RSDavis
11-08-2007, 11:15 AM
Ron Paul Roundup (11-08-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=326678503&Mytoken=C567E79A-18ED-4BA3-9EEA21780F8C28DC28289088)
Hello Freedomphiles! Got some good stuff, some bad stuff, and some ugly stuff today. Let's get the ugly stuff out of the way first.
In The Weekly Standard, Dean Barnett calls Ron Paul the "Don't Tase Me, Bro" candidate:
CRAZY PEOPLE LOVE to have a cause. Usually politics doesn't offer a candidate worthy of their ardor. The 2008 campaign looked like it would be more of the same in that regard. The Democratic candidates all basically stand for the same boring platform. At their debates, the only thing they really contest is who despises George W. Bush more...
...So why have America's lunatics taken such a shine to the formerly obscure Ron Paul? There's a simple explanation: Although Paul spends most of his time talking about the Constitution and such cherished old time policies as the gold standard, he's as close to an anarchist as we're likely to see in presidential politics...
...If you hate something about our modern society, chances are Ron Paul agrees with you. Passionately. Ron Paul doesn't go for half-measures or speaking in measured tones. Everything he sees is a threat of biblical proportions. If you're the kind of person whose neighbors call you a crank, you probably see Ron Paul as a kindred spirit. And chances are he's with you on the subject for which you've achieved your notoriety in crankdom.
Wow. I don't even know what to say about that. Generally, hit pieces attack the candidates, not their supporters. Perhaps that's the key right there - Ron Paul isn't running this campaign. We are running it here, from the ground up, and as the good doctor says, it's not about him, it's about the message. Ron Paul is the vessel that carries our message to the federal government, and that message is not, "Don't tase me, bro."
That message is: Back the fuck off.
Speaking of which, Norma Love of The Associated Press got a message on that message:
In an Associated Press interview, he said people startled by the $4.3 million take from his volunteer-led fundraising blitz Monday might be surprised on Election Day as well.
"They said if the candidate doesn't call and pander to special interests you can't raise enough money. But here, we found out the campaign is very spontaneous and volunteers are coming," he said.
"So, I would say a campaign like ours would surprise others."
More important than money is his message, Paul said before starting a full day of campaigning in the first-primary state, with promises of more to come.
"I will be here a lot more but I think there's something in the air that says people are starved for a different message, and I have that message," he said.
Linda Feldmann of the excellent Christian Science Monitor is analyzing just what this money means in the grander scheme of things:
The Paul boom also reflects the continuing dissatisfaction, particularly on the Republican side, with the top presidential candidates. So in part, analysts say, he represents a protest vote – even if some of his positions, such as elimination of the Federal Reserve, probably would not poll well even among some of his supporters.
The candidates "all have visible flaws, from the perspective of the Republican base, and Ron Paul is at least forceful," says Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "He has an ideology that is consistent and that he is personally committed to."
Paul also appeals to people who are fed up with the partisanship and tear-down-the-front-runners mentality in American politics. "A lot of people will look at Paul and say, that guy is talking to me, not to the people at the other podiums next to him," says Mr. Jillson.
Matthew Felling of CBSNews is writing about how our money bomb is getting Paul more meaty coverage from the MSM - or to borrow the catch phrase of the '00 election, the coverage has more gravitas:
And then this morning, Paul got a solid segment on CNN that finally consisted of more than "Why are you bothering?" or "Do you seriously think you have a shot?" — even ending with co-anchor John Roberts adding "A awful lot of what he says makes a lot of sense." (Thank you, TVEyes)
So Ron Paul's big day drew some attention from the news media. And it's also going to buy some ads to spread the word even further. It's an interesting development that will create a dynamic that the GOP contenders must address in the next month.
Here's a video of the CNN interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHIZ7EOsKM
So, did you hear that Ron Paul took down Rudy in his own state? The New York Times reports:
Ron Paul Wins! That's the headline today after the first New York State Republican Straw Poll. Clearly, after raking in a record amount of money the other day, Mr. Paul is on a roll. He seems to have out-organized his fellow Republicans — on Rudolph W. Giuliani's home turf.
The New York State straw poll was conducted Tuesday at the Metropolitan Republican Club in New York City.
The results: Mr. Paul, 26 votes; Mr. Giuliani, 21; Mitt Romney, 6; John McCain, 4; Mike Huckabee, 2; Duncan Hunter, 1; Fred Thompson, 1; Tom Tancredo, 0.
That is some sweet news, indeed. He seems very good at winning straw polls, which, obviously, are immune to spam.
Now, Ross Douthat is ruminating on the future implications of a 3rd Party Run and displaced Paulites:
At the very least, one could imagine a Paul run forcing Giuliani to the right on immigration and abortion, and Clinton to the left on foreign policy; whether this would have any impact on how they'd govern is of course impossible to know, but it isn't an insignificant consideration. Yes, Paul himself would be vilified by both sides, but if he did well enough, it's possible to imagine the "Paul voter" becoming an object of fascination in the 2010 and 2012 elections, much as the elusive "Perot voter" was in the middle 1990s. (The Perot-voter fascination, one might note, helped midwife both the Republican Contract with America and the Democrats' unexpected zeal for deficit-cutting.) Even on a very limited scale, this would be no small achievement, given how marginal Paulician principles have looked at various points during the Bush years. Whereas as a primary-campaign also-ran, however well-funded, I think Paul is basically a curiosity; if he wants to transcend the "Ronulan" jokes and the disdain of the Fox News moderators, he needs to take his show to the big stage and see what happens.
A couple of different news outlets are reporting on a talk that Ron Paul had with some kids at Nashua High School in New Hampshire. The Nashua Telegraph reports:
"Tragically, you are inheriting a system that has lost its way. They have emphasized stuff over freedom," Paul said.
Paul railed against the war in Iraq, the invasion of personal liberty in the name of homeland security and devaluing of the American dollar.
"I've been accused of being too conservative, I've been accused of being too liberal . . . the truth is I have voted according to the Constitution and that is the most important thing we can do," Paul said.
"I, for one, think the old ideas in the Constitution are the right ideas."
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks would never have happened had the government not over-regulated air travel, he maintained.
"If we had followed those rules and respected the Second Amendment they would have had guns in the cockpits," Paul said of the airline pilots.
"The federal government says they can't have guns in cockpits. The federal government advised never to engage a hijacker. We set the stage for exactly what happened."
It's so interesting doing these Roundups because you can read two stories about the same event and get two completely different takes. MSNBC focused more on the dollar and foreign policy:
"We have this bizarre idea … that when Washington comes up short, whether it's to fight a war or run the welfare state, you know what we do? We print the money," he told about 100 students at Nashua South High School. "Now how much sense would it have to take to figure out that if you could just print money at will, maybe the value of money is going to go down."
The result, he told the students, is a greater debt that they will inherit. And today, the impact is being seen in things like gas prices. "When you fill up your car," Paul said, "and it's $3 a gallon, or $4 or $5 a gallon, don't blame price gouging. Blame the government for a bad monetary policy and a bad foreign policy."
He warned that if no action is taken, "the dollar can lose a lot more value, which means prices can go up a lot more, the economy can get a lot weaker, the stock market could crash."
All of his ideas were rooted in the Constitution, Paul said. But he recognizes that some -- like eliminating the IRS, and returning all funding of education to the states -- are unlikely to be achieved as president. So he said he'd focus on the one area a president has more leverage -- foreign policy.
The last stop today is in Isreal. Now, a lot of White Supremecists have gotten on board with the Paul campaign because he wants to end foriegn aid to Isreal. They view it as anti-zionist, but he is against foriegn aid anywhere, so they are missing the boat on that. The upside for Isreal, though, is that while not giving them any cash, he wouldn't give them any of the bullshit that comes with the cash. They could handle their own defense without us second-guessing them and pressuring them to act according to our needs instead of theirs.
On the Isreali blog Haaretz.com, Shmuel Rosner is evaluating that very issue:
A candidate that would like to see all foreign aid taken from Israel, to sit idly by as Iran develops nuclear weapons, to abandon Iraq to its fate. "Israel would be better off" and the Israelis "could take care of themselves" if the United States ended its alliance with Israel, he said.
During the Lebanon war last year, he spoke against a House resolution condemning attacks on Israel and supporting Israel's right to defend itself. He warned that the resolution could lead to an escalation of the war...
...He repeatedly stated that "he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention." On the issue of foreign aid, his supporters are right when they say that by no means he would single out Israel. Paul opposes American aid and alignment with Israel, and even blames it for attracting terrorist attacks, but says the same thing about American involvement with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
When asked by an Arab reporter about America's "blind support" of Israel, Paul responded by saying this was a "good point" but also added that "I could talk about our blind support of Saudi Arabia."
It's a pretty even-handed analysis - even when I disagreed - especially considering the source. Worth a read. Well, that's all until tomorrow! Make it a great one!
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=326678503&Mytoken=C567E79A-18ED-4BA3-9EEA21780F8C28DC28289088)
Hello Freedomphiles! Got some good stuff, some bad stuff, and some ugly stuff today. Let's get the ugly stuff out of the way first.
In The Weekly Standard, Dean Barnett calls Ron Paul the "Don't Tase Me, Bro" candidate:
CRAZY PEOPLE LOVE to have a cause. Usually politics doesn't offer a candidate worthy of their ardor. The 2008 campaign looked like it would be more of the same in that regard. The Democratic candidates all basically stand for the same boring platform. At their debates, the only thing they really contest is who despises George W. Bush more...
...So why have America's lunatics taken such a shine to the formerly obscure Ron Paul? There's a simple explanation: Although Paul spends most of his time talking about the Constitution and such cherished old time policies as the gold standard, he's as close to an anarchist as we're likely to see in presidential politics...
...If you hate something about our modern society, chances are Ron Paul agrees with you. Passionately. Ron Paul doesn't go for half-measures or speaking in measured tones. Everything he sees is a threat of biblical proportions. If you're the kind of person whose neighbors call you a crank, you probably see Ron Paul as a kindred spirit. And chances are he's with you on the subject for which you've achieved your notoriety in crankdom.
Wow. I don't even know what to say about that. Generally, hit pieces attack the candidates, not their supporters. Perhaps that's the key right there - Ron Paul isn't running this campaign. We are running it here, from the ground up, and as the good doctor says, it's not about him, it's about the message. Ron Paul is the vessel that carries our message to the federal government, and that message is not, "Don't tase me, bro."
That message is: Back the fuck off.
Speaking of which, Norma Love of The Associated Press got a message on that message:
In an Associated Press interview, he said people startled by the $4.3 million take from his volunteer-led fundraising blitz Monday might be surprised on Election Day as well.
"They said if the candidate doesn't call and pander to special interests you can't raise enough money. But here, we found out the campaign is very spontaneous and volunteers are coming," he said.
"So, I would say a campaign like ours would surprise others."
More important than money is his message, Paul said before starting a full day of campaigning in the first-primary state, with promises of more to come.
"I will be here a lot more but I think there's something in the air that says people are starved for a different message, and I have that message," he said.
Linda Feldmann of the excellent Christian Science Monitor is analyzing just what this money means in the grander scheme of things:
The Paul boom also reflects the continuing dissatisfaction, particularly on the Republican side, with the top presidential candidates. So in part, analysts say, he represents a protest vote – even if some of his positions, such as elimination of the Federal Reserve, probably would not poll well even among some of his supporters.
The candidates "all have visible flaws, from the perspective of the Republican base, and Ron Paul is at least forceful," says Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "He has an ideology that is consistent and that he is personally committed to."
Paul also appeals to people who are fed up with the partisanship and tear-down-the-front-runners mentality in American politics. "A lot of people will look at Paul and say, that guy is talking to me, not to the people at the other podiums next to him," says Mr. Jillson.
Matthew Felling of CBSNews is writing about how our money bomb is getting Paul more meaty coverage from the MSM - or to borrow the catch phrase of the '00 election, the coverage has more gravitas:
And then this morning, Paul got a solid segment on CNN that finally consisted of more than "Why are you bothering?" or "Do you seriously think you have a shot?" — even ending with co-anchor John Roberts adding "A awful lot of what he says makes a lot of sense." (Thank you, TVEyes)
So Ron Paul's big day drew some attention from the news media. And it's also going to buy some ads to spread the word even further. It's an interesting development that will create a dynamic that the GOP contenders must address in the next month.
Here's a video of the CNN interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHIZ7EOsKM
So, did you hear that Ron Paul took down Rudy in his own state? The New York Times reports:
Ron Paul Wins! That's the headline today after the first New York State Republican Straw Poll. Clearly, after raking in a record amount of money the other day, Mr. Paul is on a roll. He seems to have out-organized his fellow Republicans — on Rudolph W. Giuliani's home turf.
The New York State straw poll was conducted Tuesday at the Metropolitan Republican Club in New York City.
The results: Mr. Paul, 26 votes; Mr. Giuliani, 21; Mitt Romney, 6; John McCain, 4; Mike Huckabee, 2; Duncan Hunter, 1; Fred Thompson, 1; Tom Tancredo, 0.
That is some sweet news, indeed. He seems very good at winning straw polls, which, obviously, are immune to spam.
Now, Ross Douthat is ruminating on the future implications of a 3rd Party Run and displaced Paulites:
At the very least, one could imagine a Paul run forcing Giuliani to the right on immigration and abortion, and Clinton to the left on foreign policy; whether this would have any impact on how they'd govern is of course impossible to know, but it isn't an insignificant consideration. Yes, Paul himself would be vilified by both sides, but if he did well enough, it's possible to imagine the "Paul voter" becoming an object of fascination in the 2010 and 2012 elections, much as the elusive "Perot voter" was in the middle 1990s. (The Perot-voter fascination, one might note, helped midwife both the Republican Contract with America and the Democrats' unexpected zeal for deficit-cutting.) Even on a very limited scale, this would be no small achievement, given how marginal Paulician principles have looked at various points during the Bush years. Whereas as a primary-campaign also-ran, however well-funded, I think Paul is basically a curiosity; if he wants to transcend the "Ronulan" jokes and the disdain of the Fox News moderators, he needs to take his show to the big stage and see what happens.
A couple of different news outlets are reporting on a talk that Ron Paul had with some kids at Nashua High School in New Hampshire. The Nashua Telegraph reports:
"Tragically, you are inheriting a system that has lost its way. They have emphasized stuff over freedom," Paul said.
Paul railed against the war in Iraq, the invasion of personal liberty in the name of homeland security and devaluing of the American dollar.
"I've been accused of being too conservative, I've been accused of being too liberal . . . the truth is I have voted according to the Constitution and that is the most important thing we can do," Paul said.
"I, for one, think the old ideas in the Constitution are the right ideas."
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks would never have happened had the government not over-regulated air travel, he maintained.
"If we had followed those rules and respected the Second Amendment they would have had guns in the cockpits," Paul said of the airline pilots.
"The federal government says they can't have guns in cockpits. The federal government advised never to engage a hijacker. We set the stage for exactly what happened."
It's so interesting doing these Roundups because you can read two stories about the same event and get two completely different takes. MSNBC focused more on the dollar and foreign policy:
"We have this bizarre idea … that when Washington comes up short, whether it's to fight a war or run the welfare state, you know what we do? We print the money," he told about 100 students at Nashua South High School. "Now how much sense would it have to take to figure out that if you could just print money at will, maybe the value of money is going to go down."
The result, he told the students, is a greater debt that they will inherit. And today, the impact is being seen in things like gas prices. "When you fill up your car," Paul said, "and it's $3 a gallon, or $4 or $5 a gallon, don't blame price gouging. Blame the government for a bad monetary policy and a bad foreign policy."
He warned that if no action is taken, "the dollar can lose a lot more value, which means prices can go up a lot more, the economy can get a lot weaker, the stock market could crash."
All of his ideas were rooted in the Constitution, Paul said. But he recognizes that some -- like eliminating the IRS, and returning all funding of education to the states -- are unlikely to be achieved as president. So he said he'd focus on the one area a president has more leverage -- foreign policy.
The last stop today is in Isreal. Now, a lot of White Supremecists have gotten on board with the Paul campaign because he wants to end foriegn aid to Isreal. They view it as anti-zionist, but he is against foriegn aid anywhere, so they are missing the boat on that. The upside for Isreal, though, is that while not giving them any cash, he wouldn't give them any of the bullshit that comes with the cash. They could handle their own defense without us second-guessing them and pressuring them to act according to our needs instead of theirs.
On the Isreali blog Haaretz.com, Shmuel Rosner is evaluating that very issue:
A candidate that would like to see all foreign aid taken from Israel, to sit idly by as Iran develops nuclear weapons, to abandon Iraq to its fate. "Israel would be better off" and the Israelis "could take care of themselves" if the United States ended its alliance with Israel, he said.
During the Lebanon war last year, he spoke against a House resolution condemning attacks on Israel and supporting Israel's right to defend itself. He warned that the resolution could lead to an escalation of the war...
...He repeatedly stated that "he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention." On the issue of foreign aid, his supporters are right when they say that by no means he would single out Israel. Paul opposes American aid and alignment with Israel, and even blames it for attracting terrorist attacks, but says the same thing about American involvement with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
When asked by an Arab reporter about America's "blind support" of Israel, Paul responded by saying this was a "good point" but also added that "I could talk about our blind support of Saudi Arabia."
It's a pretty even-handed analysis - even when I disagreed - especially considering the source. Worth a read. Well, that's all until tomorrow! Make it a great one!