View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (1-10-8)

01-10-2008, 02:49 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (1-10-8)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=346181841&Mytoken=E815B7B7-A8CF-4130-B2A8EA6DB4E7F06C2016411)

Hello Freedomphiles! I'd like to start off today's Roundup with some interesting news I found out about from Freedomphile Erin. It was a link to a story on prisonplanet, which often has some good stuff that is missed by the MSM, but also often has wacky conspiracy theories, as well.

This story could have been either, and I wanted to find out for sure. It all stems from a little town in New Hampshire called Sutton, which listed Ron Paul's vote total at zero. Well, a woman on an online forum said she was from Sutton and her entire family voted for Ron Paul.

Amy Demiceli picks it up (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_amydemic_080110__22hey_ron_paul_2c_i_m_i.ht m)from there:

That was enough for Bev Harris of Blackboxvoting.org to jump into action, she contacted the Town Clerk for Sutton and Jennifer Call confirmed the fraud. The zero tally was in fact a mistake, and Ron Paul actually received 31 votes. They omitted eight percent of the votes in that town, and called it an accident...whoops sorry.. and the main stream media quietly updated their charts never reporting the story.

But this cannot be glossed over as a "human error," this is fraud and Bev Harris highlights how deceitful it really is, "...one of the most common forms of fraud in a hand count system is to alter or omit results on the reporting sheet. Hand count is lovely, transparent. They then fill out another reconciliation sheet, often in front of witnesses, and it looks fine. Then they provide a summary or media sheet with the incorrect results."

So far nothing has been updated for the town of Greenville. The Boston Globe reports 139 voters, and CNN reports 144 votes, both are reporting zero votes for Ron Paul, but the Nashua Telegraph is reporting a very different story in Greenville tallying 290 votes they report 25 votes for Ron Paul.

But the question is, is this an isolated incident, or did this kind of thing happen statewide? We all expected Ron Paul to do better in independent-minded New Hampshire - could the idea of vote fraud simply be a convenient fantasy?

Some Barrack Obama supporters say no. The Dallas Morning News reports (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-netfraud_10pol.ART.State.Edition1.379d399.html):

Curious about the "wildly inaccurate" polls that put Mr. Obama in a double-digit lead going into Tuesday's primary, blogger Brad Friedman, a Los Angeles-based election-fraud watchdog, questioned the results as soon as they arrived, and all day Wednesday.

"Other folks that I've spoken to, who follow this sort of thing, share my concern at this hour," he wrote on bradblog.com. "If I was Barack Obama, I'd certainly not have conceded this election this quickly. I'm not quite sure what he was thinking."


But the buzz grew all day Wednesday as bloggers across the nation keyed into the fact that 81 percent of New Hampshire votes were being counted on machines that an HBO documentary alleged are easily hacked. It also didn't hurt that New Hampshire was the site of a recount after allegations of fraud in 2004, spotlighted in the much-praised documentary.

So, was there really a discrepancy between hand-counted ballots and machine counted ballots? Citizens for Legitimate Government did some research, and here are the results (http://www.legitgov.org/nh_machine_vs_paper.html), for both Clinton/Obama and Paul/Romney:

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 287,580 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 40.121%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.703%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 35.756%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.785%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 5.419% (15,584 votes)
Obama: -3.029% (-8,711 votes)

2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results --Total Republican Votes: 238,909 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.044%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.536%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.233%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.235%
Machine vs Hand:
Romney: 7.509% (17,939 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,781 votes)

Those are definitely some interesting numbers. Is it just a coincidence that Ron Paul and Obama did much better where votes were hand-counted? Statistics are a funny thing, and sometimes simple numeric discrepancies are misleading.

It could be that there is something that the places that weren't using the Diebold machines have in common that would lead to there being more Ron Paul and Obama supporters. Some other unknown variable that makes the results reasonable. If there is, I'd like to know.

The case for circumstance is not made better by the fact that Obama polled 15 points higher than his election results indicated. That gives the idea that Ron Paul's numbers were wrong more credence.

Ron Paul's numbers could have been affected by the New Republic smear that came out the morning of the election, but Obama was riding strong - almost coronated as the nation's second black president - while the wife of our first black president was all but dead in the water.

Here's a video that I found slumming through Democratic Underground that shows just how easy it is to hack the Diebold machine:


Well, I don't know what to say about this. It could all be wishful thinking from disappointed activists, but there's enough meat there to have questions. I think a recount might be the way to put this to bed once and for all. Devvy Kidd on News With Views comments (http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd335.htm):

The question is this: Had these voters not stepped forward and put their complaint on a Ron Paul blog site, would the county clerk have corrected the "error" and Dr. Paul's real vote numbers entered as official results? Does her excuse ring true? Not to those of us who have been into the vote fraud issue for so long. How many more missing votes are there for Ron Paul?

This whole process is a travesty. Ron Paul is moving on to the next primaries, but what about the mess left behind? He simply can't afford not to get those delegate votes. One thing people aren't paying enough attention to is that each of these primary "events" gets the candidate convention delegates. Go to this news item which gives the delegate count. Ron Paul has zero. If he doesn't start racking up those convention delegates, forget the White House. He can't do that if the vote is being stolen because those delegates hinge on the vote. Rasmussen had Dr. Paul at 14% for New Hampshire. FAUX had him at 8% all day and the machines made sure it stayed that way to the final "count." The chatter all over electronic and print media the day following the primary: all these polling orgs have egg on their faces! It's called eating their own when it's expedient - place the blame away from the true culprit. The bull, the cape and the matador.

I don't know who is advising Dr. Paul or if he's even being told what's going on. There is no shame in a candidate paying for a hand recount. The shame is doing nothing about it and moving on as if everything is okay. It's not. Look at all these dedicated Americans fighting for every vote for Ron Paul. Is his campaign simply going to blow off this fight for his votes? In four days it's Michigan, the same thing happens and his campaign just says, oh well, off to the next state?

I don't know if a recount will help, but with third place being up for grabs, a solid spot at that level could provide Paul with the lift he needs going into Super Tuesday.

In other Ron Paul news, the Republican Party of South Carolina is saying that Fox News has learned its lesson. Myrtle Beach Online reports (http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/story/308330.html):

Following the New Hampshire primary, six Republican candidates will attend Thursday night's debate in Myrtle Beach, state party officials said today.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee have all accepted their invitations, said Rob Godfrey, spokesman for the state Republican Party.

Now, normally I don't print letters in here, but this person wrote a great letter in defense of Ron Paul to the Jewish website Haaretz.com, who also had a piece that was in the Roundup a few days ago. This letter is in response to that. Here's an excerpt (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=942969&c..25&subC..0&sbSubC..1&listSrc=Y&art=1):

Dr. Paul does not call for unilateral withdrawal of aid to Israel. This leads me to believe that his views on this matter are simply consistent with his general view that the U.S. government should not form entangling alliances with other nations (also a view of Thomas Jefferson). The power that AIPAC wields is undeniably strong and does influence U.S. foreign policy, though hardly to the exaggerated extent that the conspiracy theorists hold. Dr. Paul acknowledges this power and believes it to be the result of U.S. meddling in middle-eastern affairs.

Remember how Bush Sr. told Israel to not retaliate against Iraq over the scud attacks? Israel would not likely have obeyed this order had it not been for the military and economic aid the US provides. Israel's inhibitions in defending herself are undoubtedly affected by this alliance with the U.S.; an alliance that does not (if it ever did) serve either the US or Israeli national interest. It is therefore no great logical jump to believe that such manipulation of Israeli affairs by the U.S. necessitates a strong pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. to get it to do for Israel what the US will not allow her to do herself.

Remember the U.S. condemnation of Israel over the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 80s. One needn't be a conspiracy theorist to see that Israel's reaction to such reactions of the US would reasonably be to say, "OK, well then, do it yourself!"

I love Israel and firmly believe that it was born and survived WITHOUT help from anyone, not even the U.S. You do remember that the U.S. held an embargo of arms shipments to the Jews fighting for independence in 1948 even as it had no such embargo against her enemies? Israel owes her existence and survival to no one on earth outside of the Jewish community of the world. I strongly believe that the U.S. buys Israeli policies that are harmful to her future with its aid and she'd be much better off without it and its strings. I also believe that U.S. invasions and other meddling in Arab/Muslim affairs causes blow-back for Israel that she'd likewise be much better without.

Andrew Sullivan is saying (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-pauls-new-h.html) that if things are over for Paul, they shouldn't be over for us:

But the freedom movement he helped galvanize is much more than one man. And if we enter a second Clinton era, we will need it as much as ever.

Apparently, Ron Paul and Laura Ingraham (who thinks she is way funnier than she is) threw down for a celebrity deathmatch:


Everything Michagan reports (http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/newsnow/2008/01/ron_paul_headquarters_attracti.html) that Ron Paul appeals to people all across the political spectrum:

Adam Ford, the 27-year-old county coordinator for Ron Paul's campaign, believes the man appeals to young people because of his unconventional -- for a Republican -- view of the Iraqi war (he promises to bring the troops home immediately), and his opposition to United States military presence overseas.

The money that would be saved by closing down our military bases could be used to insure the solvency of social security, Ford said.

"He kinda targets the Democrats because the Democrats are usually against the war," Ford said. "He's a pretty good candidate for that."

Paul has a strong local following that boost at least 100 people who log onto one Web site. And those supporters will be tapped in a door-to-door campaign to generate support for the candidate in the primary Tuesday, Ford said.

And while Paul follows closely to the GOP party line when it comes to issues like abortion and gun control, he refuses to write off the traditional Democratic base.

"We hitting all the union (halls) with literature," Ford said. Paul opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as unfair to American workers and detrimental to the nation's sovereignty, he said.

The Street reports (http://www.thestreet.com/s/ron-paul-get-back-to-gold/markets/marketfeatures/10397859.html?puc=googlefi) on Ron Paul's position about fiat money:

If Ron Paul is correct, monetary authorities around the globe have been conspiring to suppress gold prices for decades.

Not convinced? Don't tell that to his followers. Because partly as a result of this view, Paul, a Texas congressman and Republican presidential hopeful, has become the champion of gold bugs who see him as the best friend of their precious metal, and, they hope, the next occupant of the White House.

"Our central banks around the world colluded over the last 10 to 20 years and have been dumping gold to keep gold down," Paul said in an interview with TheStreet.com when he met with voters in Concord, N.H., late Tuesday. "But finally, [the price] broke loose, and gold is soaring again to historic levels."

For those of you out there who are unfamiliar with Paul's contention, understand that he is not alone. His comments echo the beliefs of fringe dwellers who for years have speculated that a multinational consortium of government banks, including the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, have deliberately manipulated gold prices in an effort to downplay inflation.

Now, I don't know if there is a conspiracy or not, but it would be in the best-interest of the Fed to downplay the inflationary aspects of fiat money. But conspiracy or not, going back to commodity-based currency is either good or it isn't.

Virginia Postrel takes (http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002696.html) my homeboys over at Reason to task for their support of Ron Paul:

I do fault my friends at Reason, who... scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn't do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked my old boss Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul's newsletters back in the early '90s. Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul's populist appeals... I suspect they did but decided it was more useful to spin things their way than to take Paul's record and ideas seriously.

But Reason's David Weigel responds (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124318.html):

I can only speak for myself here, and I knew about the newsletters, and wrote that I did, way back in May 2007. Older, more experienced libertarians were telling me that they would be a problem for Paul. I asked Paul back then about the letters and have asked him (and the campaign) since then about support from Don Black. I wasn't ignorant of these problems and I wasn't covering them up. As Paul's campaign grew this stuff just lost importance to me. Paul disassociates himself from the newsletters (although not from all the people who wrote them) and the people running his campaign have no connection to that older, nastier iteration of his career. The campaign was growing so much larger and more interesting than the conspiratorial Paul circle of the late 80s and mid-90s.

In any case, the Paul pile-on is starting to get ridiculous. You can blame Paul and the ghostwriters for some of this, for keeping what was in the newsletters so quiet, but simply because so many of them are now out I'm seeing "damning" quotes that pad the lists without making Paul look out of line. The excitable Dan Koffler compiles some that wouldn't sound out of place, frankly, in a conservative blog or in National Review.

He goes on to give some examples of what he is talking about, if you want to check it out.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/10/MN1EUC1KN.DTL) that Ron Paul is the only Republican who is not backing the Iraq War:

As the GOP candidates scramble for support in a free-for-all election, they have come to a shared view that criticizing Bush's record too sharply would alienate the voters they need to win the nomination. But sticking too closely to Bush also carries risks for the eventual GOP nominee as Democrats seek to tie Republicans to the president's missteps, especially in Iraq.

Even former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who wrote a piece in Foreign Affairs magazine last month blasting the administration's "arrogant bunker mentality," is scaling back his critique after he was savaged by his rivals for rebuking the president. Huckabee, at the debate Saturday, said his line about arrogance was aimed at former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for failing to heed calls by his generals for more troops in Iraq.

Paul, who has urged an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, is the only candidate who is directly challenging Bush's policies.

"I certainly agreed with (Bush's) foreign policy that he ran on and that we as Republicans won in the year 2000 - you know, the humble foreign policy, no nation-building, don't be the policeman of the world," Paul said.

"Of course, the excuse is that 9/11 changed everything, but the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is not a minor change. This is huge. This is the first time we as a nation accept as our policy that we start the wars."

Also, my buddy Tom Knapp of Rational Review, who has always been a critic of Ron Paul, is looking (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/09/the-ron-paul-effect-looking-on-the-bright-side/) at the bright side:

In November, third parties—especially the Libertarian and Constitution Parties—will find out if there's another bright side: Voters finally leaving the "major parties" in large numbers. There are no guarantees in politics, but 2008 looks more and more like a year in which the "major parties" will produce nearly identical plates of pablum that large segments of the electorate may not care to consume. If that happens, Paul and his supporters will deserve a great deal of credit for rattling the cage until the door came open.

The brightest side of the Ron Paul Effect, however, is likely a longer-term phenomenon. It may not come into play in time to have a real impact in 2008, but by 2010 we'll be seeing it: Paul's campaign is serving as a hell of a boot camp for campaign workers. From the grass roots all the way to the head office, the campaign is filled with Libertarian Party and Constitution Party activists. Many of those activists, whatever their accomplishments in their own parties, have probably never had the chance to climb into the cockpit of "the real thing"—a serious, well-funded, balls to the wall campaign for public office— before.

And finally, Megan McCardle steals my masthead and posts her own Ron Paul Roundup. Here's a sample (http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/ron_paul_roundup.php):

Incidentally, I apologize if yesterday's Ron Paul post came off as "I told you so". I'm not surprised that Ron Paul's newsletter occasionally plunged into the fever swamp to wallow in the muck, but it's not as if I knew this was coming.

And ending on a "hmmmmm" note, has anyone else noticed that the Paul supporters have completely disappeared? I have one left in my comments who was a regular reader before I ever posted on Paul. But the locust hordes are no longer descending on my comment section every time I mention the good doctor's name.

Oh, really? Decend, my pretties! Flock to McCardle! Tell her to lay off Ron Paul and stop stealing my stuff! Get her, and her little dog, too!

Okay, sorry about that. Seriously, though, is this true? Where have you gone? Did the Revolutionary War heros give up after the British drove them from Bunker Hill? No, they rallied around their new commander and trusted that he would lead them to victory.

Don't be a bunch of pussies! Wear your colors proudly and understand this is not about the man - it's about the message. Ron Paul could go down in flames, but the beauty is that the message will live on.

If we make it live on.


01-14-2008, 04:10 PM
Virginia Postrel supported the Iraq war and probably still does. So maybe it's her we shouldn't be taking seriously.