Ron Paul in Philadelphia

A report from the ground on the massive 11/10 rally

David Weigel | November 12, 2007

(Videos to accompany this story are here. Photos are here.)

The afternoon rolled in on Philadelphia's Independence Mall, Ron Paul supporters kept streaming onto the green, and a Temple University student named Matt Sullivan stalked the crowd handing out flyers. The headline: "Think you know what RON PAUL stands for?" The text: Four paragraphs from a 1992 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report, the issue with an essay about 95 percent of black males being criminals.

Why was a self-identified liberal, a student who's worked for Democratic campaigns, passing out Paul oppo? "I keep talking to liberals," Sullivan said, "who hear Paul in the debates and think he's anti-war. There's an effort to register Republican to vote for him, but he's got truly radical views that are being mainstreamed at events like this."

Here was the best example—better even than the churning, cheering rally of at least 4000 people—of how the Paul movement has grown. No one crashes Dennis Kucinich or Duncan Hunter events handing out "fact sheets." Our electoral Ashton Kutchers show up in dolphin suits at Mitt rallies; they amble into Rudy fundraisers with photos of mutilated fetuses who died for your sins. They only pay attention to the candidates they fear.

And I can understand why the Matt Sullivans of the world were worried on Saturday. At the Republican Straw Poll back in August, reporters and Republicans goggled at the size of the Paul crowds—about as thick as the ones for Mike Huckabee. But the impact faded once people talked to the Paul boosters and discovered that many were out of state and that many were naifs about political organizing.

Things change. Most of the people I talked to on Saturday were from Pennsylvania, many from the less renowned, more conservative corners of the commonwealth. More than a few were Constitution Party activists, and that's nothing to scoff at in this state where the Constitution Party can draw hundreds of thousands of votes when the Republicans nominate pro-choice candidates. Just as many were big "L" Libertarians, some of them activists with a few decades of election disappointments etched on their faces between their prescription specs and their trimmed beards. Members of Delaware County for Liberty, the Libertarian group in the (ever-less) conservative area south of Philly, handed out flyers for a post-rally fundraiser at a rollicking bar in Old City. The charge was $20 a head; nearly 200 Paul fans showed up.

The Paul campaign is pulling in every element of the outcast Right: Libertarians, Constitution Party members, Reform Party stalwarts, Buchananites, paleoconservatives, Birchers. That in itself isn't news, but the trend is accelerating and it's startling to see so many of these activists in one place. Shawntae Devlugt, a Trentonian who showed up to the rally in a Statue of Liberty costume, told me that she'd first put it on for a "Ron Pauloween" party where one guest won a copy of Aaron Russo's conspiracy-minded documentary From Freedom to Fascism. In her right hand she held a Styrofoam torch, and in her left hand she clutched a copy of The New American.

The not-fit-for-primetime contingent was small, dwarfed by thousands of ordinary conservatives, anti-war teenagers, and a small clutch of veterans (to whom most of the speeches before Paul were dedicated). The fabled 9/11 conspiracy theorists, those favorites of Fox News, were invisible, and a few massive orange-on-blue "TRUTH" signs had nothing to do with that movement. I missed them but Tennyson McCalla, an African-American Paul supporter from New York, saw some of the skinheads who are getting outsized media attention now that the candidate is gathering some steam. "They looked at me a little funny," McCalla shrugged, "but who cares about them?"

Fair enough. The fringier members of the crowd had been subsumed and overtaken by a surprising and surging little campaign. It would unfair to call Paul supporters members of a "personality cult," but you can't walk and talk with them and ignore their reverence for the man. New Jersey Assemblyman Mike Doherty, one of the very few legislators who's endorsed Paul, told the crowd that he'd converted his sons—veterans, like him—to the cause. John Holland, founder of the Rolling Thunder bikers-for-P.O.W.s campaign, credited Paul with single-handedly pushing a P.O.W. bill onto the House floor.

When Paul finally arrived on stage, he seemed energized and vindicated, even punchier than the man who's showed up at the GOP debates. "It has been said that there were two or three dozen spammers out there running the campaign," he said early on, "and it looks like there's a lot more!"

After the speech, as Paul headed around the stage, you could see the laissez-faire structure of the campaign and the devotion of his supporters working in harmony. The stage on the Mall had been cordoned off by a few moveable fences that didn't even go all the way around. Journalists and partisans alike had been making their way in and out during the whole affair. Once the crowd saw where Paul went, they surged behind the stage to meet a few overtaxed campaign staffers beseeching them to be quiet: The candidate was doing a live interview with CNN. Miraculously, they listened. Occasionally some supporter would catch sign of the congressman bobbing his head or adjusting his earpiece and shout "Ron Paul!" or "President Paul!" and a chorus would tell him to shush. For eight minutes, hundreds of people remained silent as their candidate basked in free media.

After that: Beatlemania. Paul only needed to walk about 10 yards to get from his set-up to his van, but a crush of supporters swarmed off, holding out replicas of the Constitution (available at a gift shop next door) for him to sign, asking him whatever quick questions they could muster ("Doctor Paul, what's your stance on, uh, intellectual property rights?") and begging his handlers for hugs. A redheaded undergrad gently asked park police to let her into Paul's circle: "I really just want to shake his hand, I've been waiting for so long to meet him!" When she got to the congressman she wailed, hugged, basked for a photo, hurtled away screaming "Thankyouthankyouthankyou!"

Word of the DelCo for Liberty meetup had traveled far by the time Paul's campaign staff made their escape. Some of the crowd scattered, some headed to their own bars, but the dozens of Paul supporters I followed decided, on the fly, to march around downtown Philadelphia. A Pennsylvanian businessman named Chris Deal raced to the sidewalks of Market Street to hand "slim jims"—flat campaign flyers the size of reporters' notebooks-to dumbfounded tourists, shop owners, anyone who he caught in the eye. He pried open the door of a Foot Locker and informed the manager that only Ron Paul would end the war in Iraq. He told a Puerto Rican woman outside of Philly Kids that Paul would end the drug war and ran back to the march, smiling, as she started chanting the candidate's name. Some of the people who the got flyers started laughing when the march rolled on, but it was a liberal crowd in a Democratic city. They didn't much mind the idea of an anti-war Republican.

"I think he's OK," said a tourist from Michigan who'd gawked as the Paul crowd marched past him. "He's the only one of those Republicans who has any goddamn sense."

The impromptu march hit a crescendo when it reached the Federal Reserve building on 10th Street and Chestnut Street and marchers ran across the road to holler and wave placards outside, chanting: "Abolish the Fed! Abolish the Fed!" It took a few minutes to spread word that there no longer was a Federal Reserve Bank in the building. From there it was more flyering on the street, some flyering cars in a Philly CarShare lot, a long and loud revel on the way to the marchers' next destinations. The people that wound up at the bar fundraiser had to pass a gauntlet of soused Penn State fans trying to debate them or out-yell them with cries of "Joe Pa for president!"

Comments

|11.12.07 @ 7:16PM|#

Now Edward, you diseased, maggot ridden, syphilitic, two-bit whore's cunt, THIS is the thread that you post your inane comments about Ron Paul.

|11.12.07 @ 7:17PM|#

I'm not here often enough to know who Edward is or if he deserve such vitriol, but FWIW, that made me laugh out loud.

|11.12.07 @ 7:18PM|#

So, can anyone tell me if the RP campaign has returned the nazi money? And what about that essay? Sure, it's from 1992, but it's pretty damn ugly.

|11.12.07 @ 7:34PM|#

How do you return the racists' money? Not only is it expensive going through all the $50 and $100 donations and matching up names to the membership rolls of racist organizations, it's a violation of privacy. Do your really think that's a good use of the campaign's time? Do you really think the campaign should vet all contributions? Besides, if push came to shove, we could find similar reprobates contributing to Rudy's campaign.

Luke Johnson|11.12.07 @ 7:36PM|#

Besides, if you give back the money they'll just spend it on an actual nazi.

|11.12.07 @ 7:40PM|#

True enough, but releasing a statement distancing the campaign from nazi crackpots who somehow see themselves as fellow travelers wouldn't take much time or money. And there's still that essay. What the hell is that about?

|11.12.07 @ 7:42PM|#

So, can anyone tell me if the RP campaign has returned the nazi money?

After Saint Benedict's parish received a large donation from the Grambino crime family patriarch, Father Anthony was asked "Don't you know that's the devil's money?" The good Father replied, "The devil's had it long enough. Let us see what the Lord can do with it."

And that ends todays sermon.

|11.12.07 @ 7:44PM|#

dcpotts,
No, the Paul campaign has not and will not return the donations. To paraphrase the campaign manager, "If people donate money to our candidate without knowing where our candidate stands, well they just lost money."

As for the essay, as RP has stated several times and has been thoroughly covered. The essay was written by a staffer and was printed without Paul checking it first. He has admitted that but has also said that while he doesn't believe what was written in the essay he can't fully distance himself from it either. Personally I think he should have disavowed the whole thing to begin with but since he hasn't, it may bite him in the ass.

Give me a few minutes to locate the "nazi money" quote.

|11.12.07 @ 7:45PM|#

The essay from 1992 has been dredged up by liberals worried about losing anti-war, pro-civil liberties voters to Ron Paul (for good reason.) It was apparently written by someone working on the newsletter, without approval from Ron Paul.

It came up in his Congressional campaign a few years back, and Ron Paul took responsibility for it. It was mentioned in an early New York Times article this year, and dismissed as differing in character and style from anything Ron Paul has ever said or written.

Ron Paul also addressed the issue in an online interview with the Muckraker Report. (You can Google it.)

|11.12.07 @ 7:53PM|#

dcpotts,
Here is the quote:
"I asked Bydlak about attention the campaign is getting from creepy white supremacists, and whether if they discovered donations from specious people they'd give them back. 'If people who hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss,' he said."

|11.12.07 @ 7:56PM|#

Funny Stomrfront Nazis would support Ron Paul since his two biggest heroes were Jews.

Fluffy|11.12.07 @ 7:57PM|#

Paul's story about the newsletter is: While out of the Congress and semi-retired, he was approached by some people who wanted to put his name on a libertarian newsletter to increase its circulation. Paul agreed, and discovered later that some of the people who wrote for the newsletter held racist views. I believe his story, for three pretty basic reasons: his claim about being approached has a certain plausibility if you have been involved in minor party politics; Paul has put out a pretty substantial body of writing, and the style and content of the newsletter material is just so alien to that writing that his defense makes "textual" sense; and, finally, the Houston Chronicle reporter who dug out the copies of the newsletter and broke this story to begin with also concluded that Paul probably didn't write the material in question.

With regard to Don Black's donation - if it's that important to you that Black get back his $500 to spend on promoting his usual causes, just send him a check yourself. If you think it's a good idea.

|11.12.07 @ 7:58PM|#

Thanks guys, I hadn't read much about the essay. As far as the donations are concerned, I get the campaign's stance on the cash, I would just think that distancing themselves from kooks as much as possible would be in their best interest, even if it's a little unfair, and they had to go out of their way to do so. A somewhat glib statement might not do the trick.

|11.12.07 @ 8:01PM|#

Cesar, I thought the same thing...

|11.12.07 @ 8:02PM|#

I would like to apologize for the language I used in my 7:16pm post above. One reason is that there are ladies of breeding who occasionaly visit this site to expand their political knowledge. That should not have to tolerate the uncouth, waterfront language I used.

Another reason is I inadvertantly omitted "puss filled, chancre infected" from my tasteless but otherwise accurate characterization of Edward.. I humbly beg your forgiveness for both affronts.

J sub D

iih|11.12.07 @ 8:10PM|#

Good article here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-bank/ronstock-rally-rocks-ph_b_72110.html

Look at the comments too. Some on the left are seriously considering Paul.

I highlight a portion of the last paragraph:

In many ways it is remeniscient of the kind of support for another antiwar paleoconservative populist who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, Pat Buchanan. And most of us remember who won the New Hampshire primary that year.

iih|11.12.07 @ 8:17PM|#

I would like to apologize for the language I used in my 7:16pm post above. One reason is that there are ladies of breeding who occasionaly visit this site to expand their political knowledge. That should not have to tolerate the uncouth, waterfront language I used.

Another reason is I inadvertantly omitted "puss filled, chancre infected" from my tasteless but otherwise accurate characterization of Edward.. I humbly beg your forgiveness for both affronts.

That is the funniest thing I read today. I almost fell off my chair. This whole cussing thing turns out to be quite entertaining.

|11.12.07 @ 11:19PM|#

Reason and Ron Paul websites go down at the same time. Hmmm...

shove, upon being pushed|11.12.07 @ 11:25PM|#

if push came to shove, we could find similar reprobates contributing to Rudy's campaign.

REPROBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE!

|11.12.07 @ 11:25PM|#

I figured I'd put this in this thread, which I found here

At first, I assumed, and had even written, that Ron Paul's financial support was coming from the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Then I was corrected by former Ron Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus, Eric Dondero, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live.

In an interview with Dondero, he emphatically complained; "Please refrain in the future from using the label "Libertarian Republican" in describing Ron Paul. Call him what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger."

Dondero continued, "Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball."

These were strong words from a former aide to Mr. Paul (from 1997 - 2003) and words worthy of investigation in my mind. So I decided to investigate, which in politics always means, follow the money.

Dondero forgot to mention that since 9/11 he's become a bedwetting, racist, authoritarian-loving rightwing freedom-hating nutball.

|11.12.07 @ 11:25PM|#

Reason and Ron Paul websites go down at the same time. Hmmm...

CATO too. All are back now, but it does make you wonder

|11.12.07 @ 11:30PM|#

Reason and Ron Paul websites go down at the same time. Hmmm...

I noticed that, too, this evening. I still couldn't get to Reason's site without going through a link from someone else's blog page. Anyone got an idea what happened?

iih|11.12.07 @ 11:34PM|#

Cyber attack?

|11.12.07 @ 11:35PM|#

PAUL HATES JOOS

|11.12.07 @ 11:41PM|#

Reason and Ron Paul websites go down at the same time. Hmmm...

Yep, I noticed that, too.....

@dcpotts

So, can anyone tell me if the RP campaign has returned the nazi money?

There's an old saying, "If they throw it in your lap, put it in your pocket."

iih|11.12.07 @ 11:41PM|#

PAUL HATES JOOS

But do they all hate him? And what about this?

|11.12.07 @ 11:41PM|#

[e-mail] is the bestest fake email address EVAH!

|11.12.07 @ 11:43PM|#

According to a note at the Ron Paul site the company that hosts their page had power problems. But I still have to go through a link at feralgenius.blogspot.com to reach H&R. etter than nothing, I guess.

|11.12.07 @ 11:44PM|#

But I still have to go through a link at feralgenius.blogspot.com to reach H&R.

I feel your pain.

Just kidding, Jennifer.

|11.12.07 @ 11:44PM|#

Better than nothing.

Edward|11.12.07 @ 11:48PM|#

Support Ron Paul and help make this country the robust Christian nation the pious and religious Founding Fathers envisioned!

Dondereprobate|11.12.07 @ 11:50PM|#

According to a note at the Ron Paul site the company that hosts their page had power problems.

Yeah, you bet they do! How many divisions does the Pope of Texas have, huh? Huh?

Edwardondereprobate|11.12.07 @ 11:50PM|#

Huh?

Patrick|11.12.07 @ 11:58PM|#

Thanks for covering the event David...

I feel like I'm part of history!

Do we Americans still deserve to be free? I don't know. But I'm willing to give freedom a chance.

ronpaulncr.com, cheers, Patrick

Edward|11.13.07 @ 12:04AM|#

Now we are enslaved, but by the Grace of God, Ron Paul will win, and we will be set free! Let freedom ring in our blessed land! Ron Paul will lead us out of the collectivist wilderness into the clear, bright light of Liberty! Before Ron Paul, we lived in darkness, but now we can see the light!
Two, four, six, eight--Ron Paul in Zero 8!

|11.13.07 @ 12:13AM|#

but now we can see the light!

Eddy, there's no need for you to wait and no need for you to remain in darkness. If you would really, really see the light, just kneel there by the wall where your modem is plugged in and give the outlet a big, sloppy, wet kiss. Use a little tongue!

Kolohe|11.13.07 @ 12:19AM|#

But do they all hate him? And what about this?

iih-
You know, for a minute I was worried the your links would be something like this site.

iih|11.13.07 @ 12:33AM|#

Kolohe,

I just dislike it when people accuse RP of being racist. As Cesar mentions above:

Funny Stomrfront Nazis would support Ron Paul since his two biggest heroes were Jews.

(Those being von Mises and Rothbard.)

|11.13.07 @ 12:52AM|#

This racist thing is picking up attention. One of my fellow students in class today told me he was considering Paul until he read the essay. Had to remind him that this was written by a staffer but he could believe what he wanted. But before he made his mind up consider a few things.

1) How many racists would deliver babies pro bono to poor black mothers?

2) How many racists would bother to show up a the Tavis Smiley debate? The front-runners didn't.

3) How many racists would do interviews with Arab American radio and how many Republicans bothered to show up at the Arab American National Leadership Conference. Ron Paul did.

4) How many racists would consider a black economics professor as their running mate? Ron Paul has suggested Walter Williams.

Words on a page or real life action? Pick one. I'll take the latter.

|11.13.07 @ 12:53AM|#

REPROBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE!

Mr. Giuliani, it has come to our attention that Eric Dondero has contributed to your campaign. Will you give back his money, or do you agree with his frequent assertion that paying extra to ride bareback is the hallmark of liberty?

|11.13.07 @ 1:19AM|#

I know, I know, you all is clamoring for the photos from the Kosmik Kid and his contingent to the Philly rally. The is here:

http://independencemall.blogspot.com/

|11.13.07 @ 1:24AM|#

Got a snotty email already wondering why TWC couldn't have the decency to post a got dam link that didn't require a cut and paste. Okay, you can see photos of the Kosmik Kid's bus ride to Philly here.

|11.13.07 @ 1:25AM|#

Does Donderoo give mustache rides?

Edward|11.13.07 @ 1:50AM|#

Ron Paul will save from collectivist evils like tax and socialized medicine and public education and food inspections. Vote Ron Paul in '08!

|11.13.07 @ 1:59AM|#

you can see photos of the Kosmik Kid's bus ride to Philly

Thanks for the link to the photos, TWC. I've never been to Philly. Looks like a nice place.

|11.13.07 @ 2:05AM|#

Speaking of Edward: I noticed on another thread he used the term keener. Is that not a Britishism?

|11.13.07 @ 3:10AM|#

Putting aside all political affiliations and feelings, I can say with near certainty that this is one of the most poorly written articles I have ever read. I sincerely hope that this writer is not getting paid for this crap.

|11.13.07 @ 4:31AM|#

I can say with near certainty that this is one of the most poorly written articles I have ever read.

Oh! Looky there! A...a literary critic! Wow!
Hey! How do you do, Mr. Literary Critic - it is such an honor to meet one you guys. I can't wait to read one of the many articles you had published last year - especially the ones you got paid for. But y'know? I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for them.

|11.13.07 @ 5:51AM|#

I don't know if anyone at Reason knows about it, but here's a treat for supporters of Ron Paul. It's a series of old-fashioned patriotic-type posters that have been....ahem,...updated a bit. ;-) They're at http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com/

src|11.13.07 @ 7:04AM|#

I'm not Edward.

But I do have some doubts about Ron Paul -- I'd like to support him, but I can't make myself agree with some of his policies. Seems like there are a lot of Paul people around here, so I'd like to see your take on it.

Ron Paul calls himself a noninterventionist, in terms of foreign policy. First of all, how is that justified morally? Couldn't there be events (genocide, for instance) that obligate us to step in, even with military force? He also opposes foreign aid. I know it's a blunt instrument, but we still have humanitarian responsibilities to people in other countries.

On a practical level, is it smart? The little I've read on international relations (Salvador Waltz and so on) suggests that a country that guarantees not to attack first is at risk from countries or groups that make no such promise. On the foreign aid issue: if we don't have carrots or sticks it's going to be harder to negotiate.

Is there a way to get around all this?

|11.13.07 @ 7:14AM|#

My husband and I also come from immigrant grandparents. His are Italian, mine Polish. We remember their stories of escape from fascism and the nazi's. we remember their stories of how...ever so slowly...rights and property were taken away. That is why we hear Dr. Paul's message very clearly.

Ron Paul is a Constitutionist, an old fashioned conservative Republican. A Ron Paul Presidency would encourage the original Constitution's balance of power, eliminating the seemingly absolute power of the Executive branch.

Ron Paul non-interventionist policy would immediately remove our military from Iraq and other non-essential areas of the world. Please see the following website? http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/

Then he would begin the process of streamlining the unconstitutional "departments" reducing the federal budget immensely.
These combined savings would be a serious beginning to paying down the enormous federal debt we owe to Japan, China, and several other nations. The benefits of paying down the debt are clear; the dollar value would be increased making it more competitive with the other world currencies and our children and grandchildren will not be strapped with debt.

By streamlining the Federal Government the collected funds will also be used to continue to pay Social Security. Please to remember, the Social Security lockbox is empty?

Having chuckled when imagining the elimination of the IRS, we are hopefull that this can be a reality by substituting a less invasive, indirect tax.

These are clear, sound policies...a return to transparency.

Please refer to Ron Paul's archived writings: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html You will find him well versed on current applications of constitutional law.

Respectfully submitted,

BTS|11.13.07 @ 7:19AM|#

"Because Paul supporters know that support coming from non-Republicans is not reflected in the Republican polls, they have started a campaign to promote party-jumping so that their anti-war supporter's from the left can vote in the Republican primary."
From that god-awful American Daily article

People voting for candidates they support regardless of which party they belong to?! We can't have that! Next thing you know, people will be marrying cats and dogs!

Seriously, is it just the pundits, or are all conservatives that retarded?

M|11.13.07 @ 7:34AM|#

Sing along.

ed|11.13.07 @ 7:58AM|#

Wow. This thread started in the gutter and it was all downhill from there (to mix a couple metaphors). This is what passes for political debate in the Hit & Run era. Sad.

Fluffy|11.13.07 @ 9:02AM|#

iih -

You can probably lump Rand in there, too, so that would make Jews the top 3.

Then I think there are some Quakers that get in there. Wasn't Lysander Spooner a Quaker?

Jews and Quakers - typical Nazi scum.

iih|11.13.07 @ 9:29AM|#

What also gets on my nerves is the description of his supporters as "typical" middle class white non-immigrants. Other than (may be) the middle class thing, I do not fit the stereotype at all.

robc|11.13.07 @ 9:38AM|#

src,

Against the spirit of this thread, I will try to answer your questions:

Ron Paul calls himself a noninterventionist, in terms of foreign policy. First of all, how is that justified morally?

Does doing nothing have to be justified? I think its intervention that has to be justified (and usually, but not always, cant be).

Couldn't there be events (genocide, for instance) that obligate us to step in, even with military force?

Can someone be obligated to help someone else? Maybe. Some would say no. Im a christian, so *I* am obligated at times. Can some group be obligated to spend my money for me to help someone else or force me to live up to that obligation? Hell no.

He also opposes foreign aid. I know it's a blunt instrument, but we still have humanitarian responsibilities to people in other countries.

We, as individuals, may have responsibilities to people in other countries. If so, we, as individuals, should fulfill them by doing what needs to be done, or ponying up so dough. Our country has no, zero, zilch obligations to anyone else.

On a practical level, is it smart?

GW thought so. Read Washington's farewell address. I really think the concept of lack on entangling alliances is brilliant. Compare and contrast his ideas with the causes of WW1.

The little I've read on international relations (Salvador Waltz and so on) suggests that a country that guarantees not to attack first is at risk from countries or groups that make no such promise.

How is it working for Costa Rica? They eliminated their military entirely.

How often has Switzerland been invaded recently? They promise a strong defense but they guarantee they wont attack first.

On the foreign aid issue: if we don't have carrots or sticks it's going to be harder to negotiate.

Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none. Free trade is a great carrot. Just because we are non-interventionist wouldnt mean we wouldnt have enough nukes to destroy the world many times over. Hows that for a stick?

|11.13.07 @ 10:03AM|#

Does Donderoo give mustache rides?

To Edward.

Non-expert|11.13.07 @ 11:03AM|#

Couldn't there be events (genocide, for instance) that obligate us to step in, even with military force?

Dr. Paul would say that it is congress's job to mamke that determination, not the president's.

|11.13.07 @ 12:04PM|#

Oh my! Rush mentioned Ron Paul and how he would be portrayed by the media if he won the nomination or if he ran as a Libebertarian. Rush hit the nail on the head. The driveby's would do everything to destroy Paul. If he ran as a Libertarian they would praise him so that the Republican candidate would lose similar to how Perot defeated Bush back in 1992. Clinton had no hope except for Perot. Clinton again would have no hope against whoever, unless Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian. Hopefully Paul will come close to winning the nomination so that the Republican party will change for the better.

|11.13.07 @ 12:30PM|#

A surprisingly extensive and fairly positive Ron Paul article in the Chicago Tribune today.

He may not be grabbing headlines yet, but his press coverage has definitely taken a step up in the world....

Mike Reason|11.13.07 @ 12:58PM|#

David Weigel is the Ron Paul's Herbert Mathews. The same two hundred, energetic supporters that are at every Ronstock and he claims it's an army of hundreds of millions of grassroots supporters. So he raised a lot of money in two days, that just means he has alot of rich supporters. I don't think his two percent support will do anything unless he plans on backstabbing the republican party and continue running in which case that two percent might cause an authoritarian like Hillary to get into the White House and turn us into the Union of American Socialist Republics.

|11.13.07 @ 2:02PM|#

Reason and Ron Paul websites go down at the same time. Hmmm...

Those sites (and CATO's) are hosted at Rackspace, a major provider of dedicated-server hosting. They had a big power outage last night which affected a lot of people, including one of my clients. Aside from that hiccup, I've found them to be one of the most rock-solid providers out there.

|11.13.07 @ 2:08PM|#

"I don't think his two percent support will do anything unless he plans on backstabbing the republican party and continue running"

He is 5% in one recent poll I saw. As far as him running on a 3rd party, he says he has no plans to do so.

|11.13.07 @ 2:40PM|#

Ron Paul is 7% on an SRBI Research poll for Saint Anselm College. That makes him tied for 4th with Thompson and Huckabee.

|11.13.07 @ 3:30PM|#

"So he raised a lot of money in two days, that just means he has alot of rich supporters."

His "rich" supporters are being awful stingy then since they are, on average, only giving him about $116 each.

Croesus|11.13.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Damn! I've been shamed. Guess I've got to pony up at least another $66 to reach even stingy.

AuH20|11.13.07 @ 4:08PM|#

From the enemy of my enemy is my friend desk:

Wonkette and RedState Join Forces.

|11.13.07 @ 9:17PM|#

What? RedState and Wonkette?

wtfever, what a bunch of deuche bags. Their Alexa ratings aren't shit and neither are their stupid websites.

www.Ronpaulforums.com has a higher Alexa rating right now then both of those sites, so they can eat shit while they diaf.

|11.14.07 @ 7:10PM|#

Re: the previous comment.

I didn't believe it, but it's true.

|11.15.07 @ 12:28PM|#

To be fair, Alexa ratings are complete bullshit.

anon|11.17.07 @ 4:54AM|#

@Non-Expert:

>>Dr. Paul would say that it is congress's job to make that determination, not the president's.

anon|11.17.07 @ 4:56AM|#

@Non-Expert:

"Dr. Paul would say that it is congress's job to make that determination, not the president's."

Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress may send troops to foreign countries to prevent genocide, civil wars, etc?

Of course, as an individual, you (and millions of others) would be free to make private contributions or form organizations in any way you saw fit.

src|11.18.07 @ 5:29PM|#

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power to "declare war," to "raise and support armies," to "provide and maintain a navy," "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Nothing in the language seems to imply directly that sending troops to foreign countries isn't within that scope.

In fact, Congress can "define and punish" "offenses against the law of nations," which might suggest (I'm not sure about this) that foreign interventions are constitutional.

ETJB|11.19.07 @ 12:15PM|#

Ron and Dennis are basically in the race to discourage minor party challengers in the primary.

Both have ties/sympathy to minor parties and election law reform issues and their role in the primary is basically to keep certain groups of people in each party, without the party having to make any concessions.

Setting that aside, Ron and Dennis are entertaining to listen to, but nothing more.