View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (11-10-07)

11-10-2007, 01:55 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (11-10-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=327302619&Mytoken=5212360B-6123-4D9D-957F9A7FCB772EAC41256170)

Hello Freedomphiles! This is going to be an awesome edition of the Roundup. Let's not save the best for last, and jump right into it. US News and World Reports has a Q&A (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2007/11/09/qa-presidential-candidate-ron-paul.html) with Ron Paul. Here's one of the questions:

Can you characterize a typical Ron Paul supporter?

No. The characteristic is they're not typical, and we're proud of it. We talk about it all the time—freedom brings diversity. It brings people together. Big government divides us, and we become competitive, and we fight over the spoils. That's why you have lobbyists up here fighting. It was fine when everybody thought there was endless wealth in this country. But today people, down deep in their heart, they know there's something wrong. And they see symbolically one of the best measurements of a country that is losing its wealth is when their currency goes down in value. And I've been talking about currency values since the very first time I ran for office. It's the monetary issue that has motivated me. And it's just all coming together now. The welfare spending at home, the militarism, the empire building is bringing us to bankruptcy. And we have a lot more inflation than they'll admit. Here we have currency going down—that in itself is inflation. The figures they fudge with—the CPI [consumer price index]—that is not inflation. That is a pseudo measure of inflation. The dollar is important. The money supply is important. But not government reports on the CPI.

It's a good - if short - interview. Next stop is with USAToday, who is reporting (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/iowa-gop-inunda.html) that the Iowa GOP is getting killed with calls demanding Dr Paul be included in the debate:

The Iowa Republican Party put out an advisory Tuesday setting standards for participation in a Dec. 4 debate it is sponsoring with Fox News. The phone has been ringing off the hook ever since.

That's because the sponsors said participants need to average 5% support among Republicans in recent national or Iowa polls -- and so far, Texas Rep. Ron Paul is one of the candidates not making the cut.

News of the party's decision and how to protest it was spread quickly over the Internet by supporters of the anti-war, anti-tax, anti-abortion libertarian. "We are getting bombarded" with calls and e-mails from Paul's supporters, said GOP spokeswoman Mary Tiffany. She said there were 25 voice mails from angry Paul supporters before the start of business Thursday.

You know what? These GOP (Goose-steppers On Parade) guys in Iowa are a bunch of turds, cherry-picking their data specifically to not include Paul. The latest Rassmussen poll has him at 6% (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016749.html), and CNN has him at 5% (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/CNN-N%20ational-Polls-November-2007.html). But they don't want to use those, because that would force them to include the most electrifying candidate in the race.

That's not the low end of the scale, either. Many polls don't even include Ron Paul's name. When polls are not even including him among the choices, it's amazing that he hit 6% at all. The primaries will change everything.

Free Market News Network is reporting (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=51247&fb=1) that there are now two official sites for the Boston Tea Party Money Bomb:

At least two, and perhaps more, sites are up on the 'Net publicizing the next "big" donation day for the presidential campaign of Ron Paul (R-Tex) as December 16th, commemorating in part "The Boston Tea Party." The sites can be seen here:


The "teaparty" site seemingly carries no identification as being the "official" site of Trevor Lyman, the brilliant, if self-effacing tactician behind the previous record-breaking donation day for Ron Paul on November 5th. However, when one clicks "contact," the email address reads lyman.trevor@gmail.com.

From both a moral and practical vantage point, Lyman likely gets the nod as the "official" site for the next fund-raiser. He certainly deserves it. Concentrating signatures on one site may have a beneficial psychological effect. Of course, what is ultimately most important to free-market thinkers is the increased funding flow to Ron Paul.

I have a feeling that flush with the success of the last money bomb, people are going to be very excited about this second one. It may make the first one look like my current balance in my checking account.

The Traingle Center has an op-ed (http://media.www.thetriangle.org/media/storage/paper689/news/2007/11/09/EdOp/Ron-Pauls.Extreme.Domestic.Policies.Would.Impoverish.M any-3091476.shtml)on Paul:

In a time when we should be thinking about healthcare as a human right, Paul's policies would leave millions without the care they need.

Paul's views would be very damaging to the poorest and most needy in society. This was most recently shown in his vote against sending federal aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and by blaming the victims his views are frighteningly uncompassionate.

Ron Paul might reverse Bush's failed foreign policy, but his domestic policy would go ever further than Bush, and do more damage to the people that need the most help.

Paul's views are great for big corporations and the extremely wealthy, but for the rest of us his policies would completely eliminate the possibility for upward social mobility and further increase the divide between the rich and the poor by making basic services like healthcare completely out of the reach.

Yeah, Paul's great for the multi-nationals - that's why they've donated so much to his campaign, right? The truth is, they hate him, because they don't want to be set loose in the market with no government protection. Rent-seeking (http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/rentseek.htm)business is in love with big government, no matter what the "common wisdom" would tell you.

This, by the way, is one of those articles that is not a hit piece, while still being critical. It's opinion, and this is definitely one of those times when responses should be polite and full of truth-bombs.

This next one (http://www.lifenews.com/nat3445.html)I almost didn't put in. It's from Life News, the pro-life website:

Republican congressman Ron Paul says the GOP will likely lose the presidential elections next year if pro-abortion ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is the nominee. The Texas representative also says he thinks Mitt Romney's conversion to the pro-life position is authentic.

The reason I almost didn't put it in is because abortion is one of the issues upon which Dr Paul and I find ourselves at odds. The reason I am able to overlook it is because, as a good federalist, he doesn't support a federal ban on abortions.

The Dallas Morning News has a nice piece on Dr Paul called A Gadfly with Wings: (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-ronpaul_09edi.ART.State.Edition1.42c52f9.html)

Like it or not – and the Republican Party certainly does not – the Ron Paul phenomenon is real.

Paul supporters raised an astonishing $4.3 million in a 24-hour Internet blitz Tuesday that set a one-day Republican record. This was quite a windfall for a candidate who stands far outside the GOP mainstream and whose poll numbers are in the basement.

The physician-turned-10-term-Texas-congressman remains the longest of long shots for his party's nomination, and rightly so. His opposition to the Iraq war and his isolationist foreign policy convictions alienate most rank-and-file Republicans. His unorthodox economic views (Dr. Paul wants to return to the gold standard) make him an eccentric. Even so, his positions on abortion, gun rights, illegal immigration and free trade deals resonate with the populist right.

Aside from his anti-war stance, Dr. Paul's actual opinions probably matter little to his passionate supporters. What energizes many of the libertarian's backers, especially the young, is his crusty integrity and refusal to play the pandering politician. "He has a set of principles applied consistently," says Reason magazine's Nick Gillespie. "He's not a [b.s.] artist."

And finally, there's a gentleman named Jim LeFave with a very interesting marketing idea (http://www.nolanchart.com/article277.html) for Ron Paul's campaign:

"I've already priced a coordinated media buy in New Hampshire and Iowa, and I've checked out the various TV network requirements. Basically, as long as they can offer the same thing to the other candidates, there is no problem with buying prime-time for an infomercial. This is great for two reasons. One, the idea is perfect for someone like Ron Paul who needs to be heard in detail. Two, the other candidates aren't likely to have an infomercial ready in the short time left between now and the beginning of January," said LeFave.

LeFave is an ex-Democrat turned Paul supporter, and he's very enthusiastic about the prospects for his candidacy. LeFave apparently received an email about my article from one of my readers regarding the idea I proposed and wanted to let me know that he was working on the exact same premise. He has been with Hollywood Closeups for a number of years, which is fronted by David Sheehan, a prominent movie critic and talking head. Their website shows Mr. Sheehan with many of Hollywood's most famous personalities, including Clint Eastwood, Lily Tomlin, Michael Jackson, Dolly Parton, Jack Nicholson, "Ahnold," and many others.

"We're planning to go to Las Vegas with an HD-DVD pro camera, professional lighting, a monitor, and a professional cameraman," said LeFave, with the intention of shooting 28 and a half minutes of Ron Paul talking about...Ron Paul. LeFave thinks that the ideal format would be to shoot Dr. Paul in three minute segments on each of his major issues from his stump speech. "The advantage of doing it that way," LeFave continued, "Is that after three minutes of talking about a subject, Dr. Paul can take a break and then review what he said on the monitor via instant playback. If there's something he wants to do differently, we can just shoot those three minutes again."

LeFave's approach allows Dr. Paul to give a complete presentation on about seven topics of his choice at length, while leaving time for an introduction and a short summary at the end. In between segments they could intersperse what are known as "bumpers," little fillers of still shots, campaign speeches, crowd reactions, etc. to break up the monotony of seeing Dr. Paul on the screen talking straight into the camera for 30 minutes. LeFave likes the idea of setting a very presidential scene with a large, gleaming desk where Dr. Paul can sit as he speaks to the camera.

I think it's a good idea. See ya next week!