Tickets for the Twins Cities’ “other convention” go on sale tomorrow at 10:am CST:



Ron Paul fans have enjoyed a tremendous amount of success with their money bombs, so it will be interesting to keep an eye out for how the rally fares.

From ABC News:

Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, which was a pugnacious, ideological crusade against big government and interventionist leanings in the Republican party, will officially end Thursday at a rally outside the Texas GOP’s convention, ABC News has learned.

Paul told supporters back in March, in a video posted on his website, that he was “winding down” his campaign and planning a new phase to what he and fans call their “revolution.”

The new phase of the revolution officially begins with a speech tonight in Houston and a web video to be posted on his website, officially ending Paul’s presidential campaign and freeing up the more than $4.7 million in campaign cash for investment in a new advocacy group, The Campaign for Liberty.

The new entity will be used to push a slate of libertarian-minded Republican candidates for public office in local districts nationwide, according to a description provided to ABC News by the Paul campaign. Paul also recently published a new book on his political philosophy, The Revolution: A Manifesto.

Now this is an avenue in which Rep. Paul can really accomplish a lot of good in getting the Republican Party get back on track.

H/T - R4′08 reader Josiah

The Ron Paul Cult never really dies. It just sleeps…and waits. And will purchase anything bearing its leader’s name.

Here you have it:

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s newest book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” is number one on the New York Times Best Sellers list for May 18th, 2008. The ranking is yet another of the many successes Dr. Paul has had during his presidential candidacy spreading his message of personal freedom and constitutional government.Upon its official release on April 30th, “The Revolution: A Manifesto” was the number one bestseller on Amazon.com and remains the number one bestseller in political books.

Well, then! Congratulations, Congressman Paul.

The House has voted 413-1 to pass a resolution, rightfully, condemning China for their crackdown of nonviolent Tibetan protesters. It seems that “the true defender of the Constitution” Ron Paul was the only no vote. I don’t pretend to understand this one. Any guesses?

Eric Dondero at Mainstream Libertarian is reporting that Rep. Ron Paul is ending his presidential bid to focus on his House reelection campaign.

Rep. Paul has represented Texas’ 14th Congressional District since 1996.

I recieved this the other day in the mail and thought I would share it with you, courtesy of the Federalist Society.

In order to educate the public on how various Presidential candidates plan to fulfill this important responsibility the Federalist Society has invited each of the major Presidential contenders to discuss the kinds of judges he or she would appoint if elected President:

Senator John McCain:

I believe that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.

We are a free people. This means that the rules we have agreed to live by are those made by the people themselves, not a small elite that claims to be wiser than everybody else. Our laws are legitimate precisely because they reflect decisions solemnly made by the people – in the case of Constitutional law, through the process of ratification and periodic amendment; in the case of statutory law, through their elected representatives in the legislative process. When applying the law, the role of the judge is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law. The judicial role is necessarily limited and one that requires restraint and humility. As I said to the Society at the 2006 convention, “[Judges] should be people who are humbled by their role in our system, not emboldened by it. Our freedom is curtailed no less by an act of arbitrary judicial power as it is by an act of arbitrary executive, or legislative, or state power.”

This is not a new position. I have long held it. It is reflected in my consistent opposition to the agenda of liberal judicial activists who have usurped the role of state legislatures in such matters as dealing with abortion and the definition of marriage. It is reflected in my longstanding opposition to liberal opinions that have adopted a stance of active hostility toward religion, rather than neutrality. It is reflected in my firm support for the personal rights secured in the Second Amendment.

There are two areas of special concern that relate to the careful “balance of power” struck in our Constitutional structure – a balance essential to preserving our liberties. The first of these is the principle of Federalism. My judicial appointees will understand that the Federal government was intended to have limited scope, and that federal courts must respect the proper role of local and state governments. The second principle is Separation of Powers. My judicial appointees will understand that it is not their role to usurp the rightful functions and powers of the co-equal political branches. I will look for candidates who respect the lawmaking powers of Congress, and the powers of the President.

I believe that shaping the judiciary through the appointment power is one of the most important and solemn responsibilities a President has, and certainly one that has a profound and lasting impact. When I was running for President in 1999, I promised that, in appointing judges, I would not only insist on persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity. A President should have confidence in the judicial philosophy of those he is appointing to the bench. That is why I strongly supported John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court and that is why I would seek men and women like them as my judicial appointees.

Governor Mike Huckabee:

One of the greatest ongoing threats to our constitutional republic is the ever-increasing politicization of the federal judiciary. Instead of interpreting the law according to its plain or original meaning, many judges are using the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress as a mere pretense for imposing their policy preferences on the American people. This is unacceptable. The role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench; and as president, I will only appoint men and women who share this view.

