Ron Paul's presidential campaign raised more than six-million dollars yesterday, setting the single-day record for donations in American politics. Republican hacks have sought to ban him from presidential debates, blocked his supporters from participating in online polls, and even suggested that he be kicked out of the Republican Party. It seems an awful lot of Republicans, from Barry Goldwater, Jr. to Andrew Sullivan (Is he a Republican?) to the 58,000 people who donated yesterday, disagree.
It is really an astounding accomplishment for someone who likely 3 out of 5 people have never heard of and the MSM simply ignores, when it isn't ridiculing or condescending to him.
The big stat yesterday was something like 24,000 first time contributors, and again average donation size was something around 100 dollars. That means ordinary people and not special interest big money is doing this.
To set the single day primary campaign fundraising record he beat John Kerry's 5.7 mil garnered on the day after he locked up the Dem nomination, that means it was driven by the erstwhile supporters of all the other Dems jumping on board w/ their special interest money to back Kerry. Paul had nothing remotely similar going for him top do this. That is unreal.
And of course the silence from those who should care is deafening. Do the Republicans even WANT to win? This is a sick amount of money going to a GOP candidate, he raised more than all the others this quarter and is the only one who has raised more money in each successive quarter this year (the others declined). I usually assume that "money talks" but Paul is demonstrating that for the Republican brass and the mainstream conservative movement that simply is not true.
The worst part is that he is SO VERY CONSERVATIVE on so many things. You would think the GOP and conservative leaders would want to tap into this money supply and grassroots get-out-the vote fervor in some fashion. Just goes to show the state of conservatism in this country, and what issues really drives the party.
Mitt is crying again because Ron Paul raised $6 million dollars in one day (soon the entire GOP field will be crying as Dr. Paul wins. 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 nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
Ron Paul, "Facism comes to town wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross". Hmmm. I dont think i like this man.
Here's the video of Ron Paul on Fox & Friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrkltetQ0x4
This most recent episode has convinced me of what I suspected all along: Ron Paul is not fit to be president.
Every time I give Ron Paul a second/third/fourth look, I run into the same problem I did on the first look. He comes across as nuts. He's the crazy uncle at family gatherings. And he apparently can't help himself.
Sad.
And now Mike Huckabee runs an ad celebrating "the birth of Christ."
I despise Huckabee's use of religion in the campaign. I would argue that Huckabee shamelessly pimps his beliefs in order to win votes (and the most recent ad is simply brilliant at rallying his base and blunting attacks). But what does Paul insinuate? That fascism is coming to America.
Geez.
I somewhat agree with your assessment of Paul. I like about 80% of what he says but the way he expresses it and the other 20% makes me scratch my head.
For me, his presentation can best describe as logical but nuts. I don’t now, maybe I need slick?
As far as Huckleberry goes, he won't be the first or last charlatan who hides behind a mask of religion. Read further into his history and present and you find a guy of questionable standing on a number of issues and who demonstrates an element of gross dishonesty and sleaze.
Maybe the fact that so many "little guys" are donating to Ron Paul should tell us something. So far we have seen the MSM with a beauty contest. Could it be that poll numbers are an indication of how much time and effort the media has spent on hyping their picks instead of an accurate reflection of a candidates standing? When Kucinich stood for 25 minutes before finally getting a question on UFOs can the forum be called fair. Ron Paul has been marginalized in all of the debates. Rudi, Mitt and the Huck get the majority of the time and all of the soft questions. The other candidates together don't get the time that any one of the majors do. If Paul and other "minor" figures (on both sides) were given a fair shot, the poll numbers might reflect what the bank account does- a different story.
I somewhat agree with your assessment of Paul. I like about 80% of what he says but the way he expresses it and the other 20% makes me scratch my head.
I don't know if I split 80/20, but that's a great way to put it.
If you find yourself agreeing with Ron Paul 80%, and all the others only 50%, do you throw out your principles and go with one of the others?
Ron Paul is the first person running for President that I actually feel knows that the hell is going on in the world, and is looking at it with a foundation in the Constitution.
As to the fascism comment. Check your history. Everytime fascism takes over, it is because of nationalism (Germany, Italy, etc. of WWII) or religion (Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc. of present day). He isn't wrong.
Lets hope that votes for Ron Paul match the money he has been racking in these days and the American public is heard.....not the polls, not the media, not the left or the right....just plain ole Americans who are sick and tired of the lousy job our government as a whole is doing....let em be heard!!!!!
Jay, you are right. As for the others that didn't like that comment, then either you need to delve into history some more or you're offended because you actually cheer for the prospect of serious mixing of Christian church and state (Huck is your man then). Think about something else, what if Christianity wasn't the religion that got blended with State? Would you still be for the mixing of mosque and state? As an example, think of Iran. Also, don't believe everything that comes out of Fox & Friends...that isn't news, its all op ed/bush&cheney speakerbox and if you dont know that, then you truly are a f'n moron and unfortunately you get to vote...
Did anyone notice how Fox changed the subject when RP made his fascism comment? They couldn't cut away from that fast enough because they didn't want to scare their precious Religious wingnut fanbase with something like the truth, RP is too smart for the Bush/Cheney/neocon speakerboxes at Fox. Did any of you see the Fox debate when Ron Paul annihalated Giuliani about blowback from the 9/11 attacks? Fox changed the subject on that as well b/c it couldn't believe a GOP candidate would actually exercise his rights and common sense by pointing out to Americans that yes, we may have to pay a price for our Imperialism, we may be held accountable for our invasions throughout the world for our own economic interests and not sell out like Gulz 9/11 with bs rhetoric about "screw towel heads, these red white and blue colors don't run" redneck horsesh*t. Fox news = p*ssies and they don't like RP because he is not a rank and file neo-con taking direct orders from the leaders who have hijacked the republican party, rather he is shaking it up with, GASP, the constitution, fiscal conservatism, and bringing soldiers home!!!
If you find yourself agreeing with Ron Paul 80%, and all the others only 50%, do you throw out your principles and go with one of the others?
I think you're right. However, in my own case, your question is based on an incorrect assumption. In addition, if you agree with Paul 80% of the time, that doesn't mean you agree with everyone else less. For example, in general terms I disagree with Paul on foreign policy, but agree with him on abortion, and vice-versa with Giuliani.
As to the fascism comment. Check your history. Everytime fascism takes over, it is because of nationalism (Germany, Italy, etc. of WWII) or religion (Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc. of present day). He isn't wrong.
But he wasn't talking about Germany, Italy, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. He was talking about Mike Huckabee.
Did anyone notice how Fox changed the subject when RP made his fascism comment?
Yup. Probably because suggesting that Mike Huckabee is pushing fascism comes off as, well, rather kooky.
I agree that Ron Paul's performance on Fox and Friends this morning wasn't good. Then again: 1) He clearly is not a morning person. Every time he has been interviewed before 8AM his performance has not been good. 2) Fox is the most disrespectful media outfit there is. They introduce Ron Paul and first question out of the box is about a Huckebee ad Paul has not even seen. And then after the commerical they ask him to give a series of "one word answers" designed to make him look foolish. These guys are pathetic. Wisely, Paul didn't play their stupid game.
Fortunately, Ron Paul gets better as the day goes on. For example, his performance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" at 8AM this same morning was fantastic. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alxjl4IjZ9k
BTW - Ron Paul had a Christmas ad out the week before Huckabee's. Funny how that didn't make the news. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZPCWGtIupE
Doug,
You are ridiculous, stop calling people kooky. That is the way Goldwater was described, and it was intellectually dishonest then.
Paul was quoting Sinclair Lewis in criticizing pandering via religion or patriotism in that clip. He specifically says that he doesn't think it applies to Huckabee, never named him, but only said that when asked about use of crosses in ads to give an impression of being "the" Christian candidate that he thinks it is a form of charlatanism. Is it not? That is what the Lewis quote means. Why are you overreatcing and jumping into ad hominem at the easiest chance.
Same w/ ASDF, Paul isn't nuts and none of his positions are nuts. Explain yourself, come on peeps. We want the best candidate elected and the primary season is the time to vote conscience, not based on slick packaging, electability, etc. That will take care of itself. Let's find the best candidate based on our conservative principles and push him till the end of the process.
ASDF,
In the post before this one Dan calls a proposal by Huckabee "fascistic." You didn't accuse Dan in your comments there of sounding like a "crazy old uncle." I don't actually understand why you perceive Paul that way, he strikes me as very grandfatherly and homespun, but as extremely well read and thought. And that is what his quote of Sinclair Lewis indicates, it was an off the cuff very literary quote to a question about using religious symbols as campaign props. He hadn't even seen the ad in question at that point. Besides, is it completely unreasonable to think that Huckabee is reminiscent of Elmer Gantry? That is a useful literary allusion from a classic of American literature that does describe certain demagogic types one encounters.
But I am addressing you b/c you are a regular Flynn Filer and I enjoy honest disagreement and debate w/ you. I would suggest giving a listen to Paul being asked to expand and explain his remark in this Iowa radio interview today before dismissing it as simply eccentricity or craziness:
Also, he will be on Meet the Press this coming Sunday for the hour and I highly doubt that Russert will let slip a chance to ask Paul about his comment then as well.
Bruce, I know he’s not nuts. It’s just the perception that people get of him as his presentation is, as you say, grandfatherly and homespun. That may work for Texas but I’m not sure how well it plays on the national stage.
I know that that’s really all fluff as his positions are solid and unwavering on a number of issues. But like I said, semi-seriously, maybe I need slick. And I think that’s the way a lot of people these days are conditioned.
The media has so much influence today dictating how much exposure and presentation a candidate gets and that seems to be the key these days for a prospective candidate to advance. Look at the front runners: Rudy (slicker than slick); Mitt (Slick and polished); Hucksterbee (Slick and religiously pretentious).
Paul’s message might be a good one so why, will all the money he’s raised, is he running neck and neck with Alan Keyes who has no organization to speak of and not a dime in his pocket?
Unfortunately, it’s not the message but the messenger in Paul’s case. I don’t think its right either but there it is. And the media is following suit. Thus, his parroting of a quote that he didn’t invent that’s being attributed to him and now used against him.
Ultimately, he may be right about the content of that quote, but for now the influence of the media and his opponents will use it to make him seen like the grandfather with Alzheimer’s.
Of course his lack of packaging appeals to me b/c it makes him genuine and trustworthy. You are right that the media makes or breaks candidates and relishes its control over the nominating process, but the situation isn't entirely hopeless. The latest ABC poll in Iowa, for example, has Paul at 8%, Thompson at 9%, Huckabee and Romney far and away the leaders. So he is basically third in both Iowa and New Hampshire (based on polls that aren't even terribly reliable for a slew of reasons) and flush w/ enough cash to have a presense in all of the Super Tuesday primary states. A vote for him in the primaries will not at all be wasted now and worth the effort to send a reforming message to the GOP. And votes will build recongnition and momentum as well so you never know.
Seth,
I think your argument, though popular, has little merit. There is quite a difference between a religion that sees us as a "child of God" as opposed to a "servant of Allah". Had we begun as some form of a caliphate, we likely wouldn't have the assumptions about liberty for an "entanglement" to threaten.
Besides, Paul's sentence just isn't true. Islamics don't "carry a cross", they carry a half-moon thing if they carry anything at all. The Italian fascists carried the bundle of sticks called the "fascia" -- from which it gets it's name. Hitler changed his flag, and in general the "nationalism" of fascism was in rejection of the *nation* as it currently existed, usually invoking the underlying race's "glorious history" of achievement (i.e. Rome for the Italians).
What I've noted as a popular sentiment today, is wrapping oneself in a banner that we are the true non-fascists. And that is all that Paul is doing here as well, by invoking the quasi-Marxian narrative that church and nation are the true sources of oppression.
But apart from the conclusions jumped to by Seth, it does seem to me to be ironic that we should regard who all is behind Ron Paul in one sense and not in another. "Look at all the people behind Ron Paul!!" "Some of them are prostitutes and white supremists, right?" "Hey, that's not fair!! I didn't say look closely!! Just look!!"
You are ridiculous, stop calling people kooky.
Ok. Try this on for size:
Ron Paul does not come across well in his media appearances. Reminds of the an older gentlemen I knew who had dimensia. Pretty much out of it. Now, I don't know if that is a fair assessment or not, but...
You would probably react with a big, "WTF?!?!"
And you would be right to react with indignation.
Yet this is exactly what Ron Paul did to Mike Huckabee. He indirectly called him a fascist.
In fairness, after watching Paul on Meet the Press today, he explained himself pretty well re: the Sinclair Lewis reference. I wish he would have done so at the time (while on Fox that morning). In all, a good job in the hot seat with Russert.
