Ron Paul supporters stood alone at the October 9, 2007 GOP debate
Garling Gauge skips the GOP debate to explore life outside the event.
No support for GOP frontrunners
Donning a traveling hat and venturing off to attend the outside events of the October 10, 2007 Republican presidential debate in Dearborn, Michigan, I noticed some conspicuous absences.
Along the streets and outside the debate hall were no supporters for the Republican national frontrunner former mayor Rudy Guiliani. Looking left, looking right, there were no supporters for Iowa primary frontrunner former Gov. Mitt Romney either. None for Sen. John McCain, none for former Gov. Mike Huckabee, and none for Sen. Duncan Hunter (there have never been any for Hunter).
Lonely Fred Thompson signs lie prone on the pavement
While the GOP presidential candidates were debating lofty platitudes inside, in an empty ‘free speech zone’ behind the event hall rested a bored, lonely pile of Fred Thompson signs with no indication of use. At least from the outside, Fred Thompson’s debate debut looked like a bust.
What was happening here?
With a large population of union and auto workers in southeast Michigan, the Detroit metro area expresses strong support for the Democratic party. But even so, the no-show of support for the Republican frontrunners was striking.
So who actually showed up for event?
None other than supporters of Rep. Ron Paul.
Scott Boman (left) & other supporters of libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul
Small groups of Ron Paul supporters huddled together along historic Michigan avenue in front of the Ford Community & Performing Arts Center that hosted the debate. Interspersed amongst Paul’s cheering fans were anti-war demonstrators, police officers and a few (former) conspiracy theorists. With no other GOP supporters in sight, it was clearly becoming a Ron Paul evening.
Enthusiastic supporters for Rep. Ron Paul and anti-war Army Veteran Joseph Borrajo (right) line the street in front of the debate site.
Ironically ‘The Bar’ across the street displayed the only sign for another candidate, Gov. Mitt Romney, whose religious beliefs ban the consumption of alcohol. Moments after the picture of the bar was taken another Ron Paul supporter entered the fray, highlighting the complete lack of personal support for any GOP candidate save the Texas Congressman.
Anti-war supporters also took a stand along the busy thoroughfare, wielding colorful signs and bearing military metals earned in the service of their country.
Republicans certainly weren’t the only attendees outside the Michigan GOP debate; Democrat Roy Gonzales (left) urged others to join in protest of the war in the city of Wyandotte on Oak & Fort Street, this and every Saturday from Noon to 1.
While the Congressman was discussing economic policy inside, episodic cheers were erupting outside the debate as passing cars honked their horns in support from both sides of the street.
Inside the debate: Rep. Ron Paul discussing the monetary system
“As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means”
And then the word began to spread.
Ron Paul was giving a free speech on the library steps at the University of Michigan an hour after the debate. With a 45 minute drive ahead of us, I thanked the veterans and war protesters, grabbed my gear, leaped in the car and hit the gas.
Parking by the U of M campus, we knew immediately we were in the right spot.
With an estimated two thousand attendees congregated at the steps of the campus library, it was clear that Paul supporters dominate in Michigan.
*
See also:
Liberals to the left of me,
Neo Cons to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you
Antipodal cable commentators find common ground.
Two people who would hardly agree on most of the important issues of our time have found a happy medium with Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul.
Tucker Carlson, the oft-obnoxious conservative commentator on MSNBC has expressed oozing flattery over the Texas Congressman in the last few months. Both men dovetail on major issues as die-hard libertarians, believing government should be small, efficient, out of people’s personal lives and out of other countries. Carlson admits on the air the he voted for Ron Paul for President in 1988 and shows every sign of replicating that vote twenty years to the day later.
Bill Maher, host of HBO’s Real Time, has ascended on the entertainment stage as a humorous and level headed spokesman for the left. As the sole anti-war Republican candidate for president, Ron Paul has been increasingly admired by Maher, touting Paul as the best GOP presidential hopeful to Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
Bill Maher on Ron Paul’s distinctiveness
Paul’s traditional conservative underpinnings appeal deeply to many Republicans, with crossover appeal to some liberals aligning with libertarian non-interventionalist foreign policy ideals. Paul bridges a strange gap this presidential cycle by tapping into the old heart of true conservativism and new priorities of anti-neocon liberals. Paul’s debate performances in particular have magnetized seemingly opposing ends of the political spectrum.
Rep. Ron Paul at a Republican presidential debate
Of all the current GOP presidential hopefuls, Paul has expressed the most lucid vision of what ails America, along with the necessary steps required to confront the issues. Being the only anti-war presidential candidate of his party has given Paul a unique distinction appealing to many. But in concert with his more extreme libertarian views (such as dismantling the CIA, IRS, and Department of Education), the majority of the Republican base have yet to embrace him.
As I noted in a previous article, Paul’s position as the sole anti-war beacon might zap as many Republicans drawn to the light as it attracts.
While that remains to be seen, the stirring undertow of the Ron Paul movement can already be felt in the unstable waters of the Republican primary.
Tucker Carlson “slobbered” (his word) over Ron Paul earlier this summer
Bill Maher: Ron Paul “my new hero”
Ron Paul on Tucker
Ron Paul on Real Time With Bill Maher 5/25/07
*
http://tinyurl.com/2lqewt
http://www.artcelebs.com/images/Maher/billmaher_photo.jpg
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/1/a/1/4/event_1446676.jpeg
http://stanky.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/paul.jpg
http://www.bond-diamonds.com/fark/index_files/united_states_constitution.jpg
Written on September 20, 2007 | Posted in
2008 election,
News,
Politics,
Ron Paul |
Leave a comment
Ron Paul still a loner
Chuck Hagel’s dropout from politics leaves Ron Paul dangling alone.
Announcing that he is not running for any public office in 2008, Sen. Chuck Hagel is closing the viability of an anti-war Republican presidential candidate in ‘08.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was until recently thought of as a possible 2008 presidential contender. With a solid conservative background, Hagel has stood out amongst Republicans as vehemently against the war, going so far as to call Bush’s Iraq policy a “dirty trick” and “the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country.”
Recently on Real Time with Bill Maher, Hagel said that “it’s not only a dirty trick, it’s dishonest, hypocritical, it’s dangerous and irresponsible.”
Sen. Chuck Hagel on Real Time with Bill Maher
Sen. Chuck Hagel on Bush: “This is not a monarchy”
Hagel’s dropout is a blow to anti-war movement.
With a Republican presidential field saturated with pro-war Bush policy zealots, Libertarian presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul [R-TX] is the lone Republican voice speaking for the majority of American people on ending the war.
One might deduce then that Paul’s poll ranking would be significantly higher than the other GOP candidates.
Paul’s anti-war position on the Republican stage does give him a unique singularity, but compounded with his other libertarian positions (such as disbanding the CIA & Department of Education), his anti-war rhetoric has tipped the balance away from his favor, buoying pro-war candidates in the national polls.
For Paul, the issue is too much difference concentrated in one candidate.
Hagel’s entrance into the Republican presidential primary would have given Paul’s Iraq war position a much needed validity and a second look in the eyes of GOP voters. The edges of Paul’s so-called ‘extreme’ positions would have softened, and a Hagel/Paul 2008 candidacy would have been the talk of cable television pundits.
With Hagel diluting Paul’s anti-war contrast, Paul’s libertarian perspectives could be better highlighted, allowing Republican primary voters to see what really differentiates him from the rest of the pack.
A Hagel candidacy also would have given many anti-war social conservative voters a place to hang their hats. With social conservatives feeling uncomfortable with top tier Republican candidates former mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Gov. Mitt Romney (just look at Fred Thompson’s skyrocketing poll numbers since his entrance), Hagel would have dramatically shaken an already unstable Republican primary.
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
In constant flux and uncertainty, the Republican primary is proving much more interesting than the seeming stability of the Democratic contenders.
With a forceful internet following and victories in all Republican debate polls (to the irritation of Sean Hannity), Rep. Ron Paul is looking to transform that energy into national recognition and early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.
But so far, support for Paul has yet to translate into national standings:
Ron Paul doesn’t show up in some polls.
Pew Research Center, September 13, 2007
A Hagel run for the presidency would have shifted the Republican playing field, drawing in Independents, some Democrats, and further blur the pro-war candidates together.
Ron Paul is missing out and Chuck Hagel is missing a golden opportunity, though there are whispers of a Secretary of State position under either a Republican or Democratic administration, leaving a run in 2016 as a possibility.
For Rep. Ron Paul, still standing alone but with plenty of time left this primary season, the Republican nomination remains a lonely climb up a steep slope.
*
See also
Category: Ron Paul
http://tinyurl.com/3dms7l
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=354
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html
http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/ron-paul-iowa.jpg
Written on September 17, 2007 | Posted in
2008 election,
News,
Politics,
Ron Paul |
3 Comments
Tribute in Light from Liberty State Park, The Falling Man. Photo-Richard Drew
Preventable.
On this eve of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Garling Gauge re-posts its first article. Sadly as timely now as it was in May:
Another Ignorant President?
Earth to Giuliani: Action creates reaction
Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani asserts blinding ignorance in his rebuke of Congressman Ron Paul at the second Republican debate.
That the audience would clap loudest at such a myopic comment made by the Republican front runner is as equally telling as it is troubling.
The last thing voters need is more lies about the effects of American foreign policy.
The last thing America needs is another ill-informed, grandstanding President.
Republicans, sadly, continue to display their dimness to the power and consequences of American actions around the world.
Our country is in deep need of thoughtfulness on the world stage. It is time for the adults to take over: It is time to elect a Democrat.
Commentary on the Republican debate:
People like Rudy Guiliani & Ben Furgeson are partially why the world is a more dangerous place.
*
See also: Another 9/11 Helps US?
See original posting: Another Ignorant President?
http://tinyurl.com/yu26ep
http://tinyurl.com/32e3ny
Debate polls drive Sean Hannity crazy.
With Rep. Ron Paul consistently topping online Republican presidential debate polls and the latest FOX GOP debate cell-phone poll (where it was impossible to vote twice), Sean Hannity is irked to say the least.
Sean Hannity really doesn’t like Ron Paul.
The crux of Hannity’s dislike appears to stems from Paul citing government sources that indicate U.S. foreign policy as a major contributor to Middle East anger against America, and thus, is partially to blame for the 9/11, 2001 attacks.
How Hannity does not understand this simple notion defies explanation.
Well, perhaps it doesn’t. Hannity appears to view the world through an emotionally defensive lens. While Paul’s arguments tend to be rooted in history, government reports, and logic, Hannity counters those claims with an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, believing the United States is incapable of wrong so long as we’re under threat of attack.
The 9/11 attacks were murderous and evil, and it is important to understand why people would take such an action. Anyone who’s even seen a police drama on television understands that murder investigators seek to understand the motive.
For Hannity, the United States of America is an innocent victim.
For Paul, the United States of America needs to understand and be responsible for its own actions.
Fox News commentator Sean Hannity sounds like a child arguing with his parents for getting in trouble for his own bad behavior.
In his own words, Sean Hannity has proved himself to be naive, ill-informed, and ridiculous. It’s sad that someone with as large of a microphone (and ego) could wrap himself in such a large a shroud of ignorance, shunning logic, history, and rationality. Hannity argues emotion against reason, nationalism over global responsibility.
Throughout history every great world power has weakened and been succeeded by another. Those believing in their own superiority and taking a defensive stance against the world have fallen faster. With America’s formidable preeminence in the world, we should not lean on our missiles and fears to maintain our position. Now is the time for reflection, to recognize our misdoings, rectify wrongs, build bridges with countries that have harbored hostilities, and expand our global alliances. There is no better time than while we hold this lofty position.
Wielding the world’s greatest arsenal while playing the victim is pathetic.
The people of the United States are not responsible for the evil attacks on September 11, 2001, but we are responsible for our government cultivating and fomenting an environment that breeds hostility towards this nation. We reap what we sow.
Ron Paul and many Democrats see this. Sean Hannity refuses to.
Arrogance is a powerful weapon of self-destruction.
America needs a president with a mature perspective that can bring out the true strength of this nation, not a person who plays towards our fears and emotional insecurities. Sean Hannity wants a daddy, America needs a leader.
Results from FOX GOP debate
Military personnel contribute to Ron Paul over all other presidential candidates
Sean Hannity vs. Ron Paul Supporters
Sean Hannity says CIA reports and 9/11 Commission Report are a conspiracies:
Hannity: Mitzy, hi.
Mitzy: Hi Mr. Hannity. I was calling to let you know that I agree completely with everything you’ve said regarding amnesty today and the rule of law. However that only makes me all the more confused as to why it is you’re smearing Ron Paul and trying to silence him.
Hannity: I’m not trying to silence Ron Paul I put him on Hannity and Colmes after the debate the other night. I just had a disagreement. I find his remarks offensive. I find him totally and completely outrageous and wrong. I think he’s ill-informed. Look here’s what he said:
Paul [recording]: They’re attacking us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years.
Hannity: I’m sorry I find his analysis naive, ill-informed, and frankly ridiculous. I’m not trying to silence him, I put him on TV that night.
Mitzy: Well his comments come directly from the CIA’s own comments and the 9/11 commission report.
Hannity: Listen, listen, go believe whatever conspiracy you want. I’m not going to sit here and waste time on the air arguing with you. You believe that…let me tell you something. You got to understand this enemy is coming here. They’ve dedicated their lives to destroying us. And if you don’t get that and Ron Paul doesn’t get that I just gently disagree.
After 2nd Republican debate
Mike Huckabee plays to emotions, Ron Paul plays to common sense.
Summary: Paul: Let’s fix our mistake. Huckabee: It’s dishonorable to fix our mistake
Paul with Hannity after FOX GOP Debate
Ron Paul and a younger version of Sean Hannity
*
Categories: Ron Paul, 2008 Election, Politics, Republicans
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/61523325_28d27c1f73.jpg
http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/story.jpg
Written on September 8, 2007 | Posted in
2008 election,
Fox News,
News,
Politics,
Ron Paul |
5 Comments
Tucker Carlson interviews former stripper without making a snide remark. Progress!
Ron Paul lover and conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson is endorsing the Libertarian presidential candidate every chance he can get. Going so far as to bring a former stripper/Paul supporter onto his self-titled MSNBC political opinion show, Carlson melted into a pool of love as he gushed over the Congressman with his unusual guest.
He even said “Amen”.
Carlson’s intro:
As any faithful viewer of this show knows we are big fans of Ron Paul and not embarresed to say so. He’s the Libertarian running for the Republican nomination for the White House.
Ron Paul is no stranger to sensational headlines, but when you combine the presidential race and strippers, well that is why they invented cable television.
The 08′ campaign has brought together politics and exotic dancing with our most unusual endorsement to date.
Tucker Carlson & Michelle Shinghal
Speaking with the guest, Carlson noted: “You’ve seen a lot of people from the adult entertainment business go for Hillary Clinton”.
With strippers for Paul, porn for Hillary, bathroom tricks for the GOP, and dancing girls for the presidential candidates, it’s turning out to be a sexy election season after all.
Tucker Carlson: Too sexy for this shirt
*
See also
http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/08/strippers.jpg
http://www.ontheissues.org/Living_History.jpg
http://www.illuminati-news.com/graphics/ron-paul.gif
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/Tucker-bares-it-thumb.jpg
Stu Bykofsky believes another 9/11 type attack would unite America“To save America, we need another 9/11″
The approaching anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks has gotten many of us thinking about terrorism, America, foreign policy, and 9/11 itself. With reflections on 9/11 by numerous columnists expected any day now, Stu Bykofsky is quick out of the gate with a ponderous suggestion.
Bykofsky writes in his August 9, 2007 Philadelphia Daily News column that another 9/11-type attack is needed to bring a fractured America together again.
Why would he suggest that? Because Bykofsky is “sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.”
The combination of an obtuse-minded president, an unnecessary war, four years of occupying a country not connected with the 9/11 attacks, and the incompetent management of Iraqi and American peoples’ interests has drained America’s patience and spirit. Bipartisan bickering and in-party squabbling has left the American electorate frustrated with their representatives and aching for a feel-good moment.
A bullet-point summary of Bykofsky’s argument in own words:
- There is the drip of daily casualties and victory is not around the corner.
- America likes wars shorter than the World Series
- We like fast food and fast war
- Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress
- Democrats and Republicans are attacking one another, when they aren’t attacking themselves.
- The dialog of discord echoes across America
- Turn back to 9/11
- Remember the community of outrage and national resolve?
- We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11
- What would sew us back together?
- Another 9/11 attack.
Offering possible targets, Bykofsky suggests South Dakota’s Mount Rushmore, the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge, Wrigley Field in Chicago, and the Philadelphia subway system.
While acknowledging that American unity formed in the aftermath of such an attack would be finite, Bykofsky’s suggestion is a disturbingly curious one. Do Americans (or people in general) require loss to seek a unison of resolve? Is a common enemy the only way to bring our country together? Do we even need to be unified?
The first casualty in the aftermath of 9/11 was the potential for global good.
The wake of world support for the United States of America after 9/11 was unlike any other in history. And, like many great events, timing is everything.
For a few moments in the great chronology of human events America had the opportunity to truly change the world. In that brief period, our government had a real chance to lead, to inspire, to mend long ills, unite old enemies, tackle difficult issues, and help evolve our species.
We had potential.
We had the wrong leader.
What wears on the souls of Americans (and the popularity polls of the Bush administration) is the lack of positive outcome from our great loss. Americans love the come-back kid and the triumphant underdog. We can take our lumps, but we expect a positive resolution in the end. Clearly or unclearly, the Bush administration saw this window of opportunity for the advancement of American goals and promptly stumbled on its own hubris.
Right time, wrong mission.
The narrow-minded focus of our administration limited the potential of what was possible to military and political objectives. If your only tool is a military everything looks like war.
But the seeking out and reigning justice on murderous terrorists is not in question. The heart of the issue is the path to Iraq our leaders chose to seduce us down on the wave of global sentiment, and the fact that we followed so readily.
Did President Bush for even an instant consider using global good-will to tackle world hunger? What about genocide? Wouldn’t that have been a nice time for a Mid-East peace summit?
The issue brought forth in Bykofsky’s article harkens back and unearths the brotherly global mindset shared by much of the world in the wake of 9/11; the global mindset that created paths of possibilities that did not exist before, paths that America had the chance to exploit.
For good or ill, America had a wingman.
We chose ill, and the ‘greatest nation’ squandered a historic opportunity for greatness.
If better choices had been made and our military quickly extirpated from Iraq after the aircraft carrier victory speech, America would have had some type of resolution. Even with the Iraq invasion ill-advised from the outset, an awkward and misdirected resolution to the 9/11 attacks would have been better than our current situation.
No amount of guns, money or American blood can replace the lost potential now. If at Midnight tonight the insurgents gave up, the Iraqi government united, troops started coming home, and America claimed utter victory, the poison of poor decisions would still linger in the vein. Sadly the pain was predictable and is now growing unbearable.
Stu Bykofsky is wrong in suggesting another 9/11 type attack would unify the country.
Even though we live in a country that bases much of its power on a massive military budget, many of us were unprepared for the 9/11 attack. The real ’shock and awe’ was felt by the American people at the attack on our own soil, especially to those ignorant to the effects of American foreign policy.
U.S. Federal Budget 2008 fiscal year
Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Guiliani is a prime example, spearheading that type of ignorant thought, as demonstrated here in the second Republican presidential debate.
The type of unity Bykofsky reminisces for is not possible anymore, but a new type of unity is sure to come in the future.
Another 9/11 type attack would further splinter our government and citizens, for Americans no longer believe our current president will respond appropriately with the best decisions. Through his own choices, our leader is no longer a symbol of victory. Deservedly or not, our leader is now seen by many as a joke, a fraud, and a menace.
Only though new leadership can America unite in the way Bykofsky and so many of us long for. It is partially for this reason that the 2008 presidential election season has started so early, so few candidates have given praise to President Bush, and why the idea of ‘change’ is as popular this election cycle as it ever has been.
Presidential candidates with Change as their main theme:
Democratic Senator Barack Obama & Republican Congressman Ron Paul
*
UPDATE: Stu Bykofsky’s article mentioned on the Colbert Report, September 12, 2007 (a month late there, Colbert)
See also
http://media.philly.com/images/80*82/stubykofsky.jpg, http://tinyurl.com/ytfms5
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Wtc-2004-memorial.jpg
http://photos.freenewmexican.com/2007/07/01/54629_375×375.jpg
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/ronpaul.jpg
‘Candidate Girl’ goes international
Has Obama Girl met her match in Ahmadinejad Girl?
When will it end? (and do we really want it to?)
The latest chapter of presidential campaign music videos introduces even more ‘Candidate Girls’ into the political mockudrama: the ‘Romney Girls’. In a tongue-in-cheek faux attack ad, the blonde triplets ‘endorsing’ former Gov. Mitt Romney suggest Obama Girl is a flip-flopper who cannot be trusted.
Romney Girls Attack Obama Girl!
With only 5 out of 17 major presidential candidates having unofficial ‘Girls’ to support their campaigns, who would have thought the next political starlet would stray so far from the pack?
Yet according to the video released by the Romney Girls, Obama Girl herself is quoted in the Washington Post as saying she would meet with ‘Ahmadinejad Girl’; an uncanny parallel to Sen. Barack Obama’s assertion that he would meet with estranged foreign heads of state within the first year of his presidency.
Obama Girl to meet with Ahmadinejad Girl? Say it isn’t so
In this new age of global business and marketing, it appears the ‘Girls’ supporting Sen. Barack Obama, former mayor Rudy Guiliani, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Sam Brownback, and former Gov. Mitt Romney were lucky enough to keep their positions before they were outsourced overseas.
Even with murmurs of his own possible Candidate-Girl support, it is unlikely that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would run a surprise campaign as an independent. Given his current position as president of Iran and his lack of American citizenship, Ahmadinejad would certainly face some steep hurdles.
Is that another Ahmadinejad Girl?
Back on the American front, if Sen. John McCain, Sen. John Edwards, or Gov. Bill Richardson want to overtake their rivals in their respective primaries, they should be on the lookout for their own ‘Candidate Girl’ to break through the looking glass ceiling of the faux-politico scene.
Who will be the next ‘Candidate Girl’?
With all the internet buzz around Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, I’m surprised a ‘Paul Girl’ seeking her fifteen minutes of fame has yet to enter the fray. Oh wait, perhaps there is one already.
*
Update: Fifteen minute fame-er found, and She’s lame. Sorry Paul, and you had so much potential.
http://www.campfireusadallas.org/auction/2003/Pix/StPauliGirl.jpg
Written on August 9, 2007 | Posted in
Election 2008,
Politics,
Ron Paul |
2 Comments
Democratic presidential candidate Karl Krueger wants your vote
Underdog presidential candidates harness the internet
In the media war of presidential campaigns there are many battles.
Among the ‘top tier’ candidates these scuffs are highly publicized, such as recent post-debate remarks on differences in foreign policy between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama exposed at the July 24, 2007 CNN-YouTube Democratic presidential debate. The battles waged by underdog candidates, however, often go unnoticed.
If a presidential candidate falls in a forest and no one is around…well, you get the idea.
Led by current John Edwards campaign adviser Joe Trippi, the internet has become an essential medium for candidates seeking public service. At low cost with high viewer potential, websites and web video have enabled unknown candidates to make their mark.
Enter the underdogs.
First mentioned on this website in an article entitled YouTube & Unknown Presidential Candidates, relatively unknown presidential candidates have begun dipping their marketing toes into online video as a means to reach a greater audience.
The Garling Gauge was contacted by the campaign manger of one of these unknown candidates, “ultra-conservative” John Bootie, politely thanking this site for exposure in the article. Responding to the letter with a sarcastic embrace, the subsequent post Presidential Hopeful Declared Website Mascot highlighted snippets of the Bootie platform, and in the spirit of grassroots internet bipartisanship, embraced Mr. Bootie as this website’s mascot.
Official Garling Gauge 2008
presidential election season mascot
(Suggestions for the official Garling Gauge bird, flower, gem and/or song are welcome as comments to this post)
Not sitting ideally by, Democratic presidential candidate Karl Krueger has entered the fray, contacting the Garling Gauge directly:
I took your example and posted video to the youtube. Sound bit clips really. I am not getting many views. I still have more to post but should have all of them up by 2 August.
If you have suggestions please let me know.
Karl
Fear not Democratic kindred, you too have a unique niche in this “series of tubes“.
Not only has army veteran, farmer and skydiver Karl Krueger “posted video to the youtube”, he has inundated it with numerous brief clips presenting his opinion on contemporary issues. Every candidate should do this.
(Karl, rename Immagration to Immigration. I can’t emphasize Spellcheck to candidates enough)
While impossible to articulate complex policies in a few seconds, sound bite interviews and short videos like these provide enough information for the electorate to decide whether they want to investigate a candidate further.
On Iraq, Krueger’s summary of his vision is precise and concise:
“Arabs in, Americans out”
Krueger cites language and cultural barriers in Iraq to buttress his statement.
Karl Krueger on how he would handle the Iraq War
See all of Karl Krueger’s videos here & here.
Why should we pay attention to these underdog candidates?
Free from a throng of high-paid consultants, long shot candidates tend to be more blunt on the issues (probably due to having fewer public statements). The more the electorate heeds these underdogs, the greater the issues and perspectives raised by the candidates redound in the public forum, broadening the debate.
Long shot presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul sent ripples through the internet with his tiff involving Republican frontrunner Rudy Guiliani at the second Republican debate, eliciting my own small commentary. Now Rep. Paul has a large online following, dominating other presidential aspirants with YouTube videos.
Like radicals in our society, blunt-speaking long shot candidates help define the outer edges of contemporary issues. John Bootie, Karl Krueger and other unknowns should be commended for their underdog courage by entering the bruising fray of presidential politics.
What would a Bootie vs. Krueger presidential match up look like? With both candidates being truck drivers, it would probably look something like this:
VS 
Perhaps not.
Nonetheless, as internet use grows and future elections truck on by, expect more and more unknowns to enter the political process in the form of bloggers, advertisers, consultants, and yes, candidates.
Christine Smith, we’re still waiting to hear from you.
*
See also: Presidential Hopeful Declared Website Mascot
http://www.transformersmovie.com , http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ofrw/images/h2peterbilt.jpg, http://tinyurl.com/26eu28, http://www.bestandanderson.com/images/semi_collisions.jpg, http://tinyurl.com/2oqfrx
H.R. 3216: Ron Paul seeks bounty hunters to track down Osama Bin Laden
According to the Politico,
Paul has offered legislation (H.R. 3216) to authorize Bush to issue “letters of marquee and reprisal” to those private citizens or entities that want “to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001,” or future attacks.
Paul offered this proposal back in October 2001, arguing that it would allow “Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the [United States].”
However, these types of bounty hunting commissions were outlawed in 1856 by the Treaty of Paris, ending the Crimean War.
While the United States was not a party to that treaty, and the Confederate States of America issued such letters during the Civil War, they are pretty much an anachronism.
Poor bounty hunters.
Sorry Bobba Fett. Sorry Bossk, Dengar and Greedo. Sorry Aurra Sing, Zuckuss, and DOG. Progress denies you your wacky ways.
See also:
http://lukoagency.free.fr/images/Jeremy%20Bulloch/co-Boba03.jpg
http://www.ocolly.okstate.edu/issues/2001_Fall/011011/pix/1.%20OSAMA%20BIN%20LADEN.jpg
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jan-16-Mon-2006/photos/5bounty.jpg
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/images/ron-paul2.jpg
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51H6XCT469L._AA240_.jpg
http://cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/099_malaysia_meeting_2050081722-8286.jpg
Written on July 31, 2007 | Posted in
911,
Election 2008,
Politics,
Ron Paul |
2 Comments
