View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (02-07-08)

02-07-2008, 05:30 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (02-07-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=355768944&Mytoken=26B63E26-01E5-4FEA-978CAE608323125755889011)

Hello Freedomphiles! Let's start today with some interesting news out of New York. New York Daily News reports (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/supertuesday/2008/02/ron-paul-backer-cries-foul-in.html):

Steve Miller, a 27-year-old Brooklynite for Ron Paul, just called in to report that poll workers at PS 180 (57th and 16th Avenue) wrongly informed a voter who wanted to cast a ballot for the Texas Congressman that there were only two Republicans on the ballot.

MIller, who is a volunteer poll-wacther for Paul, said the woman tried to vote on a machine, but was given an emergency ballot when the machine malfunctioned. She was then informed by "multiple" poll workers, who repeated their claims to Miller, ("right to my face," he said), that Paul wasn't on the ballot.

The woman did finally manage to vote for Paul, according to Miller, who said he has been spending the day traveling from one polling site to another to hand out Paul literature and talk to voters. He said he was asked to leave one site (PS 201) even though he was well behind the legal line that denotes the no-politicking zone.

I'm not ready to put on the conspiracy-theory hat just yet, but that is curious. Ron Paul did win Lake County, Montana. The Leader reports (http://leaderadvertiser.com/articles/2008/02/07/news/news01.txt):

Abortion, stem cell research, the Internal Revenue Service and Thomas Jefferson all were the center of the discussion at the Lake County Republican caucus, held at Razooo's in downtown Polson. Ron Paul carried the day, winning despite having only a handful of national Republican delegates and low polls numbers. Paul won with 18 votes, Mitt Romney had 14, John McCain had eight and Mike Huckabee had three.

Huntington News writes (http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/080206-seaton-localwvgopconvention.html)about the gentleman's agreement between Huckabee and Paul:

Mitt Romney, by all accounts, thought he had the West Virginia GOP convention all wrapped up and John McCain apparently thought it was Romney's to lose also as he sent a surrogate to the state.

Romney, the slickest package of the bunch, had it wrong though, because the McCain and Ron Paul organizations helped make sure that Romney lost, as their supporters threw their votes to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee at the two camp's behest in the second round of balloting after no one won the first.

McCain won by not losing to Romney, and Paul gained three delegates out of the maneuvering.

And James Ostrowski wonders (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019223.html) on LewRockwell.com why Ron Paul hasn't done better:

First, there has been a nearly-total media blackout since about three days before the Iowa Caucuses. Ron did get some press before that but it suddenly stopped. Most voters tune in a few days before the election so it appeared to the causal voter than he wasn't even running anymore or never was.

Second, when he was mentioned in the press, 90% of the references were negative and the voters were told he could not win. (No one told them Huckabee could not win when he had 5% in the polls.) His views have been distorted and he was the subject of several smears.

Third, too many voters view elections like a horse race where the goal is to pick a winner. That makes no logical sense of course, but this is a powerful sentiment running through the population. It serves to maintain the status quo and gives power to the pundits to tell the people who can win.

Fourth, his platform has more support in the general population than in the narrow confines of the Republican primary vote. He has gotten very little support from Evangelicals or elderly people, both large voting blocks. The groups he has done well with, young people, blacks, secularists, anti-war, moderates, are scarce in the GOP.

Fifth, he is "not telegenic enough" and some may think he is too old. However, he is as fit as fiddle, a former star athlete and has run circles around his opponents in debates. He destroyed the hostile Tim Russert on Meet the Press.

Sixth, Ron Paul threatens powerful special interests and they of course have opposed him and voted against him.

Seventh, his libertarian philosophy is poorly understood and usually distorted. Libertarianism is a great product that has been very poorly marketed. I see that all the time in internet exchanges when critics display no real understanding of it.

Eighth, no doubt there is widespread hostility to libertarian ideas even when they are to some extent understood.

Ninth, it is apparent that a large percentage of the population simply lacks the critical thinking skills to dig beneath clichés and slogans and truly understand Ron Paul's positions on the war, the economy and civil liberties.

His first point especially was spot-on, and who would know better than me? That's what I do is report on every story written about Ron Paul. Haven't you guys noticed how small these things have been lately?

Oddly, while Lew Rockwell is mourning, The New York Times is looking (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/still-winning-even-when-behind/)at the bright side:

Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, has not let an overall distant finish in his party's primaries and caucuses on Tuesday put a dent in his presidential aspirations. In fact, his campaign says he walked away with a prize.

"We're confident that we've secured at least 24 delegates," a Paul campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton, said on Wednesday.

Justin Riamondo writes (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12322) on Anti-War.com of a scenario that sounds entirely plausible:

As Peggy Noonan points out with some bitterness, George W. Bush destroyed the GOP — and we are looking at the wreckage of the party in the results of Tuesday's remarkably inconclusive primary. What's significant is that the neocons have split with the 'movement' conservatives, and the bloodletting has only just begun. In the event McCain gets the nomination, the field is open for a third party to come in from the right and cash in on McCain-ophobia. Think of it: Rush Limbaugh singing the 32 praises of Ron Paul. As the Libertarian-Constitution third party candidate challenging both McCain and Hillary (or Obama, if the improbable happens), Paul would garner support from conservatives who hate McCain as well as from antiwar voters on the left.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer is reporting (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/350311_radiobeat07.html)that only two candidates have radio ads in Washington:

Radio listeners are hearing something these days that's a rarity in these parts: advertising by presidential candidates before Washington's caucuses and primary.

Granted, just two candidates have bought time so far, according to a spot check of Seattle-area radio groups.

But that's two more than in some years in which Washington wasn't a factor in the presidential nominations, and candidates didn't spend money here.

"We really didn't know what to expect" with Washington's primary moved to February, said Gary Greenberg, national sales manager for Fisher Radio Seattle. "This has been a nice surprise."

What's also unusual is that some of the ad money is going to music stations. Usually, radio executives say, it's the news-talk stations that attract most of the political advertising dollars.

The two candidates who have been active radio advertisers are Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Barack Obama. Several station groups report receiving queries from Hillary Clinton's campaign but as yet no actual buys.

And Wired reports (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/republican-web.html) that we've had an impact on how campaigns are run:

The technically astute Republican web consultant Patrick Ruffini has launched a one-day fund-raising drive that's aimed at revving up what has so far been a lack-luster year for the Republican presidential candidates.

The drive looks pretty similar to the "money-bomb" effort that took place on behalf of Texas congressman Ron Paul on December 17. That effort raised an unprecedented $6 million in a day.

Ruffini, who worked on the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004, is calling his campaign "F7, One Day to Stop Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama.)"

The February 7 fund-raising effort is an attempt to close the massive fund-raising gap between the Republican and Democratic front-runners, who, Ruffini notes, have an almost 3-1 cash-on-hand advantage over the likely Republican nominees.

Well, I guess they had to do something, because Ron Paul sure ain't gonna drop out of the race and hand his war chest over to the RNC.

Top-diamond libertarian EJ Moosa writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article2546.html)on The Nolan Chart that Rand Paul may be the one to pick up the flag and rush on:

Who is Rand Paul? The son of Ron Paul, he is also a doctor. Google Rand Paul for yourself and read up on him.

I would like to propose an idea that may seem a bit far-fetched, if not historic in nature. I would like to see Rand Paul run for President at the same time as his father is seeking the Republican nomination.

Rand Paul is an excellent speaker. Rand Paul supports the platform of his father. The support structure is in place across the country today to make this happen. The candidate we want to win the election is a candidate of principles, and since they are similar, we do not have to be so concerned about the candidate's first name. For those of us that have maxed out our contributions to Ron Paul, we could begin again with Rand Paul. McCain-Feingold be damned.

Ron Paul can then stay in the Republican Party, win his Congressional seat, and speak at the National Convention. The Republican Party can continue on it's course of self-destruction, and Rand Paul could be there to pick up the pieces.

And finally, Eric Harris and Anthony Gregory write (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory154.html) on LewRockwell.com some words straight from my heart:

The Ron Paul Revolution has been the greatest distinctly libertarian phenomenon in modern American history. Ron Paul has already achieved an unsurpassed victory in electoral politics – spreading the message of individual liberty, free markets, the rule of law, sound money and peace. Now that it is certain that the Republican Party will pass up the opportunity of a lifetime and nominate another champion of the welfare/warfare state instead of the one candidate who actually stands for fiscal responsibility and limited government, it is time to consider how Ron's campaign can reach its full potential in cultivating a freedom movement whose legacy will last far into the future.

Ron Paul should run as a third-party candidate. He has already done an immeasurable amount of good and he could retire now, with us owing him an enormous debt for his tireless efforts and sacrifice. But we ask Ron to continue his run. For the sake of his supporters, the movement, and American liberty, this country needs a credible alternative on the November ballot to the bipartisan policies of ever-expanding government and perpetual war.

Ron Paul should seek the Libertarian nomination for president. It is his logical home. He is a member of the Libertarian Party, he ran in 1988, and an overwhelming majority of party members want a chance to support him again. Should he run as an independent, he would not have the ballot access that the LP offers. He would also have less of a chance of leaving behind a cohesive mass movement for liberty.

The Libertarian Party has never had an opportunity like this. Ron Paul has polled 8% in a hypothetical general election against a Republican, Democrat and other candidate (Nader), and he gets most of those votes from non-Republicans. This poll result is gigantic, surpassing past LP results many times over. Such a turnout would benefit the movement for many years to come. Some seasoned electoral libertarians might be reluctant, thinking it cannot turn out so well, given past experience, but they must understand that this is an entirely anomalous opportunity. Nothing in the past compares. Perhaps this would explain why a plurality of LP voters have made write-in votes in California and declared themselves "uncommitted" in Missouri, instead of picking from the long list of LP candidates: A good number of them might very well be holding out for Ron.

Run, Ron, Run! See you tomorrow, Freedomphiles!


02-08-2008, 10:28 AM
what the heck is wrong with those libertarians... party loyalty more important than the future of our country? too freaking self-involved to switch parties for ONE primary?? sheesh. no wonder we lost. people are just short sighted on all sides.

I was an independent until this election, and had considered joining the LP after it. But having seen the utter stubbornness and self-fascination of many LP members I'm going to stick with the GOP and see if it's salvageable.