The kiss of death for Ron Paul’s Presidential run

Those of you who know me are aware that I’m no fan of Ron Paul’s parochial brand of right-wing libertarianism.  However, to be fair, there was a time when what he had to say on foreign policy issues really spoke to much of the issues which matter to me.

Now, obviously, as a socialist, it’s never been exceptionally important to me that a candidate be the most popular candidate in a given race.

So, given that, I didn’t really consider it a strike against the candidate that his supporters had deluded themselves into thinking that their own spam was evidence of a widespread, grassroots movement despite the fact that polls show Ron Paul within the margin of error of having zero support at all

But afterwards, I started to suspect that Ron Paul didn’t have what it took to win the nomination when his supporters tried (unsuccessfully) to spam my blog.  One day I opened up my spam box and *BAM* right there in between a post informing me about a revolutionary new discovery to make my erections harder than Chinese algebra and another offering free, young, and barely legal porn, there was Ron Paul spam.

Since then I’ve never really been able to divorce him in my mind from the two items of spam which served as bookends for his supporter’s little morsel of spam.

But despite this, it wasn’t until today when I opened up that I truly realized that Ron Paul has just received the political kiss of death.

Robert, “Duchebag”, Novak himself has just come out and endorsed Ron Paul.

Behold, Jon Stewart at his best:

(opens in new window)


22 Responses to “The kiss of death for Ron Paul’s Presidential run”

  1. 1 david 1 August, 2007 at 11:31 am

    Well there you go that is your problem your a socialist.

  2. 2 paulitics 1 August, 2007 at 11:34 am

    How very astute of you David. I can see you’re no spring chicken.

  3. 3 Buckwheat 1 August, 2007 at 1:53 pm


    Two points: 1) I don’t know what you mean by “Ron Paul Spam”. Is any commentary from his supporters “spam”? I’ve found the level of knowledge to be pretty high among Paul supporters (of which I am one). 2) Don’t not support Paul just because Novak does. As Paul himself says, the liberty message and the Constitution unite us, they don’t divide us. You live how you want to live and Bob Novak will live how he wants to live — and neither of you can be hurt by the other, or forced to fund the other’s view of the world. Supporting Ron Paul doesn’t mean you agree with Bob Novak on, say, social issues — it just means you agree with him that the best way to spread your own ideas about the world is not through force of government.

    That view, I think, more and more Americans all across the spectrum are coming around to.

  4. 4 Jack 1 August, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    Those crazy Ron Paul spammers went and spam’ed his campaign with $2.4 MILLION last quarter. And 47% of contributions to Dr Paul’s campaign comprise of donations under $200, the next closest is John McCain with 17%. That’s the kind of spamming all the candidates dream of.

    And if you bothered to research the subject, you’d find that many polls deliberately left out Dr Paul as among the choices. Curious how a “socialist” like yourself come to trust publishings from for-profit private polling corporations with little transparency if any, over open straw polls like the one in New Hampshire which Dr Paul WON! And dismiss open public polls which Dr Paul dominates as the work of 4 Ron Paul supporters text msg’ing 10,000 entries each.

    You’re blinded by your ideology and your hatred is unjustified. Despite all your misgivings about the man, a Ron Paul Presidency would bring about a great deal of badly needed tranquility to a world so badly ruffled by the last 6 years.

    When the issue of war and killing trumps domestic social programs, then you really need to take a step back. The same kind of thinking, except mirrored to the right, was what propelled the US/CIA to topple elected socialist governments in Central and South America that killed untold millions.

  5. 5 paulitics 1 August, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    Buckwheat – to answer your question “I don’t know what you mean by “Ron Paul Spam””

    The answer is just the same as any other form of spam. Ron Paul spam (lowercase “s”, not uppercase “S”) is unsolicited comments in bulk form that have nothing whatsoever to do with the post in question.

    Thus, I was spammed and my Askimet spam blocker — which only picks up and filters known spammers — blocked it before I even got to it.


    Jack – Actually I did research this post and I’ve been following your country’s 2008 election closely including keeping detailed tabs on party support for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.

    If you had bothered to look at the site which I pointed to, you’d have noticed that the vast majority of polls listed by mulitple polling firms DID include Ron Paul as a candidate and even the ones which did, STILL had him within the margin of support of having zero support at all.

    Since I am not an American, and since I am neither a supporter of the Democratic or the Republican Parties and really frankly don’t care which one gets into office, I think it’s a bit rich to charge that “You’re blinded by your ideology and your hatred is unjustified.” So that’s a little bit of the kettle calling the pot black there.

    In actuality, I’m far too apathetic towards not only your candidate but towards ALL candidates from BOTH parties to be either blinded or filled with hatred. The only thing about the other candidates is that none of them have tried to spam me whereas your candidate has.

