New Hampshire, He Did It AGAIN!

Was everyone watching this, or was it just me? Ron Paul has won second place, first runner-up (in other words), in the 2012 New Hampshire primary. Not only that, but he did so in a few amazing ways. I'd now like to highlight a few facts:

1. Ron Paul finished Iowa with more than DOUBLE the vote he garnered in 2008.
2. He was only 3% behind the leader, Mitt Romney, in Iowa.
3. Not all precincts yet reported, he's on track to get more than TRIPLE his 2008 total in New Hampshire.
4. And, he won Coos County! It was great to see a quarter of the map light up red! See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/map-new-hampshire-primary-2012-results_n_1195374.html
5. All recent polls indicate that he will at least TRIPLE 2008 in both South Carolina and Florida.

From here on is my opinion, please comment:

The attention he'll get coming out of NH will change everything,,, a little but at least.

Now, bear in mind that the polls in the next two states have included Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman, who are essentially dead. Yes, Perry said he'd stay in for a more primaries, but his numbers are dropping and not recovering anywhere. He has also been one of the least critical of Ron Paul, while sharing some similarities (closing government agencies... I'm drawing a blank on anything else... oh, he's from Texas). When he drops out, Ron Paul will probably take most of his supporters. Hunstman, same, mostly. :)

Also, bear in mind that Gingrich and Santorum will only excel in some of the social conservative states. And they each only got 9% in New Hampshire! After Florida, I doubt they will be able to pull much support. Independents hate them as it is, and I think the only thing that will keep one of them around is if Santorum backs Gingrich at the right moment. If that happens: 

- It will mean a perpetuation of the 3-way race between Moderate Mitt, Neocon Newt and President Paul (like how I did that? All me, but feel free to spread that far and wide)

- It will probably lead to a brokered convention where Paul has a strong influence, or wins because of he'll have the strongest polls against Obama by then.

If Santorum doesn't endorse Newt after Florida, then conservative voters will steadily see Paul's momentum and be siphoned off of the phony conservatives until Paul is the frontrunner.

No matter what happens, I think Ron Paul will win the nomination, and thereafter the presidency, especially if he chooses a smart "Blue Republican" (Demoocrat). That would guarantee him a landslide that no other candidate could have produced, because he'd also qualify as the Americans Elect candidate.

I took a pretty long view of the rest of the campaign, but let me know what else you think might happen!

Electability? What a farce.

Electability is such a huge farce, it puts "The Village" to shame.

See here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Ok, a little analysis: Ron Paul has consistently been in second behind Mitt Romney in a GOP candidate scenario versus Obama. This despite the fact that Mitt Romney has maintained first place among the field for most of the past 6 months, and Ron Paul has only managed to poll less than 15% nationally. So, there, right off the bat, Ron Paul has almost as much chance to beat Obama as Romney, in everyone's averaged opinion.

But here's my issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-secret-of-mitt-romneys-iowa-success-electability/2012/01/02/gIQAPBiVWP_blog.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/the-early-entrance-polls-romney-seen-as-most-electable-paul-wins-independents-strong-conservatives-like-santorum/

Romney's main argument in the campaign (the main one he says and the main one they are believing) is that he's the most electable, ignoring his dismal performance on the issues or on other indicators of personal appeal. Don't even try making the argument for Newt or one of the Ricks, because the average American hates them. Ron Paul, however is being called unelectable, even though he stands with America on most of his strongest issues. See here:
http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://pollingreport.com/iran.htm
http://pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
http://pollingreport.com/drugs.htm
To name a few.
No other candidate is being called unelectable, except maybe Huntsman, who has no organization and no charisma, despite being a very nice, accomplished man with good ideas.
Ron Paul is currently polling the most voters against Obama among Independents and Democrats among all the GOP candidates. No one is obviously more harmful to Obama.

This means quite clearly that if you took away this argument, the 'electability' argument, then the whole house of cards would crash and burn. Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' news/talk and party elites, who are currently enforcing this argument, would have to do one of three things: sit on their hands (be more objective as they should be), admit they were wrong and tell the truth about Ron Paul's chances (which would be noble) or continue to denigrate him and the 20% of Americans who would vote for him as an Independent 3rd-party.

The fact of the matter is, if they painted him in a positive light, took his platform seriously, and realized that his supporters will simply not vote on party lines because they are voting for the doctor, not for just any Republican, then you would see his polls jump up, and the reality would emerge that he is America's #1 chance against Obama by a landslide. The media has controlled the race so far, but the undercurrent of Paul and his superb organization will wield amazing power that may win him multiple primaries. Do the math, if right now he's taking over 50% of Independents and even over 20% of Democrats, how would his chances be as the GOP candidate? Better than anyone else's.

I'll end with this... the facts:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article9233-if-ron-paul-isnt-electable-just-who-the-hell-is.html

Consent of the governed

"Consent of the governed" is all important in politics. It's so important it has its own wikipedia page. No joke, look it up. From that page we get a description of it in relation to the founding of the United States of America:

Using thinking similar to that of English philosopher John Locke, the founders of the United States believed in a state built upon the consent of "free and equal" citizens; a state otherwise conceived would lack legitimacy and legal authority. This was expressed, among other places, The 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence^[4] and in the Virginia Bill of Rights, especially Section 6, quoted below:

That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."^[5]

 This basically means, if you're going to govern right, you'd better listen to the people, ESPECIALLY the people most affected by proposed changes to the law and regulations. So if it has to do with the Department of Education, you should ask teachers and parents. If it has to do with the Department of Defense, you should ask the troops. If it has to do with the War on Drugs, you should ask the police officers. I recognize that it is possible for there to be exceptions where a representative in public office may have sound moral judgment that goes against the current majority thinking. I refer mostly to cases where past government inefficiencies have created an entitlement society and negatively molded public opinion away from what the Founders intended or what is truly morally right.

In any case... What is the answer on the DoE? Teachers say there is too much federal regulation... So GET RID OF IT! What is the answer on troops overseas? The soldiers say they want to come home. So BRING THEM HOME RIGHT NOW! What is the answer for the War on Drugs? The police say its overburdening the penal system, bolstering drug cartels and consequently terrorism, and it's biased against minorities. So END IT NOW!

All of these changes and hundreds more on every issue that ever comes up would accomplish a few things:

1. Fix the deficit, which will fix the debt, and gives you money that you can finally use well.
2. This allows you to cut taxes, which fixes the economy.
3. It finally endears representatives and the government as a whole to its citizens
4. This allows you to operate quickly and efficiently, progressively, in the true sense of the word.
5. Most importantly, it restores, acknowledges and celebrates the natural rights of the people.

Get the picture, America? Fools say that these changes are unrealistic, but wise ones know that all failed policies were voted in and so they can all be voted out. If America elects Ron Paul and others of his general philosophy, like Rand Paul and Judge Napolitano and millions of other Americans that love liberty and are willing to be active to defend it, these changes will occur and peace and prosperity will be the result. If America elects anyone else, our downward slope in current mainstream politics which is removing our rights, killing our troops, enraging our enemies and enslaving us financially will eventually end America.

Again... America will die unless we get a doctor in the White House. Who's the only doctor? Ron Paul.

Let the RevolutiON begin!

This is my new blog.

I decided it's the least I can do for my man, Ron Paul. I will try to post interesting commentary. I will try to publicize it to invite reasoned debate and to educate the masses on this great man's platform.

From time to time I hope to blog about myself, and why I personally believe that Ron Paul is the perfect fit for this moment in history, for this ailing America in which we live.

God bless America and Ron Paul

Iowa... Ron Paul's springboard

Not sure why everyone's ignoring the significance of this year's Iowa caucus for Ron Paul.

In 2008, after fundraising about as much as this time around, he only received 10% of the Iowa vote and got in 5th place. This year he didn't just get a slightly larger marginal slice of the pie, he more than doubled his percentage to 21%, and less than 5% from first place, a tighter gap than between the 1st and 2nd spots in all previous Iowa caucuses. His 2008 results truncated his campaign, whereas this result gives him a lot of credibility to campaign until the convention.

Beyond Iowa, his views on key issues align with the majority of Americans. Americans now oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 2 to 1. We prefer diplomacy to military action in Iran 4 to 1. He receives more contributions from active military than anyone else. Anyone still disagree with his foreign policy? Go on ahead, but you're in the minority. On economic policy, only Romney and Paul have real plans to balance the budget. But let's be realistic, is Romney going to balance it very quickly while simultaneously increasing defense spending by 10%? Paul's plan is better, because it would lead to faster tax cuts, which would boost the economy faster as well.

Of course Romney or the right-wing candidate (Perry, Santorum or Gingrich) have better shots at the GOP nomination currently, but that may just fall apart as time goes on. With Romney, his only true benefit versus the rest is "electability" though Paul is just as electable in most recent polls versus Obama, because he will pull independents and democrats. With the other candidates, more publicity has meant lower polling, hence the revolving door in the right-wing candidates. With Ron Paul, it's the opposite. His nationwide polls have climbed steadily over the past year and over the past month. He survived the scrutiny over the newsletters because they were not tied to his record as a lawmaker.