Paul Supporters Still at it in Nevada
Details over at Battle Born Politics.
Add comment May 31st, 2008
Posts with the tag 'Ron Paul'
Why Ron Paul Abandoned His Presidential Bid
A few days ago, we reported that Ron Paul had said “Adios!” to his presidential campaign. Robert Stacy McCain suggested in his blog post about the news that Paul supporters had “been misled and exploited,” since Paul can use the millions he raised in his presidential bid towards his reelection campaign.
Well, I’ve found out that Ron Paul actually needs those millions of dollars to save his House seat. See, Ron Paul is facing a primary challenge against Chris Peden, and things are actually looking very good for Peden.
Republican sources tell me that an internal poll from the Ron Paul camp shows Peden leading over Paul 43% to 32%. In addition to that, a generic poll from the National Strategy Group shows that 67% of Republican voters in TX-14 overwhelmingly want a Republican other than Ron Paul representing them.
The bottom line: These polls are the reason Ron Paul abandoned his presidential bid. Just as Dennis Kucinich abandoned his go-nowhere campaign for the presidency in order to fight for his seat in competitive primary.
UPDATE: Pajamas Media discovers similar data… interviews Peden.
17 comments February 13th, 2008
So Much For The Ron Paul Revolution
Looks like Ron Paul is “suspending” his campaign so he can focus on his primary election for his congressional seat. Robert Stacy McCain puts it best with this translation of Paul’s announcement:
“Hey, chumps, ever heard of something called a ‘bait and switch’?
“Remember all that money you donated so I could campaign for president?
“Well, instead I’m going to use it to campaign for re-election to Congess, you stupid chumps.
“However, just in case you’re not smart enough to realize you’ve been played for a sucker, I will maintain a token presidential campaign. That will allow me to continue paying fat salaries to the genius pimps who masterminded this scam.
“You’ve been so totally punk’d, dude. I got your hopes up, then screwed you over.
And after all that effort spamming online polls…
13 comments February 10th, 2008
Clearly, Spamming Online Polls Doesn’t Translate To Real Victories
I’ve had my fair share of experience with Ron Paul’s determined supporters. It was clear many many months ago that Pauliacs (perhaps even Ron Paul’s campaign itself) had the strategy of giving the appearance of huge internet/grassroots support for his campaign by flooding online polls with votes and spamming. In regards to their coordinate spamming efforts, I asked back in May, “[W]hat good are phony results? Isn’t it more valuable to see what the true temperature of the American people or the conservative blogosphere is? Wouldn’t Paul supporters rather know a more accurate reflection of Paul’s support and use the data from the [GOP Bloggers] straw poll to assess how best to increase that support?”
Perhaps they should have listened to my advice… Between Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, Ron Paul hasn’t won a single caucus or primary. I thought myself he’d do better in New Hampshire than he actually did, but clearly the strategy of giving a false impression of Paul’s online support hasn’t made him a contender when it comes to his performance in an actual election.
Pauliacs need to learn that real voters will determine this election… not phony online spammers.
15 comments January 17th, 2008
Obama Wows ‘Em in Vegas
As I’ve said before, no one has the slightest clue what is going to happen next Saturday in Nevada - we’ve never had a caucus like this (ie, one anyone cares about - even Nevadans), and given the continual rapid influx of people to the State, there’s no way to tell - even by using data from 2006 - how Nevada will vote overall. But it seems that Obama is making some peoples’ hearts go “thumpa-thumpa-thumpa“:
From the back of the Culinary union hall on Friday, all that could be seen were hundreds of upraised hands — black, brown and white — clapping to the chant “Sí se puede.”…
…This is a union whose members, more than 300 in the stuffy, hot, sour-smelling hall downtown, have been trained to make some serious noise on command, and that is what they did when the presidential candidate whom their leaders decided to support, Democrat Barack Obama, took the stage to accept the endorsement.
“Every time I come here I feel good, because I am not only among friends, I am also among the best of the labor movement in this country, right here in this room,” the Illinois senator said.
The union members’ discipline and political organization are legendary in Nevada. But the decision to go with Obama — made late in the game Wednesday, after the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire had been decided — poses by far their biggest challenge yet.
The endorsement has split the union from its biggest allies, including most of the big Democratic names in the state. Union leaders say they never considered themselves part of the party establishment anyway, and they relish what might be an underdog role. But there’s no question that the coming days, until Nevada holds presidential caucuses a week from today, will create serious fractures.
Naturally, Obama played it safe - he’s for “change”, he’s for “hope”, he’s against “Yucca Mountain” (all must bow before the icon of opposition to this under-construction nuclear waste dump…though it never seems to get actually stopped, or anything); the usual Obama litany, slightly modified to fit a Nevada audience. But the report does indicate that the good people of the Culinary just ate it up. Hillary was out here the other day (and, you know, neither of them bothered to come by and see me - can you imagine!), and her reception was friendly - but not like Obama’s.
Meanwhile, over on the GOP field, Romney’s advertisement seem set to run every hour or so…and I haven’t heard squat from anyone else other than Ron Paul, who’s suddenly talking about how he’s a Christian and that the military has already voted 100% for him (well, that is what it seems like, watching his ad).
14 comments January 12th, 2008
New Hampshire Primary… McCain… Clinton…
It’s on. Predictions… thoughts… reports?
UPDATE:
Mitt Romney, John McCain Both Predicting Wins in Granite State
Obama, McCain Lead in Early (Negligible) NH Voting
GOP’s Thompson in SC instead of NH
NH primary could make, break candidacies
Analysis: NH win could launch McCain
Early returns (7% reporting) shown on Fox show Hillary and Obama neck-and-neck (37 and 36% respectively), and McCain with a good edge over Romney (38 to 28%).
Some early thoughts: If Huckabee comes in a distant third, he loses any momentum he gained in Iowa. If Romney comes in second, especially a close second, he’s still in the race. If McCain holds his early lead and wins by 10 points or so, it could be a two man race between him and Romney again. Ron Paul could defeat Huckabee.
UPDATE: Exit polls via Fox:
McCain: 35%
Romney: 30%
Huckabee: 13%
Obama: 39%
Clinton: 34%
Edwards: 18%
Here are my thoughts if these figures hold out… Hillary is still in the race, and could easily bounce back. Obama may be in a good position with two victories, but I’d have thought his bounce from Iowa would have been bigger.
For Huckabee to go from 1st place in Iowa to 3rd place is not good. He may have jumped in the polls from Iowa, but his inability to at least come in a close second only highlights the fact that his victory in Iowa came courtesy of the Evangelical vote. If Huckabee can only win a primary when there’s a high population of evangelical Christians, than it’s going to be a long primary season and a potential brokered convention.
UPDATE, 8:11 PM ET: Fox projects McCain winner in GOP primary…
UPDATE: Clinton still edging out Obama 40-35% with 13% reporting… Can Hillary win tonight
UPDATE, 8:53 PM ET: Clinton: 40% Obama 34% (23% reporting)
What if Obama loses?
Michael Barone says Hillary could take New Hampshire…
UPDATE, 9:33 PM ET: Revised/updated exit poll:
Clinton: 39%
Obama: 37%
Edwards: 16%
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Here’s my insightful commentary - wow!
This is just amazing - and while the talking heads are saying that Edwards is out, I think there is no reason for anyone, on either side, to back out. I’m settling in for a long primary fight.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Fox News is reporting that the Culinary Union out here in Nevada, which was set to endorse Obama, is now holding off. Hillary and Obama are both locked in a tight fight here in Nevada - the Culinary is a massively important union in Nevada. For Democrats, its the brass ring…and if this report is correct, then it would be an indicator that the Democratic power structure has decided that Obama must be stopped. Keep in mind - next up is us in Nevada; our caucuses are on January 19th.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Edwards isn’t backing out…actually says he’s in the race to the convention!
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: MSNBC projects Hillary win…
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Obama puts down the marker - he’s going to end the war in Iraq; he’s letting the left know that he’s their man. This is where the battle lines will be drawn: the left for Obama, the old-line Democratic establishment for Hillary. Who will win? As an aside, Obama says he’s in this to let the people take back their nation - top donors to Obama? People who work in insurance and lobbyists…there’s a big bunch ‘o change, huh?
54 comments January 8th, 2008
Hillary Makes a Good Point
If Obama is your man, you do have to get around this sort of thing - from Political Punch:
Perhaps hoping to pivot away from her unusual comments criticizing Sen. Barack Obama by comparing him to Martin Luther King Jr., who delivered great speeches, and herself to President Lyndon Johnson, who actually passed civil rights laws (Read more on that HERE). Clinton said the following this evening in Salem, N.H.:
“Today Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me,” she said, according to ABC News’ Eloise Harper. “Basically he compared himself to two of our greatest heroes saying, ‘Well, they gave great speeches.’ President Kennedy was in the Congress for 14 years. He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. led a movement. He was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed. And he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important ever delivered in America.
“And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed because the dream couldn’t be realize until finally it was legally permissible for people from all colors and backgrounds and races and ethnicities to be accepted as citizens.”
Of course, Hillary’s resume’ is a bit thin, too - but Obama’s is really non-existent. He’s only slightly more credible, pound for pound, than I am; or any random American is. A basic fact about Obama: He’s an attractive, intelligent man who speaks well. Outside of that, the only thing he has going for him is the fact that he’s a media star - he’s mostly famous for being famous. Other than being a black version of Regis Philbin, there’s not much there.
The paucity of accomplishment among the ranks of senior Democrats is demonstrative of the fact that marketing is the most important thing in Democratic politics. Its how you look, not what you do; its how you talk, not what you say - Hillary’s in there ’cause she’s a woman; Obama’s in there ’cause he’s a black man; Edwards is in there ’cause he’s a good looking Southerner. The three of them, together, don’t have a record of accomplishment to compare with, say, Bill Clinton, or even Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale. Say what you will about Clinton, Carter and Mondale, at least they had a set of genuine accomplishments to their credit before they sought the highest office in our land. Each of the three leading Democrats are in their position because of the various calculations Democrats are making about what sort of Democrat might be able to attain 270 electoral votes.
We’ll see if the Democrats decide to think hard about this - Obama will look great as a Presidential candidate…but he’s going to have to actually run against a genuine GOP opponent who will want to win, and thus won’t let Obama off easy. Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Thompson have all been in positions where actual decisions have had to be made - they’ve had to put at least their careers at risk (and McCain his very life at risk) based upon decisions they’ve made. Obama has had to decide between paper and plastic at the supermarket and whether or not to tell his wife if that dress makes her look fat - admirable and honorable things for a middle-class husband to concern himself with, but not the sort of stuff with which Presidents are made.
UPDATE: And Bill Clinton made an excellent point about Ron Paul supporters.
22 comments January 8th, 2008
Ron Paul on Evolution
Here’s a link to the video.
Ron Paul says:
I think its a theory. Theory of evolution and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory. I think the Creator that I know created us…
Interesting. Libertarian. Doctor. Specialist in obstetrics/gynecology. Non-believer in the theory of evolution.
Discuss.
228 comments December 28th, 2007
What would it take for me to vote for a democrat for POTUS?
That’s the interesting question I heard yesterday from a nondescript liberal-leaning fill-in host on a rerun of an October talk radio show. The host, who admitted that the democrat party has lost its once prominent base of white male voters, acknowledged that the democrat party wrote off the voting bloc 30 years ago, and hasn’t courted it since.
A quick google search suggests that the concept is not lost on many a democrat mind; some saying that the white male vote is a bloc forever lost in the democrat vest pocket; a prodigal son never to return to the fold. Others say that the white male voter is still a yet-untapped bloc of voters that if accessed, would assure a democrat juggernaut for years, if not decades to come.
The radio host went on to observe that all is not well in republican-land; that white male voters were becoming disaffected with the Republican party; and went on to cite the war in Iraq as the major factor in white male disaffection within the GOP.
I would submit that there may indeed be a growing disaffection with the GOP among white males, but the war in Iraq would be the least, if not nearly the least of the reasons. If anything, the disaffection of the white male voting bloc with the Republican party is due to the fact that the Republican Party, rather than governing under the principles that swept it into a decade-long majority, actually forgot who it was that brought them to the dance; and instead started acting like the two-bit tart that flirts with all the other guys while her frustrated date looks on.
The white male voting bloc signed on first with Ronald Reagan, then with Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America; and not for democrat lite. President Bush received a hefty majority vote among the white male voting bloc, not because we were ecstatic over his expansion of Medicare into prescription drugs for seniors; not because of his endorsement of No Child Left Behind; but rather because between him and Jean Francois Kerrie, he was the only one that could be trusted to be a stalwart against the terrorists, and the one who actually gave a damn about protecting this nation.
So, back to the original question, what would it take for me, a white, middle class male, to be able to vote for a democrat as President of the United States?
Here is a non-inclusive, though important list of the top four traits that would make it so:
- 1. First and foremost: The democrat must put America first, not blame America first.
If your rhetoric panders to the European intelligentsia, go and run for German Chancellor or President of France.
If you put the "rights" of terrorists above the safety of the United States, its citizens, and its defenders in harm’s way, just so you can beat your chest atop your soapbox and claim that you’re a morally-superior, caring, sensitive, feeling metrosexual, forget about leading the U.S.
Go and apply as a houseboy for OBL, sing kumbaya with Kalid Sheikh Muhammed; but get the hell out of my face and leave the leading of the Free World to the big boys, okay?
You want to know a secret? If the presidential race were between Ron Paul on the Republican side, and Joe Lieberman on the Democrat side, I’d vote for Joe Lieberman in a heartbeat, based on the above principle alone.
- 2. National security is serious business. Quit screwing with it.
The notion of National Security embodies the very fight for our survival as a nation and as a people. It is not a political-point vending machine placed there for your convenience.
When you go and treat Iraq as a political football game to be won, rather than what should and must be a critical strategic victory over a deadly geopolitical enemy; going so far as to actually lay obstacles in the way of our victory, and putting those who put their lives on the line in additional and unnecessary risk as a result, that tells me you don’t give a rat’s posterior about the security of our nation, and that as such you have no business leading it.
There really are people and even nations out there who mean to do us harm.
9/11 should have given you a clue.
- 3. The democrat must quit showing contempt for America and that for which it stands!
Trust me on this. You may get a pat on the back from your fellow limousine liberals over at the Yacht club, but you won’t score a single vote among the "Joe Sixpack" crowd if you refuse to wear a flag on your lapel because you have contempt for the nation for which you are asking for the privilege and honor of leading.
It’s OK to say you love America, that it is the greatest nation on earth, and that Americans have spilled more blood and have given more treasure to help the downtrodden than any nation in the history of the planet.
It’s OK. Really, it is.
- 4. Don’t tell us what our problems are. We know what they are.
Running a grocery-styled bitchlist of everything that’s wrong, and portraying everyone under the sun as a victim isn’t going to make any white guy run through a wall to get you elected.
Here’s a novel idea: Present a vision of what is right about America, and an accompanying vision of how to work with what’s right so as to become an even greater nation (and–this is important– believe in it!).
Ronald Reagan’s Shining City on the Hill vision eventually garnered him two landslide terms as President. Jimmy Carter’s "malaise" speech, along with his inability to proffer a positive vision of America’s future is arguably what lost him his second term, and what sealed his fate as one of the most ineffectual presidents in history.
Again, this list is far from inclusive as to what it would take for me to vote for a democrat as President, but it’s a start. I offer this in the knowledge that the suggestions put forth in this screed will be summarily dismissed as hogwash, and also in the knowledge that some leftwinger will no doubt leave some "clever" comments about how wrong I am. But it was a democrat that asked the question, and since I am the world’s leading authority on what I think and feel, I answered it to the best of my ability.
Fire away.
(Cross-posted at The Ice Palace)
38 comments December 23rd, 2007
Return the Racist’s Money, or Not?
Ron Paul received a $500.00 donation from a racist named Don Black (he runs a website which shan’t be named here, nor linked - look it up if you are really determined about seeing it). Paul says he won’t return the money because by taking that $500.00, he gives Black that much less money to spend on hatred, and it gives Paul that much more money to spread the libertarian message. Frank James over at The Swamp has this to say about it:
… lot of money is given to candidates by supporters with views out of the mainstream, views many other Americans would find objectionable. That’s a given. The only difference is that Black doesn’t hide his views.
Still, the unwritten rule in politics is that when you find yourself getting money from someone controversial because of what they do or say, someone with views repugnant to most Americans, you give their cash back like it’s radioactive.
Paul’s approach is certainly unorthodox, like so much about the man. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. And because it’s so different a way of handling such a situation, it presents an opportunity for a discussion about what’s right and wrong in such situations. In short, it makes you think.
Does it? Perhaps. Certainly it makes me think that Paul - a Christian, like me - has a practical amorality in is public actions. This would be in keeping with libertarian thinking, and it why the only thing, in my view, worse than a libertarian is a totalitarian. We are to be neither sheep nor wolves in our dealings with others - neither cowards nor predators. Ron Paul may rationalise his refusal to return a racist’s donation all he wishes, but the real effect of his action is to legitimise evil. Evil there is in this world, and we humans beings are incapable of eliminating it - but wise men and women will shun evil whenever they see it.
Black is free to hold whatever views he wishes, but as his views are evil, I want nothing to do with them, or him - and I’d much prefer it if I never come within a country mile of him or his views except to call him to repentance and with a mind to teaching him that we are all children of God, and thus brothers and sisters. Were Black to ever give me $500, I wouldn’t return it (Paul is right about the good in lessening Black’s resources for speading evil), but I wouldn’t keep it, either - I’d send it along to, say, Missionaries of the Poor (which, being that it is Christmas, you might want to send a few bucks to, anyways) - and ask them to send a kind thank you to Black, along with a picture of the people his donation helped (they are headquartered in Jamaica, ya see?).
Life is a series of opportunties for us to do the right thing - it is not a zero sum game, and its primary purpose isn’t our selves. Each decision is a chance to make the world a better place, and it is a shame that Paul takes such a narrow view of his moral obligations to society as a whole.
45 comments December 23rd, 2007
