What's behind Ron Paul's huge '08 fundraising haul

Christian Science Monitor ^ | November 8, 2007 | Linda Feldmann

[George W. Bush]

The Republican '08 hopeful has raised more than $7.5 million so far this quarter, partly reflecting the success of the Internet in drawing like-minded people together.

Suddenly, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has become a money-making machine. As of 11:44 Wednesday morning, the libertarian-leaning, "get out of Iraq now" congressman from Texas had pulled in $7,556,621.90 in the quarter beginning Oct. 1.

<snip>

On Monday, an independent effort by Paul backers raised a stunning $4.2 million for his campaign, nearly all of it online. At the rate Paul is going, he will have a fourth-quarter funding total that rivals or even surpasses the top-tier GOP candidates.

<snip>

Paul's message of limited government, low taxes, and noninterventionism in foreign policy appeals to a certain swath of the Republican electorate that is unhappy with President Bush, the war in Iraq, and the growth of government and spending during Mr. Bush's tenure.

Some Paul supporters object to the label "libertarian," arguing that his opposition to abortion rights does not fit some libertarians' view on the issue. But Paul himself does not reject the label; in 1988, he ran for president as the Libertarian Party's candidate (while remaining a Republican), placing a distant third.

<snip>

Going forward, one question is whether the Paul surge will affect the other Republican candidates' positions. Will he, for example, make it safer for the others to distance themselves from Bush on Iraq? It would be unlikely for Sen. John McCain to go there, but former Gov. Mitt Romney had already been taking steps in that direction, pushing hard on the "change" message.

<snip>

[George W. Bush]

People tired of unelected public bureaucrats determining if they can clear brush on their ranch, or tired of the same government regulators mandating that toilets can only flush 1.6 gallons. People tired of anti-smoking NAZI's. [I don't smoke] People as old as me who remember Reagan talking about FREEDOM and LIBERTY, like he really believed in the concepts, not like he was just giving lip service to them at the 17th campaign stop of the day.

The nannystaters are a growing menace to liberty. They are sick bunch of busybodies and parasites and need to be kicked to the curb. In large part, they fulfill their own emotional needs by forcing their ideas onto others through the use of government. Both parties have quite a collection of these nannystaters. The most prominent currently in the GOP field is Huckabee. I used to like him but his fiscal record was bad enough and then I heard him talking about our party base like Bush did, like we're some kind of hate group because we expect our public servants to do their duty and protect the borders of this country and regulate immigration. That made me very angry. So the Huckster is even lower on my list now than McCain. And he worked hard to put himself there too.

And we really need to asking ourselves why that is. These should be natural Republicans, people.

Yeah, but they're so afraid of offending the collective of minorities who come close to (or perhaps are) a majority.

No, a politician like Reagan who has the courage of convictions and is willing to be bold in his positions comes along rarely. Ron Paul is such a man, in his quiet way. He is sincere, he is principled, he is conservative and he is consistent. That's a lot more than you can say for most Republicans, particularly the ones in the current GOP field. I have to give Fred and Duncan and Tanc some good marks though. They quite often say what they think and don't worry that someone will be offended. Mitt is more nuanced but capable of some honesty but not really bold enough. He was better earlier, especially in the first debate. Rudi is a loathsome toad and liar. McCain is, well, hopelessly McCainish, the Bob Dole in the race. And Huckabee is honest enough but he is actually a Southern liberal running as a religious conservative and anyone who picks him for VP will drop a notch in my book. From a conservative standpoint, he's just awful though he is good on guns and on pro-family issues.

If we don't find a bold conservative message in 2008 and a candidate who can press it forward, the Dims will win. We must return to our conservative roots and repudiate the fiscal record and the "compassion" of the Bush era. It's over. It failed. A lot of us warned you even though we voted for him to stop Gore. But it's time to choose a new president and far too many Republicans seem to think we can somehow continue with that failed LBJ guns-and-butter philosophy. It won't work. It's a certain defeat for us.

Well, you can see my tagline pretty much sums up my outlook on our present course as a conservative party. LOL.

[George W. Bush]

Well, if it’s a choice between a Baby Kiler/Nanny Stater GOP ticket and Karl Marx with breasts.... I will donate money to Paul and shamelessly shill for Pauls campaign.

You'll always have a home on these RP threads, Eric. Even if you aren't a professional rodeo clown. LOL.

[traviskicks]

Agreed, well said. And I’ve actually come around to his general view of foreign policy as well over time, recently he made some great comments about Pakistan (whom we’ve been giving some $10 billion or so to in support of a socialist dictator).

