View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (01-21-08)

01-21-2008, 12:06 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (01-21-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=349697451&Mytoken=98402713-4884-400D-9D0640F76876C605119919290)

Hello Freedomphiles! Well, bite my ear, slap me on the ass, and call me bitch because Ron Paul came in second in Nevada! And suddenly the MSM remembers his name. The Associated Press reports (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwrBZ9wfM_WFXZB29q9BYF8hGozAD8U9C0F00):

Texas Rep. Ron Paul said his second-place finish in Nevada's GOP presidential caucuses on Saturday showed his message is being heard and that he has more supporters than he thought.

"Millions of people have heard this message and this is why coming in second is very great, it sends a great message," Paul said to loud cheers. He conceded that South Carolina's primary, where he was running a distant fifth, was not his to win.

Paul took several swipes at former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who got fewer votes than Paul in Nevada and was trailing Paul in returns being tabulated Saturday night in South Carolina. He told the audience about a confrontation with Giuliani during this month's debate in South Carolina. He said Giuliani "cut me down."

"Tonight, if this is the final tally on that confrontation, we got three times as much vote as the mayor got," he said, referring to Nevada.

Now, he did come in a distant second to Mitt Romney, who nabbed 51% of the vote. Who knew there were so many Mormons in Nevada? About.com elaborates (http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/01/20/ron-paul-takes-second-place-in-nevada.htm) on those Mormon voters:

Exit polls suggested Romney took the Mormon vote; approximately 1-in-5 Republicans caucusing today said that they were Morman. The graphic below shows results from the Nevada GOP with 1750 of 1789 precincts reporting. [Final results are not on the GOP home page: Romney, 51%; Paul, 14%; McCain, 13%. Paul trumped McCain by 434 votes.]

Paul is the only Republican candidate to oppose the Iraq war. He has consistently finished behind Romney, McCain and Mike Huckabee (who was fourth in Nevada). Paul has also consistently and significantly trumped Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter, who bowed out of the nomination race today.

In addition, it looks like Paul will be the top fundraiser for the Republicans when fall 2007 data are final.

While he was nowhere close to Romney, second place is still ahead of McCain, Rudy, Huckabee, and Thompson. CBSNews comments (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/19/politics/horserace/entry3732071.shtml):

Still, second place is second place, and the Paul campaign is celebrating.

"Ron Paul has once again topped multiple media-anointed 'frontrunners' with his poll-defying second place showing in Nevada," Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder said in a statement. "We're in this race to win, and we're going to battle for every delegate in this wide-open race for the Republican nomination."

The Nation elaborates (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=272954) on Paul beating Guiliani once again:

Ron Paul has now done something that Rudy Giuliani has never done.

The anti-war congressman from Texas, who famously tangled with Mr. 9/11 over foreign policy in the only interesting GOP debate, has finished in the top tier of a Republican caucus or primary contest...

...Paul has his second from Nevada -- or, as Romney would put it, "the silver" -- and a better finish in South Carolina than Giuliani. He's also got more money in the bank than most of the other candidates, a muscular fund-raising operation, enthusiastic young volunteers and a message that distinguishes him from the field. He's in the race for a good long time, and now he's actually winning delegates.

And what of Rudy Giuliani?

"America's mayor" either wins Florida -- where he has camped out as the other candidates have slogged through Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Michigan, Nevada and now south Carolina -- or there really is no way to make a case for carrying his bizarre campaign forward.

Interesting that it is now Rudy who is running a "bizarre campaign," eh? Taking a break from the Cosmotarian Conspiracy to destroy Ron Paul, the folks at Reason also have positive things (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124508.html)to say about the 2nd place finish:

His support reaches across economic classes. It is often noted that the libertarian movement is predominantly white and male. It is less often noted that its class composition is extremely diverse, ranging from multimillionaires to people practically living on the street. In Nevada, Paul seems to be doing respectably among voters at all income levels, with his best showings among the middle and lower-middle classes.

The antiwar vote lives. Among people who cited Iraq as the most important issue in the election, Paul got 29 percent of the vote. Only Romney did better.

The "other" Christians like him. I'm not sure what to make of this, but while Romney carried the Protestant, Catholic, and (of course) Mormon vote, Paul got a plurality of "other Christian" ballots. Anyone care to speculate what sects those might be? (If you say "Branch Davidian," you get a raspberry.)


Paul still dominates the independent vote, though his total there now stands at 51 percent. (McCain is second, with 13 percent.) As for those "other" Christians, several readers point out that their ranks would include the various Eastern Orthodox churches. I wouldn't expect there to be many Orthodox worshippers in the Silver State, but there's more than zero, and that's all you need. I figure there's a fair number of LDS splinter groups in Nevada, too; I'm not sure if they'd be counted as "other" or as Mormons.

Finally, I'll note that among the small number of Republican voters making $15,000 to $30,000 a year, Paul finished second with 19 percent of the vote -- a product, perhaps, of his populist approach to libertarianism. First place went to Romney, who got 53 percent -- a product, perhaps, of hallucinogens in the drinking water.

The Charlotte Conservative News reported (http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2008/01/msm-corruption-censors-paul/) on a dis from Fox News and MSNBC:

I just got done earlier posting how MSNBC changed the leaderboard graphic for the Nevada Caucus to only show the top 2 once Ron Paul was solidly in second place.

Well to take the matter one futher, once he dominated McCain and took second place I never again saw his face or heard his name mentioned EVEN ONCE in almost 2 hours of watching Nevada coverage on MSNBC.

Not once did they show the leaders or say the words "Ron Paul" even though he is one of the biggest money raisers and was solidly in second place in Nevada today....

....Here is the end all example and proof from FOX news. Fox actually does not even show the results of Ron Paul and removed him completely though he is the 2nd highest vote getter.

Paul didn't do quite as well in South Carolina, finishing fifth, but still ahead of "Benito" Guiliani. ConnieTalk explains (http://www.connietalk.com/SCarolina_Nevada_Primaries_012008.html):

For South Carolina, the Democratic primary is not until January 26th, but 97% of the Republican votes are in, with McCain at 33%, Huckabee at 30%, Thompson at 16%, Romney at 15%, Paul at 4%, Giuliani at 2%.

So, Dennis Kucinich was not invited to the CNN debates, and filed a complaint with the FCC. Reason's David Weigel reports (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124505.html), with a nod to Ron Paul:

In other press release news, Dennis Kucinich is crying to the FCC about CNN not inviting him to the next debate. I'd play the world's smallest violin, but that's actually what Kucinich uses for recitals.

Credit to Ron Paul, here. He's complained about debate exclusions and gotten allies to un-endorse the trouble debates, but he's never thrown a legal tantrum.

Today is the Free at Last money bomb. I think this is a good thing, and will help mitigate the blowback from the whole Newslettergate fiasco. At the time of this writing, Ron Paul supporters have raised about $700,000:


Reason's David Weigel reports (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124523.html):

At this rate the campaign's going to fall far short of the haul from the last two moneybombs (although still rake in more than a Friday moneybomb by John Edwards fans, which raised around $1 million.) The Ron Paul forums seem chipper enough:

The headline "100,000 Ron Paul Supporters donate on Martin Luther King Jr Day" is more impressive then saying $x dollars raised. Don't discourage small donations.

If the trend continues, I think it can be pinned on three things.

[1.] The Newsletters. This won't be the key reason, but it'll be a reason. Anecdotally, from personal contacts and contacts across the web, I know some casual Paul fans have given up supporting the campaign since this scandal. Many will still vote for him, but they're uncomfortable posting signs or giving him cash.

[2.] The Election Results. We hadn't had any primary by the day of the last moneybomb, and it was still possible for Paul fans to envision surprise 1st and 2nd place primary victories made possible by the cash infusions and the divided field. Nevada raised their spirits, (I ran into some Paul sign-posters yesterday who were giddy about it) but not as high as they were before New Hampshire.

[3.] The Campaign/Ads. Paul backers have become skeptical that their money will be used effectively. They've seen, and trashed, most of the TV ads run so far, and I've heard that up to $1.8 million was used on those controversial New Hampshire ads. They've bristled at the campaign's response to controversies and the difficulty it has had interjecting into the news cycle.

I think the author of the quoted comment from RonPaulForums is absolutely correct. For the record, I think the main reason that this money bomb won't be as big as the others is that it is right after Christmas, and many of these people have already donated three times.

Joseph BH McMillan writes (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/01/21/ron-paul-can-still-win-if/) on The Intellectual Conservative a piece redefining Ron Paul's Principles of Freedom, and stressing how he believes Paul should adopt the edited version:

The effect of adopting such Principles would be far-reaching. I deal with some of the effects in the concluding article on the Ten Principles of Freedom, and also in my book Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights, so I will not elaborate further here.

I do believe however that Ron Paul's prospects would be considerably improved if he adopted these Principles, as would the prospects of the American people to live in freedom and prosperity. I also believe that this election will determine the character of the United States for a long time to come. If any of the Democratic candidates win, the United States will move quickly towards a European-style Welfare system from which it will become impossible to escape.

It's not too late, although time is short. And judging from the polls, he has got nothing to lose, and everything to gain for the American people.

The Sacramento Bee is reporting (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/648301.html) about Ron Paul's local young activists:

Let this serve as fair warning for local residents: If Gerald Clift spots you idling somewhere, he's probably going to give you a pitch on Ron Paul.

As the Feb. 5 presidential primary approaches, no grocery checkout line or store aisle is safe. Professors at Sacramento State may even want to lock up their dry-erase pens.

"During finals week, as I was waiting for classes to start, I'd write stuff like 'Who Is Ron Paul?' on empty white boards," said Clift, a 20-year-old student at California State University, Sacramento. "I think it's effective. If you see it multiple times, you'll start to become more curious."

Clift is one of hundreds of local residents volunteering to support Paul, a 70-year-old Texas Republican congressman running for president by opposing the Iraq war, advocating use of the gold standard and promising an end to the Internal Revenue Service.

If you recall, I pointed out a Bret Stephens critique (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120036562308490333.html) of Ron Paul's foreign policy prescriptions last week:

Mankind is not comprised solely of profit- and pleasure-seekers; the quest for prestige and dominance and an instinct for nihilism are also inscribed in human nature, nowhere more so than in the Middle East. Libertarianism makes no accounting for this. It assumes the relatively tame aspirations of modern American life are a baseline for human nature, not an achievement of civilization.

There is a not-incidental connection here between libertarianism and pacifism. George Orwell once observed that pacifism is a doctrine that can only be preached behind the protective cover of the Royal Navy. Similarly, libertarianism can only be seriously espoused under the protective cover of Leviathan.

That's something worth considering as Americans spend the coming year debating the course of things to come in the Middle East. It is beguiling, and parochially American, to believe that things go better when left alone. In truth, as Yeats once wrote, things fall apart. With so much at stake in this election, it's no small blessing that Dr. Paul remains a man of the fringe.

Well, Robert Higgs at The Independent Institute takes offense (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2105):

When we libertarians are not simply ignored, we are often reproached, and not in a respectful way, either, but condescendingly, as if we were children who just don't understand life's harsh realities and need to be scolded. The most recent case in point is Bret Stephens's article on "Ron Paul and Foreign Policy" in the Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2008.

Stephens takes the text for his sermon from recent statements by Ron Paul, the libertarian candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Stephens avows that "most of us" sympathize "up to a point" with the core libertarian belief that people ought to be left alone in the pursuit of their own happiness. He reaches that stopping point quickly, however, and his disparagement of "Dr. Paul's cult-like following" reveals early on that he has no intention of dealing fairly or knowledgeably with Paul's views on U.S. foreign policy.

Paul's undoing, Stephens tells us, springs from a clash between his policy ideas and certain "details of history." For example, early Americans, having tired of paying bribes to Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean Sea, were "forced to build a navy, and then go to war, to defend [the country's] commercial interests, a pattern that held true in World War I and the Persian Gulf 'Tanker War' of the 1980s." The problem that springs from such details of history, however, weighs much more heavily on Stephens's views than it does on Paul's.

It's an interesting piece. That's my reccommendation for link-clicking today. Finally, top of the diamond libertarian Walt Thiessen writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1302.html) on The Nolan Chart that the key to a Paul victory is focusing on fiat money and the Federal Reserve:

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul is the only candidate who even talks about it (and makes sense about it!). Most people aren't even aware of it. The most important issue in the 2008 campaign is also the one most likely not to be recognized. It is the issue behind the issues, the issue that will drive the entire campaign. And yet, most discouragingly, it is the most important issue on which most Americans are likely to be ignorant on Election Day 2008.

Instead, we'll be aware of the buzz that the media has told us we need to know. We'll be told that inflation is under control and that all we need is a little more stimulus from the Fed, and that Federal spending is high but not completely out of control. We'll be reassured by the Republican and Democratic nominees (if Ron Paul isn't one of them) that their government can handle whatever comes along, and we'll believe it.

If Romney or McCain or Huckabee is the Republican nominee, we'll hear about how the Republicans are going to restore the economy, but that probably won't be enough to stop the Hillary express from pulling into Union Station in Washington DC. We know that it's the Republicans who have seen the economy go sour under their watch, and we'll remember that. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, will be talking up her plans to "save" health care and restore a Democratic balance to society. And none of the talk will focus on how the Federal Reserve System continues to separate the rich from the poor. Indeed, everything but the Fed will be blamed.

The dollar will continue to plunge, and the Republicans will (correctly) be held responsible, except that the Democrats are also responsible. But ultimately, it's the Federal Reserve Board that will be responsible, except that publicly they're responsible to no one. That's what makes the dollar's continued destruction the responsibility of both the Republican and Democratic leadership, but it will make no headlines. It will gain no credence among the people. The American people will continue to be ignorant of what is bankrupting them, slowly, inexorably, over time.

Unless the Revolution gets involved, that is.

I disagree. I don't think most Americans could give two shits about monetary policy. It's boring, difficult to understand, and decidedly un-sexy. He shouldn't stop talking about it, but the winning issues are civil liberties, small government, low taxes, repealing the PATRIOT Act, and withdrawing from Iraq.

See you tomorrow