Ron Paul expanding his base

August 7, 2007

   I’m not totally surprised by what I see happening on the right.  It should be a warning for all the candidates that Ron Paul is fast gathering the disgruntled voters to his horde.  While he was just a blog sensation they had nothing to fear, but it seems on the surface as if all that is changing.  The impending straw poll in Iowa will help sort out just how much of an inroad he has made into the mainstream electorate.

   A few things I have noticed already

1.  Google hits at my blog, or I should say server hits relating to Ron Paul have increased by a factor of 10 since sunday mornings debate.  I’m not sure the two are related, but reading about Ron Paul from outside the blogosphere has begun to increase.  These are likely as not everyday people who happen to have computers, as the numbers were consistent for the 2.5 months I’ve been blogging.

2.  The hits seem to be directed at issues which may make this even a little more sinister for the rest of the candidates.  People don’t seem to be looking at for/against articles so much as they are looking at issue related articles.  Marque and reprisal, earmarks, Nafta Superhighway, and immigration reform articles have received a genuine old fashioned monkey stomp from the search engines.

3.  His face is showing up closer to the front page on the main news sources (FOX, MSNBC, CNN), and all you have to do is click the politics tab, and he is present now on a regular basis.

   The natural question is why?  It would appear that people are tired of the same old song and dance.  If you really look at them, what do Giuliani and Romney offer that we haven’t already seen?  McCain will almost certainly go down in history as one of the most decent men ever to play the politics game, but he is on the wrong side of some issues that Americans seem to feel very strongly about.  Immigration and the war in Iraq are likely as not going to decide this election, and as I said weeks ago, if they let the immigration issue lie dormant it is going to kill the members of congress that are running.  Incidentally, Ron Paul is on the right side of both of these issues.

   Another reason quite simply is they like what he has to say about foreign policy.  The one thing people aren’t looking for here is his foreign policy stance.  That would probably be because they already understand it, and they already agree with it.

    I’m not sold on Ron Paul, and I won’t be.  My vote is hardly the deciding factor.  What is apparent, and important, is that people are taking a closer look.  Only time will tell if it maters or not.

Advertisements

Students for Ron Paul

July 28, 2007

 irony – an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality etc.

 It’s pretty much a well done theory that Ron Paul is making massive inroads into a core group of young voters, namely college students.  From U.C. Irvine to Coastal Carolina Community College they are packing the cyberworld with their incredibly insightful attitudes toward selflessness and politics.  I find it invigorating actually to see all these young people supporting the only candidate in the field that would end all student loans, grants, and scholarships upon being elected.  You see, none of these are in the constitution, and therefore are not the federal governments issue. Believe it or not, your mom and dad probably can’t afford to pay for your education without them.  I guess it’s not really selfless for you to support a candidate that would allow your parents to raid their retirement funds to send you to college, but if you were my son or daughter and you voted for him you would rapidly be flipping burgers down at mickey D’s to fund your own damn education.


The YouRtubes debates, revisited

July 28, 2007

    So the new hue and cry is the Republican candidates are scared to debate on YouTube.  I for one do not blame them.  I think from a strategic standpoint those candidates currently refusing to attend the debate do so with a level of acute awareness often missing in the politicians of today.

   Before the debate has even started Mitt Romney is being accused of saying that he thinks it’s undifnified to be questioned by the general public.  The fact that he said nothing close to this is irrelevant because YouTubes have a huge problem with reading comprehension, and think that cesspool the other night was a fine example of democracy at work.  What he said was he thought (I paraphrase) the office of president should be held to a higher level than to have to be asked questions by a snowman.  I concur.  Ratings are important to CNN, and since it is their editors that chose the questions we have to assume that ratings came into play when choosing the snowman question.  I’m quite sure one of the other 3000 questions could have addressed global warming just as well.  Some level of decorum should be maintained, and lets face it, the global warming snowman was as much about ratings as the psychopath with the assault rifle.

   Additionally, the benchmarks in Iraq debate will be in full roar in September, and this is almost certainly the reason those not electing to attend have chosen that course of action.  Contrary to what this mullet has to say:

Added state Republican spokeswoman Erin VanSickle: “It’s an important debate in an important battleground state that just moved its primary to Jan. 29th. In other words, we have every confidence that they will attend. They can’t afford not to.” (same link as above). 

While I’m sure Florida will be important, it always is, I don’t think being swamped with questions about their Iraq positions will be good for any of the candidates.  McCain has chosen to attend, as has Ron Paul.  McCain needs a metaphoric homerun to win, and Ron Paul is on the right side of the war issue.  Hard to blame either of them.  The rest are not desperate enough to go to Florida and be sandbagged by CNN.

   It’s not about you tube, although the wretchedly insipid crowd hanging out in the political arena there are absolutely sure there voice is the only one that matters.  What matters is that several little CNN gnomes will be picking and choosing the questions, and quite likely stuffing the clip box as they do so.  It’s not hard to imagine some little editor having a buddy send in a sleeper clip that they can smear a Republican candidate with.  How about in the interest of fairness we have a FOXNEWS/YouTube.com debate? 

    I’m not raising a conspiracy theory here.  CNN has long been known for its softballing interviews with democratic leaders while hammering away at conservatives.  It’s easy to se it happen when you think both liberals and conservatives are worng, but I may be the only person left that believes that. The debate for the democrats barely touched on Iraq because quite simply thats not news at a democratic debate.  They all profess desire to be out of the war, and everyone knows they aren’t doing anything about it.  The republicans on the other hand primarily support some form of presence in Iraq, and I would surmise that based on the timing of the debate, CNN has every intention of using the benckmarks as a club to wield at the candidates.

    Smart move Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, et al.  No point putting your head in a noose today in hopes of being reincarnated in time for the elections.


The Ron Paul Fascination

July 21, 2007

    Well, nothing like a long day of work and coming home to the blog to find more Ron Paul in the comments box.  I suppose if I didn’t want to read what his followers have to say I wouldn’t post about him.  What I do know is he a fascinating politician with a background that is almost impossible to track down.  You can find the easy stuff, anyone can.  The harder things like his writings while not in congress are harder to track.  It’s not just me saying it anymore either.

    I found the URL for this article waiting for me when I crawled into my online cave.  One of my readers thought I would enjoy it, and they totally underestimated the article.  I generally just skim these things, but this was more than political drivel.  It was a look at the man from outside the beltway.  It was a look at his followers, and at his nemesis’. 

   A lot of whats in here we already know.  Ron Paul wants you to be able to purchase a gun at 7/11, he doesn’t want you to be able to access abortions, and his stance on gay rights has never changed though he has softened his rhetoric.  It goes deeper though.  It explains how he won his elections to represent a small texas district against overwhelming conservative odds.  It explains why his constituents continue to vote for him, yet leaves out the things he’s tried to do for his district.  The author of this piece doesn’t seem like a fan, nor does he seem like an enemy.  What he appears to be is that most difficult to find human on the planet.  An unbiased journalist.

   What I really like is how sure Ron Paul is that he won’t win.  I had no idea that he originally intended only a four state campaign.  Lots of little tidbits like that.  Like I said, you’ve read a lot of hear, but this guy has grammar skills and punctuation and everything.

If you love Ron Paul….read this.  If you hate Ron Paul….read this.  If you are a fan of good journalism….read this.  none of you will change your mind, but you won’t leave this article disappointed.


How Ron Paul can win the presidency

July 20, 2007

  I know, you think I’m joking.  I should be.  Our society should be able to see through all the pandering his disciples are doing, but I really don’t think they can. They should be able to see through the political gamesmanship the two major parties are involved in, but if people were cognizant of it then we wouldn’t be where we are today.  Here’s just a thought on how Ron Paul could win. There are a lot of hypotheticals involved, but it’s better than his “I have no chance” plan.

1.  We suffer no major terrorist attack on our soil between now and the election.  This is important because as long as there is no attack George Bush’s policies will get no credit for it.  People wouldn’t give George Bush credit for pharting if he let a loud, disgusting whopper in front of the white house press corps.  As long as there isn’t an attack the democrats and Ron Paul take the edge.  I’m not counting Fred yet, because Fred isn’t counting Fred yet.

2.  The democrats nominate Hillary Clinton.  I think this is going to happen.  I knw all the newsies are gaga over Barack right now, but it is going to become all to obvious that he hasn’t the experience necessary to win the white house. Neither does his campaign staff.  Hillary would lose the centrists, and even some of the lefties.  She isn’t all that likeable.

3.  Rudy continues to go right.  His comments about only seating strict constructionist judges does not sit well in the center, and the right wing christian conservatives are not a large enough block to get him elected.  Right wing Rudy can’t win the nomination, and this would open the door for Ron.

4.  Mitt continues to be mormon.  i know it shouldn’t matter, but we live in a very bigoted society.  If you are different we hate you or fear you, and that isn’t going to change before 2008.  I can’t see Mitt repudiating his religion, and he shouldn’t.  It’s his albatross though.  You’ve never heard a politician say “we have to get out the mormon vote.”

5.  Ron doesn’t do anything incredibly stupid.  His borderline stupid statements won’t kill him with the middle class.  They are discouraged, in debt, and watching wages decline versus inflation.  They see themselves being vut out of the American Dream by politicians that squander their resources at an alarming rate.  They watch as the rich get tax breaks, and the breaks they get don’t ever seem to make a differencei n their lives.  They are disenfranchised, and know that either party will promise them the moon, and give them more of the same.  This works for Ron because all he promises them is what they already feel is theirs.

6.  The war in Iraq continues.  Which it will.  Politicians make a lot of strategic mistakes.  The republicans are wrong to think its a winnable war.  The democrats are wrong to think they can benefit by allowing it to continue.  Ron Paul has the market cornered here, and if the two sides don’t change he will keep this ground to himself.  None of the other end the war candidates have any credibility left on the issue.

7.  Gas prices go up,  foreclosures continue to rise, and nothing is done about immigration.  The two parties should be ensuring that enforcement of current law is accomplished, and a compromise can be reached on the reform of immigration policy.

8. Instead of picking another libertarian style candidate, or a Republican to run as his vice president, he waits for Hillary to win and then chooses Barack.  Barack makes a nice addition to the team, and Ron doesn’t look so radical anymore.  Barack has to bend some for this to work, but I could see them securing enough of the left, a bunch of the right, and maybe 80% of the middle.

the key here is can Ron Paul compromise, or does he need to have it his way?  If he does he should head to burger king, because he will never win the election.


Why there aren’t more anti- Ron Paul blogs

July 14, 2007

   Man, I want to make this a humor peice because so few of the pauliacs have any sense of humor, but it deserves to be handled with some degree of decorum.  I saw the above title on one of my search engine hits, and gave it a little thought.  With a brain the size of a frogs, you can’t give much more than a little thought to something without forgetting to breathe.  I started turning blue so I stopped thinking, and started typing.

   Why aren’t there?  I can come up with several reasons.  Let’s start with the one that will cause a pauliac smooch fest on my blog.  There just isn’t that much wrong with the guy.  I mean, not much that they can’t justify with that ever credible phrase “it’s not in the constitution, so I voted against it.”  It’s incredibly good cover.   There are flaws to the reasoning, and I’ve discussed them here before.  I was a little vilified for being a non believer, but i don’t believe in astrology, tarot, and George Bush either, so it bothered me not.

  Another good explanation is that the best way to bring attention to someone is to criticize them.  Ron Paul is the Mike Gravel of the republican candidates.  Did you watch Mike Gravel chew up and spit out the other democrats on the debate? they didn’t argue with him.  They folded their hands and smiled no matter how he attacked their records.  Why?  For the same reason girls ignore you guys when you walk up to them, and start talking to them in a bar.  Because if you ignore someone they may go away.  Those competing with Ron don’t want him getting noticed.  All publicity is good publicity for Ron.  Even me.

   another good bet is that the blog world appears to be either apathetic or liberal for the most part.  So, they either don’t care, or they don’t dislike him.  Ron Paul is someone the democrats think they can beat handily because they think he is about a turnip shy of a truckload.  They don’t blog against him because they don’t know he hates them.

   My last plausible cause for the lack of anti Paul blogs  is they require work.  I write about Paul maybe one post out of five on the average.  There just isn’t that much out there that you don’t have to work to find.  He only releases the feel good Ron Paul is the messiah crap on his blog, and the news organizations say as little as possible about him.  People are lazy.  You want an easy cheesy punching bag you nail Clinton or Romney.  They have plenty of history to attack, and all Ron has is his whole anti-government thing.

   Well, you can zap his followers pretty good.  Most of them appear to be thumbsuckers, and mouth breathers, with the occassional thumbsucking, mouth breathing militiamen thrown in.  Although I did meet an anti-zionist (self proclaimed) muslim who loves the guy.  His blog is at ahmed Ismael I believe…check out oldephartintraining if you want to find ahmed. 


It’s not the system…it’s the electorate

July 13, 2007

I know, but if people could only blog about what they really think, most blogs would have only 3 or 4 words, and a lot of toenail picking going on.  I give a lot of the politicians crap.  I decry the value of the pundit as leadership icon, and the talking heads I chastise as vociferously as possible as the despoilers of our society.  Unfortunately, the voters are the reason this country is so incredibly jacked up.

Let’s start with my favorites, the pauliacs.  They actually represent a lot larger segment of society than their incredibly inflated blog numbers would suggest.  They are partly aware of whats going on in the world around them.  Not a bad thing.   A few of them are open to honest discourse, and in fact I’ve had at least three say that Ron’s behaviour on a certain issue I’ve posted was “troubling.”  I get a lot of Ron Paul hits.  3.  3. 3. Willing to think they’re guy might have behaved inproperly. 

   Being close minded is not a new thing, nor is it a rare thing.  It’s what politicians crave.  slavish devotion to hyperbolic rhetoric is a must if you want a stable base.  What intrigues me about the Pauliacs, is the rhetoric is self generating.  Ron is a little on the modest side, and is not prone to pitching his resume around.  He has been vocal about his non-interventionist beliefs, but other than that he’s been a fairly quiet guy.  Not his followers.  They don’t care what he does he is right, and they are more than happy to let you know it.

   They aren’t the worst to me.  Nor are the apathetic masses that consistently decide not to vote.  Or, maybe, never even give it a thought.  Too busy, to bored, to lazy, or to disinterested to be bothered with electing one more person that will disappoint them on a daily basis for at least the next 4 years.  I can not begin to count the number of times I have heard “damn elections…i can’t buy beer until 6 o’clock.”

The ones that really flat out make me dysfunctional are the ones that vote and have no idea what they are voting for.  They see someone that looks presidential, or some highly polished sphincter muscle tells them on the news who to vote for, or they accept as a given that if the person is a member of their party he fits their beliefs.  These are the ones that are destroying society.  They think for whatever reason that Ann Coulter’s picture would look nice on the gunrack so they take the advice of this entertainer, or they think al franken is a hoot (that should be a hanging offense in itself) so they vote for his guy. Congresswoman Julia Carson IN has been elected several times , quite simply because she is black.  She has no qualifications, no particular charisma, no special knowledge of the issues, but she comes from a predominantly black district.  that’s hardly a reaosn to vote for someone, and I’m willing to venture that she does more harm than good.  Not because she is black, but because she was elected because she was black.  The same thing happens over and over and over.  This catholic borough votes in this catholic idiot, and this jewish neighborhood votes for this jewish alderman.

It will never change.  We don’t have the desire for it to change.  We don’t have a passion to do the work that will make the change.  We want to ride a horse like Ron Paul to change.  We don’t want to raise a bunch of horses at the local level.  That would be a lot of work and take a lot of time.  It is also the only way to true change in our government.  It’s do the work, or let the money choose. Rather let the money tell you who you should choose since you are to ignorant to ecide on your own.

   Now since I’m probably labeled a racist let me take it one step further.  We need a test for voters.  You need to take a test to drive a car, to get out of high school, to enter college, to get in the military.  Yet you don’t need to take a test to choose the leadership of our country.?  that’s just wrong.

There…now i’m not a racist….now i hate everyone equally.