Posted on 11/07/2007 5:54:10 AM PST by 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.
...so consistantly, it's almost scary. The only thing the government is good at is killing people and breaking things.
So are you saying that it's irrational for Iranians to be pissed off that America and the CIA shoved the Shah down their throats? Or that it didn't actually happen at all?
But “after” in 2007 is not the same as “after” circa 1789...
We have to be a bit more aggressive in our defense than you boys seem to realize or want to acknowledge
Their anti-American attitude is explained in two words: radical Islam.
While steadfastly ignoring the underlying reasons for the need for that defense? What if we had the same relationship with Iran as we had with Canada - they sell us their oil and look down their noses at us, and otherwise we leave each other alone?
And why is it radicalized? Why did the radicals come into power and widespread influence?
I give up.
I'll put back all the books I studied as a Military History major and years of keeping track of Military tactics and technology and surrender as it were to you Paul supporters. You guys like that anyways.....
Oh, but a few questions.
Is Iran an industrialized nation or a terrorist state?
How about Pakistan, I mean they have Nukes as has been acknowledged on this very thread. They are stable now, so I don't know. Teach me what all that means...
Oh and can terrorist steal nukes?
Also you say we will respond, which I hope we do, but can you find any cities to volunteer to be the one blasted by a nuke we could have prevented if we had take an aggressive stance? It could save some paper work and planning on Iran's or whomever part...
I am sure an expert with your level of knowledge has those answers so you can enlighten me...
(BTW the irony of your post is the number of times I have had to explain that the total disregard for their own lives is what causes the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction to not be applicable to containing the nukes if Iran goes hot and why only an aggressive solution will do)
Wow, the guy who said the extreme right and extreme left go so far out they met was dead on...
What about a nuke that we could have prevented by NOT taking an aggressive stance, by not stomping around the world in combat boots decade after decade, by opening trade and cultural relations with other nations instead of military bases?
Or do you deny that possibility?
Yes, yes, we are a terrible empire, yada, yada, yada...
There really isn’t one whits difference between you guys and the left, save a few libertarian stances...
Care to discuss the issue rationally, instead of just rolling your eyes at the undisputed fact that the "Ugly American" has a basis in reality and history?
Can you share with us your experience and education on the military concept of "blowback?"
We’ll keep you safe though...
Tastes better than the “ignore history” Kool-Aid, I reckon.
We’ll keep you safe though...
By continuing to provoke the Iranian government and alienate the people of Iran? How's that work?
It’s the nature of the beast. T’was ever thus.
Like I said, I am done with the “blame America first” crowd...
For now...
You guys kill me. Your other buddy is complaining about the money being pout forth to help the Iranians and maybe foster more internal efforts to overthrow the fundamentalist, then next thing we are antagonizing an enemy, which is a bad thing to you guys.
BTW, check the statements coming from the Iranian government for the definition of provocation...
Damn, just damn...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.