RSDavis
11-21-2007, 10:50 AM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (11-21-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=330673453&Mytoken=A18808B0-123A-4891-B624B21343D86DB529628418)
Hello Freedomphiles! Ready for today's Roundup? Let's do it, mainstream media style. Our first MSM stop is The New York Times, where Leslie Wayne is talking (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/ron-pauls-tight-fisted-campaign/) about Ron Paul and his frugal ways:
Voters looking for a candidate who will be tight with their money might have found their man in Ron Paul, if campaign spending is any indication. At the moment, Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, is rolling in cash. He already had raised $5 million this year when a one-day Internet drive tied to Guy Fawkes Day on Nov. 5 brought in another $4 million.
Yet, spending is another matter. As of earlier this month, Mr. Paul's campaign had spent only 46 cents for every dollar raised, compared to most campaigns that spend whatever comes in. Where other campaigns freely give out yard signs, posters and other handouts, the Paul campaign tells supporters to make their own or buy them from the campaign — at cost.
Originally, this was born of necessity as Mr. Paul started out in January with just $25,000. But it has since helped generate grass roots involvement by supporters, who design and print up their own Paul promotions. Even a large pro-Paul billboard strategically placed outside the Des Moines airport was designed and paid for by a supporter, not the campaign.
Seriously good point. If you want a president that will reign in out of control spending, all you have to do is look at how the candidates are running their campaigns. Who's the most frugal and efficient? Why, Ron Paul, of course!
Let's take the MSM express from coast-to-coast and stop in the land of fake tits, mountains of cocaine, and limousine upskirt shots. The Los Angeles Times is writing (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/the-ron-paul-ex.html) about Ron Paul today, as well:
Certain numbers keep calling attention to the phenomenon that is Ron Paul.
The most obvious one, of course, was the more than $4.2 million that his campaign reported raising in a single day via the Internet earlier this month. This week, other figures stand out: He attracted a crowd of more than 1,000 people in Nevada, and a new poll showed him doubling his support in New Hampshire.
As is increasingly the case with Paul, the audience that came to hear him speak Monday in Las Vegas was not only large, it was enthusiastic. A story in the Las Vegas Review-Journal has the details and the atmospherics.
In New Hampshire, the survey of likely Republican primary voters by CNN and Manchester-based television station WMUR found backing for Paul jumping from 4% in a September poll to 8% now. In July, Paul was at 2% in the poll; the geometric progression clearly is a trend the Paul camp wants to see continue.
Will it? The "smart" political money would bet against it. Then again, who would have predicted a few months ago that Paul would be closing in on double digits in a New Hampshire poll.
And of course, that doesn't even count all the libertarians, Democrats, and Independents that plan on voting in the Republican primaries. I mean, what do you expect polls to reflect when you are asking prior G-Dub voters?
Staying with The Los Angeles Times, they printed a column (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-goldberg20nov20,0,7363356.column?coll=la-util-opinion-sunday) by syndicated man Jonah Goldberg, who doesn't think Ron Paul is all that scary, at least not compared to the other dark horse in the race:
As the hopeless but energetic presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) builds momentum in name recognition, fundraising and cross-ideology appeal, media conservatives are beginning to attack Paul in earnest. Republican consultant David Hill condemns the candidate's "increasingly leftish" positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul "too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists." Film critic and talk radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds "an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white Supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists."
For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that many of his top advisors actually have hooves.
Well, I would still find him less scary than Mike Huckabee.
Okay, pulling out of LaLa Land, let's get more broad with this and go with USAToday, which is reporting (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/bill-clinton-ka.html) that Ron Paul is about to be included in GQ's annual list of men of the year (http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?&id=content_6197):
There he is -- the only current presidential candidate in the mix.
Republican Rep. Ron Paul has been awarded one of 36 "men of the year" honors from GQ magazine.
He gets his for being "dark horse of the year."
It took a while for us to find him at GQ's Web package on the honorees. If you open up the "rundown of this year's big winners" or click on the "slideshow" line, his photo comes up as No. 57 of 59.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton says in a statement that the candidate "is humbled and honored."
The big winner - shockingly - was Bill Clinton. How does that guy manage to stay in the news? He's like Madonna that way.
Speaking of USAToday, US News & World Reports is talking (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/11/20/ron-paul-backer-aims-to-snag-travelers.html) about a full page ad that a Paulite has bought for today's edition:
Larry Lepard, a venture capitalist and Ron Paul supporter from Massachusetts, has shelled out about $85,000 of his own money to throw what he told U.S. News is a "small hard rock at a good target": a full-page ad supporting Paul that will run in tomorrow's edition of USA Today—the nation's largest circulation daily newspaper—on the busiest travel day of the year.
He noted that he bought a right-hand position in the newspaper's front section.
"I'm trying to get maximum bang for the buck," said Lepard, 50, a Republican who says his strong opposition to the Iraq war drove him to take out the ad. His firm, Equity Management Association, invests in emerging markets, he said, adding, "I'm good at spotting early trends." The ad, presented as an open letter from the country's Founding Fathers, was designed with the help of supporters on www.RonPaulForums.com, where Paul campaign activists hold their virtual gatherings.
I am actually looking at the ad right now (the story is from yesterday), and I gotta say, it was well worth the $85,000. It's beautiful.
Okay, that's enough of the MSM coverage. Let's go to some smaller outlets, starting with Gambling911.com. You know, people will bet on anything, and I am glad for it, because the effects of many people betting is a really great way to aggregate disparate information.
Apparently, people are now betting on (http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-112007.html)whether the December 16th money bomb will outdo the Guy Fawkes one:
2008 US Presidential candidate Ron Paul supporters are calling this one a "sucker bet". The long time Texas Congressman raising UNDER $5 mil on December 16, 2007 pays just under even odds at $5 for every $6 bet (plus you would get your initial $5 returned if the effort fails to raise $5 million over that single 24 hour period.
Sportsbook.com has placed the $5 mil line (Over or Under) on the amount Ron Paul will raise December 16. That's the next date for his campaign "money bomb". The last "money bomb" shocked critics by taking in just over $4 mil in a single day's period. The effort helped quash any lasting suspicions that Ron Paul's camp was using a small group of so-called "shills" or spammers to bombard various posting forums and media outlets with his "message of hope".
While many in the media continue to question whether Ron Paul can translate Internet popularity into real votes (he's one of the most queried individuals on the Web), his supporters are now more concerned with raising the $12 million they forecasted for the final quarter of 2007. He's already more than three quarters there and if Sportsbook.com is correct with its line, Paul's campaign may even exceed the original $12 mil goal.
Remember the National Review Mona Charen hitpiece (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmU0ZDFhYjIxM2VlMTEzMjkyY2ZiNDA3Y2RiZmU1YTc=) from yesterday's Roundup? Well, Ron Paul's campaign manager Jesse Benton, has responded (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTJmOWM2ZGQzNzAzOTQwYWJlMDg4YjJiMjE4MWRlZTY=). I'm posting it in its entirety because it's not commercial writing, and I am sure Jesse won't mind:
I read Mona Charen's column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling ("kook," as I'm sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.
1. Dr. Paul's commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn't pardoned Libby either, by the way.
2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word "isolationist" except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.
3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing "unserious" about that.
4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul's "Texas Straight Talk Column," for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.
Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX's John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?
Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul's send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen's column. Perhaps a better explanation for his "contribution" is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.
Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.
Jesse Benton
Communications Director
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
Arlington, Va.
That letter makes it all too clear why Mr Benton got his position in the campaign. Well done, sir!
MedPageToday has an interesting take (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Campaign08/tb/7444) on Ron Paul - the medical community approach:
But Dr. Paul's views have won a following. He has attracted far more campaign donations and support than many of his better known rivals. Indeed, on Nov. 5, Dr. Paul raised $4.2 million in 24 hours. The one-day total set a record for GOP candidates. Even before that, his campaign had more money on hand than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), and Republican former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Dr. Paul is one of 12 physician members of Congress -- two in the Senate, 10 in the House of Representatives. If his campaign succeeds, he'd be America's first physician president.
Physician influence in politics has ebbed and waned over the years. Physicians comprised 10% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In recent years, cardiac surgeon Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was Senate majority leader and an early dropout in the 2008 presidential campaign. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, M.D., a flash-in-the pan wannabe nominee four years ago, is chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Interesting, indeed. John Nichols of The Nation is asking (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=253046) why Ron Paul is not getting the respect he deserves:
Paul doubled his support from September to November.
During the same period, Paul's sparring partner on foreign affairs issues, Giuliani, lost fully one-third of his support. And Thompson lost a remarkable two thirds of his support.
So here's a question: When is the Washington press corps going to start treating Ron Paul as seriously as it does Fred Thompson?
The likely answer is "not soon." And that's the most frustrating thing about the way in which the GOP race is being covered by major media. After all, Ron Paul has more to say -- and says it better -- than any of the other Republicans. With a fair shake from the media, he'd be rising even faster in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
Of course, one of the reasons Paul's on the rise now is the fact that he is not the kind of contender who tailors his message or his campaign to meet media expectations. And in this volatile year, that may yet prove to be a smart strategy. At the very least, it is starting to pay off in the "Live Free or Die" state of New Hampshire.
That's an excellent point. The very thing that is propelling Paul is also holding him back from serious MSM examination. Full speed ahead, I say - don't play in any of their reindeer games.
The Free Liberal is looking (http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003065.html) at the Liberty Dollar debacle and scratching their collective heads:
Liberty Dollar issued small disks (medallions) made of gold, silver, and other metals, for use in exchanges. They are denominated in U.S. dollars as the unit of account, but do not pretend to be official U.S. dollars. The firm also issued paper currency backed by gold and silver. About twenty million dollars of the currency has been issued. The paper currency stored at the office was also taken.
Now the Liberty Dollar firm not only has no more products, it also has no customer records. The customers along with the firm have been stripped of property. Those holding liberty dollar paper currency are no longer able to redeem it for precious metals.
A class action suit is now being organized by Liberty Dollar and its customers. Federal Reserve and other government officials had previously stated that the use of Liberty Dollars, when the user did not claim to be paying with legal tender U.S. money, was not illegal. Barter is legal, and to offer a silver disk in exchange for goods constitutes barter. Moreover, the Liberty Dollar paper currency does not at all resemble Federal Reserve Notes. This raid follows previous action taken by the federal government against Liberty Dollar. On September 13, 2006, the US Mint declared that it is illegal to use the Liberty Dollar. On March 20, 2007l Liberty Services, the organization that distributes the Liberty Dollar, filed suit against the U.S. Mint in U.S. District Court in Evansville Indiana to stop the government from claiming that the use of Liberty Dollar is a federal crime...
...It could be that the federal government was more scared of the Ron Paul dollars than of the other private currency. Thousands of people offering to trade Ron Paul dollars for goods would have brought the candidate great publicity. We may well see the federal government blocking other Ron Paul promotions, since a candidate who advocates strict compliance with the U.S. Constitution may well present the greatest threat to overreaching federal power in the history of the United States.
Perhaps just as bad from the federal administration's point of view was the "Peace Dollar" that Liberty Dollar issued, inscribed "PEACE" on one side and "STOP THE WAR" on the other.
The Seizure Warrant issued by a United States District Court states that the Liberty Dollars are forfeitable because they are involved in money laundering or mail fraud. The government also claims that some Liberty Dollars are similar in design to U.S. coins. Liberty Dollars also issued Hawaiian Dalas, which presumably could be used for illegal purposes.
If currency used for money laundry or mail fraud is not allowed, then it seems to me that official U.S. dollars should not be allowed to circulate either, as these are much more used for those purposes than Liberty Dollars. But then, I'm not an attorney, so perhaps there are legal reasons why plain logic does not apply to federal law.
And finally, LewRockwell.com is asking (http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell84.html) who is an isolationist - Ron Paul or Rudy Guiliani?
And throughout the power grabs and international belligerence, Rudy will do what he has done all along: cloak it in September 11th – speak and rely on fear and bullying to get his way. Detractors will be denounced as un-American, unpatriotic, and soft on terrorism. Rudy and his backers will do as all neoconservatives do, speak with an air of superiority and act like all dissenters are morons even though they've been factually wrong on most matters related to the war in Iraq. The same crowd was wrong about most everything in regards to Iraq is euphorically behind Rudy for President and they are using the same talking points and fear-campaign to open up a third hot war prematurely against yet another Muslim country.
We've seen the neoconservative record on Iraq regarding their predictions and factual assertions; why on earth are people continuing to believe their hosehockey in regards to Iran? While the country can barely keep up with the two wars it's fighting, the Republican establishment and neoconservatives everywhere are rallying behind Rudy to start more wars, drop more bombs, spend more money and send more kids to die for their already disproved vision of the world.
Just how exactly is Rudy's past record or his future vision going to keep America safe? I suppose if a voter is in support of writing more blank checks for even more wars, supports torture, public fear campaigns, blockades, embargoes, and all the rest, then Rudy is indeed their guy. But is this really an internationalist? Or would this go a long way forward to further isolating America?
On the other hand, Ron Paul is denounced as "crazy" for wanting to do the opposite. Ron Paul seeks to actually dialogue with other nations and use diplomacy ("dialogue" and "diplomacy" are seen as sissy words to most Republicans these days and warning signs that one is "soft" on terrorism). He is not anti-military as he is actually a military veteran, unlike the great hero Rudy. He wants a strong military; he just doesn't want to use it for nation-building crusades and for causes that do not further America's interest. Nor does he want to bomb countries for charges that are not substantiated ("Iran will have a nuke by next Tuesday and we will all die if we don't act NOW!"). He believes in trading with all and spreading our values throughout the world, but without trying to artificially force them upon other nations.
A Paul administration would not come in with a stand-offish and hostile view towards the rest of the world. It would seek to be proactive in establishing America's influence throughout the world, but it would do this without perpetual foreign aid handouts to corrupt regimes and dependant allies and without trying to police the world. A Paul administration would actually leave our military in stronger shape instead of the weakened, stretched-thin shape it is now. A Paul administration would seek to regain America's standing in the world instead of perpetuating the image that it is an arrogant empire. Oh, and of course, the Republican candidate who leads in campaign donations from rank and file active and retired military men and women is not Rudy Giuliani, but Ron Paul.
Again I ask, who are really the "isolationists" here? Who are really the ones pursuing "crazy" policies? The idea that Rudy Giuliani is a strong hero who will protect America is almost entirely rooted in myth. The idea that he and his neoconservative cheerleaders offer the most coherent and proven leadership for the country is negated by the past seven years, especially the past five years in Iraq. What a great irony that the very people who have been wrong about almost everything with foreign policy still want to pass themselves off as the experts. It's like a D student claiming intellectual superiority over everyone else; it simply does not line up with the facts.
When it comes to the internal conflicts of sovreign nations, interfering causes us more trouble than whatever percieved gain is worth. Taking a page out of the Pulp Fiction bartender's book, Dr No would say to them, "My name's Paul, and that's between y'all."
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (11-21-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=330673453&Mytoken=A18808B0-123A-4891-B624B21343D86DB529628418)
Hello Freedomphiles! Ready for today's Roundup? Let's do it, mainstream media style. Our first MSM stop is The New York Times, where Leslie Wayne is talking (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/ron-pauls-tight-fisted-campaign/) about Ron Paul and his frugal ways:
Voters looking for a candidate who will be tight with their money might have found their man in Ron Paul, if campaign spending is any indication. At the moment, Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, is rolling in cash. He already had raised $5 million this year when a one-day Internet drive tied to Guy Fawkes Day on Nov. 5 brought in another $4 million.
Yet, spending is another matter. As of earlier this month, Mr. Paul's campaign had spent only 46 cents for every dollar raised, compared to most campaigns that spend whatever comes in. Where other campaigns freely give out yard signs, posters and other handouts, the Paul campaign tells supporters to make their own or buy them from the campaign — at cost.
Originally, this was born of necessity as Mr. Paul started out in January with just $25,000. But it has since helped generate grass roots involvement by supporters, who design and print up their own Paul promotions. Even a large pro-Paul billboard strategically placed outside the Des Moines airport was designed and paid for by a supporter, not the campaign.
Seriously good point. If you want a president that will reign in out of control spending, all you have to do is look at how the candidates are running their campaigns. Who's the most frugal and efficient? Why, Ron Paul, of course!
Let's take the MSM express from coast-to-coast and stop in the land of fake tits, mountains of cocaine, and limousine upskirt shots. The Los Angeles Times is writing (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/the-ron-paul-ex.html) about Ron Paul today, as well:
Certain numbers keep calling attention to the phenomenon that is Ron Paul.
The most obvious one, of course, was the more than $4.2 million that his campaign reported raising in a single day via the Internet earlier this month. This week, other figures stand out: He attracted a crowd of more than 1,000 people in Nevada, and a new poll showed him doubling his support in New Hampshire.
As is increasingly the case with Paul, the audience that came to hear him speak Monday in Las Vegas was not only large, it was enthusiastic. A story in the Las Vegas Review-Journal has the details and the atmospherics.
In New Hampshire, the survey of likely Republican primary voters by CNN and Manchester-based television station WMUR found backing for Paul jumping from 4% in a September poll to 8% now. In July, Paul was at 2% in the poll; the geometric progression clearly is a trend the Paul camp wants to see continue.
Will it? The "smart" political money would bet against it. Then again, who would have predicted a few months ago that Paul would be closing in on double digits in a New Hampshire poll.
And of course, that doesn't even count all the libertarians, Democrats, and Independents that plan on voting in the Republican primaries. I mean, what do you expect polls to reflect when you are asking prior G-Dub voters?
Staying with The Los Angeles Times, they printed a column (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-goldberg20nov20,0,7363356.column?coll=la-util-opinion-sunday) by syndicated man Jonah Goldberg, who doesn't think Ron Paul is all that scary, at least not compared to the other dark horse in the race:
As the hopeless but energetic presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) builds momentum in name recognition, fundraising and cross-ideology appeal, media conservatives are beginning to attack Paul in earnest. Republican consultant David Hill condemns the candidate's "increasingly leftish" positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul "too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists." Film critic and talk radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds "an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white Supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists."
For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that many of his top advisors actually have hooves.
Well, I would still find him less scary than Mike Huckabee.
Okay, pulling out of LaLa Land, let's get more broad with this and go with USAToday, which is reporting (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/bill-clinton-ka.html) that Ron Paul is about to be included in GQ's annual list of men of the year (http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?&id=content_6197):
There he is -- the only current presidential candidate in the mix.
Republican Rep. Ron Paul has been awarded one of 36 "men of the year" honors from GQ magazine.
He gets his for being "dark horse of the year."
It took a while for us to find him at GQ's Web package on the honorees. If you open up the "rundown of this year's big winners" or click on the "slideshow" line, his photo comes up as No. 57 of 59.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton says in a statement that the candidate "is humbled and honored."
The big winner - shockingly - was Bill Clinton. How does that guy manage to stay in the news? He's like Madonna that way.
Speaking of USAToday, US News & World Reports is talking (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/11/20/ron-paul-backer-aims-to-snag-travelers.html) about a full page ad that a Paulite has bought for today's edition:
Larry Lepard, a venture capitalist and Ron Paul supporter from Massachusetts, has shelled out about $85,000 of his own money to throw what he told U.S. News is a "small hard rock at a good target": a full-page ad supporting Paul that will run in tomorrow's edition of USA Today—the nation's largest circulation daily newspaper—on the busiest travel day of the year.
He noted that he bought a right-hand position in the newspaper's front section.
"I'm trying to get maximum bang for the buck," said Lepard, 50, a Republican who says his strong opposition to the Iraq war drove him to take out the ad. His firm, Equity Management Association, invests in emerging markets, he said, adding, "I'm good at spotting early trends." The ad, presented as an open letter from the country's Founding Fathers, was designed with the help of supporters on www.RonPaulForums.com, where Paul campaign activists hold their virtual gatherings.
I am actually looking at the ad right now (the story is from yesterday), and I gotta say, it was well worth the $85,000. It's beautiful.
Okay, that's enough of the MSM coverage. Let's go to some smaller outlets, starting with Gambling911.com. You know, people will bet on anything, and I am glad for it, because the effects of many people betting is a really great way to aggregate disparate information.
Apparently, people are now betting on (http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-112007.html)whether the December 16th money bomb will outdo the Guy Fawkes one:
2008 US Presidential candidate Ron Paul supporters are calling this one a "sucker bet". The long time Texas Congressman raising UNDER $5 mil on December 16, 2007 pays just under even odds at $5 for every $6 bet (plus you would get your initial $5 returned if the effort fails to raise $5 million over that single 24 hour period.
Sportsbook.com has placed the $5 mil line (Over or Under) on the amount Ron Paul will raise December 16. That's the next date for his campaign "money bomb". The last "money bomb" shocked critics by taking in just over $4 mil in a single day's period. The effort helped quash any lasting suspicions that Ron Paul's camp was using a small group of so-called "shills" or spammers to bombard various posting forums and media outlets with his "message of hope".
While many in the media continue to question whether Ron Paul can translate Internet popularity into real votes (he's one of the most queried individuals on the Web), his supporters are now more concerned with raising the $12 million they forecasted for the final quarter of 2007. He's already more than three quarters there and if Sportsbook.com is correct with its line, Paul's campaign may even exceed the original $12 mil goal.
Remember the National Review Mona Charen hitpiece (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmU0ZDFhYjIxM2VlMTEzMjkyY2ZiNDA3Y2RiZmU1YTc=) from yesterday's Roundup? Well, Ron Paul's campaign manager Jesse Benton, has responded (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTJmOWM2ZGQzNzAzOTQwYWJlMDg4YjJiMjE4MWRlZTY=). I'm posting it in its entirety because it's not commercial writing, and I am sure Jesse won't mind:
I read Mona Charen's column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling ("kook," as I'm sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.
1. Dr. Paul's commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn't pardoned Libby either, by the way.
2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word "isolationist" except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.
3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing "unserious" about that.
4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul's "Texas Straight Talk Column," for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.
Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX's John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?
Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul's send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen's column. Perhaps a better explanation for his "contribution" is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.
Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.
Jesse Benton
Communications Director
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
Arlington, Va.
That letter makes it all too clear why Mr Benton got his position in the campaign. Well done, sir!
MedPageToday has an interesting take (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Campaign08/tb/7444) on Ron Paul - the medical community approach:
But Dr. Paul's views have won a following. He has attracted far more campaign donations and support than many of his better known rivals. Indeed, on Nov. 5, Dr. Paul raised $4.2 million in 24 hours. The one-day total set a record for GOP candidates. Even before that, his campaign had more money on hand than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), and Republican former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Dr. Paul is one of 12 physician members of Congress -- two in the Senate, 10 in the House of Representatives. If his campaign succeeds, he'd be America's first physician president.
Physician influence in politics has ebbed and waned over the years. Physicians comprised 10% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In recent years, cardiac surgeon Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was Senate majority leader and an early dropout in the 2008 presidential campaign. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, M.D., a flash-in-the pan wannabe nominee four years ago, is chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Interesting, indeed. John Nichols of The Nation is asking (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=253046) why Ron Paul is not getting the respect he deserves:
Paul doubled his support from September to November.
During the same period, Paul's sparring partner on foreign affairs issues, Giuliani, lost fully one-third of his support. And Thompson lost a remarkable two thirds of his support.
So here's a question: When is the Washington press corps going to start treating Ron Paul as seriously as it does Fred Thompson?
The likely answer is "not soon." And that's the most frustrating thing about the way in which the GOP race is being covered by major media. After all, Ron Paul has more to say -- and says it better -- than any of the other Republicans. With a fair shake from the media, he'd be rising even faster in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
Of course, one of the reasons Paul's on the rise now is the fact that he is not the kind of contender who tailors his message or his campaign to meet media expectations. And in this volatile year, that may yet prove to be a smart strategy. At the very least, it is starting to pay off in the "Live Free or Die" state of New Hampshire.
That's an excellent point. The very thing that is propelling Paul is also holding him back from serious MSM examination. Full speed ahead, I say - don't play in any of their reindeer games.
The Free Liberal is looking (http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003065.html) at the Liberty Dollar debacle and scratching their collective heads:
Liberty Dollar issued small disks (medallions) made of gold, silver, and other metals, for use in exchanges. They are denominated in U.S. dollars as the unit of account, but do not pretend to be official U.S. dollars. The firm also issued paper currency backed by gold and silver. About twenty million dollars of the currency has been issued. The paper currency stored at the office was also taken.
Now the Liberty Dollar firm not only has no more products, it also has no customer records. The customers along with the firm have been stripped of property. Those holding liberty dollar paper currency are no longer able to redeem it for precious metals.
A class action suit is now being organized by Liberty Dollar and its customers. Federal Reserve and other government officials had previously stated that the use of Liberty Dollars, when the user did not claim to be paying with legal tender U.S. money, was not illegal. Barter is legal, and to offer a silver disk in exchange for goods constitutes barter. Moreover, the Liberty Dollar paper currency does not at all resemble Federal Reserve Notes. This raid follows previous action taken by the federal government against Liberty Dollar. On September 13, 2006, the US Mint declared that it is illegal to use the Liberty Dollar. On March 20, 2007l Liberty Services, the organization that distributes the Liberty Dollar, filed suit against the U.S. Mint in U.S. District Court in Evansville Indiana to stop the government from claiming that the use of Liberty Dollar is a federal crime...
...It could be that the federal government was more scared of the Ron Paul dollars than of the other private currency. Thousands of people offering to trade Ron Paul dollars for goods would have brought the candidate great publicity. We may well see the federal government blocking other Ron Paul promotions, since a candidate who advocates strict compliance with the U.S. Constitution may well present the greatest threat to overreaching federal power in the history of the United States.
Perhaps just as bad from the federal administration's point of view was the "Peace Dollar" that Liberty Dollar issued, inscribed "PEACE" on one side and "STOP THE WAR" on the other.
The Seizure Warrant issued by a United States District Court states that the Liberty Dollars are forfeitable because they are involved in money laundering or mail fraud. The government also claims that some Liberty Dollars are similar in design to U.S. coins. Liberty Dollars also issued Hawaiian Dalas, which presumably could be used for illegal purposes.
If currency used for money laundry or mail fraud is not allowed, then it seems to me that official U.S. dollars should not be allowed to circulate either, as these are much more used for those purposes than Liberty Dollars. But then, I'm not an attorney, so perhaps there are legal reasons why plain logic does not apply to federal law.
And finally, LewRockwell.com is asking (http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell84.html) who is an isolationist - Ron Paul or Rudy Guiliani?
And throughout the power grabs and international belligerence, Rudy will do what he has done all along: cloak it in September 11th – speak and rely on fear and bullying to get his way. Detractors will be denounced as un-American, unpatriotic, and soft on terrorism. Rudy and his backers will do as all neoconservatives do, speak with an air of superiority and act like all dissenters are morons even though they've been factually wrong on most matters related to the war in Iraq. The same crowd was wrong about most everything in regards to Iraq is euphorically behind Rudy for President and they are using the same talking points and fear-campaign to open up a third hot war prematurely against yet another Muslim country.
We've seen the neoconservative record on Iraq regarding their predictions and factual assertions; why on earth are people continuing to believe their hosehockey in regards to Iran? While the country can barely keep up with the two wars it's fighting, the Republican establishment and neoconservatives everywhere are rallying behind Rudy to start more wars, drop more bombs, spend more money and send more kids to die for their already disproved vision of the world.
Just how exactly is Rudy's past record or his future vision going to keep America safe? I suppose if a voter is in support of writing more blank checks for even more wars, supports torture, public fear campaigns, blockades, embargoes, and all the rest, then Rudy is indeed their guy. But is this really an internationalist? Or would this go a long way forward to further isolating America?
On the other hand, Ron Paul is denounced as "crazy" for wanting to do the opposite. Ron Paul seeks to actually dialogue with other nations and use diplomacy ("dialogue" and "diplomacy" are seen as sissy words to most Republicans these days and warning signs that one is "soft" on terrorism). He is not anti-military as he is actually a military veteran, unlike the great hero Rudy. He wants a strong military; he just doesn't want to use it for nation-building crusades and for causes that do not further America's interest. Nor does he want to bomb countries for charges that are not substantiated ("Iran will have a nuke by next Tuesday and we will all die if we don't act NOW!"). He believes in trading with all and spreading our values throughout the world, but without trying to artificially force them upon other nations.
A Paul administration would not come in with a stand-offish and hostile view towards the rest of the world. It would seek to be proactive in establishing America's influence throughout the world, but it would do this without perpetual foreign aid handouts to corrupt regimes and dependant allies and without trying to police the world. A Paul administration would actually leave our military in stronger shape instead of the weakened, stretched-thin shape it is now. A Paul administration would seek to regain America's standing in the world instead of perpetuating the image that it is an arrogant empire. Oh, and of course, the Republican candidate who leads in campaign donations from rank and file active and retired military men and women is not Rudy Giuliani, but Ron Paul.
Again I ask, who are really the "isolationists" here? Who are really the ones pursuing "crazy" policies? The idea that Rudy Giuliani is a strong hero who will protect America is almost entirely rooted in myth. The idea that he and his neoconservative cheerleaders offer the most coherent and proven leadership for the country is negated by the past seven years, especially the past five years in Iraq. What a great irony that the very people who have been wrong about almost everything with foreign policy still want to pass themselves off as the experts. It's like a D student claiming intellectual superiority over everyone else; it simply does not line up with the facts.
When it comes to the internal conflicts of sovreign nations, interfering causes us more trouble than whatever percieved gain is worth. Taking a page out of the Pulp Fiction bartender's book, Dr No would say to them, "My name's Paul, and that's between y'all."
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg