GOP Ron Paul - Five Million Dollar Man? (Paul increases campaign funds by 1,000% in 60 days to $5M!)

Ron Paul Campaign | June 7th, 2007 | FreeMarketNews.com

[Remember_Salamis]

GOP Ron Paul - Five Million Dollar Man? Thursday, June 07, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands - but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign say.

The move is especially impressive since as of March 31, 2007, he had perhaps $500,000 on hand (see candidate estimates below).

FMNN had previously reported – after the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina - that candidate Ron Paul’s (R-Tex) donations, large and small, had nearly doubled.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42336

Now observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million.

“That’s a huge number at this stage,” says one observer. “That starts to put him in a position where he can compete – state by state, anyway – with the major candidates.”

And this source added, “Of course, it’s hard to tell because the numbers keep changing – and thus nobody at the campaign has a firm count, at least not hour to hour. But the numbers are big. It’s definitely over three, probably over four, and if it hasn’t hit five yet, it will soon.”

At this rate, say observers, Ron Paul could have something like $10 million in his coffers inside of several months, and the total could keep growing – so long as he continues to hit on themes that Americans support – how to return the country to a true, small government, constitutional republic and how to end the war in Iraq.

To be sure such amounts are somewhat speculative. But to put the amount of money Ron Paul is said to have raised recently in perspective, here are the figures of cash on hand for GOP candidates as of March 31, 2007:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/gop.html

Sam Brownback cash-on-hand: $806,626

Jim Gilmore cash-on-hand: $90,107

Rudy Giuliani cash-on-hand: $11,949,735

Mike Huckabee cash-on-hand: $373,918

Duncan Hunter cash-on-hand: $272,552

John McCain cash-on-hand: $5,180,799

Ron Paul cash-on-hand: $524,919

Mitt Romney cash-on-hand: $11,863,653

Tom Tancredo cash-on-hand: $575,078

Tommy Thompson cash-on-hand: $139,723

Source: CNN

Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network

[Remember_Salamis]

No no no.

The Right opposed intervention in WWII BEFORE Pearl Harbor, the American First Committee and all that.

In Vietnam, Nixon was elected to pull all troops out of Vietnam, which he did. He also by-and-large ended the war by 1973, with just financial support to the S. Vietnamese Gov’t after that point. A vindictive New Left pulled the plug on that. But in ‘68, the establishment Democrats were not anti-war.

[P-40]

the Mohammadans

The disciples of Hazrat Mohammed Sahib? Been a while since I've heard that. They teach that to five year olds now?

[skr]

“Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us. They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years.” Ron Paul”

In case you forgot. Just as Mr. Paul seemed to forget that we bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein’s military targeted British and American planes in the no-fly zones and then when he stopped letting the inspectors in.

[Remember_Salamis]

Which bankrupt ideas of Paul fuel hatred. Name one. Capitalism? Because the biggest difference between Paul and the Bushies, Rudy, McCain, and Romney included, is their stance on free markets and liberty.

Ron Paul would NEVER ban books or cartoons. He is one of the most ardent supporters of the first amendment in Congress! How McCain and Rudy, on the other hand, have histories of opposing free speech.

Nice try attempting to link Paul and Moore. MOORE IS NOT AGAINST INTERVENTION. He just favors the humanitarian, globalist UN type of interventions. Paul is unanimously opposed to intervention.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Homeschooled 5 year olds. The rest are told that Islam is a religion of peace (and they’re not ‘sposed to talk about Jesus, y’know). Of course, when I was 5 in ‘79, we were told Jimmy Carter was the great savior in my PS. Took me 7 years to figure out what my PS told me was BS. Ain’t that a sumbitch ?

[P-40]

Mr. Paul seemed to forget that we bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein’s military targeted British and American planes in the no-fly zones

Why in the world would you assume Paul forgot this? Or that it would matter one whit to Al Qaeda anyway?

