 odds at BodogLife.com.
Republican Presidential hopefuls such as John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Guiliani do not have the dough to survive that far beyond Florida giving Texas Congressman Ron Paul a nice advantage to outlast the other lower tiered candidates and gobble up some of their support once they leave the race. All of the Republican Presidential Candidates are in full campaign mode down in Florida trying to win the delegate rich state.
The North Carolina Times has an op-ed by Craig L Combs called Rise of the Ron Paul Republicans (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/27/perspective/8_35_561_26_08.txt):
Recently I was honored with the opportunity of speaking to the California Federation of Republican Women on behalf of presidential candidate Ron Paul. Surely, I thought, these ladies would understand the one issue that is driving so many young people to the GOP, the one issue that gets the loudest cheers from the audience wherever Ron Paul speaks, the one issue that no other presidential candidate is discussing except for Ron Paul.
No, I am not talking about Dr. Paul's call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East (I knew that these gentlewomen do not necessarily agree with his foreign policy of peace). I am talking about his vow to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank.
As it turned out, I was wrong. In fact, not one person in the audience could tell me who owned the bank that creates the currency we use every day. These ladies, who certainly should know better at this late stage of their lives, were shocked when I told them what is common knowledge to the young people joining the Ron Paul Revolution: The Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned corporation.
The Federal Reserve, an unelected and unaccountable private organization, pumps more dollars into the economy whenever it chooses. Basic economics tells us that the more there is of a commodity, the less valuable it becomes. This is also true of money: The dollar is worth 4 cents of what it was when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Every day, every dollar we hold is devalued. We pay an "inflation tax" without even realizing it because we are forced by a falling dollar to pay more for goods and services. Of all the presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, only Dr. Paul is addressing this profound flaw in our economic system.
Robert Schlereth writes (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=122236&src=)on The Daily Herald a piece that agrees with the one above:
And when Americans already have a low rate of personal savings and a correspondingly high rate of personal debt, why would anyone think that enticing Americans to "spend more" would be the best way to strengthen our economy?
The answers to these and similar questions can only be determined if Americans abandon the false concept that was promoted in the early 1930s that it is somehow government's responsibility to manage the economy. The long-term answer to our economic woes is to heed the advice of the Austrian school of economics (represented by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek) and abolish the Federal Reserve. Accompanied by a return to a monetary system that is backed by precious metals, a vast reduction in government spending and a balanced budget, economic stability would be restored.
In the current stable of presidential candidates, there is only one candidate who has a grasp of economics and that is Republican candidate Ron Paul. When the Federal Reserve drove interest rates down in the wake of 9-11 and caused malinvestments to be made that are only now being revealed, Paul predicted the current mortgage meltdown.
Government bailouts will not cure our ills.
Only a return to a non-interventionalist foreign policy, fiscal restraint and sound money will restore confidence in our economic system.
Slightly-right libertarian Alex Wallenwein writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1463.html) on The Nolan Chart that, like Bruce Willis, Ron Paul may end up the last man standing:
The three most likely remaining candidates after the next round of dropouts will be McCain, Romney - and Ron Paul!
If Rudy makes as poor a showing in Florida as he made elsewhere so far, he may drop out. That will leave Romney, McCain, the Huckster, and Ron Paul.
Huckabee has no money. Period. His campaign is asking people to accept salary cuts - and they refuse! Can you imagine Ron Paul in that situation? His people will work for free if they have to, or if they can't then someone will - because tens of thousands already do, voluntarily. Ron didn't even have to ask them. They stepped forward on their own.
Besides, Ron wouldn't have to cut salaries because he doesn't spend money like a drunken sailor in a high-end whorehouse.
McCain's finances don't look so good, either. Yes, he won South Carolina - but how will he compete on Super Tuesday after having spent his entire wad on Florida?
Murray Sabrin, professor of finance at Ramapo College in Mahwah and a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey, writes (http://www.northjersey.com/news/nationalpolitics/14461897.html) on NorthJersey.com a love letter to Ron Paul:
TWO HUNDRED years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, a Republican physician from Texas was chosen by the voters in his district to head to Congress in a special election. Of course, 1976 was a presidential year, and incumbent President Gerald Ford was actively working to shore up support from the Republican Party to earn the party's nomination for a new term.
So Ford called this freshman congressman into the Oval Office, congratulated him on his victory in the special election and then asked the young doctor for his support in the Republican presidential primary.
"I'm sorry, Mr. President," said the man in 1976, "but I cannot support you. I am backing Ronald Reagan."
That courageous man was Ron Paul, and now, 32 years later, he himself is seeking the Republican nomination for president of the United States. And the platform on which Paul is running would make Ronald Reagan proud, because it represents a return to the limited government principles that made the Republican Party great, and can make it successful again.
Paul calls himself a "champion of the Constitution." His record in Washington, where his votes against runaway federal government spending have earned him the nickname "Dr. No," shows that he is more an heir to the legacy of Reagan than any other candidate running for president.
Quite simply, Paul does not equivocate on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He forcefully rejected the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform package, which trampled on our political free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. He has been one of the most strident advocates of Americans' Second Amendment gun rights and a steadfast defender of the Fourth Amendment, voting against the depredations of the American people's privacy by the federal government.
Shedon Richman - libertarian stud - writes (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0801h.asp) on The Future of Freedom Foundation that the Republican frontrunners have some pretty pathetic excuses for their interventionism:
To say the imperialists miss the point would be a gross understatement. McCain, for example, says he would have no problem keeping troops in Iraq for a hundred years or more. What matters to Americans, he says, is not how long the troops are away, but whether they are taking casualties.
How about what matters to the Iraqis or other people forced to host a foreign army? And perhaps Americans too will mind if "blowback" occurs and resentful Iraqis engage in terrorism in the United States.
Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, in criticizing Representative Paul's call for a full U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East, writes, "Liberal societies are built on the belief in (and defense of) individual rights, but also on the overawing power of government to transform natural rights into civil ones. In the same way, trade between nations is only possible in the absence of robbers, pirates and other rogues. Whose job is it to get rid of them?"
It is the mark of a devout statist to attribute all good things to the state. In fact, civil societies, as Thomas Paine pointed out long ago, evolve on their own. Occasionally government has protected rights, but far more often it has usurped them.
Mark Anderson writes (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50405) on American Chronicle:
While Establishmentarians attack or ignore Ron Paul out of fear of losing government-sanctioned power, Ron Paul continues on being Ron Paul. Completely ignored by the Establishment was a salient warning that should be of great concern to everybody, including the Establishmentarians: One way or another, their power will come to an end. Establishmentarians should start taking notes when Dr. Ron Paul speaks, because the day of reckoning is on nigh.
Dr. Ron Paul explained that Social Security benefits are being surpassed by inflation. Perhaps we have been too engrossed with celebrity scandals, personality contests, and platitudinous one-liners to think of this as anything other than an innocuous technicality that can be worked out by some skilled central planners. Maybe people are expecting that with the "right" management team, the government can fine-tune problems out of the economy. If so, then faith is being misplaced.
Social Security benefits are being surpassed by inflation. Does anybody understand the significance of this? Objectively, Social Security is being slowly abolished. One little problem: It isn't being abolished by cuts in government spending, but by excessive government spending. The welfare state is collapsing under its own weight.
Guy Kovner writes (http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080128/NEWS/801280304/1033/NEWS01) on The Press Democrat the increasingly common narrative of a young American who was cured of their electile dysfunction by Dr Paul:
Ian Winbrock, a 19-year-old Santa Rosa Junior College student, says he was as turned off and tuned out of American politics as anyone of his generation.
Until Ron Paul, a 72-year-old Republican congressman from Texas, came along, calling for an end to foreign wars, income taxes, overspending and the post-9/11 erosion of civil liberties.
"He is an alternative to the mainstream message," said Winbrock, a sociology major who started the Ron Paul for President 2008 club at SRJC.
Now Winbrock is an avid foot soldier in the "Ron Paul Revolution," and a cheerleader for political activism that had left him, like many Americans under age 30, cold.
"Citizens have to be involved in government," Winbrock said. "The second you skip out it's not a democracy any more."
