Powered by ScribeFire.
That place was much better when Clinton and Whitewater were the topics of the day. Now it is a cesspool of neocons. They do give until it hurts though. Jim Robinson is going to milk another 75k out of them.
A bit off of my usual subjects was this one on salt myths and this one which was already posted on my blog about Ron Paul's polling numbers.
Thanks Lew.
As evidence of his independence, Broun emphasized a Ron Paul-like committed to "work to restore government according to the Constitution as our Founders intended." While the Georgia appears to be a more cautious constitutionalist than the maverick Texas congressman who is making a longshot bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008, Broun borrowed one of the most popular of Paul's principles, promising that if elected he would assess any new legislation by first asking: "Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?"
Don't believe for a second that Ron Paul can't win. He is going to win and he's already started influencing America's politics.
The comments were overwhelming and he has had a change of heart. Hard to do in a public forum but he pulls it off well and I have a lot of respect for that.
They are going to bring us change they say. But what they've brought so far should give them insomnia.
They don't look haggard. They are coiffed, pleated and all smiles for the rolling cameras as they tell us they are tirelessly working to keep us safe. For the past 16 years they have been supporting naked aggression in Iraq (and eastern Europe, and South America) and they now beg for our votes because it's just recently become obvious to them that Iraq is a disaster. We need a change in Washington. People are tired of this Administration's Iraq war disaster. Our troops need a change of scenery so let's send them to Darfur and Iran!
Iran will be different. Iran is really dangerous. Someday, if we were to leave them alone and stop harassing them, they might develop a nucular bomb. And then what would we do? Well of course, we'd have to send them some diplomats carrying a foreign aid package under their arms. Once they've established peaceful relations we'll build an embassy so that the CIA and NSA agents we send there can have a nice cozy place from which to listen in on their phone conversations.
Darfur will be different. The people in Darfur really will greet us with flowers. And this war won't be about Oil. There's no oil in Darfur so the Democrats and progressives decrying genocide are not going to be accused of chasing oil interests. Their motives are as pure as the driven snow. They are only interested in saving the people of Darfur from their genocidal government. If a few hundred thousand civilians have to die in the process, it surely will be worth it.
As Chris Dodd said during the Democratic debates, we aren't just electing a President, we're electing the most powerful (@3:20) leader in the whole wide world. So we certainly don't want those evil people who invaded Iraq to be in charge. We need a change.
Oh, sure, they voted for Iraq, all of them except Kucinich, but he's a crank. He's not a serious candidate and as soon as they can escort him off the stage, they can explain why they voted for the Patriot act and the wars and an expansion of the Patriot act. See, the Republicans are evil. They lied to justify the Iraq war. It should be patently obvious to anyone that Democrats were tricked into voting to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq and voting for the Patriot act. Nobody had a copy of the Patriot act and by the time anyone found out what it really said, it was too late. You can't trust those Republicans.
By the time the Patriot act renewal came up, Bush had made all of the jihadists mad so they just voted for its expansion because by now you should know that muslims are out to kill your mom. The government knows this because they've been listening in on your mom's telephone conversations and some of her neighbors don't like that she's going to vote and doesn't wear a burka.
Your mom wouldn't be safe out there if it weren't for the Department of Homeland security. Any moment now, we could go from yellow to red. What would you do if they hadn't voted to spend 40 billion dollars on an excel chart, a web page and a bloated federal bureaucracy? How would you know that you were in danger? It's a small price to pay for peace of mind. There is another benefit to their strategy. Curbing your freedoms will put islamofascist minds at ease. Jealousy of our freedoms is a major contributing factor for the terrorists so they are doing us a great service by invading our privacy and suspending habeas corpus.
And while they're on the subject of money, they need you to give until it hurts. See, we've been borrowing to pay for the war in Iraq and they want to make sure that all of our children have health care.
The foregoing contains a bit of sarcasm. The truth is, they are saying these things with a straight face and they obviously sleep at night. Meanwhile, out there in the real world, you and I work our 60 hours a week and watch as our "dollar" continues to plummet in value.
The democrats who want to displace the current regime, were the same democrats approving "no-fly zones" and the bombing of Iraq from 1991 - 2001, giving foreign aid to the Taliban, voting for the Iraq war, helping NATO drop bombs on Bosnia, invading Somalia and voting for the pre-cursor to the Patriot Act, a bill to target domestic terrorism. Did that bill prevent any terrorism on our shores? Of course not. So because it didn't, we need to reward that failure with more of the same. If only the domestic terrorism law had been more draconian, they really could have made more progress in stripping from us our rights in 2001. Because, after all, the more draconian the measure that has failed, the more draconian the next law needs to be in order to prevent those failures.
That they can say with a straight face they plan on changing things should they get a Democrat in the White House, should actually scare you. It's quite obvious that this is a blatant lie.
That most of the Republicans in the field would campaign on increasing wars on terror and restrictions in liberty is somehow less scary to me. At least they're telling the truth. At least they telegraph their intentions. This isn't to say they are any better, just a teeny bit more straightforward.
Lastly, there's the Main Stream Media who want you to think that the only real choices you have are between the "top tier" liars from each group. They sleep at night and they keep straight faces when they tell you that Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel don't take themselves seriously and should they, would be deluding themselves.
Who is deluding whom? They are going to bring us change they say. But what they've brought so far should give them insomnia.
Sleep well.
The Washington Secretaryt of State has announced the final decisions on the date of the primary and what the political parties have determined will be the outcome.
The Washington State Democratic Party Central Committee decided not to use the results of Washington's 2008 Presidential Primary to allocate their delegates to their national convention. The Washington State Democratic Party Central Committee met on April 28, 2007 in Bellingham.The Washington State Republican Party State Committee decided to allocate 51% of their delegates to their national convention based off the results of the state's Presidential Primary. The Washington State Republican Party State Committee met on June 2, 2007 in Yakima.
Is the fix already in?
In Florida, Howard Dean is shrinking the number of delegates from Florida by half. This article claims that it is because they moved the primary to March. But is that really the reason? Washington state moved theirs to February 19 so the rationale does not seem to be consistent. What other reason could you have for removing delegates other than disregarding the public's vote?
On the other hand, this blog has a very interesting take on the strategy:
It’s simple. Their Party leaders did the smart thing and kept their nomination process to Democrats. 100% of their delegates will be determined by Democrat Caucuses. So when the Primary comes around they will be free to control the Republican side. THERE IS NO REASON FOR DEMOCRATS TO VOTE ON THE DEMOCRAT SIDE IN THE PRIMARY (since it won’t effect the outcome). BUT THEY CAN CONTROL 51% OF THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION VOTES from our state.
So the democrats want to control their own delegates and the republican delegates since Washington allows Democrats and Republicans to vote in the primaries.
One of the better explanations I have read is that pollsters are selecting responses which only include loyal republicans and democrats who are likely to vote. Because they are ruling out other possibilities, they are not able to measure what is really happening amongst the general population.
For the most part, poll respondents are discovered by dialing numbers in a phone directory (listed numbers). The pollsters continue calling until they get enough respondents who match the criteria they've selected (x republicans who answer they are likely to vote - x democrats who answer they are likely to vote).
Out of curiosity, I decided to do some googling in order to get a better idea of the mechanics of polling. I'm certainly not going to become an expert on polling using google but there are things that I'd like to know.
Besides using standard directory listings, pollsters also use a method called Random Digit Dialing. This attempts to reach people who have unlisted numbers and won't be found in the directory listings. Some people have theorized that people with unlisted phone numbers might offer significantly different results but according to a Zogby study on RDD, advances in technology (CallerID) and changing demographics (unlisted numbers aren't just for the affluent anymore), people with unlisted phone numbers are less likely to participate then they were 20 years ago.
“When I started in 1984, response rates averaged 65%,” Zogby says. “You were twice as likely to get someone to answer the telephone. Today they don’t answer the phone and they are much more likely to refuse to participate in a survey.”
Zogby has concluded that RDD doesn't offer a significantly better sample and so doesn't use RDD. However, the Zogby study conclusions talk more about costs and "interviewer fatigue" as a rationale then it does the actual polling results. Not being an expert, I merely note this because it is interesting. Zogby admits that academic studies haven't found RDD any more or less reliable then the old phone book method.
In the academic world, no consensus has been reached among public opinion researchers on the superiority of RDD over listed samples. However, the results from a number of studies are consistent with Zogby’s assessment that listed samples are more efficient, less costly to administer, and produce results similar to those of RDD.
Zogby's study does say that in measuring differences between the two polling techniques, there are moderate differences in responses 35% of the time and significant differences 2-3% of the time. Given the margin of error, one *might* conclude that RDD may produce more accurate results. But at what cost? Zogby thinks it's too expensive for the results given.
A poll cannot predict anything by definition. It only attempts to get the current opinions of the people contacted. It can't read the minds of those contacted and it cannot contact the same people intentionally ( to track trends ) lest it invalidate the randomness of the samples used.
Rather, the alleged randomness. For some reason, the media and politicians seem quite obsessed with the opinions of very small numbers of Americans extrapolated to conclude that therefore the general population would react similarly by percentage. I'm not convinced. As much as the media is liable to promote a point of view using polls as "evidence", I am suspicious that such reliance is because polls are so easily manipulated.
Most everyone who follows the gun debate remembers Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay's infamous epidemiological farce which concluded (on the first pass) that people who keep guns in the home are 43 times more likely to have a family member killed by a gun than those who do not keep a gun in the home. This number kept getting revised downward as time went on and as more and more reputable reviewers poked holes in the data until the study was altogether discredited. The basis of the study, for which they claimed properly ruled out bias, was homes of people where a gun homicide had occurred. Apparently it didn't occur to either Kellerman or Reay that study "participants" were more likely to be endangered due to their criminal behavior then they were by idle, inanimate objects. Because the sample used was weighted so heavily with people involved in crime (prior felonies) the sample was biased in the extreme.
So why isn't it considered bias when respondents are limited to those who are likely democrat or republican registered voters? There are certainly states which allow crossover primary voting though not all states do. So, in those states where it is allowed, why not include responses from members of "third" parties?
Again, I'm not an expert in polling, but I am familiar with testing methodologies. I've been testing software for over 20 years. I have seen some very interesting and brilliant uses for random sampling that proved extremely useful. However, people are not like software or hardware. When applying random sampling techniques in simulations, the data being sampled is finite and well-defined in its characteristics. Humans are far more complex and infinitely less predictable than the opinion makers would have you believe.
The polling results we are seeing also doesn't account for claims made by RP supporters and noted by observers. These fall into several distinct categories:
Another factor that may be significant is the formulation of the questions. The questions do not attempt to discover any rationale for respondents choices but only the "seriousness" of the respondent (are you not sure, somewhat sure, pretty sure, extremely sure, super extremely sure....)
Are those sampled choosing an answer based on name recognition alone or based upon a specific issue which they agree with the candidate's view? Can the respondent even list the positions of the candidate they have chosen? Since polling questions as to motive are saved for another random sample, we don't have the answers to such questions by the original respondents. It is pure conjecture to attempt any linking of motives to the original responses. (ie; People are angry with Bush because the war isn't going well therefore) I am reminded of daily news reports which attempt to tell us why the market went up or down in spite of the fact that there are often news reports which contradict those reasons. Yesterday, Yahoo claimed that the market went up on retail sales reports. On the same page, there were two other news headlines, one which said that Walmart reported a 9% increase in sales last quarter, the other claimed that there was a general retail sales slump for the past quarter. While not equivalent, the claim by Yahoo that markets went up on reports of stronger retails sales is as reliable as claiming Ron Paul is getting 0-3% "real world" support.
It is also extremely early in the cycle to put any stock in polls that have been conducted thus far. As mentioned before, polls cannot be used to offer predictions. The only reliable political polls are those which include openly counted paper ballots.
One other important factor is the intentional omission of certain candidates. In spite of the fact that Ron Paul has surpassed the one-time front-runner McCain in cash on hand, neither Newsweek nor La Times/Bloomberg include Paul in its poll.
Anyone using poll results as a means to prove or disprove a candidate's chances next fall is revealing an agenda. The polling data that you aren't seeing would prove interesting I think. Candidates often hire polling firms to help them measure the results of certain policy statements. Clinton was notorious for commissioning polls to see which way the wind is blowing.
If polls were so good at predicting voter opinions, what happened with the recent fiasco over immigration? Both parties had to run for cover and the amnesty bill was abandoned. Wouldn't it be interesting to see privately commissioned polling data immediately after "The Decider" got decisive and demanded an amnesty bill?
I don't intend to completely dismiss polling data. However, the growth of third party membership and the decline of those participating in both telephone surveys and voting in elections suggests that the pickings are getting slimmer and slimmer for pollsters. To put any faith in them 16 months prior to the general election is unrealistic. To use them as a means of predicting the outcome of the general election? Completely absurd.
"The Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision," Bush said.When did he go to work for Fox News? Or does Fox give him a kickback for product placement during press releases?
On Wednesday, July 11, 2007 the House passed HR.2900 without allowing the Ron Paul (R-TX) amendments to protect dietary supplements. Representatives Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), John Dingell (D-MI), Henry Waxman (D-CA), and others falsely proclaimed that they were doing America a favor by passing this sweeping FDA-supported legislation that grants the rouge agency more power and money, and even transforms it into a quasi drug company.Both the House and Senate (S.1082) have made the fatally flawed assumption that the reason for so many deaths and injuries from drugs was due to the FDA's lack of resources. In reality, it is the INTENTION of FDA management that is the problem, combined with the simple fact that multiple drugs are extremely toxic and don't work as advertised. Giving the FDA more power and money will only cause the agency to speed more drugs onto the market faster with even less safety testing -- while abusing its power and actively stamping out competition to drugs. (sic)
As a long time libertarian, registered Libertarian and an occasional dues paying member of the LP, I'd like to dedicate this article to you. I'd especially like to reach those members who are feeling left out, or have been looking at recent events with a jealous eye.
I want to remind you that the Presidency is a single office. A plethora of local, state and national offices could potentially be gained if only you will view the current situation as an opportunity rather than a reason to wail at lost momentum.
Let's face it, 300 odd LP office holders is something for which the LP can be proud, but it is a pittance. Yes, the powers that be have, at every turn, attempted to thwart our progress. Tweedledee and Tweedledumber write ballot laws to prevent "Libertarian" from being listed next to "Democrat" and "Republican". They erect quota s to prevent access and they take public money (our taxes!) for their own campaigns while denying it to our candidates (not that they'd necessarily take it).
I have spent many hours dreaming of a time when libertarian ideas could be juxtaposed against the American version of Bolhshaviks and Menshaviks upon a national stage. If only [Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, Ron Paul, Andre Marou] could have participated in the Presidential debates, we'd win in a landslide! Something like that anyway.
Well, now that has happened. We were right. When a libertarian is allowed a voice against arch-rival statists, the public responds favorably.
The Libertarian Party been hindered by the GOP and DNC resulting in less than stellar results. However, there are no valid excuses for the paltry showing libertarians have thus far achieved.
Ron Paul is an example we should study. While he did take up the Libertarian mantle for the 1988 Presidential bid, he chose a practical route. This route allowed him to build an unmatched libertarian resume by anyone this past 40 years, Republican, Democrat or Libertarian.
The Libertarian Party has not fared as well by avoiding the practical. This isn't to say that the LP and its advocates have not helped to advance the cause of liberty. Far from it. What they haven't done however, is amass resumes, the listed accomplishments of which instill pride and trust.
The LP may have a record it could use to market itself but it has poorly represented that record and has barely even attempted to present it. People are now flocking to Ron Paul because he has a solid, uncompromising, public record. People may disagree with his stands, but they couldn't argue that he hasn't held up the libertarian ideal.
The LP has an opportunity tap into the Ron Paul movement by joining it. In the 20 years that I have been a libertarian, there has never been so opportune a moment, so hot a fire, so young the people joining in order to grasp freedom.
Think of it! And think of the prize. It will be a frustrating prize indeed if won and there are no libertarians in Congress or the Senate. What does anyone expect one man to do? Do you really think that 535 statists will just roll over for a libertarian President? Sure, he will have an army of unelected citizens jamming the phone lines, but that is not nearly enough.
Why couldn't the LP join this movement and support it wholeheartedly? Why can't the LP, which touts itself as a free market advocate, listen to what the market is saying? If it doesn't, then it will spend the next 40 years marking time or perhaps simply withering away.
This could be our year if egos are put aside. Rather than a step backward, it could be a giant leap forward. The LP could learn something from this experience and it could gain some very loyal allies.
The libertarian message is being delivered on a national scale. Those libertarians seeking lesser offices have a great opportunity. Half the Congressional House is up for grabs next year. Look at Congressional approval ratings. Not only are GOP candidates losing their base, but the Democrats have also by their actions squandered what good will they had after the elections. Incumbents misunderestimated Bush's incompetence and put their eggs in his basket back in 2001 (Patriot Act) and again in 2003 (Iraq War) and 2005 (Patriot Act II). They believed electoral support for the war was infinite and didn't even consider that it might evaporate. This year the Democrats plundered themselves even further by failing to defund the war. This last failure is having a very noticeable impact on their constituency.
Democrats who cast their lots with Bush, and there are few who didn't, are as vulnerable as they've been since 1994. Republicans have their loyal following, but it won't be enough to save them in 2008 barring another catastrophe at home.
Anti-war, anti-government candidates will have the most to gain if they can take advantage of this exploding grass roots movement. Come the elections, if the voters recognize candidates as a real alternative, no matter the label next to their name, the results could be quite surprising.
The LP has a real opportunity to begin building resumes. While in public office they could finally deliver what they've promised for over 30 years. Assuming, that is, LP members are not interested more in the party abbreviation next to the candidate than actually working to achieve a government that respects its boundaries.
My wife then responded: "When you don't have anything to say, it better look good."
Exactly...I'm still laughing.
In the meantime, the line next to me had cleared and the young woman working that isle peeked around her register and smiled.
"I can help you over here."I recounted the event to my wife and a friend of ours, who happened to be visiting, and it was received well. Some portion of the laughter was directed at my obsessive habit of talking about Ron Paul. Our friend is a self-described liberal (but acting libertarian - a single mom who is the epitome of responsible ) and was, coincidentally, excited to tell me that she had finally visited YouTube to find the source of my recent obsession. She couldn't have been more positive. And what's more, she was excited about the prospect of volunteering for the campaign."Thanks. You know, they should issue you folks some Ron Paul t-shirts."
Laughter...Then she asked a bit sheepishly, and to my great amusement, "Are you Ron Paul?"
"Oh no, I'm not Ron Paul."
"Ahh...well it's just, I've been seeing these signs for him all over town. It seems like everywhere I go there are signs about him."
"He's a Republican Congressman from here in Texas, he's running for President."
"Oh".
"When you go home tonight, hit him up on google. He's probably very different than what you might expect from a Republican."
"I will! Paper or Plastic?"
Since then, I saw the Tulsa and Houston television coverage and was reminded of something that has been nibbling at the edges of my consciousness for quite some time. Let me digress for a moment.
For the past 20 or so years, I have been arguing on the internet, posting my opinions and living my life. When I'm not making a living or playing with my kids, I am "fighting communism" as my wife jokes when she sees me posting to some website or my blog. For many of those years, the responses I received both on the internet and in off-line conversations, combined with a blind spot when it comes to my own abilities, formed a pretty bleak view of the world. If somebody didn't agree that liberty, free markets and the constitution were good ideas, then they fell into the group of "stupid people" who just didn't get it. It certainly wasn't my fault no matter how rude or combative my style. Ahem...
My cynicism had grown to fester so much that when Ron Paul announced, I barely noticed. I checked the campaign site around the time they had posted their second video. Prior to the first debate, it dawned on me that the Ron Paul candidacy would bring to libertarians what we had dreamed about for many years - the Holy Grail - exposure of libertarian ideas in a national forum, side-by-side with the alternatives.
And then, all hell broke loose as you know.
Back to this nagging thought that is only now coming into view. Laura from RedStateEclectic and Nick Bradley at Lew Rockwell live blogged the Iowa rally and mentioned something Ron said at the beginning of his speech.
"I'm glad I could join you".
They interpreted this as an inside joke referring to Ed Failor's ill-advised actions which inspired the rally. (Do the repeated gaffes of the PTB and MSM appear to be divinely inspired or what?)
He's recorded saying it in the parking lot also when he arrives and speaks to some of the rally participants. He was very gracious, giving all of the credit to the energetic young people who have been flocking to his message.
He also credits the volunteers (YOU) in his interview with KHOU. My thoughts became clear when Sid Burgess of Haskel, Oklahoma was interviewed by KOTA in Tulsa.
"I hope he wins," said Burgess. "I have a lot of faith in his campaign, but more important than the candidate is his message to me."
Eureka! Ron Paul is not making this candidacy about him. If you notice, every other candidate, to a man (or woman), is sending a similar message:
Look at me.Listen to how important I sound. Look at my impeccably coiffed hair. Look at my Husband! (He used to be the President you know.) I exude the expertise and power to rule you in such a way that you will thank me later. Look at my wife, she's hot! Believe me, you want some of this candidate.
Ron Paul has lived his life and carried himself in such a way that this candidacy isn't really about him, even though his integrity is what makes him such an attractive candidate. He is delivering a message that needs nothing other than you to carry it. It doesn't need the national media, it doesn't need a pretty package, it only requires that you carry it in your hearts and minds and spread it to every corner of the US. You are Ron Paul. I am Ron Paul (...and I am a champion of the Constitution).
The Video is here.
It's an excellent piece and is a really good example of what the meetup teams can accomplish. National media? Not necessary. Politics is Local baby.
I was very impressed with the fact that this event was organized and put on by the Ron Paul meetup group in Las Vegas. Check out the gift they give him at the end....(Fiat Currency - 1913 - 2008).
