Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ron Paul Revolution
Time Magazine ^ | 11/1/07 | Joel Stein

Posted on 11/01/2007 6:38:53 AM PDT by traviskicks

It sometimes seems as if someone is playing a cruel practical joke on Ron Paul. He goes to a college and delivers the same speech he's given for the past 30 years of his political career, the one espousing the Austrian school of economics. Only now the audience is packed with hundreds of kids in RON PAUL REVOLUTION T shirts who go nuts — giving standing ovations when he drones on about getting rid of the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard. After a speech at Iowa State last month, when nearly half the crowd had to stand because there were only 400 seats, a hipster-looking student worked his way through the half-hour-long line to shake Paul's hand. This was surely it — the moment when the straight faces would break and Paul would be wedgied up the flagpole. "When you see Bernanke," the kid said, "will you tell him to stop cutting rates when gold hits 1,000?"

Politics might be rock 'n' roll for nerds, but the nerds aren't supposed to be quite this nerdy. The leader of the disaffected in next year's presidential election — the Howard Dean, the Ross Perot, the Pat Buchanan — is a kindly great-grandfather and obstetrician whose passion is monetary policy. Paul, a 72-year-old hard-core libertarian Republican Congressman who is against foreign intervention, subsidies and the federal income tax, is not only drawing impressive crowds (more than 2,000 at a postdebate rally at the University of Michigan last month) but also raising tons of cash. In the third quarter of 2007, Paul took in $5.3 million (just slightly less than GOP rival John McCain), mostly in small, individual donations. On Oct. 22, he aired his first TV ads, $1.1 million worth in New Hampshire.

(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birkenstockers; braindeadzombiecult; endorsedbydu; libertarianparty; lp; mrspaulsshrimp; paulbearers; paulestinians; paultards; ronpaul; rontards; scampi; shrimp; spambots; thedailykoscandidate; wildamericanshrimp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Nervous Tick

lol, it’s only a lie if the FCC is lying, look it up, it’s been all over the news, including here at FR:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1912869/posts


21 posted on 11/01/2007 7:15:34 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
The Bible said the NWO is coming long before your gods Alex Jones and Ron Paul.

Errr, I'm a Thompson supporter, kid.

22 posted on 11/01/2007 7:16:15 AM PDT by jmc813 (.) (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
Actually the challenge is two fold, first that the field for employer is not validated and anyone can enter information there. As has been noted here, there are only a few of the military listings that have an APO address and some have unusual information such as ‘Director of Marketing’ for the Air Force- others LinkedIn profiles don’t list military as employers. (even on the RonPaulForums there was some controversy on this with some members encouraging others to not make a big deal yet and reporters checking into the validity of the employer listings.)

The second challenge to is that the numbers are so low (less than 90 donors) that it is statistically insignificant and cannot represent any sort of sentiment of military support (if 100% are actually military members, this is about .0004% donating to Paul)

23 posted on 11/01/2007 7:21:41 AM PDT by mnehring (Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
lol, it’s only a lie if the FCC is lying, look it up, it’s been all over the news, including here at FR

Ha. LOL at you, CultBoy. That thread you cited does a pretty thorough job of debunking the ElRon "military contribution myth" -- why did you choose that one? ROFL!

The informed voter might also want to have a look at The Fantasy of Ron Paul's Military Support:

"...this isn't about campaign donations from "active service military members," whatever they might be, but "donors affiliated with the military,"...

...those tasked with fighting this war do get it, which is why they aren't donating to Paul. The only real report we have on political contributions from active duty military in this election cycle has Paul taking in just over $19,000..."

REMOVE RON PAUL FROM CONGRESS! SUPPORT HIS PRIMARY CHALLENGER! Chris Peden

24 posted on 11/01/2007 7:38:56 AM PDT by Nervous Tick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick; traviskicks; mnehrling
Interesting chart.

We'll leave aside the irrelevance of drawing any conclusion about $100,000 ($40,000 in contributions represents only 0.8% of his last quarters contributions) or so in contributions, other than some members of the millitary, a small number, support Paul.

But the chart is interesting.

As Nervous Tick notes this issue has been pretty thoroughly debunked. It's been noted that the numbers are based on notations of employment, and include retired military, contractors, civilian employees and possibly even liars.

The Paul campaign chart clearly states troops and Donations from Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard.

Has the campaign filtered out contributions from non active duty military and verified active duty status of that $40,000?

If not, Nervous Tick is correct, it's a lie. A deliberate lie at that.

25 posted on 11/01/2007 8:16:46 AM PDT by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

The Fantasy of Ron Paul's Military Support

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_fantasy_of_ron_pauls_milit.asp

Does Andrew Sullivan read stories before he comments on them? In this case, I suspect he didn't, otherwise he's engaging in pure military-related fantasy. In response to this article from the Houston Chronicle reporting that Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead all candidates in fund raising among "donors identified as affiliated with the military," Sullivan headlines a post "Whom the Troops Support," with this stunningly self-indulgent conclusion (actually this is the whole post):

Just one indicator, of course: campaign donations from active service military members. And guess who's first? Ron Paul. Second? Barack Obama. Those tasked to actually fighting this war get it, don't they?

Except this isn't about campaign donations from "active service military members," whatever they might be, but "donors affiliated with the military," which Sullivan might have noticed had he slogged through the whole first sentence of the story. In fact, the first "active service military member" and Ron Paul supporter interviewed for the piece is 72-year-old Lindell Anderson, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth. Further, the Chron notes that the average size of Paul's donations from this subset was $500. How many active duty soldiers are giving $500 to fringe candidates a year out from the election? Not many, I suspect. In fact, among all the candidates, the total number of contributors surveyed here numbered less than 1,000--out of an Armed Forces of 2.2 million. And, remember, most of these contributors aren't even active duty.

So yes, Andrew, those tasked with fighting this war do get it, which is why they aren't donating to Paul. The only real report we have on political contributions from active duty military in this election cycle has Paul taking in just over $19,000, and that's only counting donations larger than $200. So, maximum, we're talking about 90 active duty soldiers who we know have actually contributed to Ron Paul's campaign. The rest is pure speculation, and the Chron's tally of $63,440, with its average of $500 per donation, is unlikely to be populated by many of the guys who are "actually fighting this war." But you gotta bang out 30 posts a day, right?

 


26 posted on 11/01/2007 8:26:16 AM PDT by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Good post!

The RuPaulettes need to distort, spam, and lie to give RuPaul an inkling of legitimacy.

It’s sad to see the lows his “supporters” must go to for this schizophrenic.

27 posted on 11/01/2007 8:35:31 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (ah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
If you're interested in the spam aspect, Is Ron Paul running a botnet spam op? [legal questions, overseas support]
28 posted on 11/01/2007 9:04:06 AM PDT by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SJackson; Clint N. Suhks; Nervous Tick

The article the weekly standard cites has paul raising the most money from ‘active duty’ troops than any other republican candidate... so I’m not sure what the point is.

Additonally, I’m not sure how they quantify and flesh out what is considered ‘active duty’. I think the Paul chart where it includes ‘military’ is a more reasonable analysis.

Sure, one could argue ‘active duty’ is more accurate, and that these charts are not exact measurments, and it is self reported, but you can’t say it’s a lie or it’s been debunked, because that chart I posted accurately represents the number of people who self reported US military as occupation who contributed greater than $200 to Paul’s and the other presidential campaigns.


29 posted on 11/01/2007 11:15:58 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks; Clint N. Suhks; Nervous Tick
The article the weekly standard cites has paul raising the most money from ‘active duty’ troops than any other republican candidate... so I’m not sure what the point is...Additonally, I’m not sure how they quantify and flesh out what is considered ‘active duty’. I think the Paul chart where it includes ‘military’ is a more reasonable analysis.Sure, one could argue ‘active duty’ is more accurate, and that these charts are not exact measurments, and it is self reported, but you can’t say it’s a lie or it’s been debunked, because that chart I posted accurately represents the number of people who self reported US military as occupation who contributed greater than $200 to Paul’s and the other presidential campaigns.

The point is that the Weekly Standard article reports $19,000, your chart reports over $40,000. That's an error of over 100%. IMO that's not accurately represents >i>

What the Paul campaign considers "active duty" is irrelevant, and not something to be fleshed out. It's a legal term, I believe still full time military activity for a period of 30 days excluding training, which impacts many facets of the servicemembers life, from compensation to private sector employment and insurance for activated reservists, to benefits on retirement.

30 posted on 11/01/2007 11:41:52 AM PDT by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

It is not an ‘error of 100%’ because they are measuring different things.

And the Paul campaign hasn’t said anything about active duty, the other article did, I was just wondering how you arrive at that from self reported professions, unless they crosslinked the names with military records, which I’m not sure one can do...


31 posted on 11/01/2007 11:45:14 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
On Oct. 22, he aired his first TV ads, $1.1 million worth in New Hampshire.
Here's his latest ad.
32 posted on 11/01/2007 3:33:37 PM PDT by ArcadeQuarters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks; fieldmarshaldj; LdSentinal; ExTexasRedhead; Kuksool; MplsSteve; ...

I like some things about Ron Paul. And there’s no denying that there’s an anti-establishment sentiment in the nation that he has managed to tap into.


33 posted on 11/01/2007 3:41:12 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (You can't be serious about national security unless you're serious about border security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
My community, I see Ron Paul signs all over the place. I would rate Obama and Paul as having the most enthusiastic support in the Chicago suburbs.
34 posted on 11/01/2007 4:19:04 PM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919623/posts?page=29#29


35 posted on 11/01/2007 4:40:33 PM PDT by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Samurai_Jack
Ron Paul is another clintonian ross perot plant.

How so? He's not running as a 3rd party candidate.

36 posted on 11/01/2007 4:49:24 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Blah blah blah


37 posted on 11/01/2007 4:50:15 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

You’re right just like the VFW endorsement.


38 posted on 11/01/2007 4:59:53 PM PDT by WildcatClan (DUNCAN HUNTER- The only choice for true conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Blah blah blah

Is that the official Ron Paul attitude toward active duty military. I don't think so, you should note it's your opinion only else your candidate be smeared.

39 posted on 11/01/2007 5:00:30 PM PDT by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Dr. Paul supports the military.


40 posted on 11/01/2007 6:38:04 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson