Breaking News!
The Chairman of The Libertarian Defense Caucus was featured on Meet The Press featuring an interview with presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul. See the interview and read some of the reaction from our Chairman's Libertarian Republican blog:
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/12/meet-press-with-tim-russert-eric.html
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Ron Paul supporters: Do NOT read this. Please!
By Andrew Malcolm of The Los Angeles Times
READERS' WARNING: Supporters of Ron Paul should not read this item. Perusing the following paragraphs may cause dizziness, nausea, vomiting, disappointment and renewed anger at political polls, the mainstream media, all institutions holding financial power and anyone not terribly concerned about that mysterious planned highway across Texas that somehow threatens national security.
O.K., now that they're gone to their chatrooms or one of their impressive 1,200 meet-up groups, for the rest of you some background: The Ron Paul Conspiracy has received more news coverage and made quite an impression online in recent months for its followers' persistence, pervasiveness and, to put it politely, outspokenness in favor of their Republican candidate, the 72-year-old, 10-term Texas congressman with the libertarian ideals and the numerous books. He's even been on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" and this Sunday is scheduled for an hour-long grilling by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press."
With fundraising persistence, dedication to "Dr. Paul" and admirable political energy in recent days their growing numbers made a huge name for themselves by raising more than $6 million online (more than $18 million for the quarter, they say), a new one-day political record.
Yet these Paulites have always dismissed polls, hated them, even despised them. They have many reasons besides the fact that no polls have given Paul much chance of winning anything. Polls, some suggest, are fictitious summaries of the mainstream media designed to suppress the Ron Paul Revolution. Polls are fake because no Paulite can remember ever being phoned for a survey. Many Paul supporters are new to the political process, so not on voter rolls to be polled. And they mostly use cellphones, not landlines. So they'd be somehow under-represented.
They maintained this stand even when Ron Paul's polling numbers in New Hampshire, for instance, increased geometrically from 2% to 4% to 8%, twice the support of better-known Fred Thompson.
Now, here's the news that would drive Paul supporters berserk if any had kept reading down to here, which they haven't: Ron Paul's polling numbers are now plummeting. Yup, going down, down. Once, he got the money to afford TV advertising in the Granite State, his support as measured by these no-doubt fraudulent polls began crumbling.
The new CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Primary Poll out today shows Paul's support falling from its high of 8% in early November to 7% at the start of December and 5% last weekend, when he had his big fundraising success. (The phone survey of 411 random, likely Republican primary voters was between Dec. 13 and 17.)
Of course, if Paul supporters believed in polls, they would point out that....
with a margin of error of +/- 5%, Paul could theoretically be at 10%. That also means, naturally, he could be at 0% too.
Belief in Paul's ability to handle terrorism held steady at 3%, to handle the economy fell from 7% to 3% and to handle taxes from 9% to 5%. His support for handling illegal immigration was steady at 4%, to handle abortion up from 4% to 5% and his ability to address the Iraq war (he's the only GOP candidate who favors withdrawal) was steady at 5%.
Now, in case anyone cares about the non-Paul candidates who have a chance of winning, Mitt Romney's percentage jumped from 32% to 34% from the beginning to middle of December, with the endorsement of the Manchester Union-Leader and Boston Globe John McCain increased from 19% to 22%, Rudy Giuliani fell from 19% to 16% and Mike Huckabee went from 9% to 10%.
Thompson and Tom Tancredo, who will announce the end of his candidacy Thursday, according to an Associated Press report tonight, held steady at 1% support while California's Congressman Duncan Hunter went from 0% to 1%.
On the poll's Democratic side, 469 likely primary voters produced a margin of error of 5%. After some troubled weeks when her support faded from a high of 43% in September to 31% at the start of December, Hillary Clinton's numbers surged back to 38%, while Barack Obama's slipped somewhat from 30% to 26% and John Edwards from 16% to 14%.
Bill Richardson went from 7% to 8%, Dennis Kucinich from 3% to 2%, Joe Biden from 1% to 2% and Chris Dodd from 1% to 0%.
If they were still reading down to here which, of course, they're not because they don't believe in polls, Paul supporters would say that none of this matters because only real votes count come Jan. 8. And, you know what, on that they would be 100% right.
Courtesy The Los Angeles Times.
READERS' WARNING: Supporters of Ron Paul should not read this item. Perusing the following paragraphs may cause dizziness, nausea, vomiting, disappointment and renewed anger at political polls, the mainstream media, all institutions holding financial power and anyone not terribly concerned about that mysterious planned highway across Texas that somehow threatens national security.
O.K., now that they're gone to their chatrooms or one of their impressive 1,200 meet-up groups, for the rest of you some background: The Ron Paul Conspiracy has received more news coverage and made quite an impression online in recent months for its followers' persistence, pervasiveness and, to put it politely, outspokenness in favor of their Republican candidate, the 72-year-old, 10-term Texas congressman with the libertarian ideals and the numerous books. He's even been on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" and this Sunday is scheduled for an hour-long grilling by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press."
With fundraising persistence, dedication to "Dr. Paul" and admirable political energy in recent days their growing numbers made a huge name for themselves by raising more than $6 million online (more than $18 million for the quarter, they say), a new one-day political record.
Yet these Paulites have always dismissed polls, hated them, even despised them. They have many reasons besides the fact that no polls have given Paul much chance of winning anything. Polls, some suggest, are fictitious summaries of the mainstream media designed to suppress the Ron Paul Revolution. Polls are fake because no Paulite can remember ever being phoned for a survey. Many Paul supporters are new to the political process, so not on voter rolls to be polled. And they mostly use cellphones, not landlines. So they'd be somehow under-represented.
They maintained this stand even when Ron Paul's polling numbers in New Hampshire, for instance, increased geometrically from 2% to 4% to 8%, twice the support of better-known Fred Thompson.
Now, here's the news that would drive Paul supporters berserk if any had kept reading down to here, which they haven't: Ron Paul's polling numbers are now plummeting. Yup, going down, down. Once, he got the money to afford TV advertising in the Granite State, his support as measured by these no-doubt fraudulent polls began crumbling.
The new CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Primary Poll out today shows Paul's support falling from its high of 8% in early November to 7% at the start of December and 5% last weekend, when he had his big fundraising success. (The phone survey of 411 random, likely Republican primary voters was between Dec. 13 and 17.)
Of course, if Paul supporters believed in polls, they would point out that....
with a margin of error of +/- 5%, Paul could theoretically be at 10%. That also means, naturally, he could be at 0% too.
Belief in Paul's ability to handle terrorism held steady at 3%, to handle the economy fell from 7% to 3% and to handle taxes from 9% to 5%. His support for handling illegal immigration was steady at 4%, to handle abortion up from 4% to 5% and his ability to address the Iraq war (he's the only GOP candidate who favors withdrawal) was steady at 5%.
Now, in case anyone cares about the non-Paul candidates who have a chance of winning, Mitt Romney's percentage jumped from 32% to 34% from the beginning to middle of December, with the endorsement of the Manchester Union-Leader and Boston Globe John McCain increased from 19% to 22%, Rudy Giuliani fell from 19% to 16% and Mike Huckabee went from 9% to 10%.
Thompson and Tom Tancredo, who will announce the end of his candidacy Thursday, according to an Associated Press report tonight, held steady at 1% support while California's Congressman Duncan Hunter went from 0% to 1%.
On the poll's Democratic side, 469 likely primary voters produced a margin of error of 5%. After some troubled weeks when her support faded from a high of 43% in September to 31% at the start of December, Hillary Clinton's numbers surged back to 38%, while Barack Obama's slipped somewhat from 30% to 26% and John Edwards from 16% to 14%.
Bill Richardson went from 7% to 8%, Dennis Kucinich from 3% to 2%, Joe Biden from 1% to 2% and Chris Dodd from 1% to 0%.
If they were still reading down to here which, of course, they're not because they don't believe in polls, Paul supporters would say that none of this matters because only real votes count come Jan. 8. And, you know what, on that they would be 100% right.
Courtesy The Los Angeles Times.
Here we go again, not ignoring Ron Paul
By Andrew Malcom of The Los Angeles Times
Don't worry about the Ron Paul people -- they'll find something to complain about in these last glorious days before the reality of the actual primary/caucus voting starts, even though it can't be about being ignored by the big media anymore.
The 72-year-old, 10-term Republican representative from Texas with the libertarian ideas has been on just about every conceivable broadcast outlet in recent times. He's getting so much attention he's now starting to be criticized for some things, including accepting funds from and not returning them to some white supremacists.
That's what raising $18 million in the still unfinished fourth quarter ($6+ million of it in one day) will do to your political obscurity. That and the online and local meet-up group work by thousands of fervent fans who profess to be newcomers to the political process, so inspired are they by the ob-gyn who represents the Galveston area and his strict constitutionalist ideals and the simple clarity of his goal to return government to its strict constitutional boundaries. No more Department of Education, for instance, or many other federal departments.
Paul is on a roll, up in some polls, down significantly in others, which Paul people don't care anything about because they say they don't believe in polls because nobody's going to tell them how to vote, even though polls aren't orders for anybody, they only reveal how a few hundred people say they're going to vote at that moment in time.
Because everybody Ron Paul supporters say they talk to either already are or immediately become Ron Paul supporters, they believe the Ron Paul Revolution will sweep the country sometime shortly into the New Year, starting perhaps in New Hampshire where they have so many yard signs and the license plates say "Live Free or Die." Also, the new Ron Paul blimp is flying around there.
Anyway, today was Ron Paul's turn to be waterboarded by Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press." As one sign of how the Iraq war surge's recent success has made it a non-issue, Russert didn't even ask him about his stand (Paul's the lone GOP candidate who opposes the war, saying it creates much more trouble than it's worth and that maintaining an empire always bankrupts the colonial power).
Paul wants to bring home all American troops abroad to save money and avoid making ....
enemies. Russert asked him how many U.S. troops there are abroad. Paul didn't know. Russert told him 572,000. "And you'd bring them all home?"
"As quickly as possible. We -- they will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend ourselves without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn't make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I've been in high school?"
Russert asked, "So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?"
Paul replied, "They're not going to. That's like saying, 'Iran is going to invade Mars.' "
Russert asked if Paul would cut off aid to Israel. "Absolutely," he said. "But remember the Arabs would get cut off too and the Arabs get three times as much aid altogether as Israel. But why, why make Israel so dependent?"
Russert asked if Paul wanted to abolish the IRS and income tax. "That's a good idea," he said. "I like that idea." He said the U.S. got along fine without an income tax until 1913.
Russert asked if he knew how much lost government revenue that would be. "A lot," said Paul. "Over a trillion dollars," said Russert. "That's good," said Paul. He suggested cutting spending would save a lot of money, reducing federal departments, not being involved overseas as we are.
Russert asked him about the apparent inconsistency of being against federal involvement, yet regularly inserting dozens of earmarks into legislation representing billions of federal dollars going to his district. Paul said there was no inconsistency because he always voted against the earmarks he'd inserted, although they usually passed.
"If you were true to your philosophy," Russert said, "you would say, 'No pork spending for my district.' "
"No, no, that's not it," replied Paul. "They steal our money. That's like saying people shouldn't take Social Security money."
Russert asked about term limits. Paul said he'd voted for them many times. Russert noted he'd been in Congress more than 18 years. Paul said he hadn't agreed to any voluntary term limits, but he supported them.
Russert asked about many other things including whether defeat in the GOP primaries might cause Paul to launch a third-party effort. "I have no intention to do that," Paul responded. But he would not guarantee it, just said he was 99.9% sure but didn't like absolutist statements.
Paul supporters will say anything that sounds critical or dumb about their candidate was taken out of context. So you can read the entire interview transcript here and view the entire video here.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Don't worry about the Ron Paul people -- they'll find something to complain about in these last glorious days before the reality of the actual primary/caucus voting starts, even though it can't be about being ignored by the big media anymore.
The 72-year-old, 10-term Republican representative from Texas with the libertarian ideas has been on just about every conceivable broadcast outlet in recent times. He's getting so much attention he's now starting to be criticized for some things, including accepting funds from and not returning them to some white supremacists.
That's what raising $18 million in the still unfinished fourth quarter ($6+ million of it in one day) will do to your political obscurity. That and the online and local meet-up group work by thousands of fervent fans who profess to be newcomers to the political process, so inspired are they by the ob-gyn who represents the Galveston area and his strict constitutionalist ideals and the simple clarity of his goal to return government to its strict constitutional boundaries. No more Department of Education, for instance, or many other federal departments.
Paul is on a roll, up in some polls, down significantly in others, which Paul people don't care anything about because they say they don't believe in polls because nobody's going to tell them how to vote, even though polls aren't orders for anybody, they only reveal how a few hundred people say they're going to vote at that moment in time.
Because everybody Ron Paul supporters say they talk to either already are or immediately become Ron Paul supporters, they believe the Ron Paul Revolution will sweep the country sometime shortly into the New Year, starting perhaps in New Hampshire where they have so many yard signs and the license plates say "Live Free or Die." Also, the new Ron Paul blimp is flying around there.
Anyway, today was Ron Paul's turn to be waterboarded by Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press." As one sign of how the Iraq war surge's recent success has made it a non-issue, Russert didn't even ask him about his stand (Paul's the lone GOP candidate who opposes the war, saying it creates much more trouble than it's worth and that maintaining an empire always bankrupts the colonial power).
Paul wants to bring home all American troops abroad to save money and avoid making ....
enemies. Russert asked him how many U.S. troops there are abroad. Paul didn't know. Russert told him 572,000. "And you'd bring them all home?"
"As quickly as possible. We -- they will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend ourselves without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn't make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I've been in high school?"
Russert asked, "So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?"
Paul replied, "They're not going to. That's like saying, 'Iran is going to invade Mars.' "
Russert asked if Paul would cut off aid to Israel. "Absolutely," he said. "But remember the Arabs would get cut off too and the Arabs get three times as much aid altogether as Israel. But why, why make Israel so dependent?"
Russert asked if Paul wanted to abolish the IRS and income tax. "That's a good idea," he said. "I like that idea." He said the U.S. got along fine without an income tax until 1913.
Russert asked if he knew how much lost government revenue that would be. "A lot," said Paul. "Over a trillion dollars," said Russert. "That's good," said Paul. He suggested cutting spending would save a lot of money, reducing federal departments, not being involved overseas as we are.
Russert asked him about the apparent inconsistency of being against federal involvement, yet regularly inserting dozens of earmarks into legislation representing billions of federal dollars going to his district. Paul said there was no inconsistency because he always voted against the earmarks he'd inserted, although they usually passed.
"If you were true to your philosophy," Russert said, "you would say, 'No pork spending for my district.' "
"No, no, that's not it," replied Paul. "They steal our money. That's like saying people shouldn't take Social Security money."
Russert asked about term limits. Paul said he'd voted for them many times. Russert noted he'd been in Congress more than 18 years. Paul said he hadn't agreed to any voluntary term limits, but he supported them.
Russert asked about many other things including whether defeat in the GOP primaries might cause Paul to launch a third-party effort. "I have no intention to do that," Paul responded. But he would not guarantee it, just said he was 99.9% sure but didn't like absolutist statements.
Paul supporters will say anything that sounds critical or dumb about their candidate was taken out of context. So you can read the entire interview transcript here and view the entire video here.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Thanks To Mainstream Libertarians!
A very special thank you to Eric Dondero of Google Libertarian Republican fame for placing a prominent ad for the LDC on his Mainstream Libertarians site. The promotion is very much appreciated. The Chairman of The Libertarian Defense Caucus is a tireless supporter of The Caucus and its efforts as we begin a massive promotional campaign in the coming weeks and months ahead. Please check out Mainstream Libertarians, the number one site for the latest and most interesting news in Libertarianism, and of course stop by Google Libertarian Republican, where yours truly is a Regular Contributor. Libertarian Republican is the best Libertarian site for the latest controversial issues making headlines in Libertarianism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
