PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (1-7-8)




RSDavis
01-07-2008, 02:46 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (1-7-8)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=345225639&Mytoken=A5F59C2E-37FB-4066-82C898F2CAA848DC41094470)


Hello Freedomphiles! Let's start today's Roundup with news about the exclusion of Ron Paul from the Fox News debates. The Nation reports (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=266681):

In a move even more heavy-handed than that of ABC News, which cobbled together arbitrary rules to prevent Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich from joining Saturday night's Democratic debate, Fox announced on December 27 that Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson had been invited to join the last debate before Tuesday's vote.

Paul was not welcome, announced Fox's political commissars, who also excluded California Congressman Duncan Hunter.

A week later, Paul beat Giuliani in the Iowa caucuses. New Hampshire polls suggest there is a very good chance that Paul will beat both Giuliani and Thompson who many observers expect to end his candidacy in short order -- in Tuesday's primary.

Yet, national Republican operatives and their allies at Fox have been steadfast in rejecting appeals from Paul backers and non-aligned observers to rethink the decision to exclude a candidate whose opposition to the war in Iraq and defenses of civil liberties has made him a hero to college students and others not usually attracted to the Grand Old Party.

This, obviously, has not been recieved well. There's even a website (http://www.ronaldholland.com/protestfox.htm) dedicated to protesting the whole affair. Of course, Paulistas are not being silent about this, as The Washington Post observes (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/06/the_ron_paul_backlash_hits_fox.html):

No campaign's supporters, not even Obamamaniacs, can match the fierce intensity of the Paulites, Congressman Paul's loud, passionate -- some say obsessive -- disciples. They took to the streets hours before the Fox News-sponsored Republican forum that excluded the Texas congressman, who, as Paulites are quick to note, is the top money-raising Republican in the fourth quarter.

And he placed fifth in Iowa -- well ahead of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

"How can Fox hold a debate without him? I mean, Dr. Paul is attracting more people to his movement than any Republican out there. You see any Mitt Romney supporters around? Any Giuliani supporters? Any McCain supporters? We're it," Vijay Boyapati told The Trail. Last fall Boyapai, a former engineer at Google, quit his job, packed his bags and headed to New Hampshire to campaign for Paul.

And Reuters reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS92860+05-Jan-2008+BW20080105) that the New Hampshire GOP withdrew their support from the debate over the whole mess:

The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign praises the New Hampshire Republican Party's decision to pull its sponsorship of the Fox News forum in protest of Fox's decision to exclude Congressman Ron Paul.

"The New Hampshire Republican Party did the right thing by pulling its sponsorship for Fox's candidate forum," said Ron Paul 2008 spokesman Jesse Benton. "'Fox News' decision to exclude Congressman Paul is unfair, but it won't stop Dr. Paul's message of freedom, peace and prosperity from resonating with the people of New Hampshire."

Today, New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen released the following statement regarding Sunday's Republican forum on FOX:

"The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field. Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures. Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums.

"This principle applies to tonight's debates on ABC as well as Sunday's planned forum on FOX. The New Hampshire Republican Party believes Congressmen Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter should be included in the FOX forum on Sunday evening. Our mutual efforts to resolve this difference have failed.

"While we understand that FOX News continues to move forward it is with regret, the New Hampshire Republican Party hereby withdraws as a partner in this forum."

And Gambling911.com thinks (http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Fox-News-010608.html) all this backlash is hurting Fox:

Following Fox News exclusion of US Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in a Sunday debate, many of his supporters called for a boycott of sponsors and - perhaps worse - shorting Fox parent company News Corp's stock.

Maybe it's just a reflection of the market overall but News Corp's shares really dropped this past week as seen by the chart below.

Coincidence? Perhaps. Then again....

The exclusion of Dr. Paul has backfired as major newspapers in the state of New Hampshire have jumped all over the story....and it's not a story of how some lowly candidate has been told to stay home by Fox News because he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning. The stories instead ask "How and Why?". How could Ron Paul not be invited when Rudy Giuliani performed much worse in Iowa than Paul, who managed to crack double digits with 10% of the vote? Why is Ron Paul not invited to a state debate where he is presently polling better than three other invitees in New Hampshire?

Reason reports (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124239.html) on Ron Paul's exclusion and what it means:

The feeling among some (not all) Paul people is that the anti-Fox backlash has been better for them, in the long run, than 6 or 7 minutes of Paul talking on a thinly-viewed Sunday forum. More people might hear about the Paul exclusion in their newspapers than would have watched the thing. I'm not 100 percent sure: It can't be good when you're sharing nut grafs with Duncan Hunter.

Meanwhile, unless it's an outlier, this Rasmussen poll makes the exclusion look even siller. It clocks Paul at 14 percent for third place, primed to defeat Rudy Giuliani again. The average of all the tracking polls shows Paul closer to high single digits, but everyone's expecting a boost from angry, little-polled rural voters in the northern part of the state.

American Chronicle is talking about (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=47974)how Dr No beat the snot out of Guiliani in the Iowa Caucus:

There is no question about it; Ron Paul absolutely smoked Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 Iowa Republican Caucuses. Paul beat Giuliani by a margin of 6 points, which is more than double the margin that Fred Thompson and John McCain beat Paul. In fact, Paul stayed neck-and-neck with McCain for most of the count, but Giuliani never even came close.

Giuliani and Paul squared off last May in a Republican debate over whether terrorists attack the United States because its citizens are happy and free or because the federal government antagonizes the planet. When Paul claimed that terrorists are motivated by American foreign policy, Giuliani demagogued that Paul recant his statement. On Friday, Iowa voters, by a ratio of 2.5: 1, demanded that Giuliani recant his. But there are even more subtleties to this Republican fracture than meets the eye.

Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul adhere to opposite positions on the Republican philosophical spectrum. Giuliani surrounds himself with neoconservatives who hold similar positions to the Democratic base on matters of domestic policy, but who maintain an aggressive foreign policy positions in spite of all ostensible failures. Paul hails from Goldwater-conservatism, which insists on protecting domestic civil liberties above everything else, including foreign policy.

To further illustrate this contrast, one can look to the pundit's reactions to the May debate. While the Sean Hannity Camp called the debate a win for Giuliani, old-school conservatives Pat Buchanan and John McLaughlin called it for Ron Paul. Of course, neither actually won the debate because they never argued on the merits of their assertions. But it is fair to say that scholars and the 9/11 commission report largely agree with Paul's view.

LewRockwell.com had some interesting analysis (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018233.html) on Iowa:

Here is campaign event data for Iowa (01 Aug - 03 Jan):

- Paul - 27 Appearances, 11,598 votes

- Giuliani - 35 Appearances, 4,013 votes

- McCain - 38 Appearances, 15,248 votes

- Thompson - 75 Appearances, 15,521 votes

- Huckabee - 86 Appearances, 39,814 votes

- Romney - 109 Appearances, 29,405 votes


Based on that data, the candidates got the following number of votes per official campaign appearance:

- Huckabee - 463 votes

- Paul - 429.5 votes

- McCain - 401.3 votes

- Romney - 269.8 votes

- Thompson - 207 votes

- Giuliani - 114.6 votes

And The New York Sun is saying (http://blog.myspace.com/The%20big%20question%20facing%20Mayor%20Giuliani%2 0heading%20into%20tomorrow's%20primary%20here%20is %20not%20so%20much%20whether%20he%20will%20win,%20 but%20whether%20he%20can%20finish%20ahead%20of%20R ep.%20Ron%20Paul.) that Guiliani isn't worried about coming in first in New Hampshire tomorrow - he's worried about Ron Paul:

The big question facing Mayor Giuliani heading into tomorrow's primary here is not so much whether he will win, but whether he can finish ahead of Rep. Ron Paul.

Mr. Paul, the stridently anti-war Texas congressman, nearly tripled Mr. Giuliani's vote total in Iowa and is running neck-and-neck with him in New Hampshire, with each hovering around the 10% mark in the polls.

For Mr. Giuliani, the undercard bout with Mr. Paul is the starkest sign yet of how far his star has fallen in recent months. In a debate last May, Mr. Paul served as the foil for what may have been the highlight of Mr. Giuliani's campaign, when the former mayor demanded that he apologize for suggesting that America's presence in the Middle East had caused the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

While Mr. Giuliani was then the undisputed Republican frontrunner, his campaign is now treading water, looking for solid but unspectacular performances in the next three primaries and to stay afloat until the vote in Florida in three weeks.

