Paul's $16M Haul... Impressive. No Buts.

There's no question that Ron Paul has tapped into a unique, hitherto hidden vein in the Republican body politic, and it's proved quite lucrative: he says he's raised $16M this quarter and pulled in a record $6.6M in a single day.

He's spending the money on television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire, radio ads, and, if you're driving through Iowa these days, ubiquitous billboards.

The challenge he'll face from us MSMers is simple: so far, he's proven that he resonates with a vocal minority of Republican primary voters -- a smaller minority than, say, the 40% of evangelicals in Iowa who are sustaining Mike Huckabee's rise, and the 20% of McCainiacs in New Hampshire.

It might not seem fair, but in the projective calculus of the Republican nomination, the ability to put together a broad coalition of voters is a necessary limit. This is harder than it sounds: "Ron Paul is pro-life and so he'll get pro-lifers when they tire of Huckabee" -- that's the start of the argument, not its end.

What's great, in one sense, about the Ron Paul phenom is that we don't know where it's going to end. We don't know how it's going to scramble the order of finish in the early states. And while we don't think Paul is going to win the nomination, we dismiss his impact at our peril.

Comments

For the umpteenth time, how can we trust the polls that are based on 2004 GOP primary voters, the hard core Bush supporters (unopposed) who have land lines? They say Republicans aren't that passionate this year and I think that's true, except Ron Paul supporters will brave snow and ice to vote for him? How come no one else has any signs or bumper stickers? Could it be that they only sorta kinda support Huckabee or Romney or McCain? The polls have shifted a lot so it seems clear the support is not that strong or it would hold for longer than a couple weeks at a time. Ron Paul's support in traditional polls continue to rise albeit small, but his support outside those traditional polls is far greater than all other GOP candidates combined. I think January will put the polls to bed, finally. They mean nothing in 08. Maybe in past years, but this is different.

Posted by Nick | December 17, 2007 9:28 AM

Um, right now, he is at $18.2 million for the quarter...

Posted by Michael | December 17, 2007 9:30 AM

$18,150,000 this quarter...so far! Still two weeks to go, so it will surely top $20 million from October to December. And it will continue into January and February until South Dakota in June, and our man will be well financed all the way. A Presidential candidate like Ron Paul is a once in 50 years.

Posted by Marc Scott Emery | December 17, 2007 9:32 AM

I question the validity of polls that don't offer you the ability to chose from so-called 2nd tier nominees, and too, the fact that many eligible voters today have dropped their land lines and moved to cell phones only. Many of the pollsters don't call cell phones. To get a real understanding of where Ron Paul stands in support go to:

http://thecaseforronpaul.com/

Mike Huckabee has raised income taxes, has offered to pay for tuition of illegals, will continue this fiasco of a war and empire building, and most importantly will not defend and follow the Constitution. The only candidate who consistently has for 10 terms is Ron Paul:

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-voting-record-defends-the-constitution.html

If you believe in liberty the way our founders did, then vote for Ron Paul in 2008.

Posted by freemindsin08 | December 17, 2007 9:32 AM

It is statistically improbable that a candidate would raise around 18 million dollars from over 100,000 donors, maybe half of which are first time donors, and not have a much larger following of people who will vote for him, but have not donated.

Posted by Pliny | December 17, 2007 9:38 AM

6.4 million dollars in one day is the largest recorded fund raising day in the history of U.S. politics. That is a huge news story for a "fringe" candidate.

Ron Paul is approaching 10% in polls that often do not mention his name, never call cell phone numbers, and only poll people who voted in the last Republican primary.

Paul is polling at a minimum of 22% in all the college polls that I have seen. College kids often do not have land lines and rarely voted four years ago.

Ron Paul supporters will show up to vote. Double his polling numbers and then start adding the youth vote. If Paul reach 15% in any scientific poll, in any state, he has a real chance to win that state. He is currently winning in Alaska(27%), polling at 11% in South Carolina, 10% in Nevada, 9% in new Hampshire, and 9% in Iowa. These facts have been barely reported by the main stream media.

It is beginning to seem that the first honest poll we will see will be at the polls. All the experts will come up with excuses when Paul starts winning states. None will admit that they were spoon fed their "expert" opinions that Paul was a fringe candidate.

Ron Paul is currently the leading candidate in the Republican nomination process for a presidential candidate in 2008.

Deal.

Posted by Will Hayes | December 17, 2007 9:42 AM

RON PAUL for president - MSM is being left behind, who watches MSN for news? nothing but yesterdays tabloid TV.

Posted by lw | December 17, 2007 9:47 AM

The constant harping on poll numbers gets increasingly tiresome. There is a clear disconnect between what the pollsters are claiming (that Ron Paul is a second tier marginal candidate) and what is actually happening (that he has become an internet sensation, that he has taken the lead in fund raising, and that he wins most polls that are open to the public). It's not left versus right that matters any more. The real division is between authority and personal liberty.

I am a 49 year old college educated professional who used to describe myself as a P.J O'Rourke conservative. ( non-religious former devotee of the sex, drugs, and rock and roll lifestyle who opposes the nanny state and favored conservatism for primarily economic reason) This time around I am solidly behind Ron Paul

Posted by Kevin | December 17, 2007 9:53 AM

If McCain and Huckabee are so much more likely to win, where is his support on the ground? Why are they having trouble raising numbers like the monetarily? Do these people responding to the phone polls really care if they win? Are they going to get off their couch on election day? Perhaps their numbers are greater, but Paul's supporters are more devoted and you can bet every last one of them are going to be punching a ballot...or bleeping a touchscreen. The numbers that matter are the ones who show up. That remains completely to be seen, but I think the dollar signs give you the greatest prediction of representation.

Posted by Josh | December 17, 2007 9:53 AM

What a strange world we live in when a Republican candidate who calls for the end of an illegal war, abolishment of the income tax and the securing of our national borders would be considered a "longshot". The majority of Americans support these views. The media has latched onto Mike Huckabee hoping that they can foist this wolf in sheeps clothing on a gullable American public. Huckabee is a warmonger who will spread the war into Iran. While govenor he raised income taxes, offered a free ride to the illegals that were lucky enough to make their way to his home state. I do not agree with everything Ron Paul says. I am pro-chice and could care less if gay people get married. But I will no longer allow these wedge issues to lead me to cast a vote based on these things. I am a supporter of Ron Paul and have come to view him as the only hope for the once great country.

Posted by allison | December 17, 2007 9:55 AM

Of course, the Media is TOLD what to tell US, THE VIEWERS. Question How come when ron paul had only two million dollars, they used to call him the dark horse and so many other names. Now Huckabee has only one million , but he has debts, and he is the one that can manage the country? Ron Paul had two millions and no debts, now he has 18 million and still no debts what does that tell you?

Posted by vicky | December 17, 2007 10:05 AM

Who is Ron Paul?

Posted by Koh Choon Lin | December 17, 2007 10:05 AM

Does anyone believe the media's "polls" anymore anyway. Aren't they all just manipulations of the truth. Ron Paul has earned more money, has more volunteers than all the other candidates combined, has won the most straw polls, and has won ALL the online polls and text polls.

Don't believe masonic organizations like Rasmussen and Gallup pollsters. They are LIARS just like Frank Luntz. ALL the polls they mention in the MSM are bullshit, period.

Posted by Jeremy Trudell | December 17, 2007 10:06 AM

Here is a little anecdote about how the Plain Old Telephone Surveys (POTS) work:

Three friends and I were standing around talking politics and one asked the other "Who are you voting for in the primary?"

The one who was asked is a very pro-life RN.

She: "Oh - I don't know, Giuliani I guess."

Us (in unison): "Giuliani? But he's pro-choice." ("and publicly funded pro-choice to boot" I added)

She: "Oh I don't know, I just said the first name that popped into my head. I'm going to do my homework before I vote, but here and now, it's the only name I could think of."

And that is exactly how the POTS works. People are going about their day, with a million other things on their minds, when the pollster calls. "If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?" They say the first name that sounds familar.

If the election were really being held today, they would have done their homework last night, and they would give you a reasoned answer that truly reflects their preferences.

Later.

Posted by Kevin Houston | December 17, 2007 10:12 AM

First they ignored him, then they laughed at him, then they fought him, then he won.

Posted by Joe Reitman | December 17, 2007 10:14 AM

It has been quite a few years since I have read a printed newspaper, it has been years since I have watched news on the television, until recently, and that has only been because I wanted to see how much the msm is really ignoring Ron Paul. It is very obvious. I get my information from the internet, as do quite a few people in the world now a days. The old media once had it's place, but the people who really want information and those that will vote will turn to the internet, and that is why Ron Paul has such a big following.

http://ronpaul2008.com

Posted by Tess | December 17, 2007 10:23 AM

We have had the status quo for so long, it is easy to see why people view his campaign as a long shot. But changes do come, often suprisingly fast.

Ron Paul for peace and prosperity!

Posted by james m | December 17, 2007 10:26 AM

I'll get you Ron Paul, you and your little Paulinators too!!! Flying Huckabees ATTACK!!!

Posted by Hillary Clinton | December 17, 2007 10:30 AM

The thing is is that people were always "turned off" of politics prior to 9-11. Up to now, that's the way it's been, in comes Ron Paul and changes The People's perspective on how things "should be". America is standing up to everything that is and has been wrong with this country. Since RDr. Paul has entered the picture, the people that had given up are seeing the possiblities and are and will come out in droves. You di in fact, ignore us at your own peril. Fox News and CNN refuse to give credence to Dr. Paul and all of his supporters and are at the forefront of the MSM and its losing of credibility. The lobby-donors are already maxed out for all the other candidates but as for RP's donors, we can still give and give and....

Posted by Pleefer | December 17, 2007 10:34 AM

"...we dismiss his impact at our peril."

It's not too late. You can still be the first MSMers to say what more and more of find to be a fact, not only does Ron Paul have a chance to win the Republican nomination, but that chance is growing increasingly more likely every day.

There's still a lot of room on this bandwagon...or is that bandblimp? Come on aboard!

Posted by TJF | December 17, 2007 10:36 AM

Could someone educate me please? Is there a standard profile of an "average" Ron Paul supporter and will his financial support turn into votes?

It's amazing that he's raising the money he is but it's not translating into poll numbers.

Posted by Ben | December 17, 2007 10:38 AM

I freakin' LOVE Ron Paul. I'd take a bullet for that man.

Saint Paul with drive a stake through the heart of Hillary.

BTW: Who ever wrote "Flying Huckabees ATTACK!" LOL!, I almost blew my coffee out my nose.

Posted by Tim | December 17, 2007 10:49 AM

Ron Paul will be speaking at the closing ceremonly of the 2008 New Hamphshire Liberty Forum on January 6, 2008.
http://www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum
Prior to that, two days of speakers discusing moving liberty forward.

Posted by Jon | December 17, 2007 10:49 AM

"The challenge he'll face from us MSMers is simple..."

You have it backwards and are showing your elitist slip.

The challenge the MSM faces from the citizens is to get your butts on the train that's now leaving the station or be left behind. Ron Paul broke two fundraising records in two months and the MSM didn't see it coming either time.

The press exists to expose the corruption in government but thus far the MSM has been suporting it. Get it in gear or you'll soon be irrelevant and looking for a job.

Posted by Jamie | December 17, 2007 10:49 AM

Ben,
His support does not translate into poll numbers because polls only accept answers from people that voted for the incumbent Bush in the 2004 primary (about 4% of registered republicans). So essentially the polls track the opinion of the same people up until primary day.

Posted by pumaz | December 17, 2007 10:50 AM

But there is no way that Paul can even come close to winning. Some deep-pocketed libertarians do not make a political movement.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | December 17, 2007 10:51 AM

A group of paranoid conspiracy theorists joined by another group of naive idealists following their leader who espouses throwback/radical/isolationist ideas that may or may not be good for America - but would never come to pass in the incredibly small chance that RP could win the nomination and then go on to become POTUS.

I admire the enthusiasm and the dream. But a bit of reality is is in order. Also, do something about the paranoia. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Just what America needs - the gold standard and isolation.

Posted by slick | December 17, 2007 11:06 AM

What many who worry about Dr. Pauls personal opinions on abortions, gay marriage, and so on and so forth, are missing the point. Remember that his goal is to limit the Federal Governments ability to force its one view and position over everyone in every state. States will have to decide where they stand on issues, local politics will become important again because so much more will be at stake.

Getting the Fed out of running our daily lives? Who can't get behind that?

I'm a 24 year Navy Veteran and former disenfranchised republican turned green party member. But Dr Paul has brought me to a GOP that has hope for tommorow and he has my Vote all the way.

Posted by David Harkness | December 17, 2007 11:07 AM

"Some" libertarians, matt? How about over a 100,000 this quarter. What other GOP candidate can say that. We have this assumption that, even though more people show up for Ron Paul rallies and speeches than anybody else, even though more Ron Paul supporters show up at most straw polls, pay their money, wait patiently through whatever stupid speeches they must endure and then vote for their man than anybody else, and even though more people actually give their hard-earned money to support Ron Paul than anybody else, yet still 'clearly' he has 'no chance' and the so-called 'frontrunner' have more of a chance. Where are all these voters for the front-runners going to come from? All these really bored people who don't even care to go a rally for Giuliani are going to show up like locusts at the primary voting booth? Maybe, but maybe not...

Posted by Xon | December 17, 2007 11:07 AM

slick, perhaps you could enlighten us all as to how the gold stnadard is a bad idea. And while you're out it you could defend the Fed for us. Good luck!

Posted by Xon | December 17, 2007 11:09 AM

This is not the movement of a few rich libertarians. Yesterday Ron Paul had over 25,000 new donors. November 5th, Representative Paul had over 40,000 individual donors.

