Campaigns/Elections

Revving Up for the Ron Paul Run

|

American Conservative has in its June issue an interesting survey of why Ron Paul should be a serious GOP's choice and hitting on some of what author Paul Mulshine sees as the mistakes and amateurism of the 2008 run.

He quotes Paul political director Jesse Benton saying that a key for 2012 is trying to get more big money farther in advance of the New Hampshire primary. Mulshine hits on some of the reasons things should look better for Paul:

If Ron…were to run, he'd have a ready audience in all of those tea-party people whose movement got its start with [Paul's Dec. 16, 2007] money bomb. The tea-party types actually like listening to lectures about fiscal responsibility. Early in the 2008 campaign, Paul seemed to bore even his base with all that talk about the Federal Reserve. It sounded esoteric.

Once the financial bubble burst, though, monetary policy was a hot topic among conservatives. Throw in trillion-dollar deficits and the Fed's policy of "quantitative easing" in the years since, and suddenly every candidate's sounding like that guy who was denouncing the Fed in Philly four years ago.

And consider this quote on foreign policy: "We shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don't end."

Did Haley Barbour say that just the other day? Probably. But Ron said it first, in that Fox News debate four years ago when the Republicans were ready to run him out of town on a rail. That same rail will be a crowded one this year. And I for one can't wait to see who is on it.

That same issue has a more depressing, for Ron Paul's chances, feature by Michael Brendon Dougherty, "Crossing the Tea," not yet online. In it, Dougherty makes a good case with both survey data and reporting that the Tea Party is not so much a new wave of populist activist small-government folk who might be in line with Paul's radical constitutionalism, but really just another name the media is giving to ye olde Religious Right. Dougherty argues that the Tea Party as an electoral force will prove to be as pro-intervention and pro-government intervention on behalf of values as traditional Republican voters. He concludes, "Christian conservatives haven't abandoned their social issues–they've enfolded foreign and fiscal policy into their ongoing culture war." If true, that will be bad news for Paul.

I interviewed Paul last week after he announced his 2012 exploratory campaign for president.

NEXT: Blogging from Beyond the Grave

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OK, Edward, bring the spittle!

  2. Paul was on the Diane Rehm show the other day and I thought he was terrible. He made a lot of principled stands (decrying his party’s militarism and stating we could defend our nation with 3/4 of the current defense budget). But he was asked about people in Alabama hit by the tornado and he essentially said “hey, people shouldn’t live there.” He then decried the FDA at length. That kind of thing is simply not going to sell.

    1. I did not see that. Did he go on to further explain what he meant? If not, I understand what you mean. But sometimes “shock” can be a good way to get people to pay attention to what you are going to say next.

      1. Well, he basically said if someone lives in tornado alley they should have to deal with the consequences, that it would be wrong to steal money from someone in NYC to help a guy in Alabama out.

        I understand that kind of thing, but no way that sells to anything more than 5% of the US public.

        1. Then fucking give them your money, you amoral sack of shit.

        2. If people didn’t live in tornado alley, how would we meet our annual quota of disaster porn?

        3. He should have meantioned insurance or something like that.

          But I do understand what he means.

          1. Listen to the interview – he does talk about private insurance as the solution.

        4. I get what MNG is stating here. He could have said something more along the lines of “Look, this is a local disaster, and the local authorities are best equipped to deal with it. That used to be the way we handled such things, and it didn’t require giant federal programs which, by the way create the following perverse incentives…”

          Saying, “Guess they shouldn’t have lived there” is not the way to get people to engage. (Nor is screaming “fucking give them your money blah blah blah.)

        5. What he said was completely in line with the beliefs he’s been preaching for 30 years… the man actually voted against (unconstitutional) federal emergency relief for his own district when it got hit by a hurricane a few years back.
          Saying what he means and doing what he says… no wonder he doesn’t have a chance in 2012. He’s just too good for today’s amerika.

          1. If by too good you mean lacking the simplest understanding of why government exists in the first place.

            What place is immune from natural disasters? Paul is essentially saying that the most morally correct way of life is the riskiest one possible. Duh, people made governments to mitigate the risks of living in nature.

            1. You’re right… with government around no place is immune to disasters.

  3. He concludes, “Christian conservatives haven’t abandoned their social issues–they’ve enfolded foreign and fiscal policy into their ongoing culture war.”

    Its always been my fear that the Tea Party would get coopted by the social conservatives. Still, perhaps, a little too early to say for sure . . . .

    1. SoCons = Tea Party.

      Show me an elected pro-choice, pro ESCR TPer. The Tea Party will be irrelevant after the 2012 election after the Paul Ryan faction threatens their Medicare.

      1. Gee, shrike, I was part of the Tea Party “accountability team” that sat with our congressman and told him flat out that we didn’t care if our medicare was decreased because it was more important that our children and grandchildren live in a solvent and fiscally responsible country.

        1. Dave Weigel at Slate posted a poll that said that 70% of Tea Party activists were opposed to any Medicare cuts.

          1. imagine the white hair fatties being opposed to medicare cuts? gosh

            1. Imagine a leftist being opposed to any cuts? gosh

  4. I am definitately going to register as a Republican this year. If Gary Johnson is on the ballot I *might* vote for him simply because he might be more electable in the general election if he gets the nod. But I have not yet decided. I have great respect for Ron Paul – I respect them both actually.

    1. I think Johnson is in theory more electable in a general election, but he lacks Paul’s enthusiastic base. I’m afraid he (Johnson) won’t even get off the ground.

      1. In theory he could co-opt Paul’s base if Paul drops out after a poor Iowa showing and then came out in support of Johnson for New Hampshire.

        1. lol
          Johnson doesn’t stand a chance in the GOP
          caucuses/Primary.Paul does.

          1. Like I said, if Paul were to drop out, Johnson stands a chance because he’ll look more “electable” with support of Paul’s base. If Paul stays in past New Hampshire, neither Johnson nor Paul stand a chance.

            1. If Johnson has a “base” they’ll go for Obama in the general election.

              1. Huh? They’ll vote for the complete opposite? You made more sense when you argued that he had no base. True liberals hate Johnson and anybody trying to wreck the GOP would do better voting for Paul.

                1. I’m thinking of the “Obamatarians” of 2008.

      2. JOhnson does not (yet) have great name recognition. A higher percentage of people at least know who Ron Paul is. With a proper advertising budget that could change however. Or if he does VERY well in the debates.

        1. He should pick a fight with an establishment candidate with high negatives in the debate.

          1. I wonder how many people are going to remind Romney about Romneycare. I think he’s out of the competition even before the voting starts. Johnson will also have Huckabee and Gingrich to play off against, one is a tax and spend republican, the other the biggest hypocrite known to man.

          2. Donald Trump or Huckabee? Huckabees greatest base is among the social conservatives – these people probably would never even consider voting for Paul or JOhnson. Pick a fight with him on something like gay rights.

            1. Huckabee isn’t even running.

              1. He’ll run, he likes the sound of his own voice on stage too much not to.

              2. you’ll be surprised, social conservatives are voting for Ron Paul this time around. In fact my whole church is pro Ron Paul and a few for the Constitution party.

                1. George,

                  As I point out down below, not all Christians have the exact same set of beliefs. Some Christians are perfectly content to live their own life according to their values but have no desire to use the power of the state to enforce those beliefs on others. That is the kind of Christian I have a great deal of respect for. I would not be surprised if many of them vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

                2. To the extent primary voters are even ideologic, I could see a lot of so-cons voting for Ron Paul just based on the idea that anybody who’s that strong on “limited gov’t” just has to be good on their other issues.

                  Voters go for symbol, not deep analysis. Hence “individidual” as code language for “racist”.

        2. Or if he does VERY well in the debates.

          Does anyone have a copy of the retracted H&R post on Johnson’s disastrous political/public speaking skills? The intern is probably gone now, maybe he saved it.

          1. I’ve heard this critism a few times before. Since Johnson announced his candidacy I have gone and listened to a few of his interviews and speeches. While no one will say his public speaking skills rise to the level of Bill Clinton, I didn’t think his public speaking was that bad.

  5. “If true, that will be bad news for Paul.”

    I’m not so sure. As was pointed out to me on H&R recently Paul seems down with pretty anti-liberty social conservative policy as long as states are setting the policy. And where he breaks from many libertarians on things like abortion and immigration he breaks in the social conservative way.

    1. Abortion is actually an issue I am somewhat conflicted on myself. To me, it comes down to two issues:

      1. When does human life begin

      and

      2. If we assume that this entity is human life where do the rights of the one person interfere with the rights of another? Would you shoot a tresspasser who wanders accidentally onto your property and has no idea how he got there?

      1. Its truly an interesting question. I think it is like animal welfare in some ways. If animals and fetuses have moral worth then they have to be worked into the libertarian non-agression principle in some way. I think libertarians would have to agree to disagree on that issue, unless you take the position a friend of mine does that wherever a serious moral question has significant disagreement about it the state should stay out of it.

        1. While I disagree with animal welfare for the most part I might be willing to make an exception for some of the more (apparently) self-aware animals like whales or some of the more intelligent apes. Where property lines cross over one another is a very interesting question. In any case, I don’t want the government making this decision.

        2. “Why can’t we eat the profoundly retarded?”

        3. life begins at conception. In fact I believe the Koreans have it right, when they are born they are age 1. Ron Paul has always said you can’t have liberty if you don’t don’t protect life. He has delivered 4,000 babies and has always protected life.

          1. how can they be one, gestation is 9 months. Unless life begins 3 months before conception. So don’t screw up and pull out or something if you’ve thought about having a child.

            1. I am not sure how or when they determined that, I just know that is how Koreans do it. Most of my Korean friends love coming here to the U.S because they are a year younger.

      2. The problem is that question 1 is not the right question.
        Human life began once, many thousands of years ago.
        The right question is one does life individuate — when do we have a new individual?
        Clearly, that is not at conception. Nor is it likely to within the first trimester.

        As to question 2, a better point to raise might be ‘who has standing to object’. It is entirely not clear to me who has standing to object if a fetus is aborted by the voluntary act of individuals.

        No hugs for thugs,
        Shirley Knott

        1. “Clearly, that is not at conception.”

          Depends upon the standard one uses. If you use a purely DNA standard it does.

          “if a fetus is aborted by the voluntary act of individuals.”

          One tricky part of this is the word “voluntary”. On the part of the adult woman it is voluntary. On the part of the [insert prefered term for the other entity] it is not. Can this otehr entity physically object? Perhaps not. For very young children the parent is given a great deal of power to act as guardian for the child’s afairs – but even that has its limits.

        2. I disagree. The only scientific definition of a ‘human individual’ is a genetically distinct instantiation of the species homo sapiens, which absolutely does hold at the moment of conception. Any other definition of a human will necessarily draw upon a non-empirical, religious or philosophical notion of ‘personhood’.

          1. im a fna of “no water in lungs” approach.

            Interesting fact: The placenta is the only organ a human is not born with. it is also the only organ a human automatically removes. It is also 1/2 foreign organsim to the person within which it resides. weird.

            And, serious question, if being genetically unique is the criteria then how is the fetus different than the placenta?

            1. fna = fan…I claim temporary dementia due to overzelous patriotism.

            2. The same way we distinguish a baby bottle from an infant. Neither the baby bottle nor the placenta has the potential to become a sentient entity.

            3. The placenta is an organ designed to be removed. Your question is like asking why appendixes can be removed but humans can’t be murdered.

              1. y’all need to read my comment again…if the only criteria, as per the comment above, is DNA then placenta = fetus…add to that skin cells, etc.

                1. “y’all need to read my comment again…if the only criteria, as per the comment above, is DNA then placenta = fetus…add to that skin cells, etc.”

                  In that case Law Student’s response is perfect. Why why can appendixes be removed?

                  1. PIRS now you get it. I didnt make the distinction, merely pointed it out.
                    see

                    The only scientific definition of a ‘human individual’ is a genetically distinct instantiation of the species homo sapiens

          2. An ovum sometimes splits and becomes identical twins. Two ovums sometimes merge and become a “chimera”.

            Conclusion: Biology is messy, and is almost never to be looked to for hard & fast easy answers. That is the domain of religion.

            I’m all about defining the beginning of human life the same way we define the end of it: measurable brain activity. Done.

            1. And yes, I’m aware that I just gave you a hard & fast easy answer right after saying that science doesn’t offer one, but I’m deliberately selecting an arbitrary line just like everybody else. The difference is that my arbitrary line is consistent with where we have already agreed to draw it elsewhere.

      3. Now see, to me there’s a much more fundamental question: What sorts of living things mind being killed?

        1. Of course there’s an even more important question to this and most other policy and personal matters: What is the experience of non-living like? Unfortunately it seems to be extremely hard to get a reliable answer to that one, but you gotta admit that if the answer were well known, it would have the most profound effects on human behavior & opinion!

  6. Paul is good at making bad candidates look “awful” while at the same time not making himself “likeable”, but look how badly Guliani performed after he attacked Paul after everyone thought he was a “serious” candidate. McCain made sure he didn’t make that mistake. Paul would do a whole lotta good if Romney lost his temper with him while Mitch Daniels came to his defense of some of his principles.

    1. I don’t know how anyone thought Guliani with his pro-choice and anti-gun stances in the past was going to do well in a GOP primary. Conservatives like gitmo and waterboarding but not that much.

      1. because he was “tough on crime” and looked moderate enough to “fool” the independents. He softened his “anti-gun” stance and his “pro-choice” stance never really got much play. But after his Paul explosion, his “likeability” was shot.

    2. You don’t seriously think Rudy fell apart because of the confrontation with RP, do you?

      And McCain did “make that mistake”…the only major candidate who didn’t get into a back-and-forth with RP was Romney.

      1. The difference is that Rudy sought out a fight with Ron Paul, because he seriously believed that mocking Dr. No’s stance on the war would score him points with the “national greatness” conservatives without hurting him much elsewhere. He underestimated how ill-informed Paul can make somebody look if they don’t do their homework.

        McCain, on the other hand, was sand-bagged by Paul when the candidates were offered a chance to ask any other candidate one direct question. Paul asked McCain a question about bringing transparency to the “Plunge Protection Team”, but since he used the formal name “The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets”, it was clear by the way McCain’s eyes glazed over that he had absolutely no idea what Paul was talking about.

        McCain deftly realized that most people watching the debate probably had no idea either, so he faked his way through a Miss America Pageant noncommittal answer, and got the hell out of there.

        1. Intellectually, both McCain and Guiliani can’t carry Ron Paul’s jockstrap.

        2. That’s not the incident I was referring to, as you would have seen had you clicked on the link. I was referring to McCain’s accusation that Ron Paul was an isolationist who would have let Hitler take over Europe, etc. That was initiated by McCain, just as Huckabee’s exchange about “honor” was initiated by Huck. The other candidates saw RP as little more than a pinata.

  7. “Religious Right Christian Conservatives” send Ron Paul back to Congress every two years.

    1. SIV is right on this one. I know many social conservatives who love the man.

      1. Question for both SIV and MNG : There are Christians and there are Christians. Not all evangelical Christians have the same beliefs. Some Quakers and Mennonites view themselves as “Evangelical Christian”. What denomination is most prevalant in Paul’s district? It might be one that is socially liberal and / or antiwar. Just wondering ….

        1. I’d guess he gets the Pentecostal vote.

  8. This is true, though I’m not at all confident his amazing retail political skills in dealing with his constituents as their incumbent congressman will translate to a national primary audience in a presidential run. But I hope so.

  9. His immigration stance isn’t even that conservative. I’m assuming you guys missed the recent articles talking about his supposed “180” on the issue.

    Which it wasn’t. He’s never been in favor of deportation, or militarizing the border. He believes in removing federal welfare for illegals (and for everyone), and not granting amnesty-citizenship. He’s hardly “right-wing” on this issue

  10. The state needs to MYOB on abortion, and Paul is pro-life. Fuck him

    1. You’d have to pay the sperm bank before you could have an abortion Rectal.

        1. stop using my name

    2. you never tell the government to MYOB on anything else. I can’t take your outrage seriously when you want to dick around in eveyones business on ever other issue.

      1. you never tell the government to MYOB on anything else
        Really hashtag?
        Name one thing, other than healtcare.

        1. Name one thing, other than healtcare the single largest segment of the US economy.

          It’s like saying, “I’m completely off drugs, except for spending Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays coked to the gills.”

          1. the single largest segment of the US economy

            Yes it is, and Obama is the first to try to change that fact

            1. By making the government the largest segment of the US economy?

              1. The republicans failed to act. Libertarians don’t have a realistic proposal and Obama’s lacks perfection.

                Inaction is not the lesser of two evils

  11. I know many social conservatives who love the man.

    His appeal to them is negative. Ratbaggy social-cons are legally reactionary. (The Hillary/Lieberman/Gore wing of social-connery is the successfully activist one.)

    Paul doesn’t pander to them legislatively, but he isn’t trying to generate law whose only apparent function is to hurt or ostracize them. It’s a winning play old-timey libertarians used to make, before not being mistaken for conservatives became libertarianism’s crippling neurosis.

    1. ^______________________^

  12. You know, I love what RP has done for the “movement”, and this is STRICTLY my opinion, but anytime I see him talk, I think that if someone wasn’t pretty much already on board with him, they’d just see a dodering, lecturing old man. I hate to say that, because I think he’s been great for getting libertarian ideas out into the mainstream, but it’s a fact that his age would come up as a major consideration.

    Johnson seems more…I don’t know, maybe fresh is the word? Not cranky, certainly not too old, doesn’t lecture. Again, this is all simply my personal opinion, but I see Johnson, despite his (current) lack of recognition, as having a much better chance in a general election against BO. I mean, the contrast between BO and RP couldn’t be more stark, and the electorate (generally, though not always) seems to prefer the candidate who seems to have more vigor (think how people reacted to seeing Nixon on tv v. Kennedy, or how Bob Dole was constantly being made fun of; Reagan, despite his age, was always a great public communicator, which I don’t see RP as being).

    1. Johnson would make an excellent LP candidate.Might crack the 1% threshold.

      1. Not if I was counting the votes.

  13. RP’s candidacy will end the same way it always does: The talking heads will bring newsletters, racism, and the Civil Rights Act, Paul will commit the cardinal sin of attempting to defend his position on principle, and that’ll be the ball game.

  14. There’s a money bomb planned for the day of the debate, May 5th. Let’s see how he does…. debateday dot com

  15. There’s having principles and then there’s knowing how and when to pick your battles. If you spend time and energy arguing against the Civil War or the Civil Rights act, you’re coming across as a weirdo to the majority of the country and it looks like you’re only appealing to hardcore racists, regardless of your own personal beliefs. This is what happened to Goldwater, who ended up winning only 6 states in the presidential election.

    On gun control, Ron Paul has always said it’s a state issue, not a federal issue, and personally is a strong supporter of gun rights. But he doesn’t waste any energy speaking or writing about cities or states that restrict gun ownership in some form. He doesn’t come out and say, “I don’t agree with it, but I fully support the right of California to be as restrictive as it wants. It’s more important that the state have that power rather than get the Federal government involved.” If he did say these things on a regular basis throughout the years, he’d be painted as an anti-gun candidate.

    1. This was supposed to be a reply to Anonymous Coward two posts above.

    2. Isn’t “states rights” just an irrelevant throwback to the 19th century? What does transferring responsibilities from the federal to state governments have to do with individual freedom? I know that in my daily life the threat of an overbearing government comes almost always from the more local ones. I barely even notice the federal government in my daily life, and could go on through life in the same manner assuming I don’t commit a federal crime.

      1. Tony, I am an ancap so I oppose government entirely. I will also agree that the rights of the INDIVIDUAL trump the rights of a state, city, county etc.

        That said, there is something to be said for devolving power. The smaller a particular geographical unit is the more easilly one can escape laws one does not wish to live under. If a small city bans the sale or pornography one can, realativly easilly drive to the next city. If the entire COUNTRY does so that is much more difficult.

        1. I think governments should do what makes sense for their jurisdiction, but of course the feds should be able to set certain minimum standards (like no Jim Crow type laws). Having laboratories of democracy implies that eventually we figure out what’s good and what’s bad policy.

          And I think mobility is largely more difficult than you make it out. My only point is that having more power locally doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with individual liberty. The feds are the overwhelming bogeyman of libertarians, but do they ever stop and think about how little it actually does directly in their lives? States rights is code for “Southern states should be able to have free labor” and that’s all it ever has been.

          1. Tony, you know that there are a lot of us here who do not buy the notion that the states have rights. Any states.

            I would argue that many libertarians have had enough nasty and unpleasant encounters with cities, counties and states to innoculate them from looking at the feds as either the only bogeyman or the only bogeyman that matters.

      2. Bad state laws are preferable to bad federal laws.

        1. There’s that whole “incorporation doctrine” problem. The state of Texas can’t take away my 1st Amendment rights, as much as it may want to. Ron Paul rejects the notion that the Bill of Rights (and other Constitutional Amendments) must be followed by the states. On talking about the Kelo decision, he said:

          “If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases– not only when it serves our interests.”

          On separation of church and state, he brought it up again:

          “The phony “incorporation” doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business.”

          Most of the rights that we enjoy every day (to post on this website, to shoot guns, to have some sort of check on police power, to vote, etc.) exist despite state or majority voter efforts to rescind those rights, because of the incorporation doctrine.

          1. Polonius, are you suggesting that Dilorenzo should not have destroyed jaffa in debating lincoln?

            Who cares if joe average sheople american thinks one is a weirdo for crrectly identifying the Bluecoat / Greycoat conflict as “The War to Prevent Southern Independence” or “The War of Northern Aggression”?

            1. Who cares if joe average sheople american thinks one is a weirdo for crrectly identifying the Bluecoat / Greycoat conflict as “The War to Prevent Southern Independence” or “The War of Northern Aggression”?

              It’s electoral suicide on the national stage–just look at the campaigns of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace during the 20th century. I seriously doubt you could even rely on Mississippi to send its electors for a pro-Confederate, pro-segregation candidate these days.

              Paul’s free to think and say as he wants, but by utilizing such a strict, Vulcan-like set of logical reasoning, you could ask him questions that make him sound like a member of the Green Party if you wanted. Paul’s stances on the Civil War and Civil Rights aren’t even gotcha type questions–he’s repeatedly stated his feelings on the issue and continues to defend them.

              Meanwhile, when McDonald v Chicago incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states, his action was merely not to sign on to an amicus brief. If he has spoken of his outrage against this expansion of individual liberty (as he has in cases involving free speech and establishment of religion), I’d be interested to hear it.

              1. Strom Thurmond and George Wallace are not Ron Paul.

                Yes, however, if a candidate today is pro-confederate / pro-segregationist, the candidate has no chance of winning. If a candidate today correctly points out that Lincoln was a mass murderer who deported a congressman, arrested state legislators, shut down newspapers and rabidly tried to push black colonization, one would not win.

                There would be many who would paint the latter person as pro-segregationist / pro slavery,etc., no doubt. Given the way the system is rigged, that person, today would have a tough time winning a national election.

                However, today is not forever. The institutions upon which statism stands are crumbling.

                I agree with you on Ron Paul’s anti-incorporation position. He is wrong. Dead wrong. Not just philosophically, but constitutionally. I tried to point this out to KInsella in a series of e-mails several years ago.

                Essentially, one’s right to own and carry firearms is guaranteed to citizens of each and every state because the constitution (1)obligates the feds to guarantee a republican form of government to each and every state; (2) there is nothing in the text of the 2nd amendment limiting its scope to just the feds and (3) the 9th amendment.

          2. Most of the rights that we enjoy every day (to post on this website, to shoot guns, to have some sort of check on police power, to vote, etc.) exist despite state or majority voter efforts to rescind those rights, because of the incorporation doctrine.

            Oh, horseshit. The states even have their own bills of rights, most of which are more extensive and explicit than the federal. What state has been trying to restrict your ability to post on this Web site? Where has the incorporation doctrine helped anyone keep states from letting them shoot? (The plain language of the federal 2nd amendment doesn’t need incorporation; unlike the 1st, it doesn’t say anything about Congressional lawmaking.)

    3. I don’t think Ron Paul would find State-level gun control to be constitutional

      1. That’s the whole point of his argument against the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment–as long as Congress isn’t banning something, states are free to do so.

        On a 1st Amendment case, he argues against a flag burning law at the federal level, and closes with:

        “We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.”

        1. As I said upthread, I agree with your assessment of Ron Paul’s anti-incorporation position. He is flat out wrong textually.

          (1) The language of the second amendment admits of no jurisdictional limitations. If the framers had desired to restrict the applicability of the 2nd amendment, they couls have so said. They did not.

          (2) The ninth amendment also supports the proposition that states do not have the power to enact gun control laws. As with the 2nd amendment, there is nothing in the text of the ninth amendment that resricts its applicability to the feds.

          (3) The constitution guarantees a republican form of government for each and every state. A republican form of government is one in which the government exists solely to protect private property and the maintain the primacy of the individual and to reject each and every effort to implement any form of socialism.

          1. My point with all of this stuff is that I don’t hate Ron Paul–I don’t even really care about him. But in a primary, or a presidential debate, it’s pretty easy to use his own logic against him.

            Gary Johnson appears to have a bit more flexibility in reasoning, more pragmatism, and more interest in individual liberty than state power. However, I’m pretty sure that Huckabee’s going to run and win the primary. I don’t particularly want him to (and I’m not a Republican), but I have a feeling they’re going to make a hard social conservative/religious push for 2012.

  16. Jesse Benton ran an absolutely pathetic campaign last time around with a hugeantic budget, and his current pouting about not getting money in advance of the primaries is not only irrelevant to the Paul campaign’s poor performance last time, but also factually wrong. The campaign raised $5M in the quarter ending in June 2007, and the first moneybomb was on Nov 5, 2007 (remember the V for Vendetta tie-in?). Not sure if Dr Paul’s son-in-law has short term memory or is trying to explain away his failures with this new line of argument.

    And shame on Reason for publishing twice now the factually inaccurate claim that the first moneybomb was on 12/16/2007.

    1. And Mr Doherty better not attempt to claim that the November moneybomb was an obscure event that no one noticed, or the third quarter 2007 fundraising for that matter. (Yes, it was the quarter ending in Sept, not June, I apologize for the minor mistake)

    2. Where did I claim that the first moneybomb was on 12/16/2007?

  17. Or Reason, that is, if I’m not supposed to be the guilty party. What Mulshine is doing in the quote above (which you can argue with of course–Tea Party paternity is a complicated question) is claiming that that Tea Party money bomb–which gets more press because it was the largest–is connected with the rise of “Tea Party”-branded activism.

    1. Benton worked on the 2008 campaign, and he admits its shortcomings. “Ron kind of had to go to battle with the army he had,” said Benton. “The team was all people who were very hard-working, but it was a team you could get when expected to be a 2-3 percenter.”

      Those “money bombs” were great, he recalled, but much of the money came in on Dec. 16, 2007?”Tea Party Day” in Massachusetts. The $6 million raised that day set records. But the money arrived less than three weeks before the New Hampshire primary, Benton recalls. Too late for television advertising. “If Ron were to run again he would put a big focus on raising the money up front,” said Benton.

      He doesn’t explicitly say it, but he’s implying it by saying that they didn’t have money to spend on ads in IA and NH. The Paul campaign already had more than triple the Dec 16 moneybomb amount in the bank after Nov 5.

      The shared name is probably more coincidence than anything else, as most current Tea Partiers were telling Ron Paul to shut up and get off the stage in December 2007.

      It seems more likely that they were simply hoarding the money they already had with the goal of creating the Campaign for Liberty all along, which is a tad dishonest. RP’s habit of employing family members (like Benton) is another reason to be suspicious of his fundraising gusto.

    2. Mulshine isn’t really my target; indeed he gives the gory details of the Paul campaign’s general incompetence and mentions their failure to do anything with the November 5 haul earlier in the article. My issue is with Slick Jesse and his enablers in the libertarian media.

  18. What you meant to say, then, was that Reason has NEVER published the factually inaccurate claim that the first money bomb was on 12/16/2007. Glad we could clarify that.

  19. First money bomb today…. over $450K already…. ronpaul2012 dot com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.