RSDavis
01-19-2008, 06:36 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (01-19-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=349066404&Mytoken=7E00E4AC-15FD-447C-86951367551E96B89646688)
Hello Freedomphiles! Let's start with Nevada. The campaign filed a complaint with the Nevada election commission because of all the problems, requesting they be postponed. The Boston Globe reports (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/nevada_gop_dism.html):
"We would hope that the Paul campaign would go act like adults and not try to set up straw men to make up for their lack of organizing," said Steve Wark, a caucus spokesman.
The Paul campaign complained that voters have received postcards with incorrect caucus locations, that eligibility requirements to participate have been changed several times, and that several rural counties could run out of ballots.
"The inconsistencies, errors and multiple changes in the rules reek of playing politics with the what should be a neutral process," said campaign manager Lew Moore said in a statement. "The people of Nevada deserve to know exactly what the rules are and to know that those rules are being fairly enforced. This has not happened up to this point, and the caucus appears to be in chaos."
I'd just like to point out that caucus spokesman Steve Wark is a pissy little bitch with sand in his vagina. If they weren't so bloody incompetent, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. And if they weren't so goddamned set on getting their scheduled day in the national spotlight, perhaps they'd be more likely to focus on a fair election. Rotters.
John Tompkins of thefacts.com writes (http://thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=0d3130e3a25f177d) about Ron Paul and how far this train is going to go. Of particular interest is this bit about a possible independent run after Super Tuesday:
He's said in the past he's 99.9 percent sure he would stop his campaign with the Republican nomination.
If he would run as a third-party candidate, he said, he likely would do it as an independent rather than as a Libertarian.
"There's too many people we've brought together," Paul said of his many kinds of supporters. "I have a lot of Democrats who express interest in what I'm doing," with foreign policy.
Paul's supporters are mixed on whether they would want him to run as a third-party candidate.
That's interesting. I think there are downsides and upsides to both options. If he runs as a Libertarian, there would already be an infrastructure in place to get him on as many ballots as possible. But the Libertarian name brand might turn off a segment of his support. Then again, I have the feeling Pauliacs would vote for him even if he had "Puppy Murdering Party" after his name.
Top of the diamond libertarian Gary Treiste writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1292.html) on The Nolan Chart that Ron Paul is the best libertarian prosteletyzer in the history of the world:
Although the founding philosophers of libertarian thought, have been around for hundreds or thousands of years, Ron Paul's contribution must be viewed within the context of both his effectiveness and the time constraints he has had to work within. (Whether you care to measure this in absolute terms, or in terms of the instantaneous rate of idea flow to the masses, is topic for another discussion.)
Ron Paul has been at this, at a prominent national level, for only a couple years, so that is the temporal scope by which his successes and accomplishments must be compared to, in reaching the masses.
Although the measure of effectiveness in spreading the word doesn't necessarily demand conversions to libertarianism (although that would be the goal), it is a natural consequence that when these ideas have set upon fertile ground then the conversion/enlightenment can begin, and we can have freedom within our lifetimes.
And let loose the Ron Paul Revolution.
He makes some good points, but I don't know if I would call him the best. I'd say that mark probably goes to Ayn Rand, Thomas Paine (who inspired two revolutions with his words), or of course me. My greatness has just not been fully realized yet. (cue rimshot)
I know you guys are getting sick of Newslettergate, but like I said, I don't pick and choose what to write about in these Roundups - I just read what's out there and respond. I'd like to jump to that issue and highlight a couple of op-eds that Freedomphile agapecpus sent me.
The first (http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-orange-line-anatomy-of-a-smear-campaign/)is an essay from the blog of FormerBeltwayWonk. The author makes a lot of assumptions of facts not in evidence. The first problem I have is the strange idea that this was some sort of conspiracy between Reason Magazine and The New Republic:
Matt Welch (Reason Magazine) discusses the plan to smear Ron Paul on New Hampshire primary day. In a later edit, Welch strikes out the actual TNR/Reason plan (to post the piece at midnight, the exact time the New Hampshire polls opened, and not post the actual newsletters until the afternoon of the primary) and substitutes "tommorrow afternoon". But he failed to strike out Reason's part in the plan: "More to come from here after the gong strikes midnight."
This is just tinfoil hat black helicopter conspiracy bullshit. Reason had nothing to do with this, other than Matt Welch seeing an interview with Kirchik on Tucker Carlson's show and mentioning it on the blog.
I have no doubt that the TNR piece was timed to coincide with the New Hampshire primary to hurt Paul before there could be any official response. Not even a small doubt.
But Reason Magazine had no more to do with it than my report the same day saying the hitpiece would be out in the morning. He indicts Andrew Sullivan, too.
This author is putting the cart before the horse. This news broke, and everyone covered it because it was news. It wasn't a conspiracy to cover it. In fact, Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul. Reason had been pushing Paul for months.
This all also ignores the fact that if Ron Paul hadn't lent his name to a newsletter full of paranoid racist, homophobic hyperbolic rants, there would have been nothing with which to smear him in the first place.
This essay was shit.
The second essay (http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_r on_paul/) was much better, actually. It appeared in Taki's Top Drawer. It maligns the boys at Reason, as well, but not in the lunatic way of co-conspirator, but more for being too "libertine," "PC," and reactionary.
I find no basis for the first two charges - maybe because I am a bit of a libertine myself:
Reason, of course, in it's new incarnation as the official organ of the libertarian movement's aging hipsters and would-be "cool kids," vehemently opposes reaching out to middle and working class Americans: that is far too "square" for the black-leather-jacket-wearing Nick Gillespie, formerly associated with something called Suck magazine, and Matt Welch, who was an unknown quantity before getting the job at Reason. Right-wing populism? As far as the Suck-y crowd is concerned, one might as well tout the appeal of "right-wing botulism." Libertarianism, as understood by the editors of Reason, is all about legalizing methamphetamine, having endless "hook-ups," and giving mega-corporations tax breaks (so Reason can keep scarfing up those big corporate contributors). The decidedly "square" Dr. Paul—a ten-term Republican congressman from Texas, no less, and a pro-life country doctor of decidedly conservative social views—was and is anathema to Team Suck.
This, like the first essay, forgets the fact that Reason had at that point and still, to a degree, been one of Paul's biggest cheerleaders. I don't see how the author of this piece can't see that they possibly were legitimately turned off by the things they read, like that black people only stopped rioting in LA when it was time to pick up their welfare checks.
The author makes a good point about the David Duke stuff:
The explanation, which would be apparent if Balko had actually cited what is written, is that these weren't sympathetic words for Duke, per se, or his political ambitions, but for the issues—legitimate issues—that he raised (and exploited) in his Louisiana campaign. After all, libertarians such as Paul reject affirmative action, racial set-asides, and all other forms of state-enforced special treatment for "minorities" precisely because they oppose racism, or any form of collectivism.
I agree with that. The David Duke stuff wasn't so much an endorsement of Duke as an explanation of why an avowed racist would pull so much support - even from blacks. The answer? Because the freedom message is popular.
He does a decent job of highlighting comments and explaining how Kirchik uses innuendo and false connections to make some assumptions that just aren't true. He accuses Kirchick rightly of taking quotes out of context to make them sound worse, but then does the same thing to serve his own ends. He conveniently ignores statements like this (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793):
Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries)--and then complained about slow service. What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.
Sheesh. I guess he missed that. Anyway, the last thing I want to highlight from this article is something he pulled from a Radley Balko piece:
The utter dishonesty of the Reason crowd, when it comes to this issue, is breathtaking. Balko laments that
"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."
It's all about impressing Ms. Althouse, the notoriously dyspeptic and cranky lawyer-blogger-know-it-all.
He quotes the passage and all he has to say is we should not be looking for validation from Ann Althouse? The greater point is still true - if you are truly pro-liberty and not just a Ron Paul partisan, this harms the future of liberty by making you have to prove you are not a racist before being able to examine these racial issues. I've already experienced it firsthand.
Anyway, I'm honestly sick of this story, so let's move on. Right libertarian John Armstrong writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1291.html) on The Nolan Chart that he has some ideas for seven speeches for Nevada caucus-goers:
I received a great honor tonight when one of my readers from Nevada asked me to help him come up with some ideas for speeches he could give today at his caucus to try and become a delegate. My understanding is that there is a one minute speech and then possibly a two minute one later if elected. His particular situation was being in Las Vegasin a precinct with a lot elder citizens where he felt the economic issue was most important. I wrote most of the7 speeches belowwith that in mind, but there are some that are general support speeches.
As I was writing, I started to think that there might be a lot of you out there who would like to be a delegate but are afraid of public speaking or just didn't know what to say or how to say it. I thought there might be some of you who would just appreciate some new ideas. The speeches below are from an email I sent to this reader (we'll call him Mike), and there may be typos or nonsensical things in there because I haven't proofread it and started to get a little loopy at the end. Feel free to use any of these, or any parts of these if they will help you today at your caucus. I'm not writing this as an all-knowing great speech writer, I'm just trying to be helpful.
Renae Mitchell writes (http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=189174§ion=Opinion&freebie_check&CFID=84613165&CFTOKEN=30873750&jsessi..8830fe77c0a51664421c) in In-Forum about our man:
So what can we do about this huge problem? Force the issue into the presidential election. Ron Paul, the 10-term congressman from Texas is the only presidential candidate talking about this issue. He is an expert on monetary policy. He understands that in order to get rid of this inflation tax, we need to cut spending and go back to having Constitutional money. Paul says, "We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize spending. It is called the Constitution of the United States."
You may not line up with Paul on all the issues, but as long as you line up with him on the important ones like I do, that is what matters. Do your own research and don't formulate your opinions based on what the media is telling you. There is hope for America, be a part of it.
Centrist Libertarian Scott from Oregon wrote (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1283.html) a piece on The Nolan Chart saying that Ron Paul has raised some important and ignored questions:
Ron Paul, however, stood up and said a few things that made me sit up and take notice. Simple things. Things I realized I agreed with, without knowing I agreed with them- having never really thought about them before...
...Why are we taking a trillion dollars a year out of the pockets of Americans, and sending it overseas to military bases in places like Germany and Korea? Do the Koreans even want us there, and if so, why are they not paying us to be there? That goes for Japan too. Why do we allow the US government to take money from our pockets by threat of jail and give these countries security they aren't willing to pay for themselves? Who are we afraid of? Why do we take out loans from China to continue this nonsense? Why is there ONLY ONE CANDIDATE even asking this question?
Why are we submissively allowing our government to "solve all of our problems" for us? When did they get smarter than we were?
If the number one Accountant of America, the man in charge of auditing America's books, says we can't afford the Medicare and drug entitlements the government has already promised us, why are we even considering having the government manage our health care? Why not start up smaller, local, private health care networks and cut out all of the middle men and women who are taking money from between you and your doctor?
And finally, Right Libertarian Michael writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1282.html) also on The Nolan Chart about the future of the Revolution:
Ron Paul: It's Time Now to Fan the Flame (or give it up altogether) for the Future
If we who support Ron Paul and what he stands for as a Republican candidate for the 2008 Presidential election are smart we will also at this time be looking outside the box of the 2008 Presidential election and begin now to look strategically as to what is needed in order for this Revolution to survive beyond the 2008 election.
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (01-19-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=349066404&Mytoken=7E00E4AC-15FD-447C-86951367551E96B89646688)
Hello Freedomphiles! Let's start with Nevada. The campaign filed a complaint with the Nevada election commission because of all the problems, requesting they be postponed. The Boston Globe reports (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/nevada_gop_dism.html):
"We would hope that the Paul campaign would go act like adults and not try to set up straw men to make up for their lack of organizing," said Steve Wark, a caucus spokesman.
The Paul campaign complained that voters have received postcards with incorrect caucus locations, that eligibility requirements to participate have been changed several times, and that several rural counties could run out of ballots.
"The inconsistencies, errors and multiple changes in the rules reek of playing politics with the what should be a neutral process," said campaign manager Lew Moore said in a statement. "The people of Nevada deserve to know exactly what the rules are and to know that those rules are being fairly enforced. This has not happened up to this point, and the caucus appears to be in chaos."
I'd just like to point out that caucus spokesman Steve Wark is a pissy little bitch with sand in his vagina. If they weren't so bloody incompetent, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. And if they weren't so goddamned set on getting their scheduled day in the national spotlight, perhaps they'd be more likely to focus on a fair election. Rotters.
John Tompkins of thefacts.com writes (http://thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=0d3130e3a25f177d) about Ron Paul and how far this train is going to go. Of particular interest is this bit about a possible independent run after Super Tuesday:
He's said in the past he's 99.9 percent sure he would stop his campaign with the Republican nomination.
If he would run as a third-party candidate, he said, he likely would do it as an independent rather than as a Libertarian.
"There's too many people we've brought together," Paul said of his many kinds of supporters. "I have a lot of Democrats who express interest in what I'm doing," with foreign policy.
Paul's supporters are mixed on whether they would want him to run as a third-party candidate.
That's interesting. I think there are downsides and upsides to both options. If he runs as a Libertarian, there would already be an infrastructure in place to get him on as many ballots as possible. But the Libertarian name brand might turn off a segment of his support. Then again, I have the feeling Pauliacs would vote for him even if he had "Puppy Murdering Party" after his name.
Top of the diamond libertarian Gary Treiste writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1292.html) on The Nolan Chart that Ron Paul is the best libertarian prosteletyzer in the history of the world:
Although the founding philosophers of libertarian thought, have been around for hundreds or thousands of years, Ron Paul's contribution must be viewed within the context of both his effectiveness and the time constraints he has had to work within. (Whether you care to measure this in absolute terms, or in terms of the instantaneous rate of idea flow to the masses, is topic for another discussion.)
Ron Paul has been at this, at a prominent national level, for only a couple years, so that is the temporal scope by which his successes and accomplishments must be compared to, in reaching the masses.
Although the measure of effectiveness in spreading the word doesn't necessarily demand conversions to libertarianism (although that would be the goal), it is a natural consequence that when these ideas have set upon fertile ground then the conversion/enlightenment can begin, and we can have freedom within our lifetimes.
And let loose the Ron Paul Revolution.
He makes some good points, but I don't know if I would call him the best. I'd say that mark probably goes to Ayn Rand, Thomas Paine (who inspired two revolutions with his words), or of course me. My greatness has just not been fully realized yet. (cue rimshot)
I know you guys are getting sick of Newslettergate, but like I said, I don't pick and choose what to write about in these Roundups - I just read what's out there and respond. I'd like to jump to that issue and highlight a couple of op-eds that Freedomphile agapecpus sent me.
The first (http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-orange-line-anatomy-of-a-smear-campaign/)is an essay from the blog of FormerBeltwayWonk. The author makes a lot of assumptions of facts not in evidence. The first problem I have is the strange idea that this was some sort of conspiracy between Reason Magazine and The New Republic:
Matt Welch (Reason Magazine) discusses the plan to smear Ron Paul on New Hampshire primary day. In a later edit, Welch strikes out the actual TNR/Reason plan (to post the piece at midnight, the exact time the New Hampshire polls opened, and not post the actual newsletters until the afternoon of the primary) and substitutes "tommorrow afternoon". But he failed to strike out Reason's part in the plan: "More to come from here after the gong strikes midnight."
This is just tinfoil hat black helicopter conspiracy bullshit. Reason had nothing to do with this, other than Matt Welch seeing an interview with Kirchik on Tucker Carlson's show and mentioning it on the blog.
I have no doubt that the TNR piece was timed to coincide with the New Hampshire primary to hurt Paul before there could be any official response. Not even a small doubt.
But Reason Magazine had no more to do with it than my report the same day saying the hitpiece would be out in the morning. He indicts Andrew Sullivan, too.
This author is putting the cart before the horse. This news broke, and everyone covered it because it was news. It wasn't a conspiracy to cover it. In fact, Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul. Reason had been pushing Paul for months.
This all also ignores the fact that if Ron Paul hadn't lent his name to a newsletter full of paranoid racist, homophobic hyperbolic rants, there would have been nothing with which to smear him in the first place.
This essay was shit.
The second essay (http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_r on_paul/) was much better, actually. It appeared in Taki's Top Drawer. It maligns the boys at Reason, as well, but not in the lunatic way of co-conspirator, but more for being too "libertine," "PC," and reactionary.
I find no basis for the first two charges - maybe because I am a bit of a libertine myself:
Reason, of course, in it's new incarnation as the official organ of the libertarian movement's aging hipsters and would-be "cool kids," vehemently opposes reaching out to middle and working class Americans: that is far too "square" for the black-leather-jacket-wearing Nick Gillespie, formerly associated with something called Suck magazine, and Matt Welch, who was an unknown quantity before getting the job at Reason. Right-wing populism? As far as the Suck-y crowd is concerned, one might as well tout the appeal of "right-wing botulism." Libertarianism, as understood by the editors of Reason, is all about legalizing methamphetamine, having endless "hook-ups," and giving mega-corporations tax breaks (so Reason can keep scarfing up those big corporate contributors). The decidedly "square" Dr. Paul—a ten-term Republican congressman from Texas, no less, and a pro-life country doctor of decidedly conservative social views—was and is anathema to Team Suck.
This, like the first essay, forgets the fact that Reason had at that point and still, to a degree, been one of Paul's biggest cheerleaders. I don't see how the author of this piece can't see that they possibly were legitimately turned off by the things they read, like that black people only stopped rioting in LA when it was time to pick up their welfare checks.
The author makes a good point about the David Duke stuff:
The explanation, which would be apparent if Balko had actually cited what is written, is that these weren't sympathetic words for Duke, per se, or his political ambitions, but for the issues—legitimate issues—that he raised (and exploited) in his Louisiana campaign. After all, libertarians such as Paul reject affirmative action, racial set-asides, and all other forms of state-enforced special treatment for "minorities" precisely because they oppose racism, or any form of collectivism.
I agree with that. The David Duke stuff wasn't so much an endorsement of Duke as an explanation of why an avowed racist would pull so much support - even from blacks. The answer? Because the freedom message is popular.
He does a decent job of highlighting comments and explaining how Kirchik uses innuendo and false connections to make some assumptions that just aren't true. He accuses Kirchick rightly of taking quotes out of context to make them sound worse, but then does the same thing to serve his own ends. He conveniently ignores statements like this (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793):
Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries)--and then complained about slow service. What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.
Sheesh. I guess he missed that. Anyway, the last thing I want to highlight from this article is something he pulled from a Radley Balko piece:
The utter dishonesty of the Reason crowd, when it comes to this issue, is breathtaking. Balko laments that
"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."
It's all about impressing Ms. Althouse, the notoriously dyspeptic and cranky lawyer-blogger-know-it-all.
He quotes the passage and all he has to say is we should not be looking for validation from Ann Althouse? The greater point is still true - if you are truly pro-liberty and not just a Ron Paul partisan, this harms the future of liberty by making you have to prove you are not a racist before being able to examine these racial issues. I've already experienced it firsthand.
Anyway, I'm honestly sick of this story, so let's move on. Right libertarian John Armstrong writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1291.html) on The Nolan Chart that he has some ideas for seven speeches for Nevada caucus-goers:
I received a great honor tonight when one of my readers from Nevada asked me to help him come up with some ideas for speeches he could give today at his caucus to try and become a delegate. My understanding is that there is a one minute speech and then possibly a two minute one later if elected. His particular situation was being in Las Vegasin a precinct with a lot elder citizens where he felt the economic issue was most important. I wrote most of the7 speeches belowwith that in mind, but there are some that are general support speeches.
As I was writing, I started to think that there might be a lot of you out there who would like to be a delegate but are afraid of public speaking or just didn't know what to say or how to say it. I thought there might be some of you who would just appreciate some new ideas. The speeches below are from an email I sent to this reader (we'll call him Mike), and there may be typos or nonsensical things in there because I haven't proofread it and started to get a little loopy at the end. Feel free to use any of these, or any parts of these if they will help you today at your caucus. I'm not writing this as an all-knowing great speech writer, I'm just trying to be helpful.
Renae Mitchell writes (http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=189174§ion=Opinion&freebie_check&CFID=84613165&CFTOKEN=30873750&jsessi..8830fe77c0a51664421c) in In-Forum about our man:
So what can we do about this huge problem? Force the issue into the presidential election. Ron Paul, the 10-term congressman from Texas is the only presidential candidate talking about this issue. He is an expert on monetary policy. He understands that in order to get rid of this inflation tax, we need to cut spending and go back to having Constitutional money. Paul says, "We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize spending. It is called the Constitution of the United States."
You may not line up with Paul on all the issues, but as long as you line up with him on the important ones like I do, that is what matters. Do your own research and don't formulate your opinions based on what the media is telling you. There is hope for America, be a part of it.
Centrist Libertarian Scott from Oregon wrote (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1283.html) a piece on The Nolan Chart saying that Ron Paul has raised some important and ignored questions:
Ron Paul, however, stood up and said a few things that made me sit up and take notice. Simple things. Things I realized I agreed with, without knowing I agreed with them- having never really thought about them before...
...Why are we taking a trillion dollars a year out of the pockets of Americans, and sending it overseas to military bases in places like Germany and Korea? Do the Koreans even want us there, and if so, why are they not paying us to be there? That goes for Japan too. Why do we allow the US government to take money from our pockets by threat of jail and give these countries security they aren't willing to pay for themselves? Who are we afraid of? Why do we take out loans from China to continue this nonsense? Why is there ONLY ONE CANDIDATE even asking this question?
Why are we submissively allowing our government to "solve all of our problems" for us? When did they get smarter than we were?
If the number one Accountant of America, the man in charge of auditing America's books, says we can't afford the Medicare and drug entitlements the government has already promised us, why are we even considering having the government manage our health care? Why not start up smaller, local, private health care networks and cut out all of the middle men and women who are taking money from between you and your doctor?
And finally, Right Libertarian Michael writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1282.html) also on The Nolan Chart about the future of the Revolution:
Ron Paul: It's Time Now to Fan the Flame (or give it up altogether) for the Future
If we who support Ron Paul and what he stands for as a Republican candidate for the 2008 Presidential election are smart we will also at this time be looking outside the box of the 2008 Presidential election and begin now to look strategically as to what is needed in order for this Revolution to survive beyond the 2008 election.
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg