Tag Archives: Ron Paul

Election 2012 – #1 most popular Election Strategy explained in less than 25 words

Is this the campaign strategy of your candidate? Yes, probably.

It would be nice and less destructive of our society if a candidate were to deflect questions about another candidate and say something like: ‘Yes, Candidate X and I see things differently. I’m not interested is rehashing his plan. Let’s talk about mine. Here’s the specifics and here is the math.’

Election 2012 - GOP Campaign Strategy

Number 1 campaign strategy of 2012 election.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ron Paul, Red Dawn and Chinese Armed Forces in Texas

There is a very interesting new Ron Paul RevolutionPAC advertisement that focuses on foreign policy.

One premise of the Ron Paul campaign has been that many of our woes around the world are self-inflicted. I would agree, although I am not in complete harmony on this.

Below is Ron Paul’s new RevolutionPAC foreign policy ad. (The ad is not by the Ron Paul campaign itself, but by his supporting PAC. I know: hamburger, cheeseburger. Not much difference.)

The theme from Ron Paul’s ad is not new. It is a thread of thought that has been with us a long time now.

In 1984 there was a Patrick Swayze movie called Red Dawn. The movie didn’t explain what happened to cause foreign troops to be stationed on U.S. soil but the rest of the movie makes for a feature length story of Ron Paul’s new foreign policy ad.

Movie - Red Dawn - 1984

Movie - Red Dawn - 1984

Thanks to Al Alborn for bringing the Ron Paul ad to my attention.

DISCLAIMER: I support the core thesis of this advertisement. On the other hand I consider America to be an empire. Empires have a choice: stay involved or become one of the players that have to play by the rules rather than make up the rules. It isn’t a perfect world.


Filed under Uncategorized

IOWA – the GOP Holy Trinity Wins: One Party with three very different faces.

Romney squeaked/eked out/slid into the winning spot in Iowa by a whopping 8 votes.

Not able to pull off a real win in an uberconservative state, all the true conservative Romney haters are getting their story ready  that the GOP will lose in 2012 because of Romney.

Romney provides conservatives with a ready made stabbed-in-the-back excuse for not winning in 2012.

The problem is that the right can’t put forward anyone capable of presenting a winning story and getting votes because of it. Even if Santorum had managed to absorb more of the Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich votes it would have amounted to less than half of Iowan caucus voters. Shabby times in conservativeville.

The other two candidates that also won in Iowa were Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

Rick Santorum is now the default darling of the crony capitalism ‘our next war is in Iran in 24 months’ far right and Ron Paul is largely the polar opposite of Santorum, with Paul appealing to a youth-fueled and old codger alliance of very independent minded supporters that want less debt, less war and more guarantees on their personal freedoms.

With Iowa over, the GOP’s new Holy Trinity of flip-flop, tin foil, and far right wander off to We Ain’t Iowa to see if the party continues for them in New Hampshire.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

2012, Politics, Idealism and Choices … and about Ron Paul, too.

“Ron Paul, for all his faults, is the only Republican who gives a damn about civil liberties and isn’t a neocon warmonger.”
— Bruce Barlett, 2011.12.23

Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan economics guru, 2008 Obama voter, and Ron Paul critic … that Bruce Bartlett.

I accept that Ron Paul will never be able to explain racist comments which appeared in some of his newsletters.

Racism is unacceptable to me. I reject all things racist. However, when I look at the 2012 election options: choices are slim — and that includes whether to vote for President Obama.

For now I will continue to support Ron Paul. He has 30 years of actual votes to consider. Maybe he has some darkness in his heart but when it comes time to vote he is one of the few to vote for liberty for all and to demand actual transparency in our government. … I would vote Huntsman given the chance but he will never appear on my ballot in Virginia so for now I will continue to support our crazy ol’uncle Ron Paul.

Politics makes for strangeness in life.

I am an idealist at heart but we need to admit that idealism doesn’t pay bills, protect your civil rights, guarantee balanced budgets, or prevent wars.

We need to move beyond voting for people that say that would do X, Y and Z given the chance. Inevitably most, once elected, vote the party line or flip due to some ‘new perspective’.

New perspective is good but when has President Obama ever had the backbone to use a veto when he threatened it? And when has he led from the front battlelines of an issue rather than at the 11th hour once the poll results are in?

As for Republicans, may God save us.

Gingrich would be darkness with a grandfatherly face. He would challenge the power of the courts to enforce laws, he would/has shutdown the government to make his point-of-the-day, and he is beholden to those that support him with contributions of hundreds of thousands or recently even a $20,000,000 contribution. Please don’t tell me that Gingrich is the answer. I will vote Obama first.

Perry. Am not voting Perry.

Santorum and Bachman – see Perry. All are social conservatives. If fear of racism is a qualifier for whom you vote then race-based policies are more likely to come from social conservatives than libertarians. Am not accusing any of racism, but since I am discussing Ron Paul and the prospect that racism is the boogeyman that we should fear in 2012, well my thoughts are as stated above.

John Huntsman – yes, could vote for him. He will not appear on Virginia’s state ballot so my remaining option is Romney.

Romney – I could possibly vote Romney but that is not a guarantee. Romney was generally a good governor of Massachusetts but he has repudiated much of what he achieved or previously believed. He is a serial flipflopper. Romney is an opportunist — although a good hearted opportunist. He means well. Yet Romney will veer significantly towards the right if that will get him votes. And he will veer back to the center too if that is where the electorate resides. I like the center, but I don’t like pandering veerers.

Ron Paul – while he is accused of having made racist commentary in his newsletters he is one of the few to have voted against almost every law restricting our rights and freedoms. He did so when only several others in his party had to guts to vote for freedom in the face of fear after 9/11. He has been willing to buck his party on so many occasions that his American Conservative Union (ACU) ranking in the mid-2000s were so low that he qualified as one of the most liberal congressmen in the Republican party. Yes, he is America’s crazy ol’uncle. He says sometimes the most astounding, and upon repeated occasions, maybe even embarrassing things. But his heart is good and his proven action in voting has been predictable and for the greater good.

So yes, I continue to support Ron Paul in 2012. I do so contradictory to many of my ideals. But politics is about more than ideals. It is about working with the cards that you’ve been dealt.

2012 is a year of really, extremely bad choices. So my bad choice is Ron Paul … for now.


Filed under Uncategorized

September 8th Republican Presidential Debate Summarized in 45 Seconds

Back to the future: 1980 or 2012?

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A sign of the times? A Lefty from New Jersey writes about his 2012 presidential choices.

When folks talk among friends or close associates they often say the most interesting things.

How often is it that political discussions quickly degrade to versions of books like How to talk to a Conservative/Liberal?

The remark below is from a political discussion group on Facebook:

“… don’t know at this point if i can support a red OR blue candidate…will be looking seriously at any independents that might get traction. of the repubs, romney seems the most harmless, 4 more years of plain white toast…ron paul the most exciting, maybe too exciting. i own a company in NJ and though i am a lefty i don’t think chris christie is all bad…really though, looking for someone, ANYONE untied to corporate/financial/partis​an bullshit to create some kind of buzz!”

The response was to the question: Which candidates are you supporting or could you potentially support in 2012?

So if a Lefty from New Jersey doesn’t think Chris Christie is all that bad then maybe America really does have a change coming.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Following the ‘Party Line’ – What does that mean?

by Bill Golden
aka Bill4DogCatcher.com

Polling and surveys have long shown that Americans aren’t happy with Congress.

Not even those Americans whose party controls Congress are often happy.

Part of that probably comes down to getting 535 folks to actually put some plan or proposal on the table for consideration, and which also has a chance to be passed — or more recently: has a chance to embarrass the other party if passed.

My position has long been that Congress is more beholden to protecting power and following the party line than it is in listening to the folks back home. They are busy following the party line to protect power and prerogative and positioning.

By voting the party line I mean that if they vote yea or nay they usually vote 90-95% or even higher the same way that other congressional members of their party vote. This is a lockstep mentality that keeps the other party from voting more independently because if they don’t vote accordingly then your block vote may cancel out their block vote.

You can easily track how your congressional representative or senator vote via the Washington Post’s vote tracker.

Amazingly members of both parties vote overwhelming the party line. Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul are among the very few that do not play that game but statistically they are blips in the big picture.

But is there a party line that our representatives actually line up behind and support? I believe that yes is the correct answer.

Here is my definition of a party line:

A party line is the focused political prioritization of objectives, methods, calculations and tradeoffs necessary to accomplish the legislative success of agenda items at the national level.

Your legislators do not represent you before Congress so much as they represent you to their parties — and try to get their parties to listen before there is any chance of getting issues out for larger consideration.

If all politics are local, for Congress to be seen as successful (via its approval rating) then it needs to be able to relate national accomplishments as having value at the local level. Most Americans just don’t see it. Major polls show that 70-76% of Americans disapprove of the job that Congress is doing. Democrats are even more disapproving of the job being done by Congress than are Republicans: 73% Democrats and 61% of Republicans (June 2011).

Perhaps part of our problem is that following the party line to get those deals, to buy those votes, so that all 535 members of Congress have their bag of goodies to take back home … that after all of that work most folks just no longer see the value … or the timely return of results on what interests them: issues and solutions.

Suggestions to fix this mess?


Filed under Uncategorized

Politics is Politics. Election 2010 Outlook.

by Bill Golden

Politics is politics.

It is what it is. Always has been.

If we always expect good, or that a politician won’t make a deal because they belong to some philosophy, then we will always be disappointed.

I prefer politicians that are at ease discussing their general political philosophy and acknowledging that you have got to give to get.

‘Giving to get’ does not mean abandoning your principles. It means that the art of the deal requires actually making a deal. If the deal is transparent then I have no problem — I may not like it but I have the ballot box to display my displeasure.

The crux of the GOP’s problems, and the Tea Party challenge, is that November may be a zero sum gain except in the selling of anti-acids.

The GOP cannot mathematically easily take control of Congress. It can and probably will take the House by 40-60 seats if the Democrats stay home (likely as of now) or by only 1-3 seats if the Democrats show up in equal ratio to GOP voters. Republicans need to win 39 seats to take control of the House.

The Senate will become more balanced but probably remain Democratic. However, some Republicans believe that they can possibly win 11 senate seats and take the senate too.

So the probable results of the 2010 election will be Obama as president, Boehner as House Speaker, and Reid leading the Senate. Blue Dogs will be fewer and pro-Tea Partyers will have representation.

The Tea Partyers will increase their numbers ONLY at the loss of seats by Republicans and some Blue Dogs. Status quo will be virtually unchanged … except that the Republicans and the Tea Partyers will be locked in a life and death struggle to capture the leadership of the Republican Party.

A bit of advice for Democrats: If you panic you are DOOMED. Democrats do not have the inherent sense of unity that Republicans do. Conservatives typically see each other as family, whether they like each other or not. You can’t go your own way and survive. Get a grip. Get some hand sanitizer and learn to hold hands.

Voters, and people in general, hate the smell of fear. The Republicans will campaign hard and ask for America’s vote to overturn any number of Obama administration and 111th Congress votes, such as health care and financial reform. Even if they took both houses of Congress they can’t do it. Should a victorious GOP try to overturn these and other recent changes then President Obama only need to use his veto pen to stop this in its tracks. To override a presidential veto requires a supermajority: 67 votes in the senate and 290 in the house. So this is mission impossible for the GOP … at least until maybe 2012 unless both Obama and the Democrats get their relationship with America back in order.

For the record, am not crazy about the health care reform, but am cheered about the financial reforms.

Let us also not forget the social conservatives. They sometimes talk like Tea Partyers but are ultimately statists and love big government too. The Tea Partyers are much too libertarian and anarchic for the social conservatives. 24 hours after the November election it will be all about 2012. Regardless of who eventually runs, 2012 on the right will be Palin social conservatives vs Paul’s libertarians. Look for total fun between 2010-2012.

Bill Golden, aka Bill4DogCatcher.com and JeffersonConservative.com, is an independent political observer whose views meet at the nexus of being conservative, libertarian and centrist.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized