Ron Paul Raises $3.8 Million in One Day

[fossten]

Ron Paul Has Record Online Haul
Monday, November 5, 2007 9:07 PM

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $3.5 million in 20 hours.

Paul, the Texas congressman with a Libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.

Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."

Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.

"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.

The $3.5 million, he said, represented online contributions from more than 22,000 donors.

Paul has been lagging in the polls behind Republican front-runners. But he captured national attention at the end of September when he reported raising $5.2 million in three months, putting him fourth among Republican presidential candidates in fundraising for the quarter.

Paul as of Monday had raised $6.3 million since Oct. 1, more than half his goal of $12 million by the end of the year, according to his Web site.

Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans, but he stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. He also has opposed Bush administration security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties.

 

[formerknown]

I don't like him. Bring on President Thompson!

 

[MonsterMark]

Talk about pissing 3 and a half mil away.

I gave $50 to a different Republican candidate today just to offset the moron that gave $50 to Paul.

 

[fossten]

Talk about pissing 3 and a half mil away.

I gave $50 to a different Republican candidate today just to offset the moron that gave $50 to Paul.

LOL that's funny.

Why do you think somebody who supports Paul is a moron? What specific position of his are you thinking of when you say that?

 

[MonsterMark]

Come on David.

I know you like some of his smaller government stuff but EVERYTHING foreign policywise he avows should be enough to put the guy in a straight-jacket. Definitely a couple kings and queens from a full deck.

And his conspiracy beliefs. Man-o-man. Dangerous territory.

 

[fossten]

I just don't understand why our candidates with stronger foreign policy positions can't be smaller government/higher civil liberty types. This choosing the lesser of two evils is driving ME insane. It's like we have to choose which poison we die from.

It's not like the Democrats; they are consistently wrong on EVERY issue. Our guys are maddeningly all over the charts.

I do, however, have concern over the issues raised by Ron Paul. It does seem that our military is stretched too thin over the world, and it does seem that we spend too much time and money interfering in the affairs of other countries.

Just let me ask you this: If we drilled all of our own oil except for what we bought from Canada and Brazil, would we even need to give a rat's behind what the Middle East is over there doing? If we protect our borders and screen out people who fit the profile of terrorists, what would it matter if Sunnis and Shi'ites want to kill each other? Let the Israelis handle it, I say. We've shackled them from properly defending themselves and pressured them into giving up land that they earned. I suspect Israel could keep the Middle East stable all by themselves.

 

[MonsterMark]

Just let me ask you this: If we drilled all of our own oil except for what we bought from Canada and Brazil, would we even need to give a rat's behind what the Middle East is over there doing? If we protect our borders and screen out people who fit the profile of terrorists, what would it matter if Sunnis and Shi'ites want to kill each other? Let the Israelis handle it, I say. We've shackled them from properly defending themselves and pressured them into giving up land that they earned. I suspect Israel could keep the Middle East stable all by themselves.

I believe we are the moral arbitor of all that is good in this world and a dominant military presence brings MORE, not LESS peace to the world. We are the only Country with the moral backbone to do what is right no matter what. However, we are quickly losing that morality so in a few years, I will probably not hold that opinion.

What would have happened to the world had we not gotten involved in WWI or for that matter, WWII? We can't live in peace in a vacuum much as the Paulie backers would want. It is not the real world. Therefore, Ron Paul is absolutely disqualifed to be President for his foreign policy beliefs. He would be more dangerous than Hitlary, IMHO.

 

[fossten]

What would have happened to the world had we not gotten involved in WWI or for that matter, WWII? We can't live in peace in a vacuum much as the Paulie backers would want. It is not the real world. Therefore, Ron Paul is absolutely disqualifed to be President for his foreign policy beliefs. He would be more dangerous than Hitlary, IMHO.

WWII was the LAST example where the United States went to war Constitutionally, by Congress declaring war. Every conflict we've fought or interfered with since then has been contrary to the method prescribed in the Constitution. I thought the Constitution was supposed to mean something in this country. Executive power having swollen to what it is today, we can bomb anybody we want anytime we want based on the decision of one man. Doesn't that concern anybody here?

There is another flaw in your analogy. WWII was against countries and governments that were determined to dominate an entire continent. Moreover, that country declared war on the United States. Furthermore, we fought that war in an aggressive, total fashion without political correctness. I do not disagree that Iraq is where the terrorists are right now, but I do believe that we are not fighting this war properly.

If you truly believe that we should be over there, you should believe that we should be going after Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Why are we not doing that? We picked on Iraq. Not that Saddam didn't need killing, mind you. But let's face reality here: Shari'a law does not allow a Democracy to flourish. It is folly to believe that a muslim nation can function in the same manner as a nation founded on Christian principles.

Was going into Iraq a mistake? I don't know. We certainly went in there at the behest of the United Nations. That is a suspicious reason to go anywhere. We did the same thing in Korea and Vietnam and look how those turned out. We nearly got into WWIII with China and the Soviets over those "conflicts." I agree with Paul that we should stop sending troops whenever the UN calls.

Should we cut out of Iraq now? No, and I don't believe Ron Paul would do that either. Even Hillary and Biden admit that it can't be done that easily. The surge is working, so we'll probably be removing troops pretty soon anyway. The latest news is that Al Qaeda is completely out of Baghdad as of today.

Yes Paul says we should be bringing home our troops, but he also means all over the world where we're spread very thin. You have to realize that if China decides it's time to take over Taiwan, we can't do a damn thing to stop her. If Russia decides to re-form the USSR, there isn't anything we can do at this point.



Having answered your question, I think it's time you answered some of mine:

Who among the candidates has a purer track record of smaller government and less controls and more freedom than Ron Paul?

Rudy is a liberal who is pro-abortion and anti-gun.
Romney is a liberal who wants nationalized healthcare.
McCain - well, do I really need to go into his flaws?
Thompson has a confusing record on gun rights and abortion, and he certainly hasn't shown a tendency to want to shrink government.
Huckabee, whom I really like as a candidate, has some illegal immigration and nanny state issues. Not that I wouldn't be happy with him, but he's not the best out there.

Which one are you going to vote for? Will you really support Rudy in the general? Or Mitt? Do you really believe we should take Rudy because Hillary is that much worse? If you do, you've abandoned your conservative principles. Even Ann Coulter says that Hillary isn't any different than Rudy when it comes to social issues.

Paul has a perfect record in Congress of sticking with the Constitution. None of the other candidates even come close. The way he would govern would not hurt this country; it would change many things for the better.

Such as:

Smaller federal government
Restoration of the Bill of Rights
Repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS
True protection of our borders
No more tax money going toward murdering babies
Stopping the massive giveaway of money to countries around the world
No more UN telling us how to defend ourselves and conduct trade
Return of power to the States

I could go on and on...

But look, Bryan, you know me. I've been in a lot of knock down drag out arguments on this forum. I'm a conservative through and through. Compared to me, Reagan was a liberal. But I've gotten fed up with the Republican Party. They've gone soft and liberal on us. They've abandoned conservatives. I don't believe this country can be saved unless drastic measures are taken to restore our civil liberties and stop the slide. There isn't a single candidate who is even TALKING about doing that except for Paul. By trying to paint him as a whacko you avoid the real issue, which is this - you must admit that Republicans don't have a good conservative candidate for President. That is, unless you want to vote for the whacko Ron Paul, right?

 

[Calabrio]

So first we had the Nazi's donating money, now we have the credit card thieves.....

Paul Returns Donations From Stolen Cards
Overseas Thieves Apparently Used Presidential Campaign To Test Stolen Credit Cards

Nov. 8, 2007



(CBS) The presidential campaign of Texas Rep. Ron Paul received donations from overseas thieves using stolen credit cards, reports CBS station KTVT in Dallas/Fort Worth.

Investigators at Frost Bank discovered that the stolen cards were being used to make $5 contributions to the Paul campaign, in an apparent attempt to test the cards.

Frost Bank refunded money from nearly 100 customers and canceled all 500 of the credit cards that had been stolen from the bank. The Paul campaign tells CBSNews.com it has refunded to the bank the donations from the stolen cards, which amount to about $3,000.

Though Paul's poll numbers in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination are low, his fundraising has been robust. On Monday he raised $4.2 million, a higher one-day total than any Republican hopeful thus far.

Kerri Price, assistant director of communications for the Paul campaign, noted that the donations from the stolen cards represent "a very small percentage of money that was brought in."

"We don't know anything about the criminals that did this," she said, adding that the tactic was "fairly common with identity thieves."

Added Paul spokesman Jesse Benton: "Ron Paul does not have anything to do with this."

 

[fossten]

Oh, ok. So let's amend the numbers, shall we?

Instead of $4,200,000 in donations, the number should read $4,197,000. There. I fixed it. Don't want to show inflated numbers, after all.

Let's see, what's the percentage that the total was skewed?...

(carry the two, divide by...)

Ah. Point zero seven percent (.07%). So the numbers were 99.93% accurate. Phew. Glad we got that straightened out. I feel so...dirty...for putting out such misleading information.



By the way, Calabrio, what you posted was nothing but a smear attempt. There isn't any evidence that Paul has courted an endorsement by credit card thieves. Your headline itself is designed to cast Paul in a bad light. You are actually creating smear out of an article. This rather than debating the issues and positions of the candidate. I'm surprised you don't have anything more substantive to add.

But in spite of your lame smear attempt, the fact remains that Paul's support is huge and it's growing. Fast. The $4.2 million represents over 36,000 donors. That's less than $100 per person. That's not a fat cat operation. That's grass roots. Deal with it.

 

[Calabrio]

By the way, Calabrio, what you posted was nothing but a smear attempt. There isn't any evidence that Paul has courted an endorsement by credit card thieves.

I doubt anyone thinks Ron Paul has been courting the international credit card thief demographic.

However, I have not heard him give back the money to the nazi fundraisers.

And he still continues to appear and court that ignorant, America-hating, conspiratorial scum bag Alex Jones.

Your headline itself is designed to cast Paul in a bad light. You are actually creating smear out of an article. This rather than debating the issues and positions of the candidate. I'm surprised you don't have anything more substantive to add.

I've addressed Ron Paul before. I like him in the congress, but he's not qualified to be President. He's a legislator, not an executive.

But in spite of your lame smear attempt, the fact remains that Paul's support is huge and it's growing. Fast. The $4.2 million represents over 36,000 donors. That's less than $100 per person. That's not a fat cat operation. That's grass roots. Deal with it.

There's nothing to "deal with."

I do find it incredibly entertaining that neo-nazis, idealists constitutional libertarians, and fringe left peace-nick socialist wackos, are all supporting the same unelectable candidate.

How can you take a candidate seriously when many of his supporters are urging him to run with Dennis Kucinich?

 

[fossten]

I've addressed Ron Paul before. I like him in the congress, but he's not qualified to be President. He's a legislator, not an executive.

According to your logic, then, the only candidates qualified to be President are Rudy, Mitt, Huckabee, or Bill Richardson. So which liberal are you voting for, or are you only interested in Huckabee?

You're enveloped in the conventional wisdom. You embrace political experience over statesmanship and principle. Was George Washington an executive? Nope. Congressman. Abraham Lincoln? Lawyer and Congressman. Truman? Senator. By the way, last I heard, JFK wasn't such a bad president, at least for a Democrat. He was a Senator before he ran but he did do a decent job. I could go on and on.

There's nothing to "deal with."

I do find it incredibly entertaining that neo-nazis, idealists constitutional libertarians, and fringe left peace-nick socialist wackos, are all supporting the same unelectable candidate.

How can you take a candidate seriously when many of his supporters are urging him to run with Dennis Kucinich?

Just because somebody says something good about a candidate doesn't mean that the candidate agrees with them. Geez. You know as well as I do that most of the lefties who support Paul are in favor of his antiwar and pro-mary jane legalization positions. So what? That doesn't make him a wacko, it makes him a Libertarian.

You are continuing the smearfest without debating any actual issues. I used to respect your opinion back when you actually had one. Now you're just a demagogue.

 

[fossten]

Paul Blasts Bernanke, Plans Ad Blitz

Friday, November 9, 2007 11:09 AM

By: Newsmax Staff

Flush with millions in new campaign cash, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow in an interview that he’ll use the money as it was intended – for his campaign. He’ll be hiring more staff, and running more ads.

“Sometimes it’s bewildering, because we didn’t organize it, it’s spontaneous,” Rep. Paul said of his recent rake. “It’s a real grassroots effort. Some individual in Florida who I have not met nor have I talked to – I surely need to thank him – who has never been in politics in his life, read what I stood for and said he needed to help me and he organized it himself on the Internet … He was disappointed he didn’t raise more.”

What happened, exactly?

Well, on Nov. 5th, 1605, Guy Fawkes tried to assassinate King James I by blowing up British Parliament. On Nov. 5th, 2007, Trevor Lyman of Miami Beach, tried to do the same thing to the presidential race. Sort of.

The 37-year-old music promoter started a Web site last month called ThisNovember5th.com and began soliciting contributions for Paul’s campaign, trying to get 100,000 people to each donate $100 all on the same day, according to Politico.com.

Paul spokesman Jesse Burton said Lyman didn’t coordinate with the campaign, but Lyman told Politico he did “contact the campaign to sound the alert for an influx of contributions.”

The Nov. 5th tally? Over $4 million dollars donated from more than 35,000 contributors.

Paul said the huge one-day effort “means that people are very unhappy, very disgruntled, and we’ve tapped into this uneasiness with a message of freedom, the constitution and sound money, a balanced budget and also a foreign policy that makes a lot more sense than what we have.”

Kudlow asked the Texas congressman , “In your new ads, what would your central message be?”

“The message is freedom, the constitution, limited government, free markets, free trade, less taxes,” Paul replied. “I want to get rid of the income tax. I want to let young people out of social security and the kids on campuses applaud loudly for that.

“I would do something about our American empire because it’s not being run very well. We’re wasting a lot of money and we should be taking care of our people here at home,” Paul said.

Kudlow interviewed Paul mainly because the Texas congressman took Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to the woodshed earlier in the day, sternly telling him, “There’s a dollar crisis out there, and people’s money is being stolen! People who have saved, they’re being robbed! If you have a devaluation of the dollar 10 percent, people have been robbed of 10 percent. It’s going to lead to higher interest rates and a weaker economy.”

Kudlow said admiringly, “Seldom have I seen such a licking applied to a Fed chief!”

Paul said his major problem with the Fed is that it creates too much easy credit, although Paul admits that Bernanke is between a rock and a hard place and that whatever he does will essentially be wrong and could destroy the value of the dollar.

 

[Calabrio]

According to your logic, then, the only candidates qualified to be President are Rudy, Mitt, Huckabee, or Bill Richardson. So which liberal are you voting for, or are you only interested in Huckabee?

I've never said you HAD to be a governor or a mayor to be President. I think it's certainly an advantage over having simply been in a legislative body. Congressional experience certainly doesn't disqualify you, but it's not the same as running a country, city, state, or even a business.

You're enveloped in the conventional wisdom. You embrace political experience over statesmanship and principle.

No, I embrace reality. I'm not swayed by romanticism and lofty idealism. And in this day and age, I don't see any value in claiming a moral victory while suffering an electoral defeat.

Was George Washington an executive? Nope.

I consider a man who led a revolutionary army and defined the Presidency as an executive.. That's certainly a leadership position.

Congressman. Abraham Lincoln? Lawyer and Congressman. Truman? Senator.

Yet both of these examples engaged in activities that Ron Paul would deem to be intolerable. Lincoln suspended some civil rights during the civil war. And the only successes of the Truman Administration were based on his Cold War foreign policy, something is bold contrast to Ron Paul's idealistic isolationist foreign policy.

Do you think Ron Paul would have embraced the Truman Doctrine, containing communism around the world? Would he have supported the Marshal Plan?

By the way, last I heard, JFK wasn't such a bad president, at least for a Democrat. He was a Senator before he ran but he did do a decent job. I could go on and on.

And what point would you be making exactly? That legislatures can go on to be President? This isn't a disputed point. But you're examples aren't reminiscent of Ron Paul's experience, and you've certainly pulled the most spectacular examples.

Is it significant if I make a list of incompetent congressmen with zero leadership skills? Or presidents who came with only legislative experience that went on to have terrible Presidencies?

Again, I actually like Ron Paul on many levels. I like his voting record and the principles for which he stands on. And it's a good voice to have within a legislative body. I certainly do hope that because of the prominence he's gaining through this Presidential campaign, he becomes a more powerful voice within the party and within the party leadership.

However, the principles he stands for aren't always easily applied in an imperfect world. He's underwhelming when interviewed in anything but the most hospitable environment, and HIS FOREIGN POLICY IS CRITICALLY FLAWED.

Since he's running for President, there are few issues as important as foreign policy.

Just because somebody says something good about a candidate doesn't mean that the candidate agrees with them. Geez. You know as well as I do that most of the lefties who support Paul are in favor of his antiwar and pro-mary jane legalization positions. So what? That doesn't make him a wacko, it makes him a Libertarian.

Very true. That doesn't make it any less entertaining to hear moon-bat liberals supporting a guy who disagrees with them on 98% of all other issues, besides pot and the war.

But that does undermine the real value of his support.

You are continuing the smearfest without debating any actual issues. I used to respect your opinion back when you actually had one. Now you're just a demagogue.

Hardly the case. I simply grow tired of repeating myself. I also grow extremely tired of your inability to refrain from personalizing your disagreements.

Since I live in reality, I understand that Presidential candidates won't be "perfect." It's a big country, a lot of people aren't terribly well informed, and others are just ideologically wrong. They still vote though.

Thomas Jefferson couldn't win national election in the current environment. I don't think any of the founding father's would be able to right now.

(ALSO OF NOTE: Jefferson's isolationist foreign policy changed dramatically after he became President. And after the U.S. became financially sound. Much of the early isolationism wasn't based on principle, it was necessity.)

Best I've been able to tell, we actually have a very strong slate of Republican contenders right now. None are perfect, that's not possible. But some are very strong and electable. And if you put a guy like Ron Paul in the White House, the Democrats and liberal Republicans will prevent any of his libertarian domestic policy to move, but his horribly idealistic and flawed foreign policy will be able to proceed. That's a lose/lose scenario.

And, I personally can't stand the fact that he's civil to that paranoid, idiot scum bag Alex Jones.

 

[fossten]

I've never said you HAD to be a governor or a mayor to be President. I think it's certainly an advantage over having simply been in a legislative body. Congressional experience certainly doesn't disqualify you, but it's not the same as running a country, city, state, or even a business.

[CONTRASTED WITH THIS STATEMENT]

I've addressed Ron Paul before. I like him in the congress, but he's not qualified to be President. He's a legislator, not an executive.

That sounds like Hillary's statement in the debate the other night, about driver's licenses for illegals. "It doesn't disqualify you, but it certainly isn't enough to qualify you."

Sorry, I just don't get the nuance.

I don't see how you can reconcile those two statements. You clearly implied that the REASON Paul was unqualified was because he's a legislator. Now you're saying that you meant that it isn't an advantage??? Give me a break. There were no other words in between those sentences. Even a liberal Supreme Court Justice would have a devil of a time deriving any other meaning in that statement. You have just backed off your previous position.

No, I embrace reality. I'm not swayed by romanticism and lofty idealism. And in this day and age, I don't see any value in claiming a moral victory while suffering an electoral defeat.

The reality you claim to embrace is your fear that unless Republicans nominate somebody popular, we will lose and Hillary will be president. While that is a genuine concern, it is not a good starting point. I am sorry that you are being dominated by your fear, but that does not translate to reality for the rest of us. Reality should dictate that Republicans should govern as conservatives, and conservatives should nominate their BEST candidate. We can't do that anymore thanks to McCain-Feingold, which guarantees that only rich people can run for President. Nevertheless, Ron Paul is getting large sums of money from grassroots efforts across the nation, and the polls will be reflecting that before long.

Yet both of these examples engaged in activities that Ron Paul would deem to be intolerable. Lincoln suspended some civil rights during the civil war. And the only successes of the Truman Administration were based on his Cold War foreign policy, something is bold contrast to Ron Paul's idealistic isolationist foreign policy.

Do you think Ron Paul would have embraced the Truman Doctrine, containing communism around the world? Would he have supported the Marshal Plan?

There you go, perpetuating the falsehoods spread about Paul's positions. He is not an isolationist. There is a big difference between defending ourselves while following the Constitution, and marching willy nilly around the world anytime the President or the UNITED NATIONS decides we need to. Do you believe we should have brokered [FORCED] the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah? Yeah, let's let that cauldron continue to simmer. As long as we continue to interfere in the world's affairs unnecessarily, we will have problems. You yourself admitted that we should have gone into the Middle East and conquered it. With finality. What we're doing now is the worst of both worlds and you know it.

About the Marshall Plan - there's no telling what Paul would have done in Truman's position. But we aren't in the same situation we were in in 1947. Do you think Jefferson would have gone into Iraq based on United Nations Resolutions? Even the Barbary Wars were merely naval bombardments followed by letters of demand, which ended up being sufficient. No invasion was necessary, and we certainly didn't go in and replace the Caliphate with another.

And what point would you be making exactly? That legislatures can go on to be President? This isn't a disputed point. But you're examples aren't reminiscent of Ron Paul's experience, and you've certainly pulled the most spectacular examples.

Is it significant if I make a list of incompetent congressmen with zero leadership skills? Or presidents who came with only legislative experience that went on to have terrible Presidencies?

Now don't go getting all defensive. I was simply answering your assertion that Paul was unqualified to be President BECAUSE he's a legislator. You made that point. Of course, now you're backing off of it. So you're sure this time that you are going to stick to your position?

However, the principles he stands for aren't always easily applied in an imperfect world. He's underwhelming when interviewed in anything but the most hospitable environment, and HIS FOREIGN POLICY IS CRITICALLY FLAWED.

Because he believes we should not go to war without following the Constitution? I fail to see the flaw in that. Sorry you don't agree.

Since I live in reality, I understand that Presidential candidates won't be "perfect." It's a big country, a lot of people aren't terribly well informed, and others are just ideologically wrong. They still vote though.

Thomas Jefferson couldn't win national election in the current environment. I don't think any of the founding father's would be able to right now.

There you go with your pejorative "reality" comment again. And you accuse me of being personal? And your solution is to embrace a liberal candidate only because the alternative is much worse? How is that working for us these days? So far we've lost both Houses of Congress and our President nearly gave amnesty to 12 million illegals. Why should we put ourselves in the predicament of having to write letters and make phone calls all the time? Wouldn't it be better to simply nominate somebody who will stand up for us, and then back him all the way to the White House? You're scared that Republicans won't back Paul, but I'm here to tell you that Conservatives won't back Rudy OR Mitt. And that's a real cause for concern.

(ALSO OF NOTE: Jefferson's isolationist foreign policy changed dramatically after he became President. And after the U.S. became financially sound. Much of the early isolationism wasn't based on principle, it was necessity.)

Again, Paul isn't an isolationist. However, Jefferson changed his isolationist policy BEFORE he became president. He campaigned on going to war against the Barbary States. You might want to get your facts straight. Furthermore, if even the isolationist Jefferson changed his mind, then it's likely Paul would make decisions based on the situation that would be necessary for the good of the country.

Best I've been able to tell, we actually have a very strong slate of Republican contenders right now. None are perfect, that's not possible. But some are very strong and electable. And if you put a guy like Ron Paul in the White House, the Democrats and liberal Republicans will prevent any of his libertarian domestic policy to move, but his horribly idealistic and flawed foreign policy will be able to proceed. That's a lose/lose scenario.

No, that's a fear-based rationale for nominating a liberal to run against a socialist.

By the way, if you don't like talking to me, nobody's forcing you to. But quit whining about how you're tired of it. It's not becoming.

 

[Calabrio]

There's no nuance or double talk. Paul doesn't exhibit executive experience or ability. Just because one serves in the legislature doesn't mean they lack executive ability, but it's not a demonstration of it either. There are leaders within the Congress, Paul isn't one of them.

If he had executive experience to refer to, we'd have something to refer to. We don't. But to date, he can cast his votes with little consequence. He can make principled decisions without having to deal with the realities.

I distinguish the qualities of a legislator from an executive. They function differently, they serve a different purpose, and behavior appropriate for one doesn't work well when applied to the situations of the other.

I'll give you a hypothetic. Gingrich is a guy who was a legislator that does have executive qualities. Paul isn't.

You say that Republicans should nominate the "best candidate." I'd agree.
Paul is far from the best candidate of the bunch.

First, the candidate needs to support constutionalist judges.
Second, he needs to have a solid understanding of foreign policy
Third, I think it's critical that they have management skills because we're headed into a very difficult period, economically, politically, internationally, and socially.

Frankly, a 70+ year old fringe candidate from Texas, with no executive experience, a weak understanding of international relations, and no management experience isn't the best candidate.

As stated, he has prominence now. Hopefully he can use his exposure to spread his message, even after the campaign. He can do some serious good, but not as the President.

I'm crunched on time right now, but one of your last points had to do with how compromise serves any of us...

Let me ask you, which was better for the country, having someone like Arlen Spector who votes the right way maybe 80% of the time in office, or having a Democrat who votes the right way 0% of the time and results in transfering the Congress to Democrat power, blocking conservative appointees, conducting endless investigations, and blocking anything remotely conservative before it leaves committee?

If a Supreme Court justice were to die or step down this week, how strong a constitutional judge do you really think we could get nominated?

And, for better or worse, who's going to pick the better judge to serve for the next 40 years, Hillary or Rudy?

Again, I'm not scared Republicans won't back Paul, I know they won't. I say this because I WILL NOT. He's not a good candidate.

 

[fossten]

Gingrich is not only a hypothetical, he's a bad example. Far from being a conservative, he's also not running for President.

As far as judges go, even Reagan failed to select properly. Neither Hillary or Rudy would select a justice that I would be comfortable with. Even Ann Coulter, when asked about Rudy, confessed that she was more in line with Hillary than with him. I saw her say this on Fox News. Even if she was being facetious, that's a hell of a point to be making.

I see you're still deliberately avoiding my question about a candidate. Why can you NOT name a single candidate that you would be happy to see as President? It appears that you are not excited about any of them. I wonder why.

With the negatives that Hillary has to deal with, I find it surprising that you've already conceded victory to her. I find it hard to believe that we could not win with a strong candidate who is strongly backed by conservatives. Hillary is not prepared to run against someone like Paul. And even though the guy is 72, he's in excellent condition, much better than Clinton was at 50. Also, Reagan was in his 70s in his second term and he did fine. Age is a silly issue for you to bring up.

One final thought before you get all geared up - if Paul loses the nomination, and Fred or Huck wins, I'll live with it. But for now I support Paul as representing most closely my principles and more importantly the Constitution.

Rudy or Mitt I simply cannot stomach.

 

[Calabrio]

Gingrich is not only a hypothetical, he's a bad example. Far from being a conservative, he's also not running for President.

He's an example of a Congressman who demonstrates legislative ability while demonstrating executive leadership. I'm not interested in arguing Gingrich's political history because it is of no importance in this thread.

As far as judges go, even Reagan failed to select properly. Neither Hillary or Rudy would select a justice that I would be comfortable with. Even Ann Coulter, when asked about Rudy, confessed that she was more in line with Hillary than with him. I saw her say this on Fox News. Even if she was being facetious, that's a hell of a point to be making.

You're comfortable saying that Rudy and Hillary will pick similar judicial nominees? I disagree.

I see you're still deliberately avoiding my question about a candidate. Why can you NOT name a single candidate that you would be happy to see as President? It appears that you are not excited about any of them. I wonder why.

I'm not AVOIDING your question about a candidate, I answered you. I have yet to decide. I have a few months before the primary in my state and I'm waiting for them to begin campaigning in my state and I get to at least see them in person before making my final decision. However, overall, I'm enthused at the chances of a GOP victory in the Presidential race in '08- and with that a retaking of the House of Representatives.

With the negatives that Hillary has to deal with, I find it surprising that you've already conceded victory to her.

I haven't conceded victory to her at all. However, I'm comfortable saying that she can probably hold her lead through the front loaded primary process and secure the nomination.

I find it hard to believe that we could not win with a strong candidate who is strongly backed by conservatives. Hillary is not prepared to run against someone like Paul.

Perhaps you haven't come to terms with this, but Paul is not going to win the nomination. His support is overstated and exagerated. Much of it isn't even able to vote in the Republican primary, and I'd bet another big chunk of it probably isn't even registered to vote.

I have nothing against him on a personal level. And I agree with him on a lot of things. But I'm not going to vote for someone else in the primary because I don't think he can win the general. I'm going to vote for someone else because I DON'T WANT HIM to win the nomination.

I think he can do a lot of good in the future with his increased exposure and credibility. I hope he does so. In fact, the best good he can do is at a grass roots level.

You can't have a political revolution, like conservatism/libertarianism from the top down. The establishment culture can't even accommodate the policies of a Paul right now, he'd be a lame duck single term President who would make a mess of foreign policy.

One final thought before you get all geared up - if Paul loses the nomination, and Fred or Huck wins, I'll live with it. But for now I support Paul as representing most closely my principles and more importantly the Constitution.

Rudy or Mitt I simply cannot stomach.

Well, brace yourself- because they are the front runners.

Thompson isn't gaining much traction and he's underwhelming undecideds.
Huckabee is generating interest, but I know of plenty of people who will argue his "conservative credentials" based on his policies while Governor of Arkansas.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from voting for Paul in the primary, to the contrary, now is the time to do things like that. But he's not going to win. Don't carry a grudge into the General Election.

But come next Spring, I hope Paul uses that energy and interest to get his foot in the door on colleges and start converting the misguided liberals who will listen to him into at least somewhat educated libertarians.

 

[fossten]

Ron Paul on Face the Nation - Veterans Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83KG661nbnY

 

[Brock]

Ron Paul is this nation's only hope. My ancestors have served in every war from the Revolution until Vietnam. (I am a 100% service related disabled Vietnam veteran.) Our forefather's would be appalled at what is left of their dream.

 

[fossten]

November 13, 2007 10:58 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is rising in the polls after a record-breaking fundraising day last week elevated him to top-tier status in the media. Two polls released this weekend by the Boston Globe in association with the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, and the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, both reveal Congressman Paul to be polling at seven percent in New Hampshire.

Seven percent places Congressman Paul in fourth place, surpassing former front-runner Fred Thompson in the key primary state for the Republican presidential nomination.

“Dr. Paul’s support is gaining rapidly,” said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is bringing the Republican Party together, and it is showing in our fundraising success and steady climbing in the polls.”

The Marist telephone poll was conducted November 2-6; the Boston Globe, November 2-7.

 

[daves2000ls]

Calabrio - maybe your neglecting that Paul was a Capt. in the AF, and a medical doctor. That should give him some leadership skills and as a doc. he should have at least a slight ability to think well on the spot. Paul/Kucinich would be good for Hitlary (I like that one) but terrible for the nation. Our country needs a man who is willing to fight to uphold the Constitution, most importantly the Bill of Rights, which was under attack from the Puppetident, BuSh. The fact that the Partriot Act has not been repealed by the Supreme Court is evidence that the SC is in the Pocket of the BuSh dynasty. CHECKS AND BALANCES. There is no balance if the Supreme Court is unwilling to check the Exec. and Leg.

 

[Calabrio]

Calabrio - maybe your neglecting that Paul was a Capt. in the AF, and a medical doctor. That should give him some leadership skills and as a doc. he should have at least a slight ability to think well on the spot.

I'm very well aware that he served in the Air Force as a doctor.
John Kerry was an officer in the Navy. I think Kerry lacked executive experience as well. This is clearly a subjective evaluation, your standards clearly differ from mine.

If you think that he'd make a strong executive, I'll just have to disagree with you. I've never seen or heard of him having to make difficult executive decisions. That's something a Congressman usually doesn't have to do. Congressmen like Paul don't have to make decisions from a compromised position. And he's campaigning as though we live in an imperfect world, but have the ability to make executive decisions as though we are in some kind of euphoria vacuum.

Paul/Kucinich would be good for Hitlary (I like that one) but terrible for the nation.

Paul would not be the best choice for the country.
Kucinich would be catastrophic.

Our country needs a man who is willing to fight to uphold the Constitution, most importantly the Bill of Rights, which was under attack from the Puppetident, BuSh.

Not the case.

The fact that the Partriot Act has not been repealed by the Supreme Court is evidence that the SC is in the Pocket of the BuSh dynasty.

Absolutely not the case.

CHECKS AND BALANCES. There is no balance if the Supreme Court is unwilling to check the Exec. and Leg.

The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to reach out and "check" anyone. There is a very specific, constitutional process that determines what the Court can state their opinion on.

A court decision must be challenged, it must work it's way up through the system, the Justices have to decide that it's necessary to hear.... It's not a conspiracy, it's a constitutional process. And the fact of the matter is, the executive branch hasn't violated it.

 

[fossten]

I'm not AVOIDING your question about a candidate, I answered you. I have yet to decide. I have a few months before the primary in my state and I'm waiting for them to begin campaigning in my state and I get to at least see them in person before making my final decision. However, overall, I'm enthused at the chances of a GOP victory in the Presidential race in '08- and with that a retaking of the House of Representatives.

This is an interesting quote. The fact that you are waiting to decide smacks of pragmatism and hints at ignorance of their general strengths and weaknesses. It also indicates that you have not yet done full research on all of the candidates so as to make an informed decision. Yet you've done all the research necessary to determine that Paul is not the best choice? How could you possibly know this unless you've evaluated all of the remaining candidates, each of which have serious flaws? Clearly you've been influenced by the media, most notably Fox News, which has lost my respect mainly due to Sean Hannity jumping on the Giuliani train based on his fearful and ignorantly mistaken assumption that he is the only candidate that can beat Hillary. Hannity has also been vehemently critical of Paul. I've personally witnessed him giving Paul the Alan Colmes treatment as well.

Your comment sounds like you are basing your decision on the candidates' anticipated campaign statements and personal appearances in Florida. No offense, but that's what sheeple do. You're comfortable with that level of research on a candidate in order to make a decision? I'm not. I prefer to evaluate the sensible and controversial ACTIONS and DECISIONS that they have made, as well as the statements that they have already made in public. The last place I look will be their campaign commercials, debate soundbites, and their websites. That's nothing but window dressing. I'm going to dig deeper than you've indicated you intend to. In fact, I already have.

The only other possibility I can see is that you will simply wait until the candidate has been chosen for you by the other primaries before it gets to Florida. By then it won't matter.

I find it interesting that you have no interest in debating the actual subject of controversy with Ron Paul, namely his antiwar stance, but rather you simply dismiss him and label him as a wacko, following typical liberal tactics. I'd be impressed if you actually started a thread to discuss the feasibility and/or common sense of our continued military interference around the world.

 

[fossten]

Ron Paul named one of GQ's Men of the Year