Ron Paul supporters drop their ‘money bomb’

When it comes to the polls, Ron Paul can’t quite top 5% in any scientific state or national survey. But when it comes to fundraising, results like these sure are impressive.

Proving again his ability to raise significant cash online, Ron Paul has raised nearly $2 million since midnight via his website.

In what is being called a “money bomb,” Paul’s fervent backers spread the word that today they’d blast their candidate with Internet contributions, setting up a website, “This November 5th,” to push the plan. An aide said they had nothing to do with the effort.

“Supporters have spontaneously organized what I can only refer to as a one-day attack of donations,” said Paul spokeswoman Kate Rick. “We started at midnight with $2.77 million raised for the quarter, and have, as of 9:36 am, climbed up to over $4.1.”

As of 12:27, Paul had raised $4.73 million total.

As far as I can tell, that’s $2 million in just 12 hours, all from a fundraising initiative that the campaign had practically nothing to do with. (Apparently, Paul staffers didn’t even alert its email list to the drive.)

How does today’s haul match up compared to his rivals? Consider this: Paul has raised about as much in the last 12 hours as Mike Huckabee raised in nine months.

The question, of course, is whether any of this matters.

To hear Paul supporters tell it, the Texas congressman’s ability to raise so much so quickly with very little effort proves that Paul has a large, loyal following. That much is obviously beyond question at this point.

But what will Paul do with his newly-filled coffers? Conceivably he could (and probably will) buy some airtime for his TV ads, but that won’t necessarily translate to added support — his TV ads are really awful, as even most Paul fans have conceded.

OK, but maybe he could use $2 million to get some better ads? Perhaps, but I suspect there’s a ceiling Paul will run up against. In today’s Republican Party, a die-hard libertarian who opposes the war in Iraq, hates the neocons, wants to eliminate most of the federal government, and wants a return to the gold standard can only generate so much support.

It’s not the money; it’s not the ads; it’s the message. Paul, love him or hate him, is not part of the Republican mainstream. There’s a reason he gets booed at many of the GOP debates.

It’s precisely why I’ve long believed Paul is better suited for a third-party campaign. If anything today’s fundraising totals reinforce this, because it shows that Paul doesn’t necessarily need the GOP, he just needs his army of followers, who, I suspect, would gladly follow him out of the Republican Party.

Stay tuned.

No corporatist or lobbyist money in that bunch…

  • A call to arms
    With every gut-shot Iraqi child, limp in a grieving parent’s arms, we see a bullet that is sold. And a profit that is made. With every suffering, limbless soldier, the military-industrial complex sees a reason to persist. And finds more profits to be made. With every tank that’s ripped-apart, with every screaming, dying civilian, the White House imagines a “surge” that is working. And sees a profit for a friend.
    A government that endorses mass murder for profit, and calls it war, deserves no latitude. It deserves a cage.
    And so do we, if we stand by in passive assent. Every American deserves what he tolerates. The time for tolerance is over.
    There’s only one candidate for President of the United States in 2008 who has the depth of understanding, and the character, necessary to place meaningful restraints upon our profit-centered system of cowardly warmongering – Ron Paul.
    Positions of Dr. Paul’s that would help achieve this objective include:
    Getting rid of the Federal Reserve, which functions as the financial enabler of war, as well as its head-coach.
    Forcing politicians in favor of war to make a formal declaration of war, as specified in the Constitution.
    To which I would add:
    Patriotism requires that the profit-motive be put-aside in time of war. Therefore, financially profiting from a soldier’s courage, and, possibly, from the sacrifice of a soldier’s life, should be forbidden by law.
    By law, every elected representative espousing war must either personally ship-off to battle, or, send a close family member in his stead.
    The Ron Paul Revolution is, among other things, a revolution to reclaim our original American spirit, a spirit mangled, at least since the time of Lincoln, by the passive acceptance, and tacit encouragement, of state-sponsored mass-murder for profit.
    With God’s help, it is a revolution that will come to pass. I now stand armed and at the ready! Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly.

  • “This November 5th”

    Guy Fawkes Day? Really? Dropping a “money bomb” on the 5th of November?

    Does Ron Paul have a lock on the British Revolutionary vote?

    Or just a lot of fans of “V for Vendetta”?

  • Paul’s chances = Anderson ’80, Nader ’00, not Wallace ’68 or Perot ’92. Ron Paul a Nadir of the Right.

  • I can hardley wait till the NH primary, maybe then bloggers will concede that “internets money” comes from… real people!

  • Please stop spreading the rumour that Paul wants to return to the gold standard. He does not. What he wants it to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove the sales tax on them. Nothing more than that. That will allow private notes backed by gold to be able to compete with Federal Reserve notes.

  • There’s only one candidate for President of the United States in 2008 who has the depth of understanding, and the character, necessary to place meaningful restraints upon our profit-centered system of cowardly warmongering – Ron Paul John Edwards.

    There fixed it for you.

  • I find it kind of amusing that supporters of Ron Paul, who claims to be anti-war, would refer to this fund-raising campaign as a “call to arms.” War against war, huh?

    I tend to think of it more as the “Ron Paul Retirement Fund.”

  • Like NonyNony, I’m amused by the (libertarian?) affection for violent metaphors for sending money: a “money bomb” to “blast their candidate” with a “one-day attack of donations”. It makes you wonder about the possibility Paul won’t survive this amount of support. . .

  • Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

    He has never voted to raise taxes.
    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

    He voted against the Patriot Act.
    He voted against regulating the Internet.
    He voted against the Iraq war.

    He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
    He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

    Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

  • I will be very curious about seeing how many votes he will actually get. He may prove that you can’t buy elections or maybe not.

  • When it comes to the polls, Ron Paul can’t quite top 5% in any scientific state or national survey.

    This is not correct. Dr. Paul is at 7.4% among likely New Hampshire primary voters, according to the St. Anselm College poll released on October 25, 2007. See here for the full data set.

  • Hillary, Rudy, (the rest) . . .

    Choke on your own ineptitude.

    Dr. Paul has the people.

    You have a few Monty Burns-esque financeers and a few brainwashed sheeple.

    Drop out and endorse Dr. Paul NOW, for the good of your own political future.

    ronpaul2008.com

  • Booed at many of the debates?

    I’ve watched them all and the only one he’s been booed at was the last one, a Fox News debate when he mentioned pulling the troops out of Iraq, something he’s said in every single other debate to the sound of applause.

    Please keep it to the high road.

  • Boo’d at many of the debates?

    I’ve seen him get boo’d at one. Not surprisingly, a FOX News sponsored debate. Considering the hostility FOX News has shown Ron Paul in the past and that farcical “focus group”, it smelt to high heaven.

    Something folks seem to be missing is the fact that Paul isn’t just drawing voters from the Republican mainstream. He’s drawing in voters from all walks; these are people registering Republican just to vote for him in the primaries, and for them hopefully the general election as well.

    What is so topsy-turvy about this whole thing is that Ron Paul actually espouses the traditional Republican values the best out of all the candidates. Saying he’s out of line with the Republican mainstream just shows how far the mainstream has strayed from the traditional Republican platform.

  • “In today’s Republican Party, a die-hard libertarian who opposes the war in Iraq, hates the neocons, wants to eliminate most of the federal government, and wants a return to the gold standard can only generate so much support.

    Dead bang on, I’d say. But boy, they sure are hungry aren’t they? Starving might be a better word — off in their dusty and neglected corner of the ever-shrinking of the tent. Ever since the neo-con artists and their “useful idiot” enablers, the religious right, took over, no one even pays lip service to libertarians any more. Poor things. They get less respect from the Republicans now than they did before they finally made peace and joined forces with them.

  • Ron Paul supports the same anti-government nonsense that the neocons have used to bankrupt the country and privatize the world. Abolish government programs and policies for real people, blame the bankruptcy on them anyway and give everything to the wealthiest. What we need and what many people will support is an FDR.

  • The Paul bashing is getting tiresome.
    He’s currently more viable than Joe Biden and I don’t hear much ridicule for him.

    I used the candidate calculator at
    http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
    and Ron Paul came up for me as my #9 choice; the best Republican out there.
    Do we really want to harpoon the guy who may be the least objectionable of the lesser party?

    Couldn’t a Paul victory steer the opposition towards a more sane course?
    If so, couldn’t that pull the Republicans from the brink of the right wing fringe and allow sensible discourse to return to our country?

    Let Paul win the primary, THEN give him both barrels. Making Paul’s job harder against the likes of McCain and Giuliani? How does this help?

  • “The question, of course, is whether any of this matters.”

    Probably not, since a small band of lunatics is still a small band of lunatics, no matter how highly motivated.

  • I’m hoping for a Bloomberg-Paul Independent run in ’08.

    The sound of both Democratic and Republican heads exploding would be music to my ears.

  • November 5 is full of memorable birthdays. I’m not sure Ron Paul would want to be identified with any of them (maybe Roy Rogers).

    1855 – Eugene (Victor) Debs
    1857 – Ida Tarbell
    1885 – Will Durant
    1893 – Raymond Loewy
    1900 – Natalie Schafer
    1911 – Roy Rogers (Leonard Slye)
    1913 – Vivien Leigh (Vivian Mary Hartley)
    1913 – John McGiver
    1931 – Ike Turner
    1940 – Elke Sommer (Schletz)
    1941 – Art Garfunkel
    1943 – Sam Shepard (Sam Shepard Rogers)
    1946 – Gram Parsons (Cecil Ingram Connors)
    1947 – Peter Noone (Peter Blair Denis Bernard Noone)
    1952 – Bill Walton
    1959 – Bryan Adams
    1963 – Tatum O’Neal

  • As I said in a post over the weekend, I find the enthusiasm among the Paul supporters to be fun, but they do seem a little naive in the history department.

    This intense fervor among supporters, particularly among internet users. . . this ability to raise millions on command on the internet. . . this renegade, people versus power, “on the barricades!” mentality. . . they sound like Ron Paul is the first movement of its kind, like Ron Paul, by this “unique” movement, can and will change every piece of electoral conventional wisdom. All of the old rules are gone, Paul can win despite the evidence to the contrary!

    I almost hate to be the one tossing the bucket of cold water, but all of this is just like Dean 2004. The Dean team could put up a “bat,” ask the netizens to “swing it,” and raise millions overnight. They had an almost cult-like devotion among some of their followers, they brought “new people” to politics. Sound familiar?

    Dean got waxed in Iowa. Dean had more money – much more – than Paul. Dean was a much more dynamic speaker than Paul. Dean had a lot more staff than Paul. Dean had Paul’s position on Iraq before Paul did. Dean got waxed in Iowa.

    The rules don’t change. Enjoy the buzz now while you can, Ron Paul Revolutionaries. It all ends on a cold winter day in Iowa, just like it did for Dean.

  • Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only antiwar candidates running. All the others only pay lipservice to the antiwar crowd or worse prowar. Do the research. The only way the war will end is with either of these two candidates. We could only be so lucky to get either of them in the general election.

  • Whether you support Ron Paul for the presidency or not, the money and support pouring in to him are the continuation of something we saw in 2004 with Howard Dean. Internet users can rally googles of support AND money for candidates, even if they get beaten down in general elections.

    It would be heartening if sooner or later, some savvy independent politician who appeals to voters in overwhelming numbers will take the presidency outside of the usual 2-party system because of initial internet support and fundraising. It would be great to see candidates who aren’t created, invented, driven, pressed, molded, proliferated, encouraged, set forward, etc., by Republicans or Democrats.

    That is, if the FCC doesn’t shut everything down except what the media giants want.

  • "a small band of lunatics is still a small band of lunatics…"

    Just like Bush defining soverign.

    Remember, never argue with an idiot; they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Fact checking is for lazy wikipedia editors, apparently. For a quick foray into what the Republican party used to espouse, and not that long a go, look at Nixon’s platform in 72. Not what he “did” after, but what he ran on. You don’t need to go to the turn of the century to see the drastic divergence from the path of conservative Republican platform issue. For that matter, since you’re already [supposed to be] looking up Nixon in 72, look then at what he DID vs. what he said.

    Nice split, huh? Ran as a republican, goverened as a socialist.

  • Why don’t you face up to the facts that this campaign is gaining momentum? It’ll be better for you to admit you’ve been mistaken right now rather than when Ron Paul wins the New Hampshire primary. This is absurd; despite massive fundraising success, and tangible ground support (1,000 – 2,000-person rallies in all parts of the country), you think that this is contradicted by a poll sample of 300 Bush supporters. Don’t you think it’s just flat out more logical to say that massive fundraising and ground support might just contradict these polls that measure name recognition and *nothing else*?

    By the way: Ron Paul hit 5% in USA Today and Gallup in October, and is hitting 7% in New Hampshire.

    And yes, Ron Paul got boo’ed at in Florida. He got boo’ed at for saying “Why don’t we just talk to people?” Doesn’t it make a helluva lot more sense to call them outlandish?
    Other than that though, Ron Paul’s gotten applause at the CNN Debate, the Michigan Debate, and his reception was uproarious to say the least at the debates in New Hampshire, and Iowa. Please get your facts straight.

  • I LOVE that Ron Paul is in the mix, and I hope that he does very well in the Republican primaries.
    Look, Rove pulled 4 disparate (but sometimes overlapping) groups together to get Bush close enough to steal the 2000 election. these groups are:
    Plutocrats (Bush’s real base, the ones who get what they want)
    Evangelical (so-called) Christians (the ones who think Bush will deliver their theocracy for them)
    Libertarians (Anti-government, allied many times with the Plutocrats), and
    Neo-Confederates (racist/zenophobic Democrat haters since the abolition of the Dixiecrats)

    Ron Paul should peel off the Libertarians, and this is a good thing. The best would be Rudy as the Republican candidate, Sam Brownback drafted to run under the Constitutionalist Party, and Ron paul running as a Libertarian.

    See my point?

  • What will the money do? Only put an end to the neoconservative movement. That 25% of Republicans will become about 15%. The neocons are DEAD, and I’m out of this big spending war- mongering party for good.

  • Hey! Thanks for the article! Ron Paul is the only candidate bringing to light the issue of the shrinking dollar. All other candidates ignore this in their quest for power. Makes me wonder why people aren’t interested in fighting for individual freedom. They love ‘groupthink’. Adults today seem to enjoy being treated like children by their government. They love being told what to do, and willingly open their mouths to be spoonfed the fertilizer that the establishment media and candidates fly in like little airplanes for them. I wonder why they don’t have more respect for themselves or their children to think for themselves? Too busy? Anyway, thanks for the article!

  • Ron Paul was very smart to run with the Republican party. He would be virtually unknown if he didn’t. I’ve always suspected that the GOP will not allow a RP nomination, and they will steal, cheat and lie to make sure of it.

    You bet your ass we will follow Ron Paul away from the false left/right paradigm.

    Freedom. It’s what’s for dinner.

  • There is a reason that Ron Paul receives more money military and ex-military than any other candidate, and it is not because he is crazy, or because we are crazy. It is because he speaks truth about the war and our flawed foreign policy.

    I am a career Naval officer who has been politically neutral for my entire life, but voting for Ron Paul is about voting for America and our Constitution–which I took an oath to preserve. I am now supporting Dr. Ron Paul with my wallet–and my heart.

  • How STUPID does one have to be to only vote for candidates that corporate media tells them are electable?!

    If you are truly against small government, personal liberty, the rule of law (US Constitution) and for crushing debt and taxes and endless aggressive wars and occupation based on lies then by all means vote Hillary/Rudy.

    But, by any measure, the kooks, flakes, radicals and extremists are the ones in charge and those who want to continue with the status quo, not Dr Paul.

  • First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

    Dr. Paul is curing many Americans of their political apathy, but causing a nasty case of gastritis to many GOP politicos. Isn’t politics fun!

  • But when it comes to straw polls, Paul finishes top three in 81%. I’ve never seen Paul get booed once; source? It sounds about as credible as Soledad’s “flake” defamation (for which no source exists).

  • Ron Paul is big time– whether the GOP neo-con establishment like it or not.

    They can’t ingore this.

    The same way the neo-cons took over and subverted that party into a war-monging, big business machine of evil, is happening to them now. People that love freedom, peace, and free markets are flocking to the Paul campaign and its message. He has a huge range of people involved and is the only republican candidate bringing in new voters.

    Dr Paul is best and most honest candidate in this race, hands down.

    Even if you don’t agree with his views, you will always know where you stand with him. He has a 20+ year voting record that proves he will never budge an inch on his principles. Compare that to the flip-floppers, the liars, the cheats, and dirty career politicians that are in the race now.

  • I will abstain from arguing with the idiots, but I still have to chuckle at the knee jerks. I am armed with truth first, but sheer stupidity and willfull ignorance warrants a good old fashioned boot party. Wake up puddinheads, I am on your side if you want to remain free.

  • Marc said, “What we need and what many people will support is an FDR.”

    Uh, Marc? FDR is the one who sold our country to the banksters. We do not need another FDR.

    Socialism works well for hive insects, not for people.

  • What is this—some kind of “battle-of-the-bulge” thing? I look forward to “Gone Paul” having such loyal donors who can keep this up for the next what—12 months? The Gone Paul platypus brigade threw its all into this “bomb”—which has been bandies about in the ‘tubes for a couple weeks now—but I doubt very much that they can sustain the fundraising for the long haul.

    By the way—did someone keep an accurate record as to “who” made these donations? If the Paul campaign is disavowing any connection to the fundraiser, then how might they document that the entire amount isn’t a violation of FEDERAL CAMPAIGN LIMITATIONS?

    Inquiring minds want to know….

  • I don’t like much of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, but I like his positions on life, border security, taxes, healthcare, etc.

    The difference between Howard Dean and Ron Paul is that Dean was a very good politician who captured the mood of the people, but didn’t offer any new ideas. Paul is not a very good politician, but he is a man standing on the shoulder of giants. He espouses a political and economic philosophy that has developed over 300 years, and many of the young people coming to his campaign are being introduced to the writings of Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, and others. Whereas Dean’s movement faded once Dean left the scene, Ron Paul’s movement will only grow, in fact, like Goldwater, Paul’s movement will eventually find the charismatic politician who can communicate the message of freedom to the American people.

  • Gone Paul? Are you 12? Mit Romney donated millions to his own campain. Is that not against FEDERAL CAMPAIN LIMITATIONS? Oops, I did say I wouldn’t argue with idiots didn’t I?

  • I’m normally not one to tell other bloggers how to run their blogs, but for god’s sake, no more Ron Paul posts. I just can’t take these self-righteous loons anymore. Every damn post on Paul is deluged with these idiotic manifestos going on and on about how Ron Paul is the only real American in politics and how he’s going to save the world like Superman or something. If they were on-topic, I wouldn’t mind. But they rarely are. They use any Paul post as an excuse to rant on and on like broken records every time.

    Sure, this is censorship, but not against Paul. I don’t like Ron Paul, but I have no problem with people blogging about him. But it’s his cretin followers I can’t stand. They absolutely don’t belong here. Not to suggest that only libs can post here, but it’s utterly absurd for them to argue here. These freaks aren’t even moderate conservatives, yet they continue to try to convince devout liberals? Hell, that’s almost as insane as imagining that Paul could possibly win the Whitehouse.

    I’m not sure why they think far-right conservative arguments might convince us to vote for the guy, but it’s not working. They should stick with trying to remind their fellow conservatives what they used to believe before the Bush/Cheney team took over America. But liberals didn’t like those conservatives either, so I really don’t see what the point of them coming here is.

  • Social Security, Medicare, Public Education, Public Roads, Labor Laws, Rationing, etc. Yes, I guess that only works for hive insects. Democratic Socialism does work. But that reality is lost on ideological cultists.

  • Ron Paul is clearly a “top tier” candidate.

    Perhaps there is a ceiling that Giuliani, Romney and McCain will run up against.

    In America today, a candidate who supports the war in Iraq will find that he is in the minority.

    If you have any doubt that Ron Paul is indeed a “top tier” candidate, please visit my website at http://www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge the evidence for yourself.

  • No. madchild, I am not 12. There are Federal regulations on straight-up donations to political candidates—which is what the Gone Paul psychophants are billing this money as. And the “technicality” that Romney exploited was to “loan” his own money to the campaign. He also retains the right to write-down any portion of that loan, should it not be repaid. Unethical, yes—but not inherently illegal.

    Again, the question is: Can the Paul campaign—or any entity connected to this “Ron’s Kids net-a-thon”—document who gave how much? Can they produce a paper trail of the donations? If not, then methinks the scent of red “Doc Ronnie”meat is in the air….

  • I can tell you, Ron Paul supporters are the most relentless in mainstream news outlet comment sections. I’m with JKap at #1, though. Every time I see these fundraising numbers with this little support, I think this is the way it would be if people voted their interests. It seems like he’s the candidate of the money people.

  • I’m looking foreward to the NH primary…. Thus far we will have either 1 or second place….. Paul’s chances will only increase after NH. Has anyone noticed the unique changes in NH voting?

  • JKap @ 51, can’t you see how the Paul People are alienating everyone with this stuff? They’re only making people hate Ron Paul more. I saw much of the same thing with Howard Dean in 2004, where the Deaniacs offended people who weren’t already on-board. Zealots are like that. I mean, if you guys have already burned through the people at Red State, you’re screwed.They’re the people you should be getting on-board, assuming you want to actually win this thing. And if they’re already tired of the Paul People antics, then your cause has no hope.

    And just as with Dean, I think the real issue is that there are a certain number of disenfranchised people on the fringe who need to feel like they’re part of some sort of movement; something bigger than just themselves to make them feel important. And so they latch onto these political guys that tell them what they want to hear. And because they finally see so many other like-minded people, they imagine they’re part of some growing movement. But they’re not. All they’re seeing are the same disenfranchised fringe people who were there all along, but just hadn’t met yet. And they just never realize that the movement won’t get any bigger. As it turns out, there were far more people who had similar fringe thoughts than they had realized, but it will never move passed the fringe. Sure, that kind of thing is enough to win you a local election or even a spot in Congress, but it’s not enough to win the Whitehouse.

    And the sad thing about Paul is that it’s hopeless. Back in the 90’s, most of these people wouldn’t give a damn about Paul because he sounded just like most other conservatives. But that train has since left the station, with most of the conservative “movement” on it. There are just a small number of diehards left who are now flocking around Paul because he was one of the only politicians who didn’t get on the train. So the whole reason why Paul appears to be special is the very reason why he can’t win: Because most conservatives no longer agree with him. It’s like being the only CB repairman in town. Sure, all the CB owners will flock to you, but there just won’t be too many of them.

    Wow, I think I just wrote my next blog post. Sure hope the Paul People don’t find it.

  • To the author…
    EMBRACE RON PAUL. He IS a republican. NEOcons are ex democrats!!! A THIRD PARTY RUN IS NOT AN OPTION. WE MUST DO THIS AND GO ALL THE WAY.
    We need a day like this in december too! Perhaps a christmas bomb.

  • While we’ve got all the Paul people here, there’s something I’ve been wondering about. On the the off chance that Ron Paul didn’t win the Republican presidential nomination, what then? Will Paul fans simply fall into line behind whatever anti-civil-libertarian, big-government-loving, gold-standard-hating, torture-condoning, corporatist, spendthrift warmonger the Republicans do nominate? Vote Libertarian? Stay home on election day and sulk?

  • No, he got booed at ONE Republican debate I’ve seen (and I’ve seen ’em all.) That was the latest Fox News debate where Romney and Giuliani were given 1000 tickets each to stack the audience with supporters. Ron Paul was given NONE. And he STILL won the text message poll at the end of the debate.

    Chew on that for a while before you post some bull about “he can’t win a Republican nomination”. The man ain’t a 10 term Congressman for nothing. (He’s run as a Republican every time.)

    Ladies and gentlemen…say hello to your next president of the United States, Ron Paul. Hillary Clinton won’t stand a chance in hell against him.

  • Zeitgeist –

    they sound like Ron Paul is the first movement of its kind, like Ron Paul, by this “unique” movement, can and will change every piece of electoral conventional wisdom. All of the old rules are gone, Paul can win despite the evidence to the contrary!

    Substitute “Ross Perot” for “Ron Paul” and you have 1992.

    Substitute “Ralph Nader” for “Ron Paul” and you have 2000.

    Substitute “Howard Dean” for “Ron Paul” and you have 2004.

    In fact, the whole movement around Paul reminds me most of Perot and Nader (less like Dean – Dean and his movement always struck me as a “Democratic” movement instead of a “third party” movement). There’s just something about the stridency of the Pauliacs that reminds me of the Perotistas and the Naderites.

    Regardless, it’s typical “cult of personality” stuff. Paul can milk it for years if he doesn’t implode like Perot and Nader have. (See Lyndon LaRouche – that guy coasted on his cult of personality for decades).

  • Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between” Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like “America Deceived’ from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
    Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
    Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

  • @58: I was a registered democrat and switched to R to vote for Paul in the primary (still feel dirty about that). If/when he loses, I’ll likely switch to independent and vote D if it’s close (not likely in California).

  • Just to clarify, I’m supporting him as the candidate most likely to reverse the destruction of civil liberties, roll back some of the power grabbed by the executive over the last 6 years, and get out of Iraq (a horrible option, but better than the alternatives in my opinion). Those are the big issues for me in this election.

  • "Social Security, Medicare, Public Education, Public Roads, Labor Laws, Rationing&quot

    Do me a favor – compare the above to the 10 tenements of the Communist Manifesto. When you make the connection, please let me know which of the remaining 10 you think are a good idea for the USA.

    Add on: Need for monoploy central bank (federal reserve) and heavy, graduated income tax before reading your list, since we already have those.

  • Ron Paul On The Abrams Report 10-10-07

    ABRAMS: “Do you want President Bush’s endorsement?”

    PAUL: “I don’t. I-I have. It has not crossed my mind because I know that it wouldn’t come.”

    ABRAMS: “But would you want it? If he said to you, if he said ‘I want to know. Do you want my endorsement?'”

    PAUL: “I would lose credibility.”

    ABRAMS: “So, you would say ‘no.'”

    PAUL: “I-I think that would hurt me. He wouldn’t offer it and I wouldn’t ask for it.”

    ABRAMS: “You would say ‘no’ to President Bush’s endorsement?”

    PAUL: “No, I would lose all credibility, because I’ve ran against his policies.”

    Heil Hillary!

    Are the Patriot Act and the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq “progressive” issues? Are “progressives” pro-Patriot Act and pro-U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq?

    Hillary is.

    Ron Paul is not.

  • Steve #52,
    You’ve spelled sycophant wrong. Why should anyone trust your intellect on any subject. Especially when it comes to Dr. Paul and the appearant lack of research you’ve done.

  • The republican mainstream is the part of the party that is not part of the republican mainstream.

    Ron Paul isnt the one who has been raiding the social security trust fund till it’s been bled dry. Yet HE is going to get rid of social security? No, they already got rid of social security. Maybe if you werent so busy attacking Ron Paul, you would have noticed this happening over the last god knows how many years? It is only our creditors that allow the checks to keep going out every month. Ron Paul did not create that situation. He should not be blamed for it.

    Oh how I wish someone would inject a dose of intellectualism into american politics!

    btw did I mention this commenting system is about as reliable as FEMA? “oops please copy your comment again, and while you’re at it please bend over… oh what color is an orange?”

  • Ian, the difference between your “sychophant” and my “psychophant” is that, while yours is little more than a bootlicking lackey, mine is defined as “One who attempts to curry favor by flattering influential people, but does so to a psychotic, often violent degree.”

    “Gone Paul” is a political joke. A lot of the nattering ninnyhammers who are screeching for him now were, until a few weeks ago, doing their howler-monkey imitations for “UnAware Fred” Thompson. As of right now, one might even wonder as to whether these “donations” have even taken place. It has the aura of a paper tiger to it.

    Will this “money bomb” story fizzle and burn out—just like the rest of Gone Paul’s campaign stunts? One can only wonder….

  • How about a “money bong” –would that have been better?

    Only if he’s really going Libertarian.

    FWIW, I think the Paul supporters are adorable, and I enjoy their visits every time CB does a Paul story.

    If there were only some way to filter out the very important part of his message–that we’re on an unsustainable course toward becoming the very antithesis of what we were intended to be as a nation–from the nonsensical elements, and if that element weren’t wrapped in a Libertarian worldview that’s painfully inadequate to address the problems of a 21st century nation-state, I might even be onboard myself.

  • Re #58: Should Ron Paul not win the R nomination I will consider other candidates. There are a few D or R that I would consider: Richardson and maybe Romney or McCain. I would most likely look at a 3rd Party candidate and vote Libertarian or Constitution.

    I’ve followed Ron Paul’s career in congress from a distance for about 10 years now. The most refreshing position he advocates is his support for the individual and his disdain for coercion at all levels. Whether it is a foreign policy based on mutual respect and trade vs.gunboat diplomact or a steadfast opposition to the spate of encroachments from government onto our civil liberties (see his continuous opposition to the Patriot Act or his ridicule of the TSA), he is a beacon of hope for me. I particularly enjoy his frank assessment as to why he is running for president: “I don’t want to be President to tell you how to run your life. I wouldn’t know how.”

    I have disagreements with some of the details in his positions, notably his calls to close the borders, but realize that these are his true positions and that the changing the philosophy of gov’t from Master to Servant dwarfs these minor differences.

    In short, RP has staked out a position that is unoccupied by any others in the major parties at this time. The position is distinctly American in asserting that the individual is greater than the collective. This resonates deeply with a large portion of the American populace at both a conscious and subliminal level. As RP states frequently, it is not him getting this immense support, it is his message.

    Cheers.

  • Re #70
    One thing I find refreshing about the Paul campaign is the transparency with which it is run. He is the first candidate to provide real-time information as to his finances. This is a bold move that is already being replicated by Mike Huckabee and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it used elsewhere.

    I see no reason to doubt that these are real donations. The updates occur based on credit card donations to his site (neat widget that displays your name and town after you donate). This is the same system that was rolled out at the end of Q3, which can easily be verified (for Q3) based on FEC filings. Ron Paul is to be applauded for his refreshing candor regarding his campaign and I hope that others follow suit. Seeing the way candidates handle money in their own campaign should give us insight as to how they would deal with the financial issues facing a President.

    Cheers.

  • — This message was generated by an automated Ron Paul spambot —

    Steve, Biobrain, and CalD,

    No I won’t support whatever the Republicans throw out there, but I’ve finally figured out that liberals and progressives are neither. BioBrain, you are a typical progressive really – totally closed-minded and unwilling to learn or even hear about anything new.
    Steve, the other website didn’t collect any donations, all donations went through the Paul campaign, so all the little government i’s have been dotted and all the little bureaucratic t’s crossed, ok?

    So you can stop drooling all over yourself over all the possible “violations”

    Geez, you people really need to set the pipe down. Here are the facts; all you “liberals” and “progressives” are a bunch of commies, whether you know it or not. All your politics, all your ideas, are same old, stale crap that’s already gotten millions of people killed on this planet. Republicans, by contrast, are a bunch of evil hypocrites who spout libertarian slogans and pretend to oppose liberals, when they’re really liberals in disguise.

    Both parties are statist. They both glorify government like it’s a god, they both produce phony, blow-dried, poll-driven candidates who have no idea what the problem is in this country. I guess the truth hurts for some of the people on this forum, doesn’t it? I mean, you anti-Paul people have been backing losers for years, haven’t you? At least libertarians were voting for, well, libertarians.

    The anger of the AntiPaul goon squads is understandable, ithere’s nothing like having a bunch of “extremist wackos” point out that you’ve been wrong about very important stuff for years, and that you’ve very nearly destroyed the greatest nation in the world as a result of your arrogance and ignorance.

    Speaking of ignorance, the gold standard worked pretty damn well. From 1800 to 1900, the country grew much wealthier, prices actually went down, and there was plenty of economic growth, and more to the point, it was real manufacturing growth, not just more and more consumption. So, let’s not be too quick to put down what we don’t understand, eh?

    — This message was generated by an automated Ron Paul spambot —

  • Mr. CB. This is a great post and a fantastic thread. You need to do at least one Ron Paul post every day until WebBlog voting is over. You must precede and follow the Ron Paul post with admonitions to vote and you will certainly help your total. Riding Ron Paul’s coattails as it were.

    What in the world is Ron Paul hurting? He doesn’t have one good thing to say about any of the dickheads that he’s sort of sharing a party with. He calls them on their bullshit daily and says it to anyone who will listen. He’s a loose, (from RepubCo’s perspective anyway), and loaded cannon on the stupidest ship on the sea. I’m happy to hear him blast away and if folks want to send in money for gunpowder and wadding, that’s great. Let the acrid smoke hang low over the broken masts. Is there a Dem candidate who’s showing the slightest concern for what Ron Paul is going to be doing when he hits the streets every day? I don’t think so. I love the smell of blazing Libertarianism in the morning.

    More Ron Paul Mr. CB. He’s a fascinating guy with a helluva story. Duck!!

  • Ron Paul has taken the same stance that Dennis Kucinich has made on the war, executive power, war funding and many others. Maybe that’s why Paul says he agrees, likes and admires Kucinich calling him honest and sincere. “He is my friend, I know him and besides being a democrat he’s the one I most agree with”.

    You Paul supporters have never gone to the Kucinich site or even read anything Kucinich has said or what he stands for. Read his voting record, study his plans before you start saying that Paul is “the only one” doing these things. You’ll find that Dennis Kucinich has usually been there first. Where is Paul’s articles of Impeachment? How often has he called out Bush in the past besides ‘silently’ voting against him? Many of the good things about Paul you will find already exists with Kucinich but add not for profit single payer national health care for everyone and a department of Peace.

    Kucinich promises that his first day in office he will have Bush and Cheney arrested. Kucinich voted against the Patriot Act, the MCA, FISA Protect America, the AUMF against Iraq and led a coalition against the preemptive war for profit. He is the only one who says he will end NAFTA and the World trade agreement, stop the tax exemptions for the wealthiest Americans. I mean come on, Kucinich is way ahead of all the other candidates on maintaining a progressive agenda. Paul is not unique…but he is a libertarian and we are too much in debt to return to a gold standard at present because it would bankrupt the country. We went into debt by the billions based on the oil standard…we don’t have that much gold. You close your mind to half of what Paul is about because you are so desperate to follow the other half. Kucinich is the only real (safe) change, hell, even Paul endorses him.

  • To comment on Steve at #70, I’m not sure it’s so easy for a campaign to just quickly fade with the amount of money Paul’s people have coming in, if in fact the numbers are true. What’s going to do him in is the mainstream media blackout. This explains his 5% in the national polls but overwhelming support online, where people can swift through the BS more quickly. As a democrat I’m ashamed that the dem front runners rarely talk about the idea of a Constitutional contract. And being one who is absolutely against the war and nation building it’s hard for me not to support Paul. Does anyone think Hillary can really make any positive difference if elected? There’s a reason why the Bush administration is prepping Hillary on how to prosecute the Iraq and potential Iran war if elected. I’ll give you all a hint…business as usual, except a different last name and a shroud of liberalism to cloud what nobody can change, the system and the corporations who control it.

    I salivate at the idea of a Jeffersonian clone at this point.

  • Steve, Biobrain, CalD and any other haters;

    You have a Ron Paul post on CBR that attracts a bunch of Paul supporters and you go nuts! You don’t even have to read the post if you don’t want to, but apparently you are masochistic because you subject yourself to this lunacy (I can just picture you behind the computer screen giving yourselves a good smack on the cheek for every supportive comment…). Honestly, if you want to drive yourself nuts, don’t read pro Ron Paul posts on your beloved CBR, just watch the robot “front-runner” zombies in the Democratic (and Republican) debates as they use as many words as they can to say as little as possible.

    When Rudy speaks I want to hide under a rock somewhere and wake up when the bad dream is over. When Hillary or Obama speak I just want to cry, because the “enlightened” “liberals” (i.e. those people who think they are better than everyone who doesn’t think like them because any other point of view is akin to believing the world is flat), are just going to support them no matter what, in the name of the “lesser of two evils.” Even though this is all a game to these politicians who are laughing at their fool supporters as they ride their private jets to the next destination. Even though they are obviously soulless liars, they will get support just because they throw out a few slogans that progressives are supposed to agree with, but do their best to keep the debate as “mainstream” as possible.

    Please grow up now, because there really isn’t much time left for you to start taking responsibility for saving this country instead of denigrating people that you don’t agree with, and whose policy positions you obviously haven’t thoroughly researched.

    I would really love for you guys to explain why you would support any of the Democrats over Ron Paul? For the record, if were to win the nomination then I would definitely be behind him in the general election. (The problem is that most Dem voters have no balls and as it stands now Kucinich does not even come close to inspiring the amount of widespread support that Paul is garnering). Unless you are 100% behind Kucinich, it’s time to look in the mirror my friends and look at exactly what you are supporting.

    None of them would withdraw from Iraq immediately. 2013 anyone? So I guess you support butchering and raping Iraqis for five more years? How very Progressive of you all, you must be so proud.

    Allowing hard currencies to be circulated as legal tender without being taxed may seem like a wacky idea, but its a whole lot better than a fiat currency printed by a central bank that charges us interest for the privilege of the loans, which of course anyone with half a brain would realize can never be paid back because the very banks we are supposed to pay back are issuing the money (with interest of course!) with which we have to pay them back. Its an endless cycle that will result ultimately in a valueless currency absent some backing in something finite and tangible or unless the Federal Reserve is abolished (as Ron Paul would work towards accomplishing) and the fiat money is printed interest free by the treasury. However, even then the money in circulation would keep growing and inflation would occur without tangible backing (as well as the fact that the ability to print money basically at will is a power that governments will inevitable abuse to the point of economic ruin). Ron Paul has written and talked about this elephant in the living room for years, but will you hear any of the other candidates actually begin to look at one of the root causes of our current financial distress? Nope, because they treat such a topic as some fringe kooky BS. Reality, however, disagrees with that assessment.

    How about withdrawing from President Clinton’s beloved NAFTA, which George Bush of course loves and has even expanded with CAFTA and the new Security and Prosperity Partnership agreements (by executive fiat)? Certainly the Dems (excepting Kucinich) must be liberal and progressive when all the front-runners support such trade agreements which incidentally ram a big stick up the American worker’s (organized or otherwise) rear-end. Not much difference between the Rep and Dem leaders there!

    Don’t forget the crucial Dem support for Patriot Acts I and II, as well as the Military Commissions Act (which I have read and all I can say is “F’ing SCARY). I would never support any politician who voted for or who did not attempt to filibuster (in the Senate) such an odious bills.

    Liberal and Progressive is a value, not an empty title. If you really want to see as many people as possible in this country and in the world have the best life possible, then you have to be pragmatic. Even if you don’t agree with Ron Paul on all the issues, just getting us out of the Iraq war and out of NAFTA and other ridiculous deficit generating trade agreements would go further in achieving that goal than anything any of the front-runners are offering. And imagine if you could actually save money that would retain its value over the years? Imagine if American capital weren’t so fluid, but invested in the US instead of going to build factories overseas and to pillage the resources of third-world nations? Imagine. Just don’t wait for hard-core neoliberal Hillary to spark any meaningful discussion on these issues. That my friends is up to us. And that is why Ron Paul and his supporters are great, he gives them the platform and energy to spark just such a national dialog. Don’t agree with them? Then offer some solutions and support a candidate who will really fight for them. If you don’t want to do that, then your progressive forums are much better off with more Ron Paul posts.

    Peace

    P.S. I changed my party affiliation to vote for Paul, and I am sure many others are doing the same. His support, as far as I can tell, is diverse and deep. And who would I support if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination…Well I would be forced to vote for him as a write in of course : )

  • Ron Paul, thank you for your service to our country soldier.
    I wish I could be more proud of my Dad. He has been a homeless Vietnam Veteran for many years and the VA is a sad joke. When you are President, I know you will take care of our Veterans and their families.

    God Bless you Dr. Paul!

  • This Republic is still in the infancy of its recovery from the last “doctor” who had his grubby little mitts wrapped around the power that is Government. It will continue for many years to be in the recovery room.

    Or are the Paul-o-phants really claiming a complete lack of memory regarding one “Dr. Frist?”

    Frist was only a Senate Majority Leader.

    And now, a bunch of quasi-cum-laude Republicans, hiding beneath the soiled quilting of Libertarianism, desire that the nation embrace an equally-flambuoyant character—with an even-more-osteopathic prescription for segregating the People into two disparate camps, being the Masters and the Serfs/Slaves—for President?

    One only needs to observe that true, undiluted Libertarianism is nothing more than a political tool whereby one group, promoting the ideal of Liberty, seeks to enforce the sociopolitical duality of “WE enjoy OUR Liberty by DENYING YOU YOUR LIBERTY.”

    Libertarians will throw out their typical taunts; that Neoconservatives are all ex-Democrats, and that Liberals and Progressives are Communists. Yet in the end, Libertarianism is the rightwinged, profiteering cadre that enabled Hitler while simultaneously portraying the sociopathic prescribing of rabid Stalinism.

    They present themselves as the two extremes of a Bell curve—and declare that they are the entire curve.

    Liberty would include a woman’s right to choose; Libertarianism denies that right, and would legislate it away. Does that denote a sense of “government staying out of a citizen’s life?”

    Liberty would include the right of two individual;s to commit to a legally-recognized marital agreement; Libertarianism would again deny that right through legislation.

    “Government staying out of the lives of Citizens?”

    Liberty would exhibit a lack of fear as to the issue of immigration. Liberty would defend this fear via open borders.

    Ron Paul wants to build Berlin Wall: The Sequel.

    Liberty would cry out that every Citizen has an inherent right to Health, a thing that can be illustrated as “not being homeless; not being hungry; not being sick.”

    Ron Paul thinks that’s okay, too—but only if you have the financial means to pay for it.

    A Government that will boast of the successes of reduced governance—the wealthy becoming more wealthy, and the upper tiers of a middle class enjoying some portion of the benefit that lies within afforability—while disjointedly and callously watching those who are not a part of those first groups, and saying:

    “Tough shit.”

    A Ron Paul presidency would bring into reality the world of Charles Dickens….

  • Ok Steve, but everything you have mentioned has been happening anyway, no matter how big government gets, under Dems or Repubs for the last half century or more. Do you have any idea of the issues surrounding providing low-income housing or health care? Doesn’t sound like it because you seem to think that things could get much worse than they already are, and that the second Paul is elected we will have a return of slavery, illegal immigrants will be shot on the spot and somehow Ron Paul, who has been against every “Hitleresque” piece of civil liberty destroying legislation, and the genocide war in Iraq, will become the next Hitler. Spare everyone your alarmist ranting. What is it you want the Federal government to do that can’t be done effectively on a state level? We could have state health care plans, state laws regarding abortion, taxes, same-sex marriage etc. Decentralization of power is definitely the way to go, because anything else will eventually devolve into what we have now, a proto-fascist state that is almost entirely unaccountable to the people, and will become more so. Look up some of the broader global trends before you go promoting open borders and other insane ideas. I would love to have a border-less globe where you wouldn’t even need a passport to get around, but that can only happen when the economic disparities between different countries is harmonized. Look at what is happening in Britain and France with a flood of Eastern European workers who are undercutting their domestic workforces. And by the way, the Democrats and Republicans were both totally complicit in the creation of the current managed health care system that tries its darndest to exclude even those who CAN pay from getting the health services they need. In any case I agree that there are certain people who are going to fall through the cracks in any market based economy, and that there will need to be a decent safety net to help these people remain healthy. But as far as having the healthiest most prosperous country possible, ending corporate welfare, promoting a stable currency, ending damaging trade policies, abolishing the income tax, and allowing the industrious and willing individuals to prosper instead of stifling them under ridiculous regulation (and believe it or not, a lot of government regulation is quite absurd and unnecessary) will end up generating plenty of taxes for states/counties/municipalities to deal with their local problems in a dynamic way. Ron Paul will not just cut programs and leave people hanging, anyone who is currently dependent upon the system will continue to be supported, but he will encourage people who can to begin to take responsibility for our own lives, why is that so bad? You make libertarianism out to be some kind of fascist racist ideology, when it is the exact opposite. What gives?

  • ***Ok Steve, but everything you have mentioned has been happening anyway, no matter how big government gets, under Dems or Repubs for the last half century or more.***

    Gotcha. You’ve just admitted that Gone Paul is no different than all the rest—and that the hype is just that—hype.

    As in “hyperbole.”

    You don’t mind if I link this out to a few media outlets, do you?

    And I’ve yet to see a massive influx of destitute Near/Middle-Easterners pouring across the Danube into the US. And you nitwits call folks who won’t buy into Gone Paul’s message “Fascists” and “Communists?” Please. Here’s a swaztika. Send it with my regards and a boisterous “ziggie Heil” to your frumpish little Fuhrer.

    It’s all he’ll ever get from me….

  • I am not entirely sure how you took my point about how things have been going and turned that into me stating that Ron Paul will continue the trend when everything I have been saying is that he will attempt to reverse it. What I am actually saying is that anyone you would support on the Dem side, besides Kucinich, would just continue the status quo, and that your alarmist rhetoric about Paul is wrong.

    Also, I personally didn’t call you a fascist, I am referring to this government, which I guess if you unconditionally support that makes you a fascist too. Anyway, you are referring to Paul as Hitler so I don’t know if you think you really have credibility in any rational debate, or if you just like to make ridiculous statements for the hell of it.

    Your bizzare comment about the Danube leaves me at somewhat of a loss, but I assume you are referring to your open borders “courage” policy that I was responding to. What I meant was that the EU has become a border-less zone and in which workers from much less economically developed countries are flooding the more developed economies to work for more than they would get at home, but less than what the average person in the more developed country would ask for, thereby depressing wages.
    If we had an open border with MEXICO (which is obviously what we are talking about , not the Danube), then there would be a similar pattern here, if there isn’t such a pattern already.

    But whatevs, Paul actually inspires hope in people instead of cynicism, and that is why people are so adamant about supporting him, we want to share the love (i.e. hope). But if you think we are crazy and that this is a lost cause (probably without actually looking into our ideas with any depth), then you are just going to go on with your hopeless life and this discussion will be over.

  • Ron Paul is not a Libertarian! He ran as one one time a long time ago but he is a 10 term sitting Republican congressman with almost 20 years as a Republican. This claim that he is a Libertarian is to make him appear as the “spoiler” you accuse him to be but it is an underhanded lie. He is not for open borders as the Libertarian label implies. Hopefully you have only been given bad information and you will correct this statement.

  • Ron Paul’s betting odds of being elected president are now quoted at ten to one, in line with Huckabee 9/1, and Romney 8/1. The following article is from gambling 911. Betting odds continue to improve for Ron Paul, and many people have yet to hear of him or his perspectives. Betting odds trends are a better lead indicator of election results than polls. The mainstream media is showing their bias, but voters are trending toward Ron Paul. There are a variety of other indicators showing the same thing. Meetup groups, straw polls, internet polls, Internet traffic, fund raising. The mainstream media has become propaganda, not news. The anti war, low tax candidate always does better than the hawk tax raisers, people really aren’t stupid. It’s a shame the media thinks they are.

  • Comments are closed.