Ron Paul Predicts More than $12 Million for 4th Quarter

-

This just in from Bloomberg’s Lorraine Woellert:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul said he has raised more than $9 million in the past two months and he predicted his campaign will exceed its $12 million fourth-quarter goal.

“It looks like we can’t stay under it,” Paul, a long-shot candidate for the Republican nomination, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” scheduled to air today. Paul said organizers expect a Dec. 16 fundraising blitz to bring in more than the $4.2 million a similar event raised on Nov. 5, an “astounding” amount.
Paul said he has begun “spending generously” in key early-primary states. He is competing in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, and said he expects to have money to campaign through Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, when at least 22 states may hold primaries and decide the nomination.
Paul called his Republican presidential rivals, including frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, neo-conservatives” whom he couldn’t support in the general election should his own bid fail.
“They think we’re supposed to spread our goodness through force,” Paul said. For example, none will pledge not to wage war on Iran, he said. “How could I support something like that?”

I’ve just added Ron Paul to the poster of alternative and improved Republicanism below. I don’t agree with all of Paul’s views — but to generate $12 million in a single quarter behind the kind of clear critique of the Bush administration’s reckless crusades is impressive.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

22 comments on “Ron Paul Predicts More than $12 Million for 4th Quarter

  1. firmalar says:

    Ron Paul is the only politician ever I sent money to.

    Reply

  2. firmalar says:

    good archives thanks you

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    POA.. this one’s for you.. In Defense of Ron Paul.
    http://www.alternet,org/rights/69139/?page=entire

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I see Marky is back. Oh goodie.

    Reply

  5. arthurdecco says:

    “Otherwise, you may want to consider someone who’s not, well, totally insane.”
    “If you believe…that the invasion of Iraq was the culmination of a nefarious Jewish plot…” posted by tWB
    Dispensing with your hyperbole, the essential facts of the case aren’t even open to argument anymore, tWB, according to the copious footnotes in Walt and Mearsheimer’s latest tome, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”. So we know Ron Pauls’s not “totally insane”. He got one thing right, didn’t he? Maybe he got that one right by accident tho, whaddaya think?

    Reply

  6. tWB says:

    Having actually attended “Ron Paul Republican” conferences, I’m amused by the sudden groundswell of net-based support for Paul. If you believe in making the United States a “UN-Free Zone;” that public schools are the enemy of Christianity and should be replaced by homeschooling and religious schools; that there’s a one-worlder conspiracy to build a guarded Mexican toll road up the heart of Middle America; that the Civil Rights Act is illegal; that the invasion of Iraq was the culmination of a nefarious Jewish plot; and that unfettered, libertarian capitalism is the only moral economic system, then Paul’s the candidate for you.
    Otherwise, you may want to consider someone who’s not, well, totally insane.

    Reply

  7. Kathleen says:

    Anyone who had the smarts to oppose the damned war can’t be all bad. I’m a strong supporter of the UN, so Ron Paul and I part company on that issue, but I think he’s a better choice than ANY other Repug.

    Reply

  8. Carroll says:

    “It is the average American’s anger and disillutionment that is crying out for change, begging for representation and a true interest in our welfare and security. “…..POA
    Ditto
    A Ron Paul is actually what we need right now. I don’t agree with some of his more extreme views…but I would not be afraid of them if he were to be elected. Mainly because total isolation is not possible anyway and if he tilted us too far in that direction it would soon correct itself out of practical necessity.
    But we need the tilting to change bizness as usual in Washington…something has throw the establishment politicans off track so we can get a government that actually gets back to the basics and governs for America.

    Reply

  9. ... says:

    poa- just so you know… some of us are out in internet land listening and reading your comments… ron paul is a strong voice in the wilderness, but he is getting more recognition that i thought… i really hope it continues and his ideas get some traction.. ron paul against the corporate agenda is how i view it… almost all the others are unwilling to rock the boat..

    Reply

  10. PissedOffAmerican says:

    If there is any doubt about whether or not AIPAC influences elections and policy here in the USA, this is a MUST READ, a transcript of the former President of AIPAC, David Steiner, being recorded without his knowledge…
    http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1292/9212013.html
    Remember that schill from Hasbara….
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hasbara
    …that used to post here, and tell us that “AIPAC” was just like any other lobby?

