PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (02-12-08)




RSDavis
02-12-2008, 03:48 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (02-12-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=357252230&Mytoken=32C9C2B7-1218-416A-98BBDC2DFC81271910611307)


Hello Freedomphiles! Well, it looks like this may be the beginning of the end for the Ron Paul campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Ron Paul has issued the following letter:

February 8, 2008

Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky, of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans and friends in many other countries have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.

Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron

Now, the campaign says (http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/08/message-from-dr-paul-onward-to-the-convention-and-beyond/), "Ron Paul is not going to surrender, and John McCain will not take the Republican nomination without the fight of his life." And Ron Paul himself has a video explaining the statement more. Take note, though, that he is talking about the campaign in the past tense. Not a good sign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMliyeIDp4

This is true - he hasn't quit, but he is scaling back the national campaign and focusing on rewinning his Congressional seat. I plan to follow him until he conceeds or is mathematically eliminated, so you can continue to come here for news and updates. After that, you can continue to come here for news about freedom and updates about the misuse of State power.

But let's not get too ahead of ourselves. There's a lot to talk about regarding this issue. KXNet, like so many others, underestimates (http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/207585.asp) Paul supporters and their knowledge of his positions. They can't imagine how we could know what he stands for and still support him. That's a problem many statists have when confronted with the radical notion of freedom and peace:

Across the nation people are putting their tinfoil hats away and wiping a little tear from their eyes

As a conservative, I'd like to believe that the "Ron Paul Revolution" was about a group of compassionate people concerned about the excesses of government. But really the movement was a motley crew of the politically disaffected and conspiracy-minded. They weren't so much looking for limited government as looking for a way to show their displeasure with "the establishment."

I'd be very surprised if, on a personal level, the majority of Ron Paul supporters felt as he did on individual issues. In fact, were Ron Paul to be elected, I wonder how many of his supporters would actually be satisfied with the reality of his administration

Ron Paul was never so much a candidate as a state of mind.

People are speculating about why, with all that money, Ron Paul is scaling back now. Isn't he in it for the long-haul? Well, there are a couple of good reasons. Conservative Pulse reports (http://www.conservativepulse.com/home/2008/02/10/ron-pauls-fundraising-is-drying-up/)that the well is going dry:

Ron Paul's primary strength in this campaign has been fanatical grassroots supporters who have raised tens of millions for the long-shot campaign. But now that Congressman Paul has failed to break-out by winning in any state, that fundraising is drying up pretty fast.

The week of January 21st, the Paul campaign added over $2.2 million to their bank account. Last week the campaign raised $1.6 million. This week, all signs suggest that the Paul campaign will take in only about $250k in donations.

So, maybe the support is drying up as people start to feel that there is no chance anymore. To you people, I say, if you give up on the man, don't give up on the rEVOLution. In fact, there is a pledge (http://www.ronpaulgrassroots.org/) you can make to continue.

Robert Rehfeldt comments (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019305.html):

Regarding Ron's latest message: He's doing the right thing by ruling out a third party run, for several reasons. First, there is absolutely no chance for a third party to win in November. The system is rigged against such candidates, and Ron Paul knows this better than we do. He's been down that road before. Trust his judgement. We all knew the odds against him winning the republican nomination were slim, but it was at least within the realm of possibility. As a Republican, he's gotten relatively little media attention, but he has gotten some; that would change to zero as a third party candidate. All his campaign money would have to be spent securing ballot access, leaving none for getting his message out, which is the important thing. There is a real difference between long odds and impossible odds, and as we know, politics is the art of the possible.

"McCain has no chance of beating Billary or Obama in November. We all know this. He will lose in a landslide of Clinton/Dole proportions, no matter what Paul does. If Paul stays out in November, Republicans will be forced to examine why they were defeated so badly. They will have only themselves to blame. BUT-- if Paul runs third party, both the Republicans and the mainstream media will make him the scapegoat for McCain's crushing defeat, the same way Democrats made Ralph Nader their scapegoat for Gore's defeat. We all know that McCain will lose anyway, that Paul will draw nearly as many votes from Democrats as Republicans, but Paul will be blamed just the same. And then his political career wil be over. Just look at all the hostility and hate directed at Nader from most Democrats. Believe me, the Neocons would absolutely love to pin this coming defeat on Ron Paul. They would love to further marginalize him by painting him as another Harold Stassen or Ralph Nader. Ron Paul is doing the smart thing; when Hillary is sworn in, his hands will be clean.

I guess that's a good point for now and for the reputation of Ron Paul's message, although I believe the future of freedom after this election will not be found in the Republican party. They've danced with the devil and found they like the tune. If this fails miserably, I recommend the Libertarian Party. So, coincidentally, does (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=118637) the Libertarian Party:

This leaves the Republican Party right where it started and where it has been for many, many years -- a party without principle. With its partner on the left, both parties continue to represent a compromising beast that continually thirsts for more power at the expense of our liberty, our property and our privacy.

In stark contrast, the Libertarian Party stands firm. Our values are unwavering. Our commitment is unstoppable.

(...)

The Libertarian Party is the last remaining stronghold for liberty in American politics.

Unfortunately, the Ron Paul campaign has unintentionally taken a toll on our party. Many of our members have changed their voter registration to vote for Ron Paul in a primary while others have allowed their support to lapse as they gave all that they could for a candidate that represented their values.

Early on, I made the decision to not interfere or discourage this activity. I felt it was wrong for me to place our party above such an incredible opportunity for liberty that existed with Dr. Paul's run for the White House.

But today, it's time to come home.

If you have switched your party registration, allowed your membership to lapse or have put off your decision to join the LP, I now ask that you reverse course and renew your support for our principled party.

The second reason he may be scaling back is supported by his own words that "I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen."

And it is true that his seat is in jeopardy. KHOU.com reports (http://www.khou.com/news/local/politics/stories/khou080210_tnt_ronpaul.acac0bcf.html):

Ron Paul is running for president, but he's also running for re-election as a Congressman in District 14. That includes Brazoria and a large chunk of Galveston Counties.

At first, it seemed like it would be an easy win. But Paul has drawn a well-funded, well-connected challenger in the Republican primary.

The Swamp reports (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ron_paul_will_not_support_a_jo.html)that Ron Paul will not be supporting John McCain:

Republican Rep. Ron Paul told the Tribune this morning he will not back Sen. John McCain as his party's nominee unless the Arizona senator "has a lot of change of heart."

"I can not support anybody with the foreign policy he advocates, you know, perpetual war. That is just so disturbing to me," Paul said.
"I think it's un-American, un-Constitutional, immoral, and not Republican."

Justin Gardner comments (http://donklephant.com/2008/02/11/ron-paul-wont-back-mccain/):

Don't worry Ron, he didn't want your endorsement anyway. In fact, it'll help his conservative credentials to keep your supporters away from him.

Don't worry, Justin. Very few Paul supporters would vote for McCain, even if Ron Paul endorsed him. In fact, if Ron Paul endorsed McCain, we'd be more likely to wonder what was wrong with Ron Paul than what was right with McCain.

Centrist Libertarian Scott from Oregon writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article2638.html) on The Nolan Chart an obit, but a very good one:

Ron Paul was a bright light that shined in some very dark places. Ron Paul was like the town crier who rode through on his horse with his lantern, shouting the obvious to all of those with windows open to hear. Some people indeed stuck their heads out and applauded the efforts of the old man. Some closed their windows and pulled the curtains. One thing for sure though, is that the message still lingers in the darkness of the darkening night.

Let's take a look at some of what has been exposed due to a Ron Paul presidential run.

