Checking on Paul's Chances
David Weigel | December 31, 2007, 10:46am
I really can't wait to get to New Hampshire, because I can't get a handle otherwise on Ron Paul's level of support. Lots of reporters are on the story now: The Iowa Independent thinks Paul can come in third in the caucuses; Ken Herman walks among Paul's flock in Iowa:
"Do I expect him to be president? I think so," said John Zambenini, a 22-year-old Dayton, Ohio, native who became the campaign's Iowa spokesman in October, a month after he first heard the name Ron Paul. "I think the more Americans know about Ron Paul, they will realize we cannot afford not to have him as president."
Paul's Iowa campaign claims more than 300 volunteers from 39 states and four foreign countries. Most are bivouacked at seven camps across the state and driven into towns for door-to-door campaigning.
Drew Cline, the incredibly on-the-ball Union Leader reporter, feels like Paul could do even better in New Hampshire.
The buzz surrounding the Paul campaign is reminiscent of the grassroots campaign Democrat Carol Shea-Porter waged against Republican Rep. Jeb Bradley last year. Polls showed Mrs. Shea-Porter trailing by 19 points in October. With almost no money and no support from the Democratic establishment, she came from behind and beat the congressman 51% to 49%. Many are wondering if the polls are similarly missing Mr. Paul's momentum. Mrs. Shea-Porter and Mr. Paul have very different ideas about how to use the power of government, but both strongly oppose the war in Iraq. And Mrs. Shea-Porter ran last year as a fiscal conservative, so it's possible Mr. Paul could win over many Republicans who voted for her last year.
The difference, though, is that Paul's developed a Brad Pitt-at-Cannes following, pied-pipering in people from out of state who want to hear his speeches and then... can't vote in the primary.
Keith Murphy, a former Democratic campaign worker from Maryland who owns Murphy's Taproom in Manchester, has held several Paul rallies at his restaurant, which has become a regular hangout for the Paul crowd. When the candidate shows up, about 75% of the activists at an event are from out of state, he said, but on other nights it's about 50-50.
That's still not good, although since the summer I've seen more and more people showing up at Paul events who actually live in the states where they're being held: Virginia voters coming to a speech in Virginia, DC voters showing up to a DC Tea Party. Not like the Iowa straw poll, when the crowd was swelled by non-voting Nebraskans and Minnesotans and Texans.
From The Keystrokes of John Q. Public | December 31, 2007, 2:30pm | #
To Mr. David Weigel:
Your article reminds me of a scene from the Movie 300. I picture you like King Leonidas, gazing up at the night sky. The narrator noting that you are harboring a fools up in the face of all odds. You are not alone...
"We need more subgroups we can offer something to."
I agree with the premise completely Lost in Translation.I respectfully disagree with your recommendation. I think Elemenope is correct on the issue of a great compromise between the NeoCons and the Libertarians/Paleocons.
Don't get me wrong, say what you will about Alexander Hamilton, he had one thing right. Backroom deals and compromises are how government accomplishes things. However he never mentioned this reality in regard to constituents. Now you can call them Constituents, special interests etc etc. In my view what it all comes down to is Patronage.
Now we're not all gonna go to an aristocrats entree way everyday because we are their patron(Gotta love the Romans). The idea is simple. As you say, what can you do for me? I think a compromise between the factions is missing the point entirely. I point to FDR. The New Deal is essentially a massive patronage system. Despite all it's shortcomings people liked it because they saw results individually. Here in lies the road to how we are marginalized...
I wasn't born into a libertarian tradition. I only found it as I stumbled from one party to another, essentially disenchanted by both parties. Left to the distractions of history,philosophy, economics, music etc etc.
So while Ron Paul gives a speech on inflation, while we point to history, while lawyers talk about civil liberties, we are own stumbling block. We're fighting the national attention deficit. There is rarely an argument of who is winning the debate intellectually.
Try saying... Hey... You're biggest concern is paying your bills and feeding your family? Did you know if we got rid of the federal income tax, the government would have the same revenue it did in 2000?!
You're a white woman/soccer mom who thinks education and social problems are the most important? Well how about this analogy for school vouchers: the government has a voucher system to feed the poor: Food stamps. So who does the gov give that voucher to? The grocery stores or the people buying the food? In education, they're giving it to the grocery stores- the producers. Instead of to the people who need the food- the consumers. The government should be promoting schooling... not buildings,teachers unions.
You're an evangelical Christian with raging nationalism and moral streaks? We're gonna transfer military assets and troops from all around the world back to american soul. Your dollar is gonna go up in value and be worth something again. We're gonna make sure you have more money to wage your war on abortions, gays, and buy more books about the end times. By the way, you're not gonna be able to be prosecuted for hate speech for any of it either! (Make that into a boogeyman!Christians are being prosecuted! You need civil liberties!)
You're under 30? two words for you: Social Security!
Repeat it over and over again until the masses develop tinnitus from the speakers. Until the not so pretty parrots repeat it even in their sleep. Compromise for the constituents! Making millions of patrons among the masses.
Republicae | December 31, 2007, 9:42pm | #
Hey Guy Montag....
I can’t find the exact quote, but Dr. Paul stated that if the façade was scrapped off the interplay between the fiat monetary system and the tax system, the reality of taxation would surprise everyone. The truth of the matter was detailed by our very own Federal Reserve Bank itself in several of its publications.
One of the best explainations of the reasons behind taxation under a fiat monetary system was given by a FED Chairman Breadsley Ruml back in 1946. While we have all been made to assume that taxation is an absolute necessity to maintain our government operations, according to Ruml that is not the case.
In one publication of the Federal Reserve, this statement was made: "Modern monetary systems have a fiat base, LITERALLY MONEY BY DECREE with depository institutions, acting as fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting in part as RESERVES. The DECREE appears on the currency notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." WHILE NO INDIVIDUAL COULD REFUSE TO ACCEPT SUCH MONEY FOR DEBT PAYMENT, EXCHANGE CONTRACTS COULD EASILY BE COMPOSED TO THWART ITS USE IN EVERYDAY COMMERCE. HOWEVER, A FORCEFUL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY MONEY IS ACCEPTED IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES IT AS PAYMENT FOR TAX LIABILITIES. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for the pure fiat dollar."
It goes further to state that taxes are no longer necessary for the operations of the government since the system is no longer dependent on a gold-backed and restricted monetary system:
“The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years, which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements. The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.
Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.
The United States is a NATIONAL STATE, which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose, which is served, should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.”
In other words, there are only three reasons to impose income taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes on the American Citizen. Those reasons are to maintain social-economic controls over the population, to redistribute the wealth and to enforce the use of the fiat money. Those are the only reasons given by the Federal Reserve for taxation, that’s it, nothing what-so-ever more!
So, we are living under a very complex and very deceitful ruse. Ron Paul wants to erase the ruse completely, but I think he realizes that few people could wrap their minds around just how completely their government has deceived its own people for decades.
