Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Ron Paul withdrawal story FAQ

By Rick Morris

Yesterday, I reported on our blog a straight news story about the Ron Paul campaign for president shutting down under the pressure of his congressional reelection campaign back home. As I fully anticipated, this has touched off a storm of reactions both in the wider Internet world and also to some extent here in our comment section. In order to correct the false statements about our blog that are being made, I decided that the most comprehensive and (equally important) least dreary way to correct the record would be in the form of an FAQ with the questions being posed (accusingly) by A Typical Ron Paul Supporter. Now, before anyone complains that I am lumping all Paul supporters together, that is untrue. I know that there are many sane and measured ones, but they are hugely atypical. Scan the Web and you'll see I'm right.

Frankly, the conclusions being drawn about me and my associates are clearly the work either of those with no capacity for reading comprehension (possibly) or are coming from extremely lazy folks who don't feel the need to educate themselves at all before they bellow incoherently out their cakeholes (more likely). In either event, the copious links in my answers should aid greatly in educating folks, at least those (likely few) capable of absorbing such a schooling.

Without any further ado, the questions and answers:

Q: We Ron Paul supporters know that you're just another ranting neocon ...

A: Hold up there, Chachi, you can't get me on that. I've said many times here that I'm a proud paleocon ...

Q: Did not!

A: Excuse me, yes I have. I did it this time, too.

Q: Did not!!!!!

A: Ooohkay. I heard this was how you Ron Paul people argued. Anyway, I'll get back to the point about my political philosophy and how that's relevant. Let's start with how this story came to be.

Q: Yes, let's do just that, you Tool of the GOP Beltway Power Elite!

A: Tool of the Beltway Power Elite (chuckles). Wow, didn't think I'd live long enough to hear myself called that. I'm certainly a shamefully ineffective one, then, having called Junior Bush less popular than gonorrhea right here just a few days ago. I'm a lot closer to getting myself audited by the IRS than I am to getting invited over to the White House to watch Texas Rangers games with Dubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your name-calling. OK, back to the account. I was called out of the blue yesterday by the source I referenced in the story, someone with access to Paul's congressional campaign. This is someone I previously knew to be involved in the story in the Texas 14th and someone I've dealt with previously in a number of ways -- and I'm not going to be any more specific than that. I don't burn sources. Now, from what I read from Justin Higgins at Right on the Right, he very likely had the same source I did as I was also quoted the specific numbers from the internal poll, 43-32 Peden. I chose not to make mention of that as I wasn't sure at the time that exposing the specifics of the poll numbers wouldn't burn my source. As I piece together the timeline, it speaks well of Justin's character that he gave credit to us for being first on the story because he probably got his info not long after me and very easily could have pulled a "yoink" on us, but he chose not to. Well played, Justin, I appreciate that.

Q: Blah blah blah, you and your boring facts. Do you have a point?

A: Yes, actually, I do. I, a previously established paleocon, ran a straight news story here without any agenda whatsoever. I received the information, then, lacking any other sources involved in that race, I relied on the research I could do in the public domain to see if I believed it. I am, I must say, one heck of a researcher, and I found pieces of information to corroborate at least this general trend. As this blog entry indicates, Paul had already indicated that he was scaling back his presidential campaign -- and that was before his people got the shocking results of the internal poll! So given what he had been saying recently, combined with this new information, yes, I was convinced.

Q: Still convinced?

A: Glad you asked so I could state it loudly and clearly: yes, I am convinced we will see Ron Paul withdraw from the presidential race before March 4. I am fully and personally accountable for that and if I am proven wrong (which I will not be), then the fault is mine and mine alone and I will not make unsubstantiated assertions such as, "Well he was going to drop out but reconsidered." Nope. I've got my story and I'm sticking to it.

Q: Even despite these denials in the comment section of your story thread?

A: Oh, touche, one person flatly says it's not true with no evidence, one person quotes a pro forma campaign denial and some Johnny Anonymous wants us to believe he talked to a key decision-maker in the organization. Well, I'll say this for them, they're as credible as any other Ron Paul supporters I've ever seen!

Q: Somehow I don't think that's a compliment.

A: You got that right. Anyhoo, let's move on to the falsehoods about this site. After I posted the news story, my colleague Tony Mazur posted a column about his ill feelings about the Paul campaign. Now, this site is mostly analysis; we don't break much original news like the Paul story here just because we're not inclined to put the resources into it. We prefer to focus on what we do well, which is to break down anything relevant going on regardless of subject. So Tony was merely doing what we do here, giving his two cents worth on the Ron Paul "Revolution." Somehow, that gets made by many to be justification for trashing the validity of our story. Some comprehension-challenged Einstein even posted in the thread for my story that MY hatred was causing me to spread propaganda. TONY said that he hated the Ron Paul supporters. Learn to read, doofus.

Q: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're censoring the comment section here.

A: Actually, no, I haven't had to disallow any comments yet. In the words of the great Brodie Bruce, "the usual vault rules apply." Keep the language at least PG-13 and stay away from any extremely over-the-top personal attacks and we'll publish it. I make no apologies for controlling which comments get posted here because we were hit with a spam attack previously, but we'll publish even ones we disagree with as long as they meet the very basic, very generous above criteria.

Q: Well, what are your feelings about Ron Paul? You say you are a paleocon.

A: Yes, I am a paleocon as I have said. Now, I was never a Ron Paul supporter because I believed strongly in the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Plus, while I'm with Paul on many of his domestic policies, I'm against him on foreign affairs. While I'm certainly not a neocon, and I ripped them a third cornhole here, my sense of "conservative realpolitik" does not extend to the point of what I believe to be Paul's isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's one thing to say as I did that if I could magically unilaterally turn back the hands of time and prevent mistakes that I would have kept us from going into Iraq, it's quite another thing to be in favor of capriciously quick withdrawal of our troops regardless of facts on the ground and to be such a hippie that you would have been against the Civil War. I'm not with him on nearly enough to be a supporter of his, but I do have a soft spot for politicians to the right of the Republican Establishment (as he is domestically) who are willing to play the irritant role. I said so right here.

Q: Liar! You, sir, are a lying liar who lies! I have read attacks on Ron Paul right here on your very blog!

A: Yes. You most certainly have. Our Senior Editor Jason Jones denounced him pretty harshly right here (plus, when he was discussing his most hated political figures with me today, he referred to him as "Mitt Romney's red-headed bastard brother"). And we already covered the fact that Tony disemboweled him with his keyboard right here. Frankly, out of all of The Dignitaries of The FDH Lounge, only Nate Noy has been known to agree with me on any of the areas of domestic policy where I think Paul is right, so I'm in the minority around here. But guess who has posted more political columns here than anyone else? That's right, it was me! So you can't accurately call something a Paul-hating blog when the most prolific political columnist on that blog doesn't even remotely hate Paul. Nice try.

Q: But (long pause) ... you're saying your blog had nice things to say about Paul and also mean things? Hulk confused!

A: Yes, we have had both good and bad things to say about Ron Paul. I hope this doesn't cause your uncomprehending head to explode. I have had some (moderately) good and (moderately) bad things to say about the congressman and Jason and Tony have unloaded on him with both barrels. Here's a hint, though. CHECK THE F'ING BYLINE!!! We all speak for ourselves around here! Aren't you Ron Paul "Revolutionaries" supposed to believe in autonomy and being accountable for your own opinions and lives? Well, we practice that around here. The straight news story I wrote had nothing to do with any opinion piece penned by any columnist around here before or since. The same is true in reverse, of course, and nobody else around here should get the sack dance performed on them except me if I am proven wrong (which again, I won't be).

Q: How can you be even somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul and harsh on his supporters like you do?

A: Because you are like a freaking cult. Y'know, I'm a Constitutionalist, too. I holler about the Tenth Amendment myself all the time. I get all worked up about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So I'm with Ron Paul there and I appreciate that he's the rare libertarian who doesn't think it's cool to use forceps to squash the skull of an unborn baby. But for me or anyone else who disagrees with RP on even some issues, why we're Enemies of the Republic! You people are by and large fanatics who would make even Tom Cruise say, "Whoa, back away from the Kool-Aid, fellas!" At this rather cynical point of my evolution as a political observer, there aren't many politicians I can get behind at all. But the ones I support -- I'd never, ever reflect on them as poorly as you folks reflect on Ron Paul. It's like I stated to Jason in our aforementioned conversation: "I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, but his followers sure are."

Q: Hey ... why am I getting this warm, pleasant feeling in my head? I've never had that before.

A: It's called knowledge. I'm glad I could impart some on ya.


Userlevel6 said...

What possible reason can you supply that Dr. Paul would drop out of the Republican nomination race BEFORE March 4, as opposed to AFTER?
What good would that do his campaign for either office, or for the morale of his supporters?

Good god man, how can you expect anyone to see this opinion as anything less than propaganda? What is the purpose of writing such nonsense if you aren't trying to influence people with it before they vote?

Rick Morris said...

This is f'ing hilarious. Are you an actual RonBot or just doing an outstanding impersonation of one to elicit giggles?

I wrote an entire FAQ summing up the entire story, how I got the information I got and how I believed it to be credible enough to use -- and I also debunked any notion, using proof in the form of my past writings, mind you, that I would be the vessel for any anti-Paul propaganda -- and I also took numerous shots at people spouting off without taking the time to learn anything.

So what do you do? Belch out incoherent gibberish that was completely refuted IN THE VERY POST ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR COMMENT!

OK UserLevel6, time to meet up with your spacecraft again ...


George J. Dance said...

You left out one Q in your FAQ: What's the source of your claim that Paul is illegally transferring money raised from his presidential to his congressional campaigns?

If you mean that you predict he is going to drop out and then transfer fund (which would be legal), then perhaps you should add an update to your original story to clarify that.

Rick Morris said...

Well, you just put words in my mouth. I never said anything was being done illegally. You are right, he can only transfer funds from the presidential campaign to the congressional one when the former ends. From what I was told, the forthcoming decision to end the White House bid is based on that consideration as well as the perception that voters in the Texas 14th are not inclined to return him to Congress with the presidential bid underway (depending on how they interpret their internal polling).

I'm not going to update the FAQ to add this note as I believe this clarification will suffice. I don't believe that most people would have jumped to the conclusion I was accusing the Paul campaign of illegalities, but thanks for giving the opportunity to clarify for anyone who would.


Userlevel6 said...

LOL, I'M from outer space, and I can't read, yet you called my simple request for reason "gibberish." I asked a simple question why BEFORE as opposed to AFTER Mar. 4, and you responded by insulting me. I asked how could you consider this any less than anti-Paul propaganda given the pre-primary timing of it...and you think us Ron Paul supporters have no class? Wow.

Ron Paul STILL hasn't "dropped out" here on July 5, 2008. Yes, he "scaled back." Yes, he declared an end to his campaign. Yes, it is all but impossible that he'll be nominated, and there is only a slim chance he'll even get a chance to speak. But for the record: you said Ron Paul would "drop out" before March 4, and you were very smug and confident in your prediction. BZZZZT! WRONG ANSWER. At the risk of putting words in your mouthg, your attitude also appeared to indicate that your opinion was Ron Paul would be defeated by neocon tool Chris Peden in his own district. BZZZZT!! Wrong again. Care to stretch any further into the world of fortune telling? Sorry I didn't come back sooner to gloat, but today I just had nothing better to do.

I used to be amazed, now I'm just amused. I sleep well at night, thanks to my luxurious accomodations on the mother ship.

Rick Morris said...

Y'know, Trekkie, if you feel you were insulted by me, it's probably the impatience I feel from people who feel entitled to ascribe motives to me without bothering to find out ANYTHING ABOUT ME THAT CAN EASILY BE FOUND ON THIS SITE!!! You're the one accusing me of seeking to put out neocon propaganda when that is a notion an infant would find asinine after being exposed to this site for five minutes.

I went with information that I was given from a source in that congressional district that showed Paul way down in an internal poll -- evidently, dropping out of the presidential race was to be done to help salvage the congressional race -- that's the story as it was relayed to me. Given the credibility of this source and his sources, I went with it. I'm just happy that you and anyone else sufficiently embittered by these circumstances get to come back on here and play the "Neener Neener Neener" card on me. Anything I can do to help give meaning to your lives is worth it to a generous lad like me.

While I'm at it with the well wishes, I certainly hope that the spaceship keeps you supplied with everything you need for your continuing chemical haze.