RSDavis
12-10-2007, 01:20 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (12-10-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=336740430&Mytoken=F2543BFB-0382-4376-8025DB94B8C9BB1036345080)
Hello Freedomphiles! Let's start off today's Roundup with talk about us, the Ron Paul faithful. The Boston Globe is writing (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/08/pauls_campaign_blimp_will_be_coming_to_boston/)about the unconventional blimp idea:
That's right, an airship with Paul's name on the side will, if all goes as planned, tool around New Hampshire leading up to the Jan. 8 Republican primary.
Organizers said on their website yesterday that they have raised the initial $200,000 to launch the blimp on Monday in Elizabeth City, N.C. They aim to raise $350,000 total by Dec. 21 to keep it in the air through the primary.
The plan for the "Ron Paul Blimp Tour" calls for the blimp to star in rallies in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday and in New York City on Wednesday and Thursday, before arriving in Boston on Friday after flying over Worcester. The blimp is to appear at a rally in Boston next Saturday, then play a key role in a fund-raising event the day after timed with the Boston Tea Party: Tea is to be dumped from the blimp into Boston Harbor. The first rally in New Hampshire is scheduled for Dec. 18.
I have to admit, I hope they show it on TV. I'd like to see what it looks like floating around up there. Seacoast Online is reporting (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071209/NEWS/712090352)about Operation Live Free or Die:
There aren't many people who would pack up their family, head to a colder climate, and live in a small home with about 10 other people with the goal of helping elect their favorite candidate, but as Laura and Wesley Lounsbury will tell you, Ron Paul isn't your typical presidential contender.
The Lounsburys came to New Hampshire from a small town in Arizona last month to volunteer for the Ron Paul campaign as part of Operation Live Free or Die, an effort spearheaded by Google engineer and Washington state resident Vijay Boyapati. The project aims to bring 1,000 Paul volunteers to the Granite State before the Jan. 8 primary. Already, 400 people have signed up, and on Wednesday the group raised more than $50,000 to help these volunteers pay travel and lodging expenses...
...Most campaigns try to rein in supporters who decide to promote a candidate outside the official realm of the campaign, but Paul has thus far embraced this style of campaigning.
"This is something we've experienced a lot in this campaign," said Kate Rick, spokesperson for Paul's New Hampshire campaign. "While other campaigns are wary of independent organizations putting effort into getting a candidate elected, the Ron Paul campaign welcomes the enthusiasm.. ... We are not officially involved in their effort, but we are certainly excited that people are willing to put the effort into helping the campaign."
The Los Angeles Times is examining (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/ron-paulites-sp.html)the piles of mail they have recieved about Ron Paul:
It's a fascinating grassroots political story in which a widely diverse collection of dissatisfied Americans have spontaneously congregated via the Internet and some 1,200 meet-up groups to organize and proselytize for their man. It really is grass-roots democracy in action, never mind the outcome. In some TV appearances Paul seems almost bewildered by the wildfire support.
But it's there, as evidenced by growing fundraising numbers that totaled a near-record one day $4.2 million last month. And Paul supporters aim to break Hillary Clinton's one-day record of $6.2 million come Dec. 16, which is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and probably as good a day as any for rebels to try to make news for their candidate. A counter on Paul's website puts the quarter's fundraising at nearly $10.8 million.
But the point of this item is to examine some of the comments submitted here in recent days by Paul boosters and opponents (yes, there are some willing to say so). Hundreds of readers -- 60+ pages of printouts -- shared their opinions, most of them printable. They reveal an eclectic mix of people, who identify themselves as lawyers, Democrats, housewives, first-time voters, young, old, suspicious of established institutions like the dreaded MSM (mainstream media) who resent being portrayed as fringe fanatics.
CBSNews interviewed (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/09/politics/fromtheroad/entry3596224.shtml)an angry Ron Paul supporter, who had just heckled Rudy in Miami:
That man was Frank Gonzalez, who noticed Giuliani's "suits" at the hotel entrance earlier while he and others picketed along the South Dixie Highway in Miami. Gonzalez, a self-proclaimed "Ron Paul Democrat" has unsuccessfully run for Congress three times.
What's the difference between a Ron Paul Democrat and a Ron Paul Republican? If there's no difference, is Ron Paul a Republican?
"Good question. What addresses that more than anything is the underlying philosophy," explained Gonzalez. "Ron Paul is, what they were calling until now, a Goldwater conservative, or a Ronald Reagan conservative, but the real definition of what Ron Paul is all about is libertarianism... By that definition, anyone can run, really, in either party – Ron Paul can run as a Republican, I ran as a Democrat, but our issues are identical, with very, very, very few exceptions." He listed abortion as one area of difference, although that could be resolved because Ron Paul believes the federal government "has no business" deciding whether abortion is legal or illegal.
Whirreled-Nut-Daily (that is, World Net Daily) is writing (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59105)about a Newsweek story on the NAFATA Superhighway and the flood of comments that came from Paul supporters:
A Newsweek story critical of Rep. Ron Paul and labeling the NAFTA Superhighway a baseless conspiracy theory has generated approximately 250 adverse reader responses on the "comments" section of Newsweek's website, many citing hard evidence that the proposed transcontinental trade corridor is quite real.
"There is a broad coalition of Americans developing across the United States who are opposed to a North American Union and know that Ron Paul is right and we need to take action now before it is too late," Jesse Benton, national press secretary for the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign 08 told WND.
Particularly interesting among Newsweek's reader comments were citations of Canadian government websites that openly discuss and declare plans to create a NAFTA Superhighway.
You know how I feel about the whole thing, but I think it is folly to write off the whole thing as a "conspiracy theory," because it is, indeed, real. The only debate should be whether or not it is a threat.
Long Island Exchange writer Joe Wallace has this (http://www.longislandexchange.com/articles/society/ron-paul120907.html)to say about the Ron Paul campaign:
The real burning question on my mind is this: Will Paul try to run a Quixotic independent presidential campaign after he washes out of the primaries? Or will he throw his support to someone else? Who would that be? I am dying to know who Ron Paul would tell his supporters to vote for when he gives up the ghost on the campaign trail. Call it morbid curiosity. Or maybe I've got a bookie giving me odds and I want to hedge.
All that aside, unless something radical happens between now and crunch time at the polls, I can think of a UK saying that applies to Ron Paul: he's got two kinds of hope. Bob Hope, and No Hope.
Let the hate mail commence.
I know that in the big picture, this guy is barely more signifigant than I, but let's surprise him by being reasonable, rational and friendly in our responses.
The Charleston Daily Mail is talking (http://www.dailymail.com/News/200712090316)about their upcoming presidential convention:
Mitt Romney appears to be the best-positioned of the Republican White House hopefuls heading into the West Virginia GOP's Feb. 5 presidential convention...Fred Thompson is assured 77 delegates, the second-highest margin, while Ron Paul follows with 54.
The AP counted as guaranteed those filings for reserved or uncontested at-large seats. The results show that while Ron Paul has the most overall delegates, 299, all but eight filed for at-large seats. Of those, only 46 are uncontested. Romney, meanwhile, saw 227 supporters register to be delegates.
Free Market News Network is talking (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=52369)about what happens to the Revolution after the race is decided:
While many political pundits have seemingly been focused on the "Ron Paul Phenomena" as a protest movement that will fade along with the candidacy, maybe Ron Paul's many Meetup groups are actually building a new political framework "under their noses."
I was actually approached by one of these groups over the weekend about running for office on the Ron Paul Platform. My platform would be slightly different than the earnest OBGYN, so I wasn't interested. But I thought one of you might be interested.
If you'd like more information, or are interested in running or helping to organize, please contact my friend Ray on his MySpace page (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=133953755).
So, I was watching Meet the Press on Sunday, and Russert was interviewing Rudy about his bid for President. An interesting thing came up in the conversation about Huckabee. Did you know that Mike Huckabee said that homosexuality is an immoral abberation and that AIDS victims should be quarantined? I believe you can find the reference in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4felDYBk9KY
Wow. And I had thought that Huckabee was the more "moderate" of the Republicans. Go fig - I guess an affable personality and a soft voice is no indication, eh? Anyway, this is a good lead-in to some stuff on religion and Ron Paul.
