Plainsman1963

Ron Paul

Representative Ronald E. 'Ron' Paul (TX)


Current Office: U.S. Representative
Current District: 14
First Elected: 11/05/1996
Party: Republican

Committees:
Financial Services [House]
International Relations [House]
Joint Economic Committee [Joint]


Background Information Additional Information

Gender: Male
Family: Wife: Carol Wells
5 Children.
Birth date: 08/20/1935
Birthplace: Pittsburgh, PA
Home City: Surfside Beach, TX
Religion: Protestant

Education:
MD, Duke University, 1967
BS, Gettysburg College, 1957.

Professional Experience:
Medical Practice, Obstetrician-Gynecologist, 1968-present
Air National Guard, 1965-1968
United States Air Force, Captain, 1963-1965
Author, "Challenge to Liberty", "The Case for Gold", "Freedom Under Siege", "A Republic."

Political Experience:
Representative, United States House of Representatives, 1996-present
Candidate, United State's President, Libertarian, 1988
United State's House of Representatives, Texas District 22, 1976-1977, 1979-1985
United State's Senate, Republican Candidate, 1984
Republican Nominee for United States House of Representatives, 1974.
Chairman, The Liberty Caucus of Fellow Congressmen on Capitol Hill.

Organizations:
Founder, FREE and the National Endowment for Liberty
Founder/Honorary Chairman, The Liberty Committee.

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
Congressional Fire Services Caucus
Congressional Rural Caucus.


Contact Information:
Washington DC Web Address:
Congressman Ron Paul

Washington DC Address
203 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2831
Fax:

District Address - Galveston
601 25th Street, Suite 216
Galveston, TX 77550
Phone: 409-766-7013
Fax:

District Address - Lake Jackson
122 West Way, Suite 301
Lake Jackson, TX 77566
Phone: 979-285-0231
Fax:

District Address - Victoria
1501 Mockingbird Lane, Suite 229
Victoria, TX 77901
Phone: 361-576-1231
Fax:

District Office - Texas City
8419 Emmett Lowry Expressway
Texas City, TX 77591
Phone: 409-935-2648

Issue Positions from Project Vote Smart.

Plainsman1963

Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq


February 12, 2007

Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve already spent more than $500 billion in Iraq, mostly through supplemental spending bills that are not part of the normal appropriations and budget process. But with costs soaring and no end to the war in sight, yet another supplemental spending bill must be passed soon—and both parties in Congress are only too willing to provide the money under the guise of supporting the troops.

Never mind that the American people showed their dissatisfaction with the war in the fall elections. Congress lacks the political will to stand up to the administration and assert its power over the purse strings, and too many vested interests in the defense sector benefit from the supplemental bills. A cynic might even suggest that many Democrats want the war to drag on, despite their supposed opposition, to damage the president politically and benefit them in 2008. But whatever the reason, the money for war keeps flowing.

Defense Department officials will ask Congress for the next supplemental bill in coming weeks. The amount requested is likely to be at least $140 billion. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2007--and the administration has made it clear that we will-- the bill to American taxpayers easily could top one trillion dollars in another year or two.

I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars. Even those who do must face the reality that the federal government simply doesn’t have the money. Congress continues to spend more than the Treasury raises in taxes year after year, by borrowing money abroad or simply printing it. Paying for war with credit is reckless and stupid, but paying for war by depreciating our currency is criminal.

Even the most modest suggestions for controlling spending in Iraq have been rejected. Some in Congress argued that reconstruction money should be paid back when Iraq’s huge oil reserves resume operation. Another idea was to find dollar-for-dollar offsets in the rest of the federal budget for every dollar spent in Iraq. But the administration adamantly opposed both ideas. Budget cuts are unpopular, and the profits from Iraqi oil will never compensate American taxpayers.

The mentality in Washington is simple: avoid hard choices at all costs; spend money at will; ignore deficits; inflate the money supply as needed; and trust that the whole mess somehow will be taken care of by unprecedented economic growth in the future.

We have embarked on the most expensive nation-building experiment in history. We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down-- all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars. We will pay to provide job training for Iraqis; we will pay to secure Iraq’s borders; we will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq. In doing so, we will saddle future generations of Americans with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one Congress should answer now-- by refusing another nickel for supplemental spending bills.

Plainsman1963

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.



WHY GOLD?
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

As with all matters of investment, everything is clear in hindsight. Had you bought gold mutual funds earlier this year, they might have appreciated more than 100 percent. Gold has risen $60 since March 2001 to the latest spot price of $326.

Why wasn't it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves. These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive.

Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It's been three decades since the dollar's tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It's just another asset the government keeps to itself.

The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it. You can exchange it for other currency at a fixed rate and for any good or service at a flexible rate. But there is no established exchange rate between the dollar and gold, either at home or internationally.

The supply of money is not limited by the amount of gold. Gold is just another good for which the dollar can be exchanged, and in that sense is legally no different from a gallon of milk, a tank of gas, or an hour of babysitting services.

Why, then, do people turn to gold in times like these? What is gold used for? Yes, there are industrial uses and there are consumer uses in jewelry and the like. But recessions and inflations don't cause people to want to wear more jewelry or stock up on industrial metal. The investor demand ultimately reflects consumer demand for gold. But that still leaves us with the question of why the consumer demand exists in the first place. Why gold and not sugar or wheat or something else?

There is no getting away from it: investor markets have memories of the days when gold was money. In fact, in the whole history of civilization, gold has served as the basic money of all people wherever it's been available. Other precious metals have been valued and coined, but gold always emerged on top in the great competition for what constitutes the most valuable commodity of all.

There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it money. It has certain properties that lend itself to monetary use, like portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity. But these are just descriptors of certain qualities of the metal, not explanations as to why it became money. Gold became money for only one reason: because that's what the markets chose.

Why isn't gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can't rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.

A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases.

In 1967, Alan Greenspan once wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom. He wrote that:
"An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense--perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire--that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."

He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government's ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order.

Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we've seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery.

Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don't have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation.

In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession.

Greenspan now finds himself on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If he continues to pull back on money, the economy could tip into a serious recession. This is especially a danger given rising protectionism, which mirrors the events of the early 1930s. On the other hand, a continuation of the loose policy he has pursued for a year endangers the value of the dollar overseas.

How much easier matters were when we didn't have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.

We don't have that system now for the country or the world, but individuals are showing their preferences once again. By driving up the price of gold, prompting gold producers to become profitable again, the people are expressing their lack of confidence in their leaders. They have decided to protect themselves and not trust the state. That is the hidden message behind the new luster of gold.

Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it.

What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.

Plainsman1963

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

March 7, 2007

The Scandal at Walter Reed

The scandal at Walter Reed is not an isolated incident. It is directly related to our foreign policy of interventionism.

There is a pressing need to reassess our now widely accepted role as the world’s lone superpower. If we don’t, we are destined to reduce our nation to something far less powerful.

It has always been politically popular for politicians to promise they will keep us out of foreign wars, especially before World War I. That hasn’t changed, even though many in Washington today don’t understand it.

Likewise it has been popular to advocate ending prolonged and painful conflicts like the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and now Iraq.

In 2000, it was quite popular to condemn nation building and reject the policy of policing the world, in the wake of our involvement in Kosovo and Somalia. We were promised a more humble foreign policy.

Nobody wins elections by promising to take us to war. But once elected, many politicians greatly exaggerate the threat posed by a potential enemy-- and the people too often carelessly accept the dubious reasons given to justify wars. Opposition arises only when the true costs are felt here at home.

A foreign policy of interventionism costs so much money that we’re forced to close military bases in the U.S., even as we’re building them overseas. Interventionism is never good fiscal policy.

Interventionism symbolizes an attitude of looking outward, toward empire, while diminishing the importance of maintaining a constitutional republic.

We close bases here at home-- some want to close Walter Reed-- while building bases in Arab and Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. We worry about foreign borders while ignoring our own. We build permanent outposts in Muslim holy lands, occupy territory, and prop up puppet governments. This motivates suicide terrorism against us.

Our policies naturally lead to resentment, which in turn leads to prolonged wars and increased casualties. We spend billions in Iraq, while bases like Walter Reed fall into disrepair. This undermines our ability to care for the thousands of wounded soldiers we should have anticipated, despite the rosy predictions that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

Now comes the outrage.

Now Congress holds hearings.

Now comes the wringing of hands. Yes, better late than never.

Clean it up, paint the walls, make Walter Reed look neat and tidy! But this won’t solve our problems. We must someday look critically at the shortcomings of our foreign policy, a policy that needlessly and foolishly intervenes in places where we have no business being.

Voters spoke very clearly in November: they want the war to end. Yet Congress has taken no steps to defund or end a war it never should have condoned in the first place.

On the contrary, Congress plans to spend another $100 billion or more in an upcoming Iraq funding bill-- more even than the administration has requested. The 2007 military budget, $700 billion, apparently is not enough. And it’s all done under the slogan of “supporting the troops,” even as our policy guarantees more Americans will die and Walter Reed will continue to receive casualties.

Every problem Congress and the administration create requires more money to fix. The mantra remains the same: spend more money we don’t have, borrow from the Chinese, or just print it.

This policy of interventionism is folly, and it cannot continue forever. It will end, either because we wake up or because we go broke.

Interventionism always leads to unanticipated consequences and blowback, like:

A weakened, demoralized military;

Exploding deficits;

Billions of dollars wasted;

Increased inflation;

Less economic growth;

An unstable currency;

Painful stock market corrections;

Political demagoguery;

Lingering anger at home; and

Confusion about who is to blame.

These elements combine to create an environment that inevitably undermines personal liberty. Virtually all American wars have led to diminished civil liberties at home.

Most of our mistakes can be laid at the doorstep of our failure to follow the Constitution.

That Constitution, if we so desire, can provide needed guidance and a roadmap to restore our liberties and change our foreign policy. This is critical if we truly seek peace and prosperity.

Plainsman1963

The Coming Entitlement Meltdown


March 5, 2007

David Walker, Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office, appeared on the show “60 Minutes” last evening to discuss the federal budget outlook. If you saw the show, you know that he painted a very sobering picture regarding the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations.

If you didn’t see the show, Mr. Walker’s theme was simple: government entitlement spending is like a runaway freight train headed straight at American taxpayers. He singled out the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed by Congress at the end of 2003, as “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”

When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government simply won’t be able to keep its promises in the future. That is the reality every American should get used to, despite the grand promises of Washington reformers. Our entitlement system can’t be reformed- it’s too late. And the Medicare prescription drug bill is the final nail in the coffin.

The financial impact of the drug bill cannot be overstated. Government projections that the program would cost $400 billion over the next decade were a joke, as everyone in Congress knew even as they voted for the bill. The real cost will be at least $1 trillion in the first decade alone, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older.

The Medicare “trust fund” is already badly in the red, and the only solution will be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes for younger workers. The National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation’s GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That’s not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40 % of the nation’s entire private sector output!

The politicians who get reelected by passing such incredibly shortsighted legislation will never have to answer to future generations saddled with huge federal deficits. Those generations are the real victims, as they cannot object to the debts being incurred today in their names.

The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the federal government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly fifty trillion dollars- a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this fifty trillion amounts to about $175,000.

Don’t believe for a second that we can grow our way out of the problem through a prosperous economy that yields higher future tax revenues. If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare alone. The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60%, or doubling federal taxes. To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years.

The answer to these critical financial realities is simple, but not easy: We must rethink the very role of government in our society. Anything less, any tinkering or “reform,” won’t cut it. A good start would be for Congress to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill.

Plainsman1963

One Christmas tradition Congress could do without is the broken process of passing the annual Omnibus Spending Bill, which we recently did right before the holiday recess.

Every December Congress fights and argues over spending and never seems to be able to pass the necessary appropriations until the very last minute. There is panic and threats of government shut downs and reduction in essential services. And they always threaten the essential services, as if there is no waste they could possibly eliminate instead. This past December, right on cue the administration warned about dire civilian defense department layoffs if the money didn't come soon.

And so at the very last minute the Omnibus was rushed through in a whirlwind, just in time to save the day. Members of Congress had less than 24 hours to read the nearly 3,500 page bill before a vote was taken. The bill was supposedly much too important to waste time reading it.

I feel differently. I feel the important bills are the ones we should take especial care to closely examine.

However, we are led to believe that if the Omnibus bill failed, horrible things would have happened. But the situation is a setup that ensures our government spending balloons every year just as the elites and special interests dictate. The vast majority of Members of Congress don't actually know what the money is being spent on until after passage and by then it is too late.

To address this flawed and corruptible process I have proposed a very simple change called the Sunlight Rule, which mandates that bills be presented to Congress and staff for review in their final form no less than 10 days before they come to the floor for a vote. This would allow the representatives of the American people time to read the bills before having to make a decision on them. Every now and then you hear criticisms of congressmen and women for not reading the bills. That is a problem, however in cases like the Omnibus spending bills, a few hours is not nearly enough time to comb through and evaluate the hundreds of pages they contain. The rules do not currently specify any amount of time that must be allotted for Congress to read or deliberate any legislation before a vote. That needs to change.

Congress should read the bills. But to do that requires an appropriate amount of time. More appropriately phrased, Congress should be ALLOWED to read the bills. And no member of Congress should, in good conscience, vote affirmatively on a bill they haven't fully analyzed.

I am hoping that in the New Year more of my colleagues will resolve to take a stand for honesty and due diligence in representing the people of this country and that we can enact the Sunlight Rule. With it, we will be a wiser, more open Congress and our decisions in Washington will be more deliberative and fully informed as they ought to be.

No Sunlight on the Omnibus

Lit_Match

Just wanted to note that it's pretty cool to see how many views this thread has compared to the other candidate overviews.

__________________
Donation links to NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) | MPP (Marijuana Policy Project)

DaDornta

I donated $20 to his campaign. I'm gonna switch my registration so I can cacuss (sp?) in my state just to help make a statement. He won't win--he'll never be "allowed to" or even get a nomination. However, Ron Paul's ideas/morals/stands will be ever-helped by more supporters speaking out. The wider the message is spread, the more the ideas sink in.

__________________

Lit_Match

That's the thing, if he does get the GOP nomination it won't be due to media coverage. It will be because of grassroots efforts (your donation is a shining example already). Republican presidential hopefuls are starting to drop out heavily, I expect Huckabee and Ghouliani to drop out next.

Ron has the hard cash to continue his campaign thanks solely to the grassroots organization, he will be the last to drop out for financial reasons, which is the main cause of candidates quitting.

One thing is for sure, caucusing by grassroots is the answer. We can't depend on the media to help us out at all, this is certain.

Remember the feeling you got when you were first learning about him and his principles?

Share that knowledge with others, the majority of them will feel the same.

Plainsman1963

January 28, 2008


When I started this campaign more than a year ago, I was a somewhat
reluctant candidate. I knew our message of freedom, peace, and prosperity
was the right one for our country, but frankly, I didn't know how many
people today would have ears to hear it.

Well, did I learn a lesson! Millions of Americans understand what ails
our country, and what is needed to fix it. So, with you at my side, I
am in this effort to win. Not only by building the ideas of liberty, but
by getting the nomination. Our opponents would call that nuts -- you
know, the advocates of more inflation, more spending, more taxes, more
war. But let me explain why they are, as usual, all wet.

For one thing, for the first time since 1952, we are headed towards a
brokered convention. Instead of a coronation of one of the establishment
candidates, the delegates, influenced by the people, will decide. And
I am afraid that this will take place in a time of heightened economic
crisis. That means even more Americans will be ready to hear our
message. But it also means I am really going to need your help.

One would never know this from the mainstream media, but we've only had
a few primaries and caucuses, and even after the extremely important
date of February 5th, we will still have more than half to go. And the
Republican nominee will not be decided by the popular vote among the
"leading candidates" in a few states also handpicked by the media. The
nominee will be decided by the delegates. So let me tell you a little
about our "under-the-radar" strategy to get those delegates.

On "Super Tuesday," February 5th, there will be 22 primaries and
caucuses. I have a hunch that we're going to do very well. But, of course,
the media and the rest of the establishment refuse to recognize that.
It's the attitude of the small child who covers his eyes to make something
scary go away. But we are not going away.

While the media focus on the couple of states they claim are important,
we're competing everywhere. And the reason that we're able to do that
is because of your grassroots support. You all are an asset that no
other campaign has: donors, and activists who want no special deals from
the government, just the Constitution.

We're competing very strongly in all the caucus states, and in all
other states where delegates are up for grabs. And we're going to keep
picking up delegates. Our strategy's already working.

And we're committed to winning states. I have little doubt that if we
can double our efforts in this coming week, we're going to grab many
delegates from other candidates. Then we'll start getting ready for the
biggest moment of all - the convention in September.

The path to the convention is twisty, however. When we were in Iowa, we
got 10% of the vote. But no delegates were awarded that night. That's
because voters didn't directly choose national convention delegates;
they selected the county and state delegates who will make that decision.
And if another candidate like Mike Huckabee is no longer in the race
at the time of the state convention in June, his delegates are free to
support whomever they want. If we work extra hard, we can convert them
into delegates for our campaign!

A similar thing happened in Nevada. We won 14% of the straw poll vote
that the media reported on, but what they didn't tell you was that we
may have gotten up to a third of Nevada's delegates to their county
conventions! I always laughed when I heard some people say Nevada didn't
matter. Nevada chooses more delegates to the national convention than
South Carolina.

So, while the media will focus on the results from Florida, and
probably take down the campaign of my friend Rudy in the process, those
results are less important to you and me. Let them fight in Florida while we
bring our message to Americans in other areas, like the economically
hard-hit state of Maine.

We want to win as many delegates to the Republican National Convention
as possible, even if other campaigns don't see some areas of the
country as "important. But in this work, I need your help. Help me get many,
many delegates to this historic convention, by these three methods.

1. Donate. Your generous contributions are essential if we're going to
keep going until September. We need, frankly $5 million by February 5
to run more TV and radio ads in the Super Tuesday states. Your help
means everything: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.

2. Canvass. You can help us identify those who support our message in
your precinct. You can help us to convert others, too. After all, your
neighbors pay attention to you. I am going to visit as much of the
country as I can, but I need you as my partner in your area:
https://voters.ronpaul2008.com.

3. ASK others to sign-up on our website. I meet so many people on the
campaign trail who don't even receive my letters! I've told my campaign
to make communication with you, the engine of all this, much better.
But if people don't sign up for my e-mails, that won't happen. If you
could just get one extra person to sign-up, that would be great. More
would be tremendous.

Help me by forwarding this e-mail to every other Ron Paul supporter you
know, and urging them to join our efforts!
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/join.

We've come so far, but now the fun is really starting! I have a feeling
the mainstream media will move from ignoring us to attacking us. But
that will be a sign of our success. Join me as we continue this great
movement into year two, and to a hot convention in Minneapolis-Saint
Paul. We can do it!

Sincerely,

Ron