His voters will show up to vote. They vote on every online poll and win every straw poll. Rudy McRomnabee is splitting up 6% of the Republican Party. Ron Paul is getting about 25% of the rest.

Food for thought.

Posted by Will Hayes | December 17, 2007 11:11 AM

Ron Paul can win! Read, President Ron Paul – Could He Really Win?

Learn how outside economic and foreign policy events just might elect Ron Paul.
http://www.ronaldholland.com/presidentronpaul.htm is a two part article on how current events outside the political process could elect Ron Paul as President.

Posted by Ron Holland | December 17, 2007 11:13 AM

Is the media counting on EVERYONE to be brain dead? There is a glaring disconnect in their every statement about Ron Paul.

How can he raise more money than the others and still be called a "longshot"? Even the all-powerful corrupted special interests cannot afford to fund the others to compete with the level Ron's grassroots fundraising.
So, who's the longshot??

And I just love the stupidity of the whole "he's popular online but not the real world" statement. Um, the internet IS THE REAL WORLD. The true uncensored voice of the people on the street. How can the media deem themselves credible and relevant when they are so out of touch with their own viewers?

The establishment polls are rigged and therefore meaningless. There are a few videos on youtube that illustrate this for the 99% of the population who have never been called. Basically, Ron Paul is not listed as an option - only the CFR "frontrunners". However, in unfettered online and locally held straw polls Ron Paul consistently wins by a landslide.

Ron Paul supporters are impassioned and educated.
With frequent rallies and thousands of meetup groups and many many millions in donations, how can the media keep a straight face while trumpeting the "frontrunners"? Indeed, where are the "real word" supporters of the "frontrunners"? I don't see any!

With such a bias media it is perhaps easier to communicate with them in their own language: Money. How can they expect to attract and retain advertisers to stay afloat with an ever declining viewership growing in awareness of their inept rationale and not showing who the people want to see?

The internet: 1
"Real world": 0

Posted by Human with Eyes and Brain | December 17, 2007 11:15 AM

you had to throw in .. "we don't think he is going to win" as your disclaimer?
report news we do not care what what you think.

I think I have never seen a field so divided and if ever there was a chance for someone like Paul it would be now.

If Huckabee can have no money and go from 0% to a front runner in Iowa in a few weeks why not Paul? Unlike Mike (and the others) Ron Paul has the record to back up what he says. The only place he is much different is on the war which is why Republicans lost last year...
It is a perfect storm for Ron Paul with tons of money, disatisfaction with the other 7 in the race who are all pro war, perfect voting record on key issues, 20 years in the house, HE ALSO HAS WON MORE STRAW POLLS THAN AYONE ELSE!!!!
just keep what you think based on the national polls because that is all that is a true measure right???

Posted by libertynow | December 17, 2007 11:18 AM

Can't you just picture a guy in a straitjacket rocking himself back and forth uttering over and over, "He'll never win.. He'll never win.. He'll never win..."

Posted by J.P. | December 17, 2007 11:21 AM

Xon,

I think you're confused.

1) It is up to those proposing the changes to convince us of the merit of those changes - not the other way around. As someone who has been around the loveable goldbugs for about 3 decades, they are great at tellimg us all the evils of fiat dollar - but never quite convince as to why the gold standard would be a good thing to return to.

2) The dumb shot about the Fed is really beneath you - I hope. Aren't you RP supporters supposed ot be openminded? Shouldn't that include not judging people without knowing where they stand. And while I'm on the subject, why is that RP supporters have such thin skin. That's always a bad sign when people can't handle being questioned or face the reality that other people dont' see things the way they do. It's funny, people have been accusing Romney's LDS of being a cult, but RP supporters frequently behave in a cultish manner. One thing I've seen plenty of is where they pretend that those who don't share their views are simply ignorant or unaware of Paul's positions - rather than having to face the uncomfortable reality that people just don't agree with RP's positions.

RP is against many things and would like to see change. Me too. But he doesn't have better solutions. I wish he did. e.g. Isolationism is no answer.

And the reason that RP won't go much further - no matter how much money he raises - is because the fringe is such a minority. I know you think you aren't, but you are. Most Americans are not isolationists, and won't buy what RP is selling.

I predict he'll do well in NH - but not win. Maybe 17%. 3rd place. And that's probably the best he'll do. Enjoy your 15 minutes.

Posted by slick | December 17, 2007 11:22 AM

"Not everything is a conspiracy."

In politics, most everything is the result of blocs working together to achieve a goal. When the goals and workings of those blocs aren't discussed in the media, it reeks of conspiracy. The media goes to town on a daily basis shrieking about the various "Islamofascist" conspiracies.

The Federal Reserve and the IRS are most certainly conspiracies against the American people. There's a reason that the history of the founding of these odious agencies aren't taught in government-funded schools.

Posted by Jamie | December 17, 2007 11:22 AM

Ron Paul already has over $18 million dollars raised so far this quarter. He will almost certainly raise $20 million or more by the end of the month.
The other Republican candidates will likely raise just half that amount. Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama will most likely raise about $20 million dollars.

NO other Republican can outspend Hillary. Only Ron Paul has enough fundraising to keep Clinton our of office.

A vote for any Republican other than Ron Paul is a vote for Hillary.

JM

Posted by James Maynard | December 17, 2007 11:23 AM

"Isolationism is no answer."

That attempted smear is no longer viable. You'll need a new one.

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism.

Posted by Jamie | December 17, 2007 11:24 AM

This 6 million bucks in one day is incredible. What it really says is Ron Paul's message is contagious. Tell you friends and family about Ron Paul at Christmas dinner. The freedom message resonates with everyone, but not everyone does their homework. We have to spread the word.

Posted by Steve | December 17, 2007 11:24 AM

Every 4 years, I see the same thing. One group or another of idealists jump on a bandwagon. And then it fizzles out or they become disillusioned (i.e. are sold out). This happened with the Deaniacs last election. This year it's Ron Paul's turn.

Best of luck to all of you. I sincerely hope you do well. I am all in favour of the establishment being rocked. All I ask is that you be REALISTIC.

RP does not have the answers. I think most of you want somethign different, and that you aren't really looking at what the replacement is. That's dangerous.

Posted by slick | December 17, 2007 11:27 AM

Ron Paul will enter the primaries and caucuses with the most money on hand, plus the most numerous, most geographically disbursed, and most passionate volunteers. He runs the most frugal and adaptable campaign. He pulls supporters from across the political spectrum because of his consistency and principles, and frankly, you can actually believe what he says. He is a 10-term Congressman from a District that is majority Democrat, so he knows how to not let partisanship get in the way.

Who is the most viable GOP candidate now?

Posted by Brian H | December 17, 2007 11:28 AM

>

Yes, that's why RP was excluded from the debates!

Oh, wait a minute....

"reeks of conspiracy"?

Thank you for proving my point.

Posted by slick | December 17, 2007 11:28 AM

Well, Matt who posted the www.political-buzz.com; you are sorely and completely mistaken about the connotation of the "few" supporters . . . "Some deep-pocketed libertarians do not make a political movement" is where the money is coming from. Even if if the $6.4 million was from the whole $2,300 available to each contributor, it would still be about 2,800 contributors, but keep in mind that the Ron Paul site reported that nearly 60,000 contributed an average of about $105. Wake up Matt!

Posted by Steve LaBianca | December 17, 2007 11:29 AM

"Some" = 100,000+ individual contributors
"Deep Pocketed" = $105 average contribution
Goal for the quarter at the start of the quarter=
$12M
Achieved by midnight Sunday night= $18M ( 50% over goal )
Contributed ( not pledges, real spendable FRNs) yesterday = $6 million+ from 55,000+ distinct contributions.
Goal for the quarter now = $20 million.
Debts owed = $0
Self Financing = $0 ( you might enjoy comparing the self financing number for Romney. And yes Mitt can easily beat the $6 million Dr Paul achieved just by loaning his campaign some more money.)

Posted by CK | December 17, 2007 11:29 AM

"All I ask is that you be REALISTIC."

Is this a Royalist quote circa 1776?

Posted by Jamie | December 17, 2007 11:30 AM

>

Of course it is!

Semantics?

Call it whatever you like, it amounts to the same thing.

I know you'll never accept this, because you have drunk the kool-aid, but RP does not have the answer.

I agree there are problems. OK? We all see that very clearly. We are on the same side in that regard. Please understand this.

But...RP has no idea how to really fix those ideas. I know you won't accept that, but it's the truth. Simple, outadted ideas are not going to solve the problems of the USA/modern world.

Posted by slick | December 17, 2007 11:32 AM

"RP has no idea how to really fix those ideas. "

Bringing all troops home from all countries, dismantling the Empire, dismantling the Fed and the IRS all sound like great ideas to me. What's your issue with them?

Posted by Jamie | December 17, 2007 11:36 AM

RP - the new religion.

Best of luck folks! Go Ron Go! lol.

Have a good one...

Posted by slick | December 17, 2007 11:36 AM

It's hilarious to see some ignorant people continue to parrot the Old Media's lies verbatim. There is a huge difference between isolationism and non-intervention, but some can't even figure out this very simple FACT. You don't have to believe me, just look it up in a dictionary. Furthermore, the current policies are in reality isolationist such as embargoes, sanctions, alienating allies while starting pre-emptive wars, etc.. But the real $6 million dollar question is why are some people incapable of thinking for themselves and instead have to rely on a higher entity to spoon feed them? Imo this is the crux of our problem, but fortunately this is changing, although not quick enough, as more people are beginning to feel the side affects of the current times. ie: The age of information.

Peace

Posted by USAforPaul | December 17, 2007 11:39 AM

Slick says:"RP does not have the answers. I think most of you want somethign different, and that you aren't really looking at what the replacement is. That's dangerous."

I've been following Ron Paul for nearly a decade. His answers are the correct answers. You can't fix a corrupt government using the tools of a corrupt government. The ONLY hope for America (the people) is to return the united States (the government) to its rightful place as the protector rather than usurper of liberty.

Posted by Justaguy | December 17, 2007 11:40 AM

Our blog entries and our financial contributions may or may not be of interest to journalists covering the elections, but Paul caucus and primary victories will be give a cold, rude awakening to the major media. The regional and local press are largely giving the major media a clinic on balanced, analytical, and varied coverage of the political candidates. Those of us observing this - supporters of any of the candidates - are waking up to just how much a tool of the establishment the major broadcast and print media has become. Think William Randolph Hearst on yellow journalism steroids.

Posted by Darryl Schmitz | December 17, 2007 11:41 AM

You know, the problem with the "MSMers" is the fact that you guys assume you know who is "electable" or who the American people want as their next candidate. But you guys assume wrong.

For some strange reason you hold inaccurate, very limited phone polls high up on some pedestal but completely disregard online polls, text messaging polls and straw polls.

Why is that? Why do you assume you know who Americans will choose as their next candidate. Well it's not your job to assume. It' only makes you look like an ASS! It's your job to report the news and provide ALL candidates fair and equal coverage until the first of the Primaries and Caucus's begin.

It's for this reason that you are no longer considered "Main-Stream media". Nope, you guys have lost touch. Organizations such as yours are now considered "Old Media" as you have completely lost touch with society.

Posted by Adam | December 17, 2007 11:42 AM

I find it interesting that the MSM catergorizes Dr. Paul's supporters as fringe nutcase elements from the right and left. On every message board that I read I come across nothing but thoughtful and intelligent arguments for Ron Paul's candidacy. I was going to donate $100.00 yesterday but decided to donate $150.00 instead. I am proud to be a small part of this rEVOLution! Stand up for FREEDOM and LIBERTY and vote for Ron Paul in 2008!

Posted by Jim | December 17, 2007 11:42 AM

wrong numbers

Posted by nick | December 17, 2007 11:46 AM

Just took a break from weed eating the UFO landing pad I have in back of my fallout shelter to read some of the comments here. I get tired of the stereotypes. You want to know a "typical" Ron Paul supporter? Someone who holds themselves accountable for their own actions, and would appreciate the courtesy of others to do the same. Someone who doesnt like their tax money wasted on the pet programs of career politicians that only serve to the increase the size of government. Someone who believes the constitution actually means something and isnt "just a god@#$% piece of paper" as our current President so eloquently referred to it. Someone who feels we should be rebuilding our country instead of everyone else's. So excuse me if my Aluminum Foil Beanie is sitting a little too tight on my head this morning, and by the way Slick, my Toaster just called you a JERK!

Posted by Jayson Gould | December 17, 2007 11:48 AM

Not isolationist, he is for non-intervention. Also if anyone has really checked out his stance concerning the gold standard, you see he is more against the fed artificially setting rates than he is about the currency. It won't happen overnight, but his idea of making gold and silver competing currencies along with treasury notes AND backing those notes with gold and silver and other things with intrinsic value (land for instance, priced in gold monetary rates) has a lot of merit. Today our dollar is backed by the military, and is the reserve currency for oil priced in reserve dollars. Very volatile situation, and we have paid the price for it, several times over.

Posted by Justin Smith | December 17, 2007 11:48 AM

115,000 people have contributed to Ron Paul's campaign this quarter. Many of us, like myself, have never donated to a candidate and have never voted in a primary. This is a campaign by and for the people, and we do not need the main stream media. Media outlets that continue to ignore Ron Paul will continue to look like fools when people hear everyone talking about him, see signs everywhere, and get on the internet.

The Ron Paul message is LIBERTY, PROSPERITY, and PEACE!

Posted by Allison Lukens | December 17, 2007 11:49 AM

The challenge Paul faces with you "MSMers" is getting you to put fallacious "scientific polls" into perspective and start reporting him in the same way and frequency as the others... you know, the ones who win far fewer real-world straw polls, receive less campaign donations from enlisted families, and don't raise $6 Million in one day? Yeah, you know... the "frontrunners." I challenge you to start covering Paul in the same articles as the others... see what happens then. What are ya? Chicken?

Posted by DRUMS of WAR | December 17, 2007 11:53 AM

Ron Paul was exculded from one of the debates in Iowa and this is also a fact, but someone who confuses two opposite words such as isolationism with non-intervetion might have a hard time understanding this also and thus label it a conspiracy theory. It sounds like this not so slick person is the one who suffers from the effects of the Old Media's kool-aid. And btw, that Republican debate drew 600 or so attendees combined while Paul's event next door drew almost twice that amount. I guess the internets spammers figured out a way to morph themselves into tens if not hundreds of thousand Dr. Paul supporters. Now that sounds like a conspiracy theory or how about the one where FAUX Lies claimed that George Soros was secretly funding Paul's campaign while in reality the owner of that network, Murdoch, is backing Hillary.

Posted by USAforPaul | December 17, 2007 11:53 AM

Has anyone noticed that RP gained in North Carolina in the "official" polls once the blimp started flying around that state? It generated a lot of local media coverage there. They're putting the second banner on it tonight -- it's unprecedented that that they got it off the ground as quick as they did. It usually takes months.

They need more money to keep it in the air. So, go and give them some!

http://ronpaulblimp.com/

Posted by Tracker | December 17, 2007 11:55 AM

So 'slick',

Speaking of kool-aid, are you one of those in the mainstream (soon to be fringe) who believe we can actually finance the .. we'll call it non-isolationism of which you speak?

Do you believe this can be done without us seeing the dollar collapse and economy crumble? The rest of the world is starting to refuse the dollar, allies unpeg weekly, and now they have the gaul to stop buying our debt (except for the good ol Brits. A sharp drop in the dollar will destroy the dollar denominated savings of the the soon to be retired baby boomer generation who are all supposedly so safe in their bonds, annuities and cash ... thereby causing a domestic crisis like we have not seen in our life time.

Dr. Paul's specific answer to try and shore up the situation is to apply the savings from a less extravagant foreign policy to our current domestic problems. With that, we would get the added benefit of reducing the level of hatred in the world in all of the countries/regions that we currently occupy.

And I suppose proposals of returning to sound money, or at least allowing it to be used competitively in the marketplace are kooky when coming from Dr. Paul, but sane when coming from a Nobel laureate like Hayek?

Would you have us continue to support another statist like Bush? To keep the growth in government on that exponential curve upward?

What does someone as knowledgeable as yourself think of candidates who don't even approach these topics?

National Debt 01/20/2001 : $5.727 Trillion
National Debt 12/06/2007 : $9.168 Trillion
National Debt Growth : 60% Since 01/20/2001

Social Security, Medicare and other Unfunded Liabilities
Major Fiscal Exposures 2000 : $20.4 Trillion
Major Fiscal Exposures 2007 : $50.5 Trillion
Major Fiscal Exposures Growth : 147% Since 2000

Presidential Budget Total Outlays 2001 : $1.863 Billion
Presidential Budget Total Outlays 2007 : $2.784 Billion
Presidential Budget Total Outlays Growth : 49% Since 2001

True GAAP Deficit 2006 : $4.6 Trillion

New York Board of Trade Dollar Index January 2001 : 112
New York Board of Trade Dollar Index December 2007 : 76
New York Board of Trade Dollar Index Loss : 32%

None, but Ron Paul will deal with this in the way that is required. The other candidates won't even acknowledge it

Posted by Chad | December 17, 2007 11:56 AM

I think its DISGUSTING that the censored media is under control of a few people...If any other Candidate had raised over 6Million in 24 hours it would have made the front page of every newspaper out there! It would have been the top topic of every network...
My prayer is that the average person will see this lack of mention in the news and ask why would the media ignore a Candidate that speaks on the issues of Americans soul, heart and given rights...
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

Fellow Americans do your research on the issues we face and the Candidates actions...Don't fall victim to the placation of many Candidates as well as the media...Show them the people control this country not the corporations!

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

Posted by ladiliberty | December 17, 2007 11:58 AM

The problem, Mr. Ambinder, is that it is not your job as a journalist to decide for the rest of us who is and is not a viable candidate. Your job is to simply report news. The level of editorial bias concerning Dr. Paul is disgusting. You don't dismiss him at your own peril. What you do when you categorically ignore a presidential candidate is stifle debate/dialogue. A dialogue, I might add, this country desperatly needs right now. You do the opposite of the very thing a healthy media is supposed to foster. You ignore him at the peril of all of us. Common decency should dictate that journalists give every candidate the same shot, at the very least you could give him some time on air or in print without the constant reminder that "he's not going to win the nomination." It's gotten old. Write something new.

Posted by Trout | December 17, 2007 12:00 PM

Since the establishment will almost certainly find a way to prevent Ron Paul from getting his party's nomination, those of us who love America and the U.S. Constitution as it was written and intended to be interpretted by the Founders need to be thinking of what to do next. All in favor of seceding from the Union and declaring Ron Paul our 1st president RAISE YOU RIGHT HAND!

Posted by Kurt S | December 17, 2007 12:01 PM

Slick,

In response to your comment about the proponent of change has the burden of convincing voters of his ideas, I agree. We are not upset that people might disagree, or that some are ignorant of his views. It is that he is not being given the same pulpit other candidates are afforded from which to preach his views. We are being shut out by lack of msm coverage. I appreciate the fact that you have thought it through and disagree. We need more voters to think it through. I would just like to see some fairness in the coverage.

Posted by Jim | December 17, 2007 12:02 PM

I am going to deny my child some expensive Christmas presents this year so I can financially support Ron Pauls quest to fight the "system" that has erroded our country. In effect, I will be giving her the best gift any parent can, A FUTURE.

Posted by Ready For A Change | December 17, 2007 12:02 PM

I keep hearing and reading comments regarding Ron Paul advocating "isolationism". That is simply ridiculous. It is about time that a true Republican patriot like Ron Paul is being heard. You talk about conspiracies...the conspiracy of ruling this nation through fear is about to end. This administration has used fear to take our country to war, and it is burying us in debt. I am an active duty member of the armed forces, and I am fed up with hearing various senators talk about "I was with the troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving, and the message I hear is, Let us win!" Sitting down with people picked to sit with senators because they are proven yes men, and toe the party line doesn't give one a sense of the situation. Everyone, from the public to the military want these wars to end. That is the truth, plain and simple. If these senators want to wage war, I suggest they either go themselves, or send their children and grandchildren off to fight. This isn't right, and I fully reject the premise of pre-emptive war as being in our national interest. Nobody in this administration has been able or willing to do anything that is truly in our national interest. Good, informed foreign policy, compassion, and intelligent diplomacy do not an "isolationist" make. I feel that Ron Paul is the only chance we have to dig ourselves out of this morass we are in, and restore the prestige of our once great country. Any other candidate will just carry on the business as usual.

Posted by Retro-con | December 17, 2007 12:05 PM

Honestly, I'm supporting Ron Paul because I love watching political commentators' heads explode as they try to dismiss his candidacy.

Also, I'm mostly following politics nowadays for its comedic value. Who needs the Daily Show when you have Alan Keyes's "womb" references, Mike Gravel's dadaist internet ads, and Ron Paul's blimp? Priceless.

And, btw, Ron Paul won't win the Republican nomination . . . do you really think that the machine will let him win all the caucuses? Remember, guys: they cheat. Sorry.

Posted by S.G.E.W. | December 17, 2007 12:08 PM

how come nobody talks about that freaking-cheating neocons operated diebold machine, please i urge all our young brainy computer scientist to try to invent something about it what i mean try to account the REAL votes, we can have the most money, the highest number of supporters for voting but the bottom line is who controls and double cheks or if there is a chance to supervise every single votes so the next big homework for ron paul supporters is to form a nationwide vote checking volunter groups just like we have meeting groups.
this is a dead serious issue and if we able to do that than hire the most experienced bodyguard group for ron paul, of course never let him fly commercialy and have an extra supermechanic 24hrs
with him when he flys privetjet, the neocons dont like he will withdraw financial aid to israel thats the first of the many things they are pissed off and of course all news madia controlled by jews thats why he will never get any fair treatment, wolf blitzer asked ron paul everytime if he will run independent ron paul should told him at the 10th times hey wolf which part of the no you dont understand...........
i just want my vitamins,and dont want to be chiped or vacunated so only ron paul

Posted by laszlo horvath | December 17, 2007 12:11 PM

How many candidates do you know that receives support from countries outside this one? If you youtube Ron Paul you will see his signs and billboards supporting him in countries like Germany, UK, Switzerland, France, etc. These are the people that sees through corporate media and understands what it takes to get this country back to where it needs to be. Peace with nations and sound economy. Ron Paul fights for us, not the special interests. And the polls?... History is repeating itself as we speak, and people look at polls to select their candidate for the primaries? sad...

Posted by Nik Dan | December 17, 2007 12:11 PM

"It might not seem fair, but in the projective calculus of the Republican nomination, the ability to put together a broad coalition of voters is a necessary limit."

Uh, Marc, ever been to a Ron Paul rally? You are whacking Ron Paul for being weak on one of his most impressive stengths: broadspread appeal. Come on, do your homework!

Posted by Paul | December 17, 2007 12:11 PM

It is about time that there is a Ron Paul that has been able to come out from behind the wall of the MSM and offer the American People a REAL option. I have been waiting for someone to restore the Republic and to help educate the people about the Constitution.

People, if you vote for anyone else, you are voting your own rights away. If you allow the IRS and the Federal Reserve to continue, you allow you and your children to continually be robbed. The social programs are living off of the money that has been forced from others. Charity is the result of money being given willingly, and having it taken from our paychecks to pay for others is stealing, it is wrong. Plain and simple.

We do not need Big government to care for the people, we can care for those around us. Our taxes are almost at 50% of our income! (When you look at all the real taxes on us) and the debt of this war is already being pushed off on the next SEVERAL generations!! Debt is BONDAGE. We are enslaving ourselves and our children's future to let it continue. It is time that we return to the Constitution, before Directive 51 is put in place.

(Directive 51, if there is an attack or emergency the US president can become a dictator, the Constitution tossed to the side, and Marshal Law in place. Congress cannot even do anything about it for 6 months, which is more then enough time to disband congress too)

There is so much more then this... But these things should be glaringly obvious to any American!!

Posted by Charity Angel | December 17, 2007 12:13 PM

Jayson, ROFL, nice post.

Dont worry about slick, he's jaded cause he really WANTS to believe, he LOVES the taste of the kool-aid, but he's been hurt before by other false prophets who didn't stack up, didn't walk the walk, couldn't cash the checks their mouths were writing. He doesn't want to be hurt again, and is afraid that if he investigates Ron Paul for himself for 10 minutes, he'll come to know what the rest of us know: Ron's the real deal.

Slick,
It's okay that your hurting, we feel your pain, we've all been let down before. Frankly I didn't think Ron would resonate as well as he has, I'm jaded in a different way: I have grown to believe that too many Americans are ignorant of their Constitution, of their history, and of the sacrifices of the past, and are playing out the role once played by the plebes when the Roman Republic transitioned to an Empire: selling their votes for bread and circuses.

I do have hope that the internet is awakening people to their own power to create the change they wish to see in the world, as Gandhi proposed. Will it be enough? I do not know, but I have to try, and if Ron Paul doesn't meet the challenge, I will try again with someone else. I am hopeful and positive that Ron is the real deal and can go the distance. "For evil to triumph, only requires that good men do nothing".

Posted by Mike Lorrey | December 17, 2007 12:13 PM

Final the light is going on, watch all the human/cockroaches scurry about. Ron Paul!

Posted by a | December 17, 2007 12:15 PM

Hey slick i guess you got your tail handed too you by RP.

Your right though he doesn't have all the answers, but he has more since than anyone else running

Posted by RPlover | December 17, 2007 12:20 PM

Ron Paul promises to "undo" much of what has been "done" to America. The minute I heard that message I began to breathe easier...liberty was mentioned. My load felt lighter immediately. Dr. Paul talks of restoring America's reputation and credibility around the world which has taken a beating for so long.

I have searched for all of my life for a politician who would promise me nothing more than restoring the rights endowed by my Creator as promised in the Constitution. Smaller government with less intervention in my daily life and the lives of others around the globe. Sweet fresh air!

I am not a lunatic nutjob. I own my own business. I have raised two children and know that this is NOT the America I want to leave to them. I never thought I would live to see a day when torture by Americans would have to be debated on the world stage. I am ashamed for being quiet for so long. That all changed yesterday when I decided that I could contribute to the change offered by Ron Paul and I did so. How much is this country worth to those who live here? Quite a lot judging by the numbers yesterday.

The msm is not the solution. It is part of the problem. People who write for it are are facing extinction in the not too distant future. Why? Because they cannot report plain facts anymore. Everything must be colored with their own opinions. Fine, they are entitled to those opinions but they are NOT entitled to report those opinions as if they are facts. That is the state of the msm today and it will be what brings about its downfall. No news reporter's opinion is worth more than anyone else's and I resent them using their broad platforms to push their opinion on me.

Polls are worth less than fake "opinion facts". I have voted since I became eligible to vote and have never been polled. I have two landlines. I have to ask just whom the pollsters are calling? Bush's Rangers? Hillary's Hellions?

Ignore the faith-based opinion reporters as we make our quiet but inexorable march toward Washington. I hope to see many of my fellow citizens there for a Ron Paul victory party. Until then, ponder what America is worth to you personally. Ask yourself if this the America you want your children to inherit; a bleak land of being spied upon where torture and war are acceptable and only the degrees of these conditions are debated.

If you find it unacceptable as I did, donate. If you can't donate, volunteer. Every person is important and it is your right and duty to take this country back from those who have damaged her so badly.

Posted by Edie Calhoun | December 17, 2007 12:23 PM

The reality YOU face from us Main Stream Americans is that you've proven that you are out of touch with reality and oblivious to a revolution and unprepared to face the reality of your impending demise.

Posted by Brian | December 17, 2007 12:24 PM

I am not a Retardlican. This isn't a hidden vain. This is the blood of American soldiers and Iraqi children haunting the military industrial complex.

This is the guilt of knowing it was a lie, and doing it anyway.

This is "I told you so" on tombstones.

This is the last stand of intelligence attempting to stop the inevitable fall into the new dark age.

RP 2008

Posted by Earl E | December 17, 2007 12:25 PM

"One group or another of idealists jump on a bandwagon. And then it fizzles out or they become disillusioned"

There is a difference. This year, some people have been educated on what it means to be American. Whether they continue in the fight after Ron Paul is gone remains to be seen.

Posted by Mike Conder | December 17, 2007 12:27 PM

Dems can love Ron Paul too!

The only way in which I disagree with Ron Paul is on the environment. But frankly, I loathe all the other candidates, I contribute to Ron Paul and I will vote for him, regardless of his lack of support for my preferred environmental program.

Posted by Cynthia Johnson | December 17, 2007 12:27 PM

Consider this: The Republican race at this point has six viable candidates, and no clear national front-runner. If no one delivers a knockout blow in January, the race could still be scrambled after February 5th.

If that were to happen, who would be in better shape than Ron Paul to contest the remaining states? He will have more cash on hand than anyone but Romney, and the ability to raise more at the drop of a hat. The big-dollar donors of the other top tier candidates are pretty much tapped out.

On top of that, Ron Paul has over 85,000 volunteers signed up in over 1,000 cities nationwide.

Why do political "experts" continue to look solely at the polls, when Huckabee just showed in the past three weeks that they are pretty much meaningless? If you look at any other objective measure -- dollars raised, donors contributing, volunteers signed up, bumper stickers, crowd sizes, straw polls, sign wavers, YouTubes posted and watched, Internet comments, and momentum -- Ron Paul is blowing the field away.

Posted by Doug D | December 17, 2007 12:31 PM

Slick You said not everything is a conspricey

Your right I don't belive the outrageous one about a few guys with box cutters that penitrated the most protected air space in the world and smashed into the pentagon .
who came up with that anyway

Posted by Bill L | December 17, 2007 12:31 PM

whether ron paul wins the election or not the message is getting out to the general public in regards to the status of our current political system. the wool is being pulled off and sitting politicians who do not respond to the will of the people will suffer at their next election. ron paul will be remembered for generations to come and deservedly so! the msm is being exposed as tools of big business. the internet is the only current medium for totally free and open discussion.

Posted by bob a | December 17, 2007 12:31 PM

Big Factor: Unlike Hitlary and Julie Annie, Ron's money is coming from a large swath of ordinary Americans, not a handful of wealthy contributors.

Posted by VMan | December 17, 2007 12:32 PM

All I have to say to anyone who trys to discredit
Dr. Paul, is Action speaks louder then words. Our Candidate has raised more money then yours! We the people rasied it for Dr.Paul. When people unite and work together, no government, no party, no media outlet, or Corporations can stop us. If history has taught us everything it's that a revolution of the people always ways win.

Either you are with us or against us!

Posted by rob | December 17, 2007 12:39 PM

A "few deep pocketed libertarians" ????

Okay, I'm one of them, but chew on this:

Over 58,000 people donated yesterday.

The average donation was $102.

That doesn't sound very "deep pocketed" and it doesn't sound like "a few."

Posted by Doug D | December 17, 2007 12:40 PM

I am 40 years old and although I've voted in every presidential election, have never before donated to a presidential campaign (so far we've donated $200) and I've never voted in a primary. My 20 something year old son first told me about Ron Paul. He and at least 15 of his friends, and I and at least 15 other family members are all voting in the primaries for the first time ever. The polls are completely missing a majority of Paul's supporters.

Posted by Brenda | December 17, 2007 12:42 PM

Hi Marc, since you're a journalist, you may be able to help me track down the info I'm looking for. In 2003, during the same time in December (a couple weeks before the nations first primaries), John Kerry was polling at 4% nationally (lower than Paul is now). On the day before the NH primary (which Kerry won), he was polling at 7% in the state (1 point lower than Paul is now with more than 2 weeks left before the primary). What I am looking for are articles or editorials from 2003 that claim that Kerry doesn't deserve mainstream attention due to his poll numbers. I can find plenty of articles talking about Kerry's low numbers but none of them imply he doesn't have a chance nor do the imply the low poll numbers make him less deserving of coverage.

So, to sum up... Paul is raising more money than Kerry was at this point in the process in 2003, Paul is polling higher than Kerry was at this point in 2003, Paul is drawing much larger crowds than Kerry was at this point in 2003, Paul is running more advertisements than Kerry was at this point in 2003 but Paul is not yet considered a top tier candidate?!?!?! If this isn't the case, why wasn't the miracle nomination of Kerry in 2004 the story of the decade?!?! The question is rhetorical. I know the answer. The answer is that Kerry had the same solution as every other choice the major parties provide... government. When someone like Paul comes along and offers a different solution... something other than government... his support doesn't matter. I actually hope that it is some media group mentality (you know, like high school - where people would rather be wrong with the majority than right with the minority). Either that or a media conspiracy. I know that is silly but it keeps me from having to believe the only other option... that the majority of people in the media are so stupid that they themselves need to be told who to vote for.

Posted by Andrew | December 17, 2007 12:44 PM

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani tumbles down in the GOP primary of New York, in the state that is supposed to be "momentum-proof!"

Posted by Daniel | December 17, 2007 12:47 PM

I don't know why the focus is always "hardcore conservatives" and some democrats. Literally half the people in my Meetup group, myself included, have never voted Republican in our lives. Paul speaks to those who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. For years, we've voted Democratic because we didn't want the government shoving the religious right down our throats, but held our noses at the excessive spending in a sort of "lesser of two evils" approach to voting. Paul is changing that. His support is wider than the press might imagine because neither the Dems and the GOP don't really represent mainstream American.

Posted by Max in WA | December 17, 2007 12:48 PM

Doug,

These states will not only fail to pick the next president, they will only expose the big emergency.

That emergency is that all of the MSM candidates seen on the MSM Party Stations are not anti-war.

They ask themselves if they are going to allow another 4 years of war and printing dollars for china?

They want an anti-war candidate that they can believe. Most of these MSM party candidates don't even try and act like they are anti-war.

On November 5th, it will be a 5th of November to remember.

Posted by Earl E | December 17, 2007 12:49 PM

We've drunk the Kool-Aid? No, it's more like we unplugged ourselves from the matrix!

Posted by Tom Paine | December 17, 2007 12:50 PM

Wake up newspapers! It is not just a Republican minority that supports Dr. Ron Paul there are good folks like myself that woke up to sinister democrat globolization to support the people's candidate Dr. Ron Paul. It was simple, fill out a form and mail to clerk's office!

Posted by Susanne | December 17, 2007 1:05 PM

You severely underestimate Ron Paul's supporters. Few people vote in the primaries. ALL of Ron Paul's supporters will be participating in the primary elections and caucuses. Here's the proof! Another grassroots effort at:
http://www.thisfebruaryfifth.com

Posted by Ethan | December 17, 2007 1:05 PM

Everytime I see a Poll, I say a few words to Frank Lutz. :P

Posted by Chris | December 17, 2007 1:06 PM

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has the interest of WE THE PEOPLE in mind.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson 1816

"Allow me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild 1828

"You are a den of vipers! I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." President Andrew Jackson 1835

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." President Woodrow Wilson 1916

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson." President Franklin Roosevelt Nov. 21, 1933

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion
for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries"--David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting
in June of 1991

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!! WAKE UP AMERICA!

Posted by Tom Paine | December 17, 2007 1:07 PM

"The challenge he faces from us MSMers"?
Why don't you understand yet that the more you ignore or discount Paul, the louder his supporters get?
YOU set the challenge- we were just warming up.
It's on now!

P.S. Don'tcha you know- both the mainstream media and landline polls are HAS-BEENS! When I wake up in the morning, I fire up my laptop, I don't turn on network news on TV. Just like most of us!

Posted by A Mom in America | December 17, 2007 1:08 PM

If you want to find what the TV networks are trying to hide from you, simply Google: "Ron Paul 2008".

Better yet, donate today!

Posted by Jeff S. | December 17, 2007 1:09 PM

One question: if Romney/Thompso/McCain/Giuliani are such mainstream canidates with such great support, why don't they ever post? Except, of course, disparage Paul.

I've yet to read a cogent comment supporting any of the "first-tier" candidates.

So my challenge, "top-tier" supporters: Please give a cogent, reasonable and supported argument for your candidate. Please. I honestly like to weigh the alternatives.

Posted by TS Hayes | December 17, 2007 1:11 PM

There is one conclusion that must be acceded to:

Ron Paul rules the internets.

How well will this translate into national electoral politics? I guess we'll find out, now won't we . . . .

Posted by S.G.E.W. | December 17, 2007 1:18 PM

The MSM Polls are beginning to have the same kind of tilt the exit polls had when compared to the voting machines in Ohio's 2004 presidential election.

We don't need the MSM Nanny News anymore. We have the internet, Meetup.com, and Ron Paul has the money to buy the MSM to get his message out to the people.

Check out this video of Clint Curtis's sworn testimony before congress on December 13th regarding a million dollar bribe he turned down from Congressman Tom Feeney of Florida to write software to fix the election in Florida.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1050
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs

Isn't it amazing the MSM didn't find this story newsworthy.

Just like the votes on Diebold electronic voting machines, the fix is in on the MSM polls.

Posted by Meg | December 17, 2007 1:19 PM

Given the media has with malice and forethought ignored Ron Paul his success is most interesting.

Posted by MLA | December 17, 2007 1:22 PM

Thanks in large part to the MSM the majority of the public don’t even know who he is much less what his positions and political record are...

It doesn't appear that what passes for journalists in this day and age have the balls to report on non approved candidates.

Posted by A G | December 17, 2007 1:27 PM

For all the naysayers..

We had a tea party Ron Paul meetup last night in a small town. We advertised it in our local paper and Oh. My. God.

Would you believe 50 people showed up???

Get this, half of the people dont use the internet!!! They all saw the ad and decided to join us. It gets better.

Most of the new folks were older. Die hard classic Republicans. People who were there for the Goldwater movement. They all are very proud of Dr. Paul and happy to see someone with some common sense motivating people. We also had the head of the Liberitarian party for the state come by.

He was shocked. He told us that he's never seen that much enthusiasm for a candidate. He said the LP couldnt get that much support at the state level.

No matter what happens Ron Paul has won. For 30 years he has been fighting to cut government spending, lowering taxes and defending our rights. His message has tapped into the American dream. You dont need to be asleep to believe it anymore because his message wakes you up!

Last night people from every walk of life, Young, old, Republican, Democrat, Independent, veterans and a couple conspiracy believers came out to support Ron Paul.

The point is this, Ron Paul is uniting Americans.

Thats something NO OTHER POLITICIAN IS DOING.

Im a proud Republican. Im a proud American. Im very proud of my support for Ron Paul.

Id like to leave with simple question for the people who dont support Ron Paul.

What do you fear from a Ron Paul Administration?

Posted by Nicholson | December 17, 2007 1:32 PM

Why does everyone say Ron Paul has no chance? Has any other candidate shown any numbers like the 120000+ people who donated to Ron Paul is quarter? Come on people, show your support and prove them all wrong.

Posted by Michael Toth | December 17, 2007 1:39 PM

The parents of the internet savvy students, their friends, neighbors - you got the picture, can easily translate into huge number of votes for Ron Paul. Not to mention the energy we have to travel and spend time for this cause. When this is all said and done, the youth, our future, and our decision will affect the outcome of these coming elections. I don't know what argument you will make. We all know that you guys in the MSM, which now I call OM (Old Media) keep on discounting Ron Paul and the power of the youth of our nation do not realize our value. You guys are automatons who just follow the orders of your master who writes your paycheck. Regardless, we will see you at the polls. Let us see what you guys are all about.

Posted by Ron | December 17, 2007 1:42 PM

"Shifting IP-addresses", Batman!

"The internet has subverted the MSM!!!"

"That's right Robin, in a free society intelligence always wins."

Posted by Earl E | December 17, 2007 1:47 PM

"The challenge he'll face from us MSMers is simple: We will continue to lie and distort reality in order to prevent it from rendering us moot."

There, fixed that for ya!

/anybody who believes that there is such a thing as "McCainiacs in New Hampshire," better yet, believe that they compromise 20% of the NH voting base has been drinking too heavily from the fountain of tabloid media.

Posted by nobody special | December 17, 2007 1:50 PM

Ah, the MSM.
Once upon a time, what was known as the 4th estate was an important check on the diviousness of our federal government. Today, the MSM is nothing but a propaganda tool for the big money, big power, elite who would control us by controlling our government.

Slick you admit that there are problems, but would rather vote for more of the same?? Ron Paul is the first candidate in many generations, and the only one in the current contest who really does offer something different. His record is clear, he does not pander to his audience, and we as a nation need some honesty and integrity from our leaders for a change.

Personally, I have not voted for the lesser of two evils since 1968, (there is always another option) and it is great news that finally, we may have the oportunity to vote for good.

