Ron Paul Money Bomb Media Roundup
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, 3rd Party, Money, Ron Paul
Boom.
Andrew Sullivan exalts “Ron Paul’s Triumph.”
Ross Douthat talks about the “The Ron Paul Phenomenon.”
The New York Times reports that Ron Paul Raises More Than $4 Million in One Day.”
National Review’s David Freddoso claims “The Paul-Bearers Carry On.”
Glenn Greenwald calls the Roniac’s record “significant” and “extraordinary.”
Soren Dayton asks “What is the Paul Bomb?” and absolutely answers the question wrong by suggesting that Ron Paul supporters are merely protest voters. Heh. Okay.
Politico tries to figure out “Paul’s Haul” and Chris Ciilzza similarly attempts a discussion about “Understanding Paul’s Haul.”
McQ over at QandO asks us to “Consider This…”
Captain Ed cautions Republicans to remember, remember the Libertarians in November.
And lastly, ABC News wonders “Who Are Ron Paul’s Donors?”
So, who are you people anyway? :-D
UPDATE:
David Frum thinks he knows who you people are when he says, “As third-party candidates go, Ron Paul is Nader, not Perot.”
David, I can assure you that while Paul has drawn anti-war Dems, they’ll have a hard time ultimately stomaching his strict constitutionalist views. In my experience, Ron Paul’s base is mostly made up of Libertarians who’ve been voting for Republicans who claim to be fiscally responsible, but now they’re hearing somebody who actually sounds like he’ll be responsible, both with their wallets and their lives, and they’re responding to that in historic numbers.
In short, not all Republicans are social conservatives or war hawks, and you’d do well to take note.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 6th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, 3rd Party, Money, Ron Paul. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Nice post!
-Chad
November 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Personally, as long as RP makes a strong show at the primaries, he’ll have served his camp well. I donated because I believe that while it’s unlikely that he’ll actually receive the nomination (regardless of performance), hopefully his campaign will get the republican party back on track.
It’s a wake up call, and we’ll see if the GOP picks up the phone. If they don’t I’ll be sounding a louder alarm by voting Democrat just to make a point.
Financing social issues are irrelevant when we we’re this far in the hole, and policing the world isn’t our responsibility. It’s a luxury we can’t afford right now.
And eating out of the hands of the big money interests may keep the politicians (and their masters) fat, but it’s starving the rest of us. At some point cannibalism looks mighty appealing.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Well, David Frum, I’m one of them, and no – - I never contributed to or voted for Ralph Nader. Don’t particularly agree with Michael Moore either. Or Howard Dean.
Gotta say, Frum’s piece is one of the odder things I’ve read in a while. In a very short post he compares Paul to Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean, but draws a distinction between Paul and Perot. Well, I guess I gotta be happy with that I always thought Perot was a few bricks short of a full load.
The only way you can make any sense out of whatever the hell it is that Frum is attempting to say, is by presuming that Frum thinks that anyone who is against the war, regardless of their views on other issues like constitutional protecitons, fiscal responsibility, and individual freedom, is a Nader/Moore Liberal. Paul is as close to a polar opposite of a Nader/Moore liberal as one can get.
Frum is my designated poster boy for the new intellectual bankruptcy of the right. “You are against the war? Well, then obviously you are a liberal Democrat.” In the world according to Frum, being a Republican is identically equal to support for the war. Just weird.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3000&R=785F27881
But my favorite:”No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”
And your Zen for the day, hummmmm…..’And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you…”
You’re just having difficulty coming to terms MW.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Dos ,
lol – Yeah, I expect I have been “having difficulty coming to terms” with this incarnation of the GOP for a while. That said, I don’t like being grouped among the “older, traditional” elements of the GOP. Traditional – ok, that older bit bothers me. By contributing to Ron Paul, perhaps I now can be grouped in the “younger, traditional” elements, and we can relegate Irving Kristol and his ilk to the older, non-traditional, criminally insane element of the Republican Party.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Frum has a pretty good follow up on the crankiness of the “gold standard” though. Ron Paul is right as to the way statist can use a never-ending expansion of credit to steal money through inflation — however, the gold standard is not the answer.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/
November 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
You are welcome, Ron. [Note to David Frum: Your problem is obvious.]…
Justin Gardner at Donklephant has a great reaction roundup post as does Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice. Most fun is the sniping between Andrew Sullivan and David Frum…. I’ve just got to say, Frum?s post is one of the odder things I?ve read in…
November 7th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
The number I heard was that there were 37,000 donors. This averages out to about $116 and some change per donor. As a one day phenomenon it seems impressive but the question must be asked how many people just waited so their donation would be in the “bomb” total. It will get a lot of publicity but this will not translate into votes in the long run. Even if Paul were to get the Republican nomination by some miracle he would never win the general election. Once he becomes someone to be taken seriously his views will be examined. All of them. They do not match what the mainstream of 21st century America believes or at least they conflict enough to lose him votes.
How many Democrats really want to vote for someone who thinks that Lawrence v. Texas was decided incorrectly and that the states should be allowed to govern sexual conduct and not only homosexual sexual practices? Consider that his beliefs would not only roll back Roe v. Wade but Griswold v. Connecticut. How many votes would that lose him once it was pointed out? Elimination of the Federal Reserve, FDA, Social Security (I don’t care if he says it will be gradual, he still wants it eliminated.), Medicaid, Medicare etc. will not win him supporters in the general population. But his supporters are incapable of recognizing these facts. They think Paul believes in liberty when in fact all he believes in is that liberty should be able to be restricted at the state level if you’re on the wrong side of the minority/majority relationship. It isn’t that hard to find 37,000 delusional people in a country of over 300 million.