Posted on 12/16/2007 10:43:13 PM PST by grundle
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's supporters raised over $6 million Sunday to boost the 10-term Texas congressman's campaign for the White House.
Called a "Money Bomb," the goal was to raise as much money as possible on the Internet in one day. The campaign's previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million.
At midnight EST, donations were over $6 million, according to the campaign Web site. Those donations are processed credit card receipts, said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. Benton said the median donation is about $50 in the fundraiser, which was the idea of Paul supporters who are not officially connected to the campaign.
Trevor Lyman, a Paul supporter who is traveling the country following the Ron Paul blimp, said the date of the fundraiser coincides with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
The Ron Paul blimp is an aerial billboard emblazoned on one side with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul." The other side reads "Ron Paul Revolution." The blimp, another grass-roots effort, was in Chester, S.C., on Sunday, and organizers hope to get it to New Hampshire before the Jan. 8 primary there.
“Maybe FDR’s constituency realized that you had to have a Congressional declaration to go to war and that it’s generally best not to get involved in foreign entanglements.”
No, FDR’s constituency was full of ignorant ‘isolationists’. And I know Ron Paul isn’t one (ie isolationist), he’s a non-interventionist...which is just barely different. The constitution wasn’t the reason why.
Read into the history and get back to me on that.
“In fact, it was our entanglement in WWI under Wilson that helped set the stage for the rise of Hitler and WWII.”
I’ll agree with you on that. I didn’t favor an entrance in that war [the first one], because it could have played itself out. Our entrance over did the victory and played into Hitler’s rise via the Versaille Treaty.
But the second entrance was absolutely necessary, once we realized our allies were facing definitive loses without us, and our security was at risk. FDR was never neutral durning that era [FYI], and he knew that Hitler wouldn’t just leave America alone.
If it weren’t for FDR’s active role in baiting in the Japanese, we’d have an incredible disadvantage in fighting Germany and Japan. I don’t believe Ron Paul would do what FDR did (ie actively seek war). He would just let the whole cookie crumble.
A pragmatic mind is necessary in a conflicting world.
“I think that our continued presence there actually destabilizes the region more than our leaving would in the end.”
There are many opinions on that,...I’m willing to see it through.
Crickets......
ETC....come out and plaaaaaaayyyyyy
The demoncrat party is far more likely to have a viable third party candidate. But unfortunately the type of people who would break away (like Nader or Code Pink) never have any freaking money so they accomplish nothing.
When a breakout candidate on the right shows up, he is usually self funded or have at least an eight figure fundraising capability so it ends up hurting the GOP.
If the GOP candidate doesn’t campaign on closing the border, I would bet dollars to donuts that somebody goes third party - a bigger name than Tancredo or Hunter. And the GOP will be screwed, and justifiably so.
A candidate could also run on the issue of dealing with the $55T in unfunded liabilities between the public employee pensions, medicare, social security and freaking Amtrack retirees. Or he could just run on the border issue. But he decided to lead with ‘get out of Iraq’ which has lost elections for candidates of both parties.
But Ron Paul is only campaigning on retreating from Iraq and ending all ‘non constitutional spending’ from Congress. What part of that could he actually have any dream of accomplishing as a third party candidate? Even if he was in the GOP it would be a joke. Ron Paul doesn’t have any messages which will resonate outside of the libertarian wing and he has something less than zero personal appeal so nobody else will even listen to him. The guy has been around for a long time and nobody was clamoring for him to seek higher office. He is just so driven by the Iraq war that he couldn’t stop himself.
In short, he is Ross Perot without the populist issue and the billion dollar warchest. But he could run on his own and get 3% of the vote and prevent the GOP from winning FL, OH, IA, MO, CO and NV.
Some of my best friends are Paul supporters. :)
I do respect your positions and I wish we could have a serious debate on these important questions. We come out stronger and wiser for having it.
Thanks very much for your courtesy and discussion...
There are none as blind, as those who will not see.
Pssst.....
The war in Iraq reminds me of the war in Viet Nam. "The world as we know it will end if we don't battle the enemy over there." Wasn't true then suspect it isn't true now.
A montage of the different tea parties with U2.
Some of you may have seen this already. Hopefully no RP haters will watch this, it may bother them because I think I saw some people wearing fuschia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59WxCwMK57o
I suppose it’s all a gamble, which is why the best strategists are good poker or chess players.
In the end, S Korea needs to step up to the plate. Instead of subsidizing their economy because we’re paying for their defence, they maybe need to put their own money to their military if they’re worried about N. Korea.
Well put.
Yes, I would not ever have supported Stalin. He took our support, our money, and came back at us with the Cold War. Why was Patton put on a leash - because Stalin was our “ally”. We chained ourselves, and unleashed Stalin to do what he did.
Every single time we’ve “meddled”, we’ve made things harder for ourselves in the end.
Stalin’s Russia was exhausted in every way by his war with Hitler. Our material support just propped him up that much longer to get his factories producing again, and gave the world East Germany and the whole invasion of Eastern Europe.
Same with China - our support of Chiang resulted in many resources falling onto the hands of Mao.
Without any of that, we might not have gone to Korea or Vietnam. Maybe.
We’ll never know, because we won’t stop meddling.
In the 19th century, we stayed out of foreign conflicts for the most part, and the world got along without us. In the 20th century, we got involved in foreign wars and hundreds of millions died under the dictators we helped enable. Was that completely our fault ? No, of course not, but we did contribute.
I am not a blame-America-firster. There’s lots of blame to go to all parties involved. But, that doesn’t mean I will overlook our part, either.
I don’t agree. I think Stalin’s army took the bulk of the fight, and saved us a lot of blood; but on the other hand, we had him on lend-lease (ie on our military material), so we could have easily took him out afterwards.
It was in our interest, but we failed to follow through on the reality of Russia at that point in time.
Stalin certainly took the wind out of Hitler’s sails and that certainly helped the fight on the Western front, but Stalin could never have pursued Hitler back to Germany or had enough money to but bullets, fuel, food and tanks to keep East Germany and Eastern Europe without Lend-Lease.
We never wise up - the axiom should be that we NEVER, NEVER, NEVER support dictators or fanatics of any type. That goes for Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians, China, and on and on and on.
Would my policy be different...sure. I would have lent them just enough, till they were no-longer useful. Without helping Russia fight Hitler, the war against Germany would be very hard for us.
Well looky there - we got to agreement ! :)
“I remember when I would come here, and there was a kind of tolerance for wacky libertarian types. Now I see mostly hatred on the Paul threads from a certain FR contingent. It does nothing to make me want to eventually join forces with these people. Maybe we’ll wind up with another party. A small government party seems to be needed, and obviously has a constituency.”
There is an understandable backlash against Paul because of his desire to lose in Iraq (or more tactfully, to take actions that would result in a loss in Iraq).
I agree that the various camps are expressing vitriol; bitter words have passed between supporters of each candidate. Don’t feel left out :)
I disagree that another splinter party is a solution, unless the goal is to watch the Dim-RATs take power in January, 2009. As we’ve seen from the uprisings on immigration and judicial appointments the mainstream GOP has to listen to its voting blocks if they get fired up - but the Dems in charge of Congress due to conservative factionalism do *not*.
That video was fantastic, thank you for the ping! It makes me happy to see so many patriots... What other candidate inspires people so much, to come out in such numbers (even on a cold day) for our country and our liberty/rights? I loved how they went all out, with the costumes for the Boston tea party reenactment. :-D I wish I could’ve been there. (like you, I’m also out of the country right now, but will be back in California soon... I want to get involved with the activism when I get back) Thanks again!
Who else but an anti-American would blame America for the terrorist attacks? Who else but an anti-American would want to cut off funding that our military needs in order to survive, and win the WOT? Who else but an anti-American would rather surrender to the terrorists than defeat them. Who else but an anti-American would support such a coward?
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.