Ron Paul Is In!

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ron Paul has another million dollar day

by W. E. Messamore
Mon, Jun 06th 2011

In a challenge to Mitt Romney, the Republican Party's frontrunner for the presidential nomination, Texas Congressman Ron Paul raised another million dollars in just 24 hours Sunday, using the online fundraising technique pioneered by his grassroots supporters in 2007 known as the "money bomb." The Paul campaign urged his supporters in email updates leading up to the event to help the Texas congressman fight Mitt Romney's special interest donors from "Wall Street bankers" and the political establishment.

In addition to leading the Republican field in surveys across the country, the former Massachusetts governor raised a whopping ten million dollars in one day last month at a call-a-thon in Las Vegas, demonstrating his formidable fundraising prowess. In emails to his supporters, the Ron Paul campaign argued that he wouldn't need to raise ten million dollars to show up Mitt Romney because he doesn't have a "liberal" big government record to defend like Romney does.

Million dollar online fundraisers are now a common feature of Ron Paul's presidential ambitions. This is the second million dollar day that Ron Paul has had in the last two months, and during his 2008 bid, he raised over four million in one day and another six million in a single day just a month later. What makes Ron Paul's most recent "money bomb" especially interesting is that his campaign styled it as a battle between Ron Paul's limited government conservatism and frontrunner Mitt Romney's record of growing the entitlement state. The official name for the fundraiser was "The Revolution vs. RomneyCare: Round One."

This is the first major attack by one candidate on another's record so far in the 2012 Republican presidential primary, and subtitling it "Round One" indicates that the Paul campaign isn't finished taking Mitt Romney to task for his signature legislative accomplishment as governor. Romney's health care bill would eventually form the blueprint for the unpopular and widely controversial health care bill that opponents have pejoratively called "ObamaCare," which ironically served as a rallying point for members of the energetic Tea Party movement.

In addition to the broader intraparty struggle, it's worth comparing Ron Paul's recent "money bomb" fundraiser with that of another Tea Party favorite, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Though she is a strong fundraiser via more traditional methods, late last month when Bachmann urged supporters to help her raise $240,000 online in 24 hours, she came up short with only $165,000. During the first Republican presidential debate held in South Carolina, when asked if he had been eclipsed by Bachmann as a leader in the Tea Party movement, Ron Paul quipped that "she's not here tonight, so I don't think so."

What's clear is that Ron Paul's campaign is already moving to frame the upcoming Republican primary as a fight between himself as an advocate of limited government and frontrunner Mitt Romney who has a record of expanding government. With the kind of poll results Congressman Paul has been getting, consistently placing second or third in key primary states, outperforming most of the Republican field in name recognition, and besting every single other Republican contender in a hypothetical 2012 campaign against Barack Obama, Paul certainly has the credibility to assert this political narrative. Time will tell if Republican voters agree.

http://caivn.org/article/2011/06/07/ron-paul-has-another-million-dollar-day

 

[dagnabit]

i really dont think when the curtain closes middle american republikunts will pull the lever for a mormon...
i could give a shit 'bout his majic underwear but the rabid masses???

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Ok, I will stop torturing everybody and get back on track.

http://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com/2011/05/walter-block-ron-paul-can-win-in-2012.html

Sunday, May 15, 2011
Walter Block - Ron Paul Can Win In 2012
From LRC Blog

Ron Paul Can Win in 2012

By Walter E. Block

If Ron Paul can somehow win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party, he will have an excellent chance of beating Barack Obama in November 2012. He will of course face great obstacles in the Republican primaries, but, if he can overcome them, it ought to be downhill after that.

Why will the congressman from Texas have a good shot at beating a sitting President during (non-declared) war time?

Paul can out-left Obama on foreign policy and personal liberties, and thus make gigantic inroads on the latter’s base, while at the same time maintain his right wing credentials on economics.

Not only has Obama not withdrawn the U.S. from Iraq, as promised, he has involved us in yet another undeclared war in Libya. He has expanded the hostilities from Afghanistan to Pakistan, utilizing drone strikes. He has presided over the murder of dozens of Yemenis, none of whom posed any threat to our shores. He has allowed torture for the WikiLeaker, and on U.S. territory. Obama is responsible for the biggest military spending in the history of the world, has bailed out fat cats from Wall Street to Detroit, and still has not closed down our torture chamber in Cuba, again as promised. Ron Paul, in contrast, opposes corporate welfare, and would not only exit, and forthwith, from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, but would do so for hundreds (yes, hundreds) of other nations ranging from Germany to Japan to vast parts of South America, Asia, and Africa. What on earth are we still doing in all these faraway places, the left wing of the Democratic Party might well ask?

A Paul Administration would hack away heavily at the previously sacrosanct military budget, radically tackling our financial crisis without any need to raise our debt ceiling once again. In contrast, it will be the same old, same old, from Obama. The deficits will continue to be monetized by the Fed, creating inflation, and thus exacerbating poverty (Isn’t the left supposed to be against poverty?) and further decreasing the value of the sinking dollar.

Another area in which Obama’s base will actually prefer Paulian policy is drug legalization. Disproportionate numbers of young black men are now in jail for engaging in this victimless crime, and all too many others of them have perished from violence due to prohibition (Aren’t “progressives” supposed to favor the black community?). Have we learned nothing from our dire experience with the prohibition of alcohol? The country to the south of us is unraveling at a ferocious pace due to these self same drug laws, and we ourselves cannot much longer remain immune from this whirlwind this legislation has created.

Of course, Paul’s policies on eliminating U.S. imperialism abroad and saving us from the scourge of drug prohibition at home will not resonate too well with the conservative Republicans, who are pretty rabid in the wrong direction on both issues. And, while Representative Paul has made great strides in denigrating the central planning Fed and promoting the 100% gold backed dollar as a method of quelling the business cycle with its heightened unemployment and bankruptcies, it cannot be said that this is at all acceptable to the party faithful on either side of the aisle. (Do both the left and the right favor our current depression?)

Dr. Paul is particularly vulnerable on the question of Israel, in the view of some people. He wants to end so called “foreign aid” (more accurately and less pejoratively translated into “government to government transfers of funds,” which does not at all imply program benefits). But this would mean that the only functioning democracy in the Middle East would have its financial support taken away from it. However, U.S. transfers of funds to Israel’s enemies in the Arab world vastly outweigh that given to this country alone. This home of the Jewish people would have less money (private donations would of course be unaffected) from the U.S. government absolutely, but relative to its enemies it would actually gain. As well, these funds render the Israeli economy less efficient than would otherwise be the case. These points have recently been appreciated by the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. For more on why Ron Paul should be greatly appreciated by the Jewish community, see here, here and here.

Social security, too, is a sacred cow amongst the Republicans. So much for their adherence to the philosophy of free enterprise. But this is actually a vast left wing conspiracy (FDR inaugurated it). Bernie Madoff just went to prison for something very much along these Ponzi scheme lines. The idea behind this “third rail” of American politics is that people are too stupid to save for their old ages and the state must force them to do so, for their own good. But if the electorate is that deranged, how can we allow them to vote at all, let alone to expect them to mark their ballot boxes wisely. And, how is it that they are so wise so as to elect politicians who will then correct these errors of theirs? No, this policy rends asunder family ties between the younger and older generations, and is not needed. Just because some few will act in a silly manner is no reason to forcibly victimize all of us with the Ponzi scheme. Ron will end this sacred cow, but the Republicans, to say nothing of the Democrats, will not like it one bit.

But at least this statesman from Texas is not a socialist like Romney with his medical plan for Massachusetts which anticipated Obama’s compulsory support for the health insurance industry. Dr. Paul would rely, instead, on a truly free market in medicine to drive prices down to reasonable levels, as this system has done in all other industries that have been left relatively free. Capitalism works for everything else, why not health care? Nor is Congressman Paul a theocratic imperialist as is Mike Huckabee, nor is he a lightweight of the order of Sarah Palin, nor is he a flake like Donald Trump, whose main accomplishment in politics is to force Obama to release his birth certificate. So, will Ron win the Republican nomination, and then go on to victory in the next election?

All we can say for sure is that the next political cycle is likely to be fought over ideas and philosophies, not personalities as in the past, if Paul gets the nod from the Republicans.

i really dont think when the curtain closes middle american republikunts will pull the lever for a mormon...
i could give a shit 'bout his majic underwear but the rabid masses???

maybe they can, they got passed Obama being a Muslim. lol

 

[ijim]

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson that would be a nice ticket. It is true that they may not have a snow balls chance in hell to win. But the more votes they get the more others have to stand up and pay attention to them. The media will only wow about the money raised and still push their front runner darlings. But you have to keep trying or else become slaves to the status quo.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ok, I will stop torturing everybody and get back on track.

http://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com/2011/05/walter-block-ron-paul-can-win-in-2012.html

maybe they can, they got passed Obama being a Muslim. lol

Yep, if folks get past the magic skid marks then Ron's gonna have to break out heavy artillery aka more money bombs. I wonder if Mitt's magic underwear had anything to do with Clinton's "brief" episode and his subsequent rising pole, er, uh... poll.

Not only has Obama not withdrawn the U.S. from Iraq, as promised, he has involved us in yet another undeclared war in Libya. He has expanded the hostilities from Afghanistan to Pakistan, utilizing drone strikes. He has presided over the murder of dozens of Yemenis, none of whom posed any threat to our shores. He has allowed torture for the WikiLeaker, and on U.S. territory. Obama is responsible for the biggest military spending in the history of the world, has bailed out fat cats from Wall Street to Detroit, and still has not closed down our torture chamber in Cuba, again as promised. Ron Paul, in contrast, opposes corporate welfare, and would not only exit, and forthwith, from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, but would do so for hundreds (yes, hundreds) of other nations ranging from Germany to Japan to vast parts of South America, Asia, and Africa. What on earth are we still doing in all these faraway places, the left wing of the Democratic Party might well ask?

Hell I qualify for that question. Where the hell did you go Obama? Certainly not the campaigner anymore. It's gonna be tough for O to taut bold initiatives when bold has already gone old - Washington, that is.

That's a good read. Every paragraph seems to point out that Dr. Paul weighs in on the heaviest of issues that gel with the electorate yet shake up the perpetual DC party town.

Somebody has to reign in the MIC expenditures and we're fanning that flame with earnest.

I'm not a supporter of the current entitlement reform that introduces the profit sector but I realize we've got to consider what it takes to wane expenditures .

If Dr. Paul had a more equitable distribution of austerity measures plan I'd change my voter registration to R so I can vote in the primary. Winning the nomination would buy me more time to consider for the general election.

 

[Bazarocka]

Absolutely

Absolutely

Power corrupts! Absolute power corrupts absolutely!
It is the Game EVERYWHERE and is more potent than any drugs discovered or invented. It perverts human character and rarely does anyone rise above it all the time. We are not very far from the apes in the trees.[/quote

One of my favorite quotes. And THE WAY I look at it now,THEY got ALL the money. ONLY THING left to quench their GREED is "Power".

But Thats Just Me.
AND I WOULD VOTE FOR OLE RON...

 

[ijim]

Obama needs to keep our solders, sailors and airmen overseas and pay hefty reenlistment bonuses. If he brought them home as promised there would be hundreds of thousands of new people on unemployment. And he would have to pressure his corporate buddy's to invest in production instead of stocks and bonds. Increased production would bring prices down and piss off the Chinese and ruin the easy credit game for the government. That with higher unemployment would surely ruin his chance of reelection and even more riches for himself. Four more years and big pharm should have new Cannabis based medications available. Making his stock skyrocket. Cant take a chance and wait for someone to do the right thing and end the war on drugs. Paul and Johnson would end the war on the people and restore government "Of And For The People" with term limits.

 

[dagnabit]

Obama needs to keep our solders, sailors and airmen overseas and pay hefty reenlistment bonuses. If he brought them home as promised there would be hundreds of thousands of new people on unemployment.

just cuz they come home they aren't unemployed.
the contract don't end when the war does

 

[SpasticGramps]

Somebody has to reign in the MIC expenditures and we're fanning that flame with earnest.

Big O is now expanding the war in Yemen too. He's the MIC's best buddy right now. Never mind the illegal wars we are fighting in Libya and Pakistan.

That makes for 5 major theaters of war. Guess he deserves another Nobel Peace Prize, eh?

 

[bentom187]

the seperation of power is a joke,i seen a dem. last night on cnn ,she was asked weather it was constitutional or not for the pres.to declaire war and all she said was we are playing a subsidary role to nato so its no big deal,and then refrenced some legislation that jhon mcain was trying to pass,wich i can only guess is going to change this rule.
also i beleive she stated somthing about it being a CIA operation.
WTF these elections cant come soon enough.

 

[SpasticGramps]

WTF these elections cant come soon enough.

I don't know that elections can save our asses. I like Ron, but there is no way the establishment lets him get the nomination IMO. It will be some other big spending war mongering Neo-Conservative Progressive.

Only thing that's going to save us is marching on Washington DC.

 

[bentom187]

i was watching somthing on the neo-cons on youtube,they follow the princable of a man named leon trotsky ,who was for a perfect communist worker state. it seems that its working out quite well,we will all be govt payed employees soon enough(no need to point out that most already are).
i dont know how relivant that is but it gives ya a good idea what they want this to look like.

 

[dagnabit]

it's pretty sad when we have two liberal parties..

the only differences are meaningless wedge issues that aren't even federal issues(EG. abortion,gay marriage ect...)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

With the exception of Afghanistan, at least it ain't approaching terrorist activity with large-scale conventional armies.

We could have taken Osama w/o large scale invasion of the Taliban and Delta Force(d) the Al Queda issue. Iraq was bone headed.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Disenfranchised voters doesn't mean we have two sides of the same coin. We're just disaffected because money bought the system we see today. You have to turn a blind eye to everything to suggest that everything is the same, regardless of who is running the show.

IMO, peeps not ever getting their way is oversimplified to no difference in policy, where they refuse to even look at IMO substantial differences.

Another thing is the old adage, "The more things change the more they stay the same." That's like a double edge sword that exemplifies our complacency toward understanding what works and what doesn't. What's good that can't possibly be perfect.

Then we have our democratic differences that constitute what "good" actually entails.

I offer our politics has never been more polarized aka different. It's the big money interest that keep lawmakers in office that appears to morph into similarity.

IMO, you wouldn't want to get down into the nitty gritty that both-parties-are-the-same pontificates.

 

[dagnabit]

differences?

like what?
corporate bailouts?
monetary policy?
foreign entanglements?
usa patriot?
gitmo still open?
MMJ/states rights?
the differences are lip service.
just three card monty.

 

[dagnabit]

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

examples.... I love it

examples.... I love it

differences?

like what?
corporate bailouts?

Enter de regulation. We wouldn't have to bail out fraud on epic proportions if we regulated fraud where it runs amok. But that goes against free-market pie that says get out of the way and allow the cloud to get our morals and ethics right.

Clinton did de regulate the banks but not w/o a Republican majority. To get what policy he wanted, Clinton compromised in the wrong place. But he knew we no longer manufacture enough to progress and he underestimated what a (financial) market-based economy would do for the near term, more so for sustained growth.

With that exception, big difference in policy. One only have to look at revenue differences to see night and day. Neither side matching your fundamental ideals is no argument we have a two headed coin.

monetary policy?

Big difference. Deficits vs surpluses. Last deficit was so bad we can no longer climb out of the whole w/o comprehensive regulation to address the fraud that spawned post-GS. Not to mention the economic problems that global trade introduced. Not to mention that it's money that morphs us into indistinguishable between ideologies. You have to consider the real ramifications of policy and compare numbers to see what works best for all. Unless of course one thinks what's best for him means the economic world will still revolve.

We've taken polarization to new heights.

foreign entanglements?

Don't forget what Eisenhower warned when he left office. He didn't just talk about a spook that could bite us in the ass. His emphasis was that the spook bites policy in the ass.

usa patriot?

IMO, a mixture of genuine concern of terror and how we approach it. One side wanted to Delta force Al Queda and the other routed the entire country, then went to another country that presented more tactical theater operations to demonstrate of might, hoping to make the collective middle east (excepting Israel) fear us.

gitmo still open?

No choice on that one. The side that spawned that rot won't allow us to try terror criminals in civilian courts. We can either release handful of people that would do us further harm, try them in civilian courts and throw away the key or we have to leave Guantanamo open for business.

Goes to show what a quagmire that military commissions beget.

MMJ/states rights?

Now I don;t like to demonstrate this difference because it's offensive to political weed smokers.

I'll just say this...

Keep a running count of state and federal lawmakers, noting who's pro-reform and who's pro-hibition.

I'll let you hash that considerably polar situation however you see fit. But the stripe disparity is obvious.

the differences are lip service.
just three card monty.

I want you to know I always appreciate you helping me make my point.

 

[dagnabit]

Enter de regulation. We wouldn't have to bail out fraud on epic proportions if we regulated fraud where it runs amok. But that goes against free-market pie that says get out of the way and allow the cloud to get our morals and ethics right.

Clinton did de regulate the banks but not w/o a Republican majority. To get what policy he wanted, Clinton compromised in the wrong place. But he knew we no longer manufacture enough to progress and he underestimated what a (financial) market-based economy would do for the near term, more so for sustained growth.

With that exception, big difference in policy. One only have to look at revenue differences to see night and day. Neither side matching your fundamental ideals is no argument we have a two headed coin.

clintion DID deregulate banks WITH republicans!
my point.

Big difference. Deficits vs surpluses.

we have a surplus?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Last deficit was so bad we can no longer climb out of the whole w/o comprehensive regulation to address the fraud that spawned post-GS. Not to mention the economic problems that global trade introduced.

nafta cafta gatt
all bipartisan with grumblings as token resistance

Not to mention that it's money that morphs us into indistinguishable between ideologies.

ok im a moron or there is a syntax error

You have to consider the real ramifications of policy and compare numbers to see what works best for all. Unless of course one thinks what's best for him means the economic world will still revolve.

compare away...
in TODAYS government there is comparison but no contrast other than talking points used to keep the sheep fighting each other while the largest contributor to BOTH candidates in the last executive election WAS GS and CB!!!!

We've taken polarization to new heights.

agreed
we have been led to that poison water and we drink freely!
while we argue over bullshit in the front yard they are robbing the house through the back door (both parties)

Don't forget what Eisenhower warned when he left office. He didn't just talk about a spook that could bite us in the ass. His emphasis was that the spook bites policy in the ass.

gotta go back to '61 to find a difference

IMO, a mixture of genuine concern of terror and how we approach it. One side wanted to Delta force Al Queda and the other routed the entire country, then went to another country that presented more tactical theater operations to demonstrate of might, hoping to make the collective middle east (excepting Israel) fear us.

which of the parties is calling for the repeal of the act?
ohhh thats right NONE!!!

No choice on that one.

sure there is..

XO

The side that spawned that rot won't allow us to try terror criminals in civilian courts. We can either release handful of people that would do us further harm, try them in civilian courts and throw away the key or we have to leave Guantanamo open for business.

perfect example!
they get us arguing about who is to blame while the erosion of constitutional rights rolls right along!

Now I don;t like to demonstrate this difference because it's offensive to political weed smokers.

I'll just say this...

Keep a running count of state and federal lawmakers, noting who's pro-reform and who's pro-hibition.

i keep a running list of jailed,raided,bullied and harassed(by the feds) mmj states...

look for a thread entitled "feds thump on montana" for insight as to just how disparate (r) and (d) are..
sure you have tokens who put up bills (whom their own parties laugh at) but again just look to the recent bulling of states by the executive for whats real

I'll let you hash that considerably polar situation however you see fit. But the stripe disparity is obvious.

the stripes are on the backs of patients put there by lawmakers on both sides for making hash.

I want you to know I always appreciate you helping me make my point.

and id like you to know i appreciate the rare instances where our points are in unison.


in closing:
some folks allow allegiance to a party blind them to the simple truth that both major parties are now wholly owned subsidiaries of the same corporate masters.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

clintion DID deregulate banks WITH republicans!
my point.

You're right, it's history. It's factual. But the stark conclusions being offered appear to surmise that legislation is omni-direct where many of our laws were achieved through compromise.

we have a surplus?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

had = have? intellectual dishonesty?

nafta cafta gatt
all bipartisan with grumblings as token resistance

I can recognize the fact and acknowledge your reasoning. I also gather that what comes afterward varies widely. Doesn't mean I discount what you said one bit.

ok im a moron or there is a syntax error

I sure I'm capable of botching context and reson, etc. But you're not a moron, we're just opinionated. I admire you for that.

compare away...
in TODAYS government there is comparison but no contrast other than talking points used to keep the sheep fighting each other while the largest contributor to BOTH candidates in the last executive election WAS GS and CB!!!!

Good point.

With all due respect, I personally have to go beyond rhetoric to discover that lawmakers often vote for or against something, only to pander just the opposite to the public. It's called politics, it gets the attention of folks that might otherwise see us with 20% or less voter turnout.

we have been led to that poison water and we drink freely!
while we argue over bullshit in the front yard they are robbing the house through the back door (both parties)


gotta go back to '61 to find a difference


which of the parties is calling for the repeal of the act?
ohhh thats right NONE!!!

That's why I didn't say parties. I mentioned individuals (to paraphrase).

Now, when you get there, add up the disparity and my onus is disparity in bipartisan reform. But that's no giant issue when I can't ascertain the complexities of big money ramifications. It's also a moral issue to some and they're unswayed by economics. This is one of the worst political morasses, IMO.

perfect example!
they get us arguing about who is to blame while the erosion of constitutional rights rolls right along!

Constitutionality is a double edge sword. Part of it's legit and part of it's opinion. I try not to pander against your opinion the Constitution is a static document. I just happen to fall on the other side of the principal. IMO, we need both perspectives to keep one side or the other from dragging the issue to far in one direction.

extending the olive branch, hoping I don't pull back a nub.

i keep a running list of jailed,raided,bullied and harassed(by the feds) mmj states...

look for a thread entitled "feds thump on montana" for insight as to just how disparate (r) and (d) are..
sure you have tokens who put up bills (whom their own parties laugh at) but again just look to the recent bulling of states by the executive for whats real

Check out the detail when the headline (even the article, depending) doesn't give us the behind-the-scenes scoop. Recent state bills and even laws have written their respective language such that the feds equate said language with large, for-profit enterprise.

California never ventured that far yet still has problems with a complex issue. I don't like it any more than you do, I don't even defend any federal intervention. But I'd damn sure know my vulnerabilities before jumping headlong into something that apparently has kinks in the process. I know that's a pass and I fail to blather away any our our legit concerns.

It's just that my head starts to shrink from all the unhappiness that understands what we're dealing with substantively yet not know the details. We've got the cerebral gravitas to own these issues, even if we don't get what we want. IMO too many details are glossed over or omitted by the media. We've got one hand tied behind our back when we don't get the nature of negotiations and the players involved.

Even CSPAN gets the boring, watching-paint-dry aspects only to actually see respective lawmakers close a door and block us out of the process. If I see my rep closing the door I'll vote for the next guy. I'm not sure that Heath Shuler represents my interests with mmj anyway.

I wish it were easier to get the parts we're often left in the dark.

To me it's no different than mmj advocates taking Obama's campaign rhetoric when the verbatim context isn't considered. Obama didn't just suggest that feds shouldn't go after states where reform laws were enacted. One second later Obama acknowledges that mj is still illegal and not to underestimate the ramifications. I know people don't like hedge answers on this topic and neither do I.

and id like you to know i appreciate the rare instances where our points are in unison.

I concur.

in closing:
some folks allow allegiance to a party blind them to the simple truth that both major parties are now wholly owned subsidiaries of the same corporate masters.

No argument over corporate manipulation. I just disagree that equates to zero policy differences. IMO, they're very stark and very identifiable.