Ron Paul's mini-convention

He and his supporters plan to have it on Sept. 2nd, in the same locale as the Republican Convention and on the 2nd night of that convention.

Hmmm. Well, so I can understand having issues with John McCain.
But an event like this is bound, not just to hurt McCain, but to help Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee. Does Ron Paul really want to do that? Are Obama's proposed taxation and spending policies compatible with Paul's libertarian economic views? Gee. I don't think so.

And what about all that talk from Paul during the Republican campaign when he pledged more than once not to run a third-party candidacy this fall?

Ron Paul flunks Civil War history

And makes you wonder about his version of libertarianism: [An excerpt from Paul's appearance on "Meet the Press"]:
Russert: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

Paul: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist--

Russert: We'd still have slavery.

Paul: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.


As James Taranto comments: "It's an intriguing counterfactual, but what is most telling is that Paul blames Lincoln for the Civil War rather than blaming the South for starting a war to preserve slavery. Does he love liberty? Or does he merely loathe the federal government?"

Exactly. The Confederacy fired upon a federal fort, thus starting the war. There can be no doubt that slavery was central to the war--everything leads back to it. A slavery system enforced by a STATE government is still slavery enforced by government power; a true libertarian would be against such. It's too bad that Ron Paul isn't.

More on the thought of Ron Paul

Here I think he has a point, and here conservatives can find common ground with him:
"Paul, R-Texas, strongly opposes granting "amnesty" to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States today. So I asked him what he'd do with all those immigrants. Would he try to arrest all of them? "I don't think anybody could find 'em. I don't think anybody knows where they are," he said. "But if they come for welfare benefits, and you know they're illegal, deny them the benefits." That's the crux of Paul's approach: deny the immigrants the welfare and social services that many of them now receive. "Get rid of the subsidies," he said. "You subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it."

Examining a piece of the thought of Ron Paul

Last night at the GOP Univision debate, Mr. Paul said: "We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world by interfering and creating chaos in their countries, and they respond by throwing out their leader."

You know, it's sad. When it comes to our domestic policies here in the United States, Ron Paul is a champion of Americans taking responsibility for themselves and for their own actions. He urges us to break our dependence upon the federal government. Great.

But then we come to his foreign policy. And suddenly, Castro isn't responsible for what Castro does, and Chavez isn't responsible for what Chavez does. Suddenly, Americans are--we "created" Castro and Chavez. Mr. Paul isn't thinking clearly when it comes to foreign policy--he's thinking too much like a liberal.

Raised expectations for Ron?

So Ron Paul raised over $4 million yesterday. Are some Republicans now trying to raise the bar for him? Reports Fox's Carl Cameron: "In New Hampshire, GOP officials marvel at Ron Paul’s organization in the Granite State and his ability to raise money. These officials say they would not be suprised at all if Ron Paul took 3rd or 4th in the primary and meant the death knell for at least one top tier candidate. It speaks to the power of independents in NH; Bush beat McCain in 2000 among republicans but Indies put McCain over the top."

No pall over Paul today

Ron Paul is having a big one-day fundraising drive today, and it's netting him some $$$.
How did I know this? Well, it's part of the blogosphere buzz today.
One question though, the answer to which nobody's had today:
What's the money going to mean in votes?
Until somebody shows me different, my guess is: not much.