Flutterby™! : The Ron Paul R3volution 2007-10-28 21:55:19.01193+00

The Ron Paul R3volution

2007-10-28 21:55:19.01193+00 by ziffle 59 comments

10-26-2007 : Taking Ron Paul Seriously In New Hampshire

http://marcambinder.theatlanti.../10/when_i_visited_ron_pauls.php

"When I visited Ron Paul's New Hampshire campaign headquarters this morning, only one member of his staff, Kate Rick, was there. The other six were out building a contraption to capture the unique energies of the Paul movement here. Excitement -- Paul is moving up (slowly) in the polls and has only, to this point, run a single radio ad."

"For the longest time, many journalists, myself included, did not take Ron Paul seriously. It wasn't that his politics -- a combination of libertarian constitutionalism and social conservatism -- were unusual. It was, principally, that he was anti-war in a party where that view dare not express itself."

"Paul is now emerging as a serious threat in New Hampshire, perhaps not to win it -- although the winner may need only 25% or so -- , but to influence the outcome in a way that reflects his worldview. He will spend most of the $5.3M in his campaign budget on television, mailings and field organizing in the Granite State. "

#Comment Re: made: 2007-10-28 22:09:08.258106+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

It appears The Atlantic is taking a softer stand then in recent weeks. If the writers and owwners love freedom and liberty they will provide a more balanced view of Paul then they too may become bitten by the real opportunity before us. They are not MSM but they have a small effect on the net but not with those who love Paul. Yes, Paul has spent little of his cash and has been supported by those who understand and support the law of the land. It seems like a simple message but some just don't get it.... But over the last few weeks and months it appears Paul is growinng in every possible way. Ron's site is the most popular site on the GOP side with an 8,0000% increase in rank.

"If anyone had told me three years ago I'd become a registered Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul in the Washington State primary, I would have called them crazy. We are a "pick a party" state. I intend to attend the caucus in support of Ron Paul as well.

Most of all, I'm putting my money where my mouth is with monthly contributions. This is our last chance to save this magnificent country."

"P.S. I am a lifelong Democrat who had to change parties to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries in my state. I am 65 years old. I am currently retired. I have a house, car, boat, 2 kids and a wife."

"I am a Democrat that also change my party to republican to vote in the primaries. I am going to be 24 tomorrow"

The champion of the Contitution: (with typically 8000 comments almost all positive)

Oh yes, he is starting to be banned by the main stream republicans? (First they laugh .. Ghandi)

#Comment Re: made: 2007-10-29 04:59:59.530691+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger

Meanwhile, those dreaded scientific polls of recent vintage give Paul no more than 7% of the vote, while most list him somewhere around 3%.

I can't see Paul's candidacy having a major impact in NH, but the nosedive of Fred Thompson probably will and the surge of Huckabee probably will.

The only reason I even know the guy from the Ron Paul Girl and her videos. It seems though that elections aren't won from issues or party affiliation... it seems they're popularity contests. If a half-naked blonde can get the name of a politician stuck in my head though, come primaries, at least I'll have a name in my head.

#Comment Re: The Atlantic made: 2007-10-29 13:39:15.183059+00 by: BC

The Atlantic, like Maher, is giving Paul token recognition. They feel they must since there is such a groundswell out there. Don't let that fool you, though. The Atlantic will only do so to denigrate Paul in some way. He stands in stark contrast to what the owners of The Atlantic want.

#Comment Re: They did it! made: 2007-11-06 16:58:21.862048+00 by: ziffle

The Ron Paul Revolution garnered an additional 4.2 Million dollars from 38,000 donors in 24 hours.

His opponents are beginning to tire of him; no longer ridiculed as much, now attacked more often.

#Comment Re: Hear ye, hear ye made: 2007-11-06 19:13:48.866546+00 by: BC

William Hill has cut the odds on Ron Paul to becoming president from 66/1 to 12/1, and have him going head to head with Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination for President. Another company has Paul at 6/1.

While reality suggests Paul's support has doubled to about 5-6% nationwide, Republican strategists and power brokers have got to ask, "Who can beat Hillary in 2 outta 3 of the key states: FL, PA, or OH?"

Paul "flat lines" in FL and OH and that's problematic for him. Especially recently, but actually since 1960, if you can't win at least 2 of those states, you can't be president.

If he tosses this windfall money at those states and establishes some viability there, he can jostle with Huckabee for 5th place. :-)

#Comment Re: Reality, eh? made: 2007-11-07 13:06:24.747062+00 by: BC

One problem with your analysis. I would surmise not more than 2% of the general public in those 3 key states even know who Ron Paul is. That is the beauty, potentially, of the Ron Paul story. Once most people find out he exists and then hear his positions on the issues, which the press has not allowed to date, Paul could potentially rocket to the top of the pack.

One example, can you imagine what the headlines would have been for virtually any other candidate in the race having just raised a staggering $4.2M in one day? Front page news in most majors. Paul got token mention. The point? People don't know who Paul is. But they just might before its all over.

Yesterday I was channel surfing and happened on Fox News, "Sizing up the Republican presidential field". No mention of Ron Paul at all. Despite the fund-raising news. CNN, on the other hand, was talking about the "Ron Paul money bomb" and comparing him with Nader.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-07 13:47:29.682007+00 by: jeff [edit history]

It's been crystal clear from the very beginning that most "big media," controlled by special interests, will do everything they can to marginalize Ron Paul.

Given the political orientation of Fox News (proven empirically by several scientific studies), their lack of coverage comes as absolutely no surprise. "Fair and balanced?" Yeah, right. And I've got a bridge to sell you.

The Internet, to date, fortunately, is not operating in "censorship mode." At least not yet in this country. But even that could change over time if the special interests "have their way."

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-07 14:43:48.350887+00 by: topspin [edit history]

I'm a realist. In that, I surmise I will make a voting decision next November which does the least harm to me and my country. Thus, the practical choices will be three: Dem, Rep, or another choice which voices my displeasure with the system because I feel the Dem/Rep choices are so similar as to not make a difference.

I will only make the last choice IF I feel there's no harm from either a Dem or Rep, but a two issues make this presidential election a bit more critical than some.

First, given the ages of Stevens and Ginsburg, the next president will likely appoint one or two members of the SCOTUS. Stevens and Ginsburg are among the most socially liberal members of the court. The next president should, in my view, appoint a socially liberal justice or two to keep the SCOTUS in something of a balance. I'm not looking to repeat the Warren years, but I shudder at the thought of another Scalia or Thomas joining the court. Realistically, Ron Paul would appoint something closer to Scalia than Stevens..... LOTS closer.

Second, the erosion of civil liberties from this administration and Congress. It will surely take years to undo some of the fear-mongering legislation Cheney and Co. have thrust upon us. And that process will be delicate, politically. Ron Paul is not noted for working well with fellow Congresscritters. His reputation comes from voting "No" and NOT supporting pork/big govt, but those good qualities alone don't make him a leader. Were Paul likely to be swept into office with even 40 to 50 Libertarian Congresscritters, we might talk.

Even discounting my personal reservations about the SCOTUS and Ron Paul, the practical side of me cannot imagine how the man would work with a Congress which he's noted for being so completely at odds with on most issues. Paul's presidency would likely be marked by vetoes/gridlock with Congress, as most of Congress doesn't think remotely like Paul. A "R3volution" at the top only won't work, folks. Think realistically! Were Paul part of a "movement" a la Gingrich and the "Contract on with America" folks, I might see him having some traction at getting things done. He simply isn't. One doesn't see folks running for Congress aligning themselves with his views or his "R3volution" as one did with Gingrich.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-07 18:15:08.514081+00 by: crasch [edit history]

Topspin, what makes you think Hillary (the likely Democratic nominee) wants to restore civil liberties? Remember Clipper chip? The Clintons wanted to eavesdrop on our conversations years before 9/11. She voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, and for its renewal in 2006. She did

vote against the Military Commissions Act (and kudos to her for that), but she refused to cosponsor S.526, a bill which would've eliminated most of the MCA's most odious provisions.

And what about the War on Drugs? The FDA? The USDA? Hillary may be pro-choice on the narrow issue of abortion, but what about the rest of the body? She wants to control what drugs you take (medicinally/recreationally), and the food you eat. Rolling back these infringements on our freedom of bodily choice are not even on her radar.

Not to mention all of the civil liberties that have been lost as a result of the War on Drugs: asset forfeiture, no-knock warrants, mandatory minimums. When was the last time you heard Hillary rail against the War on Drugs?

Finally, she wants to take away your right to defend yourself with firearms. You can expect a strong push by Hillary and the Democratic-controlled congress for legislation limiting your ability to buy and use firearms.

vetoes/gridlock with Congress, as most of Congress doesn't think remotely like Paul.

If the Democrats truly support repealing infringements on civil liberties, then Paul and a Democratically-controlled Congress should have no problems getting them passed. If there are problems, it will be because the Democrats don't support their repeal.

In any case, Paul could use the presidential pardon to provide blanket pardons for non-violet drug offenses, and others convicted of victim-less crimes. That would do two things. During his administration, no one would be punished for those crimes, and we'd have a 4 year experiment to see how legalization really worked. And it would give pro-liberty supporters time to mount Senate and House campaigns to get more liberty-minded congress critters into office.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-07 19:33:26.461233+00 by: topspin [edit history]

It's foolish, ridiculous, and complete and utter nonsense to suggest the friggin' Republican party is going to adopt a "We'll bring the troops home" plank at the GOP convention, but that's essential to a Paul candidacy. Everything officially said by the GOP, everything out of Bush's mouth, everything on the GOP website says.... "We're gonna win in Iraq."

Ron Paul isn't about to back down on that and the GOP isn't about to back down on that..... and we have an impasse. The GOP, with a sitting president who started the damn war, cannot easily nor conceivably admit it was a mistake and our foreign policy should have been non-intervention and our future actions will be radically altered toward isolationism.

Victory in Iraq is vital is central to the Global War on Terror to ensure that those who would harm the United States suffer total defeat. -- GOP

Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.

I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It's the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders. -- Ron Paul 9/5/07 debate

Now, I'm not saying Paul's not right. He is 100% right about Iraq, but he's trying to lead a group of people who've dug themselves into a hole by insisting that victory in Iraq is essential to a victory against terror.

The suggestion that Ron Paul could possibly be nominated by the GOP is something even St. Jude would slink away from. Give it a rest, already.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-07 20:14:44.734861+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Here are some succinct and sobering reasons why many Americans want REAL and FUNDAMENTAL change.

Out of all the candidates presented by both parties, Ron Paul resonates best with those who are not satisfied with "business (or lack, thereof) as usual." And yes, much of the GOP (not all) has placed itself in an untenable situation. Many Democrats are not far behind.

Of course, American elitists do not want change. And for those who believe, they won't give it a rest.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-07 20:29:45.229789+00 by: crasch [edit history]

topspin, I note that you don't address my points about Hillary's miserable civil rights record.

As for whether Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination, Intrade (a betting site) current puts Ron Paul's odds in third place (8%), behind Giuliani (43%) and Romney (28%), but ahead of McCain and Thompson. That's up from less than 1% in May. Sportsbook gives him 4:1 odds to win the nomination. Ladbrokes currently gives him 14:1 odds to win the presidency.

Those are still admittedly low odds. But Ron Paul's name recognition is still quite low, so his potential for growth is still high, unlike Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, or McCain. And with the money he's raised, he can buy a lot of name recognition.

Keep in mind that Bush won the nomination in 2004 with almost no competition. Therefore, in 2004, the only reason to vote in the primaries was to show your support for Bush and the War in Iraq. Republican turnout was the lowest on record, at 6.6%. In other words, only the diehard Bush supporters came out to vote.

As I understand it, these are the people pollsters are talking to when they survey "likely Republican primary voters". If that's true, the pollsters may be substantially underestimating Ron Paul's support.

As the only anti-war Republican, Ron Paul is the only candidate representing that constituency. In addition, the pro-war faction is disillusioned. They know the war is unpopular with the public. And none of the pro-war candidates inspire much enthusiasm. So pro-war voter turnout may be low.

Thus, if Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson divide the war vote, and Ron Paul gets all the anti-war vote, then he has a good chance of winning.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that Ron Paul's chances were infinitesimal. Elections are a chance to signal our desires to our government. Our vote influences not just this election, but all elections to come. If Ron Paul gets a significant level of support in this election, other politicians will have an incentive to change their positions to capture that vote. People who might have otherwise thought there was no constituency for liberty will decide to run for office.

If you vote for cabbage, when you really want cake, you shouldn't be surprised if your only choices eventually are a bunch of cabbages.

crasch, as I said and outlined, there's reasons why I think this election demands some odious, but practical, voting rather than "symbolic" voting. So let's be practical, shall we? It's a reasonable bet, even from your figures, that Ron Paul won't be the GOP nominee. Giuliani's surprise endorsement from Pat Robertson seems to indicate his support is broadening in the GOP and I'll just bet on him for the nomination.

Logically, it's probably gonna come down to this: Hillary or Rudy or a "message" candidate. So the nation will shrug and choose between bad choices, yet again. What will you do, crasch?

I know about political fervor and supporting underdogs. In 1972 I got a 3 day suspension and a beating from my Dad for walking out of class and attending an "illegal" McGovern "end the war" rally on the high school grounds. Why? I was filled, as I suspect you and others are, with the sense of how badly our government was failing, how important it was to send a message, and much I felt like McGovern stood for radical change.

35 years later, government's still huge, unwieldy, and failing the people and we're in another lose-lose situation war and, lo and behold, here's another "radical change" candidate who is gonna "save the country" and "turn things around" and on and on, ad nauseam.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-07 22:37:02.667228+00 by: crasch [edit history]

topspin, I'm going to vote for the person who best reflects my beliefs. And if Paul doesn't get the nomination, then I'll work to build the movement he's sparked. Whether Hillary and Giuliani win, I don't see much difference between them. You say that Hillary would appoint better Supreme Court justices than Paul, but you didn't address why we would expect her to do so, given her civil rights record.

And while it's a reasonable bet that Paul won't win right now, we can change the odds, just as we changed his odds from 200:1 to 4:1 since he started running. But only if we don't succumb to cynicism and despair.

If Paul won the Republican nomination, would you vote for him in the general election?

crasch, I don't normally do forays into intense fantasy (at least when it comes to politics.) How many times must I say this? Ron Paul is incompatible with what the GOP is. Lemme try to lay this out for you.....

GOP - pro IRS, pro Homeland Security, pro NATO, pro UN, pro Iraq war, pro NAFTA, pro WTO, pro tort reform, pro Patriot Act, no hemp
Paul - no IRS, no Homeland Security, no NATO, no UN, no Iraq war, no NAFTA, no WTO, no tort reform, no Patriot Act, pro hemp

AFAIK those are official GOP and Paul positions. I may be wrong on some things and I'm not trying to misrepresent either entity, but merely pointing out the differences are deep and wide between Ron Paul and the GOP.

Ya see, if Giuliani wins the nomination the GOP is gonna have to deal with, among a few other things, the pro-life party plank and that won't be easy, I'm thinking, but dealing with Ron Paul as nominee would cause the GOP to have to essentially toss the 2004 party platform in the trash and adopt the Libertarian platform and while that might not be a bad thing, it's like imagining waltzing in a Dali landscape to imagine Ron Paul being the GOP nominee.

If Paul won the Republican nomination, would you vote for him in the general election?

I'll submit that you could ask that question of Dick Cheney and get that legendary "drop dead" glare...... and no response. For once, I agree with him.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-08 02:18:17.106072+00 by: crasch [edit history]

If Paul sees that he's not going to get the GOP nomination, what are the odds of him running as an independent? Didn't Liebermann do something similar in Connecticut (switching party affiliation or some sort as a congressman)?

Regardless, Ron Paul will continue to be marginalized in the months ahead by the mainstream media, which is largely owned by the special interest groups which don't want him in office. And that's sad, since he may be the last bastion of hope for real and fundanmental change in American politics in our lifetimes.

Jeff, when asked, Paul has said that he has no plans to run as a third party candidate. If winning the Republican nomination is hard, winning via a third party is many multiples harder. You spend most of your time just getting on the ballot. Like Nader, he would be blamed for a Republican loss to Hillary, rather than their own failed policies.

Personally, if he fails to win the Republican nomination, I think his efforts would be better served by recruiting younger candidates to join the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus) within the Republican party. If nothing else, his campaign has demonstrated that there is constituency for liberty-oriented candidates, and I think future candidates will be encouraged to follow his lead.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-08 10:57:10.485329+00 by: jeff [edit history]

One can only hope, Crasch. The Republican and Democratic parties are increasingly becoming wings of the same bird: Elitist Corporate America.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-09 11:04:36.919598+00 by: jeff [edit history]

If most of the GOP echoes that same hawkish stance, will you tacitly lay down and implicitly support endless war (as you're suggesting here)?

I find people like topspin "amusing." They can't stand any of the front runners but because they feel someone with the right plan is not capable of winning, they dismiss and even ridicule them. That, my friend, is the definition of defeatism, beaten before you even try. I wonder what state we would be in today if people like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, et al held such views.

I wonder what state we would be in today if people like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, et al held such views.

You support a candidate who disagrees with about 80% of his political party's platform and yet you somehow insist that because of "popular support" the GOP party machinery is going to toss the party platform and adopt a radically different one. When Paul ran for Congress in 1996 the GOP, including Bush himself, campaigned heavily for his primary opponent. Paul has no endorsements from any member of Congress, including those Congressmen who are members of the RLC with Paul; they've either endorsed someone else or not endorsed anyone. Romney racks up endorsements in key states from legislators, Paul doesn't elicit that kind of support.

I can hear you now retorting that Paul is proud to be an outsider and someone of the people and such things, but Paul will be the first to inform you that the President of the United States DOES NOT have the power to abolish the income tax, the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, or abolish most of the other departments and such he'd like to shut down, nor would he be able to legalize narcotics. CONGRESS does.

As Shakespeare would say, "Ay, there's the rub..." Ron Paul legally couldn't and almost certainly wouldn't be able to do most of the things you tout he would do as president because Congress, which overwhelmingly disagrees with his notions, wouldn't allow it. That's reality.

Ron Paul legally couldn't and almost certainly wouldn't be able to do most of the things you tout he would do as president because Congress, which overwhelmingly disagrees with his notions, wouldn't allow it.

And? Ever hear of the bully pulpit? Even as a candidate, Paul's bringing attention to issues that other politicians aren't even thinking about -- currency devaluation, abolishment of the IRS, end of the Drug War. Just think about how much attention he could bring as the President.

And don't forget, the President has the power of the pardon. Paul could, for example, pardon everyone convicted of non-violent drug offense, prostitution, or victimless crimes.

The President, as you point out, also appoints Supreme Court justices. And I think Paul would make much better picks than either Giuliani or Hillary.

Romney racks up endorsements in key states from legislators, Paul doesn't elicit that kind of support.

Given that congressional approval is nearing the teens, I'm not sure that congressional endorsement is the benefit you think it is.

You support a candidate who disagrees with about 80% of his political party's platform

But Paul is more in sync with the party's principles. Small government, low taxes, non-interventionism, low regulation -- these have been Republican principles (if not practice) for decades. The Republican leadership has become increasingly disassociated with the rank and file, as exhibited by their loss in the last election, and their approval ratings.

So what? What are we supposed to do? Sit on our hands? If we act, things may not change. But if we do nothing, things certainly won't change. Even if his chances are low, I want his campaign and ideas to get as much attention as possible.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-09 23:43:54.764646+00 by: Dan Lyke [edit history]

I don't have a particular horse in this race, I'll give Paul a bit of a boost in the hopes that he'll be a Republican spoiler, but were he nominated I'd promote any of the Democratic candidates over him, simply because on my primary issues he's an evangelical Christian before he's a Libertarian, but...

I don't deny that that's what the Republicans have been saying they believe in, and that at lower levels than the Presidency some of them might actually try to put into practice, but when I went searching back for a time that Republicans actually believed this... well... We can discount the current Bush, and his father followed in Reagan's footsteps. The only one of those that Reagan could possibly lay claim to was "low regulation", although the activities of Ed Meese kind of blow that theory out of the water. Ford? For whatever his other positive attributes, he pardoned Nixon, and Nixon was a traitor to the Constitution who clearly didn't believe in any value that we can proudly call "American", so we can discount him. Even back in Eisenhower's reign, LBJ took Eisenhower to task for his spending on an interventionist foreign policy.

Let me say that again: LBJ, Mr. Vietnam escalation, took Eisenhower, who warned us about the military-industrial complex, to task for his spending on an interventionist foreign policy.

So, yeah, I agree that that's what they've said they've been for, but in practical matters it's been "get elected and tell the people what they want to hear while we loot the treasury for our defense contractor buddies". For at least half a Century.

Not sayin' the Democrats are any better, just want to point out that sometimes we too easily accept rhetoric over actions.

You'll get no argument from me that Republican leaders have not lived up to their rhetoric. Even Paul knowingly abandoned his Federalist principles to vote for a federal ban on partial birth abortions.

However, I think Paul is the best presidential candidate by far in the past 100 year, despite his flaws. If you look at his track record:

- voted against the Patriot Act - voted against the Iraq war - voted against regulating gambling online - supports drug legalization - supports sex work legalization - against gun control - against regulation of porn on the Internet - against Internet taxes - voted for the abolishment of the Fed - against Federal regulation of drugs, supplements - against further nationalization of the health care system

Many of those votes were despite widespread opposition by other leader's in his own party.

Even with respect to reproductive rights, he voted against a ban on RU-486, against a ban on transporting a women across state lines for the purpose of an abortion, and supports stem cell research (though not government financing of stem cells). If Paul had his way, women could buy birth control without a prescription, via the mail or from her corner grocery store. How many of the so-called pro-choice candidates support that freedom?

Ron Paul's stats are now up to 6% - and that after being largely boycotted in the media.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-10 05:07:30.586753+00 by: topspin [edit history]

I've not said Ron Paul isn't a breath of fresh air in the political process, but he's just not running under the correct party banner this time. He's closer to Libertarian than Republican. I understand he's used that strategy to get more exposure for his ideas and that's working well for him.

To expect results OTHER than exposure for his ideas from that strategy is folly. While Republicans have tried to float the "Big Umbrella" idea to attract minorities and more support from more left leaning folks, it would take a circus tent to reach Ron Paul and the Libertarians and the GOP certainly isn't gonna look to any of the fringes for party leadership.

The GOP of late has been moving toward the "center" from the Reagan years, hence Giuliani and Romney, and Ron Paul's Iraq War stance alone puts him definitely on the fringe for the direction the party power brokers want to go. I know, I know.... the party leadership is out of touch with the wishes of the people on the war. EVERYONE knows this, but the GOP is not about to have a convention like the Dems 1968 brawl. If they do, they might as well hand the White House keys to Hillary.

Ron Paul is neither the Savior nor the anti-Christ. He's a bit like John the Baptist, preparing the way for someone else and a voice in the wilderness. Again, his message has some points that SHOULD resonate with Americans and I think the big winners in his candidacy are first, the Libertarians whom many Americans will now look at more seriously, and second, the Democrats because they will likely get the White House back because of the division in the GOP.

In the long run, the country benefits from Ron Paul. A candidate with similar sentiments will have easier time in 8 or 12 years; Paul's ideas will promote the Libertarian principles; he'll inspire folks to look beyond the two party system and to look beyond "conservative" and "liberal" as they are spouted now. Those are VERY, VERY good things that Dr. Paul has done for the country.

I'm tough on you guys who wanna make Paul more than he really is. He's a pioneer and a patriot, for sure, but he's not a contender.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-10 16:04:42.263993+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

music, and in between songs, commentary about the US account current deficit and fiat money - I love it!

Ron Paul Radio is already broadcasting however as prelude to the start of the Rally.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-10 17:43:53.274343+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Since we've seemingly vetted the pros and cons of Ron Paul, can anyone else start a separate thread for different candidate who they think offers a comprehensive platform of real value to the American people? (Regardless of whether you believe the candidate is electable for this term, or for elections 8-12 years in the future).

If we don't see a new thread (for another candidate), we can likely conclude that there aren't any candidates out there (other than Ron Paul) who can truly serve the American people. And if that's the case, voting in the election (individual vs. media-industrial-military-complex) becomes pretty simple.

Your assumption is that *any* current candidate offers "a comprehensive platform of real value to the American people" (defined however you define it). I don't see very much of any qualifier for that (although I like much of what Kucinich has to say), and I don't accept your implied premise that Paul offers it, either. Nor do I accept the conclusion you'd draw from a lack of new thread for someone else. Me, I'm too busy this month to argue politics: I have a novel to write!

So after reading a bit about Ron Paul, I've come across a few articles and blogs linking him to some rather racially insensitive quotes. He's also got quite the following of what supremacists and politicians such as David Duke.

Here's one of the more well-documented diatribes (complete with sources) that appear to be a bit deeper than your average smear campaign.

We have 30 years of written and spoken history to help understand what he is saying. He is for Freedom; that means that you choose who you associate with. That means no one tells you how to live. I suppose everyone who is tired of being told how and who to live with, including me, endorses this. If some kooks endorse him, and one person chooses to bring that out, is that person not creating guilt by association?

"In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said the remarks referring to Rep. Jordan were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[57] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[33] In 2007, with the history resurfacing,[58] the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[10] "

I for one think the policies of destruction incurred by our congress and leaders, whereby we agree or go to jail, are violent. It is our right to act without coercion - it is our right to be free, and if that means the kooks are free too, so be it, as long as they do not force themselves upon us, like W and crew, I am happy and you should be too.

And if someone is distorting facts to stop Ron Paul then shame on them and ask yourself why would they do that? What purpose would it serve to stop a man and a movement dedicated to freedom among men and protection from the government?

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation to restore the American Constitution and to restore the liberties that have been sadly eroded over the past several years.

This legislation seeks to restore the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers to prevent abuse of Americans by their government. This proposed legislation would repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and re-establish the traditional practice that military commissions may be used to try war crimes in places of active hostility where a rapid trial is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent chaos. "

The issue of course is protection FROM the government; we can handle the kooks, just let us alone from the government do gooders.

As Ron Paul becomes more successful, we can anticipate the attacks upoon him will be more frequent and distorted.

#Comment Re: Stage 2: The canards begin - time to release the hounds made: 2007-11-13 18:12:24.961823+00 by: BC

As predictable as the day is long. First, we ignore Paul. Then, if and when he gains traction, we ridicule and marginalize him. We say things things like "so you are saying we INVITED the 911 attacks." We link him to fringe figures and groups like White Supremacists and David Duke. If that doesn't work we put enough misinformation out there that people won't know what is true and what is false. People will simply be left with confusion, which, of course, does not generally translate into a vote. We hold Paul to a standard far higher than any leading candidate so that if he may have said something a decade or two ago and in possibly an entirely different context, we play it to the hilt. The Dean Scream comes to mind. We ignore or downplay the slights of other candidates like well publicized anti-Semitic remarks from Hillary Clinton and Guiliani's table pounding to bomb Iran NOW, thanks in large measure to his leading assistant Norman Podhoretz. Nice work, fellas. Nice work.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-13 19:05:03.057456+00 by: crasch [edit history]

"I think Paul generalized too broadly from the data regarding black crime rates, and in doing so I think he exhibited some racist thought processes. However, I don't think he is at heart a racist, and I think that many of his policies [added: especially his stance on the War on Drugs] would do a great deal of good for the black community."

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-13 21:46:12.541767+00 by: topspin [edit history]

Personally, I don't think Ron Paul wrote those racist diatribes and the slur of Barbara Jordan. I think they DID go out under his name in the "Ron Paul Survival Report" which is/was a subscription newsletter and he doesn't deny that they did.

What's troubling is that the apology for them came in 2001 and they came out in 1992 and were brought up in his 1996 run for Congress.

There is NO definitive distancing, denial, nor repudiation by Ron Paul until 2001. What? He couldn't just tell the truth in 1996? His denial and distancing in 2001 is: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"

You couldn't say that in 1996? You, Ron Paul, who tells the country the truth about 9/11 even when they don't wanna hear it, who doesn't give a care about how your ideas come off, who doesn't care about the polls, who doesn't care if he is the only no vote in Congress...... the same Ron Paul couldn't distance himself from these racist remarks and hurtful remarks about his colleague Barbara Jordan until 5 years after this was brought up??????

That, I am not buying. He didn't want to distance himself from them, obviously, because this is a man who DOES do what he thinks is right, regardless of the political consequences. Given the Ron Paul he's trying to come off as today, given the man he and his people say he is.... who tells it like it is and has the moral compass he supposedly has..... this is VERY VERY clear: He didn't WANT to distance himself from those remarks until 2001. THAT is damning and troubling.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-14 01:38:42.555837+00 by: BC [edit history]

Yeah, right, topspin, that is kind of like Bill Clinton apologizing for his indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky prior to it becoming public knowledge. Like I said, clearly you and others want to hold Paul to a different standard. You can kill a million Iraqis and that may not be OK but it is not as bad as some questionable judgment involving race relations. PC gone amuk but you typify a large percentage of the American public today, which is why we are in the shape we are in.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-14 05:20:38.114417+00 by: topspin [edit history]

BC: I've not defended Bush or Congress on Iraq, have I?
I've not defended Clinton for Lewinsky, have I?
And you find me defending Hillary for planting questions either.

YOU said Paul was different, not me. You're the one who touted what a man of principle who is not afraid to speak his mind Ron Paul is, not me. That he didn't immediately back away from those statements in 1996 says.... well... what DID Paul say, being the say what you mean kinda guy you say he is, in 1996 about those statements?

Okay, so he didn't deny them then, but he didn't even TRY to distance himself from the statements either. So what was in those newsletters anyway?

"When is someone going to say publicly what everyone knows privately? Namely that University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordon (sic) is a fraud? Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up," he added. "If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."

Mr. Paul's response to being questioned about that in 1996 was: The causes she so strongly advocated were for more and more government, more and more regulations and more and more taxes," Paul said. "My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong," the Republican said. "I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations and lower taxes." - Houston Chronicle

Again, hardly an apology to Ms. Jordan and then he has the nerve to accuse his opponent of "name-calling" for bringing it up. To his credit, he does call the attack on Jordan "the saddest thing" and her a "delightful lady" in his 2001 discussion of those newsletters.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-14 10:12:03.608712+00 by: jeff [edit history]

The preponderance of your recent posts would be far greater if you simply eliminate your ad hominem responses; they tend to dilute their premise and strength. I don't think that you want to be characterized or lumped into the same group of people who use ad hominem argument to weaken or tear down the overwhelming positive aspects of an individual. You're far smarter than that.

The only thing I would add is that with access to all public records and all instantiations of thought (perfect information), it likely wouldn't take much time (or effort) to dig up dirt on ANY of the candidates and ANY of the people who post here at Flutterby. Or ANY of the voting public at large, for that matter. In the classic case, ad hominem personal attacks typically occur when there is a lack of other substantive points to be made in a discussion or debate. Let's try to avoid that trap.

Ron Paul is a medical doctor first and a politician second (and we should all consider that very refreshing). If along the way he has made a few mistakes interpreting empirical data, chalk them up to misguided political judgement. A generalization to a character flaw? Hardly.

Topspin: your arguments give the impression of a person flaying wildly in a dark room trying to stop the demons from getting to you. You must fear Ron Paul. What is it about a person committed to freedom and the rights of the individual would make you afraid?

I have read all of the quotes above. What is your point? That Paul is insensitive in making these statements? Tell me specifically what rang hollow with you? I would say his assessment of Jordan was a bullseye. I had thought that of her from day one. Is there any substance to your fingerpointing? No, it seems, as I said before, in your world and in many, many Americans lives today, again and again perception trumps substance. Ron Paul is a modern day George Kennan. If you can't see that, move on.

Ziffle, you say he is "for Freedom", but he's clearly spoken out against freedom, from his stances on sexual "deviance" to his stances on religion in government. He says that he's against those things being regulated at the national level, but he's spoken all for them at the local level.

So to my mind he's just another politician whose policies have to be evaluated individually, like all the other politicians. And it is in that evaluation, and the general feeling that he'd turn his little corner of Texas into a Taliban-like state if he could, that makes me, and I suspect topspin, uneasy about him.

Sure, he claims that he'd leave California alone, but making me uneasy about travel to various parts of the U.S. doesn't feel like a step forward to me.

Sexual deviance: the state stays out of it. Government does not marry people, churches do.

religion in government: I would prefer to deal with religion on a local level instead of the giant government that invades my life at every turn. Further I note that I do not hear him invoking god bless you and the like on his speeches. Once the Ron Paul r3volution took over its a smaller step to change my state - here no minister may run for elected office!

The alternative is what we got - and we will be broke soon which is really important to me. 60 Trillion in liabilites.

Right to keep and bear arms; gold money; Jury nullification; patriot act dissolved; Real ID; PRIVACY; the draft; eminent domain; affirmative action; education; health care; drugs; There is a lot to agree with.

The Constitution is not Objectivist; but cutting back all the above and more makes it easier to live and work toward Objectivism.

Somehow I feel certain California would survive, and the Doo Dah parade would be better than ever :)

#Comment How would the Taliban vote? made: 2007-11-14 19:15:05.400862+00 by: crasch [edit history]

Not to mention Giuliani and Clinton's support for the War on Drugs, and all of the civil liberties violations that involves.

ziffle, as I've stated, Ron Paul does some good things for the country. He makes us think about how we define "liberal" and "conservative." He points folks toward the Libertarians and tries to broaden the playing field. He's not the anti-Christ, as I said. I'm not "flailing away" at some demon, nor do I fear Ron Paul in any way, shape, or form. He's right about some things, wrong about some things...... but mostly a benign nuisance to the GOP, since he's merely using them to support a Libertarian platform.

With this "money bomb" and the associated ads and name recognition it will buy, I hope he goes for it with all he's got. As I said, he does good things for politics by shaking things up a bit and, selfishly, I think he helps the Dems and I'd rather see a Dem elected in this race.

Of course, let's be 100% clear that I feel I have as much chance as Ron Paul does of being the GOP nominee for president and as much chance of being elected president.

topsin, I haven't gone through this entire discussion thread with a fine-tooth comb, but most of your posts all seem to reinforce the notion that you're not so much concerned about the real issues of the day as you are about restating what selected polling is predicting about the respective nominees from each party.

You seemingly don't support Ron Paul because you simply don't believe that he can win (based on polling). Perception certainly can become self-fulfilling prophecy on a grand scale with our media. Nothing wrong with that, just an observation and possible explanation for the content and spirit of many of your posts (picking a winner, instead of focusing on core issues).

jeff, I would have a hard time supporting Ron Paul because he's too Christian (and thinks America was founded on Christian principles and should be "getting back to them") for my tastes and I think he misses the mark badly on some issues (civil rights, among them) that need to be federal issues. I don't think I've hidden that fact. I'm supporting the Dems in this election; I'll STILL be punching my chad for a Dem in this race if the polls show the GOP ahead by a wide margin because of the SCOTUS issue, as I stated, and because the influence of Cheney/Wolfowitz, et.al. bothers me, again as I stated. I simply don't think the GOP having another 4 and possibly 8 years in the White House would be good for the country. If I didn't state that clearly before, I'm sorry.

I began posting polls when folks began spouting utter nonsense here: "Ron Paul is running away with it" and such (in other threads.) I originally posted poll data in this thread because it speaks to Paul's viability as a candidate, which was the "taking Ron Paul seriously" tone of the original post by ziffle. The GOP (or Dems) must win two outta three of FL, PA, and OH, so each party will look to a candidate who has a chance in those states. Paul doesn't lead, of course, in any states, but he does particularly poorly in FL and OH. That's a bad thing for any candidate for president who wants to be taken seriously as a contender, which again was the point of ziffle's original post.

In the end, though, it's not Paul's poll numbers that keep him from the GOP nomination, but his disagreement with the party on several key issues, as I pointed out. Most notably, the GOP simply isn't about to abandon the "win in Iraq" platform plank and Paul's not about to back down on his "I'll take the troops out" stance. The two simply don't mix, so it's literally unthinkable that Ron Paul could be the GOP nominee.

If you want to explain how that would work.... what you think would actually happen at the GOP convention when the time came to adopt the party platform if Paul were somehow going to be the nominee, please do. Let's see, Paul wants a "we'll get out of Iraq ASAP" plank and 99% of the GOP delegates want a "we'll win in Iraq" plank. And that, "move toward shutting down the Dept of Homeland Security" plank.... tell me how you think that will go over in MN?

Lemme guess, those will be "Ron Paul delegates" and the R3volution will have taken hold and George W Bush will be a pariah for his spending and the war in Iraq and Cheney and Rumsfeld will be castigated from the podium and a time of enlightenment will have come to the GOP.....

Sigh. This isn't about me following the polls, jeff. This is about the lack of reality in your belief that Ron Paul could be the GOP nominee.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-14 23:34:09.605878+00 by: crasch [edit history]

"Anti-war sentiment among Republican poll respondents has suddenly increased with 38 percent of Republicans now saying they oppose the war."

Paul doesn't need to win the majority of Republicans--he needs only to win a plurality in a field where he's the only anti-war candidate, and the pro-war Republicans are split four ways (Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain).

Paul is also popular with the base for his positions on abortion, immigration, and taxes.

C'mon, I'll give you that the war is unpopular, but that's not the only issue on the table keeping Ron Paul from working within the GOP. I listed SEVERAL items the GOP supports and Paul doesn't.

You guys aren't willing to look at the massive change in the GOP platform that would be required. The convention would be a bloodbath between those loyal to Bush and Co. and the Ron Paul faithful.

Address ANY reasonable scenario you can imagine where the convention DOESN'T resemble a WWE cage event.... or do you expect Dick Cheney to simply keep quiet, not stir things up, not call in any favors.... while he and his policies of the last 8 years are repudiated by Ron Paul?

It is NOT just the war. Ron Paul could "pardon all drug and prostitution convictions" one of y'all suggested and you could imagine the party happily handing over the reins, the platform, the ability for him to do so? The right wing of the GOP would simply smile and support him, of course, as he makes his acceptance speech and vows to end the war on drugs and victim-less crimes, shut down the IRS, close Homeland Security, etc, etc.

#Comment Re: written in Salon specifically for the likes of topspin made: 2007-11-15 03:24:53.250126+00 by: BC

I got really cynical about the time of the Howard Dean phenomenon, and generally came to the conclusion that the candidates who can actually get elected are charismatic and able to build coalitions, so the right way to change public policy wasn't to latch on to a candidate, but was to fund issues advocacy.

Like Topspin I can't imagine Ron Paul building the coalitions necessary to achieve much more than being a Republican spoiler. However, I can see support of his campaign as a method of issues advocacy.

So I have to evaluate any support I give him versus other issues organizations in the relative paybacks of each. As Chris points out, all candidates are evil in their own ways, and Ron Paul may indeed be less evil, but from what I've seen, even including that Salon article, that's all I'm willing to give him.

He's worth keeping in the consciousness as a mechanism of issues advocacy, but that's as far as I can go in support of an individual candidate.