Jennifer Reynolds wrote (http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-012808.html) about the MSNBC debate on Gambling911.com:
In this debate they used a lovely little new segment where the candidates asked each other questions and what a surprise, no one wanted to hear Ron Paul tell America anything and so they ignored him completely. Ron Paul however got to ask McCain a question about economics (McCain had just finished saying how well versed he was on the topic) and McCain was so lost all he could do was talk about advisers, and rattle off a list of names. He was clueless, completely clueless. So much for being well versed if you can't even follow a question, let alone come up with an answer. It was truly embarassing.
To make matters worse, after the debate was over they had a graphic on the screen over and over showing how the candidates were doing in the polls. How is Paul doing you ask? Sorry, cannot tell you that. They had numbers for each of them except Ron Paul. It is as if he does not exist at all. Finally, the pundits weighed in and crowed over Romney, they were pleased with McCain, they liked Huckabee, they interviewed Giuliani right away and after pundit after pundit took the stage to spout off their opinions not one, not one single person mentioned Ron Paul.
So, what did Ron Paul tell the people of this country? Well, I'll tell you, because no one else will. He said he would protect Social Security for those that are on it or nearing retirement age. He said he would make Social Security benefits tax-free. This is rather important to those that are living on a fixed income that get a 2% cost of living increase each year while the true cost of inflation rises around 10% (the discrepancy comes from the fact that the Consumer Price Index that supposedly measures inflation leaves out food, fuel and housing costs in its analysis).
Business Wire reports (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080128005828&newsLang=en) that Ron Paul has some new ads premiering in Minnesota today:
Republican Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul begins to run television and radio ads in Minnesota today. The ads will run focusing on the economy and Ron Paul's unmatched Republican record.
"Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate committed to win Minnesota," says Ron Paul Minnesota State Coordinator, Marianne Stebbins. "The other candidates are not interested in Minnesota as demonstrated by their lack of organization, time, and money spent in the state."
Ron Paul is the only Republican with a Minnesota office. Minnesota is a target state for the Ron Paul Campaign. With eight days until the February 5 Republican caucus, Minnesotans can expect more from the Ron Paul campaign.
Kevin McDonald writes (http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2008/01/28/OpEd/In.Defense.Of.Ron.Paul-3171496.shtml) on TuftsDaily.com a defense of Ron Paul's position on the improperly-named Civil War:
In a way, the Civil War was "senseless." However, Paul is not saying that slavery should have continued, or that it wasn't an injustice. All he is saying is that there were better ways to end slavery.
In 1807, the British Empire banned the trading of slaves. Twenty-six years later, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed, freeing every slave in the empire. In addition, this act - which provided provisions for giving compensation to plantation and slave owners - gave a certain amount of money for every slave which was lost.
Personally, I don't believe that this was a good solution. As Rep. Paul stated on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert on Dec. 23, 2007, "Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world, and what I'm advising is that it should have been done like the British Empire did: You buy the slaves and release them! How much would that cost, compared to losing 600,000 Americans?"
By 1798, Georgia was the last state to ban the African slave trade, which stopped the influx of slaves into the country. So why couldn't the United States have taken after the British Empire? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without civil war. Paul's opinions on the American Civil War truly don't sound so insane.
Dustin Gardner of The Daily Utah Chronicle had a one-question Q&A (http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2008/01/28/Opinion/Gardiner.Ron.Pauls.Domestic.Dilemma-3170964.shtml) with Ron Paul:
Just one question was the extent of my conversation with GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul.
What did I ask the dark horse candidate?
"Mr. Paul, I often hear that people are drawn by your foreign policy and your position on Iraq, but are less impressed with your domestic agenda. Do you find that as people learn more about your domestic proposals, like dismantling the Department of Education or the FBI and the CIA, that they become less supportive of your candidacy?"
Yes, it was a bit longwinded, but I was trying to get to what explains Paul's inability to turn his remarkable, cult-like following into a movement capable of delivering the White House. In short, Paul's lesser-known domestic agenda has driven away those who were attracted by his foreign policy.
Paul's response was the type of absolutist, libertarian logic one would expect.
"Well, I guess for some that might be the case, because some who enjoy what I say and agree with me on civil liberties as well as on the war, they resort to saying that it's the responsibility of the government to redistribute wealth," he said. "And I see that as the illegal and immoral use of force in both areas."
Paul went on to say that it is inconsistent to argue that the principles of liberty that apply to foreign policy don't also apply to economics.
And finally, Johnny Kramer writes (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/kramer8.html) on LewRockwell.com about Ron Paul's "rope-a-dope" strategy:
Although I can't verify this, Ron apparently spent little money on advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire – far less than what he could afford, based on the roughly $20 million he raised last quarter. Word is he was only shooting for around third place, to not win but also not get crushed.
There has to be a reason for that.
Well, the rumor is that his strategy is to sit back through the first few states, let the candidates attack each other and spend themselves nearly broke doing it, then step in and try and fill the void by dropping all of his money on ads for Super Tuesday, and possibly Florida the week before.
If true, this strategy is smart for several reasons based on the conditions a month ago – all of which are peculiar to this year, which is unlike any we've seen in modern history...
Interesting. This isn't the first time that has been mentioned as a strategy, but Kramer goes more in-depth. See ya tomorrow! And don't forget to send Ron and Carol Paul an anniversary donation:
http://www.fiftyoneyears.com/
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (01-28-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=352387689&Mytoken=9A6C593B-04D5-48CC-9C33CCD875BFFE1619607884)
Hello Freedomphiles! Let's jump right in. Jim Davidson wrote (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle453-20080127-05.html) a piece for The Libertarian Enterprise about the Louisiana caucus:
It is now clear that Ron Paul took first or second in the recent Lousiana caucuses, beating out every other presidential candidate except, possibly John McCain, who happens to be favored by the Louisiana GOP leadership. In order to make the process more difficult and, in the great Louisiana tradition of scum politicians, more corrupt, the Louisiana GOP deliberately brought out of date registration lists to the caucuses.
The registration deadline for registering to vote as a Republican in the caucuses was the 30th of November, so the Louisiana GOP should have brought lists as of the 1st of December. Instead, they deliberately, and with malice, brought lists dated the 1st of November. In all, this evil bit of cruelty caused 650 registered Republicans to cast provisional ballots.
We'll see how many of these ballots are arbitrarily discarded by the evil, corrupt, and hateful Louisiana GOP apparatus. Of course the political parties are evil, corrupt, and hateful. If they were not, we would not be in the current situation with regard to individual liberty. This sort of behavior by party apparatus nomenklatura ought to convince people who believe they can change anything by voting that they may have to replace—through criminal proceedings, through party activism, or perhaps by more direct means—those who behave in evil, corrupt, and hateful ways...
...The Ron Paul campaign is paying $5,000 for the voter registration lists from the Secretary of State, and the individual voters from Orleans parish are getting their proof of registration together—since the parish does agree that the voter gets documentation. It is a very interesting situation, still developing.
Personally, given how totally anal retentive these people behave in their meetups and events, I think the Ron Paul supporters are going to be able to prove a victory, but it won't be timely...
...Ron Paul won, in my opinion, Louisiana. He may pick up 35 or so delegates if that proves out. He placed second in both Nevada and Wyoming. Obviously, he has a Western audience, which you can tell just by looking at the maps at ronpaulgraphs.com. He came in fourth in Michigan, and fifth in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Until the results from Louisiana are determined, and I gather a state convention is involved, as well, the scoreboard shows six delegates pledged to his candidacy. Excluding Wyoming, for which I cannot get any idea of how many votes were actually cast for Dr. Paul, over 105,000 votes have been cast in the early primary states, already. I suspect that Dr. Paul is going to be one of the top vote getters of any candidate for any office espousing libertarian ideals.
The Daily Revielle has a story (http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2008/01/28/News/Caucus.Results.Upset.State.Paul.Supporters-3171057.shtml) that goes into a little more detail:
Morgan Wright, from District 6 in Baton Rouge, was a Ron Paul delegate in the state Republican caucus. But when he arrived at the caucus on Jan. 22, his name was not on the roll of registered Republicans.
At closed caucuses, registered voters from a party from select delegates to vote at the state convention for that party. Most delegate candidates advertise their support for a particular platform or presidential candidate. The party chooses which candidate to endorse based on the delegates' votes.
Wright said he went to vote an hour and a half into the caucus. He said all votes for him up to that point were considered invalid because he was not on the roll.
