Debbie went into pre-term labor Wednesday evening. They gave her some medicine to slow the contractions, but they started up again today with enough force for us to drive back to the hospital. Doctor says she's slightly effaced so they may not be able to stop it with drugs again, and as a precaution she's about to be sent to a larger hospital that has neonatal ICU (aka "NICU") beds (we're just shy of 33 weeks). Goal is to keep babies inside, but failing that they'll do a c-section and keep the tikes in the NICU beds while their lungs continue to develop more fully.
For those wondering about this in relation to the health care question, even without the maternity benefit our insurance does kick in for emergency complications with pregnancy once the deductible has been used up. After tonight, I'm pretty sure even our crazy-high deductible will be well and truly met.
I don't know when I'll be able to check back in. Please pray for us.
I want to go on record by saying that Ron Paul's best chance of winning among the early states is in Nevada. Aside from the generally Libertarian bent of the silver state, Paul is the only candidate who thinks the federal government overstepped its bounds with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site, a fairly important issue to many Nevadans. And except for Paul, most candidates aren't spending time there among the voters. If they're in the state at all it's for fund-raising in Las Vegas.
Voter turnout also plays a factor. Unlike New Hampshire where almost everyone votes, voter turnout among Nevadans will likely be small. It's much harder to get people to go and caucus than it is to get people to go vote at a polling place. The fact that he has a somewhat narrow base won't hurt him because his base is extremely committed. His 8% in the state overall (and probably closer to between 12 and 15% by voting day) is going to have very high voter turnout. With a fractured GOP field, he only needs about 30% of the actual vote to guarantee himself the winner. I predict he'll win with a comfortable margin over the second place candidate.
While I'm making predictions, I'll also go for a Huckabee win in Iowa, and for similar reasons to Paul in Nevada. Again, a caucus state, and Huckabee supporters are clearly more passionate about their candidate than Romney supporters. That "statistical dead heat" they've been running in the polls really doesn't mean a lot unless both groups of supporters are also equally committed. They're not, so the tie goes to Huck.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Paul's news presence after winning some national delegates. Will the exposure be enough to propel him forward on Super Tuesday? I hope so.
I spent 5 hours collecting signatures for a petition to get Ron Paul on the Republican primary ballot in Virginia. I'm pleased to say that I managed to hit my goal of filling up both sides of a petition sheet, though a bit peeved at how long it took.
The problem I kept running into was with people not being willing to sign a petition for a guy that many of them hadn't heard of. I went to the mall and there was only one person I spoke to who actually knew who RP was (on the plus side, it was nice that she was a huge fan). After about an hour, I decided to take a different approach, and left the highly-trafficked mall to head over to the lightly-trafficked bookstore. Huge difference.
While people at the mall had never heard of him, most people at the bookstore knew who he was - probably about 70%. Those who didn't know were at least politically engaged enough to ask about him and find out what he stood for. If the folks who ran Barnes and Noble hadn't decided I was soliciting and told me to leave, I probably could've filled 2 petitions there without much sweat.
I finished out my sheet at a smaller, less-trafficked bookstore, was again told to leave, but the sheet was full so I didn't mind so much.
It got me thinking about the difference between people who spend Sunday at the mall versus people who spend their Sunday at Barnes and Noble. I don't think most of those mall-goers are actually going to vote in the primary. Telephone surveys count them, sure, but I don't think they plan to count themselves when the primaries roll around. As far as the people who matter, I'm guessing the Barnes and Noble crowd provided a much more representative sample of the sort who are actually engaged in the system and will probably vote when the time comes.
Among that crowd, RP has very good name recognition and a pretty high favorability rating. Only one person refused to sign my petition because he was actively supporting a different Republican candidate (Guiliani). RP reaches these people without running any ads in our area, and all while being virtually ignored by the mainstream media. I could just be wishing here, but I think he's actually got a decent shot at winning.
The camera I was using to tape my CNN Youtube question was borrowed and I can't get it back in time to tape another before the deadline for submissions. And since I'm saving up for the twins, I'm not about to run out and buy one. But I'm hoping that maybe one of you can record yourself asking the following question:
In 2004 the media learned that both George W Bush and John Kerry were members of the Yale secret society "Skull and Bones". But since this was not reported until after Kerry had secured the Democratic party nomination, it never became an election issue. Rather than risk finding out after the nominations (if ever) that we once again have both major party candidates representing the same secret society, would all of you please tell us now, to which secret societies you belong?
Honestly, isn't that the sort of question that a debate like this is supposed to bring out?
If anyone will actually do this, please post a link to the video in your comments so I can embed it here. The link to submit your video can be found at http://youtube.com/contest/RepublicanDebate. Just click the "Submit a Video" button. Deadline is tomorrow, November 25.
UPDATE - I used a webcam and a free download of Camtasia 3 so I could put this together. The video and sound are out of sync, and the picture quality isn't as good as I'd like, but it's up. And hey, it's the message and not the medium that matters, right?
I received this email earlier today and thought I'd pass it on:
November 20, 2007
During the first few days of October, we announced our fundraising goal for the fourth quarter: $12 million raised by December 31.But there's more: we need to have spent it by then, too.
If we were to raise the entire $12 million in the last week of December, we would meet our fundraising goal for the quarter. But Ron Paul would stand little chance of winning the Republican nomination, because that money would have come in too late.
Time is of the essence. You see, we need to raise money well before we plan to spend it. That's because most of the expenditures that we make need to be paid for weeks in advance. For example, we need to buy crucial airtime for the end of December right now.
The sooner we raise this money, the sooner that we can spread Dr. Paul's message - our message - in the early primary states. Time truly is money.
Fact is, we only have about two weeks to raise money for the early primaries.
If you wait a month from now to donate, your money will only be spent after Iowa caucus-goers and New Hampshire primary voters have made up their minds.
We are rapidly running out of time. The Iowa caucus is just 44 days away. New Hampshire is in 49 days. With so much ground to make up, we can't afford to waste a single day.
As a result, we are spending faster than the rate at which we are raising money. In October alone, we raised $2.8 million, but our campaign spent over $3.1 million.
We cannot afford to wait for bursts of press activity. What we need is sustained attention in the news. What better way to do this than by continuing to raise money at a rapid pace now? We need to keep our momentum going.
Help us win in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada.
Make your most generous contribution as soon as you can: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.
Jonathan Bydlak
Fundraising Director
Ron Paul 2008
Here's my question for the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate. Figured I'd share it here too.
Just so you know, we think we'll be ok here, but it's going to be tight. Prayers are appreciated!
Back in this article from 2004, Paul was sounding the alarm bells about runaway inflation, bad credit practices creating artificial pressure on housing prices, and the plummetting value of the dollar, all back when the Fed was telling us that the CPI was under control and inflation not a threat. Now that the deleterious effects of fiat currency are becoming plainly evident and the dollar is being shunned by foreign investors, we all see exactly how right he was. No superpower can retain its supremacy once its currency becomes worthless. Ron Paul winning the presidency is the best hope we have of avoiding a legacy of debt-slavery and poverty for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.
Go check out Ron Paul's next money bomb. The way things stand now, he has a very real chance of beating out Guiliani's fund-raising this quarter even without the next money bomb. And with it, he could actually beat Romney to become the new money leader in the Republican field. Boy would that wake some folks up!
The campaign's original stated goal was to raise 3mil in October, 4mil in November, and 5mil in December, which was how they came up with 12 million as a goal for the entire quarter. At the present rate of fund-raising though, he'll hit the 10 million mark around the end of this month, and may just double that in December. Regardless, he's going to blow past 12 million easily.
I previously predicted Ron Paul would take the Republican nomination. I still think my reasons were good, but I'm starting to wonder if maybe I underestimated the degree to which Republican voters would be motivated to stop him from winning. If enough Republicans were threatened by his rise, the otherwise apathetic voters might actually go out and vote against him on election day. He's pretty much an all or nothing candidate. You either love him or hate him, and it is that degree of passion which truly decides the winner of a primary election contest.
Even I don't agree with all of his positions. I just think that he's the kind of extreme measures medicine that we need to get us back on track as a country.
Personally, I wish he would embrace an energy policy that provides federal funds toward research and development into clean and efficient alternative energy resources, and I can't stand the fact that he's a skeptic on global warming while Georgians are praying for rain. I realize that addressing these issues would step outside the bounds of what the Constitutional framers envisioned for the role of the federal government, but in my mind, they are simply too large and important to leave to the free markets to solve.
Still, he's the only candidate who wants to even talk about shoring up the value of our dollar, and for the most part I really do agree with his positions on limited government, national defense, and taxes. So, even with my one fairly major caveat, I think this country would be better off with Dr Paul in the oval office than with any other candidate in either party.
So, here's my question for you Ron Paul supporters out there: on which issues do you disagree with him? What are his views and what would you like them to be?
I guess mainly I'm just curious if there's any sort of consensus among the Paulites about where we disagree with our favorite future president. Not that he'd ever change his positions, but is there any clear place where most of us would definitely want him to?
If you take the word of the Ron Paul donation meter at midnight Nov 5th ($7,110,810.21) minus what it showed midnight November 4th ($2,773,017.02), you get $4,337,793.19.
I'd say that's a pretty darn good haul! And it's still going. Last check he's been pulling in about $21 per second since November 5th officially ended. That's freaking awesome!
Want to be part of history? Donate today!
Remember remember the 5th of November
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of no reason
the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
I watched V is for Vendetta again last night. That's 2 years in a row now I've watched it in time for the 5th. I think it's become a tradition at our house.
Great movie.
Ok, check out this link straight from the front page of Yahoo News today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
A reporter named Jennifer Loven has essentially handed in a white house press release and called it an article. There is no counter-point included, not even a token 2-line rebuttal like you'd expect. To make matters worse, Yahoo placed it on their front page as if it were a real news piece.
I don't know how something like this happens in our supposedly free press. But if they're not going to post a counterpoint, then I will.
The lessons of history Bush cites are extremely apt here, but not for the reasons he points to. It is not that we are watching the rise of a regime elsewhere in another country that would threaten to destroy us. Rather, we are watching our own administration march toward totalitarianism.
Bush has systematically installed people and policies designed to concentrate his hold over the country and stifle dissent. Just as Stalin had his anti-communist spies and Hitler had his Jews, Bush has his own phantom enemy and a permanent state of war to justify the dismantling of our most precious civil liberties. Bush is the modern-day Hitler, the modern-day Stalin, rising as they did through the use of fear, intimidation, and secrecy. It is his potency that our leaders in Congress seek to rein in, not the power of our military. It is Bush who has overextended our forces to the breaking point, and it is the continued funding of his war machine in the Middle East that puts us all in jeopardy.
Jennifer Loven should be ashamed for giving up the power of her pen. With reporters like her, why should we even have a free press?