PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (01-23-08)




RSDavis
01-23-2008, 03:33 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (01-23-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=350449113&Mytoken=20BB70D1-56C9-49B5-972D1746A1E1ADF0103640197)


Hello Freedomphiles! The Louisiana Caucus was last night, and official results are not in yet. The reason (http://www.lagop.com/), according to the Louisiana GOP:

On Tuesday night, approximately ten thousand Louisiana Republicans caucused in 11 different cities across the state. Those attending the caucuses cast their vote for 15 delegates and 15 alternates to represent their congressional district at the 2008 Louisiana Republican Convention. Results were tallied on site late into the night and then reported to Republican Party Headquarters in Baton Rouge. Of the thousands of ballots cast, approximately 650 were cast provisionally.

Before these provisional ballots are counted, LAGOP staff must verify that the voter was a registered Republican voter in his or her congressional district as of November 30, 2007. The counting of provisional ballots in the 3rd and 7th Congressional districts is not needed to verify the results as the margin of victory for all winning candidates is larger than the number of provisional ballots casts. For the other five Congressional districts, Republican Party staff members will begin the process of verifying the results through each parish's registrar of voter's office. Once that process is complete, the Secretary of the Republican of Louisiana will certify the official results.

Prior to the tabulation of the provisional ballots, the uncommitted "Pro-Life/Pro-Family" slate appears to have won a majority of delegates in all seven congressional districts.

They are clearly playing this close to the vest, but the rumors going around are that Ron Paul won - and won big. National Review Online reports (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDllODg3MmU3MzgyYmMzYmI5YzBjMGEyZmFlZGY1N2M=)a 2nd place finish:

Ron Paul finished second. His supporters reportedly mobbed the 11 polling places, but many of them could not participate because they were not registered Republicans. They were required to cast provisional ballots, many of which will not count. (The provisional ballots are part of the reason for the delay in tallying the results.)

These provisional ballots are the ones in question, and the ones that may lead up to a Paul victory. As reported (http://reason.com/blog/show/124573.html) at Reason:

A sizable of number of Paul voters were not registered Republicans until recently (some may not have re-registered at all), so they didn't show up on the rolls and had to cast provisional ballots. In all but two districts (where there aren't enough provisional ballots to affect the outcome) the party is counting them to see if they 1) were cast by registered Republicans and 2) add up to a win.

The Louisiana caucus rules are inscrutable, really. They must've been written by the IRS. What it appears is that while Ron Paul may have gotten the most votes of any individual candidate, the neocon candidates could pool their delegates to steal the caucus from him. Ballot Access News reports (http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/23/louisiana-republican-caucus/):

Although Louisiana holds a presidential primary on February 9, the Republican Party chooses its delegates to the national convention with a two-step caucus/convention system. The first round was held on February 22, when approximately 10,000 Louisiana Republicans turned out to vote in eleven different cities for delegate to the state convention. Each U.S. House district chose 15 delegates.

It appears that Ron Paul supporters outnumbered the supporters of any of his opponents. But since this was predicted, the supporters of Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, cooperated to set up a "fusion" slate of unpledged candidates for Delegate. The "fusion" slate, labeled the "Pro-Life/Pro-Family" slate, beat the Ron Paul slate in each of the 7 U.S. House districts. Formally, the "fusion" slate billed itself as an "uncommitted" slate, and no one really knows how many supporters of each presidential candidate are on the fusion slate, except the campaigns themselves.

It's all very confusing. I'm not sure what it means. I've been all over the web, and no one else seems to understand it, either. I've literally been working on this all morning, and I think I get the gist.

Yesterday, Louisiana Republicans elected 15 delegates, who then select 3 delegates and 3 alternates, bringing the total of those delegates to 21. These will be going to the Republican National Convention.

The state convention delegates will then select 20 delegates and 20 alternates. These delegates are "uncommitted," unless during the primary on February 9th, one of the candidates gets more than half the vote. If that happens all 20 of those delegates vote for that candidate.

Three additional delegates have already been selected by state Republicans, and 3 more will be selected later. That is a total of 47 delegates.

So, the original 21 are uncommitted, and so are the additional 26, unless someone gets 51% of the vote on February 9th. But these "uncommitted" delegates already have a preference, obviously.

Yeah, that's nuts. And the totals are still not in. I guess what this means is that the "fusion slate" agrees to vote for whichever non-Paul candidate wins. I don't think we'll know everything for a little while yet.

Medill Reports out of Chicago is talking (http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=75417) about Ron's chances in Illinois:

"What a shot in the arm the Nevada caucuses were, where we took the silver as 2, beating McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, and -- of course -- Giuliani. We also got four more delegates."

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) trumpeted the outcome on his campaign Web site after a strong finish in a state where most other Republican candidates ran minimal campaigns.

For a candidate that has been heckled by nearly every TV pundit, especially conservative ones, "of course" might seem like strong language. It may not be.

Paul has beaten former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in every primary except New Hampshire and raised enough money to open six offices in Illinois --more than any other Republican candidate. Another office in Bloomington just opened on Thursday. Illinois is an important state for Paul.

TransWorldNews is reporting (http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=34047&cat=5) on Ron Paul's recent boom:

Following a second place finish in the Republican caucus in Nevada, Texas Senator Ron Paul was his with a one-day internet cash infusion of $1.25 million, indicating his popularity may be showing signs of improvement. As the Republican primaries focused on Florida and further to the Super Tuesday primaries February 5, Paul has stayed his course on preaching returning responsible for many individual freedoms back to the states.

In Florida, Paul is realizing one of his best poll rankings, according to poll results posted at usaelectionpolls.com with six percent, slightly less than the seven percent held by former Tennessee Senator and actor Fred Thompson. The Republican focus on their religious roots helped split John McCain and Mike Huckabee in South Carolina's primary, but as the troupe moves further south, more eyes appear to be landing on the administration critic, Ron Paul.

And The Boston Globe is also talking (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/paul_brings_in.html) about the big money day on Monday:

While his Republican rivals issued statements praising the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., Ron Paul and his supporters took the holiday for the slain civil rights leader to bring in more than $1.85 million in campaign cash.

The one-day bonanza on Monday -- the latest for Paul who has made online fund-raising an art form -- had the theme of "Free at last," taking one of the most famous phrases from King's "I have a dream" speech. A video that supporters used to generate interest showed Paul praising King and Rosa Parks as heroes because he said they fulfilled the libertarian ideal of producing change through civil disobedience.

The Philadelphia Jewish Voice just ran a smear (http://www.pjvoice.com/v32/32104paul.aspx)that rehashes a lot of innuendo:

In one of the most sad, cynical, and disgusting moments of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Associated Press is reporting that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has refused to return a campaign contribution from Don Black, who runs a vicious White Supremacist website.

Rep. Paul's spokesman's pathetic excuse for keeping the money was that "If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," and that "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

The spokesman, Jesse Benton also, pitifully noted, "And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does." Even if Ron Paul had not recently set fundraising records, this excuse would still be an insult to the intelligence of voters. Given his fundraising prowess, the excuse is doubly insulting.

If Rep. Paul refuses to stand up to hate-mongers like Don Black, it is fair to ask whether he is tacitly welcoming their support in a desperate attempt to gain traction in the Republican primary. And, if the other Republican candidates do not condemn him for this, it will send a similar message as did their refusal to condemn Ann Coulter.

Yawn. The Stanford Daily spoke with Ron Paul, and he addressed (http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/1/23/paulRespondsToStudentConcerns) some concerns:

Paul briefly spoke with The Daily yesterday and responded to attacks against him. Despite the relative quietness of his campaign at Stanford, Paul receives more support from youth than he does from any other group, earning 19 percent of the votes from 18-24 year-olds in New Hampshire.

"At The Stanford Daily, some of our columnists have been critical of your policies," this reporter told Paul. "One columnist's piece called 'Ron Paul is Insane' condemned what he called your isolationist foreign policy and distrust of the Federal Reserve among other issues. This column received more than 1,000 online comments, largely attacks from angry Paul supporters. How do you react to both these criticisms and your supporters' reaction, and why do you think that your overwhelming support among youth hasn't translated to Stanford?"

Paul told The Daily that to understand his beliefs, students simply need to understand that his views complied with the Constitution.

"Maybe [Stanford students who oppose me] haven't understood me carefully enough or understand the principles of liberty nor are concerned about the Constitution," Paul said. "People might criticize me, but nobody says I ignore the Constitution. Maybe they've bought into this idea that the Constitution is old, it's a relic, that you don't follow it, you don't follow it with monetary policy, and you go to war without declaration and you spend money and run up deficits."

And finally, libertarian rtbohan gives some advice (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1364.html) to Socialists on The Nolan Chart:

Gene Debs ran with the intention of bringing a basic change to American society. He was in a minority in his thinking, and the society as well as the government were opposed to him. He preached against imperialism in a country enjoying immensely its first experience as an empire. He preached in favor of a strong central government in a time when states' rights were at their strongest. He preached for the working class when capitalism was in its hey day. And he preached peace in a time of war. It was no surprise that he was never elected. His last presidential campaign was run when he was in the federal prison in Atlanta for opposing the draft. And yet, for better and for worse, much of what he fought for eventually became a part of the fabric of American political and social thought.

Ron Paul is running this year, as he did in 1988, with the intention of bringing about a basic change in American society. He is talking about being less agressive in out foreign policy to a government which is actively seeking to attack new adversaries. He is talking about smaller government and states' rights to a country which feels uncomfortable about any thing which is not regulated by the federal government. He is talking about self reliance and freedom to a society in which victimhood is a desireable role and people look to the government to decide what and how much they eat. He is talking about freedom to a society which is fleeing from the need to make a choice.

http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg

cputter
01-24-2008, 07:26 AM
nice read, thanks.

JohnM
01-24-2008, 08:03 AM
It's all very confusing. ... I've literally been working on this all morning, and I think I get the gist.

Yesterday, Louisiana Republicans elected 15 delegates, who then select 3 delegates and 3 alternates, bringing the total of those delegates to 21. These will be going to the Republican National Convention.

The state convention delegates will then select 20 delegates and 20 alternates. These delegates are "uncommitted," unless during the primary on February 9th, one of the candidates gets more than half the vote. If that happens all 20 of those delegates vote for that candidate.

I'm less confused now, but I still am puzzled that the 3 "alternates" chosen by the delegates elected yesterday go to the Republican National Convention, but it sounds like the 20 alternates chosen by the State convention do not.

What is the difference between the 3 alternates and the 3 delegates chosen by the delegates elected yesterday?

RSDavis
01-24-2008, 10:24 AM
I'm less confused now, but I still am puzzled that the 3 "alternates" chosen by the delegates elected yesterday go to the Republican National Convention, but it sounds like the 20 alternates chosen by the State convention do not.

What is the difference between the 3 alternates and the 3 delegates chosen by the delegates elected yesterday?

I believe the 20 alternates go, too, for a total of 47 delegates/alternates. But it's not an absurd thought that I could be wrong.

- R

iQuotient
01-24-2008, 10:41 AM
First - and they won't steal it. Damage control will be too late.
He will turn this premature "claim" by McCain into a fiasco. Anytime the media can embarrass McCain they will. When the provincial ballots come out to show that Dr. Paul actually has the most slate delegates, that will draw attention to LA. (I am convinced the LAGOP hedged so strong because of this fact.) Then the media will brush it off as the "pro life" slate winning and not important. But one more chip in the armor is good.

I am telling you, we have the only candidate that can win. My family is entrenched as Dems and though they had not come around in time to swap parties, they say that he has their vote in the fall if he runs.

RSDavis
01-24-2008, 10:59 AM
First - and they won't steal it. Damage control will be too late.
He will turn this premature "claim" by McCain into a fiasco. Anytime the media can embarrass McCain they will. When the provincial ballots come out to show that Dr. Paul actually has the most slate delegates, that will draw attention to LA. (I am convinced the LAGOP hedged so strong because of this fact.) Then the media will brush it off as the "pro life" slate winning and not important. But one more chip in the armor is good.

I am telling you, we have the only candidate that can win. My family is entrenched as Dems and though they had not come around in time to swap parties, they say that he has their vote in the fall if he runs.

Can you explain the slates a bit. How do they work?