    Reply

  11. PissedOffAmerican says:

    It’s Treason: Dems Stay Silent on Bush White House Crimes
    By Richard W. Behan, AlterNet. Posted November 16, 2007.
    Lying to the people and the Congress was the most despicable violation of the rule of law by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, but many more followed.
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. –Article III, Section 3, United States Constitution
    The mainstream Democrats — represented, say, by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Christopher Dodd — have not levied war against the United States. Their treason lies instead in committing the second offense: They adhere to enemies of the country, giving them aid and comfort.
    The enemies are President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney. Like no other president and vice president in history, these men attacked their country.
    It was not our geography George Bush and Richard Cheney invaded. Instead they abandoned and subverted the bedrock institution of our constitutional democracy: the rule of law. By word and deed, Mr. Bush repeatedly and arrogantly sets himself above the law, claiming obedience to be a matter of presidential choice. Mr. Cheney orchestrates, coaches, applauds and iterates.
    This cannot stand if the country we know and cherish is to survive. George Bush and Richard Cheney are literally enemies of the state; long before now and by any measure of constitutional justice, they should have been impeached and removed from office.
    Abjectly, continuously and stubbornly refusing to hold them accountable, however, the mainstream Democrats adhere to this criminal president and vice president: Nothing they have asked for has been denied, no barriers placed in their way. That is giving them aid and comfort, and that is treason. George Bush and Richard Cheney took the country to war illegally, with a deliberate, carefully designed and executed package of fear-mongering propaganda: lies, distortions and deceptions. No informed citizen entertains the slightest doubt about this.
    Lying to the people and the Congress was the most despicable violation of the rule of law by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, but many more followed: torturing prisoners, denying habeas corpus, spying on U.S. citizens, nullifying new laws with “signing statements” and so on and on. The litany of impeachable offenses is long and painful, but the so-called “War on Terror,” these men insist, makes all of it acceptable, even necessary. Nearly six years have elapsed since the Bush administration first defeated the rule of law. For most of these years, a Republican Congress saw fit not to intervene, or even to question this behavior, so effective was the administration’s propaganda campaign and so firm were the bonds of partisanship. But now the mainstream Democrats control the Congress.
    Also during these six years, the truth emerged, and now we can see the “War on Terror” truly for what it is — an overarching megalie, an untruth of such unimaginable scope and magnitude it recalibrates for an entire nation the perception of reality. (Aryan supremacy was the megalie of Nazi Germany.) No one should be surprised that the threat of terrorism has increased, not diminished, since 9/11: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not even remotely intended to combat it.
    We know the Bush administration, when it took office, was indifferent to terrorism, brushing aside explicit warnings about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden; we know the president was planning instead, at least six months before 9/11, to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq; we know of a National Security Council memorandum dated Feb. 3, 2001, concerning the “capture of new and existing oil and gas fields” in Iraq; we have acquired with a lawsuit the maps of Iraqi oil fields Vice President Cheney’s “Energy Task Force” was studying a month later; we have learned how the privatized structure of Iraq’s postwar oil industry was designed by the Bush administration a year before the war began; we know the administration was negotiating pipeline rights-of-way with the Taliban, unsuccessfully, until five weeks before 9/11; we know the final threat to them was a “carpet of bombs”; we are aware of President Bush twice refusing offers from the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden, before and after the carpet of bombs was unleashed; we’ve read of the five “megabases” in Iraq to house 100,000 troops for as long as 50 years; we’ve learned the U.S. Embassy compound under construction in Baghdad will be ten times larger than any other in the world; and we know Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, and British Petroleum/Amoco are poised to claim immense profits from 81 percent of Iraq’s undeveloped oil fields.
    Are these the activities and outcomes of a “War on Terror?”
    We also know President Bush, a month before 9/11 in August of 2001, notified the governments of Pakistan and India he would launch a military mission into Afghanistan “before the end of October.”
    Between the dates of the president’s announcement and his order to attack, the Trade Towers and the Pentagon were struck by the hijacked airliners. Seizing in a heartbeat this spectacular opportunity to disguise and launch the preplanned invasions, the Bush administration concocted the megalie, and the “War on Terror” was born.
