| Goldman Sachs | $367,200 |
| Credit Suisse Group | $203,750 |
| Morgan Stanley | $199,800 |
| HIG Capital | $186,500 |
| Barclays | $157,750 |
| Kirkland & Ellis | $132,100 |
| Bank of America | $126,500 |
| PriceWaterhouseCoopers | $118,250 |
| EMC Corp | $117,300 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $112,250 |
Out of curiosity, I looked at the contributor list for Ron Paul. Here's the top ten.
| US Army | $24,503 |
| US Air Force | $23,335 |
| US Navy | $17,432 |
| Mason Capital Management | $14,000 |
| Microsoft Corp | $13,398 |
| Boeing Co | $10,620 |
| Google Inc | $10,390 |
| Overland Sheepskin | $10,350 |
| IBM Corp | $8,294 |
| US Government | $7,756 |
PS: Here's something also worth noting: in Iowa and New Hampshire, half of the votes cast by those under 30 years of age went to Ron Paul. Half. Normally I wouldn't put much emphasis on votes from the young and callow, but I think it shows that younger people have little interest in keeping things the way they are. They know that Social Security is a gigantic Ponzi scheme which they're unlikely to collect on - but will pay for - and probably don't see endless foreign wars to be in their own interest. Among other things.
So, Paul is the favorite of government employees;)
ReplyDeleteMicrosoft and Google are in the top ten of RonPaul?
ReplyDeleteHe must have gotten the All-Important Endorsement of Satan!
Near the top of my If I Were King list: no corporate political donations. (If I were king, there would still be a congress.)
ReplyDeleteThese numbers are small --- very small compared to what it takes to get elected. Wall Street surely has many other avenues to funnel money to both Romney and Obama. I'd guess the Romney Wall Street numbers actually represent disaffected people --- those who realize the country is on the wrong path, the path where WS has driven it.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Dennis. There's a great article in alternativeright that captured my feelings perfectly:
ReplyDelete"I reject Ron Paul's libertarian ideology as a misguided doubling down on the very mercantile morality that got us into this mess in the first place … but he has--more than anybody else on the national stage--embodied the deep visceral reaction to decades of pandering and pampering we've endured while it all falls apart around us."
Though i consider it unlikely, I hope Ron Paul decides on a third party run after losing to Romney, because it will splinter the Republican party into its two irreconcilable halves. That has to happen eventually so let's get it over with. Thereafter, things like greater racial awareness and less constipated discussion on immigration should follow much more freely, especially as the Democratic coalition also continues to splinter, shedding its whites to strengthen its identity as the "natural home" for minorities (caution: Debbie Wasserman Schultz' face can cause dizziness, nausea, heart conditions, and permanent erectile dysfunction))
There's a danger that any third party might be hijacked by open-borders libertarians.People need to be reminded that non-intervention in foreign countries is only one side of the patriotic coin - there's no use not meddling in the rest of the world if you're going to let the rest of the world come to you.
DeleteGreat point. I'm a big RP supporter and 3rd party proponent, but vehemently opposed to the Open Border crowd.
DeleteVital point and excellent metaphor by poultry inspector. I also like Scott's altright quote (re rejecting Paul's liberterian ideology but still seeing him as the only distinctly American voice among the competitors). I'm a bit stymied by Paul's kowtowing to the MLK sainthood camp, however. Why, when he has no problem standing up to the Jews, won't he also stand up to the blacks?
DeleteDennis -- here's where you are wrong in understanding Paul. Paul is a cult show, like say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Freaks and Geeks, or something like that. Paul like cult TV shows draws a passionate intensity from fans. Those who like him, really, really, REALLY like him. But like all cults, he's limited. The very intensity and devotion of his fans signals how he cannot break out.
ReplyDeleteGo onto any TV fan forum for discussions. You'll see page after page after page for cult shows, and nothing really for the top favorites. So NCIS, the top rated scripted show, will have almost nothing, but say 5-6 times the viewers of a show like say, "Fringe."
The marketplace for entertainment AND political ideas (they are essentially the same) can reward this, and Paul has been in Congress for over thirty years (as just another political creature with no real accomplishment to his name) on the strength of a small but intensely committed group of supporters. Paul is probably going to clean up with books, and personal appearances, and the like. He's basically Joss Whedon (i.e. fans who spout "Joss is God")
Now that sort of intensity is just too "Hot" in a McLuhanesque view to appeal to the vast middle, who prefer say NCIS to Fringe, or Firefly. BUT the techniques and approaches of the cult pioneers get adopted and modified to appeal to the middle. Everyone soon copied Whedon's serialized approach to TV, to the point where episodic TV is now fairly rare. Everyone in both parties will now copy Paul's emphasis on sound money as benefiting the middle class, and THAT is his significant contribution to political debate.
But ultimately like Whedon he's too cult to be important. Real changes happen in the middle, when its shifted by middle brow, middle class people. Someone will take the ideas about the Fed and Gold standard and push that in the middle. But it won't be Paul (too old, too cranky, too interactive "hot" not TV-friendly "cool" one-way).
Lol. Can this guy pass the Turing test?
ReplyDeleteThe marketplace for entertainment AND political ideas (they are essentially the same) can reward this, and Paul has been in Congress for over thirty years (as just another political creature with no real accomplishment to his name) on the strength of a small but intensely committed group of supporters. Paul is probably going to clean up with books, and personal appearances, and the like.
You gotta hand it to his programmers, though, for giving him a very Scotch-Irish understanding of human motives.
"Lol. Can this guy pass the Turing test?"
DeleteWhiskey? Don't expect too much from him. This is still the beta version.
This is still the beta version.
DeleteI lolled.
Microsoft and Google are in the top ten of RonPaul?
ReplyDeleteThis is likely mostly from the rank and file programmers and tech people there, rather than the corporate boss and exec types.
Many programmer and computer tech people tend to be libertarian-ish.
A new CNN poll released just today:
ReplyDeletehttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/
"CNN Poll: Obama tied with Romney & Paul in November showdowns"
"a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday also indicates that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is also even with Obama in another possible showdown this November."
OpenSecrets can be a bit confusing. Since it's a lefty organization perhaps that is intentional on their part - they're always trying to spin the narrative their way. I though it was odd that Obama has raised more than twice what Romney has, yet the OpenSecrets data on his top contributors shows smaller amounts than for Romney.
ReplyDeleteDigging around a bit I found this. I'm not sure what logic Open Secrets employs to not call Dreamworks a multi-million dollar contributor to Obama.
Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big "bundle."
Even though these donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else, disclosure can be spotty, candidates generally release bundlers by ranges of fundraising, indicated in this chart with the "max" and "min" columns, and with the top ranges being simply "$500,000 or more." Together, 357 elites are directing at least $55,900,000 for Obama's re-election efforts -- money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee.
Paul like cult TV shows draws a passionate intensity from fans. Those who like him, really, really, REALLY like him. But like all cults, he's limited. The very intensity and devotion of his fans signals how he cannot break out.
ReplyDeletePolls, including one released just today, suggest that Paul does about as well as Romney in a potential matchup against Obama.
If you have any intellectual integrity, you'll take this information into account and adjust your claims accordingly or reject or critique the polls.
You can't just ignore it and repeat your prior claims ad nauseam, if you want to be perceived as having even the slightest shred of intellectual integrity and honesty.
Dennis, I'm with Anon. It's your blog, but please consider his request to put a curb on Whiskey, that he either has to answer or not post?
ReplyDelete@ JSM: Why not calm down and let the gentleman speak? Best wishes from the beautiful Medellín to Wisconsin, Wolf
ReplyDelete@ JSM: I meant Wyoming, of course.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how you Americans let foreign corporations make large donations to presidential candidates.
ReplyDeleteWe're not a nation, we're a giant ATM where everyone can come theirs.
