PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (1-04-08)




RSDavis
01-04-2008, 01:20 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (12-04-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=344296384&Mytoken=D9294E77-A5F5-4F39-A3C53B908A85DD6E35151117)


Hello Freedomphiles! So, last night was the Iowa Caucuses, and Ron Paul came in fifth:

Mike Huckabee - 34%

Mitt Romney - 25%

Fred Thompson - 13%

John McCain - 13%

Ron Paul - 10%

Rudy Giuliani - 3%

I didn't have a lot of hope in Iowa, because of the socially-conservative nature of the area and the way the caucuses are set up, whereby if your man isn't doing well, you can switch to your second choice.

I honestly don't think Ron Paul was anyone's second choice. You are either a Ron Paul person, forsaking all others, or you are one of the other people - and face it, unlike Ron Paul, the rest of the Republican field is pretty interchangable.

"We've secretly replaced Bob's pro-war big government Republican candidate with a new and improved pro-war big government Baptist minister Republican candidate. Let's see if he notices..."

And don't forget also that, according (http://donklephant.com/2008/01/03/huckabee-wins-ron-paul-could-tie-for-3rd/) to Donkelephant, "60% of the GOP voters who came out tonight were evangelicals." And while Ron Paul is good Christian boy, unlike the Religious Right, he does not want to impose those Christian values on Americans through the law.

There are a couple of bright points to all this that I want you guys to think about. While I know we were all really hoping for a 3rd place finish, remember that the difference between Paul, McCain, and Thompson were so small, it was virtually a three-way tie. And also remember all the people that said Paul wouldn't even crack double digits?

Another bright spot, especially among those of us that are hoping he's going to branch out into a 3rd Party or independent bid, is reported (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124205.html) by Reason:

CNN says he got 29% of the independent vote, compared to 23% for his nearest rival, John McCain.

Is that good tidings for New Hampshire? Maybe—or maybe it just means they'll turn out for Obama instead of voting in the Republican race. Stay tuned.

I definitely think it is good news for independent-minded New Hampshire. So does Dr Paul. As the Associated Press reported (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h6zHAUX3DHshMxRlVNz3jpD9HizwD8TURE6G0):

"This is not the end. This is the beginning," the Texas congressman told a boisterous gathering of about 150 people at a downtown Des Moines hotel.

The crowd interrupted Paul at times, chanting "Live free or die" and "Ron Paul."

"I am more encouraged than ever before," he said.

Another bright spot for Paul is that his popularity among college students has not waned at all, giving him a big win in the Ames precinct. The Des Moines Register reports (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/NEWS09/80103062/-1/SPORTS09):

Texas Congressman Ron Paul pulled off an upset in a Republican Ames precinct made up predominantly of Iowa State University students.

Paul logged 29 votes to finish 10 ahead of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who came in second.

Chase Cockrell, an ISU graduate student from New Orleans, stumped on Paul's behalf before the vote. He stressed Paul's views on limited government and the U.S. Constitution. His comments drew applause and a few hoots from the audience.

He said Paul's use of the internet gave his popularity a boost among college students.

David Kral, 21, of Ames, said he decided to caucus for Paul after the candidate gave a speech on the ISU campus a few months ago.

Kral described himself as a Democrat, but he switched to the GOP so he could caucus for Paul.

The brightest of all spots - a little schadenfreude sundae with whipped cream and nuts - is that Ron Paul absolutely smoked Rudy Guiliani. The Los Angeles Times reports (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/ron-paul-gets-s.html):

It was mid-May, and the former mayor of New York was riding high following one of the early debates among the Republican presidential candidates. The primo sound bite had been a snap to identify: Giuliani's outraged, impassioned reply to Paul's assertion that U.S. foreign policy, especially the periodic bombing of Iraq in the aftermath of 1991's Gulf War, was to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Giuliani, not waiting to be called upon, seized the moment by terming Paul's comment "an extraordinary statement" and urging the Texas congressman to retract it (which Paul did not).

To give Paul his due, even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 -- when the emotional response to the assault was at its rawest -- serious scholars had begun hashing over the role played by American policy in the Mideast, particularly long-standing support for Israel, in fueling Islamic extremism and hatred for the U.S. But in the format of a candidate debate -- where rhetorical zingers count far more than lengthy discourse -- Paul's remark amounted to a grooved fast ball down the middle, and the consensus at the time was that Giuliani parked it.

As MSNBC's online political note put it at the time, Giuliani may want to "hire out Paul for the campaign trail -- he could be the Washington Generals to Rudy's Globetrotters" (i.e., the patsy willing to get beaten in every game).

That was then, this is now. In Iowa, Paul, 10%; Giuliani, 4%.

So, does this now mean that Guiliani's spot in the Fox News debates will go to Ron Paul? Not bloody likely. John Farah, World Net Daily's Groucho lookalike, actually comes to Paul's defense (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59517)on this front:

This is a very bad decision for a cable news channel whose slogan is "fair and balanced."

Back in 2003, Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, explained how his competitors showed their bias: "Bias has to do with the elimination of points of view, not presenting a point of view."

Isn't that exactly how Fox News is demonstrating an outrageous form of bias today against the increasingly viable and unexpectedly impressive candidacy of Ron Paul?

Notice I am emphasizing the elimination of Ron Paul from this debate – not my own preferred candidate, Duncan Hunter. That's because Ron Paul's campaign has surprised everyone who observes politics in this country carefully. Yes, I would like to see Duncan Hunter get a shot at participating in all the debates, too.

But, even as a Hunter partisan, I can say there is no good reason, no legitimate reason, no objective reason for eliminating Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate. Ron Paul has exceeded everyone's expectations, just as surely as Mike Huckabee has.

Wow. Thanks, John. I am sorry for making fun of your ridiculous mustache last week. Now, libertarian writer CT Johnson thinks (http://www.nolanchart.com/article913.html) that it couldn't have gone better for Ron Paul in Iowa:

What does this all mean to Ron Paul? Well, Ron Paul has shown that in an ultra-religious conservative state that he can pull 10% of the vote...double digits. It has shown that he can pull close to the well known, stalwart of the Republican establishment, warhorse John McCain. He is literally within spitting distance of third place in a state that is not tailored to him. A state where he would not promise ongoing farm subsidies. This is a huge feat...one that cannot be discounted. What is more important though is that all of the neoconservative candidates will stay in the race with this outcome with maybe the exception of Duncan Hunter. This is very good for Ron Paul. Like I said earlier, at this time Ron Paul cannot win in a one on one or three way race...yet. This Iowa scenario ensures that Ron Paul will face a divided neoconservative field. I cannot overstate how good this is from a strategic standpoint. It gives Ron Paul time to continue to spread the message and gain more and more support while the neoconservative vote is split.

Come New Hampshire, Ron Paul will likely place in the top three. Romney, McCain, and Ron Paul will show well. Ron Paul has the funds, with more than $19.5 million raised in the 4th quarter, and is in for the long haul. As has been discussed across the internet...this may end up being a brokered convention...a very long and hard race. The more face time and the longer Ron Paul stays in the race the better. Unlike Ron Paul, many of the candidates cannot and will not show well in all states. Ron Paul's support is nationwide and he has the money, nationwide support, and fundraising ability to go the distance.

Folks...this is a marathon...not a sprint. Watch and see...the Ron Paul movement will continue to grow. The message will continue to spread. The people of Iowa are our fellow citizens, but they are not the end all. Their voice is important, but only a part of the voice of America. As Loub Dobbs mentioned on the eve of the Iowa election...there are only three populist candidates, and might I add Revolutionary candidates, that are for the middle class...and Ron Paul is the only Republican standing up for the average middle class and low income American! Not Huckabee...but Ron Paul.

Did you know that MySpace did a primary? They sure did. And Ron Paul came in first. AdWeek reports (http://www.adweek.com/aw/iq_interactive/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003691224):

Paul's surprising win came with 37 percent of the MySpace Republican vote, with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee taking the second and third place slots at 18 and 16 percent, respectively.

The MySpace Presidential Primary started just after 3:00 a.m. EST on New Year's Day, and concluded just before midnight on Jan. 2.

The News Corp.-owned site reported that the average age of the participants was 29 years old, and that the vast majority of those participants planned to vote in the actual election this year. Thus, as the 2008 presidential campaign continues to unfold over the next several months, MySpace plans to release a series of polls meant to gauge the interest and attitudes of its membership base on the race for the White House.

In light of that, it is no surprise what CBSNews is reporting (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/03/politics/uwire/main3672918.shtml) about Ron Paul in Iowa:

Republican presidential-nomination hopeful Ron Paul, R-T.X., said he wished the elections were held on the internet.

Paul mentioned what he called his "truly laissez faire campaign" raising close to $20 million in the fourth quarter in two days on the internet.

"They knew the money didn't flow in from special interest," he said. Like his unusual campaign fundraising, his speech in a Des Moines lecture hall earlier today didn't say anything about supporting him in this evening's caucuses or the significance of the audience's votes.

In fact, his speech differed from those heard so close to the caucuses. It consisted of privatizing health care and discussing why inflation occurs in areas such as health care but not technology.

Paul, who spoke to and answered questions from a full and relatively young audience, focused on governmental spending as well as relocating the funds used towards foreign affairs.

Now, Reason's Nick Gillespie was on The O'Reilly Factor a couple of days ago discussing Ron Paul. Wanna see?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYqwmiprsBA

My man John Stossell has another in his ongoing piece (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24268)on Ron Paul. This new one focuses on immigration. Here's a taste, but the next batch will cost you:

You oppose "birthright citizenship," which says that the child of an illegal immigrant who gives birth in America is a U.S. citizen. But that right to citizenship is in the Constitution, isn't it?

There's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment. It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here. But it's a little bit confusing. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There's a question on that, and I want to clarify it. I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose and get on the welfare rolls.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home."

Roderick T Beaman has some words (http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=1106)about Paul on Liberty for All:

In my daily life, I have tried to call people's attention to the good doctor. In small discussions, I have found that people respond to his simple message. When I point out that he argues from The Constitution, they respond positively. I tell them that The Constitution forces me to certain conclusions, irrespective of whether I like them or not.

I have told them that The Constitution doesn't mean what they or I want it to mean, or the ACLU, or the Christian Coalition. They accept the statement and nod in seeming agreement. I have been astonished. People seem to accept that statement yet the major candidates for political office never even mention the Constitution with the honorable exception of Ron Paul.

It is reassuring and refreshing to witness this. I cannot recall a single time when any candidate has actually invoked the Constitution during a campaign. The last president to veto a bill on constitutional grounds, that I know of, was Grover Cleveland.

And on LewRockwell.com, it appears (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/horton1.html) Scott Horton wants you to ask Ron Paul during lunch if he likes him, and if so, does he "like him" like him, or does he just like him:

Congressman Paul ought to have his own Ph.D. in Austrian economics, the school of peace, little-to-no government and free trade. He's a medical doctor, not a lawyer. The lobbyists don't even bother to knock on his office door since they know he'll smile and nod and then vote "no" on their project anyway. He refused government welfare for his kids to go to college, he delivered babies for free or on a sliding-scale type of payment plan rather than accept Medicare and Medicaid, he is refusing his congressional pension and he returns a substantial portion of his office budget back to the treasury at the end of every term (or fiscal year or however they do it). He's never voted himself a pay raise (not even through the modern technicality of "automatic" cost-of-living increases), and has never – never – voted to raise taxes.

They call him "Dr. No" because 95% of what the national government does is unconstitutional and he votes according to his oath – which often leaves him all by himself. A committed non-interventionist, he predicted the fall of the USSR if the U.S. would only stop propping them up. He opposed the first Iraq war in 1990/91 and the second Iraq war since 1998. When first coming back to Congress in 1997, he spoke against the overseas bases being used to stage the endless attacks on Iraq which provided the motive for those responsible for the attacks of September 11th.

Paul has opposed every Federal gun control bill that has ever come his way, along with the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Transportation Security Administration Act, the Homeland Security Act and just about anything else you could think of.

A fierce defender of America's independence – and that of every other country – Paul opposes NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, IMF, World Bank, UN and NATO. He's against central banking – recognizing it as the cause of, not solution to, the business cycle and a destroyer of savings. He proposes to let Americans circulate their own gold-backed currencies, repealing the taxes and restrictions which now forbid it. He wants to use his bully pulpit to encourage the Congress and the several states to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, abolish the personal income tax and to end, once and for all, the depredations of the sinister IRS.

When they ask him about his heroes, he answers Gandhi and MLK. They resisted the state non-violently, and that's important, Paul says.

Rep. Ron Paul M.D. is, as far as I can tell, the greatest congressman in American History – the last of the Jeffersonians – and that doesn't mean he's flawless. He's just a regular, humble old guy. That's part of why I like him so much. He sometimes stumbles around and starts his sentences over again the same way I do when I'm trying to explain something right. A lot of times he speaks in a sort of shorthand that just leaves it to the audience to try to figure out what the hell he means. He's not like one of those Mitt Romney/Rick Perry–type polyurethane politicians. In fact, lately I've seen him do a pretty funny politician impression in a couple of interviews.

And finally, Reason's David Weigel is reporting (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124199.html) on a couple of campaign ads he's picked up in Iowa. The first stresses Ron Paul's history as a doctor:

http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/Image/dweigel/nh2008/paulbaby.jpg

And the second bit is about the different scripts they use when they call potential voters. He has an image of the script that local Paulistas are using when those to whom they talk are anti-tax potential voters:

http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/Image/dweigel/nh2008/ronpaultext.jpg

See ya next time!

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

randolphfuller
01-04-2008, 03:56 PM
It's all over. Dr. Paul had to win some early state caucus or primary and I can't find one.Iowa was actually very favorablel terrain for him and he could even scratch. Wyoming tomorrow is considered a cinch for McCain or Romney. Likewise New Hampshire , the press has decided will be basically a contest between McCain and Romney. Michigan is Romney's real home state. South Carolina is just one big military base full of Baptists who cannot drink in front of each other. How is Dr. Paul to defeat a Baptist preacher there?Giulani took a look at this landscapr and decided to wait for everybody in the large, delegater rich, and diverse state of Florida. Whether this high risk strategy of waiting for what seems a favorable battlegroud will work or not still seems very doubtful In any case. I have not heard of anyone who thinks Dr. Paul has any chance to carry Florida

Jeremiah
01-04-2008, 04:15 PM
It's all over. Dr. Paul had to win some early state caucus or primary and I can't find one.Iowa was actually very favorablel terrain for him and he could even scratch. Wyoming tomorrow is considered a cinch for McCain or Romney. Likewise New Hampshire , the press has decided will be basically a contest between McCain and Romney. Michigan is Romney's real home state. South Carolina is just one big military base full of Baptists who cannot drink in front of each other. How is Dr. Paul to defeat a Baptist preacher there?Giulani took a look at this landscapr and decided to wait for everybody in the large, delegater rich, and diverse state of Florida. Whether this high risk strategy of waiting for what seems a favorable battlegroud will work or not still seems very doubtful In any case. I have not heard of anyone who thinks Dr. Paul has any chance to carry Florida

You are clearly dazed and confused Randy. Just go home and sleep it off. Come back in November when President Elect Paul is making his acceptance speech.

RSDavis
01-04-2008, 04:27 PM
It's all over. Dr. Paul had to win some early state caucus or primary and I can't find one.Iowa was actually very favorablel terrain for him and he could even scratch. Wyoming tomorrow is considered a cinch for McCain or Romney. Likewise New Hampshire , the press has decided will be basically a contest between McCain and Romney. Michigan is Romney's real home state. South Carolina is just one big military base full of Baptists who cannot drink in front of each other. How is Dr. Paul to defeat a Baptist preacher there?Giulani took a look at this landscapr and decided to wait for everybody in the large, delegater rich, and diverse state of Florida. Whether this high risk strategy of waiting for what seems a favorable battlegroud will work or not still seems very doubtful In any case. I have not heard of anyone who thinks Dr. Paul has any chance to carry Florida

That seems to fly in the face of everything I've read as far as trends go. Paul was not expected to do well in Iowa because it is neocon evangelical terrain. Sixty percent of Republican caucus-goers were evangelicals.

New Hampshire, with its libertarian tradition, is a much more favorable environment for Ron Paul. Coming in 5th in Iowa, with only a 3% difference between 3rd and 5th, is a victory in my book.

- Rick

randolphfuller
01-05-2008, 12:11 AM
I may be dazed and confused but I sought to be ffactual. I notice you did not seek to dispute my anaysis in any way or assert that he could win any early primary, not even Florida.

roshi
01-05-2008, 12:15 AM
Errr December 4, 2008?

Jeremiah
01-05-2008, 03:36 AM
I may be dazed and confused but I sought to be ffactual. I notice you did not seek to dispute my anaysis in any way or assert that he could win any early primary, not even Florida.

That was not an analysis, that was mere speculation based upon your emotional reactions.