PaulSpoerry.com

Ron Paul appears on CNN’s American Morning and points out the lies we are being told about economics and foreign policy.

Ron Paul was excluded from the latest Fox news debate. So much for Fair and Balanced, but that’s typical of Fox News. Being on Jay Leno as the headlining guest was likely MUCH more helpful to Ron Paul than being just another one of the stuffed suits sitting around on the Fox News table taking turns puffing chests, raising noses, and smugly reciting campaign slogans.

This is a two part video, but worth the watch to get a feel for Dr. Paul.

Seems that politics is in full swing. Having a hard time deciding WHO you should vote for? Who believes what you believe? Ultimately, this will only be valuable for the primaries, once the parties pick the guy they want to run for pres, it won’t be up to you anymore. That said, you can vote in the primaries to help your party (if you live in a state where you are required to register with a particular party) or your favorite candidate get elected.

Two new sites have popped up to help with just that. Move beyond the sound bites and what the major news outlets want you to hear. Check out how the candidates feel on the issues and how they align with your views on a range of subjects. 

Visitors to the nonpartisan Glassbooth website are asked a series of questions on topics ranging from immigration to war and health care. The site then spits out the candidate they should vote for in the upcoming presidential election. Glassbooth is aimed at the 50 million-plus 18- to 31-year-old voters, a group that — contrary to popular belief — showed an increase in voting in the past three presidential elections. Glassbooth has a simple interface, you assign points and weight in on issues most important to you and you’re returned a list of candidates that match your views based on a percentage of similarity.

The next site is Electoral Compass. This site asks a series of questions which you comment on as completely agree, tend to agree, neutral, tend to disagree, completely disagree, or no opinion. Based on your responses you’ll be shown a chart with the proximity the candidates to your views. You can then analyse your position and view the positions of the candidates.

Need help figuring out which candidate matches up with your ideals? Here’s another site that is supposed to do just that. This is very similar to the USA Today Match-o-Matic, but much less flashy.

This is how it works: The scores for each candidate are tabulated with very simple arithmetic. The stance you entered for each issue is compared against the stance of the candidate. If you and the candidate do not agree (IE: you marked support, the candidate opposes) points are subtracted. If you and the candidate agree, points are added. The number of points added or subtracted is determined by the weight you assigned. “Minimal” is worth one point, “important” two, and “key” is worth five points. If you OR the candidate list an issue as unknown/other, no points are added or subtracted. This is very noteworthy as many candidates have issues listed as unknown/other. This will have the effect of pushing some candidates (some more than others) towards the middle of the list. It also often results in candidates being ranked higher than others that have less disagreements. Look at the list carefully and follow up by investigating the candidates further.

So what were my results? A bit different than the Match-o-Matic which for me had Ron Paul at #1, then Mike Gravel, then Dennis Kucinich. This one has me down as aligning with Kucinich, then Gravel, Richardson… with good ole Ron Paul pretty far down the list.

ABC News has created their Match-O-Matic, a flash based tool that takes responses from speeches, poses them as questions, then matches you with the candidate that most aligns to your views. So it’s no secret I like Ron Paul, it’s good to know that my views really do line up with his (I swear I only took it once and answered truthfully!). Gravel is kind of a suprise for me though… only because he’s a bit wonky.

FOX News shows an amazing clip of Ron Paul at the Iowa debate on Aug 5. Then Julie Banderas interviews Ron Paul in what may be one of the most civilized and fair interviews Ron Paul has had yet. Most major network interviews lately have ended with the “anchor” telling Paul he has no chance of winning, which seems very biased from a “news” perspective but what the hell do I know!? I’m really suprised, and happy, that a non-biased interview came from Fox news… which in my opinion does less “news” and more “commentary” than all the major networks combined.

Dr. Paul is the most articulate and truthful man in politics today (look up his voting record). It is not hard to look like you believe in what you are saying when you actually belive in what you are saying, and it comes across when he speaks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbXQ_PnUbq8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N6NstE0_8Q

Still ignored by the major media outlets, Ron Paul continues to gain momentum. The Fourth of July gathering by the Cobb County GOP saw votes cast in another presidential straw poll. Ron Paul came in second, scooping up 17 percent of the votes. New Hampshire first Straw Poll, held by the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers, and Dr. Paul received 65 percent of the votes! In a recent California Republican Assembly Presidential Preference straw poll he pulled in 12 percent of the votes. Hopefully momentum continues to build.

RonPaul2008

Ron Paul is generally considered not in the race and ignored by the major media outlets. Until very recently he’s been seen as having 1% or less support in the polls… recently he’s been seen as having 3-5%. There is of course a lot of talk about how his supporters are generally younger, and harder to poll… this is generally attributed to the lack of a land line, because more and more young people only use cellular. This may be changing as the California Republican Assembly, the state’s oldest and largest Republican volunteer organization, conducted a straw poll during their annual convention. Fred Thompson was the clear winner with 25% of the votes… what stands out is that the straw poll showed Ron Paul with 12%. Maybe the major media outlets will begin to pay more attention. If you didn’t know (I didn’t… I had to look it up) a straw poll is an informal type of voting where the results are used to gauge opinion. They are commonly used in American political caucuses, where the primary goals are to select delegates and vote on resolutions.

More info on Ron Paul can be found on his website: RonPaul2008

It appears that more than 1,000 Ron Paul supporters showed up for a rally that occured after the Iowa Christian Alliance/Iowans for Tax Relief candidates forum, which refused to invite Dr. Paul, ended.

Not bad considering only about 600 showed up, out of over 1,200 expected, for the big government, war monger forum which included 6 candidates.

Initially a joint-forum held by the Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance did not give Ron Paul an invitation. But his exclusion from this rather mundane event turned out to be a blessing in disguise as the Ron Paul meetup groups inside and outside of Iowa found a cause to be motivated for. The original plan was just to have some sort of rally outside of the convention by a couple dozen Paul supporters, a way of having his presence and views be felt even though he wouldn’t be there. However, the planning accelerated, somebody rented out the Hy-Vee Hall right after the forum’s time-slot and Ron Paul found time to fit another speech into his busy schedule. The forum saw only 600 attendees for six candidates, while Paul alone drew in over 1000 cheering fans, a full house. Pretty impressive for a guy the main stream media doesn’t give much attention.

Links to related articles: here and here (includes video).

Raging neo-cons all over the country don’t care for Ron Paul and his assertion that American interventionism in the Middle East is one important factor contributing to the radicalization of an ever-growing number of Muslims into suicidal, anti-American terrorists. But what does the leading expert on Osama bin Laden say?

Michael Scheuer is a 22 year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). From 1996 to 1999, he was the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka Alec Station), the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. From September 2001 to November 2004, he served again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit. His insider perspective and expertise led him to write a book, anonymously, titled Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, Revised Edition. We now know that he is also the anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.

So, if anyone would seem a natural to line up with Giuliani - who has gained his “conservative” following through his tough guy reputation - following his now-famous exchange with Dr. Paul at the South Carolina debate, it would be this guy. But that is precisely the opposite of what has happened.

This day found Scheuer standing beside the castigated Ron Paul, rather than next to the would-be defender of American Empire around the world, Rudy Giuliani. And this is what Scheuer had to say at Dr. Paul’s press conference in the nation’s capital on Thursday: “Foreign policy is about protecting America. Our foreign policy is doing the opposite.”

“Our foreign policy is doing the opposite,” he said. This is exactly what Dr. Paul has been contending - but being ridiculed as being naïve over. But if that quote isn’t clear enough, here is what Scheuer wrote in the book, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes:
“[T]he crux of my argument is simply that America is in a war with militant Islamists that it cannot avoid; one that it cannot talk or appease its way out of; one in which our irreconcilable Islamist foes will have to be killed, an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths; and one that is motivated in large measure by the impact of U.S. foreign policies in the Islamic world…”

The neo-cons need to start reading some books starting with Scheuer’s own works and The 9/11 Commission Report, they also recommend other expert analyses of terrorism and interventionism, such as Chalmer Johnson’s Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire.

Perhaps Dr. Paul’s “conservative” critics could do some reading, as well. If these contemporary works don’t suit them, maybe a few from the conservative canon will suffice - you know, works with authors like Edmund Burke, George Washington, and Russell Kirk, for example. Of course the neo-cons probably consider books as part of the left wing media bias as well. �