Pragmatism vs Ideology

I rarely like the internet political quizzes, because frankly most of the questions suck. I found one that I really liked that was as close as it gets. I Side With. It gives "yes" and "no" answers, but also other choice "C" answers as well.

The Results:
Gary Johnson - 96%
Mitt Romney - 76%
Virgil Goode - 64%
Rocky Anderson - 16%
Jill Stein - 10%
Obama - 5%

Romney on social, Johnson on the rest.

I'm not that surprised except that I usually don't score as high with libertarians and my marks with LP/RP are both in the 70-75% range with the rest under 25%. They didn't ask trade questions which skewed it away from the populists more.

However, I didn't write in Johnson. No, Romney wasn't my first choice. Like many, I didn't like the coronation attempt between Foxnews and also the rules changes for Mitt. On the same note, I didn't care for EITHER side in the Ron Paul vs Romney dual coronation attempts. In Romneys defense, he at least won a majority of the primaries. Luckily for Romney, I want Obama fired. In Ron Paul's case, I voted for him in 08, but not this year. The coronation push alienated me. The RNC and Paulite gamesmanship didn't look good for either side in Tampa. The former didn't need to spike the football. The latter has no business claiming anything until it won enough actual primaries (at any level, let alone presidential) to contend. My candidate lost too. It sucks. It happens.

Would I like to see more liberty candidates in the GOP? In some areas, if they aren't too hung up on technicalities. There's no way a candidate who claims to be a libertarian (and pro-life) republican would vote against defending planned parenthood. Or vote against national CPL reciprocity, all while incorrectly (especially on the CPL) claiming "constitutional" grounds (Full Faith and Credit). There are times due to language where a bill should be voted down, or amended. There's also times when there's nothing wrong with the bill's language. If you claim to really be a liberty candidate, be for liberty, don't just fall on your sword when the end result of that is less liberty than before. 

I realized over my years that 3rd parties are a protest vote. No more, and no less. If Teddy Roosevelt can't win as a 3rd party, no one can. I used to vote about 1/3 R and 2/3 L when I was a new voter, then considered myself independent. I have protested vote or 'voted for blank' on occasion, although I am less apt to do so than in my early years. This year was a bit of an exception as I did leave a few more of the uncontested races blank than normal with Green Oak pushing another millage. Again.

Many of the Paul hardliners are either writing in Ron Paul or voting for Johnson. Some are doing so because they really like Gary Johnson and damn the torpedoes. I can understand that. A couple of my family members took that stance. No games are involved there and they can't bring themselves to support either candidate.

Then, there's this mindset by some. "You didn't let us take over the party, so we're going to spite you and hope you lose to a 48-49% Obama so you'll be forced to come back begging to us." Ain't gonna happen. Even if Obama won due to Johnson votes, it ain't gonna happen.Two words. Ralph Nader. Nader's name since 2000 among democrats is mud. Ron Paul's name (as he'll get the blame) will be mud if Obama wins with 48-49%. There won't be begging, but a declaration of political war. 

Some people like Herman Cain are clamoring now for a 3rd party. All I have to say to that is the following. 
1. How will the third party get enough support to win?

"“I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that I’ve said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I don’t believe that the Republican Party … has the ability to rebrand itself,” Cain said."

It is so easy to say "We'll get a new conservative party and the conservatives will join us and all will be well." The problem is that it's all bullshit. Third parties failed, have failed, and always will fail. Teddy Roosevelt, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Virgil Goode, John Anderson, George Wallace, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan all failed as 3rd parties. In order for a 3rd party to be relevant, one has to be competitive in 34% of the seats in congress or compete for a majority in a electoral college. Ain't gonna happen.

Steve Schmidt also has his head up his ass. That's not surprising. He was McCain's campaign manager. We all know how that went. I could have done a better job than that clown in 08. I doubt I would lose Indiana at least. That takes work in a presidential election.

“When I talk about a civil war in the Republican Party, what I mean is, it’s time for Republican elected leaders to stand up and to repudiate this nonsense [of the extreme right wing], and to repudiate it directly,” he said.

Screw off, Steve. We just ran a moderate. We ran a moderate before that in 2008. Your boy McCain. Hell, Bush was a moderate, at least fiscally. What we need is to repudite bullshit like what you are slinging to try and salvage your incompetent reputation.

Conservatives can win. Conservatives can win in moderate or even liberal districts. Moderates can win. Moderates can win conservative and liberal districts. They both win by not doing a Steve Schmidt and putting their big mouths away and by doing their jobs properly on constituent issues and being competent people. That's what's most important. Don't be incompetent like Steve Schmidt was in his election work. Don't be a dumbass like Todd Akin (establishment, Huckabee wing). Don't be a dumbass like Richard Mourdock (Tea Party). They made the same error. Don't be something that you aren't. I think Mitt would have done much better in the primary if he was just who he was. I think that came out in the first debate.

Be who you are. Be competent at what you do. Be tactically smart and principled. Have a good plan. That's the starting success to build from at any level.  Pick fights when you must, but not when you don't have to do so.

Conservatives need moderates (true moderates, not leftists). Moderates need conservatives. Tea party needs establishment. Establishment needs tea party. Right now, we don't have the leverage. We need to create it and create it now, so Obama doesn't spend the next four years turning this country into Chicago.  

Pick your battles - is it worth it?

There's a lot of inside baseball dust ups and gamesmanship going on right now with RNC convention away from the speeches. There's plenty of blame that could be spread around, and a lot of it could be avoided with common sense.

I preface this by saying the following. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012 during the primaries. I held my nose and voted for McCain in 08 and will be holding my nose and voting for Romney this year to get rid of Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of his cabinet. I don't consider myself a "Paulite" and don't follow his supporters 100%  I don't consider myself one that always sides with - or against - "leadership." I call things as I see them. I don't like coronations on any side. Pushing a coronation on me is a good way to get my opposition. That was one of the reasons I did not support Romney - or Paul - in this year's primary. Coronation tactics and takeover tactics. Make your case and I'll make my own decision. That's why we have primaries.

Many conservatives, and almost all the Ron Paul supporters went apeshit at this vote at the RNC convention. Now I support the first part of the rule 16 (primary binding), but not the second part with disavowing if the candidate and state party does not support them. I would support the disavowing for the presidential vote at the convention, but not the other votes with the other committees.

I have three problems with the rule.

1. HOW it was enacted. That's shown at the video posted at Right Michigan Bus games, and an Obama style script from a teleprompter wasn't needed.

2. Would the disavowing delegate occur for the presidential vote only, or for the rules committees and other stuff as well?

3. It wasn't needed. Mitt already won and had the votes. This was probably about avoiding future floor fights from the camera. Now I don't like airing stuff in front of cameras or even in public meetings. If I have a problem with a leadership decision, I'll usually give my gripes in private behind the scenes. It's more effective that way. On the same note, in the era of youtube, that's impossible to do no matter what if something is taped.

But in reality, this doesn't do that much, except potentially protecting themselves from laziness. It wasn't needed and Mitt had the votes. This is a much different era of primaries in 2012 than it was in 1976 with the rise of the internet, cable news, talk radio, and everything else. People harken back to the brokered convention in 76. That was 36 years ago. I wasn't born yet. I've seen a lot of changes in primary elections just in the years I've followed politics.

If you want a "tea party" or "liberty candidate" as the video says - to win, you plan this long before the convention.

This wasn't nearly as bad as the extra delegate which cost Saul Anuzis his position as RNC committeeman. That wasn't needed either and in the end didn't make a difference, but could have potentially been a much bigger problem. I like Saul and he's a good guy who's done a lot for grassroots that is overlooked, but that was a bad decision. We all make them at some point.

What both of those things where -  was equivalent to Terrell Owens celebrating on the Dallas Star at Cowboy's stadium in an infamous football game. 

This was stupid. It wasn't needed. It didn't do much of anything except rub it in the faces of people the leadership do not like. It's bad tactics, just like hostile takeover attempts from the other side are also bad tactics. It's short term thinking that is a long run failure.

I'm repeating myself with this one phrase. "It wasn't needed." Certain people in leadership didn't need to pick the battle. No good was going to come from it. There's other battles that didn't need to be picked. That's not limited to one side either. Some of the Ron Paul folks wanted to try and get a floor fight to replace Romney as the nominee. They lost it after they lost the primaries with their candidate finishing way back in the pack. Shit happens. My candidate lost too. Take your lumps like we did. On to the general election and it's time to improve through downticket races and gaining support of voters so more parts of our platforms become enacted - long term.

Now some (not all) of the Paul supporters want Obama to win out of spite through 3rd party votes in the hopes that future candidates would beg them for support. That won't get support and will cost immensely. That would get the entire Paul movement smashed forever and destroyed by any means necessary - and most conservatives would join in the smashing because as much of a problem Romney is, Obama is that much worse. It won't be "We can control the election, you need us" like some of them want. It will be "F-you. Obama won or almost won. You helped him. Time for your movement to die." If you become viewed as poison, everything you touch - including your issues - also turns to poison because will be tied "with those people."

The most important thing in politics is relationships. While it is inevitable that bridges sometimes get burned, it's important to avoid it when it is avoidable. I've had good relationships with people in the party despite at times being in heated disagreements. We both understood the reasons for our actions, and while there was even some hard feelings at the time, it wasn't personal. They weren't my enemy, and at the end of the day they didn't help THE enemy. Helping the enemy however, is a whole other matter. That's as cardinal of a sin as backstabbing. I will never ever forget the bastards and pieces of trash who were "conservatives" or "republicans" for Obama in 08. They helped give us Obamacare, the stimulus, Eric Holder, bad SCOTUS picks, tax increases, record debt, record deficits, and a vastly increase government. The establishment can't smash those who support different primary candidates, especially those who are willing to work within the party. Those that lose - whether it be the "moderates" (by far the worst offenders), libertarians, Paul supporters, conservatives, or anyone else need to suck it up and not campaign and use threats to spite the winner.


The reality however is this. None of the gamesmanship was needed, nor effective in their goals. In reality, it didn't do much, if anything. It did not effect the outcome. If you want to elect a presidential candidate in the primary, convention is only one small portion of it. You have to win enough delegates in the primaries and caucuses in enough states. RNC rule changes only affect a small portion of this, usually with scheduling of primaries. Most of the power is done through the state level through state committee and also with the state legislature/governor.  Even a lot of the scheduling is done there. 

The way to stop the bad stuff is to make sure we have good committeemen and good state chair and state committee members, and make sure other states do the same thing. That's how bad rules get stopped.  It starts locally, but electing good precinct delegates, executive committee members, county officers, district committee and officers, and state committee members, along with RNC committee members is how it is done. It's long term, and takes a lot of organization, recruitment of good candidates for those positions, and reaching out to swing voters that make decisions. 

Also, there's statutory members automatically on those exec committees. They are your county elected officials (or nominees). Those are important people and will always some of the power regarding county officers. That county commissioner race is important. 

I've been at this 11 years. Some have been around longer. Many have not. Most don't know how to organize. Most who do know how to organize don't know how to convince the swing voters and alienate them (happens with all cliques) with takeover attempts and power grabs (or what seem like them), and airing stuff to the media that should be handled in house. There's battles to fight. There's battles not worth fighting. All or nothing is a failure. Picking the battles at the right time after paying one's dues with the party, is the correct way to handle things. 

In other words, all sides need to think long term, swallow their pride, don't celebrate like TO did, pick the right battles, and stay cool.

I'm voting for Rick Santorum in the primary

It's down to four people. Nobody will likely drop between now and the 28th. The four left are Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum.

Perry's out, and I'm not going to vote for a dropped candidate. That's like voting for uncommitted which is out of the question. Uncommitted means I'm passing my delegate vote off to someone unpledged. An unpledged delegated will support whoever he's asked to support. The only time I'd vote for uncommitted is if I don't care.

It's no secret my views towards Mitt Romney. The more I think about Gingrich, the most I just can't do it - for the same reason as Romney. Newt has a better record, but he's flipped so many times as well. I can't forget him and Pelosi together yapping about global warming. I can't forget about his scandals either. I can't trust him.

And trust is the biggest issue when appealing to all groups of voters. Romney and Newt are only electable if Obama beats himself. That's probably true to a degree for all candidates. A poll nine months out does not show anything about electability IN NOVEMBER. What some Romney defenders and Fox News types say is that he needs to move left to get independents. Bullshit. You don't move left - OR right - for independents or moderates. You move competent. Most independent voters and moderate voters care most about competence issues. The social liberal independent voters will sometimes vote for social conservatives - as long as the person is viewed as a competent individual and doesn't run his mouth too much. The mouth is what sometimes hurts social conservatives. The votes do not. Mike Rogers is not a social liberal. He's won Lansing before. City of. He's won Meridian Township, better known as Okemos. Social conservative and economic populist voters don't like panderers either and also care about competent issues. I throw trust in with competence issues.

Romney's record consists of tax/fee raising, gun bans, flip-flops and Romneycare. No deals. Newt's past I can forgive as a person. That's between him and God. However, that doesn't mean I trust him to keep his word to the voters. He's flipped too many times as well. He's out.

That leaves Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. I personally like both of these guys as people. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I like Santorum and I'd love to take about 50% of each of these two or split the difference on some of their issues and combine them into a candidate. I'm not nearly the foreign policy hawk Santorum is, nor the dove Ron Paul is. The last one I agree with more than not on policy was Reagan. For all the talk, there hasn't been a lot of difference on that from Bush 1 down to Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. Santorum would be little different there outside of talk.

I prefer Ron Paul on spending, although Santorum has voted for a balanced budget in the 1990's being part of the class of 94. He also supported Bush's budgets which aren't a good thing. I prefer Santorum on life issues. Ron Paul isn't bad there, but Santorum will go that extra step. Both are pro-2nd Amendment, but Paul will vote against good bills because they aren't perfect. I understand being a stickler of procedure at times, but national reciprocity is a big deal. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is where I split with Ron Paul. Pragmatism. Take what you can get with the circumstances, move in the right direction, and get the touchdown on a 2 yard run instead of the 80 yard pass when it isn't there. I don't forget bad votes on things like national reciprocity. All that does is codify full faith and credit.

The other issue is who can beat Romney and Obama. Ron Paul is an 10-25% guy in most states. He has his core following and is who he is. I think he needs to be taken seriously, especially on economic matters. Small "l" libertarians are, have been, and need to be part of the Republican coalition. A little respect - both ways - would go a long way of not blowing this opportunity to grow the party and the movement. However, he has shown so far that he can't beat Romney based on election results this year.

Santorum's weakness is 2006. He was crushed statewide in Pennsylvania. That was and is my major concern with him. However, he also won that same state twice, once in a non-republican year (in PA). 2000. He also won a democrat district (now Mike Doyle's) in the Pittsburgh Penn Hills area. You can make a case either way with electability with multiple wins and a bad loss in a bad year. The thing Santorum is showing now is that he's working his ass off with little money, and still winning some states. He recently got the hat trick. Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri. He also won Iowa after the fact. Those are four very different states with very different demographics. He gaining, and Romney once again like in 2008 can not close the deal when everything is set up for him.

Next is Arizona and Michigan. Michigan's primary is an open primary despite what some say. You just have to declare a ballot. In 2000 there was about 20% crossover votes from democrats and I expect about the same here. Delegates are won based on the both proportional (statewide) and winner take all by congressional district. I believe the congressional districts for this are the new ones, not the old ones. There's also a second election on Feb 28th in the OLD 51st district. Paul Scott was recalled thanks to the very shady folks known as the MEA-PAC. Joe Graves should make this recall all for nothing outside of a three month vacancy. From what I've heard, he's good people and will do a good job. That election will increase turnout in the 51st district and the 5th Congressional District.

If I'm Santorum, I'd campaign across the entire state. However, I'd pay extra attention in these areas if I'm going to make a run for the delegates.

1. The 1st district. Most of it was neglected and did not vote for Romney in 2008. With independents able to vote, this will be a key area.

2. The 6th District. Another McCain/not Romney district in 2008. There's an opportunity there.

3. Ottawa, Kent, Livingston, Hillsdale, North Oakland, North Macomb, Lapeer, Allegan, and West Oakland Counties. That's the base area. It goes without saying that it will be important primary day. We all know that. I'm being Captain Obvious here.

4. The blue districts. Don't neglect them. Why? Because it's winner take all by congressional district. Even with an estimated 20% crossover vote (based on 2000 numbers) will have less votes and count more for the district delegates. Detroit won't have a lot of votes in the primary, but winning the two Detroit based districts will count more than say the 8th district, even though Livingston County alone will probably have more votes than both of them. Proportional delegates count too, but it's the districts.

The blue districts are as follows.

5th - Open with Dale Kildee retiring. This one is especially important with the increased turnout in the 51st, which includes much of the Republican base in the district. The other key areas are independents and social conservative crossover democrats in Flushing, Davison, Bay County (all of it now), and even Tawas City. There's an opening for a working class guy to appeal to some of these areas that Romney will likely have problems.

9th - Levin. This now is dominant in Macomb County. Romney will clean up Bloomfield Twp as it was his home, but there's some crossover votes and a sizable republican minority in Southern Macomb County. Posthumus won Clinton Township and St Clair Shores. Warren is 60% Dem, but has over 100,000 people. Sterling Heights is competitive.

12th - Now Dingell's district. Santorum will struggle in Ann Arbor for obvious reasons, but Downriver has a sizable Republican minority. Downriver is closer to 40-46% GOP compared to 20-25% in Ann Arbor.

13th - With the switch, John Conyers and a couple of challengers. It's about a 15% Republican district, so it won't take a lot of votes to win. Westland, Garden City, Redford, and Dearborn Heights are exceedingly important here, along with your minority of black republicans. There aren't a lot of them, but they do exist. A lot of them are social conservatives. Santorum is pro-life. The 3-10% here who do sometimes vote Republican can make a big difference in this district.

14th - With the switch, Hansen Clark with Gary Peters and Brenda Lawrence. This is also about a 15% district, but a little different than the 13th. There is a small GOP base here in the Grosse Pointes. Advantage Romney. Advantage Romney in West Bloomfield as well. This is the toughest blue district I think for Santorum to win.

Santorum should do well with pro-lifers. He'll probably split the gun vote with Ron Paul, although that reciprocity vote should damage him. It will be an uphill climb with Romney's top level organization and money. I think it's Romney's to lose, but I don't think he'll take all the congressional districts, and I think it will be much closer than people think.

Santorum didn't raise taxes. Romney raised "fees" as governor. Santorum is pro-2nd Amendment. Romney signed a gun ban. Romney implemented Romneycare. Romney's record on jobs is mixed at best. Romney became supposedly pro-life when he ran for president. Santorum not only votes pro-life, but lives it. He'd also appoint good justices to SCOTUS. Santorum was part of the late 90's growth where Clinton got the credit. Santorum was part of the class of 94 and Contract with America. He was there. Romney was a son of privilege. Santorum was a working class son of immigrants who earned a law degree and worked in private practice.

I don't have a perfect vote in the primary. I don't even have an easy vote. Perry and Pawlenty dropped. Of the four that's left, Santorum's the best we got and the best chance to upset Obama (yes, Obama is the favorite against all of them) this November.

I'll be voting for Rick Santorum on February 28th.

I'm voting for Ron Paul - 2008 Primary

I'm going to catch some heat for this by some, but that's too bad. I look at the direction of the party today under Bush compared to the philosophy of 1994. I am a 1994 Republican, otherwise known as a less government conservative. I do not support the mass increases in government spending, governmental regulations, and decrease in our freedoms. That is why I am going to vote for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary. This may surprise some, but really shouldn't. Those that really know my politics well know that I have a strong libertarian streak.

First of all, I am not a "9/11 truther". I am not a stormfronter nutjob. I am not supporting surrender. I am not a democrat causing mischief. Those are the labels that opposition on both the right and the left used to paint Ron Paul supporters. I am simply a 1994 style less government conservative. Reduced spending. Reduced regulation. No Patriot Act style regulations, whether it be in the name of the "War on drugs" or "war on terror" or under presidents named Bush or Clinton.

I look at the issues that matter most to me.

1. Freedoms. Few are consistent. Ron Paul is. When Bill Clinton pushed for his intrusive "anti-terror" acts, gun grabs, and sneak and peak measures, Ron Paul stood up and said it was wrong. When Bush pushed for the Patriot Act with many of Clinton's provisions, Ron Paul stood up and said it was wrong. Ron Paul has a consistent 18 year voting record and leadership record of standing up for freedoms, no matter who is president. From free speech, to the right to keep and bear arms, to the 4th amendment on search and seizure.

2. Spending. Ron Paul stayed consistent here and voted against bad spending bills. This is one of the things that is killing our party. We suck less than the democrats here, but suck less still sucks.

3. NAFTA and GATT. Can I say that I told you so one this one. GATT was the worst of the bunch when unelected bureaucrats at the WTO have veto power over our trade. That's unacceptable. I'm not opposed to free trade, but I am opposed to managed trade designed as free trade that hurts our manufacturing and blue collar base.

4. Judges. I'm not worried about Ron Paul here.

5. Consistency. I do not have to worry about Ron Paul putting his finger in the wind and changing his stance for the media or the political winds.

6. Life issues. Ron Paul is pro-life.

7. Character. Something lacking in many politicians today.

For 12 months, my ideological and my pragmatic sides have battled over who I am going to support. More often than not recently, my pragmatic side has won. Not this time. In the end, I thought this to myself - How often does a pro-freedom candidate gain this much traction with fundraising? I have never seen it.

I'm not going to attack other candidates here. With SCOTUS as my number one issue, I will vote for any republican over any democrat running in the general election unless there is another retirement and Bush gets a solid conservative through the democrat senate and the firewall of extremist Chuck Schumer. We are IMO one, maybe two judge away from stopping the neo-lochnerization of the courts. We may or may not get that from the republicans, but the last MODERATE judge (let alone conservative) given to us by the democrats was Byron White from JFK.

However, this is the primary, and no candidate so far as won my vote based on perceived "electableness." My definition of electable is different than the pundits and media which anointed Bob Dole and John Kerry as electable when neither were. Unless it is clear as day to my gut on electablity, I'm going ideological over pragmatism.

This is my Barry Goldwater 1964 moment. "Extremism is defense of liberty is no vice" I am voting for Ron Paul for President on January 15.

Romney wins Straw Poll, Huckabee finishes 2nd

Interesting results. Giuliani and McCain skipped. Fred Thompson was on the ballot, but not an official candidate. From the AP/Forbes:

AMES, Iowa - Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won an easy and expected victory in a high-profile Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll on Saturday, claiming nearly twice as many votes as his nearest rival.

Romney had been expected to win the test because he spent millions of dollars and months of effort on an event that was skipped by two of his major rivals.

The Results:
1. Mitt Romney - 4516 - 31.5%
2. Mike Huckabee - 2587 - 18.1%
3. Sam Brownback - 2192 - 15.3%
4. Tom Tancredo - 1961
5. Ron Paul - 1305
6. Tommy Thompson - 1039
7. Fred Thompson - 203
8. Rudy Giuliani - 183
9. Duncan Hunter - 174
10. John McCain - 101
11. John Cox - 41

Analysis:
The Winners:
Mitt Romney - He was expected to win. Anything less would be considered a loss. He met expectations and won by over 10% His biggest strength is his organization, and it came through for him.
Mike Huckabee - A strong 2nd. Most have not really heard of him. I thought he may be a darkhorse, but he exceeded my expectations there. He's an excellent speaker from a swing state and IMO won every debate I've seen him in. This is a big win, especially since it is not in the South.
Sam Brownback - He probably needed top 3, and got it. Iowa neighbors Kansas, and a less than top 3 showing may knock him out.

The Losers:
Tommy Thompson - He said if he didn't finish in the top 2, he would probably drop. 6th place is not even close, and that goes double for a Midwesterner.
Duncan Hunter - I like Hunter, but he needed to get momentum. If you just looked at background without taking in name recognition, money, and current office, he'd probably be the best candidate. 9th place finishing behind non candidates is a disaster. That's too bad. I think Tommy Thompson (Who I was considering) and Hunter (where I have been leaning) may be knocked out from this. At best, their campaign is in trouble. That's unfortunate.
John Cox - I don't know anything about him. Last place however is last place.

Too early to tell:
Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul - They showed that they are real candidates. They didn't get top three, but they placed and have something to build on in the next few months. I kind of thought that Ron Paul would finish top three, but internet support is different than ground support. Can he use it to his advantage. As far as Tancredo goes, immigration is a major issue. Can he branch off from that and go to other issues? We'll see.

Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain skipped the poll. Whether this hurts or helps remains to be seen. They didn't finish last either, and that's good for their campaign.

The biggest news I think was Huckabee's 2nd place finish. The question is will he build on this and join Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson in the "Top Tier." South Carolina will be his big test.

Ron Paul - more cash on hand than John McCain

As a bit of a maverick who hates coronations in elections, I love seeing this (although I'd rather see Giuliani get knocked down)

Very interesting development here. Either Ron Paul's online presence is spreading, or John McCain is in big trouble moneywise. Or both. Keep in mind that McCain has some strong establishment support, while Paul has zero establishment support.

From ABC News

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Though often regarded as a longshot candidate for president, Republican Ron Paul tells ABC News that he has an impressive $2.4 million in cash on hand after raising an equal amount during the second quarter, putting him ahead of one-time Republican frontrunner John McCain, who reported this week he has only $2 million in the bank.

In an exclusive interview taped Friday and airing Sunday on "This Week," Paul said his campaign is on a better trajectory than McCain's.

"I think some of the candidates are on the down-slope, and we're on the up-slope," said Paul.

Paul's cash on hand puts him in third place in the Republican field in that important metric, although he is well behind leader Rudy Giuliani, who has $18 million in the bank, and Mitt Romney, with $12 million.

Paul, who polls show with support in the low single digits, said his surprisingly strong fundraising is the best measure of his support.

"I think people have underestimated the number of people in this country who are interested in a freedom message," says the Republican congressman from Texas, who has strong libertarian leanings.

As McCain is one of the "Big 3" (or 4 with Fred Thompson), this is big. I think small l libertarianism is starting to make a much needed comeback in 2008.

Even is Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, at worst he brings some issues that need to be addressed to the table, issues that haven't been brought to the table since before 2001. Yes, security is important, but if we have to give up all our freedoms to be "safe", then the terrorists have won already. Ron Paul has been consistent on freedom issues, fighting Bill Clinton's big government as well. I well remember the popularity of his Project Freedom newsletter back in the late 90's. I don't agree with Ron Paul on every single issue, but his consistency and his support of our constitutional rights is something I respect, and something I'll be considering in my vote. I am REAL sick and tired of "Big Government Conservatism" and "George W Bush Republicanism". I'd like to see a return of the 1994 style of Republican where Government is the problem.

One interesting aspect to watch with Ron Paul is what the 2nd Amendment Crowd will do. The High Road, a 2nd Amendment centered gun rights message board, is generally split between Ron Paul and Fred Thompson (ideological vs Pragmatism in stopping Hillary). GOA and NRA will be interesting to watch as well. I predict Ron Paul to be endorsed by GOA. NRA is capable of anything after the Joe Schwarz debacle in 06.

Whether the establishment likes it or not, Ron Paul will be a force to be rekoned with in 2008. How much of a force remains to be seen.

The Ron Paul Phenomeon

The Washington Post as an article about Ron Paul and the internet.

This does not surprise me a bit. When it comes to the internet, three groups seem to dominate the web at this time. Populist and Progressive Democrats, gun owners and small l libertarians. Populist Republicans also have some strength, particulary with the immigration issue full swing.

The democrats are dominating as they are not the party in power. Republicans have talk radio. The Clintonian left (rich limosine liberals) have the mainstream media. The populist and progressives have Kos. Republidans were more active online in the 90's with the anti-Clinton sentiment. I'm starting to see that strain again come back against Bush and his immigration policy.

As far as gun owners, we were among the first to organize. We had to. Bill Clinton was rabidly against us as was the media. Congress was a toss up. Between the ignorance, hatchet jobs and outright lies (Dateline NBC, 60 minutes, even two particular Argus editorial, one by a former columnist, another a guest column) there was no choice but to organize and fight back the only way we know how. Numbers. Gun owners aren't as active as we once were during the Concealed Carry fights, but that can change rapidly at any time, and is once again thanks to the antics of Mr. Bloomberg and company. Places like AR15.com and the High Road have strong traffic, and most political websites have a lot of gun related topics on them.

Small L libertarians are a natural fit for the internet with it's (more then than now) anti-regulatory leanings.

Ron Paul has always had a strong internet presence with this Project Freedom newsletter. During the Bill Clinton years, his presence was as big then as it is now online. Between the heavy opposition to the UN, gun grabbing, GATT/NAFTA, and tax increases, along with the support of limited government, Ron Paul's stances resonated heavily with both libertarians and the populists who were active online.

These issues also resonate today, with the Bush administration's policies on many issues. While Bush is good on taxes, he does not take the traditional republican or traditional conservative stance on limited government, having more in line with the Clinton democrats. The US is still the world's cop, which is divisive among both parties for different reasons. It is now shown that Ross Perot was right on NAFTA/GATT.

I expected Ron Paul to have a strong internet presence, and I think he'll be a candidate to watch in the primaries surprising many. The best thing about the Internet is that it has the chance to be a strong counter to the "mainstream" media. There are more candidates than Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. The Internet is the outlet to the rest of the candidates.

I don't know what Ron Paul's primary numbers will be, but I will not be surprised if he finishes top 3 in New Hampshire. You heard it here first.

2008 GOP Candidates - Debate Report

I caught the debate (taped, saw it tonight) on MS-NBC between the 10 presidential candidates on the GOP side. This was in my normal transcript shorthand format when I watch these things and can be difficult to read. Overall, I thought the winner was Mike Huckabee, although I did not care much for the format.

--------------------------------------------

10 candidates
Mitt Romney – Former Mass. Governor
Sam Brownback – Kansas Senator
Jim Gilmore – Former Virginia Governor
Mike Huckabee – Former Arkansas Governor
Duncan Hunter – California Congressman (San Diego area)
Tommy Thompson – Former Wisconsin Governor
John McCain – Arizona Senator
Ron Paul – Texas Congressman (Surfside)
Rudy Giuliani – Former NYC mayor
Tom Tancredo – Colorado Congressman (Littleton)

Debate 90 minutes. Chris Matthews, John Harris – Questions
Some view questions
60 second answers to Matthews/Harris Q’s, 30 seconds for viewer Q’s
Rebuttals – 30 seconds
No open/closing statements or thank yous to hosts for time purposes.

Some Q’s A’s. I skipped most of the fluff. Some of the more interesting answers IMO (Whether I agree or disagree)

Iraq:

McCain – I need to show success in Iraq to people. He takes Congress to task over the Democrat’s bill, Harry Reid specific for his comment. “IF we lost, who won?” The house cheered surrender. We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, genocide will happen and it will follow us home.

Thompson. First, we must support the troops. 3 things also need to happen.
1. Iraqi Government must vote if they want us there for legitimacy.
2. 18 territories. They need to elect governments there, prevent civil war
3. Split oil. 1/3 fed, 1/3 state, 1/3 every man, woman, child. Investing in their own country.

Duncan Hunter – Key to winning in Iraq is standing up 128 batallions in Iraqi army. They need to be ready and displace American units. Right way to leave Iraq.

Polls say 55% is unwinnable in Iraq:
Romney – If we want polls to win, we let TV run the country. That’s not want America wants. We need president of strength. We want troops home, in right way. If we leave wrong way, we could have more regional conflict. We may have to come back again.



Huckabee on Rumsfeld – “I would have fired him before the election. I certainly would not have said that I wouldn’t fire him, and then do so, but that’s the president’s call” Real error in judgment by listening to civilians in suits and silk ties and not listened to generals with real mud on boots and medals on chests. Those generals told us early on it would take 300,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. We gave limited troops/budget. That was mistake, but we need to finish the job, do it right, and not go back and do it over.

Ron Paul (asked about voting against war) – We need a non-intervention traditional foreign policy. That was Republican foreign policy in 20th Century. Eisenhower got us out of Korea, Nixon out of Nam. In 2000, we ran on no nation building and humble foreign policy. Declare war if we go, not for UN resolutions or political reasons.

Iran
McCain – We need to bring greater pressures to Iran. Diplomacy, economic, etc with Iran, which is very cultural. Greatest fear – Iran getting nuke and giving to terrorist. There are lots of options, but not war right now.

Constitution to allow foreign born candidates to run for president.
Romney – probably not
Brownback – no
Gilmore – no – don’t like to amend constitution
Huckabee – after 8 years, yes
Hunter – no
Thompson – no
McCain – consider it
Ron Paul – No, strong supporter of original intent
Rudy – yes
Tancredo – no

Ron Paul – Phase out IRS?
Absolutely! Immediately. If we want to lower taxes, change policy (Spending)

Okay Abortion first 8 weeks?
Gilmore – Yes. But I have a pro-life record. Waiting period. Partial Birth Abortion

Thompson – Leave abortion up to the states. I have a prolife record. Signed pro-life bills (listed them). States law.

Romney –
Always personally pro-life, but question on government. I changed my mind 2 years ago.
States should make decision

Brownback asked if he can support GOP’er who is prochoice
I can – Reagan commandment. Agree with 80% But life is a central issue of our day.

Rudy – Asked Why support public funding for abortions? “I don’t” I support Hyde Amendment. State decision. I supported it in NY, other places can make decision.

Moral vs Libertarian with purpose
Paul – What is the goal of govt? Promote liberty – brings us together. Police weakens liberty. We’re fretting about 3rd war countries but stood up to Soviets.

Ok for private employee to fire gays
Thompson – Private decision

----
Hunter - We need to win the right way. Build the border fence, let people knock on the door.

Tancredo – Karl Rove wouldn’t be employed in my White House.

Thompson – Biggest problem in our party - We went to change Washington, and it changed us. I started Welfare Reform plan as governor. It would get democrats, independents to support.

McCain – We lost in 2006 – spending got out of control. I will veto a pork bill and make them famous.

What specific cuts:
McCain – Line item veto best tool. Start with defense aqusition. Stop pork spending, then go programs.

Fed funding of embryonic stem cell way.
Romney – None on farming embryos. Fine to be legal, not government. Support AlteredNuclear transfer.
Brownback – no
Gilmore – no Can’t create people to end life
Huckabee – no
Hunter – No, alternatives
Thompson – Not yes/no. A lot of research right now. Adult stem cell research right now.
McCain – We need to fund this.
Ron Paul – Not authorized on constitution. Market/states should deal with it.
Rudy –Yes if not cloning or created to destroy.
Tancredo – Not with tax money.

Flip Flops
McCain – No provisions on Social Security or contingency. Make tax cuts permanent, else it’s a tax increase.

Taxcuts
Romney – 0% Capital Gains tax on middle income
Brownback – Flat tax – choose between current or flat
Gilmore – I kept my word on taxes as governor. Cut Alternative minimum tax.
Huckabee – We need Fairtax! Get rid of IRS and all capital gians, individual/corporate
Hunter – Manufacuters getting killed with dumb trade deals with double tax. Eliminate manufacturing taxes.
Thompson –Vetoed 1990 items, reduced taxes. Alternative min tax – flat tax.
McCain – Line item veto on these. Alt min tax, 3000 tax credit for purchase health insueance. Flatter fair tax.
Ron Paul – Get rid of inflation tax and income tax. Printing too much money. Need sound money.
Rudy – AMT and death tax. Keep tax cuts. 2011 tax increase needs to be stopped.
Tancredo – Support fairtax. Repeal 16th Amendment or we’ll have both. We need to deal with mandatory structural problem.

What Govt does poorly:
Hunter – Secure border. People crossing Mexican border illegally – not just Mexicans. Communist China. Iran.

Romney asked - What cabinent would you keep? A: Entire new team.

Gilmore – I ran as conservative. I governed as conservative. I’m consistent and don’t flip and flop.

Ron Paul – We should NEVER interfere with internet. I always voted against regulating the internet. I trust the Internet a LOT more than mainstream media.

Mike Huckabee (Cronyism) – As president, we need to make it clear that we not going to continute to see jobs shipped overseas, and watch as CEO takes 100 million bonus to take jobs somewhere else and take pensions as well. We don’t stop it, we don’t deserve to win in 2008.

National ID Card
Rudy – support it, with immigration. Database, tamperproof. Foreigners
Romney – Agree with Rudy. Aliens, not citizens
Brownback – Don’t need to go this way. Secure borders and interior – Social Security number must mean something. Don’t need new system.
McCain – Support it if they want to work.
Paul – Absolutely opposed to national ID card. Contridiction to free society. Do not need it.
Tancredo – Do not need one for same reasons Dr Paul said.
Thompson – No national id.

Scooter libby pardon
Romney – don’t make decision until judiciary process. Fitzgerald.
Brownback – Let process go. (undecided) Not law that was violated
Huckabee – I was prosecutor. Law applies to discretion. Go to people and make case. Can’t make case, don’t do it.
Most others - no
Tancredo – Pardon him, and pardon Ramos and Camprien (Border Patrol)

Terri Schiavo Case:
Romney – Usually family decides. Courts decides. Florida did right thing, but Congress needed to stay out.
Brownback – Right decision. Life is sacred, stand for it in all circumstances.
McCain – We acted too hastily.
Rudy – Court decision. Family in dispute. Courts are for that.

On Clinton
Ron Paul - I voted to Impeach him

Overall:

The format sucked. Some of the candidates had a lot more facetime than others. All candidates IMO should have had the same questions. That is my biggest problem with this. The other problem was some of the questions were BS and fluff. Why ask 10 republican candidates about the Clintons? Right now we have a primary. I don’t want to know what Jim Gilmore thinks about Clinton. I want to know what Jim Gilmore thinks about policy.

The candidates were mostly cautious and my opinion of most of them did not change based on this. One thing I DID like about this was the lesser known candidates being allowed to participate. Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, and Mike Huckabee all bring something to the table and are running as well. It was good to see some of the “choice c” candidates involved to some degree.

If I had to pick a “winner” based on the limited format, I’d have to go with Mike Huckabee. I am more open to his candidacy than I was beforehand. I still have a lot of fiscal concerns with him, particularly on his record on taxes, but I’m more open to supporting him than before.

I liked Tommy Thompson's answer on Iraq, Huckabee's on Rumsfeld and Scooter Libby, Ron Paul on the National ID, Internet, and nationbuilding, Tancredo on Fairtax and Karl Rove, McCain on Pork, Romney on Stem Cell, and Duncan Hunter on trade.

I’m still undecided however, and will be for the foreseeable future.