  6. 6 Mike 1 August, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    Someone who advocates coercion of the entire population in order to create a utopia (a socialist) slags Ron Paul, that cancels the kiss of death from Novak.

  7. 7 paulitics 1 August, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    Mike – you must know me better than I know myself. Thank you for that brilliant insight into my political beliefs.

    Can you tell me or show me where I have EVER advocatated coercion of an entire population let alone a single human being?


    Yeah, next time try not to make your ignorance so obvious.

  8. 8 Ellis_Wyatt 1 August, 2007 at 9:36 pm


    Bingo. The guy doesn’t even understand the simple stuff, like that socialism has never in history work without being propped up from the outside. We paid for the USSR debacle, like we’re paying China right now.


    You are grossly misinformed about a great many things. It is possible that, if you were to read a couple books about… oh I dunno, history, for example, you would possibly learn the data you are missing right now that explains why Ron Paul is going to win in a landslide. Study the Jefferson and Jackson campaigns and elections. Learn at least the tenets of Austrian economics. And of course Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology, because if yer a socialist, yer epistemology suxxors.

    Knowledge is power.

  9. 9 Jack 1 August, 2007 at 10:47 pm

    I had this crazy notion that people post about things they weren’t apathetic to,…my bad.

    Oh, when Dr Paul says “stay out of the internal affairs of other countries”, he means more than just ending the military and covert crap, he also means sanctions. Which means an end to the economic blockade to the one enduring socialist experiment that is Cuba. And non-interference with other budding socialist experiments in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador …

    Not a sales pitch to someone who’s apathetic like yourself, but to others who might give a crap about the socialist cause.

  10. 10 paulitics 1 August, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    Ellis Wyatt – I suppose you’re right. I just randomly chose one of the most obscure political orientations in North America — presumably randomly — because I didn’t bother to read anything and socialism came up when my psychic drew a terot card.

    Seriously, do some reading first before even claiming something as ridiculous as “like that socialism has never in history work without being propped up from the outside.”. I am quite familiar with history and would stake my knowledge of it against yours any day of the week and twice on sundays. And the first of my many reasons for this bold claim is that, by your own admission, you don’t even understand the difference between state capitalism (i.e. so-called “socialist” states of the 20th Century such as the USSR and China) and socialism.

    If you want to actually educate yourself about socialism as opposed to state capitalism, I’ve addressed these issues at length here:

    When you’ve done a modicum of reading on this, I’d be happy to engage in a civil discussion because, after all, since libertarianism is derived from the same basic school as anarchism and since the anarchists sat with the socialists in the First International, the two schools of thought are not as different as rhetoric may have you believe.

    Thus, my opposition to Ron Paul is not because he’s a libertarian. In fact, the vast majority of his foreign policy, I can get behind. Rather, as I expressed above, my opposition to Ron Paul is on the grounds that his supporters are nothing more than spammers and, what is more, are spammers who, so far as I can tell, suffer from delusions of grandeur.

  11. 11 paulitics 1 August, 2007 at 11:12 pm

    Jack – I never said I was apathetic towards the presidential race in general – actually, on the contrary, I said that I follow it closely.

    What I said was that I was apathetic towards all of the candidates from both main parties.

    I can be apathetic towards a bunch of monkeys in a zoo, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t watch with great interest when they group together into two teams and then begin throwing feces at one another. Moreover, my interest is not reduced by the fact that I don’t care which group of monkeys wins the shit fight.

    Ditto for American politics.

    Now THAT’S entertainment!

    (P.S., You don’t have to give the sales pitch to sell me on Ron Paul’s foreign policy. As I’ve mentioned many times before, I already agree with the vast majority of Paul’s foreign policy including his policy on Cuba. However, that still doesn’t change the fact that Cuba isn’t actually a socialist country — partly because the phrase ‘socialist country’ is itself a contradiction in terms — but rather is a state capitalist country.)

  12. 12 Mike 2 August, 2007 at 4:58 am

    So you’re not a socialist? You’re not an advocate of coercing individuals to hand over their money so that government bureaucrats can fund social programs?

  13. 13 Mike 2 August, 2007 at 4:58 am

    Socialism is coercion. There’s no point dealing with someone like you.

  14. 14 paulitics 2 August, 2007 at 9:15 am

    Mike – That’s quite the penetrating syllogism you’ve made up there.

    Only problem is that, as with all syllogisms, if one of the premises is flawed, the entire thing collapses.

    In your case your first premise that I’m a socialist is correct (in fact, I’ll do you one better and tell you that if you bother to read through my archives, you’ll discover that I’m actually a Marxist — GASP!).

    Your second premise, however, employs a common misconception popular among those who have not actually sifted through the voluminous works of Marx.

    It is not entirely correct that Marx ever advocated what you are talking about as some sort of a solution to the problem of capitalism. If you had bothered to read Marx (which, really, if you’re going to criticize somebody and be pompous about it, it’s always a good idea to have read the guy so you don’t look like a fool) you’d discover that he never once speaks about Joe Schmoe having to hand over all his capital and private property to the state. What he wrote was that the nature of property and capital would be transformed and its social component (i.e., it’s ability to exploit and encapsulate labour power) would be removed through the abolition of BOURGEOIS property.

    And, Mike, if you had bothered to read Marx, you’d have discovered that Marx wasn’t the biggest fan of governmental social programmes. He advocated them as a temporary solution, but that is all.

    In the West, social programmes didn’t really come about until following WWII and it was actually liberals and conservatives who brought social programmes about due to fears of worker unrest.

    Specifically, if you doubt what I’m saying, you can feel free to read up on the Beveridge Report (that’s “Beveridge” with a “d”).

    So, as for your final conclusion that Socialism is coercion, clearly both the documentary and the academic record would suggest that you’re not entirely correct. Moreover, since I, like Marx, support the total abolition of the state over and above the abolition of other bourgeois structures of coercion and authority, I go much much further than you do in opposing coercion.

  15. 15 Juan Carlos Cruz 8 August, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    Hello all: Ron Paul is a scam, he is an elitist, libertarian far-right wing. Even though he is “anti neocons” and “anti war” his political program is not good for USA. In studying history, current events, economics I have come to the conclusion that the only rational medicine and solution for a nation’s problem is Socialist Economic System, not libertarianism. Socialism puts wealth created by a nation in workers, while libertarianism is capitalism taken to the extreme, libertarianism is oligarchic ruling indeed. Only socialism can democratize the USA

    Kucinich Helps the AFL-CIO Prove a Point
    1 hour, 3 minutes ago
    The Nation — When the AFL-CIO organized a presidential debate at Chicago’s Soldier Field, leaders of the labor federation quietly went out of their way to make sure that Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich would be on the stage.
    While some debate organizers have talked about excluding so-called “lesser” candidates — those like Kucinich with low poll numbers and small bank accounts — from the debates, the AFL-CIO wanted progressive populist from Cleveland front and center Tuesday night. Why? Because leaders of the labor organization recognize the importance of candidates who stand on principle rather than merely engage in political calculations.
    They also recognize that Kucinich’s determination to express his principles — which happen to parallel those of labor activists on worker rights, health and safety concerns and, above all, trade policy — would put frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards on the spot.
    The senators from New York and Illinois and the former senator from North Carolina have shaky records on a host of issues that of high priorities for union members. Clinton close ties to Wall Street and have led her to support much of the free-trade agenda favored by multinational corporations — a fact highlighted by Edwards when he referenced a recent feature in a financial magazine on Clinton’s appeal to big business by saying, “You will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine saying I am the candidate that big corporate America is betting on.”
    Edwards may be “the angry populist” now. But he has not always been on labor side. Edwards — who supported North Carolina’s anti-union “Right-to-Work” law when he ran for the Senate in 1998 — broke with the AFL-CIO to cast several key votes in favor of the Bill Clinton administration’s free-trade agenda when he served in the Senate.
    Kucinich, a longtime union member who has maintained a 100 percent AFL-CIO ranking during his years in Congress, broke with Clinton to side with labor on those critical votes. In fact, he’s often been more aggressive than union leaders when it comes to challenging trade pacts that are stacked against workers, communities and the environment in the U.S. and abroad.
    On Tuesday night, Kucinich wowed the crowd of 15,000 union activists in Chicago when he promised to use a little-known provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement to pull the U.S. out of the deal.
    “In my first week in office, I will notify Mexico and Canada that the United States is withdrawing from NAFTA,” declared Kucinich. “I will notify the WTO, that the United States is withdrawing from the WTO.”
    As the applause rose from a rumble to a thunderous roar, Kucinich shouted, “How about it America? Do you want out of NAFTA? Do you want out of the WTO? Listen to the workers of America, let them hear from you!”
    It was the most rousing moment of the night, perhaps of all the Democratic debates up to this point.
    Kucinich did exactly what the AFL-CIO’s leadership had hoped he would. He showed the most cautious frontrunners — all of whom continue to back NAFTA, albeit with apologies and calls for reform — just how much enthusiasm there is for a radical shift from the misguided trade policies of Bill Clinton and George Bush. That’s a lesson that 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry never really got, to the detriment of his bid for blue-collar votes that year.
    None of this is meant to suggest that Kucinich will win any official endorsements from the individual unions of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, which as of this week are formally freed by the federation to start picking their favorite contenders. Labor organizations tends to go with perceived winners rather than allies who are trailing.
    But on Tuesday night, Kucinich won the hearty applause of one of the largest crowds ever to listen to a presidential debate. And he earned high marks from analysts like Hotline’s Chuck Todd, who says the AFL-CIO forum was: “Easily (Kucinich’s) best debate.”
    He also proved the vital importance of including non-frontrunners in presidential debates that, without candidates like Democrat Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul, would be a lot shorter on ideas and a lot longer on empty political positioning.
    John Nichols’ new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson hails it as a “nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the ‘heroic medicine’ that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to ‘reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'”
    Like this article? Try 4 issues of The Nation at home (and online) FREE.
    Copyright © 2007 The Nation

  16. 16 paulitics 8 August, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    Juan Carlos Cruz – Just a quick point that’s completely off topic from your post: The ‘Mechanism of Impeachment’ in your presidential system is actually extremely inefficient and not exceptionally “genius” in my opinion.

    Far better is a Parliamentary system. For instance, while I do dislike much of my country’s politics, all it would take in my country is for a majority of the Parliament to vote against the Prime Minister on any money bill and you get the same effect as presidential impeachment with none of the hastle.

  17. 17 mark 9 August, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    RON PAUL HAS MY VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    GO RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  18. 18 Brock 22 August, 2007 at 1:34 am

    I was googling and ran across this page.

    The “Ron Paul spam” comment is wrong and annoying. I’m an actual person, writing an actual message, here in Boise, Idaho. This is not generated by some bot, it isn’t even copy/paste. It’s me in Boise.

    We are real. We exist. We might not be what you want to see, but we exist all the same.

    Also worth mentioning, the country was designed to where things like socialism could exist at a state level. Why not work there? It’s smaller, more manageable, and more doable. As much as, on the casual glance, Ron Paul seems to be completely opposed to socialism, the truth is though he doesn’t like it, he respects the ability for state governments to represent themselves, including socialism, at a state level. Ron Paul is about freedom, including socialism if desired by a state via representation. It will not be mandated by the federal government though. Very few things will be mandated by the federal government. Many of the Blue vs. Red state battles today at the federal level are solvable by states rights. This is how the country was structured, and that structure is sound, certainly better than today. Ron Paul is about less federal government and more power to the states.


  19. 19 paulitics 22 August, 2007 at 9:44 am

    Brock – I don’t doubt that you’re a real person. I never said that Ron Paul had NO supporters as that would be ridiculous.

    I just said that Ron Paul supporters generate a lot of spam, and I don’t think you can deny that, regardless of how high you regard his policies or how philosophically coherent they are compared to other candidates’ philosophies.

  20. 20 Yohiel 25 August, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    We will all know better after the elections where America’s voting populas stands, in relationship to all the retoeric this site generates, after novembers elections in 2008. This is a fact we can all agree with. Depending on how much of us accually get out there and vote our believes, conscience, party, or any other scenario, the outcome will share with us all the state of our countries health and welfare, and what we’ve become to the world and history. I for one am voting for Ron Paul.

  21. 21 zac 25 August, 2007 at 9:45 pm


    I seem to have encountered some of the same reservations as you when it comes to the anarcho-capitalist form of libertarianism that Ron Paul endorses. While he has the strongest stance — imo — on foreign policy issues and the rule of law, and I do agree with him on most issues, including the advocacy of “free markets,” the whole fact that he’s ultra-capitalist rubs me the wrong way. I may be wrong in my assessment, however, so perhaps someone can educate me…BTW, I do share your annoyance in having to defend socialism when the definition principally states “the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production.” State-controlled/authoritarian socialism, like libertarian-capitalism is a fib. I would like to think that Ron Paul sees capitalism as the antithesis to liberty, as corporations have been mildly put as “unaccountable, private tyrannies”, but I simply cannot find any literature describing this feeling. I do, however, find a documented opposition to corporate welfare and crony-capitalism, as well as bogus free-trade agreements such as nafta, cafta, etc., so that is encouraging. Anyhow, I must say he may not be throwing the most shit, but he’s certainly the most accurate ;) Cheers!

  1. 1 What do politics and monkey shit fights have in common? « Paulitics: Paul’s Socialist Investigations Trackback on 10 August, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


home page polling resource

Click below to download the

Paulitics Blog Search

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the comments section beneath each post on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the blog's author and creator. Individual commentators on this blog accept full responsibility for any and all utterances.


Progressive Bloggers

Blogging Canadians

Blogging Change

Paulitics Blog Stats

  • 855,795 hits since 20 November, 2006

%d bloggers like this: