View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (01-17-08)

01-17-2008, 04:09 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (01-17-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=348407665&Mytoken=28E669AE-BB30-4509-8E1450C768CAE7C312604182)

Hello Freedomphiles! Looks like the media engine is starting to rev again, so this oughta be a nice, big Roundup for you. Let's start with what is being dubbed as Newslettergate.

Reason's Jacob Sullum, author of the brilliant Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, writes (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24479) a piece examining the claims in Human Events:

Not everything you may have heard about the newsletters is true. Contrary to what James Kirchick claims in The New Republic, the newsletters did not offer "kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke." And although various media outlets have described parts of the newsletters as "anti-Semitic," there's little evidence to back up that description in the passages Kirchick cites.

But the truth is bad enough. In addition to anti-gay comments that pine for the days of the closet, the newsletters include gratuitous swipes at Martin Luther King, discussions of crime that emphasize the perpetrators' skin color, and dark warnings of coming "race riots." None of it is explicitly racist, and some of it could be written off as deliberately provocative political commentary. Taken together, however, these passages clearly cater to the prejudices of angry white guys who hate gay people and fear blacks.


In a CNN interview, Paul alternated between acknowledging the legitimacy of this issue and dismissing it as old news dredged up "for political reasons." I'm sure most of his supporters were not familiar with the content of his newsletters. I've been working at the country's leading libertarian magazine on and off since 1989, and it was news to me.

If I thought Ron Paul might be president in 2009, I'd have to admit that his newsletter negligence raises questions about his judgment and about the people he'd choose to advise him. But since the value of the Paul campaign lies in promoting the libertarian ideals of limited government, individual freedom and tolerance, the real problem is that the newsletters contradict this message.

On CNN, Paul emphasized that "racist libertarian" is an oxymoron since libertarians judge people as individuals. He should follow through on that point by identifying the author(s) of the race-baiting material and repudiating not just the sentiments it represents but the poisonous, self-defeating strategy of building an anti-collectivist movement on group hatred.

Agreed, and well-said. I like Jacob's reaction because like me, he still feels Ron Paul is the best candidate, but he is dissappointed in him and would like to see him do more to set this straight. We, his supporters, need to demand a better explanation, but we don't need to throw him under the bus. He's still a hundred times better than the rest of the fascist wankers.

A lot of the problem with the New Republic piece is that it was over-reaching, stretching innuendo and combining run-of-the-mill conservatism with the more outrageous statements to create a tapestry of bile. As Sullum points out above, some of the stuff really wasn't that bad, others reprehensible.

Dennis Perrin of The Huffington Post analyzes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-perrin/the-liberals-ron-paul-pr_b_81465.html) the situation farther:

To quote James Ridgeway, liberals can be and often are the meanest motherfuckers around. Criticize any of their scared beliefs, then watch out. They'll come at you with anything they've got, doesn't matter if it's truthful, accurate, or even sane. American liberals truly feel that they are humanity's Final Word. If you dispute that, you're a bigot, a hater, a piece of slime that deserves only the nastiest treatment. And baby, you'll get it.

At issue is Ron Paul's supposed racism and *****-phobia, reflected in newsletters that bore his name. Paul has distanced himself from the newsletters, saying that others penned the toxic rhetoric, without his direct knowledge or approval. Maybe Paul's telling the truth. Maybe he's not. Maybe he really does despise those of darker hue and same-sexers. Maybe he's like the worst racist you've ever seen. Maybe he eats black children for breakfast.

Whatever Paul actually believes about minorities and *****s is not the real concern here. What bothers liberals, TNR's James Kirchik among them, is that Paul is the only presidential candidate who is seriously running against the state. This includes anti-imperialism and calls to end the Drug War. Given that Hillary and Obama are nowhere near this mindset -- quite the opposite -- means that anyone who is must be a bad person. If those newsletters didn't exist, hit men like Kirchik and the libloggers who support him would find something else to smear Paul with. Because, at bottom, they oppose any dismantling of the war state (recall Kos' shitting all over Kucinich). They simply want their preferred candidates to run the machine instead.


Yikes. Scary stuff. Sane people know that there is no American surveillance state -- or there wasn't one during the hallowed Clinton era, when all that crazy militia activity was taking place. According to liberal history, police state measures (torture, too) only occur during Republican presidencies, the past seven years being the most recent example. For Paul's newsletter to say otherwise is simple lunacy.

I'll tell you this: I've studied various strands of American right wing political philosophy and beliefs, and have had many conversations with rightists of different temperaments, and when it comes to seriously defending First and Fourth Amendment rights (what remain, anyway), I'll stand with libertarians like Ron Paul. I may not agree with most of his beliefs, nor that of the anti-statist right overall, but I know that Paul and others like him aren't looking to tap my phone or break down my door in the middle of the night.

Think the Branch Davidians were paranoid? Then vote Hillary or Obama. And sleep tight.

Some definitely interesting points in there, but the finger-pointing, "You're more racist than me!" game is tiresome. No matter what TNR wrote in the past, Ron Paul has some writings in his past, and I am a lot more concerned with his explanation than theirs. I could give two shits about TNR.

Pajamas Media wrote (http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul_1.php) about it, too:

The online archive of what is now known as The Ron Paul Freedom Report—a much-watered-down edition of what Kirchick uncovered—bears this disclaimer on its still-active homepage: "Congressman Ron Paul is no longer affiliated with or associated in any way with The Liberty Committee of Falls Church, Virginia. If you receive a solicitation from The Liberty Committee and/or its chairman, Mr. David James, bearing Congressman Paul's name, please be advised that the solicitation was in no way approved or endorsed by Congressman Paul."

No mention of when it became unaffiliated or why David James is allowed to carry on publishing this document without Paul's imprimatur. How long would the Barack Obama Audacity of Hope Leaflet stay afloat under similar circumstances?


Let us say that Ron Paul does not harbor an antipathy against blacks and Jews. Is it beyond plausibility that, as a libertarian dogmatically opposed to entitlement spending and foreign interventionism, he would stoop to make common cause with someone opposed to them, too, yet who does harbor such antipathy? And which is worse for someone purporting to be the only straight shooter vying for the White House?

Paul has not been helped by earlier weasel defense of accepting campaign contributions from various neo-Nazis outfits, such as Stormfront. He claimed then also—as he does now with respect to the patrons of his newsletter—that it is not in his laissez-faire nature to regulate human behavior. Duke had his "taint," after all, and the others "Ronulans" must have theirs. From here it is not a far trip down the long slide into excusing demagogic cracks about gays, Jews, and the "sociological effects" of welfare as serving a deeper ideological kinship.

I hadn't heard about the disclaimer yet, so that was interesting. I think the article is fairly critical and I do have some issues with it. But I think the author has a point there that in the end, perhaps this wouldn't have looked as bad to mainstream America if Dr Paul had given back Don Black's money and disavowed any association with the David Dukes of the world.

In the essay, they quote this section of one of the newsletters:

"David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race in Louisiana, 60% of the white vote, and 9% of the black vote!. This totaled 100,000 more votes than the current governor when he won.


Duke's platform called for tax cuts, no quotes, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. "Tonight we concede the election," he said, "But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans."

To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.

Liberals like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post say he got so many votes because Louisianians were racists and ignorant. Baloney.

David Broder, also of the Post, and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: "No one wants to talk about [race] publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, you can confirm the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle-class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative-action programs."

Liberals are notoriously blind to the sociological effects of their own programs. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are there waiting in the wings without such a taint?"

This is what everyone talks about when they say that Ron Paul "praised racist David Duke." I don't see it that way. When I read that passage, all I see is someone explaining why non-racists and even black people might vote for someone who was formerly a bigshot in the KKK. For further investigation, ask the supporters of Robert Byrd.

And Ron Paul still has support in the black community, more than any other Republican candidate. Here is Nelson Linder, president of the Texas NAACP and longtime friend of the doctor, on why Ron Paul is not a racist:


Reason's Julian Sanchez and David Weigel have done an outstanding job researching just who might've written those newsletters, and as I have been saying, they are looking (http://reason.com/news/show/124426.html) at none other than Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, who are begginning to look less like rabid racists and more like cynical machiavellian political strategists:

The newsletters' obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic "paleolibertarian" movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new "paleo" coalition.

Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled "The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism." To Rockwell, the LP was a "party of the stoned," a halfway house for libertines that had to be "de-loused." To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. "State-enforced segregation," Rockwell wrote, "was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse."

The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an "unholy alliance of 'corporate liberal' Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America."

Well, I see that as a silver lining. While the extreme cynicism of such a strategy is kind of shoking, it's at least better than the idea that these guys were all along rabid racists. Here's some more info from the article that bolsters that:

The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn't know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback.

The tenor of Paul's newsletters changed over the years. The ones published between Paul's return to private life after three full terms in congress (1985) and his Libertarian presidential bid (1988) notably lack inflammatory racial or anti-gay comments. The letters published between Paul's first run for president and his return to Congress in 1996 are another story—replete with claims that Martin Luther King "seduced underage girls and boys," that black protesters should gather "at a food stamp bureau or a crack house" rather than the Statue of Liberty, and that AIDS sufferers "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

Wow. I wonder, is it any better to profit off of pandering to racists and homophobes than it is to be a racist or a homophobe in the first place? The lesson to be learned from all this is summed up quite nicely in the conclusion:

They are less angry these days. Visitors to LewRockwell.com or Mises.org since 2001 are less likely to feel the need for a shower. One can almost detect what sounds like mellowing in Rockwell's reflections on the high and heady paleo days, unburdened by ominous warnings of the looming race war. Nowadays the fiery rhetoric is directed at the "pimply-faced" Kirchick, "Benito" Giuliani, and the "so-called 'libertarians'" at reason and Cato.

But perhaps the best refutation of the old approach is not the absence of race-baiting rhetoric from its progenitors, but the success of the 2008 Ron Paul phenomenon. The man who was once the Great Paleolibertarian Hope has built a broad base of enthusiastic supporters without resorting to venomous rhetoric or coded racism. He has stuck stubbornly to the issues of sound money, "humble foreign policy," and shrinking the state. He wraps up his speeches with a three-part paean to individualism: "I don't want to run your life," "I don't want to run the economy," and "I don't want to run the world." He talks about the disproportionate effect of the drug war on African-Americans, and appeared at a September 2007 Republican debate on black issues that was boycotted by the then-frontrunners. All this and more have brought him $30 million-plus from more than 100,000 donors; thousands of campaign volunteers; and the largest rallies he's ever spoken to, including a crowd of almost 5,000 in Philadelphia.

Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.

There's a lot more of value in the article. I recommend everyone click the link (http://reason.com/news/show/124426.html) and read it. Justin Gardner of Donkelephant thinks (http://donklephant.com/2008/01/16/is-the-ron-paul-movement-over/) that the candidacy of Ron Paul is over, but the revolution just begun:

As far as Paul being a racist or hinting at a return to Jim Crow, I really don't buy it. I think he was just remarkably dumb in the 90s and let somebody co-opt his name to sell hate. And he should take all the slings and arrows that come with that lack of action. But when Jason says he has willful association with Stormfront, well, that's nonsense. There's nothing willful about it. I'm sure the dregs of society have donated money to all of the candidates. Are we going to go through all the records of all the contributions and ask the candidates to answer for everybody? "Mr. Romney, a serial pedophile donated to your campaign. Will you give the money back or do you support pedophilia?" I mean, come on Jason…

Again, I do think Ron Paul is over, and that's mostly due to his judgement. You can't credibly push a guy for President who has allowed stuff like the newsletter scandal to happen. You just can't. But the movement has only just begun, and I think in the years to come it will find more credible voices to push the freedom message.

I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel, but this campaign has always been a longshot. We realistically need to start thinking of gearing up for an independent bid for the White House. Dr Paul's support is an inch deep and a mile wide, which makes him much more dangerous in a general election than a partisan primary.

Also, we need to start looking toward what happens with the movement after the elections are over, whether Ron Paul is president or not. You guys could try to start a whole separate movement, or you could join us over here on the libertarian side of things and join forces to take over and not run the world.



01-17-2008, 04:10 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (01-17-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=348407665&Mytoken=28E669AE-BB30-4509-8E1450C768CAE7C312604182)


Okay, let's jump tracks and look at Michigan, where Paul supporters were out in gaggles (http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/01/ron_paul_backers_keep_faith.html) to try and give our man an edge.

His backers -- convinced by his fidelity to the Constitution, opposition to the war in Iraq, preference for small government -- insist he is best for America. Supporters stood out in the snow in New Hampshire, yelling and waving signs in the background as national TV journalists did standup reports.

Local organizers have done that and more, going to door-to-door, braving rain and cold to wave their Ron Paul signs, trying to tell everyone who will listen that theirs in the best candidate. One supporter repeatedly yelled Paul's name exiting a McCain campaign rally Wednesday at the Gerald R. Ford International Airport.

"He is a very frugal and honest man," said Gloria Carroll, a native of the Philippines who emigrated to the United States in 2000. Since she began volunteering for Paul in June, Carroll estimates she has logged 1,000 hours on his behalf.

Carroll is a chief organizer of local Paul supporters, keeping a list with more than 300 names. The local group includes Paul's brother, David Paul, assistant pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Grand Rapids.

I'll bet our own Freedomphile, Nettie, was there. And how did that work out? The big story that appears to be coming out of this is how he more than doubled Benito Guiliani's vote count. The Los Angeles Times reports (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/ronpaulscores.html):

Well, he's hanging in there. Not only that, but Rep. Ron Paul thumped two reputed Republican heavyweights in the Michigan primary -- former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Who'd have predicted that a couple of months ago?

Giuliani, you may recall if you can remember anything as distant as last summer, was the longtime GOP national front-runner in polls. He ran strongly against everybody in his party, even former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who won one last night, taking his home state from Sen. John McCain, who won there in 2000. Everybody wondered if anyone had a chance against the hero of 9/11, who defied standard Republican theocracy with his liberal social views.

But guess what? Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texas congressman and ob-gyn who delivers babies and a strict view of the Constitution, beat Giuliani in Michigan. And beat him good. Not only that ...

he doubled Giuliani's totals of 24,000 votes, or 2.8%, getting more than 52,000 votes, or 6.3%, of the total Republican ballots.

And Left-Libertarian Digital Bob writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1197.html) over at The Nolan Chart:

Watching the Michigan returns come in on CNN and Fox News, it was clear that Ron Paul wasn't going to get more than about 7% and finish in fourth placed after Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. For a candidate that wasn't worthy to get an invitation to the Fox News debate before the New Hampshire primary, he finished ahead of two other candidates who did.

In a previous article, I mentioned that there is a Ron Paul Mendoza Line, where a candidate must at least beat Ron Paul, or should consider getting out. As of tonight, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter have all fallen below that line. Unlike Paul, with his fanatical grassroots supporters, these candidates do not have backers who will raise millions of dollars in a single day to keep a second-place or worse finish going. Even Mike Huckabee ought to be bleeding at the edges of his campaign coffers by now. We'll know at the end of the month when the FEC reports come out. Paul and Romney are the only ones with the cash to keep going beyond Feb 5--even if they don't win another state by then.

Top of the diamond Libertarian (like me) Rod Smith writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1196.html) about it also on The Nolan Chart:

After the events of last night's Michigan Republican Primary, Congressman Ron Paul is a top tier candidate within what has become a wild nomination race.

Despite little spending or campaigning in the state, less name recognition, and less free media attention, the Texas libertarian-leaning Republican virtually doubled the vote totals of assumed front-runners Fred Thompson and Rudy Guliani with 6% and well over 50,000 votes. Under the radar, Paul has quiety earned more raw votes than these rivals between Iowa and New Hampshire.

Now we have three primaries with three different winners. With Mitt Romney winning Michigan handily last night with 39%, he still holds a thick, personal, checkbook to use through the rest of the campaign. Conversely, most of his other rivals, save Ron Paul who has lead the GOP in funding in the fourth quarter with $19.5 million, are running on campaign funding fumes. Paul's funding strength has come from a whopping 160,000 individual contributors ... far more than any of the rest of the top tier.

Even The New York Times mentioned (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/paul-beats-giuliani-again/) it:

The bad news for Rudolph W. Giuliani Tuesday night in Michigan was that Representative Ron Paul of Texas appears to have beaten him handily again, just as he did in Iowa.

With 89 percent of the precincts reporting at 11:20 p.m., Mr. Giuliani was in a distant sixth-place, behind Fred D. Thompson, who was in fifth place, and Mr. Paul, who was in fourth place and who received more than twice as many votes as Mr. Giuliani.

The good news for Mr. Giuliani is that Mitt Romney's victory leaves the Republican field unsettled – which is what he needs if his unconventional strategy of waiting until Florida on Jan. 29 to try to eke out his first victory is to work.

And here's (http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-011608B.html) what Gambling911.com had to say:

On Tuesday, Ron Paul supporters once again seemed down about the 6%. But in reality, this was a huge showing for Ron Paul. He managed to get 6% in a state that was dominated by Romney and McCain. In fact, when all was said and done, Paul had gotten the same number of votes as Thompson and Giuliani put together.

Paul's 6% poll showing in Nevada was not nearly as impressive since those polls had Giuliani and Thompson ahead and a much more level playing field. He received 7% of the vote out of Wayne County, which is home to Detroit. He received 4% of the vote in Kent County, home of Michigan's second biggest cities - Grand Rapids. Paul got 7% of the vote in Macomb County (3rd largest city of Warren. He received nearly 10% in Genesee County, which is home to Flint. Shiawassee County (home of Lansing) provided Paul with 7.5% of the overall vote.

But a Paul spokeswoman said the polls don't reflect their candidate's support in the state.

"The thing about Dr. Paul's support is it's from a really broad spectrum," said Jennifer Terhune, Nevada communications coordinator for the Paul campaign. "So we have people from all different parties who are supporting him. A lot of Ron Paul's support is from new Republicans, people who have joined the Republican party just to vote for Ron Paul. There's ... a lot of young people and people that don't have land line phones. They only have cell phones. So I really don't think the polls are very reflective of Dr. Paul's support."

I'm actually pretty upbeat about this. Dr Paul is hanging in there, and every day, the name recognition seems to be getting better. Now, I'd like to bring in Patrick Henry from Op-Ed News to bring (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_patrick__080116_ron_paul_still_excee.htm) the whole Newslettergate and the primaries together:

When I joined the Ron Paul Revolution many months ago, I felt as though I had awoken from a long slumber. Now, as I distance myself ever so slightly from it, I have a similar feeling. Ron Paul is not the savior as prophesized in ancient texts. Ron Paul is simply a man.

With the Presidential race now underway, Ron Paul is exceeding all expectations. As of January 16th, approximately 1.2 million Republicans have cast their ballots. The votes (in thousands) are as follows: Romney (442 / 37%), McCain (360 / 30%), Huckabee (207 / 17%), Paul (84 / 7%), Thompson (51 / 4%), and Giuliani (49 / 4%). After three major votes, we have three unique winners. So with no clear front-runner, Ron Paul is sitting quite contently in a solid fourth place.

I am hopeful that the mainstream media will begin to discuss Ron Paul's success, but I won't bet on it. I am hopeful that Ron Paul's supporters throughout the country will not forgo the opportunity to let their voice be heard. The Wisconsin primary is held on February 19th, and I plan to vote for Ron Paul regardless of what happens on Super Tuesday. Most of all, I urge all Ron Paul supporters to remember that Ron Paul is simply a man.

In another time zone, The Las Vegas Sun reports (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/16/11th-hour-ron-paul-holds-his-maverick-strategy/) of a Ron Paul fundraiser in their area:

Ron Paul, a long-shot Republican presidential candidate with a cult following, did not break from his maverick campaign approach Tuesday: Instead of appealing to large crowds of undecided voters, he met with members of his base.

They include: staunch constructionists of the Constitution, opponents of the war in Iraq, strong advocates of beefed-up border control and an end to coalitions with Mexico and Canada, and people who literally wear the American flag on their sleeves.

"Most of what we do in Washington isn't permitted under the Constitution," Paul told about 70 people, including staff and members of the media, at Memphis Championship Barbecue in Las Vegas. "This causes most of the problems."

Predictably, when gun rights advocate Catherine Klimenkov asked the Texas congressman whether he supports the Second Amendment "the right of people to keep and bear arms" Paul responded, "What do you think?"

Laughter filled the restaurant's annex, a small room at the rear with a steeply arched roof from which a gold-colored chandelier dangled.

And in Reno, Dr Paul did (http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/NEWS19/801150358/1232) a dine n' dash:

Patrons of a busy Reno eatery were surprised Monday when Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul stopped in for lunch and a little campaigning.

The Texas congressman, who calls himself the champion of the Constitution, was greeted by an ovation at Peg's Glorified Ham and Eggs on Sierra Street as he shook hands and urged voters to take part in Saturday's caucus.

"We feel good about it," he said of the caucus. "We're working hard to organize and get people to the right place at the right time."

Paul said he is expecting a strong showing in Nevada, where Republican voters tend to lean more Libertarian. But, he said, he will carry on his campaign regardless of how he finishes on Saturday.

The Tahoe Daily Tribune reports (http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20080114/NEWS01/129810503/-1/NEWS) of another visit to Carson's Comma Coffee:

Paul took seemingly unscripted and random questions from the audience of 200-plus for 30 minutes, before emerging onto Carson Street to meet and greet onlookers, passersby and campaign supporters.

His campaign, with the benefit of hindsight, may give pols a blueprint for how to run for office using the Internet as one's primary communication tool.

His stop in Carson drew Northern Nevadans of all political stripes — many of whom were simply on hand to see the man himself after researching his positions online.

"I think for those of us who care to read up about issues — and there are a lot of us — that if people use the Internet, if they actually care about what's going on; if they pay attention, Ron Paul makes a lot of sense," said James Booth, of Sparks, who said he left work in Carson early Monday to catch the Congressman with his boss. "I think (Paul) reflects a lot of Nevadans' values. I think I speak for a lot of Nevadans when I say we're the last bastion of real freedom in the U.S. There's a lot of things here that are still pretty Wild West."

In the Star Telegram, Allan Saxe writes (http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/410596.html) (incorrectly) that Ron Paul is a "pure libertarian (whatever that means)," and then goes on to misrepresent both Ron Paul's positions and the libertarian positions on many issues:

Ron Paul, a Republican candidate for the presidency, has attracted a loyal if not particularly numerous following. Many of his arguments are strongly appealing, while others seem vastly impractical in an imperfect and messy world.

For those attracted to Paul's platform, here are some other issues that you might have overlooked. Too many times one hears one or two major points that are immediately appealing, without taking in the whole political agenda.

Paul is a true and pure libertarian. And if we take libertarian principles as a whole, this is what you might get from a Ron Paul presidency. Of course, he could not just place into law all that he would wish for. Congress would surely stop most, if not all, of his libertarian desires.

What might a libertarian president's policy goals look like?

I haven't yet decided, but I may take this one and disect it as I did with the piece from The Washington Post on Monday. I may not, though. If I spent all my time correcting bad information on libertarianism from the MSM, I'd never do anything else.

Right Libertarian Gary Wood writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1168.html) on The Nolan Chart that Ron Paul is a threat to the oligarchy:

Many founders did see and warn of the usurpation of power that would occur outside the authority granted by the Constitution. This is the key issue I want to spend the majority of our short time together on. No matter how many of us unite in our desires we must break the oligarchy before we can succeed. Even if we put Ron Paul in the White House we will severely hamper his ability to steer the government in the proper direction if we leave in place the Congressional lock currently in place. Although there are other strands of oligarchy rule outside the Federal government we must target the key sector hiding in plain site in the legislative branch. This is the body that makes the laws, this is the body Ron Paul and anyone embracing his ideals must get through in order to truly effect the change we must have.

Lets start with the education, and know what you are about to read is only the first part, you are required to do your homework. Your own study is important since you must gain a conviction there truly is an oligarchic structure and we truly can demand its removal. It is only through study and personal beliefs that you can sustain the energy to complete the task. If, in your study, you find yourself believing there is no such form of rule in Congress you earn the right to not get involved. However, I am confident you will see what I see, a tradition that needs to end.

And finally, The San Francisco Bay Guardian endorses (http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?page=3&entry_id=5430&catid=&volume_id=317&issue_id=335&volume_num=42&issue_num=16) Ron Paul:

Paul is alone among the Republican candidates for president in sounding the alarm that our country is pursuing a dangerous, shortsighted, hypocritical, expensive, and ultimately doomed strategy of trying to dominate the world militarily. He opposed the invasion of Iraq and thinks the US should pull out immediately. It's immensely valuable to have someone like that in the GOP debates, speaking to the conservative half of our country about why this policy violates the principles they claim to hold dear.

Paul is absolutely correct that if we stopped trying to police the world, ended the war on drugs, and quit negotiating trade deals that favor multinational corporations over American families and workers, we would be a far more free and prosperous nation.

They call him a "protest vote," but it's still pretty positive. See you tomorrow!


01-18-2008, 06:53 AM
Why do you think running a 3rd party is a good idea?

01-18-2008, 09:31 AM
Why do you think running a 3rd party is a good idea?

Well, for one because I don't see Ron Paul breaking through the NeoCon wall and getting the Republican nomination. I think part of the reason he is not doing as well as we had expected is that the Republican neocon base is terrified that Ron Paul supporters will "hijack" the primaries, so they are casting panic votes for anyone but. Look at Michigan, where they had the third highest turnout in state history.

But also because of the way his support is structured. Like I said in the Roundup, his support is an inch deep and a mile wide, and I think once people aren't trying to influence what the general election will look like, he stands to pick up a lot of votes from disaffected Democrats who didn't get the candidate they wanted. A Hillary victory would really be good for this, because half of America hates her, but don't want another welfare/warfare Republican in office, either.

- Rick

01-18-2008, 09:34 AM
Yeah, but do you want him to run just to spead the message better or do you think he can actually win? It's so biased. To me, it seems like a waiste of time.

01-18-2008, 02:02 PM
I'm getting tired of all the references to this and how dissapointed you are in Ron Paul. You're spending a good quarter of you time constantly telling us how terrible the Newsletters are, even though it's very old news.

I don't understand how he couldn't know what was being written in them (after accepting that he did not know). I'd like to know why the person who wrote them is not being called out (not if he should be but why he is not). I'd like to know where all these new quotes that the media used to smear Ron Paul came from and why they were not found to smear him with the first time around... but that's about it for me (also dispite all the ink none of these questions have been answered). The Newsletter is talked about in Wikipedia and I found an article with the original quotes over at Daily Kos. If a person has been following Ron Paul for years and didn't know about it then they obviously were not doing any sort of digging at all. Perhaps because he only looked at articles that he actually wrote and things he actually said rather then what ghostwriters typed in his name.

The ONLY thing of any interest that you have told me is that Ron Paul defended the newsletters when this first broke out. Thus, the articles that have interested me are the ones that state that the positions are, in fact, defensible, like here
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_r on_paul/

This gives a reason why Ron Paul listened to his advisors and decided not to disavow himself immediately. If there is one thing Ron Paul knows is how ideas can be misinterpreted in ways that are not meant. Perhaps considering how often Ron Paul himself has to fight bad impressions (like explaining why we should not be at war even though the "surge is working"), it just felt more natural to him to try and explain a different viewpoint. It may not have been the right choice but it appears to have been a valid one and shows that, while perhaps not anti-racist, that Dr. Paul's message was not at any point incorporating racism so I think you should retract that vile statement.

Also stop talking about this so much. Your putting way too much ink into an issue that doesn't really have much new info, you keep rehashing these negative opinions mostly. Just because you have suddenly become obsessed with this issue doesn't mean the rest of us are and are most likely not.

01-18-2008, 02:51 PM
Yeah, but do you want him to run just to spead the message better or do you think he can actually win?

I don't think those goals are mutually-exclusive. But I do want him to actually win, which is why I think he should set his sights on an independent run. I think he should hold out at least until after Super Tuesday, though.

- Rick

01-18-2008, 03:02 PM
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="Indigo"] I'm getting tired of all the references to this and how dissapointed you are in Ron Paul. You're spending a good quarter of you time constantly telling us how terrible the Newsletters are, even though it's very old news...

...Also stop talking about this so much. Your putting way too much ink into an issue that doesn't really have much new info, you keep rehashing these negative opinions mostly. Just because you have suddenly become obsessed with this issue doesn't mean the rest of us are and are most likely not.

Hey, I just respond to what people are writing. I don't decide what I am going to discuss. I just see what has been written in the last 24 hours, and I respond to that. When people stop writing about it, it will be old news, and I'll stop responding.

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="Indigo"]I don't understand how he couldn't know what was being written in them (after accepting that he did not know). I'd like to know why the person who wrote them is not being called out (not if he should be but why he is not). I'd like to know where all these new quotes that the media used to smear Ron Paul came from and why they were not found to smear him with the first time around...

What do you mean by "the first time around?"

- Rick

01-21-2008, 08:27 AM
I'm getting tired of all the references to this and how dissapointed you are in Ron Paul.


01-21-2008, 10:22 AM
I'm getting tired of all the references to this and how dissapointed you are in Ron Paul.


Me three.