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 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-242 next last
To: Remember_Salamis

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

141 posted on 06/07/2007 9:16:08 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

Then you definitely ought to know better.

142 posted on 06/07/2007 9:16:36 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: jv170

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

143 posted on 06/07/2007 9:17:40 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: P-40

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.

144 posted on 06/07/2007 9:19:39 PM PDT by skr (Car bombs and IEDs are the exclamation marks for the latest Democrats' talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: jv170
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.
145 posted on 06/07/2007 9:20:46 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; Registered

Registered, c’mon man... sheesh!


146 posted on 06/07/2007 9:22:29 PM PDT by t_skoz ("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet

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”

147 posted on 06/07/2007 9:22:47 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: pissant

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

148 posted on 06/07/2007 9:23:38 PM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Publius

— 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.

149 posted on 06/07/2007 9:23:49 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: pissant

“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!

150 posted on 06/07/2007 9:24:51 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

Who? Alberto? Same reason he says that we are doing everything we can to stop illegals from coming over the border?

151 posted on 06/07/2007 9:25:10 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

No. He was trying to help Britain all he could w/o sending our men. Churchill was practically begging him.

152 posted on 06/07/2007 9:26:37 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

The money is coming from average people like me. Thousands of us all over the country. I don’t have enough money right now to donate a lump sum, so I contribute $25 weekly. I know of at least a dozen people who are donating money this way. And we’re getting our friends and family to donate money to Ron Paul as well.

Ron Paul had the largest, most enthusiastic and most vocal group of supporters at the NH debate on Wednesday. The other candidates’ supporters were visibly shaken by how many of us there were and how excited we were!! Underdog, minority candidate indeed!

Over the next few months you will see a “Howard Dean” effect in regards to organizing and fund raising. Hmmm... if not President, Ron Paul for chairman of the GOP???

153 posted on 06/07/2007 9:28:45 PM PDT by t_skoz ("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

In Reagan’s little-noticed 1968 run for President, Reagan recieved two delegate votes. One of his delegates to the Convention was Ron Paul. ‘Nuff said.

154 posted on 06/07/2007 9:29:41 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

I wonder how much this money has come from the Soros minions.

155 posted on 06/07/2007 9:30:44 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Here was Ron’s argument “I’m against going to war. But if you’re going to go to war, at least declare war.”

156 posted on 06/07/2007 9:30:59 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

i’m no ron paul supporter, but the hijackers weren’t exactly angry about Iraq. If you take Bin Laden’s words at face value, he’s upset about U.S. support for the Saudi regime, and for stationing troops in the Middle East...

157 posted on 06/07/2007 9:30:59 PM PDT by TINS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: skr

We bombed them when Clinton needed to wag the dog. We bombed them when we thought they were hiding something as well. We also bombed them enforcing a no fly zone which the UN Considered illegal so that we could enforce a UN resolution. Makes sense to me.

158 posted on 06/07/2007 9:31:24 PM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]


Paul has listed all four factors (Iraq, Saudi, troops in the middle east, and Israel/Palestine).

159 posted on 06/07/2007 9:32:24 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

I am not impressed.

160 posted on 06/07/2007 9:33:06 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Duncan Hunter '08 Tough on WOT & Illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 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