RSS 2.0 FeedIs Ron Paul’s Fundraising Drying Up ?
by Doug MataconisSay what you will about his campaign and his supporters, but one of the more remarkable political stories of 2007. There were moneybombs in November and December that brought in more in a single day than some candidates had raised all quarter. By the end of the 4th Quarter, the campaign had raised $ 20 million in three months.
Then, at the beginning of January, the campaign said that it would need an additional $ 23 million by January 31st to be competitive on Super Tuesday. That’s right —- they’d need to raise as much as they did in three months in four weeks.
Right now, it doesn’t seem to be going well.
The tally on the campaign’s homepage shows less than $ 900,000 raised through today, with only 14 days to go. And one site that’s tallying the “road to $ 23 million” shows them to be at least $ 21 million short.
Personally, I’m not sure that $ 23 million is needed just for the Super Tuesday states, but that’s what the campaign is saying.
The question is, what’s happening with the fundraising. Have people stopped giving ? Have they maxed out on the FEC limits ? I’ve got to think that the campaign’s poor showing in the last four primaries/caucuses has something to do with it. Truth be told, people get discouraged.
There is one solution to the money problem, of course, Paul could apply for federal matching funds. However, as I noted in October, doing so would involve violating the very principles Paul claims to be running on.
I think what we’re seeing is clearly a byproduct of disappointment in the ranks, and I’m not sure it’s going to get any better.
Hi everyone! Ron Paul Money Bomb on MLK day!
Comment by John — January 17, 2008 @ 3:43 pmI think his supporters need to see some evidence of it being spent. And spent effectively. Haven’t heard an ad or seen a tv commercial or nuthin.
Comment by jim — January 17, 2008 @ 3:47 pmJust watch…it’s like Energizer Bunny…just keeps going and going.
Comment by Andrew — January 17, 2008 @ 3:50 pmRP2008
Here’s a great commercial:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eHLXMwWZSfU
Comment by George — January 17, 2008 @ 3:52 pm“violating the very principles Paul claims to be running on”
I guess sticking to his principles for 20 years in Congress isn’t enough to convince you, huh? This is the only guy that does have principles and has a rock solid record of defending the Constitution and you’re you still find a way to weasel in a knock at Paul. Sheesh, you’re too cynical to even function as a journalist!
Unbelievable!
Comment by DefendTheConstitution — January 17, 2008 @ 3:55 pmA lot of us are just waiting for MLK day.
Comment by Shannon — January 17, 2008 @ 3:57 pmIll be donating!!
Comment by Brokencage — January 17, 2008 @ 3:59 pmHuh – 23 minus .9 equals…mmmmmm carry the 4, add the square root of…21? Are you kidding me buddy. back to grade school. MLK is it. Ron Paul 08
Comment by TC — January 17, 2008 @ 4:04 pmDTC,
Under what interpretation of the ideas that he has advanced would accepting money taken from taxpayers who might not agree with him be justified ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 17, 2008 @ 4:05 pmTC,
Look at the link I posted, they don’t have anywhere near enough pledges to get anything close to $ 23 million.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 17, 2008 @ 4:06 pmDon’t worry,
Here’s Ron Paul’s answer about electability:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlacFmRGPgI
Comment by George — January 17, 2008 @ 4:08 pmI don’t understand. Ron Paul is presenting America with a real opportunity to return to its principles of libertarianism, free markets and constitutional government and this site just keeps knocking him and the movement down. Fine, you may not agree with everything Ron Paul says, but COME ON! There will never will be a perfect candidate. This is our last chance to restore some of the basics long forgotten by Republicans and American in general. This is a real chance to bring liberty back into the minds of all Americans. Why do you call this site “The Liberty Papers”? What is wrong you with you people!
PS – Be sure to donate on MLK day Jan 21.
Comment by John — January 17, 2008 @ 4:08 pmTwo words “MLK Day”
Comment by Daniel — January 17, 2008 @ 4:12 pm“they don’t have anywhere near enough pledges to get anything close to $ 23 million.” few people pledged the last two times. The pledges don’t reflect what is going to happen.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SAWClI8zsH4
Comment by huck — January 17, 2008 @ 4:27 pmhttp://freeatlast2008.com
The votes are there for Ron Paul…they just aren’t being counted. Just look at all the articles floating around regarding vote fraud and changing caucus dates and time, scrambling databases the night before the vote in IA…the list goes on, and on. We aren’t blind nor stupid, Doug. They aren’t even trying to hide the fact that he’s getting thrown under the bus. It’s sad, corrupted people like you who contribute to this as well, and I pity your eternal soul. Ron Paul may or may not win, but bet on this: God most certainly will. Are you ready to face your creator? I fought for my rights as a combat veteran, and for what I know to be true w/ Ron Paul. I can face my God w/ no fear in my heart…can you say the same?
Comment by Dave — January 17, 2008 @ 4:30 pmIMPORTANT REMINDER:
Any objective individual unfortunate enough to stumble upon some of torrent of engineered consent tripe spewed forth by Mataconis should keep in mind he has always been vehemently anti-Ron Paul/anti-Liberty/anti-Freedom(cue denials). He is also determined to do whatever necessary to destroy the awakening of the American people to the schemes and scams utilized by the established power base to maintain the NOT FREEDOM/NOT LIBERTY Status Quo that he supports and for which he shills.
Beware the following establishment supporting and anti-Liberty/anti-Freedom/anti-Individual operations pretending to do the opposite specifically for the purpose of short circuiting any attempts by the PEOPLE to reclaim their freedom from the charlatans that have scammed them out of same.
1. “Liberty Papers”
2. “Outside The Beltway” OTB
3. Any “Mainstream” Libertarian Organization/Publication
(Far from a complete list and more to come)
Comment by gmason08 — January 17, 2008 @ 4:32 pmGmason08,
If Doug bothers you so much, then why bother being here? And secondly, I would love evidence as to how he is “anti-liberty.” Secondly, he blogs at below the beltway, not OTB. Thirdly, just because he may not support Ron Paul, or just because he realizes that his campaign is dead, does not make him “anti-liberty.” I think you are confused and you need to check your “with us or against us” mentality. Freedom is an ideal. Ron Paul is a man. Don’t idolize, nor get the two confused.
Comment by David Wilson — January 17, 2008 @ 4:40 pmwaiting 4 mlk day!!
Comment by mike — January 17, 2008 @ 4:57 pmGMason,
How does pointing out an objective, undeniable fact make me “anti-liberty” ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 17, 2008 @ 4:59 pmGMason,
But once again, you’ve stumbled on my secret.
I’d reveal more, but David Rockefeller is on the other line.
/sarcasm
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 17, 2008 @ 4:59 pmI maxed out in the 2nd quarter of last year. I wish I could send more, I would if I could. Kind of sucked missing out on all the big days and not being able to donate, but oh well.
Comment by badmedia — January 17, 2008 @ 5:01 pmDave,
Uh huh.
Uh huh.
Uh huh.
Uh huh.
Really? What war? What unit? What was your MOS?
Comment by UCrawford — January 17, 2008 @ 5:16 pmPeople need something on which to base their hope.
Before Iowa, New Hampshire and now Michigan, there was a widespread belief that the mainstream polls were wrong — and there were some cogent explanations of why this was so. Remember all the talk about landlines vs cellphones?
But then the voting came out pretty much the way the polls said it would.
We’ve been telling ourselves that we’re the vanguard of a popular revolution, but 6 to 8 percent makes us feel like outsiders again.
We need to see some double-digit results. Despite some of the glee expressed on Lew Rockwell’s site and elsewhere, it isn’t enough that Dr Paul is doing better that Giuliani. We need to see Dr Paul finish in the top three, and maybe even win in states like Nevada.
Comment by corky — January 17, 2008 @ 5:20 pmCorky,
Don’t let it get you too down, and don’t think that just because Ron Paul is pulling 6-8 percent that means there’s not a greater market out there for a lot of his ideals. A lot of the poor showing has to do with the candidate, not the message, which is why it’s important not to blur the two. Ron Paul has, frankly, done a terrible job at running his presidential campaign and the only thing that’s been keeping it afloat has been the grassroots efforts of a lot of voters (who have been active in spite of Paul’s campaign, not because of it). If a better presidential candidate emerges with a libertarian platform in the GOP I have no doubt that he’ll do better than 6%…we just need a better salesman who’s carrying a lot less baggage (and hopefully not such a stupid immigration platform).
Comment by UCrawford — January 17, 2008 @ 5:34 pmDavid Wilson,
“If Doug bothers you so much, then why bother being here?”
People of goodwill are for the most part susceptible to being taken in by the conniving, as such, it is important to warn them from time to time (and those not familiar with a particular SQ shills track record) of their true agendas. Doug has amply demonstrated he is worthy-of great contempt. Example: Pretending to be a Ron Paul supporter as he cranks out Hit Piece after Hit Piece masquerading as “campaign analysis”.
DW-”I would love evidence as to how he is “anti-liberty.””
Ample evidence is available for those that understand and support true individual Liberty, go back and read his collectivist nonsense. For example he often attempts to silence voices, no one that understands Liberty would seek to silence any voice no matter how far that voice strays from the meat of the prevailing opinion bell curve. Doug promotes a concept of Orthodoxy among Liberty Lovers, an “approved” Liberty party line. The idea of LIberty having a party line is indicative of someone that hasn’t a clue of the basic tenets of Liberty or someone that seeks to herd and drive Liberty away from LIBERTY.
DW-”Secondly, he blogs at below the beltway, not OTB.”
Thanks for pointing that out, I will add it to the proceed with caution list.
DW-Thirdly, just because he may not support Ron Paul,
or just because he realizes that his campaign is dead,…
Nice try at weaving your attempt to manipulate opinion in that sentence Dave. Here is another “Liberty” hint for you; People that support Liberty do not use deceptive tactics to win support for their position, they state their position plainly and allow the FREE to exercise their Free Will.
DW-”I think you are confused and you need to check your “with us or against us” mentality. Freedom is an ideal. Ron Paul is a man. Don’t idolize, nor get the two confused.”
I think you make the common mistake of arrogant manipulators; assuming you are so slick toast that everyone falls for your semi-crafty BS.
David Wilson, you leap to defend Mataconis. Mataconis is worthy of similar contempt as Dondero.
Comment by gmason08 — January 17, 2008 @ 5:35 pmUCrawford – Are you keeping an eye on the market? Do you understand why Ben Bernanke cried for help today – begging congress for fiscal stimulus? Our economy is in a nose dive right now and the Fed has its hands on the stick pulling back as hard as it can to pull us up before we enter a deep recession. If Helicopter Ben can manage to pull us out we won’t escape without crushing the dollar. My friend, there could not be a better time for Ron Paul’s message. What you will see over the next two quarters will dove tail very nicely with his third party candidacy. And there could not be a better man with less baggage. Take a minute to read this piece (I know you won’t, but I’ll be civil) http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_w__080116_ron_paul_is_not_a_bi.htm All it will take is a sit ½ hour sit down with a major network and he will be forgiven because he is an honest, sincere man and he comes across that way – American’s has a history of forgiving those who offer a collective good. Americans will be hurting and scared – the good Dr will have the medicine. I’ll keep and eye out for you to say I told you so. Best of luck with your candidate.
