Infinite Monkeys<dr.nick>Hello everybody!</dr.nick>
I've been gone for awhile. Long story, busy times. But we're a week and a half away from Super Tuesday and I figured it was time to get off my butt and start shilling for the only Republican candidate worth voting for: Ron Paul
Dr. Paul was the subject of endless amusement 6-9 months ago. Who was going to vote for an anti-war libertarian in this big-government neo-con age? Well, that was then. In the last quarter of 2007, Ron Paul took in more donations than any other candidate (just shy $20 million) including not one but two single-day donation records. And unlike a lot of candidates, the vast majority of those donations were around $100. Also unlike the other candidates, the two record-setting days were organized completely by the grassroots, with no meaningful coordination from the central campaign. He just took in another $1.85 million on Monday in another grassroots "money bomb" timed to coincide with MLK day.
Last year, eleven different men announced their intention to seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Earlier this week, Fred Thompson (who was treated as a front-runner throughout - and even before - his campaign) became the sixth to abandon the campaign trail:
Of the five that are left, there is no clear front-runner. Romney, McCain, and Huckabee have each won one or two primaries/caucuses, and the only momentum seems to be Rudy Giuliani's momentum in plummeting to the bottom. And the only two candidates that still have any significant amount of cash on hand are Romney (mostly his own) and Ron Paul.
Paul's got the institutional cards stacked against him: Fox News has already excluded him from one debate (they included Fred Thompson) and for a long time the ten-term U.S. Congressman from Texas was curiously absent from many voting guides, polls, and coverage. Even last weekend, when Paul came in second place in the Nevada caucus, Fox News covered the race as if he wasn't even in the running:
As I mentioned, Paul wound up finishing ahead of McCain to take "the Silver" (as Romney likes to call it) in the Silver State.
All of this from a guy who everybody thought would be the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party. Well, it ain't so.
But viability is, in my opinion, a minor point. Issues and record are what's REALLY important, and Paul's got this locked up for me. Over the next several days, I'll post about both, and about what differentiates him from the other four candidates. For a preview, take a look at his issues page.
[cross-posted at RedBlueAmerica.com] Posted by RobbL at January 25, 2008 10:31 AMI wish all of that were true. I'm afraid Paul's time has passed, and the damage from the New Republic story about his newsletters was only moderated by the fact that no one expects him to win.
Time to draft Newt Gingrich, I say (as long as we're having wacky dreams).
To paraphrase another monkey, I really want a president like Ron Paul...just not Ron Paul.
Welcome back, though, and I look forward to your posts convincing me otherwise.
Hey Robb (and others). See my reply at RedBlueAmerica. I'm sure you'll kinda not like it.
Posted by: Dr. Zaius at January 25, 2008 12:51 AMMy reply to Zaius, as posted at RBA:
--Funny how all that money ain't turning into many votes.
A lot more votes than anyone expected, and more votes than the extremely high-profile Giuliani has managed to get in the primaries and caucuses that have already taken place. I'm not saying he's the front-runner, I'm saying he's viable. And he's got enough money to stay in the race and continue to shape the debate and discussion. For that alone his candidacy has been worth it, and far exceeded anyone's expectations (including his own) when he entered the race.
--Yeah. It's all Fox News' fault.
I didn't say that. Those were just examples of institutional bias, and it's particularly easy to find examples of Fox's slights. But the bias has been widespread. That is starting to slowly change, and his "frontrunner-beating" numbers in the early primaries have started to bring out more and more endorsements from people with higher and higher profiles.
--Don't look for political messaiahs [sic]
Oh, I'm not. But I am unwilling to place my vote for someone who does not stand for, and have a record of standing for, principles with which I agree. None of the remaining candidates even comes close. Republicans have been choosing the lesser of evils for too long, and those candidates have quite possibly doomed the party to the wilderness for awhile. But there is one candidate who has a consistent history of advocating and voting for the Constitutional principles that used to be part-and-parcel of the Republican message. That candidate is Ron Paul.
I also posted a reply to Ben that bears repeating here, as well:
--I still think Paul is wrong, wrong, wrong on the war.
No need for us to rehash that debate here. Of course, I agree with him pretty much completely. I think you and I both believe that the war is one of the most, if not THE most important issues this election. However, we have diametrically opposed views as to why it's important and how it should be handled.
If you believe that continuing to have a strong military presence abroad is a critical priority for America, then Ron Paul isn't your candidate, and his position on any other issue is probably irrelevant. On the other hand, if getting troops out of Iraq and other foreign locations is a high priority, then Ron Paul is the only Republican who holds that position.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at January 25, 2008 08:03 AM