Posted on 11/30/2007 9:07:21 AM PST by traviskicks
Ron Paul may not win his party’s primary, but he is on track to capture another big title: Top Republican fundraiser for the final quarter of the money-obsessed 2008 presidential primary.
In the first two months of the quarter that began Oct. 1, Paul already has raised more than $9.75 million, putting him easily within range to best the amount rival Mitt Romney received from donors during the entire third quarter.
The Texas congressman has set a goal of raising $12 million before the fourth quarter’s Dec. 31st deadline, a sum New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani couldn’t achieve in the third quarter when fundraising events still dominated his schedule.
Paul’s chief e-bundler, music promoter Trevor Lyman, hopes to raise $2.5 million by day’s end with the campaign’s second online money bomb.
Of course, Romney can still buy the fourth quarter title by making a multi-million dollar donation to himself, which is widely expected.
And it could be that Paul’s striking, eleventh-hour surge may have come too late to dramatically change the campaign dynamics.
Nevertheless, Paul’s staff is racing to put up more advertisements before the Christmas season shuts down campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, where Paul threatens to peel away libertarian-minded Independent voters sought by now less well-funded rival John McCain.
And Republicans find themselves asking an unexpected question: Could Ron Paul have a real impact on who the party nominates?
Paul’s last stand provides fresh evidence of how the Internet can transform a dark horse candidate and make him harder to knock off.
“It’s highly improbable that he will get into the first tier. But he’s colorful,” says David Gergen, a former White House adviser.
He’s certainly not the Republican Party’s first renegade. Indeed, there is a certain familiarity to the rebellious rank-and-file pushback inside the Paul insurgency.
Think Pat Buchanan circa 1992 and his launch of the “cultural wars” against gays and feminists; and Buchanan again circa 1996 when he upset Bob Dole in New Hampshire with the cry: “All the peasants are coming with pitchforks. We're going to take this over the top."
Think John McCain circa 2000 and his Straight Talk Express and upset victory in New Hampshire over Bush that prompted the first-recorded gusher of online giving.
Given the right candidate or call to action, populist Republicans have a colorful history of shaking off the party yoke and reveling in a wild-and-crazy moment.
That helps explain why a quirky Texas congressman who opposes the Iraq war got into the race in the first place.
Same goes for Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who had hoped to use immigration as the launching pad for an insurgent campaign.
What makes the Paul phenomenon unique this cycle is that there is no clear front-runner who can simply ride out the rowdy rabble until the party’s top-down instincts silence them.
That is creating an intriguing choice for the 72-year-old doctor: plow ahead on what still seems a quixotic quest for the White House or play spoiler by using his millions to help take out one of the front-runners.
Thus far, Paul is playing it safe, still absorbing what seems to be his dumb luck.
His financial windfalls have come from spontaneous Internet giving or big, online donation days organized by supporters outside his campaign.
Earlier this month, those outsiders orchestrated a one-day $4 million donation dump, now nicknamed a “money bomb.”
Another is scheduled to take place today and a third later this month.
“It’s a tremendous burden put on us and a responsibility,” Paul told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough recently.
“We have all this money now. We didn’t plan to have this much money. Our obligation is to figure out how to spend it. We are doing our best.”
Before the first infusion of cash, Paul had begun a modest $1.1 million television ad drive, mostly in New Hampshire.
Since then, the ad campaign has been expanded in Iowa. Pre-money-bomb, Paul was airing three radio ads; now he has more than ten running.
His television messages are mostly biographical, noting his career as a doctor, his record of never voting for a tax increase, and his opposition to the Iraq war.
The radio ads have a slightly tougher edge, accusing his opponents of supporting amnesty for illegal aliens (a shot at McCain) and flip-flopping on issues (a dart at Romney).
But some Paul supporters grumble that the advertisements lack punch and they are pressuring the campaign to take on an edgier tone.
His first television commercial showed supporters, some sitting around a diner table, talking up his candidacy. “Look, the man’s a doctor; he understand the health care mess,” says one woman.
“OMG! Common Guys! This is a terrible ad! My goodness. The Ron Paul revolution means a lot more than this,” bemoaned one supporter in a blog posting.
“I got nothin’ but love for Ron Paul, but this is pretty bad,” responded another.
As Paul climbed to fourth place in some New Hampshire polls, his rivals have sensed the new threat.
McCain has stepped up his attacks on his less-known rival and more incoming is sure to follow.
And, of course, there are inherent hazards in having money when you haven’t really planned for it.
Howard Dean raised $41 million in 2003 in the first campaign to fully employ the Internet.
By year’s end, his early advertising campaigns and rapidly expanding operation had eaten all but about $9 million of that cash.
Among his expenditures: Stacks of cell phones for Iowa volunteers that wound up stored in an office unused.
Anybody who votes for Ron Paul, and his frenchified white-flag surrender plan, was never going to vote for any decent Republican anyway.
How will a Paul presidency benefit leftists though? He opposes everything they support, and that's including the war because he's not a pacifist who'll use the military for "peaceful" purposes.
But, if you’re Soros, and you get ONE Rudy or Thompson or Mitt voter to switch to Paul’s song, then that’s as good as a free vote for HER Hitleriness.
But those who are already supporting Rudy or Thompson or Mitt in the primaries and if their guy loses, they're going to support Paul in the general. They're not going to vote for Hillary. Hillary would lose a substantial portion of the independent/liberal vote to Paul.
Didn't say it would.
Withdrawing from Iraq is not surrendering. Thousands of terrorists are dead. Saddam and his sons are dead. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have democratic governments now, and both the Taliban & Al-Quaida are weakened.
How long should we stay there?
was never going to vote for any decent Republican anyway.
So if people support the war, then why haven't Hunter gotten the fundraising and support? Where is it? He's the logical choice for Republicans. Look, the election dynamics have changed. Running on terrorism & promoting big government social conservatism simply isn't going to work in 2008. The GOP needs to work with Paul here instead of attacking him all the time. You want to beat Hillary or not?
Paul supporters will not support the Republican party against Hillary and I will not say anything good about them or their man. He’s not going to win the Republican nomination, so I don’t have face that horrible, horrible, prospect, but he is a Jew-hater, an Israel-basher, a Jihad-boot-licker and an extreme opportunist, with his phony small government big-earmark, stab-our-soldiers-in-the-back isolationism.
Republicans should neither expect nor count on the support of his pumped up gaggle of self-annointed “defenders of the constitution” to win the election against the Beast. We’ll do it because it needs to be done, without their help. Just like our military personnel are doing what needs to be done overseas, without the help of all the whiners, moaners, complainers and liars that fill the halls of congress and the streets of our wonderful country.
No, he can’t take the money for his personal use. However, he could do like Fred Thompson and start some political committee and put one of his kids in charge of it and pay him a big salary for doing practically nothing.
Your insightful, intelligent posts have convinced me of the evil of my ways (supporting Ron Paul), now I think I will renounce being a delegate for Ron Paul in W.V. and vote for Rudy.
Hell can you blame them? The only two worth supporting are Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. The other candidates are jokes. If Rudy or Huckabee is nominated, I'm writing in Paul's name, and so will millions of other Americans.
He’s not going to win the Republican nomination, so I don’t have face that horrible, horrible, prospect, but he is a Jew-hater, an Israel-basher, a Jihad-boot-licker and an extreme opportunist, with his phony small government big-earmark, stab-our-soldiers-in-the-back isolationism.
ROFL. Nice rant!
Republicans should neither expect nor count on the support of his pumped up gaggle of self-annointed “defenders of the constitution” to win the election against the Beast.
Say hello to President Clinton, 2.0. The new version is scarier than the first. If the GOP doesn't libertarianize and reach out to the independents who oppose the war, whoever's nominated ain't going to win. And the GOP's base of religious conservatives and hawks is dwindling.
We’ll do it because it needs to be done, without their help. Just like our military personnel are doing what needs to be done overseas, without the help of all the whiners, moaners, complainers and liars that fill the halls of congress and the streets of our wonderful country.
We did our jobs over there. There's no need to stay in the Middle East for decades. Keep characterizing folks as a bunch of anti-war kooks and wackos. It may have worked in 2004 but it's not going to work in 2008.
Go Ron, your answer on the North American Union, the United Nations, big Government and Int’l Govt
Getting rid of the Dept of Education, IRS, Dept of Homeland Security, and defending our border and sovereignty is a great message.
Stick with those and your campaign will grow.
North American Union? Manufacturers of tin foil must really love you.
It's impossible to kill every single terrorist in the Middle East. There's always going to be terrorists, it doesn't matter even if you stay there forever or leave immediately.
Both AQ and the Taliban are weakened. They're not going to attack us again.
As long as it takes.
Get a dose of reality and realize that the war is having a direct impact on folks in terms of food and fuel. Fine, you pay for it then.
Maybe it has something to do with his extreme positions on immigration, or do you still insist that the low poll numbers for Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul have nothing do with that?
Actually, Hunter and Tancredo's immigration positions are shared by the majority of Americans. Both support the war. If people support the war, then it's obvious that they should have the support, right?
Paul is also a Congresscritter too and he's just as pro-border security as Hunter & Tancredo are. So why has he taken off in support and they haven't?
I'll support whoever the GOP nominee is except for Rudy. But you'd have to talk to the other Paul supporters. Unfortunately, they don't look at the bigger picture like I do.
Paul has the highest unfavorable rating of any Republican. Many will not support him period. He's simply unelectable. Hillary would steamroll over him.
That skewed poll doesn't mean a thing. Trust me, he'll get the non-moonbat liberal votes from Hillary, libertarians, and the traditional GOP base, including angry locksteppers mad that their RINO ain't the nominee.
So our military should stay and essentially be the equivalent of bug zappers, further being weakened and spent. Nice military strategy there.
As long as we keep taking the fight to them they won't.
There really isn't a "them" anymore. The terrorists have lost. How much longer do you want them to remain?
I see no evidence of this.
Gas and food prices are through the roof and the entitlements are about to collapse. Paul is the only candidate that has the wisdom of recognizing this.
Fred, Rudy, Mitt, McCain, and Huckabee all support the war and are doing better than your boy and the two cellar dwellers. Like I said, it's the anti-immigrant extremism that has sunk their campaigns.
Sure they are, that's why they raised $10.5 million dollars in two months like Paul has, right?
Paul is getting support from anti war liberals. Yet even with that he still is polling in the single digits.
I don't care who supports him, he's not going to change or pander to anyone. I've already debunked that polling crap earlier in the thread.
I'll support Fred and Oven Mitt though.
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.