Ron Paul raises millions in today's Boston Tea Party event ($3.2 million @ 3:00 EST)

Boston Globe ^ | 12/16/07 | Michael Levenson

[traviskicks]

On Nov. 5, supporters of Ron Paul raked in more than $4.2 million in donations in 24 hours, mostly of them collected over the Internet.

Today, they're at it again. Hoping to detonate what they call a "money bomb," the supporters started fundraising at midnight Saturday and have already raised $2 million as of about 10:30 a.m. today, more than at this point on Nov. 5, according to figures they posted online. They hope to collect a total of $10 million by midnight Sunday.

Last time, they tied their fundraising to Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates a British mercenary who tried unsuccesfully to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. This time, they're seizing on the 234th aniversary of the Boston Tea Party and converging on this snowy city to rally.

They plan on gathering on the State House steps at 1 p.m. and parading down to Faneuil Hall, where they will listen to speeches in tune with Paul's libertarian platform. Speakers will include the Republican presidential candidate's son, Dr. Rand Paul, an eye surgeon, and Carla Howell, the libertarian who ran unsuccesfully for governor in 2002.

There are also plans to dump some tea (or at least some boxes labeled tea) into the Harbor, though the details were still sketchy as of this morning.

[TexasMatty]

A fool and his money.......

[rideharddiefast]

This will be the most raised by any candidate in one day ever. A truly historic day for the American people, the individual, and the cause of liberty. Paul has raised $14.7 million this quarter as of 3:00 EST, which already will be more than any other Republican candidate.

Now if George Soros and his moveon crowd that support cut and run could turn some of the money they contributed into votes he might have some credibility.

[VirginiaConstitutionalist]

I suspect these "money dumps" are being funded by Soros

So George Soros is sending thousands upon thousands of checks to homeschoolers, gun owners, college kids and disappointed Republicans to fund a candidate that isn't taking votes away from any of the Republican frontrunners and no one, anywhere, has noticed. Riiiiiight.

The whininess and conspiratorial nuttiness here is approaching that of DU. I think we're seeing the birth of "Paul Derangement Syndrome," where usually rational conservatives switch to liberal interventonists when they hear a candidate preach the same foreign policy they were preaching when Bill Clinton was the one sending troops overseas and attacking terrorist targets.

Perhaps the anti-Paulites at FR and the run of the mill wackos on DU can get together sometime to discuss medications.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/0710imperialmap.htm

That has some facts in it.

I am very sure that many countries are happy to have us in them. But in areas like Saudia Arabia, the government may have wanted us there, but the people didn’t, and the major source of the 911 hijackers was Saudia Arabia.

Can you back up anything on your gold standard theory? Ron Paul wants to legalize competeting currencies and not dismantle the FED overnight anyway.

[Young Scholar]

He probably couldn’t win, but this should send a strong message to the Republican Party that there are millions of dollars out there, ready to be given to a candidate who truly supports freedom and small government.

A great deal of this—perhaps even more than Paul’s been given—would be available to a viable Republican candidate who took these values seriously.

[incindiary]

Extremely Extreme Extremist: I thought introducing liberals to conservative beliefs was a positive thing? Liberals used to listen to Rush and now they're conservatives. There have been liberals and FR changed them as well. Paul's not allowed to do the same thing too?

West Coast Conservative: I don't see where any liberals are converting to conservative beliefs. All I see is some leftists willing to hold their nose and support Paul because of his foreign policy stances.

What EEE said is true, I have seen it myself, from reading some comments by crossover Democrats. I've read some people who have changed, or are in the process of changing their position on abortion, as well as other conservative issues, such as the role of government, limited government, etc. I think it is amazingly cool, and I think it is because of how Dr. Paul explains these things and because they have a lot of respect for him, and they can see that he is a consistent and honest man in government (which is rare).

So, he really has brought in new people, and young people to the cause of conservatism, liberty and the constitution, and if nothing else - that in itself is a success, imo.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Paul has no intentions on running 3rd party, and besides, why would Hillary or leftists support someone who'll crush the Democrat in the general election because he's able to draw more support outside of the GOP base.

[Route66]

I can't agree with your statement. Fred Thompson would love to shrink the size of the Federal Government. He’s a federalist and a constitutionalist as is Ron Paul. He is pro life, as is Ron Paul. Yet Fred’s denigrated by most RP followers. The core of Paul's recent support is his antiwar position. If Paul were to drop that position today, he’d easily lose more than half his support overnight.

The left whipped up the antiwar crowd as part of their strategy to defeat George Bush and the Republicans. The problem is that did such a good job they could not turn the sentiment off when it was time for them to all move to center for the Presidential campaign (and when the Iraq news turned good for us and bad for them). So the "leave Iraq now" crowd was all dressed up with no place to go as each Democrat candidate refused to say the words they longed to hear.

Enter Ron Paul with his small but loyal group of followers. He was suddenly catapulted to rock star status and became the "anything you want him to be" candidate for those who don't feel connected to anything else. And yes, I've read extensively within the volumes of material presented about RP and by RP followers, the vast majority of which seem to be young (many not even of voting age), idealistic, and rabidly antiwar.

Without this unique scenario, this thread would not exist nor would the Ron Paul phenomenon. That said, it is a phenomenon that will have at least some effect and repercussions upon the GOP nomination process and most likely the general election. Exactly what those will be and who will gain or lose as a result is not yet clear.

[Migraine]

Paul has no intentions on running 3rd party

I hope and pray you are right. I have my doubts; and I have a feeling the hildebeeste's offer will be one he can't refuse. If you are right, though, the good guys will have dodged a bullet; and it will have made my year.

[txradioguy]

“That has some facts in it.”

Kinda. It seems to be counting every forward operating base we have in Afghanistan and Iraq in those figures.

When myself and most people who discuss this subject HONESTLY talk about military bases...we are referring to permanent posts...not temp facilities in countries we are engaged in combat.

Nice try though.

“Can you back up anything on your gold standard theory?”

I never make statements like that without the ability to back it up.

“Gold’s value comes primarily from its high demand and low supply. There
are many uses and applications for gold in the modern world and a
limited supply of it. Currencies pegged to or backed by gold will
remain stable provided these two economic realities remain true. Such
monetary systems are, however, at the mercy of the global gold market.
History teaches that, should demand for gold drop significantly or if
world-wide gold production suddenly increased, gold backed currencies
would immediately and irrevocably collapse. “

http://www.nowpublic.com/debunking_gold_standard_myth_stability

Many nations have their economy pegged to the value of the dollar. Returning to the antiquated Gold Standard pulls them down as well.

[hsalaw]

That’s your opinion, and here’s mine: he’s a nut.

[billbears]

I hope and pray you are right. I have my doubts; and I have a feeling the hildebeeste's offer will be one he can't refuse. If you are right, though, the good guys will have dodged a bullet; and it will have made my year.

Exactly how would it 'have made your year'? If Dr. Paul isn't in the race, it's the same Tweedledee/Tweedledum race. In that case, I have two choices. Go fishing or write in Dr. Paul's name. It is not my responsibility to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', it is the responsibility of the politician to represent my views. If they do not, no one should expect me to resort to 'voting so the other guy doesn't get in'. That's not what the Framers intended (course neither is 99% of what Republicans pushed through between 2000-2006 is it now?)

And no it wouldn't matter a hill of beans difference which one would get in that case. They would both continue status quo, both waste money, both raise my taxes (either through monetary policy or outright taxation to pay for their waste)

[incindiary]

If Paul were to drop that position today, he’d easily lose more than half his support overnight.

That's BS. You really are underestimating the amount of Republicans disillusioned with the direction of the GOP, third party conservatives, independents, libertarians and others who passionately support liberty, limited government and protecting our rights and sovereignty. The people supporting Paul soley for his position on the war are in the minority in terms of Paul's total support. Some of you really need to step outside of the FR bubble once in a while, because on some things, the analyses here are way off.

[tgusa]

“Some of you really need to step outside of the FR bubble once in a while, because on some things, the analyses here are way off.”
Well said!

[michigander]

If you are right, though, the good guys will have dodged a bullet;...

So it's not okay for "911truth; 911truthers; antiamerican; antisemite; appeaser; binladensboy; codepink; daviddukespresident; domesticenemy; fundraising; heeeeeeeykoolaid; jihadisforpaul; lron; marines; moonbat; neonazi; paul; paulahmadinejad2008; paulbearers; paulistinians; pimpsforpaul; racist; rino; ronaldapplewhite; ronnutters; ronpaul; shrimpfest2007; surrendermonkey; tehranron; tehronpaul; treason; truther; wrongpaul;" voters to initially support Paul because, afterall, that's what they are being labeled as. But it's perfectly fine, if not expected, for them to support "the good guys" in November?

[tgusa]

It’s not only expected around here, it’s demanded.

[billbears]

Define 'good' guys if you will. Do they have a certain letter by their name or is it more important what their stance on the positions is? Do I define St. Rudy as 'good'(being a saint and all)? Huckabee, Romney, Fred 'Arthur Branch' Thompson? How about amnesty supporting 1st Amendment stripping McCain?

I'm just curious what is good about one party or another? I thought following the Constitution to the letter was good. Or is it also 'good' if 'our' side violates it for just the 'right' things?

Or has 'good' devolved in some dictionaries to being 'not the other guy'? Perhaps that most worthless Hamilton was right. Perhaps we should just elect a monarch for life and be done with it. Apparently as long as they are part of the 'good' party it shouldn't matter.

Hey how about a speech on incremental changes? That always fires the troops up about how 'we' can change things 'incrementally'? God knows it's worked so well the past 15 years. Why in just 6 years, the mainstream Republicans have joined the Democrats on a spending spree that should bankrupt us.

[live+let_live]

I saw this post on Townhall.com in response to an article about Ron Paul having some nutty supporters:

” revolutiongirl writes: Sunday, December, 16, 2007 11:20 ...Guess what? We’re smart enough—to suss out the propaganda, smart enough to invest our own money for the future (goodbye IRS), smart enough to choose our own doctors, smart enough to choose our own food!!!! & on & on!!! So if these people support Ron Paul, then cool!!! But so do we! We are moms! We are dads! We are Christians. Some are not! We are republicans! We are democrats! WE ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! AND WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK!!!!”

I have to admit I admire her passion.

[tgusa]

Agreed. I for one am tired of having to vote for the anti-Clinton, the anti-Gore, etc. But you watch - the lectures about loyalty are coming.

[marsh_of_mists]

Look at the two lions of individualism of the 20th century: Reagan and Goldwater. Compare both those men’s foreign policy stances with Paul’s.

No need. You can just compare Paul's foreign policy to Bush's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MpTNdcM_e0

Of course, this person thinks that Paul's views would have been acceptable to Goldwater: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7r27Az_Mns

And maybe even to Reagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg