Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[Arne]

Well his point was simply this: Switzerland is a neutral nation. They won't be attacked. Period. They didn't let him finish his point about Europe, so don't go making assumptions before you know what he was going to say about it.

Fact is: The number one reason for suicide attacks are conflicts about territories. Neutral countries have never been victims to suicide attacks. And Switzerland for example is the oldest democracy in the world and maybe even the richest country in the world. THEY DON'T ATTACK THE RICH AND THE FREE, they attack the people who think they can tell the rest of the world how to live.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Arne

...Fact is: The number one reason for suicide attacks are conflicts about territories. Neutral countries have never been victims to suicide attacks.

I would add to this that it's an analytical mistake in my opinion to conflate the motivations of completely independent actors.....

.....there is no connection between European born, European educated muslims who kill Europeans and indonesia born, indonesia educated muslims who kill indonesians....

.....other than that they're all muslim.

it appears to me that europe, in particular, has an immigration problem -- you have large centers of muslim populations with concommitant ethnic tensions. it's not like europeans haven't had their share of ethnic tensions in the past.....

-------------------

addendum: I'd also point out that the swiss consistently have the highest standards of living on earth.....no coincidence, I submit.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne
Rasmussen Poll:

Ron Paul ranking third in New Hampshire with 14%.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

not today. he's down to 11%. after his showing at the debate last night another 3 to 4 pt drop wouldn't be very surprising.

yep, ron paul is down to 8% today, with a negative rating of 59%. that negative rating is higher than even hillary!

[Mavdog]

hmm, so the islamic terrorist attacks in the philippines, algeria and bali are all about "territories" and none of these places are "neutral"?

nah. the attacks were about modern influences/activities that the fundamentalists want to stop.

the attacks in bali were done by indonesians, with 2/3 of the victims being foreigners and 1/3 being indonesians.

there is no way to deny that the islamic terrorists not only attack western targets, they also attack people in their country who have embraced western ideals and have rejected fundamentalist islam.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yep, ron paul is down to 8% today, with a negative rating of 59%. that negative rating is higher than even hillary!

That poll was taken before the debate, if you'd mind to check out the rasmussen-website...

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

hmm, so the islamic terrorist attacks in the philippines, algeria and bali are all about "territories" and none of these places are "neutral"?

nah. the attacks were about modern influences/activities that the fundamentalists want to stop.

the attacks in bali were done by indonesians, with 2/3 of the victims being foreigners and 1/3 being indonesians.

there is no way to deny that the islamic terrorists not only attack western targets, they also attack people in their country who have embraced western ideals and have rejected fundamentalist islam.

He never said that they would only attack America.

Number one target, however, is America.

[mcsluggo]

jeez.. straw man all the way.

Because there is some looney nut jobber that says "Unless all americans start wearing pink tutu-s and drinking floofy drinks with umbrellas, we will continue to attack them..." then that becomes THE definition of THE ONLY set of policies that serve to reduce tension...?

It is possible to believe that our recent policies are inflaming islamic fanaticism and increasing terrorism overall WITHOUT being a big enough boogar eating moron to think that if we just hug everything will be ok. As with EVERYTHING, there are (at least) two simultaneus, and diametrically oposed vectors in operation from the "anti terrorism" activities... first it decreases terrorism by attacking the infrastructure of exhisting terorist groups, opposingly it increases terrorism by inflaming the situation and providing "bulletin board material".

Which dominates? it is up for debate... which is NOT the same as both sides pretending that the vector that doesn't support their stated position doesn't exist.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

That poll was taken before the debate, if you'd mind to check out the rasmussen-website...

no, you are confused. the specific poll in question was conducted on saturday and sunday, before sunday's debate.

so it does reflect (to a great degree) the impact of the saturday night abc debate, the debate that was the subject of my post.

[alexamenos]

boogar eating moron.....that phrase gets better every time I read it.

for the record, I'm all for attacking the jihadist infrastructure and doing it in such a way as to minimize bulletin board material....this is why I think it's especially imporant to narrow the definition of who we are fighting.

by making theglobal war on terror, terrorists, and tourism a fight against evil that muslims do we accomplish little other than feeding the muslim radicalism breeding ground notion that we're just bunch of well-armed cruaders.

[alexamenos]

the dramatic 6 point ron paul fall in the rasmussen polls caught my eye, mainly because md brought up it but also because such a fall seemed highly unlikely....

...most Ron Paul supporters aren't fence sitters....they're not folks thinking, "geez, we really do need to bring the troops home and to roll back the federal government dramatically, but this Huckabee guy has sort of a right-wing New Deal with a promise to prolong the war in iraq that really appeals to me!" pt being, nearly half of paul's new hampshire support didn't evaporate over two days because of something he said or didn't say in two minutes on a sunday night.

anyhoo, upon closer inspection of the polls, it looks like the rasmussen poll that had paul at 14% was the aberration -- paul has only topped 10% in 3 out of 40 new hampshire polls taken in the last month, and two of those were the first two rasmussen polls in new hampshire. most polls have consistently shown him to be in the 5-10% range, so i'd say rasmussen probably just made a little tweak in it's methodology.

[alexamenos]

Paul is off to a great start in New Hampshire....

DIXVILLE NOTCH, N.H.—Residents of two tiny towns stayed up late to give Barack Obama and John McCain early victories in the New Hampshire presidential primary.

...On the Republican side, McCain received six, Mike Huckabee received five, Ron Paul received four and Mitt Romney one.

In Dixville Notch, on the Republican side, McCain received four votes, Mitt Romney two and Rudy Giuliani one.

By my count....

McCain - 10
Huck - 5
Paul - 4
Romney - 2
Giuliani - 1
Thompson - 0

Granted, only about 0.001% of the votes have been cast and tallied so it's early yet.... But regardless I don't think it's too early to say that Paul has a practically insurmountable 2 vote lead over Romney and that Thompson's campaign will be dealt a very serious blow if he doesn't get at least one vote in New Hampshire.

[alexamenos]

entertaining stuff....

Pillars of Prosperity

450 pages plus of Dr. Paul's writings, congressional speeches and debates on economic policy.

to make a little confession here - prior to his campaign I'd never read much of anything on economics by Dr. Paul nor had I listened to him speak on the subject at length detail....but....

...and it's a big but....

I've long recognized Dr. Paul as student of the austrian school of thought on economics. This orientation sets him apart from from every mainstream establishment thinker and politician on the planet. Monetarist and Keynsian assumptions are so deeply emedded in the mainstream dialogue that anyone who does not begin with these assumptions is typically deemed a kook, rather than as one who has considered and rejected (false!?) assumptions....

anyhoo -- a look at the breadth and depth of his economic thinking shows that that Dr. Paul is no kook - his economic IQ is extremely high. I would argue that it easily rivals any other senator, governor, and of course mayor in the country.

[alexamenos]

looks like rudy is dropping out after florida.

ahem.....

let it be noted that Ron Paul has beaten rudy head to head in 6 out of 8 states. let it also be noted that Ron Paul's on-going campaign already has more delegates than Rudy will ever garner.

I think if Dr. Paul's campaign were doing as poorly as Guiliani's I might prefer to see him call it a day.

/gloat.

[Dirkadirkastan]

So alex, what are Dr. Paul's odds now, in your opinion?

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

entertaining stuff....

Pillars of Prosperity

450 pages plus of Dr. Paul's writings, congressional speeches and debates on economic policy.

to make a little confession here - prior to his campaign I'd never read much of anything on economics by Dr. Paul nor had I listened to him speak on the subject at length detail....but....

...and it's a big but....

I've long recognized Dr. Paul as student of the austrian school of thought on economics. This orientation sets him apart from from every mainstream establishment thinker and politician on the planet. Monetarist and Keynsian assumptions are so deeply emedded in the mainstream dialogue that anyone who does not begin with these assumptions is typically deemed a kook, rather than as one who has considered and rejected (false!?) assumptions....

anyhoo -- a look at the breadth and depth of his economic thinking shows that that Dr. Paul is no kook - his economic IQ is extremely high. I would argue that it easily rivals any other senator, governor, and of course mayor in the country.

I bought this book the other day... a few major takeaways from the first 70 pages

1. He is freakishly consistent, 1978 - present.
2. He is prone to hyperbole about coming crises - he's strongly grounded in logic, but tends to accelerate the timeline. The things that Ron said in 1984 would happen in 1994 may in fact happen in 2014.
3. He has authored highly ideological legislation (that should surprise no one), but he's also authored very pragmatic legislation working within the constraints of current programs & departments existing that he'd prefer not exist (may be a surprise to some).

Interesting reading for sure.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

So alex, what are Dr. Paul's odds now, in your opinion?

I think my last assessment that he had a one in a hundred thousand shot was wildly optimistic....a bit of an overreaction on my part to his successful fundraising. so i'll go back to my original, and best, guess that he has a one in a million chance.

but to paraphrase something jim carrey said in dumb and dumber....

...."so i'm telling you he still has a chance."

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I bought this book the other day... a few major takeaways from the first 70 pages

1. He is freakishly consistent, 1978 - present.
2. He is prone to hyperbole about coming crises - he's strongly grounded in logic, but tends to accelerate the timeline. The things that Ron said in 1984 would happen in 1994 may in fact happen in 2014.
3. He has authored highly ideological legislation (that should surprise no one), but he's also authored very pragmatic legislation working within the constraints of current programs & departments existing that he'd prefer not exist (may be a surprise to some).

Interesting reading for sure.

as the saying goes....

predictions are tough, especially when they're about the future.

[Flip41]

Do yall think Dr. Paul will run as a third party in the general? He may get my vote if my choices are not what I would like them to be.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Flip41

Do yall think Dr. Paul will run as a third party in the general? He may get my vote if my choices are not what I would like them to be.

I tend to think that it's unlikely that he'll run as a third party candidate.....My take on his candidacy is that he's more intent on building a *liberty* coalition within the Republican party than trying to shake up the existing system. In that case, running as a third party candidate would actually hurt his designs.

but -- if the dollar continues to slide down the s___er (and given Bernanke's latest act of desperation, this seems quite likely) his position on the fed will begin to look pretty prophetic and that might entice him to carry on the message past the GOP convention.

[Flip41]

I can not stand McCain or Romney. I like Mike, but if Mike doesn't get the nom. Then I hope Dr. Paul does run.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Flip41

I can not stand McCain or Romney. I like Mike, but if Mike doesn't get the nom. Then I hope Dr. Paul does run.

Why not just vote for the Democrat?

[jefelump]

If McCain gets the nomination, then voting for Obama or Hillary (whichever gets it on the Dem side) or McCain is pretty much the same thing.

[Flip41]

Cause I don't like either of them and don't trust them.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Why not just vote for the Democrat?

I often wonder the same thing when someone tells me they're going to vote for the Republican.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Flip41

I can not stand McCain or Romney. I like Mike, but if Mike doesn't get the nom. Then I hope Dr. Paul does run.

Huckabee is made of plastic. He's worse than John Edwards. He'll say exactly what you want him to say, then he'll say the opposite when someone else wants him to.

[Flip41]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Huckabee is made of plastic. He's worse than John Edwards. He'll say exactly what you want him to say, then he'll say the opposite when someone else wants him to.

Example?

[Burn this City]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Huckabee is made of plastic. He's worse than John Edwards. He'll say exactly what you want him to say, then he'll say the opposite when someone else wants him to.

Um, you can say the same about pretty much every politician ever...

/political cynicism

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Burn this City

Um, you can say the same about pretty much every politician ever...

/political cynicism

Not about Ron Paul. He told a crowd of exile cubans that he's all in favor of abolishing the sanctions on Cuba... haha

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Burn this City

Um, you can say the same about pretty much every politician ever...

/political cynicism

Well, I don't think you can say John Edwards is worse than John Edwards.

[Burn this City]

^Good point

[alexamenos]

a fitting eulogy for Dr. Paul's candidacy......from Time Online, no less.

Why Ron Paul Scares the GOP
Thursday, Mar. 20, 2008 By MICHAEL GRUNWALD

There used to be an organization for people who believed in a truly limited government — limited taxes, limited spending, limited interference in individual lives and limited intervention in foreign affairs. That organization was known as the Republican Party. But the only one of those beliefs that still motivates the G.O.P. establishment is limited taxes. In 2008, people who still hold all of them joined the Ron Paul Revolution.

But now the revolution is ebbing. Congressman Paul's new campaign finance report shows that he's raised nearly $35 million, including more than any other Republican candidate in the fourth quarter of 2007, and he's inspired remarkable passion among the kind of diehards who hold up campaign signs on highway overpasses and post irate comments on obscure blogs. But the presidency isn't decided on YouTube or Technorati. Paul didn't win any Republican primaries, and he recently conceded that "victory in the conventional sense is not available."

Of course, nothing in Paul's world is ever done in the conventional sense, so he has refused to drop out of the race and endorse the presumptive G.O.P. nominee, Senator John McCain. Instead he argues that all Republicans should have "the right to vote for someone that stands for traditional Republican principles." And he's got a point.

The real significance of the Paul campaign is not the ubiquitous bumper stickers and lawn signs or the online fund-raising records ($6 million in one day, plus another $4 million, hilariously, on Guy Fawkes Day) but the mirror Paul held up to the modern Republican Party. When his fellow candidates denounced big government, Paul was there to remind them that President Bush and the G.O.P. Congress had shattered spending records and exploded the deficit. When they hailed freedom, Paul asked why they all supported the Patriot Act and other expansions of executive power. And when they called themselves conservatives, Paul asked what was so conservative about sending thousands of young Americans to try to transform the Middle East.

rest of article here --> link

[alexamenos]

All things considered, his campaign wasn't a complete waste of time.

Ron Paul’s Economic Theories Winning GOP Converts
Congressman's Clout Grows Within GOP Minority, Among Some Dems
By David Weigel 5/5/09 6:00 AM

From time to time, a few members of Congress—as many as 10, sometimes fewer—gather with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to eat lunch and hear from an author or expert whose opinion he thinks is worth promoting. They grab something to eat off of a deli plate. They take notes. They loosen up and ask questions.

“It’s not all that easy for the other members to get here,” Paul said in an interview with TWI, sitting just outside of his office before heading back to Texas for a few days. “It’s just that there’s so much competition. Once they get here and they get going, they all seem to enjoy it.”

A funny thing has started happening to Paul since his long-shot presidential campaign ended quietly in the summer of 2008. More Republicans have started listening to him. There are the media requests from Fox Business Channel and talk radio, where he’s given airtime to inveigh on sound money and macroeconomics. There is HR 1207 , the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, a bill that would launch an audit of the Federal Reserve System, and which has attracted 112 co-sponsors. When Paul introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act just two years ago, no other members of Congress signed on...

ct'd....

[dude1394]

Never is imo.

[alexamenos]

Earlier (4 years earlier, actually....) I said:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

...if anything comes of the Paul phenomena, it will be a regeneration of ideas which have long been floating in the air out there, that are largely ignored in the mainstream political discourse today, and yet at various times in our history have been front and center.

Looking at some exit poll data I notice that Paul polls extremely well amongst the 40-ish and younger set, whereas Mitt Dole McRomney is mostly carried along by the 40-ish+ crowd.

As the saying goes, the future belongs to those who show up.

I don't give Paul any more of shot this time around than last, and if anything I'm less interested in Paul now than before, but I remain quite happy to see him making an impact that may redound for decades.
---------------------------------

Strategy wise -- I think Paul is blowing it a bit by being too adamant about not running as a 3rd party.

The only 'appeal' (such as it is) of Mitt Dole McRomney seems to be that he is the most likely to beat Obama. If Paul were to run as a 3rd party, I think you could forget about any chance for a McRomney win in the general election.

Point being, Paul effectively has veto power over the one thing that makes McRomney attractive to conservatives. A Paul threat to run as a 3rd party candidate is a very effective attack on McRomney's #1 selling point. This threat of a 3rd party candidacy is potentially negotiating leverage which could earn him some valuable concessions from the GOP Powers-That-Be, such as:

1) a speaker's slot in the convention;
2) a 1-on-1 debate with McRomney;
3) real input into the GOP platform;
4) etc....

But Paul is being super adamant that he won't run as a 3rd party, that it's completely safe for the party establishment to get behind Mitt Dole McRomney....

...mistake, imho.

[iella]

The problem with Dr. Paul being open to the possibility of running 3rd party is that the Republican establishment will just marginalize him (not that they don't try to already). He's already constantly accused of not being a "real" Republican, and they would pounce on the chance to discredit him and accuse him of undermining the party.

In reality, Ron Paul is MORE electable than Romney. He does very well amongst independents and Democrats, which is much more than Romney can say. If Dr. Paul were to have the support of the Republican establishment, I think he would almost be guaranteed a victory.

I agree with you on the "impact that may rebound for decades." I only hope that my generation will not change its mind about small federal government and non-interventionism when we're the ones in power...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by iella

The problem with Dr. Paul being open to the possibility of running 3rd party is that the Republican establishment will just marginalize him (not that they don't try to already). He's already constantly accused of not being a "real" Republican, and they would pounce on the chance to discredit him and accuse him of undermining the party.

In reality, Ron Paul is MORE electable than Romney. He does very well amongst independents and Democrats, which is much more than Romney can say. If Dr. Paul were to have the support of the Republican establishment, I think he would almost be guaranteed a victory.

I agree with you on the "impact that may rebound for decades." I only hope that my generation will not change its mind about small federal government and non-interventionism when we're the ones in power...

I agree with everything you say here. (And as an aside...if Obama could hand-pick a [serious] candidate to run against...wouldn't it be Romney?)

I suspect that the big challenge to Ron Paul, though, is what shape he leaves things in for his son. Don't you know that if Paul ran third-party and Romney lost--no matter if things are related or not--the GOP powers-that-be would ostracize Rand Paul in a big way.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

...if Obama could hand-pick a [serious] candidate to run against...wouldn't it be Romney?)

Yes. Especially considering that his top ten contributors right now are practically a Who's Who of Wall Street...how will the Obama administration ever make use of his close ties Wall Street?

If you look at the exit poll data I linked, Romney's chief appeal is that he "can beat Obama", an ironic thing inasmuch as he'll probably make Bob Dole look like a good choice for the GOP in '96.

I suspect that the big challenge to Ron Paul, though, is what shape he leaves things in for his son. Don't you know that if Paul ran third-party and Romney lost--no matter if things are related or not--the GOP powers-that-be would ostracize Rand Paul in a big way.

Yeah, probably the number one reason he's staying extra GOP friendly. I hope it's not the case, but it probably is.

If it is the case, then the good Dr. Paul is concerning himself too much with "how can I be accepted by the GOP Establishment?"

But just to be clear, I'm not saying that Paul should run as a 3rd party, I'm saying he should maintain the threat. Given the weakness of McRomney I think the GOP would be very open conceding things to Paul* to keep him from following through on the threat.

If, instead of making some concessions to Paul, the GOP responded by marginalizing Paul further, that would increase the possibility that Paul would run as a 3rd and diminish their prospects for a win in '12. If there is one thing upon which the Republican Party can be relied, it's that they'll concede anything to remain in power.

*for all I know they may have already made these concessions, and that may be why Paul is being adament about not running as a 3rd...probably not the case, but possibly.

[CanadianMavsFan]

Just reporting in from Canada to say I'm a big fan of Ron Paul. His realistic outlook when it comes to foreign policy is some of the most admirable stuff I've ever heard in American politics or politics in general. The United States has doomed itself in the same way the British and many other Empires did by attempting to police the world and not focusing on problems at home. The media attempts to push Israeli interests and in turn American intervention in the Middle East. Ron Paul is literally the ONLY politician on either side to say that he intends to leave Israel to fend for itself.

All that being said, as people have mentioned before, if you don't play the game in politics, that is if you tell the absolute truth, you have a small chance of winning.

[Mavericks Rockets Fan]

Even though Paul is unlikely to win the nomination, he will still be successful in the sense that many of his economic ideas have become mainstream Republican orthodoxy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwVxec6uesA

This is quite the change from 4 years ago. And his great popularity among 18-29 year olds shows that his libertarian ideas are the future of the Republican party and will plant the seeds for like-minded candidates (e.x: Rand Paul in 2016) to succeed down the road...

[SeanL]

How can you support someone who is against the Civil Rights Act and panders to racist groups?