Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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 |

Posted on 06/07/2007 7:08:11 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis

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

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.

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:

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

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; amnesty; constitution; giuliani; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; paul; paulnuts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-242 next last
To: George W. Bush

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!

121 posted on 06/07/2007 8:56:43 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

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

122 posted on 06/07/2007 8:57:00 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

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!

123 posted on 06/07/2007 8:58:26 PM PDT by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: pissant

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.

124 posted on 06/07/2007 8:58:27 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

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

125 posted on 06/07/2007 8:58:44 PM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

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.

126 posted on 06/07/2007 8:59:15 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Duncan Hunter '08 Tough on WOT & Illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
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:

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:

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?

127 posted on 06/07/2007 8:59:26 PM PDT by Publius (A = A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

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.

128 posted on 06/07/2007 9:00:25 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

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

129 posted on 06/07/2007 9:01:17 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Duncan Hunter '08 Tough on WOT & Illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]


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.).

130 posted on 06/07/2007 9:01:36 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

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.

131 posted on 06/07/2007 9:01:40 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: pissant
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.
132 posted on 06/07/2007 9:03:18 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

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

133 posted on 06/07/2007 9:03:41 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

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

134 posted on 06/07/2007 9:04:05 PM PDT by CPT Clay (Drill ANWR, Personal Accounts NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jv170

Post #111 well said, clapping hands.

135 posted on 06/07/2007 9:06:34 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

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

136 posted on 06/07/2007 9:07:08 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Duncan Hunter '08 Tough on WOT & Illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
"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. ;-)

137 posted on 06/07/2007 9:07:36 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
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.
138 posted on 06/07/2007 9:12:45 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

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

139 posted on 06/07/2007 9:14:27 PM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: jv170
"I finally registered."


"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."


"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.

140 posted on 06/07/2007 9:15:59 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-242 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson