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 ...
no, paul the skid for prez sounds stupid bud
I don’t think John McCain would endorse threatening other people with murder to force them to flee the country. I’m pretty sure that he thinks that in the marketplace of ideas, he can win. I think that’s why we have elections instead of tyrants. You can’t really believe what you’re saying, you just must think it’s a line that sounds funny. It really just sounds pathetic.
You (not you specifically, but people reading here) are either afraid Ron Paul can win, or you’re not. If you’re not, who cares? He can’t win. If you think he can win, why do you think he can win? Because a majority of the people are insane?
What I am seeing is that Paul’s supporters are more enthusiastic than the supporters of the other Republican candidates. What I have to keep asking myself is — why? If the Ron Paul supporters are able to put themselves at the top of the online polls, and there are so many more Giuliani supporters than Ron Paul supporters, why aren’t the Giuliani supporters doing anything about it? Where are the Thompson supporters beating up on Ron Paul voters all day long in the AOL straw poll? People here invented the concept of Freeping, for crying out loud. Where are Fred Thompson’s hundreds of thousands of online donors?
I mean, I’m sincerely curious about this. Given that the other Republican candidates are indeed so far ahead in the polls, why don’t they beat the Ron Paul guys in ever measure of online fundraising that there is? Or in online polls? It ought to be easy for them to do, they’re way ahead in the polls so they must have a lot of supporters. They just don’t care? They’re not that enthusiastic? I don’t see that as a good thing, and it’s not a good omen for a Republican winning in 2008. If it’s true that all of Ron Paul’s supporters are Democrats (which is a questionable assertion) then I think it’s a wake up call to all of us to see how much energy Democrats are putting into this election compared to what Republicans are doing.
Is the best we’re going to do that we’re going to nominate a candidate that no one is excited about, and then say “well at least they’re not Hillary” and hope that they win?
“as he embraces the anti-american rhetoric over the Conservative values he used to hold dear.”
Like supporting the Second Amendment when the sitting GOP president pushed congress to renew the AWB and increased the size of the BATF? Or when the leading GOP candidates ALL have supported some form of gun control, even going so far as posing for pictures with HCI?
The anti-America rhetoric that you mention is often criticizing policy much of which was set by holdovers from the Clinton administration.
A sane Republican candidate should have taken up this message, it is a needed message.
But Paul’s foreign policy ideas would be disastrous for our great nation.
We can not walk away from our role on the world stage.
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Nor does his pretty good record on this overcome his leftist record on national security issues, his piss poor record on border security, his hundreds of millions in backdoor earmarks or his 19th century economic policy.
Thank you - Paul’s association with fringe groups should be noted. Some of that money has to come from them.
Ron Paul's Voting Record (ya, ya, I know, there is an excuse for all of these, state's rights are more important than stopping abortion and fixing the border, Ronnie is making a statement, or everyone else was voting against it and he was just playing the game, yadda, yadda, yadda)
Here are some more ‘Conservative(sic)’ votes by Paul:
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools.
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.
Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.
Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.
Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.
Let's also not forget Paul's Pork Projects (that he voted for before he voted against when he calls them unconstitutional but he is just playing the game when he submits them because everyone else does it.. yadda yadda yadda..)
the Democrats know who they're running against, George W. Bush. When the Republicans know who they're running against, there'll bw more passion. BTW, Paul is running against Bush too.
Paul does not like the Ammendments - I wonder how safe votes for women would be with Paul? Obviously he did not like the ban on slavery either.
This is rather a lot of money for a fringe wacko.
In a year with a tight Democrat race, I do not believe this is Democrat money going to him. It is fringe wacko independent money. We sometimes forget that there are extremists on the Dem side and the GOP side, and that there is no reason that “independent” need be categorized as Moderate.
There are extremist independents too.
Going down that list I see many which should be handled by states. The federal government has no business whatsoever in local law enforcement, sentencing or punishment. IIhave no problem with voting against an expansion of federal power.
As for Bush’s Energy policy....it wouldn’t even make decent tp.
Benjamins = slang for money.
Ah, ordinary people who despise the status-quo are nutcases now. Nice snob elitism there. Many of these people are folks who are sick and tired of the BS being peddled by the other GOP and Democrat candidates.
Plus, those in the Marxist Dimocrat party that are giving to him to get him to win.
Don't post mindless allegations without proof.
This fool is NO republican and certainly NO conservative.
Being pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border security is not conservative? Paul is certainly more conservative than Rudy, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee.
His statement was that many countries had slaves and ended the practice WITHOUT a civil war. Usually by banning it and buying existing slaves and freeing them.
Not going to happen. Analysts are quietly predicting Paul will place 3rd or higher. He doesn't have to worry about splitting the dwindling core GOP vote that's going to be carved up by Thompson and the other guys.
If Paul is in the top three, you can kiss the other candidates goodbye. Paul has the support and money to go the distance in the primaries while the other candidates besides Romney are going broke.
Treason isn’t conservative.
Ron Paul’s supporters - traitors all - are a cancer upon the Republican Party and, indeed, upon the American people as a whole. This cancer, like all other cancers, subtly damages healthy cells and metastasizes to other parts of the body if it is not detected early and destroyed.
The clear and proper course for all conservatives - and for this web-site - is to slash away the damaged tissue before it causes irreperable harm.
Conservative websites, including this one, should form a common front and purge all supporters of the traitor Ron Paul.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the – that iron, iron fist.
MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
His premise is completely wrong because it was already attempted in Virginia. The state of Virginia in 1832 rejected compensated emancipation for as the slaveholders claimed, they were property, the government had no place in buying them, the owners had to consent in the "taking," AND the government could never afford it because the slaveholder had a right to the increase (in esse) of the unborn slave! So, the most important state in the Union at that time debated what Paul wanted to happen, and they rejected it. The federal government buying the slave would represent a violation of federalism. Such a scheme would be too expensive. Buying slaves, violated property rights. Alexander Stephens said that the South would never consent to a life without slavery, and their objection was to the mere opinions of Lincoln which were opposed to slavery--in other words, the war was over the president's beliefs slavery was wrong. More Stephens: slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy.
From a moral perspective, Paul was also wrong because it would have justified continued trafficking in slavery. The fact is, we didn't ban slavery in the way England did (for example) and we split over it and it required a greater action for the greater good.