loadedstatement said:
N-Syte said:
loadedstatement said:
damkira said:
@loadedstatement I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the way his campaign handled that donation was great. "Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom. "And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added. Couldn't have said anything better. This will not be a campaign issue. |
I completely agree. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a screw loose.
|
I kind of prefer the Giuliani approach. If a Saudi Prince is going to give you a donation for $10 million dollars while claiming the US had 911 coming, let him keep his money. Better to take the moral high ground than validating his thinking by accepting his gift. Besides, that line of reasoning could be used to justify the acceptance of any donation no matter how dirty. Or maybe that's your point? To drop the saccharine romanticism and get down to brass tax. And yes, my screws could use a little tightening. |
10 million is so much different than $500. It was ONLY $500. Not by a Saudi prince. By a man who lives an average life in an average town who just happens to be a racist. And you are not validating his thinking by accepting his gift. Do you expect these campaigns to do background checks on all of their donors? No. And they won't. Tons of money gets donated by people who may not have the best morals. It really depends on your definition of morals though. His donation accounts for 0.000027% of all the money Ron Paul has raised this quarter so far. I cannot even believe this got air on the news. It really shows how ridiculous the news is. |
I don't begrudge him for not knowing the source of every penny that enters his coffers. And I don't even know what kind of background check would raise whether a donor is a racist or not. But if the issue does come up, why keep it? If for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of inpropriety.
I realize there is quite a difference between $500 versus the $10M, but does it matter? Maybe the principle is still the same? Is there really some kind of numeric cutoff seperating when it is appropriate to take funds from unscrupulous fellows and when it is not?
One might argue that if its "only $500" all the more reason to give it back. Is $500 alone going to do much for the cause of freedom? Will losing $500 really restrict the donor from doing whatever it does he normally does? In fact, the logic of the Ron Paul campagn only seems to get stronger the larger the donation is.
Perhaps the better response would have been for the campaign to give it to some charity and be done with it.
Otherwise it's much ado about nothing. I think one of the reasons this sort of non-story gets so much air time is because of the eclectic bunch that Ron Paul attracks. There are quite a few birds of a different color out there backing him. (and no, that was not meant to be a pun on the racist donor)
