Ron Paul down 10 points to warmongering generic Republican

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/is_ron_paul_losing_for_congres.php

Despite millions of dollars and devoted online support, Ron Paul’s idiosyncratic campaign for the Republican presidential candidacy never caught fire. Now, polls show Dr. Paul falling behind relatively unknown challenger Chris Peden in his 14th Texas District endangering his congressional seat in the Texas primary. Roger L. Simon interviewed challenger Peden exclusively for Pajamas Media. (podcast and transcript also available)
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

By Roger L. Simon

Some may call it poetic justice, others may call it unfair, but Ron Paul is in the fight of his political life, but it’s not for the presidency. It’s to stay in Congress from his own district.

While pursuing his thus far quixotic quest for the presidency, Congressman Paul has fallen behind by over ten points in the polls (43-32) in the fight for the Republican nomination in the Texas 14th to challenger Chris Peden, according to internal polls from both campaigns, which Pajamas Media was told were quite similar. Peden is a 43-year old CPA and city councilman from Friendswood, Texas. The primary takes place on March 4.

With reports for January 2008 not yet out, Congressman Paul has spent (according to OpenSecrets.org) $20,262,084 on his presidential campaign - well over a million dollars per delegate (he has 14 to John McCain’s 903). Paul still has nearly eight million in his presidential war chest, possibly more when the new report comes out on Feb. 20, but cannot use any of it in his contest against Peden unless the OBGYN-politician drops out of the presidential race.

In an exclusive interview with Pajamas Media, Chris Peden said Paul is unlikely to forego his long shot pursuit of the presidency because to do so would mean he would not be able to make a coveted speech before the Republican Convention this September in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

But Paul would be well advised to reconsider. His over ten-year incumbency in the 14th District – which spans ten counties of South Texas with 675 miles of coastline – is in jeopardy for several reasons, not the least of which, Peden told PJM, is the reconfiguration of the 14th itself. Since 2004, it not only includes Galveston but suburban Houston as well, coming within six miles of NASA headquarters with many of the space agency’s employees now within the district. Paul is known for opposing funding for NASA, calling it unconstitutional.

Paul’s supporters themselves seem to be worried. They have switched fund-raising efforts on their website The Daily Paul in recent days from the presidency to his congressional race.

Meanwhile, frontrunner Peden plans to expose many other of Dr. Paul’s positions to his constituents, which the challenger says have received little coverage by mainstream media. This, of course, could include the as yet unsolved mystery of the racially controversial newsletters authored under Paul’s name during the nineties. Paul claims to have forgotten who wrote them.

But number one among the issues, Peden said in his interview, is this: “I’m not running for Commander-In-Chief, and so once the decision was made to put troops in Iraq, and that decision, by the way, was made by Congress, then I would never vote to not send them body armor and the equipment they needed to be successful. That is the one area that Ron Paul and I are vastly different.”
 
Despite millions of dollars and devoted online support, Ron Paul’s idiosyncratic campaign for the Republican presidential candidacy never caught fire. Now, polls show Dr. Paul falling behind relatively unknown challenger Chris Peden in his 14th Texas District endangering his congressional seat in the Texas primary.

Hilarious. This is headed for a comical ending.

Maybe Dr. Paul can launder those millions of dollars he raised, and redirect them back to his congressional campaign. Aren't his white supremicist friends good at money laundering? :pke:
 
He can redirect those funds, IF he withdraws from the Presidential race, but then that would put paid on making a speech at the Convention. ;)
 
We don't care about a speech at the Convention, Paul.

You won't change anyone's mind there.

Defend yourself, for us and for you!
 
It seems the prediction was that he would drop out after not spending any of the funds and use them to run for Congress. It appears that those who predicted such can't seem to predict 5:30 happening twice a day without messing it up.
 
It seems the prediction was that he would drop out after not spending any of the funds and use them to run for Congress. It appears that those who predicted such can't seem to predict 5:30 happening twice a day without messing it up.

I don't think he needs all that money to run for his seat. My understanding is he's been pretty popular in his district. If he's really in trouble, I don't think a rush of funds will help at this late date. I think he really wants to make that speech. My problem with RP has never been his 'message', so I'll be interested to see the response if he does speak at the Convention.
 
I don't think he needs all that money to run for his seat. My understanding is he's been pretty popular in his district. If he's really in trouble, I don't think a rush of funds will help at this late date. I think he really wants to make that speech. My problem with RP has never been his 'message', so I'll be interested to see the response if he does speak at the Convention.

So what is your problem with him precisely, if not his message?

His message is his defining attribute, otherwise he is just a doctor who disagrees constantly with his party and may or may not have racist friends.
 
I don't think he needs all that money to run for his seat. My understanding is he's been pretty popular in his district. If he's really in trouble, I don't think a rush of funds will help at this late date. I think he really wants to make that speech. My problem with RP has never been his 'message', so I'll be interested to see the response if he does speak at the Convention.

He's always been pretty popular in his district, but the Republicans have gerrymandered it beyond recongnition to try to kick him out and replace him. In 2002, it didn't work, but it seems like with the new redistricting scheme they've found the magic formula.
 
So what is your problem with him precisely, if not his message?

His message is his defining attribute, otherwise he is just a doctor who disagrees constantly with his party and may or may not have racist friends.

You nailed it where I bolded it. I do have a problem with that and would with any candidate, if on the same scale. He took the money 'earned' from those newsletters, where he may or may not have known, :rolleyes: what was contained within.
 
I understand the criticisms of Paul in that area, but I am in 95% agreement with Paul's policies and knew that I would never have another chance to cast a ballot for someone who represented my views so closely.

I would certainly prefer that there were a "clean" candidate who articulated Paul's same message. But the fact is that libertarianism as a school of thought did undergo a brief flirtation with racism throughout the 1980s, mainly as an attempt to draw Southerners into the party. Racists, antisemites, and many other bigots unfortunately chose to ally themselves with our movement. Their power has largely diminished, and we are doing what we can to ensure that they are beaten entirely.

Lew Rockwell should be a target of frequent criticism. It is believed by many that Paul simply chose not to identify Rockwell because of their former friendship. But I and many others believe that Lew Rockwell wrote those letters that Paul suffered the blame for, and we will see to it that he is removed as a voice of influence in the movement.
 
I knew the article was biased whenever I posted it but it was the only one with numbers.

If that tells you anything about the quality...

Still, whatever the poll is, unless it were about 30 or so percentage points off Paul is still in trouble.
 
I understand the criticisms of Paul in that area, but I am in 95% agreement with Paul's policies and knew that I would never have another chance to cast a ballot for someone who represented my views so closely.

I would certainly prefer that there were a "clean" candidate who articulated Paul's same message. But the fact is that libertarianism as a school of thought did undergo a brief flirtation with racism throughout the 1980s, mainly as an attempt to draw Southerners into the party. Racists, antisemites, and many other bigots unfortunately chose to ally themselves with our movement. Their power has largely diminished, and we are doing what we can to ensure that they are beaten entirely.

Lew Rockwell should be a target of frequent criticism. It is believed by many that Paul simply chose not to identify Rockwell because of their former friendship. But I and many others believe that Lew Rockwell wrote those letters that Paul suffered the blame for, and we will see to it that he is removed as a voice of influence in the movement.

Ron Paul denounced Lew Rockwell? To the point they no longer associate? I still find plenty of links from Rockwell sites to Ron Paul. I find nothing via google for Ron Paul denouncing either Lew Rockwell or his messages.
 
Ron Paul denounced Lew Rockwell?

Let's back up. I didn't say or even imply that he did.

I said that WE (maybe more me than you) as proponents of libertarian thought should bring down Rockwell. His continued presence as a libertarian intellectual is unacceptable and only serves as an embarrassment.

Ron Paul will and should do whatever he wants to do, but I suspect that he eventually will name Rockwell as the writer of the letters and hopefully apologize for profiting from them.
 
He has not denounced Rockwell and they are clearly still associated. The thing is, I don't even believe Rockwell is a racist. He and apparently Rothbard, just thought it was a good political strategy. What's weird to me is Rothbard talks about how libertarianism (or classical liberalism) suffered by associating with the same groups and should never have betrayed the message as they did in For a New Liberty. Ours is a radical movement and must always remain so.
 
The thing is, I don't even believe Rockwell is a racist. He and apparently Rothbard, just thought it was a good political strategy. What's weird to me is Rothbard talks about how libertarianism (or classical liberalism) suffered by associating with the same groups and should never have betrayed the message as they did in For a New Liberty. Ours is a radical movement and must always remain so.

I know. I've read all that and I don't care. I don't think he's actually a racist either, but it doesn't matter at this point does it?

They gambled and lost. They threw their lot in with the white supremacists, betting on them as political allies, and they failed miserably.

If they're such pragmatists then they should understand why the New Generation of Libertarians wants absolutely nothing to do with them.

They are tainted. If they're so concerned with the future of our movement then the best thing they could do would be to kill themselves and leave notes of apology.

Barring that, I will accept apologies and a retreat from public life.

It pisses me off to no end that a libertarian would make a gamble to ally themselves with racists.
 
I want to interpret Paul's silence on the matter as evidence of his personal friendshipto Rockwell, but if it turns out he was part of this Libertarian-Racist alliance then he should be ashamed as well.
 
It is the largest reason I didn't join the Libertarian Party when I registered to vote so long ago.
 
Back
Top