Are Ron Paul Supporters Real?

Blogger News Network ^ | November 7, 2007

[theothercheek]

Second-tier presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) pulled off a first-rate fundraising coup, netting $4.3 million in online contributions from 38,000 donors in a single day, bringing his total haul to $7.3 million in 4Q 2007. No other Republican comes close to Paul’s 24-hour feat, but Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has him beat at $6.2 million.

Paul supporters flashed their cash in honor of Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates the would-be assassin of England’s King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. Guy Fawkes was also the inspiration the novel-turned-movie "V for Vendetta," in which the lead character takes on a fascist government in England. In several GOP presidential debates, the libertarian Paul has all-but called George W. Bush a fascist – taking issue with the Administration’s policies on domestic spying, for instance.

So does this mean Paul has a shot at the nomination? In a word: Nah. The Stiletto agrees with WaPo political blogger Chris Cillizza’s: take:

Paul was widely seen as a political gadlfy when he entered the race, but through skill, luck or a little of both he has built himself into an Internet phenomenon. …

It's not yet clear that Paul's online national community can deliver actual votes for him. … While Paul is at the center of a national movement, it won't help him in Iowa or New Hampshire if thousands of people from California or Illinois are backing him. …

There has always been a pot of money that exists for unconventional candidates who believe the system is fundamentally broken and are only tangentially affiliated with a party. …

[H]is money and his message make him a actor in New Hampshire ... he remains a decided longshot ... the excitement and attention he is drawing would seem to be a perfect lead up to a third party candidacy if and when he loses the Republican nomination.

The Houston Chronicle reports that Jonathan Bydlak, the Paul campaign’s fundraising director posted a message on the candidate's Web site that the ka-ching means just one thing: “Ron Paul is for real." Maybe. But it appears his supporters are real (second item).

Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog.

[Paratrooper]

We shall see. Are you a Ron Paul supporter? Is there any chance Ron Paul will run as independent or other party candidate in 2008 if he is not Republican nominee? In 1992, Ross Perot was not going to run for President unless he was on the ballot in all 50 states...he was going to with draw from race because he was not on enough state ballots until a great surge prior to the election. Now, I have always wondered if the democrats had any any role in this surge of support.

[ejonesie22]

Yeah, that’ll stop a ship board or missile fired nuke...

Don’t worry, the big boys will save you....

[mvpel]

Is there any chance Ron Paul will run as independent or other party candidate in 2008 if he is not Republican nominee?

I have met him personally on several occasions, and spoken with him, and I believe that he is an honorable man, and a man of his word. He has said that he will not run third-party or independent if he does not secure the GOP nomination.

[ejonesie22]

Has so far hasn’t it?

[mvpel]

Yeah, that’ll stop a ship board or missile fired nuke...

Why do they want to nuke us?

Do you think it may have something to do with hypothetical questions at a GOP debate about nuking Iran being broadcast around the world?

[poobear]

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

19% Yes. Ronbats? God only knows. This could be 1992 all over again.

[ksen]

So what is your plan to protect us?

Do you realize how much this sounds like someone looking for a nanny state to take care of them?

[ejonesie22]

We are killing a lot of Al Qaeda there, not here. the region is a stable as it can be with us there.

Oil is a bit important to the US economy. I don’t want the Iraqis supplying it below cost because they deserve to make the money. It’s that terriable capitalist thing we do.

[ejonesie22]

No, because they are nuts and we want to save American lives, even yours...

Man, you Paul folks are just out there dying to blame the US aren’t you...

I thought RP wasn't doing that...

[ejonesie22]

Oh now that’s rich...

The main and only real job the Government has is defense...

Even your boy understands that, though it is from an 19th Century perspective

[George W. Bush]

Doesn’t “would be” mean he was foiled?

Let's examine two different phrasings:

• Paul supporters flashed their cash in honor of Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates the would-be assassin of England’s King James I on Nov. 5, 1605.
• Paul supporters flashed their cash in honor of Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates the foiling of the would-be assassin of England’s King James I on Nov. 5, 1605.

You can't possibly pretend this was not deliberately misleading.

Note the sentence structure is quite deliberate: "commemorates...assassin". That is the key thought of the sentence and it is precisely the lie they intend to convey to readers unfamiliar with this British holiday. It is quite clear that writer is a willful liar and a sly slanderer or he is grossly ignorant and lazy in doing research. No other conclusion can be supported.

This kind of coy phrasing, deliberately intended to lead uninformed Americans to believe that RP supporters were somehow celebrating Guy Fawkes (and not his failure) are just another chapter of the dishonesty in media reporting on Dr. Paul's campaign.

This is quite deliberate. Most of the media and many bloggers are so stupid and lazy they just echo the party line "RP's supporters are celebrating terrorism" but those who write this bilge are nothing but liars and propagandists.

Fine. It just makes us grow stronger and faster because we can demonstrate the outrageous slander and bias against Ron Paul in the Republican party and in the liberal media who are, remarkably, conjoined twins in this matter. The primary Paul-hating toadies in libmedia are exactly who you would expect: Fox News Channel, Weekly Standard, New York Times, Washington Post, all the usual crapfest sources who just happen to be totally in the tank for Hitlery and for Rudi "Where Are My Pearls" Giuliani (and what a sick autocratic mobbed-up freakjob he really is).

Like I said, fine with me. Bring on all the libels and the lies against Ron Paul. So far, we've only grown stronger and we have more material to expose in the campaign of lies and deception being run against Ron Paul. It reminds me of very similar efforts to defeat President Reagan in fact. And we know how that attempt to stop a great conservative turned out.

[Petronski]

Do you think it may have something to do with hypothetical questions at a GOP debate about nuking Iran being broadcast around the world?

Yes, it's all our fault. Iran loved America until that question was asked at the GOP debate. At that moment, their enmity for us burst forth from nothingness to a burning hateful need to obliterate us.

[B4Ranch]

Maybe I should have said “market value”. Actual cost is somewhere below $50 a barrel. So, do you think they will sell oil to us at $100 a barrel when it is up to $150 a barrel. You know, in return for us giving them a democracy and spending how many billion dollars fighting this war.

[highlander_UW]

Yeah, a lot of republicans talk the talk, but very few of them walk the walk (other than Ron Paul). 94 to 06 showed us what they really are.

OK, then according to you Ron Paul is the only honest politician (oxymoron there). That doesn't get around his being insane.

[highlander_UW]

No, Paul just doesn't participate in the mass delusion.

You're right, he's got a whole set of delusions all to himself...well, and some of his followers it seems.

[mvpel]

Yes, it's all our fault. Iran loved America until that question was asked at the GOP debate. At that moment, their enmity for us burst forth from nothingness to a burning hateful need to obliterate us.

And of course it had utterly nothing to do with the Brits ripping off the Iranians through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and refusing to disclose financial records, CIA involvement in the overthrow of its elected leader, the installation of the sock-puppet Shah into power who consolidated himself into an absolute monarch, and then proceeded to trample Iranian cultural sensibilities by rapid Westernization leading to the radicalization of Iranian Islam and the revolution of 1979, and our protection of the deposed Shah leading to the hostage crisis?

Iran-Contra?

The shoot-down of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes?

A total trade embargo?

Providing Israel with planes openly described as capable of bombing Iran and returning?

"Axis of evil" saber-rattling?

Even if Iranians didn't love us to begin with, what could you possibly expect after all that?

As for dismissing one's adversaries as "nuts" - well, Sun Tzu had this to say: " many calculations, victory, few calculations, no victory, then how much less so when no calculations?"

[ksen]

Even your boy understands that . . .

Whoah! What happened to the meme of the last few months that Paul would surrender to the terrorists and not defend us?

How can this be?

If he understands that national defense is a legitimate role of the federal government then there is no reason to suppose that he would fail in carrying out that role.

You're straying from the script.

[ejonesie22]

I doubt it, again they deserve to get the same as everyone else who sells oil.

The advantage is they are stable enough to have oil to sell...

I think that is a good thing...

[Petronski]

Spare me the L.Ron Blame America First litany. I've heard it many times before.

[George W. Bush]

You just don’t understand the complexities of the 21st century.

Quite obviously, you haven't even mastered the lessons of the Cold War and the nuclear standoff of the era.

Terrorist cannot build nukes. Only large industrialized countries can. Small countries can if they have help. So American and Russia and China, yes. Britain and France, barely. Israel, with American help and money. The Pakis, with Korean technical info and Saudi money. The Saudis, with our looking the other way and with their Paki technicians and African ore suppliers. Iran, with Soviet and Chinese help.

Any nuke exploded over an American city will bring retaliation against the country that manufactured it, probably in less than six hours which is about how long it will take to identify the source of the isotopes in the fallout. In less than an hour if it is a missile launch and we can trace its source.

You live in a little bubble-world of post-9/11 hysteria. Anything and everything can be justified by your corny little Tom Clancy narrative of suitcase nukes.

The real world does not operate that way and it never has.

The real danger is meddling in the Mideast and in the sovereignty of these countries until we have inadvertently created a half-dozen Irans (with names like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.). And we are very near to that now.

As the dollar crisis looms over business and industry, threatening recession or even depression, you'll find it's not so easy to frighten the public into invasions, nationbuilding, bombing campaigns, bank bailouts, corporate bailouts, Pill Bills, ethanol subsidies, shipping planeloads of cash to Iraq, supporting Islamic tyrants, etc.

And that time has come. Only one man in the race has stood steadfast for decades against all of those things.

Ron Paul is right. He always was.