RSDavis
12-31-2007, 01:04 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (12-31-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=342327182&Mytoken=F86E1EA0-267F-4F9D-934B45812C11F4EA119107588)
Hello Freedomphiles! So, it seems as if Ron Paul is being snubbed for a Fox News debate. The Baltimore Sun reports (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_outfoxed.html):
Rep. Ron Paul and supporters of his presidential bid are in an uproar over what they believe is his exclusion from a televised debate on Jan. 6, two days before the New Hampshire primary.
While campaigning in the Granite State on Saturday, Paul called Fox News, one of the debate's supposed sponsors, "scared of me." They "don't want my message to get out, but it will," according to The Boston Globe's Primary Source blog.
"They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."
Free for All also reported (http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003137.php) the story:
That's what Fox News is saying to the Ron Paul campaign regarding the planned debate on January 6th (two days before the New Hampshire primary). Only the top five candidates are invited, apparently. But who *are* the top five candidates?
Recent polls suggest there is great fluctuation in preference among early primary voters. Certainly, Ron Paul's recent fundraising (Can anyone say $19 million?) and his iconic message should earn him a seat among the anointed. Perhaps he has the wrong message?
To ensure fairness, CNN, or another major network could offer Ron Paul an hour to talk about the war and other issues on which he has major disagreements with the other candidates.
But then there was some confusion. Was there really a debate happening? If so, was Ron Paul snubbed, or did his campaign forget to respond. The Baltimore Sun clears it up (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_indeed_outfoxed_for_n.html):
Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire State Republican Committee, confirmed Sunday evening to the Tribune that, yes, there will be a televised Fox News presidential candidate forum on Jan. 6, and yes, Rep. Ron Paul was not invited when the other candidates were a week or so ago.
"My understanding is that five candidates to that point had been offered spots but the event is still coming together," Cullen said.
The candidates invited to the forum/debate – whatever you want to call it – will be Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. Fred Thompson.
Cullen said the event, which is set to take place two days before the New Hampshire primary, will be held in the afternoon or evening at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H. When asked if Fox News, which is co-sponsoring the debate with the NH party, planned to invite Paul later, Cullen said he didn't know.
"It's really premature. Just the other day candidates started to accept invitations."
Premature? He should have been invited in the first place, douchebag.
LewRockwell.com is defending (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html) Ron Paul and earmarks:
"Congressman, I have tremendous respect for you," the IHS alum averred, "but I was shocked to read in a Reason Magazine profile that you actually stuff earmarks into appropriation bills just like every other member of Congress and I thought you were different, sir, ah, you of course vote against the bill, but I was curious how you could justify stuffing earmarks just like every other member of Congress" (see here at 4:25). Dr. Paul's response is clear and convincing, but I'd like to go into more depth here. The issue is complicated and while earmark critics have some reasonable points, Dr. Paul's earmarking is ultimately not at odds with his philosophy.
As Paul notes in his answer, cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren't earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer's money is spent. This point cannot be stressed enough because even the writers at the Wall Street Journal do not understand it. After quoting a spokesman from Paul's office reminding them that earmarks do not directly increase spending, the WSJ reports, "On the other hand, good libertarians should want to start cutting somewhere." Didn't Paul's office just point out that cutting earmarks does not cut spending? Some argue that earmarks can indirectly increase spending by encouraging corruption – this problem will be dealt with below – but in this passage the WSJ seems to imply that adding earmarks directly increases spending. After writing that good libertarians should start cutting somewhere, they continue:
The problem with earmarking is that each year the habit grows by leaps and bounds so that it now represents real money. It is also a gateway to political corruption – a la Duke Cunningham, and other Congressmen currently under investigation for trading favors for earmarks. [Emphasis added]
By writing "it is also," the writers imply that in addition to increasing spending, earmarks encourage corruption rather than the more coherent argument that earmarks increase spending by encouraging corruption.
The Houston Chronicle is writing (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5410952.html)about the blimp:
ABOARD THE RON PAUL BLIMP — The big white airship heralding the "Ron Paul Revolution" dips and glides over downtown Baltimore, providing sky-high advertising for the maverick presidential contender from Texas.
Paul's name is bannered on both sides of the 190-foot-long flying billboard. Inside the blimp's unheated cabin, the two young men most responsible for making the once-obscure Lake Jackson congressman into an Internet phenomenon are busy at work.
Elijah Lynn, 26, a locksmith and security expert from Colorado, is providing videostreams for the Republican candidate's fans on the ground and out in cyberspace. Trevor Lyman, 37, a music promoter from Florida, is trying to chart the next day's course.
The two masterminds behind this unorthodox campaign tool are clearly excited about their venture despite dealing with setbacks such as bad weather that prevented their flying to New Hampshire, and federal rules that stymied their plans to fly over the nation's capital.
The Associated Press is writing (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jFYJjtgWK0U6YFzgEdA_1eB2dqLgD8TSA54O2) about Paul's chances in Montana:
Supporters of long-shot presidential hopeful Ron Paul say the Montana Republican Party's quirky caucus rules could create an opening for their candidate that other states don't offer.