[Remember_Salamis]

Hey! You’re blaming the West and Versailles for the rise of the Nazis. In the words of Rudy Giuliani “that’s absurd.”

That’s the logic that the NeoCon Rudy Right practices.

We try to make all of our enemies out to be Hitlers. Germany was a massive state with the most advanced military on earth. They had a huge economy that could support such a war Machine.

None of those factors apply to the Islamos.

If you want to ensure support for your military action, just call your enemy the next Hitler.

[Remember_Salamis]

Good one!

[Remember_Salamis]

When I’m typing fast, I rely on the “squigglies”.

[Remember_Salamis]

McCain was the one mumbling and running over his time constantly at the debate.

Paul is the one who is inspiring young people all over the country. His base is in their early-to-mid 20s, like me.

[jv170]

I finally registered. I have been reading freerepublic for a long time. I consider myself to be very conservitive. The first time I was old enough to vote, I voted republican because I valued my freedom. Since 9/ll we have lost a lot of our freedoms. As I searched for a canidate the only one interested in protecting rights is Ron Paul. The more I listen to him the more he makes sense. He says follow the Constitution and the people on freerepublic call him a loon. I only wish instead of judging him take the time and listen to him. He may not win. My hope is that his message gets out.

1. He dosen’t flip flop
2. He defends liberty
3. He believes in small Government
4. Lower taxes
5. No policing the world
6. No nation building
7. Sound money
8. No national I.D. Card

Someone once said “government is not the solution. government is the problem.”

Some of the people on this forum will think that im a loon. But then this forum is called freerepublic.

Just listen

[Remember_Salamis]

You are correct. And so was Ron. Explaining why our enemy attacked us does not justify it.

1. Saddam refused to let inspectors in.

2. We bombed him.

3. Islamos got angry over that and used it as justification to attack us.

Ron Paul never says that any Islamic moves are justified, nor does he imply they were.

[SoCalPol]

The far left media, universities, etc drove the anti war issue during viewnam and are doing the same now.
After the fall of Siagon over 100,000 Viewnamese including their President were brought to San Diego and later thousands more here.

You folks in flyover country don’t have a clue when it comes to the wars.
I live in San Diego which has the largest amount of military in the world here, mainly Marines and Navy.

Besides my ancestors fighting in wars even before the Rev. War. and Civil War. and WWI
My dad was with the 1st Marine Div. in WWII and Korea
along with other relatives
Relatives in ViewNam and several relatives in the current war.

[Remember_Salamis]

OMG! You live near a military base!!! I’m AD military and was deployed to Ramadi for six months. Retract your silly statement.

You attack the media, but the media dismisses the average American as living in “flyover country”. IS the pot calling the kettle black?

I know what happened with the boat people; Nixon successfully ended the war before the Left lost it.

[SoCalPol]

[who knows what evil?]

His base is in their early-to-mid 20s, like me.

Look around the net...plenty of 'over 50 types' support him, as well. I'm one of them.

[SoCalPol]

YOu were deployed, so was the OK bomber.
There is always a fart in every carload.

[Remember_Salamis]

I know all about the Mufti of Jerusalem. So what?

[George W. Bush]

Screw the Constitution! I want one-man rule by executive fiat in the form of Benito Giuliani.

LOL.

What great news. I was expecting a report of $1.6 to $2 million. But I really thought he had a chance at more. But four million, maybe even five?

It shows the power of that conservative message of liberty. And that Ron Paul has many friends from diverse groups. I'd like to see how many gun groups are giving. Or online gamblers. Or Silicon Valley internet folk. Or libertarian organizations. His upcoming financial disclosures will make interesting reading, I'm sure.

Washington must be melting down at this news. ("What, one of those pesky consitutional conservatives is still alive? I thought we killed those guys off".) Some big-government compassionate conservatives have probably been tranquilized or are in a coma.

You know, this is how Dean got started in '04. At this rate, it's possible that Ron Paul could enter New Hampshire with $30-$40 million, maybe more. It's not inconceivable.

[Remember_Salamis]

But you cited yourself as an authority because you live in a military community!

I am not, nor have I ever, stated that my deployment makes my opinion infallible. But it does give me real-life experience that colors my viewpoint.

[Remember_Salamis]

Most “ideological” grassroots campaigns have very little money. Buchanan’s impressive ‘96 run ran on rhetoric and a shoestring budget.

I can’t recall an ideological campaign with money!

[pissant]

It was certainly declared. Where in the constitution does it say HOW a declaration of war is made? That’s right, it doesn’t.

[who knows what evil?]

Your post has great insight...Paul’s candidacy is actually CREATING the “big tent” that the Republican Party claimed was their biggest desire. Now that Paul is drawing people in from all points on the political spectrum; the RNC wants to fold the tent. ROTF!

[Remember_Salamis]

Congress relinquished authority to the executive branch.

A declaration of war is an order to go to war. What Congress did is tell the President “it’s up to you.”

Congress Punted.

[SCHROLL]

hard to say that’s the case when all he spouts is we shouldn’t be in Iraq and votes against the supplementals

[SoCalPol]

The only good thing out of this R. Paul is a never was.
The news had on an intersting segment, about the Muslim enemy posting on U.S. forums as regular citizens to
demoralize American citizens and against the war.
The Paulites are part of the same ilk.

[Publius]

A few weeks ago, I engaged in a colloquy with NCSteve, a supporter of Dr. Paul, and I posed certain questions to him. I’d like to pose the same questions to you to get a better idea of where Dr. Paul is coming from. Up to now, I have concluded that Dr. Paul’s ideal is to return to the America that existed before the Civil War -- minus slavery, of course.

The America we lost was defined by a Constitution written for a republic of farmers. But long before the Civil War, the nation had industrialized, and most of its basic concepts had changed, thanks to the work of Webster and Clay. We are the America that Hamilton created, not the one that Jefferson wanted to preserve. If I understand what a Paul administration would look like, we could expect the following:

• The restriction of the federal government to the 5 explicit powers and 7 implied powers granted it by the Constitution. That means only 3 federal crimes -- treason, piracy and counterfeiting. All other responsibilities would devolve to the states. Entitlements would either be run by the states -- or handed over to churches, charities and benevolent associations.
• The end of federal taxation as we know it and a return to excises, imposts and dunning the states for their share of the federal budget. With most items devolved to the states, the federal budget would be small, and Congress would meet for 6 weeks a year and then go home.
• The end of the fiat dollar, paying off of the national debt, and a return to the gold standard. The London Bill Market, closed since 1914, would be reopened, and real bills maturing to gold coin would circulate along with gold coin itself.
• The end of our large standing army, which the Constitution permits to exist for only a 2 year period anyway. We would have a Coast Guard to protect our shores and some kind of air defense system, but the Army would return to the state militias that existed before the National Guard system was created in 1910.
• American foreign policy would be somewhat isolationist. We would come home, close our borders, guard our shores, expel the UN and mind our own business. We would no longer use our dollars or military to take over various sectors of the planet. We would have a much smaller global footprint and would end any dream of an American Empire.

I find this very seductive. But although the US has shipped its manufacturing capabilities abroad to the Third World and we now make our money moving piles of electronic currency around, I can't see us returning to what we had before the Civil War, much as I would like it. The changes sought by Hamilton and wrought by Webster, Clay and Lincoln are irreversible. So I’d like to pose some questions in line with my previous points:

• Corporations were strictly regulated by the states before the Civil War. Afterward, we were pretty much governed by Big Business in general and the railroads in particular. With the states' rights position discredited by the Civil War, Jeffersonians turned to using Lincoln’s powerful federal government for the people, i.e. using Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. This was what the Progressive agenda was all about. Franklin Roosevelt built on that to define a whole new paradigm of democratic socialism -- using government as the tool of the people's will to control the forces of the market. This raises the question of a power vacuum. Should the federal government retreat to only those powers granted by the Constitution, then who gains control? In a global marketplace, the states are going to find themselves fairly powerless in regulating corporations. One would probably end up with some form of corporate fascism, sometimes referred to humorously as "Proctor and Gamble with the death penalty". This would indicate that even under a Paul administration, it would be necessary to utilize a loose construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause to prevent the undermining of democratic rule.
• With the American people believing that only Big Government can protect them from Big Capitalism and that Big Government is the proper means by which the American people take care of each other, how does one convince the American people to go back to the good old days? We have lost the ancient American trait of self-reliance, as Hurricane Katrina proved. How do you convince the American people to give up the protections they have relied upon from their federal government? (Most people have based their retirement on those government checks.)
• You would need a worldwide financial crash and the involuntary imposition of a worldwide gold standard to get people to rethink the role of the modern state in their lives. How do you return to a hard money standard without inflicting massive pain? (If you divide the value of the world economy by the amount of gold in the world, you end up with gold at $350,000 per ounce!)
• After the War of 1812, even President Madison decided we needed a standing army.
• Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If America comes home and minds its own business, who steps into our shoes to run the planet? Macchiavelli says someone is going to try. The European Union? Russia? China? Iran? The United Nations (after relocation to Geneva)? It's a question that has to be answered.

As one who has specialized in our history after the Revolution and before the Civil War, I'd love to see a return to those less complicated days of Monroe and Jackson, but it's not something that is going to happen on its own. And I fear the events that could force it to happen.

These questions have bedeviled me for a long time. Returning to original intent sounds like a great idea, and it's certainly the purest definition of conservatism. But how do you get there from here, and how do you lead the American people to change their collective -- and "collective" is the right word! -- mindset?

[pissant]

I said AFTER Pearl Harbor. We were not threatened significantly prior to that. FDR was anti WWII before Pearl Harbor. Youre theory is incorrrect.

In Vietnam, Nixon’s hand was FORCED by the anti war crowd, just as they are trying to do to Bush. Difference is Bush has more balls and no Kissinger wormetongue whispering in his ear.

SOrry charlie. Your history is not so good.

[SoCalPol]

It also colored Hitler’s.
thank good my relatives support America.

[Remember_Salamis]

Paul said it should have been declared. However, he has said that he would had voted against a declaration of War.

Paul is of the (correct) opinion that Declared Wars tend to be successful (WWI, WWII) while undeclared ones aren’t (Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War) and have open-ended outcomes (the DMZ in Korea, Iraq in the 1990s, etc.).

[pissant]

COngress authorized war, based on a set of conditions. THere is zilch in the constitution about how to declare war. Ron Paul is just being stupid when he mumbles such nonsense.

[George W. Bush]

Its substantial. Just read the left wing wing blogs.

It's also the online gamblers and all the internet folk. And his appearances on Bill Maher and the Daily Show have helped with the under-thirties, some of whom have a lot of money to throw around. And he's very popular with the Slashdot crowd, a very large bunch with libertarian tendencies, in fact, Ron Paul is the only person some of them consider as a candidate at all.

Beyond all that, Ron Paul is actually considered the 'hip' candidate, screwy as that is. He's so conservative and anti-government, it almost doesn't register with some of these people or they say that's irrelevant to them. You should read it sometime. I understand why they like him but they surprise even me with their vehement Paul support.

Of course, this is a big-money election where Fred Thompson probably just raised $10 million in, like, two days. So the Big Four aren't in any trouble just yet. But the fact that Ron Paul could suck up that kind of money is going to make them look hard at his record and appeal and how to siphon off his voters. It always happens.

[Remember_Salamis]

Are you calling me a Nazi because I disagree with you? I guess you really are a lefty.

[CPT Clay]

This will be interesting when the 30 Jun money figures come out.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Post #111 well said, clapping hands.

