Ron Paul Takes It to the Bank

Why was his his $5 million haul such a big surprise?

David Weigel | October 9, 2007

Read this article in the Guardian.

Comments

JohnD|10.9.07 @ 8:16AM|#

Ron Paul's windfall was a surprise because the man is a freaking nutcase.

|10.9.07 @ 8:20AM|#

Thank you, JohnD, for your thoughtful, substantive analysis.

|10.9.07 @ 8:44AM|#

Whoohoo! The blue and white Ron Paul sign in that picture is one of mine! I think they're all over the freaking eastern seaboard by now. Or at least in NH, MA, CT, and NY. Yay!

The reason no one in the political establishment thinks he'll win is that they're confused and terrified by him. The guy basically rode out of the year 1900 and started talking about subjects that are supposed to be beyond the pale of American Politics.

|10.9.07 @ 8:49AM|#

It amazes me how a ten-term Congressman, until lately well-respected for his principled conservatism even by his opponents, has suddenly been labeled a 'nutcase' by a handful of increasingly strident voices in his own party.

I suppose principle is easier to coexist with when it doesn't get in the way of the government's plans...

Gary|10.9.07 @ 9:26AM|#

The Republican party has become a one trick pony: the war. Listen to the Rush and Hannity and that seems to be all they care about. Support for the war is the first and last criteria for any candidate.

There is nothing the Republicans can point to anymore to show they are the party of small government, so they would just wish that anyone who can point that fact out would just go away.

|10.9.07 @ 9:37AM|#

The more money Ron Paul raises, the less nutty he'll seem.

Dan T.|10.9.07 @ 9:49AM|#

Paul's appeal is not that hard to figure out - he's the only 100% anti-war candidate out there and a lot of people are very angry about the war.

|10.9.07 @ 9:52AM|#

Edward?

VM|10.9.07 @ 9:59AM|#

JohnD:

that's technical jargon, isn't it...

hrumph.

kicks pebble angrily. stomps off.

|10.9.07 @ 10:00AM|#

...America's small, brainy, fiscally secure population of libertarians and gold bugs...

Take a bow, folks.

Fluffy|10.9.07 @ 10:09AM|#

According to Gallup, over 70% of likely Republican primary voters haven't heard of Ron Paul.

How likely a primary voter can you actually be if you haven't heard of all the candidates at this point?

I'm not following the Democrat primary closely at all, and I've heard of all the candidates. I don't know how you could AVOID it.

rho|10.9.07 @ 10:10AM|#

The more money Ron Paul raises, the less nutty he'll seem.

Warren wins the kewpie doll.

If the Paul campaign presents the nation with $12 million in contributions next quarter you'll start hearing even the overstuffed baked potatoes like Hannity cozying up to the campaign. Already Laura Ingraham has had positive words for Dr. Paul, but then she's one of the less crazy radioheads.

|10.9.07 @ 10:13AM|#

Good article, but I'm not sure how many US swing voters read the Guardian.

Even if the Guardian was an American paper, its politics are somewhere between the NYT and the Daily Worker, so I don't know how receptive they'd be to any Paul issue other than the war, and possibly the WoD.

dhex|10.9.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Already Laura Ingraham has had positive words for Dr. Paul, but then she's one of the less crazy radioheads.

holy shit. how fucking crazy is radio then?

|10.9.07 @ 10:27AM|#

I'm not following the Democrat primary closely at all, and I've heard of all the candidates. I don't know how you could AVOID it.

Maybe this way.

Edward|10.9.07 @ 10:31AM|#

Man, Weigel can make much of a paltry $5 million. How is Ron Paul less marginalized when he can't rise much above 1% in the polls? What prominence Paul has as a second-tier candidate is really an indication the the increasing marginalization of Republicans. Once a Ron Paul becomes an imaginable choice, your party is sunk.

VM|10.9.07 @ 10:32AM|#

J sub D:

ahhh! I see that you have stumbled on URKOBOLD's "Taint self chomping in three easy lessons" - that's from lesson number one. It's called, "the pseudo stranger sneaking up".

Lessons two and three are much more advanced, including techniques such as the "What A Hr. Dienstag Pumpa-pumpa" and of course the "Drop the chalupa norelco twist".

Interestingly, that technique you post (as pic) is also a more advanced BATIN technique. It's where you gently make love to your own neck stump!!!!!

|10.9.07 @ 10:33AM|#

Hey! He's back! EEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAARRRRRRDDDDDD!!!

(I guess Edward didn't hear that Paul is polling at 10% in New Hampshire! But I wouldn't want to upset Edward!)

Awik (ariba ariba!) DUNDER(hea|10.9.07 @ 10:40AM|#

ooooh!!!!! EDWARD(ild)OOOOOOOOOOO is back!!!

yay!
(Sesame Street)
Eddie's back! Showin' that HE's got sack!

|10.9.07 @ 10:45AM|#

Ron Paul's windfall was a surprise because the man is a freaking nutcase.

I think this confusion among the party elites is due to two decades of politically correct speech. Most folks who don't agree with the common wisdom of welfare, health care, inflation, trade deficits, etc. are polite enough not to raise those topics in public discussion (except on HitnRun). Now there's a candidate who is saying these things and people are warming up to him and sending him money.

I bet future historians will acknowledge the "inevitability" of such a candidate getting unexpected support.

|10.9.07 @ 1:28PM|#

He would have been the front runner had he changed his stance on the war. There are some conservative-libertarians out there that feel Liberty should exist in all countries. We feel that Statism is the practice of our enemy and should be faught both in and outside of the US. Iraq being liberated will change the middle east and be a huge defeat for Islamic Statism. Ron Paul was lost when he took a pacifist stance on the war. If you don't want to win it, you have no business in the WH. Even the Liberal-Statist Nanny staters known as Democrats are starting to pick up this trend in order to win an election.

|10.9.07 @ 2:03PM|#

There are some conservative-libertarians out there that feel Liberty should exist in all countries.

If liberty should exist in all countries, let's start with our own, yes?

|10.9.07 @ 2:25PM|#

If liberty should exist in all countries, let's start with our own, yes?

If every country were suddenly given the same degree of liberty that America has, that would be a huge increase in liberty world-wide.

America isn't nearly a free as I would like it to be, but I don't believe for a minute that it isn't better off than most places.

|10.9.07 @ 3:43PM|#

There are some conservative-libertarians out there that feel Liberty should exist in all countries.

Hear hear! Let's get on with the mission of imposing liberty worldwide.

Asharak|10.9.07 @ 10:08PM|#

Paul's appeal is not that hard to figure out - he's the only 100% anti-war candidate out there and a lot of people are very angry about the war.

This is true, Dan. I'm a little astonished by your positive comments for him, though.

On that note, I apologize to any Paul supporters here for calling some of his positions kooky and nutty. I should just call them positions I disagree with.

|10.9.07 @ 10:23PM|#

You can't impose freedom, it must be accepted. All of the Iraqis that I have met and talked to are growing in acceptance of freedom. They are realizing that the Islamic laws that they have had were destructive to thier well being. This was especially true to non-muslims and Christian Iraqis. If you could impose freedome what would it look like? Possibly a man in jail with an open door? What would the refusal of freedom be? That man staying in his cell? Freedom my friend can not be imposed, only tyrany and statisim can be imposed.