October
27th 2007
Posted under Election 2008 & Ron Paul
Flush With New Millions, Underdog Vies to Compete
In the last two weeks, Mr. Paul — a Republican presidential candidate — has spent nearly a half-million dollars on radio advertisements in four early primary states, the first major media investment of his campaign. On Tuesday night, he will take a seat opposite Jay Leno.
Ron Paul Gaining Momentum in NH with 7.4% of support.
Patroon on 27 Oct 2007 at 4:38 am #
Just so our Carolina and NE Georgia posters are aware, RP has opened three camapaign offices in South Carolina and will be in the state campaigning in the Upstate region (Clemson University will be one of the stops) Nov. 1 and 2.
Weaver on 27 Oct 2007 at 5:19 am #
Source: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. “Ron Paul Violated the Rules.”
Weaver on 27 Oct 2007 at 5:48 am #
Source: Diagnosing Our Health Care Woes
Source: Ron Paul on Health Care
Weaver on 27 Oct 2007 at 5:55 am #
The killer question Paul must answer is: “how to handle the uninsured?” Doctors do not like the socialised system, but they do like to at least get paid something for their work.
Could the states each pass programs ensuring all are insured? Or how might this be handled under a Paul system?
orklando » Blog Archive » Ron Paul Campaigning Hard on TV and Radio on 27 Oct 2007 at 5:59 am #
[...] here to [...]
Karla on 27 Oct 2007 at 1:37 pm #
If we can get privatized affordable healthcare, I would be willing to spend some of the money that I don’t have to pay into Fica, medicare, social security under the Paul administration and pay for my own health insurance. As it is now, I am paying approximately $1600 per month to these entities and recieve hardly anything to show for my labor and have an awful corporate insurance plan.
roho on 27 Oct 2007 at 4:57 pm #
Has anyone noticed the “Michael Medved” attack on Ron Paul at Townhall.com ?
Filmer on 27 Oct 2007 at 6:55 pm #
roho, do you have a link?
Weaver on 27 Oct 2007 at 9:26 pm #
I printed those out and showed them to some local doctors today. The general consensus was that technology has driven up prices and that Romney’s plan, possibly modeled after Switzerland, is the ideal: require all to be insured, provide a tax credit for whatever is paid.
State tax credits wouldn’t work because some states have no income tax, and Americans pay a great deal to the federal government. If of course a larger portion was paid to the states, then the states could take this over.
However, someone would have to require that patients be insured (either individually or through their employer) because doctors cannot afford to operate on patients at a loss (no pay + expenses.) Also, it’s simply not fair to others (costs are passed on.)
Currently hospitals must accept patients into the emergency room; these emergencies at least ought to be covered, according to the doctors.
—
Another interesting result of this: as businesses offer health care, they’re rewarding good behavior. The local hospital I was at is considering banning smoking from its premises.
Insurance companies already charge more for the overweight and the smoking, so businesses are encouraged to reward or punish the healthiness of their employees’ style of living.
—
Another comment given to me: if Hilary’s plan passes, most of them (general surgeons) will retire. The US will be short on doctors and would likely bring in foreign doctors to fill the gap.
So, please note that socialised medicine was not the preferred solution.
—
This is just one facet of Ron Paul, but if I can win over some local doctors his campaign would really take off. The hospital is a major institution for this area, and socialised medicine has them quaking in their boots. I’ve been talking with some at work as well (I don’t work at the hospital), but I’m snagged on less interesting debates there.
Weaver on 27 Oct 2007 at 9:59 pm #
Note: requiring insurance is akin to raising the minimum wage. Though individuals may buy insurance on their own, employers are largely expected to bear this burden.
Ideologically I’m opposed to this, but I can’t see any way around requiring a minimum level of insurance, which admittedly could be a foot in the door for future increases in required coverage…
roho on 27 Oct 2007 at 9:59 pm #
Filmer…………..It’s http://www.townhome.com and then click on Michael Medved at the top…………..It’s nasty with about 187 comments so far!……It may be a trap to follow suit like REDSTATE inorder to ban Paul supporters from the site?……Medved is very suttle in his writing style always using a sandwich approach to state the neocon position, compliment the christian, and finish with neocon benefits. He had recently interviewed Paul with no controversy awhile back, and now suddenly creates a hornets nest of rediculous statements. The sites 2 main Political bloggers are Hugh Hewitt and Matt Lewis.(But not involved in this exchange so far). Hugh(A Romney supporter)recently lost his #1 sidekick(Dean Barnett) who moved up to the “Big House” at NRO. The site is poised for a “conservative war” as Huckabee and Paul gain more and more traction…………..I think that there are quite a few paleos at the site fighting on both fronts and looking for a home.
roho on 27 Oct 2007 at 10:03 pm #
Correction on my stupidity! that was http://www.townhall.com instead of townhome.(I have one years experience on computors)……(Ha-Ha)
Weaver on 27 Oct 2007 at 10:19 pm #
An Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul. Basically it says, please publicly reject the white racists and 9/11 deniers. It’s nothing less than a smear.
From Lew Rockwell:
Re.: Michael Medved Smears Ron Paul
The Socialist Case for Ron Paul – should Paul reject Socialists too?
ERIC on 27 Oct 2007 at 10:53 pm #
“The Socialist Case for Ron Paul”
That article right there is why I have my doubts about Ron Paul.
As I’ve said before, the republicans have some crappy candidates running, except Tom Tancredo.
This paragraph right here explains it all.
“Moral laws, such as abortion and gay marriage, are very simple. They are not mentioned in the constitution, so states will be free to do whatever they want.”
So not only do we have liberal activist judges but now with Ron Paul we are going to have states do whatever they want.
No thanks, I’ll pass, unless a certain part of the country for example the south seceeds where abortion and gay marriage would be outlawed.
And secession is a hard thing to accomplish.
I think Duncan Hunter has just moved into my number 2 spot behind Tancredo.
ERIC on 27 Oct 2007 at 10:58 pm #
Look at the inside numbers of the New Hampshire poll, Ron Paul is overwhelmingly getting most of his support from self described liberals.
Scary.
Andrew T. on 28 Oct 2007 at 1:48 am #
ERIC,
Yeah, I was alarmed when I learned how many liberal supporters Dr. Paul had, too. Obviously, just about every paleo in the country is behind his campaign. But they’re overwhelmed by a much larger number of independents, liberal Republicans, moderate Democrats, and yippees. I submit that THIS, not even the War, is what makes beltway Republicans most suspicious of Paul’s campaign. The GOP is no longer the party or conservatism nor liberty; the divorce has already been completed. We must get over that.
I wouldn’t call it scary as much as I’d just call it disappointing. His followers are making him very much like just a protest candidate, unintentionally. But hey, maybe it’s even good news in some ways. If there are some liberals on the Paul bandwagon, that’s fewer liberals supporting the Democratic candidate.
Weaver on 28 Oct 2007 at 2:25 am #
Eric,
if Congress really wanted to get rid of activist judges, it’d vote to limit their sphere of power or to impeach them.
James on 28 Oct 2007 at 4:39 am #
Sure, there are liberals supporting Paul, but that is mostly because of his position on the war. Of all the candidates running, both Democrat and Republican, Paul is the most anti-war. Even Clinton, Obama and Edwards have waffled on the war. I don’t think anyone really knows where they stand. The Republican candidates want to continue Bush’s policy to varrying degrees. Not so Paul. I think its great that he is getting support outside the Republican Party. It used to be said that the sure sign of a winning candidate was his ability to bring new people into the party. Thats apparently what Paul is doing, but the masters of the Republican Party don’t want that. Let lefties come! While cheering Paul’s attacks on the war they might actually hear and understand what he is arguing about the proper role of government and how the antiwar position is consistent with that.
roho on 28 Oct 2007 at 4:59 am #
Anti-war liberals that support Ron Paul is not really a bad thing. There are plenty of single-issue voters out there that recognize that Hillary has NO intentions of ending the war, just like Giuliani has no intentions of transforming himself into a conservative if elected. The Neocon War Party has NO real intrest in the abortion issue, but they have milked the christian conservative for years to aquire the “Crusades Vote”.
Many libs realize that a return to the “Constitution” will solve more problems that another 40 years of partisan bickering. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”(as long as I don’t sacrifice principle but find comon ground). I had it narrowed down to Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul. I recently had to eliminate Hunter as he appears to support the idea of “Blackwater” being contracted for border security, and are building a huge training base in Southern California.(I prefer a draft over private armies and war lords.) I see the return to the “True Constitution” as a blanket remedy for a lot of mistakes in America.
Bede on 28 Oct 2007 at 11:32 am #
The thing that scares me about all the liberal support of Paul is the possibility that he might modify his positions (esp. on immigration) to cater to his liberal base. He is a principled man, though, so I hope this is not the case.
Roho,
What you say has some truth. A good friend of mine, a typical liberal, is supporting Paul. He said he has come to the conclusion that the liberal welfare state and the war state are one. If you get rid of one, you have to get rid of the other. (Of course, paleos have known this all along, but it’s good to see that liberals are getting it too.)
Bede on 28 Oct 2007 at 11:36 am #
“An Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul. Basically it says, please publicly reject the white racists and 9/11 deniers. It’s nothing less than a smear.”
OMG, not only a smear job, but a juvenile one at it. Medved has got to be one of the more braindead of the neocons. I may disagree many of the things Rush says, but at least he’s somewhat entertaining. To listen to Medved is like listening to a nagging woman. I can’t stomach him for more than a minute or so.
Bede on 28 Oct 2007 at 11:40 am #
Look at the comments below the Medved smear. Paul fans are really taking him to task.
Bede on 28 Oct 2007 at 12:13 pm #
I just started a new thread on the Medved article. Thanks, Roho and Weaver.
csason on 29 Oct 2007 at 4:43 pm #
Believe it or not, as much as this country has turned into an empire, I am not the least bit surprised nor dismayed that liberal and conservative find
common ground in seeing it find some sort of dismantling.. It was
so in the past, during the great wars, and it was so after 9-11..
I too, wonder who might be disappointed..after a Ron Paul takes office.
Worse yet, I think Jimmy Carter had a certain middle appeal, that many southrons thought could be trusted..and I would hope we didn’t see
four or more years of that out of Ron Paul.
It reminds me of the Tennessee convention.
Weaver on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:58 am #
Ron Paul now followed by RealClearPolitics
Paul’s mainstream, at least in New Hampshire!