JVC

Posted by JVC | December 17, 2007 2:00 PM

I will tell you how I know that the MSM has their numbers all wrong about polls. I thought Ron Paul had low popularity until I went out and waived Ron Paul for president signs. I live in the democrat state of MN and in a town of 85,000 peeps, and the pure number of people that honk their horns, waive, or go completely ape $#\T when they see the signs are huge numbers. I bet half of the people that don't respond don't see us, don't know who RP is, or don't give a care.

Ron Paul is big. Don't continue to be misled by the MSM. Your only as smart as your brainwashing !

Posted by Shane L | December 17, 2007 2:04 PM

Why support Ron Paul?

While the other candidates (either republican or democrat) answer all or nearly all questions/issues with POLICTICAL solutions, i.e., more taxes, more regulation, more intervention – domestic or foreign.
Ron Paul responds with PRIVATE solutions, i.e., Explicitly LESS GOVERNMENT in nearly all areas.

There is a name for this. Its called FREEDOM.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running (so far) who has gone on record, (the congressional record) as clearly understanding that the ethical root of most political problems is the idea – the initiation of force - can be justified, of course it cannot. (Neither can its corollaries – fraud or clear & present threat)

Understanding what freedom is and why it is crucial should be the basic qualifying criteria for running for government office. If this were so Ron Paul would be the only candidate qualified!

Is Ron Paul perfect? Of course not.
Do I agree with him 100%. No.
Does his path lead to utopia. No. Utopia is not an option.
Would his path improve on what we have. Yes, more than most would consider possible.
Does Freedom Work. Yes, it does work, and has worked throughout history to the degree it has been tried.

Ron Paul is deserving of support for the simple honest reason that he stands on the PRINCIPLE of SELF OWNERSHIP, the basic idea that each individuals life, each individuals body belongs to them, not to those people who are the government.

So I say THANK YOU Ron Paul, for your tireless fight for greater liberty. And congratulations to the Texans in your district who have the good sense and integrity to reelect you again and again.

Posted by RichKl | December 17, 2007 2:08 PM

Hey "slick" if you don't like Ron Paul and you don't see him as a threat, why do you waist your time online ranting against him? You are obviously not very informed if you can't tell the difference between isolationism and non-intervention. Paul follows exactly what the constitution says. If you think that is "fringe" then maybe it should just be burned and we start all over. You are the type of person who wipes his a$$ with the constitution and spews false information to others. You are hurting yourself and others. When Ron Paul wins, you will be the last person on my mind. Now go about your business, blind like the other sheep.

Posted by Slickisanidiot | December 17, 2007 2:22 PM

Note that he said he didn't "Think" that Ron Paul would get the nomination. That doesn't mean he doesn't think it's possible, just not likely. I don't think that's a totally unfair assessment. We have a *lot* of hard work to do if we want Ron Paul to get the nomination.

Lets get feet on the ground in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina and pull off top 3 finishes in each. That will get some serious attention.

Posted by Mark | December 17, 2007 2:29 PM

Slick,

First you take offense at "thin-skinned" RPers who don't appreciate attacks from those who don't understand the issues (present company excluded, of course); you then have the gall to tell us "RP...doesn't have better solutions. I wish he did. e.g. Isolationism is no answer."

Funny, neither does Ron Paul say that isolationism is the answer - in fact, he is totally opposed to isolationism. Your comments betray you - you are either purposely obtuse, or you really are ignorant.

If the former, you intentionally portray Ron Paul as an "isolationist" when what you really mean is that you object to his being a non-interventionist. If you don’t know the difference, than spend more time studying RP’s positions - maybe you’ll learn something. But then again, maybe not; you may be in the latter category of neo-conned ignoramuses who see the military pre-emptive projection of power, war, occupation and intervention where we so will as our God-given manifest destiny.

Nice try, slick

Posted by mryan | December 17, 2007 2:31 PM

Here in Sydney, Australia, I have to tell you that I think that Ron Paul is the real deal. He is clearly a man of integrity, who sticks to his principles. If you want to disagree with RP, have the integrity to discuss where you differ on principles. Try having that discussion with any of the other candidates, except of course Dennis Kucinich.

Opponents do their best to confuse RPs messages.

He is NOT isolationist. He just reckons that the US efforts to bring "democracy" in many countries over the past 50 years has just created worse situations than they had before. I mean, how can you possibly justify invading a foreign country, destroying its infrastructure, finely balanced social institutions, killing perhaps 1 million of its people, uprooting millions of people, exposing them to poor quality water, minimal social services - all because you want to hit just one man! Good stuff America. Slow hand clap.

And when he says that he wants to reduce the role of Federal Government in your lives, he is really saying that your issues are best handled at a local and state level. How can a far distant government in Washington have a sensitivity for the issues you face in your local community. He is right to say the Feds should butt out of your lives.

And as for his views on the Fed and management of the economy. Look what Bush has done. Look what is happening to inflation. Look at what is happening in the debt markets. The Federal Government is good at managing the economy?

It is very obvious from here why RP is attracting such widespread support.

Posted by Ray S | December 17, 2007 2:45 PM

The only way the Republican Party is going to win in 2008 is to shed the dead weight two-faced old school hacks and get behind someone that has an honest voting record, a clear agenda, sound financial management, and can truly differentiate the Republican Party from the Democrats.

Romney = John Kerry (republican style)
Giuliani = too much laundry
Huckabee = bad track record
McCain = too unstable and chummy with the dems.
Thompson = lacking the Charisma but probably a good choice

Others = haven't stood out enough.

Posted by PBinWA | December 17, 2007 2:46 PM

The Ron Paul Revolution Is REAL. It is happening. It's time for the MSM to start reporting on it or become as irrelevant as Mike Huckabee will be a couple of months from now.

Posted by The Presidential Candidates | December 17, 2007 2:49 PM

"RP does not have the answers".

Of course HE doesn't have the answers. That's the whole point. The PEOPLE will come up with the answers in the free market. Paul simply understands that the creativity of the PEOPLE needs to be freed from the oppression of the state.

That's the paradigm shift that separates statists from free men and women.

Posted by Len | December 17, 2007 2:52 PM

As of 3pm EST 12-17 -- If you go to http://www.alexa.com/ and check out the TR (traffic rating) for the official Ron Paul website --- he has a TR of 7,478.

Mike Huckabee has a TR of 52,977
John McCain -- TR 112,541
Hillary Clinton -- TR 33,338

According to Huckabee’s website he has collected $1,229,712 to date for his forth quarter donations.

At this moment Dr. Paul has $18,247,850 and still coming in.

There is no mention on McCain’s site of how much money he currently has raised.

So you have to ask yourself how can Huckabee be number one in most of the polls and Dr. Paul is not listed in the top five. I smell a rat here. These numbers above tell me something different and I am getting the word out to all of my friends and associates. Also got to blogs about Huckabee or McCain and there are 15 to 20 c0mments like the 100’s of comments on blogs or news about Ron Paul.

I have stopped listening to the MSM --- they are the old media and are missing the point.

America needs Dr. Paul……

Posted by Collin 28 | December 17, 2007 2:57 PM

What is impressive is the fact that Ron Paul and his official campaign actually did NOT raise over 6 million dollars yesterday....the grassroots movement did! We donated yesterday to a 'cause', not an individual. Ron Paul is merely a 'face' to this revolution and his loyal followers are living proof this country is in serious need of a powerful 3rd party to offset the 'same old, same old' politics we've been force-fed through the main stream media.

Posted by Debra | December 17, 2007 2:58 PM

But hey everyone... you're forgetting that the Des Moines Register is endorsing McCain and Hillary... LMAO... as if that matters.

Who the hell cares who the Des Moines Register endorses.. and since when was reporting about endorsing one candidate over another.

Ron Paul for 2008!!

Posted by John Butler | December 17, 2007 2:58 PM

In as much as the polls are concerned-landline only polls have diminishing reliance-especially among younger people. If the polls are only conducted among registered Republicans-or those who voted in the last Republican primary-the numbers will be skewed as well.

Myself-along with many other Paul supporters have been Democrats all of our voting lives because of the elitism in the GOP-as well as the apparent 'standing up for the little guy' position of the Democratic party. The more politics we see though-the more both parties seem the same. Paul destroys traditional party lines and he espouses values that every citizen-regardless of part affiliations-hold (or should hold) dear. It will be tough to switch my party affiliation-but I will in order to vote for Paul in the primary.

Posted by Ben Shooner | December 17, 2007 3:06 PM

Why does every Ron Paul article have to say something to the effect of...

'...although there's not a snowballs chance in hell he'll win...'

No journalist would ever editorialize this way in any other context.

Is the dominant media so hypnotizing that almost every reporter buys that line, or is there a larger issue here?

It seems to me that if dollars translate to votes (yeah, yeah...it doesn't quite work that way...i know) then Dr. Paul is the front runner.

Posted by Dave | December 17, 2007 3:07 PM

Slick,
Who are you rooting for? You keep on saying Dr Paul does not have the "right" answers.
Who, do you think, has the "right" answers to the problems America is facing today? And why haven't they been as eloquent in explaining their solutions to the people as Dr Paul.

Posted by Manish | December 17, 2007 3:10 PM

There is a great deal of difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Ron Paul, contrary to many of the comments, is not an isolationist, but he is most definitely a non-interventionist. For the last 109 years this country has intervened in over 200 countries around the world; the question is has it made us any safer or produced results that could actually be considered in the best interest of the American People or this nation. Most of the beneficiaries have been big business, from the Sugar Magnates during our intervention into Cuba, Central America and the Philippines during the Spanish-American War to the build up of the military “contractors” that started to become wealthy from war during WWI. If you look at the results of those interventions you will quickly see that the consequences of those interventions still cause of many problems we are contending with today.

In WWI, before the U.S. entered the war, both sides of the conflict were drained of resources, tired of the war, which was growing extremely unpopular and both sides were ready to sue for peace until the U.S. entered. With our entry the power was shifted and there was a victory declared over the enemy and with that victory, the harshest reparations were imposed and were meant to humiliate the Germans in particular. The Treaty of Versailles and its severe harshness set the stage for the rise of Hitler. Hitler, by the way, had a policy of intervention without respect to the national sovereignty of other nations, so did Japan; how were their intervention any different as seen from the nations they invaded then from the ones we either invade or “set-up” bases by “invitation”? The former Soviet Union had a policy of intervention, remember Afghanistan? What was different? Could it be that we actually think we have a right to do it and other nations don’t? That is perhaps one of the most idiotic ideas of all time and stems from a self-righteousness that will betray us eventually, actually it already has!

Had we not entered WWI, the world would be a totally different place. Hitler would have never been able to gain popularity or power; millions would not have died, including 6 million Jews. Without the death of the European Jews, Israel would have never been imposed on the Muslim countries of the Middle East. The Soviet Union would have never gained control over Eastern Europe and the artificial borders within many countries of the Middle East would have been totally different. Iraq, for instance, would not have existed in its present form; neither would Iran or a number of other countries.

Interventionism is a dangerous game and unfortunately we don’t have the foresight to understand that such dangerous actions can and usually do affect our future in ways that are beyond our comprehension.

There is another extremely important thing that we need to seriously consider about our intervention into the various regions of the world. There are other nations that may wish to begin imposing the same policy as we now do. There are a number of countries that may begin to intervene to “protect” their “interests” just as we have, will we condemn them for their actions when we are doing the same thing? China may wish to put bases in Mexico; Russia may think that it is in its national interest to put bases in Canada? Based upon the mentality that says we must intervene, establish bases in other countries I would assume that those who hold such views would also think it would be fine for other countries to do the same. If we think we have that right then it must be an international right as well, otherwise our policies are based upon something other than logic and reason.

Ron Paul has, over the years, has rightly predicted the consequences of our interventionist polices. He has stated a very common-sense policy that seeks the maximum national security of this country, not others, of this people, not others. He seeks to put American first and the American People first instead of spending untold billions that we have to borrow, to patrol and protect and defend other nations who could easily protect and defend themselves.

As far as the gold standard, let’s consider the alternative that we are facing. We should all consider several things concerning the Federal Reserve’s fiat monetary system; it has an inherent terminal point that will eventually breach the systems viability. A few years ago the system reached its Peak Practical Lifespan where the economy is no longer able to tolerate what would once we considered minor disruptions, such as small interest rate hikes. The next step on the terminal time-line will be when the system reaches it Maximum Possible Lifespan when massive financial dislocations begin to occur rapidly as domino falls upon domino. The unraveling of the economic rope will be so rapid and intense that nothing the Federal Reserve does, or other the global Central Banking Cartels, will be able to stem the complete systematic annihilation of the monetary foundation of the global economy.

Since the entire system, and indeed all of society as we now know it, is built upon a fiat monetary system once that system implodes due to the weight of the massive debt upon which it is created, everything collapses. Every Fiat Federal Reserve Note, whether digital or physical, is borrowed into existence with nothing backing it but the debt itself. The system relies upon the expansion of debt to maintain its viability and it is that very expansion that will cause the eventual collapse of the system since there comes a point where the debt requires much more servicing than the economy can possibly produce. It is a classic Catch 22, and unfortunately there is no remedy that the government or central bankers can readily produce to avert the termination of the system. The emerging chaos will be unimaginable and totally unmanageable. Say bye, bye to life as we know it.

Imagine there is only one presidential candidate addressing what will be one of the most important issues this nation and this world have ever faced in history. What does that say about the caliber of this field of candidates?

If Ron Paul is not elected in 2008, we will all wish he had been by 2012!!!

Posted by Republicae | December 17, 2007 3:11 PM

One different facet of the Paul Revolution is the way he's bringinng old enemies together in the way others just talk about. Although I'm a life-long "Reagan" Republican, I've always admired many liberals with convictions and guts because I suspect we share many of the same values deep-down. (Gene McCarthy, Dennis Kucinish, even a Ralph Nader.) Many on the left and the right are coming together to cooperate in favor of Dr. Paul, because we treasure the Constitution, decency, and honesty and just want the government to leave us alone. I don't want anything to do with preemptive war, torture, and spying on Americans; every candidate except RP is willing to trade all this away on the flimsiest of excuses.

Posted by Eddie | December 17, 2007 3:26 PM

The polling issue is not just with land lines. I have a land line, and they polled me yesterday.

The prerecorded message listed all the candidates, and told me to press 6 if I wanted RP. I did. The message re-looped, then said press 6 if I wanted "other or none". I pressed again. Clearly, they are doing everything possible so he doesn't even register. The polls are where the nomination is won, so whoever controls the electronics of that controls politics.

Posted by Fazsha | December 17, 2007 3:29 PM

People are getting sick and tired of the same old song-and-dance from their presidential candidates. See this YouTube music video, featuring horror movie icon, Reggie Bannister, from the international award-winning feature film, "Song of the Dead." It's a great satire on the president, the MSM, and the war on terror. The filmmaker is giving a share of his profits from the film to the Ron Paul campaign.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw

Posted by mketcher | December 17, 2007 3:33 PM

This "small minority" is dominating when it comes to bringing in cash for Ron Paul. If the Huckabee and McCain backers are so plentiful, where are they at? Where's they money? Oh, that's right. They're sheep. Following orders. Doing what they're told. Buying into the typical neo-con lip service. Ron Paul supporters are informed and aggressive about their freedom. We want our country back. We see that path its heading down and will continue to head down if anyone other than Dr. Ron Paul is elected president. This nation is desperate for a rightful leader who obeys the Constitution and the people to whom the president must answer to. Ron Paul will give us our freedoms, he will give us the power, and he will turn this ship around from inevitable disaster.

Posted by abruzz0 | December 17, 2007 3:40 PM

I have empathy for the traditional message Ron Paul presents, however I am not deluded enough to believe the modern GOP will count all of his votes in New Hampshire or So. Carolina. Huckabee is on the ticket or hello brokered convention.

Posted by Marty Collins | December 17, 2007 3:46 PM

Why does Ron Paul receive so many donations while doing relatively poorly in the traditional polls? What is going on? Simple:

Paul's support comes largely from people who take an interest in things beyond their personal lives in general and in government & politics in particular. These people, unfortunately for the country, are in the minority. But among them, a great many of them (and possibly a majority) are libertarians and/or "old-right" conservatives, or become so when they hear the message -- and they absolutely love Ron Paul.

People of this ideology are truly excited because they haven't had a candidate like this (who actually speaks for what they believe) for a long time. And so they donate, volunteer, and spread they word with great enthusiasm, creating a true grassroots campaign the likes of which we have never seen. And the internet makes this grassroots effort possible: without it, supporters simply wouldn't be able to bypass the mainstream media and find each other.

Most of these folks are fed up and disgusted with what the political system has become, and so many of them haven't even been voting in the past -- because there's simply been no one to vote for. Traditional polls disregard people like this as "unlikely voters", but the polls have it completely wrong this time. There is a tsunami on its way, still under the surface and invisible to the polls: Ron Paul supporters will turn out and vote in massive numbers, and bring with them all their friends that they've convinced. And the media, despite the writing now on the wall, will still be astonished.

Posted by cj | December 17, 2007 3:49 PM

Ron has been purposely shunned by the media. In the last CNN debate, Hukabee got a lot questions and Ron on the whole debate got 3 and none of the questions had to do with the economy, the war, education, etc.
Now that Ron Paul has raised more money he will be able to buy more advertising on TV and the radio. Therefore he will have more exposure. There are a lot of people who haven't heard of Ron Paul but it takes 10 minutes to listen to Ron Paul and get hooked by him.
He will be running 30-minute TV special broadcast throughout Iowa the weekend of Dec. 22-23.: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNWHmiGj-k
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wekzQrQfacg
After people in Iowa see this, believe me they will vote for Ron Paul.

Posted by Lucia Schmitz | December 17, 2007 3:58 PM

"he's proven that he resonates with a vocal minority of Republican primary voters -- a smaller minority than, say, the 40% of evangelicals in Iowa who are sustaining Mike Huckabee's rise"

First of all that 40% of evangelicals didnt have much to do with Huckabee's rise. However they will have much to do with his fall, when they start finding out stuff like Huckabee freeing convicted rapists (dismembered ones at that!) so they can go on killing sprees. Smart move Huckster!

We may be a small minority but we did not choose a candidate who will fall just as easily as he has risen because Ron Paul does not take positions that cant stand up to scrutiny and analysis. The other candidates rely on authoritarian tools (ad hominem, media control, echo chamber, etc) to sustain their campaigns.

Posted by Iconoclast421 | December 17, 2007 4:04 PM

This election is changing the spectrum of politics as we know it. Ron Paul is certainly the poster child of this movement. Other candidates are also catching on to the craze created by the internet, but none have done so quiet like Dr. Paul. What is interesting, is that while his supporters are very fanatical, other candidates such as Barack Obama could probably do even more damage with creative ideas like the recent Tea Party.

Check out this study on grass roots support, Ron Paul is #1 in the GOP, but Obama completely dominates him in total.

http://www.spartaninternet.com/2008

Posted by Ryan | December 17, 2007 4:12 PM

Ron Paul should be on the cover of TIME Magazine next month... I mean, if Ann Coulter was in it, what gives?

Can he buy that with a few millions? He should...

Posted by Gian Gonz | December 17, 2007 4:13 PM

Look at what the conservative National Review magazine had to say...

How Should Ron Paul Spend All That Cash?

So what will Ron Paul do with that $6 million and change he raised yesterday? With the $18 million he raised this quarter?

Television advertising? Covering the travel fees of Huckabee opponents from his Arkansas days to travel around and criticize Huck? A second blimp? A Super Bowl ad?

With a limited time before the votes in the key early states, and a limited number of remaining slots for television ads, could Ron Paul be reaching the point where he has more cash than places to spend it?

In a perfect world, I'd like to see Ron Paul say, "My campaign has never been about money, but we find ourselves with more money than we will need from a nationwide network of generous grassroots supporters. I'm going to take what I don't need for immediate campaign expenses and try to build a national organization to help out libertarian, small-government minded candidates at every level of government. We're going to show that this is indeed a revolution that goes far beyond one man, and we're going to try to return to Constitutional principles at local and state offices, and in the House, and Senate..."

Posted by Nationa Review Online | December 17, 2007 4:16 PM

What is happening here is that ordinary Americans are beginning to wake up to what their government has been doing to them their whole lives. Some are newly involved in politics and will vote for their first time. Others are stanch supporters of one party or another. Now, they are realizing the parties are irrelevant. The government does not serve at the behest of its people anymore. It's all too obvious now. This is a breaking point, a tide is turning and ordinary Americans of all ages, political backgrounds, social and economic backgrounds are coming together in support of some basic ideals -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We're realizing our money is controlled by outside interests, literally printed with NO sound backing, just our "trust" in the Federal Reserve Bank, which is neither federal nor a bank, and their are no reserves. As a country, we are in debt up to our children's eyeballs. No longer can we ignore this. No longer can we support endless wars and world domination at the expense of our entire nation's future. We are doomed to repeat what has happened to every Empire in history. So be it. Let it all crumble away as Dr. Ron Paul steps up and leads our country to a new hope. We can return to sound money, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, return the powers back to the people and their States, get the government out of our back pockets and wallets. Let our families produce what we need again, instead of relying on foreign sources of everything. Big Government incentives keep of jobs flowing to other countries and Big Corporations and their lobbiests having Big Government grant them advantages over the innovators, imagineers, and inspired individuals. We are so far from a "free market" it is ridiculous. We are a "controlled, managed, regulated" trade economy right now. Our Federal government helps the global corporations eliminate competition. This has got to stop already.

Our Constitution is the glue that holds our country together, not our out of control government. If you don't believe that it is out of control, or that somehow it is following the Constitution (which it is not), then just look at our $1,000,000.00 (ONE MILLION DOLLARS) per MINUTE debt that our "leaders" are racking up in our names which our grandchildren will be indebted slaves to. Look at our domestic policies (Federal government ties our hands and holds carrots in front of us) versus our Foreign policies. We take better care of WAR PROFITEERS and their cronies than our own citizens. This is bull and we're not taking it lying down any more.

Dr. Ron Paul's message is simple: return to the Constitution to which our leaders and military have ALREADY sworn to uphold, protect and serve (which they ignore). That's why he votes against anything that is against the Constitution.

I am voting for Dr. Paul, my first Republican. This country is still a Republic, is it not? The rest of the candidates seem to have forgotten that.

Posted by Joanne Foster | December 17, 2007 4:28 PM

Mass-media is dying get over with this
RUN PAUL 2008!!!!

Posted by freedomfighter | December 17, 2007 4:35 PM

Oh, so some of you don't think Ron Paul has a chance? Need I remind you...
Scoreboard!

Statistics are worth nothing. Any idiot can make a statistic. I'm saying that you need to check the facts, not the opinions. And even if you still don't support RP, I don't care, because I do. I still respect any one person's choice of candidate. I don't judge your choices, so don't judge mine. You can't tell me he won't win. You just wait till election day my friends.

Ron Paul for Prez.

Posted by That Weasel | December 17, 2007 4:45 PM

Non-interventionalist. (Not isolationist. There's a big difference.) He's isolationist like Ben Franklin was isolationist.

Posted by Henry | December 17, 2007 5:02 PM

As a Democrat, I am stunned. Simply stunned. I do not grasp the Ron Paul Phemonenon. I mean, he's pulling in cash, hand over fist. I must admit, it's fascinating to watch.

Posted by rikyrah | December 17, 2007 5:14 PM

XML request call to all bots, spiders, trojan horses and malware

Debug, Recompile and Deploy RON PAUL President!

Post votes via biological peripherals on Election Day.

Posted by WebBot654 | December 17, 2007 5:55 PM

Analogy time... Marc calling someone who doesn't want to station their military in foreign countries an "isolationist" is like calling me a "hermit" because I don't park my car in my neighbors front yard.

Ryan, you're not going to convince Paul supporters to switch to Obama. In fact, the opposite is happening - check http://obamala.com/ - Obama supporters are switching to Paul because they want an anti-war candidate, not a status quo candidate. Also, you should check the methodology of the SpartaInternet algorithm you linked to since it includes MSM references. If you eliminate the MSM part of the algorithm, Paul dominates Obama. I'm guessing that study is setup to mislead people (like you). Otherwise, why would you include MSM mentions in an algorithm supposedly designed to show grassroots internet usage? If you look at a real measure of internet support - like http://tinyurl.com/2bs9kf - Paul dominates.

Posted by Andrew | December 17, 2007 6:12 PM

Why did the Newshour this evening headline a Senator endorsing McCain, then covered the religious part of Huckabee, then left out how 50,000 Americans came together to celebrate the Boston Tea Party, and gave 6 million dollars for Ron Paul.

50,000 Americans with 100 dollars isn't nearly as important as a democrat senator endorsing a republican candidate.

I always believed that PBS had it right. I trusted Jim Leherer and that entire PBS group because of Frontline, Nova, NOW with David Bronkoccio.

But the Newshour just left the entire Ron Paul endorsement of the American people, only to mention again and again, freedom requires religion.

Religion and freedom edure together, or perish alone.

I am so terribly sorry for my children.

Posted by Earl E | December 17, 2007 6:14 PM

anyone see the documentry called "Hacking Democracy"

watch and be aware the battle has not even started ...

Posted by Nicholas | December 17, 2007 6:39 PM

It is still astounding to see the lack of fair coverage Ron Paul is getting via the mainstream media. That being said, it is AMAZING to see how on fire for the republic we supporters are. It is as if a breath of fresh air has blown away the haze of apathy that has been hanging over this nation. Before I stumbled upon and read about Dr. Paul, I wasn't planning on voting in this election...it appeared that it would be the lesser of two evils again. Whenever I find myself waiting in line, or anywhere standing around with people, I ask them if they know about Ron Paul. Most of them only know his name, which we all need to change! I ask them to Google him, take time to read about his positions, and consider supporting him. His message speaks for itself. Watch out so-called "top tier" candidates, there is a massive wave of revolutionaries which is about to come crashing down on the polls. Another thing I wanted to mention, I keep hearing a song by the Manic Street Preachers in my mind, that would be a great song for this campaign. It is called "If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next", which was written about the Spanish Civil War, but rings so true even to this day.

Posted by Retro-con | December 17, 2007 7:49 PM

If somebody ever asks you how we'd do without taxes? Tell them, just like Ron Paul ran his campaign. With strong arguments, honesty and a great plan to look forward to, you're capable of raising lots of money and people are happy to give. No coercion, no theft. Freedom works! If you tell them, we're going to take 20% of what you make to send your child to die in the desert, they may not "give" with the same enthusiasm.

Posted by Bastiat | December 17, 2007 7:49 PM

I see Slick's postings prove to be pretty naive. Howard Dean is no Ron Paul, Ross Perot is no Ron Paul. There has never been a Ron Paul in my lifetime. There has never been a candidate as honest, sincere and as loyal to our constitutional principles as Ron Paul voting against even much "feel good" legislation because it is not "authorized" by the constitution. Never has a Candidate raised as much money from Individuals as Dr. Paul, not from corporations and big business and still broke an all time record for fund raising in a single day. Slick, RP supporters are not disillusioned, but realists. They see that our money is worthless and that the nation is on the verge of bankrupsy. They see that this country is going broke while attempting to enlarge a world empire at their cost. Ron Paul has a better and better chance as time goes on and more and more people are becoming aware of him and agree with his platform. They have had enough of the status quo. I carry a handful of fliers in my breast pocket and pass them out at every chance. FREEDOM AND LIBERY FOR US AND OUR POSTERITY! The only way that will happen is if Ron Paul is elected. Viva de Revolucion!

Posted by Ray | December 17, 2007 7:57 PM

I've gotten so close several times to donating to Ron Paul's campaign...and registering before the primary here in Arizona as a Republican so I can vote for him.

Here's the problem:
Remember Reagan. Remember his promises and campaign? And then, before G.W., what president allowed, without a single veto, the budget to climb faster and higher than any other in the history of the U.S.?

From Paul's web site:
>Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
>In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

XIV.
Section 1. All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I could understand leaving it up to the states by taking it away from the federal courts, but The Constitution specifically makes such definition, as persons BORN, NOT a federal issue. Not the UNBORN. Not the FETUS. Wouldn't a strict constitutionalist know this?

Doesn't RP sound a lot like Reagan did before the election?

Gun rights, No IRS, No Fed, No Dept of Education...All SOUNDS great... But to paraphrase what Rand said, if one can lie to oneself about the nature of the universe, it gets real easy to lie about the cookies one stole.

I worry his constitutional inconsistency means we'll end up with all the detriment to our rights protections and none of the benefits. AND, I worry my vote would only serve to further legitimize an illegitimate process.

I hate to throw cold water on the first seemingly honest chance for freedom in 100 years, but Paul's new Iowa anti-abortion television commercial really bugs me.

Sincerely,
Fence Sitter

Posted by Fence Sitter | December 17, 2007 8:17 PM

Fence-sitter,

I am confused...wouldn't his proposed legislation clarify things, thus changing the definition of life as beginning at conception, which would then give the fetus the same rights as someone born in the United States? Then states could be given the power to legislate for or against abortion choice by listening to their residents? Help me out here.

In any case, none of these things would be "gimmes" when Ron Paul becomes president. He will still have to work with Congress, and abide by the decisions of our Supreme Court. I have no problem with this, it is the beauty of our system. I feel that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is truthful, and who is truely interested in changing the status quo. I wasn't even going to vote until I learned about Ron Paul. Smaller government and fiscal conservatism are sorely needed, I am very worried about our economy, and the future of our nation if things continue as they are.

What else is holding you back? What are you going to do if you don't decide to support RP?

Thanks.

Posted by Retro-con | December 17, 2007 8:30 PM

You've put your finger on it, Retro-con. HR1094 was not an attempt to amend the Constitution, but to violate it. Such a definition must be changed Constitutionally. The Constitution IS our definition, not the laws which are the particulars as to how to implement it.

Nothing else is holding me back. Just this glaring inconsistency that raises the issue of trust.

As to your last question, I don't vote for the lessor of two negatives. Do you?

Posted by Fence Sitter | December 17, 2007 8:38 PM

Tabloid TV...mainstream "media" is no longer anything but tabloid junk. Everyone knows this. The "reporters" are a version of Jerry Springer in their own way. The sad thing is that a few people with a Huge amount of money own the media, and make an attempt to portray things as they really are Not.

Posted by Rick | December 17, 2007 8:50 PM

Fence Sitter,

Isn't such legislation the first step towards amendment?

I had decided I wouldn't vote, until RP. I voted for President Bush the first time after believing his message that we weren't going to be involved in nation-building anymore.

Posted by Retro-con | December 17, 2007 8:54 PM

Fence Sitter:

I am not a religious man nor do I consider myself even a secular christian however, even I have a problem with the inequitable application of the Law in the case of the unborn.

What amazes me is that while it is perfectly fine to say that a fetus is not a person and can be aborted at will, but that is not the case when a pregnant woman is murdered. When a woman is murdered and she is pregnant, the person accused of murder is not accused of the murder of one person, but two separate individuals. The Law recognizes that there are two distinct individuals with the application of all rights afforded to an individual in such cases.

So too is the application of Law unequal when it comes to a physician who is providing medical services to a pregnant woman, the Law recognizes the right of the pregnant woman to sue a physician if any harm, due to malpractice, comes to the fetus. If the fetus is harmed in any way the physician can be held liable and if the fetus is killed, the physician can be charged with man-slaughter in some cases. Yet, if the woman, who happens to have an unwanted pregnancy wishes to abort that fetus there are no application of a Law protecting the rights of the fetus even through in the other applications I mentioned that fetus is afforded all the rights of an individual.

This contradiction is a major problem and should concern all of us in manner in which the application of the Law is meted out, particularly if we are to consider the Law blind and just in its application.

Posted by Republicae | December 17, 2007 9:15 PM

Exactly why I'm worried about RP after the Bushes & Reagan track records ("Read My Lips...).

No, such legislation is what's known in politics as an attempted END RUN AROUND the Constitution. The proper way is to propose an amendment.

There's always an exception or a waffle. Abortion is RP's waffle issue. In some cases he says it should be up to the states. In Iowa ads now he's flagrently NOT defending the Constitution--which is ironic considering the Constitution is his main foundation point.

Politcally speaking, this is where Giuliani is strong -- as the only candidate to respect a woman's choice whether to allow a parasite to continue living off her blood stream. But I'm no advocate of Giuliani as he dodges direct answers in other areas, like when he said we reduced NYC government spending EXCEPT for teachers and police. It makes Giuliani tougher for Paul to beat, despite Rudy's lack of knowledge in so many areas compared to Ron.

There's always an EXCEPT, isn't there? And I'm certainly not advocating any of the Dems. It's too bad because in every other way, RP seems perfect. But SEEMS is the operative word.

Posted by Fence Sitter | December 17, 2007 9:18 PM

>What amazes me is that while it is perfectly fine to say that a fetus is not a person and can be aborted at will, but that is not the case when a pregnant woman is murdered. When a woman is murdered and she is pregnant, the person accused of murder is not accused of the murder of one person, but two separate individuals. The Law recognizes that there are two distinct individuals with the application of all rights afforded to an individual in such cases.

You raise a very good point, Republicae. Strictly speaking, Constitutionally, charging / convicting such a killer with two murders instead of one is a violation of the XIVth Amendment. Such convictions should be struck down by the Supreme Court. Just as they should strike down all drug convictions, and any areas where the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses have been exploited by the legislative and executive branches to usurp the rights of the people.

>So too is the application of Law unequal when it comes to a physician who is providing medical services to a pregnant woman, the Law recognizes the right of the pregnant woman to sue a physician if any harm, due to malpractice, comes to the fetus.

As to her loss of property, and in terms of her receiving what she was promised--good medical treatment--a civil suit is the CONSTITUTIONAL way to proceed in such cases. Just as in any other case of alleged malpractice--such as the death of any other loved-one due to gross negligence. As such there is no contradiction.

Posted by Fence Sitter | December 17, 2007 9:29 PM

Republicae,

Interesting and well written comment. I hadn't considered the issue in that light before. This is a question which should be asked of all of the candidates, I'm trying to figure it out below.

Fence Sitter,

To be fair, I haven't seen the Iowa ad, but it seems to me that you might not have the issue right. I've tried to figure it out below.

SUMMARY AS OF:
2/15/2007--Introduced.

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .

Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.

Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What does Article 14 have to do with this? Giving a fetus rights as a citizen would protect the fetus and require its protection under the law. I am not a lawyer, so maybe my logic is faulty, but doesn't this just give the fetus the same rights as the mother? A fetus is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, or be denied jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws....so any law relating to abortion will have to be legislated state by state, with due process. Does that sound right? You also have to take into consideration the last two amendments of the Bill of Rights, below.

Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This reflects a desire to have states legislate this individually, and to remove the Federal government from the issue. The Constitution didn't want to have a comprehensive listing of every right afforded to us.

So where does this leave us?

"Paul is strongly pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion". He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution"
"Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue"

Seems like this is just where Ron has always said he's been, in favor of powers being returned to the states. If you are pro-choice, then say you are pro-choice, and admit that you are just annoyed that Ron Paul isn't. I don't have any problem with choice, as I feel it is the woman's choice, and the woman who will have to deal with the consequences of her decision. I personally don't agree with abortion, and I think the best course to take is to allow states to legislate for themselves, which will make state and local politics more meaningful again, government by the people, for the people. My two cents anyway.

Posted by Retro-con | December 17, 2007 10:09 PM

I haven't voted for president since 1980 and haven't been registered to vote for almost as long. This time I'm registering Republican and voting for Ron Paul. Do the pollsters account for me?

Posted by Nicolas Martin | December 17, 2007 10:17 PM

To Retro-con:
>What does Article 14 have to do with this? Giving a fetus rights as a citizen would protect the fetus and require its protection under the law.

Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Clearly a fetus has not been BORN, and is therefore not a citizen.

Clearly also I am not just pro-life for women, and pro-choice for individuals. I'm pro-abortion. The woman who decided as an individual not to allow a parasite to continue living off her blood supply when she didn't REALLY WANT to reproduce, should be very proud of the moral strength of the decision she made to stand up to men who don't have to fight against such mental coercion or carry such parasites themselves.

As an interesting side issue. Imagine a couple from say the Czech Republic, visiting NYC for a couple days. While spending the night at the Marriott Marquis they conceive a child. Were your Sanctity of Life act to trump the Constitution as presently written and amended, they could potentially claim such a conception was an "unborn child" and therefore a citizen of the United States.

I'll just bet that's an unintended consequence you don't want, do ya?

Yes, If Paul were really, clearly, unequivocally for states and individual rights on this issue by proposing to amend the Constitution instead of doing an end run around it, I'd be donating the maximum amount to Paul's campaign and I wouldn't be signing this letter...

Fence Sitter

Posted by Fence Sitter | December 17, 2007 10:38 PM

Fence Sitter,
Apparently you haven't done your homework. Dr. Paul does not believe that merely being born (or conceived) within the borders of the US constitutes a right to citizenship. The parents have to be citizens, as well, for that to happen.

Paul is clearly and unequivocally for states and individual rights on this issue. The fact that you have not done your homework is what makes you a fence sitter. Dr. Paul has been quite clear on his positions -- and has a 10+ year voting record to prove he means what he says.

Posted by Ben | December 18, 2007 12:58 AM

We'll see you at the convention in the Twin Cities! My mom's home town.
RON PAUL 2008
ALL ABOARD THE FREEDOM TRAIN

Posted by Robert E. | December 18, 2007 1:02 AM

Disagrees with his:
abortion policy
immigration stance
education policy

Will I vote for him? Oh YES!

Posted by Lassy | December 18, 2007 1:27 AM

FenceSitter,

Ron Paul has written about this in many places. I'm surprised you haven't come across it yet if you've been searching for info on Paul. The bill was meant to enable states to ignore Roe v Wade since the ruling itself was unconstitutional (I'm pro-choice but I don't deny this). Paul would never use the federal government to bar states like NY, NJ, MA, CA from allowing abortion nor would he use the federal government to force states like Utah to allow abortion.

You ask how we know Paul will stick to his guns (unlike Reagan). The answer is a congrssional record dating back to the 70's. If Ron Paul hasn't strayed from principle in 4 decades, why would he now? Ron Paul isn't perfect but he's definitely the best either of the major parties have had to offer in the last 40 years.

Also, you misunderstand the 14th Amendment. What does being a citizen and abortion have to do with each other? Are you under the impression that only citizens have rights in the US? If so, you've been listening to Bush too long. That's the whole point of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. That men (and women) are born with these rights. The Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights, it lays out specifically what the federal government can do. And none of it's powers cover abortion.

The Czech Republic example is silly because (1) it already happens all the time and (2) are they really "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US?

Based on this statement....

["Yes, If Paul were really, clearly, unequivocally for states and individual rights on this issue by proposing to amend the Constitution instead of doing an end run around it, I'd be donating the maximum amount to Paul's campaign and I wouldn't be signing this letter."]

I guess you'll be donating $2300 (since Paul is really, clearly, unequivocally for states and individual rights on this issue and doesn't want nor need to propose an amendment the Constitution nor is he trying to do an end run around it). My guess is you're not really a fence sitter (Hillary maybe?) but I've been wrong before. If not, thanks for supporting Dr Paul.

Posted by Andrew | December 18, 2007 1:40 AM

Well said...

1. As Michael Medved observed, Paul’s campaign has attracted “an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.” It may not be a case of birds of a feather, but it’s at least a case of lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas. Moreover, “the behavior of Ron Paul supporters (spamming blogs that reference their candidate with fund-raising appeals and flaming anyone who actually dares to express substantive disagreement) frequently alienates far more potential friends than it attracts.” (Link) You’ll almost certainly find some flames in the comments to this post!

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/personal_presidential_elimination_process_the_case_against_ron_paul/

Reap it, RP freaks.

Posted by slick | December 18, 2007 1:58 AM

Slick, why don't you let us know who you think should be president so we can all support the same person? I know you're *not* voting for Ron Paul but who *are* you voting for?

Posted by Andrew | December 18, 2007 2:02 AM

Fence Sitter,

I differ with Congressman Paul on the definition of when a legal person should come into existence; therefore, I also disagree with some of his personal pro-life interests. I also believe his 10th Amendment stance on the issue is a fair and constitutional compromise.

Beyond this one issue, I see a vast array of positions which favor liberty, sound money, a strong and ethical defense, a free economy, and constitutional restraint on federal government. His consistent advocacy of the principles which conceived this nation has captured my support. When I agree with 98% of what I've read in his 30 years of writing and speaking, those last 2% surely feel like Voltaire's "enemy of the good".

You made a reference to Mayor Giuliani in a prior post. I'd submit this quote on freedom by Mr. Giuliani and ask whose heresies you'd more readily accept, his or Congressman Paul's:

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Posted by Akston | December 18, 2007 2:04 AM

"In response to your comment about the proponent of change has the burden of convincing voters of his ideas, I agree. We are not upset that people might disagree, or that some are ignorant of his views. It is that he is not being given the same pulpit other candidates are afforded from which to preach his views. We are being shut out by lack of msm coverage. I appreciate the fact that you have thought it through and disagree. We need more voters to think it through. I would just like to see some fairness in the coverage."

Jim,

Thank you for your civil and respectful reply, proving there IS a first time for everything.

You said "we are not upset". You cannot speak for other people, Jim. I believe that you are speakign for yourself, and while I disagree (in part) with what you said, the fact that you can discuss something with me in a calm and civilized manner makes you a rarity amongst RP supporters. You probably don't see that, but that's because you support him. DO youself a favour. An experiment. Try posting something that questions one of Paul's positions. You dno't even have to criticize him. Just question something. And then watch the fireworks. When you see the result, you'll understand what I"m referring to. Warning: it will bother you.

Next...

You are NOT being shut out by MSM coverage. IU woudl agree with you that Paul does not receive the amount of coverage that eh should, this is not due to some grand conspiracy. It is because of the bias of those in the media. There is no way around it. It happens in all parts of society. The mainstream begets the mainstream. Nothing sinister about it. What do you expect? That a radical, fringe, non status-quo candidate would get as much attention from the MSM as the establishment candidates? Why woudl anyone think that? IMHO, he has gotten far MORE attention than is warranted. I raelly can't see how anyone could complain about Paul's media exposure.

Having said that, he still has received a tremendous amount of coverage, and he has not been ignored. There are countless videos on youtube attesting to that fact. I have seen him appear on ALL the major networks, etc. He participated in all the debates that I watched, and I've seen some data that proves he received as much time as the others for his answers.

I think the whining has much more to do with the nature of his supporters than reality. Part of the paranoid persona. Also provides a readily available excuse when he loses, because the reality that most people just dont' want to buy what Paul is selling is not acceptable to his followers.

Posted by slick | December 18, 2007 2:13 AM

Andrew,

I believe that John McCain would be the wisest choice for POTUS. He is not my favourite. Not by a long shot. And he has major warts - just as all the candidates do. I think he is the best compromise candidate that MIGHT be able to bring the right and left (at least the moderate factions) together.

So, I recommend someone who is not my first choice (Fred) or my second (Romney), rather someone who could bring the country at least a bit closer together.

No, we won't see a gold standard with John, nor a major change in foreign policy (though I think he'd be a much better CIC), nor a flat tax.

He's a moderate. A centrist. Too liberal for the right wing, not liberal enough for the left. Perfect! ;)

Posted by slick | December 18, 2007 2:18 AM

To clarify what Ben posted some messages back, Ron Paul is against birthright citizenship by amending the 14th Amendment (not repealing the entire Amendment as the 21st Amendment does to the 18th Amendment). More here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

Posted by Brock | December 18, 2007 2:22 AM

"And while we don't think Paul is going to win the nomination, we dismiss his impact at our peril."

That's half right, which is not bad for the media. He's going to win, but you do indeed dismiss him at your peril.

Posted by David | December 18, 2007 2:23 AM

Slick posted:
"Thank you for your civil and respectful reply, proving there IS a first time for everything."

I would like to civilly and respectfully disagree with your implication completely. While I have indeed seen rude, confrontational and barely-literate posts on behalf of Ron Paul, I have also seen quite a few of those types of posts opposed to him as well. Scan any article which shows hundreds of Ron Paul posts and I guarantee you'll find this is not the "first time" a Paul supporter was polite while making a logical assertion. I can see that you obviously disagree with Paul's platform, and the opinions of his supporters. I wish you every good fortune in finding a candidate that better fits your interests.

Also, if you were to avoid sweeping ad-homines statements like your opening:
"A group of paranoid conspiracy theorists joined by another group of naive idealists…"
You might avoid some of the hostile responses in kind.

And,
"That a radical, fringe, non status-quo candidate would get as much attention from the MSM as the establishment candidates?"
I agree with your characterizations of non-status-quo, and perhaps even radical. However, I find it tragic that a candidate who advocates constitutional limits on federal power is considered "fringe" by some these days.

Best of luck on your quest for a better candidate, or have you found one already?

Posted by Akston | December 18, 2007 2:47 AM

What do we have to fear from a Ron Paul presidency? Much, I think.

Federal law prohibits anyone in any state from discriminating against minorities in housing and employment, among other things. Under a Ron Paul presidency, states would have the right to do all these things.

So a demographically white state like Indiana could decide to let its citizens run "white only" apartments. And Kansas could prohibit science from all its schools and replace textbooks with the King James. And California could ban meat. And Alabama could ban interracial marriage (again). Mississippi University would be segregated, if so chosen by a white majority. Florida could eliminate sales tax for anyone over 55. And Tennessee could make it a crime to insult the memory of Elvis. And every state could have its own standards on food safety.

Texas could ban all Spanish-language documents from government printing, driving all Spanish-speakers to, say, New Mexico, where as a majority they could ban English-language documents. The two states might both prosper but would become racially and culturally divided like night and day.

The extreme implementation of states' rights will lead to balkanization of the USA into cultural islands, which could destroy us as fast as the current fascism of the neocons.

I like Ron Paul's consistency, and support his non-interventionist foreign policy and his economics of not ignoring deficits and manipulating fiat currencies to fake growth. But his federalist stance is a step backwards, and would undo much of our progress as a nation. I hate much of the federal government but I want them to enforce certain national standards -- otherwise we will factionalize along racial, social, political, and cultural lines.

To some degree, our inner ugliness will thrive under these great freedoms. And the "free market" won't solve them. We'll become 50 separate nations, united by a common currency and a government that does nothing more than run the military, deliver the mail, and collect parking fees at the national parks.

I hope Ron Paul and his people shake things up. We need to open our eyes and ask tough questions. But I fear his presidency as much as that of the insincere, preening loons that we call front runners. Ron Paul is the most honest of them all, that is for sure. But there is a reason that white supremacists support him. Not because he's a racist -- he is not at all. But his vision of federalism would allow white separatism to thrive in certain parts of this country.

States' Rights. Where have we heard that rallying cry before? As a code for preserving the southern "way of life", which was destroyed by an interventionist federal government. Should it have been otherwise?

Posted by WH | December 18, 2007 3:15 AM

> 1) It is up to those proposing the changes to
> convince us of the merit of those changes - not
> the other way around. As someone who has been
> around the loveable goldbugs for about 3
> decades, they are great at tellimg us all the
> evils of fiat dollar - but never quite convince
> as to why the gold standard would be a good
> thing to return to.

That's pretty unbelievable.

Every single fiat currency that existed in 1900 is now worthless.

Gold has had value for the entire history of mankind.

And how about this:

You can't print gold by turning on a machine, but you can make as many dollar bills as you want by simply turning on a printing press. In every single instance, every single one, not a single solitary fiat monetary standard lasted over 100 years, and it dates back as far as the Roman Empire, when they started to make coins out of TIN.

Every fiat currency ever has failed, gold never has. We've only been on a fiat currency for 38 years and during that time, a silver dime has gone from 10 cents in 1963, to being worth $1.00 in 2007.

Anybody that has spent any time studying hard versus fiat currency, and every single goldbug has (and I'm not a goldbug BTW), knows this.

Posted by Richard Wicks | December 18, 2007 4:01 AM

> To some degree, our inner ugliness will thrive
> under these great freedoms. And the "free
> market" won't solve them. We'll become 50
> separate nations, united by a common currency
> and a government that does nothing more than
> run the military, deliver the mail, and collect
> parking fees at the national parks.

I just don't get this thinking.

Why do you think the Federal government will protect people's rights, but a state government will?

Furthermore, why do you think people will continue to live and pay for a government that doesn't protect people's rights, rather than simply abandon the state and take their tax revenue with them?

Why do you think a FEDERAL government is better than 50 state governments, each having their own system, and each allowing free movment across the borders so when you get into a system you don't like, you can leave it. Wouldn't that be a natural control on corruption, when you can opt out of any system?

I just don't understand why people think that a central government will be good, but 50 small state governments with one weak Federal government whose only purpose is to enforce individual rights, and to protect the states would be bad. I just can't see how this can be a bad thing.

Posted by Richard Wicks | December 18, 2007 4:06 AM

Toot toot, the train is leaving the station and the lame-stream media is left behind.

Ron Paul, 2008, FTW.

Posted by Mick Russom | December 18, 2007 5:18 AM

You guys are reading the 14th amendment wrong...

Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Emphasis on: "AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF"

Most of these illegals are MEXICAN CITIZENS, beholden only to their homeland, Mexico. As stated by what's his name: "Wherever there are Mexicans, there is Mexico."

Clearly their children are NOT under ANY jurisdiction of the USA.

Send them home to Mexico. (or whatever other country the come from)

Posted by AAAAANDRE | December 18, 2007 6:28 AM

Fence Sitter,

Now I see where you are coming from. Your pro-abortion stance doesn't bother me in the slightest. I am not going to be distracted by a wedge issue like abortion, in my opinion it is an foolish issue to base a choice for president upon.

Slick,
Your support for John McCain is terrifying. He has said all along that he believes the President has been right with his pre-emptive war doctrine, and basically obtuse foreign policy. Colin Powell was a good man, and he has stated that pitching the US case for the invasion of Iraq was the most embarassing day of his life, no wonder he resigned. How would you feel about being sent to deliver a pack of lies to the international community? He deserved better, our nation deserved better. What makes you think that McCain would stray from the neo-con path? The bottom line is that our government needs a president who will attempt to truly change things. Ron Paul is the only candidate aside from Kucinich who voted against the war. These wars are burying us and our children in debt, and recruiting more and more militants to fight against the US. It isn't promoting democracy, they don't care about rebuilding, they just want us out. Every action we take that results in civilians being killed further arounds our moral position and creates more militants, regardless of what other good we are trying to do now. We in America wouldn't tolerate foreign soldiers occupying our country, or accidentally killing families in their homes because they had "intelligence" that a militant or criminal was there!! We fought our war of revolution based on similar oppression, yet we are surprised when people resist us today! We need a strong, informed State Department, and a president that will allow it to craft sound, informed, compassionate and respectful foreign policy with which to practice diplomacy. Aside from war spending, consumer prices are skyrocketing while our housing market and value of our paper dollar plummets. We need leaders who will stop this inflationary nightmare, and give our currency value again.
Maybe I shouldn't even be putting this much time into replying to Fence Sitter or Slick, because I think they might just be trying to bait RP supporters.
I know Ron Paul would be better able to work with both parties, as he is attracting a sizable amount of democractic support. John McCain would still be victim to the partisan politics that are the norm these days...yes, even with Lieberman's endorsement. That wasn't really surprising, seeing as how both are hawks, warmongers, etc.

Posted by Retro-con | December 18, 2007 7:26 AM

That was supposed to be *erodes* our moral position. Miss that edit function!

Posted by Retro-con | December 18, 2007 7:28 AM

Marc - everyone knows the polls do not reflect the actual voter support. The poll respondents are comprised of individuals with a landline (not cell phone only households) and registered republicans who have voted in recent elections. There is quite a large percentage of citizens in the U.S. whom have cell phone only households and are thus excluded from the polling. There is also a large block of first time republicans and previously non-voting republicans who have been inspired by Dr Paul and will be voting for him in 2008. Wait and see, he will surely catch everyone off guard again.

Posted by ML | December 18, 2007 9:52 AM

WH posted:
"Federal law prohibits anyone in any state from discriminating against minorities in housing and employment, among other things. Under a Ron Paul presidency, states would have the right to do all these things."

Amendment 14 of the Constitution of the United States:
"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

State governments would not be able to deny any "the equal protection of the laws", but yes, private citizens could still voluntarily associate with whomever they chose.

"To some degree, our inner ugliness will thrive under these great freedoms. And the "free market" won't solve them."

While both inner ugliness and inner greatness can both thrive under freedom, I wonder if favoring control by some citizens over the voluntary behavior of others is faith well placed. History is replete with examples of well-meaning exercise of power delivering oppression rather than equality of beliefs. Government simply cannot effectively change belief structures; it can only criminalize them.

Posted by Akston | December 18, 2007 11:08 AM

Do you actually think we live in a Democracy? Do you think your votes will actually be counted? I can't believe so many still believe in this myth.

Ron Paul should win this election but he will not be allowed.

Posted by CokeOrPepsi | December 18, 2007 1:24 PM

A case can also be made that forcing a woman to bear a child is slavery. The Constitution defines a person as existing at birth. One would think the prohibition against slavery would pertain to the actual existing person rather than the potential one. That being said, Dr. Paul is an obstretrician and I COMPLETELY understand his feelings on the matter. Regardless of how strongly he feels though he still tries to leave other people freedom of choice. Anyway, the Rule of 72 will probably make far more brutal choices than we ever will. Ours is the fight of this day - to get Dr. Paul elected and identify small goverment representatives and senators so his fine ideas can be implemented.

Posted by Louis Nardozi | December 18, 2007 4:48 PM

Today, December 19, I make a promise to not pay attention to another poll until after February 5.

The Strasbourg Tea Party was just held - a tremendous show of international support for an "isolationist" candidate. A group of Ron Paul supporters in Europe organized it, and I am honored to be able to say that I was part of it. The polls didn't matter, we got together to support the candidate whose views are so powerful to us.

Now it is time to head to the US to campaign. The polls don't matter now either, I will do all I can to support a candidate whose views are so powerful to me. When the ballots are counted, I will be willing to discuss the accuracy of poll numbers. Except, at that point, that won't be an appropriate theme for discussion encouraged by the main stream media.

Time to move forward, regardless of what the polls claim.

Posted by AStevo | December 19, 2007 8:47 AM