| Author | Message | | DanielDives | |  | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
| Some Advice For Ron Paul
For all the talk about democracy, the will of the people got little play during the presidential debate in South Carolina. Polls repeatedly show that 70 percent of the American people want out of Iraq. But no sooner does the pesky popular will intrude into the debate than the top Republican contenders begin to yammer about their obligation to demonstrate “leadership.” “Leadership,” of course, is a euphemism for overriding the will of the people.
Ron Paul is the exception. As Rudy Giuliani and his posse flap like blac crows over Rep. Paul, we’d do well to remember that, unlike most of his colleagues, Paul understands that truth is timeless, not temporary. September 11 didn’t change that al-Qaida (the aggressors), not Iraq, needed to be punished for killing innocent Americans. September 11 didn’t alter the wisdom of John Quincy Adams’ counsel that America not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, but remain the well-wisher of the freedom and independence of all, but the champion and vindicator only of her own.
At this juncture in American history, in the midst of a catastrophic conflict which cannot be won, the opinions of the daft, dirigiste Dubya still carry the day with most of the presidential hopefuls. Extolling “Mr. Republican” Robert Taft can thus be dicey. Paul was mocked for “voting against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq,” and asked if he was “running for the nomination of the wrong party.” To which he responded by reminding his colleagues of the bygone Republican tradition of non-interventionism: Republicans were elected to end the wars in Korea and Vietnam. When confronted with “the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics,” and the loss of 241 Marines, Reagan extricated Americans from Lebanon.
Whereas his colleagues effected a schizophrenic split between warfare and welfare spending—the first good; the last bad—Paul warned against these twin perils. “Policing the world and spending hundreds of billions of dollars on nation building,” coupled with splurging on “an entitlement system that has accumulated $60 trillion worth of obligations”—these are parts of the same statist equation. Nipping and tucking at the bureaucratic behemoth is meaningless unless we “change our philosophy about what government should do,” Paul explained.
When asked how he could possibly consider eliminating the Department of Homeland Security in the midst of a war, Paul dared to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t do what it purports to do. Like most government endeavors. “We were spending $40 billion on security prior to 9/11” and “had all the information [we] needed there to deal with the threat,” but didn’t. Recall, Condoleezza Rice insisted that intelligence received about suicide bombers belonging to al-Qaida crashing an aircraft into U.S. targets belonged to the realm of “analysis,” not “actionable intelligence." Rice failed as national security adviser. The addition of a layer of government has done nothing to remedy Rice’s inability to perform the rudimentary tasks assigned to her.
Paul might have galvanized popular support had he reminded the American people that the Department of Homeland Security has been working consistently against them. This bureaucracy’s laws mandate the tormenting of the traveling public, and ensure that airlines are routinely sued for discrimination if they so much as attempt to protect their charges by screening suspicious passengers. The word “treason” comes to mind when one considers the Department’s refusal to stop the breach of the border with Mexico. Establishment Republicans don’t use the “treason” word nearly as often as they should to describe the America-hating actions of their government.
Indeed, Paul might consider taking up what is a central cause for conservatives. According to Human Events, 86 percent of its conservative readers consider illegal immigration the most pressing issue. While his Republican colleagues insist the American military’s obligation is to patrol the borders of Kosovo, Korea and Kurdistan, our own borders remain perilously porous; Americans living alongside them forsaken. What’s more, the treacherous political class and the “parrot press” is intent on retaining the status quo. Paul might have mobilized the masses had he pointed that out.
Paul is after a shift in foreign policy—away from grand, utopian schemes to compensate for deficits in democracy around the world. He needs, however, to frame this desirable, and desperately needed, change in direction as a circling of the wagons at home. To wit, the real war is on the border, not abroad. Defending and preserving the homeland, the conservative base believes, begins with beefing up the borders and reforming immigration policy. This excludes the amnesty program touted by the presidential front-runners. Paul would do well to remind Americans that Bush’s recipe for minute-made Americans will legalize the status of an estimated 300,000 individuals from Wahhabi-worshiping lands, whose customs do not preclude killing their hosts.
Paul was wrong to imply, reductively, that Islamic terrorism in general and September 11 in particular are the sole consequences of American foreign policy. Libertarians cannot persist in such unidirectional formulations. As I’ve said previously, our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one, given that Muslims today are at the center of practically every conflict across the world. The received leftist wisdom that the Arabs were (and remain) hapless and helpless victims of the West is false and patronizing. As scholars such as Efraim and Inari Karsh have shown, “Middle Eastern history is essentially the culmination of long-standing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior rather than an externally imposed dictate.”
Ultimately, a rational suspicion of power, upon which libertarians pride themselves, must be predicated on distrusting all power, not only American power.
©2007 By Ilana Mercer | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject: |
| From Sportsbook.com:
2008 Republican Party presidential nomination - Odds to Win (All Bets Action)
Rudy Giuliani 6-5
John McCain 2-1
Fred Thompson 5-2
Mitt Romney 5-1
Newt Gingrich 8-1
Mike Huckabee 15-1
Sam Brownback 15-1
Ron Paul 7-1
Tom Tancredo 50-1
Tommy Thompson 100-1
Duncan Hunter 100-1
Chuck Hagel 100-1
George Pataki 100-1
Condoleeza Rice 100-1
George Allen 100-1
Colin Powell 100-1
Jeb Bush 100-1
Mike Hucklebee off
Longest of longshots? LOL. The media is really desperate to discredit him. | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: |
| Pretty damn depressing to see a guy who assisted in the murder of almost 3,000 civilians and then poisoned hundreds more running at 6-5. I'll always take book odds over a media poll - the bookies have something to lose.
_________________
Please sign the petition to prosecute War Criminal Tony Blair | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: Ron Paul: The Internet's favorite candidate |
| Ron Paul: The Internet's favorite candidate
By Declan McCullagh
Published on ZDNet News: Aug 6, 2007 11:00:00 AM
Tags: Declan McCullagh, Politics & government
ARLINGTON, Va.--Ron Paul is a Republican congressman and U.S. presidential hopeful who, in the usual shorthand of political journalists, is known as a "long shot" for the White House.
Paul's poll numbers award him less than 2 percent of the vote among Republican candidates, and he was unceremoniously excluded from an Iowa debate in June organized by a tax watchdog group that happens to share his political views. Even otherwise flattering articles consign his candidacy to "the realm of dreams, not practical politics."
On the Internet, however, this courtly Texas obstetrician-turned-politician has developed a towering presence that has left his Democratic and Republican rivals largely in his shadow.
"When I talk about Internet privacy and no taxes, I think they understand it."
--Rep. Ron Paul
Paul, 71, enjoys about 160,000 mentions on Digg.com, more than the next four most popular candidates combined. Alexa.com's statistics show Paul's Web site with a narrow lead over all the Democratic candidates and a sizable one over his fellow Republicans. Similarly, a report by Hitwise puts Paul's Web site ahead of other GOP candidates in terms of popularity.
The libertarian-minded Republican enjoys a hefty lead in two unscientific online polls: 56.3 percent in one hosted by the conservative group FreedomWorks.com, and 56 percent in a poll created by GOPstrawpolls.com, with undeclared candidate Fred Thompson coming in second at 18.7 percent. Paul is Technorati's most searched-for term, in front of stalwart contenders such as "iPhone" and "Paris Hilton," and recently reclaimed the spot after briefly falling behind a Puerto Rican singer with the undeniable advantage of having a sex tape on the loose. He's a close second to Barack Obama (and far outpaces Hillary Clinton) on Eventful.com's list of in-demand politicians, and, as The New York Times notes, is the most "friended" Republican on MySpace.com.
For his part, Paul attributes his online popularity to a set of beliefs that resonates with a younger crowd. "The whole message seems to be very attractive to young people," he said in a recent interview. "I think they like to be left alone. When I talk about Internet privacy and no taxes, I think they understand it."
Another factor is Paul's vote against the war in Iraq and his opposition to military action against Iran, making him unique among Republican candidates (and a rarity even among Democrats, after Obama reiterated during a debate that he would not rule out a nuclear strike against Iran). "Young people I think very naturally are opposed to the war that's going on," Paul said. "Soon they're going to turn 18."
This is not a new position: Paul also opposed the United States' first war against Iraq, and the war in Kosovo as well. His political views are broadly libertarian, which means supporting ideas like free markets (less regulation), individual rights (junk the Patriot Act), lower taxes (eliminate the IRS), and civil libertarianism (legalize marijuana).
An instinctive suspicion of governmental intrusions into regulating technology is a big reason for Paul's popularity in geek circles, which have long been irritated by laws like the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (One wag has quipped: "Libertarianism and Internet geeks go together like Guantanamo Bay and daily beatings.")
Paul has consistently voted against federal efforts to censor sexually explicit Web sites--a stance that nearly cost him his re-election bid last November when his Democratic rival cited those votes to argue that Paul was soft on porn. Paul, sometimes known in Washington as "Dr. No," risked opprobrium from fellow Republicans by voting against a law last year to restrict Internet gambling and has also opposed targeting the video game industry and giving federal police more Internet surveillance powers.
Listen up
Paul on tax issues Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican presidential hopeful and prominent anti-tax advocate, discusses Net taxes.
Download mp3 (8.67MB)
He received the highest score in the U.S. Congress, 80 percent, in CNET News.com's 2006 Technology Voter Guide. Clinton received a 33 percent score, Obama 50 received percent, Joe Biden received 38 percent, John McCain received 31 percent, Sam Brownback received 53 percent, and Dennis Kucinich received 53 percent.
The same supporters who have propelled Paul into an online lead have, however, drawn complaints for being what might be charitably described as overly single-minded.
The community-driven news site Digg.com has probably been the hottest flashpoint, with some readers complaining that Paul fans are unreasonably stuffing the site with articles about his candidacy. One example from last month: "Many of these stories are really, really, really boring. And I am a political junkie." There have been complaints of a "semi-organized effort by Paul supporters to promote him on Digg" and the creation of a "buryronpaul" blog.
Another explanation of his Digg presence--a Ron Paul video was the second-most popular article over the weekend--is that it reflects that many Internet users are drawn to Ron Paul's candidacy. And, as Paul's supporters have argued, supporters of other presidential candidates have plenty of reasons to manufacture Digg-related criticisms.
Internet video has become another important arrow in the campaign's quiver. Paul was the first presidential candidate with an iPhone application that lets campaign videos be viewed through the phone's Safari browser. His fans have also created the FreeMe.TV Web site with a collection of amateur and professional Ron Paul-related video clips.
Last month, Paul made what has become a now-obligatory campaign stop at Google that drew a standing-room only crowd. The moderator said "we've never gotten so many questions" aimed at any presidential candidate, and the YouTube video of Paul's appearance has drawn 165,000 pageviews so far. Videos of Clinton, Bill Richardson, McCain, and John Edwards appearances at Google have received a combined total of 66,000 pageviews.
During his tenure in the House of Representatives, Paul developed a reputation of being notoriously frugal, paying his staff less than their counterparts in other congressional offices in an effort to return money to the U.S. Treasury every year.
This frugality has carried over to his campaign headquarters, which until two weeks ago was housed in an office approximately the size of an average living room. Now it's in a larger but still nondescript building on Washington Boulevard in Arlington, Va., above a vacant dry cleaning business and next to a store called Casual Adventure that sells sleeping bags and backpacks.
On the second floor of that building, Paul's "eCampaign Director" Justine Lam shares an office with at least two other staffers that overlooks a Giant supermarket across the street. Lam previously worked at the libertarian-leaning Institute for Humane Studies, which is affiliated with nearby George Mason University.
Lam says that the campaign's biggest advantage is not so much any special technological tricks as much as Paul's steadfast opposition to things like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. "The difference is really in the fact that we have a different message," Lam said.
A day after his appearance at Google, during which he defended the search company's right to expand to China even in the teeth of government censorship there, Paul showed up at a rally in Mountain View, Calif., in the heart of Silicon Valley. Lam was outfitted with a video rig that beamed images of the rally (and interviews with attendees) to the Justin.tv Web site.
The online politicking has translated into at least some fundraising success: according to figures released last month, Paul's campaign was in better financial shape than those of McCain, Sam Brownback, or Mike Huckabee, and had raised $3 million so far this year. Obama had about $34 million cash on hand, by comparison, and Hillary Clinton had $33 million.
Some activists close to the Paul campaign, who did not wish to be identified, said the outcome of the Iraq war will probably determine whether their candidate has a reasonable shot at winning next year's Republican primaries. It's possible, they believe, that voters would rebel against the pro-war Republicans and choose a candidate who has opposed it since the beginning.
While it may be possible, it would require a fundamental shift in American politics that happens only once every generation or two. A national telephone survey released July 24 by Rasmussen Reports puts Paul behind Clinton by 15 points and Obama by 20 in a head-to-head matchup. Sportsbook.com gives 7-to-1 odds for Paul to win the Republican nomination and 15-to-1 odds for him to win the White House.
For now, at least, the Internet represents the campaign's best hope of narrowing those odds. "It's a political equalizer," Paul said in an interview, referring to the Internet. "It really gives a chance to people who don't have $30 million." | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:47 am Post subject: |
| Ron Paul Scores Over Nine Percent in Iowa
Paul decisively breaks out of “one to two” percent zone
By James Buchanan
Ron Paul just scored over nine percent in the Iowa straw poll –the first Republican event with a large number of voters. The winner of the straw poll, Mitt Romney scored 32 percent, suggesting that Republicans haven’t yet found a candidate, whom a majority will support. The Iowa primary will be held in January. Ron Paul’s decent showing should finally put him on the radar screen for Republican voters.
Paul has been battling a news black out by the mainstream media, who have previously dismissed him as “insignificant” with only one or two percent support. Ron Paul has built up a huge following on the Internet and has the greatest momentum of all the candidates. The mainstream media will either have to start giving Ron Paul some news coverage now or they’ll have to invent a new excuse to keep ignoring him.
The Iowa straw poll requires a $35 entry fee from each Iowa resident who wishes to vote. Ron Paul’s campaign raised enough for 500 tickets, but most of his 1,305 supporters had to buy their own tickets. Brownback, Romney and other candidates were buying tickets for all their supporters. The Iowa straw poll is therefore heavily slanted to the richest candidates. Also at $3 per gallon for gas, even the trip to Ames, Iowa is a bit expensive for many people, which is why some candidates bused in supporters from other towns.
Despite this significant financial hurdle, Ron Paul was able to get over 9 percent of the vote –decisively breaking out of the one to two percent zone. Ron Paul placed in the top five beating out Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, who avoided this straw poll because their liberal views on many key issues tend to alienate voters in conservative states.
There is a cloud of controversy over the use of Diebold voting machines in the Iowa straw poll. These machines have a notorious record for “fixing” elections and being easily hacked. There was also a 90 minute delay (supposedly caused by one machine breaking down) which raised further suspicion. The use of Diebold machines should always raise vote-fraud concerns. Despite the Diebold problem, Ron Paul scored a major success by getting over 9 percent.
Ron Paul has been fighting a media black out. His appearances on the Daily Show, Colbert Report and Bill Maher Show have gained him some fame. His outstanding performances in the Republican debates have gotten him the most attention. Paul is the only Republican candidate, who wants to enforce immigration law and pull our troops out of the pointless quagmire in Iraq. All the other Republican candidates are neocon warmongers who want to stay in Iraq forever.
This is the third straw poll, where Ron Paul has done well. In June, Ron Paul finished second in a Utah straw poll with 5.4 percent of the vote, placing second behind Mormon candidate Mitt Romney. In July, Ron Paul scored 17 percent of the vote in a straw poll in Georgia, finishing second behind Fred Thompson. The straw polls in Utah and Georgia involved only a few hundred people each. The Iowa straw poll however is the first large event involving thousands of voters, which gives a clue about how the election might shape up.
Jamie Kelso attended the Iowa straw poll and reports that the Ron Paul supporters were wildly enthusiastic, marching around the event four times chanting “Ron Paul.” Some people wearing Mitt Romney T-Shirts also chanted “Ron Paul” suggesting that they had been won over by Ron Paul’s speech at the convention. No other candidate had supporters who even came close to that sort of enthusiasm. A number of people at the convention told Kelso that they felt committed to vote for other candidates who had bought their tickets, and they regretted having made those commitments after realizing Ron Paul was the best man there.
Kelso also noted that there was a consensus among most people at the event that Ron Paul had done amazingly well. Paul had spent roughly $250,000 in Iowa versus over nine million dollars by Mitt Romney. Paul made two appearances in Iowa versus up to 35 appearances by some of the other candidates. Despite this huge discrepancy, Ron Paul got roughly a third of the votes Romney got, and Paul’s supporters were much more enthusiastic.
Sam Brownback for example made a huge effort in Iowa, spent a large portion of his available funds, bought $35 tickets for his supporters, and he placed only slightly ahead of Ron Paul. If the ticket price had been waved in the Iowa straw poll, it seems likely Paul would have gotten 20 percent if not 40 percent of the vote.
Still, 9 percent in Iowa is a major milestone. Ron Paul was excluded from a presidential debate in Iowa just a few weeks ago because he was too “insignificant.” The mainstream media and big-name pollsters will have a hard time dismissing Paul now. Hopefully we’ve seen the last of their doctored polls where they claim Paul’s support is only at one or two percent.
August 12th, 2007 | | | | Alpha | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: What Ron Paul supporters SHOULDN’T apologize for |
| It's refreshing to believe in someone who has real integrity and means what he says. The pleasure of having to vote well without picking a lesser of evils.
What Ron Paul supporters SHOULDN’T apologize for
I’ve been taking the piss out of my favorite Presidential campaign for a while now, but tonight I feel compelled to write something in its defense.
I first heard Ron Paul supporters described as “obnoxious” when reading the comments of a Romney backer about the Iowa Straw Poll. It seems that the meme has been out there for a while, though. A google search for “Ron Paul supporters” and “obnoxious” produces 1340 hits (1341 once this post is catalogued), many of them similar to the following. Freedom Eden:
I definitely prefer a zero tolerance policy when it comes to applause at political debates.
When cheering is not kept in check, the atmosphere becomes more Jerry Springer than serious discussion by presidential candidates.
Although supporters of each candidate applauded with approval after their man spoke, Paul’s group seemed disproportionately louder and more obnoxious.
Brownbacker:
“We are here at the campaign straw poll tent. I believe we are the only facility here today that has air conditioning, which is another reason I love SSB. On the way in, we were greeted by lots of shouting Ron Paul supporters, who may be the most obnoxious people on earth.”
Hawkeye GOP:
The Ron Paul Revolution as they call it is an Internet movement of libertarians all across the country. They mobilized and came out in force. When we arrived in Ames, they were everywhere. Every intersection every walkway, holding signs and passing out literature. They were in many cases pretty obnoxious (but not as obnoxious as Brownback’s people).
Now, I’ve been as loud as anybody in calling for Paul supporters to edge off of their more maniacal tactics and try to reach out to mainstream Republicans in order to win converts. But I was on the ground in Ames, and even as someone hypersensitive to the matter, I have to state flatly that I didn’t see anything from my fellow Paulites that struck me as “obnoxious”. In point of fact, when I read the descriptions above, I still don’t see anything “obnoxious”.
Which leads me to my point. Having observed the staid, quiet, professional demeanor of the Romney, Brownback, and especially Huckabee camps in Ames, I think that part of the friction Paulites create comes inevitably from one of the campaign’s unique qualities.
Namely: Ron Paul creates enthusiasm. And not the fake, choreographed, everybody-wave-his-name-on-a-stick-and-wait-for-a-pause-in-the-speech-to-go-wild “enthusiasm” endemic to modern campaigns.
No. REAL enthusiasm. The kind of enthusiasm that compels you to ride from South Dakota to Ames on a motorcycle in order to have the privilege of passing out campaign literature for eight hours in the hot sun in exchange for no money. The kind that causes you to attend campaign events not out of a sense of duty, or responsibility or to be a team player, but for the same reasons you would go to a movie or a sporting event. It’s not where you HAVE to be, it’s where you WANT to be.
Moreover, you find yourself in the company of some pretty gnarly types at a Ron Paul event. It’s a DMV-esque crowd; some of us haven’t bathed, some of us think the government blew up the World Trade Center with orbital lasers, and some of us think that the world is run by a conspiracy involving lizards from space and the reanimated corpse of the Queen Mum. And it doesn’t matter. You wind up loving those wackos alongside you, because when they look at a humble country doctor from East Texas, they see what you see. They hope what you hope. They yell what you yell.
And man alive, do you ever end up yelling. A lot. All day. And making weird signs with stencils designed on an internet site, and voting in every online poll you can find. And you don’t do this because your precinct boss told you to. You do this because you’re looking for a way–any way–to get the message out. To share That Ron Paul Feeling with your fellow man. You don’t want to leave a single American behind.
And this, quite frankly, is what the Romney supporters, with their matching T-shirts and their careful logistics and their paid staffers on golf carts, will never understand about us. This is what the Brownback supporters, who consider an air-conditioned tent a reason to “love” their candidate, will never quite be able to follow. This is what the Huckabee army, standing silent while waiting for results in the Hilton Coliseum, looking askance at all the shouting and chanting maniacs around them, will never “get”.
There’s nothing in the world wrong with any of those folks, and they’re all perfectly sincere in their support of their candidates. But there is something about actual political PASSION–again, not the rehearsed for the camera kind, but the genuine article–that is utterly alien to them. They understand the operation of a political campaign, and they believe in its truth, but they don’t grok the JOY of it. They are, in short, willing to do whatever it takes to get their man elected–just so long as they don’t end up looking undignified in the process.
And that saddens me. Because they’re cheating themselves out of something wonderful.
Lew Rockwell wrote recently that the willingness of 3,000 people to vote for Ron Paul in an online poll shouldn’t suprise us. Instead, we should wonder why the likes of John McCain can’t drum up 100 people willing to spend the five seconds it takes to do so. He hit the nail on the head. We are the first Republican campaign in recent history in which the average supporter cares more about expressing his support than about looking dignified.
And yeah, that means our passions can run away with us at times, and we end up believing in wacked-out theories of vote fraud, or lending our support to anti-Semites. And when we do that, we need to rein ourselves in.
But the bulk of what many observers see as “obnoxious” about Ron Paul supporters is simply the joy of total political commitment. And I will never, ever apologize for that, or seek to alter it, no matter whom it offends. The Republican party needs MORE of it, not less. And when people see Ron Paul’s supporters chanting, posting signs, voting online, they oughtn’t ask themselves why we do it. They should ask themselves why they don’t. And they should demand a candidate that matters enough to them that they’re willing to take leave of conventional behavior on his behalf. | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
