2008 Campaign

Here’s columnist Clarence Page on Ron Paul:

The Texas Republican, who embraces a libertarian point of view, has been riding an unimpressive 2 percent in the polls, but if the presidential election were held in cyberspace, Paul would probably win hands down.

Paul’s supporters flood online polls, such as the unscientific survey ABC News invited viewers to join after the Republican debate last Sunday. Yet, you could barely find the Texas doctor in the network’s after-debate coverage, despite the vigorous applause he ignited with his call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Which may be why John “Stay-the-Course-in-Iraq” McCain has utterly collapsed. I have no doubt that a majority of Republican voters still support the war but maybe — just maybe — some of the closeted party realists and civil libertarians find their scrotums when they hear a fellow Republican (Dr. Paul) say that we never should have gone in and that the time to leave was yesterday.

It may be a Nixon in China thing – when Republicans hear Hillary say “withdraw” it translates into “cut and run”. When a fellow Republican says “let’s get out”, maybe a portion of the base can get behind it without feeling like they’ve betrayed their honor, their patriotism, and their (very real) support of our soldiers.

Then again, they could just be applauding him because, despite the Bush-fog, he connects with a latent nostalgia of who they once were and what their party once believed.

But I digress, Page continues:

Yet, like other mavericks as varied as John Anderson, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, Paul appears to be turning on a segment of the electorate that usually seems to lie dormant. In his case, a lot of them live online.

Judging by my contacts with Paul promoters — in person and through e-mails — they seem to be largely young, male, independent-minded, leave-us-alone libertarians who like Paul’s tiny-government agenda.

The very folks that Jesus loves most… Impact on the Independent Libertarian-leaning crowd aside, I wonder if Paul will be able to ignite the anti-government/pro civil liberties sentiments of the Republicans of yesteryear. Does he have a plan to do this? Are his media folks putting together “remember when” spots in Iowa and New Hampshire to urge the truly conservative Republicans back to their roots?

I’d bet that they’re not and we can blame that on (dis)organization:

Which leads to another reason why I think Paul faces trouble in moving his campaign to the next level of public attention: organization. You can’t win political campaigns without it, but organizing libertarians is about as easy as herding cats. Angry cats.


Even when I’m at my most self-delusional, I don’t really believe that Ron Paul will be the next President of the United States – but I have not completely dismissed the possibility that his candidacy will have a significant impact on the campaign, the GOP, and the war in Iraq.


Follow-up to an earlier post : Vatican’s No. 2 (sic) supports sainthood for Knights of Columbus founder. Speaking at the Knights of Columbus’ 125th annual convention, Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, has pledged to support the sainthood Cause of (Connecticut born priest and Knights founder) Michael J. McGivney.


…well you know the rest but here’s Congressman Ron Paul on the subject:

To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.

Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.

Back in the days when I was screaming, stomping, and pulling my hair out over so-called conservatives who were pissing on the Constitution and embracing an expansive (and ever expanding) government in the name of “security”, Dr. Paul was the only Republican in Congress to stand against the excesses and encroachments.

What I wouldn’t give to have a few hundred more like him in that big, ugly building on Capitol Hill.


Be sure to check out:

Mideast Peace is anti-God: Spoken tongue-in-cheek, of course. The author, a minister, takes on the razor-clawed, bloody fanged Evangelicals.

Books we haven’t read: Are you embarrassed by the rather obvious holes in your reading list? Here’s how to discuss Proust without having read him.

Serious Baseball fans were left scratching their heads last Fall when the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series. The Cardinals barely played .500 ball all season and they finished 13th overall in a field of 30 clubs.

So how did a pitiful 13th place team walk away with the whole shebang? Science has the answer:

The 162-game major league baseball season may give underdogs a leg up in getting to the playoffs, say a pair of physicists.


Two physicists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico ran simulations of league play to see how many baseball games National League teams would have to play in the regular season to ensure that the best team came away with the best record. The answer: a whopping 256 games.

Because there’s always some chance that a lesser team will win any given game, teams would have to play a larger number of games to overcome statistical randomness—specifically, the number of games should be the cube of the total number of teams, write Eli Ben-Naim and Nick W. Hengartner in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review E.

(Devil Rays fans may want to start lobbying to shorten the season by, say, 120 games.)

As I sit here I wonder if this can be applied to other fields of human endeavor like, for instance, presidential campaigns. Recently, politicos were surprised to learn that Ron Paul — my man for that big round office — had more cash-on-hand than John McCain.

Could it be that obscenely extended campaign seasons give lesser known candidates greater public exposure and, therefore, increased access to cold hard cash?

If so, Mike Gravel could be our next president…


And speaking of science:

Business booming at Creation Museum Only in America…

Previously, I said that the only Republican presidential candidate that I’d even consider supporting in 2008 would be Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). That support would be largely (ok, entirely) based on his opposition to the Iraq war.

Well, Senator Hagel isn’t running and I need a candidate. In 2004 I voted for the Libertarian (I can’t even remember his name) but in 2008 I’ll be a Paul-for-President kind of guy.

Here’s why:

Finally, a Republican who sounds like a Libertarian Republican.