Fox Vs. Paul

More evidence that the neo-con establishment hates Ron Paul. In this case Fox News is not inviting Paul to their Republican debate Sunday night. Dumb move. But what do you expect from the channel that hates Paul the most.So much for fair or balanced.

Online protests seek to include Ron Paul in NH debate
An online protest is growing over presidential candidate Ron Paul's exclusion from a Fox News debate here on Sunday, even though other Republicans receiving fewer votes in Iowa or scoring lower in the polls were invited.

Paul received a fifth-place 10 percent of the GOP vote in Iowa's caucus Thursday, ahead of Rudy Giuliani, who received 3.5 percent. He's also ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire polls, polling 7 percent to Thompson's 2 percent.

But both Giuliani and Thompson still appear to be invited to Sunday evening's debate sponsored by Fox News and the New Hampshire Republican Party. Paul isn't.

That's irked many Paul supporters, who responded by flooding a Fox News Web page on the debate with over 580 comments and creating a "Protest Fox" Web site. It says: "We need to send a message to Fox's Rupert Murdoch & his fellow Neocon buddies that he is not Musharraf and the US is not Pakistan, yet! Fox News cannot just stifle public opinion. debate and impact a primary election by excluding Ron Paul just because they don't like his message of freedom and liberty."

They're also planning protests outside Fox News affiliates. Another likely protest site is Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., which has given Fox News space for a broadcast studio. That's where Sunday's debate will take place.

So why the exclusion? It's hard to say, and Fox News hasn't exactly been forthcoming on this point.

For his part, Paul said he thinks it's because he--alone among Republican candidates--opposes the war in Iraq. After being excluded, Paul explained that he views Fox News as a "propagandist" for the war with editorial views that are hardly in keeping with traditional conservative limited-government principles, according to a story by the Boston Globe.

Adding to the intrigue is that the New Hampshire Republican Party, which is co-sponsoring the debate and presumably has some say in who's invited, published a statement this week saying the media should not be in the "business of excluding serious candidates and talks were continuing with Fox."

And adding to the insult, at least for Paul supporters, is that ABC News is sponsoring a debate at the same place--Saint Anselm College--the evening before. Unlike the Fox News debate on Sunday, however, Ron Paul will be invited to participate.

Of course Fox neo-con commentators just hate Ron Paul.

SEAN HANNITY UPSET ABOUT RON PAUL WINNING DEBATE POLL

While Fox is the voice of America's War,

Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly Duke It Out (09/10/07)



Fox Chatheads Aghast at Ron Paul's Appeal




Ron Paul is the voice of America's Troops. The folks fighting the neo-cons war for them. Paul can say he supports the troops while calling for their withdrawal from Bush's war.

New Spot: "Troops Support Ron Paul"

Republican Ron Paul is out with a new TV ad, set to run in New Hampshire through Tuesday's primary, stressing his military credentials.

Patriotic music booms. Soldiers salute. The announcer begins: "A proud military veteran who served our nation. Ron Paul salutes and supports our troops who protect and defend our freedom." A flag waves. The announcer continues, "But who do the troops support? Ron Paul. The record shows they're standing up for him." The ad concludes: "Ron Paul is their choice for commander-in-chief."

His campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said Paul "has long been a praised as staunch advocate for veterans' issues." Still, he "wants to bring the troops home from Iraq" because he would rather America "never again sends out brave soldiers to war unless doing so is necessary for our defense," according to Benton. Whether his anti-war message will appeal to New Hampshire veterans is hard to say.

While being dissed by the Republican establishment and its neo-con media flacks the real libertarian base of the pre-Reagan Republicans comes out in favour of Paul.

Congressman Ron Paul will be joined in the last days of the New
Hampshire campaign by former Congressman and conservative stalwart
Barry Goldwater, Jr.

"We are truly honored to have this legendary conservative family
here to support Dr. Paul and bring his message to New Hampshire
voters," said Jared Chicoine, NH State Coordinator. "A Goldwater
endorsement sends an unmistakable message about what Ron Paul really
means to the Republican Party."

Son of the late conservative senator from Arizona, Mr. Goldwater
himself served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Carrying on his father's legacy of fighting for small government and
individual liberty, the former Congressman endorsed Ron Paul for
President in November of 2007.

New Hampshire is going to be another win for Paul but will the media finally take notice? Only if he succeeds in coming in fourth again and burying both Thomspon and Guilliani once and for all. And his chances are very good in this most libertarian of all states.

Rasmussen: Ron Paul Soars to 14% in NH

And while most polls indicate a slug fest between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona's U.S. Senator John McCain on the Republican side of the fight, another Republican has been waiting behind the curtain for some time now: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Paul has endeared himself to legions of supporters with his grandfatherly conviction and steady, libertarian-style message against the Iraq War, for downsizing goverment with lower taxes, and against the erosion of Constitutional rights. Paul's voters are enthusiastic and oftentimes angry. But they have purpose to their anger, fueled as it is by the outrage of seeing America drift ever closer to a socialist "Nanny State."


Tuesday. If Paul can come into the first tier of candidates, say at least fourth or third, his campaign picks up new legitimacy as he will be introduced to America by the mainstream press.

What many traditional Republicans miss is that Ron Paul, like him or not, truly helps show America that the Republican Party is not all lockstep behind the Bush/Cheney Administration when it comes to foreign invasions and domestic surveillance. Since Bush's approval ratings have been in the deep cellar for two years now, having Ron Paul handy to make articulate arguments on liberty and a more prudent foreign policy shows a Republican Party that acknowledges its mistakes.

And even the liberals like him which just further pisses off Fox.

Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero



And he even has support of an anarchist or two....



SEE:

Winds of Change

Huckabee: Paul is Dead

Republican Presidential Paul-itics

Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater

Ron Paul

Death Of Laissez-Faire Politics

Libertarians for U.S. President

Ron Paul Quotes Ayn Rand

Gravel and Paul on PBS

Tags;
libertarian, Republican, Barry Goldwater US, Ronald Reaganelections, politics, right wing, conservative, Mr.Conservative, Reagan, social-conservatives, US Presidential race, Ron Paul,

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema calls Rand Paul's behavior prior to receiving coronavirus results 'irresponsible'

Catherine Garcia, The Week•March 22, 2020

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) on Sunday tweeted that she has "never commented about a fellow senator's choices/actions," but Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) recent behavior has forced her to speak out.

On Sunday, Paul's office announced that he tested positive for the novel coronavirus. Not long after, CNN's Seung Min Kim reported that two people briefed on the matter told her that during the Senate Republican lunch on Sunday, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) shared with colleagues "that Rand was at the gym this morning ... and that he was swimming in the pool."

Paul's office tweeted in response that "Paul left the Senate IMMEDIATELY upon learning of his diagnosis. He had zero contact with anyone and went into quarantine." His office did not address Paul visiting the Senate gym and pool before receiving the results of his test, which is what outraged Sinema. "This, America, is absolutely irresponsible," she said. "You cannot be near other people while waiting for coronavirus test results. It endangers others and likely increases the spread of the virus."

Sen. Rand Paul, Who Opposed Coronavirus Relief Bill, Tests Positive
Emma Tucker,The Daily Beast•March 22, 2020

Sarah Silbiger/Getty

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who was the only senator to oppose a coronavirus relief package last month, announced Sunday that he has tested positive for the virus.

“He is feeling fine and is in quarantine,” an announcement on his Twitter said. “He is asymptomatic and was tested out of an abundance of caution due to his extensive travel and events.”

It added, “He expects to be back in the Senate after his quarantine period ends and will continue to work for the people of Kentucky at this difficult time.”

In addition to being the only senator to vote against an $8.3 billion emergency coronavirus package, Paul also was one of the eight senators who voted against paid sick leave in a stimulus bill that passed with an overwhelming 90-8 vote last week.

“I think that the paid sick leave is an incentive for businesses to actually let go employees and will make unemployment worse,” Paul, a physician who has a Kentucky-issued medical license, explained to Newsweek.

CNN reported that Paul closed his Capitol Hill offices over a week ago and urged employees to work from home due to concerns over the coronavirus outbreak. Two people who attended the annual Speed Art Museum ball in Kentucky with the senator on March 7 later tested positive for the virus, according to the Courier-Journal.

But despite reportedly being tested roughly a week ago, Paul continued to interact with colleagues and even worked out at the Senate gym—and was swimming in the pool—on Sunday morning, shortly before he received his positive test results, Politico reported.

Paul is the first senator to test positive for the novel coronavirus. Two other members of Congress, Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Ben McAdams (D-UT), have also gone public with positive test results.

According to the World Health Organization, COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, is particularly dangerous for people with lung problems. In August 2019, Paul had part of his lung removed after an altercation with his neighbor Rene Boucher. The two had a long-running dispute over lawn care.

Second Member of Congress Tests Positive for COVID-19

On March 2, Paul appeared on Fox News and downplayed the global threat of the coronavirus.
“While it is worldwide, I think there is room for optimism that this thing may plateau out in a few weeks and not be as bad it as it may have been portrayed,” he said to host Neil Cavuto. “We’ve seen pockets of this around the world and even in Italy and Iran where we have it, but none of it is approaching what started in China.”

When asked about institutions taking larger measures to limit the spread of the virus, Paul was resistant to the idea. “I think closing down the Smithsonians would be way too premature and I wouldn’t advise something like that.”

And when Cavuto asked Paul about making personal adjustments to avoid infection, the Senator was particularly defiant. “I mean, I fly all the time and I’m not cutting back on my flying... I was on a plane today,” he said. “I could be wrong and this could be really bad in two or three weeks or a month, but I’m hoping it’s not going to be. I’m not ready to buy all the toilet paper at Target.”

The senator’s father, Dr. Ron Paul, a physician and a former Republican congressman from Texas, published an essay called “The Coronavirus Hoax” last week for the New River Valley News, a local outlet based in Virginia.

“People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus ‘pandemic’ could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit—financially or politically—from the ensuing panic,” the elder Paul wrote.
As of Sunday afternoon, there are 30,000 COVID-19 cases in the U.S., and nearly 400 people have died.

Rand Paul's coronavirus infection sends shockwaves through Senate during major stimulus debate

William Cummings,USA TODAY•March 22, 2020


Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., tested positive for the COVID-19 coronavirus and is being quarantined, his office announced Sunday.

The diagnosis comes as the Senate prepares to move forward on a massive coronavirus stimulus aid package aimed at alleviating the economic impact of the outbreak. Several Republican lawmakers announced on Sunday they would self-quarantine as a result of Paul's diagnosis.

Sergio Gor, Paul's deputy chief of staff, said the senator "decided to get tested after attending an event where two individuals subsequently tested positive for COVID-19, even though he wasn't aware of any direct contact with either one of them."

Gor said Paul is in a higher risk category after having part of his lung removed last year after it was damaged in a 2017 assault by his neighbor.

Paul's diagnosis also raised questions about his behavior after he continued to attend events and use shared facilities as he awaited the test results.

Several news outlets reported, for example, that Paul was using the Senategym and pool as recently as Sunday morning, the same day he announced he had tested positive. Several lawmakers also reported having lunch recently with Paul.

Those actions drew sharp criticism from at least one fellow senator.

More: New ad from conservative group targets Trump on coronavirus messaging

More: Trump uses China as a foil when talking coronavirus, distancing himself from criticism

"This, America, is absolutely irresponsible," tweeted Sen. Kristen Synema, D-Ariz. "You cannot be near other people while waiting for coronavirus test results. It endangers others & likely increases the spread of the virus."

The news of Paul's diagnosis came as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., moved forward with the stimulus package, which is expected to approach $2 trillion. Earlier Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared she would not support the bill as written, and vowed House Democrats would move forward with their own legislation.

But McConnell said he would still hold a cloture vote on Sunday. If approved, that vote would limit debate on the measure to 30 hours ahead of a final vote, which McConnell hopes will take place Monday.

In response to Paul's diagnosis, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Mitt Romney of Utah announced they would undergo self-quarantines. The loss of their votes – in addition to those of Republicans Sens. Rick Scott and Cory Garner, who were already under self-quarantine – could threaten the measure's passage.

Paul was not the first member of Congress to test positive for the virus. Last week, Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., and Ben McAdams, D-Utah, announced they had tested positive.

Paul was on Capitol Hill several days last week. The statement from his office did not say when Paul tested positive, nor when he might have contracted the illness.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Sunday that lawmakers are speaking with a doctor to determine what steps they should take after Paul's diagnosis.

"We just learned our colleague, Rand Paul, has tested positive for the coronavirus. Our thoughts and prayers are with him for a speedy recovery," Thune said on the Senate floor. "We will consult with the attending physician here at the Capitol about appropriate measures for those of us who have been in contact with the senator."

Thune said Paul's infection "is the kind of situation that Americans across the country are dealing with right now. And it underscores the importance of acting immediately to deliver more relief for the American people."

More: Coronavirus relief deal agreed by Pelosi, Trump overwhelmingly passes House as president declares national emergency

Romney, R-Utah., confirmed he and other lawmakers attended a lunch with Paul on Friday and that they were consulting with doctors before he announced later Sunday that he would self-quarantine.

"He's compromised given health conditions he's had in the past, and so we'll be praying for him and thinking about him," Romney told reporters regarding Paul's positive test result. "Of course, all the senators are going to seek medical advice as to what action we should take to make sure that we don't in any way spread this virus ourselves."

Soon after Romney announced his decision to isolate himself.

"Since Senator Romney sat next to Senator Paul for extended periods in recent days and consistent with CDC guidance, the attending physician has ordered him to immediately self-quarantine and not to vote on the Senate floor," Romney's office said in a statement.

It said that Romney would undergo a test himself, although he currently has no symptoms.

Lee went into self-quarantine soon after Paul’s disclosure, on the advice of Congress’ attending physician. Lee reportedly also had lunch with Paul on Friday.

Lee said he has no symptoms and the physician said he did not need to be tested.

"However, given the timing, proximity, and duration of my exposure to Sen. Paul, he directed me to self-quarantine for 14 days," Lee said in a statement Sunday. "That means no traveling or voting."

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: COVID-19: Rand Paul's diagnosis sends shockwaves through Senate

Unfair and Unbalanced

So Fox had their debate last night without Ron Paul.

I saw the very beginning of the forum, in which Brit Hume said that ‘one of these five men will be the next President of the United States’ — a statement which I found presumptuous.

They claimed its because they only invited candidates with double digit standings in the National Polls. Well Ron Paul is ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. And it was a New Hampshire debate. But well....fair and balanced as Fox is they did not want him there. Any excuse would do not to feature the only Republican candidate opposed to the War in Iraq. And the result was a very boooooring political forum that fell flat.

Paul has been one of this campaign's biggest surprises. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee have seen their popularity fluctuate, but Paul has continued to climb in polls (he's at 10 percent in the latest CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll, well ahead of Thompson)."It's annoying not able to participate in the debate," said Paul, adding that Fox News reporters and commentators "are war mongerers who don't want to hear other opinions."

The decision by Fox to limit participation in the forum infuriated Paul supporters and even drew the ire of the New Hampshire Republican Party, which withdrew its sponsorship of the event.

Fox had invited Republican candidates Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Fred Thompson to the forum, but excluded Paul as well as California congressman Duncan Hunter.

Paul protested, arguing that he raised $20 million in the last quarter of 2007, almost the same amount as Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, a Research 2000 poll published in the Concord Monitor released Sunday showed Paul garnering 7 percent of the vote, besting Thompson and only 1 point behind Giuliani in the state.

On Saturday the New Hampshire Republican party expressed its disappointment with the decision to exclude Mr. Paul and Representative Duncan Hunter of California by severing its partnership with Fox.

“We believe that it is inconsistent with the first in the nation primary tradition to be excluding candidates in a pre-primary setting,” said Fergus Cullen, chair of the state G.O.P. party. “All candidates regardless of how well known they are or how much money they’ve raised should be treated equally here.”

The New Hampshire G.O.P. has been in discussions with Fox to include all the candidates in the forum, but the network said that it was only inviting candidates who received double digit support in national polls.

On Saturday, Fox News Channel issued a brief statement from David Rhodes, its vice president of news: “We look forward to presenting a substantive forum which will serve as the first program of its kind this election season.”

The voice that Fox News wouldn’t broadcast Sunday night came through loud and clear to the more than 400 Ron Paul fans who jammed into the Crowne Plaza hotel’s ballroom here Sunday afternoon to hear his alternative vision for America.

The crowd, representing many of the outliers of the American political spectrum, waved placards and American flags as they repeatedly rose to their feet.

If nothing else, Paul’s backers, who include pro wrestler Glen Jacobs (aka “Kane”) and former Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr., are more overtly enthusiastic about their candidate than most political activists.

That energy could make Paul’s primary day performance here a compelling undercard for Tuesday’s marquee matchups of Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney .

In a Concord Monitor poll this week, Paul was one point behind Rudy Giuliani , well within the margin of error, for fourth place, with Fred Thompson behind them. Finishing behind Paul could be a jarring blow for better-known candidates who hope to compete for the nomination nationally.

“It makes [Fox] look so foolish,” Paul said after his speech. “What do they have against democracy?”

Note that I have been predicting Paul would do well in NH for sometime now , and the polls show that.

If you want to use polls the latest Rasmussen Reports has him tied for third place in New Hampshire with Iowa winner Mike Huckabee at eleven percent (11%) making Fox look even more foolish. Fred Thompson is at four percent (4%) in the state in that poll, and Rudy is only at nine percent (9%).

Fox loves to promote unbridled capitalism as the solution to everything. Well here is what happens when the market responds to such obvious politcal bias and censorship. Ya hit them where it hurts, in the pocket book.

Are Ron Paul Supporters Really Hurting Fox News Parent Company Shares?

Following Fox News exclusion of US Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in a Sunday debate, many of his supporters called for a boycott of sponsors and - perhaps worse - shorting Fox parent company News Corp's stock.

Maybe it's just a reflection of the market overall but News Corp's shares really dropped this past week as seen by the chart below.

Coincidence? Perhaps. Then again....

The exclusion of Dr. Paul has backfired as major newspapers in the state of New Hampshire have jumped all over the story....and it's not a story of how some lowly candidate has been told to stay home by Fox News because he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning. The stories instead ask "How and Why?". How could Ron Paul not be invited when Rudy Giuliani performed much worse in Iowa than Paul, who managed to crack double digits with 10% of the vote? Why is Ron Paul not invited to a state debate where he is presently polling better than three other invitees in New Hampshire?

Fox News for us is a guilty pleasure. We watch it, we've appeared on Fox and we certainly do not encourage the shorting of a company's shares.....but the decision to leave Ron Paul out of this debate was a "bonehead" one to say the least made by individuals who we suspect do not have a full grip on reality.

The Republican GOP in New Hampshire has now backed out of sponsoring the debate, even though it will still go on as planned. The headlines on Monday, however, will be "Where was Ron Paul?" and his New Hampshire exposure is bound to be twofold as a result.

Paul has a real base in the Republican party and can build delegate status, with such an open race. As this liberal Washington state commentator correctly points out.

I stopped going out of my way to deliberately antagonize and belittle the Paul campaign a couple months ago. It was mainly because he ran and is running a real race. The guy raised $20 million in a quarter. Despite not spending a nickel he got 10 percent of the vote in Iowa - more than Giuliani - and with how flakey the voters are in the Granite State odds are good he'll do even better in New Hampshire.

Like it or not the guy is a real candidate. This isn't Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo who couldn't get attention if they were holding the last ham sandwich in hungry town. Paul has name recognition. The way things are looking, he will probably be in the race longer than Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Although there's probably no scenario where Paul can win the nomination it is nowhere out of the realm of possibility that he will control a significant block of delegates which could be a factor should this race be decided at the convention.

The Paulites are playing by all the rules and doing everything you can ask in order to be a valuable part of the nomination process. Right now as you read this there are dewy-eyed Paul supporters signing up to be PCOs and precinct captains laying down the foundation of a good grassroots base. They're doing it across the country. They're doing it in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.

Here in Washington, Democrats are choosing all of their delegates in the caucus while half the Republican delegates are coming from the primary; the open primary. It wouldn't be surprising if Paul came in second or even wins our state's GOP primary.

You see the signs along the road, you read the blog comments and you watch the YouTube videos. In terms of generating excitement the "Paultards" have been kicking the ass every candidate in both parties with the exception of Barack Obama

Paul appeals to pre Reagan Republicans, those who like Barry Goldwater feel the party was taken over by the Moral Majority.

Paul has gained a loyal following in New Hampshire by touting his strict constructionist view of the constitution and his support of individual liberties and small government with lower taxes.

Paul's campaign has helped highlight a growing group of disenfranchised Republicans who say they are being alienated by religious conservatives and others.

Supporter Louise Aitel, a high school teacher from Merrimack, said she was so turned off by the Republican Party's views that she voted for Al Gore in 2000, but will return to the GOP fold tomorrow to cast a ballot for Paul.

"I was so wretchedly tired of religion being part of the state," she said of her 2000 vote.

Paul said yesterday he is working to change the party and hopes his views will be considered.

"If it doesn't transform the Republican party, then it's going to get weaker and weaker," he said, adding that he is trying to "save" the party.

As result of the Fox move Jay Leno, desperate for content, has invited Paul to cross striking writers picket lines to be on his show. The day before the New Hampshire primary. Bingo just like Hucakbee was before Iowa. And we know the result that had.

Leno is competing to have maverick Republican candidates on his show to boost his ratings. He had Huckabee on for his inaugral show last week. With the strong libertarian base in LA and California, this will auger well for Paul and for Leno's ratings. That Paul crosses a picket line to do this does not do his cause justice, but the core of his liberaltarian base are union haters so they could care less.

As for Leno he desperately needs content as his latest endeavors show like when last week he had one of his male staff show off his beer belly in a slinky thong. Desperation reeks off the show which has not come to an agreement with its writers like its competitor Letterman did. Having Paul on is unfortunately a win-win. And a big loss to the Writers Guild.


Writers Guild of America members continue to picket outside “The Tonight Show” studios Wednesday as fans wait in line to get into Jay Leno’s show.

SEE:

Fox Vs. Paul

Tags;
libertarian, Republican, Barry Goldwater US, Ronald Reaganelections, politics, right wing, conservative, Mr.Conservative, Fox News, Jay Leno, US Presidential race, Ron Paul,

The Secret Of Ron Paul's Success

Here is the secret of Ron Paul's success in organizing his campaign. He hasn't. He has left it up to his supporters to do it for him. It is a truly libertarian campaign.

Pop quiz: Who is the first presidential candidate ever to be interviewed by a college student in his dorm room, with the video posted on YouTube?

The answer is Republican longshot Ron Paul, who is waging one of the most dynamic but least-managed e-campaigns in the 2008 race.

The Texas Congressman's e-fundraising efforts are as unconventional as his use of media. Unlike other presidential wannabes, who rely on e-mail blasts to would-be supporters, Paul has been building his war chest by allowing his backers to drive much of the campaign themselves.

The Paul campaign has taken a bottom-up, community-oriented approach to online fundraising "so that as donations come in, the information about who's donating [and how much has been raised] is made available to everybody" on the campaign's home page, says Andrew Rasiej, co-founder of TechPresident.com, a New York-based group blog that covers how the 2008 presidential candidates are using the Web and how content generated by voters is affecting the campaign.

But Paul's campaign has taken a highly decentralized, bottom-up approach that's aimed at building a community of support while saving the organization money on IT overhead.

"Our strategy is shaped by the need to be frugal with money," says Justine Lam, Rep. Paul's e-campaign director in Arlington, Va. When Lam first began crafting Paul's e-strategy in March 2007, the campaign had a total of just $500,000 to work with. "We knew we couldn't run the same kind of campaign that [Mitt] Romney or [John] McCain could with the money they had," says Lam, a newbie to the political battlefields and the second person to join Paul's campaign staff. So thrift was the watchword when it came to campaigning online. For example, instead of hosting Ron Paul videos on his campaign Web site and chewing up valuable network bandwidth, Lam has uploaded his speeches and other video content onto YouTube.

Presidential campaign regulations have also played a significant role in shaping the Ron Paul online fundraising juggernaut. The Federal Election Commission has strict regulations prohibiting campaign organizers from giving instructions to supporters on what they should do to help the campaign. As a result, Lam and other members of the campaign team settled on a strategy of suggesting to devotees that they effectively develop their own independent campaign strategies in support of Paul.

The strategy "ricocheted through the Web and has allowed people to take ownership of the campaign instead of the campaign telling them what to do," says Lam, who previously managed webcast lectures for the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University in Arlington, Va.

The community-driven online fundraising strategy has worked brilliantly and has distanced the Paul e-campaign from the rest, say Rasiej and other pundits. "Ron Paul is probably the best example" of a presidential candidate who's made the most effective use of grass-roots e-mail and blogging, says Karen Jagoda, president of the E-Voter Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

The strategy appears to be working, at least from the standpoint of online attention. According to Hitwise Pty., an online measurement service based in New York, Paul attracted nearly 38% of Web traffic among all main candidates in the third week of December, trailed by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, with over 16%. Obama came in third with just under 11%.

Although candidates such as Clinton have raised far more than Paul overall (Clinton's most recent FEC filing, on Nov. 21, shows that she has netted more than $45 million), Paul's community fundraising approach generated more than $19.5 million for the fourth quarter of 2007, easily outpacing all of the other candidates in terms of online fundraising, says Rasiej.

The watershed moment for Paul's online fundraising efforts was the "Ron Paul Money Bomb" of Nov. 5, when the campaign set a one-day record for contributions. "We've never seen anything like it," says Lam. "We raised $4.2 million that day under a completely supporter-driven 'money bomb.' No one has ever done that."

"We've never seen anything like it," says Lam. "We raised $4.2 million that day under a completely supporter-driven money bomb. No one has ever done that," she says.

Then on Dec 16, Paul upped the ante, raising an astounding $6 million.

The most that former Vermont governor Howard Dean amassed in a single day of online contributions during his 2004 presidential run was $500,000, Lam says.

Dean's campaign was also very much community-fed and Internet-driven. But back then, Dean's campaign organizers held frequent Meetup.com telephone conferences with supporters, which included weekly to-do lists for backers, says Lam.

Not Paul's people. "We might have a webconference once in a while to tell supporters what we're doing in the campaign [headquarters], but we don't tell them what to do," says Lam.

One of the truisms in Internet politics is that it's easier for "edge" candidates like Paul to catch fire online with would-be voters than it is for more mainstream politicians such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, says John Palfrey, executive director of the The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. That's because campaigns with smaller budgets and smaller support bases "are more willing to take the risk of using the Internet in experimental ways," says Palfrey.

"Ron Paul is running a very online-focused campaign," says Palfrey, "and he's becoming [more] relevant as a result."

Tags;
libertarian, Republican,, politics, right wing, conservative, internet, US Presidential race, Ron Paul,

Kucinich and Paul The Perfect Pair

Nice to note that someone agrees with me. That Ron Paul is not the only Libertarian running for U.S. President. This is from Dan Alba, libertarian supporter of Ron Paul. And while he is critical of Kucinich he manages to point out what Paul and Kucinich hold in common.

If Ron Paul is not the most worthy presidential candidate in light of his four-decade track record of preserving individual liberty, states' rights, and national sovereignty; standing up to the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and special interests; and through it all, strictly limiting the bounds of his own power and that of the federal government by obeying the Constitution at every turn — if he is not the candidate who will address the ills by eradicating the cause instead of simply treating the symptom — then one doesn't exist.

Yet there are others, like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, who, like Ron Paul, are against nation-building, the Iraq war and its escalation, and who are for restoring civil liberties by eighty-sixing the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, and the like. They even cite the Constitution on occasion — by far, more often than do any of the other candidates on either side, minus Paul. But therein lies a basic and vital difference between someone like Ron Paul and the Congressman himself: Ron Paul doesn't just reference the supreme law of the land when relevant to a particular position he holds; he zeroes-out his every legislative action at the Constitution.

Dennis Kucinich is an honorable Congressman for his principled bravery in the face of mercantilistic mafiosi and war-profiteers, and his humanitarian compassion is perhaps second-to-none amongst all presidential candidates. He and Paul were the only Members of Congress who defied AIPAC and other war propagandists by voting against the fraudulent Rothman-Kirk Resolution which called on the UN to charge Iranian President Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide based on words he didn't even say.

He's a refreshing rarity in a Congress full of pandering partisans, hyper-statists, and outright traitors. I am proud to utter the words "Congressman Kucinich."

And it is not just libertarians who are noting the importance of Paul and Kucinich and their anti-war stances. The liberal left in the U.S. is also embracing Paul as the libertarian right embraces Kucinich.

As Mike Mejia writes in Ron Paul; The Pragmatic Choice.

Of the multitude of mainstream 2008 Presidential candidates, there are only three who are truly antiwar. Two of them are running as Democrats, one as a Republican. The two Democrats have little money in the bank, are polling in the low single digits and are clearly headed nowhere fast. The antiwar Republican was in much the same boat as Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel the first few weeks of his Presidential bid.

But now his campaign has started to gain momentum: he has broken through the media wall of silence with recent fundraising success and his poll numbers are moving up in the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa. That candidate’s name is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.This poses a dilemma for any liberal who opposes the Iraq war and the overall war-mongering and empire building of the United States government.

As I wrote in a previous article, a typical liberal will be opposed to Ron Paul on most issues, though Paul is very ‘liberal’ on the questions of war and peace, civil liberties and drug laws. Yet Paul is the only candidate besides Kucinich and Gravel that can be trusted to keep his word and bring the troops back home immediately. And Kucinich and Gravel are simply not making any headway in their respective campaigns.

How can liberals balance their desire for the social programs proposed by Hillary and gang against the near certainty that candidates such as Clinton and Obama will continue Bush’s Middle East war policies, albeit on a scaled-down level? Which should be more important, ending the military conflict and bringing the troops home or expanding the welfare state? The choice seems difficult one, until one digs a little deeper.

The first point I would to make is that even if antiwar liberal’s plans on voting Democratic in the General Election, it does not hurt the Democrats chances in November, 2008 to switch over and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary. The defection of large numbers of Democrats to vote for Paul would send a very clear and unambiguous message to the eventual Democratic nominee: take an antiwar stance or risk losing liberal votes to a Third Party candidate.

The more important point I would like to make, though, is that even if Ron Paul were to ascend to the Presidency, it would not at all be a bad thing for liberal social policy. Paul is opposed to the income tax and wants to eliminate host of federal agencies, ranging from the IRS to Homeland Security. He is ardently pro-gun ownership, anti-choice and would definitely veto any bill that would expand health care benefits. Yet, none of these domestic positions he holds would likely have a practical impact on the actual functioning of government were he to take office in 2009. As President, he would hold no authority to unilaterally eliminate federal agencies or cut taxes or benefits. Any changes would have to take place with the approval of Congress.

But here’s the thing: if a war-mongering liberal Democrat takes office, there still will be no expansion of welfare programs that liberals love. The ‘catch’ with voting for a candidate such as Clinton or Obama, is that their policies on war and defense budgets will likely crowd out any attempt to make a significant expansion of government programs to help the poor and middle class. A prime example is health care. I, personally, am much more in tune with Hillary’s view on health care than I am with Ron Paul’s. Yet, with the current budget deficits and the expansion of the U.S. military expenditures, where is Hillary or Obama or Edwards going to find the money to expand health care coverage? The answer is: they won’t. Health care in America will remain the same, whether under a liberal Democrat or conservative Republican. Any changes that might take place will be at the very far margins.

However, with a Paul Presidency, there might be some hope for some of those programs in the distant future. Because a President Paul could unilaterally start bringing American troops back home. Not only from Iraq, but also from Afghanistan and Kosovo and Korea. A Paul Presidency could finally result in the long sought after ‘peace dividend’. Let’s face it, from a liberal perspective; the expansion of the welfare state can only happen if America scales back its imperial ambitions. Though Ron Paul does not advocate any expansion of the welfare state, he would undoubtedly do much to downsize the American Empire.

And as I have said before given that neither has a chance to win their party's primary they would make a terrific Third Party ticket. Just the thing to mobilize popular opposition to the War and to politics as usual.

SEE:

CNN Debate Debacle

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Bemjamin Tucker, Liberty, Lysander Spooner, Godwin, Constitution, law, libertarian, anarchism, invdidualist-anarchist, Proudhon, mutualist, mutualism, anarchist-law, Republicans, US Presidential race, Ron Paul, Kucinich, US, libertarian, Democrats,

PUTIN'S USEFUL IDIOT

WATCH: Rand Paul ignites clash at Senate hearing by suggesting Ukraine is 'part of Russia'

Travis Gettys
April 26, 2022

CSPAN
Secretary of state Tony Blinken and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) clashed during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.


The Kentucky Republican agreed there was no justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but he expressed strong opposition to Ukraine joining NATO because he said that would commit U.S. troops to the war.

"We have not had advocacy for U.S. troops because they are not part of NATO," Paul said. "Had they been or are they to become part of NATO, that means U.S. soldiers will be fighting in Ukraine and that is something I very much oppose."

Blinken told the senator that his judgment of the situation was different.

"If you look at the countries Russia has attacked over the last years, Georgia, leaving forces in Moldova and repeatedly Ukraine, these are countries not part of NATO," Blinken said. "They do not attack NATO countries for probably good reason."

Then Paul, who the late Sen. John McCain accused in 2017 of "working for Vladimir Putin," responded with what appeared to be Russian talking points.

"You could also argue the countries they attacked were part of Russia, were part of the Soviet Union," Paul said.

The secretary of state said he firmly disagreed, saying those countries had a right to determine their own future, and Paul repeated his claim.

"I'm not saying it's not, but I'm saying the countries that have been attacked, Georgia and Ukraine, were part of the Soviet Union, they were part of the Soviet Union since the 1920s," Paul said.

‘Russian stooge’ Rand Paul blasted for ‘Pro-Iron Curtain speech’ pushing ‘straight Putin propaganda’

David Badash,

 The New Civil Rights Movement
April 26, 2022

Senator Rand Paul (Screen Grab)

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is under fire for remarks he made Tuesday during a Senate hearing with Secretary of State Antony Blinken that are being called "propaganda" for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Saying that if Ukraine had become part of NATO, or will in the future, U.S. soldiers would be "fighting in Ukraine," Paul called it "something I very much oppose."

President Joe Biden and his administration have repeatedly stated he opposes American boots on the ground in Ukraine.

"If you look at the countries that Russia has attacked," Blinken reminded Paul, "over the last years: Georgia...Moldova, and then repeatedly in Ukraine, these are countries that were not part of NATO. It has not attacked NATO countries for probably very good reasons."

Paul defiant and argumentative, retorted in a jaw-dropping statement, "You could also argue that the countries they've attacked were part of Russia."

Stunned, Secretary Blinken struggled for words to respond, giving Paul time to amend his remarks to say, "or were part of the Soviet Union."

"I firmly disagree with that proposition," Blinken replied. "It is the fundamental right of these countries to decide their own future."

Paul is being blasted online.

"Rand Paul. Russian Stooge," tweeted Brian Karem, the famous CNN and Playboy journalist who was once jailed for refusing to reveal his sources. Karem is also host of the "Just Ask the Question" podcast, and recently returned from Ukraine.

Veteran Washington political reporter Sam Youngman says, "Rand Paul using actual Putin talking points."

Kentucky state Rep. Charles Booker, who is running to win the Democratic nomination for Paul's Senate seat, tweeted: "Rand Paul just attempted to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He is actively pushing Putin’s propaganda in the Senate, and I will remove him from office in November."

Journalist Aaron Rupar, who posted the video above, tweeted, "this is straight Putin propaganda from Rand Paul."

 

Charles Booker wears noose in ad blasting Rand Paul for delaying 2020 antilynching bill

Morgan Watkins, Louisville Courier Journal
Wed, June 1, 2022

Former Democratic state Rep. Charles Booker, left, is looking to take the place of Republican Rand Paul in the U.S. Senate.

Editor's note: This story references graphic imagery that could be offensive or disturbing to some readers.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Charles Booker stands with a noose around his neck in a new campaign ad criticizing his opponent, Republican incumbent Rand Paul, for holding up legislation in 2020 that would have made lynching a federal hate crime in America.

The certain-to-be-controversial ad, which Booker's campaign released Wednesday morning, includes a content warning for "strong imagery."

It does not mention that Paul went on to co-sponsor a new (and bipartisan) version of that legislation. The Senate unanimously voted this March to pass the updated Emmett Till Antilynching Act, which is now law.


"The pain of our past persists to this day," Booker says in a voiceover as his ad begins, showing a historic lynching photo and a noose hanging from the limb of a tree. "In Kentucky, like many states throughout the South, lynching was a tool of terror. It was used to kill hopes for freedom.

"It was used to kill my ancestors," Booker says as he appears onscreen, standing next to a tree with a noose looped around his neck.

"Now, in a historic victory for our commonwealth, I have become the first Black Kentuckian to receive the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate."

In a controversial new political ad, Charles Booker calls out incumbent U.S. Sen. Rand Paul for his stands on lynching legislation and civil rights.

"My opponent?" he says as an image of Paul appears. "The very person who compared expanded health care to slavery. The person who said he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act. The person who singlehandedly blocked an antilynching act from being federal law."

"The choice couldn't be clearer," Booker continues over the resounding creak of a rope, shown in close-up, before he appears onscreen with his hands gripping the noose. "Do we move forward together? Or do we let politicians like Rand Paul forever hold us back and drive us apart?

"In November, we will choose healing," he says as he lifts the noose from around his neck. "We will choose Kentucky."

Jake Cox, a spokesman for Paul's campaign, addressed Booker's ad and the senator's handling of recent antilynching bills in a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying:

"Dr. Paul worked diligently to strengthen the language of this legislation and is a cosponsor of the bill that now ensures that federal law will define lynching as the absolutely heinous crime that it is. Any attempt to state otherwise is a desperate misrepresentation of the facts."

Booker's campaign manager, Bianca Keaton, told The Courier Journal Wednesday the decision to run the controversial imagery in this video was a "difficult choice."

"It took months to get to the point of actually being like: 'Is this how we're going to handle this?'" said Keaton, who added that she gasped when they drove to the location where they filmed the ad, and she saw the noose hanging there — something she'd never before seen.

"And the thing that I would share with you generally about the subject of lynching in this country is: It's ugly. You know, people don't want to see it."

Keaton said there are "so many other ways in which terror is invoked on Black communities." She pointed to last month's mass shooting in Buffalo, where a white man who has been linked to white supremacist hatred and apparently espoused a racist conspiracy theory is charged with killing 10 people and injuring three more individuals, nearly all of them Black.

"Republicans will talk about race using dog whistles," she said.

"We're going to do it on a bullhorn."

What Rand Paul said about the Civil Rights Act

In his new ad, Booker referenced a handful of controversial comments Paul previously has made.

Booker's statement that Paul said he would've opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an apparent reference to a controversy dating back to a 2010 interview Paul did with The Courier Journal's editorial board, during which the future senator was asked if he would have voted for that landmark law outlawing segregation in public places and business establishments and prohibiting employment discrimination.

In that interview, Paul praised the Civil Rights Act's prohibition against discrimination in public domains but indicated he disliked the idea of telling private business owners what they can and can't do with their establishments, citing concerns about freedom.

"I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant, but at the same time I do believe in private ownership," said Paul, who went on to be elected to the Senate for the first time later that year. "But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about, to my mind."

Paul's comment on the Civil Rights Act was highly controversial, and he later went on to repeatedly stress that he supports this historic law.

"And the thing that I would share with you generally about the subject of lynching in this country is: It's ugly. You know, people don't want to see it."

Keaton said there are "so many other ways in which terror is invoked on Black communities." She pointed to last month's mass shooting in Buffalo, where a white man who has been linked to white supremacist hatred and apparently espoused a racist conspiracy theory is charged with killing 10 people and injuring three more individuals, nearly all of them Black.

"Republicans will talk about race using dog whistles," she said.

"We're going to do it on a bullhorn."

What Rand Paul said about comparing 'expanded health care to slavery'

In the new campaign ad, Booker also blasts Paul for comparing "expanded health care to slavery."

That's an apparent reference to something Paul, an ophthalmologist, said during a 2011 Senate hearing opposing the expansion of health care under former President Barack Obama.

"With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care, you have to realize what that implies. I am a physician. You have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery," he said at the time.

"You are going to enslave not only me but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants, the nurses."

Keaton indicated this is just one example of how Paul's behavior as a senator shows "the unseriousness" with which he approaches policy, and particularly policy specific to race.

50 complaints, no action: Why Kentucky medical board won't police Rand Paul's COVID claims
What happened with Rand Paul and recent antilynching legislation

The main bill Booker's ad focuses on, as well as the updated version of it that Paul supported earlier this year, is named in honor of Emmett Till, a Black 14-year-old who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955 and whose horrific death catalyzed the civil rights movement.

The primary aim of this legislation was to list lynching — a form of violence white people have used throughout American history to brutalize, murder and terrorize Black people in Kentucky and across the country — as a federal hate crime after Congress had failed for more than a century to pass antilynching bills.

Paul placed a hold on the original Emmett Till Antilynching Act in 2020 and later sought unanimous consent from the Senate for an amended version of the bill that he indicated would ensure it didn't apply to crimes that resulted in relatively minor injuries like bruises and cuts.

Rand Paul: The Emmett Till Antilynching act was worth taking the time to get it right

He received intense criticism for pumping the brakes on that bill two years ago, including from the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

At the time, Paul said lynching is "a tool of terror that claimed the lives of nearly 5,000 Americans between 1881 and 1968" and defended his stance on the bill, saying: "I seek to amend this legislation, not because I take it or I take lynching lightly, but because I take it seriously — and this legislation does not."

Paul's amendment was blocked, and the original bill didn't advance in the Senate either.

Paul introduced his own proposal, the Marie Thompson Antilynching Act, last year. That legislation, named after a Kentucky woman lynched by a mob in 1904, did not advance in Congress either.

This year, he co-sponsored a new version of the Emmett Till Antilynching Act that Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Tim Scott, R-S.C., introduced.

He told The Courier Journal he negotiated with Cory Booker on a compromise that addressed his concerns, and he supported the legislation that has since become law.
Reaction to Charles Booker's new ad

Keaton said Wednesday morning the response to the ad so far was "overwhelmingly positive," although they understand some folks will find it uncomfortable to watch.

University of Louisville political science professor Dewey Clayton said he thought the ad was "outlandish," although he noted sometimes politicians like to have that shock element to draw in viewers.

"An ad like that will clearly gain attention, but I think it paints Sen. Paul in a slightly unfair sort of position," Clayton said.

Some people may see this ad as outlandish, but he expects many will see Booker is "really just trying to make a point."

As for where Booker's campaign goes from here, Keaton said: "This ad is a piece of a much broader story that we will have to tell."

Morgan Watkins is The Courier Journal's chief political reporter. Contact her at mwatkins@courierjournal.com. Follow her on Twitter: @morganwatkins26.

This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Rand Paul challenger Charles Booker wears noose in Senate campaign ad