[SoCalPol]

I guess that is why I worked in Reagan’s first campaign when he ran for gov.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Paul is the one who is inspiring young people all over the country. His base is in their early-to-mid 20s, like me."

I'm close to a decade older than you. I saw this same hysteria with McCain 7 years ago, and Dean 3 years ago. These were flash-in-the-pan loons that appealed to a narrow and vocally disproportionate percent of the base, and came up very short, and for good reason. But, you're young and entitled to a youthful indiscretion that you'll be laughing about years from now with a "What was I thinking ?" moment.

Hey, I had that when I vocally supported Jesse Jackson and Fritz and Tits for President in 1984. But I was only 10 years old and just spouting lines to impress my Red Grandma and my GOP-hating teachers. When I became a Republican at 12, they didn't like me anymore. It's a tough thing to do the right thing over what is necessarily popular. Occasionally, it's nice when the two collide. That's why I'm supporting Fred. If you haven't seen it, go take a look at the 30-second clip of him responding to Michael Moore in the same manner you'd squash a mosquito. Tell me that doesn't look like the man who should be our next President, I dare ya. ;-)

[George W. Bush]

I love these Paul threads.

Me too. They just get funnier and funnier. I think we should hold a contest for Top RP Trolls and give out nice prizes.

[SCHROLL]

so he’s like Kerry-he wanted to vote for it before he voted against it?

[fieldmarshaldj]

"I finally registered."

Congratulations.

"I have been reading freerepublic for a long time."

Took me 3 years before I registered. Started reading it the first day I was online, Halloween, 1998.

"I consider myself to be very conservitive."

So do I.

"The first time I was old enough to vote, I voted republican because I valued my freedom."

Sensible.

"Since 9/ll we have lost a lot of our freedoms."

Thanks to our Mohammadan friends.

"As I searched for a canidate the only one interested in protecting rights is Ron Paul."

That's a loaded phrase, y'know. In wartime, unlimited rights can have deadly consequences.

"The more I listen to him the more he makes sense."

Funny, I have the polar opposite response. His naivety on foreign affairs is shocking in someone who has served in Congress on and off for 30 years.

"He says follow the Constitution and the people on freerepublic call him a loon."

He says America caused 9/11, and that is a lunatic position.

"I only wish instead of judging him take the time and listen to him. He may not win. My hope is that his message gets out."

I've listened, and he is certifiably dangerous, both abroad and domestically. He's fiscally Conservative ? Whoopee. Try seeing if that matters a damn when his isolationist position will force us to live in caves in Montana, however many Americans are left after the Mohammadans drop a few dirty bombs from coast to coast.

[The_Eaglet]

I think you are giving the whining neoconservative contingent too much credit.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Then you definitely ought to know better.

[pissant]

NAme one freedom you lost since 911. It’s pure fiction.

[skr]

You’re right. Mr. Paul probably didn’t forget. He just forgot to mention why Iraq was bombed, hence making it seem our fault and without foundation (never mind that the zones were set up to keep Shiites and Kurds from Saddam’s slaughtering tendencies).

Anything that sounds like blame America first matters to Al-Qaeda, the MSM and leftists everywhere.

[George W. Bush]

I finally registered. I have been reading freerepublic for a long time. I consider myself to be very conservative. The first time I was old enough to vote, I voted republican because I valued my freedom. Since 9/ll we have lost a lot of our freedoms. As I searched for a candidate the only one interested in protecting rights is Ron Paul. The more I listen to him the more he makes sense. He says follow the Constitution and the people on freerepublic call him a loon.

In the pre-Bush era, FR was filled with admirers of Ron Paul. When he defended gun rights or internet rights or privacy or defeated the National ID or introduced bills to dissolve the United Nations or when he opposed Xlinton's (and Bush's and McStain's) UN bombing campaign in Kosovo, he was FR's darling. No doubt about it.

If you check the most recent candidate poll here, you'll see he still has a pretty decent base of support here at FR.

BTW, welcome to FR.

[t_skoz]

Registered, c’mon man... sheesh!

hahaha

[pissant]

You wouldn’t know what a neo-conservative is if one bit you in the arse. ALL the staunch reaganites voted for the Iraq war and al want to see it completed sucessfully. The Reagan Wing of the Party is not “neo-conservative”

[CJ Wolf]

So why does Bushes AG even say it’s not a declared war?

[Remember_Salamis]

— You are correct in that we are in a Hamiltonian America. However, it is not because of industrialization. We could just as easily be decentralized and industrialized.

— On explicit powers: Yes, that’s what he’d do.

— On Taxes: Paul has not clarified what types of taxes would be collected in his minarchist govt. He’s strongly against tariffs, as they distort trade. Perhaps we could tax state treasuries, a sort of membership fee for being in the Union.

— Paul is a HUGE gold bug and wants to go back to a true, pre-1913 Gold Standard.

— I think he would keep a small standing Army that could be rapidly expanded if we had to retaliate for an act of agression. Paul has a fondness for Writ of Marquees, contracts given out to mercenaries to perform military actions. Paul introduced one after 9/11 to have Blackwater or somebody like that go after the Taliban.

— Ron Paul would follow the guidance of Jefferson: Trade and Friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

— As the US business climate improves, manufacturing jobs would come back. It has been shown that cutting corporate taxes causes manufacturing jobs to come back; look at Ireland after they cut theirs in half. Imagine if we were the only major country in the world with out corporate taxes or endless regulation???

— The Progressives were not Jeffersonians using Hamiltonian ends. The Progressives were tihgly aligned with Big Business. Big Business, in fact, regualated itself to hurt small competitors. Gabriel Kolko’s “The Triumph of Conservatism” is a great book on the subject.

— Paul said in the debates he would eliminate the Commerce Cabinet position.

— Big Business and Big Government LOVE each other. When he was on the daily show, Paul was asked by John Stewart is he was worried about “turning over controls” to corporations. Paul said there is a difference between Having corporations and the gov’t in cahoots under “corporatism”, and having consumer driven firms like Microsoft. It was a high-level argument that many leftists overlook. Part of the Left attacks corporations because they are seen as “appendages of the state”; Paul pointed out the clear distinctions between the bloodsuckers that depend on Gov’t pork and regulation to survive and the true entrepreneurial firms.

— If Ron Paul is elected, the American people, at least half of them, would have to agree with Paul. He’d have a mandate for change.

— How do you return to a hard money standard without inflicting massive pain? — Easy! The first economy to go back on the gold standard will be the most successful. The first one gets gold at the cheapest price, and all others will follow. Investment will flow to the economy with the strongest, soundest currency, which would be a gold-backed one. There would be a massive inflection in the price of Gold; whoever is on the left side of the curve wins! I am actually concerned that the Chinese may use part of their massive reserves to go on a gold or silver standard, putting themselves at the head of the economic table for the next 100 years. Also, the amount of value in the world does not need to be backed up by gold, just the currency; they are not the same thing. Currently, GDP is higher than dollars in circulation, for example. As long as the monetary authority guarantees a fixed amount of gold for their currencies, that’s all you need.

— If we pulled back in the world, we would be on par militarily with the EU, Russia, and China. We would have a multi-polar system and a true balance of Power. We had a similar setup in the 19th Century and we saw relative peace and the blossoming of international capitalism.

— In my opinion, our last chance is to elect a guy like Paul to reverse the tide. If it is not reversed, eventual secession may be the only option. By eventual I mean decades , 50 years, or even a century. Who knows how long it will take to travel down the Road to Serfdom.

[Remember_Salamis]

“FDR was anti WWII before Pearl Harbor”

???

He was trying to leverage us into the war for a year-and-a-half before the PH!