The Ron Paul Affair

I have not said anything regarding the Ron Paul Affair. The newsletters were obscure for the most part, though the issue was first raised by a Congressional opponent several years ago. At the time, it seemed like a one time screw up but New Republic has shown that the newsletters were an ongoing activity.

I do not think Ron Paul is a racist. And I accept his statement that someone else wrote the newsletters and he had little input or control. But he was indifferent to what was said in his name and showed poor judgment and poor management.

This leads to a larger question though -- namely, has the Ron Paul campaign been good or bad for the libertarian movement in America. Paul was NEVER going to be the GOP nominee. But Paul wants to talk about the fiscal policy and constitutionalism and changing American foreign policy. I had hoped that lead to a widening of the debate.

Instead, however, libertarianism again is shown to be a strange and alien political philosophy. I have never been a "movement" libertarian. Mostly, I think, this is due to the fact that libertarianism tends to shade off into strange places. It has always been more comfortable to consider myself a conservative for that reason.

The Paul campaign has again lead libertarianism down this road. Paul's supporters have a tendency to get in your face. And he has attracted a motley crew of 9/11 Truthers, new world order conspiracy theorists and other marginal types to his campaign. Even the "Don't Tase Me bro" guy is a Paul supporter.

This newsletter affair seems to go beyond the one article that has been discussed. Basically, you have a guy making money using his name to sell newsletters that contain things that are considered outside the realm of polite society. The articles are unsigned and give the impression that he either wrote them (which he did not) or that he gave his seal of approval.

I do not believe in censorship of ideas. Paul and his supporters can say what they feel like until they are blue in their collective faces. But this is yet more proof that Paul was the wrong champion of libertarian ideas in this election.

The You Tube Debate

Well, I finally watched a debated -- or at least most of it. I really like the You Tube format, although I think people should dress better if they want to ask candidates questions. The questions did not seem to be as silly as during the Democrat's debate (even the Cheney animation was a serious question, and the Red Sox v. Yankees question was a funny way to end it all).

The question on "don't ask don't tell" and the seemingly forever rebuttal by the questioner lost me. It also turns out that the questioner, a retired Army general, is connected to the Clinton campaign.

McCain came off extremely well. He seems to have done well in the debates so far. He is calm, focused, and shows both his competency and his principles. The showed his incredible grasp of foreign policy as well as taking the torture question head on. Yes, this man should be president.

Another who did well was Huckabee. He had the best answer of the night -- what would Jesus do about the death penalty? " Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office." Huckabee, however, continues to run as the great social conservative hope and sounded like he was interviewing for a pastor's job. I think he will end up if not winning in Iowa and maybe South Carolina, coming a close second.

Romney did not impress me. He seems too polished, too much answering questions based on what he thinks will be popular.

Thompson seemed very relaxed and answered the questions well. Thompson was a better non candidate than candidate and has lost much of his early bounce. So maybe he was relaxed as he was trying out for VP. He (and the other candidates) really punted the Rebel flag question though.

Giuliani stumbled at times. He was expecting to skip Iowa and New Hampshire and concentrate on Florida with the hope of pulling off an upset in South Carolina. But he is in trouble in the early states now. The pressure is on him and he knows it.

Ron Paul was, well, Ron Paul. The Paulistas reacted, well, as you would expect.

We should have a pool as to when Hunter and Tancredo drop out. My wife (not a Republican) has no clue who they are.

In the end, McCain won and Huckabee really helped himself. Let's hope we see more of this type of format.

What I hope comes from the Ron Paul Candidacy

I sympathize with Ron Paul, but I do not wish to see him as the Republican nominee. The Ron Paul movement has a tendency to range off into conspiracy kook land (NAU anyone?). He himself gets hung up on the gold standard. But the movement is raising issues that conservatives and to a some extent the political system as a whole should have been raising since the end of the Cold War.

Here are a few important ones:

1. The proper role of government
2. Monetary policy (Paul gets hung up over the gold standard, but the role of the Fed and its lack of transparency should be a major issue)
3. Federalism -- on the GOP side at least people are seriously talking about federalism again.
4. Foreign policy -- for 45 years we had a foreign policy designed to fight the USSR. For 15 years since we have not really retooled that policy. Iraq is merely a symptom of a much larger policy failure. Why must the US be the enforcement arm of the UN? Why do we still maintain a large army in Europe? Why was Europe unable on its own to address the Balkan crisis of the late 1990s?

If nothing else, the Paul campaign should help restart the conversation about where the conservative movement and the GOP should go -- "compassionate conservatism" is not it.

Ron Paul has a Happy Guy Fawkes Day

Ron Paul has set a goal to raise $12M in the forth quarter of this year. Today, his supporters raised over $3.8 million.

Say what you want about Paul and his supporters, they definitely are motivated and have l;earned how to use the Internet.

How I Plan to Survive Another Clinton Presidency

I have become resigned to President Hillary Clinton. Yes, it is more than a year until the election. Not one primary or caucus has been fought and only a handful of super delegates have declared. Not one electoral vote has been cast. And while Andrew Sullivan dreams of Obama, Hugh Hewitt boosts Romney, many of my friends pray for Giuliani, and I continue to have pipe dreams about McCain, I recognize that Hillary Clinton cannot be stopped. And frankly, that thought does not bother me. If she is elected, the sun will rise, and I think she is adult enough to defend the country, support relatively free trade and not give in to the left wing of the Democrats. For most of her husband's presidency I worked 2 blocks away from the White House (enough to get questioned by security when the Chinese President came to town) so I doubt it will have much of an effect on me.

In any event, I have developed a four step program to survive a Hillary presidency.


STEP ONE

Assemble the ingredients

I prefer Belevdere myself. I also place the ice in the shaker for a minute or two beforehand to ensure the shaker itself is cold, then add the vodka

STEP TWO

Coat your glass in some vermouth.

Just a little, barely enough to coat the glass in a thin layer. Toss out the rest.

STEP THREE

Shake and pour.

I like to shake vigorously. This allows the vodka to get nice and cold. Some people claim that shaking "bruises" the liquor. With vodka martinis, that is a myth, and it probably is also a myth with gin.

STEP FOUR

Garnish.

Some people like lemon peel but I actually prefer olives. However, it seems that those dastardly liberals invaded my house while I was at work and stole all my olives. So I had to settle for pearl onions.

DRINK

Result -- enough of these and Dennis Kucinich could get elected I won't care. I just hope those damn Democrats don't raise the liquor tax or place a quota on imports of vodka and vermouth. In that case, I wonder how corn liquor martinis would taste?

CHEERS!

Ron Paul Wins a Straw Poll

Ron Paul has won the straw poll at the Conservative Leadership Conference. Of course, the MSNBC Headline is "Romney Loses NV Straw Poll"

Straw polls mean nothing and this was a small straw poll at a conservative gathering. Further, Nevada does not have the interest that Iowa and New Hampshire have. But considering how motivated Paul's supporters are, in an early caucus, he could win a few delegates.

I'd also point out that the stereotypical New Hampshire Republican is more of the libertarian "Live Free or Die" variety, so he might surprise folks up there and do better than expected.

And no, I have not been converted to Paul -- just pointing out that the GOP ignores him at its own peril

Ron Paul Raises $5 Million

Meanwhile, Ron Paul has raised $5 million and has about $5.3 million on hand. That is more than John McCain. While Paul's support is not wide (he is polling nationally in the 2-4% range) , it is deep (his supporters are highly motivated and turn up everywhere). So in an early caucus with that much money he could win a few delegates. That would make for some interesting convention t.v. (I was a volunteer at the 1988 GOP convention -- a convention is simply an excuse to drink).

Reason's take on the continuing Paul boomlet.

One issue is how the Paul factor effects the general election. Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee. The conventional wisdom is that the Paul supporters are mostly Republicans and most will sit out the general election. I am not so sure about that. Something tells me that Ron Paul supporter Andrew Meyer, aka "Taser Boy", is not a Republican. Still, with Paul at say 4% of the GOP field, that could throw a few close states to the Democrats.

Or maybe it is a Thompson Surge

According to Rasmussen, Fred Thompson is ahead of Rudy Giuliani and is now the preferred candidate on the GOP side. In the Rasmussen poll, Thompson has a 28-19 lead over Giuliani, with McCain third at 14.

The GOP polls seem to be everywhere. GOP voters are really undecided. They are looking around for a candidate to chose and not crazy about the current crop. Eight years of "compassionate conservatism" and failed attempts at dealing with the Middle East have soured most GOP voters, at least for now.

So what happens between now and the Iowa caucus? Ron Paul, despite the fervor of his supporters is not viable, and neither is Brownback. Alan Keyes has jumped into the race (please stop laughing).

Of the major candidates, Romney has money, but I think not much else to offer the race. He comes across as being too slick, too polished and too much a politician. Giuliani is electable, but has too many negatives for the GOP voter. McCain was hurt bad by the immigration debacle. Given the deep antipathy among the GOP base for McCain, he already was on thin ice. The possibility that the immigration issue maybe BACK for a third time this Congress will simply remind the anti-immigration vote why they turned against McCain.

I still think Huckabee is the dark horse, he is a social conservative but is willing to be open to libertarian and fiscal conservative ideas like the Fair Tax. I still cannot see him as the nominee -- he does not have the money. But I think he has the possibility of staying around a long time and being considered a vice presidential candidate.

Still, though, considering how everything is in flux, I think that leaves an opening for John McCain.

Ron Paul (Again) and Ronald Reagan

Ron Paul is trying hard to claim the mantle of Reagan.



You have got to admit, Paul supporters are both technologically savvy and committed.

EDITED TO NOTE -- in response to a commenter, I note that this video was made by a supporter of Ron Paul, not his campaign. Which I knew, but did not make clear. So it would be better to say that a supporter sees Paul grabbing the mantle of Reagan.

The You Tube Debate

I was stuck late at work tonight, so I did not watch the You Tube debate. Instead, I periodically checked Ann Althouse to see her thoughts.

While some may argue it was a silly and pointless exercise, this is further proof in my mind that technology is changing the way the country is governed. All of those complaining about the main stream media as being biased toward the left are fighting the last war. Thanks to the Internet, it is easy for anyone to create a platform to spread their ideas. Howard Dean was I believe just a precursor. Ron Paul is creating an Internet based campaign. Fred Thompson has created much buzz through smart use of the Internet.

This You Tube debate is just the beginning.

Now for a question the candidates did not answer:

Ron Paul supporters love me!

I have been writing this blog for almost a month. In that time, I received 2 comments from a person I know on a soccer board wishing me luck, and one piece of spam. I then had a post about Ron Paul (and some of his extreme supporters) and I received two quick comments, one of which was a slightly nasty rant against me. Considering the obscurity of this blog, I have no idea how they found me. I assume that Ron Paul supporters are spending lots of time on technorati.com and checking out every entry tagging "Ron Paul" (it is one of the more popular searches on that site apparently).

So Mr. Anonymous:

I stand my my statement that at times libertarianism shades off into crazy land.

As for the Fed, I am aware of its history and the reason for its founding. There had been a push to a central bank and a sounder currency since the Second Bank of the United States lost its charter in the 1830s. We had the national bank system founded in the 1860s. But after the Panic of 1908, there was a real push for a new central bank. There was a minor panic in 1910, so that further incentivized people for a new bank.

That is a gross over simplification, I know. But good enough for this general discussion. Now I need to go look for black helicopters

As for Dr. Paul, I agree with most of what he has to say, but he does say some wacky things at times and does have some "interesting" supporters.

Long live freedom!

Ron Paul

Though I am a self described libertarian, I must admit that libertarianism in the US shades off into crazy land. Which is why so far I find myself unable to support libertarian Ron Paul’s quest for the GOP nomination.

Consider Paul’s upcoming rally in the Bay Area. He has shall we say three interesting featured speakers.

G. Edward Griffin wants to abolish the Federal Reserve. OK, lots of people (like Milton Friedman) want to abolish the Fed (I just want to increase transparency). Griffin, however, believes that the Fed is part of the New World Order conspiracy and was cooked up over a long weekend in Georgia. He also was an early supporter of laetrile and has some sort of connection to the John Birch Society.

Justin Raimondo, a disciple of Murray Rothbard and later a support of Pat Buchanan (as was Rothbard), is something of an extreme libertarian combines that with paleoconservative beliefs. Raimondo ran against his Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi on a platform attacking Pelosi’s vote to send troops to the Balkans in the 1990s. He also believes that Israel has advance knowledge of 9/11 through a circle of spies in the US as art students.

Joe Bannister is a former agent in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division who believes that the income tax is unconstitutional and as the XVIth Amendment was never ratified.

Raimondo has some extreme libertarian beliefs but is innocuous. The other two though should not be sharing a podium with a presidential candidate. Because Paul does attract folks like them, I find it hard to support him.