http://www.chron.com/…

Some Galveston officials aren’t too pleased with their congressional representative, Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, for voting against the $22.8 billion disaster recovery aid package on Wednesday.

“That’s sad. That’s bad,” City Manager Steve LeBlanc said.

“I find it very distressing,” said Councilwoman Karen Mahoney, who represents the West End of the island, where damage was extreme. “He’s voting against aid for the region that he represents? I don’t find that very representative.”

Texas won’t get all that money, since some is dedicated to Iowa flood victims, Gustav victims and other disaster areas, but it could get more than half.

The legislation passed the House on Wednesday, 370-58. It also included other federal spending and the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific.

Eight of the Houston area’s nine lawmakers voted for the bill, with the exception of Paul. His spokeswoman, Rachel Mills, said Thursday that the congressman did not vote for the bill because it contained other “unconstitutional” provisions, which she did not specify.

Paul is famous for his consistent positions on limited government and low taxes. His views have drawn a vocal grass-roots following across the country.

Reactions among Galvestonians were mixed.

“That’s not too good,” said Mareia Schreiber while shaking out water-soaked artwork. “It feels kind of bad for the citizens of Galveston.”

But other residents said Paul’s vote didn’t bother them. “We’ve worked hard all our lives,” said Gene Lossow. “We take care of ourselves. I don’t need FEMA or anything else. We got insurance.”

Lossow, 65, works as a clerk at the Port of Galveston. The floodwaters soaked through his one-story ranch house, rising to 4 feet. Lossow and his wife had just spent $90,000 renovating the home a few months ago.

Lossow, who said he doesn’t vote, shrugged at news of the aid package. “There are too many people who expect the government to take care of them. But I’m not one of them.”

Tina Rios, who was helping her elderly parents clean out their flooded home on Ibis Street, said it was too early for her to think about “political stuff.”

“The only thing going on in our house is trying to save whatever we can,” she said. “We had flood insurance, but not contents insurance.”

Mills said Paul voted for a separate bill that passed Wednesday, the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008. The measure offers individuals and businesses in disasters to claim tax deductions for losses and to write-off expenses related to cleanup.

Who knows what the sampling was like but it’s encouraging to see some people out there who are truly self sufficient. He’s been doing this for years and they keep electing him so these kinds of votes must not really concern the people much.

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Ethanol advocates claim that the biofuel is a cheap, renewable energy source that reduces pollution and our dependence on foreign oil. It sounds too good to be true—and it is.

Ethanol, especially the corn-based variety, is bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers, bad for the environment, and horrible for the world’s poor. In fact, even environmentalists are critical of ethanol subsidies these days. The ethanol craze has distorted markets and increased the price of food worldwide. The only people who still support ethanol subsidies are the ethanol producers—and politicians from both sides of the aisle. Together, they make sure the subsidies keep coming.

In a recent interview about the current food crisis, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “If part of our problem is that the Chinese are going to eat meat and you’ve got to have corn and soybeans to feed the Chinese their meat, then why isn’t it just as legitimate for the Chinese to go back and eat rice as it is for us to change our policy on corn to ethanol?”

Let them eat rice? So that American taxpayers can continue to pay people to turn corn into fuel?

Silly senator, corn is for food.

This seven-and-a-half-minute video explores the case against ethanol subsidies. Hosted by reason’s Nick Gillespie and featuring Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey, it was produced by Paul Feine and PF Bentley.

For an audio podcast version, go here.

Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol

When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama.

Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.

Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.

Is anyone surprised? Several people who I know who voted for Obama have told me as time goes on they fear his rather unknown past more and more. Seems they should have worried about that more before casting a ballot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

Call it campaign growing pains. Or bad luck. Or a combination of the two.

By any name, Sen. John McCain is hampered by missteps and self-generated controversy in the early days of the general election campaign for the White House.

Take his most recent trip through several states and the Canadian capital, a five-day span during which he courted conservatives and independents alike, raised more than $10 million and began detailing his considerable differences with Sen. Barack Obama on energy policy.

Still, on Tuesday, he criticized his rival for proposing a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. The attack was complicated by McCain’s earlier statement that he would consider the same thing.

The following day, he met with a group of Hispanics in Chicago. Aides who had kept word of the event secret were placed on the defensive within hours after one participant criticized some of McCain’s comments.

On Thursday, the Arizona senator flew to Iowa, a likely battleground state in the fall, where he expressed sympathy with victims of severe flooding and pledged support for federal recovery aid. The event was overshadowed by President Bush’s appearance elsewhere in the same state on the same day.

Friday’s trip to Canada brought more controversy.

McCain arrived aboard his chartered campaign jet, yet told reporters at a news conference, “this is not a political campaign trip.” The senator added he didn’t feel it was appropriate to have the government to pay “while I am the nominee of my party.”

The centerpiece of the six-hour visit was a speech to the Economic Club of Canada that amounted to a cross-border political attack. McCain criticized Obama, without mentioning him by name, for his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“Demanding unilateral changes and threatening to abrogate an agreement that has increased trade and prosperity is nothing more than retreating behind protectionist walls,” he said.

McCain’s schedule also included mention of an unspecified “finance event.” While that is customarily campaign jargon for a fundraiser, foreigners may not donate to U.S. candidates, and one aide was quoted in advance as saying that money from $100-per-person event would simply defray the cost of the earlier luncheon.

The non-fundraiser, which may or may not have cost $100 to attend, was held on the top floor of a building with a commanding view of the city skyline. McCain said he knew some of those in attendance had homes in Arizona in the cold weather, and at one point, referred to his campaign themes of “reform, peace and prosperity.”

Reform? Like what? Is that like Obama’s “change” which equates to more of the same?

Peace? Like bombing brown people who happen to be a little pissed that the US federal government has invaded their countries, propped up dictators and otherwise force our way on them?

Prosperity? Like continuing the status quo corpatisim that exists in this country? By continuing the incredibly destructive and immoral system known as the Federal Reserve? By offering bailouts of failing companies and subsidizing big businesses?

It’s sad the man took two thirds of another presidential candidate’s slogan. Freedom, peace and prosperity sounds better though. And we know the man who was saying it meant it.

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/…

With the results of many of the “Super Tuesday” primaries and caucuses now finalized, the Ron Paul campaign is now projecting that it has at least 42 delegates to the national convention secured.

While much of the focus in yesterday’s Super Tuesday contests focused on preference poll numbers, Ron Paul caucus-goers were focused on securing delegates to the national convention.  With dedicated supporters and an organization focused purely on securing delegates, the campaign has secured more delegates to the national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul than caucus straw polls might otherwise suggest.

According to campaign projections, a minimum of 24 delegates were won in yesterday’s contests.  When added to projected delegates coming from strong showings in Iowa (4), Nevada (8), Louisiana (3) and Maine (3), that brings the total delegate count to 42 delegates or more.

“Our goal has always been to walk into the national GOP convention with as many delegates as possible,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign manager Lew Moore.  “The number of delegates we won yesterday could very well be the difference in a Convention where no one has a first-ballot majority.  With Dr. Paul’s home state of Texas coming up, we feel we can enter the convention with a substantial number of delegates.”

In an agreement first reported by West Virginia television station WSAZ, three Ron Paul delegates were secured through an agreement with the Mike Huckabee campaign at the West Virginia state convention early Tuesday.  Ron Paul delegates to the state convention swung their sizable support to Huckabee – putting Huckabee over the top – in exchange for the delegates.

According to campaign projections from last night’s results at least 3 delegates were won in Alaska, 5 delegates were won in North Dakota, 9 delegates were won in Minnesota, and 4 delegates were won in Colorado.

Additionally the results of the Louisiana Caucus may still change in favor of Ron Paul, where an ongoing legal challenge may result in most of that state’s delegates going towards Ron Paul after state GOP officials violated their own rules to improperly put delegates from other campaigns on the ballots.

Still 4th of 4 but we could pick up enough to force a brokered convention. Nick Bradley over at LRC has an interesting and optimistic projection.

1. After all the delegates are allocated in California, McCain will have well over 700 delegates; he won all but two of the counties (lost by a hair to Romney in Fresno and Shasta), so he should get all 173 delegates. In order to secure the nomination, he’ll need about half of the remaining 1,035 delegates, an unlikely feat.

2. As a result of the delegate reality for McCain, he will take Huckabee onto his ticket at a brokered convention that turns out to be little more than a formality. As the delegate count currently stands, McCain-Huckabee needs less than 300 delegates out of the remaining 1,035 to secure the nomination, less than 30%. I cannot envision any scenario where Paul and Romeny score enough delegates over the rest of the primaries to prevent a McCain-Huckabee majority.

3. If Huckabee has not already agreed to accept McCain’s VP slot, he will do so in a heartbeat. First, I have read repeatedly that McCain has made a private pledge to serve only one term, giving Huckabee a cleared field for 2012 if McHuckabee wins in November. If McHuckabee loses (which it probably will), Huckabee is “alive” for 2012, just like Edwards was for 2008 despite being out of office; Huckabee can go around the counrty for four years, extolling the virtues of the FairTax (during a severe recession, no less) and building grassroots support for a 2012 run.

4. Many conservatives will absolutely revolt over a McCain-Huckabee ticket, and will sit out the general or become suicide voters” and pull the lever for the democrat. This conservative angst, however, provides an excellent opening for a true conservative in the Goldwater-Taft mold to lead the exodus out of the party — Ron Paul. And if Hillary, who most democrats see as generally pro-war, is the democratic nominee, many of them will throw their lots in with the disgruntled conservatives and support Paul. Under such a scenario, Paul should have enough support get into the debates and take home a sizable chunk of the vote in Nobember. If Bloomberg jumps in and slices off the nanny state vote, probably split 60-40 to Hillary over McCain, Paul may even have a chance at winning. At this point, there aren’t many other options left.

I’m not sure if that or a 3rd party run starting after February makes more sense. Without knowing if Bloomberg or Nader will run it’s hard to decide. A 3rd party Paul run could pick up a decent chuck of votes but I doubt the 18% that Perot was able to get. The problem is time. By the time the R’s pick their guy the L’s will have chosen theirs. At that point I’m sure it’s too late to get yourself on the ballots anyway. I want to be able to vote for Paul in the general election… I just don’t know whether the almost guaranteed ballot access of the Libertarians is worth giving up the possible brokered convention where the revolution’s message could be argued at length and could grow the RLC and the libertarian wing of the party. While I appreciate what 3rd parties do and myself a member of the local Manhattan Libertarian Party, I believe given the current political state of affairs the path of least resistance for shrinking the state is by utilizing one of the two major parties. That or facilitate the Republican party’s downfall and absorb into the Libertarian party the libertarian wing or create a new liberty oriented party from it. That would allow traditional Reagan like conservatives from the LP to join that party and the LP could become what the Radicals want it to be.

http://www.cnn.com/…

Ron Paul, as of the end of the 4th quarter 2007, is the number one Republican fundraiser still in the race in the following states:

• Montana¹
• Alaska¹
• Hawaii
• Kansas¹
• New Mexico
• North Dakota²

Is second in:

• Washington
• Oregon
• Idaho
• Iowa
• Wyoming
• Arkansas
• Wisconsin
• Kentucky
• Nebraska²
• Minnesota²
• Oklahoma²
• Indiana²
• Tennessee³
• Mississippi^2,3
• Georgia^2,3
• West Virginia^2,3

¹ Including Democrat candidates. ² Giuliani raised more before dropping. ³ Fred Thompson raised more before dropping.

Obviously money doesn’t mean votes nor will those locations where he has gained rank because of some dropping out help him much. It is however interesting with regards to how the MSM regards him as a gadfly. He’s raised more from the numerous branches of the military than all other candidates combined. He raised more than twice what any other Republican did in the 4th quarter at nearly $20m. He’s the number one Republican fundraiser in 5 states and second in 8 without removing those who have dropped out.

My ranking of donations per capita has been updated with 4th quarter numbers, top 5:

1. New Hampshire
2. Wyoming
3. Nevada
4. Alaska
5. Montana