Paul Raises More Than $3.5M in One Day [the most for any Republican - ever]

breitbart.com ^ | November 5, 2007 | JIM KUHNHENN

[grundle]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $3.5 million in 20 hours.

Paul, the Texas congressman with a Libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.

Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."

Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.

"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.

The $3.5 million, he said, represented online contributions from more than 22,000 donors.

Paul has been lagging in the polls behind Republican front-runners. But he captured national attention at the end of September when he reported raising $5.2 million in three months, putting him fourth among Republican presidential candidates in fundraising for the quarter.

Paul as of Monday had raised $6.3 million since Oct. 1, more than half his goal of $12 million by the end of the year, according to his Web site.

Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans, but he stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. He also has opposed Bush administration security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Actually the day is celebrated as a anti-terrorist day, that he was caught.

Perhaps we must reserve the right to disagree.

I happen to hold with my own fellow Scots-Presbyterians, who say that "Guy Fawkes was the only man who ever entered the Houses of Parliament with honourable intentions." Heh, heh.

Of course, you may well already know that "the conspirators were motivated in part by King James’ 1604 renewal of the Elizabethan anti-Catholic laws, which forbade Catholic teaching and missionary activity and made attendance at Anglican services mandatory, with severe penalties for disobedience." ~~ (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chrono17.htm)

While it is, of course, undesirable for the cause of Truth that the apostate Roman Catholics (who have established no admirable record on the subject of Religious Liberty in ANY age) should ever preach their Papacy-Heresy AT ALL, I am nonetheless honor-bound to recognize that it is of course the Baptists who have always and forever stood four-square against ANY Criminalization of "teaching and missionary activity" whatsoever.

Nor have the Baptists ever sought to "make attendance at services mandatory" by any sort of State Law.

And, certainly, the Baptists have NEVER sought to enact "severe penalties for disobedience" in State Law for their own Religious Advantage!!

AT ALL TIMES, EVERYWHERE, it was NEVER the Baptists who sought to Criminalize "teaching and missionary activity" of any sort; nor "make attendance at services mandatory" by State Law; nor enact "severe penalties for disobedience" in State Law!

Indeed, it could be argued that -- until the 1936 Orthodox Presbyterian final Revision of the Westminster Confession, which fully repudiated all traces of State-establishmentarianism -- it took you Baptists fully 400 years to teach us Presbyterians this lesson against the use of State Power in Religious questions: you cannot employ Caesar's Scourge for the cause of Christ's Cross!

As such, I would submit to you that the moral question in Guy Fawkes' case involves the question of Means, like that faced by the American Revolutionaries: In what situation, Biblically, is Active Resistance justified? Or even Regicide? Or even violent Revolution? Thease are open questions.

But as far as the Ends -- I would submit that Guy Fawkes was, at least, acting on a Good Cause:

• NO Criminalization of "teaching and missionary activity" whatsoever.
• NO "making attendance at services mandatory"
• NO "severe penalties in State Law for disobedience"

In short... No State Law Establishment of Religion.

I happen to believe that this Principle is Right...
Because, after all, I learned it from the Baptists.

Best, OrthodoxPresbyterian

[nutcracker]

Cool. Fools and their money, so they say.

You took the words right out of my mouth. LOL

[cripplecreek]

I’m voting for Duncan Hunter.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian ~~ I’m voting for Duncan Hunter.

Congressman Duncan Hunter is an honorable, respectable, dependably Pro-Life and Pro-Borders former Veteran, and I'm happy to say that with Tancredo looking to bow out he's certainly my #2 choice after Ron Paul.

I wish he were better on Fiscal Conservatism (in terms of "Taxpayer Friendly" ratings against Federal Spending, he's one of the worst GOP Congressmen in the House), but at least he mixes in a lot of Military Spending with his Pork. So he's not all bad, even on that glaring weakness.

Foreign Policy differences with Ron Paul aside, he'd make a great Secretary of Defense in a Ron Paul administration (especially since the SecDef isn't supposed to establish Foreign Policy anyway), and I'm happy to say so. Both he and Ron Paul have equally admirable records of "supporting the troops" -- Hunter's support for better Military Pay and Benefits almost always gets Ron Paul's votes, and nobody but NOBODY enjoys higher credibility on the POW/MIA circuit than former US Air Force serviceman Dr. Ron Paul. They're two Veterans and two peas-in-a-pod when it comes to "supporting the Troops" as far as actual Pay, Benefits, and Leave time for their families.

Hunter's a good fellow. He's my second choice, but a good man.

I wish you could examine Ron Paul's record and say the same of a fellow who has always stood up for the Second Amendment, always voted against increasing Taxes, and who has delivered 4,000 babies by hand (we can't all be "armchair Pro-Lifers"; some of us, like Ron Paul, actually have to do the work)...

But I understand that if you ever said a kind word about Ron Paul, you'd lose your place in line for the next 1984-style "Two Minute Hate" against him.

Fine. You may return to your regularly scheduled Propaganda. As for myself, I support Ron Paul; but I don't think that Duncan Hunter's a bad guy, either.

That's my view.

[cripplecreek]

I like Ron Paul just fine despite the fact that I disagree with him about fighting islamofascism. It’s his supporters that are pissing me off.

[rob777]

"This defies rational explanation."


I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but do not find this hard to explain. Both President Bush and Congress have a pretty low approval rating. It seems to me that a sizable chunk of the public is angry at the D.C. establishment from both parties and is looking to support the most anti-establishment candidate they can find.

[traditional1]

"Why do you regard Paul as a 'nutcase' and why is that not the answer?"

The MANY reasons he is NOT the choice Republicans should make are legion. However, since he is disingenous on the WOT, and his appeal to the loonie left is that he is opposed to war (aka, anti-Bush, BDS victim).

Ron Paul claims that the War on Terror - is an undeclared war. That is another of his many lies. On September 14, 2001, Ron Paul voted in favor of declaration of war that states, in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen to your post and thank you for the kind words regarding Baptists.

I always thought that Cromwell did a very good job and was very tolerant for his age.

The point of active resistance is when a man sees his own family being threatened with the loss of freedom.

The first priority a husband has is to his wife and her protection and a father to his children.

This are God given responsibilities that a man undertakes when he marries and has children.

When you read of the justification for going to war in the American Revolution, it was because the American men, saw that their children were going to be enslaved by the Crown and they had a responsibility to protect their freedoms.

It should be remembered that there was a strong group of Englishmen like Burke, who believed that the Americans were fighting for English freedoms as well, since the Crown had become so corrupt.

Governments are instituted to protect the weak, and when they start waging war on the women and children, the men of that nation are obligated to take up arms to defend their families.

[xrp]

And the communist ACLU also sees themselves as the righteous protector of the Constitution, as does MoveOn.org no doubt.

And how does the ACLU's record compare to Dr Ron Paul's? Dr Paul's record is solid and inline with the US Constitution going back to his early years in the US Congress in the 1970s.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Yeah; like "Dishwashers for Hillary", we have "homeless persons for Paul" and "Carwash attendants for Paul", etc.

Whatever

[fortheDeclaration]

["Why do you regard Paul as a 'nutcase' and why is that not the answer?"]

The MANY reasons he is NOT the choice Republicans should make are legion. However, since he is disingenous on the WOT, and his appeal to the loonie left is that he is opposed to war (aka, anti-Bush, BDS victim). Ron Paul claims that the War on Terror - is an undeclared war. That is another of his many lies. On September 14, 2001, Ron Paul voted in favor of declaration of war that states, in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."

So, we have declared war?

I think you are confusing a resolution with a declaration of war.

Now, one can disagree on how a war is being fought and not be considered a lunatic.

I do not see why we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to Iraq when the enemy we are fighting has no army, navy, or air force!

Now, if we are going to wage a real WOT, lets declare one, define our goals and what constitutes a victory.

This hasn't been done.

I do not consider someone crazy who wants to follow our Constitution.

When you start ignoring parts you do not like, then others come along and start ignoring parts that you do like the the 1st and 2nd amendments.

[traditional1]

"if we are going to wage a real WOT, lets declare one, define our goals and what constitutes a victory."

For a moment, I thought I had clicked on "DUmmie Funnies"...

What was the declaration of War that included defined goals, and what constitutes victory that we wrote for WWII?

I don't recall ANY War that had a defined script, and that's the argument usually posted by peacenik's on DU, and other loonie leftist blogs.

If you believe the Jihadists will not kill every American they can find, anywhere in the world, in the name of Allah and for no other reason than we are "the infidels", you are dreaming.

[isthisnickcool]

This nutcase got almost 20% of the vote and because of that Bill Clinton won. For a third party to win against the Republican and Democrats it will take a real third party. Not something thrown together after a marginal candidate leaves one of the two parties and makes a run because they have some money and a few followers.

If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination I'll get behind him. If he does not he best serves himself and the Republican party by going home to Texas. Which is something he might consider doing sometimes right now because Chris Peden is picking up some steam. Paul could not only lose in his run for president but also the seat he currently holds. A seat, by the way, he should have resigned like ALL those currently holding federal office seeking the presidency. But that's another subject...

[ksen]

They would support anyone who preaches the surrender of America, as Ron Paul does.

No they wouldn't. Go check out the political forum at IIDB. The Leftists there think RP would be worse than GWB.

Apparently ending the Iraq war isn't as important as they previously said if withdrawal means having to elect a constitutionalist to do it.

[Huck]

I don’t care if he runs as a Republican. I just recognize the fact that it’s a matter of convenience.

[Huck]

There’s probably no issue more important to me than the defeat of socialism. But that leads me to put a high priority on defeating Democrats, above and beyond whatever desire I might have to support quixotic candidacies.

[ridge]

It fits the misinformation and deception of Ron Paul. They have promoted this fundraiser for a month or more. They get the money from libertarians. And then shovel it to the press that they have a groundswell of Republican support. bull.

[ridge]

Nice. I just donated to Chris Penden. I am sick of this libertarian hack, waste of congressional seat.

[George W. Bush]

Which is something he might consider doing sometimes right now because Chris Peden is picking up some steam. Oh? Let's see his schedule:

Tues, November 13th - 5:30p - 8:30p - League City - Galveston County Republican Party Petition Signing Party & Executive Committee Meeting, Red River BBQ, 1911 E. Main

Thu, November 15th - 7p - 8:30p - Alvin - Bayou Republican Women's club meeting, 301 Medic Lane

Sat, November 17th - 4p - 5p - Bayou Vista - Campaign event for Jimmy Fullen for Constable, Pct 4 - Bayou Vista Community Center

Uh-huh. And he raised $450 in his fundraising at the end of the Q3 as I recall.

Say, when are all you guys here at FR who are vowing to donate to him actually going to do it anyway? You only had $450?

LOL.

A seat, by the way, he should have resigned like ALL those currently holding federal office seeking the presidency. But that's another subject...

None of them have resigned. All of them are still holding office as senators or congressmen. Tanc will retire anyway as is Duncan. All the senators are still in office and I don't think any of them will resign. Nor did Bush resign as governor in 2000 or Kerry resign as senator in '04.

[traviskicks]

well, that’s just the thing, from a political standpoint, I’ve come to the conclusion he is the best hope for defeating the democrats. He has them on the War and immigration, in a political sense, and also the black vote, not to mention this fanatic base, knock on doors types, 60-80K + volunteers. Most conservatives only have immigration going for them. Polls may not show this now, because of low name recognition or whathaveyou, but from a position policy standpoint I think it’s true.