Under the "closed caucus" system recently adopted by the Montana GOP, voting in the Feb. 5 caucus will be limited to about 3,000 Republicans who hold party posts, such as members of Congress, statewide officeholders and precinct captains. That includes hundreds of volunteer precinct posts that have long been vacant and that some candidates are now scrambling to fill with supporters.
At least three presidential candidates — former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Paul, a Texas congressman — are organizing in the state. A fourth candidate, John McCain, recently hired a Montana campaign chair.
The Wall Street Journal is talking (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119906159792258573.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) about Ron Paul's 4th Quarter haul:
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul may lag behind in public-opinion polls. But after raising about $19 million for the final three months of the year, he is now among his party's front-runners in the race for campaign cash.
When the books close on the year's fourth quarter today, the plain-spoken antiwar Texas congressman will have posted one of the best fund-raising periods of any Republican presidential candidate this year.
To be sure, other Republican candidates hadn't disclosed their fourth-quarter fund-raising figures as of yesterday. But to date, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has issued a better three-month report, and just once: $20.8 million in the first quarter, not counting loans the former venture capitalist made to his campaign.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is writing (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/12/31/caucuspaul_1230.html) about Paul's excited Iowa supporters:
The polls say one thing. The Pauls say another.
Despite surveys indicating a Ron Paul presidency is about as likely as a balmy January day in Iowa, young supporters who have flocked to his campaign remain upbeat as Thursday's Iowa caucuses approach...
"Do I expect him to be president? I think so," said John Zambenini, a 22-year-old Dayton, Ohio native who became the campaign's Iowa spokesman in October, a month after he first heard the name Ron Paul. "I think the more Americans know about Ron Paul they will realize we cannot afford not to have him as president."
Paul's Iowa campaign claims more than 300 volunteers from 39 states and four foreign countries. Most are bivouacked at seven camps around the state and driven into towns for door-to-door campaigning.
"It's like herding cats," said Jeff Frazee, a Houston native and Texas A&M graduate who is Paul's national youth coordinator.
The Iowa Independent has Paul coming in third (http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1733)there:
Rival campaigns are beginning to nervously speculate that Paul will finish in the top three on January 3. Paul broke double digits in at least two polls for the first time this week and he seems particularly strong in areas of the state where the media has less of an impact on political deliberations -- especially in rural northwest and southern Iowa. Check out a Ron Paul supporters' websites and you'll see detailed discussions about caucus rules and strategy. The Paulites are more ready for caucus night than most observers realize.
Lucia Bill of Northstar Writer's Group has some New Year's Resolutions (http://www.northstarwriters.com/lb090.htm)for Ron Paul and the gang:
Soon enough the candidates will have to commit to one partner to share the White House with. The keenest enemies may soon become bedfellows, as careful strategizing will determine whom each nominee will choose. There is much speculation about the potential cooperation between Paul and John Edwards, both proud of their comparatively independent mindsets. However, courtesy of the 12th Amendment, all the bloggers sick of party lines and starved for a r-LOVE-ution are in for disappointment.
This one made me smile - a lot. You say Ron Paul supporters are unconventional? They'll march anywhere? How about nowhere? The Orange County Register reports (http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-warcraft1230.artdec30,0,2422833.story):
Ron Paul supporters are using forums and a website to organize a New Year's Day march in the World of Warcraft computer game in support of the Republican presidential hopeful.
The march is to take place in Azeroth, a kingdom in the mythical world of the online game made by Blizzard Entertainment in Irvine, Calif. More than 9 million players pay a subscription fee to play the multiplayer game.
The rally will be led from Ironforge to Stormwind by a group of players (a "guild") named "RP Revolution." Organizers used an online discussion board at ronpaulforums.com Wednesday to spread the message.
That's so cool. Nerds of the world - UNITE! I love it. Trolls and paladins for Paul.
The Houston Chronicle thinks (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5409849.html) Paul is going to be a factor:
The wild card in the race may well be U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, an anti-war, anti-government maverick who has banked more campaign cash than any other candidate in the GOP field.
The muddled situation increases the likelihood that Texas, with its March 4 primary, could play a role in selecting the GOP nominee. Lone Star voters are less likely to influence the Democratic contest, unless three candidates battle for the next two months without one emerging as a clear choice.
Blog Critics Magazine is talking (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/30/031015.php) about Paul's chances in New Hampshire:
A lot of folks are pinning their hopes for a great renewal in American politics on Ron Paul and his 'revolution.' Pollsters and pundits don't give Paul much of a chance when it comes to winning the Republican nomination, despite the unquenchable enthusiasm of his supporters. Their optimism tells them that all the polls and predictions are wrong and that Paul will surprise the world and come from nowhere and win primary after primary and seize the nomination by storm, and then be unbeatable with bipartisan support in the general election. Sure it's mostly pure fantasy, but it's a seductively appealing fantasy.
There's no question that the Paul campaign has offered some surprises. Their fundraising accomplishments are impressive, with a record setting one-day total for their 'Tea Party' event on December 16th, and their overall fundraising has been surprisingly strong — not on the level of the top three contenders, but far beyond the other 2nd tier candidates. With momentum building they might have as much to spend in the first quarter of the new year as most of the top candidates, having already almost reached a fundraising target for this quarter of $20 million. They've also got a very nice blimp.
Nonetheless, whether they have the manpower or financial resources to pull off a shocking primary coup seems doubtful, with one possible exception. I wouldn't hold out much hope for the Iowa Caucus on January 3rd, though some polls have Paul at a surprisingly respectable 10%. If Paul is going to pull off a surprise in any of the key early primaries, I think it might be possible in New Hampshire less than a week later on the 8th.
The Wall Street Journal also thinks (http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110011060) Ron Paul could surprise many in New Hampshire:
Many Republican operatives in New Hampshire, even those affiliated with other campaigns, think Mr. Paul is headed for an impressive, double-digit performance. That he has been polling in the high single digits for months is discounted, because the polls may be missing the depth of his support.
Why? For starters, he appears to be drawing new voters. Polls that screen for "likely" voters might screen out many Paul supporters who haven't voted often, or at all, before. Many of Mr. Paul's supporters appear to be first-time voters. They will be able to cast their ballots because New Hampshire allows them to register and vote on the day of an election.
Even Mr. Paul's New Hampshire spokesman, Kate Rick, is an unlikely political activist. She grew up in a political family in Washington, D.C. and says "I swore I would never work in politics." She changed her mind only after finding Mr. Paul, a candidate she says she can finally believe in. "Most people I know in the grass roots are like that," she said. "My closest friends have never voted before, and they're die-hard Paul people now."
The New Hampshire Union Leader reported (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul+woos+undecided+voters+a t+landmark+city+restaurant&articleId=f4fb4473-3e5f-4efb-9f05-447f320dc58e) on a Paul campaign stop at a historic restaurant:
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul greeted people yesterday morning at the Red Arrow Diner, looking for undecided voters with just over a week to go before the first presidential primary.
Dressed in blue jeans and a wool sweater, Paul worked his way down the lunch counter introducing himself and shaking hands before settling in for some coffee and toast of his own.
Outside the downtown landmark, about 30 or 35 supporters gathered holding signs and waiting for a word from the candidate along with an autograph and picture.
Many of the supporters were members of the Operation Live Free or Die group who have come from around the country to help the Paul campaign in the final days before the primary.
Libertarian John Armstrong writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article819.html) over at The Nolan Chart
We are just a few days from Iowa now. The video at the link below is the best I've seen. I stumbled across it tonight and had to share. It is on youtube, but in a lot of inaccessible pieces. If you know anyone in Iowa, if you have an undecided friend, if you want to see a man speak from the soul, one who understands what America is supposed to be, and what we need to do to get there, watch this video. If you think "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" was good: watch this video and forward this link to your friends.
I guess the Federal Government didn't really care when Ron Paul made speeches like this on the House Floor--they knew that nobody was paying attention. They didn't care when he started winning text message and internet polls--those things are simply the domain of the young, and they don't vote. They didn't care when he broke fundraising records--the mainstream media could just not report it or say things like "good for him" as if they were talking about a poor kid who just got into a marginal state school while they're kid was on the way to the Ivies. They didn't care about having him on debates (at least at first) because nobody watches primary debtes after all; plus, he isn't young, photogenic, or silver-tongued.
And no need to go find the link. Here's the video:
Google Video Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048&q=ron+paul+patriotism&total=52&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)
Good stuff. The Concord Monitor has a story (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071230/NEWS01/712300369) about Ron Paul, the Constitution, and whether Constitutional government is a pipe-dream, although they didn't really put it that way:
Ron Paul won the support of about half of the undecided voters gathered in a Manchester house yesterday, when he spoke about how he could save hundreds of millions of dollars by scaling back America's overseas empire. But many left with concerns that Paul lacked the leadership ability necessary to work with Congress.
The Republican congressman from Texas opened by saying that he had a "very high respect for the Constitution" that is absent in a federal government with too much power.
"For instance, today we have the federal government running our educational system," Paul said. "The federal government runs our medical system. The federal government runs the welfare state. The federal government has unconstitutionally taken over total control, creating money out of thin air. The monetary system has been undermined, and we also have a foreign policy never designed by the Constitution, or by the founders. The founders advised against exactly what we are doing today."
NewJersey.com is writing (http://www.nj.com/news/gloucester/local/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1199005816150510.xml&coll=8) about a local meetup group:
In November, Ron Brittin Republican chairman for Mantua Township formed the Gloucester County Ron Paul 2008 Meet-up, branching off of the regional group in Cherry Hill.
"I originally joined up with the Cherry Hill group for Dr. Paul but realized we needed to do things locally," said Brittin. "Right now our online group has 24 members, but we've had many people come out to our meetings that are not signed up, so it's difficult to give a number."
Brittin said the group's immediate goal is to win the New Jersey primary and get delegates into the convention. He said that at this point there is no official Ron Paul campaign in New Jersey, so local groups are doing what they can.
"There are probably a thousand reasons we support Dr. Paul," said Brittin. "We're for a smaller government, less government spending, a sound monetary policy and non-intervention in foreign affairs. This campaign needs to be done on the streets because the media has not been giving him much attention."
Newsweek's blog has an interesting analysis (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/12/23/ron-paul-is-the-first-long-tail-candidate-why-he-won-t-be-the-last.aspx)about "long tail candidates." If you don't know what that means, let me help. It's an economic term, and refers specifically to how the internet and other technology has led to more viable alternative markets, allowing producers to go to more niche markets:
Popularized by Wired editor Chris Anderson, the long tail is premised on the idea that before the Web, it wasn't always easy to find a deep selection of, say, literary fiction at the local bookstore beyond the few best sellers the big publishers were pushing. Mass culture still dominates, but retailers now realize they can also make money by selling an ever-expanding selection of less-popular niche products from the "long tail" of the culture to smaller numbers of people. It's the difference between Amazon.com's selling a million copies of "The Da Vinci Code," or selling just five copies each of 200,000 backlist titles. Either way, it moves a million books.
The author, Andrew Romano, thinks Ron Paul is the first - but not the last - long-tail candidate:
This idea is now playing a part in our politics, where Paul's recent rise reflects the same dynamics. In 1988 his libertarian message—reduce government at home, resist military meddling abroad, restore the gold standard—went unheard. Today, it's spreading quickly online and connecting activists across the country, a few people at a time. Paul may still be the longest of long shots. But he's a long shot who can lure 5,000 supporters to his rallies and more than triple his entire '88 war chest in a single $6.6 million day. That's a whole new level of high-passion, low-polling politics—and in a long-tail world, others are bound to follow. "Ron Paul is the harbinger," says Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of the libertarian magazine Reason. "Just as the major entertainment companies are producing far more varied and individualized fare, I think we're going to see more and more political candidates who are more interesting in and of themselves but deliver smaller and smaller numbers."
Over the decades, Americans have become increasingly unhappy about having to cram themselves into one of two "big box" parties. Seven of the last 10 elections were won with less than 51 percent of the vote; in three of the last four, no candidate won a majority. Today, two thirds of U.S. adults (and a full three quarters of 18- to 30-year olds) say they would consider voting for an independent candidate in the next election. The rise of Howard Dean (another anti-establishment Web phenom) and the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis mirrored this breakdown of consensus; 2008's fragmented Republican field is further proof. "The long tail is not the political center," economist Arnold Kling has said. "It is not a third party waiting to form. It is not a coalition. It is not a 'silent majority' of either the right or left. It is simply every variety of political belief that does not fit within the two major parties." As the Web allows niche voters to form communities, raise money and get heard, it's inevitable that the major-party machines will clash with—and ultimately accommodate—the individualized constituencies they're struggling to serve.
Unlike their predecessors, the next generation of niche politicians won't necessarily choose the third-party route. Instead, tomorrow's most successful narrowcasters will likely run as major-party candidates in the primaries, where widely seen debates and easy ballot access will bring exposure and credibility. (Think Tom Tancredo.) "You will get further inside the primaries than you will ever get as a third-party candidate," says Micah Sifry, author of "Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America" and cofounder of TechPresident.com, a site that tracks online politics. Don't expect one of these Facebook-friendly insurgents to move into the White House any time soon. America is still a majority-rule, winner-take-all country—online and off. But as they proliferate, their niche concerns and vocal supporters will demand unprecedented attention.
Indeed. Great analysis. On the Small Government Blog, RNoval wrote a stream-of-consciousness endorsement (http://www.smallgov.org/?p=441) of Ron Paul. So, if you're a Faulkner fan, this essay is for you:
As far as major party candidates go, I can hardly expect total agreement. But when it comes to Paul, I find myself disagreeing significantly only on a couple of issues.
I've been asked, "so is Ron Paul your man?" "No" I replied, "…but he's my Republican."
And finally, a reader asked me what is Ron Paul's position on the environment. LewRockwell.com responds (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/masterjohn3.html):
Many people within the libertarian community are skeptical about the science behind global warming. I happen to think the threat of global warming is of uncertain magnitude but of real concern. Most people who share my concern are eager for the government to step in and regulate carbon emissions, and for this reason find it difficult to bring themselves to support Ron Paul's presidential campaign, fearing that a Paul administration would stand back and do nothing to combat global warming.
But this is hardly the case. In fact, a Paul presidency would be a great asset to anyone concerned about global warming. This may seem counter-intuitive at first, but Ron Paul is the one candidate who offers a serious promise to stop the governmental policies that threaten to wipe out our most important solution to the problem – grass-farming.
Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide can be reduced in two ways: the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere can be reduced, and the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere in oceans, soils, plant and animal life, and other "carbon sinks" can be increased. Reducing carbon emissions only slows the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 while increasing carbon sequestration causes reductions in atmospheric CO2 that take effect immediately.
Have a great, safe night, and I'll see you next year!!
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (12-31-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=342327182&Mytoken=F86E1EA0-267F-4F9D-934B45812C11F4EA119107588)
Hello Freedomphiles! So, it seems as if Ron Paul is being snubbed for a Fox News debate. The Baltimore Sun reports (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_outfoxed.html):
Rep. Ron Paul and supporters of his presidential bid are in an uproar over what they believe is his exclusion from a televised debate on Jan. 6, two days before the New Hampshire primary.
While campaigning in the Granite State on Saturday, Paul called Fox News, one of the debate's supposed sponsors, "scared of me." They "don't want my message to get out, but it will," according to The Boston Globe's Primary Source blog.
"They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."
Free for All also reported (http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003137.php) the story:
That's what Fox News is saying to the Ron Paul campaign regarding the planned debate on January 6th (two days before the New Hampshire primary). Only the top five candidates are invited, apparently. But who *are* the top five candidates?
Recent polls suggest there is great fluctuation in preference among early primary voters. Certainly, Ron Paul's recent fundraising (Can anyone say $19 million?) and his iconic message should earn him a seat among the anointed. Perhaps he has the wrong message?
To ensure fairness, CNN, or another major network could offer Ron Paul an hour to talk about the war and other issues on which he has major disagreements with the other candidates.
But then there was some confusion. Was there really a debate happening? If so, was Ron Paul snubbed, or did his campaign forget to respond. The Baltimore Sun clears it up (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_indeed_outfoxed_for_n.html):
Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire State Republican Committee, confirmed Sunday evening to the Tribune that, yes, there will be a televised Fox News presidential candidate forum on Jan. 6, and yes, Rep. Ron Paul was not invited when the other candidates were a week or so ago.
"My understanding is that five candidates to that point had been offered spots but the event is still coming together," Cullen said.
The candidates invited to the forum/debate – whatever you want to call it – will be Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. Fred Thompson.
Cullen said the event, which is set to take place two days before the New Hampshire primary, will be held in the afternoon or evening at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H. When asked if Fox News, which is co-sponsoring the debate with the NH party, planned to invite Paul later, Cullen said he didn't know.
"It's really premature. Just the other day candidates started to accept invitations."
Premature? He should have been invited in the first place, douchebag.
LewRockwell.com is defending (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html) Ron Paul and earmarks:
"Congressman, I have tremendous respect for you," the IHS alum averred, "but I was shocked to read in a Reason Magazine profile that you actually stuff earmarks into appropriation bills just like every other member of Congress and I thought you were different, sir, ah, you of course vote against the bill, but I was curious how you could justify stuffing earmarks just like every other member of Congress" (see here at 4:25). Dr. Paul's response is clear and convincing, but I'd like to go into more depth here. The issue is complicated and while earmark critics have some reasonable points, Dr. Paul's earmarking is ultimately not at odds with his philosophy.
As Paul notes in his answer, cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren't earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer's money is spent. This point cannot be stressed enough because even the writers at the Wall Street Journal do not understand it. After quoting a spokesman from Paul's office reminding them that earmarks do not directly increase spending, the WSJ reports, "On the other hand, good libertarians should want to start cutting somewhere." Didn't Paul's office just point out that cutting earmarks does not cut spending? Some argue that earmarks can indirectly increase spending by encouraging corruption – this problem will be dealt with below – but in this passage the WSJ seems to imply that adding earmarks directly increases spending. After writing that good libertarians should start cutting somewhere, they continue:
The problem with earmarking is that each year the habit grows by leaps and bounds so that it now represents real money. It is also a gateway to political corruption – a la Duke Cunningham, and other Congressmen currently under investigation for trading favors for earmarks. [Emphasis added]
By writing "it is also," the writers imply that in addition to increasing spending, earmarks encourage corruption rather than the more coherent argument that earmarks increase spending by encouraging corruption.
The Houston Chronicle is writing (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5410952.html)about the blimp:
ABOARD THE RON PAUL BLIMP — The big white airship heralding the "Ron Paul Revolution" dips and glides over downtown Baltimore, providing sky-high advertising for the maverick presidential contender from Texas.
Paul's name is bannered on both sides of the 190-foot-long flying billboard. Inside the blimp's unheated cabin, the two young men most responsible for making the once-obscure Lake Jackson congressman into an Internet phenomenon are busy at work.
Elijah Lynn, 26, a locksmith and security expert from Colorado, is providing videostreams for the Republican candidate's fans on the ground and out in cyberspace. Trevor Lyman, 37, a music promoter from Florida, is trying to chart the next day's course.
The two masterminds behind this unorthodox campaign tool are clearly excited about their venture despite dealing with setbacks such as bad weather that prevented their flying to New Hampshire, and federal rules that stymied their plans to fly over the nation's capital.
The Associated Press is writing (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jFYJjtgWK0U6YFzgEdA_1eB2dqLgD8TSA54O2) about Paul's chances in Montana:
Supporters of long-shot presidential hopeful Ron Paul say the Montana Republican Party's quirky caucus rules could create an opening for their candidate that other states don't offer.
Under the "closed caucus" system recently adopted by the Montana GOP, voting in the Feb. 5 caucus will be limited to about 3,000 Republicans who hold party posts, such as members of Congress, statewide officeholders and precinct captains. That includes hundreds of volunteer precinct posts that have long been vacant and that some candidates are now scrambling to fill with supporters.
At least three presidential candidates — former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Paul, a Texas congressman — are organizing in the state. A fourth candidate, John McCain, recently hired a Montana campaign chair.
The Wall Street Journal is talking (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119906159792258573.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) about Ron Paul's 4th Quarter haul:
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul may lag behind in public-opinion polls. But after raising about $19 million for the final three months of the year, he is now among his party's front-runners in the race for campaign cash.
When the books close on the year's fourth quarter today, the plain-spoken antiwar Texas congressman will have posted one of the best fund-raising periods of any Republican presidential candidate this year.
To be sure, other Republican candidates hadn't disclosed their fourth-quarter fund-raising figures as of yesterday. But to date, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has issued a better three-month report, and just once: $20.8 million in the first quarter, not counting loans the former venture capitalist made to his campaign.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is writing (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/12/31/caucuspaul_1230.html) about Paul's excited Iowa supporters:
The polls say one thing. The Pauls say another.
Despite surveys indicating a Ron Paul presidency is about as likely as a balmy January day in Iowa, young supporters who have flocked to his campaign remain upbeat as Thursday's Iowa caucuses approach...
"Do I expect him to be president? I think so," said John Zambenini, a 22-year-old Dayton, Ohio native who became the campaign's Iowa spokesman in October, a month after he first heard the name Ron Paul. "I think the more Americans know about Ron Paul they will realize we cannot afford not to have him as president."
Paul's Iowa campaign claims more than 300 volunteers from 39 states and four foreign countries. Most are bivouacked at seven camps around the state and driven into towns for door-to-door campaigning.
"It's like herding cats," said Jeff Frazee, a Houston native and Texas A&M graduate who is Paul's national youth coordinator.
The Iowa Independent has Paul coming in third (http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1733)there:
Rival campaigns are beginning to nervously speculate that Paul will finish in the top three on January 3. Paul broke double digits in at least two polls for the first time this week and he seems particularly strong in areas of the state where the media has less of an impact on political deliberations -- especially in rural northwest and southern Iowa. Check out a Ron Paul supporters' websites and you'll see detailed discussions about caucus rules and strategy. The Paulites are more ready for caucus night than most observers realize.
Lucia Bill of Northstar Writer's Group has some New Year's Resolutions (http://www.northstarwriters.com/lb090.htm)for Ron Paul and the gang:
Soon enough the candidates will have to commit to one partner to share the White House with. The keenest enemies may soon become bedfellows, as careful strategizing will determine whom each nominee will choose. There is much speculation about the potential cooperation between Paul and John Edwards, both proud of their comparatively independent mindsets. However, courtesy of the 12th Amendment, all the bloggers sick of party lines and starved for a r-LOVE-ution are in for disappointment.
This one made me smile - a lot. You say Ron Paul supporters are unconventional? They'll march anywhere? How about nowhere? The Orange County Register reports (http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-warcraft1230.artdec30,0,2422833.story):
Ron Paul supporters are using forums and a website to organize a New Year's Day march in the World of Warcraft computer game in support of the Republican presidential hopeful.
The march is to take place in Azeroth, a kingdom in the mythical world of the online game made by Blizzard Entertainment in Irvine, Calif. More than 9 million players pay a subscription fee to play the multiplayer game.
The rally will be led from Ironforge to Stormwind by a group of players (a "guild") named "RP Revolution." Organizers used an online discussion board at ronpaulforums.com Wednesday to spread the message.
That's so cool. Nerds of the world - UNITE! I love it. Trolls and paladins for Paul.
The Houston Chronicle thinks (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5409849.html) Paul is going to be a factor:
The wild card in the race may well be U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, an anti-war, anti-government maverick who has banked more campaign cash than any other candidate in the GOP field.
The muddled situation increases the likelihood that Texas, with its March 4 primary, could play a role in selecting the GOP nominee. Lone Star voters are less likely to influence the Democratic contest, unless three candidates battle for the next two months without one emerging as a clear choice.
Blog Critics Magazine is talking (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/30/031015.php) about Paul's chances in New Hampshire:
A lot of folks are pinning their hopes for a great renewal in American politics on Ron Paul and his 'revolution.' Pollsters and pundits don't give Paul much of a chance when it comes to winning the Republican nomination, despite the unquenchable enthusiasm of his supporters. Their optimism tells them that all the polls and predictions are wrong and that Paul will surprise the world and come from nowhere and win primary after primary and seize the nomination by storm, and then be unbeatable with bipartisan support in the general election. Sure it's mostly pure fantasy, but it's a seductively appealing fantasy.
There's no question that the Paul campaign has offered some surprises. Their fundraising accomplishments are impressive, with a record setting one-day total for their 'Tea Party' event on December 16th, and their overall fundraising has been surprisingly strong — not on the level of the top three contenders, but far beyond the other 2nd tier candidates. With momentum building they might have as much to spend in the first quarter of the new year as most of the top candidates, having already almost reached a fundraising target for this quarter of $20 million. They've also got a very nice blimp.
Nonetheless, whether they have the manpower or financial resources to pull off a shocking primary coup seems doubtful, with one possible exception. I wouldn't hold out much hope for the Iowa Caucus on January 3rd, though some polls have Paul at a surprisingly respectable 10%. If Paul is going to pull off a surprise in any of the key early primaries, I think it might be possible in New Hampshire less than a week later on the 8th.
The Wall Street Journal also thinks (http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110011060) Ron Paul could surprise many in New Hampshire:
Many Republican operatives in New Hampshire, even those affiliated with other campaigns, think Mr. Paul is headed for an impressive, double-digit performance. That he has been polling in the high single digits for months is discounted, because the polls may be missing the depth of his support.
Why? For starters, he appears to be drawing new voters. Polls that screen for "likely" voters might screen out many Paul supporters who haven't voted often, or at all, before. Many of Mr. Paul's supporters appear to be first-time voters. They will be able to cast their ballots because New Hampshire allows them to register and vote on the day of an election.
Even Mr. Paul's New Hampshire spokesman, Kate Rick, is an unlikely political activist. She grew up in a political family in Washington, D.C. and says "I swore I would never work in politics." She changed her mind only after finding Mr. Paul, a candidate she says she can finally believe in. "Most people I know in the grass roots are like that," she said. "My closest friends have never voted before, and they're die-hard Paul people now."
The New Hampshire Union Leader reported (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul+woos+undecided+voters+a t+landmark+city+restaurant&articleId=f4fb4473-3e5f-4efb-9f05-447f320dc58e) on a Paul campaign stop at a historic restaurant:
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul greeted people yesterday morning at the Red Arrow Diner, looking for undecided voters with just over a week to go before the first presidential primary.
Dressed in blue jeans and a wool sweater, Paul worked his way down the lunch counter introducing himself and shaking hands before settling in for some coffee and toast of his own.
Outside the downtown landmark, about 30 or 35 supporters gathered holding signs and waiting for a word from the candidate along with an autograph and picture.
Many of the supporters were members of the Operation Live Free or Die group who have come from around the country to help the Paul campaign in the final days before the primary.
Libertarian John Armstrong writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article819.html) over at The Nolan Chart
We are just a few days from Iowa now. The video at the link below is the best I've seen. I stumbled across it tonight and had to share. It is on youtube, but in a lot of inaccessible pieces. If you know anyone in Iowa, if you have an undecided friend, if you want to see a man speak from the soul, one who understands what America is supposed to be, and what we need to do to get there, watch this video. If you think "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" was good: watch this video and forward this link to your friends.
I guess the Federal Government didn't really care when Ron Paul made speeches like this on the House Floor--they knew that nobody was paying attention. They didn't care when he started winning text message and internet polls--those things are simply the domain of the young, and they don't vote. They didn't care when he broke fundraising records--the mainstream media could just not report it or say things like "good for him" as if they were talking about a poor kid who just got into a marginal state school while they're kid was on the way to the Ivies. They didn't care about having him on debates (at least at first) because nobody watches primary debtes after all; plus, he isn't young, photogenic, or silver-tongued.
And no need to go find the link. Here's the video:
Google Video Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048&q=ron+paul+patriotism&total=52&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)
Good stuff. The Concord Monitor has a story (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071230/NEWS01/712300369) about Ron Paul, the Constitution, and whether Constitutional government is a pipe-dream, although they didn't really put it that way:
Ron Paul won the support of about half of the undecided voters gathered in a Manchester house yesterday, when he spoke about how he could save hundreds of millions of dollars by scaling back America's overseas empire. But many left with concerns that Paul lacked the leadership ability necessary to work with Congress.
The Republican congressman from Texas opened by saying that he had a "very high respect for the Constitution" that is absent in a federal government with too much power.
"For instance, today we have the federal government running our educational system," Paul said. "The federal government runs our medical system. The federal government runs the welfare state. The federal government has unconstitutionally taken over total control, creating money out of thin air. The monetary system has been undermined, and we also have a foreign policy never designed by the Constitution, or by the founders. The founders advised against exactly what we are doing today."
NewJersey.com is writing (http://www.nj.com/news/gloucester/local/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1199005816150510.xml&coll=8) about a local meetup group:
In November, Ron Brittin Republican chairman for Mantua Township formed the Gloucester County Ron Paul 2008 Meet-up, branching off of the regional group in Cherry Hill.
"I originally joined up with the Cherry Hill group for Dr. Paul but realized we needed to do things locally," said Brittin. "Right now our online group has 24 members, but we've had many people come out to our meetings that are not signed up, so it's difficult to give a number."
Brittin said the group's immediate goal is to win the New Jersey primary and get delegates into the convention. He said that at this point there is no official Ron Paul campaign in New Jersey, so local groups are doing what they can.
"There are probably a thousand reasons we support Dr. Paul," said Brittin. "We're for a smaller government, less government spending, a sound monetary policy and non-intervention in foreign affairs. This campaign needs to be done on the streets because the media has not been giving him much attention."
Newsweek's blog has an interesting analysis (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/12/23/ron-paul-is-the-first-long-tail-candidate-why-he-won-t-be-the-last.aspx)about "long tail candidates." If you don't know what that means, let me help. It's an economic term, and refers specifically to how the internet and other technology has led to more viable alternative markets, allowing producers to go to more niche markets:
Popularized by Wired editor Chris Anderson, the long tail is premised on the idea that before the Web, it wasn't always easy to find a deep selection of, say, literary fiction at the local bookstore beyond the few best sellers the big publishers were pushing. Mass culture still dominates, but retailers now realize they can also make money by selling an ever-expanding selection of less-popular niche products from the "long tail" of the culture to smaller numbers of people. It's the difference between Amazon.com's selling a million copies of "The Da Vinci Code," or selling just five copies each of 200,000 backlist titles. Either way, it moves a million books.
The author, Andrew Romano, thinks Ron Paul is the first - but not the last - long-tail candidate:
This idea is now playing a part in our politics, where Paul's recent rise reflects the same dynamics. In 1988 his libertarian message—reduce government at home, resist military meddling abroad, restore the gold standard—went unheard. Today, it's spreading quickly online and connecting activists across the country, a few people at a time. Paul may still be the longest of long shots. But he's a long shot who can lure 5,000 supporters to his rallies and more than triple his entire '88 war chest in a single $6.6 million day. That's a whole new level of high-passion, low-polling politics—and in a long-tail world, others are bound to follow. "Ron Paul is the harbinger," says Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of the libertarian magazine Reason. "Just as the major entertainment companies are producing far more varied and individualized fare, I think we're going to see more and more political candidates who are more interesting in and of themselves but deliver smaller and smaller numbers."
Over the decades, Americans have become increasingly unhappy about having to cram themselves into one of two "big box" parties. Seven of the last 10 elections were won with less than 51 percent of the vote; in three of the last four, no candidate won a majority. Today, two thirds of U.S. adults (and a full three quarters of 18- to 30-year olds) say they would consider voting for an independent candidate in the next election. The rise of Howard Dean (another anti-establishment Web phenom) and the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis mirrored this breakdown of consensus; 2008's fragmented Republican field is further proof. "The long tail is not the political center," economist Arnold Kling has said. "It is not a third party waiting to form. It is not a coalition. It is not a 'silent majority' of either the right or left. It is simply every variety of political belief that does not fit within the two major parties." As the Web allows niche voters to form communities, raise money and get heard, it's inevitable that the major-party machines will clash with—and ultimately accommodate—the individualized constituencies they're struggling to serve.
Unlike their predecessors, the next generation of niche politicians won't necessarily choose the third-party route. Instead, tomorrow's most successful narrowcasters will likely run as major-party candidates in the primaries, where widely seen debates and easy ballot access will bring exposure and credibility. (Think Tom Tancredo.) "You will get further inside the primaries than you will ever get as a third-party candidate," says Micah Sifry, author of "Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America" and cofounder of TechPresident.com, a site that tracks online politics. Don't expect one of these Facebook-friendly insurgents to move into the White House any time soon. America is still a majority-rule, winner-take-all country—online and off. But as they proliferate, their niche concerns and vocal supporters will demand unprecedented attention.
Indeed. Great analysis. On the Small Government Blog, RNoval wrote a stream-of-consciousness endorsement (http://www.smallgov.org/?p=441) of Ron Paul. So, if you're a Faulkner fan, this essay is for you:
As far as major party candidates go, I can hardly expect total agreement. But when it comes to Paul, I find myself disagreeing significantly only on a couple of issues.
I've been asked, "so is Ron Paul your man?" "No" I replied, "…but he's my Republican."
And finally, a reader asked me what is Ron Paul's position on the environment. LewRockwell.com responds (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/masterjohn3.html):
Many people within the libertarian community are skeptical about the science behind global warming. I happen to think the threat of global warming is of uncertain magnitude but of real concern. Most people who share my concern are eager for the government to step in and regulate carbon emissions, and for this reason find it difficult to bring themselves to support Ron Paul's presidential campaign, fearing that a Paul administration would stand back and do nothing to combat global warming.
But this is hardly the case. In fact, a Paul presidency would be a great asset to anyone concerned about global warming. This may seem counter-intuitive at first, but Ron Paul is the one candidate who offers a serious promise to stop the governmental policies that threaten to wipe out our most important solution to the problem – grass-farming.
Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide can be reduced in two ways: the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere can be reduced, and the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere in oceans, soils, plant and animal life, and other "carbon sinks" can be increased. Reducing carbon emissions only slows the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 while increasing carbon sequestration causes reductions in atmospheric CO2 that take effect immediately.
Have a great, safe night, and I'll see you next year!!
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg