Monday, February 27, 2012
Eight Days to Super Tuesday...
... and I am still undecided.
And I'm not alone. I spoke with several of my good Republican friends - folks who are ultra-active in campaigns in terms of their time, support, and money - who were all undecided as of the end of last week. For folks that usually have their candidate a year or two before the primary, we all are in uncharted waters.
As was documented on this blog (and others), I was supporting Herman Cain before allegations of an extramarital affair proved to be too much to overcome. I even stepped up as his county chair here in Blount County. I loved Cain's straight talk, his outside-the-Beltway background, and his promise to reform the tax code. But, alas, that was not meant to be.
With the field whittled down to four, I still find myself undecided at this late hour. After the last debate in Arizona, I managed to narrow down my personal choice to two candidates. Ron Paul may have a great understanding of economic issues, but his views on foreign policy would likely get us all killed and his ultra-libertarian views eventually collapse upon themselves when freedoms eventually abut each other. I also think that Dr. Paul would have a hard time winning over voters in a general election against Obama because of his presentation. So Dr. Paul will not be getting my vote.
Neither will Rick Santorum. I really want to like Santorum. He says several good things that I can support. I even had him on the shortlist of candidates for the White House back in May of 2005. But lots has happened since then. Santorum says some strange things that even have conservatives scratch their heads, all of which could be overlooked by a conservative voter if not for all of the times that Santorum has compromised his conservative principles when it has personally benefited himself or those close to him. For example, Romney's crushing of Santorum in the Arizona debate on the Arlen Specter issue, where Santorum supported the liberal Specter over conservative Pat Toomey. I very much remember that episode, and Santorum's explanation was inadequate in parts and downright untruthful in parts. His debate performance in Arizona (I scored it last, even below Dr. Paul's) was crippling. If he were to perform similarly in a general election debate against Obama, the GOP would be looking at a double-digit loss at the top of the ticket and quite possibly losses down ticket that could take the Senate out of play. I think Rick's a really nice guy and appreciate much of his service in the Congress, but I can't pull the lever for him this time around.
That leaves Mitt Romney - the former frontrunner who tried to sit on a lead and run out the clock but instead showed weakness by allowing for one upstart candidate after another to temporarily pull ahead of him - and Newt Gingrich - the debate master who is trailing in the polls in several key states and has allowed Santorum to pull much of the conservative base by default after such bizarre talking points as building a base on the moon. I've met both men - Romney is a really nice guy, while Gingrich really isn't. I am obviously concerned that Romney has such a hard time connecting with the middle class (even if the middle class under Obama is almost non-existent). His past statements when running for Governor of Massachusetts are very tough to swallow. Of course, they won't be in the general election. In the current political climate, I told a Romney operative several months ago that Romney would have been better served to have no elected office on his resume - particularly in Massachusetts, where he had to take positions that are toxic with the GOP base.
Meanwhile, I'm also worried that Newt's campaign has been mismanaged and unorganized. (How does one not get on the ballot in major states like Virginia? Folks like myself who are, for the most part, out of the game but still know how to run campaigns and get things done regarding ballot access, aren't that hard to find. Sure, campaigns are either for the energetic young like Austin Walne and Ted Boyatt or the learned sages like Tom Ingram and Bob Davis, but there are plenty of us middle-aged folks who could have been asked to help.) Given Obama's enormous money advantage, there is no room for a disorganized campaign in the general election.
Both candidates have endorsements from folks that I very much respect - Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, and J.C. Watts for Gingrich, Nikki Haley, Jan Brewer, and Bill Haslam for Romney.
I don't plan on waiting to Super Tuesday to vote. I can't recall the last time I voted on an actual Election Day. Besides, I like the idea of voting at the old Blount County Courthouse instead of at the high school. I can see the merits in waiting - we'll know what has happened in Michigan and Arizona by then. Romney needs to win both states, and I can see him doing that. Gingrich has to win Tennessee and Georgia to remain in the national conversation, particularly given that he likely would have won Virginia but failed to make the ballot there.
I remain undecided, but I hope to make up my mind in the next 24 hours.
And I'm not alone. I spoke with several of my good Republican friends - folks who are ultra-active in campaigns in terms of their time, support, and money - who were all undecided as of the end of last week. For folks that usually have their candidate a year or two before the primary, we all are in uncharted waters.
As was documented on this blog (and others), I was supporting Herman Cain before allegations of an extramarital affair proved to be too much to overcome. I even stepped up as his county chair here in Blount County. I loved Cain's straight talk, his outside-the-Beltway background, and his promise to reform the tax code. But, alas, that was not meant to be.
With the field whittled down to four, I still find myself undecided at this late hour. After the last debate in Arizona, I managed to narrow down my personal choice to two candidates. Ron Paul may have a great understanding of economic issues, but his views on foreign policy would likely get us all killed and his ultra-libertarian views eventually collapse upon themselves when freedoms eventually abut each other. I also think that Dr. Paul would have a hard time winning over voters in a general election against Obama because of his presentation. So Dr. Paul will not be getting my vote.
Neither will Rick Santorum. I really want to like Santorum. He says several good things that I can support. I even had him on the shortlist of candidates for the White House back in May of 2005. But lots has happened since then. Santorum says some strange things that even have conservatives scratch their heads, all of which could be overlooked by a conservative voter if not for all of the times that Santorum has compromised his conservative principles when it has personally benefited himself or those close to him. For example, Romney's crushing of Santorum in the Arizona debate on the Arlen Specter issue, where Santorum supported the liberal Specter over conservative Pat Toomey. I very much remember that episode, and Santorum's explanation was inadequate in parts and downright untruthful in parts. His debate performance in Arizona (I scored it last, even below Dr. Paul's) was crippling. If he were to perform similarly in a general election debate against Obama, the GOP would be looking at a double-digit loss at the top of the ticket and quite possibly losses down ticket that could take the Senate out of play. I think Rick's a really nice guy and appreciate much of his service in the Congress, but I can't pull the lever for him this time around.
That leaves Mitt Romney - the former frontrunner who tried to sit on a lead and run out the clock but instead showed weakness by allowing for one upstart candidate after another to temporarily pull ahead of him - and Newt Gingrich - the debate master who is trailing in the polls in several key states and has allowed Santorum to pull much of the conservative base by default after such bizarre talking points as building a base on the moon. I've met both men - Romney is a really nice guy, while Gingrich really isn't. I am obviously concerned that Romney has such a hard time connecting with the middle class (even if the middle class under Obama is almost non-existent). His past statements when running for Governor of Massachusetts are very tough to swallow. Of course, they won't be in the general election. In the current political climate, I told a Romney operative several months ago that Romney would have been better served to have no elected office on his resume - particularly in Massachusetts, where he had to take positions that are toxic with the GOP base.
Meanwhile, I'm also worried that Newt's campaign has been mismanaged and unorganized. (How does one not get on the ballot in major states like Virginia? Folks like myself who are, for the most part, out of the game but still know how to run campaigns and get things done regarding ballot access, aren't that hard to find. Sure, campaigns are either for the energetic young like Austin Walne and Ted Boyatt or the learned sages like Tom Ingram and Bob Davis, but there are plenty of us middle-aged folks who could have been asked to help.) Given Obama's enormous money advantage, there is no room for a disorganized campaign in the general election.
Both candidates have endorsements from folks that I very much respect - Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, and J.C. Watts for Gingrich, Nikki Haley, Jan Brewer, and Bill Haslam for Romney.
I don't plan on waiting to Super Tuesday to vote. I can't recall the last time I voted on an actual Election Day. Besides, I like the idea of voting at the old Blount County Courthouse instead of at the high school. I can see the merits in waiting - we'll know what has happened in Michigan and Arizona by then. Romney needs to win both states, and I can see him doing that. Gingrich has to win Tennessee and Georgia to remain in the national conversation, particularly given that he likely would have won Virginia but failed to make the ballot there.
I remain undecided, but I hope to make up my mind in the next 24 hours.
Labels: 2012 Presidential Campaign, Bill Haslam, Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Super Tuesday
Sunday, December 11, 2011
If You Missed the ABC Debate from December 10th...
Stephen Green drunkblogged it over at PJ Media. Even as his blood alcohol level increased, his analysis remained pretty much on point.
Personally, I thought that there were several shots that landed against frontrunner Newt, but that he handled himself relatively well. It was Rick Perry's strongest debate by far, and Santorum likely had his strongest night, as well.
Romney needed to come on strong, which I don't believe that he did. He looked desperate at times, and tonight might be the beginning of the end of his campaign. The proposed bet of $10,000 towards Perry was awful and made him look out of touch with the average American. (If Mitt felt that he needed to bet someone during the debate, he should have tried to get Newt to put up that $300,000+ that he scored from Fannie and Freddie Mac. That ain't chump change - ask the taxpayers who picked up the tab.)
The real surprise might be Ron Paul, who kept his crazy positions and statements to a minimum tonight and actually scored on a variety of points. I've heard from more than one wonk "in the know" that has mentioned the possibility of a Paul win in Iowa without meaning it as a punchline.
All in all, a good debate for everyone - except Mitt. I can't believe that I'm going to have to vote for one of these folks in under three months. Given that I'm not seeing any bumper stickers, yard signs, etc., here in East Tennessee, I don't think that I'm alone in that camp.
Personally, I thought that there were several shots that landed against frontrunner Newt, but that he handled himself relatively well. It was Rick Perry's strongest debate by far, and Santorum likely had his strongest night, as well.
Romney needed to come on strong, which I don't believe that he did. He looked desperate at times, and tonight might be the beginning of the end of his campaign. The proposed bet of $10,000 towards Perry was awful and made him look out of touch with the average American. (If Mitt felt that he needed to bet someone during the debate, he should have tried to get Newt to put up that $300,000+ that he scored from Fannie and Freddie Mac. That ain't chump change - ask the taxpayers who picked up the tab.)
The real surprise might be Ron Paul, who kept his crazy positions and statements to a minimum tonight and actually scored on a variety of points. I've heard from more than one wonk "in the know" that has mentioned the possibility of a Paul win in Iowa without meaning it as a punchline.
All in all, a good debate for everyone - except Mitt. I can't believe that I'm going to have to vote for one of these folks in under three months. Given that I'm not seeing any bumper stickers, yard signs, etc., here in East Tennessee, I don't think that I'm alone in that camp.
Labels: 2012 Presidential Campaign, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul
Monday, October 03, 2011
One Pundit's Love/Hate Relationship with the GOP Field
RedState's Erick Erickson, who has long been a friend of this site, has a thorough piece today on what he dislikes about each of the Republican candidates. It's an interesting column, inasmuch as Erik is friends with several of the candidates.
But isn't that what races are about? No candidate should be everything that you want - that 100% perfect mix of policy, character, charisma, and background. One of my favorite candidates of all time was my former boss, Ed Bryant, and even he and I disagreed about issues, how to approach situations, etc.
And I guess that's one big problem I have - and that's folks that immediately grab on to a new candidate and start spewing their love for a candidate without knowing one actual thing about them. There's one member of the Republican State Executive Committee here in Tennessee who does that on almost every race, no matter if that race is a contested primary or not. He just goes giddy when a candidate announces, even if that is a first-time candidate with no record of achievement, votes, etc., or that candidate was an ambassador to Outer Mongolia and his record is unknown and undocumented. And this is someone who is supposed to be speaking for the Party. Go figure.
But he's not alone. Would anyone be surprised if Ron Paul supporters would justify Ron Paul's actions if he donned a ski mask and a shot gun and knocked off a bank? They'd probably say that he was a modern day Robin Hood, fighting back against the Fed or something. As Erik says in his column, Paul supporters are kinda scary. What seems to fuel them is this notion that the establishment won't make any concessions to them, which is odd given that they themselves refuse to make any concessions on any issue and openly state that they would never vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. If that's the case, why would anyone care to deal with them? They have abandoned their only real bargaining chips - their vote and support - right off the bat.
Supporting a candidate is not supporting a sports team. Sure, it's fun to be a UT fan and think that we're gonna give Alabama hell come the 3rd (actually 4th this year) weekend of October this year, no matter how unrealistic that is. But should that be the same for our political candidates?
But isn't that what races are about? No candidate should be everything that you want - that 100% perfect mix of policy, character, charisma, and background. One of my favorite candidates of all time was my former boss, Ed Bryant, and even he and I disagreed about issues, how to approach situations, etc.
And I guess that's one big problem I have - and that's folks that immediately grab on to a new candidate and start spewing their love for a candidate without knowing one actual thing about them. There's one member of the Republican State Executive Committee here in Tennessee who does that on almost every race, no matter if that race is a contested primary or not. He just goes giddy when a candidate announces, even if that is a first-time candidate with no record of achievement, votes, etc., or that candidate was an ambassador to Outer Mongolia and his record is unknown and undocumented. And this is someone who is supposed to be speaking for the Party. Go figure.
But he's not alone. Would anyone be surprised if Ron Paul supporters would justify Ron Paul's actions if he donned a ski mask and a shot gun and knocked off a bank? They'd probably say that he was a modern day Robin Hood, fighting back against the Fed or something. As Erik says in his column, Paul supporters are kinda scary. What seems to fuel them is this notion that the establishment won't make any concessions to them, which is odd given that they themselves refuse to make any concessions on any issue and openly state that they would never vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. If that's the case, why would anyone care to deal with them? They have abandoned their only real bargaining chips - their vote and support - right off the bat.
Supporting a candidate is not supporting a sports team. Sure, it's fun to be a UT fan and think that we're gonna give Alabama hell come the 3rd (actually 4th this year) weekend of October this year, no matter how unrealistic that is. But should that be the same for our political candidates?
Labels: 2012 Presidential Campaign, Ron Paul, State Executive Committee
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Woodson Endorses Robin Smith
My State Senator, Jamie Woodson, issued an endorsement for 3rd Congressional District candidate Robin Smith today.
The Ron Paul crowd, which has created the absurd notion of Robin is not conservative because she was not created in the image of Ron Paul, will probably not support Jamie from now on, which means that she will garner less than one percent of her vote total in the next election than she did in the last election.
The Ron Paul crowd, which has created the absurd notion of Robin is not conservative because she was not created in the image of Ron Paul, will probably not support Jamie from now on, which means that she will garner less than one percent of her vote total in the next election than she did in the last election.
Labels: 2010 Congressional Races, Robin Smith, Ron Paul
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan
OK, so I ended up getting out of court a little early, and I got a nice pick-me-up courtesy of Volunteer Voters.
This video is quite interesting. First, it is worth playing because you get some wonderful oratory by my hero, Ronald Reagan. I would play it a hundred times over just to hear him. Second, it shows some interesting confluence between the two Ron's. Third, it shows how inspirational Ron Paul can be when you put a little violin in the background. One of my main complaints with the candidates (sans Fred Thompson) is that they don't inspire me. As Fred pointed out with Huckabee and the "hate America first crowd," I want to drive headlong into oncoming traffic after hearing most of them. To me, Ron Paul has been very bland in the debates thus far. With this packaging, I don't feel that way, and I feel a bit better about him as a candidate.
What do you think? Is it all in the packaging, or is this simply a case of substance being ignored due to the lack of style that surrounds it?
MORE: After posting this, I decided to see if I could find some formal explanation for the racist rants that were in Ron Paul's newsletters. Here is what I found from a Ron Paul press release:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
This seems to explain quite a bit of what was lobbed at Ron Paul by the same idiots who blew the George Allen remarks out of context back in 2006. My concern with Paul in this scandal is the same as with Allen - neither campaign even came close to responding strongly and with conviction against these allegations. Paul has been painted as a racist in much the same manner as Allen, and people will forever associate the two with this label because the people who handle their campaigns were not effective in combating the allegations.
For an interesting piece on this controversy, take a look at Outside the Beltway from earlier in January.
This video is quite interesting. First, it is worth playing because you get some wonderful oratory by my hero, Ronald Reagan. I would play it a hundred times over just to hear him. Second, it shows some interesting confluence between the two Ron's. Third, it shows how inspirational Ron Paul can be when you put a little violin in the background. One of my main complaints with the candidates (sans Fred Thompson) is that they don't inspire me. As Fred pointed out with Huckabee and the "hate America first crowd," I want to drive headlong into oncoming traffic after hearing most of them. To me, Ron Paul has been very bland in the debates thus far. With this packaging, I don't feel that way, and I feel a bit better about him as a candidate.
What do you think? Is it all in the packaging, or is this simply a case of substance being ignored due to the lack of style that surrounds it?
MORE: After posting this, I decided to see if I could find some formal explanation for the racist rants that were in Ron Paul's newsletters. Here is what I found from a Ron Paul press release:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
This seems to explain quite a bit of what was lobbed at Ron Paul by the same idiots who blew the George Allen remarks out of context back in 2006. My concern with Paul in this scandal is the same as with Allen - neither campaign even came close to responding strongly and with conviction against these allegations. Paul has been painted as a racist in much the same manner as Allen, and people will forever associate the two with this label because the people who handle their campaigns were not effective in combating the allegations.
For an interesting piece on this controversy, take a look at Outside the Beltway from earlier in January.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Ron Paul
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
An Example of Paul's Kooks, and More on Huckabee
Yesterday, I referred to the "kook" element that has infiltrated Ron Paul's supporters. Today, a case in point landed in my Inbox.
A Ron Paul supporter e-mailed a link to a LewRockwell.com column that criticizes Mike Huckabee and his alleged support of homeschooling. The column is an excellent example of some of the strange support Paul has - in this case, from what can only be called a religious fundamentalist.
The column speaks for itself. The nugget of truth - that Huckabee is no friend of homeschoolers as shown by his record of restricting homeschooling as Governor of Arkansas - is a misguided criticism. Shouldn't the real question here by why the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) - an organization which is affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, of which I am connected due to my status as a Blackstone Fellow - endorsed Huckabee? Quite frankly, outside of Giuliani, I'm not sure that HSLDA could have picked a worse GOP candidate. I have looked for some defense of the HSLDA endorsement, but I have yet to find one.
There are some interesting factoids in the column, but it's hard to get past the author's damnations of Huckabee for using the word "gosh" and his involvement in a - gasp! - rock and roll band("not a gospel music band"). There's plenty to criticize Huckabee regarding his record. These complaints just add more fruitcake to this Christmas season.
In any case, I thought it interesting to note that not all of Paul's "kooks" are from the groups I recalled yesterday.
Of course, if Giuliani, McCain, or Romney were to grab the nomination, I will likely be standing side-by-side with all of Paul's supporters - kooks and non-kooks alike - as I campaign for the Texas doctor to be elected to the White House in his inevitable independent or third-party candidacy.
MORE: It seems that the homeschooling issue is starting to pick up steam - at least as it relates to the HSLDA endorsement of Huckabee. Buried Treasure Books rips Huckabee, but in an intellectual way. It is hard to see how the statist National Education Association can be offering a chapter endorsement of a candidate that has already been endorsed by the Home School Legal Defense Association. It would be like the Brady Campaign and the NRA endorsing the same candidate, wouldn't it?
EVEN MORE: Nathan Moore, Esq., that is. Nathan throws more water on Huckabee.
A Ron Paul supporter e-mailed a link to a LewRockwell.com column that criticizes Mike Huckabee and his alleged support of homeschooling. The column is an excellent example of some of the strange support Paul has - in this case, from what can only be called a religious fundamentalist.
The column speaks for itself. The nugget of truth - that Huckabee is no friend of homeschoolers as shown by his record of restricting homeschooling as Governor of Arkansas - is a misguided criticism. Shouldn't the real question here by why the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) - an organization which is affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, of which I am connected due to my status as a Blackstone Fellow - endorsed Huckabee? Quite frankly, outside of Giuliani, I'm not sure that HSLDA could have picked a worse GOP candidate. I have looked for some defense of the HSLDA endorsement, but I have yet to find one.
There are some interesting factoids in the column, but it's hard to get past the author's damnations of Huckabee for using the word "gosh" and his involvement in a - gasp! - rock and roll band("not a gospel music band"). There's plenty to criticize Huckabee regarding his record. These complaints just add more fruitcake to this Christmas season.
In any case, I thought it interesting to note that not all of Paul's "kooks" are from the groups I recalled yesterday.
Of course, if Giuliani, McCain, or Romney were to grab the nomination, I will likely be standing side-by-side with all of Paul's supporters - kooks and non-kooks alike - as I campaign for the Texas doctor to be elected to the White House in his inevitable independent or third-party candidacy.
MORE: It seems that the homeschooling issue is starting to pick up steam - at least as it relates to the HSLDA endorsement of Huckabee. Buried Treasure Books rips Huckabee, but in an intellectual way. It is hard to see how the statist National Education Association can be offering a chapter endorsement of a candidate that has already been endorsed by the Home School Legal Defense Association. It would be like the Brady Campaign and the NRA endorsing the same candidate, wouldn't it?
EVEN MORE: Nathan Moore, Esq., that is. Nathan throws more water on Huckabee.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Ron Paul
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Huckabee Has Love for the GOP - But Not Ron Paul?
From a column by Pastor Chuck Baldwin:
"Mike Huckabee recently said he could support any of the other Republican Presidential contenders (including Rudy Giuliani), except Ron Paul. That means, Mike Huckabee would rather support a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control liberal such as Giuliani than support the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment candidacy of Ron Paul. Why is that?"
I can answer that one - Huckabee wouldn't mind being Vice President, and he doesn't think that Paul has a prayer. That's not the only way that Mike's a pragmatist, but that's an issue for another day.
Baldwin's column is good at demonstrating Paul's biography and acknowledging the rage Paul's supporters feel towards the way that the Bush Administration and the Democratic Congress have America headed in a recessive direction. Where Baldwin whiffs is the purported purpose of this column - identifying and explaining the actions of the "kooks" who support Ron Paul.
That's my main problem with Paul at this point - too many fringe elements backing this campaign. There are some good old fashioned libertarians doing a good deal of the work for him - I have no problem with them. It's the neo-Nazis, the homosexual agenda, the segment of the population that believes "The X Files" is real, and the Bonnaroo crowd that I am uneasy standing with at a campaign rally that worries me about Paul.
As one of his supporters will undoubtedly point out, that means that I agree with most of his policies. Yes, that does mean that. However, I'm not at all convinced that he can keep his policies sound with so many fringe elements crying for satisfaction should President Paul rise to power.
MORE: Volunteer Voters has more on Huckabee and Paul getting into it over the use of religion in the campaign. I agree with A.C. - Paul's Christmas ad (below) doesn't differ enough from Huckabee's in my opinion to say that one is wrapping himself anymore in his religion more than the other at the other.
"Mike Huckabee recently said he could support any of the other Republican Presidential contenders (including Rudy Giuliani), except Ron Paul. That means, Mike Huckabee would rather support a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control liberal such as Giuliani than support the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment candidacy of Ron Paul. Why is that?"
I can answer that one - Huckabee wouldn't mind being Vice President, and he doesn't think that Paul has a prayer. That's not the only way that Mike's a pragmatist, but that's an issue for another day.
Baldwin's column is good at demonstrating Paul's biography and acknowledging the rage Paul's supporters feel towards the way that the Bush Administration and the Democratic Congress have America headed in a recessive direction. Where Baldwin whiffs is the purported purpose of this column - identifying and explaining the actions of the "kooks" who support Ron Paul.
That's my main problem with Paul at this point - too many fringe elements backing this campaign. There are some good old fashioned libertarians doing a good deal of the work for him - I have no problem with them. It's the neo-Nazis, the homosexual agenda, the segment of the population that believes "The X Files" is real, and the Bonnaroo crowd that I am uneasy standing with at a campaign rally that worries me about Paul.
As one of his supporters will undoubtedly point out, that means that I agree with most of his policies. Yes, that does mean that. However, I'm not at all convinced that he can keep his policies sound with so many fringe elements crying for satisfaction should President Paul rise to power.
MORE: Volunteer Voters has more on Huckabee and Paul getting into it over the use of religion in the campaign. I agree with A.C. - Paul's Christmas ad (below) doesn't differ enough from Huckabee's in my opinion to say that one is wrapping himself anymore in his religion more than the other at the other.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Ron Paul
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Paul is Right on Cuba, but Wrong on Cuba
Interesting read from Ron Paul over on LewRockwell.com. Dr. Paul is right that the Bush Administration's proposal to bribe the Cubans out of a communist dictatorship is a major blunder. Too bad that Dr. Paul's solution of being friends with the Cubans is also the wrong move. After all, that's what the Bush Administration did with China, and that route hasn't exactly been a rousing success.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Ron Paul
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
President Ron Paul?
Benjamin Tyler Fenton writes on how Ron Paul could win the presidency in 2008:
The Paul campaign continues unloading its newfound cash on radio and television ads in the early primary states, especially New Hampshire. Dr. Paul heeds Concord Monitor’s Mike Pride’s suggestion and moves to the state, invigorating the already strong grassroots support in the "live free or die" state. The New Hampshire legislature votes to move the primary up to December 11. On that day, shocking the MSM and their "scientific" polls, Ron Paul wins the New Hampshire primary with 35% of the vote. CNBC.com editor Allen Wastler calls Paul supporters "Real REAL good." The victory puts Dr. Paul on the map, and the Republican establishment begins to panic. Increasing numbers of disillusioned voters who had not planned to vote realize that Paul has a real chance to win and come out to the polls in droves. New Hampshire’s extremely early primary date allows thousands upon thousands of independent voters in other states to change their party affiliation to Republican in time to vote for Dr. Paul in their states’ primaries.
Wow. He goes on from there.
Whatever Fenton is drinking, I want some - preferably before the Vols game against South Carolina this weekend. It must be some strong stuff to inspire such wild and irrational thinking.
The Paul campaign continues unloading its newfound cash on radio and television ads in the early primary states, especially New Hampshire. Dr. Paul heeds Concord Monitor’s Mike Pride’s suggestion and moves to the state, invigorating the already strong grassroots support in the "live free or die" state. The New Hampshire legislature votes to move the primary up to December 11. On that day, shocking the MSM and their "scientific" polls, Ron Paul wins the New Hampshire primary with 35% of the vote. CNBC.com editor Allen Wastler calls Paul supporters "Real REAL good." The victory puts Dr. Paul on the map, and the Republican establishment begins to panic. Increasing numbers of disillusioned voters who had not planned to vote realize that Paul has a real chance to win and come out to the polls in droves. New Hampshire’s extremely early primary date allows thousands upon thousands of independent voters in other states to change their party affiliation to Republican in time to vote for Dr. Paul in their states’ primaries.
Wow. He goes on from there.
Whatever Fenton is drinking, I want some - preferably before the Vols game against South Carolina this weekend. It must be some strong stuff to inspire such wild and irrational thinking.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Ron Paul
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Thursday Government Lagniappe
Too many government programs and candidates to expose, too little time...
So today I am forced to provide a few helpful links that I thought worth reading. Enjoy the thoughts of -
Ron Paul on the sham Senate immigration compromise and how he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that would actually help our immigration crisis;
Judge Roy Moore on the budgetary Frankenstein known as Pre-K that now has a willing servant in eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton;
Pat Buchanan on why the Democratic Party was wise to throw the anti-war Left under the bus with an eye towards victory in 2008;
Ed Whelan on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's political activism regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; and
Carla Howell on how Mitt Romney is no friend of conservatives through his fiscal actions as Governor of Massachusetts.
So today I am forced to provide a few helpful links that I thought worth reading. Enjoy the thoughts of -
Ron Paul on the sham Senate immigration compromise and how he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that would actually help our immigration crisis;
Judge Roy Moore on the budgetary Frankenstein known as Pre-K that now has a willing servant in eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton;
Pat Buchanan on why the Democratic Party was wise to throw the anti-war Left under the bus with an eye towards victory in 2008;
Ed Whelan on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's political activism regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; and
Carla Howell on how Mitt Romney is no friend of conservatives through his fiscal actions as Governor of Massachusetts.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Immigration, Iraq, Pre-K, Ron Paul, SCOTUS
Friday, May 18, 2007
Ouch!
From blogger Karen DeCoster:
"Of course, as Sean (Hannity) told everyone he "wouldn't just stand by," what he meant is that he will gladly cheer on the sons of the middle and poor classes as they die for neocon glory, while he, Sean Hannity, stands by on the air, daily, safe in his luxurious, chauffeured, catered FOX offices with reserved parking, reporting on those glorious heroes who "died for our freedom" while he waits for some undocumented immigrants to come along and pick up his dry cleaning and bring him his bagel and lox."
Yeah, Hannity looked foolish the other night, for sure.
"Of course, as Sean (Hannity) told everyone he "wouldn't just stand by," what he meant is that he will gladly cheer on the sons of the middle and poor classes as they die for neocon glory, while he, Sean Hannity, stands by on the air, daily, safe in his luxurious, chauffeured, catered FOX offices with reserved parking, reporting on those glorious heroes who "died for our freedom" while he waits for some undocumented immigrants to come along and pick up his dry cleaning and bring him his bagel and lox."
Yeah, Hannity looked foolish the other night, for sure.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Ron Paul
Thursday, May 17, 2007
My E-mail is Full of Ron Paul
I'm being inundated with Ron Paul due to his performance at the GOP debate in South Carolina, which, as I posted yesterday in my debate review, is exactly what his campaign needed.
Some of the better commentary I have received:
- Ron Paul Said It - A column by Lew Rockwell that accurately calls Giuliani a liar. (By the way, if Giuliani is a liar, then so is Ted Olson, our former Solicitor General, who parroted his master's inaccurate portrayal of Paul's remarks. Olson's fall from grace is reminiscent of Jim Brady's.)
- Ron Paul Violated the Rules - An explanation of why the GOP establishment will try to push Ron Paul to the fringe by Thomas Woods.
- Giuliani's Attack on Ron Paul Falls Flat - A column by Jacob Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation that backs up Paul's claims regarding Iraq.
- Rethinking Ron Paul's Answer - From The Liberty Papers blog.
- Michigan GOP Leader Wants Paul Barred from Future Debates - Yep, now there's the GOP establishment that I loathe. Go ahead and silence Paul, GOP leadership, and say hello to Democratic control of the nation.
- In Defense of Ron Paul - Mark Radulich says in this blog post that the problem isn't with Ron Paul, it's with a dumbed down American electorate that doesn't like to think about difficult issues.
Quite an interesting list - and all of this was what arrived from 5:30 A.M. to 6:30 A.M. this morning from several different sources, including readers.
Some of the better commentary I have received:
- Ron Paul Said It - A column by Lew Rockwell that accurately calls Giuliani a liar. (By the way, if Giuliani is a liar, then so is Ted Olson, our former Solicitor General, who parroted his master's inaccurate portrayal of Paul's remarks. Olson's fall from grace is reminiscent of Jim Brady's.)
- Ron Paul Violated the Rules - An explanation of why the GOP establishment will try to push Ron Paul to the fringe by Thomas Woods.
- Giuliani's Attack on Ron Paul Falls Flat - A column by Jacob Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation that backs up Paul's claims regarding Iraq.
- Rethinking Ron Paul's Answer - From The Liberty Papers blog.
- Michigan GOP Leader Wants Paul Barred from Future Debates - Yep, now there's the GOP establishment that I loathe. Go ahead and silence Paul, GOP leadership, and say hello to Democratic control of the nation.
- In Defense of Ron Paul - Mark Radulich says in this blog post that the problem isn't with Ron Paul, it's with a dumbed down American electorate that doesn't like to think about difficult issues.
Quite an interesting list - and all of this was what arrived from 5:30 A.M. to 6:30 A.M. this morning from several different sources, including readers.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Another Day, Another Ron Paul Post
Yesterday's post on Ron Paul got several readers emotionally driven (as seen in the Comments, some of which were a bit too saucy on the language for publication). Jay Bush even posted a rebuttal over at his site.
Well, today I was e-mailed this column of why Ron Paul is the man that Christian conservatives should be supporting for the White House, so it just made sense to link to it here.
It's almost like the Ron Paul that Lawrence Vance, A.C. Kleinheider, and Barry Goldwater, Jr. trumpet is a completely different entity than the person Jay Bush derides, who sounds more like the old Libertarian candidates that trumpeted pot for everyone and turned themselves blue as campaign stunts.
Jay and I don't disagree much, but I think I'm more willing to give Paul a chance as a third-party candidate if Rudy McRomney is the GOP nominee.
Well, today I was e-mailed this column of why Ron Paul is the man that Christian conservatives should be supporting for the White House, so it just made sense to link to it here.
It's almost like the Ron Paul that Lawrence Vance, A.C. Kleinheider, and Barry Goldwater, Jr. trumpet is a completely different entity than the person Jay Bush derides, who sounds more like the old Libertarian candidates that trumpeted pot for everyone and turned themselves blue as campaign stunts.
Jay and I don't disagree much, but I think I'm more willing to give Paul a chance as a third-party candidate if Rudy McRomney is the GOP nominee.
Labels: Ron Paul
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Ron Paul on Government as a Security System
Jay Bush, who is as sure a conservative as they come, wrote yesterday in the fascinating (and well-behaved) comments thread from this post over at Volunteer Voters that Ron Paul was "a total whackjob."
Perhaps I am starting to lose my mind, because I've found what Dr. Paul has to say over the past few months quite on point.
Here is Dr. Paul's latest piece, a reaction to the Virginia Tech killings, from LewRockwell.com. You be the judge.
Perhaps I am starting to lose my mind, because I've found what Dr. Paul has to say over the past few months quite on point.
Here is Dr. Paul's latest piece, a reaction to the Virginia Tech killings, from LewRockwell.com. You be the judge.
Labels: Ron Paul
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Dr. Baldwin's Speech to the Constitution Party
A reader e-mailed me this interesting text from Dr. Chuck Baldwin's speech at the National Committee Meeting of the Constitution Party. It's quite an interesting read.
Dr. Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, and was the Vice Presidential nominee for the Constitution Party in 2004. The man has never been shy about speaking his mind.
I found the speech on the Net here. Conservatives curious about what the Constitution Party stands for should give it a close read.
As I have told the GOP leadership time and time again - nominate Guiliani, McCain, or Romney, and I'll do more than just link to the Constitution Party. I'll be voting with them.
MORE: In perusing the Constitution Party website, I noticed a presidential preference poll. Guess who's leading?
Yep, it's A.C. Kleinheider's favorite (but not David Oatney's), Ron Paul. He's quite a bit out in front of the second-place nominee, Tom Tancredo.
I just want to see some actual organization on the part of the Constitution Party. Get on the ballots while hitting the grassroots and netroots first. Start polling in the margins that can get your candidates involved in the debates. Then can you start to make some noise at the ballot box.
I haven't seen this in the past from the Constitution Party. If a Ron Paul/Alan Keyes ticket (who, quite frankly, would be two heavy-hitters for the CP) were available, would the organization and campaign strategies follow?
Dr. Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, and was the Vice Presidential nominee for the Constitution Party in 2004. The man has never been shy about speaking his mind.
I found the speech on the Net here. Conservatives curious about what the Constitution Party stands for should give it a close read.
As I have told the GOP leadership time and time again - nominate Guiliani, McCain, or Romney, and I'll do more than just link to the Constitution Party. I'll be voting with them.
MORE: In perusing the Constitution Party website, I noticed a presidential preference poll. Guess who's leading?
Yep, it's A.C. Kleinheider's favorite (but not David Oatney's), Ron Paul. He's quite a bit out in front of the second-place nominee, Tom Tancredo.
I just want to see some actual organization on the part of the Constitution Party. Get on the ballots while hitting the grassroots and netroots first. Start polling in the margins that can get your candidates involved in the debates. Then can you start to make some noise at the ballot box.
I haven't seen this in the past from the Constitution Party. If a Ron Paul/Alan Keyes ticket (who, quite frankly, would be two heavy-hitters for the CP) were available, would the organization and campaign strategies follow?
Labels: Constitution Party, Ron Paul
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Latest Ron Paul Column Addresses the Federal Reserve
Here's the latest column from Presidential Candidate and Congressman from Texas, Dr. Ron Paul:
The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
April 9, 2007
Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee. The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better "regulate" things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues' questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke's job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.
Certainly it’s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good? Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being? Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?
Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.
The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.
The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.
The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic- or so they believe.
Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.
The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
April 9, 2007
Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee. The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better "regulate" things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues' questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke's job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.
Certainly it’s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good? Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being? Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?
Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.
The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.
The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.
The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic- or so they believe.
Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.
Labels: Ron Paul
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Ron Paul on the 2008 Budget
Some interesting thoughts on the 2008 budget by Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul on LewRockwell.com.
Paul raises an excellent point on the lack of knowledge that the vast majority of Americans have regarding the budget. Even those who pay attention to such things as congressional budget battles still fall into the liberal trap of labeling some budget items as "discretionary" and other entitlement items as "mandatory." Isn't the point of a budget to delineate what is "mandatory?" If you come in with categories already determined, isn't spending almost assured of increasing beyond the rate of inflation every year?
Public knowledge is a tough item to improve on any appreciable level, as David Oatney showed in his column about taxes here in Tennessee yesterday.
Paul raises an excellent point on the lack of knowledge that the vast majority of Americans have regarding the budget. Even those who pay attention to such things as congressional budget battles still fall into the liberal trap of labeling some budget items as "discretionary" and other entitlement items as "mandatory." Isn't the point of a budget to delineate what is "mandatory?" If you come in with categories already determined, isn't spending almost assured of increasing beyond the rate of inflation every year?
Public knowledge is a tough item to improve on any appreciable level, as David Oatney showed in his column about taxes here in Tennessee yesterday.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Budget, Ron Paul
