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.
Not true, the sale of harder drugs around pot shops were a lot higher where they were allowed to exist, so if they legalize the pot, they can move their harder drugs easier.
Grows the market.
Very interesting! I just registered as one too, so I could vote for Ron Paul in AZ.
Grows the market.****
Just you saying it, doesn’t make it true. You have to provide evidence, not opinion.
Holland, I think, has legalized pot cafes for a long time and I don’t think they have a major harder drug problem.
I am really not up on this issue right now. But I do know that Canada relaxed its laws on pot and didn’t have it expand into a harder drug problem. They have a lot of pot growers, but they are growing to ship to the US.
Of course, alcohol, one of the worse drugs in the world, is legal in the US.
decriminalizing drugs immedaitely puts “drug lords” in competition with phizer, merc and johnson and johnson.
Bob the drug lord would be out of work immediately, and violent drug crimes would immediately become equal to violent cigarette crimes.
Please reconsider, or perhaps i should say, consider your position.
Also to pitch in here. Im a long time conservative, and i donated to Paul, I’ll be voting for him as well in the primary(Texas)
We won the Iraq war 12 months ago guys. Hanging out there, wearing out our welcome is a waste of life and treasure.
I understand your cynicism, i really do, but if you feel obligated to vote for a small government, free-market, pro-life, liberty first candidate then you really only have one choice.
There were newspaper articles of cities where the shops were complaining about it.
Old news...
Anyway, the issues of drugs are in common between drug users and many Libertarians without a doubt.
no question about it, and it’s a fair critique of paul from a classic conservative point of view. I have no problems at all admiting that.
What bothers me so much is the irrational defense, “pauls crazy” instead of discussing the actual issues. So much energy is spent fromt he conservative stance of not swallowing wholesale what the main stream media is pushing, but when it’s convenient it’s the first refuge of intellectual cowards.
We should be bigger than that.
Let’s just hope all the recreational drug users kill themselves off soon so that they have less chance of polluting future generations of young people.
Paul may NOT be crazy, but he just sounds like he is, especially on the war issue.
Ron Paul was ALSO right when he endorsed Ronald Reagan for President...in 1976.
Okay...let's say many Freepers are right, and that Paul's irresponsible foreign policy results in an invasion of America by hordes of fundamentalist Muslims. With Paul in the White House; we would STILL HAVE OUR GUNS to defend ourselves. Not so with Hillary or Rudy.
I think, for the most part, they are looney lefties trying desperately to screw up the primary which will, in turn, screw up the general election.
Well, im not a drug user, although i experimented around age 19 and 20. But ima believer in the free market, and part of that implies that i believe in market solutions.
Prohibition of drugs has all of the same issues that prohibiton of alcohol had, and we saw fit to repeal it, i think the same is due for recreational drug use.
Any fool can go to a doctor and be proscribed an anti-depressant that is far more dangerous than marijuana these days and its strictly legal. In my opinion current drug laws are a government propped monopoly far more so than anything to do with public safety or welfare.
But i respect your right to a different opinion.
Nah, i’m with you on that to some degree, it’s a pretty radical approach, but i believe it will work just fine for us. For me, the pull of paul is the rest of the platform.
Free market, low taxes(way low), private education, small government, right to privacy, etc.. that’s straight from the conservative playbook, and what appeals to me most.
If you’re a single issue voter, and your single issue is the WOT then i totally get why you can’t be for the guy.
If you’re not a single issue voter then you really can’t have an excuse.
What other candidate is going to work on monetary policy, lower taxes, and protect our personal liberties like paul?
Guiliani is a nonstarter, Romni is as fake as the last opinion poll. Hunter is solidish but cant beat rudi, Thompson IS what every dumbass democrat claimed that Reagan was.
Face it man, other than foreign policy, paul is the only reagan republican in the bunch. I think Reagan was masterful in his dismantling of the USSR and his brinkmanship, i just don’t think remaking the M.E. in our image is going to pan out for us.
I think that in the long haul, we’ll isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and go broke trying to fix everything out there thats jacked up, in much the same way that the USSR did.
So let’s be Reagan and not Kruschev
Yeah, he likes the earmarks just fine.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html
Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.
The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.
Having a little trouble buying the "fiscal savior" routine there.
Qwinn
Libertarians don’t get effected by the ethics of the issue IMO, so people for drug abuse are likely to donate to Paul’s campaign, along with Soros who figures splitting votes helps Hillary (which it does).
I’ll address it personally.
To be sure you understand the process, an earmark is a distribution of money already appropriated.
For example, a 100 million dollar farm subsidy is approved. 100 million(at least) is getting spent.
What Paul has done:
Once the money has been spent(appropriated) he has absolutely gotten earmarks in for his constituency.(I’m sure you can supply a list of those if you’re feverent enough)
What Paul has not done:
Paul has voted consistently against the bill in my above example, vote plays out and passes, now that the money is (spent) appropriated, he has certainly represented his constituency. to not earmark the already spent money would be to fail his charge of duty.
If you’re going to take issue with appropriations then Pauls not a good target for you, although i am heartened that the muds starting to get slung a bit, it verifies the traction the campaign is getting.
Bring me your worst, by all means.
The democrats think that paul running a third party campaign will ensure a republican victory because hillary is seen as far more pro-war than paul, and they are afraid that paul will pull off a lot more anti-war democrats then pro-market republicans, so i don’t agree it’s as nearly so cut and dried as you do.
Not true, they figure a Republican known as Ron Paul would shed some of the votes from Republicans in favor of Hillary.
You almost got that right!
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.