View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (11-29-07)

11-29-2007, 11:44 AM

Ron Paul Roundup (11-29-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=333173715&Mytoken=AFBF8C38-38FA-48AC-807593795F84840A30676452)

Hello Freedomphiles! Alright, let's get down to it, boppers. CBSNews is doing more follow-up (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/11/28/isp/entry3550418.shtml)on the Ron Paul endorsement by Bunny Ranch owner Dennis Hof. I applaud them for getting some more meat on this story, rather than just letting it hang out there and be used as a smear:

Our readers raised some interesting questions throughout the day about both Dennis Hof's endorsement of Ron Paul and the media coverage that followed it. I wanted to take some of those issues directly to Mr. Hof, the owner of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch in Nevada.


I asked Dennis Hof if this was a publicity stunt, or if he was in any way used by Mr. Carlson. He assured me that he was not, and that he came to his decision to endorse Ron Paul only after hearing him speak. Hof specifically cited Paul's libertarian beliefs in state rights as support for the decision.

Finally, the big question that many of you brought up: Doesn't this kind attention actually detract from Ron Paul's campaign? Why would anyone want to make national headlines for an endorsement from a brothel? Dennis Hof's answer will surprise you. Be sure to watch!


Tim Redmond of SFGate is warning (http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2007/11/the_left_and_ron_paul.html) leftists to be afraid of Ron Paul:

But even the cursory stuff in the Chron interview should be enough to make any progressive very, very nervous about Ron Paul. Among other things, the man who insists "I don't think the government should be interfering in your personal life" is strongly anti-choice, opposed to Roe v. Wade and apparently sees no federal right to privacy. (The Chron editors never pursued the issue with him and let him get away with a rambling and inconsistent answer, which was rather lame of the Fifth and Mission journos.)

He's also against income taxes and national health care. And he's against gun control. And he against any sort of amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

That's pretty much true, although Ron Paul's position on abortion is a bit more nuanced than that. He is not for a federal ban on abortion, but merely recognizing that the federal government has no role in the debate. He would like Roe v Wade to be vacated and kicked back to the states.

Speaking of abortion, National Review Online weighed in (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGFlM2U2NDA2ZjgxODg1MWNiNjJlNTkzMzNmYzY4MGY=):

Lemieux concludes that "when almost anybody tells you that by advocating the overturn of Roe they want to 'send the issue back to the states,' they're almost certainly lying." The link—to another Lemieux post—establishes nothing of the kind. In it, he argues that "[t]he claim that '[o]verturning Roe wouldn't do anything but send the issue back to the states' is a flat-out lie." Well, no, although it could be a mistaken judgment. It is true that the overturning of Roe could lead to federal anti-abortion legislation, but I think there are good reasons to expect stalemate at the federal level. He goes on to deny that Roe is "about federalism," with no particularly good argument. The fact remains that pre-Roe, states had a lot more autonomy on abortion policy than they do now, and would almost certainly have a lot more if Roe were gone. I suspect that the vast majority of people who say they want Roe overturned to send the issue back to the states are entirely sincere, and Lemieux has offered nothing to change my mind—or to discredit Rep. Paul.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a piece (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/28/MNVLTJA31.DTL)on Ron Paul out today, talking about his recent surge:

Clearman said the life of a Ron Paul supporter used to be a lonely undertaking.

"I thought there were only 10 of us, and nobody I knew," she said. But that changed in recent months as the candidate raised $9 million this quarter, and "the cat is out of the bag."

Indeed, the meetup group has swelled in recent weeks to more than 400. At a meeting Monday night, a diverse assortment of hip, 20-something techies, Financial District professionals and graybeard Baby Boomer activists jammed into a San Francisco yoga and massage studio to plan strategy in the decidedly unorthodox presidential campaign.

Paul followers are buoyed by the latest polls from CNN and the New York Times showing that their candidate has jumped ahead of former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in New Hampshire, the site of the nation's first 2008 primary on Jan. 8.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Arizona Sen. John McCain still dominate the race in that independent-minded, "Live Free or Die" state. But Paul's recent rise has prompted pundits to acknowledge that the Texan - once dismissed as a fringe candidate - could have an impact on the presidential race.

It's a nice piece. If you'd like to listen to the audio from an interview they did with Dr Paul, click here (http://cdn.sfgate.com/blogs/sounds/sfgate/chroncast/2007/07/13/Opinion-Paul-20070713-2.mp3).

The Los Angeles Times is talking (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/ron-paul-intras.html) about all the shiny new official Ron Paul '08 campaign offices that are springing up all over the place:

Inexorably, Paul is establishing the type of infrastructure that not so many months ago would have been hard to imagine for such a renegade politician. Presumably, the nuts and bolts being put in place give the campaign a chance to channel the obvious ardor that he has generated.

What it all will add to on caucus day in Iowa and in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, if -- and how -- support for Paul will skew the Republican race, have become a matter of growing conjecture (which is something few would have once anticipated).

At Real Clear Politics, Stuart Rothenberg is scoffing (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/pauls_internet_campaign_wont_g.html) at the $4 million one-day total:

Yes, $4 million is a lot of money to raise in a single day.

But it pales in comparison to the overall fundraising of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who didn't need a one-day fundraising event to get media attention. Still, let's give the Texan credit for his fundraising.

But what does that mean if he also has no chance of becoming the GOP presidential nominee, or even of winning a single primary contest?

Yeah, wait until he sees what we do on December 16th. Matt Welsh and Nick Gillespie, in the Q&A (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/21/DI2007112101734.html) I posted yesterday, had these predictions for Tea Party '07:

Astoria, Ore.: How much money do you think Ron Paul will raise on Dec. 16, when his supporters celebrate the Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party?

Matt Welch: Gillespie says "$8 million," though it's unclear whether it will be in gold-backed coins. I vote for $11.2 million.

And John Fout also has a bone (http://www.thestreet.com/s/crazy-is-not-taking-ron-paul-seriously/markets/marketfeatures/10392055.html?puc=_googlen?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA) to pick with Rothenberg's comparison:

Rothenberg notices that the Republican congressman from Texas raised lots of money in a single day and received national headlines. Few reporters had written about Paul before then. Despite the shock of Paul's success, Rothenberg downplays the amount of money raised, comparing it to the gobs of money that big hitters like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani have raised.

But the parallel proves poor. Those are major candidates with strong national profiles who can easily tap into key fundraising networks. Professional fundraisers hold events in major cities where big donors line up to give the maximum of $2,300 per person.

This is not how Paul's campaign has raised money. The campaign has given supporters the freedom to do what they want. Supporters have used the Internet to build a grass-roots following. His support is organic...the campaign's fourth-quarter goal is $12 million. If the campaign hits this number, it would exceed anything gained by any of the Republicans in all of the third quarter (I'm excluding Mitt Romney because of his personal donations to his own campaign). Paul's total for the year would then exceed $20 million, almost exclusively from individuals. How can anyone say with a straight face he doesn't have support?

NPR is even getting in on the action, wondering What's the Deal with Ron Paul? (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16685996)

Paul's platform includes support for getting troops out of Iraq and opposing both abortion and the income tax. But Carlson says it's the issue of the gold standard, and specifically distrust of the Federal Reserve, that fires his base.

"The single biggest applause that I heard in the Ron Paul speeches was 'The Constitution does not provide for a central bank,' " Carlson reports. "It sounds like a parody."

Carlson calls Paul the most genuine, unpretentious candidate he has ever covered. Carlson says he's also the most radical candidate in a long time. "Ron Paul really doesn't think the government should be in charge of your life in any way," he says. "He thinks every person ought to be free from government surveillance."

And don't forget to check out NPR's open thread What Ron Paul Believes (http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2007/11/open_thread_what_ron_paul_beli.html). You may need to educate some people in there.

Conspiracy-minded ultra-right libertarians The John Birch Society have released their annual report, "The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scoreboard Based on the U.S. Constitution (http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_110-2.pdf)." Our man was the only person in the legislative branch of the federal government to recieve a perfect score. Here's what they had to say (http://www.jbs.org/node/6459) about Dr Paul:

In his opening remarks at the GOP debate at Saint Anselm College on June 5, 2007, presidential candidate Ron Paul declared, "I am the champion of the Constitution." Judging from the results of the Freedom Index, published in the latest issue of The New American magazine (a publication of The John Birch Society), Dr. Paul wasn't making an idle boast.

As pointed out in the linked article, the Freedom Index "rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements." Congressman Paul scored a perfect 100, based on an examination of ten key votes since the publication of the last Freedom Index in July. (He earned a perfect score in the previous Freedom Index, as well.)

Based on the results of the Freedom Index, Ron Paul's voting record reflects the political philosophy of the framers of our Constitution. Many politicians (and their supporters) like to put forward the notion that the Constitution was designed for an 18th century agrarian society and is not suited to the complexities of a 21st century urbanized society. But Congressman Paul appears to understand that the principles that the Founding Fathers articulated in the Constitution transcend both time and technology.

Micha Ghertner on The Distributed Republic is skeptical (http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2007/11/28/medium-message-why-i-cannot-good-conscience-support-ron-paul)of a Ron Paul nomination, but slightly hopeful on the future of the reEVOLution:

The best an intellectually rigorous libertarian can say about the Ron Paul movement is that it's a great form of advertising. No one seriously believes Paul will win the nomination; the most we can hope for is that the campaign will awaken the dormant love of liberty in many who would have otherwise continued living a life of apathy in the campaign's absence. While I no longer actively support the Libertarian Party, and long ago ceased deluding myself into thinking it will ever achieve electoral success, I do owe a considerable debt to the LP for awakening my own personal interest in liberty. (Thank Zeus it didn't all begin with Rand for me; I can only imagine the sort of nutcase I might have become if it did.) If Paul's campaign manages to do the same for others like me, so much the better, and I hope it succeeds in this limited way.

Steven Horwitz of History News Network has three basic concerns (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/45044.html) about Ron Paul:

1) Abortion. I'm strongly pro-choice and I do believe that one can and should find constitutional protection for the right to choose. I agree that Roe was bad constitutional law, but I'd say it got to the right result for the wrong reasons. Granted, Paul's argument to give it back to the states is better than a constitutional amendment banning it, but I think that forcing pregnant women to carry to term is akin to slavery, and in the same way I would not tolerate a state that permitted slavery, I am unwilling to tolerate the banning of abortion at the state level. I have always found talk of "states' rights" by libertarians to be strange - states have no rights, only individuals do. (The language of federalism is perfectly fine of course.) Not to mention that "states' rights" remains, like it or not, a certain kind of signal to neo-confederates and other folks I'd rather not be associated with.

2) Immigration. I'm very much an open-borders kinda guy. Paul's "build a wall" and denial of automatic citizenship to children born in the US both strike me as not just bad policy (immigrants contribute much more than they "take" - legal or illegal) but also highly anti-libertarian. Why should employers be prevented from engaging in labor contracts with adults from anywhere in the world? Why are some to be excluded? Don't people from other countries have the "natural right" to emigrate? Do we believe that people should be free to move or not? And why are libertarians, of all people, so concerned about the fictional lines drawn by politicians? Like free trade, isn't this about individuals interacting with other individuals?

3) Free trade. I understand his concerns about the regional free trade agreements and the ways in which they empower trans-national organizations to settle disputes. I also share his concerns about the special interest components of those agreements. That said, I believe those agreements have been net gains for free trade and for the well-being of much of the world. My problem with Paul's position is that it's too focused on the impact of these agreements on the US, ignoring the fact that they do much good for the rest of the world, whatever the effects at home. I think the effects are positive for us too, and I don't fear any "loss of sovereignty" from them. The inward looking aspect of his stance on free trade (and immigration) is a real problem for me.

These are all valid concerns. I'd add his opposition to federal protection for gay marriage rights to that list, as well. That being said, I still can't think of a single major party candidate in my voting lifetime who has been closer to my ideals. This is why I have been following him for almost ten years. This is why I signed a petition in 2004 begging him to run for president.

Chuck Muth examines (http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003075.html) Dr Paul's appeal on The Free Liberal:

The mainstream media desperately wants you to think this groundswell of support is all due to Paul's opposition to the Iraq war. Not. If you read the posts on almost any blog in which Paul is the topic of discussion, you'll find one supporter after another citing his adherence to the Constitution as their reason for supporting him. The war, if mentioned at all, is usually but a footnote or an aside.

Ron Paul is making the Constitution "cool" again.

Alas, realists recognize that Paul's insurgent campaign is unlikely to actually take him to the White House next November. What will his supporters do then? Will they throw in the towel and fade away? For the sake of the republic, let's hope not.

Indeed. Salon's Amanda Griscom Little caught up with Ron Paul to ask him some questions (http://sacdcweb03.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/29/grist_qa/index.html) about the environment. Here's a sample:

What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?

On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn't be directing research and development because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol and it turns out that it's not economically feasible. So, my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property -- water, air, or land. It is very strict.

USADaily's Larry Fester reports (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=179851)on last nights YouTube debate:

The CNN/Youtube Republican debate held in St Petersburg Florida fell short. CNN's host Anderson Cooper directed most of the questions to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney and he continuously allowed Romney and Giuliani to speak longer than the time allotted to them. It was most noticeable that Ron Paul was given the least amount of time to speak of any of the candidates...

...Responding to McCain's now somewhat redundant phrase "We went to Washington to change Washington but Washington changed us". Ron Paul said, "Washington did not change me" to loud applause. McCain was also booed when he attacked Paul on his opposition to the war. Paul pointed out that he raised more money from the military than anyone else.

Ron Paul also said "We are taxed to blow up the bridges overseas, taxed to rebuild those bridges and our bridges are falling down." Shortly afterward Paul's YouTube commercial aired showing a large crowd at an event. Paul then said, "This country is sick and tired of what they are getting. We are in the middle of a revolution and I'm happy to be part of it."

As are we all, Dr Paul. Here's some video:


Do you remember the contest to make a video for Ron Paul to show at the debate? I had my own idea, and asked if anyone wanted to work with me on it. No one did, and the whole thing is over now, so I'll share it with you. My idea was to collect clips of McCain, Rudy, and Mitt saying various conflicting things, highlighting their flip-flopping. Then we'd show Ron Paul throughout the years, saying the same thing over and over, showing him being right when everyone else was wrong.

Then it would fade to black, and in white lettering say, "Consistency Matters. Principles Matter." Fade again and come up on the reVOLEution logo. It would have killed.

Here's the winner:



11-29-2007, 02:55 PM
Just one yes? You guys are KILLING me... ;)

Mental Dribble
11-29-2007, 03:23 PM
Excellent Round up. News updates like this should be on the official website. Uggg

11-29-2007, 03:37 PM
Excellent Round up. News updates like this should be on the official website. Uggg

Maybe they'll pay me to do it. :)

Xanax Nation
11-29-2007, 03:58 PM
Just one yes? You guys are KILLING me... ;)

My opinion? Make it anyway. It's kinda hard to compare, at least for me, an idea that is assembled in my mind to something that is already there to view. It sounds cool, so make it anyway. I'm sure we'll all watch it.

11-29-2007, 04:22 PM
My opinion? Make it anyway. It's kinda hard to compare, at least for me, an idea that is assembled in my mind to something that is already there to view. It sounds cool, so make it anyway. I'm sure we'll all watch it.

Well, I'm not very artistic. That's why I tried to get a collaborator. :) If someone ELSE wants to make it, I promise not to sue... ;)

11-29-2007, 08:26 PM
Please someone make that Ad... It would be great if the Ron Paul Campaign ran it in Iowa.

11-30-2007, 10:13 AM
Please someone make that Ad... It would be great if the Ron Paul Campaign ran it in Iowa.

You're not Ani Difranco, are you? :)

11-30-2007, 12:48 PM
I'm not sure you can fit that into a 30 second ad...considering the number of times those guys have flip-flopped and the number of times Paul has been consistent. Hehe But I would like to see it nevertheless.

11-30-2007, 01:26 PM
My wife loves Ani.

11-30-2007, 02:19 PM
My wife loves Ani.

As does mine...

Another Roundup coming at you in about 15 minutes.

- R

12-02-2007, 03:12 AM
Nice roundup. These roundups seem to be getting bigger as more and more media attention is directed towards Paul.