I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.” The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat. The powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution come from “We the People,” and judges have no right to prohibit the people from passing democratically-enacted laws unless we have explicitly authorized them to do so. Nor can vaguely-worded language in the Constitution be used by judges to give them power over subjects the framers never intended our founding document to address. As such, any interpretation of the Constitution that is based on “evolving standards of decency,” penumbras, or any other judicial fiction, is antithetical to the rule of law, and must be forcefully challenged.

As president, I will appoint justices and judges who not only share my judicial philosophy ( e.g., Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito), but who also have established themselves within the conservative legal community as faithful adherents of originalism and textualism. The stakes are simply too high to do otherwise.

Finally, I wholeheartedly believe “that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be”; and I will do everything in my power as president to promote these cherished principles.

Representative Ron Paul:

As president, I would only appoint federal judges who hold a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, and respected every provision of the Constitution, including the second, ninth, and tenth amendments. I would also work with Congress to pass legislation limiting federal jurisdiction over issues that the Founder’s intended to be resolved by the states, local governments, and the people.

It’s sad that our Republic is in such a state that so many Americans see their freedoms as being dependent on a single Supreme Court justice. Federal judges were never meant to wield the tremendous power that they do in modern America. Our Founders would find it inconceivable that a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges can decide social policy for the entire nation.

Dozens of political pressure groups stand ready to launch an immediate public relations attack on any judge nominated by a president, while dozens of others stand ready to support the nominee no matter what. These groups reflect the unfortunate reality that millions of Americans unquestioningly support or oppose judicial nominees based solely on the party affiliation of the current president. Once again, blind loyalty to political parties has politicized a process that our Founders never intended to be political. When we as voters and citizens allow the nomination of judges to become political, we have only ourselves to blame for the politicization of our courts themselves. When courts become politicized, judges not surprisingly begin to act like politicians.

Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Congress is guilty of enabling judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.

The congressional power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction is plainly granted in Article III, and can restore the people’s ability to decide social questions themselves without having to go through the laborious process of amending the constitution. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. Both political parties are guilty of ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, and federalizing whole areas of law that constitutionally should be left up to states. This abandonment of federalism and states’ rights paved the way for an activist federal judiciary.

The public also plays a role in the erosion of our judiciary. Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of U.S. law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must develop a basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government.

As a society, we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not. It’s also time for Congress to start establishing clear limits on federal judicial power.

Once again, it is time for a little equal opportunity bashing. Today, we’re going to focus on some of the lamest talking points that come from each candidates supporters that I am frankly growing tired of. So, I’m going to dissect the points for you here and show you why they’re wrong. It gives me the opportunity to dabble in my new favorite pastime, youtube comparisons!

Up first, Mitt Romney-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHK6DnDW69s

Talking Point: They are jealous of Mitt Romney because he can win, and is an outsider who will clean up their mess.

Tommy’s Response: WRONG! I can’t read people’s minds, but I think some of it has to do with the fact that they see Romney as having led the charmed life, is a late convert, and yes, is rich. They think he’s a political opportunist, fair or not. Besides, the man has a love of sledding, eerily reminding folks of striking similarities with another famed businessman turned presidential candidate who shared a fondness for sledding.

Next up, the self proclaimed Sheriff, Buford T. McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPj_7qdm0bo

Talking Point: McCain is a conservative because he has a lifetime rating of 82% by the American Conservative Union, while Fred Thompson’s is 86%, Bill Frist scored an 87% lifetime average, and Rick Santorum scored an 88% lifetime. It makes them similar in their views.

Tommy’s Response: WRONG! It’s taking the ratings out of their context. As many a fine person says, what have you done for me lately?

Technically, many people have used Fred Thompson’s lifetime rating of 86% from the ACU to lend McCain credibility as a conservative. However, this is a flawed analysis, if you compare their tenures over the same years. See below:

Fred Thompson’s career in the Senate lasted from 1995-2002, and he garnered an 86% lifetime grade.

Rick Santorum’s lifetime Average is 88%, from roughly the same period.

Bill Frist scored an 87% from 1995-2006, his full tenure in the Senate.

John McCain’s average from 1995-2002 was actually 79%.

Even more telling, the time he first ran for President in 1999 up to 2006 is when the conservative opposition to McCain has really grown. Over the last 10 years, McCain’s ACU rating has been 74.5%, a full ten points below Thompson’s lifetime average, eleven points below Bill Frist, and twelve points below Santorum. In fact, John McCain hasn’t scored above 81% since 1996, a full twelve years ago.

Up third, Governor Huckabee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnbVqwV8aw4

Talking Point: Governor Huckabee has been consistent over the years.

Tommy’s Response: One word:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kImZGHrbIP8

I didn’t forget Dr. Paul, but everytime I search a candidate’s name on youtube, I am overflooded with Paul videos. I’ll just let them speak for themselves.

In the past, I’ve tried to give Anderson Cooper the benefit of the doubt, but this is two debates that he’s moderated where he’s done an absolutely terrible job.

As I’ve repeatedly reminded our readers here, I don’t have a horse in the race anymore, and I have have been waiting for one of the candidates to win me over. I hoped for a moment that “wows” me. Tonight didn’t seal the deal, but tonight did clarify a few things for me.

A couple of months ago, I thought that if Fred Thompson were to drop out, McCain would be a good alternative that I could be happy with. Since late November, however, I have cooled on McCain. Tonight, he really turned me off. He did not come across as presidential material, to put it mildly. Frankly, his performance tonight reminded me of all the reasons I didn’t support him in the first place. It was an embarrassing performance. There were times he almost turned it around, but in the end, he failed to do so.

Mitt Romney came very close to having a “wow” moment. He showed a command of the issues, and used talking points that are very close to my heart. Romney’s biggest problem tonight was that he let himself get defensive, instead of rising above McCain’s constant attacks. At one point, it looked as if he had delivered a knockout punch, but he couldn’t seal the deal. When talking about leadership, Romney sounded like the pragmatist he is, and that has been one of his biggest obstacles throughout the entire campaign. He must show an understanding of true movement conservatism, as well as his knack for problem solving to inspire the GOP thinkers. However… overall, Romney clearly comes out of this debate looking a lot better than McCain, and much more presidential. He gave a near great performance.

One of my biggest problems with the whole debate was that Cooper seemed to be making an effort to minimalize Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Huckabee rebounded brilliantly from his prior performances, when he was given the opportunity. Whether you agree with him or not, the bickering on the stage made him look very good. His problem is that whenever he speaks, he doesn’t cut himself off. His effective talking points are wiped out because he tends to go on and on, and when he does this, he strays into liberal territory.

The way Ron Paul was treated tonight was pathetic. Cooper repeatedly cut him off, and it was pathetic. Paul gave some of the best responses tonight, especially on the question about Reagan’s endorsement. After McCain and Romney argued over who Reagan would endorse, Paul sounded humble, speaking with a grace that he has not been known for. When he said “I’m not sure,” I knew I had heard something remarkable… someone giving an honest, humble, and truthful opinion, and he sounded like a leader while doing it.

Can you feel the suspense? Are you junkies just a teeennnyyy bit nervous???

Which candidate will take home the trophy??? I was bored, so here are the nominees for Best Picture:

Good luck to all the candidates…

I seriously wish I didn’t have to be critical as much, but you can’t ignore stuff that happens. Now, this isn’t necessarily Mike Huckabee’s fault, as he has publicly asked these folks to stop, but it doesn’t help him win any friends among those who aren’t predisposed to him. From the Associated Press:

Automated phone polls disparaging rivals of Republican White House hopeful Mike Huckabee started across this early voting state Tuesday evening and the head of the group making them said that more than 1 million will be made in a three-day span.

Huckabee’s campaign quickly disavowed the push polling. “We know nothing about that and don’t condone it. Anyone who is doing that in an effort to help us needs to stop. This does not reflect the positive spirit of the campaign,” said spokeswoman Alice Stewart.

The calls were expected. In December, Colorado-based Common Sense Issues promised to make 1 million phone calls in South Carolina supporting Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor who repeatedly has distanced himself from the group.

Common Sense executive director Patrick Davis said Tuesday night that the calls started about 5 p.m. from a call center in Virginia and should be completed sometime Thursday.

The Republican primary here is Saturday.

Among the people receiving the push polling calls was a county co-chairman of former Sen. Fred Thompson’s campaign.

Jason Goings, the Aiken County co-chairman for Thompson, said the call he received started by asking him if he was a Republican who planned to vote in Saturday’s primary and then asked whom he supported. After he hit the button for Thompson, a voice highlighted Huckabee’s position against abortion and said Thompson worked as a lawyer for a lobbying firm that protected abortion rights.

The call also attacked Thompson, a former Tennessee senator and actor, on same-sex marriage, illegal immigration and taxes.

Goings said he has received a half-dozen calls in the past two days from other campaigns. But he said this was the first profoundly negative call he has received about the election.

“I’ve never had a nasty one, and that one was nasty one,” Goings said.

Davis said Common Sense Issues is not affiliated with Huckabee and does not coordinate with his campaign. He said his group backs the former governor because of his views on issues including a strong defense and cutting taxes.

“The folks who have been critical of our phone calls generally are supporting Mike Huckabee’s opponents. They criticize the fact that the calls are happening, but there has not been criticism of the fact that the information we provide is factual,” he said.

South Carolina law prohibits automated calls for political purposes with a penalty of 30 days in jail and a $200 fine for each violation, but such calls are commonplace.

Common Sense Issues has defended the calls as free speech and said they are protected under federal law.

Over the last month, I had been curious about the harshness towards the Huckabee campaign that was coming from the Ron Paul corner of the political world. I had been under the impression that it was because they viewed Huckabee as another big government conservative in sheep clothing. At the same time, I really didn’t understand why the Paul supporters were getting former Arkansas legislators to actively campaign against Huck. Actually, I thought I understood why, but I didn’t really see the point of Paul campaign focusing its wrath towards Huckabee. Like many of those who have watched Ron Paul rise in stature, I viewed it as a curious assortment of free thinkers, libertarians, Birchers, truthers, and supremacists. Paul has certain ideas that definitely appeal to conservatives, but I never really looked that closely at his support because of my disagreements with him on a few, but major issues. At the same time, I was still wondering about the specific reasons that his camp would want to focus their attention on Huckabee, besides the obvious, and yesterday, I stumbled across one of the answers to that question.

It’s not a secret that Ron Paul’s philosophy has always been rooted in libertarian principles, but it goes much further in explaining the Paul supporters’ behavior towards Huckabee. Ron Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1979-1982 was Lew Rockwell, who left Paul’s staff and went on to form the libertarian Ludwig Van Mises Institute. Over the years, Rockwell has gained fame and notoriety for his outspoken criticism of the War on Terror and his ties to Cindy Sheehan. His blog is one of the leading anti-war online journals on the internet. Rockwell and Paul obviously did not part on bad terms when the former left the latter’s staff in 1982. Rockwell’s website is the online home of the Paul file, an archive of Paul’s writings.

The Van Mises Institute is a gathering place for what Rockwell describes as “paleo-libertarians.” In an interview with The Nation, Rockwell said that:

“Ron Paul has shown that the core of the state is the Pentagon and the Federal Reserve,”

The liberal leaning magazine goes on to define paleo-libertarianism as “culturally conservative (attracting, on the edges, a fair share of Confederacy nostalgists and white supremacists), zealously against imperial foreign policy and the Federal Reserve.”

The Van Mises Institute, and Rockwell, have been champions of Ron Paul’s economic philosophy, and have published his speeches, writings, letters, and books. In early 2007, the institute published Paul’s Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property, which is a collection of his writing and speeches concerning economics. Paul has served as a Distinguished Counselor at the institute.

Rockwell wrote the following about Paul in his introduction to the collection:

As you know, Ron–like freedom–is popular. This work, which makes the case for Austrian economics, laissez-faire, the gold standard, free trade, the abolition of agencies from the Fed to the IRS, dramatic spending cuts, and many other of our ideas–and against the economic myths and lies that permeate government and the media–can have a huge effect. His many followers will read it and be influenced by it. It will be news in the media too. It even makes a good reader in economics courses. And it shows his farsightedness in warning against such federal disasters as the mortgage and banking crisis.

One of the reasons for the strange animosity focused towards the Huckabee candidacy centers on Paul’s association with the Van Mises Institute. The institute is on record as being one of the fiercest opponents of the Fair Tax. Not only are they on record opposing it, but also are on record tearing into it on numerous seperate occasions. Judging by some of articles published on their blogs, the institute apparently is under the impression that Huckabee is a full-blown Marxist. According to the scholar article at the Mises, they accuse the FairTax plan of being progressive, an income redistribution shceme, creating new tax collectors, hiding the amount of sales tax being paid, and making it easier for the federal government to raise taxes, among many other complaints they have.

Ron Paul has attracted a wide array of followers, from true libertarians to the neo-nazi white nationalist Stormfront organization. There have been many disputes between the groups, but it is Rockwell that seems to hold Paul’s ear. Rockwell is a curious fellow, in his own right. Obviously brilliant, Rockwell has been instrumental in the rise of Paul’s candidacy through grassroots activism, and is also one of the leading advocates behind Paul’s internet phenomenon, and the outrageous number of internet hits have come from referral spamming inside the libertarian part of the internet that links the sites together. Rockwell’s site is also the online home of neo-confederate writer, Thomas DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola University, and a regular blogger at Rockwell’s site. DiLorenzo authored Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Honest Abe and The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. In the second book, DiLorenzo argued that Lincoln instigated the Civil War not to free slaves, but to centralize federal power in order to enforce the protectionist Morrill Tariff. What does all this mean? This alliance of libertarian ideologues and isolationist confederates influence the philosophy of Ron Paul’s positions. Paul has even acknowledged that he agrees with DiLorenzo’s opinion of the Civil War, that it was unnecessary. The question that remains is why do they single out Huckabee?

For that information, we turn to NRO’s Jonah Goldberg:

“And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee. One is a culturally conservative libertarian. The other is a right-wing progressive.”

One thing those libertarian activists all agree on is that they are all opposed to Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee is the nominee, he’s going to have a very rough path if he hopes to unite the party.

Many prominent pundits still don’t understand Huckabee’s appeal. For example, if Fred Thompson were to drop out of the race, I would say that about 65% of his support in the south would go directly to Mike Huckabee, about 35% would go to McCain (even if Fred were to endorse McCain), and 5% would go to Rudy. These predictions probably aren’t that far off, considering that Thompson’s support has trended directly to Huckabee over the last month. That would put Huckabee over the top in Florida and he would be untouchable in South Carolina. If Romney were to drop out, I would think that much of his support would go to Huckabee as well, though not at the same rate as Thompson’s. If you look at the trendlines in southern states, most of the other candidates haven’t seen a sizeable shift in support like Huckabee. Although months ago I thought he had a chance to overcome the obstacles in his way, Giuliani has likely hit his ceiling in this region. It might not be God that does him in, or even gays. It will be the guns. The gun vote is second in the south only to the God vote, and Rudy won’t be able to overcome those obstacles.

If Thompson loses in South Carolina, Mike Huckabee is the likely nominee of the party for 2008. That is why Thompson’s ideological supporters are refusing to go quietly. Huckabee scores with the evangelicals, but he is also able to win over some converts through Fairtax activists. However, Thompson’s idealogical base has not given up hope, because, he may be the only candidate who can beat the man from Hope, if not for his own victory, but for an ideological victory.

I did not write this to debate the merits of the Fairtax, or even to criticize his supports, and I’m not. This is to define what constitutes Huckabee’s base, why he is the man to beat for the nomination, and the difficulties he will have in appealing to the base outside of evangelical and Fairtax circles.

I’m taking it easy from posting on my candidate today, since my guy isn’t competing in New Hampshire, but apparently, a big event has been taking place across the universe of the ‘internets.’ The New Republic posted an expose on Dr. Ron Paul that is pretty damaging. I won’t post the link, but here is a link to Sullivan’s take on the report. Dr. Paul responded in person to the allegations made. The TNR article is extremely rough, and Paul gave a solid response to it:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Dr. Paul gave the right response, but it hurts him to have to deal with these types of problems on election day. If it’s true, then he’s got a lot of explaining to do, and in any case, he had to take responsibility for things that were written in his name, and he did. If this isn’t true, then somebody owes him one big apology, and also an apology to his supporters, and to everyone who bought into this type of garbage to influence votes.

Mexicans fear Huckabee
By Jeremy Schwartz | Monday, January 7, 2008, 10:58 AM

A week ago, most Mexicans had never heard of Mike Huckabee. After the former Baptist minister’s victory in Iowa, many here now view Huckabee as a danger. Huckabee is generally seen as the most conservative of the Republican candidates and as such, the toughest on immigration (Mitt Romney might have something to say about that characterization).Here’s how this morning’s Reforma newspaper analyzed Huckabee’s victory:”The triumph of Mike Huckabee in the Iowa caucus is not good news for Mexico. It happens that the ex-governor of Arkansas … is winning supporters in great part through his plan to seal the border with Mexico with a wall and more Border Patrol. He also has the support of such “wonderful” people as James Gilchrist, founder of the anti-immigrant Minuteman movement and the actor Chuck Norris, who played the role of a violent Texas Ranger.”

In the Milenio newspaper, columnist Diego Petersen Farah writes, “Huckabee’s position on immigration is absolutely radical…Without a doubt, for Mexico and Latin America in general, Barack Obama would be a much more empathetic president, although not free of problems.”

He wrote this piece a little earlier about the wider view of the GOP candidates:

McCain gets love south of the border
By Jeremy Schwartz | Monday, January 7, 2008, 09:54 AM

Republican has almost become a four letter word here in Mexico, which largely sees the GOP as xenophobic and rabidly anti-immigrant. Republican candidates are seen as stepping all over themselves in an attempt to flash their tough on immigration credentials. The great Republican hope though is Sen. John McCain, who defied his party last year by co-sponsoring a broad immigration reform bill.

Analysts here are putting a lot of stock in McCain’s performance tomorrow night in the New Hampshire primary. Ricardo Raphael, a columnist for the El Universal newspaper, writes today that a McCain win would show that “the xenophobia in our neighboring country has lost a fundamental battle …On the other hand, if Romney or Giuliani recover their political vigor and manage to get past McCain or Huckabee (the winner of the Iowa primaries), the anti-immigration flag will continue to fly and the very soon it will be the Democratic candidates…that will have to define themselves before the issue.”

It seems that McCain is feared the least out of all the current candidates - This has some interesting ramifications going into the big show - McCain is trying to build himself up into the GOP hopeful, but with such a huge percentage opposing compassion of any kind to illegal immigrants, this could stop him dead in his tracks.

Here’s an interesting candidate-matching quiz: http://www.pricegrabber.com/survey/start/

It’s got all the usual false-dichotomy problems, but far fewer than most other quizzes I’ve taken.  My results are here: http://www.pricegrabber.com/survey/end/?id=3504

The results of my survey got me to thinking about the tough political life of libertarians, and more broadly the future of the Republican Party.  After all, myself and others on this site have been insisting for the last year that seismic changes were afoot in the party’s base and philosophy.  To illustrate my point, consider the following: My highest candidate match was Ron Paul at 66%.  So, I agree with Paul 2/3 of the time.  The next best was John Cox at 54%.  The first viable candidate I get to is Mitt Romney at 40%, Fred Thompson at 39%.  Bill Richardson actually beats out McCain and Giuliani by a point or two.

The problem with being a libertarian is that you don’t agree with anyone politically more than half the time, unless they are also a libertarian.  I think that this is a growing problem in the Republican coalition.  The social conservative base is becoming increasingly like a Bob Casey/Mike Huckabee party: Pro-gun, pro-life Democrats.  It makes sense to me. Philosophically, the life movement belongs in the Democratic camp.  They are certainly not interested in limited government when a national ban on gay marriage or abortion would be so convenient to impose.  I feel fairly certain that if a reporter asked Huckabee a question about federalism, Huckabee would just kind of look at the reporter with the expression of a confused-but-lovable pooch.  After all, when the Bible is your governing document, there’s not really room for the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. 

On the other hand, FiCons (including myself) are increasingly federalist/libertarian leaners.  Social conservatives are great to have on board if they vote for the guy who’s going to reduce taxes and spending, but at the end of the day, we don’t really care about social issues.  Is that gay guy employed?  That’s all I care about.   

The last remaining consistent theme among Republicans these days seems to be foreign policy hawkishness. But, even that uniting influence is disintegrating. To wit: it seems as though Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are tapping into a pretty large vein with their anti-war, humble foreign policy rhetoric.  I certainly think that Paul has a point about the 572,000 U.S. troops overseas.  Less than half of them are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  What are the other approximately 400,000 soldiers doing in other countries?  Why are we paying for that? Can we afford to keep paying for it?  Why do we have many tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea?  How would we feel if the United Arab Emirates opened up a military base in Tennessee?  If Paul didn’t want to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq immediately, he WOULD be my candidate.  The problem is, I can’t support that position given the progress that’s being made in Iraq.

The party is literally ripping in half, and this primary election seems to be a proxy war for the soul of the party between Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.  Oh, one of the other, more traditional Republicans will win the nomination this year.  So did Ford in 1976.  But in 1980, the party looked a WHOLE lot different.  Suddenly, it was the party of the Christian Coalition and Reagan Democrats.  It seems to me that Paul and Huckabee are the future of politics.  Problem is, one of those camps is going to have to find a home in another political party - ostensibly the Democrats.  The way the wind is blowing now, it appears that it will be the SoCons who leave.  They certainly made no bones about declaring their independence during the Boston Tea Party that was the Iowa Republican Caucus.  But, in any case, I think it is growing more likely that Paul will - in the end - be the guy who has the Goldwater moment.  He is the right message in the wrong body.  But someone is going to come along in the next few election cycles - after the war on terror has dragged on for a decade and as the entitlement system begins to collapse - and that person will carry Paul’s message into the White House.  After all, only the most stubbornly blind believe that we can really afford to perpetually run an empire AND the entitlement system. 

Since we rarely ever get any Ron Paul posts, I figured I send one up - I have a tremendous amount of respect for Dr Paul, but I think his foreign policy ideas (recall all US Troops, de-fund all US-Israeli activities) are rotten. They have built a tremendous war chest and have no debt to speak of. I think that Ron Paul has run the a good campaign - and his support base is increasing. So, here it is - a post for Paul.

A guest post by Robert Mayer, a Houston Area Ron Paul Supporter who occasionally blogs over at Last Free Voice

Many Americans agree that our great country has gotten off track and I happen to believe the main reason for this is our elected representatives’ failure to follow the wisdom of our Constitution. During his ten terms in office, Ron Paul has made strict adherence to the Constitution his guiding principle. Every representative takes an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution, but few, if any, take this oath as seriously as does Ron Paul. Even at times when circumstances make it politically expedient to follow the crowd, he remains steadfast, thus earning him a reputation of integrity and consistency that no other candidate can match.

Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a congressional pay raise. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional pension program because he thinks it is unfair to the taxpayer. He even returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the US Treasury each year. Professional lobbyists don’t waste their time visiting his office because they realize he can’t be bought; he is firmly committed to defending the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Americans.

As recently as this past summer, Ron Paul was a little-known “fringe” candidate whom few in the media took seriously. Since then, he has shaken up the political world with two record-breaking, single-day fund-raising efforts and with the large, enthusiastic crowds of supporters that turn out to hear him speak.

People from all across America are discovering this “different kind” of candidate and they are getting excited about the unique opportunity to effect genuine, positive change. I encourage you to visit his website, www.RonPaul2008.com, and see for yourself why Ron Paul is the person America needs to put in the White House this year.

One of Robert’s Favorite Videos: (although might be outdated due to Dec 16 Money Bomb)

And his #2 Video for Ron:

I dropped by a Romney event today (I know, I know, can you believe that?) at the West Des Moines HQ of Kum & Go — Yes, it took me awhile to figure out what it was too when I first got to IA — a popular gas station/convenience store chain here in the state to hear Mitt Romney speak. It was a little weird going into the event — Obviously because I am no supporter of Romney as you all know. I startled a reporter I know from the Des Moines Register, but quickly made a point to tell him I was supporting McCain It was also weird because I always gassed up (gas and donuts) at Kum & Go’s competitor — Casey’s General Store — because its CEO endorsed Brownback. But anyway…

Romney was flanked by most of his family — Ann and most of their sons with their family. Romney spoke to a mixture of what appeared to be Kum & Go employees and local supporters. There was a ton of media there. I’m not good at guesstimating crowd size, so I’ll leave that to Jason. Romney based his message around having practice in the business world, and how he would take a business approach to Washington if elected. He emphasized being a Washington outsider, and that his private service prepared him best for public service. Romney stayed away from hot-button issues, which was smart because he obviously did not know the values of the employees he was speaking to. Jason, I’m sure, will bring more coverage. There were actually 5 Race42008ers there, Jason has a cool pic of it.

Later, I decided to go get lunch where Ron Paul was having an event in Des Moines. It was kind of confusing, because when I arrived, it was Ron Paul eating with a handful of people that appeared to be staff, with some media waiting for him to finish. I am not sure if it was a full-scale campaign event. Paul finished eating, and took questions from the media (nobody I recognized, except for a local television outlet). He took some pictures and left. I later saw Ron Paul supporters holding up signs on major roads in Des Moines.

Anyway, I’m sure I’ll have more posts tonight, and enjoy the pictures below…

Read this garbage:

PLAISTOW, N.H. — Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network “is scared” of him.

“They are scared of me and don’t want my message to get out, but it will,” Paul said in an interview at a diner here. “They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”

Paul’s staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown.

“They will not win this skirmish,” he promised.

The Fox debate occurs less than 24 hours after two back to back Republican and Democratic debates on the same campus sponsored by ABC News, WMUR-TV and the social networking website Facebook.

Paul, the Republican Texas Congressman, was wrapping up his final day of campaigning in New Hampshire until the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday.

He spent much of the day campaigning at diners in Manchester and Plaistow and downtown walks in Derry and Exeter.

You know something? If all of these so called “conservatives” in the party want to black out candidates, then they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. Ron Paul is not Allen Keyes or Jon Cox. He has every right to be at the debate.

The folks who are supporting this are probably crying about CFR, since they don’t mind it as long as they can control what the candidate says, but they want to shut someone out who doesn’t share the same views? I would understand if Paul was irrelevant in this election cycle, but he’s not.

Speaking for a lot of Fred Thompson supporters, this isn’t what we believe in and Paul doesn’t deserve this type of treatment.

In a campaign that for the last month had been reduced to floating crosses, haircuts, quick quips, and questions like “What would Jesus do,” it is sad that it takes a tragic event of international proportions to remind voters and pundits alike of the one issue that hovers over the entire presidency- the fact that we are at war. It says a great deal about the sorry state of affairs and attention spans that the next Commander in Chief will have to inherit an unholy mess in the Middle East, while for the last few months, the voting public and pundits have not paid attention to it.

Pundits need to get over religion, hairdos, stupid questions from youtube debates, and any of the other garbage that generation Y has bestowed upon us, and wisen up. The safety of our country and our men and women in combat depend on it. We, as voters, owe them that much. Everything else becomes secondary when it comes to the matters of life and death. I’m not talking about the lives of the unborn here, for that is another debate for another time. We won’t be able to argue over pro-life credentials if we don’t have people to make babies. That might be an over exaggeration, but you get the point. All the other issues should still take a back seat when it comes to the safety of our nation and its citizens. This is one of the defining moments of the 21st century, and I hope the GOP nominee, whoever it may be, is ready to deal with that.

From the moment they take office, they will have to make decisions with the lives of our troops at stake. There won’t be time to ponder the decisions, wait for reports, dig through different suggestions; they must be able to come into the presidency with the ability to make choices of monumental consequences without second guessing, regrets, or time to change their mind.

That time is coming, and it is up to the voters, the pundits, and the nominees to ensure that whoever the candidate is, they are willing, able, and fully prepared to take that responsibility on their shoulders. This isn’t a criticism of any one candidate, but hopefully a wakeup call to those who need to get their priorities in order.

Since we don’t have a front page Paul writer here, I figured I would post this. The ad is up and running in New Hampshire and Iowa:

Last week I debated a crew of candidate surrogates at a forum in DC with mostly young upstarts in the audience. Mark Hemingway of NRO was there are recounted this one exchange:

Jonathan Bydlak, Paul’s fundraising director, was constantly left to defend Paul’s isolationism, a position that is still clearly out of step with many voters on the right. Responding to Giuliani adviser Michael Zarrelli’s thoughts on the mayor’s prospective foreign policy, Bydlak said, “If this is the terrorists’ war against us, with all due respect, then why are we in Iraq? … I don’t quite make that connection any more than invading Sweden.” This prompted Hart to question where Paul’s foreign policy fits in the spectrum of contemporary conservatism. “Is the Democratic panel across the street?” he joked. The question caused an equal mix of laughter and objections from the crowd.

Just as many conservative pundits lashed out at Huckabee for his bashing of the President, many of us here have little respect for Paul because of his foreign policy. I’m sure Kavon gets deluged with requests from Paul supporters for inclusion in the mix, I don’t envy his task.

I can’t speak for Kavon but let me say this: I welcome their voices but I loathe their blindness.

I was reminded of this this morning reading an article that Mark Steyn highlighted from the Daily Times in Pakistan. Apparently, there’s some mystery around the killing of a Muslim teenager in Canada. But to the writers of the Daily Times, there is no mystery: “Honour killing is our export to Canada.”

That about sums it up. We can pull ourselves back from the world but the world certainly won’t pull back from us. I should note that honour killings have nothing to do with American military occupation or depressed and jobless 18 year-olds along the Gaza Strip. Radical Muslims are intent on changing Western society and Ron Paul fails to acknowledge this.

As Mark Steyn puts it in his must-read book “America Alone”, there are two facts that describe the need for a war on terror:

1. Muslim demographics are casting a long shadow over Western populations. For example, the average age of the Gaza strip is 15 and tiny Yemen will have a bigger population than Russia in about 10 years.
2. Muslim extremists have had “a somewhat fractious” relationship with Western cultures and institutions.

Given those two facts, any candidate that does not have a proposal to engage and change the idealogical course of extreme radical Islam should not be taken seriously. Hence, no Ron Paul.

Due to multiple requests, here is one of the most incredible stories of the race so far.

Ron Paul raises $6 million dollars in a single day, breaking John Kerry’s single day fundraising record.

Amazing…

Do not miss two articles by Patrick Ruffini on the ‘08 race today on Hugh Hewitt’s blog.

The first discusses the Sen. McCain’s latest direct mail ad in NH, which has a somewhat unique message for a Republican candidate:

In the second, Patrick discusses what impact Ron Paul’s ascendency in the race means for the future of libertarianism within the Republican Party.

Both articles are essential reads…

Hat tip to mornincoffee…

Fred Thompson’s tax plan, released this morning, seperated his position from some of the other contenders. Thompson is one of the few GOP hopefuls that offers the flat tax. The plan is a qualified endorsement of the Taxpayers Choice Act, or the “flat tax.” With this plan, which is outlined here, in pdf, Thompson has taken a pretty bold step, as he did with his social security plan.

From the AP:

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson proposed an income tax plan Sunday that would allow Americans to choose a simplified system with only two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.
Thompson’s proposal, announced on “Fox News Sunday,” would allow filers to remain under the current, complex tax code or use the flat tax rates.
Asked whether the plan would cut too deeply into federal revenues, the former Tennessee senator and actor said experts “always overestimate the losses to the government” when taxes are cut.

“We’ve known for years any time we have lowered taxes and any time we’ve lowered tax rates, we’ve seen growth in the economy,” Thompson said.
Thompson added that money would be saved by his Social Security reform plan. He proposed that workers younger than 58 receive smaller monthly Social Security checks than they are now promised. Individuals could contribute 2 percent of their paycheck to a personal retirement account, an amount that would be matched by the Social Security trust fund.
The retirement plan “faces up to the fact that Social Security is going bankrupt and we’re going to have to do something about it,” he said.

The fact is that he has followed up on his promise of overhauling the current tax code. The plan has been supported by the Heritage Foundation, Steve Forbes, the Club for Growth, the CATO Institute, Chief Justice John Roberts, Sam Brownback, and Dick Armey, to name a few.

Among the other GOP contenders, John McCain has been supportive of it. Mike Huckabee favored the tax, but has now become an advocate of the FAIR Tax, which is not the same thing (see below). Tancredo and Ron Paul support it (he supports no tax). Rudy Giuliani’s position on the issue is not that clear, but I was late to the whole debate on his position. He seems to favor a more moderate form of revision, but does not endorse the tax. Romney also favors a simplification, but has criticized the flat tax as recently as