Ron Paul on This Week

David Weigel | July 8, 2007

In case you accidentally switched on your TV's George Stephanopoulos filter, here's the freshly YouTubed video of Ron Paul on This Week.

Here's the closing exchange on Paul's viability.

Stephanopoulos: What's success for you in this campaign?

Paul: What's success? Well, to win, is one, is the goal.

Stephanopoulos: That's not going to happen.

Paul: Do you know for absolute? Are you willing to bet every cent in your pocket for that?

Stephanopoulos: Yes.

Paul: You are. OK. I thought so when I ran for Congress. I wouldn't bet anything I could have been elected to Congress. The odds are great, the odds are difficult, and I know that. But I would say that what has happened so far has been about 100 times greater than I anticipated.

Also, Stephanopoulos starts off the broadcast with some video of the "nice crowd assembled on the street" to support Paul. Stephanopoulos arrived at the interview a moment after Paul did and couldn't get a clear path into the hotel. He dodged around the crowd, looking bemused, and strolled into the hotel noticed only by a surly throng of baseball card collecters. (I'm captured around 18 seconds into the video, camera left, in sunglasses and a bright green shirt.)

Comments

|7.8.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Whoa. I look exactly like Dave Weigel. No, scratch that, Dave Weigel looks exactly like me.

No kidding, it's some "Separated at Birth" stuff going on here. I even dress like that.

Creepy.

|7.8.07 @ 2:25PM|#

He he he he he.

"Did Rudy Guiliani know better than that?"

"Well, he knows better now."

Boo-yah! Pwned!

Paul does an excellent job of walking the tightrope that all longshots are faced with - he has just enough confident swagger that he comes across as a realistic alternative, but not so much that he comes across as delusional.

ed|7.8.07 @ 2:38PM|#

In case you neglected to switch off your TV's George Stephanopoulos filter

That statement confuses me on a Sunday already soaked with cheap wine. I think it's the double negative. Maybe this is what you meant:

In case you switched on your TV's George Stephanopoulos filter...

Forgive me if I am mistaken.
I blame Foxhorn Vineyards.
Friggin' capitalists and their affordable wine!

ed|7.8.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Oh, I get it now.

I still blame Big Cheap Wine.

(retires to bedlam)

|7.8.07 @ 2:55PM|#

Stephanopoulos makes an ass out of himself at the end. What an arrogant SOB.

|7.8.07 @ 2:56PM|#

# joe | July 8, 2007, 2:25pm | #

# Paul does an excellent job of walking the
# tightrope that all longshots are faced
# with - he has just enough confident swagger
# that he comes across as a realistic
# alternative, but not so much that he comes
# across as delusional.

Being elected to congress 10 times in ever-changing districts, by constituents who are well-aware of his full-strength libertarianism, has probably helped to give him a realistic confidence in his abilities and prospects.

Greg Anderson|7.8.07 @ 3:00PM|#

I like Ron Paul and think he actually articulates some of the frustration much of the country feels. Ron seems a better choice than Rudy who is running on the George Bush platform of fear and terrorism. Check out Ron Paul before last years congressional fourth of July break. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr062906.htm

crap-action-jackson|7.8.07 @ 3:07PM|#

Stephanopoulos = smug douchebag

matt|7.8.07 @ 3:11PM|#

I am going to make an educated guess that the speech Greg linked to was written by Gary North. I often read Gary's columns on Lewrockwell.com, and this speech mirrors his writing style and outlook perfectly. Gary once worked for Ron Paul's office.

Disclaimer: neither Ron Paul nor I are down with Big Theonomy

|7.8.07 @ 3:13PM|#

James Anderson Merritt,

Barney Frank has been elected more than 10 times, but I don't see him practicing his SOTU speeches in the mirror.

Dr. Paul strikes me as much too intelligent to fall your reasoning. A Congressional district isn't the American public.

|7.8.07 @ 3:17PM|#

For years I have been frustrated by the way Greenspan and now Bernake act so smug when confronted by Ron about the actions of the FED.

Ron Paul has my full support in his bid and efforts to restore our money from the 'fiat' that encourages the phoney baloney wars pursued by the criminals running and ruining the country.

Last night I was out with friends and downtown there were young people holding Ron Paul signs. His message is pure, his methods are honest and he is getting very popular.

I am so grateful to have an alternative to the nauseating candidates running for the high office.

|7.8.07 @ 3:39PM|#

Maybe best to thank George Stephanopoulos - most of the interview went quite well and George may have a change of heart for the better next time 'round. Here is my little note.

[e-mail]

Dear Mr. Stephanopoulos,

Thank you for having Dr Ron Paul on the show, that was a wonderful interview. You get right to the point, and he is very quick on the return. I do think he has a chance to win, because people are fed up with the cookie
cutter flip floppers on both sides.

sincerely

Randolph Carter|7.8.07 @ 3:45PM|#

George of the hard-to-spell last name is an arrogant jackass. Did he gave Paul and Gravel on the show just to let them know he doesn't think they'll win?

Also, later in the show, they're talking about who raised the most money this quarter - they show Obama, Clinton, and Edwards on one graph, and Romney, Guiliani, and McCain on the other. Wait, Didn't McCain raise less money than Ron "You can't win because Stephanopoulos says so" Paul?

Mark Bahner|7.8.07 @ 3:46PM|#

"Stephanopoulos makes an ass out of himself at the end. What an arrogant SOB."

I don't agree at all. It's not arrogant at all to say that one would bet all the money in one's wallet that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. I'd be happy to give the first taker(s) 10-to-1 odds on up to $20 that Ron Paul won't be nominated. That is, if he is nominated, I'll give the winner(s) a total of $200. If he isn't nominated, the loser(s) owe me $20. (It would be even better if I can get an agreement beforehand that if I lose, I'll give the $200 towards Ron Paul's campaign for President. :-))

Ron Paul should change his goal, and should clearly state his new goal.

His goal should be that WHOMEVER is elected President (Republican or even Democrat) will first pledge:

1) Not to ever go to war without a Congressional declaration of war (and none of this "authorization of force" crap);

2) To immediately pull all troops out of Iraq (since that probably won't already be done);

3) To honor state laws concerning medical marijuana;

...or whatever. His goal should be to make all the OTHER candidates agree to pledge exactly the same things he'd pledge. Ron Paul's goal should be to change the policies of WHOMEVER is elected President in 2008 towards respecting the Constitution and promoting increased freedom.

That way, if he's elected, he can personally change the policies of the President in 2009. But even if he isn't elected, he will have done something very worthwhile...to turn this country towards a path of respect for the rule of law and liberty.

Randolph Carter|7.8.07 @ 3:48PM|#

gave should be have. damn.

|7.8.07 @ 3:50PM|#

As if we needed more evidence of Giuliani's lack of qualification, here, he again proves that he's not only an authoritarian statist, but an ignoramus as well, explaining how the U.S. never publicly announced a gradual reduction in forces in war, when that's exactly what we did in Viet Nam only 35 years ago.

If we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do - which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.

Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you're for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We'll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.

TallDave|7.8.07 @ 3:57PM|#

Definitely the most entertaining campaign.

TallDave|7.8.07 @ 4:01PM|#

explaining how the U.S. never publicly announced a gradual reduction in forces in war, when that's exactly what we did in Viet Nam only 35 years ago.

Yeah, and that worked out so well. The Communist NVA promptly tore up the Paris Accords, scheduled an invasion, and conquered our abandoned S Viet allies.

|7.8.07 @ 4:06PM|#

TallDave-

But Communism didn't take over the world, or even the rest of Asia like all the hawks predicted it would if we withdrew. In fact, withdrawing from Vietnam put us in a better position with regards to the Soviets. I don't think the Cold War could have been finished if we had stayed in until hell froze over.

Grotius|7.8.07 @ 4:10PM|#

TallDave,

In 1968 we apparently had the oppurtunity to get everything we got in 1973. The American position in SE Asia would have probably been more tenable in 1968 than it was in 1973.

Then there is whole issue of whether a nearly two decade war in SE Asia was in the best interest of the U.S. or the nations of SE Asia.

Doug|7.8.07 @ 4:20PM|#

Any so-called "long shot" candidate should answer the question the same way:

"I'm running to win. Whether that happens or not is up to the American people. None of the votes have been cast yet."

What Ron Paul said about surprising people was good -- reminding viewers that he has already done better than the experts predicted a few months ago, and hinting at more to come.

|7.8.07 @ 4:27PM|#

Stephie starts off OK, but that final smug comment should have been countered by Ron with something like this: "if you think this election is predetermined then something is really terribly wrong with our election system and with our country".

If the press and/or the shadow government and not the people choose the next president, then we're really in for a revolution.

Mark Bahner|7.8.07 @ 4:54PM|#

"Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy?"

We're not at war in Iraq. The present Iraqi government has been elected by the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people and members of that government are being killed by criminals. There is no war (e.g., as in Vietam) because there is no alternate government (as there was in Vietnam).

"Yeah, and that worked out so well. The Communist NVA promptly tore up the Paris Accords, scheduled an invasion, and conquered our abandoned S Viet allies."

And you're saying that al Qaeda will conquer the present Iraqi government?

In the *extremely* unlikely case that such an event were to occur, why would the U.S. not be able to re-invade and depose that unelected and almost certainly unwanted government? Why would they not be just as easy to depose from power (or even easier) than Saddam Hussein's government (which we toppled with fewer than 500 casualties)?

tomWright|7.8.07 @ 5:07PM|#

I think Ron Paul is going to get another $500 from me.

|7.8.07 @ 5:09PM|#

"should have been countered by Ron with something like this: "if you think this election is predetermined then something is really terribly wrong with our election system and with our country"."

Right, because acting like a conspiracy nut-job is a sure way to win votes. Maybe he should also worry about how the gov't is depriving us of extra-terrestrial technology.

Or maybe you're only suggesting that he should have made a stupefyingly obtuse joke?

I just hope that the Libertarian spin-teams for our candidates are more thoughtful than Hit&Run commentators.

Anyway, I think that when confronted with questions about terrorists coming to attack America if we leave Iraq, Paul should at least hint that, in response to any terrorist attacks, he'd advocate nuking Mecca.

|7.8.07 @ 5:22PM|#

TallDave makes the mistake of thinking that our withdrawal from Vietnam, like our upcoming withdrawal from Iraq, was optional.

If we were an Imperial state like Britain or Rome, whether to continue the occupation of a hostile country indefinitely, with ongoing and mounting resistance, continuing losses, a huge budget, and our troops in the middle of a civil war might be something the govenrment could ram down the public's throats when they eventually decided they'd had enough.

But we're not an Empire, we're a democratic Republic, and the public will not stand for that. Ever. It's not within the realm of possiblity.

If you go to war without a plan that takes this reality into effect, you might as well go to war without bullets. You're basically setting us up for failure.

Avoiding a 1975-style humiliation needs to be something you work into your strategy from the beginning, as the elder George Bush did in 1991. You know how you avoid getting chased out of a country you've invaded? You walk out on your own accord.

And now, four years later, TallDave is decrying what might happen if we destablize Iraq, allow it to be overrun by terrorists, allow the Iranians to expand their hegemony into the Shiite areas, remove the blanket of protection we offered the Kurds during the 1990s, and then leave.

Gee, you think that might have been a smart thing to consider before we went in?

If it's any consolation, TallDave, your fears about what would follow our withdrawal might turn out to be as accurate as your hopes for what would follow the toppling of Saddam and the January 2005 elections.

Ron Pauly Walnuts|7.8.07 @ 5:25PM|#

How often do OBGYNs come across patients with Medicare? Aren't most women done productively using their vagina et al by the time they're that age?

|7.8.07 @ 5:26PM|#

Right, because acting like a conspiracy nut-job is a sure way to win votes. Maybe he should also worry about how the gov't is depriving us of extra-terrestrial technology.

How is suggesting that there's something terribly wrong with our election system "acting like a conspiracy nut-job?"

Do you believe that there isn't anything terribly wrong with our election system? Do you think it's okay for Democrats and Republicans to pass laws (as they have) which make it much more difficult for members of neither party to run for office?

Anyway, I think that when confronted with questions about terrorists coming to attack America if we leave Iraq, Paul should at least hint that, in response to any terrorist attacks, he'd advocate nuking Mecca.

And you were saying he shouldn't come off as a nut job?

Mark Bahner|7.8.07 @ 5:44PM|#

"How often do OBGYNs come across patients with Medicare? Aren't most women done productively using their vagina et al by the time they're that age?"

You are neglecting the fact that Stephanopoulas noted that Dr. Paul didn't take Medicare OR Medicaid. Probably plenty of women needing OBGYNs have Medicaid coverage.

Laura|7.8.07 @ 6:18PM|#

Ron Pauly Walnuts and Mark: A simple education--the GYN portion of OBGYN is for Gynecology, which means much more than delivering babies. Hysterectomies, etc. are not uncommon in women of Medicare age. And of course (as Mark mentions), Medicaid is a huge provider the OB (obstetrical) coverage.

|7.8.07 @ 6:21PM|#

Stephanopolous's future career hanging out with The Great Vorelli.

|7.8.07 @ 6:24PM|#

(I'm captured around 18 seconds into the video, camera left, in sunglasses and a bright green shirt.)

Ok I don't see you at all.

|7.8.07 @ 6:33PM|#

joe | July 8, 2007, 2:23pm | #
Whoa. I look exactly like Dave Weigel.

Why does this not surprise me.

Hey Joe do you also hang out in the sun all weekend with sunglasses on before a photo shoot?

http://www.reason.com/staff/hitandrun/176.html

Or is your looks similar sans the raccoon eyes?

|7.8.07 @ 6:43PM|#

Barney Frank has been elected more than 10 times, but I don't see him practicing his SOTU speeches in the mirror.

Dr. Paul strikes me as much too intelligent to fall your reasoning. A Congressional district isn't the American public.

You think his district is full of libertarians or something? That seems unlikely.

|7.8.07 @ 6:46PM|#

You think his district is full of libertarians or something? That seems unlikely.

If it is they should make a roller coaster park and call it liberty land....that would be AWSOME!

|7.8.07 @ 6:53PM|#

Max,

I meant the "getting elected to Congress multiple times" part, not the libertarian part.

Although I have gotten my picture taken with sunglass lines.

|7.8.07 @ 6:54PM|#

I'm impressed with Ron's composure once again. Basically asked a question where he could have blown up and said something really stupid, or as I suspect called Georgy-poo a name like he set up Ron to do, he gave a good answer that shows he is really ready.

Personally, I think I would have stood up and slapped Stephanopoulos across the face.

Craig|7.8.07 @ 7:15PM|#

People need to start working towards being republican delegates now if they want Ron Paul to have a chance at winning.

|7.8.07 @ 7:18PM|#

A good interview from Dr. Paul once again. He has been quite impressive. And up front about what he wants to do.

The WA state primary is in August (one month earlier). If I have to write him in, he's getting my vote.

|7.8.07 @ 7:21PM|#

Kicked another $100 over to Ron for his excellent articulation of points. Let's keep building the momentum guys. If he even gets 10% of the vote, that's 10% the big candidates realize are pretty pissed off when it comes time for the general election.

|7.8.07 @ 7:23PM|#

"How is suggesting that there's something terribly wrong with our election system "acting like a conspiracy nut-job?""

I only meant the part about the election being pre-determined sounding nut-jobbish. I agree that there's plenty wrong with our election system, but it seems nuts to me, and seems nuts to most voters, that the results are pre-determined.

And I was just joking about the Mecca thing... because I've heard this sort of suggestion before... and since I was saying something against Hit&Run posters while posting here, I thought I'd fall in line with the bad idea suggesting.

I think maybe... maybe the "act like everybody else" joke doesn't work too well online. Works best with wildly exaggerated, but clearly parodical, gesticulations and intonation patterns.

|7.8.07 @ 7:24PM|#

Matt wrote above: "I am going to make an educated guess that the speech Greg linked to was written by Gary North."

Incorrect. He writes his own.

David Weigel|7.8.07 @ 7:25PM|#

Hey Joe do you also hang out in the sun all weekend with sunglasses on before a photo shoot?

Ah, rosacea - an inexhaustible source of belly laffs.

|7.8.07 @ 7:27PM|#

Don't let it get you down, Dave.

You are an extremely handsome man.

|7.8.07 @ 7:29PM|#

Andy_D

I see, it was the "pre-determined" thing that sounded nutty. You're right, you have to be careful how you point out the problems with the system.

And I agree, it's hard to make subtle jokes in text conversations. Or it's hard for me to get subtle jokes. Either way, I'm glad you were joking. We all know that Tehran should be nuked first.

|7.8.07 @ 7:40PM|#

Ah, rosacea - an inexhaustible source of belly laffs.

Really?!?

Sorry man. I was making fun of you for being an idiot with sunglasses not for having a condition.

|7.8.07 @ 7:52PM|#

I kinda look like Weigel, too. With similar hair and the same skin deal, but actually a little worse.

David Weigel|7.8.07 @ 7:52PM|#

It's OK. I've got a pretty mild case that gets a little worse in the summer, like when that photo was taken (last June) or now.

|7.8.07 @ 7:55PM|#

How did we get this far on a Ron Paul thread without Eric Don-Fucking-Dero showing up?

|7.8.07 @ 7:55PM|#

I'm disappointed at those here calling Stepho... names.
He's "with it."
I make a point of watching his show. I like his "Sunday Funnies" section especially.
'Course all his competition is about 50 years behind the times.

|7.8.07 @ 8:00PM|#

Mark Bahner writes:

"I'd be happy to give the first taker(s) 10-to-1 odds on up to $20 that Ron Paul won't be nominated. That is, if he is nominated, I'll give the winner(s) a total of $200. If he isn't nominated, the loser(s) owe me $20."

--the latest odds at betfair.com are 40 to 1. give me the going odds and I'll bet 20 bucks, no problem.

(It would be even better if I can get an agreement beforehand that if I lose, I'll give the $200 towards Ron Paul's campaign for President. :-))"

--absolutely. you might be on to something. the promise to donate could lead people to settle for the 10 to 1 odds. you could market this as a way for supporters to 'leverage' their support. (then of course you'd hedge your liabilities with offsetting long positions at betfair and make an awesome margin until the odds there fall closer to 10.)

|7.8.07 @ 8:23PM|#

I'm disappointed at those here calling Stepho... names.
He's "with it."

Cuz it was not Stepho the fun loving TV personality that was showing through when he said:

"That's not going to happen."

That was Ugly Clinton staffer Stepho who sees Ron Paul as the anti-christ.

|7.8.07 @ 8:27PM|#

Les,

It is hard to make subtle jokes online until people get to know you. Maybe it's especially difficult because 1) I rarely post here, and 2) 90% of the stuff I do post is not meant to be taken literally.

Anyway, I think the best nuking strategy is to put the names of a bunch of evil cities into a hat. Then, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, we draw a name at random. We give a one-month warning... then obliterate some evil-doers. This way, we're only murdering the belligerents who refuse to leave (ie, the terrorists) and those too poor to afford transportation (ie, those who don't count anyway). Plus, the randomization puts all the economic incentives in the right place. And yes, Tehran should certainly be in the hat.

|7.8.07 @ 8:32PM|#

"How often do OBGYNs come across patients with Medicare? Aren't most women done productively using their vagina et al by the time they're that age?"

Women continue to see OB/GYN's well past menopause. The job description entails a bit more than pregnancy.

|7.8.07 @ 9:01PM|#

I read regularly but seldom comment because most of what I would say gets said and a lot of libertarian dogma I find utopian at best. Having said that…

I sent Ron Paul a donation a few weeks ago, the first political statement I've done (except for voting) since my first wife was a Reagan delegate to the 1980 convention.

I'm aghast that so many Libertarians are such cowards that they are willing to write Paul off because the mainstream is telling them to. I thought libertarianism was all about thinking for yourself and fighting for what was RIGHT (and individual freedom- an anachronistic idea certainly). Maybe I'm the utopian.

Paul is getting ovations from liberal audiences on Bill Mayer, John Stewart, and Stephen Colbert's shows. The choice seems to come down to (a) putting your money where you mouth is, and (b) believing that the GOP might nominate a candidate that would win easily over anyone the Dems might nominate but wouldn't be a tool of the current ruling regime. The libertarian response to "more of the same" should be equal and opposite. This may be the last time we can tender a candidate who isn't a hand picked nephew of Big Brother. Both parties and the media seem bent on making sure the status quo remains secure. A few more years of suspension of habeas corpus, Carnivore, and variable rights for various people and you won't have a choice anymore.

Grow a backbone. Support Ron Paul any way you can. Or say hello to the new boss (same as the old boss).

It isn't conspiracy, it's confluence of interest.

|7.8.07 @ 10:10PM|#

Stephanopoulos = smug douchebag

Stephanopoulos = PAUL SHOOTS PEON

but also:
U.S. POOPS ETHANOL
OPPOSE HOT ULNAS
POOLHOUSE PANTS

George Stephanopoulos =

HOPE RON PAUL GETS GOOSE
OH GEE, RON PAUL STOPS EGO!

|7.8.07 @ 10:37PM|#

Don't forget that George Stephanopoulos is a member of the CFR. Ron Paul is not a member.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/roundtable/CFRS-Zlist.html

Just doing his job for the NWO.

Rick Fisk|7.8.07 @ 10:44PM|#

Memphisto, I love you.

In a non-homosexual way (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Since there are people talking about odds and betting here, let me just point out that it's time to go all-in.

A few days ago, I saw online news of a grandpa who is selling his house and using the profit to support Ron Paul (estimated to be about 100k if it sells).

His comment was that his kids and grandkids would be better served with freedom than federal reserve notes.

That man has it right. There are 300 million of us. Some 100 million gave up on voting and now we let the powers that be bully us into thinking that political power doesn't really flow through the individuals up to them.

So we whine and complain and get cynical which is really a cop out. Here's a man who has every reason to run screaming into the street after each congressional session and blow his own brains out.

Instead he is out there preaching it, with a smile on his face, a twinkle in his eye and all the while showing us what how a true gentleman is supposed to act. Between campaign stops, he's rushed back to that cesspool to vote the way we expect him to vote.

The least we could do is give everything we can spare in funds, support and ACTION.

Anything less is not "realistic." It is out and out cowardice.

|7.8.07 @ 10:46PM|#

Also, later in the show, they're talking about who raised the most money this quarter - they show Obama, Clinton, and Edwards on one graph, and Romney, Guiliani, and McCain on the other. Wait, Didn't McCain raise less money than Ron "You can't win because Stephanopoulos says so" Paul?

I only saw the short clip that Weigel posted, but that doesn't surprise me at all. The media are so hamfisted about their biases, it amazes me that more people don't even recognize this.


Also, is it true that one needs to be registered as a Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries? If so, does anyone know when the deadline for registering is, or if there is a website that lists the deadlines for various voting districts? On the other hand, if I don't need to register Republican then I'd rather not. But I would be willing to if I had to, in order to vote for Dr. Paul.

I'm impressed with Ron's composure once again. Basically asked a question where he could have blown up and said something really stupid, or as I suspect called Georgy-poo a name like he set up Ron to do, he gave a good answer that shows he is really ready.

Personally, I think I would have stood up and slapped Stephanopoulos across the face.

Foxhunter,

I echo your sentiments. I guess that's why neither you or I would ever make a good candidate for dogcatcher or, well, anything else for that matter.

Also, those closing comments by Stephanopoulos were super douchebaggy. (Sorry Ruthless, having never seen any other footage of George S., I have to side with his detractors...but we're still BFF, though, right?)

|7.8.07 @ 10:48PM|#

I think a great response to Stephanopoulos' remark would have been, "My supporters bet $2.4 million on me this quarter. Do you want to match that bet?"

We should be happy that ABC and Stephanopoulos even let Dr Paul appear on their show. From the POV of Beltway denizens, he's just another fringe <5% candidate with some particularly annoying supporters. But I don't think it was anything personal...he had a similar exchange with Mike Gravel, which went something like:

GS: You've said that anyone who voted for the Iraq war is unfit for leadership. But that eliminates Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden --

MG: That's right, and it'll eliminate Obama too if he doesn't get his act together and work to stop this war now.

GS: So, if all those people are eliminated, who are you going to vote for?

MG: Well...I'm going to vote for myself.

GS: But you know you don't have a chance!

(That's from memory, some words might be wrong, but that was the gist of it.)

|7.8.07 @ 10:55PM|#

Wait, Didn't McCain raise less money than Ron "You can't win because Stephanopoulos says so" Paul?

No, he didn't. McCain has raised about $20M in the last two quarters, 9x what Dr Paul has. The difference is that McCain somehow managed to spend $18M already. But, it's not correct to say that Paul has raised more than McCain, and TBH Dave's headline the other day about Paul beating him in the "money race" was pretty suspect as well.

smacky,

Some states require you to be of the party whose primary you vote in, others don't (NYS does require this). You can call your local Board of Elections, or go to their website if they have one, to find out about registration deadlines.

|7.8.07 @ 11:11PM|#

Texas does require you to be a member of a party to participate in the primaries, which means I need to register Republican ASAP.

The Wine Commonsewer|7.8.07 @ 11:20PM|#

Ron Pauly Walnuts

THAT is really got dam funny.

M|7.8.07 @ 11:21PM|#

crimethink - thanks for the guidance, though how dismal to find it leads to "2006 Voter Registration Deadlines". Your tax dollars at work. But there's a phone number there too, so they'll be hearing from me tomorrow.

Edward|7.8.07 @ 11:22PM|#

Jesus Christ, this enthusiasm for Ron Paul is symptomatic of a bona fide political cult. Whatever the oposite of charisma is, Ron Paul has it in spades. So he can rally some loonies. Big deal. He's not going to win, and, more important, he's not going to advance the libertarian cause even a teensy-weensy bit. Nothing is. And it's a good thing, too. Libertarians actually governing and making policy instead of pontificating and dreaming pipe dreams is not something you really want. Trust me.

M|7.8.07 @ 11:25PM|#

TWC - Off topic, but Chiers!

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.8.07 @ 11:29PM|#

How often do OBGYNs come across patients with Medicare? Aren't most women done productively using their vagina et al by the time they're that age?

That's the wrong term I'm sure, simple mistake. He's probably talking about the Texas equivalent of Californicate's MEDICAID system which is funded by tax dollars, federal and state. It is a huge chunk of our tax problem and has funded the delivery of many a healthy baby as well as the termination of many pregnancies, healthy or otherwise.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.8.07 @ 11:35PM|#

M, interesting read, thanks.

There also are reports of tastings gone wild involving intoxicated visitors who have tossed back full glasses of wine..

That's not going to happen at any winery in Ca because they won't give you a full glass. Two fingers, if you're lucky. Unless, of course, the guy pouring is already in the bag or you know the chick who is filling the glasses. I've been served by both a few times and it's nice. Once with former Reason DC editor Rick Henderson in Paso, but that's a long story. :-)

Not much free tastings anymore either.

Napa's always been snooty.

Looming Dictatorship|7.8.07 @ 11:38PM|#

Hey, Edwards. Maybe you're confusing definitions. Cults are irrational. Prove to me that Dr. Paul's message of liberty in these times of rising governmental intervention in every aspect of our lives is based on anything illogical. While you do that you can also look up the philosophies of the Founders and compare and contrast their ideas with that of any of the candidates. How much do you want to bet that Ron Paul comes the closest?

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.8.07 @ 11:46PM|#

And, there has to be a NY joke there somewhere.

M|7.8.07 @ 11:46PM|#

Hey, TWC, hand me that brass spittoon.

|7.8.07 @ 11:48PM|#

Thanks for setting us straight, Edward. I'll tell my bondage partner to leave the Ron Paul '88 mask at home tonight.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.8.07 @ 11:51PM|#

Why Edward, whatever do you mean?

|7.8.07 @ 11:52PM|#

TWC,

Finger Lakes wineries are nothing to snoot at. My scheming sister, who always wants to drive, got me to indulge a little too much in the free tastings at this one winery we went to in Geneva in MY car, which I don't let anyone drive.

But the wine, it was doog. So good you spell it backwards, if you know what I mean.

|7.8.07 @ 11:54PM|#

Hey Edward - When you write 'So he can rally some loonies' I question your motive.

After listening to many Ron Paul speeches and observing and talking to people who support him I have not seen any signs of mental illness or what you refer to as 'loonie' behavior. In fact they seem to be intelligent, clear speaking and polite.

Can you give an example of one of these 'loonies'? What do they act like; what would they do?

And where do you get this Libertarian idea anyway? Ron Paul has been a republican who supports the ideas of the founding fathers and the constitution for the past 20 years or so.

I think your shooting from the hip Ed.

|7.8.07 @ 11:56PM|#

Go to bed, Edward. No milk and cookies for you.

M|7.8.07 @ 11:57PM|#

shooting from the hip Ed

Kinda like teacher ed.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 12:00AM|#

M, You know I've been having a little public spat over at TWC with the Kosmik Kid about whether the US is still running way ahead of whoever is in second place, a premise he disagrees with entirely. After reading that security camera piece, I believe I also need the brass spittoon and I may need to capitulate.

Did you forward that link to Weigel, et al?

Jack|7.9.07 @ 12:11AM|#

how do i get a Stephanopoulos filter?

M|7.9.07 @ 12:12AM|#

TWC - I presume someone at Reason reads the NYT and that a front-page article doesn't need my magisterial indication. Since my referrals tend to go unacknowledged anyway, I have no, uh, reason to believe that they're particularly welcome and so have generally come to refrain.

M|7.9.07 @ 12:12AM|#

(*sniff)

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 12:27AM|#

But the wine, it was doog....

Is that an Eastern Religion kind of thing like DOG = GOD backwards?

got me to indulge a little too much in the free tastings

There's a tough sell (for me, anyway). Scheming to get me to drink wine?

Finger Lakes area is pretty well known and produces pretty good wines. Mostly whites if I remember correctly. And my rule is that Lips That Touch White Wine Shall Never Touch Mine (except for Sandra Bullock, well, before she married that chopper guy anyway).

I cannot tell you how much that comforts my gay friends (and most women as well).

My son Jake was just eves dropping over my shoulder and asked me about Finger Lakes wine which evolved into how much wine do you drink a day dad and then I shaved points so as to not look like a fargin' incoholic. Then he counted all the bottles of wine and informed me that I at the quoted consumption rate I have enough wine on hand to last until just past New Years. Ha. Little does he know, we'll be out by The House Blond's birthday in September.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 12:32AM|#

Since my referrals tend to go unacknowledged anyway, I have no, uh, reason to believe that they're particularly welcome and so have generally come to refrain.

That's always a hazard.

If I blog the drunken orgies at NY wine tastings I will be sure to give full credit, which is something I generally try to do anyway. Give full credit that is. For stories. Not money.

|7.9.07 @ 12:35AM|#

Wow! What's this? Ron Paul is honest, principled, smart, and he's a politician!!

|7.9.07 @ 12:39AM|#

How biased of a journalist is George Stephanopoulos? He makes Weigel look objective! ;-)

M|7.9.07 @ 12:43AM|#

TWC - What's the hazard? Reason's failing to acknowledge gifts hazards discouraging their continuance and thus forfeiting their value?

My failing to proffer suggestions hazards depriving the world of good things?

Anyone's acting/refraining on the basis one's reasons without empirically verifying them hazards sins of c/omission?

So many choices!

(You don't give credit for money? Wise, says Polonius.)

|7.9.07 @ 12:45AM|#

I just gave him some money:

https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

Come on everyone. Please help advance the cause of liberty.

M|7.9.07 @ 12:47AM|#

He's getting $50 from me.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 12:57AM|#

Good friend in Ohio has been giving RP money for a decade. Interesting because Ron Pauly Walnuts is from Texas.

Decades ago (when I was a chubby head ) I used to say that the best thing out of Texas was I-40. I didn't really mean any harm, just wanted a LOL or two. People from Texas rarely laughed. These days I say the best thing out of Texas is Ron Paul (or maybe Virginia Postrel--except she's an LA Woman at heart). And there's that Michelle chick. Course I think RP is from the City of Brotherly Shove originally.

Wonder if Mr Ohio pumped IT UP for the campaign?

Apologies to everybody from the Great State of Texas---including Kenny G (not THAT Kenny G).

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 12:57AM|#

M, Choice is good.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 1:02AM|#

Guy, you funny man.

Doug|7.9.07 @ 1:03AM|#

Here's why Ron Paul has a chance:

1. Primary turnout is usually around 20%.

2. There are 11 Republican contenders, and only one of them is against the war, which 30% of Republicans are against (and more every day.) Hint -- his first first name is Ron.

3. Ron Paul supporters are enthusiastic, even fanatic in their support. Person for person, they are doing about 100 times as much on the Internet, and 10 times as much in real life, as the supporters of any other Republican candidate.

4. Simple math. If the other candidates get the typical 20% turnout, and the Ron Paul fanatics turn out at 80%, he could win an 11-man race while polling around 8% (assuming 32% would be enough to win, which it looks like). He's not there yet, but has over 6 months to get there.

Edward|7.9.07 @ 1:17AM|#

Doug,

My money's on Homer Simpson. You laugh, but his chances are as good as Ron Paul's.

Edward|7.9.07 @ 1:20AM|#

M,

So you're the fool who's easily separated from his money that everybody's always talking about. Nice to finally meet you.

Edward|7.9.07 @ 1:22AM|#

Ron Pual is a believing Christian pro-lifer who probably believes the Earth is 5,000 years old. Smart? I doubt it.

|7.9.07 @ 1:44AM|#

I think it's important to realize that Ron Paul's support is growing exponentially. There have been no recent polls that I've seen, but the alexa.com rank of Paul's caompaign page is on the up and up - ahead of ALL candidates - including Obama.

If the average person hears Ron Paul's message as I did, a "far left liberal" ie (open-minded person), It's going to be appealing to them. Rudy and Romney's campaign offer no enthusiasm. There is no doubt whose campaign is going to grow based on the activity at the grassroots and online level of Paul supporters. Paul will definitely close in, have many more chances to win more televised debates, and become one of the top 3 or 4 over the next 3 months.

If that scenario doesn't happen, I'd be shocked.

Edward|7.9.07 @ 1:49AM|#

Dave

If that scenario DID happen, you WOULD be shocked, and you WILL be. But all that really means is that you have rocks for brains. Ever thought of going into a trade, say, landscaping?

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 1:58AM|#

surprised nobody has beat me up yet for not spelling eavesdropping correctomundo.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 2:00AM|#

Edward, first of all, Dave's Not Here. Second of all, you're being a chota head.

Edward|7.9.07 @ 2:01AM|#

The Wine Commonsewer

Misspellings are the least of your failings.

Edward|7.9.07 @ 2:09AM|#

God, does this mean that we will see a spate of conspiracy theories to account for Ron Pual's failure to capture the nomination? Is this the inevitable next step for the dodo heads who are sending him money? Oy!

|7.9.07 @ 2:19AM|#

Edward,

No, Ron Paul does not believe the Earth is 5000 years old. Is it too much to ask that you not spread falsities?

Yes, he's pro-life, and yes he's Christian. As a pro-choice non-Christian, I don't have to agree with him on every issue. Which candidate is perfectly aligned with your beliefs?

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 2:22AM|#

Why Edward, whatever do you mean? Or did I say that once already?

It is of little value to rant about the idiocy and cultism of libertarians who would support Ron Pauly Walnuts. I mean, what did you expect? Raves for Obama? Osama? Yo Mama?

Cereal. The man is light years ahead of where he was as an LP candidate. Will he win? Betty Don't, but hey, get bent as they say. We like him. Even if most of us can't vote for him in the primary because we're registered LPers.

You got a better candidate? Bring him on. Maybe we'll vote for her too.

Conspiracy theories? That's way out in left field. Where TF did you come up with that? Been buying bales of straw?

|7.9.07 @ 3:43AM|#

That was a very good "earned media" moment for Rep. Paul -- important national audience, and he acquitted himself fairly well. Worth $1 million at least.

The fact that he outraised John McCain in the last quarter gives him a level of credibility that's hard for the networks to ignore. Any venue that devotes airtime to McCain, or one of the other candidates whom Paul outraised, is going to be bombarded with Paul supporters saying, "What about our guy?"

If his fundraising continues at this pace, he can keep running infinitely, whereas some other GOP candidates could be forced out. Money is the mother's milk of politics, as Jesse Unruh said, and it is therefore possible to look down the road to January and February, with only 4 or 5 active candidates for the GOP nomination, and Paul the only anti-war guy in there. At that point ... well, he could have a definite impact in New Hampshire, at the very least.

|7.9.07 @ 4:08AM|#

Paul will never be elected, if for no other reason, because of his tendency (in interviews more than on the floor) to speak in that half-whiny, lie-sounding voice that most guys use when trying to appease their woman in order to get laid.

|7.9.07 @ 4:20AM|#

Ron Paul was born in Pittsburgh, not Philly. Too bad, I wouldn't mind claiming his as my own.

|7.9.07 @ 8:23AM|#

I don't think it's an issue of whether Stephanopoulos's question was legitimate or not.

QUOTE:
That's not going to happen.
UNQUOTE

One should observe that what George S. stated wasn't a question, it was a pronouncement.

But, it does beg a question, would he state the same to John McCain? Or any other "more mainstream" candidate?

The point is that his comment lacks a certain journalistic grace and wasn't necessary.

Paul responded to it very well though.

ed|7.9.07 @ 8:51AM|#

I note with some gratification that the original "In case you neglected to switch off your TV's George Stephanopoulos filter" was changed to "In case you accidentally switched on your TV's George Stephanopoulos filter."

Turns out it wasn't a double negative in the original that tripped me up, but actually a rare triple negative, "filter" being the third, (albeit obscure) negative. Just in case anyone is still reading.

|7.9.07 @ 9:02AM|#

I think the original worked better.

Dave Prunczik|7.9.07 @ 9:03AM|#

There are a dozen ways to approach the subject of the apparent odds against a candidate's winning the Republican Nomination in a field of a dozen candidates.

Little Georgie picked the wrong one...period.

In America, NOTHING is impossible. In little Goergie's America, everything is impossible unless Rockefeller says so.

You decide.

Bosso

|7.9.07 @ 9:20AM|#

George Stephanopoulos Zero
Ron Paul One Hundred!!!!!

|7.9.07 @ 9:31AM|#

And let's be clear. The story hear is, $2.4e6=MSM. George Steggonoppolis may hate the idea of a grass roots libertarian campaign. He may want to ignore Ron Paul, but he CAN'T.

Things have never looked better. The nay-sayers will continue to say nay, even as PAUL '08 continues to gain support. This week ThisWeek, next week who knows. What's clear today, Ron Paul's star is in ascent.

M|7.9.07 @ 9:54AM|#

So you're the fool who's easily separated from his money that everybody's always talking about. Nice to finally meet you.

Edward - I have unsuccesfully tried, though admittedly not for long, to find something useful in your comment.

Let us say someone is doing something you believe foolish. Since you know little or nothing else about him, your calling him a fool tout court based on that information alone is an overgeneralization, apart from whether it is materially false, which of course I hope at least in some sense this comment of yours is. Your comment also limits its addressee to the choice between hating himself if he believes your comment to be true or rejecting your comment without further inquiry if he disbelieves it. The first option creates nothing of value (except to a misanthrope) and the second defeats your own avowed purpose. That's why ad hominem arguments are fallacies. Your comment also erects a barrier against open-mindedness to any subsequent comment you may bring to any topic, to everyone's loss.

The only purpose I can read into your insult is to make you feel better about yourself relative to the person whom you have put down. A global put-down opens only one avenue to your interlocutor, which is for him categorically to abandon his own thoughts in deference to yours on the basis of the authority you claim, and/or on the basis of his wish to gain your favor. Few individuals are sufficiently desperate for emotional approval or so ready to abandon their own views without persuasion for you to win converts that way, and additionaly you have yet to display that you have merited those coverts. Counting on so subservient a mind to respond to your advertising an opportunity for your audience to agree with your insulting that audience is an unlikley approach, and a remarkable one in a libertarian forum.

All this seems to me unfortunate, since your comment has made it more difficult for your readership to make use of anything you could subsequently contribute to, say, my education.

If you truly believe that my announced donation of $50 to Ron Paul's campaign definitively marks me a fool, then compassion rather than insult and sarcasm would be a more humane response. In that case, although I would believe your judgment to be mistaken (and certainly unfounded), I would still look forward to making progess from your other judgments in some related realm. And maybe, in that hope, I'll get lucky; after all, it wouldn't be the first time I've put money on a dark horse.

x,y|7.9.07 @ 9:57AM|#

Edward: "Ron Pual ... probably believes the Earth is 5,000 years old."

Cite? Link? Evidence?


*chirping*

Edward|7.9.07 @ 10:07AM|#

M

I know you can't help being a fool, and I feel very sorry for you. How's that?

Edward|7.9.07 @ 10:09AM|#

x,y

The word "probably" should indicate to you that I don't have any evidence. I'm just supposing. Which commandment have I broken?

|7.9.07 @ 10:15AM|#

So, Edward, exactly who should we "Ron Paul cultists" take up when we abandon the object of our devotion?

Jesse Walker|7.9.07 @ 10:16AM|#

M and x,y: Edward's purpose in life is to closely monitor this site for references to Ron Paul, then immediately post a witless insult. (He was a little slower than usual this time, presumably because the post went up on the weekend and he prefers to surf the web during working hours.) He's especially fond of suggesting that it's a waste of time to talk about Paul, even though that is, as far as I can tell, the only thing he ever does himself. It's best not to try to engage him in conversation.

M|7.9.07 @ 10:16AM|#

a) It is at 6,000 rather than 5,000 years that biblical readers, ignorant of the figurative nature of ancient literature, place the age of the earth.

b) As soon as President Paul produces the section of the Constitution indicating the implications of geological antiquity or juvenality on my political liberty, I will take an interest in his view on the subject and he on my view.

M|7.9.07 @ 10:18AM|#

Jesse, thank you.

Edward, better.

/no sarcasm in either of the above.

M|7.9.07 @ 10:25AM|#

Clarification: At 10:16am I meant some, not all, biblical readers.

|7.9.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Edward is, I think, terrified that all his wonderful social programs may someday have to ask people for money instead of taking it by force.

The "mixed-economy" flavor of socialism is losing out on the intellectual battle-field. It is also starting a terminal decline in the practical world as every attempt at it slides into permanent economic crisis. Those of us advocating total freedom are, I think, about where homosexuals were in the mid 60's when they began to work toward decriminalizing their sex lives.*

That is why he is figuratively peeing in his pants like that guy who failed the Massachusetts Bar exam because it had questions that "promoted the gay agenda". On one level he knows he is wrong, but he is not prepared to accept it. Whether Ron Paul is elected or not, change is coming. Either the U.S. government will bankrupt itself and collapse like the Roman Empire, or it will loosen its tight grip on its subjects and allow the a wider degree of freedom. Neither case is palatable, so he rails against the most visible prophets of the change.

In other words, he is freaking outlike a fundamentalist Christian confronting the horrors of gay-marriage. He really deserves our pity more than anything else.

*This is of course not fully correct. The police do not try to entrap young men into reading Rothbard and arrest them. Gays faced a state that was dedicated to destroying them as individuals, something guys like me do not face. So long as I produce and pay my protection money, the state leaves me alone. Thus, I am far better off than those poor souls targetted by vice squads across the land.

Daniel|7.9.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Edward = Eric Dondero ?

|7.9.07 @ 10:30AM|#

Jesse Walker

It's best not to try to engage him in conversation.

I have made that my usual policy too.

Sometimes, though, my curiosity gets the better of me and I wonder if "Edward" is actually for something or just against those silly libertarians.

So I ask. Never get an answer. Hmmmm.

|7.9.07 @ 10:36AM|#

Edward: "Ron Pual ... probably believes the Earth is 5,000 years old."

He wasn't one of the ones who raised their hands in the debate when asked who didn't believe in evolution.

|7.9.07 @ 10:54AM|#

I always assumed that news reporters reported the news (past events of significance). I assumed that news commentators commented on the news (past events of significance). But, it seems that George can actually fortell the "news"--future events. So, I have spent my morning e-mailing him, asking him hundreds of "news" questions, e.g. "Who will be the next president?" "When will the war end?" etc. I encourage anyone with a question about the future to e-mail ABC news.

|7.9.07 @ 10:57AM|#

Paul will never be elected, if for no other reason, because of his tendency (in interviews more than on the floor) to speak in that half-whiny, lie-sounding voice that most guys use when trying to appease their woman in order to get laid.


That's not true. I think he has a really honest, pleasant-sounding voice. Any whine you hear is probably just part of his Texas accent.

Of course, I'm female, so take that for what it's worth. I mean, I'd vote for him, but I wouldn't do him...

...but then again, he sounds so sincere...

|7.9.07 @ 10:58AM|#

"most of us can't vote for him in the primary because we're registered LPers."

Can you change your registration to Republican for next year and go back to registering Libertarian later?

|7.9.07 @ 11:09AM|#

Smacky - I know what you mean. Like just look at Hillary's hips and legs - and that voice of hers - entitled or what!! And her pandering to those with their hands out for govt support. I wouldn't do her or vote for her.

But Ron, being an OB, has probably seen more vulvas than any 10 men, so he probably wouldn't do you either. Go Ron.

So, glad your voting for him, but don't expect the man to drop by - or, like Clinton, send a state trooper over to invite you to meat the man.

|7.9.07 @ 11:12AM|#

"I say the best thing out of Texas is Ron Paul (or maybe Virginia Postrel--"

I agree with Ron Paul being the best thing out of Texas, but not Virginia Postrel. I got turned off her when she supported Desert Storm.

M|7.9.07 @ 11:30AM|#

Can you change your registration to Republican for next year and go back to registering Libertarian later?

Check with your State's Board of Elections, whose phone number will be on its website. You may have to skip one General Election (Primary) when you switch parties, though not if you've been "Inactive".

|7.9.07 @ 11:36AM|#

"Libertarians actually governing and making policy instead of pontificating and dreaming pipe dreams is not something you really want. Trust me."

They couldn't be worse than what we have now with the statist Democrats and Repulicans.

|7.9.07 @ 11:38AM|#

Win,

My comment was made as a joke. Apparently, that went over your head, but thanks for pointing out the obvious, regardless. I guess I can go roll up my Ron Paul welcome mat now and put away the fancy flannel bedsheets now that you've set me straight.

|7.9.07 @ 11:41AM|#

"Check with your State's Board of Elections, whose phone number will be on its website. You may have to skip one General Election (Primary) when you switch parties, though not if you've been "Inactive"."

I was actually asking this question of the person who said they could not vote for Ron Paul because they were registered Libertarian. I live in a state where I don't have to register in a party and can choose to vote in whichever primary I choose.

|7.9.07 @ 11:48AM|#

"Texas does require you to be a member of a party to participate in the primaries, which means I need to register Republican ASAP."

Wrong! You don't register by party in Texas. You can vote in whichever party you choose. I should know since I've been voting in Texas since 1972.

|7.9.07 @ 11:50AM|#

smacky - I was joking too. Obviously I will not be trying stand up comedy any time soon.:)

|7.9.07 @ 11:53AM|#

Edward = Eric Dondero ?

Holy Shit!!!

ED = Eric Dondero!

Man, I always hated math, and now I do even more.

As for Jesse's statement about Edward's role here being the anti-Paul troll, I think it's about time we all 'fessed up to our roles here. For the record, I'm the guy who makes sarcastic remarks without contributing much substance to the conversation. It reflects my real life persona 100%

|7.9.07 @ 12:01PM|#

Win,

Ok. I suspected you might have been, but since I wasn't sure I felt obliged to make a snappy rejoinder. I'm awful at interpreting ambiguity on the internet. :P

the real guy who makes sarcas|7.9.07 @ 12:01PM|#

Impersonator!

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 12:02PM|#

I was actually asking this question of the person who said they could not vote for Ron Paul because they were registered Libertarian

That was me, btw.

Californicate (where I reside) has an open primary system where us LPers can vote for RP.

I was referring, in aggregate, to all of "us" who can't vote for RP in the primary due to LP registration. You only get one vote so make it fargin' count.

I'm pretty sure this will be my first vote for a Republican presidential candidate.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 12:08PM|#

....but I wouldn't do him...

Classic age-ism, IMO. You can't get away with that by using that old throw away line but he sounds so sincere.

You'll be hearing from THEM. I heard first offense is a week end of community service picking up roadside trash in Seizure World.

|7.9.07 @ 12:15PM|#

I've been googling but can't find a list of which state primaries are open and closed. I'm sure I just found it a week or so ago.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 12:21PM|#

Rattlesnake Jake, you might be related to my son Jake the Snake. I don't want to contemplate that any further.

Sorry about your take on Virginia. I'd vote for her in a heart beat if she was running for anything.

IMO, RP isn't right about everything either. For example, his blurb about Viet Nam in the video ignores that Viet Nam degenerated into abject chaos for two decades after we left. The normalization of their culture and it's ties to the US is recent history.

I know people who were in Refugee camps who were shot at with machine guns every day by the Vietnamese gunboats. They found decapitated baby's heads in the coconut trees they climbed that were put there to intimidate them. The place was insane and to gloss over that with the implication that we can bail out of Iraq with no consequences is just plain wrong. Worse, to cite Viet Nam today and say see how well they're doing? Well Iraq will be just like that as soon as we leave is worse than disingenuous.

BTW, I am not suggesting that we stay. I am suggesting that a refusal to acknowledge that there will be problems when we leave and to pretend that Viet Nam was just a peach of a country once we left is just plain delusional (or a coldly calculated overstatement to support bailing out of Iraq).

But RP is still the man and he's got my vote. Because I agree with most of his philosophy and nobody else except the LP guy can even come close.

|7.9.07 @ 12:30PM|#

TWC,

Watch the clip again. I don't think Ron is saying any of what you accuse him of. He specifically avoids saying that there won't be problems with Iraq. What he does say, is that our military occupation isn't helping Iraq, and more importantly, is detrimental to the American people. He doesn't say Viet Nam is just peachy, he says our relations with them have improved from when we were dropping bombs on them.

|7.9.07 @ 12:53PM|#

for Warren:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-DSVE.phtml

|7.9.07 @ 3:12PM|#

Since stepho sat smugly and made that statement that he wont win.. willing to bet his last dollar on it.. and he is involved with CFR. Its reminds me of when Dubya said he knew he would win Florida before the 2000 elelction.

Scary times.

|7.9.07 @ 3:20PM|#

TWC,

Where in Texas does Virginia Postrel live and is she active in Libertarian politics?

|7.9.07 @ 4:36PM|#

"""how do i get a Stephanopoulos filter?"""

I liked him better on Sesame Street as Big Bird's friend

|7.9.07 @ 5:41PM|#

"Vietnam much better than was predicted"...

Dude, I like Paul, but if he's serious about at least 200,000 Vietnamese killed/interned in re-education camps being better than what people were predicting then I don't know what to say...

Oh, wait, he must be talking about the Domino Theory...some truth there (Thailand still is free as can be), but considering how Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam were turned into authoritarian shit-holes I really don't think it turned out so swell...

M|7.9.07 @ 6:03PM|#

Hot off the press.

|7.9.07 @ 7:23PM|#

Dude, I like Paul, but if he's serious about at least 200,000 Vietnamese killed/interned in re-education camps being better than what people were predicting then I don't know what to say...

The Vietnam hawks predicted a disaster _for_the_U.S._ Didn't happen. At all. Leaving Vietnam was an unambiguous good for the U.S. - for Vietnam, you can argue it either way.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.9.07 @ 7:56PM|#

RJ, Virginia lives in Dallas. She writes a column for Atlantic Monthly. She also does her blog at Dynamist.com as well as some writing for D Magazine, Forbes, and other here and there stuff.

|7.9.07 @ 9:17PM|#

smacky,
I just want you to know that, just as Sanford often proclaimed to his passed on wife--what was her name? : I'm coming home!
I've been wasting my time with local sites. Trying to stir up stuff and get something going, but there is simply no "talent" in Sinincincinnati... at least website-wise.
Henceforth I'm casting a wider net, namely staying here.
(I still love you and crave you.)
You're pretty cute too Commonsewer.

|7.9.07 @ 11:01PM|#

smacky,

About Dr Paul's voice, I'm not sure. In the clips from his 1988 campaign, he seems to have a much deeper voice.

Edward|7.9.07 @ 11:52PM|#

So, Edward, exactly who should we "Ron Paul cultists" take up when we abandon the object of our devotion?

Don't worry, Isaac, you'll find another object. Cultists always do. You also have a wonderful ability to suppress the memory of past disapointments. The bright future is always there for you to aspire to. Ignorance is bliss, but a cultist's ignorance is positively euphoric.

|7.10.07 @ 10:00AM|#

Yes, but, oh so wise Edward, what do we have to do to stop being cultists?

Some of us may have recognised the error of our ways.

So what political figure is not the object of a cult following?

Who can we follow so that we will not be cultists?

|7.10.07 @ 3:58PM|#

Whew! Check this out!

National Media's Criminal Conspiracy
against Ron Paul



By Norman Chenoweth


The conduct of the national media and their criminal conspiracy against (Libertarian) Republican Texas congressman Dr. Ron Paul is utterly amazing. For the first time in over one hundred years we have a true "patriot", running for the office of President and the media is totally ignoring him like he has the plague. It is obvious that those who control our national media also seek a central world government. Also included in this conspiracy are the elite private International Bankers that own the Federal Reserve, who plotted years ago to gain control over the media. They have been very successful with that endeavor.


Let's look at the facts.


1. Ron Paul stated in the first debate that he would get rid of the IRS.

That statement alone should have made him the talk of the nation; no other candidate has stated that. Surely this is newsworthy, but not a word about it from our controlled national media.

2. In the second debate Ron Paul stated he would get rid of the inflation tax. A 1913-dollar now being worth only four cents. That statement implies he would get rid of the Federal Reserve.

No one has had the courage to do this since 1836 when Andrew Jackson threw out the bankers, calling them exactly what they are, "You are a den of vipers and thieves." This sure seems newsworthy but still no follow-up from our controlled national media.

3. Ron Paul wants to get back on a Gold standard and actually have money that is worth something other than worthless paper.

This country became the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth when it was on a gold standard. Again this seems newsworthy but not a word from our controlled national media.

4. Ron Paul wants to return to Constitutional government.

In view of the many unconstitutional laws passed by congress in the last ninety plus years it seems this would be newsworthy but still not a word from our controlled national media.

5. Ron Paul wants to get special interests out of government.

That's a novel idea, but then the media is one of those special interests, so we know they don't want any part of that.

6. Ron Paul not only wants to bring our troops home from Iraq, he also wants to bring them home from all over the world.

Since no other candidate has ever mentioned this, it sure seems it should be newsworthy, but still nothing from our national media.

7. Ron Paul wants to STOP the North American Union.

The national media don't want to talk about the NAU, at all, period.

8. Ron Paul, told a New Hampshire audience this, about the new highway: "They already have a plan for a highway running from Mexico up to Canada, a 12-lane highway with trains running in the middle. It's going to be an international highway. And there's been some secret funding already into our budgets to start this program moving. There's going to be eminent domain powers used to confiscate tens of thousands of acres to build this."

The national media don't want to talk about this highway either; it may interfere with their Imperial one-world government controllers.

9. Ron Paul wants to get out of the horrible trade deal, NAFTA.

There should be a little news coverage on that idea but still nothing from our controlled national media.

10. Ron Paul wants to get out of CAFTA, another bad trade deal.

This also is not newsworthy to our controlled national media.

11. Ron Paul wants to get out of the corrupt GATT and World Trade Organization.

Surely this is newsworthy, but not to our controlled national media.

12. Ron Paul wants to get out of the United Nations.

Just another novel idea, the controlled media don't want to discuss.

13. Ron Paul doesn't believe in amnesty for illegals. He also wants to remove the birthright citizenship for illegals children born here.

Every illegal that has a child here, that child is eligible for Social Security for eighteen years, there are those that don't apply but many do. No wonder Social Security is in trouble. You guessed it, still nothing from our controlled national media.

14. Ron Paul said, "We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants."

That seems to be a sensible idea but still not newsworthy for our controlled national media.

15. Ron Paul wants nothing to do with one-world government.

Of course, that is not a position our controlled media can support.

16. Ron Paul wants to really secure our borders.

You would think that with all of the controversy about this, that it would be newsworthy but as you can see, nothing about Ron Paul is newsworthy to our controlled national media!

When Ron Paul finally gets on a national news program, 90% of the time they do everything in the world to discredit him in any way they can including telling lies. Obviously they have been unable to dig up any dirt on Dr. Paul or they wouldn't have to lie about him. It's hard to find a poll that Ron Paul isn't among the top three or four Republican candidates, yet I just heard a newscaster on CNN state that Ron was at 1% in the polls. What kind of garbage is that? A bold faced lie is what that is.


More Facts about Ron Paul


: He has never voted to raise taxes.
: He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
: He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
: He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
: He has never taken a government-paid junket.
: He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
: He has never voted for an unconstitutional bill.

: He voted against the Patriot Act.
: He voted against regulating the Internet.
: He voted against the Iraq war.
: He voted against the National ID

: He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
(I wonder how many other congressmen can say that, if any?)

: He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

If all of this doesn't add up to a criminal conspiracy, I don't know what does. Who wouldn't want a candidate like Ron Paul for president? With an outstanding record like his the media should have been all over him, asking how he intends to accomplish these goals. However as you can see, he is virtually ignored by the criminal conspiracy of our controlled national media.

The really sad part of this conspiracy is that it is extended to the Republican Party itself. The Neocons in the Republican Party are doing everything they can think of to sabotage Ron Paul's efforts to restore this country to the Republic it was intended to be. Let's hope that the Internet has the power to overcome these Traitors and get Ron Paul elected. When you consider that the Mainstream Republican Party figures supported the Democrat, Greg Laughlin that ran against Ron Paul in the 14th congressional district of Texas in 1996, it's not hard to see that even the Neocon branch of the Republican Party want nothing to do with Ron Paul. That leaves it up to We The People to see that Ron Paul gets a fair deal in this campaign.

I consider this our last chance to save our Republic without an armed revolution.

|7.11.07 @ 12:08PM|#

Mark Bahner,

You are totally correct. I am voting for Ron Paul, will be joining his campaign soon, and think that NO MATTER WHAT I want him to get the word out that We the People are fed up. Your idea to challenge the other 'candidates' to withdraw from this illegal war is a fabulous idea.

|7.12.07 @ 7:18PM|#

George Stephanopoulos is a CFR member and a neo-socialist scumbag. His ideal world is Hillary as the queen of the NWO and him as her faithful boy servant. He's the type of kid that told on the entire class just to get closer to the teacher. He's an elitist who hates America's freedom.

|7.17.07 @ 1:58PM|#

Someone tell Stephanopoulos Vegas gives him 15-1 = )

|7.18.07 @ 7:10PM|#

The terrible lashings we the people have taken, and aspichallly the Christians, from our Government in the last forty plus years has been to say the least disgusting. We had no
one that we could trust, no one to stand up for what WE THE PEOPLE wanted. At last,
for the first time in my life, and that's 59 years, I am so thankful to say, it is an honor to support Congressman Ron Paul, This Man is going to go down in history as the greatest
President since George Washington.