[Jason Vines]

From Reuters: "Ron Paul raises $5 min in 2008 White House race."

Reuters said:

Paul's cash puts him in a position to expand his campaign operation and run advertising in the three months before the first nominating votes in the kick-off state of Iowa. His campaign set a goal of raising $4 million in October.

Democratic candidates generally have been raising more than their Republican counterparts, but Paul's performance puts him in the same financial territory as two prominent Democrats -- the $5.2 million raised by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and $7 million raised by former Sen. John Edwards.

This demonstrates:

1) The Internet allows the people to push issues and contenders they think respectable and important, the Washington media and political establishment be damned.

2) Libertarians do have political appeal; thanks to the problems with the American electoral system, they just need to run as major party candidates to exploit it.

Because Paul can now afford to run television advertising, his popularity should increase from here.

[Sim]

Which sums have the other candidates raised so far? Is $5 million really a lot, or rather a success d'estime only?

And yes, it would be nice if there was another electoral system in the US. Smaller candidates with special platforms should have a better chance on their own, instead of being forced to align to one of the big parties.

And I'm curious, are there polls out there for all candidates, and their support among the voters?

This post has been edited by Sim: 03 October 2007 - 09:04 PM

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

Which sums have the other candidates raised so far? Is $5 million really a lot, or rather a success d'estime only?

According to the AP version of the story:

AP said:

The amount places Paul well ahead of all but the Republican front-runners in the race. His fundraising for the quarter almost matches what Sen. John McCain is expected to report. His total is half the amount that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is reported to have raised.

In comparison to what the Republican front-runners are raising, it's not a lot. But, in terms of Paul's situation--low mainstream media coverage (and resulting poor national name recognition), scorn from the Washington establishment--the amount he's raising is phenomenal.

Sim said:

And I'm curious, are there polls out there for all candidates, and their support among the voters?

RealClearPolitics lists polls for the 2008 presidential race.

[Sim]

Thanks for the links!

Ugh ... Clinton and Guiliani are leading? Why is it always the most hawkish candidates winning?

As for Ron Paul, I don't know that much about him. But from what I've gathered, he stands for a sane foreign policy. And that's what America needs most, in my opinion. So I could imagine worse candidates than him. Although I'd prefer a Democrat as new President in general, because there should be a really thorough change after Bush. A Republican President, no matter how moderate, would have to incorporate or at least appease the nuttier wings of his party, such as the neo-cons or the religious right, and maybe their networks would still play a role in the background. But then, Clinton has attempted to gain profile with rather hawkish statements as well ... so hard to tell.

[Merlinus Ambrosius]

Paul has been treated like crap by both the rest of his party and the media. Every time he starts to make significant gains in certain polls, he gets removed and only the so called "Frontrunners" are included.

But the fact that he's been able to raise this much money does present some hope for his campaign. And maybe he'll be able to pull off getting the Republican nomination. I'd absolutely love to see him skewer Hillary in the debates.

[Bondo]

Merlinus Ambrosius, on Oct 3 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

I'd absolutely love to see him skewer Hillary in the debates.

It would happen the other way around. Americans know as much about Paul as Sim does. He gets the protest and anti-fascist votes, and the sane foreign policy votes, and people know nothing more about him. The gold standard stuff is a drag. He's an uncrazy William Jennings Bryan.

That said, if he wouldn't get played off by the music while making speeches, people would know more about him.

[Sim]

Bondo, on Oct 9 2007, 03:24 AM, said:

It would happen the other way around. Americans know as much about Paul as Sim does. He gets the protest and anti-fascist votes, and the sane foreign policy votes, and people know nothing more about him. The gold standard stuff is a drag. He's an uncrazy William Jennings Bryan.

After having read the two articles about Paul Jason sent me, (this one, and this one), I find that I probably disagree with Paul's domestic ideas, but his ideas for foreign policy sound sane.

For example, I really don't agree with the whole "small government" ideology ... I believe America desperately needs some social democratism (just as much as many European countries desperately need more libertarianism). But then, Paul's domestic policies wouldn't affect me if he gets elected. As a non-American, I care most about a sane American foreign policy, because that's what has effect on me, living in the NATO country of Germany.

So when the Americans elect a small-government rabiato, it's their choice. They want a society that gives a shit about the poor, and where dozens of millions can't pay for health insurance? They want a society where everybody is free to buy automatic rifles? It's their choice. I would never, ever want to live in such a society. But when such a society fits the will of the American people, I really don't care. As long as America doesn't interveen every couple of years in some country abroad, destabilizing entire regions and drawing my country into these conflicts as well, I'm happy.

[Bondo]

Sure, the foreign policy and constitutional ideals are his strong suite. But once you veer off that territory, he's just got too many weird ideas. And that's before you get to his--to put it politely-- questionable racial views.

And none of that will help him win a debate. Its more likely to turn people away in disgust or ridicule.

Even saying that though, he's the best of the Republicans, (and he did very well in the last debate) only Huckabee and Thompson can touch him in my view.

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

They want a society that gives a shit about the poor

Favoring the elimination of the welfare state does not equal not giving a shit about the poor.

Sim said:

where dozens of millions can't pay for health insurance?

We're talking about the United States, not Canada, here. The United States doesn't have dozens of millions who can't pay for health insurance.

Bondo said:

And that's before you get to his--to put it politely-- questionable racial views.

Paul has no such views. He condemns racism as "an ugly form of collectivism." Some people trot out racist statements Paul supposedly made in a newsletter, but Paul didn't write them, and he has disavowed them "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."

If Paul were a racist, then his opponents should be able to drudge up something else from the rest of his career to demonstrate thusly, but they haven't done so.

Bondo said:

But once you veer off that territory, he's just got too many weird ideas.

Are any of his ideas really weirder than giving every baby $5,000 or believing, "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."?

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on Oct 13 2007, 10:52 PM, said:

Favoring the elimination of the welfare state does not equal not giving a shit about the poor.

I have yet to be convinced that abandoning the welfare state would lead to anything but rampant poverty, human suffering and a state where society derives into a cannibalistic state of social darwinism where the rich feed off from the money they steal from the poor. And I don't think forcing those in need to prostitute themselves by begging for alms at agenda driven private charity organisations qualifies as "caring for the poor".

Quote

We're talking about the United States, not Canada, here. The United States doesn't have dozens of millions who can't pay for health insurance.

Canada is much better off than the US, when it comes to health care. In America, there are about 60 million people (IIRC) who don't have health insurance. If you get proper treatment depends not on your need for care, but on your money. That's deeply immoral.

But as I said, when Americans want such a social darwinistic society, a war of everybody against everybody where the rich have all the power and oppress the poor, as it would be in a libertarian utopia, it's their choice -- who am I to tell Americans how they should arrange their society? All I know is that I would never want to live in such a society. Such a society values greed above everything else and uses Orwellian newspeak calling it "freedom", when at the same time a majority of the people is robbed of all positive freedom.

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

In America, there are about 60 million people (IIRC) who don't have health insurance.

No, the latest number is 47 million. And many of that number either choose not to buy insurance (understandable, given how expensive government regulations make insurance) or will regain insurance shortly after losing it. The situation isn't perfect, but that's not because of insufficient government involvement, but too much.

Sim said:

If you get proper treatment depends not on your need for care, but on your money. That's deeply immoral.

The past two centuries have witnessed many experiments in distribution based on "need" instead of payment. We've seen such distribution causes problems more severe than any it supposedly addresses. At the same time, we've observed capitalist distribution spark an "age of abundance" in which many conveniences and luxuries are available to rich and poor alike.

So why is advocating capitalist provision of health care "deeply immoral"? To me, because of history and economics, it seems the most effective means by which to ensure the most people have the best health care. That, in my opinion, makes it deeply moral.

Sim said:

I have yet to be convinced that abandoning the welfare state would lead to anything but rampant poverty, human suffering and a state where society derives into a cannibalistic state of social darwinism where the rich feed off from the money they steal from the poor.

That hasn't happened in any remotely economically libertarian state, be it the United States or Great Britain in history, or Hong Kong or Singapore today.

Sim said:

And I don't think forcing those in need to prostitute themselves by begging for alms at agenda driven private charity organisations qualifies as "caring for the poor".

Indeed not. "Caring for the poor" means subsidizing alcohol habits, drug addictions, out-of-wedlock births, and sheer laziness. "Caring for the poor" means aiding people without expecting them to help themselves. "Caring for the poor" means fostering dependence on the state instead of on family and friends.