Comment by TC — January 17, 2008 @ 6:38 pmHey Doug,
This sounds an awful lot like what Justin Gardner was saying at the end of October. He ended up with a lot of egg on his face at the end of the quarter.
http://donklephant.com/2007/11/01/ron-paul-falls-137-million-short-of-october-fundraising-goal/
Lots of people donate and do not register.
But I’m sure that the TNR pieces are having their desired effect and making people hesitate in donating to the Paul campaign.
And with Dondero’s gleeful revelation (can’t remember the link just now) that TNR is going to distort Dr. Paul’s books in the same way they distorted certain newsletter excerpts (probably just before Feb 5th primary) I guess we can expect more of the same old argumentum ad hominem (which is a hell of a way to conduct a discussion) instead of any real debate on the issues of the day.
Well, I know Valley Forge wasn’t much fun for our founders in depths of winter in 1776-1777. I’m just thankful my test is a test of resolve, and not a test of the body.
I do wish the paul campaign would listen to Stephen Gordon and start doing some damage control.
Hey guys! (yes, You in the Ron Paul campaign) please take some of the money we are giving you and go hire a PR firm that specializes in damage control. this thing is beatable, and if you innoculate prior to the next bombshell, you might just weather the storm.
Later.
Comment by Kevin Houston — January 17, 2008 @ 6:53 pmGetting back to article…
You say RP is at or over $900,000 this quarter? And the quarter started 17 days ago? Granted, you think he’s doing poorly because he hasn’t reached or isn’t currently on the path to reach $23 million. However, outside of Paul setting an extremely loafty goal, I’d say his doing pretty darn good.
While other candidates are begining to feel the strain of lacking funds, I think they would gladly take what Paul is currently raking in. Even if he would continue on this pace, minus any money bombs, he could collect near 6 million by the end of the quarter (provided the media and sources such as this website do not trample him into the ground by then). Add the MLK fund-raiser, and I’d say you have a pretty sucessful quarter.
So, paint a sour picture of his finacial success all you want…I’d say Paul is doing just fine heading into February.
Comment by Jeff — January 17, 2008 @ 7:21 pmI wonder if Doug is really a Ron Paul fan. He writes these articles and allows all of us on the blogs to say:
1. Ron Paul is awesome.
2. He has the most consistent voting record of any candidate.
3. He supports civil rights for everyone.
4. He is for small government.
Thanks Doug for helping us promote the Money Bomb on MLK day :)
Go Ron!!!
Comment by Doug — January 17, 2008 @ 8:07 pmWell, that allow word is interesting. You see, Doug is not the owner of this blog. In fact, the blog was created by Eric, and is now owned by Brad. In the course of that, they established a comment policy that was extremely liberal and tolerant. Doug is a contributor, as am I. Only Brad could decide who can and cannot comment here and what they can and cannot say.
Of course, Doug is the evil Neo-Con Grand Master, and Brad is one of his minions, so that sort of makes it all a moot point anyhow.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 17, 2008 @ 8:30 pmDave,
I thought libertarians were against the initiation of force?
Comment by Kevin — January 17, 2008 @ 8:39 pmKevin:
Good thing I’m not a libertarian ;-)
Comment by Adam Selene — January 17, 2008 @ 8:42 pmTC,
That article by James harris is exactly what I have been trying to say. He does a much better job of it than I could.
Later,
Comment by Kevin Houston — January 17, 2008 @ 8:42 pm“His integrity is well known amongst all his colleagues, friends or enemies, and he is respected for his constitutional stands even if they disagree.”
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/alba/080117
Comment by Publius Tigerias — January 17, 2008 @ 9:15 pmI am waiting on mlk day. Will watch as funds come in if it looks short I will double my donation. I personally believe the doc. is the last best hope for america before the solidification of the police state.
Comment by Russell Patterson — January 17, 2008 @ 10:13 pmYou know, as much as I dislike much of the change we have seen in the past few years, the reality is that it is still not as bad as the 70′s, and infinitely better than the fascism we experienced in the 1930′s and 40′s. Or the Lincoln dictatorship. Or the nationalism of WWI.
This hysteria over the “final police state” is pure Lew Rockwell, no wonder you guys aren’t upset about those newsletters.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 17, 2008 @ 10:50 pmgmason08:
For the record, I support Ron Paul. I have donated twice to his campaign and brought a few of my friends to follow him. It seems as if a few of the individuals on this comment thread confuse the message Doug is trying to get across. He has made no comment against individual liberty or specifically against Ron Paul on the basis of “libertarian” merit. He is saying that the campaign is failing. With serious losses in the past four primaries, how can you deny this? Short of some miracle on February 5th, Ron Paul’s campaign will fail. This is no argument against individual liberty, but an objective assessment of the merits of a campaign’s success.
1. When has Doug been “deceptive?”
2. Of course Doug presses his own views about liberty. He should be able to do so, however I have only seen honest and valuable arguments, not coercive action to stifle decent.
3. I do not think I am “slick toast.” I know I am 22, but I give my professors a run for their money, and I will be glad to do the same for you. I have no interest in deception or force.
4. I am not fond of defending anyone. I defend ideas. It is my opinion that while you may have good intentions, your ideas about Doug may be misconstrued based upon your support for Ron Paul. Let not your bias shield your eyes against the value of reason.
5. I will be glad to see evidence as to how Doug, or I, are venomous opponents of liberty.
Thank you.
Comment by David Wilson — January 17, 2008 @ 11:23 pmUh, not to feed into Mr. M’s sandbagging of Ron Paul, but…
I have a feeling the MLK moneybomb will come up somewhat short.
The true believers will still be there, but I think the ‘results dependent” will be absent.
When I gave my first $25 donation, it was something that I did for more myself than for the campaign.
It was a way for me to prove to myself that I wasn’t so cynical that I couldn’t support a platform with which I basically agreed.
At that point I didn’t even have a concept about what would constitute “success”.
I had even done enough research to know about the nature some “newsletters” that would probably surface if the campaign started to gain some traction. I figured that HQ would have a strategy in hand for that eventuality.
I continued to contribute and was personally invested to the point of watching the debates and visiting The Daily Paul forum.
When I saw Dr. Paul’s response to the newsletter flap, It seemed to me that he was perfectly happy to run a 5% “informational” campaign, instead of a real campaign.
I realized that what initially made him seem so attractive as a candidate, would be his undoing: namely that he intends to do this without a single compromise, especially in regards to perception.
I think if the campaign continued to expand(not necessarily winning any state) and the grassroots weren’t shackled with trying to explain away the newsletters, I think his fundraising would have continued to be successful.
In a grassroots campaign the HQ should try to make it easier, not more difficult to explain an already non-mainstream platform. And, it shouldn’t give the MSM a hammer to knock Paul on the head whenever he threatens to “break out”.
So, from where I’m sitting the campaign has more than enough money to spread the good word about the end of the American Empire.
And I can go back to being a cynic.
Comment by stackdad — January 17, 2008 @ 11:31 pmJustin Raimondo weighs in on the controversy.
Comment by uhm — January 18, 2008 @ 1:18 amhttp://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/
Hey, I see you got rid of the Jefferson pic…thanks
It really was a disgrace to old Thomas.
Comment by Marta — January 18, 2008 @ 3:02 amMatching funds: two arguments in favor…
1) They don’t come out of your taxes unless you check that little box on the tax form. Arguably you can say it’s a voluntary contribution.
2) Ron Paul also came out in favor of term limits for Congressmen, yet he’s now a ten-term Congressman. Is that a violation of principles? Tim Russert asked him that, and his answer was basically “I believe in applying it to everybody, not applying it to just me. If only the good people limit their terms, we’re even worse off.” Same principle here. Unilateral disarmament isn’t helpful.
Comment by Joe — January 18, 2008 @ 4:08 amWill Doug dry up if LP doesn’t post RP peices?
Comment by GeneG — January 18, 2008 @ 4:08 am> But once again, you’ve stumbled on my secret.
>
> I’d reveal more, but David Rockefeller is on the
> other line.
But he’s right!
For example: Which one of you have even MENTIONED the American Freedom Agenda Act? I’d think you’be urging your readers to contract their representatives to support such important legislation, but NO, not a peep!
In fact, when has any of these BS mainstream Libertarian frauds even mentioned legislation at all?
The Patriot Act? That was signed into law without it even being read.
And then, FINALLY, we get a really viable candidate that is pretty libertarian, and the “libertarian mainstream” is all soundly against him.
What a joke you guys are. I’m a Libertarian, none of these so called think tanks or rags is. You’re not. They’re just talk talk talk, 0 action. They’re a distraction, for all practical purposes, designed to mire us in inaction.
Comment by Richard Wicks — January 18, 2008 @ 4:13 amRichard,
I wrote about the American Freedom Agenda way back in April:
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/04/06/an-agenda-i-can-agree-with/
As I’ve said in more than one post over the past week, the worst thing that’s come out of this whole dispute is the attitude among some people that if you don’t support Ron Paul 100%, you’re not a “real libertarian.”
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 18, 2008 @ 4:27 amJoe,
First matching funds come from the general fund, meaning that the check box is meanginless.
Second, not everyone who does check yes would agree with Ron Paul.
Third, there’s nothing more un-libertarian than taking taxpayer dollars for your own benefit.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 18, 2008 @ 4:29 amI dare say that Cato and Reason have done more to advance libertarian ideas than any other institution out there.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 18, 2008 @ 4:30 am“I dare say that Cato and Reason have done more to advance libertarian ideas than any other institution out there.”
I dare you to explain precisely how.
And ideas? What good are ideas anyhow if they aren’t ever put into action?
I remember reading on CATO stories supporting this stupid, worthless war in Iraq back in 2002, as well. Nothing Libertarian about that war, or even Republican.
Let me refresh your memory:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n3.pdf
The AYN RAND Institute supported the Iraq war. What kind of crap is that? Rand would have never supported the Iraq war, not in a million years. She opposed the Vietnam War, the Korean War, WWI, and WWII – but the “think tank” that craps on her name, supports it, as if she would have.
Face the facts. These think tanks are frauds.
Libertarianism is a pretty simple concept and a compelling one to people who bother to understand it. These “think tanks” work to prevent the implementation of it by lying about what Libertarianism represents.
Paul, who isn’t a perfect Libertarian personally, is a perfect Libertarian at the FEDERAL level because of constitutional constraints. Even if he was the most despotic racist you can imagine, there’s the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. It’s irrelevant if he’s a racist because he’s a strict constitutionalist. Unless Paul were to suddenly change after 30 years of voting constitently with the constitution, often against his own personal beliefs, no minority would have to fear his presidency.
But is that brought up by any of these rags or “think tanks”. No, of course not. They don’t want Libertarianism implemented at the Federal, state, or local levels. They are a diversion to foment disagreement among us. That is all they are.
That’s how it truly is. Until people stop letting these tactics control them, America is going to be stuck with this crappy one party system until we’re in a police state.
Comment by Richard Wicks — January 18, 2008 @ 5:32 am> As I’ve said in more than one post over the past
> week, the worst thing that’s come out of this
> whole dispute is the attitude among some people
> that if you don’t support Ron Paul 100%, you’re
> not a “real libertarian.”
Let me be clear here.
If you work to sabotage the efforts of people trying to put Paul into the presidency, you’re not much of an American, much less a Libertarian.
This is the best we’ve had in a long long time and it may be our last chance. We’re headed for financial crisis, not a little recession. Nothing is likely to be able to stop it. Now, do you want a Communist in the Oval Office when it happens, a Fascist, or an imperfect Libertarian? Those are your 3 choices.
Doubtless you think I’m nuts when I say this, but the possibility of repeating or even exceeding 1929 is definately upon us. I read economics obsessively at this point, to the point I actually have a better handle on credit derivatives than that idiot Ben Bernanke does, but he’s an idiot, so this isn’t a great accomplishment.
This is probably the most critical election in any American’s lifetime today. This isn’t a time to fuck around with little trivialities.
You guys are going to regret this at a latter date, because nobody running for the presidency has any clue about actual economics other than Paul. With a free market, we’ll be able to recover reasonably soon, with socialized risk and privatized rewards (that’s Fascism, what we’re currently doing), we’ll see massive inflation of the dollar as the government prints warehouses of money to bail out banks that should go bankrupt for their criminal malfeasance to their depositors.
Comment by Richard Wicks — January 18, 2008 @ 5:47 amLet me be blunt. Ron Paul’s not going to be President and it has nothing to do with anything that I, David Weigel, Julian Sanchez, or David Boaz have done or failed to do.
Do you honestly think that Ron Paul ever had any chance of convincing Republicans to vote for him ?
But let’s get back to Reason for a minute. Up until the newsletter story, their coverage of the Paul campaign has been overwhelmingly positive. Heck, his picture is on the front page of their February issue and the cover article by Brian Doherty is very positive. And Nick Gillespie co-authored a piece in the Washington Post Outlook section in December that was similarly positive.
So to accuse them of being against Paul from the beginning is, quite honestly, false.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 18, 2008 @ 6:03 am“Let me be blunt. Ron Paul’s not going to be President and it has nothing to do with anything that I, David Weigel, Julian Sanchez, or David Boaz have done or failed to do.”
It depends, actually.
If the financial meltdown starts to occur within the next month or so, he’s a shoe in. The financial media is so dishonest it will quickly become clear to everybody in a financial meltdown that the entire media is totally dishonest, about everything, not just about the economy.
But I realize that you have nothing to do with Paul losing his bid for the presidency. You’re simply ONE of the thousands of “Libertarian” impediments. A group of losers who are intent on always being losers. They’re great at losing. That’s the establishment Libertarians. A group of pathetic professional losers who only want to lose. Their reason to be.
“Do you honestly think that Ron Paul ever had any chance of convincing Republicans to vote for him ?”
Oh, he certainly did. He’s precisely what Republicans have been saying they wanted for 50 years. If Clinton were in office your typical Republican would be having a coniption about being in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 30% increase in Federal government, and the national debt – but so few people point out we don’t have a Republican in the Oval Office.
Then people are such slaves to their television set. If teevee says he’s not a serious candidate, he’s not. Pavlog’s dog had more control over his drooling than 99% of most Americans do. If I scratched the surface of political education of Joe 6 Pack, I’d find American Idol underneath.
“But let’s get back to Reason for a minute. Up until the newsletter story, their coverage of the Paul campaign has been overwhelmingly positive.”
The newsletters have been out since the mid 1990s. Why did Reason chose to “break” the story just now? These aren’t new. They’ve been known to exist for over a decade.
Now, I’m just a freaking engineer in Silicon Valley, and I’ve read the newletters 3 years ago. In fact, if you bother to get the full context you’ll discover that paradoxically named “Reason” took some of those quotes out of context.
Why would they do that, if not to influence people?
Are you saying I’m a better journalist than they are? Maybe I am, I knew there would be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because I listened to Scott Ritter discuss what he found in 2001.
“So to accuse them of being against Paul from the beginning is, quite honestly, false.”
Build him up, tear him down. That’s what the media did to Dean. It’s a classic playbook tactic, it’s used all the time. You ingratiate yourselves with a group of people, you gain their trust, then you use that trust against them.
Dean learned his lesson, he’s now going along to get along.
It doesn’t matter, you’re going to find out soon enough, there are worse things than even this Bush presidency soon enough. You’re going get the president you deserve, but I won’t.
The purpose of the campaign now is to simply educate. What Paul is predicting economically is going to happen. Our fiat monetary system may actually collapse now and we may find ourselves back on a gold and silver standard, for no other reason other than foreigners won’t accept anything else.
