View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (1-9-8) SCANDAL EDITION

01-09-2008, 03:11 PM

[b]Ron Paul Roundup (1-9-8) SCANDAL EDITION
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=345899819&Mytoken=EF258B1E-9F50-4EB0-BC2115281EFB9F9637349019)

Hello Freedomphiles! In today's Roundup, I want to do a special edition on last night's New Hampshire primary and the smear attack by The New Republic. As you know, Dr Paul did not do as well in last night's primary as we might have hoped. Here are the results (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1417):

McCain - 36%
Romney - 27%
Huckabee - 10%
Giuliani - 9%
Paul - 9%
Thompson - 2%
Hunter - 1%
Undecided - 5%

That's essentially a tie for third. Third is right where I was hoping he'd be, but I was also hoping he'd get a higher percentage. It's not time to panic. LewRockwell.com sees it much the same (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018423.html):

This is pretty much what I expect: A McCain-Romney race , followed by a three-way toss-up for third place. At the top of the race, Paul clearly benefits if Romney somehow beats McCain: it keeps him [Romney]in the race and the NeoCon vote fractured; I presume Romney's support would go to McCain and Giuliani if he dropped out. In addition, a Romney victory would prevent McCain from being anointed as "inevitable". Paul's slowly-but-steadily increasing support needs time, and the longer the GOP race remains fractued, the better for Paul.

Let's just hope that independents on the fence between Paul and Obama break republican and those independents on the fence between McCain and Obama break democratic. This could happen, with Paul retaining the support of a small, hardcore group of independents while a larger number soft independents (the type of uninformed voter that would be torn between a faux-independent NeoCon like McCain and a Great Society leftist like Obama) supporters will flock to Obama; if this were to occur, we would see Romney beat McCain, and Paul beat Huck and Giuliani -- at least that's my hope.

Really, as long as he can maintain close to 10% support among Republicans, I can keep hope alive that he's gonna be enticed into a 3rd party or independent run for president. That's really his best shot. Eric Dondero agrees (http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/ed_01081.shtml):

The Libertarian Party or Constitution Party route still seems to still be up in the air. Ron Paul, famously a ditherer right up until the end, may not even know the answer to that question himself right now. Ballot access wise, the Libertarian Party makes more sense for Paul. But ideologically the CP and other Constitutionalist Parties are a better fit. But with $18.8 million raised for his effort, one thing is sure; the likelihood of Paul just quietly pulling out of the race after a few losses in early GOP primaries is very slim.

David Weigel speculates (http://reason.com/news/show/124295.html) about why Ron Paul didn't do as well as we'd hoped:

Paul simply underperformed. The problems were threefold: a late start in actual campaigning, a strange ad campaign, and a waste of energy among novice volunteers who should have been getting out the vote.

The late start was the most obvious (and reassuring) reason for the disappointing finish. It had been widely known, for months, that New Hampshire could become Paul country. But not until December did Paul volunteers really start to flood the state and do the dullest grunt work of politics: phonebanking, door-to-door canvassing. Some of the work had been done earlier, but there wasn't the kind of critical mass that can rack up votes until the arrival of Vijay Boyapati's Operation Live Free or Die, a third-party effort to bring in Paul volunteers and put them up in houses so they could learn the art of the campaign. Most came too late to prune down the voter lists the campaign had and create a truly effective, Bush 2004-style turnout list that could have maxed out the totals on election day. There is no such thing as a perfect list – indeed, the Obama campaign probably turned out female voters who'd been committed on Monday and Judas'd him on Tuesday. But I found plenty of grumbling about how tepidly the Paul forces were organized before the grassroots arrived.

I found even more grumbling about the ad campaign. Paul spent more than $1.5 million on TV and radio ads in this state, and from the get-go, Paul supporters responded to them with an ire unseen in any other campaign. Obviously, the Pauloverse has always been more communicative than the base of any other campaign: There are no RudyGiulianiForums, there are no multi-thousand-post YouTube threads for Fred Thompson's country-fried web videos. Get that many online fans and you'll get some nasty feedback.

In this case, though, the feedback was right. Paul's numbers spiked after he ran a simple ad slamming the government for invading Americans' privacy, but then the campaign moved on to media that stressed his army record, his pro-life views, and especially his yen for closing the border. The ads got slicker and slicker, and the numbers didn't move. The slickest ad, a Tancredoean cry against birthright citizenship and visas for terrorists, was a total flop. The 50 percent of Republicans who told exit pollsters they want to deport illegal aliens voted for Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Rudy, in that order. A volunteer who went by the name of Ball griped that the ads made Paul look like a generic Republican, not a solution-spouting maverick libertarian. The evidence supports him.

The third factor – the work of the volunteer rEVOLutionaries – is the hardest to gauge. Paul volunteers and signs were eye-poppingly visible across the state, and the week of the primary they turned downtown Manchester into their own bottle city of Kandor. Painted Ron Paul vans drove up and down the Elm Street drag as Tom Sheehan, the Ron Paul Patriot, donned revolutionary war clothes and a backpack that supported as many as four giant-sized Paul signs. Paul people crashed other candidates' publicity stunts and waved signs on corners. When Fox News expelled Paul from the final pre-primary debate, 36 hours before the polls opened, more than 200 Paul fans flooded the city to protest and march and disrupt Fox's programming. Could they have spent that time scrounging up enough votes to beat Giuliani and win some headlines?

Anyway, as you can see by those numbers up top, John McCain did quite well. He nabbed a lot of the independent voters that we Paul supporters were hoping to get. I have a theory as to why.

In yesterday's Roundup, I mentioned a story that was going around and would be released soon by The New Republic. I correctly estimated that it was old news, but what I didn't see is the impact it would have on the race.

The timing of the piece was perfect, if the goal was to destroy Ron Paul's chances in his best-chance state of New Hampshire. And I am sure its author, James Kirchick, had just that in mind. Here's a sample (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca) of the piece:

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

He also sets libertarians Lew Rockwell, Ludwig von Mises, and Thomas DiLorenzo in his sights, perhaps slandering them more than Paul himself. He basically implied they were racist neo-confederates. DiLorenzo responds (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html):

This ignorant little kid posing as a "journalist" then informed everyone that the conference was sponsored by a "neo-Confederate" group and that Ron Paul speaks to "the neo-Confederate community," whatever that is, "in code language. (I knew that Ron was in touch with the Martian community, and with the residents of the planet Remulak, home of the supposedly "fictional" Coneheads of Saturday Night Live fame, but not the "Neo-Confederate Community" as well).

Well, I was at that secession conference and presented a paper there. It was sponsored by the Mises Institute, which has nothing to do with Confederates, neo or otherwise, as anyone who surveyed the Institute's programs on its web site (www.mises.org) would know. The PFY did not bother because he is only interested in slandering Ron Paul, not in being a serious journalist.

My paper was about the Northern secessionist tradition prior to the War between the States, including the Hartford, Ct. secession convention of 1814, and the secession movements of the mid-Atlantic states that existed prior to the war (see the book, The Secession Movement in the Middle States by William Wright). The famous abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was a Northern secessionist whose credo was "No Covenant with Death," the "covenant" being the U.S. Constitition, and "death" being slavery. Other papers had to do with the Quebec secession movement, European secession movements, federalism in general, how the U.S. was created by a war of secession from the British empire, and even "How to Secede in Business" by substituting arbitration for litigation.

But don't take my word for it. The proceedings of the conference, which the PFY is obviously ignorant of, were published as a book: Secession, State and Liberty, edited by Dr. David Gordon, whose Ph.D. from UCLA is in the field of intellectual history. It includes essays by scholars and professors from Emory University, Florida State University, UNLV, University of Montreal, University of South Carolina, and even a lawyer from Buffalo, New York. It was published a few years after the Soviet empire imploded as the result of eleven separate acts of peaceful secession, which made it especially relevant to social scientists.

