Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 22, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

THE RON PAUL BOOM....Is libertarian, um, provocateur — yeah, that's the word — Ron Paul actually more popular than polls indicate? Andrew Sullivan hauls out the old chestnut about cell phone bias today, suggesting that Paul's support skews young, the young use cell phones a lot, and cell phones don't get included in telephone polls — so maybe the polls are underrepresenting Paul's support.

Maybe indeed. But I wouldn't bet the farm on that, pollsters being a more clever lot than Andrew and Joshua Claybourn give them credit for. But Andrew has a fallback position:

One more thought: I wonder if libertarians are more likely to have cell-phones than others?

Give it up, dude. There's no there there. What's really going on is that Ron Paul's support is fantastically overrepresented in the blogosphere, which skews absurdly libertarian for reasons both historical and cultural. In the outside world, though, there's just no support for hard core libertarianism. The reason Ron Paul is polling about 1% is because.....Ron Paul is polling about 1%.

UPDATE: Claybourn fights back here. A report from the Pew Research Center about the effect of cell phones on polling is here. I'm still not buying, though. It's true that the cell phone problem is a growing one, but its overall effect is still pretty small, and certainly nowhere near big enough to have a noticeable impact on Ron Paul's showing in the polls.

Anyway, come on, guys. We're talking about a candidate who thinks we'd be best off getting rid of Social Security altogether and who wants to abolish the federal reserve, repeal the 16th Amendment, and put us back on the gold standard. This is really not a platform designed to muster up more than 1% of the vote.

Kevin Drum 12:41 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (284)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

So, us old guys don't have cell phones?

Posted by: tomeck on June 22, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

THE RON PAUL BOOM....Is libertarian, um, provocateur — yeah, that's the word — Ron Paul actually more popular than polls indicate?

No. Who cares? He's just a sideshow.

Posted by: JeffII on June 22, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt his real support is even 1%.

Posted by: Will Allen on June 22, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

But I wouldn't bet the farm on that, pollsters being a more clever lot than Andrew and Josh Claybourne give them credit for.

Maybe someone can clarify, but I don't know of any pollsters that have cell-only correction in their results.

Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra on June 22, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, the young are also much more comfortable with ironic posing, so any support for Ron Paul they express could just be an elaborate meta-comment on the insanity of the political system, not reflective of anything else. So the whole cell phone thing would balance out, wouldn't it?

Posted by: biggerbox on June 22, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

So I was at a parade here in sunny Seattle last weekend; I saw a bunch of dudes with fancy, yet incoherent "REPENT!" and "JEEBUS IS AFTER YOU!" signs, a bunch of 9/11 TRUTH!!?1! morons, a posse of Ron Paul fans, and a hundred or so naked, body-painted bicyclists.

So there you have it.

Posted by: seattleite on June 22, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

But, what are the pollsters doing about cell phone bias?

Seriously.

A great many people only have a cellphone. How do pollsters reach them?

Posted by: Bruce Wilder on June 22, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

But, what are the pollsters doing about cell phone bias?

Seriously.

A great many people only have a cellphone. How do pollsters reach them?

Posted by: Bruce Wilder on June 22, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Who IS Ron Paul? Do your own homework.
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

www.ronpaulaudio.com

Posted by: goldenequity on June 22, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Can we go ahead and declare the cell phone analogy to be the 21st century equivalent of the old "well, the polls said Dewey was going to beat Truman" chestnut that failing campaigns tend to trot out when their situation looks hopeless? I remember reams of number-juggling during the '04 campaign (at MyDD and elsewhere) trying to argue that Kerry was actually running several points higher than the polls indicated because of the young-person-cell-phone thing, only to have him end up with pretty much what the polls predicted.

Even if Sullivan is right (*snort*), and Ron Paul's support is drastically underrepresented, then what's the big deal? He's actually at 4%, instead of the 1-2% he shows in most polls? Ohhhh, that changes everything! The whole GOP race is about to be turned on its ear!

Posted by: FMguru on June 22, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

It's too bad that Ron Paul isn't polling better. A few of us on the left (Max Sawicky was the 1st to blog on this that I know of) like his style. OK, we would not want him to become President - but then how bad can a politician really be if he really means what he says?!

Posted by: pgl on June 22, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Random digit dialing (based on a specific locality's three digit prefixes) contacts cell phone users just as much as land line users, I would guess.

Posted by: Brojo on June 22, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul: roughly as crazy as the three Republican front-runners, which is really saying something, albeit in different ways; his natural constituency is the six self-identified libertarians who think Bush sucks but also are strongly pro-life; his presidential campaign rocketed up to one percent approval because in the Republican primary debates he was the only guy who agrees with the general public about the Iraq war; his opinions apparently do, in fact, take into account information that has been public since 2001. And he's principled!

Seriously, good for Mr. Paul, but you know, bad for the other 28 Republican candidates, the Republican primary voters, the media, and America.

Posted by: Cyrus on June 22, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

i was on a tour bus in seattle when we passed a rally on behalf of ron paul. there were at least three people there with signs.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on June 22, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

I just got called by a poll worker yesterday, and when I informed them that I was not in my residence because I was on a cell phone, they said kthx bye.

So there's your confirmation of polling bias right there, anecdotally, from Atlanta, Georgia.

Posted by: bret on June 22, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

That great libbertarian Ron Paul supported by other well-known libertarians like David Duke . . .

Posted by: rea on June 22, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

To the phone bias people - pollsters weight results. How do you know they don't account for this cell phone phenomenon by over-weighting the cohorts that are likelier to be cellphone only?

Posted by: matt on June 22, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Americans love their covert communist government. They voted for Bush in 2004. Hey, let them have it, with all the trimmings, in full glory -- Mickey Mouse individual rights, Mickey Mouse democracy, Mickey Mouse standard of living, and the Mickey Mouse "disappearing" of anyone who threatens the megalomaniacs. If you folks with money or power think you are immune from the evils of communism, you're next on the hit list, right after they rape the middle class with the crash of the US dollar. Such is the definition of communism run by megalomaniacs. An Empire built on mistrust is an empire doomed from the beginning -- why bother?

Posted by: Dean Kelmer on June 22, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

FMguru has it right. Even if cell phone toting young'uns support Paul overwhelmingly, who cares? They don't vote much and they don't make large contributions. Who needs 'em?

Posted by: tomeck on June 22, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

John Kerry's 2004 campaign spent quite a bit of time and money pursuing hard evidence that Gallup, Harrison and other polling offices were skewed beyong belief. They found lots of evidence. Enough to warrant ignoring any election poll that's made available.

I am a statistical analyst and I can tell you, based on my own experience, that none of these polls are very accurate. For every poll that says X, you can find another that says Y.

The only reason polls appear in the media is to flaunt communist-style methods over democracy, to manipulate public opinion.

All of this talk is nonsense, however. It's clear the 2008 election has already been pre-determined. The hard part now is to get the American people to believe it has not.

You folks posting here against Ron Paul scare me. Some of you are obviously paid and I hope you can live with yourselves, when it's all said and done.

Posted by: Richard Doherty on June 22, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Zealots are always the most visible supporters. But one shouldn't turn away because zealots are whacky. Most movements of substance start with a fringe of zealotry.

I am a very conservative Ron Paul supporter, because he represents truly American ideals.

I guess we are the 1% until the day comes to show and prove.

As for the rest of us Republicans, I state, "A vote against Ron Paul is a vote for Hillary Clinton."

Posted by: Will Williams on June 22, 2007 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

I never heard of this guy until this week.

I must lead a sheltered life.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on June 22, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Funny post.

The most interesting thing about Ron Paul is that when people taunt him in the comments section on YouTube, he taunts back quite unpresidentially. That may or may not be a good thing.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Well, okay, but the "the reason" is never "because."

Posted by: bleh on June 22, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Can we go ahead and declare the cell phone analogy to be the 21st century equivalent of the old "well, the polls said Dewey was going to beat Truman" chestnut that failing campaigns tend to trot out when their situation looks hopeless?

Yeah, we can say the cell phone bias is probably overrated, but I still want to geekily point out that the polls really were off with Truman and Dewey. They polled phone customers and left out non-phone customers who at that time represented a huge chunk of rural and suburban America.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

That great libbertarian Ron Paul supported by other well-known libertarians like David Duke . . .

I see this smear most often leveled by GWB-worshipping pro-war wingnuts who view Paul as an GOP infidel.

They always neglect to add that David Duke supported GWB too.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Show me the last president that has acted "presidentially," and you will need to reach back 30 years. Jimmy and Ronnie, perhaps. "Presidential" attitude these days means "macho" and if you are really into that, you should spend more time Mexico. They're much better at "machismo" than we are up here. Mexico's PRI party perfected "macho" some time ago.

Posted by: Mark on June 22, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Let's say there is a cell phone bias. What's that mean, instead of 1% he's really got 2%? Wow, a veritable avalanche of support.

Posted by: alex on June 22, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

If you use sites like reddit or digg, you can see the effects of Ron Paul spammers, they're maniacs who post over and over and over. They're trying to make it look like there's more support than there actually is.

But if you want a realistic look at Ron Paul, I suggest reading David Niewert's expose, he does a fairly good job of connecting Ron Paul to various fringe nutcases like John Birchers and tax resisters

Posted by: charlie don't surf on June 22, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

As for cell phones and polls, I thought that in 2004 that Zogby was the only major pollster accounting for them. Has this changed at all?

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Clearly, the Ron Paul supporters who are diving in here are going to be every bit as fucking annoying as Nader's people were. Kill us now.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

I think what the Howard Dean campaign showed us was that Internet support leads mainstream support. Dean was big on the net first before he ever polled well in real life.

Ron Paul's Internet support really started taking off only about a month ago as shown by this alexa traffic graph.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=ronpaul2008.com&site1=mittromney.com&site2=joinrudy2008.com&site3=JohnMcCain.com&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=400&w=700&range=7d&size=Large&url=ronpaul2008.com

We all know things move faster on the web and I'd give it more time to see if the web support moves to the real world.

I accept that Internet users lean libertarian, but in a soon to be 12 way race, with only one Anti-War candidate against 11 Pro-War candidates, it may not take big numbers to win the nomination.

Newt Gingrich is correct when he points out that the only way Republicans can win in 08 is to distance themselves from Bush. Who can do this better than Ron Paul?

Posted by: John Campbell on June 22, 2007 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

Re: "maybe he's actually at 4% support...that changes everything!"

Love the snark.

Posted by: parrot on June 22, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a 42 year old businessman who has never registered to vote because I always saw the candidates as a pack of lying bastards.

In Ron Paul I feel I've found some one who can turn this country around. He's the first politician I know of who doesn't seem to be a sellout. I'll be voting for the first time in my life this election- voting for Dr. Paul.

Posted by: Chris McNeil on June 22, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

I prefer Mrs. Paul. Love her fish.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

John Campbell: We all know things move faster on the web and I'd give it more time to see if the web support moves to the real world.

Today 1%, tomorrow 2%!

Posted by: alex on June 22, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

This is simply a fact that polls are designed to shape elections. If I were going to design a poll I would make it such that you could actually get meaningful information from it. As we have it we end up with a very nebulous figure. When the polls indicate that Ron Paul is 1% it could just as much indicate that too few people even know about Ron Paul yet. But, instead of the media taking this as an indication it needs to give him more coverage they are using this as a reason to marginalize him and push him off the stage. To me this is simply anti-democratic.

Polls might be scientific but they are being used destructively instead of constructively when it comes to candidates who are trying to get some recognition and coverage that don't have the help of the media.

Fortunately we have the internet and I think it will become more and more obvious that the media is going to find their pants at their ankles about Ron Paul.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution!

Posted by: Jason Wharton on June 22, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

On July 15th the Q2 fundraising numbers will be released.

There's going to be some surprised people here.

Posted by: Klingon #53 on June 22, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

You anti Ron Paul guys are in denial. Among Republican Candidates Ron Paul is:

1st on YouTube (Subscribers and Downloads)
http://www.techpresident.com/youtube

2nd (soon to be first) on Myspace
http://www.techpresident.com/scrape_plot/myspace

2nd (soon to be first) on Facebook
http://www.techpresident.com/scrape_plot/facebook
And on Meetup there is no contest: http://ronpaul.meetup.com/about/

Ron Paul 14,381 members in 345 Meetup groups.
Rudy 28 members in 1 Meetup group.
Romney 18 members in 1 Meetup group.
McCain 3 members in 1 Meetup group.

These are real people volunteering their time and effort to show up at meetings in person and work for the campaign. Not computer geeks trolling the blogs from the parents' basement.

Posted by: John Campbell on June 22, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a 42 year old businessman who has never registered to vote because I always saw the candidates as a pack of lying bastards.

In Ron Paul I feel I've found some one who can turn this country around. He's the first politician I know of who doesn't seem to be a sellout. I'll be voting for the first time in my life this election- voting for Dr. Paul.

Thanks for sharing your personal story, Chris! We feel like you're speaking totally off the cuff--speaking just to us!

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm a 42 year old businessman who has never registered to vote because I always saw the candidates as a pack of lying bastards."

So instead of a bastard who will lie about fucking over the country and destroying every government apparatus he can get his hands on until we live in a state of fantasy land libertarian Social Darwinism, at least Ron Paul will tell you the truth about it?

Posted by: Jason on June 22, 2007 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Fortunately we have the internet and I think it will become more and more obvious that the media is going to find their pants at their ankles about Ron Paul.

Could be! But I last heard this statement from Alan Keyes supporters up to and until the day Barack Obama beat him 70-something to 20-something.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. I didn't realize how much Kevin Drum's readers hate Ron Paul, in spite of the fact that he is the war's most vocal critic among elected Republicans. (One deranged individual even characterized him as David Duke!)

One criticism of the Left made by the right that I have been reluctant to accept is that they do not really care (at least on the establishment level) about Iraq, which is why the neoconservatives, in spite of the full force campaign of evil that they have engaged in over the last few years, are still welcome in the pages of the New York Times and other high end media outlets, whereas the anti-war right represented by Ron Paul is shut out of the conversation. This is because the Left is far more hostile to the antiwar right's condemnation of the Left's politically correct superstate than it is to something as insignificant as a little war founded on deception. Well, I was skeptical...not so much now.

Why this amount of contempt shown towards the most principled and decent candidate running is beyond me. What a liberal ghetto this blog seems to be!

Posted by: BC on June 22, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the Ron Paul inet trolls certainly are well organized.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

dead BC: the reason Ron Paul is moved in these parts is he is one of those Libertarian True Believers who apparently doesn't think we need a federal government at all except in the very barest sense. Sorry, but someone who wants to abolish the Department of Education (among just about everything else) deserves the derision they get. I don't care if he's right on ONE issue, he's wrong on just about every other issue.

Posted by: Jason on June 22, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

oops meant "dear BC:" not "dead". SOrry.

Posted by: Jason on June 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

I guess I've been censored. My first comment went right up, but my second comment was held for review. Now I see more recent comments than mine.

I provided evidence of growing Ron Paul support both on and off the Internet, with sources to back it up.

I guess, you guys consider that spamming. Have fun talking to yourselves.

[Nothing so conspiratorial as all that. Comments with more than two links are pro forma held for approval. It's how we got rid of the link spam. If you were a regular here you would know that.]

Posted by: John Campbell on June 22, 2007 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

(One deranged individual even characterized him as David Duke!)

Shall we assume that your woeful reading comprehension and/or eagerness to fabricate someone else's position (equating "supported by David Duke" with "characterizes him as David Duke) is at the back of your support of Mr. Paul?

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I know I sound like a broken record but go to intrade and see what the real money market looks like. Intrade has a record far better than any poll.

I have never traded on intrade. I own no stock or anything to do with intrade.

As of last night, Ron Paul was way down in the pack. Fred, Rudy, Mitt, John are all way ahead of Ron Paul, the guy with 2 1st names.

Posted by: neil wilson on June 22, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

They thought the same with Kerry in '04 and it turned out to be wrong. Also, I only have a cell phone and have been called for polls numerous times by now.

Posted by: gq on June 22, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

We didn't even have a Department of Education until 1980. How did we survive as a nation for 204 years without it?

I pay 14,000 per year in property taxes on my home and another 9,000 per year on commercial property, most of which goes to Education. Yet my daughter attends public shool IN A TRAILER.

Guess I need more of my Federal taxes spent on education as well.

Posted by: John Campbell on June 22, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Why don't you just home-school her, John? Thought you were leaving, by the way...?

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Home schooling wouldn't save me any money. The government would still confiscate and waste my tax dollars.

Posted by: John Campbell on June 22, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

But she wouldn't be in a trailer. Or would she?

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

BC: I didn't realize how much Kevin Drum's readers hate Ron Paul

We'll take Ron Paul seriously when someone starts taking Dennis Kucinich seriously.

One criticism of the Left made by the right

Why is "Left" capitalized and "right" isn't? Next up: women vs. males.

that they do not really care ... about Iraq

Oh, I care about Iraq, but I care about Turkmenistan more.

Please spare me the humanitarian concern for the freedom (oops, I meant Freedom) loving Iraqi people. The only plausible argument for concern is (as Colin Powell put it) Pottery Barn rules. It would have been nice to avoid this problem by not indulging in the stupidity of invading Iraq in the first place (GHWB had it right years ago).

Why this amount of contempt shown towards the most principled and decent candidate running is beyond me.

When do worship services start?

He may be principled and he may be decent, but he's a libertopian dreamer. The anarchist and communist dreamers seem to have largely disappeared, why can't the libertarians follow suit?

What a liberal ghetto this blog seems to be!

Yeah, but at least the neighborhood has a low crime rate.

Posted by: alex on June 22, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

But she wouldn't be in a trailer. Or would she?

That's some nice snark.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

This is because the Left is far more hostile to the antiwar right's condemnation of the Left's politically correct superstate than it is to something as insignificant as a little war founded on deception. Well, I was skeptical...not so much now.
Why this amount of contempt shown towards the most principled and decent candidate running is beyond me. What a liberal ghetto this blog seems to be!
Posted by: BC on June 22, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

BC, stop staring into the mirror or you'll die of starvation, forever fixated on the beauty of your moral righteousness and perfection.

Your thesis of left wing shallowness is ass backwards. The reason I distain Ron Paul is because I take him seriously. His anti war stance is noble, and for that I applaud him. His desire to return America to a 1928 economic legal and social status is horrific, and all the more so in that Mr. Paul holds his social economic beliefs fervently.

Sorry, I'd rather cast my vote for a candidate and a party who aren't going to convulse America into a social revolution as violent as the military bloodbath we created in Iraq. If you believe the libertarian canon and faith then power to you, but don't place yourself above us because we don't.

After all, aren't libertarians about 'free' choice?

Posted by: Northern Observer on June 22, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Btw, speaking of snark, I would like to thank BC for reminding all us lefties in the most condescending way possible that the only issue we care about is the Iraq war. Good to see that people of such depth, intellect, and social skills are flocking to Paul.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Are you guys old enough to remember what life was like before airline and telephone deregulation. Airfare is cheaper now than in the 70's despite 30 years of inflation. Same for long distance. And you had to pay extra every month for each phone in your house.

Yet we continue to insist on government run education and we are moving toward government run healthcare. I understand the Community Effect arguments in favor of government education, but I object to the government monopoly.

Another example is FedEx. Would the USPS ever have offered overnight delivery if not for competition from FedEx?

Posted by: John Campbell on June 22, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, counter arguments can be SO annoying.

OK! So these two post-debate polls are utterly meaningless. Yeah, you right!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/
>38,700 responding - Ron Paul 69%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/gop.debate/results.html
>25,250 responding - Ron Paul 60%

Higher samplings than any single fone poll.

70% of Americans want to get out Iraq and here are 2 polls that reflect that sentiment. It's so annoying!

Ron Paul is drawing support from across the political label spectrum. Many are no longer hung up on labels, especially with the growing realization that R & D are merely flip sides of the same coin anymore. People are responding to Paul's freedom message and are voting the man & the message, not his affiliation. Peruse the petition sites and listen to the call-ins when Ron is interviewed, I read or hear a lot of people ID themselves as Dems crossing over or Repubs returning to the fold.

Yup, paradigm shifts are SO annoying...

[This is the last post with multiple links I am going to post. We have a link limit to eliminate the spam, and I have more than one thread to moderate. I realize libertarians don't much care for rules, but we have a couple of them here, and from now on, if you post so many links that the comment is held, it will not appear.]

Posted by: LeeL on June 22, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Dear alex,

I've read your comments before, and you seem reasonable. (I seem to have touched a nerve!)

By "care about Iraq" I meant "care about the Iraq issue or Iraq War", not about the hopeless canard about Iraqi democracy.

My point was that the establishment Left (I capitalized "Left" precisely because I was talking about an establishment) is perfectly willing to accept a few foreign wars based on deceit if that means it can block real conservatives (who do not need to be s "extreme" as Ron Paul, but who are at least serious about reducing the scale of gov. and restoring traditional values in a way that the neocons aint. That's why the Left still prefers a neoconservative "loyal opposition" to seriously engaging the real right.

I was skeptical, again, not so much now.

Posted by: BC on June 22, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

John Campbell: Are you guys old enough to remember what life was like before airline and telephone deregulation.

Yeah, it was bad. Thank God for Jimmy Carter.

Another example is FedEx. Would the USPS ever have offered overnight delivery if not for competition from FedEx?

Probably not, which may explain the wise policy we've always had of not prohibiting that sort of competition with the USPS.

In fact, this sort of gov't vs. private industry competition is precisely what some pinkos like Dean Baker suggest. By contrast, libertarians think that the gov't doing anything is inherently evil.

Posted by: alex on June 22, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

If libertarians actually had to live in a world run by their ideology, they'd all turn Democrat.

Posted by: Joshua Norton on June 22, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

You have assets so great that you pay over 23 grand a year in property taxes alone and your child is in public school? Pardon my incredulity, but I am having a hard time believing that claim.

As to whining about paying taxes - some of us are trying to have a civilization here, and that's the entry fee.

If you think no government is the best government, hell, Somalia circa 1993 must strike you lot as paradise.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 22, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Libertarians just don't pay taxes on their cell phone use.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on June 22, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, good f-ing lawd, Campbell. Crack open an econ 101 textbook sometime and read up on the diff between public and private goods. The invisible hand is a metaphor, not a deity.

Are these the kind of remedial nutters we're going to have to put up with for the next 12 months? It's going to be one long hard slog.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

I understand the Community Effect arguments in favor of government education...

Clearly, you don't understand the community effect arguments in favor of anything (including getting out of Iraq, which you and Ron Paul oppose solely because of the high cost and an isolationist foreign policy). If you did, you would not be trolling a liberal blog trying to sell us on Paul by discussing freaking airline deregulation and the competitive power of FedEx instead of, OH, SAY, the rampant Constitutional abuses of this administration and its mushrooming executive power.

For Pete's sake, take two minutes to learn what makes your audience tick instead of assuming that everyone is motivated solely by your visceral hatred of taxes.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

In 2004, the cellphone bias was not significant. Another study showed a 2% difference.

You folks posting here against Ron Paul scare me…. Richard Doherty at 1:42 PM

Nothing so scares a Libertarian like people laughing the their preposterous theories.
….more of my Federal taxes spent on education …. John Campbell at 2:56 PM

I thought you guys wanted that to be a local responsibility, which it is. Complain to your governor.


Posted by: Mike on June 22, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Are these the kind of remedial nutters we're going to have to put up with for the next 12 months? It's going to be one long hard slog.

I told y'all they were going to be as annoying as the Naderites. I was wrong. They're going to be 20 times worse. At least the Naderites had the right problem, wrong solution.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

"You have assets so great that you pay over 23 grand a year in property taxes alone and your child is in public school? Pardon my incredulity, but I am having a hard time believing that claim."

You're applying Red State logic there Blue Girl.

I hate to say it but many of us Blue Staters who comparatively speaking do much better pay-wise than our Red State counterparts are forced to pay property taxes like that commonly. It sucks big time. and then to top it all off, we get nailed by the good old AMT. "But I pay all this money in property, local and state taxes! Too bad," the IRS replies, "Uncle Same needs to get his too."

It is unfortunately, the single greatest downside to making a decent living in affluent but wholey blue states.

Posted by: ny patriot on June 22, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

But she wouldn't be in a trailer. Or would she?

Shortstop, that has to be one of the greatest lines in the history of the Calpundit/Political Animal comment threads.

Seriously, though, dude's paying $23,000+ in property taxes, he's marked what economic class he belongs to. That's the real Ron Paul base - people who want to do away with the federal government because they figure they have the means to survive without it, not snarky kids with cell phones.

There is no equivalent to American-style libertarianism anywhere else in the world, mostly because Americans are the only people who can afford to be libertarians.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on June 22, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Complain to your governor.

He would. But it's a 300-mile drive over a dusty dirt road, which incidentally is the only thing our Federal taxes should prolly be going toward, to get to the state capital.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=2116

Posted by: Chris McNeil on June 22, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Jason,

The Department of Education?! WOW! I would advise you to set the bar higher for your sacred cows. I can understand building a shrine to the New Deal, since we learn that in public school, but the DoE is a Carter boondoggle which symbolizes the decline in American education over the course of it's existence. (The last two points might be related.)

Shortstop:

[E]quating "supported by David Duke" with "characterizes him as David Duke is at the back of your support of Mr. Paul..."

Now what is the difference between saying that David Duke supports RP, rather than say, Felix Johnson or John Doe? Could it be the implication of sympathy between Paul's views and Duke's? I'm trying to think of another purpose it could serve....

And no, I am not a foot soldier of the Paul Campaign, just some dude speaking his mind in a conversation.

Posted by: BC on June 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

And no, I am not a foot soldier of the Paul Campaign, just some dude speaking his mind in a conversation...

...who just happened to show up simultaneously with four or five other Paul-supporting dudes to share their casual thoughts with the liberals, minutes after Drum makes his first-ever Ron Paul post. Gee, what are the odds?! Thanks for stopping by, BC!

Thanks, dr. sardonicus and Disputo.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

BC: I've read your comments before, and you seem reasonable.

Well, here in NY that's not considered a nice thing to say, but I'll make allowance for regional differences.

By "care about Iraq" I meant "care about the Iraq issue or Iraq War", not about the hopeless canard about Iraqi democracy.

How exactly are they supposed to show they care? At this point the only reasonable course of action is to leave. The time for any other concern to be of any practical value is long past.

I capitalized "Left" precisely because I was talking about an establishment

That may be, but capitalizing Left is a common practice of the Right. Simply referring to the "establishment left" makes the point.

is perfectly willing to accept a few foreign wars based on deceit if that means it can block real conservatives

No, I think that the "establishment left" (by which I mean the mainstream of the Democratic party) is perfectly willing to accept a few foreign wars based on deceit because those assholes thought it was politically expedient.

I'm cynical about the motives of those who voted for the war, but think that their concern was to avoid being demonized by the mainstream (whatever that currently means) of the Republican party. They're the most formidable opponents in a political sense.

I doubt that there's any real concern on the part of mainstream Dems about what you call the "real right", as they're not in a powerful position.

You can argue that Ron Paul would be a great president, and you might even be right, but he's not what worries the Dems, or even the "real left".

Posted by: alex on June 22, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

$23,000 PER YEAR IN PROPERTY TAXES?

I pay roughly $37,000 in property taxes each year. Ugh. But I own several homes. And, they're not "trailers."

It is unfortunately, the single greatest downside to making a decent living in affluent but wholey(sic) blue states.

Even though, politically, I love where Mississippi and Alabama are, there's virtually no amount of money that could convince me to live in a swamp near rednecks. I don't like a lot of gunfire. I certainly don't need pick-em up trucks driving through my yard in the middle of the night while two good ole boys holler and throw beer cans about the property. I don't think New Hampshire counts as a wholly blue state. Connecticut, yes, that's a blue state and that's where the other house is located. My wife will not pay taxes and she will not allow me access to the proper paperwork where I could change some of the use of the property over to some bogus charity or wetlands use (there is a pond) and get some relief. She thinks it is one just and proper that I suffer. Woe is me, I guess.

Look, the confiscatory taxes of the Clintonista years are going to make a comeback. I may have to sell property in order to keep above my comfort line. I may have to move my money and my assets to a comfortable offshore location. I'm thinking of some island in the Bahamas or something. I don't know which one. It's late afternoon and I am dead dog tired from sitting on my deck and doing nothing.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

I said:

Good to see that people of such depth, intellect, and social skills are flocking to Paul.

BC adds:

And no, I am not a foot soldier of the Paul Campaign, just some dude speaking his mind in a conversation.

I forgot to add "honesty" to the list of traits of Paul supporters. My bad.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Gee Kevin did you feel that way about Howard Dean four years ago?

The answer is we won't know until the first votes are counted how much support Ron Paul really has. Any political consulant worth his salt knows these national polls are nothing but name recognition and that states poll are the same way until six weeks before their primary or caucus date. But its also clear in terms of intensity of support, especially online, he more than outclasses the rest of the GOP field and has the poential to draw from a variety of voter groups. If Fred Thompson is so popular outside of a group Beltway conservatives, where are all his meetup.com groups? Hmmm?

I think its safe to say Ron Paul has more support outside the party than in it so if you are a libertarian and you want to switch your registration to Republican to vote for Ron Paul this year, you're not going to get picked up by the pollsters either.

Oh by the way, guess who was also at the same level of support at this time before the primaries began? Jimmy Carter and George McGovern.

It's taken you a while (and maybe you had to force yourself to write this blog entry) but thanks Kevin for noticing the Ron Paul Revolution.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on June 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

using as much real data as Sully does, I think I can totally refute this. First off, people with mobiles and no landlines are going to be overwhelmingly young, as he says. They are also going to be overwhelmingly either urban and professional or urban and poor. neither one of these is a Paul fan group.

wait, did the unabomber have a cell phone?

Posted by: northzax on June 22, 2007 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Sean Scallon: the Ron Paul Revolution

2008: Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich. It oughta be interesting.

Posted by: alex on June 22, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know which made me snerk louder--this:

It's late afternoon and I am dead dog tired from sitting on my deck and doing nothing.

or this:

I forgot to add "honesty" to the list of traits of Paul supporters. My bad.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, forget it.

The libernutties are bad enough, but if I have to hold the hands of Pon Raul supporters and explain the difference between a self-selecting sample and a random sample, I'd rather shoot myself.

No wonder these nuts hate the public schools -- it's easier than hating their own stupidity.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

With real estate prices what they are $23,000 is the tax bill on a 3000 square foot home and one investment property in Los Angeles. That doesn't make you rich in my opinion.

Posted by: John Campbell on June 22, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Y'all gotta get a new tagline to replace the Ron Paul Revolution. It totally sounds like you're hawking home gym equipment or one-piece business suits or something.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

I love all the whining about Ron Paul "nutters" and "spammers" and etc etc. This is totally like an MMO.

OMG RON PAUL GUILD IS ZERG AGAIN LOL LOL WTF

Gimme a break. There's a lot of us, for a reason: government continues to get an F for effort. It's time to change. Rolling back to "1928" is not what RP wants to do; he'd like to go back to 1912 ... I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then. When will we learn?

Posted by: bret on June 22, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

A smart person would pass the property tax bill for his investment property onto his renters, but I guess that would prevent him from claiming it as money out of his pocket then, wouldn't it?

Good thing I add "honesty" to the list....

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

he'd like to go back to 1912 ... I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then.

For whom, white boy?

Posted by: everybody else on June 22, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

he'd like to go back to 1912 ... I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then.

Now I get it. Pon Raul supporters hate indoor plumbing.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Come on, Kevin -- there's an awful lot of time for the polls to shift as people learn more about the candidates.

1) we're still 7 months from the Iowa Caucus
2) Ron Paul doesn't have the name recognition yet of Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or Thompson
3) Paul's campaign has spent only around $500,000 thus far, compared to between 6-12 million for Romney, McCain and Giuliani
4) Early polls tend to measure name recognition
5) We still have six debates coming up
6) As I mentioned upthread, Paul's Q2 fundraising numbers are going to instantly put him in the top tier on July 15th (he'll have more cash on hand than McCain)
7) Paul has gotten very little MSM coverage, it's only now starting to happen

So I think it's a wee tad early for "give it up" pronouncements, Kevin.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

6) As I mentioned upthread, Paul's Q2 fundraising numbers are going to instantly put him in the top tier on July 15th (he'll have more cash on hand than McCain)

Would you care to place a side bet on that, Mr. Klingon?

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Hey shortstop, In the very same post you said:

"OH, SAY, the rampant Constitutional abuses of this administration and its mushrooming executive power."

AND

"For Pete's sake, take two minutes to learn what makes your audience tick..."

Ron Paul is the single biggest advocate in the entire Congress for a return of government includeing the executive branch to its constitional limits.

Ron Paul was one of only 3 Republican members of Congress to vote against the Patriot act when it was extremely unpopular to do so and he regularly criticises the Bush admininstration for trying to grab power for the executive branch.

Also check out his congressional speeches and articles on the Military Commisions Act and NSPD 51.

Posted by: John Campbell on June 22, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

You folks posting here against Ron Paul scare me. Some of you are obviously paid and I hope you can live with yourselves, when it's all said and done.

My God, when I think that but for us liberal posters here, Ron Paul might well become the next President of the United States, I'm simply overcome with guilt.

Sometimes, the twisted pleasure I get out of tearing down the last bastions of civilization and democracy can't really manage to distract me from the shame I feel over what I've done.

Why, God, oh why did you make me a liberal? I'm addicted to a drug called Depravity!

Posted by: frankly0 on June 22, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

But, John, I had to hold your hand and lead you to get you to talk about checking executive abuses of power. You were too fired up about FedEx's creation of healthy competition and your own high property taxes to even stop to think what you should be saying to a liberal audience.

Do you see the problem here? I shouldn't have to explain to you how to market your candidate for whom I won't be voting. You guys are hopeless. It's the self-absorbed blinders of libertarianism at work again.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Btw, just as a general question to you anti-war libertarians:

Where the F have you been the last 7 years?

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Sure, Disputo! Even money or do you want odds ;)

Disclosure, I gave Ron Paul $2,300. And I am a Ron Paul addict!

How about if McCain has more cash on hand than Paul when the numbers come out in mid-July, then I'll donate $50 to the campaign of your choice, and if Paul has more you donate $50 to his campaign?

Someone tell us if this wager is illegal?!

Whaddya say, Disputo? We're all gentlemen here, let's have some fun.

Posted by: Klingon #53 on June 22, 2007 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

It is so weird that with so many discrete Ron Paul supporters here, they never accidentally talk over each other or post at the same time. Each one waits five or so minutes from the previous one's post before proffering his own comments. That's some libertarian courtesy for you.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

True, the real right is not in a powerful position, and the establishment left keeps them out of sight precisely because they would like to keep it that way. I don't know about the popular left. I would hope they hate Michael Ledeen and other warmongers as much as or worse than Ron Paul, who at least hasn't killed anyone.

Our current establishment is probably post-left post-right, and selects standard bearers of both labels who will do it's bidding. This is probably more the case than who is keeping whom out and who is afraid of whom.

Nobody wants us out of Iraq more than I.

I don't know what RP would do if he were to win, which he virtually certainly will not. If I though he would dismantle the welfare state completely in one fell swoop, it would scare me to death; but if I thought he would take steps to progressively shrink our government, he would be my man. I'm a small government Constitutional conservative, not a libertarian idealogue. I think RP is of the same mind.

These days, of course, following the Constitution is considered maniacally extreme.

Posted by: BC on June 22, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop, You are obviously too concerned with snappy answers to carry on a meaningful exchange.

I brought up FedEx, competition, and property taxes in response to a previous post regarding abolishing the Dept of Education. It was relevent to the discussion.

If you want to change the subject to talk about executive power that's fine with me.

By the way, you never responded to my point, which is that you lumped Ron Paul in with all the other Republicans who want to grab executive power without doing your homework.

Posted by: John Campbell on June 22, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Instead of a money payoff, I was thinking more along the lines that would you just promise to take yourself and all your fellow Paulists elsewhere. In return, I promise to stop posting on Ron Paul boards.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

True, the real right is not in a powerful position, and the establishment left keeps them out of sight precisely because they would like to keep it that way.

Yep. Those evil Lefties, always keeping down the Right.

Which dimension are you from again?

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Yo shortstop,

Paul supporters actually read Kevin Drum, and thus, when he posts about Paul, pick up on the thread!

Amazing but true.

And I'm more Paul-symp than pro-Paul anyway.

Posted by: BC on June 22, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

With real estate prices what they are $23,000 is the tax bill on a 3000 square foot home and one investment property in Los Angeles. That doesn't make you rich in my opinion.

Only one investment property? I'm in tears for you.

Posted by: DonBoy on June 22, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, where'd my italics go? Frickin frackum...

Posted by: DonBoy on June 22, 2007 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Could it be the implication of sympathy between Paul's views and Duke's?

Very perceptive of you--that's exactly what I meant, and it's true. Why do you think Paul bought Duke's mailing list?

Paul is a racist nutjob:

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

Posted by: rea on June 22, 2007 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, you never responded to my point, which is that you lumped Ron Paul in with all the other Republicans who want to grab executive power without doing your homework.

I had to read that sentence three times to figure out what it meant (why should Republicans want to do my homework?). I think you should spend some time with your daughter in that trailer--just as an English brush-up, of course.

John, you're doing it again--projecting your own interests onto us, that is. You really have to start trying to think like the people you're trying to convince. This is easier, of course, when one doesn't find it difficult, as so many libertarians do, to put yourself in the shoes of other human beings.

Obviously you're under the impression that this blog's audience is looking for ways to distinguish Paul from other Republicans. Actually, that's an interest you have, most libertarians probably have and Republicans might have. Why do you think distinguishing Paul from the rest of the Republican lineup is of significant interest to us?

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Listen to Ron Paul on NPR here: mms://realserver.bu.edu:554/w/b/wbur/onpoint/2007/06/op_0621a.wma

Of the people who call into the radio show, young and old alike, what do they have in common? THEY ALL SUPPORT RON PAUL

Mainstream media, get over yourselves. You have become obsolete, and are not handling it gracefully.

Not only do those polls ask leading questions, designed to illicit the answers they desire, they are only polling the segment of the total population that will give them the answers they desire.

If you genuinely want to learn more about Ron Paul, check out Youtube. There are plenty of vids of him addressing Congress in the past, as well as everything else.

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul registers low in the "mainstream" polls for one reason and one reason ONLY. He has virtually no name recognition among the average couch potato audience that pollsters use.
Virtually every time Ron Paul appears on TV, there's a flurry of activity at his headquarters - donations flood in, the phones are swamped and the email messages jam the servers with messages like "Where has this guy been hiding? He says what I've been thinking for years. How come the news media don't show us more?"
Whenever Ron Paul is able to get his message to the people, the people respond.
That's why, in virtually every corner of the country, real live people are signing up and attending "MeetUps." Ron Paul has more members in his meetup groups than all other candidates COMBINED! That is real world support that is not reflected in the polls. Right now there is an army of about 15,000 activists out there campaigning for Ron Paul, and the number grows every day.
The Revolution WILL NOT be televised - it will be YouTubed.

Posted by: Michael Wagner on June 22, 2007 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

It's like cockroaches.

Gotta go finish a project. Lots of fun--thanks, all, for the entertainment!

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Of the people who call into the radio show, young and old alike, what do they have in common? THEY ALL SUPPORT RON PAUL

Yes. We get it. As this thread shows, a small number of Paul Ron supporters are well organized enough to flood any open access forum where your deity is being discussed. Big deal.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul registers low in the "mainstream" polls for one reason and one reason ONLY. He has virtually no name recognition among the average couch potato audience that pollsters use.

You shills are repeating yourself. That has got to be the dozenth time one of you blamed Pon Far's low polls on no one having heard of him. However, you have as yet not bothered to make a single argument as to why anyone should support him once they do hear of him. And this constant theme amongst you members of the PaulBorg of insulting your target audience certainly does not bode well for Ru Paul's electoral chances.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo, you're no fun! What kind of a wager is that, where the "prize" is cutting off debate, no matter which one of us wins?

I thought the point was to have more debate, not less! Let's do the $50 thing, c'mon...I can't wait to see you donate to Dr. No! :)

Really though guys, the Paul phenomenon is real. If you look at meetup.com you'll see Pual has 15,000 meetup members, which is 3 times as many as the next highest candidate in either party (Obama).

And, Paul's meetup.com numbers are increasing exponentially whereas the others are mostly stagnant -- Paul was only at about 8,000 members just 10 days ago. It's really amazing.

Posted by: Klingon #53 on June 22, 2007 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is the new Lyndon Larouche. I think its great that all you Ron Paul supporters are out there campaigning instead of forming militias.

Posted by: jimmy on June 22, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes. We get it. As this thread shows, a small number of Paul Ron supporters are well organized enough to flood any open access forum where your deity is being discussed. Big deal."

Oh please.
Listen to the callers on the interview. Do you really think the 80+ year old lady and the truck driver are part of some well organized conspiracy?
Talk about a conspiracy theorist whacko.


Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo sez:

"...a small number of Paul Ron supporters..."

Small but growing! The meetup.com numbers are hard to call small, and if Paul brings in, say, $5 million in the second quarter, I don't think his popularity will be able to be written off with the "small group of supporters" idea.

"However, you have as yet not bothered to make a single argument as to why anyone should support him once they do hear of him."

Oh, there are many reasons!

1) against the war in Iraq (from the start)
2) against the coming war in Iran
3) for the protection of civil liberties
4) against government waste, fraud and corruption (with the voting record to back it up)
5) against big government "solutions" to social problems that only make those problems worse
6) for sound monetary policy

etc etc. There is plenty of there there. I truly believe Paul will win this nomination.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Well, since Prop 13 limits taxes to 1% of assessed value, then you live in a home that is worth 1.4 million dollars. That is not middle class. Even in LA.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 22, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

,b>bret: "Rolling back to '1928' is not what RP wants to do; he'd like to go back to 1912 ... I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then. When will we learn?"

Well, it's high time somebody stood up for:

* An average life span of 45 years; high child mortality;

* The 75-hour work week;

* Legalized usury;

* International imperialism and the universal subjugation of people of color; and

* Denying women the right to vote.

Oh yeah, my grandmother would probably appreciate your nostalgia for the 1918 worldwide flu pandemic that killed not one - not two - but three of her sisters in just a little over one week's time, the repeated outbreaks of cholera, typhoid and the occasional bubonic plague, and all the horse manure and assorted organic waste products (including dead animals) left to rot in urban streets for days at a time.

And of course, no trip down Memory Lane would suffice for Grandma without your fond reminiscence of polio, which in 1940 left her youngest son partially crippled for life.

In short -- don't be an ass.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 22, 2007 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is the single biggest advocate in the entire Congress for a return of government including the executive branch to its constitional limits.

I disagree. Note Ron Paul’s deal with the devil (or devils). Back in the very recent days when Republicans controlled the House, Ron Paul cut a deal with Hastert and DeLay to vote with Republicans on procedural votes, including cloture, (called previous question in the House). This was very valuable, because you need 60% for cloture. The Republicans got what the wanted from Paul. They did not need his vote to reach a simple majority. Paul voted with Republicans time and again, including in favor of the most ridiculously undemocratic House rules ever adopted in the history of the U. S. Thus, he was a lackey for the Bush Administration on the big issues.

Ron Paul was one of only 3 Republican members of Congress to vote against the Patriot act when it was extremely unpopular to do so and he regularly criticizes the Bush administration for trying to grab power for the executive branch.

This is a prime example of what I am talking about. The Republicans did not need Paul’s vote to pass the Homeland Security Act. They did need his vote to cut off debate. He gave it to them. Then later when Democrats and a few Republicans were trying to correct some the worst aspects of the bill, Paul again voted to cut off debate. Thanks Ron. You were a very loyal Republican.

After the Democrats won the House, how to you think Ron Paul voted on the appropriations bill that would have gotten us out of Iraq? I’ll give you a hint: not like the big majority of the regular readers of this blog wanted him to vote.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 22, 2007 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Do you really think the 80+ year old lady and the truck driver are part of some well organized conspiracy?

Good point. It's inconceivable that an octogenarian and a truck driver could be on the same email list.... Boggles the mind, in fact....

Look, you shills better start getting your stories straight -- is there "an army of about 15,000 activists out there campaigning for Ron Paul" as Michael Wagner insists or are Ron Paul supporters as wholly unorganized as you suggest?

Btw, good luck on continuing to foster support for Pon Far by insulting your target audience. Let me know how that goes for ya.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

the Ron Paul supporters who are diving in here are going to be every bit as fucking annoying as Nader's people were

Did blogs exist in 2000?

Posted by: Brojo on June 22, 2007 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then. When will we learn?"

What a bother that we have lifesaving antibiotics and transplants. That we have a relative degree of food safety. That child labor is outlawed. That there is a federal minimum wage law.

And someone really should do something about us uppity wimmin voting and what-not.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 22, 2007 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo sez:

"Look, you shills better start getting your stories straight -- is there "an army of about 15,000 activists out there campaigning for Ron Paul" as Michael Wagner insists or are Ron Paul supporters as wholly unorganized as you suggest?"

Disputo, one interesting thing about Paul's campaign is how it mirrors his libertarian governing philosophy, it's not top-down but bottom-up, so people organize themselves with little official instruction from the campaign. And it works pretty well.

So I wouldn't call Paul supporters "unorganized," but I would say we are not "centrally organized."

And come on Disputo, let's do that wager. I wanna see you make a check out to Dr. No! :)

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

BC sez:

"If I though he would dismantle the welfare state completely in one fell swoop, it would scare me to death; but if I thought he would take steps to progressively shrink our government, he would be my man."

Paul has stated on several occasions that I've seen that there has to be a transition period, the bureaucracy took decades to build up to its current level and will take a couple of decades to pare down to a better size.

Even the targets he feels most strongly about (like eliminating the Federal Reserve) I have seen him make statements showing that he does not want to end these things in one day or even one year. So it's more of a "phase out" philosophy than "off with their heads".


Posted by: Klingon on June 22, 2007 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

How has no one mentioned the Colbert bump?

Posted by: Colin Smith on June 22, 2007 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Very interesting that this thread has already generated 110 comments, and not all of them from unrecognized commenters.

And, easily, the funniest comment so far was the one declaring Paul was unacceptable because he wanted to get rid of the Department of Education. If I didn't know better, I would think that one was parody.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on June 22, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

the establishment Left...is perfectly willing to accept a few foreign wars based on deceit

I beleive you mean moderates. The Paul people are so far right they think Clinton is a Leftist.

Posted by: Brojo on June 22, 2007 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Oops, that was me Klingon # 53 on the last post. I forgot to indicate my Klingonian numeric suffix.

I am a little surprised at the hostility towards Ron Paul on this board, I have to say. I understand if you don't want to support him, but he does have a lot more in common with mainstream liberals than some on this board are giving him credit for.

Kevin's attitude that Paul should throw in the towel is surprising to me.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK
Disputo, one interesting thing about Paul's campaign is how it mirrors his libertarian governing philosophy, it's not top-down but bottom-up, so people organize themselves with little official instruction from the campaign. And it works pretty well.

A campaign that can't manage to manage to get farther above 0% than the margin of error in any major polls is working "pretty well"?

Posted by: cmdicely on June 22, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin's attitude that Paul should throw in the towel is surprising to me.

Kevin never expressed any such sentiment, not in this post at least, and I doubt that more than a few of the left-of-center regulars on here would want to see him drop out either. I hope he stays in as long as possible.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul attracts people from all political persuasions....That's what so great about him. His icon is the Constitution, which used to be the rule of law for this great country. We Ron Paul supporters appreciate his integrity, focus, and passion in bringing us back to our roots as proud Americans.

Posted by: wgadget on June 22, 2007 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

6) for sound monetary policy

Oh, gawd. That's not code for wanting to go back to the gold standard, is it?

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo -- sorry, you're right. I read the "give it up, dude" Kevin wrote in the wrong context, he wasn't saying RP should throw in the towel, he was saying the cell phone argument is weak. My bad.

Actually I agree that the cell phone argument might be weak. I think the main reasons Paul's poll numbers haven't climbed more is because of the name recognition factor and lack of MSM coverage. (It hasn't been totally lacking, but it has been low).

But another thing I've noticed is that Paul has a high "conversion rate" if you can call it that, by which I mean a high % of people who are exposed to Paul's ideas wind up supporting him. But I don't have anything more than anecdotal to back that up, however it seems right based on what I've seen.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

Y'know, I could learn to live with the Ron Paul Revolution.

Not because of anything he stands for, mind you -- but the quality of the one-liners by posters to this thread has been hysterical.

I swear if I'd been drinking anything it would have been all over my monitor after reading Jimmy's 4:41 p.m. post.

Thanks for the laughs. :-)

Der Bongle

Posted by: BongCrosby on June 22, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK
We didn't even have a Department of Education until 1980.

Oh, so are you arguing that Paul only wants to reorganize the federal government and reassign the Department of Education's functions to some other federal department? Because otherwise this is irrelevant, as the Department's functions were not created in 1980, that's just when the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split into the Deparment of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 22, 2007 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

I have never been to any board where I can't tell if the regulars are left or right. This is a very odd place.

Posted by: Alexia on June 22, 2007 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

he does have a lot more in common with mainstream liberals than some on this board are giving him credit for.

Such as...? And if you're going to get into Paul's alleged fight against the power of the unitary executive, you start by addressing each of the points in little ole jim from red country's excellent post at 4:52.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Well, give him some time. These polls are fluid and can change quickly, and I think the online numbers for paul (myspace, meetup, youtube, facebook) are a wave that's building up and hasn't hit the mainstream yet but is primed to do so.

For example, if you go to technorati right now "Ron Paul" is the #2 search behind "youtube" (which is usually #1) and he has been in the top 5 on technorati since the first debate.

Clearly there is something going on here. How big it is none of us will really know until it plays out, but it is worth keeping an eye on. And as I mentioned, I think the Q2 numbers coming out July 15th (at the latest) have the potential to change the entire situation.

On antoher note, I think McCain is about done.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

I think these Ron Paul advocates could really make a difference if they did something worthwhile with all that manic energy, like petitioning for the reinstatement of the Articles of Confederation...

Posted by: dr sardonicus on June 22, 2007 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

How has no one mentioned the Colbert bump?


The Colbert bump--Is that when you post a youtube video on a hannity.com forum and get banned forever?

Been there, done that. Those guys over there are really into the freedom of speech thing....

Posted by: wgadget on June 22, 2007 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop,

I think it would come as quite a surprise to Ron Paul, and Bush + his neocon lackeys, to discover that RP is "a lackey for the Bush Administration on the big issues" as joe claims.

Did you know when Paul decided to get back into politics and run for a house seat in '96 the Republican Party *supported the Democratic candidate* Paul was running against!? It's true, but Paul won anyway.

The Republican Party establishment *hates* Ron Paul. The rank and file have more mixed views. I think they're still mostly against him (go to freerepublic, they mostly don't like him there) but he is winning more and more supporters from their ranks is my impresssion.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Republican Party establishment=Sean Hannity and the like


...And I stood in line for five hours to get the guy's freaking autograph.

Posted by: wgadget on June 22, 2007 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

No, Klingon, I want you to actually talk about each of little ole jim's points. Why do you think Paul voted as he did in these cases? What excuse can you offer for him voting repeatedly to end debate, and, in doing so, serve Bush's ends so consistently? If he's serious about leaving Iraq, why did he vote as he did on the appropriations bill?

Don't throw vague "Ron's the man! He's such a maverick!" phrases at me and think it passes for addressing these points. Address the points.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

mcclain's the man. he's such a maverick.

Posted by: coldhotel on June 22, 2007 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop, you asked what views I think Ron Paul has in common with maisntream liberals. I would say:

1) vocally against the war in Iraq (which he was from the start, he voted against it and delivered many speeches on the house floor against it before it happened, they are on youtube)
2) vocally against the coming war in Iran
3) strongly in favor of protecting civil liberties
4) against the war on drugs

obviously there are areas where mainstream liberals and Paul don't agree at all, but at least Paul has more in common with them than someone like Bush, for what that's worth. And of course most people vote on a "basket" of issues not just one so there is room to disagree with a candidate sometimes and still support him.

I would like to convince more liberals to rethink their main points of disagreement with Paul on domestic social policy, though. Sometimes when I discuss issues with liberals I get somewhat frustrated (I am mostly libertarian with some conservative leanings) because I feel like there's a mindset where $1 spent = $1 of improvement in whatever social problem is being addressed.

I don't view it that way, I think money sometimes creates a social problem, or exacerbates an already existing one.

OK, I'll end this post so it doesn't turn into a libertarian rant (too late).

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK
Well, give him some time. These polls are fluid and can change quickly


Do you want to point to a historical example where a declared Presidential candidate polling at substantially less than 5% after two nationally televised debate experienced a rapid, positive change in poll results, and then describe the circumstances and what rational reason there is to expect Paul to reproduce that effect?

and I think the online numbers for paul (myspace, meetup, youtube, facebook) are a wave that's building up and hasn't hit the mainstream yet but is primed to do so.

The kind of "online numbers" you cite a signs of interest certainly, but they aren't signs of support in the sense of first-place preference—or even necessarily any preference. Its not a matter of hitting the mainstream—this isn't 1996 when most people aren't online. Online is mainstream. The
thing is its quite possible to be interesting to lots of people without garnering much support.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 22, 2007 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

1) vocally against the war in Iraq (which he was from the start, he voted against it and delivered many speeches on the house floor against it before it happened, they are on youtube)

You just repeat this although it has been explained to you how Paul's votes were in direct contradiction to all this "vocal" criticism.

2) vocally against the coming war in Iran

We'll be watching him very closely to see how his legislative behavior matches up with his yap. Will he put his vote where his mouth is this time?

3) strongly in favor of protecting civil liberties

See #1. As Jim has explained, Paul actively aided and abetted Bush's fight against several key liberties. Again, he says one thing and does another.

4) against the war on drugs

That's not a uniformly liberal position by any means, but since it's mine, I'll spot you this one. Keep in mind it's a very small issue for most of us--no deal breaker.

obviously there are areas where mainstream liberals and Paul don't agree at all

Yes, most of them. Almost every single one of them.

but at least Paul has more in common with them than someone like Bush, for what that's worth.

It's not worth much, when he's effectively done everything Bushco has asked of him.

You have a wild-eyed enthusiasm that isn't usually shared by libertarians, who tend to be a bit cynical even about their own candidates. You also show far too much willingness to conflate Paul's rhetoric with his actual track record. I'm guessing you're really young, a guess that's bolstered by your gross overestimation of the current (as opposed to future) political efficacy of YouTube, MySpace, etc. That kind of overestimation (Ian Crossland syndrome) is usually made by younger people who a) see emerging technologies as a revolution, rather than a natural expansion, of online activism and believe their generation has "discovered" online community, b) assume their own circle's online communication habits are translatable to in all demographics, and c) wrongly equate a high level of interest with actual voting behavior.

Posted by: shortstop on June 22, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

There are people that wait in line five hours for an autograph from Sean Hannity?

Posted by: CliveSL on June 22, 2007 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

That kind of overestimation...

I recall when M & M's hoodie video came out right before the 2004 election how some thought that was going to motivate the young to turn out for Kerry.

Posted by: Brojo on June 22, 2007 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

[What part of "We have a limit on the number of links that will post" do you people not understand? --Moderator]

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely sez:

"Do you want to point to a historical example where a declared Presidential candidate polling at substantially less than 5% after two nationally televised debate experienced a rapid, positive change in poll results, and then describe the circumstances and what rational reason there is to expect Paul to reproduce that effect?"

I'm not sure this campaign has historical precedent. Its use of the internet is certainly unprecedented. We'll just have to see how it plays out. As I said upthread, I think Paul's poll numbers are lagging for a variety of reasons but I think they'll be climbing in the next month or two (not quite a Friedman unit!)

"The kind of "online numbers" you cite a signs of interest certainly, but they aren't signs of support in the sense of first-place preference—or even necessarily any preference."

Well, the meetup.com numbers are certainly indicating a preference, aren't they? The Google or technorati ones I see your point, they may or may not indicate preference but they do indicate interest. And what candidate doesn't want to know that people are interested in him :)

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop sez:

"No, Klingon, I want you to actually talk about each of little ole jim's points. Why do you think Paul voted as he did in these cases?"

I went and re-read Jim's post in response to this question shortstop, and the honest answer is: I don't know. The procedural stuff in the House he's talking about is beyond my ken.

But, I know enough about Ron Paul and his position on the issues to know that the original statement Jim wrote the post in response to is, in my opinion, completely true in spirit and in letter:

"Ron Paul is the single biggest advocate in the entire Congress for a return of government including the executive branch to its constitional limits."

Jim brought up a couple of procedural instances where Paul voted for something and is trying therefore to label Paul as "a lackey for the Bush Administration" based on them, I mean, come on. The statement is laughable, Paul is hands-down the Bush Administration's least favorite GOP member of the House (well, with the possible exception of Tancredo).

Calling Ron Paul a Bush "lackey" just isn't going to convince anyone, his 20-yr-voting record is there for all to see.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Would the donations to his campaign climbing from $500,000 to something like $4 to $5 million after the second debate, not show a sign of support? Or maybe it's just meaningless "cyber-money"?

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

[What part of "We have a limit on the number of links that will post" do you people not understand? --Moderator]

Hey "Mod", I would certainly have understood, had I known. Oh, and do you mean "will" or "we'll"?

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK
I'm not sure this campaign has historical precedent. Its use of the internet is certainly unprecedented.

In what way?

We'll just have to see how it plays out.

Clearly, to an extent, that is always true of predictions of the future. But if you want people to believe your predictions are justifiable, rational predictions rather than just manifestations of quasi-religious faith, having some kind of substantive argument to present would help.

As I said upthread, I think Paul's poll numbers are lagging for a variety of reasons but I think they'll be climbing in the next month or two (not quite a Friedman unit!)

Yes, its clear that you think that. What I haven't seen is any convincing reason you can articulate why people ought to believe that.

Well, the meetup.com numbers are certainly indicating a preference, aren't they?

Why do you say that?

Posted by: cmdicely on June 22, 2007 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

BongCrosby: Y'know, I could learn to live with the Ron Paul Revolution. Not because of anything he stands for, mind you -- but the quality of the one-liners by posters to this thread has been hysterical.

I vote for Disputo at 3:20 "The invisible hand is a metaphor, not a deity."

I don't know if it's original, but who cares - it's certainly good enough to steal.

Posted by: alex on June 22, 2007 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Its use of the internet is certainly unprecedented.

Dean supporters thought their campaign's internet usage was unprecedented, too.

Posted by: Brojo on June 22, 2007 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop,

This is in reply to your post at 6:06 PM.:

I really think you haven't read enough about Ron Paul if you think he's one of those typical politicians who says one thing and does another. He is different, he puts his vote where his mouth is. There's a story one congressman told that whenever there was a vote of 434-1, he always knew who the 1 was. Not an "organization man".

As I explained upthread I don't know why Paul voted as you (or someone) posted on those cloture votes, but there is often a good reason for votes like this that are non-obvious. Based on his voting record over his 10 terms in congress, I would tend to give Paul the benefit of the doubt here.

You asked how old I am, I'm 34.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

the meetup.com numbers are certainly indicating a preference, aren't they?

I'm signed up with several candidate meetups. I'm unlikely to vote for more than one of them.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, Dean's campaign's use of the internet was unprecedented. It did not translate into a party nomination.

Posted by: Brojo on June 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, this is in response to your post at 6:56 PM.

You asked how RP's campaign has made unprecedented use of the internet. If you go to Paul's website (I think the mod said no links so I'll let you all find it) it is very spare, but it prominently lists websites where supporters can self-organize -- reddit, myspace, digg, youtube, facebook, meetup, eventful. And this is what they (we) have done, with very little top-down support required from the Paul people. It is working, I believe, and this structure is a nice parallel to Paul's views of the role of government.

(I went to a Dean party at a friend's house 4 years ago and it was very top-down, she had instructions on how to run the party from the website, how to collect the money, etc. This is different)

You asked why the meetup.com numbers indicate a preference. Well, because it's not like Google where you can just have a passing interest in something and still Google search it. For meetup.com you have to be interested enough to register and sign up for a meeting somewhere with a candidate. That is a higher level of interest than other sites like Google or technorati, which is why I agreed with your point regards to those two sites. Not 100% preference, but I think probable preference.

I think my prediction that Paul's poll numbers are quite well-founded. His online numbers are insane and growing like crazy (I cited meetup stats above, almost 100% growth in the past 10 days, more members than all the other Rep. candidates put together!), his second quarter fundraising numbers are going to be impressive.

But anyway, he's got people interested. We're talking about him, right? :)

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

I should point out that to become a meetup.com group member you just have to sign up for a meeting, not actually attend one. I did not make that clear and it makes Paul's meetup.com numbers a little less impressive. But still, impressive.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

If he's serious about leaving Iraq, why did he vote as he did on the appropriations bill?

That’s a very good question. I can only guess why Ron Paul votes the way he does. My guess is that his ideology is rigid and it cannot be logically applied to the real world. I also suspect that, like many libertarians, he allows his economic views to trump his views regarding civil liberties. [And, BTW, in my earlier post, I meant to cite his vote for cloture on the Patriot Act renewal, not Homeland Security.]

I don’t doubt he really does want to get out of Iraq. But take a look at his published statement as he voted against the appropriation bill that would have gotten us out: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst040207.htm.

Yes, he again managed to find a way to vote with the Republicans when the vote meant something.

Here’s one of the most exasperating statements he included: “The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference.”

This statement is so wimpy on so many levels. Does it mean what it says, i.e., that while the Republican budget was bad, it wasn’t quite as bad at the Democratic budget? That is, if we are going to spend that much, Paul does favor spending more on the military, like the Republicans?

Freezing “some” discretionary spending? Republicans always say that. Always. The big “freezers”. They are too disorganized and too wimpy to actually put down numbers on specific programs that they will stand behind. Everything is backdoor, ad hoc chaos.

They never came up with a comprehensive budget that anyone (certainly not the CBO or the private financial houses in the United States, e.g., Goldman Sachs) could make sense of. Every year they passed the budget in a fragmented, piecemeal fashion.

It was horrible. And they were aided procedurally by Ron Paul as they cut of debate, abused conference committee protocol, literally locked Democrats out of meetings, and pulled every underhanded procedural trick ever dreamed of.

I honestly don't know why libertarians never held Ron Paul's feet to the fire over his procedural deal with the Republicans. It made him such a valuable knee-jerk Republican on the votes that mattered..

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 22, 2007 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

[Links removed and re-submitted per LeeL's edict]

There are several problems with landline polling. You show me the poll, and I will show you the bias.

1) Sample Group Bias. At this point in the election, most polls are not doing random digit dialing, they are calling random names from party registration lists. Thus Republicans who have stayed aboard the good ship "Dubya" sampling the kool-aid are the ones being called.

(This is in addition to putting their phone numbers on the registration card, not being on the do-not-call list, and being willing to pick up the phone for an unidentified out of state caller around supper time)

And it's not just young libertarians who only have cell phones and VOIPs. Check out the comments here. Note the ages, the prior party affiliations, and the amount of money sent.

2) Sample size bias. Most of these polls where Ron Paul is getting 1% are very small (300-500) In larger polls (~1000) he is polling 3% or better. Yes, the margin of error takes this into account, but most people don't pay attention to that, or even understand what it means.

If Candidate A is getting 12% and Candidate B is getting 25% and the margin of error is 6.5%, then who is ahead?

NO ONE - It's a DEAD HEAT.

But no one ever sees that the results might actually be (12+6.5)=18.5% vs. (25-6.5)=18.5%

That's what margin of error really means. If people do the math at all, they might think
(12+6.5)=18.5% vs (25+6.5)=31.5% or
(12-6.5)=5.5% vs (25-6.5)=18.5%.

Of course it is also true that the real result might be 5.5% vs 31.5%. The point is a lot of these polls have high margins of error (due to small sample size) but no one ever considers to do the maths

3) Reporting Bias. People don't realize that pollsters take several polls at the same time. Which one you get to see depends in a large part on who is paying (or whom the pollster thinks is likely to be paying) for the poll. Bad results are often not ever released.

4) Name Order Bias. If five candidates are running and the names are "rotated" in the following manner: ABCDE, BACED, CABDE, EABCD, DABCE - Then, clearly, candidate A is getting a huge benefit, and candidates D & E are getting the shaft even though the pollster can claim that the names were "rotated", and everyone got an equal shot at first place.

In the current case, the majority of polls reported to date DON'T EVEN INCLUDE Ron Paul. Not one "scientific" poll that has been done in Texas has featured Ron Paul.

NOT ONE!

Ron Paul is the only declared candidate being left out of this many polls (although they often include F. Thompson and Newt Gingrich - who are not even running.) Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo are included in nearly 4 times as many polls as is Ron Paul. (19 vs. 5)

5) Metric Bias. No. Nothing to do with kilos and centimetres, metric bias means that the poll doesn't really measure what it purports to measure. Modern telephone polls measure name recognition, and "preference" not support, or votes. Many Republicans would *prefer* that Julie-Annie be selected by the GOP it seems, but how many are sending him money, and how many will actually go vote for him once they find out his views on public funded abortions and political cross-dressing.

If you are given a poll which asks "which would you rather receive from an attractive member of the appropriate gender persuation: A) a slap in the face, B) a kick in the crotch, or C) an oscultation on your oral fissure?"

How many do you think will choose C? (a kiss on the mouth) Even if A wins in today's poll, how many will actually leave their couches on election day to go vote for everyone getting slapped in the face?

Neo-cons will say: "No one will vote Oscultation-of-the-oral-fissure (sure it's the best choice, but it's too esoteric, not enough people know what it means) You'd better vote Slap-in-the-face, otherwise Kick-in-the-crouch will win, and then we will really be in a world of hurt" - I really, really hate that stupid argument.

6) Time Bias. It is very early in the election cycle. We are over a year away from either nominating convention. A lot can and will change between then and now. In the example above, what will happen if three days before the vote someone spends a whole lot of money to buy ads to explain what "oscultation" really means?

Well, that's enough, I think I made my point.

Laters.

Posted by: Kevin Houston on June 22, 2007 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Don't underestimate Ron Paul. He won't win but he is the only candidate who represents a shake up of the current system, which stinks to high heaven. Think about it, of all the candidates, only he and Gravel have dismissed the possibility of nuking Iran.

It just goes to show how Orwellian the playing field is when using nukes on a non nuclear country is considered mainstream.

Posted by: Andre De Angelis on June 22, 2007 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Alright, I apologize if any of this is a repeat of a point above. I read about half of the comments before I felt the need to put in my $.02

First, many of the regulars here on this site seem to have a liberal, socialist view. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with having those sort of views. However, when you dismiss the ideas of others because they are different than your own, you are being as intolerant and close-minded as some of those you respond to. I'm not saying all of you are like that--it was just something I noticed (AKA names like "liberatard" get us no where).

Second, there are Ron Paul supporters "flocking" to this because it has the tag "Ron Paul." I am a Ron Paul supporter and one of my daily feeds is Technorati's Ron Paul blog posts. I came here to read what someone else was saying about Ron Paul. So, instead of calling the Ron Paul supporters viral or spammers, perhaps enthusiastic would be a better term. The post itself was put up on a Ron Paul blog roll that many Ron Paul supporters read and, thus, subjected itself to Ron Paul supporters.

Now that those two little things are out of the way, I want to have a little "liberatard" input. I am a self-named small "l" libertarian. I believe in the principles that the Founders and the Framers believed when they created the Constitution. These principles were based on philosophical and economic ideas put forth by the likes of Adam Smith and John Locke. These ideas are not the fantastical dreams of a single man but a time tested philosophical way of looking at the world--much like the idea that you hold dear.

Nor are these idea irrational. In fact, the United States is a "hardcore libertarian" project that was started in 1787. It has outlasted communist and fascist countries that, similarly, were projects of hardcore political views. Unlike those governments, though, the United States has survived. This is due to the hardy, robust nature of the political philosophy of liberalism (as in, libertarianism).

Also, we must be realists. Dr. Ron Paul, if elected President, would not be able to implement all of his ideas and policies into the government. The Congress is there to ensure stability of government. However, he would be able to enforce his foreign policy and he would be able to reduce the size of the government which, by any standards, needs to be reduced or reformed in major ways.

And one last thing: the Department of Education is worthless. NCLB is worthless. I could give you detailed reasons why but all evidence shows that the DoE is an absolute failure. You can't even cherry pick good statistics on it! Don't take the abolishment of the DoE to mean the abolishment of the public school system--it is just removing federal oversight of the government.

Posted by: Derek on June 22, 2007 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

I'll post my comment that was banned for the # of links, with the links removed:

"It's inconceivable that an octogenarian and a truck driver could be on the same email list.... Boggles the mind, in fact...."

What boggles the mind is that some people just can not allow themselves to wrap their minds around the possibility that Ron Paul's supporters, including the octogenarian and the truck driver, could just be average individuals, not part of some "well organized conspiracy". Sure it's possible they, and the other callers from around the country could be on the same mailing list. Highly unlikely, but possible.

Listen to the interview so you will know what you are trying to talk about.

The radio show host was obviously not pro Ron Paul, with the usual "he's nowhere in the polls, so why is he really running?" and "Ron Paul is he a crank or a viable candidate? Call in and tell us what you think" etc. So it's doubtful that the show's call screeners were only allowing pro-Paul calls to come through.

Are you saying that all of these callers who were part of this "well organized conspiracy" on the same mailing list, somehow managed to hack the phone system so only their calls would come through to the radio show, and no calls from anyone else could get through??? I mean think about that for a minute. It's simply ridiculous.

Here's a vid from CSPAN where people are calling in after one of the Republican debates. search youtube

Boring to watch, granted, but watch it and listen to the callers. Are they part of some "well organized conspiracy" as well? But please, watch it first before commenting.

Here are links to vids from Ron Paul campaign stops...

New Hampshire: search youtube

Phoenix airport: search youtube

(I'm sure it's just the same 12 "well organized" computer geeks and hackers in both of those crowds...)

Arrives at the Daily Show with Jon Stewart: search youtube (looks like those same 12 "well organized" computer geeks and hackers to me)

Bill Maher Show: search youtube (I'm sure it's those same 12 "well organized" computer geeks and hackers in this audience as well)

Well ok, you got me. It's a vast, well organized conspiracy of 12 computer geeks, hackers, oh, and one granny (we can't forget the octogenarian. I'm sure the truck driver is driving her to all of these events), going from city to city to make it look like Ron Paul has more supporters all over the country than he really does.

Oh, and his Myspace page: search Myspace I'm sure his 35,181 friends are actually just those same 12 "well organized" computer geeks and hackers (plus one granny) who have each set up 2,706 multiple Myspace accounts, to make it look like he has more supporters than he actually does.

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Houston,

I didn't bother to read beyond your ridiculous assertions that pollsters call from party registration lists (there aren't even any such things in most states, including my state of IL) and that the do not call list prevents pollsters from calling. If you cannot even get basic stuff like that right, there is no reason to wade through the rest of your post.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

By the by, good people--

ANYONE using a "Star Trek" handle or reference is obviously some kind of latent child molester and/or a pedophile. Either that, or a weenie with far too much time on their hands.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Paul voted against the appropriations bill because it funded the war. He wants to defund the war... There is, after all, plenty of money in the pipeline to get the troops home. So to end it you can defund it. Any any all questions about Paul's stances can be found here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org
(700+ articles).

Paul does not actually want to cut social programs, he's repeatedly stated that is not his goal. Though he thinks we'd be better off without them, he knows they would have to be dismantled very gradually, and he is more concerned about foreign policy.

But... for Christ's sake people, who else is going to do something about what is happening in America? Kucinich is the only other candidate who isn't a warmonger. Who else is going to at least TRY to deal with the 60+ trillion dollar entitlement problem the GAO has been shouting from the rooftops for years? Paul is the only one who regularly mentions that problem, which is by all accounts far more serious than the Iraq war.

Why does everyone want the federal government to handle everything, when time and time again it just fails? Why do people think we can afford to continue to have it do so? The people who founded this country knew that republican governments tended to deficit spend due to politicians wanting to get re-elected, and pass the bill to the next generation. Thats why they crafted a system of very limited government, which has now been all but abandoned. The result should be pretty obvious: their exact fears have come true. All republics and democracies which do not follow the rule of law collapse.

Somehow we are going to have to come up with trillions and trillions of excess dollars in the decades to come, or we'll be throwing the elderly out on the streets. What other candidate even seems to take that problem seriously?

Posted by: G on June 22, 2007 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

As long as Ru Paul supporters like Paul continue to insult their intended audience by insisting that being on an email list is tantamount to being engaged in a wacky conspiracy, Paul Ron is a shoe-in for the nomination.

Seriously, a greater group of pathetic self-contradicting, self-loathing, ignorant misfits I have never seen. I truly hope that you folks are not indicative of the average Rude Paul supporter, but I imagine that you are.

Kevin, please never mention Pon Far ever again so as to spare us this cicada onslaught of bat-shit crazy insanity.

Now, I leave all you crazy muffins to preach amongst yourselves.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo

You lie. Every knows you can buy voter reg lists at any Sec. of State website. Many states carry a party affiliation field.

In my current state of SD, which is closed primary, registration is required to be able to vote in the primary of that party.

In my former state of MN, which is open primary, registration is not required, but you can only vote in one primary or the other. That information was recorded and for years I was solicited by the Dems because I voted in the Dem Primary that year(what can I say, I was trying to bury Slick Willie.)

I'd post the links, but that isn't allowed right now.

Laters

Posted by: Kevin Houston on June 22, 2007 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

But... for Christ's sake people, who else is going to do something about what is happening in America? Kucinich is the only other candidate who isn't a warmonger.

This is a ridiculous argument to try to make. Since "No one" is qualified, pick the crazy Democrat and show that Ron Paul is slightly better than he. Sorry, Chumley. There are many, many more Republicans who are BETTER than Ron Paul. I support Rudy Guiliani, and I do so with gusto.

Congressman Paul's handful of deluded supporters have appeared, en masse, to attack Kevin Dumbo and his merry band of liberal hoo-hoos. And it is up to ME to be the voice of reason.

Well, here it is. Paul cannot win. His tired schtick is just that--a schtick without a constituency. He has no fire, no support and no juice. Juice is money, for the uninitiated. No money, no juice. How much money does Ron Paul have on hand? Enough to pay a busload of retards to knock on doors in Ames, Iowa for a week? I am non-plussed.

In the politics game, he is on of 435 congressmen and women, nothing more. And there are at least 125 Congressmen and women who are MORE qualified than he is to be President, not to mention at least 40 Senators and 6 Cabinet officials. Adding in governors, of which at least 20 are more qualified to be President, we also must factor in Mayor Bloomberg and even Newt Gingrich. Fred Thompson? Also more qualified. My man Rudy? Absolutely qualified. The best of the best.

My math is shaky, but that means that there are 194 Americans who are MORE qualified to be President than Ron Paul. In short, he's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land. Even Paul McCartney--who is constitutionally ineligible to be President, is more qualified than Ron Paul. And Paul McCartney is usually high, people.

How sad is that?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

The cell phone argument is a red-herring to throw the self-deceptive pundits off the scent. The real argument is that the alienated voter is reactivating and the reactivating alienated voter is not counted as a "likely Republican voter". Some of the folks in the neocon camp understand this -- which is why they dusted off Thompson.

Posted by: James Bowery on June 22, 2007 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, you know I have a legendary softspot for you, you wingnut deluxe you, but Rudy Julie-Annie???? Surely you jest!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 22, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

I'll grant shortstop his criticism of Paul's vote of the Iraq cloture vote.

Paul is not above Politics as Kabuki.

Shortstop's got a ways to go however, if he thinks this puts him anywhere near the likes of a Clinton or Gulliani.

BC

Posted by: BC on June 22, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Surely you jest!

I am as serious as a heart attack, Hormonally-challenged Citizen. A heart attack that causes the arteries to explode and the heart itself to explode through the chest cavity and pierce the flesh and fly through the air like a shotgun blast of hot blooded screaming righteousness.

Rudy will be President soon, and things will go back to normal. He'll get a couple of smart little fellows of the Jewish persuasion to sort out some of the dicier issues. He'll hire some good people and the country will be A-OK.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Money-wise, we don't know how much he has on-hand. Most people seem to say 3 to 5 million for Q2. No, he doesn't have the kind of money Rudy does. To see the difference in the Q1 numbers, look here:

Rudy:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009908&cycle=2008
Paul:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008

Rudy got 2 mil just from bankers alone. As you can see, Paul's only "corporate" contributors are likely single individuals. I think when the Q2 numbers come out, we'll see Paul have a very large number of individual supporters who donated whatever they could.

I won't support Rudy because he's lied on national television (I don't buy that he's never heard of the foreign policy theory of middle eastern terrorism, you can't read about 9/11 without tripping over such information) and hasn't mentioned anything about dealing with this country's impending fiscal problems.

Posted by: G on June 22, 2007 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is fantastic in the sack. He puts every Republican I've ever slept with, which is a lot because it's a free cuntry, or should be, to shame.

Posted by: LiberTerri on June 22, 2007 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, Norman. I do hope you come to your senses soon. Rudy is a pathetic joke. How about those radios on September 11 tht got all those firefighters killed? Couldn't hear the warnings the police were shouting that the buildings were going to fall down? Incompatible comms killed first responders that day. Rather than standardized the system, hiz(dis)honor gave the contract to one of his buds.

How about punking out and failing to show up for any of the meetings of the ISG - after Bushie essentially tapped him with his sword and anointed him the heir apparent? Speaking engagements for a hefty fee were more important to Sylvester the Cat, er, sorry - Rudy - than trying to find a way out of the mess BushCrimCo got us into in Mess-opotamia that kills ~30 Americans a week.

(We need a new rule - call it basic rule of politics #1: If you punk out when it's time to put up, you have to shut up.)

Then there are the fiscal follies. Ask that Jewish fellow who cleaned up his 4 billion dollar deficit mess in NYC.

Rudy Julie-Annie: SSDW (Same shit. Different wingnut)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 22, 2007 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Houston, stop making a fool of yourself. Nothing you said contradicts a single thing I said. I said most states don't; you counter with many states do. (*Yawn*) Yeah, what a liar I am... is that the kind of logic we can expect from Ru Paul supporters?

In any case, next time you might try not ignoring the actual relevant charges I made against your claim of pollster bias: (1) that you lied when you said that pollsters make calls from party lists and (2) that you lied when you suggested that being on the "do not call" list prevents pollsters from contacting you.

I await your multiple links.... or more likely, your multiple obfuscations.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy will make a fine President. He is not the authoritarian you and your ilk make him out to be.

I've started my own blog and the title of it is:

"Moonbats and other assorted liberals are wrong and I can prove it without being forced to come up with a snappy title for this blog!"

I haven't written anything yet because of how busy I have been as of late, but I promise you--this sweet photo of my gal Peggy will be on my sidebar.

Hubba hubba!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul impregnated me 8 times in a single year.

Posted by: I heart RP on June 22, 2007 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Too busy to write Norman?

It's late afternoon and I am dead dog tired from sitting on my deck and doing nothing.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 3:36 PM |

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 22, 2007 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo,

Your condesending tone is insulting.

"Seriously, a greater group of pathetic self-contradicting, self-loathing, ignorant misfits I have never seen."

You are describing yourself there.

You're the one who is insisting that little old ladies and truck drivers are conspiring to skew the calls coming into that NPR show, and who knows what else. That's you, not me.

Let me put this to you: You wrote about the old lady and the truck driver being on the same email list, and Ron Paul supporters just being a well organized small group. Do the other candidates not have organized supporters? Do the other candidates' supporters not have email lists? Do the other candidates not have Myspace, Youtube, and Meetup pages? I mean how can Ron Paul, who has less campaign money than Rudy McRomney and John Hillary Obama, possibly afford or manage to pull off anything that they can't? It makes no sense.

We'll see if the mod allows this link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8oO_OD3PtI

In this humorous satirical clip, to explain away Ron Paul's lead in the text message poll, one of the FOX guys says something like "Ron Paul's supporters might be better organized to do the necessary dialing for all that". ??? Now let's think about that statement. Keep in mind, we are talking FOX here...very pro Rudy McRomney, and very anti Ron Paul; no reason to think that the Rudy McRomney supporters wold not be watching en masse. The Rudy G. supporters were obviously in the audience. Is the FOX guy implying that Ron Paul's supporter can dial a cell phone and the other candidates' supporters can't? Are the other candidates' supporters not bright enough to text-message? Again, this constant implying that Ron Paul's supporters are somehow able to organize, text-message, and do other things better than the other candidates' supporters, should be insulting to the other candidates' supporters!

FOX had been touting how accurate and wonderful their text-message poll was; it's the same way they take votes on American Idol. Then, when Ron Paul was in the lead, they blow it off to all sorts of things.

Whether you like Ron Paul or not, the look on Sean Hannity's face when he reads the first poll results is priceless.

Norman Rogers, Rudy G. was the mayor of a city, a city government position. Ron Paul is in his 10th congressional term in a federal government position. You do the math.

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is in his 10th congressional term in a federal government position.

Okay, so some people say he's been sucking on the government teat a little long for a libertarian, but he has so many other good qualities, it doesn't matter.

He hates war. He loves fiscal discipline. He'll cut spending. He'll embrace freedom. And he can go all night.

Posted by: LiberTerri on June 22, 2007 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers, Rudy G. was the mayor of a city, a city government position. Ron Paul is in his 10th congressional term in a federal government position. You do the math.

Oh, please. One does not get the nomination to be the Presidential Candidate of the Republican Party by being:

1. Goofy looking
2. Obscure
3. A Congressman with zero leadership time
4. No money
5. and by running AGAINST the base

It doesn't happen, you ninny. The money people like myself who give over $100K per 4 year cycle are NOT--and I say this with all due candor--NOT going to put money in the pocket of a Texas rube.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Paul, you have no track record here, but Disputo does, and he is a solid and contributing member to this online forum, and you are the one who is insulting.

I think we have been very gracious, on balance, to the points of view you and the other Paul supporters have offered. At least as gracious as we were to the Edwards astroturfers a couple of days ago.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 22, 2007 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

"Oh, please. One does not get the nomination to be the Presidential Candidate of the Republican Party by being:

1. Goofy looking
2. Obscure
3. A Congressman with zero leadership time
4. No money
5. and by running AGAINST the base

It doesn't happen, you ninny. The money people like myself who give over $100K per 4 year cycle are NOT--and I say this with all due candor--NOT going to put money in the pocket of a Texas rube."


Wow Norman, you're one shallow person who doesn't seem to be able to think outside the box. That's sad.

Texas rube? Sounds like G Dub to me...

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, I just saw that in an update Drum added that Ron Paul is indeed in favor of returning to the gold standard, something I asked about way up the thread but which not a single Paulhead bothered addressing (instead preferring to yammer about how self-selecting polls are more accurate than random polls).

So, if Ron Paul wants to dispense with the free market valuing currency and instead have the gvmt set the value, how in the hell can he make any claim to being libertarian, and how can any real libertarian support him?

If that isn't bad enough, I just read on his wiki page that he wants to steal and devalue private property and steal tax payers money in order fund a huge gvmt boondoggle the purpose of which is to limit the free exchange of labor across the US's southern border.

This guy has no respect for private property and no faith whatsoever in the free market.

Ron Paul is no libertarian; nor does he give shit about the constitution -- he's just another wingnut kook who wants to use the gvmt to force his own freaky agenda onto the rest of the population.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo, please expand on the "gvmt boondoggle" that you speak of.

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Return to the Gold Standard?

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

What a ninny. If the assembled brain power of the pro-Ron Paul crowd is an indication of things to come, they will be no more of a blip on the radar than the Gary Bauer crowd was a few years ago. Definitely not the sort of people I will be rubbing shoulders with at the Republican Convention in the summer of 2008. And definitely not the right sort of people, end of story.

Many of you hangdog looking, cheap suit wearing, bolo-tie adorned, Aqua Velva-smelling Ron Paul supporting clowns will find yourselves pressing your grubby noses up against the window, looking in on the fashionable parties as we celebrate our nominee and talk shop.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo, no comment on my lenghty post above? Come on man. How are Ron Paul's supporters able to do anything better, or differently than the other candidates' supporters? This begs for an explaination.

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Paul, I fail to see why you continue to insist that Ron Paul supporters are too lazy and stupid to organize themselves to the extent that every other campaign does (even in the face of the counter-evidence of your very own "coincidental" presence and that of your fellow PaulBorg in the first and only Drum post about RP), but far be it for me to continue arguing the opposite.

Be that as it may, your assinine attitude and crass ignorance has indeed won me over -- I am now a Ron Paul supporter. Now please leave here and go out and use that winning charm to convert more to your cause.

Posted by: Disputo on June 22, 2007 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Paul,

And remember--it's people like myself, who give large sums of money to the party and can tap into an existing fundraising network--i.e., pals of mine who look to dump funds where they need to in exchange for access--who call the shots.

Your boy has never been on my radar, sir. He's a Congressman, for crying out loud. He's not even in charge of doling out the keys to the mensroom.

Why would anyone give two giggles and a ripped shirt what he thinks?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Uhh, ole Jim, they do not have cloture motions in the House. That's just in the Senate. Debate is not unlimited in the House. Ron Paul is a member of the House.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on June 22, 2007 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo, you're describing yourself again.

I'm not trying to convert anyone to any cause. I am showing that you are an ill informed ingrate who talks out of his backside. Your own posts prove that quite well.

You obviously can not respond to my questions and statements in an intelligent way, so you resort to condescending insults. You have shown what you are about.

And there you go with your "conspiracy theory" stuff again with this "Paulborg" thing. I surfed in here from a Google search, plain and simple. I don't know anything about anyone else. You really should get help with this conspiracy thing you have.

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers, here's something about your man/woman Rudy G. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070623/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_church_abuse_6

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2007 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Arrgh! stupid link rule - here is the post again with the links obfuscated...... C'mon Mod, Disputo called me out and asked for links

Disputo says:
I didn't bother to read beyond your ridiculous assertions that pollsters call from party registration lists (there aren't even any such things in most states, including my state of IL)

Here is a list of states that have open and closed primaries.
w w w(dot)fairvote(dot)o r g/?page=1801

It shows 27 states have closed primaries. That is more than half, therefore your statement is false and my assertion is not ridiculous. Point contradicted.

If it's not too much to ask, perhaps now you could read the rest of my post before calling me a fool.

Here are three sites where polls were conducted in the fashion that I suggested:

1) w w w(dot)diageohotlinepoll(dot)c o m/06_Mar_Pressrelease(dot)p d f

"The Diageo/Hotline Poll was conducted by telephone from March 16 to 19 among a random, nationally representative sample of 602 registered Republican voters (margin of error +/- 4%), ages 18 and older."
--
2) brain(dot)gallup(dot) c o m/documents/questionnaire(dot)aspx?STUDY=P0002007_2

"Field Date: 02/16/2000-02/17/2000
Sponsor: CNN/USA Today
Population: Registered Republican Primary Voters
Methodology: Outbound Telephone"
----

3) w w w(dot)pollingcompany(dot)com/viewPage(dot)asp?pid=123

"On October 3-4, 2005, a survey was conducted among registered Republicans residing in Pennsylvanias 30th Legislative District who had voted in three of the past four elections (primary and general) and stated they were likely to vote in the upcoming Republican primary election for State Senate."
--

This site lists the cost of voter registration rolls in each state. Most (more than half, as per fairvote link above) list party affiliation

w w w(dot)techpolitics(dot)org/congress/voterrollcost(dot)p h p

disputo then says:
Ok, I just saw that in an update Drum added that Ron Paul is indeed in favor of returning to the gold standard, something I asked about way up the thread but which not a single Paulhead bothered addressing (instead preferring to yammer about how self-selecting polls are more accurate than random polls).

Well, that is the topic. I thought it would be polite to stick to the topic, since I am just a guest here.

And a landline poll is just as self-selecting as an internet poll, since each person makes the decision to answer / not answer or remain on the line /hang up.

I am not claiming that landline polls are any more, or less accurate than an internet poll. I am simply showing the shortcomings of landline polling.

I repeat my challenge:

You show us the poll, and I will point out how it is biased.

Later

Posted by: Kevin Houston on June 22, 2007 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

200 comments. Clearly no one is interested in Ron Paul.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

I mean, NOW we're at 200 comments!

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

I'm afraid Disputo, while evidently well-respected on this august forum, is economically poorly-informed.

The "gold standard" to which he refers, where the U.S. Treasury "set" the price of gold and guaranteed conversion of dollars into gold is *not* a legitimate gold standard to which Dr. Paul, or Milton Friedman, would aspire. That system, better known as Bretton Woods, was established in the 1940s to attempt some level of stability for global currencies through managed exchange while encouraging the flow of capital from the U.S. to the nations (Japan and Europe) whose capital bases were destroyed in WWII.

While you might consider Bretton Woods a "gold standard" in intent, Disputo, the underlying problem is that the Federal Reserve still had (and has had since its founding in 1913) a license to print money. The fact that the U.S. Treasury agreed to convert those paper dollars to gold should have enforced some discipline, but between the War on Poverty and Vietnam.... well, let's just say we printed a lot of paper dollars that readily found their way around the world, and into other central banks.

And since we had agreed to exchange those paper dollars for a commodity that has intrinsic value, the central banks of the world were only too happy to take us up on our offer, and call our bluff. So our gold reserves began to disappear at an alarming rate from Ft. Knox, and Nixon slammed shut the "gold window" in 1971 thus severing our currency's ties with gold. The devaluation of the dollar that followed was just the chickens coming home to roost, and the inflation/stagflation that followed was the inevitable consequence of a monetary system that can be manipulated at will by those with a monopoly on the money supply.

For some reason, many people don't seem to grasp the critical nature of this fundamental issue. Stable money has only two requirements:
1) It must have a fixed cost to create
2) It must be impossible to counterfeit

Artificially "pegging" a paper currency that can be created at will to a commodity with intrinsic value (i.e., meeting those two criteria above) does not solve the problem. Eliminating the government's ability to create money at will -- by eliminating the Federal Reserve System -- will solve the problem.

True liberals like me who have taken the "red pill" (in the Matrix sense) and understand the workings of our financial system will recognize that many of the social problems we all hope to erase ultimately stem from our inherently immoral monetary system.

Why can't someone work half his life, live on half his income, and retire comfortably for the remainder.... without paying a financial services industry for the *privilege* of putting his capital *at risk* in volatile markets? Fiat money is simply a means for government to confiscate the wealth of the poor and middle class at a level that would never be tolerated through straight taxation. The wealthy pay through inflation as well, but they have the sophistication and means to play in the "arms race" that allows them to try and beat inflation by seeking excess returns through capital markets. Sometimes even that ends poorly, however.

I'm not saying that Ron Paul or any other politician is the Second Coming. But the level of economic ignorance in apparently well-meaning and socially progressive people is depressing. If more people understood these simple facts, and their historical lessons, we might have a chance of tackling the root cause many social ills.

(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system)

Posted by: Barry Day on June 22, 2007 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

I am not saying Ron Paul has nothing to contribute. But I am saying that it is easy to be Ron Paul, or Ralph Nader for that matter.

It's very easy to sit back and always say "a pox on both their houses" (referring to our two major parties).

It's easy to say, as in his budget appropriations statement referenced above, "they both got it wrong". And then come out with some straight sounding no-nonsense talk. Because you don't have to worry about backing it up. You positions have no chance of being tested. You are not introducing legislation that you can get 10 representatives to work with you on.

It's easy to cavalierly say that the bill to end the war was really just funding the war. Of course, that was not true. But Paul has never experienced the difficulty of actually lobbying such a bill successfully through Congress.

He easy to stand all alone and say, “They are not bringing them home fast enough or cutting funding fast enough”, then go home without having put in a hard day’s work.

It’s easy being a ideologue.


Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 22, 2007 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

Disclosure, I gave Ron Paul $2,300. And I am a Ron Paul addict!

I believe you hit the limit there. $2,300 in the limit for the 2008 cycle. Therefore, you can't give Ron Paul another dime, unless you start giving to his PAC or some such nonsense as that.

Now, when you can raise $100,000, legally, by getting people to register themselves and donate the funds, then you might have something. I deal with PACs and aggregate totals, sir. I do not deal with "chicken feed."

You could have started a nice 401K or Roth IRA with that $2,300 you threw away on Paul, by the by. In forty years, you could have had enough money to buy dentures and adult diapers. Too bad for you, sir. Get used to being left out in the cold with your empty wallet and your shabby candidate.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system)

A hint to you sir--if you have to go to "wikipedia" to cut and paste about economics, don't lecture those of us who have actually worked in finance and made money.

I have thirty years of investment bank experience. Please--take your cranky, ill-informed rants and bugger off to somewhere useful, like a comment forum on which member of the Spice Girls will look like Skank Warmed Over when they finally get back together.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

Eliminating the government's ability to create money at will -- by eliminating the Federal Reserve System -- will solve the problem.

True liberals like me who have taken the "red pill" (in the Matrix sense) and understand the workings of our financial system will recognize that many of the social problems we all hope to erase ultimately stem from our inherently immoral monetary system.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!

Well, Neo. Good luck with that.

I'm not going to go into the pre-World War I history of the Fed, nor will I bore you with an examination of Title 12.

Remember when the Dow crashed in October of 87? And Alan Greenspan came out and said that the Fed stands ready to be the source of liquidity so that the country could quickly stabilize? That's what separates us from the 1000% inflation of third world countries. The Fed doesn't print money like an African dictator hell-bent on buying leopard skin underwear--the Fed keeps capitalism running like a well-oiled machine.

Anyone with a passing interest in Alexander Hamilton--father of the philosophy of having a strong central bank to stabilize the economic engine that powers this great nation--and how far we have come in terms of keeping our currency strong looks at the likes of you and just rolls their eyes.

You are a mockery of all that is sane. You are the dirt under the fingernails of people who forgot what they were scratching for. Abolish the Federal Reserve? Return to the gold standard?

I ask anyone in charge of anything around here, where do you find the time to collect this assortment of batshit crazy fools?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Norman - I was just trying to make these obscure topics accessible to Disputo, who clearly has a much more limited background.

Please, if you would dispute the chronology I outlined, or the commonly-accepted criteria for money as a non-inflationary store of value, I would love to hear your perspective.

But if you would prefer to engage in an anti-intellectual "drive by shooting" by summarily dismissing my comments, I'll take that as recognition of your own ignorance.

Like you, I've benefited handsomely from our debt-based monetary system. That fact alone doesn't make the system just, moral, or sustainable.

Posted by: Barry Day on June 22, 2007 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'm trying to decide if Norman Rogers is for real. I'm hoping he is, he's too awesome to be fictional.

Norman, you called me a child molester upthread for no reason and now you're telling me I'll be in adult diapers I can't afford someday. And yet I have enjoyed every one of your posts, and look forward to more.

Carry on, good sir.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Norman - just saw your most recent post. I'll take my Thomas Jefferson over your Alexander Hamilton any day. I don't consider myself any less sane that Milton Friedman.

You're going to have to go deeper in your root cause analysis if you think Fed-supplied liquidity is the cure for 1987's near-panic in the financial system. You're treating the symptom, not the disease.

I find your colloquialisms amusing. "Batshit crazy." Now that's intellectual stimulation.

Posted by: Barry Day on June 22, 2007 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

The esteemed Mr. Norman Rogers wrote:

"I believe you hit the limit there. $2,300 in the limit for the 2008 cycle."

You can donate $2,300 in the primaries and then, if your guy wins, $2,300 to him again in the general.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

Please, if you would dispute the chronology I outlined, or the commonly-accepted criteria for money as a non-inflationary store of value, I would love to hear your perspective.

Your premise is absurd. How can anyone debate you when your entire premise rests on the notion that we can abolish the Fed?

Boom and bust, boom and bust, no stability. That's the end result of not having the wonderful instrument that is the Fed up and running. People like myself who went into investment banking with the premise that we would make money within the boundaries of a stable, regulated system would NEVER have made a cent during the nightmarish Clinton or Carter years when economic policy was in the toilet.

I'll throw this out to you--what do you know about the year 1907?

My grandfather told me stories about '07. Very few people know what happened and why, if we had had a Federal Reserve at the time, so much capital wealth in this country wouldn't have disappeared in a puff of smoke. JP Morgan basically stabilized this country by virtue of his own wealth. TR went a little too far, perhaps, taking on the trusts (which were never really entirely the problem, in my grandfather's view) but everyone basically reached the same conclusion--we needed elastic currency, and voila, a Federal Reserve.

Please--you can't have more than the shabby rags you shake dust and flies from as you try to debate monetary policy with me. I will not debate a man who simply cannot rub two wooden nickels together.

This entire line of debate is preposterous.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

Little ole jim --

This isn't a protest candidacy. We PaulBots really do believe the U.S. can function without, say the Department of Education. It's not a pose.

After all, there was no Department of Education for the first 203 years of the Republic, and now it's $60 billion +/yr. For what? Carter didn't even want to create it and neither did the Democratic-controlled congress, but they didn't want to embarrass Carter before his re-election and it was a campaign promise he'd made to the NEA, who wanted to be able to lobby at a cabinet-level position.

For such mindless reasons are enormous, pointless bureaucracies created.

And now we're gonna start reversing the process.

Posted by: Klingon #53 on June 22, 2007 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

You can donate $2,300 in the primaries and then, if your guy wins, $2,300 to him again in the general.

Duh. As if Ron Paul is going to actually be your nominee. You have donated $2,300 to a man who won't see anywhere near 2% of any vote in any state except the state of denial.

In 2000, I raised $111,000 for Bush and in 2004 I came in a little under $97,000. In 1996, I raised $67,000 for Dole-Kemp. Going back to the FIRST year I participated--1964--I remember taking $900 and giving it to the Goldwater campaign.

Two shabby little men on Kevin's blog tonight. Bleh.

Get your hand out of whoever's pants you've shoved them into and think, man.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

Oh!

Before I forget, Disputo also wanted me to defend against his charge
2) that you lied when you suggested that being on the "do not call" list prevents pollsters from contacting you.

Well, since I didn't say that it prevented pollsters from calling, I bloody well won't defend
it. That you are saying I did, proves once again, that it is you who is the liar.

What I did say is: Thus Republicans who have stayed aboard the good ship "Dubya" sampling the kool-aid are the ones being called.

(This is in addition to putting their phone numbers on the registration card, not being on the do-not-call list, and being willing to pick up the phone for an unidentified out of state caller around supper time)

(Way to focus on a minor parenthetical comment, while totally ignoring my main point, while simultaneously putting words in my mouth. Excellent form, sir. You will be a master debator yet.)

What I am suggesting is that people on the do-not-call list are not being called. It is not a matter of law preventing it, it is a matter of common sense on the part of the pollsters.

from a telemarketing survey practices study.

"Do Not Call Lists

Although research is legally exempt from maintaining a Do Not Call list unlike the telemarketing industry, some research companies have assumed such an internal practice since many respondents aren't even willing to listen to our side of the story. "

-snip-

"Over half of the facilities surveyed maintain a Do Not Call list for all studies, and another 24% plan to administer a Do Not Call list in the future. "

Ooooh, there's that nasty "over half" again.

Tsk, tsk, Disputo, tough luck. :( Maybe you will be able to Dispute some 'O me other points.

maybe not.

Later.

8D

Posted by: Kevin Houston on June 22, 2007 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

And now we're gonna start reversing the process.

With no money, no constituency, nothing but a hayseed Congresscritter from Texas?

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Your movement has some holes in it, sir. Best not to start beating your chest about all the things you're going to do when the collective wisdom of the entire nation rolls its eyes at the intellectually bankrupt and fact-challenged premise you've carved out by hitching yourself to, ummm...a nobody.

This conservative Republican assures you of one thing--your seat at the table will be the crappy card table the children sit at on Thanksgiving. And if crumbs are all that's left, be grateful for what we give you.

Next idiot, please.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 22, 2007 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, you have a way with words -- and women, too, I would imagine.

This is one cool cat, ladies and germs.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 22, 2007 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

And, no, geniuses--

Don't even try to look me up on Opensecrets.org. I don't comment under my full Christian name and I don't organize political donations under a name you'll figure out.

None of you are half as smart as your mom forgot to tell you you are.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 23, 2007 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

I always wanted to be a detective...

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 23, 2007 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

Well, it looks like we have yet another previously unknown idiot member of the PaulBorg to grace our forum. No doubt called in by the too-stupid-and-lazy-to-organize Paul or one of the other Paulistas who view smash mouth tactics as the way to rally support.

Barry Day sez:

I'm afraid Disputo, while evidently well-respected on this august forum, is economically poorly-informed. The "gold standard" to which he refers, where the U.S. Treasury "set" the price of gold and guaranteed conversion of dollars into gold is *not* a legitimate gold standard to which Dr. Paul, or Milton Friedman, would aspire.

Blah, blah, blah. Man you libernuttians are long on regurgitations, recitations, and redefining terms to suit your needs. Instead of providing us with a wikipedia dump of the the Bretton Woods story, which I am fully familiar with, and insisting that the "gold standard" is not the "gold standard", perhaps you would care to explain exactly what Ron Paul's position is. All I did was refer to Drum's statement that Paul wanted to return the US to the gold standard. If you have some evidence that that is not true, other than the smarmy handwaving you've already demonstrated, then present it.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

Norman - Wow, you must really think you are smart. Let's talk about 1907:

"The financial panics of 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907 were in large part an outgrowth of ... reserve pyramiding and excessive deposit creation by reserve city banks. These panics were triggered by currency drains that took place in periods of relative prosperity when banks were loaned up." (See Vera C. Smith, The Rationale of Central Banking, 1936.)

There is no question that the Federal Reserve was created to solve a problem. But the problem was indiscriminate credit expansion in the context of fractional reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking is the first step on the slippery slope towards a fiat currency under monopoly control. We're not the first civilization to discover this progression, the Romans were on to the magic of an "elastic" currency long before we were. It didn't turn out too well for them, though.

Is it a good thing that our monetary system was so unstable in 1907 that one individual was in a position to "save" it?

I am not suggesting we can just abolish the Federal Reserve and market forces will usher in a brave new world of peace and prosperity. The public is too ill-informed, and banks too tempted to loan in excess of their reserves, for that. But a stable monetary system is possible with a non-inflationary asset-backed currency.

However, it is unlikely that our government will give up its license to print anytime soon. There are just too many wars to be fought, too many special interests to be served, and too many corporations to feed. Halliburton would be most displeased -- they've got an expensive task, moving their headquarters to Dubai and all.

Thanks for engaging in this "preposterous" line of debate. I'm going to shake off some flies and see if I can find some wooden nickels to buy food for my family tomorrow. Or maybe I should just sell my 65" LCD TV now that I'm spending so much time on my new MacBook Pro educating a self-proclaimed Midas about the frailty of his wealth.

Posted by: Barry Day on June 23, 2007 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

I always wanted to be a detective...

I always wanted to watch them, preferably while filing my nails.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

LMAO @ Kevin.

Man, you are almost too dumb to be real. I am begining to wonder if you all are not Will Allen sock puppets.

Look, buddy, come to me when you have some evidence of your claims (hint: some quote about some research companies avoiding people on the DNCL is not evidence that political pollsters are not calling people on the DNCL). Until then, please keep this forum open to people with brains.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

And, Paul, what can I say? Except that your continuing abusive tone and ridiculous stupidity makes me want to vote for Ron Paul all the more. In fact, I just wrote him a big fat check.

Keep up the good work!

(Psst -- your mom wants you to clean up your room for tomorrow; Aunt Hildie is coming for a visit.)

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

Well, crap. It was too good to be true. A quick perusal of previous comments confirms my suspicions that Norman Rogers is just an online persona. Never meet your heroes.

Well, Norman, it was fun while it lasted. I like the "Princeton '65" e-mail address, nice touch.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 23, 2007 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

Klingon53 - I'm not a libertarian, and I won't try to explain Ron Paul's position for you. If you're really curious, you can check out his own writings and draw your own conclusion. http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=9 is a good place to start. I don't agree that his solution to "eliminate the Federal Reserve" is the end of the story, however. You might reference my prior response to King Norman.

I'm glad you're familiar with the Wikipedia outline of the Bretton Woods system. That places you in the top 0.1% of the American population with respect to economic literacy. But I suggest that you not stop there. Perhaps you and King Norman can get together to dig deeper into these fascinating issues.

With respect to varying uses of the term "gold standard", I agree, it is a complicated topic. You'll have to go a bit deeper than Wikipedia to understand it in its various historical contexts.

Posted by: Barry Day on June 23, 2007 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Disputo -- apologies, my above post addressed to Klingon was really meant for you. I mean it though, I am impressed that you've heard of Bretton Woods.

Posted by: Barry Day on June 23, 2007 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

I won't try to explain Ron Paul's position for you.

Really? No time to explain RP's monetary policy, but you will waste our time lecturing about Bretton-Woods? I call bullshit.

Gawd, you damn awful PaulBorg certainly have raised the bar in nonsense spam trolling today. What's next -- perhaps a wikipedia dump of the history of the Roman Empire? Or better yet, the Romulan Empire! You and Klingon #53 can team-lecture us.

Anything but discuss what Ron Paul's positions are, huh? Because... maybe we'd see what he really stood for then?

(My apologies to Klingon #53, since he has been the one Paulist who has shown a modicum of decency, but the ST ref was too good to pass up.)

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter Barry Day:

Thank God for cut and paste! It makes me look smart! Yuk yuk yuk.

No, sir. You have no grasp of the subject. You are backing and filling and cannot write extemporaneously on the subject. You're simply cutting and pasting and all I have to do is go to this article and I find virtually all of your easily refuted talking points in an article written by the moron himself, Ron Paul.

All you are doing is repeating the talking points of a crank and a fool. Good luck winning with that strategy.

Barry Day:

A quick perusal of previous comments confirms my suspicions that Norman Rogers is just an online persona. Never meet your heroes.

So I'm not "real" eh? News to me. Of course, the people who make those comments have usually just been torched and shredded by my facts. Funny how that happens--liberals, who cannot tolerate dissent of any kind--instantly assume that someone who can carve their bogus logic up into cubes and serve it back to them doesn't actually "exist." Hilarious! I guess that's one way to justify the fact that liberals can't debate and can't think analytically.

Every three weeks, someone "claims" I am a parody or a troll or a figment of Kevin Drum's imaginations.

I've been posting here for 4+ years and I never tire of hearing that I don't "exist." Drum's archive is a bit fishy--something about an upgrade gone awry.

You can find me commenting on Drezner's blog in 2004. You can find >this raving lunatic who I fried for laughs on this very blog crying like a baby about the experience here.

But, sure. Go with the notion that I don't exist. If it helps you with your soiled panties and your uncontrollably shaking, do what you need to do.


Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 23, 2007 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

My error--This should be directed at Child Molester 53 and not Barry Day:

A quick perusal of previous comments confirms my suspicions that Norman Rogers is just an online persona. Never meet your heroes.

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 23, 2007 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

That's OK, Disputo. We're still cool. The thing about us PaulBots is that we sometimes go overboard with our enthusiasm, hopefully that will improve. Although, I think shortstop and Norman R. could give the PaulBots some flaming lessons.

Norman Rogers, I stand corrected sir. I assumed from the many instances of people claiming you do not exist that it was widespread knowledge that you weren't real.

You have to forgive us, you do seem larger than life!

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 23, 2007 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

The Ron Paul message boards are buzzing with news that the campaign has a big announcement coming up this weekend...no idea what it is...

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 23, 2007 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

I assumed from the many instances of people claiming you do not exist that it was widespread knowledge that you weren't real.

Yeah, it is called "delusion of adequacy" and you will find that liberals have this malady in spades, especially when they find themselves commenting on blogs.

I am real. I am not going anywhere. I speak for myself.

Ron Paul does not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting his kooky ideas into the mainstream thought of my party. We're going to either get behind Rudy or Fred and beat the inept Democrats soundly in 2008.

Kindly step aside and let us handle things. Nutjobs and cranks need to know their place. Yours is to shuffle off into the back room and keep quiet while the adults have a nice meal in the dining room.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 23, 2007 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

The Ron Paul message boards are buzzing with news that the campaign has a big announcement coming up this weekend...no idea what it is...

RON PAUL FINDS A HAM SANDWICH!

Candidate Ron Paul rolled out of his padded room and commenced to searching for some vittles. He scampered about with no shirt on like a diseased hick with Attention Deficit Disorder. A kind woman in a smock pointed him to a chair in the corner of his mental ward. There, he found a ham sammich!

Mmm, yummy! Was all he was heard to say.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 23, 2007 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

Disputo - I didn't mean to imply that I don't have the time to explain Ron Paul's monetary beliefs, it's just that I prefer primary sources where available. And since Ron Paul has written extensively on the subject, I thought it polite to refer you directly to his own writings.

I understand, though, that following that hyperlink might be unduly burdensome. So I will share my interpretation of his beliefs. But you should feel empowered to read his writings, consult other primary sources, reflect, and think critically yourself if you so desire.

Ron Paul believes in the lessons of history, that the monetary system when mixed with human nature inevitably progresses through the following phases:

1) Barter
2) Commodity-based currency
3) Fractional-reserve banking
4) Fiat currency

Briefly, throughout our nation's history we have gone through this progression as well, oscillating between phases 3 and 4 over the past century. The fundamental problem with phases 3 and 4 is that they are, by definition, inflationary.

Fractional reserve banking is where banks "create" money by loaning more in loans then the possess in deposits, or "reserves". The system stretches even more when the reserves themselves are no longer backed by anything with intrinsic value. Fiat money is the endgame where currency can be created at will, with no reserves at all.

But both phases involve creating new "money" -- however that is defined -- and putting it into circulation at essentially zero cost. Those new "zero-cost" dollars compete with your hard-earned dollars for goods and services. The corresponding reduction in your purchasing power is called inflation.

The only way to avoid inflation is to adopt a monetary system where the store of value is defined in terms of something -- anything -- that has an economic cost to produce, and cannot be counterfeited at a lower cost.

Ron Paul understands, as does anyone else familiar with our financial system, that the Federal Reserve is uniquely allowed to write worthless checks to the U.S. Treasury to buy Treasury bonds. (Actually, the Federal Reserve is *given* Treasury bonds, which become assets on its books, and it is then allowed to write a check backed by that asset to the Treasury. It sounds a bit better that way, but it still amounts to writing a worthless check.) Those dollars created by the Federal Reserve are then distributed by the Treasury to fund excellent social programs, foreign and domestic intrigue, and contractors who fund various congressional campaigns.

It's a pretty sweet system for people like King Norman -- the "elastic" currency means that the government can get away with printing money to do things that it otherwise would be able to afford based upon tax revenue alone. And the Federal Reserve, at the nexus between Wall Street and the Capitol, ensures that financial services industry can make a handsome living by babysitting these funds as they are moved through various instruments and derivatives.

So the moral of the story is if you haven't figured out some way to get on the government payroll, you'd better get on soon. Because the good times are rolling, and they'll keep rolling until, well, they stop rolling. It always stops. Sometimes it's just a recession, sometimes it's a depression. But don't worry about investment bankers like King Norman, or savvy folks like myself. We know how to make money regardless of whether the Fed is liquidating the system, or removing liquidity. It's the guy who gets laid off and can't make his mortgage payment, the retiree on a fixed income, and the recent college grad who can't afford health insurance that you need to worry about. These are the folks who are at a relative disadvantage in our repetitive cycles of booms and busts.

So Ron Paul looks at a monetary system like this in the context of thousands of years of history and thinks there must be a better way. But like I said to King Norman, I think it's unlikely we'll ever get there.

Posted by: Barry Day on June 23, 2007 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

We know how to make money regardless of whether the Fed is liquidating the system, or removing liquidity.

In your case, thank the Creator that the pawn shop will take your cheap-ass aluminum Elven sword and your Franklin Mint Civil War Chess Set. How else would you get that five dollars you need to go get yourself a tall, cool glass of shut the fuck up about things you don't know anything about, hmmm?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 23, 2007 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

King Norman -

Regarding your prior post:
***
Thank God for cut and paste! It makes me look smart! Yuk yuk yuk.

No, sir. You have no grasp of the subject. You are backing and filling and cannot write extemporaneously on the subject. You're simply cutting and pasting and all I have to do is go to this article and I find virtually all of your easily refuted talking points in an article written by the moron himself, Ron Paul.
***

I find it interesting that you accuse me of "cut and paste", cite a supporting article by Paul (you could have easily found one by Milton Friedman, or even a young Alan Greenspan) and call it "easily refuted", but then choose not to refute it.

Again, a drive-by shooting with no pretense of debate or discourse.

I've never claimed to be the only one who has reached these conclusions. I just believe in the lessons of history. But in the end, we're cool, man -- I'm wealthy, you're wealthy, it's all good :).

Posted by: Barry Day on June 23, 2007 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

King Norman - Wow, that's good. If I didn't know better, I might think you were part of some global conspiracy to stifle intelligent debate on this topic (wink, wink).

I can't wait to see your Nobel Prize in economics.

Posted by: Barry Day on June 23, 2007 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Here's one for you guys and gals, when you sober up and can pay attention to something serious without all the name calling etc. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e24_1179075218

Posted by: Paul on June 23, 2007 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

Well! You boys and girls were busy last night!

I don't know what I like best, BGRS's Costello reference, the fact that not a single one of these completely distinct, unaffiliated Ron Paul Revolutionaries knows how to make a hyperlink even as they boast of their group's online savvy, or watching Norman Rogers bait Barry Day into hysterically launching a dick-waving list of his best toys.

What does seem to have gone by the wayside is any discussion whatsoever of why a bunch of unrepentant liberals should be interested in Ron Paul.

Did you guys forget where you were posting again? That keeps happening to you. Wonder why?

Posted by: shortstop on June 23, 2007 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

You nailed it. Ron Paul has about the same level of support among the general public as Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

Now that you mention it, Paul and Kucinich were the ONLY Congressmen this past week to vote against a resolution urging the UN Security Council to condemn the Iranian Supreme Leader for encouraging genocide. Even Pelosi, the heartthrob of San Francisco Democrats, voted for it, along with Boehner and Shays and all the other Republicans. If that doesn't make Paul and Kucinich extreme outliers, I don't know what would.

Posted by: DBL on June 23, 2007 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Well, the reincarnation of Ron Paul from his 1912 days are consistent. Then, he must have railed about us neither having any business in the Phillipines nor having charged up San Juan Hill in the first place.

He is indeed a one trick pony.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on June 23, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Sean Scallon writes:
Uhh, ole Jim, they do not have cloture motions in the House. That's just in the Senate. Debate is not unlimited in the House. Ron Paul is a member of the House.

Did you notice in my first post I noted that in the House cloture is called "previous question"? Most people know what cloture means, so it's often used interchangeably.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/prev_question.htm

If you are interested, do a little research on how Ron Paul voted on procedural matters during the Republican reign in the House. His feet should be held to the fire just like every other member of the House.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 23, 2007 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Stormin' Norman: "I am real. I am not going anywhere. I speak for myself."

The three 'ayes'.

Posted by: bobbyp on June 23, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Go Ron Paul! Go Ron Paul! God Bless Ron Paul! Ron Paul for President 2008!

Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJKGfAWQUo

"In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" GEORGE ORWELL

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor---he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation---he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city---he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.


--- Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and philosopher of Ancient Rome.

Posted by: chris lawton on June 23, 2007 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Paul is starting to sound preety good.With Obama and Hillary spouting the same "We cannot let Iran obtain nuclear blah blah all options are on the table" crap.He's won three debates and still no news coverage.I am a democrat but the candidates we have now don't have a spine.When it comes down to doing the right thing they are all worried about someone accusing them of not supporting the troops or being soft on terrorism or crime.Spineless.

Posted by: vbrans on June 23, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

MAJOR announcement expected from the Paul campaign any minute now. The Ron Paul message boards are burning up...

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 23, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's amusing that people assume the PaulBots are so clinically organized. Our "organization" consists of people with RSS feeds.

Posted by: Klingon # 53 on June 23, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul's positions are mutually contradictory , marginal and nutty.
...In the May 3, 2007, GOP Debate, Paul stated that as President, he would immediately seek the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the abolition of the income tax. He has said that he knows change on federal taxation and the gold standard would have to be gradual, with a switch to a federal sales tax rather than income tax and eventual smaller government with not as much tax needed, coupled with a gradual return of gold-backed currency.[18] .......
giving the President authority to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would allow war to be carried out against individuals rather than foreign countries and allow local bounty hunters familiar with the Afghanistani terrain to be hired to capture Osama bin Laden and his co-conspirators....
...He supports the U.S. converting to a free market healthcare system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He says that in industries with freer markets, prices go down due to technological innovation, but because of the corporatist system.....
...Paul diverts funds that already exist within bills away from other members' districts to his district....

Those, like Paul, who think that they are for 'free markets' and against government regulation are the ultimate pro-business stooges. Their policies would allow multi-nationals free rein to sell unsafe shoddy products and give consumers no recourse.

Their so-called anti-inflationary policies would only favor the wealthiest, the coupon clipper, the investor class, the established corporation and hurt the mortgage holder and the borrowing businesses like family farms and entrepreneurs.

Paul believes in pie-in-the-sky innovation but fails to realize the vast importance of seed money that underlies technology from government support of university research. He also fails to note that the main reason for the rising cost of health care is technological innovation: pricier more detailed tests, very expensive machinery, and high marketing costs of drugs designed more to benefit the corporation holding the patent than the ill.

Paul's policies would serve to encourage the growth of an American aristocracy and the Haitian economic system: the few isolated mega-rich and millions of peons serving them. For example, sales taxes are the most hurtful for the poor and middle class, the least hurtful for the wealthy. Graduated income taxes have the opposite effect, taxing those who can afford it the most instead of taxing those who can least afford it at a flat rate.

Ron Paul is just another corporatist tool serving the burgeoning American aristocracy.

....you do seem larger than life! Klingon # 53 at 12:52 AM
Not to worry, Norman is not only irrational, he is also a congenital liar. It seems that the entire Paulist operation is beating their meat here, so who's left on your regular message boards? Are there five more of you out there? Posted by: Mike on June 23, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Some of the commenters here think that Ron Paul is a clear cut, consistent advocate of ending the Iraq occupation and restricting the powers of our chief executive. I think you should realize that most Political Animal fans would agree that those are attractive goals.

However, if you want just one example of why some of us are disappointed with Ron Paul, take a look at the content of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007. Ron Paul glibly dismissed this as merely funding the war. He joined most of his fellow Republicans in voting against it.

I disagree with his dismissive characterization of this bill. Make up your own mind.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 23, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Anyway, come on, guys. We're talking about a candidate who thinks we'd be best off getting rid of Social Security altogether and who wants to abolish the federal reserve, repeal the 16th Amendment, and put us back on the gold standard. This is really not a platform designed to muster up more than 1% of the vote.

Many people may have disagreements on certain issues with Ron Paul, but they will vote for him because he is the only leader who has proven where he stands, and, furthermore, has proven he is willing to stick up for principle. He is character towers over all the other candidates, and that is why voters are going to him. He is the only intellectually honest candidate.

And why is it such a stretch to abolish the income tax? If spending was cut to compensate, then all we would have to do is cut spending back to 2000 levels. Mostly, just roll back the Great Society-size expansion of government that took place over the past few years and stop all the nation building. As for abolishing the Federal Reserve, would it not be better to have money on a gold standard than money whose value is determined by a bunch of unelected officials who operate with less than total transparency?

And there is another reason why Dr. Paul is gaining momentum. Whereas McCain, Romney, and Giuliani are Iraq supporters, and whereas Hillary and Edwards voted for the war, Paul, like Obama, opposed the war from the beginning. Paul's antiwar position may be more consistent than Obama's.

Finally, Paul is not so much a libertarian as he is a constitutionalist. His positions on the borders, for example, contradict libertarianism. And he doesn't want to force libertarian solutions from the top down; he believes that the States should be making a lot of decisions, and that if the States decide for liberal solutions, the feds cannot dictate to them.

Posted by: brian on June 23, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

You misrepresent Ron Paul's views, first of all. He has said that he would not get rid of things like Social Security and Medicare, but would "prop them up" by making the rest of govt. smaller. He knwos that people depend on them. He has also said he is one of the few in Congress who has never voted to spend money out of the Social Security fund-- he has done more to protect it than most, in other words. A return to the gold standard would be gradual and would first start with no capital gains taxes on gold purchases and making gold legal tender again.

You're way off base in the point of your post and your representation of Ron Paul's ideas.

Posted by: Gloria on June 23, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Our "organization" consists of people with RSS feeds...

...all of whom, except dorkarama you, are males with staunch Anglo names reminiscent of supermarket thrillers with vaguely patriotic themes. Not that I really mind, being a 10th-generation WASP who's been known to delve into a poorly penned spy novel while lounging by the pool. I take it as a compliment that you fellows try so hard to impersonate your betters and our stranglehold on the American upper echelon.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 23, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

I stand corrected, sirs. I see one of you is now a person of the female persuasion or an imitation of same. Well, you fellows know what they say. A woman walking into a gathering of libertarians is like a T-bone being thrown into the midst of a pack of starving dingos.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 23, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Barry Day, another thousand words about monetary policy and not one about what Ron Paul's policy prescription is. This is getting tiring. I'll give you one more shot.

Perhaps you are capable of answering a direct question? How does Ron Paul intend to back the dollar in gold without pegging the dollar to gold? In other words, how does he intend to link two separate and diverse markets -- those for dollars and gold -- a currency market and a resource market (a consumable resource no less, one that is no longer simply a precious metal) -- without distorting the markets that determine their relative values -- hell, without destroying the currency market altogether? Or, asked another way, how does Ron Paul intend to avoid replicating the disaster of the 70s?

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

no capital gains taxes on gold purchases

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but there are already no cap gains taxes on gold *purchases*, primarily because the *purchaser* hasn't realized any cap gains.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul understands that any talk of cutting taxes, reducing spending and reducing government as the other GOP candidates have spouted off on, as if they are reading from a candidates’ manual entitled "How to Speak Like A Republican," is pointless unless the war itself is brought to a close and the military-industrial-security-complex is reduced significantly in both size and influence. One cannot talk about reigning in the federal government back within the boundaries set by the Constitution unless this done. You cannot call for eliminating the IRS and yet eliminate habeus corpus. You cannot talk about eliminating the Department of Education and yet want to place wire-taps without probable cause on American citizens or read their mail. You cannot talk about reducing governing spending and yet ratchet up the Pentagon’s budget by well over $600 billon. You cannot talk about spreading freedom abroad and then threaten to throw people who smoke marijuana for medical reasons into prisons like common criminals. You cannot talk about returning power to the states and then operate a global empire at the same time. What kind of government would it be that did nothing other than to spy on the people it supposedly serves, harass them at airports, and bomb or threaten those it did not like or toed the line abroad? Something akin to a police/military state living in the shadows of its own fears and justifying itself by those very fears, not to unlike what we have now.

Ron Paul isn't about purist libertarianism. He's about decentralization. He's about returning the functions of the welfare state to the states themselves along with cities and local communities. That is the issue that divides our politics: centralism vs. decentralism. Had the Republican Congress constructed a framework to reinvigorate states as the "labratories of democracy" as they were before the New Deal, then maybe they might have been more successful. Instead they looked like a bunch of crazies that wanted to tear everything down.

I can't believe after living under one of the most powerful central government's in U.S. history, you would want to repeat the experience, unless you're a Hilary Clinton supporter and are saying to yourselves "Oooh boy! I can't wait ot get my hands on the reigns of power again." Have you all forgotten the Clinton Administration snooped through people's FBI files?

Whatever happened to Power to the People man? Or do you just say such things whenever someone with an "R" after their name is president? Which is it?

Posted by: Sean Scallon on June 23, 2007 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Had the Republican Congress constructed a framework to reinvigorate states as the "labratories of democracy" as they were before the New Deal, then maybe they might have been more successful. Instead they looked like a bunch of crazies that wanted to tear everything down.

You ninny. You're never going to sell a "pre-New Deal" America back to the American people. It's been tried, and every time it has been tried, it has ended in ruin for anyone who has made the attempt.

Our greatest modern President, Ronald Wilson Reagan, realized that the American people were conservative at heart but intellectually, they still required a modicum of Liberalism, which could be usurped from the Democrats by defending Social Security and Medicare. And that's how you win elections if you're a Republican--you espouse small government, tax cuts and a vigorous defence of the institutions that serve to ensure a vibrant Middle Class and the working class has a measure of a security net.

You advocate positions that are forty years out of date, incomprehensible to the average American, patently ridiculous in that they would dismantle institutions that keep our economic engine running smoothly, are morally indefensible, and proven losers at the ballot box. You want us to return to the days of boom and bust, panic and ruin, currency collapse and economic horror. Not a proven winner in any election.

Ron Paul is simply today's moron and his delightful little minions, the moronettes, are today's joke.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 23, 2007 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

You're right I am a ninny Norman. I don't have your taste for torturing jaywalkers unlike your man Rudy. The horror? Seeing your man in drag. I bet Rudy's got the S&M vote all locked up.

Our greatest modern President, Ronald Wilson Reagan, realized that the American people were conservative at heart but intellectually, they still required a modicum of Liberalism, which could be usurped from the Democrats by defending Social Security and Medicare. And that's how you win elections if you're a Republican--you espouse small government, tax cuts and a vigorous defence of the institutions that serve to ensure a vibrant Middle Class and the working class has a measure of a security net.

That little charade ended in 1995. You can't tell people government is the problem and then say "but we'll keep Social Security and Medicaid." two of the largest government programs ever constructed. In 1995 the House Republicans, believing their own rhetoric, tried to real efforts to cut government and reform such programs only to undercut themsleves because they sucummbed to that "modicum of liberalism" and protected programs that benefitted their districts (like farm price supports) after losing their hearts for the fight.

So rhetoric remained but the reality of their actions showed they were no different than the Democrats in their love of big government so long as it benefitted THEM and the people they reprented. Wouldn't have been so much easier just to say "You know all that stuff about Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan said about big government being the problem? Well, it's all a bunch of hooey. We're New Dealers now!" At least they would have been honest. Instead they became contemptable hypocrites and they why they lost in 2006.

And now you want to repeat the same formula in 2008? No thanks. You've had your chance and you've failed. Now its Ron Paul's turn to run the show.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on June 24, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Now its [sic] Ron Paul's turn to run the show.

Not quite--there's one more step. All he has to do to make it his "turn" is get enough people to vote for him, a goal which you seem personally dedicated to working against. A quick search of your posts here, Sean, indicates that you subscribe to the catch-more-flies-with-hysterical-derision theory of campaigning. How's that going for you? You've got the angry loner vote locked up, but you seem to stall at that point.

Not too smart, given how far your deity has to go to even dream of denting the public consciousness.

Posted by: shortstop on June 24, 2007 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK
....Whatever happened to Power to the People man? ....Sean Scallon at 5:15 PM
Power to the people was a call to a democratic socialist program. Your rather contemptible ideology is a cry for building an undertaxed aristocracy and unregulated capitalism, the sort that sells toothpaste contaminated with anti-freeze, toys with lead paint, and spoiled meat to consumers who then have no recourse because Ron Paul wants to remove government controls of 'free market' cronies. Your campaign slogan should say: Bring Back the Trusts! Posted by: Mike on June 24, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Gawd, you damn awful PaulBorg certainly have raised the bar in nonsense spam trolling today.

To the point of making Norman Rogers--Norman Rogers!--sound like the voice of reason.

Now excuse me, I need to go clean up after those flying pigs . . .

Posted by: rea on June 24, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

You can't tell people government is the problem and then say "but we'll keep Social Security and Medicaid."

Funny, since according to another RP supporter upthread, that is precisely RP's position:

He has said that he would not get rid of things like Social Security and Medicare, but would "prop them up" by making the rest of govt. smaller. He knwos that people depend on them.

Perhaps you RonBots should get together and agree on what you think RP's positions are before you start lecturing the rest of us about them? My guess is that none of you really have any idea what his positions are, and are simply projecting your own personal admixture of libertarian wingnuttery onto him.

As an aside, I am beginning to suspect that RP is big with the Scientology crowd, which would explain alot of the observed behavior in this forum.

Posted by: Disputo on June 24, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

To the point of making Norman Rogers--Norman Rogers!--sound like the voice of reason.

Yeah, I was kinda hoping that Norm would select to bait these yahoos into revealing even greater depths of insanity (I was hoping we'd here refs to Zero Point Field perpetual motion machines by now) but even he found that too distasteful and decided instead to draw the line against them.

Posted by: Disputo on June 24, 2007 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Btw, I'm still waiting for a RonBot to explain to me how his not-gold-standard-gold-standard plan would be anything other than the gvmt arbitrarily linking the market for dollars to the market for gold, thereby distorting the markets for both.

How about we instead link the market for apples and oranges? At least that would have the effect of allowing the rest of us make sense of RonBot arguments.

Posted by: Disputo on June 24, 2007 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Decentralizing the welfare state and abolishing it are two different things. RP wants to decentralize it.

If Disputo wants to make believe that this amounts to a hearkening for the "bad old days" of unfettered capitalism when the men in black top-hats ruled the world and the children would work in the coal mines, and the old ladies would die without the benefit of clinical nursing homes and social security, then he can indulge his fantasy so long as his musings do not intersect with any of reality's networking modules.

In reality, it was the advocates of an active central government which were the enemies of the progressive movement, and whose tortured Social Darwinist readings of the constitution initiated the dismantling of several egalitarian measures that several states had already taken. It's the New Deal, with its Corporate Welfare measures and its one-party patronage state structure, that killed Progressivism. Let's hope RP can revive it.

Posted by: BC on June 25, 2007 at 3:30 AM | PERMALINK

"In reality, it was the advocates of an active central government which were the enemies of the progressive movement, and whose tortured Social Darwinist readings of the constitution initiated the dismantling of several egalitarian measures that several states had already taken. It's the New Deal, with its Corporate Welfare measures and its one-party patronage state structure, that killed Progressivism. Let's hope RP can revive it."

You sound like a cross between radical socialists who yell "America needs two parties" and militia original-Constitution nuts hiding out in the Pacific Northwest. I wasn't going to vote for Paul before this thread, but this thread and the Ronbots have destroyed any warm or fuzzy feelings I had for him. Now he just sounds like a loon.

Posted by: Reality Man on June 25, 2007 at 4:05 AM | PERMALINK

Gawd, you damn awful PaulBorg certainly have raised the bar in nonsense spam trolling today.

To the point of making Norman Rogers--Norman Rogers!--sound like the voice of reason.

Now excuse me, I need to go clean up after those flying pigs . . .

Posted by: rea on June 24, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK


I wear my greatness with humility. I am here to tell you liberals how things work. If you would pay more attention to me and give me the respect that I deserve, we could all arrive at a common starting point and build this great nation into a shining example of greatness.

However, some of you annoy the living shit out of me. No soup for you!

"Carry on, my wayward son." There is a rock and roll group called Kansas that sang that line and I think it is apropo for how things are going these days. You wayward sons, albeit, you young liberals are going to carry on and I will wait for you on the shores of reality with a sippy cup and a towel when you swim back to the reasonable shores of the lake.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 25, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop, I would agree I have been over-the-top at times but you must also agree that sweet reasoning really doesn't exist around here considering some of the comments made towards libertarians in general. Its hard to persuade people who think they know it all, a trait that is commonly shared by the partisan right and left. This is not a place for intellectual discussion, just group-think. Be careful or these discussions will descend to Freeperville level soon enough. And as someone who was banned from the Freeperville gulag, let me tell you that cult doesn't even begin to describe that place. That's why I like to point out's people's hypocricies which is never very pleasant I grant you.

Ron Paul attracts people with a variety of different views. It's hardly a Borg. I consider myself in between paleolibertarian and conservative but the meetup.com group in Minneapolis I'm with has libertarians, Republicans, even a fellow who was with Kucinich four years ago.

My reply to Mike is not "Bring Back the Trusts" but bring back the states and the counties and the townships and small business. Do you think Ron Paul is running to give tax breaks to Halliburton or the oil companies? Big Business and Big Government work and hand in hand in this empire we've created whether its Halliburton or Blackwater Associates. There's big difference between privatizing Social Security and Medicare and making it voluntary (gee, do you fellows like paying for Donald Trump's retirement?). It may shock you to know that many libertarians have soured on "privitization" because they see it for what it is: A giant swindle. Privitization doesn't reduce government at all, it just makes businesses wards of the state and welfare queens lobbying to get their share of the budget. That doesn't reduce anything.

What the ultimate aim of a Ron Paul presidency is will be is transferring the regulatory aspects of government to those units on at the local and state level that, with proper funding, can best deliever such services and oversite for local communities. This is what Goldwater wanted to do, along with Reagan and reform liberals and Progressives as well from LaFollette's time on down. Ron Paul is no more radical than many figures throughout U.S. history from John Flynn to George Garrett, Robert Taft to LaFollette and Burton K. Wheeler to George Norris that tried to fight against the concentrated power of big government and big business.

A Bush II administration official told Ron Suskind "We're an empire now." Well Ron Paul is going to dismantle the empire, both abroad and at home. What other candidate is saying this?

Posted by: Sean Scallon on June 25, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Sugar trust.

Posted by: Brojo on June 25, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK
My reply to Mike is not "Bring Back the Trusts" but bring back the states and the counties and the townships and small business.
The result of your ideology is to do exactly that, bring back the monopolies. Your rant about dispensing power and authority, but when the governmental bodies regulating business are so small as to be insignificant, they are overwhelmed by the wealth and power of the capitalist entities.

You want to end the Empire, but the empire is designed to protect and enhance the power of the multi-nationals controlling the US. The weak cannot inhibit power, only power can do that. Your ideology is a big I SURRENDER to the power and wealth of capitalism.

You may not be aware, but most control of localities is by localities: zoning, country and municipal, with state regulation sitting on top of that. The municipality sets building standards in my community, not your imagined demons.

The only power that could regulate big business is national government. A small town or even a large state cannot regulate the power of Exxon or GM. Look to the insurance industry. It's not controlled by the federal government by regulated by each state, and it easily runs roughshod over each and every state.

Posted by: Mike on June 25, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

The Supreme Court recently ruled that states cannot overule the Federal government's regulations for banks. It was a big win for big banks to escape state regulation.

According to a new ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Watters v. Wachovia, the mortgage lending subsidiaries of federally chartered banks are exempt from state oversight.

Posted by: Brojo on June 25, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

Reality Man:

Say what??

I was simply making a point differentiating historically between Progressives and advocates of centralized gov. and pointing out how they were not until recently united. Paul is far more a federalist (i.e. supports decentralized gov.) than libertarian. This is a rather crucial point, insofar as anything one could say about a candidate polling at 1% is crucial.

Although from reading your response, it seems that you like the current Party situation and dislike the Constitution and the "nuts" who take it seriously. In that case, Hillary or Gulliani would make perfect sense.

Posted by: BC on June 25, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Your rant about dispensing power and authority, but when the governmental bodies regulating business are so small as to be insignificant, they are overwhelmed by the wealth and power of the capitalist entities.

Loclism isn't a cure-all, but look where the opposite has taken us.

If Mike thinks that an ever-increasing federal government is the answer to corporate domination, he needs to take a look at the state of contemporary Washington. If he really thinks either the Democratic or Republican parties are serious about reigning in corporate abuses, he might just belong in FreeRepublic.

For starters, what do you think a corporate elite would prefer, one gigantic party monolith to bribe, or 100 haphazard and loosely connected entities, each with their own priorities and concerns which would contradict everyone else?

As I said, localism isn't the only answer, and a strong federal government is necessary in some aspects, but Mike's unitary state ideology will make tings worse for everybody (except the Republican and Democratic Parties, which is what he might be interested in.)

Posted by: BC on June 25, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul attracts people with a variety of different views. It's hardly a Borg. I consider myself in between paleolibertarian and conservative but the meetup.com group in Minneapolis I'm with has libertarians, Republicans, even a fellow who was with Kucinich four years ago.

Bleh. What you and your rough-handed little bunch of lotion boys does in your spare time is your own business and no one else's.

Libertarian enough for you, sir?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 25, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, how can big government joined at the hip with big business regulate each other?.

Maybe some states and localities are roun over roughshod by coporpoations but that depends on the state doesn't it? Why did Eliot Spitzer become so popular in New York? Because he took an activist approach to his job and there are plenty of state AGs and county commissioners and state's attorney's who do the same.

And beauty of America is, you can move live in those states that like thing like clean envrionments and spends money on education. And those who don't can move to states with low or no income taxes.

If can sum up Ron Paul's ultimate goal it basically comes down to a line given by author Bill Kauffman:

"Let Utah be Utah and let San Francisco be San Francisco!"

And what's wrong with that?

Posted by: Sean Scallon on June 25, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul attracts people with a variety of different views. It's hardly a Borg. I consider myself in between paleolibertarian and conservative but the meetup.com group in Minneapolis I'm with has libertarians, Republicans, even a fellow who was with Kucinich four years ago.

Elves, dwarves, and a Hobbit -- that's variety alright. Who gets to be the dungeon master?

Posted by: Disputo on June 25, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK
...how can big government joined at the hip with big business regulate each other?..... Sean Scallon at 2:24 PM
There is no desire to have big business regulate government. Where did that come from? The need is to get the money out of politics, for honest government, and for transparency, none of which are in your agenda. And, no, it should not "depend on the state." Any state cracking down on corporations too much will find themselves losing jobs and suffering economically. Any state so desiring can re-instate Jim Crow and limit voting rights. You seem to think that people can move on a fart's notice. It doesn't work that way. Posted by: Mike on June 25, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

If can be said that neoconservatives live every day as if its 1939, the social democratic left lives every day like it was 1963.

State and local government is now way beyond what it was 40 years ago and time that our political system reflect the realities of the 21st Century rather than the Depression, World War II, the Civil Rights movement and so forth.

Talk about being trapped in the past...Ron Paul is 71 years old yet he represents the future. Imagine that.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on June 25, 2007 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Scallion sez:

If can be said that neoconservatives live every day as if its 1939, the social democratic left lives every day like it was 1963.

And RP wants to turn the clock back to 1912, according to one of your fellow RonBots upthread:

government continues to get an F for effort. It's time to change. Rolling back to "1928" is not what RP wants to do; he'd like to go back to 1912 ... I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then.

Scallion continues:

Talk about being trapped in the past...Ron Paul is 71 years old yet he represents the future. Imagine that.

Again, you RonBots really need to get your stories straight. Does RP want to turn the hands of time forwards or backwards? My guess is again that you haven't really a clue as to what RP's actual positions are, and keep projecting your own personality disorders onto him. That would explain why he is so popular among social-misfits.

Posted by: Disputo on June 25, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Right Mike!

Transparency! Money out of Politics!

So will it be Hillary or Rudy then? Perhaps John McCain? That's the ticket! One of them will take us back in the right direction! Particularly since they have been leading us whither we have been going for the last 30 years!

And let's not forget those segregationists lurking at the gate, waiting for power to be devolved to the state level! Plessy vs. Fergesen all over again!

Posted by: BC on June 25, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK
....One of them will take us back in the right direction! .... BC at 4:16 PM
It certainly won't be Ron Paul with his gold standard and national sales tax. If you think Southern states would not revert, check on the news for voting in the South .

I presume that you expect Paul's poll numbers to skyrocket with the great sales pitch you guys have done here. However, you have impressed no one. Your agenda only leads to worse abuses of power than the horrors we have currently. Your economic proposals would inevitably lead to more power for monopolies, an even more entrenched aristocracy, an unregulated anti-consumer bias, more polluted environment, and a reduction of worker safety rules.

Every time Republican hacks take power, those government agencies that are designed to protect Americans are invariably corrupted and perverted by the Republicans. Every time the people throw the bums out, the situation becomes better until the next takeover. Republicans should be prosecuted under the RICO Act. If you don't like 'em, don't support 'em with libertarianism quackery.

Posted by: Mike on June 25, 2007 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

And don't forget; Democrats are for the children!

No sir, can't forget the children.

Posted by: BC on June 26, 2007 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Regardless weather he has .000001% of the vote or more this 46 year old land phone line, never been called by a pollster that ever even Mentioned his name; RON PAUL CAN COUNT ON AT LEAST ONE VOTE IN MY AREA....MINE!!!

Posted by: john whittington on June 27, 2007 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

...We're talking about a candidate who thinks we'd be best off getting rid of Social Security altogether and who wants to abolish the federal reserve, repeal the 16th Amendment, and put us back on the gold standard. This is really not a platform designed to muster up more than 1% of the vote.

Now you've hit the nail on the head. If you don't see anything wrong with continuing the practices that Ron Paul wants to do away with then you don't understand the REAL problems this country faces.

Posted by: Micah on June 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Kevin, what is it about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that scares you so much? If our nation stuck to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we wouldn't have the problems that we have today. That includes abolishing the banking cartel that is responsible for the destruction of our currency called the Federal Reserve. As for the 16th Ammendement, it never got ratified. There is no law that states you have to pay income taxes. The Constitution states that Congress is in charge of the monetary system, and that money is to be gold or silver.

Posted by: George Zacpal on June 30, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly