http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/…

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is proud of what he sees as his truly conservative credentials. He’s for smaller government, much smaller. He’s for foreign trade but not foreign military involvement. He wants to spend that money wasted on empire-building right back here in these United States of America. He’d also get rid of the Education Department and the Federal Reserve.

His followers, who reverently call him Dr. Paul, like the way he would strictly adhere to the Constitution as he sees it and return more freedoms to the little guy in the face of big government.

Paul fans — regularly called Paulites, Paultards or Paulunteers — also see a gentle humility in the weathered but wise hands of the 72-year-old ob-gyn, who reputedly has delivered some 4,000 infants into life in this wondrous world.

But there seems to be another side to Paul. A mean, vicious, cruel and uncaring side. A side that sees millions of humans — albeit Burmese who are not registered to vote in Texas — afflicted with an historic cyclone, countless thousands of lives lost, devastation everywhere.

And the doting grandfather could care less.

This week when a Congressional resolution came up for a vote merely offering “condolences and sympathy” to the people of Burma affected by the recent deadly cyclone, Ron Paul, the millionaire, was the only member of the entire House of Representatives to vote “No.”

The Myanmar resolution, like all those goofy pieces of symbolic legislation, would have done absolutely nothing for the stricken millions. Not even provided one paper towel. It’s a cheap publicity trick that elected legislators waste countless hours on each session.

Such worthless resolutions don”t even get much publicity anymore. And, to put it in blunt political terms, exactly how strong is the Burmese vote around here anyway?

So Paul’s symbolic stand against symbolic silliness looks good.

But then along come the sharp-eyed folks over at Radaronline.com, specifically Nick Curran, who finds out that Paul’s stand against symbolic silliness when it comes to Asians whose huts and hovels were erased by cyclone, is not quite so principled and a whole lot more enthused about dumb statements of sentiment when the silliness is closer to home.

Come to find out Paul has voted in favor of similar empty resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for a swell season and winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl, to the Louisiana State football team for, golly, winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series and to celebrate the New York Giants for their come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII.

Seriously, what Texas congressman near Houston wouldn’t want to get on the official Congressional record wishing all the best to every one of the good folks up in New York City?

Wait til the Houston Texans find out about that one. Or, worse for Paul, some Dallas fans.

–Andrew Malcolm

As I posted to Andrew’s blog… Less then 30 seconds on Google News search would have rewarded you with: ‘Paul spokeswoman Rachel Mills said the congressman objected to a sentence in the resolution calling on Burma’s ruling generals to postpone a scheduled referendum in order to concentrate their resources on disaster assistance. “It interferes with the internal affairs of another country,” Mills said. “It’s just none of our business.”‘The pointlessness of the resolution itself was not the reason for the vote. It was the fact it tried to instruct the Burmese government on what it should do. As minor as it may appear it’s only a matter of degrees from other interventionist language we place in other resolutions which represent the actual interventionist actions we take. If you want to stop being to bully you ought to stop talking like one too.

As for the other votes on pointless resolutions… there is nothing you can do. Anyone in Congress can bring up any damn resolution they want or talk about whatever they want. If Paul is already in attendance he can vote NA, YAY or not vote. Nothing changes any which way and there is nothing unconstitutional about pointless resolutions. Voting no or not voting sends no message in those cases. In this case however it can. Only reason to vote against the pointless resolutions would be to save the ink given NA is shorter then the other options or to hold an absolute stance against wasting time. The congressmen get paid yearly anyway so I’d much rather them take up their time with pointless congrats resolutions than messing with things that actually effect the real world.

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

California State Senator Alan Lowenthal has introduced SB 1322, which deletes some state laws that discriminate against members of the Communist Party. California’s Constitution, Article 20, says that no one may run for either partisan office or non-partisan office, if that person is a member of the Communist Party, or has been within the last 5 years. The Lowenthal bill does not try to repeal that. It does repeal statutes that bar party members from being public school teachers, and statutes that require organizations that want to meet in a public school to sign an affidavit that they are Communist “fronts”.

The bill has a hearing on April 2 in the Senate Education Committee. If SB 1322 passes, it will probably then be possible to repeal various California election laws that also single out Communist Party members. California is one of only six states that has such election laws. The others are Illinois, Arkansas, Kansas, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. None of these laws are enforceable. In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they violate the First Amendment, in a case called Communist Party of Indiana v Whitcomb. The decision was unanimous.

I’m not surprised there are still laws on the books which discriminate against Communists. I doubt very much anyone but the most hardcore bother with any official “Communist” party. I’d think given the stigma real communists are in one of the many socialist parties or maybe the Green party.

• 2,380 total delegates
• 1,191 votes needed to win nomination
• less than that results in a brokered convention
• According to CNN.com:
  • John McCain : 663 pledged, 17 unpledged
  • Mitt Romney : 261 pledged, 9 unpledged
  • Mike Huckabee : 173 pledged, 3 unpledged
  • Ron Paul : 16 pledged, 0 unpledged
• As noted on the CNN site says: “Unpledged delegates in the Republican Party do not have to indicate a candidate preference, but a majority are elected just like pledged delegates. Of the 463 unpledged delegates, 123 are RNC members who become delegates automatically.”
• These numbers are estimates. No one knows for sure who all the delegates belong. Some states have yet to finalize them.
• The Paul campaign has announced that in fact they have an estimated 42 delegates.
• There are 2,380 - 1,142 = 1,238 delegates left to get.
• With 680 total delegates McCain needs 1,191 - 680 = 511 more to lock in a win. 551/1,238 = 44.5% of those available.
• The Wikipedia article on the Republican presidential primaries does a wonderful job sorting out when and how delegates are picked.
• Kansas has 36: Paul is the number 1 fundraiser, Rudy 2nd, McCain 3rd. I suspect McCain will do well but with no poll data it’s hard to tell. This poll which matches candidates shows McCain doing the best against Clinton so my guess is he wins. It’s not a winner take all however. If we follow Montana which Paul also was number 1 fundraiser… it went to Romney who raised 2nd most.
• Washington has 40: Paul is doing well there. 2nd in fundraising to Mitt. Hopefully those two pick up most of the delegates.
• Virginia is winner takes all. Looks like McCain will take their 63.
• Maryland looks like Rudy and Romney country. Assuming they move from Rudy to McCain he may pickup a majority of their 37.
• DC looks like a McCain win with 16.
• Louisiana is a cluster fuck. Paul may have gotten 2nd to the Pro-Life slate though McCain may have. Either way it’s split and counted in the 42 the Paul campaign is claiming. There are more (24+) to be selected however.
• Wisconsin should go well for Paul and be fairly split. They have 37 to give.
• Based on $$ raised Romney should pick up a majority of Ohio but Rudy + McCain could take a large chunk of the 85 they have.
• Texas’ 137 appear to be very split. If the Rudy supporters go to McCain he will get many of the delegates.
• I’m counting about 330 for McCain from these states. At that rate it seems likely he will get his 511 but it may be fairly close. I’ve heard rumors that some of his delegates aren’t really his. I doubt it’s all that many but it could be enough to force a brokered convention. Even though I don’t expect Paul to get the nomination the opportunity to address the entire Republican establishment and pitch his platform would be priceless. The whole Republican world would hopefully be watching.

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

http://www.zogby.com/…

The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who announced Friday he would end his campaign, was included in the poll. He might have sensed the nationwide opposition to his campaign, as 47% said they would never vote for him for President. The survey showed he was tied as the third most objectionable candidate, behind Clinton and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (49%). Tied with Brownback was Democrat Michael Gravel, a former Alaska senator, and GOP Congressman Ron Paul.

I’d read a comment somewhere that only 3-5% of those answering the poll knew who Paul was before the poll. If so these numbers are completely useless. I’ve not been able to find that info first hand though. I really doubt though that all almost 10k people knew all those on the list. Regardless, it would seem from this poll that the front runners aren’t the best possible candidates. Seems Huckabee and Richardson would be.

UPDATE: This poll says that among 40 year olds Ron Paul beats Clinton 47% to 44% and down by 2% with 30 y/o’s. The other age groups it’s not so good however.

http://arstechnica.com/…

California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have moved (PDF) to extend their antitrust judgment against Microsoft until November 12, 2012. This decree is a modification of last month’s request to a judge that the judgment be extended by five years. The current antitrust decree is scheduled to expire in November of this year.

Firstly, they claim that there have been “continuing problems” with Microsoft’s efforts to document its server communications protocols.

Secondly, the report laments the state of OEM web browser bundling, saying that “no major OEM currently distributes a browser other than Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (IE).”

I’m no fan of Microsoft but it’s laughable to think people actually consider them a monopoly. Sure they own lots of stuff and a whole lot of hardware run their software… but there are dozens of alternatives both for sale in the traditional sense but also free and open source projects. It’s really amazing all this has gone on for so long.

And why aren’t these states going after MS, Sony and Nintendo for having closed platforms? Shouldn’t my 360 game be able to work on my Wii?