Cry for information consolidation.

OK, I know I went through this before and I still feel the same way. Ron Paul saturation is beginning to hurt his campaign, but there is a new twist that I really did not speak to as much in my previous post.

Information saturation may be turning some off to Ron, but it is also eventually finding others that it needs to and having an effect, but there seems to be another problem. I have spoken to this in other posts and in many blog comments. I have also been seeing it from other RP supporters.

Duplication of the same story, especially on networking sites, is keeping the message down. Creating a blog post with a different URL with similar, almost duplicate content on these sites causes supporters to spread their power. Thus diluting the message and the support for it. Linking from your blog to another directly, that is already posted on the networking site, should absolutely not be done and seems to be nothing more than trafficking for blog hits.

The Ron Paul $1 Million mark is a prime example (on Digg anyway). That news was posted at least 20 times (can't get a good count since Digg's search engine sucks). The Diggs were spread an prevented a HUGE article for the front page; it would have hit in 15 minutes if there had only been one of them...

Let's make an effort to help the message percolate to the top, if you will. When you find something good, search on the networking site before you post it. If you find an identical article, Digg it or upmodded it, whatever. Don't post another; that causes dilution of the support! We can use the Internet even more efficiently than ever if we just take that little bit of time to check first.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from posting. I think it is great and a new movement is afoot; incredible things ARE happening!

What is the root of Ron Paul hate? (part 2)

OK, I have tried to investigate this before, but I still have no answers. So I will try it again.

Let's start with what I am seeing issue-wise; we will look at his presidential campaign later.
Ron Paul believes in the following things:

Personal Beliefs
Abortion is morally wrong.
Christianity is his religion.
He is personally frugal.
He is a doctor and believes that life is precious.
Americans have a right to keep what they earn.

Political Beliefs

Government should serve the people.
Americans should not be afraid of the government.
Americans should take care of their own first.
Government should be efficient and minimally invasive.
Control of communities should be local.
Business can be self-regulating and consumers have power.

I am sure there are other points of view and ways to word his beliefs, but I think these are the ones that are pertinent to the discussion. At least these are the ones I see that seem to be most disputed on blogs, social networks, etc. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but they align with my beliefs enough for me to think he is the best candidate for the job.

The 2008 presidential campaign throws more wrenches in the works. The grassroots movement around the Paul campaign has inspired his followers to expand the it into all available mediums. From skywriting to simple signs, but mostly on the Internet.

I think the "saturation" of the 'Net by Ron's supporters has just fanned the flames of "Paul hate". Ron has many opponents who do not believe that a free market is safe for consumers, that people do need the Federal government to help them in their lives, that wealth should be re-distributed in some ways, etc. Many have found reasons to attack him, even before the presidential campaign.

So that leads me to wonder if his sudden popularity AND the rising tide of Internet interest is causing the issue. I know there are some on networking sites who spend much of their time attempting to make Paul posts popular, but there seems to be an effort to also do the opposite. My question, beyond the root of the hate, also attempts to expose the positions of the "haters". Do they have a position? Are their actions purely anti-Paul? Or is there a real end to their means (other than defeating Ron Paul)?

To the "haters": If you don't want Paul, is there something else you do want? If so, I do not see it being voiced on the Internet. In the event that you are endorsing some other candidate, why not just do that? Why is it necessary to attempt to discredit Ron Paul and his followers?

Leave some answers here in the comments. Obviously, I am a Paul supporter, but I am still interested in some answers. They won't change my mind, but they may give me some insight into the voter pool and what drives them.

Why the labor unions should support Ron Paul.

The labor unions were created to protect workers from their corporate bosses; ensuring fair wages and working conditions. The Federal government was not nearly as large as it is now and it was not designed to protect workers. So the workers banded together and decided to protect themselves. Just as it should be and coincidentally, just as Dr. Paul suggests America should work.

The Federal government created their own mandate to provide global protection for workers by creating the minimum wage and rules for working conditions, etc. Which caused more Federal control where it may not have been necessary; since the workers had begun to protect themselves.

Now it is 2008. The unions have become less powerful, less necessary (due to Federal involvement) and everyone has become more dependent on the government to protect them in their jobs. Workers are learning that they don't have to be responsible for themselves since the government will "protect" them from their employers.

This is perpetuating a loss of personal responsibility in general. Any country that relies on their government as much as we do can only learn that lesson.

So, to the point of this post. Ron Paul wants to put an end to government "babysitting". He wants to empower people again and let them have the power back that belonged to them in the first place. We let them take it away; now it is our turn to take it back.

Ron Paul's ideas would give power back to the unions; back to our communities and back to individuals. The unions should WANT him to be elected. He will make them more necessary and that necessity would force them to become transparent to their members.

A Paul presidency allows the people decide what is right; lets community groups guide their own fate. Local governments can work WITH their citizens and constituents without interference and tyranny from the Feds. The unions would become and integral part of that group and could speak for the working class and regular people.

So all you voters in those unions, speak your mind to your leaders. Tell them you want to be free to decide your own fate. Corporations should not rule you. You have MORE power when there is less government!

I wil try another discussion forum; I love the stuff!

These forums can be so entertaining and you can learn a lot form them.

I will try another without the Ron Paul stigma that seems to scare everyone at Digg away.
No one was signed up for my other board and complained that the name meant they would have non-Paul posts deleted.

I am not interested in that. Yes, I am a Ron Paul backer, but I want real discussion here. I enjoy it and sometimes it is fascinating. Often entertaining, and quite funny.

So go check out the NEW non-biased, totally open 2008 Presidential Campaign forum

Sign up and let the fightin' begin!

(I won't even put my Ron Paul animated Gif on this post for you Paul haters on Digg. Try it, and have fun! I promise; no funny stuff from me.)

Yet another attempt by Giuliani to exploit an American Tragedy.

Although Rudy denies knowledge or endorsement of his latest fund raising drive, I seriously doubt his disapproval and have seen no statement from the campaign stating so. A group of his supporters are asking people to donate $9.11 to his campaign presumably by the end of this quarter. What a shameless scam!

If Rudy thinks this is tasteless, come out and say so. Donate the money to a charity. Prove it to us; stand up and be a man!

Giuliani has been riding the 9/11 tragedy ever since the campaign began. He is brazenly using his "heroism" after the attacks to pump up his campaign. Don't be fooled by this nonsense; he is another rich corporate puppet inexorably tied to the neo-con agenda.

The NYFD, NYPD and MANY others who actually know what was going on during and after the tragedy have continuously rebuked his claims of "heroism". They know the truth and they know his negligence contributed to the complacency that allowed these terrible events to happen. He hung them out to dry and left the mess that became the pit after the towers fell for them to deal with themselves!

Rudy, show people some respect. We are not fooled by your bravado and we know you just want more of the same. The people are ready to take back their country and Giulian is not the man for THAT job. (You know who is....)

Forget Rudy's $9.11 donation; do Ron's $17.76 for freedom!

I'm looking at the upcoming 2008 Election posts on Digg and Jeff Ready has a great idea! Here is his link: http://jeffready.blogspot.com/2007/09/forget-9-11-think-1776.html

This idea is brought to us by the free bumper sticker guy! He is a doing a great service to the campaign with that idea and he came up with another one!

Jeff, I gotta hand it to you; that was a great one!

So let's put Ron over a million this week! Donate $17.76 (0r $17.89!) if you can!

And I have created a pledge on pledgebank:

Sign up there and let's get Dr. Paul over the top for the quarter. His gains for the quarter will put him beyond McCain by far and past Romney's money on hand. That makes him in the top 3 earners for the entire campaign!

Breaking news: Ron Paul takes a dump!!

I was following a comment on Digg about Dr. Paul and an interesting follow up was posted by Giuliani08:
"... I fully expect to see a "Ron Paul takes a dump" spam submission to digg soon."

So I couldn't resist! Here it is:

Extra!! Extra!! Breaking news from AP...

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul officially took a dump today around 4:30 pm. According to the campaign media relations representative Guy Smiley, " Uh, yeah. He usually does it at least once a day. It depends on how much fiber he gets at breakfast. Oh and where we had dinner the night before. For a full schedule, you will have to submit a FOI application to the FEC. We do not release that level of detail to just ANYONE!"

So far, the FOI request is pending along with the Clinton white house years docs but apparently it has moved up in the queue so there is a possibility of an update BEFORE Dr. Paul becomes president nominee the end of the quarter...

Dr. Paul is an admitted fanatical runner, closet chocolate chip cookie addict, general health nut and a real DOCTOR to boot. So imagine how well tuned his lower digestive tract is, if you get my drift. When he moves, it is an experience!

Stay tuned for further details or subscribe to the RSS feed for continuous updates in your browser!

New 2008 Presidential Campaign Forum

I have created a new forum for discussion of the 2008 Presidential Campaign. Everyone can participate and go back and forth on issues, candidates or whatever you want; as long as it pertains to the election.

It will work especially well when comments turn into a debate on the social networking sites. So go on over and sign up:

2008 Presidential Campaign Discussion

The changing face of the Presidential election.

I started this as a hit piece, but it kind of morphed into something else. But let's start with:
What is Fred doing?

He has dodged the debates; he has not appeared at any of them and he had his chances. He is trying to woo the NRA and gun rights advocates, but why would they support him? What has he done to show that he is interested in their cause. On a side note, what the hell does Rudy think he can offer them? Has he gone crazy?!

Fred has not laid out any kind of platform. He has not spoken to any of the issues even in generalities that I have seen. But I don't follow him either, and the MSM is not putting it in my face either, so you decide... He decided to announce his candidacy on Leno. Come on, Leno??!

Fred obviously thinks his celebrity will translate to political support in this race. It will not. Ron Paul is changing this race into something we have not seen in a long time. He keeps the door open for Huckabbe, Kucinich and others to still have hope.

The base for the parties, especially the Republicans, is fragmenting and this is good for America. People are beginning to realize that they actually DO have choices and power to make a difference. How else could Paul, Kucinich, Huckabee and even Gravel still be hanging around and still getting press, at least on the Internet in some cases.

People are opening their eyes and it scares the "top tier" candidates. They are losing control to the real owners of the power; the people of America. This is going to continue. We will strive for honesty and justice in our government. As Ross Perot said "Vote your conscience.." This is the responsibility of all of us; vote what feels right for you. It doesn't matter if you vote for the winner. You will be the winner in the long run if you do this; we all will be!

Don't let ANYONE tell you not to "waste" your vote on Ron Paul or Kucinich or Huckabee. Like the old saying goes "There are no stupid questions.". Well, the only wasted votes are the ones that are not cast or cast out of fear or ignorance.

What will it take for Ron Paul to get the nomination?

So what will it take for him to get the nomination? How many votes will he have to get in the primaries?

I looked at the numbers on the FEC website from 1996. I don't think the 2000 numbers are as valid since McCain was really the only legitimate candidate running. The 1996 race seems to be comparable to 2008 since there were more than 2 contenders. Forbes, Dole, Buchanan and even Lamar Alexander were all in the running in some states. So it makes more sense to compare that year to this one.

Let's look at the numbers based on the FEC totals from 1996:

• Total votes cast in the 1996 Republican presidential primary: 15,318,525
• ( I will adjust this number by 20% due to the high turnout that year in my opinion)

• Adjusted total:12,254,820
  

The percentages from the FEC seem to show that Dole won about 60% of those votes. That would mean he got approximately 7,352,982 votes (adjust for 20% from above). Seems like a lot of votes to me...

Can Ron Paul get that many votes? If my assumption is correct (and I may be way off!) Ron will need about 7.5 million votes to win the nomination.

There are around 40,000 Meetup members for Dr. Paul. If the vote ratio there is 10 to 1 (meaning that each person can recruit 10 more), that is 400,000 votes. He has $3,000,000 dollars in donations so far and if that is averaged for $50 per donation, that would be about 60,000 donors. But probably 90% of those are also Meetup members; so that is only about another 6000 votes. Based on his media exposure at a national level, I am going to throw in another 1,000,000 which probably includes the Libertarians that will vote for him. I will also be generous and throw in another 500,000 who did not vote in the 1996 primary either due to age or apathy.

My total estimate, at this time, would be about 2 million votes. Not many; he will need four times that many to win, I think. So we have our work cut out for us. Believe me, I hope I am wrong and there is a possibility that I am, but I can only work from the numbers and some guesstimates..

So where does that leave us? Ron has money to spend and I am sure there will be a lot more coming in this quarter. They have almost "filled the quill" for 1787 donors in just 4 days! That is a GREAT sign, but we cannot rest on our heels. We are not even close to being sure Ron can win.

Will there be apathy and cockiness by the "top tier" candidates and their constituents? I think so and hope so which means they may have a lower turnout. Will they be competing for the same group of voters? Absolutely! And there will be MANY who will never vote for them. There will also be Democrats who will vote for Ron in the Primary... But we must continue the exposure.

Get out and talk to people; put up a yard sign; chalk it up at your school, the young people are a very good source of "never voted" in my opinion and maybe most attracted to the message. Hang up signs in your neighborhood; yes, they will be taken down, but make them cheap. Trash cardboard and a marker can do wonders just to get Ron's name in people's faces. They will do the rest of the work; Ron's message is contagious!

We can't and should not give up! We ARE the patriots of our age and we have the power to make this happen. Ron is leading us and our power will become evident very soon!

Interesting presidential campaign donations for "top tier" candidates.

I was reading Radar magazine this week ( I think it comes with my Wired mag) and noticed an interesting little piece. About half a page on a Presidential campaign donation experiment.

Granted the amounts are small and I am not suggesting any association between the candidates and these donators, but it is kind of funny.

The magazine made $5 donation to the Clinton, Romney, Giuliani and Obama campaigns via the websites using the customized gift card method. The donators were: John Mark Karr, the Jon Benet Ramsey obsessive, Joe Power, president of the California chapter of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) and Sam G. Dickson, lawyer for a white sepratist group Council of Conservative Citizens. All donations were accepted without question and thank you e-mails and messages were sent to the names above.

Granted, it was strange and kind of middle-schoolish. Some of the comments on the site suggested that it was illegal (and probably is) to impersonate these people. Most discount the value of the experiment and assume it was just a joke. I agree for the most part, but the gift card site DID reject Osama Bin Laden as a donor.

I guess it is more a testament to what political campaigns have become. A quest for money in hopes of spending your way into office. Little of substance seems to matter any more as long as you can get you "good" name in front of more people than your "bad" name. And of drag all of the other candidates to a lower level of you. Basically, I AM the lesser of the evils.

Of course, I am a Ron Paul supporter and I am pretty sure the same thing would happen at his site. I doubt that any candidate scrutinizes their donor list to this extent. Although Hillary implies they are screening donors which found Hsu for them...

I don't feel like Dr. Paul is like the rest. He touts his philosophy but doesn't spend time dragging the others down. Ron is more interested in getting his message of freedom and reclaiming our country out to the people. He doesn't require picking the lesser of any evils.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Ron Paul; the last hope for morality in the GOP?

Is Ron Paul the last GOP candidate that really shows some responsibility?
With the latest news on Larry.. and Mark Foley, etc. along with Rudy and his
"less than moral majority" ways it is possible that RP is one of the last
high profile "clean" GOPers around. Oh yeah, throw in Mitt's flipping and
flopping AND his ties to Larry Craig and of course the ever present GW monster.
But those heads are falling off... Rummy, gone.. Gonzales, gone..
Krover, gone..
The Dickster is still around to make it all the worse (for now)....

Google any Republican candidate name with "scandal" and see what you come up with;
Ron Paul hits on EXPOSING scandals not participating in them! Try it:
(I don't like to talk bad about these guys, especially McCain because I think John is
a good guy doing what he thinks is best...but the truth is always true.)

Ron Paul scandal
Rudy Giuliani scandal
Mitt Romney scandal
John McCain scandal

After all, when was the last time the Democrats looked like the moral majority!!!

But seriously, Ron Paul has the best Congressional voting record, maybe of
all time. He is not associated to any scandal; I know, many will bring up the
supposed racist issues and reports in his newsletter from the 90's that make some
very questionable remarks about blacks in Washington, D.C. Are they his remarks,
right from his mouth? And really, how much does it matter now? As I have read in many
comments on these articles and blog posts, even from non-Paul fans,"..if
the best you can do for dirt is cherry pick quotes from the 80's, I would say
the guy's in pretty good shape..."

As for anti-semitic remarks, of course he makes statements that sound bad.
But unconstitutional funding of Israel is what the man is talking about! He means
nothing personal to the Jews in any way. He would say the same thing about
such antics in Mexico, Saudi Arabia anywhere. It is what he is and it is what
makes him great!

If you must have a reference, go here: Ron Paul's race problem and read the
comments. Almost all are completely valid and very reasonable.

And if you must talk about him, talk about what he wants to do. Reduce the size
of government and put it back in its cage where it belongs! Increase personal freedom,
make allies across the world by helping when needed, not shoving America down
the world's throat.

These are the important things. He is a man of principle; you can't smear him.
You can criticize him for his thinking and his voting record; but his morals and
courage for this fight are beyond compare. I thought it a bit silly to compare him
to the Founding Fathers early on, but after listening to him and understanding him,
I think it might be right on.

Ron Paul is fighting our next revolution against tyranny from within; against
imperialism; against slavery by our own government! It must stop and it
can stop when a man like this has the power of the people behind him!


Technorati Tags: ron paul, election, 2008, president

Powered by ScribeFire.

Early Value Voter debate observations.

I'm watching the Value Voters debate, which uses a different format than the Fox debate and I am amazed by Ron Paul's answers.

If you are not familiar with the format, it works like this:
Yes or no questions are asked in general to the candidates. They then indicate their
answer either way with some minutes they can use to address a particular issue
if they wanted to do so.

So, back to the answers. Ron Paul is holding to his convictions. Some of the questions
seem to have easy answers especially pertaining to things that would seem to
have an obvious answer. Questions about intervention by the Federal government
in Sudan slavery issues, the Terri Schiavo case allowing her to die in peace, etc.
Things that have an obvious answer for intervention by the government. But not
Dr. Paul!! His adherence to the Constitution and smaller government makes him
answer no to these questions. He will not stand for Federal intervention when
it is not immediately needed or when it violates an individual's rights.

He is not interested in telling people what they want to hear. It looks like the
rest of the candidates are obviously doing so, Ron seems to be the only one
who will vote no time and time again. A transcript of the debate should be
very revealing and show us much about his dedication to liberty, smaller
government and non-intervention policies.

John Kerry agrees with Ron Paul on Iraq!

It may seem incredible, but he does!
Let's look at the transcript from Meet The Press, September 16, 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: "Let me start with you, Senator McCain. What should be the U.S. strategy in Iraq for the next year?"

(After McCain's neo-con regurgitation, which I will not detail here; follow the link.
Basically, stay the course, spend the $300 million a day or chaos and genocide....)

(But here is Kerry's answer; sound familiar?)

MR. RUSSERT: "Senator Kerry, your response."

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "Well, the Bush-McCain strategy of escalating our
troops in the middle of a civil war has no relationship directly to
what you need to do to resolve the civil war. So you can put
additional troops in and secure a small area here or there, but
everybody knows there are not enough troops to be able to secure all of
the areas you need to secure and, most importantly, it does absolutely
nothing to resolve the fundamental differences, Tim.
A policy of putting more troops in and staying is a policy for staying.
It is not a policy for winning or for changing the equation......

Second major point, this is making us weaker in the war on terror.
It is emboldening Iran, empowering Iran, empowering Hamas, empowering
Hezbollah.
The United States has lost leverage in the region. We need
a better policy, and there is a better one."

(Remember, Ron says it is the policy that is failed and they attack us because we are
there when we have no right to be. Kerry goes on:)

(Sorry no context, but it is not really relevant; the quotes stand alone.
Ever heard this before?)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA):"...The fact is Iran loves our being bogged down in Iraq.
Al-Qaeda loves our being bogged down in Iraq. We are, as our own National
Intelligence Estimate said, attracting more terrorists because we are
in Iraq. We need to get out of Iraq in order to be stronger to deal
with Iran, in order to deal with Hezbollah and Hamas, to regain our
credibility in the region...."

(To Kerry's credit and I don't care at all for him, this is great!)

"...How many times do we have to hear President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Condi Rice,
General Casey, General Abizaid, General Petraeus, all say there is no military solution?
Well, if there is no military solution, where is the political solution?...."

(Remember Ron saying: "What do we have to pay to save face?
That's all we're doing is saving face!!" at the debate?)


(Speaking about Osama Bin Laden:)

"Yeah, and he’s able to do it because this administration took their eye off of him and
chose to go to war in a place that had nothing to do with the war on terror.
And the fact is, as I said before, al-Qaeda loves our being in Iraq. If you want to put
al-Qaeda off balance then change the equation. And Iran loves the fact that we’re in Iraq..."


All of this is exactly what Ron Paul was saying during the September debate. And what does
he get for it? Accusations of treason and unpatriotic activity! Ridiculous!

Any Democrat who is truly interested in getting out of Iraq ASAP and who would like to
restore the power to the American people (I know, fat chance on those two things together)
should obviously look to Ron. He is trying to do exactly what they want. Get out of Iraq,
engage Iran diplomatically and let the rest of the region figure it out for themselves.

Anyone who wants less government, sound fiscal, foreign and domestic policy and an
exit from Iraq and the middle east must consider Ron Paul.

Technorati Tags: ron paul, election, 2008, republican, president

Powered by ScribeFire.

Is it time for Ron Paul to organize the grassroots movement?

I have been observing and participating in the Ron Paul movement for a while
and I have noticed some things that seem to be inhibiting its success.
While it is a great thing to see America coming together this way; across party lines,
race lines, and most other lines, it may be time for more management of the resources.
I have written about the Ron Paul "saturation" of the Internet and possible (probable)
negative peripheral affects of the flood of information in previous posts.

But I do feel like the time has come for Dr. Paul's campaign to begin an effort
in managing the inspired and passionate people participating in his movement.
My feelings are based on a few of things:

1. The message, while being sent far and wide throughout the Internet, is
   becoming diluted due to duplication of effort.
2. The duplication of effort is wasting resources that could be used on more
   concentrated and efficient communication methods.
3. Again, the saturation point of the medium (the Internet) is beginning to
   approach which I feel may be having a negative effect on the campaign.

I have already spoken to the saturation of Ron Paul information in a previous post on
my blog. Reactions have been mixed, but for the most part, people agree with me.
Although some have called me a shill attempting to prevent Paulers from
voicing their support. The duplication seems to have become almost more
of a problem than saturation. Using Digg as my prime example, as I almost always
do, I see duplicate posts, almost back to back, to nearly the same article or
information. Blog posts will be created with a single line in the body of the message
and a link to a video or another blog or site. Dr. Paul's recent visit to USC is a
prime example. I have seen many posts on Digg duplicating the same information,
linking to the same video of photo montage via their own blog, with no value
added.

Some could just be seeing the popularity of Ron Paul and exploiting it for traffic
to their blog (likely in some cases). But I also think there are many who think
they are assisting the campaign by providing these links. I believe
they are not and are helping to dilute the message and the likelihood that the posts
will become popular enough on networking sites to make the front pages. If the
bloggers are going to provide analysis, feedback or add value to a video or foreign
site link, that works for me. But linking to another site or blog as a portal does not.
Link to the source and help clarify and concentrate the message of the campaign.

So now may be the time for the campaign to make an effort at organizing the
resources. More press releases, letters from the campaign and the like can
help clarify and concentrate the message maximizing its impact. While it will
not be possible to get everyone on board, I think it will help in the long run.
It may also let some backers know that they can spend more time on the street
if they feel the work is being done well on the Internet.

I encourage everyone to get involved, voice their opinions and continue to
research the candidates. But if you are going to help people find Dr. Paul,
add some value to your links; write a commentary to give your point of
view. Let your friends and family know you are involved and how
they can become more informed.

The movement is afoot and gaining momentum every day!! Let's keep
up our efforts and become even smarter about it through cooperation
and hard work!!



Technorati Tags: ron paul, election, republican, 2008, president

Powered by ScribeFire.

Giuliani's attempt to capitalize on Ron Paul's honesty.

Looking back on the infamous debate issue where Wendell Goler suggests that Ron Paul
thinks we invited the 9/11 attacks, and reading transcript and listening to it on
Youtube, I can see better what happened.

It does seem to me that Goler really did try to set up Dr. Paul by leading him down the
trail of what he already knew was going to be bait for the other candidates. Bait for them
to try to embarrass and discredit Ron. Let's look:

The end of Ron's first answer:

(Goler asking why Ron wants the nomination)

"....There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the republican party,
it is the constitutional position, it is the advice of the founders to
follow a non-interventionist foreign policy. Stay out of entangling
alliances. Be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and
trade with them. Just think of the tremendous improvement of
relationship with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men, we came home in defeat,
now we go over there and we invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of
merit to the advice of the founders and follow the constitution.
My argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don't end."
(Can anyone argue with this? And isn't this what everyone agrees Bush did?)


So Goler goes on and tries to lead Ron somewhere really bad to most everyone:

Goler: "Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attack?"

Paul: "What changed?"

Goler: "The non-interventionist policies"

Paul: "Non-intervention [ meant to say "intervention"? ] was a major
contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked
us. They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing
Iraq for ten years. We've been in the middle east. I think Reagan was
right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern
politics. Right now We're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger
than the Vatican, we're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say
here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico?
We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the
perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."
(Again, can anyone argue with this? Can Rudy? Is it not true?)

So now the kicker:

Goler: "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks sir?"

Paul: "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us
and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we are over
there cause Osama Bin Laden has said 'I'm glad you're over on our sand
because we can target you so much easier' They've already now since
that time killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary"

(Now let's look at this statement VERY carefully because Rudy is about to pounce on what he KNOWS is a chance to try to bury Ron AND gain credibility off of the backs of 911 victims. Did Ron agree with Goler? I cannot see how this answer agrees with him in ANY way! Ron's previous answer actually
answers THIS question...)

Guiliani (interrupts): "Can I make a comment on that? That's really an
extraordinary statement. As someone who lived through the attack of
September 11th, that we invited the attack because we were attacking
Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before and I've heard some pretty
absurd explanations for September 11th. [ applause ] I would ask the
Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn't really mean
that. [applause]"

(OK, so Rudy pounces! He is no dummy; he sees a chance to leverage his 911 "credibility" and notice how he waits for the applause to die before adding a suggestion that Dr. Paul withdraw the statement. Note that the applause is not what I would EXPECT if the I were in the audience and I did not hear some truth in what Dr. Paul was saying. I would expect roars or outrage; it wasn't there. And yes, it is an EXTRAORDINARY statement to a guy like him; the truth always is..
Of course, Rudy selectively mentions a sliver of the Ron's whole reason; Iraq attacks.)

And Ron fires back; deadpan with no fear THE TRUTH:

Paul: "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach
and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed
the Shah, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking
of our hostages and that persists. If we ignore that, we ignore that at
our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and
not incite hatred then we have a problem. They don't come here to
attack us cause we're rich and we're free. They attack us cause we're
over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were
doing that to us"

At this point, everybody on stage wants to gang up on Ron over this, but I believe he would have handled them all simply by pointing out the fact that his answer said nothing like Rudy's insinuations. But, to Fox's credit, they tabled it and prevented all of it. Rudy was chomping at the bit; literally begging for another 30 seconds.

Folks, these guys are smart. We may hate them and think they don't work in our interest,
because they don't. But we CANNOT underestimate them or we lose. Ron learned it from
this debate. The September debate was nothing like this. He ate them alive there!
I think he did just fine in this debate also, but allowing Goler to put that question (inviting 911)out there
without at least insinuating that the answer was no in some way was just an easy under hand
lob pitch for Rudy. And he jumped on it...

Powered by ScribeFire.

Simple (and cheap) way to help Ron spread the word.

I have done this before and almost made it. But that was before my blog and
I posted it directly on Digg. But I will try it again.

I have created an easy and very cheap pledge on pledgebank.com to post
some Ron Paul campaign signs in your neighborhood. We will start small..
Just 25 signs, and I don't mean bug professional signs. I mean get the
yard sign from Ron's site or here from my photobucket album, go to
any office supply store or the grocery store or wherever and print 25
copies of any of these images on 8.5X11 sheets of paper.

Take them out and staple them to telephone poles, tape them to street
sign poles; any where people will see them. Try to find the highest
traffic area possible; local festivals, a bust intersection or next to a
busy highway! Lotta traffic there!

There will be people who will take them down, so try to put them
somewhere visible, but kind of inaccessible. High up on anything
works well. Those people might not be malicious, just want to keep
paper out of the area. They do the same thing with yard sale signs,
so don't take offense..

But get out and do it! You will be surprised how much it can help and
how few people really know about Ron....

Powered by ScribeFire.

Some observations about Ron Paul's appearance on O-Riley's show.

I am not a regular viewer of Bill's show and I do not pay much attention to him.
I know he is a loud mouth who likes to talk about nothing of substance in general
and likes to hear himself talk. He adds little of value to the news since most of
his presentation is just his opinions... So I guess that is not really news at all..??
(Not that Fox news really shows anything of great value and nothing that can
be useful..)

But, as I and many others on Digg predicted, it was a shout-fest by Bill and
some interrupted answers to the same question over and over from Ron.
O'Riley never really did give Dr. Paul any kind of chance to answer any of
his questions, except for one point where I think the producers must have
told him that he had to give Ron SOME time... Ron did well considering the
context, of which there was none. Of course O'Riley is just looking for a
sound bite, 10 word answer, which is what he generally provides to his
viewers.

Personally, I think it was some kind of "freak show". O'Riley brought Ron
on to embarrass him, to show his (Bill's) "intellectual superiority" and astute
analysis of the situation in the Middle East in general. He has no clue!!
He would not allow any discussion about what got us into the whole mess
in the first place! Yes, it is a little irrelevant right now and we have to deal
with the situation as it is, but in order to do so, one must know how we got
here.

Ron's quotes from the debate are RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! None of them
want us there (another link to my blog, sorry). We have been there way too
long, way beyond THIS war in Iraq and we are in bed with the rich leaders
in the Arab nations who support terrorism and commit human rights
violations! No wonder they hate us!! Like Ron says, it is the policy that
is wrong! The world is less safe when imperialistic administrations like
we have now think that they can cram their ideals down the throats of
everyone else. It just can't work. Believe it or not GW, EVERYONE
wants to be free; not just Iraqis and Americans...

Should we step in when atrocities are being committed; yes.
Should we as Ron says, "...mind our own business, defend our borders
and defend this country..". Hell, yes! I have no desire to police the
world and the rest of America is getting just as tired of it!

Look at these polls:

Iraq CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-8, 2007. N=1,035 adults nationwide
FOX News Poll: Even With Surge Improvements, Most Want U.S. Out Of Iraq (granted from July 2007)
Global Poll: Majority Wants Troops Out of Iraq Within a Year

Technorati Tags: ron paul, election, 2008, iraq

Powered by ScribeFire.

More ways to get the word out on Ron Paul.

I was watching football yesterday and it came to me.

Why not make a sign and take it to the game? Walk it around both
inside and out. Do you have season tickets ( I can't afford them)?
If so, take a sign to every home game and display it.

Take one to baseball games if you go. Any where you can get exposure
to groups of people. Make one on a bed sheet with some markers
from your kids' drawers. Anything to get more people to hear Ron's
message!

And, do you know a celebrity? No matter how famous, infamous or
little known. Talk to them about Dr. Paul; see what they think and
ask for an endorsement! If you get it I will post it!

Oktoberfests should be cropping up, especially in the Midwest. Get
out and put up some signs. Staple them to telephone poles. Just an
8.5 X 11 sheet of paper with the stock yard sign from the campaign
website will do. I put a bunch of them up around a recent car show in
my neighborhood.

Try to get window or counter space at your local businesses. Get the
word out that way; as people pass buy or shop. Ask the business owners
about Ron Paul; pass out some information and tell them they can be on
our online Honor Roll of Businesses for Ron Paul. I will gladly post their info
on that blog!

Powered by ScribeFire.

I guess more people agree with Ron on Iraq than anyone thought..

So, what did Ron Paul say at the latest debate?

Some quotes before the actual meat of this post:

"The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a
cake walk, a slam dunk and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them?
They've been wrong on everything they said..."

"Going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the WORST thing we
can do for our national security! I am less safe; the American people are less safe
for this. Its the policy that is wrong!"

"...shifting troops around, taking in 30 more and reducing by 5; totally irrelevant!!..."

"What do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing is saving face!!"

Recently, so articles has come to light about the Republican voters and Iraqi
view on the troops in Iraq. Seems both of them want our troops to come
home (or at least get out in the Iraqis case). Yet all of the Republican candidates
(except RP) and GW insist that we must stay!

Well, you tell me. Look at these articles and tell me what we should do:

Poll:Majority of Iowa Republicans Wants Out of Iraq in Six Months

US surge has failed - Iraqi poll

So, what do you think? Was he right? Should we leave ASAP?

Seems both the Republican voters in Iowa AND the Iraqi people agree!

Powered by ScribeFire.