Voting at the caucus consisted of selecting 15 delegates from a list. Wright said any ballots that contained a vote for him were considered incomplete because they were filled out for only 14 registered delegates. Wright said these ballots were thrown away until he proved he was registered.
Wright, outraged at the system, said after showing his registration card that listed him as a Republican since Nov. 29, one day before the deadline, the ballot counters started tallying his votes.
"I have a lot of faith in our voting system and our diplomatic system. And when I see people doing things that undermine the system we have within our country, I'm absolutely appalled by it," he said.
Kemp Moyer writes (http://www.ponderthis.net/2008/01/26/the-greatest-grassroots-campaign-in-political-history-ignored-by-big-media/) on Ponder This... that the Ron Paul rEVOLution is the most successful grassroots campaign in the history of American politics:
Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign has seen a tremendous groundswell of independent support form many hundreds of thousands of very passionate, intelligent and caring supporters across the country. Lovers of America, patriots of this great country, individuals dedicated to the Constitution, restrained government, and who care about our natural unalienable rights as independent human beings. This amazing groundswell has been shunned and pushed to the side by the large traditional media. Supporters have been told "he can't win" and he has been kept out of the big media "winner's circle". It is a sham and a travesty.
I am here today to tell you that the Ron Paul 2008 campaign has witnessed the greatest grassroots support in the history of American politics. I am also here to tell you that the large media has ignored and battled against this campaign.
These two facts should tell you something. If you care about your unalienable rights as a free citizen, you should seriously consider supporting Ron Paul. If you care about these rights as well as the government protecting them rather than stripping them away, you should be very annoyed and upset with the old media. I know I am amazed and pretty pissed. From what I have observed, the media do not care about your rights and they do not care about you. If you care about America, you will think about finding an alternative or demanding a change.
The future of freedom and limited government rest in your hands. So far, the media have shown what side they are on.
Speaking of the grassroots, The Gainsville Times is writing (http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/article/2963/) about the dedication of Ron Paul supporters:
What gets supporters of a dark horse presidential candidate to stand on curbs of a busy street and wave campaign signs in 35-degree weather?
Dedication.
About a dozen Ron Paul supporters from Hall County gathered Saturday morning near the Publix shopping center on Spout Springs Road to wave signs, hand out brochures and try to build some name recognition for the GOP candidate who has run fourth or fifth in most primary balloting so far.
"We're pretty dedicated," said Travis Jones, a 30-year-old network administrator from Buford. "He's our candidate and we're trying to get the word out, because unfortunately, a lot of people still don't know the name Ron Paul."
While Paul gets little air time in debates and polls between 4 and 6 percent among Republican voters nationally, the U.S. congressman from Texas is bolstered by a campaign that relies heavily on youth and technology.
Point-spreads.com is reporting (http://www.point-spreads.com/politics/012808-ron-paul-presidential-betting-odds-slashed.html) on Ron Paul's odds:
...on the eve of the Florida Primary, betting odds on Ron Paul winning the Republican Nomination have been slashed from 25 to 1 down to 10 to 1 odds at BodogLife.com.
Republican Presidential hopefuls such as John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Guiliani do not have the dough to survive that far beyond Florida giving Texas Congressman Ron Paul a nice advantage to outlast the other lower tiered candidates and gobble up some of their support once they leave the race. All of the Republican Presidential Candidates are in full campaign mode down in Florida trying to win the delegate rich state.
The North Carolina Times has an op-ed by Craig L Combs called Rise of the Ron Paul Republicans (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/27/perspective/8_35_561_26_08.txt):
Recently I was honored with the opportunity of speaking to the California Federation of Republican Women on behalf of presidential candidate Ron Paul. Surely, I thought, these ladies would understand the one issue that is driving so many young people to the GOP, the one issue that gets the loudest cheers from the audience wherever Ron Paul speaks, the one issue that no other presidential candidate is discussing except for Ron Paul.
No, I am not talking about Dr. Paul's call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East (I knew that these gentlewomen do not necessarily agree with his foreign policy of peace). I am talking about his vow to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank.
As it turned out, I was wrong. In fact, not one person in the audience could tell me who owned the bank that creates the currency we use every day. These ladies, who certainly should know better at this late stage of their lives, were shocked when I told them what is common knowledge to the young people joining the Ron Paul Revolution: The Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned corporation.
The Federal Reserve, an unelected and unaccountable private organization, pumps more dollars into the economy whenever it chooses. Basic economics tells us that the more there is of a commodity, the less valuable it becomes. This is also true of money: The dollar is worth 4 cents of what it was when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Every day, every dollar we hold is devalued. We pay an "inflation tax" without even realizing it because we are forced by a falling dollar to pay more for goods and services. Of all the presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, only Dr. Paul is addressing this profound flaw in our economic system.
Robert Schlereth writes (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=122236&src=)on The Daily Herald a piece that agrees with the one above:
And when Americans already have a low rate of personal savings and a correspondingly high rate of personal debt, why would anyone think that enticing Americans to "spend more" would be the best way to strengthen our economy?
The answers to these and similar questions can only be determined if Americans abandon the false concept that was promoted in the early 1930s that it is somehow government's responsibility to manage the economy. The long-term answer to our economic woes is to heed the advice of the Austrian school of economics (represented by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek) and abolish the Federal Reserve. Accompanied by a return to a monetary system that is backed by precious metals, a vast reduction in government spending and a balanced budget, economic stability would be restored.
In the current stable of presidential candidates, there is only one candidate who has a grasp of economics and that is Republican candidate Ron Paul. When the Federal Reserve drove interest rates down in the wake of 9-11 and caused malinvestments to be made that are only now being revealed, Paul predicted the current mortgage meltdown.
Government bailouts will not cure our ills.
Only a return to a non-interventionalist foreign policy, fiscal restraint and sound money will restore confidence in our economic system.
Slightly-right libertarian Alex Wallenwein writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1463.html) on The Nolan Chart that, like Bruce Willis, Ron Paul may end up the last man standing:
The three most likely remaining candidates after the next round of dropouts will be McCain, Romney - and Ron Paul!
If Rudy makes as poor a showing in Florida as he made elsewhere so far, he may drop out. That will leave Romney, McCain, the Huckster, and Ron Paul.
Huckabee has no money. Period. His campaign is asking people to accept salary cuts - and they refuse! Can you imagine Ron Paul in that situation? His people will work for free if they have to, or if they can't then someone will - because tens of thousands already do, voluntarily. Ron didn't even have to ask them. They stepped forward on their own.
Besides, Ron wouldn't have to cut salaries because he doesn't spend money like a drunken sailor in a high-end whorehouse.
McCain's finances don't look so good, either. Yes, he won South Carolina - but how will he compete on Super Tuesday after having spent his entire wad on Florida?
Murray Sabrin, professor of finance at Ramapo College in Mahwah and a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey, writes (http://www.northjersey.com/news/nationalpolitics/14461897.html) on NorthJersey.com a love letter to Ron Paul:
TWO HUNDRED years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, a Republican physician from Texas was chosen by the voters in his district to head to Congress in a special election. Of course, 1976 was a presidential year, and incumbent President Gerald Ford was actively working to shore up support from the Republican Party to earn the party's nomination for a new term.
So Ford called this freshman congressman into the Oval Office, congratulated him on his victory in the special election and then asked the young doctor for his support in the Republican presidential primary.
"I'm sorry, Mr. President," said the man in 1976, "but I cannot support you. I am backing Ronald Reagan."
That courageous man was Ron Paul, and now, 32 years later, he himself is seeking the Republican nomination for president of the United States. And the platform on which Paul is running would make Ronald Reagan proud, because it represents a return to the limited government principles that made the Republican Party great, and can make it successful again.
Paul calls himself a "champion of the Constitution." His record in Washington, where his votes against runaway federal government spending have earned him the nickname "Dr. No," shows that he is more an heir to the legacy of Reagan than any other candidate running for president.
Quite simply, Paul does not equivocate on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He forcefully rejected the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform package, which trampled on our political free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. He has been one of the most strident advocates of Americans' Second Amendment gun rights and a steadfast defender of the Fourth Amendment, voting against the depredations of the American people's privacy by the federal government.
Shedon Richman - libertarian stud - writes (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0801h.asp) on The Future of Freedom Foundation that the Republican frontrunners have some pretty pathetic excuses for their interventionism:
To say the imperialists miss the point would be a gross understatement. McCain, for example, says he would have no problem keeping troops in Iraq for a hundred years or more. What matters to Americans, he says, is not how long the troops are away, but whether they are taking casualties.
How about what matters to the Iraqis or other people forced to host a foreign army? And perhaps Americans too will mind if "blowback" occurs and resentful Iraqis engage in terrorism in the United States.
Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, in criticizing Representative Paul's call for a full U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East, writes, "Liberal societies are built on the belief in (and defense of) individual rights, but also on the overawing power of government to transform natural rights into civil ones. In the same way, trade between nations is only possible in the absence of robbers, pirates and other rogues. Whose job is it to get rid of them?"
It is the mark of a devout statist to attribute all good things to the state. In fact, civil societies, as Thomas Paine pointed out long ago, evolve on their own. Occasionally government has protected rights, but far more often it has usurped them.
Mark Anderson writes (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50405) on American Chronicle:
While Establishmentarians attack or ignore Ron Paul out of fear of losing government-sanctioned power, Ron Paul continues on being Ron Paul. Completely ignored by the Establishment was a salient warning that should be of great concern to everybody, including the Establishmentarians: One way or another, their power will come to an end. Establishmentarians should start taking notes when Dr. Ron Paul speaks, because the day of reckoning is on nigh.
Dr. Ron Paul explained that Social Security benefits are being surpassed by inflation. Perhaps we have been too engrossed with celebrity scandals, personality contests, and platitudinous one-liners to think of this as anything other than an innocuous technicality that can be worked out by some skilled central planners. Maybe people are expecting that with the "right" management team, the government can fine-tune problems out of the economy. If so, then faith is being misplaced.
Social Security benefits are being surpassed by inflation. Does anybody understand the significance of this? Objectively, Social Security is being slowly abolished. One little problem: It isn't being abolished by cuts in government spending, but by excessive government spending. The welfare state is collapsing under its own weight.
Guy Kovner writes (http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080128/NEWS/801280304/1033/NEWS01) on The Press Democrat the increasingly common narrative of a young American who was cured of their electile dysfunction by Dr Paul:
Ian Winbrock, a 19-year-old Santa Rosa Junior College student, says he was as turned off and tuned out of American politics as anyone of his generation.
Until Ron Paul, a 72-year-old Republican congressman from Texas, came along, calling for an end to foreign wars, income taxes, overspending and the post-9/11 erosion of civil liberties.
"He is an alternative to the mainstream message," said Winbrock, a sociology major who started the Ron Paul for President 2008 club at SRJC.
Now Winbrock is an avid foot soldier in the "Ron Paul Revolution," and a cheerleader for political activism that had left him, like many Americans under age 30, cold.
"Citizens have to be involved in government," Winbrock said. "The second you skip out it's not a democracy any more."
Jennifer Reynolds wrote (http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-012808.html) about the MSNBC debate on Gambling911.com:
In this debate they used a lovely little new segment where the candidates asked each other questions and what a surprise, no one wanted to hear Ron Paul tell America anything and so they ignored him completely. Ron Paul however got to ask McCain a question about economics (McCain had just finished saying how well versed he was on the topic) and McCain was so lost all he could do was talk about advisers, and rattle off a list of names. He was clueless, completely clueless. So much for being well versed if you can't even follow a question, let alone come up with an answer. It was truly embarassing.
To make matters worse, after the debate was over they had a graphic on the screen over and over showing how the candidates were doing in the polls. How is Paul doing you ask? Sorry, cannot tell you that. They had numbers for each of them except Ron Paul. It is as if he does not exist at all. Finally, the pundits weighed in and crowed over Romney, they were pleased with McCain, they liked Huckabee, they interviewed Giuliani right away and after pundit after pundit took the stage to spout off their opinions not one, not one single person mentioned Ron Paul.
