Posted on 10/17/2007 11:01:03 AM PDT by George W. Bush
Romney, Obama Bring in Most Money in N.H.; Ron Paul Brings Second Most
By - Beth LaMontagne
(October 16, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., may be in second place in most New Hampshire polls, but he was far and away the winner of the third-quarter "money primary" in New Hampshire. His campaign brought in $125,538, more than any competitor on either side of the aisle, and four times more than the $28,170 U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., raised within the state.
His third quarter fundraising numbers in New Hampshire are twice what he raised last quarter, while Clinton raised about the same amount each quarter in the state.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had a strong showing in New Hampshire, taking in $24,745, a big improvement over the $12,833 he raised here in the second quarter. U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., showed an increase in support by raising a respectable $19,500, more than four times what he brought in during the spring.
Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., has seen his polling numbers drop over the summer and his fundraising numbers, which lag behind Clinton and Obama's, reflect this. Edwards came in fifth in local fundraising, bringing in $13,555, less than the $14,525 he raised last quarter. He did come in far ahead of U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the top Republican fundraiser, taking in $85,400, more than twice his two closest rivals in the polls, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
What may come as a surprise to some is the second highest fundraiser in New Hampshire. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who has cultivated an avid libertarian following in the state, received $46,146 in campaign donations from New Hampshire voters. He out-raised McCain, who took in $33,167 and Giuliani, who raised $31,706.Romney and Paul's fundraising numbers indicate they are continuing to grow support in New Hampshire. Both saw sizeable bumps in the donations made in the Granite State this quarter compared with what was given in the spring. Giuliani, who raised $22,000 during the second quarter, also saw a jump in donations.
McCain, however, failed to top the $59,406 he raised in New Hampshire last quarter. Despite improved polling numbers and the fact McCain can still draw sizeable crowds in New Hampshire, his campaign failed to pull in the kind of money now expected of a top tier candidate.
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who raised $10,825 locally, raised only half of what he pulled in during the second quarter despite an increase in media attention and a number of visits to the state this summer. He beat out former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who raised $9,450 locally. Thompson is a newcomer to the race and has only been in New Hampshire once since announcing his candidacy. The only candidates that fared worse than Thompson in New Hampshire were U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., and U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
October quarterly reports information from Federal Election Commission's Web sitehttp://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/
Republicans
Romney $85,400
Paul $46,146
McCain $33,167
Giuliani $31,706
Huckabee $10,825
Thompson $9,450
Brownback $2,762
Tancredo $555
Hunter $60
Democrats
Obama $125,538
Clinton $28,170
Richardson $24,745
Biden $19,500
Edwards $13,555
Dodd $3,200
Kucinich $3,035
>> It won’t change with any of the “same as always in Iraq” candidates. They’ll bring more of the same.
We’re winning ... as even Democrats have had to admit. I fail to see what is wrong with “more of the same” in a war that we’re winning.
>> We hold hands with Saudi royalty and permit their youth to come to America in droves, after the Royal Saudis have and continue to spend billions around the world constructing mosques. Mosques are being built by the hundreds here in America by Saudi money. We leave Pakistan alone, and bin Laden is probably comfortable in one of their underground networks.
Enemy of our enemy. We cannot slay all dragons at once ... so we prioritize. Saudi and Pakistan’s numbers will come up eventually ... but, for now, they’re being helpful enough to put a higher priority on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
>> We force Israel to negotiate with terrorists, conceding hundreds of square miles of territory, to appease the Saudis and Arab Emirates.
Ron Paul himself wants to negotiate with terrorists. You’re supporting Paul because the US has “forced” Israel to do exactly what Ron Paul suggests that WE do? That doesn’t make sense.
>> The list goes on and on. Our foreign policy is out of control.
Its this kind of nonsense that siphons any credibility that Paul may have had. Given all the good being done by the American Military in the name of American foreign policy, and all the evil being combated on a daily basis ... it is simply ludicrous to suggest that American foreign policy has an evil influence on the world.
The American military, and the actions it is currently involved in throughout the globe, are a net good. We’re winning ... evil is on the run in Iraq and Afghanistan. More of the same is a good thing.
H
"Paul would secure the borders. Muslims would be banned from immigrating here.
83 posted on 09/30/2007 3:01:09 PM EDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist"
yeah. right. whatever.
By a narrow definition of the term, perhaps. There's an enemy body count. We take back and then some times lose regions we've controlled before. We have secured expensive agreements with this and that "friendly" Moslem country, for now. What's missing is a true objective, one that can be defined and measured. The war goals are vague, ill-defined.
[The Saudis are an] Enemy of our enemy. We cannot slay all dragons at once ... so we prioritize. Saudi and Pakistan’s numbers will come up eventually ... but, for now, they’re being helpful enough to put a higher priority on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
Disagree. They are the enemy. They agreed to fund Islamism all over the world in exchange for a fatwa against zealots who had taken over the grand mosque. The CIA directed the assault, and french commandos stormed the facility. In exchange for cleric approval, the Saudis agreed to literal fund the ideological war to expand extremist Islam. Most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Saudis make up a large portion of the suicide attackers in Iraq. Saudis continue to fund terrorism outside the country with their wealth. They truly are an enemy above all others. Yet they receive our most advanced AWACS planes, our fighter jets, and regionally, it is Saudi Arabia for which we fight these wars, not Israel. If bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, the architect of our worst terrorist attacks, how can this nation be seen as a friend? Once again, they simply are not. It's a hollow cliche. But the within the globalist agenda, which is something other than crushing our real enemies and avenging our terrorist horror, requires what you see today.
Ron Paul himself wants to negotiate with terrorists. You’re supporting Paul because the US has “forced” Israel to do exactly what Ron Paul suggests that WE do? That doesn’t make sense.
Talking is one thing. He has never said that we would offer up Israel on the bargaining table. It is actually we, under 'conservative' globalist leadership that offers up Israeli concessions to their enemies. Israel is more than capable of defending itself, but we hold them back and push them back month after month after year after year. Ron Paul would let Israel win its own wars without meddling. With Ron Paul curtailing the fraud of State Department globalism, Israel would be much safer than it is today.
Given all the good being done by the American Military in the name of American foreign policy, and all the evil being combated on a daily basis ... it is simply ludicrous to suggest that American foreign policy has an evil influence on the world.
I did not say that the American military has not done good things, even in the Iraq war. But the undeclared wars we have fought since 1951 have been done under the aegis of the United Nations and other foreign agreements, in the interest of others, and with the control just outside the United States people's hands.
You hear "Ron Paul is weak." He's actually much stronger than the globalists we have conducting our foreign policy today. He simply understands that Americans can't achieve utopia overseas by military force. I wish any one of the top five candidates understood that.
NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
March 29, 2002
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
I do not believe Ron Paul has ever said anything about limiting legal immigration from current levels. I differ with him on that issue, but I understand why he takes the stances that he does: most of the problems we have are due to federal welfare for immigrants (educational, medical, unemployment insurance, etc...).
Who is Barry Manilow? Ellen is already up clintons ass, literally.
I'm sorry Virginia, but kooky conspiracy theorists are supposed to be for Ron Paul. Didn't you get the memo?
As for your tagline - GWB has proved our own worst enemy when it comes to growing the federal bureaucracy (education and prescription drugs), unable to balance the budget, throwing open the borders to illegals (amnesty), selling out our national security (Dubai Ports), and undermining American sovereignty (NAU and Law of the Sea Treaty).
We need to clean our own house. And enemy number one is not Ron Paul - it's GW Bush.
But I realize logic is worthless with you. You seem quite willing to come up with arguments which have absolutely no basis in fact. Go ahead - continue to try to associate Ron Paul with boogeyman George Soros, even though they are polar opposites politically. That seems to make you happy. It makes no difference - you're just preaching to the choir here anyway. Most here hate Paul and will continue to do so. Those of us who like him will not be swayed by your specious arguments.
His foreign policy is Libertarian, but on all the other issues he’d make the rest of the Republicans look like socialists. Paul is a conservative, he at least supports securing the borders and is pro-life, something that most libertarians aren’t.
Ping-o-rama!
No, I must have missed that one.
But taking a Machiavellian view of the situation, how many times have folks here on FR mused about how much fun it would be to donate to fringe lunatic non-campaigns like Cindy Sheehan's or Cynthia McKinney's Green Party shenanigans just to give the 'Rats heart burn. Heck, funding rival campaigns to stir dissension in the ranks and disrupt stronger campaigns is one of the oldest tricks in the political book. This is not rocket science, and despite Soros' lunatic stands on the issues, he's not stupid, and he has the enormous wealth and resources to do just that. You don't think that he's not figured that out? Just look at how extensive his tentacles have spread throughout the MSM and entire lib political establishment, and how the 'Rat's tremble whenever he speaks. Remember how weakly they responded to the outrage over MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad???
So, yes, I'm very suspicious about where all of Paul's money is ultimately coming from.
Still, I cannot fathom why y'all can so easily support Paul despite his proposed foreign policy, which is a direct throwback to the isolationist 1930s. He's completely willing to pull our military forces out of Iraq and throw away the achievements that our troops have made there at heavy cost. Moreover, he is not willing to stand up to the mullahs and Red China, who most assuredly would not respect an isolationist America under a Paul administration. If he were elected president, then he would throw this country wide open to massive foreign attack, not to mention the continuing terrorist jihad that will probably go on for generations. How can you support that?
The point is that Ron Paul never said he would ban muslem immigration and never said anything that even remotely insinuated that he would. The post I quoted was pure and simple drivel.
He is a gay has been song writer and popstar... hero to the gray haired set... leftwing poofter.
“At the Copa... Copa Cabana... Mandy, well you came and you gave without taking” etc etc etc. I think that I am going to be sick... his music makes me ill and I just wrote some lyrics. Sorry.
LLS
$29.95 still Guarantees your Salvation or Triple your Money Back!!!
We are Fraudulent but Profound.
Come visit... get Slack
www.subgenius.com
Sorry to ruin your fantasies about the man
but Barry’s not Gay ...
I can see how you would think that but ...
nope ... Barry Manilow is not tehGay
Careful...that theory sounds as tinfoil-hattish as anything the Libertarian loonies might have cooked up.
Fact is, a significant fraction of the conservative base has been looking for a strongly Constitutionalist candidate in the Barry Goldwater mold for a long time now. In Paul, they think they've found one.
These types of folks are quite tired of getting taken for granted by the Republican Party at large.
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.