Twelve of 13 available national delegate spots went to Paul supporters
Saturday. They join the 20 Paul supporters among 24 delegates elected
previously at GOP congressional district conventions. The Paul forces
might have made a clean sweep Saturday, but for Paul backer Don Huizenga
stepping aside to assure U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a former
presidential candidate, a seat with her state's delegation.
What's the big deal about that? Well, the Paulbots, frustrated at the polls, are turning their attention to state conventions, attempting to steal the nomination.
Consensus delegate projections for Ron Paul:
Safe Paul (14); Texas, Alaska, Washington, Oklahoma, Nevada, Colorado,
Minnesota, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, South Dakota, Montana,
California
Likely Paul (3); Hawaii, Idaho, Virginia
Leans Paul (4); West Virginia, Missouri, Michigan, New Mexico
Ron Paul delegates to the RNC will support the nominee. However,
integral to that support is holding the candidate and the party to the
fundamental principles of limited government and personal and economic
freedom. Constancy to principle is the ultimate loyalty.
Note, however, what he carefully does not say: Ron Paul delegates to the RNC will support Mitt Romney. They have no intention of supporting anybody other than Dr Paul. Their goal is to get to the convention, change the rules so that they are not bound to the primary winner in their state, and subvert the will of the Republican voters.
Ron Paul supporters are committed, and they ought to be. They are determined to win this nomination by hook or by crook, and so far crook seems to be leading.
I have nothing against the tea parties; they strike me as a good form of protest. But watch out for the guys who start talking about how the real problem is the international bankers and the Federal Reserve:
Just as the Sons of Liberty protested "Taxation without Representation", we will be protesting the private banking institutions such as the Federal Reserve and its "Inflation Tax" and the bankster gangsters and their unconstitutional bailout as allowed by the Legislative Branch.
The guy in question, who was helping organize the Pensacola Tea Party, turned out to have quite an interesting website:
Most disturbing: the website which hosts Mr. A*'s email address (www.meetthetruth.org) is an antiglobalist, antiwar conspiracy-theory group. Among its tamer claims is that the 9/11 attack was an inside job done by "Zionists." This is just the kind of association the media would love to jump on to discredit to the entire Tea Party movement.
The actual website itself is down right now; it's not one of the ones I recognize from dealing with the 9-11 Nutters.
I'm not saying don't participate in the tea parties, just saying that when somebody starts pushing the Federal Reserve crap or talking about fiat money, know that your dealing with an infiltrator from the Ron Paul brigades.
Update: And right on cue, guess who's on the speaker schedule at the Phoenix Tea Party?
Ernest Hancock It’s Not My Debt TI 3 6.59-7:02 pm
Ernie Hancock, local libertarian lunatic and 9-11 Truther. Ernie used to have a radio show. Want to guess on which station?
1480 on the AM dial in Phoenix
In other words, the old far-left Phoenix Nova M radio. Yeah, this guy belongs at the Tea Party like Hillary Clinton.
Update: Guess who else is going to be there? The local 9-11 Truthers.
The Tea Party will join us all together against the recent Bankster Bailouts. Join us around 5 pm - 7pm as we march on the State Capitol building to demand that our leaders do their jobs! We will have plenty of signs, banners, DVD's & balloons. Bring signs or whatever you'd like to show your disgust for taxation without representation. . . Don't forget your teabags!!! :)
And who sponsors the Phoenix 9-11 Truth group? Why, it's Ernie Hancock!
Andrew Malcolm looks at their plans to take over the Republican Convention:
In the last three months, Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upward of a million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.
Unfortunately, he repeats some old nonsense about how McCain is still not getting 100% of the vote in the Republican primaries:
Just take a look at recent Republican primary results, largely overlooked because McCain locked up the necessary 1,191 delegates long ago. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who've each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.
On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.
In fact, many McCainiacs were voting in the Democratic primaries in an effort to throw a monkey wrench into their process. Regardless, the Paulistas are still getting that same 7% or so they were getting back in February. Captain Ed has more:
McCain has been winning meaningless primaries by the same percentages that George Bush won them in 2000, and McCain significantly outperformed Paul in the 2000 races. At that time, no one seriously thought that Bush had an insurgent problem with McCainiacs, because he didn’t — and now McCain doesn’t have a problem with Ronulans, either. Winning 8% of the vote in a state where McCain didn’t campaign and where McCain-supporting Republicans crossed over to keep Hillary in the race isn’t impressive, it’s pathetic.
Patrick Ruffini is, and he's suggesting that we show support for Chris Peden, who is challenging Dr No in the Texan's 14th Congressional District. Ron Paul is apparently taking this seriously, as he's diverting some of the funds from his presidential campaign to the congressional race.
But Paul has a vast stockpile of campaign cash at his disposal, thanks to his fundraising success in this year’s presidential bid. He raised about $19 million in the last quarter, and, if he chooses to, he can transfer that money into his congressional treasury.
Paul campaign spokesman Mark Elam indicated that Paul was planning on spending money from his presidential campaign on his House reelection bid. He went up on the airwaves Tuesday with his first advertisement, a radio spot touting his biography and legislative accomplishments.
I should note here that this is probably something of a long-shot campaign, but Paul's opposition to the war and his nutty campaign for president have angered many in his district.
Okay, back to the more amusing stuff. The LA Times reports the shocking news that Ron Paul outraised all the other GOP candidates in the fourth quarter. Of course, anybody who knows anything knew that, what four weeks ago? You know back before people actually started voting?
Well, it's official, ladies and gentlemen. Believe it or not, Rep. Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texan who hardly ever gets mentioned in Republican political news and the one-time libertarian who always gets the least time on TV debates if he isn't barred completely, was, in fact, the most successful Republican fundraiser in the last three months of 2007.
Now, of course, since New Year's Day, the news has not been so good for Dr Paul. Get these comments from the Ronulans:
Ron Paul was constitutional, when constitutional wasn't cool.
As a 42 yr old first time voter, and Ron Paul supporter,
I appreciate the refreshingly honest and fair article.
I'm sure it will be by far the most clicked on. :)
Posted by: Steve | February 01, 2008 at 02:50 AM
A 42-year-old first-time voter? Can you say, Loser?
As Ron Paul supporters have known since New Year's Day and BEFORE any REAL voting had even occurred, Ron Paul has raised more money than the rest in the 4th quarter & is spending it! $20 million in the 4th quarter. $3.5 million so far this quarter. And it was all from individual donations averaging less than $100. No PACs. Unlike the others he is beholding to nothing but the Constitution. Yet he has been ignored by the MSM! I wonder why?
Maybe because of his performance AFTER any REAL voting has occurred? The guy got 3% in Florida.
Meanwhile, Wallet Mitty is apparently in a fight with Ron Paul for Maine. Yes, Maine.
Mitt Romney's the only other Republican giving the race any attention, grasping for a positive headline among the drumbeat of McCain endorsements and wet kisses from newspaper edit boards. And, like in Nevada, some of the Paul organizers will be battle-hardened veterans of Iowa and New Hampshire. The level of love for McCain is closer to New Hampshire than to Nevada—McCain won 44 percent in the March 2000 Maine primary. But early reports from the Ron Paul Forums, from Paul supporters who've been hitting the caucus sites, suggest that Paul is headed for second place behind Romney. (Romney would much, much prefer McCain hit second place: For the narrative he wants, beating Paul is like running up the score in World of Warcraft.)
You know you're pathetic when you point to a state where you got 14% of the vote in a state caucus where you ran the only TV ads. An LA Times blogger enthuses:
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.
Woooooot! The Ron Paul Love Revolution is surging!
I mean, get serious. Ron Paul got 6,000 votes in Nevada for his "silver". Mitt Romney got 64,000 in South Carolina and finished fourth. That gives a little perspective to the whole notion that Paul's second place (or Romney's "gold" medal) means squat.
A CBS news blogger (what is it with these big media organizations hiring Paulbots?) voices similar thoughts:
Ron Paul's fervent supporters have something to crow about: With nearly all precincts reporting, the Texas representative is sitting in second place in the Nevada caucuses.
Now, a few caveats. First off, it's a pretty distant second. Paul only got 14 percent of the vote, far behind Mitt Romney's 51 percent. Secondly, Paul barely edged out John McCain, who didn't campaign in Nevada, whereas Paul ran ads in the state. And third, Paul is not looking like a factor in South Carolina, where voters went to the polls today.
Oh, yeah, South Carolina, where Paul actually got his worst finish thus far with 4%. So much for Ronmentum.
Wow! I have to admit, I thought the Huckster might have gotten the vote with that crack about knowing where to stick the flagpole, but apparently South Carolinians are ready to get over the whole Confederate Flag business. It's a big win and if the rumors are true that Mel Martinez will endorse Senator McCain in Florida, then it's Katie bar the door. InTrade now has him at 49 cents to win a dollar if he gets the nomination.
Romney's win in the Nevada caucuses actually gets him more delegates, but Ron Paul's apparent fluke second actually detracts from the credibility of that contest
Did Lew Rockwell Write the Racist Rants In Ron Paul's Newsletter?
Oh, my this is going to be pretty funny if it turns out to be true.
Ron Paul doesn't seem to know much about his own newsletters. The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name. He told CNN last week that he still has "no idea" who might have written inflammatory comments such as "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.
The article goes into some arcana about how Rockwell and some other "paleolibertarians" decided to reach out to paleoconservatives:
The newsletters' obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic "paleolibertarian" movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new "paleo" coalition.
But of course, the funniest thing is that Rockwell was romantically linked about a year and a half ago to Cindy Sheehan. Yep, that Cindy Sheehan:
Cindy, run! There's a big black man near you!
One thing about the potential Rockwell authorship is that it explains why Paul has declined to reveal who wrote the articles. Rockwell's now apparently forging an alliance with the libertine left; in 2005-2006, he was one of the irregular posters over at Airiheadda's Huffington Post.
The GOP doesn't want Ron Paul messing up their private party with an anti-war message that is connecting with its few remaining members so they fixed the show and excluded him.
How can someone who's that poor a political analyst be a big wheel in the leftysphere?
Okay, I haven't been exactly sympathetic to the Ron Paul crowd, and they're only going to be around for a few more days, so I thought I'd link to this terrific piece on their Iowa push.
It's not about personality worship for the volunteers, the fetishization of a person's capacity to shine in public or persuade. It's about questions like the purpose of our Federal Reserve, which really piques these volunteers' interest, and which just so happens to get a Texas congressman named Ron Paul going, too. When Nickel muses, "I think centrists are the most extremist, because they don't believe in anything but people," it suddenly seems to make a lot of sense.
Cute little article. They do appear to have learned from the Dean campaign that passion doesn't have to translate into anger.
I have to say that it's going to be a shame when the Ron Paul circus finally folds up its tent and slinks out of town. Here's a hilarious OpEd claiming that Ron is going to win Iowa and sweep to the White House:
But the last factor trumps all. Most political commentators are in agreement that Ron Paul supporters are engaged, organized, computer literate, and on fire with zeal. Volunteers across the nation are donating a week of their vacations to walk the streets and roads of Iowa to canvas votes for Dr. Paul.
Yep, and Howard Dean had the same kind of support in Iowa in 2004:
Juan Cole checks in with a hyperventilating bit on John McCain's performance last night:
In a new low of despicable looniness, at the Republican debate in St. Petersburg, John McCain equated those Americans who want to stop militarily occupying Iraq with Hitler-enablers. He actually said that, saying that it was 'isolationism' of a sort that allowed Hitler to come to power.
It gives a person a certain amount of faith in one's fellow Americans that McCain was booed by the Republican crowd for this piece of calumny. Comparisons to Hitler should be automatic grounds for a candidate to be disqualified from being president.
Of course, the real reason the crowd was unhappy with the comment was that it was packed with Ron Paul maniacs, as the Weekly Standard points out:
What a depressing debate. CNN's long slide into mediocrity accelerates. Is this what running for president of the greatest democracy in the world has become? Standing in front of CNN's corporate logo in a hall full of yowling Ron Paul loons and enduring clumsy webcam questions from Unabomber look-a-likes in murky basements?
Cole engages in the misinformed and slightly racist commentary about Al Qaeda that we are used to hearing from the 9-11 "Truthers":
Al-Qaeda is a few thousand scruffy guys afraid to come out of their caves, who don't even have good sleeping bags much less a government to their name.Al-Qaeda is a few thousand scruffy guys afraid to come out of their caves, who don't even have good sleeping bags much less a government to their name.
Yep, just a bunch of jokers in caves who could never even dream of killing thousands and causing billions of dollars of damage.
There’s a weird sort of respect for the Paulites in some corners of the event. One brand of thinking was that Paul’s support was all online vapor, strange mutants from the Internet who couldn’t muster a crowd. But Paul’s crowd is enormous.
“That’s the only story so far,” one reporter told me during the dull-ish candidate speeches. “The presence of the Ron Paul people.”
And then he asked me: “Have you met any of them from Iowa?”
And that is the reason Paul’s people were able to generate so much light and heat and yet enter the poll with such pessimism. Volunteer after volunteer was from outside Iowa. And only Iowans could cast a vote in the poll. Campaign staff estimated that only half of the people milling around their tent were eligible voters and that 1000 votes would be a decent haul. Not winning, but decent.
Not decent, but fifth place. The real story of Iowa is that in a race with no McCain, no Giuliani and no Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney still couldn't get 1/3rd of the voters to select him.
"The people who are actually working for the campaign are a little overwhelmed with what's happening," says Alex Wallenwein, a supporter who organized two of the 362 Meetup.com groups dedicated to Paul.
To many immersed in the political blogosphere, Paul's passionate supporters seem to be everywhere at once. Editors of political websites are inundated with angry e-mails demanding they devote more coverage to Paul. Blog posts that criticize Paul are often followed by hundreds of livid comments from his fans. Most frustrating to those not on board the Ron Paul bandwagon, he routinely ranks first in online presidential polls on sites ranging from CNN.com to niche political blogs.
But inevitably comes reality:
Conversely, Paul rates in the low single digits in scientific telephone polls and few political pundits afford him any chance of winning the nomination. When the editors at National Journal's The Hotline compiled their well-respected White House 2008 Rankings in May, they put Paul in last place among the 12 Republicans running, tacking on a fed-up message to his fans: "Just please stop e-mailing us."
Paul gets huge support from the moronic "Truthers"; check out the spelling on some of the angry comments on the Wired article:
First of all, could someone plaese explain to me what the heck is ment by the fallowing qoute taken from the above article?
This piece just makes me angrier and strengthens my resolve to tell all my friends about Ron Paul. And it definately puts Wired into the "them" camp as ...
I've been covering Ron Paul a lot over at the Screw Loose Change Blog, but mostly on his Truther-friendly comments. Now that seems to be wrapped up for the moment, I thought it might be worth a chuckle to read what Andrew Sullivan thinks of Ron Paul.
Paul also has serious online support. Like Howard Dean – another crank – Ron Paul’s supporters are overrepresented on the web. They blasted all the online polls about the debate, and Paul thereby “won” or came second in the debate, according to the ABC News poll, the Fox News poll and almost every other online poll out there. His campaign has deployed YouTube to great effect as well, and the hostility of the Republican establishment has only given his little political insurgency more oxygen.
Paul has a core of libertarian support that apparently has figured out how to successfully spam internet polls; but the notion that he's got real support is ridiculous. He's not even registering in real polls.
There was a brief period of time when the Libertarian option appealed to me. Oh, not enough to get me to vote for the kooks, but enough to make their positions seem more consistent than the Democrats or Republicans.
But the Libertarians always fell down on foreign policy, where their positions are largely indistinguishable from the radical left, as Lew Rockwell reveals in a column today:
Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.
Chickens coming home to roost, as F-Troop Indian Ward Churchill put it. Of course, if the US had removed its troops from Saudi Arabia, lifted the sanctions, and stopped funding the Israelis, Osama would have been happy with us, right?
Uh, no. Then it would have been some issues nearer and dearer to Rockwell's heart, like US licentiousness, gay marriage, etc. The idea that these are legitimate grievances that we should heed leads to Chamberlain. Rockwell quotes Ron Paul:
"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time – have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."
Ron Paul Provides 9-11 Wackery At Republican Debate
Reminding us once again of the difference between small-l libertarian ideas and Big-L Libertarian craziness:
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... We've been in the Middle East," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq. "Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases.
Predictably, the delusional kooks over at 9-11 Blogger are griping that Paul didn't get asked the same questions or get the same amount of camera time as the real candidates.
Fox News is clearly worried about the recent national success of Ron Paul. They begin the debate, by inserting the false notion that candidate order has a place within their format. They state that the order of the candidates on the stage is random. This statement while possibly true, is completely irrelevant if all candidates are not asked the same question, in order. By asking specific questions, in a non linear order, Fox News negates the importance of order all together. Yet they state that it is random, as if it matters in this format. Is that fair or balanced?
Recent national success of Ron Paul? Yeah, he's pressing Mike Huckabee for 9th place.
Tancredo gets a good line in:
Tancredo took another shot at fellow GOP candidates when he said he is surprised at the number of conversions toward his tough position on illegal immigration as well as abortion and gun control.
"I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus and not on the road to Des Moines," he said.
My longtime blogger buddy Gayle has more on Ron Paul, although obviously I don't endorse her comments on Senator McCain. If you're going for electability, I would think McCain would be your man.
