View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (01-24-08)

01-24-2008, 04:06 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (01-24-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=351080055&Mytoken=6C4DC3EE-F56B-4991-AF4D1956EE01E53660189591)

Hello Freedomphiles! Well, the Louisiana caucus results are still as clear as mud. I mean, Jeebus, this process is more confusing than Donnie Darko. Preliminary results have been released (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i2YCtBg15ovSmHo1y23Qc4oc_cdQ)by the Louisiana Republican Party, but I don't know whether they are legit or not:

Senator John McCain has won the Republican party's caucuses in Louisiana while longshot candidate Ron Paul took second place, the state party said Wednesday, citing preliminary results.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a leading candidate for the Republican nomination, came in third, Louisiana Republican party Chairman Roger Villere said in a statement.

The Washington Post clarifies (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/24/uncommitted_a_winner_at_last_1.html) it a little:

Explaining -- let alone understanding -- what happened this week in Louisiana presents a serious challenge for even the most devoted of political junkies. Consider this: Louisiana has 47 delegates total, 20 of which will be determined during a separate state primary on Feb. 9. Tuesday's caucus elected 105 delegates to attend the Feb. 16 state convention, who in turn will elect 21 delegates. (The remaining six are split between the state chair, national committeeman and national committeewoman and the three bonus delegates the state received in the wake of Gov. Bobby Jindal's election.)

Of those 105 delegates chosen Tuesday, McCain received roughly 30, more than any other named candidate. But "uncommitted pro-life" received twice that, about 70 delegates. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) each received a few delegates as well, but state officials are still calculating the exact number each candidate received because so many provisional ballots were cast. Caucusgoers had to register as Republicans by Nov. 30 in order to participate in the process but a number of voters -- many of whom were Paul supporters -- showed up and cast provisional ballots since questions remained over whether they had met this requirement.

Still, some of the delegates elected to the "uncommitted pro-life" slate now say they will support McCain.

So, McCain actually came in second, and Ron Paul 3rd to "Uncommitted pro-life," whatever the hell that means. Top-diamond libertarian Dee Ann Patterson has questions (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1402.html) on The Nolan Chart:

By that I mean I would like to see a county by county count of just who won the Louisiana caucuses? I believe that all of my fellow Republicans in Louisiana deserve to know where exactly their votes went. I would also like to know what in the world kind of candidate "Prolife Uncommitted" is? I never heard of him. Is he a registered Republican? Last time I checked there was no candidate "Prolife Uncommitted" that had declared his candidacy for the presidency. I say bring "Prolife Uncommitted" forward and make him abide by the requirement to declare his financial state every quarter. Did "Prolife Uncommitted" bring in 1.85 million dollars on Martin Luther King's Birthday a few days ago? No, that was Ron Paul.

If I was a Republican Citizen of Louisiana, I would be asking myself some questions. Do you REALLY want your votes hidden from public view this long? Do you really trust the leaders of the Republican Party to this extent? Does it not frighten you that somebody named "Prolife Uncommitted" is currently winning the caucuses in your state instead of a real candidate, while Republican citizens votes are being held up with "provisional ballots"? It would concern me greatly if this was going on in my state, even if I was not a Republican. Whether the votes went to McCain, Romney, Ron Paul, or Giuliani, I would want to be able to verify those votes the day of the caucus.

Fox News seems to clarify (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/mccain-claims-victory-in-louisiana-gop-caucuses/) this a bit:

Louisiana's primary is Feb. 9, but more than 10,000 Republican voters in the state attended the caucuses Tuesday to select delegates to the state convention, which is held to elect nearly all the state's delegates to the national convention, being held this year in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Preliminary results showed McCain won more of the 105 state convention delegates than any other candidate — most of the elected delegates actually ran on a statewide "pro-life uncommitted slate," according to the state GOP, but McCain claimed the most delegates for a named candidate.

The Louisiana GOP did not release final numbers, but reported that Texas Rep. Ron Paul came in second and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third.

So, I guess that the delegates themselves chose how to represent themselves. Some did it as Ron Paul delegates. Some as Guiliani (right!) delegates, some as "Uncommitted/Pro-life," presumably since they are one-issue voters and will vote for which ever pro-life candidate gets the most individual votes. That is, if I am reading this correctly.

I think I am, as Talking Points Memo explains (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/and_the_winner_of_the_louisiana_caucus_was_fred_th ompson.php) from where that slate came:

National Review reports that the winner of the Louisiana caucuses was an uncommitted slate running under the title of "Pro-Life, Pro-Family," followed by John McCain, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. In fact, the organizers of that "Pro-Life, Pro-Family" slate were almost all Thompson supporters who decided to take that name a few weeks ago, when it became a distinct possibility that he would drop out before the caucuses — which he did that very afternoon.

If Thompson had still been in the race, a Louisiana political source explained to NR, his state delegate strength in Louisiana would have been enough to potentially get him all of the state's 47 national delegates. The one big problem, though, is that he dropped out only hours before he finally won something.

That's interesting, and yet I find looking at this "Uncommitted/Pro-Life ballot" that Thompson bears a remarkable resemblance to Ronald Reagan:


Crazy, right? Well, this explanation is further bolstered by top-diamond libertarian jaded, who writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1398.html) on The Nolan Chart that, since these delegates are uncommitted until the primary and ultimately the convention, all bets are off:

First provisional votes are not yet included in the count. Provisional votes are all those cast by recently registered Republicans. Paul tends to have a lot of supporters who recently registered Republican to vote for him, so prsumably as these votes are verified and counted his numbers will rise.

But second the winning slate was "uncommitted Pro-Life". Of the three front-running committed slates (McCain, Paul, Romney) Paul is the only one viewed as solidly pro-life.

Moreover, he is getting more attention from the pro-life movement, a) because he was the only presidential candidate to speak at Tuesday's March for Life in DC, b) because Thompson (the NRLC's sometimes candidate) just dropped out, and c) because he just got endoresed by "Jane Roe".

If those "uncommitted pro-life" delegates look around for a viable (at the state level), pro-life candidate, the natural choice is Ron Paul. And if they back him, he could easily take first in the state.

This makes a lot of sense, and seems to jive with my understanding of the process, so I believe this and take a whole lot of hope from it. What it tells me is that, as we know, nothing is final until the convention, and there are several ways Ron Paul could end up in first place. But he cannot go any lower than second. Fuckin' A.

In other primary news, The Arkansas Democrat Gazette is reporting (http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/214633/) that Dr Paul won the speculative straw poll that the Arkansas Republican Party does to forecast primary results:

Paul took 52 of 142 votes, while Romney got 35 and Huckabee 30. John McCain came in fourth with 20 votes, and Rudy Giuliani had four. Fred Thompson came in last with one vote, despite having dropped out of the race earlier in the day...

...Barth said he wasn't surprised by Paul's showing.

"He has incredibly fervent support," Barth said.

Joel Jones of Bella Vista rallied Paul's Benton County "revolutionaries" after hearing at the last committee meeting that a straw poll would take place this month. The other candidates ' supporters had just as much time to find people to come out to the meeting, he said.

"Either they don't have the support, or they're not as passionate," he said.

Jones became a member of the committee Tuesday night and said he hopes the other Paul supporters will do the same, though he pointed out that some longtime committee members also voted for Paul.

And Timothy Langton of The Spectator believes (http://media.www.spectatornews.com/media/storage/paper218/news/2008/01/24/Editorialopinion/Ron-Pauls.Got.It.Wrong-3165281.shtml) freedom is bad for America:

But the one thing that has been made clear by voters in the early primary season is this - U.S. Rep. Ron Paul does not stand a chance of winning. The darling of the internet coming into the primary season - he gathered over $6 million on Dec. 16, the most money raised by a candidate on the Web in a single day - Paul finished in a distant fifth place in Iowa and New Hampshire, fourth in Michigan and a distant second in Nevada. Barring a miracle turnaround in the coming weeks, the millions of dollars Paul gathered through internet fundraising will go for naught.

And I couldn't be happier.

Not since George W. Bush originally ran in 2000 have I felt so strongly against an individual candidate. The Republican congressman from Texas hopes to turn back the clock on our economic and foreign policies, attempting to blind America to the problems it faces with his misleading idea of "individual liberty."

I want to say nasty things about him, but he's a kid. Go read the comments to the article for a nice laugh. A really funny one states simply, "I hope you enjoy your youth now, because once you join the world of grown-ups, such ignorance and arrogance is looked down upon."

The Nashua Telegraph has a nice piece (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/NEWS08/143908662/-1/news20) telling the story of the New Hampshire recount that almost wasn't:

Investor Lawrence Lepard, of Boston, agreed to step in and loan the recount group $57,600 in cash to pay for the recount.

Lepard spent more than $100,000 last month on full-page ads in USA Today endorsing Paul.

The loan was needed after problems developed turning online donations into a certified check in time to meet a Jan. 16 deadline Gardner had set, Howard said.

Providing much of that money was Linda Hunnicutt, an Asheville, N.C., woman who calls herself "Granny Warrior" and drives a painted, RV bus across the country to Ron Paul events, Howard said.

A Web site known as grannywarriors .com reports it has raised more than $25,000 in donations to repay Lepard and cover other expenses.

Howard said the group is paying his airfare, hotel and other expenses to make two trips back and forth to Michigan to make the recount request and inspect it.

Another Paul supporter, Eric Newhouse, of Moultonborough, had paid $2,000 to Gardner in $100 bills to file the initial application for the recount, Howard said.

Howard has no official connection to Paul's campaign. During an interview, Howard said he's determined to have all 238,000 ballots recounted due to controversies in other states that have faced the voting machine vendor, Diebold Corp.

It looks like the recount may not provide any meaningful changes, but it's good to be sure, either way.

The Saginaw News reports (http://www.mlive.com/news/saginawnews/index.ssf?/base/news-25/120118812714970.xml&coll=9) that there was a bad apple in the bunch:

State organizers for Republican Ron Paul's presidential campaign say the Texas congressman had no idea a mid-Michigan volunteer had ties to the Ku Klux Klan.

Randy G. Gray II, 27, of Midland, the Midland County coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign, is an organizer and speaker for the Knight's Party of the KKK, reports indicate.

''It has come to my attention that one of our volunteers here in Michigan, Randy Gray, has affiliations with a racist and hateful organization,'' said Leslie Roszman, state coordinator for Ron Paul 2008.

''(Gray) was not forthcoming about his background and he was in clear violation of the campaign's code of conduct for volunteers. No one affiliated with racist organizations would ever knowingly be allowed to have any role with the campaign. Dr. Paul's philosophy of freedom and individual liberty is the antithesis of racism.''

I am absolutely shocked that this isn't all over the national media already. Since the specter of racism has been raised, let use that to transition to a story (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/24/ron-paul-racial-issues-and-the-racists-who-wish-to-kill-the-paul-campaign/) on Third Party Watch about Newlettergate and Francisco Suarez, the go-getting poster on RonPaulForums.com that outed (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=98634) Jamie Kirchik's source:

Kirchick's vile source is Bill White, white supremacist extraordinaire, self-appointed Fuehrer of the U.S. nazi party, and vocal Ron Paul hater.

Justin Raimondo first hinted at this possibility yesterday ( http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article…popular_front/ )so I decided to investigate further.

I'll get to the evidence shortly, but first I'll comment on another ironic twist to this story. Bill White hates Ron Paul with a passion. He hates Ron Paul because – get this – he thinks Ron Paul's campaign is infiltrated by "the Jews" and he cites none other than the Ludwig von Mises Institute (named after a Jewish economist and co-founded by another Jewish economist) as "proof" of this. So much for Kirchick's "Ron Paul is an anti-semite" theme.

So how do we know that Bill White is Kirchick's informant? Because Bill White himself admitted it all over the dark little toilet of the internet he inhabits – a repulsive neo-nazi website called the "Vanguard News Network" (VNN) More importantly Bill White admitted it before Kirchick's story broke. Along with a couple of "beltway libertarians" who have already been discussed, Bill White was the only person who knew this story was coming before it hit presses. That is because the New Republic called him for background on the newsletters.

Good stuff. Although he wasn't the only one who knew it was coming beforehand, which the author admits, as well. There is some really good information in the original forum post, and the author supplements it with some good information of his own.

Greg Albert writes an interesting piece (with a really cool graphic - stolen) about Ron Paul, and asks What Part of Ron Paul's Platform is Crazy? (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50038)

I seriously want to know which of Ron Paulīs ideas are crazy. I read a lot of empty assertions in the media that Ron Paulīs ideas are fringe, nutty, or kooky. I couldnīt disagree more, but itīs hard to say because those terms don't really mean anything and the press ainīt exactly full of rhetorical geniuses.

To me, it seems that Paulīs platform is the genuine position of anyone who subscribes to an individualist ethos. Sure, plenty of politicians claim to believe in individualism, but they jump into a collectivist perspective as soon as they get a question from the media. In contrast, Paulīs positions strike me as the natural consequence of anyone who believes in the Lockean theory of self-governance upon which our Constitution was more-or-less predicated. From that theory, almost directly, issues libertarianism/conservatism.

Businesswire reports (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080123006517&newsLang=en) that Ron Paul is unveiling his plan to save the world today:

Thursday, January 24th, Republican presidential candidate and ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services Ron Paul will unveil a comprehensive economic reform package. The four-pronged plan is designed to stem the current economic slide and address the unsound governmental policies that are the harming the national economy.

"Most Americans are keenly aware that the economy is going in the wrong direction, and fortunately Ron Paul has the answer," said campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. "Dr. Paul has been talking about these issues for decades and he is a leading expert in the area of monetary policy."

It is up. Click here (http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/01/ron-paul-unveil.html) to read the whole thing, but here are some highlights:

[1] Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.

[2] Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.

[3] Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness with the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.

[4] Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.

Top-diamond libertarian creator on The Nolan Chart thinks (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1393.html) Rush Limbaugh has endorsed Ron Paul by default:

Now NewsMax has reported that conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh last week explicitly disavowed both McCain and Huckabee, saying "If either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party."


It was blatantly obvious to me in '96 that the "run Dole" strategy was a sure-fire formula for loosing the election to Clinton. Does the Republican party really want to repeat that mistake in 2008? Now with "mainstream candidates" dropping like flies, and the "remaining anointed" disavowed by "Mr. Republican," Rush Limbaugh himself, isn't that as good as an endorsement of Ron Paul? I, for one, think so!

Well, it's an amusing intellectual excercize, to be sure, but it also presupposes that Rush Limbaugh has consistency or integrity, rather than just a big mouth and a fat head.

By the way, don't do this:

How Not to Stump for Paul (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KOA-AM/CBA%201-22%20Angry%20Caller.mp3)

I'm not saying that guy was necessarily a real Ron Paul supporter, but he had some pretty good facts on his side and was almost completely right about what he said. But the delivery, while fucking hilarious, is not going to win many converts.

Lastly, I'd like to point you in the direction of the Ron Paul Blimp people, who have a great idea:

It made no sense to spend 2.3 million dollars on a Super Bowl commercial that will air nationwide in places like Michigan or Florida will people have already voted.

Instead, we have developed a plan to target potential Ron Paul voters during the Super Bowl at a significant discount. We are in the process of selecting and securing time slots for a Ron Paul Super Bowl commercial to run in upcoming Super Tuesday states that Ron Paul is most likely to benefit from.

Although we do not want to disclose our specific markets at this point, (no need give our competition our complete strategy) you can assume that we will not be advertising in Super Tuesday states such as Utah or Arkansas. Once we get closer to the game we will post an exact schedule of when and where they will air. The individual ad buys range in price from one to several thousand dollars. To give you an example of what type of magnitude we are talking about, for $100,000 we can reach around 5-6 million viewers who are in important Super Tuesday states.

As stated, we have already reserved ad time in some markets, as space is very limited and we didn't want to lose it. We must act fast to make this a success. In some markets we are finding that ad time during the game is sold out, so we are getting rates for the Pre and Post Game, which are still seen by about 70-90% of the people who watch the actual game.

What we need from you is a commercial and the advertising dollars.

They also are accepting entries for the actual ad. Click here (http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/superbowl/) for details or to donate.