The Houston Chronicle chimes in (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5431385.html)and says Super Tuesday could be "Independents' Day:"

That's one of the famous quirks of New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary. Independent voters, who make up 44 percent of the electorate, can vote in either party's contest. And they have a history of making a difference: McCain's 2000 victory over George W. Bush and Pat Buchanan's 1996 win over Bob Dole were fueled by late-deciding independents.

This year, the candidates vying for independent voters include Democrat Barack Obama and Republicans McCain and Paul. Polls show Obama and McCain are the early favorites of New Hampshire's nonaligned voters, while Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Mitt Romney lead among partisans...

...Paul said independent voters may be attracted to him because many of them have become alienated from the Republican Party.

For Paul, these voters represent an opportunity to make inroads against more established party candidates such as McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. CNN entrance polls taken at the Iowa caucuses last week indicate Paul drew support among younger and more secular voters two independent-minded groups in plentiful supply in New Hampshire.

For McCain, Paul poses a danger of being a spoiler if he siphons off too many of the swing voters the Arizona senator needs to defeat his chief rival here, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.

For Democrat Obama, Paul is a rival for young anti-war, anti-Washington voters who are drawn to the two lawmakers from different sides of the political aisle.

Op-EdNews.com is writing (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dana_gab_080105_if_ron_paul_loses_2c_w.htm) about Dr Paul's chances in New Hampshire, as well, and they seem to think it's a bit early yet for Paulistas to be preparing for ritual suicide:

It would have been nice to finish ahead of both McCain and Thompson, but Ron Paul supporters can take some comfort in placing ahead of Giuliani, who finished with 4% of the vote. Giuliani did make more visits to Iowa than Paul, but he still wasn't expected to win. Paul beat him more than 2-1, and managed to capture one out of every ten votes. He is posed to build off that and if he can finish with 15% or higher in New Hampshire, this could put him in the top three. If the field remains close, this could also favor him. In a tight race, a split in votes could lead to Ron Paul coming right up the middle. He has more money and resources than some of his opponents, and this puts him at an advantage. The nomination could go down to the wire, with Paul winning or playing a key role.

Throughout the campaign, Ron Paul has been ridiculed and attacked for his views, as well as ignored and excluded from polls and debates. Nevertheless, he has shown remarkable resiliency. His huge Internet support, his ability to raise substantial amounts of money, and his 10% of the vote in Iowa have made ignoring him that much harder. He has never been one of the establishment media-preferred candidates, but with his support and polling numbers on the rise, there is no reason for him to be excluded from the Fox News debate. He deserves to be heard. Let the American people make their choice. Trying to suppress his message could have the reverse effect. It is because of his powerful message that he has been catapulted from relative obscurity to legitimate contender and possible spoiler. In the fourth quarter he raised close to $20 million, more than any Democrat or Republican candidate. His support hasn't peaked and he has more room to grow. Nothing seems to be able to derail the Ron Paul revolution, and the longer he stays in the race, the more of a threat he will become.

Indeed. Ron Paul was at the ABC Debate on Saturday, and the Shelbyville Times-Gazette has something to say (http://www.t-g.com/blogs/davidmelson/entry/15903/)about it:

One comment Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul made during Saturday night's ABC debates hits home in Bedford County.

Paul was explaining his view on how President Bush's foreign policy turns other nations against the United States.

He said (from ABC transcript):

"Try to visualize how we would react if they did that to us, if a country, say China, came that great distance across the ocean, and they say, 'We want you to live like us. We want you to have our economic system. We want bases on your land. We want to protect our oil.'

"Even if we do that with good intentions -- even if the Chinese did that with good intentions, we would all be together and we'd be furious."

Bedford County can relate. Note specifically the "We want you to live like us..." comment and relate it to foreigners here.

Interesting that Shelbyville weigs in, but the jaundiced, four-fingered inhabitants of Springfield are silent. Could this have something to do with Fox News?

Libertarian John Armstrong says (http://www.nolanchart.com/article764.html) over at The Nolan Chart that at the ABC debates, Ron Paul was a man among boys:

Which is why when he was asked about the gas price problem, instead of engaging in ridiculous political speak, he quoted the Wall Street Journal. The Journal ran an article showing that gas prices weren't rising as rapidly anywhere else in the world. Only in America. Why? You see, the cost of gas isn't rising, the value of the dollar is decreasing. Like I explained to my dad, the value of oil hasn't increased, it just takes a lot more dollars to buy the same amount because the dollar is worth less.

This issue isn't discussed openly because it doesn't resonate with voters the way issues like "free health care" or "securing our borders" or "protecting us from terrorists" do. How many Americans even realize that the U.S. dollar is worth less than a Canadian Dollar? Using the Canadian Dollar as the benchmark, how many people know that after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 the dollar was stronger than it was in 2000? How many people realize that in 2002, when the war in Iraq began, the value of our dollar began to decrease? It hasn't stopped its decline since, and is now reaching historical lows. As the data in the chart below indicates, it wasn't the attacks of 9/11 that destroyed our dollar, it was our response to them.

Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are hitting the trail in New Hampshire, and sounding eerily similar. WMUR reports (http://www.wmur.com/politics/14989477/detail.html) that...

...more than 400 supporters gathered Sunday to hear Republican candidate Ron Paul speak on his plans to limit governmental power.

Paul said his ideas clearly separate him from the other Republican candidates.

"They're talking about more government," he said. "We just need better management of government. We don't need to go in that direction."

While CBSNews reports (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry3680193.shtml) that...

Mike Huckabee sounded off on how politicians in Washington, D.C. had spent beyond their public mandate. He then threw in a line about money printing that could have come out of Ron Paul's mouth.

"We sent them there to cut spending, and they didn't do it. They've spent more money than has ever been spent. Guess where that money is coming from. Your pocket," Huckabee said.

"Just remember this, when government says we're giving you things, remember before the government can give you something, the government has to take it from you first. And the handling charge is extraordinary."

"We need to say no to government spending when it's wrecking our grandchildren's futures. Nine trilllion dollars worth of debt on your credit card that somebody transferred to the next several generations. That's irresponsible. And what's their answer? Spend more. Print more, spend more."

Interestingly, Huckabee's words sound like an issues statement on fellow candidate Ron Paul's campaign website. It's not plagiarism, but their points are quite similar: "Today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future and yours. In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply making each dollar in your pocket worth less."

And speaking of appearances, Ron Paul will be on Jay Leno tonight, so set the DVR. Also, last night on local New Hampshire television, you could've watched Ron Paul at the local town hall meeting, fielding various questions. If you don't live in New Hampshire or you missed it, you can watch it on the internet (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/snippets/127/manchester-townhall/).

The Houston Chronicle was there. Here's (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5432330.html) what they had to say:

Shut out of a GOP presidential candidate forum sponsored by Fox News, Ron Paul staged his own televised town hall meeting today in which he fielded questions from undecided voters two days before the key primary election here.

The Lake Jackson Republican congressman faced a range of questions from the audience of about 100 people in the public access television station several miles from where four other presidential contenders were to later participate in the Fox debate.

Paul responded to one participant who asked why he should chose the libertarian-leaning Texan over more mainstream GOP contenders such as Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, saying he had been more consistent in his views than his rivals.

"They are seen as flip-floppers," Paul said. "People look at my record and say he's a stick-to-his guns guy."

Haaretz has a piece (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=942091&c..25&subC..0&sbSubC..1&listSrc=Y&art=1) on Dr Paul and Isreal:

Paul rejects the "isolationist" label, but it's difficult to describe his positions in another manner. In Iowa he took 10 percent of the votes, way ahead of Giuliani's 3 percent and slightly behind McCain's 13 percent. No one believes he can win, but nevertheless in the final quarter of 2007, he raised the amazing sum of nearly $20 million, allowing him to remain in the race. The vast majority of the money came from hundreds of thousands of people who each gave less than $100. Most of them are young - allowing Paul to compare his draw to that of Democratic candidate Barack Obama - and very devoted. In New Hampshire, a state whose citizens have a strong tendency to believe that that government is best which governs least, and are among the most anti-tax people in the country, Paul hopes to do well - at least as well as he did in Iowa.

The most interesting political question about Paul concerns whether he will run as an independent after he loses the Republican nod. Paul refuses to promise that he won't, and one can already hear how would frame an independent run: "The investment was made by the supporters," he notes. They gave the money, they'll decide what to do with it. In other words, if they demand it, he will have no choice but to go forward.

Paul made time for a brief conversation with Haaretz a few days ago, after an appearance at Des Moines University, in Iowa. He spoke to students before holding a short press conference, and then stopped to talk about Israel a little. Much has already been written about Paul and Israel. Some have accused him of being anti-Israel and have found anti-Semitic sentiments among some of his supporters. A few of Paul's statements have teetered on the thin line between sharp criticism and dangerous conspiracy theories. For example: "The assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the [Iraq] war."

Speaking of the region, Alarab Online also has a perspective (http://english.alarabonline.org/display.asp?fname=2008..01..01-07..zopinionz..960.htm&dismode=x&ts=07/01/2008%2001:40:10%20ã):

George Washington was a long shot when he crossed the Delaware River, the surrender of Cornwallis was a long shot, the D-Day invasion of Europe, the defeat of Nazi Germany and subsequent liberation of Europe, surrender of Japan, yes even Iwo Jima were all American long shots. Anyone obtaining the label of a "long shot" follows a lasting legacy of American patriots that forced their way to freedom and liberty against tyranny and oppression by tenacity, endurance and fortitude.

The truth is, the only "long shot" is Ron Paul's uphill struggle against media control of mass communication and political apathy. Fox News' refusal to include Ron Paul in the January 6th New New Hampshire "debate," as well as excluding him from coverage is prime example of this effort. That refusal is a violation of the FCC, since excluding Ron Paul could not be in "the public interest," but only services a hidden agenda of special interests subverting liberty, freedom and the Constitution.

Ron Paul is the only candidate to openly question support to Israel. US support of Israel was and is one of the main reasons behind the 911 attacks and subsequent "jihad" against American Imperialism and Missionary Democracy, attacks not against American's or our way of life, but war waged against failed foreign policy which is contrary to America's core ideals;* an Israeli, US endorsed policy that supports war crimes, assassinations of innocent children and political opponents, land theft, the collective punishment of a people while violating US and International law, ignoring clear UN mandates such as UN Resolution 242.** There is no conflict between Israel and Palestine, that was resolved by UN 242. All are usurpations of the Constitution, yet only Ron Paul dares to speak out.

Interesting take. The Los Angeles Times is writing (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/) about Ron Paul's ad blitz ready to hit the left coast:

Get ready, California. Here comes Ron Paul! Literally.

After thousands of radio and TV ads bombarded the early-voting states for months, Californians' ears are about to be exposed to the biographical story of Paul, who's gained growing attention in recent weeks for his amazing fundraising success; Paul's fervent followers raised nearly $20 million in the fourth quarter alone, including a new online one-day donation record in excess of $6 million. With those funds, the 72-year-old, 10-term Texas Congressman with the libertarian ideals is launching an eight-state ad campaign on radio stations in California, Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, North Dakota, Louisiana, Maine and Florida this week.

The ad is biographical, detailing his background and hinting at his longtime opposition to increased government spending.

And here's the ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvY7KzPTdfE

Continued...

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

RSDavis
01-07-2008, 02:48 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (1-7-8)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=345225639&Mytoken=A5F59C2E-37FB-4066-82C898F2CAA848DC41094470)


Conclusion...

Burton Blumert speculates (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert128.html) on LewRockwell.com exactly how Ron Paul is attacked:

"In the war against Ron, the establishment has the five following areas in which to attack him;

1.THE DEBATES. Attacking him here hasn't worked out too well and is fraught with risk. When someone hits Ron, the moderators are compelled to allow him to respond. This is where Dr Paul shines. (As I point out above.)
2. THE PRINT MEDIA. Ron is well received by local newspapers when he hits town and since nobody pays attention to the national opinion mags these days, any hit pieces from them are futile.
3. THE INTERNET. Ron wins every skirmish on the net. (His dazzling array of supporters make sure of that.)
TV. As with the hometown newspapers, Ron does very well with local TV coverage. It is only through the national networks and cable that Ron's enemies can effectively try to destroy his remarkable run.
4.THE REPUBLICAN APPARATUS. In most instances, a single word from an upper level Party functionary can stop a candidate in his tracks. Ron Paul has never been part of their "club," and thus is immune to their dictates.

My TV reporter pal's logic is irrefutable. National TV is the only effective weapon they can use against Ron. The "talking heads" continue to ridicule and marginalize him, and it will get worse. Future elections may be decided otherwise, but this presidential election will, unfortunately be affected by the images transmitted by the networks and cable.

Reason is out campaigning (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124257.html) with the troops:

On Saturday I met up with Mike Molloy and Harris Wells, two Paul volunteers assigned to canvass for voters in the suburbs of Manchester, NH. The Paul operation is not all sign waves and protests -- the easy stuff that so many fringe campaigns do to create the impression of momentum. Hundreds of Paul supporters are piling into cars, navigating Google Maps printouts where possible Paul supporters (independents and Republicans) houses have been checked off. Molloy and Wells were tasked with knocking on 55 doors and dropping literature or, if someone was home, pushing them to vote Paul.

I spent about 40 minutes with the pair and watched them hit 10 houses. Four people weren't home, and one wasn't the person listed at the address: They all got the generic fliers. One voter liked John McCain's war record but wouldn't commit 100 percent to him, so he got the flier for veterans. Two were completely undecided, and one of them didn't know anything about Paul. One wouldn't vote for Paul because she wanted the strongest possible Republican candidate. One said he was "probably" voting for Paul.

Molloy wasn't always asking point-blank if the voters would commit to Paul: "It depends if the question comes in the progress of the conversation." His strategy was to start a chat about an issue and see if he could sell a Ron Paul angle. For example, that "strongest possible Republican" voter was angry about health care costs, so Molloy talked about health care deregulation. When I left he had a sheet marked with people who were considering Paul, people who definitely weren't, and people who hadn't been reached.

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

And finally, Counterpunch has an interview (http://counterpunch.org/volatile01052008.html) with Paul fan and anti-war soldier Naval Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto, Sr:

Naval Petty Officer, third class, stationed on board the USS Theodore Roosevelt, co-founder of the Appeal For Redress Movement and author of the soon to be released book, Anti-War Soldier. He has also recently decided to support Congressman Ron Paul's (R-TX) candidacy for President. I spoke with Jonathan, who is presently on leave, by phone and we talked about the Redress Movement, ending the war and why he is supporting Ron Paul...

...Recently you sent a letter to Ron Paul endorsing his candidacy for President, tell us about that...

"I believe Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is serious about ending the war in Iraq and I believe the anti-war movement should actually consider voting for him, he's the only candidate representing us (the anti-war movement) in the Republican party and I am personally going to vote for him. As a person who doesn't agree with him on everything, on the issue of the Iraq war, I'm with him ninety percent, as far as his non-intervention and bringing our troops home. Supporting Ron Paul is strategic in terms of what needs to happen. I hope that other people will consider this too. The anti-war movement needs to give him a serious look The anti-war movement, ninety plus percent of it is supporting the democratic party and what has the democratic party done for us on the question of war? They have have consistently been complicit in funding the war, that's what they have done. I also believe it is unintelligent for the entire anti-war movement to be confined within one political party, we need to be looking at it from a broader based perspective and I'm glad that Ron Paul is running. The one thing I can say about Ron Paul is that he is consistent. I think he is very courageous to take the stands on issues that he does. It is very empowering. I hope more active duty members and citizens in general will take a better look at his candidacy."

"You know, we are patriots, when I read the Constitution, when I read the Declaration of Independence, these are beautiful documents, you know? They actually give you instructions on what to do when your government is not accountable to the people. The Declaration of Independence is a radical document_ I believe in it and I'm going to live it. Not just talk about it."

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

Jeremiah
01-08-2008, 08:37 AM
You are the second person to mention a Rasmussen poll showing Dr. Paul at 14%. I linked to the Reason magazine comment and linked thru to Rasmussen where the only poll I saw had Dr. Paul at 8% not 14%. I have looked over the Rasmussen site and can find no mention of Dr. Paul at 14%.