DeleteI mostly think national level politics is too stitched up to be relevant and only local and state is worth bothering with but...a few less wars might be nice.
ReplyDelete"@ JSM: Why not calm down and let the gentleman speak? Best wishes from the beautiful Medellín to Wisconsin, Wolf"
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Whiskey's been barfing all over Mangan's as long as I've been around. He's had plenty of chances to say the same thing over, and over, and over, and over....
He's had his hooey refuted in multitudinous ways, by numerous posters, but never to any avail. He never answers when his obvious falsities are pointed out. He just slinks off, only to return to appear on a new thread to repeat his drivel.
Scroll past his inanities, you say? Yeah, I've been doing that, but now I'm getting tendinitis in my finger.
WHAT does the guy contribute?
Please, Dennis, make him be honest or make him shush.
Polls, including one released just today, suggest that Paul does about as well as Romney in a potential matchup against Obama.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting, but largely irrelevant, The polls also show him coming in third or fourth in the Republican primary. The polls for South Carolina, which is the next state to vote, and the polls for Florida, the state after that.
I see this stuff about Science's beautiful theories by Begley (personality largely due to chance?) being another plank in the strategy by a certain group to keep white Europeans off balance.
ReplyDeleteKind of like a low level of harassment in monkey troops by the alpha individuals ...
That's interesting, but largely irrelevant
ReplyDeleteIt's not irrelevant at all.
The question of how well a candidate might do in the general election does weigh on people's minds in their decisions about whom to support.
Polls like this counter the widely held and promoted belief that Paul would do much worse than the other candidates in the general election.
Polls like this counter the widely held and promoted belief that Paul would do much worse than the other candidates in the general election
ReplyDeleteThen what do the polls indicating that Paul is not going to win the nomination demonstrate?
It's not irrelevant at all.
It's irrelevant in the sense that he's not going to be the Republican nominee. If you think he might run as an independent, then perhaps it has some relevance. But in that case we'd have to see polls showing how Paul would do in a three way race rather than just against Obama.
It's irrelevant in the sense that he's not going to be the Republican nominee.
ReplyDeleteIt's relevant in the sense that it will affect his odds of being nominated.
The effect of course is not simply a function of the fact of poll, but a function of it combined with how widely and aggressively it's promoted in the media.
It's relevant in the sense that it will affect his odds of being nominated.
ReplyDeleteThat's true only if you assume that these exists some large body of Republican primary voters, perhaps a majority of them, who would like to vote for Paul but are being held back by their fear that he would lose in the general election. I think that assumption is, at a minimum, dubious.
Can you cite some examples of the belief that "Ron Paul would lose the general election so the GOP should not nominate him" being widely and aggressively promoted in the main stream media?
That's true only if you assume that these exists some large body of Republican primary voters, perhaps a majority of them, who would like to vote for Paul but are being held back by their fear that he would lose in the general election.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to assume that.
You just have to assume that support for a candidate is affected by how well the candidate is perceived will do in the general election.
Can you cite some examples of the belief that "Ron Paul would lose the general election so the GOP should not nominate him" being widely and aggressively promoted in the main stream media?
Claims against Paul's electability have been prevalent in the MSM.
Claims against Paul's electability have been prevalent in the MSM.
ReplyDeleteYes, you already said that. I asked you for some examples. It should be easy for you to provide them if they are as prevalent as you say.
You just have to assume that support for a candidate is affected by how well the candidate is perceived will do in the general election.
And I also have to believe that some Anonymous commenter on a blog has an accurate idea of the mindset of many millions of Republican primary voters and hence knows what it is they "perceive".
Severn, Jon Stewart has dedicated some segments to the media ignoring Ron Paul. Here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo&feature=related
Delete@3:58 the journos have a laff at how they are going to ignore Ron Paul as he is unelectable. You can go through the YT links at the side of that video for more examples to bring yourself up to speed.
Claims against Paul's electability have been prevalent in the MSM.
ReplyDeleteI think what Anonymous is getting at is that the media has only one excuse for ignoring Paul, and that is he isn't electable. So I'm sure links of actual claims he's unelectable can be found but they're not even worht the time, because I'm assuming you don't need evidence that Paul has been largely ignored by the media. (e.g. see this egregious example from yesterday: look at the photo. look for Paul's name mentioned anywhere.) It's a prima facie plausible excuse that Paul is unelectable seeing as he's anti-govt spending when (i believe) the public sector is now >50% of the economy, and he's anti-war when the average Republican has been suckered into thinking Israel's enemies are his, and if we remove ou r miitary from 200 countries, we'll collapse into the stone age, etc. So if it turns out he's as electable as Romeny in a head to head vs. Obama, that's not irrelevant. I'm surprised you would contrest that point.
I asked you for some examples. It should be easy for you to provide them if they are as prevalent as you say.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel like digging up examples. You don't have to believe me. It's obvious to anyone who has been following the MSM that claims against Paul's electability have been prevalent in the MSM.
And I also have to believe that some Anonymous commenter on a blog has an accurate idea of the mindset of many millions of Republican primary voters and hence knows what it is they "perceive".
No, you don't have to assume that.
Again, all you have to assume is that support for a candidate is affected by how well the candidate is perceived will do in the general election.
Opinions about the direction and magnitude of the effect will vary.
You might believe that it will have a negative effect of some magnitude, 0 effect, a slight positive effect, etc.
OT, but there has been a brutal murder of a 23 year old white guy in Philadelphia.
ReplyDeleteSome outlets describe the 4 attackers as middle eastern and others as hispanic. But the point is this recent Temple graduate was brutally murdered in his own nation by people who should not even be here but for the deleterious effects of one major piece of immigration legislation passed in 1965.
I don't feel like digging up examples.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't feel like just accepting your allegations on your say so.
You don't have to believe me.
That's mighty white of you, since I don't.
Some outlets describe the 4 attackers as middle eastern and others as hispanic. But the point is this recent Temple graduate was brutally murdered in his own nation by people who should not even be here but for the deleterious effects of one major piece of immigration legislation passed in 1965.
ReplyDeleteYou're a tad confused. The 1965 immigration act is responsible for perhaps half of the tidal wave of immigrants. The rest of them are illegal immigrants, or the chain-immigrated relatives of illegal immigrants who were amnestied. If the attackers were from the middle-east, the 1965 act is to blame for their presence here. If they were Hispanic, they are here regardless of that act.
And I don't feel like just accepting your allegations on your say so.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to get you to accept anything. I don't think either of us are going to convince each other about the things we disagree with. My responses to you are for the general readers as well.
That's mighty white of you, since I don't.
Since you don't believe that claims against Paul's electability have been prevalent in the MSM, what exactly do you believe about this?
Do you believe that such claims have been made, but aren't prevalent? Or do you believe that claims for Paul's electability have been made? Or that neither of such claims have been made? etc.
I'm not trying to get you to accept anything.
ReplyDeleteSince you don't believe that claims against Paul's electability have been prevalent in the MSM, what exactly do you believe about this?
I thought you were not even trying to get me to accept anything.
Do you believe that such claims have been made, but aren't prevalent? Or do you believe that claims for Paul's electability have been made? Or that neither of such claims have been made? etc.
So, having pointedly refused to answer my own simple and straightforward question, one which should be very easy for you to respond to if your central contention is correct, you now propose to cross-examine me? You are not related to sabril by any chance?
So, having pointedly refused to answer my own simple and straightforward question, one which should be very easy for you to respond to if your central contention is correct, you now propose to cross-examine me?
ReplyDeleteI did answer your question. I believe that claims against Paul's electability have been prevalent in the MSM. I don't feel like digging up examples of it right now.
I'm not trying to cross-examine you. I'm just curious about what you think about it.
I've lost track as to the point of this argument, but FWIW, in my experience, references to Paul's unelectability are everywhere in the MSM. Virtually any MSM opinion piece contains the proviso that of course he'll never get elected. Possibly less so now than before a month ago.
ReplyDeleteI did answer your question. I believe that claims against Paul's electability have been prevalent in the MSM. I don't feel like digging up examples of it right now
ReplyDeleteSince my question was that you cite some goddam examples, you plainly did not answer the question simply by saying "I won't answer your question".
But I love the "right now", with it's tantalizing hint that at some future date, after searching feverishly about the internet, you may "feel" differently.
Actually I didn't and don't plan on presenting it at some future date. I just don't feel like digging up examples period.
ReplyDeleteI just want to know what you believe since you seem to believe differently about the matter. I'm not asking you to justify your belief, and I'm not trying to argue with you about it. I'm just curious about your belief.
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol Wants Ron Paul Out Of The GOP
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ology.com/politics/weekly-standard-editor-bill-kristol-wants-ron-paul-out-gop-video/01172012
"Bill Kristol, editor of the influential conservative publication, Weekly Standard, told C-SPAN viewers this weekend that he thinks the Republican Party would be better off without Texas Rep. Ron Paul and his devoted faction of loyal voters.
Kristol took on a rather personal tone while attacking Paul's positions. Kristol said that, while most Paul's detractors often preface their criticisms with the obligatory nods to Paul's sincerity, his affability and the goodness of his intentions, he would not.
"I do not think he’s a particular good guy," said Kristol. "I think it would be better for the Republican party, if he left the Republican party.""
The writer, Noah Rothman, adds:
DeleteKristol has a point. Buchanan’s brand of isolationism had its intellectual roots in xenophobia, as does Paul’s – as evidenced by the decades old newsletters that went out under Paul’s name. And, no, there will not be a re-litigation of that issue here – Paul both published and profited from those deplorably racist writings. That cannot be undone and, outside of the circular firing squad of a Republican primary, this remains an insurmountable electoral weakness.
In other words, Paul is "unelectable", in this case because he's a "racist".
This is more a jewish meme than a generic media meme. The jews, left and right, are upset that Paul wants to cut foreign aid and dial back the empire because they don't think that's good for Israel. When they say Paul is "unelectable" what they're saying is they don't want him elected. Just as jews who hate Ron Paul like to express it by asserting "Ron Paul hates the jews". What they care about is what's best for the jews, but they realize at some level that it wouldn't be good for the jews to be be seen as so blatantly "racist", so instead they project their "racism" onto their enemies, blaming them for making themselves "unelectable".
Great piece here putting Paul's race controversy into perspective.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/01/more-racist-newsletters-from-the-past-have-emerged/
(testing, apols)
ReplyDelete"Sorry, but I'm not your research assistant. It's not my responsibility to go searching for evidence to support your claims."
The pattern is simple once you figure it out. If anti-white Jews are particularly attacking white people for something then look the opposite way to where they're pointing and you'll find out something you didn't know.
Examples:
1) White people, Slavery and the South -> look north and what do you find? Rhode Island, centre of the slave trade. And the people who ran it? Sephardic Jews from Spain.
2) H/caust -> look behind and what do you find? Holodomor.
3) White privilige -> step back and look at the people attacking white privilige and what do you see? Someone whose definition of privilige would apply to Jews more than anyone else.
4) Mormons are too white -> look around and what do you see? Certain other religious groups with very few black and brown faces.
5) Disparate impact -> turn it around and what do you see? The people in the media screaming about disparate impact are the beneficiaries of the biggest disparate impact in America.
Same every time. It's like a stage magician waving his right hand to distract you from what his left is doing.
Poll released 2 days ago by Public Policy Polling has Obama leading both Romney and Paul by 5 points nationally. Obama leads each of the other candidates by more than 5 points.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_0117925.pdf
Interesting. Kirkland & Ellis was Amoco Corp's legal firm when I worked there in the mid-nineties.
ReplyDelete