Ron Paul is no longer a dark horse

CARLA MARINUCCI
San Francisco Chronicle

They were a lonely band of rebels until just a few weeks ago, backing the darkest of dark horse presidential candidates.

But with Republican Rep. Ron Paul's fundraising on the rise - $4.2 million raised on the Internet in one day this month - and his poll numbers jumping, the Texas congressman might no longer be a "who?" but a potential problem for leading Republican presidential candidates in key states such as New Hampshire.

And in California, the state where the 72-year-old doctor-politician has raised the most money, those who call themselves part of the "Ron Paul Revolution" couldn't be happier.

Paul's backers are people such as Brad Sanford, 29, a Silicon Valley tech worker who said he never had been involved in politics or campaigns until this year.

Sanford, attending a Paul campaign Bay Area "meet-up" event, said he first caught Paul's appearances on cable programs like "The Bill Maher Show," "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and "The Colbert Report." Since then, Sanford has registered Republican for the first time to vote in the California presidential primary on Feb. 5 while "maxing out" his political donation budget with $2,300 to Paul's campaign.

Sanford now is walking precincts for Paul because he said the candidate is strongly against the war in Iraq and can appeal to millions who believe that America has "strayed too far from our values" and fundamentals laid out in the Constitution.

"For young people, it's the war; for older people, it's a straight common-sense approach" to taxes, the economy and values, said Holly Clearman, California field coordinator for the Paul campaign.

Clearman said the life of a Ron Paul supporter used to be a lonely undertaking.

"I thought there were only 10 of us, and nobody I knew," she said. But that changed in recent months as the candidate raised $9 million this quarter, and "the cat is out of the bag."

Paul followers are buoyed by the latest polls from CNN and the New York Times showing that their candidate has jumped ahead of former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Iowa, the site of the nation's first 2008 primary on Jan. 3.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Arizona Sen. John McCain still dominate the race in that independent-minded, "Live Free or Die" state. But Paul's recent rise has prompted pundits to acknowledge that the Texan - once dismissed as a fringe candidate - could have an impact on the presidential race.

Paul's eclectic mix of fiercely libertarian and conservative values has created a passionate support base that might be unlike any other candidate in the 2008 presidential race.

The former practicing obstetrician, who has served in the House about 20 of the past 35 years, is vehemently anti-abortion - voting against federal funding of abortion, stem cell research and even family planning funding in U.S. foreign aid - and strongly pro-gun rights. His views have gained him high ratings from conservatives and groups such as the Christian Coalition and the National Rifle Association. Paul also is seen as strongly anti-environmental by groups such as the League of Conservation Voters, which gave him just a 5 percent legislative rating on his voting record.

But Paul also appeals to progressives on a number of issues: He supports repealing most federal drug laws, including those against medical marijuana, is against the death penalty, vigorously opposes the war in Iraq and is against the Patriot Act and free trade agreements such as NAFTA.

Indeed, some political analysts suggested he is the 2008 campaign's political ink blot test - able to represent whatever voters see in him.

Stephanie Burns, 50, a construction manager from Sausalito, Calif., who helps arrange biweekly Bay Area meetings in support of Paul, said the Texas congressman's campaign - like Democrat Howard Dean's in 2004 - has skillfully utilized the Internet to reach out to voters who might otherwise never be connected. "And ever since the $4.2 million, it has changed things," she said. "There's a lot more recognition by the media."

Burns motioned around the room to some of the people the Internet has brought to Paul's cause.

"I've never even been interested in politics my whole life," Brandy Alexander, 34, a University California-San Francisco researcher, told the group.

But after she and her boyfriend, William Newby, 28, a computer programmer, watched Paul slam U.S. involvement in the Iraq war and expound on his views during the televised GOP debates, they were hooked.

Thanks to Paul, she said, "Now, I find myself borderline obsessed with it.

RON Paul on Immigration reform

With the November elections looming, politics is taking priority over sensible policy. It appears congressional leaders have no intention of addressing the issue of illegal immigration this year, preferring not to tackle such a thorny problem for fear of angering voters one way or another.

But this is a mistake. The American people want something done about illegal immigration now – not next year. All sides in the immigration debate agree that the current, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy cannot continue. That’s why I am joining several of my colleagues in demanding that the Senate vote this month on a border security bill already passed by the House earlier this year. I truly believe border security is the most important issue for millions of Americans.

Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It’s as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked.

Although the border security bill already passed by the House is a good start, Congress needs to pass broader legislation this year based on the following simple points:

First, physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must have control over who enters our country before we even begin to consider complicated immigration reform proposals.

Second, enforce visa rules on those already in the country. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport individuals who overstay their visas or otherwise violate U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that some of the 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

Third, reject amnesty. If we reward lawbreakers who enter this country illegally with citizenship, then any new laws Congress might pass likewise can be ignored. Reform must begin with a new mentality that immigration laws will be enforced.

Fourth, end welfare-state incentives for illegals. Americans are quick to welcome immigrants who simply wish to work hard and make a better life for themselves. But taxpayers cannot continue to pay when illegal immigrants use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

Fifth, end birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth.

Finally, completely overhaul the legal immigration process. The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

If we keep these points in mind, immigration reform does not need to be complicated or expensive. It does, however, need to happen this year.