Archive for the 'Ron Paul' Category

Ron Paul & the FOX News Forum Exclusion - Part III [UPDATED]

I feel very confident at this point that the news, as originally reported, that Ron Paul has been excluded from the upcoming “roundtable forum” in New Hampshire on January 6 is correct.

The campaign has released a second, more detailed press release that indicates that this is their belief.

Furthermore, we have the following video captured from a FOX affiliate station. While it’s not “from the horses mouth” so to speak, it seems to lend a good bit of credibility to the charge.

The question remains … why is Ron Paul being excluded? If the argument is that he’s not polling as well as the others, the fact that Fred Thompson has been invited (and has confirmed his participation) derails this argument very quickly. As I mentioned in my initial post, in the last round of polling in New Hampshire, Ron Paul polled better than Thompson in every poll (sometimes leading by as much as 5 points), save one where he tied Thompson.

But … even the polling bit is disingenous, in my opinion. Why should the media not give equal time to all candidates in the race for a particular party? I know and understand that they are private corporations, and they can make their own choices, but I believe it is in the best interest of the public to be exposed to the views of all the candidates. So, with that in mind, I also ask … why are Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes also being excluded?

Note: Since I initially posted this, I’ve posted the following additional articles about the FOX News exclusion, as well as the ABC News/WMUR exclusions:

Further Clarification on the Ron Paul/FOX Forum Mess
More Debate Exclusion in New Hampshire
New Hampshire Debate Exclusion Update & My Open Letter to WMUR and ABC News
Senator John Sununu (R-NH) Weighs in on FOX Forum/ABC Debate Exclusions

More on US Meddling in Pakistan

On the heels of my earlier post about the mixed legacy of Benazir Bhutto and the problems caused by our government’s meddling in the affairs of Pakistan, I ran across another post addressing the problems (”Ron Paul Is Correct About Pakistan” by David T. Beito and Scott Horton).

Beito and Horton write:

This “wisdom” of interference is so conventional that CNN’s Wolf Blitzer expressed shock when Republican candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said that the tragedy proved his case for nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. We should not, Paul said, either subsidize or work to undermine other governments because such policies invariably only empower our enemies.

But why should Blitzer have been shocked?

Benazir Bhutto herself thought this was so. In one of her last interviews, she told Parade magazine, “[The U.S.] policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country. I now think al Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”

They further argue that by continuing to interfere, we actually play into their hands (as I’ve argued myself in the past):

Terrorism is a tactic adopted by weak actors. Having limited resources with which to wage war, groups like al Qaeda resort to a sort of foreign affairs judo: using the enemy’s power against itself – in this case, us. The action for them is in the reaction. Al Qaeda’s strategy is to recreate the old Afghan jihad against the USSR: hit the U.S. and our allies hard in order to provoke invasion and occupation to bleed our treasury and military dry. They celebrate our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq as steps towards our eventual total withdrawal from the region.

Even if we don’t invade Pakistan but merely meddle in the government, we still provide something for Al Qaeda to appeal to when recruiting.

In the mean time, we now have reports that the Al Qaeda fellow blamed for the killing denies he had anything to do with it. Since we were given three contradictory reports of what exactly killed Bhutto (gunshot, shrapnel, or finally a blow to the skull) and video evidence seems to rule out the latter “official” version from the government, it doesn’t surprise me that there’s confusion on this point too.

Ron Paul is the ONLY Candidate to Fill All Delegate Positions in Tenneessee

Sunday afternoon, I received an email from one of the local Ron Paul Meetup coordinators. According to the campaign’s state coordinator, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who filled all of the delegate positions in Tennessee. In all nine districts in TN he has at least three delegates, the full amount of at-large delegates overall, and more than enough alternative delegates.

Each candidate should have three delegates per district, and a minimum of twelve at-large delegates, for a total of thirty-nine.

Of the other candidates, Fred Thompson did the best; he’s only short two delegates in one district.

Mitt Romney has the three delegates for each district, but is short three at-large delegates.

Mike Huckabee has no delegates in two districts, and only two in two other districts (and is thus short eight total).

John McCain has eleven delegates total.

Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter have no delegates in Tennessee at all.

I’m not entirely clear on what this means for the other candidates, however. It would appear that candidates like Giuliani will appear on the ballot in all districts in the state, regardless of whether they have any delegates or not, since they’ve already qualified based on the ballot access procedures and are listed on the certified candidate list by the Secretary of State.

One way or the other, what is clear is that there are thirteen “superdelegates” who are uncommitted to any candidate who will be sent to the GOP convention from Tennessee, and they can vote for whoever they choose. From the Delegate Election Procedures document on the TN GOP’s web site:

The ballot reflects the names of the presidential candidates a second time only to identify individual delegate candidates committed to the particular candidate. On this part of the ballot, the ballot shall clearly indicate that each voter votes for individual delegate candidates. By the same token, the ballot in each congressional district shall list only those delegate candidates seeking election as a delegate from that district and any at-large delegates. TCA §2-13-311.

In each party’s primary, the voter may cast one (1) vote for his or her preference for candidate for president or for the uncommitted designation. However, TCA §2-13-312 permits the voter to vote for as many delegate candidates as there are to be delegates elected from that congressional district. According to the number allocated for any presidential candidate, the delegate candidate(s) receiving the most votes shall be certified as the delegates to their parties’ national conventions. TCA §2-13-315.

I looked at the sections of the Tennessee Annotated Code (sorry, you’ll have to find the individual sections because I couldn’t figure out how to easily link to them) referenced above (and some others) but I’m still a bit fuzzy:

2-13-312. Number of votes. —

Each voter of the political parties shall cast one (1) vote for such voter’s preference for candidate for president or for the uncommitted designation and shall vote for as many delegate-candidates as there are to be delegates from such congressional district.

That’s all well and good, but 2-13-311 (2) states

(A) Within the vertical columns immediately following and below the entire presidential preference listing for that primary, the names of the presidential candidates shall again appear in vertical columns in alphabetical order according to their surnames. Immediately beneath each presidential candidate’s name, the names of delegate-candidates who are committed to that particular presidential candidate in accordance with §§ 2-13-307, 2-13-308(2), and 2-13-309(a), shall appear vertically in alphabetical order according to their surnames. The “Uncommitted” designation shall appear with an alphabetical vertical listing of those uncommitted delegate-candidates pledged to the last listed presidential candidate.

(B) It is expressly understood and provided that the appearance of presidential candidates’ names as provided in this subdivision (2) is only for the purpose of identifying individual delegate-candidates committed to particular presidential candidates. The ballot shall clearly indicate that each voter is to vote individually for delegate-candidates.

So, the vote cast for the voter’s preference for candidate for president (as allowed in 2-13-312) doesn’t actually mean anything?

Moving right along …

2-13-313. Allocation of elected delegates. —

Delegates elected from a congressional district shall be allocated among the presidential candidates and the uncommitted designation as proportionally as is mathematically possible to the number of votes received in the presidential preference election within such congressional district. If the votes received by a presidential candidate in any congressional district are less than fifteen percent (15%) of the votes cast in such district, no delegates shall be allocated to such candidate and such votes of less than fifteen percent (15%) shall be considered as votes for the uncommitted designation.

OK, so are the delegates elected based on the votes cast for the delegates, or based on the votes cast for the preferred presidential candidate?

2-13-316. Vacancies in delegation. —

Vacancies in the delegation to the national nominating convention of a political party shall be filled in accordance with the rules of the respective party.

Perhaps this means that in a situation where a majority of voters cast their preference votes for Giuliani, but no delegates were available for Giuliani in their district, the GOP would appoint them? Or does it mean that the GOP will appoint delegates for Giuliani, since the Secretary of State has already put him on the ballot?

2-13-317. Binding effect of presidential primary. —

The results of the preferential presidential primary shall be binding on the delegates to the national conventions as provided in this section. The delegates to the national conventions shall be bound by the results of the preferential presidential primary for the first two (2) ballots and shall vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged as provided in § 2-13-307. The delegates shall thereafter be bound to support such candidate so long as the candidate, not to exceed two (2) ballots, has twenty percent (20%) of the total convention vote or until such time the candidate of their party releases them from the results of the presidential preference primary.

So, essentially any (committed) delegate is bound to their candidate until the candidate is doing really poorly, and then they can vote for any candidate they choose. This definitely prevents any committed delegates from Tennessee from voting for Giuliani in the first phases of the convention balloting process.

After reading over this stuff several times, I’m still not clear on what happens with a candidate who has no delegates in the state, but receives more than 15% of the vote in any one district. I would suspect, though, that it’s unlikely that any candidate who was unable to have any substantial number of delegates appear on the ballot across the state is unlikely to do well in the state, though that is far from being an absolute.

When I was in high school, there was a very intelligent older lady who used to come in the McDonald’s where I worked, and I we had many intellectual conversations about all sorts of things over the years. She told me time and time again that I ought to be a lawyer. Any time I spend any amount of time looking at legalese like this, though, I thank my lucky stars I didn’t become one.

