Skip to comments.Ron Paul says he raised nearly $20 million in final quarter of 2007
Posted on 01/01/2008 12:39:23 PM PST by rfaceEdited on 01/01/2008 12:48:40 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ron Paul said today his presidential campaign raised nearly $20 million in the last three months of 2007 from 130,000 donors.
Ron Paul brought in nearly $5.3 million that quarter.
Paul's campaign said that more than 107,000 donors were new and the average donation was about $90. More than half of the total came from two 24-hour online fund-raising events organized by supporters -- one on Nov. 5, and the second centered in Boston on Dec. 16.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
For a Thompson supporter, you sure do spend a lot of time defending TehRon.
Err no, I wasn't around then. You?
You don't know who these people are. The overwhelming anecdotal evidence suggests that Paul's support is not accounted for in traditional MSM polling. Those MSM polls that you and other FReepers cling to like life preservers are only polling the same group of registered Republicans who voted for incumbent Bush in 2004. Those primaries in 2004 had very low voter turnout. Because of Paul's views, he is not going to get the desired results, as this base is pro war and religious right. Many of these polls also do not include Paul's name or list him as "other." Get it?
No, but people who blame America for the attack on us on 9/11 are
Paul has never blamed America for 9/11.
and that is what cut and run and his followers are saying.
You have a fringe minority who are exploiting Paul's campaign and giving the impression that Paul is an anti-war moonbat.
Cut and run is more anti-American than any democrat running
There ain't going to be a Republican Party if you want to stay in the Middle East and keep burning $250 billion a year on a war that has largely been won. You guys are going to keep advocating "staying the course" until people start voting in Green Party socialists into Congress to stop the war. Do you want this to happen?
NO but Ron and his followers do
Lincoln did more to increase the strength of the federal government than any President of the 19th century. What a proud label for the party of small government.
There were two money bomb events that were not coordinated by the official campaign. Read: Events, which means publicity to donate on a specific day, not actual fundraising. People still were directed to go to the official website and donate. Duh.
That allowed him not to file the required info with the FEC. If HE raised this money, that makes that claim of independence a lie.
No, it means you're delusional. All of Paul's donations are in real-time and the running tally is open to the public. The campaign follows all FEC rules and regulations.
it was the party of Lincoln before it was anything else you want to call it
US policies were doing more harm than good?
Because Pakistan never been a really stable country since they broke away from India.
Don’t the Brits share responsiblity? They did controlled that area for about 300 years!
” A Republican candidate that openly talks about abolishing the IRS, limiting government, and getting us out of the UN is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “
Hey you forgot Wild Texas Shrimp and special very expensive earmarks for Paul’s Texas District - You know the earmark spending he proposed before he opposed it???? And don’t forget the conspiracy theories and all the paranoid delusions. That is what helpd me make up my mind to vote AGAINST Paul.
Given John McCain’s actions against the first and second amendments, and his attempt to grant amnesty to 20-30 million illegal aliens, couldn’t his supporters also be branded as traitors?
I think you are way out of line calling people traitors for supporting a particular candidate.
This kind of rhetoric is part of what has gotten us into the political situation in which we find ourselves. It was started by the Democrats in the 1980s, when they pulled out all the stops to prevent Robert Bork from getting on the Supreme Court.
you must not have been there in the 70's when thy went after Nixon, or the 60's when they went after Goldwater.
Correct on Goldwater, but Nixon created his own problems through paranoia. A trait that is unfortunately shared by too many today.
Ron Paul refers to 60-70 years worth of foreign policy, not say, just the last decade or two. How would you argue differently?
Would you say that current US foreign policy (nation building and bases/troops in dozens of foreign countries, CIA involvement since the 1950s in dozens of foreign nations) is in line with the US Constitution or out of line with the US Constitution?
some of his own problems, yes, but persecuted nonetheless for having been an anti-communist for decades.
That's not the same as blaming America. In a nutshell, he's saying actions have consequences. That's basically it.
Was it our fault the Japanese attacked us? It was our foreign policy that stopped trade with them.
What does that have to do with the Middle East? That's a specious comparison and besides Paul told Russert we were right to declare war and fight Japan.
It is not a fringe minority, it is his almost his entire following.
A 130,000 people who donated to Paul in 4Q - All of them aren't white supremacists, truthers, and anti-war leftists there bub.
Where does our foreign policy defy our constitution?
you’ll need to go back further, to Spanish-American War, Phillipine War, Little Big Horn, Falling Timbers—
We are well on our way to looking as dumb as Demrats here.
It was worth it to end slavery.
All the more reason why we shouldn't have stuck our noses in there to begin with. We didn't need to beg for Musharraf's permission or give him $10 billion to hunt down AQ near his border...we should have just fricking went in there.
Ron Paul is actually SAVING the Republican Party...
Do you want the libertarians and independents to go 3rd party or vote Republican?
and he did called Reagan a failure...
he finds the Republican party so reprehensible, I don’t know why he wants to call himself a Republican. On the other hand, without the wide-open Republican primary process, who would have heard of him?
In fact they said no thank you... Which is not hard to say..
Yet every other Westernized country that has ended slavery did it without a civil war (more accurately, War of Northern Aggression or War Between the States).
Lincoln himself said if he could save the Union without freeing the slaves, he would.
Ermm...no declarations of war? Yet, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, etc.
December 20, 1860...South Carolina secedes
March 4, 1861...Lincoln inaugurated..
What are you talking about?
The CIC has authority to protect our national interests. The congress has authority to fund it or not. Nothing unconstitutional.
Arlen Specter is a Republican in name only too!
My post was strictly tongue in cheek. Your post makes me think that you might be a (shudder) Paulbot.
Speaking of delusional people ....
The above was public (as if all of this isn't) and meant for anyone to comment on. The rest of this is really only meant for you. Others may comment (how can I stop them?) but I don't intend to respond to Ron Paul zealots EVER.
I don't think that you (Extremely Extreme Extremist) are suggesting that you know, for a fact, that Ron Paul's campaign has filed any (I emphasize ANY) paperwork that is required (under the current idiotic (McCain/Feingold) laws) to make his being directly involved (which includes "directing people" to the other efforts) with the obscene (neo-NAZI, Klan, MoveOn) "fund raising" stunts that have gone on so far and that "he's not involved in" a criminal act based on that involvement under current law? Or are you just "trusting Master Ron?" If you're relying on trust then you have disappointed me big time. Based on other posts by you, even those I've strongly disagreed with, I have assumed that you were up to the task. Please don't disappoint me.
I'm seriously asking for evidence. I don't think that there is anything anyone can say (that I'll believe... yeah, yeah, "nice dodge") which will convince me to support Ron Paul, but your post disturbs me, big time.
Now, I 100% approve of the "Ron Paul blimp for profit" operation as a way to screw with and make irrelevant the current upside down CFR rules (but you must know that's being run by a Romney supporter, don't you?). The thing we need is immediate reporting of donations and donors, not restrictions on who can donate or how much. That's at the heart of the first amendment. I just have no reason (based on extensive research) to believe that Ron Paul actually supports that sort of openess. He's a "libertarian" of convenience, so far as I can tell.
I am a Conservative (capitol C) and will not accept anyone's challenge to that claim without an argument. However, I describe my conservatism as my being a "cynical liberal." I believe in all of the "ideals" that liberals claim to champion, ending racism, helping those who can't help themselves, etc., I just don't believe for a second that Jesse Jackson, Teddy Kennedy, RON PAUL OR MIKE HUCKABEE are going to deliver on any of their lying "populist" promises.
I'm interested in things that work. All of the things I'm aware of that work have been labeled "conservative" by "liberals," "progressives," "communists," "democrats" and their fellow travelers (including Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee). I guess that makes me a (true) Conservative.
Also, please drop the childish insults. It may not be beneath you, but it's beneath me, for I am the underminer! <nasty evil smarmy (and hopefully funny) grin>
Those are not pro-gun votes. Or is that what you meant?
That is true.. In fact that Britain wanted the North to lose, but they choose wisely to but out.
Glad I could give you a chuckle! :-)
All very good questions that I'd be interested in hearing the answers to.
Musharraf wasn’t in power in the 1990’s.
The Bhutto family was incharged.
How many times have the Bhutto family been charged with corruption and had to flee the country for their safety?
And guess who got the nuclear bomb during the 1990’s...the Bhutto family...all under the careful watch of “lets not get involved with foreign intanglements” Clinton.
Why didn’t the Clinton Administration tried to get some peace treaty going with India and Pakistan so we wouldn’t have the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons?
Life on this earth didn’t start on September 11, 2001!
Hey, I’m not going to blame the Clinton Administration on this.
Your looking at a country....like Pakistan...that is all FU.
Pakistan was not satisfied being separated from India in the late 1940’s. They’re too busy killing each other off within their own political intrique......so stop blaming the United States for every G@d damn thing that ever happens to a country that is totally unstable from the get go.
I’m not a huge Paul fan. However if the GOP nominee is Mitt, Rudy or McCain, I will support Paul as a third party candidate.
US has always been involved with foreign policies,
Here’s a foreign policy that went wrong from the get go.
This is what happen when Jefferson imposed a embargo against the British and the French...so we could stay nuetral.
New Englanders were furious.
He's injecting new blood into the party.
Do you know that local GOP party offices are upset at the number of Paul supporters that show up to their meetings? How is the Republican Party going to defeat the Democrats when they don't welcome newcomers and traditionalists back into their party?
Why do you think Hillary and Obama have raised over $100 million last year (2007) while Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson have raised a fraction of that? Why is Paul's $19.5 million from over 130,000 donors while Rudy's 3Q $11.8 million is from 5,000 or so people who donated the maximum? Are you really going to rely on the discredited polls or the fund-raising which is much more accurate?
For that matter, please explain how your boy could actually win the Republican nomination. I want details.
With Paul, you don't have to worry about libertarians or independents staying home or voting 3rd party. All of his supporters are pysched and will walk through lava to vote for him. I guarantee you on Thursday, he's going to crack the top 3 in Iowa. He will win WY with his strong views on property rights and minimal government. He just won an Oklahoma straw poll last month. He'll place 1st or 2nd in NH. All that publicity is going to get him more donors plus the existing donors who will be eligible to donate up to $2,300 again. Meanwhile, all of the other candidates are going to go broke by Super Duper Tuesday because their donors are maxed out and their supporters are unenthusiastic.
The Republican Party does not have the votes nor the funds to defeat Hillary in the general election. If you want the GOP to win, they need to either get out of Paul's way or start incorporating some of Paul's views into their platform. Because I know if Paul is nominated, you guys will still vote for him over Hillary, despite all your trash-talking now.
I’m not blaming the U.S. for anything. The Middle East is such a tinderbox though that we should just leave it alone.
Yes, you are!
Who left the Middle East alone throughout history?
Since the collaspe of the Soviet Union...the Middle and Near East problems have come to the front burner.
Who controlled the Middle East last?
The victors of WWI...The British and French who took the spoils from the weaken Ottoman Empire. The borders were designed by the British and French...not by the natives of that region.
The Middle and Near East been basically ignored because the Westerners were fighting the Nazis or keeping the Soviet Agression in check.
And the Soviets were meddling around with Middle and Near East politics too. They were busy giving foreign aid to those countries who wanted it while trying to convince the locals to give them a warm port to counter Western aggressions.
Did you know the KGB supported Arafat?
The Pandora Box was open a long time ago...you can’t close it and ignore it?
Britian and France sided with the Southerners because they needed the cotton for their textile mills.
As the war progressed and Lincoln’s Proclaimation...they placed their chips on the North.
But the French....took over Mexico while the United States was embroiled in the Civil War.
After the Civil War we sent Union troops to help the Mexicians to oust Maximilian.
Ohhhh....we had a interferring moment.
sounds consistent with Monroe Doctrine, which obviously wasn't part of the Constitution, either. It seems the real doctrine has always been to use force consistent with the best ideas of national interest at any given time.
You are one patient individual. I salute you!
Well, I celebrate Cinco de Mayo because it was a good thing...
How is Ron Paul the Libertarian going to pass his new changes in the Constitution to exclude illegals who were born in the United States?
If he becomes President.
Most Conservatives including myself agree with his stance about illegals and something must be done about the borders but I know the Democrats are going to vote No on all of this.
That is fact.
The liberals believe in open borders and helping the down and out....that’s their interpretation of the Constitution.
How will Ron Paul control the Judges in CA 9th district because we have liberal judges making their own decisions about what is right for the constitutions.
Ron Paul Supporters have this idea that Ron Paul has a magic wane and he can correct all the ills of this country in one stroke once he becomes President.
There is no major party controlling the House and Senate. Its split in half basicially and its hard to get things done in Washington unless there is compromise by both parties.
What would bring real change in Washington is term limits which Ron Paul promise to do back in his early days in congress.
Why should I the taxpayer support career politicans like Ron Paul and Teddy Kennedy? It would be healthy for the country if we had a turn over in the halls of congress and bring fresh new ideas to our political system.
Ron Paul is apart of the problem and just a gadfly looking for attention. He thinks about his special interest groups in his district TX 14 and also ear marks bills so he can bring back the pork.
Why should I support Big Shrimp Industries in Texas.
Could they get by without government help?
Is it Unconstitutional to use federal dollars to help corporate interest?
I don’t like people with “do as I say...not what I do” attitude.
Congressman are elected every two years. They should serve three terms and move back into the civilian sector. US Senators are elected for 6 year terms and they should only have two terms.
Ron Paul been a congressman for nearly ten terms and he is a done nothing as congressman.
Can you explain why Ron Paul is apart of the ole boy system?
As strange as he can sometimes be, and despite his silly foreign policy positions, I could still see myself voting for him before I’d ever pull a lever for Abortiani or Flip Romney.