Ron Paul raised $4 million yesterday. Yes, I mean yesterday as in just one day. Here’s the chart for how it came in.
That’s unbelievable. It ought to be a lesson for Democrats, btw. Speak clearly and strongly and defend things on principle and people will listen. Ron Paul espouses positions that most Americans wouldn’t agree with, especially if they really listened. Paul is an extreme libertarian with some extreme socially conservative views. Even with that, he’s gaining support from people because he speaks clearly, passionately, and consistently on the major issue of the day, the Iraq War. None of this BS hem-hawing or “reluctant” resignation to the status quo.
Quite frankly, it’s why I support Dodd, because on the Democratic side, he’s the closest we have to Ron Paul’s consistency and honesty. And, added bonus, his policies aren’t nuts.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“Americans wouldn’t agree with, especially if they really listened.”
I guess adherence to the Constituion is in your opinion something you would not agree with?
Please educate yourself before spreading erroneous positions.
Money talks.
http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/
November 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
If I had a dollar for every candidate that said they’re for adhering to the Constitution, I’d have $4 million dollars, too.
Ron Paul wants to eliminate most federal agencies. I don’t believe most Americans want that.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
$4 Mil, I think you might be a Billionaire By now, and besides Who the Heck Is Ron Paul! EEEW!
November 6th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I don’t think you know very much about Ron Paul. He is socially liberal. He supports ending the war on drugs, legalizing marijuana, and gay marriage among other things. I would thing that most people understand these things to be socially liberal views.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that, right? Those aren’t socially liberal positions, they’re libertarian first. Liberalism on social issues is grounded in libertarian principles (e.g. government stay out of my bedroom), so it’s not surprising to see commonality there. Other social liberal positions are grounded in a social justice frame. Government as helper to the common man, so to speak.
In Ron Paul’s case, though, he’s coming at it not out of a social justice stance (which drives a lot of traditional social liberalism), but from that libertarian root.
So sure, there’s overlap, but on abortion and a number of other issues he’s about as socially conservative as they come. He’s anti-choice, he’s for drilling in ANWR, and he’s right next to Tom Tancredo on immigration. On almost all social justice issues, he’s against them. Minimum wage, union organizing, OSHA/workers safety, he voted with Republicans.
These are all stances where he’s standing on his libertarian roots, but they’re still positions aligned with the social conservatives in the Republican party. This should give pause to those folks who believe the government has a role in insuring a minimum level of survivability for Americans.
I’ve said he’s intellectually reasonably consistent. Nothing wrong with the fact that he’s taking these positions. But it doesn’t change the fact that most of his positions are unpopular.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Reading my post above, I can see the source of the confusion, though… his libertarianism is definitely the more important. I’ve changed the order of the phrasing above, but still maintain that he has socially conservative views on things that don’t fall in the libertarian sphere.