You recall that in Saturday's Roundup I wrote about Ron Paul's answer to the religion question. Well, Scott on The Nolan Chart wrote (http://www.nolanchart.com/article410.html)about it, too:
I have to confess that when I heard Mitt Romney was going to give a speech on his Mormon "faith", I had no interest in hearing what he had to say. And of this writing, I am still ignorant about what he wanted to dispel for the nation, and what he wanted to sell.
I have also not seen any of Huckabee's ads describing himself as a man of faith. If I bump into one, I may watch it. If I miss those pious moments, they'll come around again in another election. Faith is a card that gets played over and over at election time. Even Hillary and Obama have discovered its appeal. The deck is simply stacked.
I did, however, see Ron Paul's opinion on the religious question. Predictably, his answer was humble and framed within the context of the original intent of the founding fathers-- It shouldn't even matter. One's faith, and one's politics, are as separate as church and state.
There's another piece on The Nolan Chart talking (http://www.nolanchart.com/article415.html)about why Ron Paul's monetary views are Christian:
Fellow Christian, are you not aware that this kind of fiscal chicanery is clearly condemned in the bible? Speaking of commercial transactions, scripture says:
"You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin:" - Lev 19:36
"Thou shalt not steal" is, as we all know, one of the "top ten." We see that on bumper stickers as well, and chuckle when we read the punchline; "- the government hates competition." Why is it, then, that we do not regularly hear Ron Paul's clear message thundered from pulpits across the land? How long will we let dishonest politicians rob us blind? How long will the Lord allow it?
And check out Thomas Woods at LewRockwell.com, telling Catholics why they should vote for Dr Paul:
MP3 Link (http://www.heartlandcatholic.org/hccast/20071203__0003__Interview_with_Dr._Thomas_Woods__3 2.mp3)
All American Patriots is writing (http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48738598_ron-paul-government-intervention-created-sub-prime-mortgage-crisis)about how Ron Paul blames the federal government for the current sub-prime mortgage crisis:
Dr. Paul has long been a proponent of rejecting central planning by the Federal Reserve and government bureaucrats. He instead advocates returning to a policy of sound money that encourages fiscal responsibility.
"Ron Paul has long predicted this type of crisis would result from federal interventions into the housing market and excessively low interest rates," said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Only Dr. Paul has the background and expertise to explain why we must reject further political intervention into the housing market, such as that advocated by Hillary Clinton."
The Nolan Chart is also examining (http://www.nolanchart.com/article423.html)the differences between non-interventionism and isolationism:
What exactly does that distinction mean? It means we should be diplomats and moderators, instead of judge and jury. It means we should trade fairly for what we want, instead of moving into a country with our military to regulate the resources we covet. Some would argue this is dangerous, with how many enemies we have abroad. Abe Lincoln said "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." That is exactly the attitude we should base our foreign policy upon. We have injured many, justly and unjustly, but the time is not too late for us to adopt a policy with which we could convince the world that we are friends. Don't worry about OPEC cutting off our oil supply; trust me, they may not like us, but boy do they LOVE our money, and they don't want to stop getting it any time soon. Of course, looking past that "soon" mark, one could easily see a time in which China and India are capable of buying all the oil produced by those countries, and if we have done nothing to repair our friendship by then, imagine how much worse things could get.
That, of course, brings me to my next point. Is there any difference between our position if we isolate ourselves by pulling back, or if we isolate ourselves by pushing everyone else away? McCain and others have called Paul an isolationist, because the think he wants to cut back our role in the world. Those same people, even if they don't realize it, are isolating us by creating a world in which no other nation wishes to deal with us. In one of these two scenarios, we have a measure of control over how we are perceived, and whether or not we will be a welcome participant in the international community. In the other, our role is dictated by others, who can choose whether or not, and probably not, to deal with us at all. Rudy McHuckneyson (modified to show tax-hike-Mike's 15 minuets) all wish to further our continuing isolation, blind to a future in which other nations would not be required to deal with us, the sole super power, but might take their friendship and business elsewhere to China, India, or whomever else steps up. Does anyone here honestly think that history has stopped, that the world will continue to look as it does now for the rest of eternity?
LewRockwell.com is reporting (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017578.html)about Ron Paul at the Univision debate:
Writes Saul Vazquez: "I just watched the presidential debate in Univision and noticed that the debate follows the same pattern as any other MSM. Plenty of face time (to pander to the audience) for the establishment candidates, and questions for Ron Paul that try to make him look like a nutjob. As always, Ron delivered the message of freedom and individual rights, even if it means giving an answer that some people do not like."
They're also talking (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017570.html)about a recent move by the Libertarian Party:
In a move most unusual for this body, the Libertarian National Committee just adopted a resolution encouraging Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. The LNC is meeting in Charleston, SC this weekend.
The resolution recognized Paul's standing and history with the Libertarian Party. It also recognized a renewed passion that Paul has ignited across America.
From the resolution:
In the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee invites Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during the Memorial Day weekend of 2008.
The motion was raised by former Congressman Bob Barr and approved unanimously by the board.
This is good news. There is a portion of libertarians for whom the good must be sacrificed on the altar of the perfect, but I am not one of them.
But it may not be in the cards. At least at this point, Ron Paul states that he has no intention of running as anything but a Republican. The Statesman reports (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/12/10/1210paul.html):
The Barr resolution urged Paul to seek the Libertarian Party nomination that will be awarded at the party's May national convention in Denver.
But Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said it would not happen.
"Ron has no intention to run third party whatsoever," he said.
Doing so would have kept Paul's distinctive presence in the presidential contest through at least May, and until November if he secured the Libertarian nomination. Although he is not making a strong showing in polls as a Republican candidate, Paul has had success raising money and has garnered much attention at the GOP presidential debates for his calls for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and for the dismantling of the Internal Revenue Service.
The Press Telegram out of Long Beach is talking (http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_7678257)about Paul's chances in California, with the new primary system:
It was bound to happen: Some smart Republican campaign strategist was bound to see the opportunities buried in the arcane new rules that party adopted four years ago for its Feb. 5 presidential primary.
Those rules turn California from a bastion of plurality-winner-take-all politics to a place that will essentially run 53 separate little primaries, with the leading GOP vote-getter in each congressional district taking three of the state's 173 Republican convention delegates. Another 11 at-large delegates will go to the statewide vote leader and three more will be unpledged.
(...)
Enter Ron Paul, a formerly obscure Texas congressman who has surprised political analysts both with his performance in debates and his ability to draw support and money via the Internet.
MJ Taylor on From Reason to Freedom has listed (http://www.reasontofreedom.com/bombs_money_ron_paul_and_next_us_president.html)th e best ways that you, the grassroots supporter, can advance the Revolution:
Ron Paul is a pretty well known phenomenon outside of the "mainstream media" (MSM). But many who support him don't know the ways to best help Dr. Paul in his bid for becoming U.S. President number 44.
So, being fairly convinced that he is the current best choice to move this country back to the concepts of individual rights (pro-individual), freedom for all (anti-corruption), limited government, and the non-aggression principal that the ancestors of this country shed blood, sweat, and misery to archive, I figure a list of all the different ways to support Ron Paul and the probable benefits associated with each is in order.
With that in mind, top to bottom, most useful to least, with ease of use a factor. If I've missed a mechanism, and I'm sure I have, please leave a note in the comments.
I'm a fan of John Stossel, and Stossel is a fan of Paul. Well, they sat down to an interview, and here's (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=3970818&page=1)what Stossel has to say about it:
When Paul is asked to count off the major responsibilities of the federal government should have, he arrives at a surprisingly short list.
"Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. … Protect our environment through private property rights. … That's it," Paul said.
Paul notes that when our country was founded, the role of the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free markets and free trade — "not to run our lives, and run everything in the economy."
Good stuff. Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M
And finally, as reported by *****ty, here's (http://www.*****ty.com/news/ron-paul-on-gay-marriage-20071210/)what Ron Paul said about gay marriage in that interview:
John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?
Ron Paul: Sure.
Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?
Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function. I think it's a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don't agree with that.
See ya tomorrow, Freedomphiles!
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (12-10-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=336740430&Mytoken=F2543BFB-0382-4376-8025DB94B8C9BB1036345080)
Hello Freedomphiles! Let's start off today's Roundup with talk about us, the Ron Paul faithful. The Boston Globe is writing (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/08/pauls_campaign_blimp_will_be_coming_to_boston/)about the unconventional blimp idea:
That's right, an airship with Paul's name on the side will, if all goes as planned, tool around New Hampshire leading up to the Jan. 8 Republican primary.
Organizers said on their website yesterday that they have raised the initial $200,000 to launch the blimp on Monday in Elizabeth City, N.C. They aim to raise $350,000 total by Dec. 21 to keep it in the air through the primary.
The plan for the "Ron Paul Blimp Tour" calls for the blimp to star in rallies in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday and in New York City on Wednesday and Thursday, before arriving in Boston on Friday after flying over Worcester. The blimp is to appear at a rally in Boston next Saturday, then play a key role in a fund-raising event the day after timed with the Boston Tea Party: Tea is to be dumped from the blimp into Boston Harbor. The first rally in New Hampshire is scheduled for Dec. 18.
I have to admit, I hope they show it on TV. I'd like to see what it looks like floating around up there. Seacoast Online is reporting (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071209/NEWS/712090352)about Operation Live Free or Die:
There aren't many people who would pack up their family, head to a colder climate, and live in a small home with about 10 other people with the goal of helping elect their favorite candidate, but as Laura and Wesley Lounsbury will tell you, Ron Paul isn't your typical presidential contender.
The Lounsburys came to New Hampshire from a small town in Arizona last month to volunteer for the Ron Paul campaign as part of Operation Live Free or Die, an effort spearheaded by Google engineer and Washington state resident Vijay Boyapati. The project aims to bring 1,000 Paul volunteers to the Granite State before the Jan. 8 primary. Already, 400 people have signed up, and on Wednesday the group raised more than $50,000 to help these volunteers pay travel and lodging expenses...
...Most campaigns try to rein in supporters who decide to promote a candidate outside the official realm of the campaign, but Paul has thus far embraced this style of campaigning.
"This is something we've experienced a lot in this campaign," said Kate Rick, spokesperson for Paul's New Hampshire campaign. "While other campaigns are wary of independent organizations putting effort into getting a candidate elected, the Ron Paul campaign welcomes the enthusiasm.. ... We are not officially involved in their effort, but we are certainly excited that people are willing to put the effort into helping the campaign."
The Los Angeles Times is examining (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/ron-paulites-sp.html)the piles of mail they have recieved about Ron Paul:
It's a fascinating grassroots political story in which a widely diverse collection of dissatisfied Americans have spontaneously congregated via the Internet and some 1,200 meet-up groups to organize and proselytize for their man. It really is grass-roots democracy in action, never mind the outcome. In some TV appearances Paul seems almost bewildered by the wildfire support.
But it's there, as evidenced by growing fundraising numbers that totaled a near-record one day $4.2 million last month. And Paul supporters aim to break Hillary Clinton's one-day record of $6.2 million come Dec. 16, which is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and probably as good a day as any for rebels to try to make news for their candidate. A counter on Paul's website puts the quarter's fundraising at nearly $10.8 million.
But the point of this item is to examine some of the comments submitted here in recent days by Paul boosters and opponents (yes, there are some willing to say so). Hundreds of readers -- 60+ pages of printouts -- shared their opinions, most of them printable. They reveal an eclectic mix of people, who identify themselves as lawyers, Democrats, housewives, first-time voters, young, old, suspicious of established institutions like the dreaded MSM (mainstream media) who resent being portrayed as fringe fanatics.
CBSNews interviewed (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/09/politics/fromtheroad/entry3596224.shtml)an angry Ron Paul supporter, who had just heckled Rudy in Miami:
That man was Frank Gonzalez, who noticed Giuliani's "suits" at the hotel entrance earlier while he and others picketed along the South Dixie Highway in Miami. Gonzalez, a self-proclaimed "Ron Paul Democrat" has unsuccessfully run for Congress three times.
What's the difference between a Ron Paul Democrat and a Ron Paul Republican? If there's no difference, is Ron Paul a Republican?
"Good question. What addresses that more than anything is the underlying philosophy," explained Gonzalez. "Ron Paul is, what they were calling until now, a Goldwater conservative, or a Ronald Reagan conservative, but the real definition of what Ron Paul is all about is libertarianism... By that definition, anyone can run, really, in either party – Ron Paul can run as a Republican, I ran as a Democrat, but our issues are identical, with very, very, very few exceptions." He listed abortion as one area of difference, although that could be resolved because Ron Paul believes the federal government "has no business" deciding whether abortion is legal or illegal.
Whirreled-Nut-Daily (that is, World Net Daily) is writing (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59105)about a Newsweek story on the NAFATA Superhighway and the flood of comments that came from Paul supporters:
A Newsweek story critical of Rep. Ron Paul and labeling the NAFTA Superhighway a baseless conspiracy theory has generated approximately 250 adverse reader responses on the "comments" section of Newsweek's website, many citing hard evidence that the proposed transcontinental trade corridor is quite real.
"There is a broad coalition of Americans developing across the United States who are opposed to a North American Union and know that Ron Paul is right and we need to take action now before it is too late," Jesse Benton, national press secretary for the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign 08 told WND.
Particularly interesting among Newsweek's reader comments were citations of Canadian government websites that openly discuss and declare plans to create a NAFTA Superhighway.
You know how I feel about the whole thing, but I think it is folly to write off the whole thing as a "conspiracy theory," because it is, indeed, real. The only debate should be whether or not it is a threat.
Long Island Exchange writer Joe Wallace has this (http://www.longislandexchange.com/articles/society/ron-paul120907.html)to say about the Ron Paul campaign:
The real burning question on my mind is this: Will Paul try to run a Quixotic independent presidential campaign after he washes out of the primaries? Or will he throw his support to someone else? Who would that be? I am dying to know who Ron Paul would tell his supporters to vote for when he gives up the ghost on the campaign trail. Call it morbid curiosity. Or maybe I've got a bookie giving me odds and I want to hedge.
All that aside, unless something radical happens between now and crunch time at the polls, I can think of a UK saying that applies to Ron Paul: he's got two kinds of hope. Bob Hope, and No Hope.
Let the hate mail commence.
I know that in the big picture, this guy is barely more signifigant than I, but let's surprise him by being reasonable, rational and friendly in our responses.
The Charleston Daily Mail is talking (http://www.dailymail.com/News/200712090316)about their upcoming presidential convention:
Mitt Romney appears to be the best-positioned of the Republican White House hopefuls heading into the West Virginia GOP's Feb. 5 presidential convention...Fred Thompson is assured 77 delegates, the second-highest margin, while Ron Paul follows with 54.
The AP counted as guaranteed those filings for reserved or uncontested at-large seats. The results show that while Ron Paul has the most overall delegates, 299, all but eight filed for at-large seats. Of those, only 46 are uncontested. Romney, meanwhile, saw 227 supporters register to be delegates.
Free Market News Network is talking (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=52369)about what happens to the Revolution after the race is decided:
While many political pundits have seemingly been focused on the "Ron Paul Phenomena" as a protest movement that will fade along with the candidacy, maybe Ron Paul's many Meetup groups are actually building a new political framework "under their noses."
I was actually approached by one of these groups over the weekend about running for office on the Ron Paul Platform. My platform would be slightly different than the earnest OBGYN, so I wasn't interested. But I thought one of you might be interested.
If you'd like more information, or are interested in running or helping to organize, please contact my friend Ray on his MySpace page (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=133953755).
So, I was watching Meet the Press on Sunday, and Russert was interviewing Rudy about his bid for President. An interesting thing came up in the conversation about Huckabee. Did you know that Mike Huckabee said that homosexuality is an immoral abberation and that AIDS victims should be quarantined? I believe you can find the reference in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4felDYBk9KY
Wow. And I had thought that Huckabee was the more "moderate" of the Republicans. Go fig - I guess an affable personality and a soft voice is no indication, eh? Anyway, this is a good lead-in to some stuff on religion and Ron Paul.
You recall that in Saturday's Roundup I wrote about Ron Paul's answer to the religion question. Well, Scott on The Nolan Chart wrote (http://www.nolanchart.com/article410.html)about it, too:
I have to confess that when I heard Mitt Romney was going to give a speech on his Mormon "faith", I had no interest in hearing what he had to say. And of this writing, I am still ignorant about what he wanted to dispel for the nation, and what he wanted to sell.
I have also not seen any of Huckabee's ads describing himself as a man of faith. If I bump into one, I may watch it. If I miss those pious moments, they'll come around again in another election. Faith is a card that gets played over and over at election time. Even Hillary and Obama have discovered its appeal. The deck is simply stacked.
I did, however, see Ron Paul's opinion on the religious question. Predictably, his answer was humble and framed within the context of the original intent of the founding fathers-- It shouldn't even matter. One's faith, and one's politics, are as separate as church and state.
There's another piece on The Nolan Chart talking (http://www.nolanchart.com/article415.html)about why Ron Paul's monetary views are Christian:
Fellow Christian, are you not aware that this kind of fiscal chicanery is clearly condemned in the bible? Speaking of commercial transactions, scripture says:
"You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin:" - Lev 19:36
"Thou shalt not steal" is, as we all know, one of the "top ten." We see that on bumper stickers as well, and chuckle when we read the punchline; "- the government hates competition." Why is it, then, that we do not regularly hear Ron Paul's clear message thundered from pulpits across the land? How long will we let dishonest politicians rob us blind? How long will the Lord allow it?
And check out Thomas Woods at LewRockwell.com, telling Catholics why they should vote for Dr Paul:
MP3 Link (http://www.heartlandcatholic.org/hccast/20071203__0003__Interview_with_Dr._Thomas_Woods__3 2.mp3)
All American Patriots is writing (http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48738598_ron-paul-government-intervention-created-sub-prime-mortgage-crisis)about how Ron Paul blames the federal government for the current sub-prime mortgage crisis:
Dr. Paul has long been a proponent of rejecting central planning by the Federal Reserve and government bureaucrats. He instead advocates returning to a policy of sound money that encourages fiscal responsibility.
"Ron Paul has long predicted this type of crisis would result from federal interventions into the housing market and excessively low interest rates," said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Only Dr. Paul has the background and expertise to explain why we must reject further political intervention into the housing market, such as that advocated by Hillary Clinton."
The Nolan Chart is also examining (http://www.nolanchart.com/article423.html)the differences between non-interventionism and isolationism:
What exactly does that distinction mean? It means we should be diplomats and moderators, instead of judge and jury. It means we should trade fairly for what we want, instead of moving into a country with our military to regulate the resources we covet. Some would argue this is dangerous, with how many enemies we have abroad. Abe Lincoln said "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." That is exactly the attitude we should base our foreign policy upon. We have injured many, justly and unjustly, but the time is not too late for us to adopt a policy with which we could convince the world that we are friends. Don't worry about OPEC cutting off our oil supply; trust me, they may not like us, but boy do they LOVE our money, and they don't want to stop getting it any time soon. Of course, looking past that "soon" mark, one could easily see a time in which China and India are capable of buying all the oil produced by those countries, and if we have done nothing to repair our friendship by then, imagine how much worse things could get.
That, of course, brings me to my next point. Is there any difference between our position if we isolate ourselves by pulling back, or if we isolate ourselves by pushing everyone else away? McCain and others have called Paul an isolationist, because the think he wants to cut back our role in the world. Those same people, even if they don't realize it, are isolating us by creating a world in which no other nation wishes to deal with us. In one of these two scenarios, we have a measure of control over how we are perceived, and whether or not we will be a welcome participant in the international community. In the other, our role is dictated by others, who can choose whether or not, and probably not, to deal with us at all. Rudy McHuckneyson (modified to show tax-hike-Mike's 15 minuets) all wish to further our continuing isolation, blind to a future in which other nations would not be required to deal with us, the sole super power, but might take their friendship and business elsewhere to China, India, or whomever else steps up. Does anyone here honestly think that history has stopped, that the world will continue to look as it does now for the rest of eternity?
LewRockwell.com is reporting (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017578.html)about Ron Paul at the Univision debate:
Writes Saul Vazquez: "I just watched the presidential debate in Univision and noticed that the debate follows the same pattern as any other MSM. Plenty of face time (to pander to the audience) for the establishment candidates, and questions for Ron Paul that try to make him look like a nutjob. As always, Ron delivered the message of freedom and individual rights, even if it means giving an answer that some people do not like."
They're also talking (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017570.html)about a recent move by the Libertarian Party:
In a move most unusual for this body, the Libertarian National Committee just adopted a resolution encouraging Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. The LNC is meeting in Charleston, SC this weekend.
The resolution recognized Paul's standing and history with the Libertarian Party. It also recognized a renewed passion that Paul has ignited across America.
From the resolution:
In the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee invites Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during the Memorial Day weekend of 2008.
The motion was raised by former Congressman Bob Barr and approved unanimously by the board.
This is good news. There is a portion of libertarians for whom the good must be sacrificed on the altar of the perfect, but I am not one of them.
But it may not be in the cards. At least at this point, Ron Paul states that he has no intention of running as anything but a Republican. The Statesman reports (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/12/10/1210paul.html):
The Barr resolution urged Paul to seek the Libertarian Party nomination that will be awarded at the party's May national convention in Denver.
But Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said it would not happen.
"Ron has no intention to run third party whatsoever," he said.
Doing so would have kept Paul's distinctive presence in the presidential contest through at least May, and until November if he secured the Libertarian nomination. Although he is not making a strong showing in polls as a Republican candidate, Paul has had success raising money and has garnered much attention at the GOP presidential debates for his calls for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and for the dismantling of the Internal Revenue Service.
The Press Telegram out of Long Beach is talking (http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_7678257)about Paul's chances in California, with the new primary system:
It was bound to happen: Some smart Republican campaign strategist was bound to see the opportunities buried in the arcane new rules that party adopted four years ago for its Feb. 5 presidential primary.
Those rules turn California from a bastion of plurality-winner-take-all politics to a place that will essentially run 53 separate little primaries, with the leading GOP vote-getter in each congressional district taking three of the state's 173 Republican convention delegates. Another 11 at-large delegates will go to the statewide vote leader and three more will be unpledged.
(...)
Enter Ron Paul, a formerly obscure Texas congressman who has surprised political analysts both with his performance in debates and his ability to draw support and money via the Internet.
MJ Taylor on From Reason to Freedom has listed (http://www.reasontofreedom.com/bombs_money_ron_paul_and_next_us_president.html)th e best ways that you, the grassroots supporter, can advance the Revolution:
Ron Paul is a pretty well known phenomenon outside of the "mainstream media" (MSM). But many who support him don't know the ways to best help Dr. Paul in his bid for becoming U.S. President number 44.
So, being fairly convinced that he is the current best choice to move this country back to the concepts of individual rights (pro-individual), freedom for all (anti-corruption), limited government, and the non-aggression principal that the ancestors of this country shed blood, sweat, and misery to archive, I figure a list of all the different ways to support Ron Paul and the probable benefits associated with each is in order.
With that in mind, top to bottom, most useful to least, with ease of use a factor. If I've missed a mechanism, and I'm sure I have, please leave a note in the comments.
I'm a fan of John Stossel, and Stossel is a fan of Paul. Well, they sat down to an interview, and here's (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=3970818&page=1)what Stossel has to say about it:
When Paul is asked to count off the major responsibilities of the federal government should have, he arrives at a surprisingly short list.
"Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. … Protect our environment through private property rights. … That's it," Paul said.
Paul notes that when our country was founded, the role of the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free markets and free trade — "not to run our lives, and run everything in the economy."
Good stuff. Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M
And finally, as reported by *****ty, here's (http://www.*****ty.com/news/ron-paul-on-gay-marriage-20071210/)what Ron Paul said about gay marriage in that interview:
John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?
Ron Paul: Sure.
Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?
Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function. I think it's a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don't agree with that.
See ya tomorrow, Freedomphiles!
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg