RSDavis
01-05-2008, 12:23 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (1-5-8)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=344593037&Mytoken=EC8B9F6D-CE85-4551-8ECC1E555ABD2E5533942796)
Hello Freedomphiles! Libertarian Steven Wood writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article915.html) a slightly amusing piece on The Nolan Chart about what he thinks was the bright spot in Iowa:
Back to the election though. While he was on the phone ordering more Chicken Huckabee and Romney Noodles, the camera zoomed in on the ballots. Thats when I did it! I froze the picture and there it was, in all it's glory, the totals. I looked carefully at the ballots and candidate's names and noticed one glaring detail.
The smoking gun if you will!
Ron Paul beat Guilianni! That was Awesome! Remember the heated debate where Rudy lectured Ron Paul about the middleeast? In your face Rudy! Oh sure he can say he wasn't trying, but isn't that like saying; "You can't fire me, I'm not a match." I never did understand that argument, but I think beating Guilianni is like way cool if you ask me.
And Sarah Lai Stirland over at Wired is writing (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/supporters-mull.html) about the reaction from Paulistas about the Iowa vote:
Paul's supporters remain optimistic about their candidate's prospects in New Hampshire primary next week, where the state motto is "Live Free or Die." The widely-read political blog Real Clear Politics has calculated a polling average of 7 percent of the New Hampshire Republican vote for Paul.
Supporters like Henderson hope that "Doctor No" can up that to 15 percent. He points to Paul's remarkable fourth quarter haul of $19 million as reason for optimism.
"If you look at the national polls, Mike Huckabee isn't doing as well, and although he has a little bit of money, he doesn't have enough money to put television ads up" in all of the Super Tuesday states, Henderson says.
I actually think 15% could be on the low end of the vote total for Paul in New Hampshire.
Centrist Liberal Libertarian and professional pessimist Joel S. Hirschhorn writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article954.html) over at The Nolan Chart that it's all over for Dr Paul:
Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.
On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.
On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.
In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent.
Wow, Joel, smoke a joint and relax a bit. This was the first of many primaries, in an exceedingly socially conservative state. Yes, Huckabee also proposed ending the income tax, although he would replace it with something else, which Paul would not. But he had something Paul didn't - theocrat cred in Religious Right Country. This is not over yet, as Paul will do much better in New Hampshire. Ten percent in Iowa for a candidate like Paul is a victory.
Now, Ryan Blethan over at The Seattle Times wrote (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004106201_ryan04.html)about Paul's exclusion from the Fox News debate:
So what criteria have ABC News and Fox News relied on to determine the electability of the next presidential contenders?
Fox News has invited what it must consider the five top contenders for the Republican nomination for a Sunday night debate. Left out are Reps. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
How can Fox News exclude Paul and include former Sen. Fred Thompson when Paul has more support in New Hampshire?
(...)
Paul should be allowed a seat on the GOP stage. His Libertarian message resonates in New Hampshire. The Texan also brings some glaring differences, like his opposition to the war, to a Republican stage dominated by fear-based foreign policy and immigration reform.
So, Ron Paul has a couple of new ads out. Here's the first one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AmY-fW3gdc
That one is being shown in South Carolina. The second one has stirred up some controversy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4
This one has got people talking. Justin Raimondo of Anti-War has this (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad/) to say:
To begin with, it is odd, indeed, for a libertarian to be invoking the concept of collective guilt: is every citizen of these unnamed "terrorist nations" to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?
Secondly, just which nations is Rep. Paul talking about? Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia: two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian and another one hailed from Lebanon. Is Paul seriously saying that we should deport the thousands from these countries studying in the US? And why stop there? Why allow anyone from these so-called "terrorist nations" entry into the US for any reason whatsoever – just to be on the safe side?
This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, "terrorist nations," the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance. If these are, in truth, "terrorist nations" – which most will take to mean all predominantly Muslim nations — then why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it? This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they'll use it.
I hate to say it, but I agree with Justin 100%. This is the part of the ad that bothers me, too. World Net Daily focuses (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59551) on another aspect of the ad:
A controversial new anti-illegal-immigration ad by GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul has sent his libertarian supporters into high dudgeon, but it's getting rave reviews from border-security hawks, including some Homeland Security officials.
In a surprise move, the strict constitutionalist has taken aim at the 14th Amendment as part of a proposal to control growing illegal immigration. U.S. Rep. Paul, R-Texas, proposes repealing the provision that gives automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S., even if their parents enter the country illegally.
"Ron Paul wants border security now," his new campaign ad asserts. "Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student visas from terrorist nations."
As a libertarian, I am for pretty open borders, but there is nothing inconsistent with wanting robust legal immigration. Being against wholesale amnesty and birthright citizenship and welfare for illegals does not make you un-libertarian. Still, he needs to seriously rethink the student visa plank to that immigration platform.
The Christian Science Monitor has a nice profile (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0102/p01s08-uspo.html) of Ron Paul on their website:
"He's been a very serious student of economics since medical school, and has read a huge amount of history – constitutional history and monetary history. His philosophical and economic views drive him and everything he does," says Llewellyn Rockwell, a former congressional chief of staff for Paul. Mr. Rockwell is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala., and maintains the popular website, lewrockwell.com.
As a physician, Paul says he came to resent government intervention in his practice. In his years as an OB/GYN, he didn't accept Medicare and Medicaid payments because he felt they represented unconstitutional government overreach. Sometimes, he'd treat patients for free.
"I found that government was interfering with my judgment as a doctor, disrupting the doctor/patient relationship, and making prices go up," he says.
But what drove him into public life was President Richard Nixon's decision in 1971 to break the last link between gold and US currency and impose wage and price controls. "I decided to speak out," he says.
A nation that spends, borrows, and prints too much money inevitably pays a price, he says. Unrestrained by a link to gold, the Federal Reserve can create too much credit, fueling housing and stock bubbles. The result: The dollar continues to goes down in value, the nation becomes ever more dependent on borrowing money abroad, and young people pay the price. A return to the gold standard restrains the government and restores the value of the dollar.
"My influence, such as it is, comes only by educating others about the rightness of the free market," he wrote in a 1984 essay, "Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View."
If you'd like to buy that 1984 essay, click here (http://www.mises.org/store/Mises-and-Austrian-Economics-A-Personal-View-P154C22.aspx). If you'd like to just hear Professor Floy Lilley read the whole thing to you, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAPgFoJh9f8
And finally, the Union Leader has a piece (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul%3A+His+opposition+to+th e+war+in+Iraq+remains+a+central+campaign+theme&articleId=290a3dc4-e0cd-413f-a3e6-36bd8653c4b0)on Paul, as well:
Outside Riley's Gun Shop in Hooksett, there are several signs supporting Republican presidential candidates, but the largest one belongs to Ron Paul's campaign.
This is friendly turf for the Texas congressman, who is known for his staunch support of gun owners' rights. So, during a recent late Saturday morning visit, he's given the star treatment as he walks through the bustling gun store.
An employee hands Paul a .357 Magnum revolver to look at and, while he's holding it, the candidate asks him about guns. Though he's big on gun rights, Paul admittedly isn't a big shooter himself; he says he can't remember the last time he shot a firearm. His pro-gun supporters don't care about that.
That's an interesting coincidence, because those of you that have read my many Guns Save Lives blogs know that I, too, am a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. But like Paul, I don't own any guns and it's been years since I've even fired one.
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (1-5-8)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=344593037&Mytoken=EC8B9F6D-CE85-4551-8ECC1E555ABD2E5533942796)
Hello Freedomphiles! Libertarian Steven Wood writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article915.html) a slightly amusing piece on The Nolan Chart about what he thinks was the bright spot in Iowa:
Back to the election though. While he was on the phone ordering more Chicken Huckabee and Romney Noodles, the camera zoomed in on the ballots. Thats when I did it! I froze the picture and there it was, in all it's glory, the totals. I looked carefully at the ballots and candidate's names and noticed one glaring detail.
The smoking gun if you will!
Ron Paul beat Guilianni! That was Awesome! Remember the heated debate where Rudy lectured Ron Paul about the middleeast? In your face Rudy! Oh sure he can say he wasn't trying, but isn't that like saying; "You can't fire me, I'm not a match." I never did understand that argument, but I think beating Guilianni is like way cool if you ask me.
And Sarah Lai Stirland over at Wired is writing (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/supporters-mull.html) about the reaction from Paulistas about the Iowa vote:
Paul's supporters remain optimistic about their candidate's prospects in New Hampshire primary next week, where the state motto is "Live Free or Die." The widely-read political blog Real Clear Politics has calculated a polling average of 7 percent of the New Hampshire Republican vote for Paul.
Supporters like Henderson hope that "Doctor No" can up that to 15 percent. He points to Paul's remarkable fourth quarter haul of $19 million as reason for optimism.
"If you look at the national polls, Mike Huckabee isn't doing as well, and although he has a little bit of money, he doesn't have enough money to put television ads up" in all of the Super Tuesday states, Henderson says.
I actually think 15% could be on the low end of the vote total for Paul in New Hampshire.
Centrist Liberal Libertarian and professional pessimist Joel S. Hirschhorn writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article954.html) over at The Nolan Chart that it's all over for Dr Paul:
Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.
On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.
On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.
In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent.
Wow, Joel, smoke a joint and relax a bit. This was the first of many primaries, in an exceedingly socially conservative state. Yes, Huckabee also proposed ending the income tax, although he would replace it with something else, which Paul would not. But he had something Paul didn't - theocrat cred in Religious Right Country. This is not over yet, as Paul will do much better in New Hampshire. Ten percent in Iowa for a candidate like Paul is a victory.
Now, Ryan Blethan over at The Seattle Times wrote (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004106201_ryan04.html)about Paul's exclusion from the Fox News debate:
So what criteria have ABC News and Fox News relied on to determine the electability of the next presidential contenders?
Fox News has invited what it must consider the five top contenders for the Republican nomination for a Sunday night debate. Left out are Reps. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
How can Fox News exclude Paul and include former Sen. Fred Thompson when Paul has more support in New Hampshire?
(...)
Paul should be allowed a seat on the GOP stage. His Libertarian message resonates in New Hampshire. The Texan also brings some glaring differences, like his opposition to the war, to a Republican stage dominated by fear-based foreign policy and immigration reform.
So, Ron Paul has a couple of new ads out. Here's the first one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AmY-fW3gdc
That one is being shown in South Carolina. The second one has stirred up some controversy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4
This one has got people talking. Justin Raimondo of Anti-War has this (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad/) to say:
To begin with, it is odd, indeed, for a libertarian to be invoking the concept of collective guilt: is every citizen of these unnamed "terrorist nations" to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?
Secondly, just which nations is Rep. Paul talking about? Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia: two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian and another one hailed from Lebanon. Is Paul seriously saying that we should deport the thousands from these countries studying in the US? And why stop there? Why allow anyone from these so-called "terrorist nations" entry into the US for any reason whatsoever – just to be on the safe side?
This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, "terrorist nations," the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance. If these are, in truth, "terrorist nations" – which most will take to mean all predominantly Muslim nations — then why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it? This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they'll use it.
I hate to say it, but I agree with Justin 100%. This is the part of the ad that bothers me, too. World Net Daily focuses (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59551) on another aspect of the ad:
A controversial new anti-illegal-immigration ad by GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul has sent his libertarian supporters into high dudgeon, but it's getting rave reviews from border-security hawks, including some Homeland Security officials.
In a surprise move, the strict constitutionalist has taken aim at the 14th Amendment as part of a proposal to control growing illegal immigration. U.S. Rep. Paul, R-Texas, proposes repealing the provision that gives automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S., even if their parents enter the country illegally.
"Ron Paul wants border security now," his new campaign ad asserts. "Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student visas from terrorist nations."
As a libertarian, I am for pretty open borders, but there is nothing inconsistent with wanting robust legal immigration. Being against wholesale amnesty and birthright citizenship and welfare for illegals does not make you un-libertarian. Still, he needs to seriously rethink the student visa plank to that immigration platform.
The Christian Science Monitor has a nice profile (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0102/p01s08-uspo.html) of Ron Paul on their website:
"He's been a very serious student of economics since medical school, and has read a huge amount of history – constitutional history and monetary history. His philosophical and economic views drive him and everything he does," says Llewellyn Rockwell, a former congressional chief of staff for Paul. Mr. Rockwell is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala., and maintains the popular website, lewrockwell.com.
As a physician, Paul says he came to resent government intervention in his practice. In his years as an OB/GYN, he didn't accept Medicare and Medicaid payments because he felt they represented unconstitutional government overreach. Sometimes, he'd treat patients for free.
"I found that government was interfering with my judgment as a doctor, disrupting the doctor/patient relationship, and making prices go up," he says.
But what drove him into public life was President Richard Nixon's decision in 1971 to break the last link between gold and US currency and impose wage and price controls. "I decided to speak out," he says.
A nation that spends, borrows, and prints too much money inevitably pays a price, he says. Unrestrained by a link to gold, the Federal Reserve can create too much credit, fueling housing and stock bubbles. The result: The dollar continues to goes down in value, the nation becomes ever more dependent on borrowing money abroad, and young people pay the price. A return to the gold standard restrains the government and restores the value of the dollar.
"My influence, such as it is, comes only by educating others about the rightness of the free market," he wrote in a 1984 essay, "Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View."
If you'd like to buy that 1984 essay, click here (http://www.mises.org/store/Mises-and-Austrian-Economics-A-Personal-View-P154C22.aspx). If you'd like to just hear Professor Floy Lilley read the whole thing to you, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAPgFoJh9f8
And finally, the Union Leader has a piece (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul%3A+His+opposition+to+th e+war+in+Iraq+remains+a+central+campaign+theme&articleId=290a3dc4-e0cd-413f-a3e6-36bd8653c4b0)on Paul, as well:
Outside Riley's Gun Shop in Hooksett, there are several signs supporting Republican presidential candidates, but the largest one belongs to Ron Paul's campaign.
This is friendly turf for the Texas congressman, who is known for his staunch support of gun owners' rights. So, during a recent late Saturday morning visit, he's given the star treatment as he walks through the bustling gun store.
An employee hands Paul a .357 Magnum revolver to look at and, while he's holding it, the candidate asks him about guns. Though he's big on gun rights, Paul admittedly isn't a big shooter himself; he says he can't remember the last time he shot a firearm. His pro-gun supporters don't care about that.
That's an interesting coincidence, because those of you that have read my many Guns Save Lives blogs know that I, too, am a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. But like Paul, I don't own any guns and it's been years since I've even fired one.
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg