Insights on the Ron Paul Straw Poll Victories From a Political Dirty Trickster

Ron Paul is winning almost every Republican straw poll in the Nation if the Paulist are telling the truth and I have google-researched enough of their claims to believe it is true.

The Paulist are sure to let you know of Ron Paul’s every success. The Republican-leaning groups to which I belong and the Republican-leaning blogs I read are clogged with stories of his victories. According to the Paulist, the only reason he is not better known by the pubic or doing better in the National polls is that there is some sort of corporate media and Neocon conspiracy to keep people from learning what a knight in shinning armor Ron Paul really is.

Below is an example of a story that was recently circulated:

Wedneday Sept. 5, 2007

Maryland GOP Presidential Straw Poll Is A Big Success, Grassroots Candidate Wins Surprise Upset
ANNAPOLIS— After eleven days of presidential straw poll ballots cast at the Maryland Republican Party’s State Fair booth, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) was announced last night as the winner.
The Maryland Republican Party’s first-ever presidential straw poll at the State Fair resulted in nearly 1,000 Marylanders casting a vote for their favorite Republican candidate for president. The straw poll was open to all voting age adults regardless of party affiliation, and the voter had to be present at the booth. The campaigns of all nine presidential candidates appearing on the ballot were invited to have a representative at the State Fair booth at all times. While most Campaigns did not have a representative present, the Ron Paul campaign had full representation for all eleven days. (to continue: >Maryland GOP )

Notice a couple things about this story: only a thousand votes were cast and “most campaigns did not have a representative present, the Ron Paul Campaign had full representation for all eleven days.

Now: My confession.
In the mid 70’s I was a college student at East Tennessee State University. Watergate had occurred and it was the during the last days of The Vietnam war and being a leftist was in style. Our campus however was relatively quite and apathetic but most students were products of the era and were certainly more liberal than conservative. There were a couple leftist organizations on campus but they were, for the most part, inactive.

At the time, I chaired a small Young Americans for Freedom chapter. To tell the truth, we barely got the twelve members we needed to get a charter. Myself and one other guy were the only really active members and there were two other occasionally active members. The others just joined but never participated.

In 1976, Reagan was challenging President Ford for the Republican nomination. Our YAF chapter approached the campus Young Democrats and the College Republicans with the idea of holding a mock election on campus. Both groups liked the idea and we jointly approached the student council with the idea. They bought it and we had an officially student body sanctioned, university endorsed, mock election conducted by the Student Council.
The day of the elections while the Student Government officials manned the polling place, I and the two other YAF members worked the sidewalk outside the student union center. We would approach students with clipboard in hand, wearing no political buttons or identification, and say we were conducting a poll.

We would ask, "If the election where held today in which party primary would you vote. If they told us the Republican primary, we would then read off the list of candidates and ask for whom they would vote. If they replied “Reagan”, we then asked them if they knew about the mock election taking place. Most did not. We would then direct them where to go vote. If they named another candidate we thanked them for participation in our poll. We also decided to let Carter win the Democratic primary.

After the polls closed and the votes were counted, the result was approximately three times as many Republicans voted as Democrats and Regan won by a landslide. Also, Carter handily beat the more liberal candidates in the Democratic primary.

We already had our press releases made up, We filled in the numbers, delivered and mailed the press release to area newspapers and the next day about 6 newspapers in the region carried the news of Reagan’s landslide victory in a mock election at ETSU. This did not just happen. Basically two motivated activities planned it and made it happen.

I was very proud of this "dirty trick" but learned not to trust mock elections or straw polls.

Top Stories

Should Gay Flirting be a Crime?

Senator Larry Craig’s arrest has been widely reported and commended upon. Here are my thoughts:

I am bothered by the hypocrisy of a “family value” politicians soliciting sex in a public bathroom. But, I am more bothered by police-state tactics that led to Senator Craig’s arrest. I do not see that what he did rises to the level of "solicitation"; it was more like ‘flirting”.

He apparently gave secrete gay signals to the undercover cop. This looks like a case of entrapment. If a man in the next stall lets his foot go over into my stall I would move my foot away and that would be the end of it. If he put his hand under the divider partition, I would say in a strong voice, "May I help you?" and that would be the end of it.

I have a problem with efforts to catch gays flirting in the bathroom. Now, if Senator Craig had actually offered sex for cash or if he had been caught having bathroom sex, then I would think the police would be correct to arrest him. If he had said the words that were an offer to engage in oral sex, then perhaps that would justify an arrest. None of that happened.

The real story ought to be an overzealous policeman entraps a man for gay flirting.

Top Stories

I can't Leap on the Fred Thompson Bandwagon

I have been unimpressed by the crowded field of candidates from both parties seeking their party’s respective presidential nomination. As a Republican, I have been hoping for a Republican candidate that could generate some enthusiasm on my part while awaiting the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Not seeing a Republican that could excite me, I have not ruled out considering a Democrat. My disgust with the Bush administration’s deceit in leading us into the disastrous war in Iraq and the abuse of our civil liberties has made me consider jumping ship. Among the Democrats however, I have not seen anyone that I would like to see become President either.

The best I can say about most of the candidates of either party is they are better than Bush. Wanting someone to be for rather than just settling for the least offensive, I have wanted another choice. I hoped Fred Thompson was it. Finally, Fred Thompson has jumped in the race making it official last night on Jay Leno. (See clip) I had been feeling a small tinge of excitement about Fred Thompson, thinking maybe he is the person I could get excited about.

I was predisposed to support Fred Thompson. He is a good spokesman for the cause of conservatism. He can articulate his position without coming across as mean-spirited or divisive. He appears to be a social conservative without being too tied to the religious right. He sounds reasonable, level-headed, thoughtful and intelligent. He seems to be a man of integrity. He has the communication skills of Ronald Reagan and has that elusive something called “charisma”.

Having served eight years in the Senate, he cannot be dismissed as “just an actor”. He has an impressive political career and like the character he plays on Law and Order, he really is a crusader against crime and corruption.

In 1973 he served as Minority counsel in the Watergate hearings and is responsible for Senator Howard Baker asking the one question that many say led to the downfall of the President: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” While Mr. Thompson played a major role in the Watergate hearings, he was behind the scene and not in the spotlight.

He entered the public spotlight in 1977 by taking on the corrupt Democratic Governor of Tennessee, Ray Blanton. Mr. Thompson represented Marie Ragghianti a former chair of the Tennessee Parole Board who had refused to release felons who had bribed aides to Governor Blanton in order to obtain clemency. For her refusal to go along with the cash-for-clemency scheme, she was terminated on trumped up charges. Mr. Thompson represented her in a wrongful termination case. Ms Ragghianiti won her case and in the process the cash-for- clemency scandal was revealed and as a result a slew of other scandals involving the Blanton administration became public and the Governor was removed from office in disgrace.

The sordid story of corruption led to a book by Peter Mass and a movie staring Sissy Spacek, both titled “Marie, a True Story”. Fred Thompson played himself in the movie and that was the beginning of his acting career. The movie is still a great, riveting movie and if you can find it, I highly recommend it. (movie review)

While I wanted to jump on the Thompson bandwagon, I just can't do it. On Leno, he had the opportunity to distance himself from the disastrous Bush Iraq policy and he did not; instead he repeated the justifications for the war. I'm disappointed. I'm back to trying to decide who is the least objectionable candidate.

Top Stories

Phase III of Bush's War

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Those who hoped that -- with the victory of the antiwar party in 2006, the departure of Rumsfeld and the neocons from the Pentagon, the rise of Condi and the eclipse of Cheney -- America was headed out of Iraq got a rude awakening. They are about to get another.

Comes now evidence congressional Democrats have not only lost the pro-victory vote, but forfeited the peace vote, as well.

Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war. Congress has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its leadership on the war.

What is to prevent Bush from attacking Iran and widening the war, at a time and place of his choosing, and sooner than we think?

Nothing and no one.
(To continue reading: Phase III of Bush's War)

My Comment:
If President Bush represents the idealistic, Nation-building, Neocon wing of the Republican Party, Mr Buchanan represents the protectionist, isolationist, paleoconservative wing of the party. I am not so sure I would be any less disgruntled with a Buchanan version of the Republican Party than I am with the Bush version. Nevertheless, I am glad that we have a Buchanan to provide some balance to the Bush version. Above are excerpts from an article by Mr. Buchanan that I find informative and insightful.

It is amazing that as unpopular and as weakened as Bush has become, that the Congress is even less popular and weaker still. Was not divided government supposed to bring a return to Congressional scrutiny? Was not the Congressional election claimed by Democrats and mainstream pundits to be a referendum on the war? I did not expect the Democratic Congress to be so irresponsible as to cut off funding for troops in the field or immediately reverse policy. But, I expected more vigorous oversight and questioning of the administration and a little backbone.

Bush may be preparing to expand the war into Iran and Congress seems to be prepared to roll over and play dead.

Top Stories

BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO HELP NEARLY ONE-QUARTER OF A MILLION HOMEOWNERS REFINANCE, KEEP THEIR HOMES

FHA to implement new “FHASecure” refinancing product
President George W. Bush today (08/31/07) announced that HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will help an estimated 240,000 families avoid foreclosure by enhancing its refinancing program effective immediately. Under the new FHASecure plan, FHA will allow families with strong credit histories who had been making timely mortgage payments before their loans reset-but are now in default-to qualify for refinancing.
(To read the entire press release: Keep Their Homes )

Welcome News
This is welcome news and is the correct measured response to the crisis. I applaud Bush for this initiative. As a Housing Counselor who tries to help people avoid foreclosure I daily see the problem. (To read my article recently published in the Tennessean click here: Tennessee Voices.)

There must be consequences to making poor decisions, both on the part of borrowers and lenders. While I hate to see anyone lose their home, those borrowers who were reckless and who simply let greed lead them to buy more house than they could afford should not be rescued from their mistake. Those mortgage companies that made risky loans that were bound to foreclose should not be rescued from their poor lending decisions. Unfortunately, almost any program that bails out a homeowner also bails out the lender.

Not all homeowners who got bad loans were poor credit risk. Purchasing a home and getting a mortgage can be a complicated transaction. I think HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson summed it up well when he said, "Many hard-working American families who were able to make their mortgage payments under the initial teaser terms of the exotic loan are now struggling to make ends meet because their rates have doubled or tripled". This new program allows those homeowners to refinance out of these bad loans into fixed FHA products.

While helping the homeowner, this is not a bail out for the bad lenders. It is true that some loans on which the mortgage company would have lost money due to the customer foreclosing will be paid off. In that sense, it does help the lender who made a bad loan. On the other hand, some who would have kept their high interest rate loan and not foreclosed will be refinanced out of the bad loan, causing the lender to loose the earnings they would otherwise have gained from the loan. Also, the most credit-worthy of the borrowers are the ones who will refinance, leaving the lenders with a portfolio of more riskier loans. On balance, this is a rescue for the deserving borrower and not a bail-out for the undeserving lenders.

There is more that could be done on a local level and state level to slow the rate of foreclouse but this is the correct Federal responce.

Top Stories

Congress Trashes your Privacy

By Bob Barr
For the Journal-Constitution Published on: 08/22/07

It's been a little over two weeks since Congress, rushing to get out of town for its August recess, greatly expanded the power of the Bush administration to conduct surreptitious surveillance of Americans' international calls and e-mails.

While we have no idea how many such transmissions have in fact been monitored, the universe of such communications is vast, as is the government's ability —- and now its legal authority —- to intercept, gather and retain such data. Given the administration's propensity to gather as much information on as many people as possible and sort it out later, it is reasonable and prudent to conclude the number of communications already gathered and retained is extremely large.

It therefore appears timely for Americans to understand just a little bit about how extensive this new power granted the administration really is. (To continue: Congress Trashes ...)

Bob Barr Gets it. Where is the Democrat Majority?
Bob Barr explains in this article that the old law did indeed need to be updated due to changing technology, but this new law goes way beyond what was necessary and gives the President broad new powers to spy on Americans. This new law makes virtually all international calls and emails subject to monitoring without any court oversight. This is a shedding of the 4th Amendment! The good news is that the law must be reviewed again in six months.

I am proud of those handful of "movement conservatives" such as Barr who are standing by conservative principals of distrust of government and standing for Constitutional governance. Bob Barr is one of the four conservative founders of the American Freedom Agenda, which is described as "a coalition established to restore checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the executive branch."

While I do not approve of those Republicans who supported this bill and think one should always put country above party, I can understand party loyalty and understand why the majority of Republican sided with the President and gave him the benefit of the doubt. I do not understand, however, why the Democratic majority are rolling over and playing dead. Is not one of the benefits of divided government, that the "loyal opposition" will provide greater scrutiny of the administration than when the administration and legislative are of the same party? The bill passed the house with a forty vote margin and passed the Senate by a whopping 60 to 28. While the President has a job approval rating of about 30% the Congress has an even lower approval rating of 24%. They have earned it.

Top Stories

Iraq fraud whistleblowers vilified

Cases show fraud exposers have been vilified, fired, or detained for weeks
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:57 p.m. CT Aug 25, 2007

One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted.

Or worse.

For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.

He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers — all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees. (To continue: Iraq fraud

This is an outrage!
This is shameful. Why is the Congress not investigating? Why is this not more widely reported? Why are the editorialist not editoralizing? This is not some obscure left-wing rag making these claims, but The Associated Press. These are not vague accusations, but name names of the victims. Why is no Presidential contender making this an issue? It is unbelievable: An American Navy man is imprisoned for reporting illegal arm sales! Are those arms arming the insurgents? Are we selling the insurgents arms to kill American soldiers? I would like answers. I would think everyone in Congress should want answers. It should not matter whether one is Democrat or Republican, supported or opposed the going to war, supported or opposed the surge, this is something everyone should be outraged about. Where is the outrage! Rod

Top Stories

Who is Ron Paul?

This is John Paul.

Top Stories

Who is Ron Paul?

This is Rupaul.

Top Stories

Who is Ron Paul?

This is Ron Paul.

Top Stories

Who is Ron Paul?

It is "Ron Paul"; not Ron, Paul, Ringo and George

Top Stories

In a Nutshell, Ron Paul is a Nut. Too Bad

I Would like to like Ron Paul. Like many Republicans, I am not excited by any of the Republican candidates running for President. I am looking for a true conservative (whatever that means). I want someone whose foreign policy is principled, realist, and pragmatic and rejects the neocon idealism of the Bush administration. I want a candidate who is socially conservative but not too tied to the religious right agenda. I want an advocate of economic liberty, individualism, free trade, and small government. I guess I am looking for the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

I would settle for less. But, I see no one who remotely excites me. There is no one I want to send a contribution to or volunteer to help get elected.

There is a lot I like about Ron Paul. Many of his principles I agree with. He supports lower taxes, free trade, and smaller government. I agree with him that we should lift the embargo on Cuba. I like it that he receives almost all of his political contributions from small contributors and is not in the pocket of large donors. He seems sincere, honest, modest and principled. He appears to be a real good person.

Having a libertarian streak myself, I like his position on drug laws and states rights and his opposition to Real ID. I agree with his position that the rest of us should not subsidize the flood insurance of those who choose to live in flood plains, and that we should not subsidize farmers.

I admire him for being one of the few members to oppose the Iraq war. And, when he says the war was sold to us with false information, I think he is right. I admire him for his criticism of the Bush civil liberties record and constitutional abuses.

But, I fear Ron Paul is too extreme, naive, and ideological to be president. He opposes US membership in the UN, NATO, The World Trade Organization, and would repeal NAFTA. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and return the US to the Gold Standard. That is radical!

In my opinion, he was correct to oppose the war in Iraq, but he also opposed the first gulf war, the authorization to use military force following 9/11 and the war in Kosovo. He advocates an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which I fear would have terrible humanitarian consequences and lead to a much wider regional conflict. We just can’t “get out”, we need to use care in how we get out. Ron Paul appears to wish the US to withdraw from the world. In a complex dangerous world we do not need an isolationist president.

Ron Paul is no doubt a good man. I agree with many of his principles. But in a nutshell, Ron Paul is a nut. Too bad.

Top Stories