    The “War on Terror” is a conscious and ingenious masquerade for the geostrategic pursuit and control of Middle Eastern oil and gas resources. The facts place this beyond dispute. Mr. Bush’s claim of “taking the fight directly to the terrorists … and the states that harbor them” was yet one more intentional deception, as subsequent events fully demonstrated. In Afghanistan the state was overthrown instead of apprehending the terrorists — Osama bin Laden remains at large — and in Iraq, when we invaded, there were no terrorists at all. But today both “states” are fitted with puppet governments and dotted with permanent U.S. military bases in close proximity to their hydrocarbon assets.
    Only the Bush administration continues to natter about a bogus “War on Terror.” Others are more candid:
    Republican Sen. Senator Charles Hagel: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.” (Speaking at Catholic University, Sept. 24, 2007)
    Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in his book The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World: “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”
    Democratic Sen. Jon Tester: “We’re still fighting a war in Iraq and people who are honest about it will admit we’re there over oil.” (Associated Press, Sept. 24, 2007)
    Gen. John Abizaid, retired CENTCOM commander: “Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that.” (Speaking at Stanford University, Oct. 13, 2007)
    The criminal fraudulence of the “War on Terror” is fully documented, but the contemporary press has been derelict in failing to expose the mega-lie and publicize it. The mainstream Democrats are equally derelict in ignoring it. Failing to hold President Bush accountable for his crimes constitutes the most profound obstruction of justice. And failing to contradict his hideous megalie clearly reinforces the president’s hand: the mainstream Democrats are now accomplices.
    The damage done by the Democrats’ treason is equally great in prospect. Without exposing the lie of the war in Iraq and acting upon the exposure, there is no credible and reliable way to stop the administration’s insane intention of attacking Iran. The proffered rationales — and the fraudulence — are identical, as the Democrats stride toward complicity in yet another illegal and immoral war.
    Why can’t the mainstream Democrats speak sublime truth to demonic power? Doing so, they claim, would be too “divisive” and jeopardize the party’s success in next year’s election.
    This strategy is politically suicidal. A Democratic sweep in 2008 grows dimmer every day.
    The rank-and-file Republicans who continue to believe Mr. Bush’s lies about the “War on Terror” will not vote for a Democrat. The rank-and-file Democrats who see through the lies are increasingly enraged by the insipid waffling of their mainstream candidates. And roughly half the American people don’t bother to vote at all, repelled by the tawdry attack ads and negativity of bitterly partisan, superficial, sophomoric and issue-avoidance politicking.
    If the mainstream Democrats do nothing to change this, they will wind up where they’re headed — disappointed and defeated in 2008 — and they will deserve it. Only by exposing and acting on the truth about the war can they change any Republican minds, regain the support of disenchanted Democrats and attract the politically inert, indifferent Americans. A new style of politics needs badly to be engaged, one that is dedicated not merely to winning elections, but to a genuine concern for truth, for justice, for the rule of law and for integrity in public service.
    The most direct and honorable way of invoking such a style is by impeaching George Bush and Richard Cheney. Never in our history have the high crimes and misdemeanors been so flagrant, and the people of our country know it.
    Yes, congressman Kucinich sought with a “member’s privilege” motion to initiate an impeachment proceeding on the floor of the House of Representatives. But Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer moved immediately to kill the initiative, only to be thwarted by a Republican trick. Finally, Nancy Pelosi, desperate to avoid a floor debate, managed to have the matter referred to the Judiciary Committee, where Chairman John Conyers has been sitting on the original bill since last April. The giving of aid and comfort to the enemies will, seemingly, continue.
    But the mainstream Democrats now face a carpe diem moment of truly historic measure: If they choose, they can foreswear their treason. It was a majority, bipartisan vote that sent the impeachment bill to Judiciary, and that is all the political cover the Democrats need to take the next courageous and necessary step.
    For the sake of the rule of law, for the sake of the integrity of the Congress, for the sake of the country’s future and incidentally for the sake of a potential Democratic victory in 2008, the politics of truth and justice must be showcased. The Judiciary Committtee must hold hearings immediately, to see if impeachment is in fact warranted — and polls say the greater part of the country thinks it is.
    If the mainstream Democrats will not do this, if their treason continues, then decent and thinking citizens everywhere — concerned patriots all — can only weep for their country.
    http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/67707/

