Posted on 10/03/2007 11:07:26 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, an anti-war libertarian making his second run at the White House, will report having raised $5.08 million in the third quarter. The number, which rivals those of John McCain and Bill Richardson, was boosted thanks to last-minute online fundraising that brought in more than $1.2 million in the last week of the quarter alone.
Paul has drawn himself in sharp contrast with the rest of the field, often engaging in loud exchanges with fellow candidates over his vehement opposition to the war in Iraq. His campaign has been marked by frugal spending and a surprisingly strong online fan base; he routinely wins online straw polls after debates.
This is the second quarter in a row Paul has shown fundraising strength. Last quarter he reported having more cash on hand than McCain, a sidebar that contributed to stories of McCain's collapse.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
He has no chance so its a waste. But a fool and his money is easily parted.
Wow! Say what you want about Paul, but those are unexpectedly high numbers.
Just keep saying that but surprising things happen sometimes. I remember that was the main argument that Norm Coleman against Jesse Ventura in the debates. It only led to a backlash which propelled him to victory,
It’s the end of the quarter and donor info on public sites won’t be available for a while, but it wouldn’t shock me if a substantial part of the $5 mil. was from the Sorocrats and other leftists. Divide and conquer, that’s what they do.
It’s just a half a dozen potheads spamming the campaign with money. /s
Maybe so maybe not, it is still early. But those are none the less impressive numbers for a second tier candidate.
Wanna bet? The last thing that the moveon.org types and Democratic leadrers want is a Hillary v. Paul race. Given the example of 2006, they know that if is a matchup in November of a pro-war pubbie v. Hillary that Hillary will waltz into the White House.
IMHO, Newt realized this too. That is why he is sitting out this election and planning for 2012 instead.
Please note that the leading leftists, Matthews, Olbermann, and recently Bill Clinton (in his election analysis) have done their best to ignore Paul. The less said about him the better from their vantage point.....hence the effort of the MSM to boost Huckabee and portray Paul as someone "who can't win" and is "quixotic."
Glad to see this, the MSM was lowballing these numbers... Isn’t this about half of what Thompson raised? From the campaign release:
“Ron Paul’s 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney’s fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.”
Plus this is all from individuals who don’t want anything in return (well ‘besides’ their freedom). :)
www.ronpaul2000.com
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Rudy Giuliani with a slight edge in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. It’s Giuliani at 23% and Fred Thompson with 22% of the vote. The next level features Mitt Romney at 14% and John McCain at 12% while Mike Huckabee earns support from 5% of Likely Republican Primary Voters.
Forbes reports that Paul does not have a single person in the Fortune 500 donating to his campaign. No candidate has raised as much as he has can say the same.
 |
  Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 • |
       |
| Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave |
True. Ross Perot spent an estimated 60 Million of his own money and he could not win a single state. And Perot was much more appealing to the average Joe six-pack voter than the anti-war candidate Ron Paul.
PT Barnum was so right.
I believe last quarter the average donation was $40 or something, I’d expect that hasn’t changed.
You don't understand why most people give money to Paul. They aren't "suckers" in the sense that they believe he is likely to win. Most would give to him even if it was a certainty that he would lose. That is how revolutions are made.
Now.....you can argue that the Paulists are wrong in their ideas or even "loony" but the word "sucker" doesn't apply to most of them.
what did girliani raise?
Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Bump
Why should he run as a Libertarian, be excluded from the debates, and get one percent of the vote or lower? He is already at 4 percent in some land-line polls and is debatig with the big boys.
Great post, thanks a lot. With money like this, and the frugal campaign spending, we can really start moving up now!
He’s running as a Republican because he’s been elected to the US Congress as a Republican for 10 terms. He’s a Republican.
...says the Arnold supporter.
How anyone could take that team seriously is beyond me but lots of people did, enough to elect clinton. I know it is hard to imagine spending 60 million of his own money (your figure) on a vendetta, but I think that is exactly what he did. George Bush the elder embarrassed him by rebuffing his desires to join his administration so he fixed George I.
He probably made the 60 million back many times over, in payback from clinton.
I’d like to invite all conservatives to join the Ron Paul train. You’re still welcome here. Failure to do so equates to giving Hillary the White House. Put the war issue aside for 20 seconds and think about socialized medicine, higher taxes, more inflation, amnesty for illegals, increased gun control and even more national debt. That’s what we are going to be faced with if we don’t support Ron Paul and get him elected. He is the only person who can beat Hillary in the general election. Don’t cut off your nose to spite your collective faces. It’s not too late to get on board with the only conservative who has a chance of beating her.
Ross Perot without the big ears.
This site discourages the use of hallucinogenic drugs.
Ok, maybe “quixotic” would be a better description.
Thanks but NO thanks.
Where are my manners, welcome to FR newbie.
Did you sign up today to troll here?
While I really believe that a Paul vs. Clinton race would make LBJ vs. Goldwater look like a squeaker, I’ll be supporting our nominee (whoever he is) over Missus Clinton.
You're right, he's a Republican Congressman. And he's running in the Republican primaries. Those are his choices.
However he's in disagreement with the Republican Party on most major issues. You can find the 2004 Platform here.
Paul is out of step on all positions regarding the WOT, Iraq and foreign affairs. The first issue addressed in the Platform.
Paul is out of step on Homeland Security.
Paul is out of step on economic issues. The platform calls for lower taxes, permanent tax cuts, and tax based incentives for things like savings. Paul would oppose all of these, favoring an elimination of the income tax with no replacement, essentially shutting the government down.
He's out of step on trade, an advocate of tariffs.
On no child left behind.
I don't know if he's a proponent of unions.
He's out of step with the Party's position on medicare and medicaid, investing in health and technological research, and womens health.
Not clear where he is when it comes to water standards or national parks, but these are the bottom of the platform issues, certainlay opposed to agriculture and urban development iniatives.
Won't bother with drugs.
My impression he's opposed to GWB's temporary worker program, as well as opposed to the Party on issues like internet pornography, promoting abstinance, adoption. Also minor issue.
All in all, Paul supports very few Republican positions, as his voting record bears out. Thats fine, and I acknowledge he's been elected as a Republican, but for his supporters to somehow attempt to redefine the Republican Party in the image on non-Republican on the issues Paul is the height of arrogance.
He's the poster boy RINO.
They got the old steam engine repaired? Excellent.
This is supposed to be a bad thing?!?
Thanks!
Quixotic? Sure....if you want to include a multitude of Sancho Panza’s who contribute five million dollars out of their own pockets.
Not necessarily, I disagree with no child left behind and medicare drugs, but I'm not so arrogant as to suggest I'm the true Republican, and that the Party Platform is out of step with me. It's the other way around.
Ross Perot spent an estimated 60 Million
Had Perot gotten in, than as he was gaining in some polls, bowed out because he said his daughter’s life was threatened by the powers that be (paraphrasing), then jumped back in...
Who knows what would have happend if he had just stayed in.
As far as waste of money comment, I hope all that have given and will give to Rudy find out just what that comment means. Add McCain, Obama, Hillary and all the other nitwits in this race.
what did girliani raise?
Like most that read “girliani”, I am LOL!!!
I have no issue with abolishing the income tax...and I don't imagine what issue I would have with a severe reduction to the operational capacity of the federal government. If we had a federal government that still operated in accord with the Constitution, we would dramatically reduce the federal budget...and try to imagine an America where the federal government wasn't confiscating the fruits of your labor
Last April, Ron Paul wrote on this:
But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th.
Cute statement, thoroughly irrelevant.
Yes, we got along without an income prior to 1913, but Paul isn't running in the 1912 elections, it's 2007.
And GWB did dramatically increase spending, and a 40% spending cut would get us near 2000 levels (Clinton's favorite year too), which is thoroughly irrelevant as regards the income tax.
I'll reproduce a previous post below. Show me how Ron Paul is going to run the government on $155 billion.
Answer, he's not, he's not serious, he's just tossing red meat to the uninformed.
--------------
It's not 2000 anymore. Wikipedia is adequate for this. 2007 estimates. Scrap the income tax without replacement, you reduce receipts from $2.4 trillion to about $1.04 trillion.
Expenses (social security, medicare, debt interest) of about $1.22 trillion. How do you run the government?
OK, scrap social security and medicare and default on the debt. That's feasable in the real world. Now you've got $155 billion in revenue to run the government on.
Which expenditures do you keep?
It's an irresponsible "plan", there is no plan, which puts both Republicans and the issue of tax reform in a bad light.
But it get's whoops and hollers for Paul.
Total receipts
Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2007 were $2.4 trillion.
$1.1 trillion - Individual income tax
$884.1 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$260.6 billion - Corporate income tax
$74.6 billion - Excise taxes
$28.1 billion - Customs duties
$23.7 billion - Estate and gift taxes
$48.4 billion - Other
Total spending
The President's budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
$699 billion (+4.0%) - Defense
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
Ever notice how often George Soros spends a bunch of his money trying to sway things politically and doesn't get results?
I can agree on the Dem leaders. But moveon and Code Pink would vote for Paul. He's the only nutjob, anti-war candidate so they can relate to him.
You might want to re-think getting into your Mom’s medicine cabinet the next time around - it’s risky taking all that stuff at once.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.