View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (11-30-07)

11-30-2007, 02:34 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (11-30-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=333491537&Mytoken=82CCE33F-0D0D-4413-A56EAC1708227D8140060546)

Hello Freedomphiles! Today is the day! It's the mini-money bomb Friday of November 30th. I know most of you are planning on giving on the anniversary of The Boston Tea Party on December 16th, but if you can spare even a little today, the Paul campaign could use the early boost to get the advertising out.

Free Market News Network is expecting (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=52012&fb=1) today to be modest, but to push him over the $10 million mark:

The latest mass donation day for the limited government GOP candidate Ron Paul is set for November 30th. It will likely put the Jeffersonian conservative over $10 million for the 4th quarter, strong numbers indeed for a campaign that is still widely referred to by the mainstream media as "second tier."

The latest donation day has been organized by Trevor Lyman of November 5th "Money Bomb" fame. The November 5th Ron Paul donation day raised over $4 million, but the latest doesn't look like raising nearly that amount.

With under 2500 formal pledges, this latest donation day is likely on track to raise around $300,000, though the total could be higher if there are lots of lurkers who decide to donate without a formal sign up.

Moving on, it seems that the vast majority of Paul stories in my giant stack of stuff are about Rudy vs Ron II: McCain's War. If you watched the debate, you saw this contentious exchange:

"McCain: . . . I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.


And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed...


We allowed ...

(Audience booing)

Cooper: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.

McCain: We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.

(Audience booing)

And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, "Let us win. Let us...


Cooper: We will -- please. We will get to Iraq...


All right. Let me just remind everyone that these people did take a lot of time to ask these questions, and so we do want direct questions to -- the answers. We will get to Iraq later, but I do have to allow Congressman Paul 30 seconds to respond.

Paul: Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?


What John is saying is just totally distorted.

(Protester shouts off-mike)

Paul: He doesn't even understand the difference between non- intervention and isolationism. I'm not an isolationism, (shakes head) em, isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.


"Paul: The best commitment we can make to the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. That's the most important thing that we can do.


(Paul, later, on Iraq.)

Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn't worked. There's less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.

The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They're in charge up north -- the Shia -- the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there's no violence up there or nearly as much.

So, let the people have their country back again. Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam now is a friend of ours -- we trade with them, the president comes here.

What we achieved in peace was unachievable in 20 years of the French and the Americans being in Vietnam.

Ron Paul was right, of course, but he didn't even have to jump to Vietnam to counter McCain's absurd point. Perhaps he did that because Americans have a positive view of WWII. Still, I feel, at this point, that it would be prudent to revisit the words (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=329187784&Mytoken=F4428EF5-6CD9-4AB8-9F57947E2DFE3AA129465719) of a brilliant political historian - me:

Do you want to know what global military adventurism got us? Do you want to know what entangling alliances bring? Sit down and pour yourself a cup of coffee - it's time for a history lesson.

WWI was an unneccessary and illegitimate war. It all started over the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, someone no one even liked, by an unaffiliated group of anarchists.

Now, at the time, all of those countries - Italy, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, France, Brittain, and the Ottoman Empire, were wrapped up in a web of treaties, alliances and mutual-defense pacts so huge, that this one murder of an almost insignificant character caused the dominoes to fall and the entire region erupted into war.

The United States had no horse in this race, but racist jerkoff (http://www.reason.com/news/show/33906.html)Woodrow Wilson decided to join in. In the end, we won, but at what cost? The Treaty of Versialles, which was almost completely fashioned by Wilson, put nearly all the blame and all the punishment on Germany, even though they had nothing to do with the start of the war.

This threw Germany into a tailspin of economic and social destruction, which created the perfect atmosphere for a strong and charismatic leader to step in and promise to ressurect Germany's greatness as a world power.

Enter Adolf Hitler.

So, we had another war, more alliances, and the rise of Communism and the Cold War. How many lives did Wilson's involvement in WWI cost the world? At least 20 million, more if you include Stalin's reign of terror.

God, I'm smart. But I'm not the only one with something to say about this brouhaha. Andrew Sullivan, who I respect immensely, had this (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/the-mccain-paul.html) to say:

When John McCain employs his moral force in an unworthy rhetorical tactic, that's another matter entirely. The tactic comes to seem less offensive because a person of McCain's moral stature engages in it.

And that, in turn, leads me to wonder whether we can afford to have a man of McCain's moral stature engaged in the process of Presidential politics. Because when John McCain debases himself, he debases us all. And it disappoints me far, far more than anything Rudy Giuliani could possibly do.

America needs Ron Paul, and America needs John McCain. But we need them both at their best. And time after time, it seems to me, the demands of Presidential politics have caused John McCain to stoop, and Ron Paul to elevate himself. It's increasingly hard for me to see myself rewarding John McCain for this behavior by endorsing him.

Honestly, I think he gives John McCain too much credit. John McCain is an authoritarian (http://www.reason.com/news/show/118937.html) of the first order, and it doesn't help his case that he nearly destroyed (http://reason.com/news/show/122016.html) my favorite sport - Mixed Martial Arts.

Justin Riamondo of Anti-War.com also has some things to say (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11981)about John McCain:

It's all nonsense, to be sure. To compare the ramshackle fourth-rate Iraqi military – and bin Laden's ragged insurgents – with the military might of the German Army at the height of the Third Reich's power is worse than absurd: it involves a major misperception of what we are up against, and the very real threat posed by the worldwide Islamist insurgency whose spearhead is al Qaeda. Hitler had overrun most of Europe and a good chunk of the Russian, French, and British empires before hubris and the weight of his own evil brought him down: the rag-tag legions of Iraq's Sunni rebels and Shi'ite militias are not exactly the Wehrmacht. And yet the Iraq war has now gone on longer than World War II, and still dead-enders like McCain are telling us "victory" is right around the next corner.

The misuses of historical analogies in politics are legion, and this one in particular is extremely problematic for the War Party. To begin with, McCain has his facts wrong: Hitler came to power not due to any "appeasement" by the Western powers, but because of World War I. He was elected by the German people – isn't democracy wonderful? Isn't it really the solution to all the world's problems? – due to resentment of the Treaty of Versailles, and the heavy burden of reparations which unleashed inflation such as the world had never seen on the German economy. This created the conditions under which German national socialism flourished – and when Hitler was installed in the German Chancellory, it was long past the time when anyone in Europe's capitals or in Washington could do anything about it.

The rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party was "blowback" from the Great War – just as the wars of the future will be visited upon us and our children as a direct consequence of the Iraq war and the growing conflict in the Middle East.

Wow, that sounds awfully familiar. I feel like I just said that, myself. The debate itself was as to be expected in the age of sound-bites, but here is what Free Market News Network reported (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=52011)about their talk times:

Romney — 7:03, during 9 times
McCain — 5:09, during 4 times
Giuliani — 5:08, during 9 times
Thompson — 4:38, during 4 times
Huckabee — 4:14, during 5 times
Paul — 3:27, during 4 times
Tancredo — 2:20, during 4 times
Hunter — 2:16, during 3 times

The Free Liberal is writing (http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003076.html)about our man, too:

The pundits scratch their heads. "He's making better use of the Internet." "It's all spam." "It's a coalition of loonies, druggies and conspiracy theorists."

Mostly nonsense. The official Ron Paul campaign has not been especially clever at using the Internet. The official web site was rather primitive until fairly late in the game. In many ways, the campaign has been a seat of the pants operation that struggles to deal with unexpected success.

The Paul campaign has burst onto the scene from the efforts of those outside the campaign. Part of what we are seeing is what the Libertarian Party is capable of when it's members feel like their efforts have a chance of succeeding, and they can work on something other than overhead tasks such as ballot access. The "Ron Paul Revolution" was started by Ernie Hancock, a radical Libertarian who ran for national chair in 2006. Much support has come from the followers of Lew Rockwell, friend of the late Murray Rothbard, the cantankerous co-founder of the Libertarian Party who battled to keep the party pure, until he walked out himself.

And yes, Ron Paul also draws support from gold bugs and conspiracy theorists of the John Birch variety.

But the Ron Paul Revolution is far larger than any of these factions. Something bigger is happening.

And Bretigne Shaffer, who asked people to stop voting already (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/shaffer-br1.html), has reconsidered (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/shaffer-br3.html):

I can't believe the things that have been coming out of my mouth these past few months. If anyone had told me a year ago that today I'd be sending an e-mail to my friends urging them to vote – and to vote Republican – I would have said that person was either nuts or just didn't know me.

And yet here I am, writing the e-mails, getting involved in the movement, and trying to explain to my friends – long used to hearing me tell them why voting is worse than a waste of time, how it helps perpetuate a system that is destructive and wrong – why this time it's different, this time it not only makes sense to vote, but they must vote …and get all of their friends to do it too.

At Alternet, Joshua Holland has written (http://www.alternet.org/rights/69139/) a defense of Ron Paul:

But more than that, the typical analysis misses the fundamental dynamic driving Paul's popularity. His campaign occupies that political space where right- and left-populism intersect, and that space exists only because there are significant areas of national policy where neither of the two parties, nor any of the "mainstream" candidates, have shown any willingness to represent their constituents.

Polls show that a majority of Americans want a withdrawal from Iraq, but none of the leading candidates are calling for a complete pull-out. Three-quarters of Americans oppose a permanent military presence there, yet the same number believe that the United States would not withdraw even if asked by the Iraqi "government." A majority oppose the White House's claim that it can torture whom it likes, but the Democrat-controlled Congress confirmed an attorney general who wouldn't say that water-boarding -- prosecuted as torture by military courts since the Spanish-American War -- is illegal. More Americans think K Street's "trade" deals hurt Americans than believe they help, but among the first acts of the new Congress was to strike a new "grand bargain" with Bush on trade. Voters want to see movement on healthcare, immigration, retirement security and job outsourcing, and on all of these issues the Big Money candidates in both parties, with the possible exception of John Edwards, either stand moot or offer fluffy platitudes about change while ferociously defending the status quo.

Ron Paul is a reactionary, yes, but he speaks to these and other ignored issues -- speaks to voters' growing disenfranchisement and lack of trust in government, to their fears and insecurities about the future -- in a way that the rest of the field won't, and any analysis of the Ron Paul phenomenon that doesn't acknowledge that reality misses the heart of the story.

Shelly Mar from UNLV's Rebel Yell is astounded (http://www.unlvrebelyell.com/article/2007/11/29/ron-paul-attracts-high-turnout/)by the crowds that show up to see Ron Paul:

Two days after Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney addressed a crowd of 200 in Henderson, fellow Republican candidate Ron Paul's appearance at Artemus Ham Concert Hall Nov. 19 brought out nearly 1,000 energetic supporters.

Jeff Greenspan, regional coordinator for the Paul campaign said the impressive turnout was a clear indication of Paul's growing popularity and part of a transition from long-shot contender to serious competitor to mainstream Republican candidates like Romney and Rudy Giuliani.

Though Paul set the record for largest single- day online fundraising on Nov. 5, accumulating $4.2 million, Greenspan said the UNLV turnout also showcased Paul's growing status outside the realm of cyberspace.

So, the Bunny Ranch's Dennis Hof, who said he was putting a collection box for Ron Paul outside the door of his world famous brothel, has stepped it up (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=22286):

Surely you've heard that Dennis Hof -- owner of the Moonlite Bunny Ranch brothel near Carson City -- has cast the first official whorehouse endorsement of the 2008 presidential campaign when he announced that he'll back Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Not only that, but he tells The Chronicle of a unique promotion: To those who enter into Hof's establishment and declare that "I'm pimping for Paul," Hof will bequeath the services of two bunnies for the price of one. Or double whatever they choose to partake of there. Some of you know the drill.

So what's stopping anybody from just coming in and saying that they're Paul Pimps just to double their pleasure?

"Oh, I'm sure that some peoeple will do that. That's OK, it will all work out in the end," Hof said. "We just want people to hear what Ron Paul has to say." There's a can labeled "Pimping for Paul" just inside the entrance where new Paulheads can drop coins for their newfound favorite candidate. It's the same sort of cans that have been there in the past as a fundraising receptacle for the local battered woman's shelter, the children's hospital and so on.

What a fantastic idea. I've never paid for sex, but I have had two girls at once, and I assure you, it will be worth every penny.

A study of YouTube videos has revealed (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS15012+29-Nov-2007+MW20071129)Ron Paul as a heavy favorite in New Hampshire:

KDPaine and Partners, a media measurement firm, has been tracking the candidates since January in YouTube videos that mention New Hampshire, its home state and host of the first in the nation primary. Republican hopeful Ron Paul is ahead online, attracting more than three million views of his videos within seven days of posting them to the posted. Paul's videos account for half of the top 10 most-viewed videos in the study.

John McCain's reply, "thanks, you little jerk," at a stump speech in New Hampshire to a question about his age, was the most-viewed of any video. Itwas watched more than 300,000 times.

"While we won't know the final answer until January, what we do know is that there is very little relationship between what people who answer their phones tell the pollsters, and the activity of people who vote on and rate videos on YouTube," said Katie Delahaye Paine, CEO and head of the research project.

Not sure when, where, or how to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries? Well, let me leave you with this link (http://www.primarilypaul.com/ron-paul-in-the-primaries/)to a site called PrimaryPaul, that will answer all your questions.


11-30-2007, 05:12 PM
I'm pimping for Ron Paul!!!!!