My mistake.

Sim said:

Such a society values greed above everything else and uses Orwellian newspeak calling it "freedom", when at the same time a majority of the people is robbed of all positive freedom.

For thousands of years before the late 19th century, "freedom" meant the reduction of government power. "Freedom" entailed individuals guiding their own destinies without interference from the state or anyone else. "Freedom" described being left alone. Only in the last 150 years or so has anyone thought of increasing government power and forcing active obligations on individuals as "freedom."

We are talking about an Orwellian conception of "freedom," but its yours which the socialists concocted to leech off the liberal tradition.

[Sim]

I won't go into the details, because I am no expert on the details of the American or any other healthcare system, but I simply don't buy the almost religious ideological belief that the free market will fix everything, as you do. Worshipping the ultimate power of a system which allegedly brings wealth and prosperity to everyone, although its very nature is based on greed and individual achievements, while it ignores any responsibility and solidarity for others, seems like an ideological fallacy to me -- much like the socialist admiration of the state as supposed means to achieve these ends.

As I stated in the other thread (where I will reply in more detail), the free market does not know morals, and acting in an economically reasonable way as individual is by no means congruent to acting in an ethical way; often enough, both principles even contradict one another. So I believe the libertarian dogma that the sum of individual decisions on the market is congruent with an ethical, good society is severely flawed.

I'm simply not that optimistic that leaving welfare to the free market will create a situation where everybody who needs it will be able to afford health care. I believe this is an ideological dream, much like the socialist dream everything will be cosy and fine when the state does everything for you.

In my opinion, it's all about finding a golden middle way between burdening the individual, and the whole of society with certain risks and costs. There may be dumb, utterly inefficient systems of public or semi-private welfare, but I'm sure there also are smart ways to design such a system.

Quote

Indeed not. "Caring for the poor" means subsidizing alcohol habits, drug addictions, out-of-wedlock births, and sheer laziness. "Caring for the poor" means aiding people without expecting them to help themselves. "Caring for the poor" means fostering dependence on the state instead of on family and friends.

I don't think all of those, or even a significant number of those who cannot afford health insurance are poor because it's their fault. In capitalism, it's often enough mere bad luck, or factors you have no influence on, when you are poor.

Of course there will be abuse of welfare systems by some, but I'd say it's much more moral to waste a little money, as long as those who really need it aren't left alone with their problems. Efficiency isn't everything. Rather waste a few bugs than spending too few.

Also, I don't believe families and friends should be burdened with costs of people, which can be so high in some cases it will ruin them. Especially when there are other people out there who enjoy a great deal of luxury and excess, on the other side. It simply doesn't strike me as moral -- solidarity and mutual support are important values for me, and I believe a good, ethical society should take them into account.

Quote

For thousands of years before the late 19th century, "freedom" meant the reduction of government power.

That's actually not true. The conception of "freedom" meaning "absence of government interference" was not existant before liberalism came up. In feudal societies, for example, "freedom" had an entirely different meaning.

Quote

"Freedom" entailed individuals guiding their own destinies without interference from the state or anyone else. "Freedom" described being left alone. Only in the last 150 years or so has anyone thought of increasing government power and forcing active obligations on individuals as "freedom."

We are talking about an Orwellian conception of "freedom," but its yours which the socialists concocted to leech off the liberal tradition.

I consider your definition of freedom as "Orwellian", because it only refers to negative freedom, such as rights guaranteed by a constitution. But it does not include any form of positive freedom.

For example, you may enjoy "freedom of speech" and "freedom of publishing whatever you want", but when you are too poor to afford a printing press, you cannot make use of this right. When you enjoy the "right to chose your job", but you are really poor and low skilled and rely on low paid jobs, this right doesn't mean much because you have to accept the next job. When you have the "freedom to chose a doctor" of your choice, this right doesn't mean anything when you are too poor to pay any.

Your definition of "freedom" only describes rights and possibilities granted on a paper, but does not make any claim regarding the question if you can actually make use of any of these rights, because of your material situation.

My definition of freedom is broader. For example, I consider it a significant gain of freedom when you don't need to worry about how to pay the next bill at the doctor. It is an increase of freedom when you don't need to worry about how to pay your education. It is an increase of freedom when you don't have to fear not to be able for your apartment when you get fired from your job. Yadda yadda ... I think you get my meaning.

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

but I simply don't buy the almost religious ideological belief that the free market will fix everything, as you do

Straw man; I don't accept that, either.

Sim said:

Worshipping the ultimate power of a system which allegedly brings wealth and prosperity to everyone, although its very nature is based on greed and individual achievements, while it ignores any responsibility and solidarity for others, seems like an ideological fallacy to me

1. You're misrepresenting the libertarian perspective when you say "its very nature is based on greed and individual achievements, while it ignores any responsibility and solidarity for others." True, liberals from Adam Smith down the line enshrine acting in one's own self-interest. But, as Milton Friedman points out in Free to Choose, that is not congruent to hoarding more and more money for yourself, and to hell with everyone else. As David Hume notes, human beings are social and empathic creatures; evolution has shaped us thusly. Our perception of our self-interest often includes helping others. (Isn't that true of you? If so, then is thinking that's true of other people much of a stretch?)

2. Think about the universe itself: It cohered into a wondrous whole through its individual components following their own natures, without anyone forcing them into position (link, link). Also, most language and law arose gradually and spontaneously, as people met their needs for communication and adjudication, and both continue to serve us well today. Why should the economy be different?

Sim said:

I'm simply not that optimistic that leaving welfare to the free market will create a situation where everybody who needs it will be able to afford health care.

1. Socialist food provision doesn't feed everybody; millions of people have died in famines that resulted wherever it's been tried. Socialist industry doesn't meet consumer needs; goods have been rare and poor where it's been tried. On the other hand, capitalism has conquered starvation. Capitalism has launched the "age of abundance."

Why would the historical records of socialism and capitalism not apply to health care?

2. Socialist medicine doesn't treat everyone who needs care, so why hold capitalist medicine to that standard?

Sim said:

There may be dumb, utterly inefficient systems of public or semi-private welfare, but I'm sure there also are smart ways to design such a system.

Then why has no nation on Earth done so?

Sim said:

I don't think all of those, or even a significant number of those who cannot afford health insurance are poor because it's their fault. In capitalism, it's often enough mere bad luck, or factors you have no influence on, when you are poor.

Really? Out-of-wedlock births, alcohol abuse, and low education are much more common among poor and unemployed people. Furthermore, most people who are willing to work any job do not fall below the poverty line. I think all this shows behavior is part of the problem.

Sim said:

Also, I don't believe families and friends should be burdened with costs of people, which can be so high in some cases it will ruin them.

If we expected them to bear all the costs of modern government welfare, that would indeed happen. But providing temporary assistance, or taking in sick relatives (thereby significantly reducing costs of sheltering and feeding them), wouldn't be ruinous.

Sim said:

It simply doesn't strike me as moral -- solidarity and mutual support are important values for me, and I believe a good, ethical society should take them into account.

Then why would you support a welfare state that replaces families and friends with bureaucracies thousands of miles away and offices possessing staff who have no special caring for you? Why would you want government to encourage selfishness and licentiousness by usurping the responsibility of people to care for themselves and each other?

Sim said:

Especially when there are other people out there who enjoy a great deal of luxury and excess, on the other side.

That's a subjective criterion. In comparison to much of the rest of the world, everyone in the West lives in "a great deal of luxury and excess." Should we all assume responsibility for taking care of the Third World?

Sim said:

That's actually not true. The conception of "freedom" meaning "absence of government interference" was not existant before liberalism came up. In feudal societies, for example, "freedom" had an entirely different meaning.

Wrong. Certainly, thousands of years ago, "freedom" didn't mean what it meant to Enlightenment writers. But, as the centuries passed, it conveyed more and more degrees of non-slavery and self-ownership. It never implied obligations to or from other people, and it never entailed power acting on one's behalf. "Freedom" has always implied the opposite.

Sim said:

I consider your definition of freedom as "Orwellian", because it only refers to negative freedom, such as rights guaranteed by a constitution. But it does not include any form of positive freedom.

Orwellian newspeak refers to twisting the meanings of preexisting words for one's own ends, and that's what the socialist writers who've indirectly influenced you did with "freedom." You speak of "positive freedom," but the historical conception of "freedom" supports no such notion!

Sim said:

For example, you may enjoy "freedom of speech" and "freedom of publishing whatever you want", but when you are too poor to afford a printing press, you cannot make use of this right.

I have the right to marry whomever I please, if she's willing (which the Ninth Amendment protects). But, suppose I am ugly, meaning I would have difficulty exercising this right. Should the government pay for plastic surgery to improve my appearance, if I can't afford it myself?

I have the right to travel wherever I want. Should the government purchase my plane ride to China, if I haven't money to do so myself?

Etc., etc.

You should start to see why the government not only protecting rights, but helping one exercise them, is problematic.

[Bondo]

Jason Vines, on Oct 13 2007, 04:52 PM, said:

If Paul were a racist, then his opponents should be able to drudge up something else from the rest of his career to demonstrate thusly, but they haven't done so.

I'll accept they are not his views, but this is the GOP primary we're talking about. With such likes as Tancredo running around.

Jason Vines, on Oct 13 2007, 04:52 PM, said:

Bondo said:

But once you veer off that territory, he's just got too many weird ideas.

Are any of his ideas really weirder than giving every baby $5,000 or believing, "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."?

The problem is both of those ideas have a constituency. The social cons will eat up the "freedom is doing what I say" crap. I don't pay attention to what Hillary says, but giving everybody a trust fund is dumb, even if its a delayed tax break. Dole was pushing the same thing per family. The government could find dumber things to spend it on, although this idea sounds more like it would come from Russia or Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan.

[Jason Vines]

Ron Paul is getting ready to leverage his financial windfall, says The New York Times.

The New York Times said:

If media muscle is any measure of a candidate, Representative Ron Paul of Texas is getting ready to flex his.

In the last two weeks, Mr. Paul — a Republican presidential candidate — has spent nearly a half-million dollars on radio advertisements in four early primary states, the first major media investment of his campaign. On Tuesday night, he will take a seat opposite Jay Leno.

And on Monday, a campaign spokesman said, he will roll out his first major television advertising campaign, spending $1.1 million on five new commercials to be shown in the New Hampshire market for the next six weeks. (In contrast, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and a rival for the Republican nomination, has yet to commit to any spending for television advertisements.)

Mr. Paul’s commercials are intended to introduce him to voters in New Hampshire, where independents can vote in either primary and where a libertarian streak could give Mr. Paul a chance to translate his quirky popularity into votes.

After raising a surprising $5 million in the third quarter, Mr. Paul has found himself with a significant pile of cash; he has $5.4 million on hand.

Dark horse candidates haven't fared well in recent history when seeking the Republican presidential nomination, but this race is unusual because:

• Republican elites haven't anointed a single candidate as their champion. So a dark horse candidate has more opportunity to grab support and exploit divisions.
  
• This race is longer than any before it, so more time exists for underdogs to nip at the frontrunners' heels.

So Paul could fare better than many politicos expect.

By the way, I personally have donated $100 to the Ron Paul campaign.

[Jason Vines]

Ron Paul on Jay Leno last night:

[Jason Vines]

Ron Paul on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, talking about his phenomenal fundraising success and his strict constitutionalism:

[Bondo]

Did I hear that he raised 4 million on V For Vendetta day?

[Jason Vines]

Bondo, on Nov 13 2007, 04:18 PM, said:

Did I hear that he raised 4 million on V For Vendetta day?

Yes.

Quote

Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul made US electoral history yesterday with an unprecedented single-day fundraising haul. In 24 hours, 36,672 unique donors contributed over $4 million online, and over 200,000 offline, for more than $4.2 million to win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

Over 20,000 were first-time donors.

...

Only 1.9 percent of the donors have reached their FEC maximum contribution level.

Monday’s effort shatters the previous single-day online primary election fundraising record set by John Kerry’s $2.7 million following Super Tuesday in 2004.

It is also the biggest fundraising day for any candidate this election cycle, surpassing Mitt Romney’s FEC-documented record $3.1 million, which he raised on January 8, 2007, and Hillary Clinton’s FEC-documented $1.9 million on March 28, 2007, which was her largest single-day haul.

A lot of people are excited to have a candidate who even remotely represents their views.