Freedom for the incompetent!
Since Amina has nicely laid out the candidates' financial pole positions, and since the paultards have come out in force to upbraid me for an ancient Ron Paul-related post (this is the thanks the L.A. Times gets for providing him a forum to deliver the night's best line at the GOP's Golden State debate?), it's a good time to talk about the campaign cock-up of the fourth-place Republican contender. To wit: Is the Paul campaign guilty of gross fiscal mismanagement? And even if you believe the dollar is worthless without a gold standard, is it really that easy to turn so many millions into so little achievement?
At Reason, Dave Weigel does a little digging into Paul's delegate count, and finds some reason for hope. Paul's campaign makes even more impressive delegate claims, though the staff seems to count delegates on the same obscure sliding scale it uses to make dollars vanish. Paul's fundraising was in its way even more miraculous than Mike Huckabee's polling surge. And there was something heartening, as the Paul surge grew, in the candidate's refusal to frame his campaign as some kind of consciousness-raising effort. Even if you never believed he was really running for president, it was good to know that he believed it.
Did his campaign? The newsletter brouhaha certainly suggests Paul applies a laissez-faire philosophy to all sorts of management areas, but did his campaign really need this many screwups, ballot emergencies, voting snafus and of course conspiracy-minded excuses for its own incompetence?
I expect no quarter from the Paulites, but I say all this with sadness. It's been clear for at least six months that Dr. No's campaign was shaping up to be more than just a novelty. Ron Paul tapped in to a wide array of interests, and his appeal went well beyond the simple "opposition to the war" explanation arrogant journalists favored. But let's just say he could have tapped in a lot deeper and with more lasting results. It's not like we don't need the help right about now. The country is seeing the beginnings of a real leftwing backlash and the Republicans are about to nominate a "national greatness" conservative who is in every respect the anti-Goldwater. (Good luck getting any libertarian leverage from those Paul delegates at the convention.) Couldn't Ron Paul have just spent 12 months focusing on the task at hand?
Update: Welcome, Pauline Order of Ron!
Half the time I feel like you don't even know I exist, Ron Paul fans, so yes, welcome! Please stay and chat, and I'll get your comments through the pipelines as quickly as possible. Sorry for taking the night off, folks, and really, whatever you want to call yourselves -- they wouldn't be so crude at the L.A. Times but I do have friends who use the word "paultards," and only with love -- it's up to you to name yourselves. As long as I caught your eye.
Everybody else, please don't skimp on the comments. Plenty of brilliant stuff, interesting conversations forming, and rave reviews such as these:
"factually inaccurate and sophomorically naive"
"I think you wrote this just to get people to see your article."
"What exactly were you trying to say..."
"Hey Timmy your article was lame, like high school lame..."
"Another attempt by the MSM to discredit an honest and forthright individual...""I stopped reading the article after the first sentence, when you referred to..."
"I don't know what you expect Ron Paul to do, take the order, cook the meal, wash..."
"I'm not being sarcastic. I swear on my neighbor's cat I'm not."
"Wanting to stop the murder in Iraq is not incompetence, it is morally justified..."
Ron Paul spoke at the FreedomFest conference last year and he has been invited again this year to join our 100 plus speakers and 1,000 plus attendees in Las Vegas on July 10 -12. We must do what we can to get the message of liberty, a return to limited constitutional government and free markets out to the American public. See www.freedomfest.com
Posted by: Ron Holland | February 11, 2008 at 01:59 PM
This opinion piece is an example of why The LA Times is in the condition it is.
THE TOP REASONS WHY THE LA TIMES will not be able to employ Tim Cavanaugh much longer, as cataloged and reported on by Tim Cavanaugh himself:
1. "And the op-ed page: a repository of high-minded ignorance...with little to say, poor writing skills, little information to reveal, few analytic talents, but a column to file each week.
2. "While three of the largest newspapers in the country had rises in their circulation figures, the LA Times had the largest drop both in absolute numbers and in percentage drop."
3. "The Wall Street Journal and The NY Post have seen growth...while The LA Times is down."
4. "Five straight years of declining circulation"
5. "long line of Times' scandals—whether the Staples Center special, Michael Hiltzik's sock-puppetry, the leasing of the Sunday opinion section to the editor's girlfriend's boss or the latest, Armeniagate--the real laugher is the paper's sense of importance, its preening about its role even as it became obvious to all that it was the Norma Desmond of Los Angeles media."
6. "The Times is an awful newspaper that doesn't have a clue about how awful it is or how it happened."
7. "With the Internet comes access to a tremendous diversity of information sources—many far more accurate in their specific niches than the newspapers. More and more people are taking note, and faith in the news media, I think, is cratering as quickly as the circulation numbers, as Big Media’s bias is increasingly put on display."
Posted by: J. O'Brien | February 10, 2008 at 02:23 PM
What a catch 22. Without Ron Paul supporters, readers comments for the Times would be nill.
Typical: try to increase readership by sensationism. Very lame. I call on all Ron Paul supporters to boycott the Times.
Posted by: mik | February 10, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Its the message Tim, Can you suggest a better person for a small government, constitutionalist to go? McCain??? He's been up in the Senate too long and cut too many big goverment deals. Perhaps the Republican party will wake up and some day covet my vote. I am not holding my breath (Or reading anyone's lips).
Posted by: W. Bernie Yeater | February 10, 2008 at 08:21 AM
The genie is out of the bottle and no trashy media is going to put him back in the bottle.
Could he have "tapped in a lot deeper and with more lasting result?"
Yes, of course, if there hadn't been one of the worst media blackouts in political history!
Try to be a little honest Timmy and do your research on the blackout.
I realize mixing the term honest with journalism is an oxymoronic statement.
Posted by: AttilaTheHun | February 10, 2008 at 03:22 AM
Thank you Tim, for riling up the Paulites once again. I never tire of their insane, hilarious ramblings. They think they're somehow different, but they fail to realize they've bought into the same mob mentality and brainless slogan politics that the mainstream campaigns similarly utilize.
So, Paul supporters, what do you lot make of Dr. Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act", which goes contrary to Paul's espoused philosophy that abortion is not a federal issue?
Posted by: Trevor | February 10, 2008 at 02:20 AM
I do not know if you are right about the campaign workers but it does seem like with so much momentum in the fund raising area they should have been able to do more. And I agree with you it is very sad because Ron Paul has a something electric and exciting to offer. He represents what I have always thought of as the values of the republican party. I cannot identify with the Bush republicans. To my thinking Bush is as far away from being a republican as I can imagine and yet there he is. I hope we go to a brokered convention and that Ron Paul's delegates will count for something.
Posted by: Cee M. | February 09, 2008 at 10:31 PM
What a douchey editorial. Full of vitriol and failed humor. Will the author keep up his sophomoric yucks when our dollar finally tanks and the draft is reinstituted to cover our failing foreign policy?
Posted by: Deeptoad | February 09, 2008 at 10:09 AM
There is only ONE candidate left in the race and that is Ron Paul.
Posted by: NH | February 09, 2008 at 02:24 AM
"I'm not sure what the point of this article is, other than to troll for angry responses from Ron Paul supporters."
EXACTLY. Check out the "200 comments" response little "Tim" made after I called him out.
Self promoting, no-talent journalism without question.
Posted by: Colt-1 | February 08, 2008 at 11:26 PM
"They call that sarcasm, J. Look into it."
Oh, our bad. Shame on us, we were just trusting people like you to simply REPORT THE FACTS.
"Do you really benefit from 200 comments that point out what a louse you are the same way you would if they were positive responses?"
"Yes."
I hope I've made it 200 for you, Tim. Really. Out of charity,
I also noticed how you don't dare tangle with me after you acknowledge how dependant you are on our comment posts.
*smiles*
If you haven't figured it out by now, I've got more than a few years of experience dealing in the national media. And I'm pulling your card...
Posted by: Colt-1 | February 08, 2008 at 11:20 PM
One thing you do know is how to generate hits! But, seriously, do you REALLY stand by what you wrote? I've been a copywriter and broadcaster (in a previous life), and if my kids in high school wrote something as horrible (grammaticallly and style-wise, not content) as you did (even on an on-line blog), I'd have bitch-slapped them back to elementary remedial writing 101!
I have to assume you posted this for shock value and hits, or else the state of journalism in America has sunk to an even lower standard than I had previously thought possible.
Then again, P.T. Barnum once said: "No one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public". So there may be a future for you in journalism after all!
xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++++===
Posted by: xtrabiggg | February 08, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Virginia -- on Tuesday! I haven't had my chance to vote yet! I haven't quite maxed out my contribution to the only candidate I've ever felt compelled to give to, but have spent almost as much in grassroots efforts. I'd like to be a Summer Soldier or Sunshine Patriot -- it would be easier, but I'm going to keep giving until Ron Paul says it's over.
Some of us our doing it for our future generations -- we can't give up!
Posted by: Me Again | February 08, 2008 at 07:48 PM
Okay Mr. Timothy-
I watched your little videos of him on the news.... Is that really all you can back it up with. "Hardly any other candidate and virtually no major media, especially CNN, has mentioned his name for the last year, so terrified are they of his stare and his libertarian-like views, including downsizing the federal government, bringing American troops home and abolishing the Federal Reserve."
They call that sarcasm, J. Look into it.
How about the sites which graph how much air time he really has in the "race for media coverage?" Come on man.... back ur -hit up with some worthy sources. I am not listing the sites again, it is a couple comments up. What is your smart a-ss comment to that?
Posted by: Bethany | February 08, 2008 at 07:06 PM
I'm the little sheeple now and will vote for McCain........
Yeah right, I'm still voting for Paul. For goodness sakes people, take a little time to study your candidate. Name recognition is so 90's. Wake up and learn what ALL the candidates say. Sorry you won't get this on TV or radio, get online if you want the TRUTH! Do you want your kids and grandkids dead in another unnecessary war in ....let's see, (who is the President targeting now) Wake up AMERICA!
Posted by: Melissa | February 08, 2008 at 06:39 PM
They call that sarcasm, J. Look into it.
Or no, just look into the mainstream media, especially CNN, ignoring Paul, and ignoring him some more over the past year.
He was even on The View, for Goddess' sake.
Posted by: Tim Cavanaugh | February 08, 2008 at 06:29 PM
Tim, give it up. Even your peers at The LA Times disagree with you. Ron Paul IS ignored by the main stream news media.
Here is a quote today from your own LA Times Top of the Ticket Andrew Malcolm:
"Hardly any other candidate and virtually no major media, especially CNN, has mentioned his name for the last year, so terrified are they of his stare and his libertarian-like views, including downsizing the federal government, bringing American troops home and abolishing the Federal Reserve."
Posted by: J. O'Brien | February 08, 2008 at 06:04 PM
I thought his dad was Luke Skywalker. I was like, his parents hate him for naming him Darkhorse Longshot.
So what was he going to do Tim, buy CNN? You know how psychology works. If Ron Paul was such a great emerging story, why was he always scoffed at? All your Paul articles are tongue and cheek and no article ever fails from an news source to say "long shot Ron Paul"
Posted by: Rhys | February 08, 2008 at 05:47 PM
Yes.
Posted by: Tim Cavanaugh | February 08, 2008 at 05:42 PM
Tell me, I am curious;
Do you really benefit from 200 comments that point out what a louse you are the same way you would if they were positive responses?
Posted by: Colt-1 | February 08, 2008 at 05:35 PM
August 1, 2005
Congress passed a multinational trade bill known as CAFTA last week, but not without a feverish late night vote marred by controversy and last-minute vote switching. Leaving aside the arguments for or against CAFTA itself, the process by which the bill ultimately passed should sicken every American who believes in representative government.
Late-night arm-twisting by House leaders to get votes is of course nothing new. We witnessed far worse when Congress passed the ruinous Medicare prescription drug bill in the dead of night two years ago. Yet even after months of unprecedented wheeling and dealing by corporate lobbyists, congressional leaders, and the White House, the Washington establishment still failed to pass CAFTA in the US House. That’s right, when the 15-minute voting period expired last Wednesday evening, CAFTA seemingly had been defeated.
Here’s how. As the vote progressed, the tally was neck and neck. When the 15-minute period ended, CAFTA had gone down in flames. But pro-CAFTA forces were so determined to get what they wanted, they broke the rules. House leadership ignored the time limit and kept twisting arms and making deals until they finally had the votes to pass CAFTA nearly an hour later.
What kind of deals? Well, one member of House leadership told reluctant legislators, “We've got to have you; you tell us what you want.” And tell they did. Lawmakers in textile producing states were bought off with promises of textile subsidies. Lawmakers in sugar-producing states were bought off with promises of special treatment in the 2007 farm bill. On and on it went, with promises of new bridges, parks, and whatever else it took to pass CAFTA.
Rest assured that you will pay dearly for these bribes used to buy votes. Every favor granted and every pet project funded comes on top of the pork-laden appropriations bills already passed in the House this year. These new goodies will be added to the final House-Senate versions passed later this year. One of my colleagues estimated that the price tag for buying the CAFTA vote will be at least $50 billion. That’s right, $50 billion to win a vote. Is this what you want from your representatives in office?
Perhaps the strangest vote buyoff occurred two days before the CAFTA vote. Lawmakers from hard-hit manufacturing districts steadfastly have opposed CAFTA, arguing that it would accelerate the outsourcing of jobs to nations with cheap labor. So House leaders scrambled to craft last-minute legislation to “get tough” on China, which is the real source of concern for most American manufacturers. A bill was drawn up, and a hasty vote cast, so lawmakers could explain that they traded a yes vote on CAFTA for action against China. One small problem presented itself, however: the China bill failed on the House floor! So House leaders went back to the drawing board, struck some and held a second vote on the same bill the next day. This time it passed, but its chances of surviving the Senate or a White House veto are virtually nil. So members from manufacturing districts literally sold their votes for nothing. Their months of double-talking, coyness, and vote peddling resulted in nothing more than an empty promise.
The president’s press secretary called the CAFTA vote “a real victory for the American people.” The problem is the vast majority of Americans have not even heard of CAFTA, and those who have overwhelmingly oppose it. CAFTA was conceived and created by corporate interests, and to claim otherwise is preposterous. The CAFTA vote had nothing to do with the American public, or even trade policy per se. CAFTA was driven by politics and nothing more. Multinational corporations and political globalists share the same goals, namely the centralization of political power in international bodies and the diminution of national sovereignty. What we witnessed last week was not just the selling of votes, but also a sellout of American control over our own trade regulations.
Posted by: rj | February 08, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Bruce, I'll be feeling the love if we can get to 200 comments.
Posted by: Tim Cavanaugh | February 08, 2008 at 05:28 PM
Ignore the idiot who wrote this article and go to these links and read it for your own eyes. Studies about the "Race for Media Coverage."
www.journalism.org/node/9266
www.journalism.org/node/9436
www.journalism.org/node/9512
www.journalism.org/node/9610 (most up-to-date one)
Posted by: Bethany | February 08, 2008 at 05:25 PM
Tim-
"However, Paul never approached the first tier of the Republican race. That has now been won by John McCain, and in a U.S. presidential race — which runs on tracks built by the founders, not by the newspapers —" you don't get any points for winning the Mens' Petites competition."
If you actually think our modern US Presidential race resembles anything close to what the founder's intended, it leaves small wonder why Paul's message flew right over your thick head.
".. you don't get any points for winning the Mens' Petites competition."
Oh my god. You're so clever.
Seriously buddy: think long and hard before you write anything for the general public to read again.
Don't get too drunk over all of this. If you do... go ahead run out in front of traffic.
Posted by: Colt-1 | February 08, 2008 at 05:17 PM
Tim,
I want to make it clear that McCain has not "won" anything as far as I am concerned. He has depended on his "people" and "secretaries" in this campaign from the beginning. McCain has capitalized on the media attention because he is obviously not intelligent nor resourceful enough to win the nomination on his own and has admitted it repeatedly. Even negative media attention can help make you a household name and get votes.
I'd say under the circumstances and media bias Paul has done exceptionally well. And the base of supporters he has accumulated are far more valuable than those that are going to the polls with their hands held and blindfolded from the truth. The difference between us and them (you?), is we aren't basing our vote on a popularity contest. We believe and hope Americans will wake up and unite together to fix this broken country. The "Paultards" seem to be the only ones who know just how dire the situation is, and the need to take action before our country is bankrupt and we have lost our liberties.
P.S. If this is the best journalism the LA Times can offer, maybe you should pack you bags and join the McCain campaign trail.
Posted by: Aaron S. | February 08, 2008 at 04:43 PM