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.

[Dreddnafious]

David frum, of the national review disagrees with you.


Yesterday, I posted an item casting doubts on the significance of Ron Paul's one-day $4 million fundraising haul. I suggested that his achievement is comparable to Ralph Nader's in 2000, and much less impressive than Howard Dean's in 2004. I went on to suggest that the main effect of Ron Paul's campaign, if continued to the end, would be to take votes from Hillary Clinton and thus help a Republican ticket headed by Rudy Giuliani.

[Dreddnafious]

Smart money would buy gold i think, since everything else is wedged in some manner against the dollar. Thank you for the correction.

[Dreddnafious]

While i disagree with your over all summation, your example is a classic case of the congress authorizing military force instead of declaring war.

There are some debatable differences of course. The barbary pirates had 300 american marines held hostage, so it was a rescue mission as opposed to an invasion per se.

A neat quote.

Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks (”Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute”).

That falls well in line with my beliefs.

[incindiary]

I hope you don't mind me answering your post. It's amazing to me that this argument is still going on - it has been going on for so many years, and we have gone over this so many times, but what many in the GOP still don't get - refuse to get - is that they are losing people, and have been for years, because of the Republican candidates we've been given to choose from. They aren't conservatives, they're globalists, many of them (like Giuliani) are liberals with an R by their name, they're no different than the Democrats. These politicians you want people to vote for are supportive of unconstitutional, globalist policies that are destroying our country. The two major parties try to appear so different, but on some of the most important issues in regard to our country's future, they are the same, two wings of one party.

You seem to be promoting the same thing that we talked about on this site back in the 90's, that conservatives should hold their nose, go against their conscience and vote for the lesser of two evils. Why? Because we want to win! Well, what are we winning? If the result is slowly destroying our country, and if the people you want conservatives to vote for don't represent our views (because they are big-government, big-spending, open borders, weak on the 2nd amendment and abortion, globalists) then what are we winning? The usual response at this point is: It's better than the Democrats.

But if there is almost no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, supporting the RINO is not winning. You may win an election, but the country is losing. What's more important?

If the GOP is stupid enough to keep putting out candidates like Giuliani or others who are no different than Democrats, then whose fault is it if they lose? You want to put the blame on people who aren't going to vote for the pro-choice, anti-gun, open-borders globalist, who doesn't represent the views of many conservatives. Why not realize that the GOP is shrinking because they are Republicrat globalists, and it is their own fault if they lose?

To answer what you said about Ron Paul...
1) He is going for the nomination and has stated that he does not plan to run third party.
2) Even if he does run third party, don't blame people who are voting for what best represents their views instead of going against their conscience. I am sick and tired of some Republicans blaming conservatives who choose to vote for the candidate that most represents THEIR views, and not getting behind the socialist-lite, globalist RINO that you want us to support. If the Republicans, like the Democrats, are going against the constitution and our sovereignty and taking us towards world government, then it is THEIR fault if they lose an election.

Your statement here didn't make much sense, can you rephrase it? : "Seems to me that putting this Republic at danger of morphing into a socialist, one world government is short sighted. And lazy. "

Unless I misunderstood what you're saying... If you haven't realized by now that it is politicians in both parties (or should I say our one-party system) that have sold out to socialist-corporatist globalism, then you haven't been paying attention. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who supports a candidate on either side who is a phony and whose record shows they are a globalist, is putting our Republic at danger, and that is what many people are finally starting to wake up to and realize.

And if it makes you feel any better, the conservative/constitutionalist Ron Paul supporters who I have encountered would NOT have voted for the GOP candidate anyway, so you're not losing a vote you wouldn't have had in the first place.

Speaking of the topic of voting for the lesser of two evils, here's a very interesting speech that I hope you take the time to watch. Please watch the whole thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg

[B4Ranch]

Of all the candidates, Paul is the only one who firmly believes “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

In this day and age, I think that America drastically needs someone like this. Is he the best person for all aspects of the job? No, he’s not but he can certainly appoint people who are to advise him.

You mention the consequences. I’ll tell you this. I never expected the consequences that voting for Bush resulted in. If you can forecast the future, have at it.

[mountainfolk]

Political arguments will continue endlessly because none will be resolved to the satisfaction of everybody. Like it or not, there are only two viable political parties to choose from at this particular time. You may view both parties as equally derelict in their support or lack thereof of issues you define as conservative but the Republican party is the only venue open that offers the opportunity for preserving our government as a Republic. There is nothing you wrote about that I have not heard over the years and yet we are still hanging in, working with what is available to us. Our government is administered by the elected representatives of each state and that is where the change you want has to come from. I never hold my nose to vote, nor consider that I am choosing the lesser of evils. There is a choice to be made and as we all know, making no choice is also a choice. The evil being presented to us is the Clintons seeking a third and fourth term via running Hillary/Bill as a twofer. I would think the immediate concern for this election would be this blatant disregard for the two term limit on the Presidency. The Republicans are not doing anything equivalent nor are they promising a full blown socialist welfare state. The Republican party may be flawed but it is not rotten to the core as is the democrat party.

As to clarification that morphing this Republic into a one world socialist government is short sighted, that is the sequence of Clinton socialism. Republic gone, replaced by a one world socialist government. Short sighted because it defeats what you say you want. And lazy comes in because it is easier to destroy a party than to build one. Exactly what positives have those who support Ron Paul brought about? And I have said more than once that the Republican party should not waste time courting those who will not vote for us anyway. I do believe that Republicans are more tolerant of the views of non democrats, sometime Republicans, than vice versa.

[mvpel]

You may view both parties as equally derelict in their support or lack thereof of issues you define as conservative but the Republican party is the only venue open that offers the opportunity for preserving our government as a Republic.

And that is precisely why Ron Paul has been in Congress as a member of and is running for the nomination of the Republican party.

[jmc813]

Who are you currently supporting?

[Toddsterpatriot]

FDT.

[jmc813]

Good man.

[Vanbasten]

Besides Romney and Guiliani, they are all more conservative.

No, I think perhaps you are the one issue voter. That’s fine and all, but you should just come clean. THE WOT WEIGHS HEAVILY ON YOU not I.

[oneamericanvoice]

70% of independents and 35% of Republicans agree with him on his non-interventionist view of Iraq. Does that look like math that adds up to a win for Guiliani? What about the 65% of Republicans and 30% of Independents that do don't agree with him and his non-intervention in Iraq? BTW, what poll are you quoting? What was the question that they were asked? What were the follow-up questions? Did Paul supporters pad the polls as they usually do? Notice that only 35% Republicans (according to your stats) agree.

[mvpel]

Yeah, and $4.2 million in one day, that was “padding the polls,” eh? So, so, sooooo laaaaame.

[Dreddnafious]

Lol, if there was anothwer candidate with actual conservative values and integrity, that had a similar WOT to Bush, and wasn’t the long shot that Paul is, I’d vote for that candidate.

No need to blow smoke up your own skirt.

[Vanbasten]

Wait. What do you mean by actual conservative values. There you go again questioning peoples conservatism. Thompson is ‘authentic’ and so are a few others.

In fact, Thompson is a hell of a lot more of an outsider than freakin Paul. ROFL

You Paulbearers are hillarious.

[Let's Roll]

Yep, Ross Perot - o-oo, the initials are the same - pay attention people - had a good message too and we all know who he got elected.

[Dreddnafious]

You’re so right, Rudi is such a strong conservative, what was i thinking?

I must have missed the RNC memo where abortion on demand, sanctuary cities, and disarming the public was the new conservatism.

[Vanbasten]

How is that an appropriate response to my post? Good lord man!

[oneamericanvoice]

So, so, sooooo laaaaame. Yeah, RP supporters are so lame. Just because they can come up with the change doesn't mean diddly. Fans of anything (Harry Potter, Star Trek, Star Wars, sports, etc) can come up with change. So what?