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And, of course, trying to find a DIRECT QUOTE from this posturing fraud Hillary about the issue of impeachment is impossible. God forbid she actually commit to any specific political concept, ideal, or policy advocation. Heck, she might be trying to con a totally different bloc of voters tomorrow, and she wouldn’t wanna say anything that might run counter to tomorrow’s script.

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Lawmakers need to stand up for the Constitution and support impeachment
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. — Article II, Section 4
    On Nov. 6, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney on the floor of the House of Representatives. For one shining moment the will of the majority of Americans and the promise of this nation’s founders were truly represented.
    The detailed charges were solemnly read from the House podium and televised on C-Span. House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer made a motion to table the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lobbied hard for votes to table.
    In a stunning turnaround, House Republicans changed strategy and voted decisively to prevent tabling the impeachment resolution.
    Pelosi was defied by 85 Democratic members who voted against tabling the impeachment resolution. This includes John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and six committee members. The resolution was quickly voted back to the Judiciary Committee, where it is not resting quietly.
    Judiciary Committee member Bob Wexler wrote, “The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush administration.”
    Impeachment is squarely on the table, and momentum is building. A year ago, almost no elected official breathed the word impeachment. Now impeachment has hit the House floor, and our electeds have gone on record. Millions of Americans are demanding an end to executive abuse of power.
    After six years of state of emergency, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, continual war and occupations, our Constitution is deeply in crisis. Americans are in danger of losing our system of government and civil rights if they do not roll back the Bush administration’s assault on the rule of law.
    Allowing Cheney and George W. Bush to finish their terms without being impeached means future presidents are free to copy their lawless behavior. Of course many important issues deserve the attention of Congress. But the Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, not just an issue. Without the Constitution, we have nothing.
    Polls show that 74 percent of Democrats and the majority of American adults support impeaching Cheney. “Never in our history have the high crimes and misdemeanors been so flagrant, and the people of our country know it,” writes local author Richard Behan.
    Kucinich has targeted Cheney first, but investigations will implicate the president as well. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50 percent of respondents say they “strongly disapprove” of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48 percent, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974. With these numbers, why aren’t Bush and Cheney gone already?
    The vice president is accused of:
    purposely manipulating intelligence to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to justify an attack on Iraq;
    deceiving Congress about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida;
    threatening aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States.
    These violations of the Constitution and international treaty are just the tip of the iceberg. More articles of impeachment can be added at any time, and ample evidence to convict is on the public record. Representatives need to introduce articles regarding:
    illegal war, in violation of both international treaty and the Constitution;
    widespread domestic wiretapping in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony. Bush already has admitted to this;
    condoning torture in violation of federal laws and international treaties;
    rescinding habeas corpus, the cornerstone of Western law since the Magna Carta;
    obstruction of justice regarding U.S. attorney firings;
    subversion of the Constitution, abuse of signing statements and rescinding habeas corpus.
    It’s astounding that our representatives to Congress carry on with business as usual knowing that Americans lack habeas corpus and a working code of law. I want my representative, Dave Reichert, to block the doors of the House until habeas is restored as a basic human right in this nation!
    In light of Bush’s steady drumbeat for war with Iran, Kucinich said he will consider an impeachment resolution against him.
    “Impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran,” he says.
    “The most conservative principle of the Founding Fathers was distrust of unchecked power. Centuries of experience substantiated that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Constitution embraced a separation of powers to keep the legislative, executive and judicial branches in equilibrium,” Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said in the October 2006 edition of Washington Monthly.
    If Congress were serious about oversight, there already would be dozens of bills and resolutions calling for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. The “Unitary Executive Theory” violates the principle of balance of power in the Constitution. The president cites this “unitary” power in hundreds of signing statements that say he can ignore laws passed by Congress.
    The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments are all now subject to the caprice of government officials. The Military Commissions Act allows U.S. citizens to be detained without due process if they are declared enemy combatants. Without our permission, this country has become an exporter of torture.
    Congress has failed to provide oversight and exercise its authority to rein in a criminal administration. Only swift action on impeachment can redeem it now. The people have done the heavy work of bringing impeachment forward. Representatives need only ask if the allegations are serious enough to warrant investigations.
    George Bush and Dick Cheney promote an imperial presidency. They assert that the executive is the most powerful branch of government, undermining the judiciary and Congress in violation of the Constitution’s bedrock principle of shared power among three co-equal branches. This subverts the very nature of our system of government.
    “This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy. … That’s a big problem because that’s essentially a dictatorship,” Fein said.
    Washington For Impeachment and Citizens to Impeach Bush and Cheney are working to inform the public, collect signatures to petitions, provide forums, and lobby representatives. Washington was the second state to sponsor a bill for impeachment in the state Legislature.
    Washington State Democratic organizations have passed resolutions in 11 Democratic legislative districts, five counties and the Washington State Democratic Central Committee. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, has received impeachment resolutions from almost every legislative district within his congressional district. When will he represent the will of his constituents and honor his oath to protect the Constitution?
    The national movement to impeach is a non-partisan effort to restore the Constitution and the rule of law. People across the political spectrum can unite to preserve the Constitution and civil liberties given to us by the founders. Impeachment is the peaceful, orderly, constitutionally prescribed way to rid ourselves of a lawless administration.
    The issue is not about removing Bush and Cheney as much as it is about preserving the Constitution and redeeming the office of the executive. The Constitution is the contract of governance between the people and the government. What happens when major portions of the contract are violated?
    Congress has failed to call the president and vice president to account, so citizens must turn up the heat. Members of Congress who fail to demand investigations are covering for criminals. Every elected official has sworn an oath to “support and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.” Anything less than impeachment and a full repudiation of the Bush administration’s crimes and violations of the law is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of the public trust.
    If we want our democracy back, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work to clean out the House.
    Linda Boyd is director of Washington For Impeachment, http://www.washingtonforimpeachment.org. Citizens to Impeach Bush and Cheney, in Olympia: http://www.citizensimpeach.org

    Reply

  14. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Quote….(Ron Paul)….
    Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio’s desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in Congress, I have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward war in numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every appropriation to continue the war on Iraq.
    I have always been strongly in favor of vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch, and I have lamented our abrogation of these Constitutional obligations in recent times. I do believe, however, that this legislation should proceed through the House of Representatives following regular order, which would require investigation and hearings in the House Judiciary Committee before the resolution proceeds to the floor for a vote. This time-tested manner of moving impeachment legislation may slow the process, but in the long run it preserves liberty by ensuring that the House thoroughly deliberates on such weighty matters. In past impeachments of high officials, including those of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the legislation had always gone through the proper committee with full investigation and accompanying committee report.
    I noted with some dismay that many of my colleagues who have long supported the war changed their vote to oppose tabling the motion for purely political reasons. That move was a disrespectful to the Constitutional function of this body and I could not support such actions with my vote.
    I was pleased that the House did vote in favor of sending this legislation to the Judiciary Committee, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.
    end quote.
    http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4598

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The idea of Democratic leaders saying that impeachment is off the table is not where the American people are… The minute that Congress, the House of Representatives, says under no circumstances will there be an impeachment, you not only forgo accountability in the part of the Executive but you license further abuses. It is a very dangerous thing for our leadership to have said that.” Dennis Kucinich
    http://beat.squarespace.com/dailybeat/2007/11/20/an-american-hero.html
    “I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president’s authority,” Barack Obama, explaining why he does NOT endorse impeachment.
    http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/obama-impeachment-is-not-acceptable/
    Now, I ask you, considering that, (as the above article points out)……..
    1. Bush lied about the threat from Iraq to justify a war
    2. Bush started an illegal wiretaping program of American citizens
    3. Bush failed to help victims of Hurricane Katrina
    4. Bush politicized the Department of Justice
    5. Bush built foreign prisons where prisoners could be tortured out of view of Congress
    6. Bush obstructed an investigation into the outing of a CIA undercover agent
    ……who do you think, (from the above two “presidential hopefuls”), would respect the Constitution, and act within the law? What standard of behaviour can we expect Obama to hold himself to? Kucinich? Why in God’s name, considering Obama’s above statement, should we put such a man in the Oval Office, who openly admits that he condones holding the President of the United States above the law?
    But more importantly, whose message is most deserving of exposure to the American voting public? What EXACTLY has Obama done to deserve the media exposure that Kucinich has been deprived of?

    Reply

  16. Lurker says:

    Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would “Absolutely” Consider Running With Ron Paul
    (Sorry, for whatever reason I can’t create a hyperlink, so just cut and paste the following into your browser)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjiGuOsKr04

    Reply

  17. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well Steve, the truly incredible aspect of Ron Paul’s apparent rising popularity is the fact that he has managed this DESPITE the mainstream media’s attempt to conceal his ideas and his candidacy, and DESPITE a concerted swiftboating campaign by the other candidates to cast him in the role of a kook and a fanatic.
    His rise to notoriety should serve as notice to Washington just how angry and disillussioned the American people are with the status quo, and this fraud that has been foisted off on us; the “two party system”. Neither constituency feels represented, nor should they. The division that is represented by this “liberal” vs “conservative” scam is an engineered construct, designed to rob the people of any hope for unity or popular concensus.
    You have always seemed to view my harping on Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and even John Conyers as direct endorsements. But, like you, I have concerns about some of the political stances of all three of these men, and also find some of their policy ideas laudable. But really, what I endorse when advocating for these men is equal opportunity to publically air their political views, and equal opportunity to pursue office.
    The consignment of John Conyers to a basement anteroom for his “hearings” on election fraud was an insult to the American people of epic proportions. And I will never forgive the key members of the so called “opposition party” for their duplicity, compliance, and direct abettment of that travesty. Conyers was abandoned when he stepped up to the plate for ALL Americans, and it was a particularly ugly piece of history.
    Now, in this election cycle, once again I see this putrid corruption, this obscene posturing, this blatant and truly anti-american media bias and propaganda masquerading as “the democratic process”, as we are the victims of yet one more mockery of the process. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have been purposelly short changed by that process, purposelly marginalized, swiftboated, demonized, ridiculed, blocked from debates, and their policy advocations misrepresented and perverted. Their crime for such treatment? Apparently, it is their unrelenting adhesiveness to certain political ideas, their publically stated dissatisfaction with the status quo, their refusal to cow-tow to certain “lobby groups”, (that can be more appropriately labeled as “foreign agencies”), and their past voting history that mirrors their present advocations, opinions, and stated policy proposals and intentions. Its called “conviction”, and obviously, if you have it, you are status non gratis in Washington DC.
    I really don’t even think that it is Ron Paul’s ideas and political schtick that is driving his rise. It is the average American’s anger and disillutionment that is crying out for change, begging for representation and a true interest in our welfare and security. With secure families, bright economical futures, access to health care, a sound infrastructure, etc, the American people could probably weather a debacle like Iraq. But Iraq represents more than a failed foreign policy. It represents what we might of had, what we could of had, what we should of had. Here. At home. And Ron Paul sees that, just like John Smith in Small Town Ohio sees it.
    Like I said on another thread Steve, the gig is up. We simply aren’t buying this bullshit any longer. Ron Paul’s popularity is indicative of that fact.
    However, you know as well as I do that the status quo is going to prevail, and Hillary Clinton will be placed in the Oval Office, barring ANOTHER false flag terrorist attack of epic proportions, which is a very real and pressing possibility.
    One thing is for sure. We aren’t what we claim to be, haven’t been for a long time, and if this current crop of mass marketed “Presidential hopefuls” is any indication, never will be.

    Reply

  18. Firma says:

    Ron Paul is the only politician ever I sent money to.

    Reply

  19. cognate says:

    Ron Paul is the only politician ever I sent money to.
    Twice.

    Reply

  20. FZappa says:

    Steve —
    The total for the Q4 is going to be more like $20 million than $12m. We Paulites have a Boston Tea Party-themed fundraising day on Dec. 16th (www.teaparty07.com). The goal for the day is $10 mil, and I think we’re going to reach it.

    Reply

  21. Joe M. says:

    I am solidly left and generally disgusted by republicans (and more so by libertarians). But I find the whole Ron Paul phenomenon to be pretty interesting. Bush has been such a bad president, that it makes me open to the idea of destroying the federal government (so as it can no longer do harm). Plus, actually, in terms of his foreign policy ideas, he is the most honest and closest to my views. Again though, the problem with him is that he diagnoses the problem correctly (American empire…), but i disagree with his solutions. I would prefer the USA to have a non-military foreign policy but an active humanitarian one, not explicitly no foreign policy at all…
    In any event, I think Ron Paul is good for America and I would like his views to become more common among the Republicans. I hope he upsets the apple cart there.
    We need a Ron Paul of the left. If Clinton wins the democratic nomination, then I assume I will be voting for Ralph Nader again. Well, or maybe a write-in for Stephen Colbert.

    Reply

  22. Steve Clemons says:

    POA — Ron Paul is picking things up. I still think he needs to do a lot to break beyond the libertarian wing of his party, but $12 million may allow him the resources to do that.
    best, steve clemons

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *