Ron Paul Republicans

Where do we go from here?

So today is inauguaration day. For many in this country it is a grand and glorious day, but for many it is a stark reminder of the failures of the GOP establishment and the Romney campaign. If ever there was a presidential election that should have been won by the non-incumbent party, this was it. So what happened?

For starters, a weak candidate who ran a very weak campaign is usually a recipe for disaster. But more than that, I think the biggest failure was the refusal of the GOP establishment to to even tolerate, much less embrace, the liberty wing of the party. You can call this wing the “crazy Ron Paul people” or, as a lady in my county said, “these libertarians trying to take over our party.” This behavior was found at all levels - precinct, county, district, state, and national. A real shame considering that this was the one wing of the party that could have actually GOTV and created some excitement. But the GOP antics in Tampa made sure that wouldn’t happen.

What were they thinking? In such an electric and polarized environment, you’ve got to be inclusive as possible, not completely exclusive. It’s as if many GOPers had a death wish - making all of the wrong decisions at every, single turn. But…that’s all in the past - water under the bridge.

So where do we go from here? That depends on what you believe and what you think is truly helpful to the liberty movement. We all have our opinions on that. A method that I learned from my real estate days is the wall method. Throw it all against the wall and see what sticks, also known as the kitchen sink method.

FEC reports show a broke Ron Paul campaign

Politico reports that Ron Paul’s campaign is hemorrhaging money, according to its latest FEC filings, leaving a little over $1 million headed into this month:

Ron Paul’s flagging presidential campaign is also bleeding cash, spending more money than it raised in February and finding itself with less cash on hand than during any other point this election cycle, federal filings show.

Paul ended February with about $1.37 million in his campaign account — a pittance for a political campaign competing nationally.
[…]
During February, Paul’s campaign raised $3.27 million while spending about $3.55 million, according to his latest filing.

Top expenditures include postage and mail processing ($921,700), political strategy consulting ($410,600), campaign merchandise ($294,000), airfare ($257,200), advertising ($144,344), shipping ($142,500), salaries ($117,000), hotel accommodations ($113,000), telemarketing ($88,300) and rental cars ($79,700), an analysis of Paul’s February filing indicates.

Paul’s campaign in January raised a comparatively robust $4.48 million and spent $5.23 million, ending the month with about $1.64 million. During the fourth quarter of 2011, Paul raised $13.32 million.

Such declining campaign finance health coincides with the decision by Endorse Liberty, a super PAC supporting Paul, to reassess its efforts and consider broadening its support to other political candidates.

Digging deeper into the Ron Paul newsletters

The newsletters that have been a thorn in Ron Paul’s side over the last month came up again in Saturday’s evening debate. These newsletters have been used by many conservatives who rabidly dislike Paul, some for no reason other than his anti-war views, to label him as a racist and a bigot.

Without a doubt, the newsletter controversy isn’t going away in part because Paul and his campaign have come up with a reasonable explanation. However, Ben Swann, a Cincinnati-based reporter, has taken a closer look at the newsletters:

[W]hen it comes to the controversy over these newsletters, I am left with one nagging question about the report that first broke this story in 1997.

I found, when researching this story that back in 1997 the original author of The New Republic article, James Kirchick, explained that most of the newsletters had no byline.

Specifically, none of those racist newsletters had a byline, says Kirchick, except for one.

One newsletter that contained the byline of someone else, not Congressman Paul.

But Kirchick fails to disclose two very important things: who’s name was in that byline, and which article they wrote.

He only states that the mystery writer wrote “One special edition” of the Ron Paul Report.

The only special edition I can find is the 1992 article, “A Special Report on Racial Terrorism.”

Why is that important? Because this edition of the newsletter that is most often quoted to prove racism.

So does that mean the most racist evidence in these newsletters actually has someone else’s name on it?

I don’t know, but I’d like to find out.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.