Ron Paul Spends Campaign Donations On Family

Thanks to the reader who pointed me to this Washington Post article:

And that's more or less what he has been doing over the past few months, putting relatives in a slew of key positions and paying them a total of $169,063, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

Paul's granddaughter Valori Pyeatt helps organize fundraising receptions and has been paid $17,157. Another granddaughter, Laura Paul ($2,724), handles orders for Ron Paul merchandise. Grandson Matthew Pyeatt ($3,251) manages Paul's MySpace profile. Daughter Peggy Paul ($2,224) helps with campaign logistics. The candidate's sons Randall and Robert and his daughter Joy Paul LeBlanc have all been paid for campaign travel and for appearing as surrogates at political events.

Who keeps track of all these finances? Paul's brother and daughter, naturally, who have been paid a combined $62,740 to handle the campaign's accounting.

Campaign aides said they discussed the possibility that involving so many family members could create the impression that nepotism was driving hiring decisions, but ultimately they saw no problem with the practice.

"You always think about those kinds of things," said Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman and, it just so happens, the fiance of one of the candidate's granddaughters (he has been paid $54,573). "But his family is very important to him. There is something important about having a family element involved in a campaign. Having people around you that you can unconditionally trust."

For all their talk of free market competition to select the best and most qualified agents for the job, the Ron Paul campaign seems to be relying on a much older method for choosing his staff: Nepotism. As though we didn't get enough of that with the last Texas GOP presidential candidate.

Given Ron Paul's high success with fund raisers and his low performance in the polls, the Paultards were left with two burning questions: Where was all that money going, and where was Ron Paul finding the idiots who were running his campaign? Well, now we have the answer to both questions.

So Long, Dr. Paul. You were our only hope.

Many of our readers may already be aware of the fact that Ron Paul has basically given up from his campaign, in order to spend more time with his family district. You may be wondering why we didn't cover this sooner, but that's only because we're still trying to take it in. Honestly, there was a lot of material on Ron Paul that we never got around to publishing, which just isn't as fun anymore. Once again, I wish that we had done this blog a little sooner, when the internet could have used it most.

In his letter, Ron Paul writes that:

"Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you."

A great philosopher once asked, "If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." Ron Paul's letter shows his typical rejection of positive liberty in favor of negative liberty. It also shows his tendency to cry wolf, and exaggerate, which is why no one listens to them.

Ron Paul also states that:

I also have another priority ... If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas."

He's right of course, I would probably would have a good laugh about it. The real question is why Ron Paul is even worried. We live in a country where the incumbent has a 90% re-election rate. Hell, we live in a country where Mark Foley came within 2% of being re-elected, and that was after he already dropped out of the race for seducing under-aged male interns. Is Ron Paul conceding that his recent presidential campaign might have made him less popular in his own district, rather than more popular? Because that would still give me something to laugh about. Should readers of this site encourage Republicans in Ron Paul's district to vote for Chris Peden instead? No idea. Peden seems to be pretty crazy in his own right, and he may or may not be competent enough to actually get things done. On the other hand, he might help make the district more vulnerable for a Democratic seat, but that seems unlikely.

Despite the fact that the campaign has already raised more money than they know what to do with, they're still soliciting for more:

"Ron Paul is not going to surrender, and John McCain will not take the Republican nomination without the fight of his life. Your donations and work as Precinct Leaders are needed now more than ever."

Ron Paul still has six million dollars of leftover cash from his previous fund raising efforts. What exactly has he been waiting for? Although it would be illegal for Ron Paul to transfer that money to his congressional run until he officially cancels his campaign, that wouldn't exactly stop him from being able to run general "Ron Paul is great" congressional presidential ads in his home district, with a a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more."

Ron Paul insists that he has no intention of running as a third party candidate, which just goes to show that he's no better than the politicians who he criticizes. Ron Paul talks a lot about revolution and the message, but he's still a republican at the core, and won't do anything to harm the party. That, or he doesn't want a repeat of his 1988 campaign, when the other libertarian candidates gave him a lot of flack for his votes against MLK Day. But I guess it's harder to fall back on the "MLK was an adulterous, gay pedophile" excuse after you already attempted to turn the holiday into your personal piggy bank.

Super Tuesday Posting

Go get 'em, Paultards! Before you go out today, here are a few Paultard tips of the trade to keep in mind:

1. Always assume that everyone who doesn't follow Ron Paul is a sheep, and that you're the Shepherd. Yes, that does make you Jesus.
2. When addressing the conservatives, insist that Ron Paul is a true republican, and all the other candidates are just posers. When addressing the liberals, insist that Ron Paul is more of a democrat than all of the democrats currently running, and they should look past the "R" after his name. Remember, people are sheep.
3. The only thing preventing people from voting for Ron Paul is the fact that they haven't seen his name yet, in large part because of the media conspiracy/censorship against him. However, this problem can be corrected by hanging up signs, which will instantly convince the sheep to vote for him.
4. If anyone tells you that they're voting for someone else, ask them why they hate the constitution, and imply that they're commie soviets.
5. If someone ever challenges one of your conspiracy theories, look back at them in disbelief and shout, "What do you mean, 'crazy?'" It's real!" By asserting that your conspiracy theory is real, rather than fake, you automatically win the argument.

Ron Paul Flatlines

From James Joyner of Outside the Beltway:

Ron Paul’s numbers are flatlined. He’s the only one of the remaining quartet that isn’t up substantially from six months ago. Despite the field winnowing from ten candidates to four, Paul continues to appeal to no more than 5-6 percent of Republicans.

With most candidates, the obvious explanation would be that their support has shifted to one of the frontrunners in a strategic move to avoid “wasting” their vote. Given the depth of Paul’s support, though, that strikes me as incredibly unlikely. The hard-core libertarians who back Paul are mostly dead-enders who would rather write in Paul’s name than deign to compromise for one of the Establishment candidates.

Could it be that hard-core libertarians are just a relatively small group? That, despite being organized and enthusiastic, there aren’t enough of them to elect a president? Barring a better explanation, I’m leaning in that direction.

Hah!

(h/t to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)

Add "Ron Paul Racing" to the list of Ron Paul Fail

Thanks to Wonkette for the find. From the same trolls who brought you the Ron Paul blimp, and who tried to make it so that uppity Negroes would be forever branded as a living billboard for Ron Paul, comes the latest batch of fail: Ron Paul Racism Racing. I love the idea that the Paultards have literally thousands of internet trolls at their disposal who pride themselves on being free market gurus and who can brainstorm ideas 24/7, and these are the types of things they come up with.

At some point, the Paultards need to just bite the bullet and accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, none of them know what the hell they're doing. Maybe the reason they can't prop their guy up as the next president isn't because of some elaborate conspiracy against them, or the fact that the rest of the population is completely sheep-like and uninformed. Maybe the real problem is just the fact that getting a guy elected to the presidency is a fucking hard thing to do, vastly more challenging than uploading a cell phone video to youtube, and Paultards simply don't have what it takes to pull it off.

A Noun, a Verb, and 9/11 Drops out of the Race

Rudy Giuliani has officially dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain. Will the Paultards please stop using "But Ron Paul beat Rudy!" as a talking point now? Big whoop, Ron Paul beat some guy who only won one delegate and isn't even running anymore. Real impressive.

Ron Paul's Neo-Confederate Endrosement

If you check out Ron Paul's official campaign website, you'll notice that one of his endorsements comes from a man name Jacob Bogle. Who is Jacob Bogle?

Jacob Bogle is actually the Chairman of the Southern Party of Tennessee, the Tennessee Division Commander of the Southern Confederate Front, the former Vice Chairman of the Southern Independence Party of Tennessee and oh yes, the creator of the Jefferson Davis Fan Club. In other words he's a neo-confederate and he does not appear to be a working minister.

That sure provides a whole other context to those "once glorious days", as does this badly misspelled essay on The Law of Natural Segregation on his website or this charming little poem on his party's website

You can read more about Jacob on the campaign site.

Paultards Don't Care About Black People

As we all know, the Paultards attempted to prove how anti-racist they are by changing the focus of Martin Luther King Day into a massive fundraising event for the man who voted against it. They were hoping to break brand new records in both cash and donors, and ended up failing miserably on both counts. The $1.85 million that Ron Paul raised for himself yesterday might sound impressive, but it was less than half of what they raised for Guy Fawkes Day, and a third of what they raised for blimp inauguration day. Apparently, the Paultards care more about a failed British terrorist who attempted to commit mass murder for the sake of issuing a Catholic Monarchy than they care about Martin Luther King. It isn't even close.

Is the Ron Paul voter base starting to dry out? Well, maybe not. It looks like David Duke, the Anti-Racist Grand Wizard, hosted his own money bomb yesterday. So perhaps Ron Paul's voter base is just strong as its ever been, but the people who would normally vote for Ron Paul would rather spend their money on Robert E. Lee?

Wonkette provided the above video of one of the Paultard MLK marches. Ron Paul supporters are to Martin Luther King Day what the Cadbury Bunny is to Jesus. The only minority I spotted during the rally up at the 1:00 mark. He's not holding any sign and keeps avoiding the camera, so he may simply be a bystander who was trying to catch a cab. At the 2:30 mark, you see a guy with a Guy Fawkes mask. Because, you know, Martin Luther King and Guy Fawkes are totally interchangeable.

Ron Paul Scores Second in Nevada

So it looks like the the online Paultard-ary will be renewed for another two months. Ron Paul scored second place in Nevada, which will likely fuel another round of conspiracy theories, delusions, and accusations of media censorship.

• Although Ron Paul managed to score second, it's the least impressive second place in the entire race, but in terms of raw percentage, and in terms of the difference between first and second place. Mitt Romney earned nearly four times as many votes as Ron Paul, so it's not as though Ron is nipping at his heels.
  
• Turnout was low. Really low. To put it into perspective, Mitt Romney barely earned more votes in Nevada than what Dennis Kucinich earned in Michigan. Ron Paul received half as many votes in Nevada compared to what Bill Richardson earned in Nevada. Which just goes to show, Paultards tend to do better in the races where other people don't catch up, because those are the ones that are the easiest to spam.
• Because of the predicted low turnout, the other candidates didn't bother to make an effort. Ron Paul had radio and TV advertisements almost entirely to himself.
• In terms of raw percentage, 13% isn't that much of an improvement compared to how well Ron Paul has done in other races.

Anyway, none of this will shut the Paultards up, who desperately need something, anything that they can cling to. Remember, these people are conspiracy theorists, they'll take what they can get. My suggestion is to reply with a snarky remark, like "Gee, that's really impressive. It would be even more impressive if anyone actually bothered to show up." If you have your own suggestions, feel free to put them in the comments.

Paultards still don't get it

Guys, the problem isn't the perception that your guy can't win, the problem is the perception that your guy is fucking crazy.

Ron Paul Speaks at Bob Jones University

In anticipation of his upcoming MLK Day money bomb, Ron Paul has decided that the best way to prove that he isn't a racist is by appearing as a guest speaker at Bob Jones University. For those of you who aren't familiar with the controversy, Bob Jones University refused to admit black students until the 1970s, and only for the sake of maintaining their tax exempt status. The school is also infamous for their policy against interracial dating.

A few days ago, I went on a tangent about Ron Paul's refusal to award Rosa Parks a congressional medal, despite calling her one of her heroes. A lot of Paultards are even tasteless enough to cite his speech against her medal as evidence against being racist. So let's get this out in the open, once and for all:

• Ron Paul claims that the bill is immoral because it uses tax-payer money. False. If Ron Paul had actually read the bill, which was only a few pages long, then he would known that the medal would have been funded through the sell of replicas.
• Ron Paul claims that the medal would be unconstitutional. False. Congress has been giving out medals since 1776. Obviously, the founding fathers didn't mind.
• Ron Paul claims that the medal wasn't in the spirit of Rosa Parks. False. Rosa Parks was still alive at the time. If she didn't approve of a medal, doesn't Ron Paul think that Parks would have said so? It's not like she's a stranger to standing up for herself. What gives Ron Paul the authority to speak on her behalf?
  

The Paultards would like to brag that Ron Paul thinks of Rosa Parks as his hero, and how he heroically volunteered to donate $100 for it if he could avoid charging the tax payers. But did he go through with it, by purchasing replica? Or did he make the promise, and then not go through with it? We don't know. But since Ron Paul continues to insist that he volunteered to pay $100, rather than simply saying that he purchased a regular to contribute to her fund, it seems unlikely.

Ron Paul: Where 6% is a victory

So for months, the Paultards have been telling us that Ron Paul's results among republicans didn't matter, because he would steal so many votes from the democrats and the republicans. In Michigan, they got to put that idea to the test, since Michigan didn't have any delegates for the democrats, Obama and Edwards didn't participate, and people were allowed to cross party lines. How did Ron Paul fare? Not so well. Stick a fork in him, Jim.

On a different note, here's a question I've been having for a while: A lot of Paultards will defend Ron Paul's opposition to the Rosa Parks medal, because it's unconstitutional. But what, specifically make a congressional medal constitutional? I mean, would military medals be unconstitutional as well? After looking into the matter, it turns out that the first congressional medal was awarded in 1776 to George Washington, and they've been given out ever since. But for some reason, Ron Paul is apparently the first man in American history to find this unconstitutional. Thank you, Ron Paul, for displaying that your strict adherence to the constitution is more rigid than the founding fathers themselves.

It's also weird, when you consider that just last month, Ron Paul was on TV saying that the civil war was unnecessary, and that Lincoln should have compensated slave owners in exchange for freeing the slaves. Where in the constitution does it allow for that? Where in America has there been a precedent for that? So rewarding slave owners with hard cash because they enslaved people is okay, but rewarding Rosa Park with a gold medal for her role in the civil rights movement is not? WTF? I guess that in Ron Paul's world, Rosa Parks deserves to be treated worse than a slave owner. Great. And people wonder why Ron Paul is called a racist.

Update: Here's a copy of the bill. The part about using taxpayer money? Wrong. The medal was paid for by the sale of replicas.

BREAKING: Ron Paul's Klansman Kampaign Koordinator

Paul Henry of dailykos has the story:

As voters in Michigan go to the polls to vote in today's primary, volunteer coordinators for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are working hard across the state. One of these is Randy Gray, a 29-year-old resident of Midland, Michigan whom the Ron Paul 2008 Michigan Campaign Web site lists as the Midland County coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign. Gray's campaign profile page, a cached version of which can be seen here, doesn't go into much detail; there's a picture of Gray with the candidate, along with Gray's statement that "I support Ron Paul because he is in the fight for freedom." The page contains no mention of one of Gray's other roles: organizer with the Knight's Party faction of the Ku Klux Klan.

This is almost poetic. First the Blacks, then the Whites, and now the Grays.

In other news: Happy Birthday, Dr. King. I hope you're looking forward to Ron Paul's upcoming fund raiser in your your name.

New FreeAtLast 2008 Video

The campaign at FreeAtLast2008.com have released a new ad, which attempts to use footage and audio from MLK to imply that he would have endorsed Ron Paul's campaign:

This isn't the first time the right wing has pulled a stunt like this. In 1996, advocates for Proposition 209 used images of Martin Luther King in their advertisements, in order to imply that he would be against affirmative action, until the King family protested. Now, it looks like history may be repeating itself. And it's not a coincidence. During the video, the narrator makes the following statement:

"Please join us on January 21st, as we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, by acting together to support Dr. Ron Paul. A new hero who fights for the same American principles of liberty and justice for all."

The last sentence is seems out of place. Out of all the documents you had availabel to you, why quote the pledge of allegiance? This looks like it may be a reference to Ward Connerly, a republican/libertarian who was the main driving force behind proposition 209. With Liberty and Justice For All was the title of his 1996 essay, where he would once again falsely imply that Martin Luther King would have opposed against affirmative action. Ron Paul and his cronies are wrong when they say that they respect Martin Luther King, when what they actually seem to respect is the Ward Connerly reinvention of him. It isn't all that different from what they did to supply side Jesus.

Follow-Up: Ron's Defense on CNN

This is a follow-up to yesterday's CNN story. A transcript is available as well. For those who want a cliff-notes version, the picture below pretty much sums it up:Remember kids, when the Paulbots proclaim that Ron Paul isn't a racist, contradict them. Instead, reply by saying, "Oh, that's right, he's the anti-racist," and then snicker. The snickering is what makes it funny. Oh, and if Ron Paul doesn't see people in groups, then why does his campaign ads promise to end visas for students from "terrorist nations," as though being born in the wrong country somehow makes you a terrorist? The people at Stormfront enjoy that ad so much that it shows up on every forum post on their site. But the ad isn't racist. It's anti-racist.

Racist: I hate the blacks, and I would like to own them as slaves.
Anti-Racist: I love the blacks, and I would like to own them as slaves.

Our FAQ sheet regarding the newsletter has been updated once again. A common Paulbot denial is that the "ghostwriter" had already been fired. But Ron Paul claims that he never knew about the newsletter, and never knew the name of the writer, so his own story would make that impossible. In related news, it turns out that the subscription manager of Ron Paul's newsletter is now the Texas Field Coordinator.

Dear Paultards: Stop leaving comments about how libertarians really are infallible, and how they really can't be racist. Those types of arguments aren't going to win people over. It's not only a non-sequitor, but it's also a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. You can't advocate a policy of "absolute freedom, except when you use your freedom to be racist, which is unacceptable." Doesn't work like that. Especially after you vote for the Civil Rights Act because it infringes on your freedom to discriminate.

Finally, I once again urge people to write into the Martin Luther King Estate, and ask them if they approve of Ron Paul's use of Martin Luther King's image to make money. Ask them if they approve of or endorse Ron Paul's platform on addressing racism, or the fact that he voted against Martin Luther King Day.

Paultards R Smarter than U11111

In another attempt to explain their crushing defeat, the Paultards have reverted to a new strategy: Insist that no one understands them because they're just too damned intelligent. Yes, a group of people who can't even grasp the concept of random sampling are much smarter than you are. How do they know this? Because someone found a chart showing that some people have higher IQs than other people, so we can safely conclude that the people with higher IQs must be Ron Paul supporters. It's the sort perfectly sound logic you would come to expect from an intellectually superior individual.

Of course, the Paultards can't help but gush over their "discovery," and using that to rationalize their unhappiness and misery. It doesn't dawn on most of them that the bell curve is symmetrical and therefore goes both ways, that measuring IQ isn't the same thing as measuring an adherence to a specific ideology, and that bragging about your penis size IQ score doesn't hold much weight when you do it online.

Defeated Paultards Turn to Steve Buscemi for Inspiration

Whenever libertarians talk to me about taxes and charity, I always think back to the opening scene from Reservoir Dogs, when Steve Buscemi tries to explain why he doesn't tip the waitress. Steve tries to take a principled stand on how he doesn't tip because society says he has to, but what it really boils down to is this: Steve Buscemi is a cheap bastard, who doesn't like to give his money to other people. At one point, one of the characters points out that the waitresses has to pay taxes on the tips, and Steve Buscemi answers back with, "Show me a paper that says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it. I'll vote for it. But what I won't do is play ball."

Ladies and gentleman, I now present you with the latest Paultard strategy to win votes after their humiliating defeat in New Hampshire, No Taxes on Tips. After watching all of their other efforts fail, this is what they're hoping that it will all come down to. Because yeah, Ron Paul might be crazy. He might be incompetent, he might be racist, he might deny evolution and attract the crazy vote. On the other hand, Ron Paul will make it so that you can stiff your waitress, completely guilt free. So I think it's worth it.

In an unsurprising turn of events, the Paultards are once again proving themselves to be sore losers. Some blogs have expressed disbelief over the fact that Ron Paul's performance in New Hampshire could be worse than his performance in Iowa, and are now crying foul. It turns out that New Hampshire had over twice the turnout that Iowa did, and it's a lot harder to spam elections when other people actually show up.

Another Crushing Defeat for Ron Paul

Well, the results for New Hampshire are out. Ron Paul once again takes 5th place, and falls back into single digits. This defeat is even more crushing when you consider the fact that New Hampshire is generally considered to be the most libertarian state in the nation, home of the failed Free State Project. This proves what we knew all along: A small group of dedicated spammers and trolls do not speak for the entire nation.

Exit polls provide further data on Ron Paul's loss. Some basic findings:

• Ron Paul receives votes from 11% of men, but only 4% of women.
  
• Most Ron Paul voters are young.
  
• Republicans are generally split on whether they approve of Bush.
• Ron Paul voters are less likely to have a college degree than the average republican.
• Ron Paul has the highest unfavorable rating of any other republican (57%). Second place goes to Mike Huckabee (44%). This refutes the argument of "The more people hear about Ron Paul, the more they like him."
• Only 24% of republicans who believe that Iraq is most important issue. Of those, McCain supporters outnumber Paul supporters 6:1. Romney supporters outnumber Paul supporters 3:1. That's bad, since this is Ron Paul's main selling point.
  
• In general, republicans favor reducing the deficit over cutting taxes by a margin of 54% to 44%.
• 81% of republicans are worried about terrorism, the remaining 18% are not.
• Generally, the more recently the voter made up their mind, the less likely they will have voted for Ron Paul. This, again, suggests that Ron Paul has tapped out most of his available base.
  

Pretty enlightening.

Ron Paul’s Disgraceful Ad

Ron Paul recently released a new ad on the issue of immigration. Even Justin Raimondo, a blogger who has defended Ron Paul rigorously in the past, is now calling him out on it:

“No visas for students from ‘terrorist nations’”?

Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced – and it is made even worse by the fact that this is Ron Paul we’re talking about.

To begin with, it is odd, indeed, for a libertarian to be invoking the concept of collective guilt: is every citizen of these unnamed “terrorist nations” to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?

Secondly, just which nations is Rep. Paul talking about? Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia: two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian and another one hailed from Lebanon. Is Paul seriously saying that we should deport the thousands from these countries studying in the US? And why stop there? Why allow anyone from these so-called “terrorist nations” entry into the US for any reason whatsoever – just to be on the safe side?

This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, “terrorist nations,” the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance. If these are, in truth, “terrorist nations” – which most will take to mean all predominantly Muslim nations — then why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it? This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they’ll use it.

Ron Paul reminds students to leave their guns at home

The Ron Paul campaign is running a student event in Iowa. Here's an excerpt from their press release:

What to bring:
Think in the context of staying in a heated cabin (boy scout/church camp), in Iowa in January (cold/snow), and during the day you’ll be walking door to door.

Week 1 = 10 days, week 2= 9 days
- Student ID to verify you are a student
- Warm/Nice Clothes (gloves, scarf, hat, etc. and you will be representing Ron Paul to Iowans, don’t be a slob)
- Comfortable shoes (lots of walking, possibly in the snow)
- Pillow, sheets, warm blanket (all you get is a mattress, but cabins are heated)
- Towel
- Bathroom supplies (tooth brush, deodorant, soap, shampoo, etc.) - Medication
- Umbrella/Raincoat
- Laptop, Portable DVD player, Ipod, cards
- Backpack
- Your best answer to why you are supporting Ron Paul and why Iowans should too!

What NOT to bring:
- All the obvious things
- Alcohol/Drugs
- Guns, knives, fireworks
- Large banners, signs

I don't know what's more disturbing. The fact that Ron Paul apparently has to remind his student supporters to leave their guns at home, the fact that guns aren't filed under "obvious things," or the fact that Ron Paul thinks that there are 10 days in a week. Even Lyndon LaRouche supporters know to leave their guns at home.