"Jews for Ron Paul" vs. "Republican Jewish Coalition"

Jews for Ron Paul has issued the following press release:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jews for Ron Paul 2008
Concord, New Hampshire
Executive Director: Jim C. Perry
Phone 603-671-3219
Email: jperry@jews4ronpaul.org

Jews for Ron Paul Offended by Dr. Paul's Exclusion From Debate; Calls for Jewish Republicans to Boycott Republican Jewish Coalition.

CONCORD, NH -- Calling on the Republican Jewish Coalition to change its criteria for inclusion in its Victory 2008 Republican Jewish Coalition Candidates Forum, Jews for Ron Paul for President Executive Director Jim C. Perry asked Jewish voters to avoid joining the organization that purports to be representing Jewish Republican voters. "The Republican Jewish Coalition has decided to exclude Dr. Ron Paul from their 'debate', not because of any objective criteria, but because they disagree with Dr. Paul on issues of foreign policy," he said.

The debate, to occur at the Grand Hyatt Hotel Independence Ballroom in Washington, DC on October 16, will feature Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. Although Mike Huckabee was invited, he will not attend the forum. RJC Communications Director Shari Hillman wrote that "due to the limited time available for the event, the RJC could only include the top six candidates currently in the field." Yet by all objective criteria, Ron Paul is a top six contender, including:

* First place finishes in the Gaston County, NC, Strafford County, NH, DeKalb County, GA, Alleghen

* Second place finishes in the Values Voters, Utah GOP, Cobb County, GA, Georgtown County, SC, and National Taxpayers Union Straw Polls;

* Third place finishes in the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, Illinois State Fair, and Texas Straw Polls;

* Fourth place finishes in the West Lafayette, IN, Students for Life America, and California Republican Assembly Straw Polls; and

* Fifth place in the Ames, IA Caucus.

"Congressman Paul has proven that he stands up for principle and doesn't pander to special interest groups. His voice should be heard at any serious Republican Presidential candidates forum," said Perry. "Hundreds of activists, Jewish and non-Jewish, have called and e-mailed to ask for Dr. Paul's inclusion in the Victory 2008 debate, but the Republican Jewish Coalition won't budge," he continued. "Instead, the RJC is asking those writing in to pay a membership fee, but what incentive is there for Ron Paul supporters to support an organization that is so clearly single-minded? The RJC has proven that they are not a serious organization, and we encourage Jewish voters not to support their Neo-Conservative agenda," concluded Perry.

Jews for Ron Paul was formed in the Summer of 2007 to support the Presidential candidacy of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Dr. Paul is a respected fiscal and foreign policy expert and ten-term member of Congress who recently addressed the Johns Hopkins University School of International Affairs on the topic of "A Traditional Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy."

The Jews for Ron Paul Advisory Board members include: Steven R. Berger (Hingham, MA) of Adamas Partners; Dr. Walter E. Block (New Orleans, LA) of Loyola University; Jennifer R. Coffey (Andover, NH) of the Second Amendment Sisters; Rich Goldman (Baltimore, MD) of the Free State Project; Aaron Zelman (Hartford, WI) of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership; and member emeritas, Aaron Russo (1943-2007), the late prominent Hollywood film producer. Our Web site address is http://www.jews4ronpaul.org/.

------

Here's the contact info for those who wish to protest this exclusion of Ron Paul:

Republican Jewish Coalition
50 F Street, N.W.
Suite 100
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202.638.6688
Fax: 202.638.6694
http://www.rjchq.org/

Matthew Brooks
Executive Director
Phone: 202-638-6688 E-mail: RJC@rjchq.org

Suzanne Kurtz
Press Secretary
Phone: 202-638-2909 x108
Email: SKurtz@RJCHQ.org

Ron Paul Won't Seek Libertarian Party Nomination

Ron Paul says that, should the GOP not select him as their 2008 presidential candidate, he has no intention of seeking a third party presidential nomination.

Paul says this to Utah's Deseret Morning News, in a story dated September 16, 2007.

Yes, he's said it before. Even so, we Libertarians keep hoping he'll change his mind come the LP's 2008 national convention. But that possibility looks ever less likely.

Libertarian Party of California Endorses October 27 Peace Protests

Lawrence K. Samuels sends me the following report:


"On September 15, 2007, convening at the Clarion Hotel in Millbrae, California, the LPC Executive Committee passed the following Peace Resolution:

'BE IT RESOLVED: In an effort to become more publicly involved in the movement to end the war in Iraq, the Libertarian Party of California lends its official support and cooperation to facilitate the statewide peace protest scheduled for Oct. 27, 2007.'

However, the ExCom does not want the LPC to be a coalition member of ANSWER, which is spearheading the nationwide rallies.

I suggested that LP members participate in local peace rallies across the state. Several antiwar articles are available for printing and distribution at Freedom1776.com and the LPC Peace Caucus website: LPCalPeace.org."


Thus ends Samuels's report.

This new LPC resolution should help end the claim that Libertarians are divided on the war. Pro-war Libertarians are a small minority. Furthermore, pro-war is not a libertarian position.

I'd Rather Be Informative Than "Positive"

My "From the Editor" column, which appears in the September 2007 issue of California Freedom:

On July 16, I addressed the topic Should Libertarians Build Alliances With the Left? at Los Angeles's Karl Hess Club. Prior to my talk, I was informed that some libertarians had objected to my speaking there. While the KHC's facilitator wouldn't outright tell me the names of those who would ban me, he conceded that I'd guessed right. And on my first attempt!

It wasn't hard. One of them was a "pro-defense" libertarian who's done much public chest-beating over the need for libertarians to be tolerant, so I wasn't surprised by his behind-the-scenes intolerance. Of course, I've met both pro- and antiwar libertarians who would ban the other side. They share the same rationale: that California Freedom is a sales tool for the LPC, so it must present the LPC in a "positive" light.

But isn't California Freedom also a newspaper?

Really, which is it? An organ of public relations or of journalism? Is its purpose to promote the party or to inform the members?

Ideally, it does both. However, PR and journalism have opposing objectives. PR puts a positive spin on events, the truth be damned. Journalism informs people of unpleasant truths, the consequences be damned.

Some libertarians want us to avoid unpleasant news, as it may discourage or "drive off" members in the short term. Yet fake PR is more harmful in the long run, because it breeds cynicism and distrust once the happy facade is impossible to maintain. To judge from some libertarian articles over the years, one might think that all artists, musicians, young people, immigrants, entrepreneurs, tech workers, hell, everyone on the planet, is already a libertarian; they just don't know it yet. Let's ignore that many people within those groups also demand statist entitlements and protections. Please don't mention that. It isn't "positive."

I recall LP fundraising pieces in the 1990s predicting a Libertarian majority House and Senate by 2010. I wonder how many new members had their hopes raised by such "positive" stories, which were at best self-delusional, at worse deceitful. I wonder how many newcomers later quit the LP, disheartened and disgusted and cynical.

Journalism can irritate people, yet in the longterm it's a better sales tool than PR spin. People trust journalists over advertisers, which is why the latter try to mimic the former through infomercials and advertorials. Likewise, LP members will more likely stick around if they believe they're getting "the real scoop" from LP news sources.

In this issue of California Freedom we broach the divisive issue of platform reform (see "Letters to the Editor"). A member once told me that CF shouldn't cover political or procedural debates; those should be left for the conventions. Unfortunately, the clock always expires before we can vote on, much less debate, every convention proposal. Clearly, members must prepare for the conventions by discussing and debating issues in advance. And if CF isn't the proper forum to debate those issues, what is?

Reporting on divisive issues may not be "positive," but I didn't invent these party rifts; they're already there. It's just that some members are unaware of them, and thus might arrive at the conventions unprepared--or not show up at all. (Of course, keeping opponents in the dark may be a goal of the better-organized factions.)

Tim Crowley's letter, and my reply, won't adequately explain the issues that divided Portland in '06, and will likely repeat in Denver in '08, but they'll give you a heads up. Use them as a starting point, then conduct your own investigations. Inform yourself. Decide for yourself.

Two brief, final notes. Former CF editor Elizabeth C. Brierly now works as Media Coordinator for The Independent Institute, from which she submits "U.S. Role in Islamist Terrorism." Thanks Elizabeth, and congrats on the new job!

And much thanks to Angela Keaton for her past service as Executive Director. I'm sorry she's left the building. She's a principled woman, with a sharp mind and a pen to match. "A young Ayn Rand," as they say in Hollywood. Although Angela's no longer obligated to produce a monthly column, I hope she'll submit pieces in the future. Please keep up with her at AngelaKeaton.com.

I hope you'll find this issue of California Freedom positive and informative. But if I had to pick one, I choose the latter.

Ron Paul Challenges Mike Huckabee on the War

The Swamp has reprinted an interesting exchange between Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee in the last debate, in which Paul rips a hole in Huckabee on the Iraq War.

Now CNN is offering a one-on-one rematch between these two GOP candidates. A great opportunity for Paul to get his anti-war message out!