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

02-08-2008, 03:44 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (02-08-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=356045697&Mytoken=9F708817-B409-4AF8-99E6D76FC6D8B34446751948)

Hello Freedomphiles! The news is beginning to look up since Romney dropped out. The LA Times blog has this (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/ron-paul-forces.html) to say:

In the face of Paul's relentless campaigning here and there and his successful fundraising -- he raised nearly $20 million in the fourth quarter of 2007, more than any other Republican -- Romney, who only has an estimated $165 million of his personal fortune left, had no choice really but to quit.

Romney's exit follows the similar Paul-forced departures of other far more famous GOP candidates -- Giuliani, Thompson, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore. Jeb Bush didn't even consider trying.

That leaves only Pittsburgh-native Paul, somebody named John McCain and this Mike Huckabee fellow from Arkansas, who seems to have had considerable trouble keeping a job. He's been a radio talk host, a Baptist preacher, lieutenant governor and governor. And Huckabee's had trouble raising money. He got only $1 million in the third quarter compared to Paul's $5 million.

So Huckabee can't last much longer.

That will leave only McMaverick, a former Navy squadron commander and POW who endured nearly six years of solitary confinement in Vietnam and then, worse, 25 years of listening to congressional speeches. He didn't get around to mentioning Paul either in his speech Thursday, but he was probably afraid.

Cool. Thanks to Punks for Ron Paul (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=196805222&MyToken=712a7e79-50ed-4250-9a20-acf7114d1d23)for the tip. Ian Brockwell writes (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/51648)on American Chronicle that things may be just right for a Ron Paul upset now that Romney is gone:

With Mitt Romney dropping out of the Presidential race and Mike Huckabee likely to join him very soon, the mainstream media will soon be faced with a situation they never thought possible (and tried their best to avoid), a head-to-head between John McCain and the "people´s champion" Ron Paul!

Sure, the odds are stacked up against Ron Paul, but even the MSM can not possibly print articles about results (if there are just two in the race) without mentioning his name (but I bet some will still try).

It must be said that fairytale endings don´t often happen in the US in real life (at least not in politics), and are usually found in Hollywood movies like "Cinderella Man" or "Rocky", but if the American people truly love to see an outsider win the "title", now is a good time to make it happen!

Romney´s supporters obviously didn´t like what McCain has to offer, so why give your votes to him? Does America really need another leader who thinks war is the way forward, haven´t they had enough of that?

Top-diamond libertarian Paul M Green writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article2569.html) on The Nolan Chart that this may be the start of a new and better strategy:

But, is a brokered convention possible? My opinion is, yes, a brokered convention is possible. Here is why: A candidate must have a certain amount of delegates, a majority in five states I believe, in order to be locked into the GOP nomination. With Huckabee in the race, and Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson out, that leaves many delegates out there. Most, if not all of those delegates are now able to vote for whoever they want, and some might vote for Ron Paul. Then there are the states yet to hold primaries and states that have had primaries/caucuses who still haven't chosen National Delegates. Dr. Paul will surely gain some delegates who were committed to past candidates, and those yet to be elected.

At a brokered convention, a candidate must get 51% or more of the votes to receive the nomination. If that doesn't happen, then serious backroom campaigning goes on, and another vote is held. This continues until a candidate gets 51% or better. So, between McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul, it may be possible to prevent John McCain from gaining a majority of delegates in five states.

Wishful thinking? Perhaps, but I'm a positive person.

And top-diamond libertarian Jake Morphonois writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article2585.html) over at The Nolan Chart a piece aimed at homeless Romney supporters:

My name is Jake Morphonios. I am a Mormon and I support Ron Paul for President. I recently moved back to North Carolina from Provo, Utah. Although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) does not support or endorse any candidate, it is a fact that the vast majority of LDS members support the candidacy of fellow Mormon, Mitt Romney. I want to tell you why I have supported Ron rather than Mitt and ask you to consider putting your support behind Ron, now that Mitt has dropped out of the race.

The defining characteristic of the LDS church is its emphasis on the virtues of the family unit. We all know by heart the phrase, "No amount for worldly success can compensate for failure in the home." Our temples dot the earth, a testament to our belief that families can endure through eternity. We lovingly address God as our "Heavenly Father" and revere the beautiful relationship between Him and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Naturally, we want to elect people to represent us in government that will support our values. Mitt was such a man, but his departure from the race leaves a void which must be filled. Mike Huckabee presents himself as a Conservative Baptist Minister. However, Mike is, foremost, a politician. He says and does what is necessary to secure power – including rallying his evangelical base by calling our religious faith into question and implying that we are not Christians. He has a history of raising taxes and supporting expensive welfare programs. John McCain is a warmonger. A week ago McCain told reporters, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." McCain, in response to a question about Iran, sang "Bomb, bomb bomb – bomb, bomb Iran!" He has been called "McCentury" by many after suggesting that our soldiers should stay in Iraq another 100 years. McCain's desire for war reminds me of the arrogance of the Nephites just before their destruction at the hands of the Lamanites.

Now, much has been written about the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and let's start with the overview (http://reason.com/blog/show/124872.html) posted over at Reason:

If anyone was wondering what effect Ron Paul's new hires like Doug Bandow or Daniel McCarthy were having on Ron Paul's campaign, it was on display when he addressed CPAC late yesterday, the last candidate to speak to the grand ballroom before it was cleaned up for a banquet. Paul's speech was the most combative I'd ever heard from him, and the message sent out from his campaign was that it wouldn't be the last...

...The key moments in the speech were harsh statements of his foreign policy and attacks on John McCain. That latter stuff was red meat for this conference. After one subdued mention of McCain's pledge to keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years if needed, Paul said "McCain" had a few troublesome friends. "One of his friends is named... Feingold!" Then a blast against campaign finance reform. "Another of his friends is named... Kennedy!" Then, an attack on immigration reform. "Another of his friends, although he's not in the Senate anymore, is Daschle! Tom Daschle. Working with him on raising taxes, not cutting taxes." All of this got the biggest cheers from the most listless, curious section of the crowd. Kids and middle-aged men who'd had their arms folded for most of the speech started smirking and saying "Yeah!" at every McCain hit.

The rest of the speech had its ropey moments, with a lot, lot, lot of talk about monetary policy in the rhythm we all know and love: "And the dollar's going down, and the solution they say is to print more money, but where is the money coming from, it's coming from China," etc. The foreign policy section sounded like an AntiWar.com essay: concise, raw, ending with Paul saying "Osama bin Laden loves our foreign policy!" But that didn't actually draw boos. The only boos came when Paul said: "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! There were no weapons of mass destruction!" You could hear a small tide of jeering from the middle of the room, and Paul's supporters had to start yelling their candidate's name to drown them out.

The Baltimore Sun writes (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ron_paul_mccain_friends_with_f.html) about the point when Paul started linking McCain to liberal statists like McCain himself:

After the smoke cleared at the Conservative Political Action Conference – the public withdrawal of Mitt Romney from the Republican presidential race, and the attempt of John McCain to make friends with the party's staunchest conservatives – a conservative crowd-pleaser stepped forward .

Ron Paul, the Republican representative from Texas.

Paul was playing on the frustrations in this hall, with many voicing worries about McCain, the all-but annointed nominee.

Now the party has an apparent candidate who is a friend of Sen. Russ Feingold – on campaign finance reform – Paul said. And now the party has an apparent candidate who is a friend of Ted Kennedy – on immigration – Paul said.

He raised cheers in the hall – perhaps the first genuine cheers of the day.

Third Party Watch was there, and had this (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/blogging-cpac-ron-paul-on-presidential-steroids/)to say:

Around the middle of the speech, I went near the stage to shoot some photographs and sat down on the other side of the room, this time by Reason's Dave Weigel. Again, I found a McCain and a Romney supporter to watch.

One really, really interesting thing I observed was the amount of applause Romney supporters gave Ron Paul. Other than on the foreign policy issue, they were cheering as loudly as the Ron Paul supporters. The McCain supporters were not cheering, but sat with their arms crossed, for the most part. There was a battle of boos and cheers (the anti-war cheers eventually drowned out the boos) over a statement Paul made about Iraq. I suspect McCain supporters were the loudest of the opposition.

The video doesn't depict something well that quite a few people in the media section noted. Ron Paul actually sounded like a presidential candidate.

CNSNews wrote (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080208a.html) about Ron Paul calling out McCain on his liberalism:

Presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) told conservatives gathered here on Thursday that the Republican Party is "acting too much like Democrats," especially the party's frontrunner Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

"We have drifted a long way from the positions we used to hold on limited government," said Paul at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), sponsored by the American Conservative Union.

Paul also said McCain is "the top Republican candidate running for president who is leading the charge" against limited government. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney dropped out of the race earlier on Thursday at the same conference.

"If you think he can lead this country back to conservative principles, fiscal soundness, and a decent sized government, you've got another thing coming, because it's not going to happen," he said.

They also wrote (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080208b.html) about Paul's claim of conservative cred:

Paul claims to be the only conservative remaining in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

"We are in a bind. We are in a fix. We spend too much everywhere. We spend too much overseas, we spend too much domestically. The only answer is to be true conservatives," he told conservative activists.

Invoking the 1994 "Republican Revolution," Paul reminded conservatives about a time when the Republican Party forcefully pursued smaller government and fiscal restraint. But after Republicans gained a majority in 1994, following a campaign that focused on those principles, the conservative spirit eroded as Republicans became accustomed to power, he said.

Republicans once identified the Department of Education as a target for extinction, Paul reminded audience members. But in recent years, the DOE has grown in size and influence under a Republican administration. This overspending has antagonized the Republican base, Paul argued.

"We have lost House seats not because we aren't compassionate, but because we aren't conservative," he said.

Seriously, what a great fucking line that was. You know, dear Freedomphiles, I have this feeling, reading all these articles, of a palpable energy reawakening. Could this be a turning point for Ron Paul? Was the addition of Doug Bandow and Daniel McCarthy just what the doctor ordered? Watch the speech and see for yourself:


This is good. This is the most optimistic I've been in days. Seriously, you should feel these nipples. Speaking of nature's thermometers, The Free Liberal writes (http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003222.php)that Ron Paul may have his strongest support in the colder climes:

Here's a pattern that may be of interest to TFL readers: On Super Tuesday, Ron Paul broke double digits in four states. Part of this might simply be because the field is smaller. On the other hand, the early primaries were more jump-balls, without a clear front-runner, which McCain has become since FL.

Perhaps more interesting is that Paul bested 10% in northern tier states, and did worst in southern tier states on Super Tues. He achieved double digits in MN, ND, MT, AK, and nowhere else.

Libertarian Jason writes (http://yearningtobreathefree.blogspot.com/2008/02/conservative-whack-mole.html) that Republicans seem to be running away from conservatism:

My brief scan of the conservative side of the blogosphere results in nothing but silence. People who hated McCain, figuring him a Democrat in disguise, have either already given up their hope for Conservatism to survive and jumped on board, or, I predict, will soon. Up to now, they railed against the prospect that a "RINO" would be their standard bearer. They would quote Reagan and Goldwater at length, say that if you don't go into the booth and vote for the most conservative candidate, you have failed the cause. They justified their support for one lukewarm candidate after another in the hopes that "conservatism" would win the day.

Meanwhile, the most conservative candidate in the race - Ron Paul - is barely given a thought, or even opposed with vitriolic intensity. One guy after another drops out of the race, and these self-described conservatives keep moving themselves leftward, compromising their views hoping that "this candidate can win". Well, maybe the candidate can win... but the ideas lose.

Then there's Ron Paul - principled, unwavering, and consistent - standing firmly in place, repeating his message of limited government, the Constitution, sound money, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and yes...individual liberty. All alleged conservative values. He has the most consistent record of any one in the field. No flip-flops. The man believes what he stands for, and stands for what he believes.

And conservatives keep moving to the left. Walking away from the most conservative candidate available.

And finally, Rainbough Phillips writes (http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/02/06/republican-failure-libertarian-victory) on The Distributed Republic that the success of the Ron Paul campaign is the best thing in the history of the libertarian movement:

As of the writing of this post Ron Paul has received 513,533 votes* (this is with some precincts still unreported in some states including approximately 80% reported in California) in primaries, and 37,274 votes* (Maine is still at 68% reported) in caucuses.

With the exception of the 1980 presidential race in which Ed Clark drew in over 900,000 votes, Ron Paul has now pulled in more votes in the primary elections than any Libertarian candidate ever has in the general election.** Keep in mind that general elections traditionally have a much higher turnout than primaries do. Meanwhile there are still over 20 states that have yet to hold their elections.

This will not be a huge consolation to disappointed Paul supporters who hoped for at least a win in Alaska, but for those of us who have been following libertarian politics for multiple elections this is actually quite phenomenal. It means he might actually top a million in votes (a result better than any Libertarian Party candidate has ever gotten in the U.S.) long before the conventions roll around.

Of course this may not mean a great deal at the Republican National Convention, but it ought to mean a great deal to the libertarian movement in general. The amount of money and support Ron Paul has been able to garner in what has to be the shortest primary season in history actually makes me very optimistic about the future of libertarianism in this country.

Man, what a fucking roller coaster ride this has been! Hang in there, Freedomphiles, and I'll see you tomorrow!


02-09-2008, 05:25 PM
"Ron Paul gives up..."

...seems to be the topic of discussion over the past two days. This is not true.

(watch this now - some foul language, but an inspiring clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_DN-fhY96p0)

Right now, the battle is in full rage. Now is not the time to talk of defeat or surrender. There have been numerous events that have happened in just the past few days that give reason to increase our support, and our hope, not consider quitting!.

Results are coming in, showing a Huckabee victory in Kansas. While Paul did pretty well (over 11%), the bigger news is that this brings us closer to a brokered convention (which Dr. Paul CAN win).

Yesterday (Friday), Ron Paul spoke at Liberty University to an enthusiastic crowd of thousands. He had them cheering and screaming in support. See it on Youtube.

On Thursday, Ron Paul spoke at CPAC. Thousands in the conservative group lauded him and overwhelmingly supported him. This can be watched on the internet as well.

As everybody knows, Romney dropped out. Some see this as a bad thing, as it reduces the chance for a brokered convention. But if you look at the big picture, it is a very good thing (if we still can get a brokered convention). All over our state of Minnesota are reports that Romney supporters stated that they ABSOLUTELY will not support Huckabee or McCain. This means that they'll either refuse to vote, or jump to the Paul camp (many already have).

And if this same idea transfers to other caucus states like Colorado, Alaska, North Dakota and Maine, where Romney dominated completely and McCain beat Paul by a relatively small margin, then Ron Paul has a great chance of taking the delegates. And if this same idea transfers into other states like Nevada, Montana, and Louisiana, where Paul took a clear second place, trailing only Romney, then this shows that there are a lot of states that the Good Doctor can take!

Don't weep, or put away your unused slim-jims, or feel depressed. This is time to lift up your heads and shout out loud that we will not lay down our weapons. We will not quietly bow out. We refuse to be the victims of a corrupt, biased system. WE DEMAND THAT OUR VOICES BE HEARD. WE DEMAND THAT THE VOICES OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS BE HEARD. WE DEMAND THAT THE VOICES OF THOUSANDS OF THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR OUR NATION BE HEARD. AND WE DEMAND THAT RON PAUL'S VOICE BE HEARD. AS TODD BEAMER SAID, "LET'S ROLL!"


02-10-2008, 01:56 AM
We give up now, we give up hope, we keep up hope, we can win. All it takes is a bit of talking and a bit of strategy to win!