Ron Paul launches ‘South Carolina’ money bomb

The State Column ^ | 1/14/12 | staff

[traviskicks]

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, launched his “South Carolina” money bomb Saturday. The “South Carolina” money bomb is the latest in a series of money bombs that have raised funds for campaign events and ad buys in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Although Mr. Paul has not set a fundraising goal for the “South Carolina” money bomb, the Texas congressman has hauled in more than $160,000 as of 9am EDT Saturday. Mr. Paul’s most recent money bomb, the “Tea Party” money bomb, had a fundraising goal of $4 million, but it had pulled in more than $6 million by the time it ended.

Mr. Paul’s second place finish in the New Hampshire Primary has propelled the former Air Force surgeon into third place in the latest polls of likely South Carolina Republican primary voters. A Public Policy Polling poll, released Friday, found Mr. Paul in third place with a one point lead over former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Pre-New Hampshire Primary polls of likely South Carolina Republican presidential primary voters found Mr. Paul in fourth place.

“The date of next Saturday’s South Carolina Primary will mark just over three years since Barack Obama was sworn in as President,” Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Manager John Tate said in an email to campaign supporters Friday. “Looking ahead, my hope is that date will also be just under one year until President Obama is kicked out of office and Ron Paul becomes the next President of the United States,” Mr. Tate added.

Although the Paul campaign has not specifically identified how the funds from the “South Carolina” money bomb will be used, the money raised from the “Tea Party” money bomb supported a major ad blitz in the Hawkeye State in the days leading up to the Iowa Caucuses.

[John D]

He’s passed one bill in 30 for crying out loud, 30 years WOW.

And what was that? To get FUNDING for some house in Texas. I thought he was against wasteful spending. I guess more talk from the talker.

[John D]

Why not support a consistent conservative candidate saying the same thing for 30 years?

Maybe he has been saying the same thing for 30 years, but what has he EVER done? Talk, talk, and more talk, that is all he ever does. Blame America for every problem in the world, and complain.
I am still waiting for one paulbot to uncover just one thing he has ever done, not what he hasn't done, just one thing he has actually accomplished in the quarter century he has been in Washington.
Not one reply in about 4 years. I do not expect one.

[manc]

but he fools his drugged up occupy supporters and so while he fools some idiots he will keep running.
There is a reason why this man is running on a 3rd time, two on the republican ticket one on a libertarian ticket and even said less than two weeks ago “I am only the true Democrat in this race up here”

HUH DEMOCRAT, he’s a Democrat, he’s a libertarian , he runs on a republican ticket, he’s a clown who wants to have us all live in anarchy.

[traviskicks]

What is to reply. How could he have passed bills when dealing with republican presidents who grew the size of the federal government drastically and socialist democrats. No one cared about his views on the Fed for years, now they want to act only because it is popular, not because they really understand it. Same with his other views. If he would have ‘got things done’ in Congress, he would have gotten the ‘wrong things done’, and unfortuantely it shows the direction our country has been headed, and the other presidential candidates all fall into this bracket, unfortuantely.

[traviskicks]

Here’s a long answer since you said ‘kindly’ :)

I’m not aware of the entire Bradley Manning story or what sort of information he passed to wiki leaks or what Paul said about him, a brief search yielded not much info. In general, I’m a proponent of more open government, not a fan of our state department and think US foreign policy is, in generally, a screw ball mess. Anything that exposes these dealings for what they are or embarrasses our socialist state department officials is fine by me, I think we deserve to see exposed what we know is going on.

Regarding McKinney and Nader, he did not endorse them. I don’t even think he actually ‘officially’ endorsed Bob Barr, whom I guess everyone assumed he actually supported and I voted for. People were not happy with McCain, I recall many here on FR could not hold their nose and vote for him, and for very good reason. So, in my view, not voting for or endorsing McCain sort of elevates Paul, rather than diminishes him. Paul did have kind words for McKinney and Nader’s plan to offer a balanced budget, something none of the two parties has done, pretty much ever...

I think you will find there is hardly anyone in politics or elsewhere who is ‘all bad’. Paul is someone who has not hesitated to embrace good ideas wherever they come from. The reverse is also true, I’ve seen video of him tearing Nader down over his views on taxes, the environment, and healthcare. So his sort of selective endorsements of various peoples platform, even Kucinich, he agreed with on various narrow aspects of freedom related issues, don’t really reflect negatively on Paul, IMHO.

Regarding Iran, the idea of them being some kind of a serious threat to the United States, I am in agreement with Paul on this one too. We are so much more powerful, as are the Israelis (even without our help), than Iran, that any kind’ eve war with them could only have one outcome. Obviously a nuclear Iran is not good, but what are we going to do? Invade them to stop it? Invest hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of our dead and surely at least tens of thousands of Iranians, hundreds of billions, and ‘nation build’ another third world festering pit filled with crazies?

Overall these issues you are raising are somewhat minor in the big scheme, IMHO and considering Pauls 20-30 years in Congress, these are your major objections...

The last point, regarding Paul being ‘anti-military’ or whatever, despite being a veteran and receiving more $$ from the troops than any other candidate... We would be wise to consider history: great empires and civilizations never stemmed from ‘mightily militaries’, or heavy military funding. Mighty militaries and empires always are a product of prosperous economies, never the reverse. So, if you truly desire a strong military and a strong United States leading the world, you might look more closely at Paul’s economic ideas, which you seem to admit are quite good. :)

[freedommom]

They did audit the fed...they found out the government
gave then over 16 TRILLION in bailout funds.....The national debt is less than that...........

http://www.dailypaul.com/188540/audit-teh-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts

[Reily]

I know about the GAO audit it was done rather quickly for my tastes so quick it seems very very superficial!
Congressional committees have their own investigative authority. Remember Watergate? Iran Contra?
Where is the accompanying Congressional investigation?
Where are the televised hearings with Paul playing the role of Sam Ervin? Again a lot of talk from that clown, very little action action. Which is par for the course of his 30 year career.

[mkjessup]

You didn't just drink the RonPaul KoolAid, you snorted it right outta the package. Just to get ahead of the curve here, I will conclude this exchange with the time honored "IBTZ".

Sooner or later, you're gonna ride the lightning.

[John D]

So you admit it. He is totally ineffective. Do you really think he would do anything different if he were president?
Newt was able to pass welfare reform and a balanced budget, with a Dem. president. But he is able to accomplish something, unlike the surrender monkey whose only accomplishment is acquiring more earmarks than anybody running.

[ejonesie22]

I’m not aware of the entire Bradley Manning story or what sort of information he passed to wiki leaks or what Paul said about him, a brief search yielded not much info. In general, I’m a proponent of more open government, not a fan of our state department and think US foreign policy is, in generally, a screw ball mess. Anything that exposes these dealings for what they are or embarrasses our socialist state department officials is fine by me, I think we deserve to see exposed what we know is going on.

So treason is ok as long as it serves your purpose?

And folks say you Paulitards are kooks...

I just don't see why... LOL...

[who knows what evil?]

Ronald Reagan was 69 when he took office...this guy is 77??? Who would be on the ticket with him...Nader?

Get real.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Ron Paul launches ‘South Carolina’ money bomb

Did he demand that Iran get one, too? (I mean, he understands why they would want one to counteract "our" money bombs...)

[freedommom]

The federal reserve has never been audited.
That was the first time ever. It took an act of congress
to do so.
Hello they gave more money to the central banks that we owe the national debt to than our national debt.

Who do we have that represents us (average people)?
The only good bill that came out of congress in the last 3 years is a mandate that commercials on tv can't be louder than the tv show.