So, what did Ron Paul tell the people of this country? Well, I'll tell you, because no one else will. He said he would protect Social Security for those that are on it or nearing retirement age. He said he would make Social Security benefits tax-free. This is rather important to those that are living on a fixed income that get a 2% cost of living increase each year while the true cost of inflation rises around 10% (the discrepancy comes from the fact that the Consumer Price Index that supposedly measures inflation leaves out food, fuel and housing costs in its analysis).
Business Wire reports (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080128005828&newsLang=en) that Ron Paul has some new ads premiering in Minnesota today:
Republican Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul begins to run television and radio ads in Minnesota today. The ads will run focusing on the economy and Ron Paul's unmatched Republican record.
"Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate committed to win Minnesota," says Ron Paul Minnesota State Coordinator, Marianne Stebbins. "The other candidates are not interested in Minnesota as demonstrated by their lack of organization, time, and money spent in the state."
Ron Paul is the only Republican with a Minnesota office. Minnesota is a target state for the Ron Paul Campaign. With eight days until the February 5 Republican caucus, Minnesotans can expect more from the Ron Paul campaign.
Kevin McDonald writes (http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2008/01/28/OpEd/In.Defense.Of.Ron.Paul-3171496.shtml) on TuftsDaily.com a defense of Ron Paul's position on the improperly-named Civil War:
In a way, the Civil War was "senseless." However, Paul is not saying that slavery should have continued, or that it wasn't an injustice. All he is saying is that there were better ways to end slavery.
In 1807, the British Empire banned the trading of slaves. Twenty-six years later, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed, freeing every slave in the empire. In addition, this act - which provided provisions for giving compensation to plantation and slave owners - gave a certain amount of money for every slave which was lost.
Personally, I don't believe that this was a good solution. As Rep. Paul stated on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert on Dec. 23, 2007, "Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world, and what I'm advising is that it should have been done like the British Empire did: You buy the slaves and release them! How much would that cost, compared to losing 600,000 Americans?"
By 1798, Georgia was the last state to ban the African slave trade, which stopped the influx of slaves into the country. So why couldn't the United States have taken after the British Empire? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without civil war. Paul's opinions on the American Civil War truly don't sound so insane.
Dustin Gardner of The Daily Utah Chronicle had a one-question Q&A (http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2008/01/28/Opinion/Gardiner.Ron.Pauls.Domestic.Dilemma-3170964.shtml) with Ron Paul:
Just one question was the extent of my conversation with GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul.
What did I ask the dark horse candidate?
"Mr. Paul, I often hear that people are drawn by your foreign policy and your position on Iraq, but are less impressed with your domestic agenda. Do you find that as people learn more about your domestic proposals, like dismantling the Department of Education or the FBI and the CIA, that they become less supportive of your candidacy?"
Yes, it was a bit longwinded, but I was trying to get to what explains Paul's inability to turn his remarkable, cult-like following into a movement capable of delivering the White House. In short, Paul's lesser-known domestic agenda has driven away those who were attracted by his foreign policy.
Paul's response was the type of absolutist, libertarian logic one would expect.
"Well, I guess for some that might be the case, because some who enjoy what I say and agree with me on civil liberties as well as on the war, they resort to saying that it's the responsibility of the government to redistribute wealth," he said. "And I see that as the illegal and immoral use of force in both areas."
Paul went on to say that it is inconsistent to argue that the principles of liberty that apply to foreign policy don't also apply to economics.
And finally, Johnny Kramer writes (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/kramer8.html) on LewRockwell.com about Ron Paul's "rope-a-dope" strategy:
Although I can't verify this, Ron apparently spent little money on advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire – far less than what he could afford, based on the roughly $20 million he raised last quarter. Word is he was only shooting for around third place, to not win but also not get crushed.
There has to be a reason for that.
Well, the rumor is that his strategy is to sit back through the first few states, let the candidates attack each other and spend themselves nearly broke doing it, then step in and try and fill the void by dropping all of his money on ads for Super Tuesday, and possibly Florida the week before.
If true, this strategy is smart for several reasons based on the conditions a month ago – all of which are peculiar to this year, which is unlike any we've seen in modern history...
Interesting. This isn't the first time that has been mentioned as a strategy, but Kramer goes more in-depth. See ya tomorrow! And don't forget to send Ron and Carol Paul an anniversary donation:
http://www.fiftyoneyears.com/
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg