In addition to the Mitt v. Rudy tete-a-tete in New Hampshire covered below on the main page this morning, there are a few other notable, recent twists and turns of note in the Presidential race, outside of the daily grind of individual events, press releases, and polls.
1) Michigan reshapes the race. The turmoil around the its primary now being settled, the state will hold its nominating contest on January 15th, just a week after New Hampshire, and for Republicans just four days before Nevada and, more importantly, South Carolina. A large, non-southern state in this time window helps neither Fred Thompson nor Mike Huckabee.
It also crystallizes Rudy Giuliani's strategy. A Mitt Romney sweep of Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan would be an intolerable momentum boost for that candidate from the perspective of Team Giuliani. Based on the current tight polling in Michigan, the winner of the much-watched New Hampshire primary will possess a huge advantage on January 15th. Translation for Giuliani: Romney must be taken out in New Hampshire (a strategy Giuliani is now acknowledging publicly). Hence the post-Thanksgiving flurry between the two camps, precipitated by Giuliani.
2) Mike Huckabee is a player in Iowa, but where does he grow from there? And I'm not talking about what states he might hope to win or do well in after Iowa if he can finish strong in the Hawkeye State. That's clearly a difficult path given the gap between he and the rest of the major candidates in financial resources and campaign organization. The question is thus, just about Iowa.
The latest major poll in Iowa shows Huckabee doing exceedingly well among church-going, social conservatives, but lacking major traction outside that demographic (note that supporter growth came in no small part from "Religious word-of-mouth"). Rather than seeking to expand that base, Huckabee seems focused on keeping it narrow if his latest ad is any indicator:
Fred Barnes accurately notes the spot is the most overt appeal to Christian conservatives in recent campaign history. As such, it may or may not move the candidate past "strong performer" to "potential winner" as the caucuses unfold. That would further support the notion that Huckabee may have already peaked.
Why? Hucakbee has notable flaws, as do the higher-profile, Republican candidates. The closest thing to the mouthpiece of mainstream conservative thought, the National Review, thinks Huckabee's non-social policy thinking is bad news. Today, widely read conservative columnist Robert Novak also fired a couple rounds of birdshot at Huckabee as his campaign was beginning to take flight.
All that to say Huckabee isn't perfect, and the natural, more in-depth media examination of his candidacy following his recent boomlet is going to coincide with the closing weeks of the Iowa campaign. Furthermore, if Huckabee's unexpected rise is a major annoyance to the Romney campaign, it's a knife toward the heart of Thompson's efforts to serve as the rallying point for disgruntled conservatives. Huckabee currently occupies the very ground in Iowa Thompson was supposed to capture when he finally entered the race. No doubt the Club for Growth will throw its punches at Huckabee, but don't be surprised if Team Thompson let's go with both barrels at him soon too. As risky as it is to go negative in Iowa first, Thompson's campaign has to.
3) Speaking of Fred, what the heck happened to him? Regular readers know this blogger was skeptical he would actually deliver as a top-flight candidate, but hoped his presence in the race would be a productive addition to the issues debate in the GOP contest. On that score he's delivered, and been lauded for it.
But he's done so poorly on the trail no one is paying attention to those policy proposals. Tom Bevan recently detailed his profound decline in both national and key, early state polls. Using a different measuring stick, the other top candidates aren't even paying attention to him, like this quote from Giuliani when asked to respond to some criticism from Thompson:
"I will not really respond to Fred, because it might discourage him from campaigning, and he's doing so little of it I don't want to discourage him," he said, taking a shot at Thompson's reputation as a less-than-frenetic campaigner. "It's okay. Fred can say what he wants."
Translation: Fred's campaign has flopped. I don't even need to respond to him at this time.
Now, Thompson is even saying Fox has it out for him. Bizarre. I guess friendly sit-down after friendly sit-down with Sean Hannity doesn't count for anything in that calculus.
Even considering all that, Thompson still has a chance to find his stride and make a mark in Iowa - as Bevan's coverage linked above indicates his campaign his doing. But it's a steep, uphill climb at this point.
4) Obama as front-runner? That may be more than a bit hasty, but it's at least one major headline out of Iowa right now. What is true either way is that Clinton's juggernaut has given Obama an opening that might be exploitable. Of course, all that really means is that Obama has a realistic shot at defeating Clinton in Iowa. And that still underdog prospect is the only plausible way it becomes even possible for Clinton to lose the nomination. How's that for a big "maybe"?
5) What about Ron Paul? I agree with Jim Geraghty: the bulk of Ron Paul's support is "Non-Transferrable." [sic] That makes him a continued presence in the race but a relative non-factor in the actual GOP contest.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 26, 2007 07:12 PM | Email ThisThere are and will be plenty more Ron Paul Republicans in the future whether Ron Paul wins the nomination or not. Considering his polling numbers are on the steady rise in most key states I think it is way to early to count him out.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 26, 2007 07:56 PMHairy
Please don't feed the Paulzis. If you ignore them then they won't be able to turn yet another thread into a pointless discussion of Paul's absurd campaign.
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on November 26, 2007 08:23 PMHe won another internet poll at AOL.COM. There were about 239,000 votes and Ron Paul got 24% to Giuliani's 20%. I admit this was an unscientific poll, but they had taken some action to reduce double voting. I could not vote twice.
Independently of the campaign, his supporters have raised about $205K out of $350K needed to rent him a full-sized, piloted blimp to fly around with his logo on the side for the month of December. This is being organized by supporters who have all maxed out in direct contributions to the campaign.
I think he is in third place, nationally. This is based on money raised, the quality of his campaign team, grassroots support, caucus and straw poll results and polls.
I factored in the mainstream polls, which show him at around 6%, but I think these understate his popularity because of sample bias. They are polling primary voters who voted in the 2004 Republican primary, but these are all die-hard Bush supporters. No one challenged Bush for the 2004 nomination, because he was a sitting President. Also, the primary turnout in 2004 was one of the lowest on record. The are also limited to calling land lines, and Ron Paul's supporters tend to have gone to cell-phones only because they are younger. The national polls leave him out, or understate his support.
I think Ron Paul is currently behind Giuliani and Romney, but ahead of McCain, Thompson and Huckabee. And Kerry was polling at 7% this time in 2003, but went on to win. With Giuliani going negative on Romney, these two could drag each other down, as Ron Paul stays positive and on the issues: the Iraq war and the economy.
Look, Ron Paul is bringing thousands of independents into the Republican Party. You should thank him. These are swing voters! The 30% of the electorate who are die-hard R's will vote for Ron Paul. They would vote for a cockerspaniel if you painted an R on it. The swing voters are key, and Ron Paul has tapped in to them. He'll even suck some anti-war voters away from Hillary.
Ron Paul is pro-life. The social conservatives will vote for him. Ron Paul is a true fiscal conservative and fan of the free market! The fiscal conservatives will vote for him. No Republican can win in 2008 as an Iraq war hawk. It is unpopular. Ron Paul can unite the party, and bring in the swing voters. Only Ron Paul can do this.
Will social conservatives vote for cross-dressing, pro-choice, pro gun control Giuliani? Will they vote for until-recently pro-choice Mormon Romney? Why should they?
Wanna win? Wanna keep Hillary out of the whitehouse? Nominate Ron Paul.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 26, 2007 08:53 PMhttp://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2645320920071127?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Posted by: GS on November 26, 2007 09:00 PMI don't think that's the case. I think that your emotions have got the better of you here. Great that you wholeheartedly support your choice, but he has nowhere near the support, the charisma, or the money to make it happen. This is just the plain reality of the race. Same was true with McCain and most probably with Huckabee as well.
Even if Giuliani was not in the race, Paul still wouldn't have enough mindshare. I even agree, Giuliani may be a liability for conservatives in the coming year if he is the nominee. But Ron Paul has made just enough extreme statements that he just isn't taken seriously by the majority of voters, even though he has some great ideas.
Regards.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 26, 2007 09:34 PMAnd hey, thanks for the civil and cogent response. I don't get many on this forum! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 26, 2007 09:45 PMI am a reasonable person. If you can get Josh Benton, the PR flack for Paul to go on Medved's show and respond to the open letter, then I'm sure that you will have a wider audience for Paul's ideas. Post the transcript, if Benton goes on.
Posted by: WVH on November 26, 2007 09:50 PMThe Club for Growth hates Huckabee but the more they go after him the higher his poll numbers go. I'm not so sure the general population relates to well with an organization Huckabee has wittingly coined, "The Club for Greed." (and aptly so). The CFG spends all their money going after Republican candidates in Primary races, and their declining popularity and pull is self-evident. The Republicans can be different from the Democrats by ignoring self-serving, special interest PACS that seek to influence simple minded voters with blind rhetoric.
Huckabee's populous massage and refreshing optimism is helping sell 21st century conservativism to a brand new generation. Robert Novak is a fan of Ron Paul and that should tell us exactly where he's coming from with this latest hit piece.
The fact that Huckabee is leading McCain, Romney and Thompson in many national and statewide polls says something about his persuasive message and charisma. With only 1 month to go until the first caucus, I'm putting my money on Huckabee. The 4 other leading contenders will soon realize what putting religious conservatives on the backburner does to a presidential campaign. It will be interesting to watch.
Scared what might come out if Benton goes on
Medved and answers the open letter? What have you guys got to hide? You can post the transcript link here.
This is where we find out the true size of the "big" Republican tent.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 26, 2007 11:02 PMI have a bit of communication here so please bear with me through this post.
As a Paul supporter I can appreciate your take on his chances. He definitly has a large uphill battle. There is absolutely no question about that. He is unconventional, and currently doesn't get as much support from many sectors of the Republican base. His views shake people up because of their depth. Again, all true.
However, I argue that he can win the whole shooting match and here are the facts to back up my statement.
In the polls he was at 1-2% in New Hampshire, Arizona, Iowa, South Carolina and nationally for months. Just in the last month and a half he has risen sharply to 8%, 8%,6%,8% and 6% respectively.
You might argue that those are still too low and he doesn't have the time to make it up. Well, remember these are all polls of just the Republicans registered in prior elections. This does not take into account ANY independants, ANY Democrats switching parties, ANY young newer voters, ANY undecideds which by the way are a very large section of the Republican base. I think it would be safe to say that Paul would take more voters in all of the above categories in a Primary than any other candidate save the undecideds. What that means is that there will be people showing up on election day that are not even closely represented in the polls. I have seen many Liberal and Democrat based sites praising Paul. I have read many blogs about Democrats re-registering to vote Republican in the primaries for Paul. These folks will be a factor period.
Now with that said let's further the argument. Paul has a larger statistical increase in the core Republican base than any other candidate except Huckabee. That means he is actually getting real life hard core Republicans to change their minds. This isn't just the internet support that he enjoys, this is that same area of Republicans polled before. He obviously has momentum on his side.
Lets further the argument more. Paul statistics in mainstream media have shot up exponentially as well. That means that he is getting closer to the level of exposure that top tiers enjoy. That my friend I guarantee will earn some more digits in the polls. Yes there are hit pieces but just as many positives as well.
Hey, lets further the argument even more. Paul is pulling in a ton of cash. He is on the same level if not currently beating any top tier candidate's money pull this quarter. That again means more exposure which in turn means more digits and more votes.
Let's keep going.
I think it is safe to agree that Paul has the best grass roots support in the nation. They are motivated and active. That means he is getting more signage, more volunteer canvassing and more direct campaigning than any other candidate. A guy just put a full page add in USA Today for Paul and they are going to fly a blimp over football games. As a marketing executive in a previous business I can say with certainty that those little signs, big banners and flyers mean more business. This was recently confirmed by a New Hampshire TV show discussing the fact that his signage alone is making a big impact in local neighborhoods and counties.
Let's round off this argument with the fact that no one ever expected him to get 6-8% and that has been proven wrong. No one is expecting him to get in the low double digits but by the same logic that can also be proven wrong. If he gets to low double digits and polls better than McCain and Romney, deals off, he is full page front and center and Rudy won't stand a chance.
Posted by: bgodley on November 26, 2007 11:07 PMBut on to Huckabee. I am not sure, but Huckabee might be a well spoken W clone. He has the religious credentials to keep that part of the base happy, but many of his critics suggest that he is not a small government conservative. That does present an interesting contrast to Giuliani who lacs the social conservative credential but has a good small government and law n order reputation. It will be interesting to see what is more important to the religious base. While I am leaning towards Rudy, and would find a Huckabee candidacy difficult to support, I suspect that social conservative base will sacrifice small government ideals for their preferences of faith.
Hairy
Please don't feed the Paulzis. If you ignore them then they won't be able to turn yet another thread into a pointless discussion of Paul's absurd campaign.
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on November 26, 2007 11:07 PMCorrect with your wisdom. Just had to get the question in, I already new the answer was his lameotarianess wouldn't dare go on Medved or send his PR person there, but it has been fun jerking the chain of the chain of the loons.
Posted by: WVH on November 26, 2007 11:28 PMIf Ron Paul had all his current positions except that he was for the war in Iraq, then he would have nearly ZERO support.
If Rudy Giuliani had all his positions except that he was a Huckabee style pro-lifer then he would walk away with the Republican nomination - maybe to the tune of 70% of the vote.
If Thompson was 20 years younger then he would walk away with the nomination.
If McCain was 10 years younger and wasn't a Republican traitor, I mean a great compromiser, he would walk a way with the nomination.
If Romney wasn't a Mormon and didn't come across as a Republican version of Slick Willie, then he would be well ahead in the polls.
If Huckabee had the money and didn't tick off the club for growth, then he would be a shoe-in.
The point is that when you look at all those, there isn't any thing you could add to Ron Paul to make him a shoe-in, however it would be very easy to take one issue away from him to put him at less than one percent.
Posted by: Doug on November 26, 2007 11:34 PMChristians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071102.html
While Gov. of Arkansas, Huckabee was AGAINST proving citizenship in order to register to vote. He called those who were in favor of this “racists”...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050218/news_lz1e18perkins.html
Huckabee fought hard to kill an Arkansas bill which would have cut off social services for illegal aliens. Huckabee called the bill, “anti-Christian” and “un-American”...
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html
Huckabee supported in-state tuition for illegal aliens...
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/03/11/News/318458.html
Huckabee’s opposition to the illegal aliens bill:
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000718.html
I've read more than one write up on web polling when it come to you RP supporters.
They have shown over and over that RP people swarm the system and vote time after time.
There was even a write up in the NYT or Post, not sure which. That called the RP people out for just this foolishness.
As I've said before and will keep saying. Ron Paul will be laughed at until he puts a stop to this and that fact he still hasn't returned the 500 dollars from a known Hilter supporter.
Posted by: Army Medic /Vet on November 27, 2007 06:48 AMI think the Rs have several great candidates and here we are- debating a candidate whose suppporters have already said they are bolting from the R party if their nominee isn't selected.
What a great way to get away from a great ideological debate than what Clinton concocted.
Posted by: swatter on November 27, 2007 07:53 AMJust some thoughts.
Posted by: tc on November 27, 2007 08:12 AM
Interesting excerpts:
But big-sounding numbers can be deceiving, and politics is more about breadth of support than depth. Ultimately, elections are about winning votes, not Web visitors or even campaign dollars.
... many in the national media have treated Paul casually. Some media types surely find him interesting, especially given his views on Iraq. And people who cover "new technologies," including the Internet, have a self-interest to hype Paul's Web hits and Internet fundraising. But you hear very little about his kooky votes.
Hardly anyone is bothering to talk about his votes against resolutions calling on the government of Vietnam to release political prisoners and on the Arab League to help stop the killing in Darfur. Nor do they note that he said during his 1988 Libertarian bid for president that he would do away with the FBI and CIA, abolish the public schools, eliminate Social Security and all farm subsidies, and withdraw from NATO.
Reporters don't talk about his views and philosophy because they know he isn't a credible contender, but at the same time they refer to his fundraising and Web presence as if he's relevant.
Sorry, but you can't win a Republican presidential nomination by relying on the support of non-Republicans. Nor can you win if you finish fifth in the Iowa straw poll (in which three credible candidates didn't participate) and third in your home state's straw poll behind Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.).
How can we explain Ron Paul? This is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, some of whom are attracted to quirky, anti-establishment candidates. And some of those people are angry, looking for an outspoken leader and searching for an easy answer to the nation's problems.
But there simply are not all that many of them.
*"Ron Paul, Politics and the Internet in the '08 Campaign"... that's the actual title of the article/commentary written by Stuart Rothenberg of Roll call. The TEASER headline at RealClearPolitics is much more succinct: "Ron Paul Should Not Be Taken Seriously"
There is a direct parallel between the RP campaign and another in the recent past, also with "motivated" supported, and a message that was almost completely at odds with the party mainstream: Lyndon Larouche.
The resemblance is striking
Posted by: bfr on November 27, 2007 10:19 AMAnd Doug @ 16, your analysis is fascinating! Here is what I notice: Each of the flaws you point out in each candidate is unchangable. Thompson and McCain's ages, Romney's Moromnism and slickness, Giuliani's problem with the social conservatives, and yes, Ron Paul is anti-war, and this will not change.
The difference, though, between Ron Paul and the others is that his anti-war stance makes it MORE likeley that he would win in November! Yes, it makes it harder for him to get the R nomination, but he can unite the fiscal and social conservatives, which is a larger coalition than just the hawks alone.
Let me put this as simply as I can. Many of you Republicans are smart, but you are having trouble dropping the Iraq war. Like a monkey caught in a fist-trap, you will never be able to withdraw your hand, until you let go of the banana.
Here it is, as plain as I can put it:
If you nominate an Iraq war hawk,
Then you will lose in November, and Hillary will win.
This is true because the Iraq war is unpopular, and it is one of the two biggest issues in the campaign, the other being the economy. This is the main cause of the Republican disaster of the midterm elections in 2006. This disaster is not yet over. It will continue into 2008 unless you change course. Dump the hawks to save your power and your party. You can keep all the other conservative positions if you do this.
Ron Paul is your only choice for a candidate who has any credibility on taking the popular position on the Iraq war. He has the most credibility of any Republican on the economy as well.
If you nominate a fiscal conservative who is a social conservative and a hawk, you will lose, and the result will be losses in the areas of fiscal and social conservatism.
But if you nominate Ron Paul, you will get your fiscal conservative and social conservative goals, at the costs of your Iraq war goals.
Doug, the other thing your cogent analysis makes me think is: "if the queen had testicles she's be king." Yes, if only these candidates didn't have these fatal flaws... but they do, and none of them are going to get rid of those flaws. But Ron Paul's "flaw" is actually an asset!
I still think when you point out that Ron Paul's support won't transfer to another Republican candidate, what you are really saying is that Ron Paul has attracted independents and swing voters that the other candidates can't attract. Ron Paul even takes some support of anti-war Democrats away from Hillary! Since independents and swing voters are the key to winning any close election these days, and since eroding the oponent's base is usually fatal to the oponent, what you are actually saying (when you say that Ron Pauls support will not transfer) is that Ron Paul is the only R candidate with a chance of winning in November.
Why you would turn away all these new voters wanting to call themselves Republicans is beyond me! By the way, Ron Paul is causing thousands of Libertarians to start calling themselves Republicans again, after leaving the party in the '90's and '00's. This is a major blow to the Libertarians. Don't you want that to happen? Don't you want to be a "big tent" so you can win? Oh, well.
You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 27, 2007 12:12 PMI want new voters who WANT to be Republicans because it means something to them, not because they want to back a spoiler.
Interesting excerpts:
" The Ron Paul campaign has three very serious problems that will keep him from ever becoming a serious contender in the Republican Party. "
• "He's a libertarian, not a conservative and 95% of conservatives know it."
• "His base support is limited to the anti-national security crowd, mostly across the aisle."
• "His ties to White Supremacist and anti-Semitic groups are beginning to hit the headlines."
... "As a result, I predict that by the end of Super Tuesday, the Republican race will be narrowed to the two national front-runners, Blue State favorite Rudy Giuliani and Red State Favorite Fred Thompson. "
"The Time for the Party to unite to defeat Democratic Socialists will arrive."
"So the question becomes, which candidate stands the best chance of uniting all Republican voters in the general election?"
Ummm, even racists are free to vote and donate money to whomever they want in this country. In this country "Liberty for all" trumps general idiocy. If you don't like Freedom you can always move to Russia where you have one choice, candidate supreme Vladimir Putin. Donate to anyone else and you will be summarily punished. Which do you prefer Racists + Freedom or quasi-democratic dictatorships?
Blue State favorite Rudy Giuliani and Red State Favorite Fred Thompson.
I think the Red State fav is clearly Huckabee. Thompson doesn't want the Presidency enough to actually work for it.
You forgot free to run for office, free to associate...
Two word that perfecly expose that hypocrisy: DUKE CUNNINGHAM... OOPS, you must have forgotten that pink-o koolaid talking point.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 27, 2007 02:42 PMYup, I did.
Two word that perfecly expose that hypocrisy: DUKE CUNNINGHAM
What's your point?
Cunningham is a convicted felon. He's incarcerated for crimes he committed while in service of this nation.
If he serves his time Cunningham can appeal to gets his rights reinstated, he can donate money, and even vote for Ron Paul if he wanted. Hell, he could even run for Congress again.
NEWS FLASH: that's hypocrisy.
I can never decide if you types actually forget what you said yesterday*, willfully ignore what you said yesterday* thinking we won't notice or are so utterly confused that you neither remember nor care what you sneered over and condemned yesterday*.
I guess it doesn't matter what the reason, you types continue to do it and we continue to bust you for it and expose the brazen duplicity. HEY! ...kinda like the Clinton campaign...
*yesterday being in recent memory.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 27, 2007 03:52 PMPersonally I've never done such a thing. Get a clue and stop lumping me into some overly broad pre-conceived childish stereotype you have. I didn't even know Cunningham was a racist, I just know he was a corrupt politician.
you types continue to do it
Who are "you types"? You have no clue who I am except for a name on a blog.
Welcome to American Democracy 101.
Cunningham is a felon, felons by law are not allowed to vote, donate money, and in some states run for public office. Since the neo-nazis in question do NOT appear to be felons they are free to vote, donate money to political candidates, and run for office.
I do find it amusing how hard you are trying to discredit Ron Paul, maybe deep down inside you're afraid he'll take the party by storm and put it on a clear course to Libertarianism. His campaign is just as ridiculous as Romney and Huckabee saying they want to put "the IRS out of business".
I agree, we need people that want to be republicans because it means something. What I think is being missed by many in the media is that this is exactly what Paul represents! He thinks it should mean something to be a republican. He beleives it is more than just a team name. He wants it to return to its roots of being the party for a small constitutional government that does not meddle in other countries affairs.
The other candidates in the party all deviate greatly from these core principles in some fairly major ways.
Posted by: Travis on November 27, 2007 09:21 PMNation building is liberal Wilsonianism. Sovereignty and secure borders are conservative.
Big government spending programs are liberal. Medicare drug benefits, No Child Left Behind, Pork barrel politics and deficits are liberal, but they are all supported by the current batch of Republicans.
Limited government and states rights are conservative, but the liberals in the GOP these days want to use the federal government to fight the drug war in contravention of state medical marijuana laws, they want to regulate education from DC, and they want to regulate morality. All of these are nanny state liberalism.
How did the liberals take over the Republican Party?
I think Ron Paul is the only real conservative in the race.
By the way, there were only four members of Congress who endorsed Ronald Reagan before his first presidential nomination. Ron Paul was one of them. And Reagan endorsed Ron Paul for re-election to his TX congressional seat on numerous occasions.
Reagan said that libertarianism was the heart and soul of conservatism. I think that if the Republican Party returns to it's libertarian roots, it can regain power. But if it lets the liberals and neocons continue to lead it astray, the R's are in for many years in the minority.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 27, 2007 11:12 PMLibertarianism is not the foundation of the Republican Party, rather common sense is.
Posted by: Doug on November 28, 2007 12:34 AMConsider this for a moment: perhaps the southern states should have been allowed to secede.
Slavery was on the way out anyway. It was not as economically viable as share-cropping, public sentiment had turned against it, thanks to religious abolitionists even in the south, and not fighting the civil war would have saved about a million lives. Like Bush, Lincoln caused thousands of Americans to die in an unecessary war.
If we had let the south seceed, the south would be a great trading partner, like Canada, and slavery would have been abolished almost as soon, with fewer racist sentiments lingering until the 21st century. Imagine no scorched earth in GA, no sacking and looting of Atlanta, no reconstruction, no carpetbagging northern meddling to stir up resentment. We all would be more free, and have a stronger economy as well.
Racism is ugly and stupid, but governments have little or no ability to reduce racist thoughts via the law. Government action is top-down. But grass-roots actions such as the southern religious abolitionists are bottom up. Change from the bottom is more organic, and tends to be more successful than forced change from authorities, even if it seems to take longer. See the failure of bussing during the civil rights era.
Slavery was a violation of the natural rights to life, liberty and property of the blacks. It was an abomination, but the problem would have been solved better without going to war.
I hear the southerners call the civil war, "the war of northern agression." They just wanted to be free, but the federal government wouldn't let them. Independence is conservative.
But Lincoln wanted to preserve the power of the federal government, and of the executive branch, instead of the ideals of the American revolution. He supported big government instead of states' rights. Does that sound conservative or Republican to you?
Shouldn't states have the right to seceed? Freeing the slaves was not the main reason for the civil war. It was just propaganda, much as 9/11 and WMD had nothing to do with the Iraq war. Just propaganda. As Alan Greenspan says, the Iraq war was largly about oil. I think it was about getting GW Bush re-elected. Perhaps the Civil war was about getting Lincoln re-elected, or perhaps more about his legacy. Lincoln didn't want to be rememberd as the president who let the South secede. It was about his ego.
Lincoln violated free speech and liberty by jailing newspaper editors who disagreed with him. Remember the alien and sedition acts? These were unconstitutional. He suspended habeas corpus, just as GW Bush did with the Military Commissions Act. This was as chilling to free political speech as McCain Feingold, NSA phone and e-mail taps or the USA PATRIOT Act.
Lincoln gave us the income tax to pay for his treasury-draining war, just as GW Bush has given us the inflation tax, and the deficit tax on future generations to fund his Iraq war. Neither Lincoln, nor GW Bush were fiscal conservatives.
I guess you are right, Lincoln was a lot like GW Bush. But neither were very Republican, or conservative.
I say "sic semper tyrannis."
The Constitution is what defends our freedom. Ignore it, as Lincoln did, and GW Bush do, and and we are on the road to big-government socialism. Ignore the rule of law, and we are no better than thugs.
Ron Paul is more conservative, and more Republican than either Lincoln or GW Bush, and I would not be too proud that either of them were Republicans.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 28, 2007 01:17 AMNovember 14, 2007
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden
When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."
When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."
Ron Paul is different....
But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot."
On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com.... There is more. The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul. The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week. Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges. Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered. Not Paul.
Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency tried to get an interview with Paul, calling him repeatedly but not receiving any return calls. Wrote Siederaski November 9: "Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won't take telephone calls from Jews." [Update] Finally on November 13 the Paul campaign responded. In a short interview JTA quotes Jim Perry, head of Jews for Paul describing his work on the Paul campaign along side a self-described white supremacist which Perry says he has reformed.
Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation. Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting", Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November". The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site. Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs....
Perhaps frustrated by the weasel words, Lone Star Times asked Benton: "Bottom line- Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?"
Benton's response:
"At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black's contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days."
On October 11 Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for President saying:
"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul, 2008."
As of November 11--the Ron Paul donation link is still up and active on Stormfront. No IP address has been blocked. Stormfront's would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul's campaign.
The white supremacists do more than raise funds. Blogger Adam Holland reports:
"one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka 'White Will'). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S."
Pierce is author of the racist "Turner Diaries". When the Lone Star Times exposed the $500 Don Black donation, Williams responded on the national Ron Paul meetup site,
"Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters' demands?"
The mild responses to Williams' MeetUp post make a sharp contrast to the hatred and invective with which Paul supporters respond to Medved or any other writer questioning Paul's refusal to disassociate himself from his racist supporters. Any other campaign would presume Williams' expression of anti-Semitism was a dirty trick by an opposing campaign. Williams would have been hurriedly denounced and booted out of the campaign. Not Ron Paul....
Williams has also organized at least one other discussion, "the Israel factor revisited" on the national Ron Paul MeetUp site. Again the measured tone of the remarks by Ron Paul supporters in the comments section contrasts sharply with the invective Paul supporters rain down upon bloggers who oppose him. Paul's campaign relies heavily on MeetUp sites to organize. Over 61,000 Paul supporters are registered on MeetUp as compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich and only a couple of dozen members for most other candidates.
On the white-supremacist Vanguard News Network, Williams links to Paul's "grassroots" fundraising site and organizes other racists to "game You Tube" to advance a specific Ron Paul video to the top of You Tube's rankings. Writes Williams, "Everybody here can do this, except bjb w/his niggerberry." Holland points out, "BJB" stands for "burn Jew burn". BJB's internet signature is, "Nothing says lovin' like a Jew in the oven."
Williams is not Paul's only supremacist supporter. "Former" KKK leader (and convicted fraudster) David Duke's website http://www.whitecivilrights.com/, calls Ron Paul "our king" and cheers while "Ron Paul Hits a Home Run on Jay Leno Show." Duke also includes a "Ron Paul campaign update" and plugs Ron Paul fundraising efforts. These articles are posted right next to articles such as "Ten reasons why the Holocaust is a fraud" and "Germans Still Remember their Historical Greatness"-featuring a map of Hitler's Third Reich at its 1942 military height, just in case anybody doesn't get the point. Apparently "Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom" is attractive to those who ape the world's worst tyrants and genocidaires.
There are others. In a You Tube video circulating the internet, Ron Paul is endorsed by Hutton Gibson, a leading Holocaust denier and father of controversial actor and director Mel Gibson....
"Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, 'By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government' and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."
"Ron Paul-America's Last Chance", a January, 2007 article by Ted Lang on the anti-Semitic site Rense.com, makes a familiar argument for supporting Paul....
In spite of official silence from the Paul Campaign, hordes of Paul supporters lit up the comments section of Michael Medved's open letter on TownHall.com. In a phenomenon familiar to any blogger who posts information negative to Paul, the 500-plus comments include several which indicate that Medved has got Paul's supporters dead to rights:
"Your own Zionism is slipping, Medved! Why should anyone disassociate from 9/11 Truthers?"
"I suggest you take off the tin-foil yamika (sic), your brain is fried."
"You will do anything to smear this good man to try and safeguard US policy in Israel."
"Hey Medved. Tell your AIPAC handlers to be nervous. You are failing miserably."
"It's patently obvious why you don't support Dr. Paul: He's not hand-picked by AIPAC and the Likud Party."
Over at Liberty Post, a self-described "Christian Zionist" identifying himself as 'David Ben-Ariel' adds this response:
"If discredited and paranoid Michael Medved is so concerned about it, let him actually follow his Judaism to the Jewish Homeland of Israel and take the treacherous ACLU and its liberal ilk, and every other self-hating, defeatist, godless group and loathsome organization with him. What's he got to lose, especially if he fails to believe the Israeli oligarchy is under German-Jesuit control and guilty of murdering Yitzhak Rabin? ... I'm voting for Ron Paul."
Besides the Paul backers whose words seem to provide backing to Medved's case, others complain that it is wrong to question the sources of Paul's support.... Writing on the "Daily Paul", Mike Bergmaier complains it is "unfair" for Medved to demand Paul renounce the support of anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis. Really? Why?
Lew Rockwell attempts to respond to Medved's question by echoing leftist themes equating Nazis with mainstream conservatives. Rockwell argues Medved should renounce Cheney and Bush. In a weak effort at verbal judo, Rockwell calls Medved's letter a "neocon libel...."
If Paul wants to be taken seriously, he must stop cowering behind the internet and face these questions. Until then it is only reasonable to presume that Paul is happy to wallow in well-financed obscurity accepting the support of some of the worst enemies of freedom and liberty within American society.
© American Thinker 2007
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Posted by: WVH on November 28, 2007 02:00 AMa. I have on a prior thread asked Pudgie the following questions:
I am not a Christian Identity member, are you?
I have never associated with Nazis, KKK, and Aryan Nations types, have you?
Care to answer Pudgie and Brucie?
Posted by: WVH on November 28, 2007 09:44 AMOBTW, for myself: I am not sure who/what Christian Identity is, so I guess then answer is no. A definate no on the other question.
Your problem with the others answering however, is because of the combative nature of your questioning. You have turned them off to answering your posts. Stop the pestering and maybe they would be open to responding in the future.
Posted by: tc on November 28, 2007 11:03 AMThe question was simply a follow-up to your comments, I hope that you didn't take it was intended for you.
Posted by: WVH on November 28, 2007 12:09 PMMy definition may be in error, and it is clear that no perfect definition is possible. The Republican Party seeks to be a "big tent."
So, obviously, no one definition will apply to all people. But there are three main areas:
Fiscal conservatism/limited government
Social conservatism/Judeo-Christianity
Foreign Policy conservatism/Strong Defense
Each person who calls him or herself a Republican will fall at one end or the other of each of these spectra. But I would say that if you are at the "left" end on two or more of these criteria, you are not much of a Republican.
And then the question is, which end of each spectrum is conservative? I think most people would agree on what is fiscally and socially conservative, but I think there is major room for disagreement on what constitutes a foreign policy conservative.
Foreign policy conservatives believe in a strong defense of the US, but I think there is a good argument that nation-building and exporting democracy are liberal/Wilsonian foreign policy, not conservative, and that they wind up making us less safe and secure here at home.
My main point is that Ron Paul's views a firmly within the conservative, and therefor Republican traditions in all three areas. I also argue that the neocons are liberal on the foreign policy and fiscal scales, even if they are conservative on the social/religious scale. They therefore are LESS Republican than Ron Paul, by this definition.
By this definition, I also have some issues about Lincoln, that you may have read above. (By the way, brief correction, I think the alien and sedition acts were made by Adams or Jefferson, not Lincoln. I'm not quite sure.)
What is considered "Republican" may have evolved since the founding of the Party. The important thing is, what is the Republican Party NOW, not what was it when it started. And I think I have made a good argument that GW Bush and Lincoln were not very Republican by the modern idea of the term, and that Ron Paul better fits the current conception. You didn't strike down any of my points @ 37, so whether I did any shark jumping or not, they still stand.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 28, 2007 12:26 PMYour reflections on Abe Lincoln are generally disturbing to me. You are without a doubt a pure anarchist at heart, someone, and here's a chess analogy, if you saw your opponent laid a trap where you could take their queen and all you give up is just a pawn, you would do it in a second, even if you knew the next move you would lose. That's your political philosophy in a nutshell...Do what you believe is right at this moment even if in the long term it destroys you. Good thing Abe Lincoln wasn't a Libertarian.
Posted by: Doug on November 28, 2007 12:56 PMFor example, given the topic of the current presidential race, I don't necessarily have a final candidate that I would go to a caucus (or vote in the primary) to support. On the Republican side, I have pretty much winnowed down to Huckabee or McCain. I can't vote for Guiliani due to his treatment of his second wife (character issue). Romney seems too flip-flopping for me, plus for me, there is a Mormon issue. There are several positions I disagree with Ron Paul, even though I agree on the war (e.g., elimination of Dept. of Education). Thompson is just too boring (likeability), plus I don't like his lobbyist work, he had done in the past. In 2000, I was a big McCain fan, but his "suck-up" to GW in 2004 was more than I can stomach, but if he is the only one left, then he is the best of who is remaining. Huckabee, has personality, is a govenor, but also has been a little loose with the facts on his record. I do admire his faith and determination (battle to lose weight).
On the Democratic side, while I think Biden has the best foreign policy experience, there isn't much else there different from everyone else. Four years ago, I was an Edwards fan (on the Democratic side), and still enjoy him, but he would be my second choice on the Democratic side. My first choice would be Obama. Obama's faith impresses me. His work in the State Legislature across party lines is impressive, and he is the same age as me. The last is the biggest factor. It is as Andrew Sullivan wrote in his recent article, Obama represents a change from the baby-boomer battle over Vietnam. Like Obama, I am a post-Vietnam war member of society, and I do think we view society different than through the Vietnam lense. The generational "change" factor is the biggest reason to support Obama on the Democratic side.
When it comes to the general election, we will have to see who is left standing. I do know, I can't vote for Hillary, but I also know that due to Guiliani's character issue (2nd wife), I can't also vote for him. If this was the case and Ron Paul was running as a third party candidate, I guess I could conceive that I may consider him at that point (or just write in who I think would be the best president for the country, which is Colin Powell).
Posted by: tc on November 28, 2007 01:01 PMWhen I was thinking of what the Republican Party traditionally stood for, I was thinking of Reagan and Goldwater, and not as far back as Lincoln.
Please allow me to be construed in that sense.
I DID mention that no single definition of conservative or Republican would do, since the party is a big tent, but I still stand by my argument that Ron Paul fits the conservative and Republican paradigm better than GW Bush and Lincoln. And I think I defined that paradigm pretty well above, don't you think?
You can call what I am doing "cult like" but I am just trying to answer the argument presented by others that Ron Paul is either not a Conservative or not a Republican. You are right that this tends to lead us down a road of exclusion and orthodoxy, but I had to answer the arguments. See Swatter @ 20, Ragnar @ 22 and 26 and 27, Travis @ 34, and a smart guy named "Doug" @ 36...
You are right, that ultimately it does not matter what we call conservative or Republican. What is important is the efficacy and morality of the positions and policies advocated. I think Ron Paul wins in these areas, but that isn't what we have been talking about.
As for your comment that I am an anarchist, this is a typical smear or misunderstanding often aimed at Libertarians. Ron Paul and I are MINarchists. We love the Constitution because it limits the power of government to what is necessary to defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. We support the minimal government necessary to achieve these ends, consistent with the Constitution. Radical? I think not. I think we are pretty traditional, even conservative.
We get called "anarchists" by people who want to set up a straw-man argument. Won't work here.
I don't get your chess analogy. In what way have my arguments above demonstrated that I would sacrifice a pawn to win a queen even if it lead to another chain of events that caused me to lose the game?
I think that is what others do who advocate that the government do things that are not authorized by the Constitution. They may win their special interest legislation, but they lose the principle of the rule of law and limited government upon which their own liberty and prosperity depend.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 28, 2007 02:13 PMOn current bunch of Presidential candidates, I guess I do look more at individual character and/or their story over specific policy views when their policy views split for me (i.e., when I agree with some of their positions and disagree with others). For example, with RP, I disagree so strongly with a couple of his stances, that I feel it overrides his character. I think he does have a strong character. Whereas, for example, with Obama, I may disagree with him on abortion, but since the Supreme Court is set for several years, I don't see as if his abortion stance will factor in. Plus, I feel that many of the so-called Democrats that are "pro-choice" are not really fully "pro-choice." Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have all stated that they would like to see zero abortions, their argument is on how to get there, not the goal. For that matter, other than Brownback, none of the current Republicans are fully pro-life either. Only Brownback applied pro-life to the end of life issues, such as the death penalty. To me, you can't be for stopping abortions on the one-side and for the death penalty on the other. Both situations, someone is playing God. Obama, while still for the Death Penalty did do a lot in the Illinois legislature to address some of the key issues surrounding the unjustice with current death penalty laws. To me, the situation like described in John Grishom's Innocent Man (true-life, non-fiction work) is unconsciousable. We can not let our pursuit to venegence blind us so much that we destroy the lives of innocent people.
With regards to Powell, I see him as someone who puts the country first (too much so in following the line Cheney and company provided him to present to the UN), a strong leader, someone who has the right philosophy to war based on his Vietnam experience, and someone who could restore America's credibility in the world that GW has destroyed. His only issue is "good soldier" UN presentation. He believed his commander-in-chief, and thus, will forever be burdened of promoting a war that didn't need to happen.
Posted by: tc on November 28, 2007 03:33 PMI am not aware that Rudy, Mitt, Mc Cain or Huckabee is associated with Nazis, David Duke types or the Christian Identity movement. Paul/Chavez/Mugabe has done nothing to dissassociate himself from these groups. Many secular progresives want to paint conservatives with the brush of bigotry. There is nothing inherently racist in conservative thought. Christian Identity types want to use the conservative mantal to get to power the same way that Hitler used the process to arrive at power in Germany. It is interesting that no Paulard,including Paul himself will ever dissassociate him or herself from Nazis, Aryan Nation groupies, David Duke types, and the Christian Identity movement when given the opportunity.
The question for the republican party and republican voters is do you dissassociate yourself from such groups?
Posted by: WVH on November 28, 2007 09:41 PM