Tuesday Open Thread: Why Ron Paul Failed, And Where The “r3volution” Goes From Here

In April’s print edition of Reagan Reason, David Weigel conducts what will undoubtedly be the first of many post-mortems of Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign.

The most libertarian candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, began 2008 with an army of 100,000 enthusiastic donors. Before the primary season began, many of his fans clung to the hope that polls showing Paul stuck in single digits were cooked. Many, more pragmatically, hoped he’d play the kind of role Sen. Eugene McCarthy filled 40 years ago in the Democratic primaries, shaking his party out of its hawkish stupor and relocating its soul.

Neither of those scenarios unfolded. Nowhere was the disappointment greater than in the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire, where the large independent vote and Paul’s substantial war chest were primed to shock the political system. Before the election, pollsters such as John Zogby and Scott Rasmussen thought Paul might come in third place. ABC News embedded a reporter with the campaign just to see if lightning might strike, and CNN sent cameras to cover Paul’s election night party live.

But, of course, that didn’t happen. Instead, Paul finished a disappointing fifth and did worse in the Live Free or Die State than he did in a relatively pro-government state like Iowa. After that, it was pretty much all downhill. With the exception of a caucus or two, Paul never finished higher than fourth place and, even when there were only three candidates in the race, he was never a serious contender and had a statistically insignificant impact on the race.

So, what went wrong ? Weigel argues that it all started going downhill when the campaign went off message:

[A]fter a spike in fund raising and polling, Paul pivoted to the more crowded anti-immigration field, with mailers showing a work boot stomping on the Constitution and the legend: “Illegal immigrants flaunt [sic] our laws.”

This lunge for the Minuteman vote didn’t work. According to exit polls, Paul won only 8 percent of Republican voters who want to deport all illegal immigrants. That was 16 points less than immigration compromiser John McCain, six less than amnesty waffler Mike Huckabee, and even one point less than “sanctuary city” mayor Rudy Giuliani. Paul finished a poor fifth among voters who cared about immigration but came in a strong second place among voters angry at the Bush administration. In other words, he came in second among his natural constituency and fared poorly on an issue every candidate was already scrapping over.

That ad, which started running a few weeks before the New Hampshire Primary, attempted to characterize Ron Paul as somewhere to the right of Tom Tancredo on immigration and, as we later learned in Texas, it wasn’t an anomaly.

Would things have been different in the Granite State had the campaign stayed on message ? It’s unclear but it would’ve been worth a try. Pandering to the nativists certainly didn’t accomplish anything. But the truth of the matter is this — for over a year Ron Paul did pitch a limited government anti-war message to Republican voters, the people you have to convince to vote for you if you’re going to win the nomination, and they either ignored it or rejected it.

Is that Paul’s fault ? In part, perhaps, it is. He was, even his most ardent supporters would admit, not the most articulate spokesman for his message. But nobody can call McCain, Romney, or Huckabee great public speakers either.

The hard truth, it would seem, is that people don’t want to hear the message right now.

Finally Weigel wonders what’s next for the coalition that Paul brought to together:

Can the Paulites make lasting change? Eve Fairbanks of The New Republic described Paul’s supporters as “the closest thing this race has to the Deaniacs of ’04.” Those Web-savvy, young, and excitable supporters of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean may not have powered their man to the White House, but their influence remains a potent force in Democratic politics. Dean’s Web team, including Matthew Stoller and Jerome Armstrong, became some of the loudest voices in the lefty blogosphere and go-to gurus for all Democratic Internet campaigns. Ex–Dean staffers populate the Courage Campaign, a liberal activist group in the MoveOn.org mold. And Dean himself has run the Democratic National Committee since 2005. If Paul’s people wanted to copy a movement, they could do a lot worse.

I heard the idea of a Ron Paul RNC chairmanship tossed around by Paulites in New Hampshire, and I heard it afterward. They know it’s a pipe dream, but they’re starting to ask: How might an activist libertarian splinter movement influence a larger and more moribund Republican organization? “

There are, of course, significant differences between Howard Dean in 2004 and Ron Paul in 2008. The biggest one being that, for the most part, Howard Dean and his supporters were largely within the mainstream of the Democratic Party back then, at least on the issues that matter. The same cannot be said for Ron Paul. That’s why Howard Dean easily became Chairman of the DNC, and the outsider of 2004 became the ultimate political insider.

Lightening is not likely to strike twice. Whether John McCain wins or loses in the fall, Ron Paul is not going to be named Chairman of the RNC now or anytime in the near future. Unlike the Deaniacs, the serious Ron Paul supporters are faced with the task of remaking the Republican Party and turning it back into what it was in the 1980s.

The question is, given the clear rebuke that the libertarian message received from Republican rank-and-file voters this year, how do you do that ?

FacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponEmailWordPressShare
  • Dak

    Off-message? Off-message? Nawwwwwwwww
    Paul’s supporters consisted of 9/11 truthers, people with persecution complexes, and people who thought that flying a blimp and dumping tea in the Boston Harbor would win any new support. You guys had all sensationalism with no substance. And your supporters were ANNOYING AS HELL. Poll spamming, hijacking sites with user-driven content, fanboyism.
    Paul would’ve been much more successful and would’ve gotten my support if he could control his own supporterrs.

  • http://poppychop.net/ Nitroadict

    I thought this thread was already done. Why another one?

  • RegularRon

    Doug, like we were saying the other day, there is to many fractions in the Ron Paul “movement”.

    Where is it going to go? Well frist and fore most, most of the bandwagon folks will go back to being leftists democrats. They aren’t staying in the Republican party. That’s another reason why he didn’t do well. A lot of the “younger” voters who had signed up democrat, didn’t register Republican. I do blame alot of them. As I said in the other post, most of them got squimish during the “newsletter non-scandel”.

    Secondly, a lot us folks who have been fighting this good fight, pryor to Paul showing up on the National stage, didn’t feel right with someone standing next to use, smelling like they just came from a Phish show. And these folks, are the most lazy of the “fighters”. Sorry, but there’s more to life then smoking pot.

    Thirdly, the reason why the rank and file hacks of the Republican party didn’t want to hear about Freedom and Liberty, is because while Dr. Paul would be speaking, some jackass would have a sign saying “9/11 was an inside job”. Now, how in God’s name do you think you are going to get Middle America to vote for this idea when these jerks are showing up. And yes, you 9/11 truthers, are a bunch of friggin whack-jobs. Deal with it.

    And fourthly, a lot of the folks acted rather childish when Dr. Paul would get attacked. Granted a lot of the attacks were as ridiculous as the folks were acting. But, that doesn’t excuse them for sending rathe evil emails, and phone calls that some people didn’t deserve.

    So again, you ask…Where is it going? Here’s your answer. NO WHERE.

    Great write up Doug.

  • Joe

    You are all wrong. Just sit back and watch. My generation is ready for a REVOLUTION and we won’t stop until we get one. Maybe not this election (although you will be amazed at the amount of votes Dr. Paul amasses), but change is on the horizon. The ideas are out there and can’t be put back in the box.

    PS I’m not a crazy conspiracist, but if you do some research you’ll find the truth. I don’t have time or space to go into it, but if you actually do your homework, you’ll find accredited members of our society with scientific facts and proof showing 9/11 was a planned implosion. You draw the conclusions from there.

  • Patriot Henry

    “Unlike the Deaniacs, the serious Ron Paul supporters are faced with the task of remaking the Republican Party and turning it back into what it was in the 1980s.”

    Hell no. No way I or anyone else with common sense is going to try to save that rotten organization. And even if we did, why would we return it to the Big Government version of the 80’s? And why would anyone want to endorse, support, fund, and otherwise encourage this corrupt two party system? Why should people waste their time, energy, and money on such a terrible system?

    For the record: Ron Paul has succeeded, far beyond his or any other reasonable persons expectations.

  • oilnwater

    Tuesday Open Thread, Special Edition: Why The Liberty Papers Needs Hits, and Where Does Mataconis Go From Here?

  • Patriot Henry

    “And yes, you 9/11 truthers, are a bunch of friggin whack-jobs. Deal with it.”

    Sir, there is little or nothing more “whack” than American citizens who refuse to investigate or hold their government accountable for failing to even attempt to stop the events of 9/11/2001 that resulted in thousands of American citizens dying.

    You may wish to close your eyes and mind to our government’s role in 9/11, but you turn your back on the victims of that day and on the surviving citizens of this nation and you give great aid to those who seek to destroy America.

    The prevalence of mentally ill, naive, foolish, and other incompetent people in the “9/11 Truth Movement” should not preclude you or other competent citizens from exercising your own ability to reason.

  • Patriot Henry

    “Paul would’ve been much more successful and would’ve gotten my support if he could control his own supporterrs.”

    Ah, so if his supporters were all a bunch of sheep who thought and talked and walked as they were told to, you would support Ron Paul? That makes no sense.

  • RegularRon

    Joe, I’m not wrong. First of all, I’m 31, and have been apart of Libertarian (not Libertine) politics for around 10 years give or take. I’ve seen people come and go. And the ones who are most excited about these ideas, and jumping for joy, are NOWHERE to be found when it get’s tough. That’s why I’m not wrong.

    I’ve seen people (18-25 y.o’s) reading Murray Rothbard one day, and the next Noam Chomsky. It doesn’t work. I’ve also seen people saying one day, they are voting for say Pat Buchanan, or Harry Browne, and the day they go to vote, they vote for Al Gore. That’s why I have NO FAITH in when people talk about this.

    I am Not Wrong.

    PS..9/11 was caused by a bunch of friggin Islam-o-whackjobs. Deal with it.

  • http://ewebsmith.com Web Smith

    Ron Paul is not the most Libertarian candidate. He is the most Republican candidate running.

  • http://poppychop.net/ Nitroadict

    I agree with oil on this particular post; the link to the article could’ve been posted in a previous post’s comments instead of making another one; seems like a bit of a re-hash for hits.

    The post I refer to, in case anyone doesn’t know, is here: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/03/06/thursday-open-thread-whats-left-for-paul-supporters/#comments

  • Patriot Henry

    “PS..9/11 was caused by a bunch of friggin Islam-o-whackjobs. Deal with it.”

    I don’t know about Joe’s “planned implosion” but you can verify that there were no less than three FBI investigations and one Pentagon investigation of the actual 9/11 hijackers before 9/11. All four investigations were quashed from above. Very, very, very interesting to say the least, particularly in combination with the rest of the intell that has come to light.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Nitro,

    Of course I’m aware of the post on Thursday, I commented on it after all.

    I believed, however, that Weigel’s article deserved separate attention and find it interesting that nobody has commented on his point that Ron Paul’s pandering to the nativists was, in the end, a political mistake.

  • Paul C

    The libertarian Republican message is much more than just anti war.

    The rank and file voters did not rebuke Paul on the basis of his libertarian message, it was simply the anti-war message that they did not like. While the other candidates belittled Paul for wanting to get rid of the IRS, most rank and file Republicans rejected Paul for his foreign policy, but liked his domestic policy.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    oilnwater,

    If you’re not going to bother reading what we write here, don’t bother commenting ok ?

    Paul C,

    You may be correct in your assessment. The fact that the most pro-war candidate won the nomination is certainly strong evidence in favor of your argument.

  • http://lonewacko.com/ TLB

    What Weigel fails to note – and Doug Mataconis doesn’t correct him on it – is that Ron Paul didn’t feature immigration matters as a major part of his platform. He didn’t explain why the issue matters, and in the debates I saw he only challenged one of his opponents on it once, and that was regarding the related issue of a NationalID.

    So, yeah, if all you do is put out a TV ad without explaining why that position is right and your opponents’ is wrong, then it doesn’t work.

    Readers of this site might want to wonder why Doug Mataconis is using the “nativism” charge to in effect hide an example of massive corporate welfare.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    TLB,

    1. Because welfare and the libertarian principle of open borders and free movement of people are two different issues.

    2. Paul very clearly did tailor his message to highlight immigration as evidenced by the ads in question.

  • MME

    Ron Paul’s reason for running was to educate people and that he did. I know more about our monetary system, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, foreign policy, civil liberties, the founding fathers, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, real ID cards, the NAU, the Amero… I will continue to support Ron Paul and any candidate who runs on his platform.

    In my opinion, the most difficult hurdle Ron Paul’s message has to overcome is the willful ignorance of the American people. Most Americans resist the truth, and can only handle it in small doses. They don’t want to know.

    It was the last thing I expected to encounter while campaigning for Ron Paul. Most of my fellow supporters embraced the truth, wanted to find out more and were interested in getting to the bottom of everything by researching it on the internet, reading books, and sharing information. We were armed with the facts and ready to change our country.

    Unfortunately, people like us, who run toward the truth when we hear it instead of putting our heads in the sand; are in the minority.

    Americans need to grow up and take a good hard look at who we are as a nation. I believe the government is a reflection of each of us; and right now we’re deceitful, greedy, weak willed, lazy, violent and corrupt.

    We the people are the government; we can’t afford to lie to ourselves any longer by thinking of our government as “them” and ourselves as “us”, the helpless victims.

    When our government tortures someone; you and I, as Americans, are responsible. When the IRS unjustly ruins someone’s life, you and I are responsible for ruining that life as well.

    We are all responsible for our government’s actions. If out government doesn’t represent us, it’s our duty to change it.

    Personal responsibility – we the people.

  • http://lonewacko.com/ TLB

    Here in our universe (what I called Universe 1), we will never, ever, never ever have any sort of libertarian paradise, except perhaps in parts of Somalia, and certainly never in the U.S.

    So, when those who support open borders do so without explicitly tying it to an end to the welfare state, they’re supporting the current situation where crooked employers can basically pay off politicians, and those employers can pass on the true costs of their labor to the rest of us. And, that true cost doesn’t just include the obvious things, but also things like reducing the value of USCitizenship and giving PoliticalPower inside the U.S. to foreign governments.

    So, for instance, FelipeCalderon recently told Mexican immigrants to push Mexico’s agenda inside the U.S., and he also said that they’re going to be using U.S. NGOs to push their agenda inside the U.S. And, several of the main organizers of 2006’s ImmigrationMarches have links to that government, with one being a former consul and another being an official with the PRDParty.

    Allowing Mexico to meddle in our internal politics – occasionally with the assistance of elected official collaborateurs – is a very serious cost, and one that – in Universe 1 – employers are allowed to pass on to everyone else.

  • http://blog.lib.umn.edu/saintx/eremite Alexander Saint Croix

    One thing that needs to happen in the next four years is we need to upgrade the infrastucture of the blogosphere so that reputation and credibility of community members can travel from site to site. People like “Patriot Henry” comment-spamming their sanctimonious tripe and being needlessly belligerent to writers factors largely into why this campaign was at best a crude vessel for free market ideas. Expect, 10 or 20 years from now, to see a second wave of iron-core libertarians coming into their own. That’s about how long it will take us to overtake the Republican party apparatus. The economy is in the tank and will get much worse, and we need to establish ourselves as real players before things start burning down. Thanks for this write-up. It was informative. (FTR, I’m a Ron Paul supporter and elected delegate from Ward 6, Precinct 3 in Minnesota’s Senate District 61)

  • http://thomasblair.livejournal.com Brian T. Traylor

    Weigel’s article appeared in the April print version of Reason, not Reagan.

    One can appreciate the irony, though.

  • Pingback: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Why Ron Paul Failed, And Where The “r3volution” Goes From Here()

  • thefreeman

    Failed? Yikes, he did 10x better than any libertarian candidate in my 54 year lifetime! And, he has sparked a movement that will not die, it will only grow as things worsen. Thanks Doc!

  • Craig

    “…for over a year Ron Paul did pitch a limited government anti-war message to Republican voters, the people you have to convince to vote for you if you’re going to win the nomination, and they either ignored it or rejected it.”

    Not exactly. Ron Paul and his campaign soft-peddled the anti-war message, at least in their ads. Voters unfamiliar with him from TV coverage (i.e. most of them) weren’t really informed that he was a strong anti-war candidate.

    I don’t think it would have made a big difference, but I think he would have picked up a few percentage points by focusing on trying to win the anti-war Republican vote (about 25-30% of the total.)

    The biggest roadblock to doing better was of course, perceived viability. Raising $30+ million wasn’t enough to overcome that, given that most of it was raised in the fourth quarter. Many people liked the limited government, anti-war message, but voted for someone else. In Michigan, 12% said Ron Paul was the best candidate, but only 6% voted for him.

  • Craig

    You can’t really say that Ron Paul did better in Iowa than in New Hampshire, though, because they were different types of contests.

    In the caucus states, with lower turnout, Ron Paul’s grassroots volunteers had a bigger impact, winning anywhere from 8% (Colorado) to 25% (Montana) of the vote.

    In the primary states, 8% was the high water mark, in New Hampshire and a few other states.

  • Jen

    Congressman,Dr.Ron Paul is a WINNER!!
    A true statesman! True to the American Constitution and the people!

    Long live Ron Paul!!
    Vote for him!!!

  • Danielle

    @ DAK…

    Sorry to prove you wrong, but I am a Paul supporter who is not a “9/11 truther”, and all that I have met that support Paul are not “truthers”. We are, however, in agreement with his statement that our foreign policy is terribly wrong, and incited the hatred from some of the Muslim Extremists… and that’s what led to the attacks on 9/11. THAT IS PAUL’S TRUTH.

    Go back to the camp of the people that want to keep USA in Iraq for the next 5-100 years, (This includes McCain, Billary, & Obama!)

    Paul supporters do their homework, because our leader of choice actually provides us with the way to find the truth and seek understanding that’s based on WORLD REALITY. (Not US media reality, not more smoke and mirrors)

  • Integr8d

    Why all this bashing of 9/11 ‘Truthers’? What makes them/us kooky or crazy for questioning something?

    You do it all the time. Whenever a commercial comes on, for some bogus product, you say to yourself, “I’ll never buy that.” What are you doing? You’re questioning the validity of some company’s claim. Does that make you crazy for saying that there’s no way in hell Coke Zero tastes as good as Classic Coke?

    9/11 Truthers simply don’t buy what’s being sold. And it is their right to challenge that commonly held belief. The former head of Germany’s National Defense said there’s no way the planes could’ve brought down the towers alone. The engineers of the WTCs said it was impossible. The majority of the families that lost members believe that it wasn’t just an accident or attack. There are many more.

    Instead of calling them crazy, research THEIR claims and prove them wrong. Don’t just write them off as nuts. If you only accept what you see on tv, then I guess Coke Zero is as good as Classic Coke and anyone who says anything to the contrary should be flogged, right?

    No one believed that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag operation, until the reports were declassified. Now all of those ‘truthers’ have been vindicated. The ones that attacked them and called them crazy are now smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

    The TRUTH is that we won’t know about 9/11 for many generations. If it was allowed to happen and assisted by our nation, the people involved would surely be hanged or shot by a firing squad.

    Believe what you will. But there are MANY questionable events that took place that day and the days that followed. Of that, you cannot deny. If you want to just be a red, white, and blue American that ‘could never believe stuff like that’, that’s your business. But lay off the Truthers for trying to do their due diligence.

  • UCrawford

    Integr8d,

    Instead of calling them crazy, research THEIR claims and prove them wrong.

    See, this is why there’s so much contempt towards “truthers”. It’s not our responsibility to disprove your position…it’s your responsibility to prove your position, using actual evidence and not just idle speculation. So far the “truthers” have presented zero concrete evidence of the government planning 9/11, and when it’s been pointed out to them that what they’ve presented are either lies, misinterpretations, or wild speculation and not evidence they immediately accuse whoever’s arguing with them of being part of the conspiracy in the hopes that nobody will notice how completely full of shit the “truthers” are.

    We bash “truthers” because the overwhelming majority of “truthers” are liars who fools who aren’t interested in facts and deserve to be bashed.

    The former head of Germany’s National Defense said there’s no way the planes could’ve brought down the towers alone.

    Gosh, really? Was he there? Was he a structural engineer? I’m betting not because real engineers have actually said it’s very possible for two jetliners full of aviation fuel to bring down skyscrapers. See?

    http://www.debunking911.com/

    There you go, an entire site dedicated to explaining the physics of 9/11 using actual evidence and not just the ramblings of an anti-American socialist ex-politician with no expertise in engineering trying to plug his latest book.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_von_B%C3%BClow

    The engineers of the WTCs said it was impossible.

    Bullshit.

    http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

    No one believed that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag operation, until the reports were declassified.

    The declassified papers actually indicated that it was a misrepresentation designed to cover genuine reporting errors. It’s also completely irrelevant to your argument because it has absolutely no bearing on 9/11 and confirms none of your accusations. “Truthers” like to bring that argument up because it’s a useful tool to distract stupid people on blogs from the fact that their 9/11 accusations are still nothing more than a boatload of lies and speculation trotted out by a bunch of useless asshats who have no idea what they’re talking about.

    The TRUTH is that we won’t know about 9/11 for many generations.

    We don’t have to wait a generation…we already know what happened. A group of terrorists hijacked four planes, like they’d been planning for years, and flew them into buildings with the goal of creating maximum casualties and fear and they were successful.

    The only reason the “truthers” don’t know what’s going on is they’re a bunch of idiots who believe that their government is both evil and infallible…which is yet another reason to insult and mock them whenever they open their mouths.

    But lay off the Truthers for trying to do their due diligence.

    You can go ahead with your “due diligence” and I’ll go ahead with pointing out that you’re all a bunch of liars, losers and fools. We’ll see who enjoys their side of the argument more. (hint: it’ll be me) :)

  • Karl

    Where does the revolution go from here? Of course nowhere. Anybody with even a couple watts buzzing in their head knows this country is too far gone for anybody to make a difference. Want some advice, don’t worry about politics; focus your energy on build real assets and looking for any way possible to protect them from the taxing parasites in government. Have fun with your defunct socialist government, I just hope you don’t destroy all our lives. Liberty news, is that some sort of joke.

  • http://poppychop.net/ Nitroadict

    @Karl: I hardly see how conscious apathy towards our country is going to improve anything. Have fun trying to live off the grid when the rest of us do are trying to salvage what we can while trying to make a living.

    I do believe nothing short of actually leaving the country (or having a giant underground fortress impervious to detection & somehow self-sustaining), however, will allow you to escape the effects of the rest of the country, though.

    If the right thing to do were easy, I highly doubt our country would be here in the first place.

  • oilnwater

    “oilnwater,

    If you’re not going to bother reading what we write here, don’t bother commenting ok ?”

    whatever, shitheel.

  • badunit

    UCrawford, maybe you ought to consider this. If the truthers are wrong then the bad guys are in some other country and we are taking care of business over there… so there is no problem…but if you are wrong then murderers are running around free in your backyard. One of you are wrong. Are you that confident that it is not you? We have just spent TRILLIONS to fight bad guys. Why not spend a few Hundred million and have 40 seperate investigations just in case. Or are you afraid someone is gonna hand you the flashlight and send YOU out there all by yourself… someone is saying they heard a noise…are you just a chicken or a fool.

    PS. Don’t try to tell me we can’t budget the money for foolishness, This is America!
    Don’t worry everybody the UCrawford’s of the world saw that crap on TV with thier own eyes and are absolutly sure we’re all gonna be OK.
    As for Ron Paul I’m gonna write him in then move to France… too many ucrawfords over here. And by the way I don’t think you are chicken.

  • Stone Jones

    The Revolution is in Rock N Roll!

    Get your head out of your ass, drink some beer, and enjoy the little bit of time you have left on the planet.

  • Stone Jones

    And OH YEA- Obama is the Anti-Christ..

    …so good luck

  • http://www.TheEndIsNear2013.com Stone Jones

    And OH YEA- Obama is the AntiChrist..

    …so good luck

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    badunit,

    If the truthers are wrong then the bad guys are in some other country and we are taking care of business over there… so there is no problem

    The “truthers” are wrong. And not to be contrarian but there is a problem with the current strategy in that the people responsible for 9/11 are not, and never were, in Iraq. They’re in Pakistan. Had we gone after bin Laden and al-Zawahiri (who are the only two legitimate targets left related to 9/11) I’d be happy with that approach. That’s not what Bush did, though…he used the tragedy of 9/11 to scratch a personal itch by invading Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11) and erode our Constitutional freedoms at home with legislation that would have had little to no effect in preventing 9/11. That’s the real conspiracy, and there’s plenty of actual evidence and testimony by officials who were in positions of authority in our government at the time to back that up.

    but if you are wrong then murderers are running around free in your backyard. One of you are wrong. Are you that confident that it is not you?

    Yes, I am completely confident that they’re wrong for one solid reason. The “truthers” have never provided one iota of concrete evidence to prove that anyone in government planned and executed 9/11. No confessions or testimony from any of the planners and no scientific evidence that hasn’t been thoroughly debunked by reputable sources. Most of the information they try to pass as “evidence” is either speculation by people who weren’t involved, misinterpretation by people with questionable credentials and expertise, or flat-out lies. Until they do submit actual credible evidence, I’m perfectly content to dismiss all of their claims as complete b.s.

    Why not spend a few Hundred million and have 40 seperate investigations just in case.

    Because we’ve already spent millions in investigating 9/11, it’s a complete waste of time and money and, frankly, none of the “truthers” are going to be happy with any impartial authority’s verdict unless it confirms their pre-held opinion of the government’s complicity. There are better things to spend, or not spend, our tax money on than a kangaroo court to make a bunch of people who can’t accept reality happy.

    We have just spent TRILLIONS to fight bad guys.

    And every dollar spent on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and every life lost as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq was an unjustifiable waste. We had no moral authority to invade any country but Afghanistan. That’s what Bush should be held accountable for, because that’s a conspiracy that can be proved.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    badunit,

    As for Ron Paul I’m gonna write him in then move to France… too many ucrawfords over here.

    Don’t you mean Canada?

    http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/75-threatening-to-move-to-canada/

    Doesn’t matter though, won’t make me all that sad either way.

  • badunit

    UCrawford,
    Hmmm…technically O.J. didn’t do anything either…size 12 foot print, blood in the car, glove that didn’t fit,just happened to be there…lot of good lawyers…
    What about free fall speed of the buildings, the fact that the jet fuel could not get hot enough, thermate particles all over the place, corroded car roofs(from the thermate), molted hot steel at the base of the buildings, buildings designed to take multiple plane hits, live people waving for help out of a building that is supposed to be so hot that the steel is melting, and that is just about the buildings… I mean they recently dug up Jesse James to make sure he was really dead and not off in argentina at age 161 or something…the plane jokers had to have a little help or all three of those buildings would not have come down like they did. Maybe that is not evidence. There is a turd in the soup, I can’t see it, but architecture has never smelled so funny since they have been building steel structures. First time, full collapse, and three on the same day.
    I do agree with you about the bullsh#t war with the wrong country, but maybe that’s just another reason to think something is not right with the “official” theory.

  • Sk00L

    Simple he failed for 3 major reasons.

    1. The powers that be (media, profiteers, war mongers, government contractors, CFR, the Rothschild’s, the Rockefeller’s, and the privately owned Federal Reserve) all stood to loose power and control over the life blood of the American people with a Paul presidency. With everyone of them in Ron Paul’s way working to subvert liberty at every turn I am surprised he didn’t get shut down quicker then Dennis Kucinich did.

    2. His ideas required some inelegance, thought, and understanding and frankly most of America is not that smart, if it can’t be summed up in a nifty 3 second blurb equivalent to a fastfood slogan then it is right over everyone’s head. Not to mention Paul told America the truth and at times the truth hurts, most of America is only going to vote for the person that tells them a candy coated fairy tail that promises them whatever they desire. Soon as buy into the lies with no research the hipsters all start jumping on board and it becomes trendy or fashionable who has the best rhetoric and least substance.

    3. Ron Paul didn’t fight dirty! As a true statesman he led a principled campaign the way all our leaders should be expected to act. He was too patient and mannered when he should have called BS on everyone from group “1” who were deliberately trying subvert and detract from his movement. It was obvious to anyone paying any sort of attention that the campaign of spin, lies, marginalization, and overall unfair misconduct directed towards him hurt the extremely lacking coverage the media was forced to give him. In the end I feel like he should have went further to take steps to expose the machine that has hijacked the entire election process not just the powers that are grasping and controlling this once great nation. However I greatly admire him for not stooping to fight dirty and remaining a statesman of the highest order it is too bad that so few see that as taking the higher road and being a better person for it. It is even worse that so few got to hear his message completely let alone get the full picture to understand it.

    In the end America always elects the president it deserves! As for me I am currently seeking employment overseas where freedom remains and is not equated to how many product choices I have to choose from at the store. The revolution has started and will take some time but for now I am not going under on this sinking ship.

  • MikeVA

    I wonder how many are aware that the push for more investigation into the attacks on September 11th is becoming a worldwide phenomena. Just recently members of the Japanese parliament called for an international investigation on live national television:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2680190129949942423

  • UCrawford

    badunit,

    technically O.J. didn’t do anything either

    Actually, that should be “technically the state didn’t make the case that O.J. did anything, mainly because Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden were idiots”. There was plenty of evidence to reasonably establish guilt (DNA plus what you cited) in the hands of competent prosecutors. No such evidence exists for “the government did 9/11″ conspiracies.

    What about free fall speed of the buildings, the fact that the jet fuel could not get hot enough, thermate particles all over the place, corroded car roofs(from the thermate), molted hot steel at the base of the buildings, buildings designed to take multiple plane hits, live people waving for help out of a building that is supposed to be so hot that the steel is melting, and that is just about the buildings…

    All discussed at length here:

    http://www.debunking911.com/

    All science and physics arguments relating to 9/11 on this site are exhaustively detailed and backed with peer-reviewed research (which is cited and often linked to). All of the common “truther” arguments relating to the science of 9/11 have been thoroughly and effectively debunked. The “truthers” usually just pretend that those scientific counter-arguments don’t exist because doing so illustrates just how ignorant and wrong about the topic the “truthers” actually are. The “truthers” have absolutely no scientific basis to support their case that 9/11 was an inside job.

    I mean they recently dug up Jesse James to make sure he was really dead and not off in argentina at age 161 or something

    Irrelevant to 9/11.

    the plane jokers had to have a little help or all three of those buildings would not have come down like they did.

    That site I linked to demonstrated clearly that is not the case…the airliners by themselves were sufficient to bring down the Twin Towers with no other party’s involvement.

    There is a turd in the soup, I can’t see it,

    You can see it. The turds in the punchbowl are Iraq and the PATRIOT Act (neither of which have anything to do with 9/11). Bush’s former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill said that he was witness to Iraq invasion being seriously discussed in the early days of the Bush presidency because that’s what Bush wanted from the start. Intelligence and government officials have stated openly that the Bush administration was cherry-picking the intel to make any link between 9/11 and Iraq, despite the fact there were none. 9/11 just gave Bush his excuse and post-9/11 hysteria gave Bush his opening to invade Iraq and start a war. That’s the conspiracy…it happened, there is reasonable evidence that it happened, and it didn’t require that 9/11 be an inside job.

    First time, full collapse, and three on the same day.

    That’s because prior to 9/11 nobody had ever succeeded in intentionally flying large passenger aircraft into skyscrapers with the intention of causing maximum damage and casualties. The reason 9/11 was the first time skyscrapers collapsed under those circumstances was because it was the first time those circumstances ever happened.

  • badunit

    Hey, Canada is too close. Its gonna be part of this country. U know. The “North American Union” when they take away the rest of our rights and restructure the society based on china. Tag us all with ID chips. Then we won’t need Ron Paul…we will all be members of the Peoples Party. God I hate doing jumping jacks first thing in the morning, out in the front yard, first thing in the morning, with Commrad UCrawford..one two three four

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    God I hate doing jumping jacks first thing in the morning, out in the front yard, first thing in the morning, with Commrad UCrawford

    I got used to it in the Army…so will you. :)

  • Akston

    Quiz for the afternoon: How many delegate votes does John McCain have? How many does Ron Paul have?

  • D

    (Joe)has it dead on. Our generation is not only ready for a revolution. We need it thanks to the whack job in office getting this country into an insermountable debt. Obama Clinton & McCain have no plans on doing anyhting about it. Obama is too buisy trying to prove a racial point by running for Office while his voting record isn’t strong enouh to hold up any one point he supposedly stands for since hes voted every which way on any and everything. Clinton is a communist. And McCain is a war hungry tyrant who isn’t even a natural born citizen. The ‘candidates’ are jokes. A ‘republican’ like McCain forces the undecided voters to support Obama since they don’t want another 4 years of Bush. And this is only because the democratic run mass media wont give Ron Paul his well deserved air time to get his message out there. There is not one person i know who is not voting for him once they actually hear about what he stnads for. It’s a shame that if you’re not unimaginably rich with enough money to buy friends and air time you wont get elected. Do you really think that any of these candidates care about you? Care about the common American trying to provide food fir their families and a suitable place to live with a floundering economy? NO! They all have more money the God and want you to believe they are going to represent you and your opinions. Ron Paul is a true revolutionary out there trying to help America. Yet since most people are too lazy and too wrapt up in what the media wants you to belive they won’t even take the five mintues to read about him and understand what he wants to do. You people are all sheep. WAKE UP and realize that America is in trouble and NONE of these candidates EXCEPT Ron Paul are going to do anything about it. He stands firm and knows more then all three of the others do combined about the economy. He DOESNT want a national id card or another way to impose on your daily lives (Like Hillary & Obama) He wants to end the war on drugs that has FAILEd miserably. He wants to BRING OUT TROOPS HOME not just from Iraq about the other 131 countries we have needlessly invested ourselves in. He wants to close our boarders and work on America from the inside out. (Unlike McCain who has a vested interest in Panama.. for those of you that don’t know why you’d better google it and educate yourselves)

    There is not other choice for President. Regardless on who you sheep choose Ron Paul is MY PRESIDENT. The Revolution has begun and it won’t stop until America can be a country to be proud of again

    RonPaul2008.com
    DailyPaul.com
    RonPaulforpresident2008.com

    “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds”.
    -Samuel Adams