[PROCON]

Mr. President,

I strongly disagree with you and your “Wilsonian grandeur” Cr@p, where did you get that from anyway..Star Trek??..My G@d man..chill out, all things are cyclic, even the dollar..and globull warming. If your portfolio isn’t at 12% or more, reinvest elsewhere..there are lots of options, but I am not an investment counselor, but it sounds like you are a Ron Paul Twilight Zone person..fine, support Dr. Paul and let Hitlery get elected in 2008... HELLO!!!(Yeah I’m a newbie but at least I get it!!!)

[Eric Blair 2084]

I am a clown, but the rodeo part where some 800 pound beast throws me around like a rag doll in a washing machine has not interest to me.

[editor-surveyor]

Soros and Paul are opposites; power to the state vs power to the people.

[rineaux]

If it’s Rudy, I will vote for the third party candidate if it’s RP. If RP does not run, than I guess I’ll stay home.

I don’t listen to the MSM or care about the “only Rudy can beat Hillary” mantra.

[Eric Blair 2084]

I have to wonder if some rich Democrats are donating money to him to prop him up in hopes of damaging the eventual Republican nominee.

If that is the case, than derailing Paul would be real easy for you. Just calmly explain to his supporters that he will not give them largesse from the public treasury. If they are all leftists, they will run screaming in horror.

If the eventual Republican nominee is a true believer in limited government, than he has nothing to fear from Ron Paul as a third party candidate.

[jmeagan]

*****Rush says, “Run as conservatives. It works every time it’s tried.” And Rush is right.****

Just running as a conservative is not enough. They also have to govern as conservatives once they get there.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

[ksen]

Yeah I’m a newbie but at least I get it!

Well . . . you got the newbie part right anyway. :shrug:

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I have to wonder if some rich Democrats are donating money to him to prop him up in hopes of damaging the eventual Republican nominee.

All of Dr. Paul's money is from individual donors.

This is the type of thing Soros and friends would do.

No, it's the type of thing individuals sick and tired of status-quo politics would do.

I have no evidence of this, just a feeling.

Typical, no facts just posting whatever comes into your mind.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Bill, they know that the support for Paul is coming from individuals across the political spectrum in the name of liberty, but they would rather ignore this and resort to cheap-shots & ad-hominems because of their raw hatred of the man.

Paul's website follows all FEC guidelines and regulations and he posts his donors' names in real-time. Who cares if individual leftists or Democrats donated to him? Freedom is power and if it can convert even the most stone-cold leftist to the concept of liberty and our Constitution, then more power to Paul.

[monday]

“support Dr. Paul and let Hitlery get elected in 2008... HELLO!!!(Yeah I’m a newbie but at least I get it!!!)”

Her husband spent far less than GW Bush and his socialist Republican congress, and during his tenure the dollar was strong. Perhaps you don’t “get it”.

The Democrats aren’t necessicarily better than Republicans, but they aren’t worse either. They are both efin awful.

[BigTom85]

Is it possible that Ron Paul is striking a chord with a lot of people that are just sick and tired of the status quo?

DING DING DING DING! We have a winner. You hit the nail right on the head. A lot of people are sick and tired of the Democrat/Republican cycle.

Does Paul have enought support to win? No, probably not. Some folks like his message. I agree with maybe 70% of what he says. Sadly, the nominations were set in stone moths ago. Its going to be Hillary v Rudy. Rudy will end up winning. I dont see much of a difference between Rudy and Hillary.. except on maybe 2 or 3 minor issues..

[Nephi]

Well said.

[George W. Bush]

What strikes me about every media appearance Dr. Paul makes is that it is never about him. It's about the message of smaller government.

He is a humble public servant. And he relies on the power of the philosophy of the Founders and the Constitution. It's their message. He is merely the faithful messenger and servant of that brilliant design for federalism, liberty and prosperity.

[GSWarrior]

Ron Paul may well be the best candidate in the field. I am not sure he would make the best president out of all the candidates that are running, however.

[George W. Bush]

Yah. But no one is perfect. Not the Founders, not our greatest presidents. We often forget their many failures and missteps, their betrayal of their own principles, the way history and circumstance can trap them into doing things they never wanted to do or even anticipated they would have to deal with. For instance, I don’t think GWB ever anticipated his administration would be so focused on 9/11 and Iraq and the rest. It just happened when he was on duty so it became his job. But I don’t think he wanted these issues to be what his presidency was about. But fortune was not so kind.

[Ohioan]

As one who just coughed up $200 for the Paul campaign, after being notified of the fund drive by several lifelong Republican friends, I can assure you that the contributions were primarily from Conservative Republicans--although our candidate also appeals to a lot of independents.

You need to take a deep breath. The Leftists such as Soros hardly want a media campaign pointing out the benefits of limited Government, and a return to traditional American values. While the "Liberal" branch of the Republican party will certainly not be happy with the Paul message; the Leftist branch of the Democratic party will like it even less.

William Flax

[Bokababe]

Here's Part I of a very interesting speech by Ronald Reagan in 1964 -- and it's comparison to Ron Paul's message today.