RSDavis
12-27-2007, 01:40 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (12-27-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=341736013&Mytoken=2B6DD5B4-2E3A-49F9-A143E8792721C3D140307734)
Hello Freedomphiles! In today's Roundup, we'll start with Joseph Farah, the ridiculously mustachioed pundit from World Net Daily, a source I've debunked dozens of times for their blatant and intentional misrepresentation of fact, and not even concerning Ron Paul.
He comments (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59380) on Meet the Press and earmarks:
Ron Paul developed his reputation as a constitutional tax fighter and proponent of limited government through decades of voting "no."
But that hasn't stopped him from earmarking federal tax dollars for his district's own pet pork projects – to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars!
Paul defended his actions on "Meet the Press" in spin that would make Bill Clinton proud.
"I've never voted for an earmark in my life," he explained. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."
This is actually as ingenious as it is immoral.
I can't really blame Groucho for his comments, because Ron Paul's answer on the earmark issue was horrible and scatterbrained. As I said in yesterday's Roundup:
I was actually a little disappointed with Ron Paul's response to this question. This isn't the first time this has been mentioned, and he should have been prepared to answer the question. He should have said something like, "Look, I vote against taking the money in the first place, but once they've got it, it's my responsability to try and get as much of it back as possible." Simple. Effective.
Sheldon Richman agrees (http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-ron-paul-inconsistent-on-earmarks.html):
I believe there is no inconsistency here. Ron Paul says he votes against spending programs that in his view exceed the authority specified in the Constitution. (I'm taking him at his word, problems of constitutional interpretation aside.) If so, can he in good faith add earmarks to spending bills that would benefit his constituents?
Yes, he can. There is a difference between making choices at the rules-selection level and making choices within rules you are stuck with. In other words, it's one thing to try to channel flood-insurance money to your district, but quite another to vote to create or renew the program.
As Ron Paul pointed out on "Meet the Press," the government taxes people, then ladles out the money to particular groups. If one group of potential recipients doesn't get a particular appropriation, another one will. The result of not seeking or taking the money is not a cut in taxes and spending. So, as Ron Paul asked, why shouldn't people try to get some of their money back? Is it unlibertarian to accept a tax "refund" or Social Security? Must one tear up the checks (leaving the money in the U.S. Treasury)?
(...)
A similar principle applies to Ron Paul's answer about term limits. He told Tim Russert that one who favors mandatory term limits is not in any way obliged to impose terms limits unilaterally on himself. Again, it involves picking rules versus acting within a rules system. I don't like the designated-hitter rule, but if the rule is in effect and I am manager of a baseball team, my position on the rule does not oblige me to put my pitcher in the batting lineup. Similarly, because I think all congressmen should be term-limited, it doesn't follow that I think I alone should be term-limited. If only congressmen who believe in term limits are term-limited, the most statist congressmen will tend to become entrenched, which is the opposite of what term limits is intended to accomplish.
LewRockwell.com's Bob Murphy tackles (http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html) another part of the interview - the talk of Civil War and the absurd notion that without it, we'd still be a slaveholding country:
Here Dr. Paul has made a fascinating point. Even though every generation of American children is taught that the so-called Civil War – which is a poor title since the Southern states weren't fighting for control of the federal government – was necessary to free the slaves, no one ever learns the dates of analogous civil wars to free the slaves in Britain, Spain, Brazil, or other major participants in the slave trade. And for once, this isn't because of a US-centric curriculum, but because there were no bloody wars in other countries to end the scourge of slavery. (Another arguable exception, where massive violence ended institutional bondage, was the Haitian revolution.) As abolitionist campaigns changed public opinion, and modern capitalism swept the globe, the injustice and inefficiency of slavery became more and more manifest. Russert's claim that we would have slavery today in the United States were it not for the Emancipation Proclamation is as silly as labor leaders who think twelve-year-old children would pack the coal mines were it not for key legislation.
As I argue in my book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the conventional explanation has things exactly backwards. People think that "pure" capitalism entails buying and selling human beings as chattel, and that only farsighted government intervention could stop this crass practice. Yet on the contrary, slavery is inherently inefficient, and can only survive when propped up by government limitations on private property.
It would be easy (and correct) to declare, "The free market is all about the respect of private property rights, and so of course institutionalized bondage is incompatible with the free market." Yet for many people, that would be too easy; it would be an argument from definitions. So let us explore the more interesting question: What if, for some horrible reason, 90 percent of the people in a society had all of the guns and wealth, and thought it perfectly fine to treat the other 10 percent as their personal property? Would it take government action to alter this miserable state of affairs?
It's a good read, and has some quotes from top economists that prove a point I've been trying to make for years now - hiring workers for a fee is an infinitely more efficient means of maintianing labor that slavery.
And the Baraboo News Republic are scratching (http://www.wiscnews.com/bnr/opinion/264039) their collective heads about the interview and its aftermath:
GOP candidate Ron Paul was on Meet the Press on Sunday. He explained his views that the income tax should be abolished, that U.S. troops should be brought home immediately from Iraq, and that Abraham Lincoln was a warmonger. The next morning Ron Paul jumped fourteen points in South Carolina and nobody in the press could figure out why.
I guess liberty sells better than you Statists think.
Libertarian writer Gary Wood talks (http://www.nolanchart.com/article732.html) about Ron Paul's radicalism on The Nolan Chart:
In the last Republican debate a question was asked of each candidate what New Year's Resolution they would encourage one of the other candidates to set for themselves. His radical answer was, "My advice would be to reread the oath of office, take it seriously, obey the constitution. We can -- we are well defended against all enemies foreign. We should be much more careful about defending against the enemies domestic."
It is easy for opponents to point to Dr. Paul's positions and claim he is radical and not in touch with mainstream America due to his focus on reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government to that which is granted in the U.S. Constitution. It is easy to call him radical when he speaks of ways to end the IRS and replace it with nothing. It is easy to confuse his foreign policy position of non-intervention as being somehow tied to isolationism or pacifism when neither is at all connected to Thomas Jefferson's and the founders' structure of non-intervention.
It is easy to scoff at him for wanting to end the Department of Education, even easier still to make a false claim he therefore must be against public education, which is far from the truth of his belief public education is better handled from the home, community and State levels rather than the inept ability of a Federal Bureaucracy. It is too easy to label his views radical and not in the mainstream since most don't study in-depth what our U.S. Constitution truly allows for the Federal Government and many don't understand the personal responsibilities our nation was founded upon. His opponents are hoping these labels will be enough for you to cast your vote away from Ron Paul but just what is radical and not mainstream?
He also included a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXBjwQqdqI4
PR-USA.net reports (http://www.pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54203&Itemid=9) about how a show dedicated to Hillary suddenly jumped tracks and became about Ron Paul:
Camelot Castle causes Ron Paul campaign to hijack news show. In a news program initially presented to question whether or not Hillary Clinton might or might not win the US presidency, British and US experts in media and US politics, when gathered, found themselves discussing and giving considerable airtime to the merits of Ron Paul's campaign and agreed that Ron Paul's campaign has far more reach than the media might have imagined. Most importantly that Ron Paul's nomination would indeed split the Democratic vote.
As Professor Toni Michelle Travis of George Mason University stated.
"Ron Paul can split the democratic vote."
As the only candidate running that will bring the troops home immediately and who will manage the economy so that the US dollar will recover and not result in long term economic depression due to mismanagement of federal debt, Ron Paul's credibility is rising in the media.
The news program was presented by the internationally recognised and acclaimed celebrity news journalist Yvonne Ridley whose program "The Agenda" had decided to feature and showcase a song dedicated to Ron Paul by John Mappin - released by Camelot Castle in England, as part of the show. The song - Inner Truth - had been released on U Tube two days before the show and had shot to number one on U Tube in Britain the very next next day.
And here's Mappin's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQpeldFJG_Y
The Washington Post is talking (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2007/12/new_paul_clinton_spots_in_nh_i.html?hpid=news-col-blog)about a new ad being run in New Hampshire and Iowa:
Ron Paul's out with a new TV ad, ''Defender of Freedom," pitching his conservative record in his long-shot bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
The ad starts with an image of young Paul posing during his flight surgeon days in the Air Force. Patriotic music booms, a flag waves and viewers get a quick snapshot of Paul at different points in his career -- and then a quick message about his congressional record.
Stressing his pro-life platform, the announcer says, "Paul delivered over 4,000 babies," making him a "defender of life." And his position against taxes: "Paul never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget." And finally his position on gun control: Paul "never voted to restrict gun rights."
Paul's campaign chairman Kent Snyer says the ad "is about bringing Dr. Paul's message of freedom, peace and prosperity to potential voters."
And here's that video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AmY-fW3gdc
Since I'm on this video kick, I want to share with you something that had been saved on my DVR since Sunday, but that I didn't get to watch until last night. Hands down, my favorite political Sunday show is The McLaughlin Group. I absolutely love it. This last Sunday, they had part one of their year end awards, and surprisingly, Ron Paul cleaned up.
Eleanor "Rodham" Clift proclaimed Dr Paul "Capitalist of the Year" for his internet fundraising prowess. Clarence Page gave him "Most Charismatic," but I think he was really talking about us. Pat Buchanan awarded "Most Original Thinker" to Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) for the novel idea that Congress should have to formally declare war before we can attack Iran, and then conceeded that the resolution was co-sponsored by Ron Paul.
But the big moment was when John McLaughlin awarded Ron Paul "Person of the Year," saying, "he injected the Presidential campaign with a dose of truth serum. Paul's straight talk on Iraq, and his straight talk on the Constitution, as Buchanan pointed out, and the limits of government have made him an Internet phemonema. In fact, Paul has become an independent force in the nation's life."
It was so amazing, my wife and I high-fived! Here, see it for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys0HgHLpy98
American Statesman have put out their year-end "Who wudda thunk it?" (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/12/27/1227selby.html)column, and right at the top is Ron Paul:
[Who wudda thunk] that U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Lake Jackson would prove the Texas politician with the most active base. Paul, seeking both re-election and the GOP presidential nomination next year, stirred interest with his libertarian message, though he's struggling to bust single digits in GOP voter polls. Paul raised record millions of dollars via the Internet, attracting true believers aplenty. In Central Texas, Ron Paul signs appear to outnumber those saying Keep Austin Weird.
You know, I've been signing petitions and sending letters asking him to run for years now, but even I never thought he'd have had this big an impact.
Tyler Cowen is evaluating (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/12/ron-paul-as-pre.html) Dr Paul on Marginal Revolution:
Many libertarians see the Paul candidacy as their chance to have an impact and they may well be right. There is also no one else for them to support. But, raw milk or not, I am not myself tempted to take a stance this year in favor of any of the candidates, Paul included. Liberty is lacking in the United States but I'd like to see it more closely bundled with reasonableness, moderation, and yes pragmatism; I am looking to advance on all fronts at the same time. Call me fussy if you wish.
I fear that Ron Paul is so taken with his own ideas that he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong; it is in that sense I consider him insufficiently intellectual. (Admittedly all the other candidates are too open to whatever is politically popular at the moment.) Openness also means ability to improvise, which is a critical leadership quality; many of the challenges of the presidency are the surprises, 9/11 being one example of many.
The papers are starting to write about petitions to be delegates for various candidates, and Ron Paul's name seems to be coming up quite a bit. Here's one (http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2007/12/27/opinion/opinion01.txt) from Daily Inter-Lake out of Montana:
Now, in an interesting turn of events, supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul are showing a sudden interest in precinct positions in order to gain a vote at the caucuses.
Paul is a libertarian-leaning, Constitution-touting Republican who appeals to voters who are fed up with the powers-that-be and the promises they make but rarely keep. He has been a fund-raising dynamo despite getting very little media attention, and as anyone who follows politics can tell you, he has never lost an Internet straw poll all year. His supporters are adamant, determined and giddily optimistic that they can make a difference.
So in Montana, Paul's supporters like Terry Frisch of Helena are jockeying to become precinct workers in order to gain one of those coveted 3,000 votes. Others are doing the same, and no one should count them out.
"Some people are concerned there is going to be a change in the power base, and they should be," said Paul's state coordinator David Hart.
And here's one (http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/local.aspx?articleid=27437&z..77) from The Chatanooga Times Free Press:
More than 100 Tennesseans picked up petitions to be delegates for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, at next September's Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, more than for any other presidential candidate, records show.
Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Rep. Paul's campaign, said the numbers reflect the enthusiasm of Paul supporters.
"Our supporters are energized more than in any other campaign," he said.
On Truthout.org, Scott Galindez is talking (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122607A.shtml) about Ron Paul and his chances as a Republican and an independent candidate:
OK, we have talked about the Preacher, the Prosecutor and the Venture Capitalist. Due to his recent fundraising success, it's time to talk about the Doctor. I took a lot of heat for saying Dennis Kucinich was in the race to influence the debate. Personally, I think that it is an honorable thing for candidates who have something to say but don't have the packaging needed to win, to get in and influence the debate. I think Dennis Kucinich and Doctor Ron Paul are influencing the debate on the war, and deserve praise for doing so.
Ron Paul has been an outspoken critic of the war since the beginning, and may be the only Republican candidate who can change the direction this country has taken and restore our reputation around the world.
Progressives would love to be choosing between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich next November, but would I be providing you with a service if I sold false hope? Doctor Paul has raised eyebrows with his recent fundraising strength, and there has even been some momentum in the polls. While his libertarian economic policies are acceptable to the GOP base, it's the social policies that the Christian right will never embrace. While the Doctor doesn't scare the Preacher or the other front-runners in the primary season, a third-party run by the Doctor would scare them the same way another Texan named Ross Perot did in 1992.
Whatever it takes, man.
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (12-27-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=341736013&Mytoken=2B6DD5B4-2E3A-49F9-A143E8792721C3D140307734)
Hello Freedomphiles! In today's Roundup, we'll start with Joseph Farah, the ridiculously mustachioed pundit from World Net Daily, a source I've debunked dozens of times for their blatant and intentional misrepresentation of fact, and not even concerning Ron Paul.
He comments (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59380) on Meet the Press and earmarks:
Ron Paul developed his reputation as a constitutional tax fighter and proponent of limited government through decades of voting "no."
But that hasn't stopped him from earmarking federal tax dollars for his district's own pet pork projects – to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars!
Paul defended his actions on "Meet the Press" in spin that would make Bill Clinton proud.
"I've never voted for an earmark in my life," he explained. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."
This is actually as ingenious as it is immoral.
I can't really blame Groucho for his comments, because Ron Paul's answer on the earmark issue was horrible and scatterbrained. As I said in yesterday's Roundup:
I was actually a little disappointed with Ron Paul's response to this question. This isn't the first time this has been mentioned, and he should have been prepared to answer the question. He should have said something like, "Look, I vote against taking the money in the first place, but once they've got it, it's my responsability to try and get as much of it back as possible." Simple. Effective.
Sheldon Richman agrees (http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-ron-paul-inconsistent-on-earmarks.html):
I believe there is no inconsistency here. Ron Paul says he votes against spending programs that in his view exceed the authority specified in the Constitution. (I'm taking him at his word, problems of constitutional interpretation aside.) If so, can he in good faith add earmarks to spending bills that would benefit his constituents?
Yes, he can. There is a difference between making choices at the rules-selection level and making choices within rules you are stuck with. In other words, it's one thing to try to channel flood-insurance money to your district, but quite another to vote to create or renew the program.
As Ron Paul pointed out on "Meet the Press," the government taxes people, then ladles out the money to particular groups. If one group of potential recipients doesn't get a particular appropriation, another one will. The result of not seeking or taking the money is not a cut in taxes and spending. So, as Ron Paul asked, why shouldn't people try to get some of their money back? Is it unlibertarian to accept a tax "refund" or Social Security? Must one tear up the checks (leaving the money in the U.S. Treasury)?
(...)
A similar principle applies to Ron Paul's answer about term limits. He told Tim Russert that one who favors mandatory term limits is not in any way obliged to impose terms limits unilaterally on himself. Again, it involves picking rules versus acting within a rules system. I don't like the designated-hitter rule, but if the rule is in effect and I am manager of a baseball team, my position on the rule does not oblige me to put my pitcher in the batting lineup. Similarly, because I think all congressmen should be term-limited, it doesn't follow that I think I alone should be term-limited. If only congressmen who believe in term limits are term-limited, the most statist congressmen will tend to become entrenched, which is the opposite of what term limits is intended to accomplish.
LewRockwell.com's Bob Murphy tackles (http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html) another part of the interview - the talk of Civil War and the absurd notion that without it, we'd still be a slaveholding country:
Here Dr. Paul has made a fascinating point. Even though every generation of American children is taught that the so-called Civil War – which is a poor title since the Southern states weren't fighting for control of the federal government – was necessary to free the slaves, no one ever learns the dates of analogous civil wars to free the slaves in Britain, Spain, Brazil, or other major participants in the slave trade. And for once, this isn't because of a US-centric curriculum, but because there were no bloody wars in other countries to end the scourge of slavery. (Another arguable exception, where massive violence ended institutional bondage, was the Haitian revolution.) As abolitionist campaigns changed public opinion, and modern capitalism swept the globe, the injustice and inefficiency of slavery became more and more manifest. Russert's claim that we would have slavery today in the United States were it not for the Emancipation Proclamation is as silly as labor leaders who think twelve-year-old children would pack the coal mines were it not for key legislation.
As I argue in my book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the conventional explanation has things exactly backwards. People think that "pure" capitalism entails buying and selling human beings as chattel, and that only farsighted government intervention could stop this crass practice. Yet on the contrary, slavery is inherently inefficient, and can only survive when propped up by government limitations on private property.
It would be easy (and correct) to declare, "The free market is all about the respect of private property rights, and so of course institutionalized bondage is incompatible with the free market." Yet for many people, that would be too easy; it would be an argument from definitions. So let us explore the more interesting question: What if, for some horrible reason, 90 percent of the people in a society had all of the guns and wealth, and thought it perfectly fine to treat the other 10 percent as their personal property? Would it take government action to alter this miserable state of affairs?
It's a good read, and has some quotes from top economists that prove a point I've been trying to make for years now - hiring workers for a fee is an infinitely more efficient means of maintianing labor that slavery.
And the Baraboo News Republic are scratching (http://www.wiscnews.com/bnr/opinion/264039) their collective heads about the interview and its aftermath:
GOP candidate Ron Paul was on Meet the Press on Sunday. He explained his views that the income tax should be abolished, that U.S. troops should be brought home immediately from Iraq, and that Abraham Lincoln was a warmonger. The next morning Ron Paul jumped fourteen points in South Carolina and nobody in the press could figure out why.
I guess liberty sells better than you Statists think.
Libertarian writer Gary Wood talks (http://www.nolanchart.com/article732.html) about Ron Paul's radicalism on The Nolan Chart:
In the last Republican debate a question was asked of each candidate what New Year's Resolution they would encourage one of the other candidates to set for themselves. His radical answer was, "My advice would be to reread the oath of office, take it seriously, obey the constitution. We can -- we are well defended against all enemies foreign. We should be much more careful about defending against the enemies domestic."
It is easy for opponents to point to Dr. Paul's positions and claim he is radical and not in touch with mainstream America due to his focus on reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government to that which is granted in the U.S. Constitution. It is easy to call him radical when he speaks of ways to end the IRS and replace it with nothing. It is easy to confuse his foreign policy position of non-intervention as being somehow tied to isolationism or pacifism when neither is at all connected to Thomas Jefferson's and the founders' structure of non-intervention.
It is easy to scoff at him for wanting to end the Department of Education, even easier still to make a false claim he therefore must be against public education, which is far from the truth of his belief public education is better handled from the home, community and State levels rather than the inept ability of a Federal Bureaucracy. It is too easy to label his views radical and not in the mainstream since most don't study in-depth what our U.S. Constitution truly allows for the Federal Government and many don't understand the personal responsibilities our nation was founded upon. His opponents are hoping these labels will be enough for you to cast your vote away from Ron Paul but just what is radical and not mainstream?
He also included a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXBjwQqdqI4
PR-USA.net reports (http://www.pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54203&Itemid=9) about how a show dedicated to Hillary suddenly jumped tracks and became about Ron Paul:
Camelot Castle causes Ron Paul campaign to hijack news show. In a news program initially presented to question whether or not Hillary Clinton might or might not win the US presidency, British and US experts in media and US politics, when gathered, found themselves discussing and giving considerable airtime to the merits of Ron Paul's campaign and agreed that Ron Paul's campaign has far more reach than the media might have imagined. Most importantly that Ron Paul's nomination would indeed split the Democratic vote.
As Professor Toni Michelle Travis of George Mason University stated.
"Ron Paul can split the democratic vote."
As the only candidate running that will bring the troops home immediately and who will manage the economy so that the US dollar will recover and not result in long term economic depression due to mismanagement of federal debt, Ron Paul's credibility is rising in the media.
The news program was presented by the internationally recognised and acclaimed celebrity news journalist Yvonne Ridley whose program "The Agenda" had decided to feature and showcase a song dedicated to Ron Paul by John Mappin - released by Camelot Castle in England, as part of the show. The song - Inner Truth - had been released on U Tube two days before the show and had shot to number one on U Tube in Britain the very next next day.
And here's Mappin's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQpeldFJG_Y
The Washington Post is talking (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2007/12/new_paul_clinton_spots_in_nh_i.html?hpid=news-col-blog)about a new ad being run in New Hampshire and Iowa:
Ron Paul's out with a new TV ad, ''Defender of Freedom," pitching his conservative record in his long-shot bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
The ad starts with an image of young Paul posing during his flight surgeon days in the Air Force. Patriotic music booms, a flag waves and viewers get a quick snapshot of Paul at different points in his career -- and then a quick message about his congressional record.
Stressing his pro-life platform, the announcer says, "Paul delivered over 4,000 babies," making him a "defender of life." And his position against taxes: "Paul never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget." And finally his position on gun control: Paul "never voted to restrict gun rights."
Paul's campaign chairman Kent Snyer says the ad "is about bringing Dr. Paul's message of freedom, peace and prosperity to potential voters."
And here's that video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AmY-fW3gdc
Since I'm on this video kick, I want to share with you something that had been saved on my DVR since Sunday, but that I didn't get to watch until last night. Hands down, my favorite political Sunday show is The McLaughlin Group. I absolutely love it. This last Sunday, they had part one of their year end awards, and surprisingly, Ron Paul cleaned up.
Eleanor "Rodham" Clift proclaimed Dr Paul "Capitalist of the Year" for his internet fundraising prowess. Clarence Page gave him "Most Charismatic," but I think he was really talking about us. Pat Buchanan awarded "Most Original Thinker" to Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) for the novel idea that Congress should have to formally declare war before we can attack Iran, and then conceeded that the resolution was co-sponsored by Ron Paul.
But the big moment was when John McLaughlin awarded Ron Paul "Person of the Year," saying, "he injected the Presidential campaign with a dose of truth serum. Paul's straight talk on Iraq, and his straight talk on the Constitution, as Buchanan pointed out, and the limits of government have made him an Internet phemonema. In fact, Paul has become an independent force in the nation's life."
It was so amazing, my wife and I high-fived! Here, see it for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys0HgHLpy98
American Statesman have put out their year-end "Who wudda thunk it?" (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/12/27/1227selby.html)column, and right at the top is Ron Paul:
[Who wudda thunk] that U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Lake Jackson would prove the Texas politician with the most active base. Paul, seeking both re-election and the GOP presidential nomination next year, stirred interest with his libertarian message, though he's struggling to bust single digits in GOP voter polls. Paul raised record millions of dollars via the Internet, attracting true believers aplenty. In Central Texas, Ron Paul signs appear to outnumber those saying Keep Austin Weird.
You know, I've been signing petitions and sending letters asking him to run for years now, but even I never thought he'd have had this big an impact.
Tyler Cowen is evaluating (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/12/ron-paul-as-pre.html) Dr Paul on Marginal Revolution:
Many libertarians see the Paul candidacy as their chance to have an impact and they may well be right. There is also no one else for them to support. But, raw milk or not, I am not myself tempted to take a stance this year in favor of any of the candidates, Paul included. Liberty is lacking in the United States but I'd like to see it more closely bundled with reasonableness, moderation, and yes pragmatism; I am looking to advance on all fronts at the same time. Call me fussy if you wish.
I fear that Ron Paul is so taken with his own ideas that he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong; it is in that sense I consider him insufficiently intellectual. (Admittedly all the other candidates are too open to whatever is politically popular at the moment.) Openness also means ability to improvise, which is a critical leadership quality; many of the challenges of the presidency are the surprises, 9/11 being one example of many.
The papers are starting to write about petitions to be delegates for various candidates, and Ron Paul's name seems to be coming up quite a bit. Here's one (http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2007/12/27/opinion/opinion01.txt) from Daily Inter-Lake out of Montana:
Now, in an interesting turn of events, supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul are showing a sudden interest in precinct positions in order to gain a vote at the caucuses.
Paul is a libertarian-leaning, Constitution-touting Republican who appeals to voters who are fed up with the powers-that-be and the promises they make but rarely keep. He has been a fund-raising dynamo despite getting very little media attention, and as anyone who follows politics can tell you, he has never lost an Internet straw poll all year. His supporters are adamant, determined and giddily optimistic that they can make a difference.
So in Montana, Paul's supporters like Terry Frisch of Helena are jockeying to become precinct workers in order to gain one of those coveted 3,000 votes. Others are doing the same, and no one should count them out.
"Some people are concerned there is going to be a change in the power base, and they should be," said Paul's state coordinator David Hart.
And here's one (http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/local.aspx?articleid=27437&z..77) from The Chatanooga Times Free Press:
More than 100 Tennesseans picked up petitions to be delegates for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, at next September's Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, more than for any other presidential candidate, records show.
Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Rep. Paul's campaign, said the numbers reflect the enthusiasm of Paul supporters.
"Our supporters are energized more than in any other campaign," he said.
On Truthout.org, Scott Galindez is talking (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122607A.shtml) about Ron Paul and his chances as a Republican and an independent candidate:
OK, we have talked about the Preacher, the Prosecutor and the Venture Capitalist. Due to his recent fundraising success, it's time to talk about the Doctor. I took a lot of heat for saying Dennis Kucinich was in the race to influence the debate. Personally, I think that it is an honorable thing for candidates who have something to say but don't have the packaging needed to win, to get in and influence the debate. I think Dennis Kucinich and Doctor Ron Paul are influencing the debate on the war, and deserve praise for doing so.
Ron Paul has been an outspoken critic of the war since the beginning, and may be the only Republican candidate who can change the direction this country has taken and restore our reputation around the world.
Progressives would love to be choosing between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich next November, but would I be providing you with a service if I sold false hope? Doctor Paul has raised eyebrows with his recent fundraising strength, and there has even been some momentum in the polls. While his libertarian economic policies are acceptable to the GOP base, it's the social policies that the Christian right will never embrace. While the Doctor doesn't scare the Preacher or the other front-runners in the primary season, a third-party run by the Doctor would scare them the same way another Texan named Ross Perot did in 1992.
Whatever it takes, man.
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg