PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (12-08-07)




RSDavis
12-08-2007, 11:51 AM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (12-08-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=336105769&Mytoken=E56F9189-7CC8-47A7-8B4D1AD1F1AAE6E328939393)



Hello Freedomphiles! Seems like the blimp is all over the news today. This reminds me of a story my brother told me. He remembers waking up one morning to hear Led Zeppelin on Rock n Roll Hall of Fame radio station KSHE95 in Saint Louis.

They were saying they were abandoning progressive rock for disco. My brother was heartbroken as they described their next album, to be entitled Bump With the Blimp. As my bro was preparing his hari kari mat for a little ritualistic self-disembowelment, Robert Plant suddenly screamed "April fools!"

This has nothing to do with the Ron Paul blimp - I just thought it was funny.

As to the blimp, it's already garnering headlines, so maybe I was wrong. Let's start (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316082,00.html) with Fox News (as Freedomphile Evren likes to say: We Report, You Go Fuck Yourselves) and Brit Hume, a diamond in the rough over there:

The Ron Paul presidential campaign is about to get help from above. The Politico reports what's being called "the Ron Paul blimp" will launch Monday from Elizabeth City, North Carolina on a trek up the east coast with a destination of New Hampshire site of the January 8 first-in-the-nation primaries.

The Paul campaign is not sponsoring the blimp. Instead, supporters have formed a non-profit company in order to avoid many of the restrictive campaign finance rules. Basically, people pay for advertising on the blimp instead of making a contribution to the candidate.

The blimp will feature banners asking "Who is Ron Paul?" and urging people to "Google Ron Paul." The other side will feature a logo promoting what's called the "Ron Paul love revolution."

I totally should have done that. Ad space on the Ron Paul blimp to promote my blog. Or it could've just been a message like "Lindsay: please wear panties" or "Soylent Green is People." That would be sweet.

The Houston Chronicle also reports (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5361818.html):

The campaign announcement from Ron Paul on Friday sounded more like a plot from a super-villain than a press release: The man known as "Dr. No" has followers manning a blimp to Boston.

Paul is less a villain and more an enigma on the national stage. But his supporters see themselves as revolutionaries, and their fundraising efforts or "money bombs" rival those of the Republican front-runners...

...Paul has hardly made anyone uneasy before as a small-government conservative in the House of Representatives and as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988. House colleagues gave him the nickname "Dr. No" for his consistent votes against bills everyone else supported.

Yet part of what makes the Texas Republican attractive is he will say things considered political suicide by nearly any candidate this side of Dennis Kucinich.

Paul is a Republican presidential candidate who wants U.S. troops out of Iraq, he wants to return to a gold standard, and he says the United States bears some responsibility for Middle Eastern terrorism for not leaving the region.

Supporters may not agree with everything he says, but they're tickled to death that he's willing to say it.

And The Boston Globe says (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/12/07/ron_paul_supporters_to_launch_blimp_from_eastern_n c/):

Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul want his campaign to take flight -- literally.

A group of Paul backers plan to launch a 200-foot-long blimp bearing his name next week from Elizabeth City. The aerial billboard -- with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul" on one side and "Ron Paul Revolution" on the other -- will float up the East Coast past major cities.

On the itinerary: A stop in Boston on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, where Paul supporters will re-enact the event by dumping tea from the blimp into the Boston harbor.

The Star Tribune out of Minnesota is reporting (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/12215341.html) on the field office just opened there:

Dozens of supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul opened their Minnesota campaign headquarters Thursday, undeterred by the consensus that their candidate remains the longest of long shots.

"Look, we've got Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, independents in this room," said Marianne Stebbins, a Republican activist from Excelsior, who is Paul's Minnesota coordinator. "I'm just nonplussed about the criticism and don't pay any attention to it."

Paul, a 10-term congressman from Texas, was initially regarded as a strictly second-tier candidate with virtually no national following.

But his outspoken performances during GOP debates, decrying the Iraq war and calling for dramatically smaller government, inspired incessant Internet buzz -- and a prodigious burst of fundraising.

Are you in DC? If so, Ron Paul needs your help. CQPolitics reports (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1&docID=news-000002637854):

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul may be able to raise record amounts of money online, but his dark-horse campaign is struggling to muster the 300 signatures he needs to get on the primary ballot in the District of Columbia.

In an e-mail message to supporters earlier this week, the Texas congressman wrote that his campaign had only 106 signatures. Calling the situation urgent, he beseeched local backers "to work together for one final push" before the Dec. 11 deadline set by the Paul campaign. The Washington D.C. official deadline for receiving signatures is Dec. 14.

The Argus Leader is contemplating (http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/NEWS/71207041/1001)Paul's chances in Iowa, as they report about his appearance at the Sioux Center:

Momentum generated there "will help springboard us into New Hampshire," says Paul spokesman John Zambenini. The ruggedly independent brand of conservatism said to proliferate in New Hampshire could make voters in the Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary receptive to Paul's message of limited government, fiscal discipline and opposition to war in Iraq if he emerges from Iowa as a credible candidate.

And there may be enough like-minded voters in Iowa to help him do that, according to University of South Dakota political science professor and Government Research Bureau Director William Anderson.

While polls show Paul with single-digit support in Iowa, "Ron Paul is appealing to a very unusual constituency, a wide-eyed libertarian constituency, a hopeful libertarian constituency," says Anderson.

"He has kind of a groundswell of support in the same way Howard Dean did from the left in 2004 via the Internet, a robust Internet-driven campaign."

Anderson also says Paul may appeal to an "Upper Midwest populist streak."

Chris Espenal has an interesting piece on The Nolan Chart, which asks (http://www.nolanchart.com/article397.html)how much Ron Paul is too much?

The way you can tell is if you blog so frequently about Ron Paul to a point where you feel no benefit due to a zero change in the number of readers after the marginal article. However, there is a place where I know for a fact Ron Paul articles need supply. Mainstream media sources can significantly boost the number of its readers by writing about the OB-GYN. The Washington Post experienced a significant rise in the number of its readers when it began publishing about Ron Paul.

Hell, this gave The Washington Post an incentive to post on Ron Paul at least once a week.

But notice how they only publish on him once a week. They probably realized that a marginal change in the number of readers of their publication will not occur if they write on Dr. Paul as frequently as two articles a week. Otherwise, they would allocate another post to their newspaper!

In other words don't let the cost of your time impede on the utility of writing on Dr. Paul.

On Anti-War.com, Justin Raimondo is taking on (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/07/cato-institute-vp-sneers-at-ron-paul-hes-not-our-kind-of-person/)Cato scholar Brink Lindsay:

Oh, those backwoods anti-IRS hicks, with necks redder than the reddest state, hopeless Neanderthals who would never read Lindsay's book, The Age of Abundance, wherein he describes the supposedly "libertarian" utopia being ushered in by "the sexual revolution, environmentalism and feminism, the fitness and health care boom and the opening of the gay closet, the withering of censorship and the rise of a 'creative class' of 'knowledge workers.'"

Lindsay and his fellow creative geniuses are too good for the poor untutored hoi polloi who don't go to the gym four days a week and are neither feminists nor gay. In Lindsay's lexicon, "Forward-looking" means "people like me," and "backward-looking" stands for non-feminist non-gay non-gym-going proles, who don't count anyway...

...Lindsay's haughtiness is really a joke, especially when it's married to his clueless political analysis: who are these "xenophobes" he talks about the overwhelming majority of Americans who don't support his own "open the borders" position? And as for these alleged "nationalists" flocking to the Paulian cause: I guess this means they're attracted to Ron's questioning of why we're going to war on account of UN resolutions and entangling alliances. Otherwise, I can't imagine a less nationalistic candidate, in the modern sense of aggressive expansionism which surely is better suited to Lindsay's own position in favor of the Iraq war and the "liberation" of the Middle East.

What the Nation doesn't tell us, however, is what might really interest Nation readers: that Lindsay's critique of Paul is really rooted in Lindsay's pro-war position. He argued in favor of the Iraq war in a piece for Reason magazine, basically making the neocon "weapons of mass destruction-they'll-greet-us-as-liberators" argument, while Paul, of course, was against the war from the beginning. Having abandoned the core libertarian stance opposition to mass murder by the State Lindsay and his ilk are on their way out of libertarianism, as I've explained elsewhere, while Paul and his "backward-looking" brethren represent the future of the movement.

The hostility of the Beltway faux-libertarians to the Paul campaign is no surprise, as I explained here, but I'm glad to see the Reason folks are coming around. As the Hayes piece puts it: "Nothing breeds harmony like success, and the Paul bandwagon is now getting big enough for both the Hatfields and the McCoys to get on board. 'Our readership is very enthusiastic,' says Nick Gillespie, editor of the DC-based magazine Reason. A few months ago Reason published an article titled 'Is He Good for the Libertarians?' That no longer seems an open question."

Oh, Justin, can't we all just get along? As you guys know, reason is my favorite magazine. I remember the article to which Justin refers, and it was a point-counterpoint of arguments from libertarians both for and against the Iraq war. Now, we know who ended up being right, but if we write off everyone who was ever wrong, where will that leave us?

The book to which Justin refers, The Age of Abundance, is on my list of books to read, mostly based on this fascinating article in reason that was adapted from that book. Check it out for yourself and see if you think Justin's characterization is true, or perhaps an overreaction.

I love both guys, myself, and don't understand the animosity at all.

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

DrKevorkian
12-08-2007, 09:35 PM
Oh, Justin, can't we all just get along? As you guys know, reason is my favorite magazine. I remember the article to which Justin refers, and it was a point-counterpoint of arguments from libertarians both for and against the Iraq war. Now, we know who ended up being right, but if we write off everyone who was ever wrong, where will that leave us?

The book to which Justin refers, The Age of Abundance, is on my list of books to read, mostly based on this fascinating article in reason that was adapted from that book. Check it out for yourself and see if you think Justin's characterization is true, or perhaps an overreaction.

I love both guys, myself, and don't understand the animosity at all.


Completely agreed. The biggest problem with libertarianism is that it is essentially an intellectually purist movement. Therefore the tiniest deviations create the biggest schisms. As a left-libertarian i probably agree more with cato than ron paul but cato's not running for president, its silly to dismiss him when there are literally no other viable candidates with positions even remotely close to libertarian ideals.

LiveFreeorDie
12-08-2007, 10:13 PM
Great summary

RonPaulRocksMyWorld
12-09-2007, 10:19 AM
Thanks as always. You doing this helps me keep up without spending hours browsing Google.

RSDavis
12-10-2007, 09:22 AM
Completely agreed. The biggest problem with libertarianism is that it is essentially an intellectually purist movement. Therefore the tiniest deviations create the biggest schisms. As a left-libertarian i probably agree more with cato than ron paul but cato's not running for president, its silly to dismiss him when there are literally no other viable candidates with positions even remotely close to libertarian ideals.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

- R