Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ron Paul Update
As of 5pm ET, the Paul campaigned had raked $2.5 million today.
Apparently, those spam-bots propping up his Internet campaign are rather wealthy.
|11.5.07 @ 5:18PM|#
This cannot be!
They are lying and faking the numbers at their website!
No one would dare contribute to Paul! I would stake my reputation
and my 25 years of libertarian activism on it!
Episiarch|11.5.07 @ 5:19PM|#
I don't think that's the real DONNDERROOO. Not because of the fake email (hey, what Eric does in his own time is his business), but the lack of shilling for Rudy.
|11.5.07 @ 5:19PM|#
This is just distasteful, these kind of spam tactics are not going to increase the appeal of Ron Paul's campaign. He needs to disassociate with these classes supporters. If he would just compromise on nationalized perscription drug programs and the war on terror he might have some legitimate appeal to reasonable libertarians.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|11.5.07 @ 5:22PM|#
I've contributed $1 100 times, so this is partly my fault. I admit, I'm spamming this poll.
|11.5.07 @ 5:31PM|#
Dondero I think you should show some proof before you ridicule Ron Paul's Numbers. Show me the evidence and I will believe you.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|11.5.07 @ 5:34PM|#
For those of you that are watching television, is anyone talking about this?
GILMORE|11.5.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Thomas Paine's Goiter | November 5, 2007, 5:34pm | #
For those of you that are watching television, is anyone talking
about this?
I still have an open $5 bet for first 20 takers that Paul wins NO
state primaries
No one has taken me up yet.
|11.5.07 @ 5:40PM|#
I'll take you on it, if he doesnt, I'll mail you a check, but I expect you'll be paying for my bigmac:P
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|11.5.07 @ 5:41PM|#
No one has taken me up yet.
Good answer! Good answer!
Survey says?
[X]
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|11.5.07 @ 5:43PM|#
For those of you that are watching television and don't want to make this thread about you and your *cool* wager offers, is anyone talking about this?
Xmas|11.5.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Mr. Goiter,
Wolf Blitzer was just pimping this story on around 4:30 Eastern
time. I didn't see the story, but he was going on about Ron Paul's
"Big Surprise".
|11.5.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Oh shit, I hope the media doesn't pick up on the Guy Fawkes
thing. Paul runs the risk here of being (withering) tainted by his
own supporters.
I am glad to see that he's doing well, though. But still...if the
media finds out about the Fawkes connection, his campaign is over,
finished, and done.
|11.5.07 @ 5:56PM|#
The CNN piece was brutal. References to the violence that is Guy
Fawkes day, no mention of any of his platforms, and repeating that
'these numbers cannot be confirmed until the end of the
quarter.'
Kinda makes you want to puke, really.
penxv|11.5.07 @ 5:57PM|#
I don't know about tv... but the websites for msnbc and foxnews
don't mention anything yet.
They are doing their best to make him seem like an insignificant
candidate.
I don't think the Guy Fawkes thing would hurt... I think it might
peak people's interest more because the story isn't just about
money.
|11.5.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Eh, it's more of a V for Vendetta connection than a Guy Fawkes one. It's all in fun. Hopefully most media orgs will be able to see that.
|11.5.07 @ 5:58PM|#
I have a feeling the real inspiration of the drive is V for
Vendetta. I doubt that V would fair well in a focus group of
Republican primary voters.
People shouldn't be afraid of their governments.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|11.5.07 @ 6:01PM|#
I like the Fawkes angle. Let's blow up the whole thing and start over.
|11.5.07 @ 6:08PM|#
I gave another $50, and I didn't do it for Guy Fawkes. I mean, that's a British holiday, and I wasn't all that impressed by V for Vendetta, either. If the money gets more votes for Paul, it's all worth it.
|11.5.07 @ 6:09PM|#
I'll say it again:
You can no longer complain that the media is ignoring your
candidate.
For the first time, libertarians can now complain that the media is
being mean to your candidate.
Congratulations.
Ken Hagler|11.5.07 @ 6:10PM|#
I donated $100, even though I won't be voting for him in the California primary (I'm not a Republican) and think is chance of being the Republican candidate is nil. I donated as a nice constructive way of thumbing my nose at the media and their "spambot" hit piece.
|11.5.07 @ 6:12PM|#
After that
piss poor commercial, I have a hard time seeing how
anyone could give to the campaign.
That New Hampshire commercial shows that someone with a very
important job is asleep at the wheel.
Hell, that commercial is so bad, I wondered if RP isn't giving the
job to a retarded brother-in-law and pocketing the cash for
himself.
BakedPenguin|11.5.07 @ 6:15PM|#
The CNN piece was brutal...
The only good thing about this is I know they're going to get their
asses chewed by thousand of RP supporters.
As for me, I can't really afford it, but I just gave $100,
partially in response to crap like that.
|11.5.07 @ 6:17PM|#
After that piss poor commercial, I have a hard time seeing
how anyone could give to the campaign.
Oh, come on. Those were actual supporters, not actors. I agree the
first ad could have been done better in a less scripted format, but
the campaign's already responded that they'd be more receptive in
the future regarding commercials.
Joshua Holmes|11.5.07 @ 6:22PM|#
You can no longer complain that the media is ignoring your
candidate.
For the first time, libertarians can now complain that the
media is being mean to your candidate.
"...then they fight you..." - Gandhi
I'm sure we know what the next line is. =)
iih|11.5.07 @ 6:33PM|#
The counting thing just went up $6,000 in ONE MiNUTE!
OK, the cynic that I am, here is something the RP campaign could be
doing. Could they actually have received these donations before
today but just reporting them only today to give the biggest impact
possible?
They do say on the RP website that has all been raised today. I
guess they can't lie about that, can they?
Anyhow, this is just great! Wonderful!
Franklin Harris|11.5.07 @ 6:36PM|#
iih,
The spikes in donations have come since CNN ran its story, which
makes perfect sense, especially as people who saw the story start
to write about it online.
|11.5.07 @ 6:47PM|#
It is possible the campaign dumped some money in. They did in
the third week of October adding three weeks of offline donations
at once. If they were thinking about it they probably decided
against it after waking up this morning to 800k.
Ron Paul has been the sole diversion in an otherwise deary season
:).
I put in $150 this morning. I was thinking of donating some more
but might wait a few days instead.
Make a choice while one is still being offered.
Support Ron Paul.
PS, I'm a cynic too and have the depressing feeling I am going to
find out exactly how those Goldwater and McGovern kids felt.
|11.5.07 @ 6:47PM|#
Anyone know how much he pulled for the day? I'm curious to see if he can top that Bullshit $3.1 figure from Romney.
|11.5.07 @ 6:50PM|#
PS, I'm a cynic too and have the depressing feeling I am
going to find out exactly how those Goldwater and McGovern kids
felt.
Me too, but in the end, I'm sure it will feel a lot better to
support what you believe, even if you lose, rather than support
something horrible, even if they win.
At least I will feel good about it...
jdd|11.5.07 @ 6:55PM|#
The GOP should prefer to put up a candidate with principles and lose versus losing with one of the soulless whores such as Romney, Guiliani, and McCain. The GOP's old ideas are pretty popular when actually put into action. The neo-cons are the part of the GOP that nobody likes. Largely, that is because they don't have any ideas other than perpetual war, taxes, spending and propoganda. They need to be expunged from the party.
|11.5.07 @ 6:56PM|#
Taktix,
That puts him somewhere above 3.2mil. Of course the "numbers can't
be verified till the end of the quarter."
|11.5.07 @ 6:59PM|#
Here is what to tell the media if they ask you about Guy Fawkes
and the whole blowing up the king and the parliament...
Say that this is a case of good old fashion American revisionist
customs. Just as "God Save the King" became "My Country Tis of
Thee", Guy Fawkes day has been revised to stand for liberty and
freedom.
|11.5.07 @ 7:01PM|#
I've never given money to a political campaign before and likely won't again. I'm just going to keep plunking $100 bucks in every month or so. I hit the button today for $2 bills today hoping that the one day fundraising would make some news and be some "free" pub for Dr. Paul.
|11.5.07 @ 7:01PM|#
Well, there went the $6,000,000 barrier... Well on-track to hit $7M tonight, it looks like.
|11.5.07 @ 7:08PM|#
What a great day! First nice day in South Florida, Guy Fawkes,
Ron Paul, my Steelers getting ready to stomp the Ravens....
Great day indeed...
|11.5.07 @ 7:09PM|#
Taktix,
That's the theory though I remember reading something about Obama
raising some serious one-day cash last quarter. Let me see if I can
find some verification.
|11.5.07 @ 7:11PM|#
"Here is what to tell the media if they ask you about Guy Fawkes
and the whole blowing up the king and the parliament..."
Or that there isn't much more American than a revolution against a
government that has become oppressive to it's people. When, in the
course of human events, and all that stuff.
My single father/college student self mustered up $25 for the
cause.
Jeff|11.5.07 @ 7:14PM|#
They already have to redesign their fundraising widget as it tops out at 6 million.
|11.5.07 @ 7:37PM|#
Taktix, we're just under 3.1 million, so it can be safely said
that RP blew away the Romney record.
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/nov_5_extended_total.html
|11.5.07 @ 7:39PM|#
...I mean, with the way the dollars are pouring in, he's guaranteed to be there in the next hour. I don't understand why the graph is so smooth. No jagged edges to indicate slower donation periods. I hope to hell someone hasn't hacked the RP site, or we'll all be laughstocks.
|11.5.07 @ 7:43PM|#
The fundraising itself is the best campaign ad you could hope for. Paul's fundraising is a large reason why he is getting attention. How much was the Leno appearance worth? You may not like the campaign's ads, but they are better than nothing, especially when they are still working on name recognition. And the next wave of ads will be better with all the feedback they have received. The campaign has adapted in many ways(recently the Philly rally changed because of feedback), and will continue to.
|11.5.07 @ 7:44PM|#
The mainstream media reports are starting to stream in, so
expect the giving to continue upwards.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/05/post_179.html
"Today, Nov. 5, marks not only Paul's best fundraising haul in a
single day -- more than $2.5 million by 6 p.m. EST -- but online
observers say it's also the most money raised by a candidate on the
Web in a single day. And the day's not over yet. "Damn. Wow. Um,
that's pretty awesome," said a stunned Jerome Armstrong who served
as Howard Dean's online strategist. Armstrong, the founder of the
popular blog MyDD, said Dean raised as much as $700,000 in one day
toward the end of the primary race. "But not a million," Armstrong
added. "What Paul is doing -- or what his supporters are doing --
is really impressive.""
|11.5.07 @ 7:53PM|#
...I mean, with the way the dollars are pouring in, he's
guaranteed to be there in the next hour. I don't understand why the
graph is so smooth. No jagged edges to indicate slower donation
periods. I hope to hell someone hasn't hacked the RP site, or we'll
all be laughstocks.
My guess is its because there are LOTS of data points because the
donations are coming in at small amounts.
|11.5.07 @ 7:58PM|#
This is not funding that is strictly raised on one day as
everyone is pretending. This pledge campaign was set up weeks ago
and people pledged the funds continually since then. They have been
working on raising these funds for a couple of weeks now. I got the
emails promoting it. People delayed donations they were going to
make to do it today. But this isn't what just flowed in today. This
has been accumulating on the pledge site for weeks and is only
being counted today.
For the record when you say this isn't a Guy Fawkes things but a V
for Vendetta thing please note that V was doing a Guy Fawkes thing.
You can't separate V from Guy Fawkes.
|11.5.07 @ 8:04PM|#
I dropped in $25.00. I would have given at least twice as much, but my credit card account is running a bit low at the moment. :(
|11.5.07 @ 8:06PM|#
Skeptic, at this rate, with two more months to go until end of
quarter, this is all that is needed to reach the lofy 12mil
goal.
As an anarchist I have no problem with appropriating symbols like
Fawkes for freedom. Heck, good honest Abe was responsible for
hundreds of thousands of deaths, the destruction of habeas corpus
and freedom of the press, and yet he's now a symbol of peace and
good will.
Remember November!
|11.5.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Charles WT, every bit counts. Well done. As my nemesis Sean Hannity would say, "you're a great American!"
iih|11.5.07 @ 8:24PM|#
PS, I'm a cynic too and have the depressing feeling I am going to
find out exactly how those Goldwater and McGovern kids
felt.
I am sure they felt like they did what they can. What else can one
do?
Tanya|11.5.07 @ 8:27PM|#
I'm not American, so I can't donate. But that doesn't mean I
can't do anything.
This morning, at an online gambling message board where I work, I
started a pro-Paul thread. Seems nobody had ever heard of the guy,
and certainly didn't know much about his views.
As of this writing, five of our posters have pledged to vote for
him in their primary.
For the first time in my otherwise uneventful political life, I
feel like we actually matter.
Frank|11.5.07 @ 8:28PM|#
skeptic, a pledge is just a pledge. Even people who signed up (pledged) on the November 5th website didn't donate any money until today. I also haven't seen one story that didn't mention the November 5th website so who are you referring to when you say people are "pretending" this is a one day thing?
thoreau|11.5.07 @ 8:33PM|#
Yes, but how many of those donations are in gold-backed
currency, huh?
:)
|11.5.07 @ 8:38PM|#
Yes, but how many of those donations are in gold-backed
currency, huh? :)
More importantly: At what price per ounce of gold? :-)
Bopo|11.5.07 @ 8:40PM|#
"Apparently, those spam-bots propping up his Internet campaign
are rather wealthy."
No, but apparently Truthers and Neo-nazis are.
iih|11.5.07 @ 8:41PM|#
Tanya:
I, too, am a disenfranchised tax-payer, but am doing what I can. We
have our freedom of expression. That is valuable (as long as it can
be kept).
G|11.5.07 @ 8:42PM|#
"As my nemesis Sean Hannity would say, 'you're a great
American!'"
You are as much a nemesis to Sean Hannity as Charlie Brown was a
lover to the little red-haired girl.
G|11.5.07 @ 8:44PM|#
"That is valuable (as long as it can be kept)."
And you wonder why Ron Paul's supporters are pegged as nut
jobs.
BakedPenguin|11.5.07 @ 8:46PM|#
...in the end, I'm sure it will feel a lot better to support
what you believe, even if you lose, rather than support something
horrible, even if they win.
I've never understood the mentality that winning was better than
voting for what you believe in. This isn't a f'n beauty contest or
sporting event.
Eric Dondero|11.5.07 @ 8:49PM|#
A bit of breaking news...
Paul Weyrich just officially endorsed Mitt Romney for President.
This is a huge surprise, for Weyrich is an old friend of Ron Paul's
dating back to the Reagan for President days in the 1970s. Weyrich
has also been a very well know activist for maverick and
independent hardcore conservative causes.
This is a shocker, that he endorsed Romney over Paul.
The Paul team must feel like they've just been bitch-slapped.
|11.5.07 @ 8:50PM|#
I can only hope that the 14 year old in his mom's basement can
spam the ballot boxes just as effectively.
FTR I put in $25 today. It's what I can do.
BakedPenguin|11.5.07 @ 8:51PM|#
CharlesWT - I love the irony. On the ABC.com article, "Ron Paul
is Money" there was a "This Week in Washington" banner at the top
of the page, with a picture of Stephenopoulos.
When Ron wins, what's he going to eat again?
DONDERRRROOOOOO!!! Oh my, Paul Weyrich doesn't support Paul. Geuss
everyone's going to ask for their $4 million dollars back
now...
iih|11.5.07 @ 8:56PM|#
Who is Paul Weyrich? And why does he matter? These are not questions. They are rhetorical ones, because no one cares!
thoreau|11.5.07 @ 9:01PM|#
Ron Paul has some new friends, DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. And those friends are showing their love right now. He doesn't need you anymore.
bob|11.5.07 @ 9:04PM|#
I've been snapping samples of the 4Q online contributions every
15 minutes since early this AM.
As of 15:00 (Eastern) I saw hourly contribution rates averaging
200K$/hour, with a peak of 256K$ between 0945 and 1045, and a
trough of 180K$ between 1345 and 1445.
Applying hourly patterns from the two prior "money bombs" I project
another sustained spike somewhere between 1800 and 2300, and at end
of day, an online contribution tally in excess of $8 Million.
Between 5.3 and 5.8 Million from the Nov 5 project.
|11.5.07 @ 9:06PM|#
I'm sure the Paul campaign is heartbroken to discover that another one of his coke snorting, whore chasing former aides from 20 years ago has deserted him.
|11.5.07 @ 9:06PM|#
Just look up Paul Weyrich on Wikipedia and see what a huge loss this is for the Ron Paul campaign. Have David Duke and Pat Robertson made their endorsements yet? There's still hope!
bob|11.5.07 @ 9:07PM|#
So, Mr. Dondero... how does it feel to get "bitch slapped" by about 30,000 Ron Paul Revolutionaries?
Franklin Harris|11.5.07 @ 9:07PM|#
Who is Paul Weyrich? And why does he matter? These are not questions. They are rhetorical ones, because no one cares!
Funny he felt the need to post this non-news to two threads.
|11.5.07 @ 9:09PM|#
DONDEROOOOO cares because it feeds his pathetic obsession. What happened, Eric? Did Ron stomp on your foot when you slid it under the stall door?
iih|11.5.07 @ 9:09PM|#
Ammonium:
Just googled his name. Wiki:
He is widely considered one of the founders of the American New
Right and an important strategist for the social and religious
conservative movements.
Good riddance!
iih|11.5.07 @ 9:11PM|#
Franklin:
Yeah, that's why I copy/pasted my comment to the other thread. It
is convenient. Please he broke the news first time like 6 hours
ago.
|11.5.07 @ 9:31PM|#
So according to RonPaulGraphs.com Dr. Paul has raised more money
as of 9:30 p.m. EST than in all the rest of the fourth quarter. And
it's all due to the machinations of his supporters.
Unlike any other campaign I have seen or heard of, this is a
campaign by the people. It's fascinating and very, very
exciting. As Dr. Paul says, he has his flaws, as does the campaign
(witness his first NH TV add). But it's almost as though none of
that matters because in a very real way, Ron Paul is not the
campaign. Libertarian ideas are the the campaign.
Thanks for running, Dr. Paul. This campaign season would be
absolute drudgery without you.
thoreau|11.5.07 @ 9:36PM|#
How many people are donating for the sole purpose of giving DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO an aneurysm?
|11.5.07 @ 9:37PM|#
Wow - another 1/2 million $$$ collected in the 2 1/2 hrs. since
the $6 million mark was hit, and no end in sight...
...just Wow!
teh|11.5.07 @ 9:46PM|#
Just look up Paul Weyrich on Wikipedia and see what a huge
loss this is for the Ron Paul campaign. Have David Duke and Pat
Robertson made their endorsements yet? There's still
hope!
Don't forget Stormfront!
iowan|11.5.07 @ 9:48PM|#
First political contribution I have ever made. If it causes Donderooooooooooooooo & Edward mental distress, that's just icing on the cake.
teh|11.5.07 @ 9:49PM|#
I don't see anything too unreasonable about this AP story:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Paul-Fundraising.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This is what will end up in like 95% of newspapers anyhow.
|11.5.07 @ 9:52PM|#
"First political contribution I have ever made."
Me too (I just donated $50). Feels pretty good. I might just do it
again....
bob|11.5.07 @ 10:01PM|#
Here's a sample... Projections still holding.
14:30 5336807 49404 225240
14:45 5394552 57745 225182
15:00 5455484 60932 217795
15:15 5499987 44503 212584
15:30 5551786 51799 214979
15:45 5589753 37967 195201
16:00 5633493 43740 178009
16:15 5679762 46269 179775
16:30 5729000 49238 177214
16:45 5772028 43028 182275
17:00 5815194 43166 181701
17:15 5866173 50979 186411
17:30 5924579 58406 195579
17:45 5974576 49997 202548
18:00 6030804 56228 215610
18:15 6082387 51583 216214
18:30 6130542 48155 205963
18:45 6183729 53187 209153
19:00 6231401 47672 200597
19:15 6276162 44761 193775
19:30 6327707 51545 197165
19:45 6381000 53293 197271
20:00 6435046 54046 203645
20:15 6489560 54514 213398
20:30 6541954 52394 214247
20:45 6597484 55530 216484
col2 = total 4Q online contributions
col3 = 15 minute delta
col4 = 60 minute delta
Timestamps are Central.
squarooticus|11.5.07 @ 10:13PM|#
Me too (I just donated $50). Feels pretty good. I might just
do it again....
The difference between anarchists (like me) and minarchists (most
of you) in supporting Ron Paul is that I feel slightly dirty having
paid $200 to support a candidate in a political system I feel is
unjust and that should not exist in the first place.
The clincher for me is that a Ron Paul administration would bring
this nation much closer to the ideal I envision, so $200 isn't so
much, even with the long odds.
|11.5.07 @ 10:18PM|#
I dropped in $25.00. I would have given at least twice as
much, but my credit card account is running a bit low at the
moment. :(
Well, my credit card is kinda stretched, but I'm happy to say I
dropped in twice as much as you, so let's call it even ;)
|11.5.07 @ 10:20PM|#
"Don't forget Stormfront!"
If the Stormfronters pooled all their money, they might be able to
buy a double-wide trailer in Mississippi. That's why they're nazis:
they need to blame someone else for their failures, whether it's
the jews, the immigrants, or the bilderbergers.
Ron Paul got my money because of his voting record in the
congress.
-jcr
Gene|11.5.07 @ 10:22PM|#
Dondero (Rittberg, for all of us old timers) is really insignificant, so I wouldn't pay him too much attention. I do have to admit though: it's kinda fun seeing him squirm.
|11.5.07 @ 10:24PM|#
Best home-made campaign sign I've seen yet said "Dr. Ron Paul
cured my apathy".
-jcr
|11.5.07 @ 10:26PM|#
I think he'll hit seven million by ten o'clock central
time.
Well, okay. Maybe not by ten o'clock...but certainly by midnight
central time.
Ty|11.5.07 @ 10:31PM|#
If you are an Anarchist, voting is not an immoral act if that
vote furthers your cause. The state exists and pretending like it
doesn't isn't going to help.
We can worry about the last 5% when we get rid of the first
95%.
|11.5.07 @ 10:33PM|#
"The clincher for me is that a Ron Paul administration would
bring this nation much closer to the ideal I envision, so $200
isn't so much, even with the long odds."
I don't expect a Paul administration to accomplish much. The two
parties and the bureaucrats will fight him tooth and nail. However,
he may be able to nudge the ship of state enough to make a real
difference after he leaves office(may it be 8 years).
But, if he is elected, your $200 dollars will be well spent just
for just the entertainment value alone.
|11.5.07 @ 10:39PM|#
But, if he is elected, your $200 dollars will be well spent
just for just the entertainment value alone.
Yeah, just to see the look on Hillary's face - or to watch Rudy
laughing out the other side of his ass! :-)
|11.5.07 @ 10:45PM|#
I kicked in 200 and may do it again sometime. This is the first time I have contribued to a campaign. Has Dondero gone into cardiac arrest yet?
Tanya|11.5.07 @ 10:50PM|#
35,000 individual donations so far today:
http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/last_days_donors.html
Simply amazing.
After 8 years of Bush, my faith in the American public is nearly
restored.
|11.5.07 @ 10:51PM|#
Except for a contribution to a city council candidate decades ago, this my first also.
|11.5.07 @ 10:54PM|#
Yeah, BTW by $50 was the first political contribution I've ever made. And I think Ron Paul is easily going to top $7,000,000 by midnight EST.
|11.5.07 @ 10:56PM|#
I put in a little, just $25. My first contribution. As of this
point, it's at over 3.7 mil.
And yet, people are still clueless as to who he is, or his actual
potential. This kind of support speaks volumes.
*inserting V DVD*
|11.5.07 @ 10:57PM|#
I didn't donate today, but I did donate $400 about a week ago,
as well as two initial $25 donations followed later by another $50
donation for Dr. Paul's birthday about a month or so ago, bringing
my personal contributions to $500 total so far. I plan to donate
more, but today I think I'll just sit back and watch. That donation
graphic is entertaining.
And for the record, I'm not even a homeowner. I've heard about poor
people who are just scraping by who have donated $100 or more for
the cause. That's just wonderful.
Dave|11.5.07 @ 10:57PM|#
$100 today, bringing my total to $400 (I just had a kid,
okay?).
$3.8 million today, and we still have two hours (Central time).
Damn.
Interestingly, while CNN is slamming Paul, FOX is completely
ignoring him to focus instead on Kucinich's call to impeach Bush.
If I didn't know better, I'd say FOX's handlers were scared of
Paul....
|11.5.07 @ 11:03PM|#
I kicked in $100 this morning. A buddy of mine called and
excitedly asked if I had seen the numbers. He put in $200, and so,
not wanting to be out-libertarianed, I just donated another $100.
Looks like the figures are still jumping by $3000 to $5000 every
minute. Simply amazing!
Someone hung a big Ron Paul banner on an overpass near here this
afternoon. Never in my wildest dreams would I have guessed there
would be this kind of support.
Think I'll settle in for the night with a beer and V For
Vendetta.
Go Ron!
|11.5.07 @ 11:05PM|#
Well, okay. Maybe not by ten o'clock...but certainly by
midnight central time.
I think you were closer the first time - he ain't there yet, but
he's pretty damn close. I expect he'll have hit it by the time I've
finished my dinner....
|11.5.07 @ 11:21PM|#
So how are individual contribution limits determined exactly? I know the individual contribution limit is $2,300, but is that the limit for the entire presidential campaign period (before and after the party nomination and up until the election), or is that the pre-nomination limit, presuming then there is a new contribution limit imposed after the primaries? Does anybody know?
teh|11.5.07 @ 11:32PM|#
Primary and general election money goes in to different pools. So whatever the cap is, you can donate it twice, but the candidate can't spend general election money until after they are nominated for real at the party conventions.
|11.5.07 @ 11:39PM|#
Over 7 Million! WOOOOOOT! And only $20 was mine; my first
contribution to a campaign ever.
Go, Paul, go!
|11.5.07 @ 11:45PM|#
Sorry, jp, the role of uncreative halfwit troll on all Ron Paul threads is taken by Edward, and he's very firmly ensconced. Perhaps you'd like to try posting something dishonest and inflammatory on an immigration or WoD thread and see if that takes?
|11.5.07 @ 11:46PM|#
Now all we need is another $200k in the next fifteen minutes to break $4 million for the day.
|11.5.07 @ 11:49PM|#
CNN has a feature called Raw Politics. When the anchor drawled the segment, I thought he said Ron Paulitics. I gotta go to bed. Or at least stop drinking. What a day!
bob|11.5.07 @ 11:49PM|#
Another sample:
21:15 6693042 56839 203482
21:30 6747360 54318 205406
21:45 6815478 68118 217994
22:00 6871179 55701 234976
22:15 6923489 52310 230447
22:30 6980858 57369 233498
22:45 7039803 58945 224325
|11.5.07 @ 11:50PM|#
Oops, you're right. Although I just cross-referenced the graphs with the campaign page and it looks like about only $60k now.
|11.5.07 @ 11:55PM|#
WOW What a fabulous success This November Fifth turned out to
be. I couldn't be more excited! RON PAUL 2008 is about to get
jiggy! I didn't donate today, but I'll kick in again on Vet's
Day.
The campaign has raised over $7,000,000 in the forth quarter.
Todays online contributions (averaging just over $100 each) making
$4,000,000 of that.
No matter what happens now Ron Paul has already changed the
political direction of the country. The Republican Party is in
tatters. I've no doubt they're going to eject the religious right
neocons and put the libertarians front and center. Even the
Democrats are going to adopt free market rhetoric.
A new day has dawned America. The r3VOLution has begun. REMEMBER
REMEMBER is it's cry.
|11.5.07 @ 11:58PM|#
I just watched my young boys play tonight - they wrestled and
ended with their naked dance as we got their PJ's on. I figured it
was time for my $100.
No delusions here that the world or country has changed but I think
a seed may have been planted for something a little better in the
future.
|11.6.07 @ 12:01AM|#
bob @ 10:01pm:
Here's a sample... Projections still holding.
The data shall make us free!
Go Ron Paul Go!
|11.6.07 @ 12:02AM|#
Looks like we'll fall about $3500 short of the $4 mil mark. Ah well, good effort, kids.
|11.6.07 @ 12:07AM|#
RPs fund-raising is second on Google news as of 11:00PM Central.
Just under the Pakistan powergrab.
And Ron doesn't even have nukes.
|11.6.07 @ 12:08AM|#
The Republican Party is in tatters.
Agreed.
I've no doubt they're going to eject the religious right
neocons and put the libertarians front and center.
That's delusional. More likely, they'll start to pay lip service to
garner votes, then revert to their statist ways upon election. Do
you really think Rudy will shed a tear when he eviscerates the
second amendment?
|11.6.07 @ 12:10AM|#
Looks like we'll fall about $3500 short of the $4 mil
mark
Yahoo News reports that Ron Paul has raised more than $4 mil in the
last 24 hours!
bob|11.6.07 @ 12:12AM|#
The "official" clock started at 6pm Sunday and doesn't stop
until 6am Tuesday.
For gosh sakes man! Think of the proud workers on the graveyard
shift that are itching to get home and toss in a buck or two to
make history!
As I see it, whenever the Nov 5 project is deemed ended, RP has
about 8 megabucks of new cash.
...Sweet!
|11.6.07 @ 12:13AM|#
Do you really think Rudy will shed a tear when he
eviscerates the second amendment?
As of now Rudy is irrelevant. He may win the nomination but he
can't win the election. 2010 the Republicans take back the House
with a class of libertarians.
teh|11.6.07 @ 12:13AM|#
I know he is getting plenty of fairly positive coverage... but still, why does every story about this have to contain some denial from the Paul campaign that they are advocating blowing up buildings? Is the concept of symbolism that fucking confusing to people?
|11.6.07 @ 12:17AM|#
I did not like this
article.
why does every story about this have to contain some denial
from the Paul campaign that they are advocating blowing up
buildings?
Because it's still the mainstream media. Of course they're still
trying to marginalize and misrepresent and misinform about Ron
Paul.
Is the concept of symbolism that fucking confusing to
people?
No, but the MSM is certainly trying its best to confuse people, it
seems.
|11.6.07 @ 12:18AM|#
That's delusional. More likely, they'll start to pay lip
service to garner votes, then revert to their statist ways upon
election.
I agree. We've heard that one before - anytime the Republicans are
out of power. And as soon as they're back in power, as surely as a
dog returns to it's vomit, they're back to their war mongerin',
bible thumpin' ways.
Face it, outside of a handful of (usually) ineffectual small
government types, the only thing the Republicans represent is the
crotch of America...
|11.6.07 @ 12:24AM|#
Warren,
Come on, Rudy is still the odds-on favorite. He has just as good a
chance as Hillary to win.
Your 2010 projections would require fielding viable candidates. So
far, I've yet to see local Libertarians be more than a curiosity at
the polls. Even if Ron Paul is swept into the Oval Office with 70%
of the vote (and 100% of the Electoral College), it will take
decades before electable libertarian leaning candidates can make a
difference.
I admire your optimism.
dood3r|11.6.07 @ 12:28AM|#
"Ron Paul Raises More Than $4.2 Million"
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQLduiFMFTNmeUdgpf5cMvLi6awD8SNV5Q02
looks like we did it!
Bee|11.6.07 @ 12:30AM|#
Seeing more Pacific time zone donations now, but by no means
exclusively. Ron Paul, candidate of East Coast insomniacs!
I am going to try to screen-cap my name when it comes up on the
page.
|11.6.07 @ 12:35AM|#
sixstring,
Actually, according to Ron Paul (at a fundraiser at the celebration
hotel as part of Pres IV) there are numerous 'new' R candidates
that are being motivated simply by the success of the
campaign.
These are the new libertarian Republicans that could remake the
party, given our support. The troops of the revolution are just
warming up!
|11.6.07 @ 12:38AM|#
I am going to try to screen-cap my name when it comes up on the page.
Bee,
I did that myself the other day. May as well have a souvenir. A
really expensive souvenir. :P
Dangerman made a good suggestion of sending screen-caps of the
names of friends/family members/loved ones inside Christmas cards,
along with the message that in lieu of a Christmas present, you
have made a donation to Ron Paul's campaign in their name. I love
that idea!
jp|11.6.07 @ 12:38AM|#
sorry, ron paul really does have anti-semite connections, and is very much like David Duke. see Stormfront.org for one of many references. and the content and context of the many interviews he's shamelessly done on the Alex Jones conspiratorial radio show.
Bee|11.6.07 @ 12:43AM|#
Hi smacky! Great minds think alike!
That's kind of a neat idea, the donation in someone's name. Maybe I
could donate in the name of someone who's in jail for pot
possession. Or one of the people killed in SWAT raids gone awry
that Radley Balko writes about.
Albert|11.6.07 @ 12:48AM|#
jp, I did a search on stormfront.org and there were no articles
by Ron Paul or pages that mentioned any connection Ron Paul has to
that website. Don't be subtle. Provide a link.
Who are you apologizing to? You think anything you say hasn't
already been said and laughed at before? Plus, your not even old
enough to vote so why do you care?!?
|11.6.07 @ 12:55AM|#
Steve,
Yes, the breezes of change are kicking up. Today was a great day,
and a day for optimism. But people have been working within the
system for 10s of years to position themselves for a run at
Congress, and unless they are famous in another profession,
newcomers are not handed nominations in serious races. There is a
process, and it will take several election cycles and a wholesale
change in public perception before libertarian types can reach the
mainstream in numbers great enough to effect change.
|11.6.07 @ 1:06AM|#
Now they just need to make some better, more professional looking commercials, and we're in business.
Kolohe|11.6.07 @ 1:38AM|#
a class of libertarians
Is this the term of venery for libertarians? Like a herd of cows or
a murder of crows?
Works for me.
|11.6.07 @ 1:41AM|#
Joe Majsterski,
Tell the Paul campaign that you think that they need to make
better, more professional looking commercials. I'm serious. It
could help the cause.
|11.6.07 @ 1:55AM|#
This is a remarkable phenomenon! Folks I know who have never
given to a political campaign before are contributing for the
election of Ron Paul. They have done so either after watching his
commercials or reading his literature. So this thing seems to be
generating momentum.
Give to Ron Paul for president! Give for the cause of
liberty!
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/
Franklin Harris|11.6.07 @ 2:02AM|#
a class of libertarians
Is this the term of venery for libertarians? Like a herd of cows or a murder of crows?
Works for me.
I suggest a "Hayek" of libertarians. We come together via
spontaneous order when we bother to come together at all.
|11.6.07 @ 2:52AM|#
Rumor is that Dec. 16th will be Boston Tea Party Day. That historic event symbolized one revolution, why can't a tribute to it be the symbol of another?
bob|11.6.07 @ 7:19AM|#
Patience, Yogi... Yes there will likely be another money bomb in
4Q. But we need to settle down and allow it to take it's own
course.
After all, we are a herd of cats.
iih|11.6.07 @ 7:36AM|#
Not a single news story failed to mention Guy Fawkes Day in like the 2nd paragraph of the story. Bastards.
Chucklehead|11.6.07 @ 8:02AM|#
Just made my first-ever political donation to RP.
Felt pretty good, actually, despite being a day late.
|11.6.07 @ 8:47AM|#
iih,
How does that make them bastards? The choice of date was
significant. If Paul supporters wanted to avoid being associated
with Guy Fawkes and V for Vendetta, they could have chosen a
different day.
God knows I'm a die hard Ron Paul supporter, but I'm not so
fanatical as to expect the media to only report positive things
about Paul and his campaign.
|11.6.07 @ 9:00AM|#
Not a single news story failed to mention Guy Fawkes Day in
like the 2nd paragraph of the story. Bastards.
Well, it's Paul's supporters that chose that imagery, not the
press. I don't really see anything wrong with it. How many
candidates have wrapped themselves in the flag of the American
Revolution? That wasn't exactly a love-fest, either.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:23AM|#
LOL
Paul Weyrich a "coke sniffing, whore chasing former Aide to Ron
Paul..."
Crimethink, you have no idea who Paul Weyrich is do you? No wonder
there are so many losers in our movement. Some folks in our
movement don't know the first goddamned thing about real world
politics, including names of some of the most influential movers
and shakers on the Right.
|11.6.07 @ 9:27AM|#
But the American Revolution is the great fight for liberty that begot our nation, while November 5th was just some terrorist trying to blow up Parliament. Even if that's not the reality, the reality doesn't matter so much as the perception.
|11.6.07 @ 9:29AM|#
donderooooooo,
Well I guess Mr. Weyrich is a victim of guilt by association. I'd
presumed he was cut from the same cloth as you.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:29AM|#
Warren,
Rudy leans libertarian. Guess you missed CBS News/New Republican
article from last week that headlined Rudy as an "extremist
economic libertarian." Or the article from last Friday in USA Today
talking about how Romney and Giuliani are fighting for the mantle
of "most fiscally conservative."
Ray Toomey of the libertarian Club for Growth is quoted in the
article as "giving the edge to Giuliani."
Article and link now up at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
But of course, Anarchists and Paleo-Anarchists would not be
satisfied with a more mainstream version of libertarianism, so they
predictably ruthlessly bash Giuliani.
Ah yes, smart strategy there. Make friends with your enemies -
leftwing Democrats, and mercissly slaughter the ones who are
closest to you on the political spectrum - libertarian-leaning
Moderates like Giuliani.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:32AM|#
You know Crimethink, there's a bigger issue at hand here.
How someone supposedly "clued in" as you, has no eartly idea who
Paul Weyrich is.
It just goes to show how truly, truly out of the mainstream, and
out of touch with real world politics, most libertarians are.
It's not like Weyrich is some obscure conservative. He's the mother
fucking leader of the conservative movement for gosh sakes!
Next you're going to be telling me you've never heard of David
Keene, or Richard Viguerie.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:37AM|#
Gene,
Me squirming this morning?
Let me say this again:
Ron Paul DID NOT get the endorsement of Paul Weyrich, his old time
friend for over 30 years, a guy who he attends conferences with on
a regular basis, and a man who completely shares his opposition to
the War in Iraq.
(See the NewsMax interview this morning on NewsMax.com where
Weyrich blasts Bush for the War in Iraq.)
Gene, tell me. If Ron Paul can't even get the support of the
Nation's Top Paleo-Conservative Paul Weyrich, than who can he get
to support him?
|11.6.07 @ 9:47AM|#
I'm sure everyone in the mainstream has heard of those people, Dondero. Maybe you should do a man on the street poll to confirm it.
iih|11.6.07 @ 9:48AM|#
Pig, crimethink,
I am not objecting to the choice of date if that was intentional,
but I find it strange that all news media decides to mention it in
the 2nd paragraph instead of say the last paragraph as an anecdote
or a side story regarding the choice of date.
May be we Paulites are becoming spoiled and expect more from the
media.
|11.6.07 @ 10:31AM|#
THIS Paul Weyrich:
"I believe that we probably have lost the culture war. That doesn't mean the war is not going to continue, and that it isn't going to be fought on other fronts. But in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important. Therefore, what seems to me a legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other enemies of our traditional culture. What I mean by separation is, for example, what the homeschoolers have done. Faced with public school systems that no longer educate but instead 'condition' students with the attitudes demanded by Political Correctness, they have seceded. They have separated themselves from public schools and have created new institutions, new schools, in their homes. I think that we have to look at a whole series of possibilities for bypassing the institutions that are controlled by the enemy. If we expend our energies on fighting on the "turf" they already control, we will probably not accomplish what we hope, and we may spend ourselves to the point of exhaustion." -- Paul Weyrich Letter to Conservatives by Paul M. Weyrich, February 1999
Wow. What a stalwart libertarian.
|11.6.07 @ 10:31AM|#
...libertarian Club for Growth
The Club for Growth is "libertarian? Well, they might be a little
closer than Benito Giulianni.
Jesus Christ, Dondero, you need to go on trial for crimes against
the language. Your torture of the word "libertarain" exceeds all
bounds of human decency. I can hear it screaming.
BakedPenguin|11.6.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Kay, folks. Have you not yet figured out that DONDERRRRROOOOO will add nothing substantial to any discussion? Don't feed the troll.
|11.6.07 @ 10:41AM|#
Oh, come on. Those were actual supporters, not actors.
If you're going to shoot a commercial, hire some fucking
actors.
They aren't that expensive, and communicating a point and/or
emotion onscreen is what they do for a living.
Jesus Christ. There are any number of small production companies
that could have done that commercial so, so, so much better.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Sure Isaac, I can understand from an Anarchist perspective like
yours, Club for Growth wouldn't seem libertarian.
But remember, the "Libertarian Quadrant" includes EVERYONE, AND
THAT MEANS EVERYONE who scores above 66/66 on the WSPQ. It's not
just limited to 99/99-ers like you.
I dare say Ray Toomey and the boys at Club for Growth are well
within the Libertarian Quadrant, probably along the lines of
90/90.
Would you dispute that?
|11.6.07 @ 10:57AM|#
mediageek,
Either that or just record a lot of video of Ron Paul supporters
just acting normally, shooting the shit, etc, and then select some
of the footage for the commercial. That way you'd get the best of
both worlds: you'd be able to pick which lines get into the
commercial AND retain the "normal folks" look to it.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Crimethink, stop trying to make good on your dumbass remark from
before, "Who is Paul Weyrich."
You are hereby the certified winner of the Reason Blog Dumbass of
the Year Award.
Who is Paul Weyrich? My Gosh!
|11.6.07 @ 11:27AM|#
"Reason Blog Dumbass of the Year Award"
I thought they retired that award in deference to you some time
ago, Eric.
|11.6.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Eric, like many groups, the Club for Growth is pretty good with
the rhetoric.
But when it comes to endorsing candidates it's always seems to go
to pro-life, gung-ho drug warriors like Ric Kellar and Tom Feeney
to mention just two in my area who get their backing.
Oh, I forgot. You think Tom Feeney is a libertarian. Good luck
getting those legal hookers from that Bible-thumper.
BakedPenguin | November 6, 2007, 10:37am
It's just the mean streak in me. I want to see just how batshit
insane the fucker can get.
Fluffy|11.6.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Dondero, I will only accept your argument that Giuliani is a
good candidate for libertarianism when you produce a statement from
the candidate that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted
literally, as written, that it trumps all of the Articles of the
Constitution that were ratified before it, that there are no
"exceptions" to it due to "emergencies", ever, and that no state
interest can ever possibly be compelling enough to rate higher than
it.
I'll wait.
BakedPenguin|11.6.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Issac - Fair enough. Amusement is a valid reason to continue, and I could see how few things would be as funny.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Hey Isaac, Tom Feeney has been an Advisory Board member of the
Republican Liberty Caucus for over 10 years. His Chief Aide, was
the 2nd banquet speaker in Orlando last year at the RLC National
Convention. Feeney regularly racks up scores from NTU way up in the
'90s.
If he ain't a libertarian, than nobody is.
As for Club for Growth, the groups was founded by Stephen Moore of
the Cato Institute. The Board of Club for Growth has included very
prominent Cato Inst. Board members since its inception. And I
believe some Reason Foundation backers, as well.
Do you know wish to assert that Cato and Reason are "not
libertarian" cause they're too mainstream for you?
Stephen Moore is no libertarian, either?
Let's get you on record.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Tell ya what Isaac, why don't you ask Brian Doherty's best
friend and 30 year political ally/twin brother Philip Blumel,
Vice-Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, and President of US
Term Limits, whether or not he considers Tom Feeney to be a
"libertarian"?
Hell, ask Brian Doherty himself.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Fluffy, stop being so goddamned philosophical.
Libertarianism is defined much simplier. According to the Pew
Research Center libertarian =
"fiscally conservative/socially tolerant"
You want to equate libertarianism with anarchism. And so long as
I'm alive, another 30 or 40 years more at least, THERE IS NO WAY IN
BLOODY HELL THAT I WILL ALLOW YOU MOTHER FUCKING ANARCHISTS TO TAKE
OVER THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now go back to your box of cheetos with your silly ass "V for
Vendetta" DVD, and leave us Real Libertarians alone.
Bingo|11.6.07 @ 12:32PM|#
So according to dondero libertarians are people that score
something on some test but anything higher they are anarchists and
must be vanquished in a holy crusade.
cool!
Fluffy|11.6.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Fuck you, Dondero.
It is not anarchistic to observe [for example] that there flat-out
is no obscenity exception in the text to the First Amendment.
Period. It's not there. It's very, very easy to have a functioning
government while not having an obscenity exception to the First
Amendment, so you simply cannot have a fainting spell and shout "Oh
Noes! Teh Anarchy!" when confronted with a demand that your
candidate endorse the First Amendment as written.
Similarly, I would like to know the libertarian basis for
Giuliani's lack of respect for the 2nd Amendment. Hmmmm? Or are you
going to grab your pussy again and yell about Anarchism to defend
Giuliani here, too?
Are you saying that society would fall into anarchy if warrants
were required for all searches and seizures again? And that your
desire to save the nation from anarchy is what causes you to
fellate Giuliani daily, despite the fact that he has not condemned
the President's disdain for the 4th Amendment?
Would we collapse into anarchy if WOT detainees were granted the
due process rights included in the 5th Amendment? Is that your
position? Funny, the Clinton administration successfully tried and
convicted terrorists while still providing them with due process,
and while not coercing testimony. What's the libertarian basis for
the fact that you've hopped into bed with slobbering torturers?
'cause it ain't "Teh Anarchy!", you loser.
The paragraph aboves applies to the Sixth Amendment as well, to
just about every clause of it, over and over again. Speedy public
trials = unimportant to Dondero. Impartial juries = unimportant to
Dondero. Access to the witnesses and evidence used against them =
unimportant to Dondero.
Tell me, what's Giuliani's position on the Feds pursuing asset
seizure without first supplying a jury trial, in blatant violation
of the 7th Amendment? Let me guess - Sacco and Vinzetti would rise
from the grave to slaughter us all without these critical and
important law enforcement weapons. Nope, nothing unlibertarian
about that at all.
And hey, just because torture violates the 8th Amendment and is
offensive to all principles of human decency is no reason for you
to demand that Giuliani oppose its use. He might NEED it some time,
after all - and you of course take the very libertarian position
that anything the state thinks it really needs to do is A-OK always
and everywhere. Because of your 25 year history of working for
libertarianism. Right?
I'd talk about the 9th and 10th Amendments, but I don't want to
hear that damn Giuliani cackle come over the ether.
Fuck him and fuck you, Eric.
|11.6.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Dondero, too "mainstream" is not the complaint. No caring
sufficiently for individual liberty is.
Tom Feeney voted for the tax cuts? Fine.
I know who Tom Feeney is. I don't need anyone telling me what he
is. I get to see what he is all the time. He represents the
district next to mine. At least my congressman, John Mica who's
position are practically identical, doesn't try to tell me he's a
libertarian.
But good luck on seeing him vote against the War on Drugs, for
liberalized abortion laws (not that big a deal to me, but
apparently, like hookers, it's one of your biggies) or against any
of the myriad violations of civil liberties this administration has
pushed.
Yep, Feeney's as libertarian as any homo-bashing, bible-thumping,
pro-life drug warrior can be. It's all relative I guess.
Hey, and like I said above, I like the Club for Growth's message
just fine. I just wish they'd give money to candidates who follow a
little more of it.
And, by the way, I'll start paying attention to what the Pew
Research Center thinks right about the same time I start taking
Michael Moore's films seriously.
It's fun to goad you, Eric. But plainly you really just don't get
it.
Bingo|11.6.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Wow you guys need to be more realistic. Concepts like "individual liberty" and "equality under the law" and "freedom from tyranny" are dated concepts that no longer apply in our post-9/11 world. It's important to protect the children and defeat the terrorists and make our society the best it can be. If someone isn't there to lead us and guide us, we will never be the great nation our God intends us to be.
R C Dean|11.6.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Dang, fluffy. Back away from the Starbucks, dude.
Not that I don't agree with everything you wrote.
Fluffy|11.6.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Sorry, RC.
Dondero annoys me.
His entire "If you're more libertarian than Giuliani, you're an
anarchist, and I won't lead you steal my beloved libertarian
movement you Molotov cocktail throwing swine!" shtick really called
out for a hostile response.
|11.6.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Fluffy all I can say is wow! Do you mind if I quote you from that at some future date. I think you have shut Donderooo up. I can't imagine how he could come back to that with his faux libertarian ass. Awesome!!
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 2:40PM|#
No Fluffy, I don't say that if you're more of a libertarian than
Giuliani you're an Anarchist.
Let's look at Libertarian Presidential candidates:
Harry Browne, David Bergland, Michael Badnarik - Anarchists
Ron Paul - Anarcho-Libertarian
Ed Clark, Roger MacBrice, John Hospers, Andre Marrou -
Libertarians
Excuse me, if I happen to be in the Ed Clark/MacBride/Hospers wing
of the libertarian movement.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Isaac, does Mica attend libertarian conferences, or send his top
aide to them? Does Mica regularly hang out with libertarians? Does
Mica ever identify himself as a "libertarian"?
No! Dan Mica is a Conservative with a Capitol C. He identifies with
the Conservative movement.
Feeney on the other hand, HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE REPUBLICAN
LIBERTY CAUCUS SINCE THE 1990S!!!!!!!!!
Being a libertarian IS NOT ONLY ABOUT PHILOSOPHY AND ISSUE
STANCES.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Isaac, don't take the Pew Research Center's word for it. Okay,
for the sake of argument, let's throw them aside.
Let's talk about another couple individuals who describe
"libertarian" EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.
I refer you to the book published by the Cato Institute in 1985,
"Beyond Left & Right" by Stuart Lillie and William Maddox, of
the Univ. of... Surprise, Surpise, CENTRAL FLORIDA!!
UCF Political Scientists Lillie and Maddox describe "libertarian"
as:
"Fiscally Conservative yet Socially Tolerant."
But I guess we can't rely on their word either, cause they worked
for the Cato Institute. And we all know Cato is not "libertarian"
either, right?
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Let me ask you something Fluffy. In your view, is there such a
thing as a Moderate libertarian?
Or, do all Libertarians have to be extremist Radicals?
And don't give the Chist bullshit either... Oh, Minarchist,
Anarchist, blah, blah, blah.
I'm not talking about Minarchists. I'm talking about bonafide
Moderate libertarians. No Chist involved.
Who, in your view is a good example of a "Moderate
libertarian"?
|11.6.07 @ 2:51PM|#
I think you have shut Donderooo up.
There goes that theory. Must have been pausing for lunch or a bowel
movement. Guess which one he decided to share with us.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Fluffy, do you consider the libertarian movement to be a
broad-based political movement with varyind degrees of
libertarianism.
Or, do you see the libertarian movement as monolithic, with a
dogmatic set of unbending pricniples, that all libertarians who use
the term to describe themselves, must adhere to?
Do you acknowledge that mainstream politicians like Steve Forbes,
Jack Kemp, David Dreier, Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin, and Tom Coburn,
could be considered "libertarian"?
Or, should the term "libertarian" be preserved only for people like
Michael Badnarik, George Phillies, Justin Raimondo, Eric Garris,
Anthony Gregory and Gene Berkman?
|11.6.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Must have been pausing for lunch or a bowel movement. Guess
which one he decided to share with us
He puked on us, right? Not that there is much difference in the
smell.
Fluffy|11.6.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Dondero, I think that there is a reasonable spectrum of
libertarian opinion on the exact size of the state, on issues of
federalism, on foreign policy, and even on issues of taxes and
entitlement spending.
There is, or should be, virtually no spectrum of libertarian
opinion on the use of torture and extrajudicial detention.
There is, or should be, virtually no spectrum of libertarian
opinion on the writ of habeus corpus, on the jury trial system, and
on the presumption of innocence and due process in general.
A spectrum of libertarian opinion on the 1st and 2nd Amendments
exists, but Mr. Giuliani is firmly outside of it. FIRMLY outside of
it. I would hazard that the candidate would get pissed off if he
heard that you included him in it, actually.
Libertarians don't have to be extreme radicals, but when you're
pimping for a candidate who doesn't even come close to meeting the
baseline, I get to call you on it.
I note that you do not dispute my Bill of Rights - themed [partial]
itemization of Mr. Giuliani's shortcomings - you just apparently
think I shouldn't care about them. You apparently think they're
true, but don't disqualify Giuliani from libertarian support. And
all I can say to that is: Put the crack pipe down.
|11.6.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Paul Weyrich just officially endorsed Mitt Romney for President.
...
This is a shocker, that he endorsed Romney over Paul.
Weyrich?? You mean the co-founder of the Moral Majority Weyrich??
You mean the leading Evangelical on the "New Right"? How is this a
fucking shocker? So what if Weyrich and Paul go back years and have
abortion/religion in common.
Paul is too lenient on drugs and Giuliani is too lenient on
abortion for the MM. If Weyrich was going to endorse anybody, it
pretty much has to be Romney who supports both as well as killing
non-christians, sorry "Muslim Fascists" in your lingo. Indeed,
Weyrich's endorsement just insures that I would never vote for
Romney.
|11.6.07 @ 3:30PM|#
"Fiscally Conservative yet Socially Tolerant."
Trouble is most of those "libertarian" Republicans haven't got the
"Socially Tolerant" bit down while they vote for their "Defence of
Marriage" and Abortion ban laws and their War on Drugs. And the way
they sent spending bills up (and the way Bush signed them) it's
preety clear they don't have much of a clue about the "Fiscally
Conservative" part either.
Quit fucking lecturing me about libertatianism. You wouldn't know a
libertarian if one walked up and smacked you in the head.
Look, bozo, I was well into libertarianism about the same time as
you quit shitting in your diapers (assuming you stopped about the
same time as other children), only it took a few years for the
others to make up a name for it.
I don't know what libertarian movement you've been following but
it's not the same one I've been with for so long. Sure there are a
few folks who I disagree with at the margins but who I still
respect, but noone I know is a thorough-going
collectivist-tribalist like you while claiming to be a
libertarian.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 3:39PM|#
You're not making sense Fluffy. You're fudging, talking out of
both sides of your mouth. On one hand your saying libertarianism
shouldn't be dogmatic, and on the other, that it should have
dogmatic beliefs, like no torture, ect...
I think you're stumped. You realize there's no way out for you on
this. If you say that yes, the libertarian movement should be
dogmatic, you automatically write off 9/10ths of the entire
libertarian movement. But if you acknowledge that moderate
libetarians can exist who differ from your brand of libertarianism,
than you are no longer in charge of what is and what is "properly"
libertarian.
Any way you look at it, you're screwed.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Getting a little touch there Isaac? You're basically in the same
boat as Fluffy. You're trapped. You can't claim that libertarianism
is 100% dogmatic, cause then you'll be all by your lonesome.
Neither, can you acknowledge moderate libertarianism, cause then
you're view of dogmatism will be smashed, and you'll lose all
credibility.
So, what do you do?
Whine, and bitch, and deflect, and bring up side issues.
Laughing my mother-fucking pants off at the both of you. You're
fucked!
|11.6.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Hey, Dondero, tell me where your mainstream politicians like
Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, David Dreier, Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin,
and Tom Coburn, stand on, let's say, oh the War on Drugs and I'll
see if I consider them "libertarian"?
That's only one issue. But it's pretty fundamental. And I bet
everyone of them fails even this test which according to some of
your previous statements is pretty basic.
Am I glad that there are libertarian-leaning folks like these with
influence and even in office? Why, yes I am. But I have no
allusions that they are libertarians.
Fluffy|11.6.07 @ 3:48PM|#
OK Dondero, you fucking moron - how about the issue of chattel
slavery?
Is there a range of libertarian opinion on chattel slavery?
How about the extermination of entire ethnicities of people? Is
there a big tent of libertarians on that one, too?
I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth when I assert that
there are issues that are non-negotiable and issues which are
negotiable. Obviously there are. If you are asserting that ALL
issues are negotiable, then that would have to include slavery and
genocide. If you concede that the libertarian position on slavery
and genocide is dogmatic, then you have to concede that there are
issues on which dogmatism is appropriate.
And I don't care how many people libertarian includes, as long as I
can piss on the grave of the Bush wing of the Republican party and
watch their tears on election day in 2008. That won't be quite as
good as watching every last one of your slobbering torturer friends
hauled off to the Hague to be hung, but it will be a good
start.
|11.6.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Eric
If you reread my post concerning John Mica, you would have noticed
that I said he at least doesn't try to tell me he's a
libertarian.
His voting record is practically identical to Tom Feeney's.
Fluffy|11.6.07 @ 3:50PM|#
"Bring up side issues." Like torture. I really have to laugh at
that one.
Admit it, Eric - all libertarian issues are side issues with you,
compared to your desire to drink the blood of Middle Eastern
children, and then high-five Giuliani and have him tell you that
you're tough. That's why you've turned your back on every
libertarian issue, and no longer consider them important. Come on,
just admit it - we all know it already anyway.
|11.6.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Eric, can you really not tell the difference between being
dogmatic and actually having core principles that define a
political philosophy? Drawing the line at certain core principles
isn't dogmatism; it's pretty much the _definition_ of having a
political philosophy. And Isaac's right - a lot of the people
you're claiming are libertarian are great on the fiscally
conservative part but they suck at the socially tolerant part. That
doesn't make them some particular brand of libertarian; it makes
them conservatives.
"Laughing my mother-fucking pants off at the both of you. You're
fucked!"
Jesus fucking christ you're delusional.
|11.6.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Ed Clark, Roger MacBrice, John Hospers, Andre Marrou - Libertarians
Excuse me, if I happen to be in the Ed Clark/MacBride/Hospers wing of the libertarian movement.
Oh wait, you mean the Ed Clark who ran for President in 1980 on a
platform of withdrawing from NATO, SEATO and all the other
alphabet-soup treaties and cutting the defense budget by seventy
percent.
Not sure what Roger MacBrice might think of the Mespotamian
adventure since he's, like, you know, dead. But given his attitude
to to the glory that was VietNam, I'd guess he'd be agin it.
John Hospers said he was breaking with libertarian tradition to
back the Iraq war. But since he's about a thousand years old and
probably senile I'll give him a pass. :)
Andre Marrou, ummm, what's he done for the movement since '92.
|11.6.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Eric, I have no problems with people who might advance the cause
of liberty, I'm just not going to redefine libertarianism to
include them. Because, well, you know, words do have established
meanings, and while they change over time you don't get to just
change them unilaterally.
Hell, I voted for Jeb Bush twice ( well thre times actually, but he
lost the first time). I was pretty sure he would be better than any
of the trial lwyer, welfare statists that the Democrats would run,
but I had no delusions that he was a libertarian in spite of what
some of my friends at the James Madison Institute thought. So I
wasn't disappointed when one of his first acts in office was to
appoint a State Drug "Czar". I didn't like it but it was quite
typical of his kind of Republican.
Hey, just like Tom Feeney, John Mica is a homo-bashing,
bible-thumping, anti-abortion drug warrior. But he's so far been
preferable to any of the dolts the Dems have run.
And, yes, I have a hard time compromising with Ron Paul's
immigration and abortion stances but just as when I supporteded him
in 1988* I support him now. Disagreements are not important at the
margins.
*Funny, there's a chance I might have met you back then. But, you
know, you meet so many gofers and flunkies it's hard to keep them
all straight.
Timothy|11.6.07 @ 5:06PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
When did you stop fucking your mother?
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Timothy|11.6.07 @ 5:07PM|#
Oh, wait, sorry, that was me. I got us confused for a second, god that was weird.
GILMORE|11.6.07 @ 6:51PM|#
jmklein | November 5, 2007, 5:40pm | #
I'll take you on it, if he doesnt, I'll mail you a check, but I
expect you'll be paying for my bigmac:P
Oh shit! We have takers finally!
Ok micky, i got your email address =upon RP victory, I paypal you
the dosh. I will send my paypal account to people if he fails to
pull any states down. I wonder if there are more here?? I have to
troll through the whole 239 post thread now...
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 7:01PM|#
Okay Isaac, you have finally taken a stand. You've come out and
said that Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, Kemp, Mark Sanford, Butch
Otter, et.al. are "not libertarians."
So, we now know that your definition of "libertarian" consists of
only those who score perfect or near perfect scores above 99/99 on
the WSPQ.
Congratulations, you've just written off about 90% of the entire
libertarian movement.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 7:04PM|#
Isaac, let me ask you something.
In what year did you first become active in the libertarian
movement?
Do you think that's it's just fine for some Newbie guy to come into
a political movement, and tell those of us who have been doing the
work for the movement for decades that we are no longer allowed to
call ourselves the label in which we've been calling
ourselves?
Just waltz right in, and tell all the oldtimers to fuck off and
die, 'eh?
"I'm big bad Isaac. I'm King of the Libertarians. Only I and I
alone get to decide who is allowed to call oneself a libertarian,
and who is not allowed."
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 7:08PM|#
Do you have a direct quote from Hospers where he said he was
"breaking with libertarian tradition" to support the War in
Iraq?
You do know Hospers endorsed George W. Bush over Badnarik,
right?
As for Clark, ask anyone whose been around for years in the LP.
They'll tell you he ran the most moderate of all Libertarian
campaigns.
I worked for Roger for 5 years as his close Personal and Political
Aide, 1991-95, up until the very day of his untimely death.
Roger, was significantly more non-interventionist than I was. But
he was no fool. He hated Communism. And supported a strong Military
here at home to fight back against it.
And if he were alive today, he would absolutely despise
Islamo-Fascism.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 7:12PM|#
Let's see a show of hands here.
How many of you want to scrap the World's Smallest Political
Quiz?
How many of you wish to take the Libertarian Quadrant of the Quiz
and shrink down to the tiny upper-right hand corner whereby only
those who score over 95/95 are allowed to call themselves
"Libertarian"?
|11.6.07 @ 7:25PM|#
Eric, you have managed to post two consecutive comments that
demonstrate both your lack of comprehension and your descent into
derangement.
I will answer no questions from you until you answer the one's I
posed above.
I'l repeat one:
Hey, Dondero, tell me where your mainstream politicians like Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, David Dreier, Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin, and Tom Coburn, stand on, let's say, oh the War on Drugs and I'll see if I consider them "libertarian".
Surely, if there is a "libertarian continuum" (which despite your
distortions, I believe there is) the answer to such a question is
important in determining where anyone sits on it.
Not a single one of them has taken a single stand in opposition to
the War on Drugs. In fact they fall over themselves to be bad
motherfuckers fightin' drugs.
Where do they stand on abortion? Prostitution? Gambling? These are
questions that you have stated are of utmost importance to
libertarians.
Not one of the people you have named takes anything approaching a
libertarian stand on those issues.
Are they bad people, NO. Is the political scene better because of
them? On balance, yes. Are they libertarians? To my knowledge none
of them actually claim to be. So it is not me who is denying them
their "libertarianness". It is in fact you who is creating
"libertarians" out of people who don't particularly want to be
identified as such.
|11.6.07 @ 7:28PM|#
How many of you want to scrap the World's Smallest Political Quiz?
I'm not. I just feel under an obligation to expose those who can
only get into the Libertarian Quadrant by lying about their
political beliefs.
|11.6.07 @ 7:37PM|#
You do know Hospers endorsed George W. Bush over Badnarik, right?
Like I said, everything he's written in the last few years shows
signs of senilty. His views on Iraqi intervention were in
Liberty.
As for Clark, ask anyone whose been around for years in the LP. They'll tell you he ran the most moderate of all Libertarian campaigns.
Eric, don't have to ask anyone. I was there! I described
the platform above and did not exagerate at all.
It was probably the best LP campaign and candidate
ever.
GILMORE|11.6.07 @ 8:48PM|#
And if he were alive today, he would absolutely despise
Islamo-Fascism.
Whats Islamo Fascism again? Saudi Arabia? Egypt?
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:16PM|#
Finally, we agree on something. Yes, Ed Clark's campaign was the
very, very, very best Libertarian Presidential campaign of
all-time.
Ed Clark (and Milton Friedman) are responsible for me being a
libertarian today.
I didn't like Reagan (too religious right), and I absolutely hated
Carter, cause of the Iranian dissaster and his utter
wimpiness.
So, I saw Clark on PBS one day, and said, "he's my guy, I must be a
Libertarian."
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:19PM|#
Ahh, a "libertarian continuum" 'eh? So, I assume you mean that
the closer one gets to 100/100 the more libertarian they are.
I humbly disagree.
If you have a Libertarian Quadrant, and 66/66 represents one
extreme - the most moderate of libertarians, and 100/100 represents
the other extreme, the most radical libertarians, in that case, I
would say the perfect libertarian is rather the 75/75 who is right
smack dab in the middle of the Libertarian Quadrant.
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:21PM|#
Isaac, I once administered the WSPQ to Jeb Bush. Phil Blumel and
Tom Walls (both close friends of Brian Doherty), were right there
too. It was at the 1992 Florida Young Republican Convention.
You know what Jeb's score was?
100 on economics, 90 on social issues.
He said to us, "I'm totally libertarian, I'm just not sure if I'm
ready to go all the way on drug legalization, yet."
Meaning he answered "Maybe" on Drug Legalization.
Does Jeb qualify then under your definition of "libertarian"?
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:22PM|#
I am assuming that you are aware that SurveyUSA.com gives a modified WSPQ test for all the Presidential candidates, and that Giuliani scores a 60/60 rated as a "Moderate Libertarian" right?
Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:26PM|#
Wrong again there Isaac. Many of those people I've mentioned
above have used the term "libertarian" to describe themselves on
numerous occasions.
Let's take Sarah Palin. She attended not only one, BUT TWO meetings
of the Libertarian Party of Alaska in 2005. Similarly, she knew all
the top LP leaders on the State Board by first name. She actively
sought the LP's endorsement for her race for Governor.
Forbes? He came down here to South Texas to spend an entire day
campaigning for Ron Paul in 1996.
David Dreier repeatedly has called himself "essentially a
libertarian."
Jack Kemp? He's called himself a "libertarian conservative" on
numerous occasions.
Butch Otter, I believe Otter called himself a "libertarian" right
here at Reason, in his Reason Magazine interview a year and a half
ago.
|11.7.07 @ 12:02AM|#
Eric, how do they vote on the War on Drugs? (Surely you can
research this and tell us. Sorry, I already know.)
Dana Rohrbacher has no problem staking out his position. Why can't
the rest of these "libertarians"? Oh wait, besides Ron Paul no
Republican will sponsor any legislation with him. Just like Ron
Paul he has to team up with Democrat allies like Maurice Hinchey
and Barney Frank. Oh, wait, I know, are they libertarians
too?
And, unless you missed it, I liked and still like Jeb Bush. Good
guy, good Governor (even my Eastern Establishment Mother liked Jeb)
(and some of us think, quite frankly, that the wrong Bush brother
got to be President). If he scored that high, good for him. His law
enforcement priorities didn't give us much evidence there.
But you see, old boy, we are here quibbling about domestic pols. Of
course, I like Western State Republicans. I am a westerner at heart
(I've lived in Utah, Arizona and Californicate). Do the words Barry
and Goldwater mean nothing to you? There's a question about whether
it was a libertarian campaign (we didn't really use the word in
those days) and, I was, of course to young to vote (so maybe it
didn't count) (but I was a year shy of being sent to fight for my
country - remind me to tell you about me and communism and a place
called Viet Nam some time) but that was my first campaign (of
course, you were just being toilet trained at the time so you can't
remember).
See, we don't have a problem on those names. Where we have the
problem is with Benito Giulanni. The man is a fascist. He
prosecuted Michael Milken at the bidding of the Wall Street
managerial class (that had been created by FDR) in spite of the
fact that the only thing Milken had done was to make it easier for
outsiders to challenge the established management of publicly-owned
corporations. His office prosecuted Leona Helmsley on perjured
testimony to earn political points with envious redistributionist
socialists (oh, wait who couldn't hate that enemy of the "working
people?")(well, actually I know a guy who was working his way thru
school as a driver for hjer chain. He was assigned to pick her up
at the airport and to be her chauffeur for a couple of days. She
wrote him a personal note to thank him after she got home. Big
deal, yea, maybe. My buddy thought so). Shall we go on about what
kind of communist this guy is?
Frankly, if you believe in Giuliani's conversion from Rockefeller
Republican (those were the guys who fought Barry Goldwater the
hardest, sorry, I forgot, you were just being toilet trained at the
time) (also the guys that first started campaigning for a national
health plan - so they didn't have worry about catching dread
diseases from the help) to libertarian then you're as stupid as
Wayne LaPierre who seems to believe this guy can just overcome
years of anti-gun-rights action and rhetoric with a speech to the
NRA (which was interrupted with a cellphone call from his wife -
oh, did you fall for that dumb, fucking stunt? Whatever it was
supposed to do).
So here's the deal Rittberg, you can call any western republican a
libertarian (but then you'd have to include a few western
democrats) but the only way Giulianni makes himself a libertarian
on the Nolan Chart is by fucking lying. Until he produces the Road
to Damascus incident that changes him from the Drug Warrior,
socialist, gun banner, crack-down-on-hookers* fascist that he was
as mayor of NYC I'm not believing he is any kind of
"libertarian".
*And, yes, I understand that prostitution is illegal in cities
across the country. So is Marijuana. But Mayors and Police Chiefs
across the country have also found a way to put these enforcement
priorities at a low level. Your boy chose to put them at the
highest level. Poor choice.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245