PDA

View Full Version : 'Ron Paul raises $4.3m in a day on the back of notorious terrorist'




rhexis
11-06-2007, 06:09 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2821161.ece

Guy Fawkes, a 17th-century English mercenary and terrorist who tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament, is an unlikely figurehead for a US Republican presidential candidate.

But Ron Paul is neither a run-of-the-mill Republican nor a typical presidential aspirant.

His supporters announced yesterday that they had smashed Republican fundraising records by hauling in a total of $4.3 million (£2 million) for his campaign from more than 37,000 donors over the previous 24 hours.

And they did it online, through the website ThisNovember5th.com, where Mr Paul’s speeches have been mashed up with clips of the film V for Vendetta, in which a sinister – but ultimately heroic – terrorist modelled on Fawkes destroys a fascist government in Britain. “Remember, remember, the fifth of November” is moved from British nursery rhyme to a campaign slogan in America.

Mr Paul, a 72-year-old ten-term Texas congressman, has been dismissed widely as a “kook” in the 2008 race. He advocates “Austrian economics”, a return to the gold standard and an end to the Iraq war.

He also wants the withdrawal of all American troops from abroad and the abolition of most government departments, including Energy, Education and Homeland Security.

Some of his supporters believe that 9/11 was an inside job by the American Government, others are white supremacists. Much to his own surprise, Mr Paul has become a cult figure among libertarians and students who pack rallies wearing “Ron Paul Revolution” T-shirts.

Like Howard Dean four years ago, it is the internet and a host of unofficial websites that are propelling him forward: Mr Paul’s name is the most searched of any candidate, his YouTube videos are the most watched and he regularly wins online polls after Republican presidential debates.

Unlike Mr Dean, who came close to winning the 2004 Democratic nomination, Mr Paul stands no chance of becoming the Republicans’ 2008 nominee. In national opinion polls he barely registers, and even in New Hamp-shire – the “live free or die” state – he gets an average of only 3.6 per cent support, according to RealClearPolitics.com, which tracks such surveys.

But his phenomenal fundraising achievements mean that Mr Paul has more than mere nuisance value in this White House race. In the third quarter of this year he raised $5.3 million, an amount similar to that generated by the former front-runner John McCain. He has set a goal of raising a further $12 million by the end of the year.

Yesterday Mr Paul attributed the record-breaking achievement to a “powerful message” and the frustration of people “who do not like the war and do not like the economy”.

Asked whether it was appropriate to use the image of Fawkes and November 5 in this way, he said that it was “just a gimmick”. He added that he had never spoken to organisers of the website. “We advocate a nonviolent – but revolutionary – approach.”

His spokesman issued a further clarification, saying that Mr Paul did not support blowing up parliaments or assassinating kings.

“He wants to demolish things like the Department of Education, but we can do that very peacefully.”

Geronimo
11-06-2007, 06:11 PM
This should go straight to the bad media section.

tsetsefly
11-06-2007, 06:12 PM
i couldnt believe that either, what bullshit story... and not trying to get into semantics but how is someone trying to blow up and oppressive 16th century government a terrorist?

terlinguatx
11-06-2007, 06:13 PM
...

starless
11-06-2007, 06:13 PM
And this is the story that is prominent in the google news section. Wonderful.

literatim
11-06-2007, 06:14 PM
Uh, being from UK, shouldn't they know what Guy Fawkes Night is?

JPFromTally
11-06-2007, 06:16 PM
Actually they burn Guy Fawkes in effigy on that night. He's not the hero.

werdd
11-06-2007, 06:17 PM
lol, what kind of trash is that.

Vvick727
11-06-2007, 06:18 PM
wow, this is probably the worst mainstream media title to date

terlinguatx
11-06-2007, 06:19 PM
...

mragreeable
11-06-2007, 06:53 PM
The article isn't so bad - it's just the headline that's awful. Other than the offhanded comment that he has no chance of winning, I don't see much unfavorable.

Before anybody fires off a nasty letter to the author, remember that headlines are usually written by an editor who's just looking for something as sensationalistic and attention-grabbing as possible.

Under a reasonable headline we'd probably have very little to complain about here.

Shii
11-06-2007, 08:23 PM
The article isn't so bad - it's just the headline that's awful. Other than the offhanded comment that he has no chance of winning, I don't see much unfavorable.

Before anybody fires off a nasty letter to the author, remember that headlines are usually written by an editor who's just looking for something as sensationalistic and attention-grabbing as possible.

Under a reasonable headline we'd probably have very little to complain about here.

They called him a "kook", saying it was a widely used term. I don't see any other MSM using that word

Also-- "Some of his supporters believe that 9/11 was an inside job by the American Government, others are white supremacists. " -- this is a total of probably 100 people out of 40,000 donators yesterday

C4talyst
11-06-2007, 08:52 PM
Email sent registering my disgust. I wouldn't recognize them as a valid news source after reading this.

mragreeable
11-06-2007, 09:06 PM
They called him a "kook", saying it was a widely used term. I don't see any other MSM using that word

Also-- "Some of his supporters believe that 9/11 was an inside job by the American Government, others are white supremacists. " -- this is a total of probably 100 people out of 40,000 donators yesterday

Regarding the kook thing, I disagree with you pretty strongly. I'd dare say Google news (http://news.google.com/news?q=ron+paul+kook) disagrees as well. Have a look at this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy127.html) article, where the very pro-Paul author says "So what do I mean by the title of my article? Simply this: Ron Paul’s opponents thought they could ignore his message and just dismiss him as a kook." Do you take as much offense as his assertion that Dr. Paul has been labeled a kook?

Regarding the truthers, I've never actually run into a truther who supports anyone other than Dr. Paul for president. That's just some baggage we'll have to deal with. The demographic overlap, for whatever reason, is undeniable. Yeah, they're a small percentage of Dr. Paul's supporters (though the converse is not true), and the article doesn't claim otherwise.

White supremacists? I don't know. Maybe I've had a sheltered life but I haven't met any of those since high school and I'm not up on their presidential preference.

Overall, it's a positive article with a paragraph devoted to the contrary viewpoint. That's the way journalists work.

Corydoras
11-07-2007, 12:44 AM
The Times of London was the first UK newspaper I was aware of to mention Ron Paul, favorably too, because Andrew Sullivan, who we know thinks well of him, is a columnist of theirs and he started mentioning him quite early on.

jon_perez
11-08-2007, 07:46 AM
Much to his own surprise, Mr Paul has become a cult figure among libertarians and students who pack rallies wearing “Ron Paul Revolution” T-shirts.This is the part I don't like because it is very misleading.

Yes, Ron Paul himself was [initially] surprised at the strong support for his candidacy for president.

However, I doubt he would be surprised that his support comes from libertarians and young people considering his message is most apt to be welcomed by such a demographics.

jon_perez
11-08-2007, 07:48 AM
Also, we can't completely blame the newspaper, part of the blame lies in the people who deliberately chose the November 5th date. It's an admittedly rather juvenile approach.

jmdrake
11-08-2007, 05:23 PM
i couldnt believe that either, what bullshit story... and not trying to get into semantics but how is someone trying to blow up and oppressive 16th century government a terrorist?

Ummm....you do realize that this "oppressive 16th century government" is the same one that gave us the King James Version of the Bible right? You also realize that the government that Guy Fawkes wanted to bring back had been just as oppressive to Protestants as King James has been too Catholics right? Guy Fawkes was a terrorist pure and simple. Maybe he was a terrorist you support I don't know. But I'm sure Dr. Paul has several copies of the KJV on his bookshelf.

That said there are two other points.

1) We discussed the possibility of this happening before November 5th (although I'm sure most of us didn't expect fallout beyond the "V for Vendetta" movie because we don't know British history.)

2) Since the November 5th "money bomb" was really geared around "V for Vendetta" (about a futuristic terrorist that attacks a REALLY oppressive government) the Times article should have made that the focus instead of Guy Fawkes.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
11-08-2007, 05:26 PM
Regarding the kook thing, I disagree with you pretty strongly. I'd dare say Google news (http://news.google.com/news?q=ron+paul+kook) disagrees as well. Have a look at this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy127.html) article, where the very pro-Paul author says "So what do I mean by the title of my article? Simply this: Ron Paul’s opponents thought they could ignore his message and just dismiss him as a kook." Do you take as much offense as his assertion that Dr. Paul has been labeled a kook?

Regarding the truthers, I've never actually run into a truther who supports anyone other than Dr. Paul for president. That's just some baggage we'll have to deal with. The demographic overlap, for whatever reason, is undeniable. Yeah, they're a small percentage of Dr. Paul's supporters (though the converse is not true), and the article doesn't claim otherwise.

White supremacists? I don't know. Maybe I've had a sheltered life but I haven't met any of those since high school and I'm not up on their presidential preference.

Overall, it's a positive article with a paragraph devoted to the contrary viewpoint. That's the way journalists work.

I know a few that support Dennis Kucinich. But that really doesn't make sense considering Kucinich's views on guns. If the government is so evil that it will kill 3,000 Americans why can it be trusted with taking everyone's firearms? But these are the same people who will protest FEMA "concentration camps" but think that FEMA just needs to be "run better" as opposed to abolished.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Delivered4000
11-10-2007, 06:05 PM
Are they calling the American patriots of 1776 terrorists? Because they too fought British tyranny