Interesting article / interview with Ron Paul's brother , gives a little insight into Ron Paul =============== An Interview with Ron Paul's Brother: Spreading the Good News (But Not From the Pulpit) GRAND RAPIDS, MI - When the Grand Rapids Press called Rev. David Paul to ask if they could take a photo of the campaign sign in his yard for an article they were working on, he willingly agreed.There were just two problems: The sign - for Ron Paul - was not in the Lutheran minister's yard; and the man known to members of Trinity Lutheran Church as Pastor David is the older brother of the maverick Republican presidential candidate. "I live half a mile down a dirt road," said Paul in a recent post-service interview. "And there's only two houses past me, so maybe three people will pass by the sign." That's not to say that Paul isn't proud - or supportive - of his brother's political endeavors. From the earliest stages of his life, the pastor said, Ron "was unusual in that he was so honest and so upright." Once, after winning a state championship in track, the future congressman injured his knee and had to undergo surgery. Nevertheless, a major university "was willing to take a chance on him," said Rev. Paul, and offered him a prestigious scholarship. Yet with the injury, Paul "didn't think he could do it...so he wasn't going to take that scholarship. "He would stand up for things like that, which was, I thought, pretty remarkable," said his brother. That kind of apparent integrity found an unlikely home in politics, as Ron Paul became involved with Barry Goldwater's campaign for the presidency in 1964. "I think it really began with Goldwater," said Rev. Paul. Like the senator from Arizona, Ron Paul would go on to adopt a libertarian philosophy - championing privacy, small government...and a clear separation between church and state. Ron Paul was raised Lutheran, but after marrying had his children baptized in the Episcopal church. Today, however, he attends a Baptist church in his Texas district. "I think he's probably more on the conservative side of the Southern Baptist church," said Rev. Paul. But, he added, "I think his feeling is that church ought to be church, politics ought to be politics." That would almost certainly sit well with the now deceased Senator Goldwater, who once famously remarked, "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass." After an unsuccessful presidential bid as the Libertarian nominee in 1988, the Congressman ultimately rejoined the Republican Party, even though "it was well noted that the Republican Party campaigned against him for the nomination," according to his brother. Paul has faced similar opposition from the Republican establishment in his current bid for the presidency, most recently in the banning of pro-Ron Paul bloggers from RedState.com. Perhaps RedState's editorial decision - as well as widespread traditional Republicans' discomfort with his candidacy - is due the Congressman's refusal to follow the playbook. His faith "affects his life but not what he does," said Rev. Paul. "I mean, he's guided by those religious principles but he's not going to parade them out there for political principles." If Ron Paul is a politician who doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve, his brother David is a minister who doesn't wear his politics on his vestments - thus the absence of the yard sign. "My whole life in the ministry," he said, "I've encouraged people to get involved in politics and to vote. And I've made great pleas to vote. But I've never mentioned a candidate." Pastor David added that some in his congregation seem more excited about the prospect of a Ron Paul presidency than he is. That's not to say that Rev. Paul is unsupportive. He notes that the sign "has been up since they took my photo." Ron Paul's brother was present at a few campaign events in the Detroit area during the 1988 campaign, but said "I was only involved in listening." He's largely followed a similar, hands-off approach in this campaign. That kind of humility seems to be a common denominator of the Paul family. Of the five brothers, two are Lutheran ministers, one is an accountant, one is head of the mathematics department at Appalachian State University...and one, so it happened, is running for president. Always gracious and never offensive, Rev. Paul nevertheless remarked upon the sharp contrasts between his brother's background and those of some of the other candidates. "I don't think Romney grew up in a house with five boys in one bedroom." Commenting on a sense of establishment or entitlement among the candidates, Rev. Paul said of his brother, "He doesn't have any of that in his background." He also "doesn't change his opinion," said the pastor. "No matter what comes up or what may even be helpful to him, he wouldn't do it without reason." I asked Rev. Paul if his brother was stubborn. "Oh, I think he's very set," he said. Growing up "we had disagreements. One of my brothers was in the seminary at Princeton, and that's a bit on the other side of Goldwater, you know," he laughed. "We had some good discussions on what part the church should play, on whether a pastor should march in a peace march, what the government should be doing, you know." Rev. Paul smiled. "We had some lively conversations," he said. "We weren't always in agreement with each other, but we were never taught that we had to believe one thing or do one thing." Known for drawing a hard line based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, fiscal responsibility and libertarian ideology, Ron Paul is considered somewhat of a maverick - once described by current opponent John McCain as "the most honest man in Congress." But who are his allies? Who does he listen to? "I don't know," said Rev. Paul. "He had a group that he met with in Congress, a group of the arch-conservative congressmen. I don't know who they were or whether they're still there, but I remember him talking about it." Congressman Paul, "more of an economist than a politician," once vocally opposed granting a commemorative gold medallion to Rosa Parks on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't call for taxes to be spent in that manner, said Rev. Paul. "To do that with a civil rights leader - that's risky. But he likes economic theories," he said. "He believes that our economic problems began with getting rid of the gold standard and starting to print money." Having struggled through what few economics courses I've actually taken, I not-so-subtly switched topics. "So are you lobbying for a cabinet position?" I asked. Rev. Paul flashed a quick smile, laughed and said, "It seems to me that everybody who becomes president of the United States - Jimmy Carter, Nixon, Clinton - they all had bad brothers that caused them a lot of trouble. The four of us are lobbying to see which one of us will take that position." Sticking to the topic of causing trouble, Rev. Paul was quick to disperse any notion that his congressman brother's famous sound-bites - often borderline scathing - reflect any sort of personal vendetta...or anger issue. "If someone were to ask me if I've ever seen the congressman lose his temper," he said, "I can't remember. He seems pretty even-keel to me." Ron Paul's considerable popularity is, it seems, in large part due to his ability to hold his own against the elite of the political elite in the debates. Central to that success is the congressman's characteristic wit and, sometimes, exceedingly blunt retorts. "Oh yeah - he's able to hold his own," said Rev. Paul. "He doesn't seem to have any fear, and he knows what he believes. That's the point." Yet for all the bravado, the minister can't see his brother resorting to negative attack ads. "He's not going to take things that are personal to you and attack you with them," he said. "I couldn't even imagine him doing that." Thus far in the campaign, Congressman Paul doesn't seem to need negative attack ads to generate publicity, at least. "The Internet has changed Ron Paul," I said. "They said, 'has Ron Paul found the Internet?'" said Rev. Paul. "And somebody said, 'No, the Internet has found Ron Paul.'" The representative from Texas currently boasts more online subscribers to his YouTube videos than any other presidential candidate. Truly, Ron Paul's eagerness to embrace technology is central to his campaign's strategy. But the heavy reliance on YouTube and other online venues isn't the only unorthodox commandment of the Ron Paul campaign. "They asked him why he has so much cash on hand," said Rev. Paul. "He says, 'I have a very small staff. I've got thousands of volunteers. And we fly coach. And we don't stay in four-star hotels.' "If he was president," the candidate's brother said, "it wouldn't be long before the government would be smaller." I asked him if Ron Paul is a compromiser. "That's a good question," he said. "He realizes...the president doesn't have the power to change some of the things he would like to be changed." Though never one to endorse a candidate from the pulpit, the Reverend David Paul is actively involved in following his brother's campaign. He watches all the debates, and tries to catch the interviews. "Do you yell at the TV?" I asked him. He nodded. "Oh, yeah..." he said.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Jefferson of Our Time[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Thomas J. DiLorenzo[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] American politicians, from Lincoln to FDR and even Bill Clinton, have tried to claim the political mantle of Thomas Jefferson. Lincoln was truly the anti-Jefferson who nevertheless mouthed Jefferson’s words of "all men are created equal" to try to win the support of Jeffersonians in the North in the 1864 election. FDR even more ludicrously tried to paint the New Deal as a Jeffersonian program for similar reasons; and political junkies may recall that President William Jefferson Clinton made a point of stopping off at Jefferson’s home, Monticello, on the way to his first inauguration. (He then turned around and proposed to nationalize the health care sector of the economy, funded by the largest tax increases in history – decidedly anti-Jeffersonian positions.)[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] American politicians understand that there are – and always have been – a great many Americans who believe in the Jeffersonian philosophy that "that government is best which governs least." They may want minimal government, as called for by the Constitution, but by and large they want to be left alone to live their own lives within the rule of law and the norms of civilized society. They distrust centralized political power and hold the commonsense view that government is always easier to control the closer it is to the people.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]That’s why politicians from Lincoln to Clinton have mouthed Jeffersonian slogans. They want the votes, but have no intention of adopting any of Jefferson’s political beliefs and policies based on them. (For his part, George W. Bush is probably more familiar with "The Jeffersons" television show of the 1970s than the political ideas of our third president.)[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] In reality, Grover Cleveland was the last American president who actually believed in Jeffersonian principles of government and was even moderately successful in implementing them (he vetoed literally hundreds of pieces of legislation). It’s been almost 120 years since a genuine Jeffersonian has been a major candidate for the highest office in the land, but we finally have in our midst the genuine item – the real deal – in the person of Ron Paul.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Unlike all other candidates for the presidency, Ron Paul does not attempt to dupe the public into believing that he is in favor of fiscal responsibility, limited and decentralized government, and individual liberty. He has spent the past three decades demonstrating that he is single-mindedly devoted to these principles, and sincerely believes that he can succeed in returning them to the American polity.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] When Ron Paul proposes abolishing the Federal Reserve Board and returning to the gold standard, he is taking Jefferson’s position in his great debate with Hamilton over the propriety of a government-run bank. As explained in my forthcoming book, Hamilton’s Curse, Hamilton wanted a big, expansive and intrusive central government that would centrally plan the economy and pursue "imperial glory" in foreign affairs. He wanted America to imitate the British empire. In order to achieve this, he knew that a government-run bank would be necessary. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that the sole purpose of government was to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, and that such a bank would be a danger to liberty. The two men debated the issue in long essays submitted to President George Washington, who eventually adopted the position of his fellow Federalist, Hamilton. (The Federalists in Congress played a role by passing legislation that enlarged the District of Columbia so that it would be adjacent to Washington’s property on the Potomac River. They had blocked Washington’s request for this until he signed the bank bill.)[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] It was a Jeffersonian Democrat, President Andrew Jackson, who would de-fund Hamilton’s Bank of the United States some forty years later, after it had fueled decades of political corruption and economic instability. Hamiltonian central banking was subsequently revived by one of his political heirs – Lincoln – and then cemented into place by the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Ron Paul also calls for a dramatic reduction in government debt by abolishing unnecessary and harmful government bureaucracies, such as the U.S. Department of Education, as well as a foreign policy that defends America instead of attempting to centrally plan and police the entire planet. It was Jefferson who argued that the federal government’s debt was only legitimate in emergencies, such as a defensive war, and even then it should never exist for more than 19 years. He believed it was immoral for one generation to incur debt – even in a defensive war – that would financially burden future generations. "I consider the fortunes of our republic," he wrote, "as depending, in an eminent degree, on the extinguishment of the public debt." As president, his party abolished all of Hamilton’s (and the Federalists’) excise taxes and reduced the government debt from $83 million to $57 million.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Hamilton, on the other hand, wanted a large national debt because it would tie the affluent of the country to the government, just as welfare ties the poor to the government today. The affluent would be the government bondholders, he argued, and would therefore provide political support for all the tax increases he had in mind to assure that they would be paid their principal and interest. He called the national debt a "blessing." The Jeffersonian view of government debt prevailed, more or less, until the Woodrow Wilson administration, after which Hamiltonian Keynesianism became the order of the day. Today the U.S. government is in debt to the tune of some $70 trillion if one includes all the unfunded Social Security, Medicare, and government pension liabilities. Ron Paul wants to reverse the economically devastating and immoral policy of rampant government debt accumulation.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The income tax has centralized all political power in Washington, D.C., eviscerated the independence of the states, and has made tax slaves out of millions of Americans. Once again, Ron Paul’s call for the abolition of income taxation is a genuine Jeffersonian sentiment. How inspirational and revolutionary would it be to hear President Ron Paul quote Jefferson’s first inaugural address at his first inaugural: "[A] wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . ." (emphasis added).[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT]
Jefferson was of course a strict constructionist in regard to the Constitution, as is Ron Paul. This was the key to Jefferson’s debate with Hamilton over a national bank, with Jefferson arguing that the Constitution did not provide for such a function, and Hamilton inventing the subversive notion of "implied powers" of the Constitution to defend his proposal. The Hamiltonian position has prevailed for several generations now, making a complete mockery of the Constitution itself. Ron Paul wants to reverse the damage done by the political heirs of Hamilton. Along with his strict constructionist views of the Constitution, Jefferson believed that the keystone of the entire document was the Tenth Amendment. After delegating a few express powers to the central government, the citizens of the states reserved all others to themselves, and to the states respectively. The Tenth Amendment announced, essentially, that the citizens of the free and independent states were sovereign. They were the masters, not the servants, of the federal government which they had created by ratifying the Constitution in state political conventions. In his first inaugural he announced his support of "the State governments, in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies . . ." This is how government was to be consistent with the protection of individual liberty in Jefferson’s opinion. It is also Ron Paul’s opinion. Jefferson advocated a modest foreign policy, unlike his nemesis Hamilton, the original Neocon, who wanted to invade France and become an imperialistic power. "[P]eace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none," was his foreign policy philosophy (from the first inaugural). Jefferson understood that war is the mother of the state, and did everything he could to avoid it. When the British began confiscating American ships and kidnapping American sailors, he imposed an economically destructive trade embargo rather than risk an even more economically destructive war with England. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate in memory to espouse the wisdom of Jefferson and Washington when it comes to foreign policy. When Ron Paul sounds the alarm about how the current regime has attacked civil liberties, including the freedom of speech, with its totalitarian "PATRIOT Act," its lust to suspend habeas corpus, and even calls by the likes of Newt Gingrich to "rethink" the First Amendment, it is reminiscent of Jefferson’s great confrontation with the enemies of civil liberty during his time – the Adams administration and the Federalist Party. One of the first things the Federalist Party did upon assuming power was to make criticism of the government illegal with its Sedition Act. Jefferson orchestrated nationwide opposition to this totalitarian policy, and authored his famous Kentucky Resolve of 1798: "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers [such as the abolition of free speech], its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." This would also be an appropriate quote for President Ron Paul’s first inaugural address. The dominance of the Hamiltonian, Big Government philosophy, and the marginalization of Jefferson and his ideas, is the fundamental source of America’s biggest problems, including a foreign policy that has run amok; a tax system that treats citizens like medieval serfs; an arrogant and unresponsive central government; the evisceration of the states as independent political sovereignties; the economic boom-and-bust cycle that is generated by "the Fed"; the eagerness of Washington politicians to strip away more and more of our civil liberties; and the infantilization of America that has been created by a gargantuan welfare state. Ron Paul is the only national politician who is devoted to reversing all of these dangerous trends. All other candidates propose either minor tinkering at the margins, or an expansion of the same failed policies. He is the Jefferson of our time, and our true hope of returning to the guiding principles of the founding fathers. We can take this road, or we can continue along on the road to serfdom. January 7, 2008
Ron Paul, Dr. No-body, beats Rudy and Fred -- again Well, he's hanging in there. Not only that, but Rep. Ron Paul thumped two reputed Republican heavyweights in the Michigan primary -- former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Who'd have predicted that a couple of months ago? Giuliani, you may recall if you can remember anything as distant as last summer, was the longtime GOP national front-runner in polls. He ran strongly against everybody in his party, even former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who won one last night, taking his home state from Sen. John McCain, who won there in 2000. Everybody wondered if anyone had a chance against the hero of 9/11, who defied standard Republican theocracy with his liberal social views. But guess what? Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texas congressman and ob-gyn who delivers babies and a strict view of the Constitution, beat Giuliani in Michigan. And beat him good. Not only that ... he doubled Giuliani's totals of 24,000 votes, or 2.8%, getting more than 52,000 votes, or 6.3%, of the total Republican ballots. Paul even beat Thompson this time, the real consistent conservative who was supposed to be the next Ronald Reagan until he actually announced his campaign in September. Thompson got about 31,000 votes, or 3.7%, which is more than Rudy but still less than the nobody congressman with the libertarian views whom few people but his passionate partisans took seriously months ago. He's often called Dr. No for his consistent congressional votes against spending. Paul was so written off that Fox News banned him from its recent debate in New Hampshire. Oops, now the Paulunteers are organizing a boycott of Fox sponsors in return for the snub, a move that Dennis Kucinich's fans are now calling for against MSNBC for barring him from Tuesday's Democratic debate in Las Vegas. True, Romney killed all his Republican competitors in Michigan, as he had to, with more than 326,000 votes, nearly 39%, with McCain trailing at 29.7%, or 248,000. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee garnered less than half of Romney's votes, 135,000, or 16%. And it's also true that Thompson and Giuliani didn't really campaign seriously in Michigan. Or New Hampshire. Or Iowa except for a last-minute Thompson bus tour. Obviously, both Giuliani and Thompson are intentionally laying back, trying to make the rest of the Republican field overconfident. No doubt. Paul hasn't won anything yet, either, except the continued devotion of his followers and growing national attention, including two national TV appearances on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" plus a full hour on "Meet the Press." On Tuesday, Richard Viguerie, the noted conservative author, announced he's launching a website to support Paul. Viguerie called Paul "truly a principled conservative in the grand tradition of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan." Paul just keeps picking up his 6% to 10% each time there's a vote. But Paul also beat Giuliani in Iowa. And he came pretty close to Giuliani in New Hampshire and did, in fact, beat Thompson there. And now in Michigan, Paul beat them both rather handily. He does it by going against virtually all the views of his GOP colleagues, including opposing the Iraq war. Fueled by the generous donations of Paul believers, the congressman was probably the most successful GOP fundraiser in the fourth quarter, acquiring nearly $20 million then and, according to his website, more than $834,000 more so far this month. He's already launched an eight-state ad blitz and has been campaigning in recent days in South Carolina, where he has three offices and will return later this week, and across Nevada. He got skunked in Wyoming, where Romney won, but imagine if Paul scored big one day in the wild West, where many people believe government got too big about 100 years ago. Paul's website and new campaign blog claim to have quietly organized more than 7,800 precinct captains around the country. Meantime, Giuliani's top staff is going unpaid this month to save dwindling funds. Is there a pattern here? So, while the "front-running" Republicans each win one state and no one builds up a head of steam, Paul just keeps hanging around, like a bad cold. Some of the other Republican candidates should be careful, lest they get the sniffles one of these days. -- Andrew Malcolm
It now seems that even internet polls, which have always been Paul's foothold, are starting to show him sliding. Pulling 4-6% in South Carolina(1/26) and then Florida (1/29) should spell then end of his campaign.
People are becoming discouraged by what they see as a rigged battle with little hope of victory. What you're seeing is the tide lowering before it rushes in again ...
That's crap. People are discouraged because after raising millions, putting banners up everywhere and completely inundating the internet with Ron Paul nonsense, their candidate is still the 4th or 5th leading Republican. The polls bear this out. The actual voting bears this out. That's the cold, hard truth. There is no conspiracy.
Well, will he offer refunds? He needs to because the campaign is almost over for him. "Strong Obvious Media Bias"---- Paul's received more MSM coverage than Hunter, Thompson, Kucinich, Gravel, etc. But he's received less MSM coverage than the front runners. The media covers that which is newsworthy. When Paul raised a ton of money it was all over the MSM. However, beyond that, he just isn't worth additional coverage because he is not realistically in the hunt. Look at Giuliani. Back when he seemed to be a leading candidate, he was getting plenty of coverage. Now that he's slipped in the polls and done poorly in the primaries, you rarely see him mentioned along with Romney, Huckabee or McCain. Why? Because even with his history and notoriety, he is becoming less and less significant in this election. I agree with you 100% about the media being biased. They are always biased towards that which is popular or in demand. No question. Unfortunately with 4-6% of the vote, Paul just ain't that popular or in demand.
"The media covers that which is newsworthy." What the fuck? :laughing: So the latest person to bang brittney spears is newsworthy? :doh:
And I'm not saying Guiliani is out of the race. But he has slipped in media coverage because he isn't pulling in the votes. Now, if he bounces back, then he will garner the coverage again. Amazing how that works.
Haven't seen Spears mentioned among Republican candidates... :dunno: :dunno: :dunno: Likewise, I haven't seen the Patriots 17-0 season mentioned in the Political section, but it is still newsworthy. You, my friend, are a moron.
You my friend are a moron since you haven't noticed "news" shows go back and forth between topics like Brittney Spears and the political news.
And when Ron Paul is not included in shows where the guy he beat is ... what do you call that ? Or how about the numerous hit questions and out right attacks posed to him while his rivals get thrown softballs ? When Ron Paul raised 4+ million he got some coverage ... when he raised more money than any candidate in the history of the run for presidency .... you could hear the proverbial pin drop. He should have been getting huge coverage. When he did ... 9 out of 10 times it was full of sarcastic undertones and discrediting questions. You and I both know how the media slyly manipulates the masses (At least I hope you do) We're being manipulated away from the best man to run in 100 years because he will demolish the Corporatist agenda for years to come and guided towards those candidates that will follow the program.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PAQ1B-VUdYk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PAQ1B-VUdYk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Interesting take on Paul in Russia TV ... :clap: <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jzdcDroNH2E&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jzdcDroNH2E&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Yeah well, Russia doesn't vote for America's president. I bet Ron Paul is getting over 4-10% of the media coverage dedicated to republican candidates.
Yep, I forgot that only Petre and a handful of others have internet access. I forgot that only Petre and a select few have the means to read or watch anything about Ron Paul on the internet. Damn, if say only 75% of the population relied on the internet for part of their news then, maybe then, Ron Paul would have a shot. :doh: :dunno: :laughing: It's amazing how Petre thinks everyone other than himself sits in a small room with a black and white TV that only gets FOX or CNN news without any other means of information. It sure will be neat when Bill Clinton invents the 'information super highway' so we can all be as enlightened as Petre. :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:
<!-- blog post 4561 --> January 19, 2008 Paul contends for second place in Nevada GOP caucuses Posted: 03:42 PM ET Ron Paul is in a close battle for second place in Nevada. (CNN) — Ron Paul is currently battling for second with his Republican rivals in the party's Nevada caucuses in early returns, at 12 percent of the vote with about two-fifths of the ballots counted. Mitt Romney is projected to win the Republican caucuses there, thanks in part to unusually high turnout among the state’s sizeable Mormon minority. He currently has 55 percent of the vote. Most of the GOP candidates, with the exception of Romney and Paul, did not campaign in Nevada, focusing instead on South Carolina’s first-in-the-South vote, also on Saturday. Paul, who has amassed an enormous campaign war chest and a vocal group of passionate supporters, has beaten Rudy Giuliani in Michigan and Fred Thompson in New Hampshire — and has so far, according to a count released by his campaign, drawn 30,000 more primary votes in total than either man. The Paul campaign had warned Friday of potential “chaos†in the Nevada caucus process – including rule changes, location shifts, and potential ballot shortages – and had called on the state party to consider postponing the event. In a statement, they warned of potential voter disenfranchisement, and vote fraud. “The inconsistencies, errors and multiple changes in the rules reek of playing politics with what should be a neutral process,†said campaign manager Lew Moore. “The people of Nevada deserve to know exactly what the rules are and to know that those rules are being fairly enforced. This has not happened up to this point, and the caucus appears to be in chaos.†View results as they come in here
Have you heard the news ??? ==================================== <!-- TEXT HEADER Top of the Ticket --><!-- END HEADER --><!--BLOG POSTS BEGIN HERE--><!-- entries --><!-- begin custom individual entry --> <!-- content nav --> <!-- entry --> Ron Paul, Dr. No-body, beats Rudy and Fred -- again Well, he's hanging in there. Not only that, but Rep. Ron Paul thumped two reputed Republican heavyweights in the Michigan primary -- former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Who'd have predicted that a couple of months ago? Giuliani, you may recall if you can remember anything as distant as last summer, was the longtime GOP national front-runner in polls. He ran strongly against everybody in his party, even former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who won one last night, taking his home state from Sen. John McCain, who won there in 2000. Everybody wondered if anyone had a chance against the hero of 9/11, who defied standard Republican theocracy with his liberal social views. But guess what? Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texas congressman and ob-gyn who delivers babies and a strict view of the Constitution, beat Giuliani in Michigan. And beat him good. Not only that ... he doubled Giuliani's totals of 24,000 votes, or 2.8%, getting more than 52,000 votes, or 6.3%, of the total Republican ballots. Paul even beat Thompson this time, the real consistent conservative who was supposed to be the next Ronald Reagan until he actually announced his campaign in September. Thompson got about 31,000 votes, or 3.7%, which is more than Rudy but still less than the nobody congressman with the libertarian views whom few people but his passionate partisans took seriously months ago. He's often called Dr. No for his consistent congressional votes against spending. Paul was so written off that Fox News banned him from its recent debate in New Hampshire. Oops, now the Paulunteers are organizing a boycott of Fox sponsors in return for the snub, a move that Dennis Kucinich's fans are now calling for against MSNBC for barring him from Tuesday's Democratic debate in Las Vegas. True, Romney killed all his Republican competitors in Michigan, as he had to, with more than 326,000 votes, nearly 39%, with McCain trailing at 29.7%, or 248,000. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee garnered less than half of Romney's votes, 135,000, or 16%. And it's also true that Thompson and Giuliani didn't really campaign seriously in Michigan. Or New Hampshire. Or Iowa except for a last-minute Thompson bus tour. Obviously, both Giuliani and Thompson are intentionally laying back, trying to make the rest of the Republican field overconfident. No doubt. Paul hasn't won anything yet, either, except the continued devotion of his followers and growing national attention, including two national TV appearances on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" plus a full hour on "Meet the Press." On Tuesday, Richard Viguerie, the noted conservative author, announced he's launching a website to support Paul. Viguerie called Paul "truly a principled conservative in the grand tradition of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan." Paul just keeps picking up his 6% to 10% each time there's a vote. But Paul also beat Giuliani in Iowa. And he came pretty close to Giuliani in New Hampshire and did, in fact, beat Thompson there. And now in Michigan, Paul beat them both rather handily. He does it by going against virtually all the views of his GOP colleagues, including opposing the Iraq war. Fueled by the generous donations of Paul believers, the congressman was probably the most successful GOP fundraiser in the fourth quarter, acquiring nearly $20 million then and, according to his website, more than $834,000 more so far this month. He's already launched an eight-state ad blitz and has been campaigning in recent days in South Carolina, where he has three offices and will return later this week, and across Nevada. He got skunked in Wyoming, where Romney won, but imagine if Paul scored big one day in the wild West, where many people believe government got too big about 100 years ago. Paul's website and new campaign blog claim to have quietly organized more than 7,800 precinct captains around the country. Meantime, Giuliani's top staff is going unpaid this month to save dwindling funds. Is there a pattern here? So, while the "front-running" Republicans each win one state and no one builds up a head of steam, Paul just keeps hanging around, like a bad cold. Some of the other Republican candidates should be careful, lest they get the sniffles one of these days.
Like I said above .... have you heard the news ? ---------------------------------------------------- Breaking News: A Ron Paul surge in Nevada Boy, oh, boy! Hidden behind all the hoopla, headlines and the Nevada caucus victories of Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton is one little-noticed but stunning political development and number: Ron Paul, the one-time Libertarian candidate and 10-term Republican congressman from Texas, was in second place. That's right, Second Place. The 72-year-old ob-gyn who's always on the end of the line at GOP debates or barred altogether, was running ahead of John McCain, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, in fact, ahead of.... all other Republicans except Romney, who easily captured his second state in a week after Michigan. Now, Romney and Paul were basically the only Republicans who actively campaigned and advertised in the desert state. But a win is a win. And second place is second place. When Romney won Wyoming a couple of weeks ago, Paul won zero there. In Iowa, Paul also beat Giuliani and he topped Thompson in New Hampshire, where Paul was excluded from the Fox News debate, which only energized his fervent followers. His jump in GOP election standings comes despite recent reports about a long series of newsletters from the 1990s carrying Paul's name and numerous racist and anti-Semitic remarks. Paul has denied writing them and denounced their contents. Thanks to those passionate and tireless supporters, Paul, the only Republican to oppose the Iraq war and favor significant dismantling of the federal government, won about 10% of the vote in Iowa and 8% in New Hampshire, coming in just behind the former New York mayor in the Granite state. But in Nevada today with a poor Republican turnout of less than half the Democrats (just under 45,000 vs 115,000) and with 99.7% of the precincts reporting, Romney had 22,644 votes, or 51%. Paul had about a quarter of that, 14%, or 6,084 votes. Paul built a slow steady lead of about 400 votes over the veteran Arizona senator's 5,648 total. Huckabee sneaked past Thompson into fourth place with 8%, or 3,613 votes, a tiny vote lead over the former Tennessee senator, who had 3,518. Both had 8%. Giuliani, who's counting on a late-state surge to salvage his one-time now-faded national front-runner status, had only 4% of the Nevada Republican vote with 1,910 ballots. And California's retiring Congressman Duncan Hunter was last again with 2% or 890 votes. Now, of course, comes tonight's South Carolina primary vote results where Paul needs to be a bit more realistic perhaps. He's got three campaign offices there and has advertised and campaigned actively. But McCain is well-known there, has been ahead in polls, relying heavily on his strong support in the state's large active and retired military population. And, as in Iowa where he won the caucuses, Huckabee is counting on another large turnout among South Carolina Christian evangelicals. Polls showed the Baptist preacher narrowing McCain's lead in recent days and Thompson, the former senator who's got the most riding on a strong South Carolina showing to invigorate his sagging campaign, also gaining some. It was reported to be snowing heavily in the state's Piedmont region, where the evangelicals are concentrated, and that could depress turnout, while McCain's coastal territory was getting some cold rain. Now, whose crowd gets more depressed? And can Thompson make a strong enough showing to stay in the race? He planned to return home to ponder the future with no campaign activities planned for coming days. The results tonight will show whether Ron Paul's fine morning and afternoon turn into a nice all-around day or not. Either way, he was likely the top GOP fundraiser in the fourth quarter, raising nearly $20 million, and his website reports gathering in another $1.34 million so far this month. So while G iuliani stopped paying his top staff this month, Paul is likely to linger long. Paul's crowd plans another "money bomb" on Monday when thousands will deliver new donations on the same day. One previous time they did this, the Paul campaign set a new one-day online record of $6 million.
Is Ron Paul Electable? (1/17/08) That is the question that Carl Cameron asked Ron Paul in last Thursday's Fox News debate in South Carolina. How did Ron Paul respond? Well, you wouldn’t be able to find his answer if you watched the rebroadcast of the debate, because Fox News cut Dr. Paul’s response! But don’t worry… Thanks to the wonders of YouTube, you can see Ron Paul respond here. And for what it's worth, the charge that Ron Paul is somehow unelectable in the Republican party sounds awfully similar to the charges levied against Ronald Reagan in 1980. As this Time Magazine article shows, another Republican -- Gerald Ford -- branded Ronald Reagan as "unelectable" as late as March of 1980. Read more about Fox News' censorship in Daniel McCarthy's post on the Daily Dose Blog. ------------------------------------------- <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qlacFmRGPgI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qlacFmRGPgI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> ------------------------------------------ :flip: BTW ...IMO , this question posed at Ron Paul among others to try to ridicule him , is reprehensible. Wake up ... "THEY" do not want Ron Paul elected and you need to ask yourself WHY?
Hmmmmm ..... something's missing here .... <!-- ADXINFO classification="button" campaign="foxsearch2007-emailtools02d-nyt5-511278"--> <hr align="left" size="1"> January 20, 2008 <nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "> Fierce Spending in Early Stages Saps Campaigns </nyt_headline> <nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> </nyt_byline>By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK <nyt_text> </nyt_text> WASHINGTON — The 2008 presidential race long ago shattered all fund-raising records. But lately even the best-financed campaigns are feeling short on cash. The leading presidential candidates raised and spent tens of millions of dollars on the same ultimately unsuccessful goal: to knock out their opponents with decisive victories in the early nominating contests of Iowa, New Hampshire and, for the Republicans, Michigan. Together, the top six candidates across both parties are projected to have brought in a total of more than $400 million and burned through at least 80 percent of it. Now, the top three Democrats and the five or so Republicans all find their bank accounts depleted just as the most expensive phase of the race is about to begin. The candidates are entering a far-flung battle, with more than 20 other states voting in the three weeks that follow regional skirmishes on Saturday in South Carolina and Nevada. Strategists acknowledge they will have to make tough choices, especially since both parties face the prospect of prolonged nomination fights that could extend into the spring — or beyond. “It is almost like the elections that have been held so far have reset the clock and we are starting the game all over, except that the money has largely been spent and there is no time to replace it,†said Steve McMahon, a veteran operative who worked for the primary campaign of Howard Dean a Democrat, four years ago. “It is like we have just taken a mulligan.†Advisers to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and Senator Barak Obama of Illinois have said their primary campaigns had each raised about $100 million by the end of last year. But both were spending more than $7 million a month in the third quarter, and spent an additional roughly $15 million apiece on television advertising in the early contests. The campaigns will not report their year-end figures until Jan. 31, but Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have said she came out of the New Hampshire primary with about $20 million left, and Mr. Obama appears to be in a similar position. On the Friday after the primary, the Clinton campaign dispatched the candidate to Los Angeles and sent her husband, former President Bill Clinton to Washington for dinners with dozens of top fund-raisers, kicking off an effort to pull in an additional $10 million by the end of the month as the race heads toward the coast-to-coast primaries of Feb. 5. Mr. Obama, in the meantime, sprinted through three California fund-raisers in two days at the end of last week. The events included one on Thursday at the Westin St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco that attracted about 700 people who paid $1,000 to $2,300 apiece. But with little time for fund-raising, his aides acknowledge, Mr. Obama is spending money faster than he is bringing it in. Most of the Republicans, who badly trailed the Democrats in fund-raising last year, are even harder-pressed. Ruddy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and the biggest fund-raiser among the Republican candidates, brought in more than $60 million last year. But he was burning through more than $4 million a month in the third quarter, had spent about $4.5 million on advertising by the middle of January, and acknowledged last week that he had only $7 million left. A dozen senior staff members gave up their salaries as an emergency measure. Mitt Romney a financier with a personal fortune of more than $250 million, is the only Republican whose campaign is not feeling the pinch: he has pumped more than $17 million of his own money into his campaign, and his advisers say he shows no sign of slowing down. But there are signs of tighter spending by some campaigns. Both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton had been operating two airplanes: one for the candidate and the campaign staff, another for journalists, whose employers eventually reimburse the campaigns. But both decided last week that just one plane would do. Mrs. Clinton boarded the press plane. Mr. Obama’s campaign told journalists to book their own flights. With so many races so soon, Mr. Obama’s advisers said they wanted to free up the cash usually tied up waiting for reimbursements. “There is definitely some belt-tightening,†Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, acknowledged. “As we move into a broader contest with so many states in play, every penny counts.†Senator John Edward's, the former senator from North Carolina and the third surviving Democrat, is in a bind of his own. Alone among the front-runners in either parties, he elected to accept federal matching funds that impose a spending cap of about $50 million for the entire primary campaign. He spent at a rate of about $2.5 million a month in the third quarter, spent about $7.6 million in television advertising in the early primaries, and now may be limited to spending less than $20 million more while his rivals pour it on. A person familiar with the Edwards campaign finances said the campaign had raised about $4 million during the fourth quarter, pulled in about $2 million since then, and qualified for a total of about $11 million in matching funds. But in a sign of its limited resources, the campaign did not buy any commercials in Nevada, the Democratic battleground where caucuses were held Saturday, and some Edwards aides are doubling up in hotel rooms to conserve cash. For some Republicans, though, the cash crunch has its advantages. The campaign of Senator John McCain of Arizona has been almost broke since its near financial meltdown last summer. But Mr. McCain now finds himself on a more level playing field with the other front-runners. His campaign advisers said he considered accepting the limits of public matching funds — as Mr. Edwards did — but after winning the New Hampshire Republican primary he has brought in enough in contributions to forgo the nearly $6 million in federal money he might have received. “We’ve weathered the storm that other campaigns are facing right now,†Jill Hazelbaker, a McCain spokeswoman said, arguing that the campaign had emerged from its near-collapse “a more nimble operation.†Advisers to Mike Hucksterbee a former Arkansas governor and winner of the Iowa Republican caucuses, said he raised more than $7 million in the fourth quarter and ended the year with about $2 million in the bank — a relatively significant sum for a campaign that had brought in just $2.3 million by the end of the third quarter and had spent at a rate of less than $300,000 a month. “At this point in time, we are all equal — except Romney,†Ed Rollins, the Huckabee campaign national chairman, said last week. Mr. Romney has by far been the biggest spender in either race. By the end of the third quarter, his campaign had spent $54 million — about $10 million more than any other candidate and about $10 million more than it raised in individual contributions. By mid-January it had also spent about $10 million more on television advertising than any other candidate: $27 million, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which provided estimates of those expenditures. To showcase the financial support for his campaign, Mr. Romney recently held a one-day telethon that raised $5 million. But about $3.5 million was contributed for use only in the general election from donors who had already given the maximum $2,300 to his primary campaign, suggesting his support may be more deep than broad. Still, Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the candidate was undeterred. “We will have the resources we need to compete all the way through Feb. 5 and beyond,†Mr. Madden said. On the Democratic side, party strategists said Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama each bring different assets to the next leg of the money race. She has her husband, a master fund-raiser who can pass the hat as she keeps campaigning. But Mr. Obama has a much more extensive e-mail list of small online donors who have not yet contributed the maximum amount. And the recent endorsement of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee four years ago, has enabled the Obama campaign to solicit Mr. Kerry’s list of three million online donors as well. As for where to spend their scarce cash, each party presents a different puzzle. Democrats award convention delegates according to the proportion of votes each candidate receives in each state, so campaigns will most likely flock to the coasts and big cities where they can find the most voters. The Republican contest is more of a gamble. Many states — including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Missouri and Virginia — are winner-take-all, posing big risks for big rewards. “There is no question that some of the Republican teams are dusting off their delegate-counting operations, pulling those old books off the shelves,†said Scott Reed, a Republican consultant who ran Bob Dole's campaign 12 years ago. “One of them is going to end up in a death match with Romney, because he has the ability to write a check.â€
Please help me find dirt on Ron Paul December 6, 2007 Folks, I really need your help. We’ve got to find some dirt on Ron Paul and find it fast. The primaries are quickly approaching. I’ve carefully searched Ron Paul’s personal background. Can you believe this guy has been married only once? And, that he’s been married to that same woman for 50 years? Surely there must have been numerous affairs during that time, but I’ve been unable to find a single instance of it. I’ve listened to quite a few interviews with his wife (hoping to detect a chank in his armor) but all she does is blather on and on about what a wonderful husband, father, and grandfather he is. She fawns over his impeccable integrity and how he would make such a great president. Give me a break, Ms. Paul. What could you possibly know about men?She should probably talk to Rudy Guliani’s wife..er…mistress…er…whatever. I checked Ron Paul’s professional background. We all know that every politician has done at least one illegal stock trade or colluded with someone at the corporate level in some way, at least one time, if not many times. But if Ron Paul has, he’s done a masterful job of hiding it. Even in his private practice as an OB/GYN, he has delivered over 4000 babies…and performed several of them without the patient paying a dime! No wonder they say he’s crazy. And no wonder he’s not a multi-millionaire like John Edwards or Mitt Romney. He should at least talk to Hillary Clinton about investing in cattle futures. I went on to Ron Paul’s political record. I just knew that I’d find dozens of flip-flops on important issues. After all, no politician can survive the establishment without selling out his true principles. It was only a few months ago that John “We must protect our borders†McCain, was trying to push an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants down our throat. It’s certainly no secret that Mike “I’m full of one-liners†Huckabee raised more taxes than Bill Clinton. And, Fred “I’ve always been a pro-life conservative†Thompson admits to representing a lobbyist organization that was pro-choice. But, alas, much to my dismay, I found Ron Paul’s voting record in 2007 to look like a carbon copy of all his previous voting records. No spin, no double-talk, nothing. He’s not only refused to vote with the popular sentiment, he has actually been the lone dissenting vote on several occasions, even when it meant voting against his own party! What’s up with this guy?? Don’t think I haven’t looked for a way to play the race card, too. I had heard some rumors about Ron Paul being a radical, white-robed, racist. Of course, his own personal and political history provides an awful lot of evidence that he supports equality for all individuals and preferences for none. Well… so what? Maybe his record does make that crystal clear. What does that prove? Ahh, and what about the religious issue? He’s a protestant Christian, you know. Every student who ever took a sociology class knows that the world is just one huge crime scene and that every white protestant male is a prime suspect. Barack Obama just doesn’t realize how lucky he is to be running for the American presidency with a Muslim background. Well, out of total desperation to find something—anything—that might blemish Ron Paul’s character, I reviewed every single debate performance. I listened intently for contradictions in his statements. I found none. I watched carefully for cheap shots at his opponents. Not even once. I looked for instances of whining about his unfair treatment by the moderators. Nada. I couldn’t even find a single occasion where he rudely kept talking long after he was told that his time was up! What are we supposed to do??? Every top tier presidential candidate either has a scandal in their background, an inconsistent voting record, or some disconcerting weakness in their character. At this point, I seriously think we should search the underbelly of America for a new nominee. Given the current requirements for popular support, Ron Paul obviously doesn’t stand a chance in hell.
mt question is, if paul has so much support (which is from OUTSIDE the normal media groups, its from grassroots and the internet) then why the hell arent they apparently showing up at the polls?
