The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

PAULBOT-MANIA: Ron Paul Supporters Buy Victory in ‘Value Voters’ Straw Poll

Posted on | October 8, 2011 | 88 Comments

The question to be asked is not whether it is unfair for the Paul campaign to keep doing this, but why the rest of the GOP field can’t spend a few bucks to do it themselves. Dave Weigel at Slate reports:

He beat out seven other candidates and “undecided.” The full results, with 1,983 ballots cast:

Ron Paul – 36.9% (732)
Herman Cain – 22.5% (447)
Rick Santorum – 16.3% (323)
Rick Perry – 8.4% (167)
Michele Bachmann – 7.9% (157)
Mitt Romney – 4.4% (88)
Newt Gingrich – 2.7% (54)
Undecided – 0.7% (13)
Jon Huntsman – 0.1% (2)

In a post-vote press conference, FRC President Tony Perkins made sure to note that 600 people had bought tickets for Saturday only — a none-too-subtle hint that Paul’s supporters had over-represented themselves.
“Do the math,” said Perkins. “Ron Paul and his campaign are very well organized.”

What did 600 tickets cost the Paul campaign? And what would have been the publicity value if, for example, the Rick Perry campaign had paid for 1,000 of their supporters to attend the summit? Perry raised $17 million and he can’t afford to buy a straw poll? Your stupidity is not someone else’s fault. Beyond that, the story is:

A. Herman Cain continues his momentum; and
B. Santorum got twice as many votes as Bachmann.

This pretty much puts a fork into the Bachmann campaign. If she can’t beat Santorum in a straw poll at a national conference of social conservatives, Bachmann probably can’t beat Santorum in Iowa, either.

UPDATE: Jazz Shaw at Hot Air: “Ron Paul brings home the bouquet for best organizational skills at a conservative event .”

And by “organizational skills,” he means, the willingness to spend money on grassroots activism, i.e., offering free tickets for any Paul supporter who wanted to come vote for their guy.

UPDATE II: My buddy Joe Fein has shown how the Paulistas won — “stole” might be too strong a word — the California GOP straw poll.

Stipulate that the Paul campaign operates according to the “By Any Means Necessary” radical principle. Nevertheless, the point to which I wish to call the reader’s attention is this: The Paul campaign is smart to spend money on getting their supporters to events, and other campaigns are stupid in spending money to hire a bunch of staffers and consultants who don’t necessarily provide value-added to their efforts.

Suppose you are a college kid who might be willing to support a Republican presidential candidate. Now, suppose that you could actually get to meet that candidate, and get free travel to events where that candidate appears. OK, furthermore suppose that the campaign had a sort of Amway incentive deal where, if you were campus activist who could sign up a dozen of your college buddies to accept the same free-travel deal, you’d get a small commission for every warm body you delivered on the Republican candidate’s behalf.

Shouldn’t Republicans be able to understand how the Ron Paul campaign is using market incentives to build their movement?

Why, then, are most GOP presidential campaigns top-heavy affairs that spend ridiculous sums on “media consultants,” etc., rather than to use their money the way Ron Paul’s campaign uses their money?

Like I said: Your stupidity is not someone else’s fault.


88 Responses to “PAULBOT-MANIA: Ron Paul Supporters Buy Victory in ‘Value Voters’ Straw Poll”

  1. Rabid Conservative!
    October 9th, 2011 @ 3:00 am

    Join the Draft Sarah Palin Movement.

  2. Rabid Conservative!
    October 9th, 2011 @ 3:02 am

    Ron Paul can win straw polls when he needs less than a few thousand votes and internet polls.

  3. Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
    October 9th, 2011 @ 4:32 am

    “Why, then, are most GOP presidential campaigns top-heavy affairs that spend ridiculous sums on “media consultants,” etc., rather than to use their money the way Ron Paul’s campaign uses their money?”

    It is payoffs so you won’t get attacked by that consultant’s allies.  Perry didn’t payoff Bush’s crowd so he was attacked by Rove et al.  Paul on the other hand is very much an outsider.  They don’t think he has any chance of winning, and don’t want to hurt their image as insiders so they wouldn’t accept his political kickback anyway.

  4. CalMark
    October 9th, 2011 @ 4:47 am

    Judging by your profile pic, you are a classic Paul-bot.

    Be proud, Obsessive Nut!

  5. CalMark
    October 9th, 2011 @ 4:54 am

    OK, Paulista, answer me this:

    For years, Ron Paul has been running around, making speeches foaming at the mouth about auditing the Federal Reserve, letting sunlight into the rot.   In truth, it is the ONLY thing with which I agree with Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul becomes chairman of a powerful committee, where he holds a series of intense, loudly publicized hearings where he makes Bernanke and his corrupt minions squirm, bringing the Fed to heel.  Oh, wait.  Sorry.  Ron Paul doesn’t do any of that.  He retires.

    Sorry.  His failure to follow through on the Fed makes Ron Paul a ZERO credibility nut-job windbag.

  6. Anonymous
    October 9th, 2011 @ 8:27 am

    Judging  by yours, you are no one.  That’s another $100.

  7. Anonymous
    October 9th, 2011 @ 8:36 am

    ThePaganTemple you are a child.  I can see why enjoy this blog so much.

  8. JeffS
    October 9th, 2011 @ 9:08 am

    Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to.  

  9. ThePaganTemple
    October 9th, 2011 @ 9:50 am

    Believe it or not, I actually agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy in a general sense. Where he goes off the rails, however, is when he either fails or refuses to recognize the inherent dangers of Islam in general, and the Iranians in particular. And then there is the equivalence he finds between the Palestinians and Israelis, which I find patently offensive. As if that were not enough, he accepts support from 9/11 Truthers, Stormfront Neonazis, and the Klan. He just can’t bring himself to denounce them for their odious views, which tells me he finds common cause with them to at least some extent.

    He practically at least at one point run his campaign from the guest-chair of the Alex Jones Show, which tells me that he either agrees in spirit with the 9/11 Truther movement, or he is stringing them along.

    Finally, anybody that believes that a return to the gold standard is a viable policy for a country that has a close to ten trillion dollar economy and a fourteen trillion dollar debt, yet less than one trillion dollars in gold reserves, seems to not be playing with a full deck.

  10. Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Hallie Miller, Ron Paul and the rules of the game
    October 9th, 2011 @ 9:53 am

    […] McCain nails it huge: the point to which I wish to call the reader’s attention is this: The Paul campaign is smart to […]

  11. andrew
    October 9th, 2011 @ 9:56 am

    You MUST be joking!

  12. Republicanmother
    October 9th, 2011 @ 9:57 am

    To CalMark,

    I’ll answer you that,

    Ron Paul has pretty much stood alone in warning about the Fed for the past 30 years, alone among a group of over 400 Congressmen and it’s HIS fault he hasn’t personally taken down the Federal Reserve single-handedly??

    He retires so that he can give his last election his all after being mocked and ridiculed and voting alone for his principles for 30 years and that makes him windbag nut-job with ZERO credibility? Meanwhile Michelle Bachmann misses pretty much all of her votes while campaigning.

    Hell is a place where there is no reason.

  13. andrew
    October 9th, 2011 @ 10:34 am

    This article is HYSTERICAL!!

    Bachmann as well as all the others gave tickets and did “meet and greats” in Iowa.

    Cain  as well as all the others gave tickets and did “meet and greats” in Florida.

    In most of the “Straw Polls” corporations can buy tickets to the event in bulk and can also issue votes for all bulk tickets purchased. That was the case in Iowa and Florida. Funny thing is? It wasn’t the case here. Every ticket purchased for this event was for an actual attendee (Paul supporter or not).

    The simple truth is that Perry, Bachmann, Cain, and Romney all are doing their best to do as Paul does but are only successful when they can buy their votes in bulk. And what’s even more interesting is that even when they do? Paul is a close second or third.

    The GOP better start wising up here… Paul is THE ONLY candidate that can actually beat Obama. The reason for this is clear. The American people do not like Obama’s foreign or financial policies. Paul debating Obama will be the starkest contrast and force Obama to paint himself into a liberal corner. This will push every independent towards Paul and every disenfranchised Obama supporter to Paul as well. That coupled with the fact that most republicans vote republican across the board? Slam dunk for Paul!

    Make NO mistake here… No independent voter or disenfranchised Obama supporter will vote for ANY of the other GOP contenders. Most will stick with Obama if that is the lesser of two evils.

    I’m sorry but your ignorance may be bliss for you, but it makes for one h*ll of an annoying read for me.

  14. ThePaganTemple
    October 9th, 2011 @ 1:54 pm

    ThePaganTemple you are a child.

    Says the guy who petulantly claims to give one hundred dollars to his favored candidate every time someone insults him.

  15. ThePaganTemple
    October 9th, 2011 @ 1:58 pm

    I’ll admit, a Ron Paul Inauguration Ceremony, well, that would be different. I wonder who’ll be in charge of lighting the cross.

  16. Proof
    October 9th, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

    The Paulbots are merely trying to create the illusion of a “bandwagon” to be jumped upon. That’s why the straw polls and Internet polls show Paul in  much higher favor than he has ever been with actual voters.

  17. john lichtenstein
    October 9th, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

    CalMark it’s lemonade spin that Paul is retiring from the House. The TX GOP erased his district. 

  18. ThePaganTemple
    October 9th, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

    I think a lot of his supporters might also be stealth Democrats. They probably figure Obama has a very slim chance of winning the next election depending on how things go between now and then. A Ron Paul nomination might well result in an Obama landslide.

  19. Republicanmother
    October 9th, 2011 @ 4:39 pm

    It’s called “blue republicans”, anti-war democrats switching party registrations just to vote for Ron Paul. 

    Dr. Paul would have the broadest appeal in a national election as many of his points resonate with independents and liberals.  His consistent record is a major selling point.

  20. Republicanmother
    October 9th, 2011 @ 4:45 pm

    How do you account for the fact that for a long time, America has been funding Israel’s enemies at four times the amount it funds Israel itself. Removing all funding would help Israel and take care of the favoritism issues.

    Being in Congress as long as he has been, he’s seen foreign policy stuff we have not.  He cites Richard Pape’s Rumsfeld Defense Dept. Study of Suicide Terrorism which backs up everything he asserts regarding to Muslim extremism.

    There is some disagreement on the gold standard issue, but one thing is for sure, the Bretton Woods agreement that dissolved the dollar from gold is what allowed for the ballooning government that conservatives say they hate. I don’t hear any other real solutions from the other candidates to seriously take a machete to our federal government.

  21. ThePaganTemple
    October 9th, 2011 @ 6:11 pm

    Our funding of Arab Muslim regimes was out of necessity and is a bad hangover from the days when we were fighting the Cold War almost single-handed. And then there is the need for oil, which continued after the cold war was over. For the most part, I would be fine with ending the funding of these odious regimes, but not the Israelis. Paul did say they should be allowed to handle their problems however they most see fit, so I do give him credit for that (assuming he really meant it at the time he said it). But unfortunately, this world is too complicated and treacherous for us to be able to risk a completely hands-off policy in regards to Iran, Israel, the Palestinians, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Saudis, etc. Our complete and utter withdrawal would set the stage for a world-wide calamity. Either the region would collapse into near-anarchy, or the Chinese would step in to fill up the vacuum we left, probably alongside Russia, but definitely with Iran in the role of a semi-autonomous proxy. That doesn’t mean I think we should keep the status quo. We need to be a lot smarter and a lot tougher with how we spend our resources in this region. We should especially come down a hell of a lot harder on the Saudis.

    But the bottom line is, we need their oil, and we are going to need it for some time to come. And while we do, we need to keep a secure military presence in the Persian Gulf to protect our shipping lanes. And we need to continue supporting our one true friend and ally in the region, which is the Israelis.

    As for the gold standard, that was then and this is now. Whatever should or should not have been done nearly a half century ago is fine for cocktail chatter, but in the meantime we need to play the hand we’ve been dealt, and that means any talk of a return to any kind of gold standard is nonsensical on the face of it, unless you want to return to a 800 billion dollar economy. There’s the rub, there’s more involved than government spending.

    I don’t claim to be any kind of financial genius, but it seems to me that a ten trillion dollar economy based on a gold reserve of 800 billion dollars or so doesn’t add up, especially with a fourteen trillion dollars and growing debt. What happens if the Chinese want their debt repaid, do we just hand them the keys to Fort Knox? That is what the gold standard means you know. A twenty dollar bill entitles the bearer to that amount in gold. You’re left with the choice of honoring that promise or making the possession of gold illegal to prevent a run on it. I think that’s not a very good idea.

    Paul doesn’t even seem to understand the concept of wire transfers. He seems to think that the government might use a border fence to keep citizens from taking their money out of the country. The last time I checked even the Mafia didn’t move their money off-shore in suitcases.

  22. ThePaganTemple
    October 9th, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

    Yeah, I agree with you. two or three percent of this, that, and the other. Paul’s appeal is like a shallow stream, a mile wide and an inch deep. I think you’d be surprised how many of those “anti-war Democrats” would vote Democrat in the general election. Anti-war Democrats, just in case you haven’t caught on, are in addition to being pacifists, also leftist in almost everything else, and they will not vote for a constitutionally limited government.

  23. Republicanmother
    October 9th, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

    Ah, oil. We have lots of oil right here in the USA, but certain “powers that be” won’t let us have access to it. It seems like we should tap our own oil first to cut these Muslims out of the picture.  Why is this not looked at further. Which politicians block access to the oil God gave us? It always seems to be the ones with banker money/Establishment affiliation. It would seem that a new feudalism is being established where every nation is dependent on another nation. Destroying self-sufficiency is a step towards destroying sovereignty.

    There are valid points to be made about the difficulties of a gold standard. However, the point Dr. Paul makes is that we currently have no standard. Unless you consider printing money out of thin air a standard. Bill Still has the alternative of printing Greenbacks as Lincoln did to take the power of money out of the hands of the central bankers.

    When things become very unpleasant, as could happen, people could want to physically leave the country, hence the fence remark. I’ve heard more than one person plan to expat to Belize for fear of what’s coming. 

    Are you familiar with the State Department paper 7727, calling for a standing global army? It was written in 1962 and you can find articles about it in the papers of the time. I would argue that the United States military is that army and works not for “we the People”  but for them the UN. 

  24. Bob Belvedere
    October 9th, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

    I can think of one thing more inspiring, TPT: bourbon.

  25. Proof
    October 9th, 2011 @ 7:11 pm

    Good point. A third party candidate could be devastating to defeating this disaster that is Obama.

  26. Proof
    October 9th, 2011 @ 7:12 pm

    I call it “Paulbotulism”.  While extremely small amounts can paralyze the brain, taken in large quantity, it can kill a political movement.

  27. maxi
    October 9th, 2011 @ 10:02 pm

    One of the best pro Paul post I’ve seen. Good job. It is amazing how little respect this constitution-loving man gets

  28. maxi
    October 9th, 2011 @ 10:10 pm

    snip:  Politics is a very intellectually dishonest business, and Paul is Plato’s s would-be philosopher king in a land of dim-witted warriors.

    LOL, way to go, Angela.
    After reading why so many on here are supporting Cain, makes me really appreciate that statement.

  29. maxi
    October 9th, 2011 @ 10:22 pm

    NO, we do NOT need their oil. We have enough natural resources in this country to meet all our needs. We just need someone at the helm who have the smarts and guts it will take to make the needed changes.

  30. maxi
    October 9th, 2011 @ 10:27 pm

    That remark was totally uncalled for. There is nothing racist about Ron Paul and you know it.

  31. maxi
    October 9th, 2011 @ 10:30 pm

    Then maybe it would be wise to stop insulting Paul’s supporters.
    Because if anyone could launch a third party candidate it is the Paul supporters.

  32. ThePaganTemple
    October 9th, 2011 @ 11:22 pm

    And do you know who would vote for him? The same supporters who are voting for him now in the straw polls. Otherwise known as 9/11 Truthers, Klansmen, Stormfront Neonazis, and college-aged dropout hipsters. Out of all of them, if Paul wasn’t in the equation, they would either vote Libertarian, Democrat, Constitution Party, or for not a fucking thing. Go ahead and run third party and see who gives three shits.

  33. ThePaganTemple
    October 10th, 2011 @ 7:43 am

    Paul is Plato’s s would-be philosopher king in a land of dim-witted warriors.

    And Paul is going to rein over them until the bitter end.

  34. ThePaganTemple
    October 10th, 2011 @ 7:50 am

    We have lots of oil, true, and I want to develop those and other of our resources as much as anyone, but I also want to keep an open door to those other resources. Developing our own resources will in fact give us an edge when dealing with the Saudis and OPEC, a cartel which we should force out of existence. I also don’t want to leave those Middle Eastern resources open for exploitation by the Chinese, Iranians, Russians, or for that matter even the Europeans, our so-called “allies”.

  35. Republicanmother
    October 10th, 2011 @ 8:57 am

    I like how you are being honest about our troop presence being in the Middle East for the oil and market reasons. Now we are getting somewhere!

    Are you familiar with the process by which the UN, IMF and World Bank, and the US military work together to ensure that resources such as oil are made, uh, forcibly available to multinational corporations?

    I think that this is an aspect of foreign policy most Americans are unaware of. As a former “extreme” conservative, I was horrified by finding this out and think that this way of operating is unAmerican.

  36. Objections, Mormons and John who?
    October 10th, 2011 @ 9:01 am

    […] some people have objected to Paul’s expenditures, Stacy McCain considers it money well spent. What did 600 tickets cost the Paul campaign? And what would have been the publicity value if, for […]

  37. ThePaganTemple
    October 10th, 2011 @ 11:29 am

    Bullshit. How is it un-American? It’s almost the exact same scenario when Jefferson sent the Marines against the Barbary Pirates. He didn’t just do that to rescue a handful of merchant sailors and naval personnel, he did it to protect Mediterranean shipping. Ron Paul is a Pacifist, and I have no patience with people like him. Protecting vital trade routes is an integral part of a strong national defense, and that is every bit as true now as it was then. It shouldn’t even be open for debate. When it comes to protecting American interests, it should just be done. But unfortunately, it seems like this is another negative aspect of spreading democracy around too much, there’s too many people who don’t know their asses from a hole in the ground that somehow think they should have a say in things.

    I know how Pacifists think, they’re dangerous, and they need to be kept away from any kind of say or influence in any kind of policy, foreign or domestic.

    And yes, I have no problem whatsoever with going to war for oil. Where in the hell would we be without it? Even if we open up all our vast resources for exploration and development, do you realize it would still be years before we would start to make up the loss due to any disruptions in our foreign supply? You couldn’t make it up overnight.

  38. ThePaganTemple
    October 10th, 2011 @ 11:31 am

    Yeah there is something racist about Ron Paul, its called his base of support.