Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Ron Paul will remember the Fifth of November
Posted by: Bryan Pick on Monday, November 05, 2007

Quite a day for the Ron Paul campaign. An independent website, ThisNovember5th.com, urged Ron Paul supporters to participate in a fund-raising drive themed around Guy Fawkes Day, which was recently depicted in the movie V for Vendetta as a day of (individual, then popular) revolution against an oppressive state. According to ABC News, this effort "received the tacit endorsement of Paul on the stump this week."

It's been something of a success. If my arithmetic is right, the Ron Paul campaign pulled in about $3.6 million in the 21 hours since midnight Eastern time (Edit: some of that, around a quarter-million, may be recent offline contributions that were added today), a one-day record for any candidate. Already, this drive puts Ron Paul over his $5.1 million haul for last quarter, which ended September 30. He seemed to be gaining money fast during that time, too: in about 20 minutes, the numbers at the campaign website jumped over $100,000.

Not bad for a candidate who's been written off about as insistently as one can. Not bad for a candidate, period.

Update: As of midnight Eastern time, Ron Paul had $7.1 million, making for about $4.3 million in 24 hours. We'll see what he has at midnight Pacific time, especially since much of his support is in the west.

Update 2: Ron Paul 2008 is saying they raised over $3.8 million, and that the best day of fund-raising ever was John Kerry pulling in $5.7 million — on the day he accepted the Democrat nomination. The NYT, though, is saying that Paul's campaign raked in over $4.07 million, and says that Hillary raised $6.2 million in one day in June. I wonder why the discrepancy; my own numbers are based off of ABC News's report that Paul had $2.77 million at midnight last night, and on Ron Paul 2008's front page number at midnight tonight. If you subtract the quarter-mil that came in offline, my number is the same as the NYT's.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Are these people for Ron Paul uniquely because of his stance on the war, or are they also really in favor of dissolving the Federal Reserve, I wonder?

I strongly suspect it’s Iraq all the way - and this makes me wonder why Dennis Kucinich - or heck, John Edwards - isn’t seeing a similar crush effect.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I strongly suspect it’s Iraq all the way - and this makes me wonder why Dennis Kucinich - or heck, John Edwards - isn’t seeing a similar crush effect.
I suspect you want it to be Iraq all the way which is why you can’t see past your incorrect assumption.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I strongly suspect it’s Iraq all the way - and this makes me wonder why Dennis Kucinich - or heck, John Edwards - isn’t seeing a similar crush effect.
Because their usual funders are busy giving to Ron Paul. They’d rather have the distraction and disruption in the Republican’s Primary bid than advance one of their own candidates at this point.

Its the tactics you take when you’re against something and for nothing.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Just donated $25 to the campaign.

I’ve been watching his donation thermometer for the last month or so. I have been watching it creep up towards $2 million, but it has just gone crazy today.

Right now it’s at $6,735,607.06. It is definitely exciting seeing it go up by thousands every minute. Looking forward to midnight when we will get a final tally.

I don’t think many people forgot about Guy Fawkes day this year.

glasnost,

Actually for me it’s a very strange predicament. I was in favor of going into Iraq, and his foreign policy is one area that I cannot completely agree with since he is for withdrawing. Not only from Iraq, but also from all our military bases around the world. That is probably the sorest point I have with Ron Paul, so if you try and hammer me there in an argument, don’t expect much resistance. ;)

But when I review what I have done with my previous voting history (e.g. voting for Michael Badnarik in 2004), my candidate being anti-war didn’t stop me previously, so it shouldn’t stop me now.
 
Written By: Luke Lamarra
URL: http://
And of course there’s all that pent up white supremacist money that has had trouble finding a home until lately.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
One of the things that bothers me about Ron Paul is his advertising that says ’Ron never voted for an appropriations bill’. That’s all well and good, but I’ve been reading that he has always added things to the bills for his district, then voted against it. If that is true, then I have no respect for him as he’s playing both sides of the fence at that point. Vote ’No’ and pat yourself on the back, then turn around and dole out the cash to the appropriate people. Lame.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Ron Paul supporters to participate in a fund-raising drive themed around Guy Fawkes Day, which was recently depicted in the movie V for Vendetta as a day of (individual, then popular) revolution against an oppressive state.
The traditional celebration is to burn an effigy of Guy Fawkes and let off fireworks to celebrate the failure of his plot to remove parliament in favor of a papist tyranny.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Are these people for Ron Paul uniquely because of his stance on the war, or are they also really in favor of dissolving the Federal Reserve, I wonder?

I strongly suspect it’s Iraq all the way - and this makes me wonder why Dennis Kucinich - or heck, John Edwards - isn’t seeing a similar crush effect.
A more interesting question is why there are so many on the right who are so vehemently against Ron Paul.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
meagain,

I’m an occasional commenter here, and a fan of Paul’s, but haven’t donated to his campaign (as of yet). I’ve seen an explanation from Paul on earmarks/appropriations - maybe on his campaign website - that goes something along the lines that he is a representative of his constituents and they pay taxes; his constituents are entitled to those tax $ coming back to them as opposed to a one-way street to D.C. if he doesn’t put in his district’s appropriations. It was disillusioning when I first read about it also.
 
Written By: m.jed
URL: http://
unaha-closp -

Yeah. The protagonist in the graphic novel and the movie wore a Guy Fawkes mask, turning the holiday on its head. Instead of celebrating the fact that Fawkes and his co-conspirators were caught and Parliament saved, he aimed to carry out what Fawkes failed to do.

Actually, the original story of Guy Fawkes was pretty interesting, if you read deeper into it. There was so much gunpowder that (some researchers showed that) the blast not only would have killed the King and Parliament instantly—thereby decapitating the whole English government in one moment—but would have been powerful enough to blow out windows on the other side of the Thames.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Paul’s support spans from left to right. He has Conservative Party, Libertarians, remains from the Reform Party, Democrats and Republicans. I’m sure a couple of Greens have joined in to.

I initially became a supporter because of Paul’s steadfast support for a smaller Federal Government. I now support him on several issues and gave to his campaign again today.

I also find it shocking that an American dollar is now only worth 93 Canadian Cents. The Federal Reserve, along with the Congress, has destroyed the dollar.

For mkultra, Paul’s positions are a complete change from the status quo. Many Republicans now support Big Government (at least a Republican controlled one) These are the Republicans who have come out the strongest against Paul. Some have already chosen another horse in this race and view Paul as a threat to their candidate or feel that what he points out in the debates is far different from their candidates positions.

Steve


 
Written By: Wiseburn
URL: http://
A more interesting question is why there are so many on the right who are so vehemently against Ron Paul.
Paul’s positions are a complete change from the status quo. Many Republicans now support Big Government (at least a Republican controlled one) These are the Republicans who have come out the strongest against Paul. Some have already chosen another horse in this race and view Paul as a threat to their candidate or feel that what he points out in the debates is far different from their candidates positions.
Care to provide numbers on the Republican laity that favors big government? I’m not disputing that many elected... or more accurately, longly entrenched GOP CongressCritters have signed on to massive increases, but I’d submit that they, much like a Clintonian Dem, recognizes what a facile lot (oooh, they’re giving away shiny things...) the electorate has become. They are all trying to buy votes.

Second, I know very few conservatives who are already committed to a candidate (as I was for McCain in the 2000 primary season). Sure, we have our favorite (or least unfavorite) candidate but I’ve yet to see the acrimony that developed between Bush and McCain then. The point being, and withstanding a number of suspect polls, Hillary, Edwards, and Obama will all serve as reagents come general election time.

Most important though, and said from the standpoint not totaly enamored by Ron Paul, nor frustrated that everyone else does not share that infatuation, the Representitive from Texas is too much a paleo-Libertarian to be considered a viable GC contender. Sure, he has some good ideas, but he is not going to win a national election. (unless of course the Dems were equally suicidal and nominated Kucinich - now there would be some interesting, but pointless debates.)

One last item of interest: all these lefties pushing a Paul candidacy are rather disingeneous - Paul is as pro-life as Tancrado is anti-illegal immigration.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
For mkultra, Paul’s positions are a complete change from the status quo. Many Republicans now support Big Government (at least a Republican controlled one) These are the Republicans who have come out the strongest against Paul. Some have already chosen another horse in this race and view Paul as a threat to their candidate or feel that what he points out in the debates is far different from their candidates positions.
I agree with yout point - mostly.

Paul speaks to complete incoherency of the GOP. The nominal GOP position is that government is too big and we need to limit - and, more to point, reduce - its size and reach. Even today, most if not all GOP candidates for office will take this position.

And in the GOP race for POTUS, Paul is the apostle of this position. Indeed, he is the Goldwater in the race. So one would expect strong support for Paul. Plus, he’s froom Texas.

So the vehement opposition on the right to Paul can represent only that most GOP’ers claim they believe in small government when the opposite is true. Hence the incoherency.

But what really bugs wingers about Paul is not that he is not for big government, at least in the bureaucratic sense. What really bugs them is that he is not authoritarian enough. Wingers love Bush because he will break any law in the name of "protecting" the American people. Wingers love Bush because he has no problem with locking up American citizens indefintely if "national security" demands it.

Paul has signaled that the does not believe in the indefinite detention of American citizens. He has given off similar signals with regard to other, similar issues, including spying by domestic security forces on American citizens. This is why most wingers despise him. And it’s why he finds more support out west.

Here’s why they hate - and I do mean hate - Paul. About three weeks ago he introduced the following legislation:
"The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."

Make no mistake, the modern right wing is not so much concerned with the candidate who wants to cut back on Medicare, or health insurance for kids, or any similar program. In that sense, the modern right wing is not for big government.

OTOH, the modern right wing is for an authoritarian, secertive governemnt. For some reason, the right wing has come to view the prospect of being locked up foerever on the basis of secret evidence as less of a danger than some middle class kid getting a help from the government for that surgery he needs.

That;s why so many on the right hate Ron Paul. Not because he is against big government. But because he is against authoritarian government.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Mk, there were a few typos in your post:

For some reason, the right wing has come to view the prospect of FOREIGN FIGHTERS CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD being locked up foerever on the basis of HEARINGS THAT FOREIGN FIGHTERS WERE GIVEN WITH LAWYERS PRESENT evidence as less of a danger than some UPPER MIDDLE class kid WHOSE FAMILY OWNS 3 CARS AND THEIR OWN BUSINESS getting a help from the government for that surgery he needs.D

Much better....
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
For some reason, the right wing has come to view the prospect of FOREIGN FIGHTERS CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD being locked up foerever on the basis of HEARINGS THAT FOREIGN FIGHTERS WERE GIVEN WITH LAWYERS PRESENT evidence as less of a danger than some UPPER MIDDLE class kid WHOSE FAMILY OWNS 3 CARS AND THEIR OWN BUSINESS getting a help from the government for that surgery he needs.D
Really.

Jose Padilla wasn’t captured on the battlefield. Not at all. And he was an American citizen. And he was locked up for years without charges. And wingers for the most part stood silently by and made no protests. The left, by contrast, was the side of the political spectrum pleading his case.

Sorry buddy - but like most wingers, you don’t get civil liberties. Which is why Ron Paul probably scares the hell out of you.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I see mk’s off into projectionland again...
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
...and mk, if you really want to know why conservatives have not embraced Paul as much as all the barking moonbats and paleo-libertarians have yearned, read this: Ron Paul: The Perfect as the Enemy of the Good

Summarizing, Pat Toomey, President of Club for Growth says:
...Ron Paul votes against making progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect[.] In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation. Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited-government policies, but his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Frankly, the Club For Growth’s position on Paul is laughable. They clearly recognize that he would attempt to accomplish significantly good things as President; probably more so than any other GOP candidate. Their complaint seems to be that he wouldn’t do everything they would like, or in the manner they would like. Isn’t that seeking the perfect instead of the good as well?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
I really want to like Ron Paul, but the man is a complete moonbat on foreign policy. Oh and mkultra, you just constructed so many strawmen that you’re probably eligible for some kind of agricultural subsidy.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
CfG’s position is quite clear; in fact, it is the title of the article.

Getting rid of the Dept of Ed would be great, but until you can convince a majority that its elimination, or replacement, is better than its existance, it’s not going to happen. But instead of trying a different way, vouchers in this case, Paul has consistently voted against a step in the right direction not because it is the wrong direction, but because the step doesnt land in the ideal place.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I didn’t say it wasn’t clear. I said they are guilty of the same thing as Paul. Are there any candidates who would execute perfectly in the manner that anyone wants?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Here’s why they hate - and I do mean hate - Paul. About three weeks ago he introduced the following legislation:
I actually used to think of Paul as one of the best members of Congress. Perhaps he is. But he isn’t presidential material, and he has nonsensical forign policy ideas.

His ideas on many things more closely match mine than those oft he front runners. However, I’ll vote for someone who has leadership potential over someone who more closely matches my stand on the issues.

Ron Paul is too ideological and not practical and realistic enough for the office of president. He simply won’t make it, because he isn’t presidential material. He might be the best Congressman, but legislative experience dosn’t mean much for an executive.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Frankly, the Club For Growth’s position on Paul is laughable. They clearly recognize that he would attempt to accomplish significantly good things as President; probably more so than any other GOP candidate. Their complaint seems to be that he wouldn’t do everything they would like, or in the manner they would like. Isn’t that seeking the perfect instead of the good as well?
Assuming there was a chance Paul could become president (there isn’t), he would be a lousy one for reasons highlighted by the Club For Growth.

He’d hold out for the perfect libertarian solution, thereby continuing the status quo.

If libertarian ideas are to proceed, they will have to do so as compromise, one-step-at-a-time solutions.

I’d go back to the gold standard, legalize machine guns, take apart all of the Great Society and New Deal, and move back to a country that actually follows the Constituition (yes, even the 2nd and 10th Amendments) if I could. I simply realize we ain’t getting there in one step—I’ll take what I can.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I didn’t say it wasn’t clear. I said they are guilty of the same thing as Paul. Are there any candidates who would execute perfectly in the manner that anyone wants?
No.

The Club wants someone who will be effective. Paul will hold out for perfection. He would not be an effective libertarian president even if he had a chance of winning.

This is a problem you see among libertarians and the LP; a drive to ideological purity that traps them in the margins.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
...Ron Paul votes against making progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect[.] In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.

The translation of this is that Ron Paul doesn’t vote for corporate handouts that the Club For Growth supports. The Club For Growth isn’t for limited government. They’re for limited government in the sense of limiting the ability of government to regulate business. But when it comes to using government to take taxpayer money and give it to businesses, The Club For Growth is pro-big-government.

I see mk’s off into projectionland again...

Projectionland? What was the biggest moment in any Republican debate so far? Was it Rudy Guliani blowing off Ron Paul on precisely those issues? Or what?

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Don I understand the purity problem. It’s one of the reasons why I don’t belong to the LP.

Paul as president could not operate in a vacuum. The role would force him to compromise, or nothing would happen (which might not be all bad either). Besides, if a single president accomplishes one major step towards liberty in his or her term, it’s monumental. Paul - or anyone - couldn’t make dramatic changes across the board no matter how much he desired to do so. In addition, the idea of a president taking a strong, extreme (in the eyes of most people) position on an issue might result in a compromise more suited to liberty (less watered down). The current sitting president is certainly a master at compromising down. Then again, it might result in no meaningful change (depending on the makeup of Congress) which would put some things desperately in need of change (medicare) in further jeopardy. I’m not sure, but I am tired of the sort of ’effectiveness’ that we’ve had from the last 3 presidents (that’s not to say they were completely bad of course).

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
But when it comes to using government to take taxpayer money and give it to businesses, The Club For Growth is pro-big-government.
Please provide examples.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Please provide examples..

I didn’t find one in ten minutes and gave up. Perhaps I picked the wrong Republican pro-business institute to make that claim about. The context aroused my suspicions, but I can’t verify them.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Paul is dead wrong on the WoT....

If he can’t get that right, the rest is meaningless, imho.
 
Written By: Khepri
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider