PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (11-26-07)




RSDavis
11-26-2007, 04:49 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (11-26-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=332212043&Mytoken=D2DB73FF-E5CB-41BB-94593C00F6F1CBDF49080603)

Hello Freedomphiles! It's gonna be a busy Roundup today, so let's jump right in. The Wall Street Journal has a piece (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) on Ron Paul's supporters:

The impassioned campaigning threatens Dr. Paul's efforts to convince undecided Republicans that he appeals to more than antiwar libertarians and fringes of the Republican Party.

"Basically, it got to the point where someone could put up a post saying they were going to the bathroom, and a dozen Paultards would comment, 'Vote for Ron Paul while you're there,' along with another dozen warnings of the Zionist conspiracy in the toilet," says Erick Erickson, founder of popular conservative blog Redstate. A month ago, the site banned posts from some Paul supporters, branding them "MoRons."

Afterward, the site was "deluged" with comments and "swarms and swarms" of hate mail, Mr. Erickson says. He changed the site's phone number, and says other blog owners have contacted him seeking advice on discouraging Paul supporters from posting.

Cris Vanricma of Ludington, Mich., removed Dr. Paul from his bipartisan presidential poll, StrawPoll08.com, after receiving nasty emails from some Paul supporters, contending some polls that Dr. Paul wasn't winning were rigged. The 31-year-old Web designer made a blanket offer: If the messages stop, the congressman goes back on. So far, Dr. Paul remains off the poll.

Paultards. Nice. And we're the shrill ones? LewRockwell.com noticed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017136.html) that, too:

Jim, my favorite parts of the old-media WSJ attack on Ron Paul supporters are the outrage that actual readers might be able to respond to establishment reporters and academics, and the quoting of terms like "Paultards" and "MoRons" as if they were legitimate descriptions. In other words, the WSJ still doesn't get it. This is a new world, folks, and such a smear only undermines your printed antique.

As to the tenor of the entire piece, the LewRockwell.com blogs respond (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017135.html) as well:

Most candidates are judged by their record and their platform. Ron's Paul's Jeffersonian platform and record are unimpeachable so his opponents choose the novel and sleazy tactic of focusing on a few of his overzealous but harmless supporters. Why not talk about the other ten million?

(...)

On Thursday morning, I and twenty Ron Paul supporters stood in freezing rain for two hours to promote our man as 9000 runners came by our site at the Buffalo Turkey Trot. Who was in the crew? Kids, students, professionals, and small business owners. So, I say, okay, let's compare Ron's supporters with the hacks and leeches and crooks supporting the other candidates. We'll win that fight too.

In the article in question, the idea that some of the "shrill" complainers out there were plants from opposing campaigns was floated by Ron Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. Keith Walters Jones of The National Ledger responds (http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272617385.shtml):

That seems more than a little far fetched. As much as I would like it to be true, I can't see any campaign dispatching supporters to cruise Internet message boards and scold others all in the name of support for Ron Paul. This is even worse as it comes directly from the campaign. Benton is only making it easy to pigeonhole all supporters.

I know this is nothing more than a bit of fun for many that believe they support Paul. I can appreciate them taking the time to look up from the bong in their parent's basement and lend a little support and get involved in the political process by jumping on bulletin boards and blogs and making comments.

But there are some of us that would like to be taken seriously, and would love to see many of the ideas of Dr. Paul actually enter the debate. And this type of ridiculous talk of conspiracies are not helping at all.

My question is: If they have us focusing on each other and what we don't like about certain elements in the support network, what exactly are we doing to advance the message of freedom?

In Saturday's Roundup, I poked a little fun at the Ron Paul blimp idea that some group of Paulites are trying to get going. So does (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/25/ron-paul-supporters-promi_n_74007.html) Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post:

But why stop there? Why don't we raise some money to buy Ron Paul his very own kangaroo? He can climb in the pouch and hop from campaign stop to campaign stop! Wolf Blitzer will look on, dumbfounded, muttering, "Stunning...wondrous!"

The thing is, these Paulites are deadly serious about this. They claim to have raised over $98,000 toward the $350K they think will make this blimp a reality.

It's pretty funny really, because it is truly an odd idea. But the Ron Paul campaign operates like a free market, with various and disparate entreprenuers trying many different ideas. Some work, like the November 5th money bomb, and spawn others. Some don't. Like the Ron Paul blimp.

Let's remember to be able to laugh at ourselves once in awhile.

The Moderate Voice has an examination (http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/libertarians/16240/what-to-make-of-the-ron-paul-revolution/)of Ron Paul that is just downright....moderate:

But while much of the media and blogosphere's attention has been spent on the messenger—his "quirkiness", his naivete about believing he can win his party's nomination, his avid internet supporters, his one-day fund-raising totals, and his supposed "support" for the 9/11 Truth Movement—much less time has been spent focusing upon the message itself and what it means to the future of American politics. Ron Paul, himself has admitted, "I may not be the best messenger, but the message is powerful."

And just what is that message?

Ron Paul says it's a message of liberty. And indeed, in terms of elevating the freedom of the individual over the power of the government, Ron Paul is the most libertarian presidential candidate offered by one of the two major parties in many decades.

Yet, as many of his critics have pointed out, Ron Paul is not completely consistent in his libertarianism. His strong support for securing our nation's borders and cracking down on illegal immigration is not consistent with the libertarian philosophy of allowing people and trade to travel freely across borders...and at times, Mr. Paul's devotion to federalism seems to overshadow his support for libertarian principles, as when he argues that certain issues (e.g., abortion, gay marriage) should be decided by state and local governments rather than by the federal government instead of raising the fundamental question of whether government at any level should be involved in these issues in the first place.

Still, Ron Paul's notion of liberty and his willingness to speak out against policies that expand the power of the federal government and infringe upon our freedoms (both personal and economic) has set him apart from the current crop of presidential candidates (both Democrats and Republicans) and seems to be transforming American politics towards a new realignment—one that defies the traditional Democrat-versus-Republican, liberal-versus-conservative paradigm...

...Yet much of the criticism is also of a partisan nature—the type that comes from partisan Democrats and Republicans who realize that Ron Paul and libertarianism represent a direct challenge to the Democratic and Republican parties and the oversimplified liberal-versus-conservative spectrum that they reply upon to draw voters into their opposing camps. Like Ronald Reagan before him, Ron Paul seeks to define politics not by left-versus-right but by up-versus-down, where up represents libertarianism and down represents statism. Only, unlike Ronald Reagan (who went up to grow the size of government, balloon the national debt, and support anti-liberty government policies such as the War on Drugs), Ron Paul actually means what he says.

Ron Paul's critics have argued that Ron Paul is dangerous. And they are right. Ron Paul is dangerous—though not in the ways that they believe he is. Ron Paul represents a third force in American politics that challenges our two-party system.

All too often, partisans have made crucial issues into a Democratic-versus-Republican or liberal-versus-conservative debate. People who speak out against the war are a bunch of "Bush-haters" and members of the "far left" while people who speak out against costly federal spending programs are "corporatists" and members of the "far right." That there are pro-liberty/anti-authority voters out there that do not cleave to the traditional left-versus-right spectrum is an irritant to Democratic and Republican apologists who make their living by selling us the false lie that there are only two choices in American politics—us versus them.

Good and fair analysis. It did have one mistake in it, which they corrected - but I quoted around that to save confusion.

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch were in The Washington Post, talking (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299.html) about Ron Paul and libertarians:

Such positions may not be fully consistent or equally attractive, but Paul's insistence on a constitutionally limited government has won applause from surprising quarters. Singer Barry Manilow donated the maximum $2,300 to his campaign; the hipster singer-songwriter John Mayer was videotaped yelling "Ron Paul knows the Constitution!" and 67,000 people have signed up for Paul-related Meet Up pages on the Internet. On ABC's "This Week" recently, George Will half-jokingly cautioned his fellow pundits, "Don't forget my man Ron Paul" in the New Hampshire primary. Fellow panelist Jake Tapper seconded the emotion, saying, "He really is the one true straight talker in this race."

Yet Paul's success has mostly left the mainstream media and pundits flustered, if not openly hostile. The Associated Press recently treated the Paul phenomenon like an alien life form: "The Texas libertarian's rise in the polls and in fundraising proves that a small but passionate number of Americans can be drawn to an advocate of unorthodox proposals." Republican pollster Frank Luntz has denounced Paul's supporters as "the equivalent of crabgrass . . . not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff." And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."

The whole thing is great. Follow the link. Outside the Beltway did, and had some things to say (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/11/ron_pauls_libertarian_revolution/) about it:

As for me, I find Paul's fundraising success and ability to generate buzz quite remarkable. While I joined the conventional wisdom in dismissing his entry into the race as a lark, he's making himself impossible to ignore. Indeed, he's generated far more blog posts than I'd have dreamed possible.

At the same time, I find talk of "revolution" mere wishful thinking. Most Americans, like their counterparts in Western Europe, continue to demand an activist government. They like talk of small government and adherence to the intent of the Framers in abstract but they continue to elect politicians who promise to address major problems well beyond any Constitutional mandate.

Paul's success may be spawned by young libertarians but it's being fueled by the same thing that catapulted Ross Perot to prominence in 1992: A desire for something beyond the same old, same old of the two major parties.

And National Review Online had this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWIwNzI1Zjc0N2VmYTk5MTNlZmJmMjNmZGE1YTIwYmY=) to say:

What strikes me is what a throwback Paul is among libertarians. Hard money and anti-interventionism move him, but he seems utterly uninterested in the lifestyle questions that have taken up so much of Reason for the past decade.

(Gillespie and Welch understate the difference between his politics and theirs in one way. "A staunch opponent of abortion, he nonetheless believes that federal bans violate the more basic principle of delegating powers to the states." That is indeed a concern of his, but he voted to ban partial-birth abortion. His pro-life libertarian principles moved him to oppose federal funding for embryo-destructive research. On that issue, writers for Reason haven't exactly been cheering him on.)

I'd bet they'd have no problem with his vote on the stem cells, because if they are libertarians, they probably don't think the government should be funding medical research. As a libertarian, I would agree. But mostly, she's right. But Paul's not running as a libertarian. He just happens to be the closest thing we've ever seen that's had a chance.

Both The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004032337_ndig24.html)and The Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/375333.html)reported on the same story, same words and everything:

Rep. Ron Paul said in a television interview Friday that he has raised more than $9 million in the past two months for his presidential campaign.

Paul, a New York Republican, said on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt" that he expects to raise at least $12 million for the fourth quarter.

On Nov. 5, Paul's supporters put together an eye-popping performance for their candidate, gathering $4.3 million, one of the biggest single-day showings of any candidate in history.

I recently polled the readers of RonPaulForums.com about the two upcoming money bomb campaigns, one on December 16th, and one recent addition on November 30th. More people were donating on the 16th, but the 30th had some support, as well. Results (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=51803) are starting to come in about pledges for the 330th, and it seems the new one is doing pretty well, considering it was last-minute:

A new and somewhat controversial "mass donation day" web site for the limited-government presidential candidacy of Ron Paul (R-Tex) has already received nearly 1,500 pledges at $100 per pledge - after only two days posting.

The new site is the subject of some controversy among Ron Paul supporters because of the potential to dilute another mass donation day scheduled for December 16th. The new one is set for November 30th.

So, The Baltimore Sun reported on Rudy Guiliani trying to convince (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/giuliani_defends_patriot_act_s.html)some Ron Paul supporters that he'd be the rare benevolent despot:

Attempts to cut back on government surveillance and "aggressive questioning" of suspected terrorists are irresponsible and undercut the country's war on terrorism, Republican Rudy Giuliani said this weekend.

"Talking about cutting back on the Patriot Act, talking about cutting back on electronic surveillance, talking about cutting back on aggressive questioning -- not torture, but aggressive questioning -- wanting to remove our soldiers from Iraq in a way that would require them to give the enemy a time table of their retreat," Giuliani said. "I don't know that I've ever seen anything more irresponsible than that."

The remarks came late in a Saturday of campaigning in the state of New Hampshire, the first of a two-day tour through the early primary state. Shortly after that address, Giuliani headed out for the Holiday Stroll in downtown Nashua, where supporters of GOP candidate Ron Paul accompanied him for most of his visit.

As Giuliani walked down Main Street shaking hands and wandering in and out of shops, the Paul supporters encircled his entourage and waved their candidate's signs as they walked.

Paul, a congressman from Texas, opposes the Patriot Act, which he once called "a moratorium on constitutional rights."

In odder news, Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich brought up the name of Ron Paul when discussing (http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/11/if_kucinich_wins_nomination_ro.html) running-mates for his own longshot bid:

"I'm thinking about Ron Paul" as a running mate, Kucinich told a crowd of about 70 supporters at a house party here, one of numerous stops throughout New Hampshire over the Thanksgiving weekend. A Kucinich-Paul administration could bring people together "to balance the energies in this country," Kucinich said.

It would create a stunning, if dizzying, blend of beliefs, wedding two politicians who hold different views on abortion rights, the role of government in providing health care, and the use of government in fostering -- or hampering -- the public's greater good. Those are among the reasons it would never work, said a spokesman for Paul, a congressman and doctor from Texas.

"Dr. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect," Paul communications director Jesse Benton said in an e-mail when asked whether a running-mate spot on the Kucinich ticket would be attractive to Paul. "They have worked, and will continue to work, together on the ending the war and protecting civil liberties.

I disagree with Kucinich, as well, but let me say a couple things about that little dude. He speaks his mind, votes his conscience, and is the most principled liberal politician inside the beltway. It's really a shame I only agree with him on Iraq and the PATRIOT Act, but I respect his integrity in joining Ron Paul in being some of the only voices of sanity in a charged-up time, voting against both of these nearly alone in their convictions, against a tide of jingoistic nationalism.

There's a certain guy that's been going around to different candidates and asking them the same question about medical marijuana. I showed you the video where he asked John McCain. Well, he finally made it to Ron Paul. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk

The Nolan Chart's Michael McDonnough wrote (http://www.nolanchart.com/article312.html) about Ron Paul and why he's the only smart vote:

Total withholdings on $280 per week $7 per hour wage earner.

Federal Tax $27.17

FICA $17.36

Medicare $4.06

Source;http://www.pensoft.com/taxcalc.asp

That leaves this worker only $231.14 take home pay and if this worker works like most then he is going to put in at least 50 weeks in a year for an annual take home pay for this worker of $11,557.00 If this worker votes for Ron Paul for President and then had the nanny state off his back and could keep his little contribution what would it mean to him. It would mean an extra $2,443.00 that this worker could have held onto and perhaps saved for a down payment on a car or other items. This money likely would go into the local economy. There are lots of wage earners in this nation and they can all vote by the way.

In an area with say 500,000 wage earners residences which is pretty typical of the medium US city, and the median annual household income is let's say $35,000, and if Ron Paul was elected President that would mean that each household would have an extra $4,939.92 that would likely go into their local economy or saved in their local bank. That would mean that this medium US city of 500,000 wage earner households would have an added $2,469,960,000 injected into their local economy annually. That is a big number.

That gives you an idea of the power of Ron Paul's ideas. If we can opt out of this wasteful centralized federal payroll taxation system it would inject billions of dollars every year pumped into the local economy in every city of every state in the nation. Every little city of 1-2 million people would have an added annual income in the billions of dollars.

What could it do to your little city if it had an extra 2 or 3 billion dollars to spend on your own city and your own people every year? How many new businesses would it create? Perhaps your city could repair its own roads and bridges. Perhaps it could build a new airport to deal with all the new business created by all this extra local money.

That is the power of Ron Paul's ideas as applied to this nation. Billions of extra dollars annually for every little to medium town and city and more like extra 10's of billions of local dollars for every major city in the nation.

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

StephanieRelfe
11-26-2007, 05:30 PM
Would it be possible to have the articles in some other color that is easy to read please - say, dark blue?

The red color is very, very hard to read. Our eyes are not used to reading so much in red.

Thank you very much
Stephanie

RSDavis
11-26-2007, 05:43 PM
Would it be possible to have the articles in some other color that is easy to read please - say, dark blue?

The red color is very, very hard to read. Our eyes are not used to reading so much in red.

Thank you very much
Stephanie


Yeah, the red is easier to read on my blog. I'll see what I can do. :)