In fact, secession remains a lively topic of academic discourse, something that the PFY is obviously unfamiliar with. A few weeks ago a secession conference sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities was held in Chrleston, South Carolina, featuring some thirty historians and legal scholars. In little Jamie Kirchick's empty mind, the NEH must necessarily be a hotbed of pro-slavery sentiment. (A friend in academe tells me that the participants in this conference spanned the ideological spectrum from left/liberal to Marxist).

Only an ignorant conspiracy theorist like Jamie Kirchick would assume that anyone who studies secession in a scholarly way is necessarily some kind of KKK-sympathizing kook. He knows that Ron Paul will not sue him for defamation because he is a public figure. I, however, am not a public figure.

LewRockwell.com itself was less confrontational, but still defensive (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018433.html) about the smear:

The James Kirchick article in The New Republic is so obviously a smear strategy that aims to shut down the campaign of a guy who is an unnerving candidate because he comes from outside The Establishment and he is representative of a very ominous grassroots power. The Establishment and its media stooges have no real strategy for combating, let alone defeating, a massive grassroots-Internet power that has discarded old media and old politics in favor of a grassroots revolution that is supported by a strong finanial network.

Now this whole smear is, of course, a very calculated attempt on the part of the neocon rag, The New Republic, to take down a candidate whom the establishment absolutely fears. This punk kid whole wrote it, James Kirchick, is a Giuliani lover, and one who would love to "make a name" for himself by bringing down the Ron Paul Revolution with a prehistoric strategy of pointing a finger at supposed acts of political incorrectness. As soon as Ron is making the charge into the primaries, in a good position to win one or two of them, out comes the smear cannons.

There's much to say on this topic, but I think that what people should take from this is the obvious: this story appeared at this point and time, using this very "hot" theme, because the old media establishment that tries its best to support the Washington DC political establishment is darn near spooked by the power wielded by a bunch of grassroots Moms, Dads, college kids, Grandmas, and blue-collar Joes who have had enough of the current system and its choke hold on their ability to live their lives unencumbered. Freedom has gained some popularity in the heartland and in the home, thanks to Dr. Paul, and that won't be tolerated by the controlling bastards in power or the inconsequential media hacks like Kirchick and the New Republic.

And Lew Rockwell himself had this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018420.html) to say:

TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication's style--hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.

JD Tuccille thouroughly dissects (http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/01/ron-paul-charges-dissected.html) the article and it's implications:

Kirchik also targets Paul's "paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s." Some of the newsletter excerpts are a bit over the top -- there's the usual tired denunciation of the Trilateral Commission, for example -- but there's no explanation of why anti-government sentiment, in and of itself, is a bad thing. That's a point that Kirchik needs to explain in the days of the Patriot Act, FBI abuses of the few remaining restrictions on surveillance, waterboarding and seemingly limitless government spending.

In fact, Kirchik dilutes his whole argument by mixing in ideas that he just doesn't like with bigotry that should offend any reasonable person and presenting it all together as an unpalatable stew.

Perhaps the strongest argument against linking Ron Paul to the sentiments in the newsletters is the plain, crass, stupidity with which many of the sentiments are expressed: "Rapetown,"; "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?"; "Barbara Morondon"; "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." This just doesn't sound like the guy who can turn any interview into a (take your pick) sophisticated/deadly dull discussion of monetary policy.

Read the whole thing. It's actually quite good, even though this story is actually really old news - 10 years old - as Ron Paul responded (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108) today:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

But he responded before, too. As an article (not available online) in Texas Monthly back when this story first broke ten years ago:

"What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

Indeed. But it plays to Dr Paul's character, something Andrew Sullivan focuses (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-paul-expose.html) on today:

At best, Paul was negligent in having these things published under his name - although Kirchick has not been able to find a single by-lined piece of hate actually attributed to Ron Paul himself. In fact there are almost no by-lines in any of them. I should also say that many of the quotes really don't sound anything like Paul.

Timothy Virkkala concurs (http://wirkman.net/wordpress/?p=201):

As a writer and editor working in the libertarian movement at the time of these "Ron Paul" newsletters, I have vague recollection of "common knowledge": it was known who wrote these newsletters, and why. It was money for Ron. It was money for the writers. And it was a way of keeping Ron's name in the minds of right wingers with money . . . future donors.

It was designed to be entertaining writing. Provocative. It flirted with racism, like Mencken's did, and Mencken was indeed the model of the style. But these "Ron Paul" writings went further than Mencken's usually did (at least for publication) along the lines of annoying the racially sensitive; and they sometimes did veer into outright racism.

I was embarrassed by the implied racial hatred, rather disgusted by the general level of hate regardlesss of race. I was also a bit shocked by the writing because the style was so obviously not Ron's, and so obviously the product of the actual writers, with whom I had tangential relations — is my editor's* writer my writer?

Radley Balko finds that believable (http://www.theagitator.com/category/politics/):

Make of that what you will. I find it plausible. It doesn't excuse Paul, any more than the GOP can be excused for winking and nodding at racists for political gain throughout the 1980s. But it does at least fill the gap between the hateful invective in those newsletters and Paul's more mild-mannered temperament. Sounds like a bunch of young paleo-libs were rather enjoying the opportunity to do churn out crappy imitations of Mencken prose while taking advantage of Paul's name and the absence of responsibility that comes with an anonymous byline.

And *****ty.com actually admits (http://www.*****ty.com/ron-pauls-anti-gay-letters-make-us-limp-20080108/):

Kirchick points out that while we can't know whether Paul actually wrote these statements, they all appeared under his name and were written in his voice. Regardless, we still like him more than any of the other Republican candidates.

If all this isn't enough, and you want a clear refutation of these quotes, look no farther than Reason's David Weigel, who caught up with Paul and asked (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124281.html) him point-blank:

reason: Do you have any response to The New Republic's article about your newsletters?

Ron Paul: All it is--it's old stuff. It's all been rehashed. It's all political stuff.

reason: Why don't you release all the old letters?

Paul: I don't even have copies of them, because it's ancient history.

reason: Do you stand by what appears in the letters? Did you write these...?

Paul: No. I've discussed all of that in the past. It's just old news.

reason: Did the New Republic talk to you before they ran it?

Paul: No, I never talked to them.

reason: What do you think of Martin Luther King?

Paul: Martin Luther King is one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that's a libertarian principle. Rosa Parks is the same way. Gandhi, I admire. Because they're willing to take on the government, they were willing to take on bad laws. So I believe in civil disobedience if you understand the consequences. Martin Luther King was a great person because he did that and he changed America for the better because of that.

reason: You didn't write the derogatory things about him in the letter?

Paul: No.

Another Reason contributor - my hero Radley Balko - goes into this on his site, The Agitator, talking (http://www.theagitator.com/category/politics/) about what he (and I) fear most - the implications for the liberty movement:

I also think the Paul phenomenon ought to be separated from any personal baggage Paul may have. Yes, there are some losers who support Paul's candidacy. Any time you're a fringe candidate cobbling together support from those who feel disaffected and left behind by the two-party system, you're going to end up bumping elbows with a few weirdos. But there's nothing bigoted about the thousands of college kids, mainstream libertarians, war opponents, drug war opponents, and hundreds-long threads on sites like Digg and Reddit where enthusiasm for Paul's candidacy is strong. This movement is about ideas. There's a vocal, enthusiastic minority of people out there, skewing young, that is excited about "the Constitution," limited government, and personal freedom. That's significant and heartening, and shouldn't be tainted by the fallout from Kirchick's article (though I fear it will—more on that in a bit).


I also fear that newly-minted Paulites on sites like Reddit, Digg, Slashdot and the like—whose first exposure to libertarianism was Ron Paul—are going to click over to the New Republic piece in the coming days, become disillusioned, and assume that this is really what libertarianism is all about.

Paul's candidacy attracted broad support because he unabashedly embraced what the GOP claims to be on fiscal issues—low tax, limited government, pro-federalist—and what the Democrats claim to be on social issues—pro individual freedom and pro-privacy. Paul's campaign has essentially called both parties on their bullshit, and made them explain the gap between their stated principles and the way they've governed. Both sides I think were surprised at how strong he came on. So both sides dismissed him as a nut, and cited the kookiest fringes of libertarianism and dug up the most whacked-out Paul supporters to prove their point. Unfortunately, the quotes pulled from these newsletters will for many only confirm those worst stereotypes of what he represents. The good ideas Paul represents then get sullied by association. The Ann Althouses of the world, for example, are now only more certain that opponents of federal anti-discrimination laws should have to prove that they aren't racist before being taken seriously.

There have always been issues where I disagree pretty profoundly with Paul—immigration and the Fourteenth Amendment, to name two. Still, I've been encouraged by his campaign because it's been heartening to not only watch a candidate talk about limited government, humble foreign policy, and individual liberty over the last several months, but to see his support actually grow as he does.

Paul's success and media coverage have exposed a large portion of the country to libertarian ideas for the first time. Before yesterday, that was a good thing. But now I'm not so sure. If this new audience's first exposure to libertarianism now comes with all of this decidedly unlibertarian baggage—that many may now wrongly associate with libertarian ideas—maybe it would have been better if Paul's campaign had sputtered out months ago, and we waited a cycle or two for someone else to come along to tap the sentiment.

Reason's Matt Welsh had this (http://reason.com/blog/show/124288.html) to say:

Me? I'm tempted to agree with the latter, but I'm not so sure, at least not in the same way in which I've heard pre-emptive anxiety for months from libertarians, who all seemed to be holding their breath waiting for this day to come. My personal preference for limited government (and limited thinking about government) really has never had anything to do with revisiting Civil War history, hatin' on uppity urban blacks and going all purple-faced about political correctness, real or imagined. And I can guar-an-tee that the general (and significant) trend toward political independence, don't-tread-on-meism, and especially a full-throated embrace of live-and-let live freedom, tolerance, and choice-driven exploration among people younger than me has bugger-all to do with Fear of a Black Planet. The source for freedom's popularity is not, and probably never will be, located in the mouth or heart or rancid old newsletters of any politician.

And Brian Doherty said this (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124290.html):

It is certainly worth remembering on this tense day for those who have admired Paul as a politician and as a voice in this campaign that, as his clear to anyone paying close attention to either his presidential campaign message (or his message through most of his congressional career) or to the concerns of the bulk of his current fans, that racial or anti-gay animus has zero to do with Ron Paul's campaign or its appeal. Any attempt to tar the "Ron Paul Revolution" with these old newsletters is wrongheaded and unfair. It is also worth remembering that every single other candidate is a fervent believer in policies that cause far more harm to far more innocent black people (the drug war) than old ghostwritten words that insult Martin Luther King, or insult rioters in racial terms, ever could.

I tend to agree with Matt and Radley on this issue, I worry that it will stick, and I worry that it will turn off liberty-minded people to libertarianism. I also agree with Andrew Sullivan that he needs to speak out on this more forcefully and denounce what was written and who wrote it, although I understand tracking down the actual authors of the pieces may be problematic.



01-09-2008, 03:15 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (1-9-8) SCANDAL EDITION
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=345899819&Mytoken=EF258B1E-9F50-4EB0-BC2115281EFB9F9637349019)


Wendy McElroy, another hero of mine, and founder of the iFeminists (http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/enews/enews.php), seems pretty sure she knows who wrote the offending pieces, and calls them out (http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?item.1297.1):

The identity of the author of the 'objectionable' material from past issues of Ron Paul's Newsletter -- material that is currently being used by major media to skewer Paul -- is an open secret within the circles in which I run. The news accounts refer to him merely as an "aide." We call him by his first name.

I am addressing an appeal to this man. Damage is being done to the libertarian movement and to Ron Paul. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck about the latter...but I know you do. Will you now do the decent thing for libertarianism and come forward to acknowledge responsibility for the material being used against your mentor?

In other New Hampshire news, The Boston Globe reports (http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2008/01/obama_and_paul.html) that some Ron Paul poll workers were kicked out of precincts yesterday:

Campaign volunteers for the Barack Obama and Ron Paul have been kicked out of precincts from Concord to Swanzey for not having the proper credentials, several unrelated sources have witnessed.

In general elections it is standard practice to have poll workers sitting behind the registration table and scratching off names as people sign in. Periodically they take those lists and the campaign gets in contact with those who have voted yet.


Apparently many of these Obama and Paul observers did not have this letter. These same sources say that it is the Clinton campaign that has called foul.

They also report (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/01/08/ron_paul_nh_no_reason_to_let_up/) that even though yesterday's outcome was a little disappointing, Ron Paul isn't going to quit:

"There's really no reason for us to be letting up. It's really only the beginning," the Texas congressman told a raucous crowd of campaign workers and supports in Concord.

Paul, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, was on track for fifth place with about 8 percent of the vote. He had hoped to better his 10 percent showing in the Iowa caucuses last week.

The libertarian-leaning doctor who says the Republican Party has lost its way said his campaign will gain strength as more voters hear his message of individual liberty and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

"There is no doubt in my mind that we're on the right track. We're moving," Paul said.

He credited much of his support to young people, and an intense Internet campaign that saw him raise record amounts on the Web in the last three months.

The Houston Chronicle elaborates (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5439272.html):

Paul suggested Tuesday he has the ability to keep going because his supporters raised nearly $20 million in the last quarter, an amount expected to exceed anything raised by the top GOP candidates.

"We are in pretty good shape to go through Feb. 5," said Paul, who added that he will re-evaluate his position after the Super Tuesday primaries.

Paul's campaign chairman, Kent Snyder, said the candidate has already spent $1.5 million in television and radio commercials in South Carolina, which holds its GOP primary Jan. 19.

Paul also has hired a state coordinator for Florida, which holds its election 10 days later, on Jan. 29. The campaign has also announced that it will begin buying radio spots in eight states including California, Georgia and Florida.

Seacost Online reports (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080109/NEWS/801090379/-1/NEWS&sfad=1) that Ron Paul's supporters are in for the long haul, as well:

Denise Brown of Northwood attended with one of the youngest Ron Paul supporters, her son, Kaelan, age 1. She's with Ron Paul because of his proven track record, and his opposition from the beginning to the Iraq war.

"He's able to say no when they crowd says yes," she said. Like her candidate, Brown favors a smaller government. "Our government could go on a diet."

"It's not over now," a supporter hollered and received lot of applause.

When Paul addressed the throng, he said much the same thing.

"It's really only the beginning. We care about the future of this country and we're going to continue this fight," Paul said. "We're on the way to something very big for this country." The crowd erupted with applause and chants.

And finally, in lighter news, do you remember the World of Warcraft march that had us giggling last week? The Village Voice (who else?!?) has an in-depth article (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0802,thompson,78817,2.html) on it:

Dozens of Ron Paul opponents donned characters of their own and milled around the edge of the crowd, where they challenged players to fight to the death.

"Unfortunately, there were folks who were there to harass us and try to stop the march," says Lettuce B-Free. "They were trying to get us to flag for [player vs. player mode], so they could kill us. They were spouting negative things, but we had already decided that we were going to be quiet and respectful and stay focused."

They should have hired out some mercenary thugs to take the fights for them. They could have paid them in grog or manna or whatever the nerds use for currency in fake fantasy worlds.


01-09-2008, 03:56 PM
Funny you say that. Ironicly. Most MMO's use Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Copper as currency. Oh i wish fantasy was reality.

01-09-2008, 03:58 PM
And who is the Author?

01-09-2008, 04:03 PM
Funny you say that. Ironicly. Most MMO's use Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Copper as currency. Oh i wish fantasy was reality.

Well, they know better. After all, they ARE nerds. ;)

01-09-2008, 04:04 PM
And who is the Author?


01-09-2008, 04:47 PM

01-09-2008, 06:46 PM
The CP is most certainly not a closer ideological match to Paul. He's had a long and happy affiliation with the LP.

Just go read the CP's bible-thumping platform, that among other things OKs criminalizing "offensive sexual behavior" and calls for the institution (the call it a restoration, of course) of "biblical jurisprudence".

The idea that Dr. Paul would run on this party's ticket is (thankfully) absurd.

01-09-2008, 07:50 PM
The ghost writer. Who is it?

01-10-2008, 04:04 AM
Dr Paul did not do as well in last night's primary as we might have hoped. Here are the results (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1417):

McCain - 36%
Romney - 27%
Huckabee - 10%
Giuliani - 9%
Paul - 9%
Thompson - 2%
Hunter - 1%
Undecided - 5%

That's essentially a tie for third.

Wikipedia puts it like this:

John McCain - 37.09%
Mitt Romney - 31.58%
Mike Huckabee - 11.22%
Rudy Giuliani - 8.55%
Ron Paul - 7.67%
Fred Thompson - 1.21%
Duncan Hunter - 0.51%
Tom Tancredo - 0.03%
Others - 2.14%

Not quite the same. Who is right?

01-10-2008, 09:21 AM
The ghost writer. Who is it?

Well, I have heard rumors, so take this for what it is worth. What I heard was that it was either Lew Rockwell or Gary North. I like both of them, so it would be nearly as upsetting to me to find out it was one of them as it would be to find the good doctor wrote them.

- Rick

01-10-2008, 09:24 AM
The CP is most certainly not a closer ideological match to Paul. He's had a long and happy affiliation with the LP.

Just go read the CP's bible-thumping platform, that among other things OKs criminalizing "offensive sexual behavior" and calls for the institution (the call it a restoration, of course) of "biblical jurisprudence".

The idea that Dr. Paul would run on this party's ticket is (thankfully) absurd.

I don't know about the "biblical jurisprudence," but I do have a problem with Paul's federalism, when it allows states to violate individual rights. For instance, he came out against the decision in Lawrence v Texas, based on state's rights. That position is more in line with the Constitution Party than the Libertarian Party.

That said, I don't see why he couldn't be the nominee for BOTH parties..

- R

01-10-2008, 04:48 PM
I don't know about the "biblical jurisprudence," but I do have a problem with Paul's federalism, when it allows states to violate individual rights. For instance, he came out against the decision in Lawrence v Texas, based on state's rights. That position is more in line with the Constitution Party than the Libertarian Party.

That said, I don't see why he couldn't be the nominee for BOTH parties..

- R

Ron Paul thinks the Federal courts don't have Constitutional jurisdiction over those cases, based on his reading of the actual document, which is the same position Badnarik took if I recall correctly. There's also the very libertarian objection to entrusting the Supreme Court to be the primary defender of people's rights, when they have such a miserable track record.

The "Constitution Party" doesn't want the Federal courts to have jurisdiction because they want homosexuals thrown in jail.

That's a pretty big difference.

01-10-2008, 04:59 PM
Ron Paul thinks the Federal courts don't have Constitutional jurisdiction over those cases, based on his reading of the actual document, which is the same position Badnarik took if I recall correctly. There's also the very libertarian objection to entrusting the Supreme Court to be the primary defender of people's rights, when they have such a miserable track record.

The "Constitution Party" doesn't want the Federal courts to have jurisdiction because they want homosexuals thrown in jail.

That's a pretty big difference.

True. And I agree that the Supreme Court has been bad at defending our rights. But I still think they were right in that particular case.

The biggest thing we could do to protect our rights is jury nullification, which is really shunned by the courts. I wrote about it:

One Angry Man (http://www.geocities.com/freedomphiles/archives/angry.html)