Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Warming to cooling | Main | AT&T, NSA, and the BLF »

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Ron Paul vs. Chris Peden

UPDATE: Pajamas Media seems to have access to different poll numbers. Very different. According to this post, Ron Paul is losing in his district by more than ten points at 43 to 32. I didn't find any links to any of the polls. I think this is wishful thinking by the anti-Ron Paul folks out there. They'll learn soon enough, since Ron Paul will win his district on March 3rd.

While Ron Paul's presidential campaign is sputtering to an unimpressive close, his congressional campaign is beginning to look more and more like a slam dunk.

A recent Public Policy Polling poll shows Ron Paul clobbering Chris Peden in the race for the Texas 14th District at 63 to 30. That may be surprising to some, but it really shouldn't be. Paul has faced a Republican challenger just about every election cycle. A challenger that has received at least implicit support from the national Republican Party. And Paul continues to clean up.

Peden is making a big deal out of the two local papers who have given him the endorsement, and is trying to paint Paul as an anti-family and anti-war radical. Since Paul voted no to a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as an institution for one man and one woman, and failed to support a ban on gay marriage, Peden has seen this as an opportunity to claim that Paul--who has been married to the same woman for 51 years, has 18 grandchildren, and one great-grandchild--opposes traditional family values. And as everybody knows, Paul does not support war in Iraq, which Peden sees as an unwillingness on Paul's part to defend the nation against terrorists.

The voters in the district, however, are having none of it. Amongst voters who consider morality and family their central issues, Paul's lead is 65 to 28. Young people, meanwhile, are the largest voting bloc for Paul. Amongst them, Paul leads Peden at a staggering rate of 75 to 11.

In terms of fundraising, Peden has managed to raise in the vicinity of U.S. $150,000. That's impressive. Or, it would be, if it wasn't for something like 5/6ths of that money coming from Chris Peden himself. But 150 grand for a Congressional run is no pittance, regardless of the source. How does Paul compare? He's raised a meager 1.053 million.

While Peden's fundraising is styled after Mitt Romney, his visuals and logo are inspired by McCain.

Here's Peden's logo:

Untitled1

And here's McCain's:

Mccainsmall

Oops, wrong McCain. Here's McCain's:

Mccain_logo_2

Does Peden have a hope? I don't think so. Not when District 14 constituents say things like, "I have an immense amount of respect for Ron Paul. Politics has a way of forcing people to go against their core principles for political gain. That has never been the case with Ron Paul."

Quotes like that are easily had in the disctrict, although this has an interesting source--it was Chris Peden himself who said that about Paul on January 17, 2007. The same guy who, just one year later, thinks Paul needs to be booted out of his seat.

But he won't be. So even though Paul might not become the next President of the United States, he will still be making gold standard, anti-war in Iraq, and pro-gun rights speeches in Congress for a long while still.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 28, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55089f5a18833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ron Paul vs. Chris Peden:

Comments

I hope the polls are right this time for Ron Paul :-). I hope many more repulicans run for office and start putting more conservative/libertain members in congress. The sooner that happens the revolution will work it's way back into saving our constitution and our country. I just hope its not to late.

Posted by: Brian | 2008-02-28 1:42:47 PM


>"Paul might not become the next President of the United States, he will still be making gold standard, anti-war in Iraq, and pro-gun rights speeches in Congress for a long while still."
P.M. Jaworski on February 28, 2008

Not if the guys with the butterfly nets and the straight jackets get him first.

Seriously though, P.M. Jaworski, with 5 children, 18 grandchildren, and one great-grandchild Ron Paul is old right?

How do you define "a long while"?

Brian, define revolution.

If Ron Paul is a Libertarian who wants a "revolution" yet is part of the government, part of the legislative branch, isn't he just trying to shape policy?

Isn't Ron Paul trying to do whats best for his constituents in Texas as their Congressional representative?

What is all this horse shit about "revolution" you Ronulans are always yammering about?

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-28 1:53:04 PM


Ron Paul is 72, Speller. So he's old, but not that old. He still runs every day, and he's fairly sporty. I suspect he'll be around for a long while to come.

As for "revolution," that's a logo invented by supporters of Paul that stuck around as a meme. Paul's campaign had nothing to do with it, did try to fight against it, but then caved in and started using it.

It's a "revolution" not in the violent sense, but in the sense of changing peoples minds about the size and role of the federal government.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-28 2:00:07 PM


Today’s Seattle Times observes the support that Dr. Paul has from tech companies:

"U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has proved his popularity in the tech world, far outpacing Sen. John McCain in support from donors. Paul received twice as much money from Microsoft employees as McCain did, and five times as much as McCain from Google employees."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, employees of Google and Microsoft are number three and four in a list of top contributors to the campaign. (First and second on that list are the Army and Navy respectively.)

Congressman Paul has repeatedly said that he doesn’t want to tax or regulate the internet, and internet innovators - who have thrived from the freedom of the internet - support candidates who understand that freedom is key to the success of the e-Economy.

Posted by: JC | 2008-02-28 2:40:10 PM


Brian: Ron Paul is now trying to use his platform to begin a freedom movement. He has brought the issue up and above where it was sitting.

Of course you still have the big gov't worshippers (Speller) that will always deride freedom, but when we can teach the ignorant that 1776 was an idea, not a year, we could grow exponentially and suddenly, especially during the coming collapse.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-28 2:45:03 PM


Yes, well P.M. Jaworski, I understand that and appreciate you spelling it out.

My question is then, don't these people understand that if you want steady moderate change in the right direction you can get it by persistence, but if you use words like REVOLUTION instead of 'change' you'll not only turn people off, you'll have impatient people who WILL turn to violent revolution to get that change.

This is exactly how the people in the Weather Underground, FLQ, Red Brigades, and Baader-Meinhoff gang got turned to terrorism, by starting out as protesters, hearing the word REVOLUTION too many times, and then when their non-violent protests got them nowhere fast, turned to bombings, armed robberies, and kidnappings.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-28 2:49:05 PM


Uh, you forgot a few more violent groups that fought for change, Speller. The allies in WWII and the Founding Fathers in 1776. Violence can be used for good.

I'm winging this quote, but Goldwater (from Cicero) said:

"Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of freedom is no virtue."

So, Peter, Goldwater would disagree with your moderation in to achieve victory for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-28 3:19:56 PM


I only wish Ron Paul was running for the senate in Washington State, I am jealous of the Texans that he represents. A man like Ron Paul is rare, to actually tell the voters the truth about what is going on in this country is radical. I am glad to know there are communities like the 14th District of Texas that votes for liberty.

Posted by: Marcil | 2008-02-28 3:20:56 PM


Read it again slowly Veteran.
Try to comprehend.

I'm talking about political movements who use the word revolution.

And you need to bone up on the definition of violence. You don't seem to know what it means.

While "violent" is the root word of violence, violence is the abuse of force. The terms are not entirely interchangeable.

My point is, and has been, that if these people(Ronulans) or others like them keep using the word revolution then some misguided idiot(s) are going to start using acts of terrorism.

The American revolutionaries didn't start out as peaceful protesters or a movement for change, and neither did the allies in WWII.
Neither of them generally abused force either.

You are so obtuse, Veteran.

If you want to advocate violent open use of force to overthrow the government, Veteran, don't be a coward, say it plainly.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-28 3:32:48 PM


Ron Paul is truly the most unique politician, anywhere to be had in the world, not only the USA.

If you guys dont vote for him, there is a list of countries that will gladly adopt him.

Posted by: Free Speech | 2008-02-28 4:14:50 PM


Whoops, Speller. You can't even read a dictionary. Now, I know why those thick books on libertarianism have eluded you.

Violence is: Rough or injurious physical force, action or treatment. Source: Dictionary.com

Nothing mentioned about abuse. So, WW II and 1776 are still relevant.

And uh, Speller, the only person who could construe my statements as obtuse is you. It is plain English to everyone else. So, you've embarrassed yourself again.

Don't read Hoppe or Rothbard. They are much more confusing than a dictionary. You wouldn't get it.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-28 4:16:19 PM


Right on Free Speech, but only critical thinkers will appreciate Ron Paul. I think his base is philisophically clearer thinking than the Big Gov't fools. Have you heard of the intellectual pyramid? It is what ensures that any democracy will be run by the least amongst us. That's why Ron Paul can't win, but it's been fun watching him and sending $$$

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-28 4:20:12 PM


Dictionary: violence (vī'ə-ləns)
n.
Physical force exerted for the PURPOSE of violating, damaging, or ABUSING: crimes of violence.

Where did you get your definition, Veteran, the Selective Dictionary for Delusional Libertarians?

If you want to advocate violent open use of force to overthrow the government, Veteran, don't be such a coward, say it plainly.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-28 4:43:50 PM


I'm seriously considering moving to the Gulf coast of Texas so I can live in Ron Paul's district.

Posted by: logicprobe | 2008-02-28 4:44:56 PM


Read it again slowly Veteran.
Try to comprehend.

I'm talking about political movements who use the word revolution.

Noooo, Speller, YOU are insisting that Ron Paul supporters are to be likened to the baader meinhof. While Veteran is comapring them to the American Revolutionaries of 1776. Veteran wins on all counts.

That Socialist training stuff really sticks with you, I guess.

Posted by: JC | 2008-02-28 5:05:06 PM


"Ron Paul is truly the most unique politician, anywhere to be had in the world, not only the USA.

If you guys dont vote for him, there is a list of countries that will gladly adopt him."

Oh, forget about moving to another country. Ron Paul should just travel back in time to warn folks that desegregating the schools is going to lead to fascist dictatorship and the triumph of the New World Order(tm).

Or he can go back further and publish a newsletter denouncing the War of Northern Aggression. Maybe he could find a way to blame it on the Trilateral Commission.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-28 5:18:25 PM


The rEVOLution phrase is harmless. More like genius. Revolution means several other things, none of which is violent.

Revolution also means turnaround or even to turn over (like turning over a new leaf with a government free of rampant corruption. Also, other meaningful, important events were considered a revolution- the American Revolution, the industrial revolution, the computer revolution, etc.

Ron Paul supporters LOVE America and they want to protect her from corruption and corporations who want to CHANGE America for their interests.

We are standing at a point where the next President could either make or break the U.S.
Ron Paul and his supporters seek to re-align the country with the America that our founding fathers intended it to be...smaller government, less taxes, strong personal liberties, strong national defense, sound fiscal policy, etc.

Posted by: TFS | 2008-02-28 5:44:42 PM


Don't move to Ron Paul's district. Move to New Hampshire, where libertarians are staging a take-over of the state:
http://www.freestateproject.org

Posted by: Pablo Escobar | 2008-02-28 5:49:41 PM


I'm amazed at just how "rabid" Ron Paul's detractors are. Its a simple message of Liberty and Freedom. What are they so afraid of? Oh Yeah! The personal responsibility part....right! Oh well, they can continue to lick the hand of big governement and we'll continue to try and bring it down. Politics at its finest.

Posted by: JC | 2008-02-28 6:21:26 PM


No - we object to Ron Paul's statements on the war, which give aid and comfort to the enemies of our civilization.

All the rest of his nuttiness, all other kinds of apostasy I am willing to tolerate. But opposition to the war for civilization makes any politican an unperson, so far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-02-28 7:04:21 PM


Mr. Yoshida,

"we object to Ron Paul's statements on the war, which give aid and comfort to the enemies of our civilization." -- Mr. Yoshida.

You are saying that if we stopped the war, we would be giving the enemies aid and comfort? First off, define enemies. Currently we are hardly fighting Al-Quidea, whom Ron Paul VOTED to go after. We are preventing a civil war from breaking out in Iraq and trying to prop up a democracy there so we can have better influence on oil prices in the region.

"opposition to the war for civilization makes any politican an unperson" -- Mr. Yoshida

Now im confused, war for civilization? Are you saying that it is OUR job to go around telling other countries they have to be democracies? Or are you trying to say we should 'help' the people of Iraq. Well if you want to help the people of Iraq, why not help the ones in Darfur as well. Oh while we are at it lets get those commies in china as well. Im sure there are tons of people who would love us to 'liberate' them as well. Oh wait though, China is too powerful and they sit on a huge pile of our money. Too risky, lets stick to liberating Darfur and Iraq. Oh wait, I forgot to read the constitution, let me just double check with it. Oh It says here congress, not the president has the power to declare war. Damn it looks like we are going to need the approval of a majority of the people to police the world. Too bad you dont have the majority.

Anyways that was very tangental, but my point is, you have no idea why you support the war, except for what you are spoonfed, and that is that the terrorists will come get us if we leave Iraq. Mabye we should look at WHY the terrorists even hate us in the first place. Im sure you would say, 'Because we are free and prosperous'. Think about that argument. Why in the heck would anyone hate us for being free. We arent hurting them at all. Oh wait but we are! Weve been meddiling around in the middle east for the past 50 years, and the past 20 in Iraq. Mabye thats why they hate us. Oh well then it wouldn't be because we are free then, would it?

Posted by: Adam Hope | 2008-02-28 7:34:44 PM


Ron Paul's candidacy served two purposes.

Firstly, he undermined the coherency of the GOP message on defense. This is why he received such strong internet support from leftists.

Secondly, he proved you don't necessarily have to be a leftist to be nuts on defense.

Other than that he was nothing but an annoying effeminate irrelevancy.

Posted by: Terry Gain | 2008-02-28 7:45:59 PM


Oh It says here congress, not the president has the power to declare war.

Posted by: Adam Hope | 28-Feb-08 7:34:44 PM

Not quite true, for a "limited engagement" up to three months the President doesn't need congressional approval, it's that way since the 1970s.

Since 2002 the President also doesn't need congressional approval if he acts to "defend the Homeland" against a direct threat. I am sure it is possible to find some WMDs in China should the need arise.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-02-28 7:50:03 PM


Snowrunner,

Touche, my friend. I am aware that congress has to keep approperating funds for the president to play with the military, and that the funds can last for too long. (The constitution may even say up to 2 years) But I believe you and others understood my point in being that we really shouldn't have gone over there in the fisrt place. And by the way since its not a war it should be called "The Engagement in Iraq" :P

Anyways you are correct.

Lol 'defend the homeland' sound Russian to me.

Posted by: Adam Hope | 2008-02-28 8:00:12 PM


And by the way since its not a war it should be called "The Engagement in Iraq" :P

Posted by: Adam Hope | 28-Feb-08 8:00:12 PM

I think the term is "Operation Iraqi Freedom", and it isn't a war, at least not legally, the US never declared war on the Nation of Iraq.

-------

Lol 'defend the homeland' sound Russian to me.

Posted by: Adam Hope | 28-Feb-08 8:00:12 PM

Now now, don't get mean. As Adam pointed out so rightly, the good Americans fight for "the war for civilization", I guess he meant to say: "The American Way of LIfe", as civilization is really a rather broad statement. But he is young and easily excited, so we shall overlook this inprecise phrasing on his part.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-02-28 8:04:14 PM


Snowrunner,

You really seem to be picking my posts apart. If you will please note though, that I myself never said anything about "the war for civilization", I was quoting another poster, Mr. Yoshida. And the "defend the homeland" statement was a joke, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously....

Posted by: Adam Hope | 2008-02-28 8:09:01 PM


Ron Paul's got a secret that's going to blow this whole thing away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQfFDPYMJvk

That's right! We've got it! Victory!

Posted by: Peterson | 2008-02-28 9:38:16 PM


"No - we object to Ron Paul's statements on the war, which give aid and comfort to the enemies of our civilization."

No Yoshida.
You won't listen to Ron Paul simply because it's not permited to neocon biotches like you. If you did, you would have note that RP wish to give aid and comfort to no one except the American people; where working hard is no longer a criteria to keep your house - Thanks to their unaffortable foreign policy.

Unlike the present administration, he also wish to cut any aid and comfort to Muslims countries who are or can represent a menace to Israel, neocons' central point of concern.

"All the rest of his nuttiness"

Only a neocon can describes Freedom, Liberty, Peace and America's foundamental values as "nuttiness". You're such a Democrat that you should be ashamed of posting here.
Oh wait, this used to be a neocon blog - I'm the one leaving.


Posted by: Marc | 2008-02-28 9:51:41 PM


All the rest of his nuttiness, all other kinds of apostasy I am willing to tolerate. But opposition to the war for civilization makes any politican an unperson, so far as I'm concerned.

Don't you mean the war for "Social"ization?
Continuous war is a fascist tool used to drain the population of its wealth. A wealthy, educated, armed population is hard to control.

Quote:
"Our Government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear –
kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with
the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been
some terrible evil – to gobble us up if we would not blindly
rally behind it by furnishing the exuberant funds demanded.
Yet in retrospect, those disasters never seem to have happened,
never seem to have been quite real".

Gen. Douglas McArthur (1957)


And that's what is going on again now.

Posted by: JC | 2008-02-28 10:16:24 PM


"the war for civilization"

Is that what it is for you? How does Islam threaten America or Canada if we don't adopt its ways into our culture? If it's only the radical Islamo-terrorist criminals and not the Islamic ideology itself then what civilization is beng threatened that is really at risk?

If Iraq went the way of Syria would that directly threaten the US or our interests? Are you one of those that think foreign oil is our our sovereign right to use our military to protect? Why then are we paying $100 a bbl for what was $27 bbl before the war? I am not sure how you rationalize that.

If war for oil is justified...let's attack Mexico or Venzuela instead. They have good oil, are closer and less people would die..less of our people at least.

France and the UK are at greater risk for what we think we are fighting in Iraq. In the name of multi-culturalism they are accepting the very population of immigrants with an ideology that will change their way of life from within. France used to be a fairly stable Christian/Catholic democracy, just as GB and liberal Canada. Iraq is already a Moslem dominated society. When France goes....that is your civiliztion collapse...not Iraq. That is like losing your queen in chess to a pawn. Bad move.

Posted by: Winston Smith | 2008-02-28 10:21:08 PM


There's nothing that we can do, from here, for the French and others. They will have to save themselves.

"Islam", in theory, is perfectly compatible with civilization. The Iraq project cannot be understood in isolation - it's going to be, as Senator McCain says, an effort which might take one hundred years. The objectives in Iraq, and the brorader War on Terror, if we are to win, might be described as follows:

1) Hold the line and defend the homeland against attack.

2) Support resistance to Islamism wherever it might be found. Today that means backing Israel, Thailand, the Phillipines and so forth. In 2025 it might mean backing, God willing, a French military government or something to that effect.

But, all of that leaves us simply holding our position - and steadily losing on the margins as we lose the demographic battle. So, what has to be done - and what is being done in Iraq - is to transform the Islamic world as India was transformed.

Yes, it's a colonial mission. I hope, with time, people will grow more comfortable saying that. Iraq, if we are to save the world, must be the first new acquisition of the American Empire, whether formal or informal - doesn't matter to me. Informal for now suits me fine. Formalize it in a few decades, when everyone is used to the thing.

Stay in the Middle East for a century, and transform it altogether.

After all, if we can't - then the alternative isn't retreat and surrender, as Ron Paul would have - it's genocide. If we can't transform Islam into something that can co-exist with Western Civilization, then their extremists are going to keep on coming at us until either we kill all of us or we kill all of them. That's an unpleasant prosepct and ought to be avoided.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-02-28 10:44:54 PM


Now, JC:

1) If you're going to quote General MacArthur (about whom I've forgotten more than you'll ever know - I even own a small collection of MacArthur memorabilia), at least spell his name correctly.

2) The quote you've referencing is being used grossly out of context. It comes from late in William Manchester's book, American Caesar - and is from a point where U.S. defense spending was over 10% of the GDP. By way of comparison, if it was at that level, it would be $1.4 Trillion per year today.

Moreover, it appears to have been taken out of context even at the time, since it's generally inconsistant with other MacArthur statements and could just as easily be taken to refer to the Federal Government's response to the Depression and the like.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-02-28 10:56:40 PM


Adam,

Just what drugs are you taking? We want to be sure we NEVER take that drug that has you so disillusioned about the extremists.

There are extremists in every country in the World. Are you saying that we must attack EVERY country to fight the extremists?

Before we invaded Iraq there were maybe 600 al Queda but today there are more like 6,000. Us being over there is a recruiting tool for al Queda.

As for attacking us we are NOW more venerable to attack than ever because we have OPEN BORDERS that anybody can cross.

Bring back our military and DEFEND OUR BORDERS and also allow pilots to have a weapon. If Dr. Paul was President before 9/11 occurred chances are there NEVER would have been a 9/11.

What can't you people understand? America is OWNED by the BANKSTERS that own the Federal Reserve and you wish to still be enslaved to them.

Watch the video below and see the knowledge that Dr. Paul has about the economy. NONE of the Neocon candidates from either party has Dr. Paul's knowledge on Economics.

Ron Paul Interview on FOX Business Channel 02/28/2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EZeNulOz9E

By the way, John McCain's skeletons are coming out of the closet by the armloads now.

JOHN MCCAIN'S ROLE IN THE USS FORRESTAL FIRE THAT LEFT 168 DEAD

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=119707

http://nowaymccain.com

http://gopteaparty.com

http://therealmccain.com/friends

We also have heard that McCain may have broken a law in Oklahoma and it is severe enough to get him 5 years in prison. NOT made public as of yet but you can read this Oklahoman's post on the site below.

http://www.latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/ron-pauls-peopl.html

Posted by: Freedom4America Group | 2008-02-28 11:13:03 PM


Adam,

There are extremists in every country in the World. Are you saying that we must attack EVERY country to fight the extremists?

Before we invaded Iraq there were maybe 600 al Queda but today there are more like 6,000. Us being over there is a recruiting tool for al Queda.

As for attacking us we are NOW more venerable to attack than ever because we have OPEN BORDERS that anybody can cross.

Bring back our military and DEFEND OUR BORDERS and also allow pilots to have a weapon. If Dr. Paul was President before 9/11 occurred chances are there NEVER would have been a 9/11.

What can't you people understand? America is OWNED by the BANKSTERS that own the Federal Reserve and you wish to still be enslaved to them.

Watch the video below and see the knowledge that Dr. Paul has about the economy. NONE of the Neocon candidates from either party has Dr. Paul's knowledge on Economics.

Ron Paul Interview on FOX Business Channel 02/28/2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EZeNulOz9E

By the way, John McCain's skeletons are coming out of the closet by the armloads now.

JOHN MCCAIN'S ROLE IN THE USS FORRESTAL FIRE THAT LEFT 168 DEAD

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=119707

http://nowaymccain.com

http://gopteaparty.com

http://therealmccain.com/friends

We also have heard that McCain may have broken a law in Oklahoma and it is severe enough to get him 5 years in prison. NOT made public as of yet but you can read this Oklahoman's post on the site below.

http://www.latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/ron-pauls-peopl.html

Posted by: Freedom4America Group | 2008-02-28 11:15:03 PM


Adam,

There are extremists in every country in the World. Are you saying that we must attack EVERY country to fight the extremists?

Before we invaded Iraq there were maybe 600 al Queda but today there are more like 6,000. Us being over there is a recruiting tool for al Queda.

As for attacking us we are NOW more venerable to attack than ever because we have OPEN BORDERS that anybody can cross.

Bring back our military and DEFEND OUR BORDERS and also allow pilots to have a weapon. If Dr. Paul was President before 9/11 occurred chances are there NEVER would have been a 9/11.

What can't you people understand? America is OWNED by the BANKSTERS that own the Federal Reserve and you wish to still be enslaved to them.

Watch the video below and see the knowledge that Dr. Paul has about the economy. NONE of the Neocon candidates from either party has Dr. Paul's knowledge on Economics.

Ron Paul Interview on FOX Business Channel 02/28/2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EZeNulOz9E

By the way, John McCain's skeletons are coming out of the closet by the armloads now.

JOHN MCCAIN'S ROLE IN THE USS FORRESTAL FIRE THAT LEFT 168 DEAD

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=119707

http://nowaymccain.com

http://gopteaparty.com

http://therealmccain.com/friends

We also have heard that McCain may have broken a law in Oklahoma and it is severe enough to get him 5 years in prison. NOT made public as of yet but you can read this Oklahoman's post on the site below.

http://www.latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/ron-pauls-peopl.html

Posted by: Freedom4America Group | 2008-02-28 11:16:20 PM


Adam, would you settle for what the left would call economic imperialism? Trade is a great way to export “liberalism” or Western values and align individual and national interests. War destroys wealth and human life, misallocates resources, and creates unproductive foreign military entanglements. War may be a necessary evil in your estimate, but trade may achieve your objectives peacefully. Do you disagree that global trade can achieve lasting peace and prosperity?

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-02-28 11:19:21 PM


Don't move to Ron Paul's district. Move to New Hampshire, where libertarians are staging a take-over of the state:
http://www.freestateproject.org

Posted by: Pablo Escobar | 28-Feb-08 5:49:41 PM

**********************************************
Hell No! gets too fuckin cold in New Hampshire ... and besides that they talk funny and think that a 1" thick slice of fried baloney is the same thing as a Porterhouse Steak! Texas gulf coast is great ... as long as you don't mind a hurricane or two ...lol! Clear blue skys & a sunny 74 c here today!

Posted by: ricknhouston | 2008-02-29 12:18:58 AM


Matthew -

I don't believe that trade can effect the kind of change that is necessary. What was it that the Saudi King told the first Ambassador, "we will use your iron, but you will leave our faith alone."

We've seen the effects of trade alone pretty well. Indeed, Mark Steyn has documented the problem with this in his usual manner. Nothing better, I think, articulated the problem of the idea that we can transmit civilization through trade than the story of the vanishing penis scare which was spread by cell phone text messages in the Sudan.

It's no coincidence that the best parts of the former Third World are those which were ruled by the British for the long term. I think that the case can be made that the British Empire was the single greatest humanitarian force in the history of the world.

The very map of the world - the civilized world - is defined, almost entirely, by two Empires. The modern nation-states of Europe conform pretty well to the Roman Provinces of two thousand years ago. Much of the rest of the world is organized along British lines. Most of our problems are in areas that the Romans and the British either never never controlled or, alternatively, controlled only in a limited sense (IE - parts of Africa).

And, in any case, even if we wanted simply to withdraw within ourselves, in the modern world that's simply not possible. The consequnce of an American refusal to play the role of imperaial power won't be a libertarian paradise, it will be an aggressive and expansionist China.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-02-29 12:38:24 AM


I guess Speller must have beef with Chuck Norris too. I recall Chuck telling CNN that he received an email from Huckabee supporters talking about a 'revolution'.

Personally, you are just a troll.

From all the people I have met since I have been involved, its just regular everyday folks that care about the direction of our country.

Think about this:

We invaded two countries under Bushs leadership. Let the man get away into a country, where we know where he may be, give 11B to the dictator of the country.. who overthrew a democratic government. Our rights have been stripped under the Patriot and Military Commissions act and our dollar reached a record low two days ago. Inflation is kicking our ass and home foreclosures just rose 90% in many parts of the US. The costs of eggs are up 50% and milk up 25% in one year. Not to mention gas has more than doubled since Bush took office. After Katrina, the national guard took homeowners guns in New Orleans..

Dont get me started on Bushs stimulus package that just further destroys the value of our dollar... or the fact that this war is never ending and draining us of our resources. There is a North American Union, National ID and Amero on our doorstep. Please dont forget about the 38 Million illegals here draining our local communities throughout our country. That both parties want to give amnesty to.

After close inspection, I believe Ron Paul is not only correct, without his plans our country will lose its soveriegnty and wealth to places like Communist China. Imagine if we invade Iran or drop a nuke on them. You think $3/g is bad? How bad do you think it will be if we drop a nuke in Iran?

Comparing Ron Paul supporters to nut case people is just childish. Dont get me wrong though, those same people want their money sound and God given rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Once this fiat currency destroys us, we will no longer have our rights or be able to dissent. If that doesnt paint a scary picture in your mind, you are in la-la land.

We are on incredibly shaky ground with the future of our country on the line. If we take the right steps to correct our mistakes we can come out of this relatively unscathed. Change is coming whether we like it or not.

At the end of the day, Im involved with this campaign because I believe its right and just. I understand change takes time and Im patient. I hope that we have another 4 years. By that time, after the Dems have stolen more money to give us a socialized Healthcare system, that limits our choices at the bequest of big business.. and do nothing to end the war and bring our troops home...

Then Ron Paul will win. I believe in this 'Revolution' because its peaceful and it involves everyday Americans that understand a few of the issues. Our numbers will continue to grow and in the long term we will make a difference.

America is worth fighting for. Iraq is not.

Posted by: Parke | 2008-02-29 1:06:30 AM


Parke - assuming that wasn't a canned response, I'd begin by pointing out that the gas problem coould be solved pretty much overnight, if we had the will to tell the environmentalists to shut up and go away. It's easy:

1) Coal liquification.
2) Oil shale.
3) Tar sands.
4) Coastal oil.
5) ANWR

= Problem solved in under two years, maximum.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-02-29 1:11:11 AM


I agree with Yoshida. We should deter an aggressive and expansionist China.

Which is one of the many reasons I support Ron Paul -- so the USA stops financing China's aggressiveness and expansionism with the interest paid to China for buying US treasury securities.

I have to disagree though with Yoshida saying that the British Empire was the single greatest humanitarian force in the history of the world.

Oh God, oh no...

Posted by: MGandhi | 2008-02-29 1:25:58 AM


the choice will be disintegration of United States to few enclaves of little warlords, a beaten Empire, like Rome after fall, or healing of this mad society by the good Doctor. these leaches, the military industry complex, the Israeli lobbyists dot give a damn about US, they change country like a dirty underwear. When they asked Wolfovitz you said Iraqis will shower us with flowers how do you explain their fierce resistance? he thought for few seconds and said I dont have to answer, I am not working for government of US (that time he was screwing the world bank).
Right , left,dem, republican dont fool yourself this is abattle between few elites and a mass of people Jews Moslims, CHristians, Gays, feminists, etc. Elites are few and only have each other ther rest is a facade.

Posted by: Hamoon | 2008-02-29 1:32:26 AM


Great article.

I hate politicians. Chris Peden sounds just like someone who'd love to endorse McCain.

Go to his website and laugh.

Posted by: Lil John | 2008-02-29 1:50:31 AM


Is there some special aspect of the word "communist" that short circuits Americans' analytical faculties?

The erstwhile quite reasonable MGhandi agrees with the intellectual pigmy Adam Yoshida that "We should deter an aggressive and expansionist China."

Aggressive and expansionist? Look to America for aggression and expansionism. Compare the records of China and America for the last 50 years. Only a brain dead American would claim that America wasn't 1,000 times more aggressive and expansionist than China.

As for the "land of the free". I read an article today that claimed that nearly 1% of US citizens are in prisons or jails. The usual figure quoted is approx 720/100,000. Clear world champs. Well ahead of second placed Russia. China is well down in the middle of the pack with Canada, France and Australia with about 120/100,000.

Right now, somewhere in America, a swat team is kicking in the door of somebody suspected of possessing or selling drugs. In China, if somebody won't open their door to the police, they wait outside until they can talk them out. Worst case the police will turn off the electricity and water to the apartment to hurry them up.

Wake up and recognise that China is your competitor and not your enemy. Also she is whipping America's arse.

One measure: the list of nations and their level of foreign reserves or debt. This is from your own CIA world fact book.

No. 1 China. No. 163 USA.

1 China $ 363,300,000,000 2007 est.

2 Japan $ 201,300,000,000 2007 est.

3 Germany $ 185,100,000,000 2007 est.

4 Saudi Arabia $ 88,890,000,000 2007 est.

5 Russia $ 74,000,000,000 2007 est.

6 Switzerland $ 67,890,000,000 2007 est.

7 Netherlands $ 59,280,000,000 2007 est.

8 Norway $ 55,820,000,000 2007 est.

9 Kuwait $ 51,490,000,000 2007 est.

10 Singapore $ 41,390,000,000 2007 est.

11 United Arab Emirates $ 36,110,000,000 2007 est.

12 Algeria $ 31,500,000,000 2007 est.

13 Sweden $ 30,190,000,000 2007 est.

14 Canada $ 28,460,000,000 2007 est.

15 Malaysia $ 25,930,000,000 2007 est.

16 Taiwan $ 23,800,000,000 2007 est.

17 Hong Kong $ 19,870,000,000 2007 est.

18 Iran $ 19,000,000,000 2007 est.

19 Finland $ 17,120,000,000 2007 est.

20 Venezuela $ 17,020,000,000 2007 est.

21 Nigeria $ 14,610,000,000 2007 est.

22 Angola $ 13,640,000,000 2007 est.

23 Austria $ 12,610,000,000 2007 est.

24 Libya $ 11,710,000,000 2007 est.

25 Luxembourg $ 11,300,000,000 2007 est.

26 Belgium $ 11,040,000,000 2007 est.

27 Indonesia $ 10,210,000,000 2007 est.

28 Brazil $ 10,200,000,000 2007 est.

29 Philippines $ 9,040,000,000 2007 est.

30 Thailand $ 8,619,000,000 2007 est.

31 Chile $ 8,184,000,000 2007 est.

32 Iraq $ 7,802,000,000 2007 est.

33 Qatar $ 7,733,000,000 2007 est.

34 Azerbaijan $ 7,535,000,000 2007 est.

35 Argentina $ 7,438,000,000 2007 est.

36 Israel $ 5,941,000,000 2007 est.

37 Denmark $ 4,699,000,000 2007 est.

38 Trinidad and Tobago $ 4,288,000,000 2007 est.

39 Oman $ 3,785,000,000 2007 est.

40 Korea, South $ 3,700,000,000 2007 est.

41 Egypt $ 3,115,000,000 2007 est.

42 Uzbekistan $ 3,045,000,000 2007 est.

43 Botswana $ 2,231,000,000 2007 est.

44 Peru $ 2,045,000,000 2007 est.

45 Bahrain $ 2,009,000,000 2007 est.

46 Burma $ 1,676,000,000 2007 est.

47 Gabon $ 1,626,000,000 2007 est.

48 Bolivia $ 1,325,000,000 2007 est.

49 Congo, Republic of the $ 1,094,000,000 2007 est.

50 Namibia $ 1,065,000,000 2007 est.

51 Cote d'Ivoire $ 1,056,000,000 2007 est.

52 Turkmenistan $ 689,300,000 2007 est.

53 Bangladesh $ 683,000,000 2007 est.

54 Morocco $ 433,900,000 2007 est.

55 Papua New Guinea $ 314,000,000 2007 est.

56 Equatorial Guinea $ 250,000,000 2007 est.

57 Yemen $ 178,000,000 2007 est.

58 Zambia $ 150,000,000 2007 est.

59 British Virgin Islands $ 134,300,000 1999

60 Cook Islands $ 26,670,000 2005

61 Palau $ 15,090,000 FY03/04

62 Macedonia $ 5,000,000 2007 est.

63 Tuvalu $ 2,323,000 1998

64 Samoa $ -2,428,000 FY03/04

65 Tonga $ -4,321,000 FY04/05

66 Comoros $ -17,000,000 2005 est.

67 Kiribati $ -19,870,000 2004

68 Swaziland $ -26,710,000 2007 est.

69 Lesotho $ -28,000,000 2007 est.

70 Vanuatu $ -28,350,000 2003

71 Gambia, The $ -31,690,000 2007 est.

72 Micronesia, Federated States of $ -34,300,000 FY05 est.

73 Anguilla $ -42,870,000 2003 est.

74 Belize $ -54,000,000 2007 est.

75 Sao Tome and Principe $ -58,000,000 2007 est.

76 Paraguay $ -82,000,000 2007 est.

77 Antigua and Barbuda $ -83,400,000 2004

78 Uruguay $ -100,000,000 2007 est.

79 Tajikistan $ -102,000,000 2007 est.

80 Burundi $ -137,300,000 2007 est.

81 Seychelles $ -141,000,000 2007 est.

82 Chad $ -144,500,000 2007 est.

83 Togo $ -165,500,000 2007 est.

84 Rwanda $ -172,800,000 2007 est.

85 Guinea $ -175,000,000 2007 est.

86 Malawi $ -180,000,000 2007 est.

87 Haiti $ -184,800,000 2007 est.

88 Cape Verde $ -218,000,000 2007 est.

89 Guyana $ -229,700,000 2007 est.

90 Uganda $ -241,000,000 2007 est.

91 Armenia $ -275,100,000 2007 est.

92 Benin $ -278,800,000 2007 est.

93 Eritrea $ -343,100,000 2007 est.

94 Laos $ -355,000,000 2007 est.

95 Zimbabwe $ -409,000,000 2007 est.

96 Cambodia $ -410,000,000 2007 est.

97 Malta $ -411,000,000 2007 est.

98 Honduras $ -446,000,000 2007 est.

99 Fiji $ -465,800,000 2006 est.

100 Cameroon $ -501,000,000 2007 est.

101 Mauritius $ -552,000,000 2007 est.

102 Moldova $ -569,000,000 2007 est.

103 Ecuador $ -600,000,000 2007 est.

104 Kyrgyzstan $ -677,300,000 2007 est.

105 Mozambique $ -726,000,000 2007 est.

106 Cuba $ -750,000,000 2007 est.

107 Burkina Faso $ -752,000,000 2007

108 Nicaragua $ -754,000,000 2007 est.

109 Panama $ -861,000,000 2007 est.

110 Albania $ -918,000,000 2007 est.

111 El Salvador $ -929,000,000 2007 est.

112 Tunisia $ -935,000,000 2007 est.

113 Kenya $ -980,000,000 2007 est.

114 Senegal $ -1,034,000,000 2007 est.

115 Sri Lanka $ -1,118,000,000 2007 est.

116 Madagascar $ -1,145,000,000 2007 est.

117 Vietnam $ -1,199,000,000 2007 est.

118 Cyprus $ -1,236,000,000 2007 est.

119 Costa Rica $ -1,259,000,000 2007 est.

120 Tanzania $ -1,422,000,000 2007 est.

121 Slovenia $ -1,429,000,000 2007 est.

122 Ghana $ -1,470,000,000 2007 est.

123 Jamaica $ -1,573,000,000 2007 est.

124 Georgia $ -1,582,000,000 2007 est.

125 Jordan $ -1,690,000,000 2007 est.

126 Guatemala $ -1,772,000,000 2007 est.

127 Ethiopia $ -1,851,000,000 2007 est.

128 Dominican Republic $ -1,993,000,000 2007 est.

129 Bosnia and Herzegovina $ -2,021,000,000 2007 est.

130 Syria $ -2,160,000,000 2007 est.

131 Serbia $ -2,451,000,000 2005 est.

132 Belarus $ -3,056,000,000 2007 est.

133 Estonia $ -3,092,000,000 2007 est.

134 Slovakia $ -3,119,000,000 2007 est.

135 Lebanon $ -3,337,000,000 2007 est.

136 Iceland $ -3,384,000,000 2007 est.

137 Croatia $ -3,836,000,000 2007 est.

138 Ukraine $ -3,890,000,000 2007 est.

139 Sudan $ -4,465,000,000 2007 est.

140 Kazakhstan $ -4,643,000,000 2007 est.

141 Colombia $ -5,132,000,000 2007 est.

142 Lithuania $ -5,320,000,000 2007 est.

143 Mexico $ -5,414,000,000 2007 est.

144 Czech Republic $ -5,701,000,000 2007 est.

145 Latvia $ -5,839,000,000 2007 est.

146 Pakistan $ -6,477,000,000 2007 est.

147 Hungary $ -6,681,000,000 2007 est.

148 Bulgaria $ -7,189,000,000 2007 est.

149 New Zealand $ -9,973,000,000 2007 est.

150 Ireland $ -12,600,000,000 2007 est.

151 South Africa $ -16,280,000,000 2007 est.

152 Poland $ -18,130,000,000 2007 est.

153 India $ -18,530,000,000 2007 est.

154 Portugal $ -18,530,000,000 2007 est.

155 Romania $ -20,950,000,000 2007 est.

156 France $ -35,940,000,000 2007 est.

157 Turkey $ -36,270,000,000 2007 est.

158 Greece $ -36,400,000,000 2007 est.

159 Australia $ -50,960,000,000 2007 est.

160 Italy $ -57,940,000,000 2007 est.

161 United Kingdom $ -111,000,000,000 2007 est.

162 Spain $ -126,300,000,000 2007 est.

163 United States $ -747,100,000,000 2007 est.



Posted by: John Haigh | 2008-02-29 2:59:28 AM


But what about Human Rights?

Clearly American's can expect their president to bring up China's dismal human rights record.

Here are two viewpoints.

US Department of State's 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices

World
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/

China in particular
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78771.htm

China's State Council : The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070310&articleId=5038

Posted by: John Haigh | 2008-02-29 3:10:14 AM


I also agree with Haigh. We should stop funding ALL aggressive and expansionist countries.

Which is one of the many reasons I support Ron Paul -- so the USA stops financing ALL aggressiveness and expansionism -- and human-rights violations -- with foreign aid. And along with that, stop the underlying financing process, which converts the wealth of the US into federal debt via the income tax. And also, stop the 'drug war' that swells the number of those imprisoned in the USA.

Foreign aid, federal debt, and the income tax -- and human-rights violations, and the 'drug war,' Oh God, oh no...

Posted by: MGandhi | 2008-02-29 7:53:34 AM


John Haigh......yes, China is whipping Americas "arse".
However, China is both our competitor AND enemy. Make no mistake, John, they will defeat us by outsmarting us, which is their full intent.
The good news is that they can only bring the USA to their knees if we allow them to, by the American people acquiesing to their own destruction through apathy and ignorance.
Personally, I wish I were more optimistic that Americans actually cared enough. It may already be too late.
I am in this fight to the end, but America WILL implode if Dr. Pauls wisdom is not heeded.

Posted by: Barry | 2008-02-29 8:12:52 AM


John Haigh: Excellent point. We keep busy pointing fingers over seas at human rights violations and ta da, we lose ours. We're vigilant toward the wrong predator.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-29 9:08:55 AM


Please listen to RP before we find a "made in china" code bar on the neck of every Americans.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-02-29 10:14:00 AM


To Veteran and John Haigh:

I am in constant contact with US Naval architects working for China. (I rent out their homes while they are away.) China is NOT our enemy. Be assured they are suffering the extreme monetary problems we are. Chinas primary goal is shipbuilding high tech ocean going oil recovery vessels...and I mean HIGH TECH.

The race is about oil. Why are we killing for ours while they are developing better technologies for theirs.

GO Ron Paul! 11 votes AND 2 delegates from my family!

Posted by: Linda | 2008-02-29 11:05:58 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.