Another Ron Paul Surge
David Weigel | November 5, 2007, 11:21am
Here's a screencap of Ron Paul's campaign site around midnight this morning.
Here's a screencap from five minutes ago.
In about 11 hours Paul has raised $1.6 million. That surge is part of a mass
November 5th fundraiser dreamed up by grassroots Paul supporters: "Remember, remember, the fifth of November" by raising $5 million in one day for Paul. The campaign had fallen well short of its $4 million goal for October, raising some doubt whether it could raise $12 million by December 31. If the donors merely keep up their pace today, they'll get the campaign halfway to that goal with 55 days left. By comparison, Howard Dean blew away the rest of the Democrats in the final quarter of 2003 by raising
$15 million. That was after three months as the frontrunner, the endorsement of Al Gore, etc.
Even if you don't like Paul, you have to gasp at what's happening in the GOP race. There are three phenomenons running in tandem: Paul's fundraising, Huckabee's cash-strapped poll surge, and McCain's running-on-fumes poll comeback. Anybody working for the Rudy-Fred-Mitt power trio has to wonder why the Republican base is so hungry for these other choices. (Also, more reason to ignore the campaign finance reformers who whine about big money trumping ideas and good people in politics.)
UPDATE 4:01: Right now Paul's reporting $5.45 million, meaning he's 1)doubled his fourth quarter fundraising in one day and 2)already surpassed his entire fundraising total from the third quarter. I'm pretty sure Paul's broken the record for one-day fundraising in a primary campaign. (Mitt Romney raised $2.5 million in hard dollars at one January event, then inflated the total with $4 million of pledges. Since his donations have fallen off in successive quarters I don't know if all those pledges were fulfilled.)
Eric Dondero | November 5, 2007, 2:37pm | #
Cesar, how old are you?
I'm 44. In my 44 years on this planet there has not been a single event more powerful, more devastating, more explosive literally in the United States of America, than 9/11.
Our Nation is 230 years old.
I would challenge you to find a single event in our Nation's history more important than 9/11.
Yes, Pearl Harbor, and the invasion of Normandy come awfully close. Perhaps Pearl Harbor does equal 9/11. I admit one could make that argument.
But in our lifetimes, (and I'm assuming here that you're in your 30s or 40s), NOTHING EQUALS THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. And perhaps NOTHING ELSE EVER WILL.
For you to say that Rudy Giuliani talks about 9/11 "too much" is downright insulting and a great offense to anyone and everyone who is a loyal citizen of this great country.
If anything, WE DON'T TALK ABOUT 9/11 NEARLY ENOUGH!!
There's been a grand total of 2 major Hollywood movies made about 9/11: Flight 92, and the one about the Fireman in the Twin Towers starring Nicolas Cage.
How many movies were made about WWII?? Hundreds???
When is the last time you remember ANY News outlet showing the jets flying into the Twin Towers? Maybe Discovery Channel or the History Channel late at night on one of their specials. But that's about it.
Are American schoolchildren today taught about what happened on 9/11?
Hell No!!! It's all been blotted out by the liberal media.
Thank God, WE FINALLY HAVE A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO IS WILLING TO TALK ABOUT THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11.
I say for that reason alone, Giuliani more so than anyone, deserves to be the next President of the United States.
Oh yeah, plum forgot. Ron Paul talks about 9/11 too. Especially when he wants to blame America for the attacks.
Doooonnnnndeeeerrrroooooo!!!! | November 5, 2007, 3:41pm | #
You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon. You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done. I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell? Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly. You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs. You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot. And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake? You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile, one-handed, slack-jawed, drooling, meatslapper. On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go. You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away. I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid, so stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh. The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative post was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.
Eric Dondero | November 5, 2007, 3:55pm | #
Hey Nash, guess what. We've already won. And it's been an absolute stunning success.
We accomplished nearly all of our objectives in Afghanistan. It was over in less than 40 days.
We captured Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. (With the help of the Pakistanis).
We finally captured Saddam, hanged the mother fucker, and shot dead his two thug sons to boot.
We got Zarcawi!
And though, it's been a rough ride, we have finally succeeded at establishing a firm and relatively stable democracy in Iraq.
Yes, there's still Iran to be dealt with. And yes, Osama may still be alive somewheres in Eastern Pakistan.
But overall, we have pretty much won the War on Islamo-Fascism.
If we retreat now, after we've won, the enemy will regroup and reorganize and come back at us. We need to hold on and solidify our victory.
But of course, that course is not in the interests of liberal Democrats who don't want to admit that Bush was right all along. And coincidentally, it's most certainly not in the interests of Anti-War Libertarians either, who've been claiming all along that the War was a "dissaster" and "illegitamate" and all sorts of other crap.
Anti-War Libertarians like the lib Dems have major egg on their face these days. What else can they do but last out at those of us who were right all along.
Thus the foaming at the mouth vitriol we are witnessing here today.
Taktix® | November 5, 2007, 4:34pm | #
diss the Military and Military guys at every chance, downplay the importance of the Military, talk about how Military guys are just dumbasses who've been lured into service by the prospects of big bonuses and paid collete[sic] tuition.
Eric,
I said nothing to this effect whatsoever. If you want to have an argument with yourself, fine, just don't put my name on it.
In another day, circa 1930s, 40s, 50s, and even well into the 1960s, we would have just called such a man, A SISSY BOY COWARD.
It is obvious that you are now simply trying to get people riled up, likely because people of your mental stature have little else they can do without their fists.
I want to understand how you, no matter what era, accomplish anything by calling people names, especially the childish, obtuse phrase you are trying to affix to me.
That's what separate people like you, Eric, from people like me. While I am trying to talk about how the real world works, you are mindlessly spouting aggressive, divisive and counterproductive rants, driven far more by passion than any semblance of reason and logic.
I'm sure you'll do fine for the Giuliani campaign, and I'm sure you really do have those politician buddies you claimed earlier. Politicians love people like you, because you will repeat their propaganda without a second thought, likely reaching the point where you believe you thought of it yourself.
I only wonder how you justify your actions in your own mind, considering you advocate for the things that your brothers-in-arms fought so hard to defeat in World War II.
You can't claim moral or ethical superiority for being in the military when, in the next post, you urinate on the grave of those buried in U.S. soil in Normandy.
Eric Dondero | November 5, 2007, 4:56pm | #
My God, Andrew, you are a complete dumbass.
Iran and Iraq were at War for 9 years!!! I don't remember the precise date, but I believe the War started in 1982. May have been '81.
And no, I was not in the War, in 1981/82 because at that time I was stationed on the Aircraft Carrier, and Carriers at that time did not enter the Persian Gulf.
I was in the War for 9 months on the USS Luce DDG-38 in 1984.
Okay, you've forced me to go into my closet and pull out my USS Luce Yearbook "Arabian Nights" from 1984. On page 4 of that yearbook there's a reprint of an article from Time Magazine, dated June 11, 1984. There is a photo of my ship, escorting the oik tankers bombed by Saddam out of the War Zone, and afterwards, 3 more pages of full color photos of those tankers.
Surely, you remember the bombing of the USS Starke by Saddam Hussein that killed 37 sailors around that time, right?
Well, the Starke was the sister ship out of Mayport, Florida, for my ship, the USS Luce.
james | November 5, 2007, 5:46pm | #
Speaking of, this is fresh off of LRC.
Don't Enlist
by Laurence M. Vance
Over 181,000 people joined the U.S. military during the fiscal 2007 recruiting year. This is more than joined the military during fiscal years 2006 and 2005. All four of the services met or exceeded their recruiting goals for 2007, as did four of the six reserve components.
Why?
Why are all these people joining the military? Why, in spite of multiple duty tours, ever-increasing deployment terms, an increase in sexual assaults, post-traumatic stress disorder, the breakup of military families, and the suicide rate, and almost daily reports of U.S. military personnel being killed or maimed in Iraq, are so many men and women joining the military?
It could have something to do with the military:
Spending over $4 billion a year on recruiting
Raising the maximum enlistment age
Accepting lower entrance scores on aptitude tests
Granting more medical waivers
Giving more moral waivers
Permitting ex-convicts to enlist
Relaxing the physical fitness requirements
Loosening weight restrictions
Allowing non-citizens to gain their citizenship after one year of active duty
But it could also have to do with the military:
Giving enlistment bonuses
Providing tuition assistance
Granting educational allowances
Assisting with student loan repayment
Offering assignment incentive pay
Then there is the career training, the world travel, the thirty days of vacation every year, and the free medical and dental care. And who can forget the GI Bill, VA loans, and the generous retirement benefits.
After the September 11th terrorist attacks, many people joined the military because they believed the president when he said: "Freedom was attacked, freedom will be defended." Others, ignorant of the blowback we reaped after decades of an interventionist foreign policy, joined the military because they thought they were actually going to take part in defending the United States against unjust aggression. Some actually supposed that by joining the military they were participating in a religious crusade against Islamofacism.
But what about now? After almost five years of needless destruction, senseless deaths, and billions of wasted dollars, after all the lies of the Bush administration have been exposed, after the principle of "blowback" has been thoroughly explained and proved, after the genocide that the Iraq War has become – why do American men and women continue to join the U.S. military?
There are some things that they know. They know that they may be put in harm’s way. They know that being deployed will take a toll on their family. They know that they may be put into a situation where they will have to kill or be killed. They know that there is no end in sight to the war.
There are also some things that they may not know but should. They should know that many generals with much more military knowledge and experience than any recruiter they know have denounced this war. They should know that by joining the military they are helping to carry out the foreign policy of an evil empire that stirs up strife and creates terrorists. They should know that the military does very little to actually defend the country. They should know that if they die fighting in Iraq that it will be for a lie.
So why do thousands of people continue to join the military? In most cases, the decision is a financial one – just like the decision to sell crack or become a prostitute. But until joining the military receives the same stigma as those activities, enlistments will continue. Because we are in the middle of an unpopular war, because there is no draft, and because the majority of people who join today’s military do so for financial reasons, the conclusion is inescapable: They are mercenaries, they are contract killers – they are killers for hire. "The love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10).
Matt | November 5, 2007, 5:55pm | #
Eric Dondero:
You seem to deeply misunderstand the developments in the modern strategy and tactics as applied to war - especially the war on terror.
The approach you're standing for (i.e. using the state troops) is an outdated concept from the previous centuries. It could've work few hundred years ago, but not today.
Private military corporations are much more effective, technologically advanced, better trained, and more cost-efficient - take, for instance, Blackwater U.S.A. (which has trivially small collateral damage ratio, negligible compared to the state military).
Besides organizing the trainings domestically for the federal agencies (e.g. FBI), Blackwater is also visibly present in Iraq - Congress officials prefer Blackwater's protection to the state-controlled military. Ever wondered why?
Welcome to the 21st century. Private market-oriented solutions _ALWAYS_ work better in any given industry - and that definitely includes, but is not limited to, the military industry. If one fails to grasp that, one is not just a socialist, but a deeply confused socialist.
Add to that we're dealing with terrorism here - decentralized hostile entities working through dispersed loosely connected networks - Ron Paul, his understanding of this matter and his solutions are the cutting-edge in this respect.
The obsolete ideas of attempting to "fight" the terrorism by using the centralized state military belong rather to the Middle Ages, and now long-gone (except for fourth-world African countries) nation-wars, making any candidate who supports them, with all due respect, completely unfit for the job in this century.
Andrew Taylor | November 5, 2007, 8:30pm | #
Rittberg writes: "...not nearly the heroic stuff that my brother and Dad did in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 on the frontlines against Saddam."
I know all about "the frontlines against Saddam," Rittberg, as I was there. Here's a little friendly advice from one soldier to another: When you tell everyone how mean and tough you are, you're demonstrating that you're actually a coward and a wimp.
The toughest guys I've ever known in the Marines (and I've known a lot of them) never had to tell anyone else they were tough. Whether it was in their spoken or written communications, they got their point across with such an authority and confidence that you knew you didn't want to mess with them.
Here's a good contrast: I have no love lost for George H.W. Bush, but the man was a bonafide war hero in World War II. When he appeared before the Southern Baptist Convention and spoke about the decision to commit troops in the first Gulf War, he choked back tears. Bush 41 was a soldier's soldier. Soldiers are able, ready and willing to fight if absolutely necessary -- but not even we Marines want to fight if there's no real reason to do so (despite the idiots who made us get down on our knees in our barracks every night during boot camp and pray for war).
You seem to be cut more out of the cloth of Bush 43 -- the bragging, swaggering loudmouth of "Mission Accomplished," who pulled strings to make sure that he was never in harm's way, but flies a jet onto an aircraft carrier and then gets out wearing a skin-tight flight suit with a bulge that would make Larry Craig drool. And yet his Dad was derided as a "wimp," and Dubya is seen by confused and deluded people like you as some kind of demigod.
The fact that you appear on blogs and commit your random acts of pseudointellectual vandalism, making challenges and hurling threats, proves you're a really sad and pathetic case.
You need to get a real life, and quick. I've seen people who appear to be far more sensible and stable than you do serious harm to themselves and/or others. And remember this: If you get your way, and Rudolf Ghouliani is our next president, don't be surprised when you get taken away, and your posts on this blog are cited as "proof" of your instability and inherent dangerousness.
Was employment with the United States Postal Service omitted from your resume?
Jaq Phule | November 6, 2007, 12:38am | #
Dondero,
"This is a huge blow to the Ron Paul Campaign. My Gosh, if they can't even get a maverick conservative like Weyrich to support them, who can they get?"
Umm... Have you checked the donations page? Given that the long-forgotten article several hundred comments up is about that donation page, why haven't you actually commented on today's fundraising, instead of going on about some "Weyrich" guy I can only assume is some D.C. party hack who's never meant squat to me?
Hitler brought Germany down by a system of totalitarian internal controls. Totalitarian, internal controls is the only means POSSIBLE for gas chambers to exist. If someone is going to run gas chambers in these United States, it will almost certainly be fascists or their ideological descendants, but it is HIGHLY unlikely they will be Muslim.
You see, in order to gain totalitarian internal control, you have to gain control of government. Hitler did this by a combination of getting elected and then marginalizing representative authority. Any would-be runner of gas chambers would need to gain "legitimate" control of our government in order to make it all happen.
Do you see any Muslims running for positions of high power in the 2008 elections? I sure don't.
Islam-o-fascism, whatever that odd combination of ideologies is supposed to mean, may be a threat in Islamic countries where one can gain power through established means. That's their problem, not ours.
Our problem is good, old fashioned, Amero-fascism. I highly recommend Naomi Wolf's latest work, which is nicely summarized in an article entitled "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps". I'm afraid it addresses the "It can't happen here" attitude far better than you have with your panic-laden "Islamofascism". Fascism can happen here, and the process of fascisication, if I may coin a term, has indicators that it is currently underway.
I'm not proposing to get into a long argument with you in this thread, because frankly I have better things to do with my time (and don't you????) I do strongly recommend that if you see problems with this country, is it really the best way to address them by attacking Ron Paul? He didn't cause 'em. No one takes you seriously on these boards, because you seem to be blinded with rage about your past personal history you have with him. Get over it, and move on with your life.
If Ron Paul ain't your solution, fine. Go find another solution and talk about that.
If you can't be part of a solution, ANY solution, then just shut up and get out of the way, you sad little man.
Andrew Taylor | November 7, 2007, 12:38am | #
Hey, Rittberg, since you like to ask "tough questions" that we Paulites are "afraid to answer," here's a couple of questions for you:
1. Roman Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination in the United States. And yet, out of the many thousands of priests in that particular sect, your candidate -- Rudolf Ghouliani -- chose an accused child molester to officiate at his wedding. And Ghouliani has refused to disavow his friendship with this individual. Does that mean that Ghouliani not only supports gay rights, but is in favor of NAMBLA...you know, the "sex by eight or it's too late" folks?
2. It has been demonstrated that Bernard Kerik is a crook, incompetent, liar, and still worse. Yet Ghouliani refuses to distance himself from Kerik, even stating that he wishes he (Rudolf) was more like Kerik! Does that mean that our dictator-in-waiting wants to be a crook, too?
Now, even though you won't even attempt to answer these questions that I've posed to you, I'll take a shot at your question regarding Dr. Paul:
1. It would be reasonable to assume that most elected officials hire staff who (1) are from the same political party, (2) basically agree with the official in matters of policy, and (3) who can therefore give the official their unwavering support.
2. It is an unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless, that there are very few African-Americans and Hispanics who are (1) registered Republicans and (2) Libertarians in their personal philosophical orientation. The GOP and libertarians need to do much more outreach in these areas.
3. Therefore, the reason that Dr. Paul hasn't had a very diverse staff (in terms of color) is simply the logical consequence of his being a Republican and a Libertarian. Last time I checked, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams were gainfully employed doing far more important (and likely much better paying) work.
I look forward to reading your attempts to answer my questions about your chosen candidate.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