Comment by Richard Wicks — January 18, 2008 @ 6:39 amI liked this site better when it wasn’t bothering with pseudo-hit pieces on RP; when it was dealing with the bigger picture. I would like to see some actual reporting done and one of you go ask him directly about these newsletters; I would like it conducted without any partisan bitterness that I’ve been detecting in this stories as of late. This type of annoying nagging is the same reason why I moved away from mainstream politics, but perhaps that was just a pipe dream.
Yes, it is an issue, but oops, the MSM intercepted this supposed controversy and fumbled the ball mid-field. Even the mindless Wolf Blitzer gave good time to RP to explain his position and how it wasn’t him who wrote it, and somehow realized he didnt have much to leverage against RP. Even the NAACP President has publicly stated RP isn’t a racist (views on the NAACP’s actual significance nowadays aside, of course…). Yes, it’s not a case closed situation, but it’s not this raging hormonal controversy that some people seem to be salivating at the mouth for.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t; RP jumped right into what is obviously his main intention: to raise the public consciousness about some of the good ideas of classical liberalism / libertarianism, the austrian school, the chess game between Fascist Neo-Con Repubs & Soft-Socialism Dems, both increasing the size of government as they put the future of this country at stake while they have their fun.
RP has already won his battle, you do not need to win the Presidency in order to make a difference. The war will be up to us & his legacy.
Anyone who doesn’t observe RP with cautious optimism is kidding themselves (I would go so far as to include Rockwell, but he is fun to read); anyone who nitpicks with paranoia-pessimism & treats electability as some type of main goal is blind as a bat.
Ron Paul only showed us the door; we’re the ones that have to walk through it.
In any case, I will still continue to read TLP; just because one does not like cantaloupe doesn’t mean all the other fruit is rotten!
Comment by Nitroadict — January 18, 2008 @ 6:47 amIf you guys are looking for a place to give money and know that it will be used you can go to my site http://www.crazyforliberty.com
Comment by Doug Craig — January 18, 2008 @ 7:25 amOr go to the chip in.
http://georgiansforliberty.chipin.com/liberty-tv-commercials
We are raising money to run ads. 100% of money raised will go to run tv ads
Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer. Heil Ron Paul.
Comment by Kevin — January 18, 2008 @ 7:54 amKevin,
It does start to sound like that at some point, doesn’t it ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 18, 2008 @ 7:54 amdoug m. would definitely dry up if he didn’t write negative Ron Paul pieces. dry up in terms of anyone caring about what he writes. remember a long time ago he said that he would stop writing about Ron Paul altogether? that would have been nice. but i guess he realized that if not shit-talking against Ron Paul, his irrelevance would be too glaring.
Comment by oilnwater — January 18, 2008 @ 8:20 amYes, because Doug lives only for Ron Paul’s destruction!!! He was Ron Paul’s secret gay lover until his evil neocon Bilderberger agenda forced them to separate and now he wallows in the bitter memory of their forbidden love and lives only to destroy Ron Paul in the same fashion that Jessica Simpson only lives to destroy Tony Romo, wreck my fantasy football team and put out the worst movies in human history.
Man, what will we do once we don’t have the Paulestinians to kick around anymore? They’re like the shmoo…endlessly amusing in their capacity for abuse. I’ll almost be sorry to see them go…almost :)
Comment by UCrawford — January 18, 2008 @ 9:42 amKevin,
Okay…that was a classic :)
Comment by UCrawford — January 18, 2008 @ 9:44 am(1) As many others, I’ll be kicking in some $ on MLK day.
Comment by Dan — January 18, 2008 @ 9:53 am(2) I’ve heard RP radio ads here in Florida several times.
(3) Let’s not forget, for lots of folks it’s “pay off the holiday credit card expenses” time.
(4) Having been around libertarian politics for longer than I care to admit, I had and have no illusions about RP winning the GOP nomination. Doesn’t matter. So what if RP comes in fifth? He’s promoting more of a genuinely limited-government, free-market, non-intervenionist perspective than any other major-party presidential candidate in decades — and he’s attracting more attention than any LP presidential candidate has ever received. Let’s enjoy what we can of the RP campaign, and here’s hoping he takes the campaign all the way to the GOP convention.
I donated money as part of the Money Bomb in December but in light of the newsletters have realized I would be better off donating my money to other libertarian causes.
Comment by Cal Ulmann — January 18, 2008 @ 10:37 amI think that one should go in the Quotes database! Damn, I spewed coke hard!
Comment by Adam Selene — January 18, 2008 @ 11:29 amCal,
You know, sometimes I think that’s actually a better way to go about it. You often hear politicians try to portray themselves as libertarian-leaning (e.g. George W. Bush in 2000) at election time but they usually either fall far short of doing what they’d promised because they can’t get the support or because they were simply lying about it.
Maybe the way to go about promoting libertarianism for the long-term is simply to focus on non-profits or libertarian-friendly organizations working on issues at our local levels first, then worry about what candidates we want in office later. I mean, even the best libertarian politicians are going to have trouble implementing what they want if we haven’t established ourselves within society first, because they still have an electorate to answer to. Perhaps part of the reason we end up looking like nuts is that in our rush to free ourselves from society’s dictates we’ve gone too far and divorced ourselves from society at-large, which makes our views of being outsiders a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of investing our time in money-bombing a candidate for office or hoping for a politician in the federal government to make life easier for us perhaps we should instead be investing our time in civic groups like Rotary or the Chamber of Commerce. It’s a lot easier for people to buy into what we have to say when they can put a friendly face with the ideals. And if we really believe that local solutions work best perhaps that’s the place we should focus on first with the idea that local actions will change government policy, rather than hoping that freedom will spread from the top on down.
Sorry, just a rambling thought that your comment touched off.
Comment by UCrawford — January 18, 2008 @ 11:41 amUC, the thing is that Milton Friedman, Cato, Reason have done more through advocacy and advise than all the libertarian candidates for office, combined, have achieved. Especially Friedman and Cato. Because they don’t try to get people to be libertarian, or adopt things that are libertarian. They just advocate things that make sense and move things forward.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 18, 2008 @ 11:57 amAdam,
Actually yes and no…Friedman on “Free to Choose” did attempt to convince people to adopt libertarian positions but he did so non-confrontationally. On the panels at the end Friedman always seems to have at least one or two clear idiots on the discussion panel…people who would take blatantly statist positions because of how offended they were by the anti-state argument. Then Friedman would tear their argument apart not by pointing out the flaws but by sincerely agreeing with them and demonstrating that individual initiative could accomplish their desired goal much better without the intervention of the state. It was the other libertarians he actually seemed to argue the most with (except Thomas Sowell…who advocated the same positions as Friedman, although much more aggressively). The panel discussions were just a fascinating exercise on how to hijack your opponent’s argument and turn it against them without needing to alienate or demonize them…straight out of “How To Win Friends And Influence People”. Just a really fascinating guy Friedman was.
Comment by UCrawford — January 18, 2008 @ 12:10 pmI meant, I think, that he was not trying to make them be LIBERTARIAN. It was the outcome he desired, not the name or title.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 18, 2008 @ 12:26 pmAdam,
Gotcha…I agree.
Comment by UCrawford — January 18, 2008 @ 12:58 pmInteresting, I never knew about Friedman’s tactics on such panels but realize that as of late I’ve been adopting a much less confrontational tone when it comes to discussions (unless of course, it is at a party, where liquid courage makes everyone spout their proud rhetoric, lol…). It’s all rather ironic, of course, as I was never initially Libertarian to begin with.
As for CATO, I’m a little indifferent; can’t say I agree with a lot things they seem to spout.
Really need to start reading the major authors soon…
Comment by Nitroadict — January 18, 2008 @ 1:04 pm::put’s Free To Choose on amazon wish list::
Nitroadict,
The companion book is good, but if you want to see what I was talking about I highly recommend the DVD set of “Free to Choose” (it was a PBS miniseries). That’s where you get to see Friedman’s debating style in action and that’s a bit lost in the books.
It’s kind of pricey (just shy of $100) but I found it to be worth it.
Comment by UCrawford — January 18, 2008 @ 1:08 pmThe entire Free to Choose series is available in streaming video, for free, here:
http://www.ideachannel.tv/
They also have the 1990 edition.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 18, 2008 @ 1:17 pmRichard Wicks,
You are correct here:
“What a joke you guys are. I’m a Libertarian, none of these so called think tanks or rags is. You’re not. They’re just talk talk talk, 0 action. They’re a distraction, for all practical purposes, designed to mire us in inaction.”
In fact, you have understated the reality of “Mainstream” “Liberty” Organizations/Publications.
Their only function is to frustrate any movement to re-attain the Liberty Americans long ago enjoyed in this nation. The “Liberty Papers” is among their number; mere time wasting liberty Busy Boxes and another conduit to redirect the straying back to the Statist ranch.
Please note the repeated use of the standard engineered consent techniques here as well as the vast majority of other ostensible Liberty promotion organizations.
I explained to many, that were naively bouyed by the brief spurt of media attention RP received recently, as well as predicting long before the fact, that it was merely part of the prelude for an attempted coupe de gras. It serves no purpose to deliver the media equivalent of a character assassination sucker punch until the victims name is somewhat recognized by the intended audience of the eventual smear campaign. The timing was also predictable, as was, the compressed time frame in which it played out(and timing before what was anticipated to be a good primary state) in the major press after months of low level buzz created by a constant drumbeat from lesser sources like the “Liberty Papers”. Coincidental timing of the “REASON” cover story on RP? No coincidence at all, the timing was perfect for the intended purpose. (Here is DM and companys cue to, once again, toss out the standard method to squelch inquiry by dismissing inconvenient inquiries as “conspiracy theory”).
Thanks for spreading the light of Liberty Richard and please assist me in warning others about the pretenders, like the “Liberty Papers”, that seek only to subvert the efforts of the TRUE heirs to the cause of Patrick Henry.
BTW-Their methods are laughable primarily due to the transparently consistent, time worn techniques:
(Not exhaustive)
1. He is a-Kook/Racist/Fringe/KKK/Nazi(see the staged group lovefest over this comment above by some of the foxes in cahoots “Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer. Heil Ron Paul.”)/Radical/etc.
2. He will-Never win/has no chance/his coalition is fracturing/etc.
3. The “controversy” of the “scandal” has destroyed him/He is done/His entire career is over,finished,fini
4. Commenter X is an “expert”(in poli sci) and speaking with the “authority” of an “expert” I judge his chances to be Nil.
5. Commenter X is/was once a supporter but NOW that I have “discovered” the “TRUTH” about him I will not/cannot support him and will make sure to tell as many people as possible that “did you know I supported him but no longer do”
6. Bring out the former “Staffer” that wants to tell all the “Real” inside story on the victim(in this case RP)
7. People that support him are kooks/fringe/nazi/etc.
8. People that support him do so because it is a “CULT” movement, i.e. they do not support him for “rational reasons” like the people that support the establishment approved candidates and they are “blinded” to the “damaging truth” about him.
Feel free to add the rest but you will note the same playbook is being followed and the same tune is being sung by the various anti-RP megaphones.
Comment by gmason08 — January 18, 2008 @ 5:08 pmgmason08,
Dude…you’re at Level 4 of Thorazine withdrawal, aren’t you?
Comment by UCrawford — January 18, 2008 @ 7:13 pmOh, this looks like fun, can I play too?
Hmmmmm, well no contributor at the Liberty Papers said he was any of those things. Provide an actual, attributable quote to back it up. The comment you call out was poking fun at the collectivist comment someone else made that you can’t be an American or a Libertertarian unless you support Ron Paul. This is so eerily similar to statements made by Hitler and the Nazi’s in Germany that the sarcastic response was the obvious one.
Well, we have said that recently. Of course, the folks saying that have backed it up with facts, trends and data to support our assertions. Are you willing to provide a single quote from a Liberty Papers contributor, in context, to support your claims? Any data whatsoever? Or just claim that he can win without evidence for it.
Uhhhh, yeah, provide quotes from here, Reason, etc. to support this. Please, I really want to see them.
Actually, I haven’t seen that here. Have you? Again, please provide sources, data, quotes, etc.
Yep, I’ve seen that a few times. Now, why is that a problem? There’s people supporting RP who claim to have been something other than libertarian until recently. And then they had an epiphany and realized that RP was the last, best hope. I don’t see you tackling those folks and claiming they are a problem. Why not?
Uhhhhhh ……… He’s not a “former” staffer, he is the current press guy for the Paul Campaign.
Well ……… nobody that I’m aware of said a word about nazi’s. Kooks, yes. Fringe types, yes. Conspiracy theorists, yes. Racists, yes. One Worlder believers and Truthers, yes. And there is plenty of evidence, based on comments made over and over on this blog that such is the case. Including your comments.
Actually, I would say that every candidate has folks supporting them that behave in a fanatical fashion that resembles cult behavior. The difference is that candidates with more support can keep their fanatics on the margin, for the most part. The MOST vocal RP supporters behave in a fashion that resembles a cult, including being unwilling or unable to see obvious, clear facts presented to them. Or having elaborate conspiracies that they have deduced must exist to explain it all away.
Okay, how about this:
1. The real leader of this “Neo Con Front Machine” (which is secretly funded by the Trilateral Commission, by the way) is adept at duping folks into thinking he is just one of the contributing staff, and not the real brains behind the machine, the “eminence gris” of The Liberty Papers is none other than Doug Mataconis. Brad Warbiany is a stuffed shirt, false front for Doug.
2. We cleverly disguise our One World lies with the words of liberty in order to build up a large following of fools …… errrr free thinking liberty minded people …… and then lead them down the path we want them to follow now that trust us. Imagine me laughing maniacally as I dupe yet another one of you!
You and DTC seem to be unable to keep straight people with different names. Have you noticed that it is UCrawford and I, for example, who don’t support Ron Paul because we think he’s incompetent, that Brad and Tarran are not particularly leaning one way or the other, that Doug would like to see Paul’s campaign clean up the mess and drive forward the core message and the other contributors all have their own positions? In other words, there is no monolithic position here, and we tend to range from moderate support to outright opposition? No, you probably haven’t.
This sort of post is why we think you guys are loons. You insist on concocting elaborate conspiracies to explain something with quite simple explanations. You insist on attributing the worst motives to those that disagree with you. You insist that we aren’t “true libertarians” or that we are opposed to freedom or that we aren’t good Americans, or whatever other loony collectivist claptrap you can come up with.
You are your own worst enemy. You drive away less radical people who might otherwise be sympathetic to Ron Paul’s message with your behavior and words. You do not create agreement with your thoughts, instead you cause people to have no desire to be associated with someone that you defend in this manner.
Rational, calm discourse based on logic and fact is the answer, not this.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 18, 2008 @ 7:50 pmAssertion: Raw nerves throb painfully when struck directly.
Supporting Evidence: See above two posts.
Comment by gmason08 — January 18, 2008 @ 9:43 pmUh, yes, a rational and calm response asking you to support your claims is “raw nerves”. Admittedly, I had a bit of fun too. Why not, you make it pretty easy.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 18, 2008 @ 9:50 pmWas there a mini-bomb today? Donations really went up on Ron’s site for some reason.
Maybe all of this talk of drying up funds is really getting people to rally for Dr. Paul.
Comment by Money — January 18, 2008 @ 11:44 pmYou watch. Ron Paul is going to win the Nevada Caucuses today, and all you Ron critics will be having to cry Uncle.
My sources on the ground in NV tell me that Paul is going to crush Romney.
What will that say for the trumped up “Newsletter scandal” then?
By 7:00 pm est time tonight some folks here at Liberty Papers will be eating crow. Headlines:
Ron Paul shocks Nation; Beats Romney in Nevada
Comment by Christencom — January 19, 2008 @ 9:06 amWhere’s that crow? I haven’t eaten any dinner yet and I’m a bit hungry.
Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 19, 2008 @ 5:20 pmThanks for the DVD info & the link to the free vids guys. I might consider getting the DVD set as a gift for a friend who is a bit on the fence with libertarianism (mainly due to economics).
Comment by Nitroadict — January 20, 2008 @ 7:28 pm