Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Ron Paul rakes it in

By

It’s hard not to take this seriously.

Ron Paul ended up smashing the record for money raised in one day by a Republican presidential hopeful.

Through an ambitious online push on Monday, his campaign brought in more than $4 million, surpassing the $3.1 million that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney raised on Jan. 8.

As of 10 a.m. today, Paul’s website reported that he had collected nearly $7.3 million of the $12 million goal he has set for the last three months of this year to help him compete in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina, the first four nominating contests.

I would not be at all surprised for Paul to be startlingly successful in New Hampshire. 

By the way, what is it with these wacky Republican OB–GYNs?  I find it an odd coincidence that both Coburn and Paul boast of having “delivered more than 4,000 babies.”  Is there some talismanic significance to the 4,000 number?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. It’s a meaningless stat.  Dollars in a quarter?  Sure, that’s relevant.  But this early in the campaign who cares if they all came in on one day or were spread out over a few weeks?

    <

    p>
    Put another way, is it better to raise $4 million on November 5, or $6 million on November 1-5?

    • your point is a good one.  i was looking at it from an entirely different angle:  this is $4 million dollars that won’t be giving Romney’s personal checking account a breather.

    • Glenn Greenwald has an extended essay up on how Paul, whatever his problems, has a clear and coherent political philosophy. In the muddy world of Washington politics, people seem to find that attractive — even people who’d think that dismantling the IRS is lunacy or that the federal government does have a role in education. Greenwald’s essay on Salon is worth reading.

      <

      p>
      Kos and Yglesisa have also posted on him — and so has our deep-voiced editor.

  4. Though, I am not sure I know NH anymore…it is not the (sad and pathetic) state of my birth. It’s rather loosened, liberalized, and wised up in the last decade. (The displaced Massholes discovered that it’s a myth that they pay less taxes in NH.)

    <

    p>
    But anyway, this is the state that Pat Buchanan won in 1996. New Hamsterites pride themselves on being ornery and unpredictable, especially the conservatives.

  5. Has it been all so many years since you all were faced with a politician who actualy has ideas, that you have come to fear the very idea of ideas?

    <

    p>
    More mindless babble please. I want to be told what I want to hear, soothing. I’m just way too scared to discuss how screwed up things have become or why. I would like to delude myself into thinking that “more of the same” will somehow fix what “more of the same” has broken beyond recognition.

    <

    p>
    Who could ever have invisioned just how screwed up EVERTHING has become.

    <

    p>
    Viva La Revolucion’ đŸ™‚

      • I appreciate your 5 rating of my above comment.  However, I’m confused by it because your favored candidate, Romney, also says that he is a womb-controller and heterosupremecist.  Did your mouse slip on your way to giving me a zero?

          • or you wouldn’t be supporting the putative womb-controller and heterosupremacist Romney.  Nice try, tho.

              • But you’re going to have to live with the reciprocal fact that that has no bearing on my opinion that you have little to no credibility here.  For starters, you say you are pro-choice, yet you support the putative womb-controller Romney.  Maybe you can do that in good conscience because you know that his newfound convictions about womb control are a sham?

                • Q: Your aides say you see ending abortion as a two-step process: rolling back Roe v. Wade, which would leave it legal in some states; and then a constitutional amendment to ban it nationwide. If abortion is murder, how can you live with it being legal in some states?

                  A: I’d love to have an America that didn’t have abortion. But that’s not what the American people [want] right now. And so I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the states to put in place pro-life legislation. I recognize that for many people, that is considered an act of murder, to have an abortion. It is without question the taking of a human life. And I believe that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of the human life. But we have two lives involved here–a mom, an unborn child. We have to have concern for both lives & show the expression of our compassion & our consideration and work to change hearts & minds, and that’s the way in my view we’ll ultimately have a society without abortion.

                  Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

                  <

                  p>
                  Or, conversely, pro-choice legislation.  Each state making its own decision.  I doubt America would ever pass a constitutional amendment.

                  <

                  p>
                  I can live with that.

                • Leave it to Mitt to steal Ron Pauls talking points.
                  Cant that guy come up with any original thoughts. If he wanted to go ahead and swipe Paul’s talking points about the federal reserve system I might look at him but he wont because he is one of the ones who has been enriched by it.
                  Besides everyone knows he is just plain full of sh** đŸ™‚

                • It’s ok by you for the majority of voters in, say, KS to decide for individual women whether they can have access to safe abortions.  Convenient for you, living in a pro-choice state (and dare I guess, personally past childbearing years?).

                  <

                  p>
                  This is the same tact taken by slavers back in the 19th century, btw.  They stood on the moral high ground of advocating for letting each new state or territory decide whether it would have slaves.  Very upright.  Very commendable.  What fine company to keep.

                • So, would it be correct to summarize your position as:

                  <

                  p>
                  Its just fine with me that the nation and the world are left to be plundered and burnt so long as hypothetical Shena retains her absolute right to an abortion in South Dakota,
                  assuming that you can justify what is likely a simple act of murder as somehow being a given constituional right
                  and in spite of the fact that with all modern methods of contraception such a surprise pregnancy is virtualy paramont to simple and complete irresponsibility
                  and despite the fact that modern society offers the mother endlessly more palitable choices as to the disposition of the child to the point where the child can be left at any fire station , no questions asked, to find its way onto an adoption list that is so long most people prefer to adopt someplace like China to save themselves from the years of red tape.

                  <

                  p>
                  The world be damned, hypothetical Shena does what she wants and the hell with ya all. I’m with Barfy the dog so long as she is firmly rooted in 1972.

                  <

                  p>
                  Have it your way.
                  lol đŸ™‚

                • that is the best pile of mental spaghetti i’ve seen all day!  tell me, are you a typical ron paul supporter?

      • Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that what two consenting people choose to do is their buiseness and not governments. He voted against the “defense of marriage” ammendment unlike the rest of the GOP. He may not be celebrating the  parade but he wont be eying it with contempt either, no issue here, move on.

        <

        p>
        As to the cursed subject of abortion … He walks the line , not an ideologue either way. As president he will not decide an issue that has already been decided. If he were lucky enough to appoint someone to the SJC I doubt the litimus test issue would apply. More important fish to fry than this long used up divider. Thanks anyhow.

        <

        p>
        Next?

        <

        p>
        Ron Pauls voting record on any issue related to economic justice shines way better than most Dems … look it up. Enjoy.

        • this is how much of an ideologue he is on womb control.

          The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
          […]
          In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

          I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

          I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

          Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

          As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

          You see a “fine line” in there where?

          <

          p>
          as for his heterosupremacy problem, he displays it expertly by refusing to say that he has no problem with gay people.  further, he supports DADT.  the only reason he voted against the FMA is because he says he doesn’t believe that the feds should have a say in marriage law.

          <

          p>
          you may wish to believe that he’s pro-choice and sees LGBT people as equal to heterosexuals.  I don’t.  There is nothing he has ever said to make me believe otherwise.  If you can provide links to any firm pro-choice and LGBT-positive statements he has made, I’ll listen.  Until then, his campaign web page would seem to conflict with your assertions.

          • The line is that he wants no federal interference with state court mandates related to abortion (such as NH parental notification statute). If you dont like what a state has to offer fight it out on the state level or move to another state. After 50 years havent you figured out that:

            <

            p>
            1) You will NEVER force people from Kansas to live like they are in Massachusetts.
            2) You may enjoy screaching tirelessly for federal intervention on everything under the sun but most people are sick of it and the constitution didnt intend for it to work that way. If you havent noticed about an equal number of people are screaching the opposite of you.
            3) Issues like this are dividers that divert your attention away from things of actual consequence, like this that none of your beloved leaders will touch.

            <

            p>
            Since you insist, I will post his ENDLESS commentary with regard to sexual orientation issues but he has always been straight as an arrow in stating that what people do is thier own business.

            • You will NEVER force people from Kansas to live like they are in Massachusetts.

              <

              p>
              Being pro choice is in support of choice, not force.  The Pro lifers insist on force.

              <

              p>
              Just sayin’.

        • The first 5 minutes of his speech at the Iowa Straw Poll make it clear.  He states that 1) Life begins at conception, and 2) Roe vs Wade should be reversed.

          <

          p>

  6. to run as a third party candidate should he lose the primary.

    I would send him a contribution if that is the choice he made.

     :^)

     

  7. I find it an odd coincidence that both Coburn and Paul boast of having “delivered more than 4,000 babies.”  Is there some talismanic significance to the 4,000 number?

    Never mind how many babies they’ve delivered.  It’s difficult to take any Republican candidate seriously unless he’s fathered 4,000 babies (and children fathered by current wives don’t count).

  9. He’s been a doctor for about 39 years, and a congressman for 15 of them. Assuming he’s not presently moonlighting, he practiced medicine for about 24 of those years. That’s about 160 babies a year, which sounds pretty achievable, especially if there weren’t that many other ob/gyns in the area.

  10. He is at the very least real.
    It is a cheap plastic world and all of the rest of the candidates present themselves as such.  I can only take so much “debate” on “issues” framed around the average demographic age of thirteen.

Archives