That Ain’t S’posta Happen!

For those who don’t read the “Republican or Bust” crowd at The Corner, they’re a little rattled today. Yesterday, Ron Paul raised an astonishing $4,000,000.

Update: Glenn Greenwald has thoughts.






76 replies
  1. 1
    Punchy says:

    “Republican of Bust”

    “of”? You mean “or”?

  2. 2
    BIRDZILLA says:

    Not bad but not much comapred to the amount donated to the demacrats from the hollywood left

  3. 3
    Rudi says:

    And Paul didn’t have to bring in AF1 and W for a fundraiser at a Jim Crow countryclub.

  4. 4
    Michael D. says:

    Punchy: Fixed! Gracias!

  5. 5
    mrmobi says:

    Glen Greenwald has an outstanding analysis of the Ron Paul phenomenon up today at Salon.

  6. 6
    capelza says:

    BIRDZILLA is that really you? That post was far to coherent.

    I do love how Paul is torquing the GOP.

  7. 7
    Zifnab says:

    So I guess the question is, who’s a MoRon now?

  8. 8
    glasnost says:

    John – I don’t think David Frum is rattled. Frankly, he has me rattled. His dismissal of Ron Paul is obnoxious and lame, but his pragmatic calculations are scary.

    Ron Paul and Rudy Guliani are polar opposites on American militarism, and everyone knows it. The better Ron Paul does, the better Rudy Guiliani’s chances are – because Ron Paul takes steals his support from less militarist Republican candidates. The more you oppose militarism, the more the champion of militarism benefits. It’s a perverse outcome, and Frum is gloating about it.

    Now imagine the exact same situation in a general election. If Ron Paul ran as an independent in the general election – I haven’t taken that idea seriously before, but it’s first credible scenario I’ve heard for a Republican victory.

    Imagine Ron Paul flaming Hilary Clinton for being soft on the Iraq war and getting 15% of the national vote, Hilary Clinton getting 40% and Rudy Guliani 45%.

    It’s like Bush/2000, but worse.

    Perverse outcomes like this are the Achilles heel of global governance. This scenario is a long shot, but it’s also a Collapse of The Republic scenario.

  9. 9
    glasnost says:

    When I say “soft on the Iraq war” – I mean soft on opposing the Iraq war.

  10. 10
    Tim F. says:

    Imagine Ron Paul flaming Hilary Clinton for being soft on the Iraq war and getting 15% of the national vote, Hilary Clinton getting 40% and Rudy Guliani 45%.

    Giuliani would get the diehard Bushie vote. That is to say, 28%. Oh right, subtract the social cons from that number.

  11. 11
    Randolph Fritz says:

    Oh, god. This is getting scary.

  12. 12
    Kynn says:

    “Republican of Bust”

    “of”? You mean “or”?

    Clearly, it’s an Althouse reference, amirite?

  13. 13
    Zifnab says:

    Imagine Ron Paul flaming Hilary Clinton for being soft on the Iraq war and getting 15% of the national vote, Hilary Clinton getting 40% and Rudy Guliani 45%.

    No one who votes for Ron Paul would have voted for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. You might as well argue that if Mickey Mouse entered the race, he’d peal off the all-important furry vote. If Ron Paul runs independent, he’ll be another Ross Perot – minus the big ears – and propel the Democrat to an even more assured victory. I haven’t seen anything to convince me otherwise.

  14. 14
    Fe E says:

    Giuliani would get the diehard Bushie vote. That is to say, 28%. Oh right, subtract the social cons from that number

    Oh yeah, but when examined in light of Frum’s unbroken track record of spot-on analysis….oh, never mind.

  15. 15
    Jon H says:

    It’s all because of the shoutout from Johnny Rotten on Leno.

  16. 16
    MNPundit says:

    Why did the post above this disappear? It was about Kevin Drum …. or is it my cache?

  17. 17
    jenniebee says:

    There is never a doubt that Paul actually believes what he is saying, nor is there any doubt that what he believes is the by-product of critical and rational thought grounded in genuine political passion. using Ayn Rand as his teen pr0n.

    Fixed.

  18. 18
    Michael D. says:

    MNPundit: Disappeared for me too. I got halfway though – had to go to another site to look at something for work, came back, gone. Looked in the admin page and it’s not even there anymore. (???)

  19. 19
    paradox says:

    Just leave the god damn hollywood liberals alone. Do you know how pathetic it sounds?

    One leaves out big pharm. The oil lobby. The mineral lobby, the list goes on of absurdly rich and heavily donating GOP constituencies, jesus, are Republicans broke or something? But those hollywood liberals are a threat to the democracy. Right.

    This is the same Hollywood that helped Arnie out, the same bunch that glorifies violence so much it’s seen as a given that Americans can fling it out at whim on whomever they wish.

    The liberal Hollywood elite isn’t your problem, it’s that fucking maniac Cheney and that puppet he carries around. I’m sick of this ridiculous bullshit, this is America, our people are supposed to have intelligence and education.

  20. 20
    Notorious P.A.T. says:

    Giuliani would get the diehard Bushie vote. That is to say, 28%.

    Isn’t Rudy! polling at something like 45% in a head-to-head matchup?

  21. 21
    RSA says:

    No one who votes for Ron Paul would have voted for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

    That’s my view. Consider a hypothetical Democratic Hillary voter, who says, “She’s too militaristic; I’m going to vote for Ron Paul. If nothing else, it’ll be a protest vote, you know, like in 2000–oh, wait. . .”

  22. 22
    Punchy says:

    Ron Paul and Rudy Guliani are polar opposites on American militarism, and everyone knows it.

    Real fucking easy. PEOPLE HATE THIS FUCKING WAR. RP is against it. Guliani is angling to start brand-new ones.

    Hence, the manlove for Ronny. The only anti-war-let’s-not-nuke-seven-more-nations candy on the “right”.

  23. 23
    Cyrus says:

    Punchy Says:

    “Republican of Bust”

    “of”? You mean “or”?

    “Or”? You mean “and”?

  24. 24
    Jake says:

    “Or”? You mean “and”?

    Go?

  25. 25
    Andrew says:

    I think he means “of.”

    Republican of Bust.

  26. 26

    I don’t think David Frum is rattled. Frankly, he has me rattled. His dismissal of Ron Paul is obnoxious and lame, but his pragmatic calculations are scary.

    They’re quite obviously rattled. Yeah, they’ll probably try to spin this as bad news for hillary, but they always do that.

    I’ll be curious to see what happens in 2008. I am planning to go to the Republican caucus, just for the entertainment value. Primarily because I’m not too concerned with who wins the Democratic nomination, they’re all good people.

  27. 27
    Billy K says:

    No one who votes for Ron Paul would have voted for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

    I think you’re very wrong, and I offer up myself as Exhibit A. If it came down to Clinton and Paul, I’d have a real tough choice. Honestly, I’d lean Paul. If it came down to Giuliani and Clinton, no question I’m voting for Hillary there.

  28. 28
    Andrew says:

    Count me in with Billy K.

  29. 29
    Tim F. says:

    Isn’t Rudy! polling at something like 45% in a head-to-head matchup?

    The polls don’t take into account a third-party candidate. Don’t underestimate the damage to the Republican brand if Paul siphons off the reasonable conservatives, after Democrats have already pulled off the moderates, independents and swing voters.

  30. 30
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Paul’s fundraising numbers are clearly the result of spambots and other online straw-poll cheating mechanisms.

  31. 31
    RSA says:

    If it came down to Clinton and Paul, I’d have a real tough choice. Honestly, I’d lean Paul.

    But Paul as a third-party candidate? I think the two-party scenario of Clinton versus Paul is just too far fetched. (Though it would mean we’d have dodged a bullet with Giuliani.)

  32. 32
    Tsulagi says:

    Count me in with Billy K.

    Ditto.

    Too bad Tits Harris isn’t running. It would be funny watching her continually striking a pose during the Pub debates.

  33. 33
    glasnost says:

    No one who votes for Ron Paul would have voted for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances

    You’re really wrong. A lot of voters have much less and fragmentary information. A lot of voters don’t fit ideological lines. A lot of voters don’t like either the Iraq War or some nebulous “big government”.

    At best, an independent Ron Paul in the general election would steal lots of independents and swing voters.

    Seriously, do you think Ron Paul would steal any Guiliani voters? They practically got in a fistfight during the Republican primaries. I’d like to think so, but I don’t believe it.

    Ron Paul as an independent in the general election functions as a Nader. He steals votes from the soft right, middle, and confused that would otherwise go to the left as a protest vote in 2008. I sure hope someone can convince me otherwise.

  34. 34
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Ron Paul as an independent in the general election functions as a Nader.

    And as such, it’s hardly implausible that in that situation, many of the same Repubs who claimed that Paul was the devil incarnate would start chucking money at him. Just watch.

  35. 35
    akaoni says:

    You should probably credit Sully too…

  36. 36

    […] Ron Paul raised $4 million yesterday. Yes, I mean yesterday as in just one day. Here’s the chart for how it came in. […]

  37. 37
    RSA says:

    Ron Paul as an independent in the general election functions as a Nader. He steals votes from the soft right, middle, and confused that would otherwise go to the left as a protest vote in 2008. I sure hope someone can convince me otherwise.

    I think that Paul would act as a spoiler, but it’s not clear how effective he would be in attracting voters. If he ever pulls out or away from the pack, a spotlight will be put on his views, and there’s something for everyone to dislike: Immediate abolition of the IRS. Immediate pull-out from Iraq. Negation of Roe v. Wade. Opposition to the FDA. A public education plan that focuses on home schooling. While some folks may like some of these, I don’t think there are many who would be willing to go along with the whole package, and that’s what Paul will be selling.

    Maybe it’s just me, though.

  38. 38
    Zifnab says:

    Seriously, do you think Ron Paul would steal any Guiliani voters? They practically got in a fistfight during the Republican primaries. I’d like to think so, but I don’t believe it.

    Ron Paul as an independent in the general election functions as a Nader. He steals votes from the soft right, middle, and confused that would otherwise go to the left as a protest vote in 2008. I sure hope someone can convince me otherwise.

    You’re forgetting the “I hate Hillary” factor that gives Guilliani an edge in these match-ups. A great number of Republicans, if given the choice between Hillary and Hitler, will not choose Hillary. But they will choose Ron Paul. I agree, if Ron Paul runs, he’s going to be running as the un-Candidate – the guy who isn’t Hillary and isn’t some GOP empty suit.

    If anything, the logic defeats itself. “I’d vote for Paul over Hillary, but Hillary over Guilliani even knowing that voting for Paul over Hillary could hand Guilliani the election.” That doesn’t make one shred of sense.

    Hillary has tons of money, all the DC support, large swaths of the big business support, the ethnic vote, the woman’s vote, and the big-state votes in a virtual lock. You really think the folks out in Ohio are going to go 15-40-45 for Paul/Guilliani/Clinton? That all those displaced New Yorkers in Florida are going to vote for a Texas (again?!) Ron Paul has some serious anti-war support, its true, but he has nothing on health care and he’s a staunch Republican on everything but the war. Social Cons will flock to him for his pro-life positions and anti-immigration stance. Social Libs won’t touch him. Especially when Hillary re-triangulates.

  39. 39
    Billy K says:

    But Paul as a third-party candidate? I think the two-party scenario of Clinton versus Paul is just too far fetched.

    Sure, it’s far-fetched. Still, I’m speaking as if it were a two-way race between Hillary and Paul. Paul has stated he will not run as a third-party candidate. I have no reason not to believe him.

    (And just to add another nickel to my two cents, I don’t like a lot of Paul’s strict Constitutional interpretations, and I really don’t like his anti-abortion stance, but he is the only candidate speaking the truth about how we are bankrupting our country by trying to hold on to a worldwide empire. We need to start bringing troops, bases and equipment home from Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc. I don’t believe he’d be able to abolish the IRS in four years, or deconstruct public education (Congress would be in his way), but he would be able to pull back our worldwide military over-reach and bring some value back to the dollar. I’d be willing to give him a shot, because no one else – not even Obama – would do this, and I believe our standard of living – if not the basic structure of our society – is at stake.)

  40. 40
    Michael D. says:

    You should probably credit Sully too…

    Why?

  41. 41
    Billy K says:

    You should probably credit Sully too…

    Why?

    He has a funny accent, so I’m pretty sure he’s involved somehow.

    What were we talking about?

  42. 42
    The Other Andrew says:

    The ideal situation would be a four-way matchup between Rudy, the Democratic candidate, Ron Paul, and (fundie third party guy). Paul would probably cut both ways with low-information voters, which is why I want the safety valve of a fundie in there.

    That said–if, by some freakish turn of events, Paul got elected, he’d be unable to govern, right? The right would splinter, the left would unite against his crazy ideas to destroy key government infrastructure…

  43. 43
    Dreggas says:

    I’m pretty damn liberal, I like the social safety net, I also like that women’s right to choose was decided federally, I think gays should be able to marry. However if it were a choice between Hillary and Ron Paul I would have a hard as hell time choosing between the two. In a three way with Ron Paul as the third party I would go with Hillary only because an insurgent campaign by Paul as a third party candidate would be like Perot (which actually helped Clinton), while it could be a toss up as to who it would benefit in the race I would definitely not want [insert any of the “republican” candidates other than paul here].

  44. 44
    Punchy says:

    Too bad Tits Harris isn’t running. It would be funny watching her continually striking a pose during the Pub debates them bounce up and down

    Fixed.

  45. 45
    RSA says:

    That said—if, by some freakish turn of events, Paul got elected, he’d be unable to govern, right?

    Pretty much, I think. We’ve seen how well modern Republicans govern, who don’t believe in government except to the extent that it benefits them and their cronies. Paul would be a much more sincere anti-government type. I’m not sure we could survive a Chainsaw Al in the White House.

  46. 46
    PeterJ says:

    Dreggas said:

    …would be like Perot (which actually helped Clinton)…

    Check the exit polls from the 1992 election. Perot voters would have split 50/50 between Clinton and Bush. The idea that he helped Clinton isn’t correct.

  47. 47
    PeterJ says:

    To be a bit more correct.
    38% Clinton
    37% Bush
    6% Other candidate than Bush or Clinton
    14% Wouldn’t have voted

  48. 48
    Steve says:

    As I think about it, I shouldn’t be surprised that Paul raised that much on the web, at least from an anecdotal point of view. On recent trips to Columbus, and more specifically to the Ohio State campus, I have noticed Ron Paul materials everywhere – from campus bus stops to small roadside sign along Route 23 as you approach Columbus from the south. His name was everywhere on campus, and I saw no other Republican names anywhere. I wonder if he’s successfully appealing to younger college or college-age voters. As I said, though, completely anecdotal.

  49. 49
    akaoni says:

    Michael D. Says:

    You should probably credit Sully too…

    Why?

    Sullivan wrote:

    A $4.3 million haul in 24 hours. Good enough to rattle Frum.

    Same language used to refer to same topic. Could be unintentional or conincidence, I know I’ve done that myself, but it just seemed too similar to me. Plus, Frum himself references Sullivan.

  50. 50
    RareSanity says:

    Paul’s fundraising numbers are clearly the result of spambots and other online straw-poll cheating mechanisms.

    Right…Then the spambots and poll cheating mechanisms are going to counterfeit money and deposit it, secretly into the the Ron Paul 2008 bank account. Then they are going to forge the FEC forms that each candidate must file stating how much money they raised for the quarter and file it. Then they are going to set up a “fake” FEC office to accept the real form that the Paul Campaign was going to file, so they will never know that they didn’t really file their form.

    …Okay, that’s enough, but I could go on.

    You must be a Fox News viewer…amirite?

  51. 51

    Simple fact: if Paul gets close to the Republican nomination, those “lost” pamphlets in which he worships at the altar of the radical militias will reappear.

  52. 52
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    You must be a Fox News viewer…amirite?

    No…I’m a guy who insufficiently communicated sarcasm.

  53. 53
    Tsulagi says:

    I wonder if he’s successfully appealing to younger college or college-age voters.

    Also to serving military. Paul leads among all candidates in campaign contributions from them. Maybe they’re looking for a little extra support beyond bumper stickers and Power Point.

  54. 54
    Punchy says:

    You must be a Fox News viewer…amirite?

    I’m not sure you’re aware of the insane amount of spoof on this site.

  55. 55
    RareSanity says:

    You must be a Fox News viewer…amirite?

    No…I’m a guy who insufficiently communicated sarcasm.

    Oh…uh…oops…sorry…

  56. 56

    RareSanity — around here, part of the challenge is figuring out if the poster means what he said or not.

    Most of the time, you can assume that he or she doesn’t mean what he or she said. The problem is, there are many more ways to not mean something than there are to mean something.

    Or something like that, any way.

  57. 57
    Jake says:

    I apologize for the following outburst of fruststration:

    God damnit, why the fuck won’t Gore run?

    There. I’m done.

  58. 58
    RareSanity says:

    demimondian – You are right, it’s that…Peter Johnson (who is serious) that has been commenting trolling around lately that is throwing off my satire-o-meter…damn him!!

  59. 59
    Cyrus says:

    Check the exit polls from the 1992 election. Perot voters would have split 50/50 between Clinton and Bush. The idea that he helped Clinton isn’t correct.

    Ah, thank you. I was about to copy-paste a comment I had made on another blog, saying basically the same thing but with different and more complicated math. It’s pretty trivial but still annoying — Bush lost on his own and Clinton won on his own and there was nothing illegitimate about Bill Clinton winning, despite how the right wing keeps saying so.

  60. 60
    Lee says:

    I saw the same thing on a very conservative campus here in Texas (Texas A&M). Ron Paul material EVERYWHERE.

    Kids before the game walking up and down the crowds with RP signs held above their head.

  61. 61
    diakron says:

    Thanks for the link to Greenwald… that’s some good punditry there.

  62. 62
    Michael D. says:

    God damnit, why the fuck won’t Gore run?

    I would hate to see Gore run. Don’t get me wrong, I think he would make a great President. But I think if he lost, he’d probably just become a hermit and we’d lose him.

    I’m serious about that. By all accounts, when he lost the presidency on the first round, he was devastated.

    And I kind of agree with something I heard him (or Tipper) say: If he was president, he’d have to do everythign from a political point of view. As it stands, he can do whatever he wants. And, frankly, I think his main issue is so important that he’ll be able to influence it MORE by NOT being President.

  63. 63
    Michael D. says:

    Same language used to refer to same topic

    .Although I read Andrew daily – sometimes several times, I didn’t visit his site till you mentioned him. I despise – DESPISE – plagiarism, but this was coincidence, and I would probably have said the same thing if I was you! ;-)

  64. 64
    Billy K says:

    Kinda OT, but kinda on…I just want to take a moment and curse our Electoral College system (yes, it’s that time of year again). You see, in the Presidential election, it makes absolutely no difference who I vote for, because the GOP candidate is gonna take all our electors without a fight. I live in Texas. My vote doesn’t count toward anything.

  65. 65

    Ron Paul has a devoted following of people, primarily because he’s willing to get into a big argument about Iraq. No other candidate is doing that. Ok, maybe Kucinich, but he’s even weirder than Ron Paul.

    That’s what is fueling this.

    That, and the fact that people like me give him money just to see the republicans scream.

  66. 66
    Zifnab says:

    You see, in the Presidential election, it makes absolutely no difference who I vote for, because the GOP candidate is gonna take all our electors without a fight. I live in Texas. My vote doesn’t count toward anything.

    It’s disenfranchisement bordering on voter fraud. Not only does your vote not mean shit unless it corresponds with 51% of the voting population, but you are represented as voting WITH 51% of your constituency even if you never approach the ballot box. Show me another election in the United States that is run like that.

    And the idea that the Electoral College somehow safeguards us against… what exactly? Voter Incompetence? Demagoguery? Fraud? It’s the absolute biggest load of crap. I’m all for our forefathers, but the founders really fucked the duck on that one.

    And I’ve yet to see one compelling argument against instituting the popular vote. The Electoral College doesn’t work. We need to get rid of it.

  67. 67
    Dreggas says:

    Cyrus Says:

    Check the exit polls from the 1992 election. Perot voters would have split 50/50 between Clinton and Bush. The idea that he helped Clinton isn’t correct.

    Ah, thank you. I was about to copy-paste a comment I had made on another blog, saying basically the same thing but with different and more complicated math. It’s pretty trivial but still annoying — Bush lost on his own and Clinton won on his own and there was nothing illegitimate about Bill Clinton winning, despite how the right wing keeps saying so.

    I’m keeping both comments so I can respond to both. My mention of perot tipping to clinton was in no way meant to disparage clinton winning the election, he was the better candidate. I was in school during that time and not able to vote (I wasn’t 18) but followed politics and news and elections in general, somehow I got the idea they were important even then. My take was that Perot had taken votes from Bush Sr . I did not make the comment as something to bash clinton with.

  68. 68

    Kinda OT, but kinda on…I just want to take a moment and curse our Electoral College system (yes, it’s that time of year again). You see, in the Presidential election, it makes absolutely no difference who I vote for, because the GOP candidate is gonna take all our electors without a fight. I live in Texas. My vote doesn’t count toward anything.

    Vote for Ralph Nader!

    it worked in Florida.

  69. 69

    And I’ve yet to see one compelling argument against instituting the popular vote. The Electoral College doesn’t work. We need to get rid of it.

    You guys are naive and stupid.

  70. 70
    PeterJ says:

    Dreggas, Perot didn’t tip it to Clinton. Clinton would have won even if Perot didn’t run. If you want a spoiler candidate, then Nader is your guy.


    If there was a spoiler candidate in 92 it was Bush. Without him Perot might have won. ;) I wonder if there’s anything in the exit polls that might shed some lights on this.

  71. 71
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Ahhh, the Electoral College–the only college that isn’t a bastion of damn dirty lib’rul indoctrination!

    (Seriously, though, I wouldn’t be too upset if it disappeared forever.)

  72. 72
    Dreggas says:

    PeterJ Says:

    Dreggas, Perot didn’t tip it to Clinton. Clinton would have won even if Perot didn’t run. If you want a spoiler candidate, then Nader is your guy.
    —-
    If there was a spoiler candidate in 92 it was Bush. Without him Perot might have won. I wonder if there’s anything in the exit polls that might shed some lights on this.

    well like I said, it was what I saw at the time before I became more wonkish and had the intertubes. You have a point, perot might have one and I kinda liked the guy and his voodoo stick.

  73. 73
    PeterJ says:

    Dreggas, I think I misread your other comment.

    Anyway, Bush being a spoiler candidate in 92 should be explored further. Especially since Perot in 92 would probably have meant no Clintons and no Bush Jr. Maybe Gore in 96 instead?

  74. 74
    jake says:

    Ahhh, the Electoral College—the only college that isn’t a bastion of damn dirty lib’rul indoctrination!

    (Seriously, though, I wouldn’t be too upset if it disappeared forever were shoved into a giant barrel of raw sewage and launched into space.)

    Altered.

    Have you ever tried to explain the EC to someone who isn’t American? Talk about embarrassing.

  75. 75
    heywood jablomy says:

    Boy is this Frum a clown. Let’s have a look shall we:

    1) Predicates column on claim that Paul’s haul is nothing compared to Dean’s $40M in one quarter in ’04. Truth is: took Dean a full quarter to raise $15M (twice). Paul gets $4M in a day. A quarter is 90+ days. D’oh!

    2) Says this:

    Of course I am saddened to discover that many thousands of Americans have rallied to a candidate campaigning on a Michael Moore view of the world. Saddened, but not greatly surprised. There is a constituency for anything in a country this big.

    Including jackasses who say Bush = Churchill.

    Shorter Frum: Tut tut. The GOP natives are just restless. We’ll soothe them with some immigrant burnings and homo bloodenings in due course … and if worse comes to worst we’ll tell them their support of Paul will make the volcano angry.

  76. 76
    rachel says:

    Jake Says:

    I apologize for the following outburst of fruststration:

    God damnit, why the fuck won’t Gore run?

    There. I’m done.

    Been there, won that.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Ron Paul raised $4 million yesterday. Yes, I mean yesterday as in just one day. Here’s the chart for how it came in. […]

Comments are closed.