Friday, April 16, 2010

The Anchorage and Wasilla Tea Party Tax Day Events - Part Three - Another Victory for Ron Paul?

It wasn't a fluke that the person who most inspired attendees at the two biggest Alaska Tea Party tax day gatherings was Texas Rep. Ron Paul:

12 - Ron Paul
9 - Sarah Palin
7 - Michelle Bachman
5 - Glenn Beck
3 - George W. Bush
3 - Mitt Romney
3 - Newt Gingrich
2 - Mike Huckabee
2 - Ralph Nader

Here's a breakdown of the February 2008 Alaska all-party caucus vote:

Barack Obama --- 6,471
Mitt Romney --- 5,177
Mike Huckaby --- 2,596
Hillary Clinton --- 2,138
Ron Paul --- 2,004
John McCain --- 1,837

At the time, my friend, Fred James, informed me that the way the computers were set up in the Alaska GOP candidate preference forums was, to borrow Shannyn Moore's term, "hinky." Informants from Anchorage, Wasilla, Palmer and Fairbanks told him there were far more Paul supporters at those events than were represented in the results emanating from those polling places.

Since then, a financial meltdown, which Paul had predicted, increasing concern that our Israel-centric Middle East policies do not serve our national interests - again - something Paul long ago articulated, and rapidly growing frustration with party hackery from both the Democrats and the GOP, have given him a resonance that reaches a point where the media can no longer refuse to cover him.

He isn't nearly as sexy as Sarah Palin, nor does he raise slush money nearly as effectively as Palin, but he reaches across party lines more effectively and sincerely than has any figure in recent American politics.

Paul's victory in the CPAC poll, close second in the SRLC poll and fairly shocking statistical tie with Obama in an early 2012 match poll by Rasmusson, all combine to make one wonder why about 5,000% as much print is wasted on the vapid Palin than on the high information Paul.

Justin Raimondo has posted a very good post-tax day essay on Paul's durability at Here is an extract:

His message, in short, is eat your spinach – not something any politician who hopes to keep his job (or get one) would normally say. But then again, as I said above, these are not normal times: far from it. The crisis of the American republic is acute, as we teeter on the brink of bankruptcy and our overseas empire shows every sign of imploding, just like the old Soviet Union – and, what’s more, the American people know it.

As our corporatist masters feast on our tax dollars in Washington, out in the provinces voters faced with economic ruin are looking for some explanation, a conceptual framework that gets at the root of the problem and provides some solution. Paul’s rising popularity is due to the fact that he does indeed have a consistent philosophical approach, one that has propelled him from being a mere marginal figure – a "gadfly," as they said – to a very real contender. Yes, that’s right, I said a contender for the White House: it’s real, it’s possible, and here’s why.

Paul has consistently emphasized two themes that successfully capture the sentiments of the average American voter, and address the top two issues on their minds: 1) Fiscal sanity, and 2) A non-interventionist foreign policy. As regards the first point, Ron is the foremost opponent of government spending in Congress, and has earned the sobriquet "Dr. No" many times over. But of course practically all Republicans at least pay lip service to this ideal, although none that I know of lives up to it like Dr. Paul. However, it’s the second point – opposition to imperialism, and especially opposition to our crazed post-9/11 foreign policy of perpetual war – that is the key.

Here's Rep. Paul a week ago, on a Jesse Ventura-hosted episode of the Larry King show (with an incredibly improbable panel!), when asked about the viability of Palin as a 2012 candidate:

Notice how gatekeeper Stephanie Miller misses the opportunity to lend support to building a new coalition, in her avoidance of Paul's positive framing, by changing the subject to Sarah Palin's clothes.

As much as the apparatchiks of mainstream media, new media and emerging media want to avoid dealing with why somebody like Ron Paul has far more resonance than the figures those media pimp as being important, Paul may be on the point of catching a wave, or benefitting from the eye of the perfect storm.

We'll see.


freeper said...

Let's look past what Ron Paul the image, says and look what he does and who he is behind the public relations image he creates for the easily deluded.

Ron Paul is a Republican.

Worse yet, a Libertarian extremist Republican.

Ron Paul is a founding member of the Liberty Caucus, other members of note?

Johnny "Cakes" Auville

Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy

Robert Poole founder of the Reason Foundation

Shawn Steele of Club for Growth infamy.

Dave Nalle well known wingnut extraordinaire

Mark Cross

Tom Tancredo

Virgil Goode

Herb Titus

And let's not forget Ron Paul's association with the militia movement, the Birchers, white supremacists, the KKK and the Neo-Nazis.

Ron Paul is clearly a right wing extremist from the John Birch Society school of thought.

Most of his policies and views come from their conspiracy theory, from his opposition to the U.N. and Civil Rights legislation, to his homophobia and anti-Semitism.

He clearly believes in or chooses to spread the paranoia based New World Order, Illuminati theory that the John Birch society has spreading to militias and Neo-Nazis for so many years.

Despite his 'claim' to be anti-war, he voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11, 2001, that was Bush's Iraq war authorization.

Ron Paul sponsored legislation to nullify Roe v Wade.

Ron Paul is against health care reform, in fact, he's against any federal program including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc etc.

He sponsored the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009 which the John Birch Society recognizes as a reflection of its efforts since 1962 toward U.S. withdrawal from the U

Ron Paul says there should be no separation of Church and State, he buys into the notion and supports the ideology of the dominionists.

Resonance ?

He 'reaches across party lines' ?

Ron Paul's 'durability' ?

Ron Paul's 'positive framing' ?

Jeeebus, phil, not you too....


freeper said...

In discussing Ron Paul, and describing him as anything less than a malevolent, batshit crazy crank, otherwise sane people accomplish nothing but moving the Republican-side Overton window so that even Tancredo, Hunter and the rest of anti-immigrant, anti-government, anti-social denizens of the Republican far right almost seem saner by the comparison.

And that favor isn't something any Democrat, progressive, moderate or even bona fide true social libertarian should invest themselves in.


Philip Munger said...


I'm not endorsing Paul, and your response is exactly what I'm looking for here.

He does reach across party lines, though. Not by his failings you referenced, but through actually going beyond the usual things Reps and candidates say in open exchange.

Paul is far more of a version of what George Wallace might have become than the next Nader.

Chris said...

Well said, Phil.

Freeper, I agree with you that Ron Paul should make a full, candid disclosure about the authorship of the 90's newsletters I assume you are referring to. However, the vast majority of new Paul supporters that have been energized since '08 don't know about the nasty content of those newsletters (probably in part due to that effective PR image you refer to). They have, however, been captivated by the issues of sound money, fiscal sanity, civil liberties, ending endless overseas wars, and curbing corporate welfare.

Ron Paul may not be the right guy due to the skeletons in his closet, but the issues he's been pushing are something where progressives can probably find some agreement. I mean, you'll get more agreement with the typical Ron Paul supporter over drug policy, the PATRIOT act, overseas war, and other important issues then you will with a neocon theocrat from the Sarah Palin school of (non)thought.

Given the hyper-partisan nature of our politics today, I welcome any attempt to find consensus and agreement in support of genuine change.

Phil, thanks for the even-handed commentary. If Freeper doesn't overwhelm the comments, do you mind commenting briefly on the interaction (if any) between the Anchorage tea-partiers and the anti-war crowd protesting nearby? I think that is another piece of the puzzle here.

Don't feed the trolls,

freeper said...

It's purely an illusion that he reaches across party lines. It's a false image.

There is no substance to the false image.

Nothing he has actually done has anything to do with 'reaching across party lines'.

Every action he's actually taken is hard line extremism that only promotes his hard line extremist positions and dogmatic ideology.

Ron Paul's fatuous speechifying to the brain-dead drones isn't any way to judge the reality of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's actual actions show no concession to any party line but his own brand of uber-libertarian batshit crazy lunacy.

Don't fall for the public relations false narrative.

It's a sham, it's as phony as they come.

Look past the illusion created by the echo chambers. There's nothing there to support the illusion.


freeper said...

Ron Paul has no offer and never has offered any solutions which sanely address drugs, money, fiscal policy, civil liberties, war, or corporate welfare.

Kee ryst, Ron Paul wants to give the corporations free rein and do away with any and all regulation of corporations, as well as do away with income taxes which would only concentrate even more riches in the corporate elite.

Quit spouting utter nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.

Chris, you're out of your depth, you're blithering like a brain dead drone with nothing of any substance to offer.

You're out of your depth every time you've opened your yap about any topic which you've sputtered and drooled over.


Anonymous said...

I wouldn't trust Ron Paul to take my mother to her doctors appointment.

Some very damning things were written in his newsletters back in the 80's, and now he refuses to take ownership of those words.

Don't trust him, never will.

Bob Broughton said...

Paul opposes public education, and wants to shut down the Department of the Interior.

Either of these is automatic disqualification in my book.

Anonymous said...

Bob D said...

Ron Paul is still the only one willing to bring our troops home and end this perpetual war. The major parties who borrow from China to support these wars are the real super wackos. Anyone politician courage enough to speak against them (and there are very few) is the only sane one among them.

Chris said...

Hang on, Freeper, are you arguing in favor of:

- Warrantless wiretaps
- Extraordinary rendition
- Expansion of unjustified overseas wars and the military-industrial complex
- Continued assaults on civil liberties -- which disproportionately affect the poor and minorities -- in the name of the War on Drugs
- Balancing the budget

I just want to be clear here.

Don't feed the trolls,

freeper said...

Leave it to a moronic idiot to blurt out mindless and brain-numbingly fatuous and absurd lunacy.

Being basically and fundamentally incapable of comprehending the simplest of concepts, he's trapped within a self-generated and lunatic, incognizant psychoneurosis.

HIs condition would be pitiable, except he is dead set on not just maintaining his pathetic psychopathy, but seems to actually delight and revel in his cocksure, hedonistic passion for augmenting and magnifying the extent of his bilious infirmity.


Chris said...

Ron Paul supports ending the worst aspects of the drug war, curtailing overseas wars, and rolling back assaults on civil liberties.

You said:

"Ron Paul has no [sic] offer and never has offered any solutions which sanely address drugs, money, fiscal policy, civil liberties, war, or corporate welfare. "

That implies strongly that you disagree with his positions on those issues. So, I reasonably assumed that you must support the converse of those positions, i.e., warrantless wiretapping, expanding the wars overseas, expanding infringements of civil liberties in the name of the never ending wars on terror/drugs, etc.

However, when called on it, instead of committing yourself to a position which is either startlingly "unprogressive" or which *gasp* might actually be an area of agreement with someone you seem to think is perhaps on par with the anti-christ for some reason, you prefer to call me names. How mature.


Anonymous said...

If you couldn't repeatedly attempt to mischaracterize and falsely portray what Ron Paul represents, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

And since your mischaracterizing Ron Paul's actual policy proposals, you never have had a leg to stand on.

You don't reasonably assume anything, you've never given any evidence that you possess any reason.

I assign to you the correct descriptive labels so there can be no question of what Is intended.

You're a moron. An idiot.

Simple as that.

You don't know what you're burbling. You don't know Ron Paul's legislative record, you have no clue of what the Libertarian Party planks are, and you can't define what Ron Paul represents as only what happens in some fantasy you've created in your own crippled lower brain stem.

You say Ron Paul will roll back the assault on civil liberties ??

Is that what you dreamed up in your fantasy world?

Ron Paul merely wants to transfer the loss of your civil liberties from any protections of the government in order to enable the corporations and the private sector to eliminate all your civil liberties.


Every year since Roe v Wade, someone has introduced legislation that says life begins at conception. Most years, the only one who sponsors such legislation is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul wants to ban all abortions. Oh, shit, the civil liberties of millions of women doesn't impact your fantasy.

Ron Paul wants to prohibit the courts from hearing sexual discrimination suits. No one gonna lose any civil liberties when that happens, right moron ?

Ron Paul wants to eliminate minimum wages. The right to a living wage surely won't deprive anyone of their civil liberties, hell, no, they still have the civil liberty to be poorer than they are now.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Copeland Act, which bars kickbacks on federal contracts.

He wants to eliminate Social Security.

He opposes measures that promote more voter participation.

He wants to gut anti-trust laws. Monopolies are a great thing to hope for, right moron ? Certainly when the corporate monopolies have free rein to do as they wish, no one will have to worry about civil liberties, eh, moron....

Ron Paul wants to deauthorize most regulatory powers of all federal agencies, whoo hoo, pollution, no problemo, price fixing, nothing to concern your pin sized head over, loan sharking, insider trading, market rigging, no product testing, no food inspections, certainly not a concern of anyone who comprehends what civil liberties mean, right?

Ron Paul proposes to eliminate public education, the opportunity to obtain an education surely isn't a civil liberty, right ?

You say Ron Paul wants to 'end the worst aspects of the drug war'.


Ron Paul wants to legalize all drugs use, sales and distribution.

Heroin, have at it, sell it, use it, manufacture it.

Crack, same same.



Anonymous said...

Ron Paul sponsored legislation prohibiting any family planning, or any population planning in any form. Seven times.

Ron Paul sponsored legislation seven times to eliminate religious autonomy. Even to the point of doing away with the Constitutional guarantee of the right to practice the religion of your choice.

( want to call him a defender of the Constitution ? ....think again. )

Ron Paul sponsored legislation, again, seven times, to eliminate sexual orientation protections and precedents in law.

Twice he's tried to sponsor amendments to the Constitution eliminating First Amendment protections.

Twice he's tried to do away with the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

He's sponsored legislation to eliminate unions.

He's tried to repeal the Motor Voter Act.

He's tried to repeal the National Voter Registration Act.

He's tried to exempt health insurance companies from anti trust laws.

He has tried to eliminate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, and the rest of the anti-trust laws.

He has sponsored legislation that would eliminate all federal regulatory agencies and even more insanely, expect to have Congress take over all those duties and decide everything which could be construed to be a regulatory matter each day, on a case by case basis, as any and all such matters may arise.

('re dumb enough to probably think that would be a good thing, eh ? )

Ron Paul has twice sponsored legislation to eliminate racial or ethnic discrimination protections.

( and your white power brethren must be cheering on the sidelines.....)

Ron Paul has tried three times to gut the 14th Amendment.

Ron Paul has tried six times to eliminate the Clean Air Act, the Soil and Water Conservation Act, and the use of devices that protect the "bycatch" of sea life.

Ron Paul has tried to promote no controls on offshore oil-drilling, the construction of more refineries, and stepped up coal-mining on Federal lands.

Ron Paul has tried to gut the Law of the Sea.



Anonymous said...

Oh, shit, Ron Paul isn't anti-war after all.

He twice sponsored legislation to wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.

Four times he's tried to protect and guarantee war crimes perpetrators can't be prosecuted.

He's also sponsored legislation to withdraw the US from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missiles.

Five times he's tried to amend the Constitution to add the Bricker Amendment, reverting to English law precedents as if we hadn't ever declared Independence.

Nineteen times he's sponsored legislation intended to torpedo the UN and withdraw US participation.

('s indicative of his true motives that he's spent more effort carrying water for the John Birch Society's current primary legislative focus than on any other concern.)

Three times he's sponsored legislation claiming US sovereignty and ownership of the Panama Canal and suggesting the US should 'take over'.

Fifteen times he's attempted to legislate eliminating just about any and all controls on gun ownership.

Addicts and guns ? No problem.

Mental patients with guns, not a care.

Criminals of all stripes, give them automatics.

Minors, felons, fugitives, give em all guns. Give everyone any kind of gun they want whenever they want one, no background checks, hell, give em all a gun and send them into the schools and battered women safe houses, hospitals, stadiums, and bars.

Ron Paul twice sponsored legislation to eliminate planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of educational certification.

Ron Paul sponsored legislation to eliminate the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.



Anonymous said...

As far as fiscal policy and economics, Ron Paul offers up a mish mash of contradictory ass-holery and sleight of hand.

He is as insane as is his cheerleader Chris here...

Fourteen times he's tried to eliminate taxes on the inordinately wealthy.

He's tried to eliminate corporate taxes.

Your taxes ? He sponsored legislation to eliminate your deductions, your ability to use with-holdings and force you to pay your income taxes each month.

(and you bought into the myth that he intended to save you from the yoke of the IRS. ....fool.)

You get screwed, the wealthy and the corporations?

In Ron Paul's world, they skate, ....they're not even taxed.

Ron Paul would do away with progressive taxes all together and force those least able to afford taxes to pay nearly all the taxes.

Isn't that great ? Idiot, aren't you cheering now ?

Sixteen times he's tried to return to the gold standard or some combination of precious metals when no one, and I mean no one, not even himself can describe any system by which that transformation might actually be accomplished or whether we could ever compete on the world economic stage again afterward.

(...Just think of how many Pebble Mine sized projects we'd have to nationalize to even things up with gold backed dollars. ) Got a clue, idiot ?

Twice he's actually sponsored legislation to eliminate the US dollar and replace it with various dollars from each of the 50 states, each of those dollars being of no certain regulated worth.

Wheeeee. Let's all be idiotic. Chris has good things to say about Ron Paul. Chris will tell you he and Ron Paul are both intelligent and sane.

(....what do you say, should anyone tell them about their delusions ?)

Ron Paul has sponsored legislation eliminating the Trading with the Enemy Act.

(......take that you patriot boobs...)

Ron Paul advocates bringing back corporal punishment.

Yeah, without teacher certification or licensing we can have sadists beating our children into submission again. Yeah. Isn't that wonderful ?

Ron Paul advocates allowing churches and religious 'organizations' to discriminate in any public manner in which they may wish and escape any and all prosecution for discriminatory practices.

Oh, I almost forgot, segregation of schools, ?

It's back. Ron Paul has endorsed it.


;;;;;;and just in case the idiotic moron says I haven't talked about Ron Paul's promise to get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan.

That would be great, then wouldn't have any US presence and Iraq and Afghanistan would more than likely look like a good place to move to after a few months of Ron Paul and/or the likes of Chris getting their hands on any power to shape US policy.

Morons the both of them.


Anonymous said...

Chris hasn't the ability to deduce anything,

..not what I believe, not even what he believes,

....let alone does he possess the ability to comprehend any of even the smallest minute fragment of reality.

He's an insensate dolt in every sense of the word.


Anonymous said...

Still think Ron Paul 'reaches across party lines' Phil ?

Chris said...

Judging by his personal attacks and ranting syntax I take it anonymous is Freeper.

I'm not going to rebut your points one by one -- I don't work for a partisan campaign, after all. I will say that I don't agree with Paul 100%, or even 80%. I do think, however, that he is right on some issues. Whenever someone claims to agree with more than 80% of an agenda -- or less than 20% -- then I think it is worth taking another look. Usually there is at least something to agree on, and if you agree with >80% maybe you've drunk too much Kool-Aid. My point was that at least he supports some goals on the "progressive" agenda; probably more than the neocon theocrats do, at least.

On a personal note, I deeply resent your insinuation that I am a racist. I don't mind you insulting my intellect, education, or taste in booze. I can deal with a boor who belittles my opinions and immediately resorts to personal attacks in an attempt to draw us all into flame wars. I can tolerate the absolute lack of civility which you show to myself, your host (Phil), and everyone else that reads and participates here. I do, however, take strong exception to your tossing about of terms like "white power." I'm not going to whine to Phil and tell him how to run his blog. I will, however, make it very clear to you and all readers that I find your slanderous, unfounded accusations to be highly offensive. You have no idea what color my skin is and whom I have broken bread with -- as if it were even relevant.

Perhaps the next time you post, instead of viciously attacking everyone and everything, you should think about something you actually support. Every single line I have seen you type is full of vitriol, derision, even outright hatred. Why not build something constructive instead of only tearing down?

Earlier, I mentioned that I was not going to feed the trolls much longer. The next time you feel that it is appropriate to rip into me -- or any other polite, civil participant here -- I will simply refer others to our exchanges and let them judge for themselves (so long as Phil does not object, of course). I am done engaging with you -- at least until you demonstrate an ability to behave like a civil, responsible adult. Boors like you thrive on attention and I see that I have given you entirely too much of mine.


Anonymous said...

You never had a point.

And Ron Paul doesn't have any goal in mind that relates to a progressive agenda.

And you are not an adult.


Anonymous said...

Still think Ron Paul 'reaches across party lines' Phil ?