Left-libertarian Digital Bob is also writing (http://www.nolanchart.com/article2657.html) a reflective piece for The Nolan Chart:

I don't think America was ready for Ron Paul's full message. Most people can live with the Federal Reserve, although that is a major source of the problems. But replacing it with a government agency isn't much better, if one considers how great the government is at managing money. We are so used to green and brown paper that no one would know what to do with coins of any significant denomination. The government gets a chunk of that, before I can see my paycheck. Huckabee is still talking about eliminating the IRS, although I'm not too crazy about the substitute fair tax. Fair would be zero.

For someone who hears these ideas for the first time, they do sound radical. In an atmosphere of fear, people will gravitate to apparent safety.

Americans have gotten dependent on the idea that someone else will take care of them when they're old and sick. They even believe government cares for them better than their family or their churches. How sad. They now believe that a sick man in a cave 10,000 miles away wants them dead. They believe drugs and drug dealers are to blame for their children's ebbing morals. They even asked Congress to put a V-Chip in TV sets, to protect the children. Sorry, the answer was always simpler and cheaper. The truth is in the mirror. It was never in a politician.

I think these pieces are interesting and astute, but I am personally not ready to start writing concession speeches or wondering where it all went wrong. Top-diamond libertarian Owen Brand isn't ready to throw in the towel yet, either, but is also looking back (http://www.nolanchart.com/article2658.html)reflectively:

This movement has already achieved far more than Paul originally envisioned. If he was a "fringe" candidate as he is so often labeled, why have so many worked around the clock to silence him or at least make him appear irrelevant? The answers are obvious. No, Ron Paul will not win any popularity contests for his good looks or articulate speaking ability but what he has been saying is finally hitting home with many Americans.

Again, it's the message and truth tends to resonate when given a chance to be heard. Paul has outlasted eight other candidates, some with more money, certainly many with more name recognition, and all with more media coverage. This movement has grown into a large outspoken group that can and will influence policy change as we go forward. With or without Ron Paul as president. The only thing that could stop this movement is division. It must remain united.

Ron Paul has provided a vehicle that has not been available in the past. He has catalyzed a diverse group that would not have come together for any other cause. Ron Paul may not win the GOP nomination but if you look at where he started, he has achieved far more than all the other candidates combined. This movement is not divided by party lines. It is not arguing who is the lesser of two evils or who is more electable. It's path has not been paved by corporations or the media. It is grounded on Constitutional principle with a vision for the future and it is slowly but steadily GROWING. Let us not waste this rare opportunity...

NewsMax is pimping (http://w3.newsmax.com/a/feb08/) it's retrospective on Paul, and exploring the question that has been bouncing around in my head as well - will the candidacy of Ron Paul inspire the way the candidacy of Goldwater did? Remember, that one led to the Reagan Revolution. There is no "Ronaldus Maximus" without Goldwater:

Will Paul's campaign, like Barry Goldwater's a half century before, change the GOP?

Paul has become the first successful campaign of the Internet age as his "open source" online network has raised tens of millions outstripping the other Republican candidates and even Hillary Clinton's latest tallies.

Adding to the Web magic is the fact that the Texas congressman has been arguing old conservative themes: small government, limited taxation, and reduced intervention abroad.

It's a libertarian message that resonates with millions of Americans.

Newsmax magazine's special report, "Paul Won't Be President, But ..." offers an in-depth look at the Paul campaign, which raked in $20 million in contributions in the last quarter of 2007, surpassing even Hillary Clinton's fourth quarter total.

In other news, Ron Paul and his supporters are still making news. UPI is reporting (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/02/11/paul_supporter_racks_up_fines_for_decals/9693/) of a Ron Paul supporter who is mad about fines over his Ron Paul window decals:

Cody Hauer, who may be forced to pay $550 for four citations he racked up in a single week for the decals, which were placed on the rear window of his Buick Park Avenue, said he plans to argue in court that a Minnesota law against rear window decals that obstruct the view of a driver run counter to his free speech rights under the First Amendment, the Owatonna (Minn.) People's Press reported Monday.

"I support Ron Paul, the city police department doesn't," he said. "They gave me a DWR -- driving while Republican."

"I think it's stupid," Hauer said of the law against window decals. "You can see just about as much out

of any other window."

"To be honest, I'm probably not going to win, but I'm going to go down fighting," he said.

Philadekphia Weekly comments (http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/2008/02/hooray_paul_sup.html):

I'd actually think it's more of a simple DUI, with the illegal substance in this case being thoughts in favor of Dr. Ron Paul. Hauer plans to say that the ban on stickers in car windows violates something called the "First Amendment," which I believe is one of the Ron Paul supporters' made up terms like "gold standard."

I find it diffucult to determine whether this author is anti-Paul or not, because he seems to be being snarky just for fun all over the board. On the one hand, he starts by making a conspiracy-theory joke, which is against Paul supporters. On the other hand, by grouping "First Amendment" with "Gold standard" as made up terms, it seems to give sarcastic respect to Ron Paul's ideas.

LewRockwell.com believes (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019290.html) anti-McCain votes need to go to Paul:

(1) Huckabee is going nowhere. He is strictly a regional and religious candidate with little support outside his base.

(2) Unlike Ron Paul, Huckabee has had six months of solid positive media coverage and still has done poorly (e.g., 12% in California; 11% in NY). It's Ron Paul's turn now.

(3) Huckabee, like all pro-war Republicans, has zero chance to win in November in a war-weary nation. I have explained many times why Ron Paul is the Republican's best general election candidate.

(4) Having zero chance to win the nomination, why is Huckabee still running? First, he is running against Romney for the 2012 nomination after McCain loses. This perception huts his image as serious contender.

(5) Huckabee and McCain clearly have some sort of tacit alliance going on. That means that Huckabee's delegates may go over to McCain when he drops out so a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain which is a vote for Hillary.

The Columbia Basin Herald writes (http://www.columbiabasinherald.com/articles/2008/02/11/news/news02.txt) about a Ron Paul victory:

According to Dent, Ron Paul received 31 percent of the Grant County vote, John McCain received 27 percent, Mitt Romney received 25 percent, Mike Huckabee received 16 percent and about 1 percent was uncommitted.

As does (http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20080210/NEWS/802100302) the Peninsula Daily News:

Meanwhile, Clallam County Republicans gave Paul a plurality of their delegates 47 out of a possible 184, or 26 percent and 45 for McCain.

Clallam County GOP also decided on 37 for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and 27 for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who dropped out of the race Thursday, with 28 uncommitted.

Jefferson County Republicans made Paul a respectable third-place finisher behind McCain and Huckabee, judging by the votes at the caucuses.

And finally, LewRockwell.com also talks (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019319.html) about success:

Has no one noticed that the states in which Ron Paul has done the best - Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, and Washington - comprise the heart of traditional "populist" politics? Montana was the home of Jeanette Rankin - one of two congressmen voting against WWI, and the only one to vote against WWII. The anti-corporate-state, anti-war thinking that was reflected in populism is finding a resurgence in Paul's campaign. The deeper meaning may reflect a return to "classical liberalism." When modern "conservatives" wish to "conserve" the war system, corporate privilege, big government spending, and an expanded police state, it is clear that such people are going to find more to their liking in McCain and Huckabee.

I should add that these above-named states are the ones through which one of my entrepreneurial heroes, James J. Hill, built - and profitably ran - his Great Northern Railway without help from government grants of land, subsidies, or the use of eminent domain. The Ron Paul supporters may represent Nock's "remnant," men and women tied more to the spirits of Hill and Rankin than to what modern "conservatism" has to offer.

I may not be able to do a Roundup tomorrow, so if not, I'll see you guys on Thursday!

http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg

randolphfuller
02-12-2008, 09:17 PM
While Jeannette Rankikn of Montana was the only member of Congress to vote against the Declaration of War in both World War I andWorld War II, a great many in Cpngress voted against such the Declaration of War in World War I, INcludiong th HOuse Majority Leader, who made an impassioned speech from the well of the House and resigned from Congress. Among the well-known Congressmen who voted against it were Charles Lindbergh(the famed aviators father),and Burton K. Wheeler, the leader of the ant-war forces in the Senate before Pearl Harbor.In the Senate leading opponents of World War I were Rovert La Follette, and Hiram Johnson. It is to Johnson that Bartlett's Familiar Quotations attributes the famous line that "In war, truth is always the first casualty. William Morris

tstorey
02-13-2008, 01:14 AM
No thanks for your view.

The world is not changed by "practical, rational, sensible" people.

I am going to stay with the revolution.

When this subject comes up 20 years from now?

I will be looking my children and grand children in the eye when answering the obvious question about this "movement."

They will know that "some"of the men of the movement went home early.

There is a converted army base FEMA prison camp down the street. It is a motivating thing for me.

RSDavis
02-13-2008, 08:01 AM
While Jeannette Rankikn of Montana was the only member of Congress to vote against the Declaration of War in both World War I andWorld War II, a great many in Cpngress voted against such the Declaration of War in World War I, INcludiong th HOuse Majority Leader, who made an impassioned speech from the well of the House and resigned from Congress. Among the well-known Congressmen who voted against it were Charles Lindbergh(the famed aviators father),and Burton K. Wheeler, the leader of the ant-war forces in the Senate before Pearl Harbor.In the Senate leading opponents of World War I were Rovert La Follette, and Hiram Johnson. It is to Johnson that Bartlett's Familiar Quotations attributes the famous line that "In war, truth is always the first casualty. William Morris

Fascinating stuff!

RSDavis
02-13-2008, 08:06 AM
No thanks for your view.

The world is not changed by "practical, rational, sensible" people.

I am going to stay with the revolution.

When this subject comes up 20 years from now?

I will be looking my children and grand children in the eye when answering the obvious question about this "movement."

They will know that "some"of the men of the movement went home early.

There is a converted army base FEMA prison camp down the street. It is a motivating thing for me.

I'm in it for the long haul, myself. Although I've never been much of a political booster - I am more into the nuts and bolts of policy and the philosophy of freedom than I am into the daily grind of politics. This is the first campaign I've ever written about. It sure has been quite a roller coaster so far. I've never in my years of libertarian writing and activism seen so much interest in the philosophy. There are going to be a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings about the principles of freedom, and we must patiently correct all of these, whenever we see them, both from the philisophical, moral standpoint, and from the pragmatic angle. I think this may be the start of something big.

My only difference with many is that I don't have much hope that this movement is going to be within the Republican party. It may not be from the Libertarian Party, either, for that matter. It's coming, though.

- Rick

agapecpus
02-25-2008, 11:20 AM
February 11, 2008
The Situation Room
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8AN7dSKJQQ
Ron Paul Bio - Playingpoliticstv.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMq4bctLaCc

February 10, 2008
Lake Jackson Rally
Part 1 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=wrno1OM9D8A
Part 2 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=ceKEpVfL510
Part 3 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=f37bh-bPAV4
Part 4 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=D99i8e4Q9eU
Part 5 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=2jRYpSlPffI
Part 6 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=kjGlp6rMaQ8
Debate Citizens for Responsible Government
Part 1 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=d-D2MQp9tj4
Part 2 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=CzUSdgjIZsI
NORML Interview
Part 1 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=OGx9DH6VI2E
Part 2 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=TZJSHYPkWbo
Joel Skousen on Ron Paul
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UA_ZmTMEShM

February 9, 2008
John McCain... Electable?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E
Kansas Caucus Speech
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WtJVS3CGcZs