Ron Paul took the gloves off. He started with Newt. Now it's Santorum:My choices at this point:
1) Ron Paul
2) Rick Perry / Jon Huntsman
I love the fact that Rick Perry actually challenges Bernanke and the Fed. But I also appreciate Huntsman being willing to ratchet back the aggressive foreign policy being pushed by Newt and Santorum.
Tim White
Wonder why some in the MSM are so opposed to Ron Paul?
Click here to watch a Real Clear Politics clip of C-Span. In the one minute video, you'll see the press pool for the Pentagon. And you'll hear:
"See this room? Two-thirds of us laid off when Ron Paul is president,"
Shocking! Some members of the MSM are just like some of the government officials they are supposed to keep honest. They're more concerned with their own self-interest, rather than the interest of the people reading their reports.
Besides the implications of this reporter's moment of candor, I'm wondering if anyone will publish a story naming the reporter.
Tim White
I think this ad provides the world with a real glimpse into Ron Paul's character:
Though the CT GOP primary is on April 24, with the GOP primary season fast approaching. I encourage you to watch this video before you vote. Rather than the usual sound bites offered on TV, including in the debates, this 13 minutes video provides some very important context regarding Ron Paul's foreign policy views:Having said that, like most GOP primary voters I have concerns about Ron Paul's world view. For instance, I'm gravely concerned about the possibility of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Then what happens if the Iranian government falls and the "lone wolf" gets control of a nuke?
But frankly, that issue gives me graver concerns with other candidates. Specifically, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And which country is more likely to have a failed government: Iran or Pakistan? Well, Iran has been stable -- albeit hostile toward the US -- since 1979. At the same time, Pakistan has had assassinations and coups galore.
Pakistan is a bigger risk for America than Iran. Yet some GOP candidates and many elected Republicans insist on continued funding for Pakistan, despite the reality that they harbored bin Laden! There's too much focus on a preemptive strike against Iran. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. I give Newt credit. He was right to say the national discussion should include Pakistan.
Anyway, I haven't heard Ron Paul's thoughts on the lone wolf scenario. That's one concern I have with his foreign policy, but what is Ron Paul's primary motivator for running?
Ron Paul's not running primarily because he wants to end the wars. And he's not running because he wants to be powerful and feel important. Nope. Not at all.
Ron Paul's running because he wants to force the Congress to do its job. In other words:
If we go to war, the Congress must declare it. Ron Paul would not partake in wars without being directed to do so by Congress.
If we print money, the Congress must enact it. Ron Paul would fight to end the Fed and stop the Congress' outsourcing of monetary policy.
If we spend money, the Congress must adopt it. Ron Paul would veto these ridiculous continuing resolutions that occur at the 11th hour under the cover of darkness.
In my opinion, Ron Paul is not running to end the wars. Ron Paul is running to demand the Congress do its job. As such, he would not have a weak foreign policy in the least bit. Rather, he'd simply be rebalancing the power between the Executive and the Legislative branches. Not-so-coincidentally, forcing the members of Congress to cast votes would have the added benefit of allowing voters to better judge our Senators and Representatives!
He's said this time and time again, the Congress must declare a war. If so, he'll forcefully execute the will of the people as it is voiced through their members of Congress.
I think the notion that Ron Paul is weak on defense is offbase. In order to fully understand his foreign policy philosophy, we should:
1) have a better understanding of the context in which he speaks (see the above video); and
2) recognize that his top priorities is not to end wars or avoid wars, but to require the Congress to do its job.
Tim White
Wow. This new Ron Paul ad is strong:
I'll be proudly voting for Ron Paul, but this ad almost makes me long for Romney. Ouch!
As for whether Ron Paul can beat Obama, he consistently polls better among independents than the other GOP candidates. And the latest poll results continue to reveal this trend:
A new American Research Group poll of likely Iowa caucus goers released today shows GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul tied for second place with 17 percent of the vote and within 5 points of Newt Gingrich, who garnered 22 percent of the vote. Of note, Congressman Paul wins 39 percent of the vote among independents, more than twice that of the nearest competitor.
Tim White
I really wasn't sure where Newt was on TARP. For me, supporting TARP is unforgivable. Heck, I was thrilled to hear about the chants "TARP, TARP, TARP..." as Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) went down in flames during his 2010 GOP convention.
It was a non-starter to me in September 2008. And it's still a dealbreaker.
Anyway, the RP ad includes a quote that led me to this excerpt from a September 29, 2008 ABCNews piece:
ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich reversed course on Monday, issuing a statement saying that if he were still in office he would "reluctantly and sadly" support the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill.
Gingrich, who led the charge against the bailout last week, explained his change in position by saying that the House Republicans, "reinforced by John McCain," have improved the bill "significantly" so it is "less bad" than the original proposal offered by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
The rest of the article places Newt in a somewhat improved light. But ultimately, he publicly supported TARP when America needed real leadership to oppose what Newt knew would come to be... increased corruption. No thank you.
We need a complete cleansing of The Swamp.
Tim White
As both Politico and the WSJ are reporting, Congressman Ron Paul is announcing his detailed economic plan this week. From what I see, I like it. Here are some highlights:
1) Reduce the size of government: Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development, including a total 10% reduction in the federal labor pool.
2) Repeal major regulations: Obamacare, Dodd / Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX)*
3) Increase transparency: Audit the Federal Reserve
4) Share the sacrifice: As POTUS, he would not accept the $400,000 annual salary that Obama takes. Ron Paul would accept only America’s median annual income, $39,336.
5) Keep America’s promise to veterans and seniors: No changes to funding for programs such as Social Security and Medicare for current participants.
Detailed, yet simple. And no, it’s not as simple as “9-9-9, jobs, jobs, jobs,” but then it seems that Herman Cain doesn’t have any substance to that sound bite. I think Newt’s response – that “9-9-9” sounds interesting, but how will it play in New Hampshire (where there is no sales tax) – pretty much says it all to me.
The other nice thing about Ron Paul’s plan is that it seems to be more focused on the spending side, rather than the tax side. And we all know that it’s the spending side – not the tax side – that drives our unsustainable debt.
Tim White
* I’ve experienced SOX first hand. It could easily – and appropriately – be replaced with enforcement of anti-fraud laws.
Herman Cain is a card-carrying member of America's largest counterfeiting operation, the Federal Reserve system. And although he's no longer officially involved, he has spent much of his run for POTUS as an apologist for the counterfeiters.
Much of his role as an apologist had been ignored to this point in the race. But he made a really big mistake during tonight's debate. While he's great with the sound bite, his fast talk got the better of him.
When Ron Paul called him out as The Federal Reserve's cheerleader, Cain talked too fast. Herman Cain was not only intentionally misleading in answering Ron Paul's question, he also demonstrated his astoundingly poor judgment by continuing his cheerleading for Alan Greenspan's arrogance and his 24/7 printing presses.
HuffPost is already documenting Cain's lack of truthfulness:
How did he win the debate?
Easy! He's the only one who literally changed the debate.
Santorum supports sound money?
Cain wants to audit the Fed?
Perry thinks Bernanke is a traitor? (OTT IMO)
Bachmann's on the band wagon too.
Mitt was the only one who refuses to challenge the unconstitutional supremacy of The Fed. He probably just wants more bailouts for his friends, The Banksters.
But to top it off, Ron Paul didn't even get to answer the question about the Fed! And it was Ron Paul who nearly single-handedly introduced and passed the Audit the Fed amendment in the abomination known as Dodd / Frank.
That's a big reason why I love Ron Paul. He IS a game-changer!
Tim White
I imagine the Ron Paul / Rick Perry back'n'forth is all over the TV tonight. It started with Ron Paul's new ad:
Then proceeded with Rick Perry publishing a letter in which Ron Paul accused Ronald Reagan of being a big spender.
What I find most interesting about this -- other than the fact that my guy is in it to win it -- is that I'm thinking this is far from a traditional primary spat.
Generally-speaking, many members of each of the two parties dislike primaries because -- in part -- they fear the charges cast during a primary will be used against the nominee in the general election. But here's the thing...
If either Ron Paul or Rick Perry becomes the GOP nominee, I find it relatively unlikely that either of these charges would be used against them in the general.
Tim White
Between work and my studies -- currently Earth Science 101 -- I've been buried. But I finish my summer class this week and just noticed my hero -- an authentic elected official -- just posted a new ad online.
“Ron Paul: The one who will stop the spending, save the dollar, create jobs, bring peace. The one who will restore liberty. Ron Paul: The one who can beat Obama – and restore America now.”
Ron Paul r3VOLution! Legalize the constitution!
Tim White
When a top administration official asked The Big 0 for his approach to garnering support on increasing the nation's credit card, Obomba paraphrased David Farragut's famous words. In fearmongering typical of The Political Class, Obummer said:
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
Obama and Republican leaders keep talking up the "catastrophe" that lay ahead for America if the debt ceiling isn't raised. And while I accept their argument that there will be significant problems if the debt ceiling isn't raised, they FAIL to acknowledge the complete picture.
If the debt ceiling is raised, the pain will only be delayed. As I said in my opposition during the runup to the Bush Bailout, it's pain now or pain later.
The pain cannot be avoided indefinitely. Among insiders, it's already widely accepted that the dollar's life as the world's reserve currency is coming to an end. As our special status ends, our standard of living will drop because the dollar will have less and less buying power. So the pain is coming. I think the better solution is to deal with the pain now.
I agree with my favorite Congressman, Dr. Ron Paul:
By the way, Washington's fearmongering includes lies. America has defaulted in the past.
In 1933, FDR defaulted when he refused to pay debts -- as promised -- in gold and converted to "federal reserve notes" for all payments, excluding foreign central banks. And in 1971, Nixon completed FDRs default by refusing to pay foreign central banks in gold. So this would *not* be the first time we defaulted.
This really is classic fearmongering.
Tim White
Congressman Ron Paul wants to End the Fed. That's no secret. It's the title of one of his books. But making big things happen typically requires a transition.
Last year Congressman Paul introduced legislation in favor of competing currencies. Here's an excerpt from a recent CNBC interview on the topic:
Paul said he views the Fed as a "monopoly" that could benefit from the introduction of competition.
"We should start ending the Fed by allowing competition," he said. "I don't like the fact that they have monopoly control. It's a cartel: they print the money. The Constitution really doesn't give them that authority. The Constitution said that only gold and silver can be legal tender. I want to legalize competition and allow individual Americans to use gold and silver in competition, as money. Today if you do that, you can go to jail.
Competing currencies is an imperfect solution to me, but any sound currency would be an improvement over the current fiat-based monopoly. Despite the claims of Bush, Obama, Greenspan & Bernanke, the fact is that Keynes was wrong. Money doesn't grow on trees. And now we need to figure out the best way to transition away from our current monetary policy... and hope we avoid the complete collapse of the dollar.
Tim White
Taken from Politico's headlines:
White House launches charm offensive with new Republican chairs
GOP chairmen are getting congratulatory phone calls from President Barack Obama and private meetings with Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Attorney General Eric Holder. The incoming Agriculture Committee chairman, Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), is setting up a regular monthly lunch with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. The White House's efforts moved into high gear shortly after the Republican victory on Election Day.
If you read the full article, it appears that every committee chair is getting some mono-on-mono time with the administrators who they will oversee. Politico even mentions that Ben Bernanke sat down the Chair the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Darrell Issa.
I wonder if Ben Bernanke has yet placed his congratulatory phone call to Monetary Policy Chairman Ron Paul?
hahaha...
I love it!
But in all seriousness, regardless of Congressman Paul's philosophical views on monetary policy, his chairmanship will be founded on two important principles that have been missing in that committee for a long time:
1) He will demand what all reasonable and rational people -- this excludes The Fedsters -- expect: transparency.
2) He will use the bully pulpit to push a national discussion on monetary policy, including:
a) Fiat money vs. sound money?
b) Fractional-reserve banking vs. full-reserve banking?
c) Keynesian economics vs. Austrian school economics?
d) Should America have a central bank?
The Establishmentarians like to dismiss this discussion by explaining there is an "international consensus" on all of these issues. But therein lies the problem. The consensus -- that money grows on trees -- has been decreed by The Political Class. And therefore this is no consensus among regular people. And my view is that most regular people know that money doesn't grow on trees.
Go Chairman Paul!
Tim White
Nothing is certain yet, but... if the House GOP continue to use their long-established rule of seniority determining who chairs various committees and subcommittees, then Ron Paul is set to Chair the House Financial Services Committee's subcommittee on Monetary Policy!
This is absolutely fantastic news for anyone who is concerned about Washington's penchant for powering up the printing presses.
Furthermore, I understand that subcommittee Chairs get the power of subpoena.
I just hope he gets the gavel. I'm confident that the Chief Proponent of Printing Presses, King Bernanke, will do whatever he can to stop Congressman Paul from getting the gavel though. Bernanke will pull out all the stops on this one. I wouldn't be surprised if he challenges the seniority system itself.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the seniority system. I think the most qualified people should run committees, when possible. But that wouldn't make a difference with this committee. Ron Paul is the most qualified person to run the Monetary Policy subcommittee.
While one may disagree with his views, the reality is that he's the only member of the Gang of 535 who had any view on monetary policy before 2008, The Year of the Bailout.
And if he does get the gavel? I expect that with the power of the gavel, Ben Bernanke will have to actually engage in a philosophical debate with Ron Paul about monetary policy, including:
1) fiat money vs. sound money
2) Keynesians vs. Austrians
3) Should the Federal Reserve exist?
4) fractional-reserve banking vs. full-reserve banking
This is gonna be fun!
Tim White
Sam Caligiuri is pounding the pavement and raising money. If you'd like to help Sam's campaign financially, click here. He needs to boost those all-important end-of-quarter reporting numbers. I support Sam 100%... though I'm far from enthused about Washington Republicans.
There are relatively few federal elected officials I like. By far my favorite is described here by Southern Avenger... I think he does a pretty good job explaining why Ron Paul is right and much of my own national party is lacking credibility:
Tim White
There's some good news for people who oppose the decades-long love affair between The White House and Wall Street. HuffPo's Shahien Nasiripour reports:
During a little-noticed hearing this week in Sacramento, Calif., a firm hired by Wall Street to analyze mortgages given to borrowers with poor credit, which were then packaged and sold to investors during the boom years, revealed that as much as 28 percent of those loans failed to meet basic underwriting standards -- and Wall Street knew all along.
Worse, when the firm flagged those loans for potential issues, Wall Street banks ignored its recommendation nearly half the time and likely purchased those loans anyway -- selling them to unwitting investors who were never told that the biggest home loan due diligence firm in the country had found potential defects in these mortgages.
The revelations give a better picture of what many have likely known for years: Wall Street firms knew they were buying lead yet passed it off as gold to investors who had no knowledge of the alchemy behind the scenes.
There is a shortcoming here though. While Wall Street may finally take a hit for their wrongs, the Clinton / Bush / Obama / Greenspan / Bernanke / Paulson / Rubin / Geithner team will remain in power. That's unfortunate for working class America as they continue to abate Wall Street through a number of means, including the "quantitative easing" that steal our money everyday.
I can't wait for next spring. I'm guessing that my guy, Ron Paul, will again run for POTUS. Hopefully he'll get a real chance to discuss monetary and banking policy in depth this time.
Tim White
RNC Chairman Michael Steele is not alone. And forget about Ron Paul.
Even Ann Coulter is questioning American war policy.
In this two minute clip, Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan discuss the coming internal battle of the GOP. Pat says that Republicans -- sans Ron Paul -- will remain united behind Obama's war policy through November 2010. But come the Spring of 2011 and the GOP primary for President... Republicans will begin openly questioning the neocon agenda that seems to want to wage war in every corner of the globe:
As for me, I still don't see how one argues that deficits are a problem... yet ignore the entitlement programs and defense budget.
Tim White
Ron Paul continues to get national media coverage:
I can't help wonder if I'll be back knocking on doors in New Hampshire in late 2011.... Ron Paul r3VOLution!!!
Tim White
