Ron Paul Fundraising
Wow. How is this not bigger news? Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, just raised more money in one day than ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. He raised more than Rudy, Mitt, or Thompson. He raised more than Hunter, McCain, or Huckabee. And while the story is in a few news reports, it's really not showing up much.
Even more amazing is HOW he raised this money. He didn't have a big dinner in New York to gather lobbyists. He didn't charge $1000 a plate for corporate donations and soft money. He didn't invite Chinese businessmen to a downtown party. He didn't even wander to Hollywood and have a party. So what did Ron Paul do to raise all this money in one day? Absolutely nothing. And that's the real story there. This money came from people. With over $3.8 million raised from 35,000 people, that's an average of just over $100 a person. A few people just got together and said, "Hey, let's all raise a pile of cash on one day." They told their friends. Eventually, around 35,000 people, completely on their own, without any help or organization from any campaign, just donated $3.8 million in 24 hours. That's just unreal. No matter what you think about Ron Paul, this is really huge. NO other candidate can claim anything even close to these numbers with ZERO campaign coordination. You might think the Ron Paul Revolution is just a few college kids, but this event shows it's at least 35,000 people around the country who are willing to put their money where their mouth is (in just 24 hours). Ron Paul could win this thing. Even more amazing, imagine if Paul won the Republican nomination. I think he'd cream any Democrat on the ticket. Think about it -- do you think many Republicans would cross over and vote for Hillary just because they think Paul's a nut? Sure, some might, but not huge numbers. And then Paul would pick up a lot of the Democrat vote because he'd get all the billions or so (according to the media) anti-war voters. I really think he'd win in a landslide. Of course, he'd have to get past the Republican nomination, and there's a lot of Republicans vehemently opposed to him because of his position on the Iraq war (primarily). Also, those fat cats in Washington oppose him because he doesn't like giving away billions in taxpayer money to people, just because they want it. The establishment honestly hates him because he WILL upset the apple cart and stop billions flowing to private individuals and corporations. So think about it -- if you like freedom, you should vote Paul. If you're anti-war, you should vote Paul. If you hate the rich and insider Washington deals, vote Paul. If you hate high taxes, vote Paul. If you support less government regulation, yes, vote Paul. If you are pro-gun, vote Paul. If you don't want government controlling insurance and want health care freedom, vote Paul. Heck, if you're anti-establishment, again, Paul is your man. He's raised over $7 million from individuals with no soft money included since October 1st. That's more than just a few college kids who are supporting him. He could actually win this thing.
Comments
1
As you know Ogre, my problem with Ron is the Iraq War stance. We are there, we are making a difference, we have run out Al Qaeda in Iraq for the most part, we are looking at Iran seeking to get nukes, we are looking at Pakistan going amok politically and the possibility their nukes could fall in the the hands of the Taliban... Holy Cow! Ron is such a little, whiney guy, how on earth can we trust him to deal with War, which we have, like it or not, when he is "Anti-War"? Just my question, since you seem to be more knowledgable on the subject. I for one do not want to leave Iraq vulnerable to their not so nice neighbors, and I really think we need someone who when he speaks, the World will listen and take him seriously in these times. I like everything Ron Paul stands for, except the War, and I think this War is going to make or break our nation and the world as we know it... so help me out here. Since I'm a very conservative, former Democrat with Libertarian leanings, I need help understanding all this! Also, do you think Ron Paul would get us out of the United Nations? I used to laugh at the John Birch billboards I'd see them... now I think he was dead on right! We just flip the tab for an organization that hates us and works against us.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 06, 2007 03:32 PM (eaqGd)
2
First, I'm pretty sure we'd be out of the UN in a minute with Paul as president.
As for the war stance, I've got a two-part take on it. In general, I agree that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I think we really are making a difference now. However, when you go back and read the founders documents and writings, they warned us NOT to interfere -- because we simply do not understand the other cultures. Do I think Iran will nuke us as soon as they can? No, I really don't. Will us withdrawing from Iraq cause a global war? I don't think so. The people in the middle east have been fighting one another for centuries -- I don't think the US can do ANYTHING to ever stop that.
Second -- I don't agree with any current candidate completely. I hate just about every stance Rudy has. I despise Mitt's forced insurance programs. I don't like Thompson's positions on abortion and government size. I don't like Huckabee's position on government regulation. In fact, the only candidate with whom I disagree the least is Paul -- I like every one of his ideas except the war (I think). So if we're supposed to support the candidate with whom with disagree the least, Paul is it.
I also think that every other candidate will just be more of the same we've been getting for the past 20 years or so. I think Paul would bring REAL change to America -- for the better.
As for the war stance, I've got a two-part take on it. In general, I agree that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I think we really are making a difference now. However, when you go back and read the founders documents and writings, they warned us NOT to interfere -- because we simply do not understand the other cultures. Do I think Iran will nuke us as soon as they can? No, I really don't. Will us withdrawing from Iraq cause a global war? I don't think so. The people in the middle east have been fighting one another for centuries -- I don't think the US can do ANYTHING to ever stop that.
Second -- I don't agree with any current candidate completely. I hate just about every stance Rudy has. I despise Mitt's forced insurance programs. I don't like Thompson's positions on abortion and government size. I don't like Huckabee's position on government regulation. In fact, the only candidate with whom I disagree the least is Paul -- I like every one of his ideas except the war (I think). So if we're supposed to support the candidate with whom with disagree the least, Paul is it.
I also think that every other candidate will just be more of the same we've been getting for the past 20 years or so. I think Paul would bring REAL change to America -- for the better.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 04:02 PM (oifEm)
3
I believe politics has changed so much since the 1950s. Today's politicians don't know what works and what doesn't. They are all wailing and flailing about with no clear direction. You could well be right, the whole system needs a shakedown and new thinking at the helm. I like the Fair Tax idea. I think Ron Paul is for that as well. This country needs to size down government, shut down the borders and keep up a strong defense.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 06, 2007 04:16 PM (eaqGd)
4
I haven't seen any other candidate, from either party, campaigning on lower taxes and a reduction in government. And I think Paul's idea for the border is perfect: instead of just trying to build a wall, stop the government giveaways that are bringing people here for free stuff. Then, if people still want to come and just work (without getting free health care, housing, education, and food), they can come work.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 04:18 PM (oifEm)
5
I think the only thing that should be free to them is a screening when they come in to make sure they don't bring communicable diseases, just like they did on Ellis Island. I heard again this morning that Resistant TB is on the rise and spreading into more states. As for government givaways, I want to see the law changed that makes babies born here US Citizens automatically. A friend of mine working in Brownsville, TX a few years ago was telling me you could see pregnant women in labor crossing or wading across the Rio Grande to make sure their babies were born here... why... for the government checks. This was several years ago, and it was a scam then. I don't think citizenship should be easy, it should be earned.
If a baby has one parent who's a US Citizen, fine. If someone wants citizenship, learn English, the pledge, the Premble to the Constitution and so on. Earn it. I'm not sure we can do it without fences and secure check points, but you may have a point. I heard on the news this morning (on Fox) that wonderful Homeland Insecurity works so well they have let serveral "terrorists in over a certain period of time"!!! How messed up is that!
If a baby has one parent who's a US Citizen, fine. If someone wants citizenship, learn English, the pledge, the Premble to the Constitution and so on. Earn it. I'm not sure we can do it without fences and secure check points, but you may have a point. I heard on the news this morning (on Fox) that wonderful Homeland Insecurity works so well they have let serveral "terrorists in over a certain period of time"!!! How messed up is that!
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 06, 2007 06:25 PM (eaqGd)
6
I'm telling you, you're on the same page as Ron Paul. He completely agrees that non-citizens who squirt out kids shouldn't get granted citizenship, nor should their children!
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 06:31 PM (oifEm)
7
I'm going to have to consider him as I think he would be a strong reformist. Hillary wants to "reform things" but in a negative, big government, tax increases way. That woman scares me.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 06, 2007 06:40 PM (eaqGd)
8
Hillary won't reform anything. She, like most politicians, just wants to spend more money. And no, she doesn't want to spend HER money, just yours. Keep in mind, this woman has never had a job in her life. She's never produced, well, anything. She has no concept of what the working world is about. None.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 06:51 PM (oifEm)
9
I guess she and Bill have never paid a mortgage either. Her house on Long Island is a $10K a month mortgage payment. The government decides to provide them with Secret Service Security for the rest of their lives, she builds the agents a guest house to live in and guess what the government is paying them for the shack? You guessed it, 10K!!! So the government is paying their mortgage, Bill's retirement, and the salaries for their security! They are both cons as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 06, 2007 09:09 PM (eaqGd)
10
seeing a lot of reports today of people that are "selling" merchandise to overseas customers for ron paul... if this is true, id say that he an hillary should both get investigated for illegal campaign financing...
Posted by: chris at November 06, 2007 11:10 PM (qz/By)
11
I haven't seen those reports. The only way that's illegal is if the money from the sales goes to the campaign. I'd be very surprised if that's the case with Paul, as he is really running a grassroots campaign. I'm not sure his campaign sells much of anything for contributions.
Hillary, on the other hand, from reports I've read, gets millions from other countries in contributions.
Hillary, on the other hand, from reports I've read, gets millions from other countries in contributions.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 11:58 PM (2WD8n)
12
Don't forget, Ron Paul is the only candidate that takes the efforts to create a North American Union seriously. If the people pushing it get their way, no other issue will matter. An NAU bureaucracy would never end abortion, cut taxed, allow you to own a gun, limit immigration, or in any way limit government.
I wanna know next time an effort like yesterday is arranged. I wanna donate too, and maybe help him break his new record.
I wanna know next time an effort like yesterday is arranged. I wanna donate too, and maybe help him break his new record.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at November 07, 2007 01:01 AM (nIDjA)
13
I'll be sure and spread the word to you, Echo -- there's already a couple more of these afoot.
Posted by: Ogre at November 07, 2007 03:13 AM (2WD8n)
Posted by: Ogre at November 07, 2007 03:19 AM (2WD8n)
15
check out
http://politicaldiscontent.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-is-ron-paul.html
for "the other side of the story".
http://politicaldiscontent.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-is-ron-paul.html
for "the other side of the story".
Posted by: Selfish __MEEEE__ at November 07, 2007 10:03 AM (y2s/z)
16
Awesome link! I like Paul even more now! Yes, I really do agree with most of the positions listed on that page!
Posted by: Ogre at November 07, 2007 12:20 PM (oifEm)
17
Oh believe me, the establishment is absolutely terrified of Ron Paul! They are completely scared to death! Why? Because he will stop massive amounts of government handouts to people who are now dependent on the government giving them cash.
And I'm not talking about the poor on welfare, I'm talking about government contractors and government employees who are making more money than anyone who is actually productive in this country!
Good points on his foreign policy. The worst I've heard is people who complain the middle east will nuke us if we withdraw. Of course, that's never been tried, so we don't know that. In fact, as some of my good commenters have suggested, if we get out of the Middle East, they will likely be so focused on killing one another that we will be fine.
And I'm not talking about the poor on welfare, I'm talking about government contractors and government employees who are making more money than anyone who is actually productive in this country!
Good points on his foreign policy. The worst I've heard is people who complain the middle east will nuke us if we withdraw. Of course, that's never been tried, so we don't know that. In fact, as some of my good commenters have suggested, if we get out of the Middle East, they will likely be so focused on killing one another that we will be fine.
Posted by: Ogre at November 07, 2007 03:58 PM (oifEm)
18
I'm really glad to hear you are also upset with the privatization of government services. No-bid contracts with White House cronies upsets me far more than the powerless people at the bottom of our economic ladder.
No country with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked. With the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons owned by the U.S. I doubt that anyone in the middle east would nuke us. Who would buy their oil?
No country with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked. With the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons owned by the U.S. I doubt that anyone in the middle east would nuke us. Who would buy their oil?
Posted by: Selfish __MEEEE__ at November 08, 2007 07:58 AM (7ppVp)
19
I went out and looked at your link Selfish_Meee.
It was all pretty interesting to see another take on Ron Paul. Up until reciently I thought he was a flake. I have changed my thinking.
On the Ron Paul quotes from the site you linked to, tell me, what is "untrue" in what he says?
Separation of Church and State came into being, I believe, in the late 1930s or somewhere in that time frame. It was not part of the Constitution, Bill of Rights or even the Federalist Papers. And the very essence of democracy, is "majority rule", so rightfully, any minority offended by my religion, should just go back to their own country or find a new country where they are more comfortable. Our government has gotton way far away from those simple principals. Now, tell me what is untrue in these statements please? And remember, just like everyone here, it's MHO.
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs". — Ron Paul
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance". — Ron Paul
"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity". — Ron Paul
It was all pretty interesting to see another take on Ron Paul. Up until reciently I thought he was a flake. I have changed my thinking.
On the Ron Paul quotes from the site you linked to, tell me, what is "untrue" in what he says?
Separation of Church and State came into being, I believe, in the late 1930s or somewhere in that time frame. It was not part of the Constitution, Bill of Rights or even the Federalist Papers. And the very essence of democracy, is "majority rule", so rightfully, any minority offended by my religion, should just go back to their own country or find a new country where they are more comfortable. Our government has gotton way far away from those simple principals. Now, tell me what is untrue in these statements please? And remember, just like everyone here, it's MHO.
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs". — Ron Paul
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance". — Ron Paul
"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity". — Ron Paul
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 08, 2007 09:51 PM (eaqGd)
20
The more people read about Ron Paul, the more they like him. The media HATES him, so they only focus on statements he'd made that might alienate some people.
I absolutely love how nearly every answer he gives to any question related to government can be answered, "Well, according to the Constitution..."
That's just awesome. He really would make a great president.
I absolutely love how nearly every answer he gives to any question related to government can be answered, "Well, according to the Constitution..."
That's just awesome. He really would make a great president.
Posted by: Ogre at November 09, 2007 02:07 PM (oifEm)
21
* Comment deleted by moderator because it continued to troll without adding any substance or facts *
Posted by: Selfish __MEEE___ at November 11, 2007 08:52 AM (h1vJ/)
22
* Comment deleted by moderator because it continued to troll without adding any substance or facts *
Posted by: Selfish __MEEE___ at November 11, 2007 08:40 PM (O0YsD)
23
* Comment deleted by moderator because it continued to troll without adding any substance or facts *
Posted by: Selfish __MEEE___ at November 11, 2007 08:53 PM (O0YsD)
24
You know, HoosierArmyMom is the one who brought up "separation of church and state" -- I was just replying with what I was taught in school. Was she asleep during U.S. History class?
It seems to have hit a nerve with you, but don't you think other people like me are going to raise an eyebrow when they hear Ron Paul make claims that disagree with what they learned in school?
I like your enthusiasm for your favorite candidate! That is 100 times better than wusses who are afraid to pick someone they're happy with. But don't you see that your candidate is going to have trouble if what he says doesn't ring true with the American public?
$7 million and 35,000 votes is not going to win the 2008 election.
It seems to have hit a nerve with you, but don't you think other people like me are going to raise an eyebrow when they hear Ron Paul make claims that disagree with what they learned in school?
I like your enthusiasm for your favorite candidate! That is 100 times better than wusses who are afraid to pick someone they're happy with. But don't you see that your candidate is going to have trouble if what he says doesn't ring true with the American public?
$7 million and 35,000 votes is not going to win the 2008 election.
Posted by: Michael Beschloff at November 13, 2007 08:36 AM (604CD)
25
Actually, in your spam, you were demanding that she answer why Ron Paul feels the way he does. You responded to me saying I like Paul's position on the Constitution by questioning me on why Paul supports freedom of religion. And you twisted his words.
Oh, and if you believe what you were taught in public school history, perhaps there is no hope for you.
Oh, and if you believe what you were taught in public school history, perhaps there is no hope for you.
Posted by: Ogre at November 13, 2007 09:44 AM (2WD8n)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0109 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0068 seconds, 33 records returned.
Page size 23 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.