Ron Paul NOT Excluded After All? [UPDATED]

ADDENDUM: Since I posted this, I’ve received even more information indicating that the Nolan Chart article is wrong. So, I’m sticking to my guns about Ron Paul really being excluded, and I’m not posting any more about it until more definitive information becomes available from the campaign, the NH GOP, or FOX News.

Since I posted the first time about Ron Paul’s apparent exclusion from the NH Republican Party/FOX News forum this coming week, I’ve found more information.

Specifically, it is being reported that the debate in question was cancelled weeks ago, according to William Westmiller at Nolan Chart.

Thus far, the Ron Paul 2008 site hasn’t posted an update, but I’m hopeful that they will soon.

The only thing I’m confused about … is that in all the articles posted on The Daily Paul about this fiasco, several indicate direct communication with the NH Republican Party (here’s an example). I can’t figure out why they didn’t just tell folks that the event in question was cancelled. Surely they knew. If they’d just given folks that information immediately, it could have stopped this whole mess. As a result, I’m going to withhold judgement about the veracity of the Nolan Chart article linked to above until there is a satisfactory answer to that question.

Hat Tip: Turn Left At The Adult Bookstore

Note: Since I initially posted this, I’ve posted the following additional articles about the FOX News exclusion, as well as the ABC News/WMUR exclusions:

Ron Paul & the FOX News Forum Exclusion - Part III
Further Clarification on the Ron Paul/FOX Forum Mess
More Debate Exclusion in New Hampshire
New Hampshire Debate Exclusion Update & My Open Letter to WMUR and ABC News
Senator John Sununu (R-NH) Weighs in on FOX Forum/ABC Debate Exclusions

Ron Paul Excluded in NH [UPDATED]

UPDATE: It appears that Ron Paul may not be excluded, since the debate in question was reportedly cancelled weeks ago.

UPDATE 2: The article linked to above seems to be false. See this post on the Ron Paul Forums.

It would appear that Ron Paul is going to be excluded from an upcoming Republican Presidential Forum to be held on January 6. The forum is sponsored by the New Hampshire Republican Party and will be broadcast on FOX News.

Although I haven’t been able to confirm this to be the case, it would appear from posts I’ve read on dailypaul.com that FOX has taken the initiative in excluding Paul over the protests of the NH Republican Party.

I’m actually amazed at this point that Paul would be excluded. In the last few weeks, he’s consistently polled at just below Huckabee (or in one case as well as Huckabee), and in every case he’s polled as well as Thompson if not better. And … these are “real” polls, not the “internet polls” that Paul supporters have been falsely accused of “spamming” or “hacking” (I’m not saying that Paul supporters don’t organize themselves and vote in the polls, but organized voting does not equate to “spamming” or “hacking”).

Considering that Paul has raised around $18.9 million this quarter, an amount that has been widely reported to exceed any other GOP candidate (and I’m tempted to believe the reports since no other candidate has claimed a higher number thus far), it would seem that the contention of Paul supporters that the “real” polls don’t reflect his actual strength on the ground is correct. Sure, Paul’s supporters are more energetic, and I certainly believe that a higher percentage of them have been motivated to donate compared to the supporters of other candidates, but I don’t think that it would be a stretch to say that there are probably nine Paul supporters who didn’t donate for every one that did. In my case, I did donate on the last “money bomb” day, and I know of at least four Paul supporters who did not, and I haven’t even gone out and intentionally quizzed all the Paul supporters I know (and there are > 240 in our meetup group here in Chattanooga).

Since Paul is polling above at least one of the other candidates involved in this forum (Thompson) and has in two instances polled as well as another (Huckabee) … and a good argument can be made that his actual strength is better than reported … why is Paul being excluded? Hopefully we’ll find out soon.

In the mean time, Paul supporters are suggesting we boycott FOX News. As if I watch FOX News anyway. Puh-leese. Others have suggested picketing local FOX affiliates. Personally, I’m planning on writing to some FOX advertisers complaining.

Note: Since I initially posted this, I’ve posted the following additional articles about the FOX News exclusion, as well as the ABC News/WMUR exclusions:

Ron Paul NOT Excluded After All?” (Was based on an erroneous article that was later retracted)
Ron Paul & the FOX News Forum Exclusion - Part III
Further Clarification on the Ron Paul/FOX Forum Mess
More Debate Exclusion in New Hampshire
New Hampshire Debate Exclusion Update & My Open Letter to WMUR and ABC News
Senator John Sununu (R-NH) Weighs in on FOX Forum/ABC Debate Exclusions

Ron Paul, Grass Farming, and Global Warming (and Organic Farming Too!)

I just read a thoroughly fascinating letter (”Ron Paul, Grass Farming, and Global Warming: An Open Letter to Those Concerned With Global Warming” by Chris Masterjohn) posted on Lew Rockwell’s web site.

Like everybody else who has even remotely paid attention the last few years, I’ve heard about global warming, and while I’m skeptical of the claims that are made, I try to keep an open mind since it stands to reason that pollution caused by industrial processes would have some sort of effect on the environment as a whole, so a gradual increase in average temperatures is not out of the question.

As a result, the following few paragraphs really caught my attention:

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide can be reduced in two ways: the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere can be reduced, and the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere in oceans, soils, plant and animal life, and other “carbon sinks” can be increased. Reducing carbon emissions only slows the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 while increasing carbon sequestration causes reductions in atmospheric CO2 that take effect immediately.

According to the organization Carbon Farmers of America (CFA), the most promising method of carbon sequestration and thus the most immediate and effective solution to global warming is to increase topsoil formation with pasture-based farming.

According to CFA, the amount of topsoil lost in the Great Plains over the last 150 years can sequester the same amount of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere by human industry since the Industrial Revolution. By restoring the same amount of topsoil, we could reduce atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels. On a global scale, we could achieve the same result by merely increasing the level of topsoil by 1.6%!

This is very interesting … we hear a lot about the supposed ill effects of pollution on the environment, and people make a lot of noise about extinction of species and reduction of the native habitats of species, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anybody discuss the effects of the loss of topsoil on the environment.

And, if that wasn’t enough, the whole idea dovetails with the consumption of organically-raised foods … an idea that just seems to make sense. After all, as we in the computer world say, “Garbage In - Garbage Out” … so why should it surprise us that foods enhanced or fed with all sorts of strange artificial chemicals and hormones might not be so healthy for humans.

So … now that this whole concept has been brought to my attention, I have two plans of action. First, I’m going to support CFA monetarily. Second, I will continue to work towards my dream of having a farm of some variety. Yes, friends and family … on those days when I tell you that I wish I was farming and never had to see a computer again … I’m serious. :-)

Ron Paul and Free Competition in Currency

Whew. The hustle and bustle of the holidays is starting to end, and boy do I have a passel of things to post about (though we’ll have to see if many of them ever see the light of day).

Most interesting to me is the news that Ron Paul has introduced a bill called the “Free Competition in Currency Act” (and let me tell you … finding the actual text of the bill, as opposed to just Paul’s speech introducing it, took a bit of Google digging).

It will be interesting to see just what happens with this particular bill. I can think of absolutely no good reason that the government should not allow competing currencies. I suspect that if people started exchanging actual gold and silver it might well further destabilize the dollar, but I count that as a positive thing since the Federal Reserve’s meddling with the money supply has essentially been defrauding people of the fruits of their labor for some time now anyway.

That defrauding is the exact reason that I’ve started to track the gold and silver markets and invest there. In fact, I’m even considering pegging the rates I charge for my business based on something like a 30-day moving average of the price of gold in USD. We’ll see where that goes, though …

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck

I catch Glenn Beck on the local talk show in town (WGOW 102.3 FM) every now and then when I’m out and about in the evening. I find myself disagreeing with him more often that I agree (probably because foreign policy has been the topic so often recently). Still, the Ron Paul interview on tonight’s show is, I think, the best interview with Dr. Paul I’ve seen yet. He got plenty of time to clearly state his positions, and I think that anybody that watches will, agree or disagree, understand where he stands.

I think one of the best parts of the interview is when Dr. Paul essentially states that there is no divide between personal liberty and economic liberty.

That and “I think the Constitution is very libertarian, so if you’re a Constitutionalist, you’re a Libertarian, which means you want a lot less government. The Constitution was written to restrain the government, not restrain the people.”

Ron Paul gets Front-Page CNN Coverage

CNN has published a relatively good article on Ron Paul. Like him or not, agree with him or disagree, the time that people can pretend that he will have nothing more than a negligible effect on the election is over.

Anthony Gregory on Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, Peace is Always Preferable to War”

Once again, someone puts the pieces together better than I can. This article (”Mr. Speaker, Peace is Always Preferable to War“, by Anthony Gregory) is an excellent compilation of Ron Paul’s warnings concerning our foreign policy, starting during the early years of the Reagan administration.