Ron Paul

Impact of New Hampshire Primary on Ron Paul

2007-11-24T20:01:00.000-08:00

Here I pose a question to you and I ask for your feedback on this one. What effect will the New Hampshire primary, the first primary, have on Ron Paul and his chances at the Republican presidential bid?

The New Hampshire primary, being the first primary in the nation, sets the tone for the rest of the nation's primaries and caucuses. The primary is known as a key one to win and has a big impact on the campaigns for the rest of the primary season.

I believe that this state can make or break the chances of Ron Paul.

If Ron Paul happens to win this state it will give the media nothing to talk bad about him with. It will finally silence the media and they won't be able to use the "spam" excuse and say his voters cheated in the primary. It will also give him an extra boost in publicity as the media surely can't ignore Ron winning this state and if it does it will give all of us supporters more to feed to others on how he has been shut down by the media. This boost will give Ron Paul nearly all the moment going into the other states and will allow people to feel possible more comfortable voting him knowing he has a chance (I do know of many people who vote for their second favorite candidates because their first they believe has no chance of winning).

On the other side of the wall, if Ron Paul doesn't win the state, even if its by the slimmest of margins, the media will keep feeding the "Ron Paul has no chance and is made up of only supporters who make him look popular". The media will continue to make him out as a failure even this early in the primary season. Media is Ron's biggest enemy and if he doesn't do well early they will make him seem like an unpopular choice overall making him less popular to those who have yet to vote.

That is my input, but this something I want to hear from what other supporters or naysayers have to say. So leave some comments and I will respond. I would like to see what is seen out there about Ron Paul and what he needs early.

Candidates@Google: Ron Paul

2007-11-23T18:53:00.000-08:00

Recommended by Voice Of Dingchao

2008 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in discusion with Google executive Elliot Schrage as part of the company's Candidates@Google series.

Ron Paul: A big tent, but unlikely bet

2007-11-23T04:15:00.000-08:00

By Jonathan V. Last

Not all wagers are created equal. There are good bets; there are bad bets. And then there are terrible, awful bets. If you put your chips on the money wheel, or the hard eight -- those are sucker bets.

And as a public service, I'm here to warn you about the biggest sucker bet in the history of the world: Ron Paul is getting 6-1 odds to win the presidency. He's getting 4-1 odds to win the Republican nomination. That's the worst action ever.

Unless, of course, you're Ron Paul. In which case it's some very sweet action.

Seven months ago, Paul was a 200-1 long shot. As his campaign picked up steam, and the money poured in, the odds began to shift. By the end of May, they stood about 15-1; by August they were 8-1. As I write this, Sportsbook.com and other online bookmakers have Paul a 6-1 underdog to be the next president of the United States, just slightly worse chances than John McCain and Rudy Giuliani (5-1) and Barack Obama (7-2), ahead of Mitt Romney (8-1), and way ahead of Mike Huckabee (50-1).

It is, as the kids say, a Ron Paul revolution. And it is utter madness.

Where did this Ron Paul boomlet come from? The same place all weird ideas come from these days: the InterWeb. Paul has, by a giant margin, the most heavily trafficked Web site of any politician running for office this cycle. He has more MySpace connections than any of the Republican candidates. On YouTube, only Obama gets a wider viewership.

Recently, Paul raised $4.2 million in a single day from 37,000 donors. It was the biggest 24-hour haul made by any Republican so far. At the end of the third quarter, he sat in fourth place among Republicans in cash on hand. By the end of the next quarter, he could easily be third: He has raised more than $7 million since Oct. 1 and wants to get to $12 million before New Year's.

The importance of this war chest is that it means, as Paul told reporters, "We can buy unlimited TV in New Hampshire." This may be significant. Paul has only a small national following. In the most recent Rasmussen poll, he clocked in at 6 percent. In Iowa, his support is low-grade, but in New Hampshire he's riding at 4 percent. He probably has enough critical mass to move and some room to grow. (Remember that Pat Buchanan finished second in New Hampshire in 1992 and first in 1996.) Fred Thompson is sitting at 7 percent there; Huckabee is at 10 percent. Both McCain and Giuliani are within shouting distance in the mid-teens. Anyone who finishes behind Paul in the Granite State will probably drop out the next morning. And he isn't going to finish last.

The fact that Paul is poised to play spoiler is less interesting than his ideology, which is less interesting than his base of support. But first things first.

Paul's basket of positions is large and, in its way, non-contradictory. He is a constitutional absolutist, the kind who thinks strict constructionists are squishes. As a result, he is antiwar. By which I mean virtually all wars: He was against Gulf War I, Kosovo, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and the current Iraq war.

He voted for the liberation of Afghanistan but now seems to regret it.

He favors a splendid isolationism, and the totality of his plan for Iraq, as he told the New York Times, is: "Just leave." Paul would also have America leave a host of international organizations, including NATO.

Paul voted against both the Patriot Act and the Financial Antiterrorism Act; he wants to put America back on the gold standard.

He seeks to legalize drugs and to amend the Constitution to revoke the automatic grant of citizenship to people born on U.S. soil. It is not perfectly clear what his own opinion is on the origin of the 9/11 attacks, but when asked about the subject by a group of conspiracy theorists, he replied, "I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation." He is, in short, the crank of many colors.

As such, he has attracted the support of a wide array of groups: from pro-legalization college potheads to the Grandpa Simpson types who long for the Bretton Woods days; from 9/11 Truth nuts to professional neo-con haters; from anti-immigrant isolationists to white supremacists. It's a big tent.

That doesn't automatically make him a nutter, but it combines uncomfortably with the fact that Paul is someone who won't take no for an answer. He first ran for Congress in 1974 and lost. He tried again two years later in a special election and won. Seven months later, in the regular election, he lost again. In 1978, he gave it yet another try, and this time got, and held, the Texas seat. Until he abandoned it to try for the Senate. He lost that election, too.

After that defeat, Paul took his act national, running for president as the Libertarian Party's nominee in 1988. Seven years later, he was at it again, going after his old House seat (much to the chagrin of the Republican Party). He won it, but kept a relatively low profile. Until recently.

So why is Paul taking off now? Because there aren't any other cranks running (although Dennis Kucinich is trying his best to look like one). And -- perhaps you've noticed? -- there are a lot of strange people out there.

They're rallying to Paul, and they're not going away. Come January, some Republican candidates may be wishing they would.

Recommended by Voice Of Dingchao.

The Threat of Ron Paul

2007-10-10T08:57:00.000-07:00

The Threat of Ron Paul

10 Oct 2007 08:04 am

No Howard Dean:

There is zero chance that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination or, after he loses, become a major leader in the Republican party. His constituency consists mainly of libertarian types who are either not Republicans or have not felt at home in the Republican party for quite some time.

And unlike Dean, I think it is pretty unlikely that Paul will endorse the eventual Republican nominee. In fact, I suspect Republican party officials are a little worried about Paul's plans for the general election. …If Paul can raise his profile enough to secure himself a place in general election debates (as Ross Perot did in 1992), he may well be tempted to accept a third party nomination.

Paul is much more like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader than Howard Dean. His support comes from people who are fed up with the two major parties and don't feel represented by either of them. Those who want to see a Republican in the White House come 2009 should be very careful how they treat Ron Paul and his supporters. He has the potential to become a very effective spoiler in the general election.

Message from Ron Paul (9/22/07)

2007-09-22T17:12:00.000-07:00

The end is nigh. Of the third quarter of 2007, that is! And I need your help to make sure that our campaign gets a big boost. At the end of the second quarter, on August 1, we had more money than McCain, and we got a million dollars worth of free publicity.

This time, we can get 10 million dollars worth, IF we have good results to announce on October 1, and therefore the resources to build for the future.

After all, our ideas have never been needed more. The Federal Reserve is killing our dollar, the war is killing our soldiers, police-state methods are killing our civil liberties, and the income tax and bureaucratic meddling are killing our economy.

But there is hope for America in the ideas of this Revolution. What progress we are making, all across this country, among all groups. The mainstream media may ignore us, but we are winning strawpolls, drawing huge crowds, getting local media, moving up in the regular polls (a lagging indicator, of course), organizing, dominating the internet, and preparing the way for the early caucuses and primaries.

As our opponents begin to falter, and the undecideds grow in strength, this is our time. When people learn about our ideas and our work for them, they join the Revolution. So my job is to make sure they learn!

But I can't do this job alone. I need you. Please, reach out your hand and clasp mine. Our country is at stake, our children's future and ours is in the balance. Make the most generous contribution https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ you can, and make it soon. Help me go into October with a roar. Help me build this campaign as it must be built.

A 13-year-old said to me the other day, "Dr. Paul, you are the hope of my future." No, I told her, but this Revolution is. Will she grow up in a poorer, more socialist, more militarist, more oppressive country? Or the free country you and I love?

Let's work together with all our strength for the Constitution, for America, for all our people, for freedom, prosperity, and peace. Together, you and I can make a Revolution. Let's do it!

Sincerely,

Ron

Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

Does Andrew Meyer support Ron Paul?

2007-09-22T03:45:00.000-07:00

Rumors are circulating on the web that University of Florida student Andrew Meyer, now famous for being tasered at a John Kerry forum, supports Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Many claim Paul is becoming a favorite candidate choice for conspiracy theorists, so the connection is fairly obvious, as Meyer's speech strayed dangerously close, if not directly into, the conspiracy theory zone. Using Kerry's ties to President Bush and the Skull and Bones fraternity they both belonged to, he referenced Kerry's quick concession of the 2004 election, alluding to some sort of underlying conspiracy.

Whether or not the claims of Meyer's loyalty are true has yet to be seen, and as of now, they are based on some shaky evidence. Like any good conspiracy theory, there is just enough possibility of truth to the tale to make it believable.

Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

Ron Paul's Support Moving to the Streets

2007-07-22T08:27:00.000-07:00

It was not long ago that the majority of scientific polls did not even include Ron Paul as a possible candidate for the Republican nomination. That was because he had little support. His views on Iraq were different from every other Republican candidate and the general consensus was that he was not welcome in the Republican party.

But things have changed in recent months after a couple of national televised Republican debates put Ron Paul to the forefront. His message started to gain traction all over the Internet and that was just the beginning. He started getting included in all of the polls and jumped to as high as 3% in a few New Hampshire polls.

His second quarter fund raising was impressive and put more money in his bank than the one time Republican front runner John McCain. Ron Paul does not traditionally take in PAC money or have expensive fund raising dinners like the other candidates so that shows the gravity of the strength of his campaign.

Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative and spends money appropriately. He does not spend money on fancy haircuts like John Edwards. He does not need to pay for online bloggers because he already has a base of support that is doing that for free. Ron Paul is in a great position to start getting his message out to the people.

The latest familiarity poll in New Hampshire was taken just 2-3 months ago and showed Ron Paul as being unknown to 74% of Americans. Those that see him and support him are very motivated for him. His poll number should continue to grow.

Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming

2007-07-05T08:27:00.001-07:00

Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

IceRocket tags: Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms

2007-05-19T00:03:00.001-07:00

by Ron Paul

Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”

There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?

HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts – as opposed to willful criminal acts – is inconsistent with a free society.

HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.

Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

IceRocket tags: Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

Security, Washington-Style

2007-05-18T23:36:00.000-07:00

by Ron Paul

Congress voted this past week to authorize nearly $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department, but the result will likely continue to be more bureaucracy and less security for Americans.

Five years into this new Department, Congress still cannot agree on how to handle the mega-bureaucracy it created, which means there has been no effective oversight of the department. While Congress remains in disarray over how to fund and oversee the department, we can only wonder whether we are more vulnerable than we were before Homeland Security was created.

I was opposed to the creation of a new Homeland Security Department from the beginning. Only in Washington would anyone call the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of already bloated bureaucracies “streamlining.” Only in Washington would anyone believe that a bigger, more centralized federal government means more efficiency.

When Congress voted to create the Homeland Security Department, I strongly urged that – at the least – FEMA and the Coast Guard should remain independent entities outside the Department. Our Coast Guard has an important mission – to protect us from external threats – and in my view it is dangerous to experiment with re-arranging the deck chairs when the United States is vulnerable to attack. As I said at the time, “the Coast Guard and its mission are very important to the Texas Gulf coast, and I don’t want that mission relegated to the back burner in a huge bureaucracy."

Likewise with FEMA. At the time of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, I wrote “we risk seeing FEMA become less responsive as part of DHS. FEMA needs to be a flexible, locally focused, hands-on agency that helps people quickly after a disaster.” Unfortunately and tragically, we all know very well what happened in 2005 with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We know that FEMA’s handing of the disaster did in many cases more harm than good. FEMA was so disorganized and incompetent in its management of the 2005 hurricanes that one can only wonder how much the internal disarray in the Department of Homeland Security may have contributed to that mismanagement.

Folding responsibility for defending our land borders into the Department of Homeland Security was also a bad idea, as we have come to see. The test is simple: We just ask ourselves whether our immigration enforcement has gotten better or worse since functions were transferred into this super bureaucracy. Are our borders being more effectively defended against those who would enter our country illegally? I don’t think so.

Are we better off with an enormous conglomerate of government agencies that purports to keep us safe? Certainly we are spending more money and getting less for it with the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps now that the rush to expand government in response to the attacks of 9/11 is over, we can take a good look at what is working, what is making us safer, and what is not. If so, we will likely conclude that the Department of Homeland Security is too costly, too bloated, and too bureaucratic. Hopefully then we will refocus our efforts on an approach that doesn’t see more federal bureaucracy in Washington as the best way to secure the rest of the nation.

Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

IceRocket tags: Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES

2007-05-18T23:33:00.000-07:00

The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES

Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
Property should be owned by people, not government.
All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

IceRocket tags: Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

WHO IS RON PAUL?

2007-05-18T23:27:00.000-07:00

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies! He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have seventeen grandchildren.

While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul's limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. He served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve's inflationary measures. He also was a key member of the Gold Commission, advocating a return to a gold standard for our currency. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th Congressional district of Texas. He serves on the House Financial Services Committee, the International Relations committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. On the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Paul serves as the vice-chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

Dr. Paul is the author of several books, including Challenge to Liberty; The Case for Gold; and A Republic, If You Can Keep It. He has been a distinguished counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and is widely quoted by scholars and writers in the fields of monetary policy, banking, and political economy. He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress, from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Council for a Competitive Economy, Young Americans for Freedom, and countless others.

Dr. Paul's consistent voting record prompted one Congressman to comment that "Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another Congresswoman added that "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few."

Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul

IceRocket tags: Technorati tags: ron paul paul Ron Paul