Ron Paul’s supporters aren’t imaginary after all.
Posted by Bret WeaverNovember 7th, 2007
Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) set the one day GOP fundraising record on (remember, remember) the 5th of November by raising over $4.2 million dollars in 24 hours.
That makes Faux News look really stupid.
For months now the mind control specialists at Fox and other cable media outlets have been trying to insinuate that the rampant outpouring of support for Ron Paul is some kind of bizarre internet hoax. That when Ron Paul wins their own post-debate polls… it’s a fluke… the poll must have been “hacked.” His supporters are labeled “spammers.” His successes attributed to computer programs.
Fox News- Ron Paul Supporters May Be Using ‘Botnets’
News.com.au- Ron Paul in Possible “Fake Online Campaign”
Well… guess what kids… $4.2 million doesn’t come from “botnets” and it doesn’t just fall out of the sky.
(Unless you’re a defense contactor in Iraq, in which case billions of dollars fall all the way out of existence, regularly.)
Mostly it came from average people. People desperate for an alternative to what is being offered in the Republican (or Democratic) Party.
Now let it be known that I disagree with several of Ron Paul’s stances. I think most Americans will find something in Paul’s litany of beliefs they disagree with. This is often the case with politicians who hold firm and consistent ideals, those who are not simply trying to please as much of the masses as possible. Many Americans are sick of the modus operandi of the current presidential candidates, a combination of fear mongering, flag waving, and agreeable rhetoric.
Paul’s straightforward style is finding favor even with those who oppose one or more of his beliefs.
Paul is a vehement opponent of the Iraq War and the neo-conservative imperialistic agenda.
He’s a firm constitutionalist and believer that many of our current problems can be laid at the failure of this administration to follow our basic constitutional law, and the stranglehold the (private) Federal Reserve holds over our economy.
I’m with him there.
But… Ron Paul is also on the books as anti abortion rights.
He would seek reductions of federal government support in education, health care, and other social programs.
He believes a limited government and the free market economy will always benefit the American people, while I find that the unchecked power of the coporatocracy has no interest in serving the American people and needs a strong government to keep it in balance.
A simple glance at the current disaster in Iraq or in our health care system is evidence enough that it’s not always beneficial for big business to exert such a level of influence over our legislation.
But with the increasingly intrusive nature of this government, many Americans are willing to embrace a more limited approach.
According to the numbers, anyway.
Paul has raised over $7 million since Oct. 1 and is well on his way to his goal of $12 million by the end of the year.
“What is your point, Walter?”
-”The point is! I’ll tell you my point, dude.”
I suppose it could be possible for some extremely computer savvy supporter of Ron Paul to manipulate online polling in some way.
But it’s in no way comparable to the blatant marginalizing of Paul by sycophant Whitehouse mouthpieces like Fox News.
And why is the Murdoch media empire so afraid of Ron Paul?
Because they want you to believe that Rudy and Hil-dog are your only options.
Because they want to reinforce the status quo. (to which Paul is a threat)
And because they know that their viewers will believe them.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Just a few comments on some of your points…
Ron Paul is against Roe v. Wade, but he thinks that abortion should be handled at the state level. We’re never all going to agree on abortion; it doesn’t make sense to divide ourselves over it by dealing with it at the federal level. I personally wish the issue could somehow vanish from the political landscape so that the two big parties would have one less tool to use to pit the people against each other.
The health care industry is becoming so awful that doctors are leaving it. Some of them are starting to accept cash only even if it means they make less money. Why is this happening? It’s because of government interference in their practices, both directly and through the heavily regulated insurance companies. We need more competition and more freedom in health care if we want to make it better. The same way we can’t beat doctors with clubs to make them give us cheaper services, we can’t make health care cheaper with more government. If we get universal health care, it’s going to be paid with via inflation. Guess who’s hurt by inflation the most? That’s right, the poor. The only viable solution is for health care to be allowed to actually pursue greater efficiency on its own by letting it be a true, free market. On the other hand, Paul doesn’t want to instantly cut off people who are already dependent on the government. He wants a transition where people who are dependent can stay on, but young people (like me!) who don’t want to be forced into paying for all these crazy government programs, can say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”
The biggest problem with the corporations is that they’re controlling the government. They can handle the regulations, but by building the regulations up, they can make incredibly difficult to new competition to arise to dethrone them. Now I’m not someone who thinks that corporations are run by angels, nor do I believe that they are even mostly good, but 99.9% of the time the last place I would turn for help with this problem is the government, because I know that in the end the problems I have likely won’t be solved; I’ll have to pay for non-solutions; I’ll probably get screwed over even more in the long run; and because of the regulations that will be put in place, I’ll have less freedom for myself. If I want to protect myself from corporations, my best and most realistic bet is to keep myself informed and do what I can to inform others. And, of course, it goes without saying that NO corporation (or anyone else!) should have any favors from the government.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Paul says he supports overturning Roe V Wade, and it wasn’t long ago he voted that “life” begins at conception. I agree that abortion is often purposefully used as a polarizing issue. But I am a man. And whatever a woman wants to do with her body is her concern, as far as I am concerned.
We are in agreement that the “corporations are running the government,” as they say (including the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies). But I don’t think weakening the federal government is the answer.
Look I support Ron Paul on the basic platforms he is running on. I would certainly vote for him before any of the “top tier” candidates from either party.
He denounces global American hegemony and understands the crippling interest created by borrowing our own currency from a private bank.
That’s good enough for me.
My point was that no one is going to agree with everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth. (And probably shouldn’t) But at least with Dr. Paul you know where he stands.
And he obviously scares the crap out of